Principle – Enabling Conditions

Criterion- Policy, planning and institutional frameworks are condusive to sustianable forest management.

Indicator – Original wording: CIFOR 1.1; There is sustained and adequate funding for the management of forests.

CIFOR 1.1.5; Institutions responsible for forest management and research are adequately funded and staffed.

Final wording: There is sustained and adequate funding and staff for the management of forests.

Box B: Definition:

We could not find a CIFOR definition.

Adequate funding, with commensurate staffing, is needed in order to prepare forest management plans.

A concern, often voiced by forest managers, is that there is seldom adequate funding, or numbers of people, to accomplish the tasks associated with forest management. This is especially true with considerations beyond simple extracting of resources. When all components of ecosystems are viewed as important and included in considerations and plans, many people with diverse backgrounds are needed in the planning and implementation process. Funding needs increase rapidly to meet the needs of the more holistic approach.

Notes: This is not a very sensitive indicator, as the availability of adequate funding/staff for forest management does not, by itself, address the issue of sustainable forestry. Management objectives differ widely, and they do not necessarily include or imply sustainability. Also, the measure is not sensitive because different organizations operate at different efficiency levels making it difficult to assess the suitability of funding for meeting management objectives.

Some components of the test would be fairly easy to detect, record and interpret, e.g. the historical data for funding and numbers of personnel. However, gathering and interpreting the data needed to assess the adequacy of the funding needed to determine if management objectives are being met while keeping within budgeted funding will be very difficult.

Box D: Applicability to Different Landowners. Explain any differences:

Funding for management of industrial private, non-industrial private, state, and federal lands all come from different sources. State and federal funds come from legislated appropriations that are renewed on an annual basis. Industrial funds come from their ability to make a profit and are allocated for forest management accordingly. Non-industrial private owners generally spend their money to meet their own management objectives, which may or may not relate to sustainability. Because of these differences, sustained funding for forest management is not equally guaranteed for all tenures.

Box E: Overlap:

CIFOR: 3.3.1 3.3.2

Notes:

The principle geo-political funding concern is that different owners have adequate funding to allow them to conduct sustainable forest management. Since funding sources and levels are different for each tenure component of our test FMU, adequacy of the funding is not assured.

Notes:

Funding for management is diagnostic because we can measure current levels. It is not predictive because funding for government agencies can change on an annual basis depending on the political concerns. Industrial and non-industrial private funding for forest management can change very rapidly depending on market conditions.

Notes: NA; Structure, function and composition are ecological parameters.

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

Implementation of sustainable forest management requires the preparation of a plan. The development of the plan, and its implementation on the ground, require people and funds. The underlying concept for this indicator is that with adequate funding, sustainable forest management plans will be developed and implemented. The concept also implies that, as funding is increased, plans will be more comprehensive, and, that through the implementation of these plans, sustainable forest management will also improve and/or increase. However, the realization of such a straight-line relationship is doubtful. Funds and people are needed for planning and implementation, but there is undoubtedly a point where the rate of return will flatten, and increased funding will not result in increased sustainability.

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management :

Management, at any level, has to be funded to meet objectives. However, not all forest management objectives are necessarily concerned with sustainability. This is especially observable in those instances where an immediate monetary return from harvesting is the only objective. In this example, having an adequate funding base and staffing level to achieve forest management, as stated in the indicator, does not assure sustainable forestry.

Sources of funding differ for each owner in the Management Unit being used for the Boise test. These funds may or may not be sustainable. Funding for government agencies can change on an annual basis depending on the political concerns. Industrial and non-industrial funds can change very rapidly depending on market conditions. Thus, even for those agencies and owners who do manage for sustainability, they are not assured that funding will be adequate to achieve even minimal levels of management.

Box K: Measurement Methods :

There are no known tests to measure either the adequacy or the sustainability of funding for forest management. Also, no one has any way to accurately predict the future political moods or market conditions.

One measure of the adequacy of the funding would be to see if management objectives are being met while keeping within budgeted funding.

A measure of the sustainability of the funding and staffing levels would be obtained by tracking these figures through time.

Box L: Data Required:

In order to measure the indicator of adequacy of funding as manifested by the accomplishment of objectives, we would need a listing of the management objectives for each tenure, a report of accomplishments, a fiscal report accounting for expenditures balanced against budgets and for industry, a profit/loss assessment.

To measure the sustainability of funding and personnel, we will need historical data for both funding levels and numbers of permanent personnel, by year.

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test :

For the Boise test, we used historical information from the Boise national Forest (BNF) employment roster 1988-1998 (In-house document), and the BNF funding records. We used similar information from the Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) employment history records and the IDL annually legislated funding. These were used to prepare line graphs of the respective parameters to display trends.

Box N: Example Results :

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

It is possible to obtain the information required to use this indicator in assessing sustainability. Tracking historical employment trends and expenditures is very easy to do. Also, is would be easy to obtain documentation of goals. Determining whether the goals have been met or not would be more difficult.

For the Boise test site, this data is not difficult to obtain and does not require any special institutional arrangements, at least for the two government agencies involved. However, this is not the case for the forest industry partner, where special arrangements would need to be made to allow access to this information. For the non-industrial private woodland owners, this type of information is not applicable and thus it is not available. For the most part, small woodland owners do not hire extra people to help in their forest management, nor do they have annual budgets. Many small woodland owners regulate their expenditures for forest management based on their need to generate funds for a specific anticipated expense.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value :

While this indicator is not a conclusive measure, it may have some value as an indicator. Information on funding for forest management may help managers adjust their program and staff requirements for the future.

The difficult aspect of assessing sustainability with this indicator is in the interpretation of the results. It is very difficult to decide if any given level of funding or number of people hired actually equates to sustainable forestry or not.

Box Q: Overall assessment:

Accepted.

Weakness: The indicator assumes efficiency of management operations, which may not be true. Some organizations require much higher levels of funding than others because of political constraints placed on them.

No one has any way to accurately predict the future political moods or market conditions; yet, these serve as the basis for funding. Thus sustained funding, and corresponding staffing, cannot be depended on, which makes this a very weak indicator.

Strengths: The simplicity of gathering and displaying the data required for the historical aspects of the assessment.

Box R: Did you rewrite or revise to a new indicator. If so what?

The indicator was revised. We combined CIFOR 1.1 with CIFOR 1.1.5 to address both funding and staffing in one indicator. We also removed the research component and made it into a separate indicator (E12).

Box S: References :

There are no CIFOR references relative to this indicator. We could not find any other references relative to this indicator. The data obtained for the testing came from historical records held by the Idaho Department of Lands and the USDA Forest Service, Boise National Forest

Please record your notes on evaluating the indicator here