Principle – Enabling conditions

Criterion- Forest management provides for sustainability of goods and services.

Indicator –

Original wording: Institutions responsible for forest management and research are adequately funded and staffed.

New wording: Institutions responsible for forest research are adequately funded and staffed.

Box B: Definition:

We did not find a CIFOR definition for this indicator.

Adequate funding, with commensurate staffing, is essential for a research program to be successful. There is relatively little research related to environmental or management concerns that can be conducted in a single year, thus the long-term dependability of funding is essential.

Within the Boise FMU study area, the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service is the primary agency with forest and range research responsibilities. Collaborative research is conducted with the University of Idaho, Boise State University, the National Resource Conservation Service, and the United States Geological Service. Those agencies or individuals that depend on the results of this research are very concerned in that there has been a steady loss of personnel available for research efforts. While the overall funding levels for the local research station have remained relatively constant, the number of projects has decreased due to loss of staff. At least a portion of the reason for this is that more and more of the funds are being used to meet legal requirements leaving an ever-diminishing amount for the research itself.

Notes: This is not necessarily a sensitive indicator of either of ecosystem or social parameters as there is no way to assure that funding and personnel allocated to the station will be used to look at issues related to sustainability. Also, since the funding is subject to change from political pressures and procedures, it may not be dependable.

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

Funding sources and purposes differ for all agencies and owners in the Boise test area. US Federal funding is dictated by congressional appropriations and has varied substantially through time. In general, support for federal research funding has declined in recent years.

The USDA Forest Service research covers a broad array of management concerns.

The state forest research program is conducted primarily through cooperative efforts with universities. There are also a small number of applied research projects.

Industry is able to participate in research during up-cycles of profitability.

Box E: Overlap:

CIFOR: 1.1

Notes: The need for research funding and staffing applies to all levels, but, with the differences in responsibility for and participation in research, it is most applicable at the tenure level.

Notes: Knowledge of the funding and staffing levels for research is primarily diagnostic because it provides information about current conditions. It is not predictive because funding for government agencies can change on an annual basis depending on the political concerns. Industrial funds for research can change very rapidly depending on market conditions.

Trend lines of research funding, over time, can portray patterns and could possibly provide some measure of predictiveness.

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

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

Adequate funding, with commensurate staffing, is essential for a research program to be successful. There is relatively little research related to environmental or management concerns that can be conducted in a single year, thus, dependable, multiple year funding of projects, support staff and facilities is essential. Without it, there will not be any research projects of a scale and depth to provide answers to questions with any depth to them.

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management:

Questions related to sustainability of forests, both ecosystem and human need based, are complex. They cannot be resolved without in-depth investigation. Such investigations require dedicated research efforts to find possible answers. This cannot be accomplished without dedicated, stable funding. From this context, a review of funding and staffing levels of research institutions responsible for forest research can provide a measure of sustainability. However, the fact that an institution has funding for research is not necessarily an indicator that the research will be directed at sustainability issues.

Research is an investment in knowledge. The existence of a research program indicates a long-term commitment to resource management. However, the level of funding is not necessarily a good measure of good/bad research.

Box K: Measurement Methods:

There are no known tests to measure either the adequacy or the sustainability of funding or staffing for forest research.

One possible measure of the adequacy of the funding could be to see if research objectives are being met.

Some idea as to the sustainability of the funding and staffing levels could be obtained by tracking historical information.

Box L: Data Required:

In order to measure the indicator of adequacy of funding as portrayed by accomplishment of objectives, we would need a listing of the objectives, a report of accomplishments, and records of costs and staffing involved.

To gain a perspective of 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:

We used historical information (1994 – 1998) from the USDA Forest Service Boise Field Laboratory for funding and personnel.

Box N: Example Results:

Graphs of funding and personnel prepared at Boise State University, Field Lab, are example results taken for this Test (see next page)

*Operating budgets (non-fixing costs)

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

Funding levels and number of people employed in research can be tracked over time. No special arrangements need to be made. However, historical information is not necessarily a predictor of future funding levels. Funding for the federal research programs is often influenced by political moods, and there is no way to accurately predict the way these will go in the future. Also, research funding for industry depends on profitability. This in turn is dependent on market conditions.

Political and markets are basically unpredictable, yet, these serve as the basis for the funding, making this a very unstable indicator. With these considerations, this does not seem to be a very practical indicator of sustainable forest management.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value:

Tracking and evaluating costs, accomplishments and staffing levels for research institutions can provide an indicator of commitment to long-term research. However, it does not provide any indication as to whether the research being conducted is relative to sustainability or that it is good or bad research. Also, there can be a very strong commitment to long-term sustainability without any dedication to research. Thus, this information appears to have limited value for managers and stakeholders in determining sustainability of forests, either ecologically or for the well being of people.

Weakness: There are no established protocols for using costs, accomplishments and numbers of staff as indicators of sustainability. Furthermore, without some sort of evaluation of individual research projects, there are no ways to determine that research, per se, will have any bearing on sustainability.

Strengths: The only strength is the ability to track historical data on funding and personnel levels, through time.

This does not really seem to be a very pertinent indicator of Sustainable Forestry and should be rejected.

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

Yes, the indicator was rewritten to separate management from research as indicators of sustainable forestry. The management component of this indicator was incorporated into Indicator E2. (CIFOR 1.1, There is sustained and adequate funding and staff for the management of forests.)

Box S: References:

N/A

Please record your notes on evaluating the indicator here:

This indicator (CIFOR 1.1.5) is being changed to emphasize research only. Managers are often not willing to spend money on research until all management needs are met; thus it seemed appropriate to separate the two subject areas.