Indicator – F4. An effective monitoring and control system audits management conformity with planning.

Consultant's Initials:

LL, LI, BH

Source:

CIFOR

Identification No. in source: Use all refs:

3.4

Class:

Forest manage-ment planning and policy

Recommendation (after field testing) Yes or no

Yes

Revised Indicator Suggested? #

Box A:

Principle - Yield and Quality of Forest Goods are Sustainable

Criterion- The management plan is effectively implemented

Indicator – An effective monitoring and control system audits management’s conformity with planning.

Box B: Definition:

N/A

Box C: Attributes

Rated on a scale of 1-5, where 1=no/bad/unimportant and 5=yes/good/important

Precisely defined? (clear)

3

Useable?

4

Is it applicable to other areas/ecosystems? (robust)

5

Sensitive?

3

Easy to detect, record and interpret?

4

Is it applicable to all landowners?

Yes

x

No

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

Applicable to all landowners.

Box E: Overlap:

CIFOR 1.0, 3.2, 3.4

CIFOR-Bag 1.2

CCFM 6.2, 5.0, 6.3, 2.0

Box F: Geo-Political Scale.

Global

North America

Intermountain

West

Study area

x

Tenure

x

Site

Box G: Indicator Characteristics

Diagnostic

x

Predictive

Both

Box H: Indicator Function:

Structure

Function/Process

Composition

Perturbation

Not Applicable

x

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

Monitoring and measurement of the results of management activities is required to determine achievement of the plan. It also provides a means of corrective action as necessary.

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management:

Audit controls provide a check against planned sustainability goals.

Box K: Measurement Methods:

Determine the existance and capability of the audit control sustem to measure change between planned and unplanned activities.

Box L: Data Required:

Review of audit systems.

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test:

Change to indicator status accurred after the Boise workshop.

Box N: Example Results:

Change to indicator status accurred after the Boise workshop.

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

Professional judgement is capable of assessing capability of systems following review.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value:

N/A

Box Q: Overall assessment:

N/A

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

This was a criterion that was changed to an indicator.

Box S: References:

N/A

Appendix:

Please record your notes on evaluating the indicator here.

After discussion following the Boise workshop (Phase 4), the criterion was changed to an indicator to fill in measurement of plan implimentation