Principle - Society accepts responsibility for sustainability.

Criterion- There is equitable access to and distribution of economic rents.

Indicator – Employment of local population in forest management.

Box B: Definition:

The trend in total local employment in the forest-related sectors.

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

This indicator does not apply to different land tenures since it is a summary measure of all forestry-related employment regardless of tenure or institutional status.

Box E: Overlap:

CIFOR – BAG: L6, 1.2.2

CCFM: L4, 5.3 L8, 5.3.2 L9, 6.3.1 L10, 6.3.2

Notes:

Clearly the indicator is diagnostic, but could also have limited predictive capability if time series trends are examined.

Notes:

This classification does not apply to socioeconomic systems.

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

As described by Ruitenbeek (1998), employment is often regarded as one of the most critical dimensions and indicators of economic equity: it provides a key measure of local participation in forest management, and points to local income generation. Some argue that, if one employs more local labor, then it is more likely that forest management will be sustainable as local dwellers have a long-term interest in the land-base. But obtaining and interpreting employment information is not without difficulty. As with many employment indicators, simple employment numbers paint only a partial picture. People now speak, for example, of ‘good jobs’ and ‘bad jobs’: good jobs are those that provide sustainable income and a workers’ voice in management decisions, while building the character of the worker. Bad jobs may provide income, but they degrade the worker. Some will argue, for example, that the proliferation of fast-food outlets we see in industrialized and developing nations generate mainly ‘bad jobs.’ So which is more equitable? A high paying job in an unsustainably managed industry? Or a low paying job in a sustainably managed forest? No clear answer can be given to this query. Perhaps all one can say is that both of these situations are preferable to no jobs at all, which is why many criteria simply look to improve local employment opportunities and local participation rates.

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management:

Focusing on the employment of local labor, aside from the technical issue of defining "local", arises from the subsidiarity principle often found in discussions of sustainability (e.g., Ekins, et al, 1992; Selman, 1996). This principle, generally stated, deems that decision making in society should be located at the lowest appropriate level. In other words, decentralization should prevail so that decisions can be made by and for the communities and individuals most affected, with higher level organizations being "subsidiary" to lower ones. In this perspective, local employment issues are seen as more pertinent to forest management than broader scale economic conditions.

Box K: Measurement Methods :

Measurement methods, Type A.

These measurement methods all interpret forestry-related sectors to be the timber and wood processing industries, and only direct employment in these sectors is considered. The definition for "local" can vary from a single group of counties covering the study area, to the individual counties within the study area, to individual communities within the study area.

Specific measurement methods would involve:

• For regional or county scale, consult the REIS system (US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis) or IMPLAN county data to obtain employment for the SIC 08 and 24 sectors as well as federal and state employment in forest operations.
• For community-level scale, while the same kind of information is desired, it is likely that the data would have to be obtained from private sources. In the study area, for example, a study similar to the McKetta and Robison (1996) could be commissioned or IMPLAN data could be obtained from MIG, Inc. for various 5-digit ZIP code areas corresponding to communities.
• If there is concern that local (or "place of residence") employment may be different that reported employment (at "place of work") due to commuting, the REIS "commuting adjustment factor" can be applied or explicit commuting patterns could be estimated as in McKetta and Robison (1996).

Measurement methods, Type B.

These measurement methods all interpret forestry-related sectors to include, besides the timber and wood processing industries, industries affected by rangeland forage grazing (e.g., SIC 02 Livestock Operations) and service sectors catering to the expenditures of recreation and tourism visitors to the study area such as lodging, food and transportation businesses. Again, only direct employment in these sectors is considered. The definition for "local" can vary from a single group of counties covering the study area, to the individual counties within the study area, to individual communities within the study area.

Specific measurement methods would involve:

• For regional or county scale, consult the REIS system (US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis) or IMPLAN county data to obtain employment for the SIC 08 and 24 sectors, range-fed cattle operations (SIC 02), and lodging, food and transportation businesses, as well as federal and state employment in forest, rangeland and recreation operations.
• For community-level scale, while the same kind of information is desired, it is likely that the data would have to be obtained from private sources. In the study area, for example, a study similar to the McKetta and Robison (1996) could be commissioned or IMPLAN data could be obtained from MIG, Inc. for various 5-digit ZIP code areas corresponding to communities.
• If there is concern that local (or "place of residence") employment may be different that reported employment (at "place of work") due to commuting, the REIS "commuting adjustment factor" can be applied or explicit commuting patterns could be estimated as in Robison, et al (1996)

Measurement methods, Type C.

These measurement methods all interpret forestry-related sectors to be the timber and wood processing industries, and both direct and indirect employment in these sectors is considered. The definition for "local" can vary from a single group of counties covering the study area, to the individual counties within the study area, to individual communities within the study area.

Specific measurement methods would involve:

• For regional or county scale, consult the REIS system (US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis) or IMPLAN county data to obtain direct employment for the SIC 08 and 24 sectors as well as federal and state employment in forest operations.
• For community-level scale, while the same kind of information is desired, it is likely that the data would have to be obtained from private sources. In the study area, for example, a study similar to the McKetta and Robison (1996) could be commissioned or IMPLAN data could be obtained from MIG, Inc. for various 5-digit ZIP code areas corresponding to communities.
• Some type of economic multiplier model is required to estimate the indirect employment. Models such as those constructed with IMPLAN (MIG, Inc., 1996) or Robison, et al (1996) would serve well for this purpose.

Measurement methods, Type D.

These measurement methods all interpret forestry-related sectors to include, besides the timber and wood processing industries, industries affected by rangeland forage grazing (e.g., SIC 02 Livestock Operations) and service sectors catering to the expenditures of recreation and tourism visitors to the study area such as lodging, food and transportation businesses. Again, both direct and indirect employment in these sectors is considered. The definition for "local" can vary from a single group of counties covering the study area, to the individual counties within the study area, to individual communities within the study area.

Specific measurement methods would involve:

• For regional or county scale, consult the REIS system (US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis) or IMPLAN county data to obtain employment for the SIC 08 and 24 sectors, range-fed cattle operations (SIC 02), and lodging, food and transportation businesses, as well as federal and state employment in forest, rangeland and recreation operations.
• For community-level scale, while the same kind of information is desired, it is likely that the data would have to be obtained from private sources. In the study area, for example, a study similar to the McKetta and Robison (1996) could be commissioned or IMPLAN data could be obtained from MIG, Inc. for various 5-digit ZIP code areas corresponding to communities.
• Some type of economic multiplier model is required to estimate the indirect employment. Models such as those constructed with IMPLAN (MIG, Inc., 1996) or Robison, et al (1996)) would serve well for this purpose.

Box L: Data Required:

Obtaining data on employment by industrial sector at various scales may be problematic. For example, in the United States, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Regional Economic Information System (REIS) includes time series information on employment at the state and county level, but includes no information at any lower scales such as individual communities (the complete time series for the US is available for $35 on CD). The highest level of industrial detail at which employment information in REIS is reported is 2-digit SIC (approximately 80 industry groups). Further, REIS reporting is subject to "non-disclosure" rules that prevent reporting statistics in such a way that information for individual businesses could be identified. As a result, information on employment for small counties is often incomplete, particularly with respect to forestry-related sectors. Information from the U.S. Bureau of Census is more complete, but is only compiled every ten years. Employment statistics are compiled by state governments as a way to track unemployment insurance collections (referred to as ES-202 programs). This information is highly specific, indicating employment in each firm (i.e., far more detailed than 4-digit NASIC). ES-202 data does not, however, include sole proprietorships and self-employed persons, and so it is incomplete. Further, ES-202 data is also subject to non-disclosure rules, and is usually unavailable for analytical purposes unless grouped and reported in a manner similar to the REIS data. Private sources of economic information can be very complete and comprehensive, but clearly more costly. For example the IMPLAN system (MIG, Inc., 1996) includes information for all U.S. states and counties with employment reported at the 4-digit SIC. These data sets are not subject to non-disclosure rules, and as a result are complete. Data availability in Canada and Mexico are probably similar or more restricted.

Economic multiplier models used to estimate the indirect employment component of some measurement methods can also be considered "data". Models such as those constructed with IMPLAN (MIG, Inc., 1996) or Robison, et al (1996) would serve well for this purpose.

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test:

Data for the test were extracted from the IMPLAN system database (MIG, Inc., 1995) for the counties within the study area.

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

The indicator is relatively easy to track over time for generally low cost, subject to some of the data availability restrictions depending upon the measurement method selected, as noted above.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value:

The information content is extremely good, if it is presumed that the employment of local labor will make it more likely that forest management will be sustainable because local people will have a long-term interest in the land-base.

Box Q: Overall assessment:

Strengths:

• The indicator is relatively easy to track over time;
• Generally low cost, subject to some of the data availability restrictions noted above;
• Gives a direct measure of local participation in employment.

Weaknesses:

• Data availability can be problematic.

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

No.

Box S: References:

• MIG, Inc. (Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc), IMPLAN System (1995 data and software), 1940 South Greeley Street, Suite 101, Stillwater, MN 55082, www.implan.com, 1997.
• Ekins, Paul, Mayer Hillman and Robert Hutchison 1992. The Gaia Atlas of Green Economics. Anchor Books, Doubleday. New York.
• Selman, Paul. 1996. Local Sustainability: Managing and Planning Ecologically Sound Places. St. Martin’s Press, New York.
• U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1997. Regional Economic Information System, CD ROM. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
• US Department of Commerce. 1987. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
• Robison, M. Henry, Charles W. McKetta, and Steven S. Peterson. 1996. A Study of the Effects of Changing Federal Timber Policies on Rural Communities in Northcentral Idaho. University of Idaho.

Please record your notes on evaluating the indicator here.