North American Test of Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forestry

4.0 Results

The team reviewed in detail all the criteria and indicators from the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers set and the CIFOR phase 1 synthesis set. The CIFOR phase 1 set came to us in two parts: i) CIFOR (covering ecological and management issues) and ii) CIFOR-BAG (covering primarily social and economic issues). The sets from the Greater Fundy Ecosystem Research Group and the Idaho Forest Practices were not reviewed in as much detail for four reasons. First there was not sufficient time to review, in detail, all the Fundy and Idaho sets. Second, the Greater Fundy Ecosystem (GFE) and Idaho sets were not written to follow the criteria and indicators format, and required considerable adaptation if they were to be structured as the CCFM or the CIFOR sets. Third, the GFE and Idaho sets were more specific to certain places and areas and thus less generally applicable. Fourth, there was a considerable overlap in ideas between all sets. By the time we had reviewed the CCFM and CIFOR sets we were already facing considerable overlap. We thus reviewed the Fundy and Idaho sets to ensure we captured any ideas missed in the CCFM or CIFOR sets. Additionally, we used the Fundy and Idaho sets to develop targets or norms for the indicators tested. In many cases the Fundy and Idaho sets contained more realistic targets or norms than the more generalized CCFM or CIFOR indicator sets.

The results of the test of the CCFM and CIFOR criteria and indicators are shown in Table 3. Each criterion and indicator was either accepted, accepted with modifications, rejected, or combined with another indicator because of duplication. Where a criterion or indicator was combined, we tried to use the indicator that appeared to be the best developed. In some cases a criterion or indicator was modified, rejected, or combined after filtering through Form 1 and initial debate. The reason for rejection is provided in brief terms in the comment section of Table 3. For those criteria and indicators that made it past Form 1 to detailed testing, there is considerably more detail on strengths and weaknesses given in Volume II of this report.

For the Boise test, we used an alpha numeric system to identify all the criteria and indicators. Letters A through Z refer to individual criterion, while a letter with a number (e.g. A1) refers to indicators. The detailed assessments of each C&I from Form 2 are presented in Volume II of this report.

 Table 3. Summary of the results for the testing of individual criteria and indicators.

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CCFM

 1.0 Conservation of Biological Diversity

P

1.00

1

 Accepted as a principle, but combined with "Maintenance of Ecological Integrity

CCFM

T

 1.1 Ecosystem Diversity

C

1.00

1

 Tied to CIFOR 2.4.1 Kept as a criterion.

CCFM

R4

 1.1.1 Percentage and extent, in area, of forest types relative to the historical condition and total forest area.

I

1.00

1

 Changed to include CCFM 1.1.2. Reorganized under Criterion T, Ecosystem Diversity is Maintained.

CCFM

R5

 1.1.2 Percentage and extent of area by forest type and age class.

I

1.00

1

 Combined with CCFM 1.1.1

CCFM

R6

 1.1.3 Area, percentage and representativeness of forest types in protected areas.

I

1.00

1

 Deleted as redundant. Covered adequately by CCFM 1.1.2 and CCFM 3.2.3

CCFM

R7

 1.1.4 Level of fragmentation and connectedness for forest ecosystem components.

I

1.00

1

 Accepted - see detailed test results for R7.

CCFM

S

 1.2 Species Diversity (Native Species Diversity is Maintained)

C

1.00

1

 Accepted - see criterion assessment

CCFM

S2

 1.2.1 Number of known forest-dependent species classified as extinct, threatened, endangered, rare or vulnerable relative to the total number of known forest-dependent species.

I

0.83

1

 Accepted - see detailed test results

CCFM

X

 1.2.2 Population levels and changes over time for selected species and species guilds.

I

1.00

1

 Idea is very important. Partly covered by CIFOR 2.4.3 - Combined with CIFOR 2.4.5 - see Test results for T1 Population viability

CCFM

X

 1.2.3 Number of known forest-dependent species that occupy only a small portion of their former range.

I

1.00

1

 Redundant. Combined with CCFM 1.2.1 as the idea is fully captured there.

Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CCFM

V

 1.3 Genetic Diversity

C

1.00

1

 Key criterion concept, but none of the indicators were acceptable. New indicators were developed.

CCFM

V1

 1.3.1 Implementation of an in situ/ex situ genetic conservation strategy for commercial and endangered forest vegetation species.

I

1.00

1, 4

 Replaced by three proposed new indicators : V2, V3 and V4

CCFM

X

 2.0 Maintenance and enhancement of forest ecosystem condition and productivity.

P

1.00

1

 Criterion accepted but better covered by CIFOR 2.1

CCFM

U

 2.1 Incidence of disturbance and stress.

C

1.00

1

 Accepted as a criterion but modified. See criterion U.

CCFM

U1

 2.1.1 Area and severity of insect attack

I

1.00

1,4

 Accepted - see detailed test results

CCFM

X

 2.1.2 Area and severity of disease infestation.

I

1.00

1,4

 Accepted but merged with CCFM 2.1.1 - see detailed test results

CCFM

U3

 2.1.3 Area and severity of area burned.

I

1.00

1

 Accepted - see detailed test results

CCFM

U4

 2.1.4 Rates of pollutant deposition.

I

0.83

1

 Accepted - see detailed test results. Modified.

CCFM

X

 2.1.5 Ozone concentrations in forested regions.

I

0.67

1

 Rejected - Specific pollutant - lump with CCFM 2.1.4

CCFM

X

 2.1.6 Crown transparency in percentage by class.

I

0.50

1

 Covered by CIFOR 2.2.3

CCFM

U5

 2.1.7 Area and severity of occurrence of exotic species detrimental to forest condition.

I

1.00

1

 Accepted with modification - see detailed test results

CCFM

X

 2.1.8 Climate change as measured by temperature sums.

I

0.33

1

 Rejected - Seen as a National measure not relevant to the Forest Management Unit - could be easily measured.

Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CCFM

W

 2.2 Ecosystem Resilience

C

1.00

1

 Rejected - covered but other criteria. Concept not well defined.

CCFM

X

 2.2.1 Percentage and extent of area by forest type and age class.

I

1.00

1

 Redundant - Covered under CCFM 1.1.2

CCFM

W1

 2.2.2 Percentage of area successfully naturally regenerated and artificially regenerated.

I

0.83

1

 Rejected - combined with CIFOR 3.2.2, also combined with Q4. H14

CCFM

X

 2.3 Extant Biomass

C

0.67

1

 This criterion had only one indicator in the source document and that indicator (CCFM 2.3.1 Mean annual increment by forest type and age class, was moved under criterion CIFOR 3.2.

CCFM

E10

 2.3.1 Mean annual increment by forest type and age class.

I

0.83

1

 it was under CCFM 2.3. -Extant biomass- criterion. Its previous indicator number was CCFM 2.3.1 This was the only indicator for Extant Biomass so that Criterion was dropped.

CCFM

X

 2.3.2 Frequency of occurrence within selected indicator species (vegetation, birds, mammals and fish).

I

0.83

1

 Accepted as a key concept. Combined with CIFOR 2.4.5- see tested indicator T1

CCFM

X

 3.0 Conservation of soil and water resources.

P

1.00

1

 Covered by maintenance of ecological integrity. No need to separate out the two components.

CCFM

Z

 3.1 Physical Environmental Factors

C

1.00

1

 Accepted as a key criterion

CCFM

Z1

 3.1.1 Percentage of harvested area having significant soil compaction, displacement, erosion, puddling, loss of organic matter, etc.

I

0.83

1

 Accepted with modifications - see detailed results

 Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CCFM

R8

 3.1.2 Area of forest converted to non-forest land use, e.g., urbanization

I

1.00

1

 Accepted with modifications - see detailed results. Reorganized under Criterion T, Ecosystem Diversity is Maintained.

CCFM

Z2

 3.1.3 Water quality as measured by water chemistry, turbidity, etc.

I

1.00

1

 Rejected - see detailed test results

CCFM

Z3

 3.1.4 Trends and timing of events in stream flows from forest catchments.

I

0.83

1

 Accepted - see detailed test results

CCFM

S5

 3.1.5 Changes in the distribution and abundance of aquatic fauna.(Assessment of changes in the distribution and abundance of native aquatic fauna.)

I

0.83

1

 Accepted - see detailed test results

CCFM

X

 3.2 Policy and protection forest factors

C

0.83

1,4

 Rejected - criterion was abstract. Concepts included in CIFOR criterion 1.0 and related indicators.

CCFM

X

 3.2.1 Percentage of forest managed primarily for soil and water protection.

I

0.67

4

 Rejected - covered by other indicators.

CCFM

X

 3.2.2 Percentage of forested area having road construction and stream crossing guidelines in place.

I

0.83

1

 Rejected - covered by other indicators.

CCFM

R2

 3.2.3 Area, percentage and representativeness of forest types in protected areas.

I

0.83

1

 Accepted. Combined with CIFOR 2.3.1 and GFE 16.1. See detailed test results R2. Reorganized under Criterion S, Native Species Diversity.

CCFM

X

 4.0 Forest ecosystem contributions to global ecological cycles.

P

0.50

1

 Rejected - seen as not relevant at the forest management unit. See results on carbon issues.

CCFM

X

 4.1 Contributions to the global carbon budget.

C

0.67

1

 Rejected - seen as not relevant at the forest management unit. See results on carbon issues.

Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CCFM

X

 4.1.1 Tree biomass volumes.

I

0.67

1

 Rejected - seen as not relevant at the forest management unit. See results on carbon issues.

CCFM

X

 4.1.2 Vegetation (no-tree) biomass estimates.

I

0.67

1

 Rejected - seen as not relevant at the forest management unit. See results on carbon issues.

CCFM

X

 4.1.3 Percentage of canopy cover.

I

0.67

1

 Rejected - seen as not relevant at the forest management unit. See results on carbon issues.

CCFM

X

 4.1.4 Percentage of biomass volume by general forest type.

I

0.50

1

 Rejected - seen as not relevant at the forest management unit. See results on carbon issues.

CCFM

X

 4.1.5 Soil carbon pools.

I

0.50

1

 Rejected - seen as not relevant at the forest management unit. See results on carbon issues.

CCFM

X

 4.1.6 Soil carbon pool decay rates.

I

0.33

1

 Rejected - seen as not relevant at the forest management unit. See results on carbon issues.

CCFM

X

 4.1.7 Area of forest depletion.

I

0.67

1

 Rejected - seen as not relevant at the forest management unit. See results on carbon issues.

CCFM

X

 4.1.8 Forest wood product life cycles.

I

0.50

1

 Rejected - seen as not relevant at the forest management unit. See results on carbon issues.

CCFM

X

 4.1.9 Forest sector CO2 emissions.

I

0.67

1

 Rejected - seen as not relevant at the forest management unit. See results on carbon issues.

CCFM

 4.2 Forest land conversion

C

1.00

4

 Rejected - seen as not relevant at the forest management unit. See results on carbon issues.

 Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CCFM

 4.2.1 Area of forest permanently converted to non-forest land use, e.g. urbanization.

I

1.00

4

 Rejected - seen as not relevant at the forest management unit. See results on carbon issues.

CCFM

 4.2.2 Semi-permanent or temporary loss or gain of forest ecosystems, e.g. grasslands and agriculture.

I

0.67

 Rejected - seen as not relevant at the forest management unit. See results on carbon issues.

CCFM

 4.3 Forest sector carbon dioxide conservation.

C

0.50

1

 Rejected - seen as not relevant at the forest management unit. See results on carbon issues.

CCFM

 4.3.1 Fossil fuel emissions

I

0.50

1

 Rejected - seen as not relevant at the forest management unit. See results on carbon issues.

CCFM

 4.3.2 Fossil carbon product emissions

I

0.50

1

 Rejected - seen as not relevant at the forest management unit. See results on carbon issues.

CCFM

 4.3.3 Percentage of forest sector energy usage from renewable sources relative to the total energy sector requirement.

I

0.67

3

 Rejected - seen as not relevant at the forest management unit. See results on carbon issues.

CCFM

X

 4.4 Forest sector policy factors.

C

0.67

4

 Rejected - criterion as written was abstract and concepts of it were included in CIFOR criterion 1.0 and related indicators.

CCFM

X

 4.4.1 Recycling rate of forest wood products manufactured and used in Canada.

I

0.33

3

 Rejected - not relevant to the forest management unit

CCFM

X

 4.4.2 Participation in the climate change conventions.

I

0.33

4

 Rejected - not relevant to the forest management unit

CCFM

X

 4.4.3 Economic incentives for bioenergy use.

I

0.17

3

 Rejected - Bioenergy use is a useful goal but is not directly related to forest sustainability at the forest management unit.

 Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CCFM

X

 4.4.4 Existence of forest inventories.

I

0.83

4

 Accepted as an important concept - combined with CIFOR 3.2.1.

CCFM

X

 4.4.5 Existence of laws and regulations on forest land management.

I

0.83

4

 Accepted - combined with CIFOR 1.0. See test results for Criterion D.

CCFM

X

 4.5 Contributions to hydrological cycles.

C

0.83

1

 Rejected - poorly defined. Covered by other indicators.

CCFM

X

 4.5.1 Surface area of water within forested areas.

I

0.33

1

 Rejected - poorly defined. Covered by other indicators.

CCFM

M

 5.0 Multiple benefits of forests to society.(FOREST MANAGEMENT IS SOCIALLY EFFICIENT)

C

1.00

2

 Changed from a principle to a criterion; Revised wording following Ruitenbeek's suggestions. See detailed criterion results.

CCFM

X

 5.1 Productive capacity

I

1.00

5

 Rejected. Not defined in CCFM source document;

CCFM

E9

 5.1.1 Annual removal of forest products relative to the volume of removals determined to be sustainable.

I

0.83

1,4

 Accepted with modifications - additions from CIFOR 3.2.3. See detailed test results E9.

CCFM

E11

 5.1.2 Distribution of, and changes in, the landbase available for timber production.

I

1.00

4

 Accepted. Grouped with CIFOR 1.1.3. See detailed test results E11.

CCFM

X

 5.1.3 Animal population trends for selected species of economic importance.

I

0.83

4

 Accepted with modifications. Grouped with CIFOR 2.4.5 (Revised TI). This covers all species, including economic ones)

CCFM

X

 5.1.4 Management and development expenditures.

I

0.33

4

 Combined with CIFOR 1.1. See test results E2

CCFM

X

 5.1.5 Availability of habitat for selected wildlife species of economic importance.

I

0.50

1,4

 Grouped with CIFOR 2.4.5 (Revised TI). This covers habitat for all species, including economic ones)

CCFM

X

 5.2 Competitiveness of resource industries.

I

2.50

3

 Rejected: Incorporated in indicator M6

 Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CCFM

X

 5.2.1 Net profitability

I

0.83

4

 Rejected. Did not stand on its own merit. Covered by other economic indicators.

CCFM

X

 5.2.2 Trends in global market share.

I

0.50

4

 Rejected. Did not stand on its own merit. Covered by other economic indicators.

CCFM

X

 5.2.3 Trends in R & D expenditures in forest products and processing technologies.

I

0.50

4

 Rejected. Did not stand on its own merit. Covered by other economic indicators.

CCFM

X

 5.3 Contribution to the national economy.

I

0.33

3

 Rejected. Not an indicator; not defined in CCFM source document; scale not applicable to forest management unit.

CCFM

X

 5.3.1 Contribution of timber and non-timber sectors to the gross domestic product (GDP)

I

0.50

4

 Rejected. Not relevant at the forest management unit.

CCFM

X

 5.3.2 Total employment in all forest-related sectors.

I

0.67

4

 Accepted with revision. Revised to L8a. See detailed test results.

CCFM

X

 5.3.3 Utilization of forests for non-market goods and services, including forest land use for subsistence purposes.

I

0.83

4

 Accepted with modification. See test results for indicator of M1

CCFM

X

 5.3.4 Economic value of non-market goods and services.

I

0.67

4

 Accepted with modification. See test results for indicator of M2

CCFM

X

 5.4 Non-timber values

I

1.00

3

 Rejected: Not an indicator; not defined in CCFM source document.

CCFM

M3

 5.4.1 Availability and use of recreational opportunities. (AVAILABILITY AND USE OF RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES ARE MAINTAINED)

I

0.83

2

 Accepted with modification. See detailed test results M3.

CCFM

M4

 5.4.2 Total expenditures by individuals on activities related to non-timber use.

I

0.50

2

 Accepted. See detailed test results M4.

Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CCFM

X

 5.4.3 Memberships and expenditures in forest recreation-oriented organizations and clubs.

I

0.33

2

 This indicator was eliminated as membership in NGO's in North America is less than 15% of the total number of people who participate in activities and those people who are members are typically members of multiple organizations.

CCFM

X

 5.4.4 Area and percentage of protected forest by degree of protection.

I

1.83

4

 Rejected. Covered by other indicators, especially CCFM 1.1.3. See test results R2.

CCFM

X

 6.0 Accepting society's responsibility for sustainable development.

P

1.00

2

 Kept as a principle

CCFM

J

 6.1 Aboriginal and treaty rights (Recognition and respect for Aboriginal roles in sustainable forest management (Aboriginal Rights, Treaty Rights and aboriginal values)).

C

0.83

2

 Accepted as a criterion. See testing for criterion J.

CCFM

J1

 6.1.1 Extent to which forest planning and management processes consider and meet legal obligations with respect to duly established Aboriginal and treaty rights.

I

0.67

2

 Accepted. See detailed test results J1.

CCFM

X

 6.2 Participation by Aboriginal communities in sustainable forest management.

C

0.83

2

 Concept important but not a realistic indicator. Grouped under criterion J.

CCFM

J2

 6.2.1 Extent of Aboriginal participation in forest-based economic opportunities. (Extent of Aboriginal participation in forest-based opportunities.)

I

0.83

2

 Accepted with modifications. See detailed test results for J2.

CCFM

J3

 6.2.2 Extent to which forest management planning takes into account the protection of unique or significant Aboriginal social, cultural, or spiritual sites.

I

0.67

2

 Accepted with modifications. See detailed test results for J3.

Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CCFM

X

 6.2.3 Number of Aboriginal communities with a significant forestry component in the economic base and diversity of forest use at the community level.

I

0.50

2

 Rejected because of overlap. Combined with measures in CCFM 6.2.

CCFM

J5

 6.2.4 Area of forest land available for subsistence purposes.

I

0.50

2

 Accepted. See detailed test results for J5.

CCFM

X

 6.2.5 Area of Indian reserve forest lands under integrated management plans.

I

0.83

2

 Accepted but combined with management criterion E and indicator E1.

CCFM

X

 6.3 Sustainability of forest communities.

C

1.00

2

 Accepted but combined with CIFOR-BAG 1.2

CCFM

L9

 6.3.1 Number of communities with a significant forestry component in the economic base.

I

0.67

2,4

 Accepted. See detailed test results for l9.

CCFM

X

 6.3.2 Index of the diversity of the local industrial base.

I

0.50

4

 Important idea but covered by other indicators. See detailed test results for L8a.

CCFM

X

 6.3.3 Diversity of forest use at the community level.

I

0.83

2

 Rejected: Not defined in CCFM source document. Definition is not evident.

CCFM

X

 6.3.4 Number of communities with steward-ship or co-management responsibilities.

I

0.67

2

 This indicator was eliminated from the test because it related to only one form of public involvement/ participation.

CCFM

X

 6.4 Fair and effective decision making.

C

1.00

2

 Accepted but combined with CIFOR-BAG 2.0.

CCFM

X

 6.4.1 Degree of public participation in the design of decision-making processes. (Public participation must be carried out in a way that is impartial to outcomes and perspectives.)

I

1.00

2

 Accepted but elements of this indicator were combined with C4 and C3.

 Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CCFM

C4

 6.4.2 Degree of public participation in decision-making processes. (The decision making processes must be transparent such that participants are confident that their opinions and values will be considered during the process and be reflected in the final product.)

I

0.83

2

 Accepted with modifications. See detailed test results for C4.

CCFM

X

 6.4.3 Degree of public participation in implementation of decisions and monitoring of progress toward sustainable forest management.

I

0.83

2

 Accepted but combined with CCFM indicator 6.4.3. See test results for C5.

CCFM

X

 6.5 Informed decision making

C

0.83

4

 Concepts combined. See test results for C2.

CCFM

X

 6.5.1 Percentage of area covered by multi-attribute resource inventories.

I

0.83

4

 Accepted but combined with other indicators.

CCFM

X

 6.5.2 Investments in forest-based R&D and information.

I

0.67

4

 Rejected as conceptually weak. Needs redevelopment.

CCFM

X

 6.5.3 Total effective expenditures on public forestry education.

I

0.50

2

 Rejected as link to sustainable forest management is weak.

CCFM

X

 6.5.4 Percentage of forest area under completed management plans/programs/guidelines which have included public participation.

I

0.83

4

 Integrated with other indicators. See test results for C1 through C4.

CCFM

X

 6.5.5 Expenditures on international forestry.

I

0.00

4

 Rejected as link to sustainable forest management at the FMU level is weak.

CCFM

X

 6.5.6 Mutual learning mechanisms and processes.

I

0.00

2

 Accepted but combined with CIFOR-BAG variable 2.1.

 Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CCFM

L8a

 EMPLOYMENT OF LOCAL POPULATION IN FOREST MANAGEMENT

I

 Accepted with major redevelopment - see detailed test results for L8a.

CIFOR

D

 1. Policy, planning and institutional framework are conducive to sustainable forest management.

P

0.71

4

 Accepted as a criterion. See test results for criterion D.

CIFOR

1.1 There is sustained and adequate funding for the management of forests.

C

0.71

4

 Accepted - see detailed test results.

CIFOR

D4

 1.1 There is sustained and adequate funding for the management of forests.(Management focus)

I

0.71

4

 Accepted with modifications, including additions from CIFOR 1.1.5. See detailed test results.

CIFOR

E3

 1.1.1 Policy and planning are based on recent and accurate information.

I

0.43

4

 Accepted with modifications, including additions from CIFOR 3.2.1. See detailed test results for E3.

CIFOR

D1

 1.1.2 Effective instruments for inter-institutional co-ordination on land use and forest management exist.

I

0.43

4

 Accepted with modifications. See detailed test results for D1. New wording: "sector" was replaced by "institutional"; "land" was replaced by "forest"

CIFOR

X

 1.1.3 There is a permanent forest estate (PFE), adequately protected by law, which is the basis for sustainable management, including both protection and production forest.

I

0.71

4

 Rejected. Did not stand on its own merit. Covered in part by E11, R8, and R6

CIFOR

X

 1.1.4 There is a regional land use plan or PFE which reflects the different forested land uses, including attention to such matters as population, agricultural uses, conservation, environmental, economic and cultural values.

I

0.86

4

 Rejected. This indicator was considered to be at a scale larger than the study area and consequently was deleted for this test. Components of this indicator are included in the management planning criteria.

 Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CIFOR

D5

 1.1.5 Institutions responsible for forest management and research are adequately funded and staffed. (Research focus)

I

0.57

5

 Accepted with modifications. See detailed test results for D5.

CIFOR

2. Maintenance of ecosystem integrity.

P

0.86

1

 Accepted as a principle.

CIFOR

Q

 2.1 Ecosystem function is maintained.

C

1.00

1

 Accepted as a key criterion.

CIFOR

X

 2.1.1 No chemical contamination to food chains and ecosystem. (TOXICS AND POLLUTANTS DO NOT IMPACT THE ECOSYSTEM)

I

1.00

1

 Idea important but combined with CCFM 2.1.4 Rates of pollutant deposition.

CIFOR

Q2

 2.1.2 Ecologically sensitive areas, especially buffer zones along water courses are protected.

I

1.00

1

 Accepted. See detailed test results for Q2.

CIFOR

X

 2.1.3 No inadvertent ponding or waterlogging as a result of forest management.

I

0.29

1

 Rejected. Not written as an indicator - not inherent criterion of sustainability - more local concern

CIFOR

X

 2.1.4 Soil erosion is minimized.

I

0.86

1

 Rejected. Better covered under CCFM 3.1.1 - not related to ecosystem function

CIFOR

X

 2.2 Impacts to biodiversity of the forest ecosystem are minimized.

C

1.00

1

 Rejected because of duplication. Covered by CCFM 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3

CIFOR

X

 2.2.1 Endangered plant and animal species are protected.

I

0.86

1

 Rejected because of duplication. Covered under CCFM 1.2.1

CIFOR

X

 2.2.2 Interventions are highly specific, selective and are confined to the barest minimum.

I

0.29

4

 Rejected. Not related to criterion - low score from form 1

 Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CIFOR

R3

 2.2.3 Canopy opening is minimized.

I

0.43

1

 Rejected as not adapted to temperate forests. See detailed test results R3.

CIFOR

S4

 2.2.4 Enrichment planting, if carried out, should be based on indigenous, locally adapted species.

I

0.86

1

 Combined with CCFM 2.1.7 - Area and severity of occurrences of exotic species detrimental to forest condition. Infill planting seems a subset issue and overly prescriptive.

CIFOR

Q4

 2.3 The capacity of the forest to regenerate naturally is ensured.

I

1.00

1

 Changed to an indicator rather than a criterion. Indicator of ecosystem function. Now combined with CIFOR 3.2.2. See detailed test results for W1.

CIFOR

R2

 2.3.1 Representative areas, especially sites of ecol. importance, are protected or appropriately managed.

I

1.00

1

 Accepted with revisions. See detailed test results for R2

CIFOR

R1

 2.3.2 Corridors of unlogged forest are retained.

I

0.86

1

 Rejected. Idea covered elsewhere. See detailed test results for R1.

CIFOR

X

 2.4 The processes that maintain biodiversity in managed forests are conserved.

C

1.00

4

 Idea accepted but combined under CCFM 1.1.2.

CIFOR

R

 2.4.1 Landscape patterns are maintained.

C

1.00

1

 Changed to a criterion rather than an indicator. Indicator of ecosystem pattern was considered fundamental to ecosystem function

CIFOR

X

 2.4.2 Changes in habitat diversity as a result of human interventions should be maintained within critical limits.

C

0.86

1

 Changed to a criterion rather than an indicator. Combined under CCFM 1.2

CIFOR

S1

 2.4.3 Comm. guild structure does not show significant changes in the presentation of esp. sensitive guild, and pollinator and disperser guilds.

I

0.86

1

 More development is required to make this indicator workable. See detailed test results under S1.

Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CIFOR

T

 2.4.4 The richness diversity of selected groups shows no significant change.

C

0.86

1

 Accepted. Overlap with CCFM 1.2

CIFOR

T1

 2.4.5 Population sizes and demographic structures of selected species do not show significant changes, and demographically and ecologically critical life-cycle stages continue to be represented.

I

1.00

1

 Accepted with modifications. Related to CCFM 1.2 and CIFOR 2.4.4. See detailed test results for T1.

CIFOR

Q3

 2.4.6 The status of decomposition and nutrient cycles shows no significant change.

I

0.86

1

 Important idea. Combined with CCFM 1.1.1 and 1.1.2; with ties to CCFM 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 and GFE 20 as structure and patterns are more easily measured than are processes such as nutrient cycles.

CIFOR

X

 2.4.7 There is no significant change in the quality or quantity of water from the catchment.

I

1.00

1

 Accepted in part. Combined with CCFM 3.1.1 and 3.1.1. See detailed test results for Z1 and Z2.

CIFOR

X

 3. Yield and quality of forest goods and services sustainable.

P

0.86

5

 Accepted as a principle.

CIFOR

X

 3.1 Management objectives clearly and precisely described, documented, and realistic.

I

0.86

4

 Combined with E4 (CIFOR 3.1.1)

CIFOR

E4

 3.1.1 Objectives are clearly stated in terms of the major functional areas of the forest, with due respect to their spatial distribution.

I

1.00

4

 Accepted but combined with CIFOR 3.1 and CIFOR 3.1.1. See detailed test results for E1 and E4.

CIFOR

E

 3.2 A comprehensive forest management plan is available.

C

0.86

4

 Accepted. See test results for criterion E.

CIFOR

X

 3.2.1 Maps of resources, management, ownership and inventories available.

I

0.86

4

 Did not stand on its own. Combined with E3(CIFOR 1.1.1.)

 Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CIFOR

E6

 3.2.2 Silvicultural systems prescribed and appropriate to forest type and produce grown.

I

0.71

4

 Accepted with modifications. See detailed test results for E6.

CIFOR

X

 3.2.3 Yield regulation by area and/or volume prescribed.

I

0.86

4,5

 Combined with CCFM 5.1.1. See detailed test results for E9.

CIFOR

E8

 3.2.4 Harvesting systems and equipment are prescribed to match forest conditions in order to reduce impact.

I

1.00

4

 Accepted with modifications. See detailed test results for E8.

CIFOR

F

 3.3 The management plan is effectively implemented.

C

0.71

4

 Accepted, rewritten. See detailed criterion test results

CIFOR

X

 3.3.1 Pre-harvest inventory satisfactorily completed.

I

0.86

4

 Combined with G1(CIFOR 3.4.1.)

CIFOR

X

 3.3.2 Infrastructure is laid out prior to harvesting and in accordance with prescriptions.

I

0.57

5

 Did not stand on its own merit. Idea combined with R9 (GFE 15.)

CIFOR

X

 3.3.3 Reduced impact felling specified and implemented.

I

0.57

5

 Did not stand on its own merit. Combined with other management indicators.

CIFOR

F (ver)

 3.3.4 Skidding damage to trees and soil minimized.

I

0.71

4

 Changed to a verifier for F (CIFOR 3.3)

CIFOR

F4

 3.4 An effective monitoring and control system audits management's conformity with planning.

I

0.71

4

 Accepted and changes to an indicator. See results for criterion F4.

CIFOR

F5

 3.4.1 Continuous forest inventory (CFI) plots established and measured regularly.

I

0.86

4

 Accepted but combined with indicator F1(CIFOR 3.3.1.). See detailed test results for F5. Rewritten.

CIFOR

F6

 3.4.2 Documentation and records of all forest management activities are kept in a form that makes it possible for nitoring to occur.

I

0.71

4

 Accepted. See detailed test results for F6.

 Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CIFOR

X

 3.4.3 Worked coupes are protected (e.g. from fire, encroachment and pre-mature re-entry).

I

0.43

4

 Rejected. We were unclear as to what the meaning of this indicator.

CIFOR

X

 3.4.4 Tree marking of seed stock and potential crop trees.

I

0.57

4

 This indicator was deleted as tree marking of seed stock is only one particular silvicultural technique that is not applicable to all jurisdictions and is not directly related to sustainability.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 1. Forest management maintains or enhances fair inter-generational access to resources and economic benefits.

C

1.00

2

 Deleted. Definition vague. Some parts of the idea covered by other criteria.

CIFOR - BAG

B

 1.1 Local management is effective in controlling maintenance of and access to the resource. (Forest management provides ongoing access to the resource)

C

0.86

2,4

 Accepted with modifications. See test results for Criterion B.

CIFOR - BAG

B5

 1.1.1 Ownership and use rights to resources (inter and intra generational) are clear and respect pre-existing claims. (Ownership and use rights and responsibilities to resources (both inter and intra generational) are clear and respect pre-existing claims.)

I

1.00

2

 Accepted with modifications. See detailed test results for B5

CIFOR - BAG

X

 1.1.2 Rules and norms of resource use are monitored and enforced.

I

0.86

2

 Rejected. Vaguely defined.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 1.1.3 Means of conflict resolution function without violence.

I

0.71

2

 Rejected. Vaguely defined. Seemed out of context in North America.

 Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CIFOR - BAG

B2

 1.1.4 Access to forest resources is perceived locally to be fair. (Access to forest resources is perceived to be fair and secure.)

I

1.00

2

 Accepted with modifications. See test results for B2.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 1.1.5 Local people feel secure about access to resources.

I

0.86

2

 This indicator was combined into C3 a revision of CIFOR-BAG 2.2.2. See detailed test results for C3.

CIFOR - BAG

L

 1.2 Forest actors have a reasonable share in the economic benefits derived from forest use. (THERE IS EQUITABLE ACCESS TO AND DISTRIBUTION OF ECONOMIC RENTS)

C

1.00

2

 This indicator was redefined and combined with elements from CIFOR-BAG 2.2.

CIFOR - BAG

L1

 1.2.1 Mechanisms for sharing benefits are seen as fair by local communities (MECHANISMS EXIST FOR SHARING THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS DERIVED FROM FOREST MANAGEMENT)

I

0.86

2

 This indicator was combined with elements from CIFOR-BAG 2.2.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 1.2.2 Opportunities exist for local and forest dependent people to get employment and training from forest companies.

I

0.71

2

 Rejected. Did not seem relevant to the test area or larger North American context.

CIFOR - BAG

L7

 1.2.3 Wages and other benefits conform to national and/or ILO standards.

I

0.71

2

 Accepted. See test results for L7.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 1.2.4 Damages are compensated in a fair manner.

I

0.57

2

 Elements from this criterion are duplicated elsewhere and therefore combined with CIFOR-Bag 3.1and H.

 Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CIFOR - BAG

 1.2.4 Damages are compensated in a fair manner.

I

0.57

2

 Elements from this indicator were combined with E1, C1, C2, C3 and J indicators.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 1.3 People link their and their children's future with management of forest resources.

C

0.86

2

 Elements from this indicator were combined with E1, C1, C2, C3 and J indicators. The concept of cultural disintegration, while important, is broader than the issue of forest management and as such was eliminated from this test. We recognize that there is likely to be a stronger connection to forest management with forest dwelling people, but this is not the North American norm.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 1.3.1 People invest in their surroundings (e.g. time, effort, and money).

I

0.43

2

 Revised to incorporate Ruitenbeek's suggestions. See revised economic indicators.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 1.3.2 Out-migration levels are low.

I

0.43

2

 Merged and incorporated into the C indicators on public participation

CIFOR - BAG

X

 1.3.3 People recognize the need to balance numbers of people with natural resource use.

I

0.43

2

 Rejected. Did not appear measurable.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 1.3.4 Children are educated (formally and informally) about natural resource management.

I

0.43

2

 Combined with CIFOR-BAG 3.0 and 3.3

CIFOR - BAG

X

 1.3.5 Destruction of natural resources by local communities is rare.

I

0.43

2

 Concepts from this indicator have been addressed in criterion CIFOR-BAG 1.1, but we felt this particular indicator was less appropriate in this jurisdiction.

 Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CIFOR - BAG

X

 1.3.6 People maintain spiritual links to the land.

I

0.57

2

 This indicator was eliminated from testing because it was not directly connected with sustainability at the FMU level. The connection with sustainability is tenuous and abstract.

CIFOR - BAG

C

 2. Concerned stakeholders have an acknowledged right and means to co-manage forests equitably. (Concerned stakeholders have a right to participate in open and meaningful public participation processes in order to influence management.)

C

0.86

2

 This indicator was eliminated from testing as it duplicated the CIFOR 3.2.1 indicator.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 2.1 Effective mechanisms exist for two-way communication related to forest management among stakeholders.

C

0.71

2

 We eliminated this indicator because we felt it was vaguely defined as an indicator and other indicators covered off the idea.'

CIFOR - BAG

X

 2.1.1 > 50% of timber company personnel and forestry officials speak one or more local language, or > 50% of local women speak the national language.

I

0.29

2

 This indicator was eliminated as it was similar to CIFOR-BAG 3.0, which was included in a revised form in the test.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 2.1.2 Local stakeholders meet with satisfactory frequency, representation of local diversity, and quality of interaction.

I

0.57

2

 Rejected as impossible to measure. Ideas covered in other areas.

CIFOR - BAG

C1

 2.1.3 The contributions of all stakeholders are mutually respected and valued at a generally satisfactory level. (The process should be inclusive with all interests represented.)

I

0.86

2

 Accepted with modifications. See test results for C1.

 Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CIFOR - BAG

C2

 2.2 Local stakeholders have detailed, reciprocal knowledge pertaining to forest resource use (including user groups and gender roles), as well as forest management plans prior to implementation. (Stakeholders should have detailed and meaningful reciprocal background information necessary to provide quality input into the public participation process.)

I

1.00

2

 Accepted with modifications. See detailed test results for C2.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 2.2.1 Plans/maps exist showing integration of uses by different stakeholders.

I

1.00

4

 Rejected. Seen as not relevant to the study area.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 2.2.2 Updated plans, baseline studies and maps are widely available outlining logging details like cutting areas and road construction, with timing.

I

0.86

4

 Rejected. Seen as not relevant to the study area.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 2.2.3 Base line studies of local human systems are available and consulted.

I

0.71

2

 Rejected. Seen as not relevant to the study area.

CIFOR - BAG

C3

 2.2.4 Management staff recognize the legitimate interests and rights of other stakeholders. (Management staff and stakeholders should recognize and respect the interests and rights of each other.)

I

0.57

4

 Accepted with modifications. See test results for C3.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 2.2.5 Management of NTFP reflects the interests and rights of local stakeholders.

I

0.71

2

 Rejected. Seen as not relevant to the study area.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 2.3 Agreement exists on rights and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders.

I

0.57

2

 Rejected. Seen as not relevant to the study area.

 Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CIFOR - BAG

X

 2.3.1 Level of conflict is acceptable to stakeholders.

I

0.29

2

 Rejected. Seen as not relevant to the study area.

CIFOR - BAG

H

 3.0 The health of forest actors, cultures and the forest is acceptable to all stakeholders. (Forest-based health issues are recognized.)

P

0.71

2

 Accepted. See test results for criterion H.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 3.1 There is a recognizable balance between human activities and environmental conditions.

C

0.86

2

 Rejected. Originally a criterion but too broadly worded.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 3.1.1 Environmental conditions affected by human uses are stable or improving.

I

0.86

2

 Rejected. Causal relationship to forest sustainability at the FMU scale is weak.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 3.1.2 In-migration and/or natural population increase are in harmony with maintaining the forest.

I

0.43

2

 Rejected. Causal relationship to forest sustainability at the FMU scale is weak.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 3.2 The relationship between forest management and human health is recognized.

C

0.43

2

 Rejected. Originally a criterion and combined with CIFOR-Bag 3.0.

CIFOR - BAG

H2

 3.2.1 Forest managers cooperate with public health authorities regarding illnesses related to forest management. (Forest managers cooperate with public health authors regarding illnesses related to forest management and potable water related concerns.)

I

0.71

2

 Rejected. Seen as not relevant to the study area.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 3.2.2 Nutritional status is adequate among local populations (e.g. children's growth conforms to international standards of height and weight, infant and < 5 year mortality levels are low.

I

0.29

2

 Rejected. Causal relationship to forest sustainability at the FMU scale is weak.

Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

CIFOR - BAG

H3

 3.2.3 Forestry employers follow ILO working and safety conditions and take responsibility for the forest-related health risks of workers.

I

0.86

2

 Rejected. Seen as not relevant to the study area.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 3.3 The relationship between forest maintenance and human culture is acknowledged as important.

C

0.71

2

 Rejected. Causal relationship to forest sustainability at the FMU scale is weak.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 3.3.1 Forest managers can explain links between relevant human cultures and the local forest.

I

0.71

2

 Rejected. Seen as not relevant to the study area.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 3.3.2 Forest management plans reflect care in handling human cultural issues.

I

0.86

2

 Rejected. Causal relationship to forest sustainability at the FMU scale is weak.

CIFOR - BAG

X

 3.3.3 There is no significant increase in signs of cultural disintegration.

I

0.57

2

 Rejected. Seen as not relevant to the study area.

GFE

R10

 20. Coarse woody debris and snags should be retained at functional levels

I

1.00

1

 Accepted but placed under Ecosystem Function, Criteria Q. See test results for R10.

GFE

R9

 15. Road densities should be minimized.

I

1.00

1

 Potential but needs development. Rewritten. See test results for R9.

New

F3

 Actual vs. planned performance is measured and recorded.

I

4

 New indicator in management area, developed by team.

New

M6

 Existence of economic rents: Total harvesting revenues exceed harvesting costs

I

3

 New indicator - derived from Ruitenbeek's paper. See detailed test results for M6.

New

M7

 Estimated distribution of economic rent

I

3

 New indicator - derived from Ruitenbeek's paper. See detailed test results for M7.

New

V2

 Population sizes and reproductive success are adequate to maintain levels of genetic diversity.

I

1

 New indicator. Replacing CCFM 1.3.1. See test results for V1.

Table 3. (Continued)

 

Source

Boise

Test

#

No. of C/I as printed in source document

Re-

class

of

P, C,

or I

Score (from Form 1)

Class:

Comments

New

V4

 Management does not significantly change gene frequencies.

I

1

 New indicator. Replacing CCFM 1.3.1. See test results for V4.

New

V3

 Use of scientifically-based seed transfer rules and seed orchard zones in planting native species.

I

1

 New indicator. Replacing CCFM 1.3.1. See test results for V3.

The comparisons of the number of Criteria and Indicators in each of the tested sets is shown below. Also included for comparison is the Montreal process for reference, which has 7 criteria and 76 indicators. Note that the CCFN has 8 criteria, 22 elements and 83 indicators. We reorganized the elements as either criteria or indicators to facilitate testing. The CIFOR set, including CIFOR-Bag, has 17 criteria and 67 indicators. The resultant Boise test set retained 17 criteria, but only 45 indicators. Of note also is the distribution of the criteria by ecological, social or management categories. The CCFM set is most well developed in the area of ecological indicators, with 42 out of 83 indicators. Conversely the CIFOR set had more emphasis on social indicators, with 34 of 67 in that category. The resultant Boise set had 17 indicators left in each category. This was not any intentional effort at "fair weighting", but simply the way the test results. The other category in the Boise results refers to the enabling condition that "Policy, planning and institutional frameworks are conducive to sustainable forest management".

Distribution of Numbers of Criteria and Indicators Between Indicator Sets:
  Ecological Social Management Other
Boise

17/45

7/17

5/17

4/17

1/3
CIFOR

17/67

4/16

8/34

5/17

  
CCFM

8/22/83

12/42

5/20

5/21

  
Montreal

7/67

        

Table 3 indicates considerable overlap between the CCFM and CIFOR sets of criteria and indicators. We accepted, or accepted with revision 71 of the original 207 C&I tested. In most of these cases we suggested changes. We rejected 65 of the 207 because they were conceptually weak, impossible to use operationally, or irrelevant to the North American context. The remaining 71 criteria and indicators were combined, meaning there was merit in the idea. To help round out the set we proposed 5 new indicators.

Breaking down the results by indicator set, the CCFM set of criteria and indicators had 62 of 104 accepted. The remainder was rejected because they were conceptually weak, not well defined, or not relevant at the forest management unit level. Many of these indicators had to do with carbon issues and contributions to global warming (see discussion of carbon related indicators below).

The CIFOR-BAG contained a number of social issues that were difficult to relate to the North American context. The team rejected 26 of 45 of these C&I and combined many others. While the team understood the reason for their use in developing countries, it was often impossible to fit them into the North American context, especially the Boise test site. If the test had taken place in some parts of Mexico, the results may have been different. Of the 48 remaining CIFOR indicators, 7 were rejected and 16 were combined with CCFM indicators.

For the GFE and Idaho sets, a much less detailed analysis was conducted. We primarily focused on ideas that were not expressed in the other indicator sets. Two of the GFE indicators were selected as important additional ideas.

The criteria and indicators that the team concluded were most appropriate to the North American context are shown in Table 4. This table is an amalgamation of criteria and indicators from CIFOR phase 1 (including the CIFOR-BAG), the CCFM, and the GFE as well as a few new indicators developed in Boise. This table is best viewed as the team’s selection of the best ideas from the indicator sets. If we were to start from scratch, the results would undoubtedly be different.

Table 4. Amalgamation of Criteria and Indicators Appropriate for the North American Test (Includes C&I From All Sets Tested.)
Principle

Criterion

 Indicator
I. Ecological integrity is maintained
  1.1. Ecosystem function is maintained (BoiseQ)  Criterion Evaluation
  1.1.1. Ecologically sensitive areas, especially buffer zones along water courses, are protected (CIFOR 2.1.2, Boise Q2)
  1.1.2. Coarse woody debris and snags retained at functional levels (GFE 20, Boise R10)
  1.1.3 Area and severity of area burned (CCFM 2.1.3, Boise U3)
  1.1.3 Area and severity of insect attack and disease infestation (CCFM 2.1.1, 2.1.2, Boise U1)
  1.2. Landscape patterns support native populations (Boise R)
  1.2.1. Level of fragmentation and connectedness of forest ecosystem components (CCFM 1.1.4, Boise R7)
  1.2.2. Road network density, type, use, and location (GFE 15, CIFOR 3.3.2, Boise R9)
  1.3. Native species diversity is maintained (Boise S)
  1.3.1. Protected areas are maintained to protect rare, unique and representative species and features (CIFOR 2.3.1, CCFM 1.1.3, GFE 16.1, Boise R2)
  1.3.2 Populations of indigenous species are likely to persist (CIFOR 2.4.5, Boise T1)
  1.3.3. Number of known forest-dependent species classified as extinct, extirpated, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable relative to the total number of known forest dependent species (CCFM 1.2.1, Boise S2)
  1.3.4 Assessment of changes in the distribution and abundance of native aquatic fauna (CCFM 3.1.5, Boise S5)
  1.4. Ecosystem diversity is maintained (Boise T)  Criterion Evaluation
  1.4.1. Percentage and extent, in area, of vegetation types and structural classes relative to the historical condition and total forest area (CCFM 1.1.1, 1.1.2, Boise R4, R5)
  1.4.2. Rate and total area of forest land converted to non-forest land cover, classed by major forest type (CCFM 3.1.2, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, Boise R8)
  1.4.3. Representation of selected key and sensitive guilds occur in the community guild structure (CIFOR 2.4.3, Boise S1)
  1.5. Incidence of disturbance and stress (Boise U)  Criterion Evaluation
  1.5.1. Pollutant levels in the ecosystem (Implement screening procedure)(CCFM 2.1.4, CIFOR 2.1.1, Boise U4)
  1.5.2. Area and severity of occurrence of exotic species detrimental to forest condition (CCFM 2.1.7, Boise U5)
  1.6. Genetic diversity is maintained (Boise V)
  1.6.1. Population sizes and reproductive success are adequate to maintain levels of genetic diversity (new - Judy Loo)
  1.6.2. Use of scientifically-based seed transfer rules and seed orchard zones in planting native species (new - Judy Loo)
  1.6.3. Management does not significantly change gene frequencies (new - Judy Loo)
  1.7. Physical environmental factors (Boise Z)  Criterion Evaluation
  1.7.1. Percentage of harvested area having greater than 25% of the area with degraded soil quality, including soil compaction, displacement, erosion, puddling, and loss of organic matter (CCFM 3.1.1, Boise Z1)
  1.7.2. Trends and timing of events in stream flows from forest catchments (CCFM 3.1.4, Boise Z3)
 
Principle

Criterion

 Indicator
2. Yield and quality of forest goods and services are sustainable
  2.1. Policy, planning and institutional framework are conducive to sustainable forest management (Boise D)  Criterion Evaluation
  2.1.1. Effective instruments for inter-institutional co-ordination on land use and forest management exist (CIFOR 1.1.2, Boise D1)
  2.1.2. There is sustained and adequate funding and staff for the management of forests (CIFOR 1.1; combined with CIFOR 1.1.5, Boise D4)
  2.2.3. Institutions responsible for forest research are adequately funded and staffed (CIFOR 1.1.5, Boise D5)
  2.2. Forest management provides for sustainability of goods and services (Boise E)  Criterion Evaluation
  2.2.1. Policy and planning are based on recent and accurate information (CIFOR 1.1.1, Boise E3)
  2.2. Objectives are clearly stated in terms of the major functional areas of the forest, with respect to their spatial distribution. (CIFOR 3.1.1, combined with E1 (CIFOR 3.1), Boise E4).
  2.2.3. Silvicultural systems are prescribed are appropriate to forest type, production of desired products and condition, and assure forest establishment, composition, and growth (CIFOR 3.2.2, 2.2.2, 2.3, Boise E6)
  2.2.4. Harvesting systems and equipment are prescribed to match forest conditions in order to reduce impact on wildlife, soil productivity, residual stand conditions and water quality and quantity (CIFOR 3.2.4, Boise E8)
  2.2.5. Annual and periodic removals calculated by area and/or volume prescribed (CCFM 5.1.1, Boise E9)
  2.2.6. Mean annual increment for forest type and age class (CCFM 2.3.1, Boise E10)
  2.2.7. Distribution of, and changes in, the land base available for timber production are identified (CCFM 5.1.2, Boise E11)
  2.3. The management plan is implemented and effective in moving toward stated goals (Boise F)  Criterion Evaluation
  2.3.1. Actual vs. planned performance is measured and recorded (new, Boise F3).
  2.3.2. An effective monitoring and control system audits management's conformity with planning (CIFOR 3.4, Boise F4).
  2.3.3. Continuous inventories established and measured regularly (CIFOR 3.4.1, Boise F5)
  2.3.4. Documentation and records of all forest management activities are kept in a form that makes monitoring possible (CIFOR 3.4.2, Boise F6)
  2.4. Forest management is socially efficient (Boise M)   Criterion Evaluation
  2.4.1. Availability and use of recreational opportunities are maintained (CCFM 5.4.1, Boise M3)
  .4.2. Total expenditures by individuals on activities related to non-timber use (CCFM 5.4.2, Boise M4)
  2.4.3. Existence of economic rents: Total harvesting revenues exceed harvesting costs (CIFOR-ECON C4.1.1, Boise M6)
 
Principle

Criterion

 Indicator
3. Society accepts responsibility for sustainability.
  3.1. Forest management provides ongoing access to the resource (Boise B)   Criterion Evaluation
  3.1.1. Access to forest resources is perceived to be fair and secure (CIFOR-BAG 1.1.4, 1.1.5, Boise B2)
  3.1.2. Ownership and use rights and responsibilities to resources (inter- and intra-generational) are clear and respect pre-existing claims (CIFOR-BAG 1.1.1, Boise B5)
  3.2. Concerned stakeholders have a right to participate in open and meaningful public participation processes in order to influence management (Boise C)  Criterion Evaluation
  3.2.1. The process should be inclusive with all interests represented (CIFOR-BAG 2.1.3, Boise C1)
  3.2.2. Stakeholders should have detailed and meaningful reciprocal background information necessary to provide quality input into the public participation process (CIFOR-BAG 2.2, Boise C2)
  3.2.3. Management staff and stakeholders should recognize and respect the interests and rights of each other (CIFOR-BAG 2.2.4, Boise C3)
  3.2.4. The decision-making processes must be transparent such that participants are confident that their opinions and values will be considered during the process and be reflected in the final product (CCFM 6.4.2, Boise C4)
  3.3. Forest-based human health issues (Boise H)  Criterion Evaluation
  3.3.1. Forest managers co-operate with public health authorities regarding illnesses related to forest management and potable water related concerns (CIFOR-BAG 3.2.1, Boise H2)
  3.3.2. Forestry employers follow ILO working and safety conditions and take responsibility for the forest-related health risks of workers (CIFOR-BAG 3.2.3, Boise H3)
  3.4. Recognition and respect for Aboriginal roles in sustainable forest management (Aboriginal rights, Treaty rights and aboriginal values) (Boise J)  Criterion Evaluation
  3.4.1. Extent to which forest planning and management processes consider and meet legal obligations with respect to duly established Aboriginal and treaty rights (CCFM 6.1.1, Boise J1)
  3.4.2. Assess the extent of Aboriginal participation in forest-based opportunities (CCFM 6.2.1, 6.2.3, Boise J2)
  3.4.3. Extent to which forest management planning takes into account the protection of unique or significant Aboriginal social, cultural or spiritual sites (CCFM 6.2.2, Boise J3)
  3.4.4. Area of forest land available for subsistence purposes (CCFM 6.2.4, Boise J5)
  3.5. There is equitable access to and distribution of economic rents (Boise L)  Criterion Evaluation
  3.5.1. Mechanisms exist for sharing the economic benefits derived from forest management (CIFOR-BAG 1.2.1, Boise L1)
  3.5.2. Wages and other benefits conform to national and/or ILO standards (CIFOR-BAG 1.2.3, Boise L7)
  3.5.3. Employment of local population in forest management (CIFOR-ECON C3.1.4, Boise L8a)
  3.5.4. Estimated distribution of rent capture (CIFOR-ECON C3.3, Boise M7)
  3.5.5. Number of communities with a significant forestry component in the economic base (CCFM 6.3.1, Boise L9)
 
Principle

Criterion

 Indicator
4. Enabling Conditions - The following Criteria and Indicators are enabling conditions that support the overall the overall framework of sustainable forest management
  4.1. Policy, planning and institutional frameworks are conducive to sustainable forest management (Boise D)  Criterion Evaluation
  4.1.1. Effective instruments for inter-institutional co-ordination on land-use and forest management exits (CIFOR 1.1.2, Boise D1)
  4.1.2. There is sustained and adequate funding and staff for the management of forests (CIFOR 1.1 combined with CIFOR 1.1.5, Boise D4)
  4.1.3. Institutions responsible for forest research are adequately funded and staffed (CIFOR 1.1.5, Boise D5)