Scientific Review and Gap Analysis of Sustainable Forest

Comments

Transcription

Scientific Review and Gap Analysis of Sustainable Forest
2005
Science, Innovation, and Sustainability: Investing in British Columbia’s Knowledge-based Natural Resource Sector
ISSN 1495-964X
Cover and text
Cover and text
FORREX SERIES 17
Scientific Review
and Gap Analysis
of Sustainable
Forest Management
Criteria and
Indicators Initiatives
Scientific Review
and Gap Analysis
of Sustainable
Forest Management
Criteria and
Indicators Initiatives
Gordon M. Hickey and John L. Innes
I
National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication Data
Hickey, Gordon M
Scientific review and gap analysis of forest management criteria and indicators
initiatives [electronic resource] / Gordon M. Hickey and John L. Innes.
(FORREX series ; 17)
Includes bibliographical references.
Also available in print format.
ISBN 1-894822-37-4
1. Sustainable forestry--British Columbia. 2. Forest management-British Columbia. 3. Forest monitoring--British Columbia. I. Innes, John L
II. FORREX III. Title. IV. Series: FORREX series (Online) ; 17
SD146.B7H52 2005a
333.75’09711
C2005-905560-X
© 2005 FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
Information may be reproduced without permission subject to the fair dealing provision and the exceptions set out in the Canada
Copyright Act, R.S., c. C-20, s. 1. The source of the work must be fully acknowledged. Information may not be redistributed or
stored for the purpose of serving through any other information retrieval system without the written permission of FORREX–Forest
Research Extension Partnership. Links can be made freely. No guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied, is made about the value
or stability of the information or links made herein. However, reproduction of this work, in whole or in part, for purposes of commercial use, resale, or redistribution requires written permission from FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership. For this purpose,
contact the Partnership at: Suite 702, 235–1st Avenue, Kamloops, BC V2C 3J4.
For more information about the FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership, visit: www.forrex.org
This report is published by:
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership
Suite 702, 235–1st Avenue
Kamloops, BC V2C 3J4
This FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership publication is partially funded by the Province of
British Columbia through the Forest Practices Board and the Forest Investment Account.
The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the
FORREX Forest Research Extension Partnership of any product or service to the exclusion of any
others that may also be suitable.
ii
ABSTRACT
In April 2004, the Province of British Columbia, through the Forest Practices Board, engaged Forrex
Forest Research Extension Partnership to collaborate with interested key parties and identify the work
needed to complete sets of criteria and indicators (c&i) for British Columbia’s forests. The following report is the first in a series of three that summarize the results of the 2004 foundation projects. It focuses
on determining common scientifically sound, useful, and effective criteria and indicators and monitoring
systems for British Columbia’s forests (Area One). As part of the foundation project, “Science Review and
Gap Analysis,” a matrix of 3000 scientifically reviewed indicators related to British Columbia-relevant
sfm criteria was created. This indicator matrix was then analyzed and systematically reduced by researchers in the Sustainable Forest Management Laboratory at the University of British Columbia (ubc).
Feedback from government and industry representatives on the resulting list of indicators was heard at
the c&i Forum held in Vancouver, British Columbia on February 18–19, 2005.
Citation—
Hickey, G.M. and J.L. Innes. 2005. Scientific Review and Gap Analysis of Sustainable Forest Management
Criteria and Indicators Initiatives: Forrex Forest Research Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C.
Forrex Series 17. url: www.forrex.org/publications/FORREXSeries/FS17.pdf
iii
FOREWORD
—Bruce Fraser (Chair)
Forest Practices Board
—John Dunford (Vice Chair)
Tolko Industries Ltd.
—Chris Hollstedt (Co-ordinator)
Forrex
The sustainability of British Columbia’s forests is vital to the economic, social, and environmental wellbeing of our province. Over the years, we have invested much to develop criteria and indicators (c&i)
of sustainability through research, certification, performance audits, and sustainable forest management
planning. However, we realize today there is a great need to make these efforts more efficient. One answer is to develop common indicator sets that can be measured and reported at appropriate levels—and
for a common purpose.
What exactly are criteria and indicators? Sets of values (called criteria) outline the elements of the
forest ecosystems and the related social and economic systems that British Columbians believe should be
maintained, or enhanced, when it comes to sustainable forest management. Indicators measure an aspect
of a criterion and are used to assess the state of the forest, measure progress over time, and inform future
decision making. Together, c&i characterize the essential components of sustainable forest management.
Combined with a monitoring and information gathering and distribution system, they create a decision
framework to assess progress and allow adaptations to achieve desired goals.
Over the past 10 years, much work has been done to develop c&i for sustainable forest management.
However, efforts continue to be somewhat isolated and disparate, resulting in a lack of common ground
and the need for collaboration.
Research institutes, universities, and government research groups are investigating social, economic,
and biophysical criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management at the international, national,
and regional level. In response to, and in support of, international commitments, the Canadian Council
of Forest Ministers (ccfm) recently revised a set of national criteria and indicators for Canada’s forests.
Under the new Forest and Range Practices Act (frpa), the Province of British Columbia is currently
setting objectives for 11 values and is looking for appropriate and meaningful science-based criteria and
indicators for their effectiveness evaluation framework. Under the new frpa legislation, licensees are
defining results and strategies to achieve provincial objectives and seek meaningful local-level indicators.
At the same time, the forest industry is also seeking third-party certification that requires performance
indicators and monitoring frameworks. Finally, the Forest Practices Board retains its role of performing independent audits and reporting on forest practices throughout the province. All parties seek an
effective, efficient, and meaningful mechanism to assess and report on sustainable forest management
performance as well as inform future decisions.
The government of British Columbia, the forest industry, academia, and other key constituents are
committed to collaborating on developing common c&i for measuring and reporting on sustainable
forest management performance in British Columbia. These key constituents agree that a collaborative
approach will improve communication, reduce duplication and redundancy, increase efficiency, and
make more effective use of investment funds.
In April 2004, the Province of British Columbia, through the Forest Practices Board, engaged
Forrex Forest Research Extension Partnership to collaborate with interested key parties and identify
the work needed to complete sets of criteria and indicators for British Columbia’s forests. The goal is
to facilitate collaborative development of scientifically sound, commonly accepted c&i, and to increase
awareness of the need for working models with generally acceptable methods of measurement and practical application.
iv
Initial funders for the initiative included:
• British Columbia’s Forest Practices Board; B.C. Ministry of Forests; B.C. Ministry of Sustainable
Resource Management; and the B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection1
• Canadian Forest Products Ltd.
• International Forest Products Ltd.
• Riverside Forest Products Ltd.
• Tolko Industries Ltd.
Individuals from the following organizations are providing valuable input into the initiative:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
B.C. Ministries of Forests; Sustainable Resource Management; and Water, Land and Air Protection1
Canadian Forest Products Ltd.
Council of Forest Industries (cofi)
Forest Practices Board
Forrex Forest Research Extension Partnership
International Forest Products Ltd.
Simon Fraser University
Sustainable Forest Management Network of Centres of Excellence
Tolko Industries Ltd.
University of British Columbia
Weyerhaeuser Company
We invite others from non-government organizations, First Nations, and communities to participate:
Since April 2004, constituents have been working to execute a comprehensive work plan. The foundation projects, completed in April 2005, focused on three main areas:
1. Determining common scientifically sound, useful, and effective criteria and indicators and monitoring systems for British Columbia’s forests.
2. Assessing existing research, monitoring, modelling, and investment efforts.
3. Defining a framework to link criteria and indicators information to policy, management, and
operational decisions.
The following report is the first in a series of three reports that summarize the results of the 2004
foundation projects. Entitled, Scientific Review and Gap Analysis of Sustainable Forest Management Criteria and Indicators Initiatives, this report focuses on Area One: determining common scientifically sound,
useful, and effective criteria and indicators and monitoring systems for British Columbia’s forests. Authors Dr. Gordon Hickey and Dr. John Innes, as part of the foundation project, “Science Review and Gap
Analysis,” created a matrix of 3000 scientifically reviewed indicators related to British Columbia-relevant
sfm criteria. This indicator matrix was then analyzed and systematically reduced by researchers in the
Sustainable Forest Management Laboratory at the University of British Columbia (ubc). Feedback
from government and industry representatives on the resulting list of indicators was heard at a c&i
workshop held in Vancouver, British Columbia.
In the longer term, as a result of work completed in the three work plan areas, we hope to create a
project called, “Common Ground for Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forests in British Columbia.”
1
Participants names reflect government structure prior to June 2005. New names are, respectively, the B.C. Ministry of Forests
and Range, the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, and the B.C. Ministry of the Environment.
v
This project will mean that:
• efficient, effective, scientifically sound criteria and indicators at appropriate scales will be used by
industry and agencies in planning, policy, implementation, monitoring effectiveness, and adjusting
forest policy and practices;
• investments in criteria and indicator research monitoring and modelling will be streamlined, increasing efficient spending and use of expert capital while reducing gaps and duplication of effort;
and
• resource management, policy, and auditing practitioners will understand and can use the criteria,
indicators, monitoring, and modelling tools to assist them in their work.
vi
CONTENTS
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Introduction
...................................................................................................................................
1
Sustainable Forest Management in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sustainable Forest Management in British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
2
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Sources of Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Sustainable Forest Management (sfm) Questions for the Province of British Columbia . . . 9
Potential indicators for the Province of British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers ccfm Criterion 1: Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . .
Ecosystem Diversity (ccfm Element 1.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Species Diversity (ccfm Element 1.2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Genetic Diversity (ccfm Element 1.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
13
14
16
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers ccfm Criterion 2:
Ecosystem Condition and Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers ccfm Criterion 3: Soil and Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers ccfm Criterion 4:
Role in Global Ecological Cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Carbon Cycle (ccfm Element 4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers ccfm Criterion 5:
Economic and Social Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Economic Benefits (ccfm Element 5.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Distribution of Benefits (ccfm Element 5.2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sustainability of Benefits (ccfm Element 5.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers ccfm Criterion 6: Society’s Responsibility . . . .
Provision for Duly Established Aboriginal and Treaty Rights (ccfm Element 6.1) . . . . .
Aboriginal Traditional Land Use and Forest-based Ecological Knowledge
(ccfm Element 6.2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Forest Community Well-being and Resilience (ccfm Element 6.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fair and Effective Decision Making (ccfm Element 6.4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Informed Decision Making (ccfm Element 6.5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Initial Feedback from Breakout Sessions at the British Columbia Criteria
and Indicators Forum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
26
27
27
29
29
30
31
33
35
38
Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Appendix A Canadian Council of Forests Ministers Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
vii
TABLES
1
Sources of indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
2
Revised sfm questions for the Province of British Columbia, Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
FIGURES
1
LRMP regions in British Columbia, Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
Canadian Forest Certification Intentions for csa, sfi, fsc by Province for Year
ended 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Tree diagram illustrating the method of indicator reduction/analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
3
viii
INTRODUCTION
“Criteria and indicators could be a very useful tool to define the
parameters of sustainable forest management, but they have
become a good idea that has lost its way.”
— Duncan Poore, 2003
The concept of sustainability has become pivotal to policy arrangements within the forestry sector in
recent years. The most commonly used definition of sustainable development is taken from “Our Common Future” (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987):
“Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
This definition became the basis for the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (unced), which was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to review international environmental activities within the United Nations. It is now generally recognized that no matter what the literal
definition, sustainable forest management (sfm) includes the environmental, social, and economic
values of a forest and includes consideration of these values for future generations (Hickey 2004). One
of the main issues associated with negotiating a sustainable future is to define sustainability and then
determine progress towards this goal (Hickey and Innes 2005). This is the aim of criteria and indicators
(c&i). Prabhu et al. (2002) defined a “criterion” as “a standard that a thing is judged by” while an “indicator” is “any variable…used to infer performance.”
It has been noted that c&i are predisposed to “top-down” control and present “quick-fix” solutions to complex problems (Bass 2002). A number of authors have criticized the ability of indicators to
deliver sfm (see Prabhu et al. 2002). Bradbury (1996) likened indicators to “voodoo science,” stating
that indicators are unable to deal with complex systems and represent “…a pathological corruption of the
reductionist approach to science” (Prabhu et al. 2002). While inappropriate indicators can certainly lead
to negative effects on the system they allegedly seek to support, it is more accurate to consider a set of
indicators in its entirety—as a system that is pluralist and interdisciplinary; as a “whole” that is greater
than the sum of its parts (Prabhu et al. 2002).
According to Bass (2002), “c&i are integral to forest management systems that are based on precaution, learning, adaptability and resilience—they help us to make the transition between where we are
now and where we want to go.” Furthermore, indicators can be very useful tools for facilitating consensus building around a common conceptualization of sfm (Prabhu et al. 2002). At the 1993 Seminar of
the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe Experts on Sustainable Development of Boreal
and Temperate Forests1, Duncan Poore suggested that sfm required: (1) policies and practices that
ensure a guaranteed and stable area of forest; (2) planning that provides in a balanced way for the many
products and services of forests in places most appropriate for each; (3) the management of each forest area in a sustainable manner for the purpose(s) for which it has been allocated; (4) the avoidance of
any avoidable environmental damage or social distress outside the forest; and (5) a flexible response to
public perceptions of the role of forestry (Poore 1993).
While more than a decade has passed since these initial c&i discussions in Montreal, by 2004 little
cohesive progress had been made in developing an sfm c&i framework for British Columbia, Canada.
This conference was held in Montreal, Canada.
1
1
This has led to multiple overlaps in c&i related to sfm, and fuelled an ongoing debate over indicator
selection that has become an end in itself. As a result, there is a recognized need to define a collaborative
approach to c&i research and monitoring frameworks in British Columbia that will improve communication, reduce duplication, increase efficiency, and make more effective use of investment funds.
Sustainable Forest Management in Canada
Approximately 94% of Canada’s forests are publicly owned, with 71% owned by provincial governments and 23% owned by the federal and territorial governments (Canadian Council of Forest Ministers
1993). In each case, provinces and territories have their own policies, legislation, and regulations related
to forests (Canadian Council of Forest Ministers 1997). Since the World Commission on Environment
and Development (wced) in 1987, the federal and provincial governments in Canada have adopted the
concept of sustainable development in their policy processes. In 1990, the federal government established the “Green Plan” followed by the “National Forest Strategy” in March 1992. In 1996, the Canadian
Council of Forest Ministers (ccfm) developed a set of national c&i, based on the Montreal Process
(see Canadian Council of Forest Ministers 2003). This initiative included stakeholders from the federal,
provincial, and territorial governments, as well as experts from the academic community, industry, nongovernmental organizations, the Aboriginal community, and other interest groups (Canadian Council of
Forest Ministers 1997).
In an international context, Canada is a signatory to the Montreal Process, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (cites), the International Tropical
Timber Agreement (itta), the Framework Convention on Climate Change (fccc), the Convention on
Biological Diversity (cbd), the Convention to Combat Desertification (ccd) and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar). Canada is also a member of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (cpf)
and the G8 Action Programme on Forests. In each case, the statutes of these initiatives are applicable to
British Columbia.
Sustainable Forest Management in British Columbia
In 2003, the Province of British Columbia responded to the international challenge of sfm by developing a new, results-based Forest and Range Practices Act (frpa) that set objectives for 11 “values” that
require appropriate indicators for effectiveness evaluation. This legislation applies to all forestry activities on public land and is supported by a compliance and enforcement regime that involves various
provincial and federal agencies. In addition, the independent Forest Practices Board monitors forestry
activities on behalf of the public. Under frpa, forest companies are held accountable for their on-theground performance, and must prove they took every reasonable measure to achieve the required results.
In this framework, the B.C. Ministry of Forests and the B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection
are responsible for setting sfm standards and ensuring that environmental values are protected. Assessing the effectiveness of frpa in achieving sfm in British Columbia is done through the FRPA Resource
Evaluation Program (frep). The specific objectives of the frep include: (1) evaluating the status
and/or trends of resource and ecosystem values and determining causal factors; (2) determining whether
resource values are being managed in a sustainable manner; and (3) recommending options for changes
to forest and range policies, practices, and legislation where required (B.C. Ministry of Forests 2005).
British Columbia’s unilateral approach to achieving sfm contrasts with the approaches taken by
other provincial governments in Canada. For example, the Forest Act of Quebec now contains the ccfm
criteria and 60 associated indicators; Ontario relies on the ccfm criteria and a suite of associated indicators for provincial level “state of the forest” reporting and monitoring; Newfoundland and Labrador
make reference to ccfm c&i in its legislation; and Saskatchewan is using Montreal Process indicators
for forest health reporting (Government of Canada 2000).
2
At the sub-regional level, British Columbia has adopted a public planning process termed “Land and
Resource Management Planning” (lrmp) (see Figure 1) to ensure resource sustainability and integrated resource management (Province of British Columbia 1993). Where completed, lrmps rely on the
monitoring of indicators to ensure that land use and resource management objectives are being met.
���������������������������������������������
�
�
���������������������
�����������������������������
��������
����������������������������
��������������
���������������
��������������������
������������������������� ������������������
� ������������������� �����
� ����������������� �
�������������������������������������������������������
�����������������������������������
�����������������������������
�
���������������������������������
���������������� �
�
�
���
���
���
���
FIGURE 1 LRMP regions in British Columbia, Canada. © Province of British Columbia. All rights reserved.
Reprinted with permission of the Province of British Columbia. URL: www.ipp.gov.bc.ca
At the local level, British Columbia’s forest industries require sfm indicators to achieve third-party
certification. In the case of the Canadian Standards Association’s (csa) Z809-02 sfm standard (the
most widely applied performance-based certification scheme in British Columbia; see Figure 2), each
company is required to develop sfm indicators within the ccfm criteria framework. Other third-party
forest certification schemes that propose indicators related to sfm in British Columbia include the Forest Stewardship Council (fsc) and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (sfi).
3
��
����
����������������
��
��
����
FSC
��
��
���
���
���
���
���
���
�
SFI
����
����
CSA
���
���
���
���
���
���
���
���
���
���
�
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
FIGURE 2 Canadian Forest Certification Intentions for CSA, SFI, FSC by Province for Year ended 2006.
Source: Coalition Certification Intentions Survey (Key Findings Visual in BULLETIN by Abusow), Dec. 2002.
Reproduced with permission. For statistics on current certification status, see www.CertificationCanada.org
These varied attempts to promote sfm have resulted in a “new medievalism”2 in British Columbia,
whereby governance functions are located at multiple, overlapping sites and involve stakeholders at a
range of scales (Kobrin 1998; Haufler 2003). This paper presents the results of a comprehensive scientific
review and gap analysis of criteria and indicators related to sfm in British Columbia. The purpose of
this research was to identify “common ground” between the various sfm indicators lists that have been
generated through process-based initiatives.
METHODOLOGY
Over 70 criteria and indicators (c&i) initiatives from British Columbia and around the world (See
“Results”) were analyzed using the constant comparison method (Glaser and Strauss 1967) to produce
a matrix of over 3000 potential indicators. The constant comparative method involved inductive analysis techniques such as searching for patterns, themes, and categories in the data rather than imposing
expectations before the analysis began (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Babbie 2001). Following the direction
of the project Steering Group, the indicators were coded according to the six criteria agreed to by the
Canadian Council of Forests Ministers (ccfm) (see Figure 3).
This term describes a situation where different “authorities” make decisions simultaneously without clearly defining the management conditions (Hickey and Innes 2005).
2
4
���������
�������������������������
��������������������������
���������������������
������������������
��������������
���������������
�
�
�
�����
��������
4
�
���������
�����������������
�
FIGURE 3 Tree diagram illustrating the method of indicator reduction/analysis.
For each of the ccfm criteria, a range of British Columbia-relevant Sustainable Forest Management
(sfm) questions were then proposed. When designing these questions, we considered the following
issues:
• What information is being sought with a particular ccfm criterion and its associated indicators?
• Is this information necessary for the practice of sfm in British Columbia?
• Is there anything else related to the criterion (or other criteria) that we need to ask?
The indicator matrix was then analyzed and systematically reduced by researchers in the Sustainable
Forest Management Laboratory at the University of British Columbia (ubc). The reduction process was
conducted using a number of guiding principles:
•
•
•
•
Is the indicator relevant to forestry in British Columbia?
Does the indicator help to answer the question?
Can the indicator be widely applied in British Columbia?
Is the indicator meaningful? Is there a clear link to forest management practices?
5
• Is the indicator scientifically sound? Is it objective?
The subsequent sfm indicator report was structured as follows:
CCFM Criterion
sfm Question
ccfm Indicator(s)
Other potential indicators(including reference numbers as assigned in Table 1)
•
Potential sub-indicators(including reference numbers as assigned in Table 1)
Potential information requirements(including reference numbers as assigned in Table 1)
*Denotes indicators that are repeated in framework; i.e., used more than once.
The resulting lists of indicators were then presented to government and industry representatives
at a Criteria and Indicators Forum held in Vancouver, B.C in February 2005. This forum focused on
monitoring and information reporting for sfm in British Columbia, particularly in terms of design,
implementation, information systems, and research needs. All feedback was considered in the preparation of our research findings.
The purpose of our research was to identify “common ground” between the various sfm indicators
lists that have been generated through process-based initiatives. The results, therefore, should be viewed
as a comprehensive literature review rather than another sfm indicator initiative per se.
6
SOURCES OF INDICATORS3
Indicators from the following documents were systematically analyzed and coded into a comparative
matrix. The numbers associated with each document can be used to identify the source of each potential
indicator presented in the section entitled, “Potential Indicators for the Province of British Columbia:
They can also be used to highlight the degree of “common ground” between the standards on certain
indicators.
TABLE 1 Sources of indicators
No.
Documents1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
ccfm (2003) criteria and indicators (Canada)
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
Government of British Columbia (2004) indicators and measures (British Columbia)
Montreal (1995) criteria and indicators (International)
Helsinki (1993) criteria and indicators (Europe)
International Tropical Timber Organization (itto) (1992) criteria and indicators (Asia)
Tarapoto Proposal, Amazon Forest (1995) c&i (South America)
Lepaterique (2997) criteria and indicators (Central America)
Asia Initiative: Bhopal, (1999) criteria and indicators (Asia)
usda Forest Service lucid indicators (USA)
Georgia Basin Indicators (2001) (British Columbia)
cifor (1998) indicators (Asia)
Global Reporting Initiative (2002) indicators (Global)
Commonwealth of Australia (1998) indicators (Oceania)
Environment Canada (2004) Pacific and Yukon Region indicators (Canada)
The Sustainability Initiative (1998) indicators
Global Forest Watch Canada (2000) indicators (Global)
Forest and Range Practices Act (frpa) Biological Indicators (General) (2004) (British
Columbia)
frpa Riparian Indicators (2004) (British Columbia)
frpa Riparian function (2004) (British Columbia)
frpa Soil (2004) (British Columbia)
Okanagan–Shuswap Land and Resource Management Plan (lrmp) (British Columbia)
Vancouver Island lrmp (British Columbia)
Fort Nelson lrmp (British Columbia)
Prince George lrmp (British Columbia)
Kamloops lrmp (British Columbia)
Mackenzie lrmp (British Columbia)
Kalum lrmp Monitoring Report 2004 (British Columbia)
Southern Rocky Mountains lrmp (British Columbia)
Lammerts van Bueren and Blom (1997) c&i for sfm (International)
Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Rangelands (2003) (usa)
Poschen (2000) Social c&i of sfm (International)
H. John Heinz (2002) State of the Nations Ecosystems (usa)
BC Environmental Trends (2002) indicators (British Columbia)
Environmental Protection Indicators for California (usa)
Oregon Monitoring Strategy 2002 (usa)
Ontario State of the Forest Report (2001) indicators (Canada)
Refer to the References for complete document information.
3
7
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
1
8
Nordic State of the Environment Report indicators (Europe)
Weldwood of Canada, Quesnel (tfl 5) (2004) sfm Plan (British Columbia)
Weyerhaeuser, West Island (2002) sfm Plan (British Columbia)
Western Forest Products (tfl 6) sfm Plan (British Columbia)
Canfor, Peace Region, Quesnel (tfl 48) (2001) sfm Plan (British Columbia)
Wells and Haag (Arrow tsa) (2003) biological diversity indicators (British Columbia)
Riverside tfl 49 Ecological Stewardship Plan (British Columbia)
Morice Lakes IFPA (Lakes tsa) Complete Indicator List (British Columbia)
Kamloops TSA sfm Plan 2001 (British Columbia)
Sustainable Forestry Initiative (2003) indicators (usa)
Forest Stewardship Council (fsc) BC (2003) indicators (Canada)
fsc Boreal (2004) indicators (Canada)
fsc Great Lakes (2001) indicators (Canada)
fsc Pacific Coast (2003) indicators (usa)
fsc Rocky Mountains (2001) indicators (usa)
fsc uk (1996) indicators (Europe)
MacKendrick and Parkins (2004) (cfs) social indicators (British Columbia)
Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (pefc) Germany (1999) indicators (Europe)
Certfor Chile (2004) indicators (South America)
Swiss ‘Q’ (2000) indicators (Europe)
fsc Finland indicators (Europe)
Australian Forestry Standard (2003) indicators (Oceania)
Natural Resources Canada Local Level Indicators (2000) (Canada)
Indonesia, LEI certification standard indicators (Asia)
Fraser River Basin (2001) Indicators (British Columbia)
Fraser River Basin (2004) Alternative Indicators (British Columbia)
Beaudry (2004) scqi–Canfor Water Quality Indicator (British Columbia)
Monitoring biological diversity–Bunnell (2003) (British Columbia)
Kremsater et al. (2003) Biological indicators (British Columbia)
Hemstrom et al. (1998) usda, Late succession/old growth indicators (usa)
Lint et al. (1999) usda, Northern Spotted Owl indicators (usa)
Kershner et al. (2004) usda Riparian and aquatic indicators (usa)
pnw Salmon Habitat Indicators (1999) (usa)
USDA NRCS Ecosystem Indicators Report (usa)
Criteria and indicators of sustainable hunting (Europe)
c&i of Joint Forest Management (preliminary) unbc (British Columbia)
The bibliographic details of these criteria and indicators documents have been entered into the Natural Resources Information Network
(nrin) www.forrex.org/nrin In most cases, these references include a link to the full text. To search, use the “Advanced Search” option in
nrin, type in key words, and choose the “Sustainable Forest Management Criteria and Indicators Initiative” catalogue.
RESULTS
Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) Questions for the Province of British Columbia
Based on the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (ccfm) indicators, 47 sfm questions were developed to guide the selection of potential indicators for British Columbia (Table 2). These questions
provide important context for the resulting indicator lists and have been designed to be asked at a provincial level. The aim of these questions is to provide a snapshot in time. Based on feedback received at
the c&i Forum, “To what extent …” was preferred over “yes/no” style questions.
TABLE 2 Revised SFM questions for the Province of British Columbia, Canada
ccfm criterion 1: biological diversity
“The variability among living organisms and the ecosystems of which they are part”a
Ecosystem diversity (ccfm Element 1.1)
1.
To what extent is British Columbia maintaining the amounts and proportions of different ecosystems,
particularly in terms of forest habitat quantity and diversity?
2.
To what extent is British Columbia securing adequate reserves of representative ecosystems?
Species diversity (ccfm Element 1.2)
3.
To what extent are forest-associated species becoming at risk of extinction?
4.
To what extent are species of ecological, economic, or cultural importance declining?
5.
To what extent has the current range of species in British Columbia been negatively impacted by forestry?
6.
To what extent are invasive, exotic species placing native ecosystems and/or species at risk of extinction?
Genetic diversity (ccfm Element 1.3)
7.
To what extent are British Columbia’s forests being replanted (or regenerated) with forests of lower
genetic diversity?
8.
To what extent are British Columbia’s forest agencies conserving locally or regionally adapted populations
of commercial tree species?
9.
To what extent is genetic variability being maintained to ensure forest resilience to stress (e.g., climate)?
ccfm criterion 2: ecosystem condition and productivity
“The health, vitality and rates of biological production in forest ecosystems”a
a
10.
To what extent is the harvesting of timber forest products in British Columbia sustainable?
11.
To what extent is the harvesting of non-timber forest products in British Columbia sustainable?
12.
To what extent are British Columbia’s forested areas being converted to, or recovered from, long-term
forms of disturbance?
13.
To what extent are humans influencing the processes that naturally disturb British Columbia’s forests?
14.
To what extent are forest areas disturbed by timber harvesting being regenerated to maintain ecosystem
productivity and ensure a sustainable flow of wood products?
15.
To what extent is the spatial arrangement of forest being maintained to allow for the functioning of
ecological processes?
(Canadian Council of Forest Ministers 2003)
9
TABLE 2 Continued
ccfm criterion 3: soil and water
“The quantity and quality of soil and water”a
16.
To what extent is forestry affecting soil nutrients, organic matter, or the physical properties (including
stability) of the soil?
17.
To what extent is forestry having an impact on aquatic populations, plants and animals, and the human
populations that depend on aquatic systems for survival?
18.
To what extent is forestry having an impact on the water yield, timing, and peak flows in rivers and
streams?
19.
To what extent is forestry having an impact on water quality?
ccfm criterion 4: role in global ecological cycles
“The impact of the forest and forest activities on global ecosystem functions”a
Carbon cycle (ccfm Element 4.1)
20.
To what extent are British Columbia’s forests a sink for, or a source of, atmospheric carbon?
21.
To what extent are British Columbia’s forest ecosystems having an impact on climate change?
22.
To what extent is the amount of carbon transferred from forest biomass to forest products greater than
that transferred from forest biomass to soils and the atmosphere?
23.
To what extent is British Columbia’s forest products sector contributing carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere?
ccfm criterion 5: economic and social benefits
“Sustaining the flow of benefits from forests for current and future generations”a
Economic benefits (ccfm Element 5.1)
24.
What is the importance of British Columbia’s forests to the provincial economy, taking into consideration
the following:
• Primary and secondary manufacturing
• Livelihoods
• Profits to businesses
• Government revenues
• Profits to landowners
• Non-timber forest products
• Environmental services
• Non-market economic values
Distribution of benefits (ccfm Element 5.2)
25.
How are the economic benefits derived from the above economic activities distributed in British
Columbia?
Sustainability of benefits (ccfm Element 5.3)
a
26.
How competitive is British Columbia in marketing its forest products?
27.
How does employment in British Columbia’s forest sector contribute to the socio-economic well-being of
individuals and communities?
(Canadian Council of Forest Ministers 2003)
10
TABLE 2 Concluded
28.
What is the level of science investment directed toward managing British Columbia’s forests for the
provision of the following:
• Domestic water
• Recreation and Tourism
• Cultural, social, and spiritual values
29.
What is the quality of forestry-related employment?
ccfm criterion 6: society’s responsibility
“Fair, equitable and effective resource management choices”a
Provision for duly established Aboriginal and treaty rights (ccfm Element 6.1)
30.
To what extent are Aboriginal peoples involved in the development of policies, legislation, and
agreements related to forest management in British Columbia?
31.
To what extent does forest management in British Columbia consider and meet all legal obligations with
respect to duly established Aboriginal and treaty rights?
32.
To what extent do Aboriginal peoples have sole decision-making control (or veto) over forest resources in
British Columbia?
Aboriginal traditional land use and forest-based ecological knowledge (ccfm Element 6.2)
33.
To what extent does forest management planning in British Columbia incorporate Aboriginal knowledge
with respect to forest/land use?
34.
To what extent are Aboriginal people in British Columbia compensated through income for the use of
their knowledge?
35.
To what extent are Aboriginal people compensated for forest products removed from their traditional
territories?
Forest community well-being and resilience (ccfm Element 6.3)
36.
To what extent are British Columbia’s forest-dependent communities resilient enough to withstand
shocks or economic cycles within specific sectors?
37.
To what extent are people in forest-based communities able to compete in the local community?
38.
To what extent are people in forest-based communities participating in the workforce?
39.
What is the poverty rate in British Columbia’s forest-based communities?
Fair and effective decision making (ccfm Element 6.4)
40.
To what extent does British Columbia’s legal, institutional, and economic framework for forestry enable
conservation and sustainable forest management?
41.
To what extent does the forest planning in British Columbia incorporate the views of the public?
42.
To what extent are British Columbia’s forest managers committed to sustainable forest management?
Informed decision making (ccfm Element 6.5)
a
43.
To what extent does British Columbia have the capacity to measure and monitor changes in its forest
resources?
44.
What is the extent and availability of British Columbia’s forest inventory data?
45.
What is the level of engagement by government and industry in forest research, timber products research
and development, education, and application?
46.
To what extent is the best available science and expertise being used in decision making?
47.
To what extent is there a functioning process that allows the public to seek redress over forest-related
issues?
(Canadian Council of Forest Ministers 2003)
11
Potential Indicators for the Province of British Columbia
The following criteria and indicators (c&i) should be viewed as providing information on trends or
changes in the status of forests and related values over time (Canadian Council of Forest Ministers
1995). It is recognized that no single criterion or indicator is an indication of sustainability; therefore,
each must be considered in the context of other c&i (Canadian Council of Forest Ministers 1998). According to Prabhu et al. (2002), the utility of indicators is contingent on the following three conditions:
1. The indicators selected should be relevant to the assessment or monitoring goal.
2. The entire set of indicators must be sufficient to deliver meaningful information that reveals trends
in the underlying ecological and social systems while remaining useful for policy/management
responses.
3. The non-linear and compensatory effects among indicators should be adequately understood.
The following framework is based on the six broad Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (ccfm)
criteria, designed to reflect the ecological, economic, and social components of sustainable forest management. For each sfm question, a number of potential indicators are presented. Our research did not
identify measurable targets that could be used to monitor the long-term performance for each indicator.
For this to be done, further stakeholder input and case study analysis will be required to provide meaningful benchmarks. This has been identified as a research need in British Columbia.
Results of the indicator evaluation process at the British Columbia Criteria and Indicators Forum
Overall, participants felt that the forum was a worthwhile initiative; however, they also felt much more
time was needed to develop a meaningful set of indicators. Nevertheless, participants rated all indicators
(“+” agree, “0” don’t know, “–” disagree) based on the following evaluation criteria:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
relevance
ability to answer the question
applicability
link to forest management
cost effectiveness
usefulness for informing decision making
Based on this analysis, a number of indicators received a (total) negative score. These indicators have
been identified using a shaded box as shown below:
1. Indicator
It was, however, noted that the steering committee should consider the evaluation scoring as a very
coarse measure of how well each indicator addressed the sfm questions. This was because many participants felt that they were not consistent in how they applied the evaluation criteria.
12
CANADIAN COUNCIL OF FOREST MINISTERS (CCFM) CRITERION 1:
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY4
“The variability among living organisms and the ecosystems of which they are part”
— Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, 2003
Ecosystem Diversity (CCFM Element 1.1)
To what extent is British Columbia maintaining the amounts and proportions of
different ecosystems, particularly in terms of forest habitat quantity and diversity?
ccfm Indicator:
1.1.1 Area of forest, by type and age class, in each ecozone1,3,4,8,9,13,16,23,25,28,32,36,41,42,44,51,54,58,59,61,65,66,67
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Percentage of tree species by age class, by site quality, by Landscape Unit (lu) by
Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (bec) zone44
2. *Connectivity between areas with similar habitat types (tree species, age class, etc.)
9, 16,17,21,22,23,24,26,28,36,41,44,45,47,48,49,51,59,65,67,70
•
*Connectivity/fragmentation indices44
3. Habitat supply for indicator species9,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,36,38,41,42,44,45,59,62,64,65,67,70
4. Structural stage distribution by bec by site series over time44
• Seral stage distribution by lu by bec by licensee44
• *Area of old growth by bec zone2,22,28,36,39,42,44,45,50,59,66
5. Percentage of non-forest communities area (e.g., wetlands, All Terrain Vehicle tracks, NonProductive Brush) by lu by licensee44
6. Area of forest community types with significantly reduced area32
To what extent is British Columbia securing adequate reserves of representative
ecosystems?
ccfm Indicator:
1.1.2 Area of forest, by type and age class, soil types, and geomorphological feature types in
protected areas1,3,8,9,10,13,25,27,36,41,44,45,54,59,62
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Area of forest by type, age class, and bec zone in protected areas
2. Range of sizes and average size of protected areas for each forest type5
3. Percentage of protected areas connected by biological corridors5
4. Outstanding or unique biological, zoological, geological, and paleontological features in
protected areas24
4
This criterion relates to the frpa Forest and Environmental Values: “Biodiversity,” “Fish,” “Forage and Associated Plant
Communities,” “Resource Features,” and “Wildlife.”
13
5. Total forest cover in relation to area of forest outside of protected areas7
6. Area of forest under management in relation to area of forest in protected areas7
Species Diversity (CCFM Element 1.2)
To what extent are forest-associated species becoming at risk of extinction?
ccfm Indicator:
1.2.1 The status of forest-associated species at risk1,3,9,10,13,16,21,22,23,24,26,32,34,36,41,42,59,60,61,67,70
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Change in the status of threatened and vulnerable species or indicator species25
2. Number of forest-dependent species classified as vulnerable, threatened, or endangered
within the Forest Management Area (fma)5,7,8,10,21,22,23,24,26,33,34,40,41,42,59,61,70
3. Number, type, and severity of threats to species at risk (cumulative risk index)10
4. Percentage of original range occupied by selected rare, threatened, or endangered species5
5. Areas of high, medium, and low habitat by species over time44
Area (ha) of forage cover44
Area (ha) of security cover44
Area (ha) of snow interception cover44
Area (ha) of thermal cover44
Percentage of denning habitat over time44
Percentage of feeding habitat over time44
Percentage of area breeding habitat44
6. *Habitat supply for indicator species9,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,36,38,41,42,44,45,59,62,64,65,67,70
7. *Connectivity between areas with similar habitat types (tree species, age class, etc.)9, 16,17,21,22,
23,24,26,28,36,41,44,45,47,48,49,51,59,65,67,70
•
*Connectivity/fragmentation indices44
To what extent are species of ecological, economic, or cultural importance declining?
ccfm Indicator:
1.2.2 Population levels of selected forest-associated species1,3,7,9,14,22,23,25,26,28,33,36,40,42,43,44,59,61,65,67,70
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Population growth rates9,67
2. *Percentage of original range occupied by selected rare, threatened, or endangered species5
3. Changes in the number and percentage of threatened species in relation to total number of
forest species4
4. Change in relative abundance21
5. Rate of change in community species assemblages over time9
6. Populations of critical species25
14
To what extent has the current range of species in British Columbia been negatively
impacted by forestry?
ccfm Indicator:
1.2.3 Distribution of selected forest-associated species1,10,21,27,35,42,59,64,65
Other Potential Indicators:
1. *Connectivity between areas with similar habitat types
(tree species, age class, etc.)9,16,17,21,22,23,24,26,28,36,41,44,45,47,48,49,51,59,65,67,70
•
•
•
*Connectivity/fragmentation indices44
*Area (ha) treated by ben strong link44
Area without roads by key habitat type over time44
2. Number of forest-dependent species that occupy a small portion of their former range
3,11,13,23,26,59,67
3. Percentage of area of mature forest within lu and biogeoclimatic variants28
4. Area of forest permanently converted to non-forest land use5,6,8,9,14,16,36,44,59,69
5. *Area of old growth by bec zone2,22,28,36,39,42,44,45,50,59,66
•
•
•
•
Area (ha) Old Growth Management Areas (ogmas) by site series44
Interior core area of stands, after sharp edges are buffered48,49,66
Forest interior conditions22
Areas recruited for future old growth21,22,28,48
6. Distribution of selected habitat elements in Timber Harvesting Land Base (thlb) by lu
by bec by licensee over time44
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Percentage of stems in large live tree diameter class44
Percentage of area retained in Wildlife Tree Patches44
Dead and dying trees: volume (m3/ha) of dead potential44
Snags per hectare44
Area (ha) of interior forest44
Interior to edge ratio44
Volume (m3/ha) Coarse Woody Debris by size class by site series44
*Connectivity/fragmentation indices44
Riparian connectivity corridors23
Percentage of harvested cutblocks more than 5 ha that have wildlife trees or tree patches
in operational plans25
To what extent are invasive, exotic species placing native ecosystems and/or species at
risk of extinction?
ccfm Indicator:
1.2.4 Number of invasive, exotic forest-associated species1,9,10,15,21,36,44,59,65,70
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Location and dispersal of introduced species10,44
2. Degree of disturbance to native species caused by invasive species26,56,57,71
15
3. Percentage of noxious and uncontrolled weeds in grass seed mixtures applied5,21,26,30,38
4. Percentage of introduced species in thlb by lu44
Genetic Diversity (CCFM Element 1.3)
To what extent are British Columbia’s forests being replanted (or regenerated) with
forests of lower genetic diversity?
ccfm Indicator:
1.3.1 Genetic diversity of reforestation seedlots1,36,59,70
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Size of parent population having produced regeneration59
2. Change in the amount of certified seed-producing stands54
3. *Area of natural and man-made forests4,8,36,56,59
To what extent are British Columbia’s forest agencies conserving locally or regionally
adapted populations of commercial tree species?
ccfm Indicator:
1.3.2 Number of in situ and ex situ conservation efforts for commercial and endangered tree species
within each ecozone1,5,6,7,59
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Changes in genetic diversity of species undergoing selective pressures9,59
2. Change in the amount of gene protection forests54
3. *Area of natural and man-made forests4,8,36,56,59
To what extent is genetic variability being maintained to ensure forest resilience to stress
(e.g., climate)?
Potential Indicators:
1. Amount of genetic variation within and between populations of representative forestdwelling species13
2. Changes in population, genetic diversity and structure, and gene flow for selected species
9,14,23,33,59
3. *Number of forest-dependent species classified as vulnerable, threatened, or endangered
5,7,8,10,21,22,23,24,26,33,34,40,41,42,59,61,70
4. Status of sensitive ecosystems with reduced ranges14
•
•
•
16
Garry oak ecosystem14
Wetlands of the Fraser Lowland14
Wetlands, old forests, grasslands, and riparian ecosystems in the Okanagan Basin14
•
Wetland/riparian, grassland/shrub-steppe, coniferous forest, and rugged terrain types in
the South Okanagan14
5. *Percentage of original range occupied by selected rare, threatened, endangered, or indicator species5
6. Population levels of selected forest-associated species1,3,7,9,14,22,23,25,26,28,33,36,40,42,43,44,59,61,65,67,70
17
CANADIAN COUNCIL OF FOREST MINISTERS (CCFM) CRITERION 2:
ECOSYSTEM CONDITION AND PRODUCTIVITY5
“The health, vitality and rates of biological production in forest ecosystems”
— Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, 2003
To what extent is the harvesting of timber forest products in British Columbia
sustainable?
ccfm Indicator:
2.1
Total growing stock of both merchantable and non-merchantable tree species on forest land1,3,4,9,
13,25,32,36,37,43,44,59
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Percentage of and extent of cover types and maturity classes5,9,56,59
•
•
•
•
•
Timber Harvesting Land Base (thlb) area over time (hectares and percentage of gross
and productive)44
Area (ha) of land managed intensively25,44
Area classified Non-Commercial Brush44
Area in problem forest (ha) by type44
Percentage of reduction due to permanent access feature43
2. *Mean Annual Increment (mai) by forest type and age class23,36,50,54,59
•
•
•
•
•
mai by Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (bec) by licensee44
Area leading tree species and site quality over time44
Weighted average basal area by Analysis Unit (au) by Landscape Unit (lu) over time44
Weighted average mai by au by lu over time44
Rate of change in total biomass44
3. Species distribution of growing stock (thlb and non-contributing areas) by Natural Disturbance Type (ndt) and by period 44
To what extent is the harvesting of non-timber forest products in British Columbia
sustainable?
ccfm Indicator:
5.3.2 Annual harvests of non-timber forest products relative to the levels of harvests deemed to be
sustainable1,6,7,11,13,21,44,55,60
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Carrying capacity of the system for economically important species59
2. *Loss of the thlb to roads, seismic lines, well sites, and other developments23,44
3. Wild salmon and fish populations21,25,42
5
This criterion relates to the following frpa Forest and Environmental Values: “Fish,” “Forage and Associated Plant Communities,” “Resource Features,” “Timber,” and “Wildlife.”
18
•
•
Change in numbers of fish by life stage, by species
Habitat quality
To what extent are British Columbia’s forested areas being converted to, or recovered
from, long-term forms of disturbance?
ccfm Indicator:
2.2
Additions and deletions of forest area, by cause1,5,38,41,44,49,68,69
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Strictly protected forest reserves4
2. Forests protected by special management regime4
3. *Loss of the thlb to roads, seismic lines, well sites, and other developments including
agriculture23,44
4. Area (ha) removed due to inoperability44
5. Area (ha) reclassified44
To what extent are humans influencing the processes that naturally disturb British
Columbia’s forests?
ccfm Indicator:
2.3
Area of forest disturbed by fire, insects, pests, disease, and timber harvest1,3,4,5,6,7,13,16,21,22,23,24,27,32,34,
36,38,40,41,44,54,58,59,66,70
2.4
Area of forest with impaired function due to drought, ozone, and acid rain1,2,6,13,21,22,23,24,36
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Area and type of natural disturbances
• Area and severity of insect infestations2,4,21,27,38,59
• Extent of forest area under noxious weeds, pests, and diseases of epidemic proportions 8
• Extreme weather and storm damage4,5,8,9,36,54
• Forest fire number, area, frequency, and shape4,8,9 (and history?48,57)
2. Area and type of human-induced disturbance5,16,23,46,58,59,60
•
•
•
•
•
•
Percentage of harvest, by harvest system and by silvicultural system method44
Frequency distribution of clearcut sizes36
Area of operationally induced windthrow9,39,59
Area of slides originating in harvested areas or roads39,68
Game and grazing damage4,5,8,44,54,55,71
Area of operationally caused fire damage39,48,55
3. Human actions that could modify natural disturbance
• Conditions of residual forest60
• Regeneration and change in the composition and structure of ecosystems7
• Ratio of area reforested to area harvested or lost to fire and pests2
• Fire detection and suppression success4,8,9,13,58,59,68
• Percentage of harvest, by harvest system and by silviculture system by licensee44
19
•
•
•
Percentage of total harvest (m3) comprised of salvage44
Percentage of forested land over time and hectares harvested to mitigate forest health
concerns44
Percentage of harvest occurring in high beetle risk stands44
To what extent are forest areas which have been disturbed by timber harvesting being
regenerated to maintain ecosystem productivity and ensure a sustainable flow of wood
products?
Indicator:
2.5
Proportion of timber harvest area successfully regenerated1,2,6,13,21,22,23,24,36,40,41,43,44,46,50,54,58,59
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Area out of compliance with free-to-grow objectives17,18,19,31,34,35,58
2. Means of regeneration and desired species composition45,52
• Genetically improved stock of ecologically suitable species including non-native 22,44
3. Forest health21,27,40,41,58,59,70
• Areas (ha) identified with epidemic levels of forest health agents such as bark beetles,
budworm, etc.21,27,38,59
4. Silviculture
• Areas (ha) treated by treatment type by licensee44 including commercial thinning,44
fertilization,54 and pesticides44,48,52,54,57
To what extent is the spatial arrangement of forest being maintained to allow for the
functioning of ecological processes?
Potential Indicators:
1. Landscape patterns11
2. *Connectivity between areas with similar habitat types (tree species, age class, etc.)9, 16,17,21,22,2
3,24,26,28,36,41,44,45,47,48,49,51,59,65,67,70
•
•
•
*Connectivity/fragmentation indices44
*Area (ha) treated by ben strong link44
*Area without roads by key habitat type over time44
3. Species distribution of growing stock (thlb and non-contributing areas) by ndt44
4. Percentage of area declared as mixed-species regeneration40
5. *Area of natural and man-made forests4,8,36,56,59
20
CANADIAN COUNCIL OF FOREST MINISTERS (CCFM) CRITERION 3:
SOIL AND WATER6
“The quantity and quality of soil and water.
— Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, 2003
To what extent is forestry affecting soil nutrients, organic matter, or the physical
properties (including stability) of the soil?
ccfm Indicator:
3.1
Rate of compliance with locally applicable soil disturbance standards1,21,22,23,24,25,36,39,45,50,52,57,58,59
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Changes in soil fertility, structure, and function in harvested areas5,23,50,51,55
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Decomposition rates59
Soil nutrient levels9
Sensitive soils5,21,22,59,70
Terrain class21,22,27
Ectomycorrhizal fungi21
Number of landslides (no./km2)28
Inoperable areas22
2. Amount (km) of road where protective road measures are carried out to minimize soil
erosion38
3. Percentage of annual harvest area with soil loss due to establishment of permanent access
roads2
4. Area and percentage of rangeland with significant change in extent of bare ground30
5. Area and percentage of forest land with significant soil erosion due to forestry3,6,7,8,11,13,26,30,32,
41,59,70
•
•
•
•
Sheet and rill erosion70
Wind erosion30,70
Classic gully erosion70
Streambank erosion18,70
6. Area and percentage of forest land with significantly diminished soil organic matter and/or
changes in other soil chemical properties3,6,9,13,32,41,59,70
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Change of soil acidification9,54,70
Degree of Cation Exchange Capacity (cec), i.e., saturation54,70
Soil micro/macro fauna70
Organic matter content (time trend)15,70
Permeability rate70
Shrink-swell potential70
On-site damage60,70
Stability30
6
This criterion relates to the following frpa Forest and Environmental Values: “Fish,” “Resource Features,” “Soils,” “Timber,”
and “Water.”
21
To what extent is forestry having an impact on aquatic populations, plants, and animals,
and the human populations that depend on aquatic systems for survival?
ccfm Indicator:
3.2
Rate of compliance with locally applicable road construction, stream crossing, and riparian zone
management standards1,5,21,22,23,24,26,35,36,45,47,49,54,59,63,68
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Change in watershed characteristics over time28
• *Peak flow index (includes Equivalent Clearcut Area [eca] calculation)28
• Road density for entire sub-basin (km/km2)28
• Number of stream crossings (no./km2)28,44
• Stream Crossing Quality Index63,69
Size of the sediment source18,63
Soil texture of the source63
Slope gradient of the source63
Age of the source63
Level of road use9,63
• Number of landslides (no./km2)28
• Roads on unstable slopes (km/km2)28
2. Disruption of aquatic habitat18,50,51
• Coarse woody debris in stream channel9,18,21,43,68,69
• Sedimentation of fish habitat19
• Trampling, rubbing, or browsing19
• Failed culvert by culvert type by licensee36,50,51,68
• Condition of canopy in riparian18
3. Channel form within treatment area versus channel for upstream18
• Sinuosity19
• Width/depth ratio19
• Gradient19
• Pool/riffle ratio19
4. Channel stability19
• Condition of adjacent vegetation (i.e., root structure)19
• S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6 stream riparian reserve zone widths18,21,28,42
• Windthrow in riparian18
• Condition of soil in riparian areas18,19
Exposed soil19
Compaction19
Bank shearing19
Rills, gullies, or evidence of excessive soil movement19
5. Percentage of water bodies in forest areas (e.g., stream km, lake ha) with significant variance
of biological diversity from the historic range of variability3,10,13,59
• Distribution and abundance of aquatic fauna9,10,11,30,59,70
• Type and level of algal growth10
• Trophic state70
• Fish community assemblage27,35,70
• Macroinvertebrate assemblage18,19,34,70
22
To what extent is forestry having an impact on the water yield, timing, and peak flows in
rivers and streams?
ccfm Indicator:
3.3
Proportion of watersheds with substantial stand-replacing disturbance in the last 20 years
1,36,43,59
Other Potential Indicators:
1. *Peak flow index (includes eca calculation)28
2. Percentage of stream kilometres in forested catchments in which stream flow and timing
has significantly deviated from the historic range of variation3,9,10,13,16,21,59,69
• Area of a stream affected by timber harvesting and road construction16,21,35,41,69
• Flow hydrology26,68,69
• Stream flows8,9,16,19,21,22,26,41,43,58,59,69
Timing21,22,59,69
Magnitude9,21,59,69
Late summer flows21
Low winter flows21
Freshet flows21
Peak flows10,21,47
3. Area and percentage of forest land managed primarily for protective functions, e.g.,
watersheds, flood protection, riparian zones3,4,5,6,7,13,21,22,23,24,26,36,39,40,59
• Area in cutblock managed as Riparian Reserve Zone or Riparian Management Zone by
appropriate stream, lake, or wetland classification21,22,23,24,26,41,42,59
To what extent is forestry having an impact on water quality?
Potential Indicators:
1. Percentage of water bodies in forest areas (e.g., stream km, lake ha) with
significant variation from the historic range of variability in pH, dissolved oxygen, levels of
chemicals (electrical conductivity), sedimentation, or temperature change3,59,60
• Sediment levels8,18,21,24,41,59,63,69
• Fine organic debris (fod)21,43
• Stream temperature9,10,21,22,35,43,59,68,69,70
less than 10 degrees C = no impairment69
10-15 degrees C = potential impairment to sensitive species69
15-20 degrees C = moderate impairment69
greater than 20 degrees C = severe impairment69
30-day mean degrees C43
• Groundwater sources important to instream flows21,59,62
• Turbidity9,21,43,50,59,63,70
• Contaminants9,10,21,32,61,62
• Forestry-related pesticides/herbicides/fungicides in surface water and the percentage
that exceeds water quality standards34
• Chemical Water Quality Index9,10,61,69
• Biological Water Quality Index9,10,69
2. Significant discharges to water by type of effluent or waste (pulp mills, etc.)12
23
CANADIAN COUNCIL OF FOREST MINISTERS (CCFM) CRITERION 4:
ROLE IN GLOBAL ECOLOGICAL CYCLES7
“The impact of the forest and forest activities on global ecosystem functions”
— Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, 2003
Carbon Cycle (CCFM Element 4.1)1,3,13,32,36,52
To what extent are British Columbia’s forests a sink for, or a source of, atmospheric
carbon?
ccfm Indicator:
4.1.1 Net change in forest ecosystem carbon1,4,32,36,44,54,59
•
*Mean Annual Increment (mai) by forest type and age class23,36,50,54,59
•
Tree biomass volumes9,13,59
•
Non-tree biomass volumes9,59
•
Soil carbon pools9,13,59
•
Removals (fire and harvesting)
To what extent are British Columbia’s forest ecosystems having an impact on climate
change?
ccfm Indicator:
4.1.2 Forest ecosystem carbon storage by forest type and age class1,3,4,13,44,54,59
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Available carbon credits in British Columbia’s forest sector
To what extent is the amount of carbon transferred from forest biomass to forest products
greater than that transferred from forest biomass to soils and the atmosphere?
ccfm Indicator:
4.1.3 Net change in forest products carbon1
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Report separate subtotals for co2, ch4, n2o, hfcs, pfcs, sf6 in tonnes and tonnes of co2
12,28
2. Fuel consumption (per m3 of product)40
3. Use and emissions of ozone-depleting substances (in tonnes of chlorofluorocarbon-11
(cfc-11) equivalents)12,28
7
This criterion does not relate to any of the frpa Forest and Environmental Values.
24
To what extent is British Columbia’s forest product sector contributing carbon dioxide to
the atmosphere?
ccfm Indicator:
4.1.4 Forest sector carbon emissions1
Identified indicator research need(s):
1. Life cycle analysis of forest products
25
CANADIAN COUNCIL OF FOREST MINISTERS (CCFM) CRITERION 5:
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL BENEFITS8
“Sustaining the flow of benefits from forests for current and future generations”
— Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, 2003
Economic Benefits (CCFM Element 5.1)
What is the importance of British Columbia’s forests to the provincial economy, taking
into consideration:
• Primary and secondary manufacturing
• Livelihoods
• Profits to businesses
• Government revenues
• Profits to landowners
• Non-timber forest products
• Environmental services
• Non-market economic values
ccfm Indicators:
5.1.1 Contribution of timber products to the Gross Domestic Product (gdp)1,3,4,5,8,9,13,44,59
5.1.2 Value of secondary manufacturing of timber products per volume harvested1,3,59
5.1.3 Production, consumption, imports, and exports of timber products1,3,5,6,8,9,13,32,43,44,59
5.1.4 Contribution of non-timber forest products to the gross domestic product1,3,4,5,8,9,13,44,54,59
5.1.5 Value of unmarketed non-timber forest products1,3,9,36,59
5.1.6 Production, consumption, imports, and exports of non-timber forest products1,3,5,6,8,9,13,32,59
5.1.7 Contribution of forest-based services to the gross domestic product1,3,4,5,7,8,9,44,59
5.1.8 Value of unmarketed forest-based services1,9,32,59
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Investment as a percent of gdp15
2. Stumpage paid39,43,44,59
3. Ratio of stumpage charge to wood product prices36
4. Sawmill Lumber Recovery Factor, Chip Recovery Factor, and shipment of mini-chips11,41
5. Timber price trend9,36,43,54,70
6. The value of forage harvested from rangeland by livestock30
7. Outfitting revenue59
8. Wildlife harvested9
9. Fish harvested9
10. Volume by type of Non-Timber Forest Product (ntfp) (m3, kg)40
8
This criterion relates to the following frpa Forest and Environmental Values: “Recreation,” “Timber,” and “Visual Quality.”
26
11. Records of assessment of the productive capacity for existing non-wood products26,40,58
12. Sample plots and records of regrowth40,52
13. Areas suitable for recreation expansion through inventory23
14. Nature and quantity of benefits deriving from forest management6
15. Contribution of the tourism sector to area and provincial economy28
16. Number of recreational user days25
Distribution of Benefits (CCFM Element 5.2)
How are the key benefits derived from the above economic activities distributed in British
Columbia?
ccfm Indicators:
5.2.1 Forest area by timber tenure1,2,4,5,9,43,59
5.2.2 Distribution of financial benefits from the timber products industry1,3,9,31,44,59,72
5.2.3 Revenue generated by Aboriginal businesses in timber products industry1,59
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Existing tenures (forest tenures and other types of tenure)5,23,24,26,55,59
2. Opportunities for allocation of community-based tenures26
3. Value of contracts issued by demographic class44
4. Number of tenures offered to First Nations2
5. Value of investment, including investment in forest growing, forest health and
management, planted forests, wood processing, recreation, and tourism3,13,23,30,36,40,41,59,72
6. *Level of expenditure on research and development, and education3,9,13,15,36,45,46,59
Sustainability of Benefits (CCFM Element 5.3)
How competitive is British Columbia in marketing its forest products?
ccfm Indicators:
5.3.3 Return on capital employed1,6,13,30,36,40,54
5.3.4 Productivity index1,3,13,36,59
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Buyer identification by product56
2. British Columbia’s share in all forest products markets2
3. Percentage of increase in wood product sales in Taiwan, China, and Korea2
4. Extension and use of new and improved technologies3,5,8,13
5. Economic Sustainability (delivered wood costs C$/m3)43,44
6. High-use rates of local wood processing capacity 11
27
How does employment in British Columbia’s forest sector contribute to the socioeconomic well-being of individuals and communities?
ccfm Indicators:
5.3.5 Employment1,6,24,29,39,41,43,44,52,53,61
5.3.6 Average income in major employment categories1,3,6,21,53,61
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Aboriginal employment48,59,61
2. Amount of direct and indirect employment6,7,8,13
3. Total person days and jobs per cubic metre13,36,40
4. Total payroll and benefits by country/region12,28
5. Employment diversity30
What is the level of science investment directed toward managing British Columbia’s
forests for the provision of the following:
• Domestic water
• Recreation and tourism
• Cultural, social, and spiritual values
ccfm Indicator:
5.3.7 Area of forest land managed primarily for the protection of domestic water supply1,3
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Water consumption28,61
2. Cost-effective delivery of drinking water28
3. *Level of expenditure on research and development, and education3,9,13,15,36,45,46,59
4. Expenditures (monetary and in-kind) to restoration activities30
5. Watersheds that support water licences21,25
6. Area and percentage of forest land managed for general recreation and tourism, in relation
to the total area of forest land3,4,6,7,9,13,22,23,24,25,26,27,32,54,59
7. Number and type of facilities available for general recreation and tourism, in relation to
population and forest area3,4,9,13,22,32,36,59
8. Road density index within recreation zone44
9. Cost of maintenance activities in recreation tourism zone44
10 Area and percentage of forest land managed in relation to the total area of forest land to
protect the range of cultural, social, and spiritual needs and values6,9,13,21,22,23,26,27,36,38,59
11. Sites and features of cultural significance are identified, mapped, discussed with interested
local people and authorities, and efforts made to protect them8,9,23,24,26,31,33,51,52,55
28
CANADIAN COUNCIL OF FOREST MINISTERS (CCFM) CRITERION 6:
SOCIETY’S RESPONSIBILITY9
“Fair, equitable, and effective resource management choices”
— Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, 2003
Provision for Duly Established Aboriginal and Treaty Rights (CCFM Element 6.1)
To what extent are Aboriginal peoples involved in the development of policies, legislation,
and agreements related to forest management in British Columbia?
ccfm Indicator:
6.1.1 Extent of Aboriginal involvement in the development of policies, legislation, and agreements
related to forest management5,13,36,44,59
Other Potential Indicators:
1. *Percentage of forestry joint ventures by demographic class44
2. *Percentage of forest licences by demographic class44
3. *Local representative in provincial or federal government53
4. *First Nations information sharing and referrals program21,39,59
5. *Research partnerships59
6. Level of First Nations satisfaction with involvement in development policies, legislation,
and agreements related to forest management (no reference—worth noting that the ccfm
does address level of satisfaction when dealing with the non-First Nations sectors)
To what extent does forest management in British Columbia consider and meet all legal
obligations with respect to duly established Aboriginal and treaty rights?
ccfm Indicator:
6.1.2 Extent to which forest planning and management processes consider and meet legal obligations
with respect to duly established Aboriginal and treaty rights
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Recognizes and respects the legal and customary rights of First Nations over their lands,
territories, and resources4,9,13,23,30,36,47,61
2. Areas where treaty or Aboriginal rights are being practised23
• Area available for subsistence purposes9,13,59
• Area available for continued cultural use59
• Area available for continued resource use59
3. *Extent of incorporation of First Nations knowledge in cultural inventories51,58,59
4. *Level of First Nations participation and/or consultation28,43,44
9
This criterion relates to the following frpa Forest and Environmental Values: “Cultural Heritage” and “Timber.”
29
5. *Absence of unsolved disputes on legal, tenure, or use rights49,57
6. *Incidences of non-compliance with treaty settlements and Interim Measures
Agreements36,45
To what extent do Aboriginal peoples have sole decision-making control (or veto) over
forest resources in British Columbia?
ccfm Indicator:
6.1.3 Area of forest land owned by Aboriginal peoples
Other Potential Indicators:
1. *Percentage of forestry joint ventures by demographic class44
2. *Percentage of forest licences by demographic class44
3. *First Nations information sharing and referrals program21,39,59
4. Documentation of property and use rights4,52,54
5. *Absence of unsolved disputes on legal, tenure, or use rights49,57
6. *Extent of Aboriginal participation in forest-based economic opportunities36
7. Area of British Columbia with treaties versus area of British Columbia under treaty claims
Aboriginal Traditional Land Use and Forest-based Ecological Knowledge
(CCFM Element 6.2)
To what extent does forest management planning in British Columbia incorporate
Aboriginal knowledge with respect to forest/land use?
ccfm Indicator:
6.2.1 Number of traditional land use studies and the extent to which they are incorporated in forest
management plans1,9,48,58,59
Other Potential Indicators:
1. All uses of traditional knowledge are documented55
2. Area of First Nations traditional use sites by type44
•
Extent or proportion of forest practices that incorporate Traditional Ecological
Knowledge (tek) and Hahuulhi, which is the plenary authority exercised by the NuuChah-Nulth hereditary chiefs over the people, land, and resources of their tribal
territories33,47,59
•
Number of people affected by off-site impacts, without compensation11
•
*Extent of incorporation of First Nations knowledge in cultural inventories51,58,59
3. *First Nations information sharing and referrals program21,39,59
•
Percentage of cutblocks by band where agreement is reached around the management39
4. Number of surveys conducted versus number of surveys requested39
• *Number of bands that have requested a Cultural Heritage Resources Survey (chrs)
contract versus the number who have one39
30
To what extent are Aboriginal people in British Columbia compensated through income
for the use of their knowledge?
ccfm Indicator:
6.2.2 Aboriginal income derived from tek
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Number of traditional land users and income earned from traditional land use5,26,48
• Other person-days employment to First Nations and/or joint venture40
2. *First Nations information sharing and referrals program21,39,59
• *Research partnerships59
3. *Number of bands that have requested a chrs contract versus the number who have one39
• Number of sites developed for tourism44
To what extent are Aboriginal people compensated for forest products removed from
their traditional territories?
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Number of Aboriginal communities that have a significant forestry component48, 59
2. Degree of satisfaction with contract development process (First Nations sector to gather
the data)39,59
3. *Extent of Aboriginal participation in forest-based economic opportunities72
• *Joint ventures with First Nations62
• Creation of co-managed (forests)72
• *Contract total paid to First Nations Bands39
• *First Nations information sharing and referrals program21,39,59
4. Sponsorship of local events, scholarships, sports teams etc.49
5. *Education and training programs4,6,7,9,11,13,21,26,31,36,39,40,50,53,55,58,59,70
• *number of training hours40
6. *Research partnerships59
7. *Absence of unsolved disputes on legal, tenure, or use rights49,57
Forest Community Well-being and Resilience (CCFM Element 6.3)
To what extent are British Columbia’s forest-dependent communities resilient enough to
withstand shocks or economic cycles within specific sectors?
ccfm Indicator:
6.3.1 Economic diversity index of forest-based communities
• Distribution of expenditures locally9,39,59
• *Size of labour pool9
31
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Civic participation53, 15
1. Index of social structure quality30
2. *Number of households with forest-based employment (full- or part-time)59
3. Annual harvest compared to local log consumption that is provided39
4. *Migration history, likelihood of future migration53
5. Social capital infrastructure (financial services, communication services, bureaucratic
services, community organizations, community integration events)53
• *Rates of entrepreneurship53
• Personal identification with community53
• Population mental health rate53
• Infant mortality rate53
• Mortality rate53
• Life expectancy53
• Cancer53
• Low birth weights53
6. *Absence of unsolved disputes on legal, tenure, or use rights49,57
To what extent are people in forest-based communities able to compete in the broader
community?
ccfm Indicator:
6.3.2 Education attainment levels in forest-based communities1,26,59,61
• Percentage of people achieving minimum Grade 12
Other Potential Indicators:
1. *Contract total paid to First Nations Bands39
2. Contract total paid to local enterprise59
3. *Migration history, likelihood of future migration53
4. *Rates of entrepreneurship53
To what extent are people in forest-based communities participating in the work force?
ccfm Indicator:
3.3.3 Employment rate in forest-based communities
Other Potential Indicators:
1. *Gender Related Indices in Forestry (Gender-related Development Index in Human
Development Reports of the United Nations Development Program)8,9
2. Person-days employment to First Nations40
32
3. *Number of households with forest-based employment (full- or part-time)59
4. *Contracts total paid to First Nations Bands39
5. *Contracts total paid to local enterprise59
6. *Size of labour pool9
7. *Composition of senior management and corporate governance bodies12,28
8. *Accident rates5,9,12,28,31,47,49,51,54,56,59
9. Standard injury, lost day, and absentee rates and numbers of work-related fatalities
(including subcontracted workers)12,28
10. *Extent of Aboriginal participation in forest-based economic opportunities1,26,59,61
What is the poverty rate in British Columbia’s forest-based communities?
ccfm Indicator:
6.1.4 Incidence of low income in forest-based communities
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Business and property values53
2. *Percentage of forestry joint ventures by demographic class44
3. *Percentage of forest licences by demographic class44
4. Average household income
5. Composition of income
6. Poverty rate30,31, 59,61
7. Crime rates61
8. Percentage of income spent on food62
9. Access/use of social services62
Fair and Effective Decision Making (CCFM Element 6.4)
To what extent does British Columbia’s legal, institutional, and economic framework for
forestry enable conservation and sustainable forest management?
Potential Indicators:
1. *Instances of significant non-compliance with FRPA12
2. *Incidence of non-compliance with treaty settlements and Interim Measures Agreements36
3. *Area of forest under sfm Plans5,59
4. *Public and private funding for research, educational, and extension program4
5. *Compatibility with other countries in measuring, monitoring, and reporting on
indicators3,13
6. *Participation in planning5,11,13,21,24,31,36,41,43,44,45,46
33
To what extent does the forest planning in British Columbia incorporate the views of the
public?
ccfm Indicator:
6.4.1 Proportion of participants who are satisfied with public involvement processes in forest
management in Canada
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Level of public/shareholder comments11,38,41,43,44,45,59
2. Number of communications (operational) by interest group, by type of communication,
and by licensee44
3. Percentage of comments receiving response by type by licensee44
4. Response by licensees to public comments/participation44
5. *Local communities and organizations directly affected by forestry activities given opportu
nities to participate in forest management planning4,5,6,9,11,13,31,36,45,49
•
*Publicizes operational activities and objectives49
6. *Absence of unsolved disputes on legal, tenure, or use rights49,57
7. *First Nations participation and (or) consultation28, 43, 44
8. *Participation in planning5,11,13,21,24,31,36,41,43,44,45,46
9. *Forest management plans made public5,11,13,57 with respect for confidentiality49
• Number of participation opportunities by the different types of opportunity
(e.g., public meetings)44
• Diversity of participation opportunities (number of participation opportunities
opportunity type)44
To what extent are British Columbia’s forest managers committed to sustainable forest
management?
ccfm Indicator:
6.4.2 Rate of compliance with sustainable forest management laws, regulations, and best management
practices1,2,3,5,13,36,40,45,47,48,49,59,51,52,55,56,57,59,62
• *Instances of significant non-compliance with FRPA2
• *Incidence of non-compliance with treaty settlements and Interim Measures
Agreements36,45
• *Area of forest under sfm Plans5,59
• *Incidents of and fines for non-compliance with all applicable international declarations/
conventions/treaties and national, sub-national, regional, and local regulations associated
with environmental regulations12,28
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Number of opportunities for First Nations involvement43
34
•
*Joint ventures with First Nations62
•
The number of working relationships with applicable First Nations45
•
*Creation of co-managed (forests)72
2. Extent to which mitigative action is undertaken when ecosystems, culturally important
areas, and traditional resources are damaged48,59
3. *Local communities and organizations directly affected by forestry activities are given an
opportunity to participate in forest management planning4,5,6,9,11,13,31,36,45,49
• Proactive consultation process for significant activities such as proposed timber
harvesting11,31,38,41,44,59
• *Number of public comments received and percentage of those that result in changes to
operational plans43
• *Operational activities and objectives are publicized49
• *Evidence that community feedback was considered in management planning5,48,49
4. *Research partnerships59
5. *Number of sfm-related research projects initiated and/or completed by type44
6. *Research dollars spent in Defined Forest Area (dfa) by licensee44
7. *Applied social and natural science research which addresses issues of local and regional
significance72
8. *Education and training programs (re: sfm)4,6,7,9,11,13,21,26,31,36,39,40,50,53,55,58,59,70
• *Number of training hours40
Informed Decision Making (CCFM Element 6.5)
To what extent does British Columbia have the capacity to measure and monitor changes
in its forest resources?
ccfm Indicators
6.5.1 Coverage, attributes, frequency, and statistical reliability of forest inventories
(Core Indicator)1,3,59
• First Nations information sharing and referrals program21,39,59
Other Potential Indicators:
1. *Compatibility with other countries in measuring, monitoring, and reporting on indicators
3,13
2. *Public and private funding for research, educational, and extension programs4
3. *Research partnerships59
4. *Number of sfm-related research projects initiated and/or completed by type44
5. *Research dollars spent in dfa by license44
6. *Applied social and natural science research which addresses issues of local and regional
significance72
7. *Extent or proportion of forest practices that incorporate tek33,47,59
8. Existence of a repeated forest inventory at the scale of the province
35
What is the extent and availability of British Columbia’s forest inventory data?
ccfm Indicators:
6.5.1 Coverage, attributes, frequency and statistical reliability of forest inventories1,3,59
6.5.2 Availability of forest inventory information to the public
Other Potential Indicators:
1. *Extent of incorporation of First Nations knowledge in cultural inventories5,58,59
2. *First Nations information sharing and referrals program21,39,59
3. *Forest management plans made public5,11,13,57 with respect to confidentiality49
4. *Extension—extent to which the public is informed of information availability
5. *Compatibility with other countries in measuring, monitoring, and reporting on indicators
3,13
6. Cost of acquiring data or level of access fee for forest inventory information
What is the level of engagement by government and industry in forest research, timber
products research and development, education, and application?
ccfm Indicators:
6.5.3 Investment in forest research, timber products industry research and development, and
education1,3,5,6,7,8,9,13,36,40,44,45,59,72
6.5.4 Number of new or updated forest management guidelines and standards related to ecological
issues (should also address socio-economic)1,13
Other Potential Indicators:
1. The number of working relationships with applicable First Nations45
2. Number of people affected by off-site impacts, without compensation11
3. *Education and training programs4,6,7,9,11,13,21,26,31,36,39,40,50,53,55,58,59,70
• *Number of training hours40
• Percent apprenticeships and training programs by demographic class44
• Average hours of training per year per employee by category of employee12,28
• Dollars invested in projects40
• Dollars spent on forest education programs40
4. *Extension
• *Research partnerships59
• *Number of sfm-related research projects initiated and/or completed by type44
• *Research dollars spent in dfa by licensee44
• *Public and private funding for research, educational, and extension programs4
• *Applied social and natural science research, which addresses issues of local and
regional significance72
5. Certification implementation committee
36
To what extent is the best available science and expertise being used in decision making?
Potential Indicators:
1. *Composition of senior management and corporate governance bodies12,28
2. *Instances of significant non-compliance with frpa2
3. *Incidence of non-compliance with treaty settlements and Interim Measures Agreements2
4. *Research partnerships59
5. *Applied social and natural science research, which addresses issues of local and regional
significance75
6. *Extension43
• Number of documents posted on Web site43
• Number of hits on and downloads from Web site43
• Number of workshops and field trips43
To what extent is there a functioning process that allows the public to seek redress over
forest-related issues?
ccfm Indicators
6.4.1 Proportion of participants who are satisfied with public involvement processes in forest
management (Core Indicator)1,3,9,36,43,44,58,59
Other Potential Indicators:
1. *Number of opportunities for First Nations involvement43
2. *Number of communities with co-management responsibilities5,59
3. *Local representative in provincial or federal government53
4. *Number of communications (operational) by interest group, by type, and by licensee44
• *Proactive consultation process for significant activities such as proposed timber
harvesting11,31,38,41,44,59
• Percentage of forest management commitments completed on time resulting from
consultations regarding non-timber features and interests by licensee44
• Percentage of known non-timber features and interests where licensee has consulted
and/or incorporated non-timber management/activities44
• *Number of public comments received and percentage of those that result in changes
to operational plans43
5. *Local communities and organizations directly affected by forestry activities given an
opportunity to participate in forest management planning4,5,6,9,11,13,31,36,45,49
• *Publicizes operational activities and objectives49
• *Evidence that community feedback was considered in management planning5,48,49
6. Level of funding for Forest Practices Board
7. Number of Registered Professional Foresters (rpfs) “disbarred”
8. Number of complaints to Forest Practices Board (fpb) versus number addressed
37
Initial Feedback from the Breakout Sessions at the British Columbia Criteria and
Indicators Forum
An objective of the British Columbia Criteria and Indicators (c&i) Forum was to form small breakout
groups that would review specific sfm questions and their related indicators. Each breakout group was
facilitated through a documented discussion that focused on the following questions:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Does the proposed sfm question(s) address the criterion?
Is the sfm question(s) relevant to British Columbia?
Are there other potential questions? If so what are they?
Does the proposed indicator(s) address the question?
Is the indicator(s) appropriate?
Are there other potential indicators? If so what are they?
Despite initial discomfort with the process, each group managed to work through the questions and
indicators and complete the evaluation exercise. Each group felt that it was critical to agree on the set of
sfm questions used to organize the indicators.
The discussions in the breakout sessions often focused on finer details. The participants’ general attitude towards an indicator seemed motivated by a lack of understanding of the questions that were used
to help focus on the issue of sfm. It was agreed that a short rationale for each indicator or group of indicators could substantially advance the discussion and reduce the focus on semantics. This would need
to be done following the field testing phase of the project. On several occasions, participants changed
their attitude toward an indicator after some clarification and rationale were provided.
Participants felt that a number of indicators implied that a threshold needed to be established. Before
any research regarding these thresholds takes place, indicators will need to be clarified. Another comment related to researching thresholds was a caveat: Many thresholds are region- and even site-specific;
therefore, establishing thresholds for the whole province from a few case studies may not be a wise route
to pursue. Nevertheless, determining thresholds is an important part of using the criteria and indicators
approach. As noted by Prabhu et al. (2002), “thresholds for individual indicators are important because
they could, theoretically, indicate switch points or inflection zones for the system, including points at which
the system degrades irretrievably.” This is a major challenge facing researchers internationally.
While measurability was recognized as a major consideration for the indicator-selection process,
participants generally felt that the difficulty associated with measuring some indicators (whether related
to lack of knowledge or lack of financial means) shouldn’t warrant the removal of valid indicators. Other
issues that were raised at the forum included a desire for researcher/specialist input on the questions and
indicators. Many participants felt that a larger group was needed to review the indicators, with many
stakeholder groups not represented at the forum (e.g., First Nations, environmental non-government
organizations, and non-industrial private forest owners). The questions and indicators associated with
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (ccfm) Criterion 4, “Global Ecological Cycles” were not covered
in the breakout sessions because participants did not feel comfortable providing input on this subject.
It is, perhaps, important to note that the breakout group that reviewed the questions and indicators
associated with ccfm Criterion 1, “Biological Diversity” suggested a different framework. In this case,
participants suggested that the indicators should be used to answer the statements defined by Weyerhaeuser’s work in coastal British Columbia on biodiversity indicators. They agreed that the current
questions would be covered by the following elements:
38
Statement One: Coarse Filter (Ecosystems)
Ecologically distinct types are represented to maintain lesser known organisms and functions
• Covers all protected areas and reserves, including Old-Growth Management Areas (ogmas) and
optional reserves
This statement was believed to represent question two from the original set, as outlined in Table 2.
Statement Two: Medium Filter (Forest Structure)
The amount, distribution, and heterogeneity of stand and forest structures important to native species
(organisms) richness is maintained over time.
• At stand level
• At landscape level
• Over the entire land base, including protected areas, ogmas and the Timber Harvesting Land
Base (thlb)
This statement was believed to represent question one from the original set, as outlined in Table 2.
Statement Three: Fine Filter (Species)
Abundance, distribution, and reproductive success of native species (organisms) are not substantially
reduced by forest practices.
• Objective of this element is to prevent extirpation and/or extinction
• Also, the group agreed that all species are “ecologically important”
This element was believed to represent questions three to six from the original set:
Questions seven to nine (see Table 2) were agreed to be implicitly covered by the three new statements, although the addition of a fourth statement would be an easy and logical step. Bill Beese, of
Weyerhaeuser, suggested that genetic diversity could be covered under a “Super-Fine Filter.” For example:
Statement Four: Super-Fine Filter (Genetic Diversity)
Genetic diversity of native species (organisms) is not being substantially reduced by forest practices, over
time.
• This element would help reduce the need to define “species” by requiring that the genetic
variability, represented by sub-species or distinct populations of an organism, be sustained.
This element would cover questions seven to nine from the original set, as outlined in Table 2.
While this framework appears suitable, it has not been adopted in our sfm question/indicator framework because the comments represent the views of a small number of people (approximately nine) and
do not align particularly well with either the ccfm or other international c&i initiatives. Therefore,
further discussion and broader stakeholder participation is required before adopting the work of a single
corporate stakeholder.
39
NEXT STEPS
“Even if we believe that sustainability is primarily a sociopolitical construct rather than a scientific concept, there are
clear roles for scientists, social scientists and economists in
proposing C&I for good forest management.”
— S. Bass, 2002
At the Criteria and Indicators (c&i) forum, much discussion focused on the Sustainable Forest Management (sfm) questions, with many participants feeling that the wording of the questions was extremely
important. Therefore, the list of questions presented in Table 2 needs to be viewed as a work in progress,
rather than a definitive set.
It is envisaged that a sound set of c&i in British Columbia will eventually become an integral part of
the monitoring and feedback systems across the province and will facilitate adaptive management. The
following points were raised by individual participants regarding the development of criteria and indicators of sfm in British Columbia:
• A context needs to be developed for examining the scope of the initiative. The sfm questions
should have a particular structure that should be continuous and consistent across questions.
• A mechanism should be included to allow for input from “experts”—there is a need for a core
group of experts to formulate the best set of indicators and funnel it to policy makers allowing for
a “consolidated view” (based on sound scientific principles).
• Different stakeholders, industrial sectors, etc., have different questions and values, but there is a
need for a unified set of standards and data collection protocols across sectors and interests. Therefore, there is a definite need to define the “scope”—if a question can be agreed upon, the “scope”
can allow for consensus.
• The group should be broadened to include other stakeholders such as First Nations, certification
specialists, government, etc., so that the standards fit the values of others. There is a need to develop common sets of c&i to be used for a variety of purposes.
• Questions could be related to the objectives of the specific organizations that will use them, rather
than being based on the ccfm criteria—“buy-in” requires common ground but duplication
should be avoided.
• Questions could be lumped, rather than split, and fit to different scales and levels of objectives (based on different stakeholders) to minimize duplication and overlap. Elements should be
checked for matches with business objectives—what’s missing? Can business needs be addressed by
the existing set of questions? Are business needs too dynamic to match with a permanent set?
• Indicators should be broad enough to allow for changes in issues and values but be specific enough
(while flexible) to cross views, without being so specific as to limit their use. Process and practice
can be modified to answer questions and measure indicators that are currently possible (within
technological and scientific capabilities).
• Indicators should be relevant despite changes in government, social values, the time, the place,
etc.—each indicator can potentially be used to answer multiple questions if it is evaluated at
multiple scales. We need to ask the same questions that society would ask—currently being too
40
“scientifically dogmatic,” but questions should be applicable to a broader (non-technical) audience. There are many lessons to be learned in British Columbia from existing documents and past
processes—we don’t need to start from scratch.
• Due to the emerging business requirements of monitoring and certification, criteria will become
necessary (from a business perspective) and can presumably use the same c&i. This initiative
should take the advice of all, including absent stakeholders, and consider all the previous work
that’s been done.
• This initiative should stick with the established ccfm criteria because they can be modified by
bringing in expertise to consolidate and finalize a common set. Then, meet again and analyze the
process, but there is no need to recreate things that already exist—pick a set of useful or core indicators from existing ones; don’t start from scratch.
• There needs to be legitimacy added to the process. There will always be critics, but you can’t keep
everyone happy. There should also be a timeline for developing the common set (a deadline, etc.).
• There may need to be technical communications advice. The context can be broadened by identifying what inventories and data already exist, then evaluating trial efforts.
• Questions allow for variability in scale and should be broad (i.e., applicable from the province to
the cutblock scales) and should encompass various elements.
• The set should be peer reviewed. For multiple scales, the recipient needs to be considered. A common set should be scaled and be reviewed by those responsible at different levels (local, provincial,
etc.). Other sectors should be brought into the discussion, such as petroleum, agriculture, energy
providers, etc., but how to get to that level is another question. Are their practices sustainable?
• The process didn’t start with a context. We need a set of guiding principles for consistency—the
principles should guide the process. There should be guidelines for the lumping or splitting of
questions, indicators, etc., to eliminate the confusion experienced in breakout sessions. The steering committee would develop these principles; for example, cost effectiveness as a measure of
indicator usefulness.
• There should be a set of rules such as using only indicators from the list, whether or not they can
be combined, etc. Rules would add further guidance to the process.
• The goal should be to find the “leanest set of indicators.” Some should be combined and the list reviewed to ensure there are no gaps. The result of the process should be the smallest set of indicators
possible. There is a need to be relevant to forest practices, but what about other users (stumpage
and user fees etc.)? The process may become Criteria and Enforcement (c&e). For example, the
Fisheries and Oceans Class 3 Stream Impact Audit found cows to be having the largest impact on
stream health. We need to know if other forest uses are sustainable. Are the indicators applicable to
sfm in its entirety or just to forest practices?
• This is a starting point. The list contains sound indicators that are internationally recognized. They
may be taken and accepted for now, and then modified as research and knowledge progress, but we
need to start somewhere.
• Many of the indicators are similar and should be lumped to ensure data consistency and to minimize both cost and overlap. Cattle may represent a large threat, but monitoring can be used to
show to whom/what the changes are attributable to. sfm indicators should be sector specific so
that we know what is at fault.
• Although indicators are being used, they are not always applied on a national or provincial scale—
they are often project based. There should be a set of principles to improve general understanding
of sfm. We don’t need to be perfect to be good and you can always improve. Changes in the state
41
of science should not be overlooked. We should do what is best right now as you can’t monitor
everything—yet.
• There should be a structure and rationale for each indicator that is the same for each—a hierarchy.
The listing approach wasn’t very good. Indicators fit into a hierarchy that can be better articulated.
The sub-indicators provide an amount of hierarchy, just not the matrix form.
• An analysis should be done on indicators that already have existing data. The data could be used
to help define a common set of indicators. Indicators are already being reported and are “in the
news”—at least the “buzz indicators” are; for example, percentage of species lost and number of
endangered species.
These points will need to be considered in the development of the proposed indicator framework. By
drawing from the extensive body of work done on sustainability indicators to date, British Columbia will
continue towards a scientifically sound, useful, and effective indicator framework that will demonstrate
progress towards sustainable forest management at the provincial level.
42
APPENDIX 1 Canadian Council of Forests Ministers Criteria
The following text has been taken directly from the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (2003).
CCFM Criterion 1: Biological Diversity
The variability among living organisms and the ecosystems of which they are part
Biodiversity encompasses organization at levels ranging from complete ecosystems to the chemical
structures that are the basis of heredity. Maintenance of natural genetic and ecosystem diversity across
the landscape is the key to ensuring that species maintain viability through their capacity to evolve and
adapt to change. Maintenance of the natural range of ecosystems, and the ability of their components to
react to external forces and processes, provides the equilibrium required for the maintenance of species
diversity. Diversity is therefore inseparable from the generation and maintenance of ecological patterns.
Impacts are evaluated through vulnerability assessments which may, in turn, suggest change in the ways
forests are managed, or even suggest that action be taken in respect of the restoration of biodiversity.
Element 1.1: Ecosystem diversity
Ecosystem diversity is the variety and pattern of communities and ecosystems. Maintenance of the variety and quality of the earth’s ecosystems is necessary for the preservation of species. Without sufficient
quantities of their natural habitats, species become vulnerable.
Element 1.2: Species diversity
The greatest and most readily recognizable form of biological depletion lies with species extinction.
Slowing down the rate of species extinction due to anthropogenic factors is a key objective for the
conservation of biodiversity. Changes in species population levels may also provide an early warning of
changes in ecosystem integrity.
Element 1.3: Genetic diversity
Genetic diversity, or the variation of genes within a species, is the ultimate source of biodiversity at all
levels. It is the material upon which the agents of evolution act. Loss of variation may have negative consequences for fitness and prevent adaptive change in populations.
Links to indicators under other criteria
Additional insight into the pattern and variety of communities and ecosystems can be found by an
examination of the additions and deletions of forest area, by cause (indicator 2.2). In particular, the area
of linear features like roads, may help provide an indication of habitat fragmentation. The pattern and
variety of forest types and age classes is also linked to disturbance regimes, with spatial and temporal
patterns of fires, harvesting and insect defoliation often driving the distribution of age classes and forest
types (indicator 2.3).
Strong relationships between species diversity and ecosystem productivity (indicator 2.1) are also
quite common in many ecosystems and should be considered when discussing species diversity.
Similarly, species and genetic diversity may also be influenced by regeneration after harvest, particularly if the area is replanted with exotic species (indicator 2.5). Some exotic species may compete with,
interbreed with, or displace native species.
43
Finally, forested parks and protected areas often provide recreational, preservation and other nontimber benefits (e.g., eco-tourism). The forested area in parks and protected areas can be an important
aspect in discussions on benefits (indicators 5.1.7, 5.2.1).
CCFM Criterion 2: Ecosystem Condition and Productivity
The health, vitality and rates of biological production in forest ecosystems
The sustainable development of a system is dependent upon normal functioning over the long term. In
a living system, normal functioning implies appropriate levels of health, vitality and productivity of its
components.
Relative freedom from stress (health) and relative level of physical/biological energy (vitality) within
a forest ecosystem, together provide an indication of ecosystem condition. Forest productivity refers to
rates of flora and fauna production, which depend on the degree to which nutrients, water and solar
energy are absorbed and transferred within the ecosystem. Sustainable productivity within a forest
ecosystem is dependent upon the ability of the ecosystem’s components and their populations to recover
from or adapt to disturbances, whether they be natural or human-induced. A healthy and diverse ecosystem is better able to respond to and recover from changes in its environment.
While most disturbance and stress events are fundamental to the recovery and maintenance of forested ecosystems, others may overwhelm an ecosystem’s resilience, alter ecosystem patterns and processes,
or affect forest health. Measures of long-term forest land conversion, major biotic and abiotic stresses,
and impairment of forest function due to pollutants or drought, provide an indication of disturbance
and stress, which may negatively or positively affect forest condition over time. This provides a basis for
improved decision making in managing forests as a renewable resource. Measures of successful regeneration after harvest assess the effect of human efforts to assist the forest ecosystem’s ability to recover from
disturbance, while measures of total growing stock on all forest lands provide an indication of the balance of forest productivity and disturbances. Ecosystem condition and productivity are typically closely
linked. Ecosystem condition may decline, though, if benefits from timber production are given priority.
Links to indicators under other criteria
Ecosystem condition and productivity is linked to biological diversity in many ways. For example, the
ability of a forest ecosystem to recover from disturbance is influenced by the distribution of forest types
and age classes. A healthy and diverse ecosystem (indicator 1.1.1) is better able to respond to and recover
from changes in its environment. Likewise, changes in ecosystem productivity are often linked to changes in species diversity (indicators 1.2.1 and 1.2.2).
Ecosystem condition and productivity is also linked to soil conservation in many ways. Soil disturbance beyond locally applicable standards (indicators 3.1 and 3.2) can reduce future productivity.
Long-term deletions of forest area to roads, mines, reservoirs, etc, can result in the loss of productive
soil.
Net productivity is also linked to changes in forest ecosystem carbon (indicator 4.1.1), and the
sustainability of benefits from timber harvests (indicators 5.1.1 and 5.3.1) and other forest values (indicators 5.1.4 and 5.1.7).
These relationships should be considered when discussing ecosystem condition and productivity.
44
CCFM Criterion 3: Soil and Water
The quantity and quality of soil and water
Soil and water are essential components of forests, sustaining the functioning and productive capacity
of forest ecosystems. Criterion 3 discusses the conservation of soil and water resources. The primary
reason for soil conservation is the maintenance of the living substrate for forest stands, whereas water
conservation is important for the provision of potable water for humans and wildlife and the provision
of suitable aquatic environments for plants and animals.
The construction of access roads and other forestry practices may impact on the quantity and quality
of soil and water in a number of ways. These include soil erosion and compaction, siltation of aquatic
habitats, flooding and increased water temperatures. The rapid regeneration of forests following timber
harvesting is essential for maintaining moisture and nutrient levels in the soil, minimizing disruptions in
stream flow rates and timing and minimizing soil erosion, stream siltation and downstream water quality effects.
While many of the potential impacts of forestry practices on soil and water quantity and quality are
understood, national scale, quantitative indicators of the impacts are difficult to develop and implement.
In order to ensure that terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are maintained, jurisdictions have enacted
policies, guidelines and standards to provide for specific management practices or the protection of
sensitive sites. Indicators of compliance with locally applicable soil disturbance standards and road construction, stream crossing and riparian zone management standards can provide an effective measure of
the impact of forestry practices on soil and water conservation, provided the standards are periodically
updated and supported by ongoing long-term research. Compliance with guidelines and standards is
most useful when those standards are based upon the best available scientific knowledge.
Links to indicators under other criteria
Research is a necessary adjunct to policies, guidelines and standards on soil and water conservation.
Information on the number of new or updated standards, particularly related to soil and water conservation (indicator 6.5.4) and on investment in forest research and development (indicator 6.5.3) appears
under criterion 6. Information on new or updated soil and water conservation standards and on related
research should be considered when assessing compliance with various soil and water standards.
Indicators under several other criteria also provide additional information in relation to soil and
water conservation. Indicator 1.1.2 provides information on the area of different soil types in protected
areas. Indicator 2.2 provides important information on the loss of productive soil from the forest area.
In this regard, it is important to remember that a loss of forest cover does not necessarily result in a loss
of productive soil. For example, the loss of forest area to roads is an important concern because it is often difficult to reclaim these areas. On the other hand, loss of forest area to power transmission corridors
may be of less concern from the point of view of soil and water conservation, as the soil likely remains
productive. Indicator 2.4 provides information on the area of forest land impacted by acid rain, a pollutant that can have serious impacts on soil and water quality. All of these indicators should be considered
when discussing soil and water conservation.
45
CCFM Criterion 4: Role in Global Ecological Cycles
The impact of the forest and forest activities on global ecosystem functions
Global ecological cycles are a complex of self-regulating processes responsible for recycling the earth’s
limited supply of water, carbon, nitrogen and other life-sustaining elements. The world’s forests are critically dependent upon, and make substantial contributions to, these global processes.
The indicators under this criterion primarily deal with the role of forests and the forest sector in the
global carbon cycle. Indicators related to hydrological cycles can be found under other criteria. Indicators on global energy cycles and global nitrogen cycles were considered, but, the significance of the
impact of forest management on these cycles is unclear.
Element 4.1: Carbon Cycle
Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are increasing as a result of human activities.
While the impact is not known with certainty, it is believed that humans are having a discernible influence on the global climate, and that future effects will be potentially more serious. The major source
of emissions is the burning of fossil fuels, and the major greenhouse gas in terms of volume emitted is
carbon dioxide. Global ecological cycles are believed to be negatively affected by the accelerated release
of CO2 into the atmosphere. Estimates of the total carbon stored in Canada’s forests and the balance
between carbon sequestration and carbon release from forests and forest products provide indicators of
the nation’s contribution to atmospheric carbon. Measures of forest sector CO2 emissions are used to
track the industry’s reliance on fossil fuels for conversion of raw materials to manufactured products.
Links to indicators under other criteria
Forests make a major positive contribution to global cycles through the uptake and storage of carbon.
The longevity and large area of standing crops make forest ecosystems particularly well adapted to longterm positive carbon balance. Conversely, conversion of forest lands to low biomass, short-lived standing
crops with rapid turnover rates, or the permanent removal of forest cover reduce the land’s capacity to
absorb and store carbon. For this reason, information on the area of forest, by type and age class, in each
ecozone (indicator 1.1.1), additions and deletions to the forest area, by cause (indicator 2.2) and the area
disturbed by fires, pests and harvesting (indicator 2.3) provide important supplemental information
when discussing forest contributions to the global carbon budget.
Hydrological cycles are also a vital component of global ecological cycles. Information on the impact of
forests and forest practices on hydrological cycles is provided by indicator 3.3, the proportion of watersheds with substantial stand-replacing disturbance in the last 20 years and indicator 5.3.7, the area of
forest land managed primarily for the protection of domestic water supply.
CCFM Criterion 5: Economic and Social Benefits
Sustaining the flow of benefits from forests for current and future generations
Forests provide substantial commercial benefits, including timber, non-timber forest products, water
and tourism, and significant non-commercial benefits, including wildlife, recreation, aesthetics, and wilderness values. Although not always measurable in monetary terms, all these activities are highly valued
by Canadians and provide significant benefits to Canadian society. The distribution of these benefits is
a key aspect of social equity. Sustainable development requires that forests are managed to provide these
goods and services over the long term.
46
Element 5.1: Economic benefits
Canadians receive many economic benefits from the forest. Timber products, non-timber forest products and forest-based services are produced, consumed, and traded internationally. Wealth from forest
use flows to Canadians through the market economy (which can be measured with economic indicators
such as gross domestic product) and through the subsistence economy (involving income in-kind from
the extraction and use of fuel wood; building materials; meat, fish, and fur products; medicinals; ecosystem services like fresh water; etc.). The value of these goods and services and their contribution to the
gross domestic product is the focus of this element.
Element 5.2: Distribution of benefits
Another important consideration for this criterion is the question of distribution of benefits. Sustainable
development involves more than ensuring economic development. It also requires consideration of the
way in which benefits from development are distributed to society. An examination of forest ownership
and timber tenures and the distribution of key financial benefits provide important indicators of social
equity. The revenue generated by Aboriginal businesses in the timber products industry is a potential
indicator of the distribution of market-based economic benefits from the forest to Aboriginal peoples.
Element 5.3: Sustainability of benefits
In order to ensure that resources are conserved while still maintaining a satisfactory flow of benefits,
efforts must be made to ensure that resource use is not allowed to exceed the long-term productive
capacity of the resource base to provide a wide range of goods and services. Excessive rates of resource
use are unsustainable and inconsistent with the concept of sustainable forest management. In order to
ensure that economic benefits continue to flow to Canadians, it is vital that a fair and competitive investment climate be maintained within the forest sector. A competitive rate of return is essential if Canada’s
various forest-based industries are to attract the necessary capital for maintaining their capacity to create
jobs and incomes for Canadians.
Non-timber forest products also need to be sustained. Many urban areas receive clean drinking water
from forested areas, and the value of the water catchment and filtration abilities of forests can be considerable. The proper management of forests for this purpose is of great importance to Canadians.
Links to indicators under other criteria
Forested parks and protected areas often provide recreational, preservation and other non-timber
benefits. The forested area in parks and protected areas (indicator 1.1.2) can be an important aspect
in discussions on the distribution of benefits. Also of importance to the sustainability of benefits is the
resilience and well-being of forest-based communities (indicators 6.3.1 to 6.3.4). Decision-making processes that do not consider social costs associated with community instability do not contribute to the
sustainable flow of benefits. Similarly, investment in forest research, timber products industry research
and development, and education (indicator 6.5.3) is an important aspect of ensuring the continued
sustainability of the economic activities based on our forests.
CCFM Criterion 6: Society’s Responsibility
Fair, equitable, and effective resource management choices
The concept of sustainable development transcends biological, ecological, and economic benchmarks.
Ultimately it is about people. It is about society’s values, the quality of life of members of society, both
individually and collectively, and the effectiveness with which we have organized ourselves as a society
47
to ensure that we are managing the relationship between ourselves and our resources in a way that is
in the best interests of present and future generations. Thus, this criterion concerns the effectiveness of
institutions in managing resources in ways that accurately reflect social values, the responsiveness of
institutions to change as social values change, how we deal with the special and unique needs of particular cultural and/or socio-economic communities, and the extent to which the allocation of our scarce
resources can be considered to be fair, equitable, balanced, and just.
Element 6.1: Provision for duly established Aboriginal and treaty rights
Existing Aboriginal and treaty rights are recognized and affirmed in the Canadian Constitution. In order
to ensure that duly established Aboriginal and treaty rights are respected, they should be considered in
the context of sustainable forest management. Various levels of government in Canada will aim to meet
their legal obligations with respect to duly established Aboriginal and treaty rights in accordance with
policy and legislation in their respective jurisdictions. When discussed in relation to renewable resources,
such Aboriginal and treaty rights generally relate to hunting, fishing and trapping, and in some cases,
gathering.
Forest policies, legislation and agreements related to forest management should be developed, as
far as possible, with input from involved Aboriginal communities, as well as other affected groups and
communities. The same is true for the forest management and planning processes. Forest management
plans should reflect the options considered and actions taken with respect to duly established Aboriginal
and treaty rights. Increasingly, Aboriginal people are also taking ownership of land, often as a result of
resolved land-claims. Land ownership offers a level of control over resource access that does not exist on
publicly owned lands or on co-managed lands.
Element 6.2: Aboriginal traditional land use and forest-based ecological knowledge
Aboriginal peoples possess a vast amount of traditional ecological knowledge related to the forest that
has been passed down from generation to generation over the centuries. Efforts need to be made to use
this knowledge in forest management planning. In some instances, Aboriginal people may also be compensated for the use of their traditional ecological knowledge when a third party uses that knowledge for
profit.
Element 6.3: Forest community well-being and resilience
Sustainability can be viewed at a variety of scales. One important level for assessing sustainable development is at the community level. Unsustainable resource practices have the potential to result in high
social costs concentrated among residents of rural communities. Decision-making processes that do not
consider social costs associated with community instability, do not contribute to sustainable development. This element considers well-being and resilience of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal forest
communities.
Element 6.4: Fair and effective decision-making
Decision-making is often complicated by cultural differences, conflicting economic interests, and differences in exposure to risks. Decision-making processes are embedded within the various institutions
that have been established to manage and allocate forest resources. The extent to which these institutions
effectively incorporate the full range of social values in decisions and the responsiveness of institutions
to change in values over time are a determining factor in monitoring our progress toward sustainable
development. Decisions are effective only if they are implemented. Compliance with laws and best management practices confirms that decisions have been implemented.
48
Element 6.5: Informed decision making
Part of society’s responsibility to sustainable development is a commitment to improve our collective
understanding of ecosystems and the relationship between the environment and the economy. At the
individual level it is important that we make an effort to learn and understand each other’s perspectives
relative to resource use and forest values and that individuals make an effort to become fully informed
about the issues. Each and every member of society has an obligation and responsibility to understand
the issues, express their position, and understand and respect the positions of others. At an institutional
level, it is important that agencies responsible for forest management use the best available data, that this
data is also made available to the public to increase transparency in forest management, that agencies
continue to update or add to their forest management standards and these standards are supported by
research.
Links to indicators under other criteria
An important aspect of forest community well-being and resilience is the proportion of managed public
forest under some degree of community control. This information, captured under indicator 5.2.1,
Forest area by timber tenure, should be considered when discussing forest community well-being and
resilience. In addition, aspects of forest community well-being and resilience are also linked to indicators
under element 5.3, especially indicators on annual harvests relative to the level deemed to be sustainable (indicators 5.3.1 and 5.3.2) and indicators on overall employment and average income in the forest
sector (indicators 5.3.5 and 5.3.6). These indicators help to provide a measure of the availability of
resources that provide employment at good wages.
49
REFERENCES
Anonymous. 1995. Montreal process on criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable
management of temperate and boreal forests. Montréal Process Liaison Office, Ottawa, Canada.
________ 1999. lei standard 5000-1: System for sustainable natural production forests Management
(National Standards of Indonesia). Lembaga Ekolabel Indonesia, Indonesia. url: www.iac.wageningen-ur.nl/ForestCertification/files/StandardsIndonesia.pdf
Amazon Cooperative Treaty (act). 1995. The Tarapoto proposal of criteria and indicators for sustainability of the Amazon forest. Pro Tempore Secretariat, Lima, Peru.
American Forest and Paper Association (afpa). 2001. Sustainable forestry initiative standard. Washington, D.C.
Asia Pacific Forestry Commission (fao/unep/itto). 2004. International workshop on development
of nation-level criteria and indicators for the sustainable management of dry Forests in Asia, Bhopal, India, 30 November–3 December 1999. FAO, Bangkok, Thailand.
Australian Forestry Standard Technical Reference Committee of the Australian Forestry Standard Steering Committee. 2003. The Australian Forestry Standard—Guidance for medium and large native
forest ownerships (Supplement to AS 4708(Int)—2003). Australian Forestry Standard Steering
Committee, Canberra, Australia. url: www.forestrystandard.org.au/publications/pdf/4708S1.pdf
Babbie E. 2001. The practice of social research. 9th ed. Wadsworth, Belmont, Calif.
Bass, S. 2002. Application of criteria and indicators to support sustainable forest management: Some
key issues. In Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management. R.J. Raison, A.G. Brown
and D.W. Flinn (eds.) iufro Research Series 7. CABI Publishing, Oxford. pp. 19-37.
Beaudry, P.G. 2004. A water quality indicator for sustainable forest management: The SCQI Experience
In: G.J. Scrimgeour, G. Eisler, B. McCulloch, U. Silins and M. Monita. Editors. Forest Land–Fish
Conference II – Ecosystem Stewardship through Collaboration. April 26-28, 2004, Edmonton,
Alberta.Bradbury, R. 1996. Are indicators yesterday’s news? In Institute of Environmental Studies
(ed.) Tracking Progress: Linking Environment and Economy through Indicators and Accounting
Systems. Conference Papers, Australian Academy of Science Fenner Conference on the Environment. University of New South Wales, Sydney.
British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 2005. frpa Resource Evaluation Program. B.C. Ministry of Forests,
Victoria, B.C. url: www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/frep/(Accessed March 20, 2005)
________.2004. frpa Resource Evaluation Program (Riparian indicators). B.C. Ministry of Forest, Forest Practices Branch, Victoria. url: www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/frep/2_fish.html
________. 2004. frpa resource evaluation program (protocol for stand level biodiversity monitoring).
B.C. Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Branch, Victoria, B.C.
________. 2004. frpa resource evaluation program (Soils). B.C. Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices
Branch, Victoria, B.C. url: www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/frep/2_soils.html
________. Forest and Range Practices Act (frpa). 2004. frpa resource evaluation program (riparian
function). B.C. Ministry of Forest, Forest Practices Branch, Victoria, B.C.
50
British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Kootenay Region. 2003. Southern
Rocky Mountains management plan (srmmp). B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Victoria, B.C.
British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Skeena Region. 2004. Kalum land
and resource management plan (lrmp) monitoring report 2004. B.C. Ministry of Sustainable
Resource Management, Victoria, B.C. url: http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/ske/lrmp/kalum/docs/
kalum_LRMP_cabinet_approved.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection State of Environment Report. 2002.
Environmental trends in British Columbia 2002. B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection,
Victoria, B.C. url: http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/soerpt/pdf/ET2002Oct221.pdf
Bunnell, F.L. 2003. Monitoring to sustain biological diversity in British Columbia. Prepared for the Biodiversity Branch of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. B.C. Ministry of Water, Land
and Air Protection, Victoria, Canada.
California Environmental Protection Agency (cal/epa). 2002. Environmental protection indicators
for California (epic). Office of Environmental Health Hazard, Sacramento, Calif. url: http://
www.oehha.ca.gov/multimedia/epic/2002reptpdf/EntireEPIC%20Report.pdf
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (ccfm). 1993. Criteria for the sustainable development of
Canada’s forests (Working paper) In Proceeding of the Seminar of CSCE Experts on Sustainable
Development of Boreal and Temperate Forests, September 27 to October 1, Montreal, Canada.
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (ccfm). 1995. Defining sustainable forest management: A Canadian approach to criteria and indicators. Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, Ottawa, Canada.
url: www.ccfm.org/ci/framain_e.html
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (ccfm). 1997. Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest
management in Canada: Technical report. Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, Ottawa, Canada.
url: www.ccfm.org/ci/tech_e.html
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (ccfm). 1998. National forest strategy (1998–2003): Sustainable
forests, a Canadian commitment. National Forest Strategy, Canadian Council of Forest Ministers,
Ottawa, Ont.
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (ccfm). 2003. Criteria and indicators 2003. Canadian Council of
Forest Ministers, Ottawa, Canada. url: www.ccfm.org/review_e.html
Canadian Forest Products Ltd., Peace Region, Chetwynd Operation. 2001. Management plan 3 for Tree
Farm Licence 48. Canadian Forest Products Ltd., Chetwynd, B.C.
ccad/ccab-ap/fao. 1997. Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management in Central
America. Experts’ meeting. Lepaterique Process of Central America, Tegucigalpa, Honduras.
Center for International Forestry Research (cifor). 1998. The CIFOR criteria and indicators generic
template. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Commonwealth of Australia. 1997. Australia’s first approximation report for The Montreal Process.
Montreal Implementation Group, Canberra, Australia.
Environment Canada, Pacific and Yukon Regions. 2004. Environmental indicators for the province of
British Columbia and the Yukon Territory of Canada. url: www.ecoinfo.org/ [Accessed 15 December, 2004]
51
Finnish fsc Working Group. 2003. The draft fsc standard for Finland. Forest Stewardship Council,
Finland. url: www.fsc-finland.org/standardi.pdf
Forest Stewardship Council (fsc) Canada Working Group. 2004. National Boreal Standard. Forest
Stewardship Council, Toronto, Canada. url: www.fsccanada.org/pdf_document/BorealStandard_Aug04.pdf
Forstner, M., F. Reimoser, J. Hackl, and F. Heckl. 2001. Criteria and indicators of sustainable hunting.
Translation of Monograph No. 158. 2001. Monograph M-163, Federal Ministry for Agriculture,
Forestry, Environment and Water Management, Vienna, Austria.
Fraser Basin Council. 2001. Sustainability indicators for the Fraser Basin: Consultation report. Fraser
Basin Council, Vancouver, B.C.
Fraser Basin Council. 2001. “Alternative indicators,” sustainability indicators for the Fraser Basin; Consultation Report. Fraser Basin Council, Vancouver, B.C.
fsc-us Rocky Mountain Working Group. 2001. Forest stewardship standard for the Rocky Mountain
Region (USA). Forest Stewardship Council, USA. url: www.fscus.org/images/documents/standards/STND_RM_final_V2.PDF
fsc-us Working Group. 2005. Pacific Coast (USA) Regional forest stewardship standard. Forest
Stewardship Council, Washington, D.C. url: www.fscus.org/images/documents/standards/PC_
final_v9.0.pdf
fsc Canada Working Group. BC Regional Initiative. 2003. fsc-BC preliminary standards. Forest
Stewardship Council of British Columbia. Toronto, Canada. url: www.fsc-bc.org/SiteCM/U/D/
fsc%20Cda%20approved%20BC%20Stds.pdf
fsc Standards Group. 1999. Forest Management Standard for the United Kingdom. fsc Standards
Group, Tynemouth, U.K. url: http://homepage2.nifty.com/fujiwara_studyroom/sinrin/sin16/fscuk/fscukstand.htm
Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative. 2001. Georgia Basin Environmental Indicators. British Columbia.
B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Victoria, B.C. url: http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/
soerpt/gbindicators/gb-links.html [Accessed 11 February 2005].
Glaser, B.G. and A.L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.
Aldine Pub. Co. Chicago, Ill.
Global Forest Watch Canada. 2000. Canada’s forests at a crossroads: An assessment in the year 2000: Section 2. Indicators of forest condition and change. World Resources Institute, Canada.
url: http://pdf.wri.org/gfw_canada_indicators.pdf
Global Reporting Initiative. 2002. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. url: www.globalreporting.
org/guidelines/2002/gri_2002_guidelines.pdf Global Reporting Initiative, Boston, Mass.
glsl Regional fsc Initiative Steering Committee. 2001. Standards for well-managed forests in the
Central and Southern Great Lakes–St. Lawrence Forests of Ontario. Forest Stewardship Council of
Canada, Toronto, Canada.
Government of British Columbia. 2004. Appendix 4. Summary of Indicators and Measures. 2004/05–
2006/07 Service Plan. Government of British Columbia, Victoria, Canada. url: www.bcbudget.
gov.bc.ca/bgt2004/sp2004/for/for_appendix4.htm [Accessed 13 December 2004
52
Hemstrom, M., T. Spies, C. Palmer, R. Kiester, J. Teply, P. McDonald, and R. Warbington. 1998. Latesuccessional and old-growth forest effectiveness monitoring plan for the Northwest Forest Plan.
Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR-438, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, Ore.
Hickey, G.M. 2004. Regulatory approaches to monitoring sustainable forest management. International
Forestry Review 6(2):89-98.
Hickey, G.M. and J.L. Innes. 2005. Monitoring sustainable forest management in different jurisdictions.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. In Press.
International Tropical Timber Organization (itto). 1992. Criteria for the measurement of sustainable
tropical forest management. Policy Development Series No.3, itto, Yokohama, Japan.
Kamloops Forest District. 2002. Sustainable forest management plan for the Kamloops Timber Supply
Area (TSA). B.C. Ministry of Forests. Victoria, B.C. url: www.for.gov.bc.ca/dka/TSAsfmJan2002.pdf
Kershner, J.L., E.K. Archer, M. Coles-Ritchie, E.R. Cowley, R.C. Henderson, K. Kratz, C.M. Quimby, D.L.
Turner, L.C. Ulmer and M.R. Vinson. 2004. Guide to effective monitoring of aquatic and riparian
resources. Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report rmrs-gtr-121, United
States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, Ore.
Kremsater, L., F. Bunnell, D. Huggard, and G. Dunsworth. 2003. Indicators to assess biological diversity:
Weyerhaeuser’s coastal British Columbia forest project. Forestry Chronicle 79: 590–601.
Lammerts van Bueren, E.M. and E.M. Blom.1997. Hierarchical framework for the formulation of sustainable forest management standards: principles, criteria, indicators. The Tropenbos Foundation,
Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Lint, J., B. Noon, R. Anthony, E. Forsman, M. Raphael, M. Collopy, and E. Starkey. 1999. Northern spotted owl effectiveness monitoring plan for the Northwest Forest Plan. Pacific Northwest Research
Station general technical report pnw-gtr-440. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Portland, Ore.
lrm Planning Team. 1995. Kamloops land and resource management plan (lrmp). B.C. Ministry of
Sustainable Resource Management, Victoria, B.C. url: http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/sir/lrmp/kam/
theplan/klrmp_full.pdf
lrmp Process Support Team. 1997. Fort Nelson land and resource management plan (LRMP). B.C.
Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management,Victoria, B.C.
________. 1999. Prince George land and resource management plan (LRMP). B.C Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Victoria, B.C.
lrmp Table. 2000. Mackenzie land and resource management plan (LRMP). B.C. Ministry of
Sustainable Resource Management, Victoria, B.C. url: http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/lrmp/
mackenzi/final/maclrmp.pdf
MacKendrick, N.A. and J.R. Parkins. 2004. Frameworks for assessing community sustainability: A
synthesis of current research in British Columbia. Northern Forestry Centre, Information Report
NOR-X-392, Canadian Forest Service, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Meadows, D. 1998. Indicators and information systems for sustainable development. A report to the
Balaton group. The Sustainability Institute, Hartland, Vt.
53
Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (mcpfe). 1995. The Pan-European
criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. Annex 1 of the resolution L2, adopted by
the expert level follow-up meetings of the Helsinki conference in Geneva, June 24, 1994 Ministerial
Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Liaison Unit in Helsikni, Helsinki, Finland.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (omnr). 2002. Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest
management. State of the Forest Report 2001. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ont.
National Forest Certification System. 2004. CertFor manual. CertforChile, Santiago, Chile
url: www.certfor.org/ingles/files/System_Manual.pdf
Natural Resources Canada (nrc). 2000. A user’s guide to local level indicators of sustainable forest
management. Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
Natural Resources Conservation Service 1996. NRCS ecosystem indicators report: Appendix B: Ecosystem indicators matrix. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington DC, USA..
Nordic Council of Ministers. 1997. Indicators of the state of the environment in the Nordic countries.
TemeNord 1997:537, Statistics Norway, Oslo.
Okanagan-Shuswap LRMP Process Support Team. 2000. Okanagan-Shuswap land and resource management plan (lrmp) (Approved 2001). B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management,
Victoria, B.C.
Oregon Department of Forestry. 2002. Forest practices monitoring program strategic plan. Oregon Department of Forestry , Oregon, USA.
PEFC Germany. 1999. Appendix II: List of indicators (criteria, recommendations and indicators for sfm
for the regional level). pefc, Merl-Hollerich, Luxembourg. url: www.pefc.org/internet/resources/5_1185_382_file.203.rtf
PEFC Sweden. 2003. Annex 2: Technical document organisation, system and forest standards for PEFC
Sweden (Revised June 2003). pefc, Merl-Hollerich, Luxembourg. url: www.pefc.org/internet/
resources/5_1185_427_file.898.doc
Poore, D. 1993. Criteria for sustainable development of forests. In Proceeding of the Seminar of CSCE
Experts on Sustainable Development of Boreal and Temperate Forests, September 27 to October 1,
Montreal, Canada.
________. 2003. Changing landscapes: The development of the international tropical timber organization and its influence on tropical forest management. Earthscan Publications, London, U.K.
Poschen, P. 2000. Social criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management: A guide to ILO texts.
German Agency for Technical Cooperation (gtz), Forest Certification, Eschborn.
Prabhu, R., H.J. Ruitenbeek, T.J.B. Boyle, and C.J.P. Colfer. 2002. Between voodoo science and adaptive
management: the role and research needs for indicators of sustainable forest management. In Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management. R.J. Raison, A.G. Brown and D.W. Flinn
(eds.) iufro Research Series 7. cabi Publishing, Oxford. pp. 39–66.
Province of British Columbia. 2000. Vancouver Island land use plan. B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Victoria, B.C. url: http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/lrmp/vanisle/docs/vislup.
pdf
Riverside Forest Products Ltd. 2004. Tree Farm Licence 49 ecological stewardship plan. Riverside Forest
Products, Kelowna, B.C.
54
Sherry, E. and S. Parsons, 2004. Success stories: Shared perspectives on jprf accomplishments; Criteria and indicators of joint forest management. University of Northern British Columbia, Prince
George, B.C.
Standards Australia. 2003. The Australian Forestry Standard—Guidance for Medium and Large Native
Forest Ownerships (Supplement to AS 4708(Int)—2003). Australian Forestry Standard Steering
Committee, Sydney, Australia. url: www.pefc.org/internet/resources/4_1334_765_file.724.pdf
Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable. 2003. Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Rangelands, The First
Approximation. Colorado State University. Colo. url: http://sustainablerangelands.cnr.colostate.
edu/index_files/C&Ijune2003.pdf
Swiss Conference of the Timber Economy (HWK) and pefc Switzerland. 2000. National standard
“Q-label wood” for forestry in Switzerland. pefc, Merl-Hollerich, Luxembourg. url: www.pefc.
org/internet/resources/5_1185_161_file.67.pdf
Tesera Systems Inc. 2003. Lakes Timber Supply Area (tsa) complete indicators list. Prepared for Morice
and Lakes Timber Supply Areas (tsa) Innovative Forest Practices Agreement (ifpa). Morice and
Lakes Innovative Forest Practices Agreement, Prince George, B.C. url: www.moricelakes-ifpa.
com/publications/documents/LakesTSACompleteIndicatorList.PDF
The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment. 2002. The state of the
nation’s ecosystems: Measuring the lands, waters, and living resources of the United States (Update
2003). Cambridge University Press, New York, N.Y.
Ward, W.J.1999. Pacific Northwest Salmon Habitat Indicators. Pilot Project Snohomish river basin. Publication 99-301, Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Assessment Program,
Watershed Ecology section, Olympia, Washington.
Weldwood of Canada Limited. 2004. Quesnel woodlands operation sustainable forest management plan.
West Fraser Timber Company Ltd. Vancouver, B.C. url: www.weldwood.com/wwinet/corporate/
articles.nsf/020fd4ecd50e97a8882568ac005f4b69/bc85a09f4cdc1fd988256e7f0062d11c/$FILE/
Qnl_SFM%20Plan2004%20Revised.pdf
Wells, R. and D. Haag. 2003. Assessment of indicators for maintaining biological diversity in the arrow
TSA: Final report. Slocan Forest Products, British Columbia, Canada. Unpublished.
West Island Timberlands. 2002. Towards sustainable forest Management. BC Coastal Group Weyerhauser Company. West Island Woodlands Advisory Group, Port Alberni, B.C. url: www.wiwag.
org/pdf/csa_sfm_plan2002.pdf
Western Forest Products Inc.. 2001. Tree Farm Licence 6 sustainable forest management plan. Western
Forest Products Inc. Duncan, B.C. url: www.westernforest.com/fstew/tfl6.html
World Commission on Environment and Development (wced). 1987. Our common future. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, U.K.
55