The IUCN Forest Conservation Programme

TheWellbeing Wellbeing The of Forests: of Forests:

An e-tool for assessing environmental Issues, Indicators and social sustainability. and Performance Criteria on Forests
Part A. Understanding and applying the Prepared byAssessment Alex Moiseev For method Sustainability IUCN Temperate and Boreal Forest Programme
A paper to accompany MapScores software

Part B.Wellbeing Scores software manual 27 June 2002 Compiled by Alex Moiseev in collaboration with Eric Dudley and Danielle Cantin

The World Conservation Union

IUCN

The IUCN Forest Conservation Programme

The Wellbeing of Forests:

An e-tool for assessing environmental and social sustainability.
Part A. Understanding and applying the Sustainability Assessment method Part B.Wellbeing Scores software manual

The World Conservation Union

IUCN

The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN This publication has been made possible in part by funding from the IUCN Fund for Innovation through support from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). This work is based on prior work by the IUCN International Assessment Team and the IUCN Monitoring and Evaluation Initiative. In particular, this work owes an intellectual debt to Robert Prescott-Allen, author of The Wellbeing of Nations and Irene Guijt, who co-authored The Resource Kit on Sustainability Assessment with Alex Moiseev. The authors benefited from pioneering work on thematic assessments undertaken with the Regional Office for Southern Africa in collaboration with Misael Kokwe and Emmanual Guveya. The authors also thank Nancy MacPherson for her intellectual and financial support in the development of this project and its proposal. Thanks also to Jean Thie (Information Management) for early discussions that helped shape the overall project concept and Simon Reitbergen and Dagmar Timmer (Forest Conservation Programme) for helpful comments throughout. The authors would also like to acknowledge the useful comments by Andrew Deutz (Canada office and Temperate and Boreal Forest Programme) and Chris Morry (Canada office) on the paper and software. Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

Copyright: 2000 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. Citation: Moiseev,A, Dudley, E and D. Cantin (2002).The Wellbeing of Forests: an e-tool for assessing environmental and social sustainability. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 50 pp. ISBN 2-8317-0662-9 Cover photo: Danielle Cantin, IUCN Temperate and Boreal Forest Programme Produced by: IUCN Temperate and Boreal Forest Programme Printed by: Interligne Inc., Montral, Canada Available from: IUCN Publications Services Unit 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 ODL, United Kingdom Tel: +44 1223 277894, Fax: +44 1223 277175 E-mail: info@books.iucn.org http://www.iucn.org A catalogue of IUCN publications is also available

The Wellbeing of Forests:

Part A. Understanding and applying the Sustainability Assessment method

IUCN

The World Conservation Union

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Sustainability Assessment Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Dimensions of Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Issues and Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Performance Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Combining Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Mapping and Wellbeing Scores Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 The Pressure-State-Response Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Recap: Developing a Forest-themed Sustainability Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 THE FOREST-THEMED SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:AN INTRODUCTION . . . . . . .17 Forest Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Resource Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Health & Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Knowledge and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Wealth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Box 1.A note on terminology used by Sustainability Assessment Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Box 2. Indicator transformation from data to scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Box 3. Goal and objectives of IUCN's Forest Conservation Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Figure 1.The Forest-themed Sustainability Assessment and Wellbeing Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Figure 2. . Suggested Ecosystem dimensions (in bold) and elements (in italics) . . . . . . . . . . .11 Figure 3. .The Pressure-State-Response Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Figure 4.The modified Pressure-State-Response Framework, including Benefits . . . . . . . . . .16 Figure 5. Land Elements and Sub-elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Figure 6.Water Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Figure 7.Air Elements and Sub-elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Figure 8. Biodiversity Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Figure 9. Resource Use Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Figure 10. Health & Population Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Figure 11. Knowledge & Culture Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Figure 12. Community Elements and Sub-elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Figure 13. Equity Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Table 1. Human and Ecosystem Dimensions and Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Table 2. Performance scale definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Annex 1. Performance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

INTRODUCTION
For many years, IUCN has been concerned with developing tools to better assess if the management of our natural resources is sustainable. IUCN developed Sustainability Assessment, a method for assessing the wellbeing of people and ecosystems together, as a means for measuring our progress. From this work, IUCN has applied this approach to conservation strategies, biodiversity action plans, and now forest conservation. This work was undertaken simultaneously with the development of software to assist with this assessment work. Sustainable development is an almost universally accepted goal; however there is no clear understanding of how it is achieved or how to measure progress toward that goal. Assessment can help bridge this gap by systematically collecting and judging information that can help determine progress. This paper presents a set of measures, organized according to IUCNs Sustainability Assessment method, based on forest themes and concerns. The paper is intended to accompany Sustainability Assessment software, called Wellbeing Scores developed by MapMaker Ltd.The software, available from IUCN, allows users to manipulate and combine these measures and generate maps to test their assumptions and judgments on sustainability. This paper attempts to bring together some key issues and concerns on forest conservation, along with data and some analysis to provide a context for using the software.The software itself is intended to allow users to define their own version of sustainable development by setting performance standards for each measure and specifying how measures will be combined. Eventually, IUCN hopes to use this tool to help different groups around the world define the vision of forest conservation, supported by locally specific understandings and the best available global, national and local data. Sustainability Assessment is a method for measuring sustainable development, by treating the wellbeing of people and ecosystems together. This method measures sustainable development through specific indicators and also by aggregating indicators into themes (dimensions). The method uses ten themes five on human development and five on ecosystem protection to organize the indicators.These themes help organize what might be an otherwise unwieldy and contradictory set of indicators into the most appropriate and broad themes possible. Sustainability Assessment is intended to provide a comprehensive assessment by covering the broadest range of themes (dimensions) possible (see also Methods). Throughout this paper, readers will notice that there is still a huge gap between what should be measured, and what can be measured. For many things relevant to forest issues, data is lacking or concepts have not been refined into a measurable format.This paper used 27 of the most relevant and available indicators. However, the discussion and analysis shows that many more indicators could and should have been included but were not.

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

Box 1. A note on terminology used by Sustainability Assessment Method1 Sustainability Assessment has developed its own specific terminology over the years. This paper attempts to adhere to the official terminology that follows: A dimension is a broad theme, such as land, resource use or community, intended to contain a set of elements, all of which are related to the same category. An element is a key issue or concern related to a dimension. An indicator is a measurable sign or signal of a phenomenon; a context specific measure of an element or sub-element. Indicators are combined to measure elements; elements are combined to measure dimensions; dimensions are combined to measure human and ecosystem wellbeing.

METHODS
The aim of this paper is not to produce a definitive understanding of forest conservation, but only to highlight and justify a set of key issues (elements), indicators and the possible range of performance for each indicator. In generating the list of issues and their justification, a number of major publications were consulted.2 The main questions guiding this paper, and the results that follow are: If we were to measure sustainable development from the perspective of forests, taking into account human and ecosystem wellbeing, what should be included? The answer to this question yielded a set of issues (elements) and indicators. For each measurement, how do we know if things are getting better of worse? The answer to this question yielded a performance scale for each indicator. The issues (elements) and indicators were then organized according to Sustainability Assessment method.This method provides a comprehensive framework within which to measure sustainable development.The pressure-state-response framework was used to assist in ensuring that the resulting list of issues was complete. The method section is divided into three sections: Sustainability Assessment Method

1 2

Sustainability Assessment Resource Kit, pp. B3-4. WRIs Pilot Assessment of Global Ecosystems (PAGE); UNEP's Global Environment Outlooks draft chapter on Forests for GEO-3; FAOs State of the Worlds Forests 2001; FAOs Forest Resources Assessment 2000

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

The Pressure-State-Response approach (and how it relates to Sustainability Assessment) A discussion of how Sustainability Assessment and Pressure-State-Response helped develop the content for this assessment. This paper is intended to complement Wellbeing Scores software and manual.The set of issues (elements) and indicators, their interpretation and combination are subjective and not the result of a broad consensus building process. Users of Wellbeing Scores software will have ample opportunity to introduce their views on forest conservation while using the software. Figure 1 below introduces these opportunities.We will refer to this diagram throughout.

Figure 1.The Forest-themed Sustainability Assessment and Wellbeing Scores What we did to build the Forest-themed Sustainability Assessment
Identify a representative set of forest issues for each dimension Identify indicators for each issue, based on global datasets Set performance scales for each indicator based on literature Combine indicators into dimensions or themes; and overall wellbeing Map and review results and implications

2
Add new indicators or other datasets

5
Re-map and review results to see implications of changes

What you can do with Wellbeing Scores Software

Add new issues Set new performance scales based on other judgments or goals Re-combine indicators to show dimensions or themes and overall wellbeing

1
Sustainability Assessment Method

Sustainability Assessment is a method for conceiving and measuring sustainable development.Through this method, users are able to articulate their ideal situation what they mean by full human development and a productive and healthy ecosystem. The method has a number of key features: 1. Equal treatment of people and the ecosystem: human development is not possible without a healthy environment; and likewise, environmental protection is not possible without addressing the needs of people. Considering the wellbeing of people and the ecosystem together produces a stronger and more likely vision of sustainability than if they are considered separately. 2. An analytical hierarchy, from big picture to details: the information in a sustainability assessment is organized such that each individual indicator can help contribute to our understanding of larger themes (or dimensions such as forest lands, wealth or resource use) and ultimately human and ecosystem wellbeing. 3. Visual tools: such as maps that show where performance is best and worst; where priority actions are most needed. A complete set of maps associated with an assessment can quickly tell what issues (elements) are most important for any area.

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

4. Performance indicators: help demystify what indicators mean by specifying the range of good and bad performance on scales. Unlike indicators, performance scales can be combined to show themes (dimensions) and overall human or ecosystem wellbeing.The choices behind the performance scales are transparent, so they can be challenged by any user according to their vision of sustainability or experience in the field. 5. Cyclical nature: a typical assessment is undertaken in a participatory manner, encompassing a number of steps from defining a vision of sustainability, measuring the individual indicators and interpreting the results.A cycle recognizes that sustainability is a moving target, not an absolute goal, and that those interested in sustainable development must be prepared to learn and monitor over time. Note: this Forest Sustainability Assessment has compiled themes (dimensions), issues (elements) and performance indicators to shorten this process and allow users a quick insight into the method. Combining data, maps and a narrative provide the most complete and transparent information possible on an assessment. In this assessment, data and the absence of data are important parts of the narrative discussion. A more detailed document on Sustainability Assessment is available from IUCN (http://www.iucn.org/themes/eval/sustassess.htm). IUCN developed Sustainability Assessment over an eight-year period through an iterative process of testing and writing. Sustainability Assessment is also known as Wellbeing Assessment and is the method guiding a global report called The Wellbeing of Nations. 3 IUCN developed a facilitation and training guide on Sustainability Assessment entitled, The IUCN Sustainability Assessment Resource Kit.4 What follows is a highly condensed version of the guidance from the Resource Kit.

Dimensions of Sustainability
This sustainability assessment uses the standard set of themes (or dimensions) used in many sustainability assessments. Dimensions are large groups of representative elements. Each set of dimensions, human and ecosystem encompasses a range of themes thought to be wide enough to cover the broadest spectrum of issues facing any society.The forest-themed Sustainability Assessment adapts these dimensions using the Pressure-State-Response framework to make a deeper analysis of forest conservation issues. The table below illustrates a general set of Human and Ecosystem dimensions and elements.

3 4

Robert Prescott-Allen, 2001.The Wellbeing of Nations.Washington: Island Press. Irene Guijt,Alex Moiseev and Robert Prescott-Allen, 2001.The IUCN Resource Kit on Sustainability Assessment. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

10

Table 1. Human and Ecosystem Dimensions and Elements

Dimensions Health and population Wealth Knowledge and culture Community Equity Land Water Air Biodiversity Resource use Elements Physical and mental health, disease, mortality, fertility, population growth. The economy, income, material goods, infrastructure, basic needs for food, water, clothing and shelter. Education, state of knowledge about people and the ecosystem, communication, systems of belief and expression. Rights and freedoms, governance, institutions, peace, crime, civil order. Distribution of benefits and burdens between males and females and among households, ethnic groups and other social divisions. The diversity and quality of land ecosystems, including their modification, conversion, and degradation. The diversity and quality of inland water and marine ecosystems; modification by dams, embankments, pollution, and water withdrawal. Local air quality and the global atmosphere. Status of wild species and wild and domesticated crop and livestock populations. Energy and materials, waste generation and disposal, recycling; resource sectors such as agriculture, fisheries, timber, mining, and hunting.

Issues and Indicators

Indicators are measurable and representative aspects of an issue.5 The purpose of indicators is to communicate in a quantifiable and clear manner some important aspect of an issue in which we are most interested. Indicators used by Sustainability Assessment communicate performance, meaning that the range of good and bad has been identified and justified in advance.This makes the process of viewing indicators transparent and less confusing.Too often, the communicative power of an indicator is lost because it is unclear what the measurement is communicating or how it has been constructed. Goals and performance criteria are closely linked. For instance, a society that sets a goal of a long and healthy life for its population might measure the long life part through an indicator of life expectancy. Setting high standards, perhaps at or close to UN goals for longevity, would reflect this goal.The next section on performance scales, describes how these standards are set for each indicator. For this assessment, indicators were chosen for each issue identified where data were available.
Figure 2. Suggested Ecosystem dimensions and elements
Land Water

ECOSYSTEM

Air

Species & populations

Resource use

Land diversity

Land quality

Global atmosphere

Local air quality

Energy & materials

Resource sectors

Inland waters

Sea

Species diversity

Population diversity

ibid, pg. 59

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

11

Performance Scales
Indicators can only become performance indicators if the range of good and bad is explained and justified.This is called a performance scale. Annex 1: Performance Scales gives a more complete explanation of what this means and lists every indicator used in this assessment, along with its scale and justification. Performance scales are developed using the three steps below6: 1. 2. 3. A. B. Determining the range of recent, current and expected performance of that element/indicator as measured; Determining the objective of the element concerned. For example, if the objective of your health element is a long and healthy life, you could choose life expectancy as the indicator and specify a good band with a high score of 80 years or higher; Using at least one of the following values to set one or more of the bands: Estimated sustainable rate. For example, a sustainable rate of timber felling would be less than 100% of net annual increment. The estimated background rate (natural or normal performance). For example, the background rate of animal extinctions is estimated to be less than 0.01% of species per century. An acceptable percentage of threatened species could be defined as not more than 100 times that rate.

C. Other threshold. For example, countries have increasing difficulty supporting external debt when debt service payments are above 20% of exports of goods and services. D. E. F. An international (or national) standard. For example, a UN standard for water quality is less than 30 miligrammes of nitrogen per litre of water. An international (or national) target. For example, a UN target for education is 100% primary education by 2015. Expert opinion. For example,Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index.

G. A derivation from a closely linked or related indicator. For example, because there is no specific UN target, the performance criteria for secondary education should be a less stringent version of those for primary education. H. The judgment of the participants. If none of the above factors is available, the choice of performance criteria is entirely up the judgment of the participants.This judgment may be based on research, experience or consensus of the group.

ibid, pp. 67-8

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

12

The three steps of deciding on performance criteria, selecting a standard and scaling the indicators, must be carried out for each indicator. Selecting which standards listed above (AG) to follow will depend on circumstances.You will need to check which exist and which is most likely to be most accurate: (A) to (C) are scientific standards, (D) and (E) are consensus-based while (F) and (G) are more experience-based.A descriptive narrative will help explain the choice of standards for determining performance criteria for each indicator to others who were not part of the decision-making process. Setting performance standards is key to the entire method. Care must always be taken to ensure that standards are set to the highest possible level, meeting the goals of society. Performance standards are always documented and justified to ensure transparency and to allow dissenting groups an opportunity to contest the values implied by the scale itself. In many cases, what is meant by good or bad performance has not been well thought out, and these initial steps to describe what is meant by performance should be seen as a first step in encouraging a broad debate. Each performance scale must set standards for good, ok, medium, poor and bad.The table below is an example of a performance scale for a generic indicator: Table 2. Performance scale definition Band Good OK Medium Poor Bad Base Top point on scale 100 80 60 40 20 0 Definition Desirable performance, objective fully met Acceptable performance, objective almost or barely met Neutral or transitional performance Undesirable performance Unacceptable performance Base of scale

Source: Sustainability Assessment Resource Kit, pg. 66.

How each band is defined depends on the views of the user. For example, desirable performance, fully meeting the objective, will depend entirely on how the objective has been defined.A society that defines an objective for resource use as maximum yield available for timber production may support greater plantation cover than a society that values less resource use and more natural forests. Setting performance scales in this manner allows users to match standards with their vision of sustainability while communicating this to others. Users of Wellbeing Scores software will find that changing priorities through individual performance scales can be quickly reflected in overall sustainability scores. Box 2. Indicator transformation from data to scores Indicators are mathematically transformed from DATA to SCORES using the performance scales. The data measure, such as 79 years of life expectancy, or 1.2 percent of forest cover loss per year, is transformed into a standard 0 100 scale.This allows indicators to be compared on their own merit and combined to show dimensions and overall human or ecosystem wellbeing.

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

13

Combining Indicators
Indicators, once scored, can be combined because they all share the same scale (a 0-100 point standard scale). Indicators are combined to show themes (dimensions) and overall human or ecosystem wellbeing. For example, if the wealth dimension can be measured through the value of six different types of production coming from timber harvesting, those indicators can be combined to give an overall sense of the wealth provided by forest resources. This is an important notion, as most sustainability reports and indicator sets do not combine indicators in this fashion.As a result, the signals communicated by indicators can become confusing and are open to multiple interpretations. Indicators can be combined in the following fashion: As a simple average, denoting the equivalent importance of the indicators; By taking the lowest value, indicating that a good score in one indicator cannot compensate for a poor score in others and By using a weighted average, to show the relative importance of one or more indicators over the rest. Combining indicators follows a hierarchy: Indicators are combined to show elements; and Elements are combined to show dimensions (see figure 2); However, each dimension under the human and ecosystem sides is considered to be relatively equal in importance because they cover such a broad range of concerns. Similarly, human wellbeing is considered to be as important as ecosystem wellbeing.

Mapping and Wellbeing Scores Software

Wellbeing Scores allows users to turn data into scores through performance scales, combine indicators and map the results. Mapping is a key part of sustainability for its visual ability to summarize complex situations. Using the global forest database compiled as part of this project, users of Wellbeing Scores software can show any indicator, issue on a map of the world, allowing them to quickly see where performance is strongest or weakest according to the performance criteria.

The Pressure-State-Response Framework

The Pressure-State-Response model is a simplified model of how human interaction with the environment yields changes to the environment. It is a somewhat simplistic model, not meant to mimic reality, but to simplify relationships so an initial understanding may be achieved. In the simplest form, the diagram below shows the relationship between pressures, states and responses. Pressures flow from human activity and change some aspect of the environment. For instance, rapidly growing rural communities can place pressure on forest resources through timber extraction, fuelwood use, etc.

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

14

 State refers to an actual, measurable aspect of the environment. Forest cover measures, in an immediately observable manner, the extent of the forest. It does not depend on knowing much about pressures and can be easily verified through observation (for example, remote sensing). Responses are actions that people (individuals, organizations, governments, etc.) take to protect the environment. It is intended to be a specifically positive activity to counter a pressure on the environment. In that sense, policies, conservation programmes and field projects are all examples of responses. Responses lead to impacts, either changing pressures placed on the environment and/or the state of the resource in question. Impacts can be positive or negative; intended or unintended. When using the pressure-state-response framework, it is important to be aware of how directly one is measuring changes in the environment.The state of any resource, whether it be trees, water quality or biodiversity, is always the most direct measure. If the state of a resource can be measured, it should be. Pressures are important indicators of change, but their effect on the state of any resource is not always uniform. For example, the pressure on forest due to poverty varies widely depending on where one is looking. Finally, responses are the least direct measure of a resource. It is not hard to find expensive conservation policies that have had no impact on the state of forests, and at the same time, find small project based responses that have led to broad new understanding of forest conservation leading to greater positive impacts on the state of forests. In the diagram below, state and impacts are treated as being roughly the same, signifying their relationship. Figure 3. The Pressure-State-Response Framework. There are two important caveats to using the Pressure-State Response (PSR) framework: First and foremost, the world is not this simple! There are many simultaneous pressures on each resource, each being addressed by different responses.Typically, any forest will be the subject of multiple international conventions, national laws, criteria and indicators approaches, management plans and other informal approaches.The number of pressures is also myriad, including direct and indirect or Pressure local and international.The relationship between any forest, pressures on that forest and responses aimed at conservation looks more like a spider web of cause, effect and response (albeit a really messy spider web). State Impacts Second, time moves forward! Well meaning responses in 1970 may be the leading causes of pressure Response on resources today. Over time, pressures emerge and are dealt with. Impacts are realized and the state of the forest changes. Different societal priorities can result in resources being treated differently. Over a long term, the PSR framework is much more problematic, because it is easy to confuse multiple pressures and impacts of responses. So why use Pressure-State-Response at all? For this paper, the PSR framework helps organize the literature on forest conservation by themes (pressures, states and responses) and relate this to the Sustainability Assessment framework.To the PSR framework, this paper adds the idea of benefits (see below). In addition to pressures placed on forests and responses to those threats, humans benefit greatly from forests and forest products.

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

15

The inclusion of benefits to the PSR framework complicates matters somewhat. For example, while human activities place pressure on forests, this process also yields certain benefits. Similarly, responses and impacts can also yield benefits to human development. This idea is complementary with the central message of Sustainability Assessment that human and ecosystem wellbeing must be assessed Impacts together. Only then, can the delicate balance of meeting human development needs with environmental conservation be realized. The PSR framework without the inclusion of benefits does not Benefits illustrate this properly. Including benefits ensures that sustainable development is about the wellbeing of people and the environment. It is important to note that benefits implied by this use, are scaled for performance to include the idea of sustainability.

Pressure

State

Response

Figure 4.The modified Pressure-State-Response Framework, including Benefits

Developing a Forest-themed Sustainability Assessment

Any true assessment of sustainable development must balance the widest range of relevant issues with the constraints imposed by the availability of data and the ability to conceive of a range of performance for each measure. Not everything that can be conceived can be measured.That said, this assessment approached the task from the following perspective: All issues (elements), indicators and performance scales were derived from reading the major forest conservation publications listed on footnote 2 on p.7. The framework also sought to adequately cover the state of forests, pressures on forest resources, benefits from forests and responses aimed at ameliorating pressures on forests by identifying issues, which were then organized according to Sustainability Assessments framework of dimensions (See Figure 1, Step 1). The framework produced a representative list of 27 indicators, covering a broad range of themes (dimensions) on human and ecosystem wellbeing (Step 2). Performance scales, showing the range of good and bad performance were developed and justified (Step 3). The indicators are measured using available data from secondary sources (also Step 3). Using the Wellbeing Scores software, indicators were scored and combined (Step 4) and them mapped (Step 5). Indicators were combined using simple averages, so as to allow users to explore the implications of weighting for themselves.

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

16

Box 3. Goal and objectives of IUCN's Forest Conservation Programme Goal: Maintenance, and where necessary, restoration of forest ecosystems to promote conservation and sustainable management of forests, with equitable distribution of a wide range of forest goods and services. Objective 1: Protected Areas Encourage the establishment and effective management of ecologically representative forest protected area systems that take account of connectivity and robustness with respect to climate change and other stresses, equitable distribution of benefits and costs and participation of key stakeholders. Objective 2: Sustainable Forest Management Encourage the development and implementation of socially beneficial and economically viable forest management outside protected areas as an integral part of an ecosystem based approach to landscape management. Objective 3: Restoration Encourage the development of environmentally sound, economically viable and equitable reforestation and forest ecosystem restoration programmes. Objective 4: Cross-sectoral impacts Identify cross-sectoral impacts (particularly those associated with over-consumption, pollution, climate change and perverse economic incentives) and harness opportunities for enhancing conservation and sustainable use.

THE FOREST-THEMED SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:AN INTRODUCTION

This section outlines the elements and indicators chosen as part of the Forest-themed Sustainability Assessment.The previous section introduced Sustainability Assessment method and the Pressure-StateResponse framework, which guided the choices, made in this section. Every sustainability assessment starts with some goals, so as to guide the development of performance criteria for each indicator.The goals of IUCNs Forest Conservation Programme guide this assessment. The elements and indicators are organized according to the standard Sustainability Assessment Framework of Dimensions (see Figure 2). Annex 1 presents the performance criteria for each indicator. Everything dimensions, elements, indicators and performance scales - has been programmed into the Wellbeing Scores software.

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

17

Forest Lands
Goal: Maintain or improve the integrity of forest ecosystems. The Forest Lands dimension measures the state of forests most directly.Two broad elements, Extent & Diversity and Quality were used to describe the state of forests. Extent & Diversity covers the most basic data on forests size, coverage, change, and fragmentation. This reflects quality for forests, plantation and protected areas. Diversity is not measured as well as Extent, but it is assumed that unfragmented and natural forest contain greater degrees of diversity, thus a decline in either signals a decline in diversity.Also under Extent & Diversity is the issue of protection.A common goal for protected areas development and management suggests that a representative group of forests be protected, generally around ten percent of terrestrial ecosystems. Figure 5. Land Elements and Sub-elements Dimension
Forest Lands

Elements
Extent & Diversity
Quality

Sub-elements
Extent Fragmentation Protection Damage Fire Management

Quality attempts to capture some pressures on the Extent & Diversity of forest ecosystems. Forests damaged by insects, pests, disease, pollution or excessive fire are of lower quality than those not affected. Forests that are fragmented are of lower quality. Indicators and Data: Forest lands are best described in terms of extent and how the size and composition of forests is changing. FAO has accumulated excellent data from which to derive suitable indicators. Forest quality, on the other hand, suffers from a lack of available and reliable data. Global data sets do not exist, but some good work has been done in Northern Europe, Canada, Russia and the USA.

Dimension Ecosystem Forest Lands

Element Extent & Diversity

Sub-Element Extent

Indicator Annual average change of forest area (%) Average annual change of plantation forest area (%)

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

18

Extent of forests is the most direct measure of the state of forests. Here average annual change of natural forests and plantations are measured along with changes in total forest area. A strong case can be made for increasing plantation area while halting the loss of natural forest area.

Dimension Ecosystem Forest Lands

Element Extent & Diversity

Sub-Element Fragmentation

Indicator Closed Forest as a % of total forest area Closed forest as a % of original forest

Fragmented forest ecosystems are far less capable of supporting biodiversity, including other species. The ability to measure fragmentation is quite limited. Remote sensing and sampling procedures, even when definitions of fragmentation are clear, often yield unreliable data. For the Pilot Assessment of Global Ecosystems,World Resources Institute suggested that the presence and density of road networks would be a suitable indicator showing fragmentation, but data is not widely available or reliable.

Dimension Ecosystem Forest Lands

Element Extent & Diversity

Sub-Element Protection

Indicator Forests in protected areas as a % of total forests according to global maps

Protected areas, if implemented effectively, can be indicative of forest extent, as well as quality (see next indicator).This indicator measures only extent of protected areas, but does not speak to the effectiveness of that protection. Ineffective protected areas are vulnerable to illegal activities and corruption (see Community). Many countries over-report protected areas. Forest Resource Assessment 2000 compares country reported protected areas with protected areas according to their global mapping approach. Ideally, there should be no difference between what each country reports and what is noted on the global maps, indicating that protected areas are as extensive as countries believe. Large discrepancies between the two measures call into question the quality of forest protection. Forest quality is at least as important as forest cover. An unhealthy forest ecosystem is unable to provide benefits and may ultimately loose forest cover. Ideally, this assessment should include indicators of damage from pests, insects, disease, acid rain and fire. However, two problems exist. First, reliable and global data sets do not exist, and second, in some cases, there is little agreement on how much damage is too much damage. For instance, some fire is natural and beneficial to forests, but it is not clear how much is too much, except for in extreme cases.

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

19

Data for indicators on damage from insects, pests, disease and acid rain are not easily available but data is good for regions such as Europe, Canada and USA. With some work, datasets for these indicators could be constructed, but often this is a matter of compiling regional data sets, with considerable work to harmonize definitions so that data are similar enough to be comparable. Because of these difficulties, this assessment does not include measures of forest quality.

Water
Goal: none specified by the Forest Conservation Programmes goals. Forests assist in maintaining the integrity of watersheds. Loss of forest cover can lead to erosion, which in turn can have significant negative effects waterways. Similarly, loss of waterways, particularly rivers can be an important indicator of habitat loss for forests. Figure 6.Water Elements Dimension
Water

Elements
Conversion of aquatic habitat
Pollution

Water quality could also be included in an assessment of this type, if only suitable relationships between water quality and forest quality could be established. Certainly proximity of forests to bodies of water would be important to account for, as would the effect of polluted groundwater on forest quality.These indicators were not included in this assessment. Data and indicators: Forests are often valued for watershed protection. River fragmentation also implies some degree of forest habitat destruction. Fragmentation of rivers, then, is a useful proxy for degradation or loss of forest cover in watersheds, something which is of enough significance to measure separately from forest cover as a whole. Both indicators used in this assessment were also used in the Wellbeing of Nations.

Dimension Ecosystem Water

Element Conversion of aquatic habitat

Sub-Element

Indicator Dam capacity as a % of total water supply Water withdrawals as % of total internal supply

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

20

Air
Goal: Mitigate the threats posed by climate change, ozone layer depletion and regional air pollution on forests. The Air dimension describes how the atmosphere interacts with forests. Forests and the atmosphere represent one of the most important feedback cycles on the planet. Forests store carbon and produce oxygen, accounting for nearly 80 percent of the exchange of carbon between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere. Ozone depletion, extreme weather events and air pollution can pose significant threats. Figure 7. Air Elements and Sub-elements Dimension
Air

Elements
Global Atmosphere
Local / Regional Air Quality

Sub-elements
Climate Change

Climate change, air pollution and ozone layer depletion, have a potential for rapidly changing ecosystems upon which certain forest species depend. Forecasts of 2 to 8 degrees Centigrade changes upward in the global mean temperature over the next century pose a serious threat to species unable to adapt. Scientists also blame these rising temperatures for change in weather patterns, leading to extreme weather events. Data and indicators: Air pollution (and the resulting potential for acid rain) and ozone depletion are measured to show the potential threats to forests. Extreme weather events can be measured, but of much more interest, is how forests are planted and managed to minimize the damage caused by these events. Recent events in Europe and Canada had placed this issue to the forefront, but data and measures do not yet exist. Carbon sequestration can be measured directly and shows how forests contribute to mitigating concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere. However, the capacity of each type of forest to store carbon is different. Tropical forests, for instance, have a much greater capacity for storing carbon than boreal forests. To develop an indicator that would be useful, this assessment would have to weight storage capacity regionally, while assessing performance, something that was beyond the scope of this work. This is an important indicator which should be urgently developed to help further the understanding of the relationship between forests and climate change.

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

21

Dimension Human

Element Air

Sub-Element Global Atmosphere

Indicator Climate Change Carbon Ozone Depleting Substance (ODS) per capita, in grams

Local/regional air quality

% of country with acidification excedence

Biodiversity
Goal: Maintain tree species and habitats to protect diversity. Forest biological diversity the diversity of genes, species, populations and habitats represents one of the most important indicators of forest quality. It is important to also keep forests in the context of their ecosystems by addressing biological diversity as a whole, treating all species as being part of a web of life, of which forests are one component. Figure 8. Biodiversity Elements Dimension
Biodiversity

Elements
Species
Habitats

This assessment also included a measure of habitats, through the concept of frontier forests. World resources institute notes that frontier forests are the world's remaining large intact natural forest ecosystems. These forests are -- on the whole -- relatively undisturbed and big enough to maintain all of their biodiversity, including viable populations of the wide-ranging species associated with each forest type. This assessment described frontier forests in relation to original forest cover, which is that forest thought to cover the planet 8,000 years ago before large scale disturbance by society began. Data and indicators: Forest species are notoriously difficult to count and assess in practice. However, a joint effort between the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) and FAO has yielded a relatively decent set of species level indicators, ranging from general measures of endangered species to specific measures of endemic, endangered tree species.

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

22

Dimension Ecosystem Biodiversity

Element Species

Sub-Element

Indicator % of endangered species total % of endangered species which are country endemic % of endangered country endemic species which are endangered tree species

Habitat

Frontier forest as a % of original forest

Resource Use
Goal: Use forest resources sustainably. Resource Use, in this assessment, is the other side of Wealth.The dimension of Resource Use measures pressures that humans place on forest resources whether it is for energy or consumption.Wealth, on the other hand, measures benefits derived from that use of forest resources. Figure 9. Resource Use Elements Dimension
Resource Use

Elements
Energy
Harversting

This assessment looks at Resource Use from the perspective of timber felling (particularly fuelwood) and anthropogenic impact. Unfortunately, this probably does not cover the dimension as well as possible. Anthropogenic impact is an estimate, and is a bit less reliable than hard data, and covers all land types, not just forests. It would be ideal to include indicators of fuelwood use and grazing to help complete the picture of resource use. Data and indicators: Pressures placed on forests from energy use are well conceptualized, but data and information is highly localized. For example, there are not globally comparable datasets on the use of fuelwood, which in some parts of the world represents significant threats to forests.

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

23

Dimension Ecosystem Resource Use

Element Timber extraction

Sub-Element

Indicator Fellings + Imports as a % of Net Annual Increment % of land area with low anthropogenic impact % of land area with high anthropogenic impact

Anthropogenic impact

Health & Population

Goal:A stable and locally appropriate population that will not place excessive pressure on forests. Population growth is routinely identified as a root cause of change in forest ecosystems. A rapidly growing population can place undue pressure on forest resources, particularly in rural areas.Thus, a stable population, particularly in rural areas is preferable. Rural urban migration can change this dynamic.This assessment addresses the population question in a general sense. At the national level, this is all that is possible. More concrete assessments would address where population is posing a threat, which is more precise than simply identifying a potential threat from rural population growth and density on average. Figure 10. Health & Population Elements Dimension
Health & Population

Elements
Health
Population

This assessment does not include benefits to human health. It is conceivable that forests produce benefits that improve human health, ranging from specific medicines to aesthetic benefits, however the links are diffuse and little conceptual thinking has been done to develop specific measures. Data and indicators: Good data and indicators exist for a general discussion of population pressure on forest resources.
Dimension Human Health & Element Population Sub-Element Indicator Total fertility rate (no.children/ woman) Rural population density (people/ km2

Population

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

24

Knowledge and Culture

Goal: (knowledge only) Complete knowledge on forest resources and pressures on those resources. Knowledge & Culture are two of the more difficult, yet important aspects of this Forest Assessment. Knowledge describes our understanding of forests, their resources and importance in ecosystems and how to best manage threats posed to them. Knowledge is the sum of science, policy and experience on and around forests. Underpinning knowledge is culture. In general terms, culture is the collection of beliefs that guide any society. In specific terms, for forests, these are represented by how a culture attaches spiritual or aesthetic significance to forests. Figure 11. Knowledge & Culture Elements Dimension
Knowledge & Culture

Elements
Knowledge
Culture

Data and indicators: Almost nothing exists at the global level in comparable datasets, but theoretical understandings, particularly at local level, proliferate.This assessment used the Innovation Index, which appeared in the 2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Report as a proxy for a societys ability to react to change under knowledge.This is hardly a direct measure, but little else exists. No indicators were developed for culture.

Dimension Human Knowledge & Culture

Element Knowledge

Sub-Element

Indicator Innovation Index

Community
Goal: A governance structure that supports sustainable forests, which is enforced and enforceable. Community, in this assessment, is split between Governance and Peace & Order, essentially, the rules and how they are enforced. Governance describes how countries are managing their forest resources, from national level policy to management of specific forest areas.This assessment focuses on forest management specifically, mainly because policy impact is very difficult to measure directly as a causeeffect relationship but can be seen directly under Extent & Diversity of forests.

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

25

Figure 12. Community Elements and Sub-elements Dimension

Community

Elements
Peace & Order
Government

Sub-elements
Illegal activities Corruption

Peace & Order describes illegal activities and corruption. FAOs State of the Worlds Forests 2001 devoted an entire chapter to exploring this issue. Illegal activities can include illegal occupation of forest lands, logging, trade, timber transport and smuggling; and illegal accounting practices such as transfer pricing. Corruption refers to the more systematic undermining of good governance, interfering with the intent of policy or government institutions and can contribute directly to illegal practices. Data and indicators: Good data and indicators exist for forest management and certification, although these measures tend to underestimate the amount of forest under management and says little about the effectiveness or appropriateness of management or certification.Almost no data exists on illegal activities and corruption, although this will likely be available in the future, and could possibly be cobbled together from national sources.This assessment used a Corruption Index that appeared in the 2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Report.

Dimension Human Community

Element Peace & Order Governance

Sub-Element Corruption Forest Management

Indicator Corruption Index % Area under forest management % Area under FSC certification

Equity
Goal: Costs of, and benefits from, forest conservation shared amongst all groups in society. In this assessment, there is a broad gap between what would be ideal to measure and what is possible to measure. Ideally, equity would describe how the costs and benefits of sustainably managing forest resources are shared amongst groups in society. Conceptually, however, this is not well developed, and measures do not exist.

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

26

Figure 13. Equity Elements Dimension

Equity

Elements
Poverty
Sharing costs & benefits of conservation

Poverty is widely cited as a root pressure on forests and is a proxy measure for equity in any society. The measures used in this assessment are from UNDPs Human Development Report.The Human Development Index describes peoples deprivation from education, long life and wealth. Data and indicators: Basic measures of poverty are easily obtained, but anything more specific on equity does not exist in global datasets.
Dimension Human Equity Element Poverty Sub-Element Indicator Human Poverty Index Human Development Index Gender Gender related development index

Wealth
Goal: Forest provide sustainable benefits to society. Wealth captures many, but not all, of the benefits to humanity of forests. Economic benefits, those that can be measured in the marketplace, include timber and wood products, nonwood products, energy (woodfuels), ecotourism and employment.Wealth can be derived for another group of benefits, for which market values do not exist, including carbon storage, soil and watershed stabilization, biodiversity and cultural and spiritual values. Data and indicators: While there is considerable data on the production, consumption and trade of timber and energy products, there is little to guide an assessment on how to determine if levels are good or bad. Under resource use, this assessment used an indicator that relates production to net annual increment. For wealth, this assessment is concerned with measuring the benefits to society, but the question is: how much wealth, trade, employment, aesthetic value, cultural value or watershed protection is good and how much is bad. This assessment used an indicator of forest area per capita, derived from the work of the Ecological Footprint and a very small proxy for wealth. Clearly, more work is urgently needed to link the benefits from forests with sustainability.
Dimension Human Wealth Element Wealth Sub-Element Indicator Forest area per capita

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

27

Annex 1. Performance Criteria

HUMAN WELLBEING
Indicator Issue Good OK Medium Poor Bad Base Rationale

HEALTH & POPULATION 1. Rural population density (# people/km2) 2. Total fertility rate (# children/woman) WEALTH 3. Forest area per capita Wealth (hectares) KNOWLEDGE & CULTURE 4. Innovation Index1 Knowledge 35 25 20 15 10 5 Reflects range of current performance; also a standardized indicator 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Ecological Footprint range of performance using a linear scale Population Population 5 1.2 10 2.2 20 2.6 50 3.4 100 5.0 800 8.4 Uses a geometric scale (doubling) Top of fair is just below replacement rate of 2.1

COMMUNITY 5. % of forests under management plans 6. % of FSC certified forests 7. Corruption Index2 Governance Governance Peace & Order 100 100 80 80 60 60 1.50 40 40 20 20 0 0 0 Simple scale Simple scale Indicator is already standardized; this scale simply breaks down into even categories.

2.13 2.00

1.00 0.50

EQUITY 8. Human Development Poverty Index 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Scale used by HPI corresponds with performance scale from Sustainability Assessment method Reflects current range of performance As above

9. Human Poverty Index 10. Gender-related Development Index

Poverty Gender

0 1.0

10 0.8

20 0.6

40 0.4

60 0.2

70 0

The Innovation Index measures the underlying capacity of a country to engage in technical innovation by examining factors such as scientific infrastructure and policy environment.
Source: M.E. Porter et al. 2001.The Global Competitiveness Report 2001. Oxford University Press.

Corruption contributes to lax enforcement of environmental regulation and inability on the part of producers and consumers to evade responsibility for the environmental harms they cause.
Source: Kaufmann et al. 2000. Governance matters.World Bank,Washington.

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

28

ECOSYSTEM WELLBEING
Indicator FOREST LANDS 11. Average annual change in forest area (%) 12.. Average annual change plantation area (%) 13. Closed forests as a % of total forest area 14. Closed forests as a % of original forests Extent & change Extent & change 0.8 0.0 -0.1 -0.9 -2.5 -5.7 Only gains in forest cover are considered good; any loss is medium or worse. How to separate out good plantations from bad? This scale is still a bit suspect depends entirely on species. Based on current range of performance Modified from above Top of medium reflects in international goal of protecting 10% of each major ecosystem type. Issue Good OK Medium Poor Bad Base Rationale

15

10

2.5

1.25

Fragmentation Fragmentation

100 100 40

75 50 20

50 25 10

25

0 0 0

12.5 6.25 5 2.5

15. % of forests in Protection protected areas (all IUCN classes) according to global maps WATER 16. Dam capacity1 as a % of total supply 17. Water withdrawal as % of total internal supply AIR 18. Carbon emissions per capita (kg carbon) Global atmosphere Habitat conversion Habitat conversion

0 0

10 10

20 20

40 50

60 100

100 200

Reflects current range of performance Top of bad matches a point which is clearly unsustainable

400

800

1600 3200

6400 Top of fair matches the point below which carbon emissions per person must fall to keep the atmospheric concentrations at less than double the preindustrial level (WON) 400 Best matches international agreements to eliminate ODSs (WON)

19. Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) per capita (grams of ozone depleting material)

Global atmosphere

25

50

100

200

Dam capacity is the total cumulative capacity of all dams in cubic km.
Source: R.P.Allen 2001.The Wellbeing of Nations. pg. 205

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

29

Indicator 20. % of country with acidification excedence BIODIVERSITY 21. % of endangered estimated 22. % of endangered species which are country endemic

Issue Local atmosphere

Good OK Medium Poor Bad 0 20 40 60 80

Base 100

Rationale Top of medium matches WHO guideline; top of poor matches lowest observed effect level (WON)

Species species Species

16

32

64

Top of medium based on background extinction rate of <0.01% per century (WON) Derived from above, but slightly more lax, reflecting fewer numbers As above

16

32

23. % of endangered Species country endemic species which are endangered tree species 24. Frontier forest as a % of original forest RESOURCE USE 25. Fellings + Imports Timber extraction as a % of net annual below increment (NAI) 26. % of land area with very low anthropogenic impact Anthropogenic impact Habitat

16

32

60

30

15

7.5

3.75

Reflects current range of performance

81

101

111

151

211

Top of medium ensures that only felling + import rates NAI receive a fair score Simple scale

100

80

60

40

20

IUCN
The World Conservation Union

30