Gap Analysis of Sustainable Forest BC

S
c
i
e
n
c
e
,

I
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
:

I
n
v
e
s
t
i
n
g

i
n

B
r
i
t
i
s
h

C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
s

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
-
b
a
s
e
d

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

S
e
c
t
o
r
Cover and text
2 0 0 5
F O R R E X S E R I E S 1 7
Cover and text
ISSN 1495-964X
Scientic Review
and Gap Analysis
of Sustainable
Forest Management
Criteria and
Indicators Initiatives
I
Scientic Review
and Gap Analysis
of Sustainable
Forest Management
Criteria and
Indicators Initiatives
Gordon M. Hickey and John L. Innes
ii
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 FORREXForest
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 commer-
cial use, resale, or redistribution requires written permission from FORREXForest Research Extension Partnership. For this purpose,
contact the Partnership at: Suite 702, 2351st 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, 2351st Avenue
Kamloops, BC V2C 3J4
National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication Data
Hickey, Gordon M
Scientic 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 333.7509711 C2005-905560-X

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, rm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and con-
venience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an ofcial 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.
iii
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 Columbias forests. The following re-
port is the rst in a series of three that summarize the results of the 2004 foundation projects. It focuses
on determining common scientically sound, useful, and effective criteria and indicators and monitoring
systems for British Columbias forests (Area One). As part of the foundation project, Science Review and
Gap Analysis, a matrix of 3000 scientically reviewed indicators related to British Columbia-relevant
sfm criteria was created. This indicator matrix was then analyzed and systematically reduced by re-
searchers 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 1819, 2005.
Citation
Hickey, G.M. and J.L. Innes. 2005. Scientic 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
iv
FOREWORD
Bruce Fraser (Chair) John Dunford (Vice Chair) Chris Hollstedt (Co-ordinator)
Forest Practices Board Tolko Industries Ltd. Forrex
The sustainability of British Columbias forests is vital to the economic, social, and environmental well-
being of our province. Over the years, we have invested much to develop criteria and indicators (c&i)
of sustainability through research, certication, performance audits, and sustainable forest management
planning. However, we realize today there is a great need to make these efforts more efcient. One an-
swer is to develop common indicator sets that can be measured and reported at appropriate levelsand
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 Canadas 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
dening 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 certication that requires performance
indicators and monitoring frameworks. Finally, the Forest Practices Board retains its role of perform-
ing independent audits and reporting on forest practices throughout the province. All parties seek an
effective, efcient, 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 efciency, 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 Columbias forests. The goal is
to facilitate collaborative development of scientically sound, commonly accepted c&i, and to increase
awareness of the need for working models with generally acceptable methods of measurement and prac-
tical application.
v
Initial funders for the initiative included:
British Columbias 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 Protection
1
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 Protection
1
Canadian Forest Products Ltd.
Council of Forest Industries (co)
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 founda-
tion projects, completed in April 2005, focused on three main areas:
1. Determining common scientically sound, useful, and effective criteria and indicators and moni-
toring systems for British Columbias forests.
2. Assessing existing research, monitoring, modelling, and investment efforts.
3. Dening a framework to link criteria and indicators information to policy, management, and
operational decisions.
The following report is the rst in a series of three reports that summarize the results of the 2004
foundation projects. Entitled, Scientic Review and Gap Analysis of Sustainable Forest Management Crite-
ria and Indicators Initiatives, this report focuses on Area One: determining common scientically sound,
useful, and effective criteria and indicators and monitoring systems for British Columbias forests. Au-
thors Dr. Gordon Hickey and Dr. John Innes, as part of the foundation project, Science Review and Gap
Analysis, created a matrix of 3000 scientically 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 reect 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.
vi
This project will mean that:
efcient, effective, scientically 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, in-
creasing efcient 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.
vii
CONTENTS
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Sustainable Forest Management in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Sustainable Forest Management in British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Ecosystem Diversity (ccfm Element 1.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Species Diversity (ccfm Element 1.2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Genetic Diversity (ccfm Element 1.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
Role in Global Ecological Cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Carbon Cycle (ccfm Element 4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Economic and Social Benets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Economic Benets (ccfm Element 5.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Distribution of Benets (ccfm Element 5.2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Sustainability of Benets (ccfm Element 5.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Canadian Council of Forest Ministers ccfm Criterion 6: Societys Responsibility . . . . 29
Provision for Duly Established Aboriginal and Treaty Rights (ccfm Element 6.1) . . . . . 29
Aboriginal Traditional Land Use and Forest-based Ecological Knowledge
(ccfm Element 6.2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Forest Community Well-being and Resilience (ccfm Element 6.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Fair and Effective Decision Making (ccfm Element 6.4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Informed Decision Making (ccfm Element 6.5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Initial Feedback from Breakout Sessions at the British Columbia Criteria
and Indicators Forum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Appendix A Canadian Council of Forests Ministers Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
viii
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 Certication Intentions for csa, s, fsc by Province for Year
ended 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Tree diagram illustrating the method of indicator reduction/analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1
INTRODUCTION
Criteria and indicators could be a very useful tool to dene 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 denition of sustainable development is taken from Our Com-
mon 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 denition 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 environmen-
tal activities within the United Nations. It is now generally recognized that no matter what the literal
denition, 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 dene 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) dened a criterion as a standard that a thing is judged by while an indi-
cator is any variableused to infer performance.
It has been noted that c&i are predisposed to top-down control and present quick-x solu-
tions 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 entiretyas 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 precau-
tion, learning, adaptability and resiliencethey 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 consen-
sus 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 Forests
1
, 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 for-
est 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 exible 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.
1
This conference was held in Montreal, Canada.
2
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 dene a collaborative
approach to c&i research and monitoring frameworks in British Columbia that will improve communi-
cation, reduce duplication, increase efciency, and make more effective use of investment funds.
Sustainable Forest Management in Canada
Approximately 94% of Canadas forests are publicly owned, with 71% owned by provincial govern-
ments 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 estab-
lished 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, non-
governmental 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 In-
ternational 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 Desertication (ccd) and the Ramsar Conven-
tion 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 develop-
ing 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 activi-
ties 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-the-
ground 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. Assess-
ing the effectiveness of frpa in achieving sfm in British Columbia is done through the FRPA Resource
Evaluation Program (frep). The specic 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 Columbias 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 indi-
cators 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).
3
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 integrat-
ed 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 Columbias forest industries require sfm indicators to achieve third-party
certication. In the case of the Canadian Standards Associations (csa) Z809-02 sfm standard (the
most widely applied performance-based certication scheme in British Columbia; see Figure 2), each
company is required to develop sfm indicators within the ccfm criteria framework. Other third-party
forest certication schemes that propose indicators related to sfm in British Columbia include the For-
est Stewardship Council (fsc) and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (s).

4
FIGURE 2 Canadian Forest Certication Intentions for CSA, SFI, FSC by Province for Year ended 2006.
Source: Coalition Certication Intentions Survey (Key Findings Visual in BULLETIN by Abusow), Dec. 2002.
Reproduced with permission. For statistics on current certication status, see www.CerticationCanada.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; Hauer 2003). This paper presents the results of a comprehensive scientic
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 analy-
sis 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).
2
This term describes a situation where different authorities make decisions simultaneously without clearly dening the man-
agement conditions (Hickey and Innes 2005).

FSC
SFI
CSA
5

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?
6
Is the indicator scientically 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
Potential information requirements

*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 prepara-
tion of our research ndings.
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.
7
SOURCES OF INDICATORS
3
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. Documents
1
1. ccfm (2003) criteria and indicators (Canada)
2. Government of British Columbia (2004) indicators and measures (British Columbia)
3. Montreal (1995) criteria and indicators (International)
4. Helsinki (1993) criteria and indicators (Europe)
5. International Tropical Timber Organization (itto) (1992) criteria and indicators (Asia)
6. Tarapoto Proposal, Amazon Forest (1995) c&i (South America)
7. Lepaterique (2997) criteria and indicators (Central America)
8. Asia Initiative: Bhopal, (1999) criteria and indicators (Asia)
9. usda Forest Service lucid indicators (USA)
10. Georgia Basin Indicators (2001) (British Columbia)
11. cifor (1998) indicators (Asia)
12. Global Reporting Initiative (2002) indicators (Global)
13. Commonwealth of Australia (1998) indicators (Oceania)
14. Environment Canada (2004) Pacic and Yukon Region indicators (Canada)
15. The Sustainability Initiative (1998) indicators
16. Global Forest Watch Canada (2000) indicators (Global)
17. Forest and Range Practices Act (frpa) Biological Indicators (General) (2004) (British
Columbia)
18. frpa Riparian Indicators (2004) (British Columbia)
19. frpa Riparian function (2004) (British Columbia)
20. frpa Soil (2004) (British Columbia)
21. OkanaganShuswap Land and Resource Management Plan (lrmp) (British Columbia)
22. Vancouver Island lrmp (British Columbia)
23. Fort Nelson lrmp (British Columbia)
24. Prince George lrmp (British Columbia)
25. Kamloops lrmp (British Columbia)
26. Mackenzie lrmp (British Columbia)
27. Kalum lrmp Monitoring Report 2004 (British Columbia)
28. Southern Rocky Mountains lrmp (British Columbia)
29. Lammerts van Bueren and Blom (1997) c&i for sfm (International)
30. Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Rangelands (2003) (usa)
31. Poschen (2000) Social c&i of sfm (International)
32. H. John Heinz (2002) State of the Nations Ecosystems (usa)
33. BC Environmental Trends (2002) indicators (British Columbia)
34. Environmental Protection Indicators for California (usa)
35. Oregon Monitoring Strategy 2002 (usa)
36. Ontario State of the Forest Report (2001) indicators (Canada)
3
Refer to the References for complete document information.
8
37. Nordic State of the Environment Report indicators (Europe)
38. Weldwood of Canada, Quesnel (t 5) (2004) sfm Plan (British Columbia)
39. Weyerhaeuser, West Island (2002) sfm Plan (British Columbia)
40. Western Forest Products (t 6) sfm Plan (British Columbia)
41. Canfor, Peace Region, Quesnel (t 48) (2001) sfm Plan (British Columbia)
42. Wells and Haag (Arrow tsa) (2003) biological diversity indicators (British Columbia)
43. Riverside t 49 Ecological Stewardship Plan (British Columbia)
44. Morice Lakes IFPA (Lakes tsa) Complete Indicator List (British Columbia)
45. Kamloops TSA sfm Plan 2001 (British Columbia)
46. Sustainable Forestry Initiative (2003) indicators (usa)
47. Forest Stewardship Council (fsc) BC (2003) indicators (Canada)
48. fsc Boreal (2004) indicators (Canada)
49. fsc Great Lakes (2001) indicators (Canada)
50. fsc Pacic Coast (2003) indicators (usa)
51. fsc Rocky Mountains (2001) indicators (usa)
52. fsc uk (1996) indicators (Europe)
53. MacKendrick and Parkins (2004) (cfs) social indicators (British Columbia)
54. Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certication (pefc) Germany (1999) indicators (Europe)
55. Certfor Chile (2004) indicators (South America)
56. Swiss Q (2000) indicators (Europe)
57. fsc Finland indicators (Europe)
58. Australian Forestry Standard (2003) indicators (Oceania)
59. Natural Resources Canada Local Level Indicators (2000) (Canada)
60. Indonesia, LEI certication standard indicators (Asia)
61. Fraser River Basin (2001) Indicators (British Columbia)
62. Fraser River Basin (2004) Alternative Indicators (British Columbia)
63. Beaudry (2004) scqiCanfor Water Quality Indicator (British Columbia)
64. Monitoring biological diversityBunnell (2003) (British Columbia)
65. Kremsater et al. (2003) Biological indicators (British Columbia)
66. Hemstrom et al. (1998) usda, Late succession/old growth indicators (usa)
67. Lint et al. (1999) usda, Northern Spotted Owl indicators (usa)
68. Kershner et al. (2004) usda Riparian and aquatic indicators (usa)
69. pnw Salmon Habitat Indicators (1999) (usa)
70. USDA NRCS Ecosystem Indicators Report (usa)
71. Criteria and indicators of sustainable hunting (Europe)
72. c&i of Joint Forest Management (preliminary) unbc (British Columbia)
1
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.
9
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 de-
veloped 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 pro-
vincial 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 Columbias forests being replanted (or regenerated) with forests of lower
genetic diversity?
8. To what extent are British Columbias 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
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 Columbias forested areas being converted to, or recovered from, long-term
forms of disturbance?
13. To what extent are humans inuencing the processes that naturally disturb British Columbias forests?
14. To what extent are forest areas disturbed by timber harvesting being regenerated to maintain ecosystem
productivity and ensure a sustainable ow of wood products?
15. To what extent is the spatial arrangement of forest being maintained to allow for the functioning of
ecological processes?
a
(Canadian Council of Forest Ministers 2003)
10
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 ows 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 Columbias forests a sink for, or a source of, atmospheric carbon?
21. To what extent are British Columbias 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 Columbias forest products sector contributing carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere?
ccfm criterion 5: economic and social benets
Sustaining the ow of benets from forests for current and future generations
a
Economic benets (ccfm Element 5.1)
24. What is the importance of British Columbias forests to the provincial economy, taking into consideration
the following:
Primary and secondary manufacturing
Livelihoods
Prots to businesses
Government revenues
Prots to landowners
Non-timber forest products
Environmental services
Non-market economic values
Distribution of benets (ccfm Element 5.2)
25. How are the economic benets derived from the above economic activities distributed in British
Columbia?
Sustainability of benets (ccfm Element 5.3)
26. How competitive is British Columbia in marketing its forest products?
27. How does employment in British Columbias forest sector contribute to the socio-economic well-being of
individuals and communities?
TABLE 2 Continued
a
11
28. What is the level of science investment directed toward managing British Columbias 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: societys 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 Columbias forest-dependent communities resilient enough to withstand
shocks or economic cycles within specic 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 Columbias forest-based communities?
Fair and effective decision making (ccfm Element 6.4)
40. To what extent does British Columbias 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 Columbias forest managers committed to sustainable forest management?
Informed decision making (ccfm Element 6.5)
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 Columbias 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?
a
TABLE 2 Concluded
12
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). Ac-
cording 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 sufcient 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 reect the ecological, economic, and social components of sustainable forest man-
agement. 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 mean-
ingful benchmarks. This has been identied 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 dont know, disagree) based on the following evaluation criteria:
1. relevance
2. ability to answer the question
3. applicability
4. link to forest management
5. cost effectiveness
6. usefulness for informing decision making
Based on this analysis, a number of indicators received a (total) negative score. These indicators have
been identied 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 partici-
pants felt that they were not consistent in how they applied the evaluation criteria.
1. Indicator
13
CANADIAN COUNCIL OF FOREST MINISTERS (CCFM) CRITERION 1:
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
4

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 ecozone
1,3,4,8,9,13,16,23,25,28,32,36,41,42,44,51,54,58,59,61,65,66,67
Other Potential Indicators:
1. Percentage of tree species by age class, by site quality, by Landscape Unit (lu) by
Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classication (bec) zone
44
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 indices
44

3. Habitat supply for indicator species
9,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,36,38,41,42,44,45,59,62,64,65,67,70
4. Structural stage distribution by bec by site series over time
44
Seral stage distribution by lu by bec by licensee
44
*Area of old growth by bec zone
2,22,28,36,39,42,44,45,50,59,66
5. Percentage of non-forest communities area (e.g., wetlands, All Terrain Vehicle tracks, Non-
Productive Brush) by lu by licensee
44
6. Area of forest community types with signicantly reduced area
32
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 areas
1,3,8,9,10,13,25,27,36,41,44,45,54,59,62
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 type
5
3. Percentage of protected areas connected by biological corridors
5
4. Outstanding or unique biological, zoological, geological, and paleontological features in
protected areas
24

4
This criterion relates to the frpa Forest and Environmental Values: Biodiversity, Fish, Forage and Associated Plant
Communities, Resource Features, and Wildlife.
14
5. Total forest cover in relation to area of forest outside of protected areas
7
6. Area of forest under management in relation to area of forest in protected areas
7
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 risk
1,3,9,10,13,16,21,22,23,24,26,32,34,36,41,42,59,60,61,67,70

1. Change in the status of threatened and vulnerable species or indicator species
25
2. Number of forest-dependent species classied 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 species
5
5. Areas of high, medium, and low habitat by species over time
44
Area (ha) of forage cover
44
Area (ha) of security cover
44
Area (ha) of snow interception cover
44
Area (ha) of thermal cover
44
Percentage of denning habitat over time
44
Percentage of feeding habitat over time
44

Percentage of area breeding habitat
44
6. *Habitat supply for indicator species
9,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,36,38,41,42,44,45,59,62,64,65,67,70
9, 16,17,21,22,
23,24,26,28,36,41,44,45,47,48,49,51,59,65,67,70
44

To what extent are species of ecological, economic, or cultural importance declining?
ccfm Indicator:
1.2.2 Population levels of selected forest-associated species
1,3,7,9,14,22,23,25,26,28,33,36,40,42,43,44,59,61,65,67,70

1. Population growth rates
9,67
2. *Percentage of original range occupied by selected rare, threatened, or endangered species
5

3. Changes in the number and percentage of threatened species in relation to total number of
forest species
4
4. Change in relative abundance
21
5. Rate of change in community species assemblages over time
9
6. Populations of critical species
25
15
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 species
1,10,21,27,35,42,59,64,65

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
44
*Area (ha) treated by ben strong link
44
Area without roads by key habitat type over time
44
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 variants
28
4. Area of forest permanently converted to non-forest land use
5,6,8,9,14,16,36,44,59,69
5. *Area of old growth by bec zone
2,22,28,36,39,42,44,45,50,59,66
Area (ha) Old Growth Management Areas (ogmas) by site series
44
Interior core area of stands, after sharp edges are buffered
48,49,66
Forest interior conditions
22
Areas recruited for future old growth
21,22,28,48
6. Distribution of selected habitat elements in Timber Harvesting Land Base (thlb) by lu
by bec by licensee over time
44
Percentage of stems in large live tree diameter class
44

Percentage of area retained in Wildlife Tree Patches
44
Dead and dying trees: volume (m
3
/ha) of dead potential
44

Snags per hectare
44
Area (ha) of interior forest
44

Interior to edge ratio
44
Volume (m
3
/ha) Coarse Woody Debris by size class by site series
44

44
Riparian connectivity corridors
23
Percentage of harvested cutblocks more than 5 ha that have wildlife trees or tree patches
in operational plans
25
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 species
1,9,10,15,21,36,44,59,65,70

1. Location and dispersal of introduced species
10,44
2. Degree of disturbance to native species caused by invasive species
26,56,57,71
2. Number of forest-dependent species that occupy a small portion of their former range
3,11,13,23,26,59,67
1. Location and dispersal of introduced species
10,44
16
3. Percentage of noxious and uncontrolled weeds in grass seed mixtures applied
5,21,26,30,38
4. Percentage of introduced species in thlb by lu
44
Genetic Diversity (CCFM Element 1.3)
To what extent are British Columbias forests being replanted (or regenerated) with
forests of lower genetic diversity?
ccfm Indicator:
1.3.1 Genetic diversity of reforestation seedlots
1,36,59,70

1. Size of parent population having produced regeneration
59
2. Change in the amount of certied seed-producing stands
54
3. *Area of natural and man-made forests
4,8,36,56,59
To what extent are British Columbias 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 ecozone
1,5,6,7,59

1. Changes in genetic diversity of species undergoing selective pressures
9,59
2. Change in the amount of gene protection forests
54
4,8,36,56,59
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 forest-
dwelling species
13
2. Changes in population, genetic diversity and structure, and gene ow for selected species
9,14,23,33,59
3. *Number of forest-dependent species classied 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 ranges
14
Garry oak ecosystem
14
Wetlands of the Fraser Lowland
14
Wetlands, old forests, grasslands, and riparian ecosystems in the Okanagan Basin
14
3. Percentage of noxious and uncontrolled weeds in grass seed mixtures applied
5,21,26,30,38
4. Percentage of introduced species in thlb by lu
44
1. Changes in genetic diversity of species undergoing selective pressures
9,59
2. Change in the amount of gene protection forests
54
17
Wetland/riparian, grassland/shrub-steppe, coniferous forest, and rugged terrain types in
the South Okanagan
14
5. *Percentage of original range occupied by selected rare, threatened, endangered, or indica-
tor species
5
6. Population levels of selected forest-associated species
1,3,7,9,14,22,23,25,26,28,33,36,40,42,43,44,59,61,65,67,70
18
ECOSYSTEM CONDITION AND PRODUCTIVITY
5
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 land
1,3,4,9,
13,25,32,36,37,43,44,59

1. Percentage of and extent of cover types and maturity classes
5,9,56,59
Timber Harvesting Land Base (thlb) area over time (hectares and percentage of gross
and productive)
44
Area (ha) of land managed intensively
25,44
Area classied Non-Commercial Brush
44
Area in problem forest (ha) by type
44
Percentage of reduction due to permanent access feature
43
2. *Mean Annual Increment (mai) by forest type and age class
23,36,50,54,59
mai by Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classication (bec) by licensee
44
Area leading tree species and site quality over time
44
Weighted average basal area by Analysis Unit (au) by Landscape Unit (lu) over time
44
Weighted average mai by au by lu over time
44
Rate of change in total biomass
44
3. Species distribution of growing stock (thlb and non-contributing areas) by Natural Dis-
turbance 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
sustainable
1,6,7,11,13,21,44,55,60

1. Carrying capacity of the system for economically important species
59
2. *Loss of the thlb to roads, seismic lines, well sites, and other developments
23,44
3. Wild salmon and sh populations
21,25,42
5
This criterion relates to the following frpa Forest and Environmental Values: Fish, Forage and Associated Plant Communi-
ties, Resource Features, Timber, and Wildlife.
19
Change in numbers of sh by life stage, by species
Habitat quality
To what extent are British Columbias forested areas being converted to, or recovered
from, long-term forms of disturbance?
ccfm Indicator:
2.2 Additions and deletions of forest area, by cause
1,5,38,41,44,49,68,69

1. Strictly protected forest reserves
4
2. Forests protected by special management regime
4
3. *Loss of the thlb to roads, seismic lines, well sites, and other developments including
agriculture
23,44
4. Area (ha) removed due to inoperability
44
5. Area (ha) reclassied
44
To what extent are humans inuencing the processes that naturally disturb British
Columbias forests?
ccfm Indicator:
2.3 Area of forest disturbed by re, insects, pests, disease, and timber harvest
1,3,4,5,6,7,13,16,21,22,23,24,27,32,34,
36,38,40,41,44,54,58,59,66,70

2.4 Area of forest with impaired function due to drought, ozone, and acid rain
1,2,6,13,21,22,23,24,36
1. Area and type of natural disturbances
Area and severity of insect infestations
2,4,21,27,38,59

Extent of forest area under noxious weeds, pests, and diseases of epidemic proportions
8
Extreme weather and storm damage
4,5,8,9,36,54

Forest re number, area, frequency, and shape
4,8,9
(and history?
48,57
)
2. Area and type of human-induced disturbance
5,16,23,46,58,59,60
Percentage of harvest, by harvest system and by silvicultural system method
44
Frequency distribution of clearcut sizes
36
Area of operationally induced windthrow
9,39,59
Area of slides originating in harvested areas or roads
39,68
Game and grazing damage
4,5,8,44,54,55,71
Area of operationally caused re damage
39,48,55
3. Human actions that could modify natural disturbance
Conditions of residual forest
60
Regeneration and change in the composition and structure of ecosystems
7
Ratio of area reforested to area harvested or lost to re and pests
2
Fire detection and suppression success
4,8,9,13,58,59,68
Percentage of harvest, by harvest system and by silviculture system by licensee
44
20
Percentage of total harvest (m
3
) comprised of salvage
44
Percentage of forested land over time and hectares harvested to mitigate forest health
concerns
44

Percentage of harvest occurring in high beetle risk stands
44

To what extent are forest areas which have been disturbed by timber harvesting being
regenerated to maintain ecosystem productivity and ensure a sustainable ow of wood
products?
Indicator:
2.5 Proportion of timber harvest area successfully regenerated
1,2,6,13,21,22,23,24,36,40,41,43,44,46,50,54,58,59

1. Area out of compliance with free-to-grow objectives
17,18,19,31,34,35,58
2. Means of regeneration and desired species composition
45,52
Genetically improved stock of ecologically suitable species including non-native 22,44
3. Forest health
21,27,40,41,58,59,70
Areas (ha) identied 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 licensee
44
including commercial thinning,
44

fertilization,
54
and pesticides
44,48,52,54,57
To what extent is the spatial arrangement of forest being maintained to allow for the
functioning of ecological processes?
1. Landscape patterns
11

9, 16,17,21,22,2
3,24,26,28,36,41,44,45,47,48,49,51,59,65,67,70
44
*Area (ha) treated by ben strong link
44
*Area without roads by key habitat type over time
44
3. Species distribution of growing stock (thlb and non-contributing areas) by ndt
44
4. Percentage of area declared as mixed-species regeneration
40
4,8,36,56,59
21
SOIL AND WATER
6
The quantity and quality of soil and water.
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 standards
1,21,22,23,24,25,36,39,45,50,52,57,58,59

1. Changes in soil fertility, structure, and function in harvested areas
5,23,50,51,55
Decomposition rates
59
Soil nutrient levels
9
Sensitive soils
5,21,22,59,70
Terrain class
21,22,27
Ectomycorrhizal fungi
21
Number of landslides (no./km
2
)
28
Inoperable areas
22
2. Amount (km) of road where protective road measures are carried out to minimize soil
erosion
38
3. Percentage of annual harvest area with soil loss due to establishment of permanent access
roads
2
4. Area and percentage of rangeland with signicant change in extent of bare ground
30

5. Area and percentage of forest land with signicant soil erosion due to forestry
3,6,7,8,11,13,26,30,32,
41,59,70
Sheet and rill erosion
70
Wind erosion
30,70
Classic gully erosion
70
Streambank erosion
18,70
6. Area and percentage of forest land with signicantly diminished soil organic matter and/or
changes in other soil chemical properties
3,6,9,13,32,41,59,70
Change of soil acidication
9,54,70
Degree of Cation Exchange Capacity (cec), i.e., saturation
54,70
Soil micro/macro fauna
70
Organic matter content (time trend)
15,70
Permeability rate
70
Shrink-swell potential
70
On-site damage
60,70
Stability
30
6
This criterion relates to the following frpa Forest and Environmental Values: Fish, Resource Features, Soils, Timber,
and Water.
22
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 standards
1,5,21,22,23,24,26,35,36,45,47,49,54,59,63,68
1. Change in watershed characteristics over time
28
*Peak ow index (includes Equivalent Clearcut Area [eca] calculation)
28
Road density for entire sub-basin (km/km
2
)
28
Number of stream crossings (no./km
2
)
28,44
Stream Crossing Quality Index
63,69
Size of the sediment source
18,63
Soil texture of the source
63
Slope gradient of the source
63
Age of the source
63
Level of road use
9,63
Number of landslides (no./km
2
)
28
Roads on unstable slopes (km/km
2
)
28
2. Disruption of aquatic habitat
18,50,51
Coarse woody debris in stream channel
9,18,21,43,68,69

Sedimentation of sh habitat
19
Trampling, rubbing, or browsing
19
Failed culvert by culvert type by licensee
36,50,51,68
Condition of canopy in riparian
18
3. Channel form within treatment area versus channel for upstream
18
Sinuosity
19
Width/depth ratio
19
Gradient
19
Pool/rife ratio
19
4. Channel stability
19
Condition of adjacent vegetation (i.e., root structure)
19
S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6 stream riparian reserve zone widths
18,21,28,42
Windthrow in riparian
18
Condition of soil in riparian areas
18,19
Exposed soil
19
Compaction
19
Bank shearing
19
Rills, gullies, or evidence of excessive soil movement
19
5. Percentage of water bodies in forest areas (e.g., stream km, lake ha) with signicant variance
of biological diversity from the historic range of variability
3,10,13,59
Distribution and abundance of aquatic fauna
9,10,11,30,59,70
Type and level of algal growth
10
Trophic state
70
Fish community assemblage
27,35,70
Macroinvertebrate assemblage
18,19,34,70
23
To what extent is forestry having an impact on the water yield, timing, and peak ows 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
1. *Peak ow index (includes eca calculation)
28
2. Percentage of stream kilometres in forested catchments in which stream ow and timing
has signicantly deviated from the historic range of variation
3,9,10,13,16,21,59,69
Area of a stream affected by timber harvesting and road construction
16,21,35,41,69
Flow hydrology
26,68,69
Stream ows
8,9,16,19,21,22,26,41,43,58,59,69
Timing
21,22,59,69
Magnitude
9,21,59,69
Late summer ows
21
Low winter ows
21
Freshet ows
21
Peak ows
10,21,47
3. Area and percentage of forest land managed primarily for protective functions, e.g.,
watersheds, ood protection, riparian zones
3,4,5,6,7,13,21,22,23,24,26,36,39,40,59
Area in cutblock managed as Riparian Reserve Zone or Riparian Management Zone by
appropriate stream, lake, or wetland classication
21,22,23,24,26,41,42,59
To what extent is forestry having an impact on water quality?
1. Percentage of water bodies in forest areas (e.g., stream km, lake ha) with
signicant variation from the historic range of variability in pH, dissolved oxygen, levels of
chemicals (electrical conductivity), sedimentation, or temperature change
3,59,60
Sediment levels
8,18,21,24,41,59,63,69
Fine organic debris (fod)
21,43
Stream temperature
9,10,21,22,35,43,59,68,69,70
less than 10 degrees C = no impairment
69
10-15 degrees C = potential impairment to sensitive species
69
15-20 degrees C = moderate impairment
69
greater than 20 degrees C = severe impairment
69
30-day mean degrees C
43
Groundwater sources important to instream ows
21,59,62
Turbidity
9,21,43,50,59,63,70
Contaminants
9,10,21,32,61,62
Forestry-related pesticides/herbicides/fungicides in surface water and the percentage
that exceeds water quality standards
34
Chemical Water Quality Index
9,10,61,69
Biological Water Quality Index
9,10,69
2. Signicant discharges to water by type of efuent or waste (pulp mills, etc.)
12
24
ROLE IN GLOBAL ECOLOGICAL CYCLES
7
Carbon Cycle (CCFM Element 4.1)
1,3,13,32,36,52
To what extent are British Columbias forests a sink for, or a source of, atmospheric
carbon?
ccfm Indicator:
4.1.1 Net change in forest ecosystem carbon
1,4,32,36,44,54,59
*Mean Annual Increment (mai) by forest type and age class
23,36,50,54,59
Tree biomass volumes
9,13,59
Non-tree biomass volumes
9,59
Soil carbon pools
9,13,59
Removals (re and harvesting)
To what extent are British Columbias forest ecosystems having an impact on climate
change?
ccfm Indicator:
4.1.2 Forest ecosystem carbon storage by forest type and age class
1,3,4,13,44,54,59

1. Available carbon credits in British Columbias 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 carbon
1

1. Report separate subtotals for co
2
, ch
4
, n
2
o, hfcs, pfcs, sf
6
in tonnes and tonnes of co
2

12,28
2. Fuel consumption (per m
3
of product)
40
3. Use and emissions of ozone-depleting substances (in tonnes of chlorouorocarbon-11
(cfc-11) equivalents)
12,28
7
This criterion does not relate to any of the frpa Forest and Environmental Values.
25
To what extent is British Columbias forest product sector contributing carbon dioxide to
the atmosphere?
ccfm Indicator:
4.1.4 Forest sector carbon emissions
1

Identied indicator research need(s):
1. Life cycle analysis of forest products
26
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL BENEFITS
8
Economic Benets (CCFM Element 5.1)
What is the importance of British Columbias forests to the provincial economy, taking
into consideration:
Primary and secondary manufacturing
Livelihoods
Prots to businesses
Government revenues
Prots 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 harvested
1,3,59

5.1.3 Production, consumption, imports, and exports of timber products
1,3,5,6,8,9,13,32,43,44,59

5.1.4 Contribution of non-timber forest products to the gross domestic product
1,3,4,5,8,9,13,44,54,59

5.1.5 Value of unmarketed non-timber forest products
1,3,9,36,59

5.1.6 Production, consumption, imports, and exports of non-timber forest products
1,3,5,6,8,9,13,32,59

5.1.7 Contribution of forest-based services to the gross domestic product
1,3,4,5,7,8,9,44,59

5.1.8 Value of unmarketed forest-based services
1,9,32,59

1. Investment as a percent of gdp
15

2. Stumpage paid
39,43,44,59
3. Ratio of stumpage charge to wood product prices
36

4. Sawmill Lumber Recovery Factor, Chip Recovery Factor, and shipment of mini-chips
11,41

5. Timber price trend
9,36,43,54,70

6. The value of forage harvested from rangeland by livestock
30
7. Outtting revenue
59
8. Wildlife harvested
9
9. Fish harvested
9
10. Volume by type of Non-Timber Forest Product (ntfp) (m
3
, kg)
40
8
This criterion relates to the following frpa Forest and Environmental Values: Recreation, Timber, and Visual Quality.
27
11. Records of assessment of the productive capacity for existing non-wood products
26,40,58
12. Sample plots and records of regrowth
40,52
13. Areas suitable for recreation expansion through inventory
23
14. Nature and quantity of benets deriving from forest management
6
15. Contribution of the tourism sector to area and provincial economy
28
16. Number of recreational user days
25
Distribution of Benets (CCFM Element 5.2)
How are the key benets derived from the above economic activities distributed in British
Columbia?
ccfm Indicators:
5.2.1 Forest area by timber tenure
1,2,4,5,9,43,59

5.2.2 Distribution of nancial benets from the timber products industry
1,3,9,31,44,59,72

5.2.3 Revenue generated by Aboriginal businesses in timber products industry
1,59

1. Existing tenures (forest tenures and other types of tenure)
5,23,24,26,55,59
2. Opportunities for allocation of community-based tenures
26
3. Value of contracts issued by demographic class
44
4. Number of tenures offered to First Nations
2
5. Value of investment, including investment in forest growing, forest health and
management, planted forests, wood processing, recreation, and tourism
3,13,23,30,36,40,41,59,72
6. *Level of expenditure on research and development, and education
3,9,13,15,36,45,46,59
Sustainability of Benets (CCFM Element 5.3)
How competitive is British Columbia in marketing its forest products?
ccfm Indicators:
5.3.3 Return on capital employed
1,6,13,30,36,40,54

5.3.4 Productivity index
1,3,13,36,59

1. Buyer identication by product
56
2. British Columbias share in all forest products markets
2
3. Percentage of increase in wood product sales in Taiwan, China, and Korea
2
4. Extension and use of new and improved technologies
3,5,8,13
5. Economic Sustainability (delivered wood costs C$/m
3
)
43,44
6. High-use rates of local wood processing capacity
11
28
How does employment in British Columbias forest sector contribute to the socio-
economic well-being of individuals and communities?
ccfm Indicators:
5.3.5 Employment
1,6,24,29,39,41,43,44,52,53,61

5.3.6 Average income in major employment categories
1,3,6,21,53,61

1. Aboriginal employment
48,59,61
2. Amount of direct and indirect employment
6,7,8,13
3. Total person days and jobs per cubic metre
13,36,40
4. Total payroll and benets by country/region
12,28
5. Employment diversity
30
What is the level of science investment directed toward managing British Columbias
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 supply
1,3

1. Water consumption
28,61
2. Cost-effective delivery of drinking water
28
3. *Level of expenditure on research and development, and education
3,9,13,15,36,45,46,59
4. Expenditures (monetary and in-kind) to restoration activities
30
5. Watersheds that support water licences
21,25
6. Area and percentage of forest land managed for general recreation and tourism, in relation
to the total area of forest land
3,4,6,7,9,13,22,23,24,25,26,27,32,54,59
7. Number and type of facilities available for general recreation and tourism, in relation to
population and forest area
3,4,9,13,22,32,36,59
8. Road density index within recreation zone
44
9. Cost of maintenance activities in recreation tourism zone
44
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 values
6,9,13,21,22,23,26,27,36,38,59

11. Sites and features of cultural signicance are identied, mapped, discussed with interested
local people and authorities, and efforts made to protect them
8,9,23,24,26,31,33,51,52,55
29
SOCIETYS RESPONSIBILITY
9

Fair, equitable, and effective resource management choices
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 management
5,13,36,44,59
1. *Percentage of forestry joint ventures by demographic class
44
2. *Percentage of forest licences by demographic class
44
3. *Local representative in provincial or federal government
53
4. *First Nations information sharing and referrals program
21,39,59
5. *Research partnerships
59
6. Level of First Nations satisfaction with involvement in development policies, legislation,
and agreements related to forest management (no referenceworth 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
1. Recognizes and respects the legal and customary rights of First Nations over their lands,
territories, and resources
4,9,13,23,30,36,47,61
2. Areas where treaty or Aboriginal rights are being practised
23
Area available for subsistence purposes
9,13,59
Area available for continued cultural use
59
Area available for continued resource use
59
3. *Extent of incorporation of First Nations knowledge in cultural inventories
51,58,59
4. *Level of First Nations participation and/or consultation
28,43,44
9
This criterion relates to the following frpa Forest and Environmental Values: Cultural Heritage and Timber.
30
5. *Absence of unsolved disputes on legal, tenure, or use rights
49,57
6. *Incidences of non-compliance with treaty settlements and Interim Measures
Agreements
36,45
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
44
44
21,39,59
4. Documentation of property and use rights
4,52,54
49,57
6. *Extent of Aboriginal participation in forest-based economic opportunities
36

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 plans
1,9,48,58,59
1. All uses of traditional knowledge are documented
55
2. Area of First Nations traditional use sites by type
44
Extent or proportion of forest practices that incorporate Traditional Ecological
Knowledge (tek) and Hahuulhi, which is the plenary authority exercised by the Nuu-
Chah-Nulth hereditary chiefs over the people, land, and resources of their tribal
territories
33,47,59
Number of people affected by off-site impacts, without compensation
11
*Extent of incorporation of First Nations knowledge in cultural inventories
51,58,59
21,39,59
Percentage of cutblocks by band where agreement is reached around the management
39
4. Number of surveys conducted versus number of surveys requested
39
*Number of bands that have requested a Cultural Heritage Resources Survey (chrs)
contract versus the number who have one
39
31
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
1. Number of traditional land users and income earned from traditional land use
5,26,48
Other person-days employment to First Nations and/or joint venture
40
21,39,59
*Research partnerships
59
3. *Number of bands that have requested a chrs contract versus the number who have one
39
Number of sites developed for tourism
44
To what extent are Aboriginal people compensated for forest products removed from
their traditional territories?
1. Number of Aboriginal communities that have a signicant forestry component
48, 59
2. Degree of satisfaction with contract development process (First Nations sector to gather
the data)
39,59
72
*Joint ventures with First Nations
62
Creation of co-managed (forests)
72
*Contract total paid to First Nations Bands
39
*First Nations information sharing and referrals program
21,39,59
4. Sponsorship of local events, scholarships, sports teams etc.
49
5. *Education and training programs
4,6,7,9,11,13,21,26,31,36,39,40,50,53,55,58,59,70
*number of training hours
40
59

49,57
Forest Community Well-being and Resilience (CCFM Element 6.3)
To what extent are British Columbias forest-dependent communities resilient enough to
withstand shocks or economic cycles within specic sectors?
ccfm Indicator:
6.3.1 Economic diversity index of forest-based communities
Distribution of expenditures locally
9,39,59
*Size of labour pool
9
32
1. Civic participation
53, 15
1. Index

of social structure quality
30
2. *Number of households with forest-based employment (full- or part-time)
59
3. Annual harvest compared to local log consumption that is provided
39
4. *Migration history, likelihood of future migration
53
5. Social capital infrastructure (nancial services, communication services, bureaucratic
services, community organizations, community integration events)
53
*Rates of entrepreneurship
53
Personal identication with community
53
Population mental health rate
53
Infant mortality rate
53
Mortality rate
53
Life expectancy
53
Cancer
53
Low birth weights
53
49,57
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 communities
1,26,59,61
Percentage of people achieving minimum Grade 12
1. *Contract total paid to First Nations Bands
39
2. Contract total paid to local enterprise
59
3. *Migration history, likelihood of future migration
53
4. *Rates of entrepreneurship
53
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
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 Nations
40
33
3. *Number of households with forest-based employment (full- or part-time)
59
4. *Contracts total paid to First Nations Bands
39
5. *Contracts total paid to local enterprise
59
6. *Size of labour pool
9
7. *Composition of senior management and corporate governance bodies
12,28

8. *Accident rates
5,9,12,28,31,47,49,51,54,56,59

9. Standard injury, lost day, and absentee rates and numbers of work-related fatalities
(including subcontracted workers)
12,28
1,26,59,61
What is the poverty rate in British Columbias forest-based communities?
ccfm Indicator:
6.1.4 Incidence of low income in forest-based communities
1. Business and property values
53
44
44
4. Average household income
5. Composition of income
6. Poverty rate
30,31, 59,61
7. Crime rates
61
8. Percentage of income spent on food
62
9. Access/use of social services
62
Fair and Effective Decision Making (CCFM Element 6.4)
To what extent does British Columbias legal, institutional, and economic framework for
forestry enable conservation and sustainable forest management?
1. *Instances of signicant non-compliance with FRPA
12
2. *Incidence of non-compliance with treaty settlements and Interim Measures Agreements
36
3. *Area of forest under sfm Plans
5,59
4. *Public and private funding for research, educational, and extension program
4
5. *Compatibility with other countries in measuring, monitoring, and reporting on
indicators
3,13
6. *Participation in planning
5,11,13,21,24,31,36,41,43,44,45,46
34
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 satised with public involvement processes in forest
management in Canada
1. Level of public/shareholder comments
11,38,41,43,44,45,59
2. Number of communications (operational) by interest group, by type of communication,
and by licensee
44
3. Percentage of comments receiving response by type by licensee
44
4. Response by licensees to public comments/participation
44
5. *Local communities and organizations directly affected by forestry activities given opportu
nities to participate in forest management planning
4,5,6,9,11,13,31,36,45,49

*Publicizes operational activities and objectives
49
49,57
7. *First Nations participation and (or) consultation
28, 43, 44

8. *Participation in planning
5,11,13,21,24,31,36,41,43,44,45,46

9. *Forest management plans made public
5,11,13,57
with respect for condentiality
49
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 Columbias forest managers committed to sustainable forest
management?
ccfm Indicator:
6.4.2 Rate of compliance with sustainable forest management laws, regulations, and best management
practices
1,2,3,5,13,36,40,45,47,48,49,59,51,52,55,56,57,59,62
*Instances of signicant non-compliance with FRPA
2

*Incidence of non-compliance with treaty settlements and Interim Measures
Agreements
36,45
*Area of forest under sfm Plans
5,59
*Incidents of and nes for non-compliance with all applicable international declarations/
conventions/treaties and national, sub-national, regional, and local regulations associated
with environmental regulations
12,28
1. Number of opportunities for First Nations involvement
43
*Joint ventures with First Nations
62
The number of working relationships with applicable First Nations
45
35
*Creation of co-managed (forests)
72
2. Extent to which mitigative action is undertaken when ecosystems, culturally important
areas, and traditional resources are damaged
48,59
3. *Local communities and organizations directly affected by forestry activities are given an
opportunity to participate in forest management planning
4,5,6,9,11,13,31,36,45,49
Proactive consultation process for signicant activities such as proposed timber
harvesting
11,31,38,41,44,59
*Number of public comments received and percentage of those that result in changes to
operational plans
43
*Operational activities and objectives are publicized
49
*Evidence that community feedback was considered in management planning
5,48,49
59
5. *Number of sfm-related research projects initiated and/or completed by type
44
6. *Research dollars spent in Dened Forest Area (dfa) by licensee
44

7. *Applied social and natural science research which addresses issues of local and regional
signicance
72
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 hours
40
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 program
21,39,59
1. *Compatibility with other countries in measuring, monitoring, and reporting on indicators

3,13
2. *Public and private funding for research, educational, and extension programs
4
59
4. *Number of sfm-related research projects initiated and/or completed by type
44
5. *Research dollars spent in dfa by license
44

6. *Applied social and natural science research which addresses issues of local and regional
signicance
72
7. *Extent or proportion of forest practices that incorporate tek
33,47,59
8. Existence of a repeated forest inventory at the scale of the province
36
What is the extent and availability of British Columbias forest inventory data?
ccfm Indicators:
6.5.1 Coverage, attributes, frequency and statistical reliability of forest inventories
1,3,59

6.5.2 Availability of forest inventory information to the public
1. *Extent of incorporation of First Nations knowledge in cultural inventories
5,58,59
21,39,59
3. *Forest management plans made public
5,11,13,57
with respect to condentiality
49
4. *Extensionextent 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
education
1,3,5,6,7,8,9,13,36,40,44,45,59,72
6.5.4 Number of new or updated forest management guidelines and standards related to ecological
issues (should also address socio-economic)
1,13
1. The number of working relationships with applicable First Nations
45
2. Number of people affected by off-site impacts, without compensation
11
3. *Education and training programs
4,6,7,9,11,13,21,26,31,36,39,40,50,53,55,58,59,70
*Number of training hours
40
Percent apprenticeships and training programs by demographic class
44
Average hours of training per year per employee by category of employee
12,28
Dollars invested in projects
40
Dollars spent on forest education programs
40
4. *Extension
*Research partnerships
59
*Number of sfm-related research projects initiated and/or completed by type
44
*Research dollars spent in dfa by licensee
44
*Public and private funding for research, educational, and extension programs
4
*Applied social and natural science research, which addresses issues of local and
regional signicance
72
5. Certication implementation committee
37
To what extent is the best available science and expertise being used in decision making?
12,28
2. *Instances of signicant non-compliance with frpa
2
3. *Incidence of non-compliance with treaty settlements and Interim Measures Agreements
2
59
5. *Applied social and natural science research, which addresses issues of local and regional
signicance
75
6. *Extension
43
Number of documents posted on Web site
43
Number of hits on and downloads from Web site
43
Number of workshops and eld trips
43
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 satised with public involvement processes in forest
management (Core Indicator)
1,3,9,36,43,44,58,59
1. *Number of opportunities for First Nations involvement
43
2. *Number of communities with co-management responsibilities
5,59
3. *Local representative in provincial or federal government
53
4. *Number of communications (operational) by interest group, by type, and by licensee
44
*Proactive consultation process for signicant activities such as proposed timber
harvesting
11,31,38,41,44,59
Percentage of forest management commitments completed on time resulting from
consultations regarding non-timber features and interests by licensee
44
Percentage of known non-timber features and interests where licensee has consulted
and/or incorporated non-timber management/activities
44
*Number of public comments received and percentage of those that result in changes
to operational plans
43
5. *Local communities and organizations directly affected by forestry activities given an
opportunity to participate in forest management planning
4,5,6,9,11,13,31,36,45,49
*Publicizes operational activities and objectives
49
*Evidence that community feedback was considered in management planning
5,48,49
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
12,28
38
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 specic 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 ner details. The participants general at-
titude 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 in-
dicators could substantially advance the discussion and reduce the focus on semantics. This would need
to be done following the eld testing phase of the project. On several occasions, participants changed
their attitude toward an indicator after some clarication 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 claried. Another com-
ment related to researching thresholds was a caveat: Many thresholds are region- and even site-specic;
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 inection 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 difculty associated with measuring some indicators (whether related
to lack of knowledge or lack of nancial means) shouldnt 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 dened by Wey-
erhaeusers work in coastal British Columbia on biodiversity indicators. They agreed that the current
questions would be covered by the following elements:
39
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 state-
ments, 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 dene 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 frame-
work 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.
40
NEXT STEPS
Even if we believe that sustainability is primarily a socio-
political construct rather than a scientic 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 Manage-
ment (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 denitive 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 indica-
tors 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 expertsthere 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 scientic principles).
Different stakeholders, industrial sectors, etc., have different questions and values, but there is a
need for a unied set of standards and data collection protocols across sectors and interests. There-
fore, there is a denite need to dene the scopeif 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, certication
specialists, government, etc., so that the standards t the values of others. There is a need to de-
velop common sets of c&i to be used for a variety of purposes.
Questions could be related to the objectives of the specic organizations that will use them, rather
than being based on the ccfm criteriabuy-in requires common ground but duplication
should be avoided.
Questions could be lumped, rather than split, and t to different scales and levels of objec-
tives (based on different stakeholders) to minimize duplication and overlap. Elements should be
checked for matches with business objectiveswhats 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 specic enough
(while exible) to cross views, without being so specic as to limit their use. Process and practice
can be modied to answer questions and measure indicators that are currently possible (within
technological and scientic 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 askcurrently being too
41
scientically dogmatic, but questions should be applicable to a broader (non-technical) audi-
ence. There are many lessons to be learned in British Columbia from existing documents and past
processeswe dont need to start from scratch.
Due to the emerging business requirements of monitoring and certication, 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
thats been done.
This initiative should stick with the established ccfm criteria because they can be modied by
bringing in expertise to consolidate and nalize a common set. Then, meet again and analyze the
process, but there is no need to recreate things that already existpick a set of useful or core indi-
cators from existing ones; dont start from scratch.
There needs to be legitimacy added to the process. There will always be critics, but you cant 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 identify-
ing 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 com-
mon 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 didnt start with a context. We need a set of guiding principles for consistencythe
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 steer-
ing 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 nd the leanest set of indicators. Some should be combined and the list re-
viewed 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 modied 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 mini-
mize 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 specic 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 dont need to be perfect to be good and you can always improve. Changes in the state
42
of science should not be overlooked. We should do what is best right now as you cant monitor
everythingyet.
There should be a structure and rationale for each indicator that is the same for eacha hierarchy.
The listing approach wasnt very good. Indicators t 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 dene a common set of indicators. Indicators are already being reported and are in the
newsat 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 scientically sound, useful, and effective indicator framework that will demonstrate
progress towards sustainable forest management at the provincial level.
43
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
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 vari-
ety and quality of the earths ecosystems is necessary for the preservation of species. Without sufcient
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 con-
sequences for tness 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 res, 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 inuenced by regeneration after harvest, particu-
larly if the area is replanted with exotic species (indicator 2.5). Some exotic species may compete with,
interbreed with, or displace native species.
44
Finally, forested parks and protected areas often provide recreational, preservation and other non-
timber benets (e.g., eco-tourism). The forested area in parks and protected areas can be an important
aspect in discussions on benets (indicators 5.1.7, 5.2.1).
CCFM Criterion 2: Ecosystem Condition and Productivity
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 ora 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 ecosystems components and their populations to recover
from or adapt to disturbances, whether they be natural or human-induced. A healthy and diverse ecosys-
tem 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 forest-
ed ecosystems, others may overwhelm an ecosystems 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 regenera-
tion after harvest assess the effect of human efforts to assist the forest ecosystems ability to recover from
disturbance, while measures of total growing stock on all forest lands provide an indication of the bal-
ance of forest productivity and disturbances. Ecosystem condition and productivity are typically closely
linked. Ecosystem condition may decline, though, if benets from timber production are given priority.
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 inuenced 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 chang-
es 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 dis-
turbance 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 benets from timber harvests (indicators 5.1.1 and 5.3.1) and other forest values (indi-
cators 5.1.4 and 5.1.7).
These relationships should be considered when discussing ecosystem condition and productivity.

45
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, ooding 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 ow rates and timing and minimizing soil erosion, stream siltation and downstream water qual-
ity 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 difcult 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 specic management practices or the protection of
sensitive sites. Indicators of compliance with locally applicable soil disturbance standards and road con-
struction, 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 scientic knowledge.
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 conser-
vation (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 of-
ten difcult 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 pollut-
ant that can have serious impacts on soil and water quality. All of these indicators should be considered
when discussing soil and water conservation.
46
CCFM Criterion 4: Role in Global Ecological Cycles
Global ecological cycles are a complex of self-regulating processes responsible for recycling the earths
limited supply of water, carbon, nitrogen and other life-sustaining elements. The worlds forests are criti-
cally 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. Indi-
cators on global energy cycles and global nitrogen cycles were considered, but, the signicance 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 inu-
ence 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 CO
2 i
nto the atmosphere. Estimates of the total carbon stored in Canadas forests and the balance
between carbon sequestration and carbon release from forests and forest products provide indicators of
the nations contribution to atmospheric carbon. Measures of forest sector CO
2
emissions are used to
track the industrys reliance on fossil fuels for conversion of raw materials to manufactured products.
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 long-
term 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 lands 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 res, 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 water-
sheds 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 Benets
Forests provide substantial commercial benets, including timber, non-timber forest products, water
and tourism, and signicant non-commercial benets, including wildlife, recreation, aesthetics, and wil-
derness values. Although not always measurable in monetary terms, all these activities are highly valued
by Canadians and provide signicant benets to Canadian society. The distribution of these benets is
a key aspect of social equity. Sustainable development requires that forests are managed to provide these
goods and services over the long term.
47
Element 5.1: Economic benets
Canadians receive many economic benets from the forest. Timber products, non-timber forest prod-
ucts and forest-based services are produced, consumed, and traded internationally. Wealth from forest
use ows 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, sh, and fur products; medicinals; ecosys-
tem 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 benets
Another important consideration for this criterion is the question of distribution of benets. Sustainable
development involves more than ensuring economic development. It also requires consideration of the
way in which benets from development are distributed to society. An examination of forest ownership
and timber tenures and the distribution of key nancial benets 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 benets from the forest to Aboriginal peoples.
Element 5.3: Sustainability of benets
In order to ensure that resources are conserved while still maintaining a satisfactory ow of benets,
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 benets continue to ow to Canadians, it is vital that a fair and competitive invest-
ment climate be maintained within the forest sector. A competitive rate of return is essential if Canadas
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 ltration abilities of forests can be consid-
erable. The proper management of forests for this purpose is of great importance to Canadians.
Forested parks and protected areas often provide recreational, preservation and other non-timber
benets. The forested area in parks and protected areas (indicator 1.1.2) can be an important aspect
in discussions on the distribution of benets. Also of importance to the sustainability of benets is the
resilience and well-being of forest-based communities (indicators 6.3.1 to 6.3.4). Decision-making pro-
cesses that do not consider social costs associated with community instability do not contribute to the
sustainable ow of benets. 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: Societys 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 societys 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
48
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 reect social values, the responsiveness of
institutions to change as social values change, how we deal with the special and unique needs of particu-
lar 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 afrmed 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, shing 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 reect 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 com-
pensated for the use of their traditional ecological knowledge when a third party uses that knowledge for
prot.
Element 6.3: Forest community well-being and resilience
Sustainability can be viewed at a variety of scales. One important level for assessing sustainable devel-
opment 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 develop-
ment. 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, conicting economic interests, and dif-
ferences 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 man-
agement practices conrms that decisions have been implemented.
49
Element 6.5: Informed decision making
Part of societys 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 others 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.
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 sustain-
able (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.
50
REFERENCES
Anonymous. 1995. Montreal process on criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable
management of temperate and boreal forests. Montral Process Liaison Ofce, 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.wa-
geningen-ur.nl/ForestCertication/les/StandardsIndonesia.pdf
Amazon Cooperative Treaty (act). 1995. The Tarapoto proposal of criteria and indicators for sustain-
ability of the Amazon forest. Pro Tempore Secretariat, Lima, Peru.
American Forest and Paper Association (afpa). 2001. Sustainable forestry initiative standard. Washing-
ton, D.C.
Asia Pacic 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, Bho-
pal, India, 30 November3 December 1999. FAO, Bangkok, Thailand.
Australian Forestry Standard Technical Reference Committee of the Australian Forestry Standard Steer-
ing Committee. 2003. The Australian Forestry StandardGuidance 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 LandFish
Conference II Ecosystem Stewardship through Collaboration. April 26-28, 2004, Edmonton,
Alberta.Bradbury, R. 1996. Are indicators yesterdays 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 Environ-
ment. 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, For-
est Practices Branch, Victoria. url: www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/frep/2_sh.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.
51
British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Kootenay Region. 2003. Southern
Rocky Mountains management plan (srmmp). B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Manage-
ment, 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 Bio-
diversity 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). Ofce 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
Canadas 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. Dening sustainable forest management: A Cana-
dian 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 (19982003): 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. Australias rst approximation report for The Montreal Process.
Montreal Implementation Group, Canberra, Australia.
Environment Canada, Pacic and Yukon Regions. 2004. Environmental indicators for the province of
British Columbia and the Yukon Territory of Canada. url: www.ecoinfo.org/ [Accessed 15 De-
cember, 2004]
52
Finnish fsc Working Group. 2003. The draft fsc standard for Finland. Forest Stewardship Council,
Finland. url: www.fsc-nland.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/BorealStan-
dard_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; Con-
sultation 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/stan-
dards/STND_RM_nal_V2.PDF
fsc-us Working Group. 2005. Pacic Coast (USA) Regional forest stewardship standard. Forest
Stewardship Council, Washington, D.C. url: www.fscus.org/images/documents/standards/PC_
nal_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/fs-
cuk/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. Canadas forests at a crossroads: An assessment in the year 2000: Sec-
tion 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 LakesSt. 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
53
Hemstrom, M., T. Spies, C. Palmer, R. Kiester, J. Teply, P. McDonald, and R. Warbington. 1998. Late-
successional and old-growth forest effectiveness monitoring plan for the Northwest Forest Plan.
Pacic Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR-438, United States De-
partment 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/TSAsfm-
Jan2002.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:
Weyerhaeusers coastal British Columbia forest project. Forestry Chronicle 79: 590601.
Lammerts van Bueren, E.M. and E.M. Blom.1997. Hierarchical framework for the formulation of sus-
tainable 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 spot-
ted owl effectiveness monitoring plan for the Northwest Forest Plan. Pacic 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 Sustain-
able 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/nal/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.
54
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. Queens Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ont.
National Forest Certication System. 2004. CertFor manual. CertforChile, Santiago, Chile
url: www.certfor.org/ingles/les/System_Manual.pdf
Natural Resources Canada (nrc). 2000. A users 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: Ecosys-
tem 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 man-
agement 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 De-
partment 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/resourc-
es/5_1185_382_le.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_le.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 organiza-
tion and its inuence 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 Certication, 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 Cri-
teria 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. 3966.
Province of British Columbia. 2000. Vancouver Island land use plan. B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Re-
source 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.
55
Sherry, E. and S. Parsons, 2004. Success stories: Shared perspectives on jprf accomplishments; Crite-
ria and indicators of joint forest management. University of Northern British Columbia, Prince
George, B.C.
Standards Australia. 2003. The Australian Forestry StandardGuidance 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_le.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_les/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_le.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
nations 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. Pacic Northwest Salmon Habitat Indicators. Pilot Project Snohomish river basin. Pub-
lication 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 Weyer-
hauser 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/t6.html
World Commission on Environment and Development (wced). 1987. Our common future. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, U.K.

Gap Analysis of Sustainable Forest BC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gap Analysis of Sustainable Forest BC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S

You might also like