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

Principle

Criterion

Indicator
I. Ecological integrity is maintained

1.1. Ecosystem function is maintained (Evaluation)

 

1.1.1 Ecologically sensitive areas, especially buffer zones along water courses, are protected (Evaluation)

1.1.2. Coarse woody debris and snags retained at functional levels (Evaluation)

1.1.3 Area and severity of area burned (Evaluation)

1.1.4 Area and severity of insect attack and disease infestation (Evaluation)

1.2. Landscape patterns support native populations (Evaluation)

 

1.2.1. Level of fragmentation and connectedness of forest ecosystem components (Evaluation)

 

1.2.2. Road network density, type, use, and location (Evaluation)

1.3. Native species diversity is maintained (Evaluation)

 

1.3.1. Protected areas are maintained to protect rare, unique and representative species and features (Evaluation)

 
  1. Populations of indigenous species are likely to persist (Evaluation)
 

1.3.3. Number of known forest-dependent species classified as extinct, extirpated, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable relative to the total number of known forest dependent species (Evaluation)

 
  1. Assessment of changes in the distribution and abundance of native aquatic fauna (Evaluation)

1.4. Ecosystem diversity is maintained (Evaluation)

 

1.4.1. Percentage and extent, in area, of vegetation types and structural classes relative to the historical condition and total forest area (Evaluation)

 

1.4.2. Rate and total area of forest land converted to non-forest land cover, classed by major forest type (Evaluation)

 

1.4.3. Representation of selected key and sensitive guilds occur in the community guild structure (Evaluation)

1.5. Incidence of disturbance and stress (Evaluation)

 

1.5.1. Pollutant levels in the ecosystem (Implement screening procedure) (Evaluation)

 

1.5.2. Area and severity of occurrence of exotic species detrimental to forest condition (Evaluation)

1.6. Genetic diversity is maintained (Evaluation)

 

1.6.1. Population sizes and reproductive success are adequate to maintain levels of genetic diversity (Evaluation)

 

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

 

1.6.3. Management does not significantly change gene frequencies (Evaluation)

1.7. Physical environmental factors (Evaluation)

 

 

1.7.1. Percentage of harvested area having greater than 25% of the area with degraded soil quality, including soil compaction, displacement, erosion, puddling, and loss of organic matter (Evaluation)

 

1.7.2. Trends and timing of events in stream flows from forest catchments (Evaluation)

 
Principle

Criterion

Indicator
2.  Yield and quality of forest goods and services are sustainable

2.1. Policy, planning and institutional framework are conducive to sustainable forest management  (Evaluation)

 

2.1.1. Effective instruments for inter-institutional co-ordination on land use and forest management exist (Evaluation)

 

2.1.2. There is sustained and adequate funding and staff for the management of forests (Evaluation)

 

2.2.3. Institutions responsible for forest research are adequately funded and staffed (Evaluation)

2.2. Forest management provides for sustainability of goods and services  (Evaluation)

 

2.2.1. Policy and planning are based on recent and accurate information (Evaluation)

 

2.2.2. Objectives are clearly stated in terms of the major functional areas of the forest, with respect to their spatial distribution. (Evaluation)

 

2.2.3. Silvicultural systems are prescribed are appropriate to forest type, production of desired products and condition, and assure forest establishment, composition, and growth (Evaluation)

 

2.2.4. Harvesting systems and equipment are prescribed to match forest conditions in order to reduce impact on wildlife, soil productivity, residual stand conditions and water quality and quantity (Evaluation)

 

2.2.5. Annual and periodic removals calculated by area and/or volume prescribed (Evaluation)

 

2.2.6. Mean annual increment for forest type and age class (Evaluation)

 

2.2.7. Distribution of, and changes in, the land base available for timber production are identified (Evaluation)

2.3. The management plan is implemented and effective in moving toward stated goals  (Evaluation)

 

2.3.1. Actual vs. planned performance is measured and recorded (Evaluation)

 

2.3.2. An effective monitoring and control system audits management’s conformity with planning (Evaluation)

 

2.3.3. Continuous inventories established and measured regularly (Evaluation)

 

2.3.4. Documentation and records of all forest management activities are kept in a form that makes monitoring possible (Evaluation)

2.4. Forest management is socially efficient  (Evaluation)

 

2.4.1. Availability and use of recreational opportunities are maintained (Evaluation)

 

2.4.2. Total expenditures by individuals on activities related to non-timber use (Evaluation)

 

2.4.3. Existence of economic rents: Total harvesting revenues exceed harvesting costs (Evaluation)

 

Principle

Criterion

Indicator
3. Society accepts responsibility for sustainability.

3.1. Forest management provides ongoing access to the resource  (Evaluation)

 

3.1.1. Access to forest resources is perceived to be fair and secure (Evaluation)

 

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

3.2. Concerned stakeholders have a right to participate in open and meaningful public participation processes in order to influence management (Evaluation)

 

3.2.1. The process should be inclusive with all interests represented (Evaluation)

 

3.2.2. Stakeholders should have detailed and meaningful reciprocal background information necessary to provide quality input into the public participation process (Evaluation)

 

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

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

3.3. Forest-based human health issues  (Evaluation)

 

 

3.3.1. Forest managers co-operate with public health authorities regarding illnesses related to forest management and potable water related concerns (Evaluation)

 

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

3.4. Recognition and respect for Aboriginal roles in sustainable forest management (Aboriginal rights, Treaty rights and aboriginal values)   (Evaluation)

 

 

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

 

3.4.2. Assess the extent of Aboriginal participation in forest-based opportunities (Evaluation)

 

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

 

3.4.4. Area of forest land available for subsistence purposes (Evaluation)

3.5. There is equitable access to and distribution of economic rents  (Evaluation)

 

3.5.1. Mechanisms exist for sharing the economic benefits derived from forest management (Evaluation)

 

3.5.2. Wages and other benefits conform to national and/or ILO standards (Evaluation)

 

3.5.3. Employment of local population in forest management (Evaluation)

 

3.5.4. Estimated distribution of rent capture (Evaluation)

 

3.5.5. Number of communities with a significant forestry component in the economic base (Evaluation)

 
Principle

Criterion

Indicator
4.  Enabling Conditions -- The following Criteria and Indicators are enabling conditions that support the overall framework of sustainable forest management

4.1. Policy, planning and institutional frameworks are conducive to sustainable forest management  (Evaluation)

 

4.1.1. Effective instruments for inter-institutional co-ordination on land-use and forest management exits (Evaluation)

 

4.1.2. There is sustained and adequate funding and staff for the management of forests (Evaluation)

 

4.1.3. Institutions responsible for forest research are adequately funded and staffed (Evaluation)