Comments on possible revisions to Criterion 6 Indicators Maintenance and enhancement of long-term socio- economic benefits to meet needs of societies Part 2 – Suggested additions to indicators Ken Skog Peter Ince USDA Forest Service Forest Products Laboratory Madison, WI

Topics  Assumptions  Possible missions for the C&I  How the indicators relate to one another – –Latest science on a systems view – A working “holistic framework”  Ideas for additions/ changes

A simplified “holistic framework” showing the role of existing indicators M. Faustmann (ca. 1870) & P. Ince (ca. 1999)

INVESTMENT (flows) /Investment performance Forest mgt and industries (38) Research, development and education (39) Extension of new technology (40) Return on investment (41) CAPACITY (stocks) Natural capital Biodiversity (C1) Productivity (C2) Ecosystem health (C3) Soil and water (C4) Carbon cycles (C5) Protected areas (42) Subsistence use (47) Built capital Technology (40) Human capital R, D &E (39) Social capital Legal, institution, economic framework (C7) BENEFITS/ VALUES (Flows and stocks) Wood and Nonwood products (29-34) Recreation (35-37) Cultural and spiritual values (42-43) Employment and community (44-47) Well being A General Holistic Framework – Relationship of Criterion 6 Indicators to other Criteria Measure at t 0 t 1 Measure at National, regional scales

Workshop Objectives:  Provide specific recommendations for improving national level Indicators.  To inform the U.S. position on the refinement of the Montreal Process Criteria Indicators. –i.e. suggest changes for all countries to adopt

Suggested missing information or indicators  Benefits/ values –Distribution of benefits (equity) –Water and other ecological services  Holistic Feedback effect of benefits/ values on land use and capacities –Effect of benefits/values on land use and land value

INVESTMENT (flows) /Investment performance Forest mgt and industries (38) Research, development and education (39) Extension of new technology (40) Return on investment (41) D. Value of land for forest and non forest uses CAPACITY (stocks) Natural capital Biodiversity (C1) Productivity (C2) Ecosystem health (C3) Soil and water (C4) Carbon cycles (C5) Protected areas (42) Subsistence use (47) C. Land area available/used for various benefits/values Built capital Technology (40) Human capital R, D &E (39) Social capital Legal, institution, economic framework (C7) BENEFITS/ VALUES (Flows and stocks) Wood and Nonwood products (29-34) Recreation (35-37) Cultural and spiritual values (42-43) Employment and community (44-47) A. Water (and other ecological services) B. Equity in distribution of benefits Well being Figure 1 – Relationship of Criterion 6 Indicators to other Criteria Measure at t 0 t 1 Measure at National, regional scales

Missing information – Distribution of Benefits  Rationale for additional information –Sustainable forest management involves economic development and, with that, requires consideration of how benefits from development are distributed in society. –Question – what distribution detail for each type of benefit/ value,  Possible additions –Land ownership – acreage? value? (new indicator?) Individual private by income, race, ethnicity Private organizations by profit, non profit?, objective? Public by local, state, national, indigenous group –Recreation participation – Type of recreation by income, race, ethnicity (add to indicator 37?) –Forest products firms/ households (wood/ non wood/ subsistence)– privately held, public, number of employees, domestically owned, foreign owned (add to indicators 29, 30?), –Employment numbers– location (size of town), wage level – (add to indicators 44, 45?)

Example - Distribution indicators From “Defining Sustainable Forest Management in Canada”  ELEMENT 5.2: DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITS  An examination of forest ownership and timber tenures and the distribution of key financial benefits provide important indicators of social equity.  Forest area by timber tenure. (Core Indicator)  Distribution of financial benefits from the timber products industry. (Core Indicator)

Missing information – Water and other ecological services  Rationale for additional information –Water is a key value provided from many forest areas. Downstream, market values of water are influenced by forest management. Water services provided by forests should be explicitly recognized and tracked as a socio-economic benefit of forests –Question – what national/ regional indicators of water value should be reported?  Possible additions (new indicator?) –Annual volume of water from forest areas used for various uses by region –Area of forests associated with water volumes provided by region –Share of water use that is from forest areas –Market values of water

Missing information – Water and other ecological services  Rationale for additional information –Markets are emerging for purchase of ecological services such as biodiversity, species protection, water flow, and carbon storage. These values may increasingly influence where land is retained in forest and the condition of selected forest areas. The status of these emerging markets should be explicitly monitored to discern their effect on forests –Question – what national/ regional indicators of emerging markets for ecological services should be reported?  Possible additions (new indicator?) –Area of forest land with easements for specific forest management –Area of land (& amount of carbon) reported in Green house gas registers (state, national) as adding to carbon stored in forests –Contracts between users of water and forest managers where water originates

Missing information – Holistic Feedback effect of benefits/ values on land use and capacities  Rationale for additional information –The amount of land retained in forest, and its condition, are central concerns of sustainability. The benefits and values associated with forest are key determinants of retaining land in forest. –This link is so important that it should be highlighted in an indicator that summarizes/ monitors 1) how many acres are supported by various benefits and values, and 2) the resulting value of forest land and for competing uses of land (e.g. urban development, agriculture). –Question – what national/ regional indicators relating benefits/values to land use should be reported?

Missing information – Holistic Feedback effect of benefits/ values on land use and capacities  Possible additions (new indicator?) –Land Area for various uses/benefits (collected from other indicators?) identified for timber production (Indicators 10) managed plantations for timber production (Indicator 10?) used for developed recreation/ undeveloped recreation (Indicator 35) land in protected categories (Indicators 3, 42) For non timber forest products, for subsistence use (Indicators 34?, 47) urban forests (new?) –Land values (new information – qualitative and/ or quantitative) Forest – by region, proximity to population? Agricultural Developed

Summary – Suggested missing information or indicators  Benefits/ values –Distribution of benefits (equity) –Water and other ecological services  Holistic Feedback effect of benefits/ values on land use and capacities –Effect of benefits/values on land use and land value