# Presentation: 034351

## Assessing Forest Sustainability with Questions and Criteria

- Erin Sills, Kevin Potter,
- Kelly Jones, and Dave Wear
*Society of American Foresters *
*National Convention*
- October 8, 2002

## Introduction

- The United States collects more forest-related data than any other country
- More forest-related data is available for the Southeast than any other part of the country
- How can that information be used to assess sustainability in the Southeast?

## Introduction

- We compare two approaches for assessing forest sustainability
*Montréal Process*
- Pre-defined criteria and indicators approach
- Nationwide and internationally comparable
*Southern Forest Resource Assessment*
- Stakeholder generated, question-driven approach
- Regional focus

## Presentation overview

- Sustainability defined
- Criteria & Indicators approach
- Southern Forest Resource Assessment
- Comparison methodology
- Results
- Comparison conclusions
- Implications for sustainability

## Sustainability: What Is It?

- 	“Meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”
*–* Brundtland Report,
-  World Commission on the
- Environment and Development, 1987

## Sustainability: What Is It?

- 	“Sustainability requires simultaneously meeting environmental, economic and community needs.”
*–* *Dr. John A. Kitzhaber,*
*Governor of Oregon*

## Sustainability: What Is It?

- 	“Sustainable forestry is a comprehensive system of principles, objectives and performance measures that integrates the perpetual growing and harvesting of trees with the protection of wildlife, plants, soil and water quality.”
*–** **Sustainable Forestry Initiative,*
*American Forests *
*& Paper Association*

## How Do We Measure Sustainability?

- How do we tell whether our forests are being used sustainably?
- Two recent approaches:
*Montréal Process*
*Southern Forest Resource Assessment*

## The Montréal Process

- Criterion and indicator process initiated following 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro
- 12 nations in 1995 agreed to set of criteria and indicators in the “Santiago Declaration”
- These nations contain 90 percent of the world’s temperate forests

## Montréal Process Participants

## The Montréal Process

_*Criterion:*_ A category of conditions or processes by which sustainable forest management may be assessed
_*Indicator:*_ A measure of an aspect of the criterion
- Quantitative or qualitative
- Demonstrates trends (ideally, periodical)
- Seven criteria; 67 indicators

## Southern Forest Resource Assessment

- Question-driven, ‘bottom-up’ approach
- 13 states (including eastern Texas and Oklahoma)
- Process began May 1999
- USFS, USFWS, USEPA, NC State, Clemson

## SFRA Process

- 23 questions summarize public concerns about southern forests and their uses
- Public input: 10 public meetings, 750 participants, hundreds more written comments
- Goal: Public ownership in process

## SFRA Process

- Rapid scientific assessment process used available knowledge and data for each question
- Each question addressed by subject experts (27 “question managers”)
- Assessment draft report: Nov. 2001
*www.srs.fs.fed.us/sustain*

## SFRA Questions: Five main areas

| Subject Area | Questions |
| --- | --- |
|   Terrestrial | 5 |
|   Social | 7 |
|   Timber Supply | 3 |
|   Forest Health | 3 |
|   Aquatic | 5 |

## SFRA Questions: Examples

- “What are the history, status, and projected future of terrestrial wildlife habitat types and species in the South?” (*Terrestrial-1*)
- “How have land uses changed in the South and how might changes in the future affect the area of forests?” (*Social-1*)
- “What are the history, status, and projected future demands for and supplies of wood products in the South?” (*Timber-1*)
- “What are the history, status, and projected future of southern forests?” (*Health-1*)
- “What are the history, status, and likely future of water quality in forested southern watersheds?” (*Aquatic-1*)

## Comparison Method

- Ranked how well SFRA met data requirements for the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators
- Semi-quantitative ranking on a scale of         0 to 5, with three components:
- General adequacy of SFRA data
- Spatial scale of SFRA data
- Temporal scale of SFRA data
- Completed rankings for 28 indicators in first five MP criteria (two criteria remain)

## Spatial Scale of Data

- We assumed C&I are best measured at ecological province level
- SFRA rating: Whether data assembled at ecological province, or at a smaller level that can be aggregated
- 1 point (out of 5) possible
- Ecological province or smaller = 1
- Other substate area = 0.75
- South subregion = .5
- South = 0

**Notes:**
Be sure to note that this is our assumption, and not a standard of C&I, which is designed to be measured nationwide

## Temporal Scale of Data

- We assumed C&I best measured in increments of 10 years or less
- SFRA rating: Whether data collected in average increments of 10 years or less
- 1 point (out of 5) possible
- 10 or fewer years = 1
- More than 10 years = 0.5
- One point in time only = 0

**Notes:**
Note that is this our assumption, not a C&I standard

## Overall SFRA Score

- For all 28 criteria:  *2.34 out of 5*
- For 19 criteria with scores higher     than 0:  *3.45 out of 5*

## Criteria Rankings

_*Criterion 1:*_* Conservation of Biological Diversity*
- 9 indicators (2 with scores of “0”)
- Average indicator score: 2.72
- Average without “0” scores: 3.5

## Criteria Rankings

_*Criterion 1*_* *indicator examples
- _Indicator 1:_ “Extent of area by forest type...” (score: 5)
- _Indicator 8:_ “Number of forest-dependent species that occupy a small portion of their former range” (score: 0)

## Criteria Rankings

_*Criterion 2:*_* Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems*
- 5 indicators (none with scores of “0”)
- Average score: 4.1

## Criteria Rankings

_*Criterion 2*_* *indicator examples
- _Indicator 10:_ “Area of forestland and net area of forestland available for timber production” (score: 5)
- _Indicator 12:_ “Area and growing stock of plantations of native and exotic species” (score: 4.5)

## Criteria Rankings

_*Criterion 3:*_* Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality*
- 3 indicators (1 with score of “0”)
- Average score: 1.33
- Average without “0” scores: 2

## Criteria Rankings

_*Criterion 3*_* *indicator examples
- _Indicator 16:_ “Area and percent of forestland subjected to ... specific air pollutants...” (score: 2)
- _Indicator 17:_ “Area and percent of forestland with diminished biological components indicative of changes in fundamental processes...” (score: 0)

## Criteria Rankings

_*Criterion 4:*_* Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources*
- 8 indicators (6 with scores of “0”)
- Average score: 0.94
- Average without “0” scores: 3.75

## Criteria Rankings

_*Criterion 4*_* *indicator examples
- _Indicator 19:_ “Area and percent of forestland with significant soil erosion” (score: 0)
- _Indicator 20:_ “Area and percent of forestland managed primarily for protective functions...” (score: 4)

## Criteria Rankings

_*Criterion 5:*_* Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles*
- 3 indicators (none with scores of “0”)
- Average score: 3

## Criteria Rankings

_*Criterion 5:*_* Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles*
- _Indicator 26:_ “Total forest ecosystem biomass and carbon pool” (score: 2.5)
- _Indicator 28:_ “Contribution of forest products to the global carbon budget” (score: 3.5)

## Comparison conclusions

- Most overlap between SFRA and C&I:
- Forest ecosystem productive capacity
- Forest contribution to global carbon cycles
- Conservation of biological diversity
- Less overlap between SFRA and C&I:
- Forest ecosystem health and vitality
- Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources

## Comparison conclusions

- When SFRA addresses C&I data needs, it generally does so well
- Other C&I:
- May not have fallen within scope of SFRA
- May be measurable with existing data, but those data weren’t included in SFRA
- May not be addressable with any existing data

## Sustainability implications

- So, are we using Southern forests sustainably?

## Sustainability Discussion

_*Criterion 2:*_* Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems*
_*Criterion 5:*_* Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles*