- Email: [email protected]
Ecological indicators: Imperative to sustainable forest management
ecological indicators 8 (2008) 104–107
available at www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind
Short note
Ecological indicators: Imperative to sustainable forest management P.C. Kotwal *, M.D. Omprakash, Sanjay Gairola, D. Dugaya Indian Institute of Forest Management, P.O. Box No. 357, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal 462003, India
article info
abstract
Article history:
Sustainable forest management (SFM) deals with ecologically sound practices that maintain
Received 29 September 2006
the forest ecosystem integrity, productivity, resilience and biodiversity. Ecological sustain-
Received in revised form
ability ensures continuing function of ecosystems which are considered as ecological life
22 January 2007
support system. Several attempts have been made world over to develop criteria and
Accepted 23 January 2007
indicators, which are specific to various forestry conditions and recognized as appropriate tools for assessing and monitoring progress towards sustainable forest management. In India, the process for measuring forest sustainability has started by evolving national level
Keyword:
set of Criteria and indicators in the form of Bhopal–India process. The Bhopal–India process
Sustainable forest management
specifies 8 criteria and 43 indicators. The first 4 criteria pertain exclusively to ecology with 21 related indicators. Thus, nearly half of the criteria and indicators pertain to ecological dimensions that largely govern sustainability of forests. Rest of the criteria of the base set pertains to economic and social aspects with related indicators. This provides holistic approach of monitoring the forest resources. # 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The concept of sustainable forest management (SFM) arises from the notion of sustainable development that has gained increasing recognition worldwide since the late 1980s (Kant and Lee, 2004; Wang, 2004). SFM deals with ecologically sound practices that maintain the forest ecosystem’s integrity, productivity, resilience and biodiversity. Ecological sustainability ensures continuing function of ecosystems, which are considered as important life support systems. In recent time, the concept of forest management has broadened to accommodate wider environmental issues such as conservation of biological diversity, social and economic matters and issues related to sustainability. The issue of conserving and assessing biological diversity has been discussed widely over the past few decades and it reached international prominence with the Convention on Biological Diversity (Johnson, 1993). The debates were lead to development of an effective tool for the monitoring and assessment of these resources. In order to
address the global concern, the Criteria and Indicators (C&I) approach for SFM has been evolved. Currently, involvement of local communities and other stakeholders in forestry decision-making is seen important for SFM, both as a means to an end and as an end in itself (Kangas et al., 2006). Several attempts have been made world over to develop C&I which are specific to varied forestry conditions and recognized as appropriate tools for assessing and monitoring progress towards SFM. The C&I are considered as monitoring instruments by which progress towards implementation of SFM may be evaluated and reported. Present communication deals with the criteria and indicators developed under Bhopal–India (B–I) process in general and ecological indicators in particular for assessing SFM. The Bhopal–India process of SFM was developed considering the India’s forestry situation through a series of meetings/discussions and national level workshop involving
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 755 2775716. E-mail address: [email protected] (P.C. Kotwal). 1470-160X/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.01.004
ecological indicators 8 (2008) 104–107
all stakeholders and in accordance with the Forest Policy imperatives (GoI, 2004; IIFM, 1999, 2005a). The National Task Force (GoI, 2000) validated the 8 criteria and 43 indicators of the B–I process for adoption at the country level.
1.
Special characters of Bhopal–India process
Developed by involvement of a large number and all types of stakeholders across the country and thus has wide acceptability. In consonance to the Indian Forest Policy. Recognised by Government of India. Suitable to the Indian forestry situations. Developed operational strategy and field application model. Flexible for development of site specific set of indicators according to specific forestry situation at Forest Management Unit (FMU) level. The indicators are simple, robust and the relevant data/ information can be collected by involving communities at FMU level. Does not require technology, high expenditure. Incorporated in the National Working Plan Code 2004 which forms the basis for preparation of Forest Working Plans in India. Considering the Indian forestry scenario, a criterion on ‘Optimisation of forest resource utilisation’ has been included that makes the B–I process a unique process over other internationally recognised processes. Community participation in forest management in India is the central theme of National Forest Policy (1988). Indian Institute of Forest Management, through International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO) sponsored research project, developed a model for evolving site-specific set of indicators at Forest Management Unit (FMU) level, based on B–I process, involving communities. The evolved set of site-specific indicators was first validated in the field. After the field validation, a final set of indicators was developed. Reporting formats were developed for each identified indicator and periodic data were collected involving communities from 8 FMUs representing three tropical forest types viz. Sal (Shorea robusta), Teak (Tectona grandis) and mixed forests in India (IIFM, 2006a, b). Attempts have been made to workout the Sustainability index of 8 FMUs by processing the periodic data of FMU level indicators through Forest Management Control System (FORMACS), specially developed software (FAO, 2003) which encompasses all the aspects of sustainable forest management i.e. ecological, economic and socio-cultural. However, in the present paper emphasises is given particularly on the ecological indicators of B–I process.
2. Semblance of Bhopal–India process with international processes of SFM The Bhopal–India process has semblance to one of the International Processes, i.e. Dry Forests Asia Initiative for SFM. Both have the same 8 criteria addressing to ecological, economic and social dimensions of SFM (FAO, 2000). However
105
the Dry Forests Asia Initiative has 49 indicators (Castaneda, 2000) while the B–I process has 43 indicators. The B–I process also has semblance with criteria and indicators of the International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO, 2005). All the criteria of ITTO process and B–I process are similar, except the criteria no. 4 of ITTO which deals with the production aspects while in case of B–I process there are two separate criteria for productivity and utilisation. Further, the criteria of B–I process are preceded by specific adjectives indicating the positive direction towards sustainability. The B–I process has 43 indicators while the ITTO process has 57 indicators and nearly 70% indicators of B–I process are similar to those of ITTO. Thus, the set of C&I under B–I process is in consonance with the international initiatives for SFM. The criteria from serial number 1 to 4 of B–I process pertain exclusively to ecology with 21 related indicators (Table 1). Thus, nearly half of the criteria and indicators pertain to ecological dimensions that largely govern sustainability of forests. Rest of the criteria pertain to economic and sociocultural aspects with related indicators. This provides holistic approach of monitoring the forest resources, since SFM is multidimensional. The indicators under ecological criteria may be called as ‘ecological indicators’. The ecological indicators provide quantitative information on forest resources and reflect the ecological status of the ecosystem (Hunsaker and Carpenter, 1990). These include the condition of resources, magnitudes of stresses, exposure of biological components to stresses, and changes in resource conditions. Mullera and Lenzb (2006) have discussed the application of ecological indicators in environmental management. Periodic monitoring of forest resources using ecological indicators shows the ecological changes over the given time period. The indicator 1.1 of B–I process pertains to area and type of forest cover under natural and manmade forests. This reveals that if any FMU has adequate forest and tree cover, the efforts should be continued to maintain the existing forest cover. However, if any FMU has forest area less than stipulated target, i.e. 33% of total geographic area as mandated in National Forest Policy of India (MoEF, 1988), the efforts should be made to enhance the forest and tree cover. Similarly, indicator 1.5 examines the status of Trees outside Forest (ToF). Trees outside Forest are important source of livelihood and provide supplementary goods and services to the people, also capture CO2 from the environment and store carbon. This indictor includes extent of trees growing on inhabited land, villages, agricultural fields, roadside, canal side and near the water sources (i.e. wells, ponds, etc.). If forest area is less than stipulated, the tree resources outside forest can provide supplementary goods and services and thus, contribute towards sustainable management of existing natural forest. Therefore, communities should be encouraged for growing more and more trees outside forest area. Indicator 2.2 deals with developing database of existing plant and animal species in a particular FMU. Number of such species, if monitored over a long period, helps in detecting the changes in the habitat conditions because any change in species composition may have ecosystem level consequences; therefore, existing plants and animal species in the ecosystem should be maintained. Similarly the periodic data of all the ecological indicators for a FMU can be collected to assess its ecological status. In order to
106
ecological indicators 8 (2008) 104–107
Table 1 – Categorization of criteria and indicators of Bhopal–India process Category Ecological criteria
Criteria 1: Increase in the extent of forest and tree cover
2: Maintenance, conservation and enhancement of biodiversity
3: Maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem function and vitality
4: Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources
Economic criteria
5: Maintenance and enhancement of forest resource productivity
6: Optimization of forest resource utilization
Socio-cultural criteria
7: Maintenance and enhancement of social, cultural and spiritual benefits
Related indicators 1.1 Area and type of forest cover under (a) Natural forest and (b) Man-made forest (tree plantations) 1.2 Forest area officially diverted for non-forestry purposes 1.3 Forest area under encroachment 1.4 Area of dense, open and scrub forests 1.5 Trees outside forest area 2.1 Area of protected eco-systems (protected areas) 2.2 Number of (a) Animal and (b) Plant species 2.3 Number and status of threatened species (a) Animal (b) Plant species 2.4 Status of locally significant species (a) Animal and (b) Plant species 2.5 Status of species prone to over exploitation 2.6 Status of non-destructive harvest of wood and non-wood forest produce 3.1 Status of natural regeneration 3.2 Incidences of forest fires 3.3 Extent of livestock grazing (a) Forest area open for grazing (b) Number of livestock grazing in forest 3.4 Occurrence of weeds in forest (a) Area (b) Weed type 3.5 Incidences of pest and diseases 4.1 Area under watershed treatment 4.2 Area prone to soil erosion 4.3 Area under ravine, saline, alkaline soils and deserts (hot and cold) 4.4 Soil fertility/site quality 4.5 (a) Duration of water flow in the selected streams (b) Ground water in the vicinity of the forest areas 5.1 Growing stock of wood 5.2 Increment in volume of identified species of wood 5.3 Efforts towards enhancement of forest productivity (a) Technological inputs (b) Area under Hi-tech plantations (c) Area under seed production areas, clonal seed orchards, etc. 6.1 Recorded removal of wood 6.2 Recorded collection of non-wood forest produce 6.3 Efforts towards reduction of wastages 6.4 Aggregate and per capita consumption of wood and non-wood forest produce 6.5 Direct employment in forestry and forest based industries 6.6 Contribution of forests to the income of forest dependent people 6.7 Demand and supply of wood and non-wood forest produce 6.8 Import and export of wood and non-wood forest produce 7.1 (a) Number of JFM committees and area(s) protected by them (b) Degree of people’s participation in management and benefit-sharing (c) Level of participation of women 7.2 Use of indigenous technical knowledge: identification, documentation and application 7.3 Quality and extent to which concessions and privileges are provided 7.4 Extent of cultural/sacred protected landscapes: forests, trees, ponds, streams, etc. (a) Type and area of landscape (b) Number of visitors
ecological indicators 8 (2008) 104–107
Table 1 (Continued ) Category
Criteria 8: Adequacy of policy, legal and institutional framework
work out the over all sustainability of the FMU, identification of relevant indicators pertaining to ecological, economic and socio-cultural aspects and their periodic data are required. Such indicators have been identified for 8 FMUs in India, relevant data collected and sustainability worked out (IIFM, 2006a). Ecological systems are composed of complex biological and physical components that are difficult to understand and measure. In this context, the indicators represent key information about structure, function, and composition of the ecological system. Most of the ecological indicators require monitoring and research (based on the understanding of ecological interaction and processes) to adequately address the status of the ecosystem (IIFM, 2005b). Moreover, the information would be very useful for enriching the C&I related database and understanding the trends over the years. The information needed to assess the spatial and temporal changes in relevant parameters, must be recorded carefully. Therefore, it is suggested that future studies on all aspects of sustainability (i.e. ecological, economic and socio-cultural) need to follow the integrated approach so that the results could be made more compatible. Thus, efforts should be made to devise location specific best ways for collecting and analyzing the information in context of sustainable forest management. Future work should concentrate on developing still better approaches and methodologies related to ecological indicators. Maintaining productivity, resilience and biological diversity are key factors in ensuring healthy forest ecosystem which is essential for a healthy society and economy.
references
Castaneda, F., 2000. Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: International Processes. Current Status and the Way Ahead. Unasylva, 51(4), 34–40. FAO, 2000. In: Tan, L.C., Patrick, B.D. (Eds.), Development of National-Level Criteria and Indicators for the Sustainable Management of Dry Forests in Asia; Background Papers. Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. FAO, 2003. A case study on computerized forest management control and forest information management systems in
107
Related indicators 8.1 Existence of policy and legal framework 8.2 Number of forest related offences 8.3 Level of investment in research and development 8.4 Human resource capacity building efforts 8.5 Forest resource accounting (a) Contribution of forestry sector to the GDP (b) Budgetary allocations to the forestry sector 8.6 Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms 8.7 Status of information dissemination and utilization
India: an application to criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. FAO Working Paper FM/23, FAO, Rome, Italy. GoI, 2000. Report of the National Task Force on SFM. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, pp. 1–44. GoI, 2004. National Working Plan Code. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, pp. 1–48. Hunsaker, C.T., Carpenter, D.E., 1990. Ecological Indicators for the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. USEPA Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC. IIFM, 1999. Bhopal–India Process for Sustainable Forest Management in India. SFM Series 2/01. Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, India. IIFM, 2005a. Refining indicators of Bhopal–India process and implementation strategy of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management in India. In: National Workshop Proceeding81-7969-023-7. IIFM, 2005b. Incorporation of criteria and indicators in the forest working plans. In: Workshop Proceeding81-7969-024-5. IIFM, 2006a. Sustainable Forestry Development Through Community Participation in India: Criteria and Indicators Approach. IIFM, ISBN: 81-7969-037-7, pp. 117. IIFM, 2006b. Bhopal–India Process: Operational Strategy and Reporting Formats on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management in India. IIFM, ISBN: 817969-038-5, pp. 74. ITTO, 2005. Revised ITTO criteria and indicators for sustainable management of tropical forests including reporting format. ITTO Policy Development. Series No. 15. ITTO, ISBN: 4902045-20-6, pp. 1–40. Johnson, S.P., 1993. The Earth Summit: The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Graham & Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff, London, UK. Kangas, A., Kangas, J., Laukkanen, S., 2006. Fuzzy multicriteria approval method and its application to two forest planning problems. Forest Sci. 52 (3), 232–242. Kant, S., Lee, S., 2004. A social choice approach to sustainable forest management: an analysis of multiple forest value in Northwestern Ontario. Forest Policy Econ. 6, 215–227. MoEF, 1988. National Forest Policy 1988. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, New Delhi, India. Mullera, F., Lenzb, R., 2006. Ecological indicators: theoretical fundamentals of consistent applications in environmental management. Ecol. Indicators 6 (1), 1–5. Wang, S., 2004. One hundred faces of sustainable forest management. Forest Policy Econ. 6 (3–4), 205–213.
available at www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind
Short note
Ecological indicators: Imperative to sustainable forest management P.C. Kotwal *, M.D. Omprakash, Sanjay Gairola, D. Dugaya Indian Institute of Forest Management, P.O. Box No. 357, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal 462003, India
article info
abstract
Article history:
Sustainable forest management (SFM) deals with ecologically sound practices that maintain
Received 29 September 2006
the forest ecosystem integrity, productivity, resilience and biodiversity. Ecological sustain-
Received in revised form
ability ensures continuing function of ecosystems which are considered as ecological life
22 January 2007
support system. Several attempts have been made world over to develop criteria and
Accepted 23 January 2007
indicators, which are specific to various forestry conditions and recognized as appropriate tools for assessing and monitoring progress towards sustainable forest management. In India, the process for measuring forest sustainability has started by evolving national level
Keyword:
set of Criteria and indicators in the form of Bhopal–India process. The Bhopal–India process
Sustainable forest management
specifies 8 criteria and 43 indicators. The first 4 criteria pertain exclusively to ecology with 21 related indicators. Thus, nearly half of the criteria and indicators pertain to ecological dimensions that largely govern sustainability of forests. Rest of the criteria of the base set pertains to economic and social aspects with related indicators. This provides holistic approach of monitoring the forest resources. # 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The concept of sustainable forest management (SFM) arises from the notion of sustainable development that has gained increasing recognition worldwide since the late 1980s (Kant and Lee, 2004; Wang, 2004). SFM deals with ecologically sound practices that maintain the forest ecosystem’s integrity, productivity, resilience and biodiversity. Ecological sustainability ensures continuing function of ecosystems, which are considered as important life support systems. In recent time, the concept of forest management has broadened to accommodate wider environmental issues such as conservation of biological diversity, social and economic matters and issues related to sustainability. The issue of conserving and assessing biological diversity has been discussed widely over the past few decades and it reached international prominence with the Convention on Biological Diversity (Johnson, 1993). The debates were lead to development of an effective tool for the monitoring and assessment of these resources. In order to
address the global concern, the Criteria and Indicators (C&I) approach for SFM has been evolved. Currently, involvement of local communities and other stakeholders in forestry decision-making is seen important for SFM, both as a means to an end and as an end in itself (Kangas et al., 2006). Several attempts have been made world over to develop C&I which are specific to varied forestry conditions and recognized as appropriate tools for assessing and monitoring progress towards SFM. The C&I are considered as monitoring instruments by which progress towards implementation of SFM may be evaluated and reported. Present communication deals with the criteria and indicators developed under Bhopal–India (B–I) process in general and ecological indicators in particular for assessing SFM. The Bhopal–India process of SFM was developed considering the India’s forestry situation through a series of meetings/discussions and national level workshop involving
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 755 2775716. E-mail address: [email protected] (P.C. Kotwal). 1470-160X/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.01.004
ecological indicators 8 (2008) 104–107
all stakeholders and in accordance with the Forest Policy imperatives (GoI, 2004; IIFM, 1999, 2005a). The National Task Force (GoI, 2000) validated the 8 criteria and 43 indicators of the B–I process for adoption at the country level.
1.
Special characters of Bhopal–India process
Developed by involvement of a large number and all types of stakeholders across the country and thus has wide acceptability. In consonance to the Indian Forest Policy. Recognised by Government of India. Suitable to the Indian forestry situations. Developed operational strategy and field application model. Flexible for development of site specific set of indicators according to specific forestry situation at Forest Management Unit (FMU) level. The indicators are simple, robust and the relevant data/ information can be collected by involving communities at FMU level. Does not require technology, high expenditure. Incorporated in the National Working Plan Code 2004 which forms the basis for preparation of Forest Working Plans in India. Considering the Indian forestry scenario, a criterion on ‘Optimisation of forest resource utilisation’ has been included that makes the B–I process a unique process over other internationally recognised processes. Community participation in forest management in India is the central theme of National Forest Policy (1988). Indian Institute of Forest Management, through International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO) sponsored research project, developed a model for evolving site-specific set of indicators at Forest Management Unit (FMU) level, based on B–I process, involving communities. The evolved set of site-specific indicators was first validated in the field. After the field validation, a final set of indicators was developed. Reporting formats were developed for each identified indicator and periodic data were collected involving communities from 8 FMUs representing three tropical forest types viz. Sal (Shorea robusta), Teak (Tectona grandis) and mixed forests in India (IIFM, 2006a, b). Attempts have been made to workout the Sustainability index of 8 FMUs by processing the periodic data of FMU level indicators through Forest Management Control System (FORMACS), specially developed software (FAO, 2003) which encompasses all the aspects of sustainable forest management i.e. ecological, economic and socio-cultural. However, in the present paper emphasises is given particularly on the ecological indicators of B–I process.
2. Semblance of Bhopal–India process with international processes of SFM The Bhopal–India process has semblance to one of the International Processes, i.e. Dry Forests Asia Initiative for SFM. Both have the same 8 criteria addressing to ecological, economic and social dimensions of SFM (FAO, 2000). However
105
the Dry Forests Asia Initiative has 49 indicators (Castaneda, 2000) while the B–I process has 43 indicators. The B–I process also has semblance with criteria and indicators of the International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO, 2005). All the criteria of ITTO process and B–I process are similar, except the criteria no. 4 of ITTO which deals with the production aspects while in case of B–I process there are two separate criteria for productivity and utilisation. Further, the criteria of B–I process are preceded by specific adjectives indicating the positive direction towards sustainability. The B–I process has 43 indicators while the ITTO process has 57 indicators and nearly 70% indicators of B–I process are similar to those of ITTO. Thus, the set of C&I under B–I process is in consonance with the international initiatives for SFM. The criteria from serial number 1 to 4 of B–I process pertain exclusively to ecology with 21 related indicators (Table 1). Thus, nearly half of the criteria and indicators pertain to ecological dimensions that largely govern sustainability of forests. Rest of the criteria pertain to economic and sociocultural aspects with related indicators. This provides holistic approach of monitoring the forest resources, since SFM is multidimensional. The indicators under ecological criteria may be called as ‘ecological indicators’. The ecological indicators provide quantitative information on forest resources and reflect the ecological status of the ecosystem (Hunsaker and Carpenter, 1990). These include the condition of resources, magnitudes of stresses, exposure of biological components to stresses, and changes in resource conditions. Mullera and Lenzb (2006) have discussed the application of ecological indicators in environmental management. Periodic monitoring of forest resources using ecological indicators shows the ecological changes over the given time period. The indicator 1.1 of B–I process pertains to area and type of forest cover under natural and manmade forests. This reveals that if any FMU has adequate forest and tree cover, the efforts should be continued to maintain the existing forest cover. However, if any FMU has forest area less than stipulated target, i.e. 33% of total geographic area as mandated in National Forest Policy of India (MoEF, 1988), the efforts should be made to enhance the forest and tree cover. Similarly, indicator 1.5 examines the status of Trees outside Forest (ToF). Trees outside Forest are important source of livelihood and provide supplementary goods and services to the people, also capture CO2 from the environment and store carbon. This indictor includes extent of trees growing on inhabited land, villages, agricultural fields, roadside, canal side and near the water sources (i.e. wells, ponds, etc.). If forest area is less than stipulated, the tree resources outside forest can provide supplementary goods and services and thus, contribute towards sustainable management of existing natural forest. Therefore, communities should be encouraged for growing more and more trees outside forest area. Indicator 2.2 deals with developing database of existing plant and animal species in a particular FMU. Number of such species, if monitored over a long period, helps in detecting the changes in the habitat conditions because any change in species composition may have ecosystem level consequences; therefore, existing plants and animal species in the ecosystem should be maintained. Similarly the periodic data of all the ecological indicators for a FMU can be collected to assess its ecological status. In order to
106
ecological indicators 8 (2008) 104–107
Table 1 – Categorization of criteria and indicators of Bhopal–India process Category Ecological criteria
Criteria 1: Increase in the extent of forest and tree cover
2: Maintenance, conservation and enhancement of biodiversity
3: Maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem function and vitality
4: Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources
Economic criteria
5: Maintenance and enhancement of forest resource productivity
6: Optimization of forest resource utilization
Socio-cultural criteria
7: Maintenance and enhancement of social, cultural and spiritual benefits
Related indicators 1.1 Area and type of forest cover under (a) Natural forest and (b) Man-made forest (tree plantations) 1.2 Forest area officially diverted for non-forestry purposes 1.3 Forest area under encroachment 1.4 Area of dense, open and scrub forests 1.5 Trees outside forest area 2.1 Area of protected eco-systems (protected areas) 2.2 Number of (a) Animal and (b) Plant species 2.3 Number and status of threatened species (a) Animal (b) Plant species 2.4 Status of locally significant species (a) Animal and (b) Plant species 2.5 Status of species prone to over exploitation 2.6 Status of non-destructive harvest of wood and non-wood forest produce 3.1 Status of natural regeneration 3.2 Incidences of forest fires 3.3 Extent of livestock grazing (a) Forest area open for grazing (b) Number of livestock grazing in forest 3.4 Occurrence of weeds in forest (a) Area (b) Weed type 3.5 Incidences of pest and diseases 4.1 Area under watershed treatment 4.2 Area prone to soil erosion 4.3 Area under ravine, saline, alkaline soils and deserts (hot and cold) 4.4 Soil fertility/site quality 4.5 (a) Duration of water flow in the selected streams (b) Ground water in the vicinity of the forest areas 5.1 Growing stock of wood 5.2 Increment in volume of identified species of wood 5.3 Efforts towards enhancement of forest productivity (a) Technological inputs (b) Area under Hi-tech plantations (c) Area under seed production areas, clonal seed orchards, etc. 6.1 Recorded removal of wood 6.2 Recorded collection of non-wood forest produce 6.3 Efforts towards reduction of wastages 6.4 Aggregate and per capita consumption of wood and non-wood forest produce 6.5 Direct employment in forestry and forest based industries 6.6 Contribution of forests to the income of forest dependent people 6.7 Demand and supply of wood and non-wood forest produce 6.8 Import and export of wood and non-wood forest produce 7.1 (a) Number of JFM committees and area(s) protected by them (b) Degree of people’s participation in management and benefit-sharing (c) Level of participation of women 7.2 Use of indigenous technical knowledge: identification, documentation and application 7.3 Quality and extent to which concessions and privileges are provided 7.4 Extent of cultural/sacred protected landscapes: forests, trees, ponds, streams, etc. (a) Type and area of landscape (b) Number of visitors
ecological indicators 8 (2008) 104–107
Table 1 (Continued ) Category
Criteria 8: Adequacy of policy, legal and institutional framework
work out the over all sustainability of the FMU, identification of relevant indicators pertaining to ecological, economic and socio-cultural aspects and their periodic data are required. Such indicators have been identified for 8 FMUs in India, relevant data collected and sustainability worked out (IIFM, 2006a). Ecological systems are composed of complex biological and physical components that are difficult to understand and measure. In this context, the indicators represent key information about structure, function, and composition of the ecological system. Most of the ecological indicators require monitoring and research (based on the understanding of ecological interaction and processes) to adequately address the status of the ecosystem (IIFM, 2005b). Moreover, the information would be very useful for enriching the C&I related database and understanding the trends over the years. The information needed to assess the spatial and temporal changes in relevant parameters, must be recorded carefully. Therefore, it is suggested that future studies on all aspects of sustainability (i.e. ecological, economic and socio-cultural) need to follow the integrated approach so that the results could be made more compatible. Thus, efforts should be made to devise location specific best ways for collecting and analyzing the information in context of sustainable forest management. Future work should concentrate on developing still better approaches and methodologies related to ecological indicators. Maintaining productivity, resilience and biological diversity are key factors in ensuring healthy forest ecosystem which is essential for a healthy society and economy.
references
Castaneda, F., 2000. Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: International Processes. Current Status and the Way Ahead. Unasylva, 51(4), 34–40. FAO, 2000. In: Tan, L.C., Patrick, B.D. (Eds.), Development of National-Level Criteria and Indicators for the Sustainable Management of Dry Forests in Asia; Background Papers. Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. FAO, 2003. A case study on computerized forest management control and forest information management systems in
107
Related indicators 8.1 Existence of policy and legal framework 8.2 Number of forest related offences 8.3 Level of investment in research and development 8.4 Human resource capacity building efforts 8.5 Forest resource accounting (a) Contribution of forestry sector to the GDP (b) Budgetary allocations to the forestry sector 8.6 Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms 8.7 Status of information dissemination and utilization
India: an application to criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. FAO Working Paper FM/23, FAO, Rome, Italy. GoI, 2000. Report of the National Task Force on SFM. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, pp. 1–44. GoI, 2004. National Working Plan Code. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, pp. 1–48. Hunsaker, C.T., Carpenter, D.E., 1990. Ecological Indicators for the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. USEPA Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC. IIFM, 1999. Bhopal–India Process for Sustainable Forest Management in India. SFM Series 2/01. Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, India. IIFM, 2005a. Refining indicators of Bhopal–India process and implementation strategy of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management in India. In: National Workshop Proceeding81-7969-023-7. IIFM, 2005b. Incorporation of criteria and indicators in the forest working plans. In: Workshop Proceeding81-7969-024-5. IIFM, 2006a. Sustainable Forestry Development Through Community Participation in India: Criteria and Indicators Approach. IIFM, ISBN: 81-7969-037-7, pp. 117. IIFM, 2006b. Bhopal–India Process: Operational Strategy and Reporting Formats on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management in India. IIFM, ISBN: 817969-038-5, pp. 74. ITTO, 2005. Revised ITTO criteria and indicators for sustainable management of tropical forests including reporting format. ITTO Policy Development. Series No. 15. ITTO, ISBN: 4902045-20-6, pp. 1–40. Johnson, S.P., 1993. The Earth Summit: The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Graham & Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff, London, UK. Kangas, A., Kangas, J., Laukkanen, S., 2006. Fuzzy multicriteria approval method and its application to two forest planning problems. Forest Sci. 52 (3), 232–242. Kant, S., Lee, S., 2004. A social choice approach to sustainable forest management: an analysis of multiple forest value in Northwestern Ontario. Forest Policy Econ. 6, 215–227. MoEF, 1988. National Forest Policy 1988. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, New Delhi, India. Mullera, F., Lenzb, R., 2006. Ecological indicators: theoretical fundamentals of consistent applications in environmental management. Ecol. Indicators 6 (1), 1–5. Wang, S., 2004. One hundred faces of sustainable forest management. Forest Policy Econ. 6 (3–4), 205–213.