The Wellbeing of Forests - International Union for ... · The Wellbeing of Forests:...

The Wellbeing of Forests:Issues, Indicators and Performance Criteria on ForestsA paper to accompany MapScores software

Prepared by Alex Moiseev ForIUCN Temperate and Boreal Forest Programme

27 June 2002

The IUCN Forest

Conservation Programme

The Wellbeing of Forests:An e-tool for assessing environmentaland social sustainability.

Part A. Understanding and applying theSustainability Assessment method

Part B.Wellbeing Scores software manual

Compiled by Alex Moiseev in collaboration with Eric Dudley and Danielle Cantin

IUCNThe World Conservation Union

The IUCN Forest

Conservation Programme

The Wellbeing of Forests:An e-tool for assessing environmentaland social sustainability.

Part A. Understanding and applying theSustainability Assessment method

Part B.Wellbeing Scores software manual


The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do notimply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status ofany country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiersor boundaries.The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN This publication has been made possible in part by funding from the IUCN Fund for Innovationthrough support from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC).

This work is based on prior work by the IUCN International Assessment Team and the IUCNMonitoring and Evaluation Initiative. In particular, this work owes an intellectual debt to RobertPrescott-Allen, author of The Wellbeing of Nations and Irene Guijt, who co-authored The ResourceKit on Sustainability Assessment with Alex Moiseev. The authors benefited from pioneering workon thematic assessments undertaken with the Regional Office for Southern Africa in collaborationwith Misael Kokwe and Emmanual Guveya. The authors also thank Nancy MacPherson for herintellectual and financial support in the development of this project and its proposal. Thanks alsoto Jean Thie (Information Management) for early discussions that helped shape the overall projectconcept and Simon Reitbergen and Dagmar Timmer (Forest Conservation Programme) for helpfulcomments throughout. The authors would also like to acknowledge the useful comments byAndrew Deutz (Canada office and Temperate and Boreal Forest Programme) and Chris Morry(Canada office) on the paper and software.

Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,

Copyright: © 2000 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural ResourcesReproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorizedwithout prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fullyacknowledged.Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited withoutprior written permission of the copyright holder.

Citation: Moiseev,A, Dudley, E and D. Cantin (2002).The Wellbeing of Forests: an e-tool forassessing environmental and social sustainability. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,UK. 50 pp.

ISBN 2-8317-0662-9Cover photo: Danielle Cantin, IUCN Temperate and Boreal Forest ProgrammeProduced by: IUCN Temperate and Boreal Forest ProgrammePrinted by: Interligne Inc., Montréal, CanadaAvailable from: IUCN Publications Services Unit 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 ODL, United KingdomTel: +44 1223 277894, Fax: +44 1223 277175E-mail: [email protected]://www.iucn.orgA catalogue of IUCN publications is also available


Part A.Understanding and applying the Sustainability Assessment method

The Wellbeing of Forests:


Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Sustainability Assessment Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Dimensions of Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Issues and Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Performance Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Combining Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Mapping and Wellbeing Scores Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14The Pressure-State-Response Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Recap: Developing a Forest-themed Sustainability Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

THE FOREST-THEMED SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:AN INTRODUCTION . . . . . . .17

Forest Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Resource Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23Health & Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Knowledge and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26Wealth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Box 1.A note on terminology used by Sustainability Assessment Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Box 2. Indicator transformation from data to scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Box 3. Goal and objectives of IUCN's Forest Conservation Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Figure 1.The Forest-themed Sustainability Assessment and Wellbeing Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Figure 2. . Suggested Ecosystem dimensions (in bold) and elements (in italics) . . . . . . . . . . .11Figure 3. .The Pressure-State-Response Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Figure 4.The modified Pressure-State-Response Framework, including Benefits . . . . . . . . . .16Figure 5. Land Elements and Sub-elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Figure 6.Water Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20Figure 7.Air Elements and Sub-elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Figure 8. Biodiversity Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Figure 9. Resource Use Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23Figure 10. Health & Population Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Figure 11. Knowledge & Culture Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Figure 12. Community Elements and Sub-elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26Figure 13. Equity Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Table 1. Human and Ecosystem Dimensions and Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Table 2. Performance scale definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Annex 1. Performance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

INTRODUCTION

For many years, IUCN has been concerned with developing tools to better assess if themanagement of our natural resources is sustainable. IUCN developed SustainabilityAssessment, a method for assessing the wellbeing of people and ecosystems together, as ameans for measuring our progress. From this work, IUCN has applied this approach toconservation strategies, biodiversity action plans, and now forest conservation. This workwas undertaken simultaneously with the development of software to assist with thisassessment work.

Sustainable development is an almost universally accepted goal; however there is no clearunderstanding of how it is achieved or how to measure progress toward that goal.Assessment can help bridge this gap by systematically collecting and judging information thatcan help determine progress.

This paper presents a set of measures, organized according to IUCN’s SustainabilityAssessment method, based on forest themes and concerns. The paper is intended toaccompany Sustainability Assessment software, called “Wellbeing Scores” developed byMapMaker Ltd.The software, available from IUCN, allows users to manipulate and combinethese measures and generate maps to test their assumptions and judgments on sustainability.

This paper attempts to bring together some key issues and concerns on forest conservation,along with data and some analysis to provide a context for using the software.The softwareitself is intended to allow users to define their own version of sustainable development bysetting performance standards for each measure and specifying how measures will becombined. Eventually, IUCN hopes to use this tool to help different groups around the worlddefine the vision of forest conservation, supported by locally specific understandings and thebest available global, national and local data.

Sustainability Assessment is a method for measuring sustainable development, by treating thewellbeing of people and ecosystems together. This method measures sustainabledevelopment through specific indicators and also by aggregating indicators into themes(dimensions). The method uses ten themes – five on human development and five onecosystem protection – to organize the indicators.These themes help organize what mightbe an otherwise unwieldy and contradictory set of indicators into the most appropriate andbroad themes possible.

Sustainability Assessment is intended to provide a comprehensive assessment by coveringthe broadest range of themes (dimensions) possible (see also Methods). Throughout thispaper, readers will notice that there is still a huge gap between what should be measured, andwhat can be measured. For many things relevant to forest issues, data is lacking or conceptshave not been refined into a measurable format.This paper used 27 of the most relevant andavailable indicators. However, the discussion and analysis shows that many more indicatorscould and should have been included but were not.


7


8

Box 1. A note on terminology used by Sustainability Assessment Method1

Sustainability Assessment has developed its own specific terminology over the years.This paper attempts to adhere to the “official” terminology that follows:

A dimension is a broad theme, such as land, resource use or community, intended tocontain a set of elements, all of which are related to the same category.

An element is a key issue or concern related to a dimension.

An indicator is a measurable sign or signal of a phenomenon; a context specificmeasure of an element or sub-element.

Indicators are combined to measure elements; elements are combined to measuredimensions; dimensions are combined to measure human and ecosystemwellbeing.

METHODS

The aim of this paper is not to produce a definitive understanding of forest conservation, but only tohighlight and justify a set of key issues (elements), indicators and the possible range of performance foreach indicator. In generating the list of issues and their justification, a number of major publicationswere consulted.2

The main questions guiding this paper, and the results that follow are:If we were to measure sustainable development from the perspective of forests, taking into accounthuman and ecosystem wellbeing, what should be included? The answer to this question yielded a set ofissues (elements) and indicators.For each measurement, how do we know if things are getting better of worse? The answer to thisquestion yielded a performance scale for each indicator.

The issues (elements) and indicators were then organized according to Sustainability Assessmentmethod.This method provides a comprehensive framework within which to measure sustainabledevelopment.The pressure-state-response framework was used to assist in ensuring that the resultinglist of issues was complete.

The method section is divided into three sections:• Sustainability Assessment Method

1 Sustainability Assessment Resource Kit, pp. B3-4.2 WRI’s Pilot Assessment of Global Ecosystems (PAGE); UNEP's Global Environment Outlook’s draft chapter on Forests for GEO-3;

FAO’s State of the World’s Forests 2001; FAO’s Forest Resources Assessment 2000

• The Pressure-State-Response approach (and how it relates to Sustainability Assessment)A discussion of how Sustainability Assessment and Pressure-State-Response helped develop the content for this assessment.

• This paper is intended to complement Wellbeing Scores software and manual.The set of issues (elements) and indicators, their interpretation and combination are subjective and not the result of a broad consensus building process. Users of Wellbeing Scores software will have ample opportunity to introduce their views on forest conservation while using the software. Figure 1 below introduces these opportunities.We will refer to this diagram throughout.

Figure 1.The Forest-themed Sustainability Assessment and Wellbeing Scores

Sustainability Assessment Method

Sustainability Assessment is a method for conceiving and measuring sustainable development.Throughthis method, users are able to articulate their ideal situation – what they mean by full humandevelopment and a productive and healthy ecosystem.

The method has a number of key features:

1. Equal treatment of people and the ecosystem: human development is not possible without a healthyenvironment; and likewise, environmental protection is not possible without addressing the needs ofpeople. Considering the wellbeing of people and the ecosystem together produces a stronger andmore likely vision of sustainability than if they are considered separately.

2. An analytical hierarchy, from big picture to details: the information in a sustainability assessmentis organized such that each individual indicator can help contribute to our understanding of largerthemes (or dimensions such as forest lands, wealth or resource use) and ultimately human andecosystem wellbeing.

3. Visual tools: such as maps that show where performance is best and worst;where priority actions aremost needed. A complete set of maps associated with an assessment can quickly tell what issues(elements) are most important for any area.


9

What we did to build the Forest-themed Sustainability Assessment

What you can do with Wellbeing Scores Software

Identify arepresentative set offorest issues foreach dimension

Identify indicatorsfor each issue, basedon global datasets

Set performancescales for eachindicator based onliterature

Combine indicatorsinto dimensions orthemes; and overallwellbeing

Map and reviewresults andimplications

1 2 3 4 5

Add new issues Add new indicatorsor other datasets

Set new performancescales based on otherjudgments or goals

Re-combineindicators to showdimensions orthemes and overallwellbeing

Re-map and reviewresults to seeimplications ofchanges

1 2 3 4 5

4. Performance indicators: help demystify what indicators mean by specifying the range of good and badperformance on scales. Unlike indicators, “performance scales” can be combined to show themes(dimensions) and overall human or ecosystem wellbeing.The choices behind the performance scales aretransparent, so they can be challenged by any user according to their vision of sustainability orexperience in the field.

5. Cyclical nature: a typical assessment is undertaken in a participatory manner, encompassing anumber of steps from defining a vision of sustainability, measuring the individual indicators andinterpreting the results.A cycle recognizes that sustainability is a moving target, not an absolute goal,and that those interested in sustainable development must be prepared to learn and monitor overtime.

Note: this Forest Sustainability Assessment has compiled themes (dimensions), issues (elements) andperformance indicators to shorten this process and allow users a quick insight into the method.Combining data, maps and a narrative provide the most complete and transparent information possibleon an assessment. In this assessment, data and the absence of data are important parts of the narrativediscussion.

A more detailed document on Sustainability Assessment is available from IUCN(http://www.iucn.org/themes/eval/sustassess.htm). IUCN developed Sustainability Assessment over aneight-year period through an iterative process of testing and writing. Sustainability Assessment is alsoknown as Wellbeing Assessment and is the method guiding a global report called The Wellbeing ofNations. 3 IUCN developed a facilitation and training guide on Sustainability Assessment entitled, TheIUCN Sustainability Assessment Resource Kit.4What follows is a highly condensed version of the guidance from the Resource Kit.

Dimensions of Sustainability

This sustainability assessment uses the standard set of themes (or dimensions) used in manysustainability assessments. Dimensions are large groups of representative elements. Each set ofdimensions, human and ecosystem encompasses a range of themes thought to be wide enough to coverthe broadest spectrum of issues facing any society.The “forest-themed” Sustainability Assessmentadapts these dimensions using the Pressure-State-Response framework to make a deeper analysis offorest conservation issues.

The table below illustrates a general set of Human and Ecosystem dimensions and elements.


10

3 Robert Prescott-Allen, 2001.The Wellbeing of Nations.Washington: Island Press.4 Irene Guijt,Alex Moiseev and Robert Prescott-Allen, 2001.The IUCN Resource Kit on Sustainability Assessment. Gland, Switzerland:

IUCN.

Table 1. Human and Ecosystem Dimensions and Elements

Dimensions Elements

Health and population Physical and mental health, disease, mortality, fertility, population growth.

Wealth The economy, income, material goods, infrastructure, basic needs for food, water, clothing and shelter.

Knowledge and culture Education, state of knowledge about people and the ecosystem, communication, systems of belief and expression.

Community Rights and freedoms, governance, institutions, peace, crime, civil order.

Equity Distribution of benefits and burdens between males and females and among households,ethnic groups and other social divisions.

Land The diversity and quality of land ecosystems, including their modification, conversion, and degradation.

Water The diversity and quality of inland water and marine ecosystems; modification by dams,embankments, pollution, and water withdrawal.

Air Local air quality and the global atmosphere.

Biodiversity Status of wild species and wild and domesticated crop and livestock populations.

Resource use Energy and materials, waste generation and disposal, recycling; resource sectors such as agriculture, fisheries, timber, mining, and hunting.

Issues and Indicators

Indicators are “…measurable and representative aspects of an issue.”5 The purpose of indicators is tocommunicate in a quantifiable and clear manner some important aspect of an issue in which we aremost interested. Indicators used by Sustainability Assessment communicate performance, meaning thatthe range of good and bad has been identified and justified in advance.This makes the process ofviewing indicators transparent and less confusing.Too often, the communicative power of an indicator islost because it is unclear what the measurement is communicating or how it has been constructed.

Goals and performance criteria are closely linked. For instance, a society that sets a goal of a “long andhealthy” life for its population might measure the “long life” part through an indicator of life expectancy.Setting high standards, perhaps at or close to UN goals for longevity, would reflect this goal.The nextsection on performance scales, describes how these standards are set for each indicator.For this assessment, indicators were chosen for each issue identified where data were available.

Figure 2. Suggested Ecosystem dimensions and elements


11

5 ibid,pg.59

Land Resource use

ECOSYSTEM

Species& populations

Water Air

Energy & materials

Resource sectors

Globalatmosphere

Local air quality

Landdiversity

Land quality

Species diversity

Populationdiversity

Inland waters Sea

Performance Scales

Indicators can only become performance indicators if the range of good and bad is explained andjustified.This is called a performance scale. Annex 1: Performance Scales gives a more completeexplanation of what this means and lists every indicator used in this assessment, along with its scale andjustification.

Performance scales are developed using the three steps below6:

1. Determining the range of recent, current and expected performance of that element/indicator as measured;

2. Determining the objective of the element concerned. For example, if the objective of yourhealth element is a “long and healthy life”, you could choose “life expectancy” as the indicatorand specify a “good” band with a high score of 80 years or higher;

3. Using at least one of the following values to set one or more of the bands:

A. Estimated sustainable rate. For example, a sustainable rate of timber felling would be less than 100% of net annual increment.

B. The estimated background rate (“natural” or “normal” performance). For example,the background rate of animal extinctions is estimated to be less than 0.01% of species per century. An acceptable percentage of threatened species could be defined as not more than 100 times that rate.

C. Other threshold. For example, countries have increasing difficulty supporting external debt when debt service payments are above 20% of exports of goods and services.

D. An international (or national) standard. For example, a UN standard for water quality is less than 30 miligrammes of nitrogen per litre of water.

E. An international (or national) target. For example, a UN target for education is 100% primary education by 2015.

F. Expert opinion. For example,Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index.

G. A derivation from a closely linked or related indicator. For example, because there is no specific UN target, the performance criteria for secondary education should be a less stringent version of those for primary education.

H. The judgment of the participants. If none of the above factors is available, the choice of performance criteria is entirely up the judgment of the participants.This judgment may be based on research, experience or consensus of the group.


12

6 ibid,pp.67-8

The three steps of deciding on performance criteria, selecting a standard and scaling theindicators, must be carried out for each indicator. Selecting which standards listed above (A-

G) to follow will depend on circumstances.You will need to check which exist and which ismost likely to be most accurate: (A) to (C) are scientific standards, (D) and (E) are

consensus-based while (F) and (G) are more experience-based.A descriptive narrativewill help explain the choice of standards for determining performance criteria for each

indicator to others who were not part of the decision-making process.

Setting performance standards is key to the entire method. Care must always be taken to ensurethat standards are set to the highest possible level, meeting the goals of society. Performance standardsare always documented and justified to ensure transparency and to allow dissenting groups anopportunity to contest the values implied by the scale itself. In many cases, what is meant by good orbad performance has not been well thought out, and these initial steps to describe what is meant byperformance should be seen as a first step in encouraging a broad debate.

Each performance scale must set standards for good, ok, medium, poor and bad.The table below is anexample of a performance scale for a generic indicator:

Table 2. Performance scale definition

Band Top point on scale Definition

Good 100 Desirable performance, objective fully met OK 80 Acceptable performance, objective almost or barely metMedium 60 Neutral or transitional performance Poor 40 Undesirable performanceBad 20 Unacceptable performance Base 0 Base of scale

Source: Sustainability Assessment Resource Kit, pg. 66.

How each “band” is defined depends on the views of the user. For example, desirable performance, fullymeeting the objective, will depend entirely on how the objective has been defined.A society thatdefines an objective for “resource use” as “maximum yield available for timber production” maysupport greater plantation cover than a society that values less resource use and more natural forests.Setting performance scales in this manner allows users to match standards with their vision ofsustainability while communicating this to others. Users of Wellbeing Scores software will find thatchanging priorities through individual performance scales can be quickly reflected in overallsustainability scores.

Box 2. Indicator transformation from data to scores

Indicators are mathematically transformed from DATA to SCORES using theperformance scales. The data measure, such as 79 years of life expectancy, or 1.2percent of forest cover loss per year, is transformed into a standard 0 – 100 scale.Thisallows indicators to be compared on their own merit and combined to showdimensions and overall human or ecosystem wellbeing.


13

Combining Indicators

Indicators, once scored, can be combined because they all share the same scale (a 0-100 point standardscale). Indicators are combined to show themes (dimensions) and overall human or ecosystemwellbeing. For example, if the wealth dimension can be measured through the value of six differenttypes of production coming from timber harvesting, those indicators can be combined to give an overallsense of the “wealth” provided by forest resources.

This is an important notion, as most sustainability reports and indicator sets do not combine indicatorsin this fashion.As a result, the signals communicated by indicators can become confusing and are opento multiple interpretations.

Indicators can be combined in the following fashion:• As a simple average, denoting the equivalent importance of the indicators;• By taking the lowest value, indicating that a good score in one indicator cannot compensate for a

poor score in others and • By using a weighted average, to show the relative importance of one or more indicators over the

rest.

Combining indicators follows a hierarchy:• Indicators are combined to show elements; and• Elements are combined to show dimensions (see figure 2);

However, each dimension under the human and ecosystem sides is considered to be relatively equal inimportance because they cover such a broad range of concerns. Similarly, human wellbeing isconsidered to be as important as ecosystem wellbeing.

Mapping and Wellbeing Scores Software

Wellbeing Scores allows users to turn data into scores through performance scales, combine indicatorsand map the results.

Mapping is a key part of sustainability for its visual ability to summarize complex situations. Using theglobal forest database compiled as part of this project, users of Wellbeing Scores software can show anyindicator, issue on a map of the world, allowing them to quickly see where performance is strongest orweakest according to the performance criteria.

The Pressure-State-Response Framework

The Pressure-State-Response model is a simplified model of how human interaction with theenvironment yields changes to the environment. It is a somewhat simplistic model, not meant to mimicreality, but to simplify relationships so an initial understanding may be achieved.In the simplest form, the diagram below shows the relationship between pressures, states andresponses.• Pressures flow from human activity and change some aspect of the environment. For instance,

rapidly growing rural communities can place pressure on forest resources through timber extraction, fuelwood use, etc.


14


15

• State refers to an actual, measurable aspect of the environment. Forest cover measures, in an immediately observable manner, the extent of the forest. It does not depend on knowing much about pressures and can be easily verified through observation (for example, remote sensing).

• Responses are actions that people (individuals, organizations, governments, etc.) take to protect the environment. It is intended to be a specifically positive activity to counter a pressure on the environment. In that sense, policies, conservation programmes and field projects are all examples of responses.

• Responses lead to impacts, either changing pressures placed on the environment and/or the state of the resource in question. Impacts can be positive or negative; intended or unintended.

When using the pressure-state-response framework, it is important to be aware of how directly one ismeasuring changes in the environment.The state of any resource, whether it be trees, water quality orbiodiversity, is always the most direct measure. If the state of a resource can be measured, it should be.Pressures are important indicators of change, but their effect on the state of any resource is not alwaysuniform. For example, the pressure on forest due to poverty varies widely depending on where one islooking. Finally, responses are the least direct measure of a resource. It is not hard to find expensiveconservation policies that have had no impact on the state of forests, and at the same time, find smallproject based responses that have led to broad new understanding of forest conservation leading togreater positive impacts on the state of forests. In the diagram below, state and impacts are treated asbeing roughly the same, signifying their relationship.

Figure 3. The Pressure-State-Response Framework.

There are two important caveats to using the Pressure-State Response (PSR) framework:

• First and foremost, the world is not this simple! There are many simultaneous pressures on eachresource, each being addressed by different responses.Typically, any

forest will be the subject of multiple international conventions,national laws, criteria and indicators approaches, management

plans and other informal approaches.The number ofpressures is also myriad, including direct and indirect orlocal and international.The relationship between anyforest, pressures on that forest and responses aimedat conservation looks more like a spider web of cause,effect and response (albeit a really messy spider web).

• Second, time moves forward! Well meaningresponses in 1970 may be the leading causes of pressure

on resources today. Over time, pressures emerge and aredealt with. Impacts are realized and the state of the forest

changes. Different societal priorities can result in resourcesbeing treated differently. Over a long term, the PSR framework

is much more problematic, because it is easy to confuse multiplepressures and impacts of responses.

So why use Pressure-State-Response at all? For this paper, the PSR framework helps organize theliterature on forest conservation by themes (pressures, states and responses) and relate this to theSustainability Assessment framework.To the PSR framework, this paper adds the idea of benefits (seebelow). In addition to pressures placed on forests and responses to those threats, humans benefitgreatly from forests and forest products.

Impacts

Response

State

Pressure

The inclusion of benefits to the PSR framework complicatesmatters somewhat. For example, while human activities placepressure on forests, this process also yields certain benefits.Similarly, responses and impacts can also yield benefits tohuman development. This idea is complementary withthe central message of Sustainability Assessment – thathuman and ecosystem wellbeing must be assessedtogether. Only then, can the delicate balance ofmeeting human development needs withenvironmental conservation be realized. The PSRframework without the inclusion of benefits does notillustrate this properly. Including benefits ensures thatsustainable development is about the wellbeing ofpeople and the environment. It is important to note that“benefits” implied by this use, are scaled for performanceto include the idea of “sustainability.”

Developing a Forest-themed Sustainability Assessment

Any true assessment of sustainable development must balance the widest range of relevant issues withthe constraints imposed by the availability of data and the ability to conceive of a range of performancefor each measure. Not everything that can be conceived can be measured.That said, this assessmentapproached the task from the following perspective:

• All issues (elements), indicators and performance scales were derived from reading the major forest conservation publications listed on footnote 2 on p.7.

• The framework also sought to adequately cover the state of forests,pressures on forest resources, benefits from forests and responses aimed at ameliorating pressures on forests by identifying issues, which were then organized according to Sustainability Assessment’s framework of dimensions (See Figure 1, Step 1).

• The framework produced a representative list of 27 indicators, covering a broad range of themes (dimensions) on human and ecosystem wellbeing (Step 2).

• Performance scales, showing the range of good and bad performance were developed and justified (Step 3).

• The indicators are measured using available data from secondary sources (also Step 3).

• Using the Wellbeing Scores software, indicators were scored and combined (Step 4) and them mapped (Step 5). Indicators were combined using simple averages, so as to allow users to explore the implications of weighting for themselves.


16

Impacts

Benefits

Response

State

Pressure

Figure 4.The modified Pressure-State-Response

Framework, including Benefits

Box 3. Goal and objectives of IUCN's Forest Conservation Programme

Goal: Maintenance, and where necessary, restoration of forest ecosystems to promoteconservation and sustainable management of forests, with equitable distribution of awide range of forest goods and services.

Objective 1: Protected AreasEncourage the establishment and effective management ofecologically representative forest protected area systems that takeaccount of connectivity and robustness with respect to climatechange and other stresses, equitable distribution of benefits andcosts and participation of key stakeholders.

Objective 2: Sustainable Forest ManagementEncourage the development and implementation of sociallybeneficial and economically viable forest management outsideprotected areas as an integral part of an ecosystem based approach tolandscape management.

Objective 3: RestorationEncourage the development of environmentally sound, economically viable andequitable reforestation and forest ecosystem restoration programmes.

Objective 4: Cross-sectoral impactsIdentify cross-sectoral impacts (particularly those associated with over-consumption,pollution, climate change and perverse economic incentives) and harness opportunitiesfor enhancing conservation and sustainable use.

THE FOREST-THEMED SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:AN INTRODUCTION

This section outlines the elements and indicators chosen as part of the Forest-themed SustainabilityAssessment.The previous section introduced Sustainability Assessment method and the Pressure-State-Response framework, which guided the choices, made in this section.

Every sustainability assessment starts with some goals, so as to guide the development of performancecriteria for each indicator.The goals of IUCN’s Forest Conservation Programme guide this assessment.The elements and indicators are organized according to the standard Sustainability AssessmentFramework of Dimensions (see Figure 2).

Annex 1 presents the performance criteria for each indicator. Everything – dimensions, elements,indicators and performance scales - has been programmed into the Wellbeing Scores software.


17


18

Dimension

Elements

Sub-elements

Extent & Diversity Quality

Fragmentation Protection

Forest Lands

Extent Fire ManagementDamage

Forest Lands

Goal: Maintain or improve the integrity of forest ecosystems.

The Forest Lands dimension measures the state of forests most directly.Two broad elements, Extent& Diversity and Quality were used to describe the state of forests.

Extent & Diversity covers the most basic data on forests – size, coverage, change, and fragmentation.This reflects quality– for forests, plantation and protected areas. Diversity is not measured as well asExtent, but it is assumed that unfragmented and natural forest contain greater degrees of diversity,thus a decline in either signals a decline in diversity.Also under Extent & Diversity is the issue ofprotection.A common goal for protected areas development and management suggests that arepresentative group of forests be protected, generally around ten percent of terrestrial ecosystems.

Figure 5. Land Elements and Sub-elements

Quality attempts to capture some pressures on the Extent & Diversity of forest ecosystems. Forestsdamaged by insects, pests, disease, pollution or excessive fire are of lower quality than those notaffected. Forests that are fragmented are of lower quality.

Indicators and Data: Forest lands are best described in terms of extent and how the size andcomposition of forests is changing. FAO has accumulated excellent data from which to derive suitableindicators. Forest quality, on the other hand, suffers from a lack of available and reliable data. Global datasets do not exist, but some good work has been done in Northern Europe, Canada, Russia and theUSA.

Dimension Element Sub-Element Indicator

Ecosystem Forest Lands Extent & Diversity Extent Annual average change of forest area (%)

Average annual change of plantation forest area (%)

Extent of forests is the most direct measure of the state of forests. Here average annual change ofnatural forests and plantations are measured along with changes in total forest area. A strong case canbe made for increasing plantation area while halting the loss of natural forest area.


Ecosystem Forest Lands Extent & Diversity Fragmentation Closed Forest as a % of total forest area

Closed forest as a % of original forest

Fragmented forest ecosystems are far less capable of supporting biodiversity, including other species.The ability to measure fragmentation is quite limited. Remote sensing and sampling procedures, evenwhen definitions of fragmentation are clear, often yield unreliable data. For the Pilot Assessment ofGlobal Ecosystems,World Resources Institute suggested that the presence and density of roadnetworks would be a suitable indicator showing fragmentation, but data is not widely available orreliable.


Ecosystem Forest Lands Extent & Diversity Protection Forests in protected areasas a % of total forestsaccording to global maps

Protected areas, if implemented effectively, can be indicative of forest extent, aswell as quality (see next indicator).This indicator measures only extent ofprotected areas, but does not speak to the effectiveness of that protection.Ineffective protected areas are vulnerable to illegal activities and corruption(see Community).

Many countries over-report protected areas. Forest Resource Assessment 2000 compares countryreported protected areas with protected areas according to their global mapping approach. Ideally,there should be no difference between what each country reports and what is noted on the globalmaps, indicating that protected areas are as extensive as countries believe. Large discrepancies betweenthe two measures call into question the quality of forest protection.

Forest quality is at least as important as forest cover. An unhealthy forest ecosystem is unable toprovide benefits and may ultimately loose forest cover. Ideally, this assessment should include indicatorsof damage from pests, insects, disease, acid rain and fire. However, two problems exist. First, reliable andglobal data sets do not exist, and second, in some cases, there is little agreement on how much damageis too much damage. For instance, some fire is natural and beneficial to forests, but it is not clear howmuch is too much, except for in extreme cases.


19

Data for indicators on damage from insects, pests, disease and acid rain are not easily available but datais good for regions such as Europe, Canada and USA. With some work, datasets for these indicatorscould be constructed, but often this is a matter of compiling regional data sets, with considerable workto harmonize definitions so that data are similar enough to be comparable. Because of these difficulties,this assessment does not include measures of forest quality.

Water

Goal: none specified by the Forest Conservation Programme’s goals.

Forests assist in maintaining the integrity of watersheds. Loss of forest cover can lead to erosion, whichin turn can have significant negative effects waterways. Similarly, loss of waterways, particularly riverscan be an important indicator of habitat loss for forests.

Figure 6.Water Elements

Water quality could also be included in an assessment of this type, if only suitable relationships betweenwater quality and forest quality could be established. Certainly proximity of forests to bodies of waterwould be important to account for, as would the effect of polluted groundwater on forest quality.Theseindicators were not included in this assessment.

Data and indicators: Forests are often valued for watershed protection. River fragmentation alsoimplies some degree of forest habitat destruction. Fragmentation of rivers, then, is a useful proxy fordegradation or loss of forest cover in watersheds, something which is of enough significance tomeasure separately from forest cover as a whole. Both indicators used in this assessment were alsoused in the Wellbeing of Nations.


Ecosystem Water Conversion of aquatic Dam capacity as a %habitat of total water supply

Water withdrawals as % of total internal supply


20

Dimension

Elements

Water

Conversion ofaquatic habitat Pollution

Air

Goal: Mitigate the threats posed by climate change, ozone layer depletion and regional air pollution onforests.

The Air dimension describes how the atmosphere interacts with forests. Forests and the atmosphererepresent one of the most important feedback cycles on the planet. Forests store carbon and produceoxygen, accounting for nearly 80 percent of the exchange of carbon between terrestrial ecosystemsand the atmosphere. Ozone depletion, extreme weather events and air pollution can pose significantthreats.

Figure 7. Air Elements and Sub-elements

Climate change, air pollution and ozone layer depletion, have a potential for rapidlychanging ecosystems upon which certain forest species depend. Forecasts of 2 to 8degrees Centigrade changes upward in the global mean temperature over the nextcentury pose a serious threat to species unable to adapt. Scientists also blame theserising temperatures for change in weather patterns, leading to extreme weather events.

Data and indicators: Air pollution (and the resulting potential for acid rain) and ozonedepletion are measured to show the potential threats to forests. Extreme weather eventscan be measured, but of much more interest, is how forests are planted and managed tominimize the damage caused by these events. Recent events in Europe and Canada hadplaced this issue to the forefront, but data and measures do not yet exist.

Carbon sequestration can be measured directly and shows how forests contribute tomitigating concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere. However, the capacity of eachtype of forest to store carbon is different. Tropical forests, for instance, have a muchgreater capacity for storing carbon than boreal forests. To develop an indicator thatwould be useful, this assessment would have to weight storage capacity regionally, whileassessing performance, something that was beyond the scope of this work. This is animportant indicator which should be urgently developed to help further theunderstanding of the relationship between forests and climate change.


21

Dimension

Elements

Sub-elements

Air

Global Atmosphere

Local / RegionalAir Quality

Climate Change


Human Air Global Atmosphere Climate Change Carbon

Ozone Depleting Substance (ODS) per capita, in grams

Local/regional air % of country quality with acidification excedence

Biodiversity

Goal: Maintain tree species and habitats to protect diversity.

Forest biological diversity – the diversity of genes, species, populations and habitats – represents one of themost important indicators of forest quality.

It is important to also keep forests in the context of their ecosystems by addressing biological diversity as awhole, treating all species as being part of a web of life, of which forests are one component.

Figure 8. Biodiversity Elements

This assessment also included a measure of habitats, through the concept of frontier forests. Worldresources institute notes that frontier forests are “the world's remaining large intact natural forestecosystems.

These forests are -- on the whole -- relatively undisturbed and big enough to maintain all of their biodiversity,including viable populations of the wide-ranging species associated with each forest type.” This assessmentdescribed frontier forests in relation to original forest cover, which is that forest thought to “…cover theplanet 8,000 years ago before large scale disturbance by society began.”

Data and indicators: Forest species are notoriously difficult to count and assess in practice. However, ajoint effort between the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) and FAO has yielded a relativelydecent set of species level indicators, ranging from general measures of endangered species to specificmeasures of endemic, endangered tree species.


22

Dimension

Elements

Biodiversity

Species Habitats


Ecosystem Biodiversity Species % of endangered species – total

% of endangered species which are country endemic

% of endangered country endemic species whichare endangered tree species

Habitat Frontier forest as a %of original forest

Resource Use

Goal: Use forest resources sustainably.

Resource Use, in this assessment, is the other side of Wealth.The dimension of Resource Use measurespressures that humans place on forest resources – whether it is for energy or consumption.Wealth, onthe other hand, measures benefits derived from that use of forest resources.

Figure 9. Resource Use Elements

This assessment looks at Resource Use from the perspective of timber felling (particularly fuelwood)and anthropogenic impact. Unfortunately, this probably does not cover the dimension as well aspossible. Anthropogenic impact is an estimate, and is a bit less reliable than hard data, and covers allland types, not just forests. It would be ideal to include indicators of fuelwood use and grazing to helpcomplete the picture of resource use.

Data and indicators: Pressures placed on forests from energy use are well conceptualized, but dataand information is highly localized. For example, there are not globally comparable datasets on the useof fuelwood, which in some parts of the world represents significant threats to forests.


23

Dimension

Elements

Resource Use

Energy Harversting


Ecosystem Resource Use Timber extraction Fellings + Imports as a % of Net Annual Increment

Anthropogenic impact % of land area with low anthropogenic impact

% of land area with high anthropogenic impact

Health & Population

Goal:A stable and locally appropriate population that will not place excessive pressure on forests.

Population growth is routinely identified as a root cause of change in forest ecosystems. A rapidlygrowing population can place undue pressure on forest resources, particularly in rural areas.Thus, astable population, particularly in rural areas is preferable. Rural – urban migration can change thisdynamic.This assessment addresses the population question in a general sense. At the national level,this is all that is possible. More concrete assessments would address where population is posing athreat, which is more precise than simply identifying a potential threat from rural population growthand density on average.

Figure 10. Health & Population Elements

This assessment does not include benefits to human health. It is conceivable that forests producebenefits that improve human health, ranging from specific medicines to aesthetic benefits, however thelinks are diffuse and little conceptual thinking has been done to develop specific measures.

Data and indicators: Good data and indicators exist for a general discussion of population pressureon forest resources.


Human Health & Population Total fertility rate (no.children/ woman)

Population Rural population density (people/ km2


24

Dimension

Elements

Health & Population

Health Population

Knowledge and Culture

Goal: (knowledge only) Complete knowledge on forest resources and pressures on those resources.

Knowledge & Culture are two of the more difficult, yet important aspects of this Forest Assessment.Knowledge describes our understanding of forests, their resources and importance in ecosystems andhow to best manage threats posed to them. Knowledge is the sum of science, policy and experience onand around forests. Underpinning knowledge is culture. In general terms, culture is the collection ofbeliefs that guide any society. In specific terms, for forests, these are represented by how a cultureattaches spiritual or aesthetic significance to forests.

Figure 11. Knowledge & Culture Elements

Data and indicators: Almost nothing exists at the global level in comparable datasets, but theoreticalunderstandings, particularly at local level, proliferate.This assessment used the Innovation Index, whichappeared in the 2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Report as a proxy for a society’s ability toreact to change under knowledge.This is hardly a direct measure, but little else exists.

No indicators were developed for culture.


Human Knowledge Knowledge Innovation Index& Culture

Community

Goal: A governance structure that supports sustainable forests, which is enforced and enforceable.

Community, in this assessment, is split between Governance and Peace & Order, essentially, the rulesand how they are enforced. Governance describes how countries are managing their forest resources,from national level policy to management of specific forest areas.This assessment focuses on forestmanagement specifically, mainly because policy impact is very difficult to measure directly as a cause-effect relationship but can be seen directly under Extent & Diversity of forests.


25

Dimension

Elements

Knowledge & Culture

Knowledge Culture

Figure 12. Community Elements and Sub-elements

Peace & Order describes illegal activities and corruption. FAO’s State of the World’s Forests 2001devoted an entire chapter to exploring this issue. Illegal activities can include illegal occupation of forestlands, logging, trade, timber transport and smuggling; and illegal accounting practices such as transferpricing. Corruption refers to the more systematic undermining of good governance, interfering with theintent of policy or government institutions and can contribute directly to illegal practices.

Data and indicators: Good data and indicators exist for forest management and certification,although these measures tend to underestimate the amount of forest under management and says littleabout the effectiveness or appropriateness of management or certification.Almost no data exists onillegal activities and corruption, although this will likely be available in the future, and could possibly becobbled together from national sources.This assessment used a Corruption Index that appeared in the2002 Environmental Sustainability Index Report.


Human Community Peace & Order Corruption Corruption Index

Governance Forest % Area under forest Management management

% Area under FSC certification

Equity

Goal: Costs of, and benefits from, forest conservation shared amongst all groups in society.

In this assessment, there is a broad gap between what would be ideal to measure and what is possibleto measure. Ideally, equity would describe how the costs and benefits of sustainably managing forestresources are shared amongst groups in society. Conceptually, however, this is not well developed, andmeasures do not exist.


26

Dimension

Elements

Sub-elements

Community

Peace& Order Government

Illegal activities Corruption

Figure 13. Equity Elements

Poverty is widely cited as a root pressure on forests and is a proxy measure for equity in any society.The measures used in this assessment are from UNDP’s Human Development Report.The HumanDevelopment Index describes people’s deprivation from education, long life and wealth.

Data and indicators: Basic measures of poverty are easily obtained, but anything more specific onequity does not exist in global datasets.


Human Equity Poverty Human Poverty Index

Human Development Index

Gender Gender related development index

Wealth

Goal: Forest provide sustainable benefits to society.

Wealth captures many, but not all, of the benefits to humanity of forests. Economic benefits, those thatcan be measured in the marketplace, include timber and wood products, nonwood products, energy(woodfuels), ecotourism and employment.Wealth can be derived for another group of benefits, forwhich market values do not exist, including carbon storage, soil and watershed stabilization, biodiversityand cultural and spiritual values.

Data and indicators:While there is considerable data on the production, consumption and trade oftimber and energy products, there is little to guide an assessment on how to determine if levels aregood or bad. Under resource use, this assessment used an indicator that relates production to netannual increment. For wealth, this assessment is concerned with measuring the benefits to society, butthe question is: how much wealth, trade, employment, aesthetic value, cultural value or watershedprotection is good and how much is bad.

This assessment used an indicator of forest area per capita, derived from the work of the EcologicalFootprint and a very small proxy for wealth. Clearly, more work is urgently needed to link the benefitsfrom forests with sustainability.


Human Wealth Wealth Forest area per capita


27

Dimension

Elements

Equity

Poverty Sharing costs & benefitsof conservation


28

Annex 1. Performance Criteria

HUMAN WELLBEING

Indicator Issue Good OK Medium Poor Bad Base Rationale

HEALTH & POPULATION

1. Rural population Population 5 10 20 50 100 800 Uses a geometric scaledensity (# people/km2) (doubling)

2. Total fertility rate Population 1.2 2.2 2.6 3.4 5.0 8.4 Top of fair is just below (# children/woman) replacement rate of 2.1

WEALTH

3. Forest area per capita Wealth 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 Ecological Footprint range of (hectares) performance using a linear scale

KNOWLEDGE & CULTURE

4. Innovation Index1 Knowledge 35 25 20 15 10 5 Reflects range of current performance; also a standardized indicator

COMMUNITY

5. % of forests under Governance 100 80 60 40 20 0 Simple scalemanagement plans

6. % of FSC Governance 100 80 60 40 20 0 Simple scalecertified forests

7. Corruption Index2 Peace & Order 2.13 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0 Indicator is already standardized; this scale simply breaks down into even categories.

EQUITY

8. Human Development Poverty 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Scale used by HPI corresponds Index with performance scale from

Sustainability Assessment method

9. Human Poverty Poverty 0 10 20 40 60 70 Reflects current range of Index performance

10. Gender-related Gender 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 As aboveDevelopment Index

1 The Innovation Index measures the underlying capacity of a country to engage in technical innovation by examining factors such as scientific infrastructure and policy environment.Source: M.E. Porter et al. 2001.The Global Competitiveness Report 2001. Oxford University Press.

2 Corruption contributes to lax enforcement of environmental regulation and inability on the part of producers and consumers toevade responsibility for the environmental harms they cause.Source: Kaufmann et al. 2000. Governance matters.World Bank,Washington.


29

ECOSYSTEM WELLBEING


FOREST LANDS

11. Average annual Extent 0.8 0.0 -0.1 -0.9 -2.5 -5.7 Only gains in forest cover change in forest & change are considered good; anyarea (%) loss is medium or worse.

12.. Average annual Extent 15 10 5 2.5 1.25 0 How to separate out goodchange plantation & change plantations from bad? This scalearea (%) is still a bit suspect – depends

entirely on species.

13. Closed forests as Fragmentation 100 75 50 25 5 0 Based on current range of a % of total forest area performance

14. Closed forests as a Fragmentation 100 50 25 12.5 6.25 0 Modified from above % of original forests

15. % of forests in Protection 40 20 10 5 2.5 0 Top of medium reflects inprotected areas (all international goal of protecting IUCN classes) according 10% of each major ecosystemto global maps type.

WATER

16. Dam capacity1 as a Habitat 0 10 20 40 60 100 Reflects current range of % of total supply conversion performance

17. Water withdrawal Habitat 0 10 20 50 100 200 Top of bad matches a point as % of total conversion which is clearly unsustainableinternal supply

AIR

18. Carbon emissions Global 0 400 800 1600 3200 6400 Top of fair matches the pointper capita (kg carbon) atmosphere below which carbon emissions

per person must fall to keep theatmospheric concentrations at less than double thepreindustrial level (WON)

19. Ozone Depleting Global 0 25 50 100 200 400 Best matches international Substances (ODS) per atmosphere agreements to eliminate ODSscapita (grams of ozone (WON)depleting material)

1 Dam capacity is the total cumulative capacity of all dams in cubic km.Source: R.P.Allen 2001.The Wellbeing of Nations. pg. 205


30


20. % of country Local 0 20 40 60 80 100 Top of medium matches WHOwith acidification atmosphere guideline; top of poor matches excedence lowest observed effect level

(WON)

BIODIVERSITY

21. % of endangered Species 0 4 8 16 32 64 Top of medium based onestimated species background extinction rate of

<0.01% per century (WON)

22. % of endangered Species 0 2 4 8 16 32 Derived from above, but slightlyspecies which are more lax, reflecting fewer country endemic numbers

23. % of endangered Species 0 2 4 8 16 32 As abovecountry endemic specieswhich are endangered tree species

24. Frontier forest as a Habitat 60 30 15 7.5 3.75 0 Reflects current range of % of original forest performance

RESOURCE USE

25. Fellings + Imports Timber extraction 1 81 101 111 151 211 Top of medium ensures thatas a % of net annual only felling + import ratesbelow increment (NAI) NAI receive a fair score

26. % of land area Anthropogenic 100 80 60 40 20 0 Simple scalewith very low impactanthropogenic impact

The Wellbeing of Forests - International Union for ... · The Wellbeing of Forests:...

Documents

Transcript of The Wellbeing of Forests - International Union for ... · The Wellbeing of Forests:...