1 / 53

Proposed Sustainable Resources Data Working Group

This working group aims to develop criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. The group will discuss topics such as conservation of biodiversity, maintenance of productive capacity, ecosystem health, and soil and water resource conservation.

rlafferty
Download Presentation

Proposed Sustainable Resources Data Working Group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Proposed Sustainable Resources Data Working Group Cochairs: Paul Geissler, US Geological Survey Richard Guldin, USDA Forest Service Meetings on October 26 December 14 November 11 January 25

  2. Current Members • Ted Bauer, USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service • Bruce Beard, Department of Defense • Larry Biles, USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service • John Dennis, National Park Service • Bill Downes, Bureau of Indian Affairs • Paul Geissler, US Geological Survey • Jeff Goebel, National Resources Conservation Service • Rich Guldin, USDA Forest Service

  3. Michael Haske, Bureau of Land Management • Linda Hutton, National Agricultural Statistics Service • Don Nelson, USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service • Dave Radloff, USDA Forest Service • Brad Smith, USDA Forest Service • George Van Otten, USDA Forest Service • Gary Williams, National Park Service • Doug Williams, National Resources Conservation Service • Robert Willis, Fish and Wildlife Service

  4. Background 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro endorsed a set of Forest Principles 1993 US commitment to goal of sustainable management of all the nation’s forests by 2000 1993 Montreal Process 1995 Santiago Declaration – Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests

  5. Santiago Declaration • Argentina New Zealand • Australia Republic of Korea • Canada Russian Federation • Chile Paraguay • China Argentina • Japan United States • Mexico Uruguay • 90% of world’s temperate & boreal forests • 60% of world’s forests

  6. Criteria & Indicators for the Sustainable Management of Temporal and Boreal Forests Criterion 1: Conservation of biological diversity Ecosystem Diversity 1: Extent of area by forest type relative to total forest area 2: Extent of area by forest type and by age class or successional stage 3: Extent of area by forest type in protected area categories as defined by IUCN of other classification systems 4: Extent of area by forest type in protected areas defined by age class or successional stage 5: Fragmentation of forest types

  7. Species Diversity 6: The number of forest dependent species 7: The status (threatened, rare, vulnerable, endangered, or extinct) of forest dependent species at risk of not maintaining viable breeding populations, as determined by legislation or scientific assessment Genetic Diversity 8: Number of forest dependent species that occupy a small portion of their former range 9: Population levels of representative species from diverse habitats monitored across their range

  8. Criterion 2: Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems 10: Area of forest land and net area of forest land available for timber production 11: Total growing stock of both merchantable and nonmerchantable tree species on forest land available for timber production 12: The area and growing stock of plantations of native and exotic species 13: Annual removal of wood products compared to the volume determined to be sustainable 14: Annual removal of non-timber forest products (e.g. fur bearers, berries, mushrooms, game), compared to the level determined to be sustainable

  9. Criterion 3: Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality 15: Area and percent of forest affected by processes or agents beyond the range of historic variation, e.g. by insects, disease, competition from exotic species, fire, storm, land clearance, permanent flooding, salinisation, and domestic animals 16: Area and percent of forest land subjected to levels of specific air pollutants (e.g. sulfates, nitrate, ozone) or ultra violet B that may cause negative impacts on forest ecosystems

  10. 17: Area and percent of forest land with diminished biological components indicative of changes in fundamental ecological processes (e.g. soil, nutrient cycling, seed dispersion, pollination) and/or ecological continuity (monitoring of functionally important species such as fungi, arboreal epiphytes, nematodes, beetles, wasps, etc.)

  11. Criterion 4: Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources 18: Area and percent of forest land with significant soil erosion 19: Area and percent of forest land managed for protective functions. E.g. watersheds, flood protection, avalanche protection, riparian zones 20: Percent of stream kilometers in forested catchments in which stream flow and timing has significantly deviated from the historic range of variation 21: Area and percent of forest land with diminished soil organic matter and/or changes in other soil chemical properties

  12. 22: Area and percent of forest land with significant compaction or change in soil physical properties resulting from human activities 23: Percent of water bodies in forest areas (e.g. stream kilometers, lake hectares) with significant variance of biological diversity form the historic range of variation 24: Percent of water bodies in forest areas (e.g. stream kilometers, lake hectares) with significant variation from the historic range of variability in pH, dissolved oxygen, levels of chemicals ( electrical conductivity), sedimentation or temperature change 25: Area and percent of forest land experiencing an accumulation of persistent toxic substances

  13. Criterion 5: Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles 26: Total forest ecosystem biomass and carbon pool, & if appropriate, by forest type, age class and successional stage 27: Contribution of forest ecosystems to the total global carbon budget, including absorption and release of carbon (standing biomass, course woody debris, peat and soil carbon) 28: Contribution of forest products to the global carbon budget

  14. Criterion 6: Maintenance and enhancement of long-term socio-economic benefits to meet the needs of societies Production and Consumption 29: Value and volume of wood and wood products production, including value added through downstream processing 30: Value and quantities of production of non-wood forest products 31: Supply and consumption of wood and wood products, including consumption per capita 32: Value of wood and non-wood products production as percentage of GDP 33: Degree of recycling of forest products 34: Supply and consumption/use of non-wood products

  15. Recreation and tourism 35: Area & percent of forest land managed for general recreation and tourism, in relation to the total area of forest land 36: Number & type of facilities available for general recreation and tourism, in relation to population and forest area 37: Number of visitor days attributed to recreation and tourism, in relation to population and forest area

  16. Investment in the forest sector 38: Value of investment, including investment in forest growing, forest health and forest management, planted forests,wood processing, recreation and tourism 39: Level of expenditure on research and development, and education 40: Extension and use of new and improved technologies 41: Rates of return on investment Cultural, social and spiritual needs and values 42: Area & percent of forest land managed in relation to the total area of forest land to protect the range of cultural, social and spiritual needs and values 43: Non-consumptive use of forest values

  17. Employment and community needs 44: Direct and indirect employment in the forest sector and forest sector employment as a proportion of total employment 45: Average wage rates and injury rates in major employment categories within the forest sector 46: Viability and adaptability to changing economic conditions, of forest dependent communities, including indigenous communities 47: Area and percent of forest land used for subsistence purposes

  18. Criterion 7: Legal, institutional and economic framework for forest conservation and sustainable management Extent to which the legal framework(laws, regulations, guidelines) supports the conservation andsustainable management of forests, including the extent to which it: 48: Clarifies property rights, provides for appropriate land tenure arrangements, recognizes customary and traditional rights of indigenous people, and provides means of resolving property disputes by due process

  19. 49: Provides for periodic forest-related planning, assessment, and policy review that recognizes the range of forest values, including coordination with relevant sectors 50: Provides opportunities for public participation in public policy and decision making related to forests and public access to information 51: Encourages best practice codes for forest management 52: Provides for the management of forests to conserve special environmental, cultural, social and/or scientific values

  20. Extent to which the institutional framework supports the conservation and sustainable management offorests, including capacity to: 53: Provide for public involvement activities and public education, awareness and extension programs, and make available forest related Information 54: Undertake and implement periodic forest-related planning, assessment, and policy review including cross-sectoral planning and coordination 55: Develop and maintain human resource skills across relevant disciplines 56: Develop and maintain efficient physical infrastructure to facilitate the supply of forest products and services and support forest management 57: Enforce laws, regulations and guidelines

  21. Extent to which the economic framework supports the conservation and sustainable management offorests through: 58: Investment and taxation policies and a regulatory environment which recognize the long-term nature of investments and permit the flow of capital in and out of the forest sector in response to market signals, non-market economic valuations, and public policy decisions in order to meet long-term demands for forest products and services 59: Non-discriminatory trade policies for forest products

  22. Capacity to measure and monitor changes in the conservationand sustainable management of forests,including: 60: Availability and extent of up-to-date data, statistics and other information to measuring or describing indicators associated with Criteria 1-7 61: Scope, frequency and statistical reliability of forest inventories, assessments, monitoring and reporting on indicators 62: Compatibility with other countries in measuring, monitoring and reporting on indicators

  23. Capacity to conduct and apply research and development aimed at improving forest management anddelivery of forest goods and services, including: 63: Development of scientific understanding of forest ecosystem characteristics and functions 64: Development of methodologies to measure and integrate environmental and social costs and benefits into markets and public policies, and to reflect forest related resource depletion or replenishment in national accounting systems

  24. 65: New technologies and the capacity to assess the socioeconomic consequences associated with the introduction of new technologies 66: Enhancement of ability to predict impacts of human intervention on forests 67: Ability to predict impacts on forests of possible climate change

  25. Roundtable on Sustainable Forests • (http://www.SustainableForests.net) • Response to a letter by • National Association of State Foresters • World Wildlife Fund • American Forest & Paper Association • Society of American Foresters • National Audubon Society • Global Forest Project

  26. “For many of the indicators, inadequate data is available to make sound judgments. There was also fairly strong consensus among the stakeholders that the C&I are a good framework to guide future forest resource assessments and inventories.”

  27. Roundtable was initiated at a meeting of agency heads on July 14, 1998 chaired by Mike Dombeck, USFS • Focus of the Roundtable is to • implement and promote utilization of the C&I and • use the C&I as a framework for dialogue on sustainable forest management

  28. The Roundtable is a forum for self-selected participants to share information and perspectives about sustainable forests in the U.S. • Roundtable participants represent state foresters; environmental groups; federal , state and local agencies; private forest owners, forest products companies; tribal, professional and labor organizations and academic institutions.

  29. Federal MOU on Sustainable Forest Management Data • Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service • Forest Service • National Agricultural Statistics Service • Natural Resources Conservation Service • Department of Defense • Bureau of Indian Affairs • Bureau of Land Management • National Park Service • U.S. Geological Survey

  30. Working Group Charter • Purpose • Further the goal of sustainable resources by fostering the standardization and implementation of criteria and indicators (C&I) of sustainability. • Effective implementation depends upon having common definitions, geographic breadth of coverage, and the assessment of applicable variables for each indicator and upon resolving other C&I-related data issues.

  31. Coordinate activities of programs that are collecting, monitoring, analyzing, reporting, and/or making available data and other information to reduce duplication and increase data interoperability and availability. • Responsible for developing annual work plans to implement the Federal MOU on Sustainable Forest Management Data (01-SU-11130144-010).

  32. Scope • The criteria and indicators (C&I) of sustainable resources, including • developing standards and protocols for the collecting, monitoring, analyzing, reporting, and/or making available data and other information and • developing annual work plans to coordinate these activities. • The initial focus will be on the C&I for sustainable forest management. • The focus may be expanded to other C&I by amending this charter.

  33. Lead Agency • The USDA-Forest Service has the lead for forest issues and has pertinent statutory authorities related to research, public and private land management, and international forestry. • The Working Group will be initially co-chaired by the US Geological Survey and the USDA Forest Service. • Subsequently, the Working Group will select the chair or co-chairs.

  34. Membership •  The Working Group shall consist of representatives designated by the Federal agencies having data responsibilities or interests pertinent to the sustainable forest management, including those that have signed the MOU on Sustainable Forest Management Data. • [Cannot include nonfederal members because of FACA.] • [Close working relationship with Roundtable’s Technical Work Group which includes our nonfederal partners.]

  35. Each member agency of the Working Group shall designate its representatives, a lead representative, and changes thereto, to the Working Group chair or cochairs. • Representatives of other FGDC working groups and subcommittees will be welcomed as ex officio members, as appropriate.

  36. Responsibility •  Implement the MOU on Sustainable Forest Management Data to provide: • A common interagency forum for Federal coordination to resolve issues integral to collecting, monitoring, analyzing, reporting, and making data available on an ongoing basis related to the C&I.

  37. A process for helping the Federal agencies develop a national report by 2003 for the Montreal Process on the state of the Nation’s forests and progress towards sustainable forest management in the United States (U.S.).

  38. Integrate data derived through the C&I with other related and overlapping natural resource activities as appropriate to agency missions and consistent with their statutory responsibilities. • The Working Group will develop an annual work plan to identify the tasks and information needed to implement the MOU.

  39. Facilitate the development and adoption of FGDC-approved standards and protocols for indicators of sustainable resources. • After the 2003 National Report is officially released, the Working Group will review the process underlying the development of the Report and recommend changes in the process beyond 2003.

  40. Termination • The Working Group shall remain in existence until terminated by the FGDC Coordination Group.

  41. Roundtable participants • American Fisheries Society • American Forest and Paper Association • Cornell University-Department of Natural Resources • Duke University- Department of Botany • Executive Office of the President- Office of Management and Budget • Global Forest Policy Project • International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

  42. Intertribal Timber Council/NezPerce Tribal Forestry • National Association of Professional Forestry Schools & Colleges • Izaak Walton League of America • National Association of Counties- Joint Center for Sustainable Communities • National Association of State Foresters • National Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife Programs • National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges

  43. National Audubon Society • National Governors Association- Energy and Environment Center for Best Practices • National Hispanic Environmental Council • National Woodland Owners Association • Native American Society of Fish and Wildlife • North Carolina State University-Department of Forestry • Oregon State University- College of Forestry/ Sustainable Forestry Partnership

  44. Penn State University - School of Forest Resources/Sustainable Forestry Partnership • Pinchot Institute for Conservation • Society of Range Management • The Heinz Center • The Nature Conservancy • The Wildlife Society • U.S. Department of Agriculture - Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service • U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service

  45. U.S. Department of Agriculture- Natural Resource Conservation Center • U.S. Department of Agriculture- Office of the Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment • U.S. Department of Agriculture- Office of the Secretary, Sustainable Development • U.S. Department of Commerce- Bureau of the Census, Population Division • U.S. Department of Defense- Office of the Deputy Undersecretary for Environmental Security

  46. U.S. Department of Energy- Office of Industrial Technologies • U.S. Department of the Interior- Bureau of Indian Affairs • U.S. Department of the Interior- Bureau of Land Management • U.S. Department of the Interior- Fish and Wildlife Service • U.S. Department of the Interior- Geological Survey • U.S. Department of the Interior- National Park Service

  47. U.S. Department of State- International Conservation Office • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Office of Policy • World Wildlife Fund • Yale University-School of Forestry and Environmental Studies

More Related