Issuu on Google+


Prepared by Pierre Belleau, FE, M.Sc. Bas-Saint-Laurent Model Forest

Rimouski Progress report, February 2000


LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 MODEL FOREST NETWORK AND INDICATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 MONITORING SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Feat ures of t he Model Fo rest’s management systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Importance of multi-resource management plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Registration of sustainable management systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Local forest values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Selection of indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Workshops and meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 INDICATORS OF SFM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT NEEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indicator 1: Forest type and age-class distribution by forest type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indicator 2: Area of clearcuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indicator 12: Forest cover in watersheds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indicator 15: Annual removal relative to the forest’s productive capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . Socio-economic indicators: 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 17 17 17 18 18

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 REFERENCE WORKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 APPENDIX EVALUATION OF CCFM INDICATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22



Table 1:

Land-use areas defined in the Bas-Saint-Laurent Model Forest management plan . . . 9

Table 2: Local level indicators of SFM, Bas-Saint-Laurent Model Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14


INTRODUCTION Phase I of Canada’s Model Forest Program was completed in March 1997. The emphasis during this first development stage was placed on building effective working partnerships, testing models of sustainable forest management specific to each member of the Model Forest Network and refining them through research. In the case of the Bas-Saint-Laurent Model Forest, two management models were experimented, i.e. forest tenant farms and improved group ventures. Phase II of the Program is now well under way and the model forests are faced with new challenges, not the least of which is the development and testing of local-level indicators to measure performance relative to their sustainable forest management (SFM) goals and objectives. To a certain extent, this exercise contributes to the definition of mechanisms for certifying SFM systems for private forest land. Evaluation of SFM performance is separate from the five-year model forest evaluation, which focuses on achievements under annual programs and general operations. The present report discusses the progress in developing a monitoring system for the Bas-SaintLaurent Model Forest. It describes the process used to identify indicators, lists the established indicator set and discusses specific research needs that must be filled in order to make the system more effective overall. Familiarity with the Model Fo rest’s management systems would help in understanding the final selection.



Each model forest in the Canadian Network is required to develop indicators to demonstrate that management pract ices are having the desired effect on the forest values identified at the local level (Canada’s Model Forest Program: Proposal Guidelines for Phase II, 1996). While sharing a common goal, the proposed models of sustainable forest management are unique in that they are tailored to a specific land base and, consequently, will influence the selection of local indicators. To promote t he exchange of information and knowledge and coordinate indicator development beyond their individual contexts, all of the model forests used the 1995 Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) document Defining Sustainable Forest Management: A Canadian Approach to Criteria and Indicators as the starting point for their deliberations. This document contains over 80 indicators grouped under the following six criteria:

Ecological criteria 1. 2. 3. 4.

Conservation of biological diversity Maintenance and enhancement of forest ecosystem condition and productivity Conservation of soil and water resources Forest ecosystem contributions to global ecological cycles

Socio-economic criteria 5. Multiple benefits to society 6. Accepting society’s responsibility for sustainable development. Criterion 5 aims to maintain the many benefits society derives from forests, while Criterion 6 concerns the notions of quality of life and public participation in decision making. In accordance with the Proposal Guidelines, one or more indicators are to be developed for each of the CCFM criteria for the purpose of measuring progress in achieving sustainable forest management. However, because the indicators proposed by the CCFM are not always relevant to local needs, the Bas-Saint-Laurent Model Forest has discarded some (see list in appendix) and r eplaced or reformulated others. Finally, if they wish, the model forests may choose to establish a bridge between their indicat or plan and other activities such as certification.



An entire section of the Bas-Saint-Laurent Model Forest ’s Phase II proposal was devoted to the development of a monitoring system that includes an indicator measurement program and a communications plan for disseminating the results. The present progress report is one of the means provided for in the communications plan. Rather than repeating the content of the initial proposal, we will simply outline the principal steps involved in developing our monitoring system:


Establishment of a set of indicators; Identification and development of measurement methods; Initial set of measurements; Results and final measurement program; Periodic measurements and reports; Validation of indicators and final assessment of SFM performance.

The development schedule targeted the establishment of a suite of indicators in summer 1998, immediately followed by an initial set of measurements and the establishment of benchmarks. These deadlines were not met for reasons that will be explained further on.



Features of the Model Forest’s management systems The Bas-Saint-Laurent Model Forest covers three territories located ent irely on private forest land. This unique context sets it apart from public forests in numero us ways and influences protocols and decisions related to SFM indicators. The reliance of the region’s communities on the forest sector shaped the Lower St. Lawrence landscape: intensive management, increased fragmentation, global and multi-purpose land use, dense and omnipresent road network, etc. In addition, the respect of ownership rights necessitates certain distinctions. Collectively, these conditions create an environment that is unique to private forest s and rooted in history, limiting the possibility of change. In fact, the only way of changing standard practice is through education and public awareness. As will be seen further on, the above fact ors are key determinants in the selection of indicators specific to the Bas-Saint-Laurent Mo del Fo rest. Issues such as Aboriginal groups, the size of harvesting areas, fragment ation and connectedness of forest ecosystem components, corridors linking vegetation units, fire frequency, preservation of old-growth forests and the establishment of areas with across-the-board protection have a whole different meaning in the private forest context.

Importance of multi-resource management plans In the minds of the promoters, a multi-resource management plan for each of the Model Forest territories where SFM models were to be tested was crucial. The Bas-Saint-Laurent Model Forest co-manages its entire territory, which is why, unlike other model forests, it has invested time and money in this area from the beginning of Phase I. The multi-resource management plan is one of the Model Forest’s biggest accomplishments, and seeing to it that the protection measures contained therein are applied is the only means of achieving true fo rest sustainability. The Model Forest built its management plans on consultations with its partners and a wide spectrum of forest user representatives from within the community. The work plan adopted for the territory under the responsibility of the Groupement forestier de l'Est du Lac Témiscouata included several stages during which a consultation document was submitted to participants for revision and constant improvement. The plan concluded with a proposal to invite the general public to a meeting at which the management plan would be explained and cit izens could give their opinions on the proposed practices. The meeting was announced in the principal local media, and all aspects of the management plan met with unequivocal approval.


The plan, which includes an environmental code of ethics, proposes a range of measures for protecting forest resources. Every facet of SFM is addressed: flora, fauna, soil and water resources, recreation, visual quality, etc. The measures were grouped into four categories according to the associated restriction of human activity and then one category was assigned to each portion of the Model Forest territory to create land-use areas (Table 1). The code of ethics identifies two practices as being incompatible with the project’s general aims, namely the use of herbicides in stand tending, and the clearcutting of an areas over four hect ares. The land-use areas and, more specifically, compliance with the associated management practices, the code of ethics and the range of silvicultural activities together form an important basis of the Bas-SaintLaurent Model Forest’s monitoring system. In fact, these elements underlie several of the indicators proposed further on.

Registration of sustainable management systems The subject of forest certification is receiving considerable attention both in Canada and around the world. Thus, before embarking o n indicator development, the Model Fo rest attempted to link this process to that leading to an application for SFM registration, in accordance with the voluntary standard of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA Z809-96). The aim was to maximize spinoffs for forest-dependent communities. However, the differences, on various levels, between the model forest evaluation process and the process required by the Canadian standard made the two hard to reconcile. For example, CSA Standard Z809 requires that each stage in the development of management systems include public consultation, particularly when it comes to defining values, goals, indicators and associated objectives. Furthermore, indicator needs extend beyond the local level. Finally, the Standard appears to be relatively lax in terms of validating linkages between the selected indicators and the status of the related criteria.


Table 1: Land-use areas defined in the Bas-Saint-Laurent Model Forest management plan Area 1: Resource conservation Descriptive categories

General management practice Area 2: Resource protection Descriptive categories

General management practices

Area 3: Site-specific management Descriptive categories

General management practice

Alder groves Islands and islets Barren and semi-barr en land Threatened or vulnerable plant species Habitats of threatened or vulnerable animal species Research sites with across-the-board pr otection No forestry activity

Drinking water sources Outstanding plant species Habitats of outstanding animal species Productive forest land with severe limitations in respect of operations Riparian buffer strips Beaver colonies Archeological sites, vacation area s, wildlife and nature observation sites Trail systems Immediate surroundings of significant sites Commercial maple stands Partially protected research sites Maintenance of quality forest cover without soil disturbance Maximum clearcuts of 0.5 ha

Forest la nd with severe limitations in respect of opera tions Maple stands not exploited for commercial purposes Moose wintering areas White-tailed deer yards Foreground areas Silvicultural work determined on the basis of compatibility with primary site use and vulnerability to soil disturbance

Area 4: Forest management area with light recreation Descriptive category Productive forest land exploited primar ily for timber production and light recreation General management practice Compliance with code of ethics


Despite the differences, however, the Model Forest initiated the development of indicators with a view to linking the two processes. As will be seen furt her on, public meetings were held in accordance with CSA Standard Z809. In addition, various regional stakeholders sat down together on numerous occasions to try and define a procedure and share responsibilities. If many had found the process complicated thus far, they lost interest altogether when strict guidelines on the communication of certification, i.e. officially prohibiting eco-labelling, were issued (Hillard and Abusow 1997). In the case of private forest s, where only a portion of the land is covered by a development program, this restriction means applying for registration of the entire area regardless of the management status of the woodlots concerned. Furthermore, it risks encouraging negligence on the part of certain owners who would be able to register their land with absolutely no management effort. In light of these limitations, the managers of the Bas-Saint-Laurent Model Forest resolved to forego certification until such time as a more flexible standard that is more compatible with the private forest context is introduced. All of this slowed down the definition of indicators and necessitated a revision of the development schedule.

Local forest values While not essential, the indicators used to assess model forests’ achievements in implementing sustainable forest management should ideally be associated with values considered important by the local population. As previously mentioned, the multi-resource management plan was devised in consultation with the public and therefore reflects public expectations and concerns. One of the means used to trace all local values, certain indicators and the associated objectives was to go over the management plans with a fine-t ooth comb. Considerable information was collected this way. A working document was subsequently submitted to the public at a meeting in St-Émile d’Auclair, a municipality in the Est du lac Témiscouata territory. Participants unanimously approved its content and used the opportunity to add to the list of expectations they wanted to see addressed.

Selection of indicators Other groups in Québec and across Canada have engaged in a similar process of developing indicators of SFM. The Bas-Saint-Laurent Model Forest consulted a number of works (see reference section in page 20) in defining its indicators, the main one being the CCFM publication Defining Sustainable Forest Management: A Canadian Approach to Criteria and Indicators, for the reasons mentioned earlier. The resulting suite of indicators will be frequently revised to incorporate comments from outside sources as well as validation results.


A good indicator is said to be measurable, predictable, relevant, comprehensible, valid and achievable (Bruford, 1996b). The Model Forest selected its indicators based on three main criteria:

< Must be currently mesurable; < Must be mesurable at reasonable cost; < Must demonstrate trends. The first two criteria determine the degree to which a given indicator can eventually be used fo r certification purposes. The aim is to limit field inspections and public surveys, which are very costly. This type of exercise inevitably leads to the question of how many indicators are enough. The fact that at least one indicator was defined for each CCFM criterion and related element has no bearing on the evaluation’s worth. Conversely, each additional indicat or makes monitoring harder and more expensive. The Bas-Saint-Laurent Model Forest started out with some 60 indicators, gradually whittling the list down to 35 as deliberations progressed.

Workshops and meetings In addition to participating in the numerous conference calls that allow members of the Model Forest Network to discuss and exchange information on the development oflocal levelindicators, Bas-SaintLaurent Model Forest managers have attended a number of workshops and meetings since the beginning of Phase II, including: EVENT



CSA Seminar – Environmental management systems Seminar on forest certification of private woodlots (FPBQ) SFM Coordination Group (Abitibi-Price) LLIWG1 meeting International conference: Global Approaches. Sustainable Forest Management CSA Seminar - Sustainable forest management Local level indicators workshop LLIWG1 meeting CSA Seminar - Sustainable forest management Public consultation on local forest values Sustainable forest management and certification seminar (FMF2 ) Remote sensing course Biodiversity workshop Remote sensing workshop

02/97 03/97 06/97 07/97 09/97 12/97 10/97 01/98 01/98 02/98 03/98 08/98 10/98 10/98

Québec City (QC) Longueuil (QC) Québec City (QC) Lake Opinicon (ON) Prince George (BC) Québec City (QC) Rimouski (QC) Toronto (ON) Montréal (QC) Auclair (QC) Rimouski (QC) Calgary (AB) Gananoque (ON) Sussex (NB)


In 1997, the Bas-Saint-Laurent Model Forest served as technical advisor to the Fédération des producteurs de bois du Québec for the development of an SFM indicator proposal for Québec’s private forests. It also remains in contact with the MRNQ3 team in charge of developing indicators, whose work served as a model for its development process. 1

Model Forest Network Local Level Indicators Working Group Fundy Model Forest 3 Ministère des ressources naturelles du Québec




Table 2 presents the 34 indicators selected by the Bas-Saint-Laurent Model Forest for the six CCFM criteria, indicating the information sources and frequency of updating for each. Physical environmental data are taken primarily from in-house o perat ions monitoring and QuĂŠbec government inventories: ecoforestry maps are now updated annually. Data for socio-economic indicators are taken from national censuses, various government departments as well as municipal organizations. In order to determine the probable impacts of its SFM systems, the Model Forest decided to go as far back as possible in its data collection. Most of the indicators apply to both management models. However, where an indicator is relevant to only one of the models, it is indicated by the letter F (forest tenant farming) or G (group ventures). Each model will be evaluated separat ely. The table also introduces the notion of key indicator, i.e. indicators considered critical to the monitoring of any SFM system and t o which it could eventually be limited. Indicators 20 to 24 are a special case in that the Model Forest does not have full control over all of the factors that could modify the socio-economic climate in the Est du lac TĂŠmiscouata territory. We nevertheless hope to identify the impacts of the group venture management model through comparisons with indicator areas, although this approach is experiment al.




Implementation of around ten of our indicators is currently limited due to knowledge gaps. Alternatives will be put in place until those gaps can be filled. The main research and development needs in relation to indicators regard the establishment of scientifically based, quantifiable objectives and the development of measurement methods and protocols. The chief issues that need to be dealt with are as follows:

Indicator 1: Forest type and age-class distribution by forest type This indicator is associated with criteria 1, 2 and 5. It is considered a key indicator of forest sustainability because it entails the notion of forest renewal. According to certain schools of thought, the conditions needed to maintain biological diversity can be reproduced by emulating the natural disturbance regime as much as possible. While this should be the target of forest management, it needs to be more clearly defined. To t his end, a study aimed at reconstructing the composition of ancient forests is currently being conducted. Until the results are in, the objective will be defined on the potential final successional stage.

Indicator 2: Area of clearcuts Indicator 2 relates to CCFM indicator 1.1.4 â&#x20AC;&#x153;Level of fragmentation and connectedness of forest ecosystem components.â&#x20AC;? As previously mentioned, the concept of fragmentation in particular, but also that of connectedness, have special meaning in the private forest context, especially since smallscale forest ry actually promotes fragmentation. Again, the targeted objective is not clear. Consequently, a study of the natural disturbance regime is warranted. In the meantime, the problem can be curbed by restricting the size of clearcuts, a key factor in cover diversit y.

Indicator 12: Forest cover in watersheds Conservation of water resources implies maintaining the hydrological balance. This can be achieved by avoiding excessive disruption of the flow regime. Since monitoring flow fluctuations in each watershed is out of the question, the Model Forest proposes an indirect measure, namely, monito ring changes in forest cover. Problems are foreseen where vegetation is unable to fulfil its interception and evapotranspiration functions over too large an area of the watershed. Scientifically based thresholds are critical to implementation and management of a watershed management model.


Indicator 15: Annual removal relative to the forestâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s productive capacity This is the second key indicator in the Bas-Saint-Laurent Model Forestâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s monitoring system. The most recent developments enable annual updating of ecoforestry maps, which means we can now account for and geographically locate all standing stock. The volume of timber harvested each year is estimated by tree species based on voluntary reporting, but is currently limited to forest land under a management agreement with the Groupement forestier. Monitoring is therefore inco mplete and inexact. Remote sensing appears to be the only technology capable of remedying this situation, although there is still a long way to go in its development.

Socio-economic indicators: 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 The Model Forestâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s monitoring system must include an affordable mechanism for effectively monitoring the socio-economic dimensions of forestry on privately owned land. Before conducting new surveys and polls, the Model Forest preferred to consider the potential of existing information sources, such as national censuses. An exploratory study conducted by Statistics Canada for the Model Forest suggests a possible method for this purpo se. The four most recent censuses for the Model Forest territories and indicator areas were consulted to this end.


CONCLUSION The process undertaken in April 1997 resulted in the selection of fewer than 40 local level indicators for assessing the performance of group ventures (multi-resource management) and forest tenant farming in achieving sustainable forest management. The indicators will evolve as new ways to make them more effective in tracking progress toward sustainability are identified. The list will be constantly updated and posted on the Bas-Saint-Laurent model forestâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s web site. The multi-resource management plans had a vital influence on the final selection of indicators, since the practices they prescribe are aimed at sustainable forestry. The plansâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; upcoming review will be used to integrate indicator-based monitoring with management decisions. The next report on the Model Forestâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s monitoring system and local level indicators, slated for submission in the summer, will discuss the scientific grounds for the selected indicators, measurement protocols, benchmarks and the preliminary findings.


REFERENCE WORKS Author unknown. 1995. Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests. The Montreal Process. Canadian Forest Service. 28 pages. Bas-Saint-Laurent Model Forest. 1996. Proposal for phase II of Canada’s model forest program. 50 pages. Bell, Y.,Savoie, R. and Marchesseault, J. 1996. Plan d'aménagement multiressource de la seigneurie du Lac-Métis (Partie 2). Le plan d'affectation et d'aménagement des ressources. La Forêt modèle du Bas-Saint-Laurent. 103 pages. Belleau, P. 1998. Évaluation des systèmes de gestion durable de la Forêt modèle du Bas-SaintLaurent : indicateurs de biodiversité. Paper presented at the biodiversity workshop organized by the Model Forest Network Local Level Indicators Working Group in Gananoque (Ont). Boxall, P. 1997. Indicators of the benefits of wilderness and biodiversity at a local level. A model forest network proposal. In: Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. Three proposals for the model forest network. SERN. Canadian Forest Service. 4 pages. Bruford, G. 1996a. CAN/CSA Z808-96. A sustainable forest management system: Guidance document. Environmental technology. A national standard of Canada. Canadian Standards Association. 37 pages. Bruford, G. 1996b. CAN/CSA Z809-96. A sustainable forest management system: Specifications document. Environmental technolo gy. A national standard of Canada. Canadian Standards Association. 13 pages. Cantin, M. 1998. Critères et indicateurs de développement forestier durable. Gouvernement du Québec. Ministère des ressources naturelles du Québec. Direction de l'environnement. 93 pages plus appendices. Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 1995. Defining sustainable forest management: A Canadian approach to criteria and indicators. 22 pages. Coté, M.-A. 1997. Proposition d'indicateurs de gestion durable pour la forêt privée du Québec. Fédération des producteurs de bois du Québec. Canadian Standards Association. 35 pages plus appendices.


Gagnon, C. 1997. Détermination et évaluation d'indicateurs de développement écologiquement durable pour une région à vocation forestière : le JAL. Master’s thesis. Faculty of Forestry and Geomatics. Université Laval. 125 pages. Hardi, P. and Barg, S. 1997. Measuring sustainable development: Review of current practice. Occasional Paper No. 17. Industry Canada. 124 pages. Hillard, J. and Abusow, K. 1997. Communicating your certification. Canadian sustainable forestry certification coalition. 14 pages plus appendix. Moore, J-D. 1998. Le réseau de surveillance des écosystèmes forestiers (RESEF). III- L'utilisation du RESEF pour l'étude de la biodiversité du milieu forestier. Gouvernement du Québec, MRNQ, Direction de la recherche forest ière. 21 pages plus appendix. Savoie R. and Joncas, G. 1995. Plan d'aménagement multiressource de la seigneurie de Nicolas Riou (Partie 2). Le plan d'affectation et d'aménagement des ressources. La Forêt modèle du Bas-Saint-Laurent. 89 pages. Savoie, R. and Marchesseault, J. 1996. Plan d'aménagement multiressource du territoire de l’est du lac Témiscouata (Partie 2). Le plan d'affectation et d'aménagement des ressources. La Forêt modèle du Bas-Saint-Laurent. 107 pages. UNCED. 1992. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Convention on Biological Diversity. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 40 pages. White, B. 1997. A consumer expenditure based indicator approach to community forest sector dependence in the model forest network. In: Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. Three proposals for the model forest network. SERN. Canadian Forest Service. 3 pages.





Ecosystem div ersity 1.1.1 Percentage and extent, in area, of forest types relative to historical condition and to total forest area


1.1.2 Percenta ge and e xtent of ar ea by for est type an d age cla ss


1.1.3 Area, percentage and representativeness of forest types in protected areas 1.1.4 Level of fragm entation an d connectedness of forest ecosystem componen ts 1.2

X 2

Species diversity 1.2.1 Number of known forest-dependent species classified as extinct, threatened, endangered, rare or vulnerable relative to the total num ber of known forest-dependent species 1.2.2 Population levels and changes over time for selected species and species guilds



1.2.3 Number of known forest-dependent species that occupy only a small portion of their former range 1.3


Genetic diver sity X

1.3.1 Implementation of an in situ/e x situ genetic conservation strategy for commercial and end angered forest vegetation species 2.



Incidence of disturbance and stress (biotic and abiotic) 2.1.1 Area and severity of insect attack


2.1.2 Area and severity of disease infestation


2.1.3 Area and severity of fire damage


2.1.4 Rates of pollutant deposition



2.1.5 Ozone concentrations in forested regions





2.1.6 Crow n transp arency in percent age by c lass


2.1.7 Area and severity of occurrence of exotic species detrimental to forest condition


2.1.8 Climate change as measured by temperature sums 2.2


Ecosystem resilience 2.2.1 Percenta ge and e xtent of ar ea by for est type an d age cla ss


2.2.2 Percentage of area successfully regenerated and a rtificially regenerated


Extant biomass (biota) 2.3.1 Mea n annu al increm ent by forest type an d age cla ss


2.3.2 Frequency of occurrence within selected indicator species (vegetation, birds, mammals and fish) 3.



Physical environmental factors



B S LM F equivalent 3.1.1 Percenta ge of har vested ar ea hav ing significa nt soil com paction , displacem ent, erosion , puddl ing, loss of organic matter, etc.


3.1.2 Area of forest converted to non-forest land use, e.g., urbanization


3.1.3 Water qu ality as measured by w ater chemistry, turbidity, etc.


3.1.4 Trends a nd timing of even ts in stream flows from forest catchments 3.1.5. 3.2


Changes in the distribution and abundance of aquatic fauna


Policy and protection forest factors 3.2.1 Percentage of forest managed primarily for soil and water protection


3.2.2 Percentage of forest area having road con struction and stream crossing guidelines in place


3.2.3 Area, percentage and representativeness of forest types in protected areas





Contribu tions to the global c arbon bu dget 4.1.1 Tree biomass volu mes


4.1.2 Vegetation (non-tree) biomass estimates


4.1.3 Percentage of canopy cover


4.1.4 Percentage of biomass volume by general forest type


4.1.5 Soil carbon pools


4.1.6 Soil carbon pool decay ra tes


4.1.7 Area of forest depletion





4.1.8 Forest wood product life cycles


4.1.9 Forest sector CO2 emissions



Forest land conversion 4.2.1 Area of forest permanently converted to non-forest land use, e.g., urbanization


4.2.2 Semi-permanent or temporary loss or gain of forest ecosystems, e.g., grasslands and agriculture


Forest sector CO2 conservation 4.3.1 Fossil fuel emissions



4.3.2 Fossil carbon products emissions



4.3.3 Percentage of forest sector energy usage from renewable sources relative to the total energy requirement


Forest sector policy factors 4.4.1 Recycling rate of forest wood products manufactured and used in Canada


4.4.2 Participation in the climate change conventions 4.4.3 Econom ic incentive s for bioener gy use







B S LM F equivalent


4.4.4 Existence of forest inventories


4.4.5 Existence of laws and regulations on forest land management


Contr ibution s to hydro logical c ycles 4.5.1 Surface area of water within forested areas




Productiv e capacity



5.1.1 Annua l removal o f forest products relativ e to the volum e of removals de termined to be su stainable


5.1.2 Distribution of, and changes in, the land base available for timber production


5.1.3 Animal popu lation trends for selected species of economic importance


5.1.4 Manag ement and development expen ditures


5.1.5 Availability of habitat for selected wildlife species of economic importance


Competitiveness of resource industries (timber/non-timber related) 5.2.1 Net profitab ility



5.2.2 Trends in global market share



5.2.3 Trends in R & D expenditures in forest products and processing technologies



Contr ibution to the na tional ec onomy (timber /non-timb er sectors) 5.3.1 Contribution to gross domestic product (GDP) of timber and non-timber sectors of the forest economy 5.3.2 Total employment in all forest-related sectors


X 23-27

5.3.3 Utilization of forests for non-market goods and services, including forest land use for subsistence purposes


5.3.4 Economic valu e of non-market goods and services


Non-tim ber valu es (inclu ding opti on valu es) 5.4.1 Availability and use of recreationa l opportunities


5.4.2 Tota l expendit ures by individu als on a ctivities rela ted to non -timber u se


5.4.3 Memberships and expenditures in forest recreation-oriented organizations and clubs


5.4.4 Area and percentage of protected forest by degree of protection





Aborigina l and treaty r ights 6.1.1 Extent to wh ich forest planning a nd mana gement proce sses consider and m eet legal obliga tions with respect to duly esta blished Aborigin al and trea ty rights 6.2


Participation by Aboriginal communities in sustainable forest management

6.2.1 Extent of Aboriginal participation in forest-based economic opportu nities


6.2.2 Extent to which forest management planning takes into account the protection of unique or significant Aboriginal social, cultural or spiritua l sites



B S LM F equivalent


6.2.3 Number of Aboriginal communities with a significant forestry component in the economic base and diversity of forest use at the community level


6.2.4 Area of forest land available for subsistence purposes


6.2.5 Area of Indian reserve forest lands under integrated management plans


Sustainability of forest communities 6.3.1 Num ber of com mun ities with a significant forestry com ponent in the econo mic ba se


6.3.2 Index of th e diversity o f the local in dustria l base


6.3.3 Diversity of forest use at the community level


6.3.4 Num ber of communities with stewardship or co-ma nagement responsibilities 6.4



Fair and effective decision making 6.4.1 Degre e of publi c particip ation in the design o f decision-m aking processes


6.4.2 Degree of public participation in decision-mak ing processes


6.4.3 Degree of public participation in implementation of decisions and monitoring of progress toward sustainable forest management


Informed decision making 6.5.1 Percentage of area covered by m ulti-attribute resource inventories


6.5.2 Investments in forest-based R & D and information


6.5.3 Total effective expenditure on public forestry education


6.5.4 Percentage of forest area under completed management plans/programs/guidelines which have included public participation


6.5.5 Expenditure on international forestry


6.5.6 Mutua l learning mechanisms and p rocesses

BSLM F equiva lent: Not measu rable: Not loca l: No change: Not releva nt:


Number of the equivalent Bas-Saint-Laurent Model Forest indicator High costs, incomplete data, limited accuracy or no existing protocol Indicator not monitored at the local level Unable to show improvement Does not apply to or is an integral part of the Model Forestâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s SFM systems