DEFINING SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT IN CANADA: CRITERIA AND INDICATORS Technical Supplement 1. Detailed Indicator Descriptions

Transcription

1 DEFINING SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT IN CANADA: CRITERIA AND INDICATORS 2003 Technical Supplement 1 Detailed Indicator Descriptions January 2004

2 For more information on the CCFM C&I Initiative, please contact: Mr. Simon Bridge CCFM C&I Secretariat C/o Canadian Forest Service Natural Resources Canada 8 th Floor, 580 Booth Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E4 Sbridge@nrcan.gc.ca Tel: This document is available in electronic form only Cette publication spécialisée n est disponsible qu en anglais This technical supplement is based on earlier documents prepared for the C&I Task Force by the Technical Working Groups (TWG) as part of their work for the CCFM C&I review. The TWG Chairs and the C&I Secretariat made some modifications based on input from potential users during the validation phase of the C&I review. The document was prepared to assist the C&I Task Force in better understanding the revised indicators in the CCFM C&I framework. It is considered a technical aid and has not been reviewed by the CCFM, nor is it an official document of the CCFM. The document is made available by the C&I Task Force so that users of the CCFM C&I framework may benefit from its content.

3 INTRODUCTION This technical supplement to the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) revised framework of Criteria and Indicators (C&I) 2003 provides a detailed description of each indicator in the revised framework. For each indicator, the rationale for the indicator, the measurement units, the approach to measurement, the interpretation of the indicator, potential reference values, and links to other C&I frameworks, such as the Montréal Process C&I, are described. In addition, scores are assigned to each indicator as a subjective measure of the indicator s relevance to the criterion, its measurability, whether it is understandable, and whether it can be forecast. These descriptions were developed by the Technical Working Groups (TWG) as part of their work to recommend a revised suite of indicators to the C&I Task Force. The indicators were then shown to government and non-government users of the C&I framework for validation. The descriptions were subsequently modified by the TWG Chairs and the C&I Secretariat based on input received from the government and non-government potential users. BACKGROUND The Canadian Council of Forest Minister s (CCFM) Criteria and Indicators (C&I) Task Force, composed of representatives from the federal, provincial and territorial governments, guides the CCFM C&I process and led the framework review with support from the C&I Secretariat. In December 2001, in preparation for the review, the Canadian Forest Service, on behalf of the Task Force, commissioned a focus group study to help identify some of the specific values, issues and concerns held by Canadians with respect to the sustainable use of their forest. Focus groups, involving different sectors of society, were convened across the country. In February 2002, the Task Force established six Technical Working Groups (TWGs), one for each criterion, to review the indicators in the C&I framework and recommend revised indicators to the Task Force. Task Force members, or alternates accepted by the Task Force, chaired each of the TWGs, which were comprised of experts from the federal, provincial and territorial governments, academia, the Aboriginal community, industry, and non-governmental organizations. Two academic experts also advised the TWGs. On March 15 th, 2002, five of the Technical Working Groups met for the first time via web conference. The objective of this meeting was to define the scope of the work to the TWG members and provide the necessary background information. Each Technical Working Group was assigned the task of refining the indicators under one of criteria 1, 2, 3, 5 or 6 in the CCFM C&I framework. At this meeting, members were asked to individually produce a preliminary list of indicators for their criterion. On April 25 th and 26 th 2002, the same five Technical Working Groups met for the second time in Ottawa. The goal of this meeting was to sort through an initial list of draft indicators that each group had put together earlier in April and reduce the list to less than 20 potential indicators per criterion. Participants were given a list of attributes that each indicator should possess, and each group was asked to describe the rationale for the indicator and give measurement units. The groups were also asked to try to provide additional information for each indicator, including approaches to measurement, interpretation, reference values, and links to other C&I processes. Some groups were able to provide more of this information than others. By the end of the meeting, each group had compiled a list of indicators with additional information. During the summer, each of the five groups worked on their own, meeting several times by or teleconference, to further refine their indicators. The groups came back together for a third and final time in Halifax from August 25 th to 27 th, The objective of this meeting was to finalize the list of recommended indicators for each criterion. While most TWGs did conclude their work at the meeting, some groups met by or teleconference during the month following the Halifax meeting to finalize the details of their indicators. In September, each TWG Chair submitted their group s recommended set of indicators to the C&I Secretariat for compilation. On October 7 th & 8 th, 2002, a sixth Technical Working Group, co-chaired by Tom Niemann and Rory Thompson, assembled in Edmonton, Alberta, to review the indicators under criterion 4. Criterion 4 deals Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 1

4 with forest ecosystem contributions to global ecological cycles, but the indicators in the original framework mostly relate to the global carbon cycle. This TWG was able to take advantage of the large amount of work being carried out by federal and provincial agencies and committees on measuring forest contributions to the carbon budget, which allowed the TWG to meet just once to develop a revised set of indicators for this criterion. On October 9 th 11 th, 2002, the Technical Working Group Chairs met in Edmonton, Alberta, with the expert advisors, Dr. Peter Duinker and Dr. Vic Adamowicz, to assemble the six sets of indicator recommendations into a single framework. To build the separate recommendations into a single consistent framework, the Chairs started by combining or integrating similar indicators. For example, a number of TWGs recommended indicators on the total forest area; these were combined into a single indicator. In other cases, indicators may have been reworded for consistency, brevity or clarity. Indicators were also sometimes moved from one criterion to another in order to improve an indicator s contribution to the framework as a whole or to place the indicator with other closely related indicators. As expected, many indicators in the framework have links to more than one criterion and can be used to provide information on many aspects of sustainability. Finally, some indicators were not retained in the framework. The decision not to retain an indicator was based on whether or not the indicator: could be clearly linked to a criterion; was understandable by an informed public; provided information on an issue that is impacted by forest management practices; could be implemented on a national scale; or, provided new additional information not already captured in the framework. On December 12 th, 2002, the compiled and integrated indicators were circulated to the TWG members for comment. Many TWG members provided feedback, particularly in cases where they believed the original intent of their indicators had been lost. The Chairs and the Secretariat followed up on all of the comments to clarify issues and concerns and identify potential solutions. On January 17 th, 2003, the TWG Chairs revised the documents based on comments received from the TWG members. This review process resulted in 53 indicators. On February 22, 2003, the Technical Working Group recommendations were presented to the C&I Task Force. Throughout March and April, Task Force members reviewed the recommendations, seeking input from agencies and departments within their governments. On May 2, 2003, the C&I Task Force held a meeting with non-government users of the CCFM C&I framework to validate the revised framework. The Task Force modified the recommended indicators based on input received from both government and non-government users. On September 19, 2003, the CCFM released the revised C&I framework consisting of 6 criteria and 46 indicators. Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 2

5 STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT Criterion This is the name of the criterion under which the elements and indicators are grouped. Slight wording changes have been made to the original criteria names to either shorten them or eliminate any implied desired future condition. These changes improve naming consistency between the criteria and indicators, but do not change the meaning of the criteria in any substantial way. Element This is the name of the element under which the indicator has been grouped within the criterion. In some cases, the original elements have simply been reworded, in other cases, new groupings of indicators have been defined. Core or Supporting Indicator This identifies each indicator as being either a Core or Supporting indicator. Core and Supporting were defined by the C&I Task Force as: Core Indicators are intended to give a broad overview of whether we are progressing towards the sustainable management of Canada s forests. These indicators relate to values, issues or concerns that are clearly of great interest to Canadians and they raise public awareness and focus public attention on what sustainable forest management means. These indicators have all of the attributes identified for suitable indicators, namely that they are relevant to the criterion, are measurable, are understandable, they have reference values and can be forecast. There are 36 core indicators. Supporting Indicators complement the core indicators and give additional, more detailed information on the progress towards sustainable forest management in Canada. These indicators have all or most of the attributes identified for suitable indicators, namely that they are relevant to the criterion, are measurable, are understandable, they have reference values and can be forecast. There are 10 supporting indicators. Indicator Name This is the full text of the name of the indicator. Rationale This paragraph provides a brief explanation to clarify the indicator and its potential contribution to understanding sustainable forest management. It describes how the indicator relates to the criterion and/or the values, issues or concerns identified by the public. Measurement Units These are the units in which the indicator will be measured. Relevance to Criterion Each indicator is rated, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1=poor and 5=very good), as to how closely it relates to the criterion. Relevant was defined by the C&I Task Force as: - Relevant Each indicator must relate clearly to a particular criterion, and should represent significant information about the values embodied by the criterion. An indicator must be sensitive and responsive to change in the sense that management actions and other forces can readily influence its behaviour. Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 3

6 Is it measurable? Each indicator is rated, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1=poor and 5=very good), as to how measurable it is: The C&I Task Force defined Measurable as: - Measurable - An indicator should be based on available or easily obtainable, scientifically valid, empirical measurements that can be consistently repeated over time to observe trends. Obtaining indicator data must be practical and fiscally feasible. The data may be already collected for other purposes, or may need to be collected specifically for the purposes of gauging progress towards SFM. Is it understandable? Each indicator is rated, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1=poor and 5=very good), as to how understandable it is: The C&I Task Force defined Understandable as: - Understandable - Indicators must be understandable not only to forest managers but also to the informed public, especially if public interests are to be incorporated into forest planning exercises. Simplicity and clarity are also characteristics that make indicators more understandable. Can it be forecast? Each indicator is rated, on a scale of 1 to 5 (1=poor and 5=very good), as to how well it can be forecast. The C&I Task Force defined Can be Forecast as: - Can be Forecast - Future behaviour of indicators should also be predictable with reasonable accuracy, if they are to guide management or policy decisions. It must be possible to make an assessment of future indicator behaviour, given certain management actions, policies or other factors. Approaches to measurement This paragraph describes potential ways in which the indicator may be measured. Interpretation This paragraph describes how the indicator, and changes in the indicator over time, can be meaningfully interpreted. The paragraph often describes how the indicator can be compared with reference values to provide context and also provides cautionary notes on how to avoid misinterpretation. Reference values This paragraph describes any baselines, thresholds, targets, etc. that may provide context for the indicator. Links to other C&I frameworks This paragraph describes whether or not the indicator is similar to or relates to indicators in other frameworks. For example, is it identical or similar to a Montréal Process indicator and can the indicator also be used to help Canada report on the Montréal Process indicators. Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 4

7 CRITERION 1: Biological Diversity 1.1 Ecosystem diversity Area of forest, by type and age class, and wetlands in each ecozone. Ecosystem diversity, or the relative amounts and proportions of different ecosystems, is one aspect of biological diversity. This indicator helps measure ecosystem diversity by examining forest habitat, including wetlands, in forested regions. However, the indicator goes beyond simply measuring the total area of forest types and wetlands, to include forest dynamics as an aspect of habitat type. Habitat quantity and diversity is often directly related to species diversity, although it is recognized that habitat quantity is not always a good indicator of individual species status. Hectares This indicator directly measures the total area of forest types and age classes as well as the area of wetlands in forested regions. While it is easy to measure, a lack of good quality data and common definitions of forest types and age classes amongst jurisdictions may hinder the interpretation of this indicator. For reporting purposes, Forest Types should be broken down into coniferous/mixed/deciduous categories and then divided into 20 year age classes. Reporting should also be on an ecozone basis because of the substantial differences in vegetation, disturbance regimes and stand dynamics across the country. Initial reporting can be based on the Canadian Forest Inventory (CANFI) maintained by the Canadian Forest Service, but future reporting could be based on the National Forest Inventory as it becomes available. A national vegetation classification system is being developed for Canada. Forest types should be correspond to this classification system. Also, Canada has reported in the past on the amount of coniferous/mixed/deciduous forest for the FAO Temperate and Boreal Forest Resource Assessment. Forest type definitions for this indicator should also try to correspond to the FAO reporting system. For reporting on the area of wetlands, data from the NRTEE - ESDI indicator on the extent of wetlands could be used here. Significant changes in the forest land area or wetland area in forested regions should trigger an investigation as to the reason behind that change. The 1991 CANFI could be used as the baseline once a more up-to-date inventory is available. Historical values are available but are not equivocal. For example, published estimates of total boreal forest area vary from about million ha. Also, values are not easy to objectively determine for forest types that have been significantly altered. If this indicator is measured by forest type the first inventory would provide the benchmark. Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 5

8 Very similar to Montréal Process indicator 1.1.a and 1.1.b. Forest type is not defined in MP indicator, but recent reports have focused on coniferous, deciduous and mixed categories. Also can be used to support MP 2.a in that it provides the area of forest land. Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 6

9 CRITERION 1: Biological Diversity 1.1 Ecosystem diversity Area of forest by type and age class, wetlands, soil types and geomorphological feature types in protected areas in each ecozone. As we enter a period of greater climatic variability and increased pressure on natural resources, we need to secure adequate reserves of representative ecosystems against which to monitor the effects of anthropogenic change on ecosystem processes and properties. These "controls" help in distinguishing the human influences on our forest ecosystems. The Canadian landscape contains a wide range of forested ecosystems, each reflecting a unique interaction between climate, topographic position, geological parent material, flora and fauna, disturbance regime and site history. Each ecosystem type is characterized by a unique combination of processes that transform and cycle water, organic matter and mineral elements and influence the role of the ecosystem in atmospheric and hydrologic cycles. Recently, Canadians have placed considerable emphasis on conserving representative examples of forest types, wetlands, soil types and geomorphological feature types that cover the country. At present, forest species composition may be changing due to human actions. For example, some forested soil types may preferentially be converted to agriculture, urban development and other intensive uses, and some geomorphological feature types may be preferentially exploited for resources, such as moraines, which are often used as a source of sand and gravel. Hectares The measurement of forest types should correspond to indicator 1.1.1, using the same data and the same forest type definitions. For soils, broad level soil mapping is available in a digital format for soil 'Great Groups' from the Soils of Canada, which should be adequate. Geomorphological feature types are likely not mapped in an adequate digital way for all of Canada, although some provinces may have their own information. This data will likely need some development. Protected areas should be defined as they were in the 1995 framework, or using the IUCN system of protected status. This indicator should be measurable with GIS. In reporting on this indicator, there may be several values for each ecoregion. For reporting on the area of wetlands, data from the NRTEE - ESDI indicator on the extent of wetlands could be used here. As a general rule, when more area is protected, this indicator will increase and the representativeness will increase. However, it may be possible for the representativeness of a given forest, soil, wetland, or geomorphological feature type to increase even though the area protected remains unchanged because the total forest estate has been reduced. The Brundtland Commission recommended protecting 12 % of representative ecosystems to conserve biodiversity. In addition, most jurisdictions have started a process of identifying an appropriate level of representation and are moving towards that level. Montréal Process 1.1.c, 1.1.d, 4b, 6.4.a, 7.1.e, and loosely related to 7.5.a, 7.5.d, 7.5.e. Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 7

10 CRITERION 1: Biological Diversity 1.2 Species diversity The status of forest-associated species at risk. As species go extinct or extant, species diversity declines. It is important to record not only the number of threatened, rare, vulnerable, endangered and extinct species at any given time, but also to track the changes in these numbers over time. Canadians want to know if more species are becoming increasingly at risk or if the number is declining. This indicator measures the status of forest-associated species that are a conservation risk. This is compared to the total number of species to give an indication of overall prosperity of species. Number Data for this indicator can be obtained from the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). However, before the indicator can be measured, a clear definition of "Forest dependent" needs to be developed. Also, there are many classifications of "at risk" categories. The recent move in Canada to use the IUCN categories should be adopted for this indicator. Declines in the total number of species at risk are desirable. However, simply looking at the total number of species at risk does not tell the whole story. When reporting on this indicator, it will also be important to note changes between the categories over time and any improvements in the number of species in categories of less risk. In other words, it is important to track the number of uplisted or downlisted species. The initial measurement for the species will be the benchmark. Very similar to Montréal Process indicator 1.2.b: 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. Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 8

11 CRITERION 1: Biological Diversity 1.2 Species diversity Population levels of selected forest-associated species. Population levels are used to directly measure the status of species at risk. In addition to species at risk, though, there are many species whose population size we should track because they are of economic or cultural importance, or they are perceived to fill key ecological roles or indicate conditions for other species. This indicator will help society assess the status of these important species. Number of individuals Which species to report on still needs to be determined. Species that are most at risk are obvious candidates and in most cases the information on population size should be available from COSEWIC. Species of economic importance, such as fur bearers are also obvious candidates, as are species that are under pressure from habitat loss or that play important ecological roles, like large predators. Population data quality will be quite variable, being excellent for some species, but quite poor for others. Interpreting the potential consequences of trends in population size for any given species should be carried out by the appropriate scientific authority. Population numbers fluctuate up and down for many reasons, including natural cycles and stochastic variation. Benchmarks exist for some species. These are usually species at risk that have been closely monitored (e.g. whooping crane) or species of economic importance that are monitored to determine conservation and allowable harvest levels. Similar to Montréal Process indicator 1.3.b: Population levels of representative species from diverse habitats monitored across their range. Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 9

12 CRITERION 1: Biological Diversity 1.2 Species diversity Indicator Type: Supporting Indicator Distribution of selected forest-associated species. The current range of species in relation to historic range is of interest with both increases and decreases offering information about possible conservation threat or recovery. This information can provide important supporting information, helping to interpret population numbers for selected species or changes in threat status for those species. Area in ha for each species Which species to report on still needs to be determined. Species that are most at risk are obvious candidates and in most cases the information on distribution should be available from COSEWIC. Species of economic importance, such as fur bearers are also obvious candidates, as are species that are under pressure from habitat loss or that play important ecological roles, like large predators. This indicator should also track the distribution of selected invasive, exotic forest-associated species to complement indicator Species whose ranges are decreasing over time, particularly species at risk should raise concern, pointing to the need to implement or revise conservation strategies. Likewise, changes in the range of species of economic importance may indicate reduced or increased economic opportunities. Information on historic ranges exists for some species, but not for many others. Related to Montréal Process indicator 1.3.a: Number of forest dependent species that occupy a small portion of their former range. Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 10

13 CRITERION 1: Biological Diversity 1.2 Species diversity Indicator Type: Supporting Indicator Number of invasive, exotic forest-associated species. The number of invasive, exotic species provides an indication of risk of ecosystem dysfunction for native species. Some exotic species compete with, interbreed with, or displace native species. Number Definitions for "invasive" and "exotic" need to be developed. Many definitions for these terms do exist already, however, it will be helpful for this indicator to correspond as closely as possible with other indicator systems used in Canada or to correspond with policies or agreements already in place. The invasive species working group will be able to provide information in the future as it becomes available. Increases in the number of invasive, exotic species will usually be detrimental. However, simply knowing the number of invasive, exotic species on its own may offer only limited assistence to management decision-making. Therefore, this indicator should be linked to and in that the population size and distribution of some invasive species should also be measured. Benchmark is zero. There aren't any certain targets. Montréal Process indicator 3.a. Also related indirectly to 2.c - The area of forests with exotic or transgenic trees. Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 11

14 CRITERION 1: Biological Diversity 1.3 Genetic diversity Genetic diversity of reforestation seed-lots. There is concern amongst the Canadian public that Canada's forests are being replanted with trees of low genetic diversity, either because the replanted trees are clones, or because they come from a few parents of superior growing ability. This has led to some concern that Canada's forest are becoming less able to respond to environmental change. This indicator provides the public with an indication of the genetic diversity of trees used for reforestation in Canada. Number of unrelated parents This indicator would measure the number of unrelated parent trees represented in reforestation seed-lots. For reporting purposes, produce a table showing, by province: 1) the number of reforestation seed-lots; 2) the range in the number of parent trees in seed-lots; and 3) the mean or median number of parent trees in seed-lots. Generally increases in mean or median value are desirable. Declines in the mean or median of greater than 10%, or an average effective population size below 18 unrelated individuals may be cause for concern. An average effective population size of 18 or more unrelated parents is being used in commercial seedlots within designated seed planning units Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 12

15 CRITERION 1: Biological Diversity 1.3 Genetic diversity Status of in situ and ex situ conservation programs for native tree species within each ecozone. Sustainable forest management requires a commitment by forest agencies to conserve locally or regionally adapted populations of Canada's native tree species using a combination of in situ and ex situ approaches. In situ (on site) conservation of genetic diversity is provided by parks and other protected areas, genetic and ecological conservation areas, reserved stands and planned natural regeneration. Ex situ (off-site) conservation measures include seed banks, seed orchards, clonal archives, provenance tests and arboretums. This indicator describes the extent of in situ and ex situ conservation efforts for native tree species within each ecozone. Number Many jurisdictions should be able to provide information on this The discussion should include a description of major conservation programs in provinces. First report will provide a baseline, but it may also be possible to provide historical information as an additional baseline. Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 13

16 CRITERION 2: Ecosystem Condition and Productivity Total growing stock of both merchantable and non-merchantable tree species on forest land. An indicator of the current total volume of wood available is one of the most basic indicators of forest sustainability on areas potentially available for timber harvest. The indicator can be related to the volume harvested each year, with increases or decreases in the total stock tracked over time. The indicator complements indicator Annual harvest of timber relative to the level of harvest deemed to be sustainable. In addition to the growing stock on areas managed for harvesting, it is also desirable to know the growing stock in parks and protected areas and other areas not managed for harvest, as a measure of ecosystem productivity. Cubic metres Volume estimates are available from the Canadian Forest Inventory (CANFI), from provinces, and may also be available from the National Forest Inventory, once it has been implemented. This indicator includes measurements of the growing stock on all forest lands, including parks and protected areas and other areas not managed for timber harvesting. Growing stock estimates for areas not managed for harvesting may be difficult to obtain and may require additional research and development. Maintenance of, or an increase in, the growing stock is considered desirable. Sharp declines in the growing stock should be interpreted in relation to the amount lost to natural and anthropogenic disturbance to understand why the decline has occurred. Consistent declines over time may indicate that the current harvest regime is not sustainable. However, it also needs to be understood that maximizing timber productivity rarely equates with maintaining ecosystem condition. A trade-off may be required between the levels of productivity desired and broader ecosystem condition considerations. Historic values for the last decade or so may be available. Very similar to Montréal Process indicator 2.b. Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 14

17 CRITERION 2: Ecosystem Condition and Productivity Additions and deletions of forest area, by cause. It is important to understand how much of the forested area has been converted to, or recovered from long-term forms of anthropogenic disturbance, such as permanent roads, urbanization, agriculture, mining reservoirs, etc. Different types of conversion may have different impacts on sustainable forest management and this indicator has relevance to other criteria. For example, conversion of forest to agriculture may remove forest cover, but may not seriously impact the ability of the soil to grow trees in the future, unlike, for example, conversion to mining, which may remove the surface soil. This is relevant to the conservation of soil and water resources (criterion 3). Likewise, the area of forest converted to roads may have implications for the conservation of biodiversity (criterion 1). Similarly, tracking the conversion of land to and from forest cover is important for calculating net change in forest carbon storage (criterion 4). Hectares This indicator should track forest losses to and recovery from the following long-term anthropogenic disturbances: permanent roads, urbanization, agriculture, mining, reservoirs, utility transmission corridors; as well as other long-term conversions to other ecosystems. Initially, the simplest approach is probably to track the area within the forest estate that is covered by permanent roads, urbanization, agriculture, mining, reservoirs, and utility transmission corridors over time. Eventually, it may be possible to develop a matrix that shows the conversion between the different cover types. Overall, this indicator describes the forest estate, which is a function of ecosystem condition, hence its inclusion under criterion two. However, this indicator has strong links to other indicators in the framework. The area covered by roads, for example, has links to biodiversity conservation, as well as soil and water conservation. Likewise, areas covered by agriculture or utility transmission corridors do not have the same impact on soils as do areas covered by urbanization, mining or reservoirs. These and other links to other criteria will have to be discussed in C&I reports. Some historic information is known and some can be estimated. Montréal Process 3.a (area of land clearance, permanent flooding, salinisation, and domestic animals),3.c, 4.d, 4.e, Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 15

18 CRITERION 2: Ecosystem Condition and Productivity Area of forest disturbed by fire, insects, disease and timber harvest. Disturbance from natural causes, which typically results in stand replacement, is a fundamental process in Canada's forests. Such disturbances help to keep Canada's forests healthy and promote sustainability. However, society's actions can influence these disturbance processes in many ways. In addition, a small proportion of Canada s forest is disturbed each year through harvesting, which is also usually stand replacing. It is important that we track the area disturbed by major disturbance processes so that we can see if human influences are causing significant impacts. Hectares For fire and timber harvest, report on the annual area disturbed, summarized by province or ecozone. This should also be referenced to the total forest area for context. For insects and disease, surveys tend to be done less frequently, but should be available. For some insects and diseases, only case studies will be reportable in the beginning, but data should improve. All insects or diseases need not necessarily be reported on, but those with significant economic or ecological impact should be, particularly non-native infestations. National monitoring programs may need to be established for some insects and diseases before proper reporting can occur. Reporting on pests, disease and insects should also be summarized by ecozone. Disturbance is a healthy part of the condition of the forest ecosystem. Thus large reductions in the amount of disturbance may be as undesirable as large increases. The amount of disturbance needs to be maintained within some acceptable level. In the past decade, there has been considerable scientific debate about defining a "natural" range of variation. This concept has been adopted, with varying success, by a number of jurisdictions throughout the world. In general though, this concept needs more development. In Canada, some jurisdictions are going through a process of defining an acceptable level of disturbance. Interpretation of this indicator should be related to those jurisdictional efforts. However, even before these various processes are complete, this indicator will provide important information at a national scale to Canadians, helping them to engage in discussions on topics as diverse as fire suppression, herbicide and pesticide usage, or wood supply. Historical values (e.g., past ten year average or greater) need to be determined. This will allow for the comparison of the impacts of current disturbances to the historical occurrence. However, defining an acceptable range of disturbance is, in part, a societal issue requiring public debate. Some jurisdictions in Canada are going through public processes to help them better define an acceptable range of disturbance, which will help provide reference values for a national indicator. Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 16

19 Very similar if not identical to Montréal Process indicator 3.a: Area and percent of forest effected 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. Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 17

20 CRITERION 2: Ecosystem Condition and Productivity Area of forest with impaired function due to ozone and acid rain. Ozone and acid rain are sources of long-term impairment of forest condition and productivity. Unlike disturbances such as fire, harvest or, in many cases, insects and disease, the impacts of ozone and acid rain may take many years to become apparent. However, there impacts are no less real. Ground level or troposphere ozone and acid rain have been a significant problem for a number of years in parts of Canada, adversely affecting the metabolic systems of plants. When critical loads of acid deposition are exceeded for long periods, essential nutrients for tree growth and vigour (productivity) are leached from the soil, resulting in a loss of productivity. In addition, the effects of runoff from acidic forest soils can negatively impact populations of aquatic organisms, particularly fish. Hectares Troposhperic ozone levels have been determined through a series of atmospheric models. In addition canopy exposure to ozone has been monitored by the Canadian Forest Service using passive ozone monitors. Ozone measures obtained from these simple monitoring devices are then related to aspects of forest health monitored in the same plots and used to validate the atmospheric models. Forest canopy ozone exposure values can indicate if a forest area is depleting ozone (taking up ozone) or is aiding in its production by providing volatile organic carbon (VOC), which catalyzes the production of ozone in polluted air masses. Average hourly means (ppm) of each year monitored will serve to identify forest sites that are chronically exposed to ozone depletion and those that may be at risk. "Critical load" is defined as the highest deposition of acidifying compounds that will not cause long-term harmful affects on the overall structure or function of an ecosystem. Forest productivity has been shown to be decreasing at sites where acid deposition greatly exceeds the critical load. In addition, acid and metals leaching from forests can adversely affect aquatic organisms, fish particularly. The monitoring of acid deposition may be more meaningful at the ecoregion level, which will allow for identifying areas in Canada where there are definite impacts. Impacts tend to be very site specific and this should be recognized. The 2000 CCFM C&I report focused on the response of sensitive vegetation with respect to critical loads (cf. McLaughlin and Percy 1999). Data is being collected from a number of plots across Canada as part of the Acid Rain National Early Warning System (ARNEWS) and by the Canadian Air and Precipitation Network (CAPMoN) of Environment Canada under the auspices of the Canada-Wide Acid Rain Strategy for Post-2000, a program of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Data could be reported as hectares within a critical load exceedance ranges (e.g. hectares having > 0 meq/ha/year, >500 meq/ha/year as reported in the National Status 2000 report. Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 18

21 While this indicator is being reported under criterion 2, "critical load" is determined primarily from soil properties, and one major impact of critical load exceedance is soil degradation. Therefore, when reporting on this indicator, attention should be drawn to the crosscutting nature of this indicator and its relevance to soil conservation. Ideally this indicator should be zero hectares. However, at the moment most of the productive forest area in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick would be encompassed in the meq/ha/yr class with a much smaller area in the >500 meq/ha/yr class. With increasing pollution control standards, the area impacted is expected to decrease over time, although increased population and industry may offset the decrease in individual emissions. Ideally, zero forest area, national objectives for hourly ground level ozone developed through the National Ambient Air Quality Objectives. This relates to the Montréal Process s indicator 3.b: Area and percent of forestland subjected to levels of specific air pollutants (e.g., sulphates, nitrate, ozone) or ultraviolet B that may cause negative effects on the forest ecosystem, and 4.h: Area and percent of forest land experiencing an accumulation of persistent toxic substances. Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 19

22 CRITERION 2: Ecosystem Condition and Productivity Proportion of timber harvest area successfully regenerated. Forest areas disturbed by timber harvesting need to be regenerated to maintain the productivity in the ecosystem and ensure a sustainable flow of wood products. This indicator tracks natural and artificial regeneration in timber harvest areas, an issue which Canadians have identified as being important. Hectares A report on this indicator should show the percent of disturbed areas successfully regenerated by natural regeneration, seeding or planting with native species, and seeding or planting with exotic species. Furthermore, the indicator should be summarized by province and by ecozone. "Successfully regenerated" will be dependent on the standards set by each province. This indicator will track the proportion of the timber harvest area that has been successfully regenerated. However, when interpreting this indicator, it should be remembered that most jurisdictions allow for a period of natural regeneration before any supplemental planting takes place in harvested stands, therefore, there will be a time lag in the area replanted versus the area harvested. Successful regeneration also usually only indicates that the stand is fully stocked. Successfully regenerated does not necessarily mean that the species composition is the same as it was prior to the disturbance or that ecosystem condition has been maintained. Reference against area harvested. Ideally, there should be 100% regeneration, although time lags need to be taken into account. This relates to the Montréal Process indicator 2.c: the area and growing stock of plantations of native and exotic species. Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 20

23 CRITERION 3: Soil and Water Rate of compliance with locally applicable soil disturbance standards. Soil sustains plant production and other ecological and hydrological functions of the forest through its ability to hold and supply water and nutrients, to store organic matter, and to provide suitable habitat for plant roots and a wide range of organisms. Forest management can remove and redistribute soil nutrients and organic matter, and can alter the three-dimensional structure or physical properties of the soil to the extent that productivity and other ecosystem functions are impaired. This indicator tracks the compliance in the forest industry with soil disturbance standards and the number of times soil disturbance in excess of allowable maximums has occurred. Proportion of all assessments "Disturbance" includes erosion, compaction, displacement and rutting, while "standards" refers to any federally or provincially applicable guidelines. The data for this indicator would come from provincial forest management and enforcement agencies. Interpretation should include description of how compliance is assessed in different jurisdictions: for instance, in B.C., at the time of writing, every cut-block has a final harvest inspection. This inspection includes a walk-through assessment of soil disturbance. In questionable cases a survey is required from which compliance is determined. Some soil disturbance is expected during forestry activities and is acceptable without impact on productivity. In some cases, disturbance may also be desirable, such as for regeneration. This indicator aims to track undesirable soil disturbance. It is also important to report where soil disturbance standards are being applied across the country. For example, such guidelines may not be applied on private land. A map of the compliance rate, including areas with "no data" would be useful for reporting. Note that rate of compliance could refer to the number of compliant areas relative to the total number checked, or to the area in compliance relative to the total area checked. Initially, it will likely only be possible to examine the number of areas in compliance as different jurisdictions have different ways of assessing the area disturbed. In the future, it is hoped that a common approach to soil disturbance monitoring will be developed that will be able to statistically indicate the area in non-compliance. Ultimately, it is the amount of productive area that is damaged that is of concern here. Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 21

24 The target for this indicator is 100% compliance. This indicator should increase in percentage as management guidelines and practices evolve to better protect soil function. Montréal Process 3.c, 4.a, 4.d, 4.e Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 22

25 CRITERION 3: Soil and Water Rate of compliance with locally applicable road construction, stream crossing and riparian zone management standards. Poorly constructed road and stream crossings and inappropriate activity in riparian zones can lead to the introduction of excessive amounts of sediment, altered water chemistry, and changes in the flow and timing of water courses. These changes can have important impacts on aquatic populations, plants and animals, as well as on human populations that depend on aquatic systems for survival. Most Canadian provinces have standards in place to protect water quality and aquatic ecosystems and provincial agencies carry out field surveys to determine if those standards are met. Certifying agencies also audit forestry operations to ensure that certified operations respect established standards. This indicator tracks the rate of compliance with such standards. Proportion of all assessments Provinces and certifying agencies already compile information on compliance. The number of compliant and the total number of assessments should be reported. * Note, it is assumed that a statistically valid number is sampled each year. The interpretation of these numbers for the determination of sustainability depends heavily on the adequacy of the standards being applied and the total number of assessments being conducted. Management standards must be sufficient to maintain water quality and sampling must be thorough enough to adequately capture national-level trends. Low percentage numbers indicate that practices are potentially having serious impacts on water quality in managed areas. Higher numbers indicate that impacts to watercourses are being minimized. The target for this indicator is 100% compliance. This indicator should increase in percentage as management guidelines and practices evolve to better protect aquatic systems. Montréal Process 4a, 4b, 4c, 4f, 4g Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 23

26 CRITERION 3: Soil and Water 3.0 Indicator Type: Supporting Indicator 3.3 Proportion of watersheds with substantial stand-replacing disturbance in the last 20 years. Stand replacing disturbances like fire or harvesting can have substantial impacts on the water yield, timing and peak flows in rivers and streams because of the reduced evapotranspiration caused by the removal of the trees in the watershed. The impacts are greater as more of the watershed is disturbed within a short time period. Measurements of water yield, timing and peak flow are difficult to obtain on a national basis because of the need for expensive monitoring equipment. Measurements of the proportion of watersheds disturbed by stand-replacing disturbances during the previous 20 years can act as a proxy indicator for these measurements at a national scale. Proportion A number of issues need to be resolved before this indicator can be implemented on a national level, for example, the definition of "watershed". Watersheds can be defined by area, or by stream order. If watersheds are to be defined by area, then the appropriate size needs to be determined. If watersheds are to be determined by stream order, then the ordering system needs to be agreed to and the appropriate order defined. So as to avoid debate about what constitutes "substantial", different levels of disturbance within watersheds should be reported on, such as: >25% disturbance, >50% disturbance, >75% disturbance and >90%. The indicator would then report on the proportion of all watersheds with >25% disturbance, the proportion of all watersheds with >50% disturbance, etc. The exact values for the proportion of watershed disturbance will require some development and work should continue on establishing the relationships between area disturbed and water yield, timing and peak flows. Note that each watershed should be assessed individually to determine the area disturbed. It is not appropriate to add together the total area disturbed in Canada and divide that by the total area of all forested watersheds to calculate an average proportion disturbed. Values for this indicator can be calculated with the help of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Watersheds can be delineated using GIS, and maps of disturbance overlain on the watershed maps to determine the proportion of the watershed disturbed. National watershed maps do exist, but they show only very large watersheds. Smaller, more detailed watershed maps may be delineated by individual jurisdictions. This can be a complicated and expensive process to undertake, but some jurisdictions have indicated that they already have this information. Likewise, national maps of forest cover disturbance can be generated from satellite imagery or from a roll-up of provincial disturbance information. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy is proposing an indicator of national forest cover to be measured annually using satellite imagery. The imagery may show areas that have been recently disturbed and could be useful for this indicator. Technical Supplement 1: Detailed Indicator Descriptions 24