We as citizen of the world would do better if our forests sustain. Environmental concerns and actions for protecting the habitat is a gift that we can offer to all living being. Protection of biological diversity, and ecosystems will ensure the sustainability of essential ecological processes and life support systems. We can join or form appropriate organisations; this will give a new meaning and dimension to life.

Forests, Ethics and Yardsticks:

Measures of Success for Sustainable Forest Management in South Asia

1. Ethics and Yardsticks for Sustainability of Forests:

South Asian communities in general and Indians in particular have regarded that nature sustains the life on earth. Spirit of natural surroundings is considered rejuvenating. Forests, trees, lakes and gardens, are all manifestation of diversity in nature. Indigenous world-view holds that spirit of nature gives life to all. Forests alone bestow sweet fruits, cool water and fresh breath for life. An un-ploughed wilderness is regarded to be full of productive assets. It relieves us of stress and lets us enjoy and praise the nature. Even if while moving in the natural surroundings one is not be able get something physical, enrichment of soul can make sense to life.

We as citizen of the world would do better if our forests sustain. Environmental concerns and actions for protecting the habitat is a gift that we can offer to all living being. Protection of biological diversity, and ecosystems will ensure the sustainability of essential ecological processes and life support systems. We can join or form appropriate organisations; this will give a new meaning and dimension to life.

Two robust and ethical principles were designed in order to comprehend that whether or not the intricate web of nature is sustaining itself. Implicit in these principles is also the policy directions and technological suggestions. These principles roughly correspond with modern understanding of conservation and utilisation, and regeneration (Pandey 1996, 1998). Implicit in this is also the simplicity of approach for the measures of success. We shall deal with this a little while later. Suffice it to say that complexity of a system does not always require an equally complex yardstick.

1.1. Forest Conservation Ethics

Atharva Veda (12.1.11) hymn believed to have been composed some 3000 to 5000 years ago somewhere amidst deep woods in South Asia reads:

"O Earth! Pleasant be thy hills, snow-clad mountains and forests;

O numerous coloured, firm and protected Earth!

On this earth I stand, undefeated, unslain, unhurt."

Implicit here are the following ethics:

• We must ensure that earth remains forested.
• We must assume that human race can sustain only if the earth is protected.
• We must remember that humans to remain 'unslain' and 'unhurt' the ecosystem integrity must be ensured.
• Ecology, economy and society must be addressed concurrently.

1.2. Forest Utilisation and Regeneration Ethics

Another hymn from Atharva Veda ( 12.1.35) reads:

"Whatever I dig out from you, O Earth!

May that have quick regeneration again.

O Earth! may we not damage thy vital habitat and heart."

Implicit here are the following ethics:

• Human beings can use or 'dig out' the resources from the earth for their sustenance.
• Resource use pattern must also help in resource regeneration.
• In the process of harvest no damage should be done to the earth.
• Humans are forewarned not against the use of nature but against the overuse and abuse.
• Again, ecology, economy and society must be addressed at the same time.

1.3. Implications for the 'Measures of Success':

Thus, taking the evidence from the above description the simplest and most robust measures of success for sustainable forest management in South Asia must include the indicators pertaining to the ecology, economy and society in order to effectively address the sustainability of forests in the region (fig1).

?

2. WWF/World Bank Alliance for Sustainable Forest Management:

In response to the global forest crisis, the World Bank and WWF have entered into an Alliance to work with governments, the private sector, and civil society to significantly reduce the loss and degradation of all forest types worldwide (WWF/WB Alliance, 1999). The Alliance works toward this goal by promoting forest conservation and internationally recognised best practices in forest management. Specifically the Alliance partners will work together to support countries to achieve the following targets by the year 2005:

• an additional 50 million hectares of new forest protected areas, plus a comparable area of existing, but poorly managed, reserves will be brought under effective management.
• 200 million hectares of the world’s production forest under independently certified sustainable management.

WWF/WB Alliance (1999) summarises "in the past tow decades, India have shown a powerful commitment towards participatory forest management. Over 15 million hectares of forest are designated as parks and protected areas. However, legal support alone for parks and forests is not sufficient to conserve biodiversity or to ensure a continuous supply of vital goods and services. India has clearly recognised the need to promote more sustainable management of the region’s forests. In India, the World Bank and the Word Wide Fund for Nature are working to improve sustainable management of forests and protected areas with a program called "Measures of Success."

Much of the discussion about improving forest management in recent years has focused on the concept of independent certification of forestry operations. The Forest Stewardship Council has played a leading role in the development and standardisation of criteria and indicators to evaluate sustainability and equity issues in productive forests. Costs of FSC certification are ultimately borne by the consumer who is willing to pay a slightly higher price for wood products secure in the knowledge that the wood was produced without harming the environment. In South Asian wood markets no such "green-premium" has yet developed.

In South Asia the Alliance pursues a more "pluralistic" approach to certification which supports local initiatives that improve forest management by working with managers and forest stakeholders to identify and track progress toward local objectives. Many of the poorest communities are found in close proximity to forest areas. Many of these communities rely directly on the forest for their livelihoods. Local forest communities are the traditional and often de-facto managers of forest resources. Throughout South Asia management for conservation and sustainable use is effective only to the extent that the communities’ roles in forest resources management are recognised and incorporated into planning and activities on the ground. In seeking to protect the forest the Alliance also seeks to protect the poor."

3. Experiences on designing the Measures of Success for Sustainable Forest Management:

3.1. Bhopal-India Process:

India's commitment to the conservation of forests and biodiversity not withstanding, in the absence of an implementable framework for SFM there existed no robust mechanism to provide feedback on the direction of changes taking place after the implementation of the forest policy (Prasad, 1999a). The Indian Institute of Forest Management, a premier autonomous institution under the Ministry of Environment and Forests, GOI, took initiative resulting in what is now known as the Bhopal - India Process. Dr. Ram Prasad (1999b), the chief architect of the Bhopal-India Process, observes:

It was decided to adopt a three-tier hierarchical structure for India, involving principles, criteria and indicators, for defining SFM (Prasad, et al 1999).

A series of deliberations and meetings led to the identification of 8 national level criteria and 51 related draft indicators, under the Bhopal-India Process. This set of C& I is relevant for South Asian nations including Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan. The C & I generated under the Bhopal-India Process are as follows (Prasad 1999b):

Criterion 1: Extent of Forest and Tree Cover

1. Area and type of natural and man-made forests
2. Forest area under fragile ecosystems
3. Area of dense and degraded forest
4. Forest in non-forest area
5. Area rich in NWFP species
6. Forest area diverted for non-forestry use
7. Community managed forest areas

Criterion 2:?Ecosystem Function and Vitality

1. Status of natural regeneration
2. Status of natural succession
3. Status of secondary forests
4. Weed, pest, disease, grazing, fire, etc.
5. Maintenance of food chain

Criterion 3:?Bio-diversity Conservation

1. Area of protected and fragmented ecosystems
2. Number of rare, endangered, threatened and endemic species including tiger population
3. Level of species richness and diversity
4. Canopy cover
5. Medicinal and aromatic plants and other NWFPs
6. Level of non-destructive harvest

Criterion 4:?Soil and Water Conservation

1. Soil moisture
2. Soil compaction
3. Status of erosion
4. Run-off (water yield)
5. Soil pH
6. Soil organic carbon
7. Nutrient status of the soil
8. Soil flora, fauna and microbes
9. Level of water table
10. Sediment load

Criterion 5:?Forest Resource Productivity

1. Growing stock of wood and NWFPs
2. Natural regeneration status
3. Increment of wood and non-wood products
4. Area of afforestation and new plantations
5. Level of material and technological inputs
6. Extent of protection measures
7. Level of tangible benefits

Criterion 6:?Forest Resource Utilisation

1. Aggregate and per capita wood and non-wood consumption
2. Import and export of wood and non-wood forest products
3. Recorded and unrecorded removals of wood and NWFPs
4. Direct employment in forestry and forest industries
5. Contribution of forest to the income of forest dependent people

Criterion 7:?Social, Cultural and Spiritual Needs

1. Well-being in terms of livelihood, recreation, cultural and aesthetic needs
2. Degree of economic, social, gender and participatory equity
3. Conflict management mechanisms
4. Traditional (Indigenous) Knowledge application

Criterion 8:?Policy, Legal and Institutional Framework

1. Existing policy and legal framework
2. Extent of community, NGO and private sector participation
3. Investment in research and development
4. Human resource capacity building efforts
5. Forest resource accounting
6. Monitoring and Evaluation mechanisms
7. Status of information dissemination and utilisation

• Research on Criteria & Indicators for SFM has focussed primarily on creation of knowledge by research and sharing of this knowledge through various modes. The field-application has been awfully slow because of the time and money required for implementation.
• Researchers have primarily relied on their own understanding of the forests rather than a holistic understanding that draws from the collective wisdom of indigenous knowledge on forest management (ethnoforestry) & formal forestry.
• Given the requirement of time and resources it is not always possible for stakeholders to measure all the Criteria & Indicators to know the impact of management strategies being implemented in the field. A representative set, if designed carefully and collectively, may provide needed information.
• In order to start application of Criteria & Indicators we need to concentrate on a basic-set of indicators that must be measured in order to get information on SFM. These indicators must address the bottom-line of sustainability: ecology, economy and society.

South Asia's forests because of the reasons explained in the WWF/WB document referred earlier require innovative and more effective combination of management systems. The operationally effective measures need to be monitored constantly. Stakeholders, in order to take a right path, need to know if the management system is achieving the sustainability? It also requires understanding if both tangible and non-tangible benefits are being maximised for the benefit of the local communities without undermining the sustainability, productivity and equity.

3.3 Pooling the Knowledge of Stakeholders in A Workshop:

In order to draw upon the collective wisdom of the stakeholders to design the basic set of Criteria & Indicators for sustainable forest management a workshop was organised in south Indian State of Andhra Pradesh in July 1999. The objectives of the WWF/World Bank Alliance Workshop in Hyderabad were:

• Improve the use of performance indicators in monitoring and managing forests and protected areas in the region
• Demonstrate how to select and use performance indicators in the management and decision making of production forests and protected areas to improve the results on the ground
• Foster the skills needed to select and use performance indicators that are site and context specific
• Create opportunities for managers with different skill levels in performance indicator application to learn from each other
• Bring to the table other stakeholders not directly responsible for management who might not otherwise be included in the development and management and use of indicators but who are interested in obtaining credible information for other purposes (community groups, academic watchdog organisations, industry)

Basic direction of the workshop was to discuss and negotiate a basic set of performance indicators (PI), based on currently available information, which can effectively measure sustainable forest management on the AP Forest Management Unit. This basic set of performance indicators take into account the indicators selected by the key stakeholders within the FMUs. The PI basic sets will then be implemented in four pilot areas in Andhra Pradesh and other States following the workshop. Using the analytical skills and decision-making abilities of a group of stakeholders to "hone" or "fine-tune" a list of all relevant indicators were to be developed as performance indicators (PI). This was done to obtain those few critical and important PI that will serve easily and reliably to mark the progress of sustainable forest management in India.

To help the sharing, following categories for indicators were developed as framework for discussion:

• Social,
• Economic,
• Environmental,
• Physical
• Policy

3.3.1. Stakeholders and Participants:

This is shown visually below, and was used consistently throughout the workshop. Framework was based on four major issues: social, economic, environmental and physical. Policy envelops all the issues, hence it has been depicted as an outer circle.

Workshop Teams that shared the vision included following stakeholders:

• Foresters and wildlife managers at the field level
• Foresters and wildlife managers at policy level
• Non-governmental organisations
• Some representatives from industry, rural development, funding agencies,

During the field visit following stakeholders also provided their input:

• Village Forest Committee Members
• Village Elders
• Women

3.3.2. Why a Basic Set?

As discussed earlier, facilitators set the agenda for three day-workshop explaining the role of basic set of indicators for SFM. Following arguments were put forth for the basic-set of indicators of measures of success:

• Research on Criteria & Indicators for SFM has focussed primarily on creation of knowledge by research and sharing of this knowledge through various modes
• Given the requirement of time and resources it is not always possible for stakeholders to measure all the Criteria & Indicators to know the impact of management strategies being implemented in the field
• In order to start application of Criteria & Indicators we need to concentrate on a basic-set of indicators that must me measured in order to get information on SFM. These indicators must address the bottom-line of sustainability: ecology, economy and society. Basic-set should pass through the following filters shown in figure 3.

3.3.3 Teams for Designing the Indicators:

In order to carry out brainstorming for filtering indicators for measures of success five teams met in "Think Tank" Sessions to discuss Performance Indicators. They used resources such as maps, indicator lists, flip chart papers, policy documents, etc. supplied to each team. Facilitators rotated among various teams. This preliminary discussion was based on the presentations made in the workshop. It also acted as preparation for the field visit.

3.3.4. Filtering Experience Through Field Reality:

Five Teams (Physical, Environment, Economic Social and Policy) visited 5 sites of AP Forest Department. Field visit concentrated on:

• Interaction with stakeholder
• Women
• Men
• Marginalisation prone groups
• VSS (Forest Protection Committee) Members
• FD Staff
• Visit to the forest/regeneration areas
• Further refining of the performance indicators

Each team brought back experiences of the FMU that they visited. The field visit ended in the evening, and Teams met again in their assigned "think tank" sessions to share experiences and prepare presentations for the following day. This meeting extended to dinner tables. Teams debated to filter the PI that must pass through the test of measurability, cost-effectiveness, usefulness and reliability. Each team short-listed 3 or 4 key statements (criteria) with up to 3 related performance indicators for each statement. Each Team prepared their presentation for the following day.

3.3.5. Synthesis and Moving Forward:

Presentations by individual groups were followed by discussion in the workshop. Statements and indicators presented by groups were debated, discarded, modified and accepted. Participants were given another opportunity for Blending and balancing of the indicators. This exercise involved silent scrutiny of the presented material put up on boards and participants. They blended and balanced the indicators identified by the groups.

4. Evolution of the Basic Set:

4.1. Indicators identified by Social Group:

An important remark was made during the presentation that indicators should not be ‘means’ it should be ‘outcome’. After the presentation and discussion following indicators were identified by workshop participants:

4.2. Indicators identified by Economic Group:

After the presentation and discussion following indicators were identified by workshop participants:

?

?

4.3. Indicators identified by Environmental Group:

After the presentation and discussion following indicators were identified by workshop participants:

4.4. Indicators identified by Physical Group:

After the presentation and discussion following indicators were identified by workshop participants:

4.5. Indicators identified by Physical Group:

After the presentation and discussion following indicators were identified by workshop participants:

5. The Future:

5.1. Participants left the workshop having taken part in the process of developing a basic set of PI, which are being implemented on a pilot basis on the AP project. Being a part of this process has inspired the participants to explore the development and use of PIs in their FMUs. It is likely that the process of developing PI sets will have to take place for each area as there may be many different stakeholders, different FMUs, and different forest management objectives.

5.2. Sustaining the Process in New Millennium:

Field-application of PI in several places in South has given rise to new questions, innovations and directions. This has, however, also indicated a very strong need for training to various key stakeholders. A continuous dialogue is necessary to achieve the overall objectives of finding and implementing the "Measures of Success" for sustainable forest management in South Asia.

5.3. Empowerment of Stakeholders through Capacity Building:

Brainstorming exercise among the community organisations, field-foresters, policy makers and experts indicates the necessity for a normative training programme across South Asia in order to help and strengthen the ongoing implementation of the Measures of Success Programme.

Skill 4: Information Dissemination and Field Application: The cycle is not complete until the information that has been collected and analysed has found its way into the hands of the stakeholders and they are convinced (or otherwise) that their objectives are being met. The focus of the Course shall be on effective presentation of information with plenty of examples that participants will take home with them for innovative replication using their own data. The message of this component should focus how to construct a representative summary of the state of the forests that incorporates sufficient information to let forest managers and stakeholders know that management is sustainable and 'on track'.

Deep Narayan Pandey

Indian Forest Service

Associate Professor

Indian Institute of Forest Management,

P.O. Box 367, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal-462 003, India

We as citizen of the world would do better if our forests sustain. Environmental concerns and actions for protecting the habitat is a gift that we can offer to all living being. Protection of biological diversity, and ecosystems will ensure the sustainability of essential ecological processes and life support systems. We can join or form appropriate organisations; this will give a new meaning and dimension to life.

Forests, Ethics and Yardsticks:

Measures of Success for Sustainable Forest Management in South Asia

1. Ethics and Yardsticks for Sustainability of Forests:

South Asian communities in general and Indians in particular have regarded that nature sustains the life on earth. Spirit of natural surroundings is considered rejuvenating. Forests, trees, lakes and gardens, are all manifestation of diversity in nature. Indigenous world-view holds that spirit of nature gives life to all. Forests alone bestow sweet fruits, cool water and fresh breath for life. An un-ploughed wilderness is regarded to be full of productive assets. It relieves us of stress and lets us enjoy and praise the nature. Even if while moving in the natural surroundings one is not be able get something physical, enrichment of soul can make sense to life.

We as citizen of the world would do better if our forests sustain. Environmental concerns and actions for protecting the habitat is a gift that we can offer to all living being. Protection of biological diversity, and ecosystems will ensure the sustainability of essential ecological processes and life support systems. We can join or form appropriate organisations; this will give a new meaning and dimension to life.

Two robust and ethical principles were designed in order to comprehend that whether or not the intricate web of nature is sustaining itself. Implicit in these principles is also the policy directions and technological suggestions. These principles roughly correspond with modern understanding of conservation and utilisation, and regeneration (Pandey 1996, 1998). Implicit in this is also the simplicity of approach for the measures of success. We shall deal with this a little while later. Suffice it to say that complexity of a system does not always require an equally complex yardstick.

1.1. Forest Conservation Ethics

Atharva Veda (12.1.11) hymn believed to have been composed some 3000 to 5000 years ago somewhere amidst deep woods in South Asia reads:

"O Earth! Pleasant be thy hills, snow-clad mountains and forests;

O numerous coloured, firm and protected Earth!

On this earth I stand, undefeated, unslain, unhurt."

Implicit here are the following ethics:

• We must ensure that earth remains forested.
• We must assume that human race can sustain only if the earth is protected.
• We must remember that humans to remain 'unslain' and 'unhurt' the ecosystem integrity must be ensured.
• Ecology, economy and society must be addressed concurrently.

1.2. Forest Utilisation and Regeneration Ethics

Another hymn from Atharva Veda ( 12.1.35) reads:

"Whatever I dig out from you, O Earth!

May that have quick regeneration again.

O Earth! may we not damage thy vital habitat and heart."

Implicit here are the following ethics:

• Human beings can use or 'dig out' the resources from the earth for their sustenance.
• Resource use pattern must also help in resource regeneration.
• In the process of harvest no damage should be done to the earth.
• Humans are forewarned not against the use of nature but against the overuse and abuse.
• Again, ecology, economy and society must be addressed at the same time.

1.3. Implications for the 'Measures of Success':

Thus, taking the evidence from the above description the simplest and most robust measures of success for sustainable forest management in South Asia must include the indicators pertaining to the ecology, economy and society in order to effectively address the sustainability of forests in the region (fig1).

?

2. WWF/World Bank Alliance for Sustainable Forest Management:

In response to the global forest crisis, the World Bank and WWF have entered into an Alliance to work with governments, the private sector, and civil society to significantly reduce the loss and degradation of all forest types worldwide (WWF/WB Alliance, 1999). The Alliance works toward this goal by promoting forest conservation and internationally recognised best practices in forest management. Specifically the Alliance partners will work together to support countries to achieve the following targets by the year 2005:

• an additional 50 million hectares of new forest protected areas, plus a comparable area of existing, but poorly managed, reserves will be brought under effective management.
• 200 million hectares of the world’s production forest under independently certified sustainable management.

WWF/WB Alliance (1999) summarises "in the past tow decades, India have shown a powerful commitment towards participatory forest management. Over 15 million hectares of forest are designated as parks and protected areas. However, legal support alone for parks and forests is not sufficient to conserve biodiversity or to ensure a continuous supply of vital goods and services. India has clearly recognised the need to promote more sustainable management of the region’s forests. In India, the World Bank and the Word Wide Fund for Nature are working to improve sustainable management of forests and protected areas with a program called "Measures of Success."

Much of the discussion about improving forest management in recent years has focused on the concept of independent certification of forestry operations. The Forest Stewardship Council has played a leading role in the development and standardisation of criteria and indicators to evaluate sustainability and equity issues in productive forests. Costs of FSC certification are ultimately borne by the consumer who is willing to pay a slightly higher price for wood products secure in the knowledge that the wood was produced without harming the environment. In South Asian wood markets no such "green-premium" has yet developed.

In South Asia the Alliance pursues a more "pluralistic" approach to certification which supports local initiatives that improve forest management by working with managers and forest stakeholders to identify and track progress toward local objectives. Many of the poorest communities are found in close proximity to forest areas. Many of these communities rely directly on the forest for their livelihoods. Local forest communities are the traditional and often de-facto managers of forest resources. Throughout South Asia management for conservation and sustainable use is effective only to the extent that the communities’ roles in forest resources management are recognised and incorporated into planning and activities on the ground. In seeking to protect the forest the Alliance also seeks to protect the poor."

3. Experiences on designing the Measures of Success for Sustainable Forest Management:

3.1. Bhopal-India Process:

India's commitment to the conservation of forests and biodiversity not withstanding, in the absence of an implementable framework for SFM there existed no robust mechanism to provide feedback on the direction of changes taking place after the implementation of the forest policy (Prasad, 1999a). The Indian Institute of Forest Management, a premier autonomous institution under the Ministry of Environment and Forests, GOI, took initiative resulting in what is now known as the Bhopal - India Process. Dr. Ram Prasad (1999b), the chief architect of the Bhopal-India Process, observes:

It was decided to adopt a three-tier hierarchical structure for India, involving principles, criteria and indicators, for defining SFM (Prasad, et al 1999).

A series of deliberations and meetings led to the identification of 8 national level criteria and 51 related draft indicators, under the Bhopal-India Process. This set of C& I is relevant for South Asian nations including Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan. The C & I generated under the Bhopal-India Process are as follows (Prasad 1999b):

Criterion 1: Extent of Forest and Tree Cover

1. Area and type of natural and man-made forests
2. Forest area under fragile ecosystems
3. Area of dense and degraded forest
4. Forest in non-forest area
5. Area rich in NWFP species
6. Forest area diverted for non-forestry use
7. Community managed forest areas

Criterion 2:?Ecosystem Function and Vitality

1. Status of natural regeneration
2. Status of natural succession
3. Status of secondary forests
4. Weed, pest, disease, grazing, fire, etc.
5. Maintenance of food chain

Criterion 3:?Bio-diversity Conservation

1. Area of protected and fragmented ecosystems
2. Number of rare, endangered, threatened and endemic species including tiger population
3. Level of species richness and diversity
4. Canopy cover
5. Medicinal and aromatic plants and other NWFPs
6. Level of non-destructive harvest

Criterion 4:?Soil and Water Conservation

1. Soil moisture
2. Soil compaction
3. Status of erosion
4. Run-off (water yield)
5. Soil pH
6. Soil organic carbon
7. Nutrient status of the soil
8. Soil flora, fauna and microbes
9. Level of water table
10. Sediment load

Criterion 5:?Forest Resource Productivity

1. Growing stock of wood and NWFPs
2. Natural regeneration status
3. Increment of wood and non-wood products
4. Area of afforestation and new plantations
5. Level of material and technological inputs
6. Extent of protection measures
7. Level of tangible benefits

Criterion 6:?Forest Resource Utilisation

1. Aggregate and per capita wood and non-wood consumption
2. Import and export of wood and non-wood forest products
3. Recorded and unrecorded removals of wood and NWFPs
4. Direct employment in forestry and forest industries
5. Contribution of forest to the income of forest dependent people

Criterion 7:?Social, Cultural and Spiritual Needs

1. Well-being in terms of livelihood, recreation, cultural and aesthetic needs
2. Degree of economic, social, gender and participatory equity
3. Conflict management mechanisms
4. Traditional (Indigenous) Knowledge application

Criterion 8:?Policy, Legal and Institutional Framework

1. Existing policy and legal framework
2. Extent of community, NGO and private sector participation
3. Investment in research and development
4. Human resource capacity building efforts
5. Forest resource accounting
6. Monitoring and Evaluation mechanisms
7. Status of information dissemination and utilisation

• Research on Criteria & Indicators for SFM has focussed primarily on creation of knowledge by research and sharing of this knowledge through various modes. The field-application has been awfully slow because of the time and money required for implementation.
• Researchers have primarily relied on their own understanding of the forests rather than a holistic understanding that draws from the collective wisdom of indigenous knowledge on forest management (ethnoforestry) & formal forestry.
• Given the requirement of time and resources it is not always possible for stakeholders to measure all the Criteria & Indicators to know the impact of management strategies being implemented in the field. A representative set, if designed carefully and collectively, may provide needed information.
• In order to start application of Criteria & Indicators we need to concentrate on a basic-set of indicators that must be measured in order to get information on SFM. These indicators must address the bottom-line of sustainability: ecology, economy and society.

South Asia's forests because of the reasons explained in the WWF/WB document referred earlier require innovative and more effective combination of management systems. The operationally effective measures need to be monitored constantly. Stakeholders, in order to take a right path, need to know if the management system is achieving the sustainability? It also requires understanding if both tangible and non-tangible benefits are being maximised for the benefit of the local communities without undermining the sustainability, productivity and equity.

3.3 Pooling the Knowledge of Stakeholders in A Workshop:

In order to draw upon the collective wisdom of the stakeholders to design the basic set of Criteria & Indicators for sustainable forest management a workshop was organised in south Indian State of Andhra Pradesh in July 1999. The objectives of the WWF/World Bank Alliance Workshop in Hyderabad were:

• Improve the use of performance indicators in monitoring and managing forests and protected areas in the region
• Demonstrate how to select and use performance indicators in the management and decision making of production forests and protected areas to improve the results on the ground
• Foster the skills needed to select and use performance indicators that are site and context specific
• Create opportunities for managers with different skill levels in performance indicator application to learn from each other
• Bring to the table other stakeholders not directly responsible for management who might not otherwise be included in the development and management and use of indicators but who are interested in obtaining credible information for other purposes (community groups, academic watchdog organisations, industry)

Basic direction of the workshop was to discuss and negotiate a basic set of performance indicators (PI), based on currently available information, which can effectively measure sustainable forest management on the AP Forest Management Unit. This basic set of performance indicators take into account the indicators selected by the key stakeholders within the FMUs. The PI basic sets will then be implemented in four pilot areas in Andhra Pradesh and other States following the workshop. Using the analytical skills and decision-making abilities of a group of stakeholders to "hone" or "fine-tune" a list of all relevant indicators were to be developed as performance indicators (PI). This was done to obtain those few critical and important PI that will serve easily and reliably to mark the progress of sustainable forest management in India.

To help the sharing, following categories for indicators were developed as framework for discussion:

• Social,
• Economic,
• Environmental,
• Physical
• Policy

3.3.1. Stakeholders and Participants:

This is shown visually below, and was used consistently throughout the workshop. Framework was based on four major issues: social, economic, environmental and physical. Policy envelops all the issues, hence it has been depicted as an outer circle.

Workshop Teams that shared the vision included following stakeholders:

• Foresters and wildlife managers at the field level
• Foresters and wildlife managers at policy level
• Non-governmental organisations
• Some representatives from industry, rural development, funding agencies,

During the field visit following stakeholders also provided their input:

• Village Forest Committee Members
• Village Elders
• Women

3.3.2. Why a Basic Set?

As discussed earlier, facilitators set the agenda for three day-workshop explaining the role of basic set of indicators for SFM. Following arguments were put forth for the basic-set of indicators of measures of success:

• Research on Criteria & Indicators for SFM has focussed primarily on creation of knowledge by research and sharing of this knowledge through various modes
• Given the requirement of time and resources it is not always possible for stakeholders to measure all the Criteria & Indicators to know the impact of management strategies being implemented in the field
• In order to start application of Criteria & Indicators we need to concentrate on a basic-set of indicators that must me measured in order to get information on SFM. These indicators must address the bottom-line of sustainability: ecology, economy and society. Basic-set should pass through the following filters shown in figure 3.

3.3.3 Teams for Designing the Indicators:

In order to carry out brainstorming for filtering indicators for measures of success five teams met in "Think Tank" Sessions to discuss Performance Indicators. They used resources such as maps, indicator lists, flip chart papers, policy documents, etc. supplied to each team. Facilitators rotated among various teams. This preliminary discussion was based on the presentations made in the workshop. It also acted as preparation for the field visit.

3.3.4. Filtering Experience Through Field Reality:

Five Teams (Physical, Environment, Economic Social and Policy) visited 5 sites of AP Forest Department. Field visit concentrated on:

• Interaction with stakeholder
• Women
• Men
• Marginalisation prone groups
• VSS (Forest Protection Committee) Members
• FD Staff
• Visit to the forest/regeneration areas
• Further refining of the performance indicators

Each team brought back experiences of the FMU that they visited. The field visit ended in the evening, and Teams met again in their assigned "think tank" sessions to share experiences and prepare presentations for the following day. This meeting extended to dinner tables. Teams debated to filter the PI that must pass through the test of measurability, cost-effectiveness, usefulness and reliability. Each team short-listed 3 or 4 key statements (criteria) with up to 3 related performance indicators for each statement. Each Team prepared their presentation for the following day.

3.3.5. Synthesis and Moving Forward:

Presentations by individual groups were followed by discussion in the workshop. Statements and indicators presented by groups were debated, discarded, modified and accepted. Participants were given another opportunity for Blending and balancing of the indicators. This exercise involved silent scrutiny of the presented material put up on boards and participants. They blended and balanced the indicators identified by the groups.

4. Evolution of the Basic Set:

4.1. Indicators identified by Social Group:

An important remark was made during the presentation that indicators should not be ‘means’ it should be ‘outcome’. After the presentation and discussion following indicators were identified by workshop participants:

4.2. Indicators identified by Economic Group:

After the presentation and discussion following indicators were identified by workshop participants:

?

?

4.3. Indicators identified by Environmental Group:

After the presentation and discussion following indicators were identified by workshop participants:

4.4. Indicators identified by Physical Group:

After the presentation and discussion following indicators were identified by workshop participants:

4.5. Indicators identified by Physical Group:

After the presentation and discussion following indicators were identified by workshop participants:

5. The Future:

5.1. Participants left the workshop having taken part in the process of developing a basic set of PI, which are being implemented on a pilot basis on the AP project. Being a part of this process has inspired the participants to explore the development and use of PIs in their FMUs. It is likely that the process of developing PI sets will have to take place for each area as there may be many different stakeholders, different FMUs, and different forest management objectives.

5.2. Sustaining the Process in New Millennium:

Field-application of PI in several places in South has given rise to new questions, innovations and directions. This has, however, also indicated a very strong need for training to various key stakeholders. A continuous dialogue is necessary to achieve the overall objectives of finding and implementing the "Measures of Success" for sustainable forest management in South Asia.

5.3. Empowerment of Stakeholders through Capacity Building:

Brainstorming exercise among the community organisations, field-foresters, policy makers and experts indicates the necessity for a normative training programme across South Asia in order to help and strengthen the ongoing implementation of the Measures of Success Programme.

Skill 4: Information Dissemination and Field Application: The cycle is not complete until the information that has been collected and analysed has found its way into the hands of the stakeholders and they are convinced (or otherwise) that their objectives are being met. The focus of the Course shall be on effective presentation of information with plenty of examples that participants will take home with them for innovative replication using their own data. The message of this component should focus how to construct a representative summary of the state of the forests that incorporates sufficient information to let forest managers and stakeholders know that management is sustainable and 'on track'.

Deep Narayan Pandey

Indian Forest Service

Associate Professor

Indian Institute of Forest Management,

P.O. Box 367, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal-462 003, India