Text Size:   A+ A- A   •   Text Only
Find     
Site Image
Criterion 7 Indicator 62
Rationale

 
Compatibility With Other Countries in Measuring, Monitoring, and Reporting on Indicators   The criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management used in this report were developed through consensus, and reflect a global sense of the meaning of forest conservation and sustainable forest management. The better that this report can fit into the global context, the more likely that the report will be useful in interpreting the degree of forest sustainability in the state of Oregon.

Evaluation
In order for state assessments of forest sustainability to be combined into a larger report that examines regional or national conditions, compatible data sets must be used for each indicator in the state reports. However, as the scale of assessment gets smaller (i.e., the state level rather than the national level), there is a greater desire to have more detailed data sets, in order to answer locally important questions. But detailed data sets are very expensive, and there is not enough money to collect detailed data everywhere.
 
Hence, there is an inherent conflict between collecting data for state reports and for national reports. On one hand, consistent protocols should be followed at all levels, in order to ensure that data is collected the same way at all levels, for consistency in results. On the other hand, there needs to be some flexibility built into the way that indicators are measured, so that local issues can be addressed. The question of compatibility between state and national levels needs further thought and a consensus-building process.
 
Oregon is one of the first states to use the sustainable management criteria and indicators to describe its forest conditions. We have borrowed heavily from the national First Approximation Report and used consistent data where we felt it was adequate to describe local conditions and issues. However, we have deviated from the protocols of the national report, both when data was not available, and when more detailed data was available.
E. Capacity to conduct and apply research and development aimed at improving forest management and the delivery of forest goods and services.