Ki Dong Kim, Seong Youn Lee, Rin Won Joo, DongKyun PARK*

Korea Forest Research Institute

2009. 10.28

Development of Forest Sustainability

index

and its Application in Korea

Forest – sink / Sequestration

Sunlight

AtmosphereCO2

Carbon Dioxide)

Clean AirO2(Oxygen)

Moisture, Spirit

Shade

Fruit, Leaves

Water+Nitrogen

C (Carbon)

Chlorophyll

Air Purification & CO2 fixation

Forest – Absorb CO2

Pollution source

Forest for Clean Environment

Content

Ⅰ. Introduction

Ⅱ. Concept & Objective of FSI Development

Ⅲ. Process of FSI Development

Ⅳ. Evaluation of Forest Sustainability using FSI

Ⅴ. Usage of FSI & Recommendation

I. Introduction

□ As UNCED introduced the concept of Environmentally Sound and

Sustainable Development (ESSD) in 1992 (Rio of Brazil) and Forest

Principle, one realized the necessity of evaluation of Temperate and

Boreal Forest Sustainability.

□ International society try to develop a tool to monitor, assess and

report forest trends at national & global level

□ In 1995, Montreal Process endorsed 7 criteria and 67indicator for

Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), now end up with 7 criteria &

54 indicators for implementation of SFM by member countries

International Background

Framework Act on Forest(2001)

Act on Promotion & Mgt. of Forest Resources

National Forest Plan

Require central government to develop and announce FSI

The Fourth (1998~2007) and the Fifth

National Forest Plan(’08~’17) aimed at Promoting SFM

Lay down a foundation for Sustainable Forest Management

Domestic Background

II. Concept & Objective of FSI Development

1. Concept

□ A quantitative score to indicate overall quality & conditions of

forest sustainability, taking into account economic, social and

environmental conditions at local & national level

2. Objective

□ FSI can assist the nation & local government in making data-

driven planning, better policy, program decisions for sustainable

forest management through progress evaluation of F. M.

□ To use index as a statistical report ; to formulate forest

associated policies, to evaluate the progress of sustainable

forest management, to make an estimate and allocate budget,

to set up forest management plan and to promote public

awareness on forest sustainability

- Component FSI :

III. Process of FSI Development

m

j

jji XWI1

~

n

i

ii IWI1

1. Methodology for Forest Sustainable Index

□ Statistical Formula

= number of indicators (m=19)

= ratio of indicator value to that of the base year

= weight of indicatorsj

j

W

X

j~

where

- Integrated FSI :

= number of components (n=3)

= weight of componentsWi

iwhere

The value of each indicator of the basis year is set at 100, Basis year is 2000

Each indicator is estimated, compared to that of the basis year.

Component FSI is the sum of (xj X Wj)

FSI (the total index) is the sum of each component FSI X each component weight

□ Forest sustainability is categorized three parts : Forest health, Forest

economic viability, & public benefit (social and environmental)

□ Nineteen indicators of three categories were chosen information

availability and time variant, policy relevance, representativeness,

sensibility and redundancy

2. Selection of Criteria and Indicators

% of forest area available

for timber production

Growing stock in forest area

available for timber production

% of forest area established

forest management plan

% of net growth to removal

amount of products to forest area

% of expenditures associated

wiith forestry to total budget

% change of forest area to total

area

% change of mature forest area

to total area

% change of arboretums area

to total forest area

% change of forest tending area

to forest area

% change of undisturbed area

to total forest area

% of protected forest area to

forest area

Carbon stock of forest biomass

to forest area

Carbon balance of forest

biomass

Area of recreation forest /1000

Area of urban forest /1000

% of employment in forest

sector to economically active

population

Forest Health and

Vitality(6)Forest Economic

Viability(7)

Social andEnvironmental

Benefits(6)

3. Process of Developing FSI

□ Three hundred seventy seven forestry experts on the area of education,

research and administration were surveyed to examine priority among

categories and among indicators under categories

□ Weight by Pairwise Comparison

Based on the result of survey, weight assignment was done through

pairwise comparison against each indicator

(1) Questionnaire Survey

Item Total Administration Research Academia

Sample 377 261 69 47

Return 174 109 57 8

Response rate 45% 41% 83% 17%

(2) Result of Analysis

□ Weight by Component

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

0.400

Forest Health and

vitality

Forest Economis

Viability

Social and

Environmental

Benfits

□ Weight of Indicators

- Forest Health and vitality

Indicator Weight

Percentage of forest area to total area 0.204

Percentage of mature forest area to forest area 0.185

Percentage of arboretums area to forest area 0.117

Percentage of forest area protected for genetic conservation 0.149

Percentage of forest tending area to forest area 0.196

Percentage of forest disturbed area 0.149

Total 1.000

Indicator Weight

Percentage of forest area available for timber production 0.150

Growing stock in forest area available for timber production 0.163

Percentage of forest area established forest management plan 0.111

Amount of forest products to forest area 0.134

Percentage of net growth to removal 0.114

Percentage of expenditures associated with forestry to total

budget0.104

Percentage of forest contribution to GDP 0.111

Total 1.000

- Forest Economic Vitality

Indicator Weight

Percentage of protected forest area to forest area 0.152

Carbon stock of forest biomass 0.186

Carbon balance of forest biomass 0.162

Recreation forest area to population 0.192

Urban forest area to population 0.183

Percentage of employment in the forest sector to economically

active population0.125

Total 1.000

- Social & Environmental Benefits of Forest

IV. Evaluation of Forest Sustainability using FSI

2007

139.12005

114.32003

107.7

2000

100

1. Trend of FSI at National Level

□ Increase to139.1 in 2007 from 100in 2000 : Average Increase 4.82%

□ Increase trend except in 2001 due to Forest health and economic index

Forest Health vitality

EconomicViabilityOf Forest

Social & Environmental Benefits of Forest

Year 2000

Year 2007

172.28

100180

110.42 130.08

2. Trend by three Components

□ Average Increase rate : Health 8.1%, Economics 1.4%, Social & Env. 3.8%

80

100

120

140

160

180

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Forest Health and vitality

Forest Economis Viability

Social and Environmental Benfits

2007200620052004

0.50.2 0.3

To induce local governments to make more efforts in implementing SFM, and efforts evaluation was conducted. Applied moving average method to efforts evaluation for the recent three years, and weight s are differently applied so that the recent increase or decrease can be considered more important

3. Local Government Level : Efforts Evaluation

V. Usage of FSI and Recommendaion

SFI

Formulating forest Policy

Evaluationthe processof SFM

Allocating budget

PromotingPublic Awareness

ForestSustainabilityIndex

Forest Sustainability Index can assist the nation and local government

in making data-driven planning, better program, and program decisions

for SFM

□ Assist the nation and local governance in making data-driven planning

& better policy and program decisions for sustainable forest management

□ C &I of the FSI is required to correspond with those of the Montreal

Process, where member countries provide national reports for sustainable

forest management every five years

□ Conditions & trends of forest be more objectively evaluated through

improved understanding of social, economic & environmental conditions

of forest, & development of specific goals for each indicator

□ Forest Sustainability Index needs to be refined to represent site-level

conditions, and to provide a local level framework for developing policies

and plans

SAVE OUR FORESTS