APPENDIX 1. Themes of criteria and each criterion's underlying indicators that were used to compare the sustainable performance of Forest Stewardship
Council, Canadian Standards Association – Sustainable Forestry Management Standard, and Sustainable Forestry Initiative. Numbers refer to the reference in which the data were extracted. Bolded
numbers correspond to references that found a certification system successfully met a sustainable forest management indicator. Italicized numbers correspond to references that found a certification
system did not meet a sustainable forest management indicator. See Methods for details about how success and failure were assigned.
| |
| |
| Theme, Criterion, and Indicators |
Time |
System |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forest Stewardship Council |
Canadian Standards Association's – Sustainable Forestry Management Standard |
Sustainable Forestry Initiative |
| |
| |
| Theme 1. Product tracking and claims5 |
| |
| 1.1 Labeling system7 |
|
Has a product label5, 7
|
Pre – 2002
|
7,12, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28
|
7, 12, 24
|
7, 20, 21, 23, 25, 28
|
| |
2003–2009
|
2, 5, 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26, 27, 32
|
2, 5, 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26, 27, 31
|
2, 5, 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26, 27, 33
|
|
Has a credible Chain of Custody7
|
Pre – 2002
|
7, 20, 21, 25
|
7, 24
|
7, 20, 21, 23, 25
| | |
2003–2009
|
5, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 26, 27, 32
|
5, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 26, 27, 31
|
5, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 26, 27,
33
|
|
Chain of Custody is audited7
|
Pre – 2002
|
7, 25
|
7, 24
|
7, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
8, 16, 18, 27, 32
|
8, 16, 18, 27, 31
|
8, 16, 18, 27, 33
|
|
Does not use uncertified or illegal sources in product
line5
|
Pre – 2002
|
7, 25
|
7, 24
|
7, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
2, 5, 8, 16, 17, 18,19, 27, 30, 32
|
2, 5, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 27, 30, 31
|
2, 5, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 27, 30, 33
|
| |
| Theme 2. System function |
| |
| 2.1 Certification |
|
Assessment process with auditors is well coordinated4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 9
|
|
4, 9
|
| |
2003 – 2009
|
8, 13
|
8
|
8, 13
|
|
Clarity of certification4 and consistency in auditing
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
| |
2003 – 2009
|
8, 11, 13, 16
|
8, 11, 16
|
8, 11, 13, 16
|
|
Third party certification team was of overall quality and
expertise4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
| |
2003 – 2009
|
13, 16
|
16
|
13, 16
|
|
Evaluation was thorough in all aspects4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 9
|
|
4, 9
|
| |
2003 – 2009
|
13, 16
|
16
|
13, 16
|
|
Assessment was efficient4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 9
|
|
4, 9
|
| |
2003–2009
|
13
|
|
13
|
|
Certification is at the Forest Management Unit and not
regionally7
|
Pre – 2002
|
6, 7, 25
|
7, 24
|
6, 7, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
5, 8
|
5, 8
|
5, 8
|
|
Scheme is based on a minimum performance-based threshold
|
Pre – 2002
|
7, 9, 25
|
7, 9
|
7, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
8, 11, 26, 32
|
8, 11, 26, 31, 34
|
8, 11, 26, 33
|
|
Certification is cost-effective for companies7
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
|
|
|
|
Certification is updated periodically
|
Pre – 2002
|
7, 25
|
7, 24
|
7, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
|
2.2 Stakeholder participation in certification and standard setting |
|
Clear ecological participation
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 6, 7, 9, 20, 21, 22, 25
|
7, 24
|
4, 6, 7, 9, 20, 21, 23, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
8, 11, 16, 17, 19, 29, 32, 34
|
8, 11, 16, 17, 19, 29, 31, 34
|
8, 11, 16, 17, 19, 29, 33, 34
|
|
Clear social participation
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 6, 7, 9, 20, 21, 22, 25
|
7, 24
|
4, 6, 7, 9, 20, 21, 23, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
8, 11, 16, 29, 32, 34
|
8, 11, 16, 29, 31,
34
|
8, 11, 16, 29, 33, 34
|
|
Clear economic participation
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 6, 7, 9, 20, 21, 22, 25
|
7, 24
|
4, 6, 7, 9, 20, 21, 23, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
8, 11, 16, 29, 32, 34
|
8, 11, 16, 29, 31, 34
|
8, 11, 16, 29, 33, 34
|
|
Balanced and equal participation by all stakeholders
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 20, 21, 22, 25
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 20, 21, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
8, 16, 29, 32, 34
|
8, 16, 29, 31, 34
|
8, 16, 29, 33, 34
|
|
2.3 Public input4
|
|
On certification4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
17, 32, 32
|
17, 31, 34
|
17, 33
|
|
On forest management practices4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
17, 32
|
17, 31, 34
|
17, 33
|
|
On developing the standard5
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
5, 8, 15, 17, 32
|
5, 8, 15, 17, 31, 34
|
5, 8, 15, 17, 33
|
|
On judging conformance to the standard5
|
Pre – 2002
|
7, 24, 25
|
7, 24
|
7, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
5, 17
|
5, 17, 34
|
5, 17
|
|
2.4 Repeatability6 and
consistency7
|
|
Standards have clarity4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
8
|
8
|
8
|
|
Standards are consistent, comprehensive, and balanced4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
8, 32
|
8, 31
|
8, 33
|
|
Field visits are required8
|
Pre – 2002
|
7, 25
|
7, 24
|
7, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
8
|
8
|
8
|
|
Annual monitoring and audits8
|
Pre – 2002
|
7, 25
|
7, 24
|
7, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
8, 26
|
8, 26
|
8, 26
|
|
Clear and rigorous procedures for standard setting, certification, and
accreditation
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
8, 11, 13, 16
|
8, 11, 16
|
8, 11, 13, 16
|
|
2.5 Adaptability
|
|
Forest managers/owners are committed to continuous forest management
improvement7
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
7
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
3, 5
|
3, 5
|
3, 5
|
|
When monitoring reveals that forest practices can be improved, the
management plan changes3
|
Pre – 2002
|
|
|
|
| |
2003–2009
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
|
Demonstrated deficiencies in knowledge are identified and monitoring is
adjusted3
|
Pre – 2002
|
|
|
|
| |
2003–2009
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
|
Standards are easily applied at the local level and accommodates additional
strengthening measures4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 9
|
|
4, 9
|
| |
2003–2009
|
|
|
|
|
Accommodates unique forest management objectives at a local
level4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 9
|
|
4, 9
|
| |
2003–2009
|
|
|
|
|
Standards are periodically revised to respond to new
information3
|
Pre – 2002
|
|
|
|
| |
2003–2009
|
3, 5
|
3, 5
|
3, 5, 34
|
|
Discrepancies between results and expectations are taken into account in
the next management plan3
|
Pre – 2002
|
|
|
|
| |
2003–2009
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
|
2.6 Applicability6
|
|
Certifies a variety of forest tenures7
|
Pre – 2002
|
6, 7, 24, 25
|
7, 24
|
6, 7, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
3, 14, 34
|
3, 14, 34
|
3, 14, 34
|
|
Certifies small forest companies
|
Pre – 2002
|
7, 25
|
7, 24
|
7, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
14, 34
|
14, 34
|
14, 34
|
|
Certifies large forest companies
|
Pre – 2002
|
7, 25
|
7, 24
|
7, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
14, 34
|
14, 34
|
14, 34
|
|
Certifies a wide variety of forest types and sizes7
|
Pre – 2002
|
7, 24, 25
|
7, 24
|
7, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
3, 5, 14, 34
|
3, 5, 14, 34
|
3, 5, 14, 34
|
|
Certifies regions
|
Pre – 2002
|
6, 12, 20, 21, 22, 28
|
12
|
6, 20, 21, 23, 28
|
| |
2003–2009
|
2, 3, 5, 14, 15, 26, 34
|
2, 3, 5, 14, 15, 26, 34
|
2, 3, 5, 14, 15, 26, 34
|
|
Certifies nationally
|
Pre – 2002
|
6, 12, 20, 21, 22, 28
|
12
|
6, 20, 21, 23, 28
|
| |
2003–2009
|
2, 3, 5, 14, 15, 26, 34
|
2, 3, 5, 14, 15, 26, 34
|
2, 3, 5, 14, 15, 26, 34
|
|
Certifies globally
|
Pre – 2002
|
6, 12, 20, 21, 22, 28
|
12
|
6, 20, 21, 23, 28
|
| |
2003–2009
|
2, 3, 5, 14, 15, 26, 34
|
2, 3, 5, 14, 15, 26, 34
|
2, 3, 5, 14, 15, 26, 34
|
|
2.7 Transparency6, 7
|
|
Standard is transparent
|
Pre – 2002
|
7, 25
|
7, 24
|
7, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
8, 17, 19, 26, 32
|
8, 17, 19, 26, 31
|
8, 17, 19, 26, 33
|
|
Certification is transparent
|
Pre – 2002
|
6, 7, 25
|
7, 24
|
6, 7, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
16, 17, 19, 32
|
16, 17, 19, 31
|
16, 17, 19, 33
|
|
Scheme is fully transparent (freely available)7
|
Pre – 2002
|
6, 7, 25
|
7, 24
|
6, 7, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
16
|
16
|
16
|
|
Has a complaint procedure7
|
Pre – 2002
|
6, 7, 25
|
7, 24
|
6, 7, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
16
|
16
|
16
|
|
Complaint procedure is effective and transparent7
|
Pre – 2002
|
7, 25
|
7, 24
|
7, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
32
|
31
|
33
|
|
2.8 High credibility4
|
|
With industry4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
2, 16, 26
|
2, 16, 26
|
2, 16, 26
|
|
With landowners4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
2, 16
|
2, 16
|
2, 16
|
|
With government4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
2, 16, 26
|
2, 16, 26
|
2, 16, 26
|
|
With academia4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
2, 16
|
2, 16
|
2, 16
|
|
With public4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
2, 16, 35
|
2, 16, 35
|
2, 16, 35
|
|
With environmentalists4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
2, 16, 26
|
2, 16, 26
|
2, 16, 26
|
|
2.9 Monitoring and research3
|
|
Crop performance and ecological conditions (soil, water, biodiversity,
etc.) are monitored3
|
Pre – 2002
|
20, 21, 22, 28
|
|
20, 21, 23, 28
|
| |
2003–2009
|
3, 32
|
3, 31
|
3, 33
|
|
Results from monitoring exercises influence policy, regulations, standards,
etc.3
|
Pre – 2002
|
20, 21, 22
|
|
20, 21, 23
|
| |
2003–2009
|
3, 32
|
3, 31
|
3, 33
|
|
Procedures are consistent and replicable to allow comparisons3
|
Pre – 2002
|
|
|
|
| |
2003–2009
|
3, 32
|
3, 31
|
3, 33
|
|
A long-term monitoring procedure is in place3
|
Pre – 2002
|
6, 7, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28
|
7, 24
|
6, 7, 20, 21, 23, 25, 28
|
| |
2003–2009
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
|
Records are accurate, accessible, and protected against
mishap3
|
Pre – 2002
|
|
|
|
| |
2003–2009
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
|
Environmental impact assessments are conducted3
|
Pre – 2002
|
20, 21, 22
|
|
20, 21, 23
|
| |
2003–2009
|
3, 32
|
3, 31
|
3, 33
|
| |
| Theme 3. Quality of forest management2 |
| |
|
3.1 Ecological issues
|
|
Prohibits or limits use of exotic species
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 9, 20, 21, 22
|
|
4, 9, 20, 21, 23
|
| |
2003–2009
|
1, 15
|
1, 15
|
1, 15
|
|
Protects rare, threatened, and endangered species
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 9, 28
|
|
4, 9, 28
|
| |
2003–2009
|
1, 2, 3, 11, 15, 32
|
1, 2, 3, 11, 31
|
1, 2, 3, 11, 15, 33
|
|
Prohibits or limits clear-cutting
|
Pre – 2002
|
7, 20, 21, 22, 25
|
7, 24
|
7, 20, 21, 23, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
1, 2, 15, 16, 17, 19
|
1, 2, 15, 16, 17, 19
|
1, 2, 15, 16, 17, 19
|
|
Forest is regenerated/reforested after harvesting
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 20, 21, 23, 25, 28
|
| |
2003–2009
|
2, 3, 16
|
2, 3, 16
|
2, 3, 16
|
|
Percentage of forest soil is protected and conserved3
|
Pre – 2002
|
7, 20, 21, 22, 25
|
7, 24
|
7, 20, 21, 23, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
3, 16, 17, 19, 32, 34
|
3, 16, 17, 19, 31
|
3, 16, 17, 19, 33
|
|
Prohibits or limits use of harmful chemical pesticides
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 20, 21, 23, 25, 28
|
| |
2003–2009
|
1, 2, 11, 15, 16, 32
|
1, 2, 11, 15, 16,
31
|
1, 2, 11, 15, 16, 33
|
|
Prohibit or limits use of genetically modified organisms
|
Pre – 2002
|
7, 20, 21, 22, 25
|
7, 24
|
7, 20, 21, 23, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
1, 2, 8, 15, 16
|
1, 2, 8, 15, 16
|
1, 2, 8, 15, 16
|
|
Prohibits or limits conversion of natural forest to plantation
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 20, 21, 22, 25
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 20, 21, 23, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
1, 2, 8, 15, 16, 19
|
1, 2, 8, 15, 16, 19
|
1, 2, 8, 15, 16, 19
|
|
Protects genetic- and bio-diversity
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28, 29
|
7, 24, 29
|
4, 7, 9, 20, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29
|
| |
2003–2009
|
2, 16, 17, 19
|
2, 16, 17, 19
|
2, 16, 17, 19
|
|
Respects and protects reserves and high conservation value
forests
|
Pre – 2002
|
7, 20, 21, 22, 25
|
7, 24
|
7, 20, 21, 23, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
3, 8, 10, 15, 16. 17, 19, 29, 32, 34
|
3, 8, 15, 16, 17, 19, 29, 31, 34
|
3, 8, 15, 16, 17, 19, 29, 33, 34
|
|
Protects riparian forests and water bodies.3, 11 Water bodies
are kept in good quality.4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 20, 21, 23, 25, 28
|
| |
2003–2009
|
3, 11, 17, 19, 32, 34
|
3, 11, 17, 19, 31, 34
|
3, 11, 17, 19, 33, 34
|
|
Protects wildlife habitat4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 20, 21, 23, 25, 28
|
| |
2003–2009
|
1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 32
|
1, 2, 3, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19,
31
|
1, 2, 3, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19,
33
|
|
Site damage is minimal4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 9, 20, 21, 22
|
|
4, 9, 20, 21, 23
|
| |
2003–2009
|
3, 19, 32
|
3, 19, 31
|
3, 19, 33
|
|
3.2 Social/economic issues
|
|
Requires training and safety for all workers4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 6, 9, 20, 21, 22
|
|
4, 6, 9, 20, 21, 23
|
| |
2003–2009
|
32
|
31
|
33
|
|
Protects workers rights
|
Pre – 2002
|
20, 21, 22, 28
|
|
20, 21, 23, 28
|
| |
2003–2009
|
8, 10, 32
|
8, 31
|
8, 33
|
|
Protects cultural and historical areas
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 20, 21, 22, 25
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 20, 21, 23, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
2, 15, 16, 17, 19
|
2, 15, 16, 17, 19
|
2, 15, 16, 17, 19
|
|
Protects indigenous peoples rights
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 20, 21, 23, 25, 28
|
| |
2003–2009
|
8, 10, 11, 17, 19
|
8, 11, 17, 19
|
8, 11, 17, 19
|
|
Provides local economic benefits and opportunities4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 7, 9, 20, 21, 22, 25
|
7, 24
|
4, 7, 9, 20, 21, 23, 25
|
| |
2003–2009
|
|
|
|
|
Waste is utilized as much as possible4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 9, 20, 21, 22, 28
|
|
4, 9, 20, 21, 23, 28
|
| |
2003–2009
|
|
|
|
|
Promotes sustainability with staff and public4
|
Pre – 2002
|
4, 9, 20, 21, 22
|
|
4, 9, 20, 21, 23
|
| |
2003–2009
|
16
|
16
|
16
|
|
| |
1Cashore et al. (2004), 2ÉM (2007), 3Hickey et al. (2005), 4Mater et al. (2002), 5Metafore (2006), 6Oliver (2001),
7Ozinga (2001), 8Ozinga and Krul (2004), 9Sample et al. (2003), 10Sverdrup-Thygeson et al. (2008), 11Tan (2003),
12Wilson et al. (2001), 13Cubbage et al. (2003), 14Oliver (2004), 15Hansen et al. (2006), 16ÉM (2008), 17Abusow
(2006), 18Anderson and Hansen (2003), 19BC Market Outreach Network (2008), 20Meridian Institute (2001a), 21Meridian Institute (2001b),
22 Meridian Institute (2001c), 23Meridian Institute (2001d), 24Kill (2001), 25Heaton (2001), 26Sprang et al. (2006),
27Wingate and McFarlane (2005), 28Rickenback et al. (2000), 29Auld and Bull (2003), 30CEPT (2008a), 31CEPT (2008b),
32CEPT (2008c), 33CEPT (2008d), 34McDermott et al. (2008), 35Perera et al. (2008)
|