Andrew Haywood123, Andrew Mellor13, Updating SFM criteria and indicators to a changing climate: a Victorian case study Andrew Haywood123, Andrew Mellor13, 1Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Australia 2Department of Forest and Ecosystem Research, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia 3Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia Criterion 1: Conservation of Biological Diversity Indicator 1.2c Representative indicator species from a range of habitats monitored at scales relevant to regional forest management → Modified to include species with well- understood response to climate change, and abandon species with uncertain response to climate change Indicator 1.2d Degree of disturbance to native forest species caused by invasive species → Modified to track area of forest disturbed by both native and alien invasive species New Indicator: Connectivity of protected areas New Indicator: Proportion of public forest area with seed transfer guidelines that account for climate change Criterion 2: Productive capacity of forest ecosystems Indicator 2.3 Annual production of wood products from State forest compared to sustainable harvest levels → Modified to incorporate climate variability in the modelling of growth and yield for sustainable harvest levels Criterion 3: Ecosystem health and vitality New Indicator: Average, minimum, and maximum temperature in our forests New Indicator: Area of public forest with assisted migration initiatives Criterion 4: Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources New Indicator: Rate and form of precipitation Criterion 5: Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles Indicator 5.1 Total forest ecosystem biomass and carbon pool by forest type, age class and successional stages → Modified to incorporate climate variability in the modelling of growth and yield and subsequently in carbon budgeting New Indicator: Carbon emissions avoided through product substitution Criterion 6: Maintenance and enhancement of long term multiple socio-economic benefits to meet the needs of societies Indicator 6.1a Value ($) of wood and wood products → Modified to track the contribution of forest biomass and bioenergy industries Indicator 6.1b Value ($) and yield of non-wood forest products → Modified to track the contribution of bio-products, biomaterials, and carbon markets Indicator 6.2b Investment in research and development and education → Modified to track investment into climate-change adaptation and mitigation Introduction We investigated the ongoing robustness and utility of the Victorian Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) under climate change. To do so, we devised a systematic three-stage evaluation protocol (fig. 1) to assess each of the 45 SFM indicators. The Linkages Assessment examined an indicator’s relationships with other indicators in the set. The Independent Climate Change Assessment investigated the expected influences of climate change on the entity represented by the indicator. The Integrated Climate Change Assessment integrated the first two stages to explore direct and indirect effects of climate change on an indicator. Evaluated indicators could be uninfluenced by climate change; influenced by climate change and left unmodified; modified; or abandoned. There was also the potential for recommending new indicators. 1 Methods SFM Indicator Independent Climate-Change Assessment Integrated Climate-Change Assessment Linkages Assessment 2 Uninfluenced Indicator Unmodified Indicator Modified Indicators Abandoned Indicators New Indicators Figure 1: The evaluation protocol Indicator Traits The effects of climate change on the indicators are complex and often ambiguous. To better understand these effects, seven traits of effectiveness were examined (fig. 2). Using these traits aided the understanding and communication of our findings. Figure 2: The seven traits of indicator effectiveness Evaluation Results Twelve of 45 indicators were considered to be entirely independent of climate change. The utility and robustness of the remaining 33 indicators was considered to be influenced by a changing climate. The study recommended no change to 22 of these indicators; changes were recommended for the remaining 11. Five new indicators were also recommended in response to climate change. Key Findings A decline in predictability was the most common effect of climate change. The influence of climate change on socio-economic and socio-political indicators was often indirect and more difficult to assess, than on the biophysical indicators. State indicators were more prone to a decline in their ability to track SFM progress, while action indicators were often uninfluenced, or even improved. Regardless, action indicators may be less effective than state indicators in a changing climate. The addition of a eighth criterion relating to climate change alone is worth considering during the next C&I-SFM revision. A shift from a retrospective to prospective insight in C&I-SFM is necessary. C&I-SFM can still be useful under climate change. However, a stronger link of C&I-SFM into management and policy decision-making processes would be beneficial. 3 Predictability Relevance Responsiveness Validity Understandability Feasibility Measurability Climate Change 4 Results 5 6