Andrew Haywood and Andrew Mellor Adapting criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management to a changing climate: a Victorian case study Andrew Haywood and Andrew Mellor

Background Sustainability is now a core principle within Australian forest management and policy. Criteria and indicators (C&I) are designed to provide a mechanism for defining concepts of sustainability in the context of forest management and establishing objectives to gauge progress. There have been limited investigations in Australia to determine the implications of climate change for C&I. The theme of sustainability is now woven throughout Australia forest management and policy. Australia was an early adopter of sustainability in forestry. One such initiative was development and application of the Victorian Criteria and Indicators for SFM in Victoria. Criteria and Indicators Victoria has adopted the Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management to monitor and assess the State’s performance in achieving its SFM objectives, which set out a range of environmental, economic and social indicators. The C&I provide a framework with which to evaluate progress towards the objectives set out in the Sustainability Charter and to improve openness, accountability and community engagement in forest management. These are closely aligned with Australia’s Sustainable Forest Management Framework of Criteria and Indicators and the international reporting standards developed under the Montreal Process Working Group. Within this process the Guidance document “It is expected that the criteria and indicators will be periodically reviewed to ensure the continued supply of accurate and relevant information for sustainable forest management”.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the implications of a changing climate for the ongoing robustness and utility of Victoria’s Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management in Victoria We have an obligation both in the legislation and policy document to periodically review the C&I and we need to do a better job at this In the context of a maintaining the Victorian C&I for SFM, the questions are: What are the implications of a changing climate for the ongoing robustness and utility of Victoria’s C&I for SFM? How can we de-couple climate change impacts on SFM from the performance of our management actions? This is the focus of this work

1. Conservation of biological diversity Criteria 1. Conservation of biological diversity 2. Maintenance of productive capacity of forest ecosystems 3. Maintenance of ecosystem health and vitality 4. Conservation and maintenance of soil and water resources 5. Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles 6. Maintenance and enhancement of long term multiple socio-economic benefits to meet the needs of societies 7. Legal, institutional and economic framework for forest conservation and sustainable management. 7 criteria, 45 sub-indicators 45 indicators Too numerous to describe here, but they range from: 1.1a: Area of forest by type and tenure 1.2d: Degree of disturbance to native forest species caused by invasive species To Indicator 4.3: Change in forested catchment river health characteristics through time and Indicator 7.3: Extent to which the economic framework supports the conservation and sustainable management of forests

Method SFM Indicator Independent Climate-Change Assessment Integrated Climate-Change Assessment Linkages Assessment Uninfluenced Factors Unmodified Factors Modified Indicators Abandoned Indicators New Indicators Overview of the method used to assess the utility of each of the 45 indicators under climate change We’ve taken each indicator, looked at the linkages and relationship to other indicators and independently on the impact of climate change The approach consisted of devising a systematic three-stage evaluation protocol to put to each indicator. Stage 1: Assessing the indicator’s relationships with other indicators in the set Stage 2: The expected influences of climate change on the entity represented by the indicator Stage 3: Integrates the first two to explore indirect effects of climate change on an indicator. Example Bushfire is our indicator, area of forest disturbed by bushfire Left: Linkages Assessment: This indicator is negatively correlated with carrying capacity or sustainable harvest levels (increased fire => less area to harvest) and water quality (4.2) and invasive species. Right: Independent CC assessment: Resulting in increasing frequency and severity of bushfires Below: Integrated CC Assessment: to determine both the indirect and direct effects of CC in an integrated framework Resulting classification of indicators. Categorise each indicator: Uninfluenced by CC Unmodified (may be influenced but we don’t need to change them) Modified (influenced and need modifying) Abandoned (can’t be modified and don’t make sense….climate change will always override any signal) New The research team consisted: Experienced forestry professionals and researchers who applied their collective professional judgement, Informed by a thorough canvassing of relevant literature, in answering the questions and developing recommendations for each of the indicators.

Methods Climate Change Predictability Relevance Responsiveness Validity Understandability Feasibility Measurability Climate Change The effects of climate change on an indicator were interpreted using traits of effectiveness. The effects of climate change on the indicators can be complex and ambiguous. Using these traits aided in both the understanding and communication of our findings. The effect of climate change on the indicator in terms of: Predictability Relevance Responsiveness Measurability Feasibility

Initial results Twelve of the 45 indicators were considered to be entirely independent of climate change. The utility and robustness of all the remaining 33 indicators was considered to be influenced by a changing climate For 22 of these, the study recommended no change to the indicator; and For 11 of them, changes were recommended. Five new indicators were also recommended in response to climate change. Initial results Twelve of the 45 indicators were considered to be entirely independent of climate change Majority of them are influenced by climate change. Both directly and indirectly dependent on climate change For 22, we are able to analyze them in a way that we can deal with the issue of decoupling CC from the monitoring signal

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 Initial examples....of modifications and recommendations 1.2c Modify the indicator to species used Example: Frogs....we know are sensitive to environmental changes, e.g. Europe pollution frog decline Abandon species that we don’t know have a positive or negative relationship with CC 1.2d C&I Guidance document talks about purely exotic invasive species, given that under CC, we are likely to see native species move into areas they’ve not previously been, we should modify this indicator to track area of forest disturbed by both native and alien invasive species Tracking the movement of native species. Movements of trees with changing climate New Indicator Existing indicator looks at spatial configuration and fragmentation of forests. Need……Connectivity of protected area. If we know CC is occurring, we need corridors, we need to ensure species can move from protected area to protected area up and down altitudinal or environmental gradients Because of major disturbance, we have seed guidelines. If a national park is burnt we can only reseed using seed from that location. If we have a moving eco-tone dependent on climate change. Should we be willing to put different seed back into those areas. Under a changing climate, need to be up to date with the appropriate seed to put in an area. => Need a More dynamic seed transfer guidelines

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 We need to be explicit that modelling sustainable harvest levels incorporates climate change. Adjusting SHL, to move away from assumptions of a steady state of climate Either up if we have conditions more conducive to growth, Or down, if a greater extent of forest is impacted by bushfires

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 If we expect species migration to shift, we need to assist them through corridors and physically relocating species

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 6.1a Broaden our definition of wood products from trees, poles and sawn timber to include biomass and bioenergy industries 6.2b We should aim to split out investment into climate change and adaptation research

Conclusion A decline in predictability was the most common effect of climate change. 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. A shift from a retrospective to prospective insight in C&I is necessary. Is the signal coming from our performance of SFM or CC? We have two types of indicator: State indicators: Indicators which monitor condition (e.g. forest health, change in species adundence) 2. Action indicators: Indicators which monitor activity (e.g. area of planned burn, investment in forest research). State indicators are more prone to a decline in their ability to track SFM progress as CC is muddling the signal Action indicators are typically not directly influenced or improved by CC However, action indicators are often less effective that state indicators in a changing climate on performance. Prospective insight If we really want to understand CC using C&I, we should more to include forecasting rather than simple back-casting. Existing example: Sustainable harvest levels = These monitor the level of actual timber harvesting against what we think it should be.

Thank you