GUIDE ON DECISION MAKING Sustainable Plantation Forest Management Certification
1. Introduction One or several indicators represent every input, activity and outcome from the Sustainable Plantation Forest Management (SPFM). An indicator is a variable that is measurable and presented in an intensity scale, can be numerical, categorical and so on. Therefore, the key issue that must be resolved in assessing a management unit is whether the unit is well/sufficient/less capable in achieving sustainability of the forest management. Considering the complexity of the problems occurring in the assessment process, an objective, reversible and transparent measurement tool is required. a) This can be acquired if a rating model is developed to analyze hierarchical problems, considering that problems in forest assessments have varied abstraction levels. b) Measuring indicator or other abstraction level can be done qualitatively and quantitatively.
LEI Guide 99-34
Guide On Decision Making Sustainable Plantation Forest Management Certification
However, the next important problem is whether we can see the relationship, physically or abstractively. This ability is represented by the ability to distinct in an absolute or relative method. The rating model is an absolute measurement. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) can be selected as the rating method to assess the SPFM that meet the requirements. There are also other methods to choose from as long as it meets the requirements in solving SPFM assessment problems. Afterwards, the decision concerning the assessment result will be made through justification of Expert Panel II. The environment of the plant forest management is basically different from locations. Moreover, margins of measurement used in forest assessment are generally inconsistent, considering the following matters: a) Difference in biophysical and social condition; b) The long duration of growth cycle of forest stumpage; and c) The limitation of knowledge growth on forest behavior. Therefore, it requires a boundary/reference of some sort to help Expert Panels in their assessment, a management unit typology. The typology determination is conducted by the Field Assessors according to LEI Guide 99-31. However, Expert Panel can assess and correct the typology determined by Field Assessor based on information they obtained and knowledge/experience of the Expert Panel.
2. Scope This guide acts as reference for Expert Panel II in the SPFM certification decision process. The steps in certification decision process are:
LEI Guide 99-34
Guide On Decision Making Sustainable Plantation Forest Management Certification
a) Provide assessment to the condition of each indicator obtained in the field by Field Assessor team, input from the community, and screening recommendation results according to the attached table. b) Arrange SPFM assessement model. c) Create a certification grant model for management units using AHP or other method. d) Determine passed/not passed ratings for management units regarding the total result of SPFM assessment.
3. References a) LEI Standard 5000, Sustainable Production Forest Management (SNFPM) System. b) LEI Standard 5000-2, Sustainable Plantation Forest Management (SPFM) System. c) LEI Guide 99, Sustainable Production Forest Management (SNFPM) Certification System. d) LEI Guide 99-31, SPFM Certification Field Assessment Implementation Guide. e) LEI Guide 99-32, SPFM Certification Field Assessment Report Writing Guide. f)
LEI-03 Technical Document, Toolbox Verifier and Verification for Criteria and Indicators of Assessment in the Sustainable Plantation Forest Management (SPFM) Certification System.
g) LEI-04 Technical Document, Score (Intensity Scale) of Sustainable Plantation Forest Management (SPFM) Indicators.
4. SPFM Certification Assessment Model Making 4.1 SPFM Hierarchical Structure Development
LEI Guide 99-34
Guide On Decision Making Sustainable Plantation Forest Management Certification
The first thing to do in using a decision making method is to understand the problem to be solved, in this case, how the SPFM measurement can be implemented in assessing a management unit. Therefore, a rating model is developed from SPFM criteria and indicator building elements. Those elements fit with those explained in LEI Standard 5000-2. Then, the elements are assembled in the hierarchy and relationship, as follows: Level
0
:
The goal in achieving SPFM
Level
1
:
Goal achievement principles (production, ecological and social function sustainability)
Level
2
:
Goal achievement criteria
Level
3
:
The management process to achieve goal
Level
4
:
The management subprocess to achieve goal
Level
5
:
Goal achievement indicator
Level
6
:
Score (intensity scale) of each indicator
This hierarchy can be read as follows: “What is the total score of every indicator from a certain management process and subprocess to obtain a criteria and a certain achievement principle to attain SPFM goals�. The next thing to consider would be the definition of each score indicator. The score for each indicator required to represent assessement result is shown in Figure 1.
LEI Guide 99-34
Guide On Decision Making Sustainable Plantation Forest Management Certification
Figure 1. Sustainable Plantation Forest Management (SPFM) Hierarchical Structure
Sustainable Plantation Forest Management (SPFM)
GOAL
Production Function Sustainability
PRINCIPLE
CRITERIA
Resource Sustainability
Forest Product Sustainability
Business Sustainability
Land and Water Quality Sustainability
RM
PROCESS
SUBPROCESS
Ecology/Environment Function Sustainability
RSta
RS
Social Economy and Cultural Function Sustainability
Natural Diversity Sustainability
Community Access & Control Sustainability
FM
RSec
PA
EA
Social & Cultural Integrity Sustainability
IS
SA
OS
HRI
FinM
INDICATOR SCORE (INTENSITY SCALE
LEI Guide 99-34
Guide On Decision Making Sustainable Plantation Forest Management Certification
RM FM IS RSta RS Rsec PA EA SA OS HRI FinM
: Regional Management : Forest Management : Institutional Structuring : Regional Stability : Regional Structuring : Regional Security : Production Administration : Environmental Administration : Social Administration : Organization Structuring : Human Resource Improvement : Financial Management
Labor Relations Sustainability
4.2 Selection of the Level of Importance of Elements The next step after understanding the problems is to determine the level of importance of elements; a process of comparing elements in the same level related with the achievement of the previous element. This comparison process is a relative measurement based on questions that represent the relationship between elements at one level in relation with the achievement of the previous element. The question should be like: “How extensive is the influence, contribution, domination, benefit and satisfaction of a certain element compared to other elements in the same level towards the achievement of a previous element?� The AHP uses 1-9 score to exemplify the relative importance between elements. For example, if the Expert Panel II’s justifies that all function must exist and guaranteed during the principle comparison of production function sustainability, ecology/environment function sustainability, and social economy and community culture function sustainability, it means that each must worth 100% so that it has the total of 300% (this is the same as stating that each is worth 1/3 and the total is 1). Simplified questions for each level of element in the Sustainable Plantation forest management are as follows: Level 1
: Which principle is more to be prioritized within the SPFM system and how is it more important?
Level 2
: For each principle, which criteria is more important and to what extent it is more important?
Level 3
: To meet each criteria, which management process has the larger role and to what extent it is larger?
Level 4
: For each management process, which subprocess is more important and to what extent it is more important?
In determining the level of importance of an indicator, Expert Panel can use all or a few representative indicators to represent the importance of the previous element, and then conduct LEI Guide 99-34
Guide On Decision Making Sustainable Plantation Forest Management Certification
comparison process. However, if there is only one indicator available, the comparison process will be unnecessary. The question would be: “For each management subprocess, which indicator shows the SPFM achievement on the assessed principle/criteria?” The relative weight of the score (intensity scale) for each indicator are required to be assessed, considering if it has the same intensity scale score of five, it will be perceived that between those five scores (intensity scale) might not have the same level of importance. The question will be: “For each indicator, which score (intensity scale) is likely to be preferred and to what extent it is preferred?” The assessment process must be conducted carefully, taking into account that it transforms reality to a mathematical formula which need to consider the implication of one score to the factual environment. Basically, the assessment process using AHP rating model is a determination of the total score of a certain management unit assessed from each indicator. The final total score will range between 0 to 1.
5. SPFM Certification Approval Model The decision making using a transparent and democratic methodology conducted by Expert Panel, based on the results using AHP rating model, enables decision makers in integrating all of their knowledge, either using subjective or ojective data, in a hierachical logical frame. The assessment result using AHP rating model provides a total score ranging from 0 to 1. Of course, these scores do not give any meaning unless provided justification from Expert Panel II on whether the score shows that a management unit will pass or fail, and to what rating (very good, good, adequate, fail). There are several approaches to determine the position of the total score obtained by a management unit, such as: a) Justification approach by the Panel: §
Certain indicators must have a certain minimum score, or
§
A minimum of all indicators of a management unit obtain an adequate score (from a scale of very good, good, adequate, bad, to very bad).
LEI Guide 99-34
Guide On Decision Making Sustainable Plantation Forest Management Certification
b) There are several experiences in assessing a management unit (statistically, a 4 typology x 30 management unit) and based on the total score distribution obtained from those 30 management unit, a total score lapse is made to determine the position of a management unit’s total score. The Expert Panel must determine the minimum score of the indicators (or several indicators). Afterwards, those minimum scores are entered into the AHP rating model and calculate the total minimum score (TMS). The total minimum score is then compared with the total actual score (TAS) obtained from the management unit. If TMS is larger than TAS, the unit failed the certification assessment. The certification rating (Gold, Silver, Bronze, Copper, and Zinc) is performed by Expert Panel II by dividing the score lapse between the total minimum score and the total maximum score of the indicators obtained by the unit.
6. Typology Utilization in the Decision Making Process In the Sustainable Plantation Forest Management certification decision making process, the typology of a management unit can be used to: a) Determine the objective situation faced by the panel, particularly to comprehend the regional ecosystem and the social cultural structure of the region. b) Determine the standard score of each SPFM assessment indicator. The Panel is expected to put into account the management unit’s typology in every assessment process to create decisions.
7. Typology Utilization in the Decision Making Process In assessing a management unit, Expert Panel II follows the activity flow: 7.1 Field Assessment Result Presentation by Field Assessor Team Before the presentation, Expert Panel II will obtain report from the field assessment conducted by the Field Assessor Team, input from the community, and screening recommendation results. A few details need to be done by Expert Panel II in reading the report, as follows:
LEI Guide 99-34
Guide On Decision Making Sustainable Plantation Forest Management Certification
7.1.1
Reassess, particularly its justification, the typology of the management unit based on knowledge and experience as an effort to observe the objective situation.
7.1.2
Examine the description of scores of every indicator based in the attached table.
7.1.3
Examine the field description (Field Assessor Report) to determine the score position; use the available form (see Forms Attachment). Consequently, the condition of the management unit can be identified.
7.1.4
Confirm with Field Assessor Team regarding the assessment result.
7.2 Determination of SPFM Principle Importance Level SPFM principles are the production, ecology and social function sustainability. The determination is discussed by all members of the Expert Panel II by considering: the typology and condition of the management unit. The discussion is directed by a facilitator. The importance determination is conducted using matrix comparison method, as shown in the available form (see Attachment-Form 3). Each member of the panel run his own assessment. The result will be a consolidated score or an average score from each Panel member. After achieving the score of importance, the form can be filled in, and consistency index will be calculated using Expert Choice and Speradsheet software. If the Consistency Index (CI) is more than 0,1 then the score of importance requires adjustments: a) Calculated by the software to obtain adequare consistency, then the new score is discussed by the Panel to determine whether to accept or deny; b) The Panel determines the absolutely new score of importance and recalculate to obtain a CI of less than 0,1; or c) The Panel decides not to pay attention to the CI based on a specific and agreedupon reason.
LEI Guide 99-34
Guide On Decision Making Sustainable Plantation Forest Management Certification
7.3 Determination of the Criteria, Management Process and Sub-Process Level of Importance This process can be done separately according to the specified aspects: production, ecology, and social aspect panel. The process implemented by every Expert Panel subteam is similar the principle importance determination process. The refered AHP rating model for each aspects are shown in Figure 2, 3, and 4. Form (see Attached-Form 4) to compare matrix for each criteria, process, and subprocess is provided. 7.4 Assessement of the Level of Importance on Every Indicator In assessing every indicator, first we determine which indicator (all or several) to use for each subprocess. The assessment process is conducted by each subteam. Form (see Attached-Form 5) for indicators of each subprocess is provided. If there is only one indicator in a management subprocess, the assessment won’t be necessary. The importance determination process for indicators is conducted similar to the previous principle or criteria importance level determination process. 7.5 Determination of the Level of Importance on Every Indicator Score The assessment process can be done on each subteam. In determining the importance level score (relative weight), one must focus on the degree of discrepancy. For example, in comparing temperature, for a case of boiling water temperature, the difference between 100°C from 90°C is not important (discrepancy = 10), but in the case of human body temperature, that difference become very important. Therefore, the Panel should discuss in achieving a rational reasoning. Form (see Attached-Form 6) to assess every indicator score is provided. The assessment process is similar to those of principle, and criteria and indicators. After all is finished, each subteam will obtain a rating scale which will be used to assess indicators acquired by the management unit.
LEI Guide 99-34
Guide On Decision Making Sustainable Plantation Forest Management Certification
7.6 Determination of Requirement and Minimum Passing Grade for SPFM Certification All Expert Panel members discussed the requirement and minimum passing grade from each indicator score of the management unit. The consolidated score is then written on the form (see Attached-Form 1) to calculate the total minimum score. 7.7 Calculation of the Final Actual Score Before the calculation of the final total score is performed, first, one must conduct an assessment activity to each indicator from a management unit. Indicator score form (see Attached-Form 2) acquired by the management unit is provided. In filling the form, the score should be discussed at every subteam. Next, scores are calculated, by each subteam and then combined, all using the provided software. 7.8 Determination of SPFM Certification Decision Based on the actual total score, minimum and maximum total score, and the comprehension on indicators and the values, Expert Panel can decide on the certification of a management unit; to pass or fail, and its score rating (gold, silver, bronze, zinc, and copper). This process is done by discussing the total results between all members of Expert Panel II. The pronouncement and its argumentation is recorded and documented. Recommendations for the management unit can be done according to LEI Guide 99-35.
LEI Guide 99-34
Guide On Decision Making Sustainable Plantation Forest Management Certification
Figure 2. Production Function Sustainability Assessment Hierarchical Structure Sustainable Plantation Forest Management (SPFM) Production Function Sustainability
PRINCIPLE
Resources Sustainability
CRITERIA
PROCESS
SUBPROCESS
Forest Product Sustainability
RM
RSt a
P1.1
FM
RSec
PA
P1.2
IS
RM
Business Sustainability
FM
EA
SA
OS
RSec
P1.7
P1.8
P1.9
P2.1
PA
IS
RM
EA
OS
FinM
RS
P2.5
P2.6
P2.7
P3.1
FM
PA
IS
SA
FinM
P3.6
P3.7
INDICATORS
P1.3
P1.4
P1.5
P1.6
P2.2
P2.3
P2.4
P3.2
P3.3
P3.4
P3.5
SCORE (INTENSITY SCALE)
LEI Guide 99-34
Guide On Decision Making Sustainable Plantation Forest Management Certification
RM FM IS RSta RS Rsec PA EA SA OS HRI FinM
: Regional Management : Forest Management : Institutional Structuring : Regional Stability : Regional Structuring : Regional Security : Production Administration : Environmental Administration : Social Administration : Organization Structuring : Human Resource Improvement : Financial Management
Figure 3. Ecology/Environment Function Sustainability Assessment Hierarchical Structure Sustainable Plantation Forest Management (SPFM) Ecology/Environment Function Sustainability
PRINCIPLE
Land & Water Quality Sustainability
CRITERIA
PROCESS
SUBPROCESS
Natural Diversity Sustainability
RM
RSta
FM
RS
RSec
E1.1
PA
E1.4
RM
EA
E1.10
E1.11
E1.12
E1.13
E1.14
SA
RSta
E1.15
E2.1
FM
RS
RSec
PA
EA
E2.4
E3.7
INDICATORS
E1.2
E1.3
E1.5
E1.6
E1.7
E1.8
E1.9
E2.2
E2.5
E2.3
E2.6
SCORE (INTENSITY SCALE) RM FM RSta RS Rsec PA EA SA
LEI Guide 99-34
Guide On Decision Making Sustainable Plantation Forest Management Certification
: Regional Management : Forest Management : Regional Stability : Regional Structuring : Regional Security : Production Administration : Environmental Administration : Social Administration
SA
E3.8
Figure 4. Community Social Economy and Cultural Function Sustainability Assessment Hierarchical Structure Sustainable Plantation Forest Management (SPFM)
Community Social Economy & Cultural Function Sustainability
PRINCIPLE
Community Access & Control Sustainability
CRITERIA
RM
PROCESS
FM
RSt a
SUBPROCESS
S1.1
Social & Cultural Integration Sustainability
S1.2
S1.3
Labor Relations Sustainability
FM
PA
SA
S1.4
S1.5
PA
S2.1
S2.2
FM
EA
SA
S2.3
S2.6
S2.7
RM
PA
S2.8
S2.9
OS
S3.1
HRI
S3.5
FinM
S3.6
INDICATORS
S2.4
S2.5
S3.2
S3.3
S3.4
SCORE (INTENSITY SCALE)
LEI Guide 99-34
Guide On Decision Making Sustainable Plantation Forest Management Certification
RM FM IS RSta RS Rsec PA EA SA OS HRI FinM
: Regional Management : Forest Management : Institutional Structuring : Regional Stability : Regional Structuring : Regional Security : Production Administration : Environmental Administration : Social Administration : Organization Structuring : Human Resource Improvement : Financial Management
S3.7
LEI Guide 99-34
Guide On Decision Making Sustainable Plantation Forest Management Certification