Forestry Related Public Policies and Cross-sector Linkages

The term public policy designates the contents and choices made in specific fields or sectors as determined by dominant plans, goals and actions which regulate important issues of public concern (Parsons 1997: 16). Public policy analysis describes these contents and explains them in relation to the prevailing institutional setting, the polity, and as influenced through political processes, the politics (Schubert 1991: 27). In a state of law public policies are based on constitutionally founded competencies of the state, and are determined through laws, decrees, governmental regulations and rules, and decisions of public authorities.

Several of the available studies on public policies and cross sector linkages that are of importance to sustainable forestry and forest protection have been elaborated by or on behalf of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, FAO. Others have been prepared for the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, and the World Bank. The studies share a common approach since they rely on similar references and professional experience. They usually list different public policies as relevant to the forest sector and stress the fact that their importance has to be identified in the context of a particular country and at a given time. They provide suggestions on how to differentiate such listings according to regions and determined forest policy goals.

Papers that emphasised the importance of external policies and sector linkages to forest law and to the implementation of national forest policy objectives date from the early 1990ies (Schmithüsen and de Montalembert 1991, de Montalembert and Schmithüsen 1993, 1994). A comprehensive identification of relevant policy domains has subsequently been elaborated (de Montalembert 1994, 1995). The following public policy areas are enumerated as having possible impacts on forest development: macro-economic policies (fiscal, monetary, privatisation and public expenditure); population and social affairs; agriculture and livestock; land use and tenure; infrastructure; fisheries; trade; industry; energy; environment; and tourism. The author provides a matrix which indicates for each sector typical policy instruments, the cross-sector linkages which arise from the instruments, and the likely socio-economic, environmental and political impacts which have an influence on the sustainability of forestry development.

The study on the policy context for forestry and forest industry development in Europe provides considerable material on policy linkages related to the following four categories of forest policy objectives: (i) forest resources, forestry and wood supply; (ii) wood-processing industries; (iii) international trade in forest products; and (iv) markets and demands for forest products (Peck and Descargues 1997). The authors review the general context, the aims, and the likely trends of external public policies which they consider as influential in their study. Emphasis is put on policies that influence access to intermediate and end-use markets for wood and processed forest products. The prospects for access to raw-material supply, and possible impacts on the relationship between major competitors and alternative materials and products are examined. The findings are resumed in a summary matrix for each policy area indicating policy instruments with important links to the objectives of forestry development and industrial wood processing. The potential impacts on the forest sector, and in particular on future demand and supply of wood, are analysed. The scale of impacts on demand and supply is assessed in case that the identified external policies would change substantially from their present direction. The timeframe in which such changes could show noticeable effects on the forest and wood processing sector is estimated.

Causal relations between non-forest-sector policies and tropical deforestation processes have been analysed (Kaimowitz and Angelsen 1999). The authors present a dense synthesis of major cross-sector linkages among different policy areas. The paper is interesting in as much as it gives clear recommendations for policy makers in international organisations and at national level on how to take linkages into account. As their focus is on policies and linkages that are already well documented they have not developed a special matrix.

The range of laws and public policies of importance to the forest sector has been identified and structured based on the distinction between policies and impacts mainly related to forestry and wood processing development, and policies and impacts that have an influence mainly on sustainable forest resources utilisation (Schmithüsen 1998, 2000). Together these external public policies in their country specific combinations have substantial positive and negative linkages to and effects on the development and implementation of forest policy programmes. There is the more general framework of public policies related to economic growth, employment and social affairs; research, technology and education; energy, infrastructure and communication which sets the conditions for the development of the forestry and wood processing sector (Figure 1).

There is also an increasingly complex network of legislation and policy programmes which most countries have created during the past 30 years and which affects directly and indirectly forest conservation and sustainable forest management. This refers, for instance, to environmental protection, nature and landscape conservation, land-use planning, and urban and rural development. There are also relevant sector policies and their supporting body of legislation which were adopted at an earlier stage but have been modified and amended considerable in the meantime. This includes regulations and policy objectives related to agricultural development; water protection and uses; fishery, hunting and wildlife conservation; and national parks. (Figure 2)

Figure 1. Public Policies with Impacts on Forestry and Wood Processing

Source: Schmithüsen 2000; IUFRO World Series Volume 10: 12

The studies which have been reviewed highlight variations of the importance of relevant cross-sector linkages as a function of the prevailing ecosystems and of the economic and social context that determines opportunities and limitations of alternative land-use opportunities. Forestry related policies and cross-sector linkages have, for instance, been put in relation to broad ecological regions and prevailing socio-economic conditions (de Montalembert 1994: 9-10). He distinguishes four ecological zones and considers additional socio-economic criteria. With regard to forest areas in the lowland humid tropics the differences between countries with high population densities and those with low population densities appeared of particular importance. The author summarises case studies for various countries in the tropics in order to show typical cross-sector linkages and their range of variation (de Montalambert 1995: 26-28). In the following we resume de Montalembert’s regional classification and comment on the impacts which result from policy linkages.

Figure 2. Public Policies with Impacts on Sustainable Forest Utilisation

Source: Schmithüsen 2000; IUFRO World Series Volume 10: 13

Temperate and boreal forest in industrialised countries with market economies: In these countries the forest area is at present fairly stable and protected by effective forest regulations. In fact, there are regional trends of an increase in forest vegetation due to natural succession and/or afforestation in areas with abandoned or marginal agricultural lands. Important policy objectives are the protection of trees and forests in urban areas, the maintaining of biodiversity in areas with intensive forest production, and the promotion of multifunctional uses generating income and improvement of living conditions in rural areas. Cross-sector linkages arise from policies addressing urban and rural development; infrastructure and energy consumption; as well as environmental protection, and nature and landscape conservation. Traffic, energy, infrastructure, rural development and agricultural policies may have important effects on the local distribution of forests. Environmental, nature conservation and landscape protection policies are likely to influence policy objectives concerning economic and sustainable wood production and the ecological variability of forests. Positive effects result from linkages between land use, environmental and forest policies. More difficult is the co-ordination between forest policy aims and the objectives of traffic, energy and infrastructure policies. Co-ordination problems are common between nature and landscape protection, game management, and intensive forest production.

Temperate and boreal forests in countries in transition to market economy: These countries face at present fundamental changes both in the general national policy framework as well as within the forestry and forest industry sector. Supplying forest products to rapidly growing demand of national markets, and earning foreign exchange through exporting timber and processed products are important factors within the take off of the national economy. A whole range of policy changes are induced through the restitution of forest lands to their former private and communal owners; the privatisation of wood harvesting, transport and wood processing; the privatisation of the end-markets for wood and forest products; and the creation of new marketing circuits between producers and consumers. Important cross-sector linkages result from policies on macro-economic development, privatisation of the industrial sector, land tenure and restitution, as well as from a new role of the state and of public agencies and forest administrations. At the same time the importance of policy linkages to sustainable natural resources management, rural and urban development, and environmental protection and nature conservation has gained considerable weight. In this respect we have similar developments as in countries with an established market economy system.

Lowland forests in the humid tropics with high population densities: Countries in the lowland humid tropics with high population densities face large scale deforestation due to the pressure for new agricultural and pasture lands, and due to strong demands to generate income from timber exports and industrial wood processing. Cross-sector linkages result from public policies which induce such developments respectively from those which could have positive impacts on forest protection and sustainable forestry development. Major linkages are related to macro-economic, demography, infrastructure, and agricultural policies. Linkages to game management, nature protection and environmental policies exist and gain importance provided that effective national decisions to establish permanent production forests and protected areas have been taken. Positive co-ordination between macro-economic policies and forestry development objectives have so far been week, and efforts to create more consistent policy networks, such as for instance through Tropical Forest Action Plans, have shown only modest results. As major land use developments are influenced by policy actors outside forestry this experience demonstrates the need to deal with forests in a broader national policy context. Cross-sector linkages between forestry, game management, nature conservation and environmental protection should be co-ordinated in more specific national forestry, rural development and landscape protection programs.

Lowland forests in the humid tropics with low population densities: In countries situated in the lowland humid zone with low population densities considerable areas of tropical forests still exist which show a comparatively low degree of human interventions. However, the process to make these forests accessible through large scale industrial forestry projects, resettlement and land colonisation through national development plans has gained momentum. Frequently too little attention is given to the sustainable development of these forest and to their importance with regard to benefits from non-wood forest products for generating income in favour of the rural population.

Highland and mountain forests in tropical and temperate regions: Highland and mountain forests cover large areas with important protective functions. Strong linkages exist between environmental and forest policies in order to maintain trees and other wooden vegetation for soil and water protection. In densely settled mountain regions the forest area consists frequently of wood-lots on land not suited for agriculture and trees planted around houses. They are part of traditional land-use systems with combined production systems such as agroforestry or sylvipasture land management practices. Cross-sector linkages to agriculture, rural development, landscape and biodiversity conservation, protection of communication and infrastructure, and increasingly tourist development need particular attention.

Forest and tree vegetation on arid and semi-arid lands: In arid and semi-arid regions trees and forest vegetation play a particularly important role in defusing negative effects of droughts and in lowering the pressure on other land resources. Maintaining the protective as well as the productive functions of the vegetation is a pre-condition for sustainable use of theses landscapes and a general objective of rural development and environmental policies. Cross-sector linkages exist primarily with agricultural water resource policies. Strengthening agencies managing forest vegetation and co-ordination with public services in charge of agriculture, water development and soil protection are necessary conditions to create and implement positive policy linkages.

Table 1 compares content and scope of public policies that have been identified by the mentioned authors as having important linkages to forest policy development. Altogether, the range of the listings is rather similar. Linkages considered as relevant by most sources are, for instance, those which result from macro-economic policies; from policies on demography and social affairs; or from agriculture, land use and tenure, energy and infrastructure policies. Differences exist with regard to the degree according to which policy areas and programmes have been detailed. Some of the indicated categories overlap to a certain extent like "the role of the public sector" (Peck and Descargues), "privatisation" (de Montalembert) and "public finances" (Schmithüsen). Or "transportation" (Kaimowitz and Angelsen) could be left ajar to "infrastructure" (Montalambert, Schmithüsen). Among the few issues that are only mentioned by one single author are research and educational policies (Schmithüsen).

Table 2 illustrates different approaches in specifying cross-sector linkages to forestry: As an example the findings from the energy sector have been chosen. The comparison shows that the matrix of Peck and Descargues is fairly comprehensive but mainly with a focus on impacts that refer to wood supply and demand. The matrix of de Montalembert is a more general one. The same refers to the information given by Kaimowitz and Angelsen. A point which does not appear in the studies is that any matrix of this kind would need criteria for weighting the importance of linkages in order to provide comparable information.

Table 1 : Public Policies Influencing Forestry as Identified by Authors

Table 2: Approaches for Specifying Linkages - Example Energy Sector

A considerable number of studies review forest legislation and policy developments at national and sub-national levels and contain information on public policies and cross-sector linkages that influence forestry development. This is the case, for instance, for a series of forest policy papers on various countries that have been published for the African, Asian and Latin American region (FAO1993, FAO 1996, FAO 1998). More specifically with law developments in America, Asia, Africa and Europe deal the volumes of the FAO Law Development Service hat have been produced recently (FAO1998, FAO 1999, Cirelli 1999, Cirelli and Schmithüsen 2000). A considerable amount of country papers, mainly for Europe and North America but also for other continents that deal with forest and forestry related legislation and policy programmes have been prepared by members of the IUFRO Research Group on Forest Law and Environmental Legislation. The current bibliography demonstrates the broad geographical distribution and the growing range of research topics addressed (IUFRO Research Group 6.1300 Bibliography Online, Schmithüsen and Iselin 2000).

A second important source of information are publications and reports which focus more directly on specific external policies and assess their positive and negative impacts on forests and natural vegetation as well as on forest resources utilisation and management. This approach has been chosen usually by economists and policy analysts interested in linkages that result from macroeconomic programmes, and social and political developments. Research of this kind has come forward from authors associated with multilateral development institutions and deals mainly with forestry issues in the tropics and subtropics (Repetto and Gillis 1988, World Bank 1993, FAO 1994, Contreras 2000). Important research is in particular undertaken by CIFOR in co-operation with other national and international institutes and non-governmental organisations. It is regularly made available to interested policy makers and policy analysts (CIFOR Polex Listserve – D. Kaimowitz).

There is also a large number of unpublished working documents and governmental reports that have come forward in the context of multilateral and bilateral technical co-operation projects. Unfortunately this kind of documentation is usually not readily available.

Most of the earlier legislation and policy studies focused on changes and improvements of national forestry programmes as defined by forest laws and implementing decrees, governmental regulations and administrative rules. They lack in general a meaningful reference to the objectives and instruments determined by other public policies and do not analyse the impact on implementing the prevailing forest policy framework. More recent studies are more explicitly concerned with this subject and identify a considerable range of policies and legislative instruments that are material for forest conservation and forestry development. The IUFRO Research Group 6. 1300, for instance, has launched an increasing number of country studies that review the impact of legislation and public policies, mainly related to environmental, nature and landscape protection, and their relevance for implementing national forest policy programmes.

Studies concentrating on forestry in highly industrialised countries focus on the growing impact from policies dealing with environment, water resources, clean air, soil protection, land uses, wildlife management, nature conservation and biodiversity. Major research issues are to identify the effects which result from such policy programmes, to examine the consistency of the various legal requirements, and to investigate the process of change which takes place in modifying the rules and regulations governing forest uses and forestry practices.

Integrating forestry management and planning within the broader context of rural development, agriculture, landscape management and nature protection has become a major issue in the European countries and several examples have been documented (Cirelli and Schmithüsen 2000, Schmithüsen et al. 2000). The forest law of Portugal in its section 13, for example, sets up an inter-ministerial commission for preparing integrated management plans. Other countries like Belgium, Italy or Spain are regulating agricultural and grazing uses in forests. Land use policy is also an important factor with many cross-sector linkages with forestry. In the case of Switzerland, land use planning and the forest authorities have been arguing on the future value of land that is overgrown again with forest vegetation. Landowners tried to avoid that overgrown building land was redefined as forests, as this would have lowered the value of their property. The Swiss forest law of 1991 regulates this conflict by providing that forests can only be converted to building land if the forest administration allows clearing. Once land is declared as building land, clearing of forests does not require a permission through the forest administration. In Turkey the limits of the country’s permanent forest area have been determined with great efforts in order to stop large scale clearings. They did not bring a real settlement due to the adverse impacts from other policies and unsettled land use conflicts with major land user groups.

For countries in transition, the main cross-sector linkages in forestry result at present from privatisation and land tenure policies (Cirelli 1999). Countries in Central and Eastern Europe are particularly alert to adjust land tenure, wood processing and forest management practices to the rules of a market economy and to the standards set by the European Union (Glück et al. 1998, Csóka 1998). One of the driving forces that affects at present the forestry and wood processing sector is internationalisation with regard to competitive markets, international environmental standards, and sustainable management of forest resources. Policy linkages, and in particular those from environmental policy, are largely similar to those found in other industrialised countries (Schmithüsen et al. 1999, Schmithüsen et al. 2000).

The available documentation from North America confirms the considerable impact that results from environmental and nature protection policies on forest resources development (Schmithüsen and Siegel 1997, FAO 1998). Several papers review, for instance, the network of environmental regulations at the Federal level in the United States as well as the particular relevance of air, water and soil protection legislation; landscape and nature protection regulations; and laws that provide for a closer integration with renewable natural resources management at the national and local level (e.g. Cubbage and Siegel 1997, Siegel 1997, Hickmann 1997, Gaddis and Cubbage 1997, Hodges 1997, Le Master et al. 1997). Important issues, both in the USA and in Canada, are forest management practices on public and private lands and the impact which results from external policies addressing land ownership and land uses, public resources allocation and taxation, public land management versus privatisation, and local government (e.g. Wear and Steward 1997, Flick 1997, Luckert and Haley 1997, Wallace 1997, Hickman and Hickman 1997, Kaiser and Royer 1997, Siegel and Martus 1997).

Investigations on forest related public policies which deal with major issues and problems in the developing world have started already in the 1980ies to examine positive and negative influences that result from external policy programmes. This is particularly true with regard to causes of deforestation, a subject which has found considerable attention over the years. At present there is a clear trend towards country studies that analyse more explicitly relevant external linkages by using more comprehensive and sophisticated research methods. Linkages are seen as being complex, varying in accordance with a particular social and economic context, and depending on the prevailing political situation. Of particular importance are policies related to macroeconomics, agriculture, transportation, mining, land tenure and planning and environmental protection. Instead of a merely descriptive approach research methods rely on empirical case studies, literature reviews, analysis of laws and documents, and expert opinion panels.

A valuable source of information offers a series of country studies that have been elaborated and distributed by CIFOR and/or international research institutes and non-governmental organisations (CIFOR Polex Listserve). Recent studies deal, for instance, with the role of national parks in maintaining tropical biodiversity (Bruner et al. 2001), land use and watershed management (Aylward forthcoming), land tenure and resource governance (Mandondo 2000), reforestation, environmental aspects and public incentives (Jagger and Pender 2000), paper production and environment (Abramovitz and Mattoon 2000), the political economy of pulp and paper (Barr 2000), and the impact of technological change on agriculture plantations respectively forest loses (Wunder 2000). Another context where policy linkages have gained considerable attention is the work of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2001).

The emphasis in developing country research on examining external policies that affect the development of the forest cover and of forest land uses can probably best be shown by reviewing some investigations and publications addressing large scale deforestation processes as occur at present in the humid forests of the tropics (Amelung and Diehl 1992, Angelsen and Kaimowitz 1999, Rudel et al. 2000). Some of the major studies that have been undertaken in this field go clearly beyond the narrow scope of forest policy analysis and look explicitly for important cross-sector linkages. The newer the text, the more are linkages to other policies made explicit and self-evident (e.g. Contreras 2000). In fact one of the key assumptions in this research is that deforestation in the tropics is primarily determined by broad economic, population and land development policies. Changes of such trends can consequently only follow from changes of these policies, and mach less from implementing forest policy objectives in an isolated manner. An indication for this situation are the findings of one study which estimates that around 86 to 94 percent of deforestation in the tropics are due to an increase in agricultural land uses, 2 percent due to infrastructure and development projects and the remainder, though less than 10 percent, due to unsustainable timber production (Amelung and Diehl 1992: 118).

Already in one of the first scientific studies which had addressed systematically relevant influences of external policies similar arguments have been presented (Repetto and Gillis 1988). Their book on public policies on the misuse of forest resources presented a series of important country studies for Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, China, Brazil and West Africa. The book, already published in the late 1980ies, shaped a new understanding in the following political debate on the conservation of tropical forests and influenced strongly subsequent research work.

Repetto and Gillis showed that macroeconomic policies had a strong and often decisive influence on speeding up the process of deforestation in all of the countries studied. This happened for example through income tax incentives for logging and processing firms, through tax subsidies like generous depreciation provisions or subsidies for forest clearing, and through indirect subsidies in form of artificially cheap credits for large scale pasture development. These policies – sometimes together with the trade policies of industrialised countries – favoured exports of raw materials and large-scale clear-cutting of forests. Missing the opportunity of processing timber in their own country, the nations did not only loose a considerable part of their primary forest cover but also billions Dollars of revenues. Other sector policies found to exacerbate deforestation are related to agriculture, resettlement and new infrastructure. The findings showed that such policies had important negative external effects on forests and sustainable forestry, and failed to incorporate the real social and environmental costs from deforestation.

Other studies with similar findings followed. A FAO/World Bank agricultural review demonstrated that migratory pressure on the tropical moist forests in Ecuador was due to poor land utilisation in other regions of the country (FAO and World Bank 1993). In Argentina, forests were converted to agricultural land due to poor macroeconomic policy that reduced job alternatives and increased the demand for subsistence agriculture and additional grazing land (World Bank 1993). Inefficient industrial and fiscal policies in the Philippines were incentives for exporting logs in raw form rather than to convert them into processed forest products. Forestry missed the opportunity to earn additional income from added value to forest products and deforestation rose (FAO 1994). Irrigation and power generation policies in Sri Lanka aimed at reducing poverty and unemployment but diminished in fact considerably income opportunities from the forest sector (Abeywickrema 1987).

A more recent study examines the reasons for the low deforestation rate and the regeneration of the forest cover in Gabon (Wunder 2000). The findings were that cross-sector linkages supported in a positive manner sustainable use of forest resources. As since the 1970ies, Gabon’s economy strongly benefited from oil exports, the author inquired on the direct and indirect effects of the oil wealth on forestry. The direct effects seemed to be rather small, as the construction of infrastructure for the petrol industry did not lead to a significant loss of the forest cover. On the other hand, the oil companies created jobs in industry and services, and generated investments in urban infrastructure. Due to decreasing revenues from export crops, low competitiveness of import-competing products, and high transport costs a large proportion of the younger rural population migrated into larger settlements and cities. Farming activities were reduced, the state’s effort to support large-scale agroindustry development failed to a considerable extent, and transport infrastructure concentrated on the newly built railway. Pressures on the forest cover decreased and deforestation slowed down. In summing up these findings one has, however, to keep in mind the comparatively low population pressure that exists in the country.

In examining the reasons for deforestation and degradation processes in developing countries, recent publications refer self-evidently and explicitly to external policy interventions. In an analysis for Central America, agricultural, land tenure, infrastructure and road construction policies have been identified as the most important sector policies interfering with sustainable forestry and forest protection (Kaimowitz 1996, World Bank 1991: 33). In a recent study on the causes of forest decline the author states that there is usually a complex combination of market failures, policy and institutional failures, social disparities and cultural factors at work (Contreras 2000: 20). He identifies government policies that in many cases influence the quantity and quality of forests. Transportation policies, in particular road construction, but also the construction of railways and water transport facilities do not account with the substantial impacts on forests through increased accessibility and changes in settlement patterns. Policies to gain additional agricultural and pasture land usually do not incorporate the costs of wood and non-wood products that cannot be harvested anymore due to the reduction in forest area. Policies that lead to greater land tenure inequality, land speculation and insecurity of land tenure make the poor poorer and force them to gain land through deforestation. For structural adjustment programmes and macro-economic policies, similar effects may be found. Another reason for forest clearings are concession tenures that offer incentives to a mere exploitation of timber without taking the costs for regeneration of the resources potential as well as social and ecological costs into account.

The studies which have been presented provide largely a qualitative analysis of public policies that induce a reduction of the forest cover within a country. They do not aim at quantifying the impact of external factors on deforestation and forest degradation. An exception is the already mentioned assessment of the combined effects of different economic activities on deforestation which has been conducted in the 1980ies for 40 tropical countries. The figures of the following table illustrate that by far the most important direct cause for deforestation was the conversion of forests to agriculture and pasture. Other important factors were the expansion of the forestry sector, mining, the establishment of dams and hydro installations, and road construction (Amelung and Diehl 1992). However, as the authors point out, the figures provided are only of an indicative nature and reliable to a limited extent. Most official data sources are weak, often restricted to moist evergreen forests and do not include degradation effects. Estimation procedures for the causes of deforestation rely on the extrapolation from a few major parameters only. The indirect and underlying causes are not looked at and many complex relationships and impacts remain hidden.

Table 3: Sources of Deforestation in Tropical Countries, 1981-1990 (percent), (Amelung and Diehl 1992: 118)

The term "segmentation" is used to describe a situation where political steering concentrates on specific sectors and where decisions over the boundaries of different government departments are missing or rarely taken (Nohlen et al. 1998: 576). However, most problems in the real world relate to many different issues and don’t respect the borders of a legally defined policy field or the competencies of governmental departments. Sector policies need co-ordination with regard to their objectives, instruments, and potential impacts. Government departments in charge of defined policy areas cannot function well if they act independently from each other. Decisions and impacts from one policy area are a dynamic element which may affect directly or indirectly several other sectors (Sabatier 1988: 23). Policy analysis provides insight into which policies are interconnected and which consequences follow from the linkages for political steering processes.

Some public policies have a high degree of interconnection and show strong linkages. Others are less influenced by external policies or have less impact on other policy issues. A useful classification can be made according to the criteria of public intervention. Public policies may, for instance, be classified in the following three categories according to the kind of tasks which the state respectively government intend to fulfil (von Prittwitz et al. 1994): the establishment of an institutional framework and of public security as for example through defense, foreign, constitutional or data protection policies; the establishment of a framework for socio-economic production and cultural integration as for instance through economic, finance, infrastructure, migration or culture policies; and the promotion of development and security of subsistence as through technology, environmental or educational policies.

The first and the third category have strong and varying linkages with a numerous other policy areas. Policies that establish a constitutional political framework and an institutional basis for public security are linked to most other policy areas as they provide the foundation for state interventions in general through guaranteeing the rule of law. Policies promoting development and security of subsistence depend to a large extent on a co-operation with social and economic policies. With regard to the second category one could imagine, at least at a first glance, that there are less important linkages to other political programmes. However, it is obvious that economic and finance policies, for instance, influence many other policy areas, and that their functioning depends on the other hand to a large extent on technological or environmental factors.

Figure 3 illustrates the dependencies between the three categories. Policies guaranteeing the rule of law are the basis for policy development in other areas. Policies for promoting development depend closely on policies for socio-economic integration. The figure does not indicate all possible combinations, and in particular the many linkages that exist between policies of the same category.

The fact that public policies overlap and have a great number of linkages among each other has far-reaching consequences for the way in which states and governments are able to steer political decision and implementation processes that allow to solve societal problems. Many issues can in fact not be tackled by one single law, policy programme or administrative unit alone. Effective solutions have to be found through different agencies and actors as well as through co-ordinated provisions in different policy areas. The metaphor most often used for such complex situations where many actors work together without being submitted to a clearly determined hierarchy is "networks". Other terms relevant in this context are "co-ordination between different governmental agencies" and "inter-administrative co-ordination".

Networks refer to the structure of the relations between actors and stakeholders that are concerned by and/or have influence on a determined public policy domain. This includes, for instance, governmental agencies, private firms, private and public associations, non-governmental organisations, or key persons and personal leadership. It is the relationship between the various actors involved that is of particular interest. With the words of Hanf and Scharpf (1978: 12) "the term "network" merely denotes (...) that policy making includes a large number of public and private actors from different levels and functional areas of government and society". Typically political and policy networks in a democratic societies show pluralist and neo-corporate structures. Pluralist structures mean that many interest groups compete for influence in public decision making. Neo-corporate structures refer to a situation with few influential interest groups which negotiate compromises with public authorities and administrative agencies.

Figure 3: Relationships Between Different Categories of Public Policies

Source: Categories aftervon Prittwitz et al. 1994: 54

In policy analysis, it is widely discussed how networks can be managed and what networks mean for the steering capacity of the state. The role of states and governments is not only to be seen in direct interventions in society, but increasingly as a mediator between different societal actors (Mayntz 1992). Network management thus refers to any purposeful attempt to guide political interventions and to co-ordinate decision-making processes among a large number of private and public actors with often controversial interests in different policy areas and at various levels of government. Managing policy networks is a difficult and complex task which often requires mediation and alternative conflict resolution techniques.

With regard to inter-administrative co-ordination the example of the restructuring process of the Swiss Federal Agency of Environment, Forestry and Landscape during the 1990ies offers some interesting experiences (Knoepfel 1995, Knoepfel et al. 1991). The advisors developed various options on how to integrate more closely environmental and economic resource policies.

One option currently used is to leave things more or less as they are and to provide a loose co-operation of agencies with a co-ordinating section between them. The sector responsibilities remain with each competent government unit but administrative procedures and regular meetings are institutionalised to inform, negotiate and decide on cross-sector issues. Preferably, an independent unit is charged to organise, moderate and mediate the meetings. Another way to bridge the gaps between different administrations is to implant cells in other relevant departments. A forestry cell, for instance, in a land use office will be in a position to explain and advocate the rational of and the requirements for sustainable forestry development within other governmental agencies. In a longer perspective this may lead to the gradual release of competencies and a transfer of responsibilities to other agencies. If the newly implanted forestry cell will become accepted and important in the new administrative environment, it might no longer be necessary to maintain a specialised forest policy section. One can also imagine that the de-specialisation is handled in a less downright manner, for example through filling vacancies in the administration with staff from other professional backgrounds. This is a rather informal but sometimes effective way to increase the knowledge and understanding for the potential and requirements of sector policies. However, there may be reasons to choose an alternative option and to strengthen the resources and competencies within the responsible sector agency. Boundaries between different sectors may be high because the power is unequally distributed and some offices can strongly interfere with other units.

Whatever the solutions are one has to be aware of the limits of inter-administrative co-ordination, especially if important and largely controversial interests have shaped the content of different public policies. A similar situation exists for managing policy networks if the external policies and cross-sector linkages have largely impeding or contradictory effects on the implementation of forest policy objectives. Co-ordination will always be an additional part to the existing hierarchical structures and cannot replace the formal distribution of competencies and resources among governmental agencies. Co-ordination usually functions well if it generates additional benefits for at least one of the involved partners. It is effective and smoothly operating if the majority of the partners, be it within the administrations or in combination with external interest groups, can rely on complementary policy objectives and linkages with positive effects. It has limited potential and becomes easily inoperable if competencies and resources are unequally distributed or if the redistribution of responsibilities and resources is at stake. In such a situation political and/or hierarchical decisions within government and public administrations are usually required. Decisions from outside will be more effective and enable the actors involved to develop a more rational and efficient way to co-ordinate various policy goals and policy instruments (Scharpf 1993 20-22, 76, 89-91).

In order to seize potentials and boundaries of co-ordination, it is helpful to use Scharpf ‘s distinction between positive and negative co-ordination. In positive co-ordination actors try to optimise the utility of all activities to be envisaged. They evaluate the options and likely commitments of all actors and parties involved and choose what they consider the optimal solution to them. A prerequisite for positive co-ordination is that the participating actors share a clear understanding of the advantages and disadvantages which may accrue to each party. Actors that are bound to have to accept disadvantages should be compensated in order to keep them as partners in a longer term co-operation. Multilateral co-ordination needs to be institutionalised and has to provide a guarantee that the focus is on issues of common interest that are to be negotiated. To maintain and develop the already existing co-ordination and co-operation patterns is of considerable interest since the creation of new policy networks is usually quite costly. Negative co-ordination on the other hand implies the reduction of the degree of inferences from one agencies with the competencies of other units. A comparatively frequent case is negative co-ordination on a bilateral level with only two agencies or actors. It requires the precision of the responsibilities and the terms of activities of the interfering actor by limiting his sphere of intervention to his constitutional and/or administrative mandate. Negative co-ordination is unlikely to promote new solutions but helps to clarify the competencies of government and administration as consistent with the objectives and instruments of the prevailing public policies.

Linkages and combinations of linkages which result from external policies and policy networks may be characterised by several typological elements. The following six elements are proposed in order to provide for a significant and comprehensive description and/or classification: the regional or local context; the types of policy domains or policy areas addressed; the levels of decision making; the type of instruments used; the direction in which the linkages operate; and valence or impact of the prevailing linkages. Table 4 summarises the proposed typological elements of cross-sector linkages that result from public policies related to forests and forestry. The indicated elements can serve as a checklist in order to examine the characteristics of linkages that emanate from a given external policy domain respectively the effects from a forest policy programme on other fields. The list facilitates comparative analysis in various domains and/or of policy networks operating under different social, economic and political conditions, and in different ecosystems.

The previously described socio-economic criteria and broad ecosystem zones used by de Montalembert provide a good basis for defining the regional or local context. The six regional patterns allow a first assessment of the relevance of typical policy linkages and the dimension of their impacts. There are obviously considerable differences in the way certain external policies operate if one considers the conditions of temperate and boreal forest as compared to those of tropical lowland forests; the conditions of densely populated countries as compared to countries with a low population density; the conditions of the large mountain forest areas in the Alps, the Andes or the Himalayan area as compared to those of the dry forests in the semi-arid zone. What is true on a broad regional view is also of relevance on a more reduced scale. Differences in ecosystems, population density, income opportunities or with regard to local government may provide quite a different context for the implementation of public policies within countries. A typical example for different kinds of linkages are those that result from agricultural and rural development policies in highly productive agricultural areas as compared to those with marginal agricultural lands. If in the first case there may result considerable pressure on the forest area, there may be a rapid increase in forests in the latter case.

The type of public policy domain is another important criteria for qualifying the linkages with and the impacts on forest policy programmes. Following the classification of von Prittwitz the domains or policy areas identified by different authors as of importance can be, for instance, aggregated in the following manner:

Public policies establishing a general institutional framework provide the basis for more problem and issue oriented domains. They define the constitutional rules of state organisation and of the public and private sector; the degree of intervention of government and the public administration; the procedural pattern for political processes involving people and interest groups; and the rules for a settlement of societal conflicts. They include macro-economic policies; policies of privatisation or more generally speaking defining the role of the state; and land tenure, rural and urban development, and social policies.

Public policies that can be related to a determined economic sector or specific uses of land and natural resources. Quite often the objectives of such policies may be contradictory and the cross-sector linkages need to be balanced in a broader context of sustainable development. Forest policy linkages can be placed in this category as well as those from agriculture, mining, energy, transport, construction or tourism policies.

Public policies promoting development and precaution for subsistence refer, for instance, to environmental, nature protection, technology and educational issues. These policies concern future development options of society and overlap quite often the more specific domains such as sector and land use policies.

Policy programmes and linkages to forestry originate from legislation and political decisions that are made on different levels of government and the international community. Linkages to forest policy are increasingly the result of multilevel policy networks (Schmithüsen 2000: 19). It is necessary to distinguish and analyse the levels of decision making from which the linkages result: the international and regional level; the national and sub-national level; and the level of local government and communities. This analysis is of particular importance in view of the growing trend to transfer or delegate national decision and implementation processes in forest resources management to the competencies of sub-national and local governments and institutions. On the other hand there is a growing impact which emanates from international legal instruments and conventions on national decision making. The principle of subsidarity which plays an increasing role at national level in many countries as well as the principle of international commitment and responsibility which has gained weight as a result of the Rio Process generate, in fact, new and more complex policy networks and cross-sector linkages.

The effects of cross sector linkages are determined to a large extent by the type of instruments that are provided for in each policy domain. Regulatory, incentive and informational instruments as well as state offer and persuasion lead to different kinds of linkages. Of particular relevance are instruments which produce overlapping regulations respectively those which facilitate the management of policy networks such as internal and external hearings, public mediation processes, and cross sector financial arrangements. In addition to directly operating policy instruments which address actors outside of the administration it is important to analyse procedural and organisational instruments which operate in an indirect manner (Zimmermann 1994: 242).

The direction in which policy linkages operate within a given policy network can be unilateral, reciprocal or neutral. Most of the available studies focus so far on the influences of external policies on forests and forestry. How forest policy objectives and instruments influence other policy domains has until present rarely been examined. A noteworthy exception is a recent doctoral thesis on Bhutan’s biodiversity policy which shows that major policy inputs and achievements result from a series of developments and amendments of forest policy in this country (Tsering 2000). A meaningful examination of policy linkages related to forestry demands a broader perspective based on a holistic and inter-sector approach which analyses impacts and linkages in both directions as well as reciprocal effects that may result.

The last criteria which has been selected as an important typological element to examine forestry related cross-sector linkages is their valence or impact. Policy linkages may produce positive, negative or neutral effects and impacts, and again the may operate in different directions. One kind of interference is the one in which the valence of the linkages produces positive effects for one policy domain and negative ones for other. Policy changes and co-operative arrangements are in such circumstances quite difficult to be obtained. Linkages which show positive effects for both policy domains usually provide opportunities for co-operation and alliances. A comparable situation exists if linkages result in negative effects on both sides. A positive valence on one side combined with a neutral effect on the other will not necessarily lead to action. Negative effects from policy linkages in one domain combined with neutral effects in the other offer good prospects for immediate changes.

There are of course many possible combinations; two typical examples are briefly mentioned. In countries with lowland forests and high population densities in the tropics negative linkages in both directions usually exist between agricultural and forest policy domains. Agriculture policy fails to promote sufficiently enough sustainable production and an increase of outputs with the result that farmers seek new lands in forested areas. Forest policy on the other hand is barely in a position to provide additional income for the rural population and to protect effectively production and protection forests. In industrialised countries there is now a strong movement towards increased nature protection measures in forests. Nature protection policy is promoted at the international level and works mainly with financial incentives, informational instruments and persuasion.

Table 4: Typological Elements for Specifying Linkages

The knowledge that forest conservation and development are influenced by many external factors and that there are strong influences from a range of public policies is not new in itself. However there is a growing awareness among policy makers, the public, forestry specialists and researchers that cross sector linkages need more attention and that one has to know more precisely how external policies impede or foster national and international objectives of sustainable forest production and the preservation of reserves and protected areas. Until present negative effects from policy linkages have found more attention and are better documented than positive ones.

Substantial contributions in the discussion on relevant forest related policies and cross-sector linkages have been made by the work of FAO, CIFOR, the World Bank, international research institutes, and environmental NGO. The follow-up processes to the UNCED in 1992, and in particular the work of IPF, IFF and now the UNFF, have risen the attention on the subject of the international community and the media.

Numerous country studies are already available that provide material on legislation and public policies that are of importance to forest conservation and forestry development. However, research studies based on policy analysis that examine in detail the nature of cross-sector linkages are still scarce even if more investigations have been undertaken during recent years.

The available policy analysis focuses on few issues: deforestation processes in the tropics and subtropics, and increased nature protection in forest areas of industrialised countries. Usually negative effects from external policies have found the attention of the researchers. The examples cited cover a range of countries in Latin America, Central Africa, and in South and Southeast Asia. They refer to interference from public domains such as fiscal, trade, transportation, land tenure, agriculture and water irrigation policies.

Together with studies that focus on cross-sector linkages between different bodies of legislation the available material provides a good basis in order to assess which public policy domains are the most likely to have cross-sector linkages to forestry. In addition to the domains mentioned above land use, industry, mining, energy, environmental and nature protection policies are of importance.

The nature and importance of cross-sector linkages depends on the regional and socio-economic context. It is not the same in a developing country with tropical forests, in countries in the arid or semi-arid zone, or in countries with temperate and boreal forests. It is important to differentiate in policy analysis according to meaningful typological elements that characterise cross sector linkages.

There is an increasing understanding among policy makers and forest specialists that forest policy objectives and instruments are in many cases not sufficient to reach sustainable management of forest resources. Complementary measures which concern other public policies are necessary

On the other hand, there are several considerations that are not sufficiently elaborated and discussed in the reviewed information. Further reflection and research is necessary:

Only few empirical studies focus explicitly on cross-sector linkages and are based on original field work. Existing studies are limited to a few single countries or a particular region. The majority relies on secondary analysis of case studies and a few expert interviews only. A study concentrating on linkages and comparing systematically findings from countries of different regions is still missing and a challenge to researchers.

In policy analysis and forest research it has been common to investigate rather the negative interference from external policies. Positive impacts of public policies have so far rarely been examined. The same holds true for the impacts of forest policies on other public policies.

Most of the available information is limited to a narrow focus on one single sector and the particular needs and problems attached to it. Changing the perspective and taking a broader view on positive as well as negative impacts as related to sustainable land uses, economic and social development, and environmental protection based on an analysis of the existing policy network as a whole is the real challenge of future research.

As a consequence, the perception of cross-sector linkages would change from seeing forest policy at the core and other domains as interfering factors. One would have to understand and interpret the institutional framework, the role of the forest administrations, and contribution and potential of the forest sector as one out of many knots in a wider system of many actors and alternative options to reach sustainable management of renewable natural resources.