Since 1990, defining and advocating sustainable forest management has been the centre of an extensive scientific, political, social and economic debate. In communities around the world, people are now discussing concepts such as sustainability, ecosystems and social and environmental benefits. Thus, the currently increased awareness of the fragile nature of our forest ecosystems is both appropriate and timely.
Commensurate with the current interest in forest issues at local, national and international levels, the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development has embraced sustainable forest management as: "management to meet the social, economic, ecological, cultural and spiritual needs of present and future generations". Throughout the 1990's, governments have discussed programmes and plans to achieve sustainable forest management. The interest in forests, their conservation and their utilisation has produced a large literature, ranging from highly technical modelling of forest ecosystems to editorial opinions on what should be done next.
It is against this background that, in 1998, FAO and the World Bank agreed that FAO should prepare a concise summary of the state of knowledge and experience concerning sustainable forest management, as an input to the World Bank's Forest Policy Implementation Review and Strategy. The summary has three broad objectives:
· to identify key reasons why the achievement of sustainable forest management remains such an elusive goal;
· to describe what can be done to move in the right direction; and,
· to examine the role for international assistance and development finance in supporting the efforts of countries to promote sustainable forest management.
To undertake this effort, FAO commissioned a series of studies that involved many professionals. Specific studies, which served as major inputs to the findings reported in this document, include:
· descriptions of various efforts to improve forest management across a broad range of forest types and locations, with management objectives ranging from purely timber production towards broader multipurpose forest management (Dupuy et al, 1999; Hagner, 1999);
· examinations of the manner in which evolving forest products markets, trade and emerging technologies are shaping the options for various types of forest management; (Whiteman et al, 1999; Brown, 1999; and Whiteman, in prep); and
· an assessment of the technical, economic and institutional feasibility of sustainable forest management and the conditions under which Governments, FAO, the World Bank and other international agencies can effectively support its implementation (Contreras, 1999).
FAO also hosted an expert consultation to discuss many of these issues (Technical consultation on management of the forest estate: issues and opportunities for international action by the World Bank and FAO, 28 - 29 April 1999, Rome, Italy).
This document provides a synthesis of the most important findings drawn from these studies, from the expert consultation and from the knowledge base and experience of the FAO Forestry Department. It presents a synthesis of views on several aspects of sustainable forest management and, perhaps most importantly, it raises several important questions about the future for sustainable forest management.
The document is structured as follows. The first section provides a thumbnail sketch that describes the important findings of the various studies and presents opportunities for action in a condensed form. The following six sections then elaborate on each of the main issues examined as part of the study
Section two examines what is meant by sustainable forest management and describes how this varies among different societies and how it has varied over time. Section three describes a range of regional experiences in implementing improved forest management practices under a variety of ecological, institutional and economic conditions. The fourth section summarises the outlook for forest resources and forest product markets, trade and technology and examines how these forces are shaping the options available to forest managers. The fifth section examines the ways in which markets, policies and institutions are currently failing to support the implementation of sustainable forest management. It should be noted that the paper focuses primarily on the management of forests that are used for wood production. The question of what, if anything should be done in the vast area of forests that are not used for wood production, is only partially addressed in this paper.
The last two sections identify some responses to these problems and options for FAO, the World Bank and others to consider as they develop strategies to encourage improved management of the global forest estate.
The document advocates careful reconsideration at both the technical and political level of why we are talking about sustainable forest management and what we are likely to achieve in that debate. Several timely questions are addressed: is improved forest management hindered by a lack of knowledge about silviculture and ecosystem management or by other uncertainties; is the pursuit of a consensus definition of sustainable forest management worth the energy currently being invested in this task; and do we already know enough to begin earnestly improving forest management on the ground?
A great deal of the intergovernmental dialogue has focused on the financial, institutional and economic steps that must be taken to achieve sustainable forest management. This document focuses on some practical first steps. Can we identify obvious impediments to the improvement of forest management? If we can identify the impediments, is there anything we can do about them? What are some of the options available to countries? If consensus on sustainable forest management remains elusive should we embrace, instead, a systematic approach to improving forest practices, as a process of continually improving forest management? Is this perhaps a practical alternative to waiting until global consensus is reached on the meaning and measurement of sustainable forest management?
FAO would like to express its gratitude to all the contributors to this paper and to thank everyone that has provided comments on earlier drafts of this work. FAO will continue to explore, with member countries, the ways in which sustainable forest management can be implemented with greater success and to assist with implementation through its technical and normative work programmes. In this respect, we would welcome comments on all aspects of this study from readers.
In summary, I urge you to read this synthesis. It challenges some of our current thinking. Together, let's stretch our imagination to think again about how we can improve forest management around the world to better the lives of this and future generations.
Lennart Ljungman
Director
Forestry Policy and Planning Division
Forest resources
Forest resources continue to diminish, while being called upon to produce a greater range of goods and services. There are many causes of deforestation and forest degradation and they vary by forest type, location and social and economic circumstances. The expected decline in forest resources is not likely to have a significant impact on the total volume of global wood supplies, but may result in scarcity in some locations and for certain grades of roundwood (particularly the higher grades found in the natural forest).
Forest management for wood production is changing. Low intensity systems are becoming more common in the natural forest in the pursuit of sustainability. In contrast, the importance of forest plantations for wood production (one particularly intensive system) is increasing.
Forest product markets
Markets determine the range of economically viable options for forest management. There is little scope, now or in the near future, for sustained real price increases in processed forest products. This is because of strong competition from substitute materials and the development of new wood processing technologies that can use recovered paper and small diameter wood.
Much of the world's natural forest is uneconomic as a source of commercial wood supply. This is likely to remain true for the foreseeable future. Increasingly, the forest processing industry relies on forest plantations and non-wood sources for raw materials. How far the balance of production shifts from natural forests to other supply sources will depend upon the area of forest that is brought under sustainable management and the effect that this will have on delivered wood costs. It is likely that additional costs associated with sustainable forest management in the natural forest will lead some wood producers to switch to alternative supply sources.
Pricing policies related to the sale of wood raw material are important determinants for sustainable forest management. In many countries, the prices charged for standing roundwood are set administratively rather than by the market. These prices are often set too low for a number of reasons. Artificially low prices encourage over-harvesting, discourage efficiency, prevent financial sustainability and generally make it difficult for countries to implement sustainable forest management.
Markets do not exist for the many social and environmental services that forests provide. Without regulation or monetary incentives, private sector operators and forest landowners are unlikely to take into account the non-market benefits of forests in their management decisions. Governments also often fail to account for these benefits when setting their priorities.
Policies and institutions
Forestry must make a better case to justify increased financial allocations. Faced with tremendous problems such as poverty, food insecurity and low incomes, forestry is often given a very low priority. This is also true in many countries where forests have significant non-market benefits and is even true in countries where the forestry sector could potentially be important to the economy. Thus, proposals to implement sustainable forest management must be accompanied by well-articulated and clearly demonstrated real benefits to the nation.
Institutions are currently weak. To guarantee that environmental regulations are followed and that the benefits of forest management are shared requires increased transparency and accountability in the governance of the forestry sector. Calls for sustainable forest management will simply go unheeded if the legal, policy and administrative environment do not effectively control undesirable practices.
Knowledge and information
Technical knowledge is not generally a constraint to the implementation of sustainable forest management. The science of sustainable yield management (management for a sustained flow of wood from the forest) is well developed and tested in many regions. On the other hand, in natural tropical forests there is still some uncertainty about the sustainability of current forest management practices since these techniques have not been tested over several growing cycles.
Knowledge about how to improve forest management is also widely available. Implementation of better forest management lags because of uncertainty and disagreement about objectives and the scale and time period, which should be used to measure performance. In some countries, access to available technical knowledge is a constraint. Some nations lack even the most basic databases on which to base their forest management policies and regulations.
The economics of sustainable forest management
Sustainable forest management can be profitable, but unsustainable forestry practices are often more financially attractive in the short-term. Many of the world's forests are already harvested according to principles of sustained yield, including privately owned forests in countries with few regulations. However, over-harvesting for short-term gain is also common, particularly where forest resources are abundant and development pressures are high.
However, sustainable forest management in its broadest sense means more than just simply cutting forests at a level of sustainable yield. It involves reducing the negative environmental impact of forest operations and a fully participative management process ensuring that stakeholders receive continued social and economic benefits from the forests. This can include indigenous groups living in the forest, local communities living downstream from a forested catchment or future generations. The fulfilment of these additional demands on forest management will inevitably raise costs and lower the profitability of forest operations. The end result is likely to be more concentration and intensification of forest management. Therefore, an increasing share of forest will be un-economic for wood production. This will preserve some forests but it will also lead to increased conversion of some forests to other uses (deforestation).
Implications for action
Unsustainable forest practices have a visible corollary in redundant and inefficient processing capacity. In a number of countries, improving forest management is burdened by an industry that employs vintage technologies that are resource wasting and polluting. These industries survive primarily on the availability of abundant cheap large logs. Radical restructuring of the sector and introduction of resource protecting and resource conserving technologies are needed to address this issue. For example, replacing vintage manufacturing technologies with modern equipment would reduce waste and increase the product output per log harvested from the forest. Another example would be to support adoption of technologies that extend the performance and life of wood products. These actions would be likely to temper total roundwood demand and would be encouraged by higher charges for harvesting standing roundwood.
Over-harvesting is accelerated when ownership of forest resources is unclear. Owners and managers are more likely to invest in forest management when ownership of the land and forest resource is clear and secure. Uncertainty about tenure and future access to the resource encourages over-harvesting in the short-term and discourages investment. Without control of the land or secured future use of the trees, forest resources are often rapidly liquidated to secure income that can be invested elsewhere. This partly occurs because the returns to reinvestment in the forestry sector are subject to shifting political and social uncertainties.
Increased costs can not be passed on to consumers. Due to market forces, it is unlikely that producers will be able to pass any costs of improved forest management onto consumers. Significant markets and price premiums for wood products from forests "certified" as sustainably managed are not likely to exist or persist. However, as noted above, there is already considerable "slack" in many forest charging systems that could cover some of these costs.
The price outlook limits the scope for long rotation forestry. The combination of flat real price projections and new wood processing technologies also has an important implication for sustainable forest management strategies that are based on extending the growing cycle. Generally, these strategies anticipate a market premium for the production of large high quality logs to cover the costs of an extended investment period. While a niche market for select quality logs will always exist, economic forces are working against such strategies and will continue to encourage the production of lower quality fibre over ever shortening growing cycles.
Lengthy pursuit of a consensus definition of sustainable forest management is probably more of an impediment towards implementation than any limitation in our understanding of the ecological and social functions of forests.Where are we going?
The current debate about sustainable forest management encompasses a wide range of economic, social and environmental issues. Scientific evidence may eventually support agreement on some of these issues, new issues will arise and others may become less of a concern. Some issues may never be resolved.
Perfection is the enemy of improvement!
Pursuing a consensus definition of sustainable forest management should not be used as an excuse for inaction. There are many situations that we know are clearly poor management or at least management that falls below acceptable professional standards. We know that we can do much to "improve" management of the forest estate even if we cannot reach the ultimate "sustainable forest management". Being less rigorous on the interpretation of this term may help us to unleash a whirlwind of effort to "improve" forest management and begin the journey forwards, even though the final destination is always changing.
Getting the right overall policy environment is critical to success
Implications for development assistance
The most important impact that the World Bank could have would be to use its influence and resources to promote enabling conditions for improved forest management. Implementation of existing policies and changes of practices supporting sustainable forest management often are resisted by the establishment which enjoyed privileges associated with the custody of a valuable resource. This may require a proactive approach by involved national and international stakeholders. The Bank could have an important catalytic role in this process. The reforms are not only restricted to the forestry sector itself. Many of the required reforms concern perverse policies and mixed signals in from associated sectors such as agriculture, industry and transportation.
Improving forest charging systems is critical for success. Establishing more realistic prices based on real values of wood or, preferably, introducing competitive means of selling roundwood, is a necessary condition for the successful implementation of sustainable forest management. Revenues from higher charges could also be used to support more effective forestry institutions that, in many countries, are currently under-funded and largely ineffective.
Strengthening forestry institutions is also a major priority
Investment to strengthen regulatory institutions and underpin administrative capacity is fundamental to improving forest management. Improved forest management can only be observed in those countries where the legal, policy and administrative environment regulate undesirable practices and there is transparency and accountability in management and governance of the sector. Investments to strengthen regulatory and administrative capability in the forestry sector should be a priority and countries should be encouraged to increase transparency and improve governance of the resource.
Improving data and the dissemination of information is a priority area for investment. Countries can only improve their forest management when they have adequate knowledge and information on which to base their decisions. The World Bank and other international agencies should work towards strengthening countries' capacity to collect and analyse forest sector information and make wise land management decisions based on such information.
But assistance should also look beyond the forest
Investing in sustainable forest management can take many forms and the Bank's strategy should look beyond the forest. Credit-lines to finance changes in forest processing techniques and support regulations that demand better environmental performance in forest processing operations could have a substantial impact on the sustainability of the forestry sector as a whole. Viewed in the broader context of sustainable development, such support might be more worthwhile than some of the more traditional approaches to assistance that tend to focus on improving forest management and silviculture.
Establishing or clarifying ownership or property rights to forests and trees is another potentially important area for assistance. Forests are often cleared either because of uncertainty of tenure or in order to establish tenure. Investments to develop the legal framework for land tenure and titling and to support efforts to resolve more general land rights issues could have significant benefits to the forestry sector as well.
There are a range of opportunities
There is no single strategy, policy or operational response that fits all situations. We have the know-how to develop appropriate and responsive strategies and policies. Actions by the World Bank and FAO should have a solid technical base and be grounded in the environmental, social and economic realities that vary by country and forest condition. It is useful to recall that many of the issues raised in current discussions about sustainable forest management concern social equity. It is also worth stressing that forest management prescriptions are very weak tools to implement social policy. Still, in spite of these limitations, FAO, the World Bank and our many partners can do much with knowledge already at hand to provide relevant support to the countries genuinely seeking to improve their forest management.
The main impact that the World Bank could have in overcoming these problems would be to use its influence and resources to provide enabling conditions for improved forest management. This would mean financing of sufficient size and connection to the forestry sector to secure that required changes would be made. This suggests effective connections between the lending and institutional arrangements including public expenditures. This could be accomplished through non-lending activities and through any or a combination of the following means: the entire lending programme to a country; general structural adjustment lending; and sector structural adjustment lending. These lending tools can do the most good if they are based on sound technical, environmental and economic knowledge, some of which is available in the Bank and some of it not.
