0161-C1
Prof Piotr Paschalis-Jakubowicz[1]
The European Union gives high priority to the National Forest Programmes (NFP) in its recent regulations concerning forests.
From the point of view of formulating and implementing NFPs in a European context, the concept of sustainable forest management suffers from three facts:
a) lack of an operational European definition of sustainable forest management,
b) differing interpretation of the individual elements of NFPs by countries,
c) a very strong tendency to attribute much greater weight to environmental and social matters, reducing the role of forestry as a substantial element of economic development.
In the 1990s Europe also faced deep economic, political and social changes, primarily in the countries that are on the list applying to the European Union.
It seems that the basic question about whether forestry management in Europe, implemented in accordance with the developed criteria and indicators of sustainable development and introduced to its economy for good, is commonplace and remains valid.
In this paper we do not intend to evaluate the degree of compliance of forestry management in a given country with sustainable forest management principles, but we attempt to identify the problems, causes and concerns of sustainable forest management in European National Forestry Programmes.
There is no doubt that the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 started the process of growing acceptance of many systemic solutions in the field of natural environment protection. The term sustainable forestry has been known for a long time both in practice and theory (Paschalis 1997). However, the application of solutions that should align with SFM, not always meet the set of conditions in reality. This is due, among other things, to the use of terms, definitions, principles, and assumptions in the language describing SFM, which promise more than can be executed in practice (Paschalis 2000). The variation in cultural, economic, political and social conditions of Europe is sufficiently high to see real threats to sustainable forest management in conditions of the changing climate, environment and forests. The nineties of the past century in Europe faced also deep economic, political and social changes, first in the countries that are on the list applying to the European Union.
The growing feeling of threats to environment that is evoked by an industrial growth not controlled in full stimulates social mistrust also to the SFM.
Since almost 10 years an interesting discussion is going on concerning a necessity of constructing National Forest Programmes by European countries. This was expressed much more clearly when elaborating principles and assumptions placed in the document (Forests Strategy for Europe 1997) that in fact gives basic orientations of European activities in the area of forestry. This argumentation signifies that the European Union (EU) gives a high rank to the National Forest Programmes in its recent regulations concerning forests. National and sub-national forest Programmes are perceived in the EU as instruments of the Strategy for Forestry in the EU and they are treated as pre-introductory condition for executing the EU rural area development policy.
The preparation of a NFP is a rational initiative to which each country must assume full leadership and responsibility. This follows from the sovereign rights of states to use their forests according to their own environmental policies and development needs. NFPs refer to forests, forestry and the forestry sector in their broadest senses, and this means that they refer to all forest or forest-related activities of human beings. The included everything related to the growing, harvesting and wise use of forest products, notably both wood and non-wood products (e.g., conservation of flora and fauna found in the forests, protection of soils, landscapes heritage sites and watersheds, forest-based tourism and national parks) and their main influence factors.
The majority of European countries conduct since long time the forest management basing on legislation concordant with principles of sustainable development (Neven I, 2002). However only few countries have National Forest Programmes elaborated - the rest have National Forest Policies or Forest Statutes that define rules of forest resource management (NFP Germany 2001). Surely, one should be aware that the basic goal of the management of the forest enterprise was in the past and still is preserving his state of balance, identified as an optimal state of permanence of its functions.
In the late nineties of the past century, when the conviction that new European countries join the European Union became realistic - the definition of SFM functioning in forest practice has recently acquired a new shape. This referred and still refers to several aspects of forestry, and first and foremost to:
- the existing gap between theoretical assumptions and principles of linking the forest use with practical possibilities of their implementation. This means that the promises carried by SFM notions in terms of multi-functionality of forestry cannot be simultaneously and immediately met,
- in many European countries the research and education on forest and nature in spite of its intensive development is not yet able to prepare the society to fully comprehend and approve the regimes that must rule in forestry, with a simultaneous limitation in using some forest goods by the general public (Konijnendijk, Randrup, Nilsson 2000).
Transformations that took place after 1989 in Europe restored, in many countries, protection of property rights and increased the value of real estates which, in turn, changed their ownership structure, land turnover and took advantage of the new, dynamic reality of supply, demand and price relationships. For many countries, this is a serious barrier to sustainable development, where not always the superior interest of the community agrees with that of an individual (Turaj 2001,).
One of the problems of SFM is the concept of rural development being a common challenge not only to meet the principles of land use but also rural land use. Treating tourism and recreation as an element of non-urbanised, rural areas is worth support but for the countries with the high forest cover and well-developed forest-timber industries- cannot be accepted.. It should also be assumed that in a given time span the production function could dominate other forest functions (Paschalis 2001).
New reasons, but at the same time additional difficulties connected with the new challenges were brought by the resolutions of the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forest in Europe. The catalogue of these indicators does not point out their desired level or even preferred trends of changes, as it is in the case of such economic categories as a profit and costs It might led to the conflict of interests, particularly when the desired increase of a given indicator level would negatively influence on the economic condition of the forest enterprise (Cubbage F, et.al. 1993).
It seems that a lack of acceptation by the general public and a lack of conviction on environmentally safe work technologies used in forestry are some of most serious problems that a broadly conceived forest use has to do. Therefore, it is necessary to put into NFPs prescriptions documenting that the contemporary technical and technological level of machines and devices in use minimises environmentally negative effects.
However, even environmentally sound logging systems and the most sophisticated technology may cause devastation if the work is not properly planned and the machines not operated by trained and motivated drivers. The evaluation of the significance of wood harvesting and minor forest utilisation problems in European National Forestry Programmes is allowed to enhance the rationally of policies.
It means, for example a different harvesting technology may change a forest road pattern and at this same time - stimulate, or not, a minor forest utilisation, recreation, ecotourism etc. In the majority of European countries, we can see an increasing interest in non-wood raw matters on one hand, and considerable deficits in regulations of the use of them on the other. Optimisation of minor forest product use requires also reliable information on the size and character of individual kinds of the resource. However, the database on this topic is very poor (Forest and Forest Product Profile 2001).
From the point of view of formulating and implementing NFPs in an European context, the concept suffers from three facts: lack of an operational European definition of SFM, differing interpretation of the individual elements of NFPs by countries, and disappointing experiences with technocratic-oriented policy planning in the last centuries. The formulation of “principal elements” in the NFPs is related first to social and protection functions of forest, with underlining partner relations with all actors being active in the environmental area
A very strong tendency (in many European countries) to attribute much greater weigh to environmental and social matters, with reducing the role of forestry as a substantial element of economic development, merits a special remark. The matters linked with technique and technologies of forest operations, construction of forest infrastructure, are often considered as secondary, while the focus is laid on environmental effects. This is related first of all to the effects of introducing machines and devices on forest area, considering the engineering access to forest space with construction of roads as a nuisance factor disturbing e.g. landscape beauty.
Lack of proper dialogue with the society and public approval with regard to the intended actions can be a serious barrier. It should be mention that the lack of ability, which is observed in many European countries to solve conflicts and seek common areas of agreement between the parties, which strive to gain benefits whatsoever, including benefits from forests, is the cause of many conflicts. The reasons are numerous, yet the major one seems to be the difficulties resulting from the necessity of determining the aim and scope of benefits coming from forest goods and services.
The lack of dialogue between those taking administrative and executive decisions in forestry and the rest of the society generates an irrational approach of the society to forest goods resulting from the lack of knowledge and susceptibility to being manipulated by the media.
The differences in approaches to forestry management in Europe do not result only from the lack of professional knowledge in this domain, but they are more dependent on the level of economic developmenta and on possibilities to satisfy basic social needs in a given country.
We can distinguish regions in Europe characterised by the overproduction of timber with regard to current domestic market needs and the countries with the underproduction of home timber.(For.Prod.Mark. Dev. 1999).The reasons for the same countries for which sustainable management of forests rise difficulties, are variations in the demand level for other forest functions such as protective or recreational. What’s more, in a short time perspective the demand dynamics for specified functions of forest resources can rapidly change which also yields problems for the implementation of SFM principles. The attempts to limit direct benefits from the forest use such as wood substitutes can be for some European countries a substantial barrier for further development of forestry, while for other the necessity to conserve their own forests. A special account should be taken of cultural conditions prevailing in a given country, which is one of the most important tools in practical implementation of the principles of forest sustainable management.
One of the causes of the threats to SFM is a growing awareness that many European countries - especially those that are on the list applying to the European Union - have large forest complexes, which cannot be freely available to the general public and thus fulfil social and recreational functions.
The above-mentioned problems and causes of still uncertain situation in implementing sustainable forest management in Europe are accompanied by concerns that complicate the situation even more.
It is suggested that the following elements should be taken into account:
1. The growing feeling of threats to environment that is evoked by an uncontrolled industrial growth not always agree with general trends of civilisation development. This mistrust shared by the new forest owners can be stimulated by the lack of professional knowledge and experiences in managing forests (Matejicek 1995),
2. The growing believe that nearly 25-30% of arable land in the EU countries should not be utilised for agricultural production (Sinnek 1995) with a simultaneous lack of coherence between the ecological and development programmes.
3. The lack of a sufficiently strong pressure on the non-production functions of forest economy with a simultaneous lack of willingness of the society to compensate the expenditures borne on social and recreational functions of forests (Klocek 2001). The concurrence of the characteristics of forest production functions and public goods is clearly the cause of this phenomenon,
4. Insufficient interest of wood industry in many main forest tree species of Europe with a simultaneous preference for a few best known, commonly occurring tree species
5. Awareness of evident differences between forest management on 2-50 ha (landscape management), and forest management in the areas exceeding 2000 ha (ecosystem management). Managing larger forest areas is unproportionally more complex (Laacke, Schoeppach 1995.
6. The adoption of the direction of forestry development generally known as market-oriented management also rises objections. This means the use of tools making possible the prediction of future demands for forest-originated goods, or generated by forest resources.
To find the balance between the sustainable distribution of goods and benefits is difficult the more so as no proper economic tools are available for the correct evaluation of both profits and losses.
The process of implementing the principles of sustainable management in forestry that has been started many years ago, in spite of its significant achievements not only in one or several European countries but also on the continent scale, is far from being perfect. The weak points cover four main areas:
1. Necessity to set the appropriate criteria of participating in both benefits and losses, which occur while exploiting forest resources, for both sides: for that taking administration decision and for the rest of the community..
The advantage of participation is the possibility of reaching a consensus in practice, which is one of the ways of avoiding conflicts (Richardson, Counelly 2001). The current research results on concerning merging of forest management communities are promising and have a chance to be successful as indicated by Ishii (Ishii, Ki-wan 1995).
2. The necessity of promoting multiple-use often-irreplaceable benefits provided by forest resources fulfilling the criteria of multifunctionality and accessibility to forests. It implies the availability of forests in the sense of technical infrastructure of the country, its protection, as well as benefits from utilisation of functions that forests play in the field of cultural heritage, aesthetics and humanistic and spiritual experiences. It is associated with the promotion of timber as a natural renewable and irreplaceable raw material, which European forestry produces more than can consume. These initiatives should be supported by the development of the role of timber processing as an integral process supporting SFM,
3. The necessity of developing long-term research projects focusing first and foremost on the studies of mechanisms of functioning of forest ecosystems and on the effects of civilisation conditions on changes undergoing in ecosystems.
4. National Forestry Programmes in European context are comprehensive policy frameworks for the achievement of sustainable forest management, based on a broad intersector approach and implemented in the context of each country’s socio-economic, cultural and environmental situation.
5. Relations of the NFPs to the problems of forest utilisation are a significant proof of reality, efficiency and economic potentials of their implementation and execution in the forest practice.
1. Cubbage F. W. O’Langhlin J. Bullock C.S, 1993, Forest resource Policy. New York, John Wiley & Son Inc. p. 565
2. Forest Product Market Developments1999., The Outlook for Forest Product Markets to 2010 and the Implications for Improving Management of the Global Forest Estate. FAO.Rome, pp. 105
3. Forest and Forest Product - Country Profile, 1997, Timber and Forest Study Papers. Geneva
4. Forest Strategy for Europe 1997. European Union. Brussels pp.1-376
5. Ishii Y.,Ishii K.,Ki-wan A., 1995, IUFRO - Development of Forest Co-operation and Economical State of Small Forest Owners in Hokkaido, p. 237
6. Klocek A., 2001, Problems of Management in the Multifunctional Forest Holding. Prace IBL, Seria A 4(924): 23-45
7. Konijnendijk C.,Randrup T.B., Nilsson K., 2000, Urban Forestry Research in Europe: An Overview. Journal of Arboriculture 26(3): pp. 152-161
8. LaackeR.J., Schoeppach W., 1995, IUFRO - Development and Application of Analysis and Communication Tools for Ecosystem Management, p. 322
9. Matejicek J., 1995, IUFRO - Economical Problems of New Forest Owners in Czech Republic, p. 236
10. National Forest Programme Germany 2002. Pp.1-25
11. Neven I., 2002, National Forest Programmes in the European Context, Background Paper on „Decentralisation” Contribution to COST - Action E-19. Wageningen, The Netherland, pp. 1-11
12. Paschalis P., 1997, Assumptions to the Rules of Forest Harvest in the Concept of Sustainable and Balanced Forest Management. Sylwan Nr 1, pp. 49-56
13. Paschalis P., 2000, The Most Important Event in the Forestry of the 20th Century. Sylwan Nr 1, pp. 5-10
14. Paschalis P., 2001, Contribution of Polish Science to European Forestry Science. Folia Forestalia Polonica, Series A - Forestry, Nr 43, pp. 143-151
15. Resolution H-I. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. Helsinki 1993
16. Richardson I., Counelly S., 2001, Building Consensus for Rural Development and Planning in Scotland a Review of Last Practice. Report to the Scottish Extensive. Scottish Natural Heritage and Forestry Commission. University of Sheffield
17. Sinnek H. U., 1995, IUFRO - Production of Forest Growing. Tree Species in Short Rotation as Chance for Small Scale Forestry, p. 237
18. Turaj L. B., 2001, Ceny nieruchomosci wyznacznikiem atrakcyjnosci obszaru na przykladzie wybranych gmin powiatu ziemskiego krakowskiego. Rural Management and cadastre. Warszawa - Pultusk, pp. 95-99
| [1] Warsaw Agricultural University,
Faculty of Forestry, 02-528 Warszawa, ul. Rakowiecka 26/30, Poland. Email:
[email protected]
|