0661-C5
Gordon M. Hickey and John L. Innes 1
In some jurisdictions, a combination of non-existent monitoring, poorly directed policies and over-consumption have resulted in degraded forest resources that could otherwise contribute to sustained economic development. In other jurisdictions, the establishment of stringent forestry laws, effective enforcement mechanisms and the development of soft law standards are achieving improved monitoring of practices and, as a result, better forest management. As a principle central to adaptive management, monitoring within organizations involved with forest management should be undertaken to facilitate learning, understanding and application. Against this background we need to understand the key attributes and weaknesses of the monitoring standards required by both hard law and soft law mechanisms in different jurisdictions before we can measure sustainable forest management. In a global context there are several practical limits to the use of hard laws to obtain monitoring and information reporting goals. Therefore soft law mechanisms such as forest certification are finding an increasing role in forestry. However the norms contained within national hard law mechanisms can provide a useful background for assessing the differences between the nature of monitoring and information required to measure sustainable forest management in different jurisdictions. With sound monitoring and information reporting standards to facilitate understanding and communication between stakeholders and jurisdictions, a profitable and sensitive forest industry is possible.
The institutions created to address the problems of forest degradation and destruction internationally have ranged from hard laws put in place by a concerned public through legislation to soft law processes such as forest certification. As a consequence, organizations currently collect much of the information that forest managers require to make decisions about SFM, even though there may be inequality or gaps between jurisdictions. This paper presents a theoretical background to our research, and discusses two important characteristics of SFM: adaptive management and monitoring. It then addresses the hard and soft law mechanisms available to forest policy makers internationally. Finally, the role of stakeholders and the wider operating environment in forestry-related monitoring is considered.
The concept of sustainability has become pivotal to policy arrangements within the forestry sector, especially in the developed countries of North America and Europe. It is recognized that regardless of the literal definition, SFM includes a balance between the environmental, social and economic values of a forest and some consideration of these values for future generations. One of the main issues associated with negotiating a sustainable future is to define sustainability and then determine progress towards this goal. However there is little consensus on how to measure the range of values that will be most relevant to future generations. International developments such as the criteria and indicators2 resulting from the Helsinki (1993) and Montreal (1995) Processes, forest certification3 and industry-led initiatives are now providing a framework for forest management activities in an international context. Because the integrity of SFM standards depends on restrictions and rules over how humans use common resources, their creation stimulates debate between stakeholders in different jurisdictions and as a consequence different monitoring requirements evolve.
Life involves change, and to better understand any natural system or evaluate human impacts it is necessary to know the kinds of natural changes that take place (Smithsonian Institute 1973). Forest managers also need to know how often an environment experiences unusual events (e.g. fire) to allow for more effective management. Holling (1977) noted that environmental management methods need continual monitoring and adaptation that can feed back into the work design. This approach improves the methods available to foresters for incorporating uncertainty into decision making. The theory of adaptive management (Holling 1977) provides an approach that can be applied to various issues and scales (British Columbia Ministry of Forests (BCMoF) 2000). Comprehensive and relevant monitoring is central to adaptive management where monitoring is either a short- or long-term activity that requires a particular allocation of resources to ensure a better understanding of the impacts associated with changes in management (Holling 1977). Lee (1993) noted that it must incorporate social and scientific processes, focussing on the development of new institutions and strategies while including scientific hypotheses and experimental design frameworks. Active co-operation between forest managers, the scientific community and with researchers from other organizations is also crucial to any successful adaptive management system (BCMoF 2000).
Monitoring involves the creation of data or information for comparison to an explicit standard of performance over time (McClain 1998). In forestry it can be used to determine whether operational management strategies are consistent with SFM objectives. Forest managers are increasingly interested in monitoring to help address a range of future forest management options. This interest can be broadly defined as having two purposes (Hickey and Innes 2001):
The information derived from monitoring is also essential to the formulation, implementation and evaluation of policies designed to protect environmental, economic and social values at an acceptable cost (Reynolds and Busby 1996). In some areas, plans for new monitoring standards have caused controversy and resulted in uncertainty over responsibilities for environmental monitoring.
No review of the issues associated with every forest, forest product, forest use, impact, interaction and management approach can be completely comprehensive due to the extensive nature of the subject (Ferguson et al. 1996). As a result, forestry legislation in different jurisdictions tends to be complex (Cirelli and Schmithusen 2001). In these regions hard law norms4 are often deemed a necessary basis for ordering social behaviour, however, this may not be the most efficient method (Shelton 2000). The laws that determine monitoring and information reporting norms in the forest industry need to suit the needs and circumstances of the community. Furthermore, forestry laws need to fit into a jurisdiction's system of government, it's planning and budgeting arrangements as well as a range of other legislation covering land tenure, land use, environmental protection, and business and revenue laws (Fingleton 2002). In many countries hard law norms have been the main vehicle for achieving the forest policy aims of development, protection, and sustainability over time. The results of this approach rely on the effectiveness of the system for regulating and monitoring the activities set out in the relevant legislation (Development Law Service 2001; Fingleton 2002). Despite a positive evolution in forestry legislation (Cirelli and Schmithusen 2001), it is commonly acknowledged that law is only as good as its enforcement.
Ideally consumers of forest products would have the information to make informed product purchase decisions. However hard law regulations are often poorly defined, inappropriately enforced or insufficiently transparent for an onlooker to determine whether forest management practices are sound. In recent years alternative soft law mechanisms have been adopted at the global (i.e. the United Nations), and the regional scale (i.e. Pan-European Forest Certification Scheme). Some of the resulting norms are therefore general while others are more specific (Shelton 2000). The difference between hard and soft law lies mainly in the fact that the actors want to develop a relationship that excludes the application of hard law consequences5 (Hillgenberg 1999). Although `soft' documents are not legal, they indicate the increased presence of non-state stakeholders that are promoting new standards to represent their values (Lynch and Maggio 1997). The soft law mechanisms available to the forest industry include third-party certification, non-binding international treaties and industry-led initiatives. In forestry some soft law instruments have a more specific content than the commitments in treaties and industry-led initiatives (e.g. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification standards are more specific than the monitoring requirements of the Montreal Process). As a result, forest certification has emerged as an important market-based policy instrument available to forestry stakeholders at an international scale (Meidinger, 2003).
To consider the information central to monitoring SFM, the role of international stakeholders is important. Stakeholder values determine the attitudes of actors and can significantly impact on the nature of policy and law in different jurisdictions (Lynch and Maggio 1997). This is especially critical as forest managers operating at different scales in different jurisdictions attempt to defend their management practices to stakeholders and audiences internationally. Stakeholders such as inter-governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, professional associations, trans-national corporations, academics, aboriginal groups, consumers and retailers from different communities have emerged to play important international roles (Bull et al. 2001). These groups now contribute to the making of international norms, and in many cases are becoming increasingly bound by them (Shelton 2000). However, just as in many other areas of forestry, differences in objectives, definitions, theories, values, models and methods between stakeholders (Bull et al. 2001) can be a serious impediment to the co-ordination and comparability of monitoring data between jurisdictions. The `information pyramid' concept (Figure 1) shows how multiple products can be derived from the same primary data through information exchange between stakeholders.
Figure 1: The Information Pyramid
This concept is especially applicable to the forest industry because SFM involves stakeholders whose information needs vary widely but may rely on the same primary data.
The issue of what constitutes SFM in practice does not have a single perspective response and is therefore subject to different interpretations. Issues surrounding general forest economics, the forest resources and their use, forestry related policies and the forest industry's current conflicts and challenges will influence the monitoring and information requirements documented in both hard and soft law mechanisms. Similarly, in any jurisdiction issues such as property rights, environmental taxation structures, hard laws and planning systems will affect the forestry monitoring processes. The specific problems in achieving the aims of SFM differ from one society to another and within every society over time (Shelton 2000). The ability of market-based mechanisms to transcend international boundaries and provide a standardized set of forestry related goals may be a major reason for their increasing use by forest managers. Nevertheless, the exploitation of common resources (see Hardin 1968) has been a strong point of consideration by forest stakeholders over many years, directly driving the development of legislation designed to monitor the sustainability of natural resource harvesting within their jurisdiction.
In forestry, sustainability has both an economic and ecological perspective that is inextricably linked to the stakeholders involved and to the context of the operating environment. These features have a strong influence on forestry legislation for jurisdictions, how access to public forest resources has been granted and on the balance of power between stakeholders (Fingleton 2002). To determine the most suitable monitoring methods for SFM the future role of hard law norms is currently being examined by policy makers internationally and may in time be superseded by independent soft law mechanisms such as forest certification. Recently, both the promotion of the SFM concept internationally and the quality of the information being collected through monitoring standards locally, have become high priorities for environmental groups (Stanbury et al. 1995). Through these activities, the information surrounding issues of international concern has grown, paralleling developments within jurisdictions where relevant bodies have taken on an increasing number of monitoring tasks (Shelton 2000). As a result, information on forestry topics that was once considered private is now available to the international community. The issues associated with differences between jurisdictions are important to identify because the implications of claiming SFM progress to the international community are complex. It is therefore important to identify where hard laws are adequate for individual SFM situations and where soft laws are performing better, with a view to identifying overlaps that affect the efficiency, cost effectiveness and level of confidence in the monitoring process.
Hard laws can provide a very good reflection of the values deemed important to a particular society. In the case of forestry, the role of stakeholders and the operating environment are essential to our understanding of SFM norms. Hard law in different jurisdictions communicates stakeholder expectations, outlines the monitoring and information required for a reliable assessment of SFM progress, and despite some gaps has the ability to ensure compliance (Shelton 2000). Cirelli and Schmithusen (2000) noted that the emerging treatment of contemporary issues in the forestry laws of Western Europe reveals points of comparison and contrast that can be considered in an international context. Soft law mechanisms then add another dimension of enforcement through formal requests for action, public naming, fines, and expulsion of poorly performing members (European Consumer Law Group (ECLG) 2001). However these methods will only be effective in jurisdictions where they are imposed.
There are practical limits to achieving better monitoring for adaptive management through the general principles of soft law. The advantage of traditional `hard' regulation is that it is universally applicable allowing a level of standardization in the monitoring data collected. Soft law mechanisms cannot offer this broad coverage, especially forest certification that claims to distinguish between `average' and `high' levels of forest management. In general the relationship between national law and international soft law mechanisms in forestry reveals crossover between the requirements and within specific areas. When considering the ability of forest certification schemes to improve monitoring and information reporting it must first be determined if the standards go beyond what is required by hard laws in their jurisdiction (ECLG 2001). Nevertheless, for stakeholders soft law may be the best approach to some environmental monitoring because compliance may be expected to be difficult to attain, (e.g. issues surrounding the logging of old growth forests in British Columbia, Canada). This approach can ultimately lead to a hard law norm over time (Shelton 2000).
In many jurisdictions forestry practices have been undergoing dramatic change as both stakeholder values and the wider operating environment of forestry have evolved. These changes have resulted in improved monitoring and information reporting on forestry practices and the active implementation of adaptive management techniques. However, these changes have not been easy to implement, nor is the process to improve forestry practices complete. Fingleton (2002) recognized that the greatest problems with monitoring and information management are faced in those jurisdictions where forestry operations exceed the capacity of the government to supervise them. This is where soft law mechanisms such as forest certification become extremely important to the monitoring of forestry practices. The use of soft law can be a source of principled and meaningful environmental regulation, especially in jurisdictions with limited ability to monitor operations due to circumstances in their wider environment. The argument presented here suggests that a comparison of hard law regulation based monitoring in different jurisdictions with the requirements of soft law norms will promote international best practice6. The comparison will also enable an objective base from which to investigate the factors affecting the practical application and international comparability of SFM monitoring and information collection standards in different jurisdictions.
British Columbia's Ministry of Forests (BCMoF), 2000. Adaptive Management Initiatives in the BC Forest Service. British Columbia, Canada. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/amhome/amhome.htm
Bull, G.Q., S. Nilsson, J. Williams, E. Rametsteiner, T. Hammett, and W. Mabee, 2001. Wood procurement policy in North America and Europe: An analysis of critical issues and stakeholders. The Forestry Chronicle 77(2): 325-340.
Cirelli, M.T., and F. Schmithusen, 2000. Trends in Forestry Legislation: Western Europe. FAO Legal Papers Online, #10, June 2000. 39 p. http://www.fao.org/Legal/default.htm,
Development Law Service, 2001. Forestry Legislation in Central and Eastern Europe: A Comparative Outlook. FAO Legal Papers Online, #23, October 2001. 32 p. http://www.fao.org/Legal/default.htm
European Consumer Law Group (ECLG), 2001. Soft Law and the Consumer Interest. European Consumer Law Group, Brussels, Belgium, 30 p.
Ferguson, I., B. La Fontaine, P. Vinden, L. Bren, R. Hateley, and B. Hermesec, 1996. Environmental Properties of Timber. School of Forestry and Resource Conservation, University of Melbourne, Australia, 79 p.
Fingleton J. 2002. Regional Study on Pacific Islands Forestry Legislation. FAO Legal Papers Online, #30, June 2002, 43 p. http://www.fao.org/Legal/default.htm
Hardin, G., 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243-1248.
Hickey, G.M., and J.L. Innes, 2001. The development of an adaptive management strategy for the Lignum IFPA: Report on existing monitoring activities at Lignum as they relate to sustainable forest management. Sustainable Forest Management Laboratory, Faculty of Forestry, UBC, Canada, 100 p.
Hillgenberg, H., 1999. A Fresh Look at Soft Law. European Journal of International Law 10(3): 499-516.
Holling, C.S., 1977. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Institute of Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 597 p.
Kratochwil, F.V., 1989. Rules, Norms and Decisions. On the conditions of practical and legal reasoning in international relations and domestic affairs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 317 p.
Lee, K.N., 1993. Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment. Washington, D.C., Island Press, USA, 243 p.
Lynch, O.J., and G. Dimaggio, 1998. Human Rights, Environment and Economic Development: Existing and Emerging Standards in International Law and Global Society. Center for International Environmental Law, USA. Online article: http://www.ciel.org/Publications/pubhre.html
McClain, K., 1998. A Framework for Monitoring Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management: First Approximation. McGregor Model Forest Association, Prince George, BC, Canada, 17 p.
Meidinger, E.E., 2003. Forest Certification as a Global Civil Society Regulatory Institution. IN Meidinger, E., C. Elliott and G. Oesten (Eds.), 2003. Social and Political Dimensions of Forest Certification. www.forstbuch.de: 265-289.
Prasad, R., 2001. Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management of dry forests in Asia. The International Forestry Review 3(4): 307-316. Commonwealth Forestry Association.
Reynolds, J., and J. Busby, 1996. Guide to Information Management: In the Context of the Convention on Biological Diversity. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, 65 p.
Shelton, D. (Ed.), 2000. Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non-Binding Norms in the International Legal System. Oxford University Press, UK, 560 p.
Smithsonian Institute, 1973. Environmental monitoring and baseline data. Washington, USA, Smithsonian Institution, 465 p.
Stanbury, W.T., I.B. Vertinsky, and B. Wilson, 1995. The Challenge to Canadian Forest Products in Europe: Managing a Complex Environmental Issue. Prepared for the Working Group of the Opportunity Identification Program of the Canada-British Columbia Partnership Agreement on Forest Resource Development: FRDA II, 98 p.
Thomson, D. (Ed), 1998. Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Oxford University Press, 1071 p.
1 Faculty of Forestry, Department of Forest Resources Management, 2045, 2424 Main Mall, UBC, Vancouver, Canada, V6T 1Z4. [email protected]; Website: http://sustain.forestry.ubc.ca
2 These are monitoring mechanisms that aim to provide a better understanding of the trends and impacts of forest management practices over time at the macro (national) and micro (management unit) level (Prasad 2001).
3 Forest certification involves the independent third party auditing of forest management practices against a standard of performance.
4 The Oxford Dictionary (1998) defines `norm' as a "standard pattern" or "customary behaviour". Kratochwil (1989) writes that norms allow actors to "pursue goals, share meanings, communicate, criticize assertions and justify actions."
5 Shelton (2000) takes the view that "international law is created through treaty and custom, and thus `soft law' is not legally binding per se."
6 The authors are currently conducting research on this aspect of SFM. The research is funded in part by the Forestry Investment Account (FIA) of British Columbia, Canada.