0371-B1
Asghedom Ghebremichael[1] and Hanna J. Cortner
Considering the Canadian setting as an environment of contemporary cases, the concepts and principles of sustainable ecosystem management that are foundations of sustainable forest management are discussed and schematically illustrated. Fifteen research themes that call for transdisciplinary forestry research programs are identified. Under each theme several research projects that present challenges and opportunities for the research community can be initiated. We view sustainable forest management as a multidimensional, modern paradigm that weaves social, economic, ecological, environmental, and political threads into a tapestry of a socially and environmentally sustainable development that benefits both present and future generations. However, this can only be achieved when policy measures are based on findings and recommendations of multidisciplinary research programs. In conclusion, the importance of and the need for a "new social contract" for forestry research, consensus building, socially defined goals and objectives, effective and efficient institutional arrangements, and a "paradigm shift" are discussed.
"Canada is a forest nation": accounting for 10% of the world's forest land and 20% of global trade in forest products, indeed Canada can be recognized as a forest nation.[2] In effect, Canada bears a global responsibility for managing her forest resources in a sustainable manner, not only for the consumptive economic goods (e.g., lumber and paper), but most importantly for the invaluable multitude of services forests provide for humans and animals. The services include carbon sequestration, moderation of climatic conditions, purified oxygen that sustain life, spiritual and aesthetic values, ecotourism enjoyment and financial gains for developing local economies, soil and water conservation, wildlife habitat, and recreational activities. These are priceless services of natural ecosystems. These natural systems are open, dynamic, and structurally complex. Sustainable forest management (SFM) can only be practiced within the domain of sustainable ecosystem management, a holistic management approach that considers problems associated with social, economic, ecological, and political systems.
Although one cannot exhaustively list all the pressing issues that are linked to the sustainable management of Canada's forests, the following major policy themes, which consistently appear in disparate documents, provide a general picture: (i) aspirations of rural communities for development, (ii) socio-cultural and economic development concerns of Canada's aboriginal peoples, (iii) sustainability of the non-timber forest products, i.e., the multiple services of the forest ecosystem, (iv) long-term adequacy of economically viable industrial timber supply, (v) competitive position of the Canadian forest sector in the global marketplace, and (vi) global climate change and the Kyoto Protocol to which Canada is committed to ratify.
In short, there are several themes and issues that present opportunities and challenges for the Canadian forestry research community. The paper has two objectives: (a) to discuss the concepts and principles of SFM and (b) to set forth research themes that call for transdisciplinary research. To pursue this goal, the next section highlights the driving forces and policy imperatives that are framing critical issues in Canadian forest policy. Section 3 presents a brief review of ecosystem management and the building blocks of sustainable development. Section 4 identifies fifteen thematic areas of research
The social, economic, institutional, and ecological forces that call for multidisciplinary forestry science are complex and numerous. In order to pave the way for the social sciences to play effective roles in the science and technology (S&T) of the Canadian Forest Service (CFS) changes in the traditional forest policy and institutional arrangements are warranted. The driving forces and the policy imperatives for an effective S&T can be classified as follows:
Driving Forces Social science forestry research involves - among many others- integrating social values; understanding public values for resources; public acceptability of forest management practices; public participation mechanisms; efficient allocation of public resources; and establishing forums for debating issues.
Policy Imperatives Society establishes forest resource policies in order to capture important social and economic opportunities. However, policy formulation requires understanding contemporary forest issues, which are complex and many. Obviously, contemporary forest policy integrates social, economic, and ecological parameters.
Although not given a universal definition yet, Kimmins (1997) points out that SFM is widely accepted as a multi-principle concept, with the following three principles: First, the continuing evolution of forestry deals with social values. Second, because it focuses on a specific set of management ideas for specific portion of the landscape, SFM is not a vague generalization of philosophical concepts. Third, the goal of SFM is to maintain ecosystem integrity in order to achieve a specific set of desired social benefits; it is viewed as an anthropocentric concept dealing with human benefits, rather than solely a biocentric. In effect, SFM is intrinsically linked to ecosystem management and sustainable development. Accordingly, this section highlights the concepts and principles of ecosystem management and sustainable development:
Ecosystems are places where biophysical, social, economic, and political components function interactively (Fig. 1). All ecosystems have flows of energy, organisms, water, air, and nutrients. Each element is affected by other elements; and all ecosystems change over space and time. That is, ecosystems are dynamic.
Figure 1. Interaction of social, political, economic, and biophysical systems[3].
Ecosystem management is an approach that can help to restore, maintain, and enhance the integrity of a given environment where people, plants, animals, and other organisms reside interactively (Haynes et. al. 1996). Figure 1 depicts that the fundamental principles of sustainable forest ecosystem management that are dependent on the following six key criteria: (i) the integrity of ecosystems, i.e., long-term health, resiliency (ability to recover after disturbance), and vitality of social and economic systems; (ii) the relations between the biophysical (land, air, water, plants, and animals) and the socio-politico-economic (community, economic, cultural, spiritual, and political) ecosystem components of a given area; (iii) people's expectations; (iv) ecological capabilities (i.e., carrying capacities of ecosystems); (v) temporal and spatial dimensions for planning and risk assessment approaches, monitoring and evaluation needs, and stakeholders' (communities, resource owners, and public agencies) participation processes; and (vi) ecosystem principles that can be used to develop procedures for interagency coordination, planning, stakeholder involvement, and management. In turn, these criteria are dependent on the dynamics and limits of ecosystems:
What is sustainable development? The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED 1987), defined sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". Today, however, the definition appears to be linked always to policy goals and objectives one would like to see addressed. For example, Serageldin (1996) argues that the definition of sustainable development given by the WCED was philosophically attractive, but impracticable, because it does not provide a clearly defined course of action.
A group of social scientists of the World Bank approached sustainable development in two practicable strategic directions: First, as an immediate approach that enables to set in place a systematic way of testing the economic, environmental, and social sustainability of a specific project; and second, as a more ambitious effort at tackling the concept of sustainability. To that effect, the group came up with a triangular policy framework (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. The building blocks of environmentally and socially sustainable development
To meet the three-block objectives of sustainable development that are depicted in Figure 2, each element of a given block needs to be realized. The social objectives can be met when there are (i) participatory decision-making; (ii) equitable distribution of material wealth and political power; (iii) social cohesion and mobility; (iv) clear understanding of socio-cultural identity; and (v) effective and efficient policy instruments and institutional arrangements.[4] Of the economic objectives, capital efficiency is considered as an attainable, while ecologists and renowned economists view the idea of "sustainable growth" as a self-contradictory notion.
Because the economy is an open subsystem of the earth's ecosystem, which is finite, non-growing, and materially closed, the term "sustainable growth", when applied to the economy is "a bad oxymoron" (Daly 1996). This insight leads to the need for a clear understanding of the ecological objectives of sustainable development. That is, sustainable development requires ecosystem integrity, natural resources sustainability, biodiversity, and sustainable carrying capacity of an ecological system.
The future of social science research for SFM hinges on a number of social, political, economic, and ecological considerations. The issues that can only be tackled by interdisciplinary strategies of biological and social sciences are complex and wide-ranging. We list the following fifteen thematic areas, which are discussed in our main paper in detail: (i) setting priorities for forestry research, (ii) consequences of global climate change, (iii) valuation of non-timber goods and services, (iv) efficacy of public institutions, (v) competitiveness of the Canadian forest sector, (vi) innovation and diffusion of new technologies, (vii) sustainability and adequacy of long-term timber supply, (viii) efficiency and effectiveness of the Canadian timber harvesting industry, (ix) diversification and development of rural community-based economies, (x) the forest tenure system and taxation of forest's goods and services, (xi) forest policy development and program administration, (xii) multiple-use management of forested landscapes, (xiii) forestry investment analysis and decision support tools, (xiv) aboriginal community development concerns, (xv) ecosystem "health" and "sustainability".
The paper highlights the ecological, social, economic, and political considerations that characterize a viable SFM. The concepts and principles of ecosystem management, the building blocks of sustainable development, the driving forces and policy imperatives, and the major areas for research opportunities are sketched. This closing section adds key conceptual underpinnings to consolidate the previous discussions[5]:
Social Contract There is a need for "a new social contract for science" (Lubchenco 1998). Current global conditions and inseparable linkages among the social, economic, political, physical, biological, chemical, and geological systems present new challenges to scientists. The role of science should focus on the expectations of society. At the very least, society expects two outcomes from its research investments: (i) production of best possible science, regardless of area; and (ii) production of something that is useful for society. There is a clear message here: A research policy that embodies "a new Social Contract for science" is in order. The Contract would encourage scientists to (i) address most urgent needs of society; (ii) communicate broadly their knowledge and understanding in order to influence decisions of individuals and institutions; and (iii) exercise good judgment, wisdom, and humility.
The Contract should also be a call for new research and management approaches: Innovative mechanisms are needed to facilitate the investigation of complex, interdisciplinary problems that span multiple spatial and temporal scales; to encourage interagency and international cooperation on societal problems; and to construct more effective bridges between policy, management, science, public, and private sectors.
Consensus Building SFM covers a multitude of issues at various scales, ranging from highly localized concerns to large-scale, transboundary and multi-jurisdictional problems. Its practices can only be effective through participatory, collective decision making processes based on durable partnership of all stakeholders across jurisdictional boundaries. Borderless partnerships among civic agencies and individuals facilitate exchange of information, transfer of technology, and solution of inherent problems that impede SFM practices.
Socially Defined Goals and Objectives SFM requires explicitly defined social goals and objectives. The complexity and diversity of the ecological, social, economic, and political issues policies need to be revised continuously. For example, incorporating Aboriginal values and needs into SFM practices and evaluating the efficacy of current land tenure system will lead to new socially defined goals and objectives.
Scope of Scientific Inquiry Collective stewardship of Canada's forest resources requires change in the status quo. Compartmentalization, overspecialization, and separation of research projects should be viewed as outdated modus operandi. In short, the split paths between the social and natural sciences and between theory and practice do not lead to the realization of SFM.
An Integrated Science: a Holistic Approach to SFM The principles and concepts of ecosystem management provide guidelines to SFM practices. Ecosystem management focuses not only on ecological processes (i.e., flows of energy, organisms, water, air, nutrients, etc.), but also on the interconnectedness of ecosystem, social, and economic phenomena. SFM practices can only be effective, if they are based on guidelines provided by an integrated scientific research. Thus, scientists and managers from diverse disciplines need to work jointly to understand the forces that influence SFM.
Institutional Arrangements and Adaptability The complex and dynamic nature of ecological, social, and economic systems shows that there cannot be an explicitly defined, fixed guidelines or prescriptions for SFM; there is always an inherent uncertainty. To be effective, therefore, SFM institutions should be characterized by dynamism, transparency, and creativity. Institutions, such as organizations, laws, policies, and management practices ought to be flexible in order to adapt to changes in social values, ecological conditions, political pressures, available information, and knowledge. Adaptable institutions consider management practices as learning processes in which decisions are continuously revisited and revised. Forest managers have the capacity to identify and adapt to new knowledge, including public attitudes, and learn lessons from new research and on-the-ground management experiences.
Paradigm Shift In the philosophy of science, paradigm is a general conception of the nature of scientific endeavor within which a given inquiry is undertaken. In other words, a paradigm is a framework of understanding or perspective shared by members of a profession or discipline (Cortner et al. 1999). A paradigm shift occurs only when a significant body of knowledge or information that is contradictory to, or unexplained by, the accepted paradigm is accumulated.
In closing, therefore, SFM is a multidimensional modern paradigm, which ought to be practiced within the domain of sustainable ecosystem management. This approach waves the social, economic, ecological, and political threads into a tapestry of a socially and environmentally sustainable development that that benefits present and future generations. These inevitable linkages present challenges and opportunities for the forestry research community.
Canadian Forest Service. 1998. Strategic plan beyond the millennium 1998-2003. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 18 p.
Cortner, H. J.; Moote, M. A. 1999. The politics of ecosystem management. Island Press, Washington, D. C. 179 p.
Costanza, R.; Herman, E. D.; Bartholemew, J. A. 1991. Goals, agenda, and policy recommendations for ecological economics. In R. Costanza (Ed.). Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability (pp. 1-20). Columbia University Press, New York. 525 p.
Daly, H.E. 1996. Sustainable growth: an impossible theorem. In Daly, H.E.; Townsend, K.N. (Eds.) Valuing the earth: economics, ecology, ethics (pp. 267-273). The MIT Press, Massachusetts. 387 p.
Haynes, R. W.; Graham, R. T.; Quigley, T. M. (Eds.). 1996 A framework for ecosystem management in the Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-374. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 67 p.
Kimmins, H. 1997. Balancing act: environmental issues in forestry (2nd. edn.). UBC Press, Vancouver, B. C. 305 p.
Lubchenco, J. 1998. Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science 279: 491-497.
Putnam, R. D. 1993. Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 258 p.
Serageldin, I. 1996. Sustainability and the wealth of nations: First steps in an ongoing journey. Environmentally Sustainable Development Studies and Monographs Series No. 5. The World Bank, Washington D. C.
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future. Oxford University Press, New York. 400 p.
| [1] Forestry research economist,
Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre,
Social Science Research Group, 5320 - 122 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada,
T6H 3S5. Email: [email protected] [2] 1998 - 2003 Strategic Plan of the Canadian Forest Service (1998). [3] With minor modifications, adapted from Haynes et al. (1996). [4] For an excellent, empirical expositions of the importance of effective institutional arrangements and policy instruments, see Putnam (1993). [5] This section draws on Cortner and Moote (1999) and Lubchenco (1998). |