0991-A1
Tim Cadman[1]
As a component of his doctoral thesis work, the author of this paper is undertaking a field research programme to test the core idea that difficulties encountered by stakeholders involved in forest management certification might be resolved if the right “process framework” is in place.
The field research is based around a “mock” certification assessment and management plan for a small-scale, privately owned plantation. The researcher, in collaboration with the various stakeholders, is designing a consultation and planning mechanism for the plantation, using the principles of restoration ecology as an environmental management framework.
This paper explores a range of background issues identified by the researcher as affecting forest management certification as a whole, and examines the progress of the trial itself.
A significant outcome of the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 (and specifically Agenda 21) has been the development of independent third party certification[2] of forest management and product labelling[3]. The role of certification agencies independent from interested parties who verify and monitor forest management practices on the ground and consult with stakeholders during the assessment process are identified as key components.Essentially, there are two types of certification used by the forest industry and these can be grouped around performance- or systems-based approaches (Ozinga 2001).
There are four major international timber certification systems: The Canadian Standards Assocation (Canadian Standards Association 2001); The Forest Stewardship Council (Forest Stewardship Council 2001); Pan European Forest Certification (Pan European Forest Certification 2001) and an American process, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (Government of British Columbia 2001).They differ in the extent to which they meet expectations as to what constitutes independent, third party certification, and their level of environmental performance requirements (Ozinga 2001). There is debate surrounding the merits of each scheme depending on which stakeholder sector is asked. The forestry industry, excluding companies that are FSC members, is generally less supportive of the FSC, and depending on their regional location advocate the CSA, SFI or PEFC schemes (Forests Forever 1999). The FSC is considered to include a high level of stakeholder involvement; in comparison, the SFI pursues a multi-stakeholder approach, the standard but not specify any requirements for publicly available documentation (Meridian Institute 2001).
Inter-governmental processes also acknowledge the importance of stakeholder participation and the related concepts of openness and transparency of the certification process. In 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) was formed and charged with the task of implementing the Rio Forest Principles of Agenda 21, developed at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992. In 1997 the IPF agreed to a range of over 130 proposals for action, designed to tackle a range of forest problems. The proposals were adopted by world Governments at the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) in June of that year (Ozinga 2001).
Prabhu, Colfer and Dudley Have developed a detailed a series of criteria[4] and indicators[5] (C&I) as well as a whole range of field tests that can be applied for determining human well being and some of the other social aspects of sustainable forest management. While these have been developed largely for use in tropical/less developed nations, they are of some relevance for assessing community participation in forest management (Prabhu et al. 1999).
In industrialised nations community participation in forest management differs somewhat. The role and influence of indigenous people and forest dwellers varies. With large urban populations and diminishing rural populations, stakeholders may need to include non-government organisations from outside a given region, as well as local community representatives.In addition, it would be useful to quantify the extent of stakeholder participation:
the level of participation of stakeholders in SFM processes (e.g. national, regional, local, forest management unit);
extent of participation (e.g. how many and what meetings stakeholders are invited to attend/not invited);
Scope of stakeholders (i.e. who is included/not included).
A single consistent, and universally recognised set of ecological principles is not available but there are a number of common themes:
Restoration: wherever possible, forestry should aim to benefit the natural forest by increasing diversity in damaged ecosystems. Conservation - and where degraded, enhancement - of biological diversity should be guiding principle. A further assumption would be the replanting of previously cleared forest ecosystems with indigenous stock.
Old Growth: most views hold that while it may be theoretically possible to harvest old growth, there should be a moratorium or ban due to current industrial excesses;
Timber Harvest Methods: clearcutting should be greatly reduced or banned. Principles based around single-tree selection or "natural selection ecoforestry" would remove a small part of the forests' volume, leaving the best. The forest is thinned from below rather than all-out canopy removal. This is different from classic selective logging which "highgrades" or "thins" leaving a one-aged forest. Even-aged forestry would be replaced by a greater diversity in age classes and species.
Reforestation: the emphasis should again be on mixed, indigenous species, with ongoing maintenance and care rather than once-off chemical solutions.
Protection of water, soil and habitat: forestry in riparian areas or catchments should not take place. Large numbers of roads should be decommissioned. New roads should follow contours and be narrower, with an emphasis on the use of smaller machinery with less compacting of soils. Avoid chemical use.
Non-timber products: a recognition that a forest can provide more than timber; medicines, nuts, mushrooms and so forth.
Alternatives to wood products: forests should not necessarily be the only fibre source for the pulp and paper industries.
Reserves: A genuine reserve system is needed to counterbalance areas harvested.
Assessment and monitoring: a comprehensive methodology is required to examine all areas managed for wood production (Pilarski 1994).
The research to date has made it clear that the researcher’s trial and associated stakeholder participation will have to reconcile a number of conflicting factors, including:
The need for stakeholder participation in the forest management certification process against the requirements of ecologically sustainable forest management;
The design of a framework that can be used in different political, economic, cultural and social conditions, and yet respects the specific ecological constraints of the site;
The use of tools that can address issues of scale, tenure and plantation type with critical landscape-level issues like forest cover;
Divergent sectoral agendas, access to resources and levels of empowerment.
In order to address the issues outlined above, the researcher is exploring:
Existing protocols for independent, third party certification in the conduct of the forest management trial;
Any potential impediments to the application of restoration ecology and
Action research strategies[6] to identify process issues;
The candidate’s methodology is also structured to emulate what would be required if the landowner were seeking to have their plantation management audited by an independent third party certification agency. The trial itself is not part of a formal certification initiative, but may form the basis of further pursuit of certification based around that management methodology.
The scale of the candidate’s research trial site is predisposed to being part of a larger collection of properties that could be certified under “group” certification[7] procedures should the trial prove successful.
The intent of the research project is fourfold:
to test whether the principles of restoration ecology can be applied in the field;
to develop processes that include and incorporate relevant stakeholders in the design and implementation of the project
to determine whether the theory and practice contained within the project constitute a management planning framework that could be certified via an independent, third party certification scheme.
to provide a working model that could be applicable nationally, subject to ecological and silvicultural constraints.
Area and Location
The research study site is located in the Australian island state of Tasmania approximately 15 km from Deloraine near the township of Meander. The research study site would occupy a small section of a six acre plantation which is situated on private land at an altitude of approx. 500 m on the middle slopes of Mother Cummings Peak on the Great Western Tiers (Kooparoona Niara). The plantation is situated as a discrete unit within a private landholding. This landholding is bounded by private property on all sides. Some regrowth native forest is found upslope of the property which continues into State Forest, informal and formal reserves to an altitude of 850 m, from whence the area adjoins the Central Plateau World Heritage area. The area provides a representative sample common to many landowners who have plantations adjacent to state forests/existing reserves.
Forest Type
The forest is planted Eucalyptus Nitens of about 17 years. This is a common plantation species, and as has been planted by many private landowners. The naturally regrowing understorey is comprised largely of Silver wattle Acacia dealbata, in community with a wet forest shrub complex of Olearia lirata (Dusty daisy) and Zieria aborescens (Stinkwood). The plantation consists of two areas of flat land above and below an afforested slope. There is a small patch of regrowth Eucalyptus obliqua within the plantation boundary.
Many of the trees measured greater than 30 cm diameter at breast height over bark (DBHob) with a current stand volume estimate of 290 m3 ha- (Lyons 2002).
The general management processes are outlined below. The following is a broad outline of the proposed process, which is being refined subject to the issues discussed above.
1. The plantation canopy will be thinned, retaining standing volume for harvesting after a the first rotation.
2. Subsequent to harvesting, the block will be replanted with seedlings indigenous to the region including rainforest timber species.
3. The harvested area will continue to be monitored on an ongoing basis to ascertain the environmental impacts of the initial operation and to determine suitability for the production of other non-wood forest products (mushrooms, honey, etc.).
The restored forest would not be subjected to the same management regime as that of the originally planted forest. Any subsequent management for wood production of indigenous species may require a new management plan, taking into consideration the management of the native component of the restored forest.
The researcher was successful in obtaining key stakeholder support on behalf of the landowner from the Government agencies Bushcare and Private Forest Tasmania (PFT). Bushcare prepared a conservation study of the landowner’s whole property, with a view to placing a covenant on areas of conservation value, and identifying the conservation and management issues relating to the trial site. PFT provided the landowner with some forest management recommendations.
Broader stakeholder consultation on the project has been underway since 2001, and the first face-to-face meeting was held in mid-January 2002. Over 20 people attended from a wide range of interests including forest owners, managers, locals, non-government organisations and government agencies. The event included:
An outline of the certification process generally
Presentations from key stakeholder sectors on general issues
An exposition of the candidate’s proposed trial and management methodology
A field trip
An open forum of reflection between participants on the day’s presentations
Identification of interested parties wishing to be involved in the project.
As the official government agency responsible for forest management on private land, PFT has prepared a forest practices plan (FPP) for the trial site. The management plan will be made available to as wide a range of stakeholders as possible (currently identified and yet to be identified), and any new and outstanding issues will be incorporated into the plan if required. A second face-to-face meeting of stakeholders is planned for February 2003.
The management plan will also be subjected to external peer review by a number of certification agencies to ensure the framework complies with independent, third party certification procedures.
Based on the input of the various stakeholders, the FPP will be implemented when conditions permit.
The final stages of the trial (harvesting, monitoring and processing) have yet to be undertaken.
Research to date has successfully employed participatory action research methods in background issue scoping studies, problem identification, engagement of stakeholders and development of the proposed management plan. The initial stakeholder meeting was successful in achieving stakeholder involvement in the trial, and thus met the framework requirement for participation, as outlined above.
Based on the feedback from the two land management agencies involved in the project it appears that the underlying principle of restoring the plantation to some level of original forest cover has some potential as management model for small-scale plantation management.
Baharuddin, H.G. and Simula, M., 1996. Timber Certification in transition. International Tropical Timber Organization.
Bass, S.J., 1996. The Principles of forest management systems and labelling of forest products. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 31-42
Canadian Standards Association, 2001. Made-in-Canada Standards for Sustainable Forestry. http://www.cppa.org/english/wood/for_std.htm (accessed 23/11/01)
Decision Insights Inc, 2001. http://diiusa.com/stakeholders.html (accessed 25/09/01)
Elliott, S., 2000. Defining Forest Restoration for Wildlife Conservation. International Tropical Timber Organisation and Chiang Main University, 51-54
Forest Stewardship Council, 2001. Who are We? http://www.fscoax.org/principal.htm (accessed 20/09/01)
Forests Forever, 1999. Progress In Timber Certification World-Wide Summary April 1999. http://www.forestsforever.org.uk/forestcertification.html (accessed 24/11/01)
Government of British Columbia, 2001. Sustainable Forestry
Initiative
(SFI).
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/het/certification/SFIoverview.htm
(accessed 23/11/01)
Kemmis S., McTaggart R. (Eds.) 1988. The action research reader. Deakin University Press, Geelong, 27-39
Lyons, A., 2002. Plantation Management Plan for Briar Farm. Private Forests Tasmania, Launceston, 9 p.
Meridian Institute, 2001. Comparative Analysis Of The Forest Stewardship Council and Sustainable Forestry Initiative Certification Programs Executive Summary. 15 p.
Nussbaum, R., 2002. Group certification for forests: a practical guide. Department for International Development, United Kingdom 62p.
Ozinga, S., 2001. Behind the logo: an environmental and social assessment of forest certification schemes. Fern, The Netherlands, 60 p.
Pilarski, M., 1996. Restoration Forestry: An International Guide to Sustainable Forestry Practices. Kivaki Press, 525 p.
Pan European Forest Certification, 2001. Welcome to PEFC. http://www.pefc.org/ (accessed 12/09/01)
Prabhu, R., Colfer, C. J. P., Dudley, R.G., 1999. The CIFOR Criteria and Indicators Generic Template. Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Jakarta, 53 p.
| [1] Division of Science and
Design, University of Canberra ACT 2601 Australia. Tel: 02 6655 9841; Email:
[email protected] [2] “Certification is a process which in a written quality statement (a certificate) attesting to the origin of raw wood material and its status and/or qualifications following validation by an independent third party” (Baharuddin and Simula 1996). [3] “The provision and control of a physical label providing information to the consumer at the end of an unbroken chain of custody.” (Bass, 1996) [4] Criterion: A category of conditions or processes by which sustainable forest management may be assessed [5] Indicator: A measure (or measurement) of an aspect of the criterion. (Montreal Process, Dec. 1999) [6] “Action research is deliberate, solution-oriented investigation that is group or personally owned and conducted. It is characterized by spiralling cycles of problem identification, systematic data collection, reflection, analysis, data-driven action taken, and, finally, problem redefinition. The linking of the terms ‘action’ and ‘research’ highlights the essential features of this method: trying out ideas in practice as a means of increasing knowledge about and/or improving curriculum, teaching, and learning” (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988). [7] “bringing together a number of small forest areas under a single ‘group manager’ who acts both as a source of information and is also able to organise a certification process which allows each individual group member to benefit from the economies of scale of being part of a larger group” (Nussbaum 2002) |