Sustainable forest management is the management of forests according to the principles of sustainable development. Sustainable forest management has to keep the balance between three main pillars: ecological, economic and socio-cultural. Successfully achieving sustainable forest management will provide integrated benefits to all, ranging from safeguarding local livelihoods to protecting the biodiversity and ecosystems provided by forests, reducing rural poverty and mitigating some of the effects of climate change.
The “Forest Principles” adopted at The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 captured the general international understanding of sustainable forest management at that time. A number of sets of criteria and indicators have since been developed to evaluate the achievement of SFM at the global, regional, country and management unit level. These were all attempts to codify and provide for independent assessment of the degree to which the broader objectives of sustainable forest management are being achieved in practice. In 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests. The instrument was the first of its kind, and reflected the strong international commitment to promote implementation of sustainable forest management through a new approach that brings all stakeholders together.
A definition of SFM was developed by the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (FOREST EUROPE), and has since been adopted by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). It defines sustainable forest management as:
The stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfill, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions, at local, national, and global levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems.
In simpler terms, the concept can be described as the attainment of balance – balance between society’s increasing demands for forest products and benefits, and the preservation of forest health and diversity. This balance is critical to the survival of forests, and to the prosperity of forest-dependent communities.
For forest managers, sustainably managing a particular forest tract means determining, in a tangible way, how to use it today to ensure similar benefits, health and productivity in the future. Forest managers must assess and integrate a wide array of sometimes conflicting factors – commercial and non-commercial values, environmental considerations, community needs, even global impact – to produce sound forest plans. In most cases, forest managers develop their forest plans in consultation with citizens, businesses, organizations and other interested parties in and around the forest tract being managed. The tools and visualization have been recently evolving for better management practices.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, at the request of Member States, developed and launched the Sustainable Forest Management Toolbox in 2014, an online collection of tools, best practices and examples of their application to support countries implementing sustainable forest management.
Because forests and societies are in constant flux, the desired outcome of sustainable forest management is not a fixed one. What constitutes a sustainably managed forest will change over time as values held by the public change.
In 2004, the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) (ECOSOC, 2004) identified seven thematic elements common to so-called sustainable forest management systems:
Extent of forest resources;
Forest health and vitality;
Productive functions of forest resources;
Forest Resources Protection Functions;
Legal, political and institutional frameworks.
Criteria and indicators
Criteria and indicators are tools which can be used to conceptualise, evaluate and implement sustainable forest management. Criteria define and characterize the essential elements, as well as a set of conditions or processes, by which sustainable forest management may be assessed. Periodically measured indicators reveal the direction of change with respect to each criterion.
Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management are widely used and many countries produce national reports that assess their progress toward sustainable forest management. There are nine international and regional criteria and indicators initiatives, which collectively involve more than 150 countries. Three of the more advanced initiatives are those of the Working Group on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests (also called the Montréal Process), Forest Europe, and the International Tropical Timber Organization. Countries who are members of the same initiative usually agree to produce reports at the same time and using the same indicators. Within countries, at the management unit level, efforts have also been directed at developing local level criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management. The Center for International Forestry Research, the International Model Forest Network and researchers at the University of British Columbia have developed a number of tools and techniques to help forest-dependent communities develop their own local level criteria and indicators. Criteria and Indicators also form the basis of third-party forest certification programs such as the Canadian Standards Association’s Sustainable Forest Management Standards and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative Standard.
There appears to be growing international consensus on the key elements of sustainable forest management. Seven common thematic areas of sustainable forest management have emerged based on the criteria of the nine ongoing regional and international criteria and indicators initiatives. The seven thematic areas are:
Extent of forest resources
Forest health and vitality
Productive functions and forest resources
Protective functions of forest resources
Legal, policy and institutional framework.
This consensus on common thematic areas (or criteria) effectively provides a common, implicit definition of sustainable forest management. The seven thematic areas were acknowledged by the international forest community at the fourth session of the United Nations Forum on Forests and the 16th session of the Committee on Forestry. These thematic areas have since been enshrined in the Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests as a reference framework for sustainable forest management to help achieve the purpose of the instrument.
On January 5, 2012, the Montréal Process, Forest Europe, the International Tropical Timber Organization, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, acknowledging the seven thematic areas, endorsed a joint statement of collaboration to improve global forest related data collection and reporting and avoiding the proliferation of monitoring requirements and associated reporting burdens.
The Ecosystem Approach has been prominent on the agenda of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) since 1995. The CBD definition of the Ecosystem Approach and a set of principles for its application were developed at an expert meeting in Malawi in 1995, known as the Malawi Principles. The definition, 12 principles and 5 points of “operational guidance” were adopted by the fifth Conference of Parties (COP5) in 2000. The CBD definition is as follows
The ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. Application of the ecosystem approach will help to reach a balance of the three objectives of the Convention. An ecosystem approach is based on the application of appropriate scientific methodologies focused on levels of biological organization, which encompasses the essential structures, processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their environment. It recognizes that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral component of many ecosystems.
Sustainable forest management was recognized by parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2004 (Decision VII/11 of COP7) to be a concrete means of applying the Ecosystem Approach to forest ecosystems. The two concepts, sustainable forest management and the ecosystem approach, aim at promoting conservation and management practices which are environmentally, socially and economically sustainable, and which generate and maintain benefits for both present and future generations. In Europe, the MCPFE and the Council for the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) jointly recognized sustainable forest management to be consistent with the Ecosystem Approach in 2006.
There is no agreed definition of the ecosystem approach under CBD 33 but the description and a set of principles for its application were developed at a meeting of experts in Malawi in 1998 – known as name of “Principles of Malawi”. The description, five operational management points, was adopted by the fifth Conference of the Parties in 2000. The description of the CBD is as follows:
The ecosystem approach is an integrated land, water and living resource management strategy that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable manner. Thus, the application of such an approach will help to balance the three objectives of the Convention: conservation, sustainable use and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the exploitation of genetic resources.
The ecosystem approach is based on the application of appropriate scientific methods to the various levels of biological organization, which include the essential processes, functions and interactions between organisms and their environment. It recognizes that human beings, with their cultural diversity, are an integral part of ecosystems.
The emphasis on structure, processes, functions and interactions is in line with the definition of the ecosystem, found in Article of the Convention which reads as follows:
“Ecosystem” refers to a dynamic complex of communities of plants, animals and micro-organisms and their non-living environment that, through their interaction, form a functional unit.
This definition does not mention a particular unit or spatial scale, contrary to the Convention’s definition of “habitat”. Therefore, the term “ecosystem” does not necessarily correspond to the terms” biome “or “ecological zone”, but may refer to any functional unit at any scale. In fact, it is the problem to be considered that should determine the scale of analysis and action. It could be, for example, a piece of arable land, a pond, a forest, a biome or the entire biosphere.
The ecosystem approach requires management that can adapt to the complex and dynamic nature of ecosystems and insufficient knowledge and understanding of their functioning. Ecosystems often follow non-linear processes, and there is often a gap between these processes and the appearance of their consequences. This results in discontinuities, which generate surprise and uncertainty. Management needs to be able to adapt to address these uncertainties and accept to some extent learning on the job or leveraging research results. It may be necessary to take certain measures even when the cause-and-effect relationship has not been fully established scientifically.
The ecosystem approach, which does not exclude other management and conservation methods such as biosphere reserves, protected areas and conservation programs for a given species, as well as other approaches used in the framework of national policies and legislation, could instead integrate all these approaches and other methods to deal with complex situations. There is no single way to apply the ecosystem approach as it depends on local, provincial, national, regional or global conditions. In fact, the ecosystem approach could be used in a variety of ways as a framework for achieving concretely the achievement of the objectives of the Convention.
Sustainable forest management was recognized by Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2004 (decision VII / 11 of the 7 th Conference of the Parties 36) as a practical way to apply the ecosystem approach to forest ecosystems.
The ecosystem approach to forest biodiversity can be described as an integrated forest management strategy that promotes equitable conservation and sustainable use. Human beings, in their cultural diversity, are an integral part of the forest ecosystem. The ecosystem approach requires appropriate management to address the dynamic and complex nature of the forest ecosystem and the lack of knowledge or full understanding of its functioning.
The forest ecosystem should therefore be managed for its intrinsic values and for the benefits it brings to human beings in a fair and equitable way. Managers should consider the current and potential effects of their activities to avoid unknown and unpredictable effects on its operation and, hence, on its value. The forest ecosystem should also be understood and managed in an economic context. In particular, the costs and benefits of the forest ecosystem should be internalized to the extent possible. In addition, market distortions that undermine forest biological diversity should be reduced and incentives that promote biodiversity and sustainable management should be applied.
In conclusion, the management of the forest ecosystem must be done within the limits of its dynamics. Therefore, the conservation of their structure and operation must be the priority. It is the need to preserve its full values, including the goods and services that forests deliver to human beings.
Although a majority of forests continue to be owned formally by government, the effectiveness of forest governance is increasingly independent of formal ownership. Since neo-liberal ideology in the 1980s and the emanation of the climate change challenges, evidence that the state is failing to effectively manage environmental resources has emerged. Under neo-liberal regimes in the developing countries, the role of the state has diminished and the market forces have increasingly taken over the dominant socio-economic role. Though the critiques of neo-liberal policies have maintained that market forces are not only inappropriate for sustaining the environment, but are in fact a major cause of environmental destruction. Hardin’s tragedy of the commons (1968) has shown that the people cannot be left to do as they wish with land or environmental resources. Thus, decentralization of management offers an alternative solution to forest governance.
The shifting of natural resource management responsibilities from central to state and local governments, where this is occurring, is usually a part of broader decentralization process. According to Rondinelli and Cheema (1983), there are four distinct decentralization options: these are: (i) Privatization – the transfer of authority from the central government to non-governmental sectors otherwise known as market-based service provision, (ii) Delegation – centrally nominated local authority, (iii) Devolution – transfer of power to locally acceptable authority and (iv) Deconcentration – the redistribution of authority from the central government to field delegations of the central government. The major key to effective decentralization is increased broad-based participation in local-public decision making. In 2000, the World Bank report reveals that local government knows the needs and desires of their constituents better than the national government, while at the same time, it is easier to hold local leaders accountable. From the study of West African tropical forest, it is argued that the downwardly accountable and/or representative authorities with meaningful discretional powers are the basic institutional element of decentralization that should lead to efficiency, development and equity. This collaborates with the World Bank report in 2000 which says that decentralization should improve resource allocation, efficiency, accountability and equity “by linking the cost and benefit of local services more closely”.
Many reasons point to the advocacy of decentralization of forest. (i) Integrated rural development projects often fail because they are top-down projects that did not take local people’s needs and desires into account. (ii) National government sometimes have legal authority over vast forest areas that they cannot control, thus, many protected area projects result in increased biodiversity loss and greater social conflict. Within the sphere of forest management, as state earlier, the most effective option of decentralization is “devolution”-the transfer of power to locally accountable authority. However, apprehension about local governments is not unfounded. They are often short of resources, may be staffed by people with low education and are sometimes captured by local elites who promote clientelist relation rather than democratic participation. Enters and Anderson (1999) point that the result of community-based projects intended to reverse the problems of past central approaches to conservation and development have also been discouraging.
Broadly speaking, the goal of forest conservation has historically not been met when, in contrast with land use changes; driven by demand for food, fuel and profit. It is necessary to recognize and advocate for better forest governance more strongly given the importance of forest in meeting basic human needs in the future and maintaining ecosystem and biodiversity as well as addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation goal. Such advocacy must be coupled with financial incentives for government of developing countries and greater governance role for local government, civil society, private sector and NGOs on behalf of the “communities”.
National Forest Funds
The development of National Forest Funds is one way to address the issue of financing sustainable forest management. National forest funds (NFFs) are dedicated financing mechanisms managed by public institutions designed to support the conservation and sustainable use of forest resources. As of 2014, there are 70 NFFs operating globally.
Forest genetic resources
Appropriate use and long-term conservation of forest genetic resources (FGR) is a part of sustainable forest management. In particular when it comes to the adaptation of forests and forest management to climate change. Genetic diversity ensures that forest trees can survive, adapt and evolve under changing environmental conditions. Genetic diversity in forests also contributes to tree vitality and to the resilience towards pests and diseases. Furthermore, FGR has a crucial role in maintaining forest biological diversity at both species and ecosystem levels.
Selecting carefully the plant material with emphasis on getting a high genetic diversity rather than aiming at producing a uniform stand of trees, is essential for sustainable use of FGR. Considering the provenance is crucial as well. For example in relation to climate change, local material may not have the genetic diversity or phenotypic plasticity to guarantee good performance under changed conditions. A different population from further away, which may have experienced selection under conditions more like those forecast for the site to be reforested, might represent a more suitable seed source.
Urban and peri-urban forests
Urban or peri- urban forests pose particular problems, for example related to: their accessibility, the coexistence of different ecosystem functions and services other than wood production of commercial interest, a weakening by over-crowding, etc. These forests require precautions and management methods suited to their specificities.
Increasing environmental concerns and consumer demand for more socially responsible commerce has allowed independent forest certification to emerge in the 1990s as a credible tool for communicating the social and environmental performance of forest operations.
There are many stakeholders (active or potential) involved in certification, including forest contractors, investors, ecologists or ecologists, hunters, companies selling or consuming large quantities of wood and paper, ‘ ethical public procurement or ” green procurement ” and all wood consumers.
Purpose of Certification
A new social and economic demand for forest certification has led to the emergence of independent organizations that have produced standards of good forest management. Also emerged independent audit bodies certifying logging operations that meet these standards. For example, for PEFC certification in France, the forest owners’ controls are carried out by the Regional Entities (RE), which are themselves certified by private certifiers on the basis of ISO standards. These certifiers are supervised by the French Accreditation Committee (COFRAC), established in 1994 and designated as the only national accreditation body by the Decree of December 2008
This certification aims to provide guarantees of good forest management – according to definitions that vary according to the standards used – and to ensure that wood and wood products (paper, cardboard, etc.) come from forests managed in a responsible way.
This rise in certification has led to the emergence of different systems around the world.
The result is that there is no commonly accepted global standard, and each system uses a different approach to define, evaluate and monitor sustainable forest management standards.
Forest certification by independent organizations is an important tool for those seeking to ensure that the paper and wood products they purchase come from forests that are well managed and legally operated. The integration of independent certifications in obtaining forest products practices can be critical to forestry policies that include factors such as the protection of sensitive forest resources, thoughtful selection of materials and efficient use of products.
The most used standards are:
Canadian Standards Association (CSA);
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC);
Forest Certification Recognition Program (PEFC).
Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI);
The area of certified forests is increasing rapidly. In December 2005, there were 2.420 000 km2 of forests certified according to the standard 39, FSC or SFI, including 1.19 million km2 in Canada 40. In 2009, 8% of the world’s forest is certified, 80% of which according to the PEFC standards (of which SFI is now part).
Location of certified forests
Certification has been promoted after Rio to improve forest management around the world, but to date most certified forests are located in Europe and North America. An important barrier for many forest managers in developing countries is the lack of capacity to fund or practice certification audits or to maintain certification standards.
In 2009, the FSC was still underdeveloped in France where foresters largely favored PEFC, ie 6 million hectares PEFC certified at the end of 2010. Thus, in March 2009, less than 20 000 hectares of forest were FSC certified, ie less than 0.1% of FSC – certified areas in the European Union.
In comparison, FSC-certified forest areas in Sweden reach 9.7 million hectares (nearly 500 times more than the FSC-certified area in France in 2009), nearly 7 million in Poland, 1.6 million in France. United Kingdom. In relation to its forest area (especially in hardwood), France is at the end of the pack, but ahead of Cyprus, Malta, Austria, Luxembourg and Belgium.
Growing environmental awareness and consumer demand for more socially responsible businesses helped third-party forest certification emerge in the 1990s as a credible tool for communicating the environmental and social performance of forest operations.
There are many potential users of certification, including: forest managers, scientists, policy makers, investors, environmental advocates, business consumers of wood and paper, and individuals.
With third-party forest certification, an independent organization develops standards of good forest management, and independent auditors issue certificates to forest operations that comply with those standards. Forest certification verifies that forests are well-managed – as defined by a particular standard – and chain-of-custody certification tracks wood and paper products from the certified forest through processing to the point of sale.
This rise of certification led to the emergence of several different systems throughout the world. As a result, there is no single accepted forest management standard worldwide, and each system takes a somewhat different approach in defining standards for sustainable forest management.
In its 2009–2010 Forest Products Annual Market Review United Nations Economic Commission for Europe/Food and Agriculture Organization stated: “Over the years, many of the issues that previously divided the (certification) systems have become much less distinct. The largest certification systems now generally have the same structural programmatic requirements.”
Third-party forest certification is an important tool for those seeking to ensure that the paper and wood products they purchase and use come from forests that are well-managed and legally harvested. Incorporating third-party certification into forest product procurement practices can be a centerpiece for comprehensive wood and paper policies that include factors such as the protection of sensitive forest values, thoughtful material selection and efficient use of products.
There are more than fifty certification standards worldwide, addressing the diversity of forest types and tenures. Globally, the two largest umbrella certification programs are:
Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC)
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
The area of forest certified worldwide is growing slowly. PEFC is the world’s largest forest certification system, with more than two-thirds of the total global certified area certified to its Sustainability Benchmarks.
In North America, there are three certification standards endorsed by PEFC – the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, the Canadian Standards Association’s Sustainable Forest Management Standard, and the American Tree Farm System. FSC has five standards in North America – one in the United States and four in Canada.
While certification is intended as a tool to enhance forest management practices throughout the world, to date most certified forestry operations are located in Europe and North America. A significant barrier for many forest managers in developing countries is that they lack the capacity to undergo a certification audit and maintain operations to a certification standard.
The forest of the 21th century could be managed very differently, relying more and more on new tools relevant to the environmental assessment and may facilitate management (but also potentially overexploitation of valuable species), which:
aerial imagery (including infra-red);
the satellite imaging, for example provided by MODIS, to better predict the risk of death of trees (250m 16-daily MODIS);
the geolocation of valuable species or future;
airborne lidar technology for surveying the topography and vegetation structure with data recorded as a 3D point cloud. This technology makes it possible, for example, to identify wood energy resources in mountain forests.
Field-Map technology combines aerial imagery and field measurements. Field-Map is often used for mapping ” forest stations “, trees and possibly for timber traceability. If the chain of custody is not broken, thanks to the coordinates associated with each tree before slaughter, an end customer can theoretically visualize the origin of the wood of a piece of furniture, or an object in “traceable wood”.
Some authors estimate given the inertia of forestry cycles, the complexity of the forest and the lack of knowledge on forest ecology it is currently impossible to use indicators taxonomy to track credibly “sustainability “or” sustainability “of forest management. They therefore suggest using or using rather precise indicators that are fairly easy to measure, such as the structural complexity of the forest, forest fragmentation, its naturalness (autochthony), and its structural heterogeneity, which they say are good “clues”. » Of its biodiversity if they are used from the most local (intraparcellar) levels to landscape levels.
This approach would also allow adaptive management including “passive restoration” measures (via the restoration of a network of senescence islands characterized by “the cessation of forest interventions, should be considered when the attributes of a stage of growth are desired (…) within a reasonable time “.
Sustainable management is based on sustainable forest management (SFM). There seems to be a consensus that a forest under sustainable management and sustainable management is better at preserving biodiversity than an area subject to clear-cutting or agricultural conversion, but others options exist, including a so-called close-to-nature management (Prosilva type) based on a very selective harvest of high-value timber that could be more conducive to overall forest regeneration and biodiversity than the high-intensity and repeated harvests that are in situations of sustainable forest management.
Compared to what happens in a natural forest, the ADF involves a deep disturbance of the ecosystem (fragmentation, accessibility, disturbance and sometimes artificial change of species and populations) and therefore significant changes in natural habitats and services ecosystems, which some authors associate with “a range of significant negative impacts on biodiversity”.
The ADF, still based on the creation of roads, tracks can aggravate the threat of poaching, conversion to farmland by facilitating access to the outskirts and hearts of forest and in tropical zone, even if it is carried out carefully, slaughter increases the intensity and frequency of wildfires. Thus, according to Niesten & al. “It is not clear that the ADF is able to ensure a satisfactory level of biodiversity maintenance, even if it proves to be financially viable”.
The demand for certified wood under certain sustainable management criteria is mainly focused on North America and Europe and little on China and the tropics for their own needs. But the surface of the tropical forest is globally in constant decline since more than.
Certified sustainable development would be a priori more attractive if the certified wood was purchased at a higher price from the owner or operator. Consumers sometimes pay a higher price for certified wood, but the difference for the forester may be minimal or fail to repay the efforts he has made, the financial incentive to change management practices may be insufficient according to various authors, especially for precious
Source from Wikipedia