Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management☆
Introduction
Private and public sector goals for forest resources evolve over time. Individual and societal goals change as values, economic conditions, political situations, and natural resource stocks change. Contemporary public forest resource management goals are expanding to encompass a broader suite of goods and services. Our forest policy tools must change to reach these broader goals.
In this article, we examine various factors that influence forest resource allocation, management, and protection, including the types of goods and services provided by forests, social values and institutions, and economic valuation of those goods and services. The objective of this paper is to synthesize the interaction of factors influencing policy with the development of new policy tools to achieve broad multifunctional forestry goals. As such, we review the factors that affect forest policy development and selection; summarize how these factors are used to justify and to select among various categories of policy instruments; and assess the evolving nature of forest policy instruments based on trends in social values and government capability.
Characterizing changes in social goals for forests is challenging, but new trends in forest resource values and uses can be identified. To cast these in old terms, we might think of Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a means to represent the changing nature of forest uses (Maslow, 1954). Initially, we sought to satisfy basic physiological needs from forests—such as food, shelter, or clothing—or security needs—such as protection from danger or threats. We have slowly expanded from these basic needs to higher needs of social, self-esteem, and self-actualization. Higher level needs encompasses a greater set of amenity, spiritual, or social needs and values. Forests provided multiple goods and services to very low-income, rural, agrarian societies. These ranged from spiritual, cultural, and religious outputs, to agricultural inputs such as watershed protection and fodder, to products including fuelwood, timber, and medicines. As societies develop, they become less connected to forests and rely on them primarily for products. At higher income levels, forests are again valued for multiple goods and services, including amenity values.
A contemporary natural resource explanation of this shift in the demand for environmental services is the environmental Kuznet's curve (Grossman and Kruger, 1995). This inverted U-shaped curve relates deforestation or extractive use of forests to income per capita. As countries develop, both their ability to exploit the forest and their demand for forest goods increase, pushing them up the Kuznet's curve. At some point, countries undergo a transition in production technology (e.g., from fuelwood to kerosene) and in demand (e.g., greater value placed on non-use and passive use of forests). This marks the “forest transition” from shrinking to expanding forest area, as has occurred in both the U.S. and Europe. However, contemporary evidence for this pattern is mixed. The turning point, where deforestation rates start to fall, appears to vary across countries and to depend on other conditions, such as the distribution of wealth and political freedoms (Bhattarai and Hammig, 2001).
Contemporary values of forests have evolved in the industrialized world. First, forests and forest products are still needed to satisfy basic human needs, just as agriculture is needed. However, the suite of goods and services desired from forests has expanded as incomes have risen, just as agriculture is now valued for open space as well as food products. Both public and private forests in most of Europe and in much of the United States are valued at least as much for recreation and tourism, water production (quantity) and quality, amenity values, wildlife, and biodiversity as for wood products (e.g., Bliss and Martin, 1989, Bengston et al., 1999, Butler and Leatherberry, 2004). Second, there is increased recognition that the wide range of forest goods and services that are necessary to even satisfy basic food and shelter has expanded. The recognition of the importance of ecosystem services, such as oxygen production, carbon storage, and hydrological cycles has expanded our concerns for basic needs beyond local stand or watershed issues into national policies and international affairs (e.g., Janson et al., 1994, Daly and Cobb, 1994, Odum, 1993). Third, research has demonstrated the value of forests to native local people and communities, and the need to integrate these local values with national and the global values to allocate and manage forest lands (e.g., Ascher, 1994, Leach et al., 1999, Mauro and Hardison, 2000).
This rapid expansion in the uses of forests as countries develop, combined with the expanded definitions of forest values, forces us to re-think forest policies to achieve these broader social goals. Some traditional forest policies may help us achieve production and protection of a broader set of forest goods and services. However, it seems unlikely that a set of forest policy tools originally designed to achieve production goals will be equally well suited for broader conservation, amenity and social goals. Furthermore, social conditions have changed, as countries have developed, governments have reformed, private sector markets have expanded, and international politics and power relationships evolved.
Section snippets
Policy determinants
The types of forest goods and services, social values, and ability to estimate economic values affect the selection of forest policies. These policy determinants have influenced selection of traditional forest policies and will be equally important as we develop and select new policy instruments to achieve sustainable forest management and multi-functional forestry objectives.
Policy instruments
The preceding public policy determinants influence both the forest policy goals and the selection of forest policy instruments. To recapitulate, forest resource characteristics, social goals, and economic values contribute to forest resource retention, allocation, management, and protection. Government is often required to intervene with policy instruments when the nature of goods and services impedes adequate resource allocation in markets. These includes cases such as of forest fire
Conclusions
Forest policies help determine the retention, use, and protection of forests. In the last decade, sustainable forest management has become a widely accepted paradigm. This paradigm states that we should manage forests for a broad set of economic, ecological, and social values. This infers that our forest policies must provide a broad set of multi-functional goods and services. The evolving nature of sustainable forestry goals requires advances in forest policy instruments for multi-functional
References (104)
- et al.
A new approach to monitoring the social environment for natural resource management and policy: the case of the US national forest benefits and values
Journal of Environmental Management
(1999) - et al.
Institutions and the environmental Kuznets curve for deforestation: a cross country analysis for Latin America, Africa and Asia
World Development
(2001) - et al.
Policy tools to encourage the application of sustainable timber harvesting practices in the United States and Canada
Forest Policy and Economics
(2004) - et al.
Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management
World Development
(1999) - et al.
Forest certification—an instrument to promote sustainable forest management?
Journal of Environmental Management
(2003) - et al.
Private forest policy tools: A national survey exploring the American public's perceptions and support
Forest Policy and Economics
(2006) - et al.
Sustainable forest management: global trends and opportunities
Forest Policy and Economics
(2005) Evaluation of policy instruments for protective forest management in Austria
Forest Policy and Economics
(2000)- et al.
Land trusts in the United States: analyzing abundance
Resources
(2004) Communities and Sustainable Forestry in Developing Countries
(1994)
Financing biodiversity conservation
Barriers to forest certification in developing tropical countries
America's Private Forests: Status and Stewardship
Identifying NIPF management motivations with qualitative methods
Forest Science
Social Responsibilities of the Businessman
Adaptive Governance: Integrating Natural Resource Science, Decision Making and Policy
The Calculus of Consent
America's family forest owners
Journal of Forestry
Forest Stringency and BC: A Constant Case Comparison
Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Research at CIFOR
Staking Out the Terrain: Power Differentials Among Natural Resource Agencies
Forests for Whom and For What?
Forest resources issues and policies: a framework for analysis
Renewable Resources Journal
Forest Resource Policy
For the Common Good
The structure of an environmental transaction: the debt-for-nature swap
Land Economics
Criteria for forest management
Forest Resource Policy: Processes, Participants, and Programs
The Tarapoto process: establishing criteria and indicators for the sustainable management of Amazon forests
Unasylva
The Equator Principles
The State of the World's Forests, 2005
The Failure of the Free-Market on a Full Planet, First Draft
Forest Sustainability: The History, the Challenge, the Promise
Economic growth and the environment
Quarterly Journal of Economics
Forest science and forest policy in the Americas: building bridges to a sustainable future
Forest Policy and Economics
Essays in Forestry Economics: Appraisal and Evaluation of Forestry Investments, Programs and Policies
Environmental sustainability and project appraisal
Journal of Sustainable Development
Contingent valuation of ecosystem health
Ecosystem Health
The International Tropical Timber Organization
Markets for environmental services: reality and potential
Unasylva
Community natural resource management: promise, rhetoric, and reality
Society & Natural Resources
Forest Resource Economics and Finance
Forest valuation
Cited by (0)
- ☆
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 IUFRO Meeting in Australia Economics of Multifunctionality, Session 037, August 9th.