Bart Holvoet Amsterdam, October 2003

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

Bart Holvoet Amsterdam, October 2003

Introduction

• Sustainable development = development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs

• Forestry sector: evolution– sustained yield productive forest functions

– Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) ecological, economical & social forest functions

• Criteria & Indicators (C&I) for the evaluation of SFM :

Different scope, different scale & different purpose

many standards, many differences

• Objectives : comparison of standards based on their contents

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

Methodology

• Collecting standards (different scope, scale or purpose)

• Background information about the standard and country

• Developing a ‘reference standard’

• Comparing each individual standard with reference standard

presence/absence data matrix

• Multivariate statistical analysis (CA, CCA)

discovering similarities & differences

• Explaining the observed patterns

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

Results: collected standards

• 164 standards collected and compared with the reference standard

• SCOPE: see figure

• SCALE: Forest Management Unit : 68%

32% developed for at least one higher level (sub-national and/or national)

• PURPOSE: Intergovernmental standards : 10%

Certification standards : 64%

(FSC : 42%, PEFC : 9%)

Africa 4%

International initiatives

10%

Oceania 2%

South America 7%

Central America

3%

North America

25%

Russia 2%

Europe 38%

Asia 9%

Distribution of collected standards according to their scope (geographical origin)

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

Results: reference standard

• Constructed following the Tropenbos Hierarchical Framework (Lammerts van Bueren E.M. and Blom E.M, 1997)

• Contains all elements ever mentioned in the collected standards

• Consisting of Principles, Criteria and Indicators :

7 principles, 47 criteria and 308 indicators

• Every principle forms an essential requirement for SFM

• Criteria and indicators cover all necessary elements for SFM, without overlap or duplication

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

Results: reference standardThe 7 principles of the reference standard

Results: statistical analysis

Statistical output:• distribution of standards• distribution of elements of the reference standard

• Correlations of certain explanatory variables (background information about standards)

2 major causes of difference: • difference in level of application:

National level Forest Management Unit (FMU)

• difference in geographical origin: North South

comparison

conclusions

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

Results: statistical analysis

Level

of

application

FMU level

national level

AX1

2,01,51,0,50,0-,5-1,0

AX

2

1,5

1,0

,5

0,0

-,5

-1,0

Level of application

sub-national

national

FMU

FMU and higher level

Distribution of the standards in the two-dimensional space of the first 2 factorial axes of the CA

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

Results: statistical analysis

AX1

543210-1-2

AX

2

5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

Geographical origin

Southern country

Northern country

Internationalstandard

Distribution of the standards in the two-dimensional space of the first 2 factorial axes of the CA.

Geographical

origin

North

South

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionCAUSE ? different objectives

differences in structure, detail and contents

FMU level:

objective = guiding forest management in practice towards SFM

National (or sub-national) level:

objective = guiding national policies and regulations towards SFM

(not further elaborated)

Level

of

application

FMU level

national level

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

CAUSE ? different geographical origin

different ecological, social and economic aspects

Northern countries: • forests less complex, often smaller and fragmented• lower biodiversity• large capacities (financially and human resources)• ...

Southern countries: • extended and complex forests • high biodiversity• socio-economical inequity• low capacities (financially and human resources)• ...

Discussion

Geographical

origin

North

South

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 1: Policy and planning strive for sustainable and

multifunctional forest management, and are being supported by legislation and facilities.

North

South

different ecological,

social and

economic aspects

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 1: Policy and planning strive for sustainable and

multifunctional forest management, and are being supported by legislation and facilities.

North

South

• more experience & large knowledge

• large capacity

• little experience & small knowledge

• little capacity (financially, human skills)

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 1: Policy and planning strive for sustainable and

multifunctional forest management, and are being supported by legislation and facilities.

North

South

• more experience & large knowledge

• large capacity

• little experience & small knowledge

• little capacity (financially, human skills)

differencesin

standards

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 1: Policy and planning strive for sustainable and

multifunctional forest management, and are being supported by legislation and facilities.

North

South

• more experience & large knowledge

• large capacity

elements related to the use of technical and research capacity

• little experience & small knowledge

• little capacity (financially, human skills)

• elements for evaluation & stimulation of current capabilities

• transfer of technology!

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 2: The surface, vitality and state of the forest resources

will be maintained and protected, and where possible even improved.

North

South

different ecological,

social and

economic aspects

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 2: The surface, vitality and state of the forest resources

will be maintained and protected, and where possible even improved.

North

South

• huge pressure on forest (past)

• environmental concern

• large technological capacity & knowledge

• growing pressure on forests (present & future)

• low technological capacity, little knowledge

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 2: The surface, vitality and state of the forest resources

will be maintained and protected, and where possible even improved.

North

South

• huge pressure on forest (past)

• environmental concern

• large technological capacity & knowledge

• growing pressure on forests (present & future)

• low technological capacity, little knowledge

differencesin

standards

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 2: The surface, vitality and state of the forest resources

will be maintained and protected, and where possible even improved.

North

South

• huge pressure on forest (past)

• environmental concern

• large technological capacity & knowledge

elements to evaluate, encounter or prevent forest damage

• growing pressure on forests (present & future)

• low technological capacity, little knowledge

specific elements for forest protection seldom present

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 3: The productive forest function will be maintained, by

sustainable forest exploitation and by reassuring forest regeneration.

North

South

different ecological,

social and

economic aspects

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 3: The productive forest function will be maintained, by

sustainable forest exploitation and by reassuring forest regeneration.

North

South

• less complex ecosystems

low species diversity

• large monitoring capacity

• very complex ecosystems

high species diversity

• limited monitoring capacity

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 3: The productive forest function will be maintained, by

sustainable forest exploitation and by reassuring forest regeneration.

North

South

• less complex ecosystems

low species diversity

• large monitoring capacity

• very complex ecosystems

high species diversity

• limited monitoring capacity

differencesin

standards

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 3: The productive forest function will be maintained, by

sustainable forest exploitation and by reassuring forest regeneration.

North

South

• less complex ecosystems

low species diversity

• large monitoring capacity

elements related to stocks, stock changes and harvest of non woody forest products

• very complex ecosystems

high species diversity

• limited monitoring capacity

elements for identification & stimulation of the use of non woody forest products

(+ extra pressure on sustainable wood production : LKS)

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 4: Biodiversity and ecological processes will be

maintained and protected, and where possibly strengthened.

North

South

different ecological,

social and

economic aspects

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 4: Biodiversity and ecological processes will be

maintained and protected, and where possibly strengthened.

• many human influences (fragmentation, access, artificially restored, ...)

• environmental concern

• complex ecosystems, often in natural state

• lack of capacity for sustainable managing of forest species

North

South

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 4: Biodiversity and ecological processes will be

maintained and protected, and where possibly strengthened.

• many human influences (fragmentation, access, artificially restored, ...)

• environmental concern

• complex ecosystems, often in natural state

• lack of capacity for sustainable managing of forest species

North

South

differencesin

standards

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 4: Biodiversity and ecological processes will be

maintained and protected, and where possibly strengthened.

• many human influences (fragmentation, access, artificially restored, ...)

• environmental concern

elements for :

• protection of ecosystem and sustainable management of forest species

• restoration of naturalness

• complex ecosystems, often in natural state

• lack of capacity for sustainable managing of forest species

• elements mentioned are absent

• exclusive element: prohibition of hunting !

North

South

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 5: Protective forest functions shall be maintained and

protected, and where possible strengthened.

North

South

different ecological,

social and

economic aspects

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 5: Protective forest functions shall be maintained and

protected, and where possible strengthened.

North

South

• often chemical pollution (industrial development)

• large capacity for chemical analyzing (e.g. nutrient cycling, pH)

• small capacity in chemical analyzing

• extended surfaces of physically vulnerable soils and water resources (e.g. sediment loss, runoff)

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 5: Protective forest functions shall be maintained and

protected, and where possible strengthened.

North

South

• often chemical pollution (industrial development)

• large capacity for chemical analyzing (e.g. nutrient cycling, pH)

• small capacity in chemical analyzing

• extended surfaces of physically vulnerable soils and water resources (e.g. sediment loss, runoff)

differencesin

standards

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 5: Protective forest functions shall be maintained and

protected, and where possible strengthened.

North

South

• often chemical pollution (industrial development)

• large capacity for chemical analyzing (e.g. nutrient cycling, pH)

• strong focus on chemical quality of soils/water resources• exclusive elements: elements related to global carbon cycle (Kyoto, Montreal & Helsinki Process)

• small capacity in chemical analyzing

• extended surfaces of physically vulnerable soils and water resources (e.g. sediment loss, runoff)

• little attention to chemical properties of soil/water

• more attention to physical and quantitative aspects of soil/water

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 6: The sustainable forest management shall be

economically viable and shall improve the conditions of local communities and local economies.

North

South

different ecological,

social and

economic aspects

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 6: The sustainable forest management shall be

economically viable and shall improve the conditions of local communities and local economies.

North

South

• Forests seldom economically important

• Forest sector well known (employment, value production, ..)

• Forests often economically important (strong dependency)

• Forest sector not well known (large informal sector)

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 6: The sustainable forest management shall be

economically viable and shall improve the conditions of local communities and local economies.

North

South

• Forests seldom economically important

• Forest sector well known (employment, value production, ..)

• Forests often economically important (strong dependency)

• Forest sector not well known (large informal sector)

differencesin

standards

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 6: The sustainable forest management shall be

economically viable and shall improve the conditions of local communities and local economies.

North

South

• Forests seldom economically important

• Forest sector well known (employment, value production, ..)

elements for estimation of employment and value of forest sector

• Forests often economically important (strong dependency)

• Forest sector not well known (large informal sector)

• no estimation of value or employment of forest sector

• elements to evaluate & steer the socio-economic situation (inequality, estimation of the forest dependency, ...)

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 7: The social and cultural wellbeing of all stakeholders

shall be maintained and protected, and shall be improved when necessary.

North

South

different ecological,

social and

economic aspects

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 7: The social and cultural wellbeing of all stakeholders

shall be maintained and protected, and shall be improved when necessary.

North

South

• Often low dependency on forests

• Local or indigenous people are often absent(exceptions: Scandinavian countries, Canada, USA, ...)

• Strong dependency on forests

• Local and/or indigenous people

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 7: The social and cultural wellbeing of all stakeholders

shall be maintained and protected, and shall be improved when necessary.

North

South

• Often low dependency on forests

• Local or indigenous people are often absent(exceptions: Scandinavian countries, Canada, USA, ...)

• Strong dependency on forests

• Local and/or indigenous people

differencesin

standards

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

DiscussionPrinciple 7: The social and cultural wellbeing of all stakeholders

shall be maintained and protected, and shall be improved when necessary.

North

South

• Often low dependency on forests

• Local or indigenous people are often absent(exceptions: Scandinavian countries, Canada, USA, ...)

• typical elements: recreational forest function

• elements concerning local/indigenous people are absent (not always justified!)

• Strong dependency on forests

• Local and/or indigenous people

More focused on the social & cultural aspects of local and/or indigenous people(wellbeing, quality of life,

participation)

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

Northern countries: • more attention to environmental aspects • less attention to the socio-economic forest functions

Southern countries: • more attention to social and economic aspects • less attention to the environmental forest functions• importance of capacity building

Discussion

Geographical

origin

North

South

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

Conclusions

Differences caused by:

• various conditions (ecological, economical, social and cultural)

typical elements representing these differences

• difference in overall capacity for SFM: shortcomings

many elements are missing in Southern standards because of their lack in capacity (technology, planning and research capability)

Geographical

origin

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

Conclusions

Harmonization between standards? To what extent? How?

• Differences resulting from specific local conditions (ecological, economical, social or cultural)

harmonization not advisable

• Differences resulting from shortcomings Southern countries !!! (small overall managing capacity or socio-economical inequity)

harmonization advisable !

need for capacity building in the field of forestry

international cooperation

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

Recommedantions

Capacity building- Transfer of knowledge and technology - Support development of national regulations and efficient national forest services - Aid and guide local communities towards SFM

Tackle the socio-economic aspect of inequity

Adaptation of SFM standards- use knowledge & experience in tropical forest management to rethink some aspects - participatory process

Implementation of SFM standards: active involvement of all the stakeholders- National forest services: implement forest regulations + support- Logging companies, communities, forest managers: implementation of SFM standards - NGO pressure - Market driven pressure.

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

Thank you for your attention

Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North