Forests and Ecosystem Management

Designation functions based on classification of forest is necessary as a basis for forest management. However, constrains in implementation may appear primarily due to inconsistency on directions like commitment and regulations.

At a global level, various documents have been initiated addressing environmental and developmental issues⁹ to promote ecological consciousness, particularly through the numerous processes after Rio. Several procedures to promote the sustainable use of biological resources have been initiated such as Ecosystem Approach (EsA), Ecosystem Management (EM), Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) or Multi-purpose Forestry. Their common aim is to provide guidance and to increase the applicability from the local to the regional and national level. Although consensus and commitments to these procedures have been adopted by many nations, various political barriers and implementation constraints are still to be met, due to the differing complexities of (inter-) human and natural systems and the incapability of the nations in developing an appropriate system to guarantee control.

2.3.1. Limitations of SFM

Selecting a suitable approach is necessary to advocate a certain goal, either as an explanatory sample or to prove the applicability of the chosen concept. It is specifically important since the Rio documents were principally adopted by most nations and the respective governments must update their legislation, also with respect to forestry (Wit 2003).

9 Prior 1992, IUCN-UNEP-WWF have issued books: Caring for the Earth, a Strategy for Sustainable Living (1991); 1992, Earth Summit: Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Agenda 21, Statement of Forest Principles, The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN-FCCC), The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

When dealing with forests, SFM¹⁰ has usually been considered, at first, since the forestry sector originally invented the concept, although with a far narrower approach than today. SFM is currently used to describe a forest management that not only looks for economic optimisation but also sets social and environmental goals. However, SFM is narrowly focused on forests, as defined by the stewardship and on the use of forests and forest lands (Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe 2002 in Sayer and Maginnis 2005). It does not include the interrelationships with other habitat types or areas outside forests nor does it provide goals and solutions for deforested lands, where the benefits of trees and forests are lacking. Thus, SFM is a limited concept to solve environmental problems particularly in urbanized landscapes where to initiate forest enhancement for the sake of ‘non-forest’ land would be needed.

The integration of forestry in ‘non-forest’ areas might be even more difficult, when the existing formal system of the respective country does not consider the whole range of forest functions.

FAO (as mentioned in Carter 1994) asserted that the history of canonicalization has a strong relationship with the current development in many countries, including the formal control system that still does rely on the colonial norms and legislation. This is mostly the case when the existing legislation of management and control is inherited from the colonial-period, which was enacted for the purpose of extraction and exploitation. As a result, the current understanding of sustainability in the scope of legislation as control system still gives more weight to production like timber harvesting and is considerably weak on social and moreover on ecological aspects.

2.3.2. Complements of EsA

A comparative analysis between SFM and EsA was carried out by the Laboratory of Ecosystem Management Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, leading to the following results:

(1) both concepts have similarities in regard to the concept of sustainability. They overlap significantly, and provide opportunities for mutual learning (CBD 2003b);

(2) both follow the same goal (FAO 2003), i.e. the management, conservation and sustainable use of renewable natural resources;

(3) SFM principles are basically complementary to what EsA means, however some differences are found concerning content or scope: EsA principles do not contain specific targets/objectives, but they can be a starting point for action, while SFM

10 SFM can be traced to the so-called Forest Principles and Agenda 21-Chapter 11.

contains a specific target which is ‘timber oriented’. It follows an ‘outcome-based-approach’‘ but is not limited to it (this is shown by the use criteria and indicators) (CBD 2003b);

(4) SFM concerns only forest ecosystems.

EsA places greater emphasis on conservation issues, therefore, biodiversity can be better considered within cross-sectoral integration and inter-sectoral collaboration (CBD 2003a; CBD 2003b). In a broader context, EsA aims at greater integration than SFM. It encompasses broader societal concerns in all natural systems both, for natural areas and heavily man-modified systems. The intrinsic value of forests, even outside ‘forest land’ can be better promoted – which is called a holistic approach (Ellenberg 2003).

Nature protection should cover a wide spectrum of ecosystems from remote areas (where natural or semi-natural habitats usually dominate) to the cores of urban areas where the forest cover is small. As a consequence, foresters should consider the contribution and effects – actual or potential – of their activities over the entire landscape.

Figure 2.2. Area Responsibility from Resource Professions in the Forest Continuum Resource professions Forest Continuum

Natural Rural Exurban Suburban Urban Arboriculture

Recreation

Landscape Architecture Wildlife Management &

Nature Conservation Forestry

Rural Forestry Urban Forestry .

______ major interest ... minor interest

Source: Miller 1997 (p.35)

The forester’s field of responsibility is traditionally limited to remote or rural areas where forests still cover greater proportions of the land. In urban areas, usually arboriculture looks after the trees while in wilderness areas nature conservationist protect natural forests against any kind of human impact (see Figure 2.2). With respect to urbanized environments, Miller (1997) asserted that both experts should cooperate and complement one another, since foresters are concerned with the ecosystem context rather than with single trees like arboriculturists do. Thus, the forester’s role really is to promote forest functions throughout the entire landscape and the forester’s profession is to assure the forest ecosystems integrity.

SFM criteria and indicators are well developed and widely adopted (IUCN, PROFOR, World Bank 2004; Schlaepfer et al. 2004). However they work only in forest areas or where forest areas are designated. Fragmented forest areas, where ecological integrity and functioning have been spoiled and degraded do not suit their application. From this point of view, SFM is not adequate to set development goals outside forestland and on the landscape scale. It neglects both, cross-sectoral integration and concerns at the landscape level (CBD 2004b).

In contrast to this, the UN-CBD EsA is designed to achieve further objectives that surpass sustainable use, like fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources and nature conservation. A given set of general principles (‘’Malawi Principles’’) fills in the SFM deficiencies mentioned above (Table 2.1). These principles provide a framework for action which has to be translated and transferred into management practices. The approach offers a more holistic view, which is applicable to all types of ecosystems (CBD 2004b).

Insofar, the concept was then considered to be still immature with much room for innovation. Some lessons learned for further EsA development are presented by Smith and Maltby (2003), study cases by Wit (2003), or application of the full set of EsA principles by Shepherd (2003).

In the CBD’s 12^th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice on July 2007 in Paris, Settle (2007) presented his review to application of EsA. He summarized that EsA is ‘’a clearly and concisely articulated and a sufficient normative framework with global mandate for the management’’.

Consequently, transforming the general EsA principles into concrete, specific and pragmatic outcomes of each respective sector were suggested. In the forestry sector, SFM was suggested to be the basis of CBD EsA. But country-led and eco-regional initiatives should be evolved to translate the concept into practice. Moreover, based on learning from experiences, Shepherd (2008) asserted that the EsA can only be implemented if public participation and sharing the knowledge of local people do exist. Based on the gathered knowledge, management goals and joint practical actions could be taken.

Shepherd (2008) also asserted that the twelve EsA principles (see Table 2.1) were successfully applied in his study areas with differing degrees of difficulty or success at each site. The twelve principles were grouped into five steps, namely: 1) key stakeholders, 2) area, ecosystem structure, 3) function and management, 4) economic issues, 5) adaptive management over space and adaptive management over time. Further results of the study were that the EsA is useful for planning, monitoring and evaluation of what went right and wrong. It provides a way of markings progress and noting incremental changes towards management goals. To summarize, EsA is an excellent assessment framework.

Table 2.1. UN-CBD Ecosystem Approach Principles and the Operational Guidance

Source: CBD 2000