4.4 Assessment of Non-Wood Goods and Services - A Forest Policy Approach
Michael Linddal
Summary
The actual or potential value of a forest resource induces a requirement for an assessment of the resource, e.g. the merchantable timber resource has long been a main object for inventories. The value of forest resources can be viewed in several ways, e.g. monetary, utilitarian, life supporting, non-use, or ecosystem resilience. The different values are reflected in the forest policy. The forest resource assessment is determined by a social demand for forest resources and the informational requirement in forest policy to facilitate a framework for socially desirable outputs from forest management. Three main reasons for particular action for non-wood goods and services are: (i) they provide no or little income to the forest resource owners, (ii) the spatial distribution matter for most forest functions, and (iii) the property structures are incomplete. The state of the art for collection and the use of non-timber resources at national level in a forest policy context includes only a sparse number of examples. An extract from the ECE/FAO (1993) survey on Europe is presented together with a crude assessment of non-wood goods and services in Denmark.
Keywords: Non-wood goods and services, forest functions, forest policy, Europe
4.4.1 Introduction
This paper is a non-technical allegation on the role of non-wood goods and services (nwgs)1 in an European forest policy context, i.e. nwgs at the aggregated national or regional level as opposed to the optimal inclusion of all forest resources in local forest management plans. The objective is to stress the divergence between a framework for assessing nwgs and a conventional timber inventory. It is essential to clarify what sort of nwgs are at stake and how the nwgs relate to the entire functioning of the forest ecosystem.
The structural framework for the assessment of nwgs should be forged according to how relevant the obtainable data might be in forest policy. The criteria that might be applied are: (i) the economic importance, i.e. revenues and incentives for the forest manager, (ii) social and political relevance, e.g. amenity values, or (iii) indicators for the quality of the ecosystem, e.g. key species. The focus is on forest resources and implicitly on the direct and indirect social value of the forests providing products, services and various other functions. But generally the assessment of nwgs is a safeguard ensuring the viability of the forest ecosystem, and what is commonly known as sustainable development.
This points further towards the need for forest survey designs to include data on nwgs but also for a clarification for what purpose information on nwgs are collected. An
1 Throughout the paper the term non-wood goods and services (NWGS) is applied. This is in accordance with an agreed term used by UN-ECE/FAO for the temperate zone Forest Resource Assessment.
assessment of nwgs can be used for: (i) comparison with a desired optimal level, (ii) monitoring changes over time, or (iii) simply for ensuring the importance of particular forest resources or functions by provision of "hard" numbers. It is evident that an assessment gives nwgs a more visible position in the public opinion, but in that sense it does not deviate from, e.g. monitoring of forest health. The forest health is not directly a forest resource, but the application of an assessment is similar to an assessment of a forest function, e.g. recreation, in a forest policy context. These assessments or surveys shed light on the importance of a particular part or use of the forest ecosystem.
4.4.2 Non-Timber Resources in Forest Inventories and the Forest Policy
The prevailing emphasis on the output from forests reveals that forests are predominantly perceived as sources of largely tangible and marketed flows of separable goods, viz. timber.
Emphasis has been on the inventory of timber stocks and growth potential in order to assure a sustainable harvest level. This is no longer a problem since forests in Europe are expanding both in area and volume ( GIORDANO 1993). The importance of nwgs has developed from a concern and an awareness of these resources which is evident in the general public but also to decision makers and forest managers. Forest managers have begun to realise that a sustainable use and development of forest areas implies a wider concern for all aspects of the natural environment, inclusive of those which do not directly yield a monetary outcome. A land ethics of society and a concern for environmental resources must be met by forest managers if they do not want to jeopardize the control over the forest resources, and by public decision-makers in order to maintain creditability.
Forest policy has traditionally aimed at a sustained yield of timber and the institutional framework underlying the timber production and processing, but the scope has been extended to embrace the resilience of the forest ecosystem and the management of other outputs from the forest in conjunction with timber (e.g. INNES 1993).2 Forests provide a multitude of outputs besides timber which implies that all forest resources including the social benefits could be efficiently managed {HOF 1993). A concern for sustainability has imputed a transition from a focus on the output of timber to the overall state of the forest ecosystem and its ability to provide a multitude of outputs. Sustainability in this interpretation is a matter of maintaining the resilience of the forest ecosystem and compatibility between forest management and social interest. In the long run this approach might also provides the best conditions for growing timber.
The importance of nwgs develops at two independent tiers: (i) at the national/regional level, i.e. in the formulation of forest policy, and (ii) at the forest estate level, i.e. in the formulation of the local management plans. At the higher level the social interests are enhanced through forest policy, while at the lower level the nwgs are actually provided.
It is the accessible information gathered from the management plans that can be aggregated for forest policy purpose and evaluation, and vice versa, emphasis in forest
2 The increased emphasis on NWGS in forest policy and planning is perhaps mistakenly perceived as an increased concern for NWGS in society at large. This misplaced perception precludes that concern is likely always to have been present in society but the forest agencies have in the meantime discovered the need to change their emphasis in order to manage forest including all
social values. Forest agencies have realized that management of forest resources goes beyond merely that of producing timber.
policy can motivate further inclusion of nwgs at the local level. Concurrently the information from management plans is sparse and the point of departure appears to accommodate the nwgs an aggregated level. 3 The strategy is top-down reflecting that at the aggregated policy level the possibilities to put further emphasis on nwgs exceeds motivation at the forest level where most nwgs have insignificant economic importance.
The assessment of nwgs is partly due to a need for information for designing forest policy instruments. The intended purpose is to motivate and secure further integration of nwgs in forest management starting from implementing forest policy instruments at a national/regional level and thus proceeding to forest management plans at the local level.4
Most nwgs are not exchanged in a market context, mainly because they are non
exclusive public goods lacking formal property right structures. The lack of market prices does not imply a lack of value, but it results in market failures:
Many nwgs are difficult to assess in physical terms, because they are services and functions with open access or difficult to grasp in physical terms. Many functions, e.g.
amenity values or erosion control are unlikely to become subject to trade.
- The nwgs are scattered over large areas, where the spatial distribution and interactions between the nwgs and in between the wood resources and nwgs determine the importance. The nwgs do not have a value as such, but the importance occurs as a result of the interactions with the surroundings in the spatial context.
When the nwgs are exclusive or quasi-public goods forest managers should have an incentive to manage the nwgs and capture the rent. When the nwgs are non-exclusive there is no incentive to manage them, and forest owners fail to invest in forest resources entailing nwgs due to lack of property structures (PEARSE 1993). With a social demand for the nwgs, forest policy instruments must provide the incentive and neutralise the lack of firm property structures. It would be necessary to apply an assessment of nwgs in order to measure the effect of forest policy instruments.
There is a substantial difference between an assessment of forest resources in a forest policy context, where the purpose is to ensure social objectives and political acceptability, and in a forest management context, where the motivation to include all social values of forest resources is lacking, without incentives in forest policy.
Taking this stand point the paper is a simplifying approach asserting that accessible information can be easily retrieved should be collected for improved decision making at a national/regional level, and thus help paving the inclusion of nwgs at the local management
3 An example on how the process begins from above is the ECE/FAO (1993) Forest Resource Assessment of the temperate forests' benefits and functions. This work has been carried out at supra-national level exceeding the available level of information on NWGS in many countries.
The continuation of this work will incidently contribute to a process where NWGS are increasingly monitored at national and regional levels and incidently become incorporated to a larger extend in forest management plans.
4 A pseudo objective for the assessment of NWGS is contained within the actions of forest agencies to present a status-qua inventory of forest resources in a revised style that high-lights NWGS. This could be done to legitimate the fulfilment of the objectives of international agreements on forests. It seems, however, false to subscribe to an objective of using revised forest statistics merely to legitimize present actions - the prime objective of an assessment of NWGS should be to secure the state of NWGS and improve their role beyond the present state. The statistics must be proactive and not just justifying past actions.
level. 5 Hence the objective of a forest policy aiming at a sustainable development of the forest resources does not only include the awareness of the importance of well known nwgs, but also the acknowledged unawareness of the interactions between the multiple functions of the forest ecosystem, which are not visible in any statistics.
The Forest Ecosystem and the Social Importance of Forests
Flows i n forest inventories are often regarded independently from the entire forest ecosystem and characterised as an unidirectional physical output of raw materials for a wood processing industry. This is how forest resources (viz. timber) is viewed in a forest policy context, but it is unlikely that nwgs can be assessed merely in terms of flows. More intangible attributes of forestry related to stocks, e.g. increasing standing volume, loss of specific species or shifts in recreational opportunities can be perceived as feed-back responses from extraction of goods or excessive use of the forest or from external impacts (e.g. pollution). When the feed-back results in a future decrease in the output of forest benefit and functions the exploitation of the total forest resource is unsustainable.
Forest science has for centuries developed methods for manipulating the stocks and flows but little attention has been paid to the object, viz. the state of the forest ecosystem.
Many issues related to forestry, e.g. forest fragmentation, biological diversity, forest health (nutrient balance), and long-term sustainability, are topics related to the state of the ecosystem which is difficult to grasp merely in terms of stock variables (BROOKS and GRANT 1992) and statistical figures. This is a crucial draw-back for statistics on nwgs, which in addition are site specific and depends on the spatial distribution. This is an important difference when an assessment of nwgs is compared with a timber inventory.
Table 1. Three different levels for assessing non-wood benefits in a forest ecosystem.
State The general condition and viability of the forest ecosystem. It is a qualitative measure of resilience of the ecosystem, the spatial distribution and adaptability to external impacts. The state is difficult to assess in aggregated statistical terms and tend to be site specific.
Stock The amount of physical assets in the forest system relevant to the use of the forest. Conservation of the stock is a prerequisite for sustained yield of goods and services, but management of the stock might have feed-back effects on the state. The stock can be expressed in quantitative terms, but that omits the importance of the spacial distribution and feed-back effects.
Flows Extractions from the forests of goods and services. The quality of the flow depends on the current state and the size of the stock. Flows can generally be assessed, and in particular commercially traded flows. Flows also includes fluxes, i.e. services from the ecosystem that are perfect public goods, e.g. the recreational use.
5 This is different to a more efficient approach where the aim is to establish systems to retrieve all information whatsoever in terms of achieving a complete coverage (e.g. by applying Geographical Information Systems). Data collection and methodology is essential aspects of integrating NWGS. The concern in this paper is on the framework, and in particular the forest policy, where all the information should be tied together for implementation of a social forest management strategy.
The state concerns the ecological viability and health of the forest ecosy.stem, including the spatial distribution of stocks and their growth potential. The viability of the stocks is addressed differently from ecology emphasizing the state of the ecosystem, to the social sciences addressing a sustained output from the system. It is evident that even perfect monitoring of all outputs having a value to humans including nwgs does not automatically lead to sustainability, because the state of the forest ecosystem is an imperative for the output quality and value. Flows are rents of the forest natural capital.
From a forest ecology standpoint the concern is for the state of the forest ecosystem as an indicator of sustainability, and changes in stocks influencing the state, e.g. loss of biodiversity, run-off from the nutrient base, or exploitive use of the timber resource. The ideal state of the forest ecosystem is not feasible to the full extend at all locations, and that implies the question of sustainability must also address what is the best use of the forests, i.e. the optimal use of the forest most be asserted. From a forest economics standpoint the state and spatial distribution are subject to the management of the stock and flows. The management of stocks and flows is important in order to meet the social functions of forests. In combination ecology and economy would assure the optimal social value of the forests without compromising the forest ecology foundation.
A Framework for Assessing Non-Wood Benefit and Functions
Even though this paper deals with an European context it is useful to recall the definition of nwgs given by FAQ (1991): "[nwgs] refers to market or subsistence goods and services for human or industrial consumption derived from renewable forest resources and biomass bearing promise for augmenting real rural household incomes and employment. The products include the use of plants for food, forage, fuel, medicine, fibre, biochemical, as well as animal, birds, reptiles and fishes for food, fur and feathers. Wood used for handicrafts is included, as are the services derived from the standing forest that generate such benefits as tourism revenues and preservation of biodiversity". The FAQ definition raises two economic aspects of nwgs: (i) the problem of classification and evaluation of nwgs due to a large variety, and (ii) the role of nwgs in terms of forest management and development of rural areas (CESARO et al. 1993)
The assessment of nwgs cannot follow an approach similar to an inventory of timber resources and removals. Even the collection of data on timber resources (stock, growth and removals) is cumbersome and requires an established statistical framework to achieve a complete coverage. However, harvested timber can be traced because it is a marketed product, and growing stock can be measured in the stands. The measurement object is well defined and the information is easy to retrieve, so difficulties originate merely from the time consuming effort of collecting inventory data in full scale.6
Statistics on timber become less efficient if they are incomplete ( e.g. a forest inventory covering only a fraction of a country's forests or harvest and in particular if the size of the fraction is unknown). However, the information on nwgs do not have a similar requirement of complete coverage. Different to the timber inventory it appears that for most types of
6 The flows of traded timber in aggregated statistics do not provide any information of the location or the state of the forest ecosystem once the timber is removed from the forest, e.g. whether the wood comes from a plantation or a natural forest. There might, however, be differences in the timber quality from either natural forest or plantations. But the harvested timber does not provide any information on the impacts on the forest from the logging operations, e.g. the distinction of timber from a sustainable managed and an overexploited forest.
nwgs an aggregated national (or regional) assessment of nwgs is neither feasible nor absolutely required unless it is for forest policy purposes. The distinction occurs because timber is a physical commodity while most non-wood benefits are functions and services (not storable or direct comparable). The non-wood products could be treated statistically like timber, but whether comprehensive data are available depend on whether the commodity is commercially traded. Lack of methods to quantify the nwgs and make them comparable is a major obstacle that can be eased with a relevant classification. Nwgs can be described and evaluated in different ways: (i) in quality terms, (ii) as indexes, (iii) in quantity (physical) terms, or (iv) in value (monetary) terms. The difficulty of the evaluation and the degree of comparability increases from quality to value measures.
Table 2. Steps to a classification of non-wood goods and services.
Services/Functions Goods/Products
Marketed (I) (III)
Non-marketed (II) (IV)
Services and functions
The services and functions include: (I) services that might be exclusive, i.e. quasi-public goods (e.g. hunting rental, fishing permits, horseback riding permits), and (II) services and functions from the forest that are difficult to make exclusive. These include: (i) environmental protection ( e.g. ground water protection, erosion control, water catchment protection, wind breaks, CO2 sequestering, filtration of airborne particles) which are functions with an external impacts and they are technical (engineering) substitutes, (ii) nature protection, e.g. preserving habitats and biodiversity, and (iii) finally amenity and cultural functions (including recreation, symbolic values and landscape values).
The spatial distribution is important for services and functions, and the spatial distribution is difficult to assess and compare. The physical location has particular import
ance for functions providing environmental protection.
Areas with no congestion and, e.g. unused recreational space, should have importance anyway because they have a potential use. It is an important distinction whether the actual use of the forest resource is assessed or the potential use. If the potential use (supply) of a forest function or service is not exceeded by the actual use (demand) and the actual use does not have any negative feed-back on future use of any forest resource, then few problems occur. What can be assessed as the forest services and functions does not reveal what the potential provision of non-wood services and functions from the forests is.
Products
The physical products are divided into: (III) products that are private goods (exclusively) and with a commercial market, e.g. christmas trees, ornamental foliage and venison, and (IV) physical products without a market but perhaps with a market potential, e.g. edible (nuts, mushrooms, berries) and non-edible (cones, lichen, mosses) goods. Many products are not exclusive, e.g. the collective use in a non-commercial scale is included in a benefit bundle obtained as part of a recreational experience.
Table 3. Classification of non-wood products in Europe based on the source of the product including some examples. Source: CESARO et al. (1993)
• edible products
Trees in the forest Flora and fauna in the forest
by product main product flora fauna
acorn/bark (tannin) christmas trees mushrooms/truffles • honey (depends on flora) • gum/resin/sap ornamental foliage aromatic/medicinal plants venison/wildfowl •
(naval stores) cork moss/lichen game trophies
seeds (propagation) seeds (seed orchards) nuts/berries • snails/fish •
seeds/nuts (edible) • fodder/hay
litter/animal bedding mistletoe
needles/aromatic oils cones (decoration)
The growth potential of the forest system is not always balanced to the use, and in some cases excessive use occurs. In several other circumstances growth exceeds consumption.
Mushroom collection, as an example, can be carried out sustainable, i.e. it is unlikely that the forest floor is completely cleared of mushrooms. Anyhow the growth in the following year is likely to be undisturbed by collections in the previous year. The unused stock is not visible in statistics. The mushroom resource is likely to be assessed according to how much is collected, and not the growing potential, i.e. the forest product, mushrooms, is only assessed on the basis of the human use. The closer the mushroom collection is to the growth potential more likely is it that conflicts between users and between forest owners and users occur. Conflicts might also occur if there is an open access to collect mushrooms, and the applied silvicultural practice does not optimize the mushrooms' growth. The forest manager would only include the mushroom resource in the forest management if the use were exclusive and rights to collect were issued and sold. If the forest manager can sell exclusive rights the monetary gain can be weighted against the potential opportunity costs for the timber production.
The following (hypothetical) information for a forest can be compared: (a) forest hikers collect 3.000 kg of mushrooms on 4.000 visitor days in the season, (b) the total production of edible mushrooms is estimated to 5.000 kg, (c) forest owners complain to the local authorities that excessive recreational use in the mushroom collection season cause damage to the forest regeneration, and no mushrooms are left for the forest owners, and (d) forest hikers complain to local authorities that use of silvicultural practises cause a much to low growth ofmushrooms.
Important differences between timber and non-wood products are normally: (i) non
wood products (e.g. mushrooms) cannot be stored from one season to the next, so there is no accumulating stock (a & b), and (ii) the user right and property structure varies (c & d).
These differences must be reflected in the assessment of non-wood products.
4.4.3 On the Value of NWGS
The assessment of nwgs is more complex than of wood production per se. One dissimilarity is the substantially lower monetary importance to society of wood production as compared to the nwgs while the social welfare impact does not have to be very dissimilar. An example showing that price and value are not synonymous. An important similarity is that the wood production function to a wide extent encompasses the nwgs in a complementary
production, and thus indicates that even though nwgs have a substantial value this cannot be seen independently of the forest ecosystem. It is not at the margin, but merely for substantial changes in the use of forest land, i.e. conservation of a natural area to create a natural park, that trade-offs between the wood production and other forest functions are remarkable in economic terms.
The cost of the trade-off at the margin between wood and nwgs is probably over
estimated in a forest policy context due to the allocation of costs from joint production.
HOF (1993) discusses joint production and the cost allocation. Figure 1 shows two outputs from the forest, X and Y. The cost of producing X = 1 equals the cost curve S 1 when Y = 0, and the cost of producing Y = 1 equals the cost curve S2 when X = 0. If both X and Y are 1 the bundle can be produced at a cost S3. Since S1+S2>S3 then it is less expensive to produce Y = 1 when X = 1, than when X = 0. This is due to the cost allocation from producing more than one output in a joint production.
y
1 X
Fig. 1. Joint production and cost allocation.
The value of nwgs ought to reflect their relative importance. The value on the other hand can be viewed in several ways and none of the values below are more important than another.
- The market value; the nwgs have a value when they are exchanged on a market
- Opportunity costs to the marketed timber production; the nwgs have a cost when their provision constrains the revenue from timber production.
- Utility value, i.e. no market value but a perceived value for users (e.g. recreation); nwgs have a value when they are used.
- Indirect and external value; nwgs have an indirect value when they improve production in other sectors (e.g. protection functions), or have life functions properties for humans or ecosystems.
- Option value; when nwgs are available for future use.
Another generally underestimated value is the good-will obtained by forestry from society by adapting an increased emphasis on nwgs. It should be taken into account as a provision that could counterbalance losses in wood production. The demand and awareness of nwgs ought to be viewed more like a challenge than a treat to the timber
producing forestry because a sustained yield forestry is feasible even subject to augmenting environmental and social constraints.
4.4.4 Studies on Non-Wood Goods and Services - Cases
This section briefly covers examples on aggregated assessment of nwgs in Europe and Denmark based to a large extend on ECE/F AO (1993). The examples presented here show highly aggregated information that only give some knowledge on the importance of the forest functions.
Europe - the ECEIFAO Forest Resources Assessment
Any attempt to summarize the current situation for non-wood benefits and functions in Europe requires a simplification of widely complex topics. There is a problem of aggregating various forest resources and also to make an interregional comparison.
Additionally a comprehensive comparison of forest resources in different countries is impeded by the mixed data quality. Statements based on qualitative information, however, can identify: (i) treats to the wood production, which also become threats to the whole range of nwgs, and (ii) potential conflicts between the functions of the forests. Qualitative information can influence the forest policy process which again can influence forest management practices by offering incentives. Qualitative information is of little use at the forest management level.
ECE/F AO (1993) forest resource assessment of the temperate zone includes a volume on the functions and benefits of forests. The assessment is based on land-use criteria indicating the importance of seven different forest functions into "high", "medium" and
"low". Probably, this study is one of the most comprehensive studies covering European conditions. The study, however, merely seeks to identify the relative importance of the forest functions without an assessment in physical terms. Compared to a forest inventory the ECE/F AO study is similar to an assessment of the relative distribution of tree species.
Two different elaborations on the data have been made (KOCH and LINDDAL 1993): (i) an index of the relative importance of the forest functions, and (ii) a chart comparing the distribution of the forest area for selected countries and various functions.
Table 4 is an attempt to convert the forest functions into an index of (*) showing the relative importance of the forest functions at the country level. 7 This is an uncertain but anyhow informal way of making cross country comparisons. In short, the table shows that in Southern Europe most of the non-wood functions have overall medium or high importance. As an example Spain has no (*) for both private and public wood production, but seven (*) for other functions on public forest land and three (*) on private. Another example revealing the difference between private and public forest is Italy with one (*) for public wood production and four (*) for other functions, while private forest have two (*) for wood production and zero for the other functions. Switzerland is a case of a central European nation with high emphasis on multiple functions, viz. six (*) for both private and public forests.
7 The index yields two or one (*) for a function with "high" respectively "medium" importance in terms of the land area. "High" importance is when more than half of the area falls into this category. There is " low" importance (no *) for a particular function if more than half of the area has low importance. "Medium" importance is when the function is neither in "low" or "high".
Table 4. Importance of forest functions by area. [1] wood production, [2] protection, [3] water, [4] grazing, [5]
hunting, [6] nature conservation, [7] recreation, [8] total (excluding [ll)
** "high" importance > 50 percent of the forest area
* "medium" + "high" importance > 50 percent of the forest area, but "high" < 50 percent 0 "Low" > 50 percent of the forest area.
Based on: KOCH and LINDDAL (1993) Forest area / 1.000 ha
Albania 1046
Austria 3877
Belgium (pub!.) 273
(priv.) 346
Bulgaria 3386
Cyprus 140
CSFR 4491
Denmark (publ.) 127
(priv.) 339
Former GDR 2981
Former FRG 7752
Finland (pub I.) 5275
(priv.) 14837
France 13110
Greece (publ.) 1945
(priv.) 567
Hungary 1675
Ireland 322
Italy (publ.) 2698
(priv.) 4052
Luxembourg (publ.) 48
(priv.) 39
Netherlands (publ.) 104
(priv.) 136
Norway 8697
Poland (publ.) 7201
(priv.) 1471
Spain (publ.) 3250
(priv.) 5138
Sweden (publ.) 7038
(priv.) 17399
Switzerland (publ.) 766
(priv.) 366
Turkey 8856
UK (pub!.) 923
(priv.) 1280
[1]
* **
** **
* 0 **
** **
**
••
** **
* **
* **
** *
** **
** *
* *
** *
0 0
** *
** **
** *
**
(2] (3] (4) [5] (6]
* . . * * . .
0 0 . . * 0
0 0 0 * *
0 0 0 *
•
• •• •
* 0 0 ••
0•
* • 0 • 0
* . . 0 *
•
* . . 0 *
•
0 0 .. ** 0
0 0 . . ** . .
0 0
••
* . .0 0 0 * 0
• * 0
•• •
** 0 • 0
•
** 0 * 0 •
0 0 0 ** 0
0 0 0 0 0
* ** 0 0 *
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 . . * *
0 0 . . * *
0 0 0 0 *
0 0 0 * 0
0 0 0 * 0
0 0 . . ** 0
0 0 . . ** 0
** * * ** 0
0 0 *
••
00 0 0 * *
0 0 0 * •
* * 0 ** *
* * 0 ** *
0
•
0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0* 0 0 * 0
(7] (8]
. . 3
0 1
* 3
0 2
0 3
0 5
0 3
* 4
* 4
• 3
* 3
0 3
0 1
* 6
0 4
0 4
* 3
0 0
0 4
0 0
0 2
0 2
** 3
** 3
* 2
0 2
0 2
* 7
0 3
* 3
* 3
* 6
• 6
* 1
* 3
0 2
If an arbitrary number of four (*) is chosen as a measure for a large emphasis on non
wood functions (i.e. excluding the wood production function), only forests in Cyprus, France, Denmark, Greece and Switzerland, and public forest in Italy and Spain meet this bench mark. It is significant that the Scandinavian and Eastern European forests indicate a lower relevance of non-wood function. However, this is not a measure of the quality of or even concern for these functions, as the indications are very much dependent on historical developments, the natural conditions, cultural traditions, and how the national reporters have interpreted the functions in a national context. CESARO et al. (1993) give an overview of the nwgs in Europe, and it is obvious that the importance of non-wood products is substantial both in Scandinavia, Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean region.
Recreation Public forests
0 High Medium Low
Fig. 2. The relative importance of the "recreation" function in some countries.
100
Countries
Netherlands - - - - UK --- Denmark --- Ireland
··· Finland
Another possibility to compare the results from the ECE/F AO study is presented in figure 2. For the recreation function and five selected countries it is shown how the relative distribution of the forest area into the categories of importance varies. The chart provides a rough country characteristic, while a direct comparison remains obscure. Some countries have a relatively small forest area and a large population density (e.g. Netherlands and Denmark), while others have a relative large forest area and a low population density ( e.g.
Finland). The approach presented in figure 2 makes an intertemporal comparison possible when the criteria are maintained. The figure, however, also shows that a distinction in more than three categories would give a more precise presentation.
Denmark
A base line in an inventory of nwgs would be to assess: (i) all those goods that eventually could be monetarized and thus made directly comparable with the economic value of a trade-off in the wood production, and (ii) all the services and functions recognised having at least some importance. An important finding was that rather few national statistics are available in Denmark on the size and value of nwgs. Table 5 shows the nwgs in Denmark which are identified and an economic value is added where possibly. The identified economic values account for about 50 percent of the production values of the Danish forest sector.
It appears that even though the economic value is difficult to assess since not all nwgs are marketed, this does not mean that they have no value at all or the value is insignificant compared to wood production. It must be borne in mind that the wood production ( or the stock) often creates the setting for the provision of nwgs, e.g. logging roads facilitate access.
Table 5. The value and importance of non-wood benefits in Denmark.
(n.m.): not marketed (n.a.): not assessed.
Based on: LINDDAL (1990), SCHACK (1992) and M0LBAK (1993)
Private (potential) marketed benefits (Non-wood products)
• Christmas trees and greenery
• Hunting (rental value)
• Hunting (meat value)
• Mushrooms
• Berries, nuts
(public access to non-commercial consumption.
Little potential for raising private revenue since the property rights are not exclusive)
• Permissions for exclusive rights
(e.g. horse-back riding, fishing, etc. Potential to enlarge the private revenue)
Sociul functions - technical substitutes (n.m.)
• Erosion control
(mainly winderosion, windbreaks)
• Filter effect of air pollution
• Noise reduction
• Ground water protection
• CO2 fixation
(estimated from the net growth in existing forest) Social benefits - provision of services
Importance 422 mio DKK estimated: 50-00 mio. DKK marketed and n.m.: 25-34 mio DKK regional significance, (n.m.) (estimated 0.1 million kg is collected) insignificant, (n.m.)
insignificant
regional significance, (n.a.) local significance, (n.a.) local significance, (n.a.) regional significance (n.a.) estimated 0.75 mio tonnes COz
• Recreational opportunities ( estimated 100-200 mio. visitor days annually)
• Biological diversity, habitat protection
(e.g., 52% percent of the Danish red-list species arc found in forests)
The relative distribution of the Danish forest area according to the criteria provided by ECE/FAO has also been prepared {LINDDAL 1993a and LINDDAL 1993b). Figure 3 reveals the distribution of the functions to the three categories for public and private forest land.8
Private forests Recreation I
Nature Con. -::: .... .: •...• .,: ... :::::: ...• .❖.•.···•·-.-.❖• ... ·· · · · ·''"'"··· · · ···•.❖•❖ ... i:···.,_,_:_:_:_:_:.:.:_:_:.:,:1 Hunting
Grazing
0 20 30 I 40 I 50 60 70 I 80 90
Fig. 3a. The relative importance of various forest functions on private forest land.
100 percent
Importance - High GD Medium
EJ
Low8 The forest land in Denmark is about 445.000 ha covering 1 0.3 percent of the land base. About 2/3 of the forest land is private owned and 1/3 public owned.
Recreation Nature Con.
Hunting Grazing Protection Wood
Public forests
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 percent
Fig. 3b. The relative importance of various forest functions on public forest land.
4.4.5 The Information Requirements
Importance - High Im Medium EID Low
The purpose of collecting information of nwgs is to survey conditions and changes in the output of nwgs, e.g.: (i) to detect non-sustainable development paths, i.e. changes in the ability of the forests to continue the provision of nwgs, (ii) to monitor the effects of and adjust governmental programmes enhancing environmental and amenity values in forestry, and (iii) to shed light on the existence and relevance of nwgs in forest ecosystems. This is the information requirement in a social context, but specific forest resources can be assessed in order to high light their relevance for particular interest groups.
There is a need for improved knowledge on nwgs in forest policy. Aggregated quantitative or monetary figures are relevant for scaling the forest policy, but such information do not reveal the true social importance of the forest resource. The relevant information concern the actual inclusion of nwgs in forest management ( economic instruments) and safeguards for maintaining the viability of the forest ecosystem (ecological constraints). Thus the crucial information on nwgs concern: (i) information on the cost structure in terms of opportunity costs for forest management systems is crucial to enhance the provision of particular nwgs, and (ii) assessment of key-indicators in order to monitor fluctuations in the level of nwgs and the stocks that provide them.
Statistics on nwgs serve important forest policy means, and in particular if they are able to trace feed-backs from the wood production causing non-sustainability in other parts of the ecosystem, i.e. if they can uncover the external effects of the wood production and exploitation.
Intertemporal and interregional comparable assessment of nwgs must be a prerequisite when building structures for information gathering. This is a challenge, but difficult. It can be mentioned that this request of comparability has not even been possible for the forest area in the past two forest inventories in Denmark (from 1976 to 1990).
4.4.6 Discussion
Forestry agencies may be accused of having built-in prejudices in favour of wood production and managing forest for commercial timber exploitation objectives. It is, however, easy to envisage that mutual understanding is required between the forest managers on one side and an influential, well-informed nature conservation movement on the other. Preferences from those carrying out the assessment are revealed by their choice of the forest resource to be measured at stock level, and flows to be included in the
inventory. This is also why perceptions on what is relevant to assess differ between disciplines, e.g. a forester focus prima facie on the stock of wood resources, growth rates and removals but less on quality and viability of the ecosystem. An ecologist would, e.g.
demand an inventory of wood species composition and nutrient balances, a zoologist would be interested in, e.g. red list species and number of species, an engineer would look for water balances and erosion control, while a sociologist would focus on the social use and perception of forests. They all want to assess the forest resources and functions but they approach the task from different angles.
A plea must be raised for the acceptance of a rational ignorance, since loads of information are obtainable, but the struggle of collection ought to be comparable with the potential use. The assessment of nwgs must be directed by demand for information for policy and management decisions.
The statistics can only cover a fraction of the states of the forest ecosystem. However, many forestry policy problems and conflicts between interest groups arise because society is concerned about changes in the state of the ecosystem, e.g. logging in natural forests, extinction of biological diversity, and forest dieback. Forestry professionals often respond to this external attention by modifying management rules pertaining to stocks and flows, i.e. they are responding to criticism of management practices by simply referring to increasing stocks of timber as a prime indicator. Foresters improve the conditions of the forest system according to their inherent values, and they are astonished when the reaction from society remains negative. And foresters are reluctant towards propositions that, e.g.
biological diversity could matter more to society than improved conditions for wood production.
A dichotomy exists whether the statistics on nwgs has its force in revealing the relative importance of nwgs and functions or the trends in forest policies. It is an ambiguous task to form a framework for assessing nwgs at, e.g. a European level. It seems, however, appropriate to establish such inventories at country level incorporating local characteristics. It is a relevant exercise to do inventories on nwgs, especially for the forest policy formulation seeking to include various social demands and mitigating conflicts. An important issue would be to reinforce the importance given by the different countries on nwgs and combine this with other sources of information, e.g. forest inventories and socio
economic parameters. The data processing must anyhow be cautious not to impute too general judgements on weak grounds.
Statistics on nwgs might verify the importance of the forest sector to the overall social welfare of society (unknown to many interest groups). And it might be realized that nwgs are important social benefits obtainable at low opportunity costs (unknown to many forest resource managers). A concise statistic on nwgs might improve the reconciliation between competing interests.
A reformulation of forest statistics in order to fulfil international obligations for sustainable management of forests is tedious unless the statistics provides a stronghold for a genuine action to improve the mix of the multitude of benefits and functions of the forest.
The statistics will probably be more useful for ex post political arguments emphasising nwgs than for revealing historic developments and the actual state of the art. Statistics in the latter retrospective form is thus not a reflection on past policies but merely an a priori initiator for future actions.
4.4. 7 References
BROOKS , D.J.; GRANT, G.E. , 1992: New approaches to forest management. J. for. 90: 21-24.
CESARO , L.; LINDDAL, M.; PETTENELLA, D., 1993: Regional differences in benefits of non-wood forest products and services in Europe. EU workshop on "Scientific criteria for the establishment of Zona! afforestation plans". Brussels, 25-26. November 1993. [Forthcoming in proceedings].
ECE/FAO, 1993: The UN-FAO/ECE 1990 Forest Resource Assessment, vol. II: Benefits and functions of the forests. ECEffIM/27, United Nations, New York.
FAO, 1991: Non-wood products - the way ahead. FAO Forestry Paper, No. 97, 34 pp.
GIORDANO , E.; GLOCK, P.; HUMMEL, F.; KURTH , H.; KUUSELA, K., 1993: Policy implications of the UN-ECE/FAO 1990 forest resource assessment (temperate zone). Working Paper, no.1.
European Forest Institute, Joensuu. 30 pp.
HOF, J. 1993: Coactive forest management. Academic Press, San Diego, CA., x+189 pp.
INNES, J. 1993: "New perspectives" in forestry - a basis for future forest management policy in Great Britain. Forestry 66, 4: 395-421.
KOCH , N.E. ; LINDDAL, M., 1993: The role of forests in supplying environmental and other non - wood goods and services - commentary on the results of the assessment. (A report for UN/ECE).
In: ECE/FAO 1993.
LINDDAL, M ., 1993a: The role of forests in supplying environmental and other non-wood goods and services - Denmark. (A report for UN/ECE). In: ECE/FAO 1993.
LINDDAL, M., 1993b: A "multiple" forest inventory for Europe. Skoven, 25, 9: 382-384. [in Danish].
M0LBAK, I.K., 1993: (Assessment of the non-wood forest production). M.Sc.dissertation, Dept. of Economics and Natural Resources, RVAU, Frederiksberg. [in Danish, unpubl.].
P EARSE, P.H., 1993: Forest tenure, management incentives and the search for sustainable development policies. In: A DAMOWICZ, W.L.; WHITE, W.; PHILLIPS, W.E.: Forestry and the environment - economic perspectives. CAB, International, Wallingford. 77-1 16.
SCHACK, U., 1991: (The value of hunting). M.Sc.dissertation, Dept. of Economics and Natural Resources, RVAU, Frederiksberg. [in Danish, unpubl.].
