Unit One: Sustainable Forest Management and the
Global Forest Estate
Unit Information
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
Overview
Aims
Learning Outcomes
Interdependencies
2 2 3 3 3 Key Readings
4 Further Readings
6 References
7 1.0 Sustainable forest management
Section Overview
Section Learning Outcomes
1.1 From forest clearance to sustainable yield forestry
1.2 From sustainable yield to sustainable forest management
1.3 The institutionalisation of sustainable forest management
Section 1 Self Assessment Questions
10 10 10 10 13 21 28 2.0 The global forest estate and the supply and trade of forest products
and services
29 Section Overview
Section Learning Outcomes
2.1 Defining forests
2.2 The global forest estate
2.3 Supply and trade of forest products and services
Section 2 Self Assessment Questions
29 29 29 35 43 49 Unit Summary
50 Unit Self Assessment Questions
51 Key Terms and Concepts
52 P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
UNIT INFORMATION
Unit Overview
This unit provides an overview of sustainable forest management (SFM) and a brief
assessment of the global forest estate. Rather than begin by defining forests, we
start by examining the history of human–forest interactions from the initial clearance
of forests for agriculture, through the scientific forest management of the 18th, 19th,
and 20th centuries to our more recent preoccupation with sustainability. Once we
have defined what it is we are referring to when we talk about sustainable forest
management, the final part of Section 1 of this unit considers the institutionalisation
of SFM in terms of international policy processes and supra-state agencies,
international civil society organisations, and trade associations.
The second half of Unit 1 provides a discussion of the meaning of the word ‘forest’ as
a way into thinking about the increasing number of people and institutions claiming
interests in and rights over forests. This section pays particular attention to the FAO’s
global forest resource assessments, providing a brief but critical introduction to the
data they contain and the information sources used in compiling them. Besides
distinguishing among different types of wooded land according to forest
characteristics, designated functions, and biogeography, Section 2 also discusses
recent trends in global forest cover, drivers of forest land use change, and the global
supply and trade of forest products and services.
© SOAS
CeDEP
2
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
Unit Aims
•
To examine the origins and history of forest management and to define the
terms ‘forest’ and ‘sustainable forest management’ (SFM).
•
To review the institutionalisation of SFM within state, civil society, and market
agencies and organisation.
•
To examine and explain recent trends in global forest cover.
•
To outline the diversity of products and services provided by the world’s forests
and comment briefly on patterns of trade.
Unit Learning Outcomes
By the end of this unit students should be able to:
•
distinguish between and explain the origins of ‘sustained yield, scientific
forestry’, and ‘sustainable forest management’
•
discuss the key institutions of SFM policy and governance at the global and
regional scales
•
explain the changes that have occurred in the extent, distribution and type of
forests as well as the classification of the world’s forests according to the
degree of human influence on their character and reproduction, their
designated function(s) and their geographical location
•
distinguish among the provisioning, cultural, regulating, and supporting
services that forest ecosystems contribute to human well-being, and outline
the main features of the global supply of, and trade in, forest products and
services
Unit Interdependencies
This is the introductory unit and as such it makes reference to many of the topics
and issues that are dealt with in greater depth in the subsequent units. In particular
it introduces systems of forest classification that are also utilised in Units 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, and 7. It introduces the idea of ecosystem services, which is developed in Unit 2
and provides a classificatory system for the forest goods and services that are
described in Unit 4 on Forests and Human Well-being. Mention is made towards the
end of the unit of the carbon sequestration role of forests and this is dealt with in
much greater depth in Units 2 and 9. The institutional history of SFM dealt with in
Section 1 of this unit receives further consideration in the section on forest policy and
governance in Unit 3, whilst forest certification is the prime focus of Unit 8.
© SOAS
CeDEP
3
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
KEY READINGS
Section 1

Higman S, Mayers J, Bass S, Judd N, Nussbaum R (2005) The Sustainable
Forestry Handbook: A Practical Guide for Tropical Forest Managers on
Implementing New Standards, 2nd edn. Earthscan, London, pp. 4–26.
These three short chapters set out a practical definition of sustainable forest management,
with a brief review of its origins, before going on to explain why forest managers should
implement SFM systems and setting out some of the main initiatives and systems for assessing
forest management sustainability.

Sayer J, Maginnis S (2005) New challenges for forest management. In: Sayer J,
Maginnis S (eds) Forests in Landscapes: Ecosystem Approaches to Sustainability.
Earthscan, London, UK and Sterling, VA, pp. 1–16.
Sayer and Maginnis detail the contextual factors and trends that have led to the emergence of
the Convention on Biological Diversity’s ‘Ecosystem Approach’ to natural resource management
and the UN Forum on Forests’ Sustainable Forest Management. They differentiate among, and
provide a very useful multi-dimensional comparison of, ‘Sustained Yield Forestry’ ‘Sustainable
Forest Management’, and ‘Ecosystems Approaches’.
Section 2

FAO (2010b) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010: Key Findings. UN Food
and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
This is a summary of the FAO’s most recent assessment of global forest resources. It is a short
document and you should be aware of all of the key pieces of information that it contains.

Geist HJ, Lambin EF (2005) Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of
tropical deforestation. In: Sayer J (ed) The Earthscan Reader in Forestry and
Development. Earthscan, London, pp. 59–71.
Drawing on over 150 case studies of forest cover loss, the authors analyse the causes of
tropical deforestation and construct a valuable explanatory model.

Hansen MC, Stehman SV, Potapov PV (2010) Quantification of global gross forest
cover loss. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published online
before print 26 April 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912668107.
Available from: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/04/07/0912668107.abstract
This excellent short paper reports on a sample survey of satellite imagery that paints a very
different picture of forest cover loss than that portrayed by the FAO data. A careful reading of
the paper explains some of the reasons for the difference.
© SOAS
CeDEP
4
P585

Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
Sayer J (2005) Challenging the myths: what is really happening in the world's
forests? In: Sayer J (ed) The Earthscan Reader in Forestry and Development.
Earthscan, London, pp. 1–7.
The introductory chapter to the module’s core text makes fascinating reading, as it provides a
real insider’s view of the state of the world’s forests. Sayer was the Founding Director General
of the Center for International Forestry Research in Indonesia and casts his critical eye on
some of the myths surrounding global forest cover change.
© SOAS
CeDEP
5
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
FURTHER READINGS
FAO (2006) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005: Progress Towards
Sustainable Forest Management. UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
Available from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/A0400E/A0400E00.pdf
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) compiles Global Forest Resource Assessments
(commonly called FRAs) every five years. The Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 (FRA
2005) examines the current status and recent trends for about 40 variables covering the
extent, condition, uses, and values of forests and other wooded land, with the aim of assessing
all benefits from forest resources. Information has been collated from 229 countries and
territories for three points in time: 1990, 2000, and 2005. The results are presented according
to seven thematic elements of sustainable forest management.
FAO (2010b) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. UN Food and Agriculture
Organization, Rome, Italy.
Available from: http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2010/en/
This is the most up-to-date FRA available until 2015.
SCBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity) (2009) Sustainable
Forest Management, Biodiversity and Livelihoods: A Good Practice Guide. SCBD,
Montreal, pp. 47 + iii.
Available from: http://www.cbd.int/development/doc/cbd-good-practice-guideforestry-booklet-web-en.pdf
Excellent, up-to-date, guide to the CBD and IUCN’s version of sustainable forest management
and its policy implications.
UNCED (1992) Non-legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global
Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of all
Types of Forests.
Available from: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf151263annex3.htm
The ‘Forest Principles’ that were one of the products of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, form one
of the most important institutional starting points for moving towards globally agreed
principles of SFM.
UNFF (2007) Non-Legally Binding Instrument on all Types of Forests. United Nations,
New York.
Available from: http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/ERes2007_40E.pdf
This Instrument sets the framework for international forest policy aimed at promoting the
conservation and sustainable management of the world’s forests.
© SOAS
CeDEP
6
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
REFERENCES
Evelyn J (1662) Sylva: or, a Discourse of Forest Trees, and the Propagation of Timber
in His Majesty’s Dominions.
Available from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chemheritage/3228968582/sizes/o/
[Accessed 26 July 2013]
FAO (2006) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005: Progress Towards Sustainable
Forest Management. UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
FAO (2007) State of the World's Forests 2007. UN Food and Agriculture Organization.
Rome, Italy.
Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0773e/a0773e00.HTM
26 July 2013]
[Accessed
FAO (2009) appears on page 44 as source of 2.3.1
FAO (2010a) Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management. UN Food and
Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
Available from : http://www.fao.org/forestry/ci/16609/en/ [Accessed 22 June 2010]
FAO (2010b) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010: Key Findings. UN Food and
Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
Available from: http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2010/en/ [Accessed 26 July 2013]
FAO Forestry (2010) Towards Sustainable Forest Management. UN Food and
Agriculture Organization. Rome, Italy.
Available from: http://www.fao.org/forestry/sfm/en/ [Accessed 26 July 2013]
FRA (2010) Country Reporting Process. UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome,
Italy.
Available from: http://www.fao.org/forestry/45515/en/ [Accessed 26 July 2013]
Forero OA, Woodgate GR (2002) The semantics of human security in North-west
Amazonia: between indigenous peoples management of the world and the USA’s
state security policy for Latin America. In: Page E, Redclift M (eds) Human Security
and the Environment: International Comparisons. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and
Northampton, MA, pp. 244–266.
© SOAS
CeDEP
7
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
Foster JB (2005) [1994] The vulnerable planet: a short economic history of the
environment. In: King L, McCarthy D Environmental Sociology: from Analysis to
Action. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD and Oxford, UK, pp. 3–15.
Fukuyama F (1989) The End of History? National Interest 16 (Summer) 3–18.
Geist HJ, Lambin EF (2005) Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical
deforestation. In: Sayer J (ed) The Earthscan Reader in Forestry and Development.
Earthscan, London, pp. 59–71.
Hansen MC, Stehman SV, Potapov PV (2010) Quantification of global gross forest
cover loss. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published online before
print 26 April 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912668107.
Available from: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/04/07/0912668107.abstract
[Accessed 26 July 2013]
Higman S, Mayers J, Bass S, Judd N, Nussbaum R (2004) The Sustainable Forestry
Handbook: A Practical Guide for Tropical Forest Managers on Implementing New
Standards, 2nd edn. Earthscan, London.
ITTO (1994 and 2006) International Tropical Timber Agreements.
Available from: http://www.itto.int/en/itta/ [Accessed 26 July 2013]
IUCN (2009) Billion Hectares of Land have Potential for Forest Restoration, Study
Shows. International Union for Conservation of Nature.
Available from: http://www.iucn.org/?4255/Billion-hectares-of-forests-with-potentialfor-restoration-study-shows [Accessed 14 November 2013]
Lowood HE (1990) The calculating forester: quantification, cameral science and the
emergence of scientific forestry management in Germany. In: Frängsmyr T, Heilbron
JL, Rider RE The Quantifying Spirit in the 18th Century. University of California Press,
Berkley, CA and Oxford, UK, pp. 315–342.
MEA (2005) Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Synthesis. Island Press. Washington
DC.
Olsen DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED et al (2001) Terrestrial ecoregions of the
world: a new map of life on earth. BioScience 51(11) 933–938.
Available from: http://worldwildlife.org/publications/terrestrial-ecoregions-of-theworld [Accessed 26 July 2013]
Pedraza Ruiz R (2010) Local Communities and Biodiversity Conservation in the Sierra
Gorda Biosphere Reserve. Seminar Presentation at The Institute for the Study of the
Americas, 12 March 2010.
© SOAS
CeDEP
8
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
Pinchot G (1998) [1947] Breaking New Ground. Island Press Washington DC.
Sayer J (2005) Challenging the myths: what is really happening in the world's
forests? In: Sayer J (ed) The Earthscan Reader in Forestry and Development.
Earthscan, London, pp. 1–7.
Sayer J, Maginnis S (2005) New challenges for forest management. In: Sayer J,
Maginnis S (eds) Forests in Landscapes: Ecosystem Approaches to Sustainability.
Earthscan, London, UK and Sterling, VA, pp. 1–16.
SCBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity) (2009) Sustainable
Forest Management, Biodiversity and Livelihoods: A Good Practice Guide. SCBD,
Montreal, pp. 47 + iii.
Schlich W (1889–1896) A Manual of Forestry. Bradbury and Agnew, London.
Sierra Gorda (no date)
Available from: http://sierragorda.net/en/ [Accessed 12 November 2013]
UNCED (1992) Non-legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global
Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of all
Types of Forests.
Available from: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-3annex3.htm
[Accessed 12 November 2013]
UNEP-WCMC (2010) Forests Homepage.
Available from: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/homepage.htm [Accessed 21 June
2010]
UNFF (2007) Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests. United Nations,
New York.
Woodland Trust (2010) The Woodland Trust Past and Present. Woodland Trust.
Available from: http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/about-us/pastpresent/Pages/past-present.aspx [Accessed 26 July 2013]
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our Common
Future. Oxford University Press (OUP), Oxford.
© SOAS
CeDEP
9
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
1.0 SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT
Section Overview
The history of forest management stretches back more than 1000 years.
Documentary evidence of concern with the sustainability of timber resources
becomes increasingly frequent during the second half of the last millennium and is
particularly marked in the German preoccupation with forest mathematics of the
18th century. Thus we begin this unit and this module by reviewing the origins of our
current preoccupation with sustainable forest management in the sustained-yield,
scientific forestry that was established in Europe and the USA in the 18th, 19th, and
20th centuries.
The rapid development of industrial society during the 20th century, not only led to
an acceleration of economic growth and social welfare for, in the latter decades of
the century, we also became increasingly aware of the negative environmental
impacts of industrial development in terms of diminished quantities and qualities of
natural resources. As the world awoke to these negative environmental trends, a new
policy imperative ‘sustainable development’ came to prominence. ‘Sustainable forest
management’ (SFM) has been defined as forestry’s contribution to ‘sustainable
development’ and once we have arrived at a satisfactory understanding of its origins,
we shall end this section by reviewing the institutionalisation of SFM within
international policy processes and supra-state agencies, international civil society
organisations, and trade associations.
Section Learning Outcomes
By the end of this section students should be able to:
•
explain the origins and objectives of ‘scientific forestry’
•
explain the key drivers of sustainable forest management and the main
processes and policies leading to the institutionalisation of sustainable forest
management between 1960 and 2010
1.1
From forest clearance to sustainable yield forestry
Human history has been closely bound to forests since our early hominid ancestors
descended from the trees to colonise the African savannah around four million years
ago. As far as we can tell from fossil remains and geological deposits, between
1.5 million and 500 000 years ago Homo erectus gained control of fire and began to
use it for cooking and hunting. At some point over the last 200 000 years people
began to use fire for ecosystem management, clearing patches of forest to create
spaces for agricultural crops: a practice that continues to this day.
Evidence of our past use and management of forests can be found in biological
records (such as pollen cores taken from lake bed sediments or peat bogs),
landscape archaeology (forests are particularly good at preserving archaeological
features) and historical records. The clearing of land for agriculture and livestock
changes the relative abundance of species and evidence of early clearance can be
© SOAS
CeDEP
10
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
found in pollen records, while evidence of forest management can be found in
landscape features such boundary banks and ditches. In countries with long histories
with limited external interference, historical records may record forest production
and management as much as 1000 years ago. China has a long documented history
of forest management and William of Normandy’s record (the Domesday Book) of the
property he obtained following his conquest of ‘England’ in 1066 catalogues the areas
of woodland he acquired and their capacity to produce timber and sustain livestock.
While forest utilisation may have been strictly controlled in pre-modern times,
management was not subjected to scientific principles. The origins of ‘modern
forestry’ emerge with the Enlightenment and can be traced at least to the work of a
certain John Evelyn. In 1662 Evelyn – himself a Fellow of the Royal Society –
presented a paper to Britain’s National Academy of Science: Sylva or, A Discourse of
Forest-Trees, and the Propagation of Timber in His Majesty's Dominions (see
illustration in 1.1.1). Sylva was written to encourage landowners to plant trees to
provide timber for the British Navy at a time when the supply of great forest oaks
was already in terminal decline.
1.1.1 Evelyn's Sylva 1662
Source: Evelyn (1662) Cover page.
© SOAS
CeDEP
11
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
While some plantations were established as a result of Evelyn’s treatise, with the
expansion of the British Empire and access to superior tropical timbers from the
colonies, the need to develop scientific forestry in the UK was not quickly
appreciated. In 18th century Germany, however, economic rivalry between the
numerous small states or ‘Kleinstaaterei’ prompted the rationalisation of timber
production and it was there, we can say, that the first concepts of ‘sustainable
forestry’ were born.
German scientific forestry in the 18th century entailed the pursuit of maximum
sustained profit and thus maximising sustainable timber yield. In order to achieve
this, large quantities of area-based standing timber and production data were
generated, relating to tree ages, sizes, and timber volumes. The German quantitative
tradition of forest management was based around three core principles: ‘minimum
diversity’ or maximum uniformity, ‘the balance sheet’ (volume increment and
withdrawals through harvesting), and ‘sustained yield’ (Lowood 1990).
Most, if not quite all, of the principles, methods, and measurement techniques that
were developed in Germany during the 18th century continue to inform sustainable
yield forestry today. Some of the most important internationally recognised forestry
measurement conventions are described in 1.1.2.
1.1.2 Common conventions in forestry measurements
Wood is conventionally measured in terms of its volume in cubic metres (m3). Although
freshly cut wood may be sold by the tonne, this measurement lacks precision because,
once felled, it begins to dry out and thus loses weight.
At approximately 1500 kg m-3, the specific gravity of solid wood (that is the solid
material of cell walls) varies very little between species, but the relative proportions of
cell wall material to space varies enormously so that the dry weight of different species
of wood or timber can vary from under 200 to over 1200 kg m-3. The variation in weight
of freshly cut wood is much less and is usually somewhere between 1000 and 1500 kg m3
.
The approximate volume of standing trees is estimated using the geometrical formula for
calculating the volume (v) of a cone: v = (π × radius2 × height)/3. To facilitate this
measurement and avoid error due to abnormal taper at the base of the tree associated
with root buttresses, the normal convention is to measure the diameter of trees at what
is called ‘breast height’. This is located 1.3 m above ground level. ‘Diameter at Breast
Height’ (DBH or dbh) is usually measured in centimetres.
In order to be able to calculate the maximum sustainable yield of timber that a given
forest or stand of trees can produce, we need to know the rate at which the trees are
growing. This is conventionally expressed in cubic metres per hectare per year (m3 ha-1
yr-1). Once we know how much standing volume we have and the rate at which it is
increasing, we can determine the maximum sustainable yield of timber.
Source: unit author
The development of Britain’s colonial economy in India involved the rapid, almost
uncontrolled expansion of the agricultural frontier under the aegis of the East India
Company, followed by the exploitation of forests for the construction of infrastructure
such as railways. The rapid deforestation and forest degradation brought about by
these developments led to a realisation of the need to establish scientific forestry in
India and to plan for sustained timber yields: with no home-grown tradition of
scientific forestry, however, Britain turned to Germany for the necessary expertise.
© SOAS
CeDEP
12
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
When the Indian Forest Service was established in 1864, its first Inspector General
was the German forester Dietrich Brandis. Brandis was succeeded in 1881 by another
German, William Schlich, Professor of Forestry at the Royal Indian Engineering
College.
Schlich left India in 1885, returned to England and set up a training college for
foresters where, besides training the first cohorts of ‘professional foresters’, he set
about systematising his experiences in a series of forestry manuals. From there, in
1905, Schlich moved to Oxford University to become the first director of the Oxford
Forestry Institute and, it is fair to say, the founder of British forestry science.
Schlich’s profound influence on the development of sustained yield, scientific forestry
spread well beyond Britain and his five-volume Manual of Forestry (1889–1896), was
used as a standard forestry text throughout the British Empire, until the Second
World War.
1.2
From sustainable yield to sustainable forest
management
Maximising sustainable yield through increasing uniformity
Schlich also had a strong influence on another key figure in the establishment of
scientific forestry, Gifford Pinchot, who went on to establish and become the first
Chief of the United States Forest Service (see 1.2.1).
1.2.1 Gifford Pinchot (1865—1946)
1st Chief of the US Forest Service, 1905—1910
Gifford Pinchot was born in Connecticut, where he grew up with a great passion for the
outdoors and, in particular, a great love of woodlands. He went to Yale University, but
with no option to do so there, on graduation he headed off to France to study forestry,
before returning to the USA to work as a resident estate forester.
As his skills and reputation as a forester grew, Pinchot became involved with the US
National Academy of Sciences’ National Forest Commission. In 1896, together with other
members of the Commission he travelled extensively in the western states, investigating
forest areas for possible production forest reserves. In 1898 he became chief of the
Department of the Interior’s Division of Forestry and subsequently, when the Division
was transferred to the Department of Agriculture in 1905, the first Chief of the US Forest
Service.
With the support of his long-time friend and now US President Theodor (Teddy)
Roosevelt, Pinchot completely overhauled and professionalised forest management in
the USA and significantly expanded the federal forest reserve. In 1905, when he took
office, there were 60 forest reserves, covering just over 20 million hectares. By the time
he left office in 1910 the number of reserves had grown to 150, with a total area of some
70 million hectares. The effective organisation and professional management of forests
that he established was undertaken in the name of ‘conservation’. In much the same
way as German ‘sustainable yield forestry’ the goal of forest conservation was to
maintain timber production capacity in the long term.
Pinchot himself wrote (1998 p. 27) ‘When the Gay Nineties began, the common word for
our forests was “inexhaustible”. To waste timber was a virtue and not a crime. There
would always be plenty of timber ... The lumbermen ... regarded forest devastation as
normal. ... And as for sustained yield, no such idea had ever entered their heads. What
talk there was about forest protection was no more to the average American than the
buzzing of a mosquito, and just about as irritating’.
He went on to say ‘Without natural resources life itself is impossible. From birth to
death, natural resources, transformed for human use, feed, clothe, shelter, and
© SOAS
CeDEP
13
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
transport us. Upon them we depend for every material necessity, comfort, convenience,
and protection in our lives. Without abundant resources prosperity is out of reach.’ (1998
p. 505)
Source: unit author, drawing on information available from Forest History website
Schlich and Pinchot were both born during the Industrial Revolution and both went
on, within the field of forest science, to become important figures in the subsequent
scientific-technological revolution that was to transform all aspects of human
existence during the 20th century. ‘This transformation’ writes Foster (in King and
McCarthy 2005 p. 5) ‘was aimed at extending both the division of labour and the
division of nature, and in the process both were transformed’. Labour was
transformed by scientific management that altered people’s relation to the
production process. Under ‘scientific management’ workers became ‘instruments of
production’, to be combined with capital in the most efficient way to minimise the
costs of production. The archetypal example from the early 20th century was Henry
Ford’s automobile assembly line, which produced millions of cars for popular
consumption, with each worker employed to carry out a single repetitive task on one
car after another. Just like the German quantitative tradition of forest management,
efficient automobile production required ‘minimum diversity’.
Scientific, sustained yield forestry maximised the quantities of nutrients, light, and
water reserved for the production of timber by simplifying forest ecosystems. The
homogenisation of species, age, size, and spacing within forest compartments
allowed for more efficient management operations from planting to final felling. The
removal of suppressed trees during thinning operations not only concentrated growth
on the largest, straightest trees and increased the uniformity of the remaining crop
but, by removing smaller diameter and shorter stems before they became completely
suppressed, also helped to prevent pest and disease problems and avoided the buildup of deadwood, reducing the likelihood and intensity of forest fires.
Thus, the rationalisation of timber production through the application of scientific
forestry was employed throughout the first half of the 20th century in the earnest
attempts of foresters to maximise the sustainable yield of timber from carefully
managed semi-natural forests and well-designed plantations. Throughout Europe,
following significant losses of standing volume during the years of the Second World
War (1939–1945), the 1950s and 1960s saw a redoubling of efforts to improve both
production and productivity. In the UK, the Forestry Commission accelerated its
programme of land acquisition and expanded its area of forest plantations through
the afforestation of marginal agricultural land and the conversion of native seminatural woodlands to exotic conifer plantations. While a native broadleaved woodland
might yield on average between two and six cubic metres of timber per year, exotic
conifers introduced from the European mainland and the USA could yield two, three,
four or even five times the volume of timber. On the most favourable sites with the
most productive species, mean annual volume increments of 30 m3 ha-1 could be
achieved!
Post-War growth in the forest industry was matched by wide-ranging improvements
in social conditions. In numerous countries across Europe, and to some extent in the
USA, post-War governments established state provision of education, healthcare, and
social housing, while average real incomes rose dramatically. Car ownership,
previously restricted to a minority of wealthy individuals became widespread and
© SOAS
CeDEP
14
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
allowed people to travel further afield as their leisure time increased. By the early
1960s, the troubles of the War years were beginning to fade and a new era of
prosperity was dawning. The application of industrial technologies to everything from
farming and forestry to food and furniture manufacture created the impression of the
complete control of the vagaries of nature through the application of rational,
scientific management.

Thinking back over the discussion so far, what drawbacks if any would
you associate with the maximisation of sustained timber yield through
the application of scientific forestry?
Answer.
The key point to focus on is that maximisation of sustainable timber yield is
premised on the minimisation of diversity within a given stand of trees in
terms of species, age and tree size. While this uniformity makes
management interventions simpler and more efficient, with its unique focus
on efficient timber production it neglects other values that we have come to
associate with forests over the last 50 years. Single-species, single-size,
single-age forests are neither particularly aesthetically pleasing nor very
hospitable places in terms of non-crop species. Furthermore, even-age
monocultures can be extremely vulnerable to pests and diseases.
The problem with scientific forestry: early signs of discontent in the UK
Increasing disposable incomes, leisure time, and mobility resulted in a growing
demand for access to forests for recreation purposes. From the 1960s, as more and
more people headed out to the country, public criticism of the national forest estate
began to mount. The regimented lines of exotic conifers were seen as ‘unnatural’ and
the dark and lifeless forest floor beneath the canopy, bare and uninviting. In
response, the Forestry Commission appointed its first ‘Landscape Consultant’ and the
public were given a ‘right to roam’ in Commission forests.
From the 1970s, conservation and amenity issues became more central in the
Forestry Commission's forest policy and planning. Emphasis was increasingly given to
maintaining ‘woodland character’ and recognising the importance of broadleaves for
wildlife conservation. The landscape began to be considered on a far wider scale, and
the restructuring that followed resulted in woods which were aesthetically pleasing as
well as highly productive. Forests were also identified as potentially important wildlife
reserves, and conservation became a special responsibility of Forestry Commission
staff.
1972 saw the establishment of the Woodland Trust. The Trust’s founder was Kenneth
Watkins, a retired farmer who had become concerned about the rapidly disappearing
small, native, broadleaved woodlands that had been felled for timber during the
Second World War and many had subsequently been restocked with exotic conifers.
Together with his wife and a small group of friends, Watkins set out on a mission to
build membership and acquire woodlands and land for woodland planting. The aim
was to conserve native woodlands, replace woodlands that had been lost to
agricultural expansion and restore ancient woodland sites that had been converted to
commercial conifer plantations. All this was to be done at the same time as providing
open public access for quiet recreation. The aims of the Trust caught the public
© SOAS
CeDEP
15
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
imagination and today it has almost 200 000 members and owns more than 1000
woodland sites covering nearly 20 000 ha (Woodland Trust 2010).
By the time the 1980s arrived, domestic timber demand began to decline as British
timber processing plants lost out to international competition and government
funding was significantly reduced in the wake of British Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher’s monetarist financial policy and economic deregulation. Significant parcels
of the national forest estate were sold off to investment funds and private forestry
companies, while depressed prices for home-grown timber resulted in the ‘undermanagement’ of much private woodland.
Changing context of forest management
The economic and political changes that began in the UK and USA in the late 1970s
and early 1980s have gathered pace and over the last 30 years and swept around
the world. Following a prolonged period of state expansion, during which the majority
of the world’s forests, together with many of its other natural assets such as
subsurface minerals and oil were assigned to state ownership, the 1980s, 1990s, and
2000s witnessed the rolling back of the state and the virtual global application of
neo-liberal economic policy. Unable to maintain pace with the economic and political
forces unleashed during the 1980s, the Soviet Union collapsed at the end of the
decade, allowing Francis Fukuyama famously to proclaim ‘what we may be
witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of
post-War history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's
ideological evolution and the universalisation of Western liberal democracy as the
final form of human government’ (Fukuyama 1989 p. 4).
It was not only politics and economics that changed in the final decades of the 20th
century. From the 1960s, evidence began to mount about the environmental impacts
of economic growth and industrial development. In the 1960s people like Rachel
Carson started to catalogue the impacts that the industrialisation of agriculture and
forestry were having on biological diversity, while in the 1970s concern grew over
impending resource scarcity. While evidence of increasing atmospheric CO2
concentrations has been available since the 1950s and 1960s, it was not until the
1980s, when global mean temperature curves began rising dramatically, that global
warming theories and concerns finally displaced fears over global cooling. All in all
then, the last three decades have seen the emergence and institutionalisation of
significant concerns over environmental deterioration and growing certainty that the
world’s forests and forest management practices are deeply implicated in both the
impacts and the causes of environmental deterioration.
As doubt has been cast on scientific forestry and the wisdom of maximising timber
yields at the expense of all else, there have been moves towards forest conservation,
such as that exemplified by the case of the Woodland Trust in the UK. At the same
time, the establishment of forest reserves for biodiversity conservation restricts the
economic potential of forests and their role in national development endeavours and,
through their exclusion, may also threaten the livelihoods of forest-dependent
people. In this context there has been growing interest in the small-scale,
ecologically and culturally specific forest management systems that have endured
despite the fashion for ‘scientific rationalisation’ or exclusionary conservation
designations. 1.2.2 offers a brief glimpse into the lives of the Tukano people who
inhabit the Amazon rainforest in the south of Colombia.
© SOAS
CeDEP
16
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
1.2.2 The Tukano’s ‘Management of the World’
For the Tukano, the notion of sustainable forest management is a mystery. Although they
have developed sophisticated systems for manipulating production from chagras (forest
gardens), rastrojos (old gardens where particular species are favoured as elements of
secondary forest) and trochas (linear gardens along the footpaths that connect different
habitats and indigenous settlements), they do not distinguish themselves from the forest
as we might: for them the management of their society and environment is integrated
within what they call the ‘management of the world’. According to the Tukano, their
well-being and health depend on taking care of their ‘trade’ in energy with other beings,
such as the ‘fish-people’, ‘game-people’ and various ‘plant-people’. This 'trade' is
accomplished by shamans who negotiate for the Tukano with the spirit guardians of the
other forest people.
Indigenous management does not simply relate to crop production and hunting; spiritual
and aesthetic dimensions are also involved. The different spaces of production just
mentioned are ‘humanised’ and individual well-being relies on a close integration within,
and deep understanding of, both the social group and the forest. The close integration of
ecological, aesthetic and spiritual dimensions within the lives of indigenous Amazonians
such as the Tukano has led ethnoscientists to write about the ‘humanised rainforest’.
The fact that such ways of living have developed and endured over millennia underscores
the need not just for more sustainable forms of forest management but for humans to
manage their demands on the world’s natural resources.
Source: unit author drawing on Forero and Woodgate (2002).
In their discussion of ‘new challenges for forest management’, Sayer and Maginnis
(2005) have summarised some of the more important underlying trends that have
prompted moves towards more ‘integrated and holistic’ systems of forest
management (FM). These ‘drivers’ of sustainable forest management are set out in
the table in 1.2.3.
1.2.3 Drivers of sustainable forest management
Driver
Content
Broadening FM
objectives
Timber production no longer the sole or even primary objective: forest
dependent livelihoods and lifestyles, biodiversity conservation, carbon
storage, etc.
Codifying good FM
practice
National laws, performance standards, human rights and commercial interest
are all driving best practice in FM.
Pluralism in FM
systems
Recognition of diversity in FM systems and that this should be encouraged.
There is no ‘one-size fits all’ SFM system.
Subsidiarity in FM
FM decision making and responsibility are being devolved to lowest
appropriate levels consistent with capabilities. State ownership and
management is on the decline.
Globalisation
FM increasingly influenced by global forces: corporations, banks,
macroeconomic trends, poverty reduction policy, etc.
Climate change
FM adaptation to and mitigation of climate change.
Governance
SFM requires effective institutions, the rule of law, and stakeholder
participation/civil society mobilisation.
Source: unit author drawing on Sayer and Maginnis (2005) pp. 6—7.
© SOAS
CeDEP
17
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
Defining sustainable forest management

Think back over what you have read in this unit so far and consider what
this implies in terms of forest management. Then spend a few minutes
jotting down your own definition of ‘sustainable forest management’
before reading on to see how other people have defined it.
Higman et al (2005 p. 4) point out that ‘SFM has been described as forestry’s
contribution to sustainable development’. The concept of sustainable development
(SD) has been with us for at least 30 years now and the definition that is still the
most frequently cited is the one provided by the World Commission on Environment
and Development in its 1987 report Our Common Future. The Commission defined
SD as development that ‘meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED 1987 p. 8). This
definition clearly has a lot in common with the original objectives of the 18th century
German forest mathematicians whose work we discussed in Section 1.1. Sir William
Schlich and Gifford Pinchot would also have great sympathy with this definition,
which could just as well be used to explain sustained yield scientific forestry.
What we have learnt in Section 1.2, however, is that over the past half century a
whole range of new demands and constraints are being placed on the world’s forests,
so that we need to go a little further than the WCED definition. We might begin by
saying that SFM is ‘forestry that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’, but the new
economic, social, and ecological realities of the 21st century, demand a somewhat
more detailed specification. Today we have come to recognise that, in addition to
providing people with supplies of materials goods such as timber and non-timber
products, forests also provide non-material, cultural benefits relating to spiritual,
religious, aesthetic, and recreational needs. Beyond these material and non-material
goods, forests also help to regulate numerous processes that are essential to human
health and well-being (air and water quality, climate, erosion control) as well as
supporting all life on earth through the production of oxygen, soils, habitats, etc.
Collectively, these four sets of benefits that we derive from forests are increasingly
referred to as (provisioning, cultural, regulating, and supporting) ‘ecosystem
services’ (MEA 2005).
1.2.4 Definitions of sustainable forest management
Higman et al (2005 p. 4): ‘the best available practices, based on current scientific and
traditional knowledge, which allow multiple objectives and needs to be met, without
degrading the forest resource’.
ITTO (1998) ‘the process of managing forests to achieve one or more clearly specified
objectives of management with regard to the production of a continuous flow of desired
forest products and services, without undue reduction of their inherent value and future
productivity and without undue undesirable effects on the physical and social
environment’. (Cited in Higman et al 2005 p. 4)
FAO (2010b) ‘aims to ensure that the goods and services derived from the forest meet
present-day needs while at the same time securing their continued availability and
contribution to long-term development’.
Source: unit author drawing on the specified sources.
© SOAS
CeDEP
18
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
Recognition of this broad array of services that forests provide to society has
promoted numerous definitions of sustainable forest management, a limited selection
of which are set out in 1.2.4.
Other people and institutions prefer not to opt for simple definitions, but instead set
out thematic elements of SFM or the principles that should be followed and criteria
that define what these principles mean in terms of forest management practice. We
will review some of these shortly when we consider the institutionalisation of SFM in
Section 1.3. Others still prefer not to use the phrase ‘sustainable forest management’
at all, perhaps because they believe that it is impossible to judge sustainability.
Some of the alternatives include ‘sound forest stewardship’, ‘well-managed forests’
or ‘ecosystem approaches’ to forest management.
Ecosystem approaches are promoted by the 1992 UN Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD), which has set out 12 principles of ecosystem management. Sayer
and Maginnis pay particular attention to ecosystems approaches in their 2005
discussion of ‘challenges to forest management’. They also provide a very useful
comparison of sustained yield forestry, SFM, and ecosystems approaches, which is
reproduced in the table in 1.2.5. For our purposes, the most import thing to note
about ecosystems approaches to forest management is that there is no focus on the
production of timber or non-timber products. Instead, the primary concern is with
integrating the use and conservation of biological diversity.
1.2.5 Comparing approaches to forest management: from ‘sustained yield’ to
‘ecosystem approaches’
Criteria for
comparison
Sustained yield
forestry
Tangibility of
goals…
… is high — commodities … is high —products
and services
… is low — equity and
sustainability
Resource
management
objectives…
… are based on longstanding technocratic
traditions and legal
mandates, focused on
production
… incorporate a
broader range of
environmental and
social objectives
… are a matter of
societal choices
Control of
resource
management
decision…
… is generally
centralized under
responsible forest
management agency
… is still usually
centralized though
other management
options are emerging
… is decentralized to
the lowest
appropriate level
Hierarchical
approach…
… is one of command
and control — ‘we
manage’
… is slightly more
open — ‘we manage,
you participate’
… us replaced by the
concept of social
learning — ‘we are
learning together’
© SOAS
Sustainable forest
management
CeDEP
Ecosystem
approaches
19
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
1.2.5 continued
Criteria for
comparison
Sustained yield
forestry
Sustainable forest
management
Ecosystem
approaches
Spatial scale is … at site level only (i.e. … primarily at site
… to incorporate the
considered…
management unit)
level, though with
wider landscape-scale
some consideration of linkages
externalities
Knowledge is
based on…
… scientific and
technological
knowledge
… expert knowledge,
supplemented with
broader stakeholder
inputs
… a more balanced
use of scientific and
indigenous and local
knowledge,
innovations and
practices
Sectoral
approach is…
… narrowly focused
… broadly focused
… cross-sectoral
Assumes…
… predictability and
stability
… adaptive
management — but
within defined limits
… need for resilience,
anticipation of change
Associated
tools…
… are those of classic
silviculture
… include codes of
forestry practices,
criteria and indicators
etc
… are not yet
available. EsA have no
case law and need
practical testing
Primary
concern…
… is on sustainable
commodity production
… is on balancing
… is on balancing —
conservation,
and integrating —
production and use of conservation and use
forest goods and
of biological diversity
services
Source: Sayer and Maginnis (2005) p. 10.
© SOAS
CeDEP
20
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
1.3
Unit 1
The institutionalisation of sustainable forest
management
Over the last 50 years, sustainable forest management has been institutionalised
through three sets of interrelated processes. The earliest processes involved the
reform of state forestry policies in highly industrialised countries. We reviewed early
signs of discontent with sustainable yield, scientific forestry by considering the British
case in Section 1.2. It was not long, however, before concern became more
widespread, leading to the negotiation and establishment of international timber
trade agreements and principles for sustainable forest management. Finally, and
most recently, there has been intergovernmental and civil society action to establish
criteria and indicators of SFM and develop independent systems for assessing the
extent to which the agreed standards are being achieved. Having already considered
the first of these two processes in Section 1.2, we shall focus here on the latter two,
before concluding Section 1 by setting out the thematic elements of sustainable
forest management that the FAO uses in its regular assessments of the global forest
estate.
International trade agreements and forest principles
In Section 1.2, we noted that the idea of sustainable development has a long history,
spanning at least the last three decades. Indeed, environmental concerns have been
on the international agenda from the time of the UN Stockholm Conference on the
Human Environment in 1972 that led to the establishment of the UN Environment
Programme. It was in the early 1980s, however, that three factors came together to
trigger major concerns about the world’s forests.
•
The FAO’s 1980 analysis of the world’s forest resources, showing alarming
deforestation in the tropics, sparked what was an already growing concern
about the fate of tropical forests.
•
Numerous independent reports depicting catastrophic loss of fuelwood supplies
in much of the drier tropics.
•
Although already noted at Stockholm in 1972, there was increasing evidence of
significant forest dieback in Europe and North America, due to air pollution and,
in particular, acid deposition from coal-fired power stations.
Frequent news coverage of events related to these three factors stirred the interest
of environmental NGOs, whose campaigns quickly gained public support, raising the
pressure for political action.
Amongst the responses to the concern about deforestation in the tropics, was the
establishment of the International Tropical Timber Agreement (ITTA) in 1983 and
later, in 1986 of the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). Although in
many ways similar to other international trade agreements, the ITTA differed in one
key respect. Clause (h) of Article 1 of the original 1983 agreement stated:
‘(h) To encourage the development of national policies aimed at
sustainable utilization and conservation of tropical forests and their
genetic resources, and maintaining the ecological balance in the regions
concerned.’
Source: ITTA (1983) Clause (h) of Article 1.
© SOAS
CeDEP
21
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
No other trade agreement at the time incorporated a specific commitment to
sustainability and to conservation in ecological terms. This was a big step forward as
an agreement. However, the same clause was conspicuous by its absence from the
successor agreement (ITTA 1994) that came into force in 1996, and while the most
recent agreement (ITTA 2006) suggests a much stronger commitment to both social
and environmental issues, the ITTO and ITTAs have come in for much criticism from
environmental NGOs.
In 1984/1985 the World Resources Institute, together with the World Bank and the
UN Development Program published their report ‘Tropical Forests: A Call for Action’
which cited numerous case studies, reported on forestry investment profiles, and set
out a plan for action. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (the UN agency
charged with responsibility for forestry) responded quickly to the report and in early
1985 tabled what was known initially as the Tropical Forest Action Plan (TFAP). The
Plan brought together governments, international agencies, and representatives of
NGOs and set out to assess the state of tropical deforestation and forest
management generally, and to establish a co-ordinated plan of action. The original
plan had five components (forestry and land use, forestry-based industrial
development, fuelwood and energy, conservation of tropical forest ecosystems, and
institutions) and aimed to promote international donor co-ordination in the
development of National Forestry Action Plans (NFAPs). The Plan has met with mixed
success, however, and whilst many NFAPs were established in tropical countries, the
TFAP itself is increasingly being overtaken by other institutions and avenues of
funding.
We have already mentioned the 1987 WCED Report and the concept of ‘sustainable
development’ and noted that many people see SFM as forestry’s contribution to this
wider policy objective. Much more important in terms of the institutionalisation of
SFM, however, was the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, held
in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. At the end of Section 1.2, we mentioned the UN
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its promotion of ecosystems
approaches to natural resource management. The CBD was one of the agreements
that came out of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED) or ‘Earth Summit’ as it has become known. Of more direct concern for us
however, was Chapter 11 of Agenda 21, which addressed the subject of ‘Combating
Deforestation’, and the rather long-windedly named: non-legally binding
authoritative statement of principles for a global consensus on the management,
conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests (UNCED 1992).
Thankfully, these are usually referred to much more simply as the UN Statement of
Forest Principles and it is worth reproducing the key element in relation to SFM here.
Principle 2b states the following:
‘Forest resources and forest lands should be substantially managed to
meet the social, economic, ecological, cultural and spiritual needs of
present and future generations. These needs are for forest products and
services such as wood and wood products, water, food, medicine, fodder,
fuel, shelter, employment, recreation, habitats for wildlife, landscape
diversity, carbon sinks and reservoirs, and for other forest products.
Appropriate measures should be taken to protect forests against harmful
effects of pollution, including air-borne pollution, fires, pests and
diseases, in order to maintain their full multiple value’.
Source: UNCED (1992)
© SOAS
CeDEP
22
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
Establishing SFM criteria and indicators
Immediately following Rio, work began on developing ways for countries or major
forestry projects to assess whether they were adhering to the principles of
sustainable management and consensus soon grew around what have subsequently
become known as Criteria and Indicators (C&I) processes. The relationship between
principles, criteria, and indicators is illustrated in 1.3.1.
1.3.1 Principles, criteria and indicators
Principles are general in scope. They outline the philosophy upon which the initiative or
forest management standard is based. Examples of some principles are:
Principle 1: Forest management shall conserve water resources and soils.
Principle 2: The welfare of employees shall be ensured.
Criteria set out the key elements or dimensions that define and clarify each principle.
For each principle there will be one or more criteria, which correspond to identified
elements against which forest management may be assessed. Examples of criteria
relating to Principle 1 (above):
Criterion 1.1 Conservation or maintenance of water supplies.
Criterion 1.2 Conservation of soils.
Indicators are quantitative or qualitative variants which can be measured or described
and which can be used to report on the status or trend of a criterion over time. For each
criterion, there may be one or more indicators. Usually indicators are specific to a
particular region or forest. Examples of indicators relating to Criterion 1.1 (above):
Indicator 1.1 Type and severity of soil erosion.
Indicator 1.2 Extent and distribution of protection areas.
Source: Higman et al (2005) p. 19.

Given the following principle of sustainable forest management, suggest
two criteria that might be adopted to define and clarify the principle, and
two indicators that might be used to report on the status or trend of
each criterion over time.
Principle: ‘The overall area of forest is not declining’.
Answer
Criteria and indicators could include any of the following:
C1 Forest areas have clearly marked boundaries
Indicators:
C.1.1. There is a map showing the boundaries of the forest areas
C.1.2. The boundaries of forest areas are clearly marked on the ground
C2. Effective action is taken by forest managers to monitor the forest and
protect it against illegal cutting of trees and damage by wildfires
Indicators:
C.2.1. There are written procedures for issuing cutting licences
C.2.2. There is a written fire plan
C.2.3. Records are maintained of all cutting licences issued
© SOAS
CeDEP
23
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
C.2.4. All staff are aware of what do in the event of a fire
C.3. The forest manager promotes the participation of local people in
protecting the forest
Indicators:
C.3.1. There is an effective system for interesting local people in protecting
the forest against illegal cutting and wildfires.
C.3.2. Educational programmes are implemented to inform local people
about what to do in the event of encountering evidence of illegal cutting or
wildfire
Although it was recognised that Criteria and Indicators needed an international
consensus, it was also clear that regional variations were important. This led to a
number of different C&I processes being initiated among groups of countries sharing
similar forest types, with the job of harmonising the processes falling to the UN FAO.
There are currently nine ongoing processes (see the map in 1.3.2) incorporating a
total of approximately 150 countries. Most of the countries that are not participating
are small island states with very small areas of forest, although there are notable
exceptions such as Vietnam and Paraguay.
1.3.2 International criteria and indicator processes
Dry Zone Africa Process
Pan-­‐European Forest Process
Montreal Process
Tarapoto Proposal
Near East Process
Lepatorique Process of Central America
African Timber Organization Initiative
Regional Initiative for Forests in Asia
ITTO
Source: FAO (2010a)
In parallel with C&I processes has been the development of systems whereby
individual forests are vetted and then certified as being managed in ways that reach
‘acceptable’ standards of environmental, social, and economic performance. The
certification process is a detailed and exhaustive appraisal of forest management
planning and operational practice. It is undertaken by independent teams of auditors
whose work is itself independently evaluated. There is a system for annual reviews of
compliance and addressing any non-compliances through appropriate corrective
actions. The lead SFM certification standards agency is the Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC), which verifies national SFM standards against its own principles of
forest stewardship and accredits certification bodies to audit forests and issue
certificates on its behalf.
© SOAS
CeDEP
24
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
We shall not be delving any deeper into the process of certification in this unit, but
we cannot leave the subject without a few words about some of the issues that
certification has raised. It has clearly added a new layer of bureaucracy to forest
management operations, in addition to the need to comply with national and
international laws and regulations, and, of course, the certification process has to be
paid for. Realistically this has meant an extra cost to be met by the forest’s owners
or managers. In return, owners and managers can expect greater market
penetration or less risk of market exclusion for their products. There is no legal
requirement for certification but once a forest becomes certified, products from it can
be marketed with the FSC or other recognised logos and thus assurance provided to
the buyer that the product has come from a sustainably managed forest. In this way
the products should be more attractive to buy. Demonstrating benefits from
certification has been elusive, but it now seems certain, following rather hesitant
beginnings that certification is here to stay.
Progress towards sustainable forest management
The momentum for international action on forests that was generated by the 1992
‘Forest Principles’ and Chapter 11 of Agenda 21 led, as we have already seen, to the
initiation of various regional Criteria and Indicators processes. Building on these
processes, 1995 saw the establishment, under the auspices of the UNCED, of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF). The objective of the IPF was to conduct
negotiations towards an agreement that would develop the 1992 Forest Principles
into international policy for the sustainable development of all types of forests. In
1997 the IPF became the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests and, in 2000, the
United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF).
At its sixth session, in 2006, the Forum established the Global Objectives on Forests.
These seek to:
(1) Reverse the loss of forest cover worldwide through sustainable forest
management (SFM).
(2) Enhance forest-based economic, social, and environmental benefits, including
by improving the livelihoods of forest-dependent people.
(3) Increase significantly the area of sustainably managed forests and the
proportion of forest products derived from them.
(4) Reverse the decline in official development assistance for sustainable forest
management and mobilise significantly-increased new and additional financial
resources from all sources for the implementation of sustainable forest
management.
On 28 April 2007, the ‘Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests’ was
agreed and adopted by the UN General Assembly (Resolution 62/98) on 17
December 2007. ‘The purpose of this instrument is:
(a) To strengthen political commitment and action at all levels to implement
effectively sustainable management of all types of forests and to achieve the
shared global objectives on forests;
(b) To enhance the contribution of forests to the achievement of the internationally
agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals, in
particular with respect to poverty eradication and environmental sustainability;
© SOAS
CeDEP
25
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
(c) To provide a framework for national action and international co-operation;’
(UNFF 2007)
In the process of working towards C&I and the Forests Instrument, seven thematic
elements (see 1.3.3) have been identified as a framework for monitoring progress
towards sustainable forest management.
1.3.3 Thematic elements of sustainable forest management
‘1. Extent of forest resources. This theme reflects the importance of adequate forest
cover and stocking, including trees outside forests, to support the social, economic and
environmental dimensions of forestry; to reduce deforestation; and to restore and
rehabilitate degraded forest landscapes. The existence and extent of specific forest
types are important as a basis for conservation efforts. The theme also includes the
important function of forests and trees outside forests to store carbon and thereby
contribute to moderating the global climate.
2. Biological diversity. This theme concerns the conservation and management of
biological diversity at ecosystem (landscape), species and genetic levels. Such
conservation, including the protection of areas with fragile ecosystems, ensures that
diversity of life is maintained, and provides opportunities to develop new products in the
future, including medicines. Genetic improvement is also a means of increasing forest
productivity, for example to ensure high wood production levels in intensively managed
forests.
3. Forest health and vitality. Forests need to be managed so that the risks and impacts of
unwanted disturbances are minimised, including wildfires, airborne pollution, storm
felling, invasive species, pests and diseases. Such disturbances may have an impact on
the social and economic, as well as environmental, dimensions of forestry.
4. Productive functions of forest resources. Forests and trees outside forests provide a
wide range of wood and non-wood forest products. This theme reflects the importance
of maintaining an ample and valuable supply of primary forest products while ensuring
that production and harvesting are sustainable and do not compromise the management
options of future generations.
5. Protective functions of forest resources. Forests and trees outside forests contribute
to moderating soil, hydrological and aquatic systems, maintaining clean water (including
healthy fish populations) and reducing the risks and impacts of floods, avalanches,
erosion and drought. Protective functions of forest resources also contribute to
ecosystem conservation efforts and provide benefits to agriculture and rural livelihoods.
6. Socio-­‐economic functions. Forest resources contribute to the overall economy in many
ways such as through employment, values generated through processing and marketing
of forest products, and energy, trade and investment in the forest sector. They also host
and protect sites and landscapes of high cultural, spiritual or recreational value. This
theme thus includes aspects of land tenure, indigenous and community management
systems, and traditional knowledge.
7. Legal, policy and institutional framework. Legal, policy and institutional
arrangements — including participatory decision-making, governance and law
enforcement, and monitoring and assessment of progress — are necessary to support the
above six themes. This theme also encompasses broader societal aspects, including fair
and equitable use of forest resources, scientific research and education, infrastructure
arrangements to support the forest sector, transfer of technology, capacity-building, and
public information and communication.’
Source: FAO (2007) p. 3.
At the global level the UN agency tasked with monitoring the world’s forest resources
is the Forestry Department of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Since
© SOAS
CeDEP
26
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
2005, these thematic elements have been used to organise the Global Forest
Resource Assessments (FRAs) that are published every five years, having been
complied from information submitted to the FAO in individual country reports. The
FAO also produces a biennial ‘State of the World’s Forests’ (SOFO) Report, the 2007
edition of which used the seven elements as its framework for discussing
international ‘progress towards sustainable forest management’. All data sources and
statistical analyses are of course open to debate and the information presented in
these FAO publications has received its fair share of criticism. However, the most
recent FRAs and the SOFO Reports provide the most comprehensive and detailed
global forestry information available and will be key sources for our discussion of the
‘Global Forest Estate’ and ‘Supply and Trade of Forest Products and Services’ in
Section 2 of this unit.
© SOAS
CeDEP
27
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
Section 1 Self Assessment Questions
Q
uestion 1
When and where was scientific forestry developed and what was its main objective?
Q
uestion 2
Allocate the following phrases to the individual cells in the matrix below to distinguish between
sustained yield and sustainable forest management.
(a) … adaptive management — but within defined limits
(b) … are based on long-standing technocratic traditions and legal mandates, focused on
production
(c) … are those of classic silviculture
(d) … broadly focused
(e) … expert knowledge, supplemented with broader stakeholder inputs
(f)
… include codes of forestry practices, criteria and indicators etc
(g) … incorporate broader range of environmental and social objectives
(h) … is on balancing conservation, production and use of forest goods and services
(i)
… is on sustainable commodity production
(j)
… narrowly focused
(k) … predictability and stability
(l)
… scientific and technological knowledge
Criteria for comparison
Sustained yield forestry
Sustainable forest management
Resource management
objectives…
Knowledge is based on…
Sectoral approach is…
Assumes…
Associated tools…
Primary concern…
Q
uestion 3
Identify the three sets of interrelated processes that have been central to the institutionalisation
of SFM over the past half century.
© SOAS
CeDEP
28
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
2.0 THE GLOBAL FOREST ESTATE AND THE SUPPLY AND TRADE
OF FOREST PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
Section Overview
For many people the word ‘forest’ conjures up images of dense stands of trees,
shrubs, and climbers, from within which the sky is barely visible. In Section 2, we will
develop our understanding of forests by introducing the definition that underlies the
FAO’s data on the global extent of forest cover and how this has been changing over
time. As well as their general definition of ‘forest’, we will also review three main
classificatory schemes for forests.
Having established more precisely what is meant by the term forest, we investigate
and explain recent trends in global forest cover, distinguishing major areas of forest
loss and expansion. This exercise will make clear just how important it is to clarify
and understand the implications of the different ways in which ‘forest’ is defined and
categorised and the sources of data and information that support claims concerning
the state of the world’s forests.
In the final part of Section 2 we will review some of the FAO’s data on global supply
and trade of forest products and services, and draw the unit to a close by taking a
look at the broad range of products and services that are derived from the forests of
the Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve in Mexico, noting that potential income from
ecosystem services can far exceed the value of timber and NTFPs.
Section Learning Outcomes
By the end of this section students should be able to:
•
explain the importance of definitions of ‘forest’ and ‘forest cover change’ and
state the main categories of forest according to degree of human influence,
forest function and biogeography
•
discuss the global geography of forest loss and expansion, including the
relationship between ultimate drivers and proximate causes of deforestation
2.1
Defining forests
What is a forest?
Before beginning to examine the composition and distribution of the global forest
estate, we need to define more precisely what we mean when we talk of ‘forests’.

In 50 words or fewer write down your own definition of ‘forest’.
The origins of the word link back to the Latin ‘foris’ meaning ‘outside’, so that rather
than an area of dense tree cover, the term originally referred to any land ‘outside of
cultivation’ and thus, by default, the property of the monarch. In medieval France
© SOAS
CeDEP
29
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
and Britain royal hunting forests were large areas of land composed of mosaics of
woods, heaths, and grassland, referred to by the phrase ‘forestem silvam’: ‘the
outside woods’. If you recall our discussion of the origins of forest management at
the beginning of Section 1, you may remember that John Evelyn’s (1622) ‘discourse
of forest trees and the production of timber’, was entitled ‘Silva’, which is the root of
the term ‘silviculture’: the technical term for the art and science of establishing
forests and producing forest products and services.
The purpose of this short lesson in etymology, is to introduce the idea that there is
considerable disagreement over official definitions and what is being referred to when
the term ‘forest’ is employed.

Why do you imagine that there is such disagreement over the definition
of forests?
Answer.
In Section 1 it became evident that the last 50 years have seen a
broadening of interest in forests from a range of different groups and
individuals. Forests are no longer seen predominantly as sources of wood,
they also supply numerous other products as well as regulating, cultural,
and support services. Our interests in forests will have implications for how
we would wish to define them. Individuals and groups whose interests
revolve around biodiversity are keen to preserve what remains of the world’s
forest cover in conditions as close as possible to those that prevailed before
human impacts became so pervasive. Commercial forestry companies, on
the other hand, with interests in efficient timber production, have sought to
promote uniformity in forest stands, through the application of ‘scientific
forestry’.
It should also be clear that if we are trying to control deforestation or
establish and implement forest certification systems, the degree of canopy
cover and the height of trees, as well as the origin (semi-natural or planted)
of the forest, are likely to be important issues.
Clearly any assessment of the global forest estate will require close definition not
only of what is meant by the term ‘forest’ but also a range of other relevant
concepts. 2.2.1 provides a list of the main terms defined by the FAO in order to
achieve consistency among the 229 countries and territories that submitted reports
in preparation for the 2005 FRA and the 233 that contributed to the 2010
Assessment. It also reproduces the FAO’s definitions of ‘forests’ and ‘other wooded
lands’.
© SOAS
CeDEP
30
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
2.1.1 Key terms defined by FAO for FRA reporting purposes
BIOMASS
CARBON STOCK
DESIGNATED FUNCTIONS (of forest and
other wooded land)
DISTURBANCES (affecting forest health and
vitality)
EMPLOYMENT
ENDANGERED SPECIES
FOREST
OTHER WOODED LAND
FOREST CHARACTERISTCS
GROWING STOCK
LAND AREA
OWNERSHIP
WOOD AND NON-WOOD FOREST PRODUCTS
(NWFP)
VALUE OF WOOD and NWFP REMOVAL
Forest: Land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 m and canopy
cover of more than 10%, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. It does not
include land that is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use.
Other wooded land
Land not classified as Forest, spanning more than 0.5 hectares; with trees higher than
5 m and a canopy cover of 5—10%, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ; or with
a combined cover of shrubs, bushes, and trees above 10%. It does not include land that is
predominantly under agricultural or urban land use.
Source: derived from FAO (2006) pp. 169—175.

Bearing in mind your own short definition, does the FAO’s definition of
‘forest’ surprise you?
The idea that any area of land greater than 0.5 ha, with trees above 5 m and a
canopy cover of more than 10% can be recorded as ‘forest’ surprises many people.
The matrices in 2.1.2 provide geometric representation of (a) 11% and (b) 84%
canopy cover, both of which would be recorded as forest in the Global Forest
Resource assessments. We make this comparison here to underline that fact that
forests are more than just trees! Trees may be the most obvious elements, but
forests are very complex ecosystems, composed of a great many different species of
plants, animals, and micro-organisms. Unlike maximum sustained yield of timber,
the regulating, cultural, and supporting services that forests provide to society do not
rely solely on trees.
© SOAS
CeDEP
31
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
2.1.2 Canopy cover of 11% and 84% count equally in FAO estimations of total forest
cover
(a) 11% canopy cover
(b) 84% canopy cover
Source: unit author
Types of forest
There are numerous ways in which forests can be classified and these classifications
are also subject to continuing debate. Three of the most common and generic levels
of classification relate to:
(1) forest characteristics in terms of human intervention
(2) their designated functions
(3) biogeography
The country reports that contribute to the FAO’s five-yearly Forest Resource
Assessments provide details about how each nation’s total forest estate is divided up
according to its characteristics and designated functions and these are both defined
by the FAO in order to promote consistency in reporting (see 2.1.3).
2.1.3 Forest characteristic and functions — FRA 2010
Characteristics
Primary forest: naturally regenerated forests of native species, where there are no
clearly visible indications of human activities and the ecological processes are not
significantly disturbed.
Other naturally regenerated forest: naturally regenerated forests where there are
clearly visible indications of human activities (with an introduced species sub-category).
Planted forests: forests predominantly composed of trees established through planting
and/or deliberate seeding (with an introduced species sub-category).
© SOAS
CeDEP
32
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
Functions
Production: supply of wood and non-wood forest products
Protection: of soil and water resources
Conservation of biodiversity: including but not restricted to protected areas
Social services: recreation, tourism, education, spiritual and religious
Multiple use: any combination of the above functions
Unknown: forests and other wooded lands that have not been designated to a function
Source: derived from FAO (2006) and FAO (2010b)

Access the Country Report for the country where you are currently living
or working (it will be available to download from FRA (2010)). Find the
country’s data for Table T3 (Primary designated function) and calculate
the percentages of the national forest devoted to each primary function.
If we take the example of India, the most recent data available are for 2005 (see the
table in 2.1.4) and the calculations proceed as follows:
Production
(17 219/67 709)×100 = 25%
Protection
(10 590/67 709)×100 = 16%
Conservation
(19 551/67 709)×100 = 29%
Multiple use
(20 349/67 709)×100 = 30%
2.1.4 Primary functions of Indian forests 1990, 2000, and 2005
Source: India Country Report p. 18, from FRA (2010)
Biogeographers conventionally divide the world into eight ‘biogeographical realms’
and these are further subdivided into biomes (see 2.1.5). The majority of the world’s
forests fall into one of three major forest biomes: boreal, temperate, and
tropical. In the far north of the North American and Eurasian landmasses we find
the boreal forest biome, also know as ‘Taiga’: the world’s largest terrestrial biome.
Further south in the northern hemisphere and in the south of the southern
hemisphere we find the temperate forests. While the boreal forest is dominated by
coniferous species such as pine and spruce, the temperate forests may be either
© SOAS
CeDEP
33
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
coniferous or broadleaved, or a mixture of both. Tropical forest biomes are also
subdivided according to whether they are composed of coniferous or broadleaved
species, with broadleaved tropical and subtropical forests, further classified into
moist and dry forests.
In addition to the three main forest biomes, there are two further categories.
Mediterranean forests are a sub-category of temperate forest biomes. As well as
being located around the Mediterranean basin, they can also be found in the south of
Australia, the southern tip of the Western Cape of South Africa, California, and
central Chile. Finally, there are the highly specialised Mangrove forests that are
adapted to life in the tidal zones along the coasts and estuaries of much of the
tropics.
2.1.5 Biogeographical realms and terrestrial biomes
Source: Olsen et al (2001) p. 934.
© SOAS
CeDEP
34
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
2.1.6 Forest biomes
A slide show of photographs of representative examples of different forest biomes shown
in 2.1.6 is available on the study CD.
Source: unit author
Having defined more precisely the range of ecosystem structures, functions and
biogeographical designations that are encompassed by the term ‘forest’, we can now
go on to undertake a brief survey of the global forest estate.
2.2
The global forest estate
The 2010 FRA estimates that, taken as a whole, forests cover 31% of the terrestrial
land surface: just over 40 million km2. These global data incorporate a range of very
different regional and national statistics. On a regional basis, at just 4%, Western
and Central Asia has the lowest proportion of total land area covered by forests. On a
national basis, Egypt and Iceland both have less than 1% forest cover, but for very
different reasons! The most wooded region of the world is South America, with
47.7% of its total land area covered by forests.

Study the map in 2.2.1. Name one country in Africa, one in Europe and
one in South America, which has more than 70% forest cover.
Answer.
Africa: Guinea-Bissau and Gabon, Europe: Finland and South America:
Guyana, French Guiana and Suriname.
© SOAS
CeDEP
35
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
2.2.1 Forests as a percentage of total land area by country 2010
Source: FAO (2010b) p. 3.
In the 2005 FRA, Suriname in South America was the world’s most forested nation
with almost 95% of its land area covered by 14.8 million hectares of tropical forest.
With a total human population of 443 000, Suriname is thus blessed with over 33 ha
of forest per capita. This compares very favourably with the global average. Given a
total population close to 7 billion (thousand million) people, that works out at just
over half a hectare (0.57) per person.

© SOAS
For the country where you are currently living or working, obtain data
from the FAO’s most recent FRA or from your local forest authority and
calculate the area of forest land available per person. How does the
figure where you work or live compare with the global figure of 0.57 ha
per person? Is this higher or lower than you imagined it would be?
CeDEP
36
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
Changes in the global forest area over time
It is estimated that forests once covered some 75 million km2, or more than half of
the total global land area (Forestry Commission 2009). Today, the world’s forests are
far less extensive (see the map in 2.2.2), with only 36% of the remaining cover
considered to be primary forest.
2.2.2 Global distribution of original and remaining forests
Source: UNEP-WCMC (2010)
The 2010 FRA, which derived its data by collating individual reports from
233 countries and areas, puts the figure at just over 40 million km2 (FAO 2010b p.
3). A study carried out by Hansen et al (2010), however, put the figure at
32.7 million km2 in 2000, dropping to 31.5 million km2 in 2005. It was mentioned
earlier that definitions may vary due to the different interests that people have in
forests and it should be obvious that different definitions of what counts as forest,
will automatically lead to the generation of divergent data. The purpose of Hansen et
al’s research was to generate data that would enable them to make comparisons of
forest cover and global forest cover loss (GFCL) among biomes, continents, and
nations. While these researchers are involved with FAO forest research, they note a
number of shortcomings with the FRA data, which compromise their value in terms of
accurately assessing GFCL (see 2.2.3).
2.2.3 Limitations of FRA data for analyses of forest cover change
(1) Methods used to quantify forest change are not consistent among all reporting
countries and areas.
(2) The definition of ‘forest’ is based on land use not land cover and the definition of
land use obscures the biophysical reality of tree cover.
(3) Forest area changes are only reported as changes in net values.
(4) The definition of ‘forest’ in successive reports has changed.
Source: Hansen et al (2010) p. 2.
© SOAS
CeDEP
37
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
Hansen et al (2010) employed a globally consistent satellite imagery methodology in
which forest cover is defined as land with >= 25 % canopy closure of trees >= 5 m
in height. Their data show global forest cover being lost at a rate of 20 million ha yr-1
between 2000 and 2005, which is considerably more than the 13 million ha reported
in the 2005 FRA. The FRA goes on to claim that this rate is further ameliorated by
the establishment of new forest plantations.

What factor would significantly limit the recognition of new plantations
under the Hansen et al (2010) methodology?
Answer.
For plantations to register using the Hansen methodology, they would have
to achieve 25% canopy closure and a height of >= 5 m.
The Hansen et al (2010) data show further discrepancies with the FAO FRA statistics
in terms of where the most significant deforestation is occurring and its main causes.
Conventional wisdom, based on the most recent FRAs, suggests that deforestation is
most problematic in the tropics, in countries such as Brazil and Indonesia, while the
areas of boreal and temperate forest in countries such as Canada and the USA are
reported to be stable or even expanding (see the map in 2.2.4).
2.2.4 Global forest cover, losses and gains
Source: SCBD (2009) p. 10.
While Hansen et al (2010) do not dispute that Brazil and Indonesia experienced
significant rates of forest loss, their satellite data show that 53% of 2000–2005 GFCL
occurred in the boreal and temperate forest biomes and that the USA is the country
which lost the largest proportion (6% or 120 000 km2) of its 2000 forest cover in the
five years to 2005. Some of the differences between the FAO and Hansen et al
© SOAS
CeDEP
38
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
(2010) data are quite staggering. Canada, for example, recorded no change
whatsoever in net forest area in its country report for the 2005 FRA. At 160 000 km2,
however, the Hansen study places Canada second only to Brazil (165 000) in terms
of standing forest loss over the 2000–2005 reporting period (Hansen et al 2010 pp.
3–4). The key differences between the FAO and Hansen et al data with respect to
forests in the Americas are summarised in the table in 2.2.5.
2.2.5 Comparison of key differences between reported and observed forest losses
2000—2005
Parameter
FRA 2005
Hansen et al 2010
Global forest area 2000
3.95 billion ha
3.27 billion ha
Net global loss, 2000—2005
650 000 km2
1 001 000 km2
Annual loss rate
0.18% (0.52% for primary forest)
0.6%
Loss, S. America, 2000—2005
21.5 M ha
22.8 M ha
Loss, N. America, 2000—2005
1.75 M ha
29.5 M ha
Source: unit author
In comparison with the FAO’s country-reported, land use designation data, which
show deforestation concentrated in the tropics and net gains in forest area for North
America, Europe, and China, the Hansen et al (2010) satellite imagery sample survey
suggests net forest losses across all biomes, continents, and heavily forested nations
(see figure in 2.2.6).
2.2.6 Estimated global forest cover loss by biome, continent, and country
Source: Hansen et al (2010) p. 3.
© SOAS
CeDEP
39
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
These inconsistencies certainly provide a great deal of scope for disagreements
based on diverging interests, even if they are primarily due to the distinction
between land use designations and actual land cover on the ground. Taking the
example of Canada, however, we should note that it has a very important timber
industry, producing more than 200 000 000 m3 of wood each year (FAO 2006). In
the slow-growing boreal forest biome, it can take more than 20 years to achieve 5 m
height growth, so forest that was clear cut for timber production between 2000 and
2005 would have registered as deforestation in the Hansen study, while for the
Canadian Forest Service, harvested land that has been restocked or is in the process
of regenerating naturally would remain registered as part of the national forest
estate. The same is true of areas affected by wildfires (60% of total GFCL in the
boreal biome) and pine beetle infestations. This then brings us on to the drivers of
changes in the global forest area.
Drivers of deforestation and reafforestation.
As Sayer (2005) points out, uncovering the realities of what is happening in the
world’s forests can be quite a challenge, given the persistent nature of some of the
myths surrounding them. The matter is further complicated by the fact that
deforestation and reafforestation are both occurring and sometimes in the very same
place! If this sounds a little strange, it is not without reason. It is said in order to
underline a conclusion that we might draw from our discussion in this section so far:
Recorded rates of deforestation and reafforestation will depend on our definitions of
‘forest’ and the methodologies we adopt for measuring forest areas.
Geist and Lambin (2005) note that while tropical deforestation is generally accepted
as one of the primary causes of global environmental change, the question of what
drives deforestation remains open to debate. Here again, a wide range of arguments
has been put forward, most of which fall into one of ‘two major, mutually exclusive –
and still unsatisfactory – explanations [... :] single factor causation and irreducible
complexity’ (Geist and Lambin 2005 p. 59). In an attempt to clarify the situation,
Geist and Lambin analysed the findings of 152 case studies of tropical deforestation.
The key to Geist and Lambin’s research is to distinguish between the ultimate
driving forces (underlying fundamental social processes) and proximate causes
(immediate human actions) of tropical deforestation. Their analysis revealed five
broad clusters of driving forces (demographic, economic, technological,
policy/institutional, and cultural) and three broad proximate causes (infrastructure
extension, agricultural expansion and wood extraction). In addition, the ways in
which the driving forces translate into proximate causes was influenced by three
other factors: pre-disposing environmental factors; biophysical drivers; and social
trigger events (see the figure in 2.2.7). The authors conclude that previous studies
tend to have overemphasised population growth and shifting cultivation as primary
factors in deforestation and have given too little weight to infrastructure extension,
timber extraction, and permanent cultivation driven by economic opportunities and
policy environments.
© SOAS
CeDEP
40
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
2.2.7 Driving forces and proximate causes of tropical deforestation
Proximate causes
Infrastructure extension
•Transport (roads, railroads, etc.)
•Markets (public and private, e.g.
sawmills)
•Settlements (rural and urban)
•Public Service (water lines, electrical
grids, sanitation, etc.)
•Private company (hydropower,
mining, oil exploration)
Agricultural expansion
•Permanent Cultivation (large-scale
vs. smallholder, subsistence vs.
commercial)
•Shif ting Cultivation (slash and burn
vs. traditional swidden)
•Cattle Ranching (large-scale vs.
smallholder)
•Colonization (in CL transmigration
and resettlement projects)
Wood extraction
•Commercial
(State-run, private, growth
coalition, etc.)
•Fuelwood (mainly domestic usage)
•Charcoal production (domestic and
industrial uses)
Other Influential Factors
•Pre-disposing environmental f actors (land characteristics, e.g. soil quality, topography, f orest f ragmentation, etc.)
•Biophysical drivers (triggers, e.g. f ires, droughts, f loods, pests)
•Social Trigger Events (e.g. war, revolution, social disorder, abrupt displacements, economic shocks, abrupt policy shif ts)
Demographic
factors
•Natural Increment
(f ertility, mortality)
•Migration (in/out
migration)
•Population Density
•Population
Distribution
•Lif e Cycle Features
Economic factors
•Market Growth and
Commercialization
•Economic
Structures
•Urbanization and
Industrialization
•Special Variables
(e.g. price
increases,
comparative cost
advantages)
Technological
factors
•Agro-technical
Change (e.g.
in/extensif ication)
•Applications in the
wood sector
•(e.g. mainly
wastage)
•Agricultural
production f actors
Policy and
Institutional
factors
•Formal Policies
(e.g. on economic
development,
credits)
•Policy Climate (e.g.
corruption,
mismanagement)
•Property Rights
(e.g. land races,
titling)
Cultural factors
•Public Attitudes,
Values and Belief s
(e.g. unconcern
about f orest,
f rontier mentality)
•Individual and
Household
Behaviour (e.g.
unconcern about
f orests, rentseeking, imitation)
Driving forces
Source: adapted from Geist and Lambin (2005) p. 61.
Complete deforestation is often preceded by forest degradation. Here again our
interests in and definitions of ‘forest’ will colour our views of whether any particular
change in species, age and height structures count as degradation or improvement.
You’ll remember that within the scientific forestry paradigm, maximising sustainable
yield of timber was achieved by promoting uniformity. Today, however, sustainable
forest management is more likely to seek to optimise timber production and try to
enhance or at least maintain diversity. Regardless of how we define forest
degradation, it will almost certainly occur for the same reasons that drive
deforestation: ultimately because the benefits derived from degrading the forest or
allowing it to become degraded, outweigh the benefits of managing it to ensure a
sustainable flow of products and services over time.
Like deforestation and forest degradation, afforestation, reafforestation, and forest
restoration occur in response to drivers. Like most things that are important to our
well-being, we don’t tend to recognise the benefits that forests bestow until those
benefits, be they products or services, are in short supply. We might think back once
again to the words of the first Chief of the US Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot (see
1.2.1), when he noted that, in the 1890s, wasting timber was seen as a virtue rather
than a crime! Similar attitudes persist in frontier societies where a great premium is
put on clearing forests for agricultural land. Yet as we begin to realise that forests
© SOAS
CeDEP
41
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
represent more than just storehouses of timber and spaces to be cleared for
development, new values emerge, prompting different behaviour on the part of
enlightened individuals, companies, and states, resulting in the development of
markets or the formulation and promulgation of policies that lead to the restoration
of supplies of non-timber products and forest services and the expansion of forest
area. In the final part of Section 2, we shall turn our attention to the numerous
products and services that forests supply, but before we do, we need briefly to
consider where in the world and at what rates forests are expanding.
Forest cover has been expanding in the UK since the beginning of the 20th century.
When Sir William Schlich became the first Director of the Oxford Forestry Institute in
1905, forest cover in Britain was at an all time low of just 5%. Despite Schlich’s
prompting, nothing much changed until Britain’s dependence on foreign imports was
forcefully underlined by events during the First World War (1914–1918), when
supplies of timber from the British Empire were interrupted by German submarines.
In July 1916 the British Government established the Acland Committee to investigate
and report on the best way to develop domestic timber production. The Committee
reported in 1918, recommending the creation of a national Forestry Commission as
the most effective way of co-ordinating a reafforestation plan to meet timber needs
into the future.
The Commission was created in September 1919 and quickly set about buying land
for the establishment of state-owned timber plantations and promoting private sector
activity through the provision of grant funding and special taxation arrangements for
forestry. The idea that the nation should build a strategic reserve of timber as a
precaution against the disruption of imported supplies remained the central raison
d’être of the Forestry Commission well into the second half of the 20th century, until
increasing affluence and mobility led to the establishment of new priorities from the
late 1970s (see Section 1.2). From a low of just 5% land cover at the beginning of
the 20th century, forests have expanded to occupy about 12% of the total national
land area, 36% of which is state owned with the remainder in private hands,
including large institutional land owners such as pension funds.
Notwithstanding the note of caution raised by our discussion of Hansen et al’s (2010)
concern over the validity of reported land use statistics, the 2010 FRA data suggest
that the area of planted forest expanded by more than 5 million ha yr-1 between
2005 and 2010 (FAO 2010b), reaching a total of 264 million ha, about 7% of global
forest cover. Net forest area has expanded most significantly in China (see the map
in 2.2.8), continuing a trend that was set in the first five years of the 21st century.
China’s establishment of forest plantations for the control of soil erosion and the
protection of water resources, as well as the production of future timber and nontimber forest product supplies, has transformed Asia from an area experiencing net
forest loss into an area of net forest expansion. Between 2000 and 2005 China
planted an average of 4 m ha of forest each year. Spain too grew its forest area by
almost 300 k ha yr–1, followed closely by Vietnam (241 k ha yr–1). In Europe,
Bulgaria, France, Italy, and Portugal also made it into the list of the world’s top ten
nations in terms of forest area expansion. In the Americas, Chile and Cuba both had
net gains of just over 50 000 ha yr–1 between 2000 and 2005, although they were
some way behind the USA, which registered an annual gain of 159 000 ha of land
use categorised as forest.
© SOAS
CeDEP
42
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
2.2.8 Net changes in forest area (ha) by country 2005—2010
Source: FAO (2010b) p. 4.
So, having considered the characteristics, extent and dynamics of the global forest
estate, we will bring Unit 1 to a close by looking in a little more detail at some of the
benefits that we derive from the world’s wooded areas.
2.3
Supply and trade of forest products and services
In Section 1 we mentioned briefly the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) and
the categorisation of the benefits that society derives from forests into provisioning,
cultural, regulating, and supporting ecosystem services (MEA 2005). In terms of
the primary designated functions reported by the FAO (2010b), 30% of the total area
is production forest. Timber may well be produced from multiple use forests too, and
these account for another 24% of the global total. So we can safely say that timber
and non-timber forest products are being produced from at least half of the total
forest area: somewhere in the region of 1.5 to 2 billion hectares.
The global forest estate contains about 500 billion m3 of standing timber. At the
aggregate level, this equates to approximately 125 m3 of standing timber or what is
also termed ‘growing stock’ per hectare. Total recorded annual wood removals of
3.4 billion m3 from the 2 billion hectares of production and multiple use forest, lead
to a figure of 1.7 m3 ha–1 or 1.4% of standing volume being harvested each year.
With a global population of seven billion people this represents 0.5 m3 or, very
roughly, half a tonne of wood per person, per year. In most production forests,
where annual volume increments range from 2 m3 to 30 m3, this would be
considered a highly sustainable rate of harvest. At this level of aggregation however,
the numbers are almost meaningless, other than to provide a very approximate idea
of wood production.

© SOAS
Why do you think the preceding figures are so dubious?
CeDEP
43
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
Answer.
Much of the use made of the world’s forests is informal and there is also a
significant illegal timber harvest. About 50% of the recorded wood volume
production is what is known as ‘industrial round wood’: the stems of trees
that have been de-branched ready for further processing into timber or
wood chips and fibres. Most of the informal production is small diameter
building poles and fuel wood, which together with the illegally cut trees go
unrecorded. Thus, the actual annual volume production is certainly much
higher than the recorded and reported total.
The commercial production of around 1.7 billion m3 of industrial roundwood, wood
processing and wood fibre products, contributed approximately US$ 468 billion to the
global economy in 2006 (see 2.3.1). While this was up 10% on the 1990 figure, in
terms of total global GDP, the forestry sector’s contributions fell from 1.4% to 1%
over the same period because of much faster growth in other sectors such as
manufacturing and services. The other 50% (1.7 billion m3) of recorded global wood
volume production was used domestically as fuelwood or small buildings poles and
the like.
2.3.1 Forest industry gross value added by region, 1990 and 2006
Source: FAO (2009) p. 70.
Most of the wood that is extracted from the world’s forests each year is consumed in
its country of origin. Together, Europe and North America produce 68% and consume
65% of industrial roundwood. Taken as a whole, high-income countries consume
around three-quarters of all industrial roundwood, whereas the majority of fuelwood
(80%) is consumed in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
In addition to wood removals other ‘non-wood’ or ‘non-timber’ forest products (often
referred to as NWFPs or NTFPs) are also harvested. Perhaps the most commonly
harvested of these are bush meat and plants for human consumption and animal
fodder, although forests also provide raw material for medicines, aromatic products,
dyes, craftwork, and construction as well as ornamental plants, plant exudates and
animal hides. The table in 2.3.2 provides data on the weight in tonnes (t) and
number of units of a wide range of products harvested in a variety of countries. The
countries cited were selected because of the range and quantities of NTFPs they
reported on to the FAO. Many countries make no returns, although it is very unlikely
© SOAS
CeDEP
44
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
that their forests are not used by local people for gathering and hunting in some way
or another.
2.3.2 NTFP harvesting by selected countries
Source: compiled by unit author from larger FRA 2005 Global Tables, FAO (2006)
The provision of timber and non-timber products is perhaps the easiest to measure
of the suite of environmental services from which humanity benefits. It is also
possible to quantify some of the regulating services such as the sequestration and
storage of atmospheric carbon (see 2.3.3). Other regulating services such as water
purification together with the cultural services and underlying, life supporting
services are far less simple to measure.
2.3.3 Forest carbon stocks in Russia, USA, and Brazil 2005
Source: compiled by unit author from larger FRA 2005 Global Tables FAO (2006)
© SOAS
CeDEP
45
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
Measuring and paying for ecosystem services: a Mexican case study
We will draw this unit to a close by considering the case of the Sierra Gorda
Biosphere Reserve, the world’s largest community-managed natural protected area.
The reserve is located in the centre of Mexico, where it occupies some 383 567 ha, or
about 32% of the State of Queretaro. Ranging from 300 to 3000 m above mean sea
level (amsl). with annual rainfall of 350 to 2000 mm, the Reserve is Mexico’s most
biodiverse in terms of ecosystem diversity. The terrestrial ecosystems include
examples of:
•
Tropical evergreen forest
•
Tropical sub-deciduous forest
•
Tropical deciduous forest
•
Xerophytic scrub
•
Oak forest
•
Coniferous forest
•
Pine-oak forest
•
Cloud forest
•
Riparian forest
2.3.4 Timber and NTFPs from the Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve
Source: Pedraza Ruiz (2010) p. 13.
The land is largely (97%) in private hands and it is home to more than 100 000
people living in some 600 communities. These people extracted timber and NTFPs
and cleared the region’s forests for agriculture and ranching for generations before
the impacts of their activities began to give rise to concern. In the early 1980s, a
© SOAS
CeDEP
46
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
local couple, Martha Ruiz Corzo and Roberto Pedraza, decided to do something about
the situation and set about convincing local citizens to found a grassroots movement
to rescue the Sierra Gorda region, before the impacts of unsustainable exploitation
became irreversible. In 1984 they founded the Grupo Ecológico Sierra Gorda (Sierra
Gorda (no date)), and through hard work, community solidarity, and sheer
determination have established systems of sustainable forest management that
generate income from a very wide range of ecosystem services.
Key to their success has been the establishment of a broad coalition of supporting
organisations from the National Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources,
through commercial organisations to international charities and individual
philanthropists. They have won grant funding for pilot projects and developed
significant income streams from ranges of natural and organic products, including
soaps, honey, wild preserves, and herbs. Local people produce craftwork and joinery,
and a network of eco-lodges brings tourists and income for local forest guides.
Annual income in the local communities has increase by more than US$ 500 000 as a
result of these new activities.
The people of the Sierra Gorda have also built what is known as the Earth Center
(see 2.3.5), where conferences, festivals, and educational events are held. The
Center has been constructed from locally harvested timber and has won awards for
its eco-friendly design and construction. They have also developed the idea of
‘holistic ranching’, where cattle production is integrated into sustainable forest
management and the production of organic meat and dairy products complements
other sources of income from the forest.
2.3.5 The Earth Center
Source: Pedraza Ruiz (2010) p. 10.
© SOAS
CeDEP
47
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
As well as direct commercial activities, the reserve has an active programme of
research and conservation, not only in terms of the region’s impressive biodiversity,
but also with regard to the regulating environmental services it provides, including
carbon sequestration and storage, soil erosion prevention, and water purification and
aquifer recharge. The Mexican Forestry Commission (CONAFOR) pays US$ 30 ha–1 for
biodiversity and water conservation measures and carbon storage payments of
$US 15 per tonne of CO2 equivalent are received through a project jointly funded by
the government and a national environmental philanthropist. In a visit to the UK in
2010, Roberto Pedraza Ruiz, whose mother and father had initiated efforts to
conserve the region’s natural resources, presented data illustrating the various and
significant income streams that are now derived from them (see 2.3.6).
2.3.6 Timber and ecosystem services values in the Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve
Source: Pedraza Ruiz (2010) p. 22.
© SOAS
CeDEP
48
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
Section 2 Self Assessment Questions
Q
uestion 4
What are the three most common ways of defining forests?
Q
uestion 5
Label the four forest biomes identified by the shaded areas on the map below.
Q
uestion 6
What are the limitations of the FAO’s FRA data in terms of assessing global forest land cover
changes?
Q
uestion 7
Complete the following matrix of underlying drivers and proximate causes of forest degradation
and deforestation.
Ultimate
drivers
Proximate
causes
© SOAS
CeDEP
49
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
UNIT SUMMARY
We began this unit by exploring the origins and history of forest management, from
the early use of fire to clear forests for agriculture, through to the establishment of
the Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests (UNFF 2007). We noted
how concern to maintain the economic value of forests led to the development of
forest mathematics in Germany in the 18th century and subsequently, following
experience gained in India, to sustained yield, scientific forestry in the UK and USA.
We learnt that sustained yield forestry sought to maximise sustainable timber yield
by minimising diversity, so that all the ingredients for plant growth could be
concentrated into the timber crop. While this approach certainly did maximise the
sustainable yield of timber, it neglected other important roles of forest in terms of
the supply of non-timber forest products and various ecosystem services. As the
impacts of rapid industrial development on forests and the wider environment
became increasingly clear, so sustained yield forestry was gradually transformed in a
more holistic sustainable forest management. In the final part of Section 1, we
explored the institutionalisation of SFM in institutions of the market, civil society, and
the agencies and policies of national and international forest governance.
In Section 2 we moved to clarify our understanding of the term ‘forest’ itself.
However, our discussion only served to clarify the fact that as more and more
interests have staked their claims to the world’s forests, so definitions of forest have
increasingly been contested. At the same time, however, we recognised that as the
lead UN agency on forests, the FAO and its periodic forest resource assessments
(FRAs) represents one of the most reliable sources of information on the state of the
world’s forests. Therefore, the next part of the Section 2 was concerned with
distinguishing among different types of forest according to the degree of human
influence, the key functions for which forests are designated, and the major
biogeographical forest types or biomes.
With these classifications explained our next task was to examine and account for
global trends in forest cover. At this point some of the nuances of official definitions
of ‘forest’ came back into the spotlight as we noted the wide discrepancy between
recent satellite imagery surveys of global forest cover loss and the FAO FRA data,
based on more than 200 reports submitted by independent countries and territories.
We learnt that while national reports suggest more than 40 million km2 of the earth’s
surface is officially recognised as forest, from the earth’s orbit, only 30 million km2
are visible! Which ever figures we take, however, it is clear that global forest cover
loss continues apace.
Unit 1 was brought to a close by reviewing some of the FAO’s data on global supply
and trade of forest products and services. Having made some international
comparisons of the economic value derived from these goods, we ended with a
detailed case study of community management of the forests of the Sierra Gorda
Biosphere Reserve in Mexico, noting that the potential income from ecosystem
services can far exceed the value of timber and NTFPs.
© SOAS
CeDEP
50
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
UNIT SELF ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS
Q
uestion 1
The German quantitative tradition of forest management was based around three core principles.
What where these?
Q
uestion 2
SFM looks beyond timber yields to balance a much broader range of forest products and services.
How did the MEA (2005) categorise these broader ecosystem services?
Q
uestion 3
What are the UN’s seven thematic elements of SFM?
Q
uestion 4
Use the following values to complete the FAO definition of ‘FOREST’:
0.5, 5, 10
Land spanning more than _______ hectares with trees higher than _______ m and canopy cover
of more than _______%, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. It does not include land
that is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use.
Q
uestion 5
Use the following values to complete the subsequent statement about the global forest estate.
3.4, 30, 50, 125
Approximately
have _______
designated as
reported to be
Q
_______% of the earth’s surface is covered by forest. On average, these forests
m3 of standing timber per hectare. Around _______% of the total forest area is
either production or multiple use forest and total global production of wood is
_______ billion m3 per annum.
uestion 6
What are NTFPs?
© SOAS
CeDEP
51
P585
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS
Boreal forest
located in the far north of the North American and Eurasian
landmasses, also known as ‘Taiga’, dominated by coniferous
species: the world’s largest terrestrial biome
Criteria and Indicators
following the Rio Conference (UNCED 1992) a series of
processes was established to develop sets of regional criteria
and indicators of sustainable forest management that would
allow progress towards SFM to be assessed. Criteria and
indicators are also used in the process of certifying forests to
SFM standards such as that of the Forest Stewardship Council
driving forces
underlying fundamental social processes driving deforestation.
Can
be
categorised
into
demographic,
economic,
technological, policy/institutional, and cultural
ecosystem services
the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment distinguishes among
four main groups of ecosystem services: provisioning,
cultural, regulating and supporting ecosystem services. These
are sometimes also referred to as environmental services and
in this unit we also use the phrase ‘forest products and
services’
forest biomes
biogeographical classification of forest types: boreal (Taiga),
temperate, tropical, mangrove, and Mediterranean
FAO Forest Resource
Assessments
the FAO’s global Forest Resource Assessments are carried out
periodically and are compiled from individual country and area
reports. The most recent were in 2000, 2005, and 2010
Global Objectives on
Forests
as a result of ongoing negotiations within the UNFF, 2006 saw
the establishment of Global Objectives on Forests. These seek
to:
(a) reverse the loss of forest cover worldwide
sustainable forest management (SFM)
through
(b) enhance forest-based economic, social, and environmental
benefits, including by improving the livelihoods of forestdependent people
(c) increase significantly the area of sustainably managed
forests and the proportion of forest products derived from
them
(d) reverse the decline in official development assistance for
sustainable forest management and mobilise significantlyincreased new and additional financial resources from all
sources for the implementation of sustainable forest
management
mangrove
© SOAS
forest adapted to tidal zones; found along the coasts and
estuaries of much of the tropics
CeDEP
52
P585
Mediterranean forest
Sustainable Forest Management
Unit 1
a subtype of the temperate forest biome, located in the
Mediterranean basin, Western Cape of South Africa, South
America’s central western seaboard, California, and South
Australia
Non-Legally Binding
on 28 April 2007, the ‘Non-Legally Binding Instrument on
Instrument on All Types All Types of Forests’ was agreed and adopted by the UN
of Forests
General Assembly (Resolution 62/98) on 17 December 2007.
‘The purpose of this instrument is:
(a) To strengthen political commitment and action at all levels
to implement effectively sustainable management of all
types of forests and to achieve the shared global
objectives on forests;
(b) To enhance the contribution of forests to the achievement
of the internationally agreed development goals, including
the Millennium Development Goals, in particular with
respect to poverty eradication and environmental
sustainability;
(c) To provide a framework
international co-operation;’
for
national
action
and
(UNFF 2007)
planted forest
forests predominantly composed of trees established through
planting and/or deliberate seeding
primary forest
naturally regenerated forests of native species, where there
are no clearly visible indications of human activities and the
ecological processes are not significantly disturbed
proximate cause
direct human actions leading to deforestation: infrastructure
extension, agricultural expansion, and wood extraction
scientific forestry
that school of forest management that initially developed in
Germany during the 18th century and was later established in
the UK by William Schlich and the USA by Gifford Pinchot. The
main aim is the maximisation of ‘sustainable yield’
sustained or sustainable the goal or objective is to manage a forest in such a way that
yield
it can continue to produce a given volume of timber
indefinitely. The sustainable yield of a forest can be quoted in
m3 ha–1 yr–1 or as total m3 yr–1 for the forest as a whole. More
generally, sustainable yield might be quoted as a proportion
of mean annual volume increment. A figure of 70% is typically
used
Taiga
see boreal forest
temperate forest
in the mid-latitudes, the forest biome most impacted by
human activity. Comprising coniferous, broadleaved, and
mixed forest subtypes
© SOAS
CeDEP
53