Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 108, Issue 1–3, pp 241–260 | Cite as

Monitoring Sustainable Forest Management in Different Jurisdictions

Article

Abstract

The concept of sustainable forest management (SFM) requires forest resource managers to monitor and collect information pertaining to their environmental, economic and social impact. There are increasing expectations from a variety of publics (government, customers, and other stakeholders) that forests be demonstrably well-managed, creating incentives for forest managers to design credible systems for assessing their management performance. It is against this background that local, national and international approaches to regulating forest practices have been evolving. This article reviews the different dimensions of governance as they relate to monitoring and information reporting in the forest sector. Specifically, it discusses the changing role of sovereignty, the effects of globalization and the emergence of civil society stakeholders in forestry-related decision-making. Concepts such as sovereignty and globalization have important implications for monitoring forest practices and for defining SFM. Whether SFM standard creation and enforcement involves a sovereign, shared-sovereignty or civil society approach will affect the level and nature of SFM monitoring. As a result, we need to better consider the concept of monitoring appropriate to the scale and intensity of operations, how monitoring and information reporting standards differ between jurisdictions, and what this means for independently verifying SFM at an inter-jurisdictional level.

Keywords

civil society globalization monitoring governance sovereignty stakeholders sustainable forest management 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akerlof, G. A.: 1970, ‘The market for lemons: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism’, Quart. J. Econ. 84, 488–500.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, G. M. and Gould, E. M.: 1986, ‘Complexity, wickedness, and public forests’, J. Forestry 84, 20–23.Google Scholar
  3. Barkin, S. J. and Cronin, B.: 1994, ‘The state and the nation: Changing norms and the rules of sovereignty in international relations’, Int. Organ. 48, 107–130.Google Scholar
  4. Bernstein, S. and Cashore, B.: 2000, ‘Globalization, four paths of internationalization and domestic policy change: The case of ecoforestry in British Columbia, Canada’, Can. J. Polit. Sci.-Revue Canadienne de Sci. Polit. 33, 67–99.Google Scholar
  5. Brand, D. G.: 1997, ‘Criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of forests: Progress to date and future directions’, Biomass & Bioenergy 13, 247–253.Google Scholar
  6. Brogden, W. B., Oppenheimer, C. H. and Oppenheimer, D.: 1976, Environmental Data Management, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Brundtland, G. H. and World Commission on Environment and Development: 1987, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, U.K.Google Scholar
  8. Burley, J.: 2004, ‘The restoration of research’, Forest Ecol. Manage. 201, 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cashore, B. and Vertinsky, I.: 2000, ‘Policy networks and firm behaviours: Governance systems and firm responses to external demands for sustainable forest management’, Policy Sci. 33, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cashore, B.: 2002, ‘Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non-state market-driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority’, Governance-An Int. J. Pol. Adminis. 15, 503–529.Google Scholar
  11. Castañeda, F. and Palmberg-Lerche, C.: 2001, ‘Criteria and Indicators As a Means to Foster Common Understanding and to Strengthen Political Commitment to Sustainable Forest Management.’, in: M. Söderlund and A. Pottinger (eds), The World’s Forests: Rio + 8, Policy, Practice and Progress Towards Sustainable Forest Management, Commonwealth Forestry Association, pp. 201–217.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, R.: 1998, Transnational Social Movements: An Assessment, Paper to the Transnational Communities Programme Seminar, School of Geography, University of Oxford, Oxford, 19 June 1998.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, L., Johnson, K. N., Bettinger, P. and Howard, T. E.: 2000, Forest Management: To Sustain Ecological, Economic, and Social Values, 4th edn., McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 804.Google Scholar
  14. Dickson, P.: 1978, The Official Rules, Dell Publishing Company Inc., New York, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  15. Ehrlich, P. R.: 1969, ‘Eco-Catastrophe!’, in: F. Pohl (ed), Nightmare Age, Ballantine.Google Scholar
  16. Elsasser, P.: 2002, ‘Rules for participation and negotiation and their possible influence on the content of a National Forest Programme’, Forest Pol. Econ. 4, 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. FAO/ECE/ILO Committee on Forest Technology, M.A.T.: 2000, Workshop on Forestry Information Systems (FIS) Report. Available at http://www.unece.org/trade/timber/docs/jc-sem/info-sys/-e-report.doc.
  18. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): 2001, Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000: Main Report, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
  19. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC): 2001, Website at http://www.fsc.org/fsc.
  20. Global Forest Information Service (GFIS): 2004, Welcome to GFIS. Available at http://iufro.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/search/index.php.
  21. Gray, T. and Hatchard, J.: 2003, ‘The 2002 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy’s system of governance–rhetoric or reality?’, Marine Policy 27, 545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grayson, A. J. (ed): 1995, The World’s Forests: International Initiatives Since Rio, Commonwealth Forestry Association, Oxford, U.K.Google Scholar
  23. Hall, J. P.: 2001, ‘Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 67, 109–119.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Haufler, V.: 2003, ‘New Forms of Governance: Certification Regimes As Social Regulations of the Global Market’, in: E. E. Meidinger, C. Elliott and G. Oesten (eds), Social and Political Dimensions of Forest Certification, Remagen-Oberwinter, Germany, pp. 237–247.Google Scholar
  25. Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J.: 1999, Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture, Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
  26. Held, D. and McGrew, A. (eds): 2000, The Global Transformations Reader, Blackwell Science, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  27. Hickey, G. M.: 2004, ‘Regulatory approaches to monitoring sustainable forest management’, Int. Forestry Rev. 6, 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hix, S.: 1998, ‘Elections, parties, and institutional design: A comparative perspective on European Union democracy’, West European Politics 21, 19–52.Google Scholar
  29. Hoberg, G.: 2000, ‘How the Way We Make Policy Governs the Policy We Make’, in: D. J. Salazar and D. K. Alper (eds), Sustaining the Forests of the Pacific Coast: Forging Truces in the War in: the Woods, UBC Press, Vancouver, pp. 26–53.Google Scholar
  30. Holling, C. S.: 1978, Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  31. Howard, T. E.: 2001, ‘The forester’s dilemma: Paradoxes in: the criteria and indicators for sustainable forestry’, Bois et Forêts des Tropiques 270, 75–84.Google Scholar
  32. Innes, J. L. and Hickey, G. M.: 2004, ‘Certification of Forest Management and Wood Products’, in: J. L. Innes, G. M. Hickey and H. F. Hoen (eds), The Changing Socio-economic and Political Dimensions of Forestry, IUFRO Research Series, CABI Publishing, Oxford. In Press.Google Scholar
  33. Julius, D.: 1997, ‘Globalization and stakeholder conflicts: A corporate perspective’, Int. Affairs 73, 453–468.Google Scholar
  34. Karkkainen, B. C.: 2004, ‘Post-Sovereign environmental governance’, Global Environ. Polit. 4, 72–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kingsbury, B.: 1999, ‘Sovereignty and Inequality’, in: A. Hurrell and N. Woods (eds), Inequality, Globalization, and World Politics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 66–94.Google Scholar
  36. Kobrin, S.: 1998, ‘Back to the future: Neomedievalism and the postmodern digital world economy’, J. Int. Affairs 51, 361–387.Google Scholar
  37. Krasner, S. D.: 1999, Sovereignty: Organized hypocrisy, Princeton University Press, NJ, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  38. Krasner, S. D.: 2004a, Failed States and Shared Sovereignty, Working Paper, Stanford University, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  39. Krasner, S. D.: 2004b, Governance Failures and Alternatives to Sovereignty, Working Paper, Center on Democracy, Development, and The Rule of Law, Stanford Institute on International Studies, Stanford University, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  40. Kunz, W. and Rittel, H. W. J.: 1970, ‘Issues As Elements of Information Systems’, Technical Report 0131, Universität Stuttgart, Institut für Grundlagen der Planung, Germany.Google Scholar
  41. Lipschutz, R. D.: 1992, ‘Restructuring world politics: The emergence of global civil society’, Millenium 21, 389–419.Google Scholar
  42. Lubbers, R. F. M.: 1999, The global sovereignty of the people: What is it about? Globus. Available at http://kubnw5.kub.nl/web/globus/Lubpdfs/Values/Values63.pdf.
  43. Lubbers, R. F. M.: 2003, Lexicon of globalization. Available at http://globalize.kub.nl/lexicon.asp.
  44. Maggio, G. and Lynch, O. J.: 1997, Human Rights, Environment and Economic Development: Existing and Emerging Standards in International Law and Global Society, Center for International Environmental Law, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  45. McClain, K.: 1998, A Framework for Monitoring Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management: First Approximation, McGregor Model Forest Association, Prince George, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
  46. Meidinger, E. E.: 2003a, ‘Forest Certification as a Global Civil Society Regulatory Institution’, in: E. E. Meidinger, C. Elliott and G. Oesten (eds), Social and Political Dimensions of Forest Certification, Remagen-Oberwinter, Germany, pp. 265–289.Google Scholar
  47. Meidinger, E. E.: 2003b, ‘Forest Certification as Environmental Law Making by Global Civil Society’, in: E. E. Meidinger, C. Elliott and G. Oesten (eds), Social and Political Dimensions of Forest Certification, Remagen-Oberwinter, Germany, pp. 293–329.Google Scholar
  48. Mofid, K.: 2002, Globalisation for the Common, Good Shepheard-Walwyn, London.Google Scholar
  49. Moir, W. H. and Mowrer, H. T.: 1995, ‘Unsustainability’, Forest Ecol. Manage. 73, 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Montesquieu, C. D. S.: 1748, De l’esprit des loix (The Spirit of Laws).Google Scholar
  51. Montreal Process Technical Advisory Committee (MPTAC): 2003, Montreal Process: First Forest Overview Report 2003, Montreal Process, pp. 20. Available at www.mpci.org/rep-pub/2003/contents_e.html.Google Scholar
  52. Musselwhite, G. and Herath, G.: 2004, ‘A chaos theory interpretation of community perceptions of Australian forest policy’, Forest Pol. Econ. 6, 595–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ophuls, W.: 1977, Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity: Prologue to a Political Theory of the Steady State, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  54. Oppenheim, L.: 1905, International Law: A Treatise, 1st edn. Longmans, Green, London.Google Scholar
  55. Parsons, C. and Richardson, J. D.: 2004, ‘Lessons for Asia?: European experiences –in American perspective –in legitimizing market integration’, J. Asian Econ. 14, 885–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pickles, D. M.: 1971, Democracy, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  57. Purnomo, H., Mendoza, G. A., Prabhu, R. and Yasmi, Y.: 2003, ‘Developing multi-stakeholder forest management scenarios: A multi-agent system simulation approach applied in Indonesia’, Forest Pol. Econ. In Press.Google Scholar
  58. Rametsteiner, E.: 1999, Sustainable Forest Management Certification: Framework Conditions, System Designs and Impact Assessment, Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Liaison Unit Vienna.Google Scholar
  59. Reinicke, W.: 1998, Global Public Policy. Governing Without Government?, Brookings Institution Press, Harrisonburg.Google Scholar
  60. Reynolds, J. and Busby, J.: 1996, Guide to Information Management: In the Context of the Convention on Biological Diversity, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
  61. Rittel, H. W. J. and Webber, M. M.: 1973, ‘Dilemmas in a general theory of planning’, Policy Sci. 4, 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Roberts, P.: 2003, ‘Partnerships, programmes and the promotion of regional development: An evaluation of the operation of the Structural Funds regional programmes’, Progr. Planning 59, 1–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ruggie, J. G.: 1993, ‘Territoriality and Beyond –problematizing modernity in international-relations’, Int. Organ. 47, 139–174.Google Scholar
  64. Rutgers, M. R.: 2000, ‘Public administration and the separation of powers in a cross-Atlantic perspective’, Admin. Theor. & Praxis 22(2), 287–308.Google Scholar
  65. Schmitter, P. and Streeck, W.: 1991, ‘From national corporatism to transnational pluralism: Organized interests in the single European’, Polit. Soc. 19, 133–164.Google Scholar
  66. Shelton, D.: 2000, Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non-Binding Norms in the International Legal System, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  67. Shindler, B. and Cramer, L. A.: 1999, ‘Shifting public values for forest management: Making sense of wicked problems’, West. J. Appl. Forestry 14, 28–34.Google Scholar
  68. Stanbury, W. T., Vertinsky, I. and Wilson, B.: 1995, Challenge to Canadian Forest Products in Europe: Managing a Complex Environmental Issue, Canada-British Columbia Partnership Agreement on Forest Resource Development: FRDA II.Google Scholar
  69. Stanbury, W. T.: 2000, Environmental Groups and the International Conflict Over the Forest of British Columbia 1990 to 2000, SFU-UBC Centre for the Study of Government and Business, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  70. Storper, M.: 1992, ‘The limits to globalization; Technology districts and international trade’, Econ. Geogr. 68, 60–93.Google Scholar
  71. Strange, S.: 1996, The Retreat of the State. The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  72. Sydow, G.: 1998, 1648 –Peace of Westphalia: Turning Point in German History. Available at http://www.germanembassy-india.org/news/GN98Okt/gn08.htm.
  73. Thomson, D. (ed): 1998, Oxford Dictionary of Current English, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. United Nations (UN): 2004, About the United Nations/History: Major Achievements of the United Nations. Available at http://www.un.org/aboutun/achieve.htm.
  75. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED): 1992, Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), 3–14 June 1992. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Google Scholar
  76. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): 1997, Governance for Sustainable Human Development: A UNDP Policy Document, United Nations Development Programme. Available at http://magnet.undp.org/policy/default.htm.
  77. United States Environmental Protection Agency: 1998, Environmental Management Systems Primer for Federal Facilities, Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance, U.S. Department of Energy and the Federal Facilities Enforcement Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/incentives/ems/emsprimer.pdf.
  78. Vaduva, A. and Vetterli, T.: 2001, ‘Metadata management for data warehousing: An overview’, Int. J. Coop. Inform. Syst. 10, 273–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. van Benthem van den Bergh: 2001, ‘Balance of Power, History of’, in: N. J. Smelser and P. B. Baltes (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp. 1036–1039.Google Scholar
  80. van Witteloostuijn, A.: 2003, ‘The ecology of law’, Int. J. Sociol. Law 31, 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Väyrynen, R.: 2001, ‘Sovereignty, globalization and transnational social movements’, Int. Relat. Asia-Pacific 1, 227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Vosti, S. A., Braz, E. M., Carpentier, C. L., d’Oliveira, M. V. N. and Witcover, J.: 2003, ‘Rights to forest products, deforestation and smallholder income: Evidence from the Western Brazilian Amazon’, World Dev. 31, 1889–1901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wang, S.: 2002, ‘Wicked problems and metaforestry: Is the era of management over?’, Forestry Chronicle 78, 505–510.Google Scholar
  84. Wardle, P., Jansky, L., Mery, G., Palo, M., Uusivuori, J. and Vanhanen, H. (eds): 2003, World Forests, Society and Environment –Executive Summary, The United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  85. Wilson, E. O.: 1975, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  86. World Resources Institute (WRI): 1994, UNCED and International Forest Policy. Available at http://www.wri.org/wri/biodiv/opp-bx1.html.
  87. Young, R. A.: 2001, Uncertainty and the Environment: Implications for Decision Making and Environmental Policy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  88. Zappa, F. and Occhiogrosso, P.: 1989, The Real Frank Zappa Book, Picador Books, London.Google Scholar
  89. Zhang, J. and Dimitroff, A.: 2004, ‘The impact of metadata implementation on webpage visibility in search engine results (Part II)’, Inform. Process. Manage. In Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sustainable Forest Management Laboratory, Department of Forest Resources Management, Faculty of ForestryUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations