Policy and the Political Will

  • Alastair Fraser
Part of the Sustainable Development Goals Series book series (SDGS)


In this chapter, the importance of the “political will”, together with the position of the agency responsible for forestry within the government hierarchy and the advantage in having a powerful political champion, for achieving sustainable forest management is discussed. Building consensus among all stakeholders including other economic sectors that can benefit from sustainably managed forests to understand and support forest policy statements is essential. Spatial planning is better done with a bottom-up approach at the forest management unit level to avoid the problem of rural communities becoming entrapped within areas declared as protected or reserved areas without their involvement in the process. The pros and cons of financial incentives for promoting sustainable forest management are reviewed.


Stakeholders Spatial planning Financial incentives Institutional organisation 


  1. Alatorre-Troncoso, A. (2014). Mexico’s national Payments for Environmental Services programme: In the wrong place at the right time. MSc thesis, Imperial College, London.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, C. D., & Ghimire, K. (2003). Synergy between traditional knowledge and conservation science supports forest preservation in Ecuador. Conservation Ecology, 8(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruggeman, D., Meyfroidt, P., & Lambin, E. F. (2015). Production forest as a conservation tool: Effectiveness of Cameroon’s land-use zoning policy. Land-use Policy, 42, 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Filho, A. A. R., Adams, C., & Murrieta, R. S. S. (2013). The impacts of shifting cultivation on tropical forest soils; a review. Boletimdo Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi: Ciencias Humanas, 8(3), 693–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fox, J., Dao, M. T., Rambo, A. T., Nghiem, P. T., Le, T. C., & Lasz, S. (2000). Shifting cultivation: A new-old paradigm of managing tropical forests. Bioscience, 50(6), 521–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grieg-Ghan, M., (2006) The cost of avoiding deforestation. International Institute for Economic Development, London.Google Scholar
  7. Grieg-Ghan, M., (2008) The cost of avoiding deforestation. International Institute for Economic Development, London.Google Scholar
  8. Gunderson, V. S., & Frivold, L. W. (2008). Public preferences for forest structure; a review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban Forestry and Greening, 7(4), 241–258.Google Scholar
  9. Heinemann, A., Mertz, O., Frolking, S., Egelund Christensen, A., Humi, K., Sedau, F., et al. (2017). A global view of shifting cultivation; recent, current and future extent. PLoS One, 12(9), e018479.Google Scholar
  10. Hershaw, H. W., Sheppard, S. R. J., & Jenkins, P. (2009). Public attitudes towards sustainable forest management; opinion from forest dependent communities in British Columbia. Journal of Ecosystem Management, 10(2), 81–103.Google Scholar
  11. House, P. (1997). Forest farmers; a case study of traditional shifting cultivation in Honduras. IIED rural development forestry network paper 21a. London: ODI.Google Scholar
  12. Lansing, D. (2017). Understanding smallholder participation in payments for environmental services; the case of Costa Rica. Human Ecology, 45(1), 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. MacDicken, K. G., Sola, P., Hall, J. E., Sabogal, C., & Tadoum, M. (2015). Global progress towards sustainable Forest management. Forest Ecology and Management, 352, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Macura, B., Zorondo-Rodriguez, F., Grau-Satorras, M., Demps, K., Lavel, M., Garcia, C. A., et al. (2011). found that in India the attitude of local communities towards the Joint Management of Forests policy, that was intended to involve them in manageing local forests, was coloured by negative feelings towards Forest Department staff. Ecology and Society, 16(3).Google Scholar
  15. Rahman, S. A., Rahman, M. F., & Sunderland, T. G. H. (2012). Causes and consequences of shifting cultivation and its alternatives in the hill tracts of eastern Bangladesh. Agroforestry Systems, 84(2), 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ruchi, B. (1998). Attitudes of local people towards forest conservation and alternatives to forest resources; a case study from the lower Himalaya. Biodiversity and Conservation, 7(10), 1245–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Souvanthong, P. (1995). Shifting cultivation in Lao PDR; and overview of land-use and policy initiatives. IIED.Google Scholar
  18. Stern, N. (2006). Review on the economics of climate change final report.
  19. Tarrant, M. A., & Cordell, H. K. (2002). Amenity values of public and private forests; examining the value-attitude relationship. Environmental Management, 30(5), 692–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wollenberg, E., B. Campbell, E. Dounias, P. Gunarso, M. Moeliono, and D. Sheil. (2008). Interactive land-use planning in Indonesian rain-forest landscapes: reconnecting plans to practice. Ecology and Society14 (1): 35. [online] URL:
  21. Vulchic, D., Szirovicza, V., & Paladinic, E. (2006). A survey of tourist preferences for forests and attitudes towards ecological and social forest services. Radovi, 41(1), 83–90.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alastair Fraser
    • 1
  1. 1.Consultant in Forest Policy and EconomicsPerthshireUK

Personalised recommendations