slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Bart Holvoet Amsterdam, October 2003 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Bart Holvoet Amsterdam, October 2003

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 44
kanoa

Bart Holvoet Amsterdam, October 2003 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

77 Views
Download Presentation
Bart Holvoet Amsterdam, October 2003
An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North Bart Holvoet Amsterdam, October 2003

  2. Introduction • Sustainable development = development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs • Forestry sector: evolution • sustained yield  productive forest functions • Sustainable Forest Management (SFM)  ecological, economical & social forest functions • Criteria & Indicators (C&I) for the evaluation of SFM :  Different scope, different scale & different purpose many standards, many differences • Objectives : comparison of standards based on their contents Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  3. Methodology • Collecting standards (different scope, scale or purpose) • Background information about the standard and country • Developing a ‘reference standard’ • Comparing each individual standard with reference standard  presence/absence data matrix • Multivariate statistical analysis (CA, CCA)  discovering similarities & differences • Explaining the observed patterns Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  4. Results: collected standards Distribution of collected standards according to their scope (geographical origin) • 164 standards collected and compared with the reference standard • SCOPE:see figure • SCALE: • Forest Management Unit : 68% • 32% developed for at least one higher level (sub-national and/or national) • PURPOSE: • Intergovernmental standards : 10% • Certification standards : 64% (FSC : 42%, PEFC : 9%) Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  5. Results: reference standard • Constructed following the Tropenbos Hierarchical Framework (Lammerts van Bueren E.M. and Blom E.M, 1997) • Contains all elements ever mentioned in the collected standards • Consisting of Principles, Criteria and Indicators : 7 principles, 47 criteria and 308 indicators • Every principle forms an essential requirement for SFM • Criteria and indicators cover all necessary elements for SFM, without overlap or duplication Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  6. Results: reference standard The 7 principles of the reference standard

  7. Results: statistical analysis comparison Statistical output: • distribution of standards • distribution of elements of the reference standard • Correlations of certain explanatory variables (background information about standards) 2 major causes of difference: • difference in level of application: National level  Forest Management Unit (FMU) • difference in geographical origin: North  South conclusions Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  8. 1,5 1,0 ,5 0,0 Level of application sub-national -,5 national FMU AX2 -1,0 FMU andhigherlevel -1,0 -,5 0,0 ,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 AX1 Results: statistical analysis Distribution of the standards in the two-dimensional space of the first 2 factorial axes of the CA Level of application FMU level  national level Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  9. 5 4 3 2 1 0 Geographical origin -1 Southern country -2 Northern country AX2 -3 International standard -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 AX1 Results: statistical analysis Geographical origin North  South Distribution of the standards in the two-dimensional space of the first 2 factorial axes of the CA. Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  10. Discussion Level of application FMU level  national level CAUSE ?  different objectives  differences in structure, detail and contents FMU level: objective = guiding forest management in practice towards SFM National (or sub-national) level: objective = guiding national policies and regulations towards SFM (not further elaborated) Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  11. Discussion Geographical origin North  South CAUSE ?  different geographical origin different ecological, social and economic aspects Northern countries: • forests less complex, often smaller and fragmented • lower biodiversity • large capacities (financially and human resources) • ... Southern countries: • extended and complex forests • high biodiversity • socio-economical inequity • low capacities (financially and human resources) • ... Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  12. Discussion Principle 1: Policy and planning strive for sustainable and multifunctional forest management, and are being supported by legislation and facilities. North  South different ecological, social and economic aspects Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  13. Discussion Principle 1: Policy and planning strive for sustainable and multifunctional forest management, and are being supported by legislation and facilities. North  South • more experience & large knowledge • large capacity • little experience & small knowledge • little capacity(financially, human skills) Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  14. Discussion Principle 1: Policy and planning strive for sustainable and multifunctional forest management, and are being supported by legislation and facilities. North  South • more experience & large knowledge • large capacity differences in standards • little experience & small knowledge • little capacity(financially, human skills) Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  15. Discussion Principle 1: Policy and planning strive for sustainable and multifunctional forest management, and are being supported by legislation and facilities. North  South • more experience & large knowledge • large capacity elements related to the use of technical and research capacity • little experience & small knowledge • little capacity(financially, human skills) • elements for evaluation & stimulation of current capabilities • transfer of technology! Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  16. Discussion Principle 2: The surface, vitality and state of the forest resources will be maintained and protected, and where possible even improved. North  South different ecological, social and economic aspects Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  17. Discussion Principle 2: The surface, vitality and state of the forest resources will be maintained and protected, and where possible even improved. North  South • huge pressure on forest (past) • environmental concern • large technological capacity & knowledge • growing pressure on forests (present & future) • lowtechnological capacity, little knowledge Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  18. Discussion Principle 2: The surface, vitality and state of the forest resources will be maintained and protected, and where possible even improved. North  South • huge pressure on forest (past) • environmental concern • large technological capacity & knowledge differences in standards • growing pressure on forests (present & future) • lowtechnological capacity, little knowledge Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  19. Discussion Principle 2: The surface, vitality and state of the forest resources will be maintained and protected, and where possible even improved. North  South • huge pressure on forest (past) • environmental concern • large technological capacity & knowledge elements to evaluate,encounter or preventforest damage • growing pressure on forests (present & future) • lowtechnological capacity, little knowledge specific elements for forest protection seldom present Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  20. Discussion Principle 3: The productive forest function will be maintained, by sustainable forest exploitation and by reassuring forest regeneration. North  South different ecological, social and economic aspects Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  21. Discussion Principle 3: The productive forest function will be maintained, by sustainable forest exploitation and by reassuring forest regeneration. North  South • less complex ecosystems • low species diversity • large monitoring capacity • very complex ecosystems • high species diversity • limited monitoring capacity Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  22. Discussion Principle 3: The productive forest function will be maintained, by sustainable forest exploitation and by reassuring forest regeneration. North  South • less complex ecosystems • low species diversity • large monitoring capacity differences in standards • very complex ecosystems • high species diversity • limited monitoring capacity Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  23. Discussion Principle 3: The productive forest function will be maintained, by sustainable forest exploitation and by reassuring forest regeneration. North  South • less complex ecosystems • low species diversity • large monitoring capacity elements related to stocks, stock changes and harvest of non woody forest products • very complex ecosystems • high species diversity • limited monitoring capacity elements for identification & stimulation of the use of non woody forest products (+ extra pressure on sustainable wood production : LKS) Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  24. Discussion Principle 4: Biodiversity and ecological processes will be maintained and protected, and where possibly strengthened. North  South different ecological, social and economic aspects Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  25. Discussion Principle 4: Biodiversity and ecological processes will be maintained and protected, and where possibly strengthened. North  South • many human influences (fragmentation, access, artificially restored, ...) • environmental concern • complex ecosystems, often in natural state • lack of capacity for sustainable managing of forest species Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  26. Discussion Principle 4: Biodiversity and ecological processes will be maintained and protected, and where possibly strengthened. North  South • many human influences (fragmentation, access, artificially restored, ...) • environmental concern differences in standards • complex ecosystems, often in natural state • lack of capacity for sustainable managing of forest species Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  27. Discussion Principle 4: Biodiversity and ecological processes will be maintained and protected, and where possibly strengthened. North  South • elements for : • protection of ecosystem and sustainable management of forest species • restoration of naturalness • many human influences (fragmentation, access, artificially restored, ...) • environmental concern • complex ecosystems, often in natural state • lack of capacity for sustainable managing of forest species • elements mentioned are absent • exclusive element: prohibition of hunting ! Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  28. Discussion Principle 5: Protective forest functions shall be maintained and protected, and where possible strengthened. North  South different ecological, social and economic aspects Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  29. Discussion Principle 5: Protective forest functions shall be maintained and protected, and where possible strengthened. North  South • often chemical pollution (industrial development) • large capacity for chemical analyzing (e.g. nutrient cycling, pH) • small capacity in chemical analyzing • extended surfaces of physically vulnerable soils and water resources (e.g. sediment loss, runoff) Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  30. Discussion Principle 5: Protective forest functions shall be maintained and protected, and where possible strengthened. North  South • often chemical pollution (industrial development) • large capacity for chemical analyzing (e.g. nutrient cycling, pH) differences in standards • small capacity in chemical analyzing • extended surfaces of physically vulnerable soils and water resources (e.g. sediment loss, runoff) Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  31. Discussion Principle 5: Protective forest functions shall be maintained and protected, and where possible strengthened. North  South • strong focus on chemical quality of soils/water resources • exclusive elements: elements related to global carbon cycle(Kyoto, Montreal & Helsinki Process) • often chemical pollution (industrial development) • large capacity for chemical analyzing (e.g. nutrient cycling, pH) • small capacity in chemical analyzing • extended surfaces of physically vulnerable soils and water resources (e.g. sediment loss, runoff) • little attention to chemical properties of soil/water • more attention to physical and quantitative aspects of soil/water Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  32. Discussion Principle 6: The sustainable forest management shall be economically viable and shall improve the conditions of local communities and local economies. North  South different ecological, social and economic aspects Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  33. Discussion Principle 6: The sustainable forest management shall be economically viable and shall improve the conditions of local communities and local economies. North  South • Forests seldom economically important • Forest sector well known(employment, value production, ..) • Forests often economically important • (strong dependency) • Forest sector not well known (large informal sector) Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  34. Discussion Principle 6: The sustainable forest management shall be economically viable and shall improve the conditions of local communities and local economies. North  South • Forests seldom economically important • Forest sector well known(employment, value production, ..) differences in standards • Forests often economically important • (strong dependency) • Forest sector not well known (large informal sector) Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  35. Discussion Principle 6: The sustainable forest management shall be economically viable and shall improve the conditions of local communities and local economies. North  South • Forests seldom economically important • Forest sector well known(employment, value production, ..) elements for estimation of employment and value of forest sector • no estimation of value or employment of forest sector • elements to evaluate & steer the socio-economic situation(inequality, estimation of the forest dependency, ...) • Forests often economically important • (strong dependency) • Forest sector not well known (large informal sector) Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  36. Discussion Principle 7: The social and cultural wellbeing of all stakeholders shall be maintained and protected, and shall be improved when necessary. North  South different ecological, social and economic aspects Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  37. Discussion Principle 7: The social and cultural wellbeing of all stakeholders shall be maintained and protected, and shall be improved when necessary. North  South • Often low dependency on forests • Local or indigenous people are often absent • (exceptions: Scandinavian countries, Canada, USA, ...) • Strong dependency on forests • Local and/or indigenous people Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  38. Discussion Principle 7: The social and cultural wellbeing of all stakeholders shall be maintained and protected, and shall be improved when necessary. North  South • Often low dependency on forests • Local or indigenous people are often absent • (exceptions: Scandinavian countries, Canada, USA, ...) differences in standards • Strong dependency on forests • Local and/or indigenous people Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  39. Discussion Principle 7: The social and cultural wellbeing of all stakeholders shall be maintained and protected, and shall be improved when necessary. North  South • Often low dependency on forests • Local or indigenous people are often absent • (exceptions: Scandinavian countries, Canada, USA, ...) • typical elements: recreational forest function • elements concerning local/indigenous people are absent (not always justified!) More focused on the social & cultural aspects of local and/or indigenous people (wellbeing, quality of life, participation) • Strong dependency on forests • Local and/or indigenous people Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  40. Discussion Geographical origin North  South Northern countries: • more attention to environmental aspects • less attention to the socio-economic forest functions Southern countries: • more attention to social and economic aspects • less attention to the environmental forest functions • importance of capacity building Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  41. Conclusions Geographical origin Differences caused by: • various conditions (ecological, economical, social and cultural)  typical elements representing these differences • difference in overall capacity for SFM: shortcomings  many elements are missing in Southern standards because of their lack in capacity (technology, planning and research capability) Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  42. Conclusions Harmonization between standards? To what extent? How? • Differences resulting from specific local conditions (ecological, economical, social or cultural) harmonization not advisable • Differences resulting from shortcomingsSouthern countries !!! (small overall managing capacity or socio-economical inequity) harmonization advisable ! need for capacity building in the field of forestry international cooperation Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  43. Recommedantions Capacity building • Transfer of knowledge and technology • Support development of national regulations and efficient national forest services • Aid and guide local communities towards SFM Tackle the socio-economic aspect ofinequity Adaptation of SFM standards • use knowledge & experience in tropical forest management to rethink some aspects • participatory process Implementation of SFM standards: active involvement of all the stakeholders • National forest services: implement forest regulations + support • Logging companies, communities, forest managers: implementation of SFM standards • NGO pressure • Market driven pressure. Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North

  44. Thank you for your attention Comparison of standards for evaluation of Sustainable Forest Management between countries from the South and the North