Forest policy is something of a mystery to many researchers. They may dimly be aware of its presence, yet consider it of little relevance to their work. Cynics
perceive international policy development fora as endless talking shops, which achieve little in terms of practical conservation action. The process by which policies are developed at national and subnational scales can similarly appear opaque and somehow divorced from the situation in the field. Yet, in reality, policy decisions and agreements made at a high level underpin many research and man- agement actions, and have a major bearing on the availability of research funding to address specific problems. Does policy matter? Even if a research project is not designed to be policy-relevant, its results may be used in that way. It therefore pays to be aware of what is happening in the policy arena.
This is not the place for a comprehensive account of forest policy. The issue is covered in detail by other texts such as Mayers and Bass (2004) and Sample and Cheng (2004). Rather, the aim here is to encourage researchers to be aware of the policy context in which they are working. Some guidance is given regarding how to keep abreast of policy developments, and how to make the link between policy and research.
Some key recent developments in international forest policy are listed in Table 1.2. It is important to remember that policy-makers are just as subject to fashion as are many other elements of our increasingly globalized society. New issues can suddenly emerge and within a relatively short time come to dominate debate. Interest then gradually subsides as some other issue comes to the fore.
Keeping abreast of policy developments presents a significant challenge to the average forest practitioner or researcher; after all, attending the international circuit of policy meetings is a full-time job for professionals dedicated to the (rather thankless) task. Fortunately, access to information has improved enormously with the development of the Internet, and most international forest policy processes now provide ready access to the many documents that they generate via their websites. Some relevant URLs are provided in Table 1.2. The Forest Policy Experts (POLEX) electronic list server 具www.cifor.cgiar.org/docs/_ref/polex/index.htm典is a particularly useful way of keeping up to date on developments in forest policy.
Another effective way to stay in touch is to monitor the websites of the leading environmental NGOs active in forest conservation. Many of these engage closely in policy processes and have teams of staff dedicated to the task, who report regu- larly via their own organization’s websites.
Since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992, the issue of sustainable forest management has been at the centre of the international policy debate relating to forests, and underpins many national policy initiatives. Much of this discussion has focused on how sustainable forest management can be defined and assessed. Considerable effort has been devoted to the development of criteria and indicators (C&I) that might assist in this process. These developments have primarily occurred under the auspices of international ‘C&I processes’ (see Table 1.2). It was recognized early on that forests in different parts of the world have very different characteristics, and therefore different sets of C&I would need to be developed. Although the idea of harmonizing or standardizing between these different indicator sets has been discussed from Achieving policy relevance | 17
time to time, this is something that is no longer actively being pursued. The C&I processes like to keep their independence.
Many of the international C&I processes have developed indicators that are appropriate for use at the national scale, rather than at the local scale, and are used for the development and updating of national and international policy instruments (Castañeda 2001). However, these processes are increasingly driving the collection of information about forests at local scales, which can then be aggregated for reporting at higher scales. The Global Forest Resources Assessment (GFRA), coordinated by the FAO, has now structured the reports that it solicits from individual countries around C&I. These C&I therefore provide an important context for much of the data collection relating to forests.
At the scale of forest management units, the development of indicators for sustainable forest management has primarily been driven by the growth of interest in forest certification. Forest certification is essentially a tool for promoting responsible forestry practices, and involves certification of forest management operations by an independent third party against a set of standards. Typically, forest products Table 1.2 A summary of key international policy processes relating to forest conservation.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), agreed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, is the main international convention focusing on biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. The CBD has developed a thematic programme specifically focusing on forest biodiversity (具www.biodiv.org/programmes/areas/forest/典) with an associated programme of work, which details what Parties to the Convention should actually be doing in this area.
The ‘Forest Principles’ and Chapter 11 of Agenda 21are a set of non-legally binding principles relating to the conservation and sustainable development of forests that were agreed at the 1992 Earth Summit (UNCED) (具www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/
agenda21/典).
The United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF)was established in 2000 to ‘promote the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests and to strengthen long-term political commitment to this end’ (具www.un.org/esa/ forests/典).
The UNFF provides an important forum for international dialogue about forests. It is the successor to two prior initiatives, the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) and the International Forum on Forests (IFF), which together recommended more than 270 proposals for action to be adopted by the international community, specific- ally relating to implementation of the Forest Principles and Chapter 11 of Agenda 21.
Implementation of these proposals is currently being assessed by the UNFF.
International C&I processesinclude ITTO, the Pan-European (or ‘Helsinki’) Process, the Montreal Process, and the Tarapoto, Lepaterique, Near East, Dry Zone Asia, and Dry Zone Africa processes, which have each generated sets of C&I (Castañeda 2001).
Currently, around 150 countries are participating in these processes.
(generally timber but also non-timber forest products) from certified forests are labelled so that consumers can identify them as having been derived from well- managed sources. There are now many different organizations certifying forests against a variety of different standards. Examples include the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) Program and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). At least at a general level, the standards developed by certification bodies can be viewed as supporting sustainable forest management, although not all certifying organizations use this precise terminology.
More recently, other key policy developments have come to dominate inter- national discussion. Increased concern about widespread illegal logging has led to the development of regional Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (FLEG) processes, as well as action by the G8 group of countries and the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) 具www.illegal-logging.info典. Forests are also of concern to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), particularly as the Kyoto Protocol potentially provides a mechanism for financing forest establishment and conservation. Under the Protocol, industri- alized countries that lack options for expanding forests may partly compensate for their greenhouse-gas emissions by paying for the establishment and maintenance of forests in other countries 具http://unfccc.int/典. Forests do not feature so prom- inently in other recent international policy initiatives, such as the United Nations Millennium Development Goals and the WSSD held in 2002 具www.un.org/esa/
sustdev/典. However, the 2010 biodiversity target adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and endorsed by the WSSD has become a central policy objective in conservation, aiming to achieve a ‘significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level’. This potentially offers a significant opportunity to further conservation efforts world- wide, and its implementation is already taxing the scientific community (Balmford et al. 2005).
How can research be linked with policy? Many funding organizations now require that research be ‘policy-relevant’. What does this actually mean? Simply put, research should strive to assist the process of policy implementation, without necessarily being policy-prescriptive. Put another way, policy-makers often do not like being told what to do, but recognize that research can play a role in helping to achieve policy goals. Researchers should not forget, however, that they have the capacity to significantly influence, or even lead, the policy agenda. Issues such as climate change, invasive species, and deforestation have all become the focus of international attention from policy-makers, partly as a result of the research that has been carried out on their actual or potential impacts.
How can research help implement policy? A key area is in helping to oper- ationalize policy concepts. If many concepts in ecological science are difficult to define and measure precisely, as pointed out by Peters (1991), then the problem with forest policy is even more acute. Policy-makers seem to delight in coining terms whose meaning is difficult to pin down. Sustainable forest management is a case in point: what does this mean, exactly? Biodiversity is another term that Achieving policy relevance | 19
means different things to different people. Of course, this obfuscation is partly deliberate: the use of vague terminology is designed to help provide politicians with room for manoeuvre, as they rarely enjoy being held to account. The use of poorly defined concepts is rightly an anathema to many ecological researchers, and this perhaps helps explain the antipathy that many researchers feel towards the area of policy.
It is practitioners who are typically at the sharp end of having to implement forest policy, and who often struggle with translating policy goals into practice.
Forest managers are often assailed by poorly defined terminology: conceivably they might be asked to achieve sustainable forest management by using an ecosystem approach, by implementing multi-purpose forestry while adopting the precau- tionary principle, while not forgetting to consult stakeholders throughout the process. This kind of jargon is enough to task even the most hardened forestry professional. It is hardly surprising if these lofty policy goals sometimes fail to affect forest management on the ground.
Researchers can assist in the operationalization of policy concepts, by interpret- ing policy terms in the form of environmental variables that can be accurately and precisely measured. Researchers can also help determine whether policy goals are being achieved. There is a real concern that despite all of the policy interest in sustainable forest management, little is actually changing on the ground. Whether or not policy implementation is being successful is a worthy area of research itself, yet this is something that has been neglected by researchers. Available information suggests that the effects of certification and application of C&I have been limited to date (Rametsteiner and Simula 2003); many organizations that have certified forests are often those that were managing forests responsibly in any case (Leslie 2004). Why has application of C&I not been more successful in producing changes in forest management? Perhaps it requires the research community to engage more closely with the process, to help inform policy-makers and practi- tioners how best to define, measure and achieve progress towards policy goals; this is an important role that is often overlooked. Many of the indicators that have been proposed to date are difficult to implement in practice; often they are stated in vague or imprecise terms (Stork et al. 1997).
Forest ecologists who really want to make a difference to conservation may seek to see their results reflected in policy. How can this be achieved? Some suggestions:
● By engaging in a dialogue with policy makers, and by disseminating research results through policy fora such as the CBD. There are often mechanisms for researchers to present their results in this way, for example through preparation of an information note for delegates to the Convention’s meetings.
● By presenting their results in a form that can be readily assimilated by policy- makers, for example by publishing a policy brief.
● By collaborating with NGOs who are continually campaigning for policy change.
● By publicizing their results in popular media, an approach of proven effectiveness in bringing issues to the attention of politicians, and an approach continually being adopted by campaigning NGOs, and even UN agencies.
● By publishing their results in scientific journals with a high impact factor, which can be remarkably successful in attracting media attention and increasing awareness among politicians.