● 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.
forest area (Matthews 2001). Another vexed question is whether plantations should be considered together with natural forests in estimations of global forest cover. Most forest ecologists recognize that plantation forests have characteristics substantially different from those of natural forests, and that expansion in area of the former does not adequately offset losses of the latter. This did not stop FAO considering both together when developing estimates of change in global forest cover (Matthews 2001). The lesson is: state your definitions clearly. They may be challenged, and you may be required to justify them.
Forest ecologists, managers and conservationists seem to delight in inventing concepts that are difficult to define exactly, or to apply in practice. For example, forests characterized by a relatively low level of human influence have been variously described as pristine, old-growth, primary, antique, climax, and ancient. Such terms should not be used uncritically, but should be exposed to rigorous scrutiny and defined precisely before being invoked. It is worth continually asking the question: can this variable be measured? And if so, how?
An example is provided by the concept of naturalness. This is considered to be very important by many conservationists, and reflects belief in a rather intan- gible property of ‘natural’ or ‘wild’ forests that plantations patently do not possess.
But the issue is not clear-cut. Forests that were originally planted but have been left to regenerate naturally over a prolonged period of time can be very difficult to differentiate (in terms of structure and composition) from forests that have never been felled. Similarly, ‘natural’ forests that have been ‘enriched’ through localized planting of particular tree species can also retain most, if not all, of the characteristics of truly ‘natural’ forest. Naturalness therefore has a lot to do with the history of a particular forest, which can have a profound influence on its ecological characteristics. Unfortunately, information on the history of how a site has developed is often lacking, and consequently attempts are often made to infer the degree of naturalness from measurements of the current ecological characteristics of a forest, a process fraught with difficulty. A thoughtful consid- eration of how different types of naturalness might be defined is provided by Peterken (1996).
The problem of adopting poorly defined terminology can be further illustrated by the example of ‘authenticity’. This is a term that has been used by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and WWF as a way of describing the ‘quality’ of forest habitat. The term is defined as ‘the extent to which an existing forest has a balanced ecology and a full range of species . . . a fully authentic forest is a forest in which all the expected ecosystem functions can continue to operate indefin- itely’ (IUCN/WWF International 1999). Measuring authenticity presents a considerable, perhaps insurmountable challenge. For example, what is meant by
‘a balanced ecology’ and ‘a full range of species’? How might the indefinite oper- ation of ecosystem functions be assessed? An inability to operationalize a concept such as this fatally undermines its value to ecological science and conservation management.
In response to this terminological confusion, the FAO has coordinated a process to harmonize forest-related definitions through an ongoing series of international meetings, for which proceedings are available (FAO 2005). These provide a useful reference point in terms of selecting definitions for use in any particular investiga- tion (Table 1.3), and provide some valuable background with respect to the usage of different terms. However, even these definitions should not be applied uncritic- ally. For example, many of them employ the word ‘natural’, which as noted above, has itself been subject to a variety of interpretations.
Some of the terms commonly used by forest conservation organizations are defined in Table 1.3. To these should be added the concept of high conservation value forest(HCVF), which was first defined by the FSC as part of their principles relating to forest certification, and is increasingly being used in conservation and natural resource planning and advocacy, most notably by WWF (Jennings et al.
2003). The concept focuses on the values that make a forest particularly important in conservation terms, rather than the definition of particular forest types (primary, old growth, for example) or methods of forest management. HCVF may therefore have widespread value as a tool for forest conservation planning and management, but this again depends on how the concept is operationalized. The values by which HCVF is defined include measures of biodiversity value (such as endemism, endangered species, refugia), the occurrence of ‘naturally occurring species . . . in natural patterns of distribution and abundance’ and presence of ‘rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems’, as well as provision of environmental services to people (such as watershed protection, erosion control, subsistence, health) (Jennings et al. 2003). Some practical guidance is now available for forest managers and conservation practitioners to support implementation of the concept (Jennings et al. 2003).
The aim of this section is to encourage increased precision in the use of terms relating to forest conservation, and not to provide a comprehensive survey of the terms in current use. However, there are four further concepts that merit further elaboration, given their widespread inclusion in policy documents and their current importance to those involved in practical forest conservation. These are the ecosystem approach, ecosystem management, the precautionary principle, and adaptive management. Definitions of these concepts are provided in Box 1.2.
Development of these concepts reflects growing recognition of the many ecological services provided by forests, and a shift away from managing forests purely for timber. To a degree, they could all be viewed as different perspectives on the same theme, but their overlapping and uncertain definitions can be the source of great confusion. IUCN et al. (2004) provide a comparison of some of these terms, noting some linkages between them: for example, the ecosystem approach advocates use of the precautionary principle. Perhaps the main difference between the ecosystem approach and sustainable forest management is that the former places greater emphasis on negotiation to solve problems, whereas the concept of Defining terminology | 23
Table 1.3 Proposed definitions for some key concepts relating to forests (Carle and Holmgren 2003, FAO 2005). (Note that not all of the definitions listed below have been formally ‘harmonized’ or agreed by the FAO process).
Natural forest Forest stands composed predominantly of native tree species established naturally. This can include assisted natural regeneration, excluding stands that are visibly offspring/descendants of planted trees.
Semi-natural forest A managed natural forest which, over time, has taken on a number of natural characteristics (such as layered canopy, enriched species diversity, random spacing, etc.) or planted forests which acquire more natural characteristics over time.
Planted forest Forest stand in which trees have predominantly been established by planting, deliberate seeding or coppicing, where the coppicing is of previously planted trees.
Primary forest A forest that has never been logged and has developed following natural disturbances and under natural processes, regardless of its age.
Secondary forest A forest that has been logged and has recovered naturally or artificially.
Old-growth forest Stands distinguished by old trees and related structural attributes that may include tree size, accumulations of large dead woody material, number of canopy layers, species composition, and ecosystem function.
Forest management The formal or informal process of planning and implement- ing practices aimed at fulfilling relevant
environmental, economic, social, and/or cultural functions of the forest and meeting defined objectives.
Sustainable forest The stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a management way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity,
productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality, and their potential to fulfil, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic, and social functions, at local, national, and global levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems (definition from the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, now adopted by FAO).
sustainable forest management tends more towards the application of professional judgement (IUCN et al. 2004). Practitioners should certainly be aware of these concepts, and are encouraged to consider critically how they might be put into practice.
Defining terminology | 25 Box 1.2 The ecosystem approach, ecosystem management, the
precautionary principle, and adaptive management.
● Theecosystem approachhas been adopted by the CBD as a central strategy in the implementation its goals. It can be described as ‘a strategy for the inte- grated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conser- vation and sustainable use in an equitable way’. It is described by the CBD 具www.biodiv.org典as being ‘based on the application of appropriate scientific methodologies focused on levels of biological organization which encompass the essential processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their environment. It recognizes that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral component of ecosystems’. With respect to forests, the CBD states that ‘the ecosystem approach requires adaptive management to deal with the complex and dynamic nature of forest ecosystems and the absence of com- plete knowledge or understanding of their functioning . . . the conservation of their structure and functioning should be a priority target’.
● The goal of ecosystem managementis the simultaneous use of biological resources and the maintenance of the integrity of the ecosystems that pro- duce the resources. It can be considered as the basis of sustainable forest man- agement and the ecosystem approach, and focuses on managing ecological units in an integrated and holistic way (IUCN et al. 2004). The term has been particularly used in the USA, where it is was adopted by the US Forest Service in the 1990s. A useful overview of the application of the concept to forests is provided by Johnson et al. (1999).
● Theprecautionary principle, or precautionary approach, is increasingly being employed in environmental policy and management. The principle has been interpreted differently by various workers, and a number of different definitions exist, leading to some confusion about what it actually means.
Cooney (2004) provides a comprehensive account of the development of the principle, and how it has been applied to conservation, together with the different definitions that have been used. As a minimum, the precautionary principle requires that scientific certainty of environmental harm is not required as a prerequisite for taking action to avert it (Cooney 2004). When applied according to a relatively ‘strong’ definition, the principle may lead to prohibition of any activities that pose an environmental threat, and for this reason application of the principle is often controversial. Application of the concept to forest management and conservation is considered in depth by Newton and Oldfield (2005).
● Adaptive management approaches focus on acquiring knowledge from experience, monitoring and research, and integrating this information into more effective management practices (Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002).
Further information and resources on adaptive management approaches are provided in section 8.3.