With this history as context, I summarize below ways in which the different scientific disciplines that have sequentially dominated forest management in the national forests have both contributed to sustainable forestry and detracted from it. While this summary is necessarily qualitative and selective, I believe it captures the influences of these sciences.
The contribution of sustained-yield forestry
The application of science to forest policy in the Pacific North-west and through- out the USA grew out of the Progressive Movement around the turn of the cen- tury, in which technical–scientific approaches to management were trumpeted as a way to moderate resource exploitation. Sustained-yield forestry arose out of that movement and became the basis of forest policy for the management of the national forests in the Pacific North-west for almost three-quarters of a century.
There is no question that sustained-yield forestry made important scientific con- tributions to forest policy. It caused policymakers to address the finite nature of the current stock and the importance of investment in reforestation, forest pro- tection and future growth to maintain future timber supplies. In addition, it pro- vided a mechanism to moderate the rate of timber harvest to help ameliorate the
‘cut and get out’ mentality then so prevalent in America. Finally, it provided a long-term vision of the forest of the future – the regulated forest – that would resonate with policymakers.
It must be acknowledged, however, that sustained-yield forestry created a mindset that would result in the orthodoxy of timber primacy and lead to future problems. The single-minded emphasis on suppression of all agents that threat- ened wood production resulted in the build-up in stand densities in our inter- mountain west, which, in turn, threaten the sustainability of the forests there. The single-minded emphasis on liquidation of old-growth forests to provide wood for mills and to free the land for the growth of thrifty young stands led directly to the ecological crisis that resulted in the collapse of national forest timber harvest levels.
The contribution of economic forestry
The merging of economic principles with sustained-yield forestry resulted from the emphasis on benefit–cost analysis in the federal government, the maturing and power of the forest economic profession and the emergence of quantitative analysis tools, like linear programming, which enabled the application of these ideas to forestry. This new approach emphasized the need to recognize the limi- tation of resources, the need to make reasoned choices through evaluating mar- ginal benefits and costs and the need for efficiency in management. It harnessed the new power of computers to help in this analysis, especially to sort through the thousands of forest management choices to find the ‘optimal solution’.
While this approach (to which the author devoted a decade of his life) pro- vided a useful framework to think about some forest management problems, especially those related to timber management, the economic approach, and the process within which it was embedded, had two fatal flaws. First, there was no clear recognition that our environmental laws called for a protective approach to forest species and ecosystems, one that recognized all the uncertainties involved.
Economic forestry tended to focus on what was known (as discussed above), to take a benign view of potential impacts of actions on what was unknown and to focus on the calculus of benefit–cost analysis without realizing that absolute requirements for protection might exist no matter what the cost. Secondly, the approach was largely impenetrable to most Forest Service personnel, let alone the public. People recoiled from the idea that results from a ‘black box’, i.e. the linear programming model FORPLAN, would determine the future management of the national forests.
The contribution of ecological forestry
Ecological forestry was propelled into the forefront of national forest planning by successful challenges to forest plans based on the sustained-yield/economic approach. It stayed in the limelight because it offered an approach to provide
‘scientifically credible conservation strategies’ – the new standard for legal suffi- ciency in forest planning. This new approach combined the principles of conser- vation biology with the mechanics of viability analysis from wildlife science. It overcame the previous neglect of the contribution to biodiversity of old forests and the important conservation contribution that the national forests make to the broader landscape. Ecological forestry caused a sea change in management of the national forests.
With the ecological world view that came with the approach, however, it proved much easier to stop activities that might damage species and ecosystems than it did to start activities needed to conserve them or to produce other bene- fits. Thus, the estimated timber volumes associated with conservation strategies did not materialize. Also, activities to reverse the build-up in stand densities that occurred under sustained-yield forestry were hard to justify, and relatively little activity occurred.
The contribution of social forestry
Ever since the passage of the NEPA in 1970, the public has had a role in federal forest management. Usually, the federal agencies would listen to the public about key issues, develop a proposed plan (and some alternatives to it) and then ask for comments. Thus, the public was asked to critique a plan they did not develop. As our society has become less willing to turn decisions over to experts, the ‘notice and comment’ approach of NEPA to public involvement became less and less satisfactory; people have shifted from wishing to be consulted to wishing to help make the decision. Thus, the demand for a power-sharing, collaborative
approach to many decisions in modern life, including federal forest manage- ment, has grown over the past 40 years.
Social scientists have developed a set of principles that can help federal managers mobilize community groups and there have been successful applica- tions of these principles in a number of instances (Wondolleck and Yafee, 2002).
Thus, the Forest Service has built the latest regulations on the scientific foundation of collaboration and engagement with the public as mechanisms for increased democratic processes in public decision making.
Even more than with past changes in the dominance of particular scien- tific disciplines, this recent shift to the emphasis on democratic processes in planning raises questions about how federal forest management will proceed and what role will remain for the technical expertise and analyses. Social forestry fundamentally challenges the ‘expert’ approach to planning that has been utilized for over 100 years, and the future role for ecological and eco- nomic experts remains murky and somewhat unknown. The past major plan- ning effort in the 1980s, which did try to negotiate with the public to some degree, resulted in plans that were unrealistic. While that negotiation occurred through the political process more than through community groups, the outcome might be instructive here. In retrospect, the plans did not recog- nize realistic conservation strategies for at-risk species and they did not recog- nize budgetary limits on what might be done. Thus, the Forest Service settled on plans that were infeasible both ecologically and economically. Feasible plans were not acceptable to the various public factions and interest groups because there would be both winners and losers. Only plans in which every- one was a winner, or lost only a bare minimum, were acceptable. While we can debate how much the agency itself was responsible for these outcomes, they still describe the possible pitfalls of a negotiation process if ecological and economic considerations are lost.
On the other hand, a major possible contribution of social forestry is the community mobilization discussed by Londonet al. (2005), in which communi- ties come together to support forest management and suggest creative strategies, rather than obstructing management. The Forest Service desperately needs a broad spectrum of support regarding the lands they administer; this approach may help that happen.
Certainly the contribution of the social sciences to sustainable forestry on our federal lands will be closely watched in the next decade. Can they avoid the error of past scientific efforts that impose their singular scientific world view on the agency to the neglect of others that contribute to sustainable forestry? Can they help usher in planning and management that allow perspectives from the different sciences to surface and be given a fair hearing?
Ecological and economic forestry sees sustainability as a destination.
Social forestry views sustainability more as a journey. Whether the journey has some sense of destination beyond the agreement of the participants will help determine the success of this new adventure in the management of our federal forests.
References
Aerts, D., Apostel, L., De Moor, B., Hellemans, S., Maex, E., Van Belle, H. and Van Der Veken, J.
(1994).Worldviews: From Fragmentation to Integration.VUB Press, Brussels.
Appell, D. (2001) The new uncertainty principle.Scientific American, January, 18–19.
Caldwell, L., Wilkinson, C. and Shannon, M. (1994) Making ecosystem policy: three decades of change.Journal of Forestry92(4), 7–10.
Cleary, D. (1986)Timber and the Forest Service. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Committee of Scientists (1999)Sustaining the People’s Lands: Recommendations for Stewardship of the National Forests and Grasslands into the Next Century. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Dana, S. and Fairfax, S. (1980)Forest and Range Policy, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, New York.
Davis, L. and Johnson, K.N. (1987)Forest Management,3rd edn. McGraw Hill, New York.
Davis, L., Johnson, K.N., Bettinger, P. and Howard, T. (2001) Forest Management, 4th edn.
McGraw Hill, New York.
Duerr, W. (1960)Fundamentals of Forest Economics. McGraw Hill, New York.
Duerr, W.A. and Duerr, J.B. (1975) The role of faith in forest resource management. In: Rumsey, M.
and Duerr, W.A. (eds)Social Sciences in Forestry: a Book of Readings. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp. 30–41.
Fairfax, S. and Achterman, G. (1977) The Monongahela controversy and the political process.
Journal of Forestry75, 485–487.
FEMAT (1993) Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assess- ment.Report of the Forest Management Assessment Team (FEMAT), 1993-793-071. GPO, Washington, DC.
Heylighten, F. (2000) What is a worldview? In: Heylighten, F., Joslyn, C. and Turchin, V. (eds) Principia Cybernetica Web.Principia Cybernetica, Brussels. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/worldview, accessed on 15 March 2005.
Hirt, P. (1994)Conspiracy of Optimism:Management of the National Forests since World War II.
University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Hough, F. (1878)Assessment on Forestry.Division of Forestry, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Johnson, K.N., Franklin, J.F., Thomas, J.W. and Gordon, J. (1991)Alternatives for Management of Late-successional Forests of the Pacific Northwest.A report to the Agricultural Committee and the Merchant Marine Committee of the US House of Representatives. College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Langston, N. (2005) Resource management as a democratic process: adaptive management on federal lands. In: Lee, R. and Field, D. (eds)Communities and Forests: Where People Meet the Land. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, pp. 52–76.
Lee, R, and Field, D. (2005) Community complexity: postmodern challenges to forest and natural resource management. In: Lee, R. and Field, D. (eds)Communities and Forests: Where People Meet the Land. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, pp. 291–303.
Lippke, B. and Bishop, J. (1999) The economic perspective. In: Hunter, M. (ed.) Managing Biodiversity in Forested Ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 597–638.
London, P., Starrs, F. and Fortmann, L. (2005) Power plants and forest plans: two decades of mobilization in a mountain forest community. In: Lee, R. and Field, D. (eds)Communities and Forests: Where People Meet the Land.Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, pp. 78–96.
McArdle, R. and Meyer, W. (1930)The Yield of Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest.USDA Forest Service, Technical Bulletin No. 201, Washington, DC.
Mills, T., Quigley, T. and Everest, F. (2001) Science-based natural resource management decisions:
What are they?Renewable Natural Resources Journal,Summer, 10–15.
Maguire, L. 1999. Social perspectives. In: Hunter, M. (ed.)Managing Biodiversity in Forested Ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 639–666.
Seymour, R. and Hunter, M. (1999) Principles of ecological forestry. In: Hunter, M. (ed.)Managing Biodiversity in Forested Ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 22–64.
Shannon, M. (2000) Science advocacy is inevitable: deal with it.Reflections: Newsletter of the Pro- gram for Ethics, Science and the Environment, Dept. of Philosophy, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. Special Issue 4 (April), 8–9.
Teeguarden, D. (1987) Benefit–cost analysis in national forest system planning: policy, uses, and limitations. Environmental Law17(3), 393–427.
Thomas, J.W., Forsman, E.D., Lint, J.B., Meslow, E.C., Noon, B.R. and Verner, J.(1990)A Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl: a Report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl. USDA Forestry Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Portland, Oregon.
US Dept. of Agriculture (1982) National Forest System land and resource management planning:
final rule (36 CFR 219).Federal Register47(190), 43037–43052.
US Dept. of Agriculture (2000) National Forest System land and resource management planning:
final rule (36 CFR 219).Federal Register65(218), 67568–67581.
US Dept. of Agriculture (2005) National Forest System land and resource management planning:
final rule (36 CFR 219).Federal Register70(3); 1055–1061.
Wondolleck, J. and Yafee, S. (2002)Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Island Press, Covelo, California.
3 Participation as a New Mode of Governance? Scientists and
Policymakers Linked in a Double Spiral
I
RINAK
OUPLEVATSKAYA*
ENGREF, Laboratory of Forest Policy, Nancy, France.
Abstract
The international dialogue on forests has changed how scientists are involved in policy- making as well as the nature of their relationship to decision makers. Policy scientists and biologists brought new concepts and types of knowledge into the international lexicon, but soon found their statements utilized to justify reorientations of national and regional policies. This instrumentalization of scientists is especially clear in transitional countries, which are under strong pressure by the international community to introduce rapid and important changes in their policy systems in order to conform to international standards.
The policy formulation process generally promotes policy changes. Seldom is it a linear process with a beginning and an end; rather, policymaking is iterative, allowing for a redefinition of the interests and positions of all actors involved in the process. Scientists are often viewed as a source of objective knowledge and judgement in the policy process, whose participation can help legitimize policy changes. However, just like all other policy actors, scientists are not neutral purveyors of objective knowledge, but value-laden people with their own world views. Thus, scientists like other policy actors adapt throughout the policy process as their own knowledge, their perspectives and even their world views change as a result of policy discussions. Thus, policymakers rely on scientists to represent
‘reality’ through scientific theories and concepts, but then, as new representations emerge through policy discussions, scientists must adapt their theories and viewpoints to the shared understanding created through policy dialogue. Often neglected in science–policy
CAB International 2007.Sustainable Forestry: from Monitoring and Modelling to
Knowledge Management and Policy Science(eds K.M. Reynolds, A.J. Thomson, 35 M. Köhl, M.A. Shannon, D. Ray and K. Rennolls)
*Ms. Kouplevatskaya is the former Deputy Programme Leader of the Kyrgyz–Swiss Forestry Support Programme, intercooperation Kyrgyzstan. This chapter was written in the framework of a doctoral thesis in forest science (forest policy) at the French Institute of Forestry, Agricultural and Environmental Engineering (ENGREF), Nancy, France, under the scientific direction of Prof.
Dr Gerard Buttoud, who was also the consultative expert for the Kyrgyz–Swiss Forestry Support Programme in Kyrgyzstan.
research is a focus on how this mutual adaptation may promote power redistribution and affect the image of scientists.
This chapter is based on the 7-year participatory process of policy reform in Kyrgyzstan, leading to the adoption of a national forest programme (NFP) based on concepts derived from the international dialogue on forests. The policy process theory of the double spiral is used to explain the evolving link between scientists and policymakers, both of whom are compelled to redefine their mutual relations in a process of reinterpretation and renegotia- tion of goals and means. Indeed, the involvement of scientists resulted not only in an increase in rationalist approaches to policy analysis and policymaking, but surprisingly also in a communicative approach conducive to international principles of sustainable for- est management. As a preliminary comparison, basic information collected from experi- ence with participatory processes in various European countries tends to reveal the same iterative sequence formed with an outward spiral of expanding understanding followed by an inward spiral of focus and clarity evidenced in many situations.
Keywords:Forest policy, modes of governance, participatory process, national forest programmes, power redistribution, Kyrgyzstan.