N IJNIK 1 AND A. M ATHER 2

Discussion

M. N IJNIK 1 AND A. M ATHER 2

1Socio-Economic Research Group, The Macaulay Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, UK;²Department of Geography and Environment, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.

Abstract

The transition of forestry from material production to environmental objectives is ana- lysed from the perspective of institutional economics. The research used a semi-qualitative approach wherein the quantitative method of Q-analysis was applied as relevant. New institutional frameworks and ultimately new prospects for British forestry development were identified through analysis of public opinion, forest policy and practice. The prefer- ence models developed here characterize current UK attitudes towards forest policy, pro- viding some innovative perspectives on the areas of consensus and conflict between people regarding key directions for the future of forestry. The chapter concludes by demonstrating the importance of operationalizing social values into concrete forest management decisions by shifting from a timber management to a multiple resource management model and from a forest-focused to a people-focused concept.

Keywords: Q-methodology, climate change mitigation, public attitudes, the UK.

Introduction

British woodlands and forestry: historical overview

Britain was deforested early in its history and extensively (FC, 2001). Near the beginning of the 20th century, the forested area even in Scotland had fallen to under 5% (Smoutet al., 2005). Deforestation occurred as a result of the normal forces related to economic growth and of scant attention paid to environmental values.¹Deforestation in the UK (as in some other countries such as Ireland and Denmark) occurred rapidly because land was accessible, interest rates were high, rural wages were low and there were opportunities for trade. The low stumpage fees contributed to the transfer of woodland into agriculture since even the

CAB International 2007.Sustainable Forestry: from Monitoring and Modelling to

Knowledge Management and Policy Science(eds K.M. Reynolds, A.J. Thomson, 171 M. Köhl, M.A. Shannon, D. Ray and K. Rennolls)

modest rates of return that were expected from agriculture compared favourably to forestry at low stumpage prices. Industrial development contributed to defor- estation as well, first with charcoal making and then through providing timbers for coal mining on which heavy industry depended. During, the First World War when importing timber from Norway or the Baltic states became difficult, any remaining woodlands were heavily depleted.

This timber crisis led to the establishment of a state forest service in Britain (the Forestry Commission (FC)), and a policy of creation of new forests by state planting. Before the new forests had matured, the Second World War led to simi- lar pressures on the forests for war material. After the war, the afforestation programme was expanded. This programme has been remarkably successful.

The forest area in Scotland trebled during the 20th century and in the UK it more than doubled. The Forestry Commission’s annual round wood production increased by 700%. The policy of creating commercial plantations was justified by its protagonists based on several arguments: conifer monocultures are more productive and easily managed; straight-edged plantations minimize fencing costs, which often make up half the establishment costs; large areas bring econ- omies of scale; and hardy pioneer species were a necessity for establishing forest ecosystems on degraded sites (Warren, 2000).

Following the Second World War, Britain pursued parallel, but partly con- flicting, policies of agricultural and forest expansion. New forests were usually located on the least productive agricultural land, often in locations remote from the main centres of population. This was due to a combination of an emphasis on timber production, environmental constraints on species selection and most afforestation occurring in remote locations. These new forests were not con- nected to the urbanized population nor were they perceived to have strong values in relation to landscape, wildlife or recreation.

The forests we see today across the UK are a product of this past. Current public attitudes to forests were shaped by this history. So, although the forest area in the UK is comparatively small with a wooded cover of only 11.6% (FC, 2001) much of it was established under circumstances that no longer exist and for purposes that are no longer relevant, and in locations remote from the main centres of population. Due to the historically early and extensive deforestation in the UK, forest culture as manifested in folklore, literature and art is almost non-existent. Not only was the public not encouraged to visit the forests, the for- ests were viewed as the personal domain of the landowners. Once the dominion of kings and the landed gentry, class-based ownership of forests created a social as well as a geographical gulf between people and forests (Mather, 2003).

In the early 1990s non-material values of forests emerged as an important issue for the environment and people in the UK and elsewhere. The UNCED (1992) conference resulted in the non-binding Forestry Principles that served as a catalyst for change. The principle that ‘forest resources and forest lands should be sustainably managed to meet social, economic, ecological, cultural and spiritual human needs of present and future generations’ supports the concept of sustainable multifunctional forest management as an aspiration formally espou- sed by many countries. The Forestry Principles and the emergence of various international institutions and agreements have accompanied changes in dominant

views on forests. When forests become multifunctional places of amenity con- sumption, recreation and wildlife observation rather than mono-functional places of wood production, the concept of sustainability in forestry² expands to cover sustainable multifunctional forest use (Table 10.1). Sustainable forestry then aims at delivering a socially acceptable distribution of incomes and benefits from forests while creating opportunities for more people to enjoy trees, woodlands and forests and helping rural communities benefit from them (SE, 2000).

A reduced emphasis on material production, combined with an increased importance of the provision of environmental and social services, characterized forestry in Britain³at the turn of the 21st century. Forestry today aims at meeting multiple and dynamically evolving social requirements, which reflect public preferences for multifunctional forestry and necessitate their satisfaction in a sustainable manner. Post-productivism is a descriptor of this transition in emphasis away from a policy concern with increasing material production and towards concern with the provision of environmental services.

A broad range of non-market forest benefits is currently recognized in Britain.

They include: open-access non-priced recreation and leisure activities; land- scape, amenity and countryside characterization; biodiversity; valuable habi- tats; measurable benefits in physical and mental health; carbon sequestration;

absorption of air, water and noise pollutants; management of water resources;

protection of archaeological features and historic sites; provision of opportunities for education, community activities and social inclusion; and regeneration and improvement of brown-field sites (FTA, 2004).

Production/goods (material) Services (non-material)

Wood products Environmental

Logs Regulatory

Industrial round wood Protection of soil

Pulpwood Regulation of climate (global and local)

Paper and paperboard Water regulation and purification

Chips and particles Support

Wood-based panels Of livelihoods and habitats

Fuel wood Biological diversity

Non-wood products Social

Berries, mushrooms, nuts, honey, game, birch juice

Recreational functions Leisure and tourism

Medicinal herbs Game and fishing

Fodder for domestic animals Landscape

Materials such as wool and skins Information and reservoir

Decoration Species and genes

Sociocultural, spiritual Intrinsic natural values Table 10.1. Forest benefits. (Adapted from FAO, 1996.)

This transition in forestry and forest policies is occurring around the world and raises important issues regarding the implications of a ‘post-production for- estry’ within different countries. This chapter discusses some of the elements of post-production forestry in the UK by examining its emergence and current char- acteristics. This leads to a number of conclusions regarding the future of forestry in the UK and the kinds of institutions likely to be responsible for SFM.

Rules in Use: Do They Work for Post-Productivism?

⁴

Methodological aspects

Neoclassical economic theory analyses the demand and supply sides of produc- tion, and suggests that a well-functioning market can account for the costs and benefits created in the economy by setting the right prices to guide resource use in a sustainable way. However, social gains from forestry are becoming increasingly multiple and they are often not included in economic models. Multiple forest values have a much broader spatial and temporal distribution than the dis- tribution of the costs. It happens, therefore, that the recipients of forest benefits do not repay society in full for the costs of their activities and externalities negatively affect forestry. The reason for the existence of externalities can also be explained by the fact that the non-marketable public goods of forests possess the properties of non-rivalry and non-excludability that cause market failures (Slangen, 2000).

For that reason, the role of good institutions (Shleifer and Vishny, 1998) to control the tenure, management, financing and production of public goods is incredibly important even in a well-functioning market economy.

In neoclassical economics, preferences are fixed and stable, and economic agents are rational. The value system and time preferences are exogenous and decided largely by the market. Institutions are exogenous as well, and their role in achieving economically optimal outcomes is neglected (Kant, 2003). With the inclusion of peoples’ preferences for multiple forest functions in the decision- making process, attitudes and values held by the public become endogenous.

There is a retreat from economist’s neoclassical rationalism. When the traditional mono-functional concept of forestry fades and ‘sustainable multifunctional forest management’ is embraced, public involvement becomes increasingly influential.

The high level of participatory democracy is manifested in collaboration of key stakeholders, in the initiatives to involve the public in environmental deci- sion making and in the extension of information and education (DETR, 2000).

Consequently, governance that conceptualizes public perceptions, and first of all those of local communities, emerges. This governance is largely based on collec- tive action⁵when people act together, driven by common interests. Sustainable forestry under these conditions focuses not only on sustainable timber manage- ment, but even more on sustainable management of non-marketable forest goods and the intrinsic values of the forest system.

Multifunctionality characterizes post-productivism, when social values of land- scape amenities, wildlife and forest recreation to name a few are increasingly perceived as more important than commodity production. Post-productivism is

a reflection of economic, social, cultural and environmental developments in modern Britain and elsewhere, and under these conditions, forestry cannot be considered through the foundational principles of neoclassical economics.^6,7The boundaries of forest economics must therefore be extended towards the incorp- oration of multiple equilibrium points and new consumer choice theory in newly developed models (Kant, 2003). These multiple-use and multiple-criteria modes must be sensitive to institutions, the current state and the dynamics of which are becoming critical for addressing sustainability successfully in multifunctional forestry.

This chapter does not seek to push the boundaries of forestry economics.

Instead, it employs methodological approaches of new institutional economics to examine some elements of forestry in transition. New institutional economists agree that there are two main approaches for examining institutional changes (Ostrom, 1990; North, 1993; Sabatier, 1998). The first approach considers ‘action arenas’ and focuses on actors, in our case in a forestry field. The actors have preferences and information-processing capabilities. According to this approach, substantial changes in the ‘action arena’ must be made to advance forestry development. The characteristics of the physical world and ‘the rules in use’ that constitute both the institutional environment and the attributes of the community should be modified (Ostromet al., 1994).

Among the ways to explore the mechanisms of institutional changes from this perspective is to consider changes as caused by the actors’ responses to shifts in relative prices and preferences (Weimer, 1995). This approach argues that though inefficient institutions can exist because of path dependency, more pro- gressive institutions are continually created in society (North, 1993). Another view within the actors’ scheme explains the transition as a result of conflicting inter- ests, when institutional arrangements change because of bargaining, and thus not all the changes are progressive (Knight, 1992).

The second approach to addressing institutional transformation, as in our case of forestry transition to post-productivism, is to focus on economic develop- ment as its primary cause. A system of institutions is then considered as endoge- nous and dependent on economic progress. It is argued that, at certain stages of societal development, economic progress exceeds institutional advance. When the gap appears to be broad enough, political and social preconditions for insti- tutional transformation arise within society itself. Organizations and actors’ per- ceptions are regarded as important, but they are not considered as the main cause of institutional changes, but rather as their consequences.

This research follows the ‘actors’ perspectives’ approach of exploring institu- tional change.⁸The institutions are believed to represent themselves through a legal relationship between policy actors in the ‘action arena’ of forestry and the rules in use, both formal (policy and economic rules) and informal, are the driv- ing forces that govern the patterns of interaction within the whole institutional system. The framework of forestry transition to post-productivism has been developed to provide a better understanding of the processes that are taking place in multifunctional forestry. The institutional environment and arrange- ments, and the interaction between policy actors in the ‘action arena’ of forestry, are shown in Fig. 10.1.