ensure the participation of various stakeholders in defining the sustainability requirements for SFM in transition countries? Most importantly, in these new research activities the aspects of renewable energy production, trade and use, as well as the aspects of SFM, sustainable land use and integrated rural development need to be fully interconnected in the analysis.
The research outcomes presented in this chapter have also shown that the establishment of forest plantations for controlling CO2emissions in the transition countries is not viable without new sources of investment. An elaboration of eco- nomic techniques for receiving credits from the world community for planting trees in these countries is, therefore, a new challenge for the future.
2 Mha of land would take roughly 25 years. It is hardly viable due to the shortage of investment and for other reasons (Nijnik, 2004).
9. For explanation of the differences between common property and community managed forests see Carlsson (1999). Using the Swedish forest commons, he argues that an introduction of community managed forests is an alternative to massive privat- ization as well as to undesirable continuation or strengthening of state forest management.
10. UK and Canada (BC) examples show accordingly success of afforestation on public lands and of SF.
11. For in-depth information on the potential for carbon sequestration in Ukraine, see Nijnik (2002, 2005), and in Slovakia, see Bizikova (2004).
12. Among the assumptions are as follows: afforestation and carbon storage sce- nario presumes one-time tree planting for 40 years, without considering the use of woodland after timber harvesting. This assumption comes with the idea that by har- vesting the trees, using the revenues to cover future costs of establishing new forests and storing carbon, both the gains and losses in physical and monetary values are rel- atively balanced (Van Kootenet al., 2000). The assumptions also include factors that would reduce the likelihood of achieving the expected carbon storing, such as a low risk that the trees will release their carbon too soon due to insect infestation, fungal disease or forest fires.
13. Costs are discounted at 4%.
14. The costs that are taken into account include tree-planting costs (including soil preparation), care and protection costs, opportunity costs of land, replanting costs and the costs of timber harvesting.
15. For Slovakia the cost of energy production from renewable sources is based on Ministry of Environment (2001). For the economics of renewable energy scenario in Ukraine see Nijnik (2005). The costs do not account for production costs of coal, for converting power plants to wood and changes in transportation costs.
16. The discounted returns from planting trees in the steppe and Polissja would be somewhat higher than the opportunity costs of the land, but they would be too low to cover the necessary silvicultural investments, care and protection costs and the costs of timber harvesting.
17. Being based on sustainability assumptions, transition countries should consider other options for fuel wood and wood products, such as export to the EU countries.
18. Recent scenarios for the emissions of CO2provide evidence that during the Kyoto Protocol 2008–2012 period, the surplus of Ukraine will not fall below 3 Mt of car- bon per year (Victoret al., 2001).
19. The situation is somewhat better in Slovakia, due to the accession process, dur- ing which the policies involving environmentalacquis were adopted under supervision by the EU.
20. The time horizon is an important factor that influences the results. Another impor- tant factor is the discount rate employed in the models.
References
Bizikova, L. (2004) Carbon Sequestration Potential on Agricultural Land-use Management in Slovakia.Institute for Forecasting, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava.
Carlsson, L. (1999)Towards a Sustainable Russian Forest Sector. Panel 3-3, FR, 11 June, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria.
Chomitz, K.M. (2002) Baseline, leakage and measurement issues: how do forestry and energy projects compare?Climate Policy2, 35–49.
Den Elzen, M. and De Moor, P. (2002) Evaluating the Bonn–Marrakesh agreement.Climate Policy 2, 111–117.
EC (1997)Energy for the Future: Renewable Sources of Energy. White Paper for Community Strategy and Action Plan, COM (97)599 FINAL (26/11/1997), EC, Brussels.
EC (1998)Communication from the Commission to the Council and European Parliament on a Forestry Strategy for European Union. COM (1998) 649, 03/11/1998, EC, Brussels.
EC (2002)EU Burden Sharing. Council decision 2002/358/EC, EC, Brussels.
EC (2005)Communication on the Implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy, COM (2005) 84 final, SEC (2005) 333, EC, Brussels.
ECCP (2004)Conclusions and Recommendations Regarding Forests Related Sinks and Climate Change Mitigation.Final Report as seen at www.europe.eu.int/comm/environment/climate/
Eggertsson, T. (1994) The economics of institutions in transition economies. In: Schiavo-Campo, S.
(ed.)Institutional Change and the Public Sector in Transitional Economies. Discussion paper No 241, World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 19–50.
Fankhauser, S. and Lavric, L. (2003) The investment climate for climate investment: joint imple- mentation in transition countries.Climate Policy3, 417–434.
Fonkych, K. (2000) Rent-seeking and the interest groups in the period of transition in the Ukraine.
Economist3, 54–60.
Gensiruk, S. (1999) Ax is roaming in the Carpathians. Rural News, 11 January, Kiev (in Ukr).
Gerrard, C. (2000) The institutional perspectives on agriculture and rural development: a concep- tual framework for policy makers, managers, and analysis. In: XXIV IAAE Conference proceedings, Berlin, pp. 1–11.
GRA and GRF (2002)Green Report. Agriculture. Ministry of Agriculture, Bratislava.
Gray, P.A., Demal, L., Hogg, D., Greer, D., Euler, D. and DeYoe, D. (1995) An Ecosystem Approach to Living Sustainably: a Perspective for the Ministry of Natural Resources. Discussion Paper, September, Queen’s Printer, Peterborough, Ontario.
Hryniv, L. (2001)Ecologically Sustainable Economy: Theoretical Problems. University Publisher, Lviv, Ukraine (in Ukr).
IBN-DLO (1999)Resolving Issues on Terrestrial Biospheric Sinks in the Kyoto Protocol.Dutch National Research Programme on Global Air Pollution and Climate Change, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
IUCN/ENEP/WWF (1991)Caring for the Earth: a Strategy for Sustainable Living. IUCN/ENEP/
WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
Kluvankova-Oravska, T. (2004) Cohesion policy and sustainable regional development. The case of the Slovak Republic.Journal of Economics52, 851–864.
Komendar, V. (2001) The state committee of wiping out forests? Rural News: 22 May, Kiev, Ukraine (in Ukr).
Krott, M., Tikkanen, I., Petrov, A., Tunytsya, Y., Zheliba B., Sasse V., Rykounina, I. and Tunytsya, T.
(2000)Policies for Sustainable Forestry in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. Brill, Leiden, Boston, Koln.
Ministry of Environment (2001) Third Report on Climate Change. Ministry of Environment, Bratislava.
MCPFE, Second Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (1993) Resolution HI: General Guidelines for the Sustainable Management of Forests in Europe. Helsinki, Finland. http://www.mcpfe.org/resolutions/helsinki
Nijnik, M. (2004) To an economist’s perception on sustainability in forestry-in-transition. Forest Policy and Economics6, 403–413.
Nijnik, M. (2005) Economics of climate change mitigation forest policy scenarios for Ukraine.Climate Policy4, 319–336.
Nijnik, M. and Oskam, A. (2004) Governance in Ukrainian forestry: trends, impacts and remedies.
International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology3, 116–133.
Nijnik, M. and Van Kooten, G.C. (2000) Forestry in the Ukraine: the road ahead?Forestry Policy and Economics1, 139–153.
Petkova, E. and Faraday, G. (2001)Good Practices in Policies and Measures for Climate Change Mitigation. A Central and Eastern European Perspective.The Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe and World Resource Institute, Szentendre, Hungary.
Rice, R., Gullison, R. and Reid, J. (1997) Can sustainable management save tropical forests?Scien- tific American276, 34–39.
Schmithusen, F. (1996) Tenure and joint resources management system on public forest lands: issues and trends. Forstwissenschaftliche Beiträge der Professur Forstpolitik und Forstökonomie der ETH Zürich17, 35–55.
Schrieder, G. (2000) Theoretical concepts of institution sequencing and timing – how applicable are they to the transition process? In:Institutional Sequencing and Timing in Transition Econo- mies, International Conference of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, Berlin, pp. 1–29.
SME (2005)New Forest Code Initiative. SME, Bratislava (in Slovak).
Spash, C.L. (2002)Greenhouse Economics: Value and Ethics. Routledge, London.
Swinnen, J.F.M., Buckwell, A. and Mathijs, E. (1997)Agricultural Privatization, Land Reform and Farm Restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK.
TBFRA (2000) Temperate and Boreal Forest Resources Assessment. Forest Resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand.UN-ECE/FAO Contribution to the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, UN, Geneva.
Tichý, M. and Billharz, S. (2000) Joint Implementation Projects in Central and Eastern Europe.
SEVEn – the energy efficiency centre, Centre for Clean Air Policy, Prague.
UNCED (1992)Agenda 21,UNCED, Rio, Brazil Chapter 37, part 1.
UNFCCC (1998)The Kyoto Protocol to the Convention on Climate Change. UNEP/IUC, Bonn, Germany.
UNFCCC (2004)Japan Marks the Protocol’s Entry into Force on 16 February. UNFCCC, Bonn, Germany, as seen at http://unfccc.int/2860.php
Van Kooten, G. (1995) Can non market values be used as indicators of forest sustainability?
Forestry Chronicle71, 1–10.
Van Kooten, G.C., Shaikh, S. and Suchanek, P. (2001) Mitigating climate change by planting trees:
the transaction costs trap.Land Economics78, 559–572.
Victor, D., Nakicenovic, N. and Victor, N. (2001) The Kyoto Protocol emission allocations: windfall surpluses for Russia and Ukraine.Climate Change49, 263–277.
5 Application of Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable
Resource Management in the United States
A
LBERTA
BEEUnited States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination, Washington, DC, USA.
Abstract
Sustainable development, comprised of interrelated social, economic and ecological com- ponents, is a core value of the global community. We need jobs in rural and urban commu- nities, commodities to support life processes, and a healthy environment inclusive of our heritage of plant and animal species. While sustainable development has gained worldwide prominence, difficulties remain in making progress towards that goal. Bridging information gaps in administratively fragmented landscapes, integrating environmental, economic and social issues, and the capacity to make consistent measures for assessing progress towards desired conditions that reflect sustainable development values are problematic. Within the USA and globally, we are seeing a convergence of how countries characterize and assess sustainable forest management. The Montreal Process (MP) framework of criteria and indi- cators (C & I) is helping to provide a unifying language of measures that clarify and better articulate understanding of key attributes that characterize the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests. The USA is gaining experience in developing and applying C & I in both industrial and private forest certification processes as well as in state and federal forest assessment processes. The MP C & I are contributing to building both the intuitional capacity for and potential to: bridge administratively fragmented land- scapes; foster dialogue and collaborative planning processes; and focus scarce resources on highest-priority areas. The MP C & I are also strengthening the linkages between countries and are contributing to the emerging mode of better science-based governance. This chapter discusses US progress in applying the MP C & I.
Keywords:Sustainable development, criteria and indicators, sustainable forest manage- ment, science, assessments, governance.
Introduction
Whether developed by federal, state, industrial or private sectors, ultimately the value of land and resource management plans will be based on, shaped by and
CAB International 2007.Sustainable Forestry: from Monitoring and Modelling to
Knowledge Management and Policy Science(eds K.M. Reynolds, A.J. Thomson, 75 M. Köhl, M.A. Shannon, D. Ray and K. Rennolls)
assessed for their contribution to social, economic and environmental sus- tainability. Sustainability is an integral component of the evolutionary system.
Our understanding of this continues to change over time. In one way or another, all countries, and, for that matter, all of life, are preoccupied with the notion of sustainability – and have been from their inception. The drive for ‘survival’, sustainability or sustainable development (however defined) comes from deep within the human spirit. As an attribute of the evolutionary system, sustainability can be characterized by a mere presence (enduring/continuous) or absence (extinction). Related to social constructs, sustainability in theological circles is embodied in notions such as ‘nirvana’ or ‘everlasting life’. In the secular here and now, it is having an uninterrupted flow of resources to meet multiple defini- tions of ‘basic needs’. What continues to change over time is not the drive to sustainably meet human needs to ensure respective definitions of well-being, but the way we characterize our needs, wants and desires, and the way we approach our work – sustainable development. This chapter discusses how a common lan- guage of criteria and indicators (C & I) is contributing to strengthening the USA’s institutional capacity and potential for shared learning and decision making in seeking sustainable development.