How forest standards are made

[Ingvar Åberge]

All right, it is I who start all the discussions here... I hope our clever Danish friends will arrive at the forum also.

 

Today, I read an article in the Danish journal Skoven for May month this year, that highlights some important points about how forest standards are made, at least sometimes. The article is called "Den falske trekant og den sande betydning af bæredygtigt  skovbrug" ("The false triangle and the true meaning of sustainable forestry"). It is written by Martin Einfeldt in The Danish Forest Assosiation.

 

He criticises an understanding of sustainability based on just taking care of ecological, social and economical needs, without taking the time aspect into consideration, that is: the future generations. One can agree or disagree with him about that, but what follows is the important point here: The three goal model of sustainability paves the way for a certain, and not very ideal, way of making sustainability standards for forestry, based on political negotiations between three groups of interests, where the resulting standard is a reflection of the relative strenght between them.

 

If this should have worked properly, the future generations would actually have had to sit around the negotiation table, he argues. (I think the environmental organizations regard themselves as the representatives for the future generations, so in that way is already this criteria fulfilled, but that is another issue.)

 

Instead he wants a standard based on scientific forestry knowledge. Which also, I would say, have its dangers. When science becomes mixed with policy making, science is almost never a neutral as it likes to present itself, so this could be a problem with his model for writing forest standards. He suggests, however, some measures that would reduce this problem, most of all that forestry should become the model of sustainability in society.

 

The Norwegian "Levende Skog" ("Living forest") standard is (or was, we could also say) based on this negotiative way of making a standard. The result was in my eyes not very satisfactory, for some reasons:

- The standard became very vague and difficult to understand. Explainations of a large number of important words are not given.

- The standard paves the way for a segregation of the uses of the forest instead of the Pro Silva model of integrating them. The environmentalists get so many square meters, the loggers get so many, that is how the standard is generally built up.

There are also some other problems that I should not go through here.

 

I call this the corporativistic way of making a standard. The environmental organizations (together with the recreational organizations and the labour organizations) here represent the society interests that should negotiate with the economic interests of the forestry sector, represented by the forestry organizations. Together they are supposed to find out how forests should be managed.

 

Even though I am also somewhat uncertain about the alternative Mr. Einfeldt proposes, I can at least say that he has in a good way managed to point at the weak points of the Norwegian PEFC standard. I wonder if standards in other countries are made the same way, and if one have managed there to solve the problems that it causes in a better way?

[Etiënne Thomassen]

I think it might be good to have a more scientific approach. Although I wouldn't know how that should be done. What I find striking is the differences between the standards between countries (even neighbouring ones). For example I recently spoke to foresters from Germany and Luxemburg and in their standard specific skidding roads(not sure this is the right term, in German: Rückeweg, in Dutch Dunningspad/dunningspiste) are obligatory with a minimal distance between them of 20m. However in the Dutch standard the use of specific paths in stands for machines is not specified, so they can drive anywhere. A bit strange isn't it?

[Frank Strie]

Hello Ingvar Åberge , great to see that we can exchange around the globe.
This is Frank in Tasmania, Australia.
I am involved with the German ANW (ProSilva) since 1982, ...despite having moved with my family in 1987 to Tasmania, I am still a Member with the ANW.
From my international point of view, Google Earth is of great value to assess the landscape and water catchments of countries around the world.
The best practice in forest / catchment management seems to be found in Slovenia.
Just zoom in from above and "fly" like an Eagle over the Mountains. You may notice to the North where Austria beginns!
Slovenia stopped clearfelling in 1948,... this is telling us that they must be an interesting place to take note of.
Just google Slovenia and forest policy and you can read all about it in English.
Great stuff.
Tasmania on the other side is still in a near 40year WAR around forests and plantations.
I have spend a lot of my time trying to change things, and I hope I will see such positive changes before I go...
I have just turned 52, so there should still be some time for ositive change.
Tassie has possibly some of the greatest area in National Parks & World Heritage in ratio to landmass.
The ENGOs are totally desinterested in real solutions, they have the Industry now over a barrel and the Federal Government is prepared to throw millions on locking up hundreds of thousand of hectares

Protesters stop logging inside the 430,000ha East of Ben Lomond. Do...

Jared Irwin, Code Green
10.10.11 7:21 am

Code Green are willing and committed to cease protest activity in these contentious high conservation value areas as soon as logging stops and the areas are placed in formal reserves.

Read more

7 comments

In case you like to explore the issues regarding forest management standards further, here my contact details and a few more links:

Frank Strie