1. I ntroductIon
This paper explores the present opportuni- ties for sustainable and multifunctional for- est management for the development of rural areas, with particular reference to Europe. It argues that, for a variety of reasons, the oppor- tunities for the forest sector to contribute to sustainable rural development today and in the imminent future are, perhaps, greater than at any time in the last fifty years. Nonetheless, sec- toral path dependencies, policy inadequacies, slow innovation processes, the absence of man- agement of the necessary transitions and com- petition for land from agriculture will limit the achievement of potential. These factors point to a need to create more supportive framework conditions for developments in innovation, policy and practice to help unlock the potential of this most sustainable of land uses.
The twin principles of sustainability and mul- tifunctionality underpin European forestry, but the application of these principles will (and should) vary greatly from place to place. The principles of sustainable forest management are articulated in the work of the Ministerial Con- ference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCFPE) and provide the context for action by state, private and third-sector forest own- ers. These principles draw on the fundamental tenets of sustainability based on the Brundtland definition: ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’
(WCED, 1987). Multifunctionality, on the other hand, implies the delivery of more than one function/benefit/service from a particular land use, and, in its normal European use, im- plies the existence of non-market benefits, in addition to those derived from the market.
The principles of sustainability and multifunctionality underpin European forest policy. The first is a core characteristic of the forest resource, the second a normative aspiration, given grounding in the work of the Ministerial Conference for the Protection of Forests of Europe and in national policies. Other prin- ciples such as the ecosystem services approach are increasingly used to explore the delivery of sustainable natural resource management under conditions of multifunctionality. The enhanced contribution of Eu- ropean forests to rural development will come more from innovation in response to the current need to decarbonise economic activity than the formal application of any of these principles. This paper reviews the organising concepts, and points out some critical issues in the delivery of enhanced opportunity for beneficial outcomes on rural development, recognising the need for a range of types of innovation to support the necessary transition to a low-carbon economy and thereby better support rural development.
Key words: multifunctionality; sustainability; low-carbon; rural development.
Parole chiave: multifunzionalità; sostenibilità; carbonio; sviluppo rurale.
Citation - S
leeB., 2012 – Present opportunities for sustainable and multifunctional forest management for the development of rural areas. L’Italia Forestale e Montana, 67 (2): 147-160. http://dx.doi.
org/10.4129/ifm.2012.2.01
BILL SLEE (*)
PRESENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUSTAINABLE AND MULTIFUNCTIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL AREAS
(*) The James Hutton Institute, Science Group Leader Socio-Economics Research Group, Aberdeen; bill.slee@hutton.ac.uk
– L’Italia Forestale e Montana / Italian Journal of Forest and Mountain Environments 67 (2): 147-160, 2012
© 2012 Accademia Italiana di Scienze Forestali doi: 10.4129/ifm.2012.2.01
Forestry’s positive future is framed by the imminent challenges as the combined economic forces of global market capitalism and the demographic forces of population growth combine to create an unprecedented demand for natural resources. Natural and man-made capital stocks are threatened by climate change; technological potential for increasing food yields appears to have stalled somewhat; and the stock of critical non- renewable natural resources is being rapidly depleted. This is creating the context for an impending global crisis on one hand but a fillip for induced innovation on the other. In the short term, it has led to increased energy efficiency in the provision of many products and services and is leading to significant efforts to decarbonise both production and energy systems and developed country lifestyles. s tern
(2007) has argued that climate change is the greatest negative economic externality ever to confront mankind. The pervasive but spatially variable impact of climate change, its insidious character, and the fact that it confronts head-on the established modi operandi of industrial and consumer activities, makes it on one hand require a global willingness to act, whilst at the same time challenging the deeply entrenched contemporary ethos of economic growth.
In the post-war period, European nations have seen unprecedented economic growth.
Globalisation has extended the reach of market economies and is now producing a new global order with the rise of Asian economies, whose growth rates now markedly exceed those of western countries, as do those of many African and South American countries. Globalisation has also generated enormous stresses, in part arising from global restructuring of economic activity, in part because of an emergent raw materials shortage, in part because of the enormous external costs of production and consumption, and in part because of the recent financial crisis which convulsed the market economy. The UK’s chief scientist, Sir John Beddington, has used the analogy of ‘the perfect storm’ to describe the possible coming together of increased demand for food, energy and water, in the context of climate change.
These combined crises and predictions have also helped to promote critical reflection on the nature and impact of contemporary mate- rial demands (J ackson , 2009) and the extent to which economic metrics measure societal well- being effectively (f ItoussI et al., 2009). Given the sombre context, and the critical opportu- nity it creates for renewable natural resources, the exploration of the scope for making more effective use of forest resources as one of the key global natural resources is an urgent task.
It has been argued elsewhere (s lee , forthcom- ing) that forest contributions are wide-ranging, and can be conceptualised in terms of contri- butions to both livelihoods and to ‘liveability’.
Livelihoods result from forests’ capacities to support material wellbeing, through direct ac- cess both to the range of products derived from forests and through wages and incomes derived directly and indirectly from the exploitation of forests and forest products. This is essentially the market-based dimension of forests’ eco- nomic usefulness. In this market-driven arena in developed countries or the subsistence arena in developing countries, forests contribute to the most basic of human needs for warmth, shelter and a range of other needs. Equally, forests also contribute to creating attractive living space and have important associated cultural and spiritual values (s chama , 1995). Regeneration planning has increasingly used the term ‘liveability’ to de- scribe the need for high quality environments as living space (S haw et al., 2004). Especially in more lightly forested countries, trees add value to living and recreational space (s lee et al., 2004). Borrowing from regeneration literature, the term ‘liveability’ can be used to describe the enhanced non-material quality of life created by the existence of trees, woods and forests (s lee , forthcoming). These are still economic ben- efits, but do not deliver returns to the resource owner. In delivering both enhanced livelihoods and enhanced liveability, forests confer distinct social and economic benefits and provide sig- nificant ‘green infrastructure’ support for rural development.
Given the urgency of the task to decarbonise
the energy system (m ackay , 2009) and the
search for a ‘new energy paradigm’ (D e la
t orre u garte , 2005), wood ought to be a highly favoured commodity. Oil prices are two to three times higher than they were in the early part of the last decade (see Figure 1).
This ought to shift the energy mix to favour wood energy developments. The market for bio-composites containing woody biomass ought to be enhanced too for the same reason, because of the high hydrocarbon content of many alternatives. Climate change also creates scope for afforestation on ‘bare’ land to sequester carbon in cost-effective ways. In addition, avoided deforestation should benefit developing-country forests through the REDD mechanism. At the margin, the REDD process ought to enhance the prospects for sustainable wood production from temperate forests.
In spite of these apparent advantages, one can still find parts of Europe where under- management of the forest resource is the norm.
Much of this under-managed forest arises from land abandonment from agriculture in many parts of Eastern and Southern Europe, although estimating the extent of land abandonment and the subsequent
scrubbing over to forest and woodland is problematic (K eenleysIde and T ucker , 2010). Particularly on poorer-quality land in remote rural areas around the Mediterranean, unmanaged scrub woodland is a widespread form of land cover, often a successional land use following farmland abandonment. In other cases, such as parts of England, the majority of the privately owned woodland still has no active management for wood production and represents a relict land use from pre-industrial times. And for all the rhetoric from bodies such as the UK c ommIttee on c lImate c hange
(2010), which has argued that parts of Scotland have considerable scope to replace expensive oil-based space heating with wood energy, progress in wood energy developments remains rather slow.
In this paper, I want to explore some key concepts to help understand the challenge of transformational change in the forest sector and explore some key issues that like behind the needed expansion of the forest sector’s contribution to sustainable rural development.
Figure 1 – Crude Oil prices 2000-2011.
Source: http://www.mongabay.com/images/commodities/charts/crude_oil.html
2. c oncepts
The key organising concepts of this paper, sustainability and multifunctionality, are convenient shorthand terms for elements of contemporary understanding about natural resource management. They are, however, distinctly different types of concept. Sustain- ability is a normative social construction, given particular meaning in a European forestry context through the Sustainable Forest Man- agement Principles and their articulation into European practice by the Ministerial Confer- ence for the Protection of Forests of Europe MCPFE. Sustainability represents a socially desirable end-state, in forestry’s case associ- ated with a set of criteria and indicators that can assess and influence progress and trends.
In contrast, multifunctionality is an uncon- testable fact; it is a feature of certain types of natural resource the exploitation/management which generates joint products, frequently in the form of a market return to the resource owner for one commodity and a wider set of returns to society, such as ecological or recrea- tional services. However, the forms of multi- functionality practiced are strongly influenced by culture and values.
Sustainability has been defined in relation to forests as: the stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a 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
1.
This definition of sustainability necessitates a holistic view of environmental (ecological), social and economic functions, but gives no guidelines as to how trade-offs between different functions might be assessed, although a most basic understanding of complex natural resource management arenas such as forestry
1