| European
Tropical Forest Research Network |
SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT OF MOUNTAIN FORESTS IN AN INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY: NEW CHALLENGES
FOR SWITZERLAND
By Willi Zimmerman
Current problems in
mountain forests
The Swiss landscape
is shaped by the Jura and the Alpine mountain ranges, which make up two thirds
of the entire country. Mountain areas and mountain forests are therefore characteristic
elements of Switzerland's geography. Mountain forests play a very important
role. Without the protection afforded by the mountain forest, large areas of
Switzerland would either be completely uninhabitable or habitable only with
the help of very expensive avalanche, rock fall, and landslide and torrent protection
structures. Since the early 20th century, the stringent and consistent implementation
of mountain forest policy in Switzerland has been working for the conservation
of the existing area of mountain forest. With the help of extensive state-funded
incentives, it has, moreover, been possible to significantly improve the quality
and stability of the mountain forest. Despite these entirely positive interventions,
it cannot be claimed, however, that all of the problems associated with Switzerland's
mountain forest have been resolved.
At this point in the early 21st century, Switzerland faces the following three main problems in relation to its mountain forest:
Sustainable forest use
as a new challenge
For around 15 years
now, mountain forest research in Switzerland has mainly focused on the predominantly
scientific topic of stability maintenance. This has prompted , for example,
the compilation of an extremely useful manual for practitioners. More integrative
studies on processes of environmental and socio-economic change in the Swiss
mountain areas. have revealed the interlinkages between a diminishing mountain
agricultural sector and an uncontrolled expansion of mountain forest areas.
At this interface, new challenges for Switzerland regarding the sustainable
management of mountain forests arise. The problems concerning the sustainable
use and development of the mountain forest are relatively under-researched.
To get a more comprehensive and better picture of the current problems in the Swiss mountain forests, we suggest to work with an understanding of the concept of sustainability as defined in Agenda 21 and in the Rio follow-up process. In the context of the mountain forest, this means that economic, ecological and social factors must be taken into account with respect to its use. An exclusively formal consideration of these three dimensions is not sufficient, however; what is also needed is the setting and achievement of operational and quantifiable targets, equal prioritising and balancing of these three target dimensions, and a reciprocal respect of their objectives (one partial objective must not be fulfilled at the cost of another). In terms of the use and development of the mountain forest, this means that these must simultaneously reflect the principles of:
They constitute an imperative for state forest policy and for the owners, managers and users of the mountain forest. They are suitable for the analysis, monitoring and evaluation of the current state and future development of the mountain forest, whereby the focus of development is based on the positive steering of the three target dimensions.
Possible approaches
for the concretization of sustainability
While these requirements and objectives are widely acknowledged, they need
to be concretized and operationalized if they are to become more than mere general
pronouncements. In the context of various research projects, it is examined
how these vague and diffuse concepts can be rendered more concrete and hence
also operational, i.e. be made into a useful tool for both forest policy and
forest use. In attempting to respond to this question, it is suggested to make
use of two approaches which differ in appearance but are similar in terms of
content and orientation.
The first approach involves the use of the triangle that is now standard in sustainability assessments and is based on the three areas or target dimensions of society, environment and economy. This approach highlights the three-dimensionality, equality, mutual dependency and overlapping of the three target dimensions particularly well.
With the second approach, the analysis grid is formed using a hexagon representing the six Helsinki criteria, which were established at the second Ministerial Conference in Helsinki in 1993. They provide general guidelines for the sustainable management of forests in Europe. The six criteria are:
These criteria were formally developed and approved by Forest Ministers and forest experts originating from as many as twenty different European countries. This approach towards sustainability assessment is more directly tailored to the forestry sector; it uses the sector's terminology and also accommodates integrative, comparative and evaluative approaches. What both approaches have in common is that they work with criteria and indicators, which help in concretising systematic analysis and evaluation and also facilitating comparison. With these two approaches, the specific research challenge lies in the generation of the most expressive criteria and quantifiable indicators possible. Using the criteria, the three areas of society, environment and economy are subdivided into objects, facts, phenomena etc., with the help of which the main areas can be described, divided and then quantified using indicators.
They answer the question as to what should be measured. As opposed to this, the indicators represent the actual measurement instrument: they assist in answering the question as to how the measurement should be carried out. Thus, while the criteria are the object of the measurement, the indicators constitute the actual measurement instrument. Similar theoretical and methodological concepts to improve the sustainable use of forests have been elaborated for other continents (cf. e.g. Tarapoto and Montreal processes).
Core question: which
criteria and indicators are the "right" ones?
The selection
of both the criteria and indicators is a valuation-based process, thus they
cannot be objectively defined for once, for all and for everywhere. While, with
the so-called "triangular approach", the selection of criteria and
indicators is completely open, with the "hexagonal approach", an internationally
recognized set of criteria and indicators exists which must, however, be tested
and adapted for a) country-specific and b) forest-specific sustainability assessments.
Given that the mountain forest is dealt with rather marginally in the context
of the Helsinki criteria, with this approach it is necessary to develop and
test an independent set of criteria and indicators. International comparisons
and the analysis of local or regional case studies can also provide useful inputs
as part of this process towards a "sustainable use of the mountain forest".
Willi Zimmermann
Professur Forstpolitik und Forstökonomie
ETH Zentrum
CH-8092 Zürich
Tel. +41-1-632 32 21
Fax +41-1-632 11 10
Email: willi.zimmermann@fowi.ethz.ch