Meanings of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM)
What does SFM mean? There are numerous answers to this question, many of them contradictory. It can be shown that it is not just different interests or facts, but more often conflicting views of how reality works that result in this variety of different interpretations of SFM (Schanz 1994). As the interpretations are susceptible to different views of reality, SFM runs the risk of being irrelevant as a common objective in forestry, because there are as many meanings imaginable as actors in forestry exist. It is obvious that if SFM is to be implemented, the idea of finding an objective rationality must be jettisoned so that ways of dealing with the huge variety of contradictory certainties may be developed. This is where the 'Cultural Theory' propounded by Thompson et al. (1990) comes into play.
Based on the assumption that there is a reciprocal, interacting and mutually reinforcing congruence between social relations and cultural biases 'Cultural Theory' posits four basic political cultures (Thompson et al. 1990, Schwarz and Thompson 1990). The important idea is that political culture shapes the perception and convictions in all fields of an individual's reality: 'It is these patterns of bias, endlessly affirmed, endlessly acted upon, and endlessly pitted one against the others, that actually make policy and technology possible.' (Schwarz and Thompson 1990: 61/62).
Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that these four different political cultures are the underlying reason for the different interpretations of SFM in forestry. Four basic definitions of SFM based upon different political cultures can be derived taking social, economic and ecological factors of SFM into account (figure 1).
And indeed, it can be shown that all different interpretations can be traced back to one of these four basic definitions of SFM regardless of time and space (Schanz 1996). Because of their social determination these four basic definitions of SFM are always simultaneously present in society. All of them are based on facts and experiences and are therefore true, so that none of these interpretations can be disproved. The question of which definition will predominate in a certain region and during a certain time period is therefore one of political acceptance and power, not of objective rationality. Results indicate that there cannot be a single or common definition of SFM. At the same time, it is clear that one way of dealing with the huge variety of different interpretations is to take these four basic meanings of SFM into account and to integrate them as much as possible in any efforts to implement SFM in order to stimulate productive discussions.
Functions of Sustainable Forest Management
One of the main aims of all effort towards SFM is to establish certain standards of forest management. SFM thereby serves as the vehicle with which the underlying norms and values of these standards can be expressed. SFM is thus a concept of conflict and not of harmony, as it is often misinterpreted. By supporting a certain understanding of SFM, personal preferences and value judgments are expressed, but nothing has been harmonized, no value conflicts have been solved. The only thing that happens is that certain values are discussed so that social bargaining processes may begin. It is very obvious that the success of any effort to initiate SFM is therefore directly dependent on the possibility of finding a consensus on or advocating a certain understanding in these social bargaining processes, so that SFM may primarily be regarded as a social challenge.
There is widespread agreement on the fact that most viable solutions in social bargaining processes are achieved if as many different views and standpoints as possible are taken into consideration. This is what participative planning instruments are renowned for and why they have become more and more important in natural resource management issues over the last decades. One of the disadvantages of participatory concepts is that only the active parts of society are addressed, whereas many passive but nevertheless relevant viewpoints are not included. As discovered, there are only four basic understandings of SFM. These are always present simultaneously in society, but their degrees of importance fluctuate, so that a so called anticipative approach becomes possible. By anticipating changes in dominance in various situations and under specific conditions, it seems possible to integrate all relevant viewpoints and to assess foreseeable conflicts in implementing SFM. Subsequently, concepts of SFM can be developed that integrate most viewpoints and which are applicable under specific circumstances, so that real conflicts or unproductive discussions may be avoided.
The most important conclusion for all discussions on SFM is that there is no right or wrong standard of SFM, only more or less appropriate ones. The application of 'Cultural Theory' to the question of implementing SFM makes clear, that it is impossible to concur on ultimate ends. Convergence on standards of SFM must be achieved through overlap, complementarity and integration. Any setting of standards is thus only temporary; the achievement of SFM cannot be sustained. Efforts to implement SFM should therefore not focus on finding criteria and indicators through social processes, but on the processes themselves. Rather than being process-orientated, negotiations on standards are still too often result-oriented.
For further information, please contact:
Dr Heiner Schanz, Institute of Forestry Economics, University of Freiburg, Bertoldstr. 17, D-79085 Freiburg, Germany Tel: +49 761 2033688
Fax: +49 761 203 3690
Email: schanzh@sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de
Http://www.uni-freiburg.de/forstoko
Bibliography
Schanz, H. 1994: 'Forstliche Nachhaltigkeit' aus der Sicht von Forstleuten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [SFM in the view of German foresters]. Discussion paper 19-94, Institut für Forstökonomie, Universität Freiburg Freiburg
Schanz, H. 1996: Forstliche Nachhaltigkeit. Sozialwissenschaftliche Analyse der Begriffsinhalte und -funktionen [SFM - Meanings and functions from a social science perspective]. Dissertation, Universität Freiburg. Schriften aus dem Institut für Forstökonomie der Universität Freiburg, Bd.4. Freiburg
Schwarz, M.; Thompson, M. 1990: Divided We Stand - Redefining Politics, Technology and Social Choice. Pennsylvania
Thompson, M.; Ellis, R.; Wildavsky, A. 1990: Cultural Theory. Boulder, San Francisco, Oxford
Figure 1
The four primary definitions of 'Sustainable Forest Management', Heiner Schanz.
| Hierarchical Polit. Culture | Egalitarian Polit. Culture | Individualistic Polit. Culture | Fatalistic Polit. Culture | |
| SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT Means the structuring of the relationship between man and forest through |
||||
| Social Dimension | Regulated action | Conscious and responsible action | free action | passive reaction |
| of individuals and social groups which is | ||||
| Institutional/Economic Dimension | guided and controlled by institutions | coordination by institutions | facilitated/ guaranteed by institutions | determined by erratic events |
| with the aim to satisfy the needs and demands of society by | ||||
| Ecological deminesion | using forest ecosystem within certain limits | using being embedded in forest nature | using forests | reacting |
| for today and through | ||||
| Time (Horizon) | short- as well as long-term | predominantly long-term | predominantly short-term | present |
| orientated and takes into account | ||||
| Space | larger spatial | smaller spatial | appropriate spatial | personal spatial |
| Dimensions | ||||