The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy A Multidisciplinary Approach to Sustainability in Forest Landscapes
Book contents
- The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
- The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
- Part I Wicked Problems and Policies
- 2 Why Forests Matter?
- 3 Forest Certification and Forest Use
- 4 REDD+ Meets Local Realities
- 5 Have Payments for Ecosystem Services Delivered for the Rural Poor?
- 6 Tackling Gender Inequality through Forest-Related Policies and Programmes
- 7 Forestry Crimes and Our Planet
- 8 Forest Bioeconomy Development
- Part II Tools to Address Wicked Problems
- Index
- References
2 - Why Forests Matter?
from Part I - Wicked Problems and Policies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 July 2020
Book contents
- The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
- The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
- Part I Wicked Problems and Policies
- 2 Why Forests Matter?
- 3 Forest Certification and Forest Use
- 4 REDD+ Meets Local Realities
- 5 Have Payments for Ecosystem Services Delivered for the Rural Poor?
- 6 Tackling Gender Inequality through Forest-Related Policies and Programmes
- 7 Forestry Crimes and Our Planet
- 8 Forest Bioeconomy Development
- Part II Tools to Address Wicked Problems
- Index
- References
Summary
Forest policy is a wicked problem precisely because forests matter to so many different people for so many different reasons. Developing institutions to mediate among the various claimants to forest land, buyers and sellers of forest goods, and beneficiaries of forest services has proven challenging to local user groups and international negotiators alike. This chapter focuses on tropical forests, which have a disproportionately significant value for global biodiversity conservation and climate stability, as well as contributing to the livelihoods of some of the world’s poorest people. However, tropical forests are disappearing at alarming rates. There are no simple solutions to solving wicked forest policy problems, but community forestry, improved governance, changing norms, new forms of finance and technology, such as advances in remote sensing technology, are crucial to sustainably managing forests.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Wicked Problem of Forest PolicyA Multidisciplinary Approach to Sustainability in Forest Landscapes, pp. 33 - 58Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Abranches, S. 2014. The political economy of deforestation in Brazil and payment-for-performance finance. Center for Global Development, Climate and Forest Papers 10: 5–6.Google Scholar
Convention on Biological Diversity. 2018. Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Available at: www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ (accessed 31 July, 2018).Google Scholar
Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., et al. 2014. Environmental income and rural livelihoods: a global-comparative analysis. World Development 64:S12–S28.Google Scholar
Barber, C. V. and Canby, K.. 2018. Assessing the Timber Legality Strategy in Tackling Deforestation: Accomplishments and Remaining Challenges in Addressing Illegal Logging and Associated Trade. Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute [One of a series of papers prepared for the Oslo Tropical Forest Forum, Oslo, 27–28 June 2018].Google Scholar
Barbier, E., Hacker, S. D., Kennedy, C., et al. 2011. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs 81(2):169–193.Google Scholar
Bianchi, F. J., Booij, C. J. and Tscharntke, T.. 2006. Sustainable pest regulation in agriculture landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 273(1595):1715–1727.Google Scholar
BirdLife International, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, World Wildlife Foundation, Conservation International, and The Nature Conservancy. 2016. Convention on Biological Diversity: Progress Report Towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Available at: www.birdlife.org/sites/default/files/score_card_booklet_final.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bovolo, C. I., Wagner, T., Parkin, G., et al. 2018. The Guiana Shield rainforests – overlooked guardians of South American climate. Environmental Research Letters 13(7):074029.Google Scholar
Castello, L., McGrath, D. G., Hess, L. L., et al. 2013. The vulnerability of Amazon freshwater ecosystems. Conservation Letters 6(4):217–229.Google Scholar
Cochard, R., Ranamukhaarachchi, S. L., Shivakoti, G. P., et al. 2008. The 2004 tsunami in Aceh and Southern Thailand: a review on coastal ecosystems, wave hazards and vulnerability. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 10(1):3040.Google Scholar
Contente, F. 2011. Differing perspectives of forest value by men and women. Box text in P. Shanley et al. Brazil’s social movement, women and forests: A case study from the National Council of Rubber Tappers. International Forestry Review 13(2):239.Google Scholar
Das, P. 2005. Hugh Cleghorn and forest conservancy in India. Environment and History 11(1):55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennehy, K. 2016. Lovejoy, ‘Godfather’ of biodiversity, reflects on 50 Years in the Amazon. Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/thomas-lovejoy-on-biodiversity-habitat-fragmentation-and-50-years-in-the-amazon/Google Scholar
Dobrovolski, R. and Rattis, L.. 2015. Water collapse in Brazil: the danger of relying on what you neglect. Natureza & Conservacao 13:80–83.Google Scholar
Duchelle, A E , Seymour, F., Brockhaus, M., et al. 2018. REDD+: Lessons from National and Subnational Implementation: Ending Tropical Deforestation: A Stock-Take of Progress and Challenges. Working paper – World Resources Institute, June 2018. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Ellison, D., Morris, C. E., Locatelli, B., et al. 2017. Trees, forests and water: cool insights for a hot world. Global Environmental Change 43:51–61.Google Scholar
Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K.. 1998. International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization 52(4):887–917.Google Scholar
Global Forest Watch (GFW). 2018. Global Forest Watch Tree Cover Loss. Online database. Washington DC: Global Forest Watch.Google Scholar
Global Witness. 2018. At What Cost? Irresponsible Business and the Murder of Land and Environmental Defenders in 2017. Available at: www.globalwitness.org/en-gb/campaigns/environmental-activists/defenders-annual-report/Google Scholar
Goetz, S., Hansen, M., Houghton, R. A., et al. 2015. Measurement and monitoring needs, capabilities and potential for addressing reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation under REDD+. Environmental Research Letters 10(12):1–24. Article Number 123001.Google Scholar
Goodman, R. and Herold, M.. 2014. Why maintaining tropical forests is essential and urgent for a stable climate. Center for Global Development Working Paper No. 385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., et al. 2017. Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(44):11645–11650.Google Scholar
Guo, Z., Li, Y., Xiao, X., Zhang, L. and Gan, Y.. 2007. Hydroelectricity production and forest conservation in watersheds. Ecological Applications 17(6):1557–1562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, N. and Wolosin, M.. 2018. Tropical Forests and Climate Change: The Latest Science. Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Harris, N., Davis, C., Dow Goldman, E., Petersen, R. and Gibbes, S.. 2018. Comparing Global and National Approaches to Estimating Deforestation Rates in REDD+ Countries. Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Harrop, S. R. and Pritchard, D. J.. 2011. A hard instrument goes soft: the implications of the Convention on Biological Diversity's current trajectory. Global Environmental Change 21(2):474–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hein, L. and Gatzweiler, F.. 2006. The economic value of coffee (Coffea arabica) genetic resources. Ecological Economics 60(1):176–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henders, S., Persson, U. M. and Kastner, T.. 2015. Trading forests: land-use change and carbon emissions embodied in production and exports of forest-risk commodities. Environmental Research Letters 10(12):125012.Google Scholar
Humphreys, D. 2009. Discourse as ideology: neoliberalism and the limits of international forest policy. Forest Policy and Economics 11(5–6): 319–325.Google Scholar
Jodoin, S. 2017. Forest Preservation in a Changing Climate: REDD+ and Indigenous and Community Rights in Indonesia and Tanzania. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Karp, D., Mendenhall, C. D., Sandi, R. F., et al. 2013. Forest bolsters bird abundance, pest control and coffee yield. Ecology Letters 16(11):1339–1347.Google Scholar
Lassman, A. 2016. Flying Rivers of the Amazon Rainforest: A Critical Rain Generator for the Planet. Pachamama Alliance, 4 October 2016. https://blog.pachamama.org/flying-rivers-of-the-amazon-rainforest-a-critical-rain-generator-for-the-planetGoogle Scholar
La Vina, A. and de Leon, A.. 2014. Two global challenges, one solution: international cooperation to combat climate change and tropical deforestation. Center for Global Development Working Paper No. 388.Google Scholar
Lawrence, D. and Vandecar, K.. 2015. Effects of tropical deforestation on climate and agriculture. Natural Climate Change 5:27–36.Google Scholar
Lawson, S. 2014. Consumer Goods and Deforestation: An Analysis of the Extent and Nature of Illegality in Forest Conversion for Agriculture and Timber Plantations. Washington, DC: Forest Trends.Google Scholar
Lee, D. and Pistorius, T.. 2015. The Impacts of International REDD+ Finance. San Francisco, CA: Climate and Land Use Alliance.Google Scholar
Lewis, S. L., Lopez-Gonzalez, G., Sonké, B. et al. 2009. Increasing carbon storage in intact African tropical forests. Nature 457:1003–U3.Google Scholar
Lovejoy, T. and Nobre, C.. 2018. Amazon tipping point. Science Advances 4(2): Article Number: eaat2340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maas, B., Clough, Y. and Tscharntke, T.. 2013. Bats and birds increase crop yield in tropical agroforestry landscapes. Ecology Letters 16(12):1480–1487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Makarieve, A. M. and Gorshkov, V. G.. 2006. Biotic pump of atmospheric moisture as driver of the hydrology cycle on land. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions 3(4):2621–2673.Google Scholar
Marten, G. 2005. Environmental tipping points: a new paradigm for restoring ecological security. Journal of Policy Studies (Japan) 20:75–87.Google Scholar
Matthews, E. 2001. Understanding the FRA 2000. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
McIvor, A., Spalding, M., Tonneijck, F., Tol, S. and van Eijk, P.. 2013. Mangroves as a Sustainable Coastal Defense. Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Asian and Pacific Coasts, Nature Conservancy, University of Cambridge and Wetlands International, Bali, Indonesia.Google Scholar
McKean, M. and Ostrom, E.. 1995. Common property regimes in the forest: just a relic from the past. Unasylva 46(180):3–15.Google Scholar
Michon, G. 2005. Domesticating Forests: How Farmers Manage Forest Resources. Paris: Institut de recherche pour le developpment.Google Scholar
Moudi, M., Go, R., Yong Seok Yien, C. and Nazre, M.. 2013. Vinca alkaloids. International Journal of Preventative Medicine 4(11):1231–1235.Google Scholar
Mullan, K. 2015. The Value of Forest Ecosystem Services to Developing Economies. CGD Working Paper. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.Google Scholar
Mulligan, M. and Saenz, L.. 2013. The role of cloud affected forests (CAFs) on water inputs to dams. Ecosystem Services 5:69–77.Google Scholar
Nelson, A. and Chomitz, K. M.. 2011. Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods. PLoS ONE 6(8): Article Number e22722.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nobre, C., Marengo, J. A., Seluchi, M. E., Cuartas, L. A. and Alves, L. M.. 2016. Some characteristics and impacts of the drought and water crisis in Southeastern Brazil during 2014 and 2015. Journal of Water Resource and Protection 8:252–262.Google Scholar
Otto, F., Haustein, K. and Uhe, P.. 2015. Factors other than climate change, main drivers of 2014/2015 water shortage in Southeast Brazil. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 96(12):S5–S9.Google Scholar
Pachauri, R. K. and Reisinger, A.. 2007. Contribution of working groups I. II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104.Google Scholar
Paulino, E.T. 2014. The agricultural, environmental and socio-political repercussions of Brazil’s land governance system. Land Use Policy 36:134–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, R., Davis, C., Herold, M. and De Sy, V.. 2018. Tropical Forest Monitoring: Exploring the Gaps Between What Is Required and What Is Possible for REDD+ and Other Initiatives. Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Phillips, O., Lewis, S., Baker, T., Chao, K. J. and Higuchi, N.. 2008. The changing Amazon forest. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 363:1819–1827.Google Scholar
Porter, G., Brown, J. W. and Chasek, P. S,. 1991. Global Environmental Politics: Dilemmas in World Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Raven, P. H. 1988. Our diminishing tropical forests. Pages 119–122 in Wilson, E. O. and Peter, F., editors. Biodiversity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Ross, M. 2001. Timber Booms and Institutional Breakdown in Southeast Asia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Savedoff, W. D. 2018. Competing or Complementary Strategies? Protecting Indigenous Rights and Paying to Conserve Forests. Center for Global Development Working Paper No. 490.Google Scholar
Schmithusen, F. 2013. Three hundred years of applied sustainability in forestry. Unasylva 240(64):506.Google Scholar
Seymour, F. 2009. Forests, climate change, and human rights: managing risks and trade-offs. Pages 207–237 in Humphreys, S., editor. Human Rights and Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seymour, F. and Busch, J.. 2016. Why Forests? Why Now? The Science, Economics, and Politics of Tropical Forests and Climate Change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Shackleton, C., Paumgarten, F., Kassa, H., Husselman, M. and Zida, M.. 2011. Opportunities for enhancing poor women’s socioeconomic empowerment in the value chains of three African non-timber forest products. International Forestry Review 13(2):136–151.Google Scholar
Sheil, D., Liswanti, N., van Heist, M., et al. 2003. Local priorities and biodiversity. ITTO Newsletter 13(1):1–8.Google Scholar
Sheil, D., Puri, R. K., Basuki, I., et al. 2002. Exploring Biological Diversity, Environment and Local People’s Perspective in Forest Landscapes. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
Soares-Filho, B., Moutinho, P., Nepstad, D., et al. 2010. Role of Brazilian Amazon protected areas in climate change mitigation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 107(24):10821–10826.Google Scholar
Stern, N. 2006. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, R. and Streck, C.. 2018. The Elusive Impact of the Deforestation-Free Supply Chain Movement. Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Thatcher, M. 1989. Speech to the United Nations General Assembly, United Nations, New York, 8 November, 1989. Available at: www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817.Google Scholar
Tissot, W. and Kohler, Y.. 2013. Integration of Nature Protection in Forest Policy in France. INTEGRATE Country Report. Freiburg: EFICENT-OEF.Google Scholar
Vit, J. 2015. Indonesia losing billions from illegal logging. Mongabay, 9 November, 2015. https://news.mongabay.com/2015/11/indonesia-losing-billions-from-illegal-logging/Google Scholar
Von Carlowitz, H. C. 2013. Sylvicultura Oeconomica: Hausswirthliche Nachricht und Naturmaige Anweisung zur Wilden Baum-Zucht (Leipzig: Faksimile der Erstauflage, 1713), 2013 reprint with an introduction by J. Huss and F. von Gadow, cited in Pistorius and Kiff, ‘The Politics of German Finance for REDD+’.Google Scholar
Watts, J. 2017. The Amazon effect: how deforestation is starving Sao Paulo of water. The Guardian, 28 November, 2017. Available at: www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/28/sao-paulo-water-amazon-deforestationGoogle Scholar
Weisse, M. and Goldman, E.. 2018. 2017 Was the Second-Worse Year on Record for Tropical Tree Cover Loss. Online blog. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available at: www.wri.org/blog/2018/06/2017-was-second-worst-year-record-tropical-tree-cover-lossGoogle Scholar
Wildlife Conservation Society. 2012. Amazing photos chronicle staggering diversity of Bolivia’s Madidi National Park. Science Daily, 12 September, 2012.Google Scholar
World Bank. 1994. Transmigration in Indonesia. World Bank Group. http://lnweb90.worldbank.org/oed/oeddoclib.nsf/DocUNIDViewForJavaSearch/4B8B0E01445D8351852567F5005D87B8Google Scholar
World Bank. 2015. Indonesia Economic Quarterly: Reforming and Uncertainty. World Bank Group. http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/pubdocs/publicdoc/2015/12/844171450085661051/IEQ-EC2015-ENG.pdfGoogle Scholar
World Bank. 2016. The Cost of Fire: An Economic Analysis of Indonesia’s 2015 Fire Crisis. World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/776101467990969768/pdf/103668-BRI-Cost-of-Fires-Knowledge-Note-PUBLIC-ADD-NEW-SERIES-Indonesia-Sustainable-Landscapes-Knowledge-Note.pdfGoogle Scholar
Yanagisawa, H., Koshimura, S., Miyagi, T. and Imamura, F.. 2010. Tsunami damage reduction performance of a mangrove forest in Banda Aceh, Indonesia inferred from field data and a numerical model. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 115(C6): Article C06032.Google Scholar