Sept. 4, 2001, 9:30-10:30. International Forest Policy and Rural Development in Mountainous Regions

International Seminar

The Role of Forests and Forestry in Rural Development – Implications for Forest Policy

5-7 July 2000, Vienna/Austria (1)

Summary of Working Groups and Conclusions

1. Reports on Working Groups

1.1. The Concept of Rural Development in Forest Policy – Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses in Practical Application (Ewald Rametsteiner, MCPFE – Liaison Unit Vienna, Austria)

The Working Group (moderated by Prof. Kazimierz Rykowski, Poland) discussed the concepts and approaches to rural development in relation to forestry in Europe, and focused on the following questions related to rural development:

• Concepts, definitions and scale issues
• Strengths and weaknesses
• Further questions and proposals

(1) The original text is published in: MCPFE Liaison Unit Vienna 2000: The Role of Forests and Forestry in Rural Development - Implications for Forest Policy. Proceedings of the international seminar organised by the University of Agricultural Sciences Vienna and the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (5-7 July 2000, Vienna/Austria). Vienna, 2000

The working group started by exploring the need for uniform or diverse approaches of both concepts and definitions related to rural development. In general, the views expressed by the participants differed only slightly concerning the most useful approach to be taken at a pan-European level. There was a broad consensus that it is imperative to approach rural development - and thus to the concepts and definitions applied in practice - by specifically addressing the needs of the people of a specific region in question. Thus, a uniform concept or definition was considered neither necessary nor desirable in practical application. In order to achieve these highly diverse development goals in rural areas, it is necessary to build on the many bottom-up approaches and regard them as a strength. According to the working group participants, a regulated uniform rural development policy on a European level is likely to be counterproductive.

It was similarly clear that scales matter. There is a multitude of stakeholder needs from the global to the international, national, regional and local levels that are relevant and that should be adequately addressed. Therefore, it might be useful for policy to identify different stakes on different geographical scales and to try to fit policy responses accordingly.

Furthermore, the working group discussed existing strengths and weaknesses of the forest sector in relation to rural areas and related rural development concepts. During the discussion some strengths were identified. It was noted that forests constitute a significant part of rural areas and that in many cases income derived from forestry is vital to maintain land management in rural areas. One of the few expectations of applying rural development concepts in forest policy was that it might help to significantly enhance visibility of these facts in relation to an otherwise overshadowing powerful agricultural policy. Such enhanced visibility might not only lead to higher recognition of the forestry sector in land use planning and agricultural policy, but it might also result in a more equitable share of monetary support to fulfil the many demands that are put on forests by society. Others, however, mentioned that one should not have inappropriately high expectations regarding a shift of policy concepts and the possibility of new services which would greatly improve the overall situation of the forestry sector.

It also became clear that the practical experience with the integration of rural development and forest policy is widely non-existent. Only few countries in Europe have established integrated institutions or institutional links between organisations related to rural development and organisations related to forest policy.

One of the aspects most frequently referred to in the discussions was the widely felt low level of awareness of society regarding the many values of forests, especially of many non-market benefits. It was also expressed that people tend to regard forests primarily as natural environment while many of the socio-economic benefits they enjoy are not adequately recognised. Therefore, the participants expressed the need to better communicate these benefits and to enhance dialogue with society.

There seems to be a certain momentum to pro-actively address this long known weakness. Two areas were identified which deserve specific attention: There is a need for further market development and for enhanced efforts towards supporting and facilitating marketability of many goods and services which in the past had been too readily dismissed as non-marketable. Furthermore, there is a need to explore institutional rules and structures affecting the characteristics of public goods and the non-excludability problem which is often blamed to hinder development.

It is evident that there is a range of benefits of forests and forestry to society cannot be addressed by market development. It was pointed out during the discussion that it would be important to try to evaluate these benefits in order to better communicate them to the public, while it was also expressed, that it is not always monetary evaluation that is the most appropriate.

A further weakness identified in the working group concerns monetary flows. It seems to happen too often that many added values and related revenues are accrued outside the region in which they are produced and that only a fraction is re-invested in the sector and/or in the region. This "blood – letting" effect is accentuated by a lack of support from governments that which tend to largely ignore forestry.

However, not only the unbalanced perception of society and its many consequences, also in policy, were identified as a weakness. It was also highlighted that traditional views and paradigms within the sector might be considerably hindering development and implementation of new ideas.

Due to the multi-faceted nature of the rural development issue the working group was not able to discuss all of the questions raised during the discussion. It was noted that, inter alia, the consequences of integration of forest and forestry issues into land-use planning and possible decentralisation and devolution as well as the relationship of rural development and national forest programmes need further consideration. The working group also noted the need for a better knowledge base, and thus for enhanced research. It was also considered useful to test concepts in practice by establishing model regions for "sustainable regional management".

1.2 Rural Development in Forest Policy - Identifying Basic Principles and Elements for Practical Application (Alexander Buck, MCPFE – Liaison Unit Vienna, Austria)

The Working Group (moderated by Prof. Dr. Peter Glück, Austria) aimed at identifying basic principles and elements of rural development in forest policy for practical application. The discussion of the working group was structured as follows:

• General discussion, brainstorming
• Identification of basic principles

At the beginning of the general discussion, the objective of the working group’s deliberations was clarified as to aim at the formulation of principles of rural development in forest policy for practical application at the pan-European level. According to political science, such principles can be defined as qualitative rules and norms which relieve political decisions in issues of the same structure. In other words, these principles are intended to give guidance to political decision makers on how to proceed in a certain situation.

In the brainstorming discussion, which revealed a variety of aspects considered to be important with regard to rural development in forest policy, two referential documents were identified to be of relevance and usefulness for the identification of principles:

• The Cork Declaration which was announced by the European Conference on Rural Development (Cork/Ireland on 7–9 November 1996) and which includes a list of ten "points" as principles for a rural development programme for the European Union; although it was explicitly noted that these principles were identified for and had to be considered in the light of the specific European Union purposes, they were seen as a useful reference for the working group’s discussions.
• The list of principle elements of national forest programmes as agreed upon at the fourth session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (UN-CSD-IPF 1997, §§ 9 and 10).

As a result of the discussion, the following basic principles of rural development in forest policy could be identified as being most relevant for application at the pan-European level:

• Sustainable management, conservation and sustainable development of forests

There was consensus within the working group that the sustainable management, conservation and sustainable development of forests should be a guiding principle for rural development in forest policy.

• Respect for and implementation of property rights

Clearly defined property rights as well as respect for and implementation of these legal stipulations were mentioned as an important prerequisite for the development of new products and were thus recognised as a principle of rural development in forest policy.

• Consistency with national policies and international commitments, in particular coherence between forest policy and rural development policy

The working group also focused on the relation between rural development policy and forest policy and concluded that there was an "overlapping" of these policies in terms of objectives and action to be taken. Thus, the importance of coherence between forest and rural development policies was underlined. Furthermore, it was stated that forest policy should contribute to land-use policy. In order to ensure consistency with and coherence of policies, rural development should be considered in National Forest Programmes (NFPs).

• Multi-functional approach

In the discussion the working group highlighted the varied role of forests and forestry over and above the production of wood only and underlined the need for recognition and encouragement of the range of products provided by forests.

• Long-term, iterative process
  It was evident that rural development in forest policy should be seen as long-term oriented and iterative processes.
• Participation and partnership
  With regard to participation and partnership it was noted that the actual meaning of participation has to be politically defined.
• Correspondence between bottom-up and top-down approaches
  The participants underlined the significance of bottom-up approaches that take into account the diversity of rural areas. However, it was also stated that – notably with regard to financial mechanisms – also top-down approaches would be important. Therefore, the participants concluded that bottom-up and top-down approaches should correspond to each other.
• Facilitation and encouragement of marketing processes of forest goods and services
  One of the aspects most frequently referred to in the working group’s discussion was the role of forest policy with regard to market processes. It was pointed out that there was a considerable potential to market forest products, including also public goods. Therefore, forest policy should aim to develop the full potential of marketing forest goods and services by facilitating market processes and by supporting marketing of forest products.
• Beneficiary principle
  The working group also touched the question of who should cover the costs of benefits derived from forests and forestry in rural areas and concluded that, if possible, beneficiaries should pay for services instead of the public.
• Development of human resources
  The development of a sound knowledge base by means of training and education was identified as an indispensable prerequisite for best utilisation of forest resources and thus for rural development.
• Differentiated employment of financial incentives
  The working group also considered the role of subsidies in rural development. They were seen as financial incentives for enhancing co-operation or market processes. However, it was also stated that the provision of subsidies should not result in increasing dependence of recipients on these payments. Therefore, they should be employed in a differentiated way.

1.3. Measuring the Contribution of Forestry to rural Development – Recommendations for European Forest Policy
(Peter Mayer, MCPFE – Liaison Unit Vienna, Austria)

The Working Group (moderated by Mr. Ingwald Gschwandtl, Austria) discussed questions related to measuring the contribution of forestry to rural development. In order to structure the discussion the group used five questions. In a very active debate the following key elements for each of the questions were considered as being of particular relevance:

Why Measuring?

The participants of the working group generally agreed on the need for measuring the contribution of forestry to rural development in order to better reflect the changes which have taken and continue to take place in society. It was stated that this should create more knowledge and understanding regarding demands and perceptions of society in general but also on forestry and rural development issues in particular.

Following this line of argument and aiming at the broadening of the current scope (e.g. focussing on general land use policy) the group agreed that the establishment of a better mutual understanding of different groups of society with the rural development and forest sector should be facilitated. However, a common understanding of rural development issues has to be aware of local differences.

In general participation, long term planning, capacity building and mechanisms for marketing forest goods and services – notably non-wood goods and services - were considered as important prerequisites for rural development.

Finally measuring was seen as an important factor to provide input for policy guidance and evaluation mechanisms for policy accountability.

What to Measure ?

It was generally agreed by the participants that the comprehensive role of forestry is a crucial factor for rural development. Accordingly all wood and non-wood products and services should be measured, taking into consideration all aspects of sustainable development, i.e. the social, economic and ecological factors.

To answer the question on what to measure the group considered it as most important that the demands of society are investigated. For this participatory mechanisms should be the basis to reach generally agreed results.

Another important aspect that was highlighted was the effect of policy instruments. Especially the consideration of financial flows and the existing trade-offs in a product mix were emphasised.

How to Measure ?

For a balanced approach towards measuring, existing instruments – including theory – as well as available data and results should be used as basis. This would complement the need for cost effectiveness as an important component for measuring.

Furthermore, the participants emphasised that measuring should be done in a transparent and participatory way. At the same time a target oriented approach has to be applied.

It was also suggested that measuring could be done through European cross-country studies, which could be following common rules, but would consider the existing local differences.

The group also noted the importance of education and the enhancement of human capital, notably through University curricula, connected to this question.

Which Indicators Should Be Used for Measuring ?

The participants of the working group agreed that all existing sets of indicators should be checked regarding their relevance for measuring the contribution of forestry to rural development. Possible synergies should be considered.

Nevertheless, it was noted that the elaboration of specific indicators for rural development might be needed in order to get a comprehensive set of indicators.

The participants were also of the opinion that taking into account all aspects of sustainability has to be an overriding principle for the development of indicators.

Measuring for Whom?

The participants agreed that many possible target groups could be addressed. They range from policy makers, the administration, the scientific community to a more general public.

Some Core Elements for Measuring

Some elements can be considered as core elements of the discussion in the working group and were emphasised during the debate at all of the 5 questions presented above.

• measuring should always be comprehensive and balanced
• a common pan-European frame for measuring could be useful for measuring
• it is important to respect the significant local differences in rural development and their independence
• broadening the scope with respect to sustainability aspects on the one hand and with respect to the society at large at the other hand was considered to be important for measuring

1.4. Ways for Enhancing the Contribution of Forestry to Rural Development – Recommendations for European Forest Policy
(Christoph Wildburger, MCPFE – Liaison Unit Vienna Austria)

The Working Group (moderated by Prof. Dr. Piotr Paschalis, Poland) dealt with approaches and measures to enhance the contribution of forestry to the sustainable development of rural areas. Representatives of 16 countries and 2 international organisations attended the working group discussing general aspects of the role of forestry in rural in development in the first part of the session and focusing on approaches and measures to enhance the contribution of forestry to the sustainable development of rural areas in the second part of the session.

The working group started by exploring why forestry is seen as a declining sector in Europe and discussed the economic development of forestry. It was stated that the production in forestry is still increasing, but in relation to other sectors at a much lower rate. Nevertheless, the representatives were of the opinion that also signs and chances for a positive future development were showing and a serious change in forestry rather than a decline can be viewed. It was noted, for example, that Europe has the potential to produce more commodities as sources of reasonable income (like e.g. recreation) than tropical countries. The connection to the debate on the use of renewable resources as well as the establishment of all kind of products were seen as important in the enhancement of the role of forestry in rural development.

"Should forest management be changed?" was the second question discussed in the working group. In this context the need to flexibly react on current demands and to create only market compatible and competitive products was emphasised. However, the long-term silvicultural perspective, which contrasts short-term economic development, was seen as the main obstacle to flexible reactions on changing demands. Therefore, the management has to take into account that forests are as adaptable as possible.

Consequently different approaches to support a range of marketable products were discussed. Multifunctional forestry and the promotion of wood as a renewable resource were mentioned as basis of enhanced contributions of forestry to rural development. Different opinions were expressed as regards the amount and relation of timber and other products that forest management should aim at. It was proposed to focus on other products than tropical countries.

As some commodities are not marketable everywhere due to legal implications and societal norms (as for example recreation in Switzerland), subsidies were seen as necessary to buy contributions of forests to society. The opinions differed on how strong the role of this economic policy instrument should be. It was mainly seen as a short term instrument to change to the right direction, but in the long run the mix of forest products and services has to be optimised to sustain the development of forestry in the context of rural development. The (controversial) strategy "go as far as possible until society pays you not to do so" was mentioned to establish services at the market place. Additionally the demand for a policy supporting forest associations as important structures for the promotion of goods and services was expressed.

The impact of the international legal framework, especially the CBD and the FCCC, on rural development was the next issue discussed. Afforestation of land as a consequence of FCCC regulations was seen as major influence. Uncertainties about the development of this questions in the future prevail (what kind of afforestation, short term – long term rotation...). In this context it was stated that a European land use policy would be very valuable.

Consequently strategies for an enhanced economic contribution of forestry to rural development were discussed. The definition of a "shopping basket of society" was seen as helpful and it was noted, that a specialisation of countries would make sense. Policy should serve the sector and the society in this context. Especially education, information and adaptation of institutional frameworks are measures to be taken to support more diverse products.

Finally the question of the role of science and the necessity of research projects was to be tackled in the general discussion. Diverse demands on research were expressed. Science should provide tools for the establishment and marketing of new products as well as solutions to adapt the legal framework to new conditions. The scales of investments for new products are to be investigated and tools for communication with the public should be developed by scientists. Additionally the development of specific silvicultural methods should be subject to further research. International co-operation was seen as necessary in this context

In the second part of the session the working group tried to draw conclusions from the previous discussion. The working group considered inter-linkages between forestry and other sectors as well as a coherent land-use and forest policy to be essential prerequisites for rural development and tried to identify the respective sectors. Water management, irrigation, "protection", environmental land use, agriculture, energy, tourism, health services and insurances were mentioned in this context.

Finally the working group focused on recommendations for policy to enhance the contribution of forestry to rural development. There was a broad consensus that measures have to take into account the different scales and levels. Subsidies were regarded as necessary but should be seen and referred to as incentives. Long term investment as well as short term capital to change directions will be needed to reach the goal.

"Capacity building" (also criticised for being a mere policy capsule), including new technologies, was mentioned as an aspect to be dealt with as well as heritage and cultural aspects, demographic stability and mobility. The adaptation of the institutional framework to changing conditions, a diversity of services and products as well as international co-operation are prerequisites for an enhancement of the contribution of forestry to rural development. The support of research, especially market research directed towards consumers ("understanding forest user"), was emphasised as important factor.

The most measures seen as needed were related to education, information and public participation. The demand of information on forests by society and the need of information on societal and economic developments by the forest sector were expressed as very important aspects. The establishment of information tools would be recommended to meet these needs. In this context the necessity to raise public awareness was seen as evident. The dissemination of information through all media including internet should be enforced.

2. Conclusions

The conclusions of the "Seminar on the Role of Forests and Forestry in Rural Development –

Implications for Forest Policy" mark the highlights of two days of presentations and discussions. At the same time the conclusions can be regarded as a valuable contribution to the work of the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) with regard to rural development.

The main findings of the seminar can be summarised as follows:

• Approaches to rural development – and thus also concepts and definitions – have to take into account the differences and specific potentials of rural areas and have to respond to different stakes on various scales.
• International co-operation on the issue of rural development and forest policy is considered important.
• In this view, a coherent approach at the pan-European level, e.g. by formulating principles for integrating the rural development concept in forest policy, could give essential guidance. The following main principles identified at the seminar could play an important role:
• sustainable management, conservation and sustainable development of forests
• respect for and implementation of property rights
• consistency with national policies and international commitments, in particular coherence between forest policy and rural development policy
• multifunctional approach
• long-term, iterative process
• participation and partnership
• correspondence between bottom-up and top-down approaches
• facilitation and encouragement of marketing processes of forest goods and services
• beneficiary principle
• development of human resources
• differentiated employment of financial incentives
• Regarding the measurement and enhancement of the contribution of forests and forestry to rural development, a broadening of the scope of action is necessary.
• Such an approach should aim to further evaluate and develop measurement of the full spectrum of forest goods and services and to support and encourage marketing processes, including the question of investments.
• The development of human resources, especially focussing on education, is considered an important factor for the future.
• Further research is necessary to get a clearer picture on rural development and to support forest policy.

These general conclusions give valuable guidance for further action by the MCPFE. The findings of the seminar underline that enhancing visibility of the contribution of forests and forestry to rural development is essential, and that added value can be created by providing appropriate measurement tools at the pan-European level, e.g. in the form of indicators. As information and communication tools, such indicators would provide reliable information for policy and decision making and for public dialogue.