IMPLEMENTING SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT FROM POLICY TO LANDSCAPE AND BACK AGAIN

Abstract

To implement sustainable forest management (SFM) in actual landscapes, policy actors and managers exercising governance and different users need to be provided with empirical information of how different SFM dimensions are perceived and develop locally. This paper outlines the need of transdisciplinary research and development using multiple case studies to understand the role of forested landscapes in regional development. To provide proof of concept for our approach we review the state and trends of SFM implementation in Ukraine, which represents one of the post-Soviet countries in transition from socialist planned to market economy. First we review the national policies relevant for forest and woodland landscapes, and describe how the involved institutions implement policies top-down. Using the Skole district in the Carpathian Mountains as a case study we then describe the status of SFM, and evaluate the implementation process bottom-up. The Ukrainian government is the primary forest actor and implements policies through national, regional and local institutions as well as state forest enterprises. This multilevel system of policy implementation implies a command and control «top-down» approach to forest management. Hence, there is also a long way for any initiatives from actual management units back to the policy-making level, and thus in principle an absence of an efficient working mechanism for forest users to influence the forest policy. Interviews and analyses of official statistics show that: (1) Forest enterprises focus exclusively on the economic dimensions of SFM. (2) Local level forest managers do not understanding the full width of the SFM concept and the reasons to follow its principles. (3) Even if only 3.6% of the Skole population is employed by forest enterprises, forests play a vital socio-cultural role and provides livelihood for much more people. (4) The ecological functions of forests are being degraded and restoration is needed in many cases. Collaboration between foresters and scientists is not as effective as it should be. (5) The public opinion about foresters and forest management is negative. There is no mechanism for local users to influence forest practice in the area. Three types of gaps need to be bridged: (1) A policy implementation gap between the official definition of SFM, and how its different criteria and objectives are understood by forest actors. (2) A policy creation gap between the local level situation and ecological, economic and socio-cultural needs at the national and regional levels. (3) A knowledge gap between the need of a holistic transdisciplinary approach for SFM implementation and the present sectoral and disciplinary situation. Ways of bridging these gaps are capacity building, introducing arenas for co-management, and applying a zoning approach at multiple scales to satisfy economic, ecological and socio-cultural dimension of SFM.