Forestry
An International Journal of Forest Research
Forestry, Vol. 85, No. 1, 2012. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpr068 Advance Access publication date: 12 January 2012
Comparing a top-down and bottom-up approach in the identification of criteria and indicators for sustainable community forest management in Nepal CHIRANJEEWEE KHADKA* and HARALD VACIK
Summary Policy makers, scientists and civil society are involved in the development of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management (SFM), reflecting the growing worldwide demand for addressing sustainable development and environmental governance management goals. Such frameworks have been largely derived from expert-led or community-based approaches. This article details the identification process of criteria and indicators (C & I) based on the international principles of SFM through the analysis of a hybrid approach that uses both a top-down (TD) and a bottom-up (BU) approach. The aim of this article is to discuss how the two approaches have worked to incorporate the different views, opinions and experiences of experts and stakeholders. National-level C & I are then compared with those at the local level, making specific reference to sustainable community forest (CF) management. For the TD approach, a Delphi survey was conducted where 121 experts shared their knowledge, experience and judgements in assessing a set of 72 indicators with regard to the applicability, practicality and importance of national, regional and CF management in Nepal. For the BU approach, C & I for CF management were developed with the direct involvement of various stakeholders. It was shown that such a hybrid approach is feasible from a methodological point of view, but a framework is needed by the government to more fully utilize the opportunities of the C & I development process in the SFM context. The results of this study also help to bridge the gap between the ad hoc planning of decision makers and the requirement for a holistic management system, which includes participatory processes. Based on the conclusions of this study, general recommendations for the methodological design of C & I development in similar studies are given.
Introduction Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio in 1992 (and subsequently known as the Earth Summit) put forward the notion that sustainable development and sustainable management of the environment go hand in hand. Among the outcomes of the conference were the ‘Forest Principles’ – a non-legally binding alternative to the forest convention, which constituted the first global attempt to define criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management (SFM).
In this regard, the concept of sustainability has become a dominant paradigm for the management of the remaining global forests, particularly tropical forests. Since then, the concept of criteria and indicators (C & I) has produced an increasing number of initiatives, such as monitoring, reporting and management instruments at a global, national and community management level. Through its implementation, the C & I concept contributes to the promotion and achievement of SFM (Woodley et al., 1998a; Prabhu et al., 1999; Wijewardana, 2008) and acts as a means of political control as well as a check on the effectiveness of programmes and measures (Linser, 2001). Following the principles and guidelines of UNCED, a common framework for
© Institute of Chartered Foresters, 2012. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email:
[email protected]
Downloaded from http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on December 29, 2015
Department of Forest and Soil Sciences, Institute of Silviculture, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, PeterJordan Strasse 82, A-1190 Vienna, Austria *Corresponding author. E-mail:
[email protected]
146
FORESTRY
Top-down and bottom-up approaches For the measurement, identification and evaluation of C & I for SFM, there are two approaches described in scientific literature: top-down (TD) and bottom-up (BU) (Prabhu et al., 1996; Mendoza et al., 1999; Reed et al., 2006). In the basic TD approach, a previously generated set of C & I is used initially and a team of experts adapts and modifies this set according to the local situation (Prabhu et al., 1996; McDougall et al., 2009). In the BU approach, local communities actively engage in the development process in a participatory manner by proposing C & I based on their perception of the individual situation (Prabhu et al., 1999). Reed et al. (2006) proposed a framework for expert-led (TD) and community-led (BU) approaches in C & I development. It has been noted that C & I are predisposed to ‘TD’ control and present ‘quick-fix’ solutions to complex problems (Bass, 2002). However, formulating sustainable forest policy requires a balance between the multiple socio-economic and environmental objectives of forest stakeholders and their conflicting issues (Ananda, 2007). Efforts have been made to apply indicators developed on national and regional scales to the smaller scale of the forest
management unit (FMU) as well (Prabhu et al., 1999). Recently, there has also been a shift to a more scientific point of view regarding the C & I-based assessment of SFM (Wolfslehner et al., 2005; Vacik et al., 2007; Wolfslehner and Vacik, 2011). The unique characteristics of community-managed forest operations, and of traditional and indigenous management practices, are often not sufficiently reflected in existing C & I sets. Generic templates have been criticized for being developed ‘TD’ and not addressing specific and local forest management issues (Karjala and Dewhurst, 2003). Limited efforts have been made to consider the local context in C & I development initiatives (Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), 1999; Sherry et al., 2005; Pokharel and Suvedi, 2007) and even less has been done to encompass the unique management structure of community-owned or managed forest operations (Pokharel and Suvedi, 2007). Only a limited number of studies tried to combine the benefits of both TD and BU approaches (Batterbury et al., 1997). Recent activities involve communities in TD and BU approaches in proposing and identifying sustainability indicators as the basis for improving monitoring and management (Fraser et al., 2006) as well as multi-stakeholder collaboration for SFM (Elbakidze et al., 2010). However, there is still a need for innovative approaches to study how local people in different regions perceive SFM (Berninger et al., 2009) and how the formalization of ‘BU’ community involvement has been driven by ‘TD approaches failing in the past’ (Fraser et al., 2006). Experiences with C & I applications, particularly in developing countries like Nepal, have shown that there is a need to develop forest management standards through active participation of all stakeholders in formulation, assessment, interpretation and validation of C & I (Khadka and Vacik, 2008). Although Nepal is a member of the dry zone forests of Asia, there were no official the commonly agreed set of national-level C & I until FAO launched the process in 1999. A sound methodology is still needed to engage multiple stakeholders and increase their commitment on a political level to support the Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) in Nepal. Therefore, in this study, a BU and a TD approach was chosen for the process of developing C & I based on the international principles of SFM (Figure 1). While it is simple to view these two approaches as fundamentally different, there is increasing awareness and academic debate regarding the need to develop innovative hybrid methodologies (Nygren, 1999; Thomas and Twyman, 2004). TD processes defined by experts can lack legitimacy and ownership in the eyes of stakeholders, which prohibit meaningful responses on-site. A participatory (or BU) approach may enhance the legitimacy of such C & I sets. In a hybrid approach, there are possibilities for the enhancement of mutual learning and sharing experiences in order to develop adaptive management strategies and the building of ownership regarding the whole process, which ultimately results in the development of more practical and meaningful indicators. This article highlights the process of C & I development through the comparative analysis of a hybrid TD and BU approach, which generated a generally accepted set of
Downloaded from http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on December 29, 2015
describing, assessing and evaluating progress in countries’ efforts to practice SFM was created (Grayson and Maynard, 1997). In its early phase, the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) began to develop C & I sets (ITTO, 1992, 1993) and as yet, nine eco-regional forestry processes (among others the Pan-European and the Montreal Processes for temperate and boreal forests, Dry Zone Africa Process for arid zones forests, the African Timber Organization (ATO) Process; The Near East Process and The Regional Initiatives for Dry Forests in Asia Process), involving 149 countries (whose combined forest area equals 97.5 per cent of the world’s total forest area) have been established (Wijewardana, 2008). The eco-regional C & I processes were established by forestry-related government representatives, agencies and institutions (in many cases involving Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs)) and many countries are currently actively participating in the ongoing initiatives for the development and implementation of C & I sets for eco-regional, national and management unit levels (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2003). Although many countries have adopted similar principles regarding sustainability reporting at national levels, there are vast differences in the experiences gained by policy makers, experts and stakeholders while developing C & I. For most countries within the Montreal and Helsinki process, reports on C & I implementation are available (Mrosek et al., 2006). Differences can be identified according to thematic issues, content and structure (Pokorny and Adams, 2003) in the monitoring and reporting requirements (Hickey and Innes, 2006), and, at the national and sub-national level in the development and implementation stages (Mrosek et al., 2006). Current processes for developing C & I sets have selected indicators often based on political expediency, data availability and ease of measurement rather than informational content (Brang et al., 2002).
IDENTIFICATION AND INDICATORS FOR SFM
147
agreed standards at the national and community forest (CF) management level. In this paper, we examine how the two approaches have incorporated different opinions and experiences of experts and stakeholders. The national-level C & I are compared with those at local level with specific reference to CF management. We present the challenges and findings regarding the methods applied in both approaches and make general recommendations for the methodological design of similar studies.
Material and methods Developing C & I for SFM The proposed framework for combining expert-driven (TD) and community-driven (BU) approaches in C & I development allows the integration of the methods of both schools of thought. The first step allows for the gathering of relevant information and the generation of concepts pertaining to SFM. Secondly, the collected information is utilized to increase public awareness, support the understanding of SFM concepts and to promote participation in the process. In the awareness-building phase, the results of background context studies (i.e. a socio-economic, institutional, historical, policy and biophysical assessment of the case study site) are shared. The stakeholder analysis, the formation of an expert and technical team for the study, the communication and preparation of the working documents as well as the Delphi survey questionnaire were major tasks for the awareness-building phase in the TD approach. Thirdly,
different techniques are used to identify appropriate C & I indicators based on the knowledge and experiences of the involved actors. During the stage of C & I development, we mainly applied participatory methods (SWOT analysis, participatory mapping, social mapping and participatory resource assessment), which helped to identify problems, supported the development of a vision statement, set of goals and objectives and also the selection of management approaches.
TD development of C & I using the Delphi study Similar to most C & I studies, a generic template of already existing C & I sets (e.g. CIFOR, ITTO and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)) was used as a starting point for the TD process. A Delphi method was chosen to facilitate communication among a panel of experts as detailed information was lacking, uncertainty was large and informal judgements were a fundamental source of information (cf. Linstone and Turoff, 1975; Hess and King, 2002). Utilizing expert opinions should ensure the legitimacy of the final outcome in terms of a general national C & I set (Hunt and Haider, 2001). The main idea of the proposed Delphi study was to initiate the process of preparing standards at national, regional and FMU levels, especially for CF management, Collaborative Forest Management (CFM), Buffer Zone Management and Leasehold Forest (LHF). Members of the Delphi study were invited to participate in the study based on a screening of their individual knowledge and experience. The Delphi panel had to assess the applicability and likewise
Downloaded from http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on December 29, 2015
Figure 1. Approach for developing C & I in the TD and BU approach.
148
FORESTRY
BU development of C & I by CFUGs The BU approach for the identification of C & I was organized in such a way that the direct involvement and participation of various stakeholders within a community FMU were made possible. We adopted the same five major processes (information gathering, awareness building, C & I development, elicitation of preference and application) (Figure 1). Ritchie et al. (2000) emphasized the need for C & I developed for community-managed forests to be based on fully participatory processes. In the first stage, relevant documents and reports describing the social-economic and biophysical situation were analysed prior to the fieldwork. The CF user committee, representatives of local NGOs and territorial governmental officials were invited to discuss the overall objectives of the study as well as the design of the participatory research approach in the awareness-building process. Before conducting the C & I development workshop, the research team and local facilitators organized tole (s) – level meetings to get the views, opinions, attitudes and experiences regarding SFM from selected groups of individuals; a tole is a number of households organized in a group where general users and marginalized people interact. In the third stage, C & I development, participants were actively encouraged to share their visions, goals and evaluation criteria for the assessment of their management strategies (Table 1). A team of six stakeholder groups from Dalit (the so-called ‘lower castes), poor women, executive
members, rich Brahmin women, general users and environmental groups’ members developed eight criteria and 47 indicators which were analysed using Multiple Criteria Analysis (MCA) techniques, such as ranking and rating methods in the fourth stage. As a prerequisite for further analysis, the preferences of stakeholders were elicited and priorities for managing the forests were formulated. MCA techniques were used to identify the best alternative management strategy based on scenario analysis (details are given in Table 1). The BU approach was implemented from 2007 to 2009 in six CFs (four in Makawanpur district and two in Chitawan district) in close collaboration with the Nepalese partners Rural Reconstruction Nepal, Natural and Organizational Resource Management Services and Federation of Community Forest Users, Nepal. The above-mentioned process was applied in each CFUG, but only one case study was selected for comparative analysis in this contribution. The Nawalpur Sasaswati (Basamadi) CFUG of Makawanpur District in the central region of Nepal represents an average situation in terms of forest area, resource availability, heterogeneity and conflicts. The CFUG includes 774 households with a committee of 19 members. As regards the composition of the ethnic groups, Brahmins/Chhetris are the largest in number (68 per cent), followed by Magar and Tamang (25 per cent), Kami and Damai (so-called untouchable castes) (4 per cent) and others (3 per cent). The forest area is 234 ha and consists of subtropical deciduous Sal (Shorea robusta, Gaertner f.) forests. The main natural forest species are Sal, Katus (Castonopsis species, Roxb. ex Lindl.), Karma (Adina cardifolia, Hook. f.), Chanp (Michelia champaca, L.) and Jamun (Syzigium cumini, (L.) Skeels). Some plantations of Sissoo (Delbergia sissoo, Roxb.), Ipil Ipil (Leucaena leucocephala, (Lam.) de Wit) and Bakaino (Melia Azedirach, L.) also exist.
Comparative analysis of the TD and BU approach in the Nawalpur Saraswati (Basamadi) community forest Gathering information in the TD process The process of information gathering the TD process was incorporated into the questionnaires of the Delphi study to elicit the individual preferences of each expert (Figure 2). The experts were asked to evaluate each indicator individually and they were free to comment on, add or delete indicators in a structured questionnaire survey process. The experts had to judge data availability and the means of verification on different scales (quantitative data in terms of figures, statistics, algorithms, experiments, scientific results; qualitative data as traditional knowledge, informal and descriptive information). As the applicability of an indicator could vary between different scales, the assessment was carried out in reference to various geopolitical and geographical specifications. To avoid response bias associated with the interview, the questions were reviewed carefully to avoid misunderstandings and failures based on poor wording. The study
Downloaded from http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on December 29, 2015
data availability and overall importance of each indicator with respect to the national, regional and community level. We applied five features of the Delphi method: anonymity (experts are unknown to each other and nameless), iteration (feedback given at least twice), controlled feedback (appreciation of new ideas), statistical measures (aggregation of individual preferences) and convergence (multiple reverse feedback and final results). As the Delphi process is an anonymous one, it has advantages over the normal unmediated face-to-face interactions between participants as the usual problems of group dynamics are thus completely bypassed (Stewart et al., 1999). To receive reliable results, anonymity, iteration, controlled feedback and statistical aggregation of group responses are key features (Wolfslehner et al., 2003) and also two rounds are usually sufficient to achieve consensus (Rowe et al., 1991). In total, 121 respondents comprising representatives of government (32 per cent), international and non-governmental organizations (42 per cent), universities (10 per cent), associations (7 per cent), research institutions (4 per cent) and private companies and enterprises (4 per cent) took part in the study. Of the 121 respondents, experts from the natural resource management sector were in the majority (65 per cent). Of the rest, 14 per cent are from the social sciences, 17 per cent from economics and 5 per cent are categorized as being from politics and other occupations. The achieved response rate of more than 57 per cent was considered as good. The responses from the first round of the Delphi survey were communicated to those experts taking part in the second round.
149
IDENTIFICATION AND INDICATORS FOR SFM
Table 1: Characteristics of the BU approach for the development and application of sustainability indicators at the CF management level Expected inputs Process
Objectives
Tools/methods
Expert-driven
Community-driven
Desk study and documentation and content analysis
2. Awareness building
Problem formulation, reflection, sharing knowledge, experiences, views, skills, perspectives, values and capacities and desired future and creating strategy Training/visioning Facilitation for system Visioning and goal workshop, focus approach/perspective, setting, planning group discussion, searching for common and decision assessment and ground and linking making, identifying MCA approaches future vision key priorities areas, knowledge gaps, dealing with risk and uncertainty and management strategy for desired future Participatory resource MCA tools, Communication and mapping, social techniques and knowledge sharing mapping, field visits, scenarios analysis in multiple direction transects, household and preferences survey and multiple criteria techniques Meeting, reflection, Data collection and Management working strategy dissemination, decisions, effective and formation of analysis of results conflict management, sub-action groups and management approval, policy options implication, self-assessment and periodic review
Literature review, identify generic C & I set and system boundaries, knowledge gaps, needs and expectation and training Understanding SFM Discussion, stakeholder Sharing ideas and and direction of analysis, meetings, experiences, system change of systems bio-physical and boundaries, socio-economic facilitating future analysis, policy and direction and SWOT analysis co-learning environment
3. C & I C & I development development and formulation of management strategy
4. Preference elicitation
Field verification and C & I assessment
5. Application Appropriate/ collective actions
began in July 2008 and ~210 experts were contacted in the first round of emails. As this kind of survey is quite new for Nepalese forestry experts, the technical problems occurred quite intensively (12 h electricity cut-off per day for more than 6 months and lack of internet access) and fewer responses than expected were given. By using printed questionnaires and providing compact discs, the final response rate was increased to 57.6 per cent. All the indicators that were identified by the experts as ‘very important’ or ‘important’ in the second study round were included in the final national C & I set. Awareness building in the BU process In the BU approach, key informants (e.g. chairperson, vice chairperson, CFUG members and government forest
Critical reflection, communication/ knowledge sharing, stakeholder interaction and dialogue
Team formation and areas of boundaries (e.g. site selection)
Improve understanding and practices, realization complex, dynamic and multi-level C & I development and evaluation criteria
Weight criteria and indicators and qualitative and quantitative assessments Management strategy, self-assessment report and finalization
rangers) were introduced to the concept of C & I. After a series of visits and discussions, the details of the development process were negotiated in a participatory way and according to the decisions of the CFUG. The analysis of the socio-economic dimensions included a description of membership provisions, opportunities for the participation of disadvantaged groups in decision making, income generation activities and special provisions for utilizing forest resources. The analysis of policy documents helped to identify rules and regulations, decision-making processes, benefit sharing mechanisms as well as training and capacity development initiatives. The research team members shared their understanding regarding the expected outcomes and provided training to local facilitators and asked for their support in the evaluation of the constitution and operational plan. Consequently, local facilitators conducted
Downloaded from http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on December 29, 2015
1. Information Generate share analysis understanding, concept and values of C & I system and current situation
Outcomes
150
FORESTRY
1. National and local laws
2. Fees, royalties, taxes
Forest management respects and enforces all national and local laws Justification/description Forest management respects and implements all national and local laws and others administrative requirements of the local authorise and communities which are in conformity with current national laws
Overall importance
1
National
Forest management pays all applicable and legally prescribed fees, royalties, and taxes
data availability quant. qual. both no
National
4
4
Means of verification Harvesting permits Collection licenses Legal documentation Plan for completing all payments
Tarai/Inner Tarai Mid-hills Mountains Management level
Regional Tarai/Inner Tarai Mid-hills Mountains Management level
1
1
applicability low high
Justification/description All applicable and legally prescribed fees, royalties, taxes and other charges shall be paid to ensure and support good governance
4
CF CFM LHF BZM GFM
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
data availability quant. qual. both no
Regional
CF CFM LHF BZM GFM
1
4
Overall importance
General comments:
General comments:
Figure 2. Example of the Delphi questionnaire on SFM indicators, Nepal (Note: BZM = buffer zone management; GFM = government managed forest). Accountability Livelihood and community development Transparency
15
Rule of law
10
Benefit from the forest
5 Planning and monitoring
0
Community forest management
Participatory decision making
Environmental impact
Resource mobilization
Social inclusion and equity Linkages and networking
Forest User Group Committee
Poor women
Key informants
General members
Figure 3. Outcomes of the SWOT analysis of Nawalpur Saraswati (Basamadi) CFUG.
several tole-level meetings and a household survey as well as initiating several awareness-raising programmes. The CFUGCs committee kept in mind the involvement of multi-level participation, including such aspects as gender, caste/ethnicity, occupation, age, resources and position holders. Participants discussed the major strengths and weakness of the CFUGs (cf. Figure 3) and facilitators tried to link the results of the awareness-raising
process (undertaken at tole-level meetings, group discussions and key informant interviews) with the C & I development process in the next phase. By exploring the development activities, the accounting and record-keeping system and the special provisions for the poor, women, Dalit and marginalized groups, it was possible to identify the main sustainability issues of the CFUG. During the meeting, it was found that Brahmins and Chhetris (the so-called
Downloaded from http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on December 29, 2015
Means of verification Policy documentation Specific corrective actions in noncompliance, cases of violating laws, policy and other stipulation Validity of policy documents Activities progress per the approved plan
applicability low high
IDENTIFICATION AND INDICATORS FOR SFM
‘upper castes’) have dominated the decision-making process and have had more benefits from forest management activities because of their socio-economic, institutional and political strength. Poor ethnic members and Dalit members of the group found that they were generally unable to express their views during the tole-level meetings, workshops and forest user group committee (FUGC) meetings. Some tole users could not express their problems and feared being rejected, particularly in the presence of the CFUGC chairperson and FUGC members. Although users had different preferences, interests and needs, the meetings helped to raise critical questions and to explore perceptions and concerns related to ongoing forest management activities and FUGC decisions.
The development of criteria and indicators
Preference elicitation The importance of indicators with respect to SFM was assessed on the basis of various multi-criteria analysis (MCA) techniques in both processes. In the TD approach, a rating using the Likert scale (where 1 = least importance and 4 = very high importance) was used. For the BU approach, six stakeholder group meetings (FUGC, Dalit users, Rich Brahmin Women, Poor women, local NGOs and General
users) were held to assess the importance of indicators by applying a rating on a scale from 1 = least important to 100 = most important. However, in order to limit the number of preference elicitations, the numbers of indicators were limited to 47 in the BU approach based on the importance given by the local stakeholders. In this context, we used the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test to compare the mean values of each indicator of all stakeholder groups so as to be able to identify any significant differences. For that purpose, the original preference values of all stakeholder groups had to be converted to a comparable scale. Figure 4 illustrates the perceptions of different stakeholder groups regarding TD and BU approaches for selected indicators under the policy framework (C1). Association group’s members in the TD process, as well as Dalit groups and poor women in the BU process, rated the indicator I1.1 (respect and enforce national and local laws) as most important, whereas representatives from government, private company/enterprises and CFUGC members rated it as of low importance. Representatives from research institutions and local NGOs rated indicators I1.2 and I1.3 (payment of tax, royalties and other fees and compliance with the international agreement) as of low priority, whereas these indicators were of high relevance and importance to the representatives of Universities and rich Brahmin women. The final C & I set The comparison of C & I resulting from both processes in terms of presence/partial presence/absence of elements is listed in Table 3. In order to facilitate the comparison of the 53 indicators (in the TD approach) and 47 indicators (in the BU approach), we classified them according to eight criteria. The exact wording of the indicators differs between both final sets in most cases. Table 3 allows a qualitative assessment of the justification and means of verification for each single indicator. There are similarities and differences among the criteria and indicators due to site variation and importance, the objectives and interests of stakeholders as well as the scale of application, relevance, data requirements, practicality and information. Under Criteria Set 1 (policy framework), elements related to compliance with national and local laws and protection from illegal harvesting and unauthorized activities were present in both sets. The priorities of protecting land tenure and property rights, customary rights and indigenous rights are present in the national and local Criteria Set 2 (tenure and indigenous relations). Under Criteria Set 3 (community relations), the promotion of participatory decision making, social inclusion and collaboration between stakeholders as well as the importance of ensuring transparency are all present in both approaches. The sharing of economic benefits of forest uses, encouraging local processing for value-added products and the development of new market strategies and a commensurate annual operational budget are present for both levels under Criteria Set 4 (benefits from forests). Under Criteria Set 5 (environmental consideration), the maintenance and enhancement of native species diversity, the promotion of environmental
Downloaded from http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on December 29, 2015
In the TD approach, the ratings obtained from the experts were used for assessing the importance of indicators with respect to SFM at the national level. Based on the average ratings for all 72 indicators communicated in the first round, a set of 53 indicators were selected for the second and third rounds. At a final workshop, the participants assessed the indicators in terms of their degree of importance, applicability and data availability at national, regional and community-based forest management levels (Table 2). The experts judged the most important indicators to be related to transparency, the revision of forest management plans, the enforcement of national laws, the payment of fees, royalties and taxes, the prescription of silviculture system, the estimation of forest harvest and local communities’ consultation in forest planning and management. Indicators related to human health, forest road construction, construction of drainages and skid tracks, wildlife farming and documentation of visitors were classified as less important. In the BU approach, in total, 48 participants from various wealth groups and castes participated in the C & I development at the local level. During a 3-day workshop, facilitators helped to foster a common understanding of the concept of principles, criteria and indicators by means of examples. Their statements were rephrased by the facilitators in order to translate their vision, goals and objectives to measurable criteria and indicators. As a result of this process, the participants identified eight principles, 33 criteria and 97 indicators for this case study. However, in order to allow a comparative analysis of the TD and BU approach, the criteria and indicators were limited to eight criteria and 47 indicators.
151
152
FORESTRY
Table 2: List of selected set of indicators in the TD approach No.
Indicators
Relevancy
Practicality
Importance
Influence*
C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C2 C2 C3 C3 C3 C3 C3 C3 C3 C3 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 C5 C5 C5 C5 C5 C5 C5 C5 C6 C6 C6 C6 C6 C6 C6 C6 C6 C6 C6 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
Respect and enforce national and local laws Pay fees, royalties and taxes Compliance with international agreements Evaluation of conflicting laws Knowledge of forest laws and directives Define legislative framework Protect from illegal and unauthorized activities Protect customary and tenure rights Identify indigenous people with their rights Promote participatory decision making Promote social inclusion Ensure transparency Ensure collaboration within and among stakeholders Raising public awareness Composition of organization structure Respect labour code regulation Develop and transfer scientific and technical knowledge Identifying economic policies Sharing in economic benefits of forest uses Allow investment and reinvestment Provide financial incentives Commensurate annual operational budget Commensurate forest development targets Provide goods and services Encourage local processing and new markets Ensure employment and social security Provide training to professional, technical and other staff Adequate number of professional and technical staff Maintain ecosystem diversity Maintain native species diversity Employ rare, threatened and endangered species Allow ecological assessment and diagnosis Foster carbon sequestration in forest stands Control erosion and landslides Maintain ecosystem functions Ensure natural generation capacity Estimation of forest harvest Appropriate harvesting techniques Prescribe silviculture systems Balance of growth and areas Promote plantation area Develop and layout of plantations Control forest fire and minimize forest damage Management practices in degraded forests Maintain and extend forest areas Control encroachment and grazing Promote use of suitable tree species Consult local communities in planning and implementation Implement management plans Revise of management plan Develop management guidelines of NTFPs Knowledge of forest resource use and management plan Ensure regular monitoring and assessment
High High Medium Medium High Medium High High High High High High High Medium Medium Medium High Medium Medium Low Low Low Medium Medium Low Medium High High Medium Low High Medium Medium Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Low Low Medium Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium Medium
High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low High Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Low High Medium Medium Low Medium High Low Medium Low Low High High High Medium High Medium Low Medium Low High Low Low Low Low High Low Medium Medium Low High Medium Low High High High High Medium
High High Medium High High High High High High High High High High Medium Low Low High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low High High Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium High Medium High High High High Medium Medium Low High Low Medium High Medium High Medium High High High Medium
Rigid Critical Rigid Critical Critical Rigid Active Rigid Critical Critical Critical Critical Rigid Active Rigid Rigid Critical Critical Active Rigid Rigid Critical Critical Rigid Rigid Critical Active Active Critical Critical Passive Critical Critical Critical Rigid Active Active Active Critical Rigid Active Active Active Active Rigid Critical Critical Critical Critical Critical Active Critical Critical
* Interrelationships of SFM indicators influencing each other are analysed with following Ulrich and Probst (1995).
assessments, wildlife management and habitat, allowing ecological assessments as well as diagnosis and prohibition of hunting are present in both sets. Silvicultural prescriptions, appropriate harvesting guidelines, control grazing, encroachment, erosion and landslide measures are present
in the standards for both levels under Criteria Set 6 (silvicultural practices). Most of the elements related to management plans (e.g. the necessity for revision and approval of a plan in different time intervals) are fully addressed in both sets under Criteria Set 7 (management plan). Likewise,
Downloaded from http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on December 29, 2015
Criterion
IDENTIFICATION AND INDICATORS FOR SFM
153
under Criteria Set 8 (monitoring and assessment), the requirement of monitoring and resource inventory are fully addressed for both national and local levels.
Discussion C & I assessment is a complex process that may involve both quantitative and qualitative factors, covering areas that are not easily identifiable and involving various interest groups or stakeholders each with their own demands, socio-economic needs and political and external influences (Ascher, 1995; Johnson, 1999). In that context, it is a challenge for scientists (who usually prefer to work with quantitative data and to make largely objective judgements) to adapt their thinking and contribute to the improvement of science-based C & I (Raison et al., 2001). In practice, it has been difficult to define and evaluate all dimensions of SFM in a holistic way. Decision making in community-based institutions is typically a complex task, characterized by trade-offs between sociocultural, political, environmental and economic impacts. However, the hybrid negotiation approach taken to develop C & I allowed a wider scale of experts and stakeholders to express their attitudes towards SFM. Although a structured questionnaire was provided in the TD process, some respondents made quite different interpretations and objected to specific questions/indicators, the use of terminologies or phrases when defining terms as well as the lack of ‘described’ definitions. Some respondents complained that the number of questions or indicators was too high and some of them had difficulties to judge the relevance of the indicator or its data requirements. Some
suggested specific C & I for different community-based management systems from the national to FMU levels. We found that the Delphi approach was easiest when managing a structured questionnaire survey as there is less room for varying interpretations. However, using closed questions as one of the strengths of this method dramatically reduces the potential for generating new ideas (Tan et al., 2010). It was a challenge to develop a comprehensive set of indicators at the national level. Since indicators should be based on the best and most current knowledge yet, at the same time, be simple, easily measurable and comprehensive, the experts in the Delphi study had to take into account those different dimensions of indicators. Reasons for the difficulties might be due to the high degree of uncertainty related to the complex issue of SFM (Mrosek et al., 2006). It was observed that personal attitudes of some experts and their affiliation to an organization affected the overall results and was not a reflection of their experiences in each case. Such misleading stereotypes can create impediments to the development of trust, relationship building and effective communication (Kearney et al., 1998). In this context, Ho and Chen (2007) described the weaknesses of Delphi studies, including the fact that they require much time and raises difficulties regarding coordination and communication for consensus building among experts. As the TD culture of C & I processes on a larger scale often lack legitimacy from the multiple perspectives of stakeholders (Sherry et al., 2005; Gass et al., 2009), there is still need to link the experiences gained in this study to other management regimes, such as LHF management or CFM. In order to support collaboration between facilitators and local communities in the BU approach, it is important
Downloaded from http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on December 29, 2015
Figure 4. Stakeholder preferences for the indicators of criteria 1. a) Stakeholder preferences for the indicators I1.1-I1.4 and I1.7 in the top-down approach. I1.1= respect and enforces national and local laws; I1.2 = pay fees, royalties and taxes; I1.3 = compliance international agreement; I1.4 = evaluation of conflicting laws; I1.7 = protect from illegal and unauthorized activities. b) Stakeholder preferences for the indicators I1.1- I1.5 in the bottom-up approach. I1.1= respect and enforces national and local laws; I1.2 = pay fees, royalties and taxes; I1.3 = compliance international agreement; I1.4 = evaluation of conflicting laws; I1.5= protect from illegal and unauthorized activities. Note: I1.5= knowledge of forest laws and directives; I1.6= define legislative framework excluded for the purpose of comparing to bottom-up approach.
154
FORESTRY
Table 3: Comparison of C & I resulting of BU and TD process in terms of presence/absence of elements (similarities of both process – in bold font – are described in the main text) Process Areas of similarities and dissimilarities
BU
Present Present Present Absent Absent
Present Partial Absent Present Absent
Present Partial
Present Present
Present Present Present Partial Absent
Present Partial Absent Present Present
Present
Present
Present
Partial
Present
Absent
Partial
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present Present
Absent Partial
Partial Absent Absent
Partial Present Absent
Present
Present
Present Present
Absent Partial
Partial Partial Absent
Present Partial Absent
Present
Present
Present Absent
Partial Present
Present Partial Absent
Present Present Partial
Downloaded from http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on December 29, 2015
C1: policy framework Compliance with national and local laws, protect illegal harvesting and unauthorized activities Evaluation of conflicting laws Payment of applicable taxes and fees and compliance with international law Consultation with professional and maintain documentation Transfer of technology, maintenance of infrastructure and use of planning techniques C2: tenure and indigenous relations Protect land tenure, property rights, customary tenure and indigenous rights Decrease tenure disputes, recognition of traditional or customary rights and compensate in any damage of indigenous knowledge C3: community relations Promote participatory decision making, social inclusion, collaboration and ensure transparency Worker safety and health Respect labourers’ rights and develop scientific and technical knowledge Special provision to unprivileged groups Consultation with community/community input and contribution to well-being of communities C4: benefit from forest Precaution and sharing of economic benefits of forest uses, encourage local processing and new markets and commensurate annual operational budget Provide financial incentives, ensure employment and social security and provide work and training opportunities Allow investment and reinvestment, provide good and services and provide training to professional and technical staff Use of trained and experienced persons, enhance income generation activities and commensurate forest development targets C5: environmental considerations Maintain and enhance of native species diversity; promote environmental assessments, wildlife management and habitat; allow ecological assessment and diagnosis and prohibition of hunting Support for environmental services, foster carbon sequestration, remedial measures for insect affect and diseases, promote use of suitable tree species and control fire and minimize forest damage Ensure the laying-out of drainage in forest roads Maintain landscape diversity, ecosystem diversity, genetic diversity; protect threatened and endangered species Conversion to plantations Conserve water courses and other wetlands Construct forest roads, ensure final opening with skid tracks, use of pesticides and herbicides, control exotic and/or invasive species, rehabilitation of degradation off-site impacts, prevention of forest damage and consider recreational provisions C6: silvicultural practices Silvicultural management prescription; appropriate harvesting guidelines; control grazing, erosion and landslide and prohibition encroachment Maintain and extend forest areas Ensure regeneration and reforestation; managing for aesthetic, archeological, historic and cultural values; balance of growth and areas and prevention of forest damage Protection of biological and high conservation value forests Development management guidelines of NTFPs Reduce impact of logging techniques C7: management plan Requirement of management plan, elements included in management plan, revision and timeliness of management plan and review/approval of plan Knowledge of forest management plan Pubic availability of management plan C8: monitoring and assessment Requirement of monitoring and resource inventory Frequency and intensity of monitoring Data collection and use; incorporation of monitoring results into management plan and availability of monitoring results
TD
IDENTIFICATION AND INDICATORS FOR SFM
in most cases. Initially, it was observed that poor women users could not express their view for fear of being rejected or humiliated in the presence of members of the local elite during discussions. Therefore, it was challenging to engage the economically and socially marginalized users, such as women, low-caste groups, in decision-making processes. As the team members were not familiar with the study case, it was a benefit that the facilitators could act as a neutral observer negotiating among the stakeholders. However, in the case of developing indicators in a multidisciplinary manner, local facilitators and elite members (sometimes joined by researchers) tried to reduce the conflict in concentrating and catalysing the discussion on elements of SWOT analysis as a base for relevant sustainability indicators. Consequently, where different stakeholders’ views and interest are identified in decision making, specific participatory tools and methods are required during the facilitation process (cf. Bass, 2002). The MCA techniques of ranking, rating and pairwise comparison techniques have helped to identify the most preferable indicators and also to minimize the number of indicators here. They provided an environment where C & I can be analysed by a wider spectrum of stakeholders and thereby increase the chance of acceptance (Mendoza and Prabhu, 2000). The facilitating role in the C & I development process was important in both approaches for the identification of knowledge gaps in the multi-stakeholder groups and the contradictory views on forest management. In the BU approach, the tole-level meetings facilitated the process of understanding regarding concepts of SFM. Facilitators had to play an effective role in introducing the approach, encouraging people, keeping up the momentum for changing attitudes and helping to solve problems (cf. McDougall et al., 2009). In the TD approach, collective learning situations built and strengthened the relationship between experts as they shared knowledge and experiences. These aspects can encourage the active participation of local communities and national-level stakeholders in the decision-making process as well (Campo et al., 2009; Kassa et al., 2009).
Conclusions While it is simple to view TD and BU approaches for C & I development as fundamentally different, there is increasing acceptance of the need to develop innovative hybrid methodologies to capture the benefits of both. Future developments will have to link to other national initiatives, e.g. reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation+ or forest certification strategies (FSC) in collaboration with scientists, government officials, forest enterprises, the public and forest networking organizations. In the context of a national Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)+ strategy, the process will have to address the problems of deliberative democratic governance, tackling poverty issues and resolving for ‘trade-offs’ among biodiversity conservation, soil–water conservation, ecological restoration and carbon storage under climate change. This study has initiated a platform of exchange for the discussion
Downloaded from http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on December 29, 2015
to give attention to the negotiation of the diverse interests and consider unequal power relations. In that context, the facilitator’s role is usually a ‘social architect’ with a good understanding of the local situation and a commitment to creating an environment conducive to forming collaborative relationships among stakeholders. The activities during the BU approach (e.g. meetings of the tole executive committee, executive committees and general assembly) created, on the one hand, many more opportunities for general members, as well as poor and marginalized peoples, to engage freely and directly in shaping decisions (cf. McDougall et al., 2009). On the other hand, they are more time demanding as every idea needs to be accommodated, as well as the perceptions and interest of the local stakeholder groups. However, care must be taken not to think of locally derived indicators as a measure of sustainability for all members of the local community (Parkins et al., 2001). The role of the facilitator and the subjective demands of the local stakeholder might influence the process as well which can lead to differences in comparing the final C & I sets of the BU and TD process. Although some issues seem to be quite important and relevant for forest management at the national level, they may have been neglected at the local level. In our case study, the CFUG hesitated in accepting the provision for paying tax while selling forest products, although the provision for paying tax, fees and royalties has been nominated for the national context. Likewise, non-forest product use and local processing are of high importance in the TD approach but less preferable in the BU approach because of the low intensity of non-timber forest products used for commercialization and processing. In fact, some elite users and committee members (who have more resources in their private lands) are more protection than production oriented and maintain forest cover more generally in the operational plans. So it is evident that the definition of SFM is rather elastic and varies not only between interest groups (as shown above) but also among the same interest groups in different regions (Berninger et al., 2009). Most of the sustainability issues were fully addressed in both approaches and some elements (according to research capacity, transfer of technology and maintenance of forestry infrastructure and current capacity of human resources) have been ignored in national and local standards.). However, the elements of forest road construction, final opening with skid tracks, use of pesticides and herbicides and rehabilitation of degradation off-site impacts are often neglected in the present context. Discrimination based on caste, ethnicity and gender are considered serious social issues in Nepal. The caste system obstructs participation in decision-making forums as well as benefits gained from the forest. Though gender inequalities varies from urban to rural areas and also among ethnic groups, the general pattern seems to indicate that most women have less access to resources and public decisionmaking processes than men (Agrawal, 1994). The BU process in Nawalpur Saraswati (Basamadi) CFUG highlighted such social differentiation practices. The Brahmin/ Chhetris (the so-called upper caste and dominant groups in the community) are influencing the rules of the CFUG
155
156
FORESTRY
Funding This study was supported by the Commission for Development Studies at the Austrian Academy of Science (KEF) and Austrian Exchange Service (OEAD) through awarding Mr Khadka a fellowship for his PhD studies at BOKU University, Vienna.
Conflict of interest statement None declared.
Acknowledgements We would like to express our sincere thanks to the Nawalpur Saraswati CFUG, local facilitators and experts, all of whom showed keen interest in the research. Thanks to Bernhard Wolfslehner and Hima D. Uprety for their valuable contribution in the Delphi study.
References Agrawal, B. 1994 The gender and environment debate: lessons from India. In Population and Environment: Rethinking the Debate. L. Arizpe, M.P. Stone and D.C. Major (eds). Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 51–84. Ananda, J. 2007 Implementing participatory decision making in forest planning. J. Environ. Manage. 39, 534–544. Ascher, W. 1995 Communities and Sustainable Forestry. Institute for Contemporary Studies, San Francisco, CA. Bass, S. 2002 Application of criteria and indicators to support sustainable forest management: some key issues. In Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management. IUFRO Research Series 7. R.J. Raison, A.G. Brown and D.W. Flinn (eds). CABI Publishing, Oxford, pp. 19–37. Batterbury, S., Forsyth, T. and Thomson, K. 1997 Environmental transformations in developing countries: hybrid research and democratic policy. Geogr. J. 163, 126–132. Berninger, K., Kneeshaw, D. and Messier, C. 2009 The role of cultural models in local perceptions of SFM—differences and similarities of interest groups from three boreal regions. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 740–751. Brang, P., Courbaud, B., Fischer, A., Kissling-Näf, I., Pettenella, D., Schnenberger, W. et al. 2002 Developing indicators for the sustainable management of mountain forests using a modelling approach. For. Policy Econ. 4, 113–123. Campo, P.C., Mendoza, G.A., Guizol, P., Villanueva, T.R. and Bousquet, F. 2009 Exploring management strategies for community-based forests using multi-agent systems: a case study in Palawan, Philippines. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 3607–3615. CIFOR. 1999 The Center for International Forestry Research Criteria and Indicators. Generic Template. The Criteria and Indicators Toolbox Series No. 2. Center for international forestry research, Bogor, Indonesia, p. 53. Elbakidze, M., Angelstam, P.K., Sandstrom, C. and Axelsson, R. 2010 Multi-stakeholder collaboration in Russian and Swedish model forest initiatives: adaptive governance toward sustainable forest management? Ecol. Soc. 15, 1–13. FAO. 2003 State of the World’s Forests 2003. Rome, Italy. Fraser, E.D.G., Dougill, A.J., Mabee, W.E., Reed, M. and McAlpine, P. 2006 Bottom up and top down: analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. J. Environ. Manage. 78, 114–127. Gass, R.J., Rickenbach, M., Schulte, L.A. and Zeuli, K. 2009 Cross-boundary coordination on forested landscapes: investigating alternatives for implementation. Environ. Manage. 43, 107–117.
Downloaded from http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on December 29, 2015
about key indicators for SFM. It was important to identify and select experts and stakeholders from various fields because of their experience in providing a valid and reliably developed C & I set. However, there is a further need to develop appropriate mechanisms and involve experts and community members in order to develop a minimum C & I set that measures progress and allows the evaluation of sustainable community-based forest management. The process of C & I development has proved to be the initial step in fostering sustainable community-based forest management in Nepal. The analysis of Nawalpur Saraswati CFUG may provide a starting point for other local C & I initiatives in Nepal. The results of the present study are not meant to represent a definitive set of C & I but rather should be seen as an initial approximation of local values and the first step in an ongoing community-based management process. Forest resource managers can modify this preliminary framework as information becomes available and as community members’ values, expectations and needs change. However, a broad perspective of community-based management – from community forestry to CFM, buffer zone forest to LHF – is needed to identify indicators for evaluation purposes. To formulate and implement those, different C & I sets requires an adaptive and iterative learning process as well as consensus regarding the need to integrate environmental, economic and equity issues. There is no doubt that such integration is feasible from a methodological point, but what is lacking in Nepal is a shared vision and political will to implement it. The government must develop a vision for SFM and link it to the regulatory system for forest management in the future. A National Technical Advisory Group could help to develop a common understanding and bridge the gap between different forest management regimes. The results of this study on C & I development can raise awareness at a political level and will help to bridge the gap between ad hoc planning approaches and more holistic management concepts which include participatory processes. The analysis helped eliciting preferences from different stakeholder groups which can lead to an improved understanding for conflicting objectives at national and community level. The national-level indicators will contribute towards the development and regular updating of policy instruments (e.g. law, policies, regulations) while trends found in the indicators at the FMU level will help to adjust forest management prescriptions over time in order to meet established national goals. It will be possible to evaluate the performance of management strategies at the CFUG level or policy options for Nepal based on a scenario analysis. CFUGs can learn about the effects of forest management by analysing the cause-and-effect relationships, which feedback into the decision-making process in an adaptive co-management system.
IDENTIFICATION AND INDICATORS FOR SFM
Nygren, A. 1999 Local knowledge in the environment development— discourse from dichotomies to situated knowledge. Crit. Anthropol. 19, 267–288. Parkins, J., Varghese, J. and Stedman, R. 2001 Locally Defined Indicators of Community Sustainability in the Prince Albert Model Forest. Canadian Forest Service, Information Report NOR-X-379. Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Canada. Pokharel, R. and Suvedi, M. 2007 Indicators for measuring the success of Nepal’s community forestry program: a local perspective. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 14, 68–75. Pokorny, B. and Adams, M. 2003 “What do criteria and indicators assess? An analysis of five C & I sets relevant for forest management in the Brazilian Amazon.” Int. For. Rev. 5, 20–28. Prabhu, R., Colfer, C.J.P., Venkateswarlu, P., Tan, L.C., Soekmadi, R. and Wollenberg, E. 1996 Testing Criteria and Indicators for the Sustainable Management of Forests. Phase I: Final Report. CIFOR special Publication, Bogor, Indonesia. Prabhu, R., Colfer, C.J.P. and Dudley, R.G. 1999 Guidelines for Developing, Testing and Selecting Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management (Criteria and Indicators Toolbox Series No. 1.). CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Raison, R.J., Brown, A.G. and Flinn, D.W. (eds), 2001. Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management. CAB International and IUFRO, Wallingford and Vienna, 462 pp. Reed, M.S., Fraser, E.D.G. and Dougill, A.J. 2006 An adapting learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecol. Econ. 59, 406–418. Ritchie, B., McDougall, C., Haggith, M. and Burford de Oliveira, N.J. 2000 Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Community Managed Forest Landscapes: An Introductory Guide. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Rowe, G., Wright, G. and Bolger, F. 1991 Delphi: a reevaluation of research and theory. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. 39, 235–251. Sherry, E., Halseth, R., Fondahl, G., Karjala, M. and Leon, B. 2005 Local-level criteria and indicators: an aboriginal perspective on sustainable forest management. Forestry. 78, 513–539. Stewart, J., O’Halloran, C., Harrigan, P., Spencer, J.A., Barton, J.R. and Singleton, S.J. 1999 Identifying appropriate tasks for the pre-registration year: modified Delphi technique. Br. Med. J. 319, 224–229. Tan, K., Baxter, G., Newell, S., Smye, S., Dear, P., Brownlee, K. et al. 2010 Knowledge elicitation for validation of a neonatal ventilation expert system utilizing modified Delphi and focus group techniques. Int. J. Hum. Comp. Studies. 68, 344–354. Thomas, D.S.G. and Twyman, C. 2004 Good or bad rangeland? Hybrid knowledge, science and local understandings of vegetation dynamics in the Kalahari. Land Degrad. Dev. 15, 215–231. Ulrich, H. and Probst, G. 1995 Anleitung zum ganzheitlichen Denken und Handeln. Ein Brevier Für Führungskräfte. Haupt, Bern, Switzerland. Vacik, H., Wolfslehner, B., Seidl, R. and Lexer, M.J. 2007 Integrating the DPSIR-approach and the Analytic Network Process for the assessment of forest management strategies. In Forestry and sustainable livelihoods. K.M. Reynolds and K.J. Warner (eds). Unasylva 202(51), 3–12. Wijewardana, D. 2008 Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management: the road travelled and the way ahead. Ecol. Ind. 8, 115–122.
Downloaded from http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on December 29, 2015
Grayson, A. and Maynard, W. 1997 The World’s Forests- Rio +5: International Initiatives Towards Sustainable Management. Commonwealth Forestry Association, Oxford. Hess, G.R. and King, T.J. 2002 Planning open spaces for wildlife. I. Selecting focal species using a Delphi survey approach. Landsc Urban Plann. 58, 25–40. Hickey, G. and Innes, J. 2006 Monitoring and information reporting through regulation: an interjurisdictional comparison of forestry-related hard laws. Silva Fenn. 40, 365–387. Ho, Y.F. and Chen, H.L. 2007 Healthy housing rating system. J. Archit. 60, 115–136. Hunt, L. and Haider, W. 2001 Fair and effective decision making in forest management planning. Soc. Nat. Resour. 14, 873–887. ITTO. 1992 ITTO Guidelines for the Sustainable Management of Natural Tropical Forests. International Tropical Timber Organization, Yokohama, Japan. ITTO. 1993 ITTO Guidelines for the Establishment and Sustainable Management Planted Tropical Forests. International Tropical Timber Organization, Yokohama, Japan. Johnson, T. 1999 Community based forest management in the Philippines. J. For. 97, 26–30. Karjala, M. and Dewhurst, S.M. 2003 Including aboriginal issues in forest planning: a case study in central interior British Columbia, Canada. Landsc. Urban Plann. 64, 1–17. Kassa, H., Campbell, B., Sandewall, M., Kebede, M., Tesfaye, Y., Dessie, G. et al. 2009 Building future scenarios and uncovering persisting challenges of participatory forest management in Chilimo Forest, Central Ethiopia. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 1004–1013. Kearney, A.R., Bradely, G., Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S. 1998 Stakeholder perspectives on appropriate forest management in the Pacific Northwest. For. Sci. 45, 62–73. Khadka, C. and Vacik, H. 2008 Applying adaptive collaborative management for social learning: a case study of community forestry in Nepal. In Proceedings of I-Know 08 and I-Media 08-International Conferences on Knowledge Management and New Media Technology, Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS). M. Hermann, C. Christian, S. Arto and K. Tochtermann (eds). pp. 101–108. Linser, S. 2001 Critical Analysis of the Basics for the Assessment of Sustainable Development by Indicators. Schriftenreihe Freiburger Forstiche Forschung Band 17, Fribourg, Switzerland. Linstone, H.A. and Turoff, M. 1975 The Delphi Method, Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley, London. McDougall, C., Pandit, B.H., Banjade, M.R., Paudel, K.P., Ojha, H., Maharjan, M. et al. 2009 Facilitating Forests of Learning: Enabling an Adaptive Collaborative Approach in Community Forestry User Groups. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Mendoza, G.A., Macoun, P., Prabhu, R., Sukadri, D., Purnomo, H. and Hartanto, H. 1999 Guidelines for Applying Multi-Criteria Analysis to the Assessment of Criteria and Indicators. Center for International Forestry Research, Jakarta, Indonesia. Mendoza, G.A. and Prabhu, R. 2000 Multiple criteria decision making approaches to assessing forest sustainability using criteria and indicators: a case study. For. Ecol. Manage. 131, 107–126. Mrosek, T., Balsillie, D. and Schleifenbaum, P. 2006 Field testing of a criteria and indicators system for sustainable forest management at the local level. Case study results concerning the sustainability of the private forest Haliburton Forest and Wild Life Reserve in Ontario, Canada. For. Policy Econ. 8, 593–609.
157
158
FORESTRY
Wolfslehner, B. and Vacik, H. 2011 Mapping indicator models: from intuitive problem structuring to quantified decision-making in sustainable forest management. Ecol. Ind. 11, 274–283. Wolfslehner, B., Vacik, H., Lexer, M.J., Würz, A., Hochbichler, E., Klumpp, R. et al. 2003 A System Analysis Approach for Assessing Sustainable Forest Management at FMU Level. FAO Forestry Department: XII World Forestry Congress—Forest’s Source of Life, September 21–28th, Quebec. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/ ARTICLE/WFC/XII/0690-B4.HTM (accessed on 30 June, 2011).
Wolfslehner, B., Vacik, H. and Lexer, M.J. 2005 Application of the analytic network process in multi-criteria analysis of sustainable forest management. For. Ecol. Manage. 207, 157–170. Woodley, S., Alward, G., Gutierrez, L.I., Hoekstra, T., Holt, B., Livingston, L. et al. 1998a North American Test of Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forestry. Final Report vol. 1. Center for international forestry research, Bogor, Indonesia, p. 127. Received 31 July 2011
Downloaded from http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on December 29, 2015
