Advertisement

Society and the Services of Forests

  • Alexander Mather
Part of the World Forests book series (WFSE, volume 1)

Abstract

Forest resources and forest lands shall be managed and used sustainably to fulfill social, economic, ecological, cultural and spiritual needs of present and future generations(United Nations 1993).

This is amongst the most striking of the Non-Legally Binding Forest Principles agreed at UNCED in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The practical significance of this and other principles can be debated endlessly. What is clear, however, is that the statement reflects a recognition that forests have values that transcend those of timber and other material products. At the end of the 20th century, the perceived values of forest services are arguably increasing relative to those of material goods, especially in the developed world. In the United States, for example, forests have been increasingly viewed as environments and as aesthetic resources, rather than simply as sources of timber and other commodities (Hays 1987). Their non-human, i.e., intrinsic, values are also being increasingly expressed (Bengston 1994). Some service functions of forests have, of course, been long recognized, and their perceived roles in, for example, protection against floods and avalanches have featured in some national policies for centuries. There is little doubt, however, that the past 50 years in general and the last two decades in particular have witnessed significant changes.

Keywords

Forest Management Indigenous People Forest Resource Ecosystem Management Forest Stewardship Council 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bengston, D.N. 1994. Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources 7: 515–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birch, T.W. and Dennis, D.F. 1980. The forest-land owners of Pennsylvania. USDA Forest Service Research Bulletin NE-66.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, G. and Harris, C.C. 1992. The Forest Service: Toward the new resource management paradigm. Society and Natural Resources 5: 231–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burger, J. 1990. First Peoples. Gaia Books, London.Google Scholar
  5. Cribb, R. 1988. Conservation policy and politics in Indonesia 1945-1988. In J. Dargavel et al. (eds.), Changing Tropical Forests. Canberra, Australian National University. Pp. 341–355.Google Scholar
  6. Dargavel, J. et al. (eds.) 1988. Changing Tropical Forests. Canberra, Australian National University.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, S.H. 1993. Indigenous Views of Land and Environment. World Bank Discussion Paper 180. World Bank, Washington.Google Scholar
  8. Dietrich, W. 1992. The final forest: Battle for the last great trees of the Pacific Northwest. Penguin, New York.Google Scholar
  9. FAO 1995 Forest resources assessment 1990: Global synthesis. FAO Forestry Paper 124. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
  10. Gladstone, W.T. and Ledig, F.T. 1990. Reducing pressure on natural forests through high-yield forestry. Forest Ecology and Management 35(1-2): 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glück, P. 1987. Social values in forestry. AMBIO 16(2-3): 158–160.Google Scholar
  12. Grumbine, M. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8: 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hays, S.P. 1987. Beauty, Health and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States 1955-1985. CUP, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  14. Hirsch, P. and Lohmann, L. 1989. Contemporary politics of environment in Thailand. Asian Survey 29: 439–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Humphreys, D. 1996 Forest Politics, the Evolution of International Cooperation. Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
  16. Inglehart, R. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  17. Kennedy, J.J. 1985. Conceiving forest management as providing for current and future social value. Forest Ecology and Management 13(1-2): 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kennedy, J.J. 1988. The symbolic infrastructure of natural resource management: An example of the US Forest Service. Society and Natural Resources 1: 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kingsley, N.P. and Birch, T.W. 1980. The forest land owners of Maryland. USDA Forest Service Research Bulletin NE-63.Google Scholar
  20. Lehtinen, A.A. 1991. Northern natures: A study of the forest question emerging with the timber-line conflict in Finland. Fennia 169(1): 57–169.Google Scholar
  21. Mather, A.S. 1990. Global Forest Resources. Belhaven, London.Google Scholar
  22. Mather, A.S. 1991. Pressures on British forest policy: Prelude to the post-industrial forest. Area 23: 245–253.Google Scholar
  23. More, T.A. 1996. Forestry’s Fuzzy Concepts: An Examination of Ecosystem Management. Journal of Forestry 94(8): 19–23.Google Scholar
  24. Nyyssönen, A. and Ahti, A. (eds.) 1997. Expert Consultation on Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Research Papers 620. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki. Pp. 306–310.Google Scholar
  25. Rosencranz, A. and Scott, A. 1992. Siberia’s threatened forests. Nature 355: 293–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Routley, R. and Routley, V. 1973. The fight for the forests. Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
  27. Schama, S. 1995. Landscape and Memory. HarperCollins, London.Google Scholar
  28. Sedjo, R.A. 1994. The global environmental effects of local logging cutbacks. Resources 117: 2–5.Google Scholar
  29. Shvidenko, A. and Nilsson, S. 1994. What Do We Know About the Siberian Forests. AMBIO 23(7): 396–404.Google Scholar
  30. Steel, B.S., List, P. and Shindler, B. 1994. Conflicting values about federal forests: A comparison of national and Oregon publics. Society and Natural Resources 7: 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Swanson, T.M. and Barbier, E.B. 1992. Economics for the wilds: Wildlife, wildlands, diversity and development. Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
  32. UN-ECE/FAO 1993. The Forest Resources of the Temperate Zones: The UN-ECE/FAO 1990 Forest Resource Assessment: Volume II Benefits and Functions of the Forest. United Nations, New York.Google Scholar
  33. United Nations 1982. United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations. United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, New York.Google Scholar
  34. United Nations 1993. Report of the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Vol. 1. Resolutions Adopted by the Conferernce. United Nations, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Utting, P. 1993. Trees, People and Power. Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
  36. Yaffee, S.L. 1994. The Wisdom of the Spotted Owl. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Mather

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations