Tasmania Report Final rev Jan08:Test2.qxd

A Global Comparison ofForest Practice PoliciesUsing Tasmania as aConstant Case

Constance L. McDermott, Benjamin Cashore, andPeter Kanowski

Yale UniversitySchool of Forestry & Environmental StudiesGlobal Institute of Sustainable Forestry

GISF Research Paper 010

A Global Comparison ofForest Practice PoliciesUsing Tasmania as aConstant Case

Constance L. McDermottYale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies

Benjamin CashoreYale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies

Peter KanowskiAustralian National University

March 2007GISF Research Paper 010Yale Program on Forest Policy and Governance

Yale UniversitySchool of Forestry and Environmental StudiesGlobal Institute of Sustainable Forestry360 Prospect Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06511 USAwww.yale.edu/gisf

A Global Comparison of Forest Practice Policies using Tasmania as a Constant Case2

Acknowledgements

We offer our sincere thanks to Hans Drielsma, Graham Wilkinson, Penny Wells, Humphrey Elliott, John Hickey,Tim Leaman, and others who have provided detailed and insightful comments on the report.

Yale University’s Global Institute of Sustainable Forestry 3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 7

Forests and forestry in Tasmania – A brief overview .......................................................................... 8

Methodology ............................................................................................................................................... 12

Forest Practice Policies ............................................................................................................................... 15

Riparian zone management ............................................................................................................ 15

Clearcut size limits and cutting rules ............................................................................................... 25

Road stream-crossings and road decommissioning ......................................................................... 30

Reforestation .................................................................................................................................. 33

Annual allowable cut ...................................................................................................................... 34

Plantation Policies ....................................................................................................................................... 37

Biodiversity Protection Policies .................................................................................................................... 42

Protection of species at risk ............................................................................................................ 42

Protected areas ............................................................................................................................. 42

Enforcement and Compliance Policies ......................................................................................................... 45

Forest Certification ...................................................................................................................................... 47

The global context ......................................................................................................................... 47

Forest certification in Australia ....................................................................................................... 48

Summary, Conclusions, and Further Research ............................................................................................ 52

References ................................................................................................................................................. 59

Background and Objectives

The Program on Forest Policy and Governance at YaleUniversity’s School of Forestry and EnvironmentalStudies was commissioned by the Forest and ForestIndustry Council of Tasmania to undertake this study.The purpose of the Program is to conduct analyticalresearch, teaching and outreach addressing criticalglobal and domestic forest policy issues. The Programtakes no position on the appropriateness of anyparticular policy approach. Instead, it conducts arange of research projects designed to enhancetransparency, dialogue and learning about global anddomestic forestry challenges. This continues to be aworking document and we welcome further feedback.

Executive Summary

This report systematically compares environmentalforest practice policies in the Australian State ofTasmania with the policies of thirty-eight otherjurisdictions, from twenty countries worldwide. Thejurisdictions included in this study were selected onthe basis of their forest extent and/or importance toglobal forest products trade.

The comparison was conducted using a standardizedtemplate, developed by Cashore and McDermott(2004), that compares policies across five key forestpractices criteria. These criteria are: riparian zonemanagement, clearcut size, road culverts anddecommissioning, reforestation requirements, andannual allowable cut. Policies are analyzed accordingto two measures. The first measure involves theclassification of policies by level of prescriptiveness.Policy classification captures the structure of the policyrequirements, but not the content. The secondmeasure explores policy content through anassessment of “performance thresholds” i.e. specificon-the-ground forest management prescriptions. Inaddition, the report discusses approaches to plantationmanagement, biodiversity protection, enforcement andcompliance, and forest certification.

The primary focus of this study is on written policiesrather than implementation; hence the report makesno attempt to link policy approach with environmentalimpact. Due to the limited scope of the analysis, the

report is intended to inform, but not resolve, debatesabout how to best encourage environmental protectionand promote sustainable forestry in Tasmania andelsewhere.

KEY CONCLUSIONS

Forest Practice Policies

General

Tasmania is unique among case study Organization forEconomic Co-operation and Development (OECD)jurisdictions in applying the same forest practicepolicies to both public and private lands in regards toriparian buffers, clearcut size limits, reforestation androad building.

Policy prescriptiveness (policy structure)

• In comparison with North American case studies,Tasmania ranks as equally prescriptive as the westernCanadian case studies, California, and the forestsmanaged by the US Forest Service.

• Among the OECD countries outside of North America,Tasmania is the most prescriptive.

• The US Southeast and Portugal have the least prescriptivepolicies of any of the jurisdictions assessed.

• Amongst developing and emerging economy countries,Russia takes the most prescriptive approach, comparableto Tasmania’s. However, other assessments (Esty andCornelius 2002) suggest Russia has the least effectiveenvironmental governance system of any case studyjurisdiction.

Performance thresholds (policy content)

• Tasmanian forest practice performance thresholdsmost closely resemble those of the western US andCanadian case studies.

• Tasmanian thresholds are generally less restrictivethan those of the US Forest Service, New SouthWales, and developing country case studies.

4 A Global Comparison of Forest Practice Policies using Tasmania as a Constant Case

• The most restrictive threshold requirements are found indeveloping countries and countries in economictransition where, paradoxically, government enforcementcapacity is lowest.

Plantation policies

• Across all of our case studies, environmental protectionpolicies related to plantations are either the same orless prescriptive than they are for natural forests. Themost detailed plantation policies are found in Tasmania,the other Oceanic case studies, and South Africa.

• Tasmanania’s forest practices requirements for plantationsare generally similar to those for natural forests; they aremore permissive only in the case of clearcut size on slopesless than 20 degrees.

Biodiversity protection policies – species at risk andprotected areas

Tasmanian regulations protecting endangered speciesare among the most prescriptive of our case studycountries. Species at risk, including vertebrate andinvertebrate animals, vascular plants, and lower plantssuch as mosses and lichens, as well as their habitats,are afforded special protection.

In regards to protected areas, there is a lack of reliableglobal-scale data, as well as a lack of sufficient data atthe sub-national level, that would allow an accuratecomparison of Tasmania with other case studyjurisdictions. The national-level World Database onProtected Areas provides the best available data as of2006 (WDPA Consortium 2006). According to thisdatabase and Tasmanian records, in 2006 Tasmaniahad more area protected under IUCN categories I(strict nature preserves, wilderness areas) and II(national parks) than any of the case study countries(including Australia, as a whole). SubsequentTasmanian forest policy agreements have protectedadditional areas from timber harvest, mostly underIUCN categories III-VI (special and/or sustainable usenatural areas). Across all categories of formal reserve,40.2% of Tasmania’s land area was protected in 2006.

Outside of protected areas, Tasmanian forest policyallows for the conversion of natural forest to plantationacross 5% of its 1996 natural forest cover. Thisconversion, which is limited in extent within each forestcommunity, is to be phased out on public lands by2010 and on private lands by 2015. Among the othercase study jurisdictions, such conversion is allowed inmany private forests but is often prohibited in publicforests. Concerns over the environmental impacts ofnatural forest conversion has generated a great deal ofcontroversy within, and outside of, Australia.

Enforcement policies

Tasmania is unusual amongst the case studycomparators in applying and implementing the sameforest practices system across all land tenures. Theenforcement of Tasmanian forest practice regulationsis governed by the Forest Practices Authority (FPA;formerly the Forest Practices Board). The FPAoversees both random and routine audits on bothpublic and private tenures. This type of systematicauditing is not uncommon among developed countrycomparators. However, Tasmania takes a uniquely co-regulatory approach, involving state oversight of forestpractice audits conducted by accredited “ForestPractice Officers”. Routine audits are mandatory uponcompletion of all forestry operations. They must beconducted by Forest Practice Officers, who may alsobe employees of the company audited. Independentrandom audits are conducted by the FPA using thirdparty Officers and FPA staff.

In most marked contrast to Tasmania amongst casestudy comparators, forest practice regulations onprivate land in the US Southeast and Portugal areprimarily voluntary, and state monitoring efforts maynot be backed by enforcement mechanisms. In thecase of lesser-developed case study countries,legislation may allow for strict enforcement, butgovernments often lack capacity to consistentlyenforce their environmental policies.

Forest certification

Forest certification continues to be a strongly contestedpolicy arena. In Australia, there are active protagonistsof both the globally focused and environmental group-initiated Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), and the

5Yale University’s Global Institute of Sustainable Forestry

nationally focused and domestically initiated (but nowPEFC-endorsed) Australian Forestry Standard (AFS).The FSC’s rule precluding certification of plantationson forest lands converted after November 1994 is adifference between the two programs, which de juremakes significant areas of plantation owned by keycompanies in Tasmania ineligible for FSC certification.Some Australian plantation forestry firms have soughtand secured FSC certification; conversely, manyAustralian state forestry agencies and other firms,including those which harvest the majority of woodfrom Tasmanian public and private lands, have soughtand secured certification under the AFS. WithinTasmania, as of June 2006, 63 hectares had beencertified under the FSC and over 1.7 million hectaresunder the AFS.

Conclusions

This study’s systematic classification and assessmentof forest practices policies has revealed considerablevariation across the case study jurisdictions.Tasmanian policies for public lands are among the fivemost consistently prescriptive of the case study publicownerships and among the three most consistentlyprescriptive of the case study private ownerships.Tasmanian performance thresholds are mostcomparable to those of western North America. Thecomparative effectiveness of Tasmania’s policyapproach in achieving environmental objectives is asubject for future research relating policy approach toforest management outcomes.


Yale University’s Global Institute of Sustainable Forestry 7

This study’s focus is on written rules and formalizedenforcement procedures, rather than on-the-groundmeasurement of implementation. The clarification ofwhat policies are already in place, however, paves theway for more systematic future research into therelationship between written policies and on-the-groundachievement of sustainable forest management.

The report draws on existing work by Cashore andMcDermott (Cashore and McDermott 2004). Thereader looking for further, in-depth information on the38 case studies outside of Tasmania is encouraged toaccess the larger report.

Introduction

In Tasmania as elsewhere, forestry firms, governments,and a wide range of concerned citizens and non-governmental organizations are facing a rapidlyglobalizing forest economy that is complex, uncertain,and highly contentious. The targeting of wood productsfrom specific regions and individual firms is on the rise,new and conflicting modes of private authority arevying to redefine the rules of global forest trade,international forums and policy deliberations haveproliferated, and a range of governmental and non-governmental organizations are demanding verificationof the legality of product sources.

There is at the same time a lack of transparencyregarding the content of existing forest policies and thedegree to which different jurisdictions have thus fartailored their policies to address the issues of growingglobal concern. The purpose of this report, therefore,is to promote policy learning and reduce uncertaintyfor governmental agencies, forestry firms, and otherforestry stakeholders by rigorously comparing just whatTasmania and other key forestry jurisdictions requireof firms operating within their own borders. Whileindividual scholars and practitioners have considerableknowledge about specific countries or regions, nopublished studies have systematically compareddifferent domestic forest policy requirements acrossthe globe.

This report will provide a policy comparison betweenTasmania and 38 other jurisdictions worldwide. Thecomparison includes the description and classificationof each jurisdiction’s policy approach to key forestpractices criteria, as well as quantitative comparisons ofspecific environmental performance requirements.Process requirements are covered only as they directlyrelate to the substantive forest practice issues addressed.

In addition to the highly standardized comparison ofspecific forest practice criteria, the report also addressesseveral broad, overarching policy issues. These includeplantation management, the protection of biodiversity, andthe institutions of forest law enforcement and governance.Enforcement and governace are covered through theexamination of state-based regulatory structures as wellas non-state environmental governance through forestcertification.

Forests and Forestry in Tasmania – A BriefOverview

The Australian State of Tasmania is an island of 68,331square kilometers1 located 240 km. off the southeastcoast of mainland Australia. The state’s topography isrugged and mountainous, and the climate is cool-temperate with high rainfall in some areas, especiallyin the western region (up to 3200 mm. average annualrainfall) (AUS Bureau of Meteorology 2007). About halfof Tasmania is forested, with eco-types ranging fromtemperate rainforest to wet and dry eucalypt and mixedforests. A diversity of eucalypt and acacia speciespredominate, interspersed with other temperate treesand some native conifers (CSIRO 1997).

Over the two-hundred and nineteen years sinceEuropean settlement, an estimated 23% of Tasmania’snative vegetation has been cleared (RPDC 2005),including about 45% of the wet and dry eucalyptforests. The greatest losses have occurred ingrasslands and grassy woodlands which have beencleared for grazing and agriculture (RPDC 2003; WWFAustralia 2004). The rate of forest loss has recentlydeclined along with changing economic conditionsand a shift in government priorities. By 2006,approximately 42% of Tasmania’s remaining forestarea had been placed under some form ofconservation reserve (DPIW and Forestry Tasmaniaunpublished), and additional forest protected ascommercial forest within Tasmania’s Permanent ForestEstate.2 The vast majority of the conservation reserves

1 Tasmania is the smallest of the Australian states, roughly equaling the size of West Virginia or Scotland.2 Forestry Tasmania and the DPIW calculate the % reserve system based on a total land area of 68,100 km2., a figure which excludes estuaries and other land

below mean high water mark (personal communication w/ Penny Wells, Director of Policy and Projects, DPIW; Nov. 30, 2006).

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

Conserv

ation

Reserv

es

Oth

er State

Forest

Oth

er publicly

managed

land

Private

freehold

land

Hec

tare

s

Dry eucalypt forest Wet eucalypt forest Sub-alpine eucalypt forest Non-eucalypt forest Plantation

Figure 1. Forestland distribution by land ownership, forest type, and reserve status in 2006


are located on public lands, while unreservedforestland ownership is divided nearly evenly betweenpublic and private. Figure 1 illustrates the distributionof forestlands across ownerships, forest types, andreserve status as of 2006.

Figure 1 reveals differences in the distribution of wetand non-eucalypt forests between public and privatelands, as well as in the proportion of each forest typecovered by conservation reserves. The majority of weteucalypt, non-eucalypt, and sub-alpine forests arelocated on public lands, while dry eucalypt are moreevenly distributed across public and private lands.Across both land ownership types, conservationreserves cover 38% of the wet eucalypt and 36% ofthe dry eucalypt forests, roughly 76% of the non-eucalypt forests, and 79% of the sub-alpine forests.

As a whole, Tasmania’s per capita forest area is high incomparison to most of the jurisdictions covered in thisreport, with a total state population of about 487,000(Jackson 2005). The forest sector provides significantemployment opportunities for the state’s residents, andbetween 1995 and 2000 was responsible forapproximately 18% of all manufacturing jobs (FPB 2002).3

In regards to total wood production, Tasmania leads theAustralian states and territories in pulpwood harvestsfrom both public and private native forests, whileranking fourth in the production of sawlogs and veneer(DAFF 2003a). In addition, Tasmania’s plantationforests are growing rapidly in size and economicimportance (Parsons, Gavran, and Gerrard 2004).

2043

16

281

1747

219278

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Native Forests Eucalypt Plantations Softwood Plantations

'00

0 T

on

s

PublicPrivate

Figure 2. Tasmanian pulpwood harvest, 1996-2001 average

293

0

500

174

0

74

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Native Forests Eucalypt Plantation Softwood Plantations

'00

0 c

ub

ic m

ete

rs

Public

Private

Figure 3. Tasmanian sawlog and veneer harvest, 1996-2001 average. Source: (FPB 2002: 50)

3 Total manufacturing employment accounted for about 12% of employment in Tasmania in 1996 and 11.5% in 2001. DIER. 2006. Department ofInfrastructure, Energy and Resources, June 7, 2006 2006 [cited December 18 2006]. Available from http://www.dier.tas.gov.au/forests/rural_land2/employment.


Both the Tasmanian State Government and theAustralian Government have played active roles inpromoting the further development of Tasmania’splantation resource. In line with government policy,plantation production is projected to increasedramatically over the next twenty years due to anexpansion in area planted and a rise in the averageage class of existing plantations (Australia andTasmania 2005b; Plantations 2020 2002). Themajority of this expansion will occur in eucalypthardwood plantations that are owned privately or aspart of private-public joint ventures (Parsons, Gavran,and Gerrard 2004).

Historically, forest policy in Tasmania has been largelydeveloped at the state level. The state’s first majorpiece of forestry legislation was the 1920 Forestry Act.This Act, though it has since undergone manyamendments, remains in effect today, and contains acore requirement that state-owned forests produce aminimum annual harvest of eucalypt sawlogs andveneer.

More recently, Tasmania became the first of theAustralian states and territories to develop and adoptdetailed environmental forest practice regulations. The1985 Forest Practices Act provides a consolidatedlegal framework for this regulatory regime. The ForestPractices Act designates the Forest Practices Board(now the Forest Practices Authority (FPA)) as the

governing body responsible to carry out its mandates.The Act also outlines forest planning requirements fromthe forest to state level. The Act furthermore requires thedevelopment and implementation of a Forest PracticesCode, providing detailed forest practice requirementsapplicable to both public and private forestlands. Thefirst Code was established in 1987, revised in 1993, andrevised again in 2000. The Code is supported by anumber of technical guides and planning manualscovering areas such as flora, fauna, geomorphology,soils, cultural heritage, visual landscape, silviculture, andfire management (FPA 2006).

Since the 1980s, the Australian Government hasplayed an increasing role in forest policy-making. Inthe 1990s, Regional Forest Agreements weredeveloped as a vehicle for integrating national andinternational forestry priorities with state and locallegislation. The Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs)are built in part around the international “MontrealProcess Criteria and Indicators for the Conservationand Sustainable Management of Temperate andBoreal Forests,” that call for the balancing ofeconomic, social, and environmental managementpriorities. Tasmania is covered by one RFA, signed in1997. A supplementary agreement, referred to as theTasmanian Community Forestry Agreement (TCFA),was added in 2005.

680

4860

20

1620

7001050

560 500

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

2000-04 2025-29

'00

0 c

ub

ic m

ete

rs

Hardwood Pulp (all sources)

Hardwood Solid Wood*

Softwood Veneer and Sawlog

Softwood Pulp

*Solid Wood is principally the non-pulpwood product of the tree that may be valuable for a variety of uses, includingrotary peeling or sawing.

Figure 4. Projected yields for all Tasmanian plantations in five-year production classes. Source (FPB 2002: 48)


The content of the Tasmanian RFA and TCFA reflectthe complex and often contentious history of naturalresource management within both the state and thecountry as a whole (Dargavel 1995). The stated goalsof the RFA and TCFA are to augment Australia’sComprehensive, Adequate, and Representative (CAR)reserve system through the protection of old growthforest and rainforest; accelerate industry growth; andensure sustained regional employment (Australia andTasmania 1997: 1; Australia and Tasmania 2005a).The primary strategy to achieve these goals is tobalance an expanded reserve system with an increasein the area of plantation forest.

The RFA made provisions for the establishment of anadditional 473,474 hectares (ha) of formal publicreserve areas (RPDC 2002), and the supplementaryTCFA added an additional 148,000 hectares of publicland reserves, including 120,000 hectares of oldgrowth forest (Australia and Tasmania 2005b). Inaddition, a commitment was made to “facilitate thevoluntary participation by private landowners” in theprotection of private lands (Australia and Tasmania1997). Meanwhile clearfelling in state-owned oldgrowth forests is to be reduced to no more than 20%of the old growth harvest by 2010 (Australia andTasmania 2005b).

The creation of additional protected areas has led to apotential decrease in the projected supply of highquality sawlogs. In order to meet the sustained yieldrequirements of the state’s Forestry Act whilecontinuing to address stated industry and employmentgoals, the TCFA calls for an increase in intensiveplantation management. This latter objective is to beachieved, in part, through the conversion of nativeforests to plantation. Under the TCFA, the clearing andconversion of native forests is to be phased out onpublic lands by the year 2010 and on private lands by2015. Conversion is also to be limited to no more than5% of the 1996 native forest cover (Australia andTasmania 2005b). The issue of native forestconversion is, for some groups, among the mostcontroversial elements of these RFA and TCFAagreements (see, for example, WWF Australia 2004).


The analytical tool used in this comparison is basedon four broad categorizations of policy. The first twocategories classify policy on the basis of its structure,distinguishing between: 1) policy that grants forestmanagers discretion in its application, labeleddiscretionary, and 2) policy that is non-discretionary.The second two policy categories focus on policymethod, and consist of 1) policy that directlyaddresses forest management practices (e.g. the sizeof riparian buffers or limits on clearcutting), which werefer to as substantive; and 2) policy that outlinesprocedures that must be followed to address forestmanagement concerns (e.g. planning requirements orthe development of environmental managementsystems), which we refer to as procedural. Table 1summarizes this policy classification system.

The classification system summarized in Table 1, inturn, yields the following matrix of four “ideal type”policy styles.

Methodology

A widespread awareness of the global impacts of forestpractices has generated a plethora of policy research,from theoretical and empirical analyses of internationalforestry governance systems, to numerous single- andmultiple- case studies (e.g. Gunningham and Sinclair2002; Gunningham, Sinclair, and Grabosky 1998;Hoberg 2003; Howlett, Rayner, and Wellstead 2004;Humphreys 1996; Humphreys 1999; Rametsteinerand Simula 2003). Despite significant advances,especially regarding the analysis of the broader goalsgoverning national forest policies, there has beensurprisingly little work done on what Hall refers to as“policy settings”—i.e. the specifics of what regulationsactually require.4 This is an important gap for tworeasons. First, without careful attention to therequirements of policy, it is hard to know just whatnational forest policies and goals might mean for on-the-ground forestry operations. Written policies meanlittle, however, if they are not implemented andenforced. This leads to the second reason for detailedpolicy analysis, which is to set the stage for systematicresearch on the enforcement and effectiveness of thepolicies identified. For this purpose, we have adaptedCashore’s comparative policy framework (1997) toexamine key pieces of existing forestry legislationcurrently in place in wood producing and consumingcountries around the world.

Structure Approach

1) Discretionary Rules encourage, but don’t require, a course of action

2) Non-discretionary Rules require a specific course of action.

Method

1) Substantive Rules address on-the-ground changes

2) Planning/ procedural Rules address management systems, rather than on-the-ground

actions

Table 1. Policy classification framework

4 For an exception, see Cashore, Benjamin, and Michael Howlett 2006. Behavioural Thresholds and Institutional Rigidities as Explanations of PunctuatedEquilibrium Processes in Pacific Northwest Forest Policy Dynamics. In By Fits and Starts: Punctuated Equilibrium in US Environmental Policy edited by R.Repetto. New Haven, CT: Forthcoming 2007 Yale University Press.


The utility of the four “ideal type” policy styles createsa clearer picture of regulations that are otherwise toocomplex and confusing to facilitate analysis anddialogue. For the very same reasons that such “idealtype” classification approaches are important—i.e. theycreate clarity and transparency out of complexity—such classifications may not always accommodate thespecifics of a given policy. For these reasons, followingour review, we have added the term “mixed” to refer tothose policies which a) include mandatory substantiverequirements without precise, standardized thresholds(i.e. policies that allow for government discretion);and/or b) apply to only a limited geographic area.“Mixed” policies might include, for example, a policyrequiring no harvest buffer zones without the provisionof standardized buffer zone widths. Examples ofgeographically limited policies are clearcut size limitsthat apply only to certain forest types (for example,alpine forests or native loblolly pine forests).

This report applies the forest policy classificationsystem to key forest policies in twenty differentcountries worldwide, with Tasmania as a baselinecomparison. The case studies were selected from themajor wood producing regions of the world on thebasis of 1) greatest area of forest cover within theirworld region; and 2) highest monetary value ofimport/export trade in forest products within their worldregion. These selection criteria were chosen not onlyas indicators of importance to the global forest sector,but also due to the availability of comparable global-scale data within the FAO forestry database. Inaddition, the case studies of Chile, New Zealand,Portugal, Poland, and Latvia were added because oftheir importance to changing global wood markets.

Sub-national case studies were selected for countriesthat primarily govern forestry at the sub-national level.These sub-national cases were selected, in turn, onthe basis of 1) high area of forest cover, and 2) largevolume of wood products production. Table 3 providesa list of the 38 national and sub-national case studyjurisdictions.

Discretionary Non-discretionary

Procedural (systems-based)

Procedural flexible

Procedural inflexible

Substantive (performance-

based)

Policy specificationflexible

Policy specification “stringent” (inflexible)

Table 2. Matrix of four policy styles


Case Study Country Sub-national Case Alberta

British Columbia (BC)

Ontario

Canada*

Quebec

Alabama

Alaska

Arkansas

California

Georgia

Idaho

Louisiana

Mississippi

Montana

North Carolina

Oregon

South Carolina

Texas

Virginia

United States*

Washington

Germany Bavaria

Finland Sweden Portugal

New South Wales Australia

Tasmania

New ZealandJapan LatviaPoland Russian Federation MexicoBrazil Amazon Basin

Chile India Madhya Pradesh

Indonesia China South Africa Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

* Of the sub-national case studies, the Canadian provinces and the US states have thus far been the most thoroughlysampled. We would encourage future comparative work to apply similarly intensive sampling to Germany, Brazil, andIndia. A study including all forested Australian states and territories is currently underway.

Table 3. Case study jurisdictions


Forest Practice Policies

This section contains an examination of policies,regulations, and guidelines in each of the case studycountries, addressing five key variables relating tosustainable forest management: 1) riparian areas, 2)cutting rules (i.e. clearcutting, or other cutting rulesrelevant to tropical forestry), 3) road-building, 4)reforestation, and 5) the calculation of annual allowablecut (AAC) (i.e. harvest levels). Specific policy indicatorshave been identified for each of these variables to allowfor precise, standardized comparison. For example,minimum buffer zone size was chosen as an indicator ofa government’s approach to riparian management andclearcut size limits as an indicator for policies governingharvest patterns. Legislation in each of these countries iscompared with Tasmania, which serves as the “constantcase comparison” sample in our global study.

In many countries, forest practice policies vary amongland ownership types and between natural forests5

and plantations6. For the sake of clarity andcomparability, this section will focus on the policiesgoverning natural forests within land ownership typesthat account for at least 20% of a jurisdiction’s forestarea and/or 20% of its total wood product production.Given the growing importance of plantations inTasmania (as elsewhere), this report will also addressplantation policies in a separate section.

The policies considered are those that apply generallyacross all forestlands of a given ownership type, or thatcontain a general set of environmental attributes. Theydo not include individualized requirements for namedsites of environmental or social importance (such asthe Ganges River or the Rio Grande).

The policies subject to standardized comparison arethe written regulations in force in February 2004. Asearlier stated, written regulations may or may notcapture the norms of on-the-ground implementation.Furthermore, policy-making is a dynamic process andsome rules may have changed since the 2004 cut-offdate. Given the more detailed coverage of the

Tasmanian case study, this report provides somediscussion of implementation norms and policychange within Tasmania, while noting the need forsimilar research in other jurisdictions.

Riparian zone management (Indicator: Riparianbuffer zone rules)

The protection of riparian areas is a central issue inmany forest management debates. Given the wide-spread acceptance of buffer zones as a means toprotect riparian habitat and water quality, this indicatorprovides a very useful snapshot of a government’s policyapproach, and the relative level of environmental restrictionits policies entail for riparian zone management.

The comparison will examine two different types ofriparian zone restrictions—no harvest buffer zones andspecial management buffer zones—as they applyto streams and rivers (lakes, ponds, wetlands andother more stationary water bodies are not included inthe analysis). “No harvest buffer zones” are zoneswhere timber harvest is prohibited within the bufferarea. The simplicity of this requirement allows forrelatively easy comparison across jurisdictions,although the diversity of stream classification systemsadds some complication. Special management zones(SMZs) are zones where a limited form of timberharvest is allowed. The limitations on management inthese zones vary considerably. For example, in somecases the SMZs are essentially machinery exclusionzones with no limits on harvest levels, whereas otherSMZs may involve high levels of tree retention andnumerous other management restrictions. Due tolimited space and resources, this report addresses onlythe relative sizes, and not the specific managementprescriptions of the case study SMZs, except in thosecases where otherwise noted.

In Tasmania, riparian buffer zone requirements areestablished within the state’s Forest Practices Code(2000). Unlike most other case study jurisdictions, theCode rules are the same for both public and privately

5 The precise definition of “natural forests,” as well as the terms used to describe it, varies between countries. Generally “natural forests”, and its corollaries“native forests” or “indigenous forests”, are relative terms referring to forests that have undergone less intensive silvicultural activities than “plantationforests” and that consist of predominantly native species.

6 This report adopts the 2001 FAO definition of “plantations”. The FAO defines plantations as “forest stands established by planting and/or seeding in theprocess of afforestation or reforestation. They are either of introduced species (all planted stands), or intensively managed stands of indigenous species,which meet all the following criteria: one or two species at planting, even age class, regular spacing” (FAO 2001).


owned forests. The Code outlines a series ofquantitative threshold requirements that identify bufferareas in which no harvest is allowed, as well as SMZswhere management activities are restricted. Thestream classification system used to determine bufferzone widths is based on the size of the watershed orcatchments area, its presence or absence on1:100,000 topographical series maps, and theconstancy of stream flow throughout all seasons. Table4 provides a summary of the four stream classes used.

A 10-meter no harvest zone is required along theportions of large to moderately sized perennial streamsthat reside within catchments of at least 50 hectares(i.e. Class 1-3 streams). Mandatory SMZs areprescribed for an additional 10 to 30 meters from thestream depending on stream class. Among themanagement restrictions within the SMZs is a harvestlimit of 30% canopy removal (FPB 2000:46).

The buffer zone policies for Class 4 streams, i.e.smaller catchments that flow “for part or all of the yearon most years,” include a 10-meter machineryexclusion zone (SMZs) (FPB 2000). In May of 2004,after the cut off date for our standardized policycomparison, new guidelines were released for theprotection of Class 4 streams. These guidelines, whichwere developed as the result of ongoing research,added further restrictions based on detailed measuresof slope and “soil erodibility” (FPA 2004).

In addition to these standard requirements based onstream class, Tasmania has enacted further restrictionson riparian management within two kilometers from atown water source. These include a 10 meter no-harvestzone on all streams, including the smallest size class,

plus an additional 40 meter SMZ along larger streams.

The Tasmanian Code also includes a policy to retain“wildlife habitat strips” for the maintenance of habitatdiversity. In this case, the Code uses the word “should”which is defined as indicating a desirable practice forwhich Forest Practice Officers can make exceptions if“acceptable environmental outcomes are achieved(FPB 2000).” Specifically, the policy for wildlife habitatstrips states, “As a guide, strips of uncut forest 100-meter in width, based on streamside reserves butincluding links up slopes and across ridges to connectwith watercourses in adjoining catchments, should beprovided every 3-5 km (FPB 2000).” For the purposesof our standardized comparative framework, weclassify this approach as “voluntary”, since discretionis afforded to non-governmental Forest PracticeOfficers. However, it should be noted that theapproach is less discretionary than a policy assigningfull discretion to the licensee or private forest owner.

The interpretation and enforcement of these riparianpolicies may in some cases involve restrictions thatexceed the standard written requirements. Forexample, there are reportedly no cases on state forestlands where harvesting has been conducted within 10meters of a Class 3 stream, and it is common practiceto establish no harvest buffers within SMZs on all Class1-3 streams.7 This apparent discrepancy betweenwritten rules and practice norms highlights the needfor further research on implementation.

In terms of written policy approach, Tasmanian riparianpolicies include the most prescriptive type, i.e. policiesthat are mandatory and substantive, requiring specificon-the-ground action. However, as with all jurisdictions,

Class Definition Class 1 Rivers, lakes, artificial storages (other than farm dams), and tidal waters –

generally those named on 1:100,000 topographical series maps.

Class 2 Creeks, streams, and other watercourses from the point where their

catchments exceeds 100 ha.

Class 3 Watercourses carrying running water most of the year between the points

where their catchments are from 50 to 100 ha.

Class 4 All other watercourses carrying water for part or all of the year for most years.

Table 4. Tasmanian stream classification system. Source: Forest Practices Board (2000). Forest Practices Code,Forest Practices Board, Hobart, Tasmania: pg. 56.

7 Personal communication, Chris Mitchell, Forest Practices Authority, with Tim Leaman, Conservation Planner, Forestry Tasmania, July 2006.


policy application may be more or less restrictive thanthe written language implies, depending on the mannerin which the policy is implemented and the frequencywith which exceptions are granted.

Figure 5 provides a graphical comparison ofTasmanian riparian rules with those of otherjurisdictions around the world, as of February 2004.

We wish to emphasize that this standardizedcomparison portrays written rules only.

Of these case study jurisdictions, only Tasmanianpolicies and policies for public forests in New SouthWales (NSW) include standardized, quantitativerequirements for riparian buffer zone widths. All exceptone of the remaining jurisdictions require buffer zones

Global Comparison of Riparian Buffer Zone Policies

Source for Tasmania: Forest Practices Board (2000). Forest Practices Code, Forest Practices Board, Hobart, Tasmania.

Sections C4 Water Quality and Watercourse Protection, D2 Water Quality and Flow, D3 Flora and Fauna, E1.3 Species Selection

* SMZ= Special Management Zone, where harvesting is allowed but subject to special management restrictions.

NF= Natural/Native forest

RFA= Regional Forestry Agreement

^ Tasmania: Does not apply to plantations established before the commencement of the 2000 version of the FPC (FPC pg. 47)

^^ Tasmania: plantations may not be established within 2 meters of any water course (FPC pg. 83)

Chart 1 Riparian protection for Tasmania compared with protection in other Australian states and selected OECD countries

(Note: Germany, New Zealand, Finland, and Sweden require buffer zones in natural forests, but no width is specified)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Mandatory, site-specific buffers



Streams in private forests

Protection forest buffers mandatory, site-specific

Indigenous forest buffers mandatory, site-specific

Private (Pending)

State RFAs, drainage identified while in field

State RFAs first order stream

State RFAs second order stream

State RFAs third order stream

State RFAs fourth and higher order stream

Class 4, Perennial or intermittent stream, catchment <50 ha.

Class 4, Per. or intermit., catchment <50 ha., town water source <2 km

Class 3, Catchment 50-100 ha.

Class 2, Catchment >100 ha., not named in 1:100,000 topo. maps

Class 1, Stream named in 1:100,000 topo. maps

Class 1-3, Catchment >50 ha., town water source <2 km.

Wildlife strips every 3-5 km.

Bavaria, G

erm

any

Fin

land

Sw

eden

Port

ugal

Japan

New

Zeala

nd

NS

W, A

ustr

alia

Tasm

ania

, A

ustr

alia

Width of Buffer (meters)

Mandatory no harvest zone *Mandatory SMZ Voluntary no harvest zone *Voluntary SMZ

Figure 5. Riparian protection in Tasmania (public and private ownerships) and other OECD case study jurisdictions


to be established on a site-specific basis, a policyapproach we define as “mixed” in that it containselements of a mandatory approach but does notprescribe specific management practices. In NewZealand, riparian buffer zone management inindigenous forests includes a procedural element aswell, requiring that buffer zone widths be establishedin comprehensive sustainable management plans.

The policies of NSW, which have also been establishedunder Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs)8, mostclosely resemble those of Tasmania. New South Waleshowever, utilizes a different stream classificationsystem, different buffer zone widths, and differentmanagement prescriptions. The NSW “no harvestbuffer zones” are wider than those codified inTasmanian forest policy. Unlike Tasmania, NSWriparian policies for state lands have not applied toprivate lands, but this will change with the adoption ofthe Code of Practice for Private Native Forestry (NSW2006).

Figure 6 compares Tasmanian riparian policies withthose of the Pacific Coast of the US and Canada, aregion that includes the most restrictive riparianpolicies of any of the developed country case studies.

One of the most striking observations to be made fromFigure 6 is the sheer complexity of the Pacific Coastpolicies, involving numerous and diverse streamclassifications. Criteria for classifying streams includediverse attributes such as width of stream, stream order,bank slope, rate of stream flow, soil type, presence orabsence of fish or aquatic species, etc. This complexitymakes a one-to-one comparison across jurisdictionschallenging. Further on in this section, we provide someexamples of more standardized comparisons based onthe controlled variables of stream size and presence orabsence of fish. Meanwhile, it is clear that all of thesejurisdictions take a mandatory, substantive approachand that many include no harvest zones.

The Pacific Coast regulations stand in stark contrast to anumber of other United States case study jurisdictions.Figure 7 summarizes our findings for Tasmania incomparison to US and Canadian case study jurisdictionslocated in other regions of the continent.

A key observation to be made from Figure 7 is that allof the US Southeastern states have establishedvoluntary, substantive policies, making these the leastprescriptive policies of any reviewed so far, other thanPortugal. In contrast, Montana, Idaho, Alberta, Ontario,and Quebec have enacted mandatory, substantivebuffer zone requirements. “No harvest zones” aremandated only in Tasmania and along salmon streamsin Quebec.

We now turn to the less developed case studycountries, including Eastern European economies intransition and developing nations. It is widelyrecognized that many lesser-developed countries havefewer resources and lower capacity to enforcewhatever regulations they have put in place, ascompared to wealthier nations. As explained earlier,however, this section does not address policyeffectiveness, just the nominal policies themselves. Inparticular, any comparison of such policies with thoseof high capacity jurisdictions must not be taken as anindication of actual levels of environmental protection.Indeed, following Victor (1998), a reasonablehypothesis is that in those countries where compliancemechanisms are poor, there may be an inverserelationship between mandatory prescriptive rules andactual performance. With this caveat in mind, Figure 8illustrates Tasmanian policies in comparison with thoseof Russia, Poland and Latvia.

Once again, differences in stream classificationsystems make precise comparisons difficult. Latvianand Russian classification systems are the mostcomparable, being largely based on the length of thewatercourse. Russia mandates the largest SMZs inregards to very long rivers. Latvian SMZs on largerrivers are also considerably wider than those inTasmania. Only the Latvian and Tasmanian policiesinclude no harvest zones.

8 At the time of writing the majority, but not all, of the State-owned natural forests in New South Wales were covered under Regional Forest Agreements(RFAs).


Figure 6. Riparian protection in Tasmania (public and private ownerships) and US states and Canadian provinces of the PacificCoast


0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Small PerennialIntermittent

Large Perennial

Slope 10-15%Slope 16-30%Slope 31-45%Slope 46-60%

Private forests (no/moderate slope)Private forests (steeper slope)

All watercoursesSalmon

IntermittentPerennial

EphemeralIntermittent

Perennial


PerennialTrout

Class II (Not draining into Class I)Class II (No fish/domestic water)

Class I (Fish/domestic water)

IntermittentPerennial <6 meters widePerennial >6 meters wide


IntermittentPerennial <35% slope

Perennial =>35% slope



PerennialTrout


All OtherWarm Water Fisheries

Cold Water FisheriesMunicipal Water Supply

Class 4, Perennial or intermittent stream, catchment <50 ha.Class 4, Per. or intermit., catchment <50 ha., town water source <2 km

Class 3, Catchment 50-100 ha.Class 2, Catchment >100 ha., not named in 1:100,000 topo. maps

Class 1, Stream named in 1:100,000 topo. mapsClass 1-3, Catchment >50 ha., town water source <2 km.


Alb

ert

a,

Canada

Onta

rio,

Canada

Quebec,

Canada

Ala

bam

aA

rkansas

Georg

iaId

aho

Louis

iana

Mis

sis

sip

pi

Monta

na

Nort

h

Caro

lina

South

Caro

lina

Texas

Virgin

ia

Tasm

ania

,

Austr

alia


Mandatory no harvest zone *Mandatory SMZ Voluntary no harvest zone *Voluntary SMZ

Figure 7. Riparian protection in Tasmania (public and private ownerships) and US states and Canadianprovinces of the Pacific Coast


jurisdictions that lack watercourses that are the size,for example, of the Amazon River or Rio Negre.Nevertheless, the minimum no harvest zoneapplicable to any river in the Brazilian Amazon is 30meters wide, or three times the width of no harvestzones for Tasmanian streams. Again, this by itself saysnothing about the actual levels of protection providedfor streams in the Brazilian Amazon or Tasmania, asthis depends, in part, on whether the policies areconsistently implemented.

Madhya Pradesh takes an entirely proceduralapproach to riparian buffer zone management,requiring that prescriptions be prepared throughWorking Plans at the sub-state level. South Africa’s

Finally, let us now turn to a comparison of Tasmanianpolicies with those of selected developing countries.As is clear from Figure 9, developing countriesmandate the most ambitious no harvest zones. At thesame time, these countries generally have the leastcapacity to consistently enforce the rules they haveenacted (Esty and Cornelius 2002).

The Brazilian no harvest zones include the largest ofany of our case study jurisdictions, followed by Chile inclose second place. A part of this variability could beexplained by environmental differences. The Amazonregion contains some of the world’s largest rivers. Assuch, it may be inappropriate to compare Brazilianpolicies for very large streams with those of

Chart 3 Riparian protection in Tasmania compared with protection in selected developing countries

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Rivers & Streams < 10 km

Rivers & Streams 10-50 km




Rivers & Streams > 500 km

Rivers in state forests

Urban areas

Artifical water body

Water bodies on islands or peninsulas

Rural water courses < 10 km

Rural water courses 10-25 km

Rural water courses 25-100 km

Rural water courses > 100 km


Class 4, Per. or intermit., catchment <50 ha., town water source <2

km






Ru

ssia

Po

lan

dL

atv

iaT

asm

an

ia, A

ustr

alia


Mandatory no harvest zone *Mandatory SMZ Voluntary no harvest zone

Figure 8. Riparian protection for Tasmania (public and private ownerships) compared with protection intransition economy case study jurisdictions


Pierre Ackerman, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry,University of Stellenbosch, Feb. 24, 2004).

In sum, Figures 5-9 reveal a tremendous variety ofriparian buffer zone policies, from the very complex tothe uni-dimensional. While such a comparativeapproach has allowed for the delivery of a large amount

approach is partly procedural. In “sensitive areas” inSouth Africa, including watercourses, natural forestsare divided into “effective” and “ineffective” areas.Harvesting is prohibited in “ineffective areas”.Management prescriptions are prepared for harvestingin effective areas in a manner that protects sensitiveenvironmental habitats (personal communication,

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Temporary stream

Permanent water body

Natural springs and water holes

Waterway < 10 m width

Waterway 10-50 m width

Natural springs



Waterway > 600 m width

Standard buffer as enforced

Continuous uphill slope of stream

Springs on flat, nonirrigated terrain

Above mountain springs

Established in Working Plans

Rivers < 50 m wide

Rivers > 50 m wide

Missing data

Other waterbodies

Source of domestic water

Riparian buffers mandatory, site specific


Class 4, Per. or intermit., catchment <50 ha., town water source <2 km





Wildlife strips every 3-5 km.M

exic

oB

razili

an

Am

azo

nC

hile

Ma

dh

ya

Pra

de

sh

, In

dia

Ind

on

esia

Ch

ina

DR

C

So

uth

Afr

ica

Ta

sm

an

ia, A

ustr

alia


Mandatory no harvest zone *Mandatory SMZ Voluntary no harvest zone

Figure 9. Riparian protection in Tasmania (public and private ownerships) compared with protection in developing countrycase study jurisdictions


For large rivers of 50 meters in width or more, theBrazilian Amazon, Chile, and Indonesia haveestablished the most stringent nominal requirements,with mandatory “no harvest” buffer zones ranging from100 to 400 meters. Other large buffer zones applyingto 50 meter wide rivers include the SMZs (i.e. zoneswhere harvesting is allowed, but more restricted) alongmajor rivers in Russia and Latvia. Zones on large riversin these eastern European countries range from 100 to500 meters in width10.

While the transitional and developing countries haveperhaps the most stringent nominal requirements forlarge rivers, they also have a lower capacity and/or lesspolitical will to enforce these policies. In the case ofChile, it is openly acknowledged that while the largerbuffer zones remain in law, only 50-meter “no harvest”buffer zones are officially enforced (personalcommunication, Bello, CONAF, February 3, 2004). Inpractice, the 50 meter zones may be inconsistentlyenforced as well. The context of management outsideof the buffer zones is also important to consider. In thecase of Brazil, forest harvest regulations in the Amazoninvolve a mix of permanent reserve requirements alongwith legalized deforestation. Hence, more stringentprotection of riparian corridors may be environmentallyjustified in order to offset the environmental impactsof deforestation outside of buffer areas.

of information and qualitative discussion, furthersynthesis is needed to encapsulate key policy differences.

The application of our policy matrix, as illustrated in Figure10, reveals that 53% of 38 case study jurisdictions,including Tasmania, have established mandatory,substantive (i.e. standardized threshold) requirementsfor buffer zone establishment. “Mixed” rules, requiringspecial management buffer zones but withoutstandardized required widths, account for 18% of thecase study jurisdictions9. Mandatory procedural rulescharacterize policies in 3% of the cases, and 26% ofthe cases have established voluntary guidelines.

The next step in our analysis was to conduct astandardized comparison of mandatory buffer zonesizes, by selecting standardized stream classificationparameters. The focus in these comparisons was on“no harvest” buffer zones, since 1) no harvest zonesrepresent the most stringent form of environmentalprotection (in all cases they are also accompanied byeither prohibitions or major restrictions on road-building and the use of ground-disturbing equipment);and 2) special management zones vary dramaticallyin the types of management restrictions they entail,making standardized comparison difficult.

9 Riparian rules for China are unavailable.10 The Eastern European countries classify rivers by length rather than width, however, making them less amenable to comparison with other regions.

53%

18%

3%

26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Quan

tita

tive

thre

shold

requirem

ents

Mix

edap

pro

ach

Proce

dura

lru

les

Volu

nta

ryguid

elin

es

No r

ule

s

Figure 10. Policy approach of case study jurisdictions (%)


developing case study jurisdictions have establishedmandatory “no harvest” buffer requirements. In Mexico,Chile, Indonesia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, theminimum requirement for riparian protection is 50 meters forall natural rivers, and in the Amazon it is 30 meters, regardlessof either their size or the presence or absence of fish.

In general, countries participating in the Organizationfor Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)have enacted less restrictive threshold requirementsfor riparian buffer zones than the transitional ordeveloping country cases. In Germany, Finland,Sweden, New Zealand, and South Africa, specialmanagement zones are mandatory for “naturalstreams”; however, there are no standardizedrequirements governing buffer zone sizes. There areno mandatory provincial requirements for streamsidebuffer zones on Quebec private forestlands, nor arebuffer zones required on private lands in the USSoutheastern states, Portugal, and Japanese private,non-protection forests12. In contrast, the policies ofTasmania, NSW, British Columbia, Alaska,Washington, Oregon, and the US Forest Serviceinclude the most restrictive developed country

If we change the parameters of comparison tomedium-sized rivers, different global patterns emerge.For example, fish-bearing rivers that are 30 meters inwidth11 and are located in natural forests are moststringently protected on United States Forest Service(USFS) lands. The USFS requires a 91-meter “noharvest” zone for all fish-bearing streams. In Quebec,a 60-meter “no harvest” zone is required alongprovincially listed salmon streams of all sizes. The thirdlargest “no harvest” buffer zones for 30-meter widerivers are the 50-meter zones required along BritishColumbian fish streams and along all natural streamsin Mexico, the Brazilian Amazon, Chile, Indonesia, theDemocratic Republic of Congo, and state forests inNew South Wales. Tasmania mandates a 10-meter “noharvest” zone on such rivers, which places it betweensome western US states and Latvia in terms of itswritten policies. Figure 11 illustrates these findings.

For small, non fish-bearing streams (“Class 4” streams inTasmania), however, only 5 developed country case studies—United States Forest Service, Idaho, Oregon, Washington,and New South Wales—among the 27 developed countrycases require “no harvest” zones. In contrast, 5 of the 8

91

50 50 50 50 50 50

1510 10 9

6

20

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

USFS

QUEBE

C(S

almon

)BC

Amaz

on, B

razil

Chile

D.R. o

f Con

go

Indo

nesia

Mexico

New S

outh

Wales

Alas

ka(C

oastal)

Was

hing

ton (W

est)

Tasm

ania

Lativ

a (>

100 km

.)

Was

hing

ton (E

ast)

Orego

n

No

Harv

est

Zo

nes

(m.)

Figure 11. Riparian no harvest zones for 30 meter wide streams

11 We have chosen the 30-meter stream width simply for the purposes of standardized comparison of buffer zone regulations on medium-sized rivers.12 As stated earlier in this report, this study does not examine municipal laws or other laws enacted by local governments.


Clearcut size limits and cutting rules

Perhaps no other forest practice — including forestconversion — is as widely criticized and debated asthe practice of clearcutting (referred to as “clearfelling”in Tasmania). One explanation for this is simply thatclearcuts are among the most visible of humandisturbances and are often considered unattractive, aswell as environmentally damaging (Kimmins 1999).Another is that the advent of highly efficient,mechanized logging technology has enabled a morewidespread adoption of clearcutting and the creation,in some places, of super-sized clearcuts (Rajala 1998).If one adds to this the worst cases of reckless road-building and inadequate reforestation, it is notsurprising that clearcutting conjures negative imagesin the public mind (Williams 2005; Wood 1971).

Whatever the reasons for public dislike of clearcutting,its environmental impacts can vary greatly dependingon a complex range of factors. For example, if amanagement goal is to regenerate native species, thenmanagers must consider the natural conditions underwhich these species have evolved. In forests shapedby small-scale disturbances, natural selection wouldfavor shade-tolerant trees. In areas prone to large-scalenatural disturbances such as fire or windthrow, shade

requirements, and they are the only such jurisdictionsto have established no harvest zones.

The extent of variation in buffer zone sizes across allcase study jurisdictions is itself worthy of note. Thisvariation likely reflects both the diversity ofenvironments represented and scientific debate aboutthe adequacy of different buffer zone sizes andmanagement restrictions. While there is generalagreement about the need to restrict land use withinriparian zones, it seems more difficult to generalizeabout the specifics of those restrictions (Belsky,Matzke, and Uselman 1999; Croke and Hairsine2001; Kauffman and Krueger 1984; Parkyn et al.2003; Quinn et al. 1992; Semlitsch and Bodie 2003;Tschaplinski 2004; Williamson, Smith, and Quinn1992). For example, a study conducted in Tasmaniafound that logging within 30 meters of a class 2 streamhad significant impacts on stream structure, waterquality, and species composition, while logging morethan 30 meters from the stream had no significantimpacts. However, the authors also noted that bufferslarger than 30 meters may provide greater protectionduring major storm events, and that variables otherthan width, such as vegetation types and pesticidedrift, may also significantly impact stream health(Davies and Nelson 1994).

50 50 50 5046

30

15 1510

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Chile

DRC

Indo

nesia

Mexico

USFS

Braz

ilian, A

maz

on

WA

(Wes

t)

WA

(Eas

t)

Latvia

New S

outh

Wales

No

Harv

est

Zo

nes

(m.)

Figure 12. Riparian no harvest zones for 1-meter wide streams, no fish, not a domestic water source

* In Western Washington, riparian buffers along Np streams (i.e. non fish-bearing perennial streams whose rate of flowis less than or equal to 0.57 cubic meters per second (in other words streams that do not qualify as Washington“shoreline”)) must measure a minimum of 15 meters in width. The proportion of the stream for which the no harvest ruleapplies depends on the distance of the Np stream from shoreline and/or fish-bearing streams. * In Eastern Washington, 15-meter no harvest zones are required along a portion of Np streams when clearcutting is usedwithin the riparian special management zone.


For all cutting rule policies, whether clearcut size limitsor minimum diameter limits, our analysis will not includecutting restrictions within riparian buffer areas.Furthermore, in comparing threshold clearcut size limitswe do not consider wildlife tree retention or harvestadjacency requirements (which commonly accompanyclearcut size limits), although these issues clearly affectthe environmental impacts of forest management.

In Tasmania, clearfelling in public and private naturalforests is restricted to a maximum of 100 hectares“coupes” (often referred to as “cutblocks” in NorthAmerica), or a maximum of 50 hectares if 50% ormore of the coupe is located on slopes equal to orgreater than 20°. These policies constitute mandatory,substantive requirements. Figure 13 compares thesepolicies with those of other OECD case study countries,not including the US and Canada.

Of the case studies, NSW has enacted the mostconsistently restrictive policies on clearcutting withinstate-owned forests, reflecting both long-establishedsilvicultural regimes in many forest types and morerecent modification of regimes in Eucalyptusdelegatenis- and Eucalyptus seiberi-dominated foresttypes (NSW 1999a). Under three of the four NSWRegional Forest Agreements, harvesting is limited tosingle tree selection and/or Australian group selection,with maximum openings from 0.39 to 0.79 hectaresdepending on the region (NSW 1999b; NSW 1999c;NSW 2002). In the Eden RFA region, “alternate coupeharvesting” using a modified shelterwood system ispracticed, also resulting in an uneven aged forest(NSW 1999a). Historically, no limits were placed onclearfelling on private lands in New South Wales. Thiswould change, however, if the Code of Practice forPrivate Native Forestry is adopted; the Code requiresretention of at least a minimum basal area for all nativeforest harvesting operations (NSW 2006).

New Zealand prohibits openings greater than 0.5hectares in beech forests and takes a proceduralapproach in other types of indigenous forests. Thisvariation of policy based on forest type is classified as a“mixed” approach. A mixed approach is also employedin Japan and Sweden, involving maximum sizerequirements for some but not all forest types. Bavaria,Finland, and Portugal all lack clearcutting policies.

intolerant species hold the competitive advantage. Theregeneration of these shade intolerant species maytherefore require larger openings. Environmentalimpacts are also shaped by the distribution of woodharvest across the landscape, including the impactsof the roads, landings, skid trails, and otherinfrastructure associated with harvest. For example,depending on frequency and intensity, a large numberof small clearcuts may result in greater forestfragmentation and a longer road network than fewerand larger openings. If one also factors in economicand social considerations, then determining the“appropriate” cutting pattern becomes complicatedindeed. Many of these issues were discussed for thecase of Tasmanian forests in a review of forestharvesting systems requested by the TasmanianGovernment in 2003 (Forestry Tasmania 2005).

If we examine forest policies for rules that addressclearcutting, we can observe how differentgovernments around the world have responded tothese challenges. We therefore have selected rulesgoverning maximum clearcut sizes as one of our policyindicators. We have also developed a standardizeddefinition of the term “clearcut” based on the minimumcut size estimated by Kimmins to remove the “forestinfluence”, which is “roughly equal to or greater thanabout four tree heights in diameter, or about 7 hectaresin taller forests and 0.2 hectares in those of smallerstature” (Keenan and Kimmins 1993). Given thetremendous variability in tree heights both among andwithin many jurisdictions, we will further standardizeour definition to openings of 1 hectare or larger.

Tropical forest management creates its own unique setof challenges. Very high levels of species diversity anda lack of markets for many of these species, reducethe economic advantages of clearcutting. Instead,environmental concerns about cutting patterns haveoften centered around the high-grading of desiredtropical timber species, including species whichregenerate poorly, if at all, after they are logged (Rice,Gullison, and Reid 1997). In order to address theseissues, we use the more general indicator of “cuttingrules”, in addition to, or in place of, clearcut size limits,when assessing forest policies in tropical countries. Acommonly used cutting rule is a minimum diametercutting limit, which requires the protection of new treeregeneration across all species (Sist et al. 2003).


The clearcutting regulations of Eastern Europe, as inTasmania, are largely mandatory and substantive. Onlyprivate forests in Poland lack prescribed clearcut size limits.

Finally, let us turn to the developing world to compare ourcase study policy approaches on cutting rules (Figure 16).

Chile, Indonesia, and China have all enacted mandatorysubstantive cutting rules. In contrast, Mexico, MadhyaPradesh, South Africa, and the DRC take a proceduralapproach in mandating forest plans or site-by-siteprescriptions. The Brazilian approach is sufficientlyunique as to be not amenable to standardizedcomparison. Brazil regulates harvest of natural forest byrequiring that 80% of a forest property be set aside inpermanent reserve. Cutting on the remainder of theproperty requires a “deforestation permit”, which allowsthe conversion of forests to other land uses (MagalhãesLopes 2000). Figure 17 provides summary data on thepolicy approach of thirty-seven of our case studyjurisdictions (excluding Brazil, for which our classificationsystems are not applicable).

In general, case study policies are less prescriptive than theyare for riparian buffer zones. A full 39% of the case studieshave no rules at all, while only 34%, including Tasmania,have enacted mandatory, substantive requirements.

In comparing Tasmanian clearcutting regulations withthose of Western Europe and Japan, however, it isimportant to consider differences in the distribution ofland tenure and population density. Forested propertiesare relatively small in these European case studycountries. For example, the average woodlot in Bavariais 2.6 hectares (Erlbeck 1996). Hence these propertysizes, in themselves, limit the size of clearcutting on anysingle forested property.

Many jurisdictions in the US and Canada, however, aremore similar to Tasmania in their relatively low populationdensity and larger forest tenures. Figure 14 comparesTasmanian policies with the case study US states andCanadian provinces.

The US Pacific Coast states and the Canadian provinces,like Tasmania, employ a mandatory substantive policyapproach. The size limits specified fall to either side ofthe Tasmanian size limits. Ontario, in particular, standsout for allowing particularly large-sized clearcuts. The USSoutheastern states, however, provide no rules orguidelines of any kind. Flgure 15 summarizes theregulations in Tasmania and Eastern Europe.

100

0 0

20 20

100

50

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

NewSo

uth Wales

(state)

NewZe

alan

d(B

eech

fore

st)

Japa

n (N

ationa

l and

Pro

tection Fo

rests)

Swed

en (A

lpine)

Tasm

ania

(slope

>=20

)

Tasm

ania

(slope

<20

)

NewZe

alan

d(O

ther

) (pr

oced

ural)

NewSo

uth Wales

(priv

ate)

(NONE)

Bava

ria (N

ONE)

Finland

(NONE)

Japa

n (O

ther

priv

ate)

(NONE)

Portu

gal (

NONE)

Swed

en (O

ther

) (NONE)

Figure 13. Clearcut size limits (ha.) of Tasmania (public and private ownerships) and OECD case study jurisdictions(excluding the US and Canada)


8 12 1624

4049 50

60

100

150

260

97

32

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Califor

nia (tr

acto

r yar

ding

)

Califor

nia (a

erial

or ca

ble ya

rding)

USFS

(Oth

er)

USFS

(Dou

glas

fir)

Albe

rta (S

pruc

e)

BC (C

oast and

S. I

nter

ior)

Orego

n

Was

hing

ton

Tasm

ania

(slope

>=20

)

Quebe

c (S

outh

)

BC (N

. and

S. I

nter

ior)

Orego

n (w

/ per

miss

ion)

Was

hing

ton (w

/ per

miss

ion)

Tasm

ania

(slope

<20

)

Albe

rta (N

on-S

pruc

e)

Quebe

c (C

entra

l)

Quebe

c (N

orth

)

Ontar

io

Alab

ama (N

ONE)

Alas

ka(N

ONE)

Arka

nsas

(NONE

)

Georg

ia (N

ONE)

Idah

o (N

ONE)

Louisia

na (N

ONE)

Mississ

ippi (N

ONE)

Montana

(NONE

)

North

Car

olina (N

ONE)

Quebe

c (P

rivate)

(NONE

)

Sout

h Ca

rolin

a (N

ONE)

Texa

s (N

ONE)

Virg

inia (N

ONE)

Figure 14. Clearcut size limits (ha.) of Tasmania (public and private ownerships) and the US and Canadian case studyjurisdictions

4 5 10 10 15 20 25 25

50 50

100

250

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Poland

(Pub

lic For

est)

Latvia (N

on-san

dy D

rySo

ils)

Latvia (D

rySa

ndySo

ils)

Russ

ia (P

rotection Fo

rests)

Russ

ia (P

rotection Pion

eer Hdw

ds)

Russ

ia (P

opulat

ed A

reaFo

rests)

Russ

ia (P

opulat

ed A

reaPion

eer H

dwds

)

Russ

ia (R

emot

e Pine

For

ests)

Tasm

ania

Russ

ia (R

emot

e Oth

er)

Tasm

ania

Russ

ia (F

ar Eas

t Pione

er H

dwds

)

Latvia (M

oist

Soils

) (St

rip C

uts)

Poland

(Priv

ate Fo

rest) (

NONE)

Figure 15. Clearcut size limits (ha.) of Tasmania (public and private ownerships) and Central and Eastern European casestudy jurisdictions


0 0

20

50

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Chile

(reten

tion of spe

ciespr

ofile

)

Indo

nesia

(minim

um diameter

limits

)

China

Tasm

ania (s

lope

>=20)

Tasm

ania (s

lope

<20)

Braz

ilian Am

azon

(N/A

)

Mexico

(pro

cedu

ral)

Madhy

a Pr

ades

h (p

roce

dura

l)

Sout

h Af

rica (p

roce

dura

l)

DRC(p

roce

dura

l)

Figure 16. Clearcut size limits (ha.) of Tasmania (public and private ownerships) and Central and Eastern Europeancase study jurisdictions

34%

13% 13%

0%

39%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Quan

tita

tive

thre

shold

requirem

ents

Mix

edap

pro

ach

Proce

dura

lru

les

Volu

nta

ryguid

elin

es

No r

ule

s

Figure 17. Policy approach of case study jurisdictions


The Tasmanian Forest Practices Code (2000) includesmandatory, substantive requirements for culvert sizesat stream crossings. Culvert sizes are in partdetermined by maximum stream volumes and by roadclass. Within any given watershed, managers mustobtain data on the average “peak” stream volumewithin a specified time period and design culvertsadequate to accommodate that volume. Road classesare determined by their position within a road network(i.e. primary or secondary roads, spur roads andtemporary tracks) and numerical estimates of logtraffic (tons/week). The road classes range from Class1, the most heavily used, to Class 4, the least heavilyused. A temporary track is categorized as an “accesstrack” and is not assigned a numerical class.

Mandatory, substantive culvert sizes apply to roadclasses 1 to 4. On Class 1 roads, culverts must be builtto withstand a one-in-fifty-year flood occurrence. ForClass 2 roads, culverts must accommodate a one-in-twenty-year flood and for Class 3 and 4, a one-in-ten-year flood interval. On slopes of 20 degrees or more,major culverts must withstand a fifty-year flood interval(FPB 2000: 11). In addition, culverts must not besmaller than 372 mm. in diameter on any roads inareas of high risk for culvert blockage or failure,specifically defined as “subject to high intensity rainfallevents e.g. parts of eastern Tasmania; areas with highor very high erodibility class soils; midslope roads insteep country” (FPB 2000: 10). A minimum culvertsize of 300 mm in diameter is recommended in lowerrisk areas (FPB 2000).

In terms of road decommissioning, the TasmanianCode 2000 states that “roads of no further use will beoutsloped, water barred, or otherwise left in a conditionto minimise erosion, with clean drains and blocked tovehicular traffic...” (FPB 2000: 25). While somediscretion is allowed in erosion control measures, therequirement to clean drains and block trafficconstitutes an inflexible requirement. Hence, in sum,the Tasmanian road decommissioning policyconstitutes a mandatory, substantive policy.

Road stream crossings and roaddecommissioning

While clearcutting may be the most widely criticizedforest practice among the public at large, road-buildingoften has much broader and longer-lasting environmentalimpacts (Aksenov et al. 2002). Road building is also acentral point of concern for many environmentalgroups worldwide. Major international collaborativeefforts have been focused, for example, on theconservation of “frontier forests” without roads or otherhigh impact human disturbances (Aksenov et al.2002; Bryant, Nielsen, and Tangley 1997).

The impacts of road building are diverse. Among the mostimmediate impacts are changes in soil and water qualityand water flow. These changes include soil compaction,a decrease in soil permeability, alteration of stream flowand other water drainage patterns, soil erosion, and thesedimentation of streams and other water bodies.

Roads also lead to increased human traffic, with themost dramatic effects in frontier or roadless areas. Intropical countries, where poverty levels are high andenforcement measures weak, logging roads often leadto forest conversion and increasingly intensified landuse. In all regions, roads may create physical barriersto the movement of wildlife, while hunting, trafficaccidents, and other human-wildlife interactions maylead to the decline of some species populations.

The total impact of road building, of course, dependsto a considerable degree on how it is conducted. Thissection, therefore, will look at two policy indicatorsrelevant to the mitigation of a number of environmentalthreats. The first of these is culvert size requirementsat stream crossings. Appropriate use of culverts candramatically reduce the risk of stream sedimentation andprotect fish passage. Furthermore, culvert sizes can bequantified, enabling a highly prescriptive policy approach.

The second indicator is road decommissioning, i.e.permanent road closure. A variety of road managementactivities, if conducted before closure, can prevent soilerosion and sedimentation as well as reduce soilcompaction. Likewise, there are actions that can betaken to reduce the chances of vehicle traffic on roadsthat will no longer be maintained.


Having provided an overview of Tasmania as a baselinecomparison, Table 6 places this case study in thecontext of other approaches worldwide. Table 6 listseach jurisdiction by its policy approach to culvert sizesat stream crossings and road decommissioning forroads in natural forests. Some jurisdictions includemandatory substantive rules that are more general andless prescriptive in their requirements than those ofTasmania. Table 6 refers to these policies as “mixed”.An example of a “mixed” policy for culverts would bethe mandate to install culverts of “adequate” size,without standardized specifications such as minimumculvert sizes or quantified peak flow requirements. Incase of road decommissioning, “mixed” refers torequirements such as “control erosion,” in contrast tospecific prescriptions, such as “remove all drainagestructures and re-contour the road.”

It is important to note that a quantitative comparison ofenvironmental thresholds for some of the above policyindicators cannot capture important differences. Anacross-the-board comparison of minimum culvertsizes would overlook some extreme variability inenvironmental conditions between jurisdictions. Roaddecommissioning, as a relatively broadly definedindicator, is difficult to compare in a standardized way.There are numerous possible approaches to closing

roads, from blocking vehicular traffic, to removing culverts,to re-contouring and re-vegetating the road surface.

Peak flow requirements, however, do somewhat moreeasily lend themselves to quantitative, cross-jurisdictional comparisons. The comparability of thisindicator is due, in part, to its amenability toquantification, as well as the fact that it is, to somedegree, self-adjusting to local hydrological conditions.Figure 18 provides an illustration of such acomparison, drawing on the case studies of Tasmania,the US, and Canada.

Figure 19 summarizes the policy approach of the casestudy jurisdictions as applied to the largest naturalforest landownership type.

Of the policy criteria and indicators examined so far, theroad indicators yield the fewest cases of mandatorysubstantive policies and the most cases where no rulesor guidelines have been developed. Tasmania is amongthe top 14% of most prescriptive jurisdictions in regardsto the combined indicators of culvert size at streamcrossing and road decommissioning requirements.

Mandatory substantive rules Culvert sizes Decommissioning

requirements

Procedural rules only

No rules

Tasmania (public

and private)

New South Wales

Bavaria (mixed)

Finland

Japan (mixed)

Alberta

BC

Ontario (mixed)

Quebec (public)

Alaska

California

Idaho

Oregon

USFS

Washington

Latvia (surfaced

roads only) (mixed)

Russia

Indonesia

Tasmania (public and

private)

Alberta

BC

Ontario (mixed)

Quebec (mixed)

California

Idaho (mixed)

Oregon (mixed)

USFS (mixed)

Washington

Bavaria (mixed)

New South Wales

(mixed)

Indonesia (procedural)

New Zealand

Sweden

Mexico

Brazilian Amazon

Madhya Pradesh

New South Wales

(private)

Portugal

Alabama

Arkansas

Georgia

Louisiana

Mississippi

Montana

North Carolina

South Carolina

Texas

Virginia

Quebec (private)

Poland

Chile

South Africa

Table 6. Policy approach of case study jurisdictions


0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Virginia (NONE)

Texas (NONE)

North Carolina (NONE)

Montana (NONE)

Mississipi (NONE)

Louisiana (NONE)

Arkansas (NONE)

Alabama (NONE)

Quebec Private*

Ontario (fish passage mandatory)

South Carolina (temporary roads)

Georgia (temporary roads)

South Carolina (permanent roads)

Georgia (permanent roads)

Quebec (basins <60 km2)

British Columbia (1-3 year roads)

Tasmania (Road class 3, 4)

Quebec (basins >60 km2)

Tasmania (Road class 2)

Alberta (Stream classes IV-V)

Oregon

Idaho

Alaska

Alberta (Stream classes I-III)

Tasmania (Road 1)

Washington

California

British Columbia (>3 year roads)

USFS (intermittent and perennial)

Flood interval (years)

Mandatory Voluntary

Figure 18. Peak flow, flood interval specifications for culvert design in Tasmania (public and private ownerships) and USand Canadian case study jurisdictions

14%

35%

11%

41%

0%

5%

10%15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Quan

tita

tive

thre

shold

requirem

ents

Mix

edap

pro

ach

Proce

dura

lru

les

Volu

nta

ryguid

es/N

oru

les

Figure 19. Combined policy approach of case study jurisdictions (%) to two road indicators (culvert sizes anddecommissioning)


Reforestation

The regeneration of forests after a harvest is clearly anintegral part of sustainable forest management. Weexamine policy prescriptiveness in terms of 1) thepresence of quantitative thresholds for prescribedstocking levels, and 2) time frames for achieving thoselevels. In cases where harvest involves the removal ofthe majority of a forest overstory, stocking levels arecommonly expressed as a number of seedlings perhectare. In the case of selection cuts, however, othermeasurable objectives may be prescribed.

The Tasmanian FPC mandates stocking standards forclearfelling, shelterwood, even-aged regrowth, andmulti-aged stands. Furthermore, the Code states that

required Forest Practices Plans “will specify theestablishment and maintenance of treatments that aremost likely to achieve full restocking” (FPB2000:85,86). The 1991 Native Forest SilvicultureTechnical Bulletin 6, since updated in 2003,prescribes stocking standards levels and time framesby forest type (Forestry Commission Tasmania 1991;Forestry Tasmania 2003).

Table 7 summarizes the reforestation policies ofTasmania together with the other case studyjurisdictions. Nineteen of the case study and landownership types listed in Table 7 prescribe bothstocking levels and time frames, while three employ amixed approach. The mixed approaches, however,vary in their scope and specificity. Tasmanian publicand private forestlands and New South Wales public

Mandatory Reforestation Standards or

Policies

Procedural Voluntary Reforestation Standards or

Policies

No Reforestation Standards or

Policies

Tasmania (public and

private)*

New South Wales

(public)*

Finland *

Bavaria *

New Zealand *

Japan * (mixed)

Sweden * (mixed)

Alberta *

British Columbia *

Ontario *

Quebec *

Alaska *

California *

Idaho *

Oregon *

Washington *

USFS *

Poland *

Latvia *

Russia *

Chile (mixed)

Indonesia (mixed)

DRC *

Louisiana

Mexico

Madhya Pradesh

South Africa

Portugal

Arkansas

Georgia

Montana

South Carolina

New South Wales

(private)

Quebec (private)

Alabama

Mississippi

North Carolina

Texas

Virginia

Brazilian Amazon

(deforestation

permits)^

Timeframes *

Stocking prescriptions

Table 7. Reforestation policies of case study jurisdictions

^In the Brazilian Amazon, 80% of private properties must be maintained as forest reserve.


lands must meet specific stocking levels. NSW, likeTasmania, requires site assessments to determine ifsuch stocking levels have been reached. Chileprescribes stocking levels but with no specificationsfor surveying or meeting those levels. Japan, incontrast, specifies time frames but not stocking levels.Indonesia requires reforestation without any specificprescriptions.

Keeping in mind the different range of policiesencapsulated by the term “mixed,” Figure 20illustrates the distribution of policy approach acrosscase studies as they apply to the “majority naturalforest ownership” type.

Thirty-nine percent of the case study jurisdictions,including Tasmania, specify stocking levels and timeframes, while 16% employ mixed approaches wherethe stocking levels and/or the time limits aredetermined on a case-by-case basis. In 29% of thecases, forest managers are under no obligation toreforest.

Annual allowable cut

Annual allowable cut (AAC), i.e. the establishment oflimits to the volume of timber that may (or must) beharvested within a year, is a policy setting that canhave profound influence on the environmental impactsof forest management. AAC may be designed to meeta variety of other objectives in addition to, in conflictwith, or in place of environmental concerns. Inparticular, the stated goals of AAC on public lands mayfocus primarily on socio-economic concerns, such aseconomic development and community stability, andhence, such AAC requirements may not constitute an“environmental” policy. The criterion we have used inthis report to determine the “stringency” of AAC policy,is therefore based on not only the existence of AACrequirements, but also on the establishment ofsustained yield as a threshold limiting maximumallowable cut volumes.

We have identified those policies that base limits onAAC on the non-declining even flow principle ofsustained yield as the most prescriptive. The even flowpolicy is classified as the most non-discretionary,because it represents a relatively standardizedrestriction on annual harvest limits. In contrast, a

39%

16%

8% 8%

29%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Quantitativethreshold

requirements

Mixedapproach

Proceduralrules

Voluntaryguidelines

No rules

Figure 20. Combined policy approach of case study jurisdictions (%) to two reforestation indicators (stocking levelsand time frames)


“mixed” substantive rating was assigned to thosepolicies that impose caps on AAC on the basis ofcalculations of sustained yield, but do not restrict AACvolumes based on an even flow policy. The latter policyapproach is considered “mixed” due to the highlyvariable mix of environmental, social, and economicconsiderations that may be involved in determining thesustainability of different cut levels. The “procedural”category was assigned to AAC policies that require theestablishment of AAC targets but do not expresslyrequire that AAC volumes be based on sustained yield.

Tasmanian policy on AAC is based on the 1920 ForestryAct and the 1997 Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement(RFA). The Forestry Act requires a yearly minimumharvest of 300,000 cubic meters of eucalypt veneer logsfrom state lands (Section 22 AA). Pulpwood yields arethen derived from these sawlog commitments. Theresulting state level AAC includes both natural forestsand plantations. The RFA provides further direction inaccrediting Forestry Tasmania’s methodology fordetermining sustained yield (Clause 66) and requiringthat these methods be made public (Attachment 11.2).The required harvest has been raised to 350,000 cubicmeters per year for the ten years between 2001 and2011, to “make suitable land available to enableplantation establishment as part of the Forestry GrowthPlan” (Forestry Tasmania 2002: 14).

Tasmanian state policy is best classified as a “mixed”policy in that it addresses only high quality eucalyptsawlogs, rather than all wood production, andmandates a “non-declining” harvest rather thancapping production at “even flow.” Private landownersare not bound by state-mandated annual cut levels.Table 8 places the Tasmanian approach to AAC in thecontext of the other case study jurisdictions. This yieldsthe following distribution of policy approaches as theypertain to the largest natural forest ownership type ineach case study jurisdiction (Figure 21).

The Tasmanian approach to AAC on public lands (themajority ownership type) is “mixed,” placing it amongthe top third most prescriptive of policies. Only 8% ofAAC policies take a more prescriptive approach,constraining cut levels to amounts that can beconsistently maintained over both the short and longterm. In the cases of a mixed policy approach, thephrase “sustained” yield may accommodate cut levels

aimed at increasing timber production by acceleratingthe harvest of older and/or less productive trees andreplacing them with younger, faster growing trees.Twenty-one percent of the case studies take aprocedural approach by requiring AAC calculationswithout expressly capping those requirements atsustained yield levels. Finally, a full 40% of thejurisdictions covered do not include any mandatoryrestrictions on cut levels. If we examine this pattern inlight of the preceding table, a lack of AAC policy wouldappear typical for private lands worldwide. The largelycommunal properties of Mexico and private lands inCalifornia constitute notable exceptions.


8%

23%21%

49%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Limit based oneven flow

Mixed approach Procedural rules No mandatoryrequirements

Figure 21. Policy approach of case study jurisdictions (%) to annual allowable cut (AAC) calculations


Prescriptive (AAC capped by

an even flowpolicy)

Mixed (AAC capped by

sustained yield, but not even flow)

Procedural (AAC required but not capped

by sustained yield)

Voluntary (No mandatory

requirements for AAC determination)

USFS

Russia

Mexico

Tasmania (public)

New South Wales

(public)

New Zealand

Alberta

Quebec (public)

California

Poland

DRC

Indonesia

BC

Ontario

Bavaria

Latvia (public)

Chile

China

Madhya Pradesh

South Africa

Tasmania (private)

New South Wales

(private)

Finland

Japan

Portugal

Sweden

Quebec (private)

Alabama

Alaska

Arkansas

Georgia

Idaho

Louisiana

Montana

Mississippi

North Carolina

Oregon

South Carolina

Texas

Virginia

Washington

Latvia (private)

Brazilian Amazon

Table 8. Policy approaches to AAC calculations

Plantation Policies

The importance of plantations13 as a global source offiber has grown dramatically in recent years. Thecatalysts for this growth are numerous and include adecrease in available forest resources due to depletionof natural forests, increased efforts to conserve theremaining natural forests, improved plantationtechnologies, and global competition for cost-effectiveproduction. In addition, government policies havearguably been “at least as important as economics indetermining forest plantation patterns” (Brown 2000).Governments have participated either directly inplantation development on public lands, or providedsubsidies, tax breaks, or other kinds of economicincentives for plantation development on private lands.Motives for government support range from improvingforest industry competitiveness, to supporting ruraleconomies through non-industrial plantation development.

For this wide diversity of reasons and more, the globalarea covered by forest plantations has beenincreasing. The global plantation estate almostdoubled between 1980 and 1995, and growth hasaccelerated since that time. In 2000, plantationsaccounted for only about 5% of the world’s total forestarea and were responsible for an estimated 35% oftotal roundwood production. While estimates for futureplantation growth vary considerably, a moderategrowth model projects that plantations will produce44% of global roundwood by 2020 (FAO 2001).

The diversity of reasons for plantation growth is echoedby major variation between regions and betweencountries. From a production perspective, plantationshave been particularly dominant in Oceania,accounting for 55-85% of production, and in SouthAmerica, accounting for 32-63% of production (Brown2001).14 In terms of overall area under plantation,however, Asia contains the largest expanse ofplantations. Within all regions, plantation coveragevaries dramatically between countries. China, Russia,the US, India, and Japan account for roughly two-thirdsof the world’s total plantation resource (Brown 2000).

While plantations have clearly been growing in size andeconomic importance, their impacts on natural forestmanagement remain highly uncertain. A majorargument in support of plantations has been that theytake pressure off of natural forests by concentratingwood production in relatively small areas. Others claimthat government subsidies and incentives forplantation development have contributed to depressedvaluation of natural forests, which in turn createsdisincentives to maintain land in natural forest orotherwise invest in sustainable forestry (Bull et al.2004). Whatever the net environmental impacts ofplantations and the policies governing theirdevelopment, plantations have indisputably exertedsome direct pressure on natural forests. Specifically,almost half of the plantations created in the 1990swere established through the conversion of naturalforests (Brown 2001).

While acknowledging these broader questions ofsustainability, our primary focus is on the comparisonof plantation extent and environmental policiesgoverning plantation management in our case studyjurisdictions. Figure 22 provides a global comparisonof plantation areas.

At the time these data were collected, plantationsrepresented less than 1% of Australia’s forestlands inthe year 2000, placing Australia in the bottom third ofour case study countries. In terms of total plantationarea, Australia ranked eleventh out of seventeen cases.

In India, China, and Japan, the three countries withthe largest percentage of forests in plantation, a majorportion of plantations are established for non-industrialuses, including household subsistence and/orenvironmental protection (CCICED 2002; FAO 2005;GOI 1988; Kant 2001; Yamane 2001). In contrast,industrial production is a major focus for Russia, theUS, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa, and New Zealand(FAO 2005), all of which report more plantation areathan Australia.

13 This report adopts the 2001 FAO definition of “plantations”. The FAO defines plantations as “forest stands established by planting and/or seeding in theprocess of afforestation or reforestation. They are either of introduced species (all planted stands), or intensively managed stands of indigenous species,which meet all the following criteria: one or two species at planting, even age class, regular spacing” (FAO 2001).

14 The variable figures reflect two different sources both included in the 2001 FAO report.


39

97

143

267

569

834

1,043

1,542

1,554

2,017

4,982

9,871

10,682

16,238

17,340

32,578

45,083

Poland

DRC

Latvia

Mexico

Sweden

Portugal

Australia

New Zealand

South Africa

Chile

Brazil

Indonesia

Japan

US

Russia

India

China

Figure 22. Forest plantations^ (‘000 ha) in 2000. Source: (FAO 2003)

0.1%

0.4%

0.5%

0.7%

0.9%

2.0%

2.1%

4.9%

7.2%

9.4%

13.0%

17.4%

19.4%

22.7%

27.6%

44.4%

50.8%

DRC

Poland

Mexico

Australia

Brazil

Russia

Sweden

Latvia

US

Indonesia

Chile

South Africa

New Zealand

Portugal

China

Japan

India

Figure 23. Percent of forest area in plantations^ in 2000*. Source: (FAO 2003)

* Germany, Finland, and Canada are excluded from this chart, due to a lack of figures in the FAO database forplantation area in these countries.


^ In 2001 plantations were defined by the FAO as “forest stands established by planting and/or seeding in theprocess of afforestation or reforestation. They are either of introduced species (all planted stands), or intensivelymanaged stands of indigenous species, which meet all the following criteria: one or two species at planting, evenage class, regular spacing” (FAO 2001).

If we consider the relative contribution of plantations toproduction rather than forest area, however, plantationwood accounts for an increasingly large percentage ofAustralia’s total industrial roundwood production.Government policy has supported this growingplantation industry. In 1997, the Australian Governmentpartnered with industry interests in a pledge to triplethe country’s plantation area by the year 2020. Theprinciple behind this vision was to “enhance regionalwealth creation and international competitivenessthrough a sustainable increase in Australia’s plantationresources…” (Plantations 2020 2002).

The Tasmanian forestry industry has been active in thedevelopment and promotion of the plantation vision(Plantations 2020 2006), and Tasmanian policy hassupported plantation growth at the state level. Acommitment to plantation development was voiced inthe 1997 Tasmanian Regional Forests Agreement (RFA)and articulated in the Tasmanian Community ForestAgreement (TCFA). The TCFA calls for an increase innatural forest protected areas in exchange for growth inplantation production (Australia, and Tasmania 2005c).15

Tasmania’s environmental policies governingplantation management are articulated in the ForestPractices Code (FPB 2000) and are similar to thoseapplying to natural forests. Riparian buffer zone sizesare the same (with modified managementrequirements within special management zones),clearfelling size limits are the same for slopes 20º orgreater, reforestation standards are equallyprescriptive, and road management standards are thesame in all productive forests. The 100 hectaresclearfelling size limit on slopes less than 20º, however,does not apply to plantations. AAC targets apply to thetotal production from state-owned forests, natural andplantation, but do not apply to private forestlands.

Similarly to Tasmania, New South Wales has set targetsfor the expansion of both eucalypt and softwoodplantations; however, in NSW, plantation developmentis exclusively focused on cleared agricultural land(SFNSW 1997). Unlike Tasmania, different Codes havebeen developed for state-owned natural forests andplantations. From 1997 to 2004, the forest practice

guidelines for state-owned plantations were covered ina Code for “Plantation Establishment and Maintenance”(SFNSW 1997). Guidelines included riparian bufferzone standards, prohibiting the clearance of nativetrees within 100 meters of water storages, 20 metersof prescribed streams, and inside a 5-meter specialmanagement zone along drainage lines and drainagedepressions (SFNSW 1997). In addition, roadmanagement has been subject to state standards.These standards have since been replaced by a moredetailed Plantation Code (NSWDPI 2005). ThePlantation and Reafforestation (Code) Regulation 2001applies to both state and private lands and outlinesmandatory streamside buffers and road-buildingguidelines (MLWC 2001).

In New Zealand, a massive privatization effortbeginning in 1984 led to the transfer of almost all stateowned plantations to private ownership. The NewZealand Forest Accord, signed in 2001 by a diverserange of stakeholders, served to validate and highlightthe growing policy divide between a stronglyconservation-oriented approach to indigenous forestmanagement and a production-oriented approach toplantations. Wood harvest in indigenous forests is verylimited and heavily regulated, while plantationmanagement is covered by voluntary forest codes andprinciples. These voluntary guidelines include thePrinciple for Commercial Plantation Management inNew Zealand (1995); Verifying EnvironmentalPerformance: Draft Report Card, User Guide and AuditProtocol (1999); and the New Zealand Forest PracticeCode, (latest edition 1993), which provides non-binding technical guidelines for forest management ofnon-indigenous forests.

Finland and Germany have very little land in plantationforest. The planting of exotic trees in Finland requiresspecial permission. In Sweden, there are no limitationson planting exotics and no distinction between rulesgoverning natural forests and plantations. Portugaltakes a voluntary approach to the management of bothnatural forests and plantations, with little distinctionbetween the two.

15 As part of the effort to fulfill this agreement adn meet state-mandated annual cut levels, up to 5% of the 1996 native forest area may be converted toplantations. This report’s section on biodiversity includes a discussion placing this conversion policy in a global comparative context.


The Canadian provinces contain very limited forestplantation area and, generally, do not provide separaterules for plantations established on forestlands. TheUS South, in contrast, contains extensive plantations,accounting for 35% of all softwood removals in 1999(Wear and Greis 2002). Across the US, many topwood-producing states have supported plantationgrowth through tax breaks or other economicincentives. In terms of environmental plantationpolicies, our Southeastern case study states apply thesame voluntary forest practice guidelines to plantationsas they do to natural forests. On private lands inWashington and Oregon, short rotation plantationmanagement qualifies as agricultural practice andhence, falls under agricultural rather than forestryregulation (Copestake 2003).

In Central and Eastern Europe, natural forests are notdistinguished from plantations in forest policy. Poland,however, has enacted a general rule prohibiting theplanting of exotic species on forestlands. In terms of statesponsorship of plantation growth, the Russian Governmenthas been active in the development of the country’s vastplantation resource (Russian Federation 1993).

Among our developing country case studies, India,China, Indonesia, Brazil, Chile, and South Africa allexceed Australia in plantation area. Plantationdevelopment in all of these countries has receivedstrong state support.

In India and China, the national government has setambitious targets for afforestation and therehabilitation of degraded forestlands. Non-industrialforest use and conservation are a major focus ofplantation development in these countries.

Most of the plantation area in Brazil is located in SouthernBrazilian states, outside of our Amazonian case studyregion. At the national level, the Brazilian Forestry Coderequires that rural properties everywhere retain a minimumof 20% of the property in permanent forest reserve.Riparian zones are also protected and harvesting permitsare required in all types of forests, including plantations.In addition, some Brazilian states have enacted their ownforestry legislation, including specific provisions forplantation management. Chile, in contrast, imposes fewmanagement restrictions on plantation forests.

Indonesian forest policy lists grasslands andunproductive forest areas as priority areas forplantation establishment. In practice, however, theconversion of natural forest to plantation is a commonoccurrence (Barber, et al. 2002; Dauvergne 2001).Exotic species are established primarily for pulp andpaper production, while native species supply woodfor furniture and construction. The IndonesianGovernment allows the conversion of natural forest toplantations of both forestry and estate crop species,and this conversion has been happening at the scaleof millions of hectares per year (Barber et al. 2002).

South Africa produces the vast majority of its wood inplantations. No new plantation development has beenallowed over the last few years, and thousands ofhectares of plantation have been withdrawn from theplantation landbase due to water shortage concerns.The primary pieces of legislation governing plantationmanagement in South Africa include the NationalForests Act of 1998, the 1996 National Forest Strategy,and the 2001 Amendment to the 1983 Conservation ofAgricultural Resources Act (which specifies riparianzone requirements). A number of voluntary bestmanagement practice guidelines have also beenestablished, such as the South African HarvestingCode of Practice, produced by the Forest EngineeringWorking Group of South Africa (FESA); the SouthAfrica Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable ForestManagement; and the “Environmental Guidelines forPlantation Forestry in South Africa”.

In sum, our case study countries vary tremendously inthe extent of plantation development, the purpose ofthe plantations, and the environmental policies thatapply to plantations. Despite this diversity, the practiceof providing incentives and/or subsidies to encourageplantation growth is commonplace. In terms of policyapproach, case study countries with more restrictivenatural forest policies also include more mandatoryrequirements for plantations. For example, Tasmaniaapplies the same level of prescriptiveness to plantationand natural forest policies for four out of the five forestpractice indicators included in this report. Where thereis a difference between natural forest and plantationpolicy in our case study states, however, the rules forplantations tend to be less restrictive.


The most fully developed policies focused specificallyon industrial plantation management are found inTasmania, New South Wales, New Zealand, and SouthAfrica. This could be explained, in part, by therelatively large percentage of industrial timberproduction coming from plantations in thesejurisdictions. However other jurisdictions with large-scale industrial plantation production, such as thesoutheastern states of the US, lack plantation-specificforest practice policy guidance.


Biodiversity Protection Policies

The conservation of biodiversity ranks among the toppriorities of numerous global-scale environmental agencies,conventions, and other multinational governance tools.The achievement of this environmental goal, however,presents an enormously complex policy challenge. At amost basic level, all forest practice policies havepotential impacts on biodiversity. For the purposes ofthis report, however, we focus on two key policyindicators, aimed directly and expressly at theconservation of species and their habitats. These are1) legislation to protect species at risk, and 2) theestablishment of protected areas excluded fromcommercial timber harvest.

Protection of species at risk

Policies specifically aimed at the protection of species atrisk may consist of any or all of the following key components:1) the required identification of species under threat, whichmay include vertebrates, invertebrates, plants and/or otherlife forms, 2) restrictions or prohibitions on the harvest ofthose species, and 3) habitat protection.

Both the Australian and Tasmanian governments haveenacted several pieces of legislation that address all ofthese components to varying degrees. Major pieces ofrelevant legislation at the national level include theNational Parks and Wildlife Act of 1970, the EndangeredSpecies Protection Act of 1992, the CommonwealthEnvironment Protection, and the Biodiversity ConservationAct of 1999. At the state level, Tasmania has enacted itsown Threatened Species Protection Act (1995) and hasfurther addressed species at risk in the Tasmanian RFA.

Under this suite of policies, species at risk - includingvertebrates, invertebrates, and vascular plants, as well asmosses and lichens - are to be identified and protected. Inaddition, habitat restoration and the linkage of habitat stripsare prioritized in areas containing species of highconservation significance. The Tasmanian RFA also callsfor the development of agreed management prescriptionsfor species protection involving consultations amonglandowners; the Forest Practice Officers from the ForestPractice Authority; and specialists from the TasmanianDepartment of Primary Industries, Water, and Environment(Australia and Tasmania 1997).

Outside of Tasmania, acts specifically aimed at theprotection of endangered species are found in Canada(at the Federal level as well as in Ontario and Quebec),the US (including primarily the US EndangeredSpecies Act, but also a number of state-level acts bothin the western and southeastern US states), Portugal,NSW, Japan, Russia, Latvia, Mexico, and Indonesia.The systems for listing species at risk, the range ofplants and/or animals covered by endangered specieslegislation, and the degree of protection that speciesidentified as threatened are afforded, varies greatlybetween these case studies. Furthermore, somejurisdictions without endangered species acts per sehave established protection requirements that aremore stringent than many of the acts themselves.Nevertheless, Tasmanian legislation is among the mostprescriptive in its coverage of both species and habitatprotection and the creation of well-defined regionalplanning and public consultation procedures forimplementing these policy commitments.

Protected areas

A comparison of protected areas on a global scale isrendered more challenging by the lack of reliable andcomparable information. There are numerouscategories of protected areas that may or may not beincluded in government estimates, ranging fromroadless wilderness areas, to heavily commercializednature parks, to indigenous peoples’ reserves, toprivate conservation easements, to riparian reservesand other special management zones. To date, theUnited Nations Environment Program WorldConservation Monitoring Center (UNEP WCMC)provides the most comprehensive, global-scaledatabase on the extent of protected areas. The provisionof data on protected areas, however, is voluntary andnon-standardized, limiting its consistency, timeliness,and accuracy. Furthermore, data analysis is notprovided at the level of sub-national jurisdictions.

The following chart summarizes the World Databaseon Protected Areas (WDPA) 2006 figures for ourtwenty case study countries, as well as Tasmanianrecords of protected areas within the state by IUCNcategory (WDPA Consortium 2006). The WDPA usesthe World Conservation Union (IUCN) classificationsystem to categorize protected areas by conservation


Class from I to VI, with Class I denoting the most strictlyprotected areas and Class VI containing the fewestmanagement restrictions. For the purposes of thisreport, our analysis is restricted to IUCN Classes Ia, Ib,and II, which denote strict nature preserves,wilderness areas, and national parks, respectively.

As of 2006, the State of Tasmania reported a largerpercentage of land area protected by parks andwilderness areas than that found among the national-level case studies. At the countrywide level, Australiahad the fifth highest percentage of its land areaprotected under IUCN Categories I & II, with Swedenthe highest. OECD, Central and Eastern European, anddeveloping countries in general are fairly well spreadacross the spectrum. The lack of consistency incountry reporting, however, precludes firm conclusionsabout the land area officially protected, while varyingcapacities of enforcement make global-scalecomparison even more problematic.

The Australian government, however, has adopted theuse of IUCN protected area categories contributing to

the country’s relatively precise representation within theWDPA database. Furthermore, data are available on thedistribution of Australia’s protected areas acrossdifferent ecosystem types. One of the principal tenetsof Australia’s Regional Forest Agreement process wasthe establishment of a “comprehensive, adequate, andrepresentative” (CAR) reserve system, with quantitativetargets for the conservation of forested ecosystems, in allRFA regions (DAFF 2003b). As mentioned earlier, thefurther expansion of protected areas was a majorcomponent of the 1997 RFA, which added an additional473,474 hectares of formal public reserve areas (RPDC2002). In 2005 the TCFA added an additional 148,000hectares of public land reserves (Australia andTasmania 2005b). Between 1997 and 2006, theprotected area system has been expanded by over540,000 hectares (DPIW and Forestry Tasmaniaunpublished). Most of this additional area falls underIUCN categories III-VI, defined internationally asnational monuments, habitat/species managementareas, protected landscape/seascapes, and managedresource protected areas, respectively. In Tasmania, noharvesting is allowed in any of these reserve categories.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

China

Portu

gal

Mexico

Poland

India

Russ

ia

Japa

nCh

ile

Braz

il

German

y

Indo

nesia

Finland

Cana

da

Latvia

DRC

Unite

dSt

ates

Austra

lia

New Z

ealand

Sout

h Af

rica

Swed

en

Tasm

ania

%IUCN I %IUCN II % IUCN I & II

Figure 24. IUCN Protected area categories I and II as percentage of total land area in 2006. Source: WDPAConsortium 2006; Tasmanian data provided by Biodiversity Conservation Branch of the Department of PrimaryIndustries and Water, Tasmania and Forestry Tasmania, August 2006.


The creation of protected areas, of course, does notoccur in isolation from other policy considerations. Forone thing, the extent to which a protected area systemconserves key species and habitats depends on wherethose reserves are located. For another, the creation ofreserve areas may impact forest practices elsewhere.

In Tasmania, the expanded protected areas systemoutlined in the RFA reduces the harvest volumesavailable from natural forests and hence, the state’scapacity to reach its legislated AAC requirements. TheRFA has addressed this problem by encouragingintensification of natural forest management andallowing some conversion of natural forest toplantation. The conversion of natural forests toplantation reduces local populations of speciesdependent on native forests. The extent of this habitatloss is limited by the “Permanent Forest Estate Policy…which aims to maintain an extensive and permanentnative forest estate on both private and public land inTasmania. The policy sets statewide, bioregional, andforest community minimum threshold percentagesbelow which native forest vegetation cannot be clearedfor conversion to other uses” (FPA 2005). This policy16,promulgated in 1997 as part of the Tasmanian RFAand revised in 2005 in conjunction with the TCFA,requires that at least 95% of the 1996 statewide extentof natural forest be retained as natural forest, limits theextent of conversion in any particular forestcommunity, and commits to the phasing out of naturalforest conversion—on public land by 2010 and onprivate land by 201517 (DPIW 2005).

If we place Tasmania’s policy towards conversion inthe context of other OECD jurisdictions, we findconversion is often prohibited on public lands butallowed on private forestlands. Trends towardsincreasing privatization in some countries, therefore,could result in forests currently under publicownership becoming available for conversion byprivate owners. However, zoning laws, conservationeasements, and other forms of area-based protection

can and sometimes have placed additional limits onprivate land conversion in developed countries.

In lesser-developed countries, conflicting concernsabout economic development and environmentalprotection coupled with insecure land tenure oftenlead to conflicting policies on forest conversion. InMexico, for example, while forest laws emphasizeconservation, forest clearance has long been used asa means to strengthen land claims. Forest conversionhas been allowed in Chile, with several restrictions(e.g., that an area of natural forest within the samewatershed equivalent in size to the converted forestarea be set aside for conservation), and must beapproved by the Corporación Nacional Forestal(CONAF). The Brazilian Amazon allows forestconversion across 20% of a given private propertywhile requiring that 80% of the remaining forest is heldin reserve. The Tasmanian policy also imposeslimitations on the extent of forest which can beconverted—but on a state, forest community, andbioregional basis, rather than on an individual propertybasis, while allowing conversion of natural forest toplantation forest and other uses within these limits forthe purposes of economic development—as does,for example, Indonesia. Written policies aside,deforestation rates in Mexico, Brazil, and Indonesiaare among the highest in the world.

In sum, the comparison of area-based conservationstrategies yields a complexity of contextual issues.Hence the study of policy impacts would require afocus that extends beyond individual protected areasto consider the issue of forest conversion and otherpotential policy interactions.

16 As of November 2005, the policy has been renamed the “Permanent Native Forest Estate Policy” Tasmania. 2005. Tasmanian government policy formaintaining a permanent native forest estate: State of Tasmania.

17 The policy requires that threatened forest communities are maintained (with limited exceptions) and that non-threatened forest communities are maintainedat a level no less than 50% of 1996 cover in each IBRA (Interim Bioregionalisation of Australia) bioregion. The policy requires a review of the conservationstatus of non-threatened forest communities if their cover falls below 75% fo 1996 cover, or below 2000 hectares (whichever is earlier). In practice, therehave been differential impacts on different forest communities; the extent of conversion of particular communities is reported in the FPA Annual Report (eg.,for 2005-6: http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/fileadmin/user_upload/PDFs/General/FPA_annual_report_0506_web_2.pdf.)


Enforcement and Compliance Policies

Clearly, the effectiveness of environmental forestpolicies depends in part on the ability to achieve policycompliance. By definition, mandatory policies enablegovernance systems to enforce compliance anddiscipline rule-breakers. Voluntary policies, in contrast,are created to educate forest managers and/or createincentives for improved forest practices. There isconsiderable debate as to when and where mandatoryor voluntary rules are most effective in achievingcompliance (Ellefson 1995; Hatch 2005; Kilgore andBlinn 2004). This study is not intended to resolve thatdebate but rather provides an initial analysis comparingand contrasting the ways in which different jurisdictionshave structured forest policy enforcement. This pavesthe way for future research on the combined effect offorest policies and compliance mechanisms inachieving desired management practices.

In Tasmania, the Forest Practices Authority (FPA)(formerly the Forest Practices Board) is in charge ofenforcing forest practice laws on both public andprivate lands. “Forest practices” on all landownerships require Forest Practice Plans certified byqualified Forest Practice Officers (FPOs). “Forestpractices” include a wide range of activities from forestclearance, to timber harvest, to, in some cases,firewood collection. On private lands that are notdesignated as Private Timber Reserves, forestpractices require additional approval from localgovernment authorities.

The FPA is responsible for certifying FPOs and forauditing landowner compliance with the ForestPractices Code and Forest Practices Plans. FPOs(generally employees of the larger landowners, orconsultants employed by smaller landowners) arerequired to prepare and certify Forest Practices Plans,conduct audits of each forest operation conductedunder a Plan, and lodge compliance certificates on thecompletion of discrete operational phases describedin the Plan. In addition, the FPA conducts randomaudits on about 15% of forest practices plans annually,using its own FPO-qualified staff and FPO-qualifiedconsultant auditors. Furthermore, the FPA alsoinvestigates reported rule violations. In cases whereviolations are verified, the maximum penalty for eachviolation has recently been increased from A$15,000

to A$100,000. The FPA produces an annual reportthat outlines the results of FPA audits (FPA 2006).

In contrast to Tasmania, many jurisdictions haveenacted very different environmental forest practicepolicies on private versus government land. Thedifference in policy approach in itself influences themethods used for monitoring, enforcement, andreporting. For example, on private lands in NewZealand to date, there has been a lack of forestpractice policies or state-endorsed best managementpractices that apply to natural forest management.This lack of policies precludes any monitoring and/orenforcement of policy compliance.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, the US ForestService is governed by some of the most restrictivepolicies addressed in this report. The content of thepolicies themselves, combined with the nature of theUS judicial system and high levels of public controversy,have resulted in a litigious approach to policyenforcement. The most notable example is the roughly75% reduction of timber production over the course ofa few years in response to a court ruling on theEndangered Species Act (Cashore and Howlett 2006).

US private lands, meanwhile, vary tremendously in therestrictiveness of their forest practice policies andhence, in their approaches to compliance. InWashington and Oregon, Forest Practices Boards havebeen established to oversee rule enforcement. In theUS Southeast, where forestry is governed by voluntaryBest Management Practices, the focus is onmonitoring voluntary compliance. A number of theSoutheastern US case study states have developedmonitoring systems for the implementation of bestmanagement practices. In many jurisdictions,however, private landowners may deny state forestersaccess to their properties thereby impeding the use ofrandom sampling.

The Canadian case studies, in which forests arepredominantly provincially owned, also vary in theirapproach to enforcement, although less than the USstates. In British Columbia, under the 1995 ForestPractice Code, random and routine audits wereconducted by the Compliance and EnforcementBranch of the Ministry of Forests, and annual reports,summarizing the results, were posted on the BC


government web page. In addition, an independent,non-governmental monitoring body, known as the BCForest Practices Board, was established to carry outrandom audits and respond to complaints related toboth private licensees and the Ministry of Forests itself.Only the relevant BC Ministries, however, hold theauthority to administer penalties. With the recentchange to a “results-based code”, a new Ministry ofForests auditing system is under development, aimedat the systematic measurement of forest managementimpacts across the landscape.

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources focuses onrule compliance, the efficacy of the rules themselves, andtheir management impacts through a process of“independent forest audits.” Independent forest auditsare conducted by approved auditors every five years onall Crown (i.e. public) lands. The audit results are madepublicly available, and forest licensees and the Ministrymust prepare Action Plans to address any problemsraised. Likewise, in Quebec, government audits addressrule compliance, as well as the impacts of the rulesthemselves and resulting forest management activities.In Alberta, routine audits and formal public reportingwere discontinued after 2002 to be replaced by moreinformal “field checks” without systematic reporting.

Developing countries are often at a distinct disadvantage interms of the resources and capacity they have available forgovernment-controlled enforcement mechanisms. As avery general indication of the relative performance of theirenvironmental regulatory regimes, including but not limitedto forestry, it is useful to draw on recent work of Dan Estyand colleagues (Esty and Cornelius 2002; Esty and Porter2002). They have considered a range of criteria indeveloping an “index” of regime performance based onstandards, implementation, enforcement mechanisms,and associated institutions with direct responsibility forpollution control and natural resource management. Figure25 summarizes Esty and Porter’s findings as they relate toour case study countries (excluding the DemocraticRepublic of Congo due to missing information).

Given the incredible complexity of the issues addressed in thisindex, there is no doubt considerable room for dispute overthe precise ranking of each country. Nevertheless, a strongpattern can be observed in that developed countries showconsistently higher regime ratings. Hence, in spite of thediverse mechanisms used to enforce governmental forestpolicies in lesser-developed countries, their effectivenessfalls well short of compliance and enforcement efforts inTasmania and the other developed country jurisdictionscovered in this report.

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Fin

land

Sw

eden

Ger

man

yC

anad

a

US

Aus

tral

iaJa

pan

Chi

lePol

and

Por

tuga

lS

Afric

a

Latv

ia

Bra

zil

Chi

naM

exic

oIn

done

sia

Indi

aR

ussi

a

Figure 25. Environmental Regime Index. Source: Esty and Porter (2003).


Forest Certification

One of the most innovative policy approaches topromote sustainable forestry is found in the case offorest certification, which has emerged to addressglobal and domestic forest challenges. Forestcertification is an effort to recognize forest companiesand government agencies that practice responsibleforestry and to reward them with market access,potential price premiums, and the “social license tooperate.” For these reasons, while governments maybe involved in the development of forest certificationstandards and dialogues, they do not require thatcompanies adhere to the rules. Instead, the idea is thatthrough the generation of abstract “good will” andmore concrete preference on the part of the consumersand customers of forest products, firms will agree toabide by the standards of a particular certificationsystem. Firms who agree to abide by the pre-established standards are then audited for complianceby a third party auditor. By altering purchasing decisionsto demand responsibly harvested forest products, thosechampioning certification are attempting to create a“win-win” situation for forest producers, the environment,and end users.

It is beyond this scope of this analysis to present acomplete review of the complex and nuanced story ofthe emergence of forest certification across the globeor in Australia18. Instead, we present a snapshot ofglobal dynamics, before turning to a brief descriptionof the emergence of forest certification in Australia.

The global context: Origins and two conceptions

The first global scale forest certification program wasspearheaded in 1993 by the World Wide Fund forNature (WWF) and a coalition of environmental andsocially concerned groups, who joined with selectretailers, governmental officials, and a handful of forestcompany representatives to create the internationalForest Stewardship Council (FSC). These groups werefrustrated with the failure of intergovernmental effortsto develop a binding global forest convention at the1992 Rio Earth Summit amidst increasing global forestdeterioration. Initially, they were especially—but not

exclusively—concerned about tropical deforestation.Their idea was to bypass governmental processes byturning to the market place and offering forestlandowners and forest companies who practiced theFSC version of “sustainable forestry” a stamp ofapproval through the FSC-accredited certificationprocess, thus expanding the traditional “stick” of aboycott campaign by offering “carrots” as well.

The FSC created nine “principles” (later expanded to10) and more detailed “criteria” that are performance-based, broad in scope, and address tenure andresource use rights, community relations, workers’rights, environmental impact, management plans,monitoring and conservation of old growth forests, andplantation management (See Forest StewardshipCouncil 1999; Moffat 1998). The FSC created a“tripartite” governance arrangement with threechambers consisting of environmental, social, andeconomic actors, each with equal voting rights. Eachchamber is itself divided equally between North andSouth representation (Domask 2003). The FSCmandated the creation of national or regional workinggroups to develop specific standards for their regionsbased on the broad principles and criteria.

The FSC version of forest certification has beencriticized in two major ways. First, there were concernson the part of domestic forestry agencies, forestowners, and industry associations that it wasbypassing and/or ignoring the norm of nationalsovereignty—i.e. the idea that people within a certainterritorially defined boundary have the right to decidefor themselves how to govern without outsideinterference. Though the FSC did address this byrequiring that national and sub-national multi-stakeholder bodies develop the specific rules, criticspointed out that only the international general assemblycould alter the international principles and criteria uponwhich the standards were required to be based.

The second critique concerned the FSC governancestructures. The lumping together in one chamber ofthose economic interests (i.e., companies and non-industrial forest owners) who must actually implementsustainable forest management (SFM) rules with

18 For detailed reviews, see Cashore, Auld and Newsom (2004), Meidinger (2005), Cashore, Gale, Meidingern and Newsom, eds. (2006) and McDermott(2004).


companies along the supply chain who might demandFSC products, as well as with consulting companiescreated by environmental advocates, has been thesource of much controversy and criticism. It hasnegatively affected forest owners’ evaluations of theFSC (Rametsteiner 1999; Sasser 2002; Vlosky 2000),led them to believe they would have theirindependence and autonomy reduced, andencouraged the development of “FSC alternative”certification programs, which are now offered in allcountries in North American and Europe where theFSC has emerged. In the US, the American Forest andPaper Association created the Sustainable ForestryInitiative (SFI) certification program. In Canada, theCanadian Standards Association (CSA) program wasinitiated by the Canadian Sustainable ForestryCertification Coalition, a group of 23 industryassociations from across Canada (Lapointe 1998). Andin Europe, following the Swedish and Finnishexperiences with FSC-style forest certification, an“umbrella” group, initially known as the Pan EuropeanForest Certification (PEFC) system, was created in1999 by European landowner associations that feltexcluded from the FSC processes. However, by 2001,global interest in creating an umbrella system thatcould house all global competitor schemes emergedas well.

Forest certification in Australia

Like the story elsewhere, the emergence of forestcertification in Australia is complex and dynamic. Forthe purposes of this report, we will review overall trendsand approaches, which will, necessarily, gloss overimportant elements that our future research efforts arebeing designed to address.

The Forest Stewardship Council

The emergence of, and support for, the FSC in Australiawas unique compared to most countries, because manyAustralian environmental groups championed the FSCfor use on plantations, rather than natural forests. Thisapproach, these groups explained, was consistent with

environmentalist efforts to stop all harvesting ofremaining natural forests (Cadman 2002)19. Havingmade the strategic decision to focus much of theircampaigning effort on stopping both the harvesting ofnatural forests and the conversion of natural forests tofaster growing plantations, environmental groupsdecided that they should promote harvesting inforestlands that were already converted, in order toachieve this goal. Importantly, following the FSC’sinternational requirement that only forest landsconverted to plantations before 1994 would be eligiblefor FSC certification (Cadman 2002)20, Australianenvironmental groups focused on promoting the FSC asa way of giving international recognition to firmsoperating on plantations that were converted before1994—in effect driving a wedge between plantation-focused forest companies, determined by the date atwhich their forests happened to be converted. This alsodivided forest companies harvesting on plantations fromthose harvesting in natural forest lands (even if theywere not converting them to plantations).

Partially because of this effect, relatively few firms inAustralia currently support the FSC (Fisken 2003).One prominent example, however, is found in the caseof the US timber investment giant, Hancock ResourcesLtd, which practiced plantation forestry on landsconverted before 2003 (Canada NewsWire 2001).Hancock had already undergone FSC certification onsome of its US forest lands, reasoning that where it wasalready practicing at, or close to, the requirements ofthe FSC system, it made good business sense tosupport the FSC—especially because doing soreduced its “risk” of being targeted by transnationalenvironmental campaigners (Cashore, Auld, andNewsom 2004). Subsequently, a number of otherAustralian forestry companies have sought andachieved FSC certification for their plantation forests.

19 As of 2004, the WWF and Wilderness Society have accepted some logging on natural forests when accompanied by the “setting aside” of untouched forestselsewhere. (Australian Government Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation. 2005. The Sustainability Challenge for Australia’sForest Products Industry and Society.) Greenpeace and ACF remain opposed to any logging on natural forest lands.

20 The logic behind this regulation was that FSC did not wish to encourage the conversion of natural forests but did recognize the role of plantations insupplying consumer demand, hence reducing pressure elsewhere.


Support for the PEFC/ the Australian ForestryStandard (AFS)

As in countries in Europe and North America, theemergence of, and debates over, the FSC sparked bothinterest and concerns in the idea of forest certificationand the FSC approach amongst Australian foreststakeholder. In contrast to FSC “competitor” programsin Europe that were inspired in part by environmentalbrand-attack campaigns (Cashore, Auld and Newsom2004), Australian government agencies and forestindustry associations supported certification in theabsence of such pressure. Instead, the developmentof an Australian national standard was motivated bygovernment and industry interest in promotingAustralia’s sustainable forest management credentialsto the Australian public and to export markets. Hence,an increasing domestic focus on Australian forestrypractices fostered by environmental groups, combinedwith efforts to promote the sustainability credentials ofAustralian forestry and forest products (AustralianGovernment Forest and Wood Products Research andDevelopment Corporation 2005), and signals ofinternational market interest in certified products(Ozanne and Bigsby 2003), to create the backgroundconditions through which concerted efforts were madeto develop a “made in Australia” certification standard,known as the “Australian Forestry Standard.”

Mirroring the Canadian and European approach, the AFSstandards were developed at the initiative of the forestindustry and government, in this case through the formal“Australian Standard” development process overseen byStandards Australia (Standards Australia 2006). Underthis process, AFS Ltd. was accredited as a standarddevelopment organization by Standards Australia, andthe AFS development process and its outcomes werereviewed by Standards Australia. The AFS was formallyaccredited by Standards Australia in 2003 (JAS-ANZ2006), and Gunns Ltd. became the first company inAustralia to be certified under the AFS in November 2003(Australian Forestry Standard Ltd. 2004).

A number of Australian environmental NGOs werereluctant to participate in the AFS development processand subsequently withdrew themselves, criticizing theprogram for legitimizing existing practices, includingongoing conversion of natural forest (e.g. Arts 2004; TheWilderness Society et al. 2005; WWF Australia 2002).

Proponents of the AFS have been equally strong in itsdefense, arguing that the AFS is both a credible and auseful tool for demonstrating and communicatingresponsible forestry in the Australian context(Australian Forestry Standard 2006; AustralianGovernment Forest and Wood Products Research andDevelopment Corporation 2005; NAFI 2005). In manyrespects, the debate over the AFS mirrors that overcertification schemes more generally (e.g., FSC Watch2006; PEFCWatch 2006).

The future of forest certification in Australia is stillhighly dynamic, as debates continue to occurdomestically about the most appropriate pathway forforest conservation. At the same time, domesticmarket pressure remains fairly limited, in contrast toincreasing international market pressure experiencedby, particularly, Tasmanian forestry businesses. Whilethe adoption of certification in Australia has been slowcompared to that in many comparable countries (seeFigures 26-28), the Australian industry – led in manyrespects by a proactive Tasmanian forest sector – hascontinued to promote a “made in Australia”certification program. Indeed, by the end of 2004, theAFS was formally “mutually recognized” by the PEFC(Australian Government Forest and Wood ProductsResearch and Development Corporation 2005).


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Portugal Japan Australia Germany Sweden Finland UnitedStates

Canada

FSC OTHER PEFC

Figure 26. Forest area certified (million ha) in case study OECD countries*

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

India

DRC

China

New Z

ealand

Indo

nesia

Mexico

Sout

h Af

rica

Latvia

Chile

Braz

il

Malay

sia

Austra

lia

Poland

Russ

ia

FSC OTHER PEFC

Figure 27. Forest area certified (million ha) in Australia and lesser developed case study countries*

* While the case study countries vary considerably in their total forest area, it is clear from these charts thatthe area certified is not closely correlated with total forest area. It is also clear that, on average, the developedcase study countries have adopted certification at a much more rapid rate. Finally, it should be noted thatmuch of the forest area in Australia is not suitable for commercial timber production. There are no global dataavailable, however, on the percentage of productive timberland certified.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

New SouthWales

WesternAustralia

SouthAustralia

Victoria Queensland Tasmania

FSC PEFC / AFS

Figure 28. Percentage of forest area certified by Australian state*

*States vary considerably in both size and the relative percentage of forest area that is covered by productivetimberlands.


Summary, Conclusions, and FurtherResearch

Forest governance today in Tasmania, across Australia,and around the world is an indisputably complex andmulti-faceted endeavor. Nevertheless, the making ofboth state and non-state forest policy can and must beunderstood within a dynamic global context. In orderto enhance transparency amidst this complexity, thisreport has presented a systematic analysis ofenvironmental forest policies in twenty key countriesand thirty-eight jurisdictions worldwide, usingTasmania as a constant case comparison. Thiscomparison reveals the considerable diversity betweenjurisdictions and between key issue areas within thesame jurisdictions. Nevertheless, by applying a triadof methodologies—i.e. policy classification, comparisonof threshold requirements, and/or qualitative discussion—ithas been possible to shed considerable light on thediverse and often highly detailed policies that are nowin place.

In summarizing our results, let us first return to the fiveforest practices criteria with which we began thiscomparison. Tables 9-12 provide an overall ranking ofthe level of prescriptiveness of policy approach in eachof our case study jurisdictions in regards to all five ofthese key environmental policy criteria.

For Tasmania, our constant case comparison, weaddress forest policies on both public and privatelands. Within the state of Tasmania, these two landownership types are similar in terms of their total landarea and production levels, and there are expectationsof major growth in private plantation production overthe next twenty years (Parsons, Gavran, and Gerrard2004). For the rest of the case studies, we address theforest ownership types that cover the largest naturalforest area and/or produce the greatest volume ofwood from natural forests within their jurisdiction. It isimportant to keep in mind that rules in manyjurisdictions vary among landownership types, andthere are landownership types not represented in thetables for which the regulations may be either more orless prescriptive.

Table 9 compares Tasmanian polices with otherselected OECD jurisdictions outside of the US andCanada. The left hand column assigns a “level ofprescription” from 0 to 10 based on the sum of all fivecriteria, ranked as indicated in the table key. Zeroindicates that forest managers are allowed completediscretion and ten indicates that precise managementactions are prescribed for all five criteria. The rankingof “0.5” is assigned to voluntary policy guidelines toreflect their potential role in mediating legal liabilities21.

Among the OECD jurisdictions, Tasmanian publicforestlands account for the most consistentlyprescriptive policy approach across all five criteria.Tasmanian private forestland policies are prescriptiveacross four out of the five policy criteria, but contain noprescriptions for AAC. Table 10 compares Tasmaniawith the US and Canadian case study jurisdictions.

Tasmanian public forestlands again rank in the mostprescriptive category of these jurisdictions. Incomparison with the Canadian provinces, Tasmanianpublic forestland policy is as consistently prescriptiveas BC or Alberta and more consistently prescriptivethan Ontario and Quebec. The comparison ofTasmania with the US varies much more markedlydepending on the state and ownership in question.Private lands in California and federal US ForestService lands are governed by forest policies asprescriptive as those governing Tasmanian publiclands. Washington and Oregon rank equally withTasmanian private forestlands across all criteria, whileprivate lands in the US Southeastern states either relyon voluntary policy recommendations or provide noofficial guidance of any kind.

The comparison of Tasmanian forest policies with lesser-developed countries is a much more problematicendeavor, due to very different capacities for enforcement.The Enforcement and Compliance section of this reporthighlighted recent research attempting to quantify therelative effectiveness of environmental regimes in keycountries around the world. While no doubt the sheercomplexity of issues involved undermines the precision ofsuch measurement, nevertheless the OECD case studycountries outperform all lesser developed case studycountries (Esty and Cornelius 2002).

21 Under the US Water Quality Act, for example.


With such a perspective in mind, let us now turn toTable 11 comparing Tasmania with the Central andEastern European cases.

Public forest policies in Tasmania and Russia emergeas the most consistently prescriptive. According to Estyand Cornelius’ environmental regime index, however,Russia has the least effective environmentalgovernance system (Esty and Cornelius 2002).Tasmanian forest policy on both public and private

lands is more consistently prescriptive than the policiesfor Latvia private and Poland public forestlands.

Finally, Table 12 compares Tasmania with developingcountry jurisdictions. Tasmanian public and privateforest policy is more consistently prescriptive thanthose of the developing country case studies. On thewhole, these lesser-developed jurisdictions rely moreheavily on planning and procedural approaches thanis common elsewhere. In comparison with the average

Level of Prescription

(1-10) Case Study 1) Riparian 2) Clearcuts 3) Roads4)

Reforestation 5) AAC

9Tasmania

(Public)

8

New South Wales

(Public)

Tasmania (Private)*

6

New Zealand (Private)

5

Sweden (Private)

Bavaria (Private)

4Finland (Private)

Japan (Private)

1.5Portugal (Private)

Discretionary (ranking: 0.5)

No rules (ranking: 0)

Non-Discretionary/Substantive (ranking: 2)

Mixed: Government Discretion &/or Limited Forest Area/ Substantive (ranking: 1)

Mandatory Procedural (ranking: 1)

Table 9. Relative levels of policy prescription in case study OECD jurisdictions, except the US and Canada

* Tasmania is the only case study in which two different land ownership types are addressed. Other casestudy land ownerships that do not account for the largest forest area and/or greatest volume of woodproduction in their jurisdiction, and hence are not addressed in this table, may be governed by policiesthat are either more or less prescriptive.


Level of Prescription (1-10) Case Study 1) Riparian

2) Clearcuts 3) Roads

4) Reforest-ation 5) AAC

9 Alberta (Public)

British Columbia (Public)

California (CA

private forests =

43% of forest

area; 89% of

harvest)

Tasmania (Public)

USFS Lands (Forest Cover =

75% ID; 27%

MT; 9% AK;

48% OR; 37%

WA; 43% CA.

Harvest = 9% ID;

4% MT; 9% AK;

5% OR; 1% WA;

8% CA)

8 Ontario (Public)

Quebec (Public)

Tasmania (Private)

Washington (WA private

forests = 45% of

forest area; 80%

of harvest)

7

Oregon (OR

Private forests =

36% of forest

area; 85% of

harvest)

5

Idaho (ID private

forests = 15% of

forest area; 75%

of harvest)

Table 10. Relative levels of policy prescription in Tasmania and case study US and Canadian jurisdictions


4

Alaska (AK

private forests =

28% of forest

area; 86% of

harvest)

2.5

Montana (MT

Private forests =

27% of forest

area; 82% of

harvest)

2Louisiana (Private)

Virginia (Private)

1.5Arkansas (Private)

Georgia (Private)

South Carolina (Private)

1Alabama (Private)

Mississippi (Private)

North Carolina (Private)

Texas (Private)






* Tasmania and the western US states are the only case studies for which two landownership types are addressed. USForest Service lands in the western states cover a large area but private lands produce a greater volume of wood. Othercase study land ownerships may be governed by policies that are either more or less prescriptive.

Table 10 cont.


OECD jurisdiction, however, the developing countrycase studies are more consistently prescriptive. In otherwords, a lack of enforcement capacity does not appearto discourage the development of policy prescriptions.

In terms of threshold requirements for riparian zones,clearcutting, and road specifications, Tasmanian policymost closely resembles the policies of the western USand Canadian case studies. The thresholds aresignificantly more modest than those of New South Walesand much more restrictive than those of the USSoutheastern states. By far, the most restrictive thresholdrequirements are found in developing countries andcountries in economic transition, where governmentenforcement capacity is lowest.

Tasmanian forest policy for private lands is moreprescriptive than that of many other case studies. InTasmania, AAC is the one forest policy criterion forwhich there are no prescriptions pertaining to private

lands. Among our case study jurisdictions, only NewZealand and California apply mandatory substantiveAAC policies to privately owned natural forestlands.

In addition to the five forest practice criteria of riparianzones, clearcutting, road building, reforestation, and AAC,we also analyzed case study approaches to broadlydefined, cross-cutting themes of environmental governance.These were plantation management (plantation growth andenvironmental policy), biodiversity protection (protectionof species at risk and protected areas), compliance andenforcement (mechanisms for monitoring and oversight),and forest certification (its development as a new form ofnon-state environmental governance).

In regards to plantations, five countries—China, India,Russia, the US, and Japan—account for nearly two-thirds of the world’s forest plantation area. India,China, and Japan place the strongest focus on non-industrial plantations aimed at environmental


(1-10)Case Study

1) Riparian



9Russia (Public)

Tasmania (Public)

8Tasmania (Private)

7Latvia

(Private)

Poland (Public)






Table 11. Relative levels of policy prescription in Tasmania and Central and Eastern European countries

* Tasmania is the only case study in which two different land ownership types are addressed. Other case studyland ownerships that do not account for the largest forest area and/or greatest volume of wood production intheir jurisdiction, and hence are not addressed in this table, may be governed by policies that are either moreor less prescriptive.


protection and/or improving rural livelihoods.Plantations in the US, in contrast, have been almostexclusively developed for production purposes (FAO2005) and are subject to relatively few environmentalconstraints. Across all of our case studies,environmental protection policies related to plantationsare either the same or less prescriptive than they arefor natural forests. The most detailed plantation

policies are found in Tasmania, the other Oceanic casestudies, and South Africa.

Tasmanian regulations protecting endangered speciesare among the most prescriptive. Species at risk,including vertebrate and invertebrate animals, vascularplants, and lower plants such as mosses and lichens,as well as their habitats, are afforded special protection.


(1-10)Case Study

1) Riparian



9Tasmania (Public)

8Tasmania (Private)

7Indonesia (Public)

Mexico (Communal)

6Chile

(Private)

5

Brazilian Amazon (Private)

Madhya Pradesh (Public)

South Africa (Public)

Data Incomplete

China (Public) N/A N/A N/A

Data Incomplete

DRC (Public) N/A N/A

N/A






Data missing (ranking: N/A)

* Tasmania is the only case study in which two different land ownership types are addressed. Othercase study land ownerships that do not account for the largest forest area and/or greatest volumeof wood production in their jurisdiction, and hence are not addressed in this table, may be governedby policies that are either more or less prescriptive.

Table 12. Relative levels of policy prescription in Tasmania and developing country jurisdictions


In regards to protected areas, there are a lack ofreliable, global-scale sub-national data that wouldallow a comparison of Tasmania with other sub-national jurisdictions. If one compares Tasmania withother case studies at the national level, however, in2006, Tasmania contained the most area protectedunder IUCN categories I and II. As of 2006, 40.2% ofTasmania’s land area was protected in formal reservesacross six IUCN categories. This large percentage ofprotected areas is well above the global average.

Under both the RFA and TFCA processes, theTasmanian reserve system was expanded according tothe Australian “comprehensive, adequate andrepresentative” criteria (Australia and Tasmania2005a: Table 1). Some conservation groups (e.g. TheWilderness Society 2005) remain critical of thedistribution of Tasmanian reserve systems acrossdifferent habitat types and different regions of thestate. Meanwhile, other groups (e.g. WWF Australia2006) have shifted their focus to agricultural andcoastal zones.

The enforcement of Tasmanian forest practiceregulations is governed by the Forest Practices Authority(formerly the Forest Practices Board). Both random andtargeted audits are conducted by Forest PracticeOfficers and Authority staff, and the Forest PracticesAuthority holds the power to de-certify Forest PracticeOfficers (FPA 2006). This type of systematic auditing isnot uncommon in developed countries. However, onprivate lands in New South Wales and the USSoutheastern states, where forest policies are primarilyvoluntary, state monitoring efforts may not be backedby enforcement mechanisms. In some US Southeasternstates, furthermore, private landowners may deny stateforesters access to their property. Our lesser-developedcase study countries generally lack state capacity toconsistently enforce their environmental policies.

With respect to forest certification, we found a highlydynamic environment in which there are activeprotagonists of both the globally-focused andenvironmental group-initiated Forest StewardshipCouncil (FSC), and the nationally-focused anddomestically-initiated (but now PEFC-endorsed)Australian Forestry Standard (AFS). The FSC’s rulethat no forest lands converted to plantations after1994 are eligible for certification has exacerbated the

differences between the two schemes, with someAustralian plantation forestry firms seeking andsecuring FSC certification and, conversely, manyAustralian state forestry agencies and other firms,including Forestry Tasmania and Gunns Ltd.,successfully seeking certification of their forest landsunder the AFS. Further research needs to beundertaken to assess the potential of forest certificationas a tool to promote sustainable forestry in Australiaand to communicate the quality of Australian forestrypractices to national and international audiences.

Our systematic classification and assessment of globalenvironmental forest policies has revealed considerablepolicy variation. In terms of on-the-ground forestconservation, however, the most important questionstill remains—i.e. how effective are these policies inachieving their environmental goals?

This overarching question suggests numerous areas forfurther research. For example, research is needed todetermine when prescriptive versus procedural policiesare most effective for achieving forest managementobjectives. Likewise, field-based studies are required tobetter understand the conditions under which forest-related legislation and accompanying regulations serveto enable or constrain efficient and effective planningand implementation. Research is also needed todetermine how to maximize the influence of policyfactors, such as landownership, economic development,civil society involvement, etc., on policy outcomes. Ourclassification framework sets the stage for such researchby introducing a common policy language with whichto articulate the different policy choices of both stateand non-state governance systems.

The need for international comparative research onthis topic has never been greater, nor have theopportunities to undertake such research been morepronounced. Increasing globalization, along withexpanding communication abilities and risingtechnological capacities, both demand and enableglobal-scale policy learning. Such learning can go along way towards transforming forestry debates fromacrimonious declarations and denials to moreproblem-focused dialogue and collaboration.


References

Aksenov, D., D. Dobrynin, M. Dubinin, A. Egorov, A.Isaev, M. Kaprachevskiy, L. Laestadius, P. Potapov,A. Purekhovskiy, S. Turubanova, and A. Yaroshenko.2002. Atlas of Russia’s Intact Forest Landscapes.Global Forest Watch, Moscow, Russia.

Arts, B. 2004. The Global-Local Nexus: NGOs andthe Articulation of Scale. Royal Dutch GeographicalSociety 95:13.

AUS (Australian Government) Bureau ofMeteorology. 2007. Average Rainfall—Annual,Tasmania: based on a standard 30-year climatology(1961-1990). AUS Bureau of Meteorology,Melbourne, Australia. Available fromhttp://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/cgi_bin_scripts/annual-monthly-rainfall.cgi(accessed January 2007).

Australia, and Tasmania. 1997. Tasmanian RegionalForest Agreement. The Commonwealth of Australia,Canberra, Australian Capital Territory and The Stateof Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania.

Australia, and Tasmania. 2005a. SupplementaryTasmanian Regional Forest Agreement. TheCommonwealth of Australia, Canberra, AustralianCapital Territory and The State of Tasmania, Hobart,Tasmania.

Australia, and Tasmania. 2005b. The TasmanianCommunity Forestry Agreement: A way forwards forTasmania’s forests. The Commonwealth of Australia,Canberra, Australian Capital Territory and The Stateof Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania.

Australia, and Tasmania. 2005c. The TasmanianCommunity Forest Agreement Fact Sheet No. 1:Overview of the Tasmanian Community ForestAgreement. The Commonwealth of Australia,Canberra, Australian Capital Territory and The Stateof Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania.

Australian Forestry Standard (AFS). 2006. Aresponse to incredible claims by the WildernessSociety. AFS, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory.

Australian Forestry Standard Ltd. 2004. AustralianForestry Standard Limited Newsletter No. 2.Australian Forestry Standard Ltd, Canberra,Australian Capital Territory.

Australian Government Forest and Wood ProductsResearch and Development Corporation (FWPRDC).2005. The Sustainability Challenge for Australia’sForest Products Industry and Society. FWPRDC,Melbourne, VIC.

Barber, C. V., E. Matthews, D. Brown, T. H. Brown, L.Curran, and C. Plume. 2002. The state of the forest:Indonesia. World Resources Institute, Washington,D.C.

Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999.Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparianecosystems in the western United States. Journal ofSoil and Water Conservation 54: 419-431.

Brown, C. 2000. The Global Outlook for Future WoodSupply to Plantations. Food and AgricultureOrganization, Rome, Italy.

Brown, C. 2001. Future Production from ForestPlantations. Working Paper FP 13. Food andAgricultural Organization, Rome, Italy.

Bryant, D. G., D. Nielsen, and L. Tangley. 1997. Thelast frontier forests: Ecosystems & economies on theedge. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.

Bull, G., M. Bazett and Associates, A. White, O.Schwab, S. Nilsson, and S. Maginnis. 2004.Subsidies to Industrial Forest Plantations: Impactsand Implications. Forest Trends and the WorldConservation Organization (IUCN), Beijing.

Cadman, T. 2002. FSC Standards development inAustralia 2002. Available fromhttp://www.certifiedforests.org.au/corr/fsc.html(accessed September 2004).

Canada NewsWire. 2001. Domtar Obtains anIndustry First for its Forest Practices Near Trenton,Ontario. Canada NewsWire Ltd. July 27 2001.Available from http://web.lexis-nexis.com (accessedMarch 2004).

Cashore, B. 1997. Governing Forestry:Environmental Group Influence in British Columbiaand the US Pacific Northwest. PhD Dissertation,University of Toronto, Toronto.

Cashore, B., G. Auld, and D. Newsom. 2004.Governing Through Markets: Forest Certification andthe Emergence of Non-state Authority. YaleUniversity Press, New Haven, CT.

Cashore, B., and M. Howlett. 2006. BehaviouralThresholds and Institutional Rigidities AsExplanations of Punctuated Equilibrium Processes inPacific Northwest Forest Policy Dynamics. In R.Repetto, editor. By Fits and Starts: PunctuatedEquilibrium in US Environmental Policy. YaleUniversity Press, New Haven, CT.


Cashore, B., and C. L. McDermott. 2004. GlobalEnvironmental Forest Policy: Canada as a constantcase comparison of select forest practice regulations.International Forest Resources, VIC.

CCICED (China Council for International Cooperationon Environment and Development). 2002.Implementing the Natural Forest Protection Programand the Sloping Land Conversion Program: lessonsand policy recommendations. China ForestryPublishing House, Beijing.

Copestake, M. 2003. Short Rotation Hybrid PopularPlantations in the Pacific Northwest. Paper read atInternational Forest Conservation Field Course,Oregon and Washington.

Croke, J., and P. Hairsine. 2001. Managing sedimentmovement and sources in forests. Journal ofAustralian Water Association 28: 20-22.

CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and IndustrialResearch Organization). 1997. Introduction toTasmania Commonwealth Scientific & IndustrialResearch Organization (CSIRO) Forestry and ForestProducts, Wildlife and Ecology, and Land and Water.CSIRO, Clayton, South Victoria. Available fromhttp://www.ffp.csiro.au/nfm/mdp/tasmania/tastasi.htm(accessed August 2006).

DAFF (Australian Government Department ofAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry). 2003a.Australia’s State of the Forests Report 2003. Bureauof Rural Sciences National Forest Inventory,Canberra, Australian Capital Territory.

DAFF (Australian Government Department ofAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry). 2003b.Nationally Agreed Reserve Criteria AustralianGovernment. Available fromhttp://www.affa.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=769E5064-AAAE-4925-97615B15DAE10CD7(accessed November 2006).

Dargavel, J. 1995. Fashioning Australia’s Forests.Oxford University Press, Aukland. NZ.

Dauvergne, Peter. 2001. Loggers and Degradation inthe Asia Pacific: Corporations and EnvironmentalManagement, Cambridge Asia-Pacific Studies.Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Davies, P E, and M Nelson. 1994. Relationshipsbetween riparian buffer widths and the effects oflogging on stream habitat, invertebrate communitycomposition and fish abundance. Australian Journalof Marine and Freshwater Research 45:1289-1305.

DIER (Department of Infrastructure, Energy andResources). 2006. Employment. DIER, Hobart,Tasmania. Available fromhttp://www.dier.tas.gov.au/forests/rural_land2/employment (accessed December 2006).

Domask, J. 2003. Chapter Eight: From Boycotts toPartnership: NGOs, the Private Sector, and theWorld’s Forests. In J. P. Doh and H. Teegen, editors.Globalization and NGOs: Transforming Business,Governments, and Society. Praeger, New York, NY.

DPIW (Department of Primary Industries and Water).2005. Permanent Native Forest Estate Policy. DPIW,Hobart, Tasmania. Available fromhttp://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/LBUN-6J563R?open (accessed December 2006).

DPIW (Department of Primary Industries and Water),and Forestry Tasmania. unpublished. NatureConservation Area Public Reserves. BiodiversityConservation Branch, DPIW, Hobart, Tasmania.

Ellefson, P. 1995. Regulation of Private ForestryPractices. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station.University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Erlbeck, R. 1996. Aspects and Problems of theSupport of Private and Corporate Forests in Bavaria.Paper read at Approaches to Extension in Forestry -Experiences and Future Developments, Friesing,Germany.

Esty, D. C., and P. Cornelius, editors. 2002.Environmental Performance Measurement: TheGlobal Report 2001-2002. Oxford University Press,New York, NY.

Esty, D. C., and M. E. Porter, editors. 2002. Chapter3: National Environmental PerformanceMeasurement and Determinants. In EnvironmentalPerformance Measurement: The Global Report2002-2003. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 2001.Global forest resources assessment 2000. FAO,Rome, Italy.

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 2003.State of the World’s Forests. FAO, Rome, Italy.

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 2005.Global forest resources assessment 2005: progresstowards sustainable forest management. FAO, Rome,Italy.


Fisken, D. 2003. Forest Stewardship Council - stilltreading water and barriers to progressing FSCcertification in Australia. Available fromhttp://www.afg.asn.au/resources/pdfs/Grower/Grower26,1/Grower26,1-p3-10.pdf (accessed October2004).

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). 1999. FSCPrinciples and Criteria. FSC, Washington, D.C.

Forestry Commission Tasmania. 1991. RegenerationSurveys and Stocking Standards. ForestryCommission, Hobart, Tasmania.

Forestry Tasmania. 2002. Sustainable High QualityEucalypt Sawlog Supply from Tasmania State Forest.Planning Branch, Forestry Tasmania, Hobart,Tasmania.

Forestry Tasmania. 2003. Native Forest Silviculture,Technical Bulletin No. 6: Regeneration Surveys andStocking Standards. Forestry Tasmania, Hobart,Tasmania.

Forestry Tasmania. 2005. Alternatives to clearfellsilviculture in Tasmania’s old growth forests. ForestryTasmania, Hobart, Tasmania. Available fromhttp://www.forestrytas.com.au/forestrytas/pages/new_silviculture/new_silviculture_home.htm (accessedDecember 2006).

FPA (Forest Practices Authority). 2004. NewGuidelines for the Protection of Class 4 Streams.FPA, Hobart, Tasmania.

FPA (Forest Practices Authority). 2005. ForestPractices Authority/Permanent forest estate policyFPA, Hobart, Tasmania. Available fromhttp://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/index.php?id=103(accessed July 2006).

FPA (Forest Practices Authority). 2006. The ForestPractices Authority. FPA, Hobart, Tasmania. Availablefrom http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/index.php?id=96(accessed November 2006).

FPB (Forest Practices Board). 2000. ForestPractices Code. FPB, Hobart, Tasmania.

FPB (Forest Practices Board). 2002. State of theForests Report. FPB, Hobart, Tasmania.

FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) Watch. 2006.About FSC-Watch. Available from http://www.fsc-watch.org/ (accessed November 2006).

GOI (Government of India). 1988. National ForestPolicy, 1988. Government Press, New Delhi, India.

Green, M., and J. Paine. 1997. Summary ofProtected Areas Recorded in the WCMC ProtectedArea Database. World Conservation and MonitoringCentre (WCMC), Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Gunningham, N., and D. Sinclair. 2002. Leaders andLaggards: Next-Generation EnvironmentalRegulation. Greenleaf Publishing, Australia.

Gunningham, N., D. Sinclair, and P. Grabosky. 1998.Instruments for Environmental Protection. In N.Gunningham, D. Sinclair and P. Grabosky, editors.Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy.Clarendon Press, Oxford, England.

Hatch, C. 2005. Environmental Policy Making:Assessing the use of alternative policy instruments.SUNY Press, Albany, NY.

Hoberg, G. 2003. The Optimal Choice of RegulatoryApproach: Concepts and Case Studies from Forestry.Paper read at Annual Meeting of the Law and SocietyAssociation, Pittsburgh, PA.

Howlett, M., J. Rayner, and A. Wellstead. 2004.Canada: From Strategy to NFP. In D. Humphreys,editor. Forest for the Future: National ForestProgrammes in Europe - Country and RegionalReports. European Science Foundation, Strasbourg,France.

Humphreys, D. 1996. The Global Politics of ForestConservation Since the UNCED. EnvironmentalPolitics 5: 231-256.

Humphreys, D. 1999. The emerging forests regime.Global Environmental Change 9:251-4.

Jackson, N. 2005. Population growth positive butslowing. Demographic Analytical Services Unit in theSchool of Sociology and Social Work, University ofTasmania. Available fromhttp://taspop.tasbis.com/webapps/site/588/1396/news/news-more.html?newsid=6273 (accessed August2006).

JAS-ANZ. 2006. Australian Forestry StandardCertification Joint Accreditation System of Australiaand New Zealand. Available from http://www.jas-anz.com.au/showpage.php?file=web/accprog/afs.htm(accessed November 2006).

Kant, S. 2001. The Evolution of Forest Regimes inIndia and China. In M. Palo, J. Uusivuori, and G.Mery, editors. World Forests, Markets and Policies.Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Holland.


Kauffman, J. B., and W. C. Krueger. 1984. Livestockimpacts on riparian ecosystems and streamsidemanagement implications: a review. Journal ofRange Management 37: 430-437.

Keenan, R. J., and J. P. Kimmins. 1993. Theecological effects of clearcutting. EnvironmentalReviews: 121-144.

Kilgore, M. A., and C. R. Blinn. 2004. Policy tools toencourage the application of sustainable timberharvesting practices in the United States andCanada. Forest Policy and Economics 6: 2.

Kimmins, H. 1999. Biodiversity, beauty and thebeast - are beautiful forests sustainable, aresustainable forests beautiful, and is “small” alwaysecologically desirable? Forestry Chronicle 75: 955-960.

Lapointe, G. 1998. Sustainable Forest ManagementCertification: The Canadian Programme. TheForestry Chronicle 74: 227-230.

Magalhães Lopes, S.R. 2000. Procedimentos legaispara exploração das florestas naturais da baciaamazônica. Tropical Forest Foundation, Belém, Pará.

MLWC (Minister for Land and Water Conservation),NSW (New South Wales). 2001. Plantations andReafforestation (Code) Regulation 2001. MLWC,Sydney, NSW.

Moffat, A. C. 1998. Forest Certification: AnExamination of the Compatibility of the CanadianStandards Association and Forest StewardshipCouncil Systems in the Maritime Region. MES,Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax,Nova Scotia.

NAFI (National Association of Forest Industries).2005. Nobody does it better - AFS is the best. NAFI,Deakin West, Australian Capital Territory.

NSW (Government of New South Wales). 1999a.Forestry and National Park Estate Act 1998:Integrated Forestry Operations Approval for Eden.NSW, Sydney, New South Wale.

NSW (Government of New South Wales). 1999b.Forestry and National Park Estate Act 1998:Integrated Forestry Operations Approval for LowerNortheast Region. NSW, Sydney, New South Wales.

NSW (Government of New South Wales). 1999c.Forestry and National Park Estate Act 1998:Integrated Forestry Operations Approval for UpperNortheast Region. Government of New South Wales,

Sydney, New South Wales.

NSW (Government of New South Wales). 2002.Forestry and National Park Estate Act 1998:Integrated Forestry Operations Approval for SouthernRegion. Government of New South Wales, Sydney,New South Wales.

NSW (Government of New South Wales). 2006.Draft Code of Practice for Private Native Forestry.NSW Department of Natural Resources, Sydney,New South Wales.

NSWDPI (New South Wales Department of PrimaryIndustries). 2005. Forest Practices Code Part 1 –Timber harvesting in forests NSW plantations.NSWDPI, Orange, NSW.

Ozanne, L., and H. Bigsby. 2003. Forest Certificationand Wood Use in Australia: Perceptions andIntentions in the Value Chain. Forest and WoodProducts Research and Development Corporation,Melbourne, VIC.

Parkyn, S. M., R. J. Davies-Colley, N. J. Halliday, K.J. Costley, and G. F. Croker. 2003. Planted riparianbuffer zones in New Zealand: Do they live up toexpectations? Restoration Ecology 11: 436-447.

Parsons, M., M. Gavran, and A. Gerrard. 2004.National Plantation Inventory Australia: 2004Update. Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry,Australian Government Bureau of Rural Sciences,Barton, Australian Capital Territory.

PEFCWatch. 2006. Greenpeace Nordic and FinnishNature League, Helsinki, Finland. Available fromhttp://www.pefcwatch.org/frontpage.html (accessedNovember 2006).

Plantations 2020. 2002. Plantations for Australia:The 2020 Vision: An industry/government initiativefor forestry in Australia. Plantations 2020, St. Barton,Australian Capital Territory.

Plantations 2020. 2006. Industry. Plantations 2020,St. Barton, Australian Capital Territory. Available fromhttp://www.plantations2020.com.au/industry/index.html(accessed July 2006).

Quinn, J. M., R. B. Williamson, R. K. Smith, and M.L. Vickers. 1992. Effects of riparian grazing andchannelisation on streams in Southland, NewZealand. 2. Benthic invertebrates. New ZealandJournal of Marine and Freshwater Research 26: 259-273.


Rajala, R. A. 1998. Clearcutting the PacificRainforest: Production, Science, and Regulation. 1vol. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver,B.C.

Rametsteiner, E. 1999. The attitude of Europeanconsumers toward forests and forestry. Unasylva 50:196.

Rametsteiner, E., and M. Simula. 2003. Forestcertification—an instrument to promote sustainableforest management? Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 67: 87-98.

Rice, R. E., R. E. Gullison, and J. W. Reid. 1997. Cansustainable management save tropical forests?Scientific American (April): 6p.

RPDC (Resource Planning and DevelopmentCommission). 2002. Inquiry on the Progress withImplementation of the Tasmanian Regional ForestAgreement (1997): Final Recommendations Report.RPDC, Hobart, Tasmania.

RPDC (Resource Planning and DevelopmentCommission). 2003. Indicators, Native VegetationClearing. In State of the Environment Tasmania2003. State of the Environment Unit, LandInformation Services, Department of Environmentand Land Management, Hobart, Tasmania.

RPDC (Resource Planning and DevelopmentCommission). 2005. State of the EnvironmentTasmania/Land Clearance: Background. RPDC, Stateof Tasmania. Available fromhttp://www.rpdc.tas.gov.au/soer/bio/4/issue/41/index.php (accessed August 2006).

Russian Federation. 1993. Main Provisions forReforestation and Afforestation in the Forest Fund ofthe Russian Federation (Osnovnye polozheniya polesovosstanovleniyu b lesorazvedeniyu v lesnomfonde Rossiyskoy Federatsii). Moscow, Russia.

Sasser, E. N. 2002. The Certification Solution: NGOPromotion of Private, Voluntary Self-Regulation.Paper read at 74th Annual Meeting of the CanadianPolitical Science Association, May 29-31, 2002,Toronto, Ontario.

Semlitsch, R. D., and J. R. Bodie. 2003. Biologicalcriteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparianhabitats for amphibians and reptiles. ConservationBiology 17:1219-1228.

SFNSW (State Forests of New South Wales). 1997.Plantation Establishment and Maintenance. SFNSW,Beecroft, NSW.

Sist, P. R. Fimbel, D. Sheil, R. Nasi, and M.H.Chevallier. 2003. Towards sustainable managementof mixed dipterocarp forests of South-east Asia:moving beyond minimum diameter cutting limits.Environmental Conservation 30:364-374.

Standards Australia. 2006. Preparing Standards:Standards Australia. Available at:https://committees.standards.org.au/POLICY/SG-001/STANDARDIZATIONGUIDE-SG-001.HTM(accessed November 2006).

Tasmania. 2005. Tasmanian government policy formaintaining a permanent native forest estate. Stateof Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania.

The Wilderness Society. 2005. Forest Plan won’t endold-growth logging conflict in Tasmania. TheWilderness Society, Hobart, Tasmania.

The Wilderness Society, Australian ConservationFoundation, Friends of the Earth, and GreenpeaceAustralia. 2005. Call to reject ‘worst forestry practice’standard. The Wilderness Society, Hobart, Tasmania.

Tschaplinski, P.J. 2004. Fish-forestry interactionresearch in coastal British Columbia - The CarnationCreek and Queen Charlotte Islands studies. In G. F.Hartman and T. G. Northcote, editors. Fishes andforestry - worldwide interactions and management.Blackwell Publications, London, England.

Victor, D. G., K. Raustiala, and E. B. Skolnikoff,editors. 1998. The implementation and effectivenessof international environmental commitments: theoryand practice. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Vlosky, R. P. 2000. Certification: Perceptions of Non-Industrial Private Forestland Owners in Louisiana.Louisiana Forest Products Laboratory, LouisianaState University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA.

WDPA (World Database on Protected Areas)Consortium. 2006. 2006 WDPA. IUCN, UNEP.

Wear, D. N., and J. G. Greis, editors. 2002. Southernforest resource assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.

Williams, K. 2005. Social acceptability of forestmanagement systems: University of Melbourne,Melbourne, VIC.


Williamson, R. B., R. K. Smith, and J. M. Quinn.1992. Effects of riparian grazing and channelisationon streams in Southland, New Zealand 1. Channelform and stability. New Zealand Journal of Marineand Freshwater Research 26: 241-258.

Wood, N. 1971. Clearcut: The Deforestation ofAmerica. Sierra Club, San Francisco, CA.

WWF (World Wildlife Fund) Australia. 2002.Australian Forestry Standard lacks credibility in themarketplace. Available fromhttp://certifiedforests.org.au/homef.html (accessedSeptember 2004).

WWF (World Wildlife Fund) Australia. 2004. ABlueprint for the Forest Industry and VegetationManagement in Tasmania. World Wide Fund forNature—Australia, Sydney, NSW.

WWF (World Wildlife Fund) Australia. 2006.Submission: Threatened Native VegetationCommunities legislation package. Submission toTasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Waterand Environment. Sydney, NSW.

Yamane, M. 2001. China’s recent forest-relatedpolicies: overview and background—from theperspective of economic growth and forestconservation. Policy Trend Report, KanagawaPrefectural Center for Nature Conservation: 12.


Since it's founding in 1901, the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies has been in the forefront of developinga science-based approach to forest management, and in training leaders to face their generation's challenges tosustaining forests. The School's Global Institute of Sustainable Forestry continues this tradition, in its mission to integrate,strengthen, and redirect the School's forestry research, education, and outreach to address the needs of the 21stcentury and a globalized environment. The Global Institute fosters leadership through innovative programs, activities,and research to support sustainable forest management worldwide.

The Global Institute has become the center for forestry at the School, coalescing and coordinating activities throughprograms focused on specific areas of research, including Forest Health, Forest Physiology and Biotechnology, ForestPolicy and Governance, Landscape Management, Private Forests, and Tropical Forestry. The Institute is home to the YaleSchool Forests, 10,880 acres of managed forests in New England used for education and research; and is host to TheForests Dialogue, an international group committed to the conservation and sustainable use of forests. The Yale ForestForum (YFF) is the convening body of the Global Institute of Sustainable Forestry. Through YFF, the Institute holdsevents at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies involving stakeholders from diverse sectors.

The mission of the Yale Program on Forest Policy and Governance, a core program within the Global Institute ofSustainable Forestry, is to research, teach, and conduct outreach to foster innovations on sustainable forestrymanagement and policy. The program maintains a broad focus on all forms of state and non-state policy andgovernance, from domestic forest policy, to global inter-governmental negotiations, to market-based systems forpromoting sustainable forest management.

Chadwick OliverFaculty Director

Mary TyrrellExecutive Director

Barbara RuthProgram Coordinator

Yale University Global Institute of Sustainable Forestry

Date post:	14-Feb-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vokhue
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times

Tasmania Report Final rev Jan08:Test2.qxd

Documents