Politics and policy deal with the determination and articulation of a course of action to achieve a specific objective. Forest policy is thus concerned with the manner in which forests and tree resources should be managed to serve the needs of people and meet society's demand for the goods and services that forests and forestry can provide, as well as with regard for the non-material values that trees and forests represent.
Legislation is meant to orient and control the behaviour of individuals and groups in accordance with a declared policy. Laws and regulations define both incentives to encourage compliance with the objectives of policy and penalties to discourage actions that are counterproductive to its achievement. They also assign enforcement responsibilities to one or more executive agencies.
Over the past two decades, perspectives on the role of the forest for society have evolved and broadened dramatically; the relatively narrow official view of the forest as primarily a source of wood and a form of protection for upland water resources has been seriously questioned and sometimes even violently opposed in favour of an approach that reflects a wider range of present and future opportunities and demands from forests and forest resources.
Against this background, in many countries of both the developing and industrialized regions, forest policies and related legislation have been criticized for lagging behind in reflecting changing priorities and in harmonizing potentially conflicting demands. This issue of Unasylva looks at some of the important elements of both the "process" and the "products" of forest policy and legislative revision.
In the lead article, M.-R. de Montalembert and F. Schmithüsen examine policy and legal implications of the shift away from the traditional concept of forest management, which is focused primarily - if not exclusively - on the forest for a sustained yield of wood-based products, to that of management for a continuous flow of multiple benefits that contribute directly to the wellbeing of people and to the achievement of overall development objectives.
A key point that emerges in the authors' analysis (and in the other articles) is that, if forest policy is to respond to and harmonize the needs and desires of the increased number of actors who are now recognized as being affected by forest policy (a sine qua non for successful implementation), these actors must be fully involved in the policy formulation process. Although the formal enunciation of forest policy is a government undertaking, for a forest policy to be realistically framed and successfully implemented, it must be a dynamic process based on the participation and acceptance of those it will affect. A modern forest policy must balance the fate of people and the fate of forests.
M.T. Cirelli considers the process of forestry legislation revision, including an analysis of the role and impact of international assistance - based on the experience of the FAO Development Law Service - with the aim of drawing conclusions for increased effectiveness in the future.
In framing or revising forest policy and legislation, an element that is increasingly being recognized as important is the harmonization of "official" statutes with traditional practices and associated regulatory mechanisms. J.S. Fingleton examines the changing balance in the role of customary and official authority in forest management in the countries of the South Pacific. P.E. Wynter describes an example of village land-use institutions on mangrove-dominated Inhaca Island, Mozambique, and draws conclusions for the development of that country's official resource management policy and legislation. G. Castilleja analyses changes in forest policies in three Latin American countries, reflecting an increased consciousness of the rights of indigenous landholders, changing market situations and growing environmental sensitivity.
Two articles in this issue deal with forest policy in industrialized countries. L. Lönnstedt analyses the economic implications of the 1989 Swedish forestry policy with respect to the sustainable production of high-value goods from private non-industrial forests; his article also constitutes a good example of the potential of policy analysis in the formulation, implementation and modification of forest policy. F.H. McKinnell considers the process of development and the implications of Australia's new forestry policy.
The final pair of articles related to this issue's main focus cover policy and legislative tools with respect to two specific sectors of forest resource management: T.J.P. McHenry considers policy implications for wildlife management; while J. Soussan presents an analysis of policy issues associated with the role of biomass, particularly wood fuel, as an energy resource. In both articles, the interrelationship of the challenges in the specific sector with wider development issues comes through clearly as a key policy consideration.
In conclusion, it must be stressed that the dynamic and participatory process of adapting the policy and legislative framework is a necessary but not sufficient response to the evolving focus of forestry in development. To be effective, this response must be accompanied by a significant and careful effort to reform and strengthen the institutions - public and private - that will have critical roles in implementing the revised policies.
