The search for excellence

Searching for excellence

People who have accomplished work worthwhile have had a very high sense of the way to do things. They have not been content with mediocrity. They have not confined themselves to the beaten tracks; they have never been satisfied to do things just as others do them, but always a little better. They always pushed things that came to their hands a little higher up, this little farther on. That counts in the quality of life's work. It is constant effort to be first-class in everything one attempts that conquers the heights of excellence.

Orison Swett Marden (1850-1924), Founder of Success magazine

In 1982, Tom Peters and Robert Waterman published an enormously popular book on business management, entitled In search of excellence.^[1] Wondering why some firms were faring considerably better than others, the two authors chose a sample of highly successful firms and tried to uncover the ingredients and secrets of their success.

Six years later, Saving the tropical forests,^[2] written by Judith Gradwohl and Russell Greenberg, appeared in bookstores. Their work featured a selection of case studies that illustrated two aspects of tropical forests across the globe; the unabated destruction of forests and options for their sustainable management.

Collectively, these two publications provided the germ for an idea that became In search of excellence: exemplary forest management in Asia and the Pacific. The Asia- Pacific initiative borrowed from the Peters and Waterman approach, to identify instances of exemplary forest management and examine the core components of high-quality forest management. The Gradwohl and Greenberg case-study approach provided the working model for the initiative.

The search begins...

Initial ideas for the initiative surfaced at the seventeenth session of the Asia Pacific Forestry Commission (APFC) held in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in February 1998. Forestry officials lamented the preponderance of exposure given to poor forest management, deforestation and degradation of forests. They advocated the need to balance such negative reports by recognizing the many positive instances of good forest management - the examples that many of them knew firsthand from their own work, or that they had heard or read about, or seen during field visits and study tours.

A Working Group of the Commission, set up to promote sustainable forest management, made an initial effort to canvas forests demonstrating exemplary management. However, in the absence of a concerted effort backed with adequate publicity and the necessary financial support, the response was negligible and the initiative came to an abrupt standstill. The search for excellence remained dormant for more than three years, but in the minds of the people who had conceived the idea, the concept and its presumed merits were not abandoned. They recognized that greater effort was needed to develop a more structured approach to the initiative, including clever publicity, widespread dissemination of nomination for ms, and national initiatives to promote and facilitate participation in the exercise. In September 2001, the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (FAO/RAP) formed a partnership with the Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC) to coordinate the initial call for nominations under the revived initiative.

Intact sub-alpine forests in Japan managed for many years for water and soil conservation, wildlife habitat and ecotourism (courtesy Masakazu Kashio).

Publicity was generated in several ways. Nomination forms, brochures, flyers, e-mail notices and letters were sent to forestry agencies and organizations, universities and research institutes, environmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, and industry associations throughout Asia and the Pacific. The initiative was further trumpeted on websites, in forestry journals and trade magazines and on e-mail list-servers. Several national workshops were organized, spreading the news about the initiative in a more conventional way, to stimulate nominations and to initiate discussions on what actually constitutes excellence in forest management. These efforts combined to activate forestry stakeholders throughout the region, from India all the way to Fiji and New Zealand.

The debate that was stimulated by the initiative was refreshing and positive. Although considerable intellectual effort has gone into the development of "criteria and indicators" for sustainable forest management - largely through formal negotiations by bureaucrats - there is a suspicion that these have not been fully integrated into the thinking of most field practitioners. To have people who actually work in the forests discussing and deliberating what distinguishes good management from bad, and what makes for excellent forest management, was an exciting and rewarding means of relating vague concepts to practical experience. In addition, the In search of excellence initiative also became a useful vehicle for providing valuable feedback on expectations and perceptions of excellence.

In calling for nominations of well-managed forests, the In search of excellence initiative sought to identify:

• a broad cross-section of exemplary forest management in Asia and the Pacific;

• forests showcasing management that displays promise for the future;

• examples across a variety of forest types and ecosystems from many countries in the region, exemplifying management for diverse objectives and under different ownership arrangements; and

• examples of both large and small forest areas - the key requirement being quality of management.

Those interested in nominating a forest were asked to submit basic information on the forests themselves. But, more than this, nominators were asked to explain why they considered the forest to be well-managed, to describe what they perceived to be the exceptional management features of the forest and to provide information on the specific elements of demonstrated management excellence.

An initial - and as it turned out, ambitious - deadline of 1 February 2002 for the closure of nominations was extended to 1 May 2002 to facilitate further discussions and workshops.

Coordination of the initiative had to dispel a few misperceptions along the way. For example, some people thought the exercise was a competition (a few wondered what the prize would be for the grand winner). Others were concerned that the search might be perceived as some sort of alternative forest certification process. Neither was true. The initiative was - pure and simple - an effort to illustrate and acknowledge good forest management to a wide audience and to encourage others to take up some of the most promising ideas, methods and approaches.

The initiative also strove to promote the identified examples of success and to provide a measure of credit where applicable. A subset of forests was selected from all the nominations, which served as the basis for more detailed analysis of management experiences (see "Selecting the case study forests" in Appendix 1).

The search takes off...

More than 170 nominations (several forests were nominated more than once) were received from 21 countries. The smallest forest nominated is barely 20 hectares in area. The largest extends over nearly 2.5 million hectares - the size of a small country. The diversity in primary management objectives is astonishing. There are forests managed mainly for the protection of watersheds or the conservation of biodiversity. Others focus on the production of timber or non-timber forest products, or both. There are agroforests managed for both wood and food. Recreation and ecotourism dominate management of several of the forests - especially those with unique natural attractions. Some forests serve as experimental sites - their main function is to provide a "laboratory" for researchers. Most forests, with perhaps the exception of some industrial plantations, have more than one function and many nominated forests are identified as being managed for more than one use or purpose.

Nominations encompassed state-owned forests, private forests owned by individuals and corporations, community forests and joint ventures. Nominations were most numerous for forests in India (39), Indonesia (25), New Zealand (17), Nepal (14) and the Philippines (14).

The quality of the submissions was above expectations, with many nominees providing voluminous supplementary information including copies of forest management plans, proof of compliance with forest policies and regulations, codes of practice, corporate profiles, press releases and other supportive material.

All of the nominations were systematically screened and summaries for each forest were drafted (see Appendix 2). Through the screening process, the number of nominations was reduced to a more manageable list of 40 forests for further consideration.

The next step was to develop criteria for selecting the final set of forests for case studies (see Appendix 1). One important criterion was that case studies should tell a compelling story of innovations in meeting management challenges. The people involved in the selection process looked for examples that would capture the interest of everyone concerned with forests and forestry in the region. They looked for experiences that were out of the ordinary - initiatives that might provide learning opportunities for other forest managers. They also looked for some regional spread. Importantly, it was not the intention to select necessarily the best-managed forests from among the 172 nominated. Eventually, the screening exercise resulted in selection of 28 cases for further scrutiny.

The penultimate phase of the initiative commenced with the preparation of case studies. Independent authors visited the forests and discussed the issue of excellence with key individuals who were familiar with each forest. The case study authors were particularly requested to validate the information provided by the nominees and the dimensions of excellence asserted in nominations. Authors were urged to conduct stakeholder interviews and to include comments and quotations as a means of highlighting direct perceptions about the excellence of forest management.

Someone had to bring a degree of homogeneity and harmony to the diverse reports that 28 individuals had prepared. A coordinating editor worked with the authors to determine the focus and approach of each case study, and to provide a first line of editorial input.

The case studies were prepared between February 2003 and January 2004. The results of the initiative were presented and discussed by 150 of the region's leading forestry figures, during the twentieth session of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission in Nadi, Fiji, in April 2004. Useful input from the Nadi meeting was incorporated into this book.

The search continues...

This book is about searching for excellence. As with any search, inevitably the search parties stumbled across controversy, conflicting information and disagreements. A large flock of sheep usually has at least a couple of black individuals. Readers should keep this proviso in mind and remember that the authors were asked to write about the bright side and the positive - those aspects from which we hope to learn most. In doing so, case study authors mainly steered clear of the black sheep, which does not mean that they do not exist or were not found.

Producing a book - especially one involving more than 40 contributors - is an exciting exercise, but in the end it can also be excruciating and tiring. Most authors are somewhat complacent once the book is finally out. They lean back and make a little "job done" check mark - if not on a piece of paper then at least in their minds. We have made a similar check mark. But, for this initiative the "tick" is only an interim milestone. We are very well aware that, while our search is over for the time being, the initiative has some distance to run. So much for leaning back!

It was never envisaged that the In search of excellence initiative should fully conclude with this publication. There is considerable scope to promulgate the results of the search, through the media and to more targeted audiences through workshops, seminars and conferences. The fascinating in-session seminar on In search of excellence held during the twentieth session of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission is but one example. Similar events are planned to assist the dissemination of ideas for improving forest management.

For forest managers in the Asia-Pacific region, the search for excellence continues. Excellence is an elusive goal. Forest managers - and we use this term very broadly - need to strive for continuous improvement; constantly reviewing their objectives and procedures to ensure that their actions deliver economic, environmental and socio-cultural outcomes commensurate with society's expectations, perceptions and demands. One thing is certain, these goals continue to change and evolve and today's excellence may well be tomorrow's mediocrity. The search for excellence - for those who truly seek it - will thus be a ceaseless endeavour.

Courtesy Alain Compost

Perceptions of excellence: Ingredients of good forest management

Chris Brown, Patrick B. Durst and Thomas Enters

Nothing average ever stood as a monument to progress. When progress is looking for a partner it doesn't turn to those who believe they are only average. It turns instead to those who are forever searching and striving to become the best they possibly can. If we seek the average level we cannot hope to achieve a high level of success. Our only hope is to avoid being a failure.

A. Lou Vickery (Business author)

Ask people what they consider to be good forest management. In all likelihood, one will get almost as many different answers as the number of people asked. This should not be surprising because agreement on what constitutes sustainable forest management is still some distance from being reached. In many ways the question is too simplistic - some people would immediately demand detailed definitions for "good," "forest" and "management." In practice, meaningful answers usually depend on local conditions. Consequently, the answer of most respondents would start with, "Well, that depends on ...."

Perhaps even more important than local conditions - the combinations of environmental, economic and socio-cultural factors that influence management - is that people have widely differing expectations and perceptions of forest management and, thus, intuitively use different indicators to measure its quality. For example, an environmental advocate might argue that excellent forest management requires a complete preservationist approach. Touch-not - or excellence is gone! A grassroots organization may consider the equitable sharing of benefits amongst local villagers as the outstanding feature and most important goal for forest management. At another extreme, shareholders of forestry companies might argue that the best indicator of excellence - or success - is a positive company balance sheet and increasing returns to investment. Between these perspectives is a multitude of perceptions that attempt to balance ecology, equity and profits.

Coordinators of the initiative were strongly cognizant of the fact that people see events and conditions through different lenses and each person has an individual sense of reality. While a key objective of the In search of excellence initiative was to identify what constitutes excellent forest management, it was from the outset viewed even more important to stimulate healthy debate on the issue. The exercise was not necessarily seeking a single and precise definition to be considered for the next edition of forestry textbooks or international fora on forests. Instead of relying on the tools of the statistical analyst, the aim of the initiative was to learn from real life experiences, to listen to the voices of different people concerned with forest management and to document anecdotes and stories describing the actual challenges of management. Hence, the initiative expressly sought out the thoughts of a wide and diverse range of people on what they thought constituted good forest management and what lessons could be drawn in terms of achieving excellence or perfection in forest management.

Why are some of the nominated forests considered to be particularly well managed, while neighbouring forests are apparently not in the same category? Is it possible to identify common elements that distinguish good forest management from the bad (or downright ugly) - similar to the common elements of excellence in business management that Peters and Waterman identified? How does outstanding performance in forest management come about and who or what drives continuous improvements, the desire to do better than others and the persistence to strike balances and build consensus? These are fundamental questions that the In search of excellence initiative hoped to answer - perhaps not entirely but at least in part.

It is generally recognized that forest management is at very different stages of development and evolution in the countries around the region. In some situations people are confronted by very basic issues, whereas in others the basics have been overcome and the task has shifted to tackling the next generation of issues. Consequently, people involved in forest management, whether farmers, local communities, private entities, or government agencies, face quite different challenges in achieving the goals they have set for themselves. In some countries, the major challenges are as basic and fundamental as assigning enforceable property rights to forest areas. In other countries, forest managers work at the cutting edge of science and seek excellence through continuous improvement of specific operations and techniques.

This publication has tried to identify forests where people have successfully grappled with the challenges they face directly and on a daily basis. In fact, much of the "excellence" that has been brought to light has been described in terms of how people have overcome some of the very basic challenges - how they improved situations that others took for granted. In other situations, sophisticated solutions to complex problems are the centrepiece of excellence and this is what has been documented.

Having outlined these provisos and explanations, there is reason to wonder whether the search for excellence might become bogged down in an attempt to extract cohesive lessons. Interestingly, a close look at the nominations selected for further analysis reveals some distinct commonalities among the components of good forest management. In addition, there are some shared ways in which people across the region have set about implementing these components. These commonalities can be interwoven into a model for good forest management that can make a difference to forest management and the benefits it can deliver to the people of the Asia-Pacific region.

Core components of excellence

One outcome from scrutinizing the case studies is a comprehensive list of components of excellence in forest management. These constitute the key elements of a forest management system that, when implemented to very high standards, would ensure that objectives are attained in an exemplary manner. The analysis uncovered 28 components or dimensions of forest management that contribute to overall excellence in performance (Table 1).

The 28 case studies listed in Table 1 are ordered into groups that highlight certain common characteristics. In broad terms, the nominated forests are arranged across a spectrum of primary management objectives that ranges from strongly socio-cultural to strongly scientific-economic. Those listed near the top focus strongly on people's participation, empowerment, maintaining cultural integrity and expanding livelihood options. These forests are predominantly managed by community-based groups. The cases further toward the bottom of the table emphasize scientific management of forests, technological aspects and profit maximization - or at least orientation. Actual management and decision making related to these latter forests are dominated by government agencies and the private sector. Forests listed at the top of the table are generally located in developing countries, while the latter ones are predominantly in developed countries. In part, this dichotomy can be explained by developing countries having a greater preponderance of forests managed by communities and greater numbers of forest-dependent people living in and near forests. It also seems likely that there are significant differences between developed and developing countries in people's priorities and perceptions of what constitutes good or bad forest management.

Several core components of excellence appear to be common to almost all forests. For example, every case study highlights one or more aspects of silviculture or ecosystem management as a dimension of excellence. This is not surprising since it is difficult to conceive of a forest being well managed in the absence of such ecosystem management. Similarly universal is the existence and importance of a management plan (although not necessarily formally approved by a governmental body) in guiding operations towards predefined and agreed-upon goals. Most forests also have tacit or explicit political endorsement of their objectives. Finally there is a common dedication and commitment to rise above the mediocre and average.

Table 1. Components of excellence in case study forest areas

Where social and cultural outcomes are highlighted, integral components of outstanding management include creating new livelihood opportunities for forest-dependent people, empowering local people, ensuring representation and equity, and broad-based participation in decision making and management. Strengthening resource security or providing property rights are viewed as necessary conditions. This includes the recognition of traditional ownership patterns and institutions that are common in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

Conversely, where achieving silvicultural excellence or favourable returns on investment are considered most important, the core components of excellent management are significantly different. Generally, forest management thus tends to be consultative rather than participatory; that is, stakeholders - and sometimes shareholders - are involved in decision making, but not in the actual operations in the forest. Research into best practices, application of science and highly developed technologies, and formal business management philosophies are commonly stressed as important elements of excellence in these cases.

Defining property rights and strengthening resource security

One distinct group of case studies highlights experiences in rehabilitating severely degraded forests in areas where poverty is endemic. Most such efforts have succeeded because of the commendable efforts of local communities and individuals. The four examples that best reflect such accomplishments are the Kalibo Mangrove Reforestation Project in the central Philippines, Can Gio Mangrove Forests near Ho Chi Minh City in Viet Nam, Sulia Reserve Forest in the Indian State of Orissa and forests of Kompong Phluk and Bos Thom around the Tonle Sap Great Lake in Cambodia. In each of these four cases, a crucial dimension in rehabilitating the forests was the transfer of well-defined property rights and the strengthening of resource security, both recognized as absolute "musts" for achieving sustainable forest management. This infused not only the necessary confidence in local people to act but, more importantly, the legal authority to protect the forests from encroachment by outsiders.

While the stories from the four locations are very different, the keys to meeting the challenges the people faced were similar:

• local people recognized forest degradation as a problem and organized themselves into effective community-based management organizations for the purpose of rehabilitating a resource that was viewed of central importance to their livelihoods.

• formal or informal property rights were recognized and resource security was strengthened, which provided the fundamental foundation for protecting the forests.

• the forests were brought under some form of silvicultural management to produce timber and non-timber forest goods and environmental services.

When the Kalibo Mangrove Reforestation Project was first initiated, the forest existed only in people's minds. The area to be planted was nothing more than a bare mudflat that left the nearby town exposed to flooding caused by high tides and typhoons. This case documents the formation of a community-based organization (KASAMA) that effectively planted and maintained a mangrove forest. A key challenge for the community was to protect the area, and later the forest, from encroachers, including attempts by powerful individuals to expropriate parts of the area for their own use. KASAMA and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources eventually signed a Community-Based Forest Management Agreement that awarded secure rights over the mangrove forests and enabled the community to establish a successful ecotourism venture, capitalizing on its forest asset.

The Can Gio Mangrove Forests in Viet Nam, provide an interesting contrast with Kalibo. The Can Gio case documents a different approach to mangrove conservation, whereby the local government contracted impoverished residents to manage heavily degraded mangrove areas. Illegal forest cutting was a major contributor to the prior degradation of the forests. The government recognized its own limitations and accepted that local communities would be in a much better position to put an end to these activities. Management responsibilities were devolved to groups of local people, who were assisted in making their homes within the forests. At the same time, the reversal of degradation to sound management of the mangroves provided new opportunities for livelihoods and income generation. Local people's entrepreneurial leanings enabled them to diversify into an impressive range of enterprises including crab, shrimp and eel farming. The approach has been so successful that the Can Gio Mangrove Forests have been declared a UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve.

At Sulia Reserve Forest in Orissa, uncontrolled harvesting of fuelwood and poles over the years had left the forest in a dreadful condition. As one villager recalled: "The degraded Sulia forest barely had any trees left." Fuelwood shortages were so acute that villagers were walking ten kilometres to another forest to collect fuelwood, just to enable them to prepare their daily meals. The situation became so desperate that the various villages adjoining Sulia Reserve Forest resolved to form a comprehensive system of forest protection committees. The committees now operate in a well-defined structure. They have even managed to collect membership fees that are partially used to fund an elaborate patrol system to protect the forest from encroachers. Under a system of de facto property rights, the community is applying basic silvicultural practices and regulating harvesting in a forest that once again has trees.

Such experience in forming effective community-based management organizations is common among the case studies emphasizing "participatory approaches." Often the local organization provides a means by which communities can overcome their specific "tragedy of the commons" - commons that in fact have reverted to totally open access resources in many cases. Many of these case studies also emphasize the importance of some form of democratic decision making within the community-based organizations, as well as ensuring minority representation and equitable disbursement of forest-derived revenues. The fact that self-regulation works (especially when everyone shares in the benefits and rights are clear), where government legislation has often failed, underscores the notion that people can respond strongly and positively to empowerment.

Poorly defined property rights were also the underlying cause of forest degradation surrounding Kompong Phluk and Bos Thom communities in Cambodia. Encroachment on the flooded forests and on fishing rights led the local people to band together into "Community Resource Committees" to actively rehabilitate and protect the forests. An important advantage in Kompong Phluk, relative to other communities in Cambodia, was that many older people returned to the village after the end of the Khmer Rouge regime in 1979. This assisted in the revival and retention of traditional practices and local knowledge of forest management. In 2003, the Cambodian government adopted a sub-decree on community forestry that strengthened resource security and provided the communities with a formal mandate to implement sustainable forest management.

Numerous lessons can be learned from these four examples. Foremost is that only when local communities have the authority to make decisions, to protect the resource from outsiders and to bring culprits to book, can they realistically take responsibility for forest management. There is a need for an institutional framework capable of enforcing well-defined rights and providing assurance that the benefits from today's hard work will still be there tomorrow. This does not necessarily mean providing communities or individuals with transferable land titles. Increasing tenure security, which can be achieved in various ways, may be sufficient and is often judged to be the most effective contribution to successful forest management.

Maintaining cultural identity

For a second group of forest-based communities, forest management has become a vehicle for self-determination for ethnic minorities. Among this group, management is highly participatory, but the most significant components of "excellence" are reflected in the traditional systems that distinct ethnic cultures have developed - sometimes over centuries - and embraced.

The Kalahan Forest Reserve in Pangasinan Province, Philippines provides a compelling example of an indigenous ethnic group (the Ikalahan) using forestry practices to help maintain cultural identity. The Kalahan Forest Reserve has emerged as a model for community-based forest management, and for reducing threats to ancestral lands. But, the Ikalahan have gone far beyond this in developing a holistic system of forest management. The system incorporates crucial aspects of Ikalahan culture, coupled with entrepreneurship and forward looking leadership focused on maintaining a viable ethnic culture in the modern world. The Kalahan Forest Reserve also provides perhaps the best example among the In search of excellence forests of another important ingredient for success: a dedicated "champion" providing the drive and motivation for success. The leadership and vision of the Reverend Delbert Rice have been crucial in enabling the Ikalahan to bridge the development divide and integrate their own ethnicity with modern Filipino culture.

The Krui damar agroforests tell a similar story. Krui is located on the southwestern tip of Sumatra, Indonesia. The Krui people - living in 60 villages forming 16 clan groups - have developed a unique agroforestry system that is based on tapping resin of damar trees (Shorea javanica). Management and utilization of these forests - which extend over 40 000 hectares - follows a well-defined traditional management system, governed by adat or customary practices. The agroforests provide livelihoods for the ethnic Krui minority group, which has also had to deal with serious threats to its customary land rights. In 1998, the Minister of Forestry signed a government order creating a new forest category: Kawasan dengan tujuan istemewa, which translates as "area with special or extraordinary objectives." The Krui people were thus granted the right to manage national forest land (for both non-timber forest products and timber). The official recognition by the Indonesian Government of the Krui as the rightful managers and owners of the damar agroforests was the culmination of several years of concerted effort by numerous organizations and sympathetic foresters within the Ministry of Forestry. This unprecedented step by the government did more than just recognize rights; it acknowledged century-old excellence and recognized the importance of protecting it.

The Krui damar agroforests and the Ifugao muyong, in the Philippines, are the only forests among these case studies that are not managed under formal management plans. In both instances, however, the well-defined traditional management practices of each ethnic group render unnecessary the need for written plans.

The Ifugao muyong are a component of yet another traditional system, practised by the Ifugao people of the northern Philippines. Depending on the perspective taken, the time-tested muyong system can be viewed as a forest conservation strategy, a watershed rehabilitation technique, a farming system or an assisted natural regeneration strategy. In landscapes otherwise characterized by deforested hillsides, muyong are patches of forest adjacent to Ifugao settlements, which help protect against runoff and erosion, and ensure a steady supply of water to nearby rice paddies even in times of drought. Muyong are cultivated to provide building materials, wood for carving traditional handicrafts, and other non-timber forest products that have been a part of the Ifugao cultural system dating back many hundreds of years. In common with the Ikalahan and Krui peoples, the Ifugao have also had to fight to retain their traditional land rights, eventually receiving certainty of tenure under the Indigenous People's Rights Act (1997).

In a slightly different twist, the Fasak Ecoforestry Project on the island of Espiritu Santo, Vanuatu, is assisting one indigenous group's aspirations for self-determination. This project has strengthened the capacities of the indigenous Fasak community to manage forests effectively. One focus of the project has been to change traditional attitudes towards forests - which have historically been viewed as an inexhaustible resource - allowing the Fasak people to realize more of the benefits of forest management. The local community has subsequently developed the capacity to manage and utilize its forest directly, rather than merely selling harvesting rights to concessionaires as in the past. The project also created jobs, which is seen as a very positive aspect, given that many unemployed young people in the area are easily attracted by the bright lights of the city. The Fasak Ecoforestry model for small-scale, community-based forest management is now being recognized and applied in other locations in Vanuatu.

What makes these four examples outstanding and what lessons can we take from them? Most evident is the focus on maintaining cultural integrity. In all four instances, forest management is an important vehicle in maintaining traditional - and sometimes ancient - ways of life. The use of indigenous knowledge and systems is explicit in the Kalahan, Krui and Ifugao cases. While the systems serve different purposes, the role of culture in their development and continued maintenance is pervasive. In fact, the revival and preservation of traditional management practices does not only go hand-in-hand with maintaining cultural integrity and identity; but they form a symbiosis, the survival of which is as crucial for the people as it is for the forest they manage. A struggle to preserve traditional property rights is also a hallmark in these communities. Conversely, a purposeful shift away from indirect exploitative management towards more direct and sustainable management by the Fasak people is seen as a new approach to uphold and strengthen traditional Fasak values and culture. In all four cases, the enhancement of livelihoods for local people is part of a broader strategy for maintaining cultural values. An important message is to think twice before tinkering with something that has worked for generations. It is most likely outstanding - otherwise it would have long been extinct.

Creating livelihoods for forest-dependent people

While creating additional income sources for forest-dependent people was a subtheme in the eight examples of the first two groups, expanding livelihood options holds centre stage for forest protection in a third set of examples. These forests include the Periyar Tiger Reserve in Kerala, India, the Chaubas-Bhumlu community sawmill in central Nepal, Shree Binayak Pimidanda Community Forest in eastern Nepal, Dugli-Jawarra Sal Forest in Chhattisgarh, India, Knuckles Range of Forests in central Sri Lanka and the forests of Huoshan County in Anhui Province of China.

Common to all of these forests is the strong emphasis placed on people's participation in natural resource management, empowering local communities, and promoting equity and fairness in decision making and the distribution of benefits derived from the forests. The six case studies also highlight an appreciation of indigenous knowledge. However, the main emphasis is on creating new means of livelihood for forest-dependent people.

Developments in the Periyar Tiger Reserve are especially interesting and innovative. Efforts to support the management of the reserve and the surrounding areas specifically set out to create a suite of alternative livelihood options aimed at taking pressure off the reserve and promoting forest conservation. The story is of a group of convicted smugglers - whose basic means of livelihood was to illegally strip cinnamon bark from trees in the reserve - and their transformation into stewards of biodiversity. This almost magical transformation was brought about by "Eco-Development Committees" that were formed to establish and support ecotourism-related enterprises and forest protection businesses. These were so successful that the bark collectors now run wildlife spotting excursions for tourists. Other committees rehabilitate religious sites, maintain trails, produce and sell souvenirs, and provide accommodation and transport services for tourists and religious pilgrims who visit the reserve.

The villages of Chaubas and Bhumlu, in Nepal, have tackled forest-based livelihood creation head on. During the late 1970s, the community assisted in planting trees on hillsides surrounding the villages as part of a development project. A decade later, the government transferred responsibility for the management of the plantations to four Forest User Groups. After commissioning a feasibility study, the community opted to establish a sawmill as the best way to make use of the maturing plantation timber and to advance their economic wellbeing. The Chaubas-Bhumlu Community Sawmill became the first sawmill in Nepal to be managed directly by Forest User Groups. These four Forest User Groups have passed through a distinct evolutionary process. Community forestry at Chaubas and Bhumlu has evolved from a stage where emphasis lay on plantation establishment and protection, to one of active forest management and income generation. Revenues from the sawmill are divided equitably among members of the user group, after allocating a portion for community infrastructure needs. The positive experiences of these two communities provide lessons in poverty alleviation for the region and beyond.

The Shree Binayak Pimidanda Community Forest, also in Nepal, has set its sights on a different type of community enterprise to generate income for local villagers. Similar to the experience of Chaubas and Bhumlu, a Forest User Group manages the nearby forest - in this case, a natural forest of lotka (Daphne spp.), which is a preferred source of raw material for hand-made paper. Recently, the community established a factory producing hand-made paper, employing local residents and generating significant levels of new income for the community. Sound institutional structures, democratic decision making and a strong sense of equity have helped bring success where others have failed. Another vital factor has been a strict adherence to sustainable management of the forest resources through management plans and harvesting guidelines.

At the Dugli-Jawarra Sal Forests in Chhattisgarh, India, the state government has moved beyond the forestry-oriented focus of Joint Forest Management and shifted to a more holistic "People's Protected Areas" scheme. Participation and empowerment through capacity building are at the heart of management strategies. The Dugli-Jawarra experience highlights the challenges related to ensuring transparent property rights and introducing new forest-based livelihoods designed to help people break out of poverty. Forest Protection Committees were formed and micro-scale action plans were drafted to ensure sound forest management. A strong focus has been placed on medicinal plants, which were identified, inventoried and are now being marketed to generate income. Complementary initiatives concentrate on integrated land management, including the construction and maintenance of irrigation systems, water-storage facilities and biogas plants.

Similar programmes are being implemented in the Knuckles Range in Sri Lanka, a cradle for plant and animal life. Historically, the greatest threat to the forests came from the "cardamom invasion." Its cultivation necessitates clearing of the shrubs and undergrowth, which prevents the growth of saplings of large canopy tree species. Combined with high demands for fuelwood - required for cardamom processing - cardamom cultivation ultimately leads to the demise of the unique high-elevation forest. Since a ban was imposed on destructive cardamom cultivation, concerted efforts have been made to create new livelihood opportunities for local people. Training in alternative agricultural activities, such as livestock management and dry land farming, are allowing people to diversify into new industries. The Forest Department is carefully consulting with local people on forest management issues and is gradually shifting more management responsibilities to community-based organizations.

A final example of livelihood creation for forest-dependent people comes from the forests of Huoshan County in China, where the focus is on expanding and intensifying forestry practices to help alleviate poverty. Farmers are being taught how to propagate new tree and fruit crops and are being introduced to soil and water conservation practices that help maintain soil fertility and reduce erosion. Along the lines of a farmer-to-farmer training programme, innovative farmers are commissioned to act as "demonstration householders" and help build the capacities of others. Farmers have also organized themselves into self-help groups that share information and knowledge on how to cultivate and market forest-based produce. The overriding principle in Huoshan - and in most of the other case studies where creating livelihoods are important - is "helping people to help themselves."

The preponderance of case studies with a focus on livelihood creation and support underscores the importance of poverty alleviation in areas of high population density. These case studies also reveal the potential for building upon traditional communal management systems to combat poverty. The six cases provide a loud and clear message. It is not the inherent nature of people to destroy forests for pleasure. Forest degradation and deforestation are usually the result of overexploitation in search of income. Without alternative income-generating options, people have little choice but to resort to whatever livelihood opportunities that forests offer, often with severe negative repercussions on the forest.

Moulding the right institutional framework

In many of the In search of excellence forests, the creation of sound and robust institutional structures is considered essential for effective forest management and is highlighted as an important foundation of excellence. Where tenure rights are an issue, for example, the creation of credible community-based organizations to assume responsibilities and authorities is often necessary. In other instances, specific management challenges demand the formation of unique institutional structures, such as the Forest User Groups that have become a common feature of Nepal's forests in the middle hills and a cornerstone of its community forestry approach.

Lake Taupo Forest in the North Island of New Zealand provides an example of a very special institutional structure formed to meet a particular management challenge. The land on which Lake Taupo Forest was established is customary land, owned by people belonging to Ngati Tuwharetoa, a Maori tribal group. Fragmented ownership, with few tribal resources for development, meant these relatively large tracts of land brought only marginal returns to farmers or were left lying idle. This changed in the late 1960s, when Ngati Tuwharetoa entered into a leasehold partnership with the central government. This prepared the way for the government to establish a forest plantation on Ngati Tuwharetoa lands. Trees were planted on more than 22 000 hectares of land, and ownership of the trees is now reverting to Ngati Tuwharetoa under a transitional agreement. The Lake Taupo experience illustrates how institutional arrangements that fit particular circumstances can be set up and managed to enable win-win outcomes for very diverse groups (in this case, the government and the indigenous people).

A cable yarder in operation at Lake Taupo Forest, New Zealand (courtesy Lake Taupo Forest Trust).

The Lake Taupo case also highlights aspects pertaining to maintaining cultural identity - a perhaps unexpected priority in a developed country. In total, the management experiences at Lake Taupo are among the widest ranging in dimensions of excellence - matching technical silvicultural achievements with strong social, cultural, and economic concerns. Moreover, it illustrates the importance of trust between two rather unequal partners. If the two partners had not trusted each other, the initiative would have faltered before the first tree was planted.

The Imabari-Tamagawa-Asakura (ITA) Forest, in Japan, shares several similarities with Lake Taupo. The ITA Forest has a rich history of communal management that evolved over a period of more than 150 years. Initially, townships banded together in an effort to secure government recognition of communal property rights for what they considered their forests. Around the 1920s, the management structure evolved into a formal forest cooperative - with many individual members - in which ownership of the forests was vested. Despite the general stagnation of forestry in Japan in recent decades - due to high operating costs and scarcity of forest labour - the ITA cooperative model has proven effective in managing the forest in a sustainable and financially viable manner.

Managers at several In search of excellence forests have gone to great lengths to build consensus on forest management. The Dong Phou Xoy and Dong Sithouane Production Forests, in Lao PDR, provide a vivid example. The Forest Management and Conservation Programme (FOMACOP), initiated in 1995, helped to institutionalize the concept of "Village Forestry" as a core national forest management strategy and as a means of decentralizing forest management. During a pilot phase, local communities were entrusted with the management of production forests, and training was initiated to strengthen management capacities. The Dong Phou Xoy and Dong Sithouane Forests exemplify several components of excellence, including those most closely associated with participatory forestry - empowerment, livelihoods for local people, investment of revenues in community infrastructure and equity issues. At the same time, managers have maintained a strong focus on developing technical capacities. Among the case studies, Dong Phou Xoy and Dong Sithouane constitute the only truly community-managed forests to have applied for formal forest certification.

The forests of Lin'an County in Zhejiang Province of China also provide an insightful example of efforts to develop institutional structures for better forest management. During the past 25 years, Lin'an County has worked assiduously to reverse severe forest degradation and related problems arising from the underlying poverty in the county. Important institutional support has been gained in recent years through the county's participation in the International Model Forest Network. Most importantly, an effective partnership process has brought stakeholders together to set up voluntary, cooperative partnerships and a Model Forest Partnership Committee. The committee is comprised of representatives of different stakeholder groups including the government, nongovernmental organizations, industries, farmers, technology providers and academic organizations. The Partnership Committee provides a forum for exchanging ideas on forest management, resolving conflicts and encouraging participatory decision making. A unique feature at Lin'an, among these case study forests, is the incorporation of urban forestry concerns within the forest planning framework.

A final example highlighting the critical importance of institutional frameworks is provided by the forests of southwestern Australia. The Australian experience personifies multiple-use management of forests on a macroscale, and the institutional challenges engendered by conflicting management objectives. In this instance the government's forestry agency, the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM), was extensively restructured to ensure transparency and accountability in reaching multiple objectives. A Forest Products Commission was established to run the government's commercial timber operations, while a restructured CALM focused on management for conservation. A separate Conservation Commission was established to audit the work of the two new departments. This southwestern Australia case highlights how perceptions of an inadequate institutional structure may impede orderly forest policy development and implementation, and how organizations can overcome such weaknesses through responsive restructuring and reform.

The successful development of hickory nut and bamboo industries has allowed Lin'an County to remaining natural forests increase protection of (courtesy Patrick Durst).

Getting the institutional framework correct makes a huge difference! And yet, it is an area where forest management frequently fails. Ultimately, all situations are unique and expecting one blueprint to fit all invites failure. The examples described above have all dealt successfully with uniqueness and established frameworks and structures to fit their circumstances. None is perfect, but they combine the important features of trust, transparency, openness and flexibility. In addition, some have recognized that aspiring to excellence requires opening doors to stakeholders who traditionally would not sit together at the same table, let alone discuss how to bring about sound forest management.

Multiple-use management

Almost all of the In search of excellence forests are managed with a variety of uses in mind. For several of the forests, however, multiple-use management is the principal objective and also the defining feature of excellence. Among these are the Huon District Forests in Tasmania, Australia, the Anmyeon-do Forest in the Republic of Korea and the Mt. Makiling Forest Reserve in the Philippines. For these forests, striking a desirable balance among multiple - and at times conflicting - management objectives is paramount. However, as the Huon District case study reminds us, the definition of "desirable balance" is a matter of perspective.

The Huon District Forests are managed in a policy environment characterized by intensive debate among environmental advocacy groups, the timber industry and the state government. Forestry Tasmania - the state forestry agency - is mandated to manage the forests to meet the often-conflicting expectations of Tasmania's residents. This includes managing for a broad range of goods and services including timber, conservation, recreation and tourism, and soil and water protection. Extensive consultation with community and stakeholder groups is essential in striking an appropriate balance in managing the forests, as is transparency in planning and reporting systems. In Huon District, determining the objectives for forest management is a continuing source of controversy. However, the systems that deliver forest management, according to established government policy, are praised by many, although not necessarily by all.

Anmyeon-do Recreation Forest in the Republic of Korea is also managed by a state agency to meet a broad range of objectives. At Anmyeon-do, timber harvesting has been de-emphasized in recent years, as the focus has shifted to recreation in response to changing demands. Forest managers have not lost sight of essential management tasks. They continue to apply intensive silvicultural treatments to maintain forest health, look after experimental sites for long-running research studies and conserve the unique genetic resources of the forest, a particularly challenging task now that visiting the old forests and mountains has become fashionable among Korean people. Incredibly, the Anmyeon-do Forest has been under formal management for more than 1 000 years - delivering a wide range of products and services to support the ever-changing local needs for centuries.

Set up nearly one hundred years ago, the primary management aim at the Mt. Makiling Forest Reserve in the Philippines is to promote scientific and technical knowledge related to conservation and ecosystems through comprehensive training and education programmes. Besides researchers and scientists, however, there are much larger numbers of people who demand access to the mountain. The reserve is the only intact forest within the vicinity of Metro Manila and it attracts a growing number of ecotourists and recreational visitors. If that is not enough, the watershed protection services that the mountainous forest provides are also increasingly valued. The diversity of interests related to the forest, coupled with booming population numbers, lead to inevitable conflicts over management objectives and practices at Mt. Makiling. These conflicts are effectively addressed through a multi-stakeholder participatory approach to the reserve's management. In 2003, a group of private companies and state agencies also vowed to intensify efforts aimed at preserving the ecological balance and the beauty of the forests of Mt. Makiling. Compromise in accommodating the requirements of local people - both rural and urban - has proven essential for successful management of the Mt. Makiling Forest Reserve.

An evident commonality among these multiple-use forests lies with the managing entity. The Huon District Forests and Anmyeon-do Forest - along with the forests of southwestern Australia, which are also managed for multiple uses - are all managed by government agencies. The Mt. Makiling Forest Reserve is managed by another public institution - the University of the Philippines Los Baños. Other case study forests managed by government agencies are Nakavu Forest and Deramakot Forest Reserve, where research is the primary management objective, and the Knuckles Range of forests in Sri Lanka, where management is slowly being devolved to local communities. This raises a moot question as to whether government agencies are in the best position to strike balances that are required for multiple-use outcomes, or whether multiple-use outcomes are demanded from forests simply because they are managed by government agencies. There are strong indications from the case studies - given the controversies that centre on several of these forests - that both are true.

Research - an important requirement for reaching the stars

Two of the In search of excellence case study forests emphasize scientific research as the basis for developing prescriptions for silvicultural excellence. These are the Nakavu Forest in Fiji and the Deramakot Forest Reserve in Sabah, Malaysia. As with multiple-use management, government agencies are in charge of these forests. Clearly, management devoted purely to research requires external funding and this is most readily available to government agencies, although external donors also lend a hand in both locations.

The Nakavu Forest is leading the way in developing guidelines for sustainable management of natural forests in Fiji. The Fijian Forest Department leased the forest from the villagers of Nakavu to test alternative silvicultural prescriptions in the context of communal forest ownership. An important aspect in developing the "Nakavu Model" was the continuous involvement of the native landowners in decision making and implementing much of the work. The research has clearly shown the potential for using less intensive and better-planned logging regimes than currently used. The results obtained at Nakavu have provided the foundation for the preparation of sound guidelines for scientific natural forest silviculture for possible adoption and implementation throughout Fiji.

A similar initiative is being implemented at Deramakot Forest Reserve in Malaysia, where the Sabah Forest Department has established an experimental forest to test elements of a model for sustainable management of the mixed dipterocarp forest. It is anticipated that this model will eventually be applied throughout Sabah. The model stresses the application of sound forest harvesting, known as reduced impact logging, but also allows for local people, living in proximity to the forest, to utilize it for subsistence needs - including clean water, medicinal plants, building materials and tools.

The Deramakot Forest Reserve and the Nakavu Model both provide examples of government taking affirmative action to help others to move up the ladder of standards; perhaps not to reach the stars, but to raise performance to unprecedented levels in their respective countries. It is not so much forest management that should be praised in these two cases, but rather the people who have put into practice the fundamental concept that sound research is needed to advance.

Silvicultural excellence

A high standard in the application of silvicultural practices is the unifying thread for the final group of case studies. The four forests are privately owned or managed, and have as a central objective the production of timber - but in a manner that maintains ecological integrity.

Woodside Forest is a small, family-run forest in the South Island of New Zealand. John Wardle, one of New Zealand's foremost experts in beech forest management, applies expertise garnered during a 25-year forest research career in managing the forest. The Wardle family practises "adaptive management," closely observing the impacts of their silvicultural and harvesting operations on the forest and adapting these to better mimic natural processes. The Wardles operate their own small sawmill, and also run a non-timber business producing beech honeydew. The forest's management also encompasses strong educational, research and demonstration components.

In contrast, PT Diamond Raya Timber operates a large-scale forest concession in the ecologically sensitive peat swamps of Riau Province, Indonesia, currently a hotspot of widespread illegal logging. Based on the best science available, the company utilizes comprehensive management planning and strictly adheres to the Indonesian Selective Cutting and Replanting System. Recognizing the value of research, Diamond Raya Timber has also set up a series of permanent sample plots to systematically identify and monitor the impacts of timber harvesting on the forest ecosystem. The company has invested considerable effort in ensuring its management and harvesting systems exceed normal standards and pass international scrutiny. To make sure it is on the right track, it applied for and obtained certification from both the Forest Stewardship Council and Lembaga Ekolabel Indonesia.

Similar to the example from Indonesia, Timbercorp Forestry is also a proud recipient of the Forest Stewardship Council's "seal of approval." The Company manages 75 000 hectares of Tasmanian blue gum tree farms in the Green Triangle region of Victoria and South Australia, and in the southwestern portion of Western Australia. The tree farms are managed on behalf of investors who subscribe to investment projects.

Timbercorp Forestry is taking a high-technology approach to forest plantation establishment and management. The company implements "Precision Tree Farming". In other words, resources and silviculture are matched to site attributes and the requirements of the trees planted - and technological solutions are used to solve management challenges and maximize financial returns to investors. The company has established a comprehensive system of procedural best practices, but continuously reviews and adapts the practices to reflect new information and knowledge as it becomes available. Comprehensive quality assurance systems and a strong emphasis on collaborative research help Timbercorp Forestry ensure the precision approach remains at the cutting edge of modern production forestry.

Using advanced technology to overcome management challenges is also a high priority for Forever Beech Limited, a recently established enterprise based in the South Island of New Zealand. Forever Beech has developed an innovative partnership approach that provides expertise in forest management to a group of small forest owners who would be unable to afford such expertise on an individual basis. Forever Beech stresses the application of high-quality silviculture in tandem with low-impact selective logging using helicopters. Helicopter logging eliminates the need for ground skidding and other destructive transport practices, and the absence of forest roads means that impacts on soil and water resources can be kept to a minimum. To the eyes of a layman, after logging operations are completed the forest appears almost undisturbed. The company strives to maintain the ecological integrity of the forests it manages, and has established comprehensive planning, research and monitoring systems.

Helicopters are used for low-impact selective logging by Forever Beech Limited (courtesy Ian Platt).

The forests in this final group are operating at the commercial end of the spectrum, where profitability is essential. At the same time, professional foresters are demonstrating exceedingly high standards of ecological management. While formal business management philosophies - the case studies make mention of such systems as "continuous improvement," "adaptive management," "adherence to best practices," "quality assurance systems," "decision-support systems" and "marketing and information systems" - are important ingredients of their success, managers at all four forests are also firmly committed to research and the application of science and technology. Audit and certification procedures are on the agenda of each company. PT Diamond Raya Timber has dual certification; Timbercorp Forestry is ISO 14001 accredited and very recently obtained Forest Stewardship Council certification; while both Woodside Forest and Forever Beech are complying with New Zealand's stringent natural forest harvesting regulations and have government-approved sustainable forest management plans.

Towards a model of good forest management

Has this search for excellence produced simply a narration that provides nothing more than entertainment? Or do all the stories have a moral that can be further processed to become input for a model of good forest management?

In the preface to their book, Peters and Waterman remarked that: "Some readers may say that the findings are motherhoods, but that's not true." We have drawn exactly the same conclusion. If the findings were all motherhood statements - things we have already known for a long time - then why is good forest management the exception and not the norm?

Analysis of the In search of excellence forests suggests significant diversity in the dimensions of excellence. This is not surprising. However, there are also some compelling commonalities. Certainly, features such as effective silviculture, systems that guide the management of forest ecosystems according to defined values and objectives, and well-defined planning and monitoring systems are common to virtually all of the case study forests. Several other core elements also emerge as necessary conditions that need to be met if success is to be achieved in forest management. These include:

• well-defined property rights and resource security;

• attention to the livelihoods of forest-dependent people; and

• development of appropriate institutional or management structures and frameworks.

Underlying - or perhaps overlaying - all of these elements is the development of social and community consensus on how a forest should be managed. To some degree this involves striking a balance on management objectives, or at least ensuring that stakeholders understand and respect each other's perspectives.

A number of less tangible factors might also be encompassed under a heading of business management philosophies, including elements such as those articulated by Peters and Waterman as the McKinsey 7S framework - style, systems, staff, structure, strategy, shared vision and skills. Perhaps most important of all, however, is a strong commitment to meeting objectives and to excellence, coupled with dedication to continuously do better, and enthusiasm to motivate others to similar aspirations. After all, forest management is not only about trees, it is also about managing people and their philosophies.

These various elements of excellence in forest management can be drawn together in a simple model as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Components of good forest management

The model stresses the importance of inter-relationships between and among a range of components - commitment, resource security, attention to improving livelihoods for local people and/or profitatility, sound institutional and management frameworks, attention to silviculture and ecosystem management, and application of sensible management philosophies. The core of the model is anchored on reaching societal consensus with regard to how forests should be managed and what we want from forestry. Overarching the model is a holistic approach to management that recognizes the roles of the forest within broader ecological, economic and socio-cultural systems.

Each of the model components is important. The level of importance varies among situations and locations. What should be borne in mind is that excellence can only be achieved if all of the core components are addressed and in place. Conversely, remove one of the model's building blocks and the system easily collapses as societal consensus becomes unattainable.

The final conclusion is surely that the context in which management is occurring is the defining point of excellence, along with perspectives on the appropriateness of management objectives. Excellence, as it emerges from these case studies, is generally perceived in terms of how well managers have achieved stipulated objectives. All of the case studies demonstrate high levels of achievement relative to their defined - explicit or implicit - management objectives. To this extent "excellence" is superbly demonstrated.

Whether this constitutes "excellent forest management" may be much more controversial, since often there is disagreement about what the management objectives for a particular forest should be. Environmental advocacy groups believe some forests are managed inappropriately because they should have never been made available for timber production in the first place. Conversely, some forest-dependent people disagree with strong conservation objectives that encroach on their livelihoods. There are probably no absolutes and, with continually shifting perceptions and demands from society, it may be more realistic to strive for continuous improvement rather than "excellence" per se. Nonetheless, it is clear that there are many individuals and organizations striving to achieve "excellent" forest management as they perceive it, and this in itself is cause for considerable celebration.

A multitude of non-timber forest products are sold at local markets, China (courtesy Patrick Durst).

The distribution of excellence

Miyuki Ishikawa

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it.

Edith Wharton, Vesalius in Zante

How widespread is excellence in forest management in the Asia-Pacific region, and can any conclusions be drawn about how well the distribution of In search of excellence nominations reflects the general distribution of excellence?

The nominating process for In search of excellence yielded 172 nominations from 21 countries, including several forests that were nominated more than once. Nominations were most numerous for forests in India (39), Indonesia (25), New Zealand (17), Nepal (14), the Philippines (14) and China (12) (Figure 2). Conversely, several countries with large areas of forest and renowned for expertise in forest management made only a handful of nominations - or in some instances, none at all.

In considering the distribution of nominated forests, it is important to recognize that nominations reflect people's perceptions of excellence, rather than necessarily excellent forest management per se. In any country, it should be expected that exemplary forest management will largely - but not exclusively - be assessed relative to other forests in that country. As a consequence, it might be expected that - all other things being equal - the distribution of nominations should strongly correlate with the actual distribution of forests throughout the region. Variations in national "standards of excellence" might be expected to be manifested in the management practices described, rather than in the number of nominations received.

Of course, all other things are not equal. The geographic distribution of nominations reflects a number of extraneous influences and biases that were introduced through the nomination process. For example:

• more nomination forms were sent to countries where FAO and RECOFTC have the strongest linkages and more contacts were identified (e.g. China, New Zealand, Philippines);

• greater effort was made in certain countries to familiarize people with the initiative and stimulate nominations through national workshops and e-mail discussions (e.g. India, Indonesia, Nepal, Philippines); and

• nomination forms were designed and written in English, making it much easier for potential nominators with a strong command of English to respond (e.g. India, New Zealand), compared with non-English speakers.

Figure 2. Distribution of In search of excellence nominations by country

The process - probably along with some cultural factors, such as reticence to blow one's own trumpet - seems to offer the best explanation for the apparently skewed geographic distribution of nominations.

A second distributional aspect worth exploring is the types of management objectives that are most generally perceived to encompass excellence. Forests primarily managed for the production of wood and non-timber forest products (31 percent) comprise the largest group of nominated forests (Figure 3). This is not surprising, given the preponderance of forests managed for timber production throughout the region.

Other leading management objectives are sustainable livelihoods and poverty alleviation (18 percent), conservation (14 percent), watershed and soil protection (11 percent) and multiple use (15 percent). A very large proportion of nominated forests are managed for multiple objectives, but forests were only categorized as such when there was no clear primary management objective. This emphasis on multiple-use management reflects a paradigm shift from conventional, single-purpose forest management towards more integrated approaches. It also suggests that perceptions of excellence extend to a broad definition of forest management for socio-economic, ecological and cultural enhancement, beyond mere technical excellence in silviculture.

Figure 3. Distribution of nominations by primary management objective

The distribution of nominations by management focus provides interesting insights; forests managed by communities (often in partnership with government agencies under joint management arrangements such as Forest User Groups in Nepal and Joint Forest Management in India) had the greatest representation, with 42 percent of nominated forests identifying local communities as the "lead" forest manager. Forests managed by government agencies comprised 32 percent of nominations, while 20 percent of nominated forests were under private sector management. The remaining nominated forests were managed by research institutions and local governments.

A significant proportion of the nominations for community-managed forests were for forests supported by donor projects. In part, this reflects the additional resources that projects bring to their designated forests, but also relates to the relatively good access project staff tend to have to "outside information." Project staff would be expected to have a greater awareness of the In search of excellence initiative, as well as having greater capacity - and possibly more motivation to publicize their own initiative - compared with non-project forests.

In conclusion, it is unlikely that the distribution of In search of excellence nominations is particularly reflective of the general distribution of excellence in forest management in the Asia-Pacific region. The management styles and practices described in the nominations may, however - to some extent - reflect the distribution of "perceived" excellence in the region, where countries are at different stages of advancement in forest management. Depending on where the nominated forests were located, the nominations demonstrate significant variation in people's perceptions of what constitute good forest management (see Appendix 2 for the summaries of nominated forests).

On the other hand, the distribution by management objective and managing entities indicates general trends in forestry. The large number of forests managed for multiple objectives reflects a paradigm shift from traditional centralized forest management towards more integrated forest management for socio-economic, ecological and cultural enhancement. Also, the prevalence of community-management forests may indicate an increased awareness about the importance of, and the need for "decentralization and devolution of forest management" in achieving more integrated approaches to forest management.

Courtesy Alain Compost

Achieving excellence: can we afford it?

Thomas Enters

The financial analysis is of critical importance in assessing the incentives for farmers, managers, and owners (including governments)... Will farm families have an incremental income large enough to compensate them for the additional effort and risk they will incur? Will private sector firms earn a sufficient return on their equity investment and borrowed resources to justify making the investment that the project requires?

J. Price Gittinger (1984), Economic analysis of agricultural projects

...the conceptual vocabulary of resource and welfare economics... which once served to justify social, especially environmental, policy has largely outlived its usefulness and has become a distraction and an important obstacle to progress.

Mar k Sagoff (1988), The economy of the Earth

How much are pine kernels worth? How much is a songbird worth? Readers may find these questions strange and wonder whether they have ever been posed seriously. In fact, they have! The first question appeared in a recent World Bank publication^[3] and spurred the authors to demand sanity checks on the results of some studies, which appear to make little real world sense. Funtowicz and Ravetz^[4] posed the second question and contended that questions of such nature are the "stuff of impassioned politics." In fact, finding answers to such questions, being able to present the net worth of songbirds, pine kernels and all the other elements of the biophysical and spiritual environment, continue to be viewed by many as an important tool for rational, informed and effective decision making. As renowned economist Paul Krugman has observed, "Economics matter to people....[they]come to economists in search of emotional and political satisfaction."

It is only a small step from the questions about the songbird and the pine kernels to inquiring about the worth of achieving excellence in forest management. We don't necessarily expect all In search of excellence readers to ask this question.

But similar questions have been posed such as: "How much does achieving good forest management cost?" or "Can we afford to implement sustainable forest management?" These are clearly questions from the realm of economics and many readers will detect in these questions an attempt to make efficient resource allocation an important element of excellence.

Some readers will ask, at least subconsciously, the "economics" question and so we attempt to shed some light on the issue here. A further motivation is that a number of nominated forests appear to have been able to rise above mediocrity, to become special - at least in part - because they have benefited from externally funded projects or donor support. This has led some people to conclude that the managers of such forests are able to do better because they have received the financial resources needed to outperform neighbouring forests that do not benefit from similar inflows of funds.

There is no dearth of publications covering the domain of forest economics. Year after year, new texts appear on the bookshelves with guidance on how to assess the economic value of forests, how to conduct social cost-benefit analyses of forestry projects, or how to calculate the incremental costs of a change in practices, for example from conventional logging to reduced impact logging. Unfortunately, the tide of theoretical and conceptual discussions on the nature of costs and benefits is paralleled by an almost complete absence of hard data that could assist Homo economicus, the rational economic man, in decision making. If a person happens to ask, "Will local communities or forest managers have an incremental income large enough to compensate them for the additional effort and risk they will incur?" - a question very similar to the one posited by Gittinger (see above) - the quest for numbers that make sense may open a veritable Pandora's Box.

In Asia and the Pacific, that very question has been posed by many forest managers, concessionaires and logging operators to highlight their reluctance to adopt reduced impact logging (RIL) practices. In fact, several have redefined the acronym "RIL" to creatively press their argument, rephrasing it as "reduced income logging."

We certainly do not claim that adopting RIL and achieving excellence are one and the same. They are not! Yet, the RIL example can be used to probe deeper into the economics of excellence. RIL offers some advantages in this respect. For starters, it can be more easily dealt with than, for example, "devolved forest management" that involves a greater variety of stakeholders and for which distributional aspects - a tricky issue to deal with - are of significant importance. There are some reasonably good comparative data available for RIL to facilitate the debate. The brief discussion that follows is limited to financial aspects of logging and considers whether or not forest operators can afford to adopt RIL - reduced impact logging as opposed to reduced income logging.

On a global scale, over the last ten years, experiences with the application of RIL have been promising. RIL not only reduces environmental impacts, but can also be more efficient and cost-effective than (what is usually termed) conventional logging. In the Brazilian Amazon, under RIL the overall cost per cubic metre of wood produced was 12 percent less than under conventional logging^[5] (Figure 4). However, under different conditions, applying RIL can be quite costly. In the Malaysian State of Sabah, profits reportedly fell substantially when a switch was made from conventional logging to RIL.^[6] In the Malaysian State of Sarawak, researchers concluded that from the concessionaire's point of view, the costs of harvesting operations and royalties per cubic metre were 23 percent higher under the RIL system than under conventional logging.^[7]

Figure 4. Costs of conventional logging versus reduced impact logging activities in the eastern Amazon^[8]

Most studies on the economics of RIL are of a partial nature only and of little deterministic value. Consequently, an answer to the question of whether RIL is financially viable as compared to conventional logging remains ambiguous. It depends on too many factors including topography, markets for inputs and outputs, scale of operation and the costing approach. This ambiguity helps to explain the hesitation of many governments and logging operators in committing to the adoption of RIL practices. On the other hand, there are reasons to doubt that many forest managers and operators are fully aware of all the costs and benefits of RIL.^[9]

This brief excursion into the economics of RIL indicates that calculating marginal changes in costs, efficiencies or incomes is fraught with difficulty. Just when a person thinks one riddle is solved, another appears. In fact, it is likely that those who attempt to use efficiency criteria as a single common denominator for comparing alternative courses of action or investment options will never be fully satisfied with the numbers that financial analysts have been trained to generate. Differences in assumptions and definitions will always produce different results that one may or may not agree with. Hence it should be no surprise that there is still no consensus on the costs of meeting verious standards set as criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management.^[10]

Putting the issue of consensus aside, many people anticipate that the resources required to achieve sustainable forest management will be astronomical. For example, in 1992, the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) estimated that the annual price tag for meeting its Objective 2000 (a goal of having all exports of tropical timber and timber products coming from sustainably managed sources) would be US$458 million. Only three years later, the cost estimate had shot up to US$7 billion and this considered only the producers amongst the ITTO member countries. To many, this came as a shock and until today funds to cover the staggering costs have fallen severely short.^[11]

But let us digress for a moment and ask whether those striving for excellence treat their commitment to excel as an option or even consider it as an investment. The monetary valuation of gains and losses arising from alternative allocations of scarce resources will undoubtedly continue to be important information in making decisions on competing uses. However, there are well-known practical problems with financial and economic analyses. Some critics also feel - and many economists find this a bitter pill to swallow - that the primary concern with efficiencies in the allocation of scarce resources is based on a dubious assumption that there is always a shortage of capital available for investments.^[12]

Peters and Waterman observed that, for those searching for excellence, the numbing focus on costs gives way to an enhancing focus on quality. Excellent companies, they argued, are not driven by either technologies or a compulsion to cut costs, though no company ignores costs or technologies altogether. To approach excellence, the focus shifts towards "close-to-the-customer" attributes, providing quality and satisfaction. The question is therefore not whether people are willing to pay more to move towards excellence. Rather, it is a matter of currency. People may not always invest money. Instead they pay attention to details, the opinions of others and especially the needs of clients (in the business world) or target beneficiaries (in the human development context).

Downplaying the supremacy of classical rational economic thinking does not mean that we open our arms to stupidity and irrationality. There are no excuses for wasting money or making poor decisions that could be avoided by conducting a thorough cost-benefit analysis. Indeed, careful analysis of the 28 case studies reveals that - in some cases - net present value is an important assessment criterion. Especially in the cases that fall into the category of profit-orientation, the question whether achieving excellence can be afforded certainly has been asked. In all likelihood, it has already been answered - in the affirmative.

Most likely, an almost identical question has also been asked by many, "Can we afford not to achieve excellence?" The forests of the Asia-Pacific region continue to be plagued by deforestation and forest degradation. In this situation, one has to wonder whether we can afford to even debate the issue - in doing so it seems we are implicitly willing to consider settling for mediocrity.

A close look at the current challenges facing forestry indicates that solving problems does not necessarily require additional investments. Instead, there is a need for openness to change and a will to leave the "bad" behind in order to move on to the "good." There is not necessarily a need to cough up more money. Instead, there is an urgent need to pay more attention to what's really required, such as political commitment and devotion to serve a cause - the cause of achieving sustainable forest management.

Admittedly, some of the exemplary cases in have found it easier to do the right thing because of the external financial support that they received. However, thousands of projects have been funded in the Asia-Pacific region during recent decades and only a small number have excelled. In many cases, the additional financial infusions have not been the main explanatory variable for success and excellence.

There is no doubt that we can and must afford excellence. The case studies illustrate that excellence has a price, although it is not always possible to express it in monetary terms. What the case studies and the book do not show is that mediocrity also has its price. We should therefore be driven to ask whether we can afford to continue a course that is tantamount to promoting mediocrity and to use narrow economic arguments as obstacles to progress.

The consequences of falling short? A lone tree remains after forest has been cleared for agriculture, Khao Kor, Thailand (courtesy Masakazu Kashio).

About the author

Thomas Enters is National Forest Programme Facilitator at the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, where he has worked since 2000. Prior to joining FAO, he worked as a scientist for the Center for International Forestry Research and the International Board for Soil Research and Management. He has published extensively on issues concerning natural resource management and policies. He holds a Ph.D. in forestry from the Australian National University.