Part 2: Transitions in forest use and wood sourcing 17
4 The evolution of forest use and wood sourcing—a model 93
4.2 Discussion 103
The above section outlined a model of change in wood/forest socio‐ecological
systems, and discussed the case for these basins and their underlying logic.
However, there are also limitations in the extent that this model can be
extrapolated to all circumstances globally. The three case study countries studied
in Part 3 of this thesis were initially selected, in part, to describe a range of states
in the basic transition of wood production from natural forest exploitation to
plantations. But it has become clear that there are other countries where this
process might have occurred differently. In particular, there is the case of some
European countries where the forest exploitation basin was so progressed that
104
some ways more akin to the wood cultivation basin, rather than a management
of extant natural forest ecosystems.
The following section takes a closer examination of the model and some of its
limitations. It does this through a review of factors of significance that influence
the rate of change and nature of change between the basins. These factors have
been broken into two groups—historic and geographic—shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Significant factors effecting change between basins of wood/forest socio‐ ecological systems
History
(Distinctive by time)
Geography
(Distinctive by place)
Factors 1. Position in power
relations/economic
2. Social values of forests
3. Technology
4. Nation state
5. Unique cultures
6. Forest characteristics
The point in history in which the transition in a particular place occurs is likely
to influence how it occurs. The larger social, cultural and technological systems
(the panarchy) within which the wood/forest socio‐ecological system in
eighteenth century Germany sat were very different to those of the wood/forest
socio‐ecological system in, say, Myanmar, at the end of the twentieth century. A
country’s wealth and development status, the relative role of forestry in its
economy, levels of urbanisation, and the relation of society to its forests, and
mixes of indigenous/invader societies could also influence the process of basin
resilience and transformation responses.
So, the point in history when conditions arose for the emergence and
maintenance of a particular wood/forest socio‐ecological system is an important
factor in how the basin and the transition process occurred. One potential
established as colonies of European powers (Indonesia primarily by the
Netherlands and Australia and New Zealand by Great Britain)—it should be
noted, though, that there are only a few parts of the world that were not subject
to this process. It is notable that all three of these case study countries were
subject to the importation of European ideas about forest management through
colonialism and the more general spread of modernity. However, as noted
earlier, these ideas were initially developed in parts of Europe after the
exploitation of forests was almost total, and in a time when there was little or no
social demand for biodiversity, conservation or ecological sustainability. The
‘forests’ that the original German foresters managed were largely forests of their
own planting (Evans 2009). The developing silvicultural practices were all about
the growing of new forests for wood production. This was quite different to its
subsequent application to the extant natural forest ecosystems of colonised parts
of the world. Unlike the situation in Europe, these practices were brought to
newly emerging colonial nations and could be applied to still‐extensive stands of
existing forest. A sensitivity to the potential of forest loss, and both the need and
possibility of being able to manage extant natural forests for sustainable wood
production, was recognised and allowed for the application of forestry practices
that originated in Europe in response to quite different conditions. Thus,
learnings from one part of the world system were able to influence the
development of wood/forest socio‐ecological systems in different ways in other
parts of the world. Within the basic model of change described this gives these
European wood/forest socio‐ecological systems an almost unique position.
A further distinction can be made between the early globalisation of forestry
thr0ugh colonialism and the post‐colonial dissemination of forestry institutions
through globalised institutions, such as the FAO, often through the guise of
106
began exporting forestry expertise to developing countries in the second half of
the twentieth century.
This process of dissemination is important not just for its historical application
but also for how it reflects on questions of political power. The idea of forestry as
a tool of territorial control is covered further in Chapter 7, the Indonesian case
study. It has also been noted in places such as India, the US and others. This
observation of forestry as a tool of colonialism and territorial expansion and
control is not limited to stewardship forestry. There is a considerable body of
work observing similarly about the newer basins of forest ecosystem
management (for example, in relation to carbon storage in forests, see Wright
2011), and wood cultivation (Casson 2004). As well as being an instrument of
territorial control, this imposition of new patterns of land‐use can also facilitate
the colonisation of ideas and values.
Another historical panarchy factor is the influence of social values on forests and
how they might push for change within a system. The development of
environmental awareness and subsequent influence on forest use systems was a
notable feature of the late twentieth century. Further, it was particularly
influential in developed countries, from where it has been extended globally
(mush as scientific forestry has been) in what some authors have labelled
‘environmental colonialism’ (Agarwal and Narain 1991; Nelson 2003). This can
be seen as an extension of the developed core’s ongoing colonisation; it can also
be seen as a logical extension of an emerging global environmental awareness
within which it is now understood that actions in one place or country can have
effects well beyond specific borders. A feature of this awareness is recognition of
the interconnectedness of systems—a recognition that actions in one part of the
world can have consequences beyond one’s own area and that actions by others
conducive to action beyond any country of immediate concern to other parts of
the world. That is, countries anywhere can be subject to the emergence of a new
condition arising within another part of the world system.
Technology is another historical/temporal influence on the development of
wood/forest socio‐ecological systems. The rapid expansion, peaking and decline
of forest exploitation in developing countries using modern logging technologies
has already been noted (Shearman, Bryan, and Laurance 2012). The spread of
silvicultural techniques around wood cultivation has also been noted. This factor
is important. As an example, the range of options for a country like Indonesia to
import technical expertise for establishing acacia pulp plantations is
considerably greater in the early twenty‐first century, where it can draw from a
global pool of expertise, than would have been available in the sixteenth century
when teak plantings were developed in Java. A polity can, then, potentially
transit into new basins much more quickly. It also potentially sets up the
conditions for countries to even jump stages.
Overall, technological changes tend to act as a stressor that shifts the wood/forest
socio‐ecological system from forest exploitation, through stewardship forestry, to
wood cultivation basins. What is less clear is whether technology acts as a
causative agent. In theory technological innovation is induced from some gap
between demand and supply. Nevertheless, technology as applied to wood
harvest, processing and cultivation is strongly influenced by technologies
developed in other fields and other socio‐ecological systems. For example, the
development of chainsaws and motorised haulage vehicles in significant part
was possible due the development of technologies in areas unrelated to wood
production or forests. However, these have acted on the wood/forest socio‐
ecological system in profound ways. Similarly, the development of screens and
108
effect on global paper demand and, hence, wood/forest socio‐ecological systems,
despite its development being largely driven by factors outside the wood/forest
socio‐ecological system. An increasingly integrated global society allows for
strong and rapid cross fertilisation of technological ideas and impacts. In the case
of forestry, the technologies of forest management developed particularly in the
conditions of eighteenth century Germany, yet ended up widely applied around
the world. They had a unique spatial and temporal origin but in fact they appear
a logical response to conditions that have subsequently arisen in many other
places and, once developed, were readily adopted wherever they could be
usefully applied. Conversely, they have impacted on different systems, such as
those with extensive natural forest still in place, in unintended ways.
These temporal (historic) factors are significant influences on how the model of
change plays out. The three main considerations here are the timing of
wood/forest socio‐ecological system development in relation to three global
phenomena: the emergence of a world system of power relations (and its
developmental stages), the rise in the late twentieth century of an ecological
consciousness and a pursuit of non‐wood values in forests, and the level of
technological development available to a wood/forest socio‐ecological system at
the time of other key changes in the socio‐ecological system.
The other suite of factors that will influence the basins and the impetus for
change between them are geographic. Three main geographic considerations are
noted here: biophysical, cultural and economic. They each act as a factor and in
addition are modified by each other.
Somewhat related to the influence of the colonial development of the globe was
the development of the nation state. It is in the context of nation states as core
units of power in the world system that the logic and aspiration of national self‐
beholden to another nation’s wood supplies and having some certainty of supply
of wood, a material that has often been seen as central to economic development,
is important. It is likely that this will push countries that might otherwise have
been able to more efficiently import wood by playing to their comparative
advantage, to instead continue to invest in stewardship forestry and subsequent
wood cultivation programs in order to achieve this self‐sufficiency. To a lesser
extent this pattern is likely to play out within countries with sub‐national
jurisdictions also acting to maintain supplies, control costs and support their
own wood‐dependent economies. The likely net effect of this is a greater level of
subsidy and investment in plantation development then might have occurred in
a perfect global market that was free of the political concerns of sovereign nation
states.
The type of forest is an important factor to consider. There is considerable variety
in how forests respond to wood extraction, based on the physiology of the trees,
climate, soil, and evolutionary history (including exposure to humans). The
forests of New Zealand, while producing some highly valued trees in the early
stages of forest exploitation, turned out to be dominated by slow growing
species. These never generated growth rates capable of producing large
quantities of wood on an ongoing basis. Likewise, the tropical rainforests of the
world have largely proved to be slow growing and yielding. This is in contrast to
the pine species of the temperate and boreal forests of the northern hemisphere
and the eucalypt species of Oceania. Hyde (2012) notes the difference between
frontier expansion in temperate forests and tropical areas. Temperate forests are
more likely to be dominated by few and similar species where the logging tends
to be closer to a clear‐cut (removing most of the trees in a single encroachment).
Tropical forests in the other hand receive much more selective logging, often in
110
feature of wood production was clearly understood by Sedjo and Lyons (1983).
They noted the wood production advantages of higher latitude pine forests for
natural wood production. However, they saw the emerging potential for new
plantations based on exotic species in lower latitudes to be much more
productive and therefore likely to shift global wood production to the South.
The importance of ecological considerations is evident in the global spread of
two specific groups of tree for wood cultivation—pines and eucalypts. Wood
cultivation has been able boost wood productivity through these species, firstly,
by utilising the best available species for particular conditions from anywhere in
the world, but also often by bringing species into new environments where they
have not occurred before and thus do not have indigenous diseases and pests to
contend with, further enhancing productivity.
Another geographic factor is economic. Trade in wood is to some extent
dependent on the location of wood relative to its markets, and these are largely
determined by their history and stages of political development. The forests of
Europe were partly affected by the demand for wood to build the growing cities
and navies that were required during the period of colonial expansion and their
industrialisation. By comparison, the extensive forests of Indonesia’s outer
islands remained relatively untouched until the later decades of the twentieth
century, due to distance from markets and a lack of suitable technologies to
access the wood, cut it and shift it to markets.
A third geographic factor is political and cultural. National boundaries are
artefacts of history and geography. The nation state and the range and diversity
of territory, forest and the population they contain is a factor. Large countries
such as China, the United States, Brazil and Indonesia are likely to encompass a
range of the basins and processes described here, these potentially occurring in
description of the wood/forest socio‐ecological system at the level of the nation
state.
Different values (including distinctive cultural values) played out through
national politics are also a potential factor. Japan is a country that, through the
second half of the twentieth century, largely imported wood from other
countries. At the same time it has developed a large national forest estate that it
has protected from wood production for a number of non‐wood values
(Dauvergne 1997). Thus the country made political decisions to outsource wood
production even when its own forests had the potential to supply more wood— in distinctive contrast to the examples of nations pursuing self sufficiency in
wood production even when it is not efficient to do so.
These factors are also interconnected. How the political geography of a country’s
wood/forest socio‐ecological system affects the transition will in part be a
reflection of the physical and ecological geography contained within its borders
and also the historical development of the country. For example, Brazil can
simultaneously have an advanced wood cultivation socio‐ecological system
operating in the Atlantic south east that is based on a history of extensive forest
exploitation in an earlier time period, while still having frontier wood
exploitation occurring in the Amazonian north. Indonesia, Australia and New
Zealand also provide examples of different parts of their diverse and extensive
landmasses experiencing wood/forest socio‐ecological systems in different parts
of the country undergoing changes between states at different times.
The previous section outlines a range of factors that qualify how the process
described here has presented in different parts of the world. These are important
limitations to the model. Firstly, they provide caution for its application and,
secondly, they build an understanding of the process outlined. The implications
112
The model outlines a process of the transition from forest exploitation to wood
cultivation and forest ecosystem management, which to a lesser or greater extent
can occur in separate geographic areas. As a process of change it would be
possible to consider each of the countries of the world to establish their location
within the transition. This would be useful when considering policy, as well as
being applied in research in order to better understand various aspects of the
wood/forest socio‐ecological system. The model provides novel insight into the
forest transition. Though often considered from a land‐use and economic
development perspective, the approach here is to consider the forest and wood
socio‐ecological systems, their evolution and their forest use patterns (rather
than just forest extent patterns). It also allows a particular focus on the role of
wood extraction and the significance of the wood/forest nexus in stewardship
forestry and how this in turn influences change in wood/forest socio‐ecological