Sustainable forest management in a time of ecosystem services frameworks: common ground and consequences

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment has stimulated much interest in the linkages between the state of ecosystems and human well-being, and resulted in a number of international and national initiatives. For example, the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UKNEA) is being widely discussed in research and land use policy communities, and has already influenced domestic policy (UK National Ecosystem Assessment 2011). The philosophy of ecosystem services is thought by many ecologists to be a good thing, leading to an expectation that their preferred landscapes or habitats will be conserved and that new resources will emerge to underpin and secure wider environmental benefits. Others are interested in particular markets that might develop the opportunities for new business enterprises and the new funding that might make land management more profitable. Our practitioners’ view stems from involvement in British forestry and in particular in the application of ecological research to the policy, planning and management of woodlands and forests. In the practitioner world, we inhabit, a common question is: How does the framework of ecosystem services compare with the prevailing one of sustainable forest management? Or, more prosaically, as a senior forest manager recently put it: What the heck is it all about? We reflect on the common ground and consider possible consequences for forestry and sustainable forest management of incorporating an ecosystem services approach. Our first perspective is that there is confusion around terminology and concepts. Many discussants appear to miss the subtle differences and use concepts from ecosystem services framework, an ecosystem approach, and sustainable forest management seamlessly and interchangeably. As a basis for our perspective, we start, therefore, with brief definitions. The ecosystem approach is considered to be ‘a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way’ (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2004). The Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) adopted a definition for sustainable forest management as ‘The stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality, and their potential to fulfil, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions, at local, national and global levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems’ (Helsinki Ministerial Conference 1993). The UKNEA suggested that ‘Ecosystem services are the benefits provided by ecosystems that contribute to making human life possible and worth living’ and that ‘The adoption of an ecosystems approach yields a requirement for an evidence base on ecosystem change and ecosystem service provision to inform decision-making’. Furthermore, the UKNEA sees change in ecosystems as a result of direct and indirect drivers and that, by understanding the important contribution to human well-being, a variety of societal responses may be adopted which lead to further change and possible improvements in ecosystems and their services. It is this operationalising of ecosystem services through the establishment of values and identification of societal responses which we consider as the ecosystem services framework. As a basis for our perspective, we now summarise sustainable forest management, making selective observations using the language of ecosystem services.