Policy Process
General Policy Information · SAF and
Forest Policy · Forest
Policy Principles
The goal of the SAF Forest Policy
Department is to provide relevant science-based information to policy makers at
the national and local level.
SAF's Role in Policy Formulation
The SAF national office established
a formal natural resource policy program in 1971. Subsequent appointment of a
full-time policy director reflected the profession's commitment to actively
participate in developing policies regarding the country's renewable natural
resources.
SAF does not make natural resource
policy. Instead, the Society participates in the political and administrative
processes that generate policy by presenting our views to policymakers. These
views — SAF position
statements — are developed using a position taking process that is detailed
in the SAF Bylaws (in
the Members Only area).
SAF influences policy through the
consistent development of high quality, science based positions on issues
affecting renewable natural resources and their management. SAF's position is
the professional view.
A major task of the Forest Policy Department
is to manage SAF's forest policy and position taking process (Bylaws, Section
II), and within this process to guide SAF policy activities in four areas:
- external relations
- SAF unit activities
- task force activities
- policy-related
publications
Our policy work provides several
products and services to the membership, and under some circumstances also to
the publics we serve. They are:
- tracking national
issues
- developing and
distributing position statements
- providing support to
national committees and task forces
- supporting SAF state
societies and their components in their policy activities
SAF's Role in the Media
Because SAF is a scientific based
organization rather than an advocacy group, we give the media unbiased and
impartial information so they can present all the facts to their readership. We
have quick access to a wide range of current, sound scientific and policy
information addressing a variety of natural resource issues. We can also
connect media representatives with top leaders in the field of forestry and
allied disciplines such as watershed management, soil science, fisheries and
wildlife, policy, entomology, landscape ecology, and others.
Return to
top
Forest Policy Activities
According to Bylaw II-C, a forestry issue is "a matter
relating to forestry, the resolution of which is of public importance."
The forest policy department at the national office works closely with members
in the formulation of both national and local position statements and in other
resource policy activities regarding forestry issues.
Forest Policy Principles
The SAF Constitution (Article II, Section 2) provides for a
general statement on forest policy: "The Society shall adopt a statement
on forest policy which shall be implemented in accordance with Bylaws
established by the Council." In June 2002, the SAF Council voted to change
the title of the “statement on forest policy” document from Forest Policies
to Forest Policy Principles to ensure the title was descriptive of the
content of the document. The actual content of this document was not changed. Forest
Policy Principles is a generalized document that guides all of SAF's
natural resource policy activities. All positions the Society takes must be
consistent with Forest Policy Principles.
A Guide to Position Statement
Development
The SAF Committee on Forest Policy has developed guidelines explaining what forest policy is, and how
SAF members can develop effective position statements on
forest policies.
Position Statements
Bylaws II-D and E (1996) are very explicit about
position-taking procedures on both the national and local unit levels. An issue
may become the subject of a position statement if it is of major importance to
the public, covered by Forest Policy
Principles, within the knowledge and skills of the forestry profession,
or of general interest within the Society. Furthermore, there must be time and
resources for SAF to act responsibly on the issue. Proposed national issues are screened by the House of Society
Delegates, the Forest Science and Technology Board, and the Committee on Forest
Policy for recommendation to Council for study and review. Unit-level policy
and executive committees follow similar procedures.
National Positions
National
Positions provide society with the professional view on a specific natural
resource issue, and must be approved by at least two-thirds of the SAF
Council (normally for a five-year
period).
Unit Positions
Unit
Positions are formulated by state societies, divisions, or chapters, and
are adopted by at least two-thirds of the unit's executive committee. The
national office reviews all draft position statements to ensure their
consistency with national position statements and Forest Policy Principles.
Emergency Procedures The Bylaws provide for an
emergency procedure for taking a position on an issue the Society should
address, but which has a timeline inconsistent with the process for adoption
described above. This process can be used to adopt one-year position statements
when appropriate (See Bylaws
II-D, Part 4d; members only page).
Return to
top
__________________________________________
Forests
affect nearly every aspect of our lives. 1 The benefits forests
can provide now and in the future are affected by human actions. 2
Forestry is guided by practical experience and applied knowledge, in addition
to public policies and laws. Foresters contribute to the formulation of forest
policies with professional position statements on forestry issues. 3
Position statement development is guided by the same responsibilities
to society and principles of professional conduct found in the forester’s
Code of Ethics: promoting and practicing stewardship that sustains and protects
a variety of forest uses and attributes, 4 helping shape public
policy by identifying relevant scientific knowledge and social values,
5 and communicating with honesty and fairness.
6
The Forestry Profession’s View on Forest Policies
What is Forest Policy?
SAF’s Role in Forest Policy
SAF Position Statements
Guiding Principles for SAF Position Statements
Who Develops SAF Position
Statements
When are SAF Position
Statements Needed?
Content of SAF Position Statements
Identifying the Issue
Separating Facts and Values: Information Positions and Advocacy Positions
Commenting on Existing Forest Policies
Conclusion: Building Trust with SAF Position Statements
Checklist: Does the Position Statement Conform to SAF’s Guidelines?
Endnotes
The
Society of American Foresters (SAF) is the national organization representing
the forestry profession in the United States. 7 Forestry is the
profession embracing the science, art, and practice of creating, managing,
using, and conserving forests and associated resources for human benefit and
in a sustainable manner to meet desired goals, needs, and values. 8
Foresters develop, use, and communicate their knowledge for one purpose: to
sustain and enhance forest resources for diverse benefits in perpetuity.
9
Through
the SAF Code of Ethics, members pledge to use their knowledge and skills to
help formulate sound forest policies and laws.
10
Among other things, forest policies address forestry issues
and identify courses of action. A forestry issue is “a matter relating to
forestry, the resolution of which is of public importance.”
11
Forest
policies are formulated and evaluated in public processes. The SAF contributes
its professional knowledge to public deliberation on forestry issues through
formal position statements.
12
The SAF’s position on an issue represents the view of the
forestry profession.
13
What is Forest Policy?
Policies
are purposive courses of action (or inaction) that governments, businesses,
groups, or individuals take to deal with a particular situation or problem.14
Policy is not simply a set of prescriptions offered by government; rather,
policy evolves over time as participants interact.15 Policy emerges
out of series of negotiated settlements involving interaction among competing
interest groups, competing regions, and organizations and agencies competing
for the attention and support of the public.
16
Different
policy options arise from the multiple and diverse perspectives of Americans
and our pluralistic approach to policy development.17 To reconcile
inconsistencies and differences among policy options, natural resource policy
must be pragmatic.
18 As a practical matter,policy focuses on a particular objective or end result.
19
Forest
policy has been defined as:
·a settled course of action that has been adopted
by a group of people and is actually being followed by them;20
·a specification of
certain principles regarding the use of a society’s forest resources which it
is felt will contribute to the achievement of some of the 21 and
·a commitment of
the authority of government to a
course of action over time that identifies a purpose or direction for dealing
with some problem regarding forests and reflects social choices.22
The
SAF defines policy as “a definite course or method of action to guide present
and future decisions or to specify in detail the ways and means to achieve
goals and objectives.”23Americans, however, are not at all clear
about many of our objectives, the order in which we should rank them, and
the choices we should make if conflicting objectives prove to be mutually
exclusive.24 Forest
policy objectives or ends therefore may be ill-defined, obscure, vague, and
ambiguous for several reasons, including the following: 1) the technical nature
of forestry issues and the variability of forest conditions preclude precise
definition of ends; 2) clear objectives can point out winners and losers,
leading to divisiveness; and 3) implementation specifics may be purposely
left to the discretion of executive agencies; the gain in managerial flexibility
from lack of specificity is traded against difficulty in setting priorities
or evaluating programs.25
What
objectives should we seek in the use of our forests? What policies should
we follow in order to achieve those objectives?26 Pragmatic approaches
to policy focus attention on problems, rather than projects, practices, or
principles.27 A problem is an unsatisfactory situation, and often
becomes an issue, which can be defined as a matter in dispute between two
or more parties.28
Issue
recognition is the beginning of the forest policy formulation process. Forest
policies affect the use and management of forest resources and address a
variety of issues, including those arising from conflicts over governance of
public lands and the potential effects of forest management on the environment.
SAF’s Role in Forest Policy
Over
time, the diversity of forests and other conditions in the United States has
led to a complex set of American forest policies.29
Existing forest policies may, from time to time, need revision or termination.
As new forestry problems and issues emerge, new policies may be needed. During
deliberation on forest policies, the SAF may be called upon to express the
profession’s viewpoint.
The
SAF does not make natural resource policy, but participates in the political
and administrative processes that generate policy by presenting the SAF’s
professional view to policymakers through SAF position statements.30 These position statements expire after
a designated period of time,31 and may
need revision or termination. As new issues emerge, new position statements may
be needed.
SAF Position Statements
An
SAF position statement
is a carefully prepared expression on an issue that represents the SAF’s view.32 It is the result of thorough study of
the issue.33 Position statements
advocate particular actions and/or provide information about the consequences
of public forest policies.34
Positions may take the form of written statements, resolutions, written or oral
testimony, letters, and audiovisual or electronic messages.35
SAF
positions serve a variety of purposes.36
They reflect the aspirations and responsibilities of the profession. By focusing
on public policies that affect forests, SAF positions transform ideas into
action. Positions are a communication tool for informing landowners and the
public about technically and socially complex forestry issues. SAF members
might want to periodically check the Internet for national and unit-level
SAF position statements on forestry problems and issues confronting them.37
The
process for developing SAF position
statements is defined in the SAF
Bylaws (in the Members Only section).38 The content or substance
of SAF position statements is driven by issues and guided by principles
derived from the SAF Code of
Ethics.
Guiding Principles for
SAF Position Statements
Forest
policies reflect the principles
governing the actions of people with respect to forest resources.39 A principle
is a general statement, adherence to which determines the way we think about
things.40 The SAF Code of Ethics lists six
statements of “Principles and Pledges” that provide guidance for all
professional endeavors, including SAF forest policy activities. These
principles may be characterized by a single word, as follows:
·Sustainability. “Foresters have a responsibility to manage land for both current
and future generations ... [and] maintain the long-term capacity of the land to
provide the variety of materials, uses, and values desired by landowners and
society.”
·Stewardship.
“Society must respect forest landowners’ rights and correspondingly,
landowners have a land stewardship responsibility to society. ...”
·Science.
“Sound science is the foundation of the forestry profession. We pledge
to strive for continuous improvement of our methods and our personal knowledge
and skills. ...”
·Values.
“Public policy related to forests must be based on both scientific
principles and societal values. We pledge to use our knowledge and skills to
help formulate sound forest policies and laws; to challenge and correct untrue
statements about forestry, and to foster dialogue among foresters, other
professionals, landowners, and the public regarding forest policies.”
·Honesty.
“Honest and open communication ... [using] accurate and complete
information ... is essential to good service. ...”
·Fairness.
“Professional and civic behavior must be based on honesty, fairness,
good will, and respect for the law. We pledge to conduct ourselves in a civil
and dignified manner; to respect the needs, contributions, and viewpoints of
others; and to give due credit to others for their methods, ideas, and
assistance.”41
Whether
revising an existing SAF position statement or creating a new one, these
principles can be used to ensure that the position statement is consistent with
the ethical stance of the forestry profession.
SAF
position statements may be developed at the national, regional, and unit level.
The Forest Policy Department at the SAF national office works closely with
members in the formulation of position statements and in other resource policy
activities regarding forestry issues.42
National
positions provide society with the professional view on a specific natural
resource issue.43 They are drafted by the executive vice-president,
task forces, the Committee on Forest Policy, or by individual members of the
Society.44 Adoption requires at least a two-thirds vote of the
SAF Council. 45 The Committee on Forest Policy provides advice
to the Council,46 including
review of position statements before making a recommendation to the Council.47 When urgency precludes following the normal
drafting and adoption process, emergency position statements can be adopted
by the affirmative vote of the Council Executive Committee or a minimum of
two national officers, providing they believe the position reflects general
agreement of the members of the Society nationally.48
Unit
positions are formulated by state societies, divisions, or chapters, and are
adopted by at least two-thirds of the unit’s executive committee.49
The Forest Policy Department at the SAF national office reviews all unit draft
position statements to ensure their appropriate format and consistency with
national position statements as well as SAF Forest Policy Principles.50
Regional
position statements are prepared by two or more adjacent units of the Society
and subsequently adopted by each of the participating units.51 They are subject to approval by the Forest Policy Department
at the SAF national office. Multi-unit position statement preparation and
adoption is encouraged where issues may be more regional than local in scope.52 An example is forestry’s role in the
recovery of particular species protected by the Endangered Species Act.
There
is no requirement that SAF take a position on any particular issue.53 An issue may become the subject of a
position statement if it is of major importance to the public, within the
knowledge and skills of the forestry profession, or of general interest within
the Society.54 Furthermore, there must
be time and resources for SAF to act responsibly on the issue.55
When
an issue arises, SAF leaders may decide that the views of the forestry
profession should be heard. Additional criteria for deciding whether a position
statement is needed to address an issue include the following:
·Urgency. Is a policy decision pending that will substantially affect the
use and management of forest resources?
·Concern. Have SAF members or their representatives (e.g., the House of
Society Delegates) consistently identified the issue as needing a position
statement?
·Consensus. Given the diversity of SAF members (e.g., regional, employer,
disciplinary, cultural, political, etc.) is it likely that the membership as a
whole would support a specific position?
·Science. Is knowledge about the issue sufficient to adequately inform
position statement development and support its scientific credibility?
·Commitment. Have SAF members demonstrated a commitment to use the position to
communicate information or advocate specific forest policies?
·Need.
Is the issue already addressed by an existing position statement?
Because
a position statement may involve public advocacy of controversial policies, as
well as substantial work load consequences for SAF members, position statement
development needs due deliberation by the appropriate SAF leaders. Position
statement development should generally not be undertaken unless the SAF is
committed to thorough study of the issue, and willing to support the adoption
and effective implementation of forest policy recommendations.
The
required component parts of a position statement are a concise summary of the Position,
a brief description of the Issue, relevant factual Background,
and an expiration date.56
Additional information could include a section with detailed recommendations, a
list of references cited, additional reading, and a glossary.
Position. The first part of an SAF position statement
summarizes actions the SAF believes are needed to improve the problem situation
or resolve the issue. This usually consists of only a few sentences clearly
stating what the SAF is supporting, promoting, or advocating (see Separating Facts and Values). If the position is lengthy, it may be
appropriate to include a recommendations section after the Background is presented.
Issue. A short paragraph describing the controversy
or problem addressed by the position is the key to an effective statement (see Identifying the Issue). If existing
forest policies are involved, identify them (see Commenting on Existing Forest
Policy).
For
effective communication, the Position and Issue paragraphs should
not be too lengthy. Periodically the SAF national office condenses position
statements into one-page statements and compiles them in a document distributed
to policymakers and media representatives. 57
Members who prepare the position statement are better able to do the condensing
than anyone else.
Background. Presentation of background information is
generally the lengthiest portion of the position statement. Identification of
relevant scientific knowledge and social values are two principles guiding SAF
policy activities.58 Brief
reviews of the scientific knowledge supporting the position and the pertinent
social values at stake, with references to the literature, add credibility to
the position statement.
Expiration
Date. Positions generally
expire after five years, thus allowing reconsideration based on new scientific
knowledge or shifts in social values. Emergency positions generally expire
after one year.
The
first task in creating a position statement is to clearly identify the Issue
or problem addressed by the position statement. Everything else stems from
that. The Position portion of the statement communicates the actions the
SAF believes should be taken to improve the problem situation associated with
the issue. The Background portion reviews the consequences associated with the
problem and proposed actions.
Concise
issue statements are most effective. Try capturing the essence of the situation
with a one-sentence statement of the issue, followed by a sentence or two
explaining why the issue is a problem. If existing forest policies are at the
core of the issue, as will often be the case, the relevant policies should be
identified in the Issue portion of the statement. For example, if the position is
intended to address the issue of maintaining biological diversity in national
forests, the appropriate federal statutes and regulations should be identified
and connections to the issue stated briefly.
Following
the drafting of an issue statement, it could save time and effort to locate
other SAF position statements that may cover the same issue or parts of the
same problem. Look first to the national SAF Internet site and determine if
there is a national position statement that could be adapted. 59 A search of other SAF unit Internet
sites, most of which are accessible through the national site, may reveal a
relevant unit position statement.
Separating
Facts and Values: Information Positions and Advocacy Positions
What
is the purpose of the position statement? Is it to inform members and the
public about the issue, or to persuade decision makers to adopt or implement
specific policy options? SAF position statements usually combine both purposes
to some extent, although one of them typically predominates. If the position
statement advocates a particular course of action, identify a specific policy
and explain the recommendations for improving the problem.
Policy
problems are more than just objective conditions described by the “facts”
in a given situation; various stakeholders interpret facts differently because
they hold competing assumptions about human nature, the government, and opportunities
for change through collective action.60A role for foresters as
issue educators has emerged.61 The policy educator’s role is different
than advocating a particular policy choice, or providing analysis designed
to support a particular policy option.62
All
position statements should address what is known and unknown about the actual
or potential consequences of the problem being addressed. A leading reason why
resources are mismanaged is that the scientific community often fails to
differentiate science from policy, that is, to separate facts from values.63 In order to clearly distinguish between
facts and values, policy advocacy is confined to the Position portion of the
statement, or in a recommendations section following the Background portion. If
the primary intent is to communicate information, value-driven comments on
existing policies and recommended actions would be minimized.
If
the position addresses existing forest policies, state the objective or purpose
of the policy, and the means identified in the policy for attaining the ends.
This may be done in the Issue portion of the statement, in
the Background,
or both. Suggestions for addressing policy objectives and means of attaining
them are as follows:
First,
is the purpose or objective of the policy clearly stated?
·Although lack of
clarity may sometimes be encountered, there may be good reasons for it (see What is Forest Policy?).
In that case, applicable reasons for ambiguity, such as maintaining managerial
flexibility to adapt to local conditions, may be worth mentioning in the
statement.
·Point out the
drawbacks of vague and ambiguous policy objectives. For example, the objectives
of maintaining “healthy forests” or “ecosystem integrity” do not identify what
it is managers are supposed to be sustaining in a manner that the owners or the
public can hold them accountable for. Again, there may be good reasons for
vague objectives, but foresters can expect to be asked what they mean by such
ambiguous terms. The SAF Dictionary of
Forestry provides definitions members can use, but if a member is
uncomfortable with vague terms and imprecise definitions, perhaps it is best to
avoid such terminology altogether.
·Identify expected
outcomes of policy actions. Will they meet the specified objectives?
·If necessary,
recommend a clearly stated objective that would improve the policy by giving
forest resource managers and the public something tangible by which to measure
outcomes and progress toward goals.
Second,
does the policy provide a mechanism for choosing among options when different
choice criteria suggest different courses of action? For example, if economic
criteria point to one choice and ecological criteria another,64 and the policy does not specify a means
for resolving this dilemma, it would be useful for the position statement to
illustrate how policy modifications could help reconcile such differences.
Conclusion: Building Trust with SAF Position
Statements
The
communication principles of fairness and honesty, the use of relevant
scientific knowledge and identification of appropriate social values, and a
focus on stewardship of forest conditions that meet human needs sustainably,
now and in the future, are required by the SAF Code of Ethics. These principles
can be the basis for position statements on issues affecting the use and
management of forest resources. Professional positions can help shape forest
policies, but only to the extent people trust the forestry profession.
Today’s
forest policies were developed in the 1960s and 1970s, and grew out of public
distrust for the way public lands were being managed.65 Some people continue to distrust natural
resource managers; and if foresters are to retain any semblance of their
historic management prerogatives, distrust must be allayed.66 Position statements built upon the
principles in the SAF Code of Ethics perhaps can help restore trust in the
profession.
Forestry
involves many high-profile issues of concern to society at large.67 Reduced public trust in the profession
is evident in the rise of regulation, litigation, public initiatives,
licensing, and certification of practices and products. Demonstrating that all
professional forestry actions, including policy communications, have a basis in
science is one way the profession can retain credibility and public trust. 68 However, inappropriate advocacy and
value judgments by scientists can diminish attempts to integrate science with
policy.69 Nevertheless the policy process needs
substantive knowledge about natural resources.70
The basis for developing successful conservation policies is a combination of
ecological knowledge and society’s value judgments.71
Sustainable
development raises many issues requiring judgments and decisions from multiple
perspectives, and provides foresters with opportunities to be issue educators
as well as advocates. Principled SAF position statements can be an effective communication
tool for demonstrating the profession’s commitment to sustainable forest
resource use and management. Ultimately foresters will be judged by the actions
we take, including our public statements on forestry issues and forest
policies.
This
document was designed to guide the development of SAF position statements on
forest policy issues. First of all, the position statement must conform to the
required format, which includes the following items:
·
Position statement paragraph,
clearly identifying recommended actions.
·
Issue statement paragraph,
describing the controversy or problem addressed by the position, including
comments on existing forest policies.
·
Background, stating the relevant
scientific facts and societal values associated with the consequences of the
problem.
·
Expiration date.
To
assure consistency with SAF norms of professional conduct, it may be helpful
for foresters developing position statements, as well as those making decisions
to adopt them, to consider the relationship of SAF “Principles and Pledges” in
the Code of Ethics with the position statement draft. The following sections
explain that relationship and provide checklists for ensuring consistency with
the SAF Code of Ethics.
Sustainability.
Sustainability is “the capacity of forests, ranging from stands to
ecoregions, to maintain their health, productivity, diversity, and overall
integrity, in the long run, in the context of human activity and use.”72 Appropriate forest uses are identified
in the SAF Code of Ethics: “Foresters seek to sustain and protect a variety of forest uses and attributes, such
as aesthetic values, air and water quality, biodiversity, recreation, timber
production, and wildlife habitat.”73
People
expect resources to be managed sustainably,74
and public consent is necessary for resource management.75 Public acceptance of forestry practice
is the greatest challenge foresters face.76
Sustainable forestry involves three dimensions: ecological soundness, economic
viability, and social desirability.77
Judgments of sustainability require, at a minimum, consideration of ecological/environmental,
economic, and social/community factors.78 Managing for multiple objectives requires
selecting an appropriate set of criteria and indicators, and paying attention
to all of them.79
Sustainability
asks for consideration of what is known (and unknown) about:
·
Ecological/environmental consequences of actions,
including potential benefits and detrimental effects that can be communicated
in the position statement.
·
Economic impacts, including assessment of costs and
benefits, and identification of who gains and who pays. Perceived shortcomings
can be identified and communicated in the position statement.
·
Social acceptability. The SAF is responsible to the
forestry profession and to society as a whole, not to various interest groups
(including segments of SAF) or to public opinion polls that run counter to what
professional judgment recommends as being in society’s interest.
If
the position statement is addressing a forest policy, does the policy encourage
sustainability; that is, does the policy move toward sustainable patterns of
resource use? Sustainability evokes the need to reply to several questions:80
·
What is to be sustained, and at what scale, and in what
form? As a practical matter, the goals of management will determine what is to
be sustained on the land.81
·
Over what time period and with what level of certainty?
·
Through what social process and with what tradeoffs
against other social goals? That is, how are issues resolved that arise from
different perspectives? A forest policy without a choice mechanism and a
process for using it is not likely to be sustainable.
Stewardship.
The profession of forestry serves society by fostering stewardship of
the world’s forests82
Stewardship is “the administration of land and associated resources in a manner
that enables their passing on to future generations in a healthy condition.”83 The concern for future generations
links stewardship with sustainability. Stewardship, however, emphasizes
ecological/environmental considerations related to human perceptions of a
“healthy condition.” Forest health is “the perceived condition of a forest
derived from concerns about such factors as its age, structure, composition,
function, vigor, presence of unusual levels of insects or disease, and
resilience to disturbance.”84
To
evoke management strategies that would maintain or restore desirable forest
conditions in the context of human use, the position statement should address
the following:
·
Goals or objectives to be attained through forest
resource management,
·
Current condition of forest resources, and
·
Given those conditions, identify appropriate means for
administering forest resources to attain socially acceptable outcomes stated as
objectives.
Science.
The SAF Code of Ethics states that “sound science is the foundation of
the forestry profession.”85 The
scientific process is the pursuit of knowledge about how the world works; it
has an established process for inquiry, logic, and validation.86 Sustainable forest management requires
planning and planning requires prediction; the science underlying prediction is
thus the cornerstone on which professional forestry is built.87
Position
statements are based on thorough study of an issue.88 That must
include a review of the scientific knowledge associated with the consequences
of the problem situation being addressed. Therefore,
·
A position statement should carefully consider the
science underlying the forestry issue or problem being addressed.
·
A valuable professional contribution is identifying
scientific shortcomings, either in the body of scientific knowledge or in the
forest policies associated with the issue.
·
An advocacy position statement should provide
recommendations for action based on scientific knowledge as well as social
values.
The
best assurance of good public policy is not only scientific knowledge, but also
open debate, caution, and a regulatory system capable of self-correction.89 It seems appropriate to “rely on
scientists to recognize problems, but not to remedy them.”90 Traditional scientists engaged in
policy analysis often misperceive how public policy is developed, and attempt
to replace political decisions with rational, objective decisions based on
their disciplinary knowledge and models.91
In the future science must be more directed to the needs of resource managers,
and to the society around them.92 Science
applied to environmental and conservation issues requires both empirical
science and value clarification.93
Values.
To be relevant, the forestry profession must be both science-based and
value-driven.94 The combination of
science and values is emphasized in the SAF Code of Ethics principle regarding
forest policy: “Public policy related to forests must be based on both
scientific principles and societal values.”95
Foresters have a responsibility to help the American people create forest
policies that serve human values.96 Two
overarching American values are individualism,
expressed through individual, market, and political freedom concepts; and community, including the related
concepts of democracy, justice, and fairness or equity. Although there is some
tension between individualism and community in our society, both sets of values
seem to be necessary.97
American
values that have endured for more than a century include a belief in abundance
and progress, devotion to growth and prosperity, faith in science and
technology, commitment to a laissez-faire economy and limited government
planning, and private property rights.98
In contrast are values often identified with the American environmental
movement that began in the 1960s. Environmental values have evolved to include
three core items: 1) protecting biodiversity, ecological systems, and
wilderness; 2) minimizing negative impacts on human health; and 3) establishing
patterns of sustainable resource use.99
As per the sustainability principle above, foresters have a responsibility
to society in helping establish sustainable patterns of forest use.
Forest
policies are a subset of environmental policies. Environmental policy is always
informed by scientific judgment.100
Deciding what to do about environmental problems is a value judgment, not a
scientific judgment, and a scientist is no more qualified to make such
judgments than any other citizen.101
Decisions on environmental issues must begin with an examination of the
relevant scientific evidence; however, environmental decisions also require
careful analysis of the economic, social, and political consequences, and
solutions to environmental problems will also reflect religious, aesthetic, and
ethical values.102
For
position statements addressing forest policy issues,
·
Have relevant social values been overlooked or
inadequately reflected in the policy?
·
If so, which values?
·
How could they be included?
It
may be appropriate to include social values in a position statement, especially
one that advocates or recommends a particular forest policy option. However,
the honesty
principle would have values clearly identified as such and kept separate from
facts and/or scientific knowledge related to the issue or problem.
Honesty.
Foresters are obliged to communicate accurate information honestly and
openly, stating on whose behalf public statements are made.103 SAF position statements are made on
behalf of the diverse membership of the SAF, and therefore consider differences
in regional conditions and landowner objectives. To communicate with honesty,
pertinent facts and applicable knowledge are included and clearly separated
from value-based judgments:
·
Are facts and values clearly identifiable as such, or
are they blended together in an inappropriate manner?
·
To separate facts and values, it may be helpful to
attempt to identify each sentence in the position statement as primarily a fact
or a value.104
·
Are values presented in the appropriate sections of the
position statement?
Fairness.
Foresters are required to behave in a civil and dignified manner, respecting
the viewpoints of others.105
Because SAF position statements are the profession’s view on forestry issues
and problems, it is not necessary to identify other viewpoints. However, issues
by definition involve conflicting views, and in some cases it may be useful to
identify them. To communicate with fairness, the viewpoints of diverse groups
are treated respectfully:
·
Are the viewpoints of different affected interests
reflected in the position statement?
·
Does the position statement use inflammatory adverbs,
adjectives, or terminology that seem to disfavor or discredit any particular
viewpoint?
SAF and Forest Policy: A Guide to Position Statement
Development was written by Jay
O’Laughlin, University of Idaho professor and member of the SAF Committee on
Forest Policy (CFP) during 2001-2002. Additions by Nick Dennis, CFP chair in
2001, improved it substantially. The document was also improved by Lisa
Stocker, CFP chair in 2002; Sharon Friedman, SAF Forest Science &
Technology Board chair in 2002; CFP members during the February 2002 meeting;
and review of an earlier draft by Jo
Ellen Force and David L. Adams, University of Idaho professors and SAF leaders.
Return to top
Forests affect nearly every aspect
of our lives. Forest resources provide the raw materials for our homes, our
workplaces, the books and newspapers we read, and the packaging that contains
our food and other products of our labor. Forest ecosystems supply our water,
maintain our climate, help purify the air, protect soils, and provide for
wilderness experiences. Forests provide habitat for wildlife, and serve as
preserves of biological diversity and as sources of food, fuel, and medicine
for people throughout the world. They shape the recreational landscape, help
stabilize our farms, and enhance our cities.
The actions of humans affect the
benefits forests can provide. If forest resources are to be sustained and
enhanced, these actions must be directed at achieving desired outcomes in
diverse ecosystems, environmental conditions, and social regimes; they must
anticipate the effects of population growth and social change on future human
needs. The present and future benefits from forests of the world depend upon
careful use of the knowledge that guides the actions we take.
Forestry is the science and art of
attaining desired forest conditions and benefits. As professionals, foresters
develop, use, and communicate their knowledge for one purpose: to sustain and
enhance forest resources for diverse benefits in perpetuity. To fulfill this
purpose, foresters need to understand the many demands that forests must
satisfy and the potential for forest ecosystems to satisfy these demands now
and in the future.
The Society of American Foresters is
the national organization representing the forestry profession in the United
States. The Society's forest policy principles, approved by referendum, guide
the positions the Society takes in contributing its professional knowledge to
public deliberation on forestry issues.
Expanding Knowledge The Society of American
Foresters promotes public policies that advance knowledge about the
capabilities of forest resources and responses of forest ecosystems to specific
actions and policies. The Society has a responsibility to ensure that knowledge
about forests grows vigorously to serve society's needs, thereby improving
decisions affecting forests and resolving uncertainty about the future
consequences of forest activities.
Resource
Inventory—The Society
promotes policies and programs that improve knowledge about the extent,
quality, distribution, potential, and values of forest resources. The world's
forests are complex and diverse. The variability of soils, climates,
topographies, and gene pools, of access to urban areas and markets, and of
human population and use, create marked differences in biological and social
potentials, even over short distances and times. New technologies,
institutions, and economic conditions may create even greater differences and
possibilities. Such variations determine the impacts of policies and activities
on the benefits that forest resources can sustain. The Society promotes the
advance of forest assessments and the improved interpretation and use of the
information they provide.
Research—The Society advocates policies that
strengthen forestry research. Research improves and develops new knowledge
about the effects of different activities, social and biological conditions,
and policies on forest quality and productivity. Such knowledge is vital for
sustaining and enhancing the benefits that forests provide and for resolving
conflicts about forest policy and management on scientific grounds.
SAF also
advocates the growth of knowledge about forest ecosystems and their management.
Through journals, conferences, special committees, and task forces, the Society
sponsors the evaluation and dissemination of research results, applies the
results to contemporary policy issues, and assesses the priorities of forestry
research agendas. In addition, it advocates cost-effective funding for research
activities and for the development of scientists in areas of social priority.
Planning—SAF supports long-term planning of forest
activities. These activities can have enduring effects. They must be chosen and
implemented with the best available understanding of their future impacts on
forest ecosystems, resources, and people. Planning provides the means for using
scientific knowledge and methods systematically to choose, implement, evaluate,
and improve forestland allocations and practices.
The Society
advocates resource planning and evaluation to help foresters, landowners, and
the public understand the reasons for and the effects of specific decisions. It
supports organizations that plan effectively and remain responsive to new
knowledge and societal needs. It encourages its members to participate in
public discussions of forest plans, their basis, and their implications.
Transforming Knowledge into
Abilities The Society of American
Foresters has a responsibility to improve the education of forestry
professionals and to strengthen communications between them and the people they
serve.
Education—SAF promotes policies that will improve the
quality and effectiveness of professional and technical education throughout
the world. Such education is the best way to develop the skills of resource
professionals and to improve their responsiveness to the future complexities of
the world's forest ecosystems. The Society helps to recruit promising men and
women of all backgrounds into forestry education programs. Through its
accreditation and recognition process, it regularly evaluates these programs
and recommends improvements. It also provides continuing education
opportunities for individuals to learn about new scientific and technical
advances, to understand the social context in which they are applied, and to
improve their managerial skills.
Public
Deliberation—SAF
advocates policies that strengthen informed interaction and discussion between
resource professionals and the public. Forest plans and policies combine public
perspectives, landowner interests, and professional advice. Their value depends
upon the nature of the dialogue from which they arise. The Society also
promotes the quality of, and mutual access to, information that productive
discussion requires. It advocates improved opportunities for cooperation
between resource professionals and the public.
Applying Abilities The Society of American
Foresters supports policies that increase the effectiveness of resource
professionals in applying their knowledge to the beneficial protection and
management of forest resources.
Protection—The Society advocates policies that
strengthen the protection of forests against the threats of unprescribed fire,
pests and diseases, atmospheric pollution, and abusive treatment. The Society
encourages wide dissemination of information about the extent and variety of
forest resources destroyed by fire and other agents, the costs, both monetary
and social, of forest loss, and the means to avoid them. It is committed to
protecting forest resources consistent with public and landowner interests. It
supports the development of model protection policies and programs. The Society
also encourages coordination among protection agencies, between landowners and
protection agencies, and at all levels of local, state, and federal government
charged with establishing protective controls.
Management—The Society promotes professional ethics and
public policies that ensure skillful management for all forest ecosystems,
types of ownership, and desired uses. Forest ecosystems can be managed to
produce timber, water, forage, energy, and minerals; they can be protected to
maintain landscapes for watershed, recreation, and esthetic values, and to
maintain wilderness, fish and wildlife populations, and species diversity. They
are managed to achieve any and all mixes of these values. Applying forestry
practices in such complex ecosystems requires professional judgment that
combines the biophysical possibilities of a specific site, the objectives of
the landowner—private or public—and the interests of the public at large. The
Society endorses ethical standards of performance to which its members are held
accountable. It advocates policies that (1) respect these standards, (2)
recognize the need for professional judgment, and (3) support its effective
exercise.
Shaping Policy
The Society of American Foresters has a responsibility to shape policies that
affect sustainable forest resources and the future benefits they will provide.
It promotes policies that:
- encourage
conservation of, or investment in, forest resources to satisfy future
expectations
- resolve conflicts
about forest uses and forestland allocations to make future investments
more secure
- promote the equitable
distribution of forest benefits to strengthen public support for forest
resource conservation
- increase cooperation
between and among foresters and forestry institutions throughout the
world who are developing mutually beneficial approaches to these
challenges
Investment
in Forest Resources—The
Society promotes policies that encourage investment in forests for the future.
The benefits that forests provide depend upon the resources that the landowner
and the public commit to sustain and enhance future forest capabilities. A
number of factors—uncertainty about the future, weak returns to landowners who
are environmentally responsible, limited funds, population pressures and forest
fragmentation, competitive governmental jurisdictions—discourage the types and
levels of private investment the public may want. Budgetary and other financial
policies can have similar effects on public lands. Unfulfilled expectations
become sources of conflicts that further weaken investment.
SAF advocates
tax policies that respect the long-term nature of forestry investments. It also
promotes programs for forestlands that reflect the material, environmental, and
social benefits these resources create for present and future generations. It
supports property rights and regulations that encourage investment and deter
resource degradation as well as policies that limit the negative effects of
population growth on the integrity of the forestland base, forest habitats, and
forested landscapes. It also encourages cooperation—among governmental and
private owners of forestland, between landowners and those their activities
affect, and among diverse governments and agencies—to increase investment in
forest resources in mutually advantageous ways.
Conflict
Resolution—The Society
supports policies that help to resolve conflicts among diverse interests in the
world's forest resources. Both the public and the landowner have come to expect
greater opportunities for use and development than these forest resources can
sustain. Conflicts become costly for all involved because they discourage
investments in resource-enhancing activities that would better satisfy
everyone's expectations.
Forums to
resolve differences among competing interests for the management, use, and allocation
of forest resources are promoted. It encourages the involvement of forestry
professionals and the application of their knowledge in conflict resolution as
well as policies that remove the technical, financial, and institutional
constraints that prevent forests from realizing their full potential.
Equity—The equitable distribution of forest
opportunities and benefits is important. Forests must be protected from uses
they cannot sustain and nurtured by activities that enhance their capabilities.
Throughout the world, people who in different circumstances might conserve
forest resources lack the opportunities that would allow them to do so. Poverty
erodes people's will and ability to conserve the forest. Groups who are not
represented in public decisions about forest resources have little reason to
support policies they cannot influence.
The Society
promotes policies that secure people's support in sustaining and enhancing
forest resources. It also supports policies that increase job opportunities in
forest regions, particularly in the area of forest improvements, and that
strengthen the viability and the diversity of forest enterprises so as to
prevent forest fragmentation and conversion. SAF advocates public
decision-making processes that adequately represent the full range of the
racial, gender, class, and ethnic diversity of those with potential interests
in forests and forest resources.
International Cooperation
The Society is committed to constructive international efforts to address
problems of forest degradation and its local and global impacts. Many local
forestry issues have become international concerns because of the growing
interdependence of environmental conditions and trade among nations, the global
pressures and opportunities related to population and economic growth, and
expanding knowledge about mutual forestry problems that all nations face. The
Society encourages cooperation—in education, research, planning, development,
and policymaking—between the foresters and forestry institutions of the United
States and nations abroad. It promotes increased financing of such
collaborations in the common search for means to achieve sustainable rural,
regional, national, and international development and to strengthen strategies
for the conservation of forest ecosystems throughout the world.
The Professional Responsibility
These forest policy principles must be flexible and
responsive to changing public interests.
The Society encourages forestry professionals to discuss these policy
principles with interested groups and with one another and to suggest changes
that may better reflect public needs and professional knowledge. To improve the responsiveness and
effectiveness of the profession itself, the Society is committed to achieving a
social diversity among forestry professionals that represents the diversity of
American society as a whole.
Return to top
Adopted by membership December 1967
Revised by membership December 1973
Revised by membership December 1975
Edited by Council 1976
Revised by membership December 1977
Revised by membership November 1989
Title changed by Council June 2002
5. Ibid., “Principles and Pledges,” number 4.
7. SAF Forest
Policy Principles, ¶ 4.
8.
Ibid., ¶ 3; updated with SAF Dictionary of Forestry, ed. J.A. Helms
(1998).
10 . SAF
Code of Ethics, “Principles and Pledges,” number 4.
11 . SAF
Bylaws, Title II-C. Forest Policy Activities – Definitions.
12 . SAF
Forest Policy Principles, ¶ 4.
14 . Cubbage,
F.W., J. O’Laughlin, and C.S. Bullock, III, Forest Resource Policy,
Wiley (1993) p. 16.
15 . Clark,
T.W. Averting Extinction: Reconstructing Endangered Species Recovery,
Yale (1997).
16 . Dana,
S.T., and S.K. Fairfax, Forest and Range Policy, 2nd ed.,
McGraw-Hill (1980).
17 . Anderson,
C.W. “Political philosophy, practical reason, and policy analysis,” in Confronting
Values in Policy Analysis: The Politics of Criteria, ed. F. Fischer and
J. Forester, Sage (1987) pp. 22-44.
18 . Castle,
E.N. “A pluralistic, pragmatic, and evolutionary approach to natural resource
management,” Forest Ecology and Management 56 (1993) pp. 279-295.
19 . Worrell,
A.C. Principles of Forest Policy, McGraw-Hill (1970).
20 . Ibid.,
p. 233, italics added.
21 . Ibid.,
p. 2, italics added.
22. Worrell, Principles of Forest Policy, p. 235.
23 Cubbage
et al., Forest Resource Policy
24. Ibid.,
p. 39.
25 . Ibid.,
p. 39.
26.
. Ibid., p. 39.
27 . Anderson,
“Political philosophy, practical reason, and policy analysis.”
28 . Cubbage
et al., Forest Resource Policy, pp. 76-77.
29 . Worrell,
Principles of Forest Policy.
31 . SAF
Bylaws, Title II-D. National Position-Taking Procedures, Part 3a.
32 . Ibid.,
Title II-C. Forest Policy Activities – Definitions.
33. Ibid
34 . Ibid.,
Title II-A. Forest Policy Activities – Background.
35 . Ibid.,
Title II-C. Forest Policy Activities – Definitions.
36 . Ibid.,
Title II-A. Forest Policy Activities – Background.
38. SAF Bylaws,
Title II-D. National Position-Taking Procedures, and Title II-E. Unit Position
Statements.
39 . Worrell,
Principles of Forest Policy, p. 6, italics added.
40 . Harré,
R. The Principles of Scientific Thinking, Univ. of Chicago Press (1970)
italics added.
41 . SAF
Code of Ethics, “Principles and Pledges.”
43 . Ibid.
44 . SAF
Bylaws, Title II-D. National Position-Taking Procedures, Part 2a.
45 . Ibid.,
Title II-D. National Position-Taking Procedures, Part 4a.
46 . Ibid.,
Title II-C. Forest Policy Activities – Definitions.
47 . Ibid.,
Title II-D. National Position-Taking Procedures, Part 2a.
48 . Ibid.,
Title II-D. National Position-Taking Procedures, Part 4b.
49 . Ibid.
51 . Ibid.,
Title II-C. Forest Policy Activities – Definitions.
52 . Ibid.,
Title II-E. Unit Position Statements, Part 2c.
53 . Ibid.,
Title II-A. Forest Policy Activities – Background, Part 2.
54 . Ibid.,
Title II-D. National Position-Taking Procedures, Part 1b. Selection criteria.
55 . Ibid.
56 . Ibid.,
Title II-D. National Position-Taking Procedures, Part 3. Content of position
statements.
57 . E.g.,
SAF “Briefings on Forest Issues” (2000).
58 . SAF
Code of Ethics, “Principles and Pledges,” number 4.
60 . Dunn,
W.N. Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Prentice-Hall (1981).
61 . Cleaves,
D.A. “Foresters as issue educators: working at the roots of policy,” Journal
of Forestry 92 (March 1994) pp. 8-12.
62 . O’Laughlin,
J., and P.S. Cook, “Resource management by epistle: the use of facts and values
in policy-related communications,” Journal of Natural Resources and Life
Sciences Education 31 (2002) pp. 25-30. [online]:
http://www.uidaho.edu/cfwr/pag/pdfs/JNRLSE-rev3.PDF
63 . Mangel,
M., R.J. Hofman, E.A. Norse, and J.R. Twiss, Jr. “Sustainability and ecological
research,” Ecological Applications 3 (1993) pp. 573-575.
64. Worrell,
Principles of Forest Policy.
65 . Cubbage
et al., Forest Resource Policy.
66 . Thomas,
J.W. “Foreword,” in Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century:
The Science of Ecosystem Management, ed. K.A. Kohm and J.F. Franklin,
Island Press (1997) pp. ix-xii.
67 . Helms,
J.A. “Commentary: enhancing the focus on science in the profession,” Journal
of Forestry 96 (April 1998) p. 1.
68 . Ibid.
69 . Clark,
R.N., E.E. Meidinger, G. Miller, J. Rayner, M. Layseca, S. Monreal, J. Fernandez,
and M.A. Shannon, Integrating Science and Policy in Natural Resource Management:
Lessons and Opportunities for North America, Gen. Tech. Report PNW-GTR-141,
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture – Forest Service (1998).
70 . Clark,
T.W. “Practicing natural resource management with a policy orientation,”
Environmental Management 16 (1992) pp. 423-433.
71 . Kimmins,
H. Balancing Act: Environmental Issues in Forestry, 2nd
ed., UBC Press (1997).
72 . SAF
Code of Ethics, “Preamble,” ¶ 1 & 2.
73 . Ibid.,
“Preamble,” ¶ 2.
74 . Paehlke,
R.C. “Environmental values and public policy,” in Environmental Policy,
4th ed., ed. N.J. Vig and M.E. Kraft, CQ Press (2000) pp. 77-97.
75 . Firey,
W. Man, Mind, and Land: A Theory of Resource Use, Free Press (1960).
76 . Thomas,
“Foreword.”
77 . Aplet,
G.H., N. Johnson, J.T. Olson, and V.A. Sample, “Conclusion: prospects for
a sustainable future,” in Defining Sustainable Forestry, ed. G.H. Aplet,
et al., Island Press (1992) pp. 309-314.
78 . Banzhaf,
W.H. “We stand for sustainability,” Journal of Forestry 99 (August
2001) p. 1.
79 . Clawson,
M. Forests For Whom and For What? Johns Hopkins Univ. Press for Resources
for the Future, Washington, DC (1975).
80 . Lélé,
S., and R.B. Norgaard, “Sustainability and the scientist’s burden,” Conservation
Biology 10 (1996) pp. 354-365.
81 . Vogt,
K.A., B.C. Larson, J.C. Gordon, D.J. Vogt, and A. Frazeres, Forest Certification:
Roots, Issues, Challenges, and Benefits, CRC Press (1999).
82 . SAF
Code of Ethics, “Preamble” ¶ 1.
83 . SAF
Dictionary of Forestry.
84 . Ibid.
85 . SAF
Code of Ethics, “Principles and Pledges,” number 3.
86 . Lubchenko,
J. “Entering the Century of the Environment: a new social contract for science,”
Science 279 (1998) pp. 491-497.
87 . Kimmins,
Balancing Act.
88 . SAF
Bylaws, Title II-A. Forest Policy Activities – Background.
89 . Wilson,
J.D., and J.W. Anderson, “What the science says: how we use it and abuse it
to make health and environment policy,” Resources 128, Resources for
the Future, Washington, DC (1997) pp. 5-8.
90 . Ludwig,
D., R. Hilborn, and C. Walters, “Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation:
lessons from history,” Science 260 (1993) pp. 17, 36.
91 . Brunner,
R.D., and W. Ascher, “Science and social responsibility,” Policy Sciences
25 (1992) pp. 295-331.
92 . Gordon,
J.C., and J. Lyons, “The emerging role of science and scientists in ecosystem
management,” in Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century: The
Science of Ecosystem Management, ed. K.A. Kohm and J.F. Franklin, Island
Press (1997) pp. 447-453.
93 . Ascher,
W. “Resolving the hidden differences among perspectives on sustainable development,”
Policy Sciences 32 (1999) pp. 351-377.
94 . Bentley,
W.R. “Knowing ourselves: changing definitions of the forestry profession,”
Journal of Forestry 93 (Jan. 1995) pp. 12-15.
95 . SAF
Code of Ethics, “Principles and Pledges,” number 4.
96 . Gordon,
J.C. “From vision to policy: a role for foresters,” Journal of Forestry
92 (July 1994) pp. 16-19.
97 . Cubbage
et al., Forest Resource Policy, pp. 44-46.
98. Force,
J.E. and G. Fizzell, “How social values have affected forest policy,” in Proceedings,
Society of American Foresters 1999 National Convention (2000) pp. 16-22.
99 . Paehlke,
“Environmental values and public policy.”
100 . Wilson,
J.D., and J.W. Anderson, “What the science says.”
101 . Pitelka,
L.F., and F.A. Pitelka, “Environmental decision making: multidimensional dilemmas,”
Ecological Applications 3 (1993) pp. 566-568 .
102 . Botkin,
D.B., and E.A. Keller, Environmental Science: Earth as a Living Planet,
2nd ed., Wiley (1997).
103 . SAF
Code of Ethics, “Principles and Pledges,” number 5.
105 . SAF
Code of Ethics, “Principles and Pledges,” number 6.
Return
to top
|