Talk:Sustainable forest management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Forestry (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the profession and science of forestry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Environment (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


alright, this is a good page, not to US specific either. Would anyone mind if I put the good stuff from Sustainable forestry and put it here. I will put my harvest method stuff under silviculture. The sustainable forestry page is just a huge job. Then we could have searches for sustainable forestry point to here. There is a wiki way to do that I understand. SierraSkier 02:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with having a redirect page from Sustainable forestry to point to here (which I assume means getting rid of the sustainable forestry page altogether). I think this makes sense for a couple of reasons. First, I think that the term "sustainable forestry" is poorly defined, or at least inconsistently defined, so it is hard to know what the term really means. SFM, on the other hand, does have definitions that are widely accepted by governments and others in the international forest community, including agencies of the UN like the FAO. The the term is widely used and many countries now produce reports on progress in which the term "sustainable forest management" is incorporated into the title. Second, as currently written, the article on Sustainable forestry focuses almost exclusively on the environmental aspects of forest management with very little attention paid to important social and economic aspects. The type of forest management described in Sustainable forestry has seen some practice through which biologists and ecologists tried to guide forest managers in developing ecologically sustainable forest management plans, however, much forest management around the world today is much more sophisticated, whereby managers consult with local stakeholders and try to balance a wide range of social, economic and environmental values. I think one would be hard pressed to find examples today of forest management that focuses solely on the environmental values. (Note: I don't think the same could be said about Sustained Yield forest management, where the objective is primarily to maintain a constant flow of fiber from the landbase irrespective of other values. This type of forest management is likely still used on many privately owned forests.)

I think that much of the content on Sustainable forestry is either covered already or could be added to existing articles. I agree with SierraSkier's suggestion to move the text on harvest methods to silviculture. In addition to this, I think that the text on fire suppression is already captured under Success of fire suppression in northern forests; the text under "highgrading" could also be added to silviculture, since it is essentially a silvicultural technique; the text on fragmentation is already captured under Habitat fragmentation; Under "Specific Cases", the text on "Old Growth Forests" is already captured under Old growth forest, and the text under "boreal forest" is probably better situated in the article on Taiga, which currently has scant discussion about resource extraction. Sbridge 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move[edit]

I propose that the text at forest management, which is a short article with little history be cut and pasted to Sustainable forestry and Sustainable forestry be moved or renamed Forest Management. That way the history of sustainable forestry can be maintained. Then the forest management article (formerly sustainable forestry) can be thinned as per Sbridge above. Any objections? KAM 14:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

After several months without any support for the move, it might be best to set this move aside for a while until the two pages evolve one way or the other. -Gomm 17:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomm (talkcontribs)

merging American Tree Farm System[edit]

If American Tree Farm System is a currently active system, then it warrants a page of its own, since there might be other sustainable methods which differ substantively. I would oppose merging specific well developed systems into a page about a conceptual approach. If on the other hand, the system was only conceptual and was never adopted, then as an unsuccessful concept, it would perhaps help in explaining concepts of sustainability. -Gomm 19:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the American Tree Farm System is a forest certification system geared towards tree farms on private property. According to their website, the "ATFS has established standards and guidelines for property owners to meet to become a certified Tree Farm." As such, I think it would be best just to list ATFS within the SFM article as one of many certification schemes, but for wikipedia to retain a separate article on ATFS. This is the approach that has been taken for other certification processes such as FSC, PEFC and SFI. The individual certification schemes are usually fairly complex and warrant their own articles. That said, the article on ATFS is not very clear and does not easily lead the reader to understand that it is essentially a forest certification scheme.Sbridge 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with sbridge on this. The ATFS is a certification scheme (actually, the oldest one in existence) that is currently seeking endorsement by the PEFC. It is best left described as such. Frbc.

Retain the Sustainable Forest Management article / Top Tier[edit]

One of the main reasons for needing an article for sustainable forest management, involves part of what one definition in the article reveals "social function".

Forests are not managed sustainably for Silviculture (separate niche) alone, etc.. Many forests are managed for hiking, camping, preservation of animal species (birds, fish, whatever), etc. That also is a niche.

"Sustainable Forest Management" would be a top tier article, if not the top tier itself. Many other niches would best be merged under it's specific title, rather than the other way around. M. D. Vaden of Oregon. Mdvaden 15:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems fine to duplicate this content elsewhere, or redirect here, as long as this article's content does not suffer loss of material.Mdvaden 15:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition of section: Timber supply chain management[edit]

I would like to propose adding something in this section about the timber supply chain. The certification systems are great and definitely an important step in the right direction. They are also being supported by various Govt. legislation such as the new amendment to the US Lacy Act (see

However they all rely on Chain of Custody paper trails which are subject to fraud as there is a massive incentive to do so. A number of new technologies such as computer chips and DNA are being developed and used in Africa and South East Asia.

This area of the timber industry and its impact on deforestation and ethical business practices could warrant inclusion. I'm just not sure where - I've had a look at a few topics and found this area to be fairly broad and would welcome suggestions as to where it could go. I dont think it would work in supply chain management sections or in illegal logging or deforestation.

My suggested outline could be something like this:

- evidence from EIA on fraud in the supply chain (citation available)
- problems with tracing the origin of timber that exist today (citations available - I think)
- examples from various technologies and Govt. funded approaches from different parts of the world

Any ideas or interest on this welcomed.

--Jgeach (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

Undid the deleteing of external links sections - was done by an unknwon user. External link section seems to be a valid part of this article to me - so give us the reasons why to delete it? --Haderer (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Forest Governance[edit]

I would suggest to have one article called "Forest Governance" which includes 'Forest Management' (and its even more specific 'Sustainable Forest Management' topic). Governance would be the umbrella article including its different aspects as e.g. the more specific topic on (sustainable) management. D. Cordoba 14:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Cordoba-Bahle (talkcontribs)