Criterion 7. Legal, Institutional, and Economic Framework for Forest Conservation and
Sustainable Management
National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010
Indicator 7.47.
Extent to Which the Legal Framework (Laws, Regulations, Guidelines) Supports the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Forests, Including the Extent to Which It Provides
Opportunities for Public Participation in Public Policy and Decision­making Related to Forests
and Public Access to Information
What is the indicator and why is it important?
Forests may be managed more sustainably if citizens have
responsibility for their use, management, and protection. If
citizens are given an opportunity to identify areas of interest
and concern about forests, they are more likely to support the
management of forests and the principles of sustainability.
Public participation processes can foster practical and political
support for sustainable management. Access to timely, complete, and accurate information about forests, forest resources,
and socioeconomic trends will enhance those participatory
processes and promote better forest management.
What does the indicator show?
Federal agencies all provide some level of opportunity for
public participation in policy and decisionmaking, and varying
levels of access to information. The Administrative Procedures
Act of 1946 provides public oversight of Federal agencies,
including public comment on proposed rules; a rigorous
process of draft publication, and public review; required agency
response to comments; and final publication in the Federal
Register. This process leads to final rules with a reviewable
record and science basis.
States usually have similar but less rigorous open process
and information laws. Local government entities eventually
must respond to citizen’s interest, but seldom have prescribed
measures for public input to forest planning. Nonindustrial
private landowners are not required to consult other interests
or owners in making decisions or release information publicly,
although many businesses do as part of their annual reports and
other communications.
Extensive public participation for national forest planning is
required as part of the U.S. National Forest Management Act
of 1976 (191 million acres), as amended by the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act of 2003. The Bureau of Land Management,
with 266 million acres, requires planning and local advisory
Last Updated June 2011 boards for input. Other Federal agencies, including the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (84 million acres), National Park
Service (84 million acres), and Department of Defense have
varying levels of planning and public participation that affects
their lands, including forests.
Federal agencies also provide educational, technical assistance,
research, and assessment support for sustainable forestry and
public participation at the national level, as do many States.
This support includes mandates for State forest resource
planning and input, and support through the U.S. Department
of Agriculture.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
requires an analysis of major Federal actions significantly
affecting the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement
is required for proposed major Federal actions. A categorical
exclusion exists for small projects that do not require individual
EIS. An Environmental Assessment (EA) may be performed
if the agency does not know if its effects will be significant.
The EA may require an EIS if actions are significant, or lead
to a finding of no significant impacts (FONSI) if not. NEPA
provides for public comment on the EIS and EA processes
in the scoping and preparation of the draft EIS, and a formal
comment process before the final EIS is issued.
If the general public or individuals are dissatisfied with the lack
of openness of Federal public records, they may seek redress
through legal actions such as requesting evidentiary documentation and other information under the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA). Similar laws exist in most States. Legal issues that
employ these measures are uncommon in natural resources, but
not unheard of.
Finally, as noted in 7-46, the forest certification systems have
various means to seek consultation with external stakeholders,
redress complaints, report progress, and update their standards
periodically.
1
National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010
Table 47-1. Policy and Governance Classification.
Mechanism
Nondiscretionary/mandatorya
Informational/educationalb
Discretionary/voluntaryc
Fiscal/economicd
Market basede
Scale:
National (N),
Regional (R),
State (S),
Local (L)
N, S, L
N, S, L
Approach
Prescriptive
Process or
Systems Based
Performance or
Outcome Based
L, R, G
E, T, R
L, R G
A
L, R, G
N, S
R, N, L
I
C
Private
Enterprise
C
Laws (L), Regulations or Rules (R), International Agreements (I), Government Ownership or Production (G).
b
Education (E), Technical Assistance (T), Research (R), Protection (P), Analysis and Planning (A).
c
Best Management Practices (B), Self-regulation (S).
d
Incentives (I), Subsidies (S), Taxes (T), Payments for Environmental Service (P).
e
Free enterprise, private market allocation of forest resources (M), or market based instruments and payments, including forest certification (C) wetland banks (W), capand-trade (T), conservation easement or transfer of development rights (E).
a
What has changed since 2003?
The Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) and the 2005 and
2008 National Forest Planning Rules each enacted new rules
that affected forest planning and public input. Generally, each
of the changes in the regulations was intended to simplify
public input procedures so that agency managers could expedite
forest management practices. These changes have been contested by environmental interest groups, in general and in the
courts. The issue regarding the level of consultation required is
Last Updated June 2011 complex, but HFRA and the 2005 and 2008 planning rules have
allowed somewhat more discretion to the agency, which has
been circumscribed, but partially supported, by court decisions.
Concomitantly, increasing public support exists for greater levels of stakeholder involvement in a variety of public decisions.
Public policy input and governance processes have become
prevalent from the local to the national level, across a range of
ownership types and forest resource decisions. These processes
have included government decisionmaking, and private market
systems such as forest certification.
2