Small fragments or patches of forest are not large enough to allow planning that generates wood products simultaneously with sustaining ecological processes and protecting biodiversity. Distinctive geographic "ecoregions" defined by their relatively distinct assemblages of diverse habitats, species compositions, ecological processes, soils, and climate are, however, large enough. The cumulative impacts of numerous diverse land management decisions has led many conservationists and forest resource managers to conclude that biodiversity, water quality, and other forest resources (floral and faunal) can only be conserved through cooperative efforts organized on a large-scale landscape, or regional, level involving many owners, and incorporating public/private and interagency cooperation, with collaborative research and management.

To promote a wide array of goods and services for current and future generations, forests must be managed as complete ecosystems. While forestry has traditionally dealt with individual stands, and has been reluctant to deal at a larger scale, we must look beyond artificial property boundaries and consider all lands in the ecosystem as important to its overall functioning and stability. We are reminded of the Coordinated Resource Management Planning process that the Missouri Department of Conservation recently initiated, but then prematurely rejected.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

As a broad admonition to the future, it has been argued that "if the 20th century forestry was about simplifying systems, producing wood, and managing at the stand level, 21st century forestry will be defined by understanding and managing complexity, providing a wide range of ecological goods and services, and managing across broad landscapes - managing for wholeness rather than the efficiency of individual components."

In general, sustainable forestry management will attempt to:

• Meet the social, economic, and ecological needs of current and future generations. Clearly these include non-timber goods and ecological services.
  * Maintain and enhance forest quality and look beyond the stand to encompass the much larger landscape so that biodiversity and ecological processes are maintained.
• When trees are cut, increase the rotation period to follow the long natural cycle of the forest rather than a shorter financial cycle.
• * Mirror the conditions in natural forests that are heterogeneous, with many species, ages, and sizes.
• * Enable and mimic natural disturbance patterns (while the timber industry claims that its practices do this, such a claim cannot generally be substantiated).
• * Protect sensitive areas, such as streams, and important habitat, such as dead tree snags.
• * Since forest species are considered interdependent, maintain species that were once considered pests, such as fungi and insects, because they are important to ecosystems.
• * Promote active and meaningful participation of all stakeholders, especially local communities.
• * Reduce waste and over-consumption combined with making consumption more equitable.
• * Reform and strengthen both national policies and international agreements.
• * Avoid mining new frontiers, or clearing natural forests to establish tree plantations or increase agricultural land

Reed Noss suggested that a number of paths toward impoverishment need to be reversed, and those likely can not be reversed without broad landscape scale planning. The trends to reverse are: towards younger forests, simplified forest stands, smaller fragments, more isolated fragments, fire elimination, excessive road construction, more threatened and endangered species.

Another array of criteria for sustainable forestry was developed by Nels Johnson and Daryl Ditz of the World Resources Institute who offered a series of characteristics that, if exhibited by US forestry, would indicate a path towards sustainability (Table 1-the preferred directions are indicated with an I (increasing) or a D (decreasing)).

They also proposed a series of steps that should be taken to establish such a trend (Table 2).

SUSTAINABLE CERTIFICATION OF FOREST PRODUCTS

Given the inevitable need for forestry to become sustainable, and the interest that many consumers have in supporting sustainable forestry by consuming the products of ecologically sustainable management, it is reasonable that there should be an entity, independent of the producers, that serves to certify the sustainability of forest management and forest products.

This challenge, meanwhile, has also been taken up by the American Forest and Paper Association, which has developed its own Sustainable Forestry Initiative, based as they claim on the principle that "AF&PA members are committed to ensuring that future generations of Americans will have the same abundant forests that we enjoy today. We will conduct all aspects of our business in an environmentally sensitive manner. We are convinced that sound environmental policy and sound business practice go hand in hand. We will pursue both for the benefit of our customers, shareholders, and the American people "(AF&PA 1996). Suggesting that the forest products industry takes seriously concerns over sustainable management, according to the list, nearly 200 companies have complied with the by-law requirements for the SFI.
While certification is no panacea, no substitute for reducing wasteful consumption or for sound forest management legislation and policies, it does provide a voluntary market-based approach to fostering sustainable forest management and trade. However, this SFI is tainted since it is not adjudicated by an impartial, independent entity but by the forest products industry itself.

A proposal globally to increase the area under certifiable sustainable management from the current 4.5 million hectares to 200 million by 2005 has been endorsed by environmental and business groups, as well as the World Bank. The trend towards sustainable certification is underway!

CONCLUSIONS

Although there will always be a need for forest products, currently, governments, citizens, and nature pay too high a price for their harvest. But, we can ensure that our needs for forest resources and services are met by forging a new relationship with forests: one that ensures conservation, sustainable use, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from forests.

Furthermore, while there may well be costs to be born by everyone, from landowner to consumer, the costs of not shifting to sustainability will be higher and potentially could be irreversible. As has been recognized, "A more integrated approach to using and managing forest resources through participatory planning informed by the best science and experience is central to a more sustainable forest sector in the United States."

One theme that has recurred throughout the writing on sustainability is the need for interdisciplinary cooperation. Sustainable management and ecosystem conservation must be "ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially responsible." This will involve, a more open and participatory processes in decision-making regarding land use management and tax and policy decisions that is frequently the case.

Given the tremendous importance of private forests in the overall scheme of planning and managing our forest resource, it will be essential that then on-timber values are clearly seen to be reflected in management. Should this not occur, the pressure from conservationists and a concerned public to take the public forests completely out of the timber base will only increase. Such an eventuality could have interesting repercussions. As has-been well documented, timber sales on public forests are frequently conducted on a below-cost basis. This means that the subsidized timber from public forests constitutes a competitive force in the market place, potentially depressing the price that private landowners might charge for their timber, and thus reducing the ability of these landowners to afford sustainable management.

It is interesting to note that even as some political forces are attempting to open public lands to greater commercial exploitation, a miscellany of environmental groups, resource economists, and businesses has filed suit to prevent the US. Forest Service from uneconomic logging on National Forest Lands. Rather than claiming that such activities pose environmental threats, they are arguing that the Forest Service is ignoring laws that require it to assess the total economic impacts of subsidized uneconomic logging.

Among the barriers to sustainability is the "growth myth" which is based upon the illusion that growth can continue indefinitely. We need to recognize that the environment, with its natural resources and ecosystem processes, is the basis for all life. This is not merely another special interest; the ability of our natural resources to support human consumption is limited. Sustainability is not for some minority sector of today's population, it is for future generations, and for perpetuity.