APPENDIX IV

Paper to 16^th Commonwealth Forestry Conference & 19^th IFA Biennial Conference. Fremantle, 18-25 April 2001 International Forestry Review 3: 175-183

FORESTRY EDUCATION IN A CHANGING LANDSCAPE

Peter Kanowski Department of Forestry Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200 Australia http://www.anu.edu.au/Forestry

ABSTRACT Both forestry and tertiary education are undergoing profound change. Critical changes in forestry include: the conceptualisation of forests and forestry as complex soft systems; the changing roles of public and private sectors, and of civil society; the changing social, economic and environmental values of different sorts of forests; and the globalisation and commoditisation of many forest products and services. Critical changes in tertiary education include: the broadening of access at undergraduate and postgraduate levels; the parallel widespread diminution of resources on a per-student basis; the shift from teacher-centred to student-centred learning; rapid technological developments, particularly but not only in information technologies; and globalisation and commoditisation. These changes define both strategic and practical challenges, and constraints and opportunities, for forestry education. There are advocates of both radical and more cautious reforms of forestry education. This paper describes how some of those engaged in forestry education have responded to these challenges and opportunities, and reflects on some personal experiences and current issues.

INTRODUCTION As many others have commented, there is nothing new about change or challenge, in forestry or in other arenas of human endeavour. Those whose focus is forestry education have both faced and responded to the forces of change since the establishment of the first "forestry school" in Germany in 1789. A superficial historical review might suggest, amongst many other more country-specific events, issues such as:

• the development of "scientific forestry" from its German origins, initially in Europe and subsequently in its colonies;
• the exploitation of firstly the new world and subsequently the tropical forests;
• the transfer of forestry schools from forestry agencies into the university system;
• the rise of environmental activism, associated challenges to professional forestry paradigms, and the responses of forestry agencies and professionals;
• the evolving roles of public and private sectors, generally manifested in a diminished role for the State, a greater private sector role, and an emerging role for civil society;
• changing values and roles for native, plantation and farm forests, and their products and services;
• the broadening of access to tertiary education, though not necessarily of funding;
• the globalisation of markets for forest products and for education, and the increasing commoditisation of both;
• changing philosophies of tertiary education, principally away from "teaching" to "learning";
• the rapid development of technologies, particularly but not only information technology;
• changing student profiles - students are increasingly from urban, rather than rural, backgrounds, and are increasingly having to fund a higher proportion of the costs of their education.

As foresters or as those engaged with forests and forestry in some way, we are all concerned with forestry education, though the level of direct engagement varies (often with distance from a tertiary forestry institution). There have been, and will continue to be, many responses around the world to both general and locally-specific changes and challenges. This paper does not attempt a comprehensive review of forestry education, though it acknowledges such efforts at varying scales (e.g. Anon. 2000, for the Asia-Pacific region; Roche 1992, globally; Society of American Foresters 2000, for the USA). It draws on some of the themes emerging from these reviews, and from experience at various forestry educational institutions, to suggest and discuss common challenges, constraints, opportunities, and dilemmas in the ongoing process of improving forestry education. The paper focuses on degree-level education, leaving substantive comment on technical forestry education to others better-qualified to address that topic - although many of the elements will be common.

FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS:
WHAT IS A FOREST? WHAT IS FORESTRY? WHAT IS EDUCATION?

The issues of what we understand by "forest", "forestry" and "education" are fundamental to forestry education. In essence, I suggest that each of these terms has come to be interpreted more broadly of late than during much of the 20^th century. Arguably (and simplistically), our understanding of:

• "forest" has evolved from one which emphasised the bounded primeval wilderness (e.g. Schama 1995) and the regulated Normal forest to a more encompassing view, which recognises explicitly the diversity of configurations and forms of trees and forests in both rural and urban landscapes (e.g. Mayers and Bass 1999). The conceptualisation of forests as "soft systems" - ie, as the ecosystem component of a larger interdependent natural-social system, and whose extent, condition and persistence are dependent on human choices and actions - is a fundamental (paradigm) shift in how we understand "forests" (e.g. Birkes and Folke 1998, Rölings 2000);
• "forestry" has evolved from a scientific discipline which focused primarily on the regulation of yield and use to an amalgam of disciplines which more explicitly recognise the social and cultural dimensions and implications of forest management (e.g. Buchy 2000, Ciancio and Nocentini 2000). This evolution mirrors that of our understanding of forests, and suggests that forestry is as much a social science as a natural science;
• tertiary "education" has evolved from a linear process in which knowledge was seen to be transferred from teacher to student to a more collaborative process in which the "teacher" enables and facilitates the "student" learning (e.g. Bawden 2000, Ramsden 1992). It is also evolving from the traditional undergraduate/ postgraduate on-campus mode to one which is both more flexible and more continuing.

One could argue about the precise articulation of the points summarised above, but it is the general sentiment of each that is important. These sentiments suggest common themes of greater diversity - of forests, forestry, and education - and of greater interdependency between the components of each of these systems. They suggest a challenging and an exciting future for forestry education and forestry professionals^*, and emphasize the bi-directional linkages between education and practice.

MORE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS: THE PURPOSE OF FORESTS, OF FORESTRY, AND OF EDUCATION

The purpose of forests and forestry

I have borrowed (shamelessly) from Jack Westoby (1971, 1987) in the title above. Westoby's (1967) answer to the these questions, the purpose of forests and forestry, was typically pithy:

"In the early days of my exposure to forestry, I had occasion to discuss forestry problems with very many foresters, foresters of every conceivable specialisation. Had I believed implicitly everything they told me, I would have been driven inexorably to the conclusion that forestry is about trees. But this, of course, is quite wrong. Forestry is not about trees, it is about people. And it is about trees only insofar as they serve the needs of people".

I suggest that Westoby's apparently heretical and paradoxical statement is an accurate analysis of the purpose of forests and forestry. It is explicitly a `soft systems" view, and it describes the purpose of the myriad forms of forestry: amongst others, for the sustainable livelihoods of forest-dependent people; for commercially-driven and focused industrial plantation production; for the management of protected areas or extensive native forests; on farms; and in urban and peri-urban environments.

The purpose of education

Westoby (1971) also summarised the purpose of education as:

• to help the student to discern what knowledge is relevant, where to find it, and how to use it;
• to bring the student to an understanding of the interrelatedness of phenomena, and the interpenetration of the various disciplines;
• to cultivate in the student a sense of responsibility - responsibility for his own actions, responsibility for the welfare of others;
• to inoculate the student against received doctrine;
• to help the student overcome the problems, and taste the joys, of cooperating unselfishly with others.

As Westoby commented, "none of this is new" and "you may even think it trite". However, the principles Westoby enunciated are consistent with those articulated by contemporary educationalists for the practice of tertiary education. For example, Ramsden's (1992) principles of effective teaching in tertiary education, summarised below, give effect to the broader goals listed by Westoby:

• quality of explanation and stimulation of student interest;
• concern and respect for students and student learning;
• appropriate assessment tasks and helpful feedback;
• clear goals and intellectual challenge;
• student independence, control over learning, and active engagement;
• learning from students.

THE CONSEQUENT CHALLENGES FOR FORESTRY AND FORESTRY EDUCATION

Many concerned with forestry education have grappled with the challenges implied by the goals and principles above. This paper does not pretend to do justice to those efforts, which have taken place in the contexts of individual institutions, agencies and corporations, and wider society; within the forestry

those whose education and professional activities include elements of forestry, but whose primary interests and expertise are not as foresters. Examples would include environmental scientists and advocates, social scientists whose work focuses on forests and communities, and many working in aspects of the forest products sectors.

professions of each country; and in international fora. What is relevant here is their implications for the interdependent domains of forestry and forestry education. I have drawn on the recent reflections of others engaged in forestry education to illustrate some of the scope and dimensions of thinking about these issues. Boxes 1 and 2 reproduce reflections by colleagues from the University of British Columbia on the challenges and dilemmas of contemporary forestry, and of implications for forestry education.

One of the most recent international fora addressing forestry education was that convened by Vietnam's Social Forestry Support Programme at SaPa, Vietnam, in April 2000. The participants represented 38 institutions in 19 countries, principally but not exclusively in Asia and the Pacific. Individuals who had led change in other arenas of agriculture and natural resource education contributed background papers; their key points, consistent with many of those made above, included:

• the emergence of joint, and complementary, natural and social sciences approaches to learning, problem solving, and professional practice (Rölings 2000);
• recognition that effective curriculum reform involves reform of educational processes (as discussed, e.g., by Ramsden (1992)) as much as revision of content (Bawden 2000, Rölings 2000);
• acknowledgement that forestry curricula and the "domain" of forestry (ie, the arenas in which it is practiced) are interdependent, that reform of either could not succeed without reform of the other, and that active reciprocal engagement could facilitate change in both forestry education and the domain of forestry (Bawden 2000, Taylor 2000).

The SaPa workshop participants agreed the set of assumptions, assertions and actions (my terminology) reported in Box 3. As with the preceding discussion, these points are (of course) arguable, but I suggest they represent a reasonable synopsis of the basis on which the next steps in the development of forestry education might be predicated.

REVIEW AND REFORM OF FORESTRY EDUCATION

Here, I use "review and reform" in a positive sense - given the universality and inevitability of change, and the advantages of an adaptive rather than a reactive approach in both education and forestry practice. These engaged in forestry education are thus inherently involved in review and reform - though, as Rölings (2000) observes, there are inevitably differences of opinion about the appropriate scope, scale and rate of change. There are many advocates of both radical and more incremental change.

Knowledge and skills required of forestry graduates

Many institutions have sought to give effect to analyses such as those reported in the preceding section by embarking on curriculum review and reform processes. Many of these have been informed by assessment, usually with at least some of the external stakeholders suggested in Box 5, of the knowledge and skills required of forestry graduates. Boxes 5 and 6 summarise, as examples, the terms in which such knowledge and skills were characterised by two North American institutions. Although some of the elements and emphases may vary (e.g. as in Pulhin et al's (2000) survey of Asia-Pacific forestry and associated graduates and students), I suggest their relevance is not confined to North America.

Key elements of reformed forestry curricula and programmes Most review processes have generated a suite of key elements or criteria which forestry education should satisfy. Those emerging from different processes around the world are largely consistent, as the examples below illustrate.

The SaPa workshop participants (as described above; Anon. 2000) suggested that the key elements of reform listed in Box 6 were necessary to to give effect to the points reported in Box 3.

In a different context, the Society of American Foresters' Task Force on Forestry Education Accreditation (2000) proposed a set of criteria against which USA forestry programmes would be assessed for professional accreditation. The proposed standards and criteria are summarised in Box 7. While the standards and criteria are (necessarily) specified more formally and in more detail than, for example, those elements nominated Boxes 5 and 6, the extent of commonality is strong and - presumably - reassuring.

Some observations from personal experience

In this section, I reflect on the general principles and points made in preceding sections in the light of my own experience, working with colleagues and students in forestry education in Britain, Australia and Papua New Guinea over the past 12 years. I do not suggest these observations are universal.

The institutions in which I have been privileged to work (the Oxford Forestry Institute and the ANU's Department of Forestry) have maintained many historical strengths or developed others relevant to the criteria for a "good" forestry education, as outlined above. These include:

• an emphasis on field- and problem (issue)-based learning, which is increasingly student-centred;
• the development of more contemporary and better balanced curricula, reflecting both the natural and social science dimensions of forestry, and their integration. These developments reflect both changes within forestry curricula per se, and the integration of forestry curricula with those offered by other academic programmes in both the social and natural sciences;
• more flexible modes of learning, and learning resources - particularly but not only those based on online material and delivery;
• partly associated with the preceding point, the development of a (still too limited) variety of forms of continuing education;
• dialogue with a diversity of external stakeholders in forestry and forestry education, although this is more often as part of research and teaching programmes than a more formal process of participatory curriculum review and reform such as that described by Taylor (2000).

There are, in my experience, a set of common challenges associated with these and other issues:

• there are significant resource and administrative constraints to developing field- and problem-based learning more fully; Bawden (2000) notes these for the case of such reforms at Hawkesbury Agricultural College. These constraints reflect both the relatively high staff and resourcing costs of supporting both these forms of learning, and the practical difficulties of integrating a curriculum structured to facilitate field- and problem-based learning with curricula which do not have such a focus. This problem can be particularly acute in the case of interdisciplinary programmes which rely on scheduling the input of a number of Faculties (or the equivalent), and mitigates against - to some extent - the integration of forestry and other disciplines in joint curricula.
  
  Where the forestry programme operates in isolation from others, as is the case in at least one year of the programme at many universities, there is scope for more fully developing field- and problem-based learning. However, isolating forestry students from those engaged in other programmes carries the risk of fostering disciplinary and professional isolation, with potentially adverse consequences such as those described by Dargavel (1980). As with other elements of curricula, striking the "right balance" is difficult.
  
  
• the question of what constitutes a "balanced curriculum" is much like that of defining sustainability; there are multiple valid perspectives. There does seem to be general agreement that there should be integration of the social and natural sciences from the outset of the programme, but the issues of "what to leave out" in already-full curricula challenge all university forestry programmes with which I am familiar.
  
  Some institutions (e.g. University of New Brunswick) have elected to address this issue by maintaining a 5-year undergraduate programme, but most are constrained (often by student preference and funding) to a 4-year programme. An obvious option at the undergraduate level is to develop specialised streams, but this is not feasible at many institutions where staff and student numbers are insufficient to support them. Alternatively, the development of specialisations can be left to (post)graduate programmes or other forms of continuing education. Many graduate forestry programmes provide a means for those with undergraduate qualifications in other areas to enter or advance in forestry. In my experience, this is of great benefit to forestry and the forestry profession.
  
  
• the shift to student-centred learning at the undergraduate level is challenged by, in particular, the economic circumstances of students, which requires them to engage in substantial part-time employment whilst they are studying, and limits the time and energy they are able to commit to their learning. Some welcome relief is afforded for a small number of students by scholarships and awards offered by forestry sector agencies and businesses, and by universities, but these are generally insufficient in number and magnitude to assist more than a small proportion of students.
  
  
• there is limited capacity for most universities to expand traditional graduate programmes because of the substantial direct and opportunity costs to students associated with most graduate degrees. In many countries, the scholarship system intended to support both domestic and international students is so inadequate that even those with outstanding undergraduate qualifications and university awards are not able to secure scholarship support. Some employers and external partners are very supportive of graduate students, but - in any case - traditional on-campus graduate degree programmes are of limited relevance to many in the workforce and community.
  
  The development of alternative and innovative modes of graduate-level coursework, typically in short-course, flexible and/or online form, is an obvious response to changes in both the university system and in government, business and civil society. The quality of these programmes, as with any other, depends on significant staff and resource inputs, but they can be linked with other teaching and learning activities, and can be most rewarding for all those involved. In particular cases, they can be linked to concurrent undergraduate programmes to add value for both undergraduate and graduate participants. The emergence of joint programmes between universities, and with external partners including some between partners on different continents, facilitated by advances in technology - is a very positive and widespread development. However, issues of access, for the majority in the world's poorer countries, and for those poorly served by communications technology everywhere, remain problematic.
  
  
• universities engage with external partners - in government, business and civil society - in a variety of ways: e.g., through research projects, teaching and learning programmes, or joint outreach and community activities. Many of these external partners are also engaged in processes associated with curriculum review and reform, and in other forms of strategic review and planning. However, these processes tend to be more advisory than the fully participatory involvement described by Taylor (2000); whilst the latter has obvious appeal and strengths (see, e.g. Bawden 2000), it also raises - at least in principle - the issues of academic freedom and the appropriate balance in a university education between the needs of the short-term and those of the longer-term future. Bawden (2000), for example, is adamant that a university education should be directed at the needs of the future; while this is inarguable, the majority of graduates need also to have sufficient credibility with current employers to gain employment so that they can be part of shaping the future from within the profession. As in other aspects of forestry curricula, there is clearly a balance to be struck.
  
  
• changes to the funding of tertiary education in many countries mean that fewer tertiary institutions will be able to support stand-alone Departments of Forestry, continuing the trend for relatively small specialist departments (or the equivalent) to merge with others with cognate interests. Such mergers (as have occurred at both institutions of which I have been a staff member) provide both challenge and opportunity for the continuation of strong forestry programmes. Regardless of the particular institutional structure, strengthening links with complementary disciplines - as, e.g., in the case of the ANU's Centre for Science and Engineering of Materials^**, and its comparators elsewhere - is of obvious benefit to forestry programmes.

CONCLUSIONS

Forestry education will - both by necessity and design - continue to adapt to the changing contexts, technologies and practices relevant to forestry and education. Critical questions for all of us engaged in forestry education - which includes, to varying degrees, all those working in forestry as well as the staff and students of university programmes - include:

• how we should address the common theme of greater diversity in forests, forestry and education;
• how we should best integrate the social and natural sciences relevant to forestry;
• given the interdependencies between forestry education and the domain of forestry, the extent to which radial reforms of curriculum process, content and delivery are possible and desirable - from the perspectives of both the universities and of external partners, including (but not only) employers of forestry graduates;
• how best to build and sustain the linkages between universities and external partners, in mutually-supportive rather than mutually-bothersome forms;
• how to develop and maintain field- and problem-based and student-centred learning in the face of resource and administrative constraints, and in the light of other legitimate demands on students' time and energy;
• how to develop and maintain integrated and complementary programmes, within campuses and between institutions, which capitalise on existing or potential institutional strengths;
• how to strengthen the extent, relevance and accessibility of graduate-level (including continuing) forestry education;
• how to maintain strong, dynamic and innovative forestry programmes in the face of - amongst other factors - institutional reorganisations, financial constraints, and continually increasing demands on academic and support staff.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank colleagues at OFI, ANU and many other institutions, our students, and many external partners for helping me learn about forestry education. In particular, I acknowledge my many innovative colleagues at ANU Forestry.

REFERENCES

Anonymous. (2000). 16-19 April 2000 - workshop with a difference: changing learning and education in forestry. Lâm Nghiêp Xã Hôi (Social Forestry) No. 2., October 2000. 28-33. http://www.socialforestry.org.vn

Bawden, R. (2000). Of reform and transformation: a case study in curriculum revision. Keynote Paper, Workshop on: Changing learning and education in forestry. SaPa, Vietnam, 16-19 April 2000. Social Forestry Support Programme, Vietnam. 22p. http://www.socialforestry.org.vn

Binkley, C. (1995). From the Dean's desk. Branchlines 6(3): 1. http://www.forestry.ubc.ca/brchline/brchline.html

Binkley, C. (1996a). Forestry in a post-modern world. Branchlines 7(1): 1. http://www.forestry.ubc.ca/brchline/brchline.html

Binkley, C. (1996b). Forestry in a post-modern world, Part II. Branchlines 7(3): 1. http://www.forestry.ubc.ca/brchline/brchline.html

Birkes, F. and Folke, C. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems. Cambridge. 459 p.

Buchy, M. (2000). Forestry: from a colonial discipline to a modern vision. Keynote Paper, Workshop on: Changing learning and education in forestry. SaPa, Vietnam, 16-19 April 2000. Social Forestry Support Programme, Vietnam. 18p. http://www.socialforestry.org.vn

Ciancio, O. and Nocentini, S. (2000). Forest management from positivism to the culture of complexity. In: Agnoletti, M. and Anderson, S. (Eds). Methods and approaches in forest history. CABI, Oxford. 47-58.

Dargavel, J. 1980. The political detection of an Australian forestry perspective. Australian Forestry 43: 5-15.

Hayles, N.K. (1995). Searching for common ground. Chapter 4 in: Soulé, M. and Lease, G. (Eds). Reinventing nature. Island Press, Boulder.

Kimmins, H. (1999). Forestry and forestry education at the start of the third millennium. Branchlines 10(2): 1. http://www.forestry.ubc.ca/brchline/brchline.html

Mayers, J and Bass, S. (1999). Policy that works for forests and people. IIED, London. 324p.

Pulhin, J., Freeman, J., and Breva, L.M. Profiling the forestry profession: trends, realities and needs. Keynote Paper, Workshop on: Changing learning and education in forestry. SaPa, Vietnam, 16-19 April 2000. Social Forestry Support Programme, Vietnam. 35p. http://www.socialforestry.org.vn

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. Routledge, London. 290p.

Roche, L. (1992). The profession of forestry now and in the year 2000. Commonwealth Forestry Review 71: 13-19.

Röling, N. (2000). Changing forestry education: enhancing beta/ gamma professionalism. Keynote Paper, Workshop on: Changing learning and education in forestry. SaPa, Vietnam, 16-19 April 2000. Social Forestry Support Programme, Vietnam. 24p. http://www.socialforestry.org.vn

Sample, V.A., Ringold, P.C., Block, N.E. and Giltmer, J.W. (2000). Forestry education: adapting to the changing demands on professionals. J. Forestry 97 (9): 4-11.

Schama, S. (1995). Landscape and memory. Harper Collins, London. 652p.

Society of American Foresters. (2000). SAF Task Force on forestry education accreditation. Report to SAF Council, May 2000. 29p. http://www.safnet.org

Taylor, P. (2000). New perspectives, new curricula: a case study of participatory curriculum development in forestry education in Vietnam. Keynote Paper, Workshop on: Changing learning and education in forestry. SaPa, Vietnam, 16-19 April 2000. Social Forestry Support Programme, Vietnam. 28p. http://www.socialforestry.org.vn

Westoby, J. (1967). Problemas actuais da economia florestal. In Forward to: Westoby, J. (1987). The purpose of forests. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. ix. Westoby, J. (1971). Forestry education: to whom and for what? Chapter 7 in: Westoby, J. (1987). The purpose of forests. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. 193-205. Westoby, J. (1987). The purpose of forests. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. 343p.

^* the terms "forestry education" and "forestry professionals" are used here in the same broad sense as "forest policy" is used by, e.g., Mayers and Bass (1999). They use the term "forest policy" as shorthand for "policies about forests", which include but are not limited "forest policies" in the narrow sense. Similarly, I use the term "forestry education" to include "education about forestry", rather than that limited to foresters; and "forestry professionals" to include

^** http://www.anu.edu.au/CSEM