Food and Agriculture Organization An international journal

203Food and Agriculture

Organization

of the United Nations

An international journal

of forestry and forest

industries

ISSN 0041-6436

Editor: A. PerlisEditorial Advisory BoardForestry Department:J. Ball, I.J. Bourke, S. Braatz,S.A. Dembner, M. Morell,C. Palmberg-Lerche, A. Perlis, L. Russo,K. Warner, O. Souvannavong, M. WilkieEditing, design, graphics and desktoppublishing: Editorial Group,FAO Information Division

Unasylva is published quarterly in English,French and Spanish editions. Subscriptionprice: one year US$36.00, payable to theSales and Marketing Group, FAO, Vialedelle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome,Italy, or to any of the FAO sales agentslisted on the inside back cover.

Material not copyrighted may be reprintedwith credit to Unasylva, FAO.Articles express the views of their authors,not necessarily those of FAO.Designations employed and presentation ofmaterial do not imply the expression of anyopinion on the part of FAO concerning thelegal status of any country, territory, city orarea or of its authorities, or concerning thedelimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.The FAO publications reviewed in Unasylvamay be ordered from any of the FAO salesagents listed on the inside back cover. FAOwill process orders from countries wherethere are no sales agents. Contact the Salesand Marketing Group, InformationDivision, FAO, Viale delle Terme diCaracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy.Tel. (39) 06 57051;Fax (39) 06 5705 3360;Telex 625852/625853/610181 FAO IE-mail: [email protected]

Cover photo: Sunset at Lake Mburu, western Uganda(FAO/17371/K. Dunn)

Contents

Vol. 51

2000/4

Editorial 2

M.J. Spilsbury and D. KaimowitzThe influence of research and publications on conventional wisdomand policies affecting forests 3

T.K. Rudel, K. Flesher, D. Bates, S. Baptista and P. HolmgrenTropical deforestation literature: geographical and historicalpatterns 11

L. Alden WilyForest law in eastern and southern Africa: moving towards acommunity-based forest future? 19

C. Palmberg-Lerche and S. HaldManagement of forest genetic resources: status and challenges 27

F. CastañedaCriteria and indicators for sustainable forest management:international processes, current status and the way ahead 34

R. KumarConservation and management of mangroves in India, with specialreference to the State of Goa and the Middle Andaman Islands 41

L. HeinImpact of shrimp farming on mangroves along India’s East Coast 48

M. Nieuwenhuis and N. O’ConnorChallenges and opportunities for small-scale tree nurseries in theEast African highlands 56

FAO forestry 61

World of forestry 63

Books 65

2

EDITORIAL

National forest programmes

At the United Nations Conference for Environment andDevelopment (UNCED) in 1992, the countries of the worldagreed on the importance of forests, but as preparations forstocktaking on the achievements of the Rio Declaration andAgenda 21 begin (with the aim of organizing a “Rio+10” con-ference), it is apparent that reaching global consensus on for-estry issues has not been simple. One of the few topics on whichthere has been agreement is the need for comprehensive forestpolicy frameworks as the basis for sectoral development. At thefourth session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF)in 1997, consensus was reached on the definition of nationalforest programmes (nfps) as the generic concept for a widerange of approaches to sustainable forest management.

The definition includes a number of principles. Nfps shouldbe:

• country-led, consistent with national policy frameworks andthe constitutional and legal arrangements in each country;

• interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral in their approach, recog-nizing that many barriers to sustainable forest managementlie outside the traditional forest sector;

• long-term and iterative, rather than one-off planning exer-cises.

Some of the principles are more action-oriented, emphasiz-ing that nfps should be :

• participatory in approach, developed and implemented inpartnership with all interested parties;

• focused on capacity building in countries;• open to reform of policies and institutions;• related to raising awareness of forestry issues to gain political

commitment and to ensure that intersectoral issues are ad-dressed.

Although there has been progress in developing and imple-menting nfps since UNCED, many countries are having dif-ficulty translating these intentions into action, particularly –but not only – developing countries and countries with econo-mies in transition, which lack sufficient resources and effec-tive institutions. A survey of experience in the implementationof nfps in 145 countries, carried out by FAO in 1998-1999,identified the following constraints:

• lack of capacity to plan and implement programmes;• lack of knowledge about sustainable forest management in

the national context;• resource constraints, principally shortage of staff and funds;• poor coordination in the implementation of nfps, including

lack of coordination within the country and lack of coordina-tion among international donors;

• failure to relate plans for the forestry sector to the provisionsof other sectors.

The main problems are thus related to the need to strengthennational institutions, rather than to a lack of funds or of trainedstaff alone. Recognizing this, countries are now emphasizingthe need to work in partnerships, exchanging information andexperience and sharing knowledge. The national forest pro-gramme approach – implemented at the national level, butsupported and facilitated by international networking – repre-sents, therefore, one of the methods with highest potential forputting the principles of sustainable forest management intoeffect.

This edition of Unasylva, while not organized around a spe-cific theme, reflects several issues implicit in and relevant tothe nfp approach.

M.J. Spilsbury and D. Kaimowitz examine the influence ofresearch and publications on conventional wisdom and poli-cies affecting forests, based on an e-mail survey in whichforest policy experts identified the literature they found mostinfluential. In another article concerning forestry publications,T.K. Rudel and co-authors present the findings of an inven-tory of the literature on tropical deforestation and analyse thepatterns of geographical distribution and causation reflectedin the literature.

Many countries in eastern and southern Africa have recentlyrevised their national forest policies and forest laws. L. AldenWily examines trends in the new laws regarding provision forthe involvement of forest communities in the management andownership of forests.

C. Palmberg-Lerche and S. Hald describe international andregional activities in support of national efforts to ensure con-servation and sustainable use of forest genetic resources, whileF. Castañeda summarizes international processes for the de-velopment and global harmonization of criteria and indicatorsfor sustainable forest management.

Two articles in this issue deal with the subject of mangrovesin India. R. Kumar discusses the various measures taken bythe Government of India for the conservation and manage-ment of mangroves, particularly in Goa and the MiddleAndaman Islands, while L. Hein looks at how conversion ofland to shrimp farming has resulted in the degradation ofmangroves along India’s East Coast.

Finally, an article by M. Nieuwenhuis and N. O’Connorexamines the challenges and opportunities for small-scale treenurseries in the East African highlands, based on a surveycarried out in the Murang’a District of Kenya. �

Unasylva 203, Vol. 51, 2000

3

The influence of research and publications onconventional wisdom and policies affecting forests

M.J. Spilsbury and D. Kaimowitz

An analysis based on a survey offorestry experts and a theoreticalreview suggests that researchinfluences policy in an indirectway.

Funding agencies expect policyresearchers to show that their ef-forts have a measurable impact.

This poses a considerable challenge. Itwas traditionally thought that researchinfluences policy directly and that spe-cific policies can be traced back to par-ticular research findings. However,many analysts have now come to regardthe link between research and policy asmore diffuse: research induces changesin “conventional wisdom” (the set ofdominant paradigms at a given momentregarding the desired ends of policy andthe means of achieving them) and“policy narratives” (simplifying assump-tions about the problem to be addressedand the approach to be taken), which inturn influence policy outcomes.

Given the bewildering array of factorsthat influence policy-makers’ decisions, itwould be naïve to overestimate the role ofknowledge acquisition in that process. Arole exists nonetheless.

This article combines a theoretical dis-cussion of how policy-makers utilize re-search with a pragmatic attempt to findout what research has been influential.Between December 1997 and March1998, the authors asked forest policy ex-perts by e-mail which publications in-fluenced international and national de-bates on policies that affect forests. Thesurvey elicited 162 replies. The articleanalyses those responses in the contextof the broader debate on the link betweenresearch and policy.

THE POLICY-MAKING PROCESSAND RESEARCH UTILIZATION

“Dost thou not know, my son, with

how little wisdom the world is gov-

erned”

Count Oxenstierna, letter to his son, 1648

In J.F. Lundblad, Svensk plutarik (1826)

Textbook accounts of the policy-making process have traditionally por-trayed it as rational, sequential and func-

Michael J. Spilsbury andDavid Kaimowitz are withthe Center forInternational ForestryResearch in Jakarta,Indonesia.

tionally differentiated. It is rational in thesense that policy-makers promote poli-cies that best meet a set of predefinedobjectives; sequential because policy-makers first identify problems, then as-sess alternatives, make decisions, imple-ment those decisions, evaluate the resultsand modify their policies; and function-ally differentiated because each activityis separate and clearly distinguishable(Nakamura, 1987).

Real life is less linear and far more itera-tive. Policy-makers have ambiguous andshifting goals and often decide what posi-tions to take based on extraneous issues.Participants drift in and out of the policyprocess. Solutions may be proposed be-fore problems are identified. The same is-sues are dealt with simultaneously in dif-ferent policy arenas. Politicians respond toconflicting pressures with muddled com-promises (Cohen, March and Olsen, 1972).

Thus, it is hardly surprising that researchoften affects policy through circuitous anddiffuse paths. Weiss (1977) argues thatpolicy-makers use research more to helpthem define problems, think about issuesand provide new perspectives than tosolve specific problems. Research find-ings are just one of policy-makers’ manysources of information.

Policy-makers use research not only asan input into decision-making, but alsoas a political tool to justify decisions madefor non-scientific reasons (Boehmer-Christiansen, 1995). They may use re-search to “further their own interests,delay decisions, mark and occupy turf,or to enhance organizational credibility”(Garrett and Islam, 1988).

CONVENTIONAL WISDOM, POLICYNARRATIVES AND PARADIGMS

“Wisdom denotes pursuing the best

ends by the best means”

Francis Hutcheson, Enquiry into the

origin of our ideas of Beauty and Virtue,

Treatise 1, 1725


4

Instead of leading directly to new poli-cies, successful research more often in-fluences policy by modifying conven-tional wisdom and policy narratives. Notall conventional wisdom constitutespolicy narratives, but policy narrativesform a central component of conven-tional wisdom.

Kuhn (1962) fundamentally changedscientists’ thinking about how scienceand, by extension, conventional wisdomand policy narratives evolve. Sciencewas previously viewed as an entirely in-cremental process through which hu-manity accumulated knowledge, witheach new scientific finding building onthose that preceded it. Kuhn emphasizedthat science sometimes advances throughincremental learning but that, on otheroccasions, the basic tenets of conven-tional wisdom undergo fundamentalchanges. These “paradigm shifts” oftenonly become apparent in retrospect,when it becomes evident that certain keyevents and findings have changed theway people think about a topic. Scien-tists begin to see problems in a new lightand adopt a new world view or para-digm. Policy changes can be conceptu-alized similarly.

Effective myth-busting or paradigm-shifting research successfully questionsexisting policy narratives. In the case offorestry policy, the tendency of interna-tional organizations and funding agen-cies to follow fads in policy seems tofavour such paradigm shifts. Even re-search that does not significantly departfrom conventional wisdom may be in-fluential, however, if it incrementallyalters the opinions and actions of power-ful organizations and individuals.

PUBLICATIONS THAT HELPEDFORM CONVENTIONAL WISDOMSurvey methodology and samplingSince the impact of research per se isabstract and difficult to measure, a sur-

vey was carried out to explore the influ-ence of publications, which are looselyinterpreted as a reflection of research.The survey, initiated in December 1997,sought to determine which publicationsforestry policy experts have consideredinfluential in international and nationaldebates regarding forest policies. Thesurvey was distributed through the For-est Policy Experts (POLEX) electronicmailing list, managed by the Center forInternational Forestry Research(CIFOR). The POLEX list consists ofindividuals considered to be opinionleaders in forest policy issues. Recipi-ents were asked to list:

• three articles, reports or documentsthat they believed to have had a sig-nificant influence on internationaldebates concerning policies to-wards forests in the past 20 years;

• three articles, reports or documentsthat they believed to have had a sig-nificant influence on national de-bates (or a specific national debate)concerning policies towards forestsin the past 20 years.

The role of publications in influencingdebates was stressed rather than their rolein modifying specific policies becausethe intention was to identify publicationsthat had an impact on conventional wis-dom and policy narratives in a broadsense.

Survey responseThe 162 respondents represented 28.6percent of the population sampled. Aboutone third were from Europe, one thirdfrom North America, 15 percent fromLatin America and the remainder fromAsia or Africa or of undetermined origin.

The results have an inherent biasbecause international organizations,universities in developed countries,environmental non-governmental organi-zations (NGOs) and donor agencies arebetter represented on the POLEX list than

developing country policy-makers orresearchers. They also have a “supplyside” bias since respondents tended tobe researchers and forestry advisersrather than policy-makers: 37 percent ofall responses came from universities andresearch centres in developed countries.North American and European environ-mental NGOs accounted for 10 percentand bilateral funding agencies 8 percent.FAO and multilateral bank staff each con-tributed 7 percent of the responses andCIFOR scientists provided 10 percent.Personnel from developing country uni-versities, governments and projects onlymade up 10 percent of respondents (seeFigure 1).

Respondents did not cite exactly sixpublications each; many cited fewer, anda few individuals cited as many as 15 or19. The opinions of respondents whocited more publications weigh moreheavily in the results than those whocited only a few. This factor probablydid not affect the general nature of theresults, but it may have affected whetheror not certain publications were includedin the final list of influential documents.In total, respondents mentioned 370publications as being influential at ei-ther the international or national levels.

Survey results: what was influential?The most influential publications weremostly semi-popular books, general ar-ticles in prestigious non-disciplinaryjournals and institutional documents.Among the 64 documents cited most fre-quently, 31 percent were commercialbooks, 17 percent came out in academicjournals (Science [five articles], WorldDevelopment, Nature, BioScience, Sci-entific American, Ambio and ForestEcology and Management), 13 percentcame from the World Bank, 11 percentcame from the World Resources Insti-tute (WRI), 9 percent were FAO docu-ments and 8 percent were documents


5

from United Nations conferences (seeFigure 2). The Table on p. 7 lists the 31most-mentioned publications.

With regard to publications influenc-ing national debates, each country had aseparate list of publications; the generalresults were not that specific documentswere mentioned many times, but ratherthat certain types of documents wereperceived as influential in multiple coun-tries. These included World Bank sectorreports, Tropical Forest Action Plans andreports by government commissions.

The responses make it clear that threeinstitutions have dominated the debatesregarding policies affecting forests overthe past 30 years: FAO, the World Bankand WRI (see Figure 3). Approximatelyone third of all respondents mentionedat least one document associated withFAO or the World Bank. An even highernumber (64 respondents) mentioned atleast one publication associated withWRI. In the case of WRI, the results weregreatly affected by the large number of

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Number of respondents

Researchcentres

Universities

Environmental NGOs

CIFOR

Bilateral donors

Multilateralbanks(incl. WB)

Other

FAO

Bilateral projectstaff

DCuniversities

OtherCGIARcentres

DCgovernments

Note: CGIAR = Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research;

DC = developing country

FIGURE 1Affiliation of surveyrespondents

25

20

15

10

5

0

Frequency of citation

Books(synthesis works)

Articles WRI Bank UN Other FAO

Document type

FIGURE 2Frequency of citation,by document type, for

documents citedthree or more times


6

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Number of survey citations

Repetto & Gillis

Poore et al.

WRI FAO World Bank ITTO IUCN HIID CIFOR ODI UNRISD FSC WWF IIED

Institution

people (34) who mentioned Repetto andGillis’ book, Public policy and the mis-use of forest resources (1988). Even so,34 respondents (21 percent) mentionedat least one WRI-related publication be-sides that book.

The major role of the World Bank andFAO in defining conventional wisdomcan be explained in part by the criticalmass of intellectual resources these in-stitutions command and in part by thefact that they can promote their ideas byfunding initiatives supported by theirperspectives.

The survey results showed a trouble-some dominance of authors from theUnited States and Europe. Of the 39 au-thors and co-authors of documents citedby five respondents or more, not one wasfrom Africa, Asia or Latin America, eventhough the majority of the literature men-tioned focused on tropical forests. Theresults may partially reflect the low rep-resentation from those continents amongthe individuals sampled, but that is prob-ably only part of the story.

How did the publications influence thedebates and policy?The survey responses provide little evi-

dence that the documents that respond-ents considered influential directly af-fected policies. In most instances, it islikely that the publications have influencedgeneral conventional wisdom and policynarratives in international policy, aca-demic and funding circles, and that theinfluence has eventually filtered down topolicy-makers in specific countries.

Nevertheless, at the national level,many respondents did claim that WorldBank and government reports and Tropi-cal Forest Action Plans directly influ-enced policies. This is logical since thesedocuments are associated with groupsdirectly involved in bringing about policychange. It was probably not the docu-ments per se that had the impact, butrather the processes leading up to thedocuments or following their creation,which resulted in agreements on whatneeded to be done.

Survey respondents also mentioned thatsome issues became prominent as a re-sult of the actions of popular movements,specific events or the efforts of journal-ists. Research on these issues sometimesreflects “jumping on the bandwagon” togain research funding and commandpolicy-makers’ attention.

More generally, the publications iden-tified in the survey tend to follow broadersocial and academic trends with respectto topics and approach. Thus they tendto favour less government intervention,greater attention to environmental serv-ices and improved access of disadvan-taged groups to natural resources. Towhat extent research actually forms pub-lic opinion on these issues or merelymirrors shifts in conventional wisdomcaused by other forces remains uncer-tain.

Nevertheless, the survey responsessuggest that the main policy narrativesrelated to forests have tended to becomeassociated with a handful of publicationsthat crystallized public interest in a topicor gave greater legitimacy to a particularpolicy perspective. Thus respondentstended to associate:

• community forestry with Westoby’s1978 World Forest Congress speechin Jakarta, Indonesia, the 1978 FAOdocument Forestry for local commu-nity development and later work in Asiaby Peluso (see Table 1 for documentdetails);

• fuelwood crisis with Eckholm’s booksand reports;

FIGURE 3Publications citedtwo or more times,aggregated byinstitution


7

Documents cited as being influential by five or more survey respondents

Authors and year Document Number ofcitations

Repetto, R. & Gillis, M. (1988) Public policy and the misuse of forest resources. New York, Cambridge University Press 34

Peters, C.M., Gentry, A.H. &Mendelsohn, R.O. (1989) Valuation of an Amazonian rainforest. Nature, 339(29): 655-656 22

Poore, D., Burgess, P.,Palmer, J., Rietbergen, S. &Synnott, T. (1989) No timber without trees: sustainability in the tropical forests. London, Earthscan Publications 22

UN Conference on Environmentand Development (UNCED) (1992) Agenda 21: Programme of action for sustainable development. New York, UN 17

FAO (1985) Tropical Forest Action Plan (TFAP): a call for action. Rome 15

World Commission on Environmentand Development (BrundtlandCommission) (1987) Our common future. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press 13

UNCED (1992) Non-legally binding authoritative statement of principles for a global consensus on the management ofall types of forests (the “Forest Principles”). New York, UN 11

Westoby, J. (1978, 1987) World Forestry Congress presentation, The purpose of forests (1978); The purpose of forests –follies of development. Oxford, UK, Blackwell (1987) 11

Johnson, N. & Cabarle, B. (1993) Surviving the cut. Sustainable forest management in the humid tropics. Washington, DC,World Resources Institute (WRI) 9

Anderson, A.B., ed. (1990) Alternatives to deforestation: steps towards sustainable uses of the Amazon rain forest.New York, Oxford University Press 8

Binswanger, H.P. (1989) Brazilian policies that encourage deforestation in the Amazon. Environment Department Working Paper No. 16.Washington, DC, World Bank 8

Mahar, D.J. (1989) Government policies and deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon region. Technical Report. Washington, DC, World Bank 8

UNCED (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity. New York, UN 8

World Bank (1991) The forest sector: a World Bank Policy Paper. Washington, DC 8

Repetto, R. (1988) The forest for the trees? government policies and the misuse of forest resources. Washington, DC, WRI 7

Eckholm, E. (1975) The other energy crisis: firewood. World Watch Report No. 1. Washington, DC 6

FAO National Forestry Programmes/plans 6

FAO (1982) Tropical forest resources. FAO Forestry Paper No. 30. By J.-P. Lanly. Rome. 6

Hardin, G. (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162: 1243-1248 6

Myers, N. (1984) The primary source: tropical forests and our future. New York, W.W. Norton 6

World Bank (various years) National sector reports (general 2, Bolivia 1, Zimbabwe 1, Malaysia 1, Costa Rica 1) 6

Wilson, E.O., ed. (1988) Biodiversity. Washington, DC, National Academy Press 5

FAO (1978) Forestry for local community development. By J. Westoby. FAO Forestry Paper No. 7. Rome 5

de Beer, J.H. &McDermott, M.J. (1989) The economic value of non timber forest products in South East Asia. Amsterdam, the Netherlands,

Committee for IUCN 5

Myers, N. (1981) The hamburger connection: how Central America’s forests became North America’s hamburgers. Ambio, 10: 3-8 5

Peluso, N. (1992) Rich forests, poor people: resource control and resistance in Java. Berkeley, California, USA,University of California Press 5

Chambers, R. (1983) Rural development: putting the last first, New York, NY, USA, John Wiley and Sons 5

Schneider, R.R. (1994) Government and the economy on the Amazonian frontier. Latin America and the Caribbean TechnicalDepartment, Regional Studies Program, Report No. 34. Washington, DC, World Bank 5

Skole, D.L. & Tucker, D.J. (1993) Tropical deforestation and habitat fragmentation in the Amazon: satellite data from 1978 to 1988. Science, 260:1905-1910 5

Vincent, J. (1992) The tropical timber trade and sustainable development. Science, 256: 1651-1655 5

WRI (1986) World resources. Washington, DC 5


8

• biodiversity with Myer’s Sinking arkand the 1988 anthology edited byWilson;

• forest concession policies and traderestrictions with studies by Repettoand Gillis and by Vincent;

• government subsidies that encour-age deforestation in the Amazon withBinswanger’s and Mahar’s 1989 re-ports;

• non-timber forest products (NTFPs)with Peters, Gentry andMendelsohn’s 1989 article in Natureand De Beer and McDermott’s 1989study of NTFPs in Southeast Asia;

• debates over sustainable timber man-agement with publications by Pooreet al. (1989) and Johnson andCabarle (1993).

It is not possible from the survey resultsto make a distinction between issues andarguments that become prominent be-cause of certain publications and thosethat gained momentum for other reasonsbut later became associated in experts’minds with a given set of publications.

Many respondents stressed that the factthat a publication was influential did notnecessarily imply that it was good. Sev-eral commented that certain influentialpieces were much weaker than othersavailable on the same topic. The influen-tial pieces were apparently marketed bet-ter, i.e. given a journalistic treatment,placed in widely read outlets, promotedby public figures or movements or con-nected with prominent institutions orpolicy change processes.

A few respondents even claimed thatinfluential publications often gave incor-rect or misleading messages, either byoversimplifying issues and exaggeratingthreats and opportunities to reach a wideraudience or by bending the facts to sup-port their particular agendas. Seven re-spondents mentioned the article by Pe-ters, Gentry and Mendelsohn on NTFPsin Peru as an illustration of this defect.

While they acknowledged that the articleput NTFPs “on the map”, they criticizedits methods and conclusions. This exam-ple points to the fact that work that is latercriticized or discredited can neverthelessbe extremely influential in raising issues,shifting scientific debate and shapingpolicy outcomes. Presumably, whenpolicy narratives are misguided, over-stated or incorrect, flawed developmentpolicies and practices follow.

Conventional wisdom takes time to be-come established and popularized. Oncea policy narrative becomes accepted, how-ever, it is likely to exert influence for sometime (even when later research questionsits validity), as continued citation of ear-lier publications reinforces the narrativeand individuals and institutions developvested interests in its maintenance.

FROM EVENTS AND PUBLICATIONSTO CONVENTIONAL WISDOM ANDPOLICY

“It is the customary fate of new truths

to begin as heresies and end as supersti-

tions”

T.H. Huxley, “The coming of age of the

Origin of species”

In Science and culture and other essays

(1881)

A comparison of the chronology of influ-ential publications cited in the survey withkey events and social trends mentioned inhistories of forest policy debates(Humphreys, 1996; Kolk, 1996; Shepherdet al., 1998) revealed suggestive links inthe evolution of policy narratives relatedto forests.

For example, Eckholm’s book The otherenergy crisis: firewood put the fuelwoodcrisis on the map in 1975. FAO pickedthis up in 1978 with its map of thefuelwood situation in developing coun-tries. In 1980, FAO’s assessment of glo-bal forest cover helped convince donorsand others of the importance of tropicaldeforestation and the fuelwood crisis.

Fuelwood remained a prominent issueuntil several critical publications in thelate 1980s effectively removed it from theinternational debate.

Another illustration: from the late 1970sto the mid-1980s, several works byMyers, including “The hamburger con-nection: how Central America’s forestsbecame North America’s hamburgers” (inAmbio, 1981) and The primary source(1984), highlighted the gravity of the tropi-cal forest crisis and the importance ofbiodiversity. In the late 1980s, a flurry ofpublications and activities related tobiodiversity, including a 1988 UnitedStates National Academy of Sciencesbook edited by Wilson, preceded the sign-ing of the Convention on Biological Di-versity in 1992.

Over the past 20 years, policies andprojects in many countries – particularlythe smaller and poorer countries that de-pend on foreign support – have reflectedsimilar shifts in conventional wisdom. Thespread of ideas provoked and mirroredchanges in priorities and positions in theWorld Bank, FAO and the main bilateralaid agencies. These agencies, in turn,provided developing country policy-mak-ers with new ideas and financial incen-tives to accept them. In addition, a rela-tively small cadre of consultants went fromcountry to country broadcasting the con-ventional wisdom of the moment anddesigning and implementing projectsbased on it.

In most cases, there was probably a lagof several years between the “launching”of new policy narratives in well-publi-cized events or prominent publicationsand the filtering down of these ideas intochanges in conventional wisdom, policyand funding.

Most publications cited as influential bythree survey respondents or more werepublished between 1989 and 1994 (seeFigure 4). This result undoubtedly reflectsthe fact that concern about tropical for-


9

ests was high during that period, but italso suggests that it takes three to tenyears for a publication to become ac-knowledged and disseminated widelyenough to gain major prominence.

CONCLUSIONSIt was difficult to identify publicationsthat directly influenced policies towardsforests solely by the force of their argu-ments. Although certain publicationshave been influential, specific policiescannot usually be attributed to them. Still,policy research does seem to enhancepolicy actors’ awareness and to shapeconventional wisdom.

Some documents were found to havedirectly influenced policies at the nationallevel; however, it was probably not thedocuments per se that had the impact,but rather the processes accompanyingtheir creation. Research that targets orassociates itself with major policy proc-esses or powerful organizations has abetter chance of having an impact andbeing recognized.

Being “right” does not seem to be ei-ther a necessary or sufficient conditionfor having an impact. Some documentshave been both influential and wrong.Work that is later criticized or discred-ited by scientific peers can neverthelessbe extremely important in raising issues,shifting scientific debate and shapingpolicy outcomes.

Credibility is at least as important tothe impact of policy research as “beingright”. Credibility seems to be closelylinked to the reputations and track recordsof the authors, the prestige of the pub-lishers and the influence of the organiza-tions that sponsor the research and/orpromote the findings. Unfortunately, theprocess by which credibility is acquiredhas given a rather small group of North-ern policy analysts and a few large or-ganizations an inordinate amount of in-fluence, potentially stifling the effectiveinput of analysts and institutions in de-veloping countries.

Research that tells policy-makers andopinion leaders what they want to hear

has a better chance of being influentialthan work that goes against the tide. Con-ventional wisdom and policy narrativescan be successfully challenged and de-bunked, but this is easier when the pre-vailing political, social, economic andscientific winds are blowing in the samedirection.

Policy researchers can increase theirimpact not only by providing good an-swers to the right questions, but also bysupplying these messages to the right(most influential) people at the right timeand in an appropriate format. The mostinfluential researchers and institutionswill be those who effectively build “coa-litions” to support their viewpoints in thepolicy arena and succeed in associatingtheir work with well-funded initiatives.

Impact-oriented researchers and insti-tutions must pay attention, not only tothe development of the “research prod-uct”, but also to the “market” in whichthat product must compete. The findingsfrom this survey highlight some impor-tant aspects of the research market. Re-

Number of documents

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

Year

FIGURE 4Frequency distributionof date of publicationfor the 64 most citeddocuments


10

searchers and institutions wishing toenhance their influence must constantlyappraise the demand for their researchproducts and identify opportunities fortheir work to gain prominence. Surveyssuch as the one presented here have animportant role in that appraisal. �

Bibliography

Boehmer-Christiansen, S.A. 1995. Britain

and the International Panel on Climate

Change: the impacts of scientific advice on

global warming, Part I: integrated policy

analysis and the global dimension. Environ.

Pol., 4(1): 1-18.

Cohen, M.D., March, J.D. & Olsen, J.P.1972. A garbage can model of

organizational choice. Admin. Sci. Qtly,

17: 1-25.

Garrett, J.L. & Islam Y. 1988. Policy

research and the policy process: do the

twain ever meet. IIED Gatekeeper Series

No. 74. London, IIED.

Humphreys, D. 1996. Forest politics: the

evolution of international cooperation.

London, Earthscan Publications.

Kolk, A. 1996. Forests in international

environmental politics: international

organisations, NGOs and the Brazilian

Amazon. Utrecht, the Netherlands,

International Books.

Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The structure of scientific

revolutions. Chicago, Illinois, USA,

University of Chicago Press.

Nakamura, R.T. 1987. The textbook policy

process and implementation research.

Policy Stud. Rev., 7(1): 142-154.

Shepherd, G., Brown, D., Richards, M. &Schreckenberg, K. 1998. EU forestry

sourcebook. London, Overseas Develop-

ment Institute.

Weiss, C. 1977. Research for policy’s sake:

the enlightenment function of social

research. Policy Anal., 3: 531-545. �


1111111111

Tropical deforestation literature: geographical andhistorical patterns1

T.K. Rudel, K. Flesher, D. Bates, S. Baptista and P. Holmgren

The literature on tropical deforesta-tion has grown at such a rapidrate over the past decade that it

has become difficult for interested personsto keep up with it. Approximately 50 stud-ies of tropical deforestation appear annu-ally in the literature. This mushrooming ofinformation has important implications.The uncoordinated way in which stud-ies are conducted and published chal-lenges efforts to integrate the data forcloser monitoring of the tropical defor-estation problem, and also challenges ef-forts to use the literature in the develop-ment of policy initiatives to combatdeforestation.

This article summarizes the findings ofa recent eight-month effort to inventorythe literature on tropical deforestation,carried out in the context of FAO’s Glo-bal Forest Resources Assessment 2000,which has as one of its objectives theestimation of forest cover change in allcountries (see Box below). The article

highlights current patterns of informa-tion about tropical deforestation, andsummarizes patterns of causation repre-sented in the literature.

INVENTORY METHODSCreating the bibliographyThe first task in describing the literatureon tropical deforestation was to build upan inclusive bibliography on the subject.The analysts began with a list of 120citations collected during the early 1990s,and then updated and expanded itthrough mid-2000 by:

• mining the bibliographies of well-known published works on tropicaldeforestation;

• searching on-line bibliographies inthe natural and social sciences,

Thomas K. Rudel, KevinFlesher, Diane Bates andSandra Baptista are in theDepartment of Human Ecology,Rutgers University, NewBrunswick, New Jersey, UnitedStates.Peter Holmgren is ProjectDirector of the Forest ResourcesAssessment Programme, FAOForestry Department, Rome.

Findings of an inventory of theliterature on tropical deforestation,and analysis of the patterns ofcausation reflected in theliterature, carried out in thecontext of the Global ForestResources Assessment 2000.

FAO regularly reports on the world’s for-est resources through its Forest ResourcesAssessment Programme. Its next report, theGlobal Forest Resources Assessment 2000(FRA 2000), will review the status of theworld’s forests at the end of the twentiethcentury. This effort is being carried outwith the assistance of donors, partners andmember countries, as well as in partner-ship with the Economic Commission forEurope for compilation of country data forindustrialized countries.

The objective of FRA 2000 is to providea source of information and knowledge onthe world’s forest resources. FRA 2000 isexpected to stimulate discussion at all lev-els as well as decision-making on the man-agement and protection of forests on a glo-

1 This article has been adapted from ForestResources Assessment Programme WorkingPaper No. 27. FAO, 2000.

Global Forest ResourcesAssessment 2000

bal scale. By actively sharing information,FRA 2000 will create a forum for the con-tinuous exchange of information and knowl-edge. It will promote a greater understand-ing of the issues surrounding the world’sforests and their importance to human sur-vival.

FRA 2000 results are mainly organizedby country and are being released through-out 2000 on the FAO Forestry Web site(www. fao .org / fores try / fo / country /nav_world.jsp).


1212121212

using the key words “tropicaldeforestation” and “deforestation”;

• exchanging bibliographies withother researchers engaged in meta-analyses of the tropical deforestationliterature.

The creation of the bibliography was asnowballing process: newly discoveredarticles led to the discovery of otherunread articles. Over six months morethan 1 250 references on tropical defor-estation were accumulated. The refer-ences were catalogued usingENDNOTE, a computerized biblio-graphic software system.

The bibliography was then culled toremove the following:

• articles concerning tropical rain for-ests but only mentioning deforesta-tion in passing;

• earlier versions of articles alreadyincluded in the bibliography;

• articles that proved impossible toobtain even through interlibrary loan.

More than 300 such articles were thusremoved from the original bibliography.An additional 100 articles proved diffi-cult to obtain but appear to besubstantively useful contributions tounderstanding tropical deforestation andare still being sought.

It is important to be aware of the limi-tations inherent in this effort. Many re-ports on land-use trends or deforestationin particular locations are authored bypersonnel in local non-governmentalorganizations or government agenciesand are not published in internationallyrecognized journals, but are rather cir-culated among a largely local audience.The search strategy has undoubtedlymissed most of these “grey area” reports,which are sometimes cited in other pub-lications but are difficult to obtain

New global forest covermap developed by FRA2000


1313131313

through libraries. In addition, there is alanguage bias: although the study cov-ered articles in four languages (English,French, Spanish and Portuguese), mostbibliographies are dominated by publi-cations in English. This fact partly re-flects the prevalence of English as theinternational language of science, but itmay also reflect a lack of access to therelevant literature, particularly in French-speaking Africa.

Coding the articlesEach of the 825 articles in the final listwas read and coded as follows. The con-tinent, subcontinent and country de-scribed in the reference were identifiedusing FAO’s standard codes. A secondentry recorded the geographical scaleof the deforestation processes describedin the reference: did it concern a singlecommunity, a region within a country, acountry, a cluster of countries, a conti-nent or all of the tropical places in theworld? Another code represented thehistorical dimension: in which decadeor series of decades did the events de-scribed in the reference occur?

Items were also coded for the type ofinformation used to draw conclusionsabout deforestation:

• remote sensing or aerial photogra-phy (1);

• household surveys (2);• key informant interviewing in a place

undergoing deforestation (3);• key informant interviewing else-

where (4);• direct observation of deforestation

(5);• secondary sources (6).

The coding scheme also recordedwhether a study offered quantitative es-timates of forest cover change (7) or loss(8). If an article used several differenttypes of information, all of them wereincluded on the coding sheets.

Items that did not involve the collec-

tion of any primary data in or from a rain-forest region were coded as relying onsecondary sources (category 6). Thus anarticle presenting a new model of tropicaldeforestation but using already collectedcensus and forest cover data to test themodel would be coded as relying on sec-ondary sources, as would an article draw-ing conclusions based on deforestationrates calculated in another report.

Finally, each reference was categorizedby the cause or causes of deforestationcited, using a typology of 20 differentcauses (see Box). (The greatest numbercited in a single reference was 14.) Toensure that the substance of the authors’arguments was conveyed accurately, acause would be listed only if it was de-scribed and subject to analysis in the bodyof the article (not only in an abstract orintroduction).

The authors’ choice of terminologyundoubtedly influenced the ways inwhich some items were coded. One ana-lyst might cite a colonization programmeas the primary cause of deforestation in alocation and say little about how the con-struction of roads, as part of the pro-gramme, accelerated land clearing in theregion. A second author, looking at thesame situation, might feature road con-struction as a primary cause of deforesta-tion in this region. Under these circum-stances the two items describing the samesituation might be coded differently.

In addition, the use of multiple coders(six individuals, all graduate or under-graduate students with an interest in hu-man ecology) increased the potential fordiscrepancies in coding. Coders weregiven special training to improve the re-liability of the coding. To measure themagnitude of the remaining error, a reli-ability exercise was carried out in whichtwo coders read the same items independ-ently and the degree of agreement wascalculated. Intercoder reliability was quitehigh for information sources (90 percent)

but was lower for causes of deforesta-tion (64 percent). This reliability scoremakes the use of the data in small sam-ples somewhat problematic but does notprohibit their use in large samples.

Another potential source of error in theanalysis stems from the use of the sameterm to describe different phenomena.This problem is most evident with defi-nitions of deforestation. Some analystshave referred to a selectively logged areaas deforested even though 40 to 50 per-cent of the canopy survived the cut. Forother authors, depleting the canopy toless than 10 percent of its original sizeconstituted deforestation (the FAOdefinition). The term deforestation is also

Coding scheme used forattributed causes of deforestation

1. Timber or logging2. Ranching – cattle and other livestock3. Plantation agriculture4. Smallholder agriculture5. Fuelwood (household use)6. Road construction (including

railways)7. Mineral extraction8. Hydroelectric development9. Industrial processing10. War11. International market forces12. Government policies and subsidies13. Population increase14. Poverty or income level15. Education level16. Legal status of land tenure17. National debt18. Colonization19. Urbanization20. Fire


1414141414

of information use and argument thatonly become apparent when the litera-ture on tropical deforestation is analysedon a global scale.

The data set created from the codedENDNOTE information was analysedusing SPSS (Statistical Package for theSocial Sciences) software for cross-tabu-lations. These analyses revealed the pat-terns of information use and conclusions

Cutting trees forfuelwood has led todeforestation on thishillside in Oaxaca,Mexico

FAO

/203

02/J

. SPA

UL

L

sometimes interpreted as logging of pri-mary forest – not taking into account even-tual regeneration into secondary forest.

A similar problem occurs when ana-lysts discuss population increase. Stud-ies in South Asia and Africa frequentlyrefer to population increase as a cause ofdeforestation, usually pointing to highrates of natural increase among alreadydensely settled populations of smallhold-

ers. Analysts in Latin America also some-times cite population increase as a sourceof deforestation, but here the term refersto the in-migration of relatively smallpopulations of settlers into sparsely set-tled frontier regions. Such differences inmeaning seem to be an almost inevitableanalytic cost in highly aggregated analy-ses. The offsetting benefits from this scaleof analysis come in the form of patterns

Clearing for agriculturehas been a driving force

of deforestation in allregions; here, trees have

been destroyed for ricecultivation in Thailand

FAO

/10458/A. W

OL

STA

D


1515151515

extent of rain forests across nations; thosecountries with large rain forests are stud-ied frequently, while countries with smallforests are studied rarely. The correla-tion coefficient between the size of rainforests and the number of deforestationstudies in a country is 0.842 (p < 0.001).

Analysts also tend to study places withthe highest deforestation rates (correla-tion coefficient = 0.402, p < 0.01). Thistendency probably accounts in part forthe disproportionate – relative to forestarea – number of deforestation studiescarried out in Central America andSoutheast Asia (Table 1). The concen-trations of studies in Costa Rica (0.08percent of tropical forests, 3.66 percentof studies), Ecuador (0.70 percent offorests, 5.50 percent of studies) and thePhilippines (0.46 percent of forests, 5.19percent of studies) may be partly expli-cable in these terms. From an informa-tion management point of view, this pat-tern has the happy consequence ofproviding the most information about de-forestation processes in those places thathave had the highest rates of deforesta-tion, although there are some exceptions,notably in Central Africa.

Of course, it can be assumed that thenumber of studies in a given geographicarea is influenced by other factors be-sides forest cover and deforestation rates

– for example, ease of travel and work ina country and proximity of the region tocentres of research. For rather obviousreasons, researchers have not studiedrain-forest regions plagued by civil un-rest. For example, the search did not findany studies of deforestation trends orprocesses in Angola, Guinea-Bissau orMozambique, all nations that have ex-perienced extensive civil unrest since the1970s. In the Americas, civil unrest prob-ably explains at least in part the paucity ofdeforestation studies on Colombia rela-tive to its high rates of deforestation, ascompared with studies on nearby Ecua-dor, Panama and Costa Rica. Given theconstraints faced by field researchers inconflict areas, remote sensing studies ofdeforestation processes may have a par-ticularly important role in these settings.

Patterns in research methodologyThe research methods employed byanalysts of deforestation processes havechanged during the past two decades(Table 2). General studies drawing onsecondary sources and first-handaccounts by field researcherspredominated in the early publicationsabout the problem. From the 1980s tothe 1990s, well-funded remote sensingand survey-based studies increased infrequency, while first-hand accounts ofdeforestation processes declined innumber. The number of studies basedexclusively on secondary sources (andthus strictly speaking not generatingnew information) has also declinedsomewhat, although such studies remainnumerous (about 46 percent of publishedresearch in the 1990s).

Given the greater measurement precisionattainable through remote sensing, house-hold surveys and combinations of the two,the increased use of these methods is apositive development. The geographicaldistribution of studies based on remotesensing is relatively broad: only 27 per-

TABLE 1. Where have the studies been done?

Region Percentage of studies Percentage of tropical Mean annual deforestationforests, 1990a rate, 1981-1990a (%)

Central America 18.3 4.30 2.19

South America 36.0 48.19 0.97

West Africa 4.4 5.95 0.85

Central Africa 3.7 14.08 0.57

East Africa 8.4 8.61 0.73

South Asia 4.7 6.07 1.43

Southeast Asia 22.5 12.71 1.40

Oceania 1.9 0.09 0.20

a Data from FAO, 1993.

described below.

FINDINGSPatterns of informationThe trajectory of accumulation of infor-mation about tropical deforestation ex-hibits a recognizable pattern. Through-out the 1980s, as concern about theproblem grew, the rate of publicationalso increased, from eight publicationsin 1980 to 41 publications in 1989. Since1990 the rate of publication has remainedrelatively constant, between 45 and 60publications per year. Half of the publi-cations on tropical deforestation havecome out since 1992.

Slightly more than two thirds of thepublications on tropical deforestationhave a clear geographical referent. Theseare distributed unevenly across countries.The remaining almost one third of thepublications discuss a particular aspectof the problem in an abstract way withno geographical referent, or have a glo-bal focus.

Geographical patternsSeveral general patterns are apparent inthe geographical distribution of studiesacross the different regions containingtropical rain forests (Table 1). First, notsurprisingly, the numbers of studies aredistributed roughly in proportion to the


1616161616

on the causes of deforestation. In effectthe study represents a survey of experts,rather than a systematic comparison ofdirectly observed deforestation processes,to ascertain whether or not there are largeregional differences in the attributedcauses of deforestation and whether ornot the patterns of attributed causationhave changed over time. Therefore theresults need to be interpreted with cau-tion. They are, for example, affected bythe rate at which experts publish theirwork. The judgements of researchers whopublish more will have more weight inthis type of exercise than the judgementsof researchers who publish less. Similarly,conditions in a frequently studied coun-try such as Ecuador will count more incharacterizing regional tendencies thanwill conditions in a less studied countrysuch as Colombia. However, given thedifficulty of performing the explicit com-parative work that would be needed toproduce more comparable cross-national

TABLE 2. Tropical deforestation studies categorized by primary informationsource: trends over time (number of studies)

Decade Remote sensing Survey Field observation Secondary source Total

Pre-1980 7 7 34 40 888.0% 8.0% 38.6% 45.5% 100%

1980s 27 15 101 189 3328.2% 4.6% 30.5% 56.7% 100%

1990s 47 42 55 132 27616.7% 14.9% 19.5% 46.8% 100%

Total 81 64 190 361 69611.6% 9.2% 27.3% 51.9% 100%

TABLE 3. Regional variations in attributed causes of deforestation (number of studies citing cause)

Causes Southeast Asia South Asia East Africa Central Africa West Africa Central America South America Total

Logging 80 12 7 6 12 32 58 21237.7% 5.7% 3.3% 2.8% 5.7% 15.1% 27.4% 100%

Ranching 4 7 7 1 4 57 88 1682.4% 4.2% 4.2% 0.6% 2.4% 33.9% 52.4% 100%

Plantation 33 6 8 3 9 25 46 13225.0% 4.5% 6.1% 2.3% 6.8% 18.9% 34.8% 100%

Smallholder agriculture 77 14 27 7 14 59 102 30025.2% 4.6% 8.9% 2.3% 4.4% 19.3% 33.4% 100%

Fuelwood 18 11 23 4 4 9 12 8121.4% 13.1% 27.4% 4.8% 4.8% 10.7% 14.3% 100%

Roads 19 2 3 1 4 29 84 14213.4% 1.4% 2.1% 0.7% 2.8% 20.4% 59.2% 100%

Population increase 41 9 21 7 10 22 34 14428.3% 6.2% 14.5% 4.8% 6.9% 15.2% 23.4% 100%

Colonization programmes 33 2 3 1 3 43 100 18517.7% 1.1% 1.6% 0.5% 1.6% 23.1% 53.8% 100%

Market expansion 28 4 11 3 4 27 44 12123.0% 3.3% 9.0% 2.5% 3.3% 22.1% 36.1% 100%

Public policy 54 8 16 3 5 41 90 21724.8% 3.7% 7.3% 1.4% 2.3% 18.8% 41.3% 100%

Total 128 27 48 22 25 106 207 563a

22.3% 4.7% 8.4% 3.8% 4.4% 18.5% 36.1% 100%

a The total includes only those studies that have a clear geographical referent.

cent of them concern Brazil, while signifi-cant numbers have been carried out inEcuador, Madagascar and the Philippines.

Patterns of analysis: causes ofdeforestationThe survey of the tropical deforestationliterature had two purposes: to describethe knowledge base that has accumulatedover the years and to describe the pat-terns of causation that prevail in the lit-erature. Tables 3 and 4 display the data


1717171717

TABLE 4. Trends over time in attributed causes of deforestation(number of studies citing cause)

Cause Pre-1980 1980s 1990s Total

Smallholder agriculture 56 193 150 399

Logging 41 149 123 313

Ranching 36 123 72 231

Colonization 37 122 67 226

Population 27 105 83 215

Plantations 28 83 68 179

Market expansion 17 79 81 177

Roads 27 80 66 173

Fuelwood 11 77 52 140

Debt 0 28 18 46

Total 88 335 268 691

and cross-continental results, the methodused here may have some value.

Some analysts have observed that thecauses of tropical deforestation vary dra-matically by region (Rudel and Roper,1996). Table 3 explores this possibilityby cross-tabulating the attributed causesof deforestation by the region in whichthe studies took place. When the percent-age row for a particular cause deviatessignificantly from the percentage row atthe base of the table (the distribution ofstudies by region), the results imply thatthat particular cause is perceived as moreimportant in some regions than in oth-ers.

Thus the literature indicates a dispro-portionate influence of logging on thedeforestation processes in SoutheastAsia, while deforestation in the arid andpopulous regions of East Africa andSouth Asia seems to have been drivenparticularly by demand for fuelwood.Population increase seems to drive de-forestation to a greater extent in Africaand Asia than it does in Latin America.Colonization programmes, associatedroad building and an expansion in cattleranching have apparently induced peo-ple to clear tropical forests in LatinAmerica. Smallholder agriculture, plan-tations, market expansion and publicpolicy seem to operate with equal inten-sity as driving factors in all the regions.

Table 4 explores the degree to whichthe citing of factors driving tropical de-forestation has changed over time. Anumber of factors appear to remain es-sentially unchanged. Logging, plantationexpansion, smallholder agriculture, roadbuilding, population increase and de-mand for fuelwood were cited as fre-quently in studies from the 1990s as instudies from before 1980. Several fac-tors that are particularly operative in LatinAmerica, for example ranching, appearto have become less important over time.This change may reflect a slowing of the

Construction of roadsand bridges wasidentified as animportant factor indeforestation in LatinAmerica, as picturedhere in the EcuadorianAmazon

T. R

UD

EL


1818181818

expansion of cattle ranching into theforest when Brazil cut subsidies for en-terprises in the Amazon basin in the late1980s (Browder, 1994) – or at least awaning of researchers’ interest in study-ing the subject.

Table 4 suggests that two factors asso-ciated with globalization have grown inimportance. More researchers in the1990s cited the spatial expansion ofmarkets (through growth in urbanpopulations, improvements in transpor-tation and the search for raw materials inmore remote settings) as a cause of de-forestation. In addition, the increasedforeign debt which has resulted in struc-tural adjustment agreements has led to arenewed emphasis on the expansion ofexport crops at the expense of the forest(Kaimowitz, Thiele and Pacheco, 1999).It is of course difficult to know whetherthese changes in patterns of attributionrepresent real changes in the relative sig-nificance of causes or just changes in thesalience of these factors in the research-ers’ minds. More detailed work on re-gion-specific changes in the relativeimportance of the different causal fac-tors may help answer this question.

CONCLUSIONThe research described in this articleshows that many scientific studies ontropical deforestation are available, butthey are unevenly distributed geographi-cally. Central America and SoutheastAsia receive disproportionate amountsof attention, whereas Central Africa re-ceives little attention. Places with highdeforestation rates are studied more fre-quently, but places with significantamounts of political unrest are studiedless frequently.

Trends in the scientific literature ontropical deforestation seem both prob-lematic and promising. The uneven geo-graphical distribution of studies acrossregions persists and hampers efforts to

monitor deforestation. At the same time,the spread of reliable remote sensing andhousehold survey methods for measur-ing deforestation promises increasedunderstanding of the phenomenon.Taken together, these points highlight aninformation management opportunity.By publicizing the unevenness in infor-mation about tropical deforestationacross nations, FAO hopes to induceresearchers to carry out studies that mightclose the analytic gaps and in so doingimprove efforts to monitor changes intropical forest cover. �

Bibliography

Browder, J. 1994. Surviving in Rondonia:

the dynamics of colonist farming strategies

in Brazil’s northwest frontier. Studies in

Comparative International Development,

29(3): 45-60.

FAO. 1993. Forest Resources Assessment –

1990: tropical countries. FAO Forestry

Paper No. 112. Rome.

Kaimowitz, D., Thiele, G. & Pacheco, P.1999. The effects of structural adjustment

on deforestation and forest degradation in

lowland Bolivia. World Development,

27(3): 505-520.

Rudel, T. & Roper, J. 1996. Regional

patterns and historical trends in tropical

deforestation: a qualitative comparative

analysis. Ambio, 25: 160-66. �


1919191919

Forest law in eastern and southern Africa: movingtowards a community-based forest future?

L. Alden Wily

As the twentieth century drew toa close, many States in easternand southern Africa had ac-

knowledged shortcomings in their poli-cies for forest management and had be-gun to implement new national forestpolicies and to enact new forest laws.The changes amount to a significant waveof reform.

South Africa, Lesotho, Mozambique,Zanzibar (United Republic of Tanza-nia), Zambia and Malawi have promul-gated new forest acts since 1997.Kenya, mainland Tanzania and Namibiahave new forest laws in draft. Ethiopia,Swaziland and Uganda are finalizingnational forestry policies and intend tofollow them with new legislation (seeTable).

This article focuses on how the newlaws provide for the involvement of peo-ple who live within or adjacent to natu-ral forests in determining the future ofthe forest. These forest communities aregenerally rural, poor and dependent onforests (predominantly woodland, domi-nated by the miombo type) as integral totheir agricultural or pastoral livelihood.The extent to which their land base in-cludes rights over local forest is a matterof increasing concern to such communi-ties.

REGIONAL CONTEXTA devolutionary trendThe recent changes in forest policy andlaws need to be seen in the context ofwider shifts in development strategies inthe region. First, a trend towards glo-balization is leading many States in theregion to make legal and policy adjust-ments, particularly in the way they han-dle water and flora and fauna resources.Second, a sociopolitical trend towardsdemocratization, although being realizedunevenly, is broadly introducing civilsociety more fully into the governanceof society and its resources (Alden Wily,2000a). This latter trend is finding corelegal expression in the drafting of newconstitutions and a gradual expansion oflocal governance regimes.

Land reformA trend that has had even more directeffects on forest strategies is a movementtowards land reform, with all but one ortwo States in the region changing thepolicy and legal foundation of rights overland (Alden Wily and Mbaya, 2000). In-dividuals and communities are gaining agreater role in the regulation of land rightswith the creation of devolved bodies foradministration and land dispute resolu-tion.

Liz Alden Wily is an independentland tenure and community forestmanagement specialist in EastAfrica.

An examination of trends in newforest law in eastern and southernAfrica towards involvingcommunities in determining andmanaging the future of forests.

Uganda has given legalrecognition to customary

tenure regimes and therights that arise from

these, enabling forest-adjacent people to benefit

from local forestresources; here, rattan

cane is used in local small-scale furniture industry

FAO

CO

MM

UN

ITY

FOR

EST

RY

UN

IT/C

FU000334/R

. FAID

UT

TI


2020202020

New or proposed forest laws, policies, authorities and reserves

Country New or proposed New or proposed Proposed core authority New or proposed classesnational forest policy forest statute of reserved forests

Uganda

Kenya

Tanzania(mainland)

Zanzibar

Ethiopia

Malawi

Zimbabwe

South Africa

Zambia

Lesotho

Namibia

Mozambique

Swaziland

Botswana

Central ForestsLocal ForestsPrivate ForestsVillage ForestsCommunity Forests

State Forest ReservesLocal Authority ReservesArboretaRecreation ParksMini-ForestsPrivate Forests

National Forest ReservesLocal Authority ReservesVillage Land Forest ReservesCommunity Forest ReservesPrivate Forests

Forest ReservesNature ReservesCommunity ForestManagement Areas

National Priority Forest AreasPrivate Forests

Forest ReservesVillage Forest Areas

Demarcated ForestsNature ReservesPrivate Protected Forests

Forest Nature ReservesForest Wilderness AreasNational ParksProvincial ReservesState ForestsPrivate Forests

National ForestsLocal ForestsJoint Forest Management Areas

Forest ReservesPrivate ForestsCommunity ForestsCooperative Forests

State Forest ReservesRegional Forest ReservesCommunity ForestsNature Reserves

National ParksNational ReservesAreas of Historical and CulturalValue

Indigenous ForestsPrivate Forests

Forest Reserves

Forestry Policy, 2000(draft)

Forest Policy, 1999

National Forest Policy,1998

Forest Policy, 1995

Federal Forest Policy,1998 (draft)

National Forest Policy,1996

Forest Policy (draft)

Sustainable ForestDevelopment In SouthAfrica, 1996

National Forestry Policy,1998

National Forestry Policy,1997

Forest Policy, 1998

Forest Policy (draft), 2000

To be drafted in 2000 toreplace Forest Act Cap. 246(1964)

Forestry Bill, April 2000(second draft) to replaceForests Act Cap. 385 (1962)

Forest Bill, January 2000(third draft) to replace ForestOrdinance Cap. 389 (1957)

Forest ResourcesManagement andConservation Act, 1996

Forestry Conservation.Development and UtilizationProclamation, 1994

Forestry Act, 1997

Forest Act Cap. 19:05

National Forests Act, 1998

Forestry Act, 1999

Forestry Act, 1998

Forest Bill, 2000

Forest and Wildlife Act, 1999

Forests Preservation Act,1910Natural Resources Act,1951Private Forests Act, 1961

Forest Act Cap. 38:04 (1968)

Semi-autonomousNational ForestryAuthority with governmentand non-governmentrepresentation

Semi-autonomous KenyaForest Service withmultisectoral ManagementBoard proposed

Semi-autonomousExecutive Agenciesat national, regional ordistrict levels with NationalForestry Advisory Council,including non-governmentrepresentation

Forestry Administrator(Government)

Natural ResourcesDepartment, Ministry ofAgriculture

Forestry Department,Ministry of NaturalResources, with ForestryManagement Board includingthree to five members of thepublic

Parastatal ForestryCommission (1954)

Department of WaterAffairs and Forestry,with National ForestsAdvisory Council,mainly non-governmentmembers

Semi-autonomous ForestryCommission

Forestry Department

Directorate of Forestry,Ministry of Environmentand Tourism, with ForestryCouncil, some publicrepresentation

Forestry and WildlifeDepartment, Ministry ofAgriculture

Forestry Section,Ministry of Agriculture andCooperatives

Ministry of Agriculture


2121212121

Furthermore, some countries (Tanza-nia, Uganda and Mozambique) havegiven legal recognition to customary ten-ure regimes and the rights that arise fromthese, and others (South Africa, Malawiand Zimbabwe) are considering compa-rable proposals. One of the more radicalresults is an increase in the status of com-munal property rights in national law,with communal landholding modifiedinto registrable “common private prop-erty” (Alden Wily, 2000b). An entirelynew class of landownership,“commonholding”, is beginning to ap-pear.

The implications of these changes forcommunity rights over local forest landare considerable. Forest communities,which over the course of a century hadlost their most valuable forests throughthe creation of State reserves or throughsubdivision among individuals, are gain-ing a real opportunity to secure their re-maining common forest resources inentitlements that are registrable andjusticiable.

A less pronounced but supporting shiftis found in the widespread redefinitionof reserves and other government landsas property held by governments as trus-tees, not as private proprietors. Amongother effects, these changes require thatnew forestry laws reframe the proceduresfor creating and revoking forest reserves,to feature greater accountability and al-ternative avenues for obtaining forestjurisdiction (Alden Wily and Mbaya,2000).

PROVIDING FOR COMMUNITYINVOLVEMENT IN NEW FORESTLAWThe following examination centres firston the extent to which new forest lawprovides for communities to own forests,and second on the legal foundations beingprovided to allow them to manage for-ests, irrespective of forest ownership.

Forest ownership: widening the rangeof reserves and accountable ownersForest policy-makers have begun to ex-press doubts about State ownership ofvaluable forest lands, partly because ofthe recognition that many States havefailed to protect the forests under theirownership and jurisdiction. State foresttenure has often been realized as virtualopen access, and devolving public own-ership to more local and more narrowlydefined agencies may provide better man-agement and greater accountability.Ownership provides a secure foundationfor management regimes which is noteasy to obtain where management re-sponsibility is premised on a potentiallytransient set of access rights or a share inforest benefits.

The act of protecting a forest by settingit aside as a forest reserve remains strik-ingly intact in the new laws, irrespectiveof who creates or owns the reserve.Reservation is retained as a legally bind-ing act which designates the forest landas thereafter dedicated to the purposesof forestry, to remain (or become) per-manent forest.

Accordingly, many of the new lawsprovide for the removal of the forest fromowners or custodians that fail to sustainthis commitment. Where the owner orcustodian is to be a legal entity such as aForest Association (Kenya), a VillageCouncil (Tanzania), a non-governmen-tal organization (NGO), a Local Author-ity (Uganda), a trust or a CommunalProperty Association (South Africa) or aprivate company (Zambia), the potentialfor the owner to be sued for failure tosustain the forest is implicitly ensured.

In terms of core authority over forestmatters, some shift is being seen towardsmore public involvement (see Table).Many of the new laws enhance the op-portunity for privatization of commer-cial plantation forest estates, throughdirect sale or lease on certain conditions

or through concessions. Private sectorand non-governmental interests may alsobecome forest owners in some circum-stances, sometimes through the creationof forest conservancies. The most radi-cal provisions in new forest law, how-ever, are those that include forest com-munities as potential forest owners.

Devolving government forests to thecommunity levelLesotho. A main objective of the Na-tional Forestry Policy, 1997, and theForestry Act, 1998, is the divestment ofState Forest Reserves to the local level.

The Forestry Act states that after con-sulting with the appropriate local author-ity, the Chief Forestry Officer “shalladvise the Minister on the transfer ofownership, control and management ofany forest reserve to individuals, groupsof individuals, communities, organiza-tions or cooperatives”. Transfer will beembodied in a written agreement “bind-ing on both the parties and shall providethat the Minister shall have a right toreclaim the forest reserve if the said agree-ment is breached materially” [Section11]. Liremo and matsema, small naturalforest groves and woodlots previouslyvested in the Basotho Nation and givento local chiefs to administer, will now bedeclared Community Forests.

South Africa. Two key thrusts of theNational Forest Policy, 1996, and theNational Forests Act, 1998, are towardsthe privatization of commercial planta-tion estates and towards community in-volvement in relation to the remainderof reserved and unreserved estates,mainly dry woodland. Constitutionalcommitments to the restitution of landslost through racially discriminatory laws(1996) have had increasing influence onthe strategies adopted. Thus while theNational Forest Policy pledges to “ex-amine whether restoration is feasible”,


2222222222

the new forest law makes direct provi-sion for the return of many State forests,of which a good number are subject torestitution claims.

The law notes Communal PropertyAssociations as a likely framework intowhich such forests could be divested. Inpractice, however, this new construct hasnot been widely adopted for this or othercommon property developments(McIntosh et al., 1999). Interest is turn-ing to arrangements whereby new com-munity owners lease the forest back tothe State or private sector interests tomanage. Such arrangements alreadyoperate in respect of several wildlife re-source areas, e.g. Richtersveld NationalPark, owned by local people but man-aged by the Parks Authority.

Zambia. The Forests Act, 1999, providesa relatively oblique opportunity for com-munities to resecure forests. Sections 15and 23 permit the issue of rights, title orinterests in National Forests and LocalForests, respectively, although “subjectto terms and conditions”. These wouldalmost certainly require that the forestbe maintained intact and used for for-estry purposes.

Mainland Tanzania. Land and forestmatters are not union matters in theUnited Republic of Tanzania; mainlandTanzania and Zanzibar make their ownpolicies and laws on these matters. Inmainland Tanzania, the draft Forest Bill,2000 (soon to enter its fourth and finaldraft) gives the Minister for NaturalResources and the Environment thepower to alter the status of a National orLocal Authority Forest Reserve “to be-come a Village or Community ForestReserve” [Clause 36]. This provisiongains direct support from new land law(the Land Act, 1999) which sets out pro-cedures through which land may be re-moved from the general or government

class of land into Village Lands. VillageCouncils and community groups (amongothers) may also apply to lease a Gov-ernment Reserve [Clause 27].

Kenya. The second draft of the ForestsBill (April 2000) provides opportunitiesto lease plantations within Forest Re-serves for renewable periods of up to 66years, although communities that haveformed Forest Associations may onlyseek to lease those that are within LocalAuthority Forests, held by County Coun-cils as trust lands.

Uganda. In contrast with the situation inKenya, Uganda’s new Constitution(1995) and Land Act, 1998, forbid thelease or sale of forests or other lands heldin trust as reserves. However, they pro-vide for this trust to be devolved to localgovernments, which in Uganda includenot only District Councils but alsoSubcounty Councils and, in a less de-fined manner, Parish and Village Coun-cils (Local Government Act, 1997).Moreover, the Land Act, 1998, makes itclear that a community may seek to havethe status of a reserved area reviewedand potentially brought under its ownimmediate tenure and jurisdiction, andindicates that this is a condition for whichforest and wildlife laws should makedirect provision [Section 45].

Other countries in the region. In Mo-zambique, Malawi, Namibia, Zanzibar(United Republic of Tanzania) andEthiopia no provision is made for thedivestment of Forest Reserves from Stateto community. Indeed, in Namibia, theForest Bill, 1998, proposed that StateForest Reserves and Regional ForestReserves would also be creatable out oflocal communal lands, albeit subject tolocal consultation, and only when theMinister for the Environment and Tour-ism is satisfied that “effective manage-

ment cannot be achieved through man-agement of that communal land as a com-munity forest” [Clauses 13 and 14].

Providing for communities to createtheir own reservesMore generous provision is being madeto enable local groups of citizens to cre-ate their own “forest reserves” out of asyet unreserved lands. A common objec-tive among countries in the region is tobring as much as possible of these for-ests, often previously denigrated drywoodlands, under clear protection.

United Republic of Tanzania. A newforest act in Zanzibar (1996) has made itpossible for communities to form groupsto apply to create a Community ForestManagement Area from an alreadyreserved or unreserved forest area. In thelatter case, such groups could establishthemselves as the owner of the forest.

The subsequent mainland NationalForest Policy of Tanzania (1998) made amuch clearer commitment to bring asmuch as possible of the 19 million hec-tares of unreserved woodlands on themainland under clear and mainly localownership, as village forest reserves. Thedraft Forest Bill elaborates the proce-dures by which whole villages or sub-groups of village communities may re-spectively create Village Land ForestReserves or Community Forest Reserves.These assume village-based communaltenure (provided for in the Village LandAct, 1999) or, in the case of CommunityForest Reserves, ownership by the mem-bers of the group.

These opportunities build directly onexisting new practice in Tanzania, where500 or more communities, village sub-groups and sometimes extended house-holds have established reserves (ofwhich only one is nationally gazetted)on some 300 000 ha of mainly miombowoodlands (Alden Wily, 2000c). The


2323232323

speed of this development has encour-aged those responsible for drafting thenew forest law to make provision for adevolved form of gazettement, with theestablishment of a Register of Forests inevery district. In one district alone, morethan 200 local reserves have been infor-mally registered, prior to the enactmentof the new law (Alden Wily, 2000c).

Mozambique. The new Forest and Wild-life Act, 1999, allows for communities tocreate their own forest reserves in the formof Areas of Historical and Cultural Value[Article 10], a construct which accuratelydescribes the limitations of purposes forwhich these may be declared and used[Article 13]. Communities are namedamong those who may apply for “simplepermits” or “concessions” (for periods ofup to 50 years) over other unreservedforest areas [Articles 15 and 16].

Malawi. Part V of the Forestry Act, 1997,deals with the creation of what are termedVillage Forest Areas, to be demarcatedfrom customarily held lands. While thesewill be forests of poorer type, conditionand value than those coopted into StateForest Reserves, they remain importantto local people. The tenurial status ofVillage Forest Areas is ambiguous in theforest law, but the Commission of In-quiry into Land Matters (1999) has pro-posed a new basic land act which mayeventually allow for these areas to beheld as registered common property. Thiswould be similar to provisions that havebeen made by new land laws in Tanza-nia, Uganda and Mozambique.

Lesotho. The forest law provides forPrivate, Community and CooperativeForests to be created from lands allocatedor leased from government, with theholder of the land guaranteed recogni-tion as owner [Section 17]. A growingproportion of Lesotho’s land area is

leased. The law provides that if asked toassist in the management of local for-ests, the Forestry Department may chargefor its services, emphasizing the inten-tion to see the department evolve as aservice rather than a forest-owning ormanaging agency.

Namibia. The most radical propositionof Namibia’s draft forest law is to pro-vide for Community Forests to be cre-ated from communal lands. Four vastmopane woodland areas originally de-marcated as State Forests are now ear-marked for this purpose. The exact termsunder which communities will be re-garded as their owners remains to bedecided. A Communal Lands ReformBill was rejected by the National Coun-cil in March 2000 and returned to thegovernment for redrafting. One of itsmain shortcomings was its failure to pro-vide means for securing grazing lands,woodlands and other such local commu-nal properties as registered commonholdentitlements; instead, these propertieswould have been freely available forindividual lease, and not necessarily bylocal inhabitants or customary owners.

Kenya. Most of the country’s millions ofhectares of unreserved dry woodlands

are under County Council trust, held onbehalf of pastoralists. A provision to al-low communities to secure at least re-sidual forests unwanted by the State astheir own reserves was deleted from thesecond draft of the Forests Bill. Theterms of reference of the recently cre-ated Commission of Inquiry into LandLaw Matters (1999) suggest that thedevelopment of commonhold tenure mayemerge from the commission’s consid-erations, as has been the case with theMalawi Commission of Inquiry into LandTenure (Alden Wily, 2000b).

Uganda. Uganda is still finalizing itsnew Forest Policy and has not yet begunto develop a new forest law. The newpolicy establishes a notion of a perma-nent forest estate which includes bothGovernment and Non-Government For-est Reserves. The former will include theexisting 1 million hectares of CentralForests and some 192 Local Forests al-

Most of Kenya’smillions of hectares

of unreserved drywoodlands are underCounty Council trust,

held on behalf ofpastoralists

FAO

/112

87


2424242424

ready devolved to District Councils inline with national decentralization com-mitments (1997). The latter reserves willinclude those created by NGOs, privatepersons and especially communities. Theconstruct of Community Forests is likelyto emerge in future forest law.

Zambia. The capacity for communitiesto create and declare their own forestreserves is not provided in Zambian law.The Forest Act instead provides for com-munities to involve the State in the man-agement and regulation of their own lo-cal forests and to participate in themanagement of the lesser class of gov-ernment reserves, Local Forests, throughdeclaration of a Joint Forest ManagementArea [Section 25].

Communities as forest managersLegal provision for communities to beinvolved in the management of forests isalso common but is unevenly treated inthe new laws. Some laws provide forcommunities to act as autonomous ordesignated managers, while others fore-see them as peripherally involved inmanagement and decision-making.

Zambia. The Forest Act proposescommunity involvement only in thecontext of Joint Forest ManagementCommittees which manage the JointForest Management Areas mentionedabove. These committees are required toinclude only three representatives fromlocal communities, among a much largercohort of local and central governmentrepresentatives [Section 26]. Noprovision is made for local people toparticipate in the management ofNational Forests.

Namibia. The Forest Bill encourageslocal involvement in State and RegionalForest Reserves only to the extent ofrequiring that adjacent communities be

consulted during the formulation ofManagement Plans [Clause 12]. Com-munity Forests are not necessarily to bemanaged by the local community, but bya body that “the Minister reasonablybelieves represents the interests of thepersons who have rights over the com-munal land and is willing and able tomanage the communal land as a commu-nity forest” [Clause 15]. A number ofthe gazetted wildlife conservancy initia-tives are in fact managed by NGO orprivate-sector interests, with local peo-ple participating only as beneficiaries ofaccess, employment opportunities and/or a share of revenue generated in thearea (Jones, 1999).

Mozambique. The Land Act, 1997, dem-onstrates a commitment to local partici-pation in determining the future of natu-ral resources [Article 21]. The Forest andWildlife Act, 1999, permits the State todelegate its all-embracing forest manage-ment powers to local communities aswell as to the private sector and associa-tions [Article 33]. In addition, the lawcreates a new type of forum, Local Re-source Management Councils, designedto include representation from the localcommunity. The mandate of these localcouncils specifies that the main purpose

of community involvement is to ensure“participation in the exploitation of re-sources and in the benefits generatedthrough such utilization” [Article 31].

This benefit-sharing orientation buildson early community forestry projects.Several newer initiatives are more con-cerned to root local involvement in com-munity-based management regimes(Alden Wily and Mbaya, 2000; Anstey,2000). This principle is amply providedfor in the Land Act, but its delivery inpractice is proving difficult because ofthe high costs of entitlement, the frag-mentation of communities after years ofdislocation and a deficiency of demo-cratic local-level socio-institutional or-ganization (Kloeck-Jenson, 1999).

South Africa. The new Forest Policy andlaw make specific commitments to localcommunity participation in the manage-ment of all kinds of forest. The National

A mangrove forest inMozambique, where

the Forest andWildlife Act, 1999,

permits the State todelegate its all-

embracing forestmanagement powersto local communities

FAO

CO

MM

UN

ITY

FO

RE

STR

Y U

NIT

/CFU

0002

32/R

. FA

IDU

TT

I


2525252525

CONCLUSION: DEVOLVINGPOWERS OF MANAGEMENTNew provisions for the involvement ofcitizens in the future of forests in easternand southern Africa vary widely: from atotal lack of provision in Zimbabwe andBotswana, to ambivalent provision inZambia and Kenya, to generous provi-sion in Lesotho, Namibia, Zanzibar andmainland Tanzania.

Mainland Tanzania has the most de-veloped community forest jurisdiction inthe region – in policy, upcoming law andpractice. The new Tanzania law clearlysets out the local powers and responsi-bilities of Forest Management Commit-tees, the instruments with which theymay enforce the management regimesthey devise and the mechanisms formaking forest managers accountable, notjust to national interests but to their ownconstituents – ordinary citizens in thelocal area.

In this respect, the Tanzania forest lawdraws extensively on the considerablepowers already vested in elected village

Forests Act (1998) permits communitiesto apply or be invited to manage a StateForest “or any other protected forest area,jointly with an organ of State or alone”[Section 29]. The Minister may enter anagreement with the community [Section30]. The national policy explicitly sup-ports community-based forest manage-ment of the large area of woodlands andbushlands that are in former homelandareas, but does not develop frameworksfor this.

Malawi. Although rural people are notpermitted to resecure or acquire nationalForest Reserves, new policy and law ismuch more encouraging of their involve-ment in the protection, management anduse of the same forests. The Forestry Actencourages the Director of Forestry toenter into agreement with local commu-nities “for implementing managementplans mutually acceptable to both par-ties” [Section 25]. Communities may,among other things, seek to use bare ordegraded parts of the reserves for treeplanting programmes, with their owner-ship of the trees ensured [Sections 36and 37]. Local management of VillageForest Areas is assumed, although thelaw makes it difficult for a village headand the community to declare such anarea without an agreement with the For-est Department [Section 31].

United Republic of Tanzania. As notedabove, the 1996 Forest Resources Man-agement and Conservation Act of Zan-zibar encourages communities to formCommunity Forest Management Groupswhich may seek to manage any kind offorest [Section 36]. As independent le-gal entities, these groups may be grantedenforcement powers through agreementwith the Forest Administrator, and theymay be sued if they breach the terms ofagreement. Several groups already man-age state and local mangrove forests

through this mechanism (Alden Wily andMbaya, 2000).

The most pronounced intention to per-mit local people to become forest manag-ers is provided in the upcoming mainlandForest Bill of Tanzania. The law explic-itly states the objective to devolve forestmanagement to “the lowest possible level”[Clause 3]. Management Plans, requiredfor all Forest Reserves, must specify howforest-adjacent communities will be in-volved [Clauses 17 to 19]. Local commu-nities may apply to manage either Nationalor Local Government Forest Reserves[Clauses 34 and 36], as autonomousmanagers or as comanagers with the gov-ernment. A reserve managed under a JointManagement Agreement will be declareda Village Forest Management Area, asdistinct from Village Land Forest Re-serves, where communities are owner-managers. In Village Land Forest Re-serves, government foresters are boundto offer guidance to which villagers mustpay due regard, yet “without being re-quired to comply” [Clause 41].

Mainland Tanzania hasthe most developed

community forestjurisdiction in the

region, which gives thelocal community

powers to manage theresources within its

local sphere

FAO

/17691/A. C

ON

TI


2626262626

governments, including the right topromulgate by-laws which are bindingon all persons seeking to enter or use thecommunity-managed forests, not just onmembers of the community (Alden Wily,2000c). The draft Forest Bill introducesthese village by-laws as an instrument ofmanagement by communities, to be usedeven when communities manage gov-ernment-owned reserves.

It appears that one of the reasons forthe rapid advance of community-basedforest management in Tanzania is thisfoundation in which the local commu-nity is precisely identified, endowedwith a socio-institutional form supportedin law and given powers to manage it-self and the resources within its localsphere or mandated into its care. Lesothoand Uganda, with more recent laws ex-tending governance to the grassroots(1996 and 1997, respectively), have thebeginnings of a comparable foundationon which to develop local forest man-agement powers.

The forest laws of other States in theregion reflect the absence of this foun-dation. Some have sought to overcomethe lack by creating new institutions intheir new or proposed forest laws – For-est Associations in Kenya, ManagementAuthorities in Namibia, Joint ForestManagement Committees in Zambia,Village Natural Resource ManagementCommittees in Malawi and Local Re-source Management Councils in Mo-zambique. South African forest law lookstentatively to Communal Property As-sociations or trusts. All of these institu-tions are insufficiently defined in the lawsand are unlikely to acquire significantpowers to enforce management deci-sions. Except in Malawi, these agenciesare not even necessarily communitybased.

Ultimately, the provision of such pow-ers and authority will determine whetherlocal communities will be mere coop-

erators in State-directed management ordefenders and managers of forests in theirown right. Forest law will almost cer-tainly have to encourage stronger localgovernment law if community manage-ment is to be realized in more than inci-dental ways. �

Bibliography

Alden Wily, L. 2000a. Land tenure reform

and the balance of power in eastern and

southern Africa. Natural Resource

Perspectives, No. 58, June 2000. London,

Overseas Development Institute.

Alden Wily, L. 2000b. Reconstructing the

African commons through the

modernization of customary tenure. Paper

presented to the Eighth Biennial Conference

of the International Association for the

Study of Common Property, Bloomington,

Indiana, 29 May-4 June 2000.

Alden Wily, L. 2000c. The evolution of

community-based forest management in

Tanzania. In Participatory forest

management – a strategy for sustainable

forest management in Africa. Proceedings

of the International Workshop on

Community Forestry in Africa, Banjul, the

Gambia, 26-30 April 1999. Rome, FAO.

Alden Wily, L. & Mbaya, S. 2000. Land,

people and forests in the 21st century. The

impact of land relations on the role of

communities in the future of forests in

eastern and southern Africa. IUCN and

Natural Resources Institute, UK. (in press)

Anstey, S. 2000. History matters: institutional

change and CBNRM in Sanga District,

northern Mozambique. Paper presented to

the Eighth Biennial Conference of the

International Association for the Study of

Common Property, Bloomington, Indiana,

29 May-4 June 2000.

Jones, B.T. 1999 Community management of

natural resources in Namibia. Issue Paper

No. 90. London, IIED.

Kloeck-Jenson, S. 1999. Locating the

community: administration of natural

resources in Mozambique. Land Tenure

Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison,

Madison.

McIntosh, A., Barnard, J., Wellman, G.,Vaughan, A., Sejake, S., Cliffe, L. &Palmer, R. 1999. Review of the Land

Reform Support Programme for Department

of Land Affairs, DFID, EU and Danida.

Pretoria. �


2727272727

Management of forest genetic resources: status andchallenges1

C. Palmberg-Lerche and S. Hald

Forests are arguably the single mostimportant repositories of terres-trial biological diversity. Forest

trees and woody plants help support thelife of a wide range of other organisms.Since they are long-lived, outbreeding,generally highly heterozygous and of-ten found in variable environments, manyhave developed complex mechanisms tomaintain high intraspecific diversity.Genetic variation is needed to ensure thatspecies evolve and adapt to dynamicallychanging environmental conditions. It isalso needed to maintain the potential forimprovement to meet changing humanneeds and end-use requirements. Thecontinued ability of forest trees to pro-vide goods and services thus depends onthe maintenance and management offorest genetic resources.

This article describes work carried outat the international level in the field offorest genetic resources. It points to theurgency to translate general principlesand international agreements into opera-tional national programmes for wisemanagement of these valuable resources;to the need to review national forestgenetic resources programmes within theframework of regional plans and activi-ties; and to the desirability of develop-ing action-oriented, country-drivenframeworks to ensure complementarityof action at the global level. Special ref-erence is made to regional andsubregional workshops recently sup-ported by FAO and international andnational partners to facilitate the devel-opment of action plans for the conserva-tion and sustainable use of forest geneticresources.

MANAGEMENT OF FORESTGENETIC RESOURCESFor most agricultural crops, geneticdiversity can be sampled, collected andrelatively easily stored and conserved inseed banks. In contrast, the long-term

storage, maintenance and regenerationof collections of forest tree seeds presenta number of problems.

Forest genetic resources are most com-monly stored, in the long term, in livingtrees. Variations in forest cover, qualityand composition have direct and deci-sive impacts on the extent and patternsof genetic variation in forest trees.Threats to the integrity of forest geneticresources include deforestation resultingfrom changes in land use, forest habitatdegradation and alteration, inappropri-ate forest harvesting practices, and at-mospheric pollution and climate fluctua-tions and change. In most regions of theworld, these threats have increased inrecent decades.

Genetically diversified localpopulations, which may possess valu-able attributes, are further threatened byintroduction of non-local forestgermplasm for forest plantation estab-lishment, which may lead to hybridiza-tion of local and introduced gene poolsand to various degrees of loss of localadaptation in subsequent tree genera-tions.

The aims of genetic management are tosafeguard the evolutionary potential ofecosystems and species and to ensure theenhancement and sustainable utilizationof the genetic variation available to meetpresent and future human needs. Thespecific objectives of genetic manage-ment will change over time, as environ-

Christel Palmberg-Lerche andSøren Hald are officers in theForest Resources DevelopmentService, FAO Forestry Department.

International and regionalactivities provide importantsupport to national efforts toensure conservation andsustainable use of forest geneticresources.

1 This article is based on the paper “Internationalaction in the management of forest geneticresources: status and challenges”, prepared forthe XXI IUFRO World Congress, Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia, August 2000. For further informationon interregional action in forest geneticresources, including the regional andsubregional action plans referred to in the article,see the FAO forest genetic resources homepage(www.fao.org/forestry/FOR/FORM/FOGENRES/homepage/fogene-e.stm) and backissues of the FAO annual news bulletin ForestGenetic Resources.

Seed collection forprovenance testingon dry-zone poplarPopulus simonii inInner Mongolia, China

P. SIGA

UD


2828282828

mental, economic and social conditionsand requirements continually shift. At-tention should therefore be given notonly to those tree species, populationsand genetic traits that are considereduseful today, but also to those of poten-tial future economic, social and environ-mental value.

Since it is possible to conserve an eco-system and still lose specific species, orto conserve a species and lose geneti-cally distinct populations, genes or genecomplexes that may be of future value, itis important to specify clearly, at theoutset, the level or levels targeted. Deci-sions regarding strategies and method-ologies of conservation and geneticmanagement will depend not only on thebiological characteristics, genetic varia-tion and variation patterns of a givenspecies, but also on the degree of knowl-edge available regarding its silvicultureand management; its present use, impor-tance and uniqueness; perceived threats;and, quite decisively, the institutionalcapacities in the countries directly con-cerned, including infrastructure andavailability of medium- and long-termfunding.

The two main strategies for the conser-vation of genetic resources, in situ andex situ conservation, complement oneanother. In situ conservation is the main-tenance of a population in its natural ororiginal habitat, within the communityof which it forms a part. In practice, insitu conservation of forest genetic re-sources is carried out in forests experi-encing varying degrees of human inter-vention, from strict protection to intensivemanagement for specified goods andservices.

Ex situ conservation includes conser-vation as seed, pollen or tissue, and con-servation of genetic materials in livecollections such as plantations, arboretaand clone banks, or in especially estab-lished ex situ conservation stands.

NATIONAL PROGRAMMESMany countries have elaborated nationalpolicies or special programmes for theconservation of biological diversity, in-cluding forest biological diversity andforest genetic resources. Growing atten-tion to conservation reflects increasingconcern about human-induced alterationsin forests and the long-term maintenanceof the health and overall productivity offorests and forest ecosystems.

The preamble of the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD), adopted in1992, affirms that States have sovereignrights over their own biological re-sources, and that they are responsible forconserving their biological diversity andfor using their biological resources in asustainable manner.

National policies and programmes re-lating to forest genetic resources maycover a wide range of activities, fromconservation measures taken to protectrare and endangered species andpopulations, to regulations governingseed collection and transfer in socio-eco-nomically important tree species, to com-prehensive approaches to the manage-ment of ecosystems and forest geneticresources. Countries are increasinglyrecognizing the cross-sectoral nature ofconservation programmes and the impor-tance of integrated strategic approachesto conservation.

The management of an appropriatecombination of genetic resources areasin a range of locations under diverseenvironmental, institutional andsilvicultural conditions is the most effi-cient way to conserve various levels ofgenetic variation and overcome risks.However, the variety of types of fieldrepository of genetic resources (includ-ing nature reserves and other protectedareas; private and publicly owned, man-aged and unmanaged, natural forests andplantations; trees outside forests man-aged in agroforestry systems and grow-ing on homesteads and along rivers androads; arboreta and botanic gardens; andfield trials established within the frame-work of selection and tree improvementprogrammes) and the need to ensurecomplementarity among them constitutea major organizational, institutional andtechnical challenge.

With these complexities in mind, con-siderations related to forest genetic re-sources have been integrated in a numberof countries within wider frameworks,such as national forest programmes andbiodiversity status and action plans de-veloped within the framework of CBD.

National programmes provide the ba-sic framework for action, but they havea number of limitations. The natural dis-tribution of many forest tree species

Exploration andassessment of nativepoplar Populusussuriensis inChangbashan NatureReserve, Jihu, China

P. SIGA

UD


2929292929

crosses political borders. Furthermore,some tree species, populations or prov-enances have little current importance intheir countries of origin but have becomesocially or economically important out-side their natural ranges. Such situationsraise questions regarding responsibilitiesin conservation, especially in relation toin situ conservation. Furthermore, anumber of introductions, frequently ofundocumented origin, have evolved intolandraces which are well adapted to spe-cific environmental conditions outsidethe species’ natural range. Theselandraces are an important componentof genetic conservation, and collabora-tion between two or more countries istherefore called for to ensurecomplementarity of in situ and ex situactivities.

INITIATIVES AT THE GLOBALLEVELThe greatest number of plant speciesoccurs in tropical areas, often in devel-oping countries with limited financial,institutional and human resources. Fund-ing for research and development in thefield of genetic resources is, however,available primarily in developed coun-tries. There is a growing awareness thatresponsibilities and associated costs inconservation of genetic resources, aswell as benefits derived from their use,must be shared in a fair and equitablemanner. Thus issues related to accessand transfer of genetic resources, trans-fer of technologies and funds, and prop-erty rights and the fair sharing of ben-efits are increasingly debated.

While national programmes form thebuilding blocks of genetic conservation,collaboration at the international level ishighly desirable to help ensure that ac-tivities in individual countries are com-plementary, compatible and mutuallysupportive. International collaborationcan also help draw attention to conser-

vation issues of global concern – such asthreats to widely used provenances ofsocio-economically important species –and can help propose joint remedial ac-tion for urgent problems.

Forest genetic resources in theinternational forestry dialogueThe importance of conserving forest bio-logical diversity was highlighted at thepolicy level at the United Nations Con-ference on Environment and Develop-ment (UNCED) in 1992. The subsequentratification of the legally binding Con-vention on Biological Diversity (CBD)has major relevance to forest geneticresources conservation. CBD adopted awork programme for forest biologicaldiversity in 1998 which is currently un-dergoing further development. The pro-gramme makes reference to forest ge-netic resources and integration of relatedconcerns both in the conservation of bio-logical diversity and in sustainable for-est management.

In the intergovernmental policy dia-logue on forests that followed UNCED,neither the Intergovernmental Panel onForests (IPF) nor the subsequent Inter-governmental Forum on Forests (IFF)focused specifically on forest geneticresources in their programmes of work.However, relevant issues regarding theconservation, management and sustain-able development of all types of forestswere discussed in general terms.

Since 1995, participants in the high-level, informal Interagency Task Forceon Forests (ITFF) – FAO, the Interna-tional Tropical Timber Organization(ITTO), the Secretariat of the Conven-tion on Biological Diversity (CBD), theUnited Nations Department of Economicand Social Affairs (UN-DESA), theUnited Nations Development Pro-gramme (UNDP), the United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP), theWorld Bank and the Centre for Interna-

tional Forestry Research (CIFOR) – havecollaborated in promoting issues relatedto forest biological diversity and forestgenetic resources. Other internationalinstitutions with activities in this fieldinclude the United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO), the International Plant Ge-netic Resources Institute (IPGRI), theInternational Centre for Research inAgroforestry (ICRAF), the World Con-servation Union (IUCN) and the Inter-national Union of Forestry ResearchOrganizations (IUFRO), among others;the last-mentioned organization recentlyestablished an interdisciplinary taskforce on the management and conserva-tion of forest genetic resources, whichwill report on its work and findings tothe XXI IUFRO World Congress (KualaLumpur, Malaysia, August 2000).

Technical mechanismsAlthough the need for a specific focuson the management of forest genetic re-sources has received increasing attentionover the past 30 years, there is to date noforestry equivalent to the Global Plan ofAction for the Conservation and Sustain-able Utilization of Plant Genetic Re-sources for Food and Agriculture, whichfocuses on agricultural crops. That plan,adopted by the Fourth InternationalTechnical Conference on Plant GeneticResources in Leipzig, Germany, in June1996, makes reference to wild relativesof cultivated plants, often found in for-est ecosystems, and to domesticated treecrops (fruit-trees, rubber, etc.), but ex-plicitly excludes forest tree genetic re-sources.

FAO established a Panel of Experts onForest Gene Resources in 1968. Thepanel regularly provides advice to FAO,and indirectly to the world community,on programmes and priorities in the fieldof forest genetic resources. Its work com-plements that of the FAO Commission


3030303030

on Genetic Resources for Food andAgriculture (formerly the Commissionon Plant Genetic Resources), whosemandate was expanded in 1995 to cover“all components of biodiversity of rel-evance to food and agriculture”, includ-ing – in addition to agriculture in the strictsense – domestic animals, forestry andfisheries.

In line with recommendations of thePanel of Experts on Forest Gene Re-sources, FAO has developed the World-wide Information System on Forest Ge-netic Resources (REFORGEN) (see Boxbelow). Many other international, re-gional and national organizations and in-stitutions have established largely com-plementary databases or search engines

on forest and tree genetic resources. Thechallenge will be to ensure compatibil-ity between the major databases and toestablish links between them for easyretrieval and use of all available infor-mation.

REGIONAL-LEVEL INITIATIVESRegional approaches to the conservationof forest biological diversity and forestgenetic resources are especially usefulwhen countries have comparable insti-tutional conditions, ecological needs andsocietal requirements.

A number of international and bilateraldevelopment agencies and non-govern-mental organizations working at the re-gional level support activities related to

conservation of forest genetic resources,including exploration, evaluation, ge-netic conservation and tree improvement,incorporation of genetic considerationsin the sustainable management of for-ests and woodlands, development oftechnical methodologies, specializedtraining and capacity building, andstrengthening of national institutions (seeBox on p. 31).

In some regions, collaborative pro-grammes have been developed to coor-dinate work among countries. An exam-ple is the European Forest GeneticResources Programme (EUFORGEN),established as follow-up to a resolutionof the first Ministerial Conference on theProtection of Forests in Europe, held inStrasbourg, France in 1990.EUFORGEN is coordinated by IPGRIwith technical support from FAO. Fivespecies-specific networks have beenestablished within the framework of theprogramme, which supports the devel-opment of methodologies and “best prac-tices” in in situ and ex situ conservationof genetic variation in targeted pilot spe-cies or groups of species, the exchangeof reproductive materials for research andconservation purposes and the exchangeof information and expertise.

In recent years, regional approacheshave been complemented by ecoregionalapproaches and by action focused oncommon priority species or groups ofspecies (see Box on p. 32).

Many cooperative tree improvementprogrammes involve several countries,which may be tied by geographical close-ness, ecological similiarities or commoninterest in certain species. Cooperativeshave often been established with a broadperspective, including seed exchangeand tree improvement as well as conser-vation of genetic resources. An exampleis the Central America and Mexico Co-niferous Resources Cooperative(CAMCORE), hosted by North Caro-

The FAO Worldwide Information Systemon Forest Genetic Resources (REFORGEN)makes available reliable, up-to-date infor-mation for use in planning and decision-making at the national, regional and inter-national levels. The system, which has beendeveloped through the close collaborationof FAO, governments and national insti-tutes, included by spring 2000 informationfrom 146 countries on more than 1 600 treespecies. The system includes informationon:

• institutions dealing with conservationand utilization of forest genetic resources;

• main native and introduced tree speciesand their major uses;

• threats to species and populations;• tree species managed for in situ conser-

vation;• ex situ conservation activities;• tree improvement programmes;• availability of forest reproductive ma-

terials for conservation and research pur-poses.

A global information systemon forest genetic resources

All information is aggregated at the speciesand country levels.

The information system, which is nowavailable through the Internet, complementsinformation contained in national databasesand information systems as well as databaseson threatened and endangered treesadministered by the World ConservationUnion (IUCN) and the World ConservationMonitoring Centre (WCMC).

REFORGEN can be accessed on line at:www.fao.org/forestry/FOR/FORM/FOGENRES/homepage/WORLD.STM


3131313131

lina State University, Raleigh, UnitedStates, which deals with the exploration,collection, exchange, testing, improve-ment and conservation of conifers andsome broadleaved species originating inMexico and Central America.

Regional forest genetic resourcesworkshops and action plansSince 1998, FAO, in collaboration withnational and international partners, hashelped convene a series of regional andsubregional workshops to support coun-tries in the development of country-driven regional action plans for the con-servation and sustainable use of forestgenetic resources. Since national plansand programmes will vary according tolocal conditions and national needs andpriorities, the aim of these workshops is

• The South Pacific Regional Initiative onForest Genetic Resources (SPRIG), sup-ported by Australia, has helped developcomprehensive strategies and coordi-nated action in five island countries.

• The Integrated Regional Strategy forSeed Procurement in Central Americaand the Dominican Republic, carriedout by concerned countries with thesupport of the DANIDA Forest SeedCentre, aims to strengthen national for-est seed programmes and to enhancesubregional cooperation.

• The Tree Seed Centres’ Network of theSouthern African Development Com-munity (SADC) has been instrumentalin supporting the establishment or thestrengthening of existing national treeseed centres in 12 countries in easternand southern Africa, with early supportfrom Canada.

• The Central Asian and TranscaucasianNetwork on Plant Genetic Resources(CATCN-PGR), coordinated by IPGRI,focuses on the conservation of geneticresources of crops and forest trees in eightcountries of the subregion. It benefitedduring its establishment from the expe-rience and assistance of the EUFORGENprogramme.

• The newly established Sub-Saharan Af-rican Programme on Forest GeneticResources (SAFORGEN), coordinatedby IPGRI in collaboration with FAO,aims at strengthening national researchinstitutes and regional forest researchprogrammes in countries in sub-Saha-ran Africa.

Examples of regional and subregionalprogrammes and projects for

forest genetic resources conservation

Provenance trial plotsof introduced speciesin Samoa, supportedby the South Pacific

Regional Initiative onForest Genetic

Resources (SPRIG)

P. SIGA

UD

not the development of a single conser-vation model for all countries, but theelaboration of a framework for nationalaction which would be valid at the re-gional level and as consistent amongregions as possible. The development ofregional action plans can be seen as afirst step towards the development of aglobal plan of action.

At the workshops, of which three havebeen held to date, participating countriesassessed the status of their forest geneticresources following in-country consul-tation among institutions and stakehold-ers; evaluated the relation of forest ge-netic resources programmes to relatedprogrammes in other sectors and to over-all development plans; defined nationalpriorities and requirements in the con-servation, enhancement and sustainableutilization of their forest genetic re-sources; identified target species andgenetic resources activities of commoninterest; and determined priority areas forfuture collaboration among countries inthe region.

The first of these workshops identified


3232323232

the main components of a subregionalaction plan for the Sahelian and North-Sudanian zones of Africa. The workshopwas facilitated by FAO in collaborationwith IPGRI and ICRAF inOuagadougou, Burkina Faso, in Septem-ber 1998. A synthesis document on thestate of forest genetic resources in thesubregion, based on national reports pre-pared by participating countries, pro-vided the background for discussions andfor the subregional action plan. Whenfully operational, IPGRI’s SAFORGENprogramme (see Box on p. 31) will pro-vide a useful platform to help implementa number of the research-related activi-ties identified in the action plan.

A second subregional workshop wasconvened in April 1999 as follow-up torecommendations made by heads of for-estry of Pacific Island countries and ter-

ritories. Supporting organizations in-cluded FAO, the Australia-funded SouthPacific Regional Initiative on ForestGenetic Resources (SPRIG) project, theForestry Division of Samoa, the SouthPacific Community/UNDP Pacific Is-lands Forests and Trees Support Pro-gramme, and the South Pacific RegionalEnvironment Programme. A subregionalaction plan on forest genetic resourceswas prepared based on national reportsfrom countries and territories concernedand on a subregional synthesis on statusand priorities in forest genetic resourcesdiscussed at the meeting.

A workshop for the countries of theSouthern African Development Commu-nity (SADC) was held in June 2000 inArusha, United Republic of Tanzania.Based on country reports on the status offorest genetic resources and ongoing

activities and priorities, participants iden-tified specific joint actions in the explo-ration, collection and exchange of forestgermplasm; evaluation, tree improve-ment and safeguarding of seed supply;and conservation in and ex situ. Theseactions will constitute the elements of asubregional plan to be implemented bycountries under the overall coordinationof the Forestry Sector Technical Coordi-nation Unit (FSTCU) of SADC. Theaction plan will be underpinned by anexisting SADC network of national treeseed centres.

FAO plans to help facilitate similarworkshops in other regions, pendingidentification of international, regionaland bilateral partnerships and of neces-sary funding. Attention will be given tothose regions that have explicitly re-quested support in this field and thosewhere institutional networking mecha-nisms already exist, as they can help fa-cilitate development and subsequentimplementation of the action plans.

The above flexible, country-driven,step-by-step process towards coordinatedaction in the management of forest ge-netic resources complements other ini-tiatives currently being undertaken at thenational, regional and global levels, suchas the elaboration of NationalBiodiversity Status and Action Plansunder CBD and the sharing of technol-ogy, expertise and information throughCBD’s Clearing-House Mechanism.

CONCLUDING REMARKSThe conservation and sustainable use offorest genetic resources help underpinlocal and national development by con-tributing to food security, poverty alle-viation, environmental conservation, eco-nomic and social advancement and themaintenance of cultural and spiritualvalues (FAO, 1997). While some naturaland human-induced losses in biologicaldiversity over time are inevitable, diver-

• The Project on Genetic Resources of Aridand Semi-Arid Zone Arboreal Speciesfor the Improvement of Rural Living,initiated in the early 1980s, is coordi-nated by FAO in collaboration with theInternational Plant Genetic ResourcesInstitute (IPGRI), UNEP and theDANIDA Forest Seed Centre. It focuseson the exploration, collection, exchange,evaluation and conservation of geneticresources of dry-zone multipurpose spe-cies, with special reference to Acacia andProsopis species.

• The International Neem Network, coor-dinated by FAO, aims at characterizingthe extent and patterns of genetic vari-ation of Azadirachta indica and helpscollaborating countries in Asia, Africaand Latin America make appropriateuse of the potential that this species of-fers in arid lands.

Examples ofspecies-specific networks

• The International Network for LeucaenaResearch and Development (LEUCNET)is based at the University of Queens-land, Australia.

• TEAKNET, focused on Tectona grandis,is hosted by the Forest Department ofMyanmar.

• The International Network for Bambooand Rattan (INBAR) and the recentlyestablished International Centre forResearch and Training on Seabuckthorn(ICRTS) are both headquartered inBeijing, China.


3333333333

Since genetic resources do not respectpolitical boundaries, national efforts fortheir conservation and wise use, whichmust at all times form the basic buildingblocks of regional and global strategies,can be usefully complemented by inter-national support and coordination. Join-ing efforts across national borders willensure complementarity of action, willmake the best use of scarce resourcesand will help fill the considerable infor-mation gaps in the forest resources fieldmore quickly. While countries have sov-ereign rights over and responsibility fortheir genetic resources, coherent actionat the regional and global levels will fa-cilitate the solution of problems at alllevels. �

Bibliography

FAO. 1997. Conservation and Sustainable

Utilization of Forest Genetic Resources.

COFO-97/5. 13th session of the Committee

on Forestry. Rome, 10-13 March 1997. �

sity between and within forest tree spe-cies can be maintained at acceptable lev-els and managed through a wide rangeof human activities. Conservation andenhancement of forest genetic resourcescan be achieved through the inclusion ofgenetic management concerns in activi-ties ranging from the production of woodand timber and the management of pro-tected areas to the demarcation and main-tenance of wilderness reserves.

Forest genetic resources considerationsshould thus increasingly be included asan integral part of silvicultural and forestmanagement practices, and they shouldalso form part of national and local strat-egies for the maintenance of biologicaldiversity in and outside protected areas.Genetic conservation considerationsshould, furthermore, constitute an ex-plicit component of forest tree improve-ment and breeding programmes andplans.

The scope and urgency of the problemcall for long-term political commitmentat the national and local levels. Coop-eration among a range of national agen-cies, institutions and local communitieswithin countries is a prerequisite for theimplementation of sustainable geneticmanagement programmes.

Pacific SubregionalWorkshop on ForestGenetic Resources,

held in Apia, Samoa inApril 1999

Vegetativepropagation of Intsiabijuga, a highlyvaluable timberspecies, at a SamoaForestry Divisionnursery, forenrichment planting

P. SIGA

UD

P. SIGA

UD


3434343434

Criteria and indicators for sustainable forestmanagement: international processes, current status

and the way ahead

F. Castañeda

In the past, the focus of forest man-agement was frequently on sustain-ing the production of wood and tim-

ber. More recently, the concept of sus-tainable forest management has beenbroadened to include economic, environ-mental, social and cultural dimensions,in line with the Forest Principles agreedat the United Nations Conference for En-vironment and Development (UNCED)in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992.

To ensure the continued availability ofgoods and environmental services thatforests and forest ecosystems provide,based on the implementation of the prin-ciples agreed upon at UNCED, coun-tries have acknowledged the need toarrive at a common definition of sustain-able forest management and to developand implement tools by which thesustainability of forest management, inthe broad sense, could be assessed, moni-tored and reported.

Within the framework of a number ofinternational processes, initiated follow-ing UNCED, participating countrieshave defined criteria against whichsustainability can be judged, and havespecified corresponding indicators whichhelp in monitoring the effects of forestmanagement interventions over time.Criteria and indicators are today com-monly recognized as appropriate toolsfor defining, assessing and monitoringprogress towards sustainable forest man-agement.

Efforts towards streamlining action atthe global level have included the FAO/International Tropical Timber Organiza-tion (ITTO) Expert Meeting on the Har-monization of Criteria and Indicators forSustainable Forest Management, held inRome in February 1995, and the Inter-governmental Seminar on Criteria andIndicators, organized by the Governmentof Finland in Helsinki in August 1996and supported by FAO. These and othermore recent meetings have brought to-

gether a range of stakeholders includingrepresentatives of ongoing internationalforestry criteria and indicators processesand of international governmental andnon-governmental organizations. Fromthese events has emerged a set of sevenglobally agreed national level criteria –although the wording may differ fromprocess to process – which serves as theframework for all ongoing internationalprocesses (see Box below).

There is no globally agreed set of indi-cators for those criteria, as indicatorsneed to be adapted to the ecological,economic, social and institutional con-ditions and needs of each country. For-est policy, rules and regulations, andforest management practices, can beadjusted and gradually improved to takeinto greater consideration social, eco-nomic, environmental, spiritual and cul-tural requirements as defined by the cri-teria, to involve and benefit increasinglybroad ranges of stakeholder groups.

Globally agreed criteria forsustainable forest management

• Extent of forest resources• Biological diversity• Forest health and vitality• Productive functions of forests• Protective functions of forests• Socio-economic benefits and needs• Legal, policy and institutional

framework

CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FORSUSTAINABLE FORESTMANAGEMENTNational level criteria and indicatorsDevelopment and implementation ofcriteria and indicators will help define a

Froylán Castañeda is a ForestryOfficer (Tropical ForestManagement) in the ForestResources Development Service,FAO Forestry Department.

A summary of internationalprocesses for the development andglobal harmonization of criteriaand indicators for use at thenational and forest managementunit levels.

Definitions

Criteria define the essential elements orprinciples against which sustainability offorest management is judged, with dueconsideration paid to the productive, pro-tective and social roles of forests and forestecosystems. Each criterion is defined byquantitative or qualitative indicators, whichare measured and monitored regularly todetermine the effects of forest managementinterventions over time.


3535353535

common understanding of the concept ofsustainable forest management and will helptranslate that concept into an operationaltool that can be applied in forestmanagement. Criteria and indicators at thenational level may be used by decision-makers to guide countrywide policies,regulations and legislation in support ofsustainable forest management.

Positive trends in sustainability will bedemonstrated by an aggregate in trendsof the identified indicators. In otherwords, the trends corresponding to allcriteria must show a positive develop-ment over time. Trends in indicators willshow whether a country is moving to-wards, or away from, sustainability.Viewed in this way, criteria and indica-tors are similar, for example, to economicindicators such as interest rates and in-flation rates used by governments to as-sess the health of an economy. If eco-nomic indicators suggest that aneconomy is moving away from the de-sired direction, a government can adjustits management policies to achieve thedesired outcome. Trends in indicators forsustainable forest management providesimilar information to policy-makers,allowing them to intervene and correctundesirable trends.

Information on status and trends at thenational level and forecasts for the fu-ture based on this information can thushelp rationalize and improve policy- anddecision-making. The ultimate aim is topromote improved forest managementpractices over time and to further thedevelopment of a gradually healthier andmore productive forest estate, which canmeet the social, economic and environ-mental needs of the countries concerned,now and in the future.

Forest management unit level criteriaand indicatorsNational level criteria and indicators areincreasingly being complemented by the

development and implementation of cri-teria and indicators developed for theforest management unit level. A numberof the ongoing international processeson criteria and indicators for sustainableforest management that started with afocus at the national level have subse-quently developed complementary for-est management unit level criteria andindicators.

Indicators at the forest management unitlevel will be influenced by factors suchas forest type and topography, in addi-tion to social and economic considera-tions. Forest management unit level cri-teria and indicators may thus differamong individual forest areas in any onecountry, as well as over time, dependingon the prevailing conditions, prioritiesand aims of management of a given for-est area. Interventions in individual for-est areas should complement each otherin space and time to ensure a satisfactoryoverall development at the national level.There is a need to ensure compatibilityand comparability and to provide con-tinuing feedback on the applicability ofcriteria and indicators at the two levels.

Criteria and indicators developed at thetwo levels differ in concept and sub-stance. Those developed at the nationallevel can assist in identifying those foruse at the forest management unit level.National level indicators contribute to-wards the development and regular up-dating of policy instruments (laws, poli-cies, regulations), while trends inindicators at the forest management unitlevel help in the adjustment of forestmanagement prescriptions over time tomeet established national goals. Whiledifferent in purpose and scope, the crite-ria and indicators identified at these twolevels should be mutually compatible.

FAO’S ROLEIn its capacity as Task Manager amongthe United Nations agencies in follow-

up action to UNCED, including the workprogramme of the Ad hoc Intergovern-mental Panel on Forests (IPF) and theAd hoc Open-ended IntergovernmentalForum on Forests (IFF) and the chair-manship of the high-level Inter-AgencyTask Force on Forests (ITFF), FAO hasacted as a facilitator of processes onnational level criteria and indicators.FAO’s tasks include ensuring informa-tion flow among the ongoing, new andemerging processes and between theseand other related programmes, such asthe global forest resources assessment.

FAO, in collaboration with partner in-stitutions [mainly the United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP),ITTO, the Center for International For-estry Research (CIFOR), the TropicalAgriculture Research and Higher Edu-cation Center (CATIE) and the Interna-tional Union of Forestry Research Or-ganizations (IUFRO)], regional andsubregional groups and national govern-ments has catalysed and supported theinitiation of criteria and indicators proc-esses in a number of developing regionsthat did not earlier participate in the de-bate. These include Dry-Zone Africa, theNear East, Central America and Dry-Forest Asian countries. Such action hasensured that information on ongoingprocesses becomes available to thesenew and emerging processes, so thatcountries concerned can build on expe-riences from elsewhere and, from thestart, aim towards complementarity andcompatibility.

RECENT PROGRESS INDEVELOPMENT ANDIMPLEMENTATIONThe importance placed on the develop-ment and implementation of criteria andindicators for sustainable forest manage-ment by countries has resulted during thepast several years in the development ofnine separate but conceptually linked


3636363636

initiatives. In all these processes, thedefinition of sustainability remains vir-tually the same. This holds great prom-ise for convergence or mutual recogni-tion, so that over time a common approachcan be used globally to measure progressin sustainable forest management. Theimportant need, however, is for actiontaken to improve management – not justmeasuring of progress.

It is estimated that currently at least 140countries are participating in at least oneof the nine major processes on criteriaand indicators (see Table on p. 38). Whilesome countries belong to one or moreprocesses or initiatives, the degree ofactivity in assessing, measuring and/orimplementing their indicators varies con-siderably among countries. In manycases such activities are limited by lackof trained personnel and weak institu-tional capacities for collecting, analys-ing and sharing information. As previ-ously indicated, the main focus of theseongoing initiatives was initiallysustainability at the national level, butall have now also developed criteria andindicators to be adapted and applied byparticipating countries at the forest man-agement unit level.

Main criteria and indicators processesPan-European Forest Process on Cri-teria and Indicators for SustainableForest Management. Developed withinthe framework of the Pan-EuropeanForest Process, this process coversboreal, temperate and Mediterraneanforests in 37 European countries. Theprocess is overseen by the MinisterialConferences on the Protection of For-ests in Europe. At the Third MinisterialConference (Lisbon, Portugal, June1998), the six national level criteria iden-tified within this process were officiallyadopted and the corresponding 27 indi-cators were endorsed in principle. Fur-thermore, ministers have endorsed the

Pan-European Operational Level Guide-lines for Sustainable Forest Managementfor further development and use on avoluntary basis, and the work programmeConservation and Enhancement of Bio-logical and Landscape Diversity in For-est Ecosystems 1997-2000.

Montreal Process on Criteria and Indi-cators for the Conservation and Sus-tainable Management of Temperateand Boreal Forests. This process cov-ers temperate and boreal forests outsideEurope. The 12 participating countrieshave agreed on a set of seven non-legally binding national level criteria and67 indicators that were set in the San-tiago Declaration of February 1995.Participating countries recently agreedto review and consider possible elementsfor criteria and indicators at the forestmanagement unit level; these are cur-rently under discussion and develop-ment.

Tarapoto Proposal for Criteria andIndicators for Sustainability of theAmazon Forest. The eight signatorycountries of the Amazon CooperationTreaty (ACT) have identified seven na-tional level criteria and 47 indicatorswithin the Tarapoto Proposal for Crite-ria and Indicators for Sustainability ofthe Amazon Forest, launched inTarapoto, Peru in 1995. Four criteria and20 indicators were also identified for theforest management unit level and onecriterion and seven indicators for theglobal level. National consultations forvalidation have been conducted in eachof the eight participating countries toevaluate the relevance and applicabilityof these criteria and indicators in light ofnational conditions and needs. The con-sultations, which were supported byACT and a Netherlands-funded FAOproject, provided a forum for consoli-dated analysis and systematic evaluation

of the relevance and applicability of theidentified criteria and indicators.

Dry-Zone Africa Process. The 28 coun-tries participating in the Dry-Zone Af-rica Process, which originated in aUNEP/FAO Expert Meeting on Criteriaand Indicators for Sustainable ForestManagement (Nairobi, Kenya, Novem-ber 1995) have identified seven nationallevel criteria and 47 indicators. The Af-rican Forestry and Wildlife Commissionand the Secretariats of three subregionalgroupings – the Permanent InterstateCommittee for Drought Control in theSahel (CILSS), the IntergovernmentalAuthority on Development (IGAD) andthe Southern African Development Com-munity (SADC) – endorse and closelyfollow the work of this process. A numberof national and regional workshops andexpert meetings have been held to re-view the applicability of the criteria andindicators in the countries concerned, todiscuss the availability of informationand national capacities for collection andanalysis of data, and to elaborate a planof action for implementation. Twosubregional follow-up meetings of na-tional coordinators have also been held,covering countries in SADC and CILSScountries. Following recommendationsof the former, Practical guidelines forthe assessment and measurement of cri-teria and indicators for sustainable for-est management in dry-zone Africa havebeen published (FAO, 2000).

Near East Process. The Near East Proc-ess originated in an FAO/UNEP ExpertMeeting on Criteria and Indicators forSustainable Forest Management (Cairo,Egypt, 1996). The 30 participating coun-tries identified seven national level cri-teria and 65 indicators, focusing mainlyon the management of dry-zone forestsand woodlands in the region. The NearEast Forestry Commission has endorsed


3737373737

and is closely following the work of thisprocess. A number of regional work-shops and expert meetings have beenheld to review the applicability of thecriteria and indicators in the countriesconcerned and to discuss the availabilityof information and national capacities forcollection and analysis of data. In June2000, National Coordinators for Crite-ria and Indicators for the Near East par-ticipated in an FAO meeting in Teheran,Islamic Republic of Iran, to discuss andcomment on the draft practical guidelinesfor assessment and measurement of cri-teria and indicators. Comments wereincorporated and the guidelines havebeen published (2000). These guidelines,which are the product of the recommen-dations made in the Meeting of Expertsfor Criteria and Indicators for Sustain-able Forest Management in Near EastCountries (Damascus, Syrian Arab Re-public, December 1998), are intended to

assist countries in assessing and measur-ing the sustainability of forest manage-ment activities.

Lepaterique Process of Central America.The Lepaterique Process was initiatedfollowing the recommendations of anExpert Meeting on Criteria and Indica-tors for Sustainable Forest Managementorganized by the Central American Coun-cil of Forests and Protected Areas (CCAB-AP) in collaboration with FAO inTegucigalpa, Honduras in January 1997.Experts from the seven Central Americancountries identified eight national levelcriteria and 53 indicators, as well as fourcriteria and 40 indicators at the regionallevel. The expert meeting was followedby two subregional training workshopsand seven national seminars, which re-viewed applicability and availability ofdata and made recommendations on fu-ture implementation. The countries con-

cerned are at present carrying out nationalvalidation exercises to review the criteriaand indicators identified. In a move to sup-port the Lepaterique Process further, theforestry directors of all Central Americancountries recently participated in a videoconference between CATIE, Turrialba,Costa Rica; Helsinki, Finland; and FAO,Rome. The event was organized and sup-ported by Finland through the Finland-funded regional project PROCAFOR,based in Honduras. During this confer-ence, Central American forestry directorsreported on progress achieved towardsthe implementation of criteria and indica-tors for sustainable forest management inthe region and offered their support to theLepaterique Process.

Participating countries inthe various ongoing

international processeson criteria and indicators

for sustainable forestmanagement

Dry-Zone Africa

Pan-European Forest Process

Montreal Process

Tarapoto Proposal

Near East Process

Lepaterique Process of Central AmericaAfrican Timber Organization

Dry Forests in AsiaITTO Initiative on Criteria and Indicators


3838383838

Brief description and countries participating in the major international processes on criteria and indicators

Process No. of No. of Applicability Place of Date of No. of Participatingcriteria indicators adoption adoption countriesa countries/regions

ITTO Initiative 7 66 Yokohama, March 12on Criteria Japan 1992and Indicatorsb

Dry-Zone 7 47 Nairobi, November 28Africa Process Kenya 1995

Pan-European 6 27 quantitative; Helsinki, June 1993 37Forest Process 101 descriptive Finland June 1998

Lisbon,Portugal

Montreal 7 (non- 67 Santiago, February 12Process legally Chile 1995

binding)

Tarapoto 1 (global) 7 (global) Tarapoto, February 8Proposal 7 (national) 47 (national) Peru 1995

4 (forest 22 (forestmanagement management

unit) unit)

Near East 7 65 Cairo, Egypt October 30Process 1996

Lepaterique 4 (regional) 40 (regional) Tegucigalpa, January 7Process of 8 (national) 53 (national) Honduras 1997CentralAmerica

African Timber 28 60 Libreville, January 13Organization Gabon 1993

Regional 8 49 Bhopal, India December 9Initiative 1999for Dry Forestsin Asia

a The totals in this column add up to more than 140 (the total number of countries participating in international processes) because many countries are members of more thanone process.b Of the 55 member countries of ITTO, only the 12 listed countries participate in ITTO’s criteria and indicators process. The rest of the ITTO member countries participate inother process. India, Myanmar and Thailand are also members of the Regional Initiative for Dry Forests in Asia.c CILSS: Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel; SADC: Southern Africa Development Community; IGADD: Intergovernmental Authority onDrought and Development.d Operational Level Guidelines for application at the subnational level have also been developed.

National and forestmanagement unitlevels in humidtropical forests ofmember tropicalcountries

National level

Boreal, temperateand Mediterranean-type forests inEurope; regionaland national levelsd

Temperate andboreal forests incountriesoutside Europe;national level

Sponsored by theAmazonCooperation Treaty

Regional andnational levels

Forest managementlevel criteria andindicators alsoidentified atsubregionalmeetings andnational seminars

ATO membercountries; regionaland national levels;also identified 5principles and 2subprinciples

Dry forests in Asia;national level

Cambodia, Fiji, India, Indonesia,Malaysia, Myanmar, Papua NewGuinea, Philippines, Thailand,Togo, Trinidad and Tobago,Vanuatu

CILSSc (9 countries): BurkinaFaso, Cape Verde, Chad,Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Mali,Mauritania, Niger, SenegalIGADD (7): Djibouti, Eritrea,Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia,Sudan, UgandaSADC (12): Angola, Botswana,Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius,Mozambique, Namibia, SouthAfrica, Swaziland, Tanzania,Zambia, Zimbabwe

Albania, Austria, Belarus,Belgium, Bullgaria, Croatia,Czech Republic, Denmark,Estonia, European Community,Finland, France, Germany,Greece, Hungary, Iceland,Ireland, Italy, Latvia,Liechtenstein, Lithuania,Luxembourg, Monaco,Netherlands, Norway, Poland,Portugal, Romania, RussianFederation, Slovak Republic,Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine,United Kingdom

Argentina, Australia, Canada,Chile, China, Japan, Republic ofKorea, Mexico, New Zealand,Russian Federation, Uruguay,United States

Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia,Ecuador, Guyana, Peru,Suriname, Venezuela

Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan,Bahrain, Cyprus, Djibouti, Egypt,Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq,Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic,Lebanon, Libya, Malta,Mauritania, Morocco, Oman,Pakistan, Qatar, Kingdom ofSaudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan,Syrian Arab Republic,Tadjikistan, Tunisia, Turkey,Turkmenistan, United ArabEmirates, Yemen

Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador,Guatemala, Honduras,Nicaragua, Panama

Angola, Cameroon, CentralAfrican Republic, Congo, Côted’Ivoire, Democratic Republic ofCongo, Equatorial Guinea,Gabon, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria,Sao Tome and Principe, UnitedRepublic of Tanzania

Bangladesh, Bhutan, China,India, Mongolia, Myanmar,Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand


3939393939

Dry Zone Asia Initiative. This processoriginated in a workshop on NationalLevel Criteria and Indicators for the Sus-tainable Management of Dry Forests inAsia/South Asia, held in Bhopal, India inDecember 1999 and supported by FAO,UNEP and ITTO. Nine countries partici-pated and identified eight national levelcriteria and 49 indicators for the sustain-able management of dry forests in theregion. Participating countries are pro-ceeding with implementation based on atwo-year plan of action elaborated duringthe meeting. The action plan also com-mits participating countries to seekpolitical and technical support fromnational forestry authorities for itsimplementation.

International Tropical Timber Organi-zation. ITTO recently revised its criteriafor sustainable forest management oftropical moist forests, originally pub-lished and endorsed by its member coun-tries in 1992. The ITTO document Cri-teria and indicators for the measurementof sustainable management of naturaltropical forests, endorsed in 1999, iden-tifies seven criteria and 66 indicatorsapplicable at both the national and forestmanagement unit levels.

At its twenty-eighth session (May 2000,Lima, Peru), ITTO’s International Tropi-cal Timber Council recognized the needto continue field testing of criteria andindicators in order better to promote andassist countries and initiatives to imple-ment these forest management tools.

African Timber Organization (ATO).The 13 member countries of ATO, in ameeting held in 1993, identified fiveprinciples, 28 criteria and 60 indicatorsfor sustainable forest management, forapplication at the regional, national andforest management unit levels.

Other effortsThe work of further developing andimplementing criteria and indicators hasalso received support and assistance fromother organizations. CIFOR, for exam-ple, has concentrated largely on researchat the forest management unit level byassisting a number of countries in fieldtesting of criteria and indicators. CIFORcontinues to coordinate field testing incollaboration with a number of nationalinstitutes, notably in Brazil, Cameroon,Côte d’Ivoire, Zimbabwe, India and In-donesia. In support of this work, CIFORpublished the Criteria and IndicatorsTools Series in 1999.

Many of the ongoing processes haveestablished technical and scientific com-mittees to ensure soundness of approach.At the international level, FAO has col-laborated with IUFRO and CATIE in theorganization of three international con-ferences on indicators for sustainableforest management (Australia, 1998;Costa Rica, 1999, France, 2000).

FUTURE OF CRITERIA ANDINDICATORSSince the first FAO/ITTO coordinatedexpert meeting (Harmonization of Cri-teria and Indicators for Sustainable For-est Management) in February 1995, thenumber of international processes oncriteria and indicators has increased fromthree to nine. All processes have under-gone important changes as they haveevolved. Some have validated the origi-nal set of criteria and indicators devel-oped through expert meetings, while allhave decided to go a step further andhave developed and have started to im-plement such tools also at the forestmanagement unit level. Validation ofcriteria and indicators and testing ofthese forest management tools at the lat-ter level should continue in order forcountries to arrive at a given number ofindicators by which they can monitor and

Criteria and indicators andcertification

Since criteria and indicators – at any level– are neutral assessment tools for monitor-ing trends, they should not be used as stand-ards for evaluating management practices.However, it may be possible to draw oncriteria and indicators when developingstandards or guidelines for performance atthe management unit level, as has been donein many cases. There are clearly linkagesbetween national and forest managementunit level criteria and indicators for sus-tainable forest management, but there mayor may not also be linkages between forestmanagement unit level criteria and indica-tors and forest product certification stand-ards.

Criteria and indicators provide a meansfor measuring, assessing, monitoring anddemonstrating progress towards achievingthe sustainability of forests in a given coun-try or in a specified forest area, over a pe-riod of time. On the other hand, certifica-tion is a means of certifying the achieve-ment of certain predefined standards offorest management in a given forest area,at a given point in time, agreed on by pro-ducers and consumers. Many countries haveused national and forest management unitlevel criteria and indicators as the basis orstarting-point for their certification activi-ties.


4040404040

report on progress to the internationalcommunity.

It is evident that there is a need for inter-national dialogue to continue involvingall stakeholders. On this note, FAO, to-gether with other partner organizations(ITTO, UNEP, CIFOR, IUFRO), is or-ganizing an Expert Consultation on Cri-teria and Indicators for Sustainable For-est Management, to be held from 15 to 17November 2000 in Rome. This meetingand others like it are necessary to takestock of present situations and progressachieved, to review challenges and todiscuss the need and possibilities for fur-ther enhanced collaboration. Dialogue isalso necessary to ensure compatibility andcomplementarity in ongoing work on cri-teria and indicators in the forestry andrelated fields. Furthermore, internationaldialogue among processes will ensure thesharing of experiences, problems andsuccesses of implementation. �

Suggested reading

Castañeda, F. 1998. Linkages between

national and forest management unit levels

criteria and indicators for sustainable forest

management. CIFOR/FAO Fifth

International Project Advisory Panel (IPAP)

Meeting for CIFOR’s Testing of Criteria

and Indicators for the Sustainable

Management of Forests. Rome, 25-27

March 1998.

FAO. 1996. Expert Consultation on Global

Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Final

Report and FAO Expert Consultation on

Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000.

Indicators of SFM at National Level and

Possibilities to Assess Them in the

Framework of the National, Regional and

Global Forest Inventories. Secretariat

document. Kotka, Finland, June 1996.

FAO. 1997. Integrating criteria and

indicators of sustainable forest management

in the National Programmes. Rome.

FAO. 2000. Practical guidelines for the

assessment and measurement of criteria

and indicators for sustainable forest

management in dry-zone Africa. Rome.

FAO/ITTO. 1995. Report of the FAO/ITTO

Expert Consultation on Harmonization of

Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable

Forest Management. Rome, FAO, 13-16

November 1995.

Forest Stewardship Council. 1994.

Principles and criteria for natural forest

management.

ITTO. 1992. Criteria and indicators for the

measurement of sustainable tropical forest

management. ITTO Policy Development

Series No. 3.

ITTO. 1999. Manual for the application of


management of natural tropical forests.

Part A. National Indicators. ITTO Policy

Development Series No. 9.

ITTO. 1999. Manual for the application of


management of natural tropical forests.

Part B. Forest Management Unit Indicators.

ITTO Policy Development Series No. 10.

ITTO/ITTC. 1998. Report of the Expert Panel

on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable

Management of Natural Tropical Forests.

Twenty-fourth Session. Libreville, Gabon,

20-28 May 1998.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry,Finland. 1996. Intergovernmental Seminar

on Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable

Forest Management (ISCI Seminar).

Helsinki, Finland, 19-22 August 1996.

Montreal Process Working Group. 1997.

Progress and Implementation of the

Montreal Process on Criteria and indicators

for Sustainable Management of Temperate

and Boreal Forests. Canada, February 1997.

Pan-European Process on Forests. 1995.

Criteria and indicators for the Conservation

and Sustainable Forest Management.

Ministerial Conference on the Protection of

Forests in Europe. Antalya, Turkey, 1995.

Prabhu, R., Colfer, C.J.P, Dudley. 1999.

Guidelines for developing, testing and

selecting criteria and indicators for

sustainable forest management. CIFOR.

Tarapoto Proposal. 1995. Proposal of

criteria and indicators for sustainability of

the Amazon forests. Results of the Regional

Workshop on the Definition of Criteria and

Indicators for Sustainability of Amazonian

Forests. Tarapoto, Peru, 25 February 1995.

Pro Tempore Secretariat, Amazon

Cooperation Treaty, Lima, Peru.

Vahanen, T. & Granholm, H., eds. 1996.

Summary Report of the Intergovernmental

Seminar on Criteria and Indicators for

Sustainable Forest Management (ISCI

Seminar). Ministry of Agriculture and

Forestry. Government of Finland. Helsinki,

19-22 August 1996.

Wijewardana, D., Caswell, S. J. &Palmberg-Lerche, C. 1997. Criteria and

indicators for sustainable forest

management. Topic 37: Taking stock of the

various sustainable forest management

processes. XI World Forestry Congress,

Antalya, Turkey, 1997. �


4141414141

Conservation and management of mangroves in India,with special reference to the State of Goa and the

Middle Andaman Islands

R. Kumar

In India, mangroves occur on the WestCoast, on the East Coast and onAndaman and Nicobar Islands (see

Map and Table), but in many placesthey are highly degraded. Accordingto the Government of India (1987),India lost 40 percent of its mangrovearea in the last century. The NationalRemote Sensing Agency (NRSA) re-corded a decline of 7 000 ha of man-groves in India within the six-yearperiod from 1975 to 1981. In Andamanand Nicobar Islands about 22 400 haof mangroves were lost between 1987and 1997 (see Table).

Growing awareness of the protective,productive and social functions of tropi-cal mangrove ecosystems has highlightedthe need to conserve and manage themsustainably (FAO, 1994). This article dis-cusses the various measures taken by theGovernment of India for the conserva-tion and management of mangroves, theproblems that persist in spite of thesemeasures and some solutions to over-come them.

The article is based in part on the fieldexperiences of the author since 1992 inthe State of Goa and the Middle AndamanIslands.

NEED FOR MANGROVECONSERVATION ANDMANAGEMENTIncreasing human population in coastalareas is resulting in increased pressureon mangrove ecosystems in many coun-tries, with the growing demand for tim-ber, fuelwood, fodder and other non-wood forest products (NWFPs) (Saenger,Hegerl and Davie, 1983). To ensure theconservation of mangroves for environ-mental benefits, together with a sustain-able supply of various forest and otherproducts to meet the day-to-day require-ments of local people, appropriate man-agement of mangrove ecosystems isneeded. Management can also open newavenues for self-employment such asecotourism, fishing, beekeeping andcottage industries based on mangroveforest products, helping to improve thesocio-economic conditions of the localcommunities.

MANAGEMENT OF MANGROVES ININDIAIndia has a long tradition of mangroveforest management. The Sundarbansmangroves, located in the Bay of Ben-gal (partly in India and partly in Bangla-

Rajiv Kumar is a Divisional ForestOfficer in the Indian Forest Service,Rangat, Andaman and NicobarIslands, India.

Measures taken to conserve andmanage mangroves, the problemsthat persist and some suggestedactions to overcome them.

Area distribution of mangroves in India (thousand ha)

State/Union territory Government of India, 1987 Government of India, 1997

West Bengal (Sundarbans) 420 212.3

Andaman and Nicobar Islands 119 96.6

Maharashtra 33 12.4

Gujarat 26 99.1

Andhra Pradesh 20 38.3

Tamil Nadu 15 2.1

Orissa 15 21.1

Karnataka 6 0.3

Goa 20 0.5

Kerala Sparse Nil

Total 674 482.7


4242424242

desh), were the first mangroves in theworld to be put under scientific manage-ment. The area’s first management planwas implemented in 1892 (Chaudhuri andChoudhury, 1994).

More recently, the concern of the Gov-ernment of India for the conservation offorests and wildlife was clearly demon-strated by a 1976 amendment to the In-dian Constitution, which states that it

shall be the duty of every citizen of Indiato protect and improve the natural envi-ronment including forests, lakes, riversand wildlife.

Recognizing the importance of man-groves, the Government of India set upthe National Mangrove Committee in theMinistry of Environment and Forests in1976 to advise the government aboutmangrove conservation and develop-

ment. In its first meeting, the panel, whichconsists of scientists, research scholarsand experts on the mangrove ecosystem,emphasized the need to conduct a sur-vey of the extent of existing mangroveareas within the country. The govern-ment subsequently introduced a schemefor mangrove conservation and protec-tion, consisting of:

• identification of selected mangroveareas for conservation;

• preparation of a management plan;• promotion of research;• adoption of a multidisciplinary ap-

proach involving state governments,universities, research institutions andlocal organizations.

In 1979, the National Mangrove Com-mittee recommended areas for researchand development and for managementof the mangroves, which included thefollowing:

• nationwide mapping of the mangroveareas, preferably by remote sensingtechniques coupled with land sur-veys, and time series to assess therate of degradation of the ecosys-tems;

• quantitative surveys of area, climaticregime, rate of growth of forest treesand seasonal variations of environ-mental parameters;

• assessment of suitable sites for re-serve forests;

• conservation programmes;• afforestation of degraded mangrove

areas;• study of management methods, the

ecology of mangroves, their flora andfauna, their microbiology and the

Mangrove sitesin India

Mangrovesof Gujarat Sundarbans

mangroves

Mahanadimangroves

Krishna Godavarimangroves

Ratnagirimangroves

Goamangroves

Cauverydeltaicmangroves

Andaman andNicobar Islandsmangroves


4343434343

biochemistry of organic matter andsediments.

On the basis of the National MangroveCommittee’s recommendation, 15 man-grove areas were identified for conser-vation. The Government of India hasprovided guidance and financial assist-ance to states and Union territories forthe preparation and implementation ofManagement Action Plans for the con-servation and development of these man-grove ecosystems. Most of these plansare now being implemented. The plansbroadly cover survey and demarcation,natural regeneration in selected areas, af-forestation, protection measures, fenc-ing and awareness programmes.

The government also supports researchby academic institutions for developmentof mangrove ecosystems on a soundecological basis. The National ForestPolicy, 1988 lists effective conservationand management of natural forest eco-systems (including the mangrove eco-

system) as a priority area for forestryresearch.

Legislative frameworkIn India, a legislative framework for theconservation and management of man-groves is already in place. The IndianForest Act, 1927 and the Wildlife (Pro-tection) Act, 1972 provide protection toflora and fauna. Although they do notspecifically mention mangroves, theseacts can also apply to the conservationof the flora and fauna of mangrove eco-systems. Since 1927, the Indian ForestAct has been applied to the mangroveforests of the Sundarbans, which havebeen declared as a reserved area (Naskarand Mandal, 1999).

The Forest Conservation Act, 1980states that no forest area shall be divertedfor any non-forestry purpose withoutprior approval of the Government ofIndia. This act has proved very effectivein preventing diversion of mangrove

forest areas for non-forestry purposes.The Environment (Protection) Act,

1986 has had a crucial role in the conser-vation and management of mangroveecosystems. It declares a Coastal Regu-lation Zone in which industrial and otheractivities such as discharge of untreatedwater and effluents, dumping of waste,land reclamation and bunding are re-stricted in order to protect the coastalenvironment. Coastal stretches are clas-sified into four categories, and man-groves are included in the most ecologi-cally sensitive category (see Box onp. 52, in the article by L. Hein).

Enforcement of the legislative mandatesis a prime need (Untawale, 1992).

SITUATION IN GOAOf Goa’s total land area of 370 000 ha,the mangrove area is 500 ha, havingdeclined sharply from a recorded20 000 ha in 1987 (see Table).

Some 178 ha of the best mangrove area

A stand of low Rhizophoratrees in the Sundarbans

mangrove forest

FAO

/19883/G. G

RE

PIN


4444444444

at Chorao, Goa has been declared asReserved Forest under the Indian ForestAct, 1927 to protect and conserve themangrove forests. Subsequently, in1988, this area was declared a bird sanc-tuary under the Wildlife (Protection) Act,1972.

Afforestation work to restore degradedmangrove areas started in Goa in 1985-1986; by the end of 1996-1997 the pro-gramme had covered 876 ha (ForestDepartment of Goa statistics).

In 1988, the Government of Goaformed a State Level Steering Commit-tee to oversee the development of themangrove forest. In 1990, the state gov-ernment set up a MultidisciplinaryProject Formulation Team to facilitatethe preparation of a ComprehensiveAction Plan for the development of themangrove ecosystem. The same year, thegovernment decided that no constructionor development would be allowed in thearea earmarked by the Forest Departmentfor mangrove conservation, and declaredthat 15 mangrove species should not befelled for a period of ten years.

A five-year Mangrove ManagementPlan for Goa was prepared in 1991-1992and implemented with financial assist-ance from the Government of India, and100 ha of mangroves were planted eachyear as planned. A second five-yearManagement Plan is currently underimplementation.

SITUATION IN ANDAMAN ANDNICOBAR ISLANDSAndaman and Nicobar Islands comprise572 islands in the Bay of Bengal, with atotal area of about 825 000 ha. The coast-line is about 1 962 km. The area undermangroves is 96 600 ha (Government ofIndia, 1997). The Middle Andaman Is-lands comprise an area of 99 800 ha, ofwhich 23 400 ha or 23.4 percent arecovered with mangroves (Environmentand Forest Department records).

In the past, fuelwood and poles wereextracted from mangroves on a smallscale to meet local demand including, inaddition to household use, the fuellingof a power station at Port Blair, threemajor plywood industries and the gov-ernment’s steam vessels. Limited extrac-tion did not cause any damage to thegovernment mangrove forests, but in therevenue areas (areas managed in such away as to allow local people to benefitfrom extraction of forest products) thedestruction of mangroves is conspicu-ous. Some areas have been reclaimed foragriculture and settlements (Andamanand Nicobar Islands Environment andForest Department, 1997).

Since 1987, as a result of growingawareness regarding the conservation ofmangroves, the Andaman and NicobarAdministration has banned extraction ofmangrove wood. The plywood indus-tries, power station and governmentsteam vessels have since switched overto diesel.

The strategy adopted in Andaman andNicobar Islands for the conservation andmanagement of mangrove forests is asfollows:

• full protection of the mangrove floraand fauna by banning the extractionof mangrove wood from governmentforests;

• identification of potential mangroveareas for declaration as national parksand sanctuaries;

• restoration of degraded and criticalmangrove areas by planting of suit-able species;

• identification of endangered man-grove species and full protection fortheir rehabilitation;

• checking encroachment, destructionand reclamation of mangrove areas;

• monitoring changes in mangrovearea, floristic and faunal composi-tion and physiography;

• raising awareness among the public

on the importance of mangroves andthe need for their preservation;

• protection measures to keep vigil onpossible destruction of mangroves.

MANGROVE CONSERVATION ANDMANAGEMENT ISSUESMost of the challenges to mangrove for-ests observed in Goa and the MiddleAndamans are also relevant to other partsof India. These include both natural haz-ards and destructive human activities.However, the gravity of the problemsvaries from area to area.

Natural hazardsThe natural threats to mangroves ob-served in Goa and the Middle Andamanislands include the following:

• cyclones, typhoons and strong waveaction (Naskar and Mandal, 1999),especially in the geographically vul-nerable Andaman and Nicobar Is-lands;

• browsing and trampling by wildlife(e.g. deer, which are numerous in theMiddle Andamans) and livestock(goats, buffaloes and cows), whichare often left to graze freely, espe-cially in areas close to human habi-tation;

• infestation by barnacles which attachto young seedlings, interfering withrespiration and photosynthesis anddelaying seedling growth (Hong,1996);

• damage by oysters to the youngleaves and plumules of Rhizophoraand Ceriops plants;

• crabs, which attack young seedlings,girdle the root collars and eat thefleshy tissues of the propagules – aserious problem in the MiddleAndamans, although not noticed inGoa;

• gastropods that eat young leaves andflowers of mangroves, a big prob-lem in the Middle Andamans;


4545454545

• insect pests such as wood borers,caterpillars (which eat the mangrovefoliage and damage the wood aswell) (Naskar and Mandal, 1999) andbeetles;

• weeds such as Acrostichum aureumand Acanthus species, which oftenoccupy deforested mangrove areasand restrict the regrowth of economicmangrove tree species;

• drying and mortality of mangrovetrees (e.g. approximately 1 ha ofBruguiera trees at Shoal Bay in theSouth Andamans; 50 ha of Avicenniatrees at Tarmugli Island; big patchesof mangroves at Baludera in theMiddle Andaman Islands).

To reduce infestation by barnacles, tallnursery-grown seedlings should be usedfor planting, as the leading shoot of tallseedlings remains above the water level.More mature seedlings are also less vul-nerable to attack by oysters, crabs andgastropods.

Intensity of insect infestation is higherunder monocropping but can be control-led by raising mixed plantations (Siddiqiet al., 1992).

Problems caused by humansThe following are some of the humanactivities that have resulted in damage tomangroves in Goa and the MiddleAndaman Islands:

• indiscriminate tree felling and lop-ping, mainly for fuelwood, fodderand timber, especially in areas closeto human habitation;

• indiscriminate conversion of man-groves on public lands foraquaculture (e.g. for prawn cultureat Chorao, Goa) (editor’s note: seethe article by L. Hein on the effectsof shrimp culture on mangroves ineastern India), agriculture, mining(e.g. along the Mapusa estuary inGoa), human habitation and indus-trial purposes;

• encroachment on publicly ownedmangrove forest lands, e.g. cultiva-tion of paddy observed on govern-ment land along estuaries in Goa,which involved uprooting of naturaland planted seedlings;

• lack of interest of private landown-ers (village communities and indi-viduals) in conserving and develop-ing the mangroves on their lands;

• illegal large-scale collection of man-grove fruits (Xylocarpus granatum,Xylocarpus moluecensis, Nypafruticans and Heritiera littoralis),which hinders their natural regenera-tion (collection is organized by localagents in the Middle Andamans forexport to the mainland, where thefruits are probably used in produc-tion of medicine);

• discharge of industrial pollutants intocreeks, rivers and estuaries, which isa major problem in some regions ofthe world but is relatively less severein Goa and the Middle Andamans;

• the traditional use of dragnets in fish-ing, which often hampers regenera-tion of mangroves because youngseedlings get entangled in the netsand are uprooted;

• movement of barges (used in Goafor carrying iron ore) which give riseto strong waves that sometimes dam-age the young mangrove seedlings;

• obstruction and diversion of waterfor culvert construction, e.g. atShyamkund in the MiddleAndamans, where it resulted in thedrying and death of about 0.5 ha ofmangroves (personal observation).

The government of Goa has alreadybanned felling of 15 species of man-groves for a period of ten years under theGoa, Daman and Diu Preservation ofTrees Act, 1984. This protection is de-sirable for all mangrove species, but theneed for a total ban on mangrove fellingor lopping may be periodically reviewed.

For Andaman and Nicobar Islands, asuitable enactment is necessary to stopfelling of mangroves in revenue and pri-vate areas (Andaman and Nicobar Is-lands Environment and Forest Depart-ment, 1997).

Other measures that can help to reversesome of these problems include vigilancein the field, jetties and harbours duringthe fruiting period to control the illegalcollection of mangrove fruits; strict im-plementation of antipollution laws; a banon dragnet fishing in areas where thereare seedlings less than five years of age;and the establishment of a speed limit forbarges in areas with young mangroveseedlings.

CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONSMany of the problems observed duringthe field study in Goa and the MiddleAndamans, particularly those caused byhumans, can be traced to the followingroot causes, which need to be addressedif mangroves are to be sustainably con-served:

• the poverty of the local inhabitants,which forces them to depend on man-groves for their fuelwood, timber andfodder requirements even if collec-tion is illegal;

• increasing population, resulting inmore pressure on mangroves;

• lack of education and awareness re-garding the importance of man-groves, and ignorance of rules andregulations regarding conservationof mangroves;

• improper planning of developmentactivities such as aquaculture, agri-culture, construction for humanhabitation, mining and industrial-ization;

• short supply of fuelwood, timber andfodder at affordable prices;

• absence of a systematic survey of thearea and the ownership of the land


4646464646

under mangroves, facilitating en-croachment on this land;

• difficulties of protection because ofthe scattered geographic distributionof mangroves;

• acute shortage of government staffand other infrastructure.

Mangrove conservation and develop-ment efforts undertaken by the Govern-ment of India, the Government of Goaand the Andaman and Nicobar IslandsAdministration have so far been success-ful in reducing the degree of problems,but there is scope for further improve-ment.

Some suggested actions include thefollowing:

• people’s involvement in mangrovemanagement on public lands andrelated benefits;

• programmes to raise people’s aware-ness of the importance of mangroves,e.g. through films, exhibitions,newspapers, magazines, posters,stickers, brochures, banners, semi-nars, nature camps, birdwatching,study tours in the mangrove forests,establishment of mangrove parks inthe mangrove areas close to towns,and the celebration of MangroveConservation Day, with essay com-petitions, debates and drawing com-petitions;

• incentives for sustainable manage-ment of mangroves on private andvillage community land;

• enforcement of environmental pro-tection laws;

• research on problems related to pestsand diseases and on appropriatemanagement of the mangrove eco-system;

• restoration and rehabilitation of de-graded mangrove areas.

Large-scale mangrove restoration andrehabilitation programmes have beentaken up in Goa along the Mandovi,Zuari, Chapora estuaries and the

Cumbarjua canal. However, in theAndaman and Nicobar Islands no large-scale mangrove restoration works havebeen taken up in the last three years.Mangrove conservation and reforestationprogrammes along the central west coastof India have resulted in increased pub-lic awareness regarding the importanceof mangroves; control of intertidalmudbanks; opening of new avenues forforestry and social forestry activities;increased biomass along the estuaries,which has influenced biological produc-tivity; and increased bird and other ani-mal life (Untawale, 1996). �

Bibliography

Andaman and Nicobar IslandsEnvironment and Forest Department.1997. Management Plan for Conservation

of Mangrove in Andaman and Nicobar

Islands, p. 1-6.

Chaudhuri, A.B. & Choudhury, A. 1994.

Mangroves of the Sundarbans. Vol. 1.

India. The IUCN Wetlands Programme.

Bangkok, Thailand, IUCN.

FAO. 1994. Mangrove forests management

guidelines, p. 46, 169-191.

Government of India. 1987. Mangroves in

India – Status report, p. 52-55. New Delhi,

Ministry of Environment and Forests.

Government of India. 1997. The State of

Forest Report. Forest Survey of India, p. 5-

6, 38. New Delhi, Ministry of Environment

and Forests.

Hong, P.N. 1996. Restoration of mangrove

ecosystems in Vietnam: a case study of Can

Gio District, Ho Chi Minh City, p. 82-95.

The International Society for Mangrove

Ecosystems. Produced for ISME by John

Witzig & Company Pty Ltd, Mullumbimby,

NSW 2482, Australia.

Naskar, K.R. & Mandal, R.N. 1999.

Ecology and biodiversity of Indian

mangroves, 1: 3-348. Dehradun, India,

Milton Book Company.

Saenger, P., Hegerl, E.J. & Davie, J.D.S.1983. Global status of mangrove

ecosystems, Commission on Ecology Papers

No. 3. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN. 88 pp.

Siddiqi, N.A., Khan, M.A.S., Islam, M.R.& Hoque, A.K.F. 1992. Underplanting –

a means to ensure sustainable mangrove

plantations in Bangladesh. Bangladesh J.

Forest Science, 21: 1-6.

Untawale, A.G. 1992. Rehabilitation of

coastal wetlands of India. In M. K. Wali,

ed. Ecosystem rehabilitation, ecosystem

analysis and synthesis, 2: 333-348. The

Hague, the Netherlands, Academic

Publishing.

Untawale, A.G. 1996. Restoration of

mangroves along the Central West Coast of

India. In Restoration of mangrove

ecosystems, p. 111-112. Japan, ISME. �


4747474747

Mangroves are found along many of thecoasts in the tropics and subtropics, but thetotal area of mangroves in the world is notwell known. Recent estimates range from16.5 million hectares (FAO, 1994, based onfigures from the early and mid-1980s) to16.9 million hectares (IUCN, 1983), 18.1million hectares (Spalding, Blasco and Field,1997) and 19.9 million hectares (Fisher andSpalding, 1993, cited in Spalding, Blascoand Field, 1997). In many of these studies,countries with small areas of mangroveshave been excluded.

A new study launched by FAO seeks toprovide updated, reliable and comprehen-sive information on the worldwide distri-bution of mangroves.

As part of the Global Forest ResourcesAssessment 2000 (FRA 2000), spearheadedby FAO in collaboration with member coun-tries, donors and other partners, all countrieshave been asked to provide a breakdown oftheir forest area into forest types, using theirown classification system. Since mangrovesare a distinct and relatively uniformly de-fined forest type, specific information on man-groves from most countries in which they existhas been received as part of the FRA 2000

country reporting. This information will beanalysed in a special study on the status ofmangrove forests worldwide as part of FRA2000. Countries that have not provided in-formation on their mangrove resources, butthat are known to have mangroves, will becontacted again to ensure comprehensive cov-erage.

In addition to providing information onthe current status of mangroves, the aim isto compare these data with information fromprevious assessments or other sources inorder to analyse recent trends in area lossesand gains (through planting efforts).

Readers are encouraged to provide inputsto this study in terms of additional infor-mation relating to current and/or past as-sessments of mangrove areas, preferably ona national scale, but also subnationallywhere such information is available. Infor-mation should be sent to Mette LøycheWilkie, Forest Resources Development Serv-ice, FAO Forestry Department, Viale delleTerme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy([email protected]).

A database and specific country informa-tion will be placed on the FAO Web site assoon as they are available. The database

Worldwide distribution of mangroves

will be updated regularly. The long-termplan is to develop this Web site further toprovide links to maps and other databasesdealing with different aspects of mangroves.The aim is to concentrate on providing in-formation on aspects not covered by otherorganizations and to fill important gaps ininformation falling under FAO’s mandate.

Bibliography

FAO. 1994. Mangrove forest management

guidelines. FAO Forestry Paper No. 117.

Rome. 319 pp.

Fisher, P. & Spalding, M.D. 1993. Protected

areas with mangrove habitat. Cambridge,

UK, World Conservation Monitoring

Centre. (draft report)

IUCN.1983. Global status of mangrove

ecosystems. Commission on Ecology Papers

No. 3. P. Saenger, E.J. Hegerl and J.D.S

Davie, eds. Gland, Switzerland,

International Union for Conservation of

Nature and Natural Resources.

Spalding, M.D., Blasco, F. & Field, C.D.,eds. 1997. World Mangrove Atlas .

Okinawa, Japan, The International Society

for Mangrove Ecosystems. �

Mangroves in AuroraProvince, thePhilippines

M. W

ILK

IE


4848484848

Impact of shrimp farming on mangroves along India’sEast Coast

L. Hein

The rapid expansion of shrimp aquaculture on India’s flat coastal lands has been an important cause ofconversion of mangroves in the past decade, generating environmental concern.

In the past decade, Indian shrimpaquaculture has experienced rapidgrowth. Total aquaculture shrimp

production increased from 30 000 tonnesin 1990 to 102 000 tonnes in 1999. Theexpansion was driven by the high prof-itability of shrimp farming and attracteda wide range of investors, ranging fromindividual farmers converting paddyfields to multinational companies invest-ing in large-scale semi-intensive and in-tensive shrimp farming. The economicsignificance of the shrimp sector is largein terms of export earnings (currentlyabout 1.6 percent of the value of Indianexports is from shrimps produced inaquaculture) and employment (involv-ing an estimated 200 000 employees).

Yet the development of shrimpaquaculture in India has been controver-sial. Among the substantial environmen-tal and social problems – including wa-

ter pollution, salinization of drinking-water wells and paddy fields, destruc-tion of fry of wild fish and crustaceanspecies and various social conflicts re-lated to land conversion – a critical out-come has been the conversion of man-groves to shrimp farms.

The conflicts generated by these prob-lems culminated in a Supreme Courtdecision banning non-traditional shrimpaquaculture in India’s coastal zone in1996, followed by the 1997AquacultureBill which partly deviated from the Su-preme Court decision and allowed exist-ing shrimp farms in the coastal zone tocontinue operations under a number ofconditions. Currently, the debate be-tween the Ministry of Agriculture, theMinistry of Environment and Forests, theshrimp farming industry and the variousenvironmental and social NGOs is stillongoing.

Lars Hein is an environmentalofficer in the Project Advisory Unitof FAO’s Investment CentreDivision.

Shrimp aquacultureponds constructed insparse mangroveforest in the Godavaridelta, Andhra Pradesh,India

L. H

EIN


4949494949

MANGROVES OF INDIA’S EASTCOASTThe Sundarbans delta extending over thecoastal areas of West Bengal and Bang-ladesh contains one of the largest remain-ing mangrove forests in the world. Othermangroves of the East Coast are foundin the deltas of the Godavari, KrishnaMahanadi and Kollidam rivers (see Fig-ure below) and in smaller patches alongthe coast. As in many parts of the world,mangroves play a vital role in the coastalenvironment as a cyclone protection belt,as a habitat for juvenile fish and crusta-cean species and through the supply of avariety of products (e.g. shellfish andwood) to the local population.

Large areas of mangroves have beendestroyed in India since the beginningof the century; the Sundarbans man-groves are believed to have covered al-most twice the current area in the early1900s (Government of India, 1990).Causes for the degradation of mangrovesinclude land conversion, timber andfuelwood collection, grazing and natu-ral causes such as cyclone damage(Chaudhuri and Choudhury, 1994;Krishnamoorthy, 1995).

An overview of the mangrove cover ofthe four states of the Indian East Coast is

presented in Table 1. Different studiesshow a general decline in mangrove area,but there are large variations among theestimates. These variations are the resultof different mapping techniques andapplication of different minimum crowncoverage for classification as mangroveforest. The figures from the Indian For-

est Resources Assessments suggest thatthe rate of destruction of mangrovesdecreased in the period 1988 to 1994;however, this is not confirmed by othersources (Jagtap, Chavan and Untawale,1993; Chaudhuri and Choudhury, 1994;Andhra Pradesh Remote Sensing Appli-cation Centre, 1999).

The states of India’sEast Coast

km


5050505050

SPREAD OF SHRIMP CULTIVATIONFour major types of shrimp farms areused in India, ranging from traditional tointensive systems (see Box). The rapidgrowth of the shrimp aquaculture sectorinduced a large increase in the total areaunder shrimp farming (see Table 2). Thisincrease was mainly attributable to theexpansion of extensive and semi-inten-sive systems. Traditional shrimpaquaculture on a significant scale has onlybeen practised in the states of West Ben-gal and Kerala (Alagarswarmi, 1995).Most of the shrimp farms present in theother states in 1990 were extensive andsemi-intensive farms developed in the1980s.

Based on Alagarswami (1995), ADB/NACA (1998) and James (1999), it isestimated that currently about 50 000 haare under traditional aquaculture systems,some 90 000 ha under extensive systems,about 20 000 ha under semi-intensivefarming and some 1 000 ha under inten-sive shrimp farming.

Since the mid-1990s, the shrimpaquaculture sector has been sufferingfrom the so-called white spot disease, aviral disease that was introduced to In-dia in 1994, most likely with broodstockimported from Southeast Asia. The dis-ease spread rapidly throughout the sub-continent and caused a 50 percent de-cline in shrimp production fromaquaculture by 1997 (FAO, 1999). Al-though no treatment for the disease isavailable (apart from prevention), recentproduction data suggest that shrimp pro-duction is increasing again (India Hatch-eries Organization, unpublished data,1999; FAO, FAOSTAT regional fisher-ies statistics, unpublished, 2000).

IMPACT OF SHRIMP CULTURE ONMANGROVESThe fast development of the shrimp sec-tor required the conversion of flat, coastallands to shrimp ponds. Part of the shrimp

TABLE 1. Mangrove areas by state (km2)

State Sidhu (1963) Blasco (1977) India Forest Resources India Forest ResourcesAssessment (1987-1989) Assessment (1993-1994)

Andhra Pradesh 184 100 400 380

Orissa 120 50 200 210

Tamil Nadu 26 15 50 20

West Bengal 4 189 2 000 2 120 2 120

Total East India 4 519 2 165 2 770 2 730

Sources: Sidhu, 1963; Blasco, 1977; Government of India, 1991a, 1997.

Types of shrimp farms

SEMI-INTENSIVE SYSTEMSThese are more recent pond systems, up to1 ha in size, with regular supply and drain-age canals, controlled water exchange andhigher stocking densities (in the order of 15to 30 per square metre). The farms are usuallylocated in estuarine areas and dilute estua-rine water somewhat with fresh water tomaintain optimum salinity levels. Importedpellet feeds are used, and application ofdrugs and chemicals (such as disinfectants,piscicides, fungicides and antibiotics) iscommon. Average annual yields of semi-intensive farms in India are about 2 200 kgper hectare with an average of 1.2 to 1.5crops a year (ADB/NACA, 1998).

INTENSIVE SYSTEMSThe ponds are 0.25 to 0.5 ha in size withfour aerators per pond and a central drain-age system to remove accumulated sludge.Feeding with pelletized food takes place anumber of times per day and the stockingdensity increases to 30 to 80 per squaremetre. Yields of over 8 000 kg per hectareare possible, but the actual average annualyield in India is about 4 500 kg per hectarein 1.6 crops per year (ADB/NACA, 1998).Although this system is very common inThailand and Taiwan Province of China, itis not frequently used in India (James, 1999).

TRADITIONAL SYSTEMSThese include a variety of polyculture sys-tems, usually with a large component ofmiscellaneous fish and a small componentof shrimps. In these systems, ponds are filledwith tidal water with no control over qual-ity and quantity of stocking. Average pro-duction is low and ranges from 200 to 500 kgper hectare per year (mixed species and sizes).In improved traditional systems, the tradi-tional ponds are stocked with wild shrimpseed (in particular from the tiger shrimp,Penaeus monodon), increasing overall yieldsby some 100 to 200 kg per hectare per yearand increasing the shrimp component toabout one third of the total crop(Alagarswami, 1995).

EXTENSIVE SYSTEMSExtensive systems apply monoculture andusually supply water through pumping fromcanals, creeks or the sea. Farmers use locallyprepared feeds and, under good manage-ment, are able to harvest up to some 700 kgper hectare per crop with one or two cropsper year. In modified extensive systems, pondsare prepared with tilling, liming and fertili-zation, which enables the application of higherstocking densities (up to 10 per square me-tre) and increases the potential yield to some1 000 kg per hectare per crop.


5151515151

pond construction took place in man-groves, and shrimp aquaculture has beenan important cause of the conversion ofmangroves in India in the last decade(Lakshmana Rao, Mahapatra and SubbaRao, 1994; Holmgren, 1994;Alagarswami, 1995; Krishnamoorthy,1995; James, 1999). A recent survey bythe aquaculture sector found that about5 percent of the shrimp aquaculture farmsin India have been constructed in formermangrove areas (ADB/NACA, 1998)(Table 3). Mangrove conversion has beenundertaken by both small-scale exten-sive farms and by larger-scale semi-in-tensive and intensive farms(Vivekanandan, Muralidharan andSubba Rao, 1997; ADB/NACA, 1998).

In order to determine the significanceof the destruction of mangroves byaquaculture in relation to other factorshaving an impact on mangrove ecosys-tems, a case study has been carried outfor the Godavari delta, Andhra Pradesh,by the Andhra Pradesh Remote SensingApplication Centre. The results of theclassification of the images are presentedin Table 4.

From the remote sensing images it isapparent that in the Godavari delta area,about 14 percent of the aquaculture farmshave been constructed on mangrovelands. Shrimp aquaculture is responsi-ble for about 80 percent of the conver-sion of mangrove land. Shrimp pondsare often located in sparse mangroveforests (see Maps). The decrease in thearea of sparse mangrove cover is partlyreversed by the conversion of dense intosparse mangroves, probably throughfuelwood collection and grazing.

The rate of conversion of mangroves intoshrimp ponds increased in the period 1997to 1999, suggesting that shrimp pondconstruction started in fallow and croplands but then encroached on mangrovesin the absence of suitable fallow land.Policy regulations banning the conversion

of mangroves to shrimp ponds and theprotected status of the Godavari foresthave not been able to prevent the conver-sion of mangroves into shrimp ponds.

POLICY RESPONSEIn February 1991, the Ministry of Envi-ronment and Forests issued a notifica-tion under the Environment (Protection)

TABLE 2. Areas under shrimp cultivation, by state (ha)

State 1990 1994 1999

Andhra Pradesh 6 000 34 500 84 269

Goa 525 600 650

Gujarat 125 700 997

Karnataka 2 500 3 500 3 540

Kerala 13 000 14 100 14 595

Maharashtra 1 800 2 400 970

Orissa 7 075 8 500 11 332

Tamil Nadu 250 2 000 2 670

West Bengal 33 815 34 400 42 525

Total 65 090 100 700 161 570

Sources: 1990, 1994: MPEDA in James, 1999; 1999: India Hatcheries Organization, unpublished data, 1999.

TABLE 3. Prior land use of shrimp farms (%)

Production system Mangroves Intertidal wetland Rice farming land Other, includingfallow land

Traditionaland extensive 3 20 32 45

Semi-intensive 7 8 5 80

Totala 5 14 18 63

a 966 farms, with a total surface of 3 560 ha.Source: ADB/NACA, 1998.

TABLE 4. The impact of shrimp aquaculture in the Godavari delta (ha)

Land use Land use area Converted to shrimp farms

1989 1997 1999 1987-1997 1997-1999 1989-1999

Crop land 4 543 2 324 6 903

Fallow land 3 149 1 327 4 497

Dense mangrove 16 586 15 987 15 318 433 471 1 137

Sparse mangrove 4 530 3 786 3 199 604 666 1 030

Total mangroves 21 116 19 773 18 517 1 037 1 137 2 167

Other 2 281 1 493 3 714

Aquafarms 2 006 13 032 19 239

Total 11 010 6 251 17 281

Source: Remote Sensing Images from the Andhra Pradesh Remote Sensing Application Centre, 1999.


5252525252

Act, 1986, which declared all coastalstretches of seas, bays and estuaries upto 500 m from the high tide line on thelandward side as the Coastal RegulationZone (CRZ). The notification placed anumber of restrictions on industrial ac-tivities in the CRZ and on the extraction

of groundwater, and requested the coastalStates to prepare coastal zone manage-ment plans (see Box).

In response to the various social andenvironmental conflicts that arose fromthe fast development of the shrimpaquaculture sector, social workers and

environmentalists filed a petition with theIndian Supreme Court in 1994. The peti-tion sought a ban on non-traditionalaquaculture farms in the CRZ through theenforcement of the 1991 CRZ Notifica-tion. At the request of the Supreme Court,the National Environmental EngineeringResearch Institute investigated the socialand environmental costs of shrimp farm-ing in 1995. It was estimated that thesecosts far exceeded the economic benefitsof aquaculture farms1 and in December1996, the Supreme Court responded byplacing a number of stringent restrictionson shrimp farming in the coastal zone,including the following.

• No shrimp culture ponds were to beconstructed within 500 m of the hightide mark, applicable for all seas,estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwa-ters; and all farms constructed withinthis zone were to be demolished be-fore 31 March 1997.

• Farmers practising traditional andimproved traditional systems of cul-ture were exempted from the aboverestriction.

• No aquaculture ponds were to beconstructed within 1 000 m of Chilkaand Pulicat lakes.

• Agricultural lands, salt pan lands,mangroves, wetland, forest lands andland for village common purposeswere not to be converted into shrimpponds.

• The Government of India shall con-stitute an authority under the Envi-ronment (Protection) Act, 1986 tohandle all appeals and cases relatedto shrimp farms.

Coastal zone management plans

from the high tide line is appointed as a no-development zone, although agriculturalactivities, forestry and salt mining are per-mitted. From 200 to 500 m above the hightide line, construction of buildings is al-lowed, with some extra specifications forCRZ-IV (Government of India, 1991b).

In the years directly following the CRZNotification, none of the state governmentsactually prepared the coastal zone man-agement plans, and awareness of the Noti-fication did not spread widely outside thestate departments of environment and for-ests. Only after the various appeals weremade to the Supreme Court on the basis ofthe 1991 Notification, did the states start toprepare Coastal Zone Management Plans.In general, the plans record current landuse, point out threats to the coastal envi-ronment and include general guidelines forcoastal zone management. Because of a lackof enforcement, the plans have had, to date,only limited impact on the construction ofshrimp farms.

1 However, although it was generally agreed thatthese social and environmental costs weresubstantial, the estimate itself was widelyquestioned as the calculations were based onlimited data and disputable calculation methods(Vivekanandan, Muralidharan and Subba Rao,1997: James, 1999).

For regulation of development activities,the coastal states were requested to preparecoastal zone management plans through the1991 CRZ Notification. The Coastal ZoneManagement Plans require the classifica-tion of all coastal land within 500 m land-wards of the high tide line into four catego-ries:

• CRZ-I includes ecologically sensitiveareas, including parks and mangrovesand areas between the high tide line andthe low tide line. In this zone no newconstruction is permitted landwards ofthe high tide line. Between the low tideline and high tide line the only construc-tion activities permitted are those per-taining to facilities for carrying treatedwater discharge into the sea, facilitiesfor carrying seawater for cooling pur-poses, oil, gas, etc.

• CRZ-II includes areas that have alreadybeen developed, e.g. with housing orinfrastructure facilities, up to or closeto the shoreline. In this zone buildingswere not be permitted on the seawardside of existing roads or existing author-ized structures.

• CRZ-III includes relatively undisturbedareas, including rural areas, essentiallyfree of houses and infrastructure.

• CRZ-IV includes coastal stretches in theAndaman and Nicobar and other smallislands except those designated in othercategories.

In CRZ-III and -IV, the area up to 200 m


5353535353

Full enforcement of the Supreme Courtjudgement would have had major impli-cations for the shrimp aquaculture sec-tor. The aquaculture lobby accordinglyfiled a petition in 1997 seeking reviewof the judgement. The court respondedby extending the implementation date ofthe order, and provided a new interimorder on 19 August 1997 which statedthat the farms that were to be demolishedas per the 1996 judgement will not bedemolished until further order, but thatno fresh seeds could be put in these farms.

Following the Supreme Court judge-ment, the Ministry of Agriculture formu-lated the Aquaculture Bill which wasenacted in 1997. The bill specified theorganization and the mandate of theAquaculture Authority (that was to beconstituted following the Supreme Courtjudgement), and provided a number ofdirectives for shrimp aquaculture in thecoastal zone. All aquaculture farms wereto obtain a licence within six months ofthe notification of the bill, and no licencewas to be granted for aquaculture farm-ing proposed within 200 m from the hightide line or within the CRZ in relation tocreeks, rivers and backwaters. However,this restriction on eligible locations didnot apply to aquaculture farms in exist-ence on the day of establishment of theAquaculture Authority, thus providing adeviation from the initial Supreme Courtjudgement.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CURRENTPOLICYThe regulation system for coastal zonemanagement enacted with the 1991 CRZNotification was not capable of mitigat-ing the environmental and social conflictsthat arose from the rapid expansion ofthe shrimp aquaculture sector. With the1996 Supreme Court order and the1997Aquaculture Bill, new legislationwas put in place, but the current permis-sion and regulation system for shrimp

farming is still deficient in a number ofaspects, which relate in particular to itsenforcement.

• The licence system is still not fullyoperational; many of the shrimpfarms have not yet acquired a licence.As there have been very few closuresof unlicensed shrimp farms, shrimpfarms often have little motivation toapply for a licence.

• There is insufficient consideration ofthe ecological and social environmentin the granting of licences, such asthe coastal management zone inwhich the farm of the applicant islocated, the current concentration ofshrimp farms in relation to the carry-ing capacity of the local ecosystem(in terms of pollution, avoiding re-stricted access to land for nearbyvillagers), and the location relativeto mangroves, coastal wetlands andprotected areas.

• There are no clear requirements forshrimp farms to install water efflu-ent treatment facilities or provide forbuffer zones with adequate drainage.

• There is little enforcement of thecurrent permission system; there isvery limited field control of the pre-cise location and the current land useof proposed farms, and insufficientmonitoring afterwards on compli-ance with environmental and socialrequirements.

The state level committees of theAquaculture Authority are responsiblefor the implementation of the permissionsystem. Part of the apparent lack of en-vironmental and social considerations inthe permission system can be explainedby the limited influence of the state de-partments of environment and forests inthese committees. Although the depart-ments of environment and forests are rep-resented, the state level committees ofthe Aquaculture Authority are generallycontrolled by the state fishery depart-

ments. In addition, as there is little fieldmonitoring of existing or proposedaquaculture farms and as there is no clearobligation for existing shrimp farms toapply for a licence, shrimp farmers oftenhave little awareness of these regulations.

CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONSVarious studies indicate that shrimpaquaculture has contributed to the over-all degradation of mangroves in India’sEast Coast in the last decade. For exam-ple, in the Godavari delta, shrimp farmshave been responsible for some 80 per-cent of mangrove conversions in the lastdecade.

In addition to the conversion of man-groves, shrimp aquaculture contributedto a number of other environmental andsocial conflicts. Protests from local vil-lagers, supported by various social andenvironmental NGOs, culminated in the1996 Supreme Court judgement and the1997Aquaculture Bill which establisheda regulatory framework for shrimpaquaculture in India.

The economic benefits of shrimpaquaculture, in particular foreign ex-change earning and provision of employ-ment, are highly important to the Indianeconomy, but there is a need to minimizefurther its social and environmental costs,in particular through more effective en-forcement of current regulations. Whenshrimp farmers gain more experience withthe prevention of the white spot disease,the number of shrimp farms may furtherincrease and effective enforcement willbe critical in avoiding further conflicts.

A number of policy measures are rec-ommended to increase enforcement andto decrease the environmental and socialcosts of shrimp aquaculture in India.These measures have a focus on man-grove protection; additional measureswould be required to address other envi-ronmental and social issues.


5454545454

• The state level committees of theAquaculture Authority should bestrengthened through increased in-volvement of the state departmentsof environment and forests. As theAquaculture Authority has the main-tenance of ecology as its prime guid-ing factor (Government of India,1998), there needs to be equal con-sideration of environmental and fish-eries interests in the permit system.

• All farms, including existing farms,need to be obliged to obtain a licenceto continue operations. TheAquaculture Authority would needto consider the closure of thoseaquaculture farms that have been setup in severe violation of Indian law(e.g. those involving illegal encroach-

ment on mangroves or protected ar-eas). Preferably, the owners wouldbe required to re-establish man-groves where they existed prior tothe development of the aquaculturefarms.

• The State level committees shouldbe given sufficient means to carryout site investigations of all new ap-plications and to conduct regularmonitoring visits without prior no-tice to existing aquaculture farms.

Comparison of land use and land cover in theGodavari delta in 1989 and in 1999, showingthe encroachment of shrimp farms onmangrove land

The committees should have theauthority to close shrimp farms incase of severe violation of environ-mental or social regulations.

• The State level committees shouldgive more consideration to theCoastal Zone Management Plans andthe current concentration of shrimpaquaculture farms in the licensingprocedure for new shrimp farms. InCRZ-I, no new shrimp farms shouldbe allowed. In CRZ-III, the commit-tee should take into account existingconcentrations of shrimp farms andthe existence of social and environ-mental conflicts. �

Dense mangroves

Salt pans

Agricultural lands

Sparse mangroves

Beach

1989

CORANGI

RESERVED FOREST

BHAIRAVAPALEM

RESERVED FOREST

Kakinada Bay(backwater)

Bayof

Bengal

Gadimoga Kaluva

Lakshmipatipuram

Coran

gi R

iver

Gaderu River

Kakinada Bay(backwater)

Bayof

Bengal

Gaderu River

BHAIRAVAPALEM

RESERVED FOREST

Dense mangroves

Shrimp ponds

Agricultural lands

Sparse mangroves

Beach

1999

Coran

gi R

iver

Lakshmipatipuram

Gadimoga Kaluva

CORANGI

RESERVED FOREST


5555555555

Bibliography

ADB/NACA. 1998. Aquaculture

sustainability and the environment. Report

on a Regional Study and Workshop on

Aquaculture Sustainability and the

Environment. Bangkok, Thailand, Asian

Development Bank and Network of

Aquaculture Centres in Asia and the Pacific.

Alagarswami, K. 1995. India country case

study. In Regional study and workshop on

the environmental assessment and

management of aquaculture development

(TCP/RAS/2253). NACA Environment and

Aquaculture Development Series No. 1.

Bangkok, Thailand, Network of Aqua-

culture Centres in Asia and the Pacific.

Andhra Pradesh Remote SensingApplication Centre (APRSAC). 1999.

Environmental management and

monitoring of shrimp culture project, East

Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh – land

use/land cover. Hyderabad, India.

Blasco, F. 1977. Outlines of ecology, botany

and forestry of the Mangals of the Indian

subcontinent. Oxford, Elsevier Scientific

Publishing Company.

Chaudhuri, A.B. & Choudhury, A. 1994.

Mangroves of the Sundarbans. Vol. 1.

India. The IUCN Wetlands Programme.

Bangkok, Thailand, IUCN.

FAO. 1995. Code of conduct for responsible

fisheries. Rome.

FAO. 1996. FAO technical guidelines for

responsible fisheries. No. 3. Rome.

FAO. 1999. Aquaculture production statistics

1988-1997. Rome.

Government of India. 1990. Conservation of

mangroves in India. New Delhi, Ministry

of Environment and Forests.

Government of India. 1991a. The State of

Forest Report, 1991. Forest Survey of India.

New Delhi, Ministry of Environment and

Forests.

Government of India. 1991b. Coastal zone

notification. In Gazette of India, February

1991. New Delhi, Ministry of Environment

and Forests.

Government of India. 1997. The State of

Forest Report, 1997. Forest Survey of India.

New Delhi, Ministry of Environment and

Forests.

Government of India. 1998. Guidelines for

adopting improved technology for

increasing production and productivity in

traditional and improved traditional

systems of shrimp farming. New Delhi,

Ministry of Agriculture, Aquaculture

Authority.

Holmgren, S., ed. 1994. An environmental

assessment of the Bay of Bengal Region.

Swedish Centre for Coastal Development

and Management of Aquatic Resources,

March 1994. Bay of Bengal Programme,

Madras, India.

Jagtap, T.G., Chavan, V.S. & Untawale,A.G. 1993. Mangrove ecosystems of India

– a need for protection. Ambio, 22(4): 252-

254.

James, P.S.B.R. 1999. Shrimp farming

development in India – an overview of

environmental, socio-economic, legal and

other implications. Published on line by

Aquaculture Magazine, December 1999.

(www.ioa.com/ãquamag).

Krishnamoorthy. 1995. Remote sensing of

mangrove forests in Tamil Nadu Coast,

India. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Anna

University, Madras. (thesis)

Lakshmana Rao, M.V., Mahapatra, K. &Subba Rao, D.V. 1994. The coastal zone

of Orissa.

Sidhu, S.S. 1963. Studies on mangrove, p.

129-136. Vol. 33b, Part 1. National

Academy of Sciences,.

Vivekanandan, V., Muralidharan, C.M. &Subba Rao, M. 1997. A study on the

marine fisheries of Andhra Pradesh. As

supported by BILANCE, 1997. (draft

report). �


5656565656

Challenges and opportunities for small-scale treenurseries in the East African highlands

M. Nieuwenhuis and N. O’Connor

In the highland regions of East Af-rica, cultivated and managed treeshave assumed an important place as

one of the many land use options avail-able to small landholders (Dewees,1991).

Most of the seedlings planted by farm-ers are produced in local small-scale treenurseries, which have an important rolein the sustainable development of thelocal communities. This article reportson the results of an in-depth survey ofthe cultural, management and marketingpractices in small-scale nurseries in theMurang’a District in the highlands ofKenya. The objective of the survey wasto identify the constraints affecting thecapacity of nurseries to produce the rangeand quality of seedlings needed to fulfilthe many and varied functions of trees inthe region. A number of recommenda-tions are made on ways to help small-scale nursery owners and managers ob-tain the knowledge, skills and resourcesnecessary to run their nurseries economi-cally and efficiently.

SURVEY OF MURANG’A DISTRICTTo assess the ecological, social and eco-nomic conditions faced by nursery man-agers, a survey of 84 nurseries was car-ried out in the upper midlands region ofMurang’a District in Kenya, a zone rep-resentative of the agro-ecological andsocial conditions found in many of thehighland regions of East Africa (Minis-try of Environment and Natural Re-sources, 1982). The particular study site,consisting of tea, coffee and marginalcoffee zones (O’Connor, 1997), waschosen based on an earlier census of treenurseries in the region (Roothaert andTuwei, 1993).

In the Murang’a District, as in many ofthe highland regions of East Africa, ag-ricultural activities are central to eco-nomic well-being but also create prob-lems such as soil erosion, soil nutrient

depletion and fuelwood and timber short-ages (Ngugi and Brabley, 1986). Theseproblems are accentuated by very highpopulation densities (often as high as 800per km2), intensive cultivation methods,a preponderance of smallholdings be-cause of repeated subdivision of familylands and a rapid decrease in land avail-able for farming (Ministry of Planningand National Development, 1988). Toremedy this situation, farmers have be-gun to plant trees on their farms, either insmall woodlots or in boundary plantings.Most of the seedlings used by the farm-ers are produced in local small-scale treenurseries.

Nursery ownership and expertiseThree main nursery types were identi-fied in the survey: private nurseries,women’s group nurseries and schoolnurseries. Together these accounted forover 80 percent of the nurseries surveyed(O’Connor, 1997). The size and the ca-pacity of the nurseries in these groupsvaried little, except that school nurseriestended to be smaller.

The objectives of the nursery manag-ers varied greatly. The primary objec-tive of private nurseries, which by andlarge were managed by males, was thegeneration of cash income. As a result,managers of private nurseries devotedmore time to nursery upkeep and man-agement, thereby ensuring greater cropsurvival rates. One of the main observa-tions made with regard to private nurser-ies was that they tended to produce fewspecies. Few private managers werewilling to take chances with alternativespecies, unless they knew that a demandexisted for those species.

In contrast, women’s groups appearedto be more eager to diversify. AsMacKenzie (1990) had already noted,women’s groups worked more at com-munity level and were among the first tonotice fuelwood shortages and soil ero-

Maarten Nieuwenhuis is SeniorLecturer in the Department ofForestry, National University ofIreland, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland.Niall O’Connor is ProgrammeCoordinator, Concern Universal,Sunyani, Brong Afaho, Ghana.

Recommendations for improvingthe practices and economicviability of small-scale nurseriessupplying seedlings to localagroforestry systems, based on asurvey in Murang’a District,Kenya.


5757575757

sion problems. Their objectives includedthe provision of free seedlings to the localcommunity (with assistance from non-governmental organizations) in an at-tempt to alleviate social and environmen-tal problems. Since the shortage offuelwood and other wood products wasgreatest in the main coffee-growing zone,the women’s groups established a par-ticularly large number of tree nurseriesin this zone. Women’s groups also weremore eager to try new multipurpose treespecies. Many of the women’s groupsindicated that income from the nurserywas important to the successful manage-ment of the nursery, yet few actuallymade a profit.

Overall, the objectives set by women’sgroups have only been achieved to amoderate extent. The private nurseriesreported greater success in achievingtheir objectives. This may be becauseoperating in a male-dominated societymade it more difficult for women to

achieve their goals, and the women mayalso have been more likely to admit theirdifficulties.

School nurseries served the purpose ofeducating young people in tree plantingand management techniques in order tohelp overcome environmental problemssuch as deforestation and soil erosionwhich were becoming more serious withthe increasing population. Simple trialplots, together with short classes discuss-ing trees, their benefits, their potentialand best management practices, are usedto encourage the youth to widen the uti-lization of (multipurpose) trees. Thenurseries are also used to establish schoolwoodlots to generate income from tim-ber sales for the upkeep of the schools.Excess seedlings are given to studentswho are encouraged to plant them ontheir parents’ farms.

Because of the large number of nurser-ies in the region there is an element ofcompetition among them, which has had

a negative impact on the viability of someof the nurseries by decreasing marketsize and sales. However, competition hasalso encouraged more intensive manage-ment and the production of higher-qual-ity planting stock, leading to fewer losseson the farms. It has also increased diver-sification, as nursery managers have re-alized that they have to secure a market.

To date, very few nursery managershave received professional training andadvice. Although extension agents haveoccasionally visited some of the nurser-ies, the nursery managers themselvesdecided in all cases on which species toproduce. Because of a lack of knowl-edge about alternative species, especiallywithin the farming community, a viciouscircle has developed in which nurseriesonly supply what farmers want, and lackof knowledge prevents the farmers fromdemanding alternative and potentiallymore beneficial multipurpose trees. Theestablishment of a communication net-

A district agroforestryextension officersurveys a badly

managed nursery runby a church group

A medium-size privatenursery illustratinghigh management

standards; managersof private nurseriestend to devote more

time to nursery upkeepand management

A well-managedwomen’s groupnursery situated onthe land of a teaprocessing plant

M. N

IEU

WE

NH

UIS

M. N

IEU

WE

NH

UIS

M. N

IEU

WE

NH

UIS


5858585858

work among agricultural extensionagents, forestry extension agents, nurs-ery managers and farmers is required toeliminate this lack of understanding.

In summary, private nurseries, run on acommercial basis, mainly by male man-agers, were more efficient and cost ef-fective than other types. However, theseprivate nurseries lacked many of thepositive traits of nurseries run by wom-en’s groups. Thus the ideal nurserywould appear to be one run on a privatecommercial basis, yet under the influ-ence of women’s knowledge and con-cern for social and environmental issues.

Technical aspectsOver the three-year period from 1995 to1997, the average nursery productionincreased from 3 000 to over 10 000seedlings per year. The increased pro-duction was mainly the outcome of anincreased demand as a result of a grow-ing awareness of the social and environ-mental problems arising from overpopu-lation and the intensive cultivation of alimited land resource.

In order for small-scale nurseries to berun efficiently, the availability of basicproduction factors is essential. Watersupply was a limiting factor in over onethird of nurseries, regardless of the sizeof the nursery or the agro-ecologicalzone in which it was located. Althoughwater storage tanks were available onthe market, few nurseries could afford tobuy them. As it is now standard nurserypractice to sow in the dry season to en-sure that seedlings are ready for plantingout at the onset of the rains, the impor-tance of a continuous water supply mustbe stressed even more than in the past.

The soil used in seedbeds and polytubeswas generally collected locally. It wasnot sterilized and was of only moderatefertility. Many managers indicated thatthey would like to incorporate inorganicfertilizers in the soil to increase the nutri-

ent status. However, the cost of fertilizerwas almost always prohibitive. Manyother ingredients were used in the ab-sence of inorganic fertilizers, includingcow manure and compost. As a result ofthe increased population density in thedistrict, the volume of manure availableto each household and nursery has beendecreasing, resulting in soil nutrient de-pletion. To help relieve this situation,research is necessary to evaluate thesuitability of alternatives to cow manure(e.g. coffee husk compost).

Local influences have created an al-most total dependence on one seedlingproduction system, consisting of seed-bed germination followed by transplant-ing to polytubes. The success of thisproduction system, based on the fact thatpolytubes retain moisture for long peri-ods, has reduced confidence in otherproduction methods. Yet the majority ofthe nursery owners, regardless of the typeof nursery, considered the cost ofpolytube seedlings to be an economicconstraint and realized that in order toreduce costs, alternatives would have tobe found. A significant extension effortis required to convince farmers that otherproduction and container systems can bejust as effective and have the potential toproduce seedlings more economically.For example, bamboo containers haveproved very successful in Tanzaniannurseries (Ministry for Lands, NaturalResources and Tourism, 1984).

Nursery owners and managers hadaccess to most if not all of the tools nec-essary to carry out the cultural practicesrequired in a small-scale nursery. It ap-peared, however, that since many nurs-ery managers and farmers were accus-tomed to receiving free seedlings andtools, few were willing to make invest-ments to increase the efficiency of theiroperation.

One of the greatest problems found toaffect tree establishment was the distri-

bution of the nursery stock. To ensure asufficient market, nurseries should belocated close to areas of high populationdensity and should have direct access tothe road network. In Murang’a Districtmost nurseries were located more than1 km from a surfaced road, and this hard-ship limited the nurseries’ sales and prof-its. In addition, the greater the distancefrom a nursery to a road, the lower thelikelihood that extension agents will visitthat nursery regularly.

Many of the technical production prob-lems encountered during the survey, suchas water scarcity, soil nutrient depletionand the lack of distribution networks,could be solved using minimal cash in-jections if efficient educational pro-grammes were established by the exten-sion services. Demonstration nurseriesestablished in strategic locations couldencourage visiting nursery managers toreplicate the observed good practices intheir own nurseries.

Plant materialThe survey showed a heavy reliance inthe region on a single exotic tree spe-cies, Grevillea robusta. Although thisspecies fulfils many functions, such asthe supply of fuelwood, timber, fodder,shade and mulch (Harwood, 1992), reli-ance on one species is dangerous in theevent of attack by pathogenic organisms.An example of damage caused by patho-gens was seen when Leucaenaleucocephala was attacked throughoutKenya in the early 1990s and the entirecrop was destroyed.

All seed used in the nurseries includedin the survey was collected locally. Thishas led to inbreeding, resulting from agradual decrease in the genetic base.Added to this problem is the fact that thegenetic resource base of G. robusta wasalready narrow when the species wasintroduced into Kenya, since the prov-enance was a very small region in South-


5959595959

western Australia. Further inbreedingcould expose the species to serious in-sect or fungal attack. As few trees in theregion reach maturity at present (they arecut as many as three times per year, forfodder, fuelwood and timber crops),emphasis needs to be placed on retain-ing sufficient numbers of mature trees toprotect the existing genetic resourcebase. The genetic base should also bebroadened over time by the introductionof reproductive material from other ar-eas in the country of origin.

The survey revealed that seed receivedvery little pretreatment to enhance ger-mination rates. Although germinationrates appeared to be high, further im-provements are possible and simple pre-treatment methods should be introduced.

Many nurseries claimed that there wasnot enough seed available each year.They have managed to overcome thisconstraint by the use of wildlings, gath-ered from the base of older trees and trans-ported to the nursery. This practice hasproved very successful and should beencouraged for many other species, es-pecially exotic tree species, where thelack of a high-quality and regular seedsupply has affected many nurseries.

Where excess seed was collected, man-agers did not store it because of a lack ofknowledge of seed storage or an absenceof adequate facilities. To ensure that seedshortages do not occur, efforts have tobe made to educate managers on storagetechniques. To improve seed supply, theestablishment of seed orchards on a com-mercial basis should be encouraged toallow for greater access to a variety oftree seed by local nurseries and to showfarmers that many tree species do growwell locally.

External influencesIn order to manage a nursery efficiently,managers need up-to-date information onthe technical and cultural practices in-

volved. Access to this information canonly be achieved by contact with exter-nal sources, whether government agen-cies such as the extension services, non-governmental organizations or nationaland international research groups.

Many nursery managers reported thatnurseries were only rarely visited byextension agents and that extensionagents were not well informed and weretherefore not in a strong position to helpmanagers improve their nursery opera-tions. Without changes in the fundingand organization of the extension serv-ices, little improvement can be expectedin the future.

On the other hand, a government ini-tiative that has had a positive influenceon nurseries in the district is a policychange regarding the production of fruit-trees. New government policy prohibitslocal nurseries from sowing and sellingfruit-trees unless the nursery is registeredwith the Kenyan Ministry of Agricultureand Natural Resources. The aim is tointroduce new improved fruit-tree stocks,thereby increasing the production capac-ity and the quality of the fruit. This proc-ess has resulted in specialization of somenurseries in Murang’a District, whichnow concentrate on producing top-qual-ity fruit-trees. Similarly, a factory-backedfarmers’ group called Macadamia Peo-ple has established a nursery producingtop-quality grafted macadamia trees. Inlight of these successful projects, attempts

to establish certified seed centres shouldbe encouraged.

Many governmental and non-govern-mental organizations have been involved,mainly at ground level, in an attempt toraise the standard of tree nursery tech-nology. Yet very little communication hastaken place among these groups. Theconsequences have included duplicationof work, the loss of valuable informa-tion and conflicts over objectives andpractices.

The reimbursement of nurseries for thefree-of-charge distribution of seedlingshas had a negative impact on at least onethird of the nurseries surveyed. Consid-erable disruption to nursery markets hasoccurred, and many farmers are nowunwilling to pay for seedlings. Yet it hasbeen shown that purchased seedlings, asopposed to those received free of charge,have a greater chance of survival as aresult of greater after care by farmers(Tarleton, 1996). Organizations that en-courage the free issuing of seedlings bynurseries should be persuaded to diverttheir funds to other, more effective uses,for instance the provision of nursery re-sources such as water storage tanks,training in nursery management skillsand education relating to seed manage-ment and species selection.

In order to ensure that external influ-ences contribute positively towards thedevelopment of the tree nursery sector,officials within the agricultural and for-

A large private nurseryrelying on a singlespecies, which canresult in dangerousvulnerability to attackby pathogenicorganisms

M. N

IEU

WE

NH

UIS


6060606060

estry sectors must meet on a regular ba-sis to identify and eliminate obstacles andto allow for the transfer of knowledge.Links must be established with all non-governmental organizations and withresearch groups, such as the InternationalCentre for Research in Agroforestry(ICRAF), to ensure that all availableinformation will be utilized and that re-search efforts are focused on the mostpressing problems.

CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONSThe survey of tree nurseries in the high-lands of Kenya suggests a number ofconclusions which may be applicablealso in many other developed and devel-oping countries.

There is a need to develop systems topass knowledge and information to allrelevant organizations and to ensure theflow of expertise to agricultural and for-estry extension agents in the field. Fund-ing must be made available to give agentsaccess to relevant information on nurs-ery management. Greater emphasisshould be placed on encouraging farm-ers and nursery managers to visit exten-sion agents at central locations, whichwould reduce the transport costs of theextension services and allow more fundsto be made available for educationalpurposes.

Local education centres should be es-tablished where demonstration plots,training courses and information on seedmanagement, nursery management,bookkeeping and marketing should bemade available to nursery managers,with sponsorship if possible.

Problems associated with the free sup-ply of seedlings are a major constrainton the establishment of economic andefficiently run small-scale nurseries. Thefree issuing of seedlings should be dis-couraged. External organizations spon-soring nurseries should be encouraged

to redirect their efforts and funding to-wards cooperating with the nursery man-agers, so that physical resources such astools, water storage tanks and good qual-ity seed, as well as access to training andinformation, can be made available tothe nurseries.

Research is needed in many areas ofnursery management. Documentation ofbest nursery practices should be col-lected, published and distributed. Theintroduction of acceptable alternativeseedling production systems, based onlocal conditions and using local materi-als, is urgently required. Furthermore,research into alternative sources of ferti-lizer is essential to alleviate serious localfertilizer shortages.

Small-scale tree nurseries and theirmanagers have an important role in en-suring the sustainable development ofrural communities in the highland regionsof East Africa. It is essential that theyobtain access to the knowledge, skillsand resources necessary to maintain andenhance their capacity to produce theseedlings which form an integral part ofthe local agroforestry systems. �

Bibliography

Dewees, P.A. 1991. Tree planting and

household decision-making processes

amongst smallholders in Kenya:

determinants of land-use change.

University of Oxford, UK, Oxford Forestry

Institute.

Harwood, C.E., ed. 1992. Grevillea robusta

in agroforestry and forestry. Nairobi,

ICRAF.

MacKenzie, F. 1990. Gender and land rights

in Murang’a District, Kenya. J. Peasant

Studies, 17(4): 609-643.

Ministry for Lands, Natural Resources andTourism. 1984. Trees for village forestry.

Forestry Division, Dar es Salaam, United

Republic of Tanzania.

Ministry of Environment and NaturalResources. 1982. Murang’a District

environmental assessment report. Nairobi,

National Environment and Human

Settlements Secretariat.

Ministry of Planning and NationalDevelopment. 1988. Murang’a District

development plan. Nairobi.

Ngugi, A.W. & Brabley, P.N. 1986.

Agroforestry, soil conservation and

woodfuel in Murang’a District. Nairobi,

The Beijer Institute.

O’Connor, N. 1997. Constraints and

solutions to small-scale tree nursery

management in the coffee based land-use

systems of Murang’a District, Central

Highlands, Kenya. University College

Dublin, Ireland. (M.Sc. thesis)

Roothaert, R.L. & Tuwei, P.K. 1993. Census

on existing tree nurseries in the coffee zone

of Murang’a District. Embu, Kenya, KARI

Regional Research Centre.

Tarleton, M.H.W. 1996. On-farm fuel

consumption and production patterns in

three contrasting agro-ecological zones in

Embu district, Eastern province, Kenya.

University College Dublin, Ireland. (M.Sc.

thesis) �


61

FAO FORESTRY

FAO Regional ForestryCommissionsDialogue at the international

level is an essential

complement to the efforts of

individual countries to develop

appropriate forest policies,

institutions and practices. FAO

supports a number of statutory

bodies specifically designed to

provide neutral fora for

discussion in the field of

forestry. Among these are six

regional forestry commissions,

which meet every second year

to advise on the formulation of

forest policy and to review and

coordinate its implementation at

the regional level; to exchange

information and, generally

through special subsidiary

bodies, advise on suitable

practices and action with regard

to technical problems; and to

make appropriate

recommendations to FAO and

other organizations and

institutions.

Thus far in 2000, sessions

have been held for four of the

regional commissions: the

African Forestry and Wildlife

Commission (Lusaka, Zambia,

22 to 24 March), the Asia-

Pacific Forestry Commission

(Noosaville, Queensland,

Australia, 15 to 19 May), the

North American Forestry

Commission (Saint Andrews,

New Brunswick, Canada, 12 to

16 June) and the Near East

Forestry Commission (Teheran,

Islamic Republic of Iran, 1 to 4

July). Short summaries of

commission decisions and

recommendations follow. Full

reports of the commission

sessions may be obtained

through the Meetings Officer,

Forestry Department, FAO,

Viale delle Terme di Caracalla,

00100, Rome, Italy (e-mail:

[email protected]).

Africa. The participants from 21

countries and international and

national non-governmental

organizations identified the

problems of forest and bush

fires as urgent and compelling

and recognized the need for

better sharing of the diversity of

experience in dealing with this

challenge. The commission

affirmed the importance of the

ongoing Forestry Outlook Study

for Africa being conducted by

FAO and highlighted the

importance of linking the

outputs of the study with efforts

to develop national forest

programmes in the region. The

commission endorsed the report

of its Working Party on Wildlife

Management and National

Parks and the working party’s

recommendations that

increased support be given to

training on management of

wildlife and protected areas,

and that the reports of the

working party be widely

circulated, including at the field

level.

Asia and the Pacific.

Participation at the session

(delegates from 25 member

countries, plus representatives

from eight organizations) was

the highest ever. The

commission extended the

mandate of its ad hoc Working

Group on Sustainable Forest

Management and recommended

that the group give priority to

three areas: support to the

implementation of the Code of

Practice for Forest Harvesting

in Asia-Pacific; support to the

development and

implementation of criteria and

indicators for sustainable forest

management in the region; and

assistance to member countries

for the promotion of forest

conservation in general and

management of protected areas

in particular. The commission

endorsed a regional strategy for

implementation of the regional

harvesting code of practice, and

endorsed a proposal to hold an

international conference on

reduced impact logging in

Malaysia in January 2001. The

commission endorsed a regional

initiative for the development of

criteria and indicators for the

sustainable management of dry

forests in Asia, and encouraged

FAO to convene a workshop on

this initiative in 2001. The

commission considered a paper

on the efficacy of removing

natural forests from timber

production as a strategy for

conserving forests (see “FAO

Forestry” section in Unasylva

202) and urged FAO to

distribute the results of the

study widely. The commission

also supported efforts to ensure

a greater degree of mutual

recognition among certification

schemes, and recommended

that FAO provide increased

information on this subject.

North America. The

commission, attended by 26

participants from the three

member countries and two

observers, reviewed the

activities of the commission’s

eight study groups (which

engage actively in research and

exchange activities between

sessions); discussed in depth

urban forestry, alien species

harmful to North American

forests, carbon sequestration in

the North American context,

and criteria and indicators for

sustainable forest management

at the field level.

Near East. The discussion of

the delegates from 11 member

countries of the commission

centred mainly on the following

items:

• the importance of data and

information for the develop-

ment of the forestry sector in

the region;

• the relevance of the Teheran

Process and the Teheran

Declaration to countries with

low forest cover in other

regions, as well as the

intention of the Government

of the Islamic Republic of

Iran to establish a secretariat

to promote the Teheran

Process;

• the importance of non-wood

forest products to the

countries of the region;

• steps taken for further

development and implemen-

tation of criteria and

indicators for sustainable

forest management through

the Near East Process;

• steps taken to develop

national forest programmes

and to revise forest policies

within the region, with FAO

support, and the need to

continue these endeavours –

including reiteration of the


62

FAO FORESTRY

request for the appointment

of an nfp regional advisor;

• the potential importance to

forestry sector development

of certain of the provisions

of the Kyoto Protocol.

Biotechnology and theforestry sectorThe area of biotechnology in

agriculture has created many

questions about the role of

humans in modifying the basic

structure of organisms in

relation to food supplies and

impacts on agricultural and wild-

land ecosystems.

Developments in

biotechnology in forestry are

somewhat behind those in

agriculture, but major advances

are being made.

In collaboration with other

partners, FAO recently

organized an electronic forum

on biotechnology in forestry,

one of a series of two-month e-

mail conferences being held to

consider biotechnology in the

crop, fisheries, forestry and

animal sectors. These fora were

designed to enable a wide range

of parties, including

governmental and non-

governmental organizations,

policy-makers and the general

public, to discuss and exchange

views and experiences about

specific issues concerning

biotechnologies in food and

agriculture (including fisheries

and forestry).

The forum “How appropriate

are currently available

biotechnologies for the forestry

sector in developing countries”

was held from 25 April to 29

June 2000. There were 34

contributions to the forestry e-

mail forum. Ideas ranged from

general comments to very

detailed suppositions on the use

of the new techniques,

especially on genetically

modified trees being developed

for forestry. Several well-known

foresters, biotechnologists, tree

breeders and geneticists

contributed. The following are

some of the main points and

conclusions that emerged from

the exchanges:

• The three main fields of

biotechnology being used or

proposed for use in forestry

(i.e. tissue culture, molecular

genetics and use of

genetically modified or

transgenic trees) need to be

considered only as additions

to already well-established

genetic resource manage-

ment programmes for any

species (i.e. advanced

breeding and conservation

activities already in place).

They should not be

considered replacements.

• The most controversial and

complex technology was that

related to the development

and use of genetically

modified trees. Develop-

ments in tissue culture and

molecular genetics are

largely extensions of

currently acceptable and

well-known practices in the

field.

• Ownership issues related to

information and germplasm

derived from biotechnology

have become increasingly

complex because of the

types of investors involved.

Social and ethical issues

revolving around the use of

genetically modified trees,

combined with economic

implications for investors,

create a complicated set of

questions on which

regulatory agencies,

governments and industries

will need to work together.

• Public information, aware-

ness raising and education

are needed before these

technologies can be used

routinely. Most if not all

genetically modified trees

will be used in high-

investment plantations;

however, complex ecological

questions must be carefully

analysed in relation to

biosafety issues.

• Because of the long rotation

ages of most forest trees

species, and the length of

time required to field-test

genetically modified trees

adequately, forest managers

will have a much larger

window of opportunity than

their counterparts in

agriculture for evaluating

many of the complex

biological, economic and

social questions.

A final report of the e-mail

conference is being prepared

and will be posted on line at the

conference site. Background

documents, texts of individual

contributions and links to

references are available at

www.fao.org/biotech/

Conf2.htm �


63

WORLD OF FORESTRY

Mountain Research andDevelopment getsfacelift, expands focusWith the first issue of 2000,

Mountain Research and

Development, the premier

scholarly journal on mountains,

enters a new era. Previously

focused almost exclusively on

research, the newly designed

journal has substantially

increased its attention to

sustainable mountain

development, with two main

sections – Development and

Research – and briefer sections

on Platform, Notes and Media.

The Development section

reports on experiences of

programmes, projects and

community actions in

sustainable mountain

development. The Research

section presents peer-reviewed

scientific papers on generic,

strategic and applied research

relevant to sustainable

mountain development.

The first issue of the renewed

Mountain Research and

Development focuses in its

Development section on

integrated management of

mountain resources.

Contributions deal with

development in the Andes,

Mount Kenya, the islands of

Svalbard in the Arctic, the

Pamir Mountains in Tajikistan

and the Rocky Mountains in the

United States. The cross-

cutting issue of the importance

of self-determination is covered

in an interview with a peasant

farmer elected to Bolivia’s

Parliament.

The journal has moved its

editorial office to the Centre for

Development and Environment

of the Department of

Geography, University of Berne,

Switzerland. Correspondence to

the journal should be addressed

to: MRD Editorial Office, Centre

for Development and

Environment, Institute of

Geography, University of Berne,

Hallerstrasse 12, 3012 Berne,

Switzerland. E-mail: mrd-

[email protected]. The

journal is also available on line

(www.mrd-journal.org).

Model forest concept toexpand to SoutheastAsiaThe Government of Japan has

agreed to provide US$1.6

million for a project to assist the

development of model forests in

Thailand, China, the Philippines

and Myanmar. The model forest

concept promotes the building

of partnerships of stakeholders

for the development, testing,

implementation and

demonstration of innovative

approaches to forest

management; and the sharing of

information and experiences

through networking. The

concept was initially developed

by Canada in the early 1990s

and has gained a significant

degree of momentum over the

years.

The overall objective of the

project, which will be executed

by FAO, is to strengthen the

national framework and capacity

in the project countries to

develop and implement national

forest programmes and

appropriate national policies for

sustainable forest management

and integrated land use. Model

forests will be established and

used to put in place frameworks

for stakeholder participation in

planning and delivering

programme activities, in

compiling best practices

guidelines for model forest

areas, in strengthening local-

level institutional capacity for

effective management of the

model forest territory, and in

providing feedback to support

policy-making. The project is

planned to last for two and a

half years. The International

Model Forest Network

Secretariat (IMFNS) is actively

collaborating with the project.

Sub-Saharan Africaforest research networklaunchedMore than five years of planning

and negotiation culminated in

the successful launch of the

Forestry Research Network in

Sub-Saharan Africa

(FORNESSA) in July 2000. The

goal of the network is to

strengthen forestry research in

sub-Saharan Africa for greater

impact on management and

conservation of forests and tree

resources for sustainable

development.

The sustainable management,

conservation and development

of forest resources in sub-

Saharan Africa (as in the rest of

the world) are badly needed.

They cannot be achieved,

however, without the support of

sound and forward-looking

forestry and agroforestry


64

WORLD OF FORESTRY

research, conducted by national

and cooperating research

institutions. In Africa south of

the Sahara, a weak institutional

setting, understaffing and

inadequate resources burden

forestry research. Furthermore,

forest research activities in

Africa are often undertaken in

isolation in the different

countries, resulting in

undesirable duplication of effort.

Information on research

activities is also urgently

needed, to promote cooperation

and more efficient use of the

scarce resources.

FORNESSA is envisaged as

a network of institutions that will

facilitate capacity building at

the national level and

cooperation and exchange of

expertise at the regional level.

Operating across language

boundaries, FORNESSA will

build on subregional networks

already active such as the

Association of Forestry

Research Institutions of Eastern

Africa (AFREA), with

membership in ten countries;

CORAF-Forêt, the forest

research network of the

Conférence de responsables de

recherche agronomique

africains (CORAF), with 20

member institutions in West and

Central Africa; and the Forestry

Sector Technical Coordination

Unit (FSTCU) of the Southern

African Development

Community (SADC),

representing research

institutions in the 14 SADC

countries.

FORNESSA’s work plan for

the next two years includes

assessment of forest research

needs and capacities in sub-

Saharan Africa; development of

a strategic plan; awareness

raising on key forestry issues

for the region and lobbying for

support; training; syntheses on

key topics; and facilitation of

information exchange.

The first Chairman of

FORNESSA is Dr Paul

Konuche from the Kenya Forest

Research Institute. The Deputy

Coordinator of the International

Union of Forestry Research

Organizations (IUFRO) Special

Programme for Developing

Countries, hosted by the FAO

Regional Office for Africa in

Accra, Ghana, will act as

Secretary of FORNESSA, thus

ensuring the network’s strong

ties with both IUFRO and FAO.

Italian NGO fosters forestconservation in LatinAmericaThe non-governmental

organization Bioforest –

Association for the Regeneration

of Natural Environments is using

donations, primarily from

industrial corporations in Italy, to

finance reforestation and

scientific research in forest

conservation, with a focus on

Latin America. Current projects

include Operation Otonga, which

is focused on the purchase of

areas of primary forest in

Ecuador to preserve biological

diversity; and Operation

Xavante, focusing on restoration

and expansion of degraded

forest areas assigned to the

Zavantes and Tapirapé Indians

in the Mato Grosso area of

Brazil.

Under operation Otonga, some

800 ha have been purchased in

an area contiguous to the La

Forestal state reserve on the

border of Pichincha and

Cotopaxi Provinces. The area

has been designated permanent

forest reserve by the

Government of Ecuador, and a

research station is being

constructed to facilitate

international study.

Operation Xavante has started

to involve local populations in

restoration of degraded forest.

Both tree and non-wood forest

product species are to be

planted after the elimination of

invasive grass species. Both

projects are envisaged over a

ten-year time scale. �


65

BOOKS

FAO Yearbook of ForestProducts now availablein Arabic and Chinese

FAO Yearbook of Forest Products

1994-1998. 2000. FAO Forestry

Series No. 33/FAO Statistics Series

No. 155. Rome, FAO. ISBN 92-5-

004407-0.

The 52nd issue of the FAO

Yearbook of Forest Products

contains annual data on

production and trade in forest

products for the years 1994 to

1998 and on direction of trade in

1997 and 1998. With this issue

of the yearbook, in keeping with

FAO’s commitment to

increasing access to forestry

information and to best serve

its member countries, language

coverage has been expanded to

include Arabic and Chinese in

addition to English, French and

Spanish. This edition also

benefits from expanded

cooperation in gathering forest

sector statistics among a

number of international

organizations including the

Economic Commission for

Europe (ECE), the Statistical

Office of the European

Communities (EUROSTAT) and

the International Tropical

Timber Organization (ITTO).

As in previous issues, the

tables are extracted from FAO’s

FAOSTAT database on forest

products. The full forest

products time series starting in

1961 is available on the Internet

at http://apps.fao.org/forestry,

on diskette (FAOSTAT PC) and

on compact disc (FAOSTAT

CD).

The FAO Yearbook of Forest

Products compiles statistical

data on basic forest products

for all countries and territories

of the world. It contains series

of annual data on the volume of

production and the volume and

value of trade in forest

products. It includes tables

showing direction of trade and

average unit values of trade for

certain products. Statistical

information in the yearbook is

based primarily on data

provided to the FAO Forestry

Department by the countries

through questionnaires or

official publications. In the

absence of official data, FAO

makes an estimate based on

the best information available.

The main yearbook tables

report the volume of production,

consumption and trade, as well

as total and unit values of

trade, for every country and

type of forest product.

Additional tables show the most

important countries in terms of

production, consumption and

trade of forest products in 1998,

and the bilateral directions of

trade for major product

categories.

A global prospectus onforests, society andenvironment

World forests, society and

environment. M. Palo and J.

Uusivuori, eds. 1999. World Forests

Book Series, Vol. 1. Dordrecht, the

Netherlands/Boston, Massachusetts,

USA/London, UK, Kluwer Academic

Publishers. ISBN 0-7923-5594-6.

This book presents 40 research-

based reviews of globally

relevant issues related to

forests, society and the

environment from an

independent and non-

governmental point of view. It

has been produced under the

auspices of the World Forests,

Society and Environment

Research Program, a joint effort

of the European Forest

Institute, the Finnish Forest

Research Institute and the

United Nations University

Institute of Advanced Studies.

Part I, Editorial Perspectives,

considers the ongoing

globalization of forests,

societies and the environment.

Part II reviews worldwide trends

of significance for the future of

forests, forestry and forest

industries. An important

conclusion is that issues

external to the forest sector

such as demography,

urbanization and technological


66

BOOKS

developments have a greater

impact on these trends than do

forest sector issues.

Part III looks at the value of

the goods and services of

forests – tangible and

intangible, market and non-

market – and concludes that

failure to recognize their full

value is an important

impediment to sustainable

development. Part IV presents

global forestry themes including

deforestation, trade and the

environment, climate change

and biological diversity, with the

aim of stimulating wider

discussion. Part V

complements this discussion

with analyses of key regional

issues. Part VI focuses on the

special issue of forestry in

countries in transition to market

economies.

The main message to be

drawn from the reviews in World

forests, society and

environment is that cooperation

on a global scale is essential if

solutions to the problems facing

the world’s forests are to be

found. This volume and future

publications in the series are

intended for a wide range of

readers including participants in

national and international bodies

concerned with forests and

related policy issues (both

governmental and non-

governmental); students,

teachers and researchers; the

private sector; the general

public; and the media.

Forest resources ofindustrialized temperateand boreal countries

Forest Resources of Europe, CIS,

North America, Australia, Japan and

New Zealand (industrialized

temperate/boreal countries). UN-ECE/

FAO contribution to the Global Forest

Resources Assessment 2000. Main

report. 2000. Geneva, Switzerland,

United Nations. ISBN 92-1-116735-3.

Recent, reliable and

internationally comparable data

on the extent, location, nature,

condition and productivity of,

and changes to, the forest

resource, at the global and

regional levels, are vital to any

serious discussion of policy-

and decision-making relating to

wood supply, industry location,

protection of biodiversity,

climate change and a whole

host of topics linked to forest

resources.

The global Forest Resources

Assessment 2000 (FRA 2000)

is the response to this need.

This volume summarizes the

forest resources assessment

for 55 industrialized temperate

and boreal countries,

coordinated by the UN-ECE/

FAO secretariat in Geneva. The

data on temperate and boreal

forests will be integrated into

the global data set being

prepared within the framework

of FRA 2000.

According to the report, the

total area of forest and other

wooded land in these countries

in the late 1990s was nearly

2 500 million hectares, or

somewhat less than half the

total land area. Of the total, 68

percent was classified as forest

and the remainder as other

wooded land. About 63 percent

of the total area of forest in the

industrialized temperate and

boreal countries is classified as

available for wood supply.

Not all countries could provide

data on changes in forest area

over time, and there are doubts

about the consistency of data

among countries. However, best

estimates indicate that there

was an average increase in area

of about 1.95 million ha per

year, of which more than

600 000 ha were forest and the

remainder other wooded land.

The largest reported changes

were in the Russian Federation,

which had an average annual

decline in forest area of 1.1

million ha, but an increase of

1.6 million ha per year in other

wooded land.

The current assessment

differs from earlier assessments

in that it has also attempted to

include information on the

condition of forest resources.

Overall, the most important

reported causes of damage to

forests were insects and fire.

The information provided

highlights the difficulties of

making such an assessment.

In addition to the statistical

and descriptive information, the

report offers analyses of

ownership and management

status, wood supply and carbon

sequestration, biological

diversity and environmental

protection, and protective and

socio-economic functions.

This volume will be useful to

governments and the

international forest policy

community, as well as a wide

range of other groups including

the scientific community, forest

industries, non-governmental

organizations, the international

conventions on biological

diversity and climate change

and the general public.


67

BOOKS

Two FAO publicationson sound forestharvesting

Environmentally sound forest

infrastructure development and

harvesting in Bhutan. N. Winkler.

1999. Forest Harvesting Case Study

No. 12. Rome, FAO.

Case studies on

environmentally sound

harvesting operations form part

of a series of initiatives carried

out by FAO’s Forest

Harvesting, Trade and

Marketing Branch to promote

environmentally friendly

forest engineering practices.

The current study was

undertaken to investigate the

applicability and efficiency of

low environmental impact,

environmentally sound road

construction methods in the

Himalayan region of Bhutan.

The results show clearly that

low impact methods are both

feasible and more efficient in

the long term, even though they

represent larger initial

investments than the traditional

tractor-based road construction

methods. The study also

provided an opportunity for

testing ways to improve the

stripwise clear felling

associated with long-distance

cable crane logging, which is

the most common logging

method in the country. It is

hoped that this study will help

to raise interest in and

commitment to the adoption of

more environmentally friendly

practices throughout Bhutan

and in other areas with delicate

forest ecosystems.

Proceedings of the FAO/Austria

Expert Meeting on Environmentally

Sound Forest Operations for

Countries in Transition to Market

Economies. 1999. Rome, FAO.

The Expert Meeting, held in Ort/

Gmunden, Austria, from 20 to

27 September 1988, was

organized to exchange

experience and information on

the development of

environmentally sound forest

operations in countries

undergoing transition to market

economies; to provide

information on environmentally

sound forest operations

based on the experience of

private forest enterprises

supported by administrative,

institutional and financial

programmes as established in

Austria; and to demonstrate

appropriate forest operations

involving individual forest

contractors and forest

enterprise personnel in small-,

medium- and large-scale forest

operations. Participants were

from Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia,

Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,

Poland, Romania, the Slovak

Republic, Slovenia and

Ukraine. This volume offers

the papers presented during

the meeting, both by the

country participants and the

Austrian organizers, as well as

a summary of the field

excursion to observe road

planning in steep terrain.

Comprehensively, the papers

represent a valuable review of

measures being adopted to

meet the challenges facing the

countries with economies in

transition. �

• ANGOLAEmpresa Nacional do Disco e dePublicações, ENDIPU-U.E.E.Rua Cirilo da Conceição Silva, No 7C.P. No 1314-C, Luanda

• ARGENTINALibrería AgropecuariaPasteur 743, 1028 Buenos AiresWorld Publications S.A.Av. Córdoba 1877, 1120 Buenos AiresTel./Fax: +54 11 48158156Correo eléctronico:[email protected]

• AUSTRALIAHunter PublicationsPO Box 404, Abbotsford, Vic. 3067Tel.: 61 3 9417 5361Fax: 61 3 9419 7154E-mail: [email protected]

• AUSTRIAGerold Buch & Co.Weihburggasse 26, 1010 Vienna

• BANGLADESHAssociation of DevelopmentAgencies in BangladeshHouse No. 1/3, Block FLalmatia, Dhaka 1207

• BELGIQUEM.J. De Lannoy202, avenue du Roi, B-1060 BruxellesCCP: 000-0808993-13Mél.: [email protected]

• BOLIVIALos Amigos del LibroAv. Heroínas 311, Casilla 450Cochabamba;Mercado 1315, La Paz

• BOTSWANABotsalo Books (Pty) LtdPO Box 1532, Gaborone

• BRAZILFundação Getúlio VargasPraia do Botafogo 190, C.P. 9052Rio de JaneiroNúcleo Editora da UniversidadeFederal FluminenseRua Miguel de Frias 9Icaraí-Niterói 24220-000 Rio de JaneiroFundação da UniversidadeFederal do Paraná - FUNPARRua Alfredo Bufrem 140, 30o andar80020-240 Curitiba

• CAMEROUNCADDESCentre Africain de Diffusion etDéveloppement SocialB.P. 7317, Douala BassaTél.:+237 43 37 83Télécopie: +237 42 77 03

• CANADARenouf Publishing5369 chemin Canotek Road, Unit 1Ottawa, Ontario K1J 9J3Tel.: +1 613 745 2665Fax:+1 613 745 7660E-mail: [email protected]: www.renoufbooks.com

• CHILELibrería - Oficina Regional, FAOc/o FAO, Oficina Regional para AméricaLatina y el Caribe (RLC)Avda. Dag Hammarskjold, 3241Vitacura, SantiagoTel.: +56 2 33 72 314Correo electrónico:[email protected] Textolibros Ltda.Avda. L. Bernardo O’Higgins 1050Santiago

WHERE TO PURCHASE FAO PUBLICATIONS LOCALLYPOINTS DE VENTE DES PUBLICATIONS DE LA FAO

PUNTOS DE VENTA DE PUBLICACIONES DE LA FAO

O

• CHINAChina National PublicationsImport & Export Corporation16 Gongti East Road, Beijing 100020Tel.: +86 10 6506 3070Fax: +86 10 6506 3101E-mail: [email protected]

• COLOMBIAINFOENLACE LTDACalle 72 No 13-23 Piso 3Edificio Nueva GranadaSantafé de BogotáTel.: +57 1 2558783-2557969Fax: +57 1 2480808-2176435Correo electrónico:[email protected]

• CONGOOffice national des librairiespopulairesB.P. 577, Brazzaville

• COSTA RICALibrería Lehmann S.A.Av. Central, Apartado 100111000 San JoséCINDECoalición Costarricense de Iniciativasde DesarrolloApartado 7170, 1000 San JoséCorreo electrónico:[email protected]

• CÔTE D’IVOIRECEDA04 B.P. 541, Abidjan 04Tél.: +225 22 20 55Télécopie: +225 21 72 62

• CUBAEdiciones CubanasEmpresa de Comercio Exteriorde PublicacionesObispo 461, Apartado 605, La Habana

• CZECH REPUBLICArtia Pegas Press LtdImport of PeriodicalsPalác Metro, PO Box 825Národní 25, 111 21 Praha 1

• DENMARKMunksgaard, DirectOstergate 26 A - Postbox 173DK - 1005 Copenhagen K.Tel.: +45 77 33 33 33Fax:+45 77 33 33 77E-mail: [email protected]: www.munksgaardirect.dk

• ECUADORLibri Mundi, Librería InternacionalJuan León Mera 851Apartado Postal 3029, QuitoCorreo electrónico:[email protected] Agraria del EcuadorCentro de Información AgrariaAv. 23 de julio, Apartado 09-01-1248GuayaquilLibrería EspañolaMurgeón 364 y Ulloa, Quito

• EGYPTMERICThe Middle East Readers’ InformationCentre2 Baghat Aly Street, Appt. 24El Masry Tower DCairo/ZamalekTel.: +202 3413824/34038818Fax:+202 3419355E-mail: [email protected]

• ESPAÑALibrería AgrícolaFernando VI 2, 28004 MadridLibrería de la Generalitatde CatalunyaRambla dels Estudis 118 (Palau Moja)08002 BarcelonaTel.: +34 93 302 6462Fax:+34 93 302 1299

Mundi Prensa Libros S.A.Castelló 37, 28001 MadridTel.: +34 91 436 37 00Fax:+34 91 575 39 98Sitio Web: www.mundiprensa.comCorreo electrónico:[email protected] Prensa - BarcelonaConsejo de Ciento 39108009 BarcelonaTel.: +34 93 488 34 92Fax:+34 93 487 76 59

• FINLANDAkateeminen Kirjakauppa SubscriptionServicesPO Box 23, FIN-00371 HelsinkiTel.: +358 9 121 4416Fax:+358 9 121 4450

• FRANCEEditions A. Pedone13, rue Soufflot, 75005 ParisLavoisier Tec & Doc14, rue de Provigny94236 Cachan CedexMél.: [email protected] Web: www.lavoisier.frLibrairie du commerce international10, avenue d’Iéna75783 Paris Cedex 16Mél.: [email protected] Web: www.cfce.frWORLD DATA10, rue Nicolas Flamand75004 ParisTél.:+33 1 4278 0578Télécopie: +33 1 4278 1472

• GERMANYAlexander Horn InternationaleBuchhandlungFriedrichstrasse 34D-65185 WiesbadenTel.: +49 611 9923540/9923541Fax: +49 611 9923543E-mail: [email protected]. Toeche-Mittler GmbHVersandbuchhandlungHindenburgstrasse 33D-64295 DarmstadtTel.: +49 6151 336 65Fax:+49 6151 314 043E-mail: [email protected]: www.booksell.com/triopsUno VerlagPoppelsdorfer Allee 55D-53115 Bonn 1Tel.: +49 228 94 90 20Fax:+49 228 21 74 92E-mail: [email protected]: www.uno-verlag.de

• GHANASEDCO Publishing LtdSedco House, Tabon StreetOff Ring Road Central, North RidgePO Box 2051, AccraReadwide Bookshop LtdPO Box 0600 Osu, AccraTel.: +233 21 22 1387Fax:+233 21 66 3347E-mail: [email protected]

• GREECEPapasotiriou S.A.35 Stournara Str., 10682 AthensTel.: +30 1 3302 980Fax:+30 1 3648254

• GUYANAGuyana National TradingCorporation Ltd45-47 Water Street, PO Box 308Georgetown

• HONDURASEscuela Agrícola PanamericanaLibrería RTACEl Zamorano, Apartado 93, TegucigalpaOficina de la Escuela AgrícolaPanamericana en TegucigalpaBlvd. Morazán, Apts. GlapsonApartado 93, Tegucigalpa

• HUNGARYLibrotrade Kft.PO Box 126, H-1656 BudapestTel.: +36 1 256 1672Fax:+36 1 256 8727

• INDIAAllied Publisher Ltd751 Mount RoadChennai 600 002Tel.: +91 44 8523938/8523984Fax: +91 44 8520649E-mail:[email protected] Affiliated East-WestPress PVT, LtdG-I/16, Ansari Road, Darya GanyNew Delhi 110 002Tel.: +91 11 3264 180Fax:+91 11 3260 358E-mail: [email protected] Book and Stationery Co.Scindia HouseNew Delhi 110001Tel.: +91 11 3315310Fax: +91 11 3713275E-mail: [email protected] Expert Book AgencyG-56, 2nd Floor, Laxmi NagarVikas Marg, Delhi 110092Tel: +91 11 2215045/2150534Fax: +91 11 2418599E-mail: [email protected] Office:2/72, Nirankari Colony, New Delhi - 110009Tel.: +91 11 725 1283Fax:+91 11 328 13 15Sales Office:24/4800, Ansari RoadDarya Ganj, New Delhi - 110002Tel.: +91 11 326 8786E-mail: [email protected]

• IRANThe FAO Bureau, Internationaland Regional SpecializedOrganizations AffairsMinistry of Agriculture of the IslamicRepublic of IranKeshavarz Bld, M.O.A., 17th floorTeheran

• ITALYFAO BookshopViale delle Terme di Caracalla00100 RomaTel.: +39 06 5705 2313Fax:+39 06 5705 3360E-mail: [email protected] Commissionaria SansoniS.p.A. - LicosaVia Duca di Calabria 1/150125 FirenzeTel.: +39 55 64 8 31Fax:+39 55 64 12 57E-mail: [email protected] Scientifica Dott. Lucio de Biasio“Aeiou”Via Coronelli 6, 20146 Milano

• JAPANFar Eastern Booksellers(Kyokuto Shoten Ltd)12 Kanda-Jimbocho 2 chomeChiyoda-ku - PO Box 72Tokyo 101-91Tel.: +81 3 3265 7531Fax:+81 3 3265 4656Maruzen Company LtdPO Box 5050Tokyo International 100-31Tel.: +81 3 3275 8585Fax:+81 3 3275 0656E-mail: [email protected]

Sales and Marketing Group, Information Division, FAOViale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, ItalyTel.: +39 06 57051 – Fax: +39 06 5705 3360E-mail: [email protected]

O

9/00

• UNITED STATESPublications:BERNAN Associates (ex UNIPUB)4611/F Assembly DriveLanham, MD 20706-4391Toll-free: +1800 274 4447Fax:+1 800 865 3450E-mail: [email protected]: www.bernan.comUnited Nations PublicationsTwo UN Plaza, Room DC2-853New York, NY 10017Tel.: +1 212 963 8302/800 253 9646Fax:+1 212 963 3489E-mail: [email protected]: www.unog.chUN Bookshop (direct sales)The United Nations BookshopGeneral Assembly Building Room 32New York, NY 10017Tel.: +1 212 963 7680Fax:+1 212 963 4910E-mail: [email protected]: www.un.orgPeriodicals:Ebsco Subscription ServicesPO Box 1943Birmingham, AL 35201-1943Tel.: +1 205 991 6600Fax:+1 205 991 1449The Faxon Company Inc.15 Southwest ParkWestwood, MA 02090Tel.: +1 617 329 3350Telex: 95 1980Cable: FW Faxon Wood

• URUGUAYLibrería Agropecuaria S.R.L.Buenos Aires 335, Casilla 1755Montevideo C.P. 11000

• VENEZUELATecni-Ciencia LibrosCCCT Nivel C-2CaracasTel.: +58 2 959 4747Fax: +58 2 959 5636Correo electrónico:[email protected], LibreríaAvenida Libertador-EsteEd. Fudeco, Apartado 254Barquisimeto C.P. 3002, Ed. LaraTel.: +58 51 538 022Fax:+58 51 544 394Librería FAGROUniversidad Central de Venezuela (UCV)Maracay

• ZIMBABWEGrassroots BooksThe Book CaféFife Avenue, Harare;61a Fort Street, BulawayoTel.: +263 4 79 31 82Fax:+263 4 72 62 43

• SUISSEUN BookshopPalais des NationsCH-1211 Genève 1Site Web: www.un.orgVan Diermen Editions TechniquesADECO41 Lacuez, CH-1807 Blonzy

• SURINAMEVaco n.v. in SurinameDomineestraat 26, PO Box 1841Paramaribo

• SWEDENWennergren Williams ABPO Box 1305, S-171 25 SolnaTel.: +46 8 705 9750Fax:+46 8 27 00 71E-mail: [email protected]örenc/o Longus Books ImportPO Box 610, S-151 27 SödertäljeTel.: +46 8 55 09 49 70Fax: +46 8 55 01 76 10; E-mail:[email protected]

• THAILANDSuksapan PanitMansion 9, Rajdamnern Avenue,Bangkok

• TOGOLibrairie du Bon PasteurB.P. 1164, Lomé

• TURKEYDUNYA INFOTEL100. Yil Mahallesi34440 Bagcilar, IstanbulTel.: +90 212 629 0808Fax:+90 212 629 4689E-mail: [email protected]: www.dunya.com

• UGANDAFountain Publishers LtdPO Box 488, KampalaTel.: +256 41 259 163Fax:+256 41 251 160

• UNITED ARAB EMIRATESAl Rawdha BookshopPO Box 5027, SharjahTel.: +971 6 734687Fax: +971 6 384473E-mail: [email protected]

• UNITED KINGDOMThe Stationery Office51 Nine Elms LaneLondon SW8 5DRTel.: +44 20 7873 9090 (orders)

+44 20 7873 0011 (inquiries)Fax:+44 20 7873 8463and through The Stationery OfficeBookshopsE-mail: [email protected]: www.the-stationery-office.co.ukElectronic products only:Microinfo LtdPO Box 3, Omega RoadAlton, Hampshire GU34 2PGTel.: +44 1420 86 848Fax:+44 1420 89 889E-mail: [email protected]: www.microinfo.co.ukIntermediate Technology Bookshop103-105 Southampton RowLondon WC1B 4HHTel.: +44 20 7436 9761Fax:+44 20 7436 2013E-mail: [email protected]: www.oneworld.org/itdg/publications.html

• NICARAGUALibrería HISPAMERCostado Este Univ. CentroamericanaApartado Postal A-221, Managua

• NIGERIAUniversity Bookshop (Nigeria) LtdUniversity of Ibadan, Ibadan

• PAKISTANMirza Book Agency65 Shahrah-e-Quaid-e-AzamPO Box 729, Lahore 3

• PARAGUAYLibrería IntercontinentalEditora e Impresora S.R.L.Caballero 270 c/Mcal EstigarribiaAsunción

• PHILIPPINESInternational Booksource Center, Inc.1127-A Antipolo St, Barangay ValenzuelaMakati CityTel.: +63 2 8966501/8966505/8966507Fax: +63 2 8966497E-mail: [email protected]

• POLANDArs PolonaKrakowskie Przedmiescie 700-950 Warsaw

• PORTUGALLivraria Portugal, Dias e AndradeLtda.Rua do Carmo, 70-74Apartado 2681, 1200 Lisboa Codex

• REPÚBLICA DOMINICANACUESTA - Centro del libroAv. 27 de Febrero, esq. A. LincolnCentro Comercial NacionalApartado 1241, Santo DomingoCEDAF - Centro para el DesarrolloAgropecuario y Forestal, Inc.Calle José Amado Soler, 50 - Urban.ParaísoApartado Postal, 567-2, Santo DomingoTel.: +001 809 544-0616/544-0634/565-5603Fax: +001 809 544-4727/567-6989Correo electrónico: [email protected]

• SINGAPORESelect Books Pte Ltd03-15 Tanglin Shopping Centre19 Tanglin Road, Singapore 1024Tel.: +65 732 1515Fax:+65 736 0855

• SLOVAK REPUBLICInstitute of Scientific and TechnicalInformation for AgricultureSamova 9, 950 10 NitraTel.: +421 87 522 185Fax:+421 87 525 275E-mail: [email protected]

• SOMALIASamaterPO Box 936, Mogadishu

• SOUTH AFRICADavid Philip Publishers (Pty) LtdPO Box 23408, Claremont 7735Tel.: Cape Town +27 21 64 4136Fax: Cape Town +27 21 64 3358E-mail: [email protected]: www.twisted.co.za

• SRI LANKAM.D. Gunasena & Co. Ltd217 Olcott Mawatha, PO Box 246Colombo 11

• KENYAText Book Centre LtdKijabe StreetPO Box 47540, NairobiTel.: +254 2 330 342Fax:+254 2 22 57 79Inter Africa Book DistributionKencom House, Moi AvenuePO Box 73580, NairobiTel.: +254 2 211 184Fax:+254 2 22 3 5 70Legacy BooksMezzanine 1, Loita House, Loita StreetNairobi, PO Box 68077Tel.: +254 2 303853Fax:+254 2 330854

• LUXEMBOURGM.J. De Lannoy202, avenue du RoiB-1060, Bruxelles (Belgique)Mél.: [email protected]

• MADAGASCARCentre d’Information et deDocumentation Scientifique etTechniqueMinistère de la recherche appliquéeau développementB.P. 6224, Tsimbazaza, Antananarivo

• MALAYSIASouthboundSuite 20F Northam House55 Jalan Sultan Ahmad Shah10050 PenangTel.: +60 4 2282169Fax: +60 4 2281758E-mail: [email protected]: www.southbound.com.my

• MALILibrairie TraoreRue Soundiata Keita X 115B.P. 3243, Bamako

• MAROCLa Librairie Internationale70, rue T’ssouleB.P. 302 (RP), RabatTél./Télécopie: +212 7 75 01 83

• MÉXICOLibrería, Universidad Autónoma deChapingo56230 ChapingoLibros y Editoriales S.A.Av. Progreso No 202-1o Piso AApartado Postal 18922Col. Escandón, 11800 México D.F.Mundi Prensa Mexico, S.A.Río Pánuco, 141 Col. CuauhtémocC.P. 06500, México, DFTel.: +52 5 533 56 58Fax:+52 5 514 67 99Correo electrónico:[email protected]

• NETHERLANDSRoodveldt Import b.v.Brouwersgracht 2881013 HG AmsterdamTel.: +31 20 622 80 35Fax:+31 20 625 54 93E-mail: [email protected] & Zeitlinger b.v.PO Box 830, 2160 LisseHeereweg 347 B, 2161 CA LisseE-mail: [email protected]: www.swets.nl

• NEW ZEALANDLegislation ServicesPO Box 12418Thorndon, WellingtonE-mail: [email protected] OfficialPO Box 3627, WellingtonTel.: +64 4 499 1551Fax: +64 4 499 1972E-mail: [email protected]: www.oasisbooks.co.nzl



• ANGOLAEmpresa Nacional do Disco e dePublicações, ENDIPU-U.E.E.Rua Cirilo da Conceição Silva, No 7C.P. No 1314-C, Luanda

• ARGENTINALibrería AgropecuariaPasteur 743, 1028 Buenos AiresWorld Publications S.A.Av. Córdoba 1877, 1120 Buenos AiresTel./Fax: +54 11 48158156Correo eléctronico:[email protected]

• AUSTRALIAHunter PublicationsPO Box 404, Abbotsford, Vic. 3067Tel.: 61 3 9417 5361Fax: 61 3 9419 7154E-mail: [email protected]

• AUSTRIAGerold Buch & Co.Weihburggasse 26, 1010 Vienna

• BANGLADESHAssociation of DevelopmentAgencies in BangladeshHouse No. 1/3, Block FLalmatia, Dhaka 1207

• BELGIQUEM.J. De Lannoy202, avenue du Roi, B-1060 BruxellesCCP: 000-0808993-13Mél.: [email protected]

• BOLIVIALos Amigos del LibroAv. Heroínas 311, Casilla 450Cochabamba;Mercado 1315, La Paz

• BOTSWANABotsalo Books (Pty) LtdPO Box 1532, Gaborone

• BRAZILFundação Getúlio VargasPraia do Botafogo 190, C.P. 9052Rio de JaneiroNúcleo Editora da UniversidadeFederal FluminenseRua Miguel de Frias 9Icaraí-Niterói 24220-000 Rio de JaneiroFundação da UniversidadeFederal do Paraná - FUNPARRua Alfredo Bufrem 140, 30o andar80020-240 Curitiba

• CAMEROUNCADDESCentre Africain de Diffusion etDéveloppement SocialB.P. 7317, Douala BassaTél.:+237 43 37 83Télécopie: +237 42 77 03

• CANADARenouf Publishing5369 chemin Canotek Road, Unit 1Ottawa, Ontario K1J 9J3Tel.: +1 613 745 2665Fax:+1 613 745 7660E-mail: [email protected]: www.renoufbooks.com

• CHILELibrería - Oficina Regional, FAOc/o FAO, Oficina Regional para AméricaLatina y el Caribe (RLC)Avda. Dag Hammarskjold, 3241Vitacura, SantiagoTel.: +56 2 33 72 314Correo electrónico:[email protected] Textolibros Ltda.Avda. L. Bernardo O’Higgins 1050Santiago



O

• CHINAChina National PublicationsImport & Export Corporation16 Gongti East Road, Beijing 100020Tel.: +86 10 6506 3070Fax: +86 10 6506 3101E-mail: [email protected]

• COLOMBIAINFOENLACE LTDACalle 72 No 13-23 Piso 3Edificio Nueva GranadaSantafé de BogotáTel.: +57 1 2558783-2557969Fax: +57 1 2480808-2176435Correo electrónico:[email protected]

• CONGOOffice national des librairiespopulairesB.P. 577, Brazzaville

• COSTA RICALibrería Lehmann S.A.Av. Central, Apartado 100111000 San JoséCINDECoalición Costarricense de Iniciativasde DesarrolloApartado 7170, 1000 San JoséCorreo electrónico:[email protected]

• CÔTE D’IVOIRECEDA04 B.P. 541, Abidjan 04Tél.: +225 22 20 55Télécopie: +225 21 72 62

• CUBAEdiciones CubanasEmpresa de Comercio Exteriorde PublicacionesObispo 461, Apartado 605, La Habana

• CZECH REPUBLICArtia Pegas Press LtdImport of PeriodicalsPalác Metro, PO Box 825Národní 25, 111 21 Praha 1

• DENMARKMunksgaard, DirectOstergate 26 A - Postbox 173DK - 1005 Copenhagen K.Tel.: +45 77 33 33 33Fax:+45 77 33 33 77E-mail: [email protected]: www.munksgaardirect.dk

• ECUADORLibri Mundi, Librería InternacionalJuan León Mera 851Apartado Postal 3029, QuitoCorreo electrónico:[email protected] Agraria del EcuadorCentro de Información AgrariaAv. 23 de julio, Apartado 09-01-1248GuayaquilLibrería EspañolaMurgeón 364 y Ulloa, Quito

• EGYPTMERICThe Middle East Readers’ InformationCentre2 Baghat Aly Street, Appt. 24El Masry Tower DCairo/ZamalekTel.: +202 3413824/34038818Fax:+202 3419355E-mail: [email protected]

• ESPAÑALibrería AgrícolaFernando VI 2, 28004 MadridLibrería de la Generalitatde CatalunyaRambla dels Estudis 118 (Palau Moja)08002 BarcelonaTel.: +34 93 302 6462Fax:+34 93 302 1299

Mundi Prensa Libros S.A.Castelló 37, 28001 MadridTel.: +34 91 436 37 00Fax:+34 91 575 39 98Sitio Web: www.mundiprensa.comCorreo electrónico:[email protected] Prensa - BarcelonaConsejo de Ciento 39108009 BarcelonaTel.: +34 93 488 34 92Fax:+34 93 487 76 59

• FINLANDAkateeminen Kirjakauppa SubscriptionServicesPO Box 23, FIN-00371 HelsinkiTel.: +358 9 121 4416Fax:+358 9 121 4450

• FRANCEEditions A. Pedone13, rue Soufflot, 75005 ParisLavoisier Tec & Doc14, rue de Provigny94236 Cachan CedexMél.: [email protected] Web: www.lavoisier.frLibrairie du commerce international10, avenue d’Iéna75783 Paris Cedex 16Mél.: [email protected] Web: www.cfce.frWORLD DATA10, rue Nicolas Flamand75004 ParisTél.:+33 1 4278 0578Télécopie: +33 1 4278 1472

• GERMANYAlexander Horn InternationaleBuchhandlungFriedrichstrasse 34D-65185 WiesbadenTel.: +49 611 9923540/9923541Fax: +49 611 9923543E-mail: [email protected]. Toeche-Mittler GmbHVersandbuchhandlungHindenburgstrasse 33D-64295 DarmstadtTel.: +49 6151 336 65Fax:+49 6151 314 043E-mail: [email protected]: www.booksell.com/triopsUno VerlagPoppelsdorfer Allee 55D-53115 Bonn 1Tel.: +49 228 94 90 20Fax:+49 228 21 74 92E-mail: [email protected]: www.uno-verlag.de

• GHANASEDCO Publishing LtdSedco House, Tabon StreetOff Ring Road Central, North RidgePO Box 2051, AccraReadwide Bookshop LtdPO Box 0600 Osu, AccraTel.: +233 21 22 1387Fax:+233 21 66 3347E-mail: [email protected]

• GREECEPapasotiriou S.A.35 Stournara Str., 10682 AthensTel.: +30 1 3302 980Fax:+30 1 3648254

• GUYANAGuyana National TradingCorporation Ltd45-47 Water Street, PO Box 308Georgetown

• HONDURASEscuela Agrícola PanamericanaLibrería RTACEl Zamorano, Apartado 93, TegucigalpaOficina de la Escuela AgrícolaPanamericana en TegucigalpaBlvd. Morazán, Apts. GlapsonApartado 93, Tegucigalpa

• HUNGARYLibrotrade Kft.PO Box 126, H-1656 BudapestTel.: +36 1 256 1672Fax:+36 1 256 8727

• INDIAAllied Publisher Ltd751 Mount RoadChennai 600 002Tel.: +91 44 8523938/8523984Fax: +91 44 8520649E-mail:[email protected] Affiliated East-WestPress PVT, LtdG-I/16, Ansari Road, Darya GanyNew Delhi 110 002Tel.: +91 11 3264 180Fax:+91 11 3260 358E-mail: [email protected] Book and Stationery Co.Scindia HouseNew Delhi 110001Tel.: +91 11 3315310Fax: +91 11 3713275E-mail: [email protected] Expert Book AgencyG-56, 2nd Floor, Laxmi NagarVikas Marg, Delhi 110092Tel: +91 11 2215045/2150534Fax: +91 11 2418599E-mail: [email protected] Office:2/72, Nirankari Colony, New Delhi - 110009Tel.: +91 11 725 1283Fax:+91 11 328 13 15Sales Office:24/4800, Ansari RoadDarya Ganj, New Delhi - 110002Tel.: +91 11 326 8786E-mail: [email protected]

• IRANThe FAO Bureau, Internationaland Regional SpecializedOrganizations AffairsMinistry of Agriculture of the IslamicRepublic of IranKeshavarz Bld, M.O.A., 17th floorTeheran

• ITALYFAO BookshopViale delle Terme di Caracalla00100 RomaTel.: +39 06 5705 2313Fax:+39 06 5705 3360E-mail: [email protected] Commissionaria SansoniS.p.A. - LicosaVia Duca di Calabria 1/150125 FirenzeTel.: +39 55 64 8 31Fax:+39 55 64 12 57E-mail: [email protected] Scientifica Dott. Lucio de Biasio“Aeiou”Via Coronelli 6, 20146 Milano

• JAPANFar Eastern Booksellers(Kyokuto Shoten Ltd)12 Kanda-Jimbocho 2 chomeChiyoda-ku - PO Box 72Tokyo 101-91Tel.: +81 3 3265 7531Fax:+81 3 3265 4656Maruzen Company LtdPO Box 5050Tokyo International 100-31Tel.: +81 3 3275 8585Fax:+81 3 3275 0656E-mail: [email protected]

Sales and Marketing Group, Information Division, FAOViale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, ItalyTel.: +39 06 57051 – Fax: +39 06 5705 3360E-mail: [email protected]

O

9/00

• UNITED STATESPublications:BERNAN Associates (ex UNIPUB)4611/F Assembly DriveLanham, MD 20706-4391Toll-free: +1800 274 4447Fax:+1 800 865 3450E-mail: [email protected]: www.bernan.comUnited Nations PublicationsTwo UN Plaza, Room DC2-853New York, NY 10017Tel.: +1 212 963 8302/800 253 9646Fax:+1 212 963 3489E-mail: [email protected]: www.unog.chUN Bookshop (direct sales)The United Nations BookshopGeneral Assembly Building Room 32New York, NY 10017Tel.: +1 212 963 7680Fax:+1 212 963 4910E-mail: [email protected]: www.un.orgPeriodicals:Ebsco Subscription ServicesPO Box 1943Birmingham, AL 35201-1943Tel.: +1 205 991 6600Fax:+1 205 991 1449The Faxon Company Inc.15 Southwest ParkWestwood, MA 02090Tel.: +1 617 329 3350Telex: 95 1980Cable: FW Faxon Wood

• URUGUAYLibrería Agropecuaria S.R.L.Buenos Aires 335, Casilla 1755Montevideo C.P. 11000

• VENEZUELATecni-Ciencia LibrosCCCT Nivel C-2CaracasTel.: +58 2 959 4747Fax: +58 2 959 5636Correo electrónico:[email protected], LibreríaAvenida Libertador-EsteEd. Fudeco, Apartado 254Barquisimeto C.P. 3002, Ed. LaraTel.: +58 51 538 022Fax:+58 51 544 394Librería FAGROUniversidad Central de Venezuela (UCV)Maracay

• ZIMBABWEGrassroots BooksThe Book CaféFife Avenue, Harare;61a Fort Street, BulawayoTel.: +263 4 79 31 82Fax:+263 4 72 62 43

• SUISSEUN BookshopPalais des NationsCH-1211 Genève 1Site Web: www.un.orgVan Diermen Editions TechniquesADECO41 Lacuez, CH-1807 Blonzy

• SURINAMEVaco n.v. in SurinameDomineestraat 26, PO Box 1841Paramaribo

• SWEDENWennergren Williams ABPO Box 1305, S-171 25 SolnaTel.: +46 8 705 9750Fax:+46 8 27 00 71E-mail: [email protected]örenc/o Longus Books ImportPO Box 610, S-151 27 SödertäljeTel.: +46 8 55 09 49 70Fax: +46 8 55 01 76 10; E-mail:[email protected]

• THAILANDSuksapan PanitMansion 9, Rajdamnern Avenue,Bangkok

• TOGOLibrairie du Bon PasteurB.P. 1164, Lomé

• TURKEYDUNYA INFOTEL100. Yil Mahallesi34440 Bagcilar, IstanbulTel.: +90 212 629 0808Fax:+90 212 629 4689E-mail: [email protected]: www.dunya.com

• UGANDAFountain Publishers LtdPO Box 488, KampalaTel.: +256 41 259 163Fax:+256 41 251 160

• UNITED ARAB EMIRATESAl Rawdha BookshopPO Box 5027, SharjahTel.: +971 6 734687Fax: +971 6 384473E-mail: [email protected]

• UNITED KINGDOMThe Stationery Office51 Nine Elms LaneLondon SW8 5DRTel.: +44 20 7873 9090 (orders)

+44 20 7873 0011 (inquiries)Fax:+44 20 7873 8463and through The Stationery OfficeBookshopsE-mail: [email protected]: www.the-stationery-office.co.ukElectronic products only:Microinfo LtdPO Box 3, Omega RoadAlton, Hampshire GU34 2PGTel.: +44 1420 86 848Fax:+44 1420 89 889E-mail: [email protected]: www.microinfo.co.ukIntermediate Technology Bookshop103-105 Southampton RowLondon WC1B 4HHTel.: +44 20 7436 9761Fax:+44 20 7436 2013E-mail: [email protected]: www.oneworld.org/itdg/publications.html

• NICARAGUALibrería HISPAMERCostado Este Univ. CentroamericanaApartado Postal A-221, Managua

• NIGERIAUniversity Bookshop (Nigeria) LtdUniversity of Ibadan, Ibadan

• PAKISTANMirza Book Agency65 Shahrah-e-Quaid-e-AzamPO Box 729, Lahore 3

• PARAGUAYLibrería IntercontinentalEditora e Impresora S.R.L.Caballero 270 c/Mcal EstigarribiaAsunción

• PHILIPPINESInternational Booksource Center, Inc.1127-A Antipolo St, Barangay ValenzuelaMakati CityTel.: +63 2 8966501/8966505/8966507Fax: +63 2 8966497E-mail: [email protected]

• POLANDArs PolonaKrakowskie Przedmiescie 700-950 Warsaw

• PORTUGALLivraria Portugal, Dias e AndradeLtda.Rua do Carmo, 70-74Apartado 2681, 1200 Lisboa Codex

• REPÚBLICA DOMINICANACUESTA - Centro del libroAv. 27 de Febrero, esq. A. LincolnCentro Comercial NacionalApartado 1241, Santo DomingoCEDAF - Centro para el DesarrolloAgropecuario y Forestal, Inc.Calle José Amado Soler, 50 - Urban.ParaísoApartado Postal, 567-2, Santo DomingoTel.: +001 809 544-0616/544-0634/565-5603Fax: +001 809 544-4727/567-6989Correo electrónico: [email protected]

• SINGAPORESelect Books Pte Ltd03-15 Tanglin Shopping Centre19 Tanglin Road, Singapore 1024Tel.: +65 732 1515Fax:+65 736 0855

• SLOVAK REPUBLICInstitute of Scientific and TechnicalInformation for AgricultureSamova 9, 950 10 NitraTel.: +421 87 522 185Fax:+421 87 525 275E-mail: [email protected]

• SOMALIASamaterPO Box 936, Mogadishu

• SOUTH AFRICADavid Philip Publishers (Pty) LtdPO Box 23408, Claremont 7735Tel.: Cape Town +27 21 64 4136Fax: Cape Town +27 21 64 3358E-mail: [email protected]: www.twisted.co.za

• SRI LANKAM.D. Gunasena & Co. Ltd217 Olcott Mawatha, PO Box 246Colombo 11

• KENYAText Book Centre LtdKijabe StreetPO Box 47540, NairobiTel.: +254 2 330 342Fax:+254 2 22 57 79Inter Africa Book DistributionKencom House, Moi AvenuePO Box 73580, NairobiTel.: +254 2 211 184Fax:+254 2 22 3 5 70Legacy BooksMezzanine 1, Loita House, Loita StreetNairobi, PO Box 68077Tel.: +254 2 303853Fax:+254 2 330854

• LUXEMBOURGM.J. De Lannoy202, avenue du RoiB-1060, Bruxelles (Belgique)Mél.: [email protected]

• MADAGASCARCentre d’Information et deDocumentation Scientifique etTechniqueMinistère de la recherche appliquéeau développementB.P. 6224, Tsimbazaza, Antananarivo

• MALAYSIASouthboundSuite 20F Northam House55 Jalan Sultan Ahmad Shah10050 PenangTel.: +60 4 2282169Fax: +60 4 2281758E-mail: [email protected]: www.southbound.com.my

• MALILibrairie TraoreRue Soundiata Keita X 115B.P. 3243, Bamako

• MAROCLa Librairie Internationale70, rue T’ssouleB.P. 302 (RP), RabatTél./Télécopie: +212 7 75 01 83

• MÉXICOLibrería, Universidad Autónoma deChapingo56230 ChapingoLibros y Editoriales S.A.Av. Progreso No 202-1o Piso AApartado Postal 18922Col. Escandón, 11800 México D.F.Mundi Prensa Mexico, S.A.Río Pánuco, 141 Col. CuauhtémocC.P. 06500, México, DFTel.: +52 5 533 56 58Fax:+52 5 514 67 99Correo electrónico:[email protected]

• NETHERLANDSRoodveldt Import b.v.Brouwersgracht 2881013 HG AmsterdamTel.: +31 20 622 80 35Fax:+31 20 625 54 93E-mail: [email protected] & Zeitlinger b.v.PO Box 830, 2160 LisseHeereweg 347 B, 2161 CA LisseE-mail: [email protected]: www.swets.nl

• NEW ZEALANDLegislation ServicesPO Box 12418Thorndon, WellingtonE-mail: [email protected] OfficialPO Box 3627, WellingtonTel.: +64 4 499 1551Fax: +64 4 499 1972E-mail: [email protected]: www.oasisbooks.co.nzl

