World Forests, Society and Environment - Executive Summaryarchive.unu.edu/env/forests/WFSEexecutive-summary.pdf · World Forests, Society and Environment - Executive Summary │3

Chief Editor: Philip WardleCo-editors: Libor Jansky, Gerardo Mery, Matti Palo,

Jussi Uusivuori and Heidi Vanhanen

World Forests,Society and Environment

- Executive Summary


- Executive Summary


- Executive Summary

ISBN 92-808-8016-0

Wo

rld Fo

rests, Society an

d En

viron

men

t - Executive Su

mm

ary

About the United Nations University (UNU)

The United Nations University is an organ of the United Nations established by theGeneral Assembly in 1972 to be an international community of scholars engaged inresearch, advanced training and the dissemination of knowledge related to thepressing global problems of human survival, development and welfare. Its activitiesfocus mainly on peace and conflict resolutions, development in a changing world, andscience and technology in relation to human welfare. The University operates aworldwide network of research and post-graduate training centres, with its planningand coordinating headquarters in Tokyo.

©The United Nations University, 2003

Edited by: Philip Wardle (Chief Editor)Libor JanskyGerardo MeryMatti PaloJussi UusivuoriHeidi Vanhanen

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the United Nations University.

First edition published: August 2003Environment and Sustainable Development ProgrammeThe United Nations University53-70, Jingumae 5-chomeShibuya-ku, Tokyo 150-8925, JapanTel: +81-3-3499-2811Fax: +81-3-3499-2828E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.unu.edu

Designed and printed by: Orange Corp., Tokyo, Japan

ISBN 92-808-8016-0

World Forests, Society andEnvironment

–Executive Summary

Chief Editor:

Philip Wardle

Co-editors:

Libor Jansky,

Gerardo Mery,

Matti Palo,

Jussi Uusivuori,

Heidi Vanhanen

World Forests, Society andEnvironmentEdited by Matti Palo and Jussi Uusivuori

WORLD FORESTS VOLUME I 1999ISBN 0-7923-5594-6 (HB)ISBN 0-7923-5595-4 (PB)ISSN 0785-8388Published by Kluwer Academic Publishers,P. O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

World Forests fromDeforestation to Transition?Edited by Matti Palo and Heidi Vanhanen

WORLD FORESTS VOLUME II 2000ISBN 0-7923-6683-2 (HB)ISBN 0-7923-6684-0 (PB)ISSN 0785-8388Published by Kluwer Academic Publishers,P. O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

World Forests, Marketsand PoliciesEdited by Matti Palo, Jussi Uusivuori and Gerardo Mery

WORLD FORESTS VOLUME III 2001ISBN 0-7923-7170-4 (HB)ISBN 0-7923-7171-2 (PB)ISSN 0785-8388Published by Kluwer Academic Publishers,P. O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

(See p. 52 for a listing of the authors of these WFSE publications).

2 │ World Forests, Society and Environment - Executive Summary

World Forests, Society and Environment - Executive Summary │ 3

The last decades of the twentieth century witnessed anincreasing awareness by people and institutions aroundthe world of important issues related to forests andforestry. Tropical deforestation, desertification, decreasingbiodiversity, climate change and the scarcity of fresh waterare issues of recent and ongoing global conflict anddebate. The 1990s saw a rapid globalization of forestpolitics, forest industries, NGOs and consumers of forestproducts and services. A historical turning point wasreached when forestry issues appeared on the globalpolitical agendas of both the United Nations and the G8Summits. The globalization of the forest sector calls forglobal research.

The World Forests, Society and Environment (WFSE)research project was created as a response to this globalconcern. The project was initiated in May 1996 by threepartners: the Finnish Forest Research Institute (METLA), theUnited Nations University/Institute of Advanced Studies(UNU/IAS) and the European Forest Institute (EFI). Later on,UNU Centre, through its Environment and SustainableDevelopment Programme, and five new institutionsengaged in international forest research joined WFSE. Thepartners constitute an important alliance with a missionfor globally relevant research, effective dissemination andhuman capacity building on the interrelationships betweenforests, society and environment in support of sustainabledevelopment and the well-being of people. In its work, theWFSE maintains an independent and non-governmentalpoint of view.

The project was planned and conducted by ProfessorMatti Palo until 2001. Dr. Jussi Uusivuori also played animportant role in the work of WFSE. Research,coordination and editing were performed at METLA andEFI in Finland by an international team of researchers fromseven countries. The team assembled a collaborativenetwork with 149 scientists from all continents. WFSE hasalso been able to disseminate its research results in Africa,the Americas, Asia and Europe at numerous conferences,workshops, seminars and lectures.

Kluwer Academic Publishers established for WFSE a"World Forests" series with academics, students and

experts as target audiences. Policy makers and policyadvisors constitute another important target group whosespecial requirements are being covered by the presentexecutive summary that highlights the research resultsfrom three volumes that were published by WFSE in 1999-2001:●World Forests, Society and Environment (edited by

M. Palo and J. Uusivuori 1999) was Volume I in the"World Forests" series. It contained 40 articles and 19boxes by 70 authors, more than half of whom camefrom non-OECD countries.

●World Forests from Deforestation to Transition?(edited by M. Palo and H. Vanhanen 2000) was VolumeII. It contained articles of 15 authors from 9 countries onfour continents.

●World Forests, Markets and Policies (edited by M.Palo, J. Uusivuori and G. Mery 2001) was Volume III. Itcontained 33 articles and 24 boxes by 98 authors fromfive continents.

In addition, WFSE in collaboration with EFI hascreated a Forest Products Trade Flow Database. Some ofthe results obtained in this research activity werepresented in the book A Global Study of Regional TradeFlow of Five Groups of Forest Products (B. Michie and S.Kin 1999) published independently by WFSE.

As partners, we are very satisfied with the scientificproductivity, relevance and quality of the results achievedby the researchers of the METLA/UNU/EFI project. Weappreciate the special collaboration and quality input ofthe international forest research community for thisinitiative. With its renewed, ten-partner structure withinthe International Union of Forestry Research Organizations(IUFRO), we are optimistic that IUFRO-WFSE will continueto make important scientific contributions in this crucialarea.

Foreword

Eljas Pohtila, Hans van Ginkel, Risto Päivinen,METLA, Helsinki UNU, Tokyo EFI, Joensuu


The World Forests, Society and Environment (WFSE)research project leading to the three published volumes inthe "World Forests" series during 1999-2001 was aresponse to the increasing demand for researchinformation concerning the world's forest issues.

Although the demand regarding many specific issuesrelated to the world's forests is still growing, there issimultaneously an urgent need to present existingscientific results on global issues addressing theinterrelations between forests, societies and environmentsin a more accessible form for scientists, policy makers andpractitioners. This is precisely the main aim of the SpecialProject of the International Union of Forest ResearchOrganizations (IUFRO) on World Forests, Society andEnvironment, IUFRO-WFSE, in 2002-2005.

To the international scientific community, the projectprovides an innovative forum for critically reviewing andsynthesizing relevant existing knowledge on key issues offorestry and related disciplines. In addition, it provides aunique scientific debate for challenging and testing newideas through a scientific approach. IUFRO-WFSE buildson the worldwide partnership of ten research institutionsand benefits from IUFRO connections in working towardsstrengthening a global collaborative network. The projectis based on high-quality output, objectivity and scientificindependence.

IUFRO-WFSE aims to achieve the following specific results:● to create an active scientific network for critically

analysing and synthesizing research findings on specificrelevant global forest issues;

● to produce a new book, to be printed and widelydistributed in 2005, mainly addressed towards theacademic community;

● to edit and distribute two executive summaries, onepublished in 2003 (the current one) and one in 2005,for policy makers, practitioners and interestedindividuals; and

● to generate dissemination materials for training andcapacity building purposes.

The results of IUFRO-WFSE will assist and enhancethe dialogue of policy makers and opinion formers withscientists who deal with key issues in global forests,society and environment, and with people who areinvolved in international cooperation processes.

World Forests, Society and Environment was anambitious initiative that brought together the research ofnumerous scientists from many countries in the threevolumes published during 1999-2001. IUFRO hasestablished its special project to build on this initiative.We would like to extend our appreciation to the chiefeditor Philip Wardle, who has succeeded in summarizingthe information in an easily accessible manner for a widevariety of readers, and to the co-editors for their valuablecontributions. Our acknowledgement also goes to LiborJansky and the United Nation University for pioneeringthe publication of this executive summary and forgenerous financial support - a collaboration which will bevaluable for future work of the IUFRO-WFSE SpecialProject.

IUFRO-WFSE Preface

Risto Seppälä Gerardo MeryPresident of IUFRO Coordinator of IUFRO-WFSE


This executive summary is an ambitious undertaking. Itreviews research findings based on work by 149 scientistspublished in three volumes of the "World Forests" bookseries established by Kluwer Academic Publishers. Amultitude of scientific approaches and researchphilosophies underlie the original reports.

Undoubtedly, the world's forests, societies and theenvironments are integral parts of the ongoingglobalization process. The research project leading to thethree published volumes was a response to the actualtransition from earlier focuses on local and national issuesto global actions and perspectives concerning world'sforests.

Globalization, however, is a demanding process - andlikely to treat people and nations inequitably. The poorestpeople and the poorest nations have the highest likelihoodof being on the losing side in this process. To cope withthe challenges of today, policymakers, advisers andopinion formers need research findings on the criticalinteractions between forests, society and the environment.However, research findings alone are not sufficient. As theancient Greek philosophers regarded truth, goodness andbeauty as their greatest ideals, similarly today public policyand corporation planners, industrialists, politicians andother stakeholders need cognitive, ethical, and aestheticknowledge and values to be able to work together andface their common global challenges.

We believe that, indeed, understanding how tointegrate and balance facts and values will help us tocreate a clearer vision of world forests, society and the

environment to support the sustainable forestmanagement and well-being of people.

While it is true that demand still continues to grow asregards many of the specific research issues related toworld's forests, there is perhaps even more immediateneed for effective dissemination of existing scientificinformation. It is time to realize that an impressive body ofresearch outcomes and results already exists, and that it isimperative to improve the use of these outcomes. Thisexecutive summary aims at strengthening the linkagesbetween scientific information and the various uses of thisinformation.

As editors of the three volumes of "World Forests,"we wish to express our sincere gratitude to Philip Wardlefor his work in planning and compiling this executivesummary. We also wish to acknowledge the UnitedNations University for its financial support and forpublishing this executive summary. Special thanks go tothe authors of the original research articles (see p. 52), tothe reviewers and to the members of the WFSE ScientificEditorial Board who guided the planning process of theproject.

Helsinki, June 2003

WFSE Volumes I-III Editors' Preface

Acknowledgement

My warm thanks to the editors of the three volumes andthe UNU editorial manager for their help and advice inpreparing World Forests, Society and Environment -Executive Summary. Responsibility for errors of selection,of fact or of interpretation remain those of this chiefeditor alone. My special thanks go to Janet, my wife, forher great support.

Philip Wardle, Chief Editor

Matti Palo

Jussi Uusivuori

Gerardo Mery

Heidi Vanhanen


I. Conclusions and Recommendations 9

II. Forests in the Global Context 12

Social and economic trends 12

Globalization and forests 13

III. The Importance of Forests 16

Value 16

Equity 17

Forestry in G8 Summits 17

IV. From Deforestation to Transition 19

The role of open access and corruption 19

Deforestation: the final cause 19

Forest transitions 21

Forest resource assessment 22

V. Forests and Environment 23

Water 23

Forests and climate change 24

Forests as a renewable energy source 24

Wood energy in Africa 25

Substituting biomass for oil 25

Biodiversity conservation - the Spotted Owl 26

Environmental forestry conflicts 26

VI. Production of Goods and Services 28

International trade 28

Production technology 29

Paper consumption and information technology 30

Internationalization of the forest industry 30

Urban forestry 31

Outdoor recreation 32

C o n t e n t s


VII. Community Forestry and the Agricultural Frontier 33

Community forestry in India 33

Agroforestry and farm forestry in Africa 33

Dry forests and livestock in Africa 35

Land tenure in Namibia 35

Forest and small farmers in Cameroon and Indonesia 35

Colonist swidden agriculture in Peru,Brazil and Nicaragua 36

From agarradas and wood smuggling to conservation 37

The giant snail 37

VIII. Policies and Development 38

African forests, societies and environments 38

Asia-Pacific forests 39

Latin American forests, societies and environments 42

Forestry in Canada, Australia and New Zealand 44

IX. Russian and Chinese Forestry in Transition 46

The Russian forestry transition 46

China's forest sector in transition 48

X. Forest-based Development in Finland - a Model? 50

List of Authors of the WFSE Publications,Volumes I, II and III 52

Note: The main sources in the WFSE Volumes I, II and III used in compilingthis Executive Summary are listed at the end of each section (II through X),indicating the source volume and chapter or box (e.g., ISOURCESI Volume I,Chapters 12 & 14; Volume III, Chapter 15 and Box 5.4).


Fore

st a

rea

and

fore

st a

rea

per

capi

ta(D

ata

sour

ce: F

AO

199

9)


This executive summary presents, in brief, the spectrum ofideas about World Forests, Society and Environment(WFSE) collected in the three volumes of the World Forestsseries published from 1999 to 2001. The purpose of theseries was to disseminate research-based reviews ofglobally relevant issues, as seen from an independent andnon-governmental point of view. This chapter presents asynopsis of the issues covered in the three volumes,followed by conclusions and the principalrecommendations.

Forestry issues are placed in the context of universalsocial, economic and policy development. Populationpressures remain a major factor contributing todeforestation, but the linkage between income anddeforestation may prove to be more important. Utilizationof energy, resources and technology is at the heart of therelationship between economic and environmental policy.The world's forests, societies and the environment are allintegral parts of the ongoing process of globalization,making cooperation on a global scale not justcommendable, but essential, if we are to find solutions tothe problems facing the world's forests.

The importance of forests derives not only from theproducts and services they supply, but also from the valueof their present and future existence. Wood and non-wood forestry products make a considerable contributionto the world economy as well as to rural and subsistencecommunities. Forest service functions range from theconservation of soil, water and biological diversity tomodulation of the carbon cycle. Forests are also a vital partof our human heritage. With the complexity of society'sdemands leading to competition and conflict in thedelivery of these forest products and services, social equityrequires that the costs and benefits are fairly distributed sothat no one is made worse off.

Deforestation in the North, common until thebeginning of the twentieth century, has been transformedinto sustained-yield forestry. In the South, however,degradation and deforestation still appear difficult to stop.Will the late twentieth century be seen in the future as amajor turning point? With transitions from natural foreststo managed forests and plantations, from declining toexpanding forests, the perception of the role of forests haschanged increasingly to their being valued as anenvironment rather than simply as a source of wood.Public interest in forests is not confined to their ownershipor bounded by national borders.

All sectors - whether forestry, agriculture, urban orindustrial - must have a clear strategy for water. Treeplanting needs to be assessed in relation to its possible dis-benefits as well as its benefits, particularly where waterresources are scarce or when salinity is an issue. If forestand land-use management are to address global climatechange, forests must be given their due attention at alllevels. Forest biomass can become an attractive source ofenergy, but how to efficiently convert biomass into energywith minimal loss is crucial for both developing anddeveloped countries. Striving for economic growth has ledto deterioration of the environment; policy makers need tounderstand the potentially positive role of conflicts as an"engine" of change and social development.

Society has evolved a growing dependence ontechnology to sustain its demands. Information technologyhas already had a declining impact on the demand fornewsprint in the United States. Trade concentrates onhigher value products and, with fewer restrictions oncapital transfers, companies have realized the need toexpand through global investment.

Forestry development paradigms (other thancommunity-based ones) have become anachronistic, andshould be rejected and replaced by a concept of people'smanagement. Involving communities - giving themresponsibility and accountability, encouraging theirparticipation, and using their local knowledge - willimprove the success of management.

The main question about the allocation of scarcefinancial resources for forestry development has beenwhether to concentrate on intensively managed plantationforests or on the sustainable management of naturalforests. Political will is an essential condition for achievingbalanced sustainable development of forest resources.

The Russian Federation and China are two countrieswith "transition economies" that are important in terms offorest areas, forest products and environmental values.Reforms have involved transition away from stateownership, decentralization and establishment ofenterprises with mixed capital structures, property rightstransformation, timber market and price liberalization, aswell as afforestation and protection of natural forestresources. Russia, however, has firmly maintained stateownership of forests, while China has largely privatizedthe use rights or user rights of plantation forests. Only asound economy can bring about a healthy growth indemand for forest products, but the transition continues

I. Conclusions and Recommendations


to be painful, with often inconsistent and volatile policychanges.

The experience of Finland suggests that well-functioning timber markets underpinning the growth inthe value of forests, together with prevailing private(traditionally farmer) ownership of forests, innovation,research and development, training and extension, andguaranteeing environmentally sustainable forestmanagement, are key elements in successful forest-baseddevelopment.

■ ■ ■

"Forest resources and forest lands shall be managed andused sustainably to fulfill social, economic, ecological,cultural and spiritual needs of present and futuregenerations." This declaration is the most striking of theNon-Legally Binding Forest Principles agreed to at theUnited Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It can beconsidered a revolutionary turning point in the history ofinternational forest politics. With the variousenvironmental and social global conventions, it broughtforest issues onto the agendas of global politics.

The articles in the WFSE books explored many of thesocial, environmental and economic issues that confrontworld forestry, from global as well as regionalperspectives, and offered many conclusions andrecommendations that support the pursuit of this greataspiration. These converge into the following majorconclusions and recommendations.

Conclusion 1:

Globalization continues to influence forest sectorsworldwide; it affects national and international forestpolicies, internationalization of forest industries, forestowners, consumers, and the work of environmental non-governmental organizations. Forest and environmentalpolicy actions have focused primarily on negativeenvironmental externalities, such as declining biodiversity,climate change, tropical deforestation and globaldegradation of forests. On the other hand, advances ininformation and communication technologies,liberalization of capital movements, and decentralizationand democratization in policy making have a positivepotential.

Recommendations●Support the opportunities offered by globalization - of

speeding up the diffusion of innovations, know-how andnew technology that contribute to economic growth -and secure the development of the necessary pre-conditions for their adoption (stable governments, therule of law, educational and physical infrastructures, andcompetitive markets). Counter the marginalization of thepoor and less privileged by promoting the participationof key stakeholders in forest sector policy.

●Utilize the contributions of objective scientificinformation in decision-making, and mobilize qualifiedhuman resources and adequate financial resources forimplementation.

●Acknowledge that coordination of multi-sector policies -in fiscal issues, land use, agriculture, and trade andenergy, in particular - is a key issue for the future ofglobal forests. Forest policy measures alone will remaintoo weak to conserve the forests and their contributionto rural livelihoods and well-being.

Conclusion 2:

Deforestation and forest degradation continue globally. Toestablish economically and ecologically sustainable forestmanagement, both deforestation and degradation mustbe controlled. Deforestation is less about "forestry" than itis about economic policy in general, and land-use policy inparticular; forests are, from a national point of view,essential resources to be exploited. To a limited extent,deforestation can be socially beneficial, but in most casessocially excessive deforestation is continuing because ofvarious market and government failures.

Recommendations●Combat land-use sector corruption worldwide, and

especially in developing countries and economies intransition; corruption perpetuates government failures,market failures and under-valuation of remaining forests.

●Develop property rights to reduce open access to forestland and to establish competitive markets. Nationalgovernments and official development aid institutionsshould increase efforts to overcome transaction costsand implement closing of open access to forests,particularly through land reform and decentralizationprojects.


Conclusion 3:

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNation (FAO) has the mandate to coordinate and compileglobal forest resource assessments. While methodologicaladvances have taken place in this work, the validity andreliability of the stock and change data on world forestsare still inadequate. Only a handful of countries worldwidehave established continuous scientifically based monitoringsystems to measure changes in stocks of standing timber,biodiversity and carbon stocks.

Recommendations●National governments and the intergovernmental

organizations should agree on and support expandingand improving global forest monitoring systems. Thiswork should be integrated with increased scientificresearch and extension work on sustainable forestmanagement.

●Non-governmental organizations and media shouldpressure the national governments andintergovernmental organizations to allocate adequateresources and skills to implement the aboverecommendations. This work should be integrated withincreased scientific research and extension work onsustainable forest management.

●Environmental Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs)and media should promote the development anddissemination of this essential information.

Conclusion 4:

The G8 economic powers established their ActionProgramme on Forests in 1998-2002. This compactprogramme addresses monitoring and assessment,national forest programmes, protected areas, and privatesector and illegal logging. The programme concerns themember countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates of America) as well as their partner countries. Threeof these countries (Canada, Russia and the United States)plus seven developing countries (Brazil, China, Congo,Indonesia, Peru, India and Mexico) contain 70 per cent ofthe global forest area.

Recommendations●G8 should adopt an alliance with the developing

countries having the largest forest areas to seriouslyimplement the programme for 70 per cent of theworld's forests.

●Environmental NGOs should closely monitor this work.


When the United Nations Conference on theHuman Environment was held in Stockholmin 1972, there were sharp, oftenacrimonious conflicts. Industrialized countrieswere focused on the environmental threatposed by economic growth and industrialpollution, while developing countries viewedpoverty or the absence of economic growthas the bigger threat to their societal welfare.Natural resources, including forests, becamethe focus of this great divide.

The term "sustainable development,"which grew out of the 1987 report OurCommon Future by the World Commissionon Environment and Development, waspopularized after the 1992 United NationsConference on Environment andDevelopment. The concept of sustainable developmentrepresents a major shift in our understanding of humandevelopment by treating economic development as acomplement to environmental protection. It encompassesthe interplay of global trends (such as population growth,urbanization and private capital flows to developingcountries) that are driving major changes in the ecologicaland economic landscapes of forests, and underscores thethreats and opportunities that are associated with thesetrends.

Social and economic trends

World population

Due in part to a general increase in the standard of livingand public health, the world population rose from about1.6 billion persons in 1900 to 5.7 billion in 1995. (The rateof population growth in the 1950s and 1960s was themost rapid in human history.) Based on a medium-fertilityscenario, world population will grow to 9.4 billion in 2050,and finally stabilize at slightly under 11 billion around2200.

Controversy concerning the environmental threatposed by the growing world population is ongoing. Whilepopulation pressures remain an important factorcontributing to deforestation, the linkage between incomeand deforestation, however, may prove to be moreimportant.

Urbanization and changing age distribution patterns

are two demographic factors likely to have an importantimpact on the world's forests, through changes in demandfor agricultural and forest products and services. Anunprecedented urban transition - more than half of theworld's population is expected to live in urban areas by2010 - may lead to increased opportunities for sustainableforest management practices, or may merely shift thefocus from rural to urban areas. The increase in the elderlypopulation, necessitating greater government spending ongeriatric-related expenditures, also makes it even harder toset aside adequate public resources for forestconservation.

Energy, resources and technology

The utilization of energy, resources and technology is atthe heart of the relationship between economic andenvironmental policies for virtually every ecologicalproblem. One of the most important energy-environmental dilemmas in the industrialized world is thedevelopment of an effective policy response to theproblem of global climate change.

To address environmental deterioration on the globallevel, the unsustainable use of resources must be placed atthe centre of any effective policy response. Agriculture,food supply and water management all have greatsignificance for forests. While the increasing demand forfood can lead to forests and rangeland being converted tofarmland, increased global food production could berealized instead through intensification and improvement

II. Forests in the Global Context

World population scenario (in billions; Data source: UN 1998)


of technology. The growing demand for water will alsohave a profound impact on sustainable management ofthe world's forests.

Private capital and environment

Deregulation in the international financial sector, in bothindustrialized and emerging economies, has brought ahigh degree of change to the global financial market; theincrease in private capital flows to emerging economieshas been dramatic compared with the stagnating level ofofficial development assistance (ODA). In a completereversal, private capital flows now constitute more than 80per cent of the total flows to non-OECD economies,displacing ODA as the main source. These flows representan important sustainable development issue, because onlya small fraction is going to the countries in sub-SaharanAfrica that desperately need external developmentfinancing.

For years, the business and environmentalcommunities seemed hopelessly bogged down in conflictand litigation. In the 1970s, companies complied withenvironmental regulations only when absolutely necessary.Then, when regulations moved towards emphasizingenvironmental results, companies adopted environmentalmanagement programmes, yielding cost savings andreductions in waste emissions. In the late 1980s,companies began to give even more active attention toglobal environmental issues. Yet, despite vastimprovement, many firms still perceive sustainabledevelopment more as an unknown threat than as astrategic opportunity. What makes this so important isthat corporations may ultimately be the only organizationswith the financial resources and the technologicalcapability to promote sustainability on the global level.

Globalization and forests

Globalization is a term that is frequently invoked, yet thereis no firm consensus on what it is and whether it poses aneconomic or political threat (an attack on nationalsovereignty and citizenship or, rather, a reconfiguration ofthe traditional definition of sovereignty).

From the standpoint of the world's forests, theimpact of globalization can manifest itself in a number ofdifferent ways, including the growing influence ofcorporate environmental management, market transition,

trade liberalization and private capital flows to emergingeconomies. A shift in global politics is particularlynoticeable in the international environmental and forestpolicy arena, and there has been a reassessment of howpower can be exercised to improve the management of apublic good, such as forests.

Forest industry in the globalizationprocess

The globalization of market forces has been assisted byfour events: (i) the market transition of Central andEastern Europe, states of the former Soviet Union, VietNam and China; (ii) economic integration and tradeliberalization; (iii) the rapid increase in private capital flowsto emerging economies, in addition to the general trendtowards deregulation and privatization; and (iv)development of information technologies. In the corporateworld, however, forest products industries have beenlatecomers in participating in the globalization processes,even though the share of international trade in forestproduct output has been larger than that in many otherindustrial sectors.

The expansion strategies of forest industries haveinvolved international mergers, acquisitions and corporatealliances. Markets and policies have been central inincreasing foreign investments in forest industries andplantation forestry; future investments may includeacquisition of carbon stocks. The development of foreigndirect investment is dependent on the liberalization ofinternational capital flows and the repatriation of profits.

In the past, policies have been used to improve andcontrol technological advances while markets have beenused to disseminate the results of research and technologyand to reward capital and management. In the future,however, with the evolution of biological technology, inparticular, this global "technolution" may become less andless controllable by national governments.

Unless the liberalization of forest products trade iscomplemented with improved forest protection policiesand efforts to prevent the negative social impacts of forestoperations, efforts towards sustainable management offorest resources may be seriously compromised. Someforest industry companies, for example, have tried toanticipate national forest conservation measures byshifting their roundwood purchasing to other countries,


thus causing concern that conservation policies mayactually have global "leakages."

Global politics and international forestpolicy

The autonomous power once enjoyed exclusively bynational governments now has to be shared by an ever-increasing number of global actors, including multinationalenterprises, regional economic groups and internationalNGOs. Ecological concerns are increasingly serving as thepolicy platform for "epistemic communities" oftransnational scientists and policy experts who canmobilize enough political support to pass environmentalprotection measures at the national and the global levels.

Almost since its inception in 1945, FAO has beenpublishing a periodical called Unasylva. This name is wellchosen (the Latin root means "one forest," carrying theconnotation of "one forest for one world"), lending itselfto an image of the earth's forests as one great biophysicalsystem (connecting boreal, temperate and tropical; wetand dry; fertile and infertile; highland and lowland) and animplicit philosophy that aims at a world scope and globalmission. It is a name which calls attention to the unity offorests, inspires grand achievements, and reminds us ofpresent shortcomings.

FAO's 1980 assessment of tropical forest resourcesestimated annual average tropical deforestation for the1970s to be 11 million hectares. This alarming estimateraised widespread environmental and political concern,causing deforestation's place on the international agendasto jump upwards. This triggered a series of responses bythe international community - from the Tropical ForestAction Plan, mobilized in 1985, through the ForestryPrinciples and Agenda 21 of UNCED in Rio in 1992, to therecent formation of the United Nations Forum on Forests(UNFF).

In spite of these actions by FAO, the World Bank,International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), andother actors, tropical deforestation is continuing at anondecreasing pace. FAO`s 2000 assessment estimatedtropical deforestation for the 1990s to be 14 millionhectares as an annual average.

Global governance

Cooperation on a global scale is not only commendable -

it is essential if solutions are to be found to the problemsfacing the world's forests. Concomitant with suchcooperation, modern science needs to produce an everclearer (and, increasingly, global) picture of therelationship between human activity and the environment,and of the consequences of environmental change for theability of societies to survive. Thanks to moderncommunications technologies, people around the worldhave a wider awareness of global events, even as moreand more aspects of human life are becoming exposed toworldwide influences.

Global governance does not imply a surrender ofpower to the UN. What it does imply is a reassessment ofhow power can be exercised to improve the managementof a public good, such as forests. One reason underlyingthe growing interest in global governance is the risinginfluence of environmental NGOs. A critical shift in rolestook place during the 1992 Rio negotiations, when NGOrepresentatives provided critical support to a number ofnational government delegations.

Consumers of forest products have profoundlychanged their attitudes in recent years, and NGOs havebeen a driving force for this change - first reacting againsttropical deforestation in the 1980s, then shifting theircampaigning in the 1990s more against degradation ofboreal and temperate natural forests by plantation forestmonocultures. By influencing the behaviour of forestproduct customers and the media, NGOs have conveyedthe message to forest product companies that they mustchange their logging practices and make forestmanagement more environmentally friendly. NGOs were akey factor in forest and timber certification developments.

In the past two or three decades, the environmentalgoods and benefits provided by forests have receivedincreasing attention. It is now commonly recognized thatthe biodiversity of tropical forests, or carbon sequestrationby boreal forests, does not benefit just people living in orclose to these forests. Rather, there is a broad awarenessof mankind's shared dependency on the well-being ofthese forests. Along with regional and spatialinterdependencies, there is an invigorated awareness ofthe need for intergenerational solidarity with regard tonatural environments. Yet, despite these efforts, no globalcriteria or indicators for monitoring of sustainable forestmanagement have been developed.


Globalization's threats and opportunities

Most of the world as we know it was discovered in thepast millennium. Today, we know more about the world'sgeography, natural resources and human cultures thanever before. The world has been going global, and itsforests, societies and environment are integral parts of thisglobalization process.

The process of globalization, however, is demanding -and likely to treat people and nations inequitably. To copewith these challenges, knowledge and information areessential, but these alone are not sufficient. Just as theancient Greek philosophers held truth, goodness andbeauty as their greatest ideals, today's people andsocieties need a foundation of cognitive, ethical andaesthetic values to work together and face their commonchallenges. Indeed, understanding how to combine andbalance facts and values will help us create a clearer visionof unasylva.

Globalization remains, if not an undefined concept, atleast one that carries multiple and varying connotations fordifferent people. The key question is whether globalizationwill be destructive of forests, or helpful in achieving moresustainable ways to manage them.

Globalization may be a "reality" for about one billionpeople in the industrialized world, but in the lives of threeto four billion people living in the developing world - whoare subsistence-oriented and meet their basic needs fromtheir immediate natural surroundings - it plays a limitedrole at best. Innovations in the utilization of energy,resources and technology will represent a globalopportunity in promoting sustainable development only ifthese innovations are able to diffuse sufficiently quickly tonewly industrializing and developing countries.

Perhaps the biggest threat is the potentialmarginalization of local and national institutions, especiallyin the developing countries. Governments worldwidecould work against this possibility by supporting localstructures that help less well equipped nations and forestpeople to reap the benefits of the globalization processrather than suffer its damage. Corruption and governmentfailures must be reduced through increased transparency,publicity and capacity building. Also market failures haveto be removed. The aim should be an optimum mix ofmarkets and policies at the local, national, regional andglobal levels.

Volume I, Chapters 1 & 2; Vol. III, Chapters 1, 2 & 3.SOURCES


Forests are important for the products and services theysupply. Wood-based products make a considerablecontribution to the world economy, amounting to some 2per cent of global gross domestic product (GDP) andmeeting basic needs for energy and materials of modernliving (construction, furniture, packaging, etc.). Some non-wood forest products are also of commercial importance,but many more are non-market goods essential to theeconomies of rural and subsistence communities. Forestservices range from the conservation of soil, water andbiological diversity to modulation of the carbon cycle andamelioration of microclimate. Forests are also a part ofhuman heritage, providing landscapes to meet ouraesthetic as well as spiritual needs.

The importance of forests in providing theseproduction and service functions lies in their great extent;forests cover somewhat more than one-fourth of theworld's land area. Natural forests have traditionally beenregarded as a free resource and a residual land use, whileforestry has been seen as the means of delivering forest-based goods and services at minimum cost. Society hasperceived forest products and services as "free benefits"with virtually infinite replaceability, and forested land asareas readily available for conversion to other uses.

Increases in both population and wealth have led toan increase in demand for the products and services of theforest, and for the very land on which it grows. Societyhas, consequently, come to the realization that this land -these resources, and their products and services - are nolonger "free" or infinitely available. The complexity ofsociety's demands for the wide range of goods andservices that the forest can deliver places the production ofthese goods and services into direct competition, eventhough multiple uses of forests can be partiallycomplementary.

Value

Many wood products are market or tradable goods andhave a recognized market value. Many non-woodproducts, and the social and environmental services of theforest, are largely non-market or non-tradable goods andservices with no established market value. This separationof market and non-market products results in the under-valuation of forests, thereby making them more liable todegradation and deforestation.

It has been realized, however, that non-market or

non-tradable products and services can have high socialand environmental values, whether measured by scarcityor social preference. So, it has become necessary to definethe full range of values which accrue from the forests toensure recognition of the economic importance of forestsand the need for their sustainable management.

Valuation methods have been developed to estimatethe total economic value of forest resources, with the aimof integrating environmental effects into the decision-making process. The economic theories behind thesevaluation methods are based on neo-classical andhumanistic paradigms; in particular, welfare theory iswidely applied, and the so-called Pareto efficiency criterionis employed to determine social desirability.

The values derived from forests are social, economic,ecological and cultural; all these are dimensions whichmust be recognized in forest resource management. Eventhough most goals of forest management state thatforests confer values to mankind and contribute to socialwelfare, the subjective position and time preference ofdifferent forestry stakeholders have, nevertheless, tendedto influence the definition of forest values. Three broadcategories of values can be recognized: use, non-use andtotal economic values.

Valuation of forests is useful if it helps society tomake better decisions about proper stewardship. It may beof interest to know the value of preserving a forest, butonly insofar as we are able to compare this preservation ofa forest to another use. Valuation studies that purport tomeasure the global value of forests are of limited interest,therefore, since valuation is only one of many importantinputs to the decision process.

It is difficult for developing countries, struggling tomeet their basic needs today, to take a long-termperspective. What is the opportunity cost of keeping anarea preserved, perhaps waiting for the discovery of amedicinal plant, and who will pay them for not using theforest in the meantime? Although the estimated value of apotential drug discovery could be high, what is themeaning and utility of such a value: who is going to use itand who is going to capture it? Excellent studies haveassigned monetary values to different goods and servicesprovided by forests, but evidence suggests thatdeforestation and forest degradation will continue to takeplace; estimating value is not the same as capturing it.

III. The Importance of Forests


Equity

Management strategies, to be effective, should designefficient ways of assuring fair and equitable distribution offorest values and benefits. The three basic dimensions ofdistributional equity are spatial (local, regional, nationaland global distribution), temporal (distribution betweenvarious generations) and social (distribution between richand poor within societies). Social equity requires thatforest costs and benefits be fairly distributed, such that noone is made worse off.

There are three categories of costs for forestconservation: direct (costs for management andsilviculture), indirect (such as increased travel costs andcosts of seeking new employment that are borne by thoseliving in or adjacent to the forest) and opportunity costs(the benefits foregone, including lost use of the forest forhunting and livestock grazing by local people). The cost offorest conservation is largely borne by the local poorpopulace, especially in terms of foregone benefits.

In terms of distributional equity, there is likely to bean increasing disparity between the income of the rich andthe poor. In short, the benefits of conserving forests (suchas the mitigation of global warming) are enjoyed globallywhile the costs are borne locally, thus adding to "globalinequity."

Perceptions, concepts and the state-of-the-art withrespect to recording, accounting and estimating the futureare necessary components of an accurate assessment ofthe importance of forests. Society can do better if itassembles the necessary information, works out the realvalue attached to the various functions of forest and theland on which it stands, and then draws fully informedconclusions and makes sound decisions about the balanceof functions that best benefits the whole community.

Forestry in G8 Summits

Since 1975, the heads of state of the seven richest nationshave held regular meetings. The so-called G7 Summitswere organized to combat chaos and create order in theworld's economic and political affairs. The meetings wereheld annually, hosted in one of the G7 countries: Canada,France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom andthe United States. These were recently joined by theRussian Federation, becoming the G8.

That the G7/8 summits have, since 1987,incorporated forest policy issues in their summitresolutions is another indication of the key role of forestryin contemporary global political agendas. In 1998, the G8approved the Action Programme on Forests (APF). Yetwhile the arrival of forestry issues on the world politicalagenda is an achievement in itself, implementation of theG8 programme has not been taken seriously.

What are the purposes, expected results andcorresponding activities of the APF? What quantitative andqualitative indicators of achievement are to be used formonitoring? Are the supported activities indeed the mosturgent issues? The last year of the APF implementationwas 2002.

In fact, the activities reported are merely on-goingactions, and there is limited evidence of joint, coordinatedmeasures. (The single example involving all G8 members is"initiating a collaborative effort to assess the enhanceduse of remote sensing.") The APF makes no reference toimplementation procedures, the responsibilities of thepeople and bodies involved, nor the financial resources tobe committed. Putting their faith in the regional andinternational processes, G8 members were seeminglyhesitant to develop a comprehensive programme, fearingthat a unique top-down G8 initiative on world forestswould not provide the intended results.

G8 Resolutions on forests and environment

Volume I, Chapters 4 & 10 and Box 4.1; Volume III,Chapters 11, 12 & 13 and Box 5.2.

SOURCES


London 1984 ●Recognized environmental problems and their role in economic development

Venice 1987 ●Recognized need to tackle the destruction of tropical rain forests

Toronto 1988 ●Recognized that deforestation requires priority attention

Paris 1989 ●Called for better conservation and sustainable forest management

● Supported Tropical Forest Action Plan

● Indicated readiness to assist tropical forest nations financially and technically

● Stated that temperate forests must be protected from acid pollutants

Houston 1990 ●Declared that combating deforestation requires effective international cooperation and concrete action

while recognizing sovereign rights

●Recognized the destruction of tropical rain forests as alarming

● Favoured new dialogue with developing countries on ways to support their efforts

● Supported cooperation with Brazil on pilot programme to counteract threats to forests

● Stated that the Tropical Forest Action Plan must be reformed to emphasize forest conservation and

protection of biodiversity

● Stated ITTO Action Plan must emphasize sustainable forest management and improve market operations

● Stated readiness to begin negotiations on global forest convention to curb deforestation

●Declared readiness to protect biodiversity

London 1991 ●Agreed to financial support for pilot programme of conservation of Brazilian tropical forests

●Welcomed debt-for-nature exchanges, with emphasis on forests

Munich 1992 ●Recognized that rapid and concrete action is required to protect forests

Tokyo 1993 ● Sought international arrangements on management, conservation and sustainable development of forests

Denver 1997 ●Called for long-term political commitment to achieve sustainable forest management practices worldwide

●Agreed on building consensus for implementing proposals of UNCSD Intergovernmental Panel on Forests

Birmingham 1998 The G 8 Action Programme on Forests●Recognized continuing pressure on world's forests and importance of sustainable forest management

● Participated in international processes for defining criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management

●Agreed on using national-level criteria and indicators by monitoring and assessment of state members' own

forests

● Shared experiences in developing and implementing national programmes

● Stated need to maintain and establish protected forest areas

● Encouraged private sector, particularly forest-related industries, to develop and apply voluntary codes of

conduct that support sustainable forest management, both domestically and internationally

● Encouraged development of practical and effective measures to counter international trade in illegally

harvested timber

Forest-related issues in the G7/8 Summits

Place and year Declarations on Forests and Environment


The world's forests extend over 34 million km2, or 27 percent of the global land area. In the North, the total forestarea is now slowly increasing, by nearly 2 million hectaresannually; but in the South, the deforestation of naturalforests continues to advance at an annual rate of about 14million hectares.

Deforestation - the change from forest cover intosome other land cover formation without the plannedrevival of forests by natural or artificial reforestation -results mostly from intentional human actions, but alsofrom unintentional action and natural causes. In addition,degradation - the deterioration of a forest due todecreasing biomass - lowers the biological diversity andproductivity.

While tropical forests are perceived (by public opinion)in developed countries as goods to be preserved, indeveloping countries they are (from a national economicdevelopment point of view) essential resources to beexploited. Deforestation actually can be socially beneficial,up to a theoretical threshold where marginal social costsdue to the loss of forest land equal the marginal socialbenefits from its replacement. But if deforestationcontinues beyond this point - as has often been the case -it can be called socially excessive deforestation.

Neomalthusians have reminded us about thedoomsday effects of population growth on human welfareand mankind's future. On the other hand, a number ofdevelopment economists have regarded population aseither neutral or beneficial to economic development.Some observers have identified a vicious circle involvingpopulation growth, weak property rights, poverty anddeteriorated environment in sub-Saharan Africa and theIndian subcontinent, where, as the communities' naturalresources are depleted, more hands are needed to gatherfuel and water for daily use.

Both population growth and economic growth havebeen identified as underlying causes of deforestation -although the role of economic growth may, at a certainpoint, turn to one of slowing down deforestation. There isa weak indication of the existence of the so-called Kuznetshypothesis among the countries of the world: measured astotal forest area (natural plus plantation forests), decliningforest area starts to change into an increasing forest areaas income per capita reaches a certain level.

The role of open access andcorruption

Four-fifths of the world's forests are under publicownership - many with open access, which hinders theemergence of competitive stumpage markets. Where stateownership of forests is prevailing, sales of standing timber,or stumpage sales, are mostly administratively priced lowerthan the competitive price level in most countries of theworld. The resulting under-pricing of stumpage createsincentives for continued deforestation and forestdegradation, and thus undermines the profitability offorest management. Socialistic forestry in countries likeRussia, Brazil, Canada, Indonesia and Malaysia has notbeen able to facilitate economically, ecologically andsocially sustainable forest management.

Rational decentralization and privatization ofsocialistic forestry is a major challenge. Private ownershipof forests in conjunction with competitive stumpagemarkets and sufficient public regulation seems to be animportant combination in the transition from declining toexpanding forest resources. Increasing privatization offorests is not, however, a sufficient measure to facilitatetransition.

To close open access to forests requires strongpolitical will to overcome transaction costs; it is onlypossible at a certain stage of economic development, withsufficient juridical infrastructure and clear property or userrights. Political will of national governments plays a keyrole, as reducing deforestation and degradation calls for abalanced use of both markets and policies by a stable,strong-willed government.

Corruption in the context of commercial logging inthe forest-rich countries where state tenure is prevailingseems to be a widespread problem. Political instabilitiesand armed conflicts (both internal and international)increase risks, shorten planning horizons in naturalresources utilization, and aggravate deforestation andforest degradation.

Deforestation: the final cause

Many "explanations" of the cause(s) of deforestationfocus on population growth, the building of roads,incompetent government policies, or the political power oftimber concessionaires. Such analyses, however, tend to

IV. From Deforestation to Transition


focus on the obvious precursors to deforestation ratherthan seeking other possible underlying causes.Deforestation does not happen by accident or throughneglect; it happens because there are purposes to beserved by deforestation.

Two possible explanations for deforestation cansatisfy the conditions of "final cause": (1) to earn resourcerents (revenues) from harvesting trees, and (2) to provideland for other uses. Indeed, these two "causes" reallycollapse into one: the high social opportunity cost offorested land.

As long as a particular nation-state is driven by adesire to earn rents from harvesting trees, and as long asland-hunger drives governments to open up remote areas,then very little is to be gained by suggesting that it stopbuilding roads, or that property rights be made moresecure, or that population control be implemented, or thatgovernment corruption be rectified, or that the powerfullogging interests be reigned in. The only way to confrontdeforestation is to focus on its final cause; deforestation isless about "forestry" than it is about economic policy ingeneral, and land-use policy in particular. It is not useful toask governments to save forests while failing to address

the very real problem of land-hunger.If we assume that some governments genuinely seek

to reverse decades of deforestation, then it will benecessary to insist that these new intentions must beaccompanied by a serious change in both de facto and dejure circumstances. In simple terms, a necessary conditionis introduction of the rule of law. However, this is notalways a sufficient condition. Competitive stumpagemarkets and relevant pricing of other forest goods andservices are also needed.

The majority of the world's forested areas are oncommon-property land or government land. Whenenforcement (the rule of law) is present, national parksand forest preserves can ensure that natural resources willbe conserved for future generations. But to be successful,this requires governmental structures that match policypronouncements with administrative capacity. The morefrequent situation, unfortunately, tends to be that ofgrand policy pronouncements about protecting forests buta lack of serious enforcement efforts (either because of anabsence of knowledge about proper use, or because ofinadequate funding).

Forest cover and deforestation – Africa (Data source: FAO 1997)


Forest transitions

The late twentieth century will probably be seen as amajor turning point in the history of global forestry, withseveral changes occurring concurrently: forest-management transition and forest-area transition, as wellas shifts in forest perceptions and forestry paradigms. Atrend towards internationalization is also evident. Withinthese changes lie several challenges that have importantSouth-North dimensions. How these challenges are metwill be of the utmost significance for global forestry.

The transitions can be summarized as follows:● forest-management transition: from natural forests to

managed forests and plantations;● forest-area transition: transition from declining to

expanding forest extents;● shifts in forest paradigms: from pre-industrial, to

industrial and post-industrial; and●global integration: a global forest resource system and

a North-South shift.

Forest-management transition

While natural forest resources were plentiful andextensive, there was little perceived need to practicemanagement. Only when scarcity began to be felt didactive management begin. The unpalatable conclusion isthat perceived scarcity has, up to now, been a prerequisitefor the application of management and sustainable use.

It remains to be seen whether such general concernsas the effects of deforestation on climatic change and lossof biodiversity are sufficiently sharp to give rise to globaltransitions in forest management. The historical evidenceis not encouraging. On the other hand, fears of a timbershortage have historically been a driving force to extendthe area of search. Today, when few new areas ofexploitable forest remain, extensification is giving way tointensification, and especially to the establishment ofplantations.

Forest-area transition

Deforestation is still occurring on a non-decreasing scale inmuch of the South. In parts of the North, however, forestshave been expanding for much of the twentieth century,even though their history prior to the last 100-200 years

was characterized by deforestation, forest degradation,scarcity of forest resources and the side effects ofdeforestation (such as floods and erosion). Time will tellwhether similar transitions be expected to occur in theSouth and, eventually, on a global scale.

Shifts in forest paradigms

The perception of the role and purpose of forests in someparts of the world has undergone significant change inrecent decades. The forest is increasingly valued as anenvironment, rather than simply as a source of wood.

This paradigm shift can be located within a three-stage descriptive model of forest use. In the pre-industrialforest, forest products are diverse and the forest is acommon-property resource. The industrial paradigm ischaracterized by the primacy of wood production as amanagement objective. In the post-industrial paradigm,the primacy of wood production weakens asenvironmental benefits, such as nature conservation andrecreation, are increasingly sought. The notion that thereis a public interest in forests - one not necessarily reflectedin ownership - is expressed through a combination ofregulation and incentive.

Global integration

Most wood and forest products are consumed in theircountry of production. A growing proportion of value-added forest products, however, enters internationaltrade. The geographical scale and complexity of that tradehave clearly increased in recent decades.

The trend towards global integration both offersopportunities and poses threats to the South. It presentsopportunities through the comparative advantage thatmany Southern areas enjoy in terms of rapid timbergrowth potential. But it is also a threat to the extent thatactivities which, for environmental reasons, are notwelcome in the North may be displaced to the South.

Internationalizing trends present challenges for theNorth, but the forest-products industry can adapt - bymaintaining comparative advantage through research anddevelopment; by gaining access to external suppliesthrough investment in overseas plantations; and byinternationalizing manufacturing operations. At the sametime, however, the North must seek to ensure that its shiftto the post-industrial forest paradigm is not at the expense


of imposing the industrial paradigm on the South.Various challenges face the South as well. Can a

direct jump be made from the pre-industrial to post-industrial paradigm, without passing through the industrialstage (and thus avoiding undesirable socio-economic andecological features of forestry)? Another challenge involvespolicies towards plantations. While some welcome themas a means of reducing pressures on natural forests,concern about both the socio-economic andenvironmental impacts of such forestry have beenwidespread. Too often, plantations have had a colonialflavour, with capital, control and management comingfrom outside the locality, where the profits also haveusually accrued.

Forest resources assessment

Reliable and up-to-date information on forest resources isa prerequisite for controlling forest degradation anddeforestation, planning and implementing forest policy,programmes and projects, and carrying out forestoperations. The United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development (UNCED) and its follow-upmeetings has revealed the necessity for reliable forestresources assessments at global, regional and nationallevels. UNCED led to an increase of informationrequirements at the global level and the commitment tostrengthen information, gather multi-sectoral information(about forest, wildlife, soils, water, etc.), involve the localpopulation in the data collection process, and improvepublic access to information.

FAO and the United Nations Economic Commission

for Europe (ECE) have made progress in setting theframework for regional and global assessment relating tothe various forestry protocols. But while considerablefunds have been used both in national inventories and inglobal assessments, very limited funding and time havebeen devoted to combining these two efforts, eventhough integration of national forest resourcesinformation into a global database has been recognized asthe aim.

Improved data quality and quantity would greatlyadvance in-depth studies on the underlying causes ofdeforestation. Enhanced monitoring of changes in theforests, too, is essential for follow-up of the progress insustainable forest management. There is a wealth oftechnology available to assist with data collection andinterpretation. All the data needed could be gatheredperiodically, for example, through remote sensing,ancillary information collection and a network of fieldplots. While forest inventory requires expensive fieldmeasurements to provide reliable results, change detectionbased on sampling can be utilized to update existinginformation and provide the essential basis for regionalresource monitoring at much lower cost.

Smooth progress of forest assessments derives fromagreement on forest concepts and definitions. Establishinga common set of definitions and standards isproblematical, however, as the "forest" and "tree"concepts are politically sensitive.

Volume I, Chapters 5, 6 & 9; Volume II, all; Volume III, Chapter 1 and Boxes 1.2, 3.3 & 5.3.

SOURCES


Water

Freshwater is essential for virtually all human endeavours,and it is a critical resource for ecosystem health. Access towater (of a sufficiently high quality) may be a determiningfactor in the peace and prosperity of the twenty-firstcentury. In terms of costs to human health and theeconomy, problems related to freshwater rank at the topof all our environment and development problems.Freshwater will be the critical resource for futuredevelopment in many parts of the world.

Reducing water pollution and, equally important,reducing per capita demand for limited water resourcesare essential. Providing access to safe drinking water andsanitation for all by the year 2025 will require addingservices to accommodate an additional five billion people,or some 450,000 per day - a daunting task. The requiredactions will include new and improved technologies,institutional development, research, education andcapacity building.

As the possibilities of new sources of freshwater arevery limited, demand management must be a central goal.Market-based approaches can be effective in managingdemand, paying attention to the social costs (especially sothat poor people are not adversely affected by waterprices). Responding to the challenge will require significantfinancial resources, and involvement of governments andthe public sector. It will be essential to mobilize privatesector investment as well.

The linkages between water resources, landdegradation, soil erosion and deforestation clearlyhighlight the need for comprehensive management ofwatersheds. This makes having an integrated ecosystemapproach to managing freshwater resources of greatimportance. All sectors - whether forestry, agriculture,urban or industrial - must have a clear strategy for water.

The interaction between forested landscapes andwater quantity is well known. It is conventional wisdomthat forests are beneficial in attracting rainfall, increasinginfiltration, regulating flows and reducing flooding. Themagnitude of these effects, however, may be less than hasbeen imagined. Trees generally intercept more rainfallthan other land uses and often transpire for longer, thususing more water. Such considerations are important inwater-scarce areas.

However, the high transpiration of forests can beused, in certain conditions, to control salinization ofagricultural land. Slope stability is also generally enhancedby forests, particularly natural forests, keeping soil loss low(while plantations, on the other hand, can accelerate soilloss by concentrating leaf drip). Forest operations,especially logging and road construction, may cause severesoil loss. And while there is generally less leaching ofnutrients from forests, the deposition of atmosphericpollutants is increased, and the resultant streamacidification can have adverse effects on fisheries.

Considering the particular example of hydrologicalresponses to afforestation in the context of managing riversalinity, a complex and (potentially) antithetical response

V. Forests and Environment

The global carbon cycle


can arise from the conjunction of the phenomena ofrainfall gradient, scale and system hysteresis. This givesemphasis to the cautionary note that the net value of treeplanting needs to be assessed in relation to its possible dis-benefits as well as its benefits, particularly where waterresources are scarce and salinity is an issue.

Forests and climate change

The accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth'satmosphere, and the resulting influence on climate, is ofincreasing worldwide concern. The most important ofthese gases is carbon dioxide (CO2). Globally, greenhousegas emissions (CO2 and methane) exceed 6 petagrams(1015 grams) annually. A significant proportion originatesfrom deforestation. Estimates of unrealized global forestconservation and carbon sequestration potential suggest abiologic capability of 1-3 pg carbon annually for as muchas a century. What are the effects of global climatechange on forests, and the effects of forestry on thecarbon balance?

Effects of global climate change onforests

A 1ºC change in annual average temperature can affectthe growth rate and regeneration capacity of trees. Slow-growing species are more vulnerable than fast-growingspecies, and stands in extreme conditions of wateravailability (i.e., prone to drought or water-logging) areparticularly susceptible. The greatest impacts of a possiblegreenhouse warming on forests are likely to occur in theboreal region.

There is also a "direct fertilization effect" - the water-use efficiency for individual plants is almost directlyproportional to the level of CO2. Forests of today have agreater potential to grow in arid areas than did forests inthe nineteenth century, when the CO2 concentration waslower by 50 to 70 ppm. Stands suffering from drought areassessed to be particularly sensitive to warming becauseevaporation will rise (although an increase of water-useefficiency can counteract the responses).

Effects of forestry measures on thecarbon balance

Three categories of policies can have a positive effect on

the carbon budget of forests: conservation management(safeguarding of existing carbon reservoirs), storagemanagement (increasing of carbon reservoirs) andsubstitution management (compensating for fossil fuel usewith increasing uses of wood-based materials). Increaseduse of energy based on forest biomass is seen as probablythe most promising climate mitigation option for forestry.

A dynamic optimization model of shadow priceestimates of the potential losses or gains related to carbonsequestration and timber supply over time showed that acarbon tax at 3 per cent p.a. (real term) interest rate givesa net economic value of carbon sequestration in forestbiomass that is about five times higher than the netstumpage value of timber as a raw material. Forestryoptions exist which can sequester large quantities ofcarbon; the question is, how efficient are these measuresrelative to possible activities in other sectors? To includethe substitution impacts, a suitable global generaleconomic equilibrium model is required.

The Kyoto Protocol includes forestry, but only in termsof planting. Deforestation is included as a source of CO2

emissions, but stopping deforestation is not included. Theend-use of the timber felled is not considered. Flexibleeconomic instruments of the Kyoto Protocol - such as jointimplementation, the Clean Development Mechanism andemissions trading - offer a concomitant means to facilitateeconomic, energy and environmental security, but socio-economic repercussions need to be equally considered. Ifforest and land-use management is to address globalclimate change, forests must be given due attention at alllevels.

Forests as a renewable energysource

More than half of the global harvest of wood is used forfuel, primarily in the developing countries. In thedeveloped countries, wood is used mainly for theproduction of lumber, boards, pulp and paper - althougha large proportion of the raw material of forest industriesactually ends up as process residue used for theproduction of heat, steam and electricity. In addition tothe present use of wood-based fuels, forests represent avast untapped source of energy.

Woody biomass, used as fuel, produces more carbondioxide than fossil fuels, but in the case of sustainableforestry the carbon cycle is closed and does not add to the


carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. Thus, forcountries rich in forests, substituting wood for fossil fuelsis an attractive means to meet the obligations of the Kyotoprotocol.

Currently, biomass accounts for 3 per cent of energyconsumption of the European Union. There is significantpotential to contribute to further reduction of CO2

emissions from power production through the recovery ofresidual biomass from forest operations, and use of part ofthe net biomass increment that has no demand asindustrial raw material. When the use of wood fuels ispromoted through tax reductions and investmentsubsidies, residual forest biomass can become an attractivesource of energy for large-scale use.

Wood energy in Africa

In Africa, in spite of its importance and politicalsignificance, wood-based energy supply has continued todwindle, and has been accorded low priority in efforts toredress the declining raw material base. Efforts havefocused more on alternative commercial energy sources,such as hydro-electric power, fossil fuels and petroleum-based sources of energy.

Some of the welfare problems associated with wood-based energy scarcity are health hazards, problems forwomen and children, and the decline of agriculturalproduction. Where there is fuelwood scarcity, for example,women and children must walk further to collect it, cookless, or use inferior substitutes such as dung andagricultural residues (thus depriving agriculture of manure,which could increase maize production by up to six timesand groundnut by up to three times).

Natural forests and other wooded land that providethe fuelwood are usually open access areas where thewood is collected for free. As fuelwood is still regarded asa free commodity, wood prices do not reflect the cost ofits production; hence, no allowance is made forregeneration of the resource. In rural areas, lower incomesraise the demand for an inferior good, while fuelwooddemand in urban areas is higher than it should be(because low rural wages lower the supply cost). Low percapita income has prohibited the use of alternative energysources.

Fuelwood consumption has been blamed for forestdegradation; certainly, sustainable forestry is far frombecoming a reality and, in consequence, the carbon cycle

remains unclosed. The annual rate of consumption ofwood exceeds the mean annual increment of local forests.Fuelwood supply is dwindling, and in many areas thesituation is at crisis level. There is, thereby, an urgent needfor both policy reforms and technical innovations topromote the efficient use of available fuelwood (such asthrough introduction of improved cooking stoves); toincrease tree stocks by planting; and to give high priorityto sustainability of the fuelwood supply.

Necessary political and economic conditions include:● stability in the political and economic environments; ●privatization of fuelwood production;● risk reduction in order to promote investment;● solving of land ownership issues in forestry; and●management of forest resources by devolution of

power, with benefits accruing to the local people.

Substituting biomass for oil

The world's industries are dependent upon fossil fuels -particularly on oil - which increase CO2 emissions andproduction of other wastes. Current technology based onlinear production models produces wastes in all threephases: in exploiting resources, in processing, and in theproduct phase. The limited nature of oil resources, and theenvironmental pollution resulting from their use, creates ademand for alternative sources.

Accordingly, production systems should be organizedso as to inflict zero or minimal damage on natural systemsand cycles. New biomass-integrated technologies couldincrease resource productivity and conserve nature'scapital in harmony with the planet's limits. Because thedensity of biomass resource distribution is low incomparison with existing fossil fuel resources, theeconomic value of biomass per unit weight and the addedvalue are also low. Consequently, development of bio-refinery technologies should be aimed at making unitscompact and mobile, for application in rural areas.

Genetically engineered trees might make paper andsome biofuels easier and less costly to produce bylowering energy costs and reducing the amount ofchemicals required. The effects of genetic engineering arestill uncertain, however, and raise ethical as well aspractical issues (particularly related to foreign proteins andthreats to biodiversity).


Thus:●With respect to global climate change, new

technological developments to reach zeroemissions standards in forest industries areespecially important.

●High-energy and CO2-polluting industriesbased on the use of fossil fuels should beabandoned in favour of new biomass-integrated technologies that increase resourceproductivity and conserve nature's capital.

●Research must be multi- and inter-disciplinary,removed from universities' traditionalspecialized departmental constraints.

● In contacts with society, transparency in thedissemination of research results is animportant factor.

●The owners of knowledge should be ordinarypeople, communities and the society, notcompanies with distinct business interests.

Biodiversity conservation - the Spotted Owl

The complexity of society's demands often leads tocompetition and conflicts in the delivery of the variousforest products and services. In the early 1990s, court-mandated requirements to protect the habitat of theendangered Northern Spotted Owl in the US PacificNorthwest led federal agencies to change theirmanagement rules and practices based on proposals of anInter-Agency Scientific Committee (ISC). This, in turn,brought about a major conflict between environmentalgroups, timber industries and federal agencies. A coreissue in the debate has been the impact of these changeson timber supply in the region, and the implications forthe regional economy. Concern has also been expressedregarding the national and international consequences ofthese changes.

Using the Timber Assessment Market Model, theopportunity cost of protecting owl habitats on federal land(the present value of changes in the surpluses in woodproducts markets in the United States over a 50-year timehorizon) was estimated at US$33 billion for a 92 per centlikelihood of owl survival.

The benefits of the ISC level of owl protection wereestimated using a contingent valuation survey ofhouseholds. The estimates of aggregate willingness-to-pay

fell in a range of 3 to 40 times the opportunity costestimates. Other estimates, though more modest, stillfound benefits to outweigh costs.

However, the people who benefit are rarely the samepeople who bear the cost. Estimates of gains and lossesfrom federal timber harvest reductions found that privatetimber landowners benefited from higher stumpageprices, and wood products industries outside the owlregion also benefited. The bulk of the cost, meanwhile, fellon wood manufacturers, their employees and loggers inthe owl region, while all consumers of wood productsfaced higher prices for wood-using goods.

Studies of the impacts on global wood productsmarkets predicted price-induced increases in timberproduction in the southern United States, eastern Canada,Scandinavia, eastern Russia, and the radiata pineplantations of New Zealand, Chile and South Africa.

If the rest of the world followed US federal forestpolicy and shut down their forests for timber production,we would probably experience increasing marginal costsfor conservation (and associated economic disruptions). Analternative - one which requires a sense of common causeand strength of political will that is too often lacking - is toaccompany supply reductions with measures to controlthe pressure of demand.

Environmental forestry conflicts

In the 1960s and 1970s, criticism of forestry arose mainlyat the national level. They originated from a clash of three

The cycle of forest policy


simultaneous developments related to economic growth: ● the striving for economic growth, which led to

intensified forest management, ● the raised standard of living, which increased

recreational pressure upon forests, and ●economic growth, which led to deterioration of the

environment and fear about the exhaustion of naturalresources.

Most often, policy decisions are made in a setting wheredifferent values and interests clash and, thus, involveconflict management. Conflicts, which may vary from milddifferences of opinion and disagreements to disputes,campaigns, litigation and even physical confrontation, aresometimes even the "engine" of policy change and socialdevelopment.

Forest-related conflicts in many Western countriesoften appear to be similar at first sight. Yet there aresignificant variations in the themes discussed, theprotagonists involved, the geographical scales and thetype of conflict.

Scientific arguments have formed a part of therhetoric; however, science can only guide conflict

management, not impose solutions. The attention of themedia on conflicts affects the values and attitudes of thepublic by means of the images created. It is often thesecreated subjective values rather than objective facts thathave an impact on political and economic decision-making. Citizens have been involved, and the support andresource base of many environmental organizations hastended to facilitate the integration of these groups intothe planning processes.

Forest-related conflicts have had an impact on theeconomic environment of the forest sector. The debateover timber certification has been strongest in countrieswhich are most dependent upon environmentally sensitivemarkets.

The cycle of forest policy model may encouragepublic and industry policy makers to better understand thepotentially positive role of conflicts and their constructivemanagement for policy development.

Volume I, Chapters 11, 15, 21, 29 & 30; Volume III,Chapters 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 26 & 27.

SOURCES


Approximately 2 per cent of global production and 3 percent of trade in merchandise derive from goods based onthe raw materials that forests supply. Morethan half of the world's roundwood harvest isconsumed as fuelwood, with forest industriesusing most of the rest.

Forest industries are not, however, apervasive user of the world's forests. It hasbeen estimated that two-thirds of the currentworld supply of industrial wood comes froman area of intensively managed forests andplantations of about 500 million hectares, orjust 15 per cent of the total area of forests.

Growth of the economic contribution of the sectorhas been positive, but it is less than the growth ofeconomies as a whole. A similar trend may prevail in thefuture - positive growth, but a gradual diminution in thepercentage contribution of the sector's productionactivities, as services increasingly dominate the globaleconomy.

Non-wood forest products are a heterogeneousgroup of products, ranging from live plants, biologicalresearch materials, forest food, wild fruits, pelts andplumes to aroma chemicals and phyto-pharmaceuticals.They are consumed by people of varying economic levels:rural households, subsistence farmers, shifting cultivatorsand affluent urban populations. Millions of people living inthe vicinity of forests in developing countries are highlydependent on them. Non-wood forest products rank

among the oldest traded commodities, and today at least150 are of significance in international trade.

International trade

Some 30 per cent (by value) of world production ofindustrial wood products enters into international trade.The value of world forest products trade increased fivefoldin real terms over the past 40 years. The traded volume ofall major forest products has expanded substantially; thegreatest increases were for panels and paper. Roundwoodplays a diminishing role, particularly in the exports oftropical countries. The trend has been towardconcentration on higher value products and the growingdominance of nearest regions in trade relations.

Importing forest products worth nearly US$20 billion,Japan ranks second only to the United States in the totalvalue of imports. Over the past 40 years, the value hasincreased 10-fold in real terms - a dramatic increase that isrelated to substantial increases in the volume of all forestproducts as well as to transformation of the composition.At the beginning of the period, roundwood accounted for80 per cent, but this proportion fell to 35 per cent inrecent years. The regions predominant in supplying Japan

VI. Production of Goods and Services

World export of forest products

World trade in selected non-wood forest products

Asia and Pacific industrial roundwood exports


were Asia and the Pacific, and North America, with eachsupplying 40 per cent or more (and together accountingfor about 90 per cent).

Initially, the supply from Asia and the Pacific waspractically 100 per cent roundwood, but by the end of theperiod roundwood made up less than 30 per cent, withpanels accounting for nearly 40 per cent, sawnwood for20 per cent and wood manufactures for 10 per cent.North American exports to Japan initially comprised 50 percent roundwood, declining to 35 per cent, withsawnwood, pulp and paper making up the balance.

Production technology

Technological flexibility in the North Americanforest sector exemplifies significant changes inwood manufacturing during recent decades.These changes include intensified timbermanagement; mechanized timber harvestingsystems; improvements in sawmill technology,wood panel technology, constructionengineering and materials; and adjustmentsin papermaking and recycling.

Throughout the latter half of thetwentieth century, the North American forestsector experienced largely unabated growthin demand and production of forest products.This drove a long-term escalation of realprices for sawlogs and veneer logs. Themarket fostered expansion in compositewood panel output with the opportunity toexploit relatively abundant pulpwood andwood residue supplies. Expandedconsumption of paper contributed toincreased waste disposal costs, whichfostered expansion in collection of paper forrecycling, thus flooding the market with low-cost recovered fibre and leading, in turn, toexpansion of recycling capacity within thepaper industry.

Modern mechanized harvesting systems,developed largely as an economic response torising labour costs, started with the advent ofportable gasoline-powered chain saws, diesel-powered tractors, and trucks for haulingwood to mills. More stable and precise

sawing equipment, laser-guided sawing, computerized logbreakdown systems, and improved drying systems enabledsawmills to steadily increase recovery of sawnwood fromlogs.

Wood panel production capacity growth in recentdecades has shifted toward expansion in the compositewood panel industry. Factors favouring the rapidexpansion of oriented strand-board (OSB) productioninclude generally low mill labour costs (relative toplywood) and the use of cheap, small-diameter pulpwood.

These changes effectively create a larger, moresustainable, and more economical resource base. The

Japan's imports of forest products, 1962-97


current level of demand for wood products simply couldnot be met economically without technological advancesin production. Society has evolved a growing dependenceon technology to sustain its demands.

Biotechnology in pulp and paperproduction

Demand for pulp and paper industry products is the oneitem that may be the best correlated with the differentnational living standards.

The main actions of the papermaking process involveseparating the wood fibres at the pulp mill, rearrangingthem in a paper machine, pressing and drying theresultant paper web. (Recycled fibre from waste paper is avalid alternative for virgin fibre.) As a rule, energyconsumption is higher for the high-yield processes.Chemicals are used abundantly in the processes of pulpingand bleaching, and can pollute large quantities of waterand air. The 1999 convention on the emission of wastesinto the atmosphere and water, called the Best AvailableTechniques of Reference (BREF), requires the paperindustry to control emissions and achieve the norms laiddown by the year 2006.

In a new biotechnology-based kraft process, wood isfirst treated with delignification fungi that cause loss oflignin in the wood. Compared to traditional processes, thismodification makes the defibration process friendlier tothe environment and improves the quality of the paper;the yield of kraft pulp is thus increased, energyconsumption in refining is lowered, and the paperproperties are better.

Paper consumption and informationtechnology

A debate on whether electronic information technology(IT) will make paper products obsolete has continued fordecades. Early predictions of the "paperless office" haveturned out to be premature, but since the end of the1980s the consumption of newsprint in the United Stateshas stagnated. Computer and communication industriescurrently make up more than 8 per cent of the USeconomy and are growing twice as fast as the economy asa whole. The rapid spread of new IT is partly a result of theeconomies of information as IT reduces production andconsumer costs while exponentially increasing the

information available. For most consumers, paper is a means for information

distribution. Digital technology will not necessarily changethe way books and newspapers are written and read, butthe "old" media may cease to be the preferred form ofinformation and entertainment due to the generationfactor. Generations born after 1985 have always usedcomputers as their primary source of information andentertainment; after 2010, these young adults willcomprise an important segment of consumers.

Expanding IT will increase the demand for paper fordigital printing purposes, but the growth of demand forpresent communication paper types will decrease.Considering its potentially dramatic effect on the paperindustry and the use of world forests, this is a prime topicfor academic research.

Internationalization of the forestindustry

Internationalization is the general process whereby firmsactivate their transnational operations, be they acquisitionsfrom abroad, buyouts, mergers, or foreign directinvestment. Forest industry companies worldwide havebeen latecomers in this process, in part due to relativelylow tariffs in international trade on forest products. Forestindustry companies have been expanding mainly through

Top ten forest industry companies

Turnover 2000 (Consolidated sales), billion US$


foreign direct investment and by formingtransnational corporations or multinationalenterprises. As there are fewer restrictions tocapital transfers across national borders andto international investments, companieshave realized the need to expand throughglobal investments. To grow bigger is asimportant as the need to become global.

There are several advantages for a firmthat crosses national borders:●The company gains flexibility in reacting to

demand cycles and can reduce risk;● It can disseminate information at low cost

between its production plants;● It gains comparative advantages of size

and alliances between companies ofdifferent nations;

●Access to capital from internationalmarkets is improved;

●Marketing benefits from better links tointernational markets (sales offices,warehousing, transportation);

●Trade barriers, duties, levies and patentscan be circumvented by global production;

●Spreading the operational base between differentcurrency zones may avoid exchange rate risk; and

●Globalization offers improved access to emergingmarkets.

Competition policy (European Union) or antitrust laws(North America) are required to prevent a single unit frombecoming too large a player and gaining a dominantmarket share. In Europe, competition policies have reliedon the concept of substitutability between products, whilein North America approaches such as the hypothesizedmonopolist's ability to raise prices have been deployed.

As mentioned, forest industry firms are latecomers tointernationalization and globalization. This is especiallytrue in North America, where in 1997 the top five forestindustry companies accounted for only 13 per cent of thetotal production. It is predicted, however, that theconcentration process will continue, and by 2005 thisfigure is expected to rise to 30 per cent.

Urban forestry

Many European countries currently have over 75 per cent

of their population living in urban areas. Urban forestryaims at managing trees not as isolated entities, but as partof an overall resource. Urban forestry is seen as a multi-disciplinary activity, involving horticulture, landscapearchitecture, urban planning, ecology and social sciencesas well as forestry. Research in nine countries hasproduced a historical overview, reviewed planning, anddefined needs of European urban forestry.

In medieval times, there were cities that ownedforests and used them for provision of timber, food andgrazing. In the sixteenth century, estates began to beestablished near cities as places of retreat. During theIndustrial Revolution, when cities exploded as centres ofindustrial activity and labour, the need for large areas closeto the city for recreation and other services wasrecognized. Characteristically since then, local authoritiesand citizens have fiercely protected woodlands fromimmense pressures of urban development.

The location of woodland in and near dynamic urbanareas presents certain challenges to their planning andmanagement. Fragmentation results in a large interfacebetween woodlands and surrounding urban areas, andthere are peculiar problems associated with wildlife takingto the town (such as wandering deer or wild boar).

Woodland in urban areas


Woodlands can also host diseases dangerous to humans.Another challenge is dealing with forest fires. Ever presentis the intensive use of urban woodlands with issues ofaccess and safety, and problems of litter, waste dumping,vandalism, motor vehicles and crime.

There was a lack - in a sample of 16 European cities -of formally accepted policies specifically for urbanwoodlands and of integration with overall town planning.Woodland management plans were focused on recreationand environmental services. Wood production wassecondary, while important functions included cultural,historical and educational ones.

The cutting of trees was seldom popular, andwoodland managers have had to make an increasingpublic information effort to legitimize their actions. Thepressing need to deal with a wide range of users and useshas resulted in the development of innovative,participatory planning and management, sometimes witha close link to community and social forestry experiencesfrom developing countries.

Urban population in Latin America in 1995 was 73per cent. Curitiba (Brazil) was one of the first cities in theregion to implement an integrated urban developmentplan that gave due importance to environmental issues.

The principal benefit of urban forestry comes fromthe creation of a healthier and more agreeableenvironment. In Trinidad, for example, pink and yellowpoui trees (Tabebuia spp.) are planted by squatters aroundtheir homes. The metropolitan park in Quito (Ecuador) hasnative vegetation, and people visit to observe the flora andfauna. In Sao Paulo (Brazil) and Vina del Mar (Chile),municipal governments give plants to schoolchildren toplant in their homes. Recognizing that trees and bushescan be useful for reducing noise levels and creating a livingbarrier, Santiago (Chile) and Quito have designated largeareas of peri-urban land surrounding the city asgreenbelts.

There are notorious differences in the provision ofrecreation areas. In Quito, 75 per cent of green areas aresituated in the middle and upper class residential zones.Urban forestry can offer material benefits to the poorer

population by providing fuelwood and fruits. TheFundacion Natura, at the request of local residents,planted medicinal plants, fruit trees and hedges in a poorneighbourhood.

Outdoor recreation

Urban forestry may very well be one of the most promisinganswers to the question of how to keep society in touchwith natural and rural values and processes. Forest as thevenue for outdoor recreation offers substantial benefits forsociety, and demand is growing faster than at any time infive decades. How can this rapidly growing demand forrecreational access to forests be accommodated withoutcompromising our ability to sustain the health and overallproductivity of forest ecosystems?

In the United States, activities traditionally referred toas "forest recreation" - walking, picnicking, sightseeing,swimming in natural waters, hiking, bicycling and fishing -have retained their position as being the most popular.Among the fastest growing recreational activities arebackpacking, horseback riding, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing and off-road driving. There is continuedgrowth of interest in viewing and learning activities, and inparticipation in new and risky recreational activities.

Access has been limited to areas having roads andtrails. Recent technology advances, however, have begunto change what is or is not accessible. For example, jetboats, helicopters and all-terrain motor vehicles have madeaccess easier to much larger areas. Conversely, access toprivate lands for recreation has been declining since the1970s.

Business activity is generated by the pursuit of forestrecreation, often important to local economies in forestedparts of the country. While demand growth offersprofitable opportunities to the private sector, it also ushersin daunting challenges for public land managers, fuellingpressures to convert forest lands to other uses.

Volume I, Chapters 3, 7, 10, 25 & 31; Volume III,Box 2.1 and Chapters 6, 7, 12, 14, 20, 28 & 29.

SOURCES


Community forestry in India

In India, forestry development paradigms, other thancommunity-based ones, have become anachronistic andshould be rejected in order to make further headway.

The forest department was entrusted withcustodianship of 90 per cent of the forest area of 64million hectares - 20 per cent of the land area of thecountry. The present method of forestry development,referred to as a "scientific management system," has beenpracticed for the last 130 years. However, this system isunable to sustain the quantity and quality of India'sforests, and it is failing to meet the demands of the risinglocal population for industrial wood, fuelwood, non-forestproducts and recreation. The most glaring deficiency in the"scientific" management has been its concern to satisfylocal needs in theory while being oblivious to them inpractice.

Community-based forestry, which is a substantialdeparture from the presently practiced scientific forestry, isnow considered to be the only possible paradigm forforestry development in India. While traditional communityforestry is on the wane, it still accounts for 6 millionhectares. Of the new forms of community forestry, villagewoodlots are estimated to cover about 0.5 millionhectares, joint forest management controls 2.15 millionhectares, and eco-development is practiced on a fewthousand hectares.

The policies and laws introduced by the Britishcolonialists were oriented towards government forestownership. Traditional forest use rights of the local andindigenous people were rigidly controlled or abolished."Common property" forest area, available to villagers forswidden cultivation, gathering and grazing, wasdramatically reduced.

Arunachal Pradesh witnessed, in that time, a uniquecommunity and government joint effort in forestry. In theTirap district, agreement was reached whereby the rightsof the Nocte villagers and the tribal chiefs of Borduma andNamsang were fully recognized, and annual revenuesfrom the forest operations were divided between thecommunity and the government. In other regions of India,local communities introduced successful indigenoussystems of management - for example, the Kans ofUttarakhand, the Orans of Rajasthan and the Shamilats ofPunjab. But village forests generally became open-access

forests exposed to indiscriminate cutting and degradation. Village woodlots, which were a part of social forestry,

consisted of two sub-components: (i) self-help, in whichvillagers were expected to provide labour for voluntaryplanting and protection while the authorities were tosupply the required seedling stock, and (ii) finance fromsources outside the village. The externally financedplantations had better success, with plantation costs borneby the project while the benefits would go to the villagepeople.

In the 1970s, government encouragement of publicparticipation in public forest management first made itsappearance with the initiation of the Arabari "socio-economic experiment" in West Bengal. In the 1990s, theconcept was accepted by governments in eighteen states.Thus began the joint forest management of forests by thelocal people and the forest department. A forest is linkedto a village, and all households become members of aforest protection committee (in Haryana state, forexample, each household has one male and one femalerepresentative). The incentives for participation includecollection rights concerning non-wood forest products, a100 per cent share of the intermediate fellings and at leasta 25 per cent share of the final cut.

Eco-development is a strategy to protect conservationareas from the local people who traditionally collect fortheir subsistence needs from these areas. Villagecommittees, in association with the forest department,decide on the nature of government or foreign-financedvillage development programmes that they would like toundertake, which generate employment and improve thevillage economy. In this way, they improve their economicstatus by becoming less and less dependent on the forests.

Amongst all the recent trends in community forestry,the most promising is joint forest management, though ithas deficiencies. The major problem is the strong hold theforestry department maintains on joint forestmanagement, so that the people's committees cannottake any initiatives of their own. The concept of jointmanagement should be abandoned, to be replaced by theconcept of people's management.

Agroforestry and farm forestry inAfrica

Natural resources, particularly forests and soil, in Africancountries have been under enormous pressure from

VII. Community Forestry and the Agricultural Frontier


different users, attributable to the increase in populationand subsequent intensification of land uses. Soilproductivity has been decreasing in low-input farmingsystems, which implies that farmers have to cultivate largerareas to meet their food requirements. Arable land percapita has also been decreasing.

Agroforestry systems are land use systems in whichwoody perennials are introduced into the samemanagement unit with agricultural crops and animals. It isan ecologically based dynamic resource managementsystem that diversifies and sustains production forincreased social, economic and environmental benefits toland users. Agroforestry, as a field of study, combines arange of disciplines, including anthropology, economics,soil science and tree genetics as well as agronomy andforestry. It is a multidisciplinary approach for solvingproduction and environmental problems for the benefit ofthe local people.

Interest in long-term investments is demonstrated by

the Chagga home gardens inTanzania, the Nyabisindusystem of Rwanda or theshamba system in which treesand farm crops are mixed in adefined proportion. There aresuccessful traditionalagroforestry practices, such asintercropping Acacia albidawith millet and sorghum inWest Sahel, and silvopastoralsystems based on themanagement of fodder insavanna land and Chitemeneand Fundikila in Zambia.

Efficient utilization of thesubsoil by deep-rooted treespecies will result in atranslocation of nutrients andhumidity to the upper layersof the soil, from whereagricultural crops can accessthem and potentially increaseyields. The interception ofsolar radiation by trees,meanwhile, helps sustainmicroclimate conditions,which enhance the

performance of the annual crops. The animal componentof the system uses crop/tree products and plays animportant role in the nutrient recycling process.

In southern Africa, only labour is assumed to be aconstraint, since land is abundant; but land may become aconstraint because of declining land per capita. Land-useconflicts between smallholders, private owners andgovernments are more frequent in countries such asZimbabwe, South Africa and Mozambique. Becauseagroforestry concerns smallholders who, throughcustomary rights, generally use the land without a title, anelement of uncertainty is introduced, which limitspermanent investments in land.

Essential conditions for the successful adoption offarm forestry and agroforestry in Africa include landtenure, integration of agroforestry systems in a wider landuse planning framework and a research network thatincludes policymakers, research institutions andresearchers.

Forest area in Africa (Data source: FAO SOFO, 1999; United Nations, 1998)


Dry forests and livestock in Africa

Drylands, arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas coverone-third of the earth's surface. Semi-arid lands in sub-Saharan Africa cover 1.2 billion hectares, or more thanhalf of the semi-arid areas in the tropics. Dry forests arelocated in the Sahel and in Eastern and southern Africa.They contain species of various vegetation types that areincredibly resilient and well adapted to the extremeenvironmental conditions, such as miombo woodlands,mopane woodland, Acacia savanna, Acacia-Commiphora,Combretum woodlands and many bushlands and thickets.

Most of these areas are owned by governments asgame or forest reserves, or simply as state lands. Theysupport two-thirds of Africa's population, providingimportant sources of products needed for survival, incomeand economic growth: fuelwood, construction materials,artisan wood, medicines, soap, gums, tannin, dye, biocide,water purifier, fibre, fruits, vegetables, mushrooms, honey,insects, etc. The wildlife is cropped for meat and skins, andsupports tourism. Dry forests are also critical sources of dryseason browse for livestock; about 200 tree species areused as browse. Leaf litter is collected and spread on fieldsas fertilizer.

Livestock is generally kept on an extensive basis andherded on communal grazing areas, either transhumant(which involves migration between regular seasonal areas)or agropastoral (which involves subsistence cropcultivation in addition to livestock production). During thedry season, forests and woodlands are used for browsingexcept in areas with tsetse fly (Glossina spp. whichtransmit trypanosomiasis in humans and in domesticlivestock). The Turkana herders make optimal use of thesparse vegetation by moving livestock between wet anddry season grazing. The Sukumas in Tanzania designatefamily or communal land as dry season grazing reserves.

Overstocking is cultural: cattle are symbols of wealthand prestige, while herders maximize the size of the herdto spread risk and maintain long-term reproductivecapacity. But expansion of sedentary agriculture hascreated conflicts. The development of national parks andgame reserves is also depriving herders of grazing land.Tenure flexibility, access and sharing, which are central topastoral communities, are being undervalued.

The closer the management is to the ecosystem, themore there is responsibility, accountability, participation

and use of local knowledge. Involving communities willtherefore improve the success of management. Thegrowth of both livestock and human population, and thegrowth of poverty, should be addressed because they arethe major forces driving land and forest degradation inAfrica.

Land tenure in Namibia

There is a dualistic land ownership system in Namibia, withfreehold areas of commercial farmland owned by whitefarmers, and state-owned communal lands occupied byblack farmers. Some of the most valuable forests andwoodlands in southern Africa are found in northernNamibia's communal lands. These include kiaat(Pterocarpus angolensis), Rhodesian teak (Baikiaeaplurijuga) and mopane (Colophospermum mopane)forests.

Privately owned commercial farmland is used mainlyfor extensive livestock production. Biomes are increasingdue to bush encroachment, but the value of the land isdecreasing due to overgrazing, under-browsing and fireexclusion. No economically viable way has been found todestroy existing bush, but its use for charcoal has shown alot of potential.

Communal land is formally owned by the state, butthe power of allocating it - still with the traditionalauthorities - has weakened, leading to insecurity in landtenure. The forests and woodlands provide key grazingand browsing habitat for domestic livestock and wildlife,but are treated as open access, and illegal cuttings havebecome a severe problem.

The government of Namibia has recognized that thecurrent resource use is not sustainable. A new CommunalLand Reform Bill introduces the possibility of acquiringindividual leasehold rights to communal land, leading tomore sustainable land use. A new Forest Act allows therights to use and control of the forest resources to begiven to the communities; as a prerequisite, thecommunity has to sign management agreements and amanagement plan.

Forest and small farmers inCameroon and Indonesia

In both Cameroon and Indonesia, economic crises led tochanges in farming systems and to a significant increase in


the rate of forest clearing - yet the circumstances leadingto this outcome are strikingly different. In Cameroon, acollapse of the prices of leading agro-export commodities(cocoa and coffee), withdrawal of government subsidiesfor these commodities, and restrictions on food importsmade farmers clear land to produce food crops fordomestic consumption. In Indonesia, a drastic depreciationof the national currency against the US dollar made certainagro-export commodities profitable, with the consequencethat many farmers cleared land to produce these crops.

The vast majority of Cameroon's rural inhabitants aresmall farmers producing cocoa and coffee (the mainexport crops), and plantain, cassava, maize, groundnuts,and cocoyam. An economic crisis began in 1986, resultingfrom a dramatic decrease in the international prices of oil,cocoa and coffee; a decline in Cameroon's oil reserves;and appreciation of the value of the CFA franc. Amongthe consequences of the crisis were a severe decline inCameroon's terms of trade, public sector pay cuts,increased urban unemployment and urban-to-ruralmigration, a drastic reduction in subsidies and thegovernment purchase price of cocoa and coffee, andgreatly decreased incomes to small farmers.

In Indonesia, people residing in the forested areasproduce a wide variety of export crops (for example,rubber in Sumatra and West Kalimantan, and cocoa inSulawesi and parts of East Kalimantan). Small farmersthroughout the outer islands produce subsistence foodcrops (such as rice and cassava). Indonesia's principalforeign exchange earners are oil, textiles and timberproducts. In the regional Asian economic crisis from 1997,Indonesia's currency depreciation was dramatic, losing onaverage 70 per cent of its value against the US dollar.Consequences included an increase of poverty, massiveprivate sector layoffs in urban areas, high rates of inflationand a severe decline in consumer purchasing power.Strong economic reform measures were imposed, whichgreatly enhanced the value of exports.

An analysis of time series satellite imagery inCameroon showed that there had been a substantialincrease in forest clearing by small farmers in the decadeafter the onset of the crisis. Stagnation of the growth ofcocoa and coffee lands, and the expansion of plantain andnon-plantain food crops, was generally confirmed.

The data on forest clearing in Indonesia showed agradual increase in the number of clearings in the first yearof the crisis, and a considerable increase in the second

year. The main purpose of the increased clearing was forthe production of tree crops, such as rubber, coffee,cocoa, and pepper. Land clearing for swidden cultivation,for food crops such as upland rice, declined.

In both Cameroon and Indonesia, the economic crisisled to a higher rate of forest clearing by small farmers anda modification of crop preferences. In Cameroon, thisforest clearing can be characterized as "survival oriented"to diversify and expand the cultivation of food crops. InIndonesia, higher costs forced a search for additional farmincome by establishing tree crops - to face the crisis, butalso to invest in future income-earning possibilities.

Increased rates of forest clearing have more to dowith destabilization than a decrease or increase in agro-export prices. Clearly, macroeconomic adjustment policiescan lead to unexpected (and, in some cases, undesirable)social and environmental consequences.

Colonist swidden agriculture in Peru,Brazil and Nicaragua

Swidden agriculture is responsible for about a third oftropical deforestation in Latin America. Swidden farmersalso regenerate significant areas of secondary forests ontheir farms as part of the fallowing process, so that 25 percent of farm area remains under secondary forest evenafter a century of settlement. These are the only significantforest resource available to the rural poor in oldersettlement areas. At the landscape level, there is a shiftingmosaic of secondary forest fallows, crop and pasture,small areas of permanent secondary forests and decliningareas of residual forest.

A conceptual framework of the phases ofdevelopment in colonist agriculture has four stages: The"Early Pioneer" stage, when the first settlers arrive in aforested area, is characterized by minimal infrastructure. Inthe "Emerging Market Economy" stage, infrastructure andmarket access improve, more colonists arrive, and landtenure becomes more formalized. In the "ClosingFrontier" stage, there is little forested land available forcolonization, and market integration shows furtherimprovement. In the fourth stage, "Old Frontier,"colonization has ceased and no further unclaimed forestedland is available.

Slowing down the conversion of residual forest toagriculture and secondary forest would result in morebiodiversity conservation and less, but more productive,


secondary forest. Residual forest disappears from farmsover time because it is mined for commercial forestproducts at early stages of frontier development, and isthen converted to agriculture. Forest fallow expandsbecause it is highly complementary with agriculture,alleviating weed and nutrient problems that build up.

The main justification for increasing secondary forestrests in the commercial value of its goods and services,relative to alternative land uses. In Nicaragua, it was beingmaintained mainly for the production of a medicinal plant,known locally as raicilla (Cephaelis ipecacuana), forsupplying firewood, for protecting watercourses and forproviding fencing materials for pastures.

From agarradas and woodsmuggling to conservation

Until recently, migrants from the highlands claimed parcelsof tropical forest in the lowlands of Peten (Guatemala) andconverted them into agricultural land or pastures. Due tothese agarradas (literally: "grab what you can"), theagricultural frontier kept moving, threatening to eliminatethe remaining tropical forests of Guatemala. Woodsmuggling and frequent forest fires added to the threat.

In the 1950s, the boom of chicle exportation boostedthe colonization of Peten. In the 1960s, the government ofGuatemala promoted land settlement and cattle raising.Timber companies were assisted by roads, constructed forthe exploitation of timber and gasoline. In the view of themigrants, forest was abundant, so they had no incentiveto care about sustainable use.

In 1989, the upper part of Peten was declared aprotected area, Biosphere Maya, for preservation ofbiodiversity and the historical Maya monuments. TheNational Commission for Protected Areas put emphasis onprotection and prohibition, which created strongopposition among the local population.

A new policy has recently been put into practice tocombine conservation with development, and to givecommunities a stake in the sustainable use of forests. Thecommunities' priority was access to social services, roads,drinking water, schools and health care. Their interest inforest management was dampened by the lack of securityof land tenure. A deal was made with communities in theprotected zone allowing them to stay, on the conditionthat they collaborate in preventing major migrations andlimit their agricultural activity. A concession was created

giving a community of families the right to use an area for25 years.

The gain is the improved control of fires, smugglingand agarradas, and cautious hope that these changes willbe sustainable.

The giant snail

The giant snail, Strophocheilus popelarianus, is one speciesin the mega-diversity of the humid tropical forest that hasthe potential to become an important non-wood productif exploited rationally. Research on this species in Ecuadorresulted in new data on the biology, etology,environmental significance and usability of this species, aswell as on its potential production in captivity.

This terrestrial snail is found in tropical andsubtropical primary forests. Its most distinctivecharacteristics are its weight (544 g), the size of its shell(which may reach about 15 cm in length) and its foot(which can be as long as 25 cm).

The Amazon Indians consider the meat to be verytasty (and it is a popular aphrodisiac). The giant snail alsohas a variety of medicinal functions: its blood is usedagainst diseases caused by nematodes (trichinosis), and itsmucus as a relief for varicose veins. The shell can be usedfor artistic purposes, or as a natural fertilizer.

Quichua women usually collect and sell the liveanimals. Depending on demand, a maximum of 30 snailsper week are sold at the market, each fetching a price ofUS$0.43 (1999). This money is significant, as the familiesengaged in snail trade usually have no other source ofincome. Cultivation of the animal can be feasible; it doesnot require significant funds, and guidance and instructionare easy.

Logging, which usually causes conflicts with the localpeople's traditional way of living, is not the only profitableuse of forests. The traditional knowledge of the locals, asin the case of the giant snail, can turn out to be a keyfactor in alternative sustainable exploitation.

Volume I, Chapters 14, 16 & 20; Volume III,Chapters 15, 16, & 18 and Boxes 5.6, 5.8 & 5.9.

SOURCES


African forests, societies andenvironments

Africa possesses a wide range of climatic and soilconditions, tropical (76 per cent) and non-tropical (24 percent). Forests covering a total area of 520 million hectaresproduce goods and services for both local and globalcommunities.

Roundwood production is nearly 90 per centfuelwood and charcoal. Sawnwood, wood-based panels,wood pulp and paper account for just over 10 per cent.Eight countries are producers of pulp and paper, and onlya very few countries are significant importers of woodproducts. Forests in Africa also produce a wide range ofnon-wood products and play an important role in foodsecurity.

No significant slowing down of population growth inAfrica is expected. The challenge, if poverty is to bereduced significantly, is to achieve a sustainable andbroad-based economic growth. The pressure of externalfinancial institutions, weak economic policies and a poorbusiness environment imply that it will take time for theeconomies of Africa to grow at a rate that will lift themajority of their people above the poverty line.

South Africa is an exception, in that it has gainedinternational status in the areas of forest-related research,silvicultural practices of plantation forestry and trade inforest products. There, the forest sector makes asubstantial contribution to the economy, employment andwelfare services of society.

Forest policies in Malawi, Mozambique,Tanzania and Zimbabwe

Broad policy statements about involving local communitiesin forestry have existed in some countries for severaldecades, but adequate resources have not beencommitted for their effective operationalization. Generally,the forestry sector in southern Africa has lagged behind,although current forest policies are more comprehensive interms of stakeholders considered and issues addressed.

Forest policy is concerned with the manner in whichforests and tree resources should be managed to serve theneeds of people and meet society's demand for goods andservices, as well as with regard for the non-material values.The forestry policy-making process has moved away from

the top-down approach, in which policies were dictated tothe people by their governments, back to a moreconsultative approach encompassing many stakeholders.

The pre-colonial period was characterized by land usesystems that were sustainable, such as shifting cultivationand nomadic livestock rotation; the long fallow periodallowed the land to recover fully before the next rotation,and low livestock densities minimized over-grazing.Authority over forest resources was vested in traditionalleaders who had a sense of direction in forestry matters ofrelevance to the local communities. There were fewerstakeholders with fewer demands on forests, which wereabundant in many communities.

One characteristic of the colonial period was how theadministrations and their commercial agriculture activitiesintroduced drastic changes to local peoples' access toforests and land. The general thrust of colonial land lawwas to appropriate all land and to facilitate access by thesettler community, thereby disrupting common propertyregimes. The major players in formal forestry in all thecountries were the government and the private sector.

A significant development during this era was theintroduction of the concept of a "state" or "nation," withformal national policies and legislation, and the creation ofcentralized administration of the national forest estate.Forestry matters that had always been in the domain oflocal leaders were now being governed in the context of adistrict, province and nation.

The Malawi 1926 forest ordinance is outstanding inthat it provided for the creation of community forests,known as village forest areas. This marked the beginningsof central government encouragement of communityforestry, and the decentralization of forestry resourcesmanagement to local communities in the southern Africanregion.

The post-independence period saw the emergence ofdifferences in both political and economic orientations.Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania and Zimbabwe all hadstrongly centralized governments, with different degreesof private sector involvement in production. Private sectorgrowth was stifled in both Tanzania and Mozambiquethrough nationalization policies, while Zimbabwe left itsprivate sector intact.

Initially, economies were centrally planned, with stateownership and control of most means of production anddistribution; the role of the market was very constrained.Forestry prices were set administratively. Although

VIII. Policies and Development


secondary forestry production was more market oriented,with governments in charge there were grossinefficiencies.

Then followed a period when these countries cameunder intense pressure from international financialinstitutions, like the World Bank, to make significanteconomic reforms known as structural adjustmentprogrammes. Emphasis was on private sector involvement,trade liberalization and reduction in fiscal deficit. On thepolitical front, democratization precipitated some diversionof resources from economic development into servicingthe political machinery.

For forestry, structural adjustment discouragedgovernment monopoly and promoted private sectordevelopment. Democratization encouraged local people toeffectively participate in decisions about these resources.However, earlier forestry policies and legislation continuedto operate, and their eventual revision appears to reflectdevelopments in forestry worldwide rather than structuraladjustment policies.

Governments were decentralizing the administrationof forest resources ownership and management to sectorsoutside government, encouraging partnerships with otherstakeholders in natural forest management to include localcommunities, women's involvement, the private sector,NGOs and the international community. They demonstratea very clear shift in emphasis:● from plantations of exotic tree species to better

management of natural forests;● from centralized forest ownership and management to

decentralized, devolved and joint management andownership; and

● from forestry practice revolving around tree and forestmanagement to forestry as rural development.

At the same time, forestry sectors accommodated variousinternational agreements and conventions. This created astate of confusion, characterized by conflicting sectorpolicies and poor coordination, and has precipitated acontinual state of planning to accommodate the emergingtrends. This has strained institutional capacities andfinancial resources as well as undermined long-termplanning.

The successful implementation of these conventionsrequires development of:●harmonization of relevant policies and legislation;●an institutional framework defining responsibilities,

procedures and accountability;●qualified human resources and financial resources;●mechanisms for consultation and stakeholder

participation; and● systems for information generation and dissemination.

Forest plantations in Ethiopia

The relatively early and extensive deforestation in Ethiopia,coupled with the cultivation of steep marginal lands,overgrazing and socio-political instability, has resulted insevere land degradation in large areas. This is the mostpressing environmental problem facing the country.

Ethiopia's forest plantation history is one of thelongest in Africa. Eucalyptus species were imported fromAustralia around 1894, and they have since beensuccessfully established throughout the country. By 1995,plantations in Ethiopia covered about 140,000 hectares,with industrial and peri-urban fuelwood plantationsaccounting for about 70 per cent. While facilitating thelong-term rehabilitation of degraded lands and forestecosystems, they also provide economically and sociallyvalued forest products and services.

Recent research results indicate that species richnessunder plantations increases over time. Inventories inEthiopia showed a total of 53 naturally regenerated treeand shrub species at one forest plantation site.

Asia-Pacific forests

The population of the Asia-Pacific region is high comparedto other regions of the world. The region has beeneconomically the most dynamic in the world over the pastthree decades. The most striking and significant trendfrom the 1970s has been the very rapid spread of themarket economy.

The forests of Asia-Pacific are very rich in biodiversityand have high potential for mitigating the impact of globalwarming. Long-term prospects are, however, gloomy,with major threats of deforestation and degradation offorest resources.

The forest industry in the Asia-Pacific region hasexpanded greatly in the last three decades. The region hasbeen the world's largest exporter of processed tropicalhardwoods. Over the last two decades, the consumptionof industrial roundwood in the Asia-Pacific region hasshown sustained increases.


The forecasts obtained using a market equilibriummodel indicate that Asia-Pacific demand for forestproducts will continue to rise, as a number of rapidlygrowing economies are concentrated in the region. Thereal prices of industrial roundwood and sawnwood areprojected to increase slowly until the year 2010, while thereal prices of wood-based panels, paper and paperboardwould change little. China is expected to become theworld's largest economy, and a major source anddestination of forest products.

However, the forest products sector in the Asia-Pacificregion will not grow without setbacks; growth dependson the performance of the economies in the region. Theprovision of sufficient wood supplies will call for activeforest policies in which both market incentives and old-fashioned planning play a role.

The evolution of forest regimes in India

In India, forest regimes have come full cycle, starting with

community forest in the pre-British period, through stateregimes during the colonial period, and finally back tocommunity-based forests in the 1990s.

Long-term institutional changes are evolving, path-dependent phenomena. The evolutionary theory ofinstitutional change developed the idea of adaptiveefficiency, which includes the willingness of a society toacquire knowledge and learning, to induce innovationsand to undertake risk and creative activities.

In ancient India, forest dependence of people wasinstitutionalized through a variety of cultural and religiousmechanisms, such as sacred groves, temple gardens andworship of select trees. Local communities developedindigenous systems of forest management to achieve acontinuous flow of benefits from forests in which publicwelfare had a considerable weight.

The British came to India saddled with an attitudethat often predisposed them to view forests in a negativelight. They extended the land under cultivation as a meansof consolidating their control. Forest regimes were aimed

Trade flows between Asia-Pacific and partner regions, 1983-1996


at securing economic, political and strategic advantagesfor the Empire. The Forest Act of 1865 empowered thestate to declare any land covered with trees or brushwoodas government forest. The 1878 Indian Forest Act putrestrictions on the public's access to forest, and in practiceit abolished local people's well-defined rights. This evokedsharp reactions from some forest communities, and theresponse to some of the stronger demands was acommunity-based forest management system.

The first forest policy of independent India (1952)retained the fundamental idea of the earlier policy - thatthe state should administer the forests. Emphasis was onindustrial development. Changes in policy in 1976emphasized that production of industrial wood should beeconomically defensible in terms of cost and returns. Thisled to large-scale plantations of fast growing tree speciesfocused only on technical efficiency; price efficiency wasnever a criterion.

In the late seventies, social forestry programmes werestarted in many states, and there was a suddenemergence of forest protection initiatives by thousands ofvillages all over the country. Local communities werechallenging the authority of forest officials and theirmanagement systems. Some innovative and risk-lovingforest officers also supported the cause of local people byinvolving them in forest management. By the 1988 ForestPolicy, the government issued detailed directions for forestmanagement programmes in collaboration with localpeoples – now known as Joint Forest Management.

The willingness of forestry personnel andcommunities to acquire knowledge and learning, toinduce innovations, and to undertake risks and creativeactivities are observed in the present forest regimes,whose apparent origin is in the risky innovations adoptedby some forest officers in the state of West Bengal. Thus,the history of the forest regimes in India conforms well tothe theory of path dependence of institutional dynamics.However, despite this trend back towards community-based forest regimes, state regimes remain important andstill account for the majority of the forest area.

Political power and concessionaires inIndonesia

Indonesian forest concessionaires came underinternational scrutiny in the late 1980s when, as a result ofglobal concern over the world's remaining tropical moist

forests, Indonesia attracted attention as the second-largestarea of these forests. The response was a proliferation ofIndonesian government rhetoric and proclamations, whilegovernment agencies and companies followed business-as-usual routines of giving high priority to rapid profits atthe expense of the long-term regenerative capacity of theforest.

The 1967 Foreign Investment Law favoured foreigninvestors through tax exemptions and profit repatriation.Unclaimed forest was decreed property of the state, andthe government was responsible for regulating theexploitation of timber, with the private sector operatingrenewable concessions. The logging boom led to a rapidextension of concessions. Under-pricing of logs,negligence in the use of wood residues and high-gradingin logging operations led to enormous waste anddestruction of vast areas.

The 1970's regulations to stimulate domestic woodprocessing resulted in a massive upsurge in investments.Taxes introduced in 1989 as an incentive to higher value-added products halted sawnwood exports and led to adrop in domestic prices; plywood became the mostfavoured wood industry branch. A further strong incentiveto expand was the log export ban.

From the onset of the logging boom, several laws andregulations were introduced which were aimed atpreservation of the local and global environmentalfunctions of forests. Concessionaires ignored theseregulations, however. There was clearly a much strongergovernment interest in the short-term productionpotentials of the forests than in their long-run regenerativecapacity. Although legal options and monitoring andenforcement instruments existed, enforcement andcompliance was nearly absent.

Financial and economic barriers are poor candidatesfor explaining the dismal environmental performance ofIndonesia's forest concessionaires. The political power andinfluence wielded by forest concessionaires and woodindustrialists is the key to understanding the problems offorest concession reform. Wood industries have been themost ardent anti-environmental lobbyists. The mostimportant of these was the plywood producers'association, APKINDO. The principal groups in forestryshared the characteristic that almost all of them hadstrong connections to former President Suharto's familyand the military establishment.

Political systems in which partnerships like those


found in Indonesian forestry occur are usually described asneopatrimonial, involving the award by public officials ofpersonal favours (jobs, licenses, contracts). In return formaterial rewards, clients mobilize political support. Thissystem provides concessionaires and plywood groups withextraordinary access to government, and a correspondingincentive to the government to neglect law enforcement.As the system is insecure, there are few incentives forinvestment or rational forestry practices.

The absence of a framework for long-termenvironmental strategies in the forestry sector andinadequately designed and poorly implementedgovernment regulations create risks for society:● forest concessions may function as political rewards to

amass electoral support;● forests could be valuable sources of income for regional

strongmen; and

● through privileged access to government policy-making,forest concessionaires may become so powerful thatthey operate above the law and control the regulatoryagencies responsible for controlling concessionairebehaviour.

Latin American forests, societies andenvironments

Latin America holds almost half of the total forest area,and more than half of the growing stock and biomass, offorests in the developing countries. The Amazon region isparticularly important because it contains one of theworld's most diverse ecosystems and the largest area ofpristine tropical forest in the world.

It is a paradox that many of the countries of Southand Central America are rich in forest resources, but are

unable to satisfy their ownneeds for forest products. OnlyBrazil and Chile are significantnet exporters of forest products.Most of the consumption ofroundwood (66 per cent) isused for fuel, and there is nosign of a rapid substitution offuelwood by other sorts ofenergy. The contributions ofnon-wood forest products tothe regional economy aresignificant, particularly for therural population and indigenouscommunities, but these are notwell identified and there is littleknowledge of their quantities,value and potential.

Deforestation is one of theworst environmental problemsin Latin America, and isespecially acute in the southernand eastern areas of Amazonia,in Central America and in theCaribbean region. Manycountries of the region havesupported the establishment offorest plantations for producingindustrial roundwood.

In Latin AmericanForest area in Latin America (Data source: FAO SOFO, 1999; United Nations, 1998)


countries, the main question about the allocation of scarcefinancial resources for forestry development has beenwhether to concentrate on intensively managed plantationforests or on the sustainable management of naturalforests. The forest industry favours plantation forests,while the environmental community encourages themanagement and conservation of natural forests. Abalanced policy would include both.

Arguments in favour of planted forests are mainlyeconomic: high investment returns, rapid growth rates,growth improvements through genetic selection, simplicityof silviculture practices and management regimes, easyaccess to planted sites, and consistency in speciesselection. Though they also provide environmentalbenefits, plantations have been established mainly forindustrial purposes, not for halting deforestation.

Arguments in favour of the conservation andmanagement of natural forests are mainly ecological,although they also provide high-quality wood and non-wood forest products. Natural forests have not beenvalued sufficiently as an economic resource forcommunities, farmers and private companies.Consequently, no real effort has been made to promotetheir management, while forestry and agricultureincentives have often worked against the sustainablemanagement of natural forests.

Political will is an essential condition for achievingbalanced sustainable development of forest resources: ●Policy for balanced and sustainable forestry must be

integrated into sustainable development policy, withmanagement and utilization that is ecologicallyappropriate, economically profitable and acceptable tosociety, and must consider all stakeholders.

●Policy for plantation forestry must seek to improve thetechnical and environmental quality of plantationforestry, target plantation programmes mainly atdegraded land, and urgently promote fuelwood andcharcoal production.

●National policies on protected areas must providefinancial and human resources sufficient to exert realcontrol, grant fee-based concessions for environmentalservices, tourism and recreation, and ensure that theenvironmental services produced by forests are paid for.

Plantations and forest policies in Brazil

Brazil's search for economic progress and the utilization of

its forest resources has been characterized by the dilemmabetween utilization practices and attempts to conserve.

Because of the diversity of climates and soils, Brazilianforests are very diverse, ranging from tropical rain foreststo sub-tropical forests and Araucaria forests. The tropicalrain forest is the largest type, mostly concentrated in theAmazon basin. More than 30 per cent of Brazil has beendeforested, but native vegetation still covers 66 per cent ofthe area. Reforestation has taken place on 0.7 per cent ofthe total area (6.3 million hectares). Deforestation stillcontinues in the Amazon basin, mostly associated withitinerant agriculture.

Much of the raw material demanded by Brazilianforest industries is supplied by harvesting the plantationforests, mainly established during the last forty years.Approximately 40 per cent of plantation forests provideraw material for the pulp and paper industry, 25 per centprovide wood-based boards and 35 per cent contribute tocharcoal production for the iron and steel industry.

In 1966, the government launched a scheme thatoffered tax incentives to stimulate individuals andcorporations to invest in large-scale industrial plantationforests. This resulted in the establishment of about 6million hectares up to 1988. In that year, the newconstitution gave states and municipalities the right topass legislation dealing with forestry, so initiatives thenbecame dispersed and local.

A firewood and charcoal-based energy frameworkwas economically viable while subsidies existed. Withoutthem, important metallurgical companies are substitutingimported coal for charcoal and selling their plantationforests to pulp and paper companies. Companies that stilluse charcoal are making technological adjustments toconvert wood into charcoal more efficiently. In the 1990s,only few new-planted forests have been established at arate of 50,000 hectares per year, and reforestation ofpreviously planted forests has been reduced to an averageof 100,000 hectares per year.

Governmental institutions had given priority toconservation at the expense of production. Substantialareas were designated as national forests, ecological andbiological reserves, and areas of environmental protection.Strong and effective environmental legislation wascompromised, however, by poor leadership and strategieswhich permit abuse.

Brazil lacks a forest policy, despite being responsiblefor the world's major tropical forest area. The main issue


seems to be a tug-of-war between the political forcessupporting environmental policies and those favouringcorporate interests. While this confrontation continues,the forest policy vacuum will harm the Brazilian economy.

Forestry in Canada, Australia andNew Zealand

Harvesting fees for public timber inCanada

Ninety-four per cent of Canada's forests are publiclyowned (71 per cent provincial, 23 per cent federal). TheCanadian Constitution grants ownership and control tothe provinces, which are responsible for forest policy andmanagement and have the sole authority to levy fees forthe use of timber.

In all provinces, management responsibilities forpublic forest resources are delegated to the private sectorthrough licensing arrangements. This may includereforestation, preparation of forest inventories, planning,forest protection and enhancement of non-timber forestvalues. Licensees are typically forest products or pulp andpaper companies.

Markets are restricted; exporting logs is prohibited,and tenure holders are required to direct the timber theyharvest to mills that they own and operate. Thissignificantly reduces opportunities to establish competitivemarkets for standing timber. Stumpage values aredetermined administratively, with stumpage pricesadjusted in accordance with changes in end productprices. Stumpage prices can be varied to encouragedesirable forest practices, protect the health of forests oradvance economic objectives.

Underpricing of standing timber (stumpage) inCanada is a major issue in the ongoing softwood lumbertrade disputes with the United States.

Australia's expanding plantation estates

There are now 1.34 million hectares of plantations inAustralia, of which 71 per cent are softwood and 29 percent are hardwood. While the total current ownership ofplantations is roughly equally distributed between theprivate and public sectors, 90 per cent of the newplantings established in 1999 were by private owners.

Australian federal and state governments have

developed tax reliefs, subsidies and other policies over thelast four decades to promote plantation development andenhance industry growth. Most recent among theseinitiatives is "Plantations for Australia: the 2020 Vision,"launched in 1997, aiming at three million hectares by2020.

Low commodity prices, land degradation and regionalunemployment have provided the opportunity forplantation expansion. Traditional grazing and croppinglandholders are diversifying production and seeking newincome sources.

Almost all states now share the policy, consistent withecologically sustainable management, of not clearingpublic land for plantations where this would compromiseconservation and catchment objectives.

Participants in plantation expansion in Australiainclude:●pulp and paper producers (typically foreign investors

growing pulp for offshore mills);● long-term corporate investors (including privatization of

government plantations);● investment companies seeking tax incentives; ● solid wood industries; ●environmental plantings for carbon credits, soil erosion,

and salinity; and● rural landholders.

It is expected there will be an increase in planting by theprivate sector, leading to a trend with tree ownershipshifting from public to private.

Forestry in New Zealand

Forestry is one of New Zealand's major export earners,second only to dairy farming. Plantation forests are grownfor wood production; they consist mainly of a singlespecies (Pinus radiata) and demonstrate high levels ofproductivity and profitability. Indigenous forests (one-quarter of the country's area) contribute only 0.7 per centof the national wood harvest; their role is almost entirelyfor water and soil conservation, wildlife habitat andrecreation. This example of extreme land-use zoningcontrasts greatly with northern hemisphere ideals ofmultiple use.

The first human arrivals encountered a uniqueecosystem that had evolved independently since partingfrom Gondwana some 80 million years previously: 85 per


cent of the country was densely forested and (with theexception of two species of bat) mammals were not partof the local ecology. Instead, birds and insects evolved tofill the niches that mammals occupied elsewhere. In theabsence of co-evolution, native flora and fauna can rarelycompete with introductions. It is difficult to manageforests when rotation cycles can exceed 700 years(Westland rimu), or where even after 100 years almost novaluable heartwood is present (kauri). The indigenousforests are being managed under a regime of "benignneglect."

In contrast, plantation forestry with exotics iscommercially competitive. One unusual feature is intensivemanagement with at least one thinning and two-thirds ofstands pruned (the consequence of integrated computermodels generated from sample plot data). New-landplanting has held steady at a rate of 70,000 hectares peryear. There is perhaps another 5 million hectares ofsuitable pasture that could be planted.

A major event in 1985 radically changed forestry inNew Zealand. Environmentalists and economistssuccessfully lobbied to introduce legislation that placednearly all the state-owned indigenous forest in the handsof the new Department of Conservation. The state-ownedexotic plantation forest was corporatized and, finally,privatized.

Taking the country as a whole, all expectations offorestry have been met: biodiversity and recreation in theindigenous estates, employment and profit in the exoticestates, and soil and water conservation in both.

Volume I, Chapters 13, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 26 & 27;Volume III, Chapters 17, 20, 21, 23 & 25 and Boxes5.10, 5.11 & 5.12.

SOURCES

Land use in New Zealand


The term "countries with economies in transition" refersto the change from a centrally planned economy to amarket-based system. The Russian Federation and Chinaare two of the most important countries with "transitioneconomies," and they are important in terms of theirforest areas, growing stock, forest products andenvironmental values as well.

Russia has rich forest resources, with 6 hectares offorest area and 500 m3 of growing stock per capita. Incontrast, China is deficient in forest resources, with just0.1 hectare of forest area and less than 10 m3 of growingstock per capita.

For many years, the annual allowable cut has notbeen reached in any of the regions of the RussianFederation; recently, only one-quarter of the potential cuthas been utilized. The location of forests, necessitatinglong-distance transportation, places constraints onroundwood exports. Unless demand increases, Russia'sforest sector cannot develop.

In China, the forest problem is mostly a supply issue.Demand for wood products compels China to import.Economic reforms in the forest sector have advanced, andChina has begun to decentralize land tenurearrangements and legalized private forest management.Stumpage prices, previously zero, have been in force since1990 with the income to be used for silviculture,infrastructure investment and administration. The marketwas opened gradually; a free timber market has alreadybeen established, and the wood products markets arecompetitive. However, political reforms lag far behind,

which may cause serious problems in the future.A few general lessons have been learned on how to

successfully progress from a planned economy to amarket: ●Good reform packages should take into account socio-

economic circumstances and constraints. ●Macroeconomic stabilization is a priority. ● Fiscal constraint is required. ●Democracy nurtures liberalization. ●The legal system and property rights are essential

components of the change.● In the long run, stability of the political system is the

most effective means for promoting economic growth.●Gradual transition from plan to market in China has

been superior to "overnight" shock transition in Russia.

The Russian forestry transition

Development of forest management in Russia has a longhistory. The first edicts, issued in 1721-25 (during thereign of Peter the Great), addressed conservation of theadmiralty forests, with their strategic importance for shipbuilding. Centralized forest management was theninitiated. Between 1782 and 1917, two forms of forestownership existed: treasury (state) forests and privateforests. After 1917, forest management and utilizationwere based on state ownership.

In the period to 1990, the social aspects of forestrywere weak, and environmental and ecologicalsustainability principles were often ignored at the expenseof "timber mining." The lack of coordination of resourcesand production derives from the fact that Russia is aFederal State, with 89 "subjects" each possessing powersof jurisdiction over forests and their utilization. Physicaldiversity, combined with the large number of politicalboundaries, creates problems for the integration of forestmanagement, plans and policies.

Economic reforms started in Russia during the early1990s. Their main features were a transition away fromthe state ownership and towards private ownership(though no forests were privatized), decentralization ofmanagement, and the establishment of enterprises andcompanies with mixed capital structures.

Sales on the stump by auction are considered to bekey to the successful transition to a market economy, butthe auctions still take place only on a small scale.Stumpage prices are mostly administratively set, at levels

IX. Russian and Chinese Forestry in Transition

Forest cover in the Russian Federation(Data source: Federal Forest Service of Russia)


which are only fractions of the competitive price levels.

Forest industries in Russia

The forest sector in Russia is significant for the economy ofthe country, accounting for 4 per cent of the GDP andover 7 per cent of the total industrial labour force.

A steep decline in production followed the collapse ofdemand for forest products due to price liberalization anddecreased income levels in Russia and other countries ofthe former USSR after 1990. By 1997, Russian roundwoodand sawnwood production had decreased to less than onequarter of its 1990 level. Pulp and paper production levelscorresponded to the levels in 1965, while sawnwoodproduction was at the 1930 level.

Labour productivity decreased in all of the branchesof forest industries. The increase in unemployment inlogging succeeded in maintaining labour productivity inthat sector. In the pulp and paper industry, increased pricelevels for paper products secured employment and incomelevels in that sub-sector.

Future prospects for forest industries largely dependon the recovery of the Russian economy. According toalternative projections, even in the case of very highgrowth, roundwood production in 2040 will not exceedthe 1989 level.

Globalization and forests - the Russian Far East

When the Russian Federation introduced policies ofeconomic liberalization and administrativedecentralization, regional governments in the Russian FarEast opened the forest sector to expanded economic andenvironmental collaboration with foreign firms andinternational organizations. Domestic and foreign forestindustry enterprises turned to the Pacific Rim exportmarkets of Japan, China and the Republic of Korea forselling the region's wood products.

The Russian Far East, from Yakutia to Chukotka,covers about one-third of Russian territory. The regionhosts tremendous stores of natural resources - oil, naturalgas, coal, diamonds, minerals, timber and fisheries - andhas been involved in international trade since thebeginning of the region's economic development.

However, reforms have provoked managementderegulation and loss of control over the use of the forestresources. This, in turn, has aggravated the social,ecological and economic problems of forest use.

In the early 1990s, almost all the former state forestindustrial enterprises were converted into privatized joint-stock companies (with the state retaining partialownership of the enterprise shares). The former regionalindustrial monopolies, such as "Dallesprom" (Far EastForest Industrial Enterprise), reorganized into holdingcompanies coordinating forest industrial enterprises. So,

Roundwood production in Russia (with estimates to 2040)

Types of forest industry enterprises inKhabarowskyi Krai (Russian Far East), 1977


the sector now consists of privatized former stateindustrial enterprises and new private enterprises,although forest ownership has remained in the hands ofthe state. The stockholding companies in the forest sectorredistributed controlling interest in the enterprises, andprovincial authorities began taking enterprise shares inexchange for forgiveness of enterprise debt to theprovincial budget. The result has been an increase inprovincial property, and a return to centralizedadministrative control over the forest industry and forestresources.

China's forest sector in transition

China initiated economic reforms in 1978. Progress hasoccurred in three phases: ●1978-1984: During this period (following the end of the

decade-long Cultural Revolution), the people'scommune system was steadily replaced by a householdresponsibility system; prices of agricultural products wereraised considerably in order to stimulate agriculturalproduction.

●1985-1991: China debated whether to go towards amarket economy or a planned economy. The plannedmarket economy was the official solution, and marketmechanisms were introduced. The emphasis of reformshifted from rural areas to urban areas, and moreauthority was delegated to enterprises.

●1992-1998: The 14th Congress of the Party came upwith the concept of a socialistic market economy. Mostprovinces removed all controls on food prices, with themarket economy playing a predominant role in resourceallocation and price formation.

Market liberalization, decentralization and privatization, aswell as technology transfer and extension, are keyelements contributing to China's economic growth overthe past two decades. Challenges include the losses andlow efficiency of most state-owned enterprises, growingunemployment, disparity of income, serious environmentalproblems and widespread corruption.

Data on China's forest resources, first published in1943, stated that forest cover ranged from 5 to 9 percent. These figures, repeated up to 1973, were erroneous;the 1949 forest cover rate can be reasonably estimated at13 to 15 per cent based on today's definition. Currently,forest land covers 14 per cent of the total territory. China

has the world's largest area of plantation forest (41 millionhectares in the early 1990s, with a 1 million hectareannual planting rate). There are an additional 2.5 billiontrees beyond the forests, located near houses, in villages,and beside roads and water bodies.

The forest sector is important for China's socio-economic development, accounting for about 5.3 per centof the value of agricultural output. The forest industriesaccounted for about 1.0 percent of industrial output byvalue. The forest sector employs over 2.5 million workers,engaged in silviculture, logging, wood processing andnon-wood forest products processing. Forest ecotourism isbecoming an important industry, and forest energyremains a traditional energy source, accounting for 30 percent of total consumption of forest resources.

There are 80 million people in China's 592 poorestcounties, with about 80 per cent living in mountain areas.Ambitious plans have been made by the Ministry ofForestry to eliminate poverty through forest-baseddevelopment in poor mountain areas.

Deforestation is an important environmental issue inChina. Deserts and semi-desert areas are currentlyexpanding, mainly due to human activities such as

Forest cover in China(Data source: Ministry of Forestry, 1993)


deforestation and overgrazing. Water shortages,particularly in rural areas, are partly caused bydeforestation. Generally, it is difficult to combatenvironmental problems without the support ofafforestation; ten of the eleven recently implementedmassive afforestation programmes were initiatedspecifically for this purpose.

Particularly in the forest sector, it was believed thatpublic ownership was superior to private ownership.However, it is obvious that inconsistent and over-centralized property rights have been very harmful to bothforest protection and investments.

"The Decisions on the Issues of Forest Conservationand Forestry Development," issued by the centralgovernment in 1981, was a landmark in forestry reforms.This document was intended to stabilize forest and forestland ownership, to specify private forest land, and to setup a system of management responsibility (the so-called"3-S" plan). Government would issue a propertycertificate to owners to recognize property rights and thusguarantee stability; in accordance with needs of localforest farmers, the government would specify allocation ofplots of forest land, including waste hills, to the farmersfor long-term planting of trees; and it would set up asystem of management responsibility by allowing the treesplanted by the farmers to become inheritable property.

There are about 4,500 state-owned forestryenterprises in China, and several kinds of collectivelyowned forestry properties, including township or villageforest farms, joint-forest farms, and the share-holdingsystem. By 1992, there were about 130,000 township orvillage forest farms (managing about 12 million hectares)and over 4 million specialized forest households.

Several measures have been applied to protect forestresources, including an annual logging quota, logginglicenses, timber transportation licenses, and controls onthe number and scale of wood processing enterprises.

Enhanced forest fire control has considerably decreasedthe number and seriousness of forest fires. The guidingprinciple of forest disease and pest control emphasizes theimportance of prevention combined with integratedcontrol.

China's forestry reforms since the late 1970s havegenerally been successful when measured by the growthof forest resources and timber production. China'sexperiences include decentralization, property rightstransformation and stabilization, management reforms(separating ownership from management and establishingcontract responsibility systems and share-holding systems),and timber market and price liberalization, as well as thepromotion of afforestation and protection of natural forestresources.

The transition continues to be painful, however, asthe accessible forest resources are being exhausted evenas large and still-growing populations have to rely onthem. Property rights issues remain problematic, as thefarmers continue to be uncomfortable with the often-inconsistent and volatile policy changes. Heavy taxes andfees charged on timber production discourage long-termforest investments, but maintaining lower taxes seems verydifficult in practice since forestry plays a key role insupporting local governments in rural areas. Meanwhile,the bureaucratic administration system, the poor marketmechanism, and corruption all hinder the economy'sprogression towards a market economy.

Economic development will increase the relativescarcity of forests and lead to the higher level of demandfor and supply of necessary institutional infrastructure. Ifwe are optimistic about China's economy, we have noreason to be pessimistic about China's forestry in the longterm.

Volume I, Chapters 33, 34, 36 & 40; Volume III,Chapters 24, 32 & 33.

SOURCES


In 1962, Jack Westoby presented a hypothesis that forestindustries have stronger linkages - above national average- with economic development than other economicsectors. Therefore, an investment in forest industries willresult in faster than average economic growth. Thisframework of forest-based development was adopted byFAO and several international aid agencies in combatingeconomic underdevelopment. However, only a fewempirical cases supported the hypothesis, and evenWestoby himself later lost the confidence in it. Skilfuleconomic and industrial policies are required to maximizenational benefits of using forest resources within theframework of economic efficiency.

Finland is one of few industrialized countries to haveestablished economically sustainable forest managementat a high level of forest cover (75 per cent of the landarea). Forestry and forest industries have contributed toFinland's economic and social development, both directlythrough their own production and indirectly through theforest industries' material, energy and information links toother industrial sectors (and to the rest of the society).The share of the forest sector is about 8 per cent of GDP,and forest product exports account for about 27 per centof the nation's total exports. Nearly 80 per cent of thevalue of forest industry production is due to exports, andstudies show that Finland has enjoyed comparativeadvantage in forest product exports.

Despite low population densities during thenineteenth century, human pressure on forests in Finlandwas strong. Low levels of income, technology,industrialization and urbanization meant that shiftingcultivation (slash and burn practices) was widely used.Along with forest clearing, forest degradation was typicalin open access forests.

State forestry administration and forestry educationwere created in the middle of the nineteenth century. TheGreat Land Reform - nearly completed by 1900 - providedthe basis for private ownership and the demarcation ofpublic and private forests, thereby enhancing the value offorests. By increasing farm-forest owners' income levels,agricultural productivity was enhanced. Additionally,diminishing population growth, higher GNP per capitaand urbanization, meanwhile, jointly led to the end ofshifting cultivation. This represented a market-led process.

The Forestry Act of 1886 criminalized deforestation,but without effective implementation this remained a"paper law." A new forest act launched in 1917 again

criminalized deforestation with, for first time, effectiveenforcement. When this act was renewed in 1928, it wascomplemented by a forest improvement act thatintroduced a cost-sharing investment scheme to intensifyforest management. The Forest Research Institute METLA,also established in 1917, has played a major role inmonitoring changes in forest resources and providingother inputs for forest policies. The expansion of foresteducation, both at the university and lower levels,supported the positive development. Gradually, Finlandwas steered towards sustained yield forestry, boththrough markets and policies.

Since the 1960s, development of forest policy inFinland has been based on 12 national forestryprogrammes. These programmes, which have had thesupport of forest industries unions and farm-forestowners, have been aimed at increasing long-runroundwood production through increased public andprivate funding for drainage of peatlands for timbergrowth, logging road construction, tending of youngplantations, and fertilization and pruning of trees. TheMinistry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Ministry ofthe Environment collaborated in formulating a jointenvironmental forest policy programme in 1994, and laterthe National Forest Programme 2010 was designed on aparticipatory basis.

Increasing foreign and domestic demand for forestproducts promoted investments in forest industries inFinland, while changes in technology diversified thatdemand and increased demand for all assortments ofroundwood. Higher wood prices resulted in increasingprofitability and value of forests. The replacement offuelwood by other energy sources facilitated greaterwood supply to forest industries, and a new source forwood supply was discovered in wood residues producedby sawmills, plywood mills and pulpmills.

Gradual liberalizing of international trade contributedto a continuous increase in wood imports from the end ofthe 1950s. Simultaneously, duties and quotas wereabolished on exports. Finland had exported 7 million m3

of roundwood in 1961, but became a net importer only afew years later - a market-based end to large-scaleroundwood exports.

Both markets and policies have played instrumentalroles in initiating forest-based development in Finland.Linkages within the forest cluster (consisting of forestryand the forest industry, machinery and equipment

X. Forest-based Development in Finland - a Model?


manufacturing, chemicals production, printing andpublishing, engineering and biotechnology, research,consulting and education activities) have been strongerthan those within the other manufacturing sectors. Forexample, Finland has become the world's largest exporterof logging machines, and one of the largest exporters inpaper machines and in forest sector consulting.

Competitive stumpage markets in Finland have beencreated by the politically powerful farmers' trade unionsand the cooperative forestry company Metsaliitto; theywere able to countervail the market power of the forestindustries on the roundwood markets. Farm-forestowners and the forest industries have also lobbied thepolitical decision-makers on forest sector issues and oneconomic policies.

The forest sector has contributed to regional equityin that its value-added has been regionally more evenlydistributed, on average, than the national GDP. The rightof access of all citizens to all forests in Finland can also beseen as increasing the social equity through therecreational values of forests. Institutions (research,education, training and forestry extension) act both assources of innovation and as a part of social sustainability.However, labour productivity has increased in the forestsector more rapidly than on average in the economy, andthe mechanization of forestry operations has reducedrural employment opportunities.

The pulp industry has achieved dramatic declines inwater pollutant discharges and air pollutant emissions.Today the ecological value of Finland's forests for carbonstorage is greater than ever before, with forests fixingmore than half of the carbon emissions from thecombustion of fossil fuels and peat. On the other hand,

the biological diversity of forests has been reduced by theintensive forest management practices. About fiftymammal, bird and vascular plant species are threatened(or some 700 species, if invertebrates, lichens and mossesare included) - half of these living in the most fertile forestsites where forest clearing for agriculture has been afactor in species endangerment.

Finland's 1997 Forestry Law extended the objectivesof forest policy from sustained and progressive timberyield to economically, ecologically and socially sustainableforest management. The law also introduced acompensation scheme for private forest owners toincrease conservation of nine specified biotypes, and ispromoting ecologically sustainable forestry. A market-based Pan-European Forest Certification system nowcovers all forests in Finland, where the share of legallyprotected forests is 6.5 per cent of total forest area(among the highest shares in Europe).

Among the conditions to ensure that forest-basedindustrialization promotes long-term sustainabledevelopment are stabilization of macropolicies,establishment of competitive stumpage prices,maintenance of free trade, performance of sector-levelanalysis and introduction of environmental protectionmeasures. Focusing on competition policy, innovation(including research and development, training andextension) and environmentally sustainable forestmanagement should be key elements in drafting futureforest policies in Finland - and elsewhere.

Volume I, Chapter 32; Volume III, Box 5.1.3SOURCES


List of Authors of the WFSE Publications, Volumes I, II and III(Name and country of residence as identified in the original publication)

Volume I:World Forests, Society and Environment

Tania Ammour, COSTA RICA

Ajit Banerjee, INDIA

Edward Barbier, UK

Daniel W. Bromley, USA

Katrina Brown, UK

Joseph Buongiorno, USA

Nikolai A. Burdin, RUSSIA

Ronnie de Camino, COSTA RICA

Cherukat Chandrasekharan, INDIA

Wania Cobo, ECUADOR

Guangcui Dai, CHINA

Tarcisio Della Senta, JAPAN

Vladimir Dimitriev, RUSSIA

Raija-Riitta Enroth, FINLAND

Andrey N. Filipchuk, RUSSIA

Mikhail D. Giryaev, RUSSIA

Luis Graca, BRAZIL

Alexey Grigorjev, RUSSIA

Eeva Hellstrom, FINLAND

Lauri Hetemaki, FINLAND

Heyu Huang, CHINA

Peter Ince, USA

Denise Ingram, USA

Susan Iremonger, UK

David Kaimowitz, INDONESIA

Abdallah R.S. Kaoneka, TANZANIA

Sjur Kasa, NORWAY

Pekka Kauppi, FINLAND

Sebuega Kelatwang, SOUTH AFRICA

Sebastiao Kengen, BRAZIL

Vincent Kihiyo, TANZANIA

Fanwen Kong, CHINA

Elena Kopylova, RUSSIA

Susanna Laaksonen-Craig, FINLAND

Erkki Lehto, FINLAND

Maxim Lobovikov, RUSSIA

Gyde Lund, USA

Alexander Mather, UK

Gerardo Mery, FINLAND

Bruce Michie, FINLAND

Alexander Moiseyev, FINLAND

Gerald C. Monela, TANZANIA

Marcia Muchagata, UK

Isilda Nhantumbo, MOZAMBIQUE

Anja Nygren, FINLAND

Matti Palo, FINLAND

Jakob Park, JAPAN

Joanne Parkinson, UK

Julio Paupitz, PANAMA

Eustaquio J. Reis, BRAZIL

Reginaldo Reyes, COSTA RICA

Jukka Salo, FINLAND

Jeffrey Sayer, INDONESIA

Roger Sedjo, USA

Andrey Selikhovkin, RUSSIA

Adelaida Semesi, NORWAY

Graham Sheppard, UK

Pavel Sokolov, RUSSIA

Birger Solberg, NORWAY

Viktor K. Strakhov, RUSSIA

William Sunderlin, INDONESIA

Viktor K. Teplyakov, RUSSIA

Zhiwei Tian, CHINA

Jussi Uusivuori, FINLAND

Jeffery Vincent, USA

Xuan Wang, CHINA

Philip Wardle, UK

Dali Zhang, CHINA

Lei Zhang, CHINA

Yaoqi Zhang, FINLAND

Volume II:World Forests from Deforestation toTransition?

Fernando A. Blanco Cossio, BRAZIL


Alexander S. Mather, SCOTLAND

Gerald Claudius Monela, TANZANIA

B.D. Nasendi, INDONESIA

Anssi Niskanen, FINLAND

Matti Palo, FINLAND

Alexander S.P. Pfaff, USA

Eustáquio J. Reis, BRAZIL

Roberto Scotti, ITALY

Ari Siiriäinen, FINLAND

Birger Solberg, NORWAY


Heidi Vanhanen, FINLAND

Yaoqi Zhang, FINLAND

Volume III:World Forests, Markets and Policies

Darius Adams, USA

Janaki Alavalapati, USA

José Alvarado Alegría, SPAIN

Arild Angelsen, NORWAY

Camille Antinori, USA

Natalia Antonova, RUSSIA

Tupac Barahona, SPAIN

David Barkin, MEXICO

Mattias Boman, SWEDEN

Joseph Buongiorno, USA

Nadia Bystriakova, FINLAND

Ian R. Calder, UK

Ken Cordell, USA

Tarcisio Della Senta, JAPAN

Armando Díaz Barba, PERU

Robert K. Dixon, USA

Maria do Socorro Goncalves Ferreira, BRAZIL

Bryan Finegan, COSTA RICA

James Finley, USA

Richard E. Fletcher, USA

P. Gondo, ZIMBABWE

Javier Gonzalez Molina, CHILE

Janis Gravitis, LATVIA

Gary Green, USA

Pentti Hakkila, FINLAND

David Haley, CANADA

Tom Hatton, AUSTRALIA

Riitta Hjerppe, FINLAND

Alexander Horst, GERMANY

Claire Howell, AUSTRALIA

David Humphreys, UK

Ian Hunter, CHINA

C. Jumbe, MALAWI

David Kaimowitz, INDONESIA

Markku Kanninen, COSTA RICA

Shashi Kant, CANADA

Kari Keipi, USA

Sebastião Kengen, BRAZIL

Jean-Pierre Kiekens, CANADA

Cecil C. Konijnendijk, DENMARK

Alexander Korotkov, SWITZERLAND

Godwin Kowero, ZIMBABWE

Bengt Kristrom, SWEDEN

Susanna Laaksonen-Craig, USA


Maxim Lobovikov, CHINA

Concepción Luján Alvarez, MEXICO

Marian Mabel, USA

Piers Maclaren, NEW ZEALAND

Rene Mendoza, NICARAGUA

Gerardo Mery, FINLAND

Bruce Michie, FINLAND

Gerald C. Monela, TANZANIA

Claire Montgomery, USA

Isilda Nahantumbo, MOZAMBIQUE

P.K.R. Nair, USA

Ousseynou Ndoye, CAMEROON

Anja Nygren, USA

Pekka Ollonqvist, FINLAND

Andreas Ottitsch, FINLAND

Pablo Pacheco, USA

Marc Palahi, FINLAND

Matti Palo, FINLAND

Pia Parolin, GERMANY

Anatoly Petrov, RUSSIA

Cornelis Prins, COSTA RICA

Gordon Rausser, USA

Ida Aju Pradnja Resosudarmo, INDONESIA

Cesar Sabogal, BRAZIL

Andreas Schuck, FINLAND

Roger Sedjo, USA

Marjatta Selanniemi, FINLAND

Alexander Sheingauz, RUSSIA

Gustavo Siles Gonzalez, NICARAGUA

Joyotee Smith, INDONESIA

Brent Sohngen, USA

Heinrich Spiecker, GERMANY

William Sunderlin, INDONESIA

David Tomberlin, USA

Anne Toppinen, FINLAND

Juha Uitto, USA


Petra van de Kop, ITALY

Jari Varjo, FINLAND

Philip Wardle, UK

Michael Washburn, USA

Mellissa Wood, AUSTRALIA

Eshetu Yirdaw, FINLAND

Carlos Eduardo Frickmann Young, BRAZIL

Yaoqi Zhang, CANADA

Printed on recycled paper

Documents

World Forests, Society and Environment - Executive Summaryarchive.unu.edu/env/forests/WFSEexecutive-summary.pdf · World Forests, Society and Environment - Executive Summary │3