FO:APFC/2000/8  |
| FO:APFC/2000/8 |
ASIA-PACIFIC FORESTRY COMMISSION |
Item 5(d) of the Provisional Agenda |
EIGHTEENTH SESSION |
Noosaville, Queensland, Australia, 15-19 May 2000 |
EFFICACY OF REMOVING NATURAL FORESTS FROM TIMBER PRODUCTION AS A STRATEGY FOR CONSERVING FORESTS |
Secretariat Note |
1. Several countries of the Asia-Pacific region have imposed total or partial logging bans (or similar restrictions on timber harvesting) in response to the rapid decline of natural forests. These actions, often taken in response to natural disasters, have been seen as a strategy to protect and conserve forests.
2. Other countries in the region are considering harvest bans or restrictions, along with other strategies, to further forest conservation. These countries may look to experience elsewhere for indications of the efficacy of such measures.
3. The seventeenth session Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission (APFC) requested FAO to implement a "Study of the Efficacy of Removing Natural Forests from Timber Production as a Strategy for Conserving Forests" with objectives to:
4. National consultants from China, New Zealand, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam have carried out country case studies. A Senior Study Coordinator has provided technical support, including the ongoing preparation of a regional overview.
5. The country case studies reveal a complex and variable mix of symptomatic reasons for imposing logging bans and restrictions on harvesting in natural forests. Deforestation is the dominant issue, with the aim of halting further deforestation and degradation of remaining natural forests. Other concerns are also evident, including:
6. These issues and concerns suggest that the forestry sector has failed to meet the changed demands and expectations of today's society. Each issue represents a negative perception or consequence of forest sector performance that is deemed significant enough to demand urgent changes in natural forest management.
7. Logging bans and related harvesting restrictions are often pursued in response to natural disasters or crises implicitly linked to past forest practices. Consequences may be direct and immediate, such as flooding and sedimentation, or indirect and cumulative such as the loss of endangered species, habitat, or whole forest ecosystems.
8. The goals for timber harvest bans are seldom clearly defined in operational terms. Sudden changes in policy and legislation place burdens on forestry institutions to quickly design and implement steps to prohibit further harvesting from some or all natural forest lands-on either a permanent or temporary basis.
9. In actual practice, the operational objective becomes the halting of logging rather than creating and implementing new and innovative forms of sustainable conservation management. Destructive or damaging forces may be slowed or halted by effective bans. But ineffective implementation can contribute to further deforestation and degradation, both within the country as well as in neighbouring countries.
10. The identification and specification of goals related to forest conservation is prerequisite to effective and efficient policy choices. Addressing the issues and shortcomings of current forest practices rests squarely on a clear understanding of the issues and selection of appropriate remedial actions. Bans on timber harvesting provide only a possible first step in ameliorating the present symptoms of forest management failures.
11. The country case studies reveal two very different types of policy concerns: (i) land use allocation, and (ii) efficiency in managing and utilising forest resources.
12. Land use issues involve the allocation of forests to various and often conflicting uses under conditions of rapidly increasing demands. "Forest use" and "timber production" frequently have been assumed to be the same. Forest use for wood production (both industrial timber and fuelwood) was often dominant while other uses, including protection functions, non-wood forest products, water flow, etc. were secondary. This pattern of allocating forest use is now considered inappropriate and unbalanced in the face of other important non-timber and environmental values that have been lost or neglected.
13. Almost all Asia-Pacific countries, including those reviewed in this study, have long-standing and ongoing policies for designating forestlands as protected areas, parks or nature reserves as part of overall forest land use. Sometimes-but certainly not always-such designations have been successfully based on intensive studies and analysis of the relative priorities and trade-offs with other land uses and values.
14. In other cases, administrative designation of protected reserves has occurred without comprehensive planning and assessment. Such actions have sometimes unnecessarily constrained productive sustainable harvests of timber, without always resulting in the desired protection of forests. This is particularly the case when complementary policies for adequate conservation and protection are lacking.
15. In most countries forestlands and their associated resources are potentially valuable for a wide range of forest and non-forest uses. In each case, trade-offs between competing land uses and forests must be fully considered. In some instances, the conversion of forests may be a necessary and desirable adjustment.
16. Governments are often caught in the middle of the debate over forest use. On one hand, governments are frequently accused of over-emphasising timber production, while on the other hand they may be accused of giving undue priority to forest protection at the expense of development. Both sides commonly perceive public (State) sector forest decision-making to be excessively rigid. In the face of dynamic changes in forest values and expectations, inflexible forest allocation for timber production can accentuate the differences between the status quo and desired land use adjustments.
17. Technical and economic efficiency issues also frequently arise in timber management and harvesting. In natural forests, much of the debate revolves around the issues of inappropriate management schemes, unregulated harvesting, poor institutional arrangements, and environmentally damaging logging technology, often resulting in unintended loss of environmental and protection values. The failure to adequately regulate timber harvesting on the basis of long-term sustainable yields and the multiple environmental and social values presently demanded from forests is a primary cause of calls for timber harvest bans.
18. Natural environmental and hydrologic forest functions may also be impaired or destroyed in the process of conventional timber harvesting. Wasteful harvesting and damage to residual stands also negatively impact future forest productivity. While timber is obtained, there can be a significant social cost.
THE EFFICACY OF REMOVING TIMBER FROM HARVESTING AS A CONSERVATION STRATEGY
19. The experience of the countries of the region in implementing logging bans and harvesting restrictions has been mixed. While limited successful achievement of some natural forest conservation objectives is evident, disappointment and lack of effective protection continues widely within the region. Adverse economic and social consequences and impacts have occurred, further undermining the incentives for sustainable management, conservation and protection of non-timber values. Removal of natural forests from timber production has had significant impacts on the forest products sector (production, trade and consumption) and important and sometimes disruptive effects on neighbouring countries through both legal and illegal trade, timber smuggling, and market disruptions.
20. New Zealand illustrates the potential for a major reallocation of natural forests from timber production to conservation status (in the public sector) and a transition to reduced harvesting on private natural forests coincident with the maturing of plantations (State and private). Sri Lanka demonstrates the possibility of restricting harvests in natural forests by shifting to alternative timber supplies derived from non-forest home gardens, plantations, and imports. The availability of suitable land, and the incentives for non-State plantations and growing of timber have been instrumental in offsetting the reduction in natural forest timber output.
21. Thailand and the Philippines continue to struggle to implement long-existing bans on harvesting in natural forests. In spite of the bans, the achievement of effective protection and conservation remains elusive. The lack of effective institutions and policies to deal with both reduced timber supplies (and enforcement of harvesting restrictions) together with substantial social and economic impacts has made the realisation of natural forest conservation difficult. Both Thailand and the Philippines have become major net importers of timber since imposing restrictions on harvesting in natural forests, leading to concerns over the harvesting practices and sustainability of harvests in the other countries supplying imported timber.
22. China is in the early phases of selectively introducing new logging bans intended for the conservation and protection of natural forests. In the past, China has relied heavily on natural forests for timber production, resulting in widespread over-harvesting and environmental degradation. A long-term strategy has been adopted for increasing plantations for future harvesting (timber base) while allocating much of the remaining natural forests for environmental protection and the restoration of degraded forests. Closing much of the natural forests in the headwaters of major river systems as an emergency measure was introduced in 1998 under the country's Natural Forest Conservation Program.
23. Vietnam is also at an early stage of further restricting timber harvests in the natural forests. Success of this effort will be largely determined by the implementation of the country's National Five Million Hectare Reforestation Programme, which is intended to gradually shift timber harvesting from natural forests to newly established plantations. Funding and transitional adjustments will remain critical issues over the next decade or longer until the presently inadequate plantation resources are sufficient to meet both industrial and fuelwood needs.
24. Measures of conservation achievement attributable to logging bans or restrictions are largely lacking. Success is usually expressed in terms of hectares administratively or legally closed to logging. Reduction or elimination of harvesting, if actually achieved, may avoid (at least temporarily) some of the negative consequences from inefficient and inappropriate harvesting methods. However, as demonstrated by the experiences in some parts of Thailand and the Philippines, ineffective enforcement of bans and the failure to provide adequate and innovative management for conservation and protection of the closed areas make realisation of the intended goals improbable.
25. Conservation and protection require much more than the simple elimination or reduction of timber harvesting. Protection is most successful where strong supportive policies and institutional capacity exist (or are created) to effectively carry out the desired conservation mandate. For example, New Zealand natural forests have been placed under a separate administration with supporting policies, operational support and staffing. Even there, however, the elaboration of specific conservation and protection goals is indirect, leading to difficulties in measuring conservation success in either quantitative or qualitative terms.
26. The country case studies illustrate the common assumption that halting logging is both a necessary and sufficient means for avoiding or minimising the negative consequences of inappropriate forest use and forest practices. Other strategies and solutions are less seldom evaluated for possible application to achieving important environmental and protection goals.
27. This "one approach fits all" policy can confuse the multiple and complex factors at work and obscure the cumulative nature of consequences of past policy decisions and management practices. The typical response has been to focus on the immediate tasks of enforcing a harvest ban or restrictions, rather than working towards the implementation of appropriate new institutions, policies, and guidelines to assure more balanced protection and management consistent with clearly defined policy objectives.
28. Corrective action in the form of a total logging ban (targeted or general) may be required as a first step towards longer-term solutions. Such bans, if effectively implemented, may buy time to assess the longer-term goals and objectives, develop appropriate criteria, selectively adjust forest uses, and implement sustainable forest management.
29. Temporary logging bans also allow degraded forests a respite from further damage and a chance to recover. Reduced or total elimination of timber harvests may be necessary as a first step in restoring such forests. Such harvest reductions or elimination may be relatively short (e.g., 10-15 years), or seemingly long-term (e.g., for 50 or more years), until such time as forest health is restored and growth is adequate to sustain modified harvest levels while maintaining forest ecosystem integrity.
30. Some forests may need to be permanently closed to timber harvesting (or other specific uses) if such activity is deemed incompatible with preferred uses. Other sites may only need temporary closure for forest restoration management. Still other sites may be subject to continuing harvest, but perhaps under modified management techniques such as reduced impact logging (RIL).
31. A near-term strategy, such as being adopted by China, might involve "forest zoning" whereby natural forests are first temporarily closed to harvesting. During this closure, forests could be stratified on the basis of current forest health and the conditions and requirements needed for the future. Some forests will likely be closed permanently where environmental and protection values clearly outweigh timber values. Other forests may be closed temporarily pending recovery of forest health and capacity for sustainable multiple-use management. Still other forests may be found sufficiently healthy to allow continuing harvests under appropriate management constraints. Such an approach could provide the basis for sustainable use of natural forests, pragmatically linked to site-specific circumstances and resources.
32. Virtually all forest utilisation (good or bad) creates economic linkages and social dependencies on forests. Any change in forest utilisation patterns, even when socially desirable, inevitably results in impacts-some favourable, some unfavourable. Some consequences may, of course, be intentional-the very reason behind the policy and management changes. Examples include reduction of sedimentation, reduced flooding, and enhancement of endangered habitats.
33. Other consequences of changed utilisation patterns may be unintentional. Loss of employment, declining community incomes, disruption and dislocation of households, increased illegal harvesting, and other social and cultural consequences represent unintended impacts. Depending on present economic and market factors and the size of the forest area closed under logging bans, domestic consumption of wood products and prices may well be affected. With increasingly open trade, international consequences may also result as imports and exports adjust. Protection of natural forests in one country can result in increased harvests (perhaps in an environmentally damaging manner) in other countries. The comparative advantage of investing in plantations domestically may be adversely affected by increased competition from imports.
34. Evidence of many such consequences (intended and unintended) have been identified in the individual country case studies. However, detailed analysis of potential impacts only infrequently accompanied the political decisions regarding timber harvest bans or restrictions. Unfortunately, the magnitude of adverse impacts seldom becomes evident until they are actually experienced.
35. The findings from the study illustrate the complex and variable nature of the issues involved in adjusting and balancing forest uses. The dynamics of adjustment in response to changing social and economic conditions, and environmental awareness, have been constrained by traditional views of forest allocation primarily for timber as the dominant objective.
36. Together with ineffective and inappropriate management practices and wasteful utilisation, problems of land use and timber harvest abuses have persisted and grown to levels now deemed politically and socially unacceptable in many countries. Moderate, deliberate and appropriate incremental management adjustments in response to these conditions have often given way to highly visible top-down political actions, often in response to crises or natural disasters.
37. Timber harvest restrictions and harvest bans alone seldom correct underlying problems of misuse and unsustainable natural forest management and conventional harvesting. Without an adequate framework of supporting conservation and protection policy and appropriate management capacity, the closing of forests that have been open for both traditional community uses and commercial harvesting imposes inequities and hardships. The lack of non-State land tenures, viable alternative options for human subsistence, inadequate markets for commercial products, and economic disincentives for the community and private sectors to participate in enhanced conservation and protection all contribute to continuing abuses and illegal forest activities.
38. Conservation and protection policy goals must also be more explicit and translated into measurable, and realistic, operational terms. Further, parallel political will and governmental commitment of resources (including financial and human resources) is a strong contributing factor in successful shifts towards achieving national forest conservation and protection goals.
39. Provisions for compensation and other forms of transitional social security for those most impacted (economically and socially) is a necessary condition to fairly share the burdens of change. The greater involvement and participation of the private sector, under market-based initiatives in forestry can also greatly assist in this process of change.
40. Timber bans are simply one policy tool, albeit an important tool, in the spectrum of options for creating adaptive strategies for assuring that future forests will continue to contribute to sustainable forest values and human welfare for the peoples of the Asia-Pacific region.
41. Natural forest protection and conservation requirements are extremely complex and unique to each country and setting. It is difficult therefore to define a single set of necessary and sufficient conditions for successful use of logging bans as a strategy for forest conservation. Some general principles, however, emerge from the study that can provide helpful guidance for modifying current conditions and for formulating appropriate pre-conditions for successful policy implementation in the Asia-Pacific region: