The Asia-Pacific Region, as defined for the purposes of this working paper covers an extremely large area1, and includes a wide range of approaches to forest conservation2 and protected areas.
The island nations of the South Pacific, the developed countries of Japan, Australia and New Zealand, the 'tiger economies' of Taiwan, South Korea or Malaysia, and the regional giants India, China and Indonesia create a highly diverse group of nations. The status, trends and prospects for forest conservation therefore will vary widely from country to country, driven by many cultural and political factors such as the availability of resources, particularly those that are shared such as water, the structure and performance of economies, the extent of remaining pristine habitat and popular pressure.
This paper considers the status and prospects for forest conservation to the year 2010, both in the wider context of forest management, and more narrowly in terms of protected areas.
The three scenarios are considered, namely:
· assuming the present level of action and policy environment
· assuming sustained environmental campaigns
· assuming specific deterioration in policy and action related to conservation.
Although protected areas are a key aspect of forest conservation, by far the bulk of remaining forests, pristine or degraded to a greater or lesser extent, remain outside legally gazetted conservation areas. A comprehensive review can thus only be achieved by examining the activities and policies of a wider range of players, including the forestry sector and the wildlife sector and by considering the growing importance of joint forest management in which local community participation is given prominence.
The Asia-Pacific region covers four biogeographical Realms recognised under the Udvardy classification (Udvardy, 1975) including two in their entirety: Indomalaya and Australia. Most of East Asia lies in the Palaearctic Realm, but the southern boundary encompasses two biogeographical provinces that are included within Udvardy's Indomalayan Realms 'Taiwan' and 'South Chinese Rainforest'. South Asia is largely found in the Indomalayan Realm, although Pakistan, India, Nepal and Bhutan all have some northerly territory that is considered part of the Palaearctic Realm. The same is true in Myanmar, but other countries in South-East Asia fall firmly within the Indomalayan Realm. The Oceania Realm is considered to start at the international border between the Indonesian province of Irian Jaya and Papua New Guinea and includes all Pacific nations considered in this review. New Zealand is considered by Udvardy to be part of the Antarctic Realm, but has until recently been considered by WCPA3 to be part of the Pacific region. The ecological diversity of the Region is underscored by 13 Udvardy biomes being present, when only 14 are recognised world wide. Furthermore, of the 193 individual biogeographical provinces recognised under the Udvardy system, approximately 70 occur in Asia-Pacific. Identifying biogeographical provinces that are unprotected, or poorly protected, is one of the cornerstones in setting priorities for the further development of protected areas networks.
The very considerable contribution to global biodiversity made by the Asia-Pacific region is underscored by the data in Table 1. This lists the twenty richest countries in the world in terms of species diversity, and includes eight in Asia-Pacific.
Table 1 A global perspective: world ranking of the top twenty mega-biodiversity countries, ordered by number of native mammals
Mammals |
Birds |
Flowering plants | |
Mexico |
450 |
1,026 |
25,000 |
Indonesia* |
436 |
1,531 |
27,500 |
Zaire |
415 |
1,096 |
11,000 |
Brazil |
394 |
1,635 |
55,000 |
China* |
394 |
1,244 |
30,000 |
Colombia |
359 |
1,695 |
50,000 |
Peru |
344 |
1,678 |
17,121 |
India* |
316 |
1,219 |
15,000 |
Venezuela |
305 |
1,296 |
20,000 |
Ecuador |
302 |
1,559 |
18,250 |
Cameroon |
297 |
874 |
8,000 |
Malaysia* |
286 |
736 |
15,000 |
Australia* |
252 |
751 |
15,000 |
South Africa |
247 |
790 |
23,000 |
Panama |
218 |
926 |
9,000 |
Papua New Guinea* |
214 |
708 |
10,000 |
Viet Nam* |
213 |
761 |
7,000 |
Costa Rica |
205 |
850 |
11,000 |
Philippines* |
153 |
556 |
8,000 |
Madagascar |
105 |
253 |
9,000 |
* indicates Asia-Pacific country
The exploitation of natural resources forms a major part of many national economies in the region. In the five countries of India, Indonesia, Nepal, Philippines and Thailand alone it is estimated that as many as 400 million people are directly dependant upon forests for at least part of their livelihoods. The value of natural resources, including those outside forests, is estimated at several hundred dollars per capita. This suggests that across the region as a whole the equivalent economic value of biodiversity may well run into several hundred billion dollars annually.
Virtually every country throughout the Asia-Pacific Region has adopted a stated policy of protecting environmental standards, wild habitats and species. However, implementation of these policies is often poor. A policy of words, not supported by action, may have negative effects, as it hides the true situation. Putting biodiversity into "real" development policies will be one of the major challenges of the next ten years.
Almost all countries have adequate conservation legislation on paper. Those without are fast adopting suitable legislation. For example, Bhutan revised its Forest Law in 1992, Viet Nam approved its long-awaited Law on Environment in 1993 and Lao PDR and Cambodia are both redrafting and revising hunting regulations that remain from their colonial periods and Thailand has recently (1992) revised the Wild Animals Reservation and Protection Act 1960 to incorporate more modern concepts of habitat protection.
In some countries legislation relating to biodiversity conservation is complex and scattered in separate laws on forestry, marine regulations, pollution regulations and environmental law. This may often be further confused by conflicts between national law, state or provincial laws and religious laws and local customs. Such countries which include China, Viet Nam, India, Indonesia, Philippines and several others should be encouraged to streamline the relevant rulings so that these can be better known by the public, developers, law enforcement agencies and the judiciary.
A major problem is law enforcement which must be tackled as one of the major hurdles in achieving the sustainable management of renewable resources. Most biodiversity is generally out of sight or in sparsely populated areas where law enforcement is a distant irrelevance to daily life. Villages make up their own rules to control their own daily affairs and edicts from a distant central government are almost meaningless. A new approach must be developed so that villagers themselves adopt suitable rules and control methods to ensure that natural resources are used wisely.
One unifying theme that is manifest throughout Asia-Pacific, is the adherence to one or more international conventions and programmes (Annex 2). Many states are party to The Convention on Biological Diversity, the World Heritage Convention, the Ramsar Convention and the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere programme. The Convention on Biological Diversity entered into force during December 1993, and Article 8 places clear obligations on signatory states to conserve biodiversity, both within protected areas and elsewhere. These international obligations will act as a driving force between now and 2010 for the further development of protected areas networks and the adoption of conservation practices throughout forestry.
Forests are currently conserved through two main means: protected areas established for the conservation of biodiversity, and through the activities of forestry agencies. A third and growing conservation trend is the management role played by local communities.
Not all original habitats in the region were forests, although this is largely the case in the tropical regions and the wetter temperate regions. Not all protected areas are established solely to protect forest ecosystems. Nevertheless, it assumed in this paper that protected areas in the Asia-Pacific region are directly related to the in-situ conservation of forests, even though some protect grasslands, deserts, marine ecosystems.
Data from the WCMC Protected Areas Database shows that there are nearly 3,000 protected areas in the region, covering more than 8% of the land area, most being under strict protection. The forestry sector also makes a significant contribution to nature conservation through the establishment of conservation and protection forest reserves. The tropical portion of the Asia-Pacific has the most extensive forest sector in the world covering one-quarter of all land area. Of this, some 3% of land area is reserved for conservation by the forestry sector. Much of this comprises the forest reserves in Malaysia and the protection forests in Indonesia. The forestry sector has very much more extensive land holdings in the form of production reserves (covering about one fifth of the tropical Asia-Pacific) and the extent to which these are managed in a way that sustains biodiversity is critical.
The third and increasingly important approach to conservation is community forest management. Beginning in the later part of the 19th century much of Asia's forest land was legally placed under the authority of the state with bureaucratic agencies established to oversee management. As forest nationalization policies were strengthened and field management systems implemented, the forest rights and practices of forest-dependent communities were steadily eroded (Richards and Tucker, 1988). However, many Asian government forest agencies currently face static budgets, or are under pressure to cut staff. At the same time, the population of forest-dependent communities continues to grow. While Asian communities have protested and struggled against the attempts of outside authorities and interests to gain control over forests and other resources, in recent years community perspectives have begun to gain ground.
Starting in the 1970s, villages in eastern and northern India began voicing growing concerns over forest degradation and the role of forest departments and private companies. India, Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand are all extending management rights and responsibilities to local communities, but Nepal has probably gone furthest in developing this approach, perhaps rediscovering some of the benefits of the traditional shingi nawa or local forest guard system. The top-down approach has largely failed, due to lack of resources and a high level of forest dependency. Community forestry is the logical answer to relieving the burden of the government controlling and protecting forest area, whilst also promoting rural development and allowing the enlightened self-interest of local communities to drive management (McDermott, 1996). Communities throughout Asia have played and continue to play important roles in forest management and growing demographic and resource pressures are making intensified forest management increasingly attractive to communities, stimulating local interest to invest in sustainable use systems.
Community forestry management dovetails with the expanding role of protected areas, accommodating the needs of local people and the development of conservation practice in the forestry sector. Although there will continue to be a role for strict protection in certain critical areas, a balanced approach between protected areas, improved forestry practice and a greater role for community forest management is the most likely route for good prospects for forest conservation to 2010.
1 See Annex 1 for list of countries, by WCPA regions
2 Forest conservation in this paper is used to embrace a broad concept meaning the maintenance of forest cover and quality through active management and/or protection.
3 WCPA: IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (formerly CNPPA - Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas).
