Land-Use Pressures, People and Trees
The Importance of Non-Industrial Forest Products to Traditional Societies
Industrial Forestry and Forest Industries
The Multiple Benefits of Forests
Assessment of the Status Quo
Table 2 presents information of areas of forests and woodlands, rural populations and forest areas per (rural) capita in Asian countries. Forest policy concerns tend to reflect socio-economic priorities that are fundamentally different, between those countries with larger forest resources/capita (Indonesia 89 ha/rural person, Malaysia 2.41 ha/rural person, Myanmar and Laos, for example) and those with very low ratios (e.g. Bangladesh, China, India, Nepal, Pakistan and the Philippines). For some developing countries in the region, the area of forests and woodland per rural person has only declined marginally (from already low levels) over the past two decades, but in Nepal, Laos, Kampuchea Myanmar, Indonesia, Thailand and PNG for example, the decline has been substantial. The major exception is, not surprisingly. Republic of Korea, where the forest area expanded slightly, but the rural population declined dramatically with increased industrialization and urbanization.
Another way of grouping the countries of the region might be whether the remaining forests are principally seen as commercial/industrial resources, or for local use by large numbers of forest people,6 or as an environmental amenity for affluent (mainly urban) populations. Westoby (1987) argued that ultimately, the purpose of all forestry is socio-economic. He differentiated between Industrial Forestry (well-suited for relatively resource-rich countries to contribute to economic development, employment creation, foreign exchange earnings) and Social Forestry (to maintain rural welfare or "to stop it deteriorating further" through provision of basic needs). Environmental or Protection Forestry (including watershed and wildlife management) can be equally important to both, but not all societies can afford to cater for this widespread demand.
6 We review below the evidence for the belief that the importance of NTFPs to local people is inversely related to their level of economic development.
National Forestry Policies nearly always have recognized all three elements, but the relative emphasis or balance keeps changing. Most societies would like more of all three types of forest benefit, but governments have many other priorities and do not have unlimited budgets. Is it possible to get some more of all types of benefits simultaneously, through greater skills, technology or efficiency, or through different management institutions, rather than trade-off one against another?
While some Asia Pacific countries are struggling to provide basic needs from their forests, others have ample resources for economic development and export industries. Fast-growing fuelwood or industrial plantations may complement either strategy: to move from deficiency to self-sufficiency to exportable surplus; or to compensate for the progressive phasing out of logging in natural forests. Within the larger countries, all three trends occur simultaneously in different districts. At the risk of over-generalization, we might consider a spectrum where the relative emphasis changes as follows:
|
|
Social Forestry, Extension, Devolution of management for remnant forests |
Fast Growing Industrial Plantations |
Extraction from relatively abundant natural forests |
|
Bangladesh, Nepal |
XXXX |
X |
- |
|
Philippines |
XXXX |
X |
- |
|
Pakistan, India |
XXXX |
XX |
|
|
China |
XXX |
XX |
|
|
Thailand |
XXX |
XX |
- |
|
Viet Nam |
XXX |
XX |
X |
|
Fiji |
XX |
XXX |
X |
|
Laos |
X |
- |
XX |
|
PNG |
X |
X |
XXX |
|
Indonesia |
X |
XX |
XXXX |
|
Malaysia |
- |
XXX |
XXX |
|
Australia, New Zealand |
X |
XXX |
X |
Concerns for protection of the local environment, for subsistence use of NTFPs, or for global issues like biodiversity conservation or climate change, may be felt across all countries in the region. But the priority they receive varies, as does the extent to which a particular country has the financial and staff capacity to address such concerns. It is important to stress that this is not simply a question of population size or density relative to areas of forests, but too many people without decent alternative livelihoods. In many parts of the Philippines, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, China and Thailand, the economy has not grown fast enough and in a way that creates enough employment opportunities (Cruz, 1992). Being a forest encroacher, eking out a marginal and illegal existence is not an attractive occupation, but a strategy of last resort when no better options exist. Perhaps the opposite better illustrates the point. In Malaysia, with rapid industrialization, rural people are moving out of the villages to work in urban industry. In fact there are shortages of rural labour in particular times/places. Malaysia's forests are now relatively safe from encroachment for the same reason as in the USA, Japan or Australia - most people have more secure, more profitable and less dangerous ways of making a living. Economic development, including industrialization based on sustainable harvesting of forests, can be an effective means of reducing pressures for destructive land clearing.
For example, although the Terai is being cleared, forests in Nepal's Middle Hills are actually starting to expand, in both area and density. As alternative occupations in the market economy appear, basic agriculture in the nearby areas of the Hills has become less attractive. Also, as people migrate to the Terai, population pressure on the Hill forests is decreasing. A dramatic decline in livestock numbers greatly reduced the demand for forest fodder. Terraced land that had been cultivated for many years is being allowed or encouraged to revert to forest. So in terms of the three socio-economic strata, the urban service sector is expanding, the surrounding farming areas are contributing to, and being affected by, that growth, while remote rural areas remain much as before.
It may be correct, but too simplistic, to observe that forests have disappeared because of population growth, increasing pressure for land for agriculture and settlement, for timber and fuel, and "inadequate protection and inadequate afforestation". Why could the pressures not be accommodated? Why were past efforts "inadequate"? The whole question of the behaviour of poor rural households, in their production, consumption, livelihood and migration decisions, deserves better appreciation. Some Foresters seem to think that small and marginal farmers are "a plague of locusts" bent on destroying trees and forests but, in many cases, these people are actually major producers of trees, even supplying towns with their excess fuelwood from their own household trees.
Many government forest departments have legal responsibility and rights over the forests, but have difficulties in effectively enforcing such rights. It was suggested (FAO, 1993) that because Malaysia has no National Landuse Plan "the Permanent Forest Estate may be vulnerable to excision and conversion". In Thailand and Indonesia, it seems that land-use planning is difficult; even when done it may not be enforceable, or is easily overturned, and depletion and degradation is often facilitated, even encouraged by other Ministries, despite the National Forest Policy.
Forestry officials have concentrated on managing large government estates as raw materials sources for large-scale industry. Much less political priority, and hence much less time and effort was given to:
· managing the public goods and downstream social-environmental benefits from forests;· involving local people in the management of government (or communal or private) forests; or
· mediating with Agriculture, Environment, Transport, Public Works etc. regarding land-use allocation.
Accounting procedures, in both the industrialized and developing countries of the region, have not stressed efficient management of valuable natural assets on behalf of the whole society, or even towards profitable marketing of commodities. Typically foresters have tried to maximize physical outputs, rather than net social benefits.
To generate effective policies for socio-economic development based upon sustainable forest management, it is essential to understand the causes of deforestation. But this is far from simple, as shown by the following two examples:
"The major causes of deforestation are timber and fuelwood extraction, including wood for charcoal, and clearing for farming by an ever-increasing rural population, already present or moving into the forest zones." (Coulter, 1992)"...the main causes have largely been unintended: increasing numbers of rural poor in desperate search for land for their immediate survival, decreasing yields and exhaustion of agricultural lands, inadequate land ownership and tenure systems, lack of sound land-use planning, unsustainable forest management practices, lack of alternatives to fuelwood and charcoal for energy supplies, etc." (Lanly et al., 1991)
CIFOR has been examining the great range of contexts in which tropical deforestation occurs, the diversity of actors involved, and the various stimuli to which they respond. We believe it will be possible to clearly identify how to modify those underlying forces through reform of existing policies and/or institutions, or through international monitoring linked to compensatory arrangements, to achieve mutually agreed, socially and environmentally preferred outcomes.
Not all deforestation is undesirable - indeed for many countries, past and present, converting some forest lands to agricultural, infrastructural, industrial and urban uses is a sign of economic development and "progress". There is no basis to assume that the extent and location of forest that happens to exist today is the ideal, and that now it should be fixed forever. No-one should deny the right, or even the obligation in a few instances, to modify land uses in the long-term social interest, but we focus here on conversion to unsustainable land uses, and on serious degradation of tropical forests. Common contexts include:
a) Migration, colonization and land grabs: The creation of permanent or temporary agriculture (legally or illegally) through spontaneous migration or under sponsored, official schemes, predominate in many parts of Asia. Often, the traditional swidden agriculture or "forest farming" activities of small numbers of indigenous forest people are included in this category (though it is argued below that usually they have very little in common except that foresters often consider both to be illegal). Why is it that in some countries, many people are moving to the forest frontiers to clear land to create new farms, while in other countries nearby, people are leaving the forests for the cities and the ports, as fast as they can? We speculate that it depends on the non-rural alternatives and the relative profitability of agriculture (which in turn is affected by road construction policies, land titling laws, agricultural pricing policies, etc.) (Byron and Ruiz Pérez, 1996).b) Alternative land uses at landscape level: Ranching, pasture development, plantation agriculture or tree-crops (rubber, cocoa, oil-palm, etc.), or even exotic timber plantations (e.g. Acacia mangium, Eucalyptus camaldulensis are also common in parts of South and South-east Asia.
c) Significant industrial logging for the international tropical timber trade now occurs only in seven developing countries of the region7, although most still have commercial logging operations for domestic markets (which are very large in China, India and Indonesia).
d) Fuelwood gathering may be a predominant contributor in drier or high-altitude parts of Asia (e.g. in parts of Nepal, China, Pakistan and Eastern Indonesia but much less so than in public perceptions, based on images from the drier parts of Africa).
e) Other causes such as fires (which are frequently man-made and related to the other agencies of forest destruction listed above such as settlement, logging or plantation establishment).
7 Specifically, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands (and to a small extent, in a few others).
|
Definitions are important Much of the current debate has been hindered and obscured by lack of clarity of definitions. Many environmental NGOs use "deforestation" as a synonym for any disturbance, particularly logging activity, while to most foresters, deforestation means a permanent change of land use. Thus according to the foresters' perspective and definitions, even clear-felling is not "deforestation" if the site is promptly re-occupied by a new, fast-growing, healthy young forest. They certainly do not equate light selective logging with deforestation. Similarly, from the perspective of some conservation biologists, any (non-trivial) harvesting of forest products (whether timber or otherwise; for commercial, industrial or subsistence use) degrades the biodiversity and conservation status of the forest. At the opposite extreme, some foresters believe that they are not degrading, but rather "improving" the forest, by eliminating "weeds" and increasing the occurrence of more commercially valuable species, (even if they are exotic). Clearly there is great potential for misunderstanding and conflict if protagonists in a debate use the same words for very different ideas or actions. By "deforestation" we mean a permanent change of land use. If one hectare of secondary forest is cleared by swidden cultivators, and allowed to re-grow after one or two years of cropping, we consider that as disturbance; it may be degradation, but is not deforestation. "Degradation" means a substantial decrease in the ability of the forest to supply particular specified benefits, so the term needs to be qualified whenever it is used; e.g. degraded with respect to timber production potential, or for watershed protection, or for conservation of biodiversity. Plantation monocultures may be considered as "degradation" compared to the ecological values of natural forests, but an "improvement" compared to barren eroding soil. The benchmark for comparison should be explicit. Also, as Downton (1995) notes, "Degradation is more extensive and more difficult to quantify than deforestation, because the changes are gradual and difficult to detect in satellite images". |
Most lists of causes of deforestation (including those prepared for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Forests) are like this. Uneven land distribution, civil unrest, infrastructural development, industrialization and urbanization are sometimes mentioned. Population growth (as discussed already) has received particular attention and is often claimed as the major force resulting in increased pressure on the natural resource base which, in turn, leads to land use conversion from forest to exploitative and unsustainable agriculture. One possible (and often described) result in Asia, is imperata grasslands; another is desertification, afflicting significant areas of China, India, Pakistan, Australia and the Central Asian republics.
The extent to which these forces are controllable by governments, or respond to signals intentionally or unintentionally given by governments, varies considerably between countries, and even within countries. An accurate diagnosis of the immediate and the underlying causes of inappropriate deforestation is essential to the formulation of alternative policies that might correct and reverse these actions. It is an over-simplification to concentrate only on the readily visible single proximate cause, and neglecting underlying situations (Dorner and Thiesenhusen, 1992). They concluded that the fundamental problems causing deforestation often develop far away from the areas where deforestation occurs. In many cases, they continued, the wealthier members of the society may be more destructive of forest resources, and gain more from forest destruction, than poor peasants. Many Indian and Indonesian NGOs also stress this point "about whether to blame the poor and landless for deforestation, or the industrialists and affluent western consumers - as the distinguished Indian scientist M.S. Swaminathan said, apportioning blame between the "needy" and the "greedy".
In many situations, causes are inter-related and one activity affecting the forest resource is followed by one or more others. A striking example is road construction during logging operations or, more generally, for infrastructural purposes. Clear-cut answers on "who is to blame" for most situations are not available (World Bank, 1991). Trying to attach blame and find scapegoats is also unproductive for conflict resolution. Finding the underlying causes that need to be resolved will remain contentious as long as the problem is investigated by people who see themselves (knowingly or subconsciously) as representatives of one of the stakeholders.
"The lack of knowledge, finance, and necessary tools encourage the hill tribes to engage in the primitive slash and burn agriculture which is the main cause of forest destruction." (Malee Hutacharoen, 1987)"But where does misinformation about destruction come from? Hill tribes use axes for felling trees not the powerful tools which others bring, such as electric saws, tractors, elephants and money to employ labour. Is it really true that there is less water in the highlands because there are fewer trees? If it is so, then responsibility cannot be pinned solely on the hill tribes, certainly not on the Karen. It is certainly not an outcome that they want. If it is true, they are the first to suffer." (Pravit Phothiart, 1989)
As the two examples from Northern Thailand indicate, the question of whether the indigenous farmers are at fault because they are clearing small areas for agricultural purposes or whether they are the victims of a socio-economic system which has made their access to land and other resources difficult, has no easy answers. They also raise the issue of whether the technical and administrative fixes - creation of national parks, reforestation of degraded land, community or agroforestry schemes - are the way to reduce the deforestation rate, or reverse the trends of recent decades, and whether the problems of forest-dependent communities can be solved without considering such contentious areas as population movements, economic growth, land reform or the levels and distribution of income.
Indigenous "shifting cultivators" are widely blamed by governments and industry throughout Asia8 as the major cause of forest destruction. Yet recent analyses9 have concluded that these accusations are unjustified; the numbers of such forest-dwelling people are so small, the scale of their forest interventions is so small, and they typically possess a considerable amount of indigenous ecological knowledge about how to produce their subsistence needs with minimal environmental impact.
8 But notably not in South Pacific island nations where the shifting cultivators are the ethnic and political majority.9 For example, Warner (1991), Cramb (1993), Dove (1993) and Colfer et al. (1995).
On the other hand, NGOs representing forest minorities point to the activities of the logging industry or government-funded infrastructure construction. Each of these groups can, in turn, point to the actions of the migrants and "shifted cultivators" - typically landless people looking for somewhere to cultivate (although sometimes they are actually sponsored by wealthy "patrons").
The loggers and shifted cultivators have attracted much of the attention. However, if it is true that most forests are disappearing because of conversion to alternative land uses, clearly the converters should be the focus of attention. Indigenous swidden cultivators are rarely (if ever) a major force in deforestation (and often the victims). Poffenberger (1990a) has argued that, for South-east Asia, the gradually intensifying conflict between State land management policies and locally operating forest use systems is a major cause of deforestation and mismanagement of forest resources in the tropical and sub-tropical world. If this is so, a synthesis of the ways governments, foresters, indigenous forest dwellers, migrant farmers, and loggers have perceived and managed forest resources is essential for defining agendas for reform of forest policies.
Trees and forests can be managed in many ways and numerous possible institutional arrangements exist in the Asian region (e.g. ownership of forests; responsibility for their management; responsibility for harvesting; and responsibility for processing and utilization can all be by the State, private or communal). The appropriate form of forestry, the appropriate structure of production, the question of who is responsible for what in the forestry sector, cannot be isolated from national macro-economic and historical factors. There can be no single "correct" system, but we may learn from analysing the performance and implications of systems in use. Table 3 outlines some of the attributes of two contrasting systems. Characteristics of a particular system depend on who is managing it; the attributes within each system are intimately and intrinsically related to each other.
The production system of "State Forestry" i.e. what the Forest Services have done, is now almost synonymous with "Forestry". A number of national Forest Policies state that all forest lands belong to the State, and/or that all forest plantations shall be under the control of the Forestry authority. It is this position - that the State necessarily has the major role in managing and protecting forests, or in producing timber or non-timber products - which is now being challenged across the region with general moves to privatization or community management.
The whole concept of "Who was to do what, where and why", may have been inappropriate to the reality of Asia, right from the outset of "State Forestry". The Philippines is handing management control back to local communities. Nepal is transferring management responsibility to traditional user groups. China will rely on the commercial activities of millions of farmers (many of whom will associate as shareholder companies) to produce plantation timber. India has Joint Forest Management, based on the natural linkages between Forest Protection Committees in villages, degraded Forest lands, and NTFP usufruct. Pakistan does not have vast areas of reserved forests to protect, so Pakistani forestry has gone out into the farmlands in successful collaborative arrangements to benefit farmers, the society and the environment. Trends to smaller government (or "catalytic government"10) are changing the conventional wisdom about the role of the State in forestry. As D'Silva and Apanah (1993) concluded
"in the 21st century, forestry departments might be required to confine themselves to policy-making, regulatory and monitoring roles; other tasks could possibly be performed by the private sector, community organizations, NGOs, consulting firms and so forth, on a contract basis."
|
What are the roles and importance of non-timber forest products to forest people; How does that affect the way they look after the forests to sustain the benefits they get from forests; and how are both these changing, with increasing economic and social integration? |
10 "Steering the boat, not rowing it!"(Osbourne and Gaebler, 1992)
Although the importance of forest products to rural people is obvious to many, it is very difficult to assemble the evidence, in a comprehensive way. Official statistics provide little assistance in these analyses. Because most of this production, consumption and marketing is outside the "formal" sectors, governments have rarely collected statistics. The studies have been local or one-off surveys (sometimes conducted by aid projects) resulting in numerous localized snapshots of widely diverse situations, but with limited general thematic understanding.
There are published estimates of the number of "forest-dependent people" ranging from 12 million to almost 1 billion, but often the definitions are obscure or missing! An obvious question is "What is a forest-dependent household (or community)?" Some studies seem to include any household that makes use of forest products (occasionally) while the strictest definitions would exclude everyone except those who survive solely from forests (and do not engage in any agricultural production, even shifting cultivation). While there are probably very few of the latter (the estimate of 12 million world-wide, mainly Amerindians, pygmies and certain Borneo dayaks or Indian tribal groups), if we accept the former definition, then probably most of the rural populations of Africa, Asia and Latin America should be counted.
One of the most reliable summaries is Table 4 from Arnold (1994) precisely because he has qualified the numbers (to the extent possible from the primary data sources). Despite data limitations, one can accept for now, that perhaps 200 - 300 million people world-wide earn much of their subsistence and/or incomes, from non-industrial forest products, through collection, marketing or simple processing activities such as handicrafts, furniture making or food-processing. While most of these people are in rural India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, south-western China and the outer Islands of Indonesia, such people do exist in virtually every developing country in the region.
The past emphasis on timber harvesting has tended to obscure the extent to which management is already practised in many systems. There has been little work on smallholder forest management systems, most on only the first few years of swidden-fallow management; longer-term management of more mature forest is largely unstudied. In practice, existing smallholder management systems tend to be sophisticated, widespread, both short-term and long-term, and they integrate agriculture and forestry temporally and spatially. Despite this, they are generally not well-known outside their specific areas.
Forests are also of extreme cultural significance to many indigenous communities throughout the region, illustrated by the Sacred Groves of India, and very conservative management practices of many cultural minorities in Yunnan or the Philippines, Dayaks in Borneo, and many peoples throughout Melanesia.11
11 "Forests, particularly in developing countries, are intimately interwoven with the lives of hundreds of millions of people with bonds that are equally social and economic." Statement by Indian Minister of Forests, Kamal Nath, to Ministerial Meeting of the FAO Committee on Forestry, Rome, March 16, 1995.
Both upland and lowland populations benefit from watershed management and catchment protection functions of all forests. These and other amenity values are explicitly recognized by societies and governments in such diverse contexts as the Indian Himalayas, northern Thailand and the Philippines. This has even led to logging bans in the latter two countries12 and severe local restrictions in most,13 in order to protect highly valued (but non-monetary) benefits from retaining forests in catchments.
12 "A ban on logging operations in the old growth or virgin forests and shift of timber harvesting to second growth or residual forests have already been effected. All virgin forests are now considered pan of the Integrated Protected Area System and shall be managed for Biodiversity conservation Simultaneously, buffer zone areas are also being established to prevent people from encroaching into NIPAS while limited production forests within proclaimed watersheds are being introduced to provide alternative livelihood opportunities to people already occupying these areas." Statement by Philippines Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, to Ministerial Meeting of the FAO Committee on Forestry, Rome, March 16, 1995.13 "At the 25th South Pacific Forum meeting, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu agreed to have a common code of conduct governing logging of indigenous forests to which companies operating in these countries have to adhere." Statement by Fiji Minister of Agriculture & Forests, to Ministerial Meeting of the FAO Committee on Forestry, Rome, March 16, 1995.
The cultural importance, the critical environmental-protection function and the subsistence-commercial importance of collection, growing, processing and marketing of NTFPs from local forests, all provide an ethical basis for local users to have a strong voice in management of such forests, including Protected Areas. Evidence that indigenous management systems exist in many countries (e.g. Fisher 1989, 1990 from Nepal) has revealed that local community management can indeed be "sustainable,14 productive and equitable" under certain conditions.
14 To assess the "sustainability" of a given activity it is necessary to specify: for whom, for how long, at what economic/social level, with what level of benefits. One must also specify realistic time frames over which to expect management and conservation systems to last. There appears to have been greater human success at harvesting plants sustainably, than harvesting animals sustainably from tropical forests. (Ruiz Pérez and Arnold, 1996)
Having established the extreme importance of forests to the livelihoods of many of the Region's poorest rural people, we now consider the current status and trends in the management of forests. The industrial focus on wood products and the management of forests by governments have tended to neglect traditional forest uses for timber and non-wood forest products as well as the need for more land for agricultural production for growing populations. The past interest of many governments in population growth and the more recent focus on growth of agriculture, commerce and industry, and on securing national borders has led to land-use changes despite forest policy efforts at resource conservation. As a result, the pressure to clear forests has increased with a subsequent increase in the area of degraded forests and lands unsuitable for permanent agricultural production. As many researchers have already shown, this process of resource degradation was made even worse by restricting peoples' secure rights to land and neglecting their traditional uses as well as their capacities to preserve forests.
Notwithstanding that forest policies are slowly changing, the predominant focus even today is on production and protection forestry, though it is obvious that, for a variety of reasons, forest industries and particularly logging operators have rarely been controlled adequately. Where forest resources and particularly timber are still relatively abundant, existing policies and regulations focusing on their industrial and wood product use are sometimes inadequate or not enforced, even though they are constantly under review and adjusted, and have been the subject of considerable policy research (e.g. Repetto and Gillis, 1988).
It is commonly argued that logging causes deforestation in Asia, if not directly, then because the roads that are constructed open up new areas for spontaneous colonization. It is popularly argued that the greatest threats to remaining forests may come through roads which create access (Bryant et al, 1997; Dudley et al 1996). For example, the highest rate of population increase in the Philippine uplands was in the municipalities with logging concessions (Cruz & Zosa-Feranil, 1988; in Garrity et al., 1993). But the direction of causality is sometimes the reverse. Prospective farmers see their best opportunity as clearing/converting some forest to another crop. They pressure municipalities and governments to construct roads because they intend to deforest. The commercial removal of some of the existing trees may be merely co-incidental, or reduce the costs of subsequent clearing of the forests.
We can suggest that logging will lead to increased forest conversion by an influx of migrants, if the following conditions all apply simultaneously:
1. roads that open up new areas;2. very poor enforcement of forest boundaries by government agencies (e.g. Forest Service or National Parks Service) and an institutional or legal context in which people can expect that land which they occupy, claim or "stake out", will eventually be recognized, even legalized by the government (i.e. an open-access "frontier");
3. a large pool of unemployed or landless people, or with very low incomes and prospects who constitute potential migrants. We may hypothesize that the pace of colonization might be related to the difference between current incomes of potential migrants and the amount they expect to earn by colonizing forest areas; and
4. the non-forest land-use is much more profitable than retaining forests.
All of the instances of which we are aware in Asia, where rapid forest clearance by "squatters" has occurred, appear to be consistent with this scenario. Conversely, where these conditions do not apply, forests can be logged, but subsequently remain under management and not cleared or seriously degraded (e.g. Peninsula Malaysia).
This assessment, if correct, suggests that the answer to the forest conversion issue is not to stop logging per se, or to stop logging in all new areas, but rather to reform those policies and institutions that at present make forest colonization seem more attractive than the potential migrants' current activities. This might include the pull factors (how to reduce the profitability of illegally clearing forests or of speculating in land that was supposed to be kept as forest), or the push factors (how to increase the limited livelihood options outside of forests). The evidence from the rapid economic growth of Asian tiger economies is that as employment and income prospects outside the agriculture sector improve, fewer people want to undertake the illegal dangerous, difficult and often unprofitable activities of temporary agriculture in forest lands. However, if the new land use is very profitable (e.g. growing cocoa, cinnamon, rubber or fruit trees) and the potential capital gains from "capturing" some real estate from the government forests are high, it might prove very difficult to slow the rate of forest conversion by this group of people.
Large-scale or corporate deforestation tends to be legally sanctioned, not because it is less environmentally destructive, but simply because it is very difficult to conceal. Given the political will, it would be technically very easy to monitor and control the actions of less than 100 concessionaires or agro-industry corporations. It is far more complex to monitor and control the behaviour and activities of millions of spontaneous migrants and small farmers in and around the forests, particularly when the government's own actions negate any incentives or traditions that these people may have had to look after the forests.
After World War II, many South-east Asian countries encouraged increased exploitation of their natural forests as a source of foreign exchange to finance national development. Market demand progressively expanded. The allocation and pricing of timber rights is commonly recognized as a major issue by outside commentators. Economists like. Gillis and Repetto argued that developing country governments have consistently failed to collect the full potential value of the timber (or bamboo or rattan) being sold to industry, especially for exports. Some countries (including Canada and New Zealand) made a deliberate tradeoff, foregoing potential stumpage revenue, to attract and foster new private industries. It does work but it is not economically efficient or cost effective. New Zealand has abandoned this practice. In other circumstances, governments deliberately forego potential revenue to achieve greater control over environmental impacts of logging (coupe design, road standards, species, girth limits, etc.).
We now examine aspects of industrial forestry and forest industries common to the region, particularly whether government policies have set out a clear framework to provide the appropriate incentives, disincentives and regulatory mechanisms to achieve sustainable, efficient and equitable results, and how these frameworks might evolve over the next ten to twenty years.
In assigning rights to the private sector to harvest from government or communal forests, many options exist, with regard to:
scale of operations: For example, in Indonesia, the average size of concessions is 104,000 ha,15 presenting difficulties in supervision by both the Ministry and the concessionaires. The issuance of 500 concessions in Thailand by 1968, covering 50 percent of the country, opened up vast new areas for encroachment and official agricultural development.duration of license: Short-term licenses do not encourage long-term stewardship of forests, but even 25-year licenses are less than many cutting cycles, destroying any motivation to nurture regrowth. "Cleaning operations" every 5-10 years can be observed. Even with very long term licenses, concessionaires may behave as if their tenure is insecure, because of uncertainty about political changes.
harvesting methods to be used: Reports from Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia refer to deficiencies in the various Selection Systems as practised. Low volumes/ha from selection logging necessitate greater areas logged for a given output, at higher extraction costs. Damage to residual trees is often unacceptable. Rather than trying to prescribe and regulate logging methods, a system could be devised whereby the government specifies what outcomes are required and allows operators' commercial self-interest to align with sustainable forest management. A change from a regulatory-prescriptive approach to an outcomes-oriented approach has occurred in Australia and New Zealand.
quantity, grades and sizes to be removed: Most countries report concerns about "high-grading", or failure to take less commercially desirable species, and/or illicit removal of under-sized logs. Again, rather than trying to devise and enforce rules for every feasible technique, governments might consider a framework that specifies the required results but then leaves it to the individual operators to devise the most efficient means to meet those standards.
prices, fees and charges: There are many instances of stumpages, fees and charges being extremely low. As noted above, it was often to attract new investment or to capture other social benefits like infrastructure and employment. For example, the Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation made only notional payments for areas, logs and bamboo for many years. The Hindustan Paper Corporation in Kerala paid Rupee 11 ($0.50) per ton of eucalypt pulpwood compared to production costs of R 500. When stumpages were increased to realistic levels, industry contracted leaving excess capacity and demands for more plantations and more logging of natural forests. Subsidizing log input prices seems a very inefficient way of creating additional employment,16 and discourages intensive recovery in mills. The very low Concession License Fee (less than $2/ha) and Land & Improvement Tax ($0.50/ha of unlogged concession) in Indonesia encourages large concession areas.
whether reforestation and silvicultural treatment (culling) is required: Clearly the more the logger is required to pay (for reforestation, roads or infrastructure), the less is available as log purchase price, ceteris paribus. The question is whether the logging concessionaire is the best one to undertake these activities? If so, should it be by explicit payment rather than by lowering the official sale price of logs, which will distort subsequent decisions.
whether performance bonds are imposed: Performance bonds designed to induce reforestation, have had mixed results in Indonesia. Many companies still find it cheaper to forfeit the reforestation deposit than to replant, considering relative costs, inflation and administrative costs. The incentive effect clearly depends on the level of the bond, relative to other costs.
transferability/sale of licenses/rights: In many countries, the logging rights are not transferable, reducing the incentive to manage the forests to maintain a high residual value. Transferability may impose penalties for not looking after the forest and provide financial rewards (as higher transfer prices) for those who have not high-graded, who have protected advanced growth, and installed good infrastructure. Systems like "Evergreen Licenses" as in British Columbia (Canada) with "claw-back" provisions may also be applicable in Asia.
whether export is permitted or some specified processing is required: As one form of indirect subsidy to local industry, countries have operated a two-price scheme, where logs for approved local processing are considerably cheaper than export logs. Accelerated industrialization has been accomplished in Indonesia and Malaysia, through policy measures linked to trade and tariff policies, tax incentives, log export restrictions, worker training programs etc. (de Los Angeles and Idris, 1990). This is now also becoming a high priority for India, China and Viet Nam. Analysis of the methods and performance of accelerated industrialization in Indonesia and Malaysia, compared with the relative lack of success of PNG, the Solomon Islands and the Philippines, would be instructive - to address the whole rationale and the empirical performance of the suite of policies. Most independent studies suggest the short-run economic cost to Indonesia has been extremely high. Log export bans are not intended as a conservation measure, but to encourage domestic processing, with employment generation and value-added, and hopefully higher net foreign exchange earnings. Almost invariably these have been scorned by economists for the serious distortions in resource allocation that they create.
15 The largest owners are now believed to control between 2 and 5 million ha.16 Manasan (1989) observed that in South-east Asian forest industries, only the Philippines offered a direct financial incentive to employment, via tax rebates, but that this was ineffective because of other tax concessions.
All these conditions can interact, and trade-offs are possible - changing any one of them will probably affect potential economic rents and thus timber-prices. In choosing policy measures, the recurring question is "What incentive effect is this condition likely to have on a typical private operator, and will it affect long-term sustainability of forestry, in an environmentally friendly but net benefit maximizing way?"
While most logging and processing industries throughout the region are in the Private Sector, most countries still have at least one government corporation, e.g. Thailand's FIO, BFIDC in Bangladesh, Nepal Timber Corporation, Indonesia's Perum Perhutani and INHUTANI I to VII, Sabah Forest Industries, etc. Are they useful? profitable? more environmentally aware and cautious than private industries? Few of these corporations earn profits to pay dividends to the state, particularly if adjustment is made for the subsidized raw materials they get from state forests. Myanmar de-nationalized its forest industries in 1989, (except for the teak which remains a state monopoly under Myanmar Timber Enterprises).
It is important to differentiate within the commercial logging category:
a) Some companies are interested in continuing, long-term production from the forests and, given suitable security of tenure and policy environment, they are likely to manage the forests in a reasonably sustainable way, now and in the future.b) Most of the problems arise from those who see the forest as merely a short-term liquidation opportunity, i.e. who have no commitment to the future of the forests and intend to make as much money as soon as possible, then leave. In many developing countries, this may be a dominant attitude and there are few legal, social or commercial forces at work that hold them responsible for the environmental damage they leave behind.
From an economic perspective, decisions by a concessionaire or logging company about whether or not to log "benignly" and then manage sustainably, basically depend on expectations of future returns. Those with secure tenure may decide to sustain, even improve, their forests if they are confident future benefits are greater than the alternatives. Unfortunately, in many countries, they think future forest values will be low, costs will increase, they fear political uncertainty and/or they have other financial options which are much more attractive. Some concessionaires deliberately degrade the forests or permit this to happen, to justify subsequent conversion of the land to timber, rubber or oil palm plantations). In these cases, the operator just wants the land under the forests, and happens to be using logging as a way to finance that, or defray costs, or further increase profits.
Byron and Ruiz Pérez (1996) and Sayer and Byron (1996) tried to anticipate how forestry practices may change in response to changing demands for forest products. They concluded that the "frontier-logging" of relatively remote areas in the tropics, which has been a prominent feature of the timber industry in the late 20th century, may become less important in the future. This assessment was based on the fact that the technological requirement for large diameter low-density hardwoods, common in many tropical forests, will decline at the same time as the difficulties of exploiting the remaining stands of these forests increase. The technological problems which previously made the more diverse and higher-density timbers of Papua New Guinea, for example, less attractive have largely been solved. However, demand for the products of these forests is likely to be limited by the cost of extraction. Once the forests in more accessible areas (close to roads, rivers and ports) have been exploited, any cost advantage that these forests might have had will be rapidly eroded. They will be less able to compete with the outputs of the rapidly expanding plantation sector in the tropics and subtropics.
In contrast to rising costs and declining quality of logs from natural forests, the volume and quality of plantation material will continue to improve while technological advances in plantation silviculture and wood processing continue to lower unit production costs. In the short term, some specialist products (e.g., durable timbers for marine applications) may circumvent this trend, but in the longer term they are likely to be displaced by new technologies.17 But even if these processes do not go into commercial production, other processes are in the pipeline, the search continues for technologies to make high value products out of cheaper and more readily available fibre. The case of rubber-wood in Malaysia is a classic example.
17 Scrimber and Valwood are processes to make large size, long-length timber out of small and detective logs - both operate at pilot scale in a few countries, but Plato expects to have over 100 plants operating world-wide by the year 2000. By heating timber under different humidity regimes, it plasticizes then "cures" the cell walls - the end result is that fast-grown, cheap plantation timbers like pine, poplar and eucalypts can be made as durable as teak, while still retaining their appearance, workability etc. It could radically change the demand for naturally durable timbers from natural forests, while greatly boosting the plantations sector.
At present about 15 percent of the world's industrial wood production comes from about 25 million hectares of fast growing plantations located in both tropical and warm temperate countries. High-yield forestry is a reality and the biological ability to shift most wood production to plantations exists and can be put into practice if prices of industrial wood rise high enough to justify it. In this context, the prime motivation for maintaining natural forests may be for amenity and environmental services in richer localities, and for non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and subsistence goods in poorer areas. However, logging of natural forest will not disappear completely. Even in the most developed economies, the existence of forest industries, the cost of transporting timber products, and the desire to maintain employment in rural areas leads to continued logging of natural forests even when these are also valued highly for environmental services and amenity values. There will be some areas of natural forests where the returns from logging are sufficiently high and costs low enough, for them to be competitive with the plantation industry.
Plantations may be established for site rehabilitation or local fuelwood supplies, but the major interest still is in industrial plantations, especially using tropical acacias and eucalypts for pulpwood (Southern China, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and India).18 Malaysia's Compensatory Plantation project began in 1982 with the aim of establishing 188,200 ha of utility-grade species by 1995, to meet domestic timber needs. The main species are Acacia mangium, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Gmelina and pine. For example Sabah now has over 50,000 ha, but the target area of plantation is:
|
Sabah Forest Development Authority: |
100,000 ha by 1998; |
|
Sabah Softwoods Sdn Bhd: |
61,000 by 1990; and |
|
Sabah Forest Industries Sdn Bhd: |
60,000 ha. |
18 The plantations of mahogany (Swetenia macrophyla) in Fiji for high-value sawlogs and veneer logs, are a notable exception.
This would produce at least 6 million cubic metres of logs per year, enough to satisfy all existing industries. No further new industries are planned, but the intention is to upgrade existing mills to produce higher value-added products. It seems inevitable that the mix of products and exports will change from indigenous species to plantation timbers. Conservationists point out that even if the plantations produce as much timber as native forests (or more) they are still not a substitute for the natural ecosystem, for wildlife and traditional uses by indigenous people. Economists note that countries are unlikely to receive the high prices currently paid for high-quality natural timbers like Dipterocarps, when they sell their "common" utility-grade plantation timbers.
Private sector involvement in plantations has generally been small, notwithstanding some examples from large Indian corporations and proposals in north-east Thailand. Oliva (1988: 60-1) commented on the general failure of attempts to get ASEAN-region licensees or concessionaires to effectively establish plantations. Despite threats and inducements, it is generally still not in their interests. Many countries are now actively interested in attracting private sector afforestation (as governments attempt to reduce their recurrent expenditures and wonder why "tree-farming" should be a governmental activity anyway).
Alternatives include contract reforestation, joint ventures and production-sharing in the Philippines and leasehold reforestation in the Philippines, Nepal, China and India. Even where plantation establishment by the private sector is sought, there are legal-institutional impediments like the restriction in some states of India (under land reforms regulations) on any individual or company owning more than approximately 20 ha. Although companies cannot buy and afforest land, they are contracting with small farmers, through buy-back arrangements, to ensure their future requirements of raw materials (while simultaneously providing a real financial incentive for tree-farming). Similarly, in China, some of the former forest co-operatives are being converted to equity/shareholder companies, which are then free to employ professional managers or advisors, and to sell their products at free-market prices to industries or the government.19 It had become very obvious in China as elsewhere, that paying people just to plant trees, without giving them a financial stake in the final produce, was often a waste of money. The model for commercial farm forestry and co-operative plantation establishment now evolving in China, is quite radical but potentially a very interesting precedent. In principle, it is similar to the sale of the rights to manage and harvest the plantations originally established by the NZ Forest Service.
19 See "Chinese Farmers versus the Forestry Stocksharing System - a study of Forestry Policy of China" by Li Lukang (in FAO, 1993)
The question of governments awarding financial incentives for private industrial plantations, is frequently raised. Chile's very obvious success in the international forest products markets, with industries based mainly on exotic plantations, is frequently cited as a justification for extensive government subsidies to plantations. Although private timber-plantation estates once benefited from modest tax concessions (applicable to most primary industries), there are now none in Australia or New Zealand - the classic "level playing field". Those industries claim to be internationally competitive and without need of government subsidy (and the governments would be most unlikely to extend subsidies or incentives in the current economic and political climate). Still, there is a great debate (not about their indisputable effectiveness) but about the need for, the great generosity of, and equity consequences of the Chilean schemes (which are still often advocated as a model to other developing countries). Economists question whether the incentives are really needed; whether it is worthwhile to have such an industry if it has to be subsidized, whether there are other less-costly ways to create additional employment, and who actually benefits from the subsidies. It is possible to devise schemes that favour small-woodlots over large industrial estates, or particular districts, or types of plantations, but the general argument is that it is more effective and sustainable to "get the basis policies and prices right" so that bureaucratically administered subsidies are not required to facilitate private tree-farming, on whatever scale and location.
Devolution of Management to User Groups and Communities: Community Forestry
Integration of Conservation with Multiple Uses
Promotion of Farm Forestry
Multi-purpose sustainable management of natural forests for non-wood forest products, and for non-consumptive uses (watersheds, biodiversity and sensitive priority areas) is on the agenda in most countries. The actions of many forestry agencies and companies, suggest wood production has been the priority, and the other values were tolerable to the extent that they do not interfere too much with wood production. Alternatively, minimum standards for the provision of these (non-timber production) benefits have been set, and thereafter commercial wood production could be maximized.
There is increasing evidence that the value of conservation, non-timber products and non-consumptive benefits may be greater than commercial logging profits, but are not readily captured. Benefits of commercial logging typically accrue to certain groups in society, and the costs to others. This suggests a need to more equitably resolve rights and responsibilities, and terms of tenure. Natural tropical forests have been exploited as if only two productive resources have value - the timber and the potential (often low-quality) agricultural land under it. A third has been consistently overlooked - the forests' capacity to generate income from hundreds of non-wood products. Repetto and Gillis (1988) estimated that the Net Present Value (NPV) of leaving an Indonesian forest intact was double the NPV of logging it; Hodgson and Dixon (1988) calculated the NPV of a Palawan logging operation as $8.6 million, but the loss of revenues to fisheries and tourism was estimated as $32 million. In brief, they argued that the forest was worth more as a living forest, than the value of the logs present - a theme developed by many other conservationists. The difference of course, is that the value of the logs accrues as cash in the hands of governments, industries and timber workers, while many of the estimated benefits from tourism are unpaid or "notional values"20.
20 Even if the benefits from tourism could be in cash form, the question would arise of "who" gets such income and this would affect the commitment of various interest groups in sustainably managing the forest (editor).
How can a process be set up for the formulation, implementation and monitoring of policies and strategies, which enables ALL the values of the forest to be recognized and, whenever possible, quantified so that if trade-offs have to be made, they are clear, deliberate and public?
Large areas in the officially reserved forests in many countries of South and South-east Asia are actually treeless. In some cases, the land is in fact productive agricultural land, the illegal farms of people who "squatted" there many years ago. Some Reserved Forest boundaries have been drawn around areas of forest which indigenous people had consciously managed for centuries, before being displaced by colonial authorities, or labelled as encroachers. However, in many more cases, the land is barren, eroding "wastelands".21 A series of reports about "The Uncultivated Half of India" showed almost half the country was virtual wasteland, far below its potential productivity in any sense, and much of this was government-owned Forests, but treeless. Similar situations exist in other countries across the region.
21 We should be careful about the word "wastelands" as this may represent only the official view - local people may find them useful for some grazing, collection of medicinal plants and fuels, etc. Their production may be much below their potential, but not necessarily zero.
In Thailand, there are now 10 million ha of treeless, degraded and degrading lands which are not occupied or regularly used by anyone - the classic wasteland. A further 12 million ha of land, also under the legal control of the Royal Forest Department, is actually occupied and used by farmers. This is said to be illegal and "temporary" but there are houses, shops and roads, with electricity services.22 Some of these farmers grow trees, but not always of the type preferred by RFD e.g. mango, mulberry, kapok (Bombax spp.). Only 3.07 million ha of the 24.4 million ha being cultivated in Thailand has legal title - much of the remainder is actually "Forest Land" once used to grow cassava and corn for export.23
22 They may pay taxes on these lands and receive extension services from other government departments, suggesting this use of the "Reserved Forest" is far from temporary. Their illegal land tenure could even be recognized by banks as collateral.23 Phantumvanit (1990) calculated that a 10 percent increase in the world price of cassava led to a 16% increase in loss of forests (hut not the reverse - if prices fall, the deforested land may just be abandoned - not restored). Panayotou (1987) reported that construction of a major highway in North-east Thailand was followed by logging and shifting agriculture, resulting in the loss of over 1 million ha (of what was continuous forests in 1973) in only four years.
Although there are officially 100,000 hectares of sal (Shorea robusta) forests in northern Bangladesh, which was the traditional home and source of livelihood of the Garot tribes, probably less than 20 percent of this area is still recognizable as (heavily degraded) forest. Most is farmland; illegal logging has continued steadily for twenty years after an official total ban on logging in these forests; the modest areas of plantation established on areas reclaimed from "encroachers" have generally failed, for technical reasons, and due to fires and deliberate vandalism.
In the Philippines, it is estimated that there are 6 million people living in the National Forests, and another 8 million on the forest fringes - among the poorest in the country with an average income under $US 200/year. Of 15 million ha of "Forest Land", only 6.5 million ha is now actually forested, and less than 1 million ha of this is primary forest. Some barangays and towns in the Philippines (e.g. Quezon, Mt Makeling in Laguna, and in Misamis Occidental in Mindanao) are in the middle of Forest Reserves and National Parks. Within the Reserved Forests of Idukki District (Kerala, India) are hospitals, colleges, the District Headquarters and large shopping centres. In Indonesia, numerous town s (e.g. Bukit Soeharto) in Kalimantan Timur lie entirely within National park or Government forest. Over 12 million ha of Indonesia's Reserved Forest is reported to be treeless - much of it imperata grasslands.
Anyone familiar with European National Parks will not be surprised by towns and farms in the middle of forest reserves and parks, but there is a fundamental difference - many Asian countries retain the colonial concept of forests without people, and the "Yellowstone" model of National Parks without resident populations. Thus the people, farms and towns are not there legally - they are condemned by forestry as encroachers, not legitimate in the eyes of governments and banks - and so their actions and land-use practices are often temporary and unsustainable.
Stricter enforcement of the law has been tried in countries as diverse as India, Bangladesh, Burma, the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia and Thailand. In none of these countries has this approach been very successful. It is logistically impossible to protect so many hectares from so many people, day and night, even with the combined might of the police, army and forest service. Moreover, if people who have no other place to live and no alternative livelihood, are expelled from one part of a forest, they simply find another patch to settle in, and the process continues. Yet a number of national forest services still call for harsher legislation and penalties, and more armed guards for enforcement!
If the neighbouring small and ex-farmers have no viable alternative than to degrade the land with short-term exploitative temporary agriculture, to steal logs, to collect fuelwood for sale in urban markets, then it is unlikely that any amount of coercion, extension or persuasion will alter their practices. Farmers use methods requiring little investment so that eviction is "affordable" - a possibility these encroachers must live with. This pattern has existed in Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Thailand, India and Nepal.
However the devastation caused by these temporary agricultural practices of migrant squatters, does not negate our general argument of the small farmers can be competent professional land-managers, where they have secure land tenure. Experts and professionals frequently overlook small farmers' competence because their criteria and definitions are different, and because the farmers have been frequently denied secure access to land, through institutional land-denial mechanisms. In brief, small farmers and landless may be major instruments for forest destruction but they are not the underlying cause. Furthermore, given some innovative new institutional arrangements, it might be possible to harness their energies and skills for forest protection and management, rather than continuing destruction which is mutually damaging.
The influence of other government agencies frequently overwhelmed forest conservation. The "Grow More Food" campaign in India (and in China) boosted food production by expanding cultivated areas, not intensification (until the late 1960s). In India, 43 million ha of tree-cover were cleared 1951-76. This campaign also required irrigation, not only dams which flooded forests, but also power lines, new settlements. Displaced graziers were forced up the hills and into the forests. The expansion of mining industries has also helped destroy forests (e.g. the iron mines of Bastar District of Madhya Pradesh). Campaigns to eliminate malaria have been a contributing factor to deforestation in many countries, by making lowland forests habitable.
While forest policies are slowly changing, the predominant focus still is on production forestry and then on protection, though forest industries and particularly logging operators have rarely been controlled adequately (e.g. Repetto and Gillis, 1988). The industrial focus on wood products and the appropriation of forests by state governments, and neglect of traditional forest uses for timber and non-wood forest products led to land-use changes despite forest policy efforts aimed at resource conservation. The process of resource degradation was made worse by restricting peoples' rights to use land and neglecting their traditional uses as well as their capacities to preserve forests.
Attempts by national governments to "protect" forests of high conservation value from local people, without engaging them in the process and without ensuring that local populations actually benefit from such conservation, have frequently failed, or even had opposite effects. Many traditional systems of forest management that were productive, equitable and sustainable, were destroyed by colonialist impositions. A new approach to protected area management which actively engages local people in decisions and management for conservation, and which ensures they are not disadvantaged by conservation measures, is currently being evaluated in many parts of the Asia-Pacific region. Governments and their citizens need to jointly develop effective shared responsibilities for broad-scale forest conservation.
Conventional management systems (public ownership, logging concessions, "State Forestry") have certain limitations throughout the region. Major institutional changes seem imminent, and the Philippines and Nepal have pointed to a new radical direction.
In Nepal, indigenous and traditional forest management systems, by local "User Groups" are now recognized. The process is now well under way to devolve effective management responsibility back to those groups: what to cut, when, who, at what prices, what to do with the revenues, protection, regeneration, etc. In the Philippines and China, there are now major moves towards devolution of forest management responsibility and authority to local people, as individuals or as communities (assisted by experienced NGOs in the Philippines). Under the old Philippine legislation, local people were permitted to deliberately clear forest for settlement, but not to commercially utilize forests as a sustainable livelihood.
The directions of the Philippines, China, Nepal and to a lesser extent India, who are devolving "forestry" vigorously, contrasts with countries like Malaysia, where current conditions make such radical reforms unnecessary, or even unfeasible.
This shift has resulted in the limited handover of forests to local control, and the idea of poor people or rural communities having secure access to trees within forest boundaries is still generally considered "radical", though no longer the anathema described by Malla (1992, p. 265) for Nepal:
"Although government forest policy in Nepal has made provisions for community forestry some 15 years ago, there has hardly been any change in the attitudes of the majority of the foresters and in the traditional way of working in forestry organizations. Communications between forestry field staff and community members are still very poor, and indifferent attitudes and mistrust towards each other prevail."
However, the introduction of policy and legislative changes indicate a potential change in attitude and thinking. The implementation of Joint Forest Management in India seems to be part-way down this road, but there are still strict limits on which forests are eligible (only the severely degraded), the role of the community (mainly protection), their share of the benefits (low value NTFPs but not high-value logs), the effectiveness of their voice in management (they can do very little without the Forest Department's approval) and, finally, the Department can unilaterally cancel the agreement at any time, without specified reasons (Saxena, 1997).
Yet progress has been slow and often on only a limited scale; some local management is based on informal agreements but without formal sanctions. Many forest department staff find it difficult to accept rural communities as partners in forest management, and still think that rural people are incapable of forest management and tree growing. Significant socio-economic and institutional aspects still need to be clarified, if governments and their citizens are to jointly develop effective interventions and power sharing responsibilities.
The importance of collection, growing, processing and marketing of NTFPs from local forests provides a convincing ethical basis for the local users to have a strong voice in management of such forests. However, many traditional systems generate products primarily for households' own-consumption. Are there viable examples of collective management24 for cash incomes and employment generation, and do special conditions underlie their success?
24 "Management" can be defined as an activity that is purposeful, is directed and attempts to increase returns on targeted systems by redirecting flows of energy and nutrients towards the manager. (Ruiz-Pérez and Arnold, 1996)
A particular concern is the possible impact of commercialization on the community, if traditional management practices break down. There is some anecdotal evidence that traditional practices of sharing or rationing physical products from the forests (e.g. dead fuelwood, grass and leaf fodder), may not operate well when sharing relatively large amounts of cash. Furthermore, the increasing incorporation into the market economy may even reduce willingness to share products which become convertible to cash values. Colfer et al. (1996) have described how norms of sharing differ between societies, and some of the complications that can arise when subsistence goods become marketable.
There are therefore risks attached to the devolution of management to local communities, but in some cases it could hardly be less successful than the status quo. The origin of these reforms comes from a "people-centred" approach to forestry: concentration on the achievement of human development and welfare goals, rather than the measurement of inputs and outputs in the forest management process. But even from a forest-centred perspective, there is a pragmatic case for devolved community management: the most effective way to retain natural forests is through sustainable use of direct benefit to local people - if they do not derive any benefits, the forests are unlikely to survive. Such benefits do not come mainly through logging; other products may be more valuable per unit weight, more labour-intensive, more diverse and less environmentally destructive. However, this potential remains largely unproven. What are the prospects for generating rural incomes and employment through careful harvesting of the Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs)? Is there a danger that increased commercialization may threaten their existence, at least in the short run before their production becomes "domesticated"? If that happens, will there still be any demand for the wild materials collected from the forests by local people?
Governments across the region have recognized a spectrum of forest uses ranging from:
· "Preservation" and complete protection (Protected Areas (PAs), National Parks etc.) often implicitly copying the "Yellowstone model" of the USA in the 19th century.· "Protection Forests" (typically catchment areas in which collecting NTFPs, but very little or no logging or clearing, is permitted).
· "Production forests" (nationally for multiple use but where timber is usually the primary or only objective in practice).
· "Conversion forests" where clearing and colonization is permitted or even encouraged.
Forest conservation outside of formal reserves and PAs has not been a high priority. Pressures to convert some forest lands to agricultural, infrastructural, industrial and urban uses persist, as these are often considered signs of economic development and "progress" (although India has been extremely successful in stopping diversion of forest lands to other uses, through the Forestry legislation of 1990).
"Malaysia has expanded its permanent Forest Estate from 127 to 141 million hectares and dedicated 4.7 million ha representing 24% of the total forested area of 191 million hectares for the protection of the environment and conservation of biodiversity.""To maintain biological richness we (Indonesia) have set aside 496 million hectares of forests, or 25% of our land area as Totally Protected Areas (TPAs)."
"The Vietnamese Ministry of Forestry has carried out two big programs: a forest land allocation program to allocate at least 7 million hectares to the rural people to protect, to manage and to develop; and another program to re-green the bare land to increase the forest coverage from 28% to 40% by the year 2000 and to reduce poverty among the rural people."
"All classified forest lands of Bangladesh mil be included in a national protection system and be managed under a number of Multiple Use Management Areas This concept would introduce a systematic approach to forest land management with landuse designated according to land evaluation, land capability assessment and suitability assessment. The "core-buffer-multiple use zone strategy" could be used for the management of these Multiple Use Management Areas, from which the protection of Biodiversity could be accomplished while still gaining more social and economic benefits"25
25 Statements by respective Ministers for Forests, to Ministerial Meeting of the FAO Committee of Forestry, Rome, March 16, 1995.
There clearly are moves away from the Yellowstone model of trying to achieve national conservation goals just through isolated areas designated as PAs and from which all human consumptive use is prevented; islands of "natural purity" surrounded by a sea where "anything goes". Some of the moves to attach much higher emphasis to conservation outside of PAs are:
· promotion or requirement of Reduced Impact Logging techniques;· certification of forest management units as "sustainably managed"; and
· engagement with local and indigenous peoples in forest management, including recognition of traditional knowledge and management systems, and the importance of NTFPs to their existence.
The experience with Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs) in the region has been mixed (even within Indonesia the recent World Bank review found widely different outcomes and effectiveness) but generally disappointing. Recent policy experiments in Tonga and Fiji, where governments have leased lands from traditional-customary owners, to be used as National Parks, provide interesting possible models to how local people can directly benefit from forest conservation. These trials suggest that these people are very keen to retain their forests, and to continue enjoying their cultural, NTFP and amenity benefits, provided it does not cost them too much to do so. But as Lian (1993) argues, it is too glib to assert that indigenous, forest-dwelling people always "understand the forest and manage it sustainably" in contrast to migrants who destructively exploit forest resources without regard to future consequences.
Promotion of farm forestry, agroforestry, trees to support and sustain agricultural productivity, and trees in household farming systems is definitely important throughout the region, particularly in Pakistan, India, Australia, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Nepal, India and China. Until recently, this has been a low priority in Indonesia and Malaysia, because of the abundant natural forests (in most but not all regions), their focus on industrial forestry and because, in Malaysia especially, fewer people wish to remain farmers, given the emergence of more lucrative or desirable options.
The viability of farm forestry to produce logs for sale, depends on log prices and farmers often have to compete with "State Forestry". Some governments seem unaware that under-pricing of the logs from state forests has serious negative consequences for private tree farming that they claim to promote. In many countries the extension strategy of assisting small farmers to grow their own forest produce is already failing visibly. Apart from deficiencies of the extension delivery system other reasons persuade households that tree-growing is simply not a viable alternative for them.
Farms are not charitable institutions. Telling farmers they should plant trees for "the national interest" to "save the environment" or to "stop global warming" is unlikely to be effective. However, where farmers see tree growing can fit in with their existing activities in a way that is not too risky or too expensive, and will generate real benefits for them, they generally adopt tree growing spontaneously. The benefits may be the profit from sale of timber, but it could be through the increased yields of crops and livestock as a result of shelter from winds, reduction in soil erosion, amelioration of soil salinity or acidity, etc. Groves of well-selected and well-maintained trees increase the capital value of a farm if it has to be sold. In richer countries, the major benefit that private forest owners seek may be aesthetic or recreational - in Japan, 95% of private forest owners rarely make commercial sales (FAO, 1993).
As discussed above concerning incentives for industrial plantations, it is debatable whether farmers "need" incentives for tree-growing, or whether government foresters really understand the types of incentives that farmers respond to. Many "incentive schemes" which offered subsidized seedlings have been ignored by farmers, who recognized other more serious constraints. Tax concessions are most attractive to those who have high tax liabilities, and worthless to small farmers who do not even pay income taxes. Low-interest loan schemes may be useful, but only to those who need to borrow investment capital for long terms.
Foresters have to understand farmers' and landowners' needs and how forestry and agriculture can be mutually beneficial. In agroforestry and tree-growing outside Reserved Forests farmers make the decisions about what to produce and how - government officials can support, permit or impede, but not do it. Most people respond rationally to opportunities and constraints, trying to maximize the well-being of their family (in some combination of the immediate, short and long term). We need to better understand the farmer or "encroacher" as a decision maker and his/her perspective; how decisions by governments affect the behaviour of those who are actually at the forest edge, with the axe, chain-saw or matches in their hands; under what circumstances would they decide to retain, conserve, manage, and even regenerate the forests rather than removing them?
Summarizing the causes of deforestation, World Bank (1991) concluded that it occurs because somebody finds it profitable. We could make the same statement about development!
Accepting these rather broad statements means focusing attention on decision making about preferred economic strategies on various levels. Why is it more profitable to over-exploit forest resources than to develop and manage them sustainably?
A policy approach from below requires understanding decision making at the household and community level. If the evidence points to industry as the major contributor, we need to investigate how it responds to governmental and external pressures. But a focus on the micro-economics of rural forest users must not divert attention from the broader socio-economic bases of development or of deforestation and thereby mask the need for fundamental changes. On the contrary, the examination of micro-economic issues, and related cultural and social factors guiding decisions, should only be the initial step in developing policy interventions. A later step addresses the critical issue of practical political economy of "who gains and who loses" under alternative scenarios of management sharing.
|
While existing policies and regulations, if enforced properly, deal adequately with the trees in reserved forests, and with companies that harvest and/or plant trees, they have dealt very poorly with people. The fact is that most forests in most developing countries in Asia and the Pacific are surrounded or populated by people who use them. The behaviour of these people responds to many "external forces" and these have proven to be much stronger than the policies and the policing of the Forestry Agency. Depending on these forces, ordinary household behaviour may be either constructive or destructive. The industrial production or conservation policies of the Forestry Agency may become marginal or irrelevant, or even be directly contradicted, by policies outside the forestry sector (e.g. agricultural pricing and subsidies, population and employment policies, infrastructure developments, the spread of the market economy and hence all the impacts of macro-economic and international factors). National macro-economic policies which shape the pace and direction of economic development may ultimately have as much impact on forestry sector, through migration and livelihood/employment patterns, than micro-management decisions within forests. |
"Forest policies" have often been focused primarily on the relationship between the Government Forestry Agency, the Reserved Forests directly under its control, and private or State companies engaged in industrial activities (timber extraction). These policies and related practices, while clearly not yet perfect, already are (on paper) quite reasonable in many cases, and have been the subject of considerable economic and policy research - but frequently poorly implemented on the ground.
Since decisions that may influence the fate of forests and trees are made by many different parties, at a hierarchy of levels, possible areas for policy reforms include:
i) International:World Trade Organization, trade policies and sanctions;International conventions, e.g. on Biodiversity, Climate Change, and possibly on Forests;
Environmental, development and human rights NGOs;
Donor agencies and multi-lateral lending institutions (including loan conditionality and IMF structural adjustment programs).
ii) National:
Institutional arrangements - land tenure and land-use policies, including agrarian reform, especially forest-use rights for traditional forest users-managers;Macro-economic (trade, taxation and exchange rate) policies;
Agriculture sector policies - including input subsidies for water, fertilizer, credit, etc., and price support schemes for agricultural products;
Transport and access infrastructure and policies;
Energy policies and pricing.
iii) Local and community:
Social attitudes, cohesion and peer support/pressure;
Local markets for inputs and outputs.iv) Individuals and Households:
Why do many farmers choose to clear new (forested) land rather than intensify production on existing fields? Why are there such pronounced differences in this within Asia, and why do we sometimes witness expansion of farmlands (i.e. clearing forests) rather than intensification of agriculture? Are there social institutions or economic policies that encourage intensification in particular contexts, and other policies elsewhere that encourage extensification and clearing forests?
Understanding household and community level decision-making in response to changing national and international policies (not just forestry policies), demographic pressures, various degrees of environmental stress, modernization and marketization, is necessary to develop more effective policies. While policy changes at the international level have a role to play in conserving tropical forests, the most effective policy changes can be expected where resource users are directly involved.
Much of the international debate on tropical deforestation has centred on ways that international pressures can be brought to bear on national governments to achieve outcomes that are believed to be "better" in terms of global externalities - the classic examples being biodiversity and sequestration of carbon to help reduce the rate of global warming. By focusing on industrial logging and the international timber trade, many of the most important processes and actors in tropical deforestation and degradation have been overlooked. The concern about the negative effects of deforestation on global concerns, has frequently prevented us from seeing the damage to poor forest-dependent people and communities, and have stopped us from looking for ways of positively assisting the forest people in rural and often remote areas of tropical developing countries. The "North" has often been reluctant to accept the right and the imperative of countries of the South to use their forests as a platform for long-term development of their economies.
If many logged-over areas still remain as (disturbed) forests, and if the disappearance of forests is due to conversion to different land uses, then improving actions within the timber concessions may not be enough. Minor adjustments to timber industry policies is unlikely to significantly reduce the extent of deforestation or to improve the livelihoods of poor, forest-dependent people. It may reduce localized environmental impacts, enhance biodiversity slightly, generate some more incomes and employment for local workers, or capture more of the potential income and foreign exchange for government. These are all worthwhile objectives, but marginal gains if the greater threats to the continued existence of most tropical forests come from any direction other than legal, export-oriented, large-scale, industrial logging. We need to take a much wider view of the real threat to the tropical forests, if we are to devise effective solutions.
Many of the natural forests that still exist may be the classic residual land use - they lie beyond the current economic zone of supply, given existing technology, markets and access, for either commercial logging or agricultural cultivation. They still exist as forests because it has been in no-one's financial interest to exploit them, yet. A new road or highway (even a small seasonal dirt track) will increase the probability that someone could earn a profit by either exploiting the timber in the forests, and/or the land beneath it - doing both is likely to be more profitable than just one.
In areas well within the economic production zone, particularly where there is reasonably secure individual or group tenure, we see individual or collective trees, forests, woodlots and agroforests, wherever people believe that the benefits of having those trees there outweigh the costs.
This line of argument tends to narrow the problem, to transition events in a transition zone: the area between close to consumers of goods and services (where intensive management, protection and reinvestment are warranted) and the far where virtually no activity or usage is really warranted. In the transition zone, exploitation is feasible and profitable, but (sustainable) management is not. The policy questions then become:
· What different form of institutional arrangements, social organization or economic relations could reduce the (perceived net) gains from removing the forests; or increase the net gains from retaining, regenerating or managing the forest?· Are different institutional arrangements required for the market-oriented, economic production zones, compared to the remote or traditional (more subsistence-oriented) forest regions, and if so, how can the transition between the two be handled?
