A. Continuation of Current Policies and Institutions
B. If Environmental Awareness is Sustained or Increased
C. If Economic Pressures Reduce Societies' Emphasis on Forest Conservation
The aim of this section is to speculate on how the existing forestry sector might be affected by some plausible alternative futures. The first obvious point is that 2010 will NOT be like the present - that is simply not an option in this, the most dynamic region of the globe. No-one can know precisely what the changes will be, but changes will accelerate - political, economic, demographic, social and environmental.
Secondly, there will not he a uniform future across the diverse countries of this very complex region, but the fate on individual countries are increasingly likely to affect, and be affected by, neighbouring countries.
Thirdly, if national borders become less relevant in a global economy, we may expect both socio-economic zones which transcend national borders and on the other hand, very different zones within larger countries like China, India, Indonesia and Australia. National average statistics like GNP per capita will become less meaningful, when there are wide discrepancies between zones of a particular country, or where economic prosperity is tied to that of a neighbouring State.
What might this context mean for forest management and conservation?
What might be the impacts on traditional societies, the NTFP extractors?
The Asia Pacific region, especially East and Southeast Asia, continues as the fastest-growing regional economy in the world - rapidly expanding per capita incomes, education, urbanization and industrialization. This can have two principal effects:
a) with increased incomes and more industrialized and urbanized lifestyles, increasing number of Asian citizens are likely to attach much higher values to environmental conservation - not only for recreation and aesthetics, catchment protection and wildlife, but for the more abstract "existence values".26 Patterns that have already appeared in Japan. Korea, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia and New Zealand, may become more widespread as affluence spreads.b) The same changes will greatly reduce the pressures to derive marginal incomes by clearing or degrading forests and Protected Areas, as more people move to higher paid urban jobs. This trend was clearly demonstrated in Australia and Japan decades ago, and more recently in the Republic of Korea, Malaysia and on the eastern seaboard of China.
26 "Demands for forests in Korea have diversified as our economic life improved along with accelerated industrialisation. The benefits of forests such as clean water, fresh air and recreation are now indispensable factors for enhancing the quality of life." Statement by Korean Forest Administrator to Ministerial Meeting of the FAO Committee on Forestry. Rome, March 16, 1995.
Although India achieved little economic growth from Independence to the 1980s, she has recently broken loose, with rapid development following liberalization policies. The consequence of these changes and rapid economic growth in urban areas will soon reach out to nearby villages, and profoundly affect how forests are used and by whom. Yet it might still take generations before the global economic superhighway reaches remote villages, or even influences them.
Probably not much would change:
· forests will continue to be exploited, sometimes reasonably sometimes badly;· adoption of reduced-impact logging techniques may spread slowly, reducing some of the damages to "production forests";
· "conservation" will perhaps still be seen as just a matter of "refugia" - isolated areas set aside for conservation because they have no better use;
· forest industries will continue trying to maximize profits and shareholders' wealth, but in so-doing, continue to come into conflicts with traditional rural societies and increasingly, with urban people suffering deteriorating environments, water quality, etc.
· competition for land, and conversion of forests to farms, will depend on the relative profitability of growing the additional crops required by more intensive Vs more extensive means. Governments can alter these relativities, by making intensive farming more attractive than clearing new lands to expand the area cultivated.
· perhaps conservation will receive more priority in natural forest areas, especially if fast-growing industrial plantations reduce the need for, or the commercial feasibility of, logging natural forests.
Even with continuing population growth, fewer people will seek to derive their incomes from forest exploitation - whether for timber or for non-timber products - and more opportunities are likely to emerge in eco-tourism and related service industries. Economic development may help achieve better forest conservation, sooner, than old-style "protection" based on trying to control or exclude people who had no other options.
One might expect that gradually more of these communities will be incorporated into the modern economy; if suitable employment opportunities arise and as many of their traditional products become less sought-after in the modern market-places. Is the "extractivist option" merely a short-term transition, pending modernization, or could it be a viable livelihood option in the long term? Part of the answer will depend on the future of green consumerism, both in Asia-Pacific and global markets, but there are at least three possibilities, which might co-exist for the next 20 years, in different countries or districts within countries:
a) the demise of NTFP markets, of the forests that provide the NTFPs and impoverishment of forest people; most of the more valued, desirable species of flora and fauna will have been exploited to satisfy urban demands;b) niche markets where forests are well-maintained and well-managed - where local people prosper by retaining/protecting forests for sustainable NTFP activities. This could probably be accompanied by maintenance of social cohesion, and retention of strong cultural values of forests. What sort of institutions would need to be in place to give this option a real chance of working?
c) creation of new rural industries to produce NTFP which used to come from wild sources in the forests, but now are cultivated. This is happening a great deal in China (even bear bile) India and Indonesia (e.g. rattan plantations).
Which of these three paths will be followed, depends on the nature of the product, the nature of the market into which it is sold, and whether the product is one that becomes increasingly sought after as incomes rise (a luxury) or one whose demand falls as incomes rise (economically inferior goods). Will NTFP with real market potential be displaced by cultivated or synthesized substitutes? Will those which are not really valuable just be harvested from the wild until it becomes too expensive and time-consuming to find them, then be forgotten? Neither outlook bodes well for the long-term viability of local institutions to manage local forests for NTFP on a sustainable basis.
The outcomes of increasing affluence with greater environmental consciousness in Asian societies for tropical forest conservation are likely to be revealed in many ways:
· Much more rapid adoption of (even more radical) low-impact logging techniques in production forests, e.g. greater use of helicopter or balloon logging. Unless very strict environmental protection standards can be attained, all logging in natural forests may even be banned;· Simultaneously, forest industries would move to a plantation basis, but such plantations would be different from the current large-scale exotic monocultures, that is mixtures and/or mosaics of smaller patches of plantation forests interspersed with more natural landscapes and agriculture; more of the industrial timber supply might come from farm-forests. Whether large or small-scale, plantation forestry will by practised mainly by the private sector and in those countries or districts where there is a clear commercial competitive advantage (whether because of the relatively low costs of highly suitable lands, cheap and easy access to major markets or the availability of suitably skilled labour with no other more attractive employment options than in the forestry sector).
· More National Parks and Protected conservation areas, and much better protection of all such areas (both existing and new) in the field; but in addition much higher conservation standards would be expected outside of formal P.A.s, in the areas between them;
· Such protection is more likely to be with local people's assistance, rather than imposed upon them, at their expense, i.e. there would be even more convergence of the conservation and the social-human development objectives.
· International pressures and support for conservation in the region would bolster internal demands for enhanced conservation of forests, and may provide, direct and indirect commercial support through, for example: certification and eco-labelling; eco-tourism; compensatory mechanisms under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Framework Convention on Climate Change and other international treaties; conditional debt relief or debt-for-nature swaps.
Major international economic disruptions such as an economic recession with high unemployment, major trade struggles between powerful regional economic groupings, or the collapse of international tourism for some unanticipated reason, (e.g. aircraft high-jackings) could lead some countries to retreat from conservation measures, and pursue any ways to cut costs and increase commercial competitiveness. The outcomes of this scenario are basically the opposite to B) above:
· greater conversion of remaining natural forests to agriculture or timber estates; and· continued failure to protect "priority conservation areas" against the onslaught of people (both the needy and the greedy) looking for lands to cultivate or resources to exploit.
There is ample evidence that small adjustments to forest industry/concession/trade policies is unlikely to significantly reduce the extent of forest clearance or enhance forest conservation significantly or to improve the livelihoods of poor, forest-dependent people. Industry subsidies, or exemptions from environmental protection measures, may affect localized environmental impacts, endanger more biodiversity slightly, generate some more incomes and employment for local workers, and forego more of the potential revenues, while increasing foreign exchange earnings for the government.
