Natural forests

Forest areas and conversion of forests to other land uses and deforestation

The FRA2000 estimates total natural forest area in the Asia-Pacific region to be 585 million hectares. China, Australia and Indonesia have the largest natural forest areas, with each reported as having more than 100 million hectares, while the Solomon Islands, Brunei and the Cook Islands have the highest proportionate natural forest cover.

The FRA2000 estimates that overall (net) forest cover in Asia and the Pacific declined by slightly more than 1 million hectares per annum during the previous decade. However, this overall estimate includes data for plantation establishment, so the area of natural forest cleared each year was actually around 2.5 million hectares. The forest area of Indonesia, alone, officially declined by around 1.3 million hectares per annum during the past decade (with unofficial figures suggesting an annual decline closer to 2 million hectares), while Myanmar, Australia, Malaysia and Thailand each lost more than 100 000 hectares of natural forest per annum.

Conversion to agriculture continues to be an important cause of deforestation in many countries. In most of the tropical countries there is considerable pressure to extend plantation areas (including forest plantations, coconut, rubber and, particularly, oil palm), cropland and pasture, while shifting cultivation also remains common. Forest harvesting rarely results in direct deforestation, but often causes degradation of forest resources, especially where poor harvesting practices are employed. Moreover, the construction of forest roads often opens forests to encroachment by migrants, who subsequently clear remaining trees.

The experience of Sri Lanka is typical of many Asian countries. Bandaratillake and Sarath Fernando (2002) notes that:

Deforestation and forest degradation are the key issues faced by the forestry sector during the last several decades. The forest resources in Sri Lanka have diminished dramatically during the last century primarily due to expansion of plantation agriculture and conversion of forests to non-forest uses as a result of population growth. The rapid population increase and resultant land hunger and poverty have led to large-scale agricultural expansion schemes and also encroachments of state forest lands and shifting cultivation...Control of illegal activities (felling of trees and encroachments) in state forests has been a difficult task due to widespread socio-economic problems such as land issues, unemployment and poverty in the country ... Shifting cultivation, which is another main cause for deforestation, is still a traditional agricultural practice in some remote villages in Sri Lanka. A considerable extent of secondary forests are cleared every year for shifting cultivation and a large number of people are involved in this activity particularly in the intermediate and dry-zone areas of the country.

The APFSOS study makes the very important point that:

The direct causes of deforestation and forest degradation obscure the underlying causes, which include poverty, inequitable resource tenure, population pressures, greed, corruption, misguided policies and institutional failures. Experience has shown that when these underlying problems are adequately addressed, deforestation and forest degradation decline dramatically.

In general, key policies in most countries continue to give priority to economic growth, with inadequate safeguards against the loss of natural forests. However, priorities are slowly changing through new policies and initiatives such as, for example, Regional Forest Agreements in Australia, the 5-Million Hectare Reforestation Programme in Viet Nam, and Chinese policies to establish compensatory plantations to substitute for natural forest wood production. In part, these policies are a reflection of some lessening in absolute poverty levels in the region, providing scope for greater focus on environmental issues.

Promotion of sustainable management in natural forests

The need for sustainable forest management is clearly recognized throughout the Asia-Pacific region. At present, however, large-scale implementation of sustainable forest management is not a general practice, though a number of countries have made progress.

Forest management plans

The FRA2000 reports that only 13 Asia-Pacific countries (out of 44) provided full, national-level information on areas under formal, nationally approved forest management plans (Solomon Islands and Indonesia provided partial information). The proportion of forest covered by these plans, in each of these countries, varied between 23 percent and 100 percent of forest area. The total area of forest under management plans in these 13 countries totalled 267 million hectares, or 83 percent of the forest area in these countries. Excluding the advanced industrialized countries (Australia, Japan and New Zealand), the area under formal management plans in 10 countries^[5] is 82 million hectares, or 60 percent of the forests in those countries.

The area of forest under management plans provides some indication of a trend towards SFM, but needs to be treated with caution. For example, in can be readily argued that in the past (20 years ago - or as a trivial example, 100 years ago) there were fewer plans, but the forests were in better condition. There is often re-entry logging in areas that have plans and areas that are not supposed to be logged (e.g. because they exceed slope restrictions) are logged anyway. It can be argued that plans may actually legitimize forest degradation, because loggers can point out that they are working to a plan. The keys, of course, lie in the quality of plans and the extent to which they are followed.

There are a number of other tools spearheading the drive towards sustainable forest management. These include the development of criteria and indicators for SFM (discussed in the next section), certification, creation of model forests, reduced impact logging (RIL), codes of practice for forest harvesting (CoP) and use of direct incentives for sustainable management.

Certification

Two principal international programmes for certifying sustainable forest management are operational in the region. These are the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) system for certifying forest management and the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), which utilizes the ISO 14001 standard for environmental management systems. Forests in 11 APFC countries, totalling 890 000 hectares (two-thirds of these in New Zealand), have been certified under the FSC scheme. Statistics for ISO 14001 certification of forestry activities in the region are not available. As a whole, however, this process is accelerating rapidly, from 250 certifications worldwide in 1995, to almost 37 000 by the end of 2001. More than 14 000 certificates have been issued in the Asia-Pacific region, though most of these are for environmental management in sectors other than forestry. In 2000, ISO 14001 certificates had been issued to 212 companies operating in the wood and wood products sector, globally. Proportionately, this suggests that perhaps 70 forest owners have been certified in the region^[6].

Several countries including Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand and Australia have established national certification systems or are in the process of doing so. Lembaga Ekolabel Indonesia (LEI) was established in 1998, with the main objective of ensuring sustainable natural resources and environmental management by applying a credible ecolabelling certification system. Malaysia has established the Malaysian Timber Certification Council (MTCC), which is developing a national set of criteria and indicators based on the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) framework. The Council is responsible for planning and operating a voluntary certification scheme. In Myanmar, a Timber Certification Committee is in the process of developing a National Certification Scheme. New Zealand is developing a Verification of Environmental Performance report card system for plantation forests; and Commonwealth and State Governments in Australia have launched an Australian Forestry Standard that would allow forest products to be independently certified.

Reduced impact logging

Reduced impact logging (RIL) provides a promising avenue for improving the sustainability of forest harvesting practices in the region. RIL involves a systematic approach to planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating forest harvesting to ensure associated environmental damage is restricted or minimized. RIL also substantially reduces wastage of logging residues. The eighteenth session of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission, held in Noosa, Australia in May 2000, recommended that member countries continue to share experiences and work together to document and promote RIL guidelines. The Commission also endorsed convening an International Conference on the Application of Reduced Impact Logging to Advance Sustainable Forest Management: Constraints, Challenges and Opportunities, which was held in Kuching, Malaysia in early-2001. The conference emphasized that RIL is an essential component of sustainable forest management and expressed cautious optimism that change and improvement are occurring. The conference called on governments, industry, research institutions and international organizations to cooperate in furthering the adoption and application of RIL. Individual recommendations were made for each of these groups including:

• for governments: provide an enabling environment for RIL and SFM, including provision of secure resource tenure and investment climate, appropriate resource pricing, fiscal incentives and elimination of policies that discourage improved forest management;

• for industry: show commitment to good forest management by adopting RIL and working towards SFM;

• for research institutions: give priority to practical applied research that supports the adoption of RIL practices by timber harvesting organizations; and

• for international organizations: foster development and raise awareness of innovative mechanisms for encouraging the adoption and application of RIL (e.g. certification, forest-based carbon offsets and other payments for the environmental benefits of SFM).

FAO manages the RILNET listserver^[7], an e-mail distribution network run under the auspices of the APFC to distribute information, synopses of research results and activities on reduced impact logging. FAO has also arranged study tours to observe and discuss the various aspects of RIL and related forest harvesting and silvicultural practices and is implementing a series of RIL training workshops across the region. FAO is also promoting RILSIM - a software package for financial analysis of conventional logging and reduced impact logging systems. A number of other organizations in the region are also heavily involved in RIL activities. ITTO, for example, has financed projects in Sarawak, Malaysia and East Kalimantan, Indonesia to promote RIL. ITTO is also implementing a project to create a logging school to facilitate the adoption of RIL in the Asia-Pacific region. The activities of the Tropical Forest Foundation (TFF) include collecting and disseminating information, conducting training programmes and developing guidelines training materials and technical procedure manuals in support of RIL. CIFOR also has a significant RIL programme.

Codes of practice

The APFC has taken a leadership role in supporting the formulation of codes of practice for forest harvesting in the region. The principal effort has centred on the development and implementation of a regional Code of Practice for Forest Harvesting in Asia-Pacific (Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission, 1999). The Code provides practical guidance toward sustainable forest management, with particular emphasis on timber harvesting in natural forests. Associated activities have included awareness raising, garnering of political support, information exchange, training, and development and implementation of national codes of practice. Most major timber harvesting countries in the region have developed, or are working toward, the establishment of national codes of practice (Table 4). The International Labour Organisation (ILO) and FAO are currently supporting the preparation of the Code of Forest Harvesting Practices in Community-based Forest Management Program in the Philippines.

A Regional Strategy for Implementing the Code of Practice for Forest Harvesting in Asia-Pacific (Asia Pacific Forestry Commission 2001a) has been developed to provide an overall strategic framework for implementation. Another high priority initiative has been the development of a training strategy to support the implementation of the regional code. Increased attention is also being given to training and research directed toward improving community-based and other small-scale forest harvesting. Political support for the process was enhanced by formal ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) endorsement of the Regional Code in 2001.

Table 4: National status in Code of Practice development

Source: APFC, 2001

Model forests

A number of countries in the region are conducting pilot programmes aimed at promoting sustainable management of natural forests. For example, China (Li'nan), Indonesia (Berau), Japan (Ishikari-Sorachi and Shimanto-Gawa), Philippines (Ulot Watershed), Myanmar (Pauk Khaung) and Thailand (Ngao) have established model forests with the purpose of testing and demonstrating SFM. All are working-scale models managed through partnerships of diverse stakeholders. The International Model Forest Network^[9] describes the philosophy of the model forest concept as:

Each model forest is established as a working-scale model aimed at effecting a transition from conventional forest management to management for sustainable forest production and environmental conservation. Each model forest attempts to demonstrate sustainable and integrated forest management, to transfer the knowledge to forest managers and to have the applicable technology applied operationally as applicable. Each model forest is managed through a partnership of stakeholders in the area. Each model forest demonstrates the integrated management of key resources and utilizes state-of-the-art technology and ecologically sound forestry practices.

Direct incentives

A handful of countries provide direct government incentives to promote sustainable forest management. Generally these incentives are targeted at a specific component of SFM, such as conservation or tree planting, rather than at a holistic management system. For example, several schemes are emerging for payment to local people for the protection of natural forests. Viet Nam (Box 1) and China are among countries making direct payments to local people for forest protection.

In Sabah, Malaysia, the State Government has implemented a system of Sustainable Forest Management Licence Agreements (SFMLAs) as a means of SFM. Private sector organizations sign SFMLAs to manage forests in accordance with SFM principles for 100 years. SFMLA holders are expected to prepare long-term management plans, employ ecologically friendly harvesting techniques, and undertake enrichment planting, forest rehabilitation and silviculture. SFMLA holders are not permitted to extract timber from their concession until they have complied with all the conditions of the licence. To date, however, most licence holders have not been able to meet the stringent guidelines or to fulfil the conditions.

A recent initiative is an International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) funded programme on Developing Mechanisms for Rewarding the Upland Poor in Asia for Environmental Services They Provide (RUPES)^[10]. This programme seeks to enhance livelihood and resource security for poor upland communities through proactive development of environmental transfer mechanisms. RUPES recognizes that many of Asia's rural poor live in strongly degraded uplands, under worsening poverty and resulting in negative environmental impacts on others. However, opportunities exist for local farmers to maintain or restore local agro-ecosystem functions that protect watersheds, conserve biodiversity and sequester carbon. These mechanisms include financial incentives and resource security that promote conservation. In addition, new market mechanisms are also emerging that have the potential to reward the upland communities for good natural resources management.

Progress in the development and implementation of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management

One of the key global strategies for the promotion of SFM is through the development and implementation of criteria and indicators for SFM as a means of benchmarking and measuring progress towards specific and holistic objectives. Within the Asia-Pacific region, two processes are well established. The International Tropical Timber Organization pioneered the development of criteria for sustainable forest management, with its member countries endorsing ITTO Criteria for Sustainable Tropical Forest Management in 1992. Also in the region, a number of temperate countries are participants in the Montreal Process Working Group on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests.

More recently, a need has been recognized for a process to develop criteria and indicators for forest ecosystems outside the moist tropical, and temperate and boreal classifications. In particular, efforts have been made to more actively involve countries with substantial areas of dry forests in the development and implementation of criteria and indicators specifically oriented toward the unique features of dry forest management. A Workshop on National-Level Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Management of Dry Forests in Asia was organized by FAO, in collaboration with UNEP, ITTO, USDA Forest Service and the Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM) in Bhopal, India, in late 1999. The workshop identified 8 criteria and 49 indicators with particular relevance for dry forests. It recommended that member countries refine and improve the set to fit national ecological, economic and socio-cultural conditions. Guidelines^[11] have been drafted for monitoring criteria and indicators in dry forests of Asia.

A number of countries in the region are in the process of developing national criteria and indicators. Several of the tropical countries are utilising ITTO criteria and guidelines as a basis for the development of national criteria and indicators. For example, the ten ASEAN countries are in the process of adapting the ITTO criteria and indicators for their own specific uses. Similarly, temperate countries are adapting Montreal Process criteria and indicators. For instance, Australia has developed, and is implementing, a nationally agreed framework of regional (sub-national) criteria and indicators, based on the Montreal Process structure. The framework provides a coordinated approach for collecting data on forests that facilitates consistent reporting and minimizes duplication.

Other countries note that further assistance is needed to develop criteria and indicators for additional forest types. For example, Wani (2002) notes that:

Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management (SFM) do not exist for different ecosystems, mountain forests, irrigated plantations, riverain forests and coastal mangrove ecosystems.

Forest research on sustainable management

Research and development constitute a critical link in the introduction of sustainable forest management in the Asia-Pacific region. At present, research capabilities and capacities vary enormously at the national level. In most countries research systems are very weak, with inadequate infrastructure and a shortage of qualified personnel. Lacking in proper orientation and direction, research efforts have not kept pace with the rapid changes in the forestry sector. Research systems often function in isolation and insufficient efforts are made to share information or undertake collaborative efforts to deal with common problems. For many countries with insufficiently developed research systems, there is an urgent need for major capacity building in forestry research. This includes assistance in research prioritization, development of research strategies, research planning support, training, increased access to information and supporting the establishment of arrangements to facilitate technology transfer and adaptation.

At the regional level the Forestry Research Support Programme for Asia and the Pacific (FORSPA) and the Asia Pacific Association of Forestry Research Institutions (APAFRI) have attempted to address these deficiencies. As part of their programmes, FORSPA and APAFRI have collaborated in developing Forest Research Priorities for the Asia Region (FORSPA 2001)^[12].

This publication identifies 8 priority areas that were identified during a regional process of review and consultation, which took place between August and November 2001. These are:

• Forest ecosystem management

• Forest plantations

• Social or community forestry

• Forest conservation and environmental protection

• Non-timber forest products (NTFPs)

• Biomass and wood utilization

• Agroforestry

• Urban and landscape forestry.

Four additional issues that are common to each priority area have also been identified:

• Policies and institutions

• Socio-economics

• Interdisciplinary linkages

• Uptake and impact of research.

A major challenge is to re-focus research activities to ensure they remain relevant to national priorities across economic, environmental and social dimensions. A significant opportunity, and challenge, is to bring private companies, NGOs, foundations and other private sector groups into collaborative research partnerships.

In general, the private sector in the Asia-Pacific region is not closely involved in forestry research and development. The exceptions are countries such as Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand and the Philippines, which have large commercial enterprises engaged in forestry and forestry research.

Forest Research Priorities for the Asia Region identifies the key elements in developing forestry research in the region as being the strengthening of collaborative linkages across three spheres:

1. Interdisciplinary linkages: research priorities are generally interdependent. Consequently, a key requirement is interdisciplinary contact and communication. Integrated research programmes or adequate allowance for building linkages between more tightly focused research programmes are important in this regard.

2. International linkages and resources. Although some countries in Asia are capable of mounting strong, internationally recognized research in some areas, the majority are dependent on maintaining linkages to regional or international research programmes, especially in terms of access to relevant data and the latest research developments. Opportunities to capitalize on international or regional research efforts need to be sought and encouraged.

3. Policy development/research linkages. Research in priority areas has major policy implications, and the links to policy and decision-making should, where possible, be enhanced and formalized.

Forest harvesting, forest concessions and logging restrictions

A vast number of different systems of forest ownership and management are in evidence throughout the Asia-Pacific region and these tend to strongly influence systems for administering forest harvesting. Of particular interest are systems relating to natural forests, which are variously owned by governments, by communities or individuals, or in a very few cases, by private sector companies. Similarly, harvesting in natural forests is also variously carried out by governments, the private sector and communities, but with private sector companies often having a much more significant role. Plantation forests are generally grown for production purposes (industrial or fuelwood) and their harvesting tends to be less controversial, with less complex environmental and social factors impinging on harvesting.

Several governments in the region have opted to ban, or heavily restrict harvesting in natural forests. In 2001, APFC published an in-depth study on Impacts and effectiveness of logging bans in natural forests in Asia-Pacific (Asia Pacific Forestry Commission, 2001b). The study examined logging restrictions in China, New Zealand, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Viet Nam. The study noted that the restrictions and modes of implementation differ markedly across countries:

While several countries, notably Thailand and Sri Lanka, have imposed blanket national bans on logging in natural forests, the supporting policy and regulatory measures in each country differ markedly. Other case-study countries have imposed only partial logging bans, covering certain types of natural forests or specific geographic areas (as in China) or a combination of both (Philippines and Viet Nam)....restrictions in New Zealand are based on sustainability criteria and large-scale transfers to the conservation estate.

In Thailand, two Royal Decrees were passed in 1989 to make provision for a nationwide ban on commercial timber production from natural forests. Timber harvesting has been reduced drastically since the implementation of these bans and is now only legally undertaken in plantations and mangroves. Similarly, in the Philippines, Department Administrative Order No. 24 (1991) prohibited logging in old growth forests and on slopes with gradients greater than 50 percent. Logging is still permissible, however, in some second-growth natural forests. In Sri Lanka, timber harvesting is banned in all natural forests. Non-forest wood resources play a major part in wood supplies, with home gardens and rubber and coconut plantations the most important sources of wood.

In Viet Nam, where natural forests have been cleared or degraded during decades of high-impact timber extraction and shifting cultivation, the government has enacted decisions to limit production for a period of 15-20 years to assist forest restoration and rejuvenation. A timber exploitation ban was placed on special-use forests and reserved forests (most natural forests) in 1992, and also encompassed limits on other logging. Commercial logging has been prohibited in the remaining natural forests of Northern Viet Nam, southeast of the South Mekong delta, and in the Red river delta. An annual allowable cut of 300 000 m³ has been applied since 2000. In New Zealand, Timberlands West Coast, a state-owned corporation is presently phasing out its forest harvesting operations, which comprise the sole concessions operating in state-owned natural forests.

China's logging bans apply only to natural forests in specified regions. The bans, imposed in 1998, cover natural forests in the upper reaches of the Yangtze river, the middle and upper reaches of the Yellow river and the upper reaches of the Songhuajiang river, and in Sichuan, Yunnan, Chongqing, Gansu, Shaanxi and Qinghai Provinces. The logging bans constitute an integral part of the new Natural Forest Conservation Program (NFCP). The specific objectives of the NFCP include reducing timber harvest volumes from natural forests from 32 million m³ (in 1997) to only 12 million m³ by 2003 and conserving 42 million hectares of natural forests in areas listed above. Much forest harvesting in China is still carried out by government agencies, but recent measures to stabilize ownership structures have seen forests allocated to local communities for private use and a forest production responsibility system being established. Forests may be managed and harvested by community collectives or leased out to individual families.

Several other countries (not covered in the APFC study) have also implemented substantive logging restrictions. Serious degradation of sal forests on the plains of Bangladesh saw a moratorium on logging imposed in 1972. In 1989, this moratorium was extended to all natural forests, with plans to continue these restrictions until 2005. In 2003, Bangladesh banned all tree felling in its Sundarban mangrove forest. The ban includes felling of timber for firewood.

In Pakistan, catastrophic floods during September 1992 in the north of the country were attributed, rightly or wrongly, to large-scale deforestation in mountainous areas by forestry cooperatives during the previous decade. As a consequence, the government placed a ban on commercial logging of forests in 1993 that continued until December 2000.

In an effort to preserve forest resources in India, the Supreme Court prohibited the Forest Department from harvesting wood in "non-plan" areas (areas that have not been targeted for managed culling and replanting) in 1996. The court also banned the transport of logs from India's northeastern states, requiring all wood shipments be sawn or further processed before transport. In 1997, the Supreme Court ordered the closure of all unlicensed sawmills and wood processing plants, and forbade states from licensing new operations.

In Lao PDR, concerns over unsustainable logging practices and corruption in 1991 led to a Presidential Decree banning logging. The full ban was, however, relatively short-lived. The country stopped issuing concessions for forest harvesting in 1994, but logging is still permitted in areas designated to become hydroelectric reservoirs, irrigation reservoirs, transmission pylons, electricity lines and other infrastructural and rural development projects. Commercial forest harvesting in Lao PDR is carried out almost exclusively by state-owned enterprises such as the Bolisat Phattana Khet Phoudoi (BPKP), a company founded and owned by the Ministry of Defence, or by joint ventures associated with these companies.

Several other countries operate harvesting systems under which only government corporations or agencies carry out harvesting. In Myanmar, the Myanma Timber Enterprise is the sole agency responsible for the extraction and export of teak and other hardwood species. Harvesting and export of hardwoods other than teak was carried out by private sector agencies between 1989 and 1993, but indiscriminate cutting and failure to follow regulatory procedures resulted in the banning of logging by the private sector. Similarly in Bhutan, where a heavy conservation emphasis is applied to forests, the Bhutan Logging Corporation, a government-owned enterprise is responsible for most commercial logging and firewood harvesting in the country.

In Nepal, forest harvesting practices fall into two distinct categories. The first is by government forestry agencies such as the Timber Corporation of Nepal. The other is small-scale, manual harvesting by communities organized as Forest User Group collectives responsible for the management and utilization of community forest areas. In many other small countries in the region, where forestry is a relatively minor economic activity, communities or individuals predominantly carry out harvesting on an ad hoc basis. This is notable in many of the small Pacific Island countries, where forests are generally under customary ownership.

Most other countries in the Asia-Pacific use systems based on forest concessions for the management and particularly harvesting of state-owned natural forests. These countries include Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Fiji, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.

In Cambodia, harvesting is generally carried out by the private sector, under concession agreements. At present, 3.8 million hectares or 21.4 percent of the country's total land area has been allocated to concessions. The size of the concessions ranges from 90 000 hectares to 400 000 hectares. In 2000, the government conducted a review of all forest concessionaires to determine compliance with their contracts and Cambodian laws. The review recommended that new contracts and management plans should be drawn up, and that in the interim, a moratorium on harvesting should be imposed. As the result of this review, 22 forest concessions covering an area of 3 million hectares have been terminated.

International efforts to assist Cambodia in controlling logging have also been implemented. A Forest Crime Monitoring and Reporting Project has operated in Cambodia since 1999 to provide the government with a mechanism for tracking specific instances of illegal logging from their initial reporting to their final resolution. The World Bank has been funding a Forest Concession Management and Control Pilot Project to help resolve controversial issues in concession management and public consultation.

In Indonesia, forest harvesting is based on a well-established concession system, whereby private concessions are granted to private or state companies. In recent times, however, substantial modifications have been implemented or proposed. In particular, a Production Forest Management Unit (KPHP) system is being tested in two provinces, Central Kalimantan and Jambi. In 1998, the government issued a new policy that limited concession areas to a maximum of 400 000 hectares. As part of the decentralization process, the 1999 revised forestry law gave district heads the right to hand out logging licenses for areas not larger than 100 ha. In June 2002, Indonesia placed a ban on the export of unprocessed logs, and in August 2003 announced a complete ban on logging on Java.

Forest harvesting in Malaysia is also regulated and controlled under well-defined concession systems. Malaysia uses an area control approach, whereby a certain area of forest is designated for harvesting each year. This is done through the allocation of an annual felling coupe, based on resource availability and current forest management practices. For example, the annual coupe for Peninsula Malaysia during the period 1995-2000 was 46 000 hectares. These areas are allocated as forest concessions using a licence tender process.

In Mongolia, the governors of individual districts license forest harvesting. Concession licenses are issued after considering the economic efficiency of proposed activities, including proposed harvesting and processing systems. Licenses are issued to state corporations, timber companies and individuals.

In Fiji, most forestland is under native customary ownership. To harvest timber on native land, a Forestry Right License is required under law. These are negotiated through the Native Lands Trust Board. There are four categories of tenure for timber cutting rights in the natural forests:

• timber concessions (15-30 year period);

• long term licenses (10 years);

• annual licenses; and

• other licences and prepayment licenses (usually for land clearing).

Almost half of Papua New Guinea's accessible forests are already committed to industrial logging and more than 30 proposed timber projects target most of the remainder. In 1999, the government imposed a moratorium on new logging concessions, extensions and conversions, and undertook to review all existing logging licences to ensure that proper procedures had been followed in the forest acquisition and allocation process.

Forest harvesting in the Solomon Islands has been highly controversial during the past 20 years. Logging practices have been criticized for being wantonly destructive, with "high grading" being carried out with little regard for the residual forest or the wider environmental implications of forest degradation. Log harvests have far exceeded the sustainable capacity of the merchantable forests, and most projections suggest these forests will be cut out within the next decade. More recently, the government has made significant efforts to enforce greater control over logging. These efforts have included the development of the National Code of Practice for Timber Harvesting, moratoriums on issuing new licenses have been declared, while some unused licenses have been revoked; and concessions and remissions to logging companies have been stopped.

Almost all of the land in Vanuatu is under customary ownership and, as a consequence, day-to-day management of forestlands rests with owners. In practice, most forestland that receives active forest management is leased either as logging concessions, or for plantation establishment. In many cases, forestry is a significant source of cash income for rural dwellers. In 1999, for example, landowners were paid about US$250 000 in royalties for 41 000 m³ of logs. This money, however, translates to only about one-sixteenth of the retail log value.