Forests, in the Asia-Pacific region and elsewhere, are located at the intersection of an array of conflicting interests, ranging from subsistence needs of local populations to global concerns about climate change, within and outside the field of forestry. As a consequence, economic and political trade-offs are inevitable in assessing the values of forests' environmental, economic, and social roles, and in deciding on appropriate utilization strategies. The harmonization of conservation and development goals has proven to be particularly difficult and has become the subject of intense scrutiny by a large number of stakeholders, including what is sometimes referred to as the 'environmental movement'.
The nature and impact of environmental activism in Asia and the Pacific is characterized by a tremendous diversity of initiatives and actors different in terms of scope, organizational sophistication, and accountability. The environmental movement is a dynamic ensemble of organizations, institutions, and individuals, including civil society organizations, selected national and international public agencies, and certain private sector enterprises interacting both with each other and with stakeholders outside the movement. Most commonly, however, the environmental movement is conceptually associated with environmental civil society organizations (ECSOs), such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Greenpeace. Therefore, while recognizing that environmental perspectives are not exclusive to ECSOs and are in fact found among governmental and intergovernmental agencies and organizations as well as the commercial private sector, the present paper will largely draw on the perspectives of civil society organizations.
The purpose of this paper is fourfold: first, to describe the social movement that has come to serve as one of the main channels through which forest-related environmental concerns are being raised, and to highlight the diversity of this social movement as it pertains to its members' political orientation, constituency, scope, and approach; second, to illustrate this diversity on the basis of ECSOs' perspectives of forest roles and response strategies to forest degradation and loss; third, to outline some key components of a "collective" vision for forestry in the Asia-Pacific region based on common threads in the ways ECSOs operationalize their views; and fourth, to advance three scenarios for the total, partial, and non-achievement, respectively, of that vision¹. Even though this paper argues that the likelihood for ECSOs to fully achieve the goals they have set for themselves is not high, various promising initiatives and success stories are highlighted. Moreover, a number of trends conducive to their continued constructive involvement have begun to manifest themselves, most notably the more realistic and less confrontational approach of ECSOs which have historically left out the human element in their conservation strategies. The continuation of this trend cannot entirely be taken for granted, however, as mounting difficulties in securing funds could easily increase zero sum competition at the cost of positive sum partnerships.
¹The Editor's understanding is that the author is in this report not seeking to speak on behalf of ECSOs (they can and do make their own case already) but to present salient attributes of ECSOs perspectives (Ed).
Environmental CSOs cover the entire range of political orientations, but a basic distinction as it applies to the Asia-Pacific region is between what is sometimes called 'First World environmentalism' and 'Third World environmentalism'. The approaches to forest conservation of the former (northern ECSOs) have traditionally evolved around the establishment of protected areas, whereas the latter (southern ECSOs) have concentrated their efforts on the improvement of rural livelihoods critically tied to the sustainable utilization of forest and other resources. In-between the two are ECSOs which focus on both aspects as they converge, for instance, on the rights of indigenous and forest-dependent peoples.
The tactics of ECSOs also vary widely, ranging from collaboration to non-violent and violent confrontation. While there is no clear distinction between northern and southern ECSOs in this respect - both engage in grassroots work, awareness raising, environmental education, networking, policy advocacy, research, and consumer boycotts - northern ECSOs are more likely to act at international, regional, and national levels, whereas southern ECSOs usually work at local levels. With growing experience and scaling-up, southern ECSOs will continue to extend their reach.
The perspectives of ECSOs on Asia-Pacific forest resources and functions, including forest lands, biological diversity, indigenous peoples, non-timber forest products, forests and climate, and watersheds and river basins are on one hand reflections of the multiple values ECSOs attribute to forest ecosystems, and of their organizational origin and focus on the other hand. Although all ECSOs share the conviction that current forest resources are inadequate to meet the needs of future generations, they differ in the exclusiveness with which they focus on certain forest types and in their interpretations of underlying causes. Northern ECSOs are generally more concerned with tropical moist forests rich in biological diversity, the loss and degradation of which they generally associate with timber harvesting, wildlife poaching, and hydroenergy infrastructure, while the efforts of southern ECSOs are directed at whichever forests or woodlands serve as the basis of subsistence to their rural constituencies, whose poverty turns them into both agents and victims of forest loss and degradation. This line has already begun to blur, illustrated, for example, by the growing number of southern ECSOs engaged in protected areas management, or by those northern ECSOs beginning to expand their ecoregional focus to include boreal forests.
The views of ECSOs on factors affecting forest ecosystems, including protected areas, wood production and trade, hunting and wildlife trade, forest management and government policies, hydroenergy and transportation infrastructure, and shifting agriculture and agroforestry, also vary widely, particularly between northern and southern ECSOs. On certain issues, however, another line between northern and southern ECSOs will become less clear. As protected area approaches will increasingly be based on ecological representativeness and multiple-use notions, for instance, traditional, northern ECSOs, for lack of expertise in rural development, will come in closer contact with southern ECSOs, whose contact with and knowledge of rural communities living in and around protected areas represents a potential for constructive synergies in conservation and development. Similarly, northern ECSOs' relatively greater experience in policy advocacy with regards to timber production will be a useful asset to southern ECSOs engaged in empowering local communities vis-a-vis timber harvesters and government agencies. The outlines of an emerging consensus are apparent even in the area of wildlife, where northern ECSOs have traditionally pressed for complete protection and southern ECSOs have pointed to the loss of life and damage to crops caused by tigers, elephants, and other species. Finally, northern and southern ECSOs are in agreement in their opposition to hydroelectric projects where they lead to population relocations that disrupt traditional societies and a host of negative environmental consequences.
ECSOs' hold vastly different visions for the future of forestry in Asia and the Pacific, a partial consequence of their spontaneous emergence across time and space. Nevertheless, the existence of certain consensus approaches to operationalizing sustainable forest management permits an outline of components for a collective vision. These components are divided into the conservation of biological diversity, sustainable forest management (particularly timber harvesting), indigenous and forest-dependent peoples, and water resources and hydroenergy projects.
Three scenarios, based on complete, partial, and non-achievement, are assessed as least likely, possible, and probable, respectively. The rather pessimistic assessment is based primarily on the fact that the future of forestry to the year 2010 will largely be the result of forces, some already in place, which ECSOs will have little or no impact on in the short time horizon. These forces include population growth and urbanization, relatively rapid economic development and regional integration, regional and international timber supply and demand situations, and fluctuations in donor assistance. Secondly, the observation that ECSOs' perspectives and visions often address issues which can only change significantly over a horizon that is longer term than the 2010 one adopted for this regional forestry sector outlook study.
Under Scenario 1, a number of fundamental changes within and outside the environmental movement would have to occur. Internally, expanded cooperation and collaboration between northern and southern conservation, human rights, and development/environment CSOs would be become a primary requirement, most importantly because the active participation of human populations in and around key conservation sites, as well as the improvement of their livelihood, would become a critical component of conservation approaches. Externally, ECSOs would have to collaborate more closely with and respect the claims of private and public stakeholders. Conversely, private and public sectors would need to increase their commitment to sustainable forest management and to initiatives such as criteria and indicator development, certification and ecolabeling. Finally, ECSOs would need to invest significant resources in influencing consumer attitudes in timber importing countries.
Scenario 2, which could also be termed 'muddling through', assumes that the current distinction and differences between northern and southern ECSOs would persist and that little interaction and integration between the two would occur. In its absence, each subsector of the environmental movement would continue to focus on its respective issue area. Successes would be geographically and topically concentrated. High-profile projects and initiatives would be used by ECSOs to demonstrate their influence on forest-related issues, but they would fail to achieve their goals to a substantial degree on a regional scale.
Scenario 3 is based on the assumption that for the majority of countries in the Asia-Pacific region, economic development currently overrides environmental concerns which would be addressed at a later stage, and, consequently, that the time horizon is too short. Due to their very rapid economic development and reduced need for land clearing, some countries in the Asia-Pacific region may be quicker in reducing pressures on their forests, but persistent population growth and demands for agricultural land will result in continued forest loss and degradation in others. Environmental CSOs will be as little able to reverse this trend as under Scenario 2, though governments may in certain cases yield to environmental demands. Lack of demonstrable success stories would stifle the growth in numbers of ECSOs in the region through the loss of confidence by the general public (hence by potential members), governments and donor institutions. Increased tensions between northern and southern ECSOs would also be likely as development and environment objectives would be perceived as being irreconcilable.
