3.1 Forest Lands
3.2 Biological Diversity
3.3 Indigenous and Forest-dependent Peoples
3.4 Non-timber forest products
3.5 Forests and Climate Change
3.6 Watersheds and River Basins
The Asia-Pacific region as defined in this study contains vast amounts of forest resources. They are home to rich biological diversity, maintain significant ecological functions including the regulation of climate at local, regional and global levels, and generate crucial supplies of timber and non-timber forest products. In addition, the region's forests are home to several hundred million forest-dependent people. As a result of many interrelated factors, these forests have been subject to increasing pressures and are in many places disappearing at rapid rates.
The importance of destruction and/or degradation of forest ecosystems in many ways depends on the perspective of the concerned, that is the more roles of a forest ecosystem one simultaneously takes into consideration, the graver a given rate of deforestation or forest degradation appears. Given the great number of issues ECSOs address, their perspectives on the status of forest resources at times sound more alarming than those of stakeholders with comparatively less multifunctional or more short term concerns. ECSOs generally base their assertions on worst case scenarios in which past mistakes are repeated and deforestation rates continue to escalate.
This section aims to examine the perspectives of ECSOs on the status and adequacy of forest resources and roles in the Asia-Pacific region ECSOs, while the following section will address environmental perspectives of and responses to the forces influencing forest resources and roles. It addresses the nature and extent of forests, biological diversity, indigenous and forest-dependent peoples, non-timber forest products, forest roles in climate change, and watersheds and river basins. Differences in priorities are readily apparent among ECSOs. Northern conservation ECSOs generally place biological diversity and forest nature and extent at the top of their agendas, whereas southern ECSOs are more concerned with forest-dependent peoples and non-timber forest products.
3.1.1 Forest Loss and Degradation
3.1.2 Loss of frontier forests
3.1.3 Perceptions of causes of forest loss
Environmental CSOs widely consider the current nature and extent of forest resources inadequate and the rates of loss and degradation unacceptable. Not all types of forests receive the same amount of attention, however: northern ECSOs, with a few exceptions, have largely focused on moist tropical forests subject to timber harvesting, while southern development/environment ECSOs have directed their attention to dry tropical forests suffering from expanding agriculture. Relatively little attention has been paid to temperate forests, although this is changing.
According to the FAO's 1997 State of the World's Forests, the total forest area in the Asia-Pacific region amounted to 552.132 million hectares in 1995, down from 568.425 million ha in 1990 at an average annual loss of 3.258 million ha, almost exclusively in the tropical forests (FAO, 1997b).
Table 3.1 - Forest resources in the Asia-Pacific region in 1995
|
Region |
Forest |
Natural forest |
|||
|
Total (1,000 ha) |
% of land area |
Per capita (ha) |
% annual change 1990-95 |
(1,000 ha) |
|
|
South Asia |
77,137 |
18.7 |
0.1 |
-0.2 |
61,836 |
|
Continental Southeast Asia |
70,163 |
36.9 |
0.4 |
-1.6 |
67,877 |
|
Insular Southeast Asia |
132,466 |
54.2 |
0.5 |
-1.3 |
126,038 |
|
East Asia |
181,671 |
15.8 |
0.1 |
-0.1 |
not applicable |
|
Tropical Oceania |
41,903 |
77.5 |
6.3 |
-0.4 |
41,752 |
|
Temperate Oceania |
48,792 |
6.2 |
2.3 |
0.1 |
not applicable |
Source: FAO, 1997b
Notes: South Asia: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka; Continental Southeast Asia: Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam; Insular Southeast Asia: Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore; East Asia: China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea D.P.R., Korea Rep., Macau, Mongolia; Tropical Oceania: American Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, Kiribati, New Caledonia, Niue Island, Pacific Islands (Trust Terr.), Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu; Temperate Oceania: Australia, New Zealand.
Deforestation rates have varied considerably, but have on an aggregate been the highest in the world. Between 1980 and 1990, annual deforestation in natural forests of developing countries in tropical Asia and the Pacific was 3,904 million ha or 1.2%, compared to 0.7% in Africa and 0.8 in Latin America. On a subregional level, deforestation advanced the quickest in continental Southeast Asia, at 1.6% per year, followed by insular Southeast Asia at 1.3% (FAO, 1995a). The four countries with the highest deforestation rates are Bangladesh, Pakistan, Thailand, and the Philippines.
Annual deforestation rates in tropical Asia and the Pacific, 1980-90, (Source: FAO, 1995a)
The extent and speed of deforestation may be better illustrated when enlarging the time frame. Thailand's forest cover, for example, was reduced from 53% in 1961 to 26% in 1991, according to official figures. More conservative estimates suggest that forest in a condition close to its natural state may amount to as little as 10% of the national territory, primarily confined to protected areas (Hirsch, 1995). In Vietnam, the percentage of land area covered by forest declined from 42% in 1950 to less than 20% today, while in neighbouring Laos, official figures indicate that forest cover decreased from 70% in the 1940's to 47% in the early 1980s (Hirsch, 1995).
Environmental organizations differ in the forest types they concentrate their efforts on. International conservation organizations are rather selective, having been primarily concerned with minimally disturbed tropical forests rich in biological diversity. Conservation initiatives in the temperate forest areas of China and Mongolia are a much more recent phenomenon. Regional and national ECSOs on the other hand, particularly the development/environment organizations of South Asia, are much less selective either because their financial resources limit their activities to where they are based, or because their raison d'être is to serve the rural poor, regardless of the type of forests they are surrounded by. The interests of research ECSOs lie somewhere in-between, having evolved around a number of issues, including tropical forests and trees outside forests.
Different ECSOs value forest ecosystems for different purposes, with conservationists generally emphasizing non-human uses and development/environment and indigenous peoples' human rights organizations stressing the roles of forests in human survival and livelihood strategies. Fewer are directly concerned with forests' roles in regulating climate, though they generally use the argument to strengthen their cases. The perspectives on the productive roles of forests are diverse, but have increasingly recognized the legitimacy of timber harvesting.
A recent report published by the World Resources Institute (WRI), a policy research and advocacy organization known for its multi-stakeholder approaches, described the location and status of large intact natural forest ecosystems, referred to as "frontier forests" (Bryant et al., 1997).3 In their assessment, frontier forests were defined to meet seven criteria, including most notably a large enough size to support and maintain viable populations of indigenous plant and animal species, and a forest structure and composition determined by natural events. The threats to each of the frontier forests were assessed in order to allow for regional comparisons and for distinguishing major differences among countries.
³Terms such as "frontier forests" or "old growth forests" are often criticized for lacking a scientific basis. While such criticism is not entirely unjustified, it should be recognized that terminology continues to evolve, often outside the scientific community. In the context of this report, the terms used by ECSOs have been maintained to better reflect their perspectives.
|
Frontier forests in the Asia-Pacific region 'Lost it all' 'On the edge' 'Not much time' Source: Bryant et al, 1997. |
The study found that half of earth's original forest cover has disappeared, much of it destroyed within the past three decades, and that just one fifth remains in frontier forests (Bryant et al., 1997). The study's findings concur with another assessment which concluded that between 1960 and 1980 alone, tropical forest cover in Asia declined by almost a third (Singh and Marzoli, 1995).
The authors of the WRI report argue that Asia has lost almost 95% of its frontier forests and Oceania (PNG, Australia, New Zealand) almost 80%. The remaining frontier forests are confined to the islands of Papua New Guinea, Borneo, Sumatra, Sulawesi, and Irian Jaya, as well as isolated pockets in Burma, Laos, Cambodia, northern Australia, New Zealand, northern China and northern Mongolia. More than half of Asia's last frontiers are considered under moderate to high threat, particularly from timber harvesting (Bryant et al., 1997). An even greater concern, the report contends, is "Asia's burgeoning population and its ever-increasing demand for food and agricultural land."
Few environmental organizations would argue that the current status and extent of forests is generally adequate, regardless of the specific forest role(s) and/or forest-dependent constituencies an organization is concerned with - not surprisingly so, since the opposite would seriously undermine their reason of existence. The origin and nature of the driving forces of deforestation and forest degradation, however, are often the subject of disagreement, fuelled by academic discourses and international policy processes. The significance of this debate is twofold: first, an organization's interpretation of the dynamics of forest degradation will have a crucial impact on its strategic approaches to forest conservation; and second, given that many international ECSOs have larger operating budgets than most government forest departments in the developing countries they work in, environmental organizations' decisions may have a significant influence on the ways a country will go about bringing their forest management on a sustainable course.
Beyond a doubt, the two main proximate agents of deforestation and forest degradation are the expansion of agriculture and timber harvesting, the latter often by facilitating access to forests for settlers. Additional ones include fuelwood collection, particularly in the Himalayas, transportation and energy infrastructure development, mining, excessive hunting and non-timber forest product extraction. These proximate causes at the same time interact with each other and are the symptoms of underlying causes. The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) established the following checklist (IISD, 1996):
· Economic & market distortions
· Poverty
· Policy distortions, particularly inducements for unsustainable exploitation and land speculation
· Insecurity of tenure & lack of clear property rights
· Lack of livelihood opportunities
· Government failures or deficiencies in intervention or enforcement
· Infrastructural, industrial or communications developments
· Inequitable distribution of benefits from forests
· New technologies
· Population pressures causing land hunger
· Civil unrest
· International policy, institutional and trade arrangements
Of particular interest has been the connection between timber harvesting and agricultural expansion. In many cases, roads built into or through frontier forests provide access to pioneer farmers (Grainger, 1995; Rowe et al., 1992; Myers, 1990). Until an authoritative assessment of this connection is made, a large number of ECSOs is likely to continue arguing that timber harvesting is more to blame than the expansion of agriculture. A general verdict on the issue may never be reached, however, as site-specific factors are increasingly recognized as the main determinants of whether migrant farmers will take advantage of newly created land opportunities.
The way in which ECSOs approach their interpretation of deforestation and forest degradation is primarily determined by their mission, which in turn is a reflection of the organization's origin, scope, and constituency. For a great number of ECSOs, particularly from industrialized countries, the cause of deforestation has much to do with the organization's way of identifying itself, that is by virtue of being non-governmental and non-profit, the targets of their blame are found in the public and especially in the private sectors. Multinational corporate entities and developing country governments have repeatedly been the subject of ECSO campaigning, whether in the form of consumer boycotts against the products of individual companies or as campaigns for tropical timber import bans (e.g. Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network (RAN), etc.), even though these efforts have sometimes backfired and have in fact been proven to have potentially negative environmental consequences (UNEP, 1996).
Environmental organizations of Asia-Pacific origin, notably the large development/environment organizations of South Asia, are aware that their constituency, the rural poor, is both an actor and a victim of forest loss and degradation. They may campaign against corporate timber harvesters or energy developers, but usually focus on their respective governments' failure provide an enabling policy environment, secure tenure and usage rights, and participation in forest management. Changing legislative landscapes have already begun to redress these shortcomings, but many difficulties lie ahead as the details of decentralization programmes are being worked out, as is evident, for example, in India's Joint Forest Management programme (Kumar and Kaul, 1996; Anderson, 1995).
Larger organizations, particularly international ones, often have a range of programmes of which forest conservation is only one of them, thereby allowing them to interpret and approach deforestation and forest degradation from many angles. The WWF and IUCN, for example, implicitly acknowledge the large range of proximate and underlying drivers in the outline of their joint forest policy, which seeks to halt and reverse the loss and degradation of forests all through (a) the establishment of a network of ecologically-representative protected areas; (b) environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial and economically viable forest management outside protected areas (c) the implementation of ecologically and socially appropriate forest restoration programmes: (d) the reduction of forest damage from global change; and (e) the consumption of forest goods and services at levels that do not damage the environment (WWF/IUCN, 1996).
3.2.1 The value of biological diversity
3.2.2 The significance of biological diversity in the Asia-Pacific region
3.2.3 Threats and response strategies
Similar to the nature and extent of overall forest resources, ECSOs deplore the loss of biological diversity, even though scientific assessments of the exact amount vary widely. Biological diversity, as defined in the Convention on Biological Diversity, "means the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems." Even though this comprehensive definition is commonly accepted among environmental CSOs, most of their efforts have been associated with protecting diversity between species. This is reflected, for instance, in the protection of high-profile key animal species, such as great apes, elephants, and tigers, as well as specific timber species. Recent activities, particularly the shift in protected area strategies from area extent to ecological representativeness, indicate that diversity between ecosystems is gaining in importance. It is reasonable to expect, however, that ECSOs will continue to focus on forest regions rich in biological diversity, at the expense, for instance of temperate and boreal zones.
Northern ECSOs place a much higher value on biological diversity than do southern ECSOs, for whom the concept is either foreign-imposed or inherently so integral to survival and livelihood strategies that it should not be treated in isolation of larger development issues. The loss of biological diversity is most often associated with the loss of habitat, so that the two are of equal importance to northern ECSOs. The value of genetic resources to food security and pharmaceutical purposes is frequently highlighted by northern ECSOs, while southern ECSOs generally argue that local communities who offer their knowledge of medicinal plants, etc. are inadequately compensated.
A broad range of values has been attributed to biological diversity. Botkin and Talbot have classified them according to four basic reasons: utilitarian (the economic or social goods and services provided by products obtained from natural ecosystems), aesthetic (the value people place on experiencing nature and its diversity of life forms, e.g. through tourism and film-making), moral (the moral right of species to exist, as established in the 1982 World Charter for Nature), and ecological (the importance to the persistence of ecological systems, including forests) (Botkin and Talbot, 1992).
Environmental organizations recognize the values of all four reasons, but weigh them quite differently. As in the case of overall forest resources, large South Asian development organizations with environmental project components stress the utilitarian aspect. Their target populations depend on biological diversity for securing their livelihoods, as has been widely documented in the context of NTFPs (Mittelman et al., 1997). In the tropics alone 25,000-30,000 species are estimated to be in use as fuel, fibres, oils, medicines, dyes, tannins, and forage crops, and up to 25,000 species have been employed in traditional medicines (Davis, 1995, Heywood, 1992, 1993).
Large conservation organizations are likely to stress the ecological and utilitarian reasons. Others emphasize the comprehensiveness of the utilitarian justification. The World Resource Institute, for example, defines conservation of biological diversity as "the management of human interactions with the variety of life forms and ecosystems so as to maximize the benefits they provide today and maintain their potential to meet future generations' needs and aspirations" (Reid and Miller, 1989). Some preservationists would disagree with such an interpretation, arguing instead that the benefits accrued from products gained from tropical forest species do not remain with the countries hosting the forests, thereby increasing the global wealth inequities they consider at the root of deforestation and forest degradation.
The Asia-Pacific region is home to a vast array of biological diversity in terms of species, genetic material and ecosystems, especially in the tropical forests. Among the twenty countries with the richest species diversity in the world, the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) lists eight in Asia and the Pacific, namely, in decreasing order of diversity richness, Indonesia, China, India, Malaysia, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Vietnam, and the Philippines (Paine, 1997).
Threatened Animal Species in the Asia-Pacific Region (Source: WCMC, 1997)
The diversity of ecosystems in the region is described by Udvardy (Udvardy, 1975). Two biogeographical realms, Indomalaya and Australia, are represented in their totality, while the Palaearctic realm covers most of East Asia, and the Oceania realm includes Papua New Guinea and most Pacific islands of the region as defined in this study. Furthermore, 13 Udvardy biomes of 14 recognized worldwide are present as well as 70 of 193 biogeographical provinces (Udvardy in Paine, 1997)
In the so-called Malesian phyto-geographical zone, stretching from Peninsular Thailand to Papua New Guinea and adjacent islands and occupying a total land area of 3 million km2, more than 40,000 species of vascular plants have been recorded, no fewer than 5,952 are known to have actual or potential economic value (Soepadmo, 1995; Jansen et al., 1991). By comparison, some 11,500 species of vascular plants are found in all of Europe, with a total land area of 9 million km2.
Biological diversity faces a variety of threats, the largest being the loss and degradation of habitat. In his landmark work on biological diversity (1988), E.O. Wilson argues that roughly 40% of the land that can support closed tropical forest is now devoid of forest cover, primarily because of some form of human actions. The projected future loss of forest in the tropics will inevitably lead to further decline in biological diversity on a large scale, though the precise extent is a matter of continued scientific debate (see, for instance, Whitmore and Sayer, 1992). A second type of threat, not nearly as severe in terms of extent, but at least as well documented and advocated against, in addition to being the subject of an international treaty, is the illegal trade in endangered species and species parts.
The protection of ecosystems, or in situ conservation is but one of three general strategies for conserving biological diversity. The other two are ex situ conservation and the rehabilitation of degraded lands (Botkin and Talbot, 1992). Ex situ conservation refers to conservation in seed banks, in live collections such as arboreta and clone banks, in specially established ex situ conservation stands, and as pollen or tissue (Palmberg-Lerche, 1996). The rehabilitation of degraded lands may under certain conditions contribute to the conservation of biological diversity through measures ranging from the planting of one or a few indigenous species to complex ecosystem restoration.
|
The IUCN/WWF Centres of Plant Diversity Project In 1989, the world's two largest conservation organizations began an international collaborative project which has as its objectives: (a) to identify which areas around the world, if conserved, would safeguard the greatest number of plant species; (b) to document the many benefits, both economic and scientific, that conservation of these areas would bring to society and to outline the potential value of each for sustainable development; and (c) to outline a strategy for the conservation of the areas selected. Based on a number of criteria, 234 sites were selected. Among them, 75 sites were selected as priorities for Southeast Asia, China and East Asia, and the Indian subcontinent, of which 66 contain tropical forests. Of these, only 6 are considered "safe or reasonably safe," while 23 are considered "threatened" and 10 "severely threatened". Source: Davis, 1995 |
While all three strategies are similarly important and should be pursued in parallel (Palmberg-Lerche, 1996), in situ conservation has been the most commonly advocated and applied by ECSOs, although it is increasingly recognized among them that protected areas will not be able to stem the tide of habitat destruction. The World Wide Fund for Nature, for example, states: "We can rescue biodiversity, but not by just fencing it off and keeping people away. Locking nature up in parks, protected areas, and laboratory gene banks is not enough - because islands of nature will not survive in a sea of devastation" (WWF, 1997a).
The role of indigenous and forest-dependent peoples in sustainable forest management is increasingly recognized. All ECSOs claim to respect indigenous peoples' cultures, rights, and natural resource management systems, but they vary widely in their active pursuit of promoting them. Some northern ECSOs exist for the sole purpose of empowering indigenous communities, while others have not historically been sensitive, particularly with respect to access to resources in and around protected areas. Southern ECSOs are similarly split, with development/environment CSOs obviously defending the rights of their constituents, and certain urban-based ECSOs being highly biased against or condescending towards indigenous and forest-dependent peoples. ECSO attitudes often depend on their perceptions of the roles of indigenous and forest-dependent peoples in causing forest loss and degradation: national governments (and foresters') negative interpretations have at times influenced the opinions of ECSOs.
The forests of Asia and the Pacific are home to around 200-300 million indigenous people for whom the loss or degradation of the forest leads to economic impoverishment and the end of their unique ways of life (Bahuchet, 1993). The diversity of cultures and associated land-use practices is as rich as the ecosystems they depend on and the political systems they are subjected to. Various pressures have pushed a growing number of indigenous people to the inherently poor soils of much of upland tropical Asia, where deforestation and forest degradation now advances at a still higher pace. Some environmental organizations have focused their activities on the connection between forests and indigenous peoples' rights; others have only recently begun to advocate on their behalf, partly as a result of the recognition that their active participation is a key to success in conservation and development. Together, they have significantly contributed to a greater awareness of the plight of indigenous peoples, and have initiated numerous innovative measures aimed at balancing the needs of conservation and development.
The definition of the term 'indigenous population' has evolved over time and has often carried different meanings in different places. The sub-commission for the prevention of discrimination and the protection of minorities of the United Nations Human Rights Commission referred to 'indigenous populations' until 1988, when it replaced the term with 'indigenous peoples' to imply a right to self-determination; the European Parliament speaks of 'indigenous populations' without offering a definition; and the World Bank changed from the using 'tribal peoples' to 'indigenous peoples' in 1991. The International Labour Organization uses the following definition:
"(a) tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws and regulations; (b) peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from populations which inhabited the country of geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonization or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions." (Convention 169, June 7, 1989, Geneva).
Although there are perhaps thousands of distinct indigenous peoples, the claims they make are similar across the Asia-Pacific region. The three central demands are the right to the ownership of their lands, the right to self-determination, and the right to representation through their own institutions (Colchester, 1994). International law provides a basis for some of these claims, including the right of tribal and indigenous peoples to collective ownership of their lands, which is accepted in Article 11 of ILO Convention 107 and has been reaffirmed in Articles 14-19 of ILO Convention 169; the right to self-determination is recognized in the International Covenants of Civil and Political Rights and of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and the right to representation through their own institutions is recognized in Article 2 of the ILO Convention 169 (Colchester, 1994). Despite continued lobbying, many of these rights are still denied, even where national laws explicitly provides for discrimination in favour of indigenous groups, such as in China and India.
|
Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization | ||
|
The Netherlands-based Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organizations (UNPO) is an international organisation created by nations and peoples around the world who are not represented as such in the world's principal international organisations, such as the United Nations. UNPO offers an international forum for occupied nations, indigenous peoples, minorities, and even oppressed majorities who currently struggle to regain their lost countries, preserve their cultural identities, protect their basic human and economic rights, and safeguard the natural environment. | ||
|
UNPO does not represent those peoples; it assists and empowers them to represent themselves more effectively. To this end, UNPO provides much needed professional services and facilities as well as education and training in the fields of diplomacy, international and human rights law. democratic processes and institution building, conflict management and resolution and environmental protection. | ||
|
The following nations/peoples in the Asia-Pacific region are members of UNPO (* indicates founding member): | ||
|
Territory/Country/Location Population |
Country Concerned | |
|
- Aboriginals of Australia |
250,000-300,000 |
Australia |
|
- Acheh |
5,000,000 |
Indonesia |
|
- Bougainville |
160,000 |
|
|
- Buryatiya |
|
Mongolia and Russian Federation |
|
- Chittagong Hill |
900,000 |
Bangladesh |
|
- Cordillera* |
1,100,000 |
Philippines |
|
- East Timor* |
700,000 |
Indonesia |
|
- Karenni |
300,000 |
Myanmar |
|
- Mon |
7,000,000 |
Myanmar |
|
- Nagaland |
3,000,000 |
China, Myanmar, and India |
|
- South Moluccas |
|
Indonesia |
|
- Shan Province |
|
Myanmar |
|
- Taiwan Province* |
21,000,000 |
China |
|
- Tibet* |
6,000,000 |
China |
|
- West Papua |
1,800,000 |
Indonesia |
|
Source: Adapted from UNPO, 1997 | ||
The roles of forests and forest products in the survival and livelihood strategies of indigenous peoples vary. Contrary to widespread popular perceptions, only a small number of indigenous peoples are not engaged in one or the other form of agriculture and base their livelihoods exclusively on hunted and gathered food. They include the Penan of Sarawak and Kalimantan, the Mrabri of Thailand, the Negrito peoples of the Philippines and Peninsular Malaysia, the Kubu of Sumatra, and a number of Melanesian groups in New Guinea (Bahuchet, 1993; Collins et al., 1991). The large majority, however, combines shifting, or swidden, agriculture, mainly of dry-land rice, sweet potatoes, tapioca, taro, yams, and bananas, with products gained from the forests. Some groups have reverted to agricultural practices quite recently, such as the Nu and Drung of the forested hills in Yunnan province, while others have practiced swidden agriculture for thousands of years.
In addition to food, indigenous forest peoples gain building materials, rattan for basketry, leaf wrappers, gums, resins, latex, drugs, poisons, medicines, perfumes, bone, horn, and ivory, and other items from the forests. Some of these have been traded over the millennia across the region and beyond. Forests also perform important functions in the religious beliefs of indigenous peoples. Their extensive knowledge of the nature of forest animals and plants is reflected in equally complex systems of forest 'spirits' and the links between land and people often include future generations, "our children who are still in the soil" as the Papuans call them (Collins et al., 1991).
In continental Asia, as well as in the Philippines, expanding lowland populations have forced many indigenous peoples off their lands and into the hills. For example, the Akha and Hmong from Tibet and eastern China, respectively, have been on the move for several thousand years, and have moved far south into what is now Thailand over the course of the last hundred years. In some instances, forest peoples were assimilated during the process of nation building, but in mainland Southeast Asia, the hill peoples have tended to remain separate (Lewis and Lewis, 1984). Indigenous shifting agriculturalists have evolved their techniques over thousands of years, fine-tuning them to their respective environments; however, population growth and migration has created many situations where sustainability is no longer guaranteed (Collins et al., 1991).
National governments have often equated indigenous peoples' migratory life styles with underutilization of land resources and lack of proprietary rights. With the exception of Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu, and a few other Pacific Island countries, national laws have rarely recognized tenure rights on lands traditionally occupied by indigenous peoples (Colchester, 1994) and have invariably placed forest lands under state control, frequently resulting in land-use conflicts. Resettlement schemes in Thailand, the Philippines, and Indonesia have caused the dispossessing of millions of indigenous people, often with grave environmental consequences in the destination areas. The goal of integration, at the heart of many governments' policy agendas, is a double-edged sword, for the facilitation of access to markets, education and health services, has not always been the declared purpose, frequently masking the development of forest lands for hydroelectric installations, timber harvesting, commercial agriculture, or national parks (Collins et al., 1991).
In response to their growing marginalization indigenous peoples in Asia and the Pacific have begun to develop institutions aimed at representing their rights in changing economic, legal and political circumstances. Cultural associations, cooperatives, community development organizations, political fronts and human rights networks have emerged throughout the region, linking hitherto isolated communities and providing them with a forum for local, national, and international action (see Charter of the Indigenous-Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests, Annex 2). Indigenous forms of organization have in many cases served as models for the new institutions. For example, the internationally recognized Cordillera People's Alliance was formed on the basis of traditional peace treaties among more than three hundred community associations of the Igorot of Luzon, Philippines (Collins, et al., 1991).
International human rights organizations and programmes, such as Survival International and the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, or the Future of Tropical Rainforest Peoples, have been active for many years in raising awareness and linking indigenous peoples around the world. National groups have been active in some countries, but have for political reasons been unable to engage in advocacy. The Sarawak Campaign Committee (SCC), for example, was established in Japan in August 1990 with the objective of achieving a moratorium on the import and use of timber from Sarawak, until or unless the Sarawak government guarantees indigenous peoples' rights, including their rights to their customary land, and establishes ecologically sustainable forestry practices. Many of the larger environmental organizations have only recently begun to address the concerns of indigenous peoples, even though their conservation activities have often involved traditional lands. Accompanying the move away from the narrow approach to species and habitat protection, indigenous peoples increasingly play a central role in the promotion of sustainable use of natural forest ecosystems.
A number of ECSOs, such as the Rainforest Action Network (RAN), whose mission is "to protect the Earth's rainforests and support the rights of their inhabitants through education, grassroots organizing, and non-violent direct action," are a clear reflection of the recognition that the active participation of forest peoples is necessary for truly sustainable development. These international ECSOs maintain extensive networks with local organizations, greatly facilitated by communications through the internet, act as information clearinghouses, centres for mobilizing activists, and watchdogs on indigenous rights abuses by governments and the private sector. Other ECSOs are more directly involved in the securing the livelihoods of indigenous populations, through the promotion of Non-timber forest products (NTFPs), ecotourism, and other income-generating activities.
Over the past decade, non-timber forest products (NTFPs)4 have attracted increased attention from both the forestry and development communities. It has become clear that NTFPs play crucial roles in the livelihood and subsistence strategies of tens and perhaps hundreds of millions of people in the Asia-Pacific region. A significant number of NTFPs are traded commercially in local, national, and international markets, but their most important function is in providing a wide range of subsistence uses to people living in forest areas. Environmental organizations have become increasingly active in the promotion of NTFPs, to generate income for forest-dependent peoples, to reduce pressures on natural forests from timber harvesting by enlarging the forest products base, or a combination of both. Their activities range from marketing NTFPs internationally to fostering multiple-use tree species planting on local levels. However, the growing demand for NTFPs also has negative implications in the form of disturbances of forest ecosystem integrity and stability caused by over-exploitation of selected species.
4The term has evolved from 'minor forest products' to 'non-wood forest products' to 'non-timber forest products'. The latter term has been suggested to reflect me inclusion of woody products, including, most notably, fuel wood.
|
Closing the NTFP information gap A major obstacle in developing sustainable approaches to NTFP management is the paucity of reliable information. A number of organizations and networks of professionals and organizations have emerged in response, including: · International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR): to support and help coordinate research and development based on these two plants; · Asian Network on Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (ANMAP): to exchange information, germplasm, planting materials, experimental data and expertise, as well as to establish effective cooperation in research; · South and East Asian Countries NTFP Network (SEANN): to raise awareness of the importance of NTFPs for sustainable forest management, promote small-scale NTFP based rural enterprises, exchange information, and network; · Centre of Minor Forest Products (COMFORPTS, India): to promote NTFPs through need-based sustainable forest management through seminars, technical assistance and liaison: and · FAO's The promotion and development of Non-Wood Forest Products Programme; to promote knowledge of NTFPs through its Non-Wood Forest Products Series, its non-wood News publication, and regional expert consultations. Based on responses to a questionnaire used to identify all those agencies, companies and individuals who are involved in one way or another with the promotion and development of NWFP, and may have socio-economic data on NWFP, a database is being developed to store and retrieve data on: organizations, agencies and companies; the location and kind of products which are the focus of their work; the socio-economic contribution of NWFP; critical gaps in thematic issues or geographic coverage. Other initiatives that have a focus on NTFPs include FAO's Forest, Trees and People Network, the Biodiversity Conservation Network (BCN), the International Centre for Research in Agroforestrv (ICRAF), and the Asian Network for Small-Scale Agricultural Bioresources (ANSAB). |
In spite of the heightened awareness of the importance of NTFPs, basic and reliable information documenting their use, trade, and employment-generating properties is scarce. It is estimated that NTFP raw materials and processed products earn billions of US dollars per year (Mittelman et al, 1997), including, for instance, US$ 50 million generated from Asia-Pacific countries' trade in rattan, especially Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and China (Iqbal, 1993). The collection and processing of NTFPs creates employment for millions of people in the region, including, for example, about 7.5 million people engaged part-time in collecting tendu leaves and another 3 million in processing the leaves into bidi cheroots in India (Tewari, 1982).
On the other hand, an ever-growing collection of case studies testify the wide range of uses of NTFPs, as well as local peoples' extensive knowledge of them. Villagers from West Kalimantan recently identified over 800 plant species and almost 1,800 different uses associated with them (Graefen and Syafrudin, 1996). The uses of NTFPs that have been identified include:
· conventional subsistence products, such as medicines, staple foods, supplementary or emergency foods, protein foods, construction materials, tools and utensils, etc.;· selected subsistence products used in smaller quantities or on special occasions only;
· commercialized products that generate various levels of income to collectors and processors, including rattan, resins, honey, aromatics, and bush meat;
· additional products commercialized in local, national and international markets, including medicines, tools and utensils, furniture, handicrafts, mats, walling and construction materials, major and minor foodstuffs; and
· major products with a long commercial history characterized by international trade, high annual turnovers, and market control by outside entrepreneurs. (Mittelman et al, 1997).
In addition, NTFPs figure large in indigenous peoples' cultural identity, traditional knowledge systems, and social coherence. Forests, NTFPs and forest area populations interact in complex ways, currently threatened in many places by the reduction and degradation of forest cover. Many groups consider the forest as their spiritual ancestor who continues to demand respect through modest harvesting practices (Eder, 1997).
|
Certification of NTFPs Rising concerns about the unsustainability of NTFPs have led to a number of initiatives in certifying NTFPs. These arose from economic motivations (higher market share, especially in industrialized urban centres, higher premium prices, and higher per unit value of NTFPs compared to timber), environmental motivations (unsustainable harvest of many NTFPs, environmental impacts of intensive production systems, and environmental benefits of diversified forest management), and socially driven motivations (benefits of increased revenues to producers and reduced economic risk resulting from diversified production systems). NTFP certification of products from Asia and the Pacific has developed slowly. A 1994 survey of the Rainforest Alliance revealed that the market for certified rattan in the US would be minimal. Although such companies as Cultural Survival Enterprises, the Body Shop, or Ben and Jerry's have made commitments to equitable and ecologically sound commercial NTFP development, they are often ill placed to ensure the sustainable origin of their products. Source: Viana et al., 1996 |
Mittelman et al. identify five major trends in NTFPs. First, they note an increase in commercialization, particularly of NTFPs that become attractive with rising consumer incomes and that guarantee large profit margins through low-cost harvesting. Their long-term survival is not secure, however, neither in regards to the species or the market. Shifting rattan markets highlight the potential negative impacts. Before moving to Indonesia, natural rattan stocks were exhausted in the Philippines and in Thailand. Second, the gradual replacement of bartering with monetized systems in rural areas across the Asia-Pacific region is leading to a decline in the significance of subsistence NTFPs. The authors argue that such a decline has potentially wide-reaching effects on who will manage forests for what purposes.
|
Bioprospecting or Biopiracy? According to some estimates, the annual world market for plant-derived drugs is worth US$ 200 billion, and the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) estimates that three-quarters of all plant-derived prescription drugs were discovered because of their prior medicinal use by indigenous peoples. Bioprospecting, the exploration of wild plants and animals for commercially valuable genetic and biochemical resources, continues to attract attention from various stakeholders. The Convention on Biological Diversity, by asserting the sovereignty of nations over their biodiversity, explicitly recognizes the right of countries to establish legislation regulating access to genetic resources and, if they wish, require payment for that access. Moreover, it requires that any company or country collecting biodiversity obtain the prior informed consent of the source country. A number of ECSOs have become active in this field. Conservation International (CI), for instance, has designed a bioprospecting programme to foster incentives for conservation in tropical countries, including Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, illustrating to governments and forest peoples alike the economic potential of their genetic resources and the traditional knowledge. At the same time, indigenous people are raising their guards against what they perceive as biopiracy. The Suva-based Pacific Concerns Resource Centre (PCRC) plans to draft a treaty to make the South Pacific a "life form patent-free zone," and called for a moratorium on bioprospecting until appropriate mechanisms for assuring community benefits are in place. Source: CI, 1997; Seneviratne, 95 |
Third, traditional arrangements and systems are disintegrating as a result of growing NTFP commercialization, migration of outsiders to remote forest areas, and the spread of the market economy, in addition to the historically unfavourable treatment by national governments. This latter trend is in many places reversed through the fourth trend, the devolution to community-based management. Except for the Pacific Island nations, where customary ownership has resided de jure with indigenous populations, Asian countries, in their attempts to overcome the shortcomings of state-owned and controlled forest lands, are moving to decentralize authorities. Finally, the authors note that policy initiatives aimed at granting local communities extended resource rights through forest protection committees, community agreements, and individual stewardship agreements (Fox et al, 1991) will create the decision-making space within which these local communities manage their forests and forest products (Mittelman, et al., 1997).
The largest and probably most influential involvement of ECSOs in NTFP-related issues has already been noted in the section on agroforestry. From local to national and regional levels, Asia-Pacific and international development/environment organizations support the rural poor in stabilizing subsistence resources and generating employment and incomes through the collection or cultivation, processing, and marketing of NTFPs. Increasingly, but still insufficiently, women are becoming the key actors in these programmes.
The second type of ECSO that has developed an interest in and activities related to NTPP are western-based conservation organizations. Mittelman et al (1991) note the role of NTFPs in integrated conservation and development projects (ICDP) in the Philippines, West Kalimantan, and Vietnam. Some conservation organizations, such as Conservation International (CI), have special programmes for marketing NTFPs. CI works with Papua New Guinea's Conservation Policy Department to design and implement field research on exploitation schemes, including galip nut businesses, the Solomon Islands' Makira Conservation Area project staff in identifying and evaluating markets for ngali nut oil, which possesses chemical qualities that make it a beneficial ingredient in personal care products.
|
Community-based Conservation Enterprises "Economics drives much of the world's rain forest destruction. Local people clear forests to grow crops, raise cattle, cut timber, or pursue industrial development. Conservation International's Conservation Enterprise Department helps create an alternative to deforestation by developing enterprises based upon sustainable use of natural resources. These sustainable enterprises market "biodiversity products" such as tree oils, plant fibres, nuts, and latexes harvested in an ecologically sound manner from key biological areas. In doing so, they demonstrate that sustainable enterprise can help local people earn their living by managing and harvesting biologically rich forests instead of destroying them for short-term economic gain." Source: Conservation International |
In Nepal, Appropriate Technology International (ATI) works with its local partner, the Humla Conservation and Development Association (HCDA), to help collectors in Humla, Nepal build a distillation facility for essential oils, which is keeping the first stage of processing at home and giving very poor mountain people a considerable boost in income. Says Tsewang Lama, HCDA's director: "While you in the West are interested in conserving natural resources, our daily lives depend on it." ATI notes that despite a large and lucrative worldwide trade in NTFPs, small-scale collectors receive very little from the sale of their valuable resources, value is lost to middlemen, providing incentives to over-harvest and deplete the very resources which sustain local populations and provide us all with valuable medicines and other goods.
The complexity of forests' roles and functions in the context of climate change presents at once a large space for advocacy from multiple angles and a limited role for ECSOs without access to the most current research findings and/or policy processes. As a result, only few, if any, ECSOs focus exclusively on climate-related forest issues. Northern ECSOs are more likely than southern ECSOs to address the topic, and research-oriented ECSOs are more actively involved than field activity-oriented organizations. Research ECSOs have invested considerable efforts in studying these relationships and their findings have been instrumental, for instance, to the development of the Global Convention on Climate Change. The World Wildlife Fund's Climate Change Campaign is working in over 25 countries to raise awareness of the threats of climate change to wildlife and natural ecosystems, to pressure governments into taking action to prevent climate change, and to build partnerships with business and industry to find solutions to the problem, for example through the promotion and widespread utilization of energy-efficient technologies in China, India, and eastern Europe. The impact of air pollution on forests, a key issue in the industrialized countries of Europe and North America, has not received commensurate attention. This is likely to change, given the rapid rates of industrialization in the Asia-Pacific region.
Since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988, scientists' knowledge about climate change has been comprehensively documented. While some elements are known, others are controversial because of the lack of data available to test predictions or compare alternative interpretations. What has been established is that the "greenhouse effect" is a reality and that the gases responsible for this effect are increasing in the atmosphere as a result of human activities. Carbon dioxide, the main contributor to greenhouse gases, originates primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels and the conversion of forest lands.
Table 3.4 - Carbon Dioxide Emissions (in metric tons)
|
Country |
Industrial Processes |
Land use change (000 mt) |
|
|
Total (000 mt) |
Per capita (mt) |
||
|
Bangladesh |
17,217 |
0.15 |
7,700 |
|
Bhutan |
132 |
0.07 |
4,500 |
|
Cambodia |
476 |
0.04 |
35,000 |
|
China |
2,667,982 |
2.27 |
150,000 |
|
India |
769,440 |
0.88 |
65,000 |
|
Indonesia |
184,585 |
0.95 |
410,000 |
|
Japan |
1,093,470 |
8.79 |
|
|
Korea D.P.R. |
253,750 |
11.21 |
700 |
|
Korea Rep. |
289,833 |
6.56 |
1,500 |
|
Lao P.D.R. |
271 |
0.07 |
37,000 |
|
Malaysia |
70,492 |
3.74 |
210,000 |
|
Mongolia |
9,281 |
4.03 |
480 |
|
Myanmar |
4,386 |
0.11 |
130,000 |
|
Nepal |
1,297 |
0.07 |
9,000 |
|
Pakistan |
71,902 |
0.59 |
14,000 |
|
Philippines |
49,698 |
0.77 |
110,000 |
|
Singapore |
49,790 |
17,99 |
|
|
Sri Lanka |
4,972 |
0.29 |
4,300 |
|
Thailand |
112,477 |
2.02 |
92,000 |
|
Vietnam |
21,522 |
0.29 |
40,000 |
|
Australia |
267,937 |
15.24 |
|
|
Fiji |
711 |
0.95 |
1,400 |
|
New Zealand |
26,179 |
7.58 |
|
|
Papua New Guinea |
2,257 |
0.55 |
35,000 |
|
Solomon Islands |
161 |
0.48 |
1,800 |
Source: WRI et al., 7996; FAO, 1995b
When land uses change, carbon is transferred between land and atmosphere in either direction. Deforestation causes a release of carbon to the atmosphere through burning and decay of trees and soil, while the regeneration of forests absorbs carbon from the atmosphere and stores it in trees and soil organic matter. Over the long-term, deforestation and reforestation have resulted in a increase in net flux of carbon as the area of the world's forests has been reduced (Houghton, 1995). Worldwide, annual emissions of carbon from the combustion of fossil fuels did not exceed the net flux from deforestation and other biotic changes until the beginning of this century. In 1990, the total net flux of carbon was 7 to 8 BMT (billion metric tons) per year: 6 BMT from fossil fuels and 1.5 to 2 BMT from biotic sources. Forest-derived carbon emissions from the tropical forests of Asia and the Pacific account for roughly 34% of the global total (UNEP, 1996). Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, India, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Papua New Guinea are the most fire-prone countries in the region.
|
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes: "Models project that as a consequence of possible changes in temperature and water availability under doubled equivalent CO2 equilibrium conditions, a substantial fraction (a global average of one-third, varying by region from one-seventh to two-thirds) of the existing forested area of the world will undergo major changes in broad vegetation types - with the greatest changes occurring in high latitudes and the least in the tropics. Climate change is expected to occur at a rapid rate relative to the speed at which forest species grow, reproduce, and re-establish themselves. Therefore, the species composition of forests is likely to change; entire forest types may disappear, while new assemblages of species and hence new ecosystems may be established. Large amounts of carbon could be released into the atmosphere during transitions from one forest type to another because the rate at which carbon can be lost during times of high forest mortality is greater than the rate at which it can be gained through growth to maturity." Source: IPCC Second Assessment Synthesis of Scientific-Technical Information Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1995) |
The capacity of forests to hold carbon varies with type of forests. For the forests of South and Southeast Asia, estimates of carbon in vegetation and in soils can be found for moist, seasonal, and dry forests. Direct measurement of biomass was used for the higher estimates of carbon in vegetation, and volumes of wood for the lower estimates (Houghton, 1995). Data shows that moist forests hold 3.8 - 4.2 times as much carbon in vegetation than dry forests and 2.4 times as much in soils (Palm et al., 1986). On a regional level, studies have shown that between 1880 and 1980, a 34% loss of forest area in South and Southeast Asia was accompanied by a 55% loss of biomass in the same period (Flint and Richards, 1994). The total net release of carbon between 1850 and 1990 was 29.5 BMT of which deforestation accounted for 67% and selective logging for 33% (Houghton and Hackler, 1994). These findings, together with what is known about tropical forests in the context of biological diversity, represent an additional reason for many ECSOs to focus on tropical forests rather than other types of forests.
The suggestion that reforestation, or a halt of deforestation, can make a contribution to the slowing of climate change through growing trees' capacity to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere has fuelled lively debates at least since the negotiations at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, which revealed the politically charged nature of the issue. Led by a number of very vocal representatives, developing countries refused to forego the utilization of their forest resources and pressed instead for diminished fossil fuel consumption in the industrial world.
Environmental CSOs are often caught in the middle of this debate. Many find it unacceptable that forests should give way to developing countries' economic development aspirations, yet agree that these countries have a sovereign right to utilize their resources and that in order to overcome poverty, which lies at the heart of forest loss and degradation, economic development must proceed. The moral dimension of the debate, more often an underlying current than an explicit issue, contributes to the dilemma of these ECSOs as they recognize that moral obligations, whether on the part of developing or developed nations, are insufficient to encourage policy changes. The rhetoric of the more radical ECSOs is usually long on the use of moral rhetoric, reflected in such terms as "eco-colonialism," but short on practical proposals for mitigative measures. Approaches by more moderate ECSOs to the issue of climate change evolve around more general calls for debt relief, increased development assistance, technology transfer and sustainable forest management.
The promotion of market instruments, such as tradable emission permits, has rarely been perceived by ECSOs as a feasible alternative, mainly because of suspicions that highly productive forests will continue to be degraded and local populations will not receive a fair share of project benefits (American Forests and COPEC, 1997). Other organizations, such as the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) through its project "International Business Action on Climate Change" and the E-7, a non-profit group comprised of eight of the largest electric utilities in the world, through its Working Group on Greenhouse Gases and Joint Implementation, have been more active in advancing carbon offset projects. To date, however, the Asia-Pacific region has been less receptive to such initiatives than other regions in the world. Examples in the forestry sector are limited to Indonesia, Malaysia, Fiji, the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea (American Forests and COPEC, 1997).
A watershed is "a topographically delineated area that is drained by a stream system (i.e., the total land area above some point on a stream or river that drains past that point). The watershed is a hydrologic unit that is often used for the planning and management of natural resources. A river basin is similarly defined but bigger, including all lands that drain through a river system and its tributaries into the ocean." (Working Group on Watershed management and Development (1988); Brooks et al. (1991).
Forests play important roles in watersheds and river basins through their influence on the quantity and quality of streamflow, soil erosion, and sedimentation. Although the intensity of rainfall determines the flow of rivers and streams to a large extent (FAO, 1993) and the role of forests in preventing flood damage is often exaggerated, streamflows from forested watersheds are known to be the most uniform, and the lowest erosion and sedimentation rates are usually associated with watersheds covered with natural forests (Brooks et al., 1991; Grainger, 1993).
|
Main Causes of Watershed Degradation Natural Causes: Geologic instability; high-intensity, long duration rainfall; steep river gradients; shallow soils on steep slopes; and fire. Human Causes: Deforestation (unwise and poorly designed logging; repeated shifting cultivation without adequate fallow periods; fuelwood cutting; conversion of forests to grazing lands or cultivated croplands; and forest fires set by local inhabitants); inappropriate farming practices; uncontrolled land-use changes and inappropriate cultivation practices; road construction on fragile lands; overgrazing by livestock; improper collection, transportation, treatment, and utilization of water Socio-economic and institutional problems: Land-tenure problems; inadequate policy and legislative support; scarcity of skilled workers; lack of unified planning and extension for integrated watershed management; and inadequate community participation. Source: Brooks et al., 1992; FAO, 1986. |
Watersheds have been proposed as "appropriate hydrological units for conceptualizing and implementing development investments" (Doolette and Magrath, 1990), but watershed management is often discarded because of the associated difficulties concerning the measurement of environmental benefits, equity, and long time horizons. Additional obstacles are presented by the fact that watersheds often do not follow political boundaries, thereby dividing potential upland and downstream beneficiaries and cost bearers among distinct administrative units. These obstacles, added to the often large geographic expanse of a watershed, represent particular difficulties to ECSOs, particularly those working on local levels.
The Asia-Pacific region, by virtue of its vast mountain areas, contains a large number of important watersheds and river basins. These include first and foremost the Himalayas, including Nepal, India, Pakistan, and China; the Mekong river basin, covering parts of Laos, Thailand, Burma, China, Cambodia, and Vietnam; the Indus and Ganghes rivers in Tibet, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh; the Brahmaputra in Southern China and Bangladesh; upland watersheds in the Philippines; etc. Steep mountainous surfaces make up 94% of Bhutan's territory, 66% of Nepal's, 50% of China's, 30% of Pakistan's, 25% of Sri Lanka's, and 21% of India's (UNEP, 1996). These upland areas contain a large and growing population of indigenous subsistence dwellers or subsistence farmers pushed into the uplands for lack of more suitable lands. Exact numbers of upland inhabitants are not known, but it is estimated that 65% of the rural population lives in uplands (Brooks, 1993).
Environmental organizations address a number of different aspects related to watersheds and river basins, including most prominently the negative consequences of dam construction on forests, forest-dependent populations, and wildlife. While conservation organizations are more concerned about maintaining the natural state of rivers and their ecosystems, development organizations emphasize the quantity and quality of water resources as they influence agricultural practices of the rural poor. Overall, however, little has been found on ECSO involvement in watershed management. This may be due to the difficulties imposed by large project areas, cross-border issues, and the distribution over long distances of costs and benefits of watershed management.
On the other hand, environmental ECSOs have traditionally held strong views regarding structural interventions for the generation of hydroenergy, either because of the accompanying disappearance of habitat or because of related, often forced, population dislocations. Watersheds or river basins in biological diversity rich areas are often favoured targets in protected area establishment Where watersheds have become degraded as a result of increased population pressures and overgrazing, as in the Himalayan foothills, northern ECSOs have shown relatively little interest; southern development/environment CSOs have shown stronger engagement, though they may not initially place their activities in a watershed context.
