[DRAFT: NOT TO BE QUOTED]

Global Situation Analysis of Forests and Tree-dominated Landscapes

IUCN Forest Conservation Programme

August 2003

1.0 Introduction

Forest ecosystems play multiple roles at global as well as local levels and provide a range of important economic, social and environmental goods and services that impact on the well being of poor rural communities, local and national economies and global environmental health. It is estimated that at the global level, forestry formally contributes some 2 per cent to world GDP or more than US$ 600 billion per annum (FAO, 1997, Lomborg, 2001). However, the actual contribution of forests to the world economy is considered to be much higher, though extremely difficult to quantify. A 1997 study in the journal Nature estimated the global value of the goods and services that forest ecosystems provide — from timber to climate regulation to water supply to recreation — at some US$4.7 trillion a year, or more than a quarter of that year’s world GDP of US$18 trillion (Constanza et al., 1997, World Bank, 2002). As the latest State of the World's Forests 2003 Report emphasises, forests can help in important ways to reduce food insecurity, alleviate poverty, improve the sustainability of agricultural production and enhance the environment in which many impoverished rural people live all over the developing world (FAO, 2003).

A number of global assessments of forests have been carried out over the past three decades (UNEP, 2002). 1 While differing in their definitions of forest cover, methodology and specific results, making detailed comparisons unreliable, these assessments nonetheless reinforce each other in their overall depiction of declining forest area and continued degradation of forest ecosystems (UNEP, 2002). This situation analysis puts together the main findings from some of the major global forest assessments and studies that have been done in recent years in order to provide an overview of the current status of forests in the world today. The document is structured in four sections including the introduction. Section 2 looks at the current physical status of forests and the broad trends in use, management and ownership of forest resources in different parts of the world. Section 3 discusses some of the main proximate and underlying drivers of forest related land use change. The final section analyses the key current issues and emerging themes that are, and will be, of relevance to the forestry sector in the coming years. Among other resources, this document draws substantially on the GEO 3 report (UNEP, 2002), FRA 2000 (FAO, 2001), World Resources 2000-01 (WRI, 2000) and the State of the World’s Forests 2001 and 2003 Reports (FAO, 2001a and 2003).

1 These include FAO and UNEP 1982, FAO 1995, FAO 1997, FAO 2001, UNEP 2001 and WRI 1997.

- 1 - 2.0 Current Status of the World’s Forests

Using a common definition of forests for the first time 2, FAO’s Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000 concluded that:

· The total area covered by forests worldwide is approximately 3869 million ha, almost one-third of the world’s land area, of which 95 per cent is natural forest and 5 per cent is planted forest; 17 per cent is in Africa, 14 per cent in Asia, 27 per cent in Europe, 14 per cent in North and Central America and 23 per cent in South America and 5 per cent in Oceania (see Table 1/Figure 1).

Table 1. Forest area distribution by region 2000 Region Land Total forest (natural forests and forest Natural Forest area plantations) forest plantation million million % of % of all Net change million million ha ha ha land forests 1990-2000 ha area million ha/year Africa 2 978 650 22 17 -5.3 642 8 Asia 3 085 548 18 14 -0.4 432 116 Europe 2 260 1 039 46 27 0.9 1 007 32 North and 2 137 549 26 14 -0.6 532 18 Central America Oceania 849 198 23 5 -0.4 194 3 South 1 755 885 51 23 -3.7 875 10 America WORLD 13 064 3 869 30 100 -9.4 3 682 187 TOTAL Source: FAO, 2001

Figure 1. Global Distribution of Forests Global Land Area Global Forest Area Africa 13064 million ha 3869 million ha South America 650 million ha (29.61%) 886 million ha 17% Natural Forest 23% 3682 million ha (95%) Asia Oceania 548 million ha 198 million ha 14% 5%

Planted Forest North and Central America 187 million ha 549 million ha Europe (5%) 14% 1039 million ha 27%

2 Where forests are defined as areas of at least 0.5 ha having a tree crown cover of more that 10 per cent. This definition includes both natural forests and forest plantations. It however excludes stands of trees established primarily for agricultural production (e.g. fruit tree plantations).

- 2 -

· Using a combination of new global maps and statistical data, FRA 2000 also estimated the distribution of forest area by ecological zones: 47 percent is in the tropics, 33 percent in the boreal zone, 11 percent in temperate areas and 9 percent in the subtropics (see Figure 2). Tropical and subtropical dry forests are concentrated in Africa (containing 36 percent of the world total), South America (30 percent) and Asia (21 percent). The majority of tropical rain forests are located in South America (58 percent), but a large proportion (24 percent) is also found in Africa; most of the rest is in Asia (17 percent). Nearly all temperate and boreal forests are located in Europe and North and Central America. Mountain forests are found mainly in Europe (40 percent) and North and Central America (34 percent).

Figure 2. Map of Forest Cover 2000

Forests covered some 3869 million hectares of the planet in Ecological Distribution of Forests the year 2000 –somewhat less than one -third of total land area Subtropical Forests Note: dark green represents closed Temperate 348.21 million forest, more than 40 per cent Forests ha covered with trees more than 5 425.59 million 9% metres high; mid-green represents ha open (10-40 per cent coverage) 11% Tropical and fragmented forest; light green Forests represents other woodland, 1818.43 shrubland and bushland. million ha Boreal 47% Forests 1276.77 million ha Source: FAO 2001 33%

- 3 - · Two-thirds of the world's forests are located in ten countries alone: the Russian Federation, Brazil, Canada, the United States, China, Australia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia, Angola and Peru (see Figure 3). Only 22 countries have more than 3 ha of forest per capita, and only about 5 percent of the world's population lives in these countries - mostly in Brazil and the Russian Federation. Three-quarters of the world's population, on the other hand, lives in countries with less than 0.5 ha per capita, including most of the densely populated countries in Asia and Europe. The proportion of total land area under forest varies significantly by region and country. About half the land area of South America and Europe is covered by forest, but only one-sixth of Asia's land is forested. Africa, North and Central America and Oceania fall in between, each with about one-fourth of its land covered by forest. Fifty countries and two "areas" (e.g. territories, protectorates) are reported to have less than 10 percent of their land covered by forest. Twenty countries and two areas have more than 60 percent of their land under forest (FAO, 2001a).

Figure 3. Countries with the largest percentage of the world’s forests Source: FAO (2001a)

· The FRA 2000 data indicate that the world's natural forests continued to be converted to other land uses at a very high rate during the 1990s although it slowed down in comparison to earlier decades. An estimated 16.1 million ha of natural forest worldwide was lost annually during the 1990s (14.6 million ha through deforestation and 1.5 million ha through conversion to forest plantations). Of the 15.2 million ha lost annually in the tropics, 14.2 million ha was converted to other land uses and 1.0 million ha was converted to forest plantations. In non-tropical areas, 0.9 million ha of natural forest was lost per year, of which 0.5 million ha was converted to forest plantations and 0.4 million ha to other land use classes. All geographical regions (see Table 1), with the

- 4 - exception of Europe witnessed a net loss of forests in this decade, with Africa and South America accounting for the maximum forest loss.

Natural Forest Total forest plantations forest Net Losses Gains Gains change

Conversion Deforesta from tion (to Conversion natural other to forest Total Natural Net forest Afford- Net Domain land use) plantations loss expansion change (reforestation) station change Tropical -14.2 -1 -15.2 1 -14.2 1 0.9 1.9 -12.3 Non- -0.4 -0.5 -0.9 2.6 1.7 0.5 0.7 1.2 2.9 tropical World -14.6 -1.5 -16.1 3.6 -12.5 1.5 1.6 3.1 -9.4 Table 2. Forest area change in tropical and non-tropical areas 1990-2000 (million hectares per year) Source: FAO (2001)

· Against the gross annual loss of 16.1 million ha of natural forests worldwide, there was a gain of 3.6 million ha as a result of the natural expansion of forest, giving a balance of - 12.5 million ha as the annual net change of natural forest area globally. Of this 3.6 million ha, 2.6 million ha was in non-tropical areas – primarily Europe and North America, while 1.0 million ha was in the tropics. Much of the gain in natural forest area was the result of natural forest succession on abandoned agricultural land. 3

· Gains in forest area also occurred through the expansion of forest plantations. The average rate of successful plantation establishment over the decade was 3.1 million ha per year, of which 1.9 million ha was in tropical areas and 1.2 million ha in non-tropical areas. As shown in Table 2, 1.6 million ha was the result of afforestation on land previously under non-forest land use, whereas 1.5 million ha resulted from the conversion of natural forests. Of the estimated 187 million hectares of plantations worldwide, South America Asia had by far the largest area, Oceania Africa 5% accounting for 62 percent of the world North and 2% 4% total (see Figure 4). FRA 2000 identified Central America the ten countries with the largest 10% plantation development programmes (as reported by percentage of the global plantation area) as China, 24 percent; Asia Europe 62% India, 18 percent; the Russian Federation, 17% 9 percent; the United States, 9 percent; Japan, 6 percent; Indonesia, 5 percent; Brazil, 3 percent; Thailand, 3 percent; Ukraine, 2 percent and the Islamic Figure 4. Distribution of forest plantations by region Source: FRA (2001)

3 Expansion of forest has been occurring for several decades in many industrialized countries, especially where agriculture is no longer an economically viable land use (FAO 2001, Victor and Ausubel, 2000).

- 5 - Republic of Iran, 1 percent. These countries account for 80 percent of the global forest plantation area. The extent of plantations in industrialized countries was less clear than in developing countries since many industrialized countries make no distinction between planted and natural forests in their inventories. In terms of composition, Pinus (20 percent) and Eucalyptus (10 percent) remain the dominant genera worldwide, although the diversity of species planted was found to be increasing (see Table 3).

Table 3. Annual plantation rates and plantation areas by region and species group

Source: FAO (2001)

Figure 5. Annual net change in forest area by region, 1990-2000 Source: FAO (2001)

· Combining the global deforestation rate of 14.6 million ha per year and the rate of forest area increase of 5.2 million ha per year (natural expansion plus afforestation), the net loss in forest area at the global level during the 1990s was thus an estimated 94 million ha – an area larger than Venezuela and equivalent to 2.4 percent of world’s total forests. However, as shown in Figure 5 above, the global figures obscure significant differences in forest cover change among regions and countries. Net deforestation rates were highest in West Africa and South America. The loss of natural forests in Asia was also high, particularly in South-East Asia, but was significantly offset (in terms of area) by forest

- 6 - plantation establishment. This resulted in a more moderate rate of change of total forest area in the region. In contrast, the forest cover in the other regions, which are largely made up of industrialized countries, increased slightly. The areas which registered the highest and lowest rates of net change in forest areas are shown in Figure 6. Table 4 shows the top ten net losers and gainers of forest cover in the 1990s.The countries with the highest net loss of forest area between 1990 and 2000 include Brazil, Indonesia, Sudan, Zambia, Mexico and the Democratic Republic of Congo (FAO, 2001a). Those with the highest net gain of forest area during this period were China, USA, Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation. Overall, the world today contains around 6000 square meters of forest for each person, but this is reducing by approximately 12 square meters every year (ibid).

Figure 6. Areas showing significant net change in forest area

Table 4. Top 10 Losers and Gainers of Forest Cover in 1990-2000 Source: FAO (2001) Country Total forest Total forest Forest cover change (1990-2000) 1990 2000 Annual change Annual rate of LOSERS ('000 ha) ('000 ha) ('000 ha) change (%) Brazil 566 998 543 905 -2309 -0.4 Indonesia 118 110 104 986 -1312 -1.2 Sudan 71 216 61 627 -959 -1.4 Zambia 39 755 31 246 -851 -2.4 Mexico 61 511 55 205 -631 -1.1 Dem. Rep. of the Congo 140 531 135 207 -532 -0.4 Myanmar 39 588 34 419 -517 -1.4 Nigeria 17 501 13 517 -398 -2.6 Zimbabwe 22 239 19 040 -320 -1.5 Argentina 37 499 34 648 -285 -0.8

- 7 - 1990 2000 Annual change Annual rate of GAINERS ('000 ha) ('000 ha) ('000 ha) change (%) Chin a 145 417 163 480 1806 1.2 United States 222 113 225 993 388 0.2 Belarus 6 840 9 402 256 3.2 Kazakhstan 9 758 12 148 239 2.2 Russian Federation 850 039 851 392 135 n.s. Spain 13 510 14 370 86 0.6 France 14 725 15 341 62 0.4 Portugal 3 096 3 666 57 1.7 Viet Nam 9 303 9 819 52 0.5 Uruguay 791 1 292 50 5 TOTAL WORLD 3 963 429 3 869 455 -9391 -0.2

· Along with the physical coverage or quantity of forests, it is equally important to consider the quality of forests. The main limitation of the emphasis on forest area coverage is that this is not necessarily a good qualitative indicator of the health of a forest ecosystem since much of the world’s forests are very fragmented and face high human pressure (FAO, 2001, UNEP, 2001). Although deforestation is widely recognized as a major conservation issue, the related issue of habitat fragmentation often receives insufficient attention. As human pressure increases in both temperate and tropical forests, areas that were once continuously forested have become more fragmented. In the Brazilian Amazon alone, the area of forest that is now fragmented (with forests less than 10 000 ha in area) or prone to edge effects (less than 1 km from clearings) is more than 150 percent greater than the area that has actually been deforested (FAO, 2003). Recent research indicates that small fragments have very different ecosystem characteristics from larger areas of forest, containing more light-loving species, more trees with wind- or water-dispersed seeds or fruits, and relatively few understorey species. The smaller fragments also have a greater density of tree falls, a more irregular canopy, more weedy species and unusually abundant vines, lianas and bamboos. Thus, they preserve only a highly biased subset of the original flora and fauna, which is adapted to these conditions (Laurance, 1999; Laurance et al., 2000). In a 1997 study, the World Resources Institute (WRI, 1997) coined the term “frontier forests” to describe forested areas that are relatively undisturbed by human activity and are large enough to maintain their biodiversity, including viable populations of wide-ranging species. According to this study, frontier forests constitute about 40 percent of total forest area, but are heavily concentrated in three large blocks — two areas of boreal forest (in Canada, Alaska, and Russia), and one relatively contiguous area of tropical forest spanning the northwestern Amazon Basin and Guyana Shield (in Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, and Colombia). Additional important outliers can still be found in Central Africa (Congo), and Papua New Guinea. However, nearly 40 percent of these remaining frontier forests are estimated to be under moderate or high threat of degradation or clearance (ibid).

· A recent study using globally comprehensive and consistent satellite data estimated that the extent of the world’s remaining natural closed forests (WRCF) – defined as those forests having a crown cover or canopy density of more than 40 per cent – was around 2870 million ha in 1995 i.e. about 21.4 per cent of the land area of the world (UNEP

- 8 - 2001). Such a level of canopy closure is considered vital if the forest is to be considered healthy and able to perform all its known environmental and ecological functions effectively. Such forests are also home to some of the world's rarest and most unique species including the elusive cloud leopard of Russia and the lion-tailed macaque of the Western Ghats in India. About 80.6% of the WRCF are concentrated in fifteen countries. Ranked in the highest to lowest order in Table 5, they are - Russia, Canada, Brazil, the United States, Democratic Republic of the Congo, China, Indonesia, Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, Venezuela, India, Australia and Papua New Guinea. Three countries - Russia, Canada and Brazil – contain about 49% of the WRCF. Fifty-four countries have over 30% of their land area under closed forests. The continental distribution of total area under the WRCF is estimated at 9.65% in Africa, 6.23% in Australia and Pacific, 37.93% in Europe and Asia, 24.32% in North and Central America and 21.87% in South America. However, Table 5. Distribution of the world’s remaining closed forests in the only about 9.4% of the top 15 countries Source: UNEP (2001) WRCF have been accorded some sort of a formal protection status (ibid).

· By virtue of their importance as habitats, forests – and especially tropical forests – figure prominently in efforts to conserve biological diversity. According to the UNEP Global Biodiversity Outlook, about 60 per cent, and possibly closer to 90 per cent, of all species are found in tropical forests (UNEP 2001a). However, IUCN -The World Conservation Union warns that 24 percent of mammal species and 12 percent of bird species face a “high risk of extinction in the near future” (IUCN, 2000). The 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species indicates that the number of critically endangered species has increased since the publication of the last list four years ago. Habitat degradation is the one of the biggest causes for this loss of biodiversity. Consequently, interest in the conservation of forests, particularly for biological diversity, has increased considerably

- 9 - during the past decade. FRA 2000 estimates that about 12.4 percent of the world’s forests or 479 million ha currently enjoy protected area status as per IUCN classifications. Results by ecological domain indicate that tropical and temperate forests have the highest proportion of forest in protected areas, whereas only 5 percent of boreal forests are located in protected areas. Table 6. Forests in protected areas Source: FAO 2001a The North and Central America region has the largest proportion of its forests under protected area status, followed by South America (see Table 6). Figure 7 shows the location of the major areas of forest under protection status. Zbicz (1999) has also found 136 clusters of adjoining protected areas, or transboundary protected area complexes, covering at least 10 percent of the total protected area in the world. Existing and proposed transboundary complexes together thus offer significant potential opportunities for undertaking transboundary biological diversity conservation (FAO 2001a).

Figure 7. Major Areas of Forest under protection status shown in red Source: FAO 2001a

· Forest ownership patterns vary considerably worldwide. A recent study conducted by Forest Trends (White and Martin, 2002) presents a newly aggregated set of official tenure data for 24 of the top 30 forested countries of the world (see Table 7).4 These 24

4 Reliable tenure distribution data for six of the top 30 countries—Angola, Venezuela, Zambia, Mozambique, Paraguay and the Congo Republic—are unavailable. For Tanzania, Indonesia, Peru and Colombia, data is incomplete.

- 10 - countries represent approximately 93 percent of the world’s remaining natural forest including 14 of the 17 megadiversity countries in the world and the top 7 of the 10 leading industrial roundwood-producing countries—the United States, China, Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, the Russian Federation and Sweden. 5

Table 7. Official forest ownership in 24 of the top 30 forest countries (Source: Forest Trends, 2002)

5 T he other three major roundwood producers are France, Malaysia and Germany.

- 11 - Extrapolated to the global forest estate of 3.9 billion hectares, these data suggest that approximately 77 percent of the world’s forest is — according to national laws — owned and administered by governments, at least 4 percent is reserved for communities, at least 7 percent is owned by local communities, and approximately 12 percent is owned by individuals (see Table 8). When aggregated for developing countries only — which excludes statistics for Canada, the United States, Russia, Australia, Sweden and Japan — the importance of community reserves and ownership increases. Community reserves represent at least 8 percent of all developing country forests, community ownership represents at least 14 percent and individual ownership represents only 7 percent. This suggests that in developing countries, community reserves and ownership total at least 22 percent of all forests — approximately three times the amount held by private individuals and firms (ibid).

Table 8. Estimated distribution of forest ownership for selected categories (Source: Forest Trends, 2002)

Interestingly, the percentage of government-owned forest is higher in developed countries as is the percentage of privately-held forest. All forest land in the CIS, 93 percent in Canada, and 60 to 70 percent in Australia and New Zealand is publicly owned (FAO 2001a). To date, community ownership and access is largely concentrated in developing countries. However, there are some important exceptions to these generalities within certain countries. First, in the United States, private individuals and firms own more than half (55 percent) of the forests. The U.S. is joined by two other commercially important northern forested countries, Sweden and Finland at 70 percent and 80 percent respectively, and Argentina, where some 80 percent of forests are also privately owned by individuals and firms. Other important exceptions are Mexico and Papua New Guinea, where indigenous and other local communities respectively own some 80 percent and 90 percent of forests respectively. Also, just over 2.5 percent of all forest and other wooded land – or 62 million ha – in industrialized countries belongs to indigenous and tribal peoples, as defined in the International Labour Organization's Indigenous and Tribal

- 12 - Peoples Convention. Most of this land is in Australia. There are, however, serious political discussions in a number of countries, including Canada and New Zealand, about giving or returning ownership of very large areas of land, much of which is forest, to indigenous peoples (FAO 2001a). In many of the Central and Eastern European countries with economies in transition, the ownership pattern is currently undergoing substantial change as forest land is restituted to its former owners or is privatized. This is a long and complex process, involving major legal and practical issues. African countries with available data have essentially no land areas officially reserved for communities and no privately held forest, community or individual. However, these data do not accurately represent all of Africa, as some countries are beginning to reform their land laws and recognize customary use of forest resources (White and Martin, 2002).

· Wood supply and production remains the focus of most forest inventories (UNEP, 2002). This reflects the economic importance of wood to many forest owners, public and private. FRA 2000 estimated the biomass and volume of wood (growing stock) in forests worldwide. Total wood volume (m3) and above-ground woody biomass (tonnes) in forests were estimated for 166 countries, representing 99 percent of the world's forest area. The world total of above-ground woody biomass in forests is about 420 billion tonnes, of which more than one-third si located in South America (see Figure 8) and about 27 percent in Brazil alone. Figure 6 shows the countries with the highest total forest woody biomass. The worldwide average above-ground woody biomass in forests is 109 tonnes per hectare. South America has the highest average biomass per hectare, at 128 tonnes per hectare. The countries with the highest standing volume per hectare include many Central American and Central European countries, the former having high-volume tropical rain forests and the latter having temperate forests.

Figure 8. Countries with highest above -ground woody biomass

· There has been substantial growth in demand for wood products in the last 25 years - both of industrial and fuelwood wood. Estimates by FAO (2000) show that global

- 13 - consumption of total roundwood reached 3335 million m3 in 1999 from around 2,400 million cum in 1970, a 40 percent rise. Fuelwood consumption, which accounted for over half of the total roundwood production, expanded more rapidly than industrial roundwood consumption, growing by 55 percent, to 1,853 million cum in 1997. Industrial roundwood consumption, on the other hand, grew by 21 percent to 1,537 million cum in 1997, although actually declining from a high of 1,730 million cum in 1990. While about 90 per cent of the fuelwood was produced and consumed in developing countries, industrial roundwood production was dominated by developed countries, which together accounted for 79 per cent of total global production. The overall trend for industrial roundwood production was relatively flat during the 1990s. This was a significant change from the rapid growth that occurred prior to 1990. A global trend towards greater reliance on plantations as a source of industrial wood was also noted, with industrial plantations (producing wood or fibre for supply to wood processing industries) accounting for 48 percent of the global forest plantation estate and non-industrial plantations (e.g. for provision of fuelwood or soil and water protection) for 26 percent. Sawnwood production in the last 15 years has remained static, with non-coniferous production rising while coniferous production has fallen, largely because of a fall since 1990. In the case of wood-based panels, growth in production has been substantial, both in developed and developing countries (FAO 2000).

· Global trade in primary forest products has been expanding over the past decades in both volume and value, and also as a proportion of global production. Exports of most products have expanded, and the value of primary forest products (i.e. logs, sawnwood, panels and pulp and paper) exported reached US$ 136,000 million in 1997, although that was a decline from the 1995 high of US$ 148,000 million (FAO, 2000). In addition to this, exports of secondary processed products such as mouldings, doors, furniture, etc., and those of non-timber forest products (NTFPs), such as rattan, rubber, Brazil nuts, oils and medicines, also make a substantial contribution. However, estimating this contribution is more difficult. Globally, export volumes of industrial roundwood have increased by 22 percent since 1970 to 120 million cum in 1997; sawnwood has almost doubled to 113 million cum, as has wood pulp (to 35 million metric tons); wood-based panels have increased fivefold to 50 million cum; and paper and paperboard has quadrupled to 87 million metric tons. Within this, as markets have changed, resource conditions altered, product forms changed, and domestic consumption levels altered, there have been changes in the importance of different countries as exporters (FAO 2000). It must be emphasized, however, that in many cases the global picture hides considerable regional and country variation. For example, Asian exports of some products have declined recently while at the same time those of South America have risen. Further, in some cases the regional variation actually reflects changes in only one or a few countries (e.g. Malaysia, Indonesia and Brazil) rather than all countries in a region.

· While trade in all forest product categories has been growing, the relative export importance of some of the products has been changing (see Table 9). There has been a move from logs and to a lesser extent sawnwood, towards plywood and secondary wood products, although there is still substantial trade in unprocessed logs and woodchips by

- 14 - some countries. While expanding in absolute terms, industrial roundwood's Table 9: Product share in global exports share of the value of global exports Category 1970 1997 dropped from 15 percent to 6 percent, Source: FAO (2000) (% by value) largely since the early 1980s. Wood Industrial roundwood 15 6 pulp's share has declined steadily to 13 percent, and sawnwood has also Sawnwood 21 19 declined slightly from 21 percent to the Wood-based panels 9 13 current 19 percent. By contrast, over this Wood pulp 20 12 period the share of wood-based panels Paper and paperboard 35 50 increased from 9 percent to 12 percent, Total 100 100 while the greatest change has been in paper and paperboard which moved from 35 percent to 48 percent. Additionally, exports of furniture components, mouldings, etc., have also increased substantially.

· A notable feature of world trade in forest products is the dominance of developed countries, both in exports and imports. With the exception of Japan and Russia, the major developed country traders, both exporters and importers, are in North America and Europe. Only plywood exports are dominated by developing countries, with Indonesia accounting for 41 percent, and Malaysia accounting for a further 20 percent. Another characteristic of forest product trade is the fact that although there are many countries involved, only a few of these account for the bulk of both exports and imports. This can be seen in Table 10 which shows the major global importers and exporters of forest products in 1997.

Table 10: 15 top global importers and exporters of forest products in 1997 Source: FAO (2000)

IMPORTERS (1000 US$) EXPORTERS (1000 US$) USA 24,134.45 Canada 25,647.81 Japan 16,684.40 USA 19,835.07 Germany 10,916.46 Finland 10,414.17 United Kingdom 9,992.62 Sweden 10,295.37 Italy 6,823.03 Germany 9,828.22 France 5,866.29 Indonesia 5,142.29 China Main 5,661.41 France 4,663.72 Korea, Republic of 3,739.72 Malaysia 3,951.83 Netherlands 4,657.66 Austria 3,834.62 Canada 3,976.01 Russian Federation 3,007.70 China Hong Kong 3,835.96 Netherlands 2,667.47 Korea Republic 3,739.72 Italy 2,650.94 Spain 3,719.66 Brazil 2,647.47 Taiwan Province of China 3,144,211 Bel-Lux 2,446.37 Switzerland 2,211.77 China, Hong Kong 2,267.27 World 144,980.52 World 138,280.84

Five countries accounted for 55 percent of world exports of forest products in 1997 and ten accounted for 70 percent. Canada and the United States alone accounted for one-third

- 15 - (33 percent). On the import side, five countries accounted for 47 percent and ten countries for 64 percent, with the United States and Japan being responsible for over one quarter (28 percent). In value terms, developed countries account for about 75 percent of total exports and imports, down somewhat from the 1970 le vel of 87 percent. Their dominance is greatest for pulp, paper and paperboard - all with over 75 percent (from 84 percent of the wood pulp exports and 76 percent of the imports, to 90 percent of the paper and paperboard exports and 75 percent of the imports).

· The developing countries are the main exporters of raw tropical timber, although there is some trade by developed countries which are either further-processing tropical wood or are acting as trans-shipment points. However, even though tropical products only represent a small share of the overall trade in forest products, they nonetheless make up a significant portion of developing country exports. For 1997, tropical industrial roundwood production is estimated to represent about 18 percent of world industrial roundwood production; it accounts for varying, but generally small, shares of the total exports of different products: 17 percent of the industrial roundwood exported; 8 percent of sawnwood; less than 10 percent of pulp and paper and paperboard products; and 36 percent of wood-based panels. It does however account for about 70 percent of plywood exports (FAO, 2000). The share of world production accounted for by tropical products has risen overall, but, while its share in trade has increased for wood-based panels it has declined for industrial roundwood and sawnwood. Further, in the case of non-industrial roundwood, which accounts for as much as 80 percent of developing country production, only about 6-8 percent of this roundwood production enters international trade, since little fuelwood and charcoal production is traded internationally.

· The concept of sustainable forest management (SFM) is becoming increasingly important in the forestry sector. As of 2000, 149 countries were involved in a total of nine ecoregional criteria and indicator processes for SFM (FAO 2001a). Information collected for FRA 2000 indicates that 89 percent of forests in industrialized countries today are being managed “according to a formal or informal management plan”. National statistics on forest management plans were not, however, available for many developing countries, including several of the larger countries in Africa and some key countries in Asia. Nevertheless, preliminary results from developing countries showed that of a total forest area of 2139 million ha, at least 123 million ha, or about 6 percent, was covered by a “formal, nationally approved forest management plan covering a period of at least five years”.

· Information on forest certification was also collected for FRA 2000. A number of international, regional and national forest certification schemes now exist, focusing primarily on forests managed for timber production purposes. Depending on how the term “area certified” is defined, the area of certified forests worldwide as of the end of 2000 has been estimated by FRA 2000 to be about 80 million ha, or about 2 percent of total forest area. While some important wood-producing countries in the tropics have forests certified under existing certification schemes or are in the process of developing new schemes, about 92 percent most certified forests are located in temperate, industrialized countries (see Figure 9). Latest data from ITTO shows that in January 2002

- 16 - the area of certified forests was estimated at 109 million ha, a little over half of the World Bank/WWF Alliance target of having 200 million ha of certified forests by 2005 (ITTO, 2002). The growth in forest certification over the last few years and the market share between different forest certification schemes is shown in Figures 10 and 11. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), which until recently registered all the world’s certified forests today has only about 23 per cent of the market share, falling well behind that of Pan-European Forest Certification (PEFC) which has about 38% of the certification market share. The break-up of FSC certified area by forest type is also shown in Figure 9. Distribution of certified forests Figure 12. There are currently more Source: ITTO (2002) than 10,000 certified wood product

Figure 10. The world’s certified forests in 1994-2002 Figure 11. Certified forests by schemes Source: ITTO (2002) Source: ITTO (2002)

- 17 - lines in the market, and more than 600 companies have joined the Global Forest and Trade Network, a buyers groups promoted by the Plantation World Wildlife Fund. Certification 14.20% of forest products, both from natural forests and plantations, will continue to grow in importance, though Plantation/ Natural problems of rival certification 47.40% schemes and harmonization will have to be resolved. Attention will be also needed to ensure that Natural certification and ecolabelling Forest initiatives are not used as disguised 38.40% barriers to restrict the access of developing countries to forest product markets. Figure 12. Percentage of total FSC-certified area by

forest type Source: FSC (2002)

3.0 Main Drivers of Forest Related Land Use Change

As seen in the previous section, the world's natural forests continue to be converted to other land uses at a significantly high rate although it has slowed down somewhat compared to earlier decades. The major problem forests face today, especially in the tropics, is that of deforestation and degradation of the forest ecosystem, including fragmentation and biodiversity loss. There are a number of drivers – both proximate and underlying – that are responsible for this.6 However, forest related land use change is a complex socio-economic, cultural and political event and it is incorrect to attribute it to a simple cause-effect relationship or assume that such a relationship will remain valid across all spatial or temporal dimensions (Contreras-Hermosilla, 2000).

A review carried out by Geist and Lambin (2001) on the proximate and underlying causes of deforestation in 152 sub-national case studies (see Figure 13), concludes that tropical deforestation is driven by identifiable regional patterns of causal factor synergies, of which the most prominent are economic factors, institutions, national policies and remote influences (at the underlying level), which drive agricultural expansion, wood extraction and infrastructure development (at the proximate level). Their findings also reveal that prior studies have given too much emphasis to population growth and shifting cultivation as causes of deforestation.

6 Proximate causes are human activities or immediate actions at the local level, such as agricultural expansion, that originate from intended land use and directly impact forest cover. Underlying driving forces are fundamental social processes, such as human population dynamics or government policies that underpin the proximate causes and either operate at the local level or have an indirect impact from the national or global level (Geist and Lambin, 2001).

- 18 - Forest related land use change is also the result of actions by a number of agents Contreras-Hermosilla (2000). Agents are individuals, groups of individuals or institutions that directly convert forested lands into other uses or that intervene in forests without necessarily causing deforestation but substantially reducing their productive capacity. Agents include cultivators, private and logging companies, mining and farming corporations, forest concessionaires and ranchers among others, and it is their action, influenced by underlying drivers that shape the immediate proximate causes of forest loss and degradation. However, these agents are seldom independent from one another, and it is necessary to understand the motives and incentives that shape their interactions if forest decline is to be effectively addressed.

Forest related land use change is also caused due to natural causes such as insect pest attacks, disease, fire, alien invasive species and extreme climatic events. However, even these are very often influenced and driven by underlying anthropogenic factors (UNEP 2002, FAO 2001).

Figure 13. Proximate and underlying causes of forest decline Source: Geist and Lambin (2001)

Proximate Causes of Forest Loss and Degradation

· Agricultural Expansion: Over the years, researchers have identified agricultural expansion as a common direct factor in almost all studies on deforestation. Agricultural expansion (including permanent cropping, cattle ranching, shifting cultivation, and colonization agriculture) was identified as the leading land use change associated with 96 per cent of the deforestation cases that were reviewed by Geist and Lambin (2001).

- 19 - Almost 70 per cent of the total area that was deforested in the 1990s was converted to agricultural land, however, predominantly under permanent rather than shifting systems (UNEP, 2002). There are also important regional differences to note. In Latin America most such conversion has been large scale and permanent. In Africa small-scale agricultural enterprises have predominated. In Asia, the changes have been more equally distributed between permanent agriculture (both large - and small-scale) and areas under shifting cultivation. However, as Barraclough and Ghimere (2000) caution, while agricultural expansion appears to be a significant factor in explaining deforestation in some countries, it need not always be the case. For example, in Brazil, Malaysia and China, the main causes of deforestation have been a combination of state-driven infrastructure development, industrial policies, growing manufacturing sectors and rapidly expanding urban populations, than agricultural expansion per se. To shed light on whether there is a clear relationship in the dynamics between forested and agricultural areas, FAO analyzed qualitative temporal change trends on the basis of global statistics (FAO, 2003). Preliminary findings (see Figure 14) indicate that agricultural land is expanding in about 70 percent of countries, declining in 25 percent and roughly static in 5 percent. In two-thirds of the countries where agricultural land is expanding, forest area is decreasing, but in the other one-third forests are expanding. In 60 percent of the countries where agricultural land is decreasing, forests are expanding. In most of the rest (36 percent), forests are decreasing. Historically, much of the increase in food production has been at the expense of hundreds of millions of hectares of forest. Although there are no solid estimates of how much farm and grazing land was originally under forest, the point remains that a large portion was cleared for agriculture. Additional forest land is expected to be cleared in the future as well and it is important to acknowledge this reality and plan for it in advance (FAO 2003, Poore 2003). However, it is equally important to recognize that many technological innovations to intensify agricultural Figure 14. Expansion and contraction of agriculture production since the green revolution and forests: percentage of global area Source: FAO (2003) have had a positive impact on forest area. Indeed, as the argument goes, the more agriculture is intensified on a sustainable basis, the less pressure there will be to deforest in order to provide new areas for agriculture. As Victor and Ausubel (2000) observe, a number of developed countries ranging from USA to France to New Zealand, are actually witnessing a transition from deforestation to reforestation today, thanks to technological innovation and efficiency

- 20 - that has driven both high yield agriculture and forestry in those countries. If appropriate mechanisms are put in place to lock these gains, this may well set a trend for large scale forest restoration to take place in the future, as technology reaches developing countries as well.

· Infrastructure Development: Infrastructure development (road construction, dams, mining, power stations, etc.) is another important proximate cause of forest- related land use change. Among all forms of infrastructure expansion, road construction is by far the most frequently reported cause of deforestation (Geist and Lambin 2001). Roads open up areas of undisturbed, Figure 15. Forest Fragmentation by Roads in Central Africa mature forests to pioneer Source: WRI (2000) settlements, logging, and clearance for sometimes unsuitable forms of agriculture. The ensuing fragmentation also increases the exposure of forests to the dangers of poaching, alien invasive species, fires and pest outbreaks (WRI 2000). This is evident, for example, from the increased fragmentation and bush meat trade that is taking place in Central Africa, where forest areas are being opened up to logging (see Figure 15). In the Brazilian state of Parà, deforestation due to road construction increased from 0.6 percent to 17.3 percent of the state’s area between 1972 and 1985 (Contreras-Hermosilla 2000 cited in UNEP, 2002). In a later study of the Brazilian Amazonia, done by INPE, it was found that of 90,000 km2 of forest lost between 1991 and 1996, 86 percent was within 25 km of an area of previous pioneer deforestation along major roads (Alves, 1999). More recent studies (Cattaneo

Figure 16. Deforestation in Rodonia, Brazil caused by road construction followed by colonization, logging, cattle ranching and crop farming Source: Landsat data 1975, 1986, 1999 (UNEP ,2002)

- 21 - 2002, Carvalho et al. 2001, Laurance et al. 2001a) suggest that deforestation rates in the Brazilian Amazon could increase sharply in the future (by 15 percent in the short run and by 40 percent in the long run) as a result of over US$40 billion in investments in highway paving and major new infrastructure projects being planned in the region under the Avança Brasil (Forward Brazil) programme (see Figure 16). However, these figures have been contested by the Brazilian government.

Infrastructure development activities like dam building and mining also have an impact on forests. The World Commission on Dams has noted that that large dams have often led to the loss of forests and wildlife habitat, the loss of species populations and the degradation of upstream catchment areas due to inundation of the reservoir area (WCD, 2000). In Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, mining corporations and individual miners have cleared large areas of forest, and mining has negatively impacted forest cover in a number of Asian countries as well (UNEP, 2002). However, a recent study released by CIFOR titled Oil Wealth and the Fate of the Forest: A Comparison of Eight Tropical Countries argues that in some cases incomes from oil and mining activities may actually reduce the loss of tree cover in tropical countries (Wunder, 2003).

· Wood Extraction: Despite the growing importance of plantations as a source of wood supply, wood extraction in the form of commercial timber, poles, fuelwood and charcoal – both legal and illegal – continues to degrade mature natural forests in much of the developing world (WRI, 2000a). In the case of commercial logging, logging methods are often destructive and unsustainable, and especially damaging on steep slopes and in sensitive ecosystems such as mangroves (UNEP, 2002). Though many tropical countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America rely on logging timber for export earnings, illegal logging costs forest country governments at least US$10 billion to $15 billion a year – an amount greater than total World Bank lending to client countries and greater than total annual development assistance in public education and health (White and Martin, 2002). The regions particularly vulnerable to this threat are the Amazon Basin, Central Africa, Southeast Asia and the Russian Federation (see Table 11). For example, illegal logging costs Indonesia approximately US$600 million annually (Baird, 2001). Direct annual fiscal/financial losses to the governments of Honduras and Nicaragua due to clandestine logging have been estimated at $11-18 million and $4-8 million respectively (Richards 2003). It is also important to remember that illegal logging is not confined to developing countries. The Russian Federation is a major timber producer and exporter, and estimates of the extent of illegal logging range from 20–30% for the country as a whole to 40–50% in particular areas of Siberia (RIIA, 2002). Increased poverty and loss of traditional communist era Table 11. Industrial roundwood production and illegal logging in select livelihoods have also producer countries Source: Scotland and Ludwig (2002) put protected areas Country Ind. Roundwood production Estimated illegal and for ests in the in 2000 (m cum) harvest as % of total Central and Eastern production Russian Federation 105.8 20% European countries, and in the Former Brazil 103 80% Soviet Union, under Indonesia 31.4 73% severe pressure from D.R. Congo 3.7 n.a

- 22 - illegal tree felling, and in some places have pushed rare species to the brink of extinction (UNEP, 2002).

Fuelwood and Charcoal consumption are also important proximate drivers of forest land use change in developing countries, though the lack of uniform terminology, definitions, units and conversion factors makes it difficult to aggregate and compare the data that exists on this (FAO, 2003b). Estimates arising from new analytical models developed by FAO indicate that the global annual consumption of fuelwood has peaked in the mid 1990s at about 1600 million cubic metres and may now be slowly declining. However, in contrast the global consumption of charcoal is still growing rapidly and wood utilized for charcoal has more than doubled in the last three decades to about 270 million cubic metres per annum in 2000 (Arnold et al, 2003). On the aggregate, total woodfuel consumption (fuelwood plus wood for charcoal) is still rising but at a declining rate and substantially less rapidly that the equivalent growth in population. Also it is important to remember that at a global scale, forests supply only about one third of woodfuels; the balance being obtained from other sources such as farm-based tree lands, roadsides, community woodlots, and wood industry residues (WRI 2000a). It is also important to note that there are significant regional and sub-regional differences in the consumption of both fuelwood and charcoal. Thus woodfuel extraction (see Table 12 for regional trends) continues to be a significant cause behind the clearance of forests and wooded areas in some regions in Africa and South Asia where woodfuels contribute to up to 80 per cent of the primary energy supply (WRI, 2000a).7

Table 12. FAO projections of woodfuel consumption in main developing regions to 2030 Source: Broadhead et al. (2001) cited in Arnold et al. (2003)

· Forest Fires: Fires are a natural phenomenon and in some ecosystems such as tropical dry forests, savannahs and temperate and boreal forests it is a crucial ecological process. However, over 90 percent of all wildland fires in forests and savannas worldwide today are due to human action and cause significant forest loss (WRI, 2000a). On average fires burn between 6 and 14 million hectares of forest per year worldwide – equal to the

7 As opposed 15 per cent on average in other developing countries (WRI 2000a).

- 23 - amount of forests cleared by logging and agricultural land conversion combined (GFP, 2003). For ecosystems not adapted to fire, the result can be catastrophic, leading to enormous economic losses, damage to environmental, recreational and amenity values, and even loss of life (FAO, 2001b). In 1997-98, loss from forest fires was estimated at US$9 billion world-wide, equivalent to 20% of current total global spending on overseas development aid (GFP, 2003). Expenditure for fire fighting is also rising with the incidence of fires, with fire fighting costs in 1997-98 estimated at over US$2 billion (ibid). WRI 2000a also cites new satellite data and studies that demonstrate that fires are increasingly affecting moist tropical forests that have not burned in the past. For instance, major fires occurring in the El Niño years 1982/1983, 1987, 1991, 1994, and 1997/1998 devastated large areas of forest and caused significant economic losses, both in Indonesia where most fires occurred and in neighbouring countries. The area burned in Indonesia in the 1997/98 fires is estimated at 11.7 million hectares of both forested and non-forested land, with some 75 million people affected by smoke, haze, and the fires themselves. Impacts included damage to health, loss of life, property and reduced livelihood options. The economic costs to Indonesia have been estimated to exceed US$3 billion (FAO 2001b). Serious forest fires have also occurred in recent years in Australia, China, Brazil, Mongolia and West Africa, and also in Europe and the wider Mediterranean region, where it is estimated that on an average 500,000 ha of forests have burned down each year predominantly as a result of human action (UNEP, 2002). The boreal forests of North America and the Russian Federation represent the greatest expanse of relatively undisturbed forest remaining outside the tropics. Fires in the boreal region are believed to damage more forest land than logging or other activity therein. Figure 17 compares the annual area burned in the Russian Federation and North American boreal forest regions. On average, according to these statistics, 2.4 million ha per year burned in North America and a little over 900,000 ha per year burned in the Russian Federation. However, discussions with Russian scientists and foresters reveal that the figures for the Russian Federation are much higher.

Figure 17 Annual Area burned in the Boreal Forest Region Source: WRI (2001)

- 24 - · Alien Invasive Species8: As the global movement of people and products expands, so does the movement of plant and animal species from one part of the world to another. When a species is introduced into a new habitat – for example, oil palm from Africa into Indonesia, Eucalyptus species from Australia into California, and rubber from Brazil into Malaysia – the alien species typically requires human intervention to survive and reproduce. Indeed, many of the most popular species of tree used for agroforestry are alien or non-native and prosper in their new environments partly because they no longer face the same competitors, predators and pests as in their native environment. Such alien species are economically very important and enhance the production of various forest commodities in many parts of the world. In some cases, however, species introduced intentionally become established in the wild and spread at the expense of native species, affecting entire ecosystems. Notorious examples of such invasion by alien woody species include the introduction of kudzu (Pueraria lobata) from Japan and China into the United States, where it now infests over 2 million hectares; the ecological takeover of the Polynesian island of Tahiti by Miconia calvescens; the spread of various species of Northern Hemisphere pine and Australian acacia in southern Africa; and the invasion of Florida's Everglades National Park by Melaleuca species from South America. Of the 2 000 or so species that are used in agroforestry, perhaps as many as 10 percent are invasive. Although only about 1 per cent are highly invasive, they include popular species such as Casuarina glauca, Leucaena leucocephala and Pinus radiata (Richardson, 1999). Perhaps even worse are invasive alien species that are introduced unintentionally, such as disease organisms that can devastate an entire tree species (e.g. Dutch elm disease and chestnut blight in North America) or pests that can have a major effect on native forests or plantations (e.g. gypsy moths and long-horned beetles). The economic impact of such species amounts to several hundred billion dollars per year (Perrings, Williamson and Dalmazzone, 2000), much of it in forested ecosystems, even within well-protected national parks. However, as global trade grows, so does the threat from devastating invasive species of insect and pathogen. These could fundamentally alter natural forests and wipe out tree plantations, the latter being especially vulnerable because of their lower species diversity. Efforts related to both conservation of biological diversity and sustainable forest management need to recognize clearly and address the issue of invasive alien species.

· Climate Change: Scant attention has been paid to the changes that are likely to occur to the world’s forest biodiversity over the next few decades due to climate change, and forest managers will need to pay more attention to incorporating climate change into their decisions. Climate change has differential impacts on different forest types and tree species. For example, while enhanced photosynthesis and/or tree growth has been observed in some regions of the world, permafrost thawing in central Alaska threatens natural lowland birch forest (FAO 2003). Higher temperatures and changes in rainfall also threaten tropical montane forests (see Figure 18 for a scenario outlined by different climate models), boreal forests and Mediterranean-type, fire-prone forests. Further, the effects of greenhouse gases can impact the phenology of forest trees, affecting such processes as budding, flowering, fruiting, leaf senescence, frost hardiness, wood quality, branching and insect susceptibility, in a highly species-specific manner (Jach, Ceulemans

8 This section is extracted from FAO (2003).

- 25 - and Murray, 2001). While pest and disease infestations are part of the natural forest cycle, the risk of serious outbreaks increase with more changes in climate change. Several North American conifer pests have now been introduced into Europe, where they have no natural enemies. In the Russian Federation, insects Figure 18. Current and Projected Ranges of Beech were responsible for 46 percent Forests in North America Source: US EPA (1998) of the forest loss that occurred in the mid-1990s, and in Canada over 6.3 million hectares of boreal forests were affected by insect defoliation (UNEP, 2002). Although many other forests have proved relatively resilient to past climate changes, today’s fragmented and degraded forests are more vulnerable, with up to 30% of forests likely to be affected by 2050 by climate change (IPCC, 2001). Also extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods, pose other risks to forest ecosystems. The storms that struck Europe and India in 1999, for example, caused significant forest and tree loss. Apart from these, air pollution is also an important contributing factor to forest degradation in Europe and North America.

Underlying Drivers of Forest Loss and Degradation

As discussed above, agricultural expansion, infrastructure development, wood extraction, fires, alien invasive species and climate change constitute most of the important immediate causes of forest related land use change. However, these causes are usually linked to broader underlying processes as well. Also known as root causes, these underlying drivers are the national and international processes that trigger a chain of events that eventually put into motion or accelerate deforestation. While such root causes are similar the world over, the direction and magnitude of the deforestation processes they drive are however usually country- and site-specific (Gutman, 2001). Also as the analysis of Geist and Lambin (2001) showed, in most cases three or four underlying causes act together to drive two to three proximate causes. Further, in over one-third of the cases of tropical deforestation, forest decline is being driven by the full interplay of economic, institutional, technological, cultural and demographic variables.

The main underlying drivers of forest related land use change include the following:

· Economic Factors and Market Failure: As mentioned earlier, deforestation and forest degradation are ultimately the result of decisions made by various agents such as farming communities, shifting cultivators, private entrepreneurs, corporations, etc. An underlying cause of deforestation is often a discrepancy between the values of these private agents and those of society. Many of the services provided by forests, for example, the watershed protection function of upstream forests, have no market price currently and do not enter into the decisions of these private agents thus resulting in a market failure. Economic variables such as higher agricultural prices, commercialization of timber

- 26 - markets, more rural credit, lower rural wages, increased opportunities for land titling, demand from remote urban-industrial centres and a requirement to generate foreign exchange earnings at a national level to meet international debt commitments, all contribute to greater deforestation in different parts of the world. The economic crises in Bolivia and Cameroon, and more generally in Latin America and Africa, in the 1980s, and the structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) that followed, for example, caused widespread deforestation due to expansion of land for both agricultural and cash crops and logging for export (Gutman, 2001). In Java, Indonesia, the financial crisis of the late 1990s and the subsequent restructuring fostered significant forest clearance by small farmers, who reacted to the crisis by increasing their holdings of rubber and other tree crops, to ensure future income security (Sunderlin 2001 cited in Gutman 2001). A global workshop on addressing the underlying causes of deforestation in 1999 has also recognized international trade and over consumption in developed countries as one of the underlying factors that drive forest related land use change in developing countries (IISD, 1999).

· Institutional Factors and Government Policies: Misguided policy interventions and perverse incentives are also an important underlying cause of forest decline. These policies do not necessarily have to originate in the forest sector alone. Very often extra- sectoral policies that determine, for example, exchange rates, urban employment, trade, infrastructure, etc., can have an equal, or in fact a higher impact on the well being of forests (Sunderlin et al, 2001). Further, these extra-sectoral policies themselves might be driven by other underlying motives. For example, road construction has been shown to be one of the most important causes of forest loss in the frontier areas of Latin America and Africa. Yet the road system of a country is largely determined by government transportation policies. Though the natural conclusion from this is that road policies are the underlying causes of deforestation, the real underlying cause is the pre-existing desire to deforest on the part of some politically powerful group that is able to influence government policy in order to access good commercial opportunities, and not the policy itself (Contreras-Hermosilla 2000). In some cases, government action or policies may also be driven by its genuine interest to develop infrastructure or encourage colonization in frontier areas to generate greater national employment or economic growth. However, the problem is very often that akin to market failure again; since this judgment is often made on an underestimation of the real value of forests. Government subsidies to the agriculture and forestry sectors are also a major underlying cause of deforestation. OECD estimates that around US$35 billion goes in subsidies to the forest industry each year globally (Pearce, 2002). Especially damaging are those subsidies that are granted to timber concessionaires, which encourage unsustainable wood extraction in countries like Guyana, Indonesia and Ghana, where various logging companies aggressively seek concessions from local governments at very low rates. Insecure land tenure coupled with corruption and misgovernance also causes widespread illegal logging in many parts of the world, especially in Africa and South-East Asia. Another important point to note is that many of these subsidies given to logging companies in biodiversity rich developing countries, in fact originate in developed country governments, and it is that which acts as the underlying cause. Similar is the case with agricultural subsidies provided to farmers

- 27 - in developed countries, which have also been shown to drive deforestation in poorer tropical counties (WRI, 2000a).

· Demographic Factors: One of the most frequently cited underlying causes of forest decline is population pressure. However, this link remains uncertain and the available evidence shows that there is no fundamental relationship between population growth and density that will necessarily always cause forest decline (Contreras-Hermosilla 2000). Even though in parts of Africa and South Asia, where the main agents of deforestation are peasants and fuelwood collectors, population growth and density can cause increased pressure on forests, population growth and density is generally not a cause by itself and has to be seen in the context of government policies driving road construction, colonization, agricultural subsidies, tax incentives etc., that cause the migration of people into forest areas, which might not have occurred otherwise (Culas and Dutta, 2002).

· Poverty: Like population, poverty is also often cited as a major immediate, intermediate and root cause of world deforestation. However, as Kaimowitz and Angelsen (1998) point out, poverty is rarely integrated into economic models in general, and deforestation models in particular, and existing models provide weak and conflicting evidence on this relationship. Thus rural poverty should not be seen, per se, as a factor driving world deforestation, especially when recent research in Africa and elsewhere shows that market and policy changes are far more important drivers of deforestation. Similarly the current level of empirical evidence on the relationship between economic growth and increase in per capita income on one hand, and forest decline on the other, is also weak and fragmented. Though there is some evidence that an Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) does exist in the forestry sectors of some developing countries (Contreras-Hermosilla, A., 2000), the general opinion is that this relationship does not hold for tropical forest biodiversity loss (Neumayer, E., 1999).9 Finally, as Contreras-Hermosilla (2000) argues, it must be considered that deforestation and forest degradation is not always undesirable, and there can be situations where environmental losses may be more than compensated by economic gains and improved well being of the poor.

4.0 Key Emerging Themes in the Forestry Sector

In recent years, the forestry sector has undergone fundamental changes, largely as a result of restructuring, shifts in ownership patterns and wider recognition of the multiple benefits that forests provide. Emphasis is also being increasingly placed on addressing the underlying causes of forest loss and degradation rather than just tackling its external manifestations. Some of the key emerging issues and themes that are, and are expected to continue to be, of relevance to the forestry sector in coming years include the following. These will therefore need to be considered while developing a global forest conservation strategy.

9 According to an Environmental Kuznets Curve (an inverted U-shaped curve), deforestation increases with growth in per capita income up to a point, and then decreases.

- 28 - · Forest Landscape Restoration: Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) is rapidly emerging as pragmatic and forward looking approach to deal with forest loss and degradation worldwide. Recognising that tree cover no longer dominates many tropical forest landscapes, and that local land use patterns have led to a dramatic and detrimental reduction in the availability of forest goods and services both locally and beyond, FLR focuses on restoring forest functionality: that is the goods, services and ecological processes that forests can provide at the broader landscape level, than solely promoting increased tree cover at a particular location (Maginnis and Jackson, 2003). FLR therefore acknowledges the reality that a typical forest landscape today is more likely to be a mix of primary forest, managed forest, secondary forest, plantations and degraded forest lands interspersed with extensive areas of other non-forest land uses. It recognises that the livelihood and land-use strategies of the communities living in these landscapes will be determined by trade-offs, rather than any unrealistic aspiration on their part to return forest landscapes to their original pristine state. FLR is hence an approach that seeks to put in place forest-based assets that are good for both people and the environment. It incorporates a number of existing rural development, conservation and natural resource management principles and approaches and brings them together to restore multiple forest functions to degraded landscapes. However, there is no blueprint for FLR, and restoring forest functionality to a landscape has to be built on a collaborative process of learning and adaptive management.

· Trees outside Forests: Trees outside forests (TOF) are also gaining in importance. Studies conducted in South and South East Asia and Africa show that the majority of forest products originate from TOF (Janz and Persson, 2002). Increasingly, trees are being planted to support agricultural production systems, community livelihoods, poverty reduction and provision of rural poor with access to a secure food supply. For instance, between 1986 and 2000, Mali's agrosilvicultural and silvipastoral activities consisted of the planting of 4 000 km of shelterbelts, 14 000 ha of woodlots and 5 000 ha around water points and in pastures. Mali is also noted for its parkland agroforestry based on natural trees, a formation that covers 39 percent of the country. Namibia has similar parkland systems (FAO, 2003). Communities and smallholder investors (including individual farmers) are today growing trees as shelterbelts, home gardens, woodlots as well as under a diverse array of agroforestry and farm forestry systems that provide a valuable supply of wood, non-wood forest products, fuelwood, fodder and shelter. Acknowledging the important role that TOF play in sustaining the livelihoods of rural populations, especially of women, FRA 2000 was the first of FAO’s global assessments that attempted to take them into consideration10. Despite the fact that most of the information on TOF is currently site specific and scattered among different institutions and sectors, and it is impossible to draw conclusions regarding its exact status (FAO, 2001), it is expected that this will become an important forestry focus in the years ahead, integrating with the broader Forest Landscape Restoration approach.

· Forests and Poverty Reduction: An issue that has attracted renewed attention in recent years is the potential of forests to reduce poverty, particularly in developing countries, and to contribute towards the Millennium Development Goal of halving extreme poverty

10 TOF are defined as trees on land not classified as forest or other wooded land (FAO, 2001)

- 29 - in the world by 2015. This has repeatedly emerged at key international workshops and meetings, including those held recently in Tuscany, Edinburgh, Tuusula and Bonn. 11 The reason for this increased emphasis is due to the fact that although not all forested areas are poor and not all poverty is found in forested areas, there is nonetheless a significant overlap between the forest and poverty maps of the world (FAO, 2003). According to the World Bank, forest resources directly contribute to the livelihoods of 90 percent of the 1.2 billion people living in extreme poverty and indirectly support the natural environment that nourishes agriculture and the food supplies of nearly half the population of the developing world (World Bank, 2002). As Sunderlin et al (2003) point out, forests have an important role to play in alleviating poverty worldwide in two senses: firstly, by serving as a vital ‘safety net’ to help rural people avoid poverty, and those who are poor, to mitigate poverty; and secondly, through its untapped potential, to actually lift some rural people out of poverty. Forest products are important sources of cash income and employment for the rural poor, and very often the poorest households, women and children depend almost entirely on forests to meet their daily subsistence needs (Oksanen et al, 2002). A study by Cavendish (1997) on drylands in Zimbabwe, for example, showed that forests contributed around 35 per cent on an average to household income.12 Forests also underpin the well being of the agricultural sector, which is critical for attaining rural prosperity, by providing on-site environmental goods and services such as the maintenance of water supply, protection against soil erosion and the provision of soil nutrients and animal fodder. However, the magnitude or significance of the contribution of forests in fostering sustainable livelihoods, poverty reduction and national economic development is usually unknown to macroeconomists and higher-level policy makers. This is primarily due to poor forest statistics and valuation, but also due to a lack of effective advocacy (ibid). There is hence an urgent need to recognize the real contribution, and potential, of the forestry sector with regards to poverty reduction and to integrate it into mainstream national poverty reduction processes by developing pro-poor conservation strategies. However, it should also be appreciated that forests are not the only way to reduce poverty. In fact, as Wunder (2001) argues, a general conclusion is that, in many settings, natural forests tend to have little comparative advantage for the large-scale alleviation of poverty, especially when compared to agriculture. Hence it will be necessary to be flexible and realistic while making trade-offs, such that the most optimal results can be realized.

· Non-Timber Forest Products: Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) constitute a critical component of food security and an important source of income for the poor in many developing countries. They cover a wide range of forest products, which are utilised in very different contexts and play different roles in household livelihood strategies (Angelsen and Wunder, 2003). The sustainable management and correct valuation of NTFPs is thus a topic that is of increasing importance to the forestry sector as more attention begins to be paid on the potential of forests to reduce or mitigate poverty. As

11 FAO forum on the Role of Forestry in Poverty Alleviation, Tuscany, Italy, 4-7 September 2001; ECTF/IIED Forestry and Poverty Reduction Workshop, Edinburgh, UK, 13 June 2002; Workshop on Forests in Poverty Reduction Strategies: Capturing the Potential, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, Tuusala, Finland, October 2002; CIFOR conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity, Bonn, Germany, May 2003. 12 This figure is however contested by others, who argue that the actual income contribution of forests is only about 20 per cent (Campbell, 2002 cited in Angelsen and Wunder, 2003)

- 30 - Neumann and Hirsch (2000) point out, there is overwhelming evidence that poorest segments of societies around the world are populations principally engaged in NTFP extraction, and by fostering greater value-addition and easier access to markets, NTFPs can make a significant contribution to both poverty reduction as well as to poverty prevention. However, at a more general level, it has been argued that NTFPs are economically inferior goods and that NTFP-based projects, if not carefully thought out or well-targeted, can unintentionally create poverty traps since the very characteristics that make them important and attractive to the poor also limit their potential to increase income and bring about socio-economic advancement (Neumann and Hirsch, 2000; Campbell, 2002; Angelsen and Wunder, 2003). Further, there is also a danger that when certain NTFPs become more valuable, they will suddenly become attractive to the more powerful external stakeholders, who previously ignored it (Angelsen and Wunder, 2003). All these challenges will therefore have to be recognised and carefully considered while developing a future strategy for the sustainable and equitable use of NTFPs.

· Forest Valuation and Markets for Environmental Services: There is today an increased recognition of the importance of correctly valuing the goods and services provided by forests. The valuation of forest environmental services – carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, watershed protection and ecotourism – is especially important. Protecting upper-catchment forests and restoring forests assets on a landscape level can reduce the risks from climate-related floods and droughts, thereby protecting people’s welfare and helping to minimize the loss of life and damage to properties and other assets. Investing in improved forest management and restoration is likely to be highly cost-effective relative to structural alternatives such as dams and dykes. Many believe that market-based approaches can provide powerful incentives to tap these hitherto untapped values in a constructive manner, not only to conserve forests and the public goods that they provide, but also to generate new sources of income to support rural livelihoods (Pagiola et al. 2002). A recent review carried out by Landell- Mills and Porras (2002) found almost 300 examples of such market-based mechanisms worldwide.

o Forests and Carbon Sequestration: Climate change has emerged as one of the most important concerns of the 21st century. Sea level rise, warming temperatures, uncertain effects on forest and agricultural systems, and increased variability and volatility in weather patterns are expected to have a significant and disproportionate impact in the developing world, where the world's poor are susceptible to the potential damages and uncertainties inherent in a changing climate. Since the inception of the Kyoto Protocol, the use of land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) activities to combat climate change has been a topic of significant debate. Whether one is a protagonist or an antagonist on the issue, decisions taken within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have significant implications for the forest sector. Forests are both a source of carbon dioxide (CO2) when they are destroyed or degraded and a sink when conserved, managed, or planted sustainably (FAO, 2003). Forest vegetation and soils currently hold almost 40 percent of all carbon stored in terrestrial ecosystems. Much of this is stored in the great boreal forests of the Northern Hemisphere and in the tropical

- 31 - forests of South America and Africa (WRI, 2000a). Further, forest re-growth in the northern hemisphere currently absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, creating a “net sink”. However, in the tropics, forest clearance and degradation are together acting as a “net source” of carbon emissions (WRI 2000). Though growth in plantations is expected to absorb more Figure 19: CO2 Emission Hotspots from Land Use Change carbon, the likely continuation of current deforestation rates means that the world's forests will remain a net source of carbon dioxide emissions and a contributor to global climate change. Figure 19 shows the areas that are most responsible for this. However, there are significant opportunities to develop innovative carbon sequestration forestry projects that generate positive synergies between forest restoration, mitigation of climate change and livelihood improvements for the poor. These need to be explored through mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol and the Bio-Carbon Fund of the World Bank. However, the success of such carbon trading initiatives will ultimately depend on the resolution of many outstanding issues, including defining who really the carbon belongs to, and also on the outcome of the negotiations for the next commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, which are scheduled to begin in 2005. Nonetheless, in many countries, the prospect of trading carbon credits generated by the forestry sector has started influencing decision making in the forest industries of those countries and this can have effects on future timber markets. o Forests and Water Linkages: Forests play an important role in supplying freshwater. With water shortages increasing in many parts of the world, the importance of this link is being rapidly realized today. Twenty-eight per cent of the world’s forests are located in mountains and these forests are the source of some 60-80 per cent of the world’s fresh water resources. They are also natural barriers for landslides, torrents and floods (FAO, 2003). Tropical Montane Cloud Forests (TMCFs), which have unique hydrological values and high rates of species endemism, are today being lost faster than any other major forest ecosystem. Nearly 30 percent of the world's major watersheds have lost more than three-quarters of their original forest cover. However, the watershed protection value of forests is being slowly recognised now and some countries have already started protecting or replanting trees on degraded hill slopes to safeguard their water supplies (WRI, 2000a). Generating more knowledge on this forest environmental service, and

- 32 - developing appropriate payment or compensation mechanisms between upstream watershed service providers and the downstream beneficiaries, will continue to remain a key challenge for the forestry sector in the coming years.

o Biodiversity Conservation: As seen in section 2, the loss of biodiversity continues to be of great concern the world over, especially the loss of tropical forest biodiversity. Tropical deforestation is expected to be responsible for the loss of an estimated 5-15 per cent of the world’s species between 1990 and 2020, a rate unparalleled in modern history (Landell-Mills and Porras, 2002). In 1997, protected areas covered 1.32 billion ha (8.7 percent of the world’s surface) but only 46 per cent of these permitted utilisations. The critical importance of finance and the growing recognition of western governments’ limited willingness to pay, lies at the heart of increasing efforts by conservationists and others today to seek innovative solutions, including the promotion of markets for biodiversity protection services (ibid). These include mechanisms like bioprospecting rights, debt-for-nature swaps, conservation easements and bio-diversity friendly products like shade-grown coffee, etc., and developing and implementing these mechanisms in an equitable and practical manner is expected to form an important emerging area of work for the forestry sector. Implementing pro-poor conservation strategies on the ground such that conservation actually benefits the livelihoods of the poor and does not make them worse off is also a key challenge that the forestry sector will need to address in a proactive manner.

· Community Forest Management and Decentralised Governance: National governments and international organizations are today increasingly favouring the decentralization and democratization as a means of fostering both development and sustainable management of natural resources in the developing world. This has emerged from an increasing convergence of both the economic development and environmental protection agenda worldwide, and a growing recognition that without secure tenure rights, indigenous and other local groups lack long-term financial incentives for converting their forest resources into economically productive assets for their own development (White and Martin, 2002). According to a World Bank study, more than 80 percent of all developing countries and countries with economies in transition are currently experimenting with some form of decentralization or the other (Manor, 1999). Already, in many parts of Asia and Africa, there is widespread acknowledgement that governments and public forest management agencies have not been good stewards of public forests, and consequently many countries have taken steps towards developing a more participatory and collaborative form of forest governance and management that recognizes local communities as a primary stakeholder in forest conservation and offers them incentives, in the form of ownership/user rights, benefit-sharing mechanisms , etc., to participate in forest protection and management. Over 50 communities worldwide have received forest management certificates or chain of custody certification, and many other forest communities have been brought into the decision-making process in the certification of public and private forests as stakeholders (Molnar, 2003). By 2050 it is expected that 40 percent of the world's forests will be managed or owned by communities and individuals (FAO, 2003). However, it is also important to note that there are

- 33 - countries that have proven that public ownership can be effective in managing forests, and that decentralization by itself is no silver bullet and has its own risks and challenges. For example, in Indonesia, new decentralization policies intensified the pressures on forests in some areas (Ribot, 2002). Decentralization also has the problem of being only as effective and equitable as the existing underlying social and political structures allow it to be. Thus it is important to ensure that adequate capacity is built first among the most marginalized sections of the community and that there are robust conflict resolution mechanisms in place.

· Forest Plantations and Wood Supply: Wood, and wood products, are by far the most energy efficient and environmentally friendly raw material when compared with competing products such as steel, aluminium and concrete. Although plantation forests constitute less than 5 per cent of global forest cover, they provide more than 35 per cent of the world’s wood supply today (UNFF, 2003). In the future, planted forests will have an increasing role in wood and non-wood forest products supply as natural forest areas available for this purpose decrease owing to deforestation or designation for conservation or other uses. MacGregor (2002) has forecasted that: consumption and production of all timber products will rise by an estimated 10% in 2010 and 15% by 2020; the percentage of plantation wood will rise by 50% in 2020 and 70% in 2040; trade/output ratios will continue to rise; and the capture of non-timber values associated with forests will also increase. The development of forest plantations in some countries has already had a major impact on wood production. In Chile and New Zealand, for example, the establishment of extensive areas of plantations has enabled these countries to meet all their domestic wood needs and also to support a significant export industry with supplies from plantations (FAO, 2001). This is despite the fact that the global plantation estate is quite recent and half of all plantations in the world are less than 15 years old (UNEP 2002). New Zealand, particularly, is in fact about to face a ‘wall-of-wood’ scenario wherein annual harvest will boom from the current 18 million tonnes annually to 28.5 million tonnes within three years. By 2006 that will be more than 30 million tonnes – a dramatic 66% rise in six years. This supply, 30 per cent of which is owned by private forest owners, is expected to significantly affect regional and global timber markets (Woodmetrics, 2003). Nonetheless, harvesting from natural forests is also expected to continue simultaneously in the near foreseeable future. Other significant developments include: rising private sector investment in plantations in developing countries; increasing foreign direct investments (FDI) in plantations especially in Asia; and an expansion of ‘outgrower’ schemes whereby communities or small landowners produce trees for sale to private companies (FAO 2001). Though no aggregate global figures are currently available on the total FDI in the forest plantation sectors, its increasing importance can be judged from the fact that in Vietnam alone, the forestry sector boasts nearly 400 FDI projects with a total capital investment of about $2.2 billion, accounting for 11.6 per cent of the total projects nationwide (Van Minh, 2003). Plantations are also expected to become increasingly popular in carbon sequestration projects, though some have raised concerns on the socio-cultural impacts that this might have on local communities, especially in the tropics.

- 34 - · New Forest Technologies: Modern plant biotechnology has become a rapidly advancing field of scientific research on plants, offering potential benefits - and risks - to forestry. Modern biotechnologies currently used in forestry fall into three broad categories: biotechnologies based on molecular markers; technologies that enhance vegetative propagation; and genetic modification of forest trees (FAO, 2001). Genetic modification of forest tree species using recombinant DNA techniques has been contemplated for addressing traits such as virus resistance, insect resistance, lignin content and herbicide tolerance. However, there has been no reported commercial production of transgenic forest trees, although 116 field trials, in 17 countries and involving 24 tree species, have been reported (Owusu, 1999 cited in FAO, 2001). Further, it is acknowledged that biosafety aspects of genetically modified trees need careful consideration, especially because of the long generation time of trees and the potential for the dispersal of pollen and seed over long distances. Global research has also resulted in the development of new forestry technologies that have far reaching implications for the way wood is supplied and processed. One such example is the Indurite™ process which impregnates softwood with an organic cellulose compound giving it the physical properties of hardwood. This technology thus has the potential to substantially reduce the pressure on tropical hardwood species (Sylt, 2003). Using sustainable managed plantation species, the process transforms softwood right through to the heart, not only leaving the wood hardened throughout but coloured to the desired finish all the way through. Substitutions in various materials and products have also occurred in many regions. Markets for reconstituted panels - particleboard, medium-density fibreboard (MDF) and oriented strand board (OSB) - have expanded rapidly and captured some of the plywood and sawnwood market. Some of the substitution has affected tropical timber. Further, the emphasis on sustainable forest management has resulted in greater attention to environmentally sound timber harvesting practices, often referred to as reduced impact logging (RIL). Recently developed codes of practice for forest harvesting call for the use of environmentally sound timber harvesting practices or RIL, and substantial work has been done on testing and using RIL in the field. However, though many countries have initiated research, training and implementation of RIL, it has still not become widely accepted (FAO, 2003).

· International Forest Policy13: In the years following the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), ongoing and often intensive international debate on forest policy issues has taken place, bringing forest issues to the forefront and raising awareness of the significant contributions that forests make to the health of the planet and its inhabitants. In addition to environmental services, their roles in sustaining livelihoods, contributing to food security and reducing poverty are increasingly being recognized at international fora. In October 2000, the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) established the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) to carry out functions related to the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forest, including elements contained in the UNCED Forest Principles and in the outputs of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) and the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) (FAO, 2003).

13 This section is extracted from FAO (2003).

- 35 - The Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) is also an important international forum for the forestry sector.14 Both CBD and UNFF consider their roles as complementary and recognize the need to strengthen collaboration, though there are growing calls being made to clarify the relationship between an ecosystem approach of the CBD on the one hand, and sustainable forest management of the UNFF on the other. Also while CBD has generally acknowledged the work of IPF, IFF and UNFF, some note that the CBD negotiations lack sufficient knowledge of post-UNCED forest discussions and follow-up action at the international, regional and national levels, and also of the work carried out by international organizations such as FAO, ITTO and CIFOR, even though efforts of these organizations in pursuit of sustainable forest management have entailed an ecosystem approach over the years (FAO, 2003). A common criticism is that both fora have spent considerable time on procedural matters, even though all post-UNCED fora have repeatedly emphasized the need to move from dialogue to action on the ground and from policy to practice, and neither have no time-bound commitments or targets in their respective programmes of work (ibid).15

Though translating words into practice remains a constant challenge, some progress has however been made. More than 100 countries have revised national forest policies and developed national forest programmes, taking into account the need for wide participation and linkages with other sectors; 150 countries are involved in international initiatives concerning criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management; area under official forest management plans has increased to 88 percent in developed countries and some 6 percent in developing countries; 10 percent of the world's forests now fall within protected forest areas; and the involvement of local communities in forest planning and management is growing (FAO, 2003). However, another shift that is taking place is the increasing reliance of parties on international organizations to support implementation of decisions and to assist with national reporting. There are growing expectations that the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) – a voluntary partnership of international organisations receiving guidance from UNFF – will assume a larger role in this regard. However, it has been pointed out that the CPF is not an implementing agency, as CPF members operate individually under their own mandates, work programmes and budgets, which are approved by their respective governing bodies. Still CPF members can act as catalysts in countries to help implement sustainable forest management. They and other international and bilateral organizations can provide assistance and technical support, help raise awareness of needs, advise on strategies and help build capacity and partnerships. But ultimately it is, and will remain, up to countries themselves to conserve forest biological diversity at the national level.

14 CBD and UNFF are two separate but parallel processes dealing with forests and forest biological diversity. The former addresses the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources, including those from forest ecosystems, while the latter looks at the management, conservation and sustainable development of forests on the basis of the outcomes of UNCED, IPF and IFF (FAO, 2003).

- 36 - References:

Alves, D. S., Pereira, J., de Sousa, C., Soares, J. & Yamaguchi, F. (1999): Characterizing landscape changes in central Rondônia using Landsat TM imagery. International Journal of Remote Sensing 20: 2877-2882.

Angelsen and Wunder (2003): Exploring the Forest—Poverty Link: Key Concepts, Issues and Research Implications, CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 40, Indonesia http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-40.pdf

Arnold et al. (2003): Fuelwood Revisited: What has changed in the last decade, CIFOR Ocasional Paper No. 39, CIFOR Indonesia

Baird, M. (2001): Forest Crime as a Constraint on Development, Lecture by Country Director, The World Bank, Indonesia, 13 September 2001 http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/eap/eap.nsf/Attachments/FLEG_S8- 2/$File/8+2+Mark+Baird+-+Indonesia,+WB.pdf

Barraclough, S.L., and K.B. Ghimer. 2000. “Agricultural Expansion and Tropical Deforestation. Poverty, International Trade and Land Use.” Earthscan, London.

Campbell et al. (2002): Household Livelihoods in Semi Arid Regions: Options and Constraints, CIFOR Indonesia

Carvalho, G., Barros, A. C., Moutinho, P. & Nepstad, D. C. (2001): Sensitive development could protect the Amazon instead of destroying it. Nature 409: 131.

Cattaneo, A. (2002): Balancing Agricultural Development and Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, Research Report 129 International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C.

Cavendish, W. (1997): The Economics of Natural Resource Utilisation by Communal Area Farmers of Zimbabwe. Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford, 1997.

Costanza, Robert, Ralph d’Arget, Rudolf de Groot, Stephen Farber, Monica Grasso, Bruce Hannon, Karin Limburg, Shahid Naeem, Robert V. O’Neill, Jose Paruelo, Robert G. Raskin, Paul Sutton, and Marjan van den Belt. 1997. “The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.” Nature 15 (May 1997).

Contreras-Hermosilla (2000): The underlying causes of forest decline. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 30. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. Available at: www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/

Cula s, R. and Dutta, D. (2002): The Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Crosscountry Analysis, School of Economics & Political Science, University of Sydney, Australia, Paper submitted for the Econometric Society of Australasia Meeting (ESAM02) Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, July 7-10, 2002

FAO (2003): The State of the World's Forests 2003, FAO Rome http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry2/index.jsp?siteId=3321&langId=1

FAO (2003a): Expert Consultation on Trade and Sustainable Forest Management – Impacts and Interactions, Rome, 3 – 5 February 2003

FAO (2003b): Unasylva - No. 211 - WOOD ENERGY, Forestry Department, FAO Rome http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y4450E/Y4450E00.HTM

FAO (2001): Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000: main report. FAO Forestry Paper No. 140. Rome (also available at www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/main/index.jsp).

FAO (2001a): The State of the World's Forests 2001, FAO Rome http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry2/index.jsp?siteId=3321&langId=1

- 37 - FAO (2001b): Global Forest Fire Assessment 1990-2000 Forest Resources Assessment Programme, Working Paper 55, FAO, Rome

FAO (2000): Trade Restrictions and their Impact on International Trade in Forest Products I.J. Bourke and Jeanette Leitch, Rome, September 2000

FAO (1997): The State of the World's Forests 1997, FAO Rome http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry2/index.jsp?siteId=3321&langId=1

FSC (2002): Forest Stewardship Council database http://www.certified-forests.org/data/types.htm

Geist and Lambin (2001): Proximate Causes and Underlying Driving Forces of Tropical Deforestation BioScience Vol. 52 No. 2, February 2002

GFP (2003): The Global Fire Partnership: IUCN, WWF and The Nature Conservancy

Gutman, P. (2001): Forest conservation and the rural poor: a call to broaden the conservation agenda. Washington, DC, WWF Macroeconomics Program Office.

IISD (1999): A Summary Report of the Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation, Sustainable Developments Vol. 21: No. 1 IISD 25 January, 1999 http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/sd/sdvol21no1e.pdf

IPCC (2001): Third Assessment Report: Working Group II Report: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

ITTO (2002): Forest Certification: Pending Challenges for Tropical Timber, Technical Series No. 19, October 2002, by Atyi, R. E. and Simula, M. ITTO Japan

IUCN (2000) 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. Gland, Switzerland.

Jach, M.E., Ceulemans, R. & Murray, M.B. (2001): Impact of greenhouse gases on the phenology of forest trees. In D.F. Karnosky, R. Ceulemans, G.E. Scarascia -Mugnozza & J.L. Inees, eds. The impact of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases on forest ecosystems , pp. 193-235. IUFRO Research Series No. 8. New York, CABI Publishing & International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO).Gutman, 2001

Janz and Persson (2002): How to know more about forests? Supply and use of information for forest policy. Bogor, Indonesia, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

Kaimowitz, D. & Angelsen, A. (1998): Economic models of tropical deforestation: a review. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR

Landell-Mills, N. and I.T. Porras, 2002, Silver bullet or fools' gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor London, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

Laurance, W.F., Albernaz, A. K. M. and Da Costa, C (2001): Is deforestation accelerating in the Brazilian Amazon? The Smithsonian Institute and INPA, Brazil http://lcluc.gsfc.nasa.gov/products/LBA_page/files_fr_2_25_email/Laur2001_Is_Defor_Eng.pdf

Laurance, W.F., Delamônica, P., Laurance, S.G., Vasconcelos, H.L. & Lovejoy, T.E. (2000): Conservation: Rainforest fragmentation kills big trees. Nature, 404: 836.

Laurance, W.F. (1999): Habitat fragmentation: introduction and synthesis. Biological Conservation, 91: 101-107.

Lomborg, B (2001): The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, Cambridge University Press

Manor, J. (1999): The political economy of democratic decentralization. Washington, DC, World Ba nk.

- 38 -

MacGregor, J (2002): Global Trends in Trade of Forest Products and Services presented at the FAO Expert Consultation on Trade and Sustainable Forest Management: Impacts and Interactions, 3-5 February 2003, Rome, www.iisd.ca/linkages/sd/tsfm/sdvol79num1.html

Maginnis and Jackson (2003): The Role of Planted Forests in Forest Landscape Restoration, Paper prepared for the UNFF Intersessional Expert Meeting on the Role of Planted Forests in Sustainable Forest Management, New Zealand, March 24-30, 2003.

Molnar, A. (2003): Forest certification and communities: looking forward to the next decade. Washington: Forest Trends. Available on www.forest-trends.org.

Neumann and Hirsch (2000): Commercialisation of Non Timber Forest Products: Review and Analysis of Research. International Center or Forestry Research (CIFOR), and FAO.

Neumayer, E. (1999): Weak versus Strong Sustainability. Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms. Edward Elgar

Oksanen et al. (2002): Forests in Poverty Reduction Strategies : Capturing the Potential, EFI Proceedings No. 47, 2003

Owusu, R. 1999. GM technology in the forest sector. A scoping study for WWF. Available at: www.wwf- uk.org/news/gm.pdf.

Pagiola, S., Bishop, J. and N. Landell-Mills (eds.) 2002, Selling Forest Environmental Services: Market-based Mechanisms for Conservation and Development (Earthscan, London).

Pearce, D. (2002): Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development; Environmentally Harmful Subsidies: Barriers to Sustainable Development

Perrings, C., Williamson, M. & Dalmazzone, S., eds. 2000. The economics of biological invasions . Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing.

Poore (2003): Changing Landscapes – The Development of the International Tropical Timber Organization and its influence on Tropical Forest Management, ITTO, Earthscan London, Sterling VA

Ribot, J. C. (2002): Democratic Decentralization of Natural Resources: Institutionalizing Popular Participation, World Resources Institute, Washington ISBN: 1-56973-522-0

Richards, Del Gatto and López (2003): The Cost of Illegal Logging in Central America. How much are the Honduran and Nicaraguan Governments losing? http://www.odi.org.uk/talailegal/eng_evidence.htm

Richardson, D.M. (1999): Commercial forestry and agroforestry as sources of invasive alien trees and shrubs. In O.T. Sandlund, P.J. Schei & A. Viken, eds. Invasive species and biodiversity management, pp. 237-257. Dordrecht, the Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

RIIA (2002): Controlling the International Trade in Illegally Logged Timber and Wood Products by Duncan Brack, Kevin Gray and Gavin Hayman, Royal Institute of International Affairs, London

Sunderlin et al. (2003): Forests and Poverty Alleviation, Chapter in FAO State of the World’s Forests 2003 pp. 62-73, FAO Rome

Scotland and Ludwig (2002): Deforestation, the timber trade and illegal logging, EC Workshop on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade. Brussels, April 22nd-24th, 2002.

Sunderlin, W et al. (2001): Economic Crisis, Small-Scale Agriculture, and Forest Cover Change in Southern Cameroon. Paper submitted to Ambio. Indonesia.

- 39 - Sylt, C (2003): Wonder Wood Article in Magazine (Anon.) http://www.indurite.com/

UNEP (2002): Global Environmental Outlook 3: Past, Present and Future Perspectives, Earthscan, London, Sterling VA

UNEP (2001): An Assessment of the Status of the World’s Remaining Closed Forests. UNEP/ DEWA/TR 01-2. Division of Early Warning and Assessment (DEWA) United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP ) P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya

UNEP (2001a): The Global Biodiversity Outlook Report, CBD/ UNEP, November 2001 http://www.biodiv.org/gbo/

UNEP (1997): Climate Change Information Kit, UNEP IUG 1997: downloaded from Vital Climate Graphics: UNEP-GRID Arendal website http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/10.htm

UNFF (2003): The Role of planted Forests in Sustainable Forest Management, Report of the UNFF Intersessional Experts Meeting 25-27 March, 2003 Wellington, New Zealand.

Van Minh (2003): Interview with the Director of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Viet Nam News, March 15, 2003 http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/2003-03/14/Comment.htm

Victor and Ausubel (2000): Restoring the Forests, Foreign Affairs November/December 2000, Vol 79, Number 6, pp. 127-144

WCD (2000): Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision Making, The Report of the World Commission on Dams http://www.dams.org/report/contents.htm

White, A. & Martin, A. (2002): Who own the world's forests? Forest tenure and public forests in transition. Washington, DC, Forest Trends/Center for International Environmental Law.

Woodmetrics (2003): The Wall of Wood Media Release, Auckland, New Zealand http://www.woodmetrics.co.nz/FAQs/FAQ3.asp?PAGE=FAQ

World Bank (2002): A Revised Forest Strategy for the World Bank Group, Washington http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/essdext.nsf/14DocByUnid/CB45BCF917EA1EE785256BD10068FC8D?O pendocument

World Bank. (2000): The World Bank Forest Strategy – striking the right balance, by U. Lele, N. Kumar, S.A. Husain, A. Zazueta & L. Kelly. Washington, DC (also available at www.worldbank.org/oed)

WRI (2000): World Resources 2000-2001: people and ecosystems. The fraying web of life. Washington, DC.

WRI (2000a): Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems – Forest Ecosystems, World Resources Institute, Washington DC.

WRI (1997): The Last Frontier Forests: Ecosystems and Economies on the Edge. World Resources Institute, Washington DC.

Wunder, S. (2003): Oil Wealth and the Fate of the Forest. A Comparative study of Eight Developing Countries, Routledge (UK)

Wunder, S (2001): Poverty Alleviation and Tropical Forests – What Scope for Synergies, World Development 29 (11): 1817-1833

Zbicz, D.C. 1999. Transfrontier ecosystems and internationally adjoining protected areas. Durham, North Carolina, USA, Duke University.

- 40 -