| United Nations | E/CN.17/IPF/1996/4 |
Economic and Social Council
Distr. GENERAL
21 February 1996
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Panel on Forests
Second session
11-22 March 1996
Item 2 of the provisional agenda*
* E/CN.17/IPF/1996/1.
IMPLEMENTATION OF FOREST-RELATED DECISIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS
CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AT THE NATIONAL AND
INTERNATIONAL LEVELS, INCLUDING AN EXAMINATION OF SECTORAL AND
CROSS-SECTORAL LINKAGES
Programme element I.5: Needs and requirements of
countries with low forest cover
Report of the Secretary-General
SUMMARY
The present report focuses on the needs and requirements of countries or
areas with low forest cover (LFCs). Several definitions of forest and low
forest cover have been used; however, for the purposes of the report, the FAO
global forest resource assessment data sets are used, namely 20 per cent
minimum crown cover in developed countries and 10 per cent cover in developing
countries.
While most definitions of low forest cover are based on land area and
percentage canopy cover, the present report argues that the key issue is the
scarcity of forest goods and services that are available to support
sustainable development, so that area of forest per capita and security in the
provision of forest goods and services are the key indicators.
Nearly 75 per cent of the world's countries have less than one hectare of
forest cover per inhabitant.
The factors that contribute to low forest cover are:
(a) Low original endowment;
(b) Historical deforestation;
(c) Current pressures on land use.
However, the relative importance of these factors varies both among countries
and within countries.
FAO statistics show that forest loss in most of LFCs is low (less than
1 per cent). However, pressures are greatest on countries that have a low
forest cover per capita, due primarily to the demand from a wide range of
stakeholders for forest goods and services, such as fuel, fodder, timber, and
in some cases agricultural land. In such instances, land tenure is also an
important issue.
Unique forests are forests that provide a habitat for a significant
number of species (centres of biological diversity), as well as forests that
provide special goods and services to the communities that depend on them.
In general, the level of protection in the LFCs is low, with a mean of
only 3.6 per cent, compared with a global mean of 6 per cent of forest.
However, countries should make their own decisions and commitments on the
areas to be protected.
In producing the present report, a shortage of information has been
identified on the availability of forest-derived goods and services per
person, both nationally and in global terms.
The information that is available is often deficient in terms of the
topics covered, frequency, measurement of land area, quality and usefulness.
While there have been several initiatives at the national and international
levels to improve the collection, analysis and availability of information,
there is perhaps a need for a more systematic approach, such as through forest
resource assessment.
The challenge is to achieve security in forest goods and services for
each person, each nation and the globe. The priority, therefore, should be
for stakeholders to agree which goods and services are scarce and how to both
improve and sustain their supply.
These issues can only effectively be addressed at the national level,
where the options would seem to be:
(a) Developing and managing forests;
(b) Obtaining forest goods and services from agricultural and other
non-forest land use;
(c) Importing forest goods and services from elsewhere;
(d) Identifying and promoting substitutes for them.
The selection and combination of options will inevitably vary with
economic and social conditions and at the local, national and international
levels. However, a key issue is ensuring access to up-to-date and relevant
information on the current situation, the needs of stakeholders and options
for the supply of forest goods and services.
The report suggests that countries may wish to consider setting up
national mechanisms, such as forest/forest industry stakeholders' forums, to
consider options, exchange information, generate new ideas, help identify and
tackle cross-sectoral and other complex issues, and build a consensus for
action.
In conclusion, the present report notes the diversity of LFCs and
emphasizes that global solutions can only be derived from analyses, consensus
and action that are formulated at the national level.
CONTENTS
Paragraphs Page
INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1 - 6 6
I. LOW FOREST COVER ..................................... 7 - 17 6
A. Definition of the term "forest" .................. 7 - 9 6
B. Countries with low forest cover .................. 10 - 14 8
C. Factors contributing to low forest cover ......... 15 - 17 9
II. CURRENT TRENDS ....................................... 18 - 42 11
A. Goods and services ............................... 22 - 27 12
B. Unique forests ................................... 28 - 35 14
C. Protected areas .................................. 36 - 42 16
III. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS ............................. 43 - 46 18
IV. APPROACHES AND POLICY OPTIONS ........................ 47 - 72 19
A. Options .......................................... 47 - 66 19
B. Criteria for selecting and balancing options ..... 67 - 72 22
V. CONCLUSIONS AND PRELIMINARY PROPOSALS FOR ACTION ..... 73 - 76 24
A. Conclusions ...................................... 73 - 74 24
B. Preliminary proposals for action ................. 75 - 76 24
Figures
1a. Numbers of countries in classes of forest cover ................... 29
1b. Numbers of countries in classes of percentage of land covered by
forest and other wooded land ...................................... 29
1c. Numbers of countries in classes of per capita forest cover ........ 29
2. Processes for achieving security of forest goods and services ..... 30
Maps*
1. Percentage of land area under forest and other wooded land
2. Forest cover per capita
3. Distribution of least forested countries by major eco-regional domains
________________________
* The maps will be made available to the Panel.
The boundaries shown on the maps do not imply official endorsement or
acceptance by the United Nations.
INTRODUCTION
1. The present report covers element I.5, "Needs and requirements of
countries with low forest cover", of the programme of work of the Ad Hoc
Intergovernmental Panel on Forests.
2. The preparation of the report was guided by decisions taken by the
Commission on Sustainable Development at its third session and further
elaborated by the Panel at its first session.
3. The Commission defined programme element I.5 as a need to propose
measures for addressing the needs and requirements of developing countries and
other countries with low forest cover in order to promote activities to
conserve existing forest cover, with particular attention to unique forests.
4. At its first session, the Panel emphasized the need to prepare a report
on the specific needs of countries with low forest cover, particularly
developing countries and other countries with low forest cover, in order to
promote activities to conserve existing forest cover, with particular
attention to unique forests. The report should consider particular situations
in which communities and forest dwellers depend on forests to meet their
subsistence needs, such as fuel, food, forage, grazing provisions for
livestock, shelter and medicinal plants, and should also identify areas of low
forest cover, protected forests and dry woodlands.
5. The present report was prepared by the United Nations Environment
Programme, as lead agency for programme element I.5, in consultation with the
Panel secretariat in the Division for Sustainable Development of the
Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development of the United
Nations Secretariat. The report is based on a study prepared by the Overseas
Development Agency of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland.
6. The report focuses on the needs and requirements of countries or areas
with low forest cover (LFCs), including developed and developing countries.
The report considers what is meant by low forest cover in terms of the
scarcity of the goods and services provided by forests, explores the reasons
for low forest coverage, and attempts to identify LFCs based on current global
statistics; presents an overview of the current status of forest resources and
values in LFCs; and identifies gaps in the information available and some
options for promoting the security of forest goods and services within LFCs.
I. LOW FOREST COVER
A. Definition of the term "forest"
7. The term "forest" encompasses an enormous range of natural and man-made
ecosystems that may differ in almost all their characteristics, save that they
consist primarily of trees. A major problem in defining a forest is how to
determine the threshold at which tree cover becomes sufficiently dense to
constitute a forest rather than, say, open woodland. A number of vegetation
classification systems distinguish forests from other woody formations by
applying such thresholds (see box 1).
****
Box 1. Definitions of forest cover
UNESCO Closed forest Trees greater than or equal to
5 metres tall, with crowns
interlocking
Woodland Trees greater than or equal to
5 metres tall, with crowns not
usually touching but with canopy
cover greater than or equal to
40 per cent
United States Closed tree canopy Trees with crowns interlocking,
classification with crowns forming 60 to
100 per cent cover
Open tree canopy Trees with crowns not usually
touching forming 10 or 25 to
60 per cent cover
FAO Forest Ten per cent crown cover of trees
(developing countries) and/or bamboos
Forest Tree crown cover (stand density)
(developed countries) of more than 20 per cent of the area
Other wooded land Includes forest fallow, shrubs
(developing countries)
Other wooded land Includes open woodland (tree crown
(developed countries) cover 5 to 20 per cent), scrub,
brushland, exploitable forest
Closed forest Tree crown cover greater than
(tropical countries) 40 per cent
****
8. The scarcity of forest products (wood and non-wood, commercial and
non-commercial) and forest services may be felt most keenly in forest-poor
countries, especially developing countries; such is the source of concern
about low forest cover: in many developing countries, an increasing number of
people rely for their daily subsistence on overutilized forest resources that
are dwindling at an alarming rate.
9. The scarcity of forest goods and services must be assessed on various
scales, since different goods or services are important at different levels in
society (e.g., individual, national and global). However, no integrated data
on forest goods and services are widely available. As a result, for the
purposes of the present report it has been necessary to estimate data based on
forest cover, even though forest cover may not accurately reflect the
availability of forest goods and services because in many cases these may be
provided by other land covers, and forest cover does not reflect the
accessibility of such goods and services since this might be affected by
issues of forest ownership or land tenure. However, the datasets contained in
the global forest resource assessment of the Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations (FAO), do provide the most standardized basis available
on which to assess the forest resources of individual countries.
B. Countries with low forest cover
10. The extent of forest area is strongly influenced by the definition used:
a low threshold for canopy cover can result in the inclusion of woody
vegetation not normally regarded as forest (see box 2).
****
Box 2. Sample effects of using different forest definitions
Senegal is 40 per cent forested using the FAO 10 per cent tree cover
definition, which includes dry woodland, but it is only 2 per cent covered by
closed forest.
Australia is 5 per cent forested according to the FAO 20 per cent tree
cover threshold but it is only 0.4 per cent covered by dense forest (with
greater than 70 per cent canopy cover).
****
11. The analyses in the present report are based on FAO forest definitions of
a minimum crown cover of 20 per cent in the developed countries and
10 per cent in the developing ones. Although they are not truly comparable
across the globe, these statistics are the only ones available for all
forested countries.
12. For any given definition of forest, national forest cover can be assessed
in terms of the percentage of area covered, area of forest cover per capita or
proportion of world forest resources contained within the country, among other
measures. Which assessment of cover is most useful will depend on the purpose
of the assessment; for example, where the concern is land cover and the
services that are provided by forests as land cover, such as soil and
watershed protection, habitat or carbon storage, forest cover as a percentage
of total land area is the measure of interest.
(a) Of the countries or areas covered in the FAO forest resource
assessment, more than 25 per cent have less than 7 per cent of their land
under forest cover, and 50 per cent are less than 25 per cent forested (see
figure 1a);
(b) If other wooded land is included, the 45 LFCs have less than
19 per cent of their land area under woody cover, and 50 per cent of LFCs are
less than 40 per cent forested in this broader sense (see figure 1b and map
1).
13. The ability of a nation's forests to supply goods and services to its
inhabitants may be better assessed in terms of forest cover per capita. For
example:
(a) Nearly three quarters of the world's countries have less than one
hectare (ha) of forest cover per inhabitant (see figure 1c). Approximately
25 per cent of the countries or areas covered by the FAO forest resource
assessment (FAO, 1995) have less than 0.07 ha of forest per capita, and
50 per cent have less than 0.25 ha per capita (see map 2);
(b) The inclusion of other wooded land vastly increases the area of
forest cover per capita in some countries, though not in others, with 58
countries or areas having less than 2 ha of forest and other wooded land per
capita.
14. The 25 per cent of countries or areas included in the FAO forest resource
assessment (FAO, 1995) that have the least forest cover according to each of
these criteria are listed in the table in order of forest cover. Many
countries or areas fall into the least forested group based on all three
criteria mentioned in paragraph 12 above, although some do appear under only
one or two criteria. Comparison between the columns in the table highlights
the differences among LFCs. For example, countries that have small areas of
forest cover but also small populations, such as Afghanistan, LFCs are based
on forest cover but not based on forest per capita. Similarly, countries that
have relatively large areas of woody scrub and other wooded land, such as
Australia and Kenya, are LFCs based on forest cover but not based on forest
cover and other wooded land.
C. Factors contributing to low forest cover
Low original endowment
15. Many of the LFCs listed in the table are located in the arid regions of
the world, which are climatically unsuited to support forest cover (see map
3). In these countries, what forests there are may be restricted to pockets
of more favourable growing conditions, such as fog-bound mountain tops or
oasis areas with high water tables. Polar conditions also restrict original
forest cover for a few countries, such as Iceland.
Table. Countries or areas with least forest cover, based on area under
forest cover, area under forest and other wooded cover, area of
forest per capita
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country or area LFC based on
---------------------------------------------------
Area under Area under Area of
forest canopy forest or other forest per
(canopy greater wooded cover capita
than 10
per cent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Samoa * * *
Bahrain * * *
Barbados * * *
Bermuda * *
Cayman Islands * *
French Polynesia * *
Guam * * *
Iceland * * *
Kiribati * * *
Netherlands Antilles * * *
Niue * *
Oman * * *
Pacific Islands * *
Qatar * * *
Saint Pierre et Miquelon * * *
Tonga * * *
Yemen * * *
Egypt * * *
Saudi Arabia * * *
Iraq * * *
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya * *
Lesotho * * *
Kuwait * * *
Mauritania * *
Jordan * * *
United Arab Emirates * * *
Algeria * *
Djibouti * *
Iran * * *
Haiti * *
Somalia *
Syrian Arab Republic * *
Afghanistan * *
Niger * *
Kenya * *
Pakistan * * *
Saint Helena *
Tunisia * *
Cape Verde * *
Uruguay * *
Comoros * * *
Israel * * *
Australia *
Morocco * *
Ireland * *
Mauritius * *
Mongolia *
El Salvador * *
Singapore * *
Bangladesh * *
Netherlands * *
Lebanon * *
Saint Lucia *
Rwanda *
United Kingdom * *
Seychelles * *
Burundi *
Belgium
Swaziland *
Denmark *
Ukraine *
China *
Hungary *
Bahamas *
Argentina *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Countries and areas are listed in order of increasing forest cover.
Deforestation in the past
16. Many LFCs were deforested by exploitation before the twentieth century:
the fate of their forests depended upon a combination of factors related to
climate, location and control, as well as on demands for agricultural lands
and forest products, which in turn were related to population trends and
institutional controls. The forests of the United Kingdom and of Ireland
underwent a phase of depletion during the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries,
when they were used to supply the shipbuilding industry. The Mediterranean
region was severely deforested during classical times by the exploitation of
fuel and timber. War and instability have also been blamed for the decline of
forests: Lebanon lost 60 per cent of its forests in the first three years of
the First World War.
Current pressures on land use
17. A few LFCs once had a substantial endowment of original forest that has
been depleted more recently by exploitation and demands for conversion to
other land uses (see E/CN.17/IPF/1996/2). This is particularly true of
countries in which the total land area per capita is relatively restricted so
that the possibilities of expanding onto non-forested land are reduced.
Islands are a classic example: there the scope for expansion and exploitation
of alternative sources of forest goods and services is absolutely restricted;
23 of the 65 countries or areas listed in the table are islands.
II. CURRENT TRENDS
18. FAO records deforestation rates of zero for most of the LFCs listed in
the table, with an average loss of natural forest of less than 1 per cent for
those LFCs for which data is available. These low rates of forest clearance
may reflect several factors, such as:
(a) FAO does not record forest clearance in LFCs whose area of forest
cover falls below the minimum threshold;
(b) LFCs probably value their forests highly;
(c) Remnant forests are often very well protected, either legally or by
their location in areas that are inaccessible or otherwise undesirable for
other land use.
19. The pressures on remaining forests, however, may be quite intense,
especially in countries with low forest cover per capita. In Pakistan, annual
growth in the 1980s accounted for only 62 per cent of the annual wood harvest
(Biswas, 1987, cited in Mather, 1990). Demands for fuel and fodder are
especially intense in such areas and may be less easily controlled by legal
instruments due to problems of accessibility.
20. Some LFCs have actually been increasing their forest cover in recent
years through reforestation and afforestation programmes, and LFCs had an
average net increase of 0.3 per cent in natural and plantation forest area
over the 1980-1990 period, compared with a net forest loss worldwide of
between 0.1 and 0.2 per cent. In general, LFCs have a greater percentage of
their forest resource in plantation (24 per cent vs 10 per cent for the
world). Plantations can improve the availability of forest goods and
services, but since they are frequently monocultures of exotic species they
may make little or no contribution to protecting indigenous biological
diversity.
21. In the past, the main focus for discussions on forest conservation has
been on countries with relatively high forest cover. Increasingly, the
importance of forest management in LFCs has been recognized: a number of LFCs
have developed national forestry action programmes and most have ratified the
Convention on Biological Diversity. Few of them, however, have produced
national biodiversity action plans.
A. Goods and services
22. As already discussed, forests provide a wide range of goods and services
(see box 3); in LFCs, a high proportion of such goods and services are likely
to derive from other wooded land, farmland or plantations.
23. LFCs with low forest cover as a percentage of their total land area are
generally net importers of timber or timber products. El Salvador, for
example, imports 80 per cent of the annual requirement of its wood-based
industries (250,000 cubic metres (m3)) from other Central American countries.
Kenya has banned the export of unprocessed indigenous hardwood timbers since
1983, and imports hardwood.
24. LFCs may export small quantities of speciality timbers from species, such
as Dalbergia spp and Diospyros spp, but it is difficult to obtain information
on levels of trade.
25. Wood is the major energy source in many countries, including LFCs. For
example, it has been estimated that fuelwood from trees and shrubs accounts
for over 60 per cent of Lesotho's energy requirements. In El Salvador, the
annual consumption of forest products for energy production is estimated at
4.9 million m3. And the predominant use of wood in Haiti is for fuel, with
75 per cent of the country's energy consumption provided by biomass. Acute
fuelwood scarcity is a major global problem and is of particular concern in
LFCs.
26. In addition to roundwood and fuelwood, forests and woodlands contribute
very significantly to local and national economies through non-wood forest
products (NWFPs). These are particularly important to the people living in
and around the forests, but since this process is an informal and often a
barter system it is difficult to record and is not generally reflected in
national statistics. NWFPs may be highly significant commercial resources in
local economies or may be export commodities from LFCs.
27. In LFCs, forests may be important sources of foodstuffs, both for local
consumption and for export. They also play important roles in protecting the
genetic resources of important crop species.
****
Box 3. National importance of wood resources and other
forest products
In Kenya, more than 75 per cent of the energy used comes from fuelwood
and charcoal. The contribution to the economy of fuelwood and other forest
products, such as honey, gum, food, medicine and leaves, has not been
assessed, but such products undoubtedly add to the importance of Kenya's
forest resources. Timber is one of the most important products derived from
Kenya's forests. Current demand for indigenous timber, however, far exceeds
its legal available supply.
Although Somalia has a very low percentage of forest cover, over
50 per cent of the country has tree cover generally in the form of open
savanna. Important uses of trees include for fuelwood, hut construction,
livestock enclosures and fodder. It has been estimated that forests
contribute about 6 per cent of Somalia's gross domestic product (GDP). This
figure would be substantially higher if the products and services provided by
trees to other sectors of Somalia's economy, such as water-resource
maintenance, the provision of fodder, fuelwood and edible products, were taken
into account.
Barbados has 2 per cent of its land area under some form of tree cover.
Tree harvesting for industrial purposes is undertaken by one company
integrated directly with the furniture industry. Harvesting consists of the
selective removal of native mahogany trees. There are 57 companies on the
island involved in the manufacture of wooden products, which contributed some
US$ 4.2 million to GDP and 5 per cent of employment in the manufacturing
sector in 1989. A significant handicraft industry also uses wood and non-wood
products.
Pakistan's limited forest resources fall into two categories: production
forests (27.6 per cent), which are potentially for timber extraction, and
protection forests (72.4 per cent), the main function of which is to protect
soil and water resources. Irrigated plantations cover nearly 0.23 million ha
in the plains of Pakistan. Established over 100 years ago, they are managed
for fuelwood and timber for furniture and wood-based industries. Farmland
produces more timber than forest reserves.
________________________
Sources: FAO; Marshall and Jenkins (1994); IIED (1992).
****
B. Unique forests
28. Unique forest ecosystems are especially important for biodiversity
conservation. They may be areas with significant numbers of unique (that is
endemic) species, or they may be areas with unique communities or associations
of non-endemic species. Generally, more information is available on the
occurrence of endemic species than on unique communities. Two global-level
measures of endemism that give a good indication of important areas and unique
ecosystems are endemic bird areas and centres of plant diversity.
29. The occurrence of endemic bird areas (EBAs) - areas that contain at least
two bird species whose whole range is less than 50,000 square kilometres
(km2) - (Bibby and others, 1992) may serve as an alternative way to identify
areas with unique ecosystems that have notable numbers of endemic species.
EBAs have been roughly categorized into different habitat types. Some 21 EBAs
with forest (either all forest or mixed) occur in LFCs, of which 15 are
entirely confined to LFCs. These EBAs particularly the 11 given priority-one
rating by BirdLife International in their analysis of EBAs (Bibby and others,
1992), can be considered likely to include a high proportion of the major
conservation priorities among forest areas in LFCs.
30. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and The International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) are in the process of completing a major project
to identify global centres of plant diversity (WWF and IUCN, 1994). Some 234
sites have been chosen worldwide for data-sheet treatment, although a large
number of other areas also meet the selection criteria. Of the sites chosen,
28 are wholly or partially within the 49 LFCs, although at least three of
these are non-forest sites. Ten of the 28 sites are in Australia and seven in
the Middle East, the latter being an area with no EBAs. However, a notable
number of LFCs in the Pacific and Caribbean regions are included in the
regions that meet the criteria for a centre of plant diversity but do not have
data sheets.
31. Unique or rare forest ecosystems that are not comprised of significant
numbers of endemic species are more likely to be found in areas that
previously had more continuous forest cover but in which forest cover has been
fragmented and reduced relatively recently (in evolutionary terms) by climatic
change, human influence or a combination of the two.
32. Two distinct factors need to be considered in assessing the uniqueness of
forests: the contribution that they make to global biological diversity and
the contribution that they make to national biological diversity. There is no
obvious relationship between the extent of forest cover and the importance of
the forests for biological diversity.
33. In broad terms, the importance of an area for biological diversity in the
sense of species diversity is a reflection of both species richness and
endemism. The former is simply the number of species occurring there, the
latter is the number of species restricted to the area. In addition, for
conservation planning, the number of threatened species in an area is also
important.
34. The World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) has examined species
richness and endemism in each country larger than 1000 km2. In general, LFCs
have lower than average biodiversity, which is to be expected in view of the
widely recognized overall correlation between forests and terrestrial
biodiversity. More particularly, only one out of what are probably the 20
most important countries in the world for biological diversity (Australia) is
represented among the 49 LFCs.
35. However, this reveals relatively little about the importance of the
forests themselves; for example, much of Australia's biological diversity lies
outside forest ecosystems. It is possible that forest areas within a given
LFC may be of global importance for biological diversity; unfortunately, data
is often lacking on rates of species richness and endemism in different
habitats within countries. In general, their importance - if any - is
expected to lie in their endemism more than in their species richness, because
LFCs have small absolute areas of forest and species richness is strongly
correlated with area of habitat, so that it would be expected to be lower than
average in LFCs. However, the fragmented and often isolated nature of forest
cover in LFCs, where it is long-standing in evolutionary terms, such as on
islands or in climatically isolated areas, may lead to greater than average
levels of endemism. Climate and isolation are key factors in determining
biodiversity in LFCs, and their increasing importance for endemism and species
richness through isolation by deforestation is illustrated in box 4.
****
Box 4. Factors affecting biodiversity complements in LFCs
Climate
Terrestrial biodiversity is generally higher in tropical than in
temperate or polar regions; it is also higher in wetter than in drier areas.
Countries in the humid tropics are therefore generally the most diverse,
particularly their forest ecosystems. Humid regions - both tropical and
non-tropical - are also generally the most heavily forested.
Of the 49 LFCs, 12 are wholly or partially within the humid tropics and
generally hold the forest with the highest diversity among LFCs; 9 of then are
islands and the three remaining continental countries are Kenya, Australia and
El Salvador.
Islands
Other things being equal, islands have lower species richness but higher
species diversity than comparable continental areas. Thus, since more LFCs
than would be statistically expected are islands, endemism in LFC forests is
higher than average.
Relict forests
Several biologically important areas of forests have been reduced by
deforestation to small remnants of formerly extensive forests. The coastal
forests of Kenya and Tanzania once extended in an unbroken line from the
Somali border in the north almost as far as Mozambique in the south. They
were the home of a unique collection of animals and are recognized as an
endemic bird area, with eight species of endemic birds. Human pressure and
conversion to agricultural land have now reduced them to a small number of
remnant forest patches, such as the Sokoke Forest of Kenya. Although some
species are now extinct, a few - such as the Sokoke Scops Owl and Clarke's
Weaver - maintain a precarious existence concentrated into these last forest
patches. A similar pattern can be observed in the coastal forests of Brazil.
****
C. Protected areas
36. The internationally accepted definition of a protected area is given as
an area of land and/or sea that is especially dedicated to the protection and
maintenance of biological diversity, as well as of natural and associated
cultural resources, and that is managed through legal or other effective
means.
37. In practice, the purpose for which sites are managed differ greatly, and
may range from scientific research and tourism and recreation to the
sustainable use of resources from natural ecosystems. IUCN has developed a
system of broad categories that classify protected areas in terms of their
overriding management objectives (IUCN, 1994). The analyses presented in the
present report include only protected areas classified as IUCN management
categories I through V; multiple-use areas, such as some forest reserves, have
been excluded. There is evidence, however, that this approach can lead to a
significant underestimation of the total protected areas estate (WCMC, 1992).
Some relevant facts are:
(a) In general, the level of protection in the world's LFCs is low, with
a mean of 3.6 per cent compared to a global mean of more than 6 per cent
protected area;
(b) Some 36 of the 49 LFCs have a protected areas network that is
smaller than the global mean, and only 11 countries or areas are above average
in this respect;
(c) Data for a number of countries or areas with larger than average
protected area networks, such as Australia, American Samoa, the Cayman
Islands, Kiribati and Bermuda, may include large marine protected areas, such
as the 34,000 km2 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, a consideration that could
inflate the calculations of protection based on land area;
(d) Of the 10 countries or areas with less than 0.15 per cent of their
land area protected, six are in North Africa and the Middle East. In general,
countries in this region have yet to develop comprehensive protected areas
networks, the exception being Israel at 16 per cent cover. IUCN is currently
developing with government agencies a regional action plan to encourage the
establishment of more protected areas in this region (Dean, 1995).
38. Such simple statistics as those mentioned above do not explain the
relationship between the distribution of protected areas and forests or other
habitat types. Guidelines developed by IUCN (IUCN, 1993) suggest that
Governments should aim to protect at least 10 per cent of each biome within
their national territory. In the case of countries that have converted
substantial areas of forest, 10 per cent of the biome may constitute both a
large total area and a high proportion of the remaining forest extent. In
contrast, those parts of the world that have never supported significant
forest area will be able to achieve the 10 per cent target relatively easily.
For example, forests cover less than 0.1 per cent of Saudi Arabia, the entire
extent of which could be easily accommodated in even the relatively modest
2.6 per cent of protected area.
39. A number of studies have been carried out to assess the proportion of
forest under protection. One overview of protected major ecofloristic zones
(EFZ) in the tropics (Murray and others, 1995) indicates that 8.8 per cent of
moist tropical forests are protected compared to 7.7 per cent of all original
vegetation types. The more extensive protection of moist tropical forests
suggests that the strategy to protect high biodiversity habitats is proving to
be successful.
40. With respect to conservation of major EFZs, moist zones are better
represented in protected areas than dry zones. While the priority given to
moist zones may be justifiable in terms of biodiversity conservation, Murray
and others (1995) demonstrate the need to increase protected area coverage in
drier zones, which predominate in LFCs.
41. It is generally true that stands of forest in LFCs will be small and
fragmented, which has important implications for the design and management of
protected areas. The long-term effectiveness of protected areas is determined
to a considerable extent by edge effects, especially with respect to
conversion, poaching and other threats. Larger sites will have a more
favourable perimeter-to-area ratio and will be more robust as effective
conservation areas. In the case of smaller protected areas, a greater emphasis
should be placed upon the development of buffer zones that will deflect
pressures away from protected areas without attracting additional settlement
and encroachment.
42. The conservation role that protected areas play in LFCs depends to a
large degree on the origin of their low forest cover: if forest has been lost
relatively recently due to development pressures, remaining habitat fragments
will have an exceptional value as refuges for species that were previously
widely distributed. Conversely, arid lands that have not supported extensive
forests for long periods of time are unlikely to be any more significant in
terms of their biodiversity than other habitats found in the region. In the
former case, preference should be given to establishing protected areas in
remaining forested areas; in the latter, a more even distribution will be
required to ensure the representation of arid-land ecosystems and species.
III. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
43. As discussed above, the principal issue under consideration for LFCs is
the availability of forest-derived goods and services per person, nationally
and in global terms. The information needed to arrive at an understanding of
the scarcity of such goods and services is lacking at the global level, and
may or may not be available at the national and local levels.
44. This is largely because the information systems normally in use are
inadequate in a number of ways, as follows:
(a) Topics: the scope of information is too restricted and thus fails
to track forest values in terms of the full range of goods and services
provided. For example, the use of NWFPs is not often monitored and the
dependence of rural communities on them is poorly documented. The service
roles of forests, such as for biodiversity protection and carbon
sequestration, are rarely covered;
(b) Frequency: the regularity with which information is updated is
inadequate so that decision-making is not based on current status and trends;
(c) Land area: information coverage is too restricted. For example,
land cover types other than forest that can be sources of forest goods and
services are not often included, and minimum-area thresholds mean that small
but important forest resources may be excluded;
(d) Quality: information quality is inadequate in terms of its accuracy
and comparability. For example, differences in definitions and thresholds for
forest cover prevent comparison between countries and often within them as
well;
(e) Use: the process of information gathering is not integrated with
the purposes for which the information is being gathered.
45. A number of recent developments from the global to the local levels are
improving the quality of the information that is available in several ways.
For example, the wider use of participatory methodologies is improving the
degree to which information on forest goods and services incorporates the
perspectives of local stakeholders. Global programmes for the remote sensing
of forest resources and increasing the possibilities for incorporating
assessments of land cover other than forests that might provide forest goods
and services. National monitoring programmes are increasingly being
implemented to improve the accuracy of data and the frequency with which they
are recorded. And systems approaches, such as forest resource accounting
(IIED and WCMC, 1994), are increasingly matching information gathered to the
needs of policy makers and other information users.
46. In many cases, new information is needed for developing policies that are
appropriate to the management of scarce forest resources, analysing the
markets for forest goods and services, determining institutional
responsibilities and roles, and planning forest management. The information
needed is very diverse, and cross-sectoral information systems are needed to
integrate such information into a common context. Information capacities
should be integrated with and driven by the forest management and policy
processes, and should not function as separate activities. Forest resource
accounting (FRA) can meet these needs: it offers a common basis for comparing
values and setting priorities, combining information (generally collected in
the course of routine management) on forest condition, use, management status,
area, legal status and ownership. FRA can also provide much of the
information required for the economic valuation of disparate forest goods and
services.
IV. APPROACHES AND POLICY OPTIONS
A. Options
47. The security of supply of forest goods and services is likely to be of
importance in different ways at local, national and global levels. Mechanisms
to evaluate its importance and to ensure the long-term security of supply will
require appropriate policies, institutions and information flows.
48. A suggested process for ensuring that full consideration is given to
forest security is illustrated in figure 2, based on Upton and Bass (1995).
The process is participatory and iterative, and emphasizes the need for
continuous improvement. It recognizes that information is currently
incomplete, capacities need to be built up, adaptive approaches need to be
tried and priorities will change over time.
49. The process accommodates four options for securing forest goods and
services:
(a) Developing and managing forests on the basis of a permanent forest
estate;
(b) Obtaining forest goods and services from agricultural and other
non-forest lands;
(c) Importing these goods and services from elsewhere;
(d) Promoting substitutes for them.
50. Each option has different implications at the local, national and
international levels; given the great diversity of situations among LFCs, such
implications will vary from country to country. In practice, most countries
will balance these various options rather than emphasize only one.
1. Permanent forest estate
51. This option includes:
(a) Forests and woodlands under all types of ownership;
(b) Protection, production and mixed-use categories.
52. The process of developing a permanent forest estate (PFE) identifies the
types of forest that are needed to meet demands for forest goods and services
now and in the foreseeable future. It matches them with the spectrum of
available forests and plantable land under all kinds of ownership, thus
linking forest values to specific forest types. It helps to clarify where
investment is needed and who should be responsible. Incentives can then be
set to promote the sustainable production of goods and services by appropriate
groups.
53. Where the required PFE is bigger than the current forest area,
afforestation may be indicated (this is common in LFCs). Conversely, where
forest area is (locally) larger than the PFE, planned forest conversion may be
permitted (rare in LFCs).
54. Food security depends largely on the protection that forests give to
water and soils. Many LFCs have lost much forest cover and are suffering some
food security problems as a result. Hence, national programmes for food
security will require ensuring a level of forest security. Furthermore,
national needs for fibre supplies in times of war and disaster may require at
least a strategic minimum of PFE.
55. In some circumstances, local interest may favour the production of
non-market benefits (recreation, aesthetic values) and subsistence food, fibre
and fuel that may be locally non-substitutable. The challenge is to integrate
interests, if this is possible and in agreeing on trade-offs between them if
it is not.
56. Considerable afforestation will be needed to meet increasing global fibre
demands, especially for pulp and paper. For environmental reasons, such
afforestation will often be established on non-forested and degraded lands,
which are widely available in many LFCs. Where commercial afforestation to
meet such demands is envisaged, private-sector financial consortia may be able
to spread risks across different investments and countries. Governmental and
intergovernmental assistance for covering the incremental social and
environmental costs of achieving good forest stewardship in such plantations
may be warranted, and joint implementation schemes for carbon offset, in which
markets are now developing, may increase the attractiveness of afforestation
on a large scale.
57. LFCs may find it necessary to make all forest management and conservation
more information-intensive throughout PFEs (for discussion of improved
information capacities, see section III above). However, in many LFCs a
practical limit on PFE development may be set by the availability of skills
and support structures. The Panel's programme of work includes consideration
of the role of international instruments, such as the conventions on climate
change, biodiversity and desertification conventions, in both establishing
national action plans and coordinating international support for building the
capacity to undertake such actions (programme element V.1).
2. Forest goods and services from non-forest lands
58. This option includes goods and services from farmlands, agroforestry,
pastoral lands and urban forests.
59. In many countries, non-forest land is as significant as forests for
producing fuelwood and fibre, as well as some tree-related biodiversity.
Indeed, tree resources on non-forest land can be highly valuable, having been
planted or maintained there for specific values. However, forest and other
land-use institutions and policies do not generally reflect this reality, so
that trees on farms may be invisible to forest authorities.
60. Some LFCs could decide to base the policy and production of forest goods
and services on non-forest land, which may mean that production is spread
among lands of very different ownerships, for which many different government
authorities have mandates. This would entail changes in mandates and
responsibilities, the introduction of partnership mechanisms and coherent
incentives for operating in different sectors, and improved forestry capacity
in authorities dealing with non-forest land. A forest coordinating and
advisory service may be needed.
3. Importing forest goods and services
61. This option includes:
(a) Importing timber, pulp or recycled paper;
(b) Paying other countries for carbon sequestration and biodiversity
protection, i.e., substituting for local forests.
62. Two issues are at stake here: the substitutability of specific forests,
and the ecological and social impacts of imports on exporting countries.
Substitutability is contentious and is discussed below. In choosing not to
maintain or develop its own forests, an importing country shifts the burden of
the social and environmental costs of production on other countries; it should
therefore be aware of such costs.
4. Substitutes for forest goods and services
63. This option includes producing or importing such goods as mineral energy
for fuelwood or concrete, plastics and metal for timber.
64. The substitutability of a specific forest good or service is a major
issue. Some environmental and social goods and services may either have no
substitutes, or such substitutes would be very expensive locally. Life-cycle
analysis may be able to compare the environmental impacts of non-forest goods
with forest goods.
65. In addition, the substitution of one good or service may affect the
production of others. For example, a decision to import all pulp and paper
may reduce markets for local thinnings in timber production; if this results
in a complete lack of incentives to maintain forests for all other goods and
services, substitution may not be appropriate.
* * *
66. For all four options, an additional need is to reduce waste and increase
the efficiency of production and consumption, which is particularly important
for LFCs facing scarcities. The issue of patterns of production and
consumption may be considered in the proposed Norwegian initiative for a study
on the theme "Long-term trends and prospects in supply and demand for wood
products, and possible implications for sustainable forest management".
B. Criteria for selecting and balancing options
67. Policy decisions about the security of forest goods and services need to
be made at the national level. Most countries will select more than one
option, and the key issue is to find the right balance. Information needs for
assisting such decisions have been outlined; in many LFCs, however,
information capabilities may never be ideal and strategic decisions may have
to made in a climate of heightened uncertainty and multiple stakeholder
demands. Balance also ultimately needs to be achieved at the global and local
levels; for example, not all countries can depend upon imports. Achieving
balance can be guided by information on forest assets, their economic values,
the degree of substitutability of forest products, and an assessment of risk
and uncertainty: hence the importance of collecting and sharing information.
68. Substitutability concerns the environmental, social, cultural and
economic unique of forests. The first two considerations are contentious,
although there are scientific guidelines for biodiversity such as the IUCN
guidelines, as well as for natural and cultural heritages. More research is
needed on how far forest security is essential for providing the environmental
services that are required for food security. The Panel may wish to discuss
further ways in which countries can define uniqueness.
69. Uncertainty is increasing, notably in market conditions and as a result
of possible climate change. Climate change may mean that forested watershed
will increase in its importance for food security and water supplies.
Conversely, existing forests in LFCs may become ecologically inviable,
particularly as they are often at the extremes of forest viability already.
Obviously, adopting only one option is risky, and a balance of options reduces
risk.
70. Mechanisms for consultation and debate among stakeholders will facilitate
the process of choosing and balancing options. An appropriate forum, such as
a forest/forest industry stakeholders' forum could combine scientific
information with stakeholder perspectives at the local, national and global
levels. Such a forum would improve information flow and the generation of new
ideas, and would help to tackle cross-sectoral issues, providing the potential
to develop options on the basis of partnership and setting the stage for
subsequent decisions.
71. In making such decisions, the principle of subsidiarity, under which
decisions are first made at the level at which the scarcity of the good or
service most strongly affects welfare, may be helpful. For example, the
scarcity of unique forest biodiversity could be considered at regional and
global levels, the scarcity of construction timber at the national level and
the scarcity of firewood at the local level.
72. Criteria for stakeholders to select and balance options include:
(a) Economic criteria:
(i) Existing forest values and comparative advantage;
(ii) Cost effectiveness of producing good or service;
(iii) Price/market trends;
(b) Social and environmental criteria:
(i) Substitutability or uniqueness of forest for producing the good or
service;
(ii) Environmental impacts;
(iii) Social impacts;
(iv) Equity among stakeholders and generations;
(c) Political, institutional and other contexts:
(i) Strategic/military/food security requirements;
(ii) Historical, cultural and other precedents.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND PRELIMINARY PROPOSALS FOR ACTION
A. Conclusions
73. Many countries, of diverse types, have low forest cover. Such countries
produce few forest goods and services and often depend greatly on other
countries, most obviously for wood and fibre but also for other goods and
services. This has implications for the production of goods and services at
the global level: the scarcity of forest goods and services is a global
problem, and the improvement of forest security should be a priority concern
for sustainable development.
74. On balance, the essential nature and limited degree of substitutability
of some forest goods and services - notably for food security, water supplies
and biodiversity - and the many uncertainties and lack of information in this
area, may lead even countries with very low forest cover to consider it
prudent to invest in at least a minimum PFE. This may entail considerable
rehabilitation efforts and the protection of unique forests.
B. Preliminary proposals for action
75. The Panel may wish to consider the following areas for priority attention
as regards LFCs:
(a) Forest goods and services:
(i) The availability of forest-derived goods and services per person
both nationally and in global terms, as well as how that
availability affects LFCs;
(ii) The widespread problem of acute fuelwood scarcity, which is of
particular concern to developing LFCs;
(iii) The proper valuation of non-wood forest products, and recording and
reflection of these in both national statistics and global analyses;
(iv) The need for policies and institutions to reflect the significance
and value of non-forest land for producing fuelwood and fibre, and
for ensuring tree-related biodiversity;
(b) Protected areas and biodiversity:
(i) In the case of smaller protected areas, placing greater emphasis on
the development of buffer zones, that could deflect pressures away
from protected areas without attracting additional settlement and
encroachment;
(ii) If forest has been lost relatively recently due to development
pressures and remaining habitat fragments have an exceptional value
as refuges for species that were previously widely distributed,
giving preference to the establishment of protected areas in
remaining forested areas;
(iii) In the case of arid lands that have not supported extensive forests
for long periods of time, creating evenly distributed protected
areas to ensure the representation of arid-land ecosystems and
species;
(iv) Increasing data collection and analysis and the dissemination of
data on rates of species richness and endemism in different habitats
within LFCs in order to assess the global importance for biological
diversity of their forests;
(v) The need to discuss more ways for countries to define forest
uniqueness;
(vi) The need for LFCs to produce national biodiversity action plans;
(c) Afforestation, reforestation and plantations:
(i) The need for afforestation to meet increasing global fibre demands,
especially for pulp and paper and the initiation of such
afforestation for environmental reasons on non-forested and degraded
lands, which are widely available in many LFCs;
(ii) Governmental and intergovernmental assistance in covering the
incremental social and environmental costs of achieving good forest
stewardship in plantations;
(iii) Joint implementation schemes for carbon offset, in which markets are
now developing that may increase the attractiveness of afforestation
on a large scale;
(d) Cooperation and participation:
(i) The need for national forest coordinating and advisory services to
introduce partnership mechanisms and coherent incentives for
operating in different sectors, and to improve forestry capacity in
different authorities and institutions dealing with non-forest land;
(ii) The establishment of mechanisms for consultation and debate among
stakeholders so as to facilitate the process of choosing and
balancing options and combine scientific information with
stakeholder perspectives at the local, national and global levels,
in order to improve the flow of information and generation of new
ideas and tackle cross-sectoral issues;
(e) Information:
(i) The inadequacy of existing information systems as regards their
topic and scope; frequency of data update; land area coverage and
type; data quality in terms of accuracy and comparability; and the
integration of the process of information gathering with the
purposes for which such information is being gathered;
(ii) The need to encourage recent developments from global to local
levels in improving the information available, such as:
a. The wider use of participatory methodologies in order to
improve the degree to which information on forest goods and
services incorporates the perspectives of local stakeholders;
b. The increased use of global programmes of remote sensing of
forest resources so as to incorporate the assessment of land
cover other than forests that might provide forest goods and
services;
c. The implementation of national monitoring programmes to improve
the accuracy of data and the frequency with which they are
recorded;
(iii) The need for cross-sectoral information systems that integrate
information into a common context and the integration of information
capacities that are driven by the forest management and policy
processes and do not function as separate activities.
76. The Panel may wish to request its secretariat, in preparing for
discussion of programme element I.5 at its third session and for the final
consideration at its fourth session, to take into account current and future
discussions of other relevant programme elements of its programme of work, as
well as government- sponsored initiatives under way in support of the work of
the Panel.
References
Bibby, C. J. and others (1992). Putting biodiversity on the map: priority
areas for global conservation. Cambridge: ICBP.
Biswas, A. K. (1987). "Environmental concerns in Pakistan, with special
reference to water and forests". Environmental Conservation, No. 14,
pp. 319-328.
Dean, F. A. (1995). "IUCN protected areas regional action plan for the Middle
East and North Africa". Draft paper presented to the Riyadh Conservation
Forum, 1-4 October.
FAO (1993). "Forest resources assessment 1990: tropical countries". FAO
Forestry Paper, No. 112.
FAO (1995). "Forest resources assessment 1990: global synthesis". FAO
Forestry Paper, No. 124.
FGDC (1995). "FGDC vegetation classification standards". Reston, Virginia:
Federal Geographic Data Committee. Unpublished.
Fisher, M., and A. S. Gardner (1995). "The status and ecology of a Juniperus
excelsa subsp. polycarpos woodland in the northern mountains of Oman".
Vegetatio, No. 119, pp. 33-51.
Friis, I. (1992). "Forests and forest trees of northeast tropical Africa:
their natural habitats and distribution patterns in Ethiopia, Djibouti
and Somalia". Kew Bulletin Additional Series, vol. XV.
IIED (1992). Environmental Synopsis of Pakistan. London: IIED.
IIED & WCMC (1994). "Forest resource accounting: stock-taking for
sustainable forest management". IIED Forestry and Land Use Series, No.
1.
IUCN (1993). Parks for Life. Report of the Fourth World Congress on National
Parks and Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN (1994). Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge: IUCN.
Marshall, N. T. and M. Jenkins (1994). Hard Times for Hardwood: Indigenous
Timber and the Timber Trade in Kenya. Cambridge: TRAFFIC International.
Mather, A. S. (1990). Global Forest Resources. London: Belhaven Press.
Murray, M. G., M. J. B. Green, G. C. Bunting and J. R. Paine (1995).
"Biodiversity conservation in the tropics: gaps in habitat protection
and funding priorities". Cambridge: WCMC. Unpublished report.
UNESCO (1973). International Classification and Mapping of Vegetation.
Paris.
Upton, C., and S. Bass (1995). The Forest Certification Handbook. London:
Earthscan.
WCMC (1992). "Assessing the conservation status of the world's tropical
forest: a contribution to the FAO forest resources assessment 1990".
Four volumes, unpublished report.
WWF and IUCN (1994). Centres of Plant Diversity. A Guide and Strategy for
their Conservation. Three volumes. Cambridge: IUCN Publications Unit.
[Figures 1a, 1b, 1c were offset]
[Figure 2 was offset]
This document has been posted online by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). Reproduction and dissemination of the document - in electronic and/or printed format - is encouraged, provided acknowledgement is made of the role of the United Nations in making it available.
Date last posted: 7 December 1999 12:45:30
Comments and suggestions: DESA/DSD