The designations employed and the presentation of … · The mention of specific companies ... Week was in some senses a series of self- ... organizations that led the skilful planning

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

ISBN 978-92-5-106212-8

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product for educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorized withoutany prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders. pplications for such permission should be addressed to:

Chief, Electronic Publishing Policy and Support Branch, Communication DivisionFAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy

or by e-mail to: [email protected]

© FAO 2009

Cover design: Chanida Chavanich

Photo credits: Session plates, FAO

For copies write to:Patrick B. DurstSenior Forestry OfficerFAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific39 Phra Atit RoadBangkok 10200ThailandE-mail: [email protected]

Printed and published in Bangkok, Thailand

Asia-Pacific Forestry Week

Forestry in a changing worldA summary of events of the first Asia-Pacific Forestry Week

Hanoi, Viet Nam

21-26 April 2008

RAP PUBLICATION 2009/04

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONSREGIONAL OFFICE FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

Bangkok, 2009

ii

This publication, summarizing the outcomes of various events held throughout Asia-Pacific Forestry Week, is the end product of efforts by many individuals and organizations. The Week was in some senses a series of self-contained, “mini-events” – the organizers of many of which produced their own reports–the banner of “Forestry Week” provided the venue, the direction and the coherence to the various independent efforts, and this publication attempts to serve the same purpose. The original concept and direction behind Forestry Week and this resulting publication came from Patrick Durst (APFC Secretary), though the various partner organizations strongly shaped their respective events.

Deserving of particular acknowledgement is the tremendous role played by Viet Nam in hosting and co-organizing the event. Following this are acknowledgement of the roles played by the organizations that led the skilful planning and coordination of the three thematic days. These include: for the “Social Day,” The Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC) and the Asia Forest Network (AFN); for the “Environment Day,” the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), the USDA Forest Service (USFS) and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); and for the “Economic Day,” the Asia Forest Partnership (AFP), the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), the UK Department for International Development (DFID), the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC).

Thanks go to the multiple parallel event organizers, the reports of those who produced them, are compiled here. Specifically, summaries and final reports are included here from the following orgainizations: Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission, International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR), Asia-Pacific Network on Research and Development of Teak (TEAKNET), National Forest Programme Facility (NFP)/FAO, International Model Forests Network Secretariat (IMFNS), East Asia Forest Law Enforcement and Governance Task Force and Advisory Group, Asia-Pacific Forest Invasive Species Network (APFISN), Asia-Pacific Association of Forestry Research Institutions (APAFRI), Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Netherlands Development Organization (SNV), University of Melbourne, Southeast Asian Network for Agroforestry Education (SEANAFE), The Nature Conservancy, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Asia Forest Network (AFN), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), British Council, World Conservation Union (IUCN), World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) and World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).

Sincere thanks to the many organizations that provided financial support to Forestry Week, as well as the vast array of colleagues and institutions who lent their time, energy and expertise to make Forestry Week a success.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

iiiA summary of events of the first Asia-Pacific Forestry Week, Hanoi, Viet Nam

It was not without some reservations that some of us at FAO, not to mention our colleagues in Viet Nam, entertained the idea of hosting a first-ever “Forestry Week for Asia and the Pacific”. It seemed a bit grandiose, both in name, and in ambition. While it appeared that there was considerable scope to positively impact the regional forestry sector with this event, it also presented challenges of an entirely new scale – including potential for logistical disaster! In hindsight, the event turned out to be visionary – leading to synergies that otherwise would not have taken place, in a sector which stands to benefit greatly from collaboration and multidisciplinary approaches. I can say with conviction that the first Asia-Pacific Forestry Week was a great success and an initiative for which all the organizers can be proud. It has even led to calls for similar initiatives in other regions.

This is not to minimize the effort that went into organizing and hosting this event. Our Vietnamese colleagues were every bit as hospitable as could be hoped for. While they may not have fully recognized the magnitude of the task from the offset – few of us did – they graciously rose to the occasion. Significant amounts of time and energy were invested to expand and reinvent the 22nd session of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission session into a far more encompassing and innovative event. The lead in organizing the three thematic pillars: social, environmental and economic was undertaken by partner organizations, bringing an infusion of new thought, creative synthesis and strengthened collaboration. The partner organizations have left their stamps on the resulting summaries of each of these sessions with the result being a mosaic of dialogues, presentations and insights emerging from the Week.

“Asia-Pacific Forestry Week: Forestry in a Changing World - A summary of events of the first Asia-Pacific Forestry Week” provides a roadmap of the week. For those who had the good fortune to be in attendance, this publication offers a colorful and comprehensive review – for those who were not able to be there, a flavor of what transpired. This publication truly represents the best of what can result from translating forward-thinking into action.

He Changchui

Assistant Director-General and FAO Regional Representative for Asia and the Pacific

FOREWORD

iv

“My Forest, My Home”Eko Bambang Subiantoro2008

Photo contest winning photograph

vA summary of events of the first Asia-Pacific Forestry Week, Hanoi, Viet Nam

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

FOREWORD iii

INTRODUCTION 1

OPENING ADDRESSES

H.E. Cao Duc Phat, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development Viet Nam 4

Jan Heino, Assistant Director-General Forestry Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 5

PLENARY SESSIONS

People, forests and human well-being: managing forests for people in a period of rapid change 9

Forests, climate and change 19

Timber trade, forest law compliance and governance 27

PARALLEL SESSIONS

The twenty-second session Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission 35

The Pacific regional workshop: “Global Forest Resources Assessment - FRA 2010” 50

The workshop: “Facilitating and promoting national forest programmes in Asia-Pacific region” 52

The Asia-Pacific Forest Invasive Species Network (APFISN) workshop: “Risk-based targeted surveillance for forest invasive species” 54

The INBAR workshop: “The potential of bamboo in the CDM” 65

The workshop: “REDD: a steep learning curve notes from a session” 67

The meeting: “Proposed Asia-Pacific universities forest education network” 73

The workshop: “Protected areas, equity and livelihoods (PAEL)” 76

The workshop: “Towards responsible management of planted forests in the Asia-Pacific region” 80

The workshop: “Disseminating scientific information for policy and management” 82

The workshop: “Implementation of the fire management voluntary guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region” 86

The seminar: “Poverty reduction through forestry-related activities in Asia” 88

vi

CLOSING ADDRESSES

Nguyen Ngoc Binh, Director General, Department of Forestry 91

Jan Heino, Assistant Director-General, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 93

ESSAYS

Balancing environment, protecting livelihoods: issues facing forest and forestry in Asia and the Pacific today 96

Bringing culture back in: nurturing the forests of Asia-Pacific for the present and future generations 99

Forests: thrillers, martyrs, and healers 102

NEWSLETTER

Day 1 Newsletter 106





viiA summary of events of the first Asia-Pacific Forestry Week, Hanoi, Viet Nam

Photo contest winner: Eko Bambang Subiantoro (Indonesia),

with Patrick Durst, Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission Secretary

viii

�A summary of events of the first Asia-Pacific Forestry Week, Hanoi, Viet Nam

Perhaps nowhere else on Earth is the interface between forests and human communities as diverse, as politicized, or are the surrounding issues of such urgency and scale as they are in the Asia-Pacific region. Containing a significant portion of global forest cover and associated biodiversity, the region is also home to the largest contingent of the world’s human population. Accompanying this expanding population is a multiplicity of governance systems: each utilizing and managing natural resources as best meets perceived national interests. An unmistakable consequence of the past several decades of globalization has been heightened realization of the impermanent nature of national boundaries and the arbitrariness of geopolitical distinctions. While governments and political systems can, and do, collapse overnight, the broader ecological systems that sustain us have thus far persisted.

Rapidly rising demands for timber products and the multiple resources and endowments associated with forests – including their contribution as carbon sinks – sets the stage for numerous struggles among competing interests such as has not been witnessed before. These unfolding contests takes place against a backdrop of local ecologies, institutional and regulatory mechanisms, and economic pressures that assign value to forest products and services and the opportunity costs associated with alternative land uses. Among these competing interests, few are as challenging as the questions of national sovereignty versus membership in the global commons. How do we reconcile these complex and often apparently intractable differences? How do we step outside the narrow confines of national interest and think more broadly, and innovatively about the challenges facing the region’s forests?

Viet Nam and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) took a step in this direction by organizing a ground-breaking regional event to deal comprehensively with forestry-related issues. In conjunction with the 22nd Session of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission (APFC), the seven days that comprised the inaugural Asia-Pacific Forestry Week provided a forum for considering the most pressing issues facing the forestry sector in the region. Forestry Week was organized along the lines of three critical thematic areas: “social” (encompassing issues of poverty alleviation, indigenous rights and income generation), “environment” (dealing largely with climate change and attempting to clarify some of the complexity surrounding REDD and voluntary carbon markets) and “economic” (including a focus on illegal logging and associated trade of timber in Asia and the Pacific).

Asia-Pacific Forestry Week brought together more than 700 participants from government, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), research institutions, regional and international networks, U.N. agencies and the private sector. The event was distinguished by the broad cross-section of participants that it drew. While APFC sessions traditionally engage government forestry officials, fora in which these same officials interact with a wide range of forest-related stakeholders have been few and far between in the past. Forestry Week sought to overcome this constraint by transcending narrow national, sectoral and disciplinary confines that have long hindered our ability to deal with regional forestry issues in a systemic, holistic fashion.

The trail-blazing nature of Asia-Pacific Forestry Week has not been lost on international observers. The success of this event has been such that other institutional and regional fora have come to

INTRODUCTION

�

adopt the concept, including FAO’s Committee on Forestry (COFO) and “Forestry Weeks” in the other regions of the world.

The true innovation in the events of the first Asia-Pacific Forestry Week, and this resulting publication, lie in the fact that they took place concurrently, under the same roof, resulting in synergies and hopefully a broader, more complete vision of the trends and realities facing the region’s forests.

Photo contest finalists


“Old is Green”Mohamed Naiph

2008

�

H.E. Cao Duc Phat Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development Viet Nam

On behalf of the Government of Viet Nam, it is of my great honor to welcome you all to Hanoi and the first Asia-Pacific Forestry Week. Viet Nam is honored and proud to be the host of this landmark forestry event.

In Viet Nam, the forestry sector plays important roles in the national economy, environmental protection, biodiversity conservation, livelihoods improvement and poverty reduction. Recognizing the significance of forests to rural livelihoods, the Government of Viet Nam has taken the initiative to allocate user rights of forest resources to local communities and households, thereby creating more jobs and providing livelihoods support to local people.

Due to its mountainous terrain and long coast line, Viet Nam is considered to be one of the world’s most vulnerable countries to climate change. In fact, the livelihoods of tens of millions of Vietnamese people will suffer from climate change in the coming years. Sustainable management of Viet Nam’s forests, especially the mangrove forests, will be important in mitigating the negative impacts caused by climate change and global warming.

In recent decades, the Government of Viet Nam has put great effort into improving the management of forests and forest land and promoting sustainable forest management. In the 1990s, the Government implemented strong and drastic measures to reduce deforestation and increase forest cover through various programs and projects on forest protection and development. The Government of Viet Nam is strongly committed to continue implementing comprehensive measures to achieve the ultimate goal of sustainable forest management.

I hope that, during the Asia-Pacific Forestry Week, all participants will actively engage in sharing experiences and perspectives and discuss openly in order to seek solutions to the common challenges and obstacles in forestry that we face in the Asia-Pacific region.

I wish you, distinguished delegates, guests and participants, fruitful discussions and the Asia-Pacific Forestry Week, great success. I also wish you a pleasant stay in Hanoi and hope that you will take the time to enjoy some of the beauty, friendly people and multi-cultural cuisine that the city has to offer.

OPENING ADDRESSES


Jan Heino Assistant Director-General Forestry Department Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Mr. Chairperson, Your Excellency, Distinguished participants, Dear colleagues;

Good Morning,

It is my pleasure and privilege to be with you this morning to participate in the first forestry week ever held in the Asia-Pacific region. Most key players in the forest sector in this region have come together. On behalf of all my colleagues I wish to extend my sincere thanks to the Government of Viet Nam and in particular the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development for all preparatory work and arrangements for this land mark event. With more than 500 participants, exceeding the wildest speculation, this must have been an extremely challenging task. Let me congratulate our Vietnamese friends for this excellent effort to make this first forestry week a reality. I would also like to express my thanks to the various partner organizations for jointly organizing this event. My thanks go also to the Executive Committee of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission for their able guidance in pursuing a broad approach and enabling wide participation. Through this pioneering effort, the Commission is setting new trends and standards and stimulating other regions. The theme of the week is “Forestry in a changing world” - a theme extremely relevant in this region. The 21st century is being referred to as the Asian century, above all because of continued rapid economic growth in the region. Many of the biggest changes in the world are taking place outside the forest sector. Global population is expected to increase from 6 billion to nine billion people by the middle of the century with the Asia-Pacific region accounting for about half of the increase.

Food security is increasingly threatened by a combination of macro-economic pressures, climate change, and political instability. Food and fuel prices are soaring, and the long-term outlook suggests that food security will be one of human-kind’s major challenges for years to come. The interface between forests and agriculture is a worldwide important issue today, but it will likely become even more so in the years ahead. The challenge of the forest sector is to understand the forces that are shaping the world and to optimise the economic, social and environmental performance of forestry. In some ways this is already happening. The region has a long history of forest management. It is also showing early signs of reversal of deforestation, largely due to the rapid pace of afforestation in China, India and Viet Nam. The region has also witnessed a rapid expansion of investments in wood industries. In fact, the Asia-Pacific accounts for the largest share in the overall increase in global trade of forest products. Despite these positive trends, we are far from accomplishing sustainable forest management. As the economies undergo rapid changes and globalization accelerates, forestry will be confronted with many challenges that require new skills to be met. Firstly, reducing poverty will remain at the top of agenda of development in the region. Among the poorest in the region are the forest-dependent indigenous communities who have been marginalised and often their rights to land and forests ignored. No conservation efforts are likely to succeed without empowerment of local communities. Secondly, climate change will remain an overarching environmental issue and presumably considerable new resources will be allocated to reduce deforestation and forest degradation. Forestry will need to play an important role both in the mitigation and adaptation strategies. Our challenge is to develop a wide array of market and non-market mechanisms appropriate to the diverse conditions, encouraging

�

sustainable production and use of a variety of products and services from the forests. Thirdly, a related issue is the escalation of energy costs and its impacts on the forest sector. Improved, competitive technologies for producing not only new forms of wood fuel, but also liquid biofuel from cellulose, may cause a major change in the forestry sector. Energy costs are also one of the key factors in the recent high increase in food prices. Clearly, the forest sector does not stand alone. One of our greatest challenges is to find new ways to work more effectively with other sectors. FAO, in collaboration with all the countries in the region and many partner institutions, has embarked on the Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study with the objective of providing the larger picture of change in the region and what may be done to get a better grip on the future.

In dealing with the future, I wish to draw your attention to the urgent need of reinventing national forest institutions. Reforming the institutions to make them efficient in the delivery of services and accountable to the public is critical if we want to face the challenges of the 21st century. FAO itself has embarked on a major reform process. The FAO Conference in November 2007 endorsed the main recommendations of the Independent External Evaluation. A new strategic framework is under preparation for consideration by a Special Session of the FAO Conference in the latter part of 2008. In line with the reform process, I have launched a review of the FAO Strategy for Forestry and I eagerly look forward to receiving your views and feed back during this week. Let me reiterate FAO’s commitment to strengthen the Regional Forestry Commissions and the implementation of the recommendations they make. The linkages between the regional commissions and global dialogue at COFO and other important processes must be strengthened. This is particularly important given the new Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests (NLBI) adopted by the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) and the UN General Assembly, and the UNFF’s


new Multi-Year Programme of Work that seeks inputs from regional entities. The entire Asia-Pacific Forestry Week should be looked upon as contributing to the UNFF process. The Bali decisions of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) underscored the important role of forests in adaptation to and mitigation of climate change, including reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Because of this, the forest sector has risen to new heights on the international political agenda. The APFC and the member countries have both a challenge to tap on these developments as well as an opportunity to contribute in shaping the future global debate, including at UNFF8 and the post-Kyoto negotiations. Yet, we in FAO place a great importance to the role of APFC as an effective regional forum supporting member countries and other stakeholders in accomplishing better management of forest and tree resources in the region. Finally, I would like to once again convey FAO’s sincere thanks to the Government of Viet Nam for hosting the Asia-Pacific Forestry week in Hanoi. With an unprecedented level of participation, I can understand the enormous logistical problems that are to be confronted. Without the whole-hearted support from our hosts, it would be impossible to organize such a conference.

We have a very interesting programme during this week. In response to broad longterm challenges in the region, the Asia-Pacific Forestry Week focuses on three thematic areas: (i) forests and climate change; (ii) forests and human well-being; and (iii) trade and forest law enforcement. I am personally looking forward to the various discussions and recommendations that will go a long way to better understand the challenges of a changing world and how we may meet them.

Thank you.

�


People, forests and human well-being:managing forests for people in a period of rapid change

Tuesday, 22 April 2008

Organizers

Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC) and the Asia Forest Network (AFN)

Introduction

The first-ever Asia-Pacific Forestry Week (APFW), held around the 22nd

Session of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission (APFC) in Hanoi 21-25 April 2008, brought together individuals from governments, non-government organisations, research institutions, regional and international networks, UN agencies, and the private sector to share perspectives and seek solutions to the most challenging issues facing forests and forestry today. During the week, each day was devoted to a different element of the three pillars of sustainable development: social, environmental and economic. This synthesis captures some of the richness of the debate from the social session focusing on forests and poverty issues, as a way to share the key points and recommendations with a wider audience.

The session, organised by RECOFTC, with the support of the Asia Forest Network (AFN) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), questioned some of our assumptions and deepened both conceptual and practical understanding of fundamental issues affecting people, forests and human well-being. Four presenters examined different aspects of the challenge from a range of perspectives – from the local to the global level. The issues raised were then debated by the audience and five panellists, chosen to represent different interests. In the afternoon, the APFC reflected on the morning’s debate as the basis for recommendations for action.

Background

The FAO State of the World’s Forests 2007 reports that the relative contribution of the forestry sector to GDP in the Asia-Pacific region has been declining for the past decade. The region is now the biggest net importer of forest products in the world and the largest exporter of non-wood forest products. Variation in the net rate of change in forest area is much more pronounced in the region. Several countries are losing forests at rates exceeding 1.5 percent per year (e.g. Indonesia and Myanmar), among the highest rates of loss in the world. At the same time APEC leaders, in 2007, made a commitment to increase forest cover in the region by 20 million hectares by 2020. Forest conservation and management have now returned to the centre stage of the global debate on environment and development due to the recognition that forest loss and degradation result in more greenhouse gas emissions than the global transport sector.

PLENARY SESSIONS

�0

The Asia-Pacific region has emerged as the global epicentre of economic growth and change. With this growth, along with increasing regional integration, come increased social mobility, rise to middle-income status and growing inequality (RECOFTC, 2008). Models of development are being challenged and no more so than in the forestry sector.

Little is known about the informal forestry sector, as national statistics on income and employment capture only the formal sector. “We often hear that one billion people are dependent on forests, but the reality is that the statistics and numbers are extremely poor. It is shocking that we are moving into the 21st Century and don’t really know how many people live in forests” (Marcus Colchester). Many studies indicate that the informal sector dwarfs the formal sector. It provides benefits especially for poor people who are the main subject of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). However, people in the informal sector frequently work in the context of ill-defined rights where there is little incentive – if any – to manage natural resources sustainably. Under these circumstances, the challenge laid down at the social session was to question whether:

Under present and foreseeable economic and social trends in the Asia-Pacific region, can we achieve sustainable forest management and better realise the potential of forests and

forestry to contribute to improved human well-being?

At the heart of this question lie the still relevant and important statements made by Jack Westoby, which have shaped much of international debate on forests over the last four decades:

“Forestry is as much about people as it is about trees’.BUT

‘What has forestry done to improve the lot of the common man, of the peasant?Precious little.” (Westoby, 1977 & 1989)

Six propositions

For decades, foresters, conservationists, and social activists have been making the case that forests and forestry matter – to national economies, rural development and poverty reduction, environmental and cultural sustainability, biodiversity conservation, flood control, human health, conflict prevention, and most recently, climate change. And yet forests continue to be degraded and converted to other uses at a rate that implies that they don’t matter very much at all to those with the power to control such processes. We have had numerous overlapping and often contradictory paradigms to making forestry matter (Table 1). All of them have done little to slow the rapacious degradation of resources or to reduce the poverty.

Table 1 Changes in paradigms

1960s‘Trickle-Down’ Forestry for industrial development 1970s‘BasicNeeds’ Forestry for local community development (Westoby model),

oil crisis, fuelwood crisis

1980s‘Participation’ Social forestry, community forestry 1990s‘PublicSectorReform’ Institutional reform, collaborative, participatory forestry 2000+‘GoodGovernance’ Focus on corruption, illegality, decentralisation 2000+‘MDGsandPoverty’ Poverty, livelihoods 2007+RenaissanceForestry Forestry crisis, climate change, dramatic energy and food price

spikes

��A summary of events of the first Asia-Pacific Forestry Week, Hanoi, Viet Nam

Do forests matter? The reality

The significance of forests has been overstated with respect to some objectives and benefits, and underappreciated with respect to others – but the key question is for whom are forests important? As the evidence shows so far – for many people forests don’t matter but for some forests matter hugely. They provide a variety of ecosystem goods and services: timber, fuelwood and forage, fruits and vegetables, bushmeat and medicines, materials for handicrafts, hydrological services, pollination services, climate regulation. For those living in or close to forests, dependent on them for a range of livelihood and other services, they are of crucial importance; many urban people may view forests only as a source of timber or a resource ready to be converted to financially more lucrative land uses. Rarely is their importance as a standing source of biomass recognized and appreciated. Forests may even be viewed as a barrier to development.

Although we can talk about the effects of deforestation and forest degradation on people, there is nothing more powerful than hearing from one of the people who is directly affected by our actions and decisions. Norman Jiwan is a member of the Dayak Kerambai tribe of West Kalimantan, Indonesia; he illustrated the profound effects on his people of decisions, made in distant places, and changes in political regimes over the last 60 years. The Kerambai’s customary lands and forests have been challenged by a succession of logging concessions, rampant illegal activities and the expansion of oil-palm plantations, threatening their social and cultural integrity as well as their livelihood security.

As Norman Jiwan reminds us, for his people, “development without justice is not development, it is exploitation.” Their entire cultural, social and economic system depends on the forests; their human and environmental rights bulldozed actually and metaphorically. For them forests matter very much and for all of us forests should matter more than they currently do.

Poverty is not understood

“Development strategy needs to move beyond the bounds of its present emphasis on economic growth – hundreds of millions of people are born poor and die poor in the midst of increasing wealth. Chronically poor people need more than ‘opportunities’ to improve their situation. They need targeted support and protection, and political action that confronts exclusion. If policy is to open the door to genuine development for chronically poor people, it must address the inequality, discrimination and exploitation that drive and maintain extreme poverty.” CPRC 2005:vi

We have not understood poverty. We do not understand who is poor and why. We have started in the wrong place: with the forests and forestry and trying to justify their ‘pro-poorness’ or making them more pro-poor. We should have started with people and understanding the conditions that form and reproduce their poverty. Our attempts to place more control at the community-level have often led to increased elite capture of many of these schemes, with a further disenfranchisement of poor people.

One of the major issues about any ‘pro-poor’ forest policy is the problem of identifying and targeting the poor. This is rarely done; the reasons being both pragmatic (it is very difficult) and also political (it is not usually desired by elites). The word ‘poor’ is itself a problem covering a multitude of different types of people in different degrees of poverty.

��

So if we can’t use short hand such as the word poor, how are we going to describe and understand poor people’s relations with forests? There are three main ways of understanding poverty:

• Spatial poverty (forest dependence argument) – remote rural areas where because of remoteness populations are considered to

be poor in opportunity. Remoteness however does not necessarily coexist with poverty.

• Temporal poverty (safety net argument) – seasonal & within life-cycle

• Structural poverty (transformative argument) – social, economic and political exclusion – little or no voice (extreme poor, coping, improving, capable)

Policies have to be able to respond to the spatial poverty traps – sites of chronic poverty in remote rural areas. Policies need to respond to the livelihood challenges of those people in remote forested areas who have little other than forests on which to build their livelihoods. In such areas, chronic dependence means that changes in policy that affect forest usage have more profound effects on livelihoods than in those areas with diverse livelihood opportunities. Across all areas there are those who suffer temporal vulnerabilities for whom forests and tree products may provide seasonal and/or life–cycle safety nets. The third level of vulnerability is suffered either by particular groups in society, often indigenous groups, excluded groups (because of caste or ethnicity) or within communities because of gender, caste or life – cycle positioning. The effects of policy change on these groups are again different from others in the same community who are not socially or economically excluded. For some, all three levels of vulnerability are in operation at the same time. Structural vulnerability is the most profoundly difficult to change through policy processes and is particularly resistant to change through technocratic solutions without due political process and clearly defined rights. Unless we understand the different dimensions of poverty, our policies will continue to reinforce poverty rather than provide the necessary changes to help the poor to lift themselves out of poverty. The implications of this analysis are three–fold:

1. The importance of understanding poverty in a dynamic and differentiated way and thus the provision of different forms of support for those moving out of poverty to those stuck in poverty.

2. The importance of understanding both formal and informal relations – particularly the complexity of power relations, which affects people’s capacity to obtain access to resources and limit others’ access and the high risks attached to the poor challenging these political spaces in person or through their proxies.

3. The importance of establishing linkages between sectoral policies and those that aim to provide social protection to the poorer groups in policy dialogues; the importance of formulating and implementing pro-poor forest policies taking into account the broader livelihood constraints faced by the rural poor including issues of access to justice, and access to land.


Change is driven from outside the forest sector

The main drivers of change lie outside the forestry sector and our narrow preoccupations with forestry. Advocates of sustainable forest management (SFM) have erred in focusing their efforts within the forestry profession and on forestry-related institutions, although forestry agencies continue to focus on technical aspects and remain a barrier to change, finding it difficult to recognise and engage with the increasing complexity of forestry and the need to think across sectors. So why is it that after 60 years of economic change in Indonesia we are still rehearsing the same arguments? If we look further into the region – the debate on the future of forests in Asia and the Pacific held by the forestry community tends to focus on recurring themes and major barriers to bringing about SFM, such as constraints to financing SFM, massive and diffuse corruption and the persistence of outdated and unenforceable laws. We are all familiar with them, perhaps even comfortable, allowing us to continue to bemoan their existence but not propelling us into any action to challenge and change them. In the meantime, emerging drivers of change and new realities have made the headlines, sometimes hardly noticed by those deliberating the removal of old barriers. These new drivers already have had a significant impact on the fate of forests, and some of them will have even more so in the future. There is great urgency to take their potential implications seriously. Examples of new drivers include:

• Demand and commodity price increases: Steeply rising demand for and prices of commodities (not just forest products) and increased consumption are increasing pressure on all types of forests and triggering conversion to other land uses (e.g. oil-palm plantation). Increasing levels of food insecurity and associated civil unrest will change land-use policy priorities.

• Energy price hike: Surging energy prices have increased interest in bio-energy plantations. In the region, energy self-sufficiency is expected to fall from 77% (1992) to 38% in 2030.

• Rural transformation and urbanization: Declining relative importance of agriculture in national economies as people find better employment opportunity in the services and industry sectors. Remittances from more than 50 million migrants (around US$114 billion in 2006 to countries in the Asia-Pacific region) play a greater role in poverty reduction than forests and forestry. More options are available for young people to turn their backs on forests and agriculture. Between 2006 and 2015 employment in agriculture is projected to contract by 160 million.

• Market changes: Shifts in markets and trading patterns are reshaping political influence and business practices. New investors, new values and new rules of the game have repercussions for markets, investment, financial systems and natural resources, particularly the financing of processing capacity – where the ‘hungry mills’ drive an unsustainable demand for timber products to feed them. Chinese imports of logs and wood products have increased by 250% between 1997 and 2003.

• Water scarcity: Populations and areas under absolute and economic water scarcity will increase considerably. This will stoke the debate on the role of forests on water supply.

• Changes in global financing: New sources of funds are also currently driving different types of investment choices. Analysts put current sovereign wealth fund assets in the range of US$1.5 trillion to US$2.5 trillion. This amount is projected to grow sevenfold to US$15 trillion in the next 10 years. However, these funds tend to seek out opportunities to

��

invest in forestry where the political regime is stable, where there is strong security of land tenure and an independent judiciary to protect investor rights. In this region, there are very few countries where such conditions prevail.

• Climatechange:Increasing attention to the role of forests for climate change adaptation/mitigation significantly influences the forest agenda. Payment for environmental services and carbon credit schemes (e.g. CDM, REDD) will shape international discourses on forests and forestry in the coming years.

Changes in governance are essential

Fundamental changes in governance – including both substantive and procedural rights related to forests – will be necessary for people to whom forest matter most. Indigenous peoples have limited protection against external forces that determine ownership and use of their land. Despite the large amounts of money and attention that has been devoted to public sector reforms, policy development and implementation continue to be weak, plagued by the persistence of unenforceable regulations.

In Asia and the Pacific, the forest area actively managed by tens of millions of people exceeds 25 million hectares and is increasing. Decentralized bureaucracies are often weak and politicized, and unable to address the real needs of local communities. Their decision making may also be less far-sighted and increase the speed of deforestation and forest degradation. Some of the current attempts to recentralise and to further bureaucratise forestry may lead to further disenfranchisement of those populations whose livelihoods rely on forest access. At the same time, it will have negative impacts on forest conditions. There is still need to reorient and reform national forestry agencies and policies. Capacity building initiatives at all levels are required for foresters to facilitate the engagement of local people in forest governance and management. This is not an easy task as evidence shows that the huge effort that has been underway for years to do just this had relatively limited success to date.

Forestry and foresters don’t matter

Clearly they do but only if the governance structures are changed and foresters and forestry becomes part of the wider institutional framework. Although foresters cannot change the direction of the emerging drivers of development, continuing to neglect taking them seriously and focusing on conventional barriers only, means that deliberations on how to bring about SFM will remain stuck in a blind alley. We should also question how much forestry has been part of the structures that sustain social exclusion – marginalising people and reinforcing the structures that exclude (Marcus Colchester). Moving on from this, the words of Westoby (1968) are as relevant today as they were 40 years ago and remind us forcefully of our moral responsibilities: “foresters are agents of change – social and economic.” We have a responsibility to recognise the importance of human well-being, as well as the well-being of forests.


Climate change – a moment of opportunity

The international community’s new appreciation of the role of forests in mitigating climate change provides an historic opportunity to shift the political economy of forests. Debate at the international level, in forums where forests are never usually discussed, is now dominated by the role of forests in climate change and its mitigation. New mechanisms and aid architecture are being put in place to finance sustainable forest management – an opportunity indeed to ensure that the lessons learnt from 40 years of practice can inform these debates held among people that have not been intimately involved in forestry practice and learning. Critically it is a moment to ensure that the social dimensions of carbon financing for forestry are carefully understood to prevent negative effects on the poor. A particular issue concerns the protection and assertion of the rights of local people as the sellers of carbon.

Improving what we do – making it possible to combine SFM andimprovedhumanwell-being

If we accept these six propositions and the complex arena of drivers of change, it is clear that we have much to do to change the nature of the debate and the outcomes both for improved human well-being and SFM. The current global debate on climate change provides an important moment of opportunity to influence the course of policy and practice. Based on what we have learnt there are seven areas where we have to improve our understanding and practice:

1. Start with the poor – understand their different interests and livelihoods, don’t impose our understanding. In our desire to reduce complexity we constantly seek for “the” single solution. We need to accept that there can be no ‘one-size fits all’ package and change is not amenable to single agency solutions. Responses must be:

• Politicallydifferentiated – determined by political regimes

• Socially differentiated – determined by social structures, hierarchies and power relations

• Spatiallydifferentiated – adapting to levels of remoteness, connectedness to markets, and alternative employment opportunities

• Resource-base differentiated – dependent on the nature and quality of the resource, i.e. forests, forest-agriculture mosaic, agricultural landscapes with trees

If we are going to make any difference at all we must invest in understanding what makes people poor and traps them in poverty. We should put poor people and their vulnerabilities at the centre and not the forests. We must understand the complexity of power relations that affect people’s capacity to secure access to resources. We must also recognise the high risks attached to the poor challenging the power relations that threaten their livelihoods and rights to forest resources. Above all, we need to accept and implement wider livelihood-based approaches linked to governance arrangements that promote structural transformation (at local, national and international levels).

��

2. Understand and work with the limitations of forests and forestry – accept and understand where forests make a difference:

• For the capable poor and the well – off – yes!

• For people with some assets – maybe!

• For the extreme poor – rarely mainly no!

3. Provide broader livelihood options – the region is changing fast; migration and remittances are playing an ever-increasing role in rural people’s livelihoods, shifting the relationships between people and the rural environment. So, we must accept that working outside the ‘forestry sector’ may lead to greater poverty reduction e.g. working for land policy and reform; creating attractive non-farm and off-farm employment options; strengthening social service provisions, developing social protection processes that prevent decline into poverty, protect people and help promote them out of poverty.

4. Harness politics and power to build active citizenship – this requires significant attention to the role of local governance, and an acceptance that participation alone without an accompanying structural change in relationships doesn’t necessarily benefit poor people; attention only to the poor without understanding their relationships with the elites will not lead to sustained change.

5. Understand the role of the state – policy, regulatory functions, service delivery and relationships with civil and political society all have major effects on how decisions are taken, and by whom and for whom they are taken. Attention to all these aspects are necessary to ensure that local people who depend on forests are not made further insecure by decisions taken at international, national or local levels.

6. Role of the market and enterprise and potential for growth. There is persuasive evidence of the importance of building pro-poor enterprises but equally caution at promoting these forms of growth as the panacea for poverty reduction. Growth and poverty have recently become key focuses in forestry with increasing attention being paid to ways in which to commercialise forest production for pro-poor benefits. The increasing demands for socially responsible forestry by investors and consumers are driving a top-end change in corporate behaviours (e.g. Sumalindo’s recent revision of their corporate vision to include the words ‘socially responsible’). At the local level, changes include supporting community-based commercial logging, trade in NTFPs, state asset transfer through allocation of plantations and natural forests to communities. Equitable distribution of benefits remains a key issue that needs serious attention. Also commercialization can turn out to be a threat to natural resources. Hence, concerted efforts need to be made to balance commercialization, with the intention of generating additional income, and resource conservation, critical for obtaining the income in the long term.

7. Global geo-politics and effects on local-level livelihoods. Currently the major drivers at the local level are coming from international pressure to change national practice with respect to forests and forestry. Climate change may offer a serious opportunity to influence the direction of policy and practice. However, necessary changes are likely to have profound effects on local people, where pressure to reduce forest degradation and deforestation at the local level will increase national incentives to enforce forest protection. Local people may be prevented from using forests for their livelihood


needs, or using forest land to farm (often an important route out of poverty). Although the new financing instruments may mean that ‘trees will grow on money’ there is a real risk that this money will go to the wrong people.

Hope for the future?

As the recent food and oil price hikes have illustrated, globally poverty and food security challenges will not go away in the near future. The importance of engaging in current debates and making good use of the rich forestry development experiences is essential to ensure that those who are already threatened by our global actions are not further driven into poverty and insecurity. We must take these lessons and apply them in a way that is morally responsible and sensitive to the context of individuals and their rights.

What is clear from the discussion and debate is that it will be a difficult and contentious process to increase forest cover in the region by 20 million hectares, as proposed by APEC; in particular when we still continue to disagree on the definition of ‘forests’. As Marcus Colchester asked “does it include oil-palm, large timber estates? The target can be achieved but people will be massively marginalised in the process.” The importance of local determination was emphasized during the debate by Yati Bun and Modesto Ga-ab. Rather than signing-up to other people’s targets, each country should determine its own targets based on an understanding of local and national needs and contexts. Honesty about what is possible should underpin the approach to future forest development: “it doesn’t work to adopt other people’s targets; we should know what can work in our own country and start from within. We need to have decent processes of consultation that really bring communities into the debate” (Yati Bun). Returning to our opening challenge is it possible to combine SFM and human well-being? Yes it is, but only with a major effort to restructure the way we work. Most importantly, we need to take seriously our moral responsibility for ensuring people’s rights. Without attention to recognizing and acting on the complex reality illustrated in the seven areas of work, it is clear that we will continue to reproduce the concluding statement made by Ken Piddington:

“My painful conclusion is that the preconditions for sustainable forest management simply do not exist at the present time, with the exception of isolated cases where circumstances have combined with political will to create effective insulation from the pressure of commercial interests.”

References

APFC. 2008. Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission 22nd Session. Draft report. FAO, Bangkok.

CPRC. 2005. Chronic Poverty Report 2004-05. Chronic Poverty Research Centre, University of Manchester.

FAO. 2007. State of the World’s Forests Report 2007. FAO , Rome

RECOFTC. 2008. Is There a Future Role of Forest and Forestry in Poverty Reduction? Thematic report prepared for the Second Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study. Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.

��

Westoby, J. 1968. The Forester as Agent of Change. In: The Purpose of Forests (1987), Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Westoby, J. 1989. Introduction to World Forestry. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Acknowledgements

This synthesis, written by Mary Hobley with inputs from Thomas Enters, and Yurdi Yasmi, draws on the presentations, subsequent debate and questions from the audience.


Forests, climate and change Wednesday, 23 April 2008

Organizers

Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), the US Forest Service (USFS) and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

Introduction

Dr Susan Braatz, FAO

Dr Braatz commenced her introduction by stating that forests are currently high on the global agenda, as reflected in the attention given to forests at December’s Bali COP13. There were 3 key decisions that came out of Bali, that were especially relevant to forests:

1. (Consideration of) Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) – ie. Indicative Guidelines were provided to implement demonstration projects.

2. (Implementation of) the Bali Action Plan

3. (Launch of) The Adaptation Fund

Dr Braatz then outlined the format the plenary would follow (ie. Mitigation & Adaptation) and introduced the first session.

Session 1: Climate change mitigation

Entering Readiness Phase for Full REDD Implementation by Dr Daniel Murdiyarso, Environmental Services Program, CIFOR (Indonesia)

Dr Murdiyarso echoed Dr Braatz ’s comment that forests are currently high on the global agenda, and said that had been the case (in varying degrees) since the early 90s.

Settingthescene

• Some statistics were provided, around deforestation and carbon emissions, eg. 11 billion ha degraded land worldwide (at a rate of around 11 million ha per year)

• ‘Avoided Deforestation’ was not included in the Kyoto Protocol, largely due to question marks over methodology and fears of “leakage”.

• The Stern Review (and especially the fact that land use change accounts for 20%+ of all carbon emissions) has brought it back to the table, suggesting that avoided deforestation may be the cheapest option to mitigate climate change. Can we afford to miss the opportunity? Biofuel as a solution to climate change has serious question marks. For example:

�0

1. Requires significant deforestation to plant crops, which can increase carbon emissions;

2. Can lead to food shortages, and therefore push up food prices (Dr Murdiyarso commented that he had never seen people queuing for cooking oil before!)

• There are only 2 years between Bali and Copenhagen (at which point the COP is due to make concrete decisions on REDD), and then a further 3 years before full implementation in 2012. This leaves little time to address many issues.

If Indonesia could curb peatland fires, it could potentially earn billions of dollars from REDD projects. Tens of thousands of hectares of peatland forest have been cleared to make way for plantations in Kalimantan, Indonesia (Leon Budi Prasetyo).

• Murdiyarso touched on Forest Day, which was staged during the Bali COP, and which brought together many stakeholders (around the same number as in attendance at APFW), to discuss these issues.

• In designing REDD, “priority areas should be identified within countries to focus on those about to deforest and to avoid leakage”.

• A graph was shown, which illustrated the general trend of deforestation – triggers, reinforcing loops, stabilizing loops.

Criteriaforreadiness

1. Methodological issues must be addressed (eg. monitoring and accounting).

2. Underlying causes of deforestation must be identified. This includes market failures (eg. commodity prices) and governance failures (eg. land rights issues).

3. Demonstration Activities (both national and sub-national) must be initiated. Also need to look at other Payments for Environmental Services (PES), beyond carbon.

4. Baselines (or reference levels) must be set.

Conclusion

In addition to the above criteria, significant capacity building is needed at a local and regional level, and a national registry must be established that is supported by strong governance.

Dr Murdiyarso’s presentation was followed by a panel discussion.

Panelists

Dr Nur Masripatin, FORDA, Ministry of Forestry of IndonesiaDr Nguyen Hoang Nghia, Forest Science Institute of Vietnam


Dr Kanninen commenced the discussion by inviting each panelist to comment briefly on Dr Murdiyarso’s presentation.

Dr Nur:

• The issues are extremely relevant to Indonesia (especially post-Bali).

• Improvement is needed for both methodological and institutional aspects.

• REDD must be performance-based, demonstrable, transparent and verifiable.

• It is complicated by the need for a national system, which must then be implemented at a sub-national level.

• Issues of “governance” refer not only to “government”, but also to community and business sectors.

• Determining reference levels is not only a scientific issue, but also a political one with economic implications.

Dr Nghia:

• Viet Nam has been identified as one the top 5 countries most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

• We are very eager to work on potential solutions (like REDD).

Dr Kanninen then asked the audience how many participants have been involved in national level discussions about REDD? Approximately 10% raised their hands. He made the comment that the window of opportunity to demonstrate that REDD is a viable option post- Kyoto is not big. He then invited comments and questions from the floor.

Questionsfromparticipants

• Cambodia: How do we make it happen? How do we ensure that foresters are directly involved? He also made the comment that CDM was “designed to fail”.

• Malaysia: Are we willing to accept that CDM is a failure? Do we give up completely on this and move to REDD so soon?

• Yurdi Yasmi, RECOFTC: When you say “Are we ready?”, who do you mean by “we”? How do we ensure that REDD incorporates the interests of the poor?

• Viet Nam: We’ve heard a lot about “deforestation”, but how will REDD address discussions about “degradation”? How does REDD include an incentive for sustainable forest management (SFM)?

Responsefrompanelists

Dr Murdiyarso:

• A/R CDM which focuses on C-sequestration did not fly, in part, because it entails high transaction costs.

��

• REDD has a broader perspective as far as forestry is concerned, as it relates to environmental services issues like protection of biodiversity and watershed functions, but is “packaged under the banner of climate change.”

• It also has a greater scope to involve local communities.

• Reducing forest degradation is important for improving the quality of the ecosystem, as well as for retaining carbon.

Dr Nur:

• There are many good policy measures that are relevant to REDD. The challenge is to integrate and to implement them.

• We definitely want to use REDD to support SFM, because as long as there is a market for illegal timber, SFM is very costly.

• I agree that we need to engage foresters. “We can have diplomats or international lawyers speaking beautiful language, but when we’re negotiating about forests, we need people who know about forests.”

• There has been a lot of negative coverage about forests in Indonesia, but there are actually some good things happening too - eg. the Forest Carbon Alliance.

Questionsfromparticipants• Indonesia: Can you explain about “leakage”, and about how the pricing system will work

(for both mandatory and voluntary markets)?

• Asia-Pacific is different to the rest of the world, in that land use actually accounts for around 40% of carbon emissions. How do we design REDD so that It is anchored to existing development plans, investment plans etc?

• Indonesia: I work for a development company that is working on carbon sequestration projects, and we are looking for partners and incentives .

• Vietnam, Flora & Fauna Int.: How will REDD work when deals are locked into 30+ year timeframes, and yet the price/value of carbon and other relevant commodities are likely to fluctuate dramatically during this period?

• Marcus Colchester: Many forest-dwellers have no land rights. Yet, even if they do, who owns the ‘carbon rights’? If you own the tree, does this mean you own the carbon? How can we ensure that payments will help, and not harm, the poor?

• Fred Stolle, WRI: Where will the money come from (given that the EU and US have stated they are against purchasing carbon from overseas forests, at least for now)? He also addressed the participants and asked how many had ‘offset’ their flights to Hanoi. Only 3 or 4 hands were raised!

• Nepal: Forests in our highland areas are very well maintained and regenerated due to community ownership and initiative, yet forests in out lowlands are depleting due to governments selling off the land. With a federal system of management, the net emissions of the country are not good, so where is the incentive for the community to continue their good work?


• Malaysia: Began with a Malaysian saying that translates as “beauty that deceives the eye”. Stated that, as a forester, he is very sceptical of REDD because he was a delegate at COP6 and felt he had no say. “At the end of the day, decisions taken will be politically motivated”. Claimed that there is a “global conspiracy”.

Responsefrompanelists

Dr Murdiyarso:

• As there are many stakeholders involved in forests and ecosystems, much work is needed to clarify ‘carbon rights’.

• With regards to ensuring the interests of the poor are considered with REDD, this will likely mean trade-offs between equity and efficiency.

Dr Nur:

• We too are eager to know where the money will come from. We are spending a lot of time and money preparing for REDD, without any guarantees of the market.

• We should not be too skeptical of REDD, yet at the same time, we should not have too many expectations either

• “There are many conspiracies in the world”.

Conclusion

Dr Braatz concluded the first session by recapping on some of the key issues and opportunities discussed:

• REDD provides an opportunity to develop the capacity to monitor and assess forests, which is needed with or without implementation of REDD.

• It also provides an opportunity to bring together all of the sectors that are involved in driving deforestation, in a context that will ensure the forestry sector has the upper hand.

• Although the need to address climate change is urgent, we have to ensure that the solutions are not temporary ones. Although there is only a small window of opportunity, it is essential that we do things right, or we will lose the opportunity altogether.

Session 2: Climate change adaptation

Dr Allen Solomon, National Program Leader for Global Change Research, US Forest Service, introduced the second session by explaining that adaptation to climate change is closely linked to mitigation of climate change and, therefore, this second session would complement the first. He then introduced the second presentation:

Vulnerability of Forests to Climate Change: Current Research in Tropical Areas by Dr Boone Kauffmann, Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, US Forest Service.

��

Dr Kaufman commenced his presentation by pointing out that tropical forests cover only 10% of the earth’s surface, yet contain around 40% of the carbon that resides in terrestrial vegetation. They also harbor between half and two-thirds of the world’s species.

• It has been demonstrated (by monitoring seasonal trends) that forests significantly affect the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere.

• “Global warming is a fact of life.”

• Dr Kauffmann compared changes in temperature between 1906 and 1976 (ie. app. 0.07°C increase per decade), with changes between 1976 and 2005 (app. 0.17°C per decade).

• He pointed out that increases in temperature will decrease rates of carbon sequestration (so global warming is a self-perpetuating process), which makes it hard to make long-term predictions.

• Climate change will increase the frequency, persistence and magnitude of El Nino events.

• Likely responses of forests to climate change include collapse due to fire or drought, loss of biodiversity and dominance of invasive species.

• Mangrove forests are particularly important due to their high concentration of carbon, biodiversity and water resources. Although mangroves can adapt to major weather events, they are particularly vulnerable to land use change.

• Sea level is currently rising at around 3mm per year (twice the rate of the last century).

• At least a 1m sea level rise is expected this century, although a 3°C temperature rise would mean a sea level rise of between 3m and 6m.

• Likely impacts of sea level rise include erosion of beaches, loss of coastal ecosystems and infrastructure, coral bleaching, ocean acidification, disease and a decline of fisheries industries.

• The Pacific Islands are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, and Dr Kauffmann provided a striking, visual representation of sea-level rise in Waikiki, Hawaii.

• He provided a number of necessary steps that must be taken if we are to adequately adapt to climate change impacts:

i. Enhance environmental and biological monitoringii. Improve efforts to predict impacts and to understand these impactsiii. Prepare for warmer climates and, possibly, for drier climatesiv. Restore and maintain forests and wetlands

• “Although poverty will not be totally alleviated by forests, the loss of forests will have disastrous and unprecedented impacts on poverty.”

Dr Kauffmann’s presentation was followed by a panel discussion involving: Dr Rex Cruz (University of the Philippines), Dr Solomon (USDA), Dr Bruno Locatelli (CIFOR-CIRAD ) and Dr Boone Kauffmann (USFS).

Dr Cruz:

• Impacts of climate change will be both direct and indirect. For example, as certain areas are affected, people will move to other areas.

• We must persist with sustainable forest management (SFM).


• We must look at climate change adaptation from a holistic perspective – ie. consider the intricate connections between mountain peaks and coastal areas.

• Is climate change mitigation relevant for the poor, or merely for economic sectors?

Dr Locatelli:

• Discussed the Tropical Forests and Climate Change Adaptation (TroFCCA) project.

• Even if forests are thought to be among the areas most affected by climate change, adaptation policies don’t give much importance to forests. For example, for TroFCCA, the research has demonstrated that this is not necessarily the case.

• Therefore, the emphasis mustn’t necessarily be on forests, but on the goods and services (eg. water resources and NTFPs) that forests provide.

• Endorsed Dr Cruz’s statement that we must look at forests and climate change from a holistic perspective, specifically by:

i. Mainstreaming adaptation into forestsii. Mainstreaming forests into adaptation

Dr Solomon:

• The key to growth is soil. Climate change will mean more extreme weather events, which will displace soil.

• What can we do about this?i. Increase forest diversity (which will increase resistance to disturbance and

disease).ii. Improve our understanding and analysis of genetics.

Questionsfromparticipants:

• Indonesia: “Climate change is a global conspiracy, inspired by scientists and adopted by politicians”. When it comes to forest management, foresters have always been told what to do by others, while it should be the other way around.

• Malaysia: There are so many things to do, where do we start?

• Japan: Mitigation and adaptation should be tackled holistically, but how do we coordinate things? He also mentioned that Japan will host the UNFCCC workshop on REDD soon.

• Viet Nam: There has been much talk about mainstreaming adaptation into forests, but how do we mainstream forests into adaptation?

Responsefrompanelists:

Dr Kauffmann:

• Climate change is probably the most complex problem to ever face scientists, let alone foresters.

��

• Where to begin? Pick the low-hanging fruit. “But, if there were easy solutions, we wouldn’t be having meetings like this”.

Dr Locatelli:

• At a local scale, we have to start from local stakeholders’ needs before studying future impacts and developing policy solutions. At a global scale, the links between adaptation and mitigation must be strengthened.

Dr Solomon:

• Contrary to popular opinion, we need to start speeding up the carbon cycle – ie. get carbon into trees faster.

Conclusion

Dr Susan Braatz, FAO:

• There seems to be a consensus that foresters need to be more engaged in climate change strategy.

• There are clearly synergies between mitigation and adaptation, so these strategies must be tackled holistically.

• Both need to be addressed within a broader policy context (ie. outside the forestry sector), as well as within the context of existing development and forestry plans.

• Establishing carbon rights and equitable distribution of rewards will be crucial if we are to alleviate poverty.

• There is already a lot of knowledge about what needs to be done, but this knowledge needs to be synthesized and implemented.


Timber trade, forest law compliance and governance

Thursday, 24 April 2008

Organizers

Asia Forest Partnership (AFP), the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), the UK Department for International Development (DFID), the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC)

Introduction

Boen Purnama, Secretary General, Ministry of Forestry of Indonesia; Chair, United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) 8 Bureau.

Dr Boen welcomed the audience on behalf of the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry and congratulated the Asia Forest Partnership (AFP) for organizing the event – “this has been an excellent effort to elevate participation of the private sector and civil society in achieving sustainable forest management.”

Timber trade, forest law compliance & governance are all central themes of AFP. Although deforestation does show some signs of decline, it is still “rampant” in parts. It is a very difficult issue to address, as there are a range of actors involved with range of interests, many of which wield a lot of power. Indonesia has undertaken many initiatives to help combat illegal logging (eg. FLEGT), but this complex problem requires a concerted and committed effort, and not just from government.

There are a number of instruments to drive this effort, of which trade is one. The challenge is to find a balance between the costs of such instruments and their impact. “The UNFF would welcome input from this dialogue.” Participants were then shown a documentary film - The Forest of South Sulawesi – which won two categories at the 31st International Wildlife Film Festival 2008 Awards. The film documents the local community’s innovative and cooperative approach to combating the illegal timber trade.

Moderator

Rico Hizon, BBC Asia Business Report

Mr Hizon enthusiastically greeted the participants, and posed two key questions that would underpin the Dialogue: Can illegal trade in timber be eradicated? Are developed countries taking initiative to play their part? He promised that “WE WILL FIND THE SOLUTIONS!”, but only if there was participation from all sectors of the audience. Mr Hizon then introduced the first of five presentations. Large quantities of illegal timber are transported by river in Indonesia (Agus Andrianto).

��

Session 1: Presentations

No.1:Actionsbyconsumercountriestotackletheinternationaltradeinillegaltimber

Federico Francisco Lopez-Casero, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Japan

Dr Lopez-Casero commenced his presentation by pointing out that round wood imports into traditional markets (eg. EU & USA) are decreasing, while for a number of emerging markets throughout the Asia-Pacific region they are increasing (eg. China & Viet Nam).

What consumer countries are doing?

• Only recently have many consumer countries acknowledged that they have a responsibility to address illegal timber trade. This acknowledgement has come about due to a number of factors, including pressure from civil society, self interest (eg. climate change) and moral obligation.

• One major initiative that has been established to do so is the Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (FLEGT).

• This relies heavily on Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs), which will license legal timber, exclude unlicensed timber & define legality. VPA negotiations are ongoing in Malaysia, Ghana, Indonesia and other timber producing countries. The first VPA is expected to be announced during 2008.

• The EU is also looking at the possibility of a complete ban on unverified timber.

• The Lacey Act (1900) prohibits trade in and possession of endangered domestic plants in the USA. An amendment to the act – to contain all plant products (including timber) - is currently under discussion in US Congress.

• Public procurement policies primarily affect construction timber, furniture & paper.

• Private sector initiatives include the Timber Trade Action Plan (TTAP) – including Cameroon, Congo, Indonesia, Malaysia, China and brazil – and individual Codes of Conduct in countries including Belgium, Holland, France, Spain, UK & Japan.

Beyond2008

• There must be improved coherence between procurement policies

• Other recommendations include green building standards, increased customs cooperation, greater focus on re-exporting intermediaries and global licensing schemes.

No.2:Ensuringthesustainability

Amir Sunarko, Sumalindo Lestari (SL), IndonesiaMr Sunarko commenced his presentation by providing a brief overview of Sumalindo Lestari.

• The company is part of Singapore-based Samko Forest Holdings, and carries out much of its operations in East Kalimantan.

• Sumalindo operates natural tropical and plantation forest, as well as logging, plywood production, mdf, secondary process & mouldings.


• It was awarded a Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certificate for sustainable forest management.

• VISION: to be the best in the world and socially responsible integrated wood-based industry which produce eco-solutions by utilizing its raw material from sustainable resources.

• Eco-Concept: “Reduce, Recycle, Reuse”.

Sumalindoiscommittedto:

• Raising greater cross-border understanding & co-operation.

• Promoting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) amongst businesses.

• Promoting adoption of an eco-friendly lifestyle.

• Sumalindo uses technology to maximize the utilization of wood and reduce waste.

• It has also established self-imposed conservation zones, which have reduced logging areas by 30%.

• In developing and implementing its sustainability policy Sumalindo has worked closely with NGOs, including TNC & WWF.

No.3:Aretimbermarketschanging?Ifso,whataretheimplicationsforindustry,forests,peopleandgovernments?

Moray Isles, Dalhoff Larsen & Horneman (DLH), Viet Nam

Overview of DLH:

DLH is a Danish-owned group that has been trading and producing timber and wood products since 1908. DLH works globally in 37 countries, has an annual turnover of around US$1.5 billion, and employs around 4000 staff.

• DLH is organised into 2 main business division - Hardwood and Timber/Board – and trades/produces over 1% of the world’s total hardwoods.

• VISION: To be a major independent player in selected segments of the global timber trade and to promote the use of timber from renewable natural resources.

• DLH’s timber supply is derived largely from South America, South East Asia and Africa. Its primary market is Europe. The company takes both a commercial and an environmental/social interest in conserving wood supply, so as to leave wood for future generations.

• DLH is committed to the environment and actively engaged in the promotion and production of certified products through its Good Supplier Project, and operates the world’s largest Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified forest, in the Congo – some 1.3 million hectares.

VietNamindustrymarketindicators

• Wood related processing is 5th largest export activity in Viet Nam (around 9m3 pa for all sectors), and a major employer of women and rural labour.

• Valued at around US$2.4b in 2007 and forecast at US$3b+ for 2009. Export value is 10 times higher now than 2000, with recent growth estimated at 35% pa.

�0

Aremarketschanging?

• Prior to 1999, timber industry was characterized by minimal FSC certification, dominance of natural as opposed to plantation timber (perceived as poor), limited international markets and low customer demands.

• Post-2004, FSC now forms 50% of DLH Vietnamese import and export business, plantation wood comprises 60%, import make up 80% of timber requirements and there are strict strict customer demands for sustainability and certification.

Implications...

All industry players must:

• Adapt quickly to changes

• Promote and develop substitutes for endangered species

• Use only certified products

• Support domestic supply of plantation wood and well managed natural forest

• Educate customers and processors

• Be proactive rather than reactive

No.4:Islegalandsustainabletimberproductionimportant?Whofor,andwhy?

Timer Manurung, Telapak, Indonesia

• To be legal does not necessarily mean to be sustainable.

• Emphasised that the trade of illegal timber is a trans-national crime, which can only be addressed through international, cross-border collaboration.

• Legal: Complies with national regulation (including traceability).

• Sustainable: Maintains ecological value (ie. timber stock, ecosystem function and services) and is socially responsible.

• Argued that to be legal does not necessarily mean to be sustainable, and that there can be various combinations between the two. eg. Some logging practices can be illegal, yet sustainable, while others can be legal but unsustainable.

• This is particularly relevant to small-scale producers, who may operate sustainably but for whom compliance is unfeasible as it is designed for industrial-scale producers.

• Timber purchasers must be accountable for what they purchase, as much as suppliers must be accountable for what they supply. eg. Often the finger is pointed by developed countries at developing countries, when it is their demand that fuels the illegal and/or unsustainable practice in the first place.

No.5:CertifyingcommunityforestryinPapuaNewGuinea

Caroline Imun, Foundation for People and Community Development (FPCD), Papua New Guinea.


• FPCD is a local NGO that works with indigenous forest resource owners in Madang province, PNG.

• It established “The Indigenous Community Forestry Group certification scheme” in 2005, and promotes exported sawn timber under the “Eco-timber” label.

OverviewofPNG

• Population of approximately 5 million, comprising 700+ indigenous languages.

• Around 87% forest cover, and 97% customary ownership of land.

• Unsustainable logging practice and lack of compliance with forest laws.

• Local people are marginalized and there is an unequal distribution of benefits.

Forestcertification

• Forest certification was introduced in 1996.

• The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification system was chosen because of its global credibility and potential to empower resource owners.

• FPCD certification scheme currently comprises 5 members, with a total area of 3000ha. The first batch of certified timber was produced in 2007, totaling 9m3.

Benefits&challenges

• FPCD certification scheme has the potential to increase income, improve living standards, build community capacity, empower resource owners and sustain the natural environment.

Governmentmust:

• Enforce laws

• Foster a market for value-added forest products

• Support resource owners who want to implement sustainable forest management (SFM), but don’t have the knowledge or means

• Extend certification system to other parts of PNG

Conclusion

• SFM can be achieved under existing laws, but landowners must be supported by other stakeholders.

Session 2: Open forum

Following morning tea, Mr Hizon opened the Dialogue to comments/questions from the floor. Following is a broad summary of some key comments from participants, and responses from the five panelists.

RH = Rico Hizon, FL = Dr. Federico Francisco Lopez-Casero, AS = Amir Sunarko, MI = Moray Isles,TM = Timer Manurung, CI = Caroline Imun

��

PNG: Has anyone here ever had any help from their government?

Thailand: Questions statement from TM that people in Thailand can buy illegal logs from government officials. Do you have any evidence?

RH: Despite all these standards/policies/measures that are in place, illegal logging figures continue to increase! Why?

MI: Despite the existence of laws, people are always going to circumvent them.

FL: International certification schemes require mutual recognition.

Floor: (addresses CI) Corporate Social Responsibility – what is the level of commitment to help forest people? And is it an approach that can work to help implement SFM?

CI: FPCD addresses social, environmental and economic concerns through certification.

Malaysia: Outlines his intimate knowledge of each element of the panel (ie. past, present & future employment links). Points out that the panel contains representatives from two companies that have chosen to commit to sustainability, and emphasizes that this commitment requires the collaboration of senior management, which can take a very long time. Given that it is accepted we must act fast, how on earth can this be implemented across the board and across the region? Even with the commitment, the logistics (eg. auditing) are immense.

AS: Recommends companies collaborate with NGOs for advice, credibility and stability. Identification to implementation can be achieved in just 3-5 years.

MI: Points out that merely complying fully with current standards and policies etc can go a long way towards improving a company’s sustainability.

Malaysia: Applies the metaphor of choosing to treat cancer by cutting off your head! You have to treat problems at the source. What has Telepak done to help tackle these problems, other than merely report? How can you say that 70% or 80% of timber going from Indonesia to Malaysia is illegal? Just because it is uncertified doesn’t mean it’s illegal. Sorting out certification is Indonesia’s responsibility. We are just buying timber, it’s up to Indonesia to sort out where it comes from.

TM: Malaysia always says that it’s Indonesia’s problem. And tries to delay. There are ongoing negotiations for an MoU between Malaysia and Indonesia, but the latest draft from Indonesia is unsigned by Malaysia. Most of the problems related to trade of illegal timber between Malaysia and Indonesia are Malaysian!

Japan: Why doesn’t anybody point the finger at Singapore, even though it imports large quantities of illegal timber?

TM: We have a report on Singapore, and yes they import large quantities of illegal timber. They also harbor criminals from Indonesia as there are no extradition agreements.

MI: (regarding potential for private sector to support small-scale, sustainable industries, like PNG) Yes, but it’s important to link suppliers with buyers and identify an end use. The challenge for a small producer is logistics – ie. getting the supply to the buyer, often from


remote locations for a reasonable price. A potential solution could be to make agreements with large-scale freight suppliers conditional to providing cost-effective solutions for remote and emerging markets.

Australia: (i) Media articles are good for raising awareness, but often repeat statistics that may be inaccurate or out-of-date. (ii) How can sustainable operators encourage colleagues (or competitors) in private industry to do follow their lead?

AS: There are benefits (or otherwise) to be gained for all operators from an industry-wide reputation.

Conclusion

Dr Dicky Simorangkir, Rare International and Dr David Cassells, TNC:

• Markets are changing in ways that should encourage legal and sustainable forest management and trade.

• This should assist legal and sustainable producers by excluding unfair competition from illegal and unsustainable producers.

• Governments can help these processes by streaming regulations for both community and industrial producers to reduce costs and opportunities for corruption.

• Governments should review their charges and royalty structures to provide more direct incentives for producers to adopt legal and sustainable production practices.

• Consumer and producer governments, development agencies, NGO’s, and other relevant parties should work together to support accelerated capacity building for both community and commercial enterprises seeking to move towards legal and sustainable production.

• There is an immediate need for credible verification of legality to help buyers and sellers determine what is legal and what is not.

��

William Wirawan2008

“Caring hand of an orangutan as being guided

by a worker in the National Park,

Cisarua, Bogor”


The twenty-second session Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission

21-25 April 2008

Summary of recommendations

FortheattentionofgovernmentsandFAO

The Commission recommended:

• fully recognizing the complex ecological factors and risks associated with forest land-use change;

• ensuring secure forest tenure and provide other enabling factors to facilitate improvements in the livelihoods for forest-dependent people;

• strengthening partnerships between APFC and other relevant organizations, and continuing to participate in and inform international forestry processes;

• exploring modalities for establishing closer collaborative links between APFC and the Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC), with a view toward increasing support to countries on issues related to sustainable forest management and improved livelihoods;

• employing the principles, approaches and tools of sustainable forest management in climate change projects and REDD demonstration activities;

• strengthening discussions and collaboration to enhance regional and national actions to combat illegal logging and associated trade;

• ensuring that the findings of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study are incorporated into strategic planning processes and used to guide reform and re-invention of forestry agencies; and

• promoting investment in forestry education and supporting collaborative efforts such as the proposed Asia-Pacific Universities’ Forest Education Network.

FortheattentionofFAO

The Commission recommended:

• providing policy support to member countries in assessing the potential social, economic and environmental implications of biofuels production;

• giving high priority to building and strengthening capacities for the transfer of skills and information, and to promote international and inter-sectoral cooperation and collaboration in developing responses to emerging forestry challenges;

PARALLEL SESSIONS

��

• continuing efforts to enhance community-based forest management and forestry initiatives that help reduce poverty;

• formulating guidelines to assist countries in developing policies and practices relating to social aspects of sustainable forest management and poverty alleviation;

• continuing providing support for effective implementation of national forest programmes;

• assisting countries in developing effective mechanisms, as appropriate, to collect and distribute payments for environmental services;

• continuing support for executive training in forest policy, forestry education networks, the regional forest policy initiative, follow-up to the second Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study, national forest programmes, and monitoring, assessment and reporting for sustainable forest management activities;

• studying mechanisms that might enable the realization of “green premiums” for sustainable forest management;

• maintaining a strong emphasis on capacity building, especially strengthening national capacities for dealing with climate change issues;

• carefully assessing priorities and potential synergies so that FAO-supported activities can be focused on the most critical issues;

• strengthening efforts to help countries integrate policies and strategies on climate change mitigation and adaptation into national forest programmes;

• supporting work on methodological issues related to REDD, including the definition of “forest degradation”;

• developing tools that could assist countries to address other ecosystem services and livelihood benefits in their REDD strategies;

• assisting with REDD-readiness and demonstration activities in developing countries by enhancing transfer of knowledge and technology, particularly with regard to monitoring and accounting of forest carbon;

• assisting developing countries in securing financial resources for carrying out REDD-readiness and demonstration activities;

• enhancing the sharing of information and experiences across the region and improving access to relevant data related to climate change challenges;

• strengthening countries’ analytical capacities and summarizing and clarifying the complexities of climate change mechanisms;

• preparing guidelines for developing national forest climate change adaptation plans;

• using opportunities presented by the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) and the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) to convey the forestry community’s perspectives on forests and climate change to the UNFCCC;

• coordinating closely among international agencies to minimize overlaps in work programmes and to ensure maximum efficiency in resource utilization;

• reporting of the outcomes of international forestry processes to UNFCCC;

• implementing a stock-taking review of national forest law compliance and governance activities and initiatives;


• assisting countries in strengthening capacity and securing financial resources to enable effective implementation of measures to combat illegal logging and improve forest law compliance;

• assisting member countries in developing and implementing simple and practical tools and mechanisms for combating illegal logging and associated trade, including voluntary forest and chain-of-custody certification (including mutual recognition), legality verification systems, national standards and codes of practice, criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management, and reviews of legislation and governance-related initiatives;

• assisting forestry agencies in the region to review structures, policies and functions to better align these with new demands, objectives and expectations;

• supporting member countries in maximizing the use of the findings of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study and the APFC study on re-inventing forestry agencies; and

• submitting the report of the twenty-second session of Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission, including a summary of the outcomes relevant to the UNFF8 agenda items, to the UNFF Secretariat.

Introduction

1. At the invitation of the Government of Viet Nam, the twenty-second session of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission (APFC) was convened in Hanoi, Viet Nam, 21-25 April 2008. Delegates from 31 member countries and 6 United Nations organizations participated in the session, along with observers and representatives from 5 non-member countries and 33 regional and international inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations. A list of participants is given in Appendix B. The Commission welcomed the Russian Federation as a new member.

2. Recognizing the Commission’s desire to see specific Asia-Pacific regional issues recognized and articulated in wider regional and global processes, and guided by recommendations of the twenty-first session of the Commission and by the Executive Committee of the Commission, the twenty-second session of the Commission was organized as the core activity within the broad concept of Asia-Pacific Forestry Week.

3. Asia-Pacific Forestry Week attracted more than 700 participants from 55 countries. More than 40 partners supported Asia-Pacific Forestry Week with financial and in-kind contributions. Special plenary sessions were organized on three separate mornings of Forestry Week, focused on forests and human well-being, forests and climate change, and forest law compliance and governance. Twenty-eight parallel events were organized by various partners during Forestry Week. An Information Market featured 27 organizational booths, 55 posters, a photo exhibit, and three book launching events.

Openingceremony

4. The opening session featured addresses by the Deputy Prime Minister, Government of Viet Nam, the Assistant Director-General of the Forestry Department of FAO, and prominent keynote speakers.

5. His Excellency, Hoang Trung Hai, Deputy Prime Minister, Government of Viet Nam, welcomed participants on behalf of the Government of Viet Nam. He noted the important role that

��

forestry plays in the economy of Viet Nam, as a vital economic and technical sector. He emphasized the dramatic increase in exports of forest products during the past several years, but also highlighted the heavy dependence of many poor people living in and near forests. Mr Hai further reported Viet Nam’s impressive efforts in reforestation and forest rehabilitation, and the country’s strong commitment to sustainable forest management.

6. Mr Jan Heino, Assistant Director-General, FAO Forestry Department, welcomed participants on behalf of FAO. He thanked the Government of Viet Nam, and especially the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, for the preparatory work and arrangements for Asia-Pacific Forestry Week, and acknowledged the collaboration of many partner organizations in jointly organizing the event. Mr Heino noted the challenges associated with poverty reduction, climate change and biofuels development as important long-term and emerging issues for forestry.

7. Ms Sunita Narain, Director of the Centre for Science and Environment, presented the first keynote address. Ms Narain noted that the threat of climate change and the imperatives of development are providing practitioners of forestry with unprecedented challenges and opportunities. She stressed that forests are the key to poverty eradication in large areas of the developing world. Ms Narain emphasized the need to re-invent the way forests are managed and incorporated in economic planning processes. She stressed that the main challenge is in balancing forest conservation and economic development, especially in developing countries.

8. Professor Norman Myers, Fellow of the Saïd Business School, Oxford University, presented the second keynote address. He emphasized the history and future outlook for deforestation, especially in the tropics. He noted that a continuation of current levels of conservation efforts will likely result in the loss of half the planet’s species within the next several decades. Professor Myers asserted that actions in the next several decades will determine the future of the earth for the next five million years. He stressed that the situation provides an enormous opportunity for foresters to develop new, effective strategies for biodiversity conservation and forest management.

9. Ms Frances Seymour, Director-General of the Center for International Forestry Research, provided introductory remarks from the international forest research community. She emphasized that the rapidity of change and the emergence of new challenges called for urgent action. She also noted that many institutions lack capacity to deal with the complexities of the challenges and that science often does not have comprehensive answers to important questions. Ms Seymour stressed that policies need to minimize risks to the most vulnerable communities and ecosystems.

Adoption of agenda (Item 1)

10. Under the guidance of Mr P.R. Mohanty (India), the outgoing Chair of the Commission, the provisional agenda (FO:APFC/2008/1) was reviewed and adopted (see Appendix A). Documents considered by the Commission are listed in Appendix C.


Election of officers (Item 2)

11. The Commission unanimously elected the following individuals to hold office until the commencement of the twenty-third session:

Chairperson: Nguyen Ngoc Binh (Viet Nam) Vice-Chairpersons: Karma Dukpa (Bhutan) Zhang Hongyan (China) Kanawi Pouru (Papua New Guinea) Rapporteur: Neil Hughes (Australia) Mr Patrick Durst (FAO) served as Secretary of the Commission.

Forestry in a changing world (Item 3)

Addressingthechallenges

12. The Commission considered the challenges confronting forestry in a changing world on the basis of Secretariat Note FO:APFC/2008/3, presentations from a panel of experts offering perspectives from the private sector, international agencies and non-governmental environmental organizations (NGOs), and a discussion report prepared by the Secretariat, elaborating the situation and prospects for forestry in the Asia-Pacific region.

13. The Commission noted the growing influence of climate change, threats to food security, escalating energy prices, and increasing demands for water and forest products in shaping forest management policies and land use. Delegates recognized that emerging forestry challenges pose the greatest threats to vulnerable, impoverished, forest-dependent people.

14. The Commission appreciated society’s aspirations for growth and development, but acknowledged that such development can have major impacts on forests. It also noted increasing regional and urban-rural disparities that sometimes lead to conflicts over forest management objectives and priorities. The Commission noted that utilization of forest resources to support national development and to alleviate poverty can result in improved forest conservation.

15. The Commission noted that rapid change and the emergence of new forestry challenges require new responses from within and outside the forestry sector. The importance of developing multi-sectoral approaches and holistic policies was emphasized as necessary to avoid inconsistencies and conflicts among sectors and within the forestry sector itself.

16. The Commission agreed that effective engagement of a wide range of stakeholders through participatory processes is necessary to develop practical solutions for the emerging challenges at global, regional, national and local levels.

17. The Commission recognized the potential that forest carbon offers for attracting financing for sustainable forest management. Delegates stressed that emerging forest carbon funding mechanisms must reward countries for retaining forests and reducing damage to existing forests, and that “perverse” incentives encouraging forest loss must be avoided. Some delegates expressed concern that the complexity of existing and emerging climate change

�0

and forest carbon accounting mechanisms may constrain some countries from participating in forest-based responses to climate change.

18. The Commission recognized that sustainable forest management, as a dynamic and evolving concept, is intended to maintain and enhance the economic, social and environmental values of forests for the benefit of present and future generations. Delegates reiterated the importance of capacity-building in the use of tools such as criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management and certification as important for encouraging sustainable forest management.

19. The Commission highlighted the emergence of the biofuels sector in increasing land-use pressures. Delegates noted linkages among biofuels production, escalating food prices, demands for increased agricultural production, and commensurate pressures on forest lands. The Commission requested FAO to provide policy support to member countries in assessing the potential social, economic and environmental implications of biofuels production.

20. The Commission noted that payments for environmental services could be one of the options for promoting sustainable forest management, noting recent activities in Viet Nam and other countries in this regard. Delegates recognized significant difficulties in valuing ecosystem services, and in implementing practical systems of payment for environmental services, as appropriate for respective member countries.

21. The Commission requested FAO to give high priority to building and strengthening capacities for the transfer of skills and information, and to promote international and inter-sectoral cooperation and collaboration in developing responses to emerging forestry challenges.

Asia-PacificForestrySectorOutlookStudy

22. The Commission received a report outlining progress in implementing the second Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study (APFSOS). The Commission appreciated the objectives of the APFSOS: (i) to assess emerging socio-economic changes impacting on forests and forestry; (ii) to analyze probable scenarios for developments in the forestry sector to the year 2020; and (iii) to outline priorities and strategies to address emerging opportunities and challenges. The Commission expressed appreciation that satisfactory progress had been made in implementing APFSOS activities.

Specialsession:socialdimentionsofforestsandforestry

23. A special Asia-Pacific Forestry Week plenary session entitled, “People, forests and human well-being: managing forests for a period of rapid change,” addressed the question of whether the twin goals of achieving sustainable forest management and improving human well-being can be met. Several examples in which forestry contributed to livelihoods were described. However, it was recognized that forestry activities cannot always alleviate poverty effectively, nor benefit all impoverished groups.

24. The following points emerged from the special session: (a) there is a crucial need to clearly identify and understand the poor (i.e. differentiate socially, spatially and by resource base); (b) solutions should target specific groups and arise from the standpoint of the target group; (c) rights-based approaches may be even more effective than participatory approaches or consultative processes; (d) risk management should be a component of forests and poverty


alleviation efforts; and (e) support for small-scale forest enterprises and value-adding activities at village levels can be effective in reducing poverty. The importance of effective governance structures, conducive to equitable sharing of benefits, was stressed.

Forests and people: challenges and opportunities (Item 4)

25. On the basis of Secretariat Note FO:APFC/2008/4 and presentations from a panel of experts, the Commission considered the challenges and opportunities confronting forestry in the region, in the context of people and forests.

26. The Commission recognized that people-centred development is increasingly the focus of forestry policies. The Commission further noted that many countries are creating institutional structures that emphasize decentralization, participatory decision making, benefit-sharing mechanisms and empowerment of people who live in and around forests. The Commission requested FAO to continue efforts to enhance community-based forest management and forestry initiatives that help reduce poverty.

27. The Commission acknowledged the importance of appropriate definitions of poverty in targeting the most vulnerable people. Delegates shared experiences in substituting simple GNP-based measures of poverty with more complex “quality of life” assessments and “well-being” indices. The Commission requested FAO to develop guidelines to assist countries in developing policies and practices relating to social aspects of sustainable forest management and poverty alleviation.

28. The Commission recognized the need to balance economic development and conservation imperatives and acknowledged the sovereign right of countries to manage forest resources in accordance with national development objectives. The Commission urged countries to be cognizant of complex ecological factors and risks attendant to forest land-use change.

29. The Commission emphasized that forestry can provide a springboard for development as well as contributing to poverty alleviation. The importance of forestry activities contributing to the Millennium Development Goals was highlighted. Delegates noted that forests may variously provide for subsistence needs, income and employment, cultural values and other social benefits. Delegates also recognized that development can lead to forest degradation, especially if planning is inadequate and development is uncontrolled. The Commission stressed the role of national forest programmes in ensuring planned development in forestry and requested FAO to continue providing support for effective implementation of national forest programmes.

30. Delegates recognized that secure and clearly-defined resource tenure is a crucial factor in motivating sustainable forest management and reducing forest-based poverty. The Commission urged member countries to ensure secure forest tenure and provide other enabling factors that facilitate improvements in livelihoods for forest-dependent people.

31. The Commission noted that emerging funding mechanisms for forestry, especially those relating to climate change and payments for environmental services, are difficult for community-based forest managers to access under existing arrangements. Delegates expressed concern that emerging climate change mechanisms may favour intensive forest protection and discriminate

��

against sustainable forest production. The Commission requested FAO to assist countries in developing effective mechanisms, as appropriate, to collect and distribute payments for environmental services.

32. The Commission expressed appreciation for the close collaboration among APFC, FAO and other regional and international organizations, and noted expressions of interest from several such institutions to collaborate more closely with APFC. The Commission encouraged FAO and APFC to strengthen partnerships with relevant organizations, and continue to participate in and inform international forestry processes.

33. The Commission noted a proposal by the Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC) to establish closer collaborative links with APFC to support issues related to sustainable forest management and improved livelihoods. The Commission requested the APFC Secretariat to explore modalities to establish such an arrangement.

FAO/APFC activities in the region (Item 5)

34. On the basis of Secretariat Note FO:APFC/2008/5, the Commission reviewed APFC and FAO-supported activities carried out during the past two years, including follow-up to the recommendations of the twenty-first session of the Commission, and priorities for future work.

35. The Secretariat clarified that many regional activities supported by FAO were carried out within the framework of APFC. Activities generally had been concentrated in three areas: (a) activities designed to promote improvement in forest management for multiple benefits; (b) activities in the areas of economics, policies and institutions; and (c) activities designed to foster greater involvement of people in forestry.

36. The Commission noted its satisfaction with the work programme that had been implemented and commended FAO on the number and quality of initiatives being undertaken in the region.

37. The Commission expressed particular appreciation for FAO support related to national forest programmes, invasive species, codes of practice for forest harvesting, sericulture, livelihood development and poverty-reduction activities, and rehabilitation of tsunami-affected areas.

38. The Commission acknowledged the importance of policy-related initiatives and requested FAO’s continued support for executive training in forest policy, forestry education networks, the regional forest policy initiative, follow-up to the second Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study, national forest programmes, and monitoring, assessment and reporting for sustainable forest management activities.

39. The Commission noted increased costs associated with implementation of sustainable forest management and requested FAO to study mechanisms that might enable the realization of “green premiums” for sustainable forest management.

40. The Commission emphasized the importance of activities that maintain and strengthen capacities in forestry agencies, and in the broader forestry sector, including local communities. The Commission urged FAO to maintain a strong emphasis on capacity building and requested specific assistance to strengthen national capacities for dealing with climate change issues.


41. The Commission recognized the scarcity of FAO and APFC resources and the need to maximize the efficiency of initiatives. The Commission urged FAO to carefully assess priorities and potential synergies so that activities could be focused on the most critical issues.

Specialsession:forestsandclimatechange

42. A special Asia-Pacific Week plenary session entitled, “Forests and climate change,” addressed forests and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Discussions mainly focused on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD).

43. Critical points that were raised during the session included: (a) the wealth of experience worldwide in sustainable forest management represents a sound foundation for climate change mitigation and adaptation; (b) the visibility of forests at the highest political levels and the current availability of funds for REDD “readiness” can be instrumental in supporting sustainable forest management; (c) forest carbon projects are unlikely to be successful unless the rights to carbon are clear and the distribution of benefits from forest carbon projects is equitable; and (d) forestry mitigation and adaptation strategies should be embedded in countries’ national forest programmes and development plans.

Forests and climate change: adaptation and mitigation (Item 6)

44. On the basis of Secretariat Note FO:APFC/2008/6 and the special session plenary, the Commission considered the roles of forests in mitigating climate change, potential adaptation measures in forestry, and related emerging challenges in the region.

45. The Commission recognized the need for a holistic and multi-sectoral approach to effectively address forestry issues related to climate change. The Commission further noted that forest policies and national development plans must be realigned in response to climate change developments. The Commission urged FAO to strengthen efforts to help countries integrate policies and strategies on climate change mitigation and adaptation into national forest programmes (NFPs).

46. The Commission noted the need to resolve many outstanding methodological issues concerning a potential REDD instrument under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Commission requested FAO to support work on methodological issues related to REDD, including the definition of “forest degradation.”

47. The Commission recognized that, while the focus of the role of forests in climate change is carbon, other ecosystem services and livelihood benefits should be considered in national and sub-national strategies to reduce deforestation and forest degradation. It urged FAO to develop tools that could assist countries to address these benefits in their REDD strategies.

48. The Commission emphasized that climate change adaptation and mitigation measures must consider governance issues and social impacts, ensure the engagement of local communities, and address equity and benefit-sharing concerns.

49. The Commission emphasized that implementation of sustainable forest management makes an essential contribution to effective climate mitigation and adaptation. The Commission stressed that focus must be on action, based on solid science, and urged member countries

��

to employ the principles, approaches and tools of sustainable forest management in climate change projects and REDD demonstration activities.

50. The Commission noted that readiness for REDD requires capacity and resources beyond those currently available in developing countries. The Commission requested that FAO assist with REDD-readiness and demonstration activities in developing countries by enhancing transfer of knowledge and technology, particularly with regard to monitoring and accounting of forest carbon, in addition to strengthening monitoring, assessment and reporting on sustainable forest management in Asia and the Pacific. The Commission urged FAO to assist developing countries in securing financial resources for carrying out REDD-readiness and demonstration activities.

6 RAP Publication: 2008/06 FO: APFC/2008/REP

51. The Commission recognized that lack of information and data, and insufficient analytical capacity, currently constrain countries’ ability to respond to climate change challenges. The Commission requested FAO to enhance sharing of information and experiences across the region and to improve access to relevant data. The Commission further requested FAO to help strengthen countries’ analytical capacities, and to assist by summarizing and clarifying the complexities of climate change mechanisms.

52. The Commission requested FAO to prepare guidelines for developing national forest climate change adaptation plans.

53. The Commission urged FAO to use opportunities presented by United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) and the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) to convey the forestry communities’ perspectives on forests and climate change to UNFCCC.

Institutional arrangements and international agreements (Item7)

54. On the basis of Secretariat Note FO:APFC/2008/7 and presentations from a panel of experts, the Commission considered recent developments in institutional arrangements and international agreements.

55. The Commission was informed of recent developments within the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).

56. The Commission welcomed the reported progress, including the development of the non-legally-binding instrument on forests, increased linkages with regional forest-related organizations and the multi-year programme of work in UNFF; the pending entry into force of the International Tropical Timber Agreement 2006; the review of CBD’s Programme of Work on Forest Biodiversity; and UNCCD’s adoption of a 10-year strategic plan. The Commission provided an opportunity for members to discuss how inputs from the region to the eighth session of the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF8) could be achieved.

57. The Commission emphasized the contribution of sustainable forest management in combating land degradation, desertification and mitigating and adapting to climate change.


Delegates acknowledged that sustainable forest management has been under-financed, and noted potential avenues for increasing funding, including from national and donor resources, payments for environmental services, private-sector resources, and through international processes, as appropriate for the respective member countries.

58. Delegates noted an increasing number of international agencies with involvement in the forests agenda. The Commission urged international agencies to coordinate closely to minimize overlaps in work programmes and ensure maximum efficiency in resource utilization.

59. The Commission noted the importance of forestry agreements reached at the thirteenth Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and requested FAO and other international agencies to facilitate reporting of the outcomes of international forestry processes to UNFCCC.

7 RAP Publication: 2008/06 FO: APFC/2008/REP

Specialsession:trade,forestlawcomplianceandgovernance

60. A special Asia-Pacific Forestry Week plenary session entitled, “Dialogue on timber trade, forest law compliance and governance,” addressed sustainability in the trade of timber and forest products and issues related to forest governance and forest law compliance.

61. The following key points emerged from the special session: (a) issues related to illegal logging and associated trade are extremely complex and require strong commitment and cooperation from government agencies, non-governmental organizations and the private sector; (b) patterns of timber production and consumption are changing in directions that encourage legal and sustainable forest harvesting, although increasing demand may exacerbate problems in the short-term; (c) consumer countries can facilitate legal and sustainable timber production through awareness raising and robust public procurement policies that create incentives for forest certification; and (d) recognition should be given to both national and transnational challenges related to illegal logging and associated trade.

Trade, forest law compliance and governance (Item 8)

62. On the basis of Secretariat Note FO:APFC/2008/8 and the special session plenary, the Commission considered challenges relating to trade in forest products, forest law compliance and forest governance in the region.

63. The Commission emphasized the importance of forest law compliance and acknowledged the negative social, environmental and economic consequences of illegal logging and associated trade. Delegates recognized the need for all actors (including producers, processors, and consumers) to share responsibilities in addressing illegal forestry activities by jointly developing collaborative modalities, including exchanging information, sharing data and experiences, and facilitating bilateral and multilateral dialogue. The Commission requested FAO to implement a stock-taking review of national forest law compliance and governance activities and initiatives.

64. The Commission welcomed the development of frank and open discussions in national, regional and international dialogues related to forest law enforcement, governance and trade issues, as well as positive actions being taken by member countries to address these issues.

��

65. The Commission noted the importance of regional processes in forest law enforcement and governance and the limited coordination and slow progress with these processes. The Commission urged member countries and FAO to strengthen discussion and collaborative action to enhance regional and national actions to combat illegal logging and associated trade.

66. The Commission noted the need for clear definitions of the terms related to forest law compliance and highlighted efforts to distinguish between legal-but-unsustainable logging and illegal logging. Some delegates highlighted complexities of customary land tenure systems, where logging activities have sometimes been mischaracterized as being illegal.

67. Delegates drew attention to awareness-raising activities in consumer countries to promote the consumption of legally-produced and certified timber, to capture price premiums, and to promote forest law compliance.

68. Delegates stressed that combating illegal forestry activities entails significant financial and human costs. The Commission urged FAO and other international partners to assist countries in strengthening capacity and securing financial resources to enable effective implementation of measures to combat illegal logging and improve forest law compliance.

69. The Commission requested FAO and other international partners to assist member countries in developing and implementing simple and practical tools and mechanisms for combating illegal logging and associated trade, including voluntary forest and chain-of-custody certification (including mutual recognition), legality verification systems, national standards and codes of practice, criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management, and reviews of legislation and governance-related initiatives.

Changing roles of forestry agencies (Item 9)

70. The Commission considered the changing roles of forestry agencies on the basis of Secretariat Note FO:APFC/2008/9. Delegates welcomed distribution of the new APFC publication “Re-inventing forestry agencies,” which also informed the dialogue.

71. The Commission recognized that significant changes in the forestry landscape are creating rapidly evolving expectations, necessitating review of forestry agency functions and structures. The Commission requested that FAO assist forestry agencies to review structures, policies and functions to better align these with new demands, objectives and expectations.

72. Delegates emphasized that forestry agencies will need to develop capacities to respond to many new challenges related to climate change, including the ability to respond quickly to natural disasters, manage for the ecological impacts of climate change, and conduct planning in an atmosphere of increased uncertainty. This will require forestry agencies to develop institutional adaptive capacities and improve coordination with other agencies and institutions.

73. The Commission acknowledged that forestry agencies have become less prominent, especially as forest management roles have been devolved to communities and the private sector. Delegates recognized that changing roles for forestry agencies are often driven by political decisions beyond the control of the agency. These include decisions on the extent to which agencies adopt regulatory or implementation roles.


74. The Commission emphasized that strong linkages exist between the emerging roles of forestry agencies and the Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study. The Commission urged countries to ensure that the findings of the outlook study are incorporated into strategic planning processes and used to guide reform and re-invention of forestry agencies. The Commission further requested FAO to support member countries in maximizing the use of the findings of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study and the APFC study on re-inventing forestry agencies.

Information items (Item 10)

75. The Commission was informed of the upcoming XIII World Forestry Congress to be held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 18-25 October 2009, with the theme: Forests in development – a vital balance, and members were encouraged to participate fully.

76. The Commission was informed of the ongoing process to formulate a new FAO Strategy for Forestry. Revision of the strategy was mandated by FAO’s Committee on Forestry (COFO) and the Independent External Evaluation of FAO, and responds to UN and FAO reforms. Commission members were encouraged to provide inputs and recommendations in support of the strategy formulation process by mid-2008. The new strategy will be presented to FAO member countries for consideration at the nineteenth session of COFO in 2009.

77. The Commission was informed of the launch of the Forest Resources Assessment 2010 (FRA 2010) and upcoming FAO publications, including State of the world’s forests 2009 and State of the world’s forest genetic resources (2013).

Regional issues identified by the commission for the attention of the committee on forestry (Item 11)

78. Recognizing COFO’s stated desire to see FAO’s regional forestry commissions strengthened, the Commission wished to bring the attention of COFO to the vitality and vibrancy of APFC, as exemplified by the large number of inter-sessional activities implemented during the past two years and the convening of the first Asia-Pacific Forestry Week.

79. The Commission wished to draw COFO’s attention to the critical issue of climate change. In particular, it highlighted the urgent need to strengthen country capacities to deal with complexities of climate change issues, which may otherwise constrain some countries from participating in forest-based responses to climate change.

80. Cognizant that people-centred development is increasingly the focus of forestry policies, the Commission wished to highlight to COFO the need to continue efforts to enhance community-based forest management and forestry initiatives that help reduce poverty, including training-of-trainers activities.

81. The Commission wished to bring to COFO’s attention the importance of forest law compliance and the detrimental impacts of illegal logging and associated trade.

82. The Commission wished to highlight to COFO the rapid emergence of new forestry issues, requiring re-invention of forestry agency functions and structures. The Commission wished to

��

emphasize the need for assistance and capacity-building to better align institutional structures, policies and functions with new demands and objectives.

83. The Commission wished to highlight to COFO the importance of reinforcing Forest Resources Assessment elements that enable progress towards improved assessments of sustainable forest management. The Commission also wished to highlight the continuing need for capacity-building for forest resources monitoring and assessment.

84. The Commission wished to bring to COFO’s attention the opportunity provided by holding Asia-Pacific Forestry Week in conjunction with the twenty-second session of APFC to facilitate regional dialogue on issues related to the forthcoming UNFF session. The Commission requested COFO to consider the implementation of processes used in each FAO region in order to determine how the regional forestry commissions can best contribute input to UNFF.

Other business (Item 12)

ThirdandfourthmeetingsoftheAPFCexecutivecommittee

85. The Commission was informed of the third and fourth meetings of the APFC Executive Committee, held respectively in Bangkok, Thailand, 19-20 December 2006, and Hua Hin, Thailand, 30-31 August 2007.

86. The Executive Committee had made suggestions to help ensure that the twenty-second session of APFC would constitute the major regional forestry event in 2008, to attract broader and higher-level participation, to strive for a smaller number of high-priority recommendations, and to organize the first Asia-Pacific Forestry Week in 2008.

APFCauto-evaluation

87. The Commission was informed of the APFC auto-evaluation which aimed to assess APFC’s strengths and weaknesses, provide suggestions for enhancing performance, and assess its effectiveness in producing tangible outcomes.

88. The auto-evaluation highlighted the need for APFC to engage more with non-forestry sectors, the private sector and civil society in implementing activities, and that although effectiveness in addressing issues has varied, APFC publications and discussions on key forestry issues have been influential.

89. The auto-evaluation recommended reducing the number of session recommendations to those of highest priority, to strengthen monitoring and evaluation, to enhance member country participation, and to continue efforts to engage NGOs and the private sector in the sessions and activities.

Changes to APFC rules of procedure and terms of reference for the APFC executivecommittee

90. The Commission considered proposed changes to APFC Rules of Procedure and Terms of Reference for the APFC Executive Committee on the basis of Secretariat Note FO:APFC/2008/12.3. The Commission adopted the proposed Terms of Reference for the APFC Executive Committee (Appendix D) and the proposed changes to the APFC Rules of Procedure by general acclamation (see Appendix E for the adopted Rules of Procedure).


Asia-Pacificnetworkforsustainableforestmanagementandforestrehabilitation

91. The Commission welcomed a report on the establishment of the Asia-Pacific Network for Sustainable Forest Management and Forest Rehabilitation, endorsed at the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting in September 2007, in Sydney, Australia. The network will address challenges on forests and climate change, and promote sustainable forest management in the region.

ReportingtoUNFF

92. Recognizing the revised modalities of the United Nations Forum on Forests to facilitate enhanced linkages with regional forest-related organizations, and the desire to enhance input from regional forest-related organizations into the Multi-Year Program of Work agenda items to be discussed at the eighth session of the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF8), the Commission endorsed a proposal that:

(a) commended FAO and the host country for their outstanding efforts in organizing the first Asia-Pacific Forestry Week as part of the twenty-second session of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission, which enabled enhanced dialogue among a broad range of stakeholders on regional and global forest-related issues;

(b) requested FAO to submit the report from the twenty-second session of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission, including a summary of the outcomes relevant to the UNFF8 agenda items, to the UNFF Secretariat by October 2008; and

(c) invited organizations participating in Asia-Pacific Forestry Week to submit relevant information to the UNFF Secretariat to complement the regional report provided by FAO.

Asia-Pacificuniversities’foresteducationnetwork

93. Recognizing the importance of professional forestry education in developing skills for sustainable forest management and forest policy analysis and development, the Commission welcomed the establishment of the Asia-Pacific Universities’ Forest Education Network and urged FAO and member countries to promote investment in forestry education and to support collaborative efforts such as this network.

Date and place of the next session (Item 13)

94. The Commission noted with appreciation the offer of the delegation from China to host its twenty-third session.

Adoption of the report (Item 14)

95. The draft report was adopted by the Commission with minor corrections and clarifications, which are reflected in this report.

Closing

96. Mr. Nguyen Ngoc Binh, Director-General, Forest Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Government of Viet Nam, officially closed the session.

�0

The Pacific regional workshop: “Global Forest Resources Assessment - FRA 2010”

18-20 April 2008

Organizer

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

1. Preamble

FAO is conducting a series of sub-regional and regional workshops as part of the preparatory work for the country reporting to the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 (FRA 2010).

The workshops respond to requests made by many National Correspondents (NCs) to increase FAOs support and capacity building at sub-regional and regional levels. The regional workshop for the Pacific region was held at the National Convention Centre in Hanoi, Viet Nam as a pre-event to the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission (21-26 April 2008). The workshop was jointly organized by the FAO Forestry Department in Rome, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and co-funded by the Monitoring Assessment and Reporting (MAR) Project. Invitations to the workshop were extended to the officially nominated National Correspondents (NCs) and focal points for the FRA 2010 country reporting process. In total 18 participants from 11 countries attended the meeting. The National Correspondents were brought up to date with the FRA 2010 reporting process. The workshop mainly focused on the contents of the 17 National Reporting Tables for FRA2010.

2. Workshop objectives

The main objectives of the workshop were to provide technical assistance and guidance in order to ensure high-quality reporting which meets the specifications established for FRA 2010, through:

• Detailed discussion on the seventeen National Reporting Tables, including the process of identification, selection and documentation of national data and data sources;

• ensuring the correct application of processes of data transformation, estimation and forecasting to generate information for FRA categories and reference years;

• ensuringing consistency among different tables;

• identifying problems and data gaps, if any, for each of the 17 tables in each participating country and suggesting ways to address these;

• seeking clarifications and additional information from countries on their draft report.


3. Content

The first session was dedicated for introductory presentations on the workshop including organization of the workshop, presentation of the FRA 2010 reporting process and reporting methodology. Following the introductory presentation the participants were briefed on the FRA 2010 remote sensing survey. After the introductory presentations the participants presented the current status of their country report and problems or data gaps they are faced with. The remaining sessions of the workshop were dedicated to clarification and discussion on the 17 national reporting tables and on addressing information gaps and how to handle various technical issues related to the reporting and the reporting tables. Each table was discussed in plenary, where the participating countries presented the main problems and issues related to the reporting table. Many of the issues identified by the countries were clarified during the meeting, and the remaining issues were forwarded to the FRA secretariat to be clarified and included in the Frequently Asked Questions on the FRA website. The background documents Guidelines for country reporting to FRA 2010 and Specifications of national reporting Tables were presented in detail as were references to relevant Thematic studies carried out in FRA 2005. The workshop was concluded by a plenary discussion on the FRA 2010 and the outcomes of the workshop.

��

The workshop: “Facilitating and promoting national forest

programmes in Asia-Pacific region”Sunday, 20 April 2008

Organizer

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

Co-organized by the National Forest Programme Facility and FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, the Workshop on Facilitating and Promoting National Forest Programmes in Asia-Pacific Region was successfully held on Sunday 20 April 2008 in Hanoi, Viet Nam, as a side event of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Week (21

st – 26

th April 2008). The main objective of the one day event, focussing

on national forest programmes (nfps), was to bring together all national focal points of the Facility partner countries in the Asia and the Pacific Region to share experiences on nfps and to discuss the role of the Facility in these processes. 25 participants from the Region attended the workshop, among which 11 were the Facility National Focal Points in partner countries.

A number of presentations were made by experts from IUFRO, GTZ and the Facility staff providing background information on nfps and guidance on these processes. The Facility principals and procedures for implementing activities under the Facility partnership at the country level were also explained. Through a facilitated debate, issues were clarified, information exchanged, lessons learned and recommendations formulated to the Facility Management. The Facility Focal Points from China, Indonesia, Mongolia, Pakistan, and the Philippines made presentations about their Nfp process and the role of the Facility therein. The major outputs and impacts of the Facility support are summarized as follows:

China: • Public participation is promoted through application of testing tools/approaches;

• Information flow and sharing between global experiences and national practice in enhanced, through establishment of a website on China Sustainable Forestry Management;

• The results of various studies on land tenure contributed greatly to improve institutional and tenurial arrangements in the stake-owned and collective forest areas of China.

Indonesia: • Community Based Forestry Management (CBFM) is developed in several regions;

• Indonesia Forestry Long Term Development Plan 2006-2025; Indonesia Forestry Mid Term Development Plan 2005-2009; Master Plan Forest and Land Rehabilitation are developed;

• Forestry management becomes more transparent;

• Vision, mission, policy, plan, and program of forestry development for SFM at national and sub national levels are more harmonized and supported by stakeholders.


Mongolia: • National capacity on the sustainable use of forest resources for income generation and

rural development has been strengthened;

• The institutional set-up of the forest administration is reviewed for improvement;

• Awareness on the possibility to form natural resources user groups is increased.

Pakistan: • Strategy for the Establishment of Public Private Partnership in the Forest Sector of Pakistan

Developing is established;

• National Vision 2025 for Forest Biodiversity Conservation – A Strategy for Action is developed;

• A forum for forest policy analysis, formulation and monitoring its implementation has been establishment;

• Awareness on forestry issues and the development of a communication strategy on forestry and related issues is increased.

Philippines: • Community Based Forest Management (CBFM) Strategic Plan and Regional Plan are

developed by multistakeholders, with wider sense of ownership;

• Enhanced participation of all stakeholders, particularly NGOs, as the Government’s partners in undertaking the whole planning process and also sharing their financial resources in key activities;

• CBFM contributes to attain the goals and objectives of the Forestry Sector Master Plan, which identifies CBFM as a cross cutting concern, and to achieve the goals of the MDG.

The key recommendations from the partner countries to the Facility regarding priorities and areas for future actions and improvement include the following:

• Establish networks among partner countries, while enhancing cooperation with national and international partners, stakeholders and donors;

• Strengthen capacity building of human resources through training;

• Clarify the procedure for continued the Facility support;

• Promote participation of NGOs in both decision making and policy implementation process of forest related matters

• Need to collect base line data for evaluating the achievements of the Nfp process and to continue the monitoring and evaluation during the whole process.

��

The Asia-Pacific Forest Invasive Species Network (APFISN) workshop:

“Risk-based targeted surveillance for forest invasive species”

20-23 April 2008

Organizers

USDA/FS, FAO, APAFRI

Background

A workshop on ‘Risk-based targeted surveillance for forest invasive species’ was held at the National Convention Centre, Hanoi, Viet Nam during 20-23 April 2008 in conjunction with the Asia-Pacific Forestry Week. The workshop was sponsored by USDA Forest Service and organized by APFISN in association with FAO, Asia-Pacific Association of Forest Research Institutions (APAFRI) and USDA Forest Service. The main objectives of the workshop were:

• identify various geophysical, biological, ecological and social data and processes to integrate into a risk based approach to select appropriate pest targets and survey areas to maximize the chance for early detection of forest invasive species,

• identify specific surveillance techniques utilized in early detection of high risk invasives,

• use of general awareness and targeted community engagement for early detection programmes,

• development of appropriate information management techniques for use in surveillance programmes.

Opening session

The workshop began at 9 am with the welcome remarks by Mr. Patrick Durst, Senior Forestry Officer, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. He outlined the origin of the APFISN, its objectives and the various activities of the network since its inception. He said that the present one is the sixth workshop organized by APFISN for capacity building in member countries and during this workshop we move towards an operational activity. Dr. Larry Yarger (USDA Forest Service) in his welcome remarks said that invasive alien species (IAS) is a global issue and this workshop is indented to address some of the important issues concerning prevention of new incursions of IAS to the Asia-Pacific region and mitigation of its ill effects. He offered continued support of USDA Forest Service to the activities of APFISN. Mr. Sarath Fernando (APAFRI) in his welcome address observed that workshops organized by APFISN are a good opportunity for participants for sharing and exchanging information and experience on combating the threat of invasive species. He stressed the need of capacity building in the member countries to deal with pathogens and pests. He also outlined the aims of APAFRI and its role in the genesis of APFISN.


Following the opening remarks by various dignitaries, Dr. Mike Cole (Australia) outlined the purposes of the workshop. He said that the workshop will examine whether the network can develop and implement surveillance activities for early detection to minimize the spread and impact of invasive species across the region. After Dr. Mike’s talk, Dr. Sankaran (APFISN Coordinator) discussed the workshop agenda. This was followed by self introduction of participants.

Country presentations

Bhutan- D.B. Dhital- Dr. Dhital discussed the problem of bark beetle Ips schmutzenhoferi on spruce and blue pine forest in Bhutan. In its natural environment, the beetle attacks trees and logs of spruce and blue pine. Drought is one of the factors which trigger attack by bark beetle. To contain the problem, the trees are regularly monitored to identify outbreaks and freshly attacked trees are felled and debarked immediately before beetles become adults and escape from the breeding host.

Indonesia- Wida Darwiati – Potential pest attack to forest plantation. Ms. Darwiati said that the most widespread pest on Pinus merkusii in West Java is Pineus boerneri, a polyphagous insect. Infestation results in decline in growth of older trees and death of young pine trees. Natural insecticides such as pine wood acid or logged wood acid mixed with Bacillus thuringiensis is found effective in controlling the insect. Teak is affected by various pests in Indonesia such as Hyblaea puera, Pyrausta macheralis, stem borer, Neotermes tectonae etc.

Japan- Takeshi Toma - Invasive species potentially threatening Japanese forestry and forest biodiversity- Pine wilt nematode, Asian longhorned beetle, Erythrina gall wasp, Quadristichus erythrinae are the main threats to forestry in Japan. Potential invasive species through international trade of wood include Ips cembrae, Xyleborus perforans, Ips sexdentatus etc. The Govt. of Japan has proclaimed an Invasive Species Act. The objectives of the act are: 1) to regulate various actions such as raising, planting, storing, carrying and importing IAS; 2) to mitigate IAS that are already existing in Japan; 3) to contribute to preventing damages against biodiversity, human safety, or agriculture in Japan. Japan has produced a list of invasive insects of imported timbers and a checklist of Japanese insects.

Malaysia- Grace Tabitha Lim- Pests and Diseases of some forest plantation species in Malaysia- Rubber, Acacia mangium, teak and Azadirachta excelsa are the main forest plantation species in Malaysia. Leaf wilt and root rot are the main disease problems in rubber while Acacia mangium is affected by phyllode rust and red root rot (caused by Ganoderma philppi). In teak, leaf defoliators Hyblaea and Paliga caused the most damage. The mahogany shoot borer Hypsipyla robusta is successfully controlled by the ant Oecophylla smaragdina. Infestation by barnacles on Avicennia offcianalis is a recently encountered problem. Malaysia has facilities for interception surveillance of rubber and oil palm diseases. The challenges for conducting forest surveillance include lack of training for foresters for on-the-ground surveillance, lack of pests and lists and associated information.

Myanmar – Wai Wai Than- Risk-based targeted surveillance for the grass Pennisetum in Myanmar – Ms. Than explained the damage caused by three species of Pennisetum, viz., P. polystachyon, P. pedicellatum and P. purpureum in teak plantations in Myanmar. These species thrive well on road sides, open dry land and plantations. Manual weeding has not been very useful in containing the

��

weeds. Other important weeds in Myanmar include Imperata cylindrica, Chromolaena odorata, Saccharum sp., Thysanolaena maxima etc.

Nepal- H.B. Thapa- Sections in Department of Forest Research and Survey for Surveillance of Forest Invasive Species – Mr. Thapa outlined the mandate of Department of Forest Research (DFRS) in Nepal. The DFRS has various sections under which the inventory section falls under the Survey Division. Tree disorders can be surveyed but the concerned staff may need training. Likewise, reporting mechanisms can be developed and specimens referred for identification through DFRS. Lack of expertise in identifying causal organisms is a big hurdle which can partly be solved by coordinating with the Agriculture Department. Mr. Thapa said that aerial photographs of forests and other landscapes and forest maps are available in Nepal which will aid in forest surveillance for insects and pathogens. Facility for data storage and storing and rearing of specimens may have to be developed.

Pakistan- Rizwan Irshad- Significant forest invasive species: Pakistan’s status – practices and prospects – Mr. Irshad said that as with other parts of the world, forest resources in Pakistan are under pressure from factors like increasing human population, poverty and other socio economic factors and natural and biological factors. Limited awareness of the invasive species problem and lack of capacity to address the problem has resulted in poor attention to the issue. Also, relatively less effective and delayed response in reporting, reacting and managing the invasive species has increased negative impacts due to IAS. Some of the important invasive species in the country are: Broussonetia papyrifera (paper mulberry), Lantana camara, Parthenium hysterophorus and Prosopis juliflora. Of late, recognizing the importance of IAS, Government of Pakistan has allocated and amount of Rs. 102 m for a project to deal with the IAS problem in the country. The main objectives of the project include 1) raise awareness of invasive species impacts and their control; 2) develop management strategies for the control of alien aquatic weeds etc.

Technical session-1

1. Selecting target pests for hazard site surveillance by Dr. Ross Wylie, Queensland, Australia. According to Dr. Wylie, globalization, increased volumes of containerised freight and competition for space at domestic ports means that goods are increasingly being first opened at premises some distance from the port of entry, thus dispersing risk away from the main inspection point. A system of post-border surveillance targeting these areas, often referred to as ‘hazard site surveillance’, is being developed in several countries as a backstop to border control to ensure early detection of invasive species. This is particularly important for some of the more cryptic forest pests whose presence in a forest often is not discovered until populations are already high and the pest is well established. In choosing which pests to target for hazard site surveillance there are a range of factors to consider and a nine-step guide is presented to assist in this process. These steps are: (1) What do we want to protect? (e.g., tree plantations, timber in buildings, lumber) (2) What exotic pests could be a threat to this resource? (Information on potential forest pests and disease threats comes from international forest health or quarantine networks, scientific literature meetings and internet) (3) Does the pest have the potential to be transported by trade/ human movement? (Depends on the lifecycle and behavior of the pest, what are its hosts, where does it lay eggs, feed and pupate, whether it is associated with a commodity etc.) (4) Is there a pathway for the pest into the country? (Whether commodities that could harbor the pest are being imported and history of past pest interceptions, living plants, logs, dunnage and packaging are high risk) (5)


What is the likelihood of establishment? (Environmental suitability of the country, geographical location of ports, reproductive potential of the pest) (6) What is the likelihood of spread? (Pests ability for natural dispersal, potential for human assisted dispersal, distribution and abundance of hosts, natural barriers) (7) What are the potential consequences of establishment? (Economic, environmental and social impacts) (8) What is the ability to detect the pest? (9) What is the ability to eradicate/ manage the pest once detected? (Detecting early enough improves the chances for eradication/containment, breeding for resistance and biological control arte better management approaches. Dr. Wylie discussed these steps using an example from the Pacific (Hypsipyla robusta shoot borer of mahogany and other trees) and from Asia (Sirex noctilio wood wasp affecting many species of Pinus).

2. A hazard assessment method and survey sample design by Marla Downing, USDA Forest Service. Dr. Downing discussed the method of assessing hazards and identifying sites for sampling invasive pests citing the example of Sirex noctilio. The steps involved are: collecting information on commodities associated with the pest, distribution of the pest, identifying principal ports (first point of introduction), distribution centers (second location to find invasive species) and markets. The places to target lie in the overlapping areas between port of entry and distribution centers. A susceptibility potential map can be prepared by identifying and mapping potential hosts and rating disease establishment potential of trees (over dense sites, stress sites) and locating where places overlap. The Google earth can be used to determine sample areas where to set a trap. Patches of trees near ports where the pests can hop on are also areas where traps need be set. To identify stressed trees, soil wetness and dryness index can be used.

3. Surveillance methods for early detection of pathogen incursions by Tim Wardlaw, Forestry Tasmania, Australia. Detecting forest pathogens is a big challenge since the vegetative stage is hidden in host, damage symptoms are non-specific and fruiting bodies and spores more diagnostic but very small. So, specialized and expensive methods are needed for detection. The methods of detection include visual symptoms, fruiting bodies, screening asymptomatic plants (culturing onto agar, DNA tests), soil/water sampling etc. The general surveillance methods are: forest health surveillance, sentinel surveys, blitz surveys, quarantine surveys, area freedom surveys and ad hoc detection - the inspection platforms are aerial, vantage point, roadside and ground. The forest health surveillance relies on highly trained observers inspecting forests. They should have the capacity to detect new incursions and symptoms due to diseases (whole tree symptoms, crown symptoms, stem symptoms). Sentinel tree surveys involve regular inspection of specifically located areas – near hazard sites or disease-free areas beyond infection fronts. Blitz surveys are detailed inspection for damage of trees in a local area covering all trees present. Area-freedom surveys are designed for surveys in defined areas to prove absence of a pathogen often targeted for specific pathogens. The quarantine screening may be focused on a small number of plants and is generally based on symptoms. Ad hoc detection is an unplanned detection usually carried out during routine forest activities. In short, surveillance for early detection of forest pathogens must have a substantial ground component, must be done on a regular cycle, must be done by trained people and must be restricted to relatively small areas or number of trees. A thorough understanding where new incursions are likely to establish and information on pathogen threats to host are also vital points.

4. Using static traps for hazard site surveillance by Ross Wylie, Australia. According to Dr. Wylie hazard site surveillance (HSS) is a system for post-border detection of new pest incursions targeting sites which are considered potentially of high risk of such introductions. A primary necessity

��

of HSS is that we need to know 1) what pests we have got, 2) what pests you don’t want, 3) assess the likely pathways for exotic pest entry, 4) identify and categorize risk sites , 5) have a methodology for detection of target pests, and 6) be able to identify what you find. The primary risk sites are port environments and international airport environments. Secondary risk sites include container emptying sites, quarantine approved premises and importers of raw material. The tertiary risk sites are botanic gardens and military camps and quaternary risk sites are forests or forest parks within city boundaries. The primary risk sites are first choice for trapping and inspections. With the help of quarantine officials, sites/premises can further be ranked for risks according to the goods they handle. Untreated logs, timber packaging are high risk goods and container depots, forest parks and areas with recycled and imported timber with vegetation adjacent are high risk habitats. Traps commonly used are Panel traps, Lindgren traps and Japanese traps. Different types of lures used depending on the target taxa. Preservatives used in traps also vary based on climatic conditions- the most preferred preservative is a mixture of ethyl alcohol (20%), glycerol (5%), non-scented detergent (1%) and water (74%). The positioning of traps is important. They are best positioned under shelter to reduce evaporation and rain problems. Trees are convenient to hang traps but expect leaves; dust sites are not suitable to set a trap. Traps need be set in secure sites to avoid stealing. The catch should be collected every two weeks and the preserving fluid changed; lures should be changed every 4 weeks. Empty the fluid plus the specimens onto a piece of gauze, fold gauze and place in plastic bag with trap number and date. Place bag with gauze and insects in the freezer until ready to sort the catch. Diagnostic capacity is a major factor determining the scope of the detection program. Initial sorting may be done to pest groups of interest. Specimens may be stored for eventual identification.

5. Practical issues of diagnosis by Tim Wardlaw (Australia). In general, surveillance can result in much detection of damage symptoms of insects/fungi on host. The step from detection to diagnosis may be huge and full diagnosis of every detection would be beyond the capacity of most countries. Dr. Wardlaw explained how to make judgments of when to proceed to formal diagnosis citing the example of stem gall on Pinus radiata. Type of damage symptoms can be general (low diagnostic value), distinctive (high diagnostic value and the symptoms contain elaborate features such as fungal fruiting bodies and insects associated with the damage) and unusual (of neutral diagnostic value with symptoms rarely or not previously seen on the host). The responses should vary with the symptoms. For general symptoms, it would be necessary to establish current damage levels (if the host is only half dead the causal organism is still around), exclude possible causal factors and monitor the affected area for progression of symptoms. In cases where distinctive symptoms are observed, the possible suspects need be identified *(scan literature/internet) and short-listed. If unusual symptoms are observed, there is likelihood of symptom being caused by an agent new to the area. If so, additional information need be collected to aid diagnosis.

In the case of stem galls on Pinus radiate both distinctive and unusual symptoms were observed and the photo of symptoms was e-mailed to colleagues familiar with the disease. Preserved samples of the rust were also sent to experts to find out whether western gall rust was a possibility. DNA studies were conducted to detect rust DNA in galls which confirmed that the disease in question was not western gall rust. Resources available to assist in diagnosis, colleagues (pathologists and entomologists), reference sites of pests and pathogen images, visual glossary of damage symptoms and internet searches for suspected pests/pathogens and damage symptoms would be of immense help.


Field trip to a wood yard near Hanoi: During the field trip, participants were trained on setting up of various types of insect traps for surveillance for invasive alien pests (led by Dr. Ross Wiley) and how to identify disease problems on trees to facilitate early detection of invasive pathogens (led by Dr. Tim Wardlaw).

Technical session-2

6. Diagnostics, record keeping and communications by Larry Yarger (USDA Forest Service). Presenting a flow chart on early detection and rapid response (detecting and reporting→ diagnostics, recording, communications → rapid assessments → planning → response), Dr. Yarger explained the various steps involved in arriving at the correct diagnostics, record keeping and communications. For diagnostics it is necessary to establish a functional network of diagnostic experts to rapidly and accurately identify and report pests, pathogens and invasive plants. Also, standard protocols need be developed for early detection, submission of specimens, identification and vouchering, verification, archiving of information and reporting of suspected new invasive pests. The success of diagnostics will depend upon effective communications and cooperation among pest specialists in Govt., industry, academia and the general public. The action points in diagnostics are: develop data collection standards, use readily available identification keys, use pest specific information sources, develop web-based identification keys, identify diagnostic locations or centers, identify expertise for difficult identifications etc. The National Plant Diagnostic Network is established to assist the process.

The main objective of communications is to help a rapid and secure communication system. The main components of which are: 1) communications to identify a source of expert identification skills, 2) communications during the identification process, 3) communications after the identification. Rapid response is dependent upon effective and rapid communications. Communications also aid to protect individuals and industry and help quarantine services. Recording of pest information improve abilities for early detection of potential threats to forests. Records contain basic data (plant host name, pest or weed name, name collection locality and date of collection), advanced data (symptoms, host parts affected, host history and additional site- specific information). Examples of good database systems are China Species Information Service, DAISIE (Europe), EXFor (USA), Invasive species information management (APFISN) etc.

7. Use of ExFor website for entering invasive species risk assessment records by Marla Downing (USDA Forest Service). Ms. Marla Downing presented the various features of the Exotic Forest Pest Website (ExFor) and explained how invasive species risk assessment records can be included in the website. Pest records in the website include information on pest identification, detection, control methods and biology (documentation) and potential to establish and spread, propensity to cause economic and environmental harm (risk assessment). Risk rating may be 1 (very low) to 9 (very high). The ExFor is sponsored by the North American Forest Commission and North American Plant Protection Organization. The address is: URL http://www.spfnic.fs.fed.us/exfor/

8. Forest surveillance for insect pest in Fiji by Sanjana Lal (Fiji). Potential threats of invasive species in Fiji are Sirex noctilio (Pine wood wasp), Hypsipylla sp. (mahogany shoot borer) and Asian gypsy moth. Greater incursion by exotic pests and pathogens through international trade and travel necessitated surveillance in Fiji. Moreover, the quarantine resources in Fiji are inadequate

�0

and there is no sufficient capacity to manage pests in a sustainable way. Earlier on, surveillance for invasive species in Fiji were based on ground surveys, reports of abnormal situations from stations officers, saw millers, quarantine reports from infested ships, light trapping in logged and un-logged forests etc. A research project supported by ACIAR, Australia paved way for improvement on these methods. Initial steps for implementation of the project involved surveys in different aged plantations to determine what is present and data base analyses of timber species. The insect traps used for surveillance include lindgren funnel trap, intercept pane trap. Delta trap for Asian gypsy moth. Specimens collected are either identified at source, compared with voucher specimens, assessed by specialists and stored until dispatch. Sentinel plants were surveyed at frequent intervals for target pests viz., foliar pests of pine, sandal wood, mahogany shoot borer and eucalypt rust.

For fruit fly surveillance, insect traps were set in urban areas, farms, ports of entry, areas of tourism activity etc. Rhinoceros beetle traps were used to survey population size of the beetle and test viability of the Metarrhizium biocontrol agent. Identification of insect pests has been a main problem in Fiji since the country lacks taxonomic expertise. However, there are benefits through the improved survey system which helps targeted pest surveillance, regular monitoring of hazard sites, early detection of entry at ports and early identification of potential pests.

9. Forest invasive species and convention on biological diversity by Tim Christophersen, United Nations Environment Program. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was adopted in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Article 8 (h) of the Convention proclaims that “each contracting party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species.” The suggested activities are: a) reinforce, develop and implement strategies at regional and national level to prevent and mitigate the impacts of IAS that threaten ecosystems, including risk assessment, strengthening of quarantine regulation, and containment or eradication programs taking into account the guiding principles on IAS if adopted at the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties. b) Improve the knowledge of the impacts of IAS on forest ecosystems and adjacent ecosystems. The immediate priorities are: 1) preventing international movement of IAS, 2) rapid detection at borders, 3) collaboration among governments, economic sectors and non-governmental and international organizers, 4) building capacity and public awareness and 5) once spread, eradication and mitigation. CBD guiding principles on IAS are grouped under 1) General, 2) Prevention, C) Introduction of Species and 4) Mitigation of impacts. CBD also decided to (Decision VIII/27) consult with IPPC, OIE, FAO and WTO regarding whether and how to address the lack of international standards covering IAS, in particular animals that are not pests of plants under IPPC. Discussions towards the goals of CBD and in-depth review of IAS at COP 9 recommended 1) finding best practices on preventing risks associated with international trade, 2) further invitation to the relevant international organizations, 3) improving partnership and building capacity and 4) further economic valuation of damages on ecosystems by IAS.

Technical session-3

10. Mr. Hiroshi Makihara (Japan) talked on the use of different types of insect traps which can be set up on trees including Artocarpus.

11. Invasive forest pest monitoring and forecast in China by Jianbo Wang and Hongbin Wang (P.R. China). Forest cover in China is increasing; the forest pests also increased. More than


8000 species of forest pest species have been recorded of which about 200 can cause damage and more than 20 of them are very damaging. Main exotic pest in China include, pinewood nematode, red turpentine beetle, fall web worm, Japanese pine needle scale, loblolly pine mealy bug, coconut hispine beetle etc. The Central Government of China has evolved a framework of pest management in China. It is technically supported by Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences and colleges and institutions. The State Forestry Administration in China has established early warning institutions the base institutions of which are local forest pest monitoring sites. China has established 1000 national forest pest monitoring and forecasting stations and more than 8000 monitoring sites in the whole country. Training has been provided to concerned officials in survey and investigation methods for IAS, trap setting for insects, data recording and exchanging and in soft aware application. Field investigation for IAS was done by walk over survey, sample plot survey and thorough examination of trees (shaking, cutting branches etc.). Investigations were also done using light traps, traps with insect attractants, airborne video monitoring and GIS monitoring techniques.

Data analysis and transmission is done through software named Control & Quarantine Information System of Forest Pest. Sharing of data is done through a website of forest information center. Occurrence and the trend of forest pest can be reflected visually by “Chinese Forest Pest Index”. Publications on invasive pest alert and prediction are also released often to create awareness. Public notices through media are also done. Cooperation with in the region is mandatory for pest monitoring techniques, such as pheromone attractant, aerial photography and other advanced techniques, sharing of forest pest information to improve the ability for quick action against invasive pests, control techniques, international collaborative research on IAS, establishing effective early warning systems and quarantine checking and treatment against imported seedlings and other plant parts.

12. Increasing our chances for early detection- what can we do? By Mike Cole (Australia). Dr. Cole said that the current situation in most of the countries in the Asia-Pacific region is limited resources, capacity and capability versus need for early detection for more effective incursion response/management of exotic pests. When we think of early detection, the common questions posed are what to look for (impact, chances of detection and eradication), where to look (pest biology, host plants, environmental stability, areas of more movement) and when to look (pest biology/life cycle, host biology/life cycle)? The components of specific surveys are: specific pests, specified sample, specified time, statistical basis and sample survey methodology. For general surveillance, we need identify and use a range of surveillance sources. For example, industry/consultants, arborists, universities, public, special interest groups such as garden clubs etc. (non-government). In the government sector, we need the support of quarantine, departments of agriculture and forestry and the local government. Also, we need identify stakeholder network (interested people, linkages, coverage), establish two way communication to keep engaged and promote, develop and maintain appropriate training and develop and maintain a reporting system to capture information.

Specific surveys in Australia are carried out by NAQS, National AGM Program, National Hazard Site Surveillance, State Forest Surveillance Programs and Industry Forest Surveillance Programs. General surveillance in Australia is carried out by the help of general public (national and regional), timber industry and pest control operators, arborists, quarantine workers, and weed spotters. The tools used are: pest awareness material (forest pest field guide), website, e-communications, national plant pest hotline etc. In risk-based site targeting the most important point is where the

��

pest is more likely to be detected? Examples of risk sites are: port/ port environments (primary), loading/unloading areas, quarantine facility areas (secondary), transport corridors, botanic gardens (tertiary) military facilities, University campuses (tertiary) and Urban forests (Quaternary). Australia is currently involved in targeting pests like Asian longhorn beetle, pine wood nematode, pine pitch canker, Asian gypsy moth and eucalypt rust. The underpinning issues are: training and education, appropriate sample/ survey methodology, reporting and recording, identification/diagnostics and linkage to an action upon detection. Dr. Cole concluded by saying that we can do several things through he network to promote and implement forest surveillance in the member countries.

Technical session-4

Panel discussion: The panel discussion was chaired by Dr. Ross Wiley. He introduced the theme and identified the objectives of the panel discussion. The main objective is to understand the major forest invasive species threats in the region, how the threat changes over time and what are we doing to prevent threats worsening. To accomplish these, the following actins are proposed.

1. It is necessary that current state of knowledge on key pest species in the region is documented and arrangements made to share this knowledge widely (making use of the network).

2. We need to understand the respective country priorities and capacity with respect to forest invasive species. What can be done in the short-term using existing resources? What can be done in the longer term with additional capacity?

3. We need to develop ways of assisting countries in meeting their aspirations regarding forest invasive species.

To facilitate detailed discussions on these aspects the workshop participants were formed in to three breakout groups. The groups were lead by Ms. Sanjana Lal (Fiji), Dr. Grace Tabitha Lim (Malaysia) and Mr. Hussain Faisal (Maldives). The following questions were framed to address in break-out sessions:

What are your counties main priorities for forest?

• Native forests for environmental value

• Native forests for timber harvesting

• Plantations-main species

• Timber in service

Does your country have current concerns for forest health?

• Native pest species

• Established invasive species

• Invasive species not present in country

• Forest health is a low priority

What information do you currently have about the pest species in your country?

• Are you able to identify your priority pest species?


• Have you done any surveys to determine the amount of damage caused?

• Does your country currently manage pest species?

What capacity does your country have to survey for forest pests?

• Staff and funding to visit forests and do surveys

• Access to identification services

• Access to plant pathologists or entomologists

What do you think you would be able to do in your country following this workshop?

• Within your current resources

• With additional support

• What do you want the network to accomplish?

We would like to identification some achievable projects that can be done in the short term following this workshop. We want to use progress from a small number of short-term projects to make some longer term goals that can be the basis for develop funding proposals.

Summary of break-out group discussions

• Plantations and native forests for environmental value are the priorities for most countries

• There is as much, if not more, concern about established invasive species and native pests as about invasives not yet present in a country

• Ability to identify priority pest species was low to moderate for most countries (high in a few)

• Most countries have done some surveys to determine extent of pest damage but few have good pest management plans

• About half the countries had moderate to very good capacity to do surveys and the remainder ranged from none to low capacity

• There seemed low confidence in being able to catalogue pests and determine target pests unassisted

• There was strong demand for training on surveillance and identification

• Most counties said they had internet access but it was sporadic/ unreliable in several countries (some on dial-up access)

• Some countries with higher capacity/resources offered assistance to others in the network in relation to access to pest databases, identifications and advice on pest management

��

Recommendations

1. Training in methodology for forest health surveillance and provision of some basic equipment to do this is a top priority for the majority of countries.

2. A list of key pests (insects, fungi, weeds) should be compiled for the region with information on known distribution, hosts, importance and (where possible) management (network to assist).

3. Each country will select one or more target pests according to its own priorities using the methodology presented at the workshop (network assistance required for some).

4. A list of experts who can assist with identifications is to be compiled and posted on the network website.

5. A list of websites of databases and images useful for identifications is to be compiled and posted on the network website.

6. Efforts are to be made to improve communication between members of the network.

7. One or two countries (Malaysia, Bhutan) are to commence pilot projects for early detection of target invasives (assistance may be required).


The INBAR workshop: “The potential of bamboo in the CDM”

Monday, 21 April 2008

Organizer

INBAR

Background

INBAR’s session on “The potential of bamboo in the clean development mechanism” was held in Hanoi, Viet Nam on the afternoon of 21 April 2008. INBAR’s Director General, Dr. Coosje Hoogendoorn, chaired the meeting. Over 110 participants attended the session and six speakers gave presentations, which were followed by a brainstorming discussion session.

Presentations

1. Promote bamboo for CDM. Lou Yiping (Programme Director, Environmental Sustainability Programme, INBAR).

2. Bamboo dominated secondary succession after shifting cultivation in NorthernLaoPDR:opportunitiesandconstraintsinthecontextofforestmanagementandcarbonmitigation.Bernhard Mohns (GTZ - Laos).

3. Bamboo plantations and their potential for CDM in the northern mountainousregionofVietNam. Dr. Ha Tran Thi Thu (Forestry University of Vietnam).

4. Bamboo – value added products. Dr. C. N. Pandey (Indian Plywood Research and Training Institute – IPIRTI).

5. Bamboo research and development in the Philippines. Aida Lapis (Environment research and Development Bureau, Philippines).

6. Thenextsteps. Andrew Benton (Manager, Networking and Partnerships Unit, INBAR).

Outputs

• The workshop recommended that INBAR and partners proceed with development of its network of CDM partners, leading to development of specific partnerships for implementing “bamboo in the CDM” projects. It confirmed that a technical advisory group should be established, and that this would inform the CDM workshop in Beijing in late 2008, and project development. INBAR was urged to keep the number of face-to-face meetings to a minimum due to the cost.

��

• A better and broader understanding of the feasibility of bamboo for CDM was gained through presentations and discussion at the workshop.

• Awareness was raised and interest stimulated to develop pilot bamboo projects for CDM among the stakeholders.

• Potential interested partners were surveyed through questionnaires, which will form the basis for developing the technical group and pilot-project network.

• The workshop gave good publicity and increased awareness of stakeholders in the bamboo sectors in Asia-Pacific amongst the forestry stakeholders attending the Week.


The workshop: “REDD: a steep learning curve notes

from a session” Thursday, 24 April 2008

OrganizerNetherlands Development Organization (SNV)

Background

To some NGOs it is a threat to indigenous rights and community forestry programmes. To some governments it is an opportunity to significantly magnify the monetary value of their forest estates. From any perspective, the new concept of Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) has renewed foresters’ interest in the carbon market. ‘Which countries are eligible for REDD?’, ‘What is the value of a REDD credit?’, ‘How will REDD affect forest-dependent communities?’. These are just a few of the questions overheard at the Asia-Pacific Forestry Week (APFW) held in Hanoi from April 21-26

th, giving an indication of the uncertainty surrounding the

topic. Focussing on the economic and social implications of REDD, an APFW side event attempted to unpack these questions and shed light on the current status of REDD-related issues in Asia. Co-organised by the Hanoi offices of the Dutch and German Development organisations (SNV and GTZ), the event brought together representatives of the World Bank, IUCN and Fauna and Flora International (FFI) to lead discussions.

How will the mechanism look in 2012?

Long acknowledged as a key element in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, deforestation was excluded from the Kyoto Protocol chiefly because the technology was not considered far enough advanced for accurate calculation and monitoring of forest carbon stocks. These hurdles being crossed (or expected to be by 2012), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) achieved consensus in Bali that REDD will be part of a post-2012 Protocol. However, there will be vigorous debate over the coming 2 years, and beyond, over the elements to be included in REDD under UNFCCC. The most likely outcome is that the mechanism will recognise the contribution of reduced forest degradation – the second ‘D’ in REDD, as well as avoided deforestation. A deforestation-only mechanism (RED) had been advocated by a number of heavily-forested nations, such as Brazil, by virtue of the relative simplicity in calcuation and monitoring. Reduced degradation will require more complex, and potentially controversial, calcuations and a significantly greater emphasis on ground truthing of data generated by remote sensing. Nevertheless, REDD spreads the benefits wider than RED. Not only nations at risk of large reductions in forest area, but also those in which the threat is chiefly to forest quality, stand to generate revenue under such a system. Hence the broader support for REDD among tropical nations.

��

Like all other mechanisms resulting in measurable emission reductions, REDD is market-based. APFW delegates therefore proposed that the prospective producers of REDD credits would do well to promote a demand-driven system by encouraging buyer countries to set out their priorities, independently of the UN negotiations. This would give producer countries a clear indication of the measures they need to put in place in order to satisfy the market post-2012. The long-term shape of REDD will not become clear until UNFCCC negotiations are much further advanced. In the meantime, the world is not standing still. Markets are developing independently of the negotiations and tropical forest nations are preparing to implement their own REDD strategies in a number of ways.

What is the role of the World Bank?

The World Bank has been intricately involved in the development of REDD through their Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), generating a degree of controversy in the process. Indeed, such is their prominence in the field that it was not uncommon to hear FCPF and REDD used interchangeably at the APFW, as though REDD was itself a World Bank programme. As the Bank’s Dr Joe Leitmann explained, however, the FCPF is essentially a pilot scheme, not a fixed template for REDD. It is designed to identify the suite of positive incentives for target countries that will ensure an ‘economically effective and socially just’ implementation of REDD. The FCPF consists of two funds – a Readiness Fund, which is being rolled out in 2008, and a Carbon Finance Fund to be launched subsequently, probably in 2010.

‘Readiness’ involves the preparation of target countries for implementation of REDD, including a coherent national strategy, development of skills, infrastructure and legal frameworks. Perhaps most important for an ‘economically effective’ REDD mechanism is the proposed determination of baselines and reference scenarios for deforestation and degradation. Leitman stressed that this would be done ‘ideally following guidance from the UNFCCC’ but independent of them if negotiations do not produce guidelines of the required clarity within the necessary timeframe. The World Bank has not imposed stringent pre-conditions to limit the number of countries applying to the Readiness Fund, beyond stipulating that they be tropical countries which are not listed in Annex 1 of the Kyoto Protocol (i.e. without GHG emission reduction commitments). Countries that can convincingly demonstrate a deforestation and/or forest degradation problem which is likely to continue or further deteriorate in future will be considered for support under the Readiness Fund. By April 2008, 38 countries had embarked on the first stage of application by submitting an Expression of Interest to the Bank.

Delegates at APFW saw an important role for the Bank in using the FCPF to build market credibility for REDD. Countries supported by the Readiness and Carbon Finance funds should therefore be those which are the least challenging, where reliable data on forest trends are readily available and where domestic skills and infrastructure need relatively minor improvements. Countries which are further behind need more time, and more investment, and are not expected to be ready to enter a REDD market by 2012. But whence, in this case, can the assistance be found to prepare such countries to join the market at a later date? If quick, positive results govern the disbursement of FCPF funds it is equally likely that bilateral aid will follow the same routes and bypass those countries perceived as laggards in sustainable forest management.


Ready or not – REDD markets are here to stay

Dr Mark Infield of FFI presented an outline of a project in Aceh, Indonesia, which demonstrates that private investment is already creating a market for REDD credits independent of both the UN negotiations and the FCPF. The project aims to reduce deforestation by 85% over 30 years in the Ulu Masen ecosystem, which covers 750,000 ha of forest land in the province.

Containing the largest remaining contiguous forest block on the island of Sumatra, the Ulu Masen project is feasible partly because Aceh’s war-torn recent past prevented the large-scale exploitation of natural forests experienced in other parts of the country. The peace agreement reached in 2005, however, raised fears that forest clearance for timber and oil palm plantations would accelerate. REDD credits will be calculated, therefore, not on projections of past unsustainable extractive activity, but on assumptions of how a loosely-regulated peacetime economy would affect the decisions of forest industry stakeholders. Incidentally, as Leitmann pointed out, this closely resembles the rationale behind the FCPF applications of some recently stable African nations such as Liberia. The quickest wins for REDD, in contrast to popular perception, may not be in areas of the highest past deforestation levels, but in those with some of the lowest.

The partnership between government, non-government and private sector bodies bodes well for the sustainability of the project. Carbon Conservation Pty Ltd secured a multi-million dollar financial commitment from the investment bank Merrill Lynch, while FFI provides technical advice to the project implementers, the government of Aceh. As an early adopter of the market for REDD credits, Merrill Lynch exposes itself to the risks, but also the high potential benefits, common to all untested new markets. But this investment in itself will serve to build confidence within carbon markets that REDD will be a significant element in ‘green’ portfolios of the future.

Can markets allay civil society concerns?

FFI advice will focus on land use planning and benefit sharing mechanisms. As Infield pointed out, one of the main risks of the project is the failure to provide sufficient financial incentives to secure the engagement of all stakeholders. Chiefly, these concerns revolve around forest-dependent communities and those with traditional tenure or use rights over forests. Equally important for success of the project is adequate remuneration for local forest officials and monitors.

David Huberman, an environmental economist with IUCN, participated in the APFW session as a representative of the Poverty and Environment Partnership (PEP), a group comprising civil society organisations committed to exploring the social implications of REDD and to ensuring that the mechanism delivers benefits to poor communities in the target countries. Huberman warned that REDD risks being seen solely as a technological fix to what is, essentially, a political problem. The business of determining baselines and targets and establishing market mechanisms for REDD will be meaningless unless governments implement the key reforms to forest governance, usufruct rights and tenurial systems that are at the root of poor forest management.

Ultimately, carbon markets will have a key role in determining whether benefit sharing systems in REDD are sufficiently equitable. Except in very remote areas, the failure to motivate local communities to support or participate in REDD measures will undermine market confidence in the ability of projects to deliver on their projected results. Underperforming projects

�0

will not produce tradable credits and investment will dry up. It is therefore in the interests of early investors to ensure that market-based systems are in place to verify the credibility of projects. A number of standards have emerged over the past few years to evaluate afforestation projects for carbon markets, such as Plan Vivo, CarbonFix and the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA). The Ulu Masen project has been evaluated according to the CCBA standard. APFW participants advised that the principles and criteria of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) could also be used as a basis for evaluating the social and environmental credibility of REDD projects. FSC is, indeed, already exploring this possibility.

Will REDD markets learn from the past?

Prior to 2012, REDD credits will be tradable only on voluntary markets. The development of the voluntary market for REDD will certainly be affected by the pace and nature of progress in UNFCCC negotiations but, if projects such as Ulu Masen continue to emerge, the balance of influence may shift as UN parties find that emerging market conventions render some of their discussions obsolete.

Certainly, the voluntary market in REDD credits will provide the clearest indication of the likely price of credits under the UN-sanctioned compliance mechanism after 2012. The current methodology for afforestation and reforestation projects under the Clean Development Mechanism (ARCDM) does not have much relevance to the emerging REDD market. Indeed, one of the simplest but most important take-home messages from the APFW could be that REDD is not, nor is it likely to become, a part of CDM. Both REDD and ARCDM are based on trade in carbon sequestered by forest ecosystems but they are very different products. ARCDM involves forest plantations, which are explicitly excluded from REDD.

However, ARCDM and the market for voluntary emission reductions (VERs) based on forest plantations do hold relevant lessons for REDD markets. ARCDM has not been taken up by countries with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol because of the high perceived risk of project failure and the temporary nature of the credits, making them intrinsically much less valuable than credits from other CDM projects. REDD credits should, if possible, be classed as permanent and methodologies kept simple to reduce the risk of project failure. It will be a challenge for UNFCCC negotiators to achieve this without compromising on social equity and environmental sustainability, particularly in the measurement of reduced forest degradation. Forestry VERs have developed a dubious reputation for double accounting and environmental probity, resulting in the emergence of the CCBA and other industry standards mentioned above. Consequently there is now huge variation in the price of forestry VERs (from below $1 to >$30 tCO2e), depending on the quality of the product. A similar pattern is likely to emerge for REDD markets but this poses a dilemma for many NGOs, as described by Infield. Civil society organisations will prefer ‘deluxe’ credits which use higher standards to guarantee socially equitable and environmentally sound outcomes, which will fetch a high unit price. Many investors, however, will be looking for no more than the most basic standards and the lowest risk. NGOs will need to develop a certain degree of marketing skill to persuade private sector partners to invest in the deluxe varieties of REDD.


Can REDD be pro-poor?

Much of the discussions among APFW delegates in the REDD session centred on this question. Local communities and rural poor are often considered merely as objects of development but REDD provides an opportunity for them to become constructive actors. The extensive work required to verify reductions in forest degradation, in particular, gives them a potentially crucial role and hence a claim to a large stake in the decisions over strategy development and benefit sharing. From the World Bank perspective, however, it is not possible for the FCPF to oblige states to ensure a broad consultative process for REDD, but, with the encouragement of APFW delegates, they can stress that stakeholder buy-in is a main pre-condition for effectiveness of national strategies.

The delegates further underlined the importance of formalising traditional or customary land tenure and use rights as an intrinsic part of any REDD strategy. However, one of the most common fears concerning REDD is that it will in fact act as a disincentive for governments to press forward with formal decentralisation. The instinct of most forest authorities is to focus decentralisation programmes, such as community forestry or co-management, on areas which are of less intrinsic value. REDD increases the potential value of natural forest areas, irrespective of timber quality or accessibility, and thus the temptation for state and private sector actors to stake their claims to areas previously considered uneconomic, to the disadvantage of forest-dependent peoples.

Conversely, as mentioned above, the active participation of rural communities may be essential to build market confidence in REDD, particularly for effective monitoring of reduced forest degradation. It is therefore possible to envisage REDD as both a driver for and against forest decentralisation and social equity. It is not yet clear which it will be. But the importance of the question is now accepted by the most influential stakeholders in the development of the process. Consultation with civil society groups after an unexpectedly hostile response to the launch of the FCPF at Bali in December 2007 led the World Bank to significantly expand and refine the Readiness Fund application template. The majority of the changes increased the burden of proof on applicant countries to show that their REDD strategy guaranteed socially equitable outcomes.

A steep learning curve ahead

What precisely are the measures that will contribute to a REDD strategy? Those mentioned during the APFW session included strengthening forest governance, improved conservation measures, environmental education, community forestry, land use planning, forest zoning, improved tenure security, to name but a few. In short, REDD is essentially an attempt to promote sustainable forest management. Like forest certification and payment for environmental services, it works through financial markets to provide economic incentives to forest managers and stakeholders in natural, tropical forests. The difference is in the direct link of the scale of those incentives to measurable results, in the form of forest carbon stocks.

Much remains to be learned regarding the eventual nature of the voluntary and compliance markets in REDD but it is important to note that, whatever the current hype, the mechanism is

��

certainly no panacea for reversing the deterioration in the condition of forest ecosystems. The success of REDD will be limited by the market value of REDD credits relative to the opportunity cost of other land uses or forest management systems. Leitmann estimates that the price will be sufficiently high to be effective in many areas where timber production is the main opportunity cost, but is unlikely to match the economic benefits of ranching or soya cultivation in the Amazon, for example.

Of particular significance is the method of calculation for REDD baseline scenarios and targets. Political considerations are likely to be at least as important as technical issues in the determination of historical baselines and future projections of national deforestation and degradation trends. Host countries will be tempted to exaggerate baseline trends and thus set low targets, to maximise potential output of carbon credits. This risks undermining the market. REDD credits generated by countries which are still undergoing high rates of deforestation will bring the whole system into disrepute. The lesson of FSC forest certification shows that control of targets by producers can lead to a race to the bottom in terms of quality.

The existence and unrestricted availability of high quality satellite data means that non-government agencies are perfectly capable of monitoring global forest trends and exaggerated claims will be easily uncovered. Even so, the surrender of such a politically sensitive task to an external body will be resisted by nation states. It bears repeating, however, that REDD, like climate change in general, is a global issue and will inevitably involve some dilution of national sovereignty to ensure effective results.


The meeting: “Proposed Asia-Pacific universities

forest education network”Wednesday, 23 April 2008

Organizer

University of Melbourne, Southeast Asian Network for Agroforestry Education (SEANAFE)

Objectives

The objectives of the workshop were:

1. To identify major issues facing the development of forest education in the Asia-Pacific region;

2. To discuss potential solutions to these issues;

3. To discuss the development of a formal network of tertiary forest education institutions, how it might operate, what kind of resources would be required to make it effective and where these might come from;

4. Decide on next steps and future actions.

Background

The meeting was attended by more than 50 representatives of institutions from 12 countries and seven international organisations. The co-chairs and rapporteur made brief presentations about the background to the workshop, the South-East Asia Network for Forestry Education (SEANAFE), and the International Partnership for Forestry Education (IPFE), respectively. Background papers to each of these, and from workshop participants, were tabled.

Outcomes1.Issues

Workshop participants identified key issues of concern to them. These issues are listed in point form in Annex 2. Common issues included:

• The need for universities to become more internationally connected and to develop international collaboration (these are often government or institution wide policies).

• The need for curriculum review and updating to reflect current forest management challenges.

��

• Declining student interest in forestry as a study option (the exception being Republic of Korea, where there were many students but few jobs in forestry or land management).

• The increasing cost to students and institutions of education.

• The need to more effectively link teaching with industry needs and making graduates employment ready.

• The need to more effectively link and reinforce the research-teaching-policy chain.

• More effectively maintaining and utilising university forests.

• Incorporating general educational goals (eg. creative thinking, ICT, research skills) into professional forestry programs.

Someresponses:

• Collaborative Masters-level programs being developed among institutions (Australia, Indonesia?)

• Curriculum review processes in Indonesia, Viet Nam

• Internship and placement opportunities with industry and international agencies

2.Potentialsolutions

On the basis of the issues identified in #1, potential solutions were discussed by small groups in the context of three questions:

• Making networks work: what are the essentials?

• What are the top priorities for collaboration?

• How to keep curricula contemporary, & link graduates to employer needs & expectations?

Key points:

Makingnetworkswork

• Strong mutual interests among members, clear agenda and objectives with measurable goals and targets.

• Strong, participatory leadership, external champions and sharing of tasks across the membership.

• Clear benefits of membership, willingness of members to commit resources, low overheads and transactions costs and independence of external funding.

• Good communication, web-presence and regular events.

Topprioritiesforcollaboration

• Sharing of information on curriculum, teaching development activities and library resources and staff expertise.

• Exchange arrangements for staff and students.

• Development of benchmarking, peer review and common standards (perhaps a ‘state of forestry curriculum’ report).

• Joint teaching programs for specialist subject areas.


• Joint research activities.

• Promotion of forestry as an exciting and innovative career option.

• Proposals to fund specific actions.

Keepingthecurriculumrelevantandenhancinglinkswith‘theindustry’

• Frequent curriculum review, involving other institutions and external partners.

• Mechanisms for linking graduates with employers.

• Further development of internships and industry placements.

Other points

• Possible sources of support for network activities include ITTO, industry, country ODA and bilateral funding, institutional support for international collaboration.

• Need to connect strongly with students and facilitate student-based activities, particularly IFSA/AFSA.

3. Development of a formal network of tertiary forest educationinstitutions

It was agreed that the formation of such a network should be pursued but there were varying opinions about whether or not the network should be developed separately from related existing networks (eg APAFRI, SEANAFE), with the advantages and disadvantages of both options noted.

4.Nextstepsandfutureactions

It was agreed that Professor Keenan would convene a steering committee to explore options for #3; membership is listed in Annex 5. It was agreed to circulate notes from the meeting to all participants, and keep them (and any other interested parties) of progress and developments. The possibility of a meeting in Korea in 2009, kindly hosted by Seoul National University, was noted.

• Await outcome of submission to Australian Government Forestry Skills and Capacity Building Program.

• Potential next meeting of steering committee at Kasetsart University TROPFOR conference - 11/08.

• SEANAFE to co-sponsor faculty-student dialogue at TROPFOR.

��

The workshop:“Protected areas, equity and livelihoods (PAEL)”

Friday, 25 April 2008

Organizers

World Conservation Union (IUCN)Asia Forest Network (AFN) World Wide Fund For Nature WWF

Background

The full-day workshop on Protected Areas, Equity and Livelihoods (PAEL), which took place during the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) Asia-Pacific Forestry Week (APFW), was jointly hosted by IUCN,1 the Asia Forest Network (AFN), the Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC), and the FAO. Its main purpose was to feed into the ongoing work of the global Task Force on PAEL by providing insights and highlighting key issues relevant to the social implications of managing Protected Areas in the Asia-Pacific (AP) region. The day was divided into four main sub-sessions, focusing sequentially on (i) an overview of the Task Force and case studies highlighting some of the main issues related to PAEL, (ii) lessons learned from relevant projects in the AP region, (iii) potential policy options and tools for managing PAs in an equitable and socially sustainable way, and (iv) general recommendations on best ways of addressing the challenge of incorporating equity and livelihood concerns in the management of PAs.

ProceedingsSub-sessionone–anoverviewofPAEL

Close to 100 APFW participants were officially welcomed to the event by Mr. Nguyen Huu Dzung, Vice Director of the Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development’s Forest Protection Department, who strongly affirmed the relevance of the day’s topic to forest conservation efforts in Viet Nam and in the AP region. Mr. Ronnakorn Triraganon of RECOFTC provided a basic introduction to the workshop by providing some background information on the PAEL Task Force, and by highlighting the urgent need to integrate PA management into broader sustainable development objectives and to ensure that equity and poverty concerns are properly addressed.

Linkages between PA management and sustainable development objectives were further elaborated by Ms. Nguyen Thi Yen of IUCN Viet Nam, who drew from experience in her country to highlight some general limitations to pro-poor PA management, such as limited contribution of PAs to poverty reduction, unequal distribution of costs and benefits, and limited market access for marginalized communities.


Modesto Ga-ab, member of the Applai Sub-Tribe and Planning & Development Officer for the Besao Municipal Government in the Philippines, discussed further limitations to the equitable and socially sustainable implementation of PA management, and advocated for multi-stakeholder partnership processes that fully recognized the cultural diversity of PAs. In the open forum discussion following the three presentations, participants debated various opportunities for a more pro-poor management of PAs. However, the issue of compensation to local communities was often seen as being complex, and risked being highly inequitable unless sufficiently equitable participation was assured.Eco-tourism in PAs was also presented as an opportunity, but it was cautioned that large-scale enterprises could potentially marginalize local communities. The issue of land rights was also evoked as a significant hurdle to the equitable distribution of benefits from PAs management.

Sub-sessiontwo–lessonslearned:strategies&methods

The second sub-session began with a presentation by Dr. Kadi Warner (IUCN) on the problem of ‘paper parks’ and ‘paper partnerships’ in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS). Dr. Warner revealed findings from three case studies that bore witness to the cost to local livelihoods of the ongoing degradation of PAs in the GMS. Lessons learned from these experiences highlighted the urgent need to bring closer attention to the underlying institutional factors that undermine the effective and sustainable management of PAs. The following presentation by Professor Shanta K. Hennayake (IUCN) drew from experiences with the Strengthening Voices for Better Choices (SVBC) initiative in Sri Lanka to show that effective and sustainable forest governance arrangements are a necessary condition for the enhancement of local livelihoods. Professor Hennayake highlighted strategies which aim to build trust among key stakeholders as a critical element of equitable and socially responsible PAs management planning. To achieve the requisite level of trust for effective governance arrangements in the Knuckles Conservation Zone, the SVBC project set up an office in a house at the project site and ensured that project staff were present to meet with community members and answer any questions about the project 24 hours/day. The project also employed local youth in the initial research component as a mechanism to build trust, while at once engaging young residents in the project and providing capacity-building. He also noted the important role of the private sector in supporting small-scale entrepreneurial activities. SVBC’s partnership with Dilmah to support tomato production and marketing as an alternative source of livelihood is a good example of private sector engagement with direct livelihood benefits for farmers. The third case study was presented by Mr Ho Manh Tuong of the Vietnamese Forest Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI). Mr Tuong discussed the integration of local communities in the establishment of PAs, showing how they were effectively included in the consultation process while acknowledging their limited participation in the ensuing conservation activities. The open discussion with the participants was very much focused on the relationships between PA managers and local communities. The existing ‘disconnect’ between PA policy and practice was often mentioned as a reality in the AP region, where local communities are often unaware of existing restrictions and regulations.

Sub-sessionthree–policyoptions&implementationtools

Dr. Arvind Anil Boaz of the South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme (SACEP) was the first to present during the third sub-session. He discussed the feasibility of regional collaboration

��

in environmental management by drawing from experience with wildlife trade and showcasing how measures to control illegal trade in wildlife can help empower local communities and provide livelihood opportunities when combined with better management of legal trade at sustainable levels and related capacity-building. Some examples include providing technical and capacity-building support at the village level for legal and sustainable alternatives, such as processing Mahul leaves to make food wares and manufacturing sticks of incense from bamboo, as part of the Network of People’s Protected Areas initiative in India. Kimberly Marion Suiseeya (IUCN, Lao PDR) discussed various policy interventions for a more sustainable approach to managing PAs in Lao PDR, including participatory management, sustainable financing and clarifying the current management system by designating specific management categories to different PAs depending on the appropriate conservation objectives. Ms. Suiseeya highlighted the need for policymakers and managers to begin ‘re-thinking’ PAs in a way that prioritizes not only effectiveness, but efficiency and equity criteria as well.

David Huberman (IUCN) presented Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) as a potential tool for integrating conservation objectives into rural development. Mr. Huberman stressed the importance of having incentive-based instruments fit into a broader landscape-level strategy of sustainable development that fully addressed the ‘equity-efficiency’ trade-off. The final presentation, by Grace Villamor (CI/ICRAF), elaborated further on the use of economic incentives by discussing how optimizing the delivering of ecosystem services could help to conserve biodiversity in multi-functional landscapes. The issue of participation was the central topic of the following open discussion. What exactly is participation? What is its purpose? Different approaches to increasing participation in decision-making related to land-use and PAs, as well as the value of participatory processes were questioned and discussed. It was generally acknowledged that there was a need to bring the focus down to the household level to address problems such as elite capture and equitable benefit sharing (e.g. gender inequality).

Sub-sessionfour–recommendedactions

In the final session, moderated by Ronnakorn Triraganon, the discussion highlighted some of the key issues that need to be addressed by the PAEL Task Force. Firstly, the urgency of action was emphasized. The sustained loss of biodiversity despite the increase in PAs in the AP region was seen as an indication that PAs could become ‘dinosaurs’ (as illustrated by the widespread existence of ‘paper parks’). On the livelihoods side, the urgency of action was seen as being no less significant, demonstrated notably by the fact that most of the Millennium Development Goals are highly unlikely to be achieved. It was acknowledged that PAs were currently in a period of crisis, and that new approaches and initiatives were needed to ensure that PAs are not merely expanded, but enhanced and made consistent with the livelihood needs of local communities. Or else, they will simply be made obsolete. One potential avenue discussed for generating new opportunities for local livelihoods in PAs was to encourage greater private sector involvement, although it was acknowledged that such interests risk undermining the equitable sharing of conservation benefits. On the subject of equity, it was strongly stated that this is a very context dependent issue, and cannot be addressed through a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. PES and new opportunities through carbon finance were also seen as potential opportunities for the pro-poor management of PAs. However, without proper recognition of traditional land tenure and ownership systems, such incentive-based mechanisms were seen as being ‘out of reach’ for many local communities.


In conclusion, it was reminded that forest-dwelling communities ought to be recognized as the owners of the resources around them, and that any effort to manage these resources sustainably must fully recognize their importance for local livelihoods. Acknowledging that many local communities wish to preserve biodiversity simply because they depend on it for their livelihoods, it was generally agreed that greater empowerment at the local level could go hand-in-hand with wider conservation efforts.

�0

The workshop: “Towards responsible management of

planted forests in the Asia-Pacific region”Friday, 25 April 2008

Organizer

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

Introduction

During Forestry Week, help in conjunction wth the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission, a workshop was held to introduce the Voluntary Guidelines for Responsible Management of Planted Forests and to discuss its implementation in the Asia-Pacific region with different stakeholder groups. The workshop was aimed at a wide range of planted forests stakeholders in the Asia-Pacific Region, including senior Government, private sector, NGO, CBO, academic, scientific and other civil society groups responsible for policy, planning, managing, monitoring and investing in planted forest developments.

FAO introduced the scope and context of planted forests in the Asia-Pacific region, detailed the justification, process and partners in preparing the Voluntary Guidelines and introduced the Guideline Framework of Principles. The contexts of planted forests, stakeholder processes and implementation actions and experiences with the Guidelines were presented by Thailand, Lao PDR, China, Vietnam and New Zealand, to illustrate different geographic, socio-economic, environmental and governance situations in which planted forests were being undertaken and the Voluntary Guidelines being used. The results of the Chiang Mai sub-regional workshop “Towards Responsible Management of Planted Forests” and the preparatory stakeholder workshops in Thailand, Lao PDR, China and Viet Nam were highlighted and the outputs discussed. At the workshop a Needs Assessment questionnaire was completed by participants to highlight strengths and weaknesses in planted forests developments in their respective contexts. The workshop also discussed Voluntary Guidelines implementation issues and gave guidance to FAO and other organizations on technical support for capacity building in implementation of the Guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region.

Conclusions

It was recognized that planted forests, whether intended for productive or protective functions currently play a critical role in providing a wide range of goods and services in the Asia-Pacific region. The continued expansion of planted forests in the region would ensure that they would increasingly supply wood products, fibre, bioenergy, non-wood forest products and social or environmental services in the future.


It was acknowledged that the expansion of planted forests had not always complied with best practices and negative social, environmental and economic impacts had resulted. It was recognized that a better understanding and commitment to balance the social, cultural, environmental and economic dimensions of planted forests development was necessary in the Asia-Pacific region. The Action Frameworks prepared by Thailand, Lao PDR, China and Viet Nam at the Chiang Mai sub-regional workshop “Towards Responsible Management of Planted Forests” to improve planted forests policies, planning and implementation practices were considered valuable tools. However, Governments, FAO, multi-lateral and bi-lateral donors, private sector and other institutions needed to have the will and commit resources to support implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines at the policy, planning and practices levels in planted forests programmes and projects. It was agreed that the Voluntary Guidelines provided the framework of institutional, economic, social/cultural, environment and landscape principles necessary to maximize the benefits and minimize the negative impacts of planted forests in differing contexts in the Asia-Pacific Region. The Needs Assessment highlighted that there were strengths and weaknesses in all countries represented in the workshop. These were across all the principles, whether institutional, economic, social/cultural, environmental or landscape. The weaknesses highlighted will be used to target geographic, institutional and technical areas for future sub-regional workshop support in the region.

Recommendations

• FAO support conducting sub-regional workshops “Towards Responsible Management of Planted Forests” in SE Asia (including Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, possibly Myanmar and others), South Asia (India and Sri Lanka) and the South Pacific regions.

• Countries attend sub-regional workshops “Towards Responsible Management of Planted Forests” and prepare Action Frameworks to discuss implementation with their Governments and donors to integrate the policy, planning and practices initiatives in planted forests into their programmes and projects.

��

The workshop:“Disseminating scientific information

for policy and management”Friday, 25 April 2008

OrganizerInternational Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO)

Background

Over the past several years, the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) has implemented a number of initiatives that aim at promoting the interactions between forest science and policy, and the dissemination of scientific knowledge to forest stakeholders. Towards this end, a one-day seminar was organized by IUFRO as a Parallel Event at the first Asia-Pacific Forestry Week in Hanoi, Viet Nam, on 25 April 2008. The event was made possible through generous funding by the Korea Forest Research Institute (KFRI) and contributions from various members of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF). In his welcome address, Professor Don K. Lee, President of IUFRO, expressed his gratitude to FAO for accommodating this IUFRO event within the programme of the First Asia-Pacific Forestry Week. He welcomed the participants and thanked them for their interest in the issue of effective dissemination of forest-related scientific information. Professor Lee informed the participants about IUFRO’s current involvement in three global initiatives promoting the interaction between forest science and forest policy and management. These initiatives are (a) Capacity Building on Science Policy Interfacing, (b) Joint CPF Initiative on Science and Technology, and (c) the Global Forest Information Service (GFIS). Based on these initiatives the programme of the seminar was organised in three sessions and is briefly described in this report.

Session 1: Capacity building on science policy interfacing

The need for sound scientific information in the development of public environmental and forest-related policies at the local, national and international levels has grown significantly in recent years. So, too, has the need for such information within the private forestry sector and among non-governmental organizations, whose role in the development, sustainable management and conservation of forest resources in all regions of the world is steadily increasing in importance. Although it is commonly accepted that scientific information is indispensable for policy and management, linking substantive knowledge and authoritative political decision making is a chronically difficult task. Michael Kleine, Coordinator of IUFRO’s Special Programme for Developing Countries, described in his presentation some of the major features of the science-policy interface and discussed past experiences made with work in science-policy interactions. He further reported on the work of the IUFRO Task Force on the Science Policy Interface, which compiled a best practices guide on “Effectively working at the interface of forest science and forest policy.” These guidelines are available online on the IUFRO website at http://www.iufro.org/publications/series/occasional-papers/.


Based on the work of this Task Force, IUFRO’s Special Programme for Developing Countries (IUFRO-SPDC) has developed a training module on science-policy interfacing for scientists and research managers in developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The aim of this training is to provide concepts and methods for researchers on how to plan, conduct, and organise research activities, so that results can more quickly and easily be transformed into usable information for problem-solving and policy-making. Over the past three years several training workshops have been organised in all three regions and the demand for such training continues to remain high. The training events were made possible through contributions by expert institutions (e.g. resource persons and expertise) and financial support through various donor organisations of internationaldevelopment. Detailed information about the training workshops is available on the IUFRO-SPDC website at http://www.iufro.org/science/special/spdc/.

Session 2: Joint initiative on science and technology

Markku Kanninen, Director of CIFOR’s Environmental Services Programme and member of the Steering Committee of the Joint Initiative on Science and Technology, gave a presentation on IUFRO’s science-policy work at the international level. Since 2001 IUFRO, through its Special Project on World Forests, Society and Environment (WFSE), has been actively involved in global networking focusing on the broad interrelationship between forests, society and the environment. The WFSE network shares scientific knowledge and participates in forest-related policy processes, synthesises research findings on topics of global and regional importance and publishes the results in books, scientific synthesis reports and policy briefs. The core group of WFSE is composed of 9 leading research institutions coordinated by IUFRO. Over the past four years, the work of IUFRO at the international level has intensified significantly with representations of IUFRO in sessions of the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). One of the results of these efforts is a new Joint Initiative of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF), coordinated by IUFRO. This Joint Initiative supports international forest-related processes by assessing available scientific information and by producing reports on forest-related issues of high concern. The main principles of the work of the Joint Initiative include the incorporation of scientific results generated by experts from all regions of the world, the assessment of existing information without conducting new research, and communicating effectively with policy makers at the right time (http://www.iufro.org/science/science-initiative/).

The outcome includes focused reports reflecting state-of-the-art understanding on the subject matter, representing comprehensive, peer-reviewed scientific assessments with each report containing a summary for policy makers. Based on consultations with policy-makers and stakeholders at UNFF-7 (April 2007), CBD SBSTTA-12 (July 2007), and the Forest Day Bali (December 2007) “Adaptation of Forests to Climate Change” was confirmed as the first priority theme to be addressed by an expert panel to be established under the Joint Initiative. This panel provides sector specific assessments of available knowledge on impacts and vulnerabilities of forests and people, and adaptation options, recognizes various spatial and temporal scales involved, makes best use of information provided by IPCC, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, and prepares a report for use by UNFF-8 (April 2009), and also by UNFCCC and CBD.

��

Core issues to be addressed in the panel report include potential future environmental, economic and social impacts as well as adaptation options for policy and management. Session 1 and 2 each concluded with lively discussions on science-policy interfacing whereby the participants shared their own experiences on interactions between policymakers and other stakeholders. Overall the discussions showed that although there is agreement on the importance of interacting with stakeholders at various levels, constraints on the part of the science community in many developing countries with regard to time, human and financial resources, and hierarchical and cultural barriers prevent effective interactions with the decision-making levels.

Session 3: Global Forest Information Service (GFIS)

The third session of the IUFRO event – taking place in the afternoon – focused on the Global Forest Information Service (GFIS) and was moderated by Ho Sang Kang, GFIS Regional Coordinator for Asia and Russia. GFIS, an IUFRO-led CPF Initiative, provides the framework for sharing forest-related data and information through a single gateway. The main objectives of this session were a) to introduce the GFIS concept, b) invite current information provider partners from the regions to share their experiences with GFIS, c) invite new potential partners to discuss their expectations of global information sharing, and d) demonstrate under real-world conditions how easy it is to create the necessary information feeds (RSS) and link them to the GFIS gateway at http://www.gfis.net/.

In the first presentation Eero Mikkola, the GFIS Coordinator, introduced the participants to the latest GFIS internet gateway as well as the status of partnership development with expert institutions from around the world. This was followed by short presentations prepared by three GFIS partners – i.e. Research Center for Forest Ecology & Environment (RCFEE) Viet Nam; Asia-Pacific Association of Forestry Research Institutions (APAFRI); and USDA Forest Service (USA) on their experiences with providing information to GFIS and using the system in their daily work. Some recommendations and plans for future development of GFIS were mentioned. In a second block of presentations, potential GFIS partners in Asia – i.e. Indonesian Ministry of Forestry; Indonesian Center for Education & Training (CFET); Myanmar Forest Research Institute, and The World Resources Institute Forest Team Indonesia informed the participants about their own information resources and how these are currently stored, managed and disseminated. They also elaborated on their expectations of GFIS when joining as GFIS partners. In a final session, Mr. Randy D. McCracken, USDA Forest Service demonstrated how a forest information news feed – based on “Really Simple Syndication” (RSS) – can be created and linked to the GFIS gateway. In this way, individual information resources can be located from anywhere in the world.

Overall, the participants showed great interest in GFIS and some of them expressed their interest to join as GFIS partners. In the weeks to come, the GFIS Coordination Unit will establish contacts with these potential partners to finalize the link to GFIS and commence with the exchange of forest-related information resources. The presentations made during this session can be downloaded from the IUFRO website at http://www.iufro.org/science/gfis/. A powerpoint presentation was shown be KFRI regarding the preparation and invitation to XXIII IUFRO World Congress to be held in Seoul, Republic of Korea, in August 2010. A promotional video was presented showing the excellent meeting facilities of the congress venue in Seoul and various forested landscapes of Korea, which will be visited during the in-congress and post-congress excursions. For more information please visit the Congress Website at http://www.iufro2010.com/.


Closing remarks

The IUFRO event concluded with closing remarks by the IUFRO President, Professor Don K. Lee. With 57 registered participants from 14 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, this event was very successful, providing latest information on IUFRO’s ongoing initiatives on the dissemination of scientific information for policy and management. Professor Lee thanked all the participants for their support and active participation and expressed his hope for further closer cooperation among scientists in the region under the umbrella of IUFRO.

��

The workshop:“Implementation of the fire management

voluntary guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region”Friday, 25 April 2008

Organizer

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

Introduction

During the Forestry Week of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission, a workshop was held to introduce the Fire Management Voluntary Guidelines, conduct a needs assessment and to discuss its implementation in the Asia-Pacific region. The workshop was aimed at those stakeholders in the Asia-Pacific Region from the Government, private sector or other civil society groups responsible for fire management, policy, planning, and practices. FAO introduced the scope and context of fire management in the Asia-Pacific region, detailed the justification, process and partners in preparing the Voluntary Guidelines and introduced the guideline framework of principles and strategic actions. Additionally FAO outlined the purpose, mandate and charter for the Fire Management Actions Alliance and the role of this international partnership in implementing the Voluntary Guidelines and enhancing international cooperation in fire management.

Presentation were made by fire management specialists from Government (New Zealand/Australasian Fire Actions Council, Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia), the private sector (APRIL Group of Companies, Indonesia) and NGOs (The Nature Conservancy, USA/Asia). Each specialist outlined the actions and experiences with regard to implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines and participation in the Fire Management Actions Alliance. At the workshop a Needs Assessment questionnaire was completed by participants to highlight strengths and weaknesses in fire management in their respective contexts. The workshop also discussed Voluntary Guidelines implementation opportunities and gave guidance to FAO and other organizations on their roles and technical support for capacity building in implementation of the Guidelines in the Asia-Pacific Region.

Conclusions

It was generally agreed that improved approaches to fire management were required in the Asia-Pacific region as they continued to be a tool that caused deforestation and forest degradation, whether directly, or indirectly. It was acknowledged that there was a need to address integrated approaches to fire management, taking inter-sectoral approaches, as other land-uses (agriculture and livestock) impacted forestry and vice versa. Additionally there was a recognized need to undertake monitoring, early warning, detection, preparedness, prevention, suppression and


restoration activities. Investment in prevention was generally considered more effective and efficient. Of course investment in suppression was always needed, but needed to be balanced with prevention investment with communities, communities of interest and other stakeholders. The presentations from around the Asia-Pacific region highlighted that the Voluntary Guidelines provided the framework of principles and strategic actions necessary to adopt integrated approaches to fire management. It was also recognized that not fires were bad. Some forest ecosystems are fire dependent and fire can be an effective land-use tool if managed responsibly. However, fire in fire sensitive ecosystems could be very destructive and required prevention and early suppression. The Needs assessment highlighted that there were strengths and weaknesses in all countries represented at the workshop. The weaknesses highlighted will be used to target geographic, institutional and technical areas for future sub-regional workshop support in the region.

Recommendations

• FAO programme sub-regional workshops “Towards Implementation of Fire Management Voluntary Guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region including: i) ASEAN regions (North and South); ii) UNISDR Regional Wildland Fire Regions in North East Asia and Southern Asia; and iii) the South Pacific Region; and

• FAO conduct a fire management needs assessment at the forthcoming AFAC regional conference in Australia in September, 2008.

��

The seminar: “Poverty reduction through

forestry-related activities in Asia”Saturday, 26

April 2008

Organizers

CIFOR, ICIMOD, IFAD, and ICRAF

Background

Recognizing the great potential of forestry as a promising livelihood option for mountain communities, several action research and development programmes are being conducted by ICIMOD, CIFOR and ICRAF, with financial support from IFAD. A seminar was organized during the Asia-Pacific Forestry Week to share the experiences from IFAD Projects and the Regional partners in this regard.

The Seminar brought together experiences and lessons learnt through different IFAD Projects under implementation in the Hindu Kush Himalayan countries and in South East Asia. The Seminar consisted of presentations that highlighted different approaches taken to address the issues of access to forest resources by disadvantaged communities, livelihood options based on forest resources and the linkage with private sector as well as policy dialogue that address concerns of marginalized communities in transition. The potential of payment for services as a possible tool to benefit the poor while ensuring conservation was also addressed in the Seminar with a presentation from ICRAF on their RUPES experience.

Linked with the seminar, there was also the launching of the booklet ‘Payment for environmental services – lessons and experiences in Viet Nam’. Representatives from IUCN, WWF, CIFOR, ICRAF in Viet Nam and FSIV made short presentations on the booklet.

Experiences from IFAD funded grants programs on poverty reduction through forestry The seminar started with Dr Ganesh Thapa, Regional Economist from IFAD’s Asia-Pacific Division welcoming participants and giving a brief overview of IFAD’s approach to harnessing the potentials of forestry for the benefit of the poor and disadvantaged, particularly in the context of less favoured and marginalized areas such as mountains. The first presentation was from CIFOR, IFAD’s Regional partner who had conducted a study on the potential of forestry in poverty reduction in China, India and Nepal. The presentation touched on the potentials of forest produces in generating income for the poor but also highlighted the institutional arrangements and policy constraints that hamper realization of the full potential of this sector. The CIFOR presentation was followed by a presentation from the North Eastern Region Community Resource Management Project for Upland Areas (NERCORMP), an IFAD Project under implementation in three states of India’s northeast region. The NERCORMP presentation outlined the institutional approach that the project had taken to encourage decision making and governance at the local level, particularly the formation and capacity building of the Natural Resource Management Groups (or NarmGs) and the


Self Help Groups. Some of the examples provided in the presentation emphatically demonstrated the powerful potential of community institutions in ensuring natural resource management and promotion of livelihoods based on forestry. Particularly encouraging was the significant area of forests conserved by the NarmGs for providing environmental services and livelihood needs.

The next presentation was from ICIMOD, another of IFAD’s regional partners and the coorganiser of the Seminar, working in the Hindu Kush Himalaya and extending technical support to IFAD’s projects in the mountain region. The ICIMOD presentation outlined the comparative advantages of forest produces in the mountain context and the institution’s strategic approach in promoting forestry as an option for livelihoods. The presentation touched on the support extended by ICIMOD in promoting MAPs and NTFPs for income generation involving Leasehold Forestry groups and private sector involvement. It then moved to interventions taken to enhance capacity of communities in land resource management and perspective planning, utilizing the Participatory 3 dimensional modeling for perspective landuse planning in the context of shifting cultivation. The presentation also touched on initiatives taken in regarding to fostering evidence-based policy dialogues in the context of management of shifting cultivation. The ICIMOD presentation was followed by a presentation from the Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Promotion Project from Nepal. The presentation outlined the objectives and the coverage of the Project in Nepal and also dwelt upon the Project’s components and activities undertaken to meet the objectives. The presentation also highlighted the fundamental challenge faced by the project implementers in identifying leasehold plots that had sufficient land capability to support forest resources which could be developed subsequently by the leasehold group members.

The next presentation was by ICRAF, the third regional partner and a coorganiser of the Seminar. The ICRAF presentation focused on ICRAF’s experiences in three countries while implementing the project on Rewarding the Asian Uplands Poor for the Environmental Services they Provide (RUPES). The presentation started the rationale behind the project and gave a conceptual framework within which the project was implemented. Examples from Nepal, Indonesia and Viet Nam were used to emphasise the conceptual argument. These examples also provided the audience with varied contextual situations where opportunities for payment for environmental services could be designed to convince the buyers to reward the upland poor for their services. The presentation also provided insights to innovative approaches that can be adopted in designing payment for environment services initiatives and showed how the services of even marginalized communities can be appreciated enough by buyers to agree for payments for the environmental services. The presentations were followed by a discussion with questions raised and clarifications sought from the participants. IFAD’s efforts were highly appreciated, particularly in regard to their approach of conducting research on specific concerns before embarking on larger interventions. A concern was raised, however, in regard to the rationale of the leasehold forestry project, in particular, in regard to the issue of extremely degraded leasehold plots being handed over to marginalized and disadvantaged households with the expectation that such disadvantaged households would be able to develop the land and earn a reasonable livelihood from such plots. The issue required attention and ways to address the situation and the presenter informed that the Project was extremely sensitive to the issue and was trying to address this by deliberately avoiding leasing of degraded plots.

�0

“Mists Swirl at 3,000meters in the forest of Takengon, Aceh”

David Gilbert2008


Nguyen Ngoc BinhDirector General, Department of ForestryFriday, 25 April 2008

His Excellency Hua Duc Nhi- Vice Minister of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

His Excellency Jan Heino - Assistant Director-General for Forestry for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Distinguished guests, Colleagues, Ladies and gentlemen,

The end of Asia-Pacific Forestry Week is upon us and it is my honour and pleasure to address you all and make some final observations and comments after a week of intensive and stimulating discussions. This week’s presentations, meetings, and other forestry related events have been organized in response to heightened awareness of the importance of trees and forests in sustaining the region’s economic, environmental and social systems. Global and local changes are taking place at faster and faster rates and the new century is presenting some of the greatest challenges mankind has ever faced. In this changing world, the values of trees and forests are changing too and we must strive to ensure that these values are preserved, and invested in. As you will recall, the week’s sessions focussed on the overarching theme of “Forestry in a changing world” which was addressed in three plenary sessions:

• People and forests

• Climate change, and

• Forest law compliance and governance.

The importance and gravity of each of these issues has been central in expanding forestry related dialogue in the region and, in relation, this is the first time that the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission meeting has been expanded into Asia-Pacific Forestry Week.

The government and people of Viet Nam are honoured to have hosted this auspicious event and I would like personally to thank Mr Jan Heino, FAO’s Assistant Director General of Forestry as well as Patrick Durst and the FAO secretariat for their support in organising the meeting. I would also like to thank all of the collaborating organisations – almost 50 of them – for their support in running such a large number of events covering a broad range of topical themes. There are many others to thank including the distinguished delegates from the nations of the Asia-Pacific region and the knowledgeable resource persons who have informed us of new developments in forest and forestry related matters.

I do hope that you all enjoyed the week’s activities and that you will take back with you renewed vigour to tackle the challenges that face us. I make all necessary apologies for any difficulties that you may have suffered with the logistic arrangements while here in Hanoi. Let me say that it was our first time to organise a meeting of this size and we understood at first that there would be 200 participants...but then there were 300! and 400! and finally 700! Some people thought we

CLOSING ADDRESSES

��

couldn’t do it but with support from the organizing partners and from my highly competent staff here in Viet Nam I think we can justifiably claim success and I thank you all for your enthusiastic participation.

The aim of Asia-Pacific Forestry Week has been to expand knowledge of “Forestry in a changing world” and by doing so to help define a sustainable future for forestry in the years to come. We hope that this informal gathering will strengthen the bonds that that link us to trees and forests - and to each other - as stakeholders in Asia-Pacific forestry.

I declare Asia-Pacific Forestry Week closed and wish you all a pleasant evening and a safe journey home.

Thank you.


Jan HeinoAssistant Director-GeneralFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Distinguished Mr Hua Duc Nhi, Vice Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, Distinguished Mr Nguyen Ngoc Binh, Director-General of the Forest Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Distinguished participants and colleagues, At the closing of this first-ever Asia-Pacific Forestry Week, it is my great pleasure to congratulate you all for this highly successful event. The inaugural Asia-Pacific Forestry Week assembled many of the most outstanding forestry leaders, some of the most eloquent and knowledgeable forestry advocates, and many of the finest forestry minds, available to the Asia-Pacific region, and indeed the world. We have all greatly benefited from the ideas, learning and experiences that have been generously shared during the rich array of events that have been woven together to create this watershed event. An outstanding feature of Forestry Week has been the broad range of innovative events – more than thirty – arranged by nearly fifty partner agencies. There has been outstanding diversity and innovation in the topics and formats these have taken. We have had plenary sessions, dialogues, sessions, seminars, workshops, meetings, networks, managed debates, field trips, book launches, and a Café Scientifique!

Ladies and gentlemen,

The theme of Asia-Pacific Forestry Week, “Forestry in a changing world,” recognized that decisions are being made in new and evolving contexts on the world stage. Let me now try to sum up a few of the most significant outcomes from the 22nd session of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission and the entire Forestry Week. Many of the important recommendations arising from APFC also reflect themes and issues discussed in the plenary sessions and parallel events of Forestry Week.

1. During the week, we repeatedly stated that climate change has been the vehicle that has returned forestry to centre stage of the international agenda during the past two or three years. Among the recommendations on climate change arising from the Commission Session were calls for greater attention and assistance to building capacities of countries to enable them to participate in the increasingly complex mechanisms being developed within the climate change agenda. FAO is certainly cognizant of this need. Let me also reiterate the request to our many institutional partners – that we collaborate and cooperate to ensure efficient delivery of assistance to the countries to help them deal with this complex issue. The session also noted the clear request to further promote inter-sectoral and international co-operation and collaboration in developing responses to emerging forestry challenges.

2. We talked on the theme of “People and forests,” recognizing that people-centred development is increasingly the focus of forestry policies. We talked about the mainstreaming of decentralization, participatory decision making, benefit-sharing mechanisms and empowerment of people who live in and around forests. A key recommendation from APFC was to continue efforts to enhance community-based forest management and forestry initiatives that help reduce poverty.

3. On the theme of “Trade, forest law compliance and governance,” we reviewed the diverse nature of illegal forestry activities and associated trade. Governments, civil

��

society and the private sector came together to discuss interactions between forest law enforcement, governance and trade. It was very heartening to see all countries and sectoral groups – including producers, processors and consumers – assuming responsibility, and expressing commitment, to combating this serious challenge.

4. As to activities of FAO and the APFC in the region, FAO received a long list of requests from the session, including calls for FAO’s continued support for executive training in forest policy, forestry education networks, the regional forest policy initiative and national forest programme activities.

Finally, in the discussion on the Changing roles of forestry agencies, countries demonstrated a remarkable awareness of, and readiness for, the need to constantly adapt forestry institutions to the rapid changes of society.

Distinguished colleagues, change has become a constant in our lives and in our work. The world is changing rapidly and the forestry sector cannot ask it to turn more slowly. Therefore, the drive for continuous improvement, to do things better, to reinvent ourselves and our institutions, must be ever-present. We have to continuously question whether we are focusing on the right issues. Do we have the right skills and the right people to implement our programmes? The institutional structures – do they empower us to work efficiently to meet increasing demands for participation, social equity, and empowerment? We also have to anticipate emerging changes and demands.

Fellow participants, ladies and gentlemen,

I have found this first-ever Asia-Pacific Forestry Week to be enlightening, informative and extremely enjoyable. To a very large part, this success is due to our hosts. On behalf of FAO, I wish to offer my very sincere thanks to the Government of Viet Nam, and especially to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Forestry Sector Support Partnership, for their great generosity and outstanding efforts in organizing Asia-Pacific Forestry Week. I am fully aware that the organizational burden has been immense, and appreciate that this burden has been shouldered by our hosts with unflagging enthusiasm and unfailing courtesy. I particularly thank Mr Binh for his excellent leadership and able chairmanship of the 22nd session of APFC. I also extend my warm thanks to the Vice-Chairs Messrs Karma Dupka and Kanawi Pouru and Madam Zhang Hongyan for accepting the responsibility and for sharing the chairing duties. The contribution of our Rapporteur, Mr Neil Hughes is also much appreciated. Let me also offer thanks to the many, many organizations that have enriched Forestry Week by bringing innovations and creative approaches to various events and for contributing important financial resources. Similar thanks, to all of you, who have contributed to this invigorating event. Such collaboration and goodwill will long be remembered as a crowning feature of Asia-Pacific Forestry Week. Thank you.


Christoforus Terry2008

“Forest and clouds formation in East Kalimantan””

ESSAYS

��

Balancing environment, protecting livelihoods: issues facing forest and forestry in

Asia and the Pacific today

Me

This is a story about me, my sister, brother and my forest. I live in a Terai village of Nepal. Nepal is a country situated in South Asia. Asia-pacific comprises some of the richest and the poorest economies, most populated and the least populated countries and countries with the most extensive and least extensive national forest area. My country is an example of one of the poorest economies though rich in natural resources especially forest resources. My family consists of my father, mother, a younger brother and an elder sister. My sister got married in the hills while my brother went abroad (one of the leading economies of the world) for employment. So my blind father, sick mother and I work in others’ farms to survive.

Nepal is a country where more than 40 percent of the land area is covered with forests but we do not have land of our own. We have a thick protected forest close to where we live in a hut which is very vulnerable to wind and heavy rain. It is surrounded by army camps. My father was once attacked by a tiger and blinded. We need firewood for cooking and fodder for two goats. Feeding the goats is a major problem as we can neither graze them inside the forest nor collect fodder and grasses from there. So, sometimes we steal into the forest to collect some but most of the times get chased by the army. The forest has huge trees and many wild animals. Had we been allowed to cut some of the old trees, we could have made a small but proper house for ourselves. Researchers from so many places come to see the forest. They say our forest is very rich as it has so many valuable trees, herbs and shrubs which can serve as a source of livelihood for us. However, the forest is ‘for our eyes’ only. A signatory of the Convention on Biodiversity told us that the government is trying to protect the forest for bio-diversity conservation. However, I feel our sufferings are overlooked. We are always vulnerable to lifethreatening attacks by the wild animals. Some wild animals killed our goats and destroyed the crops in our farms, minimizing our share of subsistence. There are some rich households in the village who own plenty of land and employ us as laborers in their farms. They have contacts with some high ranking officials. With their help, they can enter the forests and acquire their necessities. They even smuggle timber and earn large sum of money. One of the gentlemen has operated a big hotel to provide lodging and food services to the tourists visiting the area but we locals are not employed there as we do not have enough qualifications. There are people from city hired for the jobs. So I feel the forest is getting rich and helping the rich get richer but the poor who depend on forest for livelihoods are getting poorer.

Mysister

My sister Rugu lives in the middle hills of Nepal. She is a widow. Her husband died in a factory accident in a Gulf country. Her family comprises of two sons, 4 and 3 years respectively and a daughter 2 years old. They have a community forest in their village which is very healthy. The forest was not always green and beautiful. About 20 years ago there was no greenery. Deforestation was rapid. People in the village highly suffered from landslides and floods. Now that the forest is protected they have no such problems. The CFUG (Community Forestry User Group) momentum brought about a lot of changes in


the village. Poor were identified and inclusive approaches were used in the forestry (CFUG) committee representation of the group. Thus the so called “low castes”, women and poor households got a chance to explore their leadership qualities. It has been a year now that she has been elected the vice-secretary of her CFUG. Due to this, she has developed leadership qualities and has become more confident. However, lack of enough human resources at home is always a problem for her. She

has to look after her small children and earn a living for the family too. Thus she has not been able to give as much of her time to the committee. The family has a small piece of land (as a huge part of land was taken away by landslide many years ago) which provides food sufficiency to her and her three children for three months per year. She has to work for others for the rest of the year to make a living. The CFUG provides fuel-wood and fodder to her family but due to lack of enough laborers at home, she could only bring half of her share. Due to this her livestock are not healthy. This has degraded the fertility of her land as the livestock would not give enough manure to use. Every year she is indebted because her land would not yield much and she can not pay back the loan taken for buying seeds. Hence, not being able to utilize the facilities from the well-managed, rich community forest, my sister is getting deeper into poverty.

Mybrother

Poverty dragged our brother to the United States. He works for a refrigerator manufacturer and drives about 200 kilometers every day. His job has to deal with heavy carbon emissions but he is satisfied that whatever he earns there is far better than what he could have earned in Nepal. He is enjoying his life there. Use of refrigerator, television, radio, telephone, mobile, car, oven, microwave, electric cookers, etc. are very common there. Millions of people have access to these stuffs. So has my brother. His daily routine depends on these. He is not aware that through these utilities he has been emitting huge amount of green house gases such as carbon dioxide and methane which have been contributing in ozone layer depletion, greenhouse gas effect and glacier melting. Global warming has changed the climate pattern. Sometimes there is too much rain and sometimes drought. I am proud that though we have not been able to collect our daily necessities from our own neighborhood, we have contributed millions of dollars through these forests in absorbing the carbon emitted by our brother and the “civilized” people from developed countries. His wealth means nothing if he still gets subsidized by his poor sisters. If he has some ethics, doesn’t he need to pay us for what we deserve in return to the services we provided in the cost of our livelihood for the global betterment?

Majorchallenge

Yes, this is a reality based story that depicts inequitable and unjust access to forest resources and services, north-south cooperation in minimizing global warming, way forward for equity and harmony in the world and joining hands for global cause. Issues related to me and my family is the issue of all poverty ridden people of the developing countries of the globe. We need secure livelihood from our forest products.The challenge here lies in “Balancing Environment and Protecting Livelihood” which is also found to be the most challenging issue facing forests and forestry sector in the Asia and the Pacific today. Situation of forests is better now. We know how to conserve forests and protect wild animals. We have also realized that it is the source of our livelihood. However, the only thing we have been reaping from it is fresh air. We need food security, better health and better life to survive.

��

Thewayforward

A convincing solution can be a deal with my brother and millions of his friends that the certain percentage of the tax they pay has to come to us for our forests’ carbon sequestration services. We know our Asia-Pacific green forests have been sequestrating 18-20% of the global carbon emission. Now, we are ready to share the greenery with them but not at the cost of our own livelihood any more. In return, we need to be paid for these services.

*********


Bringing culture back in: nurturing the forests of Asia-Pacific

for the present and future generations

Nurturinglocalculture

As a development worker in the NGO and lately, in he government, I find myself barraged with earfuls of questions regarding my activities and projects. A village elder in a far-flung barangay would, in my attempts of ferreting out facts regarding indigenous organic farming methods, ask why I’m interested on such “mundane matters”. Why, says he, am I interested in learning about the old ways which “do not command a price?” In an elementary school, I have been quizzed by starry-eyed kids about my interest in dragonflies which, in my early childhood in the late 1980s flew about in our village of Maggok, Ifugao like miniature planes in the world’s busiest airports.

When I worked full-time for the Save the Ifugao Terraces Movement, a local-based NGO, I found myself getting really close and aligned with my people in the villages of Ifugao, one of the remaining few watershed areas in Northern Philippines. I worked first as researcher and site manager then later, team leader of the Nurturing Indigenous Knowledge Experts Among the Young Generation (NIKE) Project, a Japanese NGO-funded endeavor which aims to correct discontinuities in the transmission of indigenous knowledge and skills (IK) from the few remaining IK Experts to the young generation. Here, I learned lots of things about the ways of our forefathers which before, I had deemed unnecessary for peoples’ existence. I learned that our ancestors practiced land zoning, delineating areas for production, replenishment, and settlement. I became aware of the sustainable agro-forestry practices of my elders which put premium on future croppings and fauna replenishment, contradicting “green revolution” ventures of monocropping, intensive application of toxic pesticides and herbicides and heavy use of inorganic fertilizers, and massive deforestation. My eyes were opened to the fact that our forefathers valued the muyong- private woodlots- and forested mountains hence special care was allotted and customs tailored to safeguard them for future generations.

TheforestsofAsia-Pacific

The lot of future generations in the Asia-Pacific and the whole world depends upon our actions and/or inactions at present. This specifically applies to forests, its value of which is beyond any question. As source of clean water, it is indispensible to the lives of people whether ethnic highlander or lowland city folks. It feeds rivers and streams which irrigate rice fields and crop areas; maintains underground aquifers for land stability; and provides water to an ever-increasing human population. As source of oxygen and converter of gases otherwise poisonous to animal, including human life, forests are irreplaceable. Moreover, forests supply human and non-human needs of timber, food, income and dwelling.

Indeed, the value of forests is beyond question. Yet, current developments have raised the stakes at the highest levels. That climate change is real and a clear and present danger makes us more aware of the importance of our forests. Increased wealth in the Asia-Pacific area has led to the speeding up of development and modernization which meant increased deforestation.

�00

TheIfugaoMuyong-amicrocosmofthedegeneratingforestsofAsia-Pacific

The Ifugao muyong or private woodlot has seen various transformations since the early pre-Columbian period when forests were in a pristine state. As a rule, the muyong is owned by a clan with responsibility transferring to every firstborn, the so-called primogeniture rule, regardless of sex. The other muyong principle on ownership is ‘land-locked’ meaning it may not be divided by the siblings nor parts of it sold. The one who inherits the muyong may have primacy over its use yet it means also shouldering the responsibility of taking care of less endowed siblings, giving them free access to it. Nowadays, the entry of Western concepts of titling and the money economy has eroded this practice to nil existence. Only a few families still adhere to the primogeniture and land-locked tenure principles of land ownership which means skills and knowledge on proper muyong maintenance are not being transmitted to the younger generation. Nowadays, the muyong is mainly seen as source of fuel and money, sustainability put aside.

Another indigenous knowledge practiced by the ancient Ifugaos is land zoning and delineation. From the top of Ifugao’s peaks to the rivers and communities below, people have identified areas for production of primary needs, replenishment and recharge zones, and buffer zones. From the middle part of the mountains up to its peak are the recharge or watershed zones. Human activity is restricted here except for hunting and selective harvest of non-timber forest products (NTFPs). They call it tudong di payo (lit. rice field umbrella). Below it are the private woodlots or muyongs, production area for timber to be used in house construction and fuel. Below the muyong are the rice terraces, production area for rice, the main staple of the Ifugaos. Gathered in one area near the terraces are the settlements or villages where the people live.

Buffer zones exist to check on human encroachment to vital natural systems. The woodlots act as buffer to minimize human activity into the mountain watershed areas. Between the rice fields and the settlements is the agidayan or greenbelt encircling the village, a deterrent to stop the encroachment of housing into the former. The greenbelt has also its purpose as orchard area for the growing of citrus fruits, guava, avocado, and others.

The muyong is taken cared by the owner and his family and clan through several methods. First is selective harvesting. Trees are only felled when they are most needed- the construction of houses. For fuel, people gather up dead trees, fast-growing indigenous trees, and misshaped trees. Fruit trees are rarely cut owing to their importance as secondary food source. Secondly, after trees are felled for construction and/or firewood, the owner replants it with the like variety to ensure that the forest cover is constant. Thirdly, the owners practice the removal of unwanted vines, weeds, and shrubs which restrict the growth of trees. Fourthly, muyong thanksgiving rituals and superstitions controlling human activity underscore the importance of the forest as giver of water and healthy air.

Nowadays, the indigenous practice of land zoning and delineation is increasingly being forgotten by the Ifugao people due to problems in transmission of knowledge. Land erosions are frequent because of deforestation and the resultant drying up of underground reservoirs. Rivers are shrinking evidenced by the exposure of formerly submerged caves and tone boulders. Rice fields are being abandoned, partly to the drying up of brooks and streams which once flowed abundantly.

In the Asia-Pacific area, most of the remaining forest covers are in montane areas, populated by indigenous peoples who live differently from their lowland brethrens and who are closer to Mother Earth. Hence, as in Ifugao, problems of deforestation are partly caused by ignorance among the young generation of indigenous peoples who have not learned about the values and skills of their forefathers

�0�A summary of events of the first Asia-Pacific Forestry Week, Hanoi, Viet Nam

on the maintenance of the forest. On the side of the lowlanders, the preeminence of modern living emphasized by rapidity in everything people do is fast draining what remains of their forests, and fast encroaching into the last remaining watersheds in the mountains of the indigenous peoples. This has dire consequences not only for the indigenous peoples but more so for the lowlanders who depend upon the former for their irrigation and electricity needs.

Solutions-bringingbackcultureinandzoning

If the current trend on forest and environmental (mis)management continues then the future is, indeed, bleak for everyone, whether living in the highlands, coastal areas or in the flatlands. Deforestation will lead to increased competition of natural resources increasing conflict and poverty. To address the problem, we must go back to the age-old wisdom of our forefathers.

To protect the montane forests from total deforestation, the ways of the old must be understood and re-learned by our environmental planners and decision-makers. Culture, as the highest expression of peoples’ union with nature, should be promoted learned and the skills, values, and practices on the maintenance of the mountains, the forests, rivers, rice fields should be transferred to the young generation. The remaining IK Holders should be nurtured for the perfection of transfer modes and educational systems should be refined to be friendlier to IK.

Accompanying this should be a serious implementation of land zoning to halt the demise of remaining forests. Buffer zones should be established to serve as barometers of modernization. Reforestation should be a priority for the Asia-Pacific countries. However, care should be observed so that errors of the past like the use of fast-growing paper trees in watershed areas should be avoided. As much as possible, indigenous species should be used.

Bringing back culture and indigenous knowledge and zoning are big steps which need the involvement of everyone from the local communities, government, NGO, academe, and the international community. To be successful, it should be a multi-concerted effort. It should be doable as the few remaining forests of the Asia-Pacific are worth uniting for.

*********

�0�

Forests: thrillers, martyrs, and healers

Introduction

Forests are a treasure of tranquility, a symbol of integrity, source of diversity and a place of unity. We can find plenty of flora, fauna, trees, animals, birds and species living together with abounding love in the forest. Mixed fragrance, pure air, healthy herbals, roaring streams, descending falls and moving beings make a forest a lively playground of peace. Above all, its serene presence always leads into a celestial experience of all who enter in and experience it. This essay is an exploration of the contribution of forests to the welfare of humankind, and human response to forests in order to understand the present scenario and reflect on the future of human-forest relationship.

Forestasthriller

From my childhood onwards I was indoctrinated about forests through various ways. Most of my childhood bedtime stories started with “there was a deep forest in which…” In addition, heroic adventures and especially thrillers are shown in movies from forest contexts. Christian missionary organisations often portrayed forests and tribal people more like people who were in danger with evil beasts, living in a threatened environment. In addition, Indian literatures mostly portrayed forests as appropriate places for hermits and as a place for divine mediation to escape from the chaos of this world. Being fed with this kind of imagery, I was led into believing that people who lived in forests, particularly tribes, lacked any culture. So on the whole, I was partially educated that forest is a dangerous place and the people who were living in forests were also dangerous. These kinds of notions and inputs led me into a kind of anti-forest sentiments until I took my intensive fieldwork in Similipal forest range in Orissa in August 2007. The 25 days stay at Similipal forest range and a life in the forest with the people of the forest changed my perception about forests and helped me to live and experience the real situation, rather than living in a strange imagination.

ForestasMartyr

Forest always stands for human welfare and benefit. Everything found in the forest is used by human beings for sustaining their lives. For example, major deforestation took place in India beginning from 1853 to start railways; numerous trees have been cut down to make “sleepers” and simultaneously used for fuel too. Flowers, fruits, roots, leaves, stems, and seeds, everything have been given to human, but the question persists, as to why human are concentrating on cutting trees, and destroying their lives? Trees have life by themselves; they live, bloom, and grow; how unethical is human attitude towards trees in the forests! We, who cal ourselves educated people, need to learn something from the people living at the grassroots.

The Dheevar caste of Bhandara district of Maharashtra never catch fish going upstream on spawning migration, although they are exhausted and easy to catch. There are entire sacred groves and ponds in which no plant or animal is damaged.1 During my fieldwork with tribal people in Similipal forest range

1 M.Gadgil and K.C.Malhotra, “The Ecological Significance of Caste” found in Ramachandra Guha(ed.), Social Ecology (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994). 36

�0�A summary of events of the first Asia-Pacific Forestry Week, Hanoi, Viet Nam

NEWSLETTER

��

Widya Prajanthi2008

“Planting Trees”

Widya Prajanthi2008

“Forest after fires”