Environmental aspects of forest utilization

The importance of forests in the environment is clearly recognized throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Increasing environmental priorities are reflected in expanding protected areas, greater focus on biodiversity conservation and the strengthening of environmental NGO activities. Other manifestations of increasing environmental priorities are structural changes in government organizations, re-orientation of policies and greater participation of civil society in forest conservation and management.

The FRA2000 reports that 8.9 percent of forests in Asia, and 11.7 percent of Oceania forests, are in protected areas. Several countries have transferred very significant proportions of their forest estates into conservation areas, with Bhutan (35 percent), Brunei Darussalam (22 percent), Cambodia (24 percent), Lao PDR (20 percent), Sri Lanka (18 percent) and Thailand (23 percent) among the highest. However, protected areas in many countries of the region suffer severe management deficiencies. For various reasons, countries do not assign sufficient resources for their proper protection and administration. This is reflected in the lack of management plans, illegal felling of theoretically protected forests, illegal occupation of land in national parks and reserves, illegal capture of wildlife and the occurrence of intentional fires. Thus, although the area of forest in designated protected areas is one gauge of improving environmental performance, it is often a poor indicator of effective conservation.

In total, the Asia-Pacific region has 9.7 percent of forests in protected areas (Table 9). This is marginally below the gross IUCN target of 10 percent of forests in protected areas. Many countries in the region are, however, significantly below this objective, and in many countries that exceed the objective, several forest types are significantly under-represented.

Table 9: Forests in protected areas by sub-region

Source: FAO, 2001

Conservation of forest biological diversity is crucial for maintaining forest health and vitality, and provides another important indicator of environmental performance. While direct measurement of biological diversity is impractical, a number of indicators such as the incidence of endangered forest species, "naturalness" of forests (following a graduated scale of natural forests, semi-natural forests and plantations), protection status under various IUCN categories, degree of fragmentation of forest areas, and monitoring forest protection by areas in specific ecological zones, can assist in assessing relative performance in biodiversity conservation.

FRA2000 reports on numbers of identified endangered species by country including amphibians, birds, ferns, mammals, palms, reptiles and trees.

Figure 8 shows national relationships between numbers of forest-occurring endangered species per million hectares of forests, and annual change in forest area during the past decade. Not surprisingly, smaller countries with higher rates of deforestation have very high rates^[17] of endangered forest species. Sri Lanka, Samoa and the Philippines are shown with high levels of endangerment, and are joined by other smaller countries such as Fiji, Vanuatu and Brunei Darussalam, with lower rates of deforestation, but where some species are naturally limited by country size. Conversely, countries with larger forest areas, such as Myanmar, Indonesia and Thailand, are able to sustain higher rates of deforestation with generally less immediate risk to overall national levels of biodiversity. However, in these larger countries, fragmentation of forest resources can pose a threat to biodiversity if forest areas become sufficiently isolated and too small to support viable populations of wildlife. Chrystanto and Justianto (2002), for example, notes:

About 25 percent of protected areas are found in Java where the human population pressure is very high. However, most of Java's protected areas are not connected properly by, so called, wildlife corridors. Therefore, many of them are fragmented into small island ecosystems that cannot support viable populations of endangered species.

Figure 8: Endangered species relative to forest area change

Source: FAO, 2001

A number of countries in the region have initiated policies whereby conservation of forests is explicitly given priority over production. In Bhutan, for example, environmental conservation is the main theme of the forest policy. Department of Forest Services, Bhutan (2002) notes:

The conservation goal is to be met first and only thereafter other goals can be pursued. The policy clearly states that the forests of the country are to be demarcated into protection and production forests. Sufficient areas comprising all representative eco-zones of the country are to be set aside with the sole purpose of protecting and maintaining the rich biodiversity. The remaining areas can be used for production but principles of conservation and sustainable management are to be applied.

Sri Lanka has adopted a similar focus. The Sri Lankan National Forest Policy 1995 specifies that:

The natural forests will be allocated firstly for conservation, and secondly for regulated multiple-use production forestry.

Similarly, in New Zealand, the vast majority of natural forests are locked into a conservation estate, with the government presently in the process of phasing out the last harvesting operations in government-owned forests. In Australia, the system of Regional Forest Agreements, negotiated between the Commonwealth and State governments, provides a blueprint for long-term management and use of forests in a particular region.

In Thailand, the principal forest policy revolves around protecting and conserving remaining forestlands. The initial ban on harvesting in Thailand's natural forests was handed down as a government decree and management of the ban, to date, has generally been as much through enforcement as through community cooperation. The Royal Forest Department's approach has encompassed employment of forest guards and forest patrolling. In Bangladesh, the Forest Department has similarly enforced an autocratic rather than participatory approach to conservation. Choudhury (2002) notes:

Protected areas (in Bangladesh) are portions of reserved forests. Public entry into the reserved forests, without the permission of the Forest Department is prohibited in Bangladesh. The protected areas in the reserved forests are not subjected to any kind of commercial harvest.

In Thailand, as the harvesting ban has gained greater community acceptance, policies allocating more forestlands as protected areas seem relatively successful. This is mainly due to better participation from all sides, i.e. NGOs, local communities, government agencies, and conservationists. A new generation is growing up in Thailand with understanding of the beneficial functions of the forest, and a greater acceptance of conservation values.

The need for participation and buy-in by communities in forest conservation activities, especially in countries where population pressure and poverty place heavy demands on forests, is recognized throughout the region. For instance, Wani (2002) notes:

Although there is some realization to preserve and protect representative ecosystems as an invaluable cultural heritage of Pakistan these relict ecosystems and their biodiversity are on the verge of extinction. Protection of these forests and natural regeneration is only possible if subsistence needs of the communities are met through incentives and substitutes for firewood and fodder. The juniper, chilghoza and blue pine forests of Balochistan, and the mixed spruce forests in Nalter Valley in Northern Areas, need to be protected through special legislation and active participation of local communities.

Indonesia is experiencing similar challenges, with conflicts between environmental and economic imperatives tending to be dominated by the latter. As Chrystanto and Justianto (2002) notes, the win-win solutions offered by activities such as ecotourism are not easily realized:

Ecotourism has not yet generated sufficient direct revenues to local government as well as local communities. The current protected areas and buffer zone management have not provided significant development opportunities to local communities and other stakeholders. In addition, there are many overlapping and conflicting claims to lands within protected areas due to unclear borders and weak commitment of the stakeholders toward biodiversity conservation efforts.