0976-B5
Cecil C. Konijnendijk, Syaka Sadio, Thomas B. Randrup and Jasper Schipperijn 1
The challenges faced by modern, rapidly urbanizing society are felt not least by developing countries. Most of the urban population growth and future megacities are located in these countries. Sustainable urban development will require providing healthy and sustainable living environments with all the necessary basic services for all. It is argued here that a sound and multifunctional urban green structure is one of the basic services to provide. As green spaces can contribute to local livelihoods and economics, and provide essential environmental and social services, these should not be considered merely luxury goods. The concept of urban and peri-urban forestry (UPF) is one of the innovative approaches developed for planning and management of urban green structures. UPF, focusing on the tree-dominated part of urban green, is a strategic, integrative, interdisciplinary and participatory approach, aimed at sustainably developing the multiple benefits of forests and trees in urban environments. Recently, the concept has found broad following across the world, but its potential for cities and towns in developing countries is yet to be realized. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has therefore developed a mid-term strategy for promoting and developing UPF as contributor to sustainable urban development, with emphasis on developing countries. This paper introduces this strategy, which aims at awareness raising, state-of-the-art development, new technology and knowledge generation, institutional and policy strengthening, information and knowledge dissemination, and enhancing sustainable UPF as a powerful tool. Examples of existing UPF experiences and good practices from around the world are given, as much can be learnt from these.
Some people love cities, others hate them. While David Henry Thoreau considered cities to be places where `millions of people are feeling lonely together' (Ponting, 1991), others have praised cities as centres of better life innovation and learning, transmitting accumulated knowledge on which future achievements can be built (Girardet, 1992).
Whether one likes cities or not, the reality is that the majority of the world's population now lives in them and that further urbanisation cannot be halted.
By 2030, 60% of the projected world population increase is expected to occur in cities and towns. Developing countries will account for nearly 90% of this (WRI, 2001; Palijon, 2002), with more than half of the population for Asian and African and between 75 and 85% for Central and South America living in cities (WRI, 2001; FAO, 2002).
Ongoing urbanisation has brought about a wide range of challenges across the globe, and not only in terms of population growth. More land is needed for urban areas as well to cater for their needs in terms of inputs and outputs of resources and energy, with a detrimental effect on forests and other green areas. During the early 1990s, more than a quarter of greenspaces in Asia was expected to be lost within two decades due to continued urbanisation and suburbanisation (Kuchelmeister and Braatz, 1993).
Especially in the developing world, where most emerging megacities are located, the influx of rural populations will not stop and those responsible for city administration are under tremendous pressure. Developing sustainable cities in such way that all people can enjoy a high quality of life and environment will be one of the main challenges of our time.
Various institutions and stakeholders involved with urban development have acknowledged the need to develop multifunctional urban green structures through integrative and strategic approaches as important contributors to sustainable development.
As described, urbanisation is faced with significant problems, especially in the developing world, such as the provision of food and housing, sanitation and employment. These problems are still to be addressed, so why focus on green areas? Experiences and research during recent years have shown that urban green structures are more than just `icing on the cake'. Far from being luxury goods, they deliver a range of goods and services to justifiably include them as part as the basic urban infrastructure.
In many developing countries large parts of the urban population are still heavily dependent upon fuelwood (Kuchelmeister, 1998) for their domestic energy needs. Urban plantations and green areas can provide wood and non-wood forest products such as mushrooms, berries, (medicinal) herbs, rattan, and so forth. Focus in the Western world has been on additional economic values such as green areas contributing to more attractive cities for people to work, live and relax. Studies in Denmark and Finland, for example, have shown the positive impact of nearby forests and green on house prices (Anthon and Thorsen, 2001).
Trees and other vegetation intercept particles and gaseous pollutants (Harris, 1992; McPherson et al., 1997), and also act as carbon sinks (McPherson et al. 1999). In addition, urban vegetation can moderate harsh urban climates, e.g. by cooling the air through shading, reducing wind speed impacts and minimizing pollution from diseases due to wastewater and sewage water through it use for tree planting (Konijnendijk, 1999; Sadio, 1999). It also protects water resources by reducing stormwater runoff, control soil erosion and desertification through shelterbelts around cities, such as in many dryland areas. The level of biodiversity of urban green areas is often surprisingly high, representing nature close to where people live. Cities such as Rio de Janeiro and Singapore still have tracts of tropical rainforest within their boundaries. In Europe, national parks are found at the gates of large cities such as Warsaw, Moscow and Vienna.
The recreational values of forests, parks, gardens and other urban green areas are especially well documented in the Western world. Urban woodlands in Europe attract as many as several thousands of visits per hectare per year (Konijnendijk 1999). As people tend to prefer outdoor recreational opportunities close to their homes, urban green areas are the most popular outdoor recreational areas. Urban green can have a positive impact on physical and mental health, by providing settings for physical exercise and cultural and spiritual values (Seeland et al., 2003).
Innovative, integrative concepts for city greening such as urban agriculture, urban and peri-urban forestry and urban ecology all reflect the desire to improve living conditions in cities beyond traditional boundaries, involving a wide range of disciplines as well as stakeholders. Urban and peri-urban forestry (UPF) seems to be likely the most promising approach to urban greening. UPF is an integrative, holistic approach to the planning and management of all forest and other tree-dominated in and around cities and towns, aimed at optimising the multiple benefits there green resources provide to urban society. The urban forest resource includes urban and peri-urban forest and other wooded land, as well as trees outside forests (TOF). The latter category is of particular importance, as many cities have a vast amount of parks, gardens, tree-lined streets and squares, undeveloped areas, and so forth (see e.g. Miller, 1997; Konijnendijk and Randrup, 2002). Although UPF has gradually gained wider acceptance as a promising approach, its full potential in especially developing countries yet needs to be realised.
Recent activities of FAO in developing countries on trees outside forest and UPF - including e.g. country case studies and project implementation, as well as international workshops - have shown a focus on promoting the integration of tree resources in cities and other human settlements across the globe. It has also become clear, however, that lack of information and strategic, coordinated action so far has hampered the successful implementation of UPF in the developing world. FAO feels that promoting UPF development in urban and peri-urban areas will require strong and joint effort, and therefore a strategic programme framework on UPF was jointly developed with the Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute (DFLRI) for the mid term plan (2002-2007). The strategic framework is to serve as a key tool for addressing the issues of urban development (FAO, 2002). It aims to provide multiple benefits and services, with particular emphasis on poverty alleviation and environmental services such as wastewater handling and combating desertification as pressing issues to address, especially in the developing world.
Fortunately the strategy described above does not have to start from scratch. Relevant experiences and good practices have already been developed in different countries, regions and cities, and even at the international level. Some of these are discussed here, in relation to the strategy.
UPF really took off in the United States only after major lobbying efforts by NGOs such as American Forests. These saw the benefits of a strategic approach to urban tree planting and management for generating multiple benefits. NGO awareness raising led to strong links between research, policy and implementation of UPF in the US (Johnston, 1996). The National Urban Forestry Unit (NUFU), an independent organisation, has provided assistance to a large number of local and regional urban forestry initiatives in the United Kingdom (Konijnendijk, 1999). The role of high-level politicians in awareness raising is important, as the impact of president George Bush the Elder in the USA (with his America The Beautiful Programme) and Chairman Mao Zedong in China on urban tree planting have shown (Johnston, 1996; Palijon, 2002). 80,000 residents of Puerto Princessa City in the Philippines were made aware of the benefits of UPF through their involves in a massive reforestation project in their city (Palijon, 2002). FAO has contributed, by means of awareness raising, to upgrading the profile of UPF in many developing countries through, for example, hosting international workshops and undertaking country case studies within the context of its biennium programme (2001-2002).
Comparative assessments of e.g. UPF resources at a level higher than the city or town are rare. An exception has been the national urban forest resource assessment carried out in the United States. The study showed that about 1/4 of all trees in the country are located in metropolitan areas, and that their multiple values are considerable. A series of country case studies (FAO, 1999) on UPF in Egypt (Cairo), Ecuador (Quito), Brazil (Rio de Janeiro), Iran (Tehran), Senegal (Dakar), Mauritania (Nouakchott), Burkina Faso (Ouagadougou), Niger (Niamey), Ethiopia (Addis Abeba) (Murray, 1997; FAO 1999), Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore (Webb, 1998) showed that urban development has involved important social forestry initiatives and provided important lessons for cities. Assessments of research activities and higher education on urban forests and trees were made by European Union-funded COST Action E12 Urban Forests and Trees.
The USDA Forest Service has generated extensive new knowledge on UPF and its benefits through its special urban forestry research centres. Based on their work, American Forests developed a software programme (CITYgreen) that can assist local communities with assessing the value of their UPF resource (e.g. in terms of environmental functions) (Kollin, 2002). The European Commission has financed several UPF research & development projects under its Research Programme. In one project, called NeighbourWoods, partners from 7 countries develop new tools for the planning and design of urban woodlands. Many developing developing countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are facing many problems related to related unplanned urbanization, the lack of green spaces and appropriate policy and institutional capacities. Recently many initiatives taken at national level, with support from developed countries (e.g. Denmark, United States) and international organisations (e.g. FAO, United Nations Habitat) most of the countries are developing ways to integrate UPF into urban planning. For instance, the NGO Food and Trees for Africa of South Africa (supported by DFLRI) has developed an integrated programme for tree integration within the city plan. Singapore has strongly institutionalised urban greenspace planning and management. It has developed a proposal for an island-wide park connector network (Palijon, 2002). In the Philippines, a national policy exists that requires residential, commercial and industrial estates to allocate at least 30% of the gross area as open space for parks, playgrounds and recreational use (Palijon, 2001).
Networking between researchers, policy-makers, practitioners as well as other stakeholders is crucial in a newly emerging field as urban forestry. During recent years, some good examples of this have emerged. The earlier-mentioned COST Action E12 placed UPF on the European research map through its network of about 100 experts from 22 European countries. The Action ran 5 years, during which several seminars, pilot studies, reviews and other activities were organised (Nilsson and Konijnendijk 2002). The International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) has facilitated UPF networking through its urban forestry working party. It also supported the European Forum on Urban Forestry, an annual meeting for European urban forestry practitioners to exchange ideas and experiences (Krott and Nilsson, 1998). FAO has also played a major role through its publications, a concept paper on UPF (Carter, 1994), an annotated bibliography (FAO, 1995), and a special UPF-issue of the Unasylva (1993). Information about UPF is also disseminated via organisations such as the Resource Centre for Urban Agriculture and Forestry (RUAF) and the European Urban Forestry Research and Information Centre (EUFORIC). Finally, twinning arrangements between countries could provide another networking and information sharing tool. Malaysia and Denmark have started a sustainable forest management twinning in 2003, including a component aimed at the advancement of UPF in both countries.
Sustainable development of UPF and the promotion of its contribution to sustainable development at large require a bold and strategic approach. UPF needs to be linked to a broad range of issues and agendas. In England, the government has developed a forestry strategy in which urban and peri-urban areas are in focus. Through e.g. its Community Forests programme, UPF objectives are implemented. The Community Forest programme uses the planting and management of forests and trees as vehicles for social, economic and environmental regeneration of 12 large urban agglomerations in the country (Konijnendijk, 1999). Hyderabad, Pakistan is rapidly growing due to the boom in its high-tech industry. In order to maintain an attractive and liveable city, local authorities set up an extensive greening programme. Keeping the city competitive by keeping it attractive is a major objective (Zwingle, 2002).
The experiences described before show the huge potential of UPF, also in the developing countries. When developing UPF, its basic strengths should be kept in mind. The concept promotes inclusiveness in terms of involving experts, policy-makers and stakeholders from all walks of life. The need to join forces with other initiatives aimed at sustainable urban development is therefore crucial. UPF policies are to be closely linked to other efforts aimed at promoting sustainable urban development, including Agenda 21, the development of urban agriculture and food security programmes (e.g. FAO's `Food For Cities' programme), socio-economic development policies, enhanced and more participatory urban and regional planning, and so forth. Experiences so far have shown - and this is the case for both developed and developing countries - that it is important to generate success stories at the local level. These are needed so that urban populations can see the direct improvements UPF can provide to their living environment, and thus for generating the necessary, broad support for UPF.
Anthon, S. and Thorsen, B.J., 2001. Værdisætning af statslig skovrejsning. En husprisanalyse. (Valuation of afforestation by the state. A house price analysis). Skov & Landskab, Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute, Hoersholm. (In Danish.)
Carter, E.J., 1994. The potential of urban forestry in developing countries: a concept paper. FAO, Rome.
FAO, 1995. An annotated bibliography of urban forestry in developing countries. FO:MISC/94/12. FAO, Rome.
FAO, 1999. Urban and peri-urban forestry: case studies in developing countries. FAO, Rome.
FAO, 2002. Urban and peri-urban forestry sub-programme: strategic framework for the biennium 2002-2003 and mid term 2002-2007. Part of Forestry Department Mid Term Plan 2002-2007. Forest Conservation, Research and Education Service, FAO, Rome.
Girardet, H., 1992. The GAIA Atlas of cities: new directions for sustainable urban living. Anchor Books/ Doubleday, New York etc.
Grey, G.W. and Deneke, F.J., 1986. Urban forestry. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Harris, R.W., 1992. Arboriculture: integrated management of landscape trees, shrubs and vines. Second edition. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Johnston, M., 1996. A brief history of urban forestry in the United States. Arboricultural Journal 20: 257-278.
Kollin, C., 2002. Building an urban forest `green data layer' as a tool for local action. In: Selikhovkin, A., Konijnendijk, C. and Shaitarova, O. (eds.) 2002. Urban forest greenbelts: functions under pressure. Abstracts of the conference, 29-30 April 2002, St Petersburg, Russia, pp. 46-49. St Petersburg State Forest Technical Academy, St Petersburg.
Konijnendijk, C.C., 1999. Urban forestry in Europe: A Comparative Study of Concepts, Policies and Planning for Forest Conservation, Management and Development in and around Major European Cities. Doctoral dissertation. Research Notes No. 90. Faculty of Forestry, University of Joensuu.
Konijnendijk, C.C. and Randrup, T.B., 2002. Editorial. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 1(1): 1-4.
Krott, M. and Nilsson, K. (ed.), 1998. Multiple-use of town forests in international comparison. Proceedings of the first European Forum on Urban Forestry, 5-7 May 1998, Wuppertal. IUFRO Working Group S.6.14.00.
Kuchelmeister, G., 1998. Urban forestry in the Asia-Pacific Region: status and prospects. APFSOS Working Paper No. 44.
Kuchelmeister, G. and Braatz, S., 1993. Urban forestry revisited. Unasylva 173(44): 3-12.
McPherson E.G., Nowak D., Heisler G., Grimmond S., Souch C., Grant R. and Rowntree R., 1997. Quantifying urban forest structure, function, and value: The Chicago urban forest climate project. Urban Ecosystems 1: 49-61.
McPherson E.G. & Simpson J.R., 1999. Carbon dioxide reductions through urban forestry: guidelines, for professional and volunteer tree planters. General Technical Report PSW-171. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.
Miller, R.W., 1997. Urban forestry: planning and managing urban greenspaces. Second edition. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Murray, S., 1997. Urban and peri-urban forestry in Quito, Ecuador: A Cast-Study. FAO, Rome.
Nilsson, K. and Konijnendijk, C.C., 2002. COST Action E12 Urban Forests and Trees - Final Report. COST, Brussels.
Palijon, A.M., 2001. An analysis of green space management strategies in Metro Manila. In: Sievänen, T., Konijnendijk, C.C., Langler, L. and Nilsson, K. (eds.). Forest and social services: the role of research. Proceedings of IUFRO Research Groups 6.01, 6.11.04 and 6.14 sessions at the XXI IUFRO World Congress 2000, Kuala Lumpur, pp. 147-164. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vantaa.
Palijon, A.M., 2002. Urban forestry in Asia: state of the art. Paper for the IUFRO European Regional Conference `Forestry serving urbanised societies', 27-30 August 2002, Copenhagen.
Ponting, C., 1991. A green history of the world. Penguin Books, London.
Sadio, S., 1999. Evaluation of the implementation of FAO -TCP Project- EGY/7928 Tree planting using sewage water in Egypt. Mission Report.
Seeland, K., 2003. Urban forestry in India and Nepal. In: Konijnendijk, C.C., Schipperijn, J. and Nilsson, K. (eds.). COST Action E12 Urban Forests and Trees - Proceedings No. 2. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Brussels.
Unasylva, 1993. Special issue `Urban and peri-urban forestry' 44(173).
Webb, R., 1998. Urban and peri-urban forestry in South-East Asia: a comparative study of Hong Kong, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. FAO, Rome.
WRI, 2001. Earthtrends: the environmental informational portal. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C. Available online at http://earthtrends.wri.org/
Zwingle, E., 2002. Cities. National Geographic 2002(5): 72-99.
1 Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute, Hoersolm Kongevej 11, DK-2970 Hoersholm, Denmark.