|
Chairman: |
A.M. OSENI (Nigeria) |
|
Vice-chairmen: |
M. BOZA (Costa Rica) |
|
M. KOLAR (Israel) |
|
|
KIM SYUNG YUP (Republic of Korea) |
Secretariat note
|
Moderator: |
F. O'GORMAN (Ireland) |
Technical secretaries: |
T.A. RINEY (FAO) |
|
J.M. KOZARIK (Argentina) |
It is not the intention of this secretariat note to provide a summary of all the valuable papers, both general and special, presented at this commission. Rather an attempt has been made to bring together the most important ideas expressed in these papers and the problems posed, as well as asking some of the questions not covered, or touched upon only briefly, in order to provide a basis for a fruitful discussion during the commission.
Despite the diversity of the agenda, covering as it does virtually the whole of man's impact on the environment, or at least those elements impinging on wildlands and forests, both natural and artificial, rural and urban, there is a central theme (or perhaps trend is a better word) running through the papers. It is the conflict inherent in any resource use, which is most striking, and perhaps more contentious. in forest or wildland use than in any other.
This conflict of competing uses which is most apparent in the highly developed and affluent countries of western Europe and in the United States is one that is spreading and will continue to spread with affluence as the social objectives of nations shift in emphasis with their economic development. The conflict between the all-out pursuit of economic growth and the need for a quality environment has reached a ceiling with the advocates of the " zero growth" concept. However, at every level below this the conflicts, both inherent and real, between these two extremes have to be resolved, and this must play an important part in our discussion.
We must see how we can play a part in integrating these various conflicting uses, how we can broaden the outlook, not just of the public, but more particularly of the professional who is often concerned solely with his sectional interest," in doing a good job," without concern either for the effects on the environment or for the possible alternative uses. These uses may be more valuable, ecologically and economically, quantitatively and qualitatively, than his own activity. Thits attitude is not exclusive to forestry; in fact, foresters may be the least offenders in this respect. But nonetheless it does exist and needs to be tackled particularly in countries outside the affluent belt, and in areas within, which are not yet feeling the intensity of conflict brought on by the demands of large conurbations.
The growing awareness that social needs come before sectorial interests, and the acceptance of the basic human right to a quality environment, as proposed by the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm last June, impel us to put people before products, and to consider wildland and forest management as an element in improving human society rather than merely providing increased material well-being.
While the social responsibility, and the consequent conflicts of forest policy and practices, is a continuing thread throughout the papers of the commission (and is specially dealt with by Richardson in his paper, Urban forestry-apartheid or integration?), it is worth noting that Commission VT, The economists, administrators and planners, has a special section in its agenda on environmental and social values, in which many of the points raised by these conflicts of objectives and use are mentioned.
One of the bases for these environmental versus economic conflicts is the inability of both groups to communicate in the same terms. As economics is the acceptable basis for national planning of all resources, it is vital that the environmentalists and ecologists express their plans in these terms and it is also essential that the so-called intangible benefits of forest use be quantified so as to provide a common ground on which rational decision-taking can be made by national planners, who tend not to be trained in natural resource use. Unless such plans make economic sense they have little hope of competing against those that do. In the increasing competition among different land users, the economically weak are handicapped both in socialist and capitalist societies. Even in such affluent and environmentally motivated communities as Stockholm, the environmental lobby has lost out to other economically stronger competition (Kardell). The nonmoney forest benefits are rarely as intangible as supposed, but are more likely to be goods and services which are not sold (Grayson, Commission VI). All these benefits need to be appraised so as to provide analysable inputs into the economy of forests.
On the other hand, there is an even greater need for economists and planners to understand the ecological implications of their activities. Their often simplistic production models rarely can, or could, take into account the complex interrelationships which exist in a forest or wildland ecosystem and while this may be of somewhat less concern in the monocultural forest environment it can be vital in the natural forests of the tropics and elsewhere.
Parenthetically, it might be noted that there is a need for a reorientation of attitudes and practices in tropical forestry, which so often seem to have been extrapolated from temperate forest management without considering the completely different level of complexity between these ecosystems. Lack of ecological understanding of these ecosystems will ultimately cause far greater problems than are likely to occur in the less complex and more manageable temperate regions.
The very expression" achieving balanced use of forest resources " implies maintaining an ecological equilibrium, and if we are to achieve it something more than the present see-saw approach of the multiple-use concept will be necessary. Dr. Minckler, a professor of silviculture, thinks foresters need more " ecological imagination " particularly in relation to silviculture." Too many foresters will admit no middle ground silviculture to meet modern needs... To compound our problems and responsibilities, the whole emphasis of forest use has shifted strongly towards integrated uses. including recreation, wildlife. watershed and aesthetics as well as timber " (Towel!, Kimball and Poole). Chodzicki demonstrates, however, that approaches other than the traditional silvicultural ones are possible. He does not feel that it is necessary to divide forests into production and protection forests and suggests methods of integrating production areas on the basis of their value in the environment.
Perhaps it is too much to hope at this stage that " balanced use" will be based on ecological balance rather than a balance of the conflicting user lobbies, who will end by carving up the resource piecemeal to the ultimate satisfaction of none, save perhaps some bureaucrats or politicians for whom compromise would appear to be a raison
Despite the fact that multiple use has become the rallying cry of the public and of many foresters, among the affluent nations at least, it is apparent that it is a concept which cannot always be used, due to the fact that it can cause such economic losses in terms of forest production that in these cases it should not be even considered. It has become a neat catch phrase; it has become ' all things to all men." It can only be appropriate in such situations where forestry is an extensive noncapital intensive activity. Where forestry, or any other land-use system for that matter, is intensive, multiple use may be inappropriate and several uses become increasingly competitive (Kardell, Wicht, Dixon). In such " forest farms" or " forest factories" the gates are locked and the public excluded. However, even in such areas I wonder if there is not a case for keeping one's options open?
In countries where forestry is an important element in the national economy, it would appear to be impossible to combine economic forestry with any other use. This is true of both private and public-owned forests. Where forestry has to take extensive multiple use into consideration, there may be heavy capitalized opportunity losses equivalent to 30 percent of the value of the forest (Kardell). In such contexts, complete separation of economic from multipleuse forests may be the only solution. However, it is apparent that private U.S. forest industries are prepared to accept a large measure of multiple use. Traczewitz states that 95 percent of such forest areas are open to the public.
These different attitudes and approaches should provide us with the basis for a lively discussion.
Outside these areas, any mosaic of use can be considered, from the high-density use in urban areas where social values may outweigh all other considerations to wilderness where any use is limited.
To bring reason to these conflicting demands requires an approach embodying an inventory such as has been carried out in Canada by the Canadian land use planning programme. Without such objective aids rational decision-taking tends to become a toss-up between judgement and expediency.
It should be remembered that in developed countries more wild or marginal land is becoming available due to the withdrawal of land from farming. The Mansholt plan has attempted to suggest ways of rationalizing this process in Europe. In countries such as the Netherlands, in spite of high population densities, agriculture is giving way to social uses and new land created at great expense from the sea is now being scheduled for recreational rather than for agricultural purposes (Benthem). This trend will inevitably provide extra opportunity for social forestry and can help release the pressure from those forests which should be exclusively economic. However, as Towell, Kimball and Poole assert, achieving balanced use will require that conflicts be solved by greater public participation in resource decisions.
This implies the need for a greater understanding by the public of the issues involved and the obvious concomitant need for a far greater effort by resource managers to educate the public to appreciate the issues. Only by so doing will the emotiveness of much of the present arguments be lessened. Forest resource services, among others, have, I believe, done far too little in this respect. This is shown in the budget allocations of many such services for public relations and education. Here is, I believe, an issue we could usefully debate in depth.
The search for forest management practices that are ecologically sound and politically feasible is a major task for resource administrators. There is a pressing need for socially acceptable answers to the questions raised about the futility of economic growth at the expense of a depreciated enviroment (Dixon). As Lewis notes, a balance must be struck between a nation's economic needs and social benefits from forestry. This emphasis will depend on the needs of the people involved. In the developed world increasing emphasis is being placed on nonmarketable benefits, while in the developing countries the requirement is economic returns. It is vital that governments ensure that the potential to produce the intangible, noncash, social benefits is not destroyed while producing economic returns from forestry. A balance now is needed to assure that future generations still have sufficient options open to them to make their choices as to their social and economic goals. How often have nations been precluded from such choice by ill-considered action in the past?
Recreation, both outdoor and indoor, is the fastest growing element in the booming tourist business. It is a product of affluence and leisure in the developed world. Increased economic prosperity, shorter working hours, and a change in the traditional work ethic, at least among the younger generation, have achieved this exponential development. Statistically-based trends are difficult to come by apart from the United States and some European countries, but sufficient evidence is available to demonstrate that in all but the weakest economies the trend is upward.
In the United Kingdom between 1951 and 1970 the average working week has dropped from 48 to 46 hours while real income increased 100 percent from 1955, and the number of cars quadrupled in this period so that now every other household has one (Spencer and Sidaway).
Trends in the United States are astronomical by most other countries' standards. The present estimated value of big-game hunting is estimated to be in excess of $2.5 thousand million. Eight million hunters are involved annually. Some types of hunting show increases of 30 times in numbers participating, while expenditures have grown 16-fold since 1955 (Halvorson, Linduska and Stebler). The 190 million hectares available in the United States for recreation accommodated 175 million visitors in 1970. an increase from 160 million in 1965, and the projected increase is 210 million and 250 million in 1975 and 1980 respectively (Lloyd and Fisher). With this intensive pressure on forest habitats, which can be reciprocated in other ecosystems, considerable controversy has developed around whether recreation should be dispersed or concentrated. Lloyd and Fisher argue cogently that it is not a question of " either or" but that only a full array of opportunities along a continuum from highly developed and concentrated to the very primitive can hope to solve the problem. They also point out that more people want recreational opportunities in the middle part of the continuum.
The populations of many countries are now highly urbanized, to the extent of 80 percent or more in some cases, yet it is surprising that virtually no mention has been made of the problem of the carrying capacity of the heavily exploited habitats. While much heat is being generated about where it is best to put recreational opportunity for people, it seems that the ecological impact of human use is a neglected field, particularly in the long term. A few studies have been carried out on fragile habitats or those in extreme climates (such as ski slopes, etc.) but one has the impression that resource managers believe that the habitat can take as much use as the user himself will accept. This is, I believe, a grey area requiring far greater emphasis and study. Similarly, recreation would appear to be organized by the middle class for the middle class, and the belief is prevalent that we want " to get away from it all." Planning is providing for increasing opportunities at increasing distances from the centres of demand, the urban areas. I would join with Richardson, who makes a strong plea for equality of recreational opportunity for the ghetto dweller living as he does in " a ravished environment." How many of us, both inside and outside ghettos, would not prefer to have our woodlands close at hand, our opportunities increased, and the cost of enjoyment decreased? There is an urgent need for studies to quantify the alternative possibilities, the urban and suburban versus the rural provision of recreational facilities. What are the costs to the community of the mass transportation of people into the countryside, requiring goods and services many of which add directly to external revenue costs? A cost/benefit analysis of these issues might produce surprising data, aside altogether from the social aspects - which might provide overriding reasons for urban versus rural recreational development.
In all these arguments sight should not be lost of the rural dweller whose rights and needs are equally important. Because one lives in the country does not mean that recreational opportunities are not necessary -only the city dweller thinks that. As with most other issues involving the human spectrum, a mosaic approach is necessary but nonetheless if one is attempting to provide the greatest good for the greatest number for the least cost, priorities are inevitable and essential. The question remains, where should these priorities lie?
For most people wildlife is something one looks at, shoots at, or eats. Its part as an essential in the ecosystem is rarely appreciated, and its moderating influence in the widest sense goes unnoticed. However, despite the tangible values involved in looking at, shooting, or eating the larger wildlife elements in the ecosystem, there is little appreciation of the economic benefits and the cash flow involved in wildlife utilization except among wildlifers themselves. Until recently few attempts had been made to quantify wildlife values. Even in the United States where accumulation of statistical data for all sorts of purposes is legion, Halvorson, Linduska and Stebler state that there is " no data of national scope which would provide the dimension of all recreational hunting afforded by forest wildlife." Despite that, it is possible to provide estimates which give the annual value of big-game hunting alone at $2.5 thousand million.
State licence fees came to $208.5 million in 1971 (state licence booklets) while the estimate of the meat value of big-game amounts to $155 million and represents a year's meat supply for 2.7 million Americans (Halvorson, Linduska and Stebler).
Nusslein also demonstrated for western Europe that wildlife is a resource of significant value, and estimates that the annual wildlife harvest provided every member of the population with 0.3 kilogrammes of meat and, spread over the area of Europe, is valued at $0.3 per hectare. As a supplementary form of use in highly developed countries this is impressive.
While few countries can hope to emulate the United States in the vast cash value of its wildlife, most countries have an often unrealized potential, which may provide a significant element in the income for particular parts of its population and provide a readily available source of animal protein. In many cases this may be the only source of animal protein available to the groups at the lower end of the economic ladder. Also such " bush meat" can save the country a great deal of hard currency which would otherwise go on imported meat, and is thus helping the balance of trade.
While the recreational element may be of relatively little significance to developing countries, except where such wildlife concentrations can provide an obvious tourist attraction as in east Africa, it is obvious that bridging the protein gap is a problem of vital significance and anything that helps needs to be considered. In parts of Ghana studies have demonstrated that as much as 73 percent of locally produced meat comes from wild animals. In Accra alone over a period of 17 months, between 1968-70, more than 150 000 kilogrammes of "bush meat," valued at $160 000, were sold.
The annual total value of wildlife protein in Southern Nigeria alone has been estimated at $25 million (de Vos and Kaittany).
The consumption rate in part of Ivory Coast may not be as great as in the United States, but at 27 grammes per person per day it may be of considerable nutritional importance.
Between 1965 and 1967 the Kalahari desert area of Botswana produced 20 kilogrammes per person per year. Even in Rhodesia wildlife yielded 5-10 percent as much meat as the beef industry (de Vos and Kaittany).
Outside these important protein values wildlife has been shown to generate considerable economic benefits in terms of tourism, particularly in east Africa. Wildlife forms a major part of the base for tourist demand in Kenya where tourism is now the most important foreign exchange earner. In 1970 the gross foreign exchange earnings exceeded $51 million and tourism provided 20 000 jobs; tourist earnings have an even greater economic importance because of the multiplier effect of dollars earned being handled by more people than in any other activity.
While the situation is more obscure elsewhere in the developing world, Dourojeanni has demonstrated that the same potential exists for tropical Peru, and figures from Colombia and Brazil substantiate this. It is noteworthy that wildlife exports from Colombia exceed in value those of forestry products. While this, no doubt, is a reflection of the present early stage in the development of forestry activity, it is nonetheless a real comparison and one that is often overlooked. In terms of forest development these facts should be kept well to the fore.
Despite the meagreness of the data from many areas it is obvious that serious consideration must be given to wildlife values in forest or wildland management plans. They can often form an important if not vital role in the socioeconomic development process. It is obvious that such considerations are being taken into account in many developing countries (Caldevilla) but a greater awareness is necessary particularly among the planners at national levels.
As Teer points out, these values can be maintained in a managed forest environment providing care is taken to maintain the ecological diversity necessary for a healthy wildlife resource.
Davis, in the introduction to his paper on the significance of national parks for local economies, states that " national parks and reserves are frequently created in the face of conflicting claims for the land." It is inevitable that areas such as these, born in conflict, will continue for many a long day to be a source of controversy due to conflicting demands. Many national parks have been set up using a set of criteria designed to maintain their inviolability. These criteria have been generally accepted as the basis for the internationally recognized national parks systems (Costantino). The United Nations has given its blessing by endorsing it. Yet despite the lip service to the ideal, relatively few areas have maintained their purity unscathed. In fact, many so-called national parks have lost their virginity long since, either by direct assault or by stealth. Introductions of exotic animals can be just as devastating ecologically as open-cast mining, and the whole question of inviolability needs to be examined pragmatically. Is it realistic or not to expect such uses as pastoralism to be eliminated? Is it sensible to demand that hunting, which may provide much needed revenue in direct benefits to the local population, be totally excluded, even where some wildlife species may be in such numbers that damage to the habitats in the park may be anticipated? As Davis notes, poaching and trespass for hunting or grazing purposes by local people, displaced by park development, provide strong evidence that these competing claims for resources are real.
These issues are not problems of developing countries alone; many developed countries have such conflicts about national parks, even though the issues are more likely to concern hotel development or mining than pastoralism or hunting.
However, as Buchinger says, developing countries are in general in a better position to create adequate national parks than those of developed regions. But because of the tendency of developing countries to imitate the developed world great care must be taken not to make the same mistakes. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the lack of ability of developed countries to deal with the devastating numbers of users in their national parks. The pressures on the parks may best be met by developing buffer zones around them where more intensive use can be practiced. Davis suggests that dual use of the park-an extension of the buffer zone idea-may be the only way that local economies can benefit from park development. Whether or not we develop buffer zones around parks, countries will continue to use the title " national parks" in areas which do not conform with the international criteria, partly because the term has cachet and a prestige value for tourism. If this is the case, perhaps we should not fight against the stream but concede that national parks of different qualities exist and grade them like hotels? While this may appear to be heresy to the purist, the reality suggests that with increasing population growth and recreational demands inviolability will continue to decline in the future.
Davis's sober and valuable analysis of the local economic benefit to be derived from national parks brings up some little-recognized facts. He demonstrates that the less developed the local economy, the less it will be capable of responding to opportunities for providing the goods and services demanded by tourists, and the more revenue will be exported. It has been demonstrated that this export leakage may represent 25 percent of the receipts as, for example, in game lodges in Kenya. This leakage is obviously an important factor in evaluating the benefits of any expenditure in developing countries. It is also noteworthy that the local economies in such areas differ little from those of similar areas in developed countries. Of course, even if local economies tend to benefit little from national park expenditures nevertheless the impact may be nationally significant for that economy due to its small size.
If one accepts that zoning or other uses of parks is possible, this, in addition to the value to the national economy, makes park planning an attractive proposition both culturally and economically and the long-term conservation benefits can be enjoyed as well as the short-term economic ones.
The papers presented under this last item reflect an awareness that forestry is an integral part of the physical, social and economic entity of a nation and can no longer be considered as a form of land use little influenced by the nontimber producing activities of man.
The importance of orienting research on mountain catchments on the basis that forest regions are integrated resource systems has been stressed by Wicht, and this may well provide us with a common element linking the various papers of quite different types within the last item on the agenda.
Takehara in his thoughtful and thorough manner has produced an excellent summary of the role of the forest in conservation, particularly its role in the cycling of materials, its effect on climate, its functions in conserving soil and water, in creating a habitat for wildlife, in providing recreational areas, and in maintaining the quality of the human environment.
The effects of various types of forest management on the environment are examined and it seems likely that studies on the influence of forest practices on the forest environment will become more widespread as the results of lack of planning become more apparent.
In his country he feels that the chemical control of plants will constitute the major basic research subject, particularly directed toward chemicals whose effects are restricted to a narrow range of plant species.
Szwecki reminds us that the forest ecosystem does not stop at the tops of the trees or the surface of the ground. Just as some countries are already designing management plans to include maximum production of wildlife, so more attention in future may be directed at modifying management to minimize soil disturbance and thus maintain the highest possible regenerative capacity for future crops of trees. Is this an area where we should give more attention to research?
Manka has produced a thought-provoking paper for those interested in monitoring the changes leading to a degradation of the forest environment as well as changes associated with an improving forest environment. As he puts it, " Since man has an unhindered and rapidly increasing potential for affecting nature there exists a concern that he may transgress the permissible limit of destructive influence on the environment in question. If the concern is to be fruitful. an ability is needed to survey the undergoing changes in the forest environment. Thus there exists an urgent need for the development of effective methods of studying the environment."
He has done just this in exploring the use of fungal communities as indices to the state of the forest environment.
As is common in the development of new approaches and techniques, once the principles are understood and accepted, more simplified approaches may be developed later. The commission may wish to explore the uses or limitations of these or other indices useful in monitoring changes in the forest environment.
Swanson's paper on forest hydrology raises an important issue. Starting from the recognition of the normally increased water yields following commercial timber operations, particularly when some form of clear-cutting is used (also Wicht), Swanson raises the question of whether we want this extra water or not. Where Canada is concerned, he suggests that in many areas increased water is a liability rather than an asset. It is easy for us to appreciate that in areas of high precipitation and with flood-prone rivers there would be concern over the acceleration of run-off from forest lands, including the increase in run-off from melting snow, which follows cutting operations. It is, on the other hand, equally easy to appreciate the importance of encouraging the development of higher water yields in semiarid savannas as mentioned by Wicht. However, whether one is for or against the idea of increasing water yields the question of whether we can manage forests for commercial production in such a way as to leave water yield unchanged is relevant and challenging.
Nikolaenko reminds us of the importance to humans of water quality and the influence forests have as agents for filtering bacteria and improving the colour and chemical composition of water. He also notes the dependence of water quality on good management of forests along the shores of water reservoirs.
Concern is expressed over the negative effects of air pollution and solid waste on the forest estate by Knabe. He notes, as have many others, that one of the main dangers of pollution is the effect of changing forests far distant from the original source of pollution. It is only natural that foresters are concerned when the pollution demonstrably reduces growth, develops premature senescence, inadequate regeneration and an increase in certain forest pests.
The demand for forests in and near industrial areas is growing as we become aware of the filtering and insulation effects of forests. Thus in addition to the aesthetic value of trees, which dwellers in large urban areas have long appreciated, there is increasing awareness of the ecological value of forests as a necessary counterpart to the polluting activities which seem an almost inevitable by-product of man's growth.
It is appropriate that the question of side effects accompanying the long-term use of insecticides be raised by a Canadian, where so much experience with the use of insecticides on forest lands has taken place. In Varty's opinion the positive benefits Of the spray programmes overwhelmingly outweigh the environmental costs resulting from the side effects so far recorded. He also makes clear the government's concern over future side effects. emphasizes the importance of monitoring activities and the need for the increase in relevant research, especially research which includes strong cross-disciplinary elements.
Finally, Mlinsek sees silviculture as a means of providing an example of man's ability to handle ecosystems. and he recognizes the importance of extending the principle of sustained yield. a cornerstone of sensible silviculture, to other forest activities and products. He thus sees the practice of silviculture, along with agriculture and pastoral practice, as a major means of manipulating the environment for the ultimate benefit of man.
This is doubtless true and its implication to foresters may extend even further. Does this not imply that with this immense capacity for changing the human environment, as foresters, We must assume the additional responsibility Of knowing in which direction We are moving. and for what purpose?
|
GENERAL PAPERS |
|
|
Benthem, R.J. |
Forestry, man and landscape |
|
Buchinger, Maria |
Regional problems in national parks development |
|
Burschel, P. |
Problems and trends in supplying world needs for forest recreation |
|
Caldevilla, G.M. |
Other forest products, a source for foreign exchange |
|
Davis, R.K. |
National parks as the basis for generating rural economic activity |
|
Dixon, R.M. |
Conflicts in forest management |
|
Dourojeanni. M. |
Economic values of wildlife production in forestry areas of Latin America |
|
Garnica, M.N. |
Urban pressure on the forest: the example of Madrid |
|
Goddard, M. |
Recreational opportunities in an intensively managed forest |
|
Gregor, E.W. |
Integration of grazing in tropical forestry |
|
Halvorson, C., Linduska, J. & Stebler, A. |
Economic values of wildlife production in forestry areas in North America |
|
Hiroshi, I. |
Forest conservation and management in Japan |
|
Kardell, L. |
Assessment of forest suitable for recreational use |
|
Kozarik, J.C.M. |
Watershed management and wildland management-spheres of action and relationship between them |
|
Lloyd, R.D. & Fisher, V.L. |
Dispersed versus concentrated recreation of forest policy |
|
Melo, H. de A. & Lima, W. de P. |
Urban pressure upon the forest: the example of São Paulo |
|
Mlinsek, D. |
Progrès de la recherche sur les effets des traitements sylviculturaux de l'environnement |
|
Mutch, W.E.S. |
Wildlife as an alternative or complementary use for forest lands |
|
Nikolaenko, B.T. |
The role of forest stands in water quality improvement |
|
Nusslein, F. |
The economic value of wildlife production in forests and woodlands of Europe |
|
Plucknett, D.L. & Nicholls, D.F. |
Integration of grazing and forestry |
|
Richardson, S.D. |
Urban forestry-apartheid or integration? |
|
Spencer J.A. & Sidaway, R.M. |
The special contribution of forests and woodlands to recreation in an industrial society |
|
Steinlin, H. |
Progress of research on the effects of harvesting and transport methods on the environment |
|
Takehara, H. |
Problems in the forestry research related to environmental conservation |
|
Teer, J. |
Manipulation of forestry or wildlife habitat to regulate wildlife resources |
|
Toth, S. |
Problems and techniques for managing forest lands for the production of recreation services |
|
Towell, W.E., Kimball, T.L. & Poole, D.A. |
Achieving balanced use in forest conservation |
|
Traczewitz, O. |
Recreational opportunities in an intensively managed forest |
|
Valentini, J.E. |
Relación bosque-agricultura-ganadería en el manejo de los suelos del parque chaqueño húmedo |
|
Varty, T.W. |
Environmental side effects of large scale chemical control operations in forests |
|
Wicht, C.L. |
Timber and water, dual objectives in mountain catchments |
|
SPECIAL PAPERS |
|
|
Buch, M. von |
Forest formations and use of the soil in the Pucon and Coñaripe communes of the Chilean-Argentine frontier |
|
Chakrabarti, K. & Chaudhuri, A.B. |
Honey production and behaviour pattern of the honey bee |
|
Chaudhry, I. |
Problems of wildlife conservation in the developing countries with special reference to Pakistan |
|
Chaudhuri, A.B. & Chakrabarti, K. |
Observations on tigers |
|
Chodzicki, E. |
The problem of cooperation of silviculture with the needs for shaping of the biological in Poland |
|
Costantino, I.M. |
Desarrollo internacional de los parques nacionales |
|
Dean, P.B. & Romaine, M.J. |
Application of the Canada Land Inventory in land use planning in Canada |
|
Fanshawe, D.B. |
Conservation of vegetation in Zambia |
|
Garcia, S.E. |
Las repoblaciones y el equilibrio silvo-cinegético |
|
Harmon, D. & Freed, M. |
The forester's role in wilderness land preservation and management |
|
Knabe, W. |
Effects of pollutants on forest stands and forestry |
|
Lewis, G. |
Social influences on forest exploitation |
|
Manka, K. |
A new microbiological method of studying forest environment |
|
Marrago Solana, S. |
La protección de la naturaleza y el carácter social del bosque |
|
Mendes, L. |
Parque Nacional da Peneda-Geres |
|
Pereda, J. |
Nuevo equilibrio biológico al sur de Neuquén |
|
Samek, V. |
Política forestal con respecto a las funciones sociales de los bosques en Checoslovaquia |
|
Swanson, R.H. |
Forest hydrology in Canada: more water probably not wanted |
|
Szwecki, A. |
Impact of clearcutting on the soil entomofauna |
|
Vos, A. de & Kaittany, K. |
Economic values of wildlife in Africa |
|
Wiecko, P. |
The Bialowieza forest - a nature protection centre of world significance |
Achieving balanced use in forest conservation
1. Achieving a proper balance of forest use must be a general goal of governments and forest managers, looking for the right combination of social, economic and environmental benefits for the improvement of the total human environment.
2. The following points emerged from the discussion of the commission:
(a) Environmental safeguards are fundamental needs in future forest planning. Forest resources must be used to maintain the resource base on which forestry depends.(b) For proper integration of forest uses, it is yet to be learned how to combine all beneficial uses to the fullest extent that they are compatible; and to learn tolerance and compromise.
(c) Future forest use will place greater emphasis on noncommercial products of the forest. Nonforest benefits will receive increasing attention and status with the forest products. An environmentally conscious public will demand it.
(d) There is great need for quantifying uses and products of the forest and, if possible, quantifying these services and products on a comparable basis.
(e) Governments will play an increasing role in determining future forest uses. Serving the needs of people for recreational uses of the forest, particularly around urban areas, will receive increasing government attention.
(f) Forest exploitation will have to give recognition to global implications and responsibilities, whereby renewable forest resources must contribute to the economic welfare of peoples, but not through careless or environmentally hazardous procedures. The main objective of forest management should be " maximum public welfare " rather than " maximum yield."
(g) Achieving balanced use in forest management will call for many compromises. Conflicts will be encountered but they can be resolved if reason prevails. Great flexibility in both planning and execution of forest management plans is required.
3. Greater understanding by the public of the issues involved is needed. Society has to be informed and educated so that knowledge and reason replace emotion and distrust. Foresters for the most part may be aware of their conservation responsibilities, but the public has not always thought so. Public confidence will come only through understanding and this requires great efforts and expenditure on public relations.
4. The commission urged that all forestry schools and faculties include the environmental aspects of forest land management in their educational programmes. Wildlife. recreation, marginal lands, watersheds and national parks should be treated as fundamental elements of forest land planning and management.
5. The commission also urged that basic ecological and land-use studies be carried out to lead toward a balanced use of the forests of the savanna-Sudan or Sahel- regions of the world. In those cases as in others, inventories should be designed to cover the planning of all natural resources.
Problems and trends in supplying world needs for forest recreation
6. High monetary returns are now developing from recreation throughout the world. These can form a significant element in foreign exchange earnings. For example, in Kenya $51 million were earned from tourism in 1971, making it the most important single element of foreign earnings.
7. Conflicts result from the multitudinous demand for opportunities for recreation. The mobility of the city dweller with his car leads him always further afield so that recreation demands have to be met both away from and close to the cities. A plea was made to create a demand for unrealized needs by providing country parks or areas near urban concentrations. The closer recreation could be provided to the urban dweller the better.
8. A mosaic of recreation facilities is required, ranging from wilderness to concentrated use, and appropriate methodologies need to be developed and used for assessing needs and priorities.
9. Forest recreation, besides its intrinsic value, contains a highly important educational value, since it is a real, objective way of inducing people to discover the social and aesthetic values of the natural resources.
Wildlife as an alternative or complementary use of forest land
10. Wildlife management should be regarded as a legitimate form of land use in its own right. Wildlife management, whether on wildland, estuaries, farm or forest must not always be expected to be subsidiary to management programmes concentrating on other forms of land use.
11. Where wildlife is more valuable commercially than the trees which give it shelter it cannot continue to be an incidental or accidental part of a forest management plan. Comparisons made between the short-term profits of game cropping, both for sport and protein, and long-term timber management show that the production of a variety of timber crops and wildlife species is possible.
12. Both timber and wildlife production may be somewhat curtailed in a true multiple-use programme, but the total results may be more valuable and more satisfying, as judged by human needs, than the sole consideration of one interest.
13. There is a need to study the economic value of wildlife but it is realized that there is a difficulty in valuing many aspects in quantitative terms, nor should the " demand" by the public be equated with the " need."
14. Managing the forest for wildlife and all other resources must be based on ecological principles, otherwise management will be short-sighted or disastrous. A careful assessment of the ecosystem is necessary before beginning to exploit or change its components. In this connexion the commission noted that the activities of the International Union of Forestry Research Organizations' group studying wildlife-forest habitat relations were particularly relevant.
15. When attempting to integrate wildlife management into forest management, the tendency is to argue exclusively either from an economic or an ecological point of view. The truth and the value are in both.
16. It is to be noted that animals regarded as pests in some countries can sometimes be managed to yield much-needed protein, and even foreign exchange.
17. The import of wildlife resources and related products should be forbidden in those countries which have not yet done so, when the trading of such resources and products has been forbidden in the country of origin.
18. The commission took note of the increasing desire of public opinion for improved preservation and perpetuation of wildlife species of all kinds. The world's forests provide much of the natural habitat frequented by many species of wildlife both large and small. Foresters in both public and private services are responsible for decisions regarding the uses to which much of the world's forests and associated resources are put. Widespread examples can be cited of forest land-planning which gives careful consideration to the habitat needs of wildlife for food, shelter and other requirements. Substantial opportunities exist in many areas of the world to give even greater consideration to the wildlife of forested areas. The commission accordingly called upon those responsible for forestry education and forest land-management to help ensure that wildlife and their habitat needs were given equal consideration with timber, water, soils and other forested land resource elements in the planning, design and programming of activities affecting forested lands.
19. Most organizations dealing with matters of wildlife management and conservation approach the subject from one particular standpoint. There is a need for a world-wide conference on wildlife bringing together all points of view.
The role of national parks in resources conservation and in the development of rural life
20. The commission received a brief report on the second World National Park Conference held in September in the United States in conjunction with celebrations of the 100th year of the opening of Yellowstone National Park.
21. The conference made clear that it saw the competition for land, professional leaders and public budget increasing. National park programmes will have to become more closely allied with regional planning and be carefully integrated into transportation, land use, forestry, agriculture, electrification and other aspects of development planning. Beyond the level of regional analysis there lies the international sphere where other types of problems are being encountered. Interest is growing in the cooperative management of boundary or international parks.
22. It is interesting to note that just ten years ago as recorded in the proceedings of the first World National Park Conference, the general attitude of the participants was to " leave parks un-managed and un-planned." At the Yellowstone meeting, and in this commission meeting, it was apparent that attitudes have changed. The need for careful planning was well appreciated if the objectives for which the parks were established are to be achieved.
23. The planning of park management and development requires careful consideration of the sociological. ecological, economic and finally political aspects. The commission noted a shift in attitudes which may at first only appear to be changes in terminology. However, it is important to appreciate the implications of traditional vocabularies: normally one speaks of production and protection forests, of economic activities and noneconomic activities, and of tangible and intangible values. It is no longer possible to approach a minister with a request for funds and staff for a new project that was " nonproductive, uneconomic and which concerned intangible values."
24. National park management is now recognized as a productive activity subject to economic analysis in tangible terms. It requires the consumption of resources to be able to protect others. Men must be employed and land allocated. One should reflect upon the services produced in the more than 2000 national parks and equivalent reserves being managed in some 130 countries of the world today, and realize that this activity of park management cares for some of the world's most valued treasures.
25. The commission observed that the most effective efforts to protect national parks often lie in the management of forested areas adjacent to the surrounding national parks. In this connexion it noted the special importance of international cooperation in the case of parks where the boundaries coincided also with national boundaries.
26. National park programmes throughout the world are facing complex challenges to their integrity and utility. The solutions to problems of national park programmes can best be approached through the integration of national parks into overall land-use planning and management at regional and national, and in some cases. the international level. At the same time equal consideration must be given to the preparation of staff, the provision of adequate budgets, and the coordination of the activities of parks with those of other sectors to assure the long-run harmonious development and management of natural resources based upon ecological principles.
27. As a corollary, it is urgent that all national park programmes explicitly provide for dynamic and periodic planning of the management and development for each park area, and for continuous training and education for national park personnel at all levels. This requires an analysis of social, economic and ecological factors to assure the utility and relevance of the programme to society.
The influence of forestry on the natural environment
28. The commission discussed the effects of various types of forest management on the total forest environment, including wildlife, water quality and quantity, and soil microbiology.
29. Special attention was given to vegetation-water relations and the commission recognized that for the forester to make best use of his understanding of vegetation-water relations, he must have a clear understanding of the forest management policy, and design his management practices and concentrate his resources accordingly. For example, it was considered particularly important to direct appropriate management of mountain catchments which can improve the water resources of nations.
30. Representatives from several developing countries in semiarid regions noted that foresters in devastated lands must first concentrate on stabilizing the devastation and then reclaiming the land to some useful purpose Various types of marginal land problems were mentioned and included both semiarid areas and erosion in high rainfall montane catchments, especially in areas where extreme forest and soil depredation conditions prevail.
31. There are several other problem areas which call for further or more definitive research-the grazing of forest lands, for example, especially in the tropics. Here was needed the development of methods of establishing forage plants on forest lands, comparison regeneration on seeded versus unseeded areas after logging and clear-cutting, studies of regeneration and timber production on grazed and ungrazed areas, research to improve the management of shade-tolerant forage species, and to determine the practical and economic feasibility of integrating grazing with forestry or plantation crops.
32. Finally the commission supported a proposal that the president of the seventh World Forestry Congress submit to the United Nations and all Member Nations a request that 1974 be known as the " Year of the
Tree and that each country undertake to launch or intensify progressive planting programmes in order to restore essential tree-cover, particularly on areas already characterized by excessive erosion or starting to erode.
