When the first Timber Trend Studies carried out by FAO were completed, they indicated that world wood demand was rising and would continue to rise well above production for the next 20 to 40 years, in spite of vast untapped forested areas in many parts of the earth. This apparent paradox provoked new thinking, of which one example is provided by this selection of excerpts from a 1962 article in
Unasylva (Vol. 16, No. 4) by Sir Henry Beresford-Peirse, then Deputy Director of FAO's Forestry and Forest Products Division and later to become Director-General of the Forestry Commission of Great Britain.
· At heart, foresters are apt to consider almost all kinds of forests, from low-producing tropical forests to the high-yielding and intensively managed coniferous forests of Europe, to be essentially areas whose function is the production of wood. They pay lip-service, perhaps less reluctantly than in the past, to the concept of multiple use and concede that their forests may, for instance, be used by tourists or even by wild animals. Even where a forest is playing predominantly a protective role, foresters generally like to extract as much timber and wood as possible, so long as the protective function is not impaired.
In discussing the protective role (of the forest), the first point to make is that timber-producing plantations and man-made forests, while their role is first and foremost production of wood, can also have a protective role as shelter and to safeguard soil and water, especially in catchment areas, and they can have other secondary functions as well. It is the natural forests, however, not earmarked for wood production, that are the main source of protection: they can now be allowed to exercise this role unhampered by the favourite objective of all foresters - to produce wood. It will be unimportant what shape the trees in these forests develop, whether they are bent and crooked or tall and straight, dense or scattered, whether the forests have many or few species - provided they perform the function of maintaining a suitable vegetative cover for the protection of soil and control of water flow. Nor will the old argument need to be pursued acrimoniously as to whether forest or grass or other vegetation should be grown: any combination will be acceptable if the main objective is achieved. There are great areas, too, where the natural forest has been destroyed and where a protective vegetative cover must be restored. The same consideration should apply here, and choice of species need not be influenced by thoughts of producing wood. The protective role of any vegetative cover is something extremely difficult to evaluate, though there is no doubt that this value, and sometimes a very high one, exists when, for instance, the vegetation safeguards costly reservoirs or irrigation works from silting or flooding.
AUCTIONING CATTLE IN ARGENTINA pert of "multiple use "?
Because these protective forests need not be called upon to produce wood (except incidentally), this does not mean they can have no productive function. Forests and scrubland, together with adjoining and merging rangeland, can be developed to the full for the grazing of domestic animals and wild animals as well; and the yield can be in terms of meat, hides and other animal products and as fodder. Grazing would obviously have to be carefully controlled, not with the objective of protecting the trees from damage by browsing or rubbing but only to the extent of ensuring that the protective role of the vegetation is fully safeguarded. These protective forests and rangelands can merge also with intensively managed pastures, these being devoted essentially to animal and fodder production. This use of forests for grazing is something repugnant to many foresters who have been brought up to look upon wild and domestic animals as almost always enemies of the forest. But this is an attitude which will have to change, even perhaps to the extent of welcoming goats, of course under controlled conditions, into certain forest and scrub areas if full use is to be made of forests and maquis not wanted for wood production, and their related range and pasture lands.
These protective forests and rangelands, as well as producing meat and harbouring wild animals, can offer recreation on a growing scale, and the opening up of these areas for this purpose can relieve the pressure on the essentially productive forest areas. Recreation inevitably brings with it an increased risk of fire, but that is something that must be faced, and if the people of a country demand recreation facilities, they must surely be prepared to pay what is necessary for fire protection and other essential controls.
The concept of the "multiple use" of forests was readily accepted at the Fifth World Forestry Congress without perhaps much deep and careful thought as to what this really implied.
The concept of the "multiple use" of forests was readily accepted at the Fifth World Forestry Congress without perhaps much deep and careful thought as to what this really implied. Indeed, there is the risk that the concept may be interpreted to mean a little of everything in every forest. The true interpretation of this concept is one which could perhaps better lead to the name "multiple role". There would be forests devoted essentially to wood production, mainly man-made or heavily influenced by silvicultural treatment designed to step up to the maximum the yield, both in quantity and quality, and always regulated by economic and social considerations. And there would be forests devoted essentially to a protective role but producing as much as possible of animal and fodder products, and these could also, together with rangelands, provide for recreation, tourism and wildlife. This planning in terms of a dual role does not imply the need to put into one category or the other all the forest areas in any country, for, as far ahead as it is reasonable to look, there will be vast forest areas which can be totally forgotten. One of the largest would be the great part of the Amazon forests which could be left undisturbed to grow and be the habitat for animals and primitive tribes as they have been for many thousands of years; and there are many similar, though smaller, forest areas elsewhere.
If this picture of the two distinct roles of forests is accepted, there must be a reorientation in much of the thinking and action on the many different aspects of forestry with which foresters are concerned. In policy, and in land-use planning which follows from it, there will need to be a much closer link with farming policy, since the boundaries between the forest and the farm will in many instances entirely disappear. There will be, of course, and always must be, great areas devoted to wood production, where farming has little or no part to play. But there will be an expanding area earmarked for tree farming and forest plots used as part of farm rotations where food and wood production are both part of a coordinated intensive agricultural enterprise - agricultural, that is, in its widest FAO sense. And there will be extensive protection areas-forest, rangelands and pastures - devoted, in conjunction with their protective role, to the production of animal products, fodder, recreation, and wildlife. It then becomes virtually impossible to evolve for a country a forest policy, as distinct from a farming policy. It follows from this that any new or existing forest law must be looked at with care to see that the distinction, which should be made to disappear, is not perpetuated by legislation.
In the light of the latest thinking on forestry, it is interesting to look back to the Principles of Forest Policy, approved by the FAO Conference in 1951. It would seem that none of the changing thoughts or practices - which are in many respects revolutionary - makes it necessary to vary at all these principles which were the result of far-sighted thought and much discussion. Perhaps one of the most difficult problems will be that of devising suitable administrative machinery. It might be argued that the close coordination of farming and forestry should lead to one omnibus service. That, however, does not seem a necessary or desirable solution; because of the very special skills which have to bear on managing trees and forests for either role, there must continue to be specialist forest services. Similarly, since production forests are essentially an industry or a business, they must be managed as such to yield a profit, and a different form of administration is necessary for them as compared with an agricultural administration concerned mainly with extension work and implementation of the law. Where control of land use is of fundamental importance is in catchment areas, particularly in steep mountain country, and for this reason there is much to be said for the Italian arrangement which puts under one authority forestry and the whole economy of the mountain regions.
This merging of forestry and farming, particularly in the protective areas, will considerably simplify the social problems which so often seem an insuperable barrier to proper management. When catchment areas have to be put under or kept under proper vegetative cover, the approach is often complete exclusion of grazing animals and, therefore, a drastic alteration in the people's way of life. If now the concept is that these forests and adjoining lands can be managed so as to carry a reasonable stocking of domestic and wild animals, the change will be not nearly so drastic and the full benefit can be achieved more simply by the coordinated use of range and protective forest instead of the separate use and management of the two.
There will need to be a much closer link with farming policy, since the boundaries between the forest and the farm will in many instances almost entirely disappear.
Education and training are rightly given a very high priority in FAO's work for less developed countries. Is it certain that the advice given is really sound for these countries? Changes in thinking and practice must be fully reflected in the curricula of new education and training institutes as these are set up. While it is difficult and perhaps unnecessary to change quickly or fundamentally the teaching of universities in the older forestry countries, it would be disastrous if these well-tried, intensely valuable ways of thought were transplanted without "spring cleaning" into the newly developing countries. Not only must the teaching and training incorporate the latest thinking and experience but it must be adapted to the circumstances, and particularly the social circumstances, of the new countries. The objective for many years ahead should be, however heretical this may seem, teaching which is practical and simple rather than deeply scientific and theoretical. Saying this is not to imply that standards should be allowed to slip but rather that the standards, while set high, should be of a kind suitable to new developing countries. These countries can have the advantage of the long years of thought and experience of the older forestry countries, but they need not perhaps go through the same processes of training and education evolved over many years, mainly in and suitable for Europe and North America.
A great responsibility rests upon research. In describing, inevitably superficially, the two complex roles of forestry, it might be thought that it has been assumed that the techniques and methods of the establishment and management of man-made forests, of tree cropping and of the combination of protection forests and grazing are all known. Far from it; there is a vast field of new research as well as the pursuit of old lines of investigation which need to be carefully thought out and followed. A basic aim in all the growing of trees for whatever purpose must be the assurance that the fertility of the site be maintained or, if possible, improved, but we know all too little about how to achieve the best and cheapest. Is the farmer right when he often condemns tree crops as using too much water or reducing fertility? Or is the forester right in contending that in many instances a tree crop can be more profitable than a normal farm crop and at the same time maintain or improve the site quality? What is the level of grazing that can be tolerated in forests of different kinds and still maintain a satisfactory vegetative cover and a proper regeneration of grasses, herbs and trees? Much research and experimentation is needed on these and many other subjects, above all on the way tropical forests should be treated as simply and cheaply as possible to improve their productivity, while the delicate balance of their soil fertility is maintained. A difficult task is to determine which are the most important problems to be tackled and to settle this not necessarily by reference to the well-accepted lines of research but from the point of view of the unsolved problems of each of the two main forest roles as they are adopted for the developing countries.
In the field of wood technology, one of the problems frequently encountered in many parts of the world is how to put to good use the almost countless different species which grow in natural forests, especially in the tropics. If we accept the view that man-made forests will on a growing scale provide the wood that is needed, this problem of using many different species will become a lessening rather than a growing problem. The very complex structure will not be repeated after initial clearing; instead, the composition of the forest will be chosen for maximum wood production of a kind which is most suitable for and needed by industry. Selection and breeding can be directed more specifically to developing types of tree whose wood is most suitable for a variety of industries, and to forests which will produce relatively uniform products. In this way the problems of industry will be considerably lessened. Agricultural crops are now being bred to produce, in conjunction with ever-improving techniques, higher and higher yields for various sites and for various end-uses, and they maintain a remarkable uniformity. The same process will certainly be increasingly introduced with regard to forest crops, especially for pulp and paper. But in thinking about simplifying and increasing the production of raw material for industry, it must not be forgotten that one of the most urgent needs is for wood for fuel, primitive houses, and general village purposes.
Finally, the growing importance of man-made forests emphasizes once more the highly important part that forestry economics must play. As in the case of genetics, the application of economic theory to forestry is of comparatively recent origin, and even now the number of trained economists in this field is one of the main obstacles to practical planning of forest and forest industry development. Yet it is economic considerations, the aim of producing wood as cheaply as possible and the necessity of fitting forest and forest industry development into the general framework of a country's growth, that must be a weighty factor in settling the pattern of plantation forestry, of farm wood-lots and of tree cropping. But while cheapness and efficiency of production both in quantity and quality are essential, as they are in any business, it is important never to lose sight of the social aspect of forestry. Economic considerations may sometimes have to be largely disregarded so that the ways of life of men and women, families and tribes, whose heritage lies in the forest and related lands, are not drastically disturbed; on the contrary, it is only by making full use of the inherent skills, characteristics, beliefs, and even prejudices of the local people that the effective improvement of the general productivity of land can be achieved, even if this is done by slow and costly procedures measured by purely economic considerations.
The task for which FAO was originally set up has been described in So bold an aim as the "collection and dissemination of information using a variety of media - international meetings, publications, visits" and "the acquiring of expertise principally by the less developed countries from the more developed". This was the basis of FAO's Regular Programme, now greatly widened or extended by field and action programmes. However large and important these field programmes become - and the need for them is almost infinite - the Regular Programme must always remain the foundation upon which they are built and sustained. But - at any rate so far as forestry and forest products are concerned, and if we accept the existence of this evolution in our midst in thinking and practice - FAO has a further and more fundamental responsibility which should be fully recognized and implemented. Not only must FAO collect and disseminate information and knowledge of techniques, but it must play a role which no other organization or institution can do so effectively, that of shaping and guiding the thinking and practice of the older countries to fit the quite different circumstances of the new, so that they are applicable to the aspirations of the people of these new countries and are offered to them in a form in which they are able to take full advantage of them. The concept of the two great roles of forestry, merging with intensive cultivation on the one hand and extensive grazing on the other, and taking full account of the people for whom, after all, all this thinking and planning, education and research is undertaken, infringes in not the smallest degree the principles of ecology in its widest sense, "the study of the reciprocal relations of living organisms- plants, animals and men - and their environment", which should be the essential guide for all the work undertaken by FAO.
FAO forestry papers
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
