4095857 Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources

Technologies To Sustain Forest Resources

March 1984

OTA-F-515NTIS order #PB92-182104

Recommended Citation:Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Congress,Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-F-214, March 1984).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-601018

For sale by the Superintendent of DocumentsU.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402

Foreword

The United States has a stake in the sustained economic development of tropicalnations for humanitarian, political, and economic reasons. To a great extent, thedevelopment of these nations depends on increasing production from their poten-tially renewable soil, forest, and water resources. But tropical forest resources, whichcover nearly one-half of the tropical nations’ land, are being consumed at a ratethat may make them nonrenewable. They are exploited for timber and cleared forpasture and cropland with little regard for their abilities to produce—in a long-term sustainable fashion—important goods, maintain soil productivity, regulatewater regimes, or regenerate themselves. Much of the recent deforestation occurswhere the new land uses cannot be sustained and it causes productivity losses thattropical nations and the world can ill afford.

International recognition of the importance of tropical forests, and efforts tosustain the productivity of these resources, have increased significantly in the lastdecade. In 1980, the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, Sub-committee on International Organizations, held hearings on tropical deforestation.The committee then requested the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to con-duct a more thorough assessment of the problem, the technologies that could helpsustain tropical forest resources, and possible options for Congress. The Subcom-mittee on Insular Affairs of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairsand the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution of the Senate Committee onPublic Works endorsed the request. The Senate Committee on Energy and NaturalResources asked that the assessment specifically address forest resources of theU.S. insular territories in the Caribbean and western Pacific. The report and itstwo background papers (Reforestation of Degraded Lands and U.S. and Interna-tional Institutions) identify and discuss in-depth some of the constraints and op-portunities to develop and implement forest-sustaining technologies.

OTA greatly appreciates the contributions of the advisory panel and workshopparticipants assembled for the study, the authors of the commissioned technicalpapers, and the many others who assisted us, including liaisons from other Govern-ment agencies. As with all OTA studies, however, the content of the report is thesole responsibility of OTA.

iii

Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources Advisory Panel

Leonard Berry, Panel ChairmanCenter for Technology, Environment, and Development

Clark university

Eddie AlbertConservationist

Hugh BollingerVice PresidentNative Plants, Inc.

Robert CassagnolTechnical CommitteeCONAELE

Robert CramerFormer PresidentVirgin Islands Corp.

Gary EilertsAppropriate Technology International

John EwelDepartment of BotanyUniversity of Florida

Robert HartWinrock International

Susanna HechtDepartment of GeographyUniversity of California

Marilyn HoskinsDepartment of SociologyVirginia Polytechnic Institute

John Hunter*Michigan State University

Norman JohnsonVice President, North Carolina RegionWeyerhaeuser Co.

Jan LaarmanDepartment of ForestryNorth Carolina State University

Charles LankesterU.N. Development Programme

Robert OwenChief Conservationist (retired)Trust Territory of the Pacific IsZands

Christine PadochInstitute of Environmental StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin

Allen PutneyENCAMPWest Indies Lab

Jeff RommDepartment of ForestryUniversity of California

John TerborghDepartment of BiologyPrinceton University

Henry TschinkelRegional Office for Central American ProgramsAgency for International DevelopmentU.S. Department of State

*Resigned in July 1982.

iv

OTA Staff on Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resourses

H. David Banta* and Roger Herdman, * * Assistant Director, OTAHealth and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Program ManagerFood and Renewable Resources Program

Analytical Staff

Susan Shen, Forester

Alison Hess, Resource Economist

Chris Elfring, Science Journalist

Eric Hyman, Environmental Planner***

Denise Toombs, Resource Policy Analyst***

Jim Kirshner, Resource Policy Analyst***

Bruce A. Ross-Sheriff, Geographer,Project Director

Administrative Staff

Phyllis Balan, Administrative Assistant

Nellie Hammond, Secretary

Carolyn Swarm, Secretary

OTA Publishing Staff

John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer

John Bergling Kathie S. Boss Reed Bundy Debra M. Datcher

Joe Henson Glenda Lawing Linda A. Leahy Cheryl J. Manning

Technology Transfer Workshop

Anil AgarwalCentre for Science and EnvironmentNew Delhi, India

Jose Roberto CastillioFarmer/BusinessmanMexico

Merrill Conitz

Ron Stegall, ChairmanDevelopment Consultant

Washington, D.C.

Gerald MurrayPan American Development FoundationHaiti

Gunnar PoulsenTropical Forestry ConsultantDenmark

David RichardsAgency for International Development Appropriate Technology InternationalNairobi, Kenya Washington, D.C.

Robert Fishwick Skip StilesWorld Bank Office of Congressman George E. Brown, Jr.Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.

Marilyn HoskinsVirginia Polytechnic InstituteBlacksburg, Va.

Systems Analysis Workshop

Donella H. Meadows, ChairwomanResource Policy Center, Dartmouth College

Jeffrey Gritzner John TerborghBoard on Science and Technology Department of Biology

for International Development Princeton UniversityNational Academy of Sciences Frank WadsworthJeff Romm Institute of Tropical ForestryDepartment of Forestry Puerto RicoUniversity of California

vi

Chapter PageIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 3

I. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. ... ... ... .... . 9

Z. Importance of Tropical Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3. Status of Tropical Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

q. Causes of Deforestation and Forest Resource Degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

5. Organizations Dealing With Tropical Forest Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

6. U.S. Tropical Forests: Caribbean and Western Pacific. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

--&. Technologies for Undisturbed Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... 159

8. Technologies to Reduce Overcutting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

9. Forestry Technologies for Disturbed Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

1O. Forestry Technologies to Support Tropical Agriculture. ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 11. Resource Development Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

12. Education, Research, and Technology Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

13. Forestry Technologies for U.S. Tropical Territories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

14. Options for Congress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

Appendix PageA. Status of Tropical Forests: Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

B. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332

C. Commissioned Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341

vii

Introduction

●

Introduction

4 ● Technology to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources

Figure I.—Trend of Change Among Tropical Forest Land Uses

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment

Figure 2.–Conceptuai Diagram indicating Land Use Changes Typical of Tropical Asia

100

f-l

land

Crop land,grazing land

manmade forest,

— Time –

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

If nothing were done to change the system,the point at which the amount of undisturbedforest land and unproductive land stabilize fora given region would be, in theory, where thecost of clearing the next acre of undisturbedforest equals the cost of reclaiming an acre ofunproductive land. Since that cost is high forknown technologies, this equilibrium implieslittle accessible undisturbed forest, a great dealof unproductive land, and extremely low levels

of production. The actual equilibrium maybedelayed until even more undisturbed forest iscleared because costs and benefits accrue todifferent groups of people, skewing both mo-tivations to invest and to exploit.

Many technologies exist but are not fullyused to prevent conversion of productive landto unproductive land, to increase yields on in-termediate lands, or to harvest from undis-

/introduction ● 5

turbed forest without converting it to a lesssustainable land type. There are also socialchanges both possible and desirable to re-duce the driving forces behind conversion tounsustainable uses.

Because different countries or regions ofcountries fall at different points along thecurves in figure 2, the actions needed to haltthis degradation would be most effective if de-signed for the urgency of the situation in eachcountry. For example, regions with low rain-fall and/or dense populations probably followthis process more rapidly than countries withmoist forest and large areas of currently inac-cessible land. Categorization of countries ormajor regions to indicate the urgency for ac-tions to address loss of tropical forest resourcesand degradation of land productivity mighttake the form indicated in figure 3:

Ž Countries where the problem is latent butnot compelling: A considerable amountof original forest land remains, but with-out appropriate measures, populationpressures and development needs can beexpected eventually to propel these coun-tries into the next categories.

● Countries where the problem is critical:Much original forest land has been con-verted into the four intermediate uses, in-

●

eluding most of the land capable of sus-taining continuous agriculture. Furtherclearing is occurring and technologies tosustain productivity on these lands gen-erally are not applied.Countries where emergency measures arerequired—the ratio of unproductive landto original undisturbed forest is high andincreasing, severe shortages of locally pro-duced forest products are occurring, andthe amount of intermediate land types isdeclining rapidly because technologies arenot adequately used to sustain land pro-ductivity.

An improved division of countries into cate-gories might account separately for urgency ofhuman needs (e.g., food, fuelwood, materialsfor shelter, fodder, etc.) and urgency of ecolog-ical need (e.g., loss of genetic diversity). TheFood and Agriculture Organization has cate-gorized countries by need for action to ame-liorate fuelwood deficiencies, but scales tomeasure other dimensions of forest resourcevalue have not been created.

The loss of tropical forest resources is notnew, and its effects are not restricted to thosewho live within the forests. Part I of this reportdescribes the Background of tropical forestresource changes, including who is affected,

I — Time — I


6 ● Technologies to Sustain Tropics/ Forest Resources

the current status, the visible agents and un-derlying causes of change, and the organiza-tions-United States, national and internation-al—involved. This section also describes the tropical lands of most direct concern to the U.S. Congress: the U.S.tropical territories.

Part H of this report, Technology Assess-ment, discusses various technologies for re-source-sustaining development of tropical for-est lands. The technologies considered covera broad range. Some are techniques to managethe forests-undisturbed and disturbed-andsome are technologies to use forests to protectrelated resources such as agriculture and wa-ter. Others are techniques to prepare people forthe various tasks involved in sustaining tropicalforest resources, such as resource developmentplanning, education, research, and technologytransfer.

- Within each technology discussion, actionsare suggested to promote development of sus-tainable tropical forest use. In general, actionscan enhance the stability and productivity oftropical lands if they:

• reduce degradation of the resource base,● reduce demand on the ecosystems,Žprovide more timely and accurate infor-

mation to decisionmakers or reduce thetime necessary to implement decisions.

A final chapter in this section discusses appli-cation of the various kinds of technologies tothe U.S. tropical forests.

Part 111 describes Issues and Options forCongress to promote development and use oftechnologies that can sustain tropical forest re-sources globally and within U.S. tropical ter-ritories. The organization of options for theCongress does not indicate the relative impor-tance of the various measures. If long-term ac-tions are not taken to build institutions con-cerned with the sustainable use of tropical for-ests, short-term actions will be overwhelmed.And conversely, if short-term measures are nottaken, development of institutions to managethe forest resources in the long term may bepointless.

Chapter 1

Summary

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Importance of Tropical Forest Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Status of Tropical Forests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Technology Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Technologies for Undisturbed Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Maintaining Sample Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Making Undisturbed Forests More Valuable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Technologies to Reduce Overcutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Industrial Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Fuelwood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Technologies for Disturbed Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Management of Secondary Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Reforestation of Degraded Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Forestry Technologies to Support Tropical Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Agroforestsry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Watershed Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Resource Development Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Education, Research, and Technology Transfer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Technology Transfer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Issues and Options for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Expand and Coordinate Development Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Encourage Resource Development Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Improve Tropical Forest Research and Market Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Protect Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Expand U.S. Expertise in Tropical Forest Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

U.S. Tropical Forests.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27The U.S. Caribbean Territories: Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands . . . . . . . 28The U.S. Western Pacific: Micronesia and American Samoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Issues and Options for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

List of Tables

Table No. Page1. Estimates of Closed Forest Areas and Deforestation Rates in

Tropical Africa, America, and Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

List of Figures

Figure No. Page4. Global Areas of Tropical Woody Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95. Areas of Woody Vegetation in 76 Tropical Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116. A Typical Biosphere Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157. Location of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298. Location of the U.S. Western Pacific Territories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Chapter I

Summary

INTRODUCTION .Forests of various kinds cover 42 percent of

the tropical nations’ land (fig. 4). To support apopulation of 2 billion, these nations must usethe natural resources found in these forests:soil, water, plants, and animals. The produc-tivity of these resources can be renewable, butonly if tropical people use resource-sustainingtechnologies.

Some tropical nations are experiencing se-vere shortages of forest products and services.

Figure 4.–Global Areas of Tropical WoodyVegetation

Land surface of the Earth

Land surface of the 76 countries studied

Conifer -

\forests Plantat ions

To avoid even more acute problems, they needto restore resource productivity. Other nations,even those with adequate forests, need to sus-tain their forest resources to avoid future prob-lems. In just 30 years, the population of tropicalnations is expected to double to 4 billion peo-ple. Thus, the importance of tropical forest pro-ductivity is increasing as more and more peo-ple depend on forest products and services forbasic needs such as fuel, materials for shelter,and a reliable water supply.

Substantial institutional activity is occurringworldwide that directly or indirectly benefitstropical forest resources. The U.S. Agency forInternational Development (AID), the UnitedNations agencies, the multilateral developmentbanks, and others have increased their atten-tion to forestry in recent years. Private corpora-tions and nonprofit organizations also havebeen involved in the search for solutions totropical forest problems. Most importantly,tropical nations’ governments have come torecognize that deforestation and forest re-source degradation constrain their economiesand their development options.

The large number of organizations that havesome responsibilities in forestry might implythat an adequate level of activity is under way.But the total amount of expertise and fundingavailable to forestry still remains small relativeto the scope of the problem. International de-velopment assistance organizations cannotfund enough forest conservation to offset de-forestation because the underlying institutionalcauses can only be resolved by the tropicalcountries themselves.

9

25-287 0 - 84 - 2

10 ● Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources

IMPORTANCE OF TROPICAL FOREST RESOURCES

For tropical nations, forests and shrublandsprovide wood for lumber and paper, buildingmaterials, and fuel, and are an importantsource of foreign exchange. Forests help main-tain soil quality, limit erosion, stabilize hill-sides, modulate seasonal flooding, and protectwaterways and marine resources from accel-erated siltation. In addition, many millions ofpeople living in and near the forests dependdirectly on them for food, medicines, and otherbasic needs.

The benefits from tropical forests are not lim-ited to tropical nations. World trade in tropicalwood is significant to the economies of boththe producing and consuming nations, TheUnited States is the second largest importer oftropical wood products, and U.S. demand fortropical wood has been growing at rates wellabove our population and gross national prod-uct growth rates. Tropical forests also providea broad array of nonwood products such asoils, spices, and rattan that are valuable forboth subsistence and commerce. The annualworld trade in rattan, for example, is estimatedto be $1.2 billion. Thus, industrial wood andother forest product exports earn substantialforeign exchange for nations that trade withthe United States.

The productivity of renewable resources inthe Tropics affects both the economic viabili-ty of U.S. investments overseas and politicalstability in the tropical nations. Many devel-opment projects funded by the U.S. Govern-

ment or the U.S. private sector are being under-cut by flooding, siltation of reservoirs, pest out-breaks, and other problems associated with de-forestation. Food and jobs, both critical for po-litical stability in developing nations, can bereduced by the consequences of deforestation.

The highly diverse tropical forests containplants, animals, genetic material, and chemi-cals that have great potential value for medi-cine, agriculture, and other industries. TheTropics are thought to contain two-thirds of theworld’s approximately 4.5 million plant and an-imal species. An estimated 2.5 million of thetropical species are yet unknown to science.Considering the value to society that has comefrom those tropical species that have been stud-ied (e.g., many major agricultural crops, anti-cancer drugs, insects used in integrated pestmanagement), it is very likely that some of theremaining unstudied species offer potentiallyimportant resources, particularly for pest con-trol, plant breeding, genetic engineering, andother biotechnologies. Biologists are alreadyusing new techniques for cloning plants andmicro-organisms to screen for their productionof useful chemicals.

Tropical forests also provide habitats formany of the world’s migratory birds and vari-ous endangered species. About two-thirds ofthe birds that breed in North America migrateto Latin America or the Caribbean for winter.Some of these migratory birds play an impor-tant role in controlling agricultural pests in theUnited States.

STATUS OF TROPICAL FORESTS

Some 76 nations located entirely or largelywithin the tropical latitudes contain about halfthe world’s population (approximately 2 bil-lion), These nations are characterized by rapid-ly growing populations, low per capita in-comes, and predominantly agrarian econo-mies. Near forest lands, much of the agricul-ture is subsistence farming, often in upland

areas where soils are dry or have low fertility.Commercial agriculture, on the other hand,generally is sited on the more fertile and oftenirrigated alluvial plains of major river valleys.Both types of agriculture are strongly affectedby the 1.2 billion hectares* of moist tropical

*One hectare equals 2.47 acres.

Ch. 7—Summary ● 11

forest and 800 million hectares of drier openwoodlands.

The type and distribution of forests vary con-siderably across regions in the Tropics (fig. 5).Two-thirds of the closed forests* are found intropical America, while Africa has two-thirdsof the open forests.** Even within regions,

*Closed forest means that trees shade so much of the groundthat a continuous layer of grass cannot grow.

* *Open forest has trees that cover at least 10 percent of theground but still allow enough light to reach the forest floor sothat a dense, continuous cover of grass can grow.

forest types are unequally distributed amongcountries.

Data on the extent and condition of tropicalforests are widely scattered and often inac-curate, Overall figures for deforestation* mask

*Deforestation is the conversion of closed or open forest tononforest. A distinction should be made between deforestationand degradation; the latter refers to biological, physical, andchemical processes that result in loss of the productive poten-tial of natural resources in areas that remain classified as forest.This distinction explains some of the confusion in estimates ofchange in forest resources.

Figure 5.—Areas of Woody Vegetationa in 76 Tropical Nations (thousands of hectares, 1980 estimates)

Tropical America

Plantatioforests4,620Open

f

sed forefallow

108,612

‘St

61,650 Open woodlands216,997

Tropical Africa

Tropical Asia

‘Closed forestfallow6 1 , 6 4 6

Clo sed forestlfallow6 9 , 2 2 5

Sh

Plantation Open woodlandPlantation forests fallow

forests 5,111 3,9901,780

d s


considerable differences among the rates atwhich individual countries are using and alter-ing their forest resources (table 1). If presenttrends were to continue, nine tropical coun-tries would eliminate practically all of theirclosed forests within the next 30 years andanother 13 countries would exhaust theirswithin 55 years.

Estimates of overall deforestation rates alsoconceal significant differences in the types oftropical forest affected. The loss of species isprobably greatest in the broad-leaved humidlowland forests as these are biologically themost complex and diverse. But the tropicalconifer forests cover much smaller areas andhave been severely degraded by logging and ag-riculture. Direct impacts on people are greatestin dry regions where degradation of open for-ests leads to severe shortages of wood for fuel.But the loss of mountain watershed forest mayaffect even more people by making river flowsmore erratic.

Each year approximately 11.3 million hec-tares of the Earth’s remaining tropical forests—an area roughly the size of Pennsylvania—are cleared and converted to other uses. Wherecleared land is developed for sustainable agri-culture, deforestation can be beneficial. Butmost land being cleared cannot sustain farm-ing or grazing with available technologies. Soit is abandoned after a few years. Often, com-mercially valuable trees do not grow backquickly because of highly weathered soils,harsh climates, and recurring fires. Thus, pro-ductive but underused forest resources are giv-ing way to low productivity grasslands anddeserts.

Deforestation and degradation of tropicallands are not new. Losses of forest resourceshave been reported as early as 450 B.C. in theAfrican Sahel and 1000 A.D. in South China.For centuries, tropical deforestation has beenassociated with poverty and with patterns ofeconomic development that result in inequit-

able access to farmland. People displaced bydevelopment in the lowlands often have beenthe direct agents of deforestation because theyhave little choice if they are to survive.

The main agents of tropical deforestation andforest resource degradation continue to be sub-sistence agriculturalists, livestock raisers, fuel-wood collectors, and people who set fires tofacilitate clearing or gathering activities. Com-mercial agriculture plays a smaller role in de-forestation today than it has in the past, al-though in some areas (e.g., Central Americaand Brazil) clearing tropical forests for cattleranching causes a large part of the forest re-source loss. Commercial logging is also an im-portant cause of forest degradation.

Both subsistence and commercial use of for-est lands can cause deforestation. Combined,they form particularly pernicious relationships.For example, loggers build roads through un-disturbed forests to remove timber. Slash-and-burn cultivators use the roads to gain accessto the forests and clear patches for temporaryagriculture. Ranching or commercial agricul-ture may follow the farmers, exploit the land’sremaining productivity, then move on into newareas. These agents of tropical forest changevary in prominence among tropical America,Africa, and Asia.

Alternative techniques exist that could besubstituted for these destructive practices.However, sustainable forestry and agriculturepractices generally are not being developedand applied. The underlying causes of this fail-ure lie in political, economic, and social forces(e.g., undefined property rights) that cause peo-ple to use forests in ways that are inappropriateto ecological conditions. Deterioration of theforest resources seems likely to continue untilcombinations of improved technologies and en-forced resource development policies makesustaining the forests more profitable than de-stroying them.

Ch. I—Summary ● 1 3

Table 1. —Estimates of Closed Forest Areas and Deforestation Rates in Tropical Africa, America, and Asia

Closed forest Percent Closed forest Percentarea deforested area deforested

Country (1,000 ha) per yeara (1 ,000 ha) per yeara

Tropical Africa:Ivory Coast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rwanda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Burundi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Benin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guinea-Bissau . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Liberia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Madagascar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Angola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Uganda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Zambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mozambique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sierra Leone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tanzania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Togo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cameroon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Somalia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Equatorial Guinea . . . . . . . . . . .Zaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Central African Republic . . . . .Gabon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Congo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Zimbabwe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Namibia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Botswana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Upper Volta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Niger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senegal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Malawi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4,4585,950

1202647

6602,0002,0501,105

10,3002,900

7653,0101,718

935740

1,440304650500

17,9204,3501,5401,295

105,7503,590

20,50021,340

200b

b

b

b

b

22018665

6.55.02.72.72,62.62.31.81.71.51.51.31.31.31.10.80.70.70.60.40.40.20.20.20.20.10.1O.l

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

b

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216,634 0.61Tropical America:Paraguay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,070 4.7Costa Rica.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,638 4.0

Haiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .El Salvador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jamaica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nicaragua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Honduras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guatemala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Panama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Belize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dominican Republic . . . . . . . . .Trinidad and Tobago . . . . . . . .Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bolivia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .French Guiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Surinam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guyana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tropical Asia:Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Brunei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Laos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Viet Nam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Burma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kampuchea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bhutan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Papua New Guinea.. . . . . . . . .

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48141

674,496

14,2503,7974,442

46,40046,250

4,1651,354

629208

69,680357,480

31,87044,010

1,4558,900

14,83018,475

678,655

1,9411,6599,235

32320,9958,4109,510

9278,770

113,8952,185

31,9417,548

51,8412,100

34,230

305,510

3.83.23.02.72.42.42.01.81.30.90.70.60.40.40.40.40.2O.l

b

b

0.6

4.33.52.71.51.21.21.00.90.70.50,30.30.30.30.10.1

0.6


TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

This report discusses various technologies todevelop tropical forest resources. Some aretechniques to manage forests—undisturbed anddisturbed—and some are technologies to useforests to protect related resources such as ag-riculture and water. Others are techniques toprepare people for the various tasks involvedin developing and implementing technologiesto sustain the resources.

Technologies forUndisturbed Forest

Undisturbed forests produce many valuableproducts and services, usually with little or nohuman management. One way to reduce therate at which undisturbed forests are convertedto other, nonsustainable uses is through sys-tematic preservation of sample ecosystems inparks and protected areas. Another approachis to enhance the value of the forest by develop-ing its resources other than timber—the non-wood products and forest food sources. Foreither approach to succeed, willing involve-ment of local people and political commitmentfrom government decisionmakers are essential.

Maintaining Sample Ecosystems

Parks and protected areas can be managedfor direct income (e.g., tourism) and for indirectbenefits, such as preventing siltation of reser-voirs. Some of these benefits can be estimatedfor resource allocation decisions. Other majorbenefits provided by protected areas—e. g.,preservation of biological diversity—cannot bemeasured in dollars. Thus, in the past, the loca-tions of protected areas have been determinedmore for watershed protection or tourist poten-tial than for conserving of biological diversity.

A marked disparity exists in the worldwidedistribution of parks and protected areas, withsome types of ecosystems well represented andothers not represented at all. Many legally pro-tected areas lack firm commitments from local,national, and international agencies. Conse-quently, they receive little actual protection orare inadequately managed.

Strict preservation with total exclusion ofeconomic activity is not practical for manysites where protection of undisturbed forestsis important. Recognizing the growing de-mands to develop rural land, protected areaplanners and managers have begun to paymore attention to socioeconomic and institu-tional factors. They seek participation fromboth the people who will affect or be affectedby forest resources and the people and agen-cies that must support management programs.

Some innovative plans that include the sur-rounding biophysical and socioeconomic set-ting have been developed for protected areas.One such activity is the UNESCO Man and theBiosphere (MAB) program’s worldwide net-work of biosphere reserves (fig. 6). The man-agement of these reserves considers the needsof local populations and seeks ways to makebenefits available to local people. More fieldexperience and monitoring are needed to eval-uate the successes of existing biosphere re-serves. However, the MAB effort is constrainedby a lack of strong, consistent commitmentsfrom U.S. and other governments.

Making Undisturbed ForestsMore Valuable

Few deliberate attempts have been made toharvest forest products other than timber andfuelwood in a sustainable, organized way. In-centives to maintain unlogged forests wouldbe greater if methods were developed to useforest resources other than timber more fully–either by discovering new, valuable productsor by encouraging collection and processingof existing products.

Products obtained from animals and fromwood, bark, leaves, or roots of trees and otherforest vegetation offer significant opportunitiesfor tropical countries to develop cottage indus-tries. Employment and incomes for people liv-ing in or near forests could be improved whileencouraging maintenance of the natural eco-systems. Improved assessment of the role of

Ch. l—Summary ● 1 5

Figure 6.—A Typical Biosphere Reserve

SOURCE M. Batisse, “The Biosphere Reserve: A Tool for Environmental Con-servation and Management, ” Environmental Conservation, vol. 9, sum-mer 1982.

forest products in subsistence economies anddevelopment of markets for nonwood productscould help decisionmakers recognize the valueof undisturbed forests. U.S. scientific andmanagerial expertise could be applied to thisproblem, especially from the fields of ecology,botany, business, and forest management.

Few technologies exist today that can extractselected renewable resources from a tropicalforest while leaving the forest nearly intact.Crocodile and butterfly farming are two ex-amples that are being implemented. The devel-opment of other such resource-conserving sys-tems is needed.

Technologies to Reduce Overcutting

Much resource degradation is caused inclosed tropical forests by inappropriate woodharvesting methods and in mountain and dry

forests by cutting more wood than grows eachyear. Development of improved wood process-ing technologies and markets for more of themany tree species and sizes growing in theclosed forests would reduce the area that mustbe logged to satisfy timber demand. Where toomuch wood is being cut, it may be necessaryto reduce demand by increasing the efficien-cy of woodstoves and charcoal kilns or by sub-stituting alternative energy sources.

Industrial Wood

Intensive forest harvesting could give in-creased output per unit area, thus reducing de-mand to cut elsewhere. But this approach canhave both positive and negative impacts. It canmake reforestation planting more feasible. Onthe other hand, it increases the potential fordamage to the site from poor road engineer-ing, inadequate site protection, and tardy res-toration of forest stands. Intensive harvestingwould require strict enforcement of regulationsto prevent adverse impacts on the land’s long-term productivity.

Intensive harvesting depends on the availa-bility of profitable technologies to extract, proc-ess, and market a wider range of tree speciesand sizes. Grouping species according to theiruses (e.g., construction material) is an approachthat has been successful in Africa. However,many unused species have sizes, shapes, orwood characteristics that make them difficultto harvest and process and that limit their use-fulness.

The use of smaller trees would require cost-ly replacement of existing equipment, whichhas been designed for large logs. Portable saw-mills and small units that could be carried easi-ly and set up to mill logs at the stump couldmake logging much more efficient. Such tech-nologies might minimize adverse environmenta-1 effects from hauling logs but might encour-age logging of currently inaccessible areas.

The greatest progress toward making inten-sive harvest profitable has occurred where mul-tispecies wood chips are produced for woodpulp or fuel. The “press-dry paper process”developed at the U.S. Forest Products Labora-


tory promises to increase the world market forhardwood chips. However, chipping can haveadverse impacts because in moist tropical for-ests most of the plant nutrients are located inthe trees rather than in the soil. Thus, woodchip harvesting that removes most trees canseverely reduce the fertility of the site.

For little known but potentially marketablelumber species, cost-effective preservation anddrying technologies are needed to improve usecharacteristics. Many types of wood are sus-ceptible to attack by termites, other insects, orfungi under tropical conditions. Althoughwood preservatives are available, they gener-ally are costly. Some less expensive techniquesexist but their effectiveness has not beenproven.

Fuelwood

Approximately 80 percent of the estimated1 billion cubic meters of wood removed annual-ly from tropical forests is used for fuel. The ef-fects of excessive fuelwood cutting are seenfirst near cities and towns where fuel demandis concentrated. But overcutting does notalways remain a local problem. Mangroveforests of Thailand and dry forests of Kenya,for example, are overcut to produce charcoalthat is transported by ship to other nations.

Most wood fuel is used in homes for cook-ing, though tobacco drying and other rural in-dustries also consume substantial quantities.Common domestic stoves waste much of thewood energy, as do traditional methods of mak-ing charcoal. Therefore, it should be possibleto reduce fuelwood demand significantly andconsequent overcutting by disseminating moreefficient stoves and charcoal kilns.

Attempts to introduce such technologies intropical nations have had mixed success. Im-proved stoves are not quickly and widely ac-cepted. Though cheap by U.S. standards, theyoften cost too much. Some reduce the rangeof fuels that can be used. Further, improvedcharcoal production sometimes does not leadto less wood cutting because charcoal makersmay use the time or profits they gain to makeeven more charcoal. Techniques to reduce de-

mand require especially careful planning,monitoring, and evaluation.

Nonwood fuels such as kerosene can some-times be used to reduce wood demand tempo-rarily while fuelwood plantations are estab-lished and while natural forests recover fromexploitation. But the costs of obtaining anddistributing nonwood fuel substitutes are oftenprohibitive, especially to the rural poor. Small-scale, renewable energy technologies such assolar dryers have more potential for long-termuse, but their adoption is inhibited by finan-cial and managerial constraints.

Substituting plantation-grown wood for na-tural forest wood clearly is an important op-tion in many tropical regions. Investment inplantations is constrained, however, where ac-

Ch.1—Summary ● 1 7

cess to “free-for-the-taking’ forest wood is notrestricted. Thus, regulatory controls on fuel-wood gathering from the natural forest mustbe enforced if the fuelwood plantation optionis to be used before all the accessible naturalforests are destroyed. Where fuelwood hascommercial value above the cost of cutting andtransportation, there is a possibility that farm-ers and business will invest in planting trees.

Securing future wood supplies is a social,political, and economic problem. Investmentsof land, labor, and capital in tree growing areconstrained by problems with land ownership,laws, and social organization. Until these areresolved and woodfuel supplies are being effec-tively replenished, measures to reduce demandwill fail to reach the root of the problem. De-mand reduction creates no incentives for in-creased supply; it may achieve the reverse.

Technologies for Disturbed forests

An estimated 400 million hectares of poten-tially productive secondary forest* exist inclosed tropical forest areas. Approximately 2billion hectares of tropical lands are in variousstages of degradation. Investment in the im-provement of secondary forests and reforesta-tion of degraded lands offers opportunities tomeet needs for materials, substitute domesticproduction for imports, and provide newsources of employment in wood productionand processing.

Management of Socoadary ForestsMany tropical countries could sustain pro-

duction of all the wood they will need for dec-ades if adequate investments were made to de-velop and manage cutover secondary forests.However, such investments are seldom made.Land tenure can be a constraint, but evenwhere the forests are clearly owned and con-trolled by government forestry agencies orprivate landowners, investments are usually in-adequate. Technologies for sustained forest

*Secondary forest includes both residual forest that has beencut once or several times during the past 60 to 80 years and sec-ond growth forests that invade after periodic cultivation.

production exist, but for most of these the timelag before payback begins is too long and re-turn on the investments is too low to attractadequate private and public capital. Opportu-nities to improve this situation include:

●

●

●

●

resolution of land tenure issues,public and private investments in researchand development to make sustainable sec-ondary forest management more profit-able,increased technology transfer of profitableresource-sustaining forest managementmethods, andimplementation of resource use regula-tions, tax laws, or subsidies to make in-vestments in secondary forest manage-ment more profitable.

SimpIy reducing logging damage by using ap-propriate or improved harvesting equipmentcan increase the number of trees available fora future crop as well as increase natural regen-eration and facilitate enrichment planting. Butto ensure that this occurs, regulations to con-trol logging practices must be enforced.

Reforostation of Dograded Lands

Technologies are available to reforest certaindegraded lands. But tree planting sometimesdoes not compete well, in economic terms,with other land uses. The solutions to this di-lemma include reducing reforestation costs, re-ducing plantation failure rates by enlisting sup-port of local people, increasing plantationyields, and developing methods to quantify theindirect benefits of reforestation.

Reforestation costs can be reduced if landpreparation is used to reduce weed invasionand ensure a favorable environment for seedl-ing growth. Plantation yields can be increasedby selecting high-yielding, fast-growing, soil-enriching, and stress-tolerant tree species.Developing and implementing tree breedingand improvement programs can produce vari-eties with high yields and other desired char-acteristics. Careful provenance testing—match-ing the appropriate variety to a particularsite—should improve species performance andreduce mortality.

18 • Technoogies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources

To achieve successful reforestation, severalconstraints must be overcome:

● shortage of planting stock and lack of qual-ity control in seed and clone production,

. inadequate knowledge of tropical site con-ditions, and

. lack of information dissemination.

The coordination of collection, certification,and international distribution of high-qualityseeds in commercial quantities needs to be im-proved. Information on proven silviculturaltechniques must be disseminated to the localpeople.

These technical problems can be solvedgiven adequate funding and time. A more sub-tle problem is to get local people to maintaintree plantations. First of all, they must clearlyunderstand the reasons for planting trees. Thetrees should produce products local peoplewant, and the people must be convinced thatsubstantial benefits from the trees will accruedirectly to them. Often this means using spe-cies selected by local people rather than speciesselected by foresters.

Photo credit: J. Bauer

Mahogany seed. Shortage of planting stock and lack ofquality control in seed production are constraints toreforestation. Systematic collection, certification, and

distribution of seeds in commercial quantitycould facilitate tree planting

Forestry Technologies to SupportTroical Agriculture

Medium- and long-term maintenance of trop-ical forest resources may depend more on sus-taining the land already under cultivation thanon refining use of the remaining forest. Intro-ducing woody perennials into farming and pas-toral land (agroforestry) and improving farm-ing techniques for upland watershed areascould help sustain the productivity of landsunder cultivation and so reduce the need toclear additional forest lands.

Agroforestry

Agroforestry encompasses many well-knownand long-practiced land-use methods. The aimis to create productive farming systems able tosupply a higher and more sustainable outputof basic needs and saleable products than oc-curs without trees. Agroforestry is most impor-tant on lands with serious soil fertility prob-lems and lands where inadequate rural infra-structure makes it vital for people to producemost of their own basic needs for fertilizers,food, fodder, fuel, and shelter.

Agroforestry is a newly recognized field andcould benefit from a critical examination ofpractices and quantification of information.Since agroforestry cuts across several disci-plines, its research and development requiresan interdisciplinary approach. Because of frag-mented institutional jurisdiction, however,agroforestry is not receiving adequate supportfrom either forestry or agricultural institutions.

Great technological potential for agroforestryseems to lie in genetic improvement (systema-tic breeding and selection) of multipurpose treeand shrub species. Selection of appropriateprovenances, subspecies, and varieties cangreatly enhance the success of agriculturalsystems designed for particular land require-ments.

The potential for farmers and pastoralists ac-tually to adopt agroforestry system improve-ments is more difficult to assess. Peasant farm-ers can ill afford the risks of innovation. Large-

scale adoption of new agroforestry systemswould require creating incentives for peopleto implement new practices in spite of the ini-tial risks and delayed returns.

Watershed Manegement

The greatest problems in tropical watershedsoccur where subsistence farmers and their live-stock move onto steep uplands. Excludingfarmers and livestock from such areas can al-low vegetation time to recover, but enforcingsuch policies is difficult. Mechanical structuresand replanting methods can restore water flowstability from some deforested slopes. Further,conservation practices exist that allow farm-ing and grazing on many moderate watershedslopes. However, the watershed managementtechniques are unlikely to become widespread

until farmers and herders in upland areas haveincentives to stop destructive land-use prac-tices. To provide upland farmers with nondes-tructive land-use alternatives necessitates:

●

●

●

developing methods of land use that aremore profitable to the local communityand at the same time improve control ofwater flows;developing improved techniques to meas-ure and predict tradeoffs of different man-agement actions; andtesting new technologies and getting theuseful ones adopted by the local communi-ty. Subsidies from downstream benefici-aries of the watershed protection may benecessary. Sociological studies could helpdefine the type of incentives needed to ob-tain farmers’ cooperation.

20 Ž Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources

Rosource Development Planning

Most conversions of tropical forests to otherland uses take place without adequate consid-eration of whether the natural and human re-sources available can sustain the new land use.Sometimes, destructive forest conversions arean unplanned result of some other, narrowlyplanned development. For instance, poorlysited logging roads can open highly erodibleforest land to unplanned clearing for slash-and-burn agriculture.

This problem can be ameliorated through theuse of resource development planning tech-niques that match land development activitiesto the natural and human capabilities of specif-ic sites. These techniques can identify whichsites can sustain crop production, grazing, res-ervoirs, new settlements, intensive forestry oragroforestry, and which will be most produc-tive if retained as natural forest.

Ideally, resource development planning in-cludes four components: biophysical assess-ment, financial (investor’s viewpoint) and eco-nomic (society’s viewpoint) assessment, socialassessment, and project monitoring and eval-uation. Biophysical assessment is used moreoften than the others, although it still is under-used. Furthermore, the techniques commonlyare used to find the best site for a particulardevelopment purpose rather than to developa comprehensive strategy for all sites in aregion.

Use of each of the four planning componentsis constrained by a lack of information oncause-and-effect relationships. Economic as-sessment encounters difficulty measuring non-market values. Further, the analyses may con-sider the forest values only of a small site,disregarding the interrelationships betweenthat site and the surrounding area. For exam-ple, loss of the genetic resources in a smallpatch of a large forest may seem unimportantbecause nearby forested areas contain the samebiological diversity. Consequently, individualeconomic analyses may justify clearing the for-ested region piece by piece without accountingfor the overall genetic loss incurred.

Finally, even well-planned development mayprove unsustainable if planning stops after im-plementation begins. Most planning is done be-fore projects begin when least is known aboutbiophysical and human resources at the site.Continuous planning, monitoring, and evalua-tion are necessary during and after the project.The major development assistance organiza-tions have begun to institute such proceduresbut have not yet determined how to use the re-sults.

Opportunities to enhance the use of resourcedevelopment planning include improving dataavailability, more demonstration of the tech-niques’ potentials, better communication ofplanning successes, increasing the number oftrained planners, improving techniques foreconomic and social analysis, and assuring thatprojects remain open to redirection after imple-mentation begins.

Education, Research, andTechnology Transfer

Forest resource development is constrainedin most tropical nations by a shortage of pro-fessional and technical personnel who knowabout appropriate technologies and who alsounderstand the institutional, economic, andcultural aspects of forest resource systems. Inthe near term, expatriates, including U.S. pro-fessionals, can provide some expertise. But thisis not likely to be sufficient because the scopeof tropical forest resource problems is so largeand the number of expatriate experts is few.Further, expatriates lack the political and cul-tural ties necessary to influence policy. Sustain-ing tropical forest resources requires develop-ment of indigenous expertise in all aspects ofresource development. Education, research,and technology transfer are the means to de-velop expertise both in the United States andin tropical nations.

U.S. universities can act to sustain tropicalforests in two ways: educating professionalswho will work in tropical forestry related fields

Ch.1—Summary ● 21

and strengthening tropical nations’ universi-ties. However, tropical forestry is peripheral tothe interests of most U.S. forestry schools andthe experts are scattered widely among institu-tions. Consequently, efficient mechanismsmust be developed to bring together multidis-ciplinary teams of researchers and educatorsand connect them with students, foreign uni-versities, and others seeking to develop tropicalforest expertise.

Twinning, which creates associations be-tween tropical nation institutions and individ-ual developed nation institutions, has workedwith a few university forestry schools. Consor-tia of U.S. universities can provide tropical in-stitutions access to a wider range of expertiseand experience than twinning arrangements.However, this approach still does not resolveseveral of the fundamental deficiencies that re-duce the effectiveness of U.S. institutions. U.S.forestry schools lack a tropical setting forteaching and research. Further, their curriculado not prepare students to solve the social andinstitutional problems that confront tropicalforest resource development.

The development of one or more U.S. cen-ters of excellence in tropical forestry mightresolve these deficiencies. For example, acenter of excellence in Puerto Rico could focuson Latin American forest development needs,providing the necessary tropical setting as wellas benefiting the U.S. tropical forests.

A major objective of U.S. efforts to enhancetropical forest education could be to strengthenschools in the Tropics. Some 138 universitiesand 220 technical schools in tropical nationsprovide forestry education and training. Near-ly all these schools are new. Most are small andproduce few graduates each year. Thus, sub-stantial support is needed to provide in-servicefaculty training, to produce locally relevantcourse materials, and to modernize basic edu-cation facilities such as herbarium, library col-lections, and computers.

Resource development professionals, the sci-entists who develop technologies, and the tech-nicians who implement them are ineffectivewithout strong support from the many people

who make decisions about the use of naturalresources. Environmental education aims tochange people’s attitudes and behavior by pro-viding them with the motivation and the knowl-edge necessary to make decisions and take ac-tions that will sustain natural resource pro-ductivity.

Environmental education efforts can be di-rected at the general public using mass mediaor programs in primary and secondary schools.Or the efforts can be directed more narrowlyat higher level decision makers, Unfortunate-ly, the behavioral science basis for environmen-tal education is not well established, so thetechniques must be developed by unscientifictrial and error. This development could be ac-celerated if significant investments were madeto evaluate, document, and communicate theenvironmental education efforts that are underway. Having neither a strong scientific foun-dation nor substantial documentation of thecauses of program success and failure, envi-ronmental education projects have a difficulttime competing with other projects for fundsand personnel.

Technologies intended to develop renewableresources are likely to fail if they are based oninadequate knowledge. Thus, both fundamen-tal and applied research are necessary compo-nents of any strategy to sustain tropical forestresources. Fundamental research is the foun-dation for applied research, while applied re-search is needed to improve existing forestrytechnologies and develop new ones.

Many experts conclude that sustaining trop-ical forests is not so much a technical problemas it is an institutional problem. Thus, researchis especially needed to determine the interac-tions between the social and biophysical fac-tors of tropical forest systems. Some knowledgeabout social and institutional factors is beingused in resource development projects sup-ported by U.S. agencies. However, this knowl-


edge usually is based on personal experience,not on careful research. A substantial increasein truly interdisciplinary research could en-hance the likelihood that institutional changeswould result in sustainable forest resourcedevelopment.

The techniques used to manage tropical for-est resources are generally based on trial-and-error experience gained in past centuries. Theyhave benefited little from the rapid advancesin fundamental and applied biology that haveoccurred recently. For most tropical foresttypes, techniques have not been developedthat can:

●

●

●

produce the products, environmental serv-ices, and employment opportunities thatlocal people need, andsustain the productivity of the resourcebase, andbe profitable enough to motivate people torisk their scarce capital, labor, and land.

Applied research to improve existing technol-ogies probably will not suffice to meet thesegoals. Innovations based on new fundamentalresearch will also be necessary.

Low levels and short periods of funding aremajor constraints on fundamental research intropical areas, but these are not the only rea-sons why basic knowledge is inadequate to sus-tain tropical forests. Most fundamental re-search in tropical biology has been designedto develop evolutionary theory, and relativelylittle work has been done or is being done onecological theory.

Another problem is poor communicationamong researchers and between researchersand technology users. Most forestry and biol-ogy research organizations reward scientists,including those working on applied research,for publishing in journals that technology usersseldom read. In fact, few journals exist that aredesigned to communicate research results toresource developers. The U.S. Forest Serviceperiodical The Caribbean Forester once servedthis purpose but has been discontinued. As aresult of poor communication, the pace of in-novation is slower than it needs to be, tech-niques are reinvented, some mistakes are con-

tinually repeated, and potentially successfultechnologies spread slowly, if at all.

Technology TransferThe experience of U.S. forestry organizations

shows that many potentially profitable tech-niques languish for lack of effective technologytransfer among scientists, between scientistsand technology users, and among technologyusers. Thus, it is appropriate that internationaldevelopment assistance organizations focustheir efforts not on promoting particular tech-nologies but rather on building local institu-tions’ capacities to choose, receive, adapt, anddeliver technologies appropriate to local cir-cumstances.

An important constraint on development as-sistance effectiveness in forestry is the lack ofcoordination among many bilateral and multi-lateral projects. Coordination of resource de-velopment projects so that each project contrib-utes the appropriate actions at the appropriatetime to accomplish long-range plans should bethe responsibility of tropical governments. Butdonor agencies usually fund the projects theyidentify rather than projects identified in somelonger term planning process. One approachto improve planning and coordination of tech-nology transfer is the use of ad hoc interna-tional committees that are separate from thepolicies and problems of individual govern-ment agencies or development assistance or-ganizations. Committees such as the newly in-stituted Coordination for Development in Af-rica could assist tropical governments in de-veloping long-range plans and in identifyingand recommending projects for the various in-ternational organizations.

The OTA assessment identified a number ofnecessary conditions for successful technologytransfer. * For most technologies, the lack ofthese conditions seems to be constrainingwider adaptation and adoption:

● Technology is transferred most effective-ly by direct people-to-people actions. Peo-ple who are to adapt and apply the tech-

*These conditions were a result of discussions among OTAstaff; Roger Moeller, AID; and Gary Eilerts, AppropriateTechnology International,

Ch.1—Summary ● 2 3

nology need to learn it directly from peo-ple who have experience applying it.The technology needs to be adapted at theusers’ end to local biophysical and socio-economic conditions.Well-qualified people with knowledgeabout the technology are needed on thesource end of the transfer, and receptive,capable people are needed on the receiv-ing end. These people may be local trans-fer agents or they may be the end users.Another type of actor, the “facilitator,” isalso necessary. Facilitators understand thetechnology transfer process, including themarket for the technology and its productsand the political, social, and economicconstraints and opportunities that affectall the other actors.Users and transfer agents should be in-volved in choosing the technologies andin planning and implementing the transferprocess so that the technology and thetransfer meet actual needs and are appro-priate for the local situation.All parties involved—source, transfer

agents, facilitators, and end users—mustfeel that they are winners and must, infact, be winners. Each actor’s self interestsshould be identified at the start of the tech-nology transfer process so that they canbe addressed.Each participant must be aware of subse-quent steps in the transfer process so hisor her actions are appropriate to the latersteps. This requires early definition ofroles for each person involved.The environment for technology demon-strations should be similar to the environ-ment that will exist during subsequentsteps of the transfer process. Pilot transferprojects should not be unrealistically easy.The initial commitment of resources to theprocess should be sufficient to carry thetechnology transfer until it is self-support-ing.The transfer process must include mech-anisms through which all participants cancontribute effectively to interim evalua-tions and improvements.

ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR CONGRESS

Tropical forest resources represent a greatopportunity for sustained development becausethey are fundamentally renewable. However,too little such development is occurring. In-stead, the productivity of the forests continuesto be diminished. The U.S. Congress has al-ready helped to sustain tropical forests bydirecting AID and the U.S. representatives tointernational organizations to give forest re-source development higher priority in devel-opment assistance programs. To expand thisprogress, Congress could take actions thatwould enhance tropical governments’ abilitiesto plan and coordinate resource developmentprojects.

The underlying causes of forest resource de-terioration are institutional, social, and eco-nomic. Consequently, the reforms needed tosupport sustainable resource development canonly come from the governments and people

of the tropical nations. However, the UnitedStates can help stimulate such reforms. SomeU.S. technologies, such as Landsat imagery, al-ready supply vital information to improve re-source development decisions. U.S. diploma-cy—for example, supporting the United Na-tions Environment Program and UNESCO’sMAB program—also can help to foster under-standing of resource problems and coordinateinternational efforts to resolve them.

Congress can address technical constraintsmore directly. U.S. and international organiza-tions that Congress can influence have the ca-pability to: 1) develop technologies to producegoods and services for local people while con-serving forest productivity, and 2) assist trop-ical organizations and individuals in develop-ing, adapting, and implementing such technol-ogies. U.S. agencies that are applying this type


of expertise include AID, the Forest Service,the National Academy of Sciences, the Nation-al Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service,and the Soil Conservation Service. Some com-mercial firms, private voluntary organizations,and U.S. universities also have expertise rele-vant to sustaining tropical forest resources.

Congress has ways to influence multilateralbanks and U.N. agencies, some obvious (e.g.,through allocation of funds) and some subtle(e.g., using the prestige of Congress to givecredibility to a new idea). The final chapter de-scribes opportunities for congressional actionto:

●

●

●

●

●

expand and coordinate developmentassistance,encourage resource development plan-ning,improve tropical forest research and de-velopment efforts,protect biological diversity, andexpand U.S. expertise in tropical forest re-sources.

The U.S. tropical forests are discussed sepa-rately in this summary.

Expand and CoordinateDevelopment Assistance

Issue (Prjects)

Development assistance progress is slowand the gains are insufficient to sustain trop-ical forest resources. Many opportunities ex-ist to enhance gains already made, but con-gressional vigilance is necessary to ensurethat forestry projects receive an appropriateshare of U.S. development assistance fundsand that other types of projects complementthe forestry efforts.

The Foreign Assistance Act directs develop-ment assistance organizations in which theUnited States participates to give higher priori-ty to protecting against the loss and degrada-tion of tropical forests. Accordingly, AID, theWorld Bank, the U.N. Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO), and some other multilat-eral organizations have increased funding in

recent years for forest related projects. How-ever, many opportunities for use of develop-ment assistance to sustain tropical forest re-sources are not being pursued adequately. Ex-amples of such opportunities are:

●

●

●

●

emphasize agroforestry, innovative crops,and other techniques to sustain permanentagriculture on relatively poor soils;promote reforestation and management ofnatural forests to sustain environmentalservices and produce fuelwood, construc-tion wood, polewood, and nonwood prod-ucts;stress institution-building to enable tropi-cal governments to exercise improved con-trol over timber concession operators; andsupport livestock projects that do not re-sult in deforestation or forest degradation.

Option

To encourage expanded support for forestryprojects, committees of Congress could contin-ue oversight hearings requesting AID officialsand U.S. representatives to multilateral devel-opment assistance organizations to testify onthe extent to which assistance practices accom-plish the objectives set forth in section 118 ofthe Foreign Assistance Act.

Issue (Coordination)

Development assistance agencies general-ly do not coordinate their projects effective-ly at the country or regional level. To improvetheir effectiveness, projects could be orga-nized as steps in comprehensive strategies designed to develop sustainable forest resourceuse systems. Individual development assist-ance agencies have neither developed nor co-ordinated such strategies.

The reasons why host governments and in-ternational assistance organizations do notcoordinate activities more effectively are com-plex. But coordination could play a key role inimproving the cost effectiveness of U.S. assis-tance. If the Congress decides that improvingcost effectiveness is worth relinquishing somedegree of U.S. control over what projects arefunded, it could mandate increased U.S. effort


to enhance the tropical nations’ abilities tocoordinate the work of development assistanceorganizations.

Options

One way to begin such a fundamental shiftin the development assistance process wouldbe to direct the Department of State to assesswhether various tropical nations are able andpolitically ready to develop long-term actionplans for sustained forest resource develop-ment. Another mechanism is to create ad hoccommittees of experts from donor nations andtropical nations to work together to identifyproblems and plan regional forest developmentstrategies.

Encourage Resource DeveIopmentPlanning

ISSue

Although resource development planningtechnologies can improve the sustainabilityof tropical forest development, they are sel-dom applied to their full potential.

Resource development planning techniquescan be used to identify development activitiesthat match the available human and natural re-sources. The techniques can give decisionmak-ers a clearer picture of the social, economic,and environmental implications of a particulartype of development on a particular site. Also,they can be used to determine the best locationsfor protection of natural areas to maintain bio-logical diversity while providing tangible ben-efits. But the application of planning is ham-pered by shortages of information on how bio-physical, social, and economic factors interact.

Options

To encourage the use of resource develop-ment planning, Congress could maintain theavailability of low-cost Landsat images to trop-ical governments. Congress also could directAID to expand its Environmental Profiles toinclude macro-level land classification and col-lection of information for social and institu-tional analyses. Further, Congress could directU.S. representatives to multilateral develop-

ment banks to promote environmental assess-ments at an early stage of project planning.This request could be followed up with hear-ings to determine whether the banks are usingenvironmental assessment procedures effec-tively.

Improve Tropical Forest Researchand Market Development

Issue (Research)

Fundamental research, applied research,and technology implementation related totropical forests are not well coordinated.Moreover, interactions among factors thatconstrain forest resource development arepoorly understood. Consequently, resourcedevelopment projects often fail and technol-ogies that seem to succeed in trials fail tospread beyond demonstration areas. Re-search on tropical forest resources needs tobe more interdisciplinary and more closelyrelated to technology implementation.

Much work remains to develop profitabletechnologies that can supply local people’sneeds while simultaneously sustaining forestproductivity. New techniques need to be basedon improved understanding of the biological,economic, and cultural factors affecting forestresources. This calls for interdisciplinary re-search based on an adequate understanding ofthe needs of technology implementors.

Options

Initially, Congress could conduct hearings todetermine whether the research organizationsthat receive U.S. funds give adequate priorityto interdisciplinary tropical forestry that linksresearch and development. Special attentionshould be paid to disseminating research re-sults. Congress could increase support foragencies where such research and develop-ment is stressed.

The other approaches would be for Congressto appropriate funds specifically to supportUNESCO’s MAB program or to amend the For-eign Assistance Act to include funds for the

25-287 0 - 84 - 3


United Nations University. Both promote in-terdisciplinary research. Additionally, Con-gress could amend the existing legislation thatallocates funds for tropical agriculture to in-clude tropical forestry and agroforestry explic-itly. Congress also could determine the feas-ibility of establishing a forestry research pro-gram at existing Consultative Group on Inter-national Agricultural Research (CGIAR) institu-tions. Congress could establish a trust fund forthe Forestry Department of FAO of the UnitedNations specifically to support improved com-munication among researchers and technologyimplementors.

Issue (Market Development)

In many areas sustaining tropical forest re-sources will depend on local markets for for-est products. People seldom attempt to sus-tain the productivity of natural resourcesused for subsistence products because theseappear to be “free.” Government agenciestypically are not aware of the natural forest’spotential to support rural communities.

Tropical forest ecosystems house complexassociations of vegetation, wildlife, and otherpotential resources that could be developed.Development of markets, along with researchon ways to manage the unused resources forsustained yields, could help motivate local peo-ple and local resource agencies to manage theforests effectively. It could be possible in someplaces to maintain biological diversity and si-multaneously support profitable rural develop-ment. However, such market development islikely to reduce subsistence opportunities forlandless poor people.

Options

Congress could direct and fund the U.S. For-est Products Laboratory to develop new prod-ucts and market information to use tropicaltree species and increase its efforts to trans-fer technologies. Similarly, AID could be di-rected to expand its support for synthesis anddissemination of information on underusedtropical forest resources and to assist in devel-oping markets for those products that can beproduced on a sustainable basis.

Project Biological Diversity

Issue

Benefits from preserving the biological di-versity of tropical forests accrue to society asa whole, including future generations in theU.S. and elsewhere, yet the costs are borneby the people of the tropical countries.

Developing new markets and ways of har-vesting and using tropical forest species even-tually may make it possible to manage naturalforests profitably and sustainably. But until themarkets and technologies are developed, it isnecessary to protect and maintain undisturbedportions of these biologically diverse ecosys-tems for future generations.

OptonsCongress could take two approaches to help

maintain biological diversity. First, it couldconduct hearings on its recent amendment tothe Foreign Assistance Act which directs AID,in concert with other appropriate agencies, todevelop a comprehensive U.S. strategy to main-tain biological diversity.

Additionally, Congress could support thecreation of an international fund to subsidizethe establishment and maintenance of tropicalparks and protected areas. Money for such afund could be contributed by a variety ofsources, including transfers from existingassistance agencies (e.g., AID, multilateraldevelopment banks, and U.N. agencies), in-creased export taxes and import duties on trop-ical forest products, and donations from pri-vate foundations and multinational corpor-ations.

Expand U.S. Expertise in TropicalForest Resources

Issue

U.S. tropical forest resource expertise iswidely scattered and is not being developedor used effectively.

The United States has recognized expertise(both individuals and organizations) in manyresource fields, including reforestation, water-


shed management, commercial forestry, re-source inventory and mapping, resource devel-opment planning, and information collection,processing, and dissemination. But only a fewof these experts or organizations have the ex-perience or training to apply their skills directlyto the increasingly important field of tropicalforest resources.

options

Congress could modify the organic legisla-tion of those U.S. agencies whose actions af-fect the tropical nations or the U.S. tropical ter-ritories to say that tropical forests are valuablerenewable resources and to direct each agen-cy to conduct its activities without contributing

to the unplanned or unmanaged conversion ordegradation of tropical forests. Further, Con-gress could direct Federal agencies to encour-age employees to participate in internationalassistance efforts under existing laws or itcould amend legislation to encourage such in-terchange. Congress could encourage partici-pation of the U.S. private sector to develop andimplement technologies to sustain tropical for-est resources. Congress could contribute to theUnited Nations Associate Experts Programwhereby young U.S. professionals can gainfield experience in tropical forestry. Congressalso could designate U.S. centers of excellencein tropical forest resources to develop andmake available U.S. expertise in tropical re-source issues.

Introduction

Less than 1 percent of the world’s tropicalforests fall under U.S. jurisdiction. These for-ests are located primarily in Puerto Rico, theU.S. Virgin Islands, Hawaii, and the U.S. west-ern Pacific territories of American Samoa andMicronesia (which includes Guam, the Com-monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands).As Congress becomes more involved in effortsto sustain tropical forest resources worldwide,it has reason to pay particular attention to thetropical forests in territories under its care.

Despite their small total land area, the U.S.tropical forests are important resources to localpeople and economies: they supply food, fod-der, fuel, and employment; reduce erosion; andprotect ocean fisheries. Most wood products,however, are imported to these areas. For ex-ample, Puerto Rico imported $400 millionworth of wood products in 1981. Perhaps themost important value of forests on these trop-ical islands is regulation of water regimes. Forinstance, because of deforestation the U.S. Vir-gin Islands no longer has permanent streams.Most other islands also have experienced prob-lems with water quality and quantity,

Only in Hawaii has forestry been made anintegral part of the region’s economic develop-ment. To protect watershed values, most for-ested land in Hawaii is classified under con-servation zoning which restricts or prohibitsconversion to land uses other than forest. Near-ly half of Hawaii’s designated “commercial for-est land” is owned by the State. Since 1962, theHawaii Department of Land and Natural Re-sources has followed multiple-use programs formanaging water, timber, livestock forage, rec-reation, and wildlife habitat on these lands. Inaddition, two of the three programs of the U.S.Forest Service Institute of Pacific Islands For-estry are dedicated to research on Hawaiianforests.

Even though forestry problems still exist inthe Hawaiian islands (e.g., the recent diebackof native forests, endangered status of numer-ous native plants and animals) considerable ef-fort has been made to mitigate these problems.A number of organizations working to sustaintropical forest resources are based in Hawaii,including the Nitrogen-Fixing Tree Associa-tion, the Bioenergy Development Corp., theEast/West Center, and the College of TropicalAgriculture and Human Resources at the Uni-versity of Hawaii. These are among the sources


of expertise housed in Hawaii that can be ap-plied to the U.S. tropical territories and to theworld’s tropical forest resources.

Forest resources in the U.S. Caribbean andPacific tropical territories are not receiving asimilar level of attention. The forests have suf-fered degradation in the pastas a result of poorland-use practices. More recently, incentivesfor local people to undertake and improve agri-cultural or forestry activities have been re-duced by dependence on U.S. Federal incomesupports and by economic development focus-ing on industrial growth. This has resulted ina movement away from agriculture and cor-responding increases in abandoned agricultur-al land and unmanaged secondary forests, Inmany places, runoff and erosion resulting frompast forest loss threaten water supplies andcoastal marine resources. With forest resourcedevelopment technologies, much of the pro-ductivity of this degraded and abandoned landcould be restored to support economic growth.

Although current overexploitation of forestresources is not a problem in most of the ter-ritories, the remaining forests are vulnerableas populations and expectations rise. Futureproblems could be averted, however, if sustain-able forest use techniques could be integratedinto strategies for regional economic develop-ment.

The Caribbean Territories: Puerto Ricoand the U.S. Virgin Islands

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is thelargest contiguous tropical area under U.S.jurisdiction (see fig. 7). At least one-third of itsland area is under forest cover–mostly second-growth trees, fruit tree plantations, and shadetrees in coffee-growing regions. Because PuertoRico has a relatively large forest area, a relative-ly well-developed road system, and secure landtenure, it has significant potential for commer-cial forestry to supply its domestic economy.About 200,000 acres in Puerto Rico have beenidentified as suitable for commercial forestry.However, large-scale forestry is hindered byhigh land prices and a law limiting the acreage

that can be owned by an individual or corpora-tion.

Opportunities exist to develop small-scaleforest industries to serve domestic marketsusing technologies that require comparative-ly low capital outlay, such as the portablesawmills now used in Puerto Rican Common-wealth forests. The sawmills are one compo-nent of a Puerto Rico Department of NaturalResources program to bring private landhold-ers into commercial forestry. This programrelies heavily on U.S. Federal cost-sharing pro-grams and on funding from the U.S. ForestService’s State and Private Forestry grants. in-creased support for these activities could en-courage plantation forestry and increase Puer-to Rican self-sufficiency in forest products.

The U.S. Virgin Islands have little remain-ing forest and no forest industry but are usedextensively for tourism. Lack of forest manage-ment and a growing population in the U.S. Vir-gin Islands have disturbed local water regimes. “Thus, water must be shipped from Puerto Ricoor desalinized from sea water at great expense.Reforestation and management of island water-sheds could reduce runoff rates, decrease ero-sion, and enhance aquifer recharge.

The main constraints to sustaining tropicalforest resources in the U.S. Caribbean are lackof support for existing forest resource develop-ment institutions and lack of a skilled cadre oflocal resource managers. The U.S. Forest Serv-ice maintains a forestry research station, theInstitute of Tropical Forestry (ITF). It alsomanages the Caribbean National Forest andsupports a State and Private Forestry cooper-ative program with the Puerto Rico Depart-ment of Natural Resources and the VirginIslands Department of Agriculture. At a timewhen U.S. Forest Service research needs to beexpanded to include agroforestry, watershedprotection, and other areas of importance tolandholders and the public, its research fundsand staff size have been reduced.

In the short term, people with general tropi-cal forestry expertise can be attracted to workin the U.S. Caribbean, but in the long term an


Figure 7.—Location of Puerto Rico and the U.S Virgin Islands

H a i t i

PuertoRico

\

U.S. VirginIslands

/

● ✎Dominican ●

Republ ic●

Panama

SOURCE: Off Ice of Technology Assessment.

established method to train people to manage ies with the nature of each island. Few trulytropical natural resources specific to that re-gion is needed. Increased environmental edu-cation, scholarships, and creation of a naturalresource management curriculum at the Uni-versity of Puerto Rico could help train the nec-essary resource managers. In the meantime,adequate Federal support of Puerto Rico andU.S. Virgin Islands forestry programs throughthe State Forestry Grants of the State and Pri-vate Forestry Division of the U.S. Forest Serv-ice are needed to stimulate development, dem-onstration, and coordination of desirable for-estry practices.

The Western Pacific: Micronesiaand American Samoa

U.S. tropical forests exist on some 2,000islands spread over 3 million square miles inthe western Pacific (see fig. 8). Forest cover var-

undisturbed forests exist, but considerableareas of secondary forest have regenerated. Lit-tle of this is managed to provide forest prod-ucts. Fuelwood and some nonwood forestproducts are harvested for local use, but mostwood products are imported.

As in the U.S. Caribbean, the major value offorest resources in the U.S. western Pacific isnot timber but regulation of water regimes andprotection of biologically rich coastal ecosys-tems. Island people in this region depend heav-ily for both subsistence and trade on marineorganisms that feed and spawn in mangrovehabitats, lagoons, and coral reefs. Unplannedexploitation of upland forests can substantial-ly reduce the productivity of these coastalareas. This already is occurring on some is-lands.

Transportation costs, limited land areas, andinsecure or communal land tenure limit the re-

30 • Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources

Figure 8.— Location of the U.S. Western Pacific Territories

he

Equator

American S a m o a

gion’s industrial forestry opportunities. How- ple, improved small-scale charcoal production,ever, small-scale management, harvesting, and if developed and promoted wisely, could in-processing technologies could be applied to the crease the importance of wood as a sustainablesecondary forests and abandoned coconut energy source in the U.S. Pacific. Productionplantations to increase their provision of food, from existing agroforestry lands could be en-fuel, employment, and other goods. For exam- hanced with new techniques. Coconut shell


Photo credit: C. Whitese//

Opportunities exist for small-scale forestry operationsoriented toward domestic markets. This small sawmilloperates on Ponape, Federated State of Micronesia

charcoal can be used as a filter in various in-dustrial and pharmaceutical uses and could beexported from these islands.

Any forest development in the U.S. westernPacific territories, however, will require carefulplanning and management to avoid furtherdegradation of the resources and to ensure thesustainable production of both goods and serv-ices provided by the forests. This requires up-to-date and comprehensive data bases on trop-ical forest resources, their uses, and the poten-tials for their development. U.S. Federal agen-cies can play a major role in creating these databases.

Integrating forestry into development plan-ning in the U.S. western Pacific will requirepersonnel with substantial knowledge in trop-ical resource management and strong local in-stitutions through which they can work. Yet,no natural resource management educationprograms exist in the U.S. western Pacific ter-ritories, and few of the students who receivetraining at U.S. or other institutions return towork in their own regions, Actions to help sup-ply needed expertise include creating a naturalresource management curriculum at the Uni-versity of Guam and increasing scholarshipsfor potential resource managers.

Additional extension services also could beuseful. Developing a group of local, grass rootsnaturalists with generalized training to assistscientists, spread information on appropriateland uses, and help integrate new technologieswith local customs could be a joint undertak-ing of U.S. and local western Pacific organi-zations.

Issues and Options for Congress

The primary requirement for sustaining trop-ical forest resources in the U.S. tropical ter-ritories is the development of indigenous orga-nizations capable of managing the islands’ re-sources. Because the territories’ governmentsstill depend on U.S. support and their naturalresource agencies are generally new, small,and undersupported, the U.S. retains a sub-stantial role in both the development of theresource organizations and in the developmentand implementation of forest-sustaining tech-nologies.

Option

Congress could direct the U.S. Forest Serv-ice to 1) expand the scope of research andtechnology development in its research insti-tutions with jurisdiction in the U.S. tropicalterritories and 2) increase cooperative effortswith local governments.

Development of forestry management plans,in the short run, will require technical assist-ance provided by U.S. expertise. Similarly,adaptation of technologies to conditions in theU.S. tropical territories requires Federal assist-ance. In the long run Federal aid could be re-placed when more people are trained in natu-ral resource management at local institutions.Development of programs to encourage privateforestry appropriate for each island probablyalso will require Federal assistance. The Fed-eral organizations responsible for assistingforestry development in the U.S. tropical ter-ritories are too small and their focus is too lim-ited to give the impetus needed for local de-velopment. More research, more forestry tech-nology transfer, and greater response to thechanging needs of the territories are required.

32 . Technolog/is to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources

Optiona

Congress could support natural resourceagencies in U.S. territories by increasingfunding for the cooperative State and PrivateForestry programs of the U.S. Forest Serviceinstitutes in Puerto Rico and Hawaii. Con-gress could also create a program of grantsto territorial governments to encourage in-vestment in privately owned forests.

to forest owners. Replacing these subsidieswith a program of grants administered by theterritorial governments would provide the flex-ibility needed to respond to each island terri-tory’s unique cultural, economic, and ecologi-cal characteristics. Furthermore, it would en-courage the development of a constituencyconcerned with sustaining the forest resources.

The Federal Government subsidizes privateforestry with cost-sharing and direct payments

Chapter 2

Importance of Tropical Forests

PageHighlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Social and Economic Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Water and Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Hydrology in Tropical Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Local Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Tropical Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Basic Human Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Wood for Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Other Basic Human Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Commercial Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Wood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Products for Medicine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Other Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Migratory Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Political Implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Importance to Future Generations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Chapter p references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Table

Table No. Page2. Estimated Annual Person-day Requirements for Various Forestry Operations . . 47

List of Figures

Figure No. Page9. Tropical Forests and Woodlands Are Located at Latitudes South of 23.5° N

and North of 23.5° S, and at Other Frost-Free Localities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3810. Age-Sex Composition of More Developed

and Less Developed Regions, 1980 and 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3911. The Role of Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Importance of Tropical

Chapter 2

Forests

The potentially renewable productivity oftropical forests will become increasingly im-portant over the next 30 years as the tropical .nations’ population grows from 2 billion to4 billion people.

Tropical forests support economic develop- .ment. They sustain production on land thatrapidly loses productivity if they are re-moved and they can restore the productivityof degraded land.

●

Economic development in tropical nationsis important to the people of the UnitedStates for humanitarian reasons and becauseof our economic ties with these nations.

Industrial wood and other forest products

earn substantial foreign exchange for tropi-cal nations that trade with the United States.

Tropical forest resources provide food, fuel,medicines, and other basic human needs formillions of people who live in and near them.

Where fuel wood is not available, agricultur-al lands are damaged as people have to burncrop residues and manure that would other-wise be used as fertilizer.

The highly diverse tropical forests containplants and animals that have great potentialvalue for medicine, agriculture, and otherindustries. These will be more valuable asindustries come to rely more on biotech-nology.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONTEXT

Tropical nations face a dilemma. Forestsmust be cut and cleared to increase productionin the near term, but the loss of forests canreduce productivity in the long term.

About 76 nations, containing about half theworld’s population (2 billion), are located en-tirely or largely within the tropical latitudes(fig. 9). These nations are characterized by fast-growing populations, low per capita incomes,and agrarian economies. Some of their agricul-ture is subsistence farming in upland areaswhere soils have low fertility or are dry. Someis commercial agriculture on the more fertileand generally irrigated alluvial plains of majorriver valleys. The success of both types of agri-culture is linked to the status of 1.2 billion hec-tares (ha) of moist tropical forest and 800 mil-lion ha* of drier open woodlands.

● This report refers to land area in hectares (ha), One hectareequals 2.47 acres. One square kilometer equals 100 ha. Onesquare mile equals 259 ha. Thus 1.2 billion ha of moist tropicalforest is 3 billion acres or 4.6 million square miles.

Because the population structure in tropicalcountries is dominated by young people, foodand other needs are growing faster than popu-lation (fig. 10). For example, food productionin developing nations needs to increase byabout 4 percent per year, while population isgrowing at about 2 percent. The age structurealso means that population growth has a built-in momentum that will prevent the numbersfrom stabilizing until well into the next cen-tury, if then (80).

Part of the needed gains in agricultural pro-duction can come from improved irrigation,crop breeding, and technical inputs that en-hance agricultural yields. But average yieldsprobably cannot increase every year by 4 per-cent. Two percent gains may be possible, butto sustain even that rate over several decadeswill be very difficult. Consequently, the amountof land farmed and grazed will have to beexpanded and people will continue to clear for-ests to produce food and other goods.

37

Ch. 2—Importance of Tropical Forests . 39

I I I 1 I I I I

I

o

o0


Population growth rates and the number ofyoung people in tropical populations also resultin a rapidly growing labor force. But in mosttropical nations, it does not seem likely thatindustry and commercial agriculture will beable to sustain growth of over 2 percent peryear in job opportunities. Thus, substantialnumbers of people will turn to the forests—either clearing them for conventional farmingand grazing, or managing them for forestry andagroforestry production.

The need for food and jobs is direct and com-pelling, while the environmental services pro-vided by tropical forest resources affect tropi-cal people indirectly and forest loss becomesapparent slowly. In the long term, tropical peo-ple need the watershed protection, preserva-tion of habitat and genetic diversity providedby the forests (fig. 11).

One approach to accommodate the conflict-ing needs of tropical people is to accelerate eco-nomic development of resources outside theforest to provide food, goods, jobs, and foreignexchange. This would reduce the need to ex-ploit and clear tropical forests. While this mayhave the greatest effect in the long run, thesetypes of technologies (e.g., improving tropicalagriculture) are outside the scope of thisassessment.

A second approach is to direct the use of for-est resources so that both sets of needs—pro-vision of food, jobs, and national income andmaintenance of the forests’ environmentalservices—are fulfilled.

WATER AND CLIMATE

Hydrology in Tropical Regions

Most rainfall in the Tropics occurs where thenortheast and southwest trade winds converge.This Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone is intrin-sically unstable, oscillating to the north andsouth of the Equator, causing an erratic rain-fall pattern with sharp seasonal contrasts (49).When tropical rains do fall, storms are moreviolent than those in temperate areas. Morewater falls per storm, quickly saturating thesoil. Consequently, a larger proportion of therainfall runs off the soil surface. Furthermore,in tropical storms raindrops are larger, thushaving great kinetic energy and high erosivepower (1,59). For example, in areas of theAmazon Basin where annual rainfall averages2,100 millimeters per year and land slope isabout 15 percent, erosion removes only about360 kilograms of soil per hectare per year fromforested land. But after the forest is cleared,erosion increases 100 times (43).

Tropical forests protect soil and modulatewater flows in several ways. The canopy ofleaves intercepts rainfall and provides tempor-

ary water storage. In addition, organic litter onthe soil surface and the porous topsoil storewater. The organic litter in closed tropical for-ests is typically 10 to 30 centimeters thick andthe topsoil has a high organic material content(49,61). These mechanisms minimize the im-pacts of intense rainstorms, reduce peak storm-flows, and help mitigate flooding.

The effects of forest cover on streamflowhave been measured in tropical regions. In amoist montane forest in Kenya, for example,water measurements were taken on two adja-cent 600 ha valleys for over 25 years. When onevalley was cleared for a tea plantation—leavingthe steeper slopes and riverbanks under forest—the immediate effect was a fourfold increasein peak stormflow. Even after installing con-servation practices (e.g., contour planting, cut-off drains, cover crops), stormflows remaineddouble that measured in the undisturbed forest,although the total flows were small (49). Simi-larly, an experiment was conducted in Indiaon a forest which had been reduced to waste-land by fuelwood cutting and overgrazing.When the severely eroded Siwalik hills of

Ch. 2—importance of Tropical Forests • 41

Figure Il.—The Role of Forests

1..Ecological effects

SOURCE: World Bank, Forestry Sector Policy Paper (Washington, D. C.: World Bank, 1978).

25-287 0 - 84 - 4


Chandigah were reforested, the peak rate offlow from the watershed was reduced 73 per-cent and total flow was reduced 28 percent (73).

In dry environments where tree canopies areopen, forests are less effective in protecting thesoil and modulating water flows, but their in-fluence is still beneficial. Open forests provideshade and act as windbreaks. They reduce soilsurface temperatures and wind erosion and sta-bilize streambanks. They can anchor shiftingsand dunes that can otherwise destroy crop-lands and irrigation systems, In coastal plains,trees can prevent the rise of saline ground wa-ter. Trees in arid areas, however, may throughevapotranspiration leave less water availablefor human uses (49).

Local Climate

Tropical forests also can affect local climate.In moist forests with closed canopies, tran-spiration of water extracted from the soil andthe direct evaporation of intercepted rainfallcool the surrounding air. The resulting cool-ing effect is pronounced, increasing the occur-

rence and persistence of mists. Thus, the heatflux from a closed tropical forest in the dry sea-son is only half that from similar land coveredwith subsistence crops or rough pasture (49).Crops cultivated in and near the forest are like-ly to enjoy greater soil moisture content thanthose on cleared land, provided that they areplanted beyond the root-spread of the trees.Similarly, windbreaks and shade trees can im-prove microclimates for crops in dry areas.

Some mountain forests in low rainfall areascollect useful amounts of water by condensationfrom mists and release the water as “drip-fall,”sometimes giving rise to perennial streams (49).However, the belief that forests actually causerain is questionable. (One recent study in theAmazon reports that a significant part of therain falling there is water evaporated from theforest, but the results have not been verifiedby other studies.) The dessication that is so fre-quently a consequence of large-scale forest des-truction is due to the hydrological damagecaused by loss of infiltration and undergroundstorage. In general, forests thus have a criticallyimportant influence on the reception of rain-fall, but not on its generation (49).

TROPICAL AGRICULTURE

The populations of tropical nations generallyare concentrated on the coastal plains and inthe valleys of the great rivers. Most forests inthese areas already have been cleared for crop-lands. Much of this land is irrigated by oldsystems that control the drainage of seasonalfloodwaters. Land that is irrigated with newersystems uses large dams to store excess flood-water and can produce more than one crop peryear,

The most productive tropical agriculture isbased on annual flooding, but it fails when thefloods are severe. New high-yielding crop vari-eties of the Green Revolution are short-stemmed and so require precise control ofwater levels. Excessive flooding also can resultin shortages of reservoir water for irrigationin the following dry season. Further, the ac-

celerated siltation that accompanies abnormalfloods can fill reservoirs, canals, and streamchannels, reducing the precision of water con-trol in subsequent years. Thus, the Green Rev-olution not only increased production from thebest tropical croplands but also increased sus-ceptibility to damage by floods and siltation.This makes watershed protection provided bytropical forests even more important.

Unfortunately, recent decades have been atime of rapid deforestation in many tropical na-tions. Consequently, river flows have becomemore erratic, flood damage to crops and struc-tures has been severe, and siltation of water-ways and reservoirs has increased (49).

The modulating effect of forests on stream-flow and the consequences for agriculture are

most evident when the protective forests havebeen destroyed. In Pakistan, for example, some70 million people depend on 14 million ha ofirrigated land in the Indus Basin for food. Theirrigation depends on river flow, but deforesta-tion on the Indus’ headlands has resulted in in-creased peak flows during the monsoons, fol-lowed by water shortages during the dry sea-son, With World Bank funding, two dams, theMangla and the Tarbella, were constructed forhydropower, flood control, and irrigation.Careful studies of sedimentation rates hadindicated that these dams would repay con-struction costs by providing benefits for manydecades. However, parts of both watershedshave suffered uncontrolled deforestation and

these reservoirs are filling with sediment attwice the expected rate (49]. Similarly, siltationis expected to reduce the lifetime of the Hira-kud reservoir in India from 110 years to 35years (57).

In India, the area of agricultural land dam-aged each year by floods continues to increaseas deforestation occurs. The area of moist for-est cleared each year is about 147,000 ha (29),and the area flooded has risen 18 percent overthe past 10 years, from 22 million to 26 millionha (72). Clearing of forests over the past 20years in India has caused flood and erosiondamage estimated at U.S.$36 billion in 1982.This estimate includes loss of topsoil, loss of

44 . Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources

nutrients, loss of property to floods, and short-ened reservoir lifetimes (57).

Flood control and irrigation also are impor-tant in Central America. By the year 2000,Costa Rica and Panama plan to expand theirirrigated areas by 180 percent and 340 percent,respectively (45). Yet, in these countries defor-estation is rapid and uncontrolled. In manyCentral American locations, water needs forirrigation, consumption, industry, and naviga-tion are reaching the limits of low-season flows.Half of the region’s forests have been cleared inthe past 25 years and water flows are becomingmore erratic as deforestation continues (26,45,77]. Similarly, in Africa along a broad belt bor-dering the equatorial humid tropical forest andalong the Gulf of Guinea, the forests are beingdestroyed. Consequently, several nations in theregion are expected to suffer agricultural watershortages before the end of the century (77).

In addition to watershed protection for thecurrent year’s crops, forests have longer termvalues for agriculture. Farmers throughout theworld are using more high-yielding crop vari-eties. In fact, about half the increase in agri-cultural production in recent decades can beattributed to plant breeding (81). The relianceon high-yielding varieties has reduced the ge-netic diversity of agricultural systems and soincreased the risk of catastrophic damage fromdiseases, pests, and other stresses. Yet, no greatincrease in crop failures has occurred. This is

due to new methods of crop protection and theability of crop breeders to respond to threatsquickly by breeding new traits into the crops—traits sometimes obtained from wild relatives

in the tropical forests. For example, a recentimprovement in resistance of peanuts to leaf-spot was derived from breeding crop varietieswith wild forms from the Amazon region. Theestimated benefit from this one improvementis $500 million per year (47).

The peanut is just one of many crops withancestors in tropical forest areas (58). Othercultivated tropical plants include plantains,yams, tare, cassava, sugarcane, potatoes, andcowpeas. Tree crops with tropical forest an-cestors and relatives include oil palm, rubber,coffee, cocoa, and many important fruits.These tropical plants account for at least halfthe calories consumed by people in the Tropics(47), as well as many commodities importantto the U.S. economy. Future gains in produc-tivity from breeding these important agricul-tural crops may depend on the genes in theirwild progenitors and, thus, on the continuedexistence of tropical forests and associated nat-ural areas.

For the people of the Tropics, damage fromincreased flooding and siltation and the poten-tial loss of crop breeding opportunities meanpoorer nutrition, slower economic progress,and less prospect of achieving prosperous,stable economies. For the United States, thismeans the affected nations are less able to tradeinternationally. The developing nations alreadyare a major market—and the fastest growingmarket—for U.S. exports. Their purchasesfrom the United States in 1982 were valued at$82.7 billion, over one-third of all U.S. exports(82).

BASIC

Wood for Fuel

Wood is the most important source of

Brazil and Mexico, where oil and gas provide Fuelwood, however, is becoming harder anda greater share of total fuel than wood). One harder to find. Some 100 million people alreadyand one-half billion people in developing coun- are experiencing acute fuelwood scarcity andtries meet 90 percent of their energy needs with another billion are affected by lesser shortages

Ch. 2—lmpotance of Tropical Forests Ž 45

Photo credit: R?. C. Ghosh

Collecting firewood in the dry, open forests of MadhyaPradesh, India is arduous labor for women. Because thequantity collected is greater than the annual growth,

finding enough wood takes more andmore time each year

(30). In some countries, it can take up to 300person-days of work to satisfy one household’sannual fuelwood needs—forcing some dramat-ic changes in lifestyle. For example, many fam-ilies in Upper Volta eat only one cooked mealeach day, and in Senegal, quick cooking cereal(e.g., rice) has replaced more nutritious, butslower cooking, foods (e.g., millets) (64). Fewerfamilies can avoid the “luxury” of boiling theirwater (76) and some are forced to keep childrenout of school to search for wood.

Fuelwood shortages are forcing increasingnumbers of people to burn animal dung andagricultural wastes, with adverse impacts onland productivity. It has been estimated thatif the cow dung burned for fuel in Asia, Africa,and the Near East were used for fertilizer, grainproduction could increase by 20 million tonsa year (4).

Other Basic Human Needs

The exact number of people living in andnear tropical forests, relying on the productivi-ty of forests to supply their basic needs, is notknown. The U.N. estimates that about 28 mil-lion people practice shifting cultivation in theclosed tropical forests of Asia, 20 million inAfrica, and 40 million in Latin America—total-ing some 88 million people (31). This meanssome 3 to 4 percent of the total agriculturalpopulation in Asia, about 10 percent in Africa,and 35 percent in Latin America, work insidethe closed forests. These estimates include eth-nic populations practicing shifting cultivationas a traditional way of life. They do not includenonagricultural people who are purely huntersand gatherers, nor people who recently movedinto forests. This can be significant, since intropical Asia, at least, squatters probably out-number shifting cultivators.

Many millions of additional people live indrier, mixed tree and grassland environments(open woodlands). These people are typicallylivestock herders and dryland farmers; yet, theytoo are directly dependent on the woodland en-vironment. Their livestock feed on trees and

Photo credit: U.S. Agency for Intemational Development

As fuelwood becomes more scarce, the burning of animaldung increases, depriving the land of nutrients


bushes, especially during dry seasons whengrasses provide poor fodder. People living inopen woodlands use wood for cooking, boilingwater, heating, drying crops, and as fuel forsmall industries. Open woodland dwellers, likethe people of the closed forests, use trees andwild plants for medicines, soaps, and manyother basic needs (86).

Food from the forests—both closed andopen—meets a significant part of the world’snutritional needs. Meat from wild animals,fruits, nuts, honey, insects, fungi, and foliageare all important forest food sources. At least500 species of edible leaves are used in Africaalone (42). “Bush meat,” including rodents andreptiles as well as wild ungulates and othermammals and birds, supply as much as 75 per-cent of the animal protein consumed in sometropical regions (20).

Forest trees and vegetation are the main ma-terials used in the Tropics to build homes andbuildings. In many rural societies, wood fre-quently is preferred even when other materialsare available (91). Local wood also serves aspoles, fences, stakes, furniture, tools, and uten-sils. Substitutes for these products are rarelyavailable in subsistence cultures. Various fibersderived from forest vegetation are also impor-tant, especially for household use. Rattans, forexample, are climbing palms used for cane fur-niture, baskets, mats, and similar uses.

In the northwestern Amazon forest alone, atleast 1,300 plant species have been used bynative people as medicines and drugs (62). Tra-ditional healers in Southeast Asia use some6,500 plants as treatments for malaria, stomachulcers, syphilis, and other disorders, and alsoas sedatives and emetics (50). A number ofthese plants identified and tested by native peo-ple through generations of trial and error yieldexceptionally promising compounds whenscreened in modern laboratories (21,24).

Forests also protect both inland and coastalwaters, providing another important benefit topeople. After deforestation, increased runoffaccelerates erosion and carries excessiveamounts of sediment to nearby lakes, reser-voirs, and streams. For example, as early as

1904 erosion resulting from deforestation wasresponsible for clogging the once-navigable Riodas Velhas in Brazil to such an extent that evencanoes ran aground (87). Today, deforestationis much more widespread in Brazil, and othernavigable rivers such as the Cuiaba and Sa˜oFrancisco have large parts filled with silt fromeroded forest soils (3,8). Inland waterway trans-portation is further damaged by the seasonaldrying up of local streams that can be a con-sequence of deforestation (18,88).

Increased erosion caused by deforestationhas accelerated siltation of the Panama Canal’ssystem of reservoirs at the same time that accel-erated runoff has diminished water storage inthe Canal’s watershed. During a 1977 drought,the canal was closed to large vessels becauseof low water, a situation that experts believemay occur with increasing frequency unlesswatershed forest cover is restored (85).

Another impact of deforestation on tropicalwaterways relates to the release of nutrientsfrom the forest biomass and soil. Organic mat-ter production is sharply reduced under non-forest conditions. Further, the soluble nutrientsfrom the ash of burned forests and from rapidlydecomposing soil organic matter are easilyleached from soil by heavy rainfall. The result-ing increased nutrient content of runoff canaccelerate the growth of noxious plants andalgae in nearby lakes, canals, and rivers. Aquat-ic weeds block canals and pumps in irrigationprojects. Also, they interfere with hydroelectricproduction, waste water through evapotran-spiration, hinder boat traffic, increase water-borne disease, interfere with fishing and fishculture, and clog rivers and canals so thatdrainage is severely retarded and floods result.

In India, for example, plants reduce waterflow in some large irrigation projects by asmuch as four-fifths. Rafts of water hyacinthweighing as much as 300 tons float over ricepaddies in Bangladesh during floods. When thewater recedes, the weeds settle and kill the ger-minating rice. Maintaining forested water-sheds would reduce erosion and runoff, reducepopulations of aquatic weeds, and reduce thecost of maintaining waterways.

Ch. 2—lmpotance of Tropical Forests ● 4 7

Forests also act as a buffer against the forceof typhoons and other violent storms in coastalzones. Tropical Asia, for example, suffers anaverage of 57 typhoons each year, causingstorm damage that averages $2.8 billion (92).Forests reduce the destructive energy of thesestorms by deflecting wind and reducing theoccurrence of landslides and other environ-mental damage.

Tropical storms are most violent in coastalareas, typically the areas that are most popu-lated. Yet coastal forests are being eliminatedmore rapidly than most other types of tropicalforests, with sometimes devastating effects (45).For example, Bangladesh has a coastal zone of20,000 square kilometers that supports 20 mil-lion people. This nation’s coastal areas wereextensively cleared in the 1960’s, leaving littleprotective forest. When a severe typhoonstruck in 1970, 150,000 Bangladeshis drowned(35,65). Each year, typhoons and floods to-gether claim the lives of 200,000 people anddestroy many hundred thousand hectares ofcrops (92). A portion of these lives and cropscould be saved if forest cover were maintainedand enhanced (45).

About 15.5 million ha of mangrove forestsgrow along coastlines and in estuaries in trop-ical America, Asia, and Africa (31). These for-ests have several important functions asidefrom acting as a coastal buffer against storms,seawash, and floods. They also process sewage,absorb nutrients and heavy metals, and precip-itate sediments, Most importantly, they provideideal breeding and nursery grounds for variousfish, molluscs, and crustaceans. Many valuableshrimp species breed at sea, after which theyoung move into mangroves where they seekfood and protection. Mangroves also providenurseries for such commercially importantfishes as mullet, grunts, and milkfish (66).

labor because site preparation usually involvesmore cutting and tree removal than does har-vest (63). Table 2 is a summary of estimatedannual person-day requirements for variousforest plantation operations in World Bankprojects.

Some tropical governments view tree plant-ing as a way to reduce unemployment (33). Forexample, planting programs are planned withemployment as a major benefit in various areasof Brazil. In the states of Minas Gerais andEspirito Sante, a large work force plants100,000 ha/yr by hand, and in the Amazon re-gion two large companies only do hand-plant-ing. Similarly, large-scale, labor-intensive pro-grams have been developed in Colombia, Vene-zuela, the Philippines, the Republic of Congo,and other Asian and African countries, andsmaller programs are under way in Guatemalaand Honduras (89).

Forestry and agroforestry require protectionand management and so provide even moreemployment opportunities. Using agroforestrysystems including cultivated crops, several treecrops, and livestock on a 100-ha farm in India,employment is estimated to rise from 20 to 50people at the final, sustained yield stage. Thus,agroforestry systems to reclaim 5 million ha ofIndia’s degraded lands might employ 2 millionpeople (57). Furthermore, forest products couldserve as the basis for cottage industries, provid-ing more employment and producing goods fordomestic use and export.

Table 2.—Estimated Annual Person-day Requirementsfor Various Forestry Operations

Plantation designSpacing: 600-2,000 trees per hectare (ha)

(more for energy plantations)

Task Person-days

Employment

Forest management and forest products in-dustries can be a major source of employmentin tropical countries. Industrial wood harvestin tropical forests takes about 60 person-daysper hectare. Planting trees takes even more

Nursery work/1,000 plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-13Land clearing and burning/haa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-50Pitting for planting/ha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15Weeding/ha/yr a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-36Pruning/ha ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15Thinning, , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-11aThese measures vary greatly according to site conditions.SOURCE: P.J. Wood, J. Burley, and A. Grainger, “Technologies and Technology

Systems for Reforestation of Degraded Tropical Lands, ” OTA com-missioned paper, 1982,


Mangroves

Mangrove forests are important-economically and ecologically. However, mangrove ecosys-tems can be damaged by human activity. Deforestation of watershed areas can accelerate deposi-tion of sand, silt, and clay in alluvial areas; changes in the pattern and volume of freshwater runoffcan be attributed to irrigation, roadbuilding, and other such projects; coastal engineering prac-tices may bring about a change in tidal flushing regimes. Other major stresses include pollutantssuch as pesticides and insecticides used in large agricultural projects and recurring oil spills dueto the exploitation and transportation of offshore oil.

Several mangrove species are highly valued as firewood because they burn evenly with littlesmoke, and as charcoal because they have high caloric value. Charcoal for commercial sale is themain mangrove product in several Asian countries. Mangrove poles are used extensively for ruralhouses, foundations, and scaffolding of urban construction because the wood of many mangrovespecies is durable and resistant to termites (14). In recent years, mangrove has been harvested forwoodchips to be used in chipboard manufacture, newspaper, and as a source of cellulose for rayon(71). The conversion of mangrove land to aquacuhure ponds also is increasing, which could havepotential to increase fish production. However, improper site selection and poor design could havesubstantial negative impacts.

Management of mangrove forests can be complicated. In clearcut mangrove areas, increasedtemperatures and evaporation can raise soil salinity so that mangroves are unable to regrow. Handplanting of seedlings is possible but costly. Selective felling systems that retain trees below certaindiameters often involve rather complicated regulations that may be difficult to administer. Naturalregeneration can be enhanced by clearcutting narrow strips so that nearby trees can provide seeds.

The pressure to clear additional mangrove forest areas for agricultural, industrial, and aqua-cultural purposes will continue and the demand for fuelwood and poles will increase. Short- andlong-term socioeconomic impacts of all alternative uses of mangrove forest areas must be evalu-ated to determine the optimum uses. It is only partly known, for instance, to what extent marinespecies are affected by removal of mangrove forests. Improved understanding of this importantinteraction could have significant forest management payoffs.

COMMERCIAL FOREST PRODUCTS

Wood

The principal commercial products of trop-ical forests are timber and fuelwood. Tropicalhardwoods are used to produce lumber for con-struction, poles, pilings, railway ties, props inmines, and panel products such as plywood,veneer, fiberboard, and particle board. Hard-wood is also important for finished goods suchas furniture and paper products. In addition,some softwoods from tropical forests are usedfor lumber and pulp.

Most tropical forest wood is used within thecountry of origin and the economic value ofthis domestic consumption is difficult to assess.

Value estimates exist for the 6 percent of thecommercial tropical wood harvest that is ex-ported. The total value of wood and wood prod-uct exports from the tropical nations has in-creased by about 500 percent in the past 10years (32). Indonesia’s wood exports in 1980earned some $1.9 billion, The value of woodexports for Malaysia was $2 billion in 1980; forthe Philippines, $415 million; for Brazil, $8I6million; for the Ivory Coast, $415 million [32].

World trade in tropical wood is significantto the economies of both the producing andconsuming nations. The largest single importeris Japan. Several other large importers—e. g.,Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea—

Ch. 2—lmportance of Tropical Forests ● 4 9

reexport most of the wood to industrialized na-tions after partial or complete processing.

The United States is the second largest im-porter of tropical wood products and little ofthis wood is reexported. U.S. hardwood im-ports in 1978 amounted to $682 million, withtropical countries (principally Southeast Asia)supplying 82 percent of the total. Imports oftropical wood (logs, lumber, plywood, and ven-eer) averaged $430 million annually from 1974to 1978, Although the dollar value of these im-ports seems high, on a volume basis they ac-count for only 1 to 2 percent of all wood usedin this country (85). U.S. demand for tropicalwood has been growing at rates well above ourpopulation and the gross national productgrowth rates.

Both in the Tropics and in the importing na-tions, industrial hardwood is used mostly in the

housing industry, so industrial demand fortropical wood has grown at a rate that generallyfollows housing starts. The paper industry isthe other major wood user, but it primarily usessoftwoods, for which the United States andCanada are major producers. Many tropical na-tions import paper, and the papermills locatedin the Tropics still import most of their soft-wood pulp from the temperate zone. Sometropical nations have begun to use their ownnatural pine forests, pine plantations, and, ina few cases, hardwoods as a source of pulp.But tropical forests still produce no more than10 percent of the world’s paper and paper-board.

This is likely to change in the next few dec-ades. New technologies, some developed by theU.S. Forest Products Laboratory and U.S. for-est industry, make it possible to produce high-quality paper pulp from 100 percent hard-

Photo credit: H. Bollinger

Wood, a major export item for Malaysia, is no longer restricted to sawlogs. Here 8-year-old Albizia falcataria trees(a legume species) are harvested for export to the Japanese pulp and paper market


woods and from a mixture of many hardwoodspecies (84). International demand for tropicalhardwood chips is expected to rise substantial-ly as the new technologies are installed inpapermills in wood-scarce Japan and in Eur-ope, where wood shortages are anticipated.Japan already uses hardwood chips for overhalf of its pulpwood needs (46).

Demand for hardwoods for paper productionalso will increase within those tropical nationsthat have growing economies. As income in-creases, demand for paper products rises rapid-ly among relatively poor consumers as long aswood supplies are abundant (17).

Fuelwood and charcoal enter commerce forboth household use and industry. Wood fuelshave become much more important for indus-tries in tropical nations since the rapid rise infossil fuel costs. Wood is the least expensiveenergy source available for many cottage in-dustries and charcoal the highest quality localsource for some uses. For example, Brazil has1.5 million ha of eucalyptus plantations estab-lished to supply charcoal to the iron and steelindustry in the state of Minas Gerais (31).

The Philippine Government is planning twolarge wood-consuming industrial facilities inthe province of Ilocos Norte. The first of a num-ber of 3-megawatt “dendrothermal” electricpowerplants dependent on wood from fast-growing trees as boiler fuel is under construc-tion. Another project that will involve two largepig-iron blast furnaces and will rely on char-coal from local wood is being planned (36).

Products for Medicine

The importance of the tropical forests, espe-cially the moist forests, as a source for medi-cines is largely a result of their high biologicaldiversity. Some of these forests contain com-munities of species that have existed for 60 mil-lion years, making them the oldest continuous-ly established land ecosystems known. Theirgreat age and ecological stability have allowedevolution to proceed in a relatively undisturbedmanner, and it is probably due to this stablehistory that tropical moist forests developedtheir extreme biological richness (45).

Because tropical moist forests contain somany species, each species must compete withand defend itself against many potential ene-mies, and one way to do this is by developingalliances (e.g., symbiosis) with other species.Thus, tropical forest species are highly interac-tive. The millions of plant and animal speciesalso have had time to develop complex chemi-cals that help them interact with other species.It is because of these “biologically active”chemicals that the tropical forests are consid-ered Earth’s richest storehouses of potentialdrugs.

Today, medical science is highly dependenton chemicals produced naturally by plants.One-fourth of all U.S. prescriptions containingredients from higher plants (27). In 1974, theUnited States imported $24.4 million worth ofmedicinal plants to produce about $3 billionworth of drugs. The commercial value of theseproducts is over $8 billion per year. When non-prescription items are included, the valuedoubles (28).

Although chemical screening has been doneon less than 1 percent of the tropical species,already some 260 South American plants havebeen identified as having potential for fertilitycontrol. Some 1,400 tropical forest species arebelieved to have anticancer properties (7,16,21,68,70). The National Cancer Institute hasscreened about 35,000 higher plant species foractivity against cancer. As of 1977, about 3,000of these had demonstrated reproducible activi-ty and a smaller number were appropriate forclinical trials (23). Rotenoids from the roots oftropical trees, for example, are being testedclinically in the United States as antitumordrugs.

One tropical plant, the rosy periwinkle, hashad a profound effect on treatment of leuke-mia. In 1960, people suffering this diseasefaced one chance in five of remission. But be-cause of two drugs developed from the rosyperiwinkle, the chances of remission are nowfour in five (41). Tabebuia serratifolia, Jacaran-da caucana, and Croton tiglium are tropicaltrees, and each produces a unique anti-cancercompound whose effectiveness has beenproved in the laboratory (51).

Ch. 2—lmportance of Tropical Forests ● 5 1

Tropical forest plants are significant in treat-ing other medical problems, notably hyperten-sion (2,41,44,67). D-tubocurasine, made fromthe South American vine Chondrodendron to-rnentosum, is widely used as a muscle relax-ant in surgery in the United States, Chemistshave been unable to produce it syntheticallyin a form having all of the characteristics ofthe natural product (52). The drug’s supply,therefore, continues to rely on extracts fromwild plants.

Tropical forest animals are also necessary tomedical science. Primates are the most impor-tant group. They are used widely in medicalresearch and pharmaceutical trials.1 Tropicalprimates are especially important because oftheir similarity to humans. For example, re-search into malaria, cardiovascular diseases,cancers, hepatitis, and other diseases common-ly uses rhesus monkeys, longtail macaques,squirrel monkeys, chimpanzees, African greenmonkeys, and owl monkeys.

Some 34,000 primates were imported into theUnited States in 1977 for drug safety tests anddrug production (5). Virus-free polio vaccineperhaps is the most important of the drugs pro-duced this way, using many thousands of trop-icaI forest African green monkeys, The Cen-tral and South American owl monkey is theonly known nonhuman animal suitable for ma-laria chemotherapy and immunology studies(5). Few of these important animals are raisedin captivity; most are captured, and they arebecoming scarce as their forest habitat is be-ing destroyed.

Other Forest Products

Tropical forests provide abroad array of non-wood products.z Some are produced in planta-tions of selected tree species. Others are gath-ered in natural forests and brought to marketthrough a diffuse system of collectors andmiddlemen. These are often called “minor for-est products, ” although their importance fre-quently is greater than that term implies. Forexample, tropical forests provide essential oils,exudates, gums, latexes, resins, tannins, sterols,waxes, esters, acids, phenols, alcohols, edibleoils, rattans, bamboos, flavorings, sweeteners,spices, balsams, pesticides, and dyestuffs.

Few nations have collected data on the com-mercial value of these nonwood forest prod-ucts. One exception is India, where nonwoodforest products are worth about $135 millionper year, equivalent to one-fifth of the value ofindustrial timber (48,69). Indian forests alsoproduce a substantial quantity of animals usedfor food, scientific research, and other pur-poses. In Indonesia, rattans generate an exporttrade worth up to $5 million per year. Theworld trade in rattan end products now totals$1.5 billion (22,37).

World trade in essential oils and spices fromtropical forest plants, such as camphor, cassia,cardamon, citronella, and cinnamon, exceeds$1 billion per year. The United States now im-ports about 10,000 tons per year of these kindsof oils and spices, with a value of over $100million (24,54,55). A systematic investigation ofthe many nonwood forest products used by theforest-dwelling people of the Tropics mightlead to increased use of these materials and fur-ther enhance the economic importance of theforests.

‘See ongoing OTA assessment “Alternatives to Animal Usein Testing and Experimentation. ”

‘See Workshop Proceedings on Plants: The Potentials for Ex-tracting Protein, Medicines, and Other Useful Chemicals (Wash-ington, D. C,: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,OTA-BP-F-23, September 1983), for additional information.


Endangered Species

Tropical habitats contain a significant num-ber of the world’s endangered species. As dis-cussed earlier, tropical moist forests are boththe most biologically complex and species-di-verse* biome on Earth. The complexity is bothdynamic (highly interactive) and stable (able tomaintain itself for long periods). Yet the stabil-ity depends on an important provision—thatexternal forces do not exceed certain criticalthresholds. Human intervention may easily ex-ceed these thresholds.

Because of geographic confinements andspecialized ecological requirements, tropicalmoist forest species are unusually susceptibleto extinction (46). Many species are found inonly one small area, so even a limited amountof deforestation can exterminate entire species.Further, species are highly interdependent. Forexample, Brazil nuts are probably the mostcommercially significant food gathered fromforests. The nuts will grow only where a par-ticular type of bee lives, as only this bee canpollinate Brazil nut flowers. The bee, in turn,lives only where a particular type of orchid isfound, because it must obtain a chemical fromthe orchid to attract its mate. Thus, the tree hasnot been domesticated away from the forestwhere the bees and the orchids are found. Fur-ther, for some of the nuts to serve as seeds, thenuts must be chewed by a rodent to soften thefruit, allowing seed germination. Thus, Brazilnut tree reserves must be large enough to sup-port a breeding population of this rodent. Suchcomplex systems of interdependence areanother reason why entire species can bethreatened by small changes (75).

At least three-quarters of the projected ex-tinctions worldwide until the end of the cen-tury are expected to occur in tropical moist

“Biological diversity includes two related concepts, geneticdiversity and ecological diversity. Genetic diversity is the amountof genetic variability among individuals in a single species,whether the species exists as a single interbreeding group or asa number of populations, strains, breeds, races, or subspecies.Ecological diversity (species richness) is the number of speciesin a community of organisms. Both kinds of diversity are fun-damental to the functioning of ecological systems (17).

forests. Degradation and destruction of tropi-cal forests and woodlands could precipitate afundamental shift in the course of evolution(45). Of more certain concern is the loss ofpotential resources, not only chemicals andanimals that may be used directly in medicine,agriculture, and other industries but also ge-netic information with great potential for bio-technology development.

Migratory Animals

Tropical forests provide habitats for many ofthe world’s migratory and endangered species.About two-thirds of the birds that breed inNorth America migrate to Latin America or theCaribbean for winter (74). In general, foresthabitats are more important for migratoryspecies than was previously thought. Many mi-gratory species winter in tropical highlands—areas that have been rapidly preempted foragriculture. Since migratory species concen-trate often in smaller areas in winter, the ef-fects of clearing 1 ha of forest in Mexico prob-ably are equivalent to clearing 5 ha in theNortheastern United States (74).

Migratory species have economic, environ-mental, and esthetic values in the UnitedStates. For instance, some migratory birds playan important role in integrated pest manage-ment systems for agriculture in the EasternUnited States, yet they could become morescarce as their wintering grounds in the Trop-ics are lost to deforestation.

Climate

The question of whether tropical deforesta-tion can disrupt the stability of world climatesis highly controversial. The scientific under-standing of the climate effects of deforestationis still theoretical. When forests are removed,more solar heat is reflected back into space (the“albedo” effect). Some scientists believe thatthis can lead to changes in global patterns ofair circulation, with potential impacts on agri-culture (53,60).


Another effect of forests on global climate istheir role as a carbon reservoir in the carboncycle. As large areas of forest are converted tononforest, the carbon that had been stored inwood and in organic material in the topsoil isreleased to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.When croplands, grasslands, or degradedbrush replace moist forest, the new vegetationstores much less carbon, Thus, net annual de-forestation adds carbon dioxide to the atmos-phere (90).

The concentration of carbon dioxide in theatmosphere has been increasing for severaldecades, apparently more from burning fossilfuels than from deforestation, Scientists agreethat continued increases in atmospheric car-

bon dioxide will produce a “greenhouse effect”leading to a global warming trend. Doublingof the atmospheric carbon dioxide would prob-ably raise the average global climate by severaldegrees centigrade. Some scientists hypothe-size that increased cloud cover and other en-vironmental change will confound the green-house effect. The effects of such trends onagriculture or on the world’s hydrological sys-tems are unknown. Likewise, the role of theworld’s forests and the effect of substantialdeforestation are still uncertain. Some scien-tists consider deforestation to be a significantfactor in the concentration of atmospheric car-bon dioxide, while others do not (10,12,15,19,34,90).

POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS

Stability of the renewable natural resourcebase in tropical countries affects both the eco-nomic viability of U.S. investments overseasand the political stability of the host nations.Foreign assistance projects funded by the U.S.Government and development projects fundedby the U.S. private sector are being undercutby flooding, siltation of reservoirs, pest out-breaks, and other problems associated with de-forestation. For example, the reservoirs usedto operate the Panama Canal are rapidly fillingwith silt (85), as are hydroelectric reservoirs inPakistan, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia,and many other nations (49).

Food and jobs are critical for political stabil-ity in developing nations and both are reducedby inappropriate deforestation. Food suppliesand employment can be increased in the longrun, however, by reforestation of degradedland and by forest management. Frontiers of

human settlement, with relatively untappedsupplies of natural resources, historically area source of new employment opportunities. To-day, however, the remaining frontiers are most-ly infertile or dry lands unable to support largenumbers of people using current technologies.Thus, many rural unemployed persons migrateto the cities. As unemployment climbs, changesin the distribution of income within societiesfurther aggravate social inequities and politicalstresses (11).

One consequence of the inability of develop-ing country governments to create sufficientjobs is that people emigrate to countries withslower population growth and greater per capi-ta resources. The flow of refugees from Haitito Florida is sometimes cited as an example ofthe economic and social disruption caused, inpart, by tropical deforestation and consequentenvironmental deterioration (9).

IMPORTANCE TO FUTURE GENERATIONS

Tropical forests have particular importance without expensive inputs of irrigation water orto future generations. With few exceptions fertilizers. But scientific study of naturalpresent agriculture systems cannot accomplish ecosystems, in concert with applied researchsustained productivity on infertile or dry sites to develop technologies, possibly can discover


how sustainable agriculture can be achievedon this land. Such research has hardly begunand it is a slow process. Thus, the tropicalforests serve future generations by the infor-mation they reveal to science and by maintain-ing the quality of the land until sustainablesystems for more intensive use are developed.

The Tropics are thought to be the repositoryof two-thirds of the world’s approximately 4.5million plant and animal species, only about500,000 of which have been named. Thatmeans that about 2.5 million of the tropicalspecies are yet unknown to science (58). * Theseunknown species are resources of incalculableimportance for the future. Undoubtedly, newsources of food, drugs, fuel, and products lieundiscovered in tropical forests.

Although vertebrates are generally thoughtto be well known on a worldwide basis, onlyabout 60 percent of the estimated 5,000 speciesof fish in the fresh waters of South Americahave been scientifically described and named,even though these comprise a large proportionof the diet of local people. A principal sourceof meat for Paraguayan farmers is a peccary,made known scientifically only in 1977 (58).

Tropical forests offer potential resources forplant breeding, genetic engineering, and otherbiotechnologies. Because farming environ-ments are constantly changing as pests or plantdiseases threaten or as weather changes, agri-culture relies on the continued input of genet-ic diversity for plant improvement. Germplasmis the resource to which plant breeders turn fordesirable characteristics—resistance to pests orstress, or improved growth qualities. A Peru-vian species, for example, contributed “riperot” resistance to American pepper plants anda wild melon in India was the source of resist-ance to powdery mildew that threatened de-struction of California’s melon crop (47). Awild relative of the potato from Peru has beenknown for decades to be highly resistant to in-

*No one knows how many species exist. Some estimates putthe figure as low as 2 million; many converge on a figure of 5million to 10 million; if tropical insect species are included, thenumber could be closer to 30 million (40).

sects because of sticky hairs on its leaves, butthis resistance has not been useful to agricul-ture because the wild plant cannot be crossedwith domesticated kinds of potatoes. Now thesticky-hair characteristic is expected to betransferred with new biotechnology methods.If it works, the result could be new potatostrains that have a much reduced need for pes-ticide applications. This implies substantialgains in production of this important food andattendant environmental benefits from reducedinsecticide use, It is not possible to predict withaccuracy what germ plasm will be needed inthe future.

With the gradual consumption of fossil fuelsand other nonrenewable resources, the UnitedStates and other nations are expected to turnincreasingly to biological systems for industrialand chemical feedstocks and for solutions topollution and other environmental problems(78,79). Some complex chemicals and somemore simple biological processes can be in-vented in the laboratory, but most have to befound in nature.

Genetic materials and basic systems foundin nature can be reproduced or adapted withbioengineering techniques. New techniques forcloning plants and micro-organisms alreadyare enabling laboratory biologists to screen ex-isting organisms for their production of usefulchemicals much more rapidly and efficientlythan in the past. The newly developing tech-niques for genetic manipulation offer oppor-tunities to adapt existing organisms to newuses (79).

For example, tropical forests have a greaterproportion of alkaloid-bearing plants than anyother biome (6,39,56). Many of the plant speciescontain hydrocarbons as well as carbohydratesin their tissues. These plant tissues can be re-newable sources for many chemicals, includ-ing fuels, now derived from nonrenewable fos-sil sources (13,38). Since tropical forest speciesusually are restricted to small geographic areas,opportunities are lost wherever the forests areremoved before their unique biota has beenidentified, screened, and assessed for useful-ness (83).


Political InterestsU.S. Stake

The United States has strong commitmentsto world peace, economic and social stabil-ity, and maintenance of the Earth’s basiclife-support systems, commitments thatrequire concern about the integrity andlong-term productivity of the global naturalresource base, including the tropical forestcomponent.The United States is party to a broad arrayof international resolutions, strategies, andagreements that call on all participating na-tions to promote and undertake improvedmanagement of the forest resource.U.S. public institutions and private firms

in Tropical Forests

●

●

programs are being affected adversely bydeforestation-related problems.The United States and other nations haveraised humanitarian concerns about indig-enous populations whose cultures and veryexistence may be threatened by destructionof the forests.The United States increasingly is beingrequested by governments and internaltional development organizations to pro-vide technical assistance and financial sup-port for forest-related activities in develop-ing countries.

Environmental Interests●

●

●

U.S. public institutions have statutory andpolicy responsibilities to protect and man-age wisely the environment and naturalresources of our Nation, as well as those ofother areas within and outside U.S. juris-diction in which U, S.-sponsored or U. S.-assisted activities are carried out.The United States shares, with South andCentral America and the Caribbean area,hundreds of species of migratory animals,including birds, insects, marine turtles, andmammals, whose survival depends to vary-ing degrees on tropical forests.The United States is committed to helpingpreserve the world’s flora, fauna, and vul-nerable ecosystems by virtue of domesticlegislation and national policies, and bybeing party to a large number of interna-tional conventions and agreements. Princi-pal among these measures are the Endan-gered Species Act of 1973, the Conventionon International Trade in Endangered Spe-cies of Wild Flora and Fauna, and the Con-vention on Nature Protection and WildlifePreservation in the Western Hemisphere.Large-scale destruction of the Earth’s rainforests runs a risk of triggering global cli-mate change, with uncertain but potentiallyadverse consequences for world food pro-duction and human well-being,


1,

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

CHAPT~R 2

Aina, P. O., LaI, R., and Taylor, G. S., “Soil andCrop Management in Relation to Soil Erosionin the Rain Forest of Western Nigeria, ” SoilErosion Prediction and Control, G. R. Foster(cd.), Soil Conservation Society of America,1978.Altschul, S. von R., “Exploring the Herbarium,”Scientific American 236(5):96-107, 1977. ln:Myers, 1982.Anderson, A., “Farming the Amazon: the Dev-astation Technique, ” Saturday Review, Sept.30, 1972, Pp. 61-64.Arnold, J., “Wood Energy and Rural Commu-nities,” Proceedings of the Eighth World For-estry Congress, Oct. 16-28, 1978, Jakarta, Indo-nesia. In: U.S. Interagency Task Force, 1980.Ashton, P. S., and Plotkin, M. J., “Technologiesto Increase Production From Primary TropicalForests and Woodlands,” OTA commissionedpaper, 1982.Ayensu, E. S., “Medicinal Plants of West Afri-ca” (Algonac, Mich.: Reference Publications,Inc., 1978). In: Myers, 1982.Barclay, A. S., and Perdue, R. E., “Distributionof Anti-Cancer Activity in Higher Plants,” Can-cer Treatment Report 60(8):1081-1113, 1976. In:Myers, 1982.Belville, L. S., “They Are Destroying Brazil’sParadise,” International WildZife, September-October 1971, pp. 36-40.Benge, M., “How To Put a Brake on the HaitianExodus,” The Christian Science Monitor, Aug.29, 1980, p. 23.Bolin, B., “The Global Carbon Cycle” (NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, 1981). In: Myers, 1982.Brown, L. R., “Redefining National Security,”Worldwatch Paper No. 14, Washington, D. C.,1977.Bryson, R. A., and Murray, T. J., “Climates ofHunger” (Madison, Wis.: University of Wiscon-sin Press, 1977). In: Myers, 1982.Calvin, M., “Hydrocarbons From Plants: Ana-lytical Methods and Observations,” Naturwis-senschaften 67:525-533, 1981. In: Myers, 1982.Christensen, B., “Mangroves-What Are TheyWorth?” Unasy]va 35(139):2-15, 1983.Clark, W. C., Cook, K. H., Marland, G., Wein-berg, A. M., Rotty, R. M., Bell, P. R., andCooper, C. L., “The Carbon Dioxide Question:Perspectives for 1982,” Carbon Dioxide Review1982, William C. Clark (cd.), p. 4.

R~FmREHC~S

16. Cordell, G. A., “Alkaloids,” Encyclopedia of

174

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

2324

25.

26.

27.

28.

Chemical Technology, vol. 1, 3d cd., pp. 883-943(New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978). In: Myers,1982.Council on Environmental Quality, “The Global2000 Report to the President” (Washington,D. C.: CEQ/U.S. Department of State, 1980).Dale, T., and Carter, V. G., “Top Soil and Civi-lization” (Norman, Okla.: University of Okla-homa Press, 1981).d’Arge, R. C., “Climatic Change and EconomicRepercussions,” paper presented at World Cli-mate Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, WorldMeteorological Organization, 1979. In: Myers,1982.de Vos, A., “Game as Food,” UnasyZva 29(116),1977.Douros, J., and Suffness, M., “The NationalCancer Institute’s Natural Products Antineo-plastic Development Program,” Recent Resultsin Cancer Research 70:21-44, S. K. Carter andY. Sakurai (eds.), 1980. In: Myers, 1982.Dransfield, J., “The Biology of Asiatic Rattansin Relation to the Rattan Trade and Conserva-tion,” The Biological Aspects of Rare Plant Con-servation 179-186, H. Synge (cd.) (Chichester,Sussex, U. K.: John Wiley & Sons, 1981). In:Myers, 1982.Duke, J. A., personal communication, 1983.Duke, J. A., “The Gene Revolution,” OTA com-missioned paper, 1981. In: Myers, 1982.Eckholm, E., The Other Energy Crisis: Fire-wood, Worldwatch Paper 1 (Washington, D. C.:Worldwatch Institute, 1975).Falkenmark, M., and Lindh, G., “Water for aStarving World” (Boulder, Colo.: WestviewPress, 1976). In: Myers, 1982.Farnsworth, N. R., and Loub, W. D., “Informa-tion Gathering and Data Bases That Are Perti-nent to the Development of Plant-DerivedDrugs,” Workshop Proceedings on Plants: ThePotentials for Extracting Protein, Medicines,and Other Useful Chemicals (Washington, D. C.:U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, C)TA-BP-F-23, 1983).Farnsworth, N. R., “The Consequences of PlantExtinction on the Current and Future Availa-bility of Drugs,” paper presented at AAAS An-nual Meeting, Washington, D. C., Jan. 3-8, 1982,University of Illinois at the Medical Center,Chicago, mimeo. In: Myers, 1982.

Ch. —Importance of Tropical Forests ● 5 7

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43,

44.

Food and Agriculture Organization/U.N. En-vironment Program, Tropical Forest ResourcesAssessment Project (GEMS): Tropical Africa,Tropical Asia, TropicaZAmerica (4 vols.) (Rome:FAO, 1981).Food and Agriculture Organization, Map of theFuelwood Situation in the Developing Coun-tries, 1981.Food and Agricuhure Organization/U.N. Envi-ronment Program, “Tropical Forest Resources,”FAO Forestry Report No. 30 (Rome: FAO,1982).Food and Agriculture Organization, “Yearbookof Forest Products, 1969-1980” (Rome: FAO,1982).Gallegos, C. M., et al., “Technologies forReforestation of Degraded Lands in theTropics, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1982.Gribbin, J., “The Politics of Carbon Dioxide,”New Scientist, Apr. 9, 1981, pp. 82-84. In:Myers, 1982.Gupta, K. M., and Bandhu, D. (eds.), “Man andForest: A New Dimension in the Himalayas”(New Delhi: Today and Tomorrow’s Printersand Publishers, 1979). In: Myers, 1982.Hyman, E, L,, “Analysis of the Demand forWoodfuels by Rural and Urban Households inthe Province of IIOCOS Norte, Philippines, ” En-ergy Policy, submitted 1983.International Development Research Center,“Rattan: Report of a Workshop, Singapore, June4-6, 1979” (Ottawa, Canada: International De-velopment Research Center, 1980). In: Myers,1982.Johnson, J, D., and Hinman, T. W., “Oils andRubber From Arid Land Plants,” Science208:460-464, 1981. In: Myers, 1982.Levin, D. A., “The Chemical Defenses of Plantsto Pathogens and Herbivores,” Annual Reviewof EcoZogy and Systematic 7:121-159, 1976. In:Myers, 1982.Lewin, R., “No Dinosaurs This Time,” Science221:1168-1169, 1983.Lewis, W. H., and Elvin-Lewis, M. P. F., Medi-caZ Botany (New York: John Wiley & Sons,1977). In: Myers, 1982.Martin, F., and Rubert6 R., EdibZe Leaves of theTropics, Mayaguez Institute of Tropical Agri-culture (Mayagiiez, Puerto Rico: AID, ARS/USDA, 1975).Meggers, B. J., “Amazonia” (Chicago: Aldine-A~.~,,rson, Inc., 1971].Moreno, A. R., and Schwartzman, B., “268

45

46

Plantas Medicinales Utilizadas para Regular laFecundidad,” Reproduction 2:163-183, 1975,In: Myers, 1982.Myers, N., “The Importance of Tropical Forestand Woodland Resources, ” OTA commissionedpaper, 1982.Myers, N., “The Conversion of Tropical For-ests,” Environment 22(6):6-13, 1980.

47. National Research Council, EcoZogicaZ Aspectsof Development in the Humid Tropics (Wash-ington, D. C.: National Academy Press, 1982).

48. Pant, M. M., “Forestr~ Sector—Its Contributionto Gross National P~oduct,” Indian Forester

49.

50,

51,

52.

530

54.

55.

56.

57,

58,

59,

103(11):739-769, 1977.Pereira, H. C., “Soil and Water ManagementTechnologies for Tropical Forests, ” OTA com-missioned paper, 1982.Perry, L. M., Medicinal Plants of East andSoutheast Asia (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,1980). In: Myers, 1982.Plotkin, M. J., “Conservation and Ethnobotanyin Tropical South America, ” Progress Report toWorld Wildlife Fund—US (Cambridge, Mass,:Harvard Botanical Museum, 1982). In: Myers,1982.Plotkin, M., and Schultes, R. E., “Tropical For-ests as Sources of New Biodynamics Com-pounds, ” Threatened Plant Newsletter, 1982.In: Ashton and Plotkin, 1982.Potter, G. L,, Ellsaesser, H. W,, McCracken, M.C., and Ellis, J. S., “Albedo Change by Man: Testof Climatic Effects, ” Nature 291(5810):47-49,1981, In: Myers, 1982.Princen, L. H., “New Crop Development forIndustrial Oils, ” Journal of the American OilChemists’ Society 56(9):845-848, 1979. In: My-ers, 1982.Pryde, E. H., Princen, L. H., and Mukherje, K.D. (eds.), “New Sources of Fats and Oils,” Mon-ograph No. 9 (Champaign, Ill.: American OilChemists’ Society, 1981). In: Myers, 1982.Raffauf, R. F., Handbook of Alkaloids and Alka-loid-Containing PZants (New York: John Wiley& Sons, 1970). In: Myers, 1982.Ranganathan, S., “Agro Forestry: Employmentfor Millions” (Bombay, India: TATA Press,1979).Raven, P. H., “Basic Research—A NecessaryPrerequisite for Adequate Development ofTechnologies to Sustain Tropical ForestResources,” OTA commissioned paper, 1982.Roose, E. J,, “Use of the Universal Soil LossEquation to Predict Soil Erosion in West Afri-

25-287 0 - 84 - 5


60

ca, ” Soil Erosion Prediction and Control, G, R.Foster (cd,), Soil Conservation Society of Ameri-ca, 1978, pp. 60-74.Sagan, C., Toon, O. B., and Pollack, 1. B., “An-thr-opogenic Albedo Changes and the Earth’sClimate,” Science 206:1363-1368, 1979. In:Myers, 1982,

61. Sanchez, P. A., Gichuru, M. P., and Katz, L. B,,

62.

63.

64.

65,

66.

67.

68.

69

70,

71.

72.

i

“Organic Matter in Major Soils of the Tropicaland Temperate Regions, ” Non-Symbiotic Nitro-gen Fixation and Organic Matter in the Tropics,Symposia Paper No. 1, 12th International Con-gress of Soil Science, New Delhi, India, 1982,pp. 99-114.Schultes, R. E,, “The Amazonia as a Source ofNew Economic Plants,” Economic Botany33(3):259-266, 1979. In: Myers, 1982.Segerstrom, Gunnar, “Creating Work and Car-ing About Workers in Tropical Forestry, ” Una-sy]va 28(114):2-10, 1976.Shaikh, A., Qadri, T., and Hale, S., “FuelwoodTechnologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Re-sources,” OTA commissioned paper, 1983.Singh, T. (cd.), Studies in Himalayan Ecologyand Development Strategies (New Delhi, India:English Book Store, 1980). In: Myers, 1982.Snedaker, S. C., “Mangroves: Their Value andPerpetuation, ” Nature and Resources,14(3):6-13, 1978.Soejarto, D. D., Bingel, A. S., Slaytor, M., andFarnsworth, N. R., “Fertility Regulating AgentsFrom Plants,” Bulletin of the WorZd Health Or-ganization 56(3):343-352, 1978. In: Myers, 1982.Spjut, R. W., and Perdue, R. E., “Plant Folklore:A Tool for Predicting Sources of Anti-TumorActivity?” Cancer Treatment Reports 60(8):979-985, 1976. In: Myers, 1982.Srivastava, B. P., and Pant, H. M., “Social For-estry on a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework,”Indian Forester 105(1):2-35, 1979,Suffness, M., and Douros, J., “Drugs of PlantOrigin,” Methods in Cancer Research, vol. XVI,Part A: 73-126, V. T. DeVita and H. Busal (eds,)(Bethesda, Md,: National Cancer Institute,1979). In: Myers, 1982.Teas, H., “Silviculture With Saline Water,” TheBioSaline Concept: An Approach to the Utiliza-tion of Llnderexploited Resources, A. Hollaen-der, et al, (eds.) (New York: Plenum Press, 1982),Pp. 117-161.Tejwani, K. G,, “Soil Fertility Status, Mainte-nance, and Conservation for Agroforestry Sys-tems on Waste Land in India,” Soils Researchh Agroforestry (Nairobi, Kenya: ICRAF, 1979).In: Pereira, 1982.

73. Tejwani, K, G., Gupta, S. K., and Mathur, H. N.,“Soil and Water Conservation Research,” ICARPublication No. 68, New Delhi, 1975. In:Pereira, 1982.

74, Terborgh, J., “The Conservation Status of Neo-

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86

87

88

tropical Migrants: Present and Future, ” Mi-grant Birds in the Neotropics: Ecology, Behav-ior, Distribution, and Conservation, A. Keastand S. Morton (eds.) (Washington, D. C.: Smith-sonian Institution Press, 1980).Timberlake, L., “Saving the Jungles,” WorldPress Review, September 1982, pp. 31-33.Tinker, I., “Household Energy and Rural Wom-en, ” Proceedings, Second International Sym-posium on Appropriate Technology, Denver,Colo., October 1980. In: Shaikh, 1983.United Nations, Water Development and Man-agement: Proceedings of the United NationsWater Conference, 1977 (New York: PergamonPress, 1978). In: Myers, 1982.U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Energy From Biological Processes, OTA-E-124, ]UIY 1980.U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Impacts of AppZied Genetics: Micro-organisms, Plants, and Animals, OTA-HR-132,April 1981.U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assess-ment, World Population and Fertility Planning:The Next zo Years, OTA-HR-157, February1982.U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Crop Tech-nology Work Group Report, ” RCA Symposiumon Future Agricultural Technology and Re-source Conservation, USDA/Soil ConservationService, Dec. 5-9, 1982.U.S. Department of Commerce, InternationalTrade Administration, “U.S. Exports,” Decem-ber 1982.U.S. Department of State, “Proceedings of theU.S. Strategy Conference on Biological Diver-sity, ” 1982.US, Forest Service, “Papers for Conference onImproved Utilization of Tropical Forests,” For-est Products Laboratory, USDA Forest Service,1978.U.S. Interagency Task Force, The WorZd’s Trop-ical Forests: A Policy, Strategy, and Program forthe United States, Department of State Publica-tion 9117, 1980.Weber, F. R., “Combating Desertification WithTrees,” OTA commissioned paper, 1982.Wendel, C. A., “Early Ecology, ” Geotimes,17(3):11-12, 1972.Wharton, C. H,, “Man, Fire and Wild Cattle in

Ch. 2—importance of Tropical Forests ● 5 9

Southeast Asia,” Proceedings of the 8th TallTimbers Fire Ecology Conference, 1968, pp.107-167.

89. Wood, P. J., Burley, J., and Grainger, A,, “Tech-nologies and Technology Systems for Reforesta-tion of Degraded Tropical Lands, ” OTA com-missioned paper, 1982.

90. Woodwell, G. M., Whittaker, R. H., Reiners, W.

A., Likens, G, E., Delwiche, C. C., and Botkin,D, B., “The Biota and the World Carbon Budg-et,” Science 199:141-146, 1978. In: Myers, 1982,

91. World Bank, “Forestry Sector Policy Paper, ”Washington D. C., 1978.

92. World Meteorological Organization, Cyclones,Typhoons and Hurricanes: Survey Report,Geneva, Switzerland, 1979. In: Myers, 1982.

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Data Base. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Extent of Remaining Tropical Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Closed Forest.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Open Forests and Shrublands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Forest Fallow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Forest Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Forest Legislation and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Forest Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wood Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Natural Forest Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Plantations .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Destruction of Forest Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Deforestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Resource Degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

projection of Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter 3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Tables

63

63

64646768

6970707374

757578

79

82

Table No. Page3. Estimates of Per Capita Closed Forest Areas and Deforestation Rates in

Tropical Africa, America, and Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765. Annual Deforestation, 1981-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 796. Forest Area Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

List of Figures

Figure No. Page12. Classification of Woody Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6613. Areas of Woody Vegetation in 76 Tropical Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6714. Overall Area of Tropical Woody Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6915. Comparative Production of Wood, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

16A. Wood Production in Tropical Africa, 1969-80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7216B. Wood Production in Tropical America, 1969-80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7216C. Wood Production in Tropical Asia, 1969-80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

17. Plant Nutrient Loss Caused by Logging in Tropical v. Temperate Forests.. . . 80

Chapter 3

Status of Tropical Forests

●

●

●

●

HIGHLIGHTS

The area planted with trees in tropical re-gions each year is only about one-tenth ofthe forest area cleared.

Gradual resource degradation, especially inthe drier open forest areas, may have agreater long-term impact on human welfarethan deforestation.

Landsat imagery has greatly improvedknowledge of closed tropical forests and thisis enhancing forest management. However,data on open forests and forest resourcedegradation are still imprecise.

Forest data aggregated by region may sug-gest that no global problem exists. However,country-by-country analyses show that ratesof deforestation are high and forest area percapita is already low in many tropical na-tions.

Ž

●

●

The acreage within tropical forests that isfallowed or abandoned is growing rapidly.Some of this will naturally return to forestcover, but most of it does not regain produc-tivity without a concerted reforestationeffort.

Most tropical forest is owned by national orState governments, but locally recognizedrights to use the resources greatly complicatemanagement efforts.

Tropical forestry historically has tended toneglect the basic needs of people who livein and near the forests. This is changing aslaws, policies, and forestry professionals’ at-titudes give more attention to fuelwood, andto relationships between forestry and agri-culture.

THE DATA BASE

Data on the extent and condition of tropicalforest areas are abundant but widely scatteredand frequently inaccurate. Some of this infor-mation is based on old, imprecise measure-ments or estimates that have been updatedthrough simple extrapolation. Accuracy is fur-ther impaired by lack of standard definitionsand classifications of forest types; thus, the dataare difficult to compare across studies. Micro-level studies of project areas or watersheds con-tain some of the most reliable and detailed in-formation on forest resources and land use, yetthis information is hard to obtain because it ispoorly distributed,

A comprehensive synthesis of data about theworld’s tropical forest resources was con-ducted by the United Nations Food and Ag-riculture Organization (FAO) with the assist-ance of the United Nations Environment Pro-

gramme (UNEP) (3,4). The FAO/UNEP studyis the first where the definitions of forest typesand conditions are consistent across countries.It covers 76 nations; 73 nations are tropical orpartly tropical, and 3 nations are outside theTropics but are directly influenced by tropicalmonsoons. It does not include the tropicalregions of China, Australia, islands off thecoasts of Africa, the Pacific islands, or PuertoRico. Some of the forests included are in placeswhere the climate is more temperate than trop-ical.

The FAO/UNEP study relies mainly on datasupplied by governments. Most measurementsand estimates in various categories of forestwere made in the 1970’s. Then, using theestimated rates of change from one categoryto another, the figures were projected to rep-resent the situation in each nation as of 1980.

63


Several nations did not have complete data,and for 13 of these FAO commissioned newLandsat analyses. Some of the governmentestimates used by FAO are also based on Land-sat data.

Data gathered from the U.S. Landsat pro-gram has greatly enhanced the accuracy of in-formation on the extent of forests. By usingcomputers to study Landsat data, investigatorscan distinguish primary forests from second-ary forests, closed forests from open forestsand grasslands, and dominant types of trees(e.g., broadleaved, coniferous, mangroves).

forest cover over time. Hence, only a few ofthe estimated deforestation rates given in theFAO/UNEP study, presented later in this chap-ter, are based on remote sensing data. The restare mainly subjective estimates. In addition,since expertise and computers to analyze Land-sat data are not available in some tropical na-tions, many analyses have relied on visual in-terpretation of images, This method is moresubjective and less sensitive to small-scalechanges in forest area boundaries. In somecases, images cannot be used because of cloudcover,

Unfortunately, Landsat data have not beencollected long enough to reveal trends in the

EXTENT OF REMAINING TROPICAL FOREST

Closed Forest

Tropical nations contained some 1.2 billionhectares [ha) of closed forest at the end of 1980,Tropical America has 57 percent of the world’sclosed tropical forests, while Asia has 25 per-cent, and Africa has 18 percent (fig. 13). Theseforests are unevenly distributed among thetropical nations, Brazil alone has nearly two-fifths of the world’s total closed tropical forestsand Indonesia and Zaire each account for near-ly another tenth (table A-1 in app. A).

The condition of closed tropical forests maybe divided into several categories: undisturbed,logged, managed, physically unproductive, andprotected areas. Table A-2 in appendix Ashows the percent of forest in each categoryfor each of the 76 nations.

Over half (56 percent) of the total tropicalclosed forest is classified as undisturbed forest.This forest has commercial potential, but mostof it is relatively inaccessible to human popula-tions. When Brazil and Zaire with their enor-mous remote forests are excluded, the remain-ing tropical nations have two-fifths (41 percent)of their closed forest in the undisturbed cate-gory.

Another 14 percent of the total closed forestis productive forest that has been logged butis not under active forestry management. IvoryCoast, Togo, Benin, Sri Lanka, and Belize allhave at least 60 percent of their closed forestin this condition. Some other countries havehad extensive logging but register little forestin the logged condition because farmers quick-ly convert the logged forest to temporary orpermanent cropland. A prime example is Thai-land, which has had extensive logging butshows no forest in the logged condition.

Only about 3 percent of the total closed trop-ical forest is classified as managed. Much ofthis is in logged-over condition, but significantinvestments are being made to manage naturalregeneration. India classifies 63 percent of itsclosed forest as managed; Burma and Malaysiaeach classify about 12 percent as managed. Ex-cluding these three countries, only 0.3 percentof the rest of the tropical closed forest isclassified as managed. Most of that is in Ghana,Uganda, Kenya, Sudan, and Zambia.

Another one-quarter (23 percent) of theclosed forest is unproductive for physicalreasons. Much of this has not been disturbed

Ch. 3—Status of Troplca/ Forests ● 65

Definitions of Forest Categories

To dicuss; the status of the world's tropical fores? resources, the FAO/UNEP study dividesforests into a number of categories (fig. 12). Those used in this report are:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Closed forest includes land where trees shade so much of the ground that a continuous layerof grass cannot grow. The tree covrer is often multi-storied. Trees may be evergreen, semi-deciduous, or deciduous. Closed forests grow where the climate is relatively moist. The dataon closed forest areas do not include the land which is forest fallow. which is accountedfor separately. Forest plantations are also separate,Broadleaf forest is a subset of closed forest, where broadleaf species (dicotyledons or mono-cotyriedons] predominate. The broadleaf trees (especially the dicotyledons) are often referredto as "hardwoods.” The FAO/UNEP study makes a separate category for bamboo-dominatedforests, but these are ioncluded with the broadleaf forests in this report.Conifer forest is another subset of closed forest. It includes only areas where conifer species(gymnosperms) predominate. These trees are often referred to as “softwoods. ”Open forest has trees that cover at least 10 percent of the ground but still allow enough lightto reach the forest flour so that a dense, continuous cover of grass can grow. The grass coverill creases the likelihood of grazing by livestock and the spread of fires. open forests .general-ly occur where the climate is relatively dry. The data on open forest areas do include theland which is forest fallow. For tropical Africa, data are also available to separate the openforest fallow from the total open forest.Productive forest is a term used to describe subsets of both closed and open forests. In pro-

ductive forest, the characteristics of the trees, terrain, and forest regulations potenilly allowthe productiun of wood for industrial purposes (e. g., sawlogs, veneerlogs, pulpwood, andindustrial poles). The distance to consumption or export centers is not taken into account,so the category includes some forests that are not now economically accessible.Undisturbed forest is productive forest that has not been logged or cleared in the last 60to 80 years. The category includes both primary forests and old growth secondary forests.It is not applied to open forests because nearly all open forests have been subject to cutting,burning, and grazing.Logged-over forest is productive forest area that has been logged or cleared at least oncein the last 60 to 80 years but does not fit the criteria for managed forest. This is category isnot appllied to open forests.Managed forest is productive forest wher harvesting regulations are enforced, silviculturaltreatments are carried out, and trees are protected from fires and diseases.Unproductive forest for physical reasons is not suitable for industrial wood productiondue to rough or inundated terrain or poor growth characteristics of the trees (stunted orcrooked).Legally protected forest is the category for forest where logging is prohibited by law. It in-cludes a variety of parks and protected areas. Illegal logging does occur in some of these areas.Forest fallow is land that has been cleared for cultivation and subsequently abandoned sothat it may again have some woody vegetation. This category. also includes patches of landt hat are being used to grow crops and some patches where forest has not been cleared butare too small to account for separately. The category is not supposed to include land whereerosion or leaching have so degraded the site that only shrubs or grasses grow after the landis abandoned. Land in the forest forest fallow category is excluded from the definition of closedforest but included in the definition of open forest,Plantations are tree stands that have been established by human activity. The term includes

reforestation (reestablishment of a tree cover on deforested or degraded forest lands) andreplacement of natural forest by a different tree crop.Industrial plantations are sites wherc trees are planted to produce sawlogs, veneer logs,pulpwood and pitprops. This category excludes plantation that produce fuelwood forindust-trial use.


• Social and environmental plantations are designed for soil and water protection or to pro-duce fuelwood and charcoal, polewood or construction wood for local use, or nonwood prod-ucts, such as gum arabics. The category excludes plantations for nonwood commodities suchas rubber, palm oil, coconuts, cloves, coffee, and cocoa. It also excludes trees planted toshade agricultural crops.

● Shrubland has woody vegetation covering at least 10 percent of the ground, but the mainwoody plants are bushy species with a height at maturity of 0.5 to 7 meters. Shrubland maybe the natural vegetation under dry or otherwise stressful conditions, or it may result fromsevere degradation of open or closed forest land. The data on shrubland areas include somefallow agricultural land.

Figure 12.—Classification of Woody Vegetation

by cutting; it is either too steep or too wet forlogging or farming, However, this category alsoincludes forest where the trees have no poten-tial for industrial wood production, in somecases due to excessive cutting and consequentresource degradation, Brazil, Indonesia, Peru,Mexico, New Guinea, and Zaire each have atleast 20 million ha of forest unproductive forphysical reasons. The name of this category is

misleading, since much of’ this forest can beproductive for fuelwood and other nonin-dustrial products and for essential environmen-tal services such as watershed protection,

Finally, about 3 percent of the closed tropicalforest has been given park or other legal pro-tection status. Again, the percentage of thetotal hides an unequal distribution. Over half

Ch. 3—Status of Tropical Forests • 67

Figure 13.—Areas of Woody Vegetationa in 76 Tropical Nations by Region(thousands of hectares, 1980 estimates)

Tropical America

P l a n t a t i o n

sed forestfallow108,612

61,650 Open woodlands216,997

Tropical Africa

Tropical Asia

Open woodlfallow104,335

Closed forestfallow. , 61,646

P l a n t a t i o n

f o r e s t s

1,780

Clo

and

sed fofallow69,225

rest

St ands

P l a n t a t i o n Open woodlandforests fallow5,111 3,990

(55 percent) of the protected forests are located land, grassland, or desert primarily depends onin just four countries—India, Zaire, Indonesia, how dry the climate is and on the moisture-and Brazil. Despite the legal status of park holding capacity of the soil. To an increasinglands on paper, many of these forests in fact extent, however, it also depends on human-do not receive much protection (3). caused factors (11).

Generally, closed forests grow where averageOpen Forest and ShrubIands annual rainfall is above 1,600 millimeters (mm).

Open forests are found where rain is from 900Tropical nations contain some 746 million to l,200 mm. In areas with 1,200 to 1,600 mm

ha of open forest and 624 million ha of shrub- of rain, the natural cover may be either openland. Whether the natural vegetation of a trop- or closed forest, depending on fire history, soil,ical area is closed forest, open forest, shrub- frequency of drought, and other environmen-


tal factors. Shrublands grow where rain isbelow 900 mm. In transitional areas, fires andlivestock grazing can convert closed forest toopen forest and open forest to shrubland. Con-versely, closed or open forests can be reestab-lished in some places when fire and other pres-sures are eliminated (4,11).

Open forest and shrubland areas are uneven-ly distributed among tropical nations. The datadescribing these types of forests are much lessaccurate than for closed forests. This is partlybecause boundaries between open forest,shrubland, grassland, and fallow agriculturalland are difficult to determine. It is also be-cause there has been less interest in measur-ing or monitoring open forests and shrubland.Table A-3 in appendix A shows estimates forareas of open forest and shrubland in each ofthe 76 nations. Together, the African nationshave most (65 percent) of the tropical open for-ests, but Brazil again dominates with 157 mil-lion ha. Zaire has 71 million ha; Angola has 51million ha.

Shrublands also are mainly (7 I percent)found in Africa. Sudan has 87 million ha ofshrubland, and other African nations withlarge expanses of shrubland include Tanzania,Central African Republic, Zambia, andEthiopia. In tropical America, Brazil has 61million ha; Paraguay, Bolivia, and Mexico alsohave extensive shrublands. Among the tropicalAsian nations, Thailand, Kampuchea, Laos,and Indonesia all have substantial shrublandareas.

Since open tropical forests are more easilypenetrable than closed forests, nearly all ofthem have been cut, burned, or grazed bylivestock. Hence, no open forests are classifiedas undisturbed. Two-thirds of tropicalAmerica’s open forest is classified asproductive—having potential to produce woodfor industry, In Africa, where these forests aregenerally drier, only one-third is classified asproductive; just over one-fourth is classifiedproductive in tropical Asia.

Although few open forests fit the FAO/UNEPdefinition for “productive,” these woodlands

are important for nonindustrial products andservices. Much, perhaps most, of the openforest is used for livestock grazing andfuelwood collecting. These forests protect soilsand watersheds in the semiarid regions andtheir wildlife is important as food. Further,many of the trees are legumes capable of con-verting atmospheric nitrogen to fertilizer, andso they are important for restoring the fertili-ty of abandoned croplands.

Parks and protected areas account for 9 per-cent of the African tropical nations’ open for-ests. Tropical America has given protected areastatus to just 1 percent, and tropical Asia hasdesignated 2 percent for protection.

Forest Fallw

The closed tropical forest regions includesome 240 million ha of land in forest fallow.Overall about 1 in 6 ha in the closed forests arebeing used for shifting agriculture. But in manynations, shifting agriculture has claimed a larg-er part of the closed forest. Sierra Leone hasfive times as much forest fallow as closed for-est, Five other nations in tropical Africa, fourin tropical Asia, and four in tropical Americahave from 50 to 100 percent as much forest fal-low as closed forest, Table A-4 in appendix Ashows the ratio of forest fallow to forest foreach of the 76 nations. It is likely that muchof this fallow land will not be returned to forestuses. Under unfavorable site conditions andshort fallow periods, much of this land mayeventually become unproductive for agricul-ture as well.

Estimates of forest fallow areas are not ac-curate. However, shifting agriculture is by nomeans limited to moist areas. In dry regions,fallow serves to restore moisture as well asorganic matter and plant nutrients to the soil.The FAO/UNEP report estimates that aboutone-fifth of the land reported to be open forestis in fact forest fallow. Livestock graze on boththe forest fallow and the open forest that hasnot yet been used for crops.

Figure 14 shows relative areas of each vegeta-tion type for the 76 nations as a whole.

Ch. 3—Status of Tropical Forests Ž 69—

Figure 14.—Overall Area of TropicalWoody VegetationLand surface of the Earth

Land surface of the 76 countries studied

Coni fer -

\forests Plantat ions

SOURCE: Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations EnvironmentProgramme, Tropical forest Resources Assessment Project (GEMS):Tropical Africa, Tropical Asia, Tropical America, 4 VOIS. (Rome: FAO,1981)

FOREST

Forest Logislation and Policy

Forest legislation and policy are evolving intropical countries to reflect a growing aware-ness of the social and environmental implica-tions of forestry decisions. Many tropical na-tions substantially revised their forestry lawsduring the 1960’s and 1970’s. In many cases,however, the laws look good on paper, but arenot well-enforced (7).

Some issues have become more prominentin the last 5 to 10 years. For example, manycountries have revised their logging laws andpolicies to be more restrictive regarding timberallocation from public land, lease terms, con-cession fees and taxes, annual allowable cutlimits, regeneration methods, and export of un-processed logs.

MANAGEMENTOther prominent policy issues include accel-

erating reforestation on degraded lands, pro-tecting watersheds, increasing incentives forindustrial plantations and farm forestry, andlegislative support for reforesting communalland. Social issues, too, increasingly are beingrecognized (e.g., the needs of slash-and-burncultivators and nomadic grazers, domestic fuel-wood requirements, and release of forest landsto settled agriculture). Many tropical countriesnow view conservation as important to eco-nomic development and, thus, are more awareof the need to sustain multiple-use of forests,preserve biological diversity, maintain parksand protected areas, and guard against the lossof mangroves.

Some gaps, however, still need to be ad-dressed. There is a need to evaluate tropical


forest resource policy, but no organization hassuch a program. The connection betweenforests and policies in other sectors such asland tenure and agrarian reform also needs tobe assessed.

Forest Ownership

In order to understand the use and loss offorest resources and to devise effective policiesfor managing forests, it is important to knowthe legal and de facto ownership of forest landsand trees. The legal status of land may not in-dicate who has practical control of land use.For example, owners of large properties mayappropriate adjoining public lands. Also, slash-and-burn cultivators and other landless poormay occupy communal forests. In fact, tree ten-ure may differ from land tenure.

The FAO/UNEP report (3) summarizes forestownership by regions and provides some de-tails at the national level. In tropical America,forest ownerships may be public, private, orcommunal. Most conifer forests in Brazil andin Central American nations are privatelyowned. The much larger broadleaved forestsare public property, but national laws regard-ing forest ownership often are contradicted bylocal practice.

The situation is more complex in tropical Af-rica where private ownership of forests is rare.Traditional use rights in most forest areas are rec-ognized for hunting, gathering nonwood prod-ucts, acquisition of fuelwood and constructionwood, and shifting cultivation or grazing. Peo-ple may have exclusive rights over trees thatthey plant on communal lands. Local com-munity ownership of forest lands in many for-mer British colonies is recognized in nationalforestry laws. In former French colonies, localrights are not recognized at the national leveland all forests are considered state property.

In tropical Asia, 80 to 90 percent of the forestland is state-owned and under the legal con-trol of the forest departments. However, a largepart of this land is illegally occupied by forestfarmers, both those who practice traditionalshifting agriculture and those who try to use

the forest land for continuous cropping andgrazing. State control over forest lands hasbeen a gradual process, taking place mainlyover the past 30 years. The central governmentin Nepal and some states in India such as WestBengal took control of all forested land fromthe villages in the 1950’s. Papua New Guineaand most of the Pacific Islands are exceptionsto this general rule. There, forests are ownedby clans and tribes and the government has tonegotiate with them for the right to use forestresources.

Wood Production

The 76 nations covered by the FAO/UNEPstudy of tropical forests produce 1.4 billioncubic meters of wood annually (measured asround logs extracted from the forest). As fig-ure 15 indicates, this is about half of all thewood production in the world, and most (86percent) of it is used for firewood or charcoal.The rest is “industrial wood” used for domesticand export production of sawlogs, veneer logs,lumber, poles, pulpwood, wood panels, andother processed products. Figure 16 indicateschanges in wood production for each of thetropical regions over a 12-year period.

The production of industrial wood varieswith economic conditions. Generally economicdevelopment during the 1970’s, resulted in in-creasing demand for industrial wood in all thetropical regions. Industrial wood productionincreased most rapidly in tropical Asia and inWest Africa with the growth of markets forsawlogs and veneer logs from those regions.More recently, slowing economies have con-strained the growth in production. If rapideconomic growth resumes, tropical Americamay experience substantial industrial woodproduction increases.

Significant investments were made in millsand infrastructure during the 1970’s, but thesehave operated below capacity because of weakmarkets. In Asia and West Africa, depletion ofresources is likely to constrain sawlog andveneer log production, but resurgence ofeconomic growth should create domestic

Ch. 3—Status of Tropical Forests ● 71

5.—Comparative

Fuelwood

Production of Wood, 1980

/ Other \

3%Tropica l Amer

5010

Tropical Asia6 %

i c a

Total roundwoodSOURCE: Adapted from Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Tropical Forest Resources, Forestry Paper No

30 (Rome: FAO, 1982)

markets for wood chips to produce pulp and dominance will become greater where eco-other wood products made from a wider varie- nomic growth continues to be slow.ty of trees,

The increase in total wood production isdriven by a steady increase in fuelwood pro-duction. However, the data on fuelwood appar-ently are obtained by multiplying unchangingestimates of per capita consumption by eachcountry’s population. Thus, the growth in pro-duction is probably not so steady as figure 16suggests. Nevertheless, fuel is certainly thedominant use for wood in the Tropics and that

Looking at figure 16, one might expect thattropical forestry efforts would be concentratedmainly on fuelwood production. However, un-til recently forestry departments in tropicalcountries, international assistance agencies,and multilateral development banks have con-centrated most of their efforts on industrialwood production. Industrial production at-tracts investment in the forestry sector becauseit can earn foreign exchange and concessionfees, and it can be taxed. Thus, industrial wood


Figure 16/L-Wood Production in Tropical Africa, 1969-80

400,000

350,000

Fuelwood Sawlogs and Other Industrialveneer logs roundwood

I I

300,000 -

250,000 -

200,000 -

150,000 -

100,000 -

50,000 -

01970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 198019791969

Years

SOURCE Adapted from Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Tropical Forest Resources, Forestry Paper No.

30 (Rome: FAO, 1982)

Figure 16 B.–Wood Production in Tropical America, 1969.80450,000t

I Fuelwood Sawlogs and Other Industrialveneer logs

400,000

roundwood

350,000

300,000

t250,000 -

200,000 -

150,000 -

1oo,ooo -

50,000 -

0 -19801969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979

Years

SOURCE’ Adapted from Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Tropical Forest Resources, Forestry Paper No,

30 (Rome: FAO, 1982)

Ch. 3—Status of Tropical Forests Ž 73

Figure 16C.–Wood Production in Tropical Asia, 1969-80700,000 -

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

o

Fuelwood

[

Sawloas and Other Industrialveneer logs roundwood

19751970 1971 1972 I 973 1974 1976 1977 1979 19801969I

Years

SOURCE dated from Food and Agriculture Organlzatlon/United Nations Environment Program me, Tropical Foresf Resources Forestry Paper No30 (Rome FAO. 1982) -

production probably will continue to dominatetropical forestry activities.

The problem of ensuring an adequate indus-trial wood supply for international trade* ismore tractable than problems associated withfuelwood supply, impacts of deforestation onsoil and water resources, or maintenance ofbiological diversity. First, nearly 75 percent ofthe world’s industrial wood is now producedin the temperate zone. Second, industrial woodsupplies have grown at reasonably stable ratesfor 30 years (9). And third, a large proportionof the world’s future consumption of industrialwood can come from plantations. One recentestimate is that 140 million ha of well-managedplantations could, theoretically, supply all theindustrial wood consumed in the world in theyear 2000 (8). That would be an area equal to5 percent of the present forested area in theworld.

Much more wood is consumed in tropicalcountries for fuelwood, however. Serious short-ages of fuelwood, lumber, poles, paper, andother forest products within nations are not be-ing met through international trade because ofhigh transportation costs and persistent pover-ty. Furthermore, conflicts between forest andagricultural land usescountries.

Natural Forest

are critical in many

Management

Only small areas of tropical forests are underintensive management (3). In tropical America,management is increasing. For example, Mex-ico is managing watershed forests through con-trolled logging. Belize, Brazil, Guatemala, andParaguay are designing management plans fornatural resources. Silvicultural trials andresearch efforts to develop suitable technolo-gies for managing natural forests are underway in Brazil, Costa Rica, French Guyana,Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela.

25-287 0 - 84 - 6


Some African nations, when they were Brit-ish and Belgian colonies, had developed har-vesting regulations and working plans for man-aging natural forests, but these have been aban-doned over the past two decades. Nigeria,Zaire, and Tanzania previously managed largeareas of natural forest, but no longer do so.Uganda reports a large managed area, althoughit is doubtful that the management plans havebeen implemented. The Congo also is prepar-ing plans that set the allowable cut for naturalforests and indicate appropriate silviculturalpractices.

The deciduous and conifer forests of SouthAsia—Burma, Bangladesh, India, and Paki-stan—have a long history of intensive forestmanagement. India alone contains 60 percentof all the managed forest in the 76 tropical na-tions. However, the remaining tropical forestsof South Asia and the forests of Southeast Asiaare not intensively managed for a number ofreasons. Information on forest ecology and dy-namics is scarce. Forestry departments lacktrained personnel to manage the forests. Theemphasis in forestry has been on commercialexploitation so that little attention has beengiven to silvicultural treatments (3).

About 11.5 million ha of tree plantations hadbeen established in the 76 nations by the endof 1980 (table A-5 in app. A). Most (68 percent)of these are in just three countries: Brazil, In-dia, and Indonesia. About 7 million ha are in-tended to produce sawlogs, veneerlogs, pulp-wood, or industrial poles. Only 4.4 million hahave been planted for fuelwood and charcoal,for environmental protection, and for nonwoodproducts such as gum arabic.

The estimated rate of planting in the tropicalnations is about 1.1 million ha/yr (4). Currentplanting is intended mainly (53 percent) forlumber, paper, and industrial poles, but a grad-ual shift to fast-growing trees to produce fuel-wood and charcoal is occurring as a result ofchanging objectives in tropical forestry.

Forestry plantations are usually monocul-ture, often of exotic species, planted not whereforest cutting is occurring, but rather on landthat has been cleared for some time, such asabandoned farmland (5). Most industrial woodplantations in East Africa are softwoods (pinesand cypress), while in West Africa hardwoods(principally teak) are planted. In tropicalAmerica, pines are usually grown for saw tim-ber, while eucalyptus and gmelina are plantedfor pulpwood. Eucalyptus frequently is grownfor pulpwood in India, while teak is grown fortimber in India and Indonesia.

Two-thirds of nonindustrial plantations inAfrica are for fuelwood; the rest are mainly forgum arabic production or watershed protec-tion. In tropical America, three-quarters of theplantations classified as nonindustrial are euca-lyptus trees planted to supply charcoal to theiron and steel industry in the Brazilian Stateof Minas Gerais. Most of the rest is for produc-tion of forest fruit, such as “palmito.” Onlyabout 100,000 ha of plantations in tropicalAmerica are intended primarily for soil andwatershed protection; Mexico has most ofthese. In Asia, most nonindustrial plantationsare intended to produce locally consumed fire-wood and these are being planted at a rate ofabout 1 million ha/yr.

The rate of forest plantation establishmentis much too low to replace the amount of forestbeing cleared. In tropical America, the ratio ofarea planted to area deforested annually isabout 1 to 10.5; in tropical Africa it is 1 to 29;and in tropical Asia it is 1 to 4.5 (4). Further-more, most reforestation programs are not car-ried out where deforestation takes place. InBrazil, for example, plantations are concen-trated in the South, whereas forest clearing oc-curs mainly in the North.

The greatest discrepancy between reforesta-tion rates and the demand for wood and otherforest products is in Africa. In Asia, reforesta-tion is closer to deforestation becausedeforestation rates level off as the remainingforest is left only in inaccessible areas andbecause severe wood shortages in heavilypopulated areas are leading to greater plantingefforts (4).

Ch. 3—Stafus of Tropical Forests Ž 75

DESTRUCTION OF

Distinguishing between deforestation (alsocalled “clearing” in this report) and degrada-tion of forest resources is important. The FAO/UNEP study estimates deforestation rates for1976-80 and projects rate estimates for 1981-85.It does not, however, estimate degradationrates. Unlike deforestation, degradation is noteasy to identify through time-series Landsat orother remote-sensing analyses.

Deforestation

Each year about 0.5 percent of the remain-ing closed tropical forests and 0.6 percent ofthe remaining open tropical forests are con-verted to nonforest land uses or to wasteland.This is an aggregation of estimated deforesta-tion rates from the 76 countries covered by theFAO/UNEP report. In some countries, the de-forestation rate has been estimated by compar-ing Landsat or other remote-sensing data fromtwo time periods; for some, information onpopulation growth, farming, and animal hus-

Deforestation and Degradation

Much of the confusion over rates of changein forest areas stems from the failure to dis-tinguish between deforestation and degrada-tion. As defined here and in the FAO/UNEPreport:

● Deforestation is the conversion of foreststo land uses that have a tree cover of lessthan 10 percent. Thus, logged-over areas,including clear-cut areas, are not classi-fied as deforested if the forest is in theprocess of regenerating.

● Degradation of forests refers to biologi-cal, physical, and chemical processes thatresult in loss of the productive potentialof natural resources in areas that remainclassified as forest. Soil erosion and Iossof valuable or potentially valuable genetictypes are examples of degradation. Insome cases, forests can recover naturallyfrom degradation within a few decades.In other cases recovery may take muchlonger, if it occurs at all.

FOREST RESOURCES

bandry practices were considered as well.Table A-6 in appendix A shows estimated areasof closed forest converted to nonforest annu-ally for each of the 76 countries.

The overall tropical deforestation rate isstrongly affected by the status of the forests ina few tropical nations that have very large for-est areas relative to their population. Thus, the0.5 and 0.6 percent/yr figures obscure both sub-stantial differences among nations and theoverall severity of tropical deforestation.Closed forest area per capita is already lessthan O.O5 ha in 17 of the 76 nations. Over halfthe rest have deforestation rates between 1 and6.5 percent/yr. Table 3 indicates forest areasper capita and deforestation rate estimates foreach country.

Table 4 shows the 76 nations divided intonine categories of closed forest area and popu-lation size. Several countries, including Gabon,Congo, French Guiana, Surinam, and Guyana,have such large forests and so few people thattheir deforestation rates are very low. Clearly,closed tropical forests will exist in these na-tions for many decades, although even arelatively small population can cause resourcedegradation over large areas. Other nations,such as Liberia and Honduras, have largeamounts of forest but also have high deforesta-tion rates. If current rates of deforestation andpopulation growth were to continue, these twonations would, in just 15 years, reduce theirforest area per capita to half what it is. In somenations, deforestation can be expected to slowas the forests are reduced to inaccessible areasthat are unattractive to farmers. However, ex-perience in nations such as Haiti, El Salvador,Jamaica, Costa Rica, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Angola,and Ghana indicate that deforestation can con-tinue rapidly even when only limited forestsremain.

In tropical Africa, deforestation rates arehighest in the West African nations. Nigeriaand Ivory Coast together incur almost half (45percent) of the continent’s total annual defor-estation of closed forests, About 4 percent ofthe closed forests of the West African nations


Table 3.—Estimates of Per Capita Closed Forest Areas and Deforestation Ratesin Tropical Africa, America, and Asia

Closed forest Closed forest Percent Closed forest Closed forest Percentarea area (ha) deforested area area (ha) deforested

Country (1,000 ha) per capita per yeara Country (1,000 ha) per capita per yeara

Tropicai Africa:Ivory Coast . . . . . . . . . .Nigeria. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rwanda . . . . . . . . . . . . .Burundi . . . . . . . . . . . . .Benin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guinea-Bissau . . . . . . .Liberia . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guinea. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kenya. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Madagascar . . . . . . . . .Angola . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Uganda . . . . . . . . . . . . .Zambia. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mozambique . . . . . . . . .Sierra Leone . . . . . . . . .Tanzania . . . . . . . . . . . .Togo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cameroon . . . . . . . . . . .Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . .Somalia . . . . . . . . . . . . .Equatorial Guinea . . . .Zaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Central African

Republic . . . . . . . . . .Gabon . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Congo . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Zimbabwe . . . . . . . . . . .Namibia . . . . . . . . . . . . .Botswana . . . . . . . . . . .Mali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Upper Volta . . . . . . . . . .Niger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senegal . . . . . . . . . . . . .Malawi . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gambia . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4,4585,950

1202647

6602,0002,0501,105

10,3002,900

7653,0101,718

935740

1,440304650500

17,9204,3501,5401,295

105,750

0.5O.7

bb

0.81.00.40.11.10.40.10.50.10.10.20.1O.l0.12.00.10.34.33.4

6.55.02.72.72.62.62.31.81.71.51.51.31.31.31.10.80.70.70.60.40.40.20.20.20.2

3,590 1.4 0.120,500 29.3 0.121.340 12.6 0.1

’200c

bb

cc

c b cc b cc b cc b c

220 b c

186 b c

65 0.1 c

El Salvador . . . . . . . . . .Jamaica . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nicaragua . . . . . . . . . . .Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . .Honduras . . . . . . . . . . .Guatemala . . . . . . . . . . .Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . .Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Panama . . . . . . . . . . . . .Belize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dominican Republic . .Trinidad and Tobago..Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . .Bolivia . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .French Guiana . . . . . . .Surinam . . . . . . . . . . . .Guyana . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tropical Asia:Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . .Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . .Brunei . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . .Laos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Philippines . . . . . . . . . .Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . .Viet Nab . . . . . . . . . . . .Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . .Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . .Burma . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216.634 0.6 0.61 Kampuchea. . . . . . . . . .

Tropical America:Paraguay . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,070Costa Rica . . . . . . . . . . 1,638Haiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

1.2O.7

4.74.03.8

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bhutan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Papua New Guinea . . .

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . .

141

67

4,496

14,250

3,797

4,442

46,400

46,250

4,165

1,354

629

208

69,680

357,480

31,870

44,0101,4558,900

14,83018,475

678,655

1,9411,6599,235

32320,995

8,4109,510

9278,770

113,8952,185

31,9417,548

51,8412,100

34,230

305,510

1.61.60.90.61.70.62.05.00.10.23.62.71.87.50.1

129.137.123.1

3.23.02.72.42.42.01.81.30.90.70.60.40.40.40.40.20.1

cc

c

2.1

0.10.10.21.21.42.30.2

b

0.20.7

b

0.81.30.11.5

11.0

0.2

0.6

4.33.52.71.51.21.21.00.90.70.50.30.30.30.30.10.1

0.6

aFrom 1981-85.bLessthan 0.05 forest hectares per capita.cNo data; in most cases this is where the areas are very small.

SOURCES: Population Reference Bureau, World Population Data Sheet Washington, D.C; Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations Environment Programme,Tropical Forest Resources AssessrnenfF’reject (GEMS): Tropical Africa, Tropical Asia, Tropical Arnerica,4 vols. (Rome: FAO, 1981)

are deforested each year. Other African regionswith high deforestation rates include East Afri-ca, where 1.4 percent of the closed forest ca-pable of producing industrial wood is clearedeach year, and the nations of Burundi andRwanda, where the rate is 2.7 percent/yr. Largeareas of closed forest in Zaire and Cameroonare cleared—262,000 ha/yr together—but likeBrazil these countries are forest-rich so therates do not seem so alarming as in the otherAfrican nations.

Five nations in tropical America (Paraguay,Costa Rica, Haiti, El Salvador, and Jamaica)have deforestation rates of at least 3 percent/yr,while another six (Nicaragua, Ecuador, Hon-duras, Guatemala, Columbia, and Mexico)con-vert atleast l percent/yr of their closed forestto other uses or to unforested wasteland. Al-though deforestation in Brazil is low when ex-pressed as a percent of the remaining forest(0.4percent), it affects a large area—about l.5 mil-lion ha/yr. That is one-third of all the closed

Ch. 3—Status of Tropical Forests ● 7 7

Table 4.—Comparison of Tropical Countries’ Closed Forest Sizes, population Sizes, and Deforestation Rates—C l o s e d f o r e s t P o p u l a t i o n D e f o r e s t a t i o n

—

Region/country s l z ea s l z eb r a t ec

Tropical Africa:Kenya, . . . ., SmallUganda SmallGhana . . SmallMozambique SmallTanzania ., ., SmallSudan ... ., Small

B u r u n d i . ,Rwanda ., ., .,Benin . . . . . . . . . . . .Sierra Leone . . .C h a dU p p e r V o l t aZ i m b a b w e . . . . Mali . . . . ,,Niger . . . .S e n e g a l .M a l a w i , , . . , . . , , . . , , .

SmalISmallSmalISmallSmalISmallSmalISmalISmalISmalISmalI

Guinea-Bissau . . SmallTogo, . . . . . SmallEquatorial Guinea . . . . . SmallBotswana . . SmallGambia . . . . . . . . . . . SmallNamibia. , . . . . SmalI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I v o r y C o a s t . MediurnN i g e r i a , . Med iumA n g o l a . . , . . Med iumEthiopia . Medium

Guinea . . . . . . . MediumZ a m b i a . . . . Med iumSomalia Medium

Liberia . . . ., . MediumCentra l Af r ican Republ ic Medium

Madagascar LargeCameroon LargeZaire . . . . . . . . . . LargeGabon ,., . LargeCongo, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Large

Tropica l Amer ica:Cuba . Small

LargeLargeLargeLargeLargeLarge

Med iumMed iumMed iumMed iumMed iumMed iumMed iumMed iumMed iumMed iumMed ium

SmalISmalISmallSmalISmallSmall

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LargeLargeLargeLarge

Med iumMed iumMed ium

SmallSmalI

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LargeLargeLargeSmallSmalI

Large

Med iumMed iumMed ium

1 ,7%1,31.31.10706272.7260804dddddd

2.6070.2ddd

655.015021.81.3022.30.1

1,50.40,20.101

01383206

Tropica/


forest clearing each year in tropical America.Colombia and Mexico together account foranother third.

Three-fifths of the closed forest cleared intropical Asia each year is logged-over produc-tive forest and about one-quarter is previouslyundisturbed forests. The highest deforestationrate in Asia is 4.3 percent/yr in Nepal, and asignificant portion of this cutting occurs intemperate forests on mountain watersheds. InSri Lanka, deforestation is 3.5 percent/yr, andin Thailand it is 2.7 percent. Brunei, the Philip-pines, and Bangladesh also have very highdeforestation rates.

Rates of deforestation are calculated as theestimated area deforested per year divided bythe estimated 1980 forest area. Thus, theserates should not be confused with geometricrates of change, such as population growthrates. Acceleration or deceleration of deforesta-tion rates are influenced not only by popula-tion growth but also by many other factors suchas rural to urban migration rates, land tenurechanges, and especially road-building activi-ties. Much too little is known about how thesefactors interact to predict how deforestationrates will change over any long period.

The FAO/UNEP study does draw some infer-ences about changes in the accessibility of theremaining forests. The area of closed tropicalforest cleared each year may be decreasingslightly for tropical Africa as a whole duringthe first half of the 1980’s, since during the

, previous decade the closed forests in heavilypopulated countries of West Africa generallywere reduced to sites that are unattractive tofarmers. However, the rate probably is ac-celerating in some nations. Deforestation inLatin America, on the other hand, probably isincreasing because additional forested areasare becoming accessible as new roads andbridges are built. In tropical Asia, deforesta-tion is also thought to be increasing, but therate probably will level off in the 1990’s as theforests are reduced to inaccessible areas orsites where agricultural clearing is not worth-while.

Based on current and planned rates of treeplantation establishment, the areas reforestedin the Tropics as a whole are about one-tenthof the areas deforested.

Deforestation also occurs in open tropicalforests, Trees are cut and burned both by tradi-tional shifting agriculturists and by farmers in-tending to establish permanent croplands. Ex-tracting wood for fuel or industrial use, fires,and excessive grazing all cause deforestationby reducing tree cover to less than 10 percent.The open forest area data are poor, however,and the estimates of deforestation rates areeven less precise. Deforestation in the dry openforests is typically a gradual process and thusis more difficult to see than in moist areaswhere the tree canopies are more dense. Fur-ther, the open forest lands are often under thejurisdiction of agencies that consider grazingto be the main use of this land. Thus, the landis likely to be classified by its herbaceous coverrather than its tree cover.

The FAO/UNEP study does not list country-specific deforestation rates for open forests, butit does provide overall estimates of open forestclearing for tropical Africa, America, and Asia.These are shown in table 5. As a rough indi-cator of the pressure on open forest resources,table A-7 in appendix A indicates open forestarea per capita for each of the 76 nations.

Resource Degradation

Resource degradation, the long-term loss ofproductive potential, is much more difficult tomeasure than deforestation. Reduction of soilquality and loss of superior genetic types oftrees have been documented for specific forestlocations (6). But so little is known about theecology of the tropical forests or the economicpotential of the many tropical forest species thatdegradation can be a highly subjective term.Forest resource degradation is undoubtedly oc-curring (3,6) and, especially in the drier openforests where recovery is slower, it may be amore important change than deforestation (12),

Ch. 3—Status of Tropical Forests . 79

Table 5.—Annual Deforestation, 1981-85

Closed forests OpenUndisturbed Productive, logged Unproductive forests

(1,000 ha) (o/o) (1,000 ha) (0/ 0 ) (1,000 ha) (%) ( 1 , 0 0 0 h a )

AreaTotal open and reforestedclosed forests annually

0 / 0 ) ( 1-,000 ha) ( % ) (1,000 ha)

Tropical America . 1,299 0.29 1,867 2.78 1,173 0.74 1,272 0.59 5,611 0.63 535Tropical Africa . . . 226 0.19 1,032 2.31 73 0.14 2,345 0.98 3,676 0.52 126Tropical Asia. . . . . 395 0.39 1,278 1.28 153 0.15 190 0.61 2,016 0.60 438

Total . . . . . . . . . . 1,920 0.28 4,177 1.98 1,399 0.45 3,807 0.52 11,303 0.58 1,099SOURCE Calculated from Food and Agriculture Organlz~lon/United Nations Ennvironment Programme, Tropical Forest Resources, Forestry Paper No 30 (Rome FAO, 1982)

Forest resource degradation has multiplecauses. Logging practices can cause degrada-tion by damaging residual trees, damaging soil,or failing to create an environment where nat-ural regeneration of valuable forest species canoccur. Forests in tropical America and Africatypically contain a large number of tree speciesper hectare, but just a few are commerciallyvaluable for timber. Logging in these areas usu-ally means felling and extracting only the best-shaped, large individuals of selected species.Yet, substantial and lasting damage is oftendone to the residual trees as a result of mech-anized logging and skidding operations (10). Asmuch as one-half of the residual stand may bedamaged (e.g., broken stems and branches ordisturbed roots) and one-third of the loggedarea may undergo soil damage (2).

Some tropical forests, such as the Diptero-carp forests of South and Southeast Asia, havea large number of commercially valuable spe-cies per hectare and are clearcut. This cancause soil erosion that reduces the potential fornatural regeneration. In tropical moist forestsa large proportion of the ecosystem’s nutrientsare tied up within the biomass of trees ratherthan the soils (fig. 17). Thus, a large share ofthe nutrients may be exported from the forest

with the logs. Machinery is available to harvestwhole trees and to use multiple species to pro-duce pulpwood. Although these technologiesare not yet widely used in the Tropics, theycould accelerate the loss of soil fertility (2). Fur-thermore, many tropical tree species seed irreg-ularly or at long intervals (once in 5 to 7 years).If clearcutting is practiced, natural regenera-tion of these species may not occur. Clearcut-ting also reduces regeneration of trees, suchas Dipterocarps, whose seedlings need to growin partial shade (l).

Conifer and mangrove forests in all threetropical regions and certain other forests intropical America (e.g., “cativo” and “sanjo”forests of Panama and Colombia) also have alow diversity and often are clearcut or cutoverso severely that soil conditions are unable tosupport natural regeneration.

Even where clearcutting is not practiced, log-ging roads can lead to degradation, For exam-ple, in Sabah and the Philippines, approximate-ly 14 percent of forest concession areas arecleared for logging roads (3). Poorly designedor constructed roads cause erosion and waterdrainage problems and may increase the sever-ity of Landslides,

Pro ject ion OF CHANGES

The FAO/UNEP study provides someestimates of rates at which forests are beingchanged from one category to another duringthe period 1980-85, although quantitative dataon natural resource degradation in areas thatremain classified as forest are not available. A

straight-line projection of the FAO/UNEP esti-mates, while not a forecast, can provide anunderstandable way to describe the magnitudeof resource changes that may occur. Table 6shows the projected forest areas for each of thethree tropical regions.


Figure 17.—Plant Nutrient Loss Caused by Logging in Tropical v. Temperate Forests

Tropical Temperate

Nitrogen10 ”/0

harvestloss

Phosphorus

Potassium

2 %

390/0

280/o 14 ”/0

Calcium 20% 50/0

57 ”/0

7 “/0

Ch. 3—Status of Tropical Forests • 81

Table 6.–Forest Area Projections (1,000 ha)

Tropical Africa Tropical America Tropical AsiaChange Change Changeover 20 over 20 over 20

Forest Category 1980a 1985a 2 0 0 0b years (O/. ) 1980a 1985 a

2 0 0 0b years (o/o) 1980 a 1985 a 2 0 0 0b y e a r s ( 0 / 0 )

Closed forests :U n d i s t u r b e d , p r o d u c t i v e . , 1 1 8 , 4 5 0 1 1 4 , 1 3 4 1 0 1 , 1 8 6 – 1 5 454,507 438,119 388,995 – 1 4 1 0 1 , 3 5 2 8 9 , 0 8 7 5 2 , 2 9 2 – 4 8L o g g e d , p r o d u c t i v e . , . , 4 2 , 8 4 8 4 0 , 9 1 1 3 5 , 1 0 0 – 1 8 66,622 67,281 69,258 +4 5 9 , 8 4 7 6 0 , 4 2 4 6 2 , 1 5 5 + 4M a n a g e d , p r o d u c t i v e . . . . 1,735 1,689 1,551 – 1 1 522 522 522 0 39.790 40,032 40,758 + 2Fallow In closed forests 61,646 66,705 81,882 +33 108.612 116,303 139,376 +28 69,225 73.729 87.241 +26Physically unproductive or

parks and protected areas 53,601 53,236 52,141 –3 157,004 151,140 133,548 –15 104,521 106,836 113,781 +9Open forests:Productive ., ., . . . . 169,218 159,555 130,566 – 2 3 142,887 136,787 118,487 – 1 7 8,530 8,075 6,710 –21Unproductive ... ., ., . 317,227 315,167 308,987 – 3 74,110 73,850 73,070 – 1 22,418 21,923 20,438 -9F a l l o w I n o p e n f o r e s t s , 1 0 4 , 3 3 5 1 1 1 , 5 2 0 1 3 3 , 0 7 5 + 2 8 6 1 , 6 5 0 6 2 , 9 5 0 6 6 , 8 5 0 + 8 3,990 4,100 4.430 + 1 1

aSOURCE Food and Agriculture Organ!zat!on/United Nat Ions Environment Program me, Tropica/ Forest Resources, Forestry Paper No 30 (Rome FAO, 1982)‘Extrapolated from current rates of change excludes plantations

This 20-year projection suggests that at cur-rent rates of logging and deforestation in trop-ical Africa, the area of undisturbed forestwould decline 15 percent by the year 2000.Some of this is because timber harvest will con-vert undisturbed forest to logged forest. Thelogged forest category also includes secondaryforest on land that is recovering from use forshifting agriculture. However, in spite of theseadditions, the logged forest area is decreasingbecause this category incurs most of the defor-estation for agriculture, Since the land does notsustain continuous cropping, the forest fallowarea is expected to increase over the 20-yearperiod by one-third. Changes in the open for-ests of Africa would be even greater. The openforest fallow is already larger than the fallowarea in Africa’s closed tropical forests. It wouldincrease by another 28 million ha as produc-tive open forest is degraded to the unpro-ductive category and both are cleared for shift-ing agriculture.

The projection shows a 14-percent reductionin the area of productive undisturbed forest intropical America, It also shows a 4 percent in-crease in the area of logged forest, which sug-gests that logging of undisturbed forest out-paces clearing of logged forest only slightly.Meanwhile, the forest fallow area in tropicalAmerica would increase by only about half asmany hectares as are lost from the forest cate-gories, implying that large areas are being con-verted to nonforest uses other than shifting ag-riculture. The main reason for converting for-

est land in tropical America in recent years hasbeen to make cattle pasture, although this usegenerally is not sustainable in moist forestareas. The area of closed forest that is unpro-ductive for physical or legal reasons is also de-clining significantly, suggesting that this landis not so inaccessible as its definition implies.

The change rates for tropical America’s openforests imply degradation of forest from theproductive category, simultaneous clearing ofthe unproductive forest, and a net increase inopen forest fallow that can account for only afraction of the reduction in the forest catego-ries. Again, this means a net conversion ofopen forest into cropland, grazing land, anddegraded land where forests do not regeneratenaturally, and it means a substantial declinein the quality of the remaining open forest.

Tropical Asia shows the highest reduction(21 percent) in undisturbed productive forest,although such forest has already been reduc-ed to an area much smaller than in tropicalAfrica and America. The logged-over area isincreasing slightly, probably because forestrydepartments in several Asian nations havesome control over the spontaneous clearing forcropland that follows logging operations, Thearea of forests unproductive for physical orlegal reasons is increasing in tropical Asia,though whether this is a result of more parksbeing established or of severe degradation ofthe logged-over forests is not clear. Open for-ests in tropical Asia are not so extensive as in

82 . Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources—

the other regions, but the pattern of degrada-tion and deforestation is similar.

Reviewing the FAO/UNEP study’s findingson deforestation and resource degradation,westoby (12) declares that the situation is mostalarming in the drier areas, where the data areleast precise:

Among the one and a half thousand millionor so hectares of open forest and shrub land,there is an infinite gradation of forest andshrub, ranging from less dry and reasonablywooded forests at one end to extremely aridshrub formations at the other, with the bor-derline between what can still be regarded asforest and what is irretrievably lost, vague, dif-

1. Abraham, F., “Practices and Experience ofNASIPIT Lumber Co., Inc., and Affiliates in ItsNatural and Artificial Regeneration of Forestsand Plantations, ” Proceedings of a Conferenceon Improved Utilization of Tropical Forests(Madison, Wis: U.S. Forest Service Forest Prod-~~cts Laboratory, 1978).

2. Ewel, J., “Environmental Implications of Trop-ical Forest Utilization, ” InternaticmaZ Sympo-sium on Tropical Forests Utilization and Con-servation, F. Mergen (cd.) (New Haven, Corm.:Yale University Press, 1981), pp. 156-167.

3. Food and Agriculture Organization/United Na-tions Environment Programme, Tropical ForestResources Assessment Project (GEMS): Tropi-cal Africa, Tropical Asia, Tropical America (4vols.) (Rome: FAO, 1981).

4. Food and Agriculture Organization/United Na-tions Environment Programme, TropicaZ ForestResources, Forestry Paper No. 30 (Rome: FAO,1982).

5. Gallegos, C,, et al., “Technologies for Reforesta-tion of Degraded Lands in the Tropics, ” OTAcommissioned paper, 1982.

ficult to identify from aerial photography orsatellite imagery, and by no means easy to besure about when one is actually there standingin it. What is happening to these forests to-day, under the impact of a variety of pres-sures, can best be visualized as a steady push-ing along the spectrum, a general downgrad-ing, with the result that very substantial areasevery year slide out of sight and can no longerbe considered as forest on even the most gen-erous definition. But what should be givingconcern is not so much the 4 million or so hec-tares that are sliding off the visible spectrumas the general degradation which is sappingaway at the drier tropical forests through thewhole spectrum,

REFERENCES

6, Myers, N., Conversion of Tropical Moist For-ests (Washington, D. C.: National Academy ofSciences, 1980),

7. Schmithusen, F., “Recent Trends of ForestLegislation in Developing Countries,” Pro-ceedings: XVII IUFRO World Congress, Divi-sion 4 (Vienna: International Union of ForestResearch Organizations, 1981).

8. Sedjo, R., and Clawson, M., GZobaZ Forests(Washington, D, C,: Resources for the Future,1983).

9. Spears, J., Tropical Reforestation: An AchievableGoaZ? (Washington, D. C,: World Bank, 1983).

10. United Nations Economic, Social, and CulturalOrganization, Tropical Forest Ecosystems (Par-is: UNESCO/UNEP/FAO, 1978).

11. Weber, F., “Combating Desertification WithTrees,” OTA commissioned paper, 1982.

12, Westoby, J., “Halting Tropical Deforestation:The Role of Technology,” OTA commissiorltxlpaper, 1982,

Chapter 4

Causes of Deforestation andForest Resource Degradation

PageHighlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Historical Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Soil: Its Relationship to Deforestation and Land Degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Visible Agents of Forest Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Subsistence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Shifting Cultivators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Livestock Raisers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90Fuelwood Gatherers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91Fires, , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93Warfare, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Commercial Resource Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Commercial Agriculturalists and Cattle Ranchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Loggers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Underlying Causes of Forest Degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98Property Rights and Control of Forest Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98Transformation of Forestry Administrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Chapter 4 References. . .

Table

Table No.7. The Main Soil Constra

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Pagents in the Amazon Basin Under Native Vegetation 88

Chapter 4

Causes of Deforestation andForest Resource Degradation

HIGLIGHTS• Tropical deforestation and forest resource

degradation are caused by subsistenceagriculturalists, livestock raisers, firewoodcollectors, and loggers.

● The agents of tropical forest loss vary inprominence among the three major tropicalforest regions (American, Africa, and Asia),Many times, the combination of these activ-ities exacerbates forest resource problems.

In many tropical areas, political, ecocomic,and social forces lead to overexploitationand underinvestment in management oftropical forest resources.

Regardless of what activities are responsi-ble-for forest removal from tropical lands,the soil plays a large role in determiningwhether agriculture, new forest growth, orbarren wastelands will replace the forest inthe long run.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Deforestation of tropical lands is not solelya recent phenomenon, In fact, the main lossof forests in some places occurred in the 19thcentury, when forests were cleared to estab-lish plantations of export crops such as sugar,abaca, coffee, indigo, and tobacco (36).

Sugar plantations swept away the Caribbeanforests in turn: first Barbados, then the Lee-ward Islands, Jamaica, and Haiti. The slave re-bellion in Haiti left the country in ruins andmade possible the sugar boom in Cuba.

Cuba’s story is typical and better docu-mented than that of other parts of the Carib-bean (7). Upon reaching the northeast coast ofCuba in 1492, Christopher Columbus was im-pressed by the island’s rich forests. A few yearslater, priest Fray Bartolome wrote that it waspossible to walk from one end of the island tothe other without leaving the shade of trees.In 1812, forests still covered 89 percent ofCuba. But thereafter, fields of sugar cane began

to replace the forests. Fire and axe were usedto clear forests for ranching as well. Forestcover had shrunk to 53 percent by 1900. withthe declaration of the Republic in 1902, and thesubsequent heavy influx of foreign capital intothe Cuban economy, forests continued to shrink,Small farms were swallowed up by large plan-tations. The farmers were driven to eke out aliving in the hills where their struggle for sur-vival, together with the insatiable fuel demandsof the sugar mills, took a heavy toll on the up-land forests. By 1946, forest cover was downto 11 percent of the land area. The averageyearly deforestation had been 1.7 percent of theforest area that existed in 1900.

The history of Brazil, which was the world’slargest sugar producer until the middle of the17th century, illustrates the severe damage thatdeforestation can inflict. The northeastern re-gion of the country is notorious for its pover-ty. The densely populated coastal region re-ceives substantial rainfall and when the area

85


was forest-covered, its soils were described asfertile and rich in humus. But the forests werecleared for sugar plantations, which were aban-doned as the soils wore out. Now the infertile,eroded soils only support savanna. Rainfall israpidly shed as runoff so that streams and stor-ages dry up during protracted droughts. As aconsequence, the region frequently gives riseto mass emigrations (50).

Similarly, little of South China’s tropical for-ests remain except in the extreme southwestand in the interior of Hainan Island. Fire andcultivation took a heavy toll as these forestscame under increased human pressure about1,000 years ago (45). Fire was used widely toclear forests for grazing lands and croplands.Overgrazing and poor agricultural practicesfurther reduced the likelihood that forestswould ever reestablish naturally. Timber wasused to build houses, temples, and ships, andwood was cut to supply fuel for cooking andheating. Forests probably were eliminated inpart to destroy the habitat of dangerous wildanimals or to minimize the hiding places forbandits. Today’s partly grass covered, eroded,

and depopulated hills and mountains in SouthChina attest to the severity of past land-usepractices and the inability of the forest toregenerate naturally (46).

In the African Sahel, resource degradationof dry forests has for centuries been caused bya combination of processes including dry anderratic climate, brush fires, trans-Saharantrade, gum arabic trade, agricultural expan-sion, and cattle. Herodotus and others, writingaround 450 B. C., described an active trans-Saharan trade based on precious stones called“carbuncles,” gold dust, and slaves. This tradehad great adverse impacts on the land. For in-stance, large areas were cleared of Acacia rad-diana to produce charcoal. In the late 18th cen-tury, huge caravans of 4,000 camels and 1,000men would stop at the desert margin and cutwood for charcoal to cook and trade. The char-coal even was used as emergency rations forthe camels (34).

The resulting encroachment of the desertmargin encouraged a southward shift ofdrysteppe vegetation. This, in turn, altered eco-

Ch. 4—Causes of Deforestation and Forest Resource Degradation • 87

logical relationships and amplified the impactof hazards such as drought (27). Even thoughthe human populations in the Sahel had suf-fered periodic droughts for centuries, fargreater harm was caused during the 1970’swhen drought was coupled with a seriously de-graded natural resource base. This is the ex-pected response of a resource system wherethere is self-perpetuating degradation. Theproblem increases gradually for a long time,but it is typically a logarithmic progression andcan lead to catastrophe (11).

For centuries, tropical deforestation has beenassociated with poverty (17). People displacedby development processes are often the directagent of deforestation. While peasant cultiva-tors and herders have done the actual tree cut-ting and burning, the causes lie in a chain ofevents that have left these people few optionsbut to destroy the forest or starve.

SOIL: ITS RELATIONSHIP TO DEFORESTATIONAND LAND DEGRADATION

Soils, by themselves, are not a direct causeof tropical deforestation. They do, however, setthe stage in many tropical regions for the prac-tice of shifting cultivation, which causes defor-estation. When it is cleared, forest land com-monly loses its fertility, produces decliningcrop yields, and ultimately is abandoned. Ifforest soils could sustain agriculture, continualrelocation of farm fields would be less likelyto occur and fewer forests would be cut down.But few tropical forest soils can sustain pro-ductive agriculture over the long term. Thepresence of large areas of either heavilyleached soils of low fertility, thin erosion-pronesoils, or dry soils makes the establishment ofpermanent farming sites extremely difficult.Therefore, regardless of what activities are re-sponsible for cutting tropical forests, the under-lying soil materials play a large role in de-termining whether agriculture, new forestgrowth, or barren wastelands will be the long-term results.

A simple but useful way of discussing tropi-cal forest soil is to divide the forest lands intothree categories:

1. hot, wetlands;2. arid/semiarid lands; and3. mountainous lands.

Although the soils on certain deltas, youngvolcanic materials, and flood plains may be fer-tile, most soils in hot, wetlands have signifi-cant fertility problems. These soils are formedby chemical weathering of rocks. Hightemperatures and high rainfall combine to ac-celerate leaching of nutrients from the rock andsoil mineral particles. The residual mineralstend to be composed mostly of aluminum, sili-con, iron, oxygen, and water, a chemical com-position so restricted that many food or treecrops planted on such soils will have stuntedgrowth or will not survive. In some of the soils,silicon and iron concentrations are so low, andaluminum so high, that the soil may approachor reach the composition of bauxite, an alumi-num ore. *

These soils have other problems when fer-tilized with certain essential plant nutrients.Phosphorus becomes so tightly held by certainclay minerals, aluminum, iron, and manganeseoxides that plants cannot extract enough fortheir own benefit (4,13). In the Amazon Basin,

*See Van Wambeke (47) and Fripiat and Herbillon (12) for moredetailed information. These are good references on soils of thehot, wet tropics that not only contain the commonly cited infor-mation on agriculture, soil names, etc., but also provide discus-sions of mineralogical and chemical processes.


for example, 16 percent of the soils suffer thisproblem. Overall, 90 percent of the Basin’s soils(table 7) have a phosphorus deficiency (37).Some 15 percent of the Amazon Basin soils ‘have a poor ability to hold potassium and othercommon plant nutrients (low cation exchangecapacity). If such nutrients are added to the soilas fertilizer, they can be expected to be leachedaway rapidly (4,13).

In addition, an estimated 2 percent of thesesoils will harden irreversibly upon drying (47),severely limiting reestablishment of vegetation(21). In some cases, soil hardening is so com-plete that the hardened material can be crushedand used as gravel for road building (24).

Undisturbed tropical forests have an efficientnutrient recycling system. As long as the forestis undisturbed, the nutrient supply remainsstable. Soil shaded by the closed forest canopyis cool enough for the abundant organic mate-rial to decay gradually. Thus, the forest soilstypically have a substantial humus content andcan hold the nutrients released by micro-organisms until they are absorbed back into theweb of tree roots to be recycled again. Slash-and-burn agriculture takes advantage of thehumus and of the rapid release of nutrientsthat occurs when the vegetation is burned. Butas soil temperatures rise, the humus is oxidizedrapidly, and as the forest is removed, the or-ganic inputs are reduced. Soil with less humusis less able to hold nutrients, and when rainfalls the soil fertility fades. If the land is re-turned to forest fallow soon enough, a newgrowth of trees can reestablish the soil’s hu-

mus, the web of roots, and the recycling sys-tem.

In hot, dry lands physical breakdown ofrocks and soil minerals plays a larger role insoil formation. In this process, the particles be-come smaller, but the chemical composition re-mains nearly the same and leaching of soil nu-trients is low. Physical disintegration can oc-cur in a number of ways; for instance, day andnight temperature variations cause rocks andminerals to expand and contract and, in time,crack. Salts and other substances collect incracks, expanding when wet and contractingwhen dry, further breaking the grains (3).Another mechanical way particles becomesmaller is through impact of other windblowngrains. And, of course, the growth of plantroots is a powerful agent in breaking up andholding rock and soil particles.

In arid/semiarid areas, nutrients needed bymany plants commonly are in the soil but be-come available to the plants only if sufficientwater is available (6). If most of the water evap-orates from the soil surface rather than perco-lating down into the soil, dissolved solids orsalts can accumulate as crusts at or near theland surface in concentrations that few plantscan tolerate (16).

Mountainous lands, though generally coolerthan the other two categories, exist in both wetand dry climates and, thus, either chemicalor physical processes may dominate. Ratherthan percolating into the ground to form thicksoils through chemical weathering, much of the

Table 7.—The Main Soil Constraints in the Amazon Basin Under Native Vegetation

Millions of Percentage ofSoil constraint hectares Amazon Basin

Phosphorus deficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436 90Aluminum toxicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 73Low potassium reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 56Poor drainage and flooding hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 24High phosphorus fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 16Low cation exchange capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 15High erodibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 8No major limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6Steep slopes (>30 percent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6Laterite hazard if subsoil exposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4SOURCE: P. A. Sanchez, D. E, Bandy, J. H. Villachica, and J, J. Nlcholaides, “Amazon Basin Soils Management for Continuous

Crop Production,” Science 216:821-827, 1982.

Ch. 4—Causes of Deforestation and Forest Resource Degradation . 89

rainfall runs off the land surface to streams.The soils that do form are easily eroded. Con-sequently, soils in mountainous lands, in gen-eral, are likely to be rocky and thin, except per-haps on the lower slopes (6). Deforestation inmountainous regions is one of today’s mostacute and serious ecological problems (10).

The presence of organic matter is an impor-tant factor in the soil’s productivity because it:

● contributes to the development of soil ag-gregates, which enhance root developmentand reduce the energy needed to work thesoil;

● increases the air- and water-holding ca-pacity of the soil, which is necessary for

●

●

●

plant growth as well as helping to reduceerosion;releases essential nutrients as it decays;holds nutrients from fertilizer in storageuntil the plants need them; andenhances the abundance and distributionof vital biota (3 I).

Therefore, deforestation, by reducing organicmatter, lowers the potential productivity oftropical lands. Thus, when tropical land isabandoned, natural regeneration of the forestmay not occur, and replanting the forest maybe difficult.

VISIBLE AGENTS OF FOREST CHANGE

Subsistence

Shifting Cultivators

Shifting cultivation is common in the Trop-ics. The techniques are basically similar every-where: farmers fell and burn the woody vegeta-tion; then cultivate the cleared ground for 1,2, or 3 years; and then abandon the site for along period to forest or brush cover (forest fal-low). There are four reasons for shifting to newfields: decreasing soil fertility, reduced soilmoisture, pest outbreaks, or excessive weedsthat raise labor requirements. Long fallow pe-riods generally allow the land to recuperateand become productive once more.

Shifting cultivators fall into two broad classes:indigenous groups and recent occupants. In-digenous groups have long experience with thelocal environment and use farming practicesthat tend to be resource conserving. Thesefarmers traditionally have practiced shiftingcultivation using methods particular to themand woven into their family and tribal customs,and sometimes into their religion. Usually thechoice of land to be cleared is based on knowl-edge of nature and soils. The timing of variousagricultural activities is determined by specificindications of nature, such as the blossomingof wild plants, the emergence of particular in-sects, and so on.

In contrast, recent occupants generally areless knowledgeable about local environmentsand apply farming systems that are more de-structive of resources (23). These people alsocut and burn part of the forest. But unlikenative populations, they may farm the sameplot until the fertility of the soil is exhaustedor shorten the fallow period so that the vegeta-tion cannot recover. This type of cultivator isoften a “colonist” who comes to the forests forland because ownership there is ill-defined orbadly protected.

Generally, the new lands are only marginal-ly productive for agriculture. In addition, re-cent occupants bring with them dietary pref-erences and agricultural technologies that aresuited to intensive culture of the more fertilelowlands. By applying inappropriate farmingsystems on fragile soils, they often destroy theland’s productivity.

A large part* of the agricultural populationof Latin America farms on steep slopes. Pop-ulation growth often leads to increased clear-ance of forested watersheds and forces manyfarmers to migrate down the slopes, clearing

*In most of the tropical countries of Latin America, over 30percent of the agricultural population is on steep slopes, includ-ing 50 percent in Peru and Colombia, 40 percent in Ecuador,65 percent in Guatemala and Haiti, and 45 percent in Mexico(33).

25-287 0 - 84 - 7


Photo credit: H. Bollinger

Forested hillsides such as this one in Guatemala arebeing cleared for agriculture throughout the Tropics

in part because of population increases andinequitable land distribution

the forests as they go, even into the inhospitablehumid lowlands of the Amazon Basin. In re-cent decades, colonization by farmers whopractice shifting cultivation has taken placethroughout tropical Latin America. Coloniza-tion was primarily spontaneous in the 1940’sand l950’s, but became more systematicallyplanned by government agencies in the 1960’sand 1970’s.

Even traditional shifting cultivation practicesare breaking down under increasing popula-tion pressures. Commercial exploitation andsubsequent colonization leave less land for tra-ditional cultivators, With limited land and in-creasing populations, fallow periods have de-

creased. These shorter cycles do not allowenough time for forests to restore adequate soilfertility. The result is even more extensive for-est clearance and a gradual decline in humanliving conditions.

It is easy to attribute recent increases in shift-ing cultivation to population pressure and inad-equate land outside the forests. But other im-portant factors are involved as well. In manyplaces, good farmable land is reserved for theprivileged and not used intensively to produceneeded food crops for domestic consumption.Governments may build highways and pro-mote colonization projects as alternatives toland reform (as has happened in Latin Ameri-ca). Some colonization projects are viewed asan effective way to occupy empty territory.This is especially true near frontiers in Braziland Mexico (28). Still, indications are thatforest clearing by peasant farmers will con-tinue to expand with or without governmentencouragement and assistance.

Livestock Raisers

Nomadic herders in open forests are analo-gous to shifting agriculturalists in wetter trop-ical forests. In arid and semiarid areas, nomad-ic herding is a major land use (43). At one time,the nomadic way of life probably did not de-grade the limited resources of dry regions sig-nificantly because there was a long fallow pe-riod before an area was reused. It is likely thatan ecological balance among man, animals,and the surrounding natural vegetation existed.This has changed, however.

Livestock symbolize wealth and provide bar-ter materials and insurance against futuredisasters (44). Cattle herds have increased inthe Sahel in response to economic conditions.For example, the French-speaking Sahel hada fivefold increase in cattle during the 25 yearspreceding the 1968 drought (14). Cattle, how-ever, are poorly adapted to Sahelian condi-tions: their conversion efficiency of plants toanimal products is poor; they require substan-tial quantities of water; and they are highlyprone to stress, Further, their feeding habitsare incompatible with the Sahelian environ-

Ch. 4—Causes of Deforestation and Forest Resource Degradation • 91

ment. Since cattle are largely grazers, notbrowsers, they must be moved very frequent-ly or they may completely eliminate perennialgrasses. The reduction of dry-season grassestriggers a number of degradation processesonce the seasonal rains begin. Raindrops strik-ing the soil surface raise mud spatters that sealthe soil surface to water infiltration. Then over-land waterflow erodes the soil.

High-yielding wells have been built duringrecent droughts to alleviate chronic livestockwater shortages. This has led to a rapid in-crease in the number and size of herds of cat-tle and small ruminants, which in turn haveovergrazed the land in the vicinity of wells.Natural vegetation has disappeared in general-ly concentric circles around the wells until thegrazing resources are so distant from the wellthat animals nearly starve before they reach

forage sites. Meanwhile, parts of the remain-ing trees in the vicinity of the wells are loppedoff for animal feed, and goats overbrowseshrubs.

These effects accelerate desertification, aprocess that spreads desert-like patches aroundvillages or waterholes as a consequence of con-tinued excessive pressure on the natural envi-ronment. Desertification is serious in tropicalAfrica, Latin America, and Asia.

Fuelwood Gathers

Cutting trees and woody vegetation to meetthe growing demand for fuelwood has accel-erated the process of deforestation and nowseriously threatens the environmental stabili-ty of large areas. Such situations prevail in Af-rica (especially in the arid and semiarid areas


south of the Sahara, in the east and southeast,and in mountainous areas); in Asia (in the Hi-malayas and the hills of South Asia); and inLatin America (mostly in the Andean Plateau,the arid and semiarid areas of the Pacific coastin South America, and in the Caribbean).

Wood provides two-thirds of all fuel used inAfrica, nearly one-third in Asia, and one-fifthin Latin America (z). Among the poor in tropi-cal countries, it is often women and childrenwho collect subsistence firewood. When possi-ble, they avoid felling whole trees. Instead theylop off small branches, twigs, and roots andpick up dead wood from the ground. Men aremore likely to collect wood for commercial saleand are more to fell whole trees.

Demand for wood fuels is concentrated intowns, cities, and densely populated farmlands,so the impacts of fuelwood cutting and gather-ing are greatest around such areas. Eventual-ly, the intense pressures around urban placescan lead not only to destruction of the forestbut also to complete removal of tree and shrubcover.

It is the commercialization of fuelwood col-lection that most threatens forests. As townsgrow, markets develop for traditionally non-commercial firewood and charcoal. The rela-tively rich in small towns and fringes of cities,create the demand, while the poor, who areoften landless, take advantage of an opportu-nity to gain income (38). However, if the mar-

Ch. 4—Causes of Deforestation and Forest Resource Degradation ● 93

kets place a price on wood above the price ofcollecting and transporting it, the trees becomevaluable. In this case someone is likely to claimownership and to take over cutting from thelandless poor (l).

Fuelwood cutting and gathering often haveadverse effects on the land. Maintaining treeand bush cover in arid and semiarid areas isimportant to prevent desertification. Wherefuelwood is available, animal dung and cropresiduals are used as fertilizers and compost,but when wood becomes too scarce, these ma-terials are diverted to become fuels. For thevery poor, wood scarcity may mean the elim-ination of cooked food, boiled water, and anessential minimum level of warmth.

Firewood gathering is not the major causeof deforestation in Latin America, but the im-pacts are great on tropical mountain vegeta-tion. Large circles around mountain settle-ments have been denuded of woody vegetation.The use of wood and charcoal for industrialfueI is particularly important in Brazil, whereit provides 40 percent of the fuel used in thesteel industry (42).

Fuelwood gathering has had detrimental ef-fects in Africa and Asia. In the sparsely popu-lated Sahel, areas surrounding population cen-ters are largely deforested. The affected areascontinue to grow each year. Until recently,fuelwood was hauled as far as 50 kilometers(km) to large Sahelian towns; now, it is com-monly hauled 100 km. Within 40 km of Ouaga-dougou, the capital of Upper Volta, virtuallyall trees accessible to roads have been cut toprovide fuel for the city’s inhabitants. Only afew years ago, fuelwood could be collected inthe immediate vicinity of most households;now people must walk half a day to reach it.

Since collection and transport of fuelwoodin rural areas is mainly by human and animallabor, its free supply generally is limited toareas within walking distance of the consumer.Rural people will seek fuelwood from more dis-tant locations until travel time becomes toogreat; then consumption may drop. A surveyof India showed that most villages located in-

side or adjoining the forest meet their total fuelrequirements from the forest. At localities with-in 10 km of the forest boundaries, about 70 per-cent of the fuelwood used comes from the for-est; beyond 10 km, the use of fuelwood fromthe forests diminishes steadily until at about15 km it is almost nil (22). However, in nationssuch as Thailand, with developed road systemsand adequate trucks, urban consumers may usefuel or charcoal from much farther away.

Fires

Repeated burning has altered vast areas oftropical forest and woodland. Natural fires arecaused by lightning, volcanic activity, sponta-neous combustion, or sparks from rockfalls.The majority of manmade fires are set inten-tionally. Hunters use fire to drive game and toclear bush so that game can be seen more easi-ly. Gatherers use it to encourage the growth ofdesirable plants and to discourage the growthof others, and to smoke honey bees out of theirhives. Farmers use it to clear and fertilize landfor planting. Pastoral people use fire to kill in-sects and snakes and to discourage predators.Other people use fire to ease travel throughdensely vegetated areas, to make war on neigh-boring people, or for other reasons. The pri-mary reason, however, is to improve the qualityof grasses for grazing.

Repeated fires generally impoverish vegeta-tion and deplete soil through losses of organicmatter, reduced nutrient cycling, and reduc-tions in soil microbe populations. Regenerationmay be rapid, but plant succession depends ona host of factors including the frequency andintensity of fire. After frequent burnings, fast-growing, light-loving second growth trees andshrubs eventually are replaced by savannas(permanent grass-covered plains). Fires canconvert closed forests to savanna and can ex-tend conifer forests at the expense of the broad-leaved forests. Such degradation leads to theestablishment of plant communities adapted tophysiologically drier conditions.

Seasonally dry forests are being more severe-ly modified than wet forests. Many dry tropical


forests were converted to savannas by humanactivities long ago. Some savannas are naturalgrasslands, but these have been expanded be-yond their natural boundaries by forest clear-ing for agriculture and by manmade fires. Inmany places, it is difficult to determine whatsavanna is natural and what is derived fromhuman activity, since all savanna vegetationis adapted to frequent fires and appears similarregardless of origin.

Warfare

Warfare has adverse effects on tropical for-ests. Bombing and shelling of some islands inthe Pacific during World War II nearly elim-inated the forest cover and the effects remained

visible years later (48). Forested areas of Cen-tral America, Vietnam, Laos, and Kampucheamore recently have suffered the effects of mil-itary conflicts. Dense patterns of bomb andshell craters can eliminate forests or severelydamage the trees. In some large areas, forestswere removed by plowing and bulldozing toeliminate protective cover for enemy troops.Attempts were made to burn large tracts ofdead, defoliated forests, but these largely wereunsuccessful (41).

Between 1961 and 1971, about 14 percent ofthe land surface of Vietnam was repeatedlysprayed with herbicides and defoliants, ad-versely affecting the forests and mangroves(29). A recent examination of Vietnam’s forests


some 12 years after the war shows that thelong-term effect of spraying on inland forestsdepended on the dosage (30). An obstacle to re-forestation of these damaged lands, which noware covered with coarse grasses, is uncon-trolled burning by village farmers even thoughthe land is more suitable for growing trees thanfarm crops.

The impact of defoliants has been most se-vere on mangrove forests, as much as 40 per-cent of which were sprayed. Natural regener-ation has brought the regrowth of some minor“weed” species, but commercial species havereturned naturally on only about 1 percent ofthe mangrove area (49). Some replanting hasoccurred, however, and commercial specieshave been reestablished

Commercial Resource Use

Commercial Agriculture andCattle Ranchers

Few data are available on the amount of de-forestation now caused by commercial farm-ing, which usually involves permanent fieldswith perennial bush and tree crops. This wasonce a major cause of tropical deforestation,but now it is a less significant cause than shift-ing cultivation and ranching.

Cattle raising plays a major role in the lossof tropical moist forests in the Brazilian Ama-zon and in Central America. In contrast, it isnot a major factor in moist regions of tropicalAsia and Africa, where shifting cultivation and

n some areas. logging are more important.

Photo credit: H. Bo//inger

Conversion of moist tropical forest to temporary grazingland in Panama, a common scene throughoutLatin America. Most of the beef is exported


Pastures commonly are abandoned after 10to 15 years of grazing because of declining soilfertility, erosion, soil compaction, invasion ofunpalatable weeds, and low productivity. Inparts of the Brazilian Amazon, ranches only5 years old fail because of pasture degradation(19). Pasture instability and degradation resultin greater pressure to clear new forests.

The area of pasture in Central America morethan doubled between 1950 and 1975, almostentirely at the expense of undisturbed forests.Between 1966 and 1978,8 million ha of Brazil’sAmazon forests were converted into 336 cat-tle ranches supporting 6 million head of cat-tle. In addition, some 20,000 other ranches ofvarying sizes have been established (25).

There are several ways that forests are con-verted to pasture in Latin America. On largeland holdings, forests are often leveled, burned,and seeded with native or introduced grasses.Owners of smaller holdings commonly cleartheir land by making arrangements with peas-ant shifting cultivators whereby the peasantsclear the land, farm it for 1 or 2 years, and thenseed it to pasture and move on (9,32). In south-eastern Panama and probably elsewhere, pro-fessional deforesters move into national forests,cut the forest, plant grass, and then sell plotsas “improved land” (28).

Land consolidation, however, is probably themost common means of converting forest topasture. Agricultural colonists leave their fieldsand move elsewhere when yields decline sig-nificantly or losses to pests or weeds becometoo severe. The land is abandoned or sold tomore successful neighbors, to a second waveof settlers with more capital, to speculators, orto cattle ranchers. Small plots may then becombined into larger, more efficient units thatsometimes are used for tree crops but morecommonly for pasture. This process is wide-spread in tropical Latin America (8).

A number of factors account for the accelera-tion of cattle ranch development. Cattle ranch-ing, having its roots in Spain and Portugal, al-ways has been a prestigious occupation inLatin America (32). Furthermore, a traditionexists in the Amazon and elsewhere in Latin

America that it is the act of deforestation, orother “improvement,” which gives one theright of possession of land. The capital costsof ranching are low compared with commer-cial crop production, and the market for beefis steady or expanding. Government incentivesminimize the costs of credit, land, taxes, andproduction for the conversion of rainforest topastureland. Finally, strong export marketshave encouraged expanded beef production inthis region of the world. U.S. companies an-nually import as much as 330 million lb of Cen-tral American beef. That is 25 percent of theregion’s annual beef production and 90 percentof its beef exports (39), though this importedbeef only amounts to about 2 percent of annualU.S. beef consumption.

Several researchers have recommended thatthe United States ban beef imports from LatinAmerican countries where cattle raising playsa major role in tropical forest destruction [28,39), or that the United States import no beeffrom Central America (26). A number of ques-tions would have to be answered before legisla-tion for the first suggestion could be seriouslyconsidered. How much time must pass betweenforest clearing and cattle grazing to avoid theproposed ban? How could it be proven thatbeef from a particular country is produced pri-marily at the expense of tropical forests? Whowould make the judgment that the beef is pro-duced primarily at the expense of tropicalforests? Who would monitor cattle grazingoperations day to day in each Latin Americancountry? Such questions need to be examinedcarefully and answered in detail to deal fairlywith other countries. The second suggestionis simpler than the first but the foreign policyimplications are equally complex.

A variety of inducements for cattle opera-tions come from international organizationsand development agencies. For instance, inter-national agencies and governments provideloans for cattle development, including creditfor individual ranchers. Between 1971 and1977, international and bilateral agencies pro-vided more than $3.5 billion in loans and tech-nical assistance to Latin America to improve


livestock production and meat processing (28).In sum, the growth of cattle ranching reflectsnot only markets but government and interna-tional assistance, low cost loans, and otherincentives.

Loggers

Commercial logging causes deforestation inmoist broadleaved and conifer forests, especial-ly in Asia, West and Central Africa, and partsof Latin America. It is expected that as theAsian wood supply is exhausted, the LatinAmerican share of international trade in trop-ical wood will increase accordingly, from 16percent today to about 40 percent by the year2000 (25). Most tropical American softwoods—and the more valuable hardwoods of tropicalMexico, the Caribbean, and Central America—

already are depleted. Most of the remainingtimber is in the Amazon, where most of it re-mains inaccessible and unsuitable for currentmethods of selective logging.

Logging practices in the tropical forests dif-fer from those in temperate woodlands. Log-ging companies have markets for only a fewtree species, and these are widely scattered inhighly diverse tropical forests. For example, inthe Ivory Coast only 25 species are regularlycut out of the hundreds available (25). Thus,extensive areas must be worked to get enoughlogs, and this can be quite destructive. Cuttingone tree commonly brings down other treesaround it. Additionally, species diversity de-creases with repeated selective cutting.

Logging practices frequently influence subse-quent natural regeneration and rarely are fol-

98 •Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources

lowed by assisted regeneration or intentionalreforestation. For timber concessionaires inAsia, tropical silviculture has been a rational-ization for cutting economically valuable treesrather than a technique for securing forest re-generation (35). National forestry departmentsusually exercise only weak control over loggingconcessionaires.

removal reinforce one another. Networks offorest roads designed to transport timber pro-vide entry for farmers. Through a sequence offelling, burning, and cultivation, forest landsare actively degraded to low productivityfarms, which in turn maybe converted to low-grade grasslands through further burning andgrazing. An adequately trained forestry staff

Even though loggers may gradually degrade rarely is available to police either the logging

forest quality, the relationship between loggers operations or the movement of cultivators intothe concession.and cultivators exacerbates the rapid depletion

of forest resources. These two agents of forest

UNDERLYING CAUSES OF FOREST DEGRADIATION

In most of the Tropics sustainable forestry Properety Rights and Control Ofand agriculture practices are not being devel-oped and applied. The underlying causes ofthis failure are institutional more than tech-nical (8,15).

Institutions include national, state, or provin-cial forestry departments as well as interna-tional donor and technical assistance agencies.Institutions also comprise the broad set of rulesand arrangements that assign rights to re-sources, define roles, and govern individualand collective ownerships. Institutions definewhat individuals can and cannot do, what theycan expect others to do or refrain from doing,and what they can expect the government todo on their behalf (15). Institutions set the rulesby which policies are applied to produce de-sired results; policies and actions correspondto the extent that institutions are effective.

Forest degradation represents a case ofchronic institutional failure. The two most im-portant factors are:

1. the pattern of property rights and the ab-sence of effective common property insti-tutions for forest-land management, and

Z. the ineffectiveness of State and nationalforestry agencies.

Forest Resources

Forests supply rural people with food, fuel-wood, and fodder. A large portion of bothmoist and dry tropical forests is governmentowned and people gather freely what theyneed. Sometimes the government allows suchgathering, but more often people take naturalforest products whether it is legal or not be-cause the forests are not well policed. Althoughsome forest land is owned by villages or tribes,the individual quest for wood and fodder oftenoverwhelms the collective need to sustainforests. The same principles hold true for otherresources. As pressures mount to fulfill humanneeds, overuse and mismanagement of re-sources lead to degradation and deforestation.

Growing population is a major force behindthis increasing demand, but property rightsstatus (or lack thereof) is an underlying causeof the failure to meet the demand with sustain-able production. Use without management ischaracteristic of natural resource systems thatlack clearly defined property rights. When anypotentially renewable resource is used in com-mon, no user will delay use or otherwise in-vest in efforts to sustain the renewability of the


resource unless some institution guaranteesthat he will benefit from the investment. Thus,tropical forests have been degraded because ofinstitutional problems related to control overaccess to forest land and forest products.

Uncertain institutional arrangements and in-adequate administering agencies are at the rootof many forest degradation problems. Whenforests become nationalized, as in parts of Asia,traditional tenure and institutions for commonproperty management of forest lands are aban-doned. National governments acquire formalcontrol, replacing local administrations and de-nying the validity of prior land-use arrange-ments. The rights of forest occupants to con-tinue using forest land, acquired over genera-tions, have been removed or reinterpreted inthe national effort to control people and terri-tory.

Unlike commercial agriculture, which gen-erally takes place on lands where propertyrights are understood, agreed on, and re-spected, forestry takes place on lands wherecomplex and often conflicting systems of landtenure apply. This difference creates the acutecontrast between investments in technologiesto increase agricultural productivity and thelack of such investments in forestry, The lackof clear land tenure will continue to constraindevelopment initiatives in forestry and effortsto reverse forest land degradation. Where com-munal or national tenure is clear, the lack ofcapable administration institutions is the ma-jor constraint.

The potential for forestry to support nationaleconomic development that brings benefits atthe village level is great, provided sustainableresource-use systems are applied. But such sys-tems depend on the establishment of institu-tions to administer forest lands as commonproperty. Developing these institutions will re-quire a better understanding of history, culture,and social organization than is now applied.

To be effective, forest administrations needlocal support and participation, and this con-trasts with how forestry bureaucracies typ-ically work. Unless the institutional componentof a forest management technology is under-

stood by villagers to support their goals, thattechnology will not be used. With respect tovillagers in or around public forests, effectivecommon property institutions would clearlydefine individual and group claims on the ben-efits that stem from the forest. However, whatgenerally prevails are claims on uses which,in the absence of control over rates of use, drivethe resource to depletion (5). Since privatiza-tion of forest lands may not be possible in manyparts of the Tropics, open access must be con-trolled through such means as issuing licensesfor users, setting quotas, taxing users, orstrengthening local social institutions (18).

Transformation of ForestryAdministrations

The second part of the issue of institutionalchange relates to changes in the forestry agen-cies themselves. Government forestry institu-tions typically have been designed to protectstate or private logging and ranching interests.In many countries, the forest has been a zoneof tension between the state and the people.The pattern has been exacerbated by govern-ment insecurity with respect to its citizens andborders.

Although agency attitudes and traditions aredeepseated, they seem to be changing as gov-ernment forestry institutions evolve from be-ing custodians of public land to functioning asmanagers of a development process. For exam-ple, in many Asian nations increasing strengthis being given to national forestry developmentcorporations charged with managing forestsaccording to sound economic principles. At thevillage level, small-scale forestry projects forlocal community development are beginningto be promoted by national agencies. These areintended to create new income for villagersfrom degraded public forest lands and to re-duce pressure on the remaining or regenerat-ing public forest. Some nations have begun toprovide forestry extension services for villagefarmers.

Many Asian nations also have begun to applypolicies to encourage investment in wood-proc-essing facilities and to use forest industries

100 ● Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources—

within broader strategies of regional develop-ment. Few African or tropical American na-tions have developed such policies, and veryfew nations in any region have developed feasi-ble long-term plans for forest land allocation.

Even where appropriate policies exist, for-est resource development is constrained bypoor implementation and reluctance to enforcethe policies. The effectiveness of governmentcontrol over logging concessionaires dependson the degree to which national leaders arecommitted to maintaining long-term forest pro-ductivity. The real value of hardwoods fromAsia and West Africa has made it difficult torestrain powerful individuals and firms fromenriching themselves by sponsoring illicit cut-ting, by misrepresenting volume and grade oflegally cut logs, or by conferring the rights toexploit the remaining forest to others. Severalnational governments have banned export ofunprocessed logs to encourage forest conser-vation and local employment. However, dataon tropical wood imports by industrializedcountries indicate that illicit logging and ex-porting continue despite the bans (15). The per-sistence of these problems is due to incentivesfor rapid economic gains by elite groups andthe lack of political commitments to conserva-tion and development of public resources forthe benefit of the general public.

Improving forest administration also de-pends on developing effective participatory ap-proaches to forest management. Through par-ticipatory approaches, forestry programs mayadapt techniques and institutions to local en-vironments to develop productive and protec-

1.2.

3,

4.

5.

CHAPTER 4

Agarwal, A., personal communication, 1982,Arnold, J. E. M., and Jongma, J., “Fuelwood andCharcoal in Developing Countries, ” Unasylva29(118):2-9, 1977.Birot, P., General Physical Geography (NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1968).Brady, N. C., “Chemistry and World Food Sup-plies,” Science 218(4575):847-853, 1982.Bromley, D., “Economic Issues in Forestry as

tive forestry systems with an equitable distribu-tion of products. However, substantial obsta-cles to participatory approaches exist withinthe implementing agencies and at the localcommunity level. For example, many forestrydepartments tend to be hierarchical, withhighly centralized decisionmaking and littleroom for delegation. National programs seldompermit field officers to adapt techniques inresponse to local conditions and provide fewincentives for local initiative. Moreover, thecurrent generation of foresters often lacks thenecessary skills and resources to provide lead-ership in this area.

At the community level, common obstaclesto participation are the absence of appropriatelocal organizations and shortage of leadershipskills. Typically, even where community devel-opment is practiced, inadequate attention ispaid to building community problem-solvingcapacities and to dealing with social diversityin highly stratified village social structures (20).Effective community organization can providesome measure of control over corruption andcan restrict the opportunity for individuals inpositions of authority to take unfair advantageof their positions at the expense of others (15).

The degradation of forests can in large partbe attributed to the failure of state and nationalforestry agencies to change with changing con-ditions and to increase the effectiveness of for-estry in ways comparable to agriculture. Twoespecially important tasks are the control oflogging concessionaires, which will requirepolitical backing from the highest level, and thedevelopment of effective participatory ap-proaches to forestry.

a Development Program in Asia, ” Working Pa-per No. 16, Center for Resource Policy Studies,School of National Resources, University ofWisconsin, 1982. In: Gibbs, 1982.

6. Buringh, P., Introduction to the Study of Soilsin Tropical and Subtropical Regions (Wagen-ingen, The Netherlands: Centre for AgriculturalPublishing and Documentation, 1968),

7, Cuban Delegation, report presented to the Sec-


ond Session of the FAO Committee on ForestryDevelopment in the Tropics, 1969. In: Westoby,1982,

8. Denevan, W., “Causes of Deforestation andForest and Woodland Degradation in TropicalLatin America, ” OTA commissioned paper,1982.

9. Dewalt, B., “The Big Macro Connection: Popu-lation, Grain and Cattle in Southern Honduras,”Culture and Agriculture 14:1-12, 1982.

10. Eckholm, E,, Losing Ground (New York: W. W.Norton & Co., 1976].

11. Forrester, J. W,, Principles of Systezns, 2d ed.(Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1968).

12. Fripiat, J., and Herbillon, A. J., “Formation andTransformation of Clay Minerals in TropicalSoils, ” Soils and Tropical Weathering, Pro-ceeding of Banding Symposium, Natural Re-sources Research XI, UNESCO, Paris, 1971, pp.15-22,

13. Fyfe, W. S,, Kronberg, B. I., Leonardos, O. H.,and Olorunfemi, N,, “Global Tectonics and Ag-riculture: A Geochemical Perspective, ” Agricul-ture, Ecosystems and Environment, vol. 9, 1983,pp. 383-399.

14. Gallais, J,, “La situation de l’61evage bovin et leprobleme des Eleveurs en Afrique de l’Ouest etCentrale,” Les Cahiers d’Outre Mer 126 (April-June) :l13-138, 1979. In: Gritzner, 1982,

15. Gibbs, C., “Causes of Deforestation in TropicalAsia,” OTA commissioned paper, 1982.

16. Goudie, A,, Duricrusts in TropicaZ and Subtrop-ical Landscapes (London: Oxford UniversityPress, 1973).

17. Gritzner, J., “Deforestation and EnvironmentalChange in the West African Sahel, ” OTA com-missioned paper, 1982.

18. Heal, G., “The Use of Common Property Re-

19

20

sources, ” Explorations in Natural ResourcesEconomics, V, K. Smith and J, Krutilla (eds.)(Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, 1982).Hecht, S., “Deforestation in the Amazon Basin:Magnitude, Dynamics, and Soil Resource Ef-fects,” Studies in Third World Societies13:61-108, 1981.Korten, D. C., “Rural Development Programing:The Learning Process Approach,” RuraZ Devel-opment Participation Review 2(2):1-7, 1981.

21. Kovda, V. A., “The Management of Soil Fertili-ty,” UNESCO: Nature and Resources 8(2), 1972.

22. Mathur, R, S,, “Certain Trends in the Consump-tion of Wood in India,” Indian Forester, January1975. In: Arnold and Jongma, 1977.

23.

24.

25,

26,

Moran, E. F., “The Trans-Amazonia: CopingWith a New Environment,” Brazil: Anthropo-ZogicaZ Perspectives, M. L. Margolis and W. E.Carter (eds.) (New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 1979), pp. 133-159.Morin, W. J., and Todor, P. C., “Laterite andLaterite Soils and Other Problem Soils of theTropics,” U.S. AID report, AID/csd 3682, 1977.Myers, N., Conversion of Tropical Moist For-ests (Washington, D. C.: National Academy ofSciences, 1980).Myers, N., “The Hamburger Connection: HowCentral America’s Forests Become North Amer-ica’s Hamburgers,” Ambio 10(1):2-8, 1981.

27. National Research Council, EnvironmentalDegradation in Mauritania, Board on Scienceand Technology for International Development(Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press,1981),

28. Nations, J,, and Komer, D., “Indians, Immi-grants and Beef Exports: Deforestation in Cen-tral America, ” Cultural Survival Quarterly6(2):8-12, 1982. In: Denevan, 1982.

29. Nei.lands, J. B., Orians, G,, Pfeiffer, E,, Ven-nema, A., and Westing, A., Harvest of Death(New York: Free Press, 1972).

30. Norman, C., “Vietnam’s Herbicide Legacy,”Science 219:1196-1197, 1983,

31, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Con-gress, Impacts of Technology on U.S. Croplandand RangeZand Productivity (Washington, D. C.:U.S. Government Printing Office, OTA-F-166,1982).

32. Parsons, J,, “Forest to Pasture: Development orDestruction?” Revista de Biologia Tropical 24(Supl. 1):121-138, 1976. In: Denevan, 1982.

33. Prosner, J. L., The Steep Sloped Areas of Trop-ical America: Current Situation and Prospectsfor the Year zooo (New York: Agricultural Sci-ences Division, The Rockefeller Foundation,1981).

34, Riley, J., Sufferings in Africa: Captain Riley’sNarrative (New York: Clarkson N. Potter, 1965).In: Gritzner, 1982.

35. Romm, J., “An Institutional View of ForestryDevelopment in Asia,” Proceedings: Forestryand Development in Asia, Bangalore, India,1982. In: Gibbs, 1982.

36. Roth, D., “Philippine Forests and Forestry,1565 -1920,” paper presented to Symposium onInternational Economy and Changing ForestUse in the Nineteenth Century, Oakland Uni-versity, 1981, In: Westoby, 1982,

37. Sanchez, P, A,, Bandy, D. E., Villachica, J, H,,


38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

and Nicholaides, J. J., “Amazon Basin Soils:Management for Continuous Crop Production,”Science 216:821-827, 1982.Shaikh, A., Qadri, T., and Hale, S., “FuelwoodTechnologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Re-sources,” OTA commissioned paper, 1983.Shane, D., Hoofprints on the Forest: An InquiryInto the Beef Cattle Industry in the TropicalForest Areas of Latin America (Philadelphia,Pa.: ISHI Publications, 1980).Shantz, H., “An Estimate of the Shrinkage ofAfrica’s Tropical Forests,” Unasylva 2:66-67,1948.Shapley, D., “Technology in Vietnam: FireStorm Project Fizzled Out,” Science 177:239-241, 1972.Smith, N., “Fuel Forests: A Spreading EnergyResource in Developing Countries, ” Intercien-cia 6:336-343, 1981.Swift, J., “Pastoral Nomadism as a Form ofLand Use,” Pastoralism in Tropical Africa, T.Monod (cd.) (London: Oxford University Press,1975), pp. 443-454. In: Wood, et al., 1982.Synnott, T., “A Report on Prospects, Problems

45.

46.

47.

48.

490

and Proposals for Tree Planting, ” ReportUNESCO-UNEP IPAL project, Nairobi, Kenya,1979. In: Wood, et al., 1982.llegear, T. R., A Geography of China (London:University of London Press Ltd., 1965).I’uan, Y., China (Chicago: Aldine-Atherton Pub-lishing Co., 1969).Van Wambeke, A., “Practices and Potentialsof Soils in the Amazon Basin, ” Interciencia3(4):233-241, 1978.Westing, A., and Pfeiffer, E., “The Catering ofIndochina,” Scientific American 226:20-29,1972.Westing, A. H., “The Environmental Aftermathof Warfare in Vietnam, ” Natural ResourcesJournal 23:365-389, 1983.

50. Westoby, J. C., “Halting Tropical Deforestation:The Role of Technology,” OTA commissionedpaper, 1982.

51. Wood, P. J., Burley, J., and Grainger, A., “Tech-nologies and Technology Systems for Reforesta-tion of Degraded Tropical Lands,” OTA com-missioned paper, 1982.

Chapter 5

Organizations Dealing WithTropical Forest Resources

PageHighlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

The Role of Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Types of Organizations in Tropical Countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109Research Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109Educational Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109Regulating Agencies.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110Project-Implementing Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110Nongovernmental Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

International Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111International Council for Research in Agroforestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112International Union of Forestry Research Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112United Nations University. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

The Role of the Private Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114Lack of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114Lack of Knowledge About Resources and Adequate Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115Political, Cultural, and Institutional Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116Lack of Communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116Contradictory Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117Greater Cooperation Between U.S. Government Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117Redirecting International Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

U.S. Representation to the Multilateral Development Banks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119U.S. Representation to U.N. Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Increasing Coordination Among the U.S., Other Bilateral Donors,and Multilateral Aid Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Greater Reliance on NGOs and Universities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121Encouraging Responsible Involvement by Private Corporations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Overseas Private Investment Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122Trade and Development Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122International Executive Service Corps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Strengthening Existing Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Chapter preferences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

List of Tables

Table No. Page8. U.S. Government Organizations ● . . . . . . . . . . ● . 1069. Nongovernment Organizations Based in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

1O.Consortia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● 10711. Multilateral Development Banks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10712. Major International Nongovernment Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10813. United Nations Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10814. Private U.S. Foundations Funding Tropical Forestry Research and Projects . . . 10815. Major Foreign Bilateral Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10916. U.S. Forestry Firms Operating in Tropical Countries, 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Chapter 5

Organizations Dealing WithTropipal Forest Resources

HIGHLIGHTS

●

●

●

Many organizations are involved in work tosustain tropical forest resources, but the ex-pertise, knowledge, and funds available areinadequate. This is partly because forestryis a peripheral interest for most of the orga-nizations.

The limited funds available are not used effi-ciently because the activities of the many or-ganizations do not complement one anotherwell. There is some prospect that the Inter-national Union of Forestry Research Orga-nizations (IUFRO) and the Forestry Depart-ment of the Food and Agriculture Organi-zation (FAO) will begin to coordinate theinternational efforts.

Coordinating diverse organizations’ re-

●

level is the role of the tropical governments.Development assistance agencies have donelittle to enhance the governments’ capabili-ties for this task, but some promising newprograms, such as Cooperation for Develop-ment in Africa (CDA), are being developed.

Because tropical forests are not the centralinterest of any major U.S. organization, U.S.expertise is widely scattered among manyorganizations. Cooperative agreements be-tween organizations (e. g., U.S. Agency forInternational Development/U.S. Forest Serv-ice) can bring together this expertise effec-tively.

source development projects at the national

THE ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONS

Substantial institutional activity is occurringworldwide that directly or indirectly affect;tropical forest resources. The U.S. Agency forInternational Development (AID), the UnitedNations agencies, the World Bank, and othershave increased their attention to forestry in re-cent years (16,24). Private corporations andnonprofit organizations also have been in-volved in the search for solutions to tropicalforest problems. And most importantly, thegovernments of tropical nations have come torecognize that deforestation constrains theireconomies and their development options. Thischapter reviews the types of organizations inthe United States and abroad that help sustaintropical forest resources through research,

technology development and transfer, institu-tion building, and funding.

U.S. and international organizations play avariety of roles in developing and implement-ing technologies to sustain tropical forests. Thenature of each organization’s activities varieswith its objectives. Some organizations offergrants or loans, while others carry out re-search, technology transfer, or education.Some work at the village level, while others areorganized for international efforts. Many or-ganizations are mandated to focus on a par-ticular region or a particular issue. Some sup-port the use of existing forests, others concen-trate on planting trees for immediate needs,

105

25-287 0 - 84 - 8


while other organizations conduct the basic orapplied research needed to develop sustainableforestry systems for the future. This institu-tional diversity ensures that there will be nounrealistic search for the “one answer” totropical forest resource problems.

This diversity of functions and goals, how-ever, can create problems and inefficiencies.Different organizations sometimes work atcross purposes, without knowledge of theother’s actions. Similarly, unnecessary duplica-tion of efforts can occur. On occasion, counter-productive competition occurs between orga-nizations or between assistance-giving nations.Often, there simply is a lack of communicationbetween the various groups. Thus, many dif-ferent groups may carry out many necessaryactions, but no one determines whether all thenecessary actions are conducted or whetherthe activities are appropriately timed relativeto one another.

Tables 8 through 15 list a selection of impor-tant U.S. and international organizations thatare involved in tropical forest resource activi-ties. For a more complete discussion of the var-ious institutions listed, see OTA BackgroundPaper #2, Sustaining Tropical Forest Re-sources: U.S. and International Institutions.

It is important not to be misled by the appar-ently large number of organizations. Eventhough a great many organizations are in-volved in tropical forestry work, in few of theseare reforestation, forest maintenance, or con-servation a high priority. These organizationsdevote far more staff and funds to other typesof development activity than to forestry. In fact,the total amount of funding devoted to forest-ry remains small relative to the needs. Also,care must be taken to avoid double-accounting,since the forestry funds for some organizationscome from the forestry funds of other organiza-tions. Despite the recent expansion of socialforestry, international assistance for forestryis still dominated by industrial projects. Ana-lyzing the effects of that dominance, a recentU.S. Forest Service report states:

Industrial assistance projects cover heavilycapitalized pulpmills and sawmill complexes,

Table 8.—U.S. Government Organizations

Agency for International Development, Washington, D. C.: in-ternational development, institution building with congres-sional mandate to address forest-related problems in thedeveloping world. AID funding supports other organiza-tions listed in this table

National Science Foundation, Washington, D. C.: Grants forU.S. scientists to do fundamental research in tropicalbiology

National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D. C.: Funds proj-ects and research on sustaining tropical resources, pri-marily through Board on Science and Technology for in-ternational Development (BOSTID)

Peace Corps, Washington, D. C.: Volunteers for developmentactivities worldwide, including forestry and conservation

Smithsonian Institution, Washington D. C.: Basic research ontropical ecosystems

Us.●

●

●

●

Us.●

●

Department of AgricultureOffice of International Cooperation and Development:Grants for agricultural research, developmentassistance, and technical assistanceAgricultural Research Service: Soil and water conser-vation research; includes Puerto Rico, Virgin IslandsForest ServicePacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Sta.tion: U.S. tropical forests, Hawaii, U.S. Pacific territoriesInstitute of Pacific Islands Forestry: U.S. tropical forestsInstitute of Tropical Forestry (Puerto Rico): Tropicaltimber management, plantation silvicultureSoil Conservation Service: Soil management support fortropical countries

Deparment of the Interior:National Park Service (International Park Affairs): Parkplanning, management, and conservation trainingFish and Wildlife service: Assist management and plan-ning for conservation (under the Endangered SpeciesAct, etc.)

U.S. Department of State: Research on tropical ecosystemsthrough MAB (Man and the Biosphere). 1984 fundinguncertain


rather than on-the-ground establishment andmanagement of forest stands. Continuation ofthis trend would exert greater pressure on ex-isting forest reserves and contribute to the de-forestation problem (24).

Because the scope of forest problems andopportunities is so extensive and is affectedby many interacting economic, social, polit-ical, and ecological factors, sustainable de-velopment can only be achieved when majorchanges are instituted by the tropical countriesthemselves. Actual solutions to the forestresource problems generally will require ac-tions at the village level by local people.

Nevertheless, national and international or-ganizations based outside the Tropics can af-

Ch. 5—Organizations Dealing With Tropical Forest Resources ● 107

Table 9.- Nongovernment Organizations Basedin the United States

Arnold Arboretum, Cambridge, Mass.: Evolutionary biologyEast-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii: Graduate research,

education, and information exchange throughout AsiaInternational Institute for Environment and Development,

Washington, D. C.: Studies sustainable economic andsocial development, including energy, human settlements,environmental impacts

Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, Me.: Tropical flora,botany, and research

National Wildlife Federation (International Program), Wash-ington, D. C.: Largest western conservation group: 4.5million members. International initiative is recent

Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D. C.: Legalassistance, monitors natural resource policies and deci-sions

The Nature Conservancy (international program} Washington,D. C.: Inventory, acquisition, and protection of natural areas

The New York Botanical Garden, The Bronx, N. Y.: Taxonomicresearch, neotropical plant collection, economic botany

Rare Animal Relief Effort, Washington, D. C.: Environmentaleducation and training in Latin America

Pacific Tropical Botanical Garden, Kauai, Hawaii: Tropicalbotany

Sierra Club International, Earth Care Center, New York, N. Y.:An information clearinghouse including protection offragile areas, tropical rain forest mangement and conser-vation

Volunteers in Technical Assistance, Arlington, Va.: Technicalassistance in development-oriented projects

World Resources Institute, Washington, D. C.: Policy studieson natural resources management, particularly in develop-ing countries

World Wildlife Fund-U.S., Washington, D. C.: Funding for con-servation of living resources, international wildlife con-servation


Table 10.—Consortia

Board for International Food and Agricultural Development:To increase involvement of U.S. agricultural universitiesin AID

CamCore: Focus on industrial forestry in tropical AmericaOrganization for Tropical Studies: Consortium providing grad-

uate training and university research on tropical biologySouth-East Consortium for International Development: Con-

sortium providing development assistanceUniversities for International Forestry: Consortium providing

experience in forestry and forestry-related problemsSOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

Table 11 .—Multilateral Development Banks

African Development Bank: Loans total $635 million; U.S. con-tributes indirectly through Africa Development Fund. in-volved in forestrty in Ethiopia, Liberia, Ivory Coast

Asian Development Bank: Growing attention to communityforestry, including fuelwood and environmental protection

Inter-American Development Bank: Investigating potentialsfor greater involvement in forestry activities

World Bank: Loans for development, Trend away from mono-culture and forest industry toward projects to sustaintropical resources

Table 12.—Major International NongovernmentOrganizations

BIOTROP: Information, training, and research institute intropical forestry and biology

CARE: Renewable resources program promoting conserva-tion of forests and forest dependent resources in theTropics

Centro Agronomic Tropical de Investigation y Ensenanza(CATIE): Improvement of annual and perennial crop andplant production systems, and animal production on smallfarms

Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in theSahel (CILSS): Association of eight Sahelian countries(Cape Verde, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, The Gam-bia, Chad, and Upper Volta) to foster coordination of ef-forts in the region

Commonwealth Forestry Institute: Associated with OxfordUniversity; reforestation of degraded sites and promotingfast-growing plantations

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research:Supports and promotes international system of agricul-tural research centers and programs. Thirteen researchcenters

Eastern Caribbean Natural Areas Management Program: Re-search, training, and field projects to strengthen local ca-pacity to manage living natural resources

International Council for Research in Agroforastry: Seven pro-grams: management, information services, training, re-searchlevaluation, technology research, field stations, andspecial projects

Institute for Terrestrial Ecology: A group of research labora-tories in the United Kingdom. Projects on regeneratinghardwoods in West Africa and vegetative reproduction oftree species

Intermediate Technology Development Group: Nonprofit or-ganization that offers consultants to developing countriesfor improving social forestry, household energy, and in-dustrial energy projects

International Development Research Centen Canadian groupfor development research, including studies of social for-estry, agroforestry, and sustainable agriculture. Fundedby Canadian bilateral aid

International Society of Tropical Foresters: Information trans-fer. About 1,000 members

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Nat-ural Resources: Six commissions: ecology, education, en-vironmental planning, species survival, national parks andprotected areas, and environmental policy, law, and ad-ministration

International Union of Forest Research Organizations: inter-national cooperation in forestry research through corre-spondence, seminars. About 10,000 members

Lutheran World Relief: Financial support to other agencies,including Lutheran World Service for tropical forestprojects

Lutheran World Service: Community development services,including health care, education, agricultural develop-ment. Also reforestation, community forestry

World Wildlife Fund—lntemational: Largest nongovernmentalorganization for conservation of tropical forests, species,and habitats


SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment,


Table 13.—United Nations Agencies

Food and Agriculture Organization: Emphasizes agriculture:Has four forestry programs: forest resources and environ-ment, forest industries and trade, forest investments andinstitutions, and forestry for rural development

United Nations Environment Programme: U.N. coordinatingagency for environmental activities

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organiza-tion: Tropical forest research, protectd natural resources.Includes MAB

United Nations University (Natural Resources Program): inter-national centers for research, post-graduate training, anddissemination of knowledge. Programs in agroforestry,energy

World Food Programme: Supplies food for disaster relief andthrough Food for Work projects. Some reforestation andwoodlot establishment


Table 14.—Private U.S. Foundations Funding TropicalForestry Research and Projectsa

1.2.3.4.5.6.

8.9.

10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.

Ahmanson FoundationAndrew W. Mellon FoundationAtlantic Richfield FoundationCamille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation, Inc.Exxon Education FoundationFord FoundatonFord Motor Company FundInter-American FoundationJohn D. and Catherine T. MacArthur FoundationMobil FoundationMorgan Guaranty Trust Co. of New YorkRichard King Mellon FoundationRockefeller Brothers FundRockefeller FoundationShell Companies FoundationTinker FoundationW. K. Kellogg FoundationWallace Gerbode FoundationWeyerhaeuser Foundation

feet the willingness and ability of tropical coun-tries to take necessary steps. It is unlikely thatbilateral and multilateral aid will fund enoughtree planting and conservation to compensatefor tropical deforestation and forest degrada-tion. Instead, outside organizations can focuson improving the technical and managerial ca-pabilities of organizations in tropical countries.Following this view, the priority areas for as-sistance would be forest resource research andtechnology development, technology transfer,institution building for forest-related educationand planning, and measures to increase theproductivity and sustainability of agriculture.

aln general,, few U.S. foundations have substantial international programs. Sup-port for all tnternatlonal and foreign projects amounts to only about 4 percentof the approximately $2.4 billion awarded each year by U.S. private foundations(20). Total U.S. foundation support for tropical forest projects, though difficultto calculate, probably averages between $10 million and $12 million a year


Ch. 5—Organizations Dealing With Tropical Forest Resources • 109

Count-~

C a n a d a ‘-

France

Japan

Sweden

United Kingdom

West Germany

Table 15.—Major Foreign Bilateral Organizations

Organization Function

Canadian InternationalDevelopment Agency (CIDA)

Centre Technique ForestierTropicals (CTFT)

Japanese Overseas AfforestationAssociation (JOAA)

Swedish InternationalDevelopment Authority (SIDA)

Overseas DevelopmentAdministration (ODA)

Bundesministerium furwirtschaftliche Zusammenarbiet(BMZ)

Gesellschaft fur TechnischeZusammenarbeit (GTZ)

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

TYPES OF ORIANIZATIONS

Research Organizations

Some 40 organizations in tropical countriesconduct significant research related to forestresources (23). The majority of these are weakand have been severely constrained by lack ofstaff and funding. Nevertheless, most of theseorganizations are carrying out some researchto support the recent shift in tropical forestrypriorities (e.g., research related to contributionof forestry to rural development, energy pro-duction, and conservation and management oftropical forest ecosystems).

Educational Organizations

There are 23 university degree programs inforestry in tropical Africa, 55 in tropical Asia,

Funds infrastructure for forest in-dustries and conducts inven-tories and development plansfor commercial wood production

Projects include technicalassistance, plantation operation,reforestation, and silviculturalresearch on tropical pines andeucalyptus

Tests plantation establishmentand maintenance techniques forexotic pulpwood species, mostlyin Southeast Asia

Develops infrastructure for forestindustries. Supports communityforestry and fuelwood projects,in part through a trust fund forFAO

Tropical forestry research focuseson silvicultural techniques andgenetic improvements of treespecies, especially pine

Funding arm of bilateralassistance

Implements forestry projects.Priority areas are forest conser-vation and production, institu-tion-building, and timber tech-nology and processing

IN TROPICAL COUNTRIES

and 39 in tropical America (15 of these are inBrazil). In addition, tropical Africa has 59 tech-nical schools offering forestry courses, tropicalAsia has 118 (49 are in India and 19 in the Phil-ippines), and tropical America has 51 [19 arein Brazil and 14 in Mexico) (7). These numbersmay give a misleading impression that thereis sufficient capacity in forestry education andtraining. But most of these schools are new andsmall, producing few graduates each year.

Some tropical countries, particularly inSoutheast Asia, have introduced commendableinterdisciplinary resource management pro-grams, A new forestry program in Bihar, In-dia, has a sizable curriculum in related socialsciences. Nepal’s Tribhuvan University sendsall of its graduate students to work in villagesfor 1 year,


Regulating Agencies

Regulatory agencies with responsibilities re-lated to forests have proliferated in many coun-tries. In addition to forest departments, agen-cies concerned with planning and finance,agriculture, mines, water resources, energy,parks, wildlife, industrial development, andmilitary matters and internal security haveregulations and policies that affect forests insome way. In 1972, only 11 developing coun-tries had environmental ministries or high-levelagencies; that number has now reached 102 (9).

In many tropical countries, regulation ishampered by administrative structures, bu-reaucratic lethargy, low enforcement capabilitydue to remoteness and extensiveness of forestlands, lack of vehicles or fuel, insufficient num-ber or training of staff, and low pay. Where cor-ruption occurs, the policing approach is unableto cope with illegal commercial logging, withexcessive hunting and gathering, and withspontaneous agricultural clearing within re-serve forests and protected areas.

Project-Implementing Agencies

In most tropical countries, the agencies thatare responsible for regulation also implementresource development projects. This can causesome problems in project implementation,especially for social forestry. It is difficult tocreate a dialog between foresters and local peo-ple if the forest department is perceived as aparamilitary organization. Also, paramilitarydiscipline can discourage innovation withinthe ranks of the Forest Department, particular-ly if promotions are based mainly on seniori-ty (21).

One weakness of many project-implementingagencies is that little long-range planning isdone. There is a shortage of qualified person-nel, good data, and funds for planning (15). Insome tropical countries, technical forestryskills are in short supply and many jobs remainunfilled. The foresters often lack the specialskills needed for social and environmental for-estry (e.g., communications, interpersonal rela-tions management, economics, sociology, andecology). In many forestry departments, thenew types of projects such as fuelwood or so-cial forestry do not have prestige or providecareer advancement opportunities. Further,field work is generally left to the most inex-perienced staff while the best workers are pro-moted quickly to central forestry departmentoffices (17).

Nongovernmental Organizations(NGOs)

NGOS concerned with forestry, rural devel-opment, and the environment have been estab-lished within tropical countries. Examples in-clude the grassroots Chipko or “hug-a-tree”movement in India, Green Indonesia, Earth-man Society in the Philippines, Fundacion Na-tura in Ecuador, Pronatura in Paraguay, GrupoEcologico Tolima in Colombia, and the Peru-vian Association for the Conservation of Na-ture. The Environment Liaison Centre in Nai-robi helps coordinate activities of environmen-tal NGOS, particularly in Africa. NGOS havedone important applied research in Kenya andSri Lanka. In Gujarat, India, NGOS helpedspread farm forestry and fuel-efficient wood-stoves and crematoria. NGOS in Malaysia, CostaRica, and Haiti also have implemented projectssuccessfully.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Although a great many bilateral and multi- international organizations doing significantlateral development assistance agencies and work on tropical forest resource technologiesnational organizations have programs related is much smaller. Five international organiza-to tropical forest resources, the number of tions that have important potential for develop-

Ch. 5—Organizations Dealing With Tropical Forest Resources Ž 111

ment and dissemination of technologies thatcan sustain the forest resources are brieflydescribed here.

Consultative Group on InternationalAgricultural Researeh (CGIAR)

CGIAR is an association of 13 internationalor regional research centers concerned withincreasing the quantity and quality of food sup-plies. CGIAR also organizes conferences andtraining courses and disseminates information.Established in 1971, it has a secretariat basedat the World Bank and a technical advisorycommittee located at FAO. The secretariat co-ordinates with donors and channels funds tothe centers. The total budget for the CGIARcenters exceeded $120 million in 1980.

The CGIAR centers are:1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7,

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

International Center for Tropical Agricul-ture (CIAT), Colombia.International Center for the Potato (CIP),Peru.International Center for the Improve-ment of Corn and Wheat (CIMMYT),Mexico.International Board for Plant Genetic Re-sources (IBPGR), Italy.International Center for Agricultural Re-search in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Leb-anon.International Crops Research Institutefor Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India.International Food Policy Research Insti-tute (IFPRI), U.S.A.International Institute of Tropical Agri-culture (IITA), Nigeria.International Laboratory for Research onAnimal Diseases (ILRAD), Kenya.International Livestock Centre for Africa(ILCA), Ethiopia.International Rice Research Institute(IRRI), Philippines,International Service for National Agri-cultural Research (ISNAR), The Nether-lands,West Africa Rice Development Associa-tion (WARDA), Liberia,

CGIAR centers could expand into forestryresearch. By increasing the productivity offood crops, CGIAR research has the potentialto reduce land conflicts between agricultureand forestry. However, CGIAR’S commoditiesapproach and emphasis on input intensivemethods might not be relevant to forestry. Inaddition, CGIAR has not shown much interestin expanding into forestry; it rejected the Coun-cil for Research on Agroforestry’s (ICRAF) re-quest for associated status in the CGIAR net-work (4).

Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations (FAOI

FAO, headquartered in Rome, has the largestconcentration of tropical forestry expertise inthe world. It also has a large number of spe-cialists on assignment in tropical countries. Itis important to note that the FAO Forestry De-partment is dwarfed by the size of the FAO Ag-riculture Department. Forestry receives lessthan 8 percent of FAO’S total funding, andFAO Agriculture Department publications sel-dom evidence concern for the relationships be-tween agriculture and forestry. Nevertheless,agriculture and forestry are interdependent, sothe agriculture activities of FAO are of criticalimportance to forest resources.

FAO’S Forestry Department is divided intofour programs. In decreasing order of size, theyare: 1) Forestry Investment and Institutions, 2)Forest Industries and Trade, 3) Forest Re-sources and Environment, and 4) Forestry forLocal Community Development. A ForestryPolicy and Planning Service sets overallpriorities.

FAO’S primary mission is technical assist-ance, not research or implementation of devel-opment projects. It compiles an annual year-book of forest product statistics and, in con-junction with UNEP, has assessed tropicalforests resources and deforestation rates (ch.3). FAO also has a mandate to support a treeseed bank system, but this has not progressedvery far. FAO’S Investment Centre assists the


World Bank and the regional developmentbanks in appraising projects. Nearly all forestryprojects of the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme are implemented through FAO’Sfield units.

Although FAO responds to country requests,it also sets priorities for assistance. Currentpriorities of the Forestry Department includecreating a world forest resources informationsystem; improving techniques for the establish-ment and management of plantations; develop-ing upland forests for erosion control andwatershed management; promoting wildlifeand park policies; monitoring and evaluatingsocial forestry projects; identifying ways togenerate more income from processing woodand nonwood forest resources; and facilitatingeducation, training, and institution building indeveloping countries. FAO has recently de-cided to revitalize its Committee on ForestryDevelopment in the Tropics and is expectedto use more of its resources for tropical forestconservation and development.

International Council for Researchin Agroforestry (ICRAF)

ICRAF is a relatively small organization(about 15 professionals) headquartered inNairobi, Kenya. Its budget is only one-tenth ofthe budget of individual CGIAR institutes. Butit is the only organization with a mandate towork globally to stimulate, initiate, and supportresearch for development of sustainable agro-forestry land-use systems. ICRAF’S multidisci-plinary team of scientists conducts its own re-search and trains people from a wide varietyof disciplines and organizations in the develop-ing world. In addition, it collaborates withother developing nation institutions on re-search and development projects. Its long-termprogram involves: 1) developing interdisci-plinary capacity and methods to assess con-straints in land-use systems and to identifyagroforestry solutions, 2) collecting and eval-uating existing agroforestry knowledge, and 3)establishing a program for disseminating infor-mation about agroforestry.

ICRAF is governed by an international Boardof Trustees and is independent of all other su-pranational bodies. It receives its operationalfunds from bilateral donor agencies and privatefoundations. AID and Canada’s InternationalDevelopment Research Center are among themain donors to ICRAF. Since ICRAF is consid-ered a forestry organization, it is not a memberof CGIAR, whose mandate does not includeforestry. However, ICRAF has indicated thatit should be considered an organization devel-oping technologies for use on agricultural aswell as forest land.

International Union of ForestryResearch Organizations (IUFRO)

IUFRO, based in Vienna, is a loosely knit as-sociation of some 600 research organizationsinvolving some 10,000 researchers from 89countries (3). It does not conduct research buthelps to disseminate findings. It sponsors theWorld Forestry Congress every 3 to 5 years, re-gional workshops, and a quarterly newsletter.Other than these activities, IUFRO’S role hasbeen limited because its funding levels are low.IUFRO is a very decentralized organization,mostly dependent on voluntary cooperation(18). IUFRO is concerned with six main areasof research: 1) forest environment and silvicul-ture; 2) forest plants and forest protection; 3)forest operations and techniques; 4) planning,economic growth, and yield; 5) managementand policy; and 6) forest products.

In mid-1983, a research coordinator post wasestablished at IUFRO headquarters. In 1984,IUFRO will sponsor four regional planningworkshops on forestry research and technologytransfer. These include fast-growing treespecies in Asia, fuelwood production systemsin Africa, and multipurpose tree species forreforestation of degraded lands in LatinAmerica. The total funding for these researchcoordination efforts is low.

United Nations University (UNU)

The UNU, chartered in 1975 under the jointsponsorship of the U.N. and UNESCO, was

Ch. 5—Organizations Dealing With Tropical Forest Resources ● 113.

created to be an international community ofscholars engaged in research, post-graduatetraining, and dissemination of knowledge. Acentral program and coordinating unit is basedin Tokyo, but UNU activities take place through-out the world. It does not offer degrees. UNUhas never received funds from the U.S. Gov-ernment.

The university has three principal programs:Natural Resources, Human and Social Devel-opment, and World Hunger. In each of theseareas, the UNU performs five major functions:

1. to identify and define pressing global prob-lems that can be alleviated throughresearch, advanced training, and dissem-ination of knowledge;

2. to help fill gaps in knowledge and exper-tise through internationally coordinatedresearch and advanced training;

3. to strengthen research and advanced train-ing resources in developing countries;

4. to make information available to scholarsand research results available to decision-makers in usable form; and

5. to encourage mission-oriented, multidis-ciplinary research and advanced training.

The UNU functions through networks ofexisting universities and research institutesaround the world and provides participantswith access to a variety of courses, instructors,and research facilities. Special emphasis isplaced on interdisciplinary research and train-ing and on disseminating information to inter-national organizations, governments, scholars,policy makers, and the public. UNU has sup-ported research relating to agroforestry ($200,000per year, primarily in cooperation withC.ATIE), fuelwood consumption and supply,and land use in arid and semiarid regions.

THE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR

Historically, the greatest involvement of U.S.interests in tropical forests has been in theprivate sector, U.S.-based commercial firmshave had forestry operations in tropical regionsat least since the early 1900’s. The value of trop-ical hardwoods (logs, lumber, plywood, and ve-neer) imported into the United States totaled$537 million in 1978. U.S. demand for tropicalhardwood sawtimber is expected to increasedramatically over the next two decades. Also,because of the longer growing seasons and fast-er growth rates possible in tropical forests, theU.S. paper industry is expected to begin usingwood from the Tropics for its processes as well.

The extent of private sector involvement inthe Tropics has varied because each firm hasits own perceptions of its needs and of the cur-rent and future economic climate. A few U.S.firms specializing in use of primary resources(e.g., timber or minerals) have contributedsubstantially to developing technologies for theTropics and have played an important role both

by providing capital for development and bytransferring technologies.

Of all U.S. organizations, the U. S-based mul-tinational forestry corporations have had themost to offer and the most to gain in ensuringthat tropical forest resources are maintained,These companies are a great storehouse of in-formation and experience in managing forests.Much of this experience was acquired in thetemperate zone, but technical know-how canbe adapted and transferred in such fields asnursery and seed orchard establishment, treeimprovement, pest control, fertilization, silvi-culture programs, harvesting, transportation,and wood product processing.

Although U.S. forestry companies with op-erations in tropical nations have in the pastconcentrated on producing sawlogs and veneerlogs, some have recently begun applying theirexpertise to managing the forests within theirconcessions for production of a wider range

. . . — — —


of products and sustainable yields. At least 23U.S.-based forestry firms (table 16) have opera-tions in the Tropics. About half of these haveactive forest concessions; the others are in-volved in pulp and paper operations, research,or have simply setup offices to explore the fea-sibility of establishing operations in the tropicalcountry (l).

The extent of future investments in the Trop-ics by U.S. firms is uncertain. Opportunitiesexist for transfer of both technical and businessskills. In some ways, tropical areas have a om-

Table 6.—U.S. Forestry Firms Operating inTropical Countries, 1981

parative advantage because they have longergrowing seasons. But this is countered by high-er infrastructure and transportation costs.Although labor costs are lower in the Tropicsthan in the United States, it can be difficult tofind skilled workers for forest industries.

The main obstacle to increased U.S. invest-ment, however, is the political and economicsituation in tropical countries. Some countriesrestrict the share of foreign capital in domesticenterprises, have unfavorable tax or monetarypolicies, have institutionalized corruption, orinvolve high risks due to potential economicinstability,

Other private industries could also makeimportant contributions to maintaining tropi-cal forest resources. The development of un-conventional energy sources could affect trop-ical forests. Biotechnology firms are improv-ing food and tree crops through tissue cultureand other propagation techniques. In the past,some pharmaceutical firms conducted system-atic studies of exotic flora for compounds ofpharmacological interest (11). Such programsadded to the knowledge of tropical ecosystemsand provided new, useful substances. Now,however, plant screening is seen as less pro-ductive than chemical synthesis of new com-pounds. Today there are no U.S. pharmaceu-tical manufacturers involved in a research pro-gram designed to discover new drugs fromhigher plants (6) and the major program, begunby the National Cancer Institute in 1956 toscreen plants for antitumor activity, was ter-minated in 1981.

CONSTRAINTS

Lack of Funds heard from the field, from project designers,

Constraints on tropical forest resources de- and from the organizations themselves whensoliciting support from their governments orvelopment occur at various levels: within de- contributors.velopment assistance organizations, within the

recipient countries, and within the local recip- Forestry is a relatively cash-starved sector inient communities. A constraint often cited at many countries where forests do not generateall levels is lack of funds. More money, it is so large foreign-exchange earnings. The slowoften argued, will bring more results. This is growth of forests compared with the produc-

Ch. 5—Organizations Dealing With Tropical Forest Resources . 115

tion of annual crops or manufactured goodsmakes forestry investments seem relatively un-profitable. Even in wood-exporting countries,concession fees and excise taxes 011 commer-cial products are often so low that the govern-ment does not obtain much profit from forestexploitation. Consequently, finance and plan-ning agencies in tropical countries tend toneglect forestry, Even the multilateral develop-ment banks provided little financing for effortsto sustain forest resources until just a few yearsago.

Moreover, projects often are left unfinishedor without proper followup because fundingbeyond initial budget commitments is inade-quate. This deterioration of projects over timeoccurs because donors fail to recognize thelong-term nature of forestry activities (24).Within countries, it is often easier to start anew project than to secure funds to continueone. Thus, it may be appropriate for develop-ment assistance agencies to plan fewer projectsbut to continue support for longer periods (8),

The problem is, of course, that the currenteconomic climate makes it exceedingly diffi-cult to obtain increased or new funds. Manylegitimate development issues needing finan-cial support must compete for a limited re-source—money. Thus, while continuing to seekadditional financial support organizations alsoneed to search for more innovative and effec-tive ways to use the forestry and agroforestryfunds they have.

Lack of Knowledge About Resourcesand Adequate Technologies

Tropical ecosystems are extremely complex.Further, forest resource problems—and theirsolutions—are commonly site-specific, Al-though some basic knowledge about the struc-ture and functions of tropical forests has beenknown for decades, the kinds of informationneeded to analyze long-term effects of variousmanagement schemes are not available. Thus,site-specific research on biotic resources, soils,and hydrology is needed to plan action that cansustain land-use conversions, maintain the re-silience of forests, exploit the wide variety of

Obstacles to Effectiveness ofOrganizations Involved in ForestryActivities in Developing Countries

Few donors are involved in forest conser-vation activities, probably because conser-vation projects often are not profitable,

A number of donor projects are contribut-ing to deforestation or will fail in reducingthe problem because inadequate attentionis paid to ecological effects, Road building,agriculture, hydroelectric dams, coloniza-tion, and industrial forest harvest projectscan be causes of deforestation.

Donor agencies operating in the same coun-try tend not to communicate with eachother. This leads to duplication of efforts orfailure to learn from the mistakes and suc-cesses of others.

Forestry projects are often imposed on localresidents rather than being based on whatthe community wants and needs. As a con-sequence, many donor projects fail becauseof “lack of cooperation” from local resi-dents.

Donor organizations often exhibit little ac-ceptance or understanding of the value sys-tems, cultures, and traditions of the recip-ient countries in the design and implemen-tation of forestry projects.

It is possible to create a negative impact byflooding a country with excessive donor ac-tivities or funds. Donor organizations mayimplement oversized projects in countriesriot yet ready to absorb them into their ex-isting political and economic structure.Often, when project funding has ended, thecountry is ill-equipped to carry on becauseof bottlenecks in education, managerial tal-ents, and other factors.

Projects are often started but left unfin-


forest products, and reduce or mitigate offsiteimpacts.

Many experts believe that the major con-straints on sustained use of tropical forests areinstitutional, social, and political, not technical.They argue that adequate techniques to man-age natural forests and plantations, reforestdegraded lands, and sustain agroforestry al-ready exist. (Some techniques to reforest de-graded lands, for example, are reviewed inOTA Background Paper #1, Sustaining Trop-ical Forest Resources: Reforestation of De-graded Lands.)

Why, then, are these techniques not widelyin use? One possibility is that although they aretechnically feasible, they are not economical-ly attractive. Many of the techniques have notbeen suitably adapted for developing nations.They are often capital intensive, require heavyor specialized machinery, highly skilled labor,or continuous inputs of imported chemicals—any one of which can make a technology inap-propriate. Additionally, poorly understoodsocial or cultural factors often impede tech-nology transfer. Thus, many organizations’ ef-forts to develop forest resources fail to spreadbeyond the bounds of pilot project areas be-cause the knowledge needed to make the tech-nologies more attractive does not exist or hasnot been communicated to the project imple-mentors.

Political, CulturaI, andInstitutional Constraints

Many organizations’ efforts are constrainedby social factors. Political commitment is oftenlacking within development assistance organi-zations or within the counterpart tropical gov-ernment organizations to allocate more staffand funds to:

●

●

conduct the necessary, long-term baselineecological and social research;provide ecologically sound support for lo-cal populations during the lag between in-vestments in trees and realization of thebenefits;

Ž provide necessary, continuous evaluationof projects so that they can be improvedas needed; and

● work to meet the needs of local popula-tions.

Forestry projects imposed “from the top down”without adequate community participationcommonly fail.

How these constraints affect organizationsvaries depending on the organization and itspurposes. The effectiveness of regional andinternational research organizations can begreatly constrained where local organizationsto adapt technologies to local conditions arelacking. In some cases, capable local organiza-tions do exist but are under political con-straints that limit their communication with in-ternational groups.

National governments’ attitudes toward trop-ical forest resources are often a major con-straint on investment to sustain the resourcebase. Forestry concessions are often viewedjust as revenue-raising devices rather than alsoas forest management tools. Political leaderswho may be voted out of office or deposedrapidly often have a short planning horizon,viewing forest land as a commodity rather thana resource. Or some special interest may beable to get sizable short-term profits fromdestructive use of tropical forest resources.Legislation is needed to promote integrationof forestry and land-use planning, but only agradual education process can assure govern-ment backing for such policies.

Lack of Communication

One constraint often emphasized is inade-quate communication. Resource developmentsuffers when researchers or field staff do notcommunicate with each other, when projectplanners do not communicate with recipients,and when donor agencies do not communicatewith other agencies. And prospects for sus-tained resource development are dim whenprojects do not complement one another as se-quential steps in an overall strategy. But im-

Ch. 5—Organizations Dealing With Tropical Forest Resources . 117

proving communications and coordination ismore difficult, and more expensive, than mightbe expected. Distribution of timely informa-tion, especially when the most important au-dience is in developing countries, can facemany obstacles, both logistical (delivering in-formation to appropriate recipients) and hu-man (finding appropriate readers and induc-ing them to read and use the information).

Encouraging donor agencies to communi-cate and coordinate with each other should bea less formidable task, but in reality it is not.First, there are a great number of national, in-ternational, regional, and local institutions totrack. Many agencies simply do not have thecapacity to do this. Communicating with otheragencies is often seen as an inappropriate in-fringement on staff time simply because inter-agency coordination is seldom an explicit ob-jective in agencies’ policies. In some cases,donor organizations compete with each otherfor influence and thus avoid communication.More often, there are simply too many otherthings for an organization to accomplish withlimited staff and funds,

Contradictory Efforts

There is a lack of consensus and unified pol-icy on how to reconcile economic development

of tropical forest resources with the need topreserve biological diversity and other nonin-dustrial forest functions. This sometimes leadsto organizations working at cross purposes. Attimes contradictory efforts are accidental; onedonor agency simply may not know what otheragencies are doing. Occasionally an organiza-tion’s own efforts can seem confused—onebranch financing a reforestation project whileanother finances the conversion of undisturbedforest into agricultural land.

Sometimes such apparent conflicts are theinevitable result of different organizations hav-ing different goals. For instance, the CGIARinstitutions strive to increase and promote ag-ricultural production and expansion. The ex-pansion often occurs at the expense of forestsand in conflict with organizations that areworking to prohibit agricultural clearing on for-est lands that cannot sustain it. In times whendevelopment funds seemed more plentiful, co-ordination of effort may have been less impor-tant. But today coordination is essential toassure efficient use of existing funds and staff.

OPPORTUNITIESThe constraints discussed in the previous

section are not insurmountable. Some of theleading multilateral such as World Bank andFAO have begun to shift their forest develop-ment priorities from nearly total emphasis onindustrial forestry to community forestry, ag-roforestry, and institution building. While thereis criticism that implementation of these newpriorities has lagged (24), the shift in policy isan important beginning. Several strategies existto further improve the capabilities of organiza-tions that develop, transfer, and implement

technologies to sustain tropical forest re-sources.

Greater Cooperation BetweenU.S. Government Agencies

Because tropical forestry is peripheral to theinterests of U.S. organizations, the U.S. exper-tise on tropical forests is widely scattered (13),No one organization can assemble an adequateteam for tropical forest resource developmentfrom its own staff. However, cooperation be-


tween organizations can be fruitful. Two of themost productive cooperative agreements arethe Forestry Support Program and the ForestResource Management Project.

The Forestry Support Program is a joint ef-fort of AID, Forest Service, and the Office ofInternational Cooperation and Development.It provides forest service personnel to help AIDin designing, managing, and troubleshootingfield projects in forestry and natural resources.It maintains detailed files on hundreds of U.S.forestry and natural resources experts. It pro-vides general forestry information and facil-itates exchanges of technical informationamong natural resource personnel on AID andPeace Corps projects. Evaluation of the pro-gram has indicated that it has substantiallyenhanced the cost effectiveness of AID’s de-velopment assistance efforts in forestry (5).

The Forest Resource Management Project,in which the Peace Corps and AID collaborate,has assessed forestry activities for many trop-ical nations, conducted regional forestry pro-graming workshops for AID, Peace Corps, andministry staff in several countries, conductedpre-service and in-service technical trainingprograms, and initiated several modest refor-estation pilot projects. The Peace Corps effortshave been funded by AID and given technicalsupport from the Forestry Support Program.

Several existing laws can be used by U.S.agencies to transfer staff and resources and in-crease the coordination and cooperation ofU.S. Government agencies in development as-sistance. The Foreign Assistance Act (22 U.S.C.2357(a)) provides several mechanisms for in-teragency cooperation. Temporary duty assign-ments (TDY) can be arranged for specific tasksup to 6 months. Participating Agency ServicesAgreements (PASA) are for time-specific, reim-bursable exchanges of staff for up to 2 years.Resources Supply Services Agreements (RSSA)allow for other types of reimbursable coopera-tion. Cooperative agreements allow exchangesof staff and resources between agencies with-out charge. The Government Employees Train-ing Act (ch. 41, Title 5 U. S. C.) and the EconomyAct (31 U.S.C. 686) also provide authority for

reimbursable cooperation between Federalagencies. Although AID has some agreementsof this sort with other Federal agencies, the fullpotential of their use in foreign assistance ac-tivities has not been realized (22).

Redirecting InternationalOrganizations

Multilateral development banks and someU.N. agencies provide capital and technicalassistance for forest resource development. Buttheir forestry efforts are small relative to theirother rural development programs. Further, theunplanned impacts on forests of other projectsmay well be greater than the effects of the for-estry projects. Some development projects con-tribute directly to deforestation—for example,large hydroelectric plants, extensive cattleranches, and resettlement schemes based onunsustainable agriculture (2). Although themultilateral development banks have signed ajoint “Declaration of Environmental Policiesand Procedures Relating to Economic Develop-ment, ” little has yet been done to include com-prehensive environmental assessment in theproject planning process (12).

Through existing mechanisms, the UnitedStates has considerable influence over activi-ties of multilateral development banks andU.N. agencies. However, the United States hasnot fully exercised its influence to promoteprojects that sustain renewable resources andto avoid projects that harm long-term resourceproductivity. Doing so would have a significanteffect on tropical governments. Countries oftenare able to obtain substantial cofinancing fromother sources for activities supported partly bymultilateral development bank loans. Thus,governments can be motivated to modify theirdevelopment policies to harmonize with thoseof the development banks.

Some actions that U.S. representatives to themultilateral banks and U.N. agenices couldpromote include:

● instituting environmental impact assess-ment procedures,


●

●

●

●

improving monitoring and evaluation ofprojects for their environmental impacts,increasing environmental staff and budg-ets,reporting environment-related activitiesannually, andremoving restrictions on information aboutprojects-to allow greater outside scrutinyand accountability (19).

The mechanisms for accomplishing these re-forms differ for each multilateral developmentbank and U.N. agency.

U.S. Representation To theMultilateral Dovelopment Banks

The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office ofMultilateral Development Banks oversees ad-ministrative budgets and policy papers for themultilateral development banks. It also evalu-ates loans on the basis of legislated, political,and economic concerns. The predominant con-cerns are human rights and the production ofcitrus, sugar, and palm oil that could affect U.S.producers. Most of the office’s work is in re-viewing the projected economic returns ofloans. Recently, this office sought advice fromU.S. embassies on loans in their respectivecountries.

The United States has representatives on theboards of directors of the multilateral banks.Voting rights are allocated in proportion toeach nation’s contribution to the bank’s budget.The United States has 19 percent of the totalvoting power on the World Bank’s Board, 5percent at the African Development Fund, 13percent at the Asian Development Bank, and35 percent at the InterAmerican DevelopmentBank. However, a formal vote is rarely takenbecause decisions on projects generally aremade by consensus. A country can push tohave formal votes recorded. Ordinarily, prob-lem projects are simply blocked from reachingthe agenda. In 1982, the U.S. Government op-posed 17 projects proposed by the banks. Themultilateral development banks can fund onlythose activities requested by governments;however, the banks can impose conditions onproject implementation in loan agreements.

U.S. Represenation to U.N. Agencies

The International Development CooperationAgency (IDCA) establishes the overall budgetand policies for U.S. participation in UNDP,FAO, WFP, UNEP, UNESCO, UNICEF, OASTechnical Assistance Funds, U.N. CapitalDevelopment Fund, U.N. Educational andTraining Program for Southern Africa, and theU.N. Disaster Relief Organization. The StateDepartment’s Office of International Organiza-tions and Programs has lead responsibilitiesrelating to several U.N. agencies.

The United States maintains permanent rep-resentatives to the U.N. agencies and has spe-cial delegations who present U.S. policy posi-tions and vote on specific country programs.Like all other countries, the United States hasonly one vote on the governing boards of U.N.agencies. However, the United States can ex-ercise considerably more influence due to itsbudget contribution. Until recently, UNDP’SGoverning Council voted on particular proj-ects. Now these decisions have been decen-tralized and the U.S. representatives no longereven receive copies of project documentsroutinely. The FAO/UNEP Committee on tropi-cal forestry is another vehicle by which theUnited States can participate in setting the pri-orities of these two organizations.

One way of increasing the role of U.S. ex-perts is to begin participating in the U.N. As-sociate Experts Program. Under this program,the U.S. Government would pay the salarycosts of sending U.S. technical personnel todeveloping countries to work on U.N. agencyprojects.

Increasing Coordination Among theUnited States, Other Bilateral Donors,

and Multilateral Aid Agencies

Coordination among the United States, otherbilateral donors, and multilateral aid agenciescan be improved. One vehicle for such coor-dination is the Development Assistance Com-mittee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic


Cooperation and Development (OECD).* DACundertakes “Annual Aid Reviews” on thevolume and terms of assistance. Few agree-ments have been reached through DAC, andthose that have are not binding or are vague(14). Nevertheless, DAC provides a forum forexchanging ideas. It has encouraged somecountries to establish new programs andchange existing ones.

U.N. agencies seem to be appropriate orga-nizations for international coordination. TheU.N. Commission on Trade and Developmenthas made efforts to coordinate but these haveled to confrontation rather than constructiveproblem-solving. The U.S. Department of Statebelieves that FAO is best suited to coordinatethe international forestry activities that are notcountry-specific (8). However, AID does not ag-gressively seek FAO coordination of its forestryefforts.

Coordination also needs to be improved atthe country programing level. Such program-ing should involve the preparation of multiyearplans by the recipient countries or ad hoc com-mittees of donors so that the various donorscan support complementary projects. Withsuch planning the development assistanceagencies would not compete for host countryexperts or other resources. Through DAC, theUnited States has advocated greater use ofcountry programing since the early 1960’s (14),arguing that it would result in more cost-effec-tive development assistance. In the simplestmodel, each donor would proceed separatelyafter obtaining a coordinating organization’sagreement on a project. However, another pos-sibility would be for several donors to combineresources and expertise on joint projects.

Successful coordination requires: 1) active in-terest and participation of the donors and therecipient countries; 2) good planning capabili-ty; and 3) strong leadership (8). In practice,securing cooperation is not easy. Donors areoften reluctant to change plans to conform to

*OECD member countries are Australia, Austria, Belgium,Canada, Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg,the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain,Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and theUnited States. Yugoslavia has special status.

those of a coordinating organization. If a for-eign or multilateral organization attempts thecoordination role, recipient countries may feelthat their sovereignty in negotiating with thedonors is being compromised.

Some attempts have been made to coordinatecountry programing for forest resource devel-opment. Nepal has tried to designate a leaddonor for particular types of projects in cer-tain regions of the country, but this has notbeen accomplished. Honduras has a Govern-mental Department of International Coordina-tion, but this has done little to improve coor-dination because the Department only reviewsprojects after they have been approved by thevarious implementing agencies (8).

In response to pressing problems in one re-gion of Africa, the Club du Sahel was estab-lished in 1976 by donors in Paris. The UnitedStates provides some participants to this group.An African group, the Interstate Committee forDrought Control in the Sahel (CILSS) alsoworks in this area. Enlisting the cooperationof donors and recipient countries was madeeasier by the crisis situation in the Sahel.

Cooperation for Development in Africa(CDA) is an informal group of bilateral donorsestablished in 1982 at the initiative of France.The participants include the United States,Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, theUnited Kingdom, and numerous African na-tions. The multilateral development banks donot participate officially but may send observ-ers to CDA meetings. CDA consists of ad hoccommittees of representatives organized to ad-dress particular development topics. TheUnited States is the lead donor nation for thecommittee on forestry and fuelwood. The com-mittees discuss the types, location, and timingof projects. They do not undertake directly toexchange information on technologies orevaluate lessons learned during projects. CDAalso is making an effort to find activities thatare too large for a single donor to take on butare appropriate as joint development assistanceventures.

The CDA Forestry and Fuelwood TechnicalCommittee takes a national focus, not a region-


al one. It initially operates in only five coun-tries—Burundi, Malawi, Senegal, Somalia, andUpper Volta—in order to demonstrate theworkability of the process (10). Criteria forselecting countries include: 1) commitment ofthe country to coordination of assistance, 2)potential for success, 3) need, and 4) existingmultiple CDA-donor programs. The commit-tee plans to add Mali and the Sudan and to con-sider inclusion of Cameroon and Kenya (4).More African countries are involved in otherCDA technical committees.

The CDA process is well under way in Sene-gal and Somalia, where it has been successfulbecause of government commitment. The proc-ess does take staff and resources from bothdonor and recipient country agencies. It hasnot been so successful in Upper Volta, whichis so flooded with development projects thatit is unable to implement them well. UpperVolta also lacks a national forestry plan. InBurundi and Malawi, the process is barelyunder way, but appears to be working. Therehave been no major problems in CDA donorcompetition (4).

Greater Reliance on NG0s andUniversities

In the past few years, U.S. AID has chan-neled an increasing amount of money throughnongovernmental organizations (NGOS) intropical countries, especially through privatevoluntary organizations. This appears to be aneffective way to promote technology transfer.NGOS offer particular advantages for small-scale and innovative projects, since in somecases they can act with greater speed, moremidproject flexibility, or more public confi-dence than government agencies. Grass rootsenvironmental movements within tropicalcountries also may deserve increased interna-tional support. Some development assistanceprograms explicitly exclude NGOS while othersdo not exclude but still underuse them.

U.S. NGOS could be made more effective byusing the Intergovernmental Personnel Act(IPA) of 1970 (ch. 33, Title 5 U. S. C., subch. 6)to arrange exchanges of personnel for up to 2

years between Federal agencies and univer-sities or nonprofit research organizations.Some U.S.-based NGOS are eligible for IPA ex-changes, but transfers of U.S. Government per-sonnel to NGOS are uncommon. The Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) has recom-mended that IPA arrangements with univer-sities be limited to tenured faculty, but thisseems likely to have detrimental effects on theavailability and development of U.S. expertiseto solve forest resource problems.

The Foreign Assistance Act (22 U.S.C.2357(a)) allows Federal agencies to providetraining to: 1) personnel or sponsored fellowsof international organizations in which theU.S. participates, 2) certain quasi-public orga-nizations such as the Red Cross, 3) voluntarynonprofit relief organizations approved by theAdvisory Committee on Voluntary ForeignAid, and 4) personnel of foreign governments.

Fulbright Grants provide opportunities forfaculty members from U.S. universities toteach, study, and conduct research in develop-ing countries and for scholars from develop-ing countries to work in the United States. Thisprogram could make a greater contribution tothe development and transfer of tropical forestresource expertise. However, the Fulbright pro-gram has been cut back sharply in recent years.

AID has given one strengthening grant to aU.S. university to expand its international for-estry capability. This is a 5-year matching grantof $100,000 per year with the University ofIdaho. There are no plans to award similargrants to other universities in forestry. In com-parison, AID has some 50 strengthening grantswith U.S. universities in agriculture.

Encouraging Responsile Involvementby Private Corporations

The private sector can be an effective tech-nology transfer agent and could play a moreimportant part in efforts to develop and imple-ment technologies to sustain tropical forests.The U.S. Government has established threeprograms to increase the involvement of theprivate sector in fostering development: 1)

25-287 0 - 84 - 9


Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 2)Trade and Development Program, and 3) In-ternational Executive Service Corps. However,none of these programs has been used verymuch in the forestry sector.

Overseas Private InvestmentCorporation (OPIC)

OPIC, established in 1971, provides servicesto U.S. companies interested in investing in theprivate sector in developing countries. Theseservices include: 1) information on investmentopportunities; 2) financial assistance for invest-ment missions, feasibility studies, and marketresearch; 3) insurance for political risks; and4) loans or loan guarantees. The eligibility cri-teria for assistance include per capita incomesin the host country; size of the participatingbusiness and its degree of involvement in theventure; economic and technical soundness ofthe proposal; and the contribution of the busi-ness to the economy of the host country. En-vironmental factors are also supposed to beconsidered. Forestry and biotechnology enter-prises can be eligible for OPIC assistance.

Trade and Development Program (TDP)

TDP, established in 1980 under IDCA, aimsto increase the exports of goods, services, andtechnology by U.S. firms to governments in lessdeveloped countries. The principal activitiesof TDP are: 1) sponsoring project identificationand feasibility studies, 2) organizing technologyworkshops, 3) coordinating technical assist-ance from various U.S. Government agenciesto foreign governments, and 4) administeringtechnical training programs in the UnitedStates for foreign citizens. The latter two ac-tivities are on a reimbursable basis. TDP seeksreimbursement of the costs of feasibility studiesfrom the investors if the project proceeds andit also tries to obtain some cost-sharing by thehost countries.

The criteria for selection of TDP activitiesinclude: 1) consistency with the developmentpriorities of the host country, 2) availability offunding for project implementation (other thanAID), 3) friendliness of the host country to the

United States, and 4) export potential of imple-mented projects.

International Exeutive Service Corps(IESC))

IESC makes the expertise of volunteer retiredexecutives available to developing countries.IESC gives priority to assistance for small andmedium businesses; services to governmentsare deemphasized. U.S. AID provided $5 mil-lion to IESC in fiscal year 1982, slightly overhalf of its funding. The rest comes from U.S.corporations.

Strengthening Existing Organizations

Foremost among opportunities to strengthenexisting development assistance organizationswould be to continue and expand support forforestry efforts by AID. AID has a clear man-date from the U.S. Congress to develop andstrengthen “the capacity of less developedcountries to protect and manage their environ-ment and natural resources” (sec. 118 of theForeign Assistance Act) with explicit authori-zation for assistance to “maintain and increaseforest resources” (sec. 103 b). In 1981, section118 was further amended to express congres-sional concern “about the continuing and ac-celerating alteration, destruction, and loss oftropical forests in developing countries. ”

AID could emphasize this policy mandate,translating it more often into action. This couldinclude continuing education for AID person-nel regarding the relevance of forestry con-cerns. More project designs could allocate apercentage of funds to relevant environmen-tal protection measures—for instance, waterdevelopment projects could include compo-nents to maintain forest cover on surroundingwatersheds. Many of the development activi-ties AID conducts have direct and indirect im-pacts on tropical forests, and AID does some-times include forest-related components onprojects not specifically aimed at forest devel-opment.

Another way AID could enhance its effec-tiveness in this sphere is through the Food for


Peace program. AID administers some $1.6 bil-lion per year in Public Law 480 Food for Peaceactivities, but now only about 1 percent of theprojects are concerned with forest resources.More of these funds could be directed to re-forestation and assuring local involvement inforest and plantation management. Public Law480 foreign currency reserves could also beused to fund forest research, perhaps includinga greater involvement by the U.S. Forest Serv-ice.

This redirection of existing efforts is a wayto increase U.S. involvement without addingnew financing, although substantial increasesthis way could lead to reductions elsewhere.The international programs of U.S. Govern-ment agencies other than AID also could be ex-panded to play a more active role in sustain-ing forest resources. The U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, the Forest Service, and the NationalPark Service, for instance, have much relevantexpertise and could be encouraged to increasetheir international work.

Research sponsored or financed by the U.S.National Science Foundation (NSF) and the

CHAPTER 5

1. Bethel, J., et al., The RoZe of U.S. &fzdtinatiorzaZCorporations in Commercial Forestry Opera-tions in the Tropics, University of Washington,report for the U.S. Department of State, 1982.

2. Bramble, B., National Wildlife Federation, Tes-timony Before the House Subcommittee on In-ternational Development Institutions and Fi-nance, 1983.

3. Buckman, R., U.S. Forest Service, personalcommunication, 1983.

q. Catterson, T., FueZwood Research in Africa(Washington, D. C.: U.S. Agency for Interna-tional Development, 1983), and personal com-munication, 1983.

5. Cliff, E., Gallegos, C., and McCarty, H., Evacua-tion of Forest Resources Management Project,No. 936-5519, for AID/S& T/FNR by the Societyof American Foresters Evaluation Team, 1982.

6. Farnsworth, N., and Loub, W., “InformationGathering and Data Bases That Are Pertinentto the Development of Plant-Derived Drugs, ”

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has pro-vided important support to AID and other or-ganizations that work to sustain tropical forestresources. These two agencies could be encour-aged to intensify their work on important in-ternational environment issues.

Another opportunity to strengthen existingorganizations concerns the UNESCO Man andthe Biosphere (MAB) program. MAB has sup-ported some 1,000 field projects in 90 coun-tries. Nearly one-fourth of its $2 million 1981-83budget is for activities related to humid tropicalzones and MAB has a commendable record ofsupporting innovative research on tropicalforest resources. It has a good internationalreputation and has been successful in support-ing small-scale and pilot project research.UNESCO is the organizing agency for MAB,but each country’s effort is funded independ-ently. U.S. support for MAB has been dimin-ishing and much of the U.S. contribution nowcomes from the Forest Service and the Depart-ment of State. The proposed fiscal year 1984budget contains no funds for MAB.

REFERENCES

Plants: The Potentials for Extracting Protein,Medicines, and Other Useful Chemicals, Work-shop Proceedings (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Con-gress, Office of Technology Assessment OTA-BP-F-23, September 1983).

7. Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations, World List of Forestry Schools(Rome: FAO, 1981), Report 3 rev./l.

8. General Accounting Office, C’hanges Needed in

9

U.S. Assistance to Deter Deforestation in De-veloping Countries [Washington, D. C.: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1982), Report ID-82-50.Goodland, R,, “Brazil’s Environmental Progressin Amazonian Development, ” Changes i; theAmazon Basin, J. Hemming (cd.) (Manchester,England: Manchester University Press, 1983).

10. Gulick, F,, PossibZe Additional Countries for theCDA Forestry Initiative (Washington, D. C.: U.S.Agency for International Development, 1983).

11. Hansel, R,, “Medicinal Plants and Empirical


12.

13.

14,

15.

16.

17.

Drug Research,” Plants in the Development ofModern Medicine, T. Swaine (cd.) (Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972), pp.160-174.Horberry, J., BMZ Working Paper on Status andApplication of Environmental Impact Assess-ment for Development Projects (Gland, Swit-zerland: International Union for the Conserva-tion of Nature and Natural Resources, 1983).Interagency Task Force, The World’s TropicalForests: A Policy, Strategy, and Program for theUnited States (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Govern-ment Printing office, 1980).Kaplan, J., International Aid Coordination:Needs and Machinery (Washington, D, C.:American Society of International Law, 1978),Report No. 16.McGaughey, S., “Prospects for Financing For-est-Based Development in Latin America: AnIssue for Sector Analysis,” Proceedings: XVIIIUFRO World Congress, Division 4 (Vienna: In-ternational Union of Forest Research Organiza-tions, 1981).McPherson, M. P., Administrator, Agency forInternational Development, testimony beforethe Subcommittee on Human Rights and Inter-national Affairs, Committee on Foreign Affairs,U.S. House of Representatives, Mar. 30, 1983,Noronha, R,, World Bank, personal com-munication, 1982.

18,

19,

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

Payne, B., U.S. Forest Service, personal com-munication, 1983.Rich, B., “Institutions That Deal With Technol-ogies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources, ”OTA commissioned paper, 1982.Teltsch, K., “Philanthropic Coalition to ExpandAid Abroad,” The New York Times, Jan. 31,1982.Tewari, R., “Effective Policies and LegislativeNeeds for Stimulating Growth Through Com-munity Forestry in Forest-Based EconomiesWithin an Agrarian Environment,” Proceed-ings: XVII IUFRO World Congress, Division 4(Vienna: International Union of Forest Re-search Organizations, 1981).Wadsworth, F., “Secondary Forest Manage-ment and Plantation Forestry Technologies toImprove the Use of Converted Tropical Lands,”OTA commissioned paper, 1982.World Bank/Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations, Forestry Needs in DeveLoping Countries: Time for a Reappraisal? (Paperfor 17th IUFRO Congress, Kyoto, Japan, Sept.6-17, 1981).Zerbe, J., et al,, Forestry Activities and Defor-estation Problems in Developing Countries, Re-port to Office of Science and Technology, AID,Washington, D. C.; U.S. Department of Agricul-ture; and the U.S. Forest Service, 1980.

Chapter 6

U.S. Tropical Forests:Caribbean and Western Pacific

PageHighlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Introduction . . . . . . * 127

Common Characteristics of Island Tropical Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129Species-Rich Forests ... **** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129Abundance of Endemic Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129Vulnerability to Invasion by Exotic Plant and Animal Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130Dependence of Water Resources on Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131Dependence of Coastal Ecosystems on Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132Vulnerability to Land Degradation . . . . . ., . . ,0 ., . . . 6 ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

U.S. Caribbean Territories: Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . 133Forest Resources: Status and Trends . * * . . . , . . . . , . * * * * , * * , . . . , * . , . * * , . * . * . * 133History of Forest Use ... .. , 135Organizations Dealing With Tropical Forests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

U.S. Pacific Territories: American Samoa, Trust Territory of the PacificIslands, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam . . . . . . . . 141

Forest Resources: Status and Trends . . . , . . , , , 141History of Forest Use .*** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148Organizations Dealing With Tropical Forests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Chapter 6 References. . . . . ., . . ...... 152

List of Tables .

Table No. Page17. Life Zones and Area in Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13318. Life Zones of the U.S. Virgin Islands . . .. .. 13419. Average Annual Sheet and Rill Erosion in the U.S. Caribbean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13620.1981 Lumber Imports into Puerto Rico by Species and Country of Origin . . . . 13921. Organizations Dealing With Tropical Forests in

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands ., * . . * . *, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14022. Pacific Territories of the United States . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . * * . . *..***... 14423. Land Use in American Samoa, 1977 , ,9, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14424. Island Types and Forest Areas of Micronesia . . . . . . . . . .. . 14525. Landownership in Guam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14726. Organizations Dealing With Tropical Forest Resources in

the American Western Pacific .*** **. **** **. *.. **** *.** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

List of Figures

Figura No., Page18. Land Use in Puerto Rico ● * * * * * * * * *9** * * . * . * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * . * * * * . . . . * * * . 13419. An Idealized Transect Through a Caribbean Island in the Lesser Antilles. . . . . 13520. Original Vegetation of Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . , . , , . . 13621. Location of the U.S. Western Pacific Territores ● * * * * * . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14222. Geopolitical Breakdown of the U.S. Western Pacific Territories . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14323. Diagram of a “Typical” Micronesian Island Indicating Some

Relationships Between Land Development and Island Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Chapter 6

U.S. Tropical Forests:Caribbean and Western Pacific

HIGHLIGHTS

● Past poor land-use practices have degraded ●

forest resources in the U.S. Caribbean andPacific tropical territories and have resultedin significant amounts of abandoned landand relatively unproductive secondary for-est. Related resources (e. g., water supplies

●

and coastal marine resources) are, in manyplaces, threatened by forest loss.

● Although not a problem at present, overex-ploitation of island forests is likely to occuras populations grow and expectations rise.Much of this could be avoided if forest re-source development were integrated witheconomic development.

Only Puerto Rico has significant potentialfor commercial forestry, but both the Pacificand Caribbean territories could provide agreater share of their domestic forest prod-uct needs.

The territorial governments all have desig-nated natural resource agencies and have ex-pressed their recognition of the need to in-tegrate forestry into development, but mostof the agencies are small and lack adequatefunding and personnel.

INTRODUCTION

Less than 1 percent of the world’s tropicalforests fall under U.S. jurisdiction. These arelocated primarily in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Vir-gin Islands, the U.S. Pacific territories of Amer-ican Samoa and Micronesia (Guam, the Com-monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands),and Hawaii. Both the Caribbean and Pacificterritories have a long history of land-use prac-tices that have created relatively large areas ofdegraded or abandoned forest land. For overa century, Hawaii has restricted use of its forestareas, primarily to protect their watershed val-ues.

Puerto Rico includes the adjacent smallislands. It includes the easternmost islands ofthe Greater Antilles in the West Indies. It is amountainous land with a variety of ecosystems.Today, at least one-third of Puerto Rico’s 2.2

million acres* is under forest cover, mostly sec-ond growth trees, fruit tree plantations, andshade covers in the remaining coffee regions.Despite this, Puerto Rico produces less than 1percent of its domestic wood requirements (43).

The U.S. Virgin Islands are an unincorpo-rated territory east of Puerto Rico containingabout 86,500 acres, including about 50 islandsand islets. They have been administered since1951 by the U.S. Department of the Interior.The three largest islands—st. Croix, St. John,and St. Thomas—are used extensively fortourism and have effectively no forest productsindustry. However, three-fourths of the islandof St. John is the Virgin Island National Park.

*All land areas in this chapter will appear in acres, as thisis the common measurement for U.S. lands. One hectare = 2.47acres.

127


Water retention and control, protection ofcritical marine habitats, and esthetic values arethe primary purposes of the forests on theseislands.

The U.S. tropical forests in the western Pacif-ic are located in Micronesia and American Sa-moa. Micronesia includes some 2,000 islandswithin 3 million square miles in the westernPacific north of the Equator, southwest of Ha-waii, and extending west to within 500 milesof the Philippines. They range in size fromsmall, unoccupied coral atolls to large, popu-lated volcanic islands. American Samoa con-sists of seven islands located south of the Equa-tor. Some wood products are harvested onthese islands for local use, although onAmerican Samoa nearly all wood products ex-cept fuelwood are imported from nearby inde-pendent Western Samoa, and from the UnitedStates and New Zealand (5).

Reliable information on the original extentof the forests on the U.S. western Pacificislands does not exist, but forests probablycovered most of the island. On many islands—such as Guam, Tinian, and Saipan—man andnature have so changed the islands that it isnearly impossible to identify the original foresttypes.

The State of Hawaii lies in the middle of thenorthern Pacific Ocean between Mexico andMicronesia. Hawaii has 8 major islands and124 smaller islands that cover about 4 millionacres. About half this acreage is forest- andshrub-covered.

Since the late 1800’s, Hawaii has pursued apolicy of protecting its forests for watershedvalues (16). A well-developed land-use plan wasenacted in 1961. All lands were zoned accord-ing to allowed use: urban, rural, agricultural,and conservation. Most forested lands areunder conservation zoning. Forests on agricul-tural land can be manipulated, but forests onconservation land cannot without special per-mission by the Hawaii Board of Land and Nat-ural Resources (9). In 1962, the Hawaii Depart-ment of Land and Natural Resources producedthe first of three lo-year multiple-use programsfor managing water, timber, livestock forage,

recreation, and wildlife habitat in the islands’forests.

Industrial forestry recently has become a fo-cus of economic development in Hawaii. Thereare 47,000 acres of forest plantations in Hawaii,most of which are on public lands (7). How-ever, about 1 million acres have been desig-nated as commercial forest land (areas suitablefor growing timber and with some forest coverbut not necessarily stocked with timber trees).Of this, the State owns nearly 45 percent. Anadditional 290,000 acres of extensively grazedlands also are suited for timber crops, but nowhave no forest cover (16).

Hawaii also hosts a number of organizationsdedicated to sustaining tropical forest re-sources in the islands and the tropical world.For example, an AID-funded project onnitrogen fixation by tropical agriculturallegumes (NiFTAL), which produces inoculantson a pilot scale for researchers and legumegrowers, is based in Hawaii. The East-WestCenter, created by Congress in 1960 to promoteinterchange among the United States, Pacific,and Asian countries, is a regional center fordiscussion and study of natural resource issues.The Pacific Tropical Botanical Garden, theonly privately supported tropical botanicalgarden chartered by the U.S. Congress, is inHawaii. Forestry research and education arepursued by the University of Hawaii and theBishop Museum. Hawaii also houses the U.S.Forest Service Institute of Pacific IslandForestry (IPIF], which supports research onforest resources in Hawaii and the U.S.western Pacific, and a cooperative State andPrivate Forestry division.

In 1979, the U.S. Forest Service and C. Brew-er & Co. created the BioEnergy DevelopmentCorp., funded by the Department of Energy,to implement and demonstrate IPIF researchactivities. This joint venture has become oneof the largest forestry research and develop-ment projects directed at biomass fuel produc-tion in the United States. It is cultivating morethan 200 acres of fast-growing eucalyptusspecies on Hawaii Island that will be chippedfor use as boilerfuel at two nearby sugar plan-

Ch. 6—U.S. Tropical Forests: Caribbean and Western Pacific . 129

tation powerplants. Plantings are planned for400 acres of abandoned sugar cane land and500 acres of wasteland and undeveloped forestareas (8).

The problems that Hawaii has experiencedrelated to forest resource management (e.g.,increased runoff, severe erosion, inadequatewater supply) are similar to other tropicalforested areas. However, the State is atypical

of tropical areas in that its institutional capaci-ty for dealing with these problems is well-developed. Because of this, the expertise andexperience embodied in Hawaiian people andorganizations working with tropical forest re-sources can contribute to sustaining tropicalforest resources in the U.S. territories and inthe developing world.

COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF ISLAND TROPICAL FORESTS

Island forests share many common featureswith continental tropical forests, yet displaynumerous unique ecological and historical at-tributes. Some characteristics shared by manyU.S. Pacific and Caribbean island forests are:

●

●

●

●

●

history of species-richness;abundance of endemic (unique, area-specific) species;great vulnerability to invasion by exoticplants and animals;dependence of water and coastal resourceson forests; andsevere pressure on land resources from hu-man populations.

Species=Rich Forests

Island tropical forests found near continentsare rich in tree species (26,48). The 547 nativetree species found in Puerto Rico (19,20) ap-proximate the number of tree species found inall the continental United States (18). Some 500native tree species and several hundred in-troduced or exotic species grow in the U.S.Virgin Islands (30).

Smaller islands and islands farther from con-tinents have fewer native species, but many ex-otic species have been introduced to theseareas, For example, about 800 tree species wereplanted in the State of Hawaii between 1908and 1960 (16). The western Pacific islands havevarying numbers of species depending on theirdistance from Asia and their history of distur-bance and replanting.

Abundance of Endemic Species

Many rare species and unique ecosystemshave evolved on these islands because of theirsmall size and geographic isolation. Hawaiiand the western Pacific islands are especiallyrich in rare, endemic species; for some treespecies only one or two individuals are known(31). In many cases, the insular bird, mammal,and fish life also are endemic. Among the manyendangered, endemic species are the PuertoRican parrot, the Micronesia megapode, andthe Yapese fruit bat. In Hawaii, 90 percent of

Photo credit: J, Bauer

Endangered Puerto Rican parrots nesting at artificialnest site; these parrots remain only in the Caribbean

National Forest


the species in many plant and animal familiesare endemic and as many as 2,000 plants andanimals may be endangered (36).

Local endemism is highly developed in cloudforests. These are, in a sense, islands withinislands (28). Cloud forests (also called dwarf ormoss forests] occur on steep slopes and hillcrests extending into the cloud zone. Thin,leached soil and steep, windswept terrain limittree growth so trees have a low, bushy ap-pearance, some with bare trunks and branchesand broomlike tufted tops. Much is knownabout cloud forests in Puerto Rico (28), but in-formation on these forests in Micronesia (onPonape and Kosrae) is meager. This type offorest is very sensitive to disturbances (15).

Island ecosystems provide values to sciencedisproportionate to their small size. Becauseof the high rates of endemicity, islands provide

many species for botanical and zoological in-vestigation. Their clearly defined boundariesfacilitate study of species migration, competi-tion, adaptation, and extinction. General prin-ciples of evolution can be distilled from islandstudies and applied to, for example, the designof parks and reserves.

Vulnerability to Invasion by ExoticPlant and Animal Species

The survival of native plants and animals inthe U.S. tropical islands is threatened by theconversion of forests to agriculture and urbanuses. Introduced plants and animals also posea great threat because they prey upon or out-compete native species. The result has been acontinuing decline in the quality of the forestsand a selective elimination of native species.

Photo credit: J. Bauer

Cloud or dwarf forests are important for water retention and as habitat for many endemic species in both Puerto Ricoand the U.S. western Pacific islands

Ch. 6—U.S. Tropical Forests: Caribbean and Western Pacific ● 131

Introduction of pigs, goats, cattle, rats, andsome birds and insects, affects both the Pacificand Caribbean islands. In the western Pacificislands, for example, introduction of theRhinoceros beetle contributed greatly to thedecline of coconut plantations, and the GiantAfrican snail inhibits nursery production forhorticulture and forestry (15,22). In the Carib-bean, animals have affected dry ecosystems toa greater degree than moist ecosystems.

Mammals are being introduced to Hawaii byman at 90,000 times the natural rate: one spe-cies or population has been successfully intro-duced every 11 years for the last 200 years. Forland birds, the rate is one successful speciesor population every 4 years. Most of these spe-cies are successful at the expense of endemicor indigenous forms (39). Research performedduring the 1970’s documented the heavy im-pacts by feral animals on both wet and dry na-tive Hawaiian forests. Results from this re-search have led to a decision to reduce or elim-inate these animals in some areas (17).

Dependence of Water Resourceson Forests

On all of the islands, the primary value of for-ests is their regulation of water regimes. Trop-ical oceanic islands, except coral atolls, areusually small with steep slopes. The naturalfreshwater habitat is streams rather than lakes(38). Streams and forests are concentrated inthe interior highlands and stream ecology isclosely linked with forest ecology. Diversionof water for domestic purposes, plantationagriculture, and industrial needs can leave in-sufficient waterflow for riverine fauna andflora.

Island ecosystems often host animal popula-tions that depend on local freshwater and for-est habitats. Many species spend part of theirearly lives in the ocean but migrate throughstreams to complete their lifecycle. In thenatural state, much of the stream where theylive and migrate lies within the forest. Butwhen forests are altered or removed, streamhabitats change. Any uninhabitable stretch can

Photo credit: J Bauer

La Mina Falls: Regulation of water regimes is the mostimportant function of forests on tropical high islands.Most upper watersheds have steep slopes and shouldremain forest-covered to reduce erosion and siltation

of reservoirs and coastal ecosystems

destroy a population that must migrate throughit to reach its normal adult habitat upstream(38).

On many islands, deforestation has resultedin turbid, erratic, and seasonally disappearingstreams (11). For example, the U.S. VirginIslands have no remaining permanent streams(30). Aquifer water levels are declining as pop-ulations pump out more than is recharged. Be-cause of inadequate freshwater resources, wa-ter in the U.S. Virgin Islands is expensive, rang-ing from $10 per 1,000 gallons from a desalina-tion plant to as much as $12 per 1,000 gallonsfor water barged in from Puerto Rico (32).

-


Dependance of Coastal Ecosystemson Forests

Disruption of water regimes in tropicalislands has considerable influence on coastalmarine environments. when forested water-sheds are cleared, waterflow and erosion ac-celerate, depositing a blanket of sediment oncoral reefs. This deprives corals of light andoxygen and causes the bottom to become softand unstable, thereby preventing recoloniza-tion. The addition of large amounts offreshwater runoff also is damaging becausecorals can only live within a limited salinityrange (29).

Normally, mangrove forests along the coast-line act to filter and chemically buffer thesediments. Seagrass meadows also can filtersediment that escapes the mangroves. Unfor-tunately, little is known about how these filter-ing and silt-adjusted biotic communities oper-ate, how they are affected by and affect thenutritional levels of lagoon and reef waters, orhow they affect fish nurseries and the coral reefcommunity.

The approximately 31,000 acres of man-groves in the U.S. Micronesia territories pro-vide food and building materials for local peo-ple and are important to traditional Microne-sia life. Mangroves also are found along thecoastlines of American Samoa, Hawaii, and theU.S. Caribbean islands. Here, too, they are thespawning grounds and nurseries for manyforms of marine and reef life. Coral reefs, pro-tected by mangroves, are basic in the foodchain of shallow waters, affecting fish andother marine resources of both subsistence andcommercial importance to island people of theU.S. tropical territories (23). Reefs have eco-nomic importance not only from their food pro-

Photo credit: E. Petteys

Coastal mangrove forests capture, filter, andchemically buffer sediments from runoff. Little isknown about the operation and carrying capacity of

these communities and their relation to fishnurseries and the coral reef community

duction and tourist value but also as a basis forindustry built around scientific research (6).

Vulnerability to Land Degradation

Because of small land areas, rapidly grow-ing populations, and transportation barriers,appropriate land-use is especially important forisland development. Lacking enough land forshifting cultivation, indigenous peoples onsmall tropical islands developed land-intensivesystems of agriculture. Small-plot land-use sys-tems were common in both the U.S. westernPacific and Puerto Rico. Today, these agricul-tural systems can no longer support the grow-ing populations. Because of limited land, farm-ers displaced by residential or commercial con-struction move to the more easily eroded islandhillsides, and roads may be routed through sus-ceptible mangrove forests (6).


U.S. CARIBBEAN TERRITORIES: PUERTO RICO ANDTHE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS

Forest Resources: Status and Trends

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico’s total land area, including thatof adjacent small islands, is 2,198,000 acres.Originally, most of Puerto Rico was forested,but agricultural colonization reduced forestcover to only 9 percent by 1950—4 percentgovernment forests and 5 percent privatelyowned forests. Today, at least one-third ofPuerto Rico is again under forest cover, most-ly second growth trees, fruit tree plantations,and shade cover in the remaining coffeeregions. Original forest cover is found only ina few inaccessible regions, Some 98,000 acresare public forest, divided between Federal andCommonwealth administration. Abandonmentof coffee plantations and farmlands, particular-ly on steep slopes, released 1.1 million acresnow potentially available for forestry activities,

Some of this land is probably too steep to use,although some recreation and gathering activ-ities might be allowed. Some acreage will berequired for future development; nevertheless,a considerable amount of land could be usedfor productive forestry, Some 200,000 acres areestimated suitable for commercial forestry (42,44) and some could be used for forestry-agri-culture combinations.

Pronounced differences in natural vegetationoccur because of sharp variations in altitude,climate, and soil characteristics. Using theHoldridge Life Zone system, six zones arefound in Puerto Rico (12). At least 98 percentof the land area is covered by three of the lifezones (table 17). The other three are found onlyat or near mountaintops and are very wet.Generally, they are unproductive for

Table 17.—Life Zones and Area in Puerto Rico

PercentLife zone Total acres of total

Subtropical moist forest . . . . . . . . . . 1,314,582 59.2Subtropical wet forest . . . . . . . . . . . . 524,830 23.6Subtropical dry forest . . . . . . . . . . . . 346,936 15.6Subtropical lower montane forest . . 26,950 1,2Subtropical rain forest . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,260 0.1Subtropical lower montane rain

forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,040 0.1SOURCE: Adapted from: J. J. Ewel and J L. Whitmore, The Ecological Life Zones

of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, USDA Forest ServiceResearch Paper ITF-18, 1973, In: Schmidt, 1982, and S. I. Somberg, Vir-gin Islands forestry Research: A Problem Analysis (St Croix: College ofthe Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Agricultural Experiment Station, 1976).

agricultural or forest crops and still exist intheir natural state. Most of these lands are inpublic forests and are important for watershedprotection.

Subtropical dry forests support a forest coverrich in tree species, but they do not have goodpotential for commercial forest production. InPuerto Rico and throughout the Tropics, dryforests often are converted to grazing land (fig,18), The southern coastal plain of Puerto Ricoand associated small islands contain most ofthe dry forests, limiting the potential for com-mercial forestry and increasing their need foreffective conservation programs.

The subtropical moist life zone, with 1,000to 2,000 mm of rainfall per year, covers mostof Puerto Rico. Agriculture, urban, and indus-trial uses are common in this zone, Subtropicalwet forests are found higher in the mountainsof Puerto Rico where rainfall is above 2,000mm. Pasture is common in this zone, whichis cooler, and coffee, bananas, plantains, andother fruits grow well. *

*Ewel and Whitmore (12) provide more detailed descriptionsof all life zones in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.


Figure 18.— Land Use in Puerto Rico

This wet forest life zone presents a substan-tial management challenge. Forests composedof abandoned coffee shade trees, in particular,contain some commercially valuable trees, butmost of their volume is in three legumes (Ingavera, I. laurina, and Erythrina poeppingiana)and other marginally valuable species (e.g.,Guarea guidonia) (2). These forests supply lit-tle useful timber, but they offer excellent water-shed and soil protection, wildlife habitat, andrecreational and esthetic opportunities.

U.S. Virgin lslandsThe U.S. Virgin Islands are part of the Lesser

Antilles Archipelago. Its three largest islandsare St. Thomas (17,000 acres), St. John Island

(15,000 acres), and St. Croix (55,000 acres).Only two Holdridge ecological life zones arefound in the U.S. Virgin Islands: subtropicaldry forests and subtropical moist forests (table18). The subtropical dry forest zone occupiesalmost three-fourths of the islands’ land. Thereare no permanent rivers or streams in the U.S.Virgin Islands outside the Virgin Islands Na-tional Park. All water retained in aquiferscomes from rainfall (30); these are depleted andmany wells are dry. Despite the high costs ofdesalinating water or importing it from Puer-to Rico by barge, little attempt has been madeto institute a revegetation program to increasewater retention and to prevent the flooding andmarine siltation (32).

Tabie 18.—Life Zones of the U.S. Virgin isiands

Subtropical dry Subtropical moist Percent ofIsland Square miles Acres forests (acres) forests (acres) total area

St. Croix . . . . . . . . 84 54,563 45,469 9,094 63.9St. Thomas. . . . . . 28 17,984 7,001 10,983 21.1St. John . . . . . . . . 20 12,835 8,214 4,621 15.0

Total . . . . . . . . . 132 85,382 60,684 24,698Percent of total . .

—71.1 28.9 100.0

SOURCE: S. I. Somberg, Virgin Islands Forestry Research: A Problem Analysis (St. Croix: College of the Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Agricultural Experiment Station, 1976).

Ch. 6—U.S. Tropical Forests: Caribbean and Western Pacific “ 135

These islands were once largely forest cov-ered (fig. 19). Less data are available on forestuse and potential in the U.S. Virgin Islandsthan for Puerto Rico. However, an estimated35,300 acres of forest and brushland exist, in-cluding 5,000 acres of commercial forests and15,800 acres of noncommercial forests. The re-maining 14,500 acres are unclassified and aremountainous. Most of the forested area outsidethe Virgin Islands National Park is in privateownership (30).

The majority of land considered suitable foragriculture (including forestry) is on St. Croix.Two high-value timber species, mahogany andteak, are grown at the U.S. Forest ServiceEstate Thomas Experimental Forest on thatisland. Teak can be established on marginalland common in central St. Croix and hasproved compatible with grazing.

A combination of high land prices, compet-ing land uses, and certain adverse soil andtopography factors probably preclude mostcommercial forestry on the U.S. Virgin Islands(30). However, potentials exist for agriculturaltree crops (e.g., coconut, mango, limes), man-

agement of watershed forests, and roadsideand urban forestry.

History Of Forest Use

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands sharea similar forest-use history. Essentially all ofPuerto Rico was forested on the arrival of Co-lumbus in 1493 (fig. 20). Then agricultural andurban expansion into the forests gradually tookplace. Until the early 20th century, most woodharvested was used for fuel or construction, butconstruction wood was being imported as earlyas the 1700’s. The only exports were rare andvaluable native species such as lignumvitae andsatinwood (Guaiacmn officinale and Zanthox-ylum flavwn). The economic depression in the1930’s, combined with increased population,had heavy adverse impacts on Puerto Rico. Ag-riculture was pushed farther up the hills acrossthe island. By 1935, only about 2 percent of theland area—the most inaccessible and infertileareas—had not been deforested at some time.

In the 1920’s and 1930’s, the Federal Govern-ment acquired about 50,000 acres of mountainland in Puerto Rico for forest and watershed

Figure 19.—An Idealized Transect Through a Caribbean

Montane zone \\’\\y>with abundant rainfallmostly still forested \\.

Seasonally dry zone m.now mostly cleared and used for ~

1agriculture

Littoral -&and mangrove

woodlands ~PUnder the influenceof the sea and fresh Ad” “

Island in the Lesser Antilles

SOURCE: Adapted from J. S. Beard, The Natural Vegetation of the Windward and Leeward Islands (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1949). In: Schmidt, 1982


Figure 20.—Original Vegetation of Puerto Rico

6715 6700 6645 6630 6615 6600 6545 6530 6515

I I I I I I I I IPuerto Rico

1830

1815

18 —)0

18101805

i

1830

1815

1800

SOURCE: Rafael Pico, The Geography of Puerto Rico (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1974), p. 180,

protection. In the late 1930’s and early 1940’s,the Civilian Conservation Corps planted some25,000 acres of timber trees that survive today,mostly in public forests. Today 100,000 acresare in public forest lands, divided between Fed-eral and Commonwealth administration. Carib-bean pine (Pinus caribaea var. hondurensis)was first established on the island in 1962.Through the 1960’s and 1970’s, from 100 to 500acres per year of timber trees, mostly pine,were established on private lands. About 200acres per year of various species were plantedon public forest lands.

Planting records of the Institute of TropicalForestry indicate that 95,000 acres of trees havebeen planted in Puerto Rico (2), but no forestplantation inventory has been conducted. The1973 land-use inventory (10) and the 1980 forestresources survey (2) indicated that there are800,000 acres of secondary forest in PuertoRico. About half of Puerto Rico consists of landabandoned from farming or grazing.

The Natural Resource Inventory performedby the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1977estimated average annual soil loss for differentland uses in the Caribbean (Puerto Rico andthe U.S. Virgin Islands), all of which are con-siderably higher than the average annual soilloss for the United States (table 19). These ero-sion rates reflect the extensive historicaldeforestation of the islands and the continu-ing cultivation and inadequately managed graz-ing of lands unsuitable for permanentagriculture.

Table 19.—Average Annual Sheet and Rill Erosion inthe U.S Caribbean (tons/acre)

Land use U.S. Caribbean average U.S. average

Cropland. . . . . . . . . 49 5.1Rangeland . . . . . . . 50 2.8Forest Iand:

Grazed . . . . . . . . 6 3.9Not grazed . . . . . 10 0.6

SOURCE: Adapted from USOA, 1977 Natural Resources lnventory, Washington,D.C,


Geoclimatic Regions in Puerto Rico

Five basic rock types are present in Puerto Rico. Composition within each rock type variesand there are hundreds of soil types (3,21). However, changes in forest growth and compositionare noticeable only across the major rock types. These five rock types can be overlayed withHoldridge Life Zones to form 17 geoclimatic regions (14). The regions with potential for commer-cial forestry use include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Moist-alluvial region. —This is the zone of mechanized agriculture, urban development, andprotected coastal mangroves and wetlands. These uses are considered higher priority thanforestry and probably will preclude it in this zone in the future.Moist-volcanic regioin. —This extensive zone is very important for forest development. It isa prime zone for growing Caribbean pine, mahogany, teak, blue mahoe, and eucalyptus.Where soils are poor, degraded, or on moderately steep slopes, agricultural practices haveceased. Native pastures, especially where ferns invade, can be of very low productivity.Regenerated native forests can be developed for conservation or timber production. However,most abandoned land in this region is deforested and is not regenerating into secondaryforests of native species (27).Moist-limestone region.—This is an area of extensive agricultural abandonment in north-western Puerto Rico. Mahogany, teak, and Eucalyptus deglupta grow well on the lower slopesof the rounded hills of this region; blue mahoe (Hibiscus elatus) grows well in moist valleybottoms. Well-managed plantations of these species are grown in three Commonwealth for-ests in this zone.Moist-granodioritic region.—Large areas of abandoned farms are common throughout thisregion. Caribbean pine is one tree species that thrives on these deep, infertile sands.Moist and wet serpentine region.—This region in southwestern Puerto Rico has shallow soilsthat are low in nitrogen and phosphors and very permeable. Agriculture fails on these landsand tree growth is slow (45). Two Commonwealth forests covering 17,300 acres located inthe region contain important watersheds. Some areas can support plantations of Caribbeanpine, maria (Calophyllum calaba), and, with heavy fertilizers, avocados.Wet-volcanic region. —Most of the wet life zone in Puerto Rico is found over volcanic soiland the main crop is coffee. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, many coffee plantations wereleft untended due to a shortage of laborers, and shrubs and trees invaded. From the late1970’s to the present, the coffee crop area has again expanded, apparently because of a shade-less coffee production system that uses nets for harvest (41) and a $2 million incentive pro-gram offering up to $1,000 Per acre for coffee planting. Since the new production is moreintensive, cosiderable areas of abandoned coffee shade still exist.

In 1981, Puerto Rico produced about 100,000 million to $8 million,board feet of hardwood timber with a retail 1970—$144 million (27).value of about $200,000, while the island’s im-ports of forest products totaled $410 million. Forest cover in Puerto

1950—$20 million,

Rico has increasedsoftwoods were imported largely from Canada from 9 percent in 1950 to 40 percent of the totaland the United States, and hardwoods deriv- area today because of a complex set of social,ed primarily from the United States and Brazil economic, and cultural factors. Agricultural ex-(table 20). The growth in forest product im- ploitation of tropical lands is often cyclical.ports, now increasing by $25 million per year, Lands of marginal agricultural productivity arehas been rapid over the past 40 years: 1940–$5 exhausted by cropping, then abandoned to nat-


ural succession. If and when some measure offertility is restored, the lands maybe clearedand cropped again. A peak of agricultural ac-tivity in Puerto Rico in the 1930’s and 1940’sseverely degraded the productivity of largeareas of land and led to their abandonment.

In both Puerto Rico and the U.S. VirginIslands, the abandonment of the sugar cane in-dustry decreased the amount of land under cul-tivation and some of this has reverted to brush.Brush and nonwoody species associated withforest and brush lands are important for soiland water management and have esthetic im-portance to the tourism industry in the drierareas of the Caribbean.

Beginning in the 1950’s, industrial develop-ment led to more attractive employmentopportunities in industry than in agriculture,lower priority for agricultural programs, andincreased abandonment of land from farming.The growth of tourism also attracted capitaland labor away from agriculture, Comple-menting the increased availability of alternativeemployment were easy air transportation to themainland United States and social support pro-grams (e.g., food stamps) offered by the FederalGovernment. Thus, the need to scratch out ameager living on steep infertile slopes wasgreatly reduced, These activities continue toreduce dependence on marginal agriculturalactivities.

Ch. 6—U.S. Tropical Forests: Caribbean and Western Pacific • 139

Table 20.—1981 Lumber Imports Into Puerto Rico by Species and Country of Origin

Totals

Species Country Quantity (MBF) Wholesale dollar value

softwoods:Cedar (other) . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Douglas fir. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hemlock ... , . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Redwood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Spruce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Western red cedar . . . . . . . .Other softwoods. . . . . . . . . .

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hardwoods:Mahogany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Maple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Spanish cedar. . . . . . . . . . . .

Walnut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .White oak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other hardwoods . . . . . . . . .

Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CanadaUnited StatesCanadaUnited StatesCanadaUnited StatesCanadaHondurasUnited States (SouthernPonderosa White)United StatesCanadaCanadaUnited StatesBrazilColombia —

599468

6,733764

30,54431

1,9281,240

31,986220

7,548535765

3951

83,451

$ 144,000149,000

1,330,000357,000

5,973,00015,000

391,000336,000

10,770,000314,000

1,212,000179,000666,000

12,0003,000

$21,851,000

Brazil 3,261 2,096,000United States 1,417 815,000Brazil 260 87,000Colombia 291 55,000Honduras 98 95,000Surinam 10 5,000United States 42 35,000United States 2,075 478,000Brazil 1,255 731,000Colombia 459 117,000French Guiana 64 10,000Malaysia 23 15,000United States 1,829 1,349,000

11,084 $5,888,00094,535 $27,739,000

SOURCE R C Schmidt, “Forestry: Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands,” OTA commissioned paper, 1982

In addition, the price of rural land has longsince come to reflect scarcity rather than pro-ductivity. Forest land in Puerto Rico may cost$1,000 to $2,000 per acre, and land values inthe U.S. Virgin Islands have exceeded $10,000per acre. Consequently, land speculation iscommon and much land lies idle awaitingdevelopment. Puerto Rico maintains a lawagainst private individuals or corporationsowning more than 500 acres and, in general,the land is in small holdings. Nearly 90 percentof the land ownerships are less than 48 acres(33).

The potential for plantation forestry in Puer-to Rico has been greatly increased as lands pre-viously used for agriculture have become avail-able. Also, natural secondary forest may supply

useful forest products in the future. However,the total volume of wood in the secondaryforest in Puerto Rico is not great—22 cubicmeters per acre (m3/acre) in abandoned coffeeplantations and 18 ins/acre in secondary forests(2). Undisturbed moist tropical forests oftensupport more than 80 m3 of wood per acre.

Trends in the growth of forest area or volumeare not yet known. In 1980, field work wasdone for the first comprehensive inventory ofPuerto Rico’s forests, and future inventories in1985 and 1990 will begin to show trends. Ob-servations indicate that forest area is increas-ing slightly or is stabilized (27). The only cut-ting occurring in these secondary forests is forfence posts, which probably does not decreaseoverall volume growth significantly.


Organizations Dealing WithTropical Forests

Although several Commonwealth and Fed-eral agencies are involved in tree planting inPuerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, theU.S. Forest Service, the Virgin Islands Depart-ment of Agriculture (VIDA), and the PuertoRico Department of Natural Resources (DNR)are the agencies with primary responsibility forforestry (table 21). U.S. Forest Service activitiesinclude research at the Institute of TropicalForestry (ITF), administration of the CaribbeanNational Forest, and cooperative programswith the DNR and VIDA.

ITF uses the Luquillo Experimental Forest,several Commonwealth forests, and the 120-acre Estate Thomas Experimental Forest in theVirgin Islands as sites for research. Eventhough timber management has been ITF’smain research objective, cooperative programshave been under way with AID, the PeaceCorps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, andseveral universities and Caribbean nationgovernments.

Neither the land grant University of PuertoRico nor the College of the Virgin Islands hasa forestry curriculum or an integrated naturalresource management curriculum. The VirginIslands Department of Agriculture’s ForestryProgram, with five staff members, operates anursery, an urban forestry program, and a ruralreforestation program. Nearly 400 acres havebeen reforested since the program’s inceptionin 1967.

Changing public attitudes toward PuertoRico’s forests is the primary focus of DNR’sForest Service. It has begun a media campaign,trained field agents in each of the five regionsof Puerto Rico, and recently embarked on aprogram to bring private landowners into com-mercial forestry. State and private forestry pro-grams administered by the U.S. Forest Serviceprovide technical assistance to guide the DNRForest Service’s forest management, utiliza-tion, and extension programs.

Table 21.-Organizations Dealing With TropicalForests in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands

Agency/ResponsibilitiesFederal Government:●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Forest Service: Administers the Caribbean National Forest,participates in the Cooperative Forest Management Act,and conducts research in forest management, recreation,wildlife, and tropical tree culture.Soil Conservation Service: Advises landowners about land-use alternatives, including forestry practices.Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service: Ap-proves incentive applications for forestry practices in-cluded under the Rural Environmental Assistance ProgramAct.Agricultural Extension Service: Handles island-wide educa-tion campaign promoting tree-planting for ornamental, rec-reational, environmental, and commercial purposes.Mayaguez Institute of Tropical Agriculture: USDA agricul-tural research station specializing in developing and testingcrops suited for tropical areas including fruit trees andcacao.National Park Service: Administers San Juan National His-toric Site, Puerto Rico; Virgin Islands National Park, St.John; Buck Island Reef National Monument, St. Croix;Christianstead National Historic Site, St. Croix.Federal Highway Authority: Develops specifications regu-lating tree-planting along roads built with Federal funds.

Commonwealth and Territory Governments:●

●

Ž

●

Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources, PuertoRico: Manages the 13 Commonwealth forests for water-shed, recreation, research, wildlife, and timber. Under theCooperative Forest Management Act, conducts field workrelated to private reforestation programs. Produces anddistributes seedlings from three nurseries.Agricultural Services Administration, Puerto Rico: Growsforest, ornamental, fruit, and shade tree seedlings at theMonterrey Nursery in Dorado, Puerto Rico.Forestry Program, Department of Agriculture, U.S. VirginIslands: Operates a nursery, manages urban forestry onpublic lands, and runs a rural reforestation program for pri-vate landowners.Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs, U.S.Virgin Islands: Administers territorial parks, Earth ChangePermit System restrictions on earth-moving, and SedimentReduction Program managing watersheds related to marinesedimentation.

Universities and colleges:• University of Puerto Rico: Offers undergraduate and grad-

uate programs in biology, ecology, agronomy, and admin-isters system of agricultural experiment stations.

● College of the Virgin lslands: Offers undergraduate pro-grams in biology and chemistry and administers the VirginIslands Experiment Station which maintains Forest Serv-ice experimental plots.

SOURCE: Adapted from L. H. Liegel, “Woodland Conservation in Puerto Rico:Its Past, Present, and Future,” New York College of Environmental Sci-ence and Forestry, Syracuse, NY., thesis, 1973.


U.S. PACIFIC TERRITORIES: AMERICAN SAMOA, TRUST TERRITORYOF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS, COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN

MARIANA ISLANDS, AND GUAM

American Samoa is the only U.S. territorythat lies south of the Equator. The Trust Ter-ritory of the Pacific Islands, Commonwealthof the Northern Mariana Islands, and Territoryof Guam constitute most of Micronesia, * whichlies north of the Equator between Hawaii andthe Philippines (fig. 21). Micronesia covers anarea of the western Pacific roughly equivalentto that of the conterminous United States (3million square miles) embracing some 2,000islands lying in three major archipelagoes: theMarianas, the Carolines, and the Marshalls (fig.22).

American Samoa and Guam are unincor-porated territories (to which the U.S. Constitu-tion has not been expressly extended) under theadministration of elected Governors. AmericanSamoa has been administered by the UnitedStates since 1900 and by a Governor appointedby the Secretary of the Department of the In-terior specifically since 1951. Although rela-tions between the government of Guam and theFederal Government also are conducted underthe jurisdiction of the Department of the In-terior, residents of Guam elect their ownofficials.

The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands(TTPI), which originally included the NorthernMariana Islands, was established under U.N.sanction after World War II. Administrationof the Trust Territory has been the responsibili-ty of the Department of the Interior throughan organization composed of the High Com-missioner and District Adminstrators. TTPI istreated as domestic except that the Peace Corpshas special congressional authorization tooperate there.

Under an executive order signed by Presi-dent Ford, each district was given the oppor-tunity to determine its own form of govern-ment and degree of independence from the

*Other islands in Micronesia are Wake, Marcus, Volcano,Benin, Nauru, and Kiribati,

United States. The Commonwealth of the Nor-thern Mariana Islands was established andseparated from the Trust Territory in 1978,although some relations between the Marianasand the U.S. Government continue under thejurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.The remaining polical entities—the Republicof Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia(Yap, Truk, Ponape, and Kosrae), and theRepublic of the Marshall Islands—now mustdecide whether or not to become nations infree association with the United Staes. Freeassociation would allow them free control ofinternal affairs while assuring them fiscal aidand national defense provisions from theUnited States.

By January 1981, each emerging nation hadinstalled a constitutional government withdemocratically elected officials (table 22). Allof these provisional entities are weakeconomically and have existed almost entire-ly on Federal funding since world War 11. U.S.appropriations for the Trust Territory, ex-cluding Federal categorical programs, exceed-ed $100 million in fiscal year 1980 (40). Thegovernment employs 56 percent of the workforce, and provides 76 percent of the wages (37).

Considerable differences exist in the topog-raphy among the islands. Some are rugged,high islands, some with active volcanoes, whileothers are low islands and coral atolls.

The original vegetation of the high volcanicislands included rain forests on the windwardslopes, and drier forests on the leeward slopes.On some of these islands, grass or fern savan-na naturally occurred. The natural cover ofelevated coral limestone areas is dense forestwith species composition different from thehigh volcanic type. High coral islands arefloristically much richer than the forests of low


Figure 21 .—Location of the U.S. Western Pacific Territories

Hawaii

9●


coral islands. Even an elevation change of afew feet results in a much richer flora. Thenatural vegetation of low coral islands is a“beach” type, adapted to highly saline waterand soils. Some of the drier islands have littlemore than coconuts, scrub, and bunch-grasssavanna, or salt flats.

he

Equator

American S a m o a

The current extent and condition of forestsin the U.S. Pacific vary greatly from one islandto the next. A long history of disturbance byman and natural forces left little undisturbedforest. A decline in agricultural production forexport, plus urban migration and dependenceon U.S. Federal income supports and imported

Ch. 6—U.S. Tropical Forests: Caribbean and Western Pacific • 143

Figure 22.—Geopolitical Breakdown of the U.S. Western Pacific Territories

Western Pacific

Samoa Islands Micronesia

American Samoa

Mariana Islands Caroline Islands Marshall Islands

Political entity

I Geographical entity


products are probably the reasons why agricul-ture has lost prominence. Most abandonedagricultural land naturally revegetates to savan-na or to secondary forest. Little of the second-ary forest is suitable for commercial timber ex-ploitation due to poor quality and low volumeof commercial tree species.

Timber exploitation has declined sinceWorld War II. Much of the choice timber hadbeen cut by 1950. Most of the islands could sus-

\\

I

tain forest production to help meet local needs,although there is little potential for export. Rap-idly increasing populations will consume anyavailable forest products produced within shortland or sea hauls.

Amarican Samoa

American Samoa is comprised of the seveneastern islands of the Samoan group, with atotal land area of about 50,000 acres. Two

144 • Technologies to Sustain Tropical forest Resources

Table 22.—Pacific Territories of the United States

Approximate number Dryland 1980 Current (C) or projected (P)Territory or island of islandsa (acres) population relationship with the United States

American Samoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Commonwealth of the Northern

Mariana Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands(except Northern Mariana Islands).

Federated States of Micronesia. . . . .Kosrae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ponape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Truk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Yap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Republic of the Marshall Islands. . . .Republic of Palau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71

21

2,182607

5165290149

1,225350

2,211

49,200135,000

7 6 , 0 0 0

291,340165,09526,27090,00020,95027,87517,945

108,300551,540

32,400105,000

16,900

116,34573,500

5,50022,30037,5008,200

31 ,045b11,800

275,645

Unincorporated territory (C)Unincorporated territory (C)

Commonwealth of the United States(C) (established 1978)

Free association, U.S. funded (P)—

Free association, U.S. funded (P)Free association, U.S. funded (P)—

OTA commissioned paper, 1982.

islands are coral atolls, whereas the others risesteeply from the sea. Tutuila Island, with a landarea of 34,000 acres, has approximately 90 per-cent of the population. It has one flat coastalplain of about 3,200 acres where urban growthis concentrated. outside of Tutuila, theeconomy is classified as subsistence. At least95 percent of American Samoa is communal-ly owned (25) and land disputes are common,

Through massive infusion of Federal moneyfrom the United States, American Samoa hasin recent years developed a cash economy.This has resulted in less land used for cultiva-tion and subsistence. Most land in AmericanSamoa is classified as undeveloped (table 23).

The original forest cover for most of Ameri-can Samoa was dense tropical rain forest.However, nearly two-thirds of the rain forest

Table 23.—Land Use in American Samoa, 1977

Land use” - Acres

Developed land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,830Residential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,475Subsistence agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,620American Samoa Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,087Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,648

Undeveloped land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,930Total land area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,760

SOURCE American Samoa Government, Economic Development Plan for Amen-can Samoa, FY 1979-1984 (Pago Pago’ Development Planning Office,1979)

has been destroyed or damaged by man’s ac-tivities, leaving undisturbed forests only onsteep slopes. Plantations (primarily taro andcoconut) are the most extensive land use, cov-ering 34 percent of the land. Secondary forestcovers 20 percent and includes all of those suc-cessional vegetation stages present afteragricultural land has been abandoned. Theonly types of vegetation left relatively un-disturbed are cloud forest, montane scrub, andlittoral (coastal) vegetation. Unlike elsewherein the Pacific, disturbed vegetation and second-ary forest in American Samoa are not dom-inated by exotic plants (4).

Trust Territory Of the Pacific Islands

The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands(TTPI) includes roughly two-thirds ofMicronesia: the Caroline and Marshall ar-chipelagoes. TTPI includes high volcanicislands of varying ages, elevated platforms ofcoral limestone, and low flat coral islets andatolls (table 24). Coral atolls are characterizedby the coconut palm and its related plantassociates—breadfruit, pandanus, and shoreplants. The high volcanic islands usually havemangrove swamps on the tidal flats, coconutvegetation inland and on the slopes, and mix-ed forest growth on the uplands (fig. 23).

Subsistence agriculture, a major land use in the western Pacific, is

Table 24.—island Types and Forest Areas

Photo credit: C. Hodges

one cause of American Samoa’s forest loss

of Micronesia (acres)


Figure 23.—Diagram of a "Typical” Micronesia Island Indicating Some Relationships Between Land Developmentand Island Resources

SOURCE: N. H. Cheatham, “Land Development: Its Environmental Impact on Micronesia,” Micronesian Reporter, Third Quarter 1975, pp. 8-10

Soil fertility is sufficient for the subsistencefarming that is practiced—coconut culture andmanmade taro pits on coral islands, and taroswamps, agroforestry, and garden culture onthe volcanic and limestone islands. Where pro-duction is intensified, fertilizers must be usedto sustain continuous production.

Leaching of plant nutrients is considered amore severe land-use problem than erosion.The combined loss of soil fertility from leach-ing and crop harvest has so depleted the avail-able plant nutrients that certain areas in thehigh islands no longer can support sufficientvegetation either to protect against erosion orto provide enough nitrogen and organic ma-terial for crop growth (35).

Commonwealth of the NorthernMariana Islands

The Commonwealth of the Northern Mari-ana Islands comprises 14 islands of the Mari-anas archipelago, excluding Guam. The archi-pelago can be divided into a group of young,mostly active volcanoes and a group of olderislands of elevated limestone and old,weathered volcanic rocks. The Northern

Marianas have a land area of 76,000 acres. Thelargest islands of Saipan, Rota, and Tinian(covering 30,000 acres; 25,000 acres; and 21,000acres respectively) are high limestone/volcaniccombinations.

The steep ash slopes of the volcanoes aregenerally covered by a dense, coarse grassMiscanthus). Mixed forest and coconut plan-tations cover the flatter areas near the sea.Volcanic areas can be quickly colonized byexotic nitrogen-fixing Casuarina and othertrees, but the common practice of burningmaintains these areas in grasslands (4). Thelimestone regions of the older islands are pre-dominantly covered with dense secondary for-est. Some sugar cane is grown where the soilis deep enough.

Man has influenced the vegetation of theMarianas for at least 3,500 years. On old vol-canic soils, accelerated clearing and burningin recent centuries have created a secondaryforest in some areas and much secondarysavanna. Erosion and soil deterioration haveaccompanied the process, making naturalregeneration of the savanna a slow process. Onfertile limestone soils, the forest has been


replaced by coconut plantations, pastures,open fields and gardens, or secondary forest.

Guam

Guam is the largest and southernmost islandof the Marianas chain, covering 135,000 acres.The northern half of the island is mostly flator gently sloping limestone with a thin lateriticsoil. In contrast, the southern half is composedof ancient, deeply weathered volcanic material.Except for a coastal plain on the western side,this southern area has a generally rugged ter-rain with a thick, acidic clay soil that containslittle humus. More fertile soils occur on thecoastal plains and valley mouths.

Once forest covered the entire island, buthuman disturbances and frequent typhoons,together with military activities during andafter World War II, has left little undisturbedforest on Guam. Only scattered patches remain


of the island. They are mostly in small parcelsand titles are often uncertain.

Little land on Guam is used intensively. Nomore than 2 percent of the land is activelycultivated (46). About 70,000 unmanaged acres(52 percent) have a cover of brush or trees in-cluding some 10,000 acres of abandoned coco-nut groves. About 50,000 acres (37 percent) ofopen or grass-covered land exist, little of whichis grazed. In the southern part of the island,some of the open land is barren and activelyeroding. Significant portions of both woodedand grass-covered lands are under militarycontrol, which restricts or prevents other uses.

In general, Guam’s forests typify those ofMicronesia; they remain unmanaged and theirproductivity is relatively low. Local popula-tions seem little concerned with productiveland use as imports provide more desirablesubstitutes (46). Growing populations are grad-ually generating pressures that will lead to con-version of the native forest to agriculture andurban areas. Eventually, however, agriculturallands will be largely depleted of nutrients andwill be abandoned. These lands, and those al-ready converted to nonproductive wasteland orscrub forest, may be designated “forest land,”but foresters can only make such lands produc-tive with great ingenuity, patience, and sub-stantial investments.

History of Forest Use

Pre-U.S. Administration

The original inhabitants of Micronesia madefew modifications of their environment. Tradi-tional agriculture activities caused onlyminimal soil erosion. Low areas just inland ofthe coastal mangrove forests have been usedfor taro patches, changing the mangrove’s spe-cies composition but retaining their capacityto filter and retain sediment.

Traditional agroforestry practices still foundon the islands of Truk, Yap, and Ponape prod-uce food while maintaining a cover of trees toprotect and stabilize the soil. Coconut andbreadfruit are interplanted on Truk’s steep

lower slopes. On Ponape, yams are plantedbelow trees which they climb. The tree dropssome or all of its leaves as the yam grows, pro-viding green manure. Many species of foodtrees grow on Yap, and their harvest is alter-nated with produce from taro patches and yamgardens. Burning is used to open up smallgarden areas and to produce ash fertilizerunder trees and bamboo patches (13).

Forests began a gradual decline followingthe arrival of the Spanish on Guam some 300years ago. As the Spanish, and later the Ger-mans, gained control, many islands—especiallyatolls—were eventually cleared, primarily forcoconut plantations. The Germans also intro-duced teak, kapok, and a few other forest treespecies during their administration from 1887to 1914.

In 1914, the Japanese occupied nearly all ofMicronesia except Guam and a few smallislands. Within a few years, the Japanese hadcleared all lands considered suitable foragriculture, and new crops such as pineappleand sugar cane were introduced. Copra pro-duction was increased, forests were cut forlumber and charcoal, and thousands of labor-ers, tradesmen, and their families came fromJapan and Okinawa. Refineries, packing plants,large towns, and fortifications were built. Ag-riculture and forest experiment stations wereestablished and research was conducted, in-cluding studies on nitrogen-fixing legumes andforest tree species introductions.

Most of these developments were destroyedduring World War II. Commercial agricultureceased and most fields were abandoned. Nowthey are covered with brush, grass, or trees,and are degraded from erosion and fires. Bythe middle of this century, most of the forests ofMicronesia had been at some time either de-stroyed, cut, or converted to agriculture. Manyforests are recovering and trees are approach-ing merchantable size. However, these fre-quently are species of limited use and commer-cial value. Remaining native forests and somesecondary forests in Palau, Ponape, and Kosraecontain useful native species.


Centuries of colonial rule and great distancesbetween Micronesia islands have resulted inmany different forms of landownership. Muchlandownership is communal, and in someplaces items such as buildings or individualtrees may be owned separately from the land.Land transfer and management authority maybe vested in a family member, a village officer,or a village group. Individual ownership is rel-atively new. This leads to landownership dis-putes that have major impacts on the status offorest lands, especially the mangroves.

U.S. Administration

Administration of forest resources in Micro-nesia has been conducted by the U.S. Navy,Department of the Interior, Territory Govern-ments, and now the emerging semi-indepen-dent governments. During the 37 years ofAmerican control, the forest resource“managers” at various times have been Ameri-can foresters, agriculturists, biologists, conser-vationists, military planners, and local islandforesters. Some have initiated, while othershave ignored, forest management practices andforestry-related research. Political changes andfrequent personnel turnover have eventuallynegated much of the constructive work startedover the years in Micronesia. Other factors alsohave played important roles in determining thepresent condition of the forest lands, includingWorld War II destruction, fires, typhoons, van-dalism, timber theft, neglect, noxious weeds,impoverished soils, and inadequate funding ofconservation programs.

One of the more successful U.S.-supportedefforts in Micronesia has been the work of ag-riculturists. Specialists have come and goneover the years, but a dedicated core accom-plished some important work with limitedbudgets, staff, and facilities. Technologies suchas those available through the U.S. Agency forInternational Development programs to lesserdeveloped countries were seldom funded toany significant extent in Micronesia. Conse-quently, little is known about such things assoil nutrient deficiencies and crop nutrient re-quirements under the islands’ conditions (46).

Fire is the biggest technical problem to over-come in rehabilitating grass lands. Each year,fires are started and allowed to burn uncontrol-led. They sweep through the grasses to the edgeof the forest, destroying forest along the mar-gin. This deforestation is disrupting islandhydrology. For example, older inhabitants ofNorthern Babeldaob (Palau) remember whenthe streams ran all year long. Now, due to re-peated burnings, the forest cover has been des-troyed and the streams run only when it rains,and then they are often fast and muddy (11).

In the 1960’s, the TTPI agriculturists broughtthousands of improved varieties of coconutsfrom Yap to the Marshalls and other islands.However, this rehabilitation project was notcompleted. Local economies now suffer andtwo new processing plants, one in the Mar-shalls and one in Palau, have had low produc-tion and low profits because of a copra short-age. In fact, it has been necessary to importcopra from Papua New Guinea to keep thePalau plant operating.

The condition of coconut plantations onmany islands is of serious concern. Many wereplanted by the Germans around the turn of thecentury and they are now senescent. For manyinhabitants of the U.S. Pacific, coconut grow-ing is the only nongovernment source of cashincome. Despite its importance, the copra in-dustry in Micronesia and American Samoa isin trouble on three fronts: 1) the world priceis low (in competition with other copra produc-ing areas and other vegetable oils); 2) yields arelow and most of the plantings are old, wellbeyond the productive life of the palm; and 3)while copra is not the only product derivedfrom the coconut, the other major potentialproduct–coir fiber–is wasted (34).

Organizations Dealing WithTropical Forests

Forestry programs in the U.S. Pacific con-sist primarily of localized extension efforts andlimited nursery activities. Industrial forest useis limited to harvesting small commercial

mangrove forests on Ponape and Kosrae. In-dividual trees are used by the crafts industryon most islands. The forests also provide somehome construction materials on many islands.Forest use is being included in the economicdevelopment plans by the new governments.

The only forest research activities in the U.S.Pacific since the 1930’s have been those con-ducted during the past 15 years by the Ameri-can Pacific Islands Forestry Research WorkUnit of the U.S. Forest Service. This Unit isone of three research teams that make up theInstitute of Pacific Islands Forestry (IPIF)located in Hawaii. The Institute, in turn, is partof the Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Ex-periment Station. The Pacific Islands ForestryResearch Work Unit is responsible for conduct-

ing cooperative research and information ex-change with the U.S. Pacific Islands. Supportis provided by the Forest Service NorthwestForest Experiment Station and the Hawaii Div-ision of Forestry and wildlife. The State andPrivate Forestry branch of the Forest Serviceprovides technical assistance and cooperativefunds to the forestry programs in the westernPacific.

The Forestry and Soil Resources Division ofthe Department of Agriculture in Guam hasthree professional foresters and two techni-cians. The land grant University of Guam hasdesignated an experimental forest area, but noschool in the U.S. Pacific has a forestry or in-tegrated natural resource management curricu-lum. Ponape State passed a Forest Manage-

Ch. 6—U.S. Tropical Forests: Caribbean and Western Pacific Ž 151

ment Act in 1978 that provided for the protec-tion and management of its forest and water-shed areas. No forestry program exists inAmerican Samoa. In 1983, the Commonwealthof the Northern Mariana Islands initiated aforestry program (47). Each emerging islandgovernment, with the exception of Palau, hasa research memorandum of understandingwith the IPIF and includes forestry in propos-ed development plans.

ern Pacific are either small or nominal. The ex-tant and emerging governments have ex-pressed an intent to include forestry in develop-ment and have designated forest agencies, butthey lack funding and adequate professionalpersonnel. Also, IPIF is attempting to addressthe forest research problems on 2,000 islandswith only three professional staff and annualfunding for only 2 scientist-years (table 26).

The forestry agencies responsible for forestprotection and management in the U.S. west-

Table 26.—Organizations Dealing With Tropical Forest Resources in the American Western Pacific

Agency/Responsibilities

Federal Government:●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Forest Service; Conducts research and cooperative re-source inventories; provides State, Territorial, and privatelandownership support, and manages Pacific Islands For-estry Information Center.Soil Conservation Service; Advises landowners about land-use alternatives including forestry practices; conducts co-operative soil surveys.Fish and Wildlife Service: Administers Rose Atoll WildlifeRefuge, American Samoa: conducts cooperative terrestrialinventories.National Park Service: Administers the National HistoricPark in Guam.Department of Defense: Maintains a chief conservation of-ficer on Guam overseeing DOD activities in the Pacific;maintains Patti Point Natural Area.Peace Corps: Sponsors volunteers to aid village develop-ment, forestry, etc.Pacific Basin Development Council: Partnership amongU.S. Federal Government, American Samoa, Guam, North-ern Mariana Islands, and State of Hawaii to determine thefuture development needs and priorities of the AmericanPacific Islands.

Island Governments:These territorial agencies conduct programs in agriculture,

forestry, fire prevention, fish and wildlife management, andoutdoor reaction. Two forestry stations test nursery tech-niques and methods of rehabilitating and reforesting de-graded grasslands and woodlands.

●

●

●

●

•

●

Territory of American Samoa: Department of AgricultureTerritory of Guam: Department of Agriculture, Bureau ofPlanningCommonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands: Departmentof Natural ResourcesRepublic of the Marshall Islands: Department of Resourcesand DevelopmentRepublic of Pa/au: Deparment of Natural Resources, Nek-ken Forestry Experiment StationFederated States of Micronesia: Kosrae State, Departmentof Resources and Development; Ponape State, Departmentof Conservation, Metalinin Forestry Experiment Station;Truk State, Department of Resources and Development;Yap State, Department of Resources and Development

Universities and colleges:. American Samoa Community College.” Designated a land

grant college in 1983.● College of Micronesia.- Designated a land grant college i n

1983.. University of Guam.- Land grant COIIege.

Other:. South Pacific Commission.” Provides technical assistance,

training, and some monetary assistance for agroforestfyand ecology.

. Yap Institute of Natural science.- Identifies flora and faunaof western Pacific islands and traditional uses of medicinalplants on Yap.

SOURCE Adapted from C D. Whitesell, C W Philpot, and M. C. V. Falanruw, ‘rCongressional Action to Improve the Sustainability of U S Tropical Forest Resourcesin the Pacific, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1982.


1.

2.

3,

4.

5.

6.

7.

8

9.

10.

11,

12.

CHAPTER 6

American Samoa Government, Economic De-velopment Plan for American Samoa, FY 1979-1984 (Pago Pago: Development P1anning Office,1979).Birdsey, R, A., and Weaver, P. L., “The ForestResources of Puerto Rico,” U.S. Forest ServiceSouthern Forest Experiment Station ResourceBulletin, New Orleans, La., 1982. In: Schmidt,1982.Briggs, R, P., and Akers, J. P,, “Hydrologic Mapof Puerto Rico and Adjacent Islands,” U.S. Geo-logical Survey, Hydrologic Investigations AtlasHA-197, 1965. In: Schmidt, 1982.Byrne, J. (cd.), Literature Review and Synthesisof Information on Pacifi”c Island Ecosystems,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Bio-logical Services, FwS/OBS-79/35, Washington,D. C., 1979.Chandrasekharan, C., “A Report on the Forestsof American Samoa, ” prepared for the Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Na-tions, Regional Office for Asia and the Far East,Bangkok, Thailand, 1977,Cheatham, N. H., “Land Development: Its En-vironmental Impact on Micronesia, ” Microne-sia Reporter, third quarter, 1975, pp. 8-10.Clayton, R. V., “National Progress Report onForestry: Hawaii,” prepared for the Asia-PacificForestry Commission Eleventh Session, Hono-lulu, Hawaii, 1981.Crabb, T., “Two Years Later—The BioEnergyExperience,” Moving Forestry and Wildlife intothe 80’s, proceedings of Hawaii Forestry Wild-life Conference, USDA Forest Service, Hono-lulu, Hawaii, 1981.Daehler, R. E., “Conservation District Lands—Best Possible Use?” A40ving Forestry and Wild-life into the 80’s, proceedings of Hawaii Forest-ry Wildlife Conference, USDA Forest Service,Honolulu, Hawaii, 1981.Department of Natural Resources, Puerto Rico,Inventory of Land Used and Natural Resourcesin Puerto Rico (unpublished report), 1973. In:Schmidt, 1982.Emmons, B. R,, “Forestry in Micronesia” (un-published paper, located at Library of the Of-fice of Territorial Affairs, Department of the In-terior), 1971.Ewel, J. J., and Whitmore, J, L,, The EcologicalLife Zones of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin[slands, USDA Forest Service Research PaperITF-18, 1973. In: Schmidt, 1982.

13,

14.

15.

16,

17<

18,

19.

20.

21.

22,

23.

24

25

Falanruw, M. V. C., “Marine Environment Im-pacts of Land-Based Activities in the Trust Ter-ritory of the Pacific Islands,” Marine and Coast-al Processes in the Pacifi”c, Proceedings ofUNESCO Seminar, July 14-16, 1980, Papua,New Guinea, pp. 21-47.Figueroa, J. C., and Schmidt, R. C., “SpeciesDiversity and Forest Structure in Lower Mon-tane Wet Serpentine Forest in Puerto Rico, ”Seventh Symposium of Natural Resources,Department of Natural Resources (in prepara-tion). In: Schmidt, 1982.Fosberg, F. R., “The Vegetation of Micronesia,”Bulletin of the American Museum of NaturalHistory 171:1-361, 1960.Harpole, B. G., Opportunities for MarketingHawaii Timber Products, USDA Forest ServiceResearch paper PSW-61, Berkeley, Calif., 1970.Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Re-sources, “Hawaii Forest Conservation ResearchPlan for the Eighties,” Honolulu, Hawaii (photo-COPY), 1981.Little, E, L., Jr., Checklist for United StatesTrees (Native and Naturalized), USDA ForestService Handbook No. 541, Washington, D. C.,1979. In: Schmidt, 1982.Little, E. L., Jr., and Wadsworth, F, H., CommonTrees of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin[slands, Agricultural Handbook No. 249, USDAForest Service, Washington, D. C., 1969. In:Schmidt, 1982.Little, E. L., Jr., Woodbury, R. O., and Wads-worth, F. H., Trees of Puerto Rico and the Vir-gin 1sZands, Second Volume, USDA HandbookNo. 449, USDA Forest Service, Washington,D. C., 1974. In; Schmidt, 1982.Lugo-Lopez, M. A., and Rivera, L. H., UpdatedTaxonomic Classification of the Soils of Puer-to Rico, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez,and the Agricultural Experiment Station Bul-letin No. 258, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico, 1977.In: Schmidt, 1982.Owen, Robert, Chief Conservationist for theTrust Territory of the Pacific Islands (retired],personal communication, 1982.Owen, R. P,, “Remarks Concerning TropicalForests in Micronesia,” prepared for OTA Ad-visory Panel Meeting (unpublished), 1982.Owen, R. P., “A Conservation Program for theTrust Territory,” Micronesia Reporter, the/ourna] of Micronesia 27(1):22-28, 1979.Patton, H. M., “The Pacific Basin: Toward a

Ch. 6—U.S. Tropical Forests: Caribbean and Western Pacific Ž 153

Regional Future,” State Government, 53:68-76,spring 1980.

26. Richards, P. W., The Tropical Rain Forest (Lon-don: Cambridge University Press, 1966). In:Schmidt, 1982.

27. Schmidt, R. C., “Forestry: Puerto Rico and thevirgin Islands, ” OTA commissioned paper,1982.

28. Schmidt, R. C., personal communication, 1983.29. Shepard, F., “Coral and Other Organic Reefs, ”

Submarine Geology (2d cd.) (New York: Harper& Row, 1963). In: Whitesell, et al., 1982.

30. Somberg, S. I., Virgin Islands Forestry Re-search: A Problem AnaZysis (St. Croix: Collegeof the Virgin Islands, Virgin Islands Agricul-tural Experiment Station, 1976).

31. South Pacific Commission and InternationalUnion for the Conservation of Nature and Nat-ural Resources, “Regional Ecosystems Surveyof the South Pacific Area, ” Second RegionalSymposium on Conservation of Nature, June14-17, 1976, p. 179.

32. Towle, Edward, Island Resources Foundation,St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, personal com-munication, 1983.

33. U.S. Bureau of the Census, “1978 Census of Ag-riculture,” Washington, D. C., 1980.

34. U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Survey:Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, Guam,American Samoa, Washington, D. C., 1975.

35. U.S. Department of State, Trust Territory of thePacific Islands, 1980, report to the United Na-tions on the Administration of the Trust Terri-tory of the Pacific Islands, Washington, D. C.,1981.

36, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Endangered

37

Wildlife Research Program: Tropical Fore~t Re-search” (unpublished document).U.S. Forest Service, International Forestry Re-search Plan for Oceania, Asia and Western Pa-cific, U.S. Forest Service Pacific SouthwestForest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley,Ca]if., 1980.

38.

39.

40<

41,

U.S. National Park Service, “Forest Streamsand Estuaries on Tropical, High, OceanicIslands” (unpublished report).U.S. National Park Service, memorandum onstatus of U.S. tropical forests from Acting Re-gional Director, Western Region, to AssociateDirector, Science and Technology, NationalPark Service, Mar. 25, 1981.U.S. Congress, Senate, hearings of the Commit-tee on Energy and Natural Resources, June 3,1980 (photocopy).Vicente-Chandler, J., Conceptos, plan y pro-grama para una agricultural moderna en Puer-to Rico, Special Report to the Secretary of Ag-riculture of Puerto Rico, 1978. In: Schmidt,1982.

42. Wadsworth, F. H,, “Timber,” In Vicente-

43

44

Chandler, J., Conceptos, plan y programa parauna agricultural moderna en Puerto Rico, Spe-cial Report to the Secretary of Agriculture ofPuerto Rico, 1978. In: Schmidt, 1982.Wadsworth, F. H., “Island’s Lack of a Wood In-dustry,” San Juan Star, June 29, 1981, p. 13.Wadsworth, F. H., “Timber and Forest EnergyDevelopment Potentials for Puerto Rico,” Sym-posium on Biomass Production in Puerto Rico(in preparation). In: Schmidt, 1982.

As. weaver, P. L., Tree Growth in Several TropicalForests of Puerto Rico, USDA Forest ServiceResearch Paper SO-152, Southern Forest Ex-periment Station, New Orleans, La., 1979. In:Schmidt, 1982.

46. Whitesell, C. D., Philpot, C. W., and Falanruw,M. C. V., “Congressional Action to Improve theSustainability of U.S. Tropical Forest Resourcesin the Pacific, ” OTA commissioned paper,1982.

47. Whitesell, C. D., personal communication, 1983.48. Whitmore, T. C., Tropical Rain Forests of the

Far East (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press,1975). In: Schmidt, 1982.

25-287 0 - 84 - 1 I

PART IITechnology

chapter 7

Technologies for

PageHighlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Maintaining Sample Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...... 159Making Undisturbed Forests More Valuable ● ***... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Maintaining Sample Ecosystems . . . . . . . .....**. ...**... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160Why Protect Tropical Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 160Status of Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160Techniques to Design, Establish, and Maintain Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160Conclusion . . . . . . . ● **.***. .*****.* . . . . . . . . . ....,... . . 166

Making Undisturbed Forests More Valuable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167Nonwood Products . . . . . . . ● 0..,,,. **..***. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,, . . . . . . 167Forest Food Sources ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168Innovative Forest Products .... ● .,...... . . . . . . . . . . . 171Conclusion ● ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Chapter preferences ,..,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

List of Tables

Table No. Page27. Wildland Management Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16328. Steps in Planning a Park or Protected Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

List of FiguresFigure No. Page24. Terrestrial Biogeographic Realms of the World .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 16225. Design of Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16326. A Typical Biosphere Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● 166

Chapter 7

Technologies for Undisturbed Forests

HIGHLIGHTS

Maintaining Sample Ecosystems

● Preserving samples of undisturbed tropicalforests can help protect representative flora,fauna, and habitats and thus maintain bio-logical diversity and goods and services pro-vided by forests. But there is a disparity inthe distribution of protected areas.

● It is essential to improve the managementof existing protected areas, since many areprotected only on paper. The United Statescan contribute by providing increased op-portunities to educate and train resourcemanagers and technicians.

● There is growing recognition that protectedarea management should include more socio-economic and institutional considerations.The UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Pro-gram system of biosphere reserves is one ap-

●

●

preach that emphasizes these components.It, however, suffers from the lack of strong,consistent U.S. commitment and support.


The value of tropical forests could be in-creased by developing new products or byencouraging the collection and processingof existing products. This could be done withinvestment to analyze traditional uses offorest products, develop markets, and pro-mote sustainable management systems.

Improved assessment of the value of non-wood tropical forest products, especially insubsistence economies, could provide incen-tive to include development of these re-sources in economic development planning.

Proven methods and techniques to sustainundisturbed tropical forests* are few. Of these,establishing parks and protected areas prob-ably is the most common method. A few otherexamples exist where selected renewable re-sources are extracted from a tropical forest togenerate income while the forest and its re-sources remain essentially intact.

Political expediency often determines whenand where a park or protected area is establish-ed. The rapid loss of forests in most tropicalcountries forces people to try to establish pro-tected areas whenever and wherever the op-

“Undisturbed tropical forests are defined as areas where treesare the dominant woody vegetation covering more than 10 per-cent of the ground and where trees have not been cut duringthe past 60 years. This definition includes both primary and oldsecondary forest, both closed and open forest (22).

portunity arises regardless of whether ade-quate, continuing protection will be availableto care for the land and its resources. Manyprotected areas exist only on paper and in factcontinue to undergo destruction.

Resource conserving technologies that tapthe potential of undisturbed forests, such asbutterfly and crocodile farming (see p. 172), arerare. while these two examples affect few peo-ple, they are important illustrations of howhuman well-being can be linked directly tomaintaining the productivity of tropical forestresources. Such systems can work, but a greatneed exists to develop other integrating ap-proaches if such methods are to provide signifi-cant benefits while sustaining undisturbedtropical forests,

159


MAINTAINING SAMPLE ECOSYSTEMS

Why Projecct Tropical Forest?

Parks and protected areas can fulfill a varie-ty of objectives. These vary according to thecharacter of the area, but can include:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

protecting and maintaining representativesamples of major biogeographical prov-inces to support evolutionary continuityand the health of the Earth’s life supportsystem;protecting representative, as well asunique, samples of natural systems, land-scapes, and life forms;protecting natural areas needed to supportdevelopment activities (e.g., watershedsand ground water recharge areas);providing in situ* protection of plants andanimals that may make substantial, thoughperhaps currently unforeseen, contribu-tions to human development (e.g., supplynew food or drug sources);providing sites for research and educationto increase scientific knowledge that canbe used to develop new technologies tomanage such systems;protecting cultural, archeological, ornatural monuments; landscapes ofhistorical or cultural interest; or unusualgeological formations; andproviding esthetic pleasure, opportunitiesfor healthy and constructive- recreation,and revenues from tourism (11).

Status of Protected Areas

Establishment of parks and protected areasin the world has burgeoned in the last two dec-ades. The greatest increase in the number ofprotected areas has occurred in developingcountries. Nearly one-half (160 million hectares(ha)) of the worldwide total of protected naturalareas are found in the Tropics (3,21). Protectedareas in Central America, for example, grewrapidly from 24 units (1.7 million ha] in 1969to 124 units (4.8 million ha) in 1981 (2). Unfor-

*Protecting stock in the original habitat rather than in placessuch as gene banks or botanical or zoological gardens.

tunately, some of the designated areas are pro-tected only on paper. No data are available onwhat portion of the parks and protected areasworldwide suffer illegal hunting, logging, farm-ing, and livestock grazing, but anecdotal evi-dence suggests that such illegal use is a com-mon problem in the tropical nations.

Substantial increases in the area given pro-tected status over the past two decades indicatethat the values of undisturbed forest resourcesare being more widely recognized. This prog-ress is due at least in part to a growing aware-ness among nations of the social, economic,and ecological benefits accruing from appro-priately managed protected areas (7,8).

An FAO/UNEP study indicates about 3 per-cent of the closed tropical forest has been givenpark or other legal protected status (see app.table A-2). Such protected lands are unequal-ly distributed; at least half are located in justfour countries–India, Zaire, Indonesia, andBrazil. In addition, the International Union forthe Conservation of Nature and Natural Re-sources (IUCN), which monitors the worldwidedistribution of protected areas, reported in1981 that some ecological types are either notrepresented or are underrepresented by ex-isting protected areas.

Techniques to Design, Establish, andMaintain Protectedd Areas

Siting Protected Tropical Forests

Many of the first tropical parks and reserveswere established for esthetic and recreationalpurposes (14). Lands were set aside because ofspectacular scenery or unique land forms, fol-lowing the precedent set by the United States.Although such lands can provide income fromtourism and recreation, they may not be de-signed or located to sustain other importantvalues associated with undisturbed forests.Park borders in the past usually ignored ani-mal migration routes and important adjacentecosystems. Some areas in Africa, for example,protect important watering areas for wildlife

Ch. 7—Technologies for Undisturbed Forests ● 161

Photo credit” H Bollinger

Forest clearing for agricultural settlement often proceeds in spite of the site’s legal status as a protected area. Thissettlement is in a Kenyan forest listed officially as a preserve by the Forest Department

but do not protect the upland watersheds thatare necessary to maintain water supplies. Fur-thermore, rural people living in or near parkshave often been disregarded or displaced.

More recently, planners have begun to lookbeyond simple scenic values to emphasize abroad range of biological resources and envi-ronmental services in protected area designa-tion. Techniques for siting areas to be protectedare becoming more scientific and integrative.

A classification system used to identify ap-propriate locations for protected area estab-lishment worldwide is based on ecologicalcategories. This system divides the Earth intoeight large “realms” (fig. 24), which in turn aresubdivided into 193 biogeographical “prov-

inces” (21). Realms are continent or subconti-nent-sized areas with unifying features of geog-raphy, fauna, and vegetation. Provinces aremore detailed subdivisions, each characterizedby a major biome type such as “tropical humidforest,”” tropical grasslands, ” or “tundra com-munities.” Ideally, selection of protected sitesshould include representative samples fromeach realm and province.

Within a province, the location—as well asthe number, size, and shape of protectedareas—is important to biological conservation.The scientific basis for determining these char-acteristics is theoretical. Few studies havetested the theories with species other than birds(18). Two criteria have emerged for selectingsites to safeguard biological diversity. One is


Figure 24.-Terrestrial Biogeographic Realms of the World

SOURCE: M. Udvardy, World Biogeographical Provinces, IUCN Occasional Paper No. 18, 1975.

the relative degree of species endemism of aparticular site. Areas of high species endem-ism are those containing many highly localizedspecies. A related criterion is the number ofspecies, or species diversity, at the site. All elsebeing equal, the more biologically diverse asite, the greater its potential value.

A number of inferences about how park sizeand shape affect maintenance of biological di-versity have been drawn from studies of trop-ical island biogeography (fig. 25). These studieshave found that the risk of species extinctionswithin a protected area—in essence a biolog-ical island—can be minimized through carefuldesign of the site. An appropriate size can bedetermined by including all the natural featuresthat constitute a self-sustaining ecological sys-tem. However, to maintain their full comple-ment of plant and animal species, most sitesneed to be large. This is because many tropicalspecies occur naturally at low densities. Belowa certain minimum population, these speciesare more vulnerable to problems of populationinstability and the risk of extinction.

For example, the minimum viable populationsize for long-lived organisms with low naturalmortality rates is believed to be about 50 indi-viduals in the short term (50 to 100 years) and500 in the long term (6). Ideally, sites shouldcontain at least this number of their rarest spe-cies. The size required to do this varies withtype of species and ecosystem, but determin-ing actual size is an area of great scientific un-certainty. Recently, scientists in Brazil have be-gun a series of experiments to measure ratesof loss of biological diversity that occur withvariations in protected area size and shapeunder various tropical forest conditions (12).Such research produces results slowly. In themeantime, some scientists have suggested2,500 square kilometers as the minimum areaof tropical rainforest needed to safeguard mostspecies (20). This suggested rule-of-thumb oftenis impractical, given the socioeconomic andpolitical situations of many tropical countries.

Biogeographical considerations are onlysome of the factors needed to determine theappropriate shape of protected areas. where


Figure 25.— Design of Protected AreasBetter

o00000

000

0

A

B

c

D

E

F

Worse

•

•

Suggested geometric principles, derived from island biogeographic studies, forthe design of protected areas. In each of the six cases labeled A to F, speciesextinction rates WiII be lower for the reserve design on the left than for the reservedesign on the right.

SOURCE International Union for the Conservation of Nature, The World (Conser.vation Strategy (Gland, Switzerland: IUCNWNEPNVVVF, 1980).

maintenance of specific environmental serv-ices is a high priority, it should be reflectedin the area’s shape. For example, watershedcatchments have specific shapes. In addition,the needs and interests of local people alsoshould help determine the shape, size, andlocation of protected areas.

Establishment and ManagementTechniques

Different categories of protected areas suchas national parks, biological reserves, and cul-tural monuments serve different objectives andpurposes. The management strategy chosendepends on the particular combination ofbenefits that are desired (table 27). Protectedareas should include two types of reserves: 1)lands where ecosystems are protected with a

Table 27.-Wildland Management Categories

Management category/Characteristics

1. National Park: Wild or primary ecosystems with little evi-dence of human intervention; contains unique featuresof national or international significance.

2. Natural monument: An area generally encompassing onlyone natural feature that is of national or internationalsignificance.

3. Scientific or biological reserve: Lands that are generally

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

not altered by man-and contain floral and)or faunal speciesof national or international importance. Size depends onhabitat needs of target species.Wildlife sanctuary or refuge: Land encompassing the vitalhabitat resources of animal species or communities ofnational or international significance.Resource reserves: A transitory state where a primary eco-system will be maintained in a natural state until moredefinite management goals are determined.National forest: Extensive forested lands important forwood production and watershed protection.Game reserves: Lands containing populations of nativewild species of fauna and/or habitat suitable for the production of wild fauna protein, animal products, or for view-ing or sport hunting.Protection zones: Generally small areas that do not meetthe objectives of other wildland categories but that re-quire the kinds of strict land-use control provided bywildland management techniques.Recreation areas, scenic rivers, and highways: Relative-ly large areas with outstanding natural or seminaturalscenery and the physical potential to be developed fora variety of outdoor recreational uses.

10. Seen/c easements and rights-of-way: Regions outside ofpark or reserve boundaries that merit protection, usuallyfor esthetic reasons—i.e., access roads, shorelines,mountains, scenic overviews, etc.

11. Cultural monuments: Sites or areas containing historical,archeological, or other cultural features of national or in-ternational significance.

12. Integrated river basin regional development programs:Integrated regional land-use planning that includes wild-Iands conservation as an integral component of develop-ment.

SOURCE: K. Miller and D. Glick, “Methods for the Establishment and Manage-ment of Protected Areas for Tropical Primary Foreat and WoodlandResources,” OTA commissioned paper, 1982.

minimum of human manipulation (sometimescalled strict nature reserves or national parks);and 2] lands where particular resources orparts of the ecosystem are protected, but wherecollection of some products and some manipu-lative research is allowed and managed, par-ticularly for education and training (11).

Simply designating protected areas on a mapdoes not assure that the land will be managedto provide the greatest possible benefits. Amanagement plan is needed. A planning pro-cedure that has proven effective for a variety


of tropical wildland conditions is shown intable 28. This process is continuous and in-teractive with built-in monitoring and evalua-tion components. Thus, the procedure helpsensure that data on how management affectsthe resources within the designated site, howit affects the surrounding area, and how thesurrounding area affects the site will be col-lected and continually used to improve man-agement.

The traditional approach to park establish-ment and management has often failed to takeinto account local cultures and has excludedlocal people. Consequently, protection ofdesignated areas has often not been effective.Local people, with no incentive to protect thepark, ignore the area’s legal status. Given in-creasing needs to develop rural lands in recentyears, protected area planning has begun to in-corporate more economic and social considera-tion (14). Although some socioeconomic andother social science analyses are being incor-porated into the planning process, methods touse these data as yet are not fully used.

Appropriate management of tropical forestprotected areas necessitates active participa-

Table 28.—Steps in Planning a Park or Protected Area

1.

2.

3.4.5.

6.7.

8.

9.10.11.12.13.14.

Gather background Information, Including analysisof administrative, organizational, legal, and political con-text for the park.Conduct a field inventory of natural and cultural resourcesand land-use and development aspects of the area.Analyze constraints on planning the park.State specific objectives on planning the park.Divide the area into management zones, identifying siteswhere specific activities and developments are to takeplace.Draft preliminary, practical park boundaries.Design management programs for protecting, using, andadministering the park.Prepare an integrated development program for the plan:what is to be built; what supplies, equipment, and ma-terials are needed; what infrastructure and utilities are re-quired; and what staff and institutions will be involved.Analyze and evaluate the proposal.Design the development schedule.Publish and distribute the management plan.Implement the plan.Analyze and evaluate the plan.Solicit feedback and revise the plan as needed.

SOURCE: K. Miller and D. Glick, “Methods for the Establishment and Manage.rnent of Protected Areas for Tropical Primary Forest and WoodlandResources, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1982.

tion by many individuals and groups. The prin-cipal participants include:

1.

2,

3.

4.

5.

Planning Team. —Establishment and man-agement planning is best conducted by ateam of specialists representing both en-vironmental and sociological fields (e.g.,park planners, ecologists, foresters, wild-life biologists, rural developers, anthropol-ogists, sociologists, economists, environ-mental educators, and community devel-opers).Rural People.—The people living in or ad-jacent to proposed or established protectedareas must play an active role in park plan-ning, establishment, and management.Meeting their resource needs is an impor-tant factor in the success of a protectedarea.National Decisionmakers.—Governmentand nongovernment leaders must supportconservation activities if adequate finan-cial and legislative support for forest pro-tection is to be procured.The General Public.—If widespread publicsupport exists for the creation of parks andreserves, government leaders are morelikely to support such efforts,The Global Community,—International po-litical and development agencies can-beinstrumental in promoting wildland pro-tection. Development of tropical forests inmany cases is directly affected by multi-national businesses and global politicalbodies (14).

This broad approach, although it can be un-wieldy, facilitates involvement by both thosepeople who directly or indirectly will affect orbe affected by the forest resource (generallyrural people) and the people and agencies thatmust support or implement the managementprograms.

Support from local citizens can be increasedif protected areas are designed so benefits ac-crue to local inhabitants (25). An example isNepal’s Royal Chitwan National Park. Chitwanwas declared a park in 1973 to demonstratethat the conservation of nature was an integralpart of Nepal’s plans for economic develop-

Ch. 7—Technologies for Undisturbed Forests • 165

ment. The park’s conservation record is im-pressive: its population of rhinoceroses rosefrom about 100 in 1968 to at least 300 in 1978,and its tiger population increased from 25 in1974 to as many as 60 in 1980 (15). But that suc-cess created conflicts with local residents. Theysuffered loss of crops, livestock, and occasionalloss of life caused by park animals and they en-countered other conflicts with park regula-tions. But as part of a broad program of resettle-ment, public participation in the park’s man-agement, and compensation for losses, the gov-ernment decided to allow villagers to use thepark to collect tall grasses for buildingmaterials. Since most of the needed thatchgrasses outside Chitwan had disappeared, thepeople realized that the park protected theirinterests, too, and relations have improved con-siderably (15).

It is also important to ensure that once areashave been designated, their status should notbe changed except for some compelling higherpublic interest. Because of the need for coor-dination and top-level decisionmaking, thepower to establish any protected area shouldbe by law. Approval should be required of thehighest body responsible for legislative mattersin the country or region—e.g., parliament orlegislative assembly. Similarly, amendment orabolishment of any protected area should bethrough superseding legislation and determina-tion of this highest authority. This may not bepolitically or administratively possible in somecountries. In cases where the highest legislativelevel of approval is not possible, review and ap-proval should be required at least from a com-petent authority at a level higher than the agen-cy which is responsible for managing the pro-tected area (11).

Finally, even if all elements of appropriatetropical forest management are met, the de-struction of adjacent ecosystems can serious-ly affect resources within the reserve bound-aries. Therefore, protected areas managementmust broaden its scope of concern from pro-tecting “patches” of natural areas to implemen-tation of environmentally appropriate land-usepractices in nonpark areas (18). The com-plementarily of conservation and development

increasingly is appreciated as protected areasare incorporated into broader regional andlocal development plans and into developmentprojects to enhance their economic perform-ance.

The UNESCO-MAB Concept. Few innova-tive conservation actions have been developedto integrate protected areas directly with thesurrounding biophysical and socioeconomicsetting. One program with this objective is theUnited Nation’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB)Program initiated by UNESCO in the early1970’s. The goals of MAB are to encourage thestudy of human impact on natural renewableresources and promote the application of ap-propriate knowledge and experience to main-tain these resources for long-term develop-ment. The MAB program also provides anetwork for information exchange amongdeveloped and developing countries.

The MAB biosphere reserves program at-tempts to integrate conservation of protectedareas with surrounding socioeconomic needs.The biosphere reserves use management andzoning to facilitate human activity within cer-tain sections of the reserve (5). This conceptemphasizes the needs of local populations andseeks to define ways where specific economicbenefit in the form of revenues and productsfrom the reserve can be returned to the localpeople.

Biosphere reserves are intended to be aworldwide network of protected land and coastenvironments linked by international under-standing of purposes and standards and by ex-change of scientific information. Ideally, thenetwork should include significant examplesof all the world’s biomes. Each biosphere re-serve also should be large enough to be an ef-fective conservation unit and to accommodatedifferent uses without conflict.

The zoning concept applied to a biospherereserve normally includes a well-protected“core area” surrounded by one or several“buffer areas” where manipulative research orecologically sound land uses are allowed. Thisbuffer acts as a transition zone integrating thereserve into the surrounding region. The de-


sign of a reserve (fig. 26) can be adapted to dif-ferent geographical, ecological, or cultural situ-ations, including, for instance, cases whereanimals migrate from one part of the reserveto another or where a cluster of core areas needprotection. This concept differs from tradition-al designs because it is an open, rather thanclosed, system. It considers the managementproblems of the surrounding areas and pro-vides for needs of local populations (l).

Each participating country designs its ownprogram under the minimum requirements ofMAB. Thus, practices vary from country tocountry depending on available manpower, re-sources, and political commitment. Represen-tation to MAB, however, may provide a toolfor developing-country experts to improve thenational and international visibility of theirconservation work. To a limited extent, theUNESCO-MAB program can sponsor outside

Figure 26.—A Typical Biosphere Reserve

Core area R Research station

Buffer zone 1 T Tourism

Buffer zone 2 X X Human settlements. x x

experts to provide technical assistance in coun-tries where they are needed.

In the comparatively short life of the MABbiosphere reserve effort, the concept behindbiosphere reserves—the improved integrationof long-term conservation and socioeconomicneeds—has become increasingly recognized asan important and, in some areas, a critical toolfor effective conservation of natural systems.However, additional field experience andmonitoring are needed to evaluate the suc-cesses of existing biosphere reserves. Currentindications seem to be that biosphere reservessuffer from some of the same problems as otherprotected areas—lack of adequate institutionalsupport, lack of adequate staff and funds, andpoor coordination with other activities andwith government concerns.

Conclusion

Actions to establish and manage protectedareas could help protect undisturbed forest re-sources and prevent some resource degrada-tion in the Tropics. Protecting sample ecosys-tems in some system of protected areas can bean important technique to preserve represent-ative flora, fauna, and habitat and, thus, main-tain ecological diversity and a range of goodsand environmental services in tropical areas.

An unknown number of the Tropics’ pro-tected areas are inadequately managed and suf-fer deforestation and other resource degrada-tion. Factors that contribute to these problemsare a lack of commitment at the governmentlevel, insufficient funds, and scarcity of train-ed personnel in tropical countries to carry outthe many tasks involved in planning, designing,and managing protected undisturbed tropicalforests. If the first two factors persist, it maybe preferable to improve the management ofexisting protected areas through appropriateinstitution-building activities rather than createnew areas on paper which would furtheroverextend the limited funds and humanresources. Since lack of appropriately trainedpersonnel is an important constraint, theUnited States can make a significant contribu-tion by making U.S. expertise more readily

Ch. 7—Techno/lgies for Undisturbed Forests Ž 167

available—through universities, nongovern-mental organizations, and government agen-cies such as the National Park Service.

The objectives of protected areas have evolvedfrom strict protection to a broader approachthat considers socioeconomic and institutionalfactors. Thus, the need to develop and testmethods based on the latter approach grows.Few such conservation techniques have beendeveloped. The MAB biosphere reserves areone attempt to integrate conservation withdevelopment. However, development of the bi-osphere reserve concept is still at the experi-

mental stage in both tropical and temperatezone countries. The U.S.-MAB effort, while ef-fective considering the minimal funding it hasreceived, is constrained by a reduction of sup-port and a lack of a strong, consistent U.S.Government commitment. Stabilizing the U.S.commitment to MAB would enable U.S. scien-tists to contribute their skills and expertise todevelop further this innovative conservationoption. This might encourage additional inter-national support for various MAB programs aswell.

The environmental services provided by un-disturbed forests frequently are not enough in-centive for individuals to maintain uncutforests. One way to clarify the importance ofuncut tropical forests is to document the valueof their environmental services and use this in-formation to convince government decision-makers to invest in protecting the forests.However, while this is important for parks, ithas not proven a practical method to protectlarge forest areas in less developed countries.Another approach is to enhance the value offorests by managing them for wood produc-tion, However, cutting trees is disruptive of theforests’ ecology and, for many types of tropicalforests, wood harvesting technologies that areprofitable and yet do not degrade the resourcebase have not been demonstrated. Thus, bothfor legally protected areas and for certain otherundisturbed areas, sustaining the forestdepends on making it more valuable withoutcutting the trees.

Many useful and valuable forest products areproduced with little or no associated woodharvest. More organized harvesting, process-ing, and marketing of these products, coupledwith development of new products, markets,and management infrastructures (includingorganization of local institutions to regulateharvesting) could greatly enhance the value ofundisturbed forest [17,23).

Nonwood Products

Nonwood products include those obtainedfrom the wood, bark, leaves, or roots of treesas well as products obtained from other vegeta-tion and from animal and insect life in the for-est. These products obtained near and in for-ests are directly or indirectly dependent on for-est ecosystems. Examples include gums, resins,drugs, dyes, essential oils, spices, naval stores(turpentine, rosin, and derived products), andlivestock forage as well as a wide variety of fi-bers used to make baskets, mats, ropes, andbuildings. The value of some of these productsis not well quantified. Some, such as certainspecialty oils, may be relatively unimportanteconomically. Others, such as natural-basepharmaceuticals and certain fibers used inhousehold goods, serve currently irreplaceablefunctions, either locally or internationally.

One example illustrating the potential of non-wood tropical forest products is siIk, a productgathered for thousands of years in some areas,yet having considerable potential for develop-ment. Most silk is produced by domesticallyreared caterpillar larvae on a strict mulberryleaf diet. In India, however, an extensive cot-tage industry produces silk from wild tasar silk-worms that feed on a variety of wild trees. Forcenturies, forest-dwelling people have pro-duced this coarse, strong, tan silk. Tasar silk


Photo cradit: S. Bunnag for FAO

Bamboo has many subsistence and commercial uses, including village handicrafts. Here Philippine villagers make“birdcage” Iampshades for the tourist market

export earnings in India totaled US $4.4 mil-lion in 1976 and the industry employed at least100,000 families (9).

Tasar silk is secreted by several species of thegenus Antheraea. India alone has at least eightspecies, but only one, A. mylitta, has been ex-ploited commercially. The little research thathas been done to improve production showsgreat promise: breeding experiments have pro-duced a 169-percent increase in silk weight.Similarly, tests of rearing techniques haveshown potential to increase the average incomeper family from $30 per year to $250 in 45 days(10)0

The main tasar silk-producing countries to-day are China and India. However, the foodplants that can support tasar silkworms cover7.7 million ha in the Tropics. This seems to of-fer significant opportunity for other develop-ing countries to develop industry, employment,income, and a raised standard of living for for-est-dwelling people while encouraging main-tenance of forest ecosystems that are habitatfor the silk-producing species (9).

Meat from wild animals and fish, fruits, nuts,honey, insects, fungi, and vegetables are all im-

Ch. 7—Technologies for Undisturbed Forests ● 169—

portant forest food sources. Despite the impactof modern agricultural techniques and crops,in many parts of the world these wild foodsources continue to contribute significantly tolocal diets. In regions that are unsuitable forconventional animal husbandry, “bush meat”is often a main source of animal protein. Forexample, in Ghana nearly three-quarters of themeat consumed is from wild animals (4), Evenwhere cultivated crops such as cassava or cornare staples, the great variety of food types avail-able from the forest is important for adequatenutrition.

Small Animals

Giant rats, turtles, capybara, grasscutters,and other small animals are sought-after foodsin some developing countries, with scientifichusbandry, these animals could become impor-

tant sources of much-needed protein. Further,the development of some of these food sourcescould provide incentives to sustain tropicalforests,

Capybara, for instance, are the world’s 1arg-est rodents—they weigh up to 100 lbs. Cap-ybara live in family groups on the edges ofponds, lakes, rivers, and swamps in Centraland South America. They eat only plants—pre-ferring coarse swamp grasses, aquatic plants,and weeds such as water hyacinth. Wild andsemidomesticated capybara has been a meatsource for centuries, but only recently haveVenezuelans begun farming them. Researchersthere report that capybara digest food 3% timesmore efficiently than cattle. They are fecund,producing six young in a year. Further, theirleather commands a high price and is soughtby glovemakers because it stretches in onedirection only (4,24).

Examples of Nonwood Products

Various essential oils are obtained from natural sources. For instance, sandalwood oil is oneof the best known of all perfume oils. It is produced mainly in India from both wild and cultivatedtrees. Attempts to synthesize the oil have been unsuccessful.

Chemicals, including drugs, are important forest products for both local and world popula-tions. Various modern pharmaceuticals—e.g., quinine from cinchona bark—are of tropical origin.Another useful forest chemical is lac used in shellac, waxes, and binding and stiffening agents.Lac is secreted by a tropical insect that feeds on tree sap.

Gums such as chicle are obtained from wild trees in forests of Central America. Natural gumsare primary ingredients of chewing gum and are used in many processed foods. They contributeboth to export revenue and to local employment.

Naval stores—turpentine, rosin, and derived products—can be produced from tropical pinesby a technically simple process without damaging the trees.

Forage is another traditional benefit provided by forest resources. Ground and tree vegetationare both used-though tree fodder is particularly important in areas with a prolonged dry season.In the past, there has been little active management of forest fodder resources.

Fibers obtained from forest vegetation are especially important in subsistence cultures, wherethey are used for making baskets, mats, rope, furniture, and in construction. Some fibers are mar-keted (e.g., for wicker-work).

Spices are found in and around most forests, though commercial production is usually in plan-tations. Pepper, clove, nutmeg, cinnamon, and vanilla typically are plantation crops but do existin the wild. Cardamom is harvested both in the wild and from plantations. The plant thrives inthe shade and might increase the per-hectare return from tropical forests.


Examples of Forest Food Sources

One of many forest fruits is the multipurpose Borassus palm. The milk of the unripe fruit ismarketed as a nourishing and popular drink. The ripe, yellow fruit is eaten. Finally, some fruitsare left to sprout cotyledons that are eaten fried (16). More well-known tropical fruits include mango,papaya, guava, banana, pineapple, coconut, avocado, and breadfruit.

Amidst all the greenery of the forest exists a great variety of edible vegetables and foliage.An estimated 500 species are used in Africa alone (13).

Forest rivers, coastal areas, and mangrove forests harbor an abundance of fish, crustaceans,and molluscs that make significant contributions to local diets.

Wild animal protein-from mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates-contrib-utes to diets in many cultures. Rodents and ungulates are particularly common meat sources.

Palm oil is produced from the fruit of wild palms. The trees also supply palm wine and fibers.A forest species with great potential for oil production is Raphia palm, which thrives in swampy,high rainfall areas. Other species, including the tallow and neem trees also are, or could be, sourcesof oil products (16).

Honey and wax production is another function of the forests that provides essential productsfor local populations. The introduction of modern beekeeping methods could expand this use withonly moderate inputs.

Nuts are a common and protein-rich food source in forests important both locally and for trade.Betel nut, cashew

Gamo Ranching’

nuts, and Brazil nuts are examples.

About three-fourths of the citizens of Zaireand Ghana rely on wildlife as their main meatsource (4)—a situation common in some othertropical nations. As pressures on wildlife popu-lations and habitats increase, more attentionis being given to the idea of game ranching.Problems could arise, however, because creat-ing commercial markets for these new foodsources could induce subsistence gatherers toexploit wild game for income. Unless these ac-tivities are carefully regulated, this could resultin overexploitation of wild game.

Husbandry of indigenous wildlife offerssome potential to provide incentives to sustainthe quality of dry open forest and shrublandhabitats where most ungulates are found. Na-tive wild species generally are adapted to their

‘See Water-Related Technologies for Sustainable Agriculturein Arid/Semiarid Lands: Selected Foreign Experience—Back-ground Paper (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Tech-nology Assessment, OTA-BP-F-20, May 1983), for more informa-tion on game ranching in Africa.

natural environment and, thus, tend to requireless water and be more resistant to disease thanexotic livestock. Native species thrive on localvegetation and typically may be better suitedto arid and semiarid ranges than conventionallivestock. Further, native species’ efficiency offood use usually compares favorably with live-stock (19). In national parks of Zaire and Ugan-da, for instance, each square kilometer of landcan support 24 to 37 tons of wildlife (10 species)compared with only 3 to 5 tons of cattle (23).

Much remains to be learned about the hus-bandry of wild species. Further, there aredrawbacks to this technology. Wild meat cancontain parasites, making inspection, for com-mercial markets a problem. Initial costs to ac-quire, stock, fence, and manage a range of ade-quate size can be high, and questions remainabout whether such operations can be profit-able and sustainable. However, in time gameranching might be developed to act as an in-centive to preserving wild species and theirhabitat.


Innovative Forest Products

A wide variety of forest products that are notnow harvested or are only gathered on a smallor subsistence scale might have commercial po-tential. Development of markets for such prod-ucts can provide income for rural people, thusreducing their need to overexploit forest re-sources, and can provide incentives to protectwild populations and their habitat. To developthese alternative forest products, wild breedingpopulations must be retained, habitat managed,and gathering activities regulated.

Papua New Guinea is a forerunner in effortsto take advantage of tropical forest biologicalresources. Much of Papua New Guinea re-mains covered by undisturbed tropical moist

forest, and exploiting the economic value of itsorganisms is helping to safeguard this habitat.Papua New Guinea has developed manage-ment systems to domesticate, propagate, andharvest cassowaries (for feathers), megapodes(for eggs), wallabies and deer (for meat andhides), and a number of other species. Becauseinsect collection is profitable, the governmenthas declared insects a national resource andis the only country in the world to specify in-sect conservation a national objective in itsconstitution (23). These projects demonstratea strategy that could be applied in other areasor to other organisms.

Production strategies dependent on wildbreeding populations of threatened species facea serious constraint. unless expansion of the


Examples of Innovative Approaches to Tropical Forest Resources Managment

Butterfly farming is an example of development of a commercial product from an unusualtropical forest resource. Once thought of as pests if common, or collector's items if rare, butteerflieshave become a profitable forest resource for villages in Papua New Guinea. Butterflies providea high value, low capital outlay investment: no tree clearing, fences, or veterinary services arerequired. Each year, millions are sold to museums,

&entomologists, craftspeople, and collectors.

Collectors have paid as much as $1,00 for a specimen of the brilliantly coloreed birdwing butterfly.

markets for nonwood forest products is accom-panied by strict regulation of gathering activ-ities and preservation of habitat, the oppor-tunity for profit will induce people to gatherwithout regard for maintaining the breedingpopulations. Animal populations may declineprecipitously. This occurred, for example, infruitbat populations on the U.S. Pacific islandof Guam.

Fruitbats area much sought after food sourceon Guam. But habitat destruction and over-hunting have exhausted their populations to apoint where one species is probably extinct andthe other endangered. The demand for this del-icacy, however, remains high and fruitbats arenow being imported from islands in the U.S.Trust Territory, further increasing huntingpressure in these areas. On the island of Yap,

Ch. 7—Technologies for Undisturbed Forests . 173

fruitbats have cultural significance which inthe past had limited their harvest. But the at-traction of Guam’s markets has increased il-legal hunting and export. Hunters will shootinto nesting colonies, disregarding the woundedor lost bats. Thus, the indigenous Yapese fruit-bat is being harvested unsustainable and maybecome extinct if management and enforceableregulation are not instituted.

Conclusion

Forest ecosystems house complex associa-tions of vegetation, wildlife, and other potentialresources. If methods were developed to usethese nonwood forest resources more fully—either by discovering new, valuable productsor by facilitating collection and processing ofestablished products—some of the incentivesfor deforestation would be reduced and moreforests might escape conversion to unsustain-able uses.

To do this, some marketable advantage mustbe identified in the local environment, thendeveloped to provide sustained economic re-turns. This process calls for improved manage-ment of the resource system, which best comesfrom using modern science to build on a foun-dation of traditional knowledge. But govern-ments often have too little information on thelong-term value of their forests and invest verylittle in development of forest products otherthan timber. U.S. expertise could be applied tothis problem, especially from the fields of ecol-ogy, botany, business administration, and for-est management.

The lack of development of nonwood forestproducts may result partly from the fact that

1. Batisse, M., “The Biosphere

CHAPTER 7

Reserve: A Toolfor Environmental Conservation and Manage-merit, ” Environmental Conservation, vol. 9,summer 1982.

2. Commission on National Parks and ProtectedAreas, International Union for the Conservationof Nature, Conserving the Natural Heritage of

nonwood and subsistence food products gath-ered from tropical forests have rarely beenaccounted for in economic analyses. Suchproducts generally are used in subsistenceeconomies and have no easily defined “marketvalue.” Where they are commercially exploited,it is in a marketing system so diffuse that theproduct flows are seldom measured. Improvedassessment of the role of forest products in sub-sistence economies and improved developmentof markets for nontimber forest products couldcause decisionmakers to associate greater valuewith undisturbed forests.

Creation of new markets for previously un-used tropical forest plants and animals or ex-pansion of local markets for previously under-used products could present new opportunitiesto overexploit forest resources. Unless manage-ment and regulatory systems are institutedalong with market development, wild breedingstock may be depleted to fill market demand.

The various opportunities that exist to in-crease the value of the standing forests offersignificant benefits to people as well as toforests. The management systems under devel-opment in Papua New Guinea are examples ofhow such systems can provide employment op-portunities, income for local residents, newsources of food or other human needs, and op-portunities for exports and increased foreignexchange. Increasing commitments from U.S.and other assistance agencies to develop sus-tainable management systems and markets fornonwood products could act to alleviate avariety of social problems.

REFERENCES

Latin America and the Caribbean (Gland, Swit-zerland: IUCN, 1981).

3. Commission on National Parks and ProtectedAreas, International Union for the Conservationof Nature, United Nations List of National Parksand Other Protected Areas, IUCN, unpublisheddraft report, 1981.

174 ● Technologies to Sustain Tropical forest Resources

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

de Vos, A., “Game as Food,” Unasylva 29(116):2-12, 1977,Franklin, J. (cd.), Selection and Utilization ofBiosphere Reserves, Pacific Northwest Forestand Range Experiment Station, U.S. ForestService, Portland, Oreg., 1976.Franklin, I. R., “Evolutionary Change in SmallPopulations,” M. E. Soule and B. A. Wilcox(eds,), Conservation Biology (Sunderland, Mass.:Sinauer Associates, 1980).International Union for the Conservation of Na-ture, 1980 United Nations List of National Parksand Equivalent Reserves, Gland, Switzerland,1980. In: Lausche, 1980.International Union for the Conservation of Na-ture, The World Conservation Strategy (Gland,Switzerland: IUCN/UNEP/WWF, 1980).Jolly, M., Sen, S., and Das, M., “Silk From theForest,” Unasyka, 28(114):20-23, 1976.Jolly, M., “A New Technique of Tasar SilkwormRearing” (Bombay: Central Silk Board, 1973),In: Jolly, et al,, 1976.Lausche, B., Guidelines of Protected Areas Leg-islation, IUCN Environmental Policy and LawPaper No. 16., Gland, Switzerland, 1980.Lovejoy, T., “Discontinuous Wilderness: Mini-mum Areas for Conservation, ” Parks, 5(2):13-15, 1980. In: Miller and Glick, 1982.Martin, F., and Rubert4 R,, Ed”ble Leaves of theTropics, Mayaguez Institute of Tropical Agri-culture (Mayaguez, Puerto Rico: AID, ARS/USDA, 1975),Miller, K., and Glick, D., “Methods for theEstablishment and Management of ProtectedAreas for Tropical Primary Forest and Wood-land Resources,” OTA commissioned paper,1982.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20,

21.

22.

23.

24

25,

Mishra, H., “Balancing Human Needs and Con-servation in Nepal’s Royal Chitwan Park, ” Am-bio, X1(5), 1982.Poulsen, G., “The Non-Wood Products of Afri-can Forests, ” Unasy]va, 34(137), 1982.Robbins, S,, and Matthews, W., “Minor For-est Products: Their Total Value is of a MajorOrder,” Unasy]va, 26(106), autumn 1974.Soule, M., and Wilcox, B. (eds.), ConservationBiology—An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspec-tive (Sunderland, Mass,: Sinauer Associates,1980),Surujbally, R., “Game Farming is a Reality,”Unasylva, 29(116):13-15, 1977,Terborgh, J., “Preservation of Natural Diversi-ty: The Problem of Extinction-Prone Species,”Bioscience 24:715-722, 1974.Udvardy, M., World Biogeographical Prov-inces, IUCN Occasional Paper No. 18, 1975.U.N. Environment Program, “Tropical ForestResources,” FAO Forestry Report No, 30(Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization,1982).Vietmeyer, N., “Sustaining Tropical Forest andWoodland Animal Resources,” OTA commis-sioned paper, 1982.Vietmeyer, N,, “Underexploited Plant and Ani-mal Resources for Developing Country Agri-culture,” Background Papers for InnovativeTechnologies for Lesser Developed Countries,Office of Technology Assessment Workshopprepared for the U.S. House of Representatives,Committee on Foreign Affairs, September 1981.Western, D., “Amboselli National Park: Enlist-ing Landowners to Conserve Migratory Wild-life,” Ambio, XI(5), 1976.

Chapter 8

Technologies to ReduceOvercutting Wing

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Industrial Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wood Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. ... ... ... .. . . . ...Industrial Wood: Expanding Number of Species and Sizes Harvested . . . . . . . . . . .

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Harvesting, Transporting, and Handling. . . . . . . . . . . ........: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Use of More Tree Species and Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Markets .... ..... . . . . . . . . . ..Preservatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ... . ... Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...,.,. ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....0....Wood Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! . . . . . . . . .. .. ... ... . . . . . . . . .

Fuelwood and Charcoal Conservation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Resource Substitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..

Chapter preferences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ... ... ...

Page177177177

177

178178178179179180181182

182182183183185190

191

Chapter

Technologies to Reduce Overcutting

●

●

●

●

Industrial Wood

If the world demand for wood is to be metwithout eventually depleting all the accessi-ble tropical forests, practical alternatives tocutting extensive areas must be developed.

To implement alternative approaches, prof-itable technologies to harvest, process, andmarket a wider range of tree species andsizes must be developed. The U.S. ForestProducts Laboratory has made and can con-tinue to make significant contributions indeveloping such technologies.

Intensive harvesting schemes, such as har-vesting all merchantable-size trees from anarrow band of forest, need experimentationand evaluation for economic and silvi-cultural feasibility and environmental effect.

●

●

●

●

Overexploitation of forests for firewood andcharcoal is increasing. This could be allevi-

ated by enhancing the efficiency of wood useand by substituting alternative energysources.

Improved stoves and more efficient charcoalproduction can conserve wood supplies, buteffective technology diffusion requires ex-tensive field testing and careful considera-tion of social and economic factors.

Efforts to develop and apply nonwoodrenewable energy sources are uncoordinatedand generally underfunded, but have consid-erable potential to reduce fuelwood demand.

Widespread implementation of fuelwoodplantation techniques is constrained bysociocultural and economic factors.

Actions that reduce demand for fuelwoodcan also reduce incentives to invest in futurewood supply. Thus, such actions must beplanned carefully with respect to efforts toincrease supply through fuelwood planta-tions.

INTRODUCTION

Exponentially increasing demand for wood settlement byfor both commercial and fuel uses is contrib- for fuelwood,uting to deforestation and resource degrada- faster than ittion in both undisturbed and secondary tropi-

farmers. More species are usedbut fuelwood is being cut muchis grown.

cal forests. Industrial wood users will buy only Technical solutions to these problems in-a few of the many species that grow in tropi- clude methods to increase the efficiency andcal forests. As a result, extensive areas must intensity of harvesting industrial wood so thatbe “selectively cut, ” causing severe damage to less extensive areas need to be cut and meth-the unharvested trees and to the soil. The prac- ods to make wood use more efficient so as totice also opens extensive areas to inappropriate reduce demand.

177


INDUSTRIAL WOOD:AND

Background

If the world demand for wood is to

EXPANDING NUMBRR OF SPECIESSIZES HARVESTESTED

be metwithout eventually depleting or degrading allthe accessible tropical forests, alternatives toextensive selective cutting must be found. Treeharvesting and management on small areas canreduce the need to cut wood on other sites.This requires profitable technologies to harvest,process, and market a wider range of tree spe-cies and sizes than is the case today. Using awider range of tree species could lead to de-struction of tropical forests and the depletionof soil fertility.

Harvesting, Transporting, andHandling

Improvements in harvesting methods, trans-portation, and handling can make substantialcontributions to the improved use and manage-ment of tropical forests. Likewise, the availa-bility of technologies, the amount of planning,and the commitment to management all canreduce the logging damage to residual forests.

The residual vegetation left in a tropicalforest after logging is often severely dam-aged—usually about 50 percent of the remain-ing forest is adversely affected. Considerableloss occurs during felling and extraction. Fur-thermore, about one-third of the logged areatypically suffers erosion as a result of soil com-paction by heavy equipment (6). A major im-provement in harvesting practices is possiblesimply by matching the appropriate practiceto particular site conditions to minimize en-vironmental damage.

Intensive harvesting (clearcutting) of smallareas reduces the number of roads built, andso reduces road-induced erosion and access byagriculturalists. If fewer roads are built, morecapital could be available to improve existingroads and to purchase suitable trucks and haul-ing vehicles.

Clearcutting, on the other hand, could in-crease nutrient depletion and reduce biologicaldiversity. Erosion is likely to be severe on clear-cut sites during and immediately after logging,and if logging is followed by fire, erosion iseven greater (6). In addition, the quality of sec-ondary forests and their suitability for both eco-nomic use and as habitat capable of maintain-ing biological diversity are largely unknown.Intensive logging of tropical forests has signifi-cant adverse impact on animal life that is sen-sitive to microclimate and food supplychanges. Other animals, however, can survivein logged forests (12).

Opportunities exist to experiment with vari-ous practices that would minimize negative im-pacts of intensive harvesting. A technique thatwarrants field testing is the harvesting of allmerchantable size trees from narrow bands offorest followed by natural and/or artificial re-generation. If harvested strips are orientedalong contours and kept quite narrow (approx-imately 100 meters), many of the disadvantagesof clearcutting may be avoided, Animals stillwould have access to a large forest habitat,recolonization of plants from surroundingforest would be enhanced, and the soil micro-organism populations, which play a crucialrole in the physical-chemical properties of trop-ical soils, probably would be quickly reestab-lished after logging. This method, however, haseconomic and engineering drawbacks that lim-it its commercial appeal (7).

Harvesting technologies that can reduce for-est damage include the use of improved cablelogging systems, hand tools, self-loading trucks,and large skidder vehicles to reduce the needfor crawler tractors. Efficiency in handling canbe improved if equipment is selected to matchthe character of the particular site.

Simply applying existing knowledge aboutthe transport and storage of logs and lumbercould reduce losses from mold, stains, insects,

Ch. 8—Technologies to Reduce Overcutting . 179—

Photo credit: Dr. Miedler, FAO

Selective logging to remove only the most commercially valuable trees can lead to resource degradation becausethe remaining trees are typically damaged by felling and extraction operations. Also, as more roads are built, erosion

problems increase and new areas are opened to shifting agriculturalists

splitting, decay, improper drying, and damage Use of More Treefrom poor handling practices (32). At present,large quantities of logs deteriorate at roadsides.

and Sizes

This occurs in Burma, South India, Bangla- Marketsdesh, and other places where roads are im-passable during the rainy season (11).

To encourage responsible management, trop-ical countries could institute longer term li-censing agreements with logging concessions,together with tax incentives. With longer agree-ments, for instance, operators would have in-centive to build roads to a higher standard be-cause they could amortize the costs over twologging cycles (11).

A variety of factors—some biological, somecommercial, and some logistical—interact todetermine how intensely a forest is exploited,including the composition of the forest, theform of the trees, and character of their wood(11). Selective logging is common in closedtropical hardwood forests in part because useof such forests has been export-oriented. Ex-port markets require large quantities of auniform product, preferably a single species of


good appearance. Thus, very few species andonly large logs were acceptable.

When only select individuals of a few treespecies are logged in most tropical forests,forest resources are degraded. This damagecould be reduced if more species were usedand if the size and form criteria were lesslimiting.

Considerable research has been conductedon lesser known tropical tree species. Thephysical and chemical properties of tropicaltimbers are assessed according to their woodprocessing use. However, the results of thiswork are scattered and frequently unknown towood users (26).

Many lesser known tree species have disad-vantages that are difficult to overcome, suchas poor form, extreme hardness or abrasive-ness, unacceptable loss of quality in drying,and lack of durability (11). The rectification ofthese features can be costly. Thus, importingcountries are reluctant to take such specieswhen well-known tropical woods and temper-ate softwoods are available at acceptableprices.

Standardized descriptions of wood proper-ties and units of measurement, together withsome classification system that distinguishesdegrees of suitability for specific purposes, arebasic marketing requirements. Standardizationand grading are complicated because woodproducts have a great degree of variability andversatility. Inadequate lumber standards con-tribute to inefficient tropical lumber market-ing and use in both producing and importingcountries. Without a grading system directedtoward efficiency of use and without pricesthat correspond to quality, the tendency is forlocal wood users to demand higher qualitymaterial than the end use requires. This putsadded demand on forests for high-qualitymaterial and often unnecessarily removes trop-ical forest products from export markets. It alsolimits local markets from fully using lowergrade lumber and contributes to high prices(26). Thus, improved standardization of dimen-sions and grades could minimize waste, reduce

product cost, and increase the profitability ofintensive forest management.

A prospect for increasing the use of lesserknown species and smaller trees is to groupspecies according to their capacity to meet spe-cific end use requirements—e.g., group all spe-cies suitable for construction material together(11). Species could then be marketed by groupinstead of by species name. But first, perform-ance requirements for various end uses mustbe identified and systems of matching proper-ties to those requirements must be developed.

Firms in Australia and Great Britain are ex-perimenting with end-use grouping of timber.The Australians devised 12 general end-usecategories, each referenced to a well knownand widely used wood species to compare newspecies or species groups with the referencewood (14). The British classification system ismore elaborate. It identifies the specific woodproperties required for each major wood useand identifies the available timbers with re-quired properties at acceptable and preferredlevels. Flexibility is provided by indicatingspecial processing technologies that can be ap-plied to species rated below the preferred level.Timber lists can be expanded as available tim-bers with established properties become avail-able (4).

In the short term, the end-use approach maybe better for local timber markets in tropicalcountries, particularly in those countries wherethe forest resources are small or have been de-pleted. Demand from the export market willcome when other sources cannot meet theprice, quantity, and quality specifications (11).

Preservatives

Some tropical woods with generally satisfac-tory physical properties are not used, or theygive poor service, because they are suscepti-ble to attack by termites, other insects, or fungi.For example, the sapwood of many durablespecies is perishable and usually is cut away.With smaller size trees, the portion of sapwoodis greater and the waste in conversion is oftenso large that they are not used.

Ch. 8–Technologies to Reduce Overcutting Ž 181

Many wood preservatives are available, to-gether with a range of techniques for applyingthem, to counter different degrees of hazards.Some of these technologies—e.g., impregnationwith creosote through pressure cylinders—areeffective for timber in contact with the ground.But they require considerable expenditure onequipment and chemicals, and creosote is nowdifficult to obtain. Other techniques, such aspressure treatment with water soluble copper-chrome-arsenic compounds, though less cost-ly and suitable for wood in some forms of con-struction, are still considered expensive (11).This confines their application to public worksand to higher cost construction.

Simple and inexpensive preservative treat-ments for wood used at the village level andin low-cost urban housing need to be developedand promoted. At the village level, the socialand economic benefits of wood treatment couldbe considerable. In the hot, wet Tropics, a treat-ment that increases the life of a simple woodenhouse from 5 to 10 years could reduce by halfa villager’s time spent on building and rebuild-ing (17). For simple techniques that already ex-ist, information is needed on the performanceof wood so that cost effectiveness can beevaluated (18).

Processing

The use of smaller sizes of both currently de-sirable tree species and of lesser known treespecies raises some problems. For example,sawmills in tropical countries are often de-signed to deal with large logs. Output and prof-its from existing facilities would be reduced ifsmall logs were used.

Investments are needed in equipment forsmall log sawmills and for separate, small loglines in the mills normally used for large logs.Machines for sawing small logs are availableand could be manufactured locally in manytropical countries. Existing machines and milldesigns need to be appraised, tested, anddemonstrated. A further contribution could bemade by installing small sawing and planingmachines that convert defective material intosmall dimension stock for furniture, joinery,

and flooring, thus reducing waste (11). In thephilippines and Sri Lanka, low-cost solarheated kilns designed by the U.S. Forest Serv-ice Forest Products Laboratory have demon-strated the ability to reduce waste in drying.

The percentage of high-density wood in trop-ical forests exceeds that from temperate for-ests. However, most processing technologieswere developed in the temperate countries.Thus, processing technology will need to bemodified to accommodate high density timbersas a wider range of tropical tree species is used.

Milling close to the harvesting site is anotherway to reduce waste. Portable sawmills are rel-atively inexpensive compared with equipmentfor permanent mills. However, existing port-able machines include heavy components thatare difficult to handle. Also, by reducing theinaccessibility of forests to processing centers,it could allow deforestation in areas now un-touched by commercial leggings.

An important development would be the useof a small unit set up to mill logs at the stump.Milling at the stump, and transporting thetimbers to roadside manually, could be moreprofitable and cause less environmental dam-age than hauling logs to mills. Such mills foruse at the stump are still in the research anddevelopment stage.

Great progress toward making intensive har-vesting profitable has occurred where multi-species wood chips are produced for woodpulp or fuel. The market for wood chips fromtropical hardwood forests has been limitedbecause softwood chips, which come mostlyfrom temperate forests, make better paper.However, a new papermaking process prom-ises to increase greatly the world markets forhardwood chips. This is the “press-dry paperprocess” developed at the U.S. Forest ProductsLaboratory. The process is successful on apilot-scale, and U.S. firms are working todevelop it on an industrial scale. When that isdone, a decade or more should still remainbefore markets for tropical wood chips aregreatly affected because of the long investmentlag in paper mills.


If in the meantime forest departments candevelop management and enforcement tech-nologies to complement the opportunities forclearcutting, the impact on tropical forestresources could be beneficial. Otherwise, thistechnological breakthrough could result in in-creased deforestation.

Fuller use of the tropical forests can lead toincreased revenues per unit area of forest cutand to development of a wide range of ruralindustries, including construction and manu-facture of furniture and agricultural tools. Useof many tree species and sizes can supplygrowing domestic markets without reducingforeign exchange earnings from export.

Current logging practices are often environ-mentally destructive and wasteful. Yet existingtechnologies for harvesting, transportation,and handling methods could substantially im-prove management of tropical forests. Some ofthese have been developed in the United States,and U.S. expertise could play a significant rolein the continued development and promotionof these technologies.

Intensive harvesting that would accompanyfuller use of tropical forest trees could resultin reducing the areas degraded by extensivelogging. Enforcement of strict regulations re-

garding road building, site protection, and for-est restoration would be more feasible if theamount of land to be regulated were reduced.However, without strict enforcement of suchregulations, intensive harvesting could provefar more destructive than current practices.

Efforts to market a greater variety of tropi-cal timbers are increasing. Much, however, re-mains to be done. Some species have character-istics that make them difficult and costly toharvest and process and that severely limittheir end-uses. For such species and for forestresidues, improved technologies and marketsare needed for products for which species, size,and shape are not critical (e.g., charcoal, woodchips for pulp, and reconstituted wood panels).For poorly known but potentially marketablelumber species, the emphasis should be onmore efficient technologies for processing andfor improving use characteristics (preservationand drying) at an acceptable cost, and on mar-keting techniques, such as grouping of speciesby end-use requirements.

Although preservative treatment can anddoes expand international marketability, it isparticularly important in moist tropical nationswhere wood deterioration is greatest andwhere wood substitutes are often used becauseof this problem. More consideration needs tobe given to preservation technologies that arecheap, technologically simple, but effective.

WOOD FUELS

Although wood is the fourth largest sourceof fuel in the world (after petroleum, coal, andnatural gas), knowledge regarding its produc-tion and consumption is very imprecise. Mostfuelwood is used in tropical nations, and formany it is in short supply. This is a hiddenenergy crisis. It does not enter GNP accountsand statistics on it are poor for several reasons.Wood often is gathered locally by users ratherthan being marketed. Even where it is mar-

keted, it is often collected, without payment tolandowners, from trees and shrubs near roads,around houses, on farms, or in poorly policedpublic forests. Fuelwood gatherers often takelimbs rather than felling whole trees, so quan-tities taken are difficult to estimate.

Thus, much of the wood fuels data availablefor country-level planning and policymakingcome not from actual measurements but ratherfrom multiplying the population size times percapita consumption figures derived from small

Ch. 8—Technologies to Reduce Overcutting ● 183

sample studies. In some cases, the source ofthe consumption figures cannot be found,much less checked for accuracy.

The ability to design and implement effec-tive policies and projects for solving the woodfuels problem requires a thorough understand-ing of local consumption patterns and produc-tion possibilities. Many wood fuel projects ofdevelopment assistance agencies and nationalgovernments have been unsuccessful becauseinsufficient effort was devoted to studyingthese factors in advance (22]. Fortunately, in-terest in wood fuels has increased greatly inthe past decade. More studies are being doneand the estimates of wood fuel use are improv-ing. FAO’S Forestry for Local Community De-velopment Programs has recently published auseful collection of such studies (9).

Approximately 80 percent of the estimated1 billion cubic meters (m3) of wood removedannually from tropical forests is used for fuel(27). Thus, the sustainability of wood fuel pro-duction is inseparable from the sustainabilityof tropical forests. Whereas in the past fuel-wood has been gathered mostly from naturalstands, in the future it must come increasing-ly from tree plantations (30). The rate of treeplantings for firewood production throughoutthe world will have to be increased at leastfivefold if fuelwood shortages are to be eased(8).

Three categories of actions could affect theimbalance between the demand and supply ofwood fuel products:

1. Actions that directly influence the presentand future demand for wood fuels (e.g.,introduction of improved wood use orconversion technologies and substitutionof nonwood-based energy sources).

2. Actions that affect the production ofwood for fuel and, thus, reduce the pres-sure on natural stands (e. g., woodlots,plantations, and integrated land-use man-agement).

3. Actions that do not directly affect produc-tion or use of woodfuel products but thathave an impact on the socioeconomic

conditions of the population drawing onforest resources (e.g., population, landtenure, etc.).

The third category influences the wood fuel sit-uation only indirectly and is beyond the scopeof this assessment, even though in the long runit may be the most important.

Technologies

Fuelwood and CharcoaI ConservationTechnologies

Four-fifths of the fuelwood consumed in de-veloping countries is used for domestic pur-poses: cooking, space heating, and hot water(27). The form of fuel chosen, and method ofuse, can affect the total amount of wood con-sumed. For instance, many traditional cookingstoves and open fires use wood inefficientlybecause they focus the flames poorly on thecooking surface or give relatively incompletecombustion. Most stoves or open fires in trop-ical areas deliver only 5 to 15 percent of thefuel’s energy content to the food being cooked(15).

Charcoal production is also energy ineffi-cient. Traditional earth-covered pit or moundkilns can require 10 tons of air dried wood (15percent moisture) to make 1 ton of charcoal

Photo credit’ OTA staff

The three-stone f ireplace—shown here in thePhilippines—wastes much of the heat from the wood,but has esthetic and cultural appeal that inhibit

acceptance of enclosed stoves


(24). Because a ton of charcoal has roughlythree times the energy content of a ton of wood,this equals about 30 percent energy conversionefficiency (27). However, this loss is offsetsomewhat because traditional charcoal stovestend to be more efficient than traditional woodstoves.

Reducing heat losses during conversion ofwood to energy, including during conversionto charcoal, can conserve wood supplies. Inother cases, simply changing from open firesto stoves increases efficiency. In many cases,fuelwood savings can be realized simply bydrying (seasoning) wood before burning (27).Moist wood produces only half as much heatas air dried wood. However, this seeminglysimple change may not be feasible where ter-mites and fungi infest wood rapidly; or wherethere are heavy, frequent rains; or where peo-ple cannot afford to purchase or store an in-ventory of wood.

Improvements in stove design could reducewood requirements fivefold to tenfold by in-creasing stove conversion efficiency from the5 to 10 percent achieved now to an efficiencyof 20 to 30 percent (20). Improved stoves typ-ically are designed to provide better draft andmore complete combustion and to concentrateheat on the cooking surface. Most improvedstove designs use various insulating materi-als—for instance, a ceramic or clay-vermiculitelining–to reduce heat loss through the stovewalls. In addition to increasing the efficiencyof wood use, the wide dissemination of suchstoves, if properly maintained and used, couldreduce the time, energy, and money that trop-ical country women now spend collecting fuel(20).

More than 100 stove models, both traditionaland experimental, are described in a recentcompendium of stove designs (5). These stovesrepresent a broad spectrum of candidates forimproving fuel-use efficiency. For example, theLorena stove used in Guatemala can cut fuel-wood consumption in half. It is molded frommud and sand, fitted with a metal damper andpipe, and costs the equivalent of only US$5.

The Indian Junagadh stove is also simple andcheap and is reportedly 30 percent efficient.It is made with bricks or mud to absorb moreheat, is designed with a tighter fitting hole forthe pot to reduce heat loss, and in some casesis equipped with a metal damper to controlcombustion (22).

Few such stoves, however, have been readi-ly accepted by local populations. Acceptanceis determined not only by fuel efficiency butby cost, simplicity of operation and main-tenance, availability of materials, culturalpreferences and patterns, and the mechanismschosen to promote the new stoves. These fac-tors vary from region to region, so a stovedesigned in one place may not be accepted orused efficiently elsewhere (20).

Obtaining the widespread use of an im-proved stove design is more important thandesign details if the improvements are expectedto have a significant impact on fuelwood de-mand. Many programs to design improvedstoves have failed to meet expectations becausethey underestimated the economic and socialconstraints involved. Further, claims about ef-ficient stoves have seldom been adequatelydocumented. Thus, it is especially importantto field test (onsite) a design before promotingits widespread use (19). A strategy to designand

1.

2.3.4.5.

6.

7.

promote any new stove should include:

a survey of traditional cooking practicesto ascertain sociocultural criteria that thestoves must meet,field testing of existing stoves,assessment of alternative designs,laboratory testing of alternative designs,design work or modification of existingstoves,limited, followed by extended, field testingof the improvements, andnational or regional extension programsand support (13).

Introduction efforts have focused on low-cost, owner-built stoves. Two models that haveachieved some acceptance are the Louga stove(Senegal) and the Lorena stove (Central Ameri-

Ch. 8—Technologies to Reduce Overcutting • 185

ca and various African countries). Because arelatively lengthy period is needed for the in-itial promotion and for household training tobuild, use, and maintain the stoves, the exten-siordtraining cost per stove is high and the dis-semination rate is slow (limited by availabili-ty, skills, and mobility of extension staff’). Con-sequently, more attention is being given tousing existing artisans and their marketing net-work to speed the dissemination process.

Charcoal production can be improved on alarge or small scale. As traditional earth-cov-ered kilns give way to improved designs, in-cluding kilns built of brick, concrete, or metal,there is better carbonization control, higherconversion efficiencies, and production of acleaner end product. The conversion efficien-cy of a traditional earth kiln can be improved50 percent at low cost simply through im-proved kiln operation: use of only dense, drywood chopped into relatively uniform pieces;assuring that the wood is packed as tightly aspossible; assuring the earth covering the kilnis sufficiently thick to prevent complete com-bustion; proper spacing of initial air vents; andcareful monitoring of combustion and later car-bonization conditions (27).

At minimal cost, flattened metal cans orother scrap sheet metal can be inserted be-tween the stacked wood and the insulatingearth layer, reducing dirt contamination(which in some kilns reduces the efficiency of20 to 30 percent of the charcoal produced) (27).More sophisticated designs and building mate-rials (brick, concrete, or metal) can be evenmore efficient but may require substantiallyhigher capital investment.

A relatively expensive alternative is the port-able steel charcoal kiln, which consists of twocylindrical steel shells, a conical lid, and fourchimneys. It has been used throughout theworld for many years. The chief advantages ofsuch kilns are ease of operation, increased ratesof recovery (15 to 20 percent), relatively shortproduction cycle (72 hours), and relative port-ability (by truck or animal-drawn cart). Thehigh capital cost makes it prohibitively expen-sive for traditional producers who do not reap

much economic benefit from improved conver-sion.

However, these kilns have been used success-fully in conjunction with large-scale agricul-tural land clearing and on large plantationswhere periodic portability is desired. For ex-ample, the “Char-Lanka” project in Sri Lankatakes advantage of an expanding market forcharcoal to make beneficial use of the timbercleared from a large agricultural developmentproject area. A major U.S. bank helped financeboth small-scale artisans to fabricate portablemetal kilns and small-scale charcoal producersto lease such kilns. Eventually over 200 kilnswill be built locally (27).

In some tropical countries, charcoal alreadyaccounts for a significant fraction of total woodfuel use and it is increasing its market share,particularly in urban centers. Given the lowconversion efficiency of most charcoal produc-tion, the increasing substitution of charcoal forwood with its attendant energy losses will ex-acerbate problems of wood supply/demandimbalance.

Because most charcoal is produced part-timeby small cottage industry laborers, many ormost of whom operate illegally or extralegal-ly, it is particularly difficult to launch nationalor regional campaigns to improve charcoal pro-duction efficiency. Char-Lanka is one potential-ly promising model that could help small-scalekiln producers function more effectively. Thepeace Corps and others sponsor many localefforts to improve traditional charcoal pro-ducers’ operating efficiencies, but so far sub-stantial improvements in forest resource deple-tion rates have not been demonstrated.

Resource Substitution

Resource substitution can be used to protectforests in two ways: by substituting alternativeenergy sources for fuelwood, or by substitutingfuelwood cultivated in plantations for fuel-wood collected from natural forests. Nonwoodenergy substitutes can be conventional (kero-sene, electricity, or natural gas) or innovative(solar, wind, small hydro, or biogas). Detailed

25-287 0 - 84 - 13

I&3 . Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources

analysis of these technologies is outside thescope of this assessment.

Substituting Nonwood Fuels. Through the1950’s, 1960’s, and early 1970’s, large-scaleshifts occurred from traditional fuels (woodand charcoal) to petroleum fuels—primarilykerosene. It is unlikely, however, that substitu-tions will usurp the primary place of fuelwoodin developing countries while wood resourcesstill exist. Further, it is unlikely that financialsubsidies of such fuels can continue indefinite-ly. However, such subsidies can be a way toachieve important temporary reductions inwood demand, while the productivity of natur-al forests is recovering or while fuelwood plan-tations are being established.

Many efforts to develop and apply alternativeenergy sources are under way worldwide, butthey seem to be widely scattered, uncoordi-nated, and generally underfunded (32). Actualadoption of these technologies is constrainedby their financial and managerial feasibilityand by the enormous logistical difficulty inchanging the habits of millions of dispersedand often isolated villagers. The substitutionof various forms of energy for fuelwood bythese people probably will be influenced largelyby changes in their lifestyle, standard of living,the location of their settlements, and access toavailable technologies. Conscious policy deci-sions to affect fuelwood consumption, produc-tion, or substitution will have a much greaterprospect for success if the policies build on theenergy and economic changes already occur-ring throughout the rural areas of the Tropics(27).

Still, the energy demand/supply imbalancemust be met mainly through improving the sup-ply, distribution, and use of fuelwood and char-coal. A preparatory committee for the U.N.Conference on New and Renewable Sourcesof Energy concluded that there is “no alter-native source of energy that could provide aviable substitute for fuelwood on a scale whichcould permit a major reduction in dependenceon it by the world’s poor in the next quartercentury. Their poverty, and the remoteness ofmany of them, will inescapably remove other

energy sources from their range of possibili-ties” (31).

Fuelwood Plantations. The idea of growingfuelwood in plantations is not new. But thereis not extensive technical experience growingtrees for firewood because foresters traditional-ly have planted trees primarily for timber andpulpwood (19). Most fuelwood produced fromplantations is used for cooking, with some forheating and charcoal manufacture. Some large-scale plantations do, however, supply fuelwoodfor industry and transportation.

Three different types of plantations can beenvisioned: plantings by individual farmers,more concentrated village woodlots, and large-scale plantations for concentrated demand.

Individual plantings—increasing emphasisin forestry development programs has been fo-cused on technologies aimed at bringing ruralpopulations into direct participation in forestryand fuelwood production projects. This can in-clude farm forestry, where individual farmersgrow just enough trees for their own fuel needsor for a cash crop, and agroforestry, wheretrees are combined with food-producing sys-tems in the form of shelterbelts, windbreaks,or more complex mixtures.

Individual tree planting can make use ofotherwise little-used areas. Because wood forfuel need not be large, fast-growing and cop-picing shrubs can be used along roads and fieldedges. Multipurpose trees that provide fuel-wood as a byproduct of food or forage produc-tion may be accepted even by rural people withlittle land. Where water is adequate and a mar-ket for fuelwood exists, closely spaced plant-ings of fast-growing, coppicing shrubs or treescan be grown on relatively small areas to bothprovide domestic needs and generate income.

In many countries, fuelwood is becomingpart of the market economy providing farmerswith income that offsets the costs associatedwith establishing or maintaining tree cover forenvironmental stability or rehabilitation. Treeplanting by individual farmers in Gujarat, In-dia, has spread to such an extent that the 50million seedlings distributed by the Forestry

Ch. 8–Technologies to Reduce overcutting Ž 187

Photo credit: OTA staff

Eucalyptus fuelwood supplied by Farm ForestryProjects in India. Farmers are encouraged to plant treesto supply their fuelwood needs as well as provide

income from sales

Department in 1980 (equivalent to an annualplanting of at least 25,000 ha) were insufficientto meet demand (22).

Village Woodlots—Village or communalfuelwood plantations are larger in scale thanindividual plantings. Management of theseplantations resembles conventional forestry inmany respects, except that even existing low-quality coppice trees are exploited. Trees maybe multipurpose or for energy production only.Rotations vary between 5 and 30 years, depen-ding on species and site conditions. Becausethe area cropped generally is larger than wheretrees are in individual holdings, and becausethe land is dedicated entirely to tree crops,harvesting techniques can be similar to thoseused in conventional forestry.

The management techniques for many spe-cies suitable for village woodlots are relative-ly well-known. But sociocultural and economicproblems can affect acceptance. Constraintsthat can impede village forestry include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

heterogeneous social structure that hin-ders village-level decisionmaking andcooperation;competition with other village prioritiesfor limited village resources;loss of whatever production currentlycomes from the woodlot site (especiallygrazing);lack of government and forestry depart-ment support for promotion, extension,free seedlings, technical advice, etc.;lack of an institutional structure to defineownership and distribution of woodlotproducts;shortage of labor for plantation mainte-nance; andtendency of foresters or other outsiders todictate what species to use in village wood-lots with too little consultation with villag-ers, especially women, who are most like-ly to tend, harvest, and use woodlot prod-ucts (22).

Too little is known about how village peoplemake decisions about land use, land tenure,and tradeoffs in production of different goodsand services. In a World Bank project to estab-lish 500 ha of village woodlots in Niger, for ex-ample, village people either pulled out seed-lings as fast as the trees were planted or al-lowed uncontrolled grazing to take place. Thevillagers had not been involved in formulatingthe project and perceived the woodlot area asa traditional grazing ground (22).

Trees in some fuelwood plantations (e.g.,Eucalyptus camaldulennsis) in some Saheliancountries have not been well accepted local-ly. Fast-growing plantations generally supplyfuelwood only. But the native brushland theyreplace also supplied other products such asgums, medicines, food, and forage. In some casesnative brush could be managed to maximizefuelwood production while sustaining produc-tion of other products. One opportunity is in-

terplanting native brushland with fuelwood-producing, nitrogen-fixing shrubs. Develop-ment of such systems will require more re-search on subjects such as management tech-niques and species compatibility (2).

There is no complete package that can beuniversally applied to encourage participationin a village woodlot program; each must varyaccording to the needs and priorities of avillage. Several general guidelines can be ex-tracted from recent experience. For villagewoodlot programs to succeed, there must be:1) strong government commitment to villageforestry, 2) perception of the forestry depart-ment’s role in rural forestry, 3) villager par-ticipation (especially village women) in pro-gram formulation, 4) understanding of villageperceptions, priorities, sociocultural frame-

work, and economic needs, and 5) design ofa program understandable to village peoplethat caters to their needs and provides incen-tives effective within the particular sociocul-tural framework (e.g., improved agriculturalpractices, monetary incentives, improved in-frastructure, employment) (22).

Industrial fuelwood plantations–Althoughmuch more wood is consumed for householduse in tropical countries, wood fuel used forprocessing and service activities is still verysubstantial. According to available surveys,these uses account for between 2 and 15 per-cent of total wood fuel use in Africa and Asia.Though some of these uses are scattered (e.g.,charcoal for commercial food preparation, fire-wood for brickmaking and cement), others giverise to vary large demands concentrated in

Ch. 8—Technologies to Reduce Overcutting • 189

single locations or small areas. For example,tobacco-curing is estimated to have required1.1 million m3 of fuelwood in Tanzania in 1970and, together with rubber preparation fuel-wood, nearly 300,000 m3 in Thailand (23). In-dustrial demand is growing much faster thanhousehold demand (3).

In Brazil, about 2 million ha of plantationsproduce an estimated 3 million tons of char-coal from Eucalyptus wood to support thecountry’s metallurgical industry. The plantedarea is expected to exceed 4 million ha by theyear 2000 (16). In Kenya, large-scale charcoalproduction is a byproduct of the use of barkto produce tanning extract.

Recently, opportunities to run factories onwood have been enhanced by the availabilityof wood chips and pellets. These standardizedforms are more convenient to store and usethan logs or split wood and, thus, are gainingacceptance as a source of industrial energy.High-speed chipping machines have been de-veloped that make standard, matchbox-sizedwood chips and then shoot them into a waitingvan. The chips are suitable to use in woodfiredboilers for industrial applications. Wood-chipmachines are especially advantageous along-side logging operations, since they can makea useful product from the debris left by loggers.wood chippers also can cull old, diseased, orcontorted trees from forests managed for tim-ber.

Wood chips are bulky and contain about 50percent water so they cannot be profitablyhauled over long road or rail distances for useas fuel. Wood chips can be transported overlong distances by ships, however, as the permile cost is relatively low. Wood pellets aresmaller than wood chips; they are made fromwood waste bound together under heat andpressure. These can be used in coal or char-coal furnaces without modifications. Sincepellets are drier and denser than wood chips,they can be transported economically overgreater distances. The use of wood chips andpellets is confined largely to North America,but the practice is spreading to other countries(30).

Large-scale energy plantations are also usedby forestry agencies to protect timber reforesta-tion sites and protected areas from illegal fuel-wood gathering. In Indonesia, 341,000 ha of Cal-liandra have been established as a buffer zonearound national forests to protect the naturaltrees from fuelwood gatherers.

The removal of trees for fuel eventually canexhaust the soil. In energy plantations, the nu-trient drain may be more severe than in con-ventional timber plantations because youngertrees contain a proportionately larger share ofsome nutrients. Furthermore, wood chippingmachines shred leaves and twigs as well astrunks and branches. This depletion could bealleviated in industrial energy plantations byspreading furnace residues around the trees.Nitrogen fertilizer would still be required fortrees that do not have nitrogen-fixing micro-organisms. Growing several kinds of trees inplantations could alleviate some of the wildlifedisruption problems. In theory, this and the useof indigenous species could also make planta-tions less susceptible to catastrophic damageby insects and disease.

Eucalyptus, Acacia, Calliandra, Leucaena,and Prosopis are among many potentially use-ful trees that are beginning to be used in planta-tions, village woodlots, and individual sites(20), The trees most likely to prove useful forfuelwood plantations are fast-growing speciesthat can withstand degraded soils, exposure towind, and drought (20). The ability to coppice(regrow from cut stumps or root suckers) is im-portant for fuelwood species because this al-lows repeated harvest without the cost and ef-fort of replanting. For example, LeucaenaIeucocephaJa is a legume tree that suppliesfuelwood, fodder, and timber and enriches thesoil. On favorable sites yields of 40 to 100m 3/ha/yr can be expected from selected strainsof Leucaena. These trees can be harvestedevery 3 to 6 years and the seedling generationrotation can be followed by three or more cop-pice generations, all of which give comparableyields (21).

To achieve sufficient profits at all levels, fromfarm forestry to large-scale projects, the aver-


age net energy harvested needs to be high perarea and per time unit. Since labor costs maybe formidable, productivity must be sufficientlyhigh to make product prices competitive withavailable commercial fuels. But high produc-tivity usually needs high-quality land. This canlead to conflicts between wood fuel productionand food production (29).

The following types of land are likely to bemost readily available for forestry because theyare least in demand for agriculture: abandonedfarmland, low-grade coppice forest, sedge orcane-growing coastal or riverine areas, salineland, mountain slopes, dry areas; sludge depos-its, other types of unproductive land. Few ofthese are suited to high-input, short-rotationforestry. In many cases, low-input, fuelwoodforestry may offer a better prospect.

Unless it is clearly profitable within a fewyears, growing wood for fuel, whether on alarge or small scale, demands social and politi-cal commitments that may be difficult to ob-tain and maintain. High investment costs forfuelwood plantations also serve as a disincen-tive. In areas where substantial forest or brushcover remain, it is cheaper to harvest woodfrom the forests (even though they may be bad-ly overcut) than to pay for plantation-grownwood.

Gathering wood from natural forests, as longas they remain, requires no investment outlays.In such situations, fuelwood plantings aremore likely to succeed if natural forests are pro-tected from cutting and if plantations provideadditional marketable products, serve some ad-ditional desired function, or are integrated withagriculture. In areas where no natural forestsremain within a considerable radius of a town,village woodlots or wood fuel plantations canbe highly profitable.

Evidence throughout the developing nationsshows that cash incentives are among the mostwidely and readily received. Recent studieshave shown that the economic and financial(primarily cash) benefits of tree growing derivefrom products other than fuelwood (25,28) andthat the increased availability of fuelwood isalmost always a byproduct of stepped-up tree

growing for other purposes. In other words, al-though it maybe socially worthwhile to plantmore trees, the incentives to do so will be in-fluenced by how well those trees serve as in-come-producing assets (28). Increased suppliesof fuelwood, therefore, maybe best promotedby recognizing the secondary financial impor-tance fuelwood holds relative to other forestproducts (27).

Development or expansion of fuelwood mar-kets, however, may induce relatively powerfulvillagers or people from cities to gain controlof fuelwood supplies. This would then denylandless people access to needed subsistenceresources (l).

The rate at which forests are converted toother, less sustainable uses can be reduced bydecreasing the demand for wood. This can bedone by enhancing the efficiency of wood useor by substituting alternatives for wood fromforesters.

The efficiency of domestic wood use can beimproved through better stove and kiln tech-nologies. Since most fuelwood and stove proj-ects have been initiated only recently, it ispremature to stipulate which techniques aremost likely to achieve widespread diffusion.Several observations, however, can be made.

●

●

●

●

To develop effective methods of technol-ogy dissemination, high priority must begiven to social and economic research andto field evaluation of the technologies.Farmers, artisans, and entrepreneurs aremost likely to adopt and spread improvedtechniques for wood growing, charcoalproduction, and stove design if they canprofit from the improvements through ex-isting market channels.Improvements in charcoal productionshould generally be introduced as incre-mental changes in existing methods.Dissemination strategies for fuelwoodtechnologies must take into account thedifferences in male and female roles andincentives as they relate to how house-

Ch. 8—Technologies to Reduce Overcutting ● 191

holds’ land and labor resources are used,who makes purchase decisions, who bene-fits from alternative tree products, etc. (27),

● The greatest potential for farmers to prof-it from tree growing comes not fromsingle-purpose fuelwood plantations butrather from sale of other forest products,for which market development may beneeded, and from agroforestry, which notonly produces wood but also improvesyields of associated crops.

Improved stoves may reduce the range offuels that can be used, may be too expensive,or simply may be outside the abilities of localcraftsmen. Improved charcoal production doesnot necessarily lead to expected reductions inthe wood consumed to make charcoal. Unlessthere is an effectively enforced ceiling on theexploitation of woodlands, charcoal makersmay use the time they gain from using moreefficient kilns to make even more charcoal,thus accelerating the depletion of woodresources rather than slowing it.

Securing future wood supplies is a political,economic, and social problem. It is affected byproblems of land ownership, local customs,and social organization. until these are re-solved, measures to reduce demand will fail toreach the root of the problem. Demand reduc-tion creates no incentives for increased sup-ply; it may even achieve the reverse. wherefuelwood has sufficient commercial valueabove the cost of harvesting and transport, itis more likely that someone will be preparedto invest in planting trees (10).

Interest and experiments in the use of small-scale, renewable energy technologies (solar

1. Agarwal, A., OTA Technology Transfer Work-shop Comments, Nov. 17-19, 1982,

2. AID/USDA Bioenergy Team, “Energy PotentialFrom Native Brushland in Niger: The Econom-ic Perspective, ” report prepared for the Officeof Energy, AID, 1979.

driers, small hydropower, etc.) are widespread.Such technologies are not yet able to substitutefor wood use, however, and their adoption isinhibited by economic and managerial con-straints. Further, it will be difficult to achievewidespread adoption of these technologies be-cause of the problems inherent in trying tochange the long-held habits of large, diverse,and often isolated rural populations.

Similarly, substituting nonwood fuels (kero-sene, bottled gas, electricity, etc.) for fuelwoodhas potential to reduce demand temporarily forforest wood while plantations are being estab-lished and while the natural forest is recover-ing. However, the costs of obtaining and dis-tributing these fuels are often prohibitive. Sub-sidies to facilitate the adoption of nonwoodenergy sources may be necessary in regions ofcritical deforestation, but they cannot be seenas a long-term remedy. Substituting plantation-grown wood for natural wood is the more sus-tainable option for many tropical regions.

Tree planting is constrained where access to“free-for-the-taking” forest wood is not re-stricted. In such cases, people are unlikely toinvest land and labor in fuelwood plantationseven if other inputs are government-subsidized.The economic feasibility of fuelwood planta-tions can be improved if they also are designedto provide marketable products other thanwoods, such as fodder, or to provide some ad-ditional service, such as shelterbelts. However,even in these cases, the regulatory controls onfuelwood gathering from the natural forestmust be enforced.

REFERENCES

3. Arnold, J. E. M., and Jongma, J., “Fuelwood andCharcoal in Developing Countries,” Unasylva29(118):2-9, 1978.

4. Brazier, J, D., “Property Requirements for Use—A Basis for Timber Selection and a Contribu-tion to Marketing,” Proceedings IUFRO Divi-


sion 5 Conference, Oxford, England, 1980, pp.117-126.

5. De Lepeliere, G., et. al., A Woodstove Compen-dium (Eindhoven, The Netherlands: EindhovenUniversity of Technology, 1981). ln: Shaikh, etal., 1983.

6. Ewel, J., “Environmental Implications of Tropi-cal Forest Utilization,” International Sympo-sium on Tropical Forests Utilization and Con-servation, F. Mergen (cd.) (New Haven, Corm.:Yale University Press, 1981), pp. 156-167.

7. Ewel, J., and Conde, L., “Environmental Impli-cation of Any Species Utilization in Moist Trop-ics,” Papers for Conference on Improved Utili-zation of Tropical Forests, Madison, Wis., 1978,Pp. 63-82.

8. Food and Agriculture Organization, Map of the

9

10

Fuelwood Situation in [he Developing- Coun-tries, 1981.Food and Agriculture Organization, Wood FuelSurveys-GCP/INT/35/SWE (Rome: U.N. Foodand Agriculture Organization, 1983).Foley, G., “The Future of Renewable Energy inDeveloping Countries,” Ambio, X(5) 200~205,1981.

11. Hughes, J. F., Plumptre, R. A., and Burley, J.,“Technologies to Improve the Use of TropicalForest and Woodland Products,” OTA commis-sioned paper, 1982.

12. Johns, A., “Wildlife Can Live With Logging,”I’Vew Scientist, July 21, 1983, pp. 206-211.

13. Joseph, S,, and Shanahan, Y., “A Design Strate-gy for the Implementation of Stove Programmedin Developing Countries, ” Energy From Bio-mass (Allied Science Publishers, 1980).

14. Keating, W, G., “Utilization of Mixed SpeciesThrough Grouping and Standards,” Proceed-ings IUFRO Division 5 Conference, Oxford,England, 1980, pp. 135-156.

15. Knowland, B., and Ulinski, C., “TraditionalFuels: Present Data, Past Experience and Possi-ble Strategies,” prepared for the Agency for In-ternational Development, September 1979.

16, Lanly, J. P,, and Clement, J., Present and FuturePlantation Areas in the Tropics (Rome: Foodand Agriculture Organization, 1979).

17. Levy, C. R., “Why Treat?” Proceedings of aSeminar on Utilization of Timber in the TropicsThrough Wood Preservation in Papua NewGuinea, 1975. In: Hughes, et al., 1982.

1 8 . McQuire, A. J., “Wood Preservation in theRural Sector–Research Needs,” 8th World For-estry Congress Paper FID 11/22-12, 1978. In:Hughes, et al., 1982.

19. National Academy of Sciences, “Stove Design

for Efficient Wood Burning,” Development Di-gest, XIX(3), July 1981, Report by an ad hoc ad-visory panel of the Advisory Committee onTechnology Innovation,

20. National Academy of Sciences, FirewoodCrops: Shrub and Tree Species for Energy Pro-duction (Washington, D. C.: National Academyof Sciences, 1980).

21. National Academy of Sciences, Leucaena:

22,

23,

24.

25,

26,

27.

28.

29,

30,

31.

32,

Promising Forage and Tree Crop for the Trop-ics (Washington, D. C.: National Academy ofSciences, 1977).Noronha, R., “Village Woodlots: Are They aSolution?” paper prepared for the panel on theIntroduction and Diffusion of Renewable Ener-gy Technologies (Washington, D. C.: NationalAcademy of Sciences, 1980).Openshaw, K., “Energy Requirements forHousehold Cooking in Africa With Existing andImproved Cooking Stoves,” paper presented atthe Bioenergy 1980 Conference, Atlanta, Ga.,Apr. 22, 1980. ~n: Shaikh, et al,, 1983.Openshaw, K., “Charcoal Stoves, Charcoal Con-version and Biomass” (Washington, D. C.: Agen- -cy for International Development, 1982). In:Shaikh, et al., 1983.Poulsen, G., “Important Forest Products in Af-rica Other Than Wood and Wood Extractives”(Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization,1981). In: Shaikh, et al., 1983.Preston, S., “Needs for Effective Utilization ofNatural Tropical Forests,” Proceedings IUFROCongress, Division 5, Japan, 1981, pp. 103-116.Shaikh, A., Qadri, T., and Hale, S., “FuelwoodTechnologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Re-sources,” OTA commissioned paper, 1983.Shaikh, A., “The Economics of Village-LevelForestry: A Methodological Framework” (Wash-ington, D. C.: Agency for International Develop-ment, 1981).Siren, G., “Silviculture for Energy,” Unasylva34(138):22-28, 1982.Smith, N., Wood: An Ancient Fuel With a NewFuture, Worldwatch paper No. 42, 1981.United Nations General Assembly, Report ofthe Technical Panel on Fuelwood and Charcoal,A/CONF: 100/PC/34 (New York: United Na-tions, 1981).U.S. Interagency Task Force on Tropical For-ests, “The World’s Tropical Forests: A Policy,Strategy, and Program for the United States,”A Report to the President by the U.S. Interagen-cy Task Force on TropicaZ Forests, Departmentof State, Publication No. 9117, Washington,D. C., 1980.

Chapter 9

Forestry Technologies forDisturbed Forests

195

196196196196196200

200200201201203206210211211

213

Introduction . . s , 4 . . . 0 . . . . . , ● , * * . * * . ● . . . , * * . . . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . * . , , . .

Constraints and Opportunities ● . * * * * * ? ? . 0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 0 . . . . ● * * * , . . * . * * * . . . . . , , .

Reforestation of Degraded Lands ****,*. . . . . . . . , . . . . Background ● ..... ● , . . . .

Technolologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Land Preparation

. . . . . ..... ●☛✐✌✎✎✎ ● ...**.. . . . . .

Species Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . * . . * .

.****** ● *.*$*** . . . . . . . . ..,.*Planting Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tree Care and Maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Investment Analysis .*..*.* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Constraints and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .● . . . , ,* ● . * *

Chapter preferences ● *****9 ● *****.* ...**.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...,*.

.

Figure

Chapter

Forestry Technologies forDisturbed Forests

HIGHLIGHTS

Management of Secondary Forests Reforestation of Degraded Lands

●

●

About 400 million hectares (ha) of poten- ●

tially productive closed secondary forestsexist in tropical nations. If managed prop-erly, secondary forests could satisfy thegrowing wood needs in the tropical na-tions that have substantial closed forests.

●

Technologies to manage secondary forestsare not yet adequate to assure suitable re-turns on investment. Technologies areneeded to reduce costs and increase yields.

Approximately 2 billion ha of tropicallands are in various stages of degradation.Opportunities exist to increase productivi-ty of these extensive areas and, at the sametime, meet the growing need for forestproducts and environmental services.

Plantation management, like secondaryforest management, is constrained by alack of investment. Again, the solutionseems to lie in reducing costs and increas-ing benefits.

INTRODUCTION

Growing populations and increasing needsfor fuel, food, fodder, building materials, andwork opportunities have caused selective log-ging and tropical deforestation. When clearedforest land cannot sustain the new land use,the consequences include land degradation,abandonment, and varying degrees of recov-ery. After either logging or agricultural clear-ing, the type of vegetation that returns general-ly depends on the intensity of land use and de-gree of degradation that have occurred and onwhether the site has been grazed or burned.Usually, second growth forests appear; some-times grasses invade, sometimes only barrenwasteland is left.

The selection and application of forestrytechnologies on these lands will vary depend-ing on the vegetation. If enough valuable treesexist in the secondary forest and the site is nottoo degraded, some form of canopy or under-story manipulation can be applied. If the siteis severely degraded and natural tree regenera-tion is difficult, complete clearing foIlowed bysite preparation and field planting may be moreappropriate. The following describes variousforestry technology options according to veg-etative cover.

195


Background

Where tropical forests have been exploitedby wood harvesting and/or by shifting cultiva-tion, the land is commonly “returned to na-ture” and secondary forests are allowed todevelop. Secondary forests, for the purpose ofthis report, include both residual forest that hasbeen cut once or several times during the past60 to 80 years and second growth forests thatinvade after periodic cultivation. This includesthe “logged” and “forest fallow” categoriesdiscussed in chapter 3.

In the past, foresters considered tropicalsecondary forest trees of little use because thetrees were perceived as having poor form, be-ing inferior species, or simply too small. Mostof these trees are not used except as poles orfuel. Unless an especially good market for fiberor fuelwood exists, secondary forest land usual-ly is left idle or converted to marginal crop-lands.

These reasons for not investing in secondaryforest management technologies are beingdispelled as knowledge of secondary forest spe-cies improves. Secondary forests often aremore homogeneous than mature forestsbecause the vegetation that grows after a sitehas been cleared usually is dominated by a fewpioneer tree species. This can simplify manage-ment, harvest, and use of the secondary forest.Furthermore, pioneer tree species are fast-growing, their wood is uniform and light, andtheir stems tend to be straight and dominatedby a single leading shoot. Such characteristicscan make these species marketable. Since theleaves of these species usually are large andthin, adequate light can reach the understoryto permit development of dense undergrowth.This understory frequently includes late suc-cessional hardwood species that are valuablefor timber–e,g., Meliaceae. Finally, the woodof the secondary pioneer species usually lacksresins and silica and this facilitates wood proc-essing, although it makes the trees vulnerableto damage (19).

Technologies

Desription

There are several technologies that could beused to improve the productivity of secondaryforests. These technologies vary in intensity oftreatment. The choice depends on the qualityand quantity of tree species found in the forestsas well as the management objectives. The fol-lowing technologies are presented from leastto most intensive:

●

●

●

●

No Treatment—No silvicultural treatmentis applied. The success of regrowth is dic-tated by the duration and severity of pastforest modifications and by soil quality,moisture availability, and access to thearea by missing components of the formerforest, including tree seeds and animal life.Refining-This is also known as improve-ment felling and timber stand improve-ment. Some trees are removed to givemore growing space to other, more desir-able trees. The underlying premise is thatpotentially valuable trees, unless tended,will be constrained by competition withless valuable trees for light, moisture, ornutrients. It is justified only in foreststands that already contain enough valu-able trees to promise an economic crop.Tropical shelterwood—This treatmentconsists of removing the upper layer ofcanopy in one or more cuttings to promoteeither germination or the growth of exist-ing understory seedlings or saplings. Pe-riodic weeding is necessary.Underplanting—Trees are planted undersome living portion of the former forest toensure a rapid-growing new crop of ac-ceptable tree species.

Assesment

Each of these secondary forest managementtechnologies has certain technical, environ-mental, economic, and sociopolitical con-straints.

Ch. 9—Forestry Technologies for Disturbed Forests ● 197

No Treatment.—Untreated secondary forestsare low-input/low-output. The attractiveness ofno treatment, with its lack of initial expenseand investment, is offset by low harvestableyields (61). For instance, a 20-year record fromunmanaged residual forests in Puerto Ricoshowed an annual yield less than 5 cubicmeters per hectare (m3/ha) (5). This calculationis based on merchantable timber. Thus, yieldsmight be increased by expanding the marketfor the materials produced.

Repeated harvesting may cause an eventualdecline in site productivity due to nutrientlosses. Harvesting all the stemwood from amoist tropical forest can remove 10 percent ofthe ecosystem’s nitrogen, 39 percent of thephosphorus, 38 percent of the potassium, 20percent of the calcium, and 57 percent of themagnesium (20). However, development of har-vesting systems that leave forest structure* andits nutrient-cycling mechanisms intact is con-strained by financial considerations. For in-stance, although small-scale clearings recovermore quickly than large disturbed areas, thisapproach often is not suitable for commercialforestry because of higher costs incurred in thetransportation of labor and machinery.

Nevertheless, harvesting systems are beingdesigned to reduce nutrient loss. A harvestingmethod used with some success in the UnitedStates has been proposed for adaptation to theAmazon forests (34). In this scheme, a strip offorest is harvested on the contour of a slope.A haulage road is built along the upper edgeof the strip. After harvesting, the area is leftalone until saplings appear. Then a secondstrip is cut above the road. Nutrients washeddownslope from the freshly cut second stripcan be captured and used by the new trees inthe original strip. The remaining mature forestcan provide seeds for regeneration. Once a net-work of roots is reestablished in a strip, anotherstrip farther up the slope can be cut, the timberused, and the newly cut strip then regeneratesnaturally (fig. 27).

*Forest structure: distribution and arrangement of trees in aforest stand.

Strip logging, like clear-cutting, has econom-ic problems because many of the tree speciescut do not have well-developed markets.

Refining. —Forest refinement has advan-tages and disadvantages. Few good trees areneeded for this treatment. As few as 100 sapl-ings per hectare, if refined, could producea fully stocked crop of mature trees (11). Butlogging damage and post-logging mortalitycan limit the use of this treatment (49,55).The application of logging controls throughoutthe Tropics might greatly increase the area offorest meriting refinement. For instance, suc-cessful control of logging damage in the Philip-pines has enabled the use of refining in largeareas (22).

Refined moist secondary forest producesabout 6 m3/ha/yr of merchantable wood (14),a quantity similar to that from untreated forest.There is an improvement, however, in woodquality. Results vary widely with forest standhistory. Although yields are low relative tothose of more intensive management technol-ogies, the required investments are also lowand often in line with available financialresources (38,51). Thinnings seem to shortenthe time between harvests (31). Also, when thefull costs of more intensive technologies aretaken into account, refining may compare fa-vorably with the intensive treatments (38).Nevertheless, more research data are needed,especially about costs and financial returns, forcomplete analysis of this treatment.

A variation of the refining practice is knownas “liberation thinning.” In this technique,desired trees are identified and liberated fromcompetition with less desired tree species, Itis an important element in the silviculture ofresidual Dipterocarp stands in Sarawak (31).However, in general, only large clearings areneeded to stimulate understory growth, andsometimes even these fail (12). The selectedtrees, if subordinate in canopy position in earlylife, may be incapable of later acceleratedgrowth.

Another variant of the refining practice is thepolycydic system (or selection silvicultural


Figure 27.-Harvesting Scheme

1 ye

cyea

Cuyea

SOURCE: C. F. Jordan, “Amazon Rain Forests,” American Scient/sf 70(4): 394-401, 1982.

system), which preserves the natural foreststructure. Mature trees are harvested periodi-cally, thus liberating immature trees. It hasbeen successful in some Dipterocarp forests ofthe Far East because those forests are domi-nated by a single type of tree and naturalregeneration of that type usually occurs (41).Sometimes all the high-quality tree species areextracted, thereby leaving behind a commer-cially useless forest. Also, the widespread useof girth limits for determining maturity meansthat the most vigorous, rapid-growing trees areremoved, leaving behind what could be poorerseed-bearers.

The criticisms of the polycyclic systemshould not, however, preclude its future use.Markets are developing for trees with smallercrowns, and felling these should do less dam-

age to surrounding trees. The growing localmarketability of many additional speciesshould increase the feasibility of more com-plete fellings.

Yet another variant of the refining practiceis the monocyclic system. The objective is tohave all trees reach maturity simultaneouslyfor a single harvest. It starts with the removalof all undesired species down to 10 cm in diam-eter at breast height (15). Drawbacks to thistreatment are the initial sacrifice of larger treesand a lack of intermediate harvests for addedincome. Moreover, monocyclic managementleads ultimately to more complete harvestswith greater prospects for erosion. Heavy cutsfrom monocyclic management can be expectedto lead to periodic interruption of nutrientrecycling, since large volumes of logging slash


will be decomposing at a time when an effec-tive network of roots to capture the nutrientsis lacking.

Refinement directly reduces an ecosystem’sdiversity, gradually eliminating as many as halfof the tree species, especially those small atmaturity or with extremely light or heavywoods. It calls for ranking species in order ofdesirability. Consequently, criteria must bedetermined for selection that consider not onlymarketability but also the capacity of the sys-tem to capture and conserve energy and nu-trients, and the risks of catastrophic damagefollowing reduction of biological diversity.

At present, the case for refining secondaryforest can best be made where the need for soil,water, and wildlife conservation is critical andwhere soils are unsuited for other purposes. Ifcarefully coordinated with land-use planning,forest refining may provide seasonal employ-ment in farming regions.

Tropical Shelterwood.-This complex prac-tice stimulates growth of existing seedlings andsaplings chiefly by removing unwanted maturetrees (58). It requires a reasonable number ofexisting seedlings, and a new seedling croprarely appears unless there are at least 2 or 3mother trees (7,10,27,40). A variation, the Ma-layan Uniform System, is applied chiefly in thelowland Dipterocarp forests of Peninsular Ma-laysia, where there are at least 2,500 seedlingsof good species. It requires nearly complete re-moval of all trees except desirable species ofless than 30 cm in diameter.

The practice, so far, is not profitable. Aver-age expected timber yields are about the sameas from refining, about 6 m3/ha/yr. However,labor costs are higher because the treatmentrequires removal of the overstory and contin-uous weeding before harvest. It has been aban-doned in Malaysia, Borneo, and India becauseof labor costs (23,32). Better techniques areneeded to reduce treatment costs and improveeconomic returns. At present, tropical shelter-wood is applicable only in places with lowlabor costs, extensive secondary forests, andlittle capital to invest in plantations (61),

In addition, this treatment may lead to lossof nutrients by leaching or erosion because thecanopy is kept open for a number of years. Ifthe technology were used for several rotations,there would be progressive simplification of theforest ecosystem.

Underplanting. —This practice is interme-diate in intensity between natural regenerationand plantations. The objectives are the reha-bilitation of cutover forests after selective fell-ing of marketable trees and the assurance offull stocking, species control, crop uniformi-ty, short rotations, and competitive yields (6).

There are several variations of underplant-ing. In forests containing most of the trees re-quired for a future crop, individual trees areplanted to fill small vacant areas. This is called“enrichment” planting. The main disadvantageis that uneven growth rates between the naturalforest and the underplanted trees produce anuneven stand that is difficult to manage andharvest. “Gap” planting of trees spaced at 2 to3 m inside openings of 20 m or more in diam-eter is another variation. It seems to have thesame disadvantage as enrichment planting.“Group” planting is made up of closely spacedclusters of 9 to 25 trees in openings as smallas 10 m in diameter. Only one tree per clusteris intended to survive.

In forest stands with an insufficient numberof trees to form a significant portion of the nextcrop, underplanting maybe done systematical-ly in rows or lines. This provides more tree/siteselectivity and requires less planting stock.

Line planting seems to be the successor tomost of the other underplanting techniques;however, it also has problems [61). Not onlymust overhead shade be removed initially butweeding must be so drastic that most of theformer forest quickly disappears (8). Clearinglines and keeping them open until the newtrees are well established also can be expen-sive. Since most failures in the past have beena result of competition with natural trees, self-pruning tree species capable of 1.5 m/yr ofstraight growth are suitable (63). The list ofmarketable species that meet the growth re-


quirements is limited. Also, line plantings typ-ically are of a single species, producing a lossof stand diversity, even though natural re-growth may be permitted between and belowthe crowns of the planted trees. Finally, maxi-mum yields to be expected from line plantingsare about 12 m3/ha/yr (13). The constraints maymake line planting a risky investment.

Underplanting, however, is less costly andless intensive than plantations. It requires lessplanting stock and may rehabilitate poor sitesand degraded forests. The problem of havinga longer wait before harvest may be amelio-rated where a planted understory can be har-vested on a relatively short rotation for poles,fiber, or fuelwood.

Constraints and Opportunities

Existing secondary forests, if managed prop-erly, could satisfy the wood needs of the grow-ing populations in tropical nations for manydecades. However, the various technologies formanaging secondary forests are often complex,slow, and laborious. Yields are often too lowrelative to costs, which discourages invest-ments. New technologies are needed to reducemanagement costs and to sustain and increasethe yields of secondary forests.

An often appropriate technical approach toincreasing yields is improved harvesting. Sim-

REFORESTATION OF

Background

Tropical nations have about 650 million haof cropland compared with 2 billion ha of landin various stages of degradation (21,59). Deg-radation of tropical land is a physical, chemi-cal, and biological process set in motion by ac-tivities that reduce the land’s inherent produc-tivity. This process includes accelerated ero-sion, leaching, soil compaction, decreased soilfertility, diminished natural plant regeneration,disrupted hydrological cycle, and possible sa-linization, waterlogging, flooding, or increased

ply reducing logging damage can increase thenumber of trees available for a future crop aswell as improve natural regeneration. This canbe accomplished through the use of appropri-ate harvesting equipment. In addition, regula-tions to control logging practices need to bedeveloped and enforced. Perfection of thesepractices requires additional research on therelationships between harvesting intensity andgrowth of the residual forest.

Another opportunity to increase yields andenhance the value of secondary forests is todevelop markets for lesser-known tree species.Market development requires information onwood properties of lesser-used species, the fur-ther development of processing techniques,and juxtaposition of wood production areas,processing plants, and market outlets. Ex-panded markets would then justify more com-plete and efficient harvesting. Developing mar-kets for underused species and size classes maydo more to enhance the value of secondary for-ests than silvicultural improvement (61).

Finally, management of secondary forestsmay be made more attractive by reducing thecost of various silvicultural treatments. For ex-ample, survivorship and yield of planted treescan be increased by developing less expensiveand better quality forest tree planting stock.Labor costs could be reduced by developingless expensive and longer-lasting methods ofweed control.

DEGRADED LANDS

drought risk, as well as the establishment ofundesirable weedy plants. There is a strong re-lationship between inappropriate land-usepractices and land degradation. In some places,degradation is manifest (e.g., desertification),where in others it is inferred (e.g., decliningcrop yields).

Deforestation in mountainous regions is oneof the most acute and serious ecological prob-lems today (17). Disturbance of vegetative coveron montane areas with thin soil and steepslopes results in land instability (e.g., land

Ch. 9—Forestry Technologies for Disturbed Forests . 201

slides) and soil erosion. Excessive erosion notonly impairs site productivity but may also ad-versely affect other sites or water bodies far-ther down the watershed. No precise estimatesof the scale of the problem exist. However, datafrom the Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO) and other agencies indicate that some87 million ha of tropical montane watershedland need reforestation (63).

Conversion of tropical moist forest into farmor grazing land commonly results in rapid de-pletion of the soil’s plant nutrient supply andaccelerated soil erosion. In some places the de-gradation process leads to takeover by persist-ent, aggressive weed species of low nutritivevalue (3). Often the combined problems of lowsoil fertility and weed infestation become sogreat that the land is abandoned. Such landsare subject to frequent uncontrolled fires andare often covered by coarse grasses. Wheneverthe vegetation is burned, erosion may increaseand productivity may be reduced further. Theextent of these grasslands is not welldocumented. Imperata, the main invader grassin Southeast Asia and part of Africa, occupiessome 16 million once-forested hectares in In-donesia (36]. If the percent coverage of the restof Southeast Asia is similar to that of Indonesia,there may be 40 million ha of Imperata grass-lands in the region.

In many arid and semiarid open woodlands,overgrazing and repeated fires have convertedthe vegetation to a degraded fire climax stage.Consequently, soils become dry and littlewoody plant regeneration occurs. Fire-tolerantvegetation—commonly unpalatable to ani-mals—persists, leading to a desert-like state. Anestimated 20.5 million ha of tropical arid lands,an area about the size of South Dakota, becomedesertified every year. To date, an estimated1.56 billion ha of tropical land have undergonehuman-caused desertification (63).

Each year, approximately 500,000 ha of ex-cessively irrigated lands become saline oralkaline as a result of inadequate drainage oruse of salty irrigation water (63]. Capillary ac-tion draws moisture to the soil surface whereit evaporates, leaving salts in or on the topsoil.

In some cases, salts can be leached from up-land soils and bedrock, raising the salinity ofrunoff from deforested slopes. The increasedrunoff harms agricultural soil in lowland areasby causing temporary or lasting waterloggingand salinization (4).

The best solution to such problems is to pre-vent inappropriate land-use practices on for-ested lands. Where it is too late for this ap-proach, reforestation is an alternative. Treesplanted on degraded lands will not give suchhigh yields as trees planted on rich, fertilelands. However, it maybe the only way to raisethe productivity of the most degraded lands.Furthermore, in many countries, fertile sitesare reserved for agricultural activities. Giventhe dwindling reserves of good land and theincreasing amount of degraded tropical lands,reforestation is a technology with potential torehabilitate soils and to provide many goodsand services for industrial and local needs. Forexample, fuelwood plantations can alleviate theworsening shortage of firewood in some areasand prevent shortages from occurring inothers.

Technologies

An OTA background paper, Reforestation ofDegraded Lands, covers this subject in detail.This section summarizes the mechanics of re-forestation and focuses on pertinent issues andproblems that may prevent reforestationsuccess.

Land Preparation

Many degraded sites need some type of pre-planning preparation, such as clearing stumpsand competing weedy vegetation, loosening thesoil, or applying fertilizers or lime. Under somecircumstances, site cultivation controls weedsand improves soil aeration, soil biochemical ac-tivity, percolation of water, pH regulation, nu-trient application, and surface evenness. Thedegree and type of land preparation dependson several factors: site and soil conditions, veg-etative cover, species to be planted, and avail-able capital and labor.

25-287 0 - 84 - 14


Land preparation can be done by hand or bymachine. Manual methods are less constrainedby the rainy season, they require few skills, andthe capital cost is relatively low. They also pro-vide temporary employment to laborers andcause minimal damage to soil. A disadvantageof manual clearing, however, is the need to re-cruit, manage, and provide logistical supportin remote areas for large numbers of laborers.Mechanical clearing, on the other hand, re-quires high capital inputs for equipment main-tenance, supplies of fuel and spare parts, andoperator training and supervision. And heavymachines degrade the site through topsoil dis-ruption. Yet, in general, mechanical clearingis cheaper than manual clearing (18). Thechoice between manual and mechanical landpreparation must be made on a case-by-casebasis, determined by all these considerations.

Sometimes physical structures must be builtand heavy machinery must be used to preparesites. Artificial barriers of brushwood or othermaterials constructed in a grid pattern, orgrasses and trees planted in a similar pattern,can be used to immobilize drifting sand. Plow-ing the soil surface to increase water infiltra-tion, ripping across the slope to retain water,plus construction of bench terraces on steeperslopes, and funneling moisture onto a smallerarea are all conservation measures used tomaximize planting success. Minicatchmentsbuilt to concentrate water into the rootingzones of individual trees are a particularly im-portant technique in arid zones.

It maybe necessary to add nutrients duringland preparation. Several techniques exist in-cluding mulching with organic matter, plant-ing nitrogen-fixing trees, applying green ma-nure (especially herbaceous legumes), and com-mercial fertilizers. Mulching suppressesweeds, improves soil moisture conditions, andaugments soil organic matter (53), but it mayincrease problems with rodents or other pests.Nitrogen-fixing trees can improve soil withtheir ability to produce nitrogen fertilizer. Fo-liage dropped by legumes is nitrogen-rich andwill augment soil fertility as it decays.

Historically, tropical foresters have reliedmore on seed provenances and thinning prac-tices than on commercial fertilizers to increaseproductivity (52). But the benefits of fertilizershave been impressive in some forest planta-tions. Fertilizer placed in the planting hole mayaccelerate early height growth and thus reduceweeding. Carton de Colombia, a timber grow-ing company in Colombia, has experimentedsuccessfully with the application of about 50g of commercial fertilizer in planting holes onextremely nutrient-poor soils (39). Since smallamounts of fertilizer can produce significantresults, further research is justified to deter-mine the best types and quantities of nutrientsto apply for various species under various soilconditions.

The use of commercial fertilizers in forestrygenerally has been based on a presumed or pre-dicted shortage of nitrogen, phosphorus andpotassium. Dosage has been based on experi-ence from trial and error experiments. How-ever, some highly weathered tropical soils aredifficult to fertilize effectively with essentialplant nutrients such as phosphorus and potas-sium. For instance, phosphorus can become sotightly held by soil minerals that plants can ex-tract little for their benefit, whereas potassiumis not held by the soil and is easily leachedaway by tropical rains (24,37). Use of the wrongfertilizer, or incorrect amounts of fertilizer, canreduce yields. Application of 100 g of potassi-um chloride per Pinus caribaea tree depressedgrowth and increased mortality on Nigerian sa-vanna sites (35). Moreover, fertilizer use maycause water-associated environmental prob-lems, such as increased eutrophication thathampers navigation (29) and may trigger theonset of health problems. Thus, fertilizers canbe both beneficial and detrimental, so the im-pacts of applications need to be examined thor-oughly before widespread use.

Some experts adamantly believe commercialfertilizers should not be promoted for thedeveloping world on the grounds that theymust be imported and are not, or soon will notbe, affordable. Certainly, sustainable nonchem-

Ch. 9—Forestry Technologies for Disturbed Forests “ 203

ical techniques to enhance fertility should beinvestigated. For example, one of the less ob-vious soil deficiencies, occurring particularlyin eroded soils in the drier climates, is the lackof necessary micro-organisms. An ancient andeffective method to add micro-organisms is toinoculate either nursery soils or planting holesin the field with a few grams of topsoil fromwell-established plantations. The method is notpractical, however, where well-establishedplantations do not exist.

It seems unlikely that timber crops can beharvested repeatedly from the same site with-out replenishing soil nutrients. Significant de-cline from successive timber crops has not yetbeen observed (16,42,44). The quantities of nu-trients removed with tree harvests have beenmeasured, however, and they are sufficient tosuggest that with repetitive cropping a declinein yield eventually will occur. Nutrient draincan be more rapid in fuelwood plantationswhere the cutting cycle is every 5 to 10 yearsin contrast to commercial forests that are cutevery 30 to 100 years. This difference is evengreater than the time difference implies, sinceyounger trees contain a proportionally largershare of phosphorus, potash, and calcium (56).Nutrient levels and fluxes in plantations shouldbe monitored to determine the prospective ben-efits and cost effectiveness of soil amendments.

Species Selection

Tree species selection is important to plan-tation success. If a tree is grown under unsuit-able soil or site conditions, it will be stressedand thus become susceptible to attacks frominsects or competition from weeds. Several fac-tors influence species selection, including theobjectives of reforestation, seed availability,and costs associated with reforestation alter-natives. For many degraded sites, the speciesneed to be those that can add nitrogen to thesoil as well as provide products wanted by localcommunities.

The importance of matching tree specieswith site cannot be overstated. The problem ofspecies selection is complicated in the Tropicsby intricate climatic and soil patterns, and in

areas that have been deforested by the highlyvariable degree of site degradation. Inadequateinformation on planting sites is a major causeof plantation failure (61).

Exotics and Monocultures. Plantations can-not substitute wholly for natural forests as res-ervoirs of germ plasm or as components of thenatural environment—they are really an agri-cultural crop. Plantations contribute to pres-ervation of the natural environment becausethey concentrate wood, food, and forage pro-duction within a minimum area, thus reliev-ing some demands on natural forests. How-ever, where plantations are established on landwith good potential for annual agriculturalcrops, the effect actually may be to increasepressure on the natural forests.

Most large-scale tropical industrial timberplantations use species that are indigenous tothe Tropics but are exotic to the planted area(24). The widespread use of exotics maybe aresult of the preponderance of information, ex-perience, and research on them, especially onPinus, Eucalyptus, and Tectona. Also impor-tant to their use is the abundance, availabili-ty, ease of storage, and germination of seedsof these exotic species. The use of exotic treespecies involves risks. One of these risks is thesusceptibility to pests and diseases. Proponentspoint out that exotics may be at an advantagebecause they have left behind pests and dis-eases that evolved along with them in their na-tive habitats. Opponents disagree, saying thatexotics may have no resistance to pests and dis-eases in their new environment. A third sidebelieves that the risk of pest and disease prob-lems depends on plantation size more than geo-graphic origin of species. Native pests and dis-eases tend to switch to plantation crops (whereresources are more uniform and abundant) (57’).The evidence still is inconclusive. Because ofthe high yields possible with exotic species,however, the risks will continue to be taken.

The potential of using native species in plan-tations has been largely ignored. Reasons forthis vary from lack of familiarity with manytropical tree species to lack of seed supplies.A reason often cited is the slower growth of

204 . Technologjes to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources

native species. Nevertheless, the growth ratesof exotics and native species usually are similarin the arid and semiarid parts of Africa (62].Native species are adapted to the local environ-ment and, thus, may be less susceptible tostress, serious disease, and pest damage. Localpeople are more familiar with their nativeplants and have more uses for them (30).

Nearly all tropical plantations are grown inmonoculture. * The main reason is that silvi-culture** for such plantations is simple andthus more cost effective. Since monocultureplantations may be susceptible to rapid spreadof pest and disease outbreaks, some diversitycan be achieved by alternating species, or ge-netic varieties of the same species, in blocksof land being planted. This method mightprevent pests that develop and multiply in oneplantation block from spreading rapidly toother blocks having the same genetic make-up (64).

Multiple species (polyculture) plantations, intheory, mimic the natural forest, yield a greatervariety of products, and are less susceptible topests than are monoculture. However, littleactual experience has been gained dealing withpolyculture plantations either on an industrialscale or in village forests (63). Only recentlyhave projects been established where mixturesof species are planted for a variety of end uses.Legume trees are interplanted with commer-cial tree species to reduce the amount of ferti-lizer required after successive rotations. In ex-perimental plantations, Indonesians are inter-planting Calliandra with Pinus merkussi andwith Eucalyptus deglupta to yield firewood forlocal use. Calliandra and other legume trees aresometimes used as “nurse trees” for timbersuch as teak, which requires shade initially forbetter growth (46).

Managing mixtures of tree species for woodproduction is biologically complex, especial-ly for more than two species. It becomes evenmore difficult where multiple products are ex-

“Monoculture: one species planted over a large area.* *Silviculture: the science and art of cultivating forest crops,

based on a knowledge of forest tree characteristics.

Photo cradt: J. Bauer

In the Caribbean National forest, Kadam(Anthocephalus chinensis) is intercropped

with mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla)

tracted from multiple species under differentharvesting regimes. Information is lacking onthe optimum species mixtures and spacings.Little is known about the relative benefits ofdifferent species or canopy densities andwhether the density that is best for high yieldsis also satisfactory from other standpoints.Potential benefits from compatible mixtures oftrees suggest that new concepts and combina-tions should be tested.

Forest plantations in the past usually servedindustrial purposes and grew only one product,usually sawtimber, pulpwood, or fuelwood.Now, with an increasing demand for food, fuel,and fodder, plantations are needed to serve awider variety of objectives. Thus, the use ofmultipurpose trees is becoming increasinglyimportant, especially in areas with high pop-ulations. For example, Acacia mangium, whichhas potential for sawtimber, veneer, furniture,firewood, pulp, and particle board, outper-forms other species on degraded lands in Ma-laysia. Its leaves also can be used as forage forlivestock (48). The foliage of species such asCalliandra is readily eaten by cattle and goatsand its flower provides rich nectar to producehoney (47). Because of its fast growth, Callian-dra competes with and can eventually suppressImperata cylindrical, a tough perennial grassthat invades and dominates many cutoverareas of Southeast Asia.


Thousands of other tropical trees exist whosepotentials are unknown. Little is known of thevariability in growth and performance of mul-tipurpose tree species. Variation is related tohabitat so that each planting site should betested with a variety of species and with ge-netically different varieties of the same species.Even when correct species and provenancesare known, there is still a major gap in theknowledge of silvicultural techniques for mul-tipurpose tree plantings.

Tree Selection and Breeding. Since most treespecies used in reforestation are found overbroad geographic ranges, different races* with-in the same species can be adapted to differentenvironments. Thus, the species’ suitability toa particular site varies depending on the racesused. Increases in yield and resistances todisease can be achieved through selection anduse of appropriate seeds. Only by planting spe-cies and races on the sites for which they areadapted can maximum yields be obtained.Most plantations in the Tropics use seeds with-out testing them to see whether they are genet-ically appropriate for the site.

Selection of tree species for each site contin-ues to be too arbitrary in spite of, or possiblybecause of, long experience and tradition. Plan-tation yields within large regions with exten-sive plantations of the same tree species, suchas southern Brazil, vary widely from place toplace with no technical explanation. Evenlarge, long-established planting projects con-tinually encounter new sites where results areunlike those of past plantings. Within generasuch as Eucalyptus, selection among speciesand races should be made on the basis of nat-ural range and corresponding climate and soilconditions for which each has proven acclima-tized, and on the basis of demonstrated adapt-ability to altered environments and growthhabits (9).

A well-established technique to match raceswith sites is called provenance testing. * Seedsof the desired species are collected from vari-ous sites and tested at the site to be reforestedor at a site with a similar environment. Oncethe best provenance has been identified, sev-eral options are available to obtain plantingmaterials. Seeds from the desired provenancesometimes can be purchased. Alternatively, in-dividual trees from the provenance test can beselected as parent material and used to estab-lish seed orchards or to produce rooted cut-tings for planting materials.

Another technique is to use superior treesfrom an environment similar to the reforesta-tion site to establish a seed orchard withoutprovenance testing. If the desired species al-ready grows on the reforestation site and ifsuperior trees have not been eliminated, it ispossible to obtain planting materials adaptedto the site from those trees. This is probablythe fastest and least expensive approach. How-ever, seed orchards established from phenotyp-ically* * selected trees ideally should be prov-enance-tested.

Conventional provenance testing is a majorundertaking. For proper statistical analysis,hundreds of trees from each seed source areplanted in replicated blocks and grown to ma-turity. The process generally takes so long thatthe original seed source may be unavailable bythe time results are available. When that hap-pens, the test plots must be developed as seedorchards, further prolonging the process. Thisusually takes too long for an individual refor-estation program to accommodate. Many prov-enance tests do not yield results because of pre-mature termination of the project or departureof the investigator. Therefore, provenance test-ing must be carried out by established institu-tions that can maintain long-term programs.

*Race: subdivision of a species distinguished by heritable phys-iological or morphological characteristics resulting from adap-tation to a specific environmental condition. Tree species racesare often described by referring to the geographic location wherethe race is found naturally.

*Provenance testing: testing populations of the same speciesto study their performance under a range of site and climaticconditions.

* *Phenotype: detectable expression of the interaction betweenthe tree’s genetic characteristics and the environment.


Potential to shorten the time needed for treeselection is increasing as new techniques aretested. Tissue culture can rapidly mass-pro-duce clones of chosen individuals from a prov-enance test. The clones can then be tested forparticular microsites or planted at the reforest-ation site. Establishment of international net-works of cooperating scientists to collect seedsor planting material and to record environ-mental data for each parent tree can reduce thenumber of provenances to be evaluated foreach test. Another technique, by which manyprovenances are planted in one stand (singletree randomized plots), allows the testing ofmany more provenances without a correspond-ing increase in budget or personnel. Then,propagation of clones can ensure that theprovenance with the exact genetic materials isused, thus allowing more types to be tested.The U.S. Forest Service, in experiments withEucalyptus, successfully used single tree ran-domized plots and cloning to shorten the timefor screening provenances.

After the initial selection of parent trees,breeding for desired characteristics can greatlyaccelerate tree yields and survivability on de-graded sites. Plant breeding has been respon-sible for about half of the spectacular gains inagricultural crop yields accomplished in thepast three decades. Tree breeding takes longerbecause generations are longer than with an-nual agricultural crops. Nevertheless, treebreeding programs in industrialized nationshave already achieved important productivitygains—10 to 20 percent gains in first genera-tion and 35 to 45 percent in second generationseed orchard progeny in industrial timber plan-tations (50). For energy plantations, breedinghas produced gains of as much as 50 percent(54).

With Eucalyptus in Brazil, selection alonehas nearly doubled yields (60). Additional gainsfrom the use of parent trees selected by strictcriteria are predicted at 5 to 10 percent and theuse of seed orchards of these trees should add10 to 20 percent more. Tests to match the seedorchard progeny to specific microsites are ex-pected to provide further gains of 35 to 45 per-cent. Eucalyptus breeding has produced hy-

brids that at 4 years show an improvement of30 percent in height growth and 80 percent indiameter at breast height (dbh) growth over theparent trees. Yields of more than 100 m3/ha/yrare projected from the combination of selec-tion and breeding. Hence, genetic tree im-provement may promise larger gains in yieldsthan refinement of silviculture techniques.

In addition, tree selection and breeding couldaccelerate genetic improvement of trees forcharacteristics other than yield. For example,with pines, improvements similar to the euca-lyptus yield gains are expected in straightness,reduction in forking, and other characteristics.Further, the risks of forestry investments ondegraded land could be reduced. For example,drought-resistant species could be improvedthrough genetic programs designed to identify,breed, and propagate the most productive ofthe drought-tolerant provenances.

Planting Materials

To reforest lands, seeds of various speciesmust be available in great quantities. Today,quantity falls short of need. The seed supplyfor species most commonly used in tropical,industrial plantations is adequate. However,the seed supply for multipurpose, agroforestryspecies is small. Often the seed that is useddoes not have its source identified. This makesit impossible to trace the origin of seeds thatproduced a promising stand or a stand of badform to be avoided. Full records of all forestseedlots should be made and copies should ac-company all seed distributions. Most impor-tantly, every seed shipment should show howthe species was identified, where and when theseed was collected, and specific site and standinformation about the seed source. In that way,the recipient would know the quality and originof a seedlot if problems or opportunities wereto develop later.

The customary way of raising planting stockin the Tropics is to grow seedlings in a forestnursery either in open beds for bare-root plant-ing or in containers. Good nursery practicesare essential to produce a hardy plant with awell-balanced, straight root system. Bare-

Ch. 9—Forestry Technologies for Disturbed Forests Ž 207

Photo credit: A. Isaza for WFP/FAO

These 200,000 Eucalyptus seedlings will be used to reforest some 700 hectares of overgrazed land in Colombia

rooted seedlings are susceptible to desiccation.Containerized seedlings are more costly andbulky to handle in the field and are subject toroot coiling if closed-bottom containers areused. The latter can be avoided if the con-tainers have an open bottom and are suspendedabove the ground. Recent developments withcardboards and plastic tubes used as seedlingcontainers are increasing the efficiency of re-forestation projects.

Another technique for producing plantingmaterial is vegetative propagation—reproduc-tion of planting stock without the use of seed.Vegetative propagation is widely used for treecrops such as rubber, coconut, tea, coffee,cocoa, and oil palm. Methods include cuttings,

air layering, budding, grafting, and tissue cul-ture. Rooted cuttings remain the most popularof these. Once the technique for a particularspecies is developed, the production cost ismodest.

Vegetative propagation has the advantage ofhastening massive reproduction of geneticallysuperior plants, ensuring that all are of thedesired genetic type. It has the disadvantageof increasing plantation risks due to lack of ge-netic diversity. Tissue culture is another tech-nique that can produce thousands or even mil-lions of plants rapidly from a single parent.This technology is established in tropicalagriculture and horticulture, but it is still in thedevelopmental stage for most tree species.

The use of tissue culture can shorten the timenecessary to reproduce a large stock of plant-ing material with exactly the necessary char-acteristics. The cost of plantlets and the sophis-tication of the technique, however, make it un-likely to replace the use of cuttings for large-scale reforestation in tropical areas. Its nearer-term use is likely to be in establishing “super-tree” orchards to produce seeds or cuttings.

Seedling survival and growth rates in thenursery and at the planting site sometimes canbe improved by using special kinds of fungiand bacteria. For most tropical trees, associa-tions between tree roots and mycorrhizal fungiare essential for healthy growth. The fungi areactive in the transport of nutrients and waterto plant roots, and in some cases are impor-tant for the release of nutrient elements from

mineral and organic soil particles (43). Trialshave shown that seedlings inoculated with fun-gi show improved growth and survival overuninoculated controls (33). populations ofmycorrhizae are found naturally in soils, butthese can be depressed after long-term clear-ing and/or topsoil removal, making reestablish-ment of vegetation on degraded lands difficult.Various methods for reinoculating damagedsoils with mycorrhizal fungi are being de-veloped.

Legume trees can grow well on degradedland because their roots can be a symbiotic hostfor Rhizobium bacteria which produce nitro-gen fertilizer, an essential nutrient for plantgrowth. The bacteria convert nitrogen gas inthe soil into a form the plant can use. Most soilscontain Rhizobium, but degraded soils prob-

Ch. 9—Forestry Technologies for Disturbed Forests Ž 209

Photo credit: T. Wood

Nitrogen-fixing nodules formed on the roots of AcaciaPennatula by Rhizobium bacteria enable legume trees

to grow well on degraded lands

ably contain fewer types and lesser amountsof the bacteria. Thus, the appropriate type ofRhizobimn may not be present at the site of areforestation effort, or present in enough quan-tity to infect the tree roots.

Inoculants are living organisms that must betransported and stored carefully and used cor-rectly to retain their viability. These require-ments can be difficult to satisfy, especially atremote tropical sites needing reforestation.Most importantly, inoculants for tropical leg-ume trees usually are not available because oflack of production. Even where inoculants areavailable, they may not be used because tree-planters are not convinced that they will behelped. These constraints are being overcomeslowly.

An old inoculation technique is to collectroot nodules from a vigorous legume tree, grind

them up, and use the product to inoculate othertrees of the same species. The newer technol-ogies using inoculants from laboratory pro-duced cultures are relatively simple to use andcheap, costing only a small fraction of a centper tree. Inoculation of legumes with Rhizobi-um has been practiced in agriculture in indus-trialized nations for many years. Inoculants forsome tropical legume trees, such as Leucaenaand Calliandra, are available commercially.

The roots of some nonlegume trees also canbe infected by micro-organisms that producenitrogen fertilizer for the tree. Techniques toculture these micro-organisms are not yet avail-able. However, the use of ground-up nodulesfrom already established trees is possible andpractical for areas where these trees are native.The major limiting plant nutrient in arid andsemiarid regions is likely to be nitrogen; hence,the use of nitrogen-fixing trees can be extreme-ly valuable.

An alternative to using seedlings in nurseriesis to plant or sow the seed directly at the re-forestation site. This method is feasible whereseed is plentiful and where seed and seedlingsmortality is low. Direct sowing of drought-re-sistant species is sometimes preferred, espe-cially for species that have long and fast-growing taproots that may be damaged in anursery or in transfer to the field. The advan-tage is that no nursery is required and plant-ing costs are low. On the other hand, seedlingsurvival may be low because of weed competi-tion, lack of tending, poor weather, or animaldamage.

Coating seeds with pest repellent may be nec-essary to avoid damage by small mammals,birds, or insects. Thus far, few species havebeen planted this way in the Tropics. Sowingseeds from the air is unproven in the Tropics,but shows promise in accelerating reforesta-tion programs through its ability to seed largeareas quickly (45). It is a tool to consider whenreforesting remote, rugged sites. The techniquehas many logistical problems, including lackof aircraft and logistic, administrative, andcommunications support, and lack of largequantities of seeds.


Tree Care and Maintenance

Proper care and maintenance of the plantedsite is essential to ensure that trees survive tomaturity. Once grown, there is the problem ofmonitoring timber harvests and of systematicreplanting. The main causes of reforestationfailure, other than inappropriate technologies,are uncontrolled grazing and fires, competitionfrom weeds, and uncontrolled cutting for fuel,fodder, poles, and lumber.

Direct protection through fencing or guardstends to be expensive. Other, less costly meth-ods include planting unpalatable trees (e.g.,Cassia samea) or thorny trees (e.g., Parkinsonia)as barriers around the plantation. The use ofliving fences is becoming a more widespreadpractice because they provide a number of aux-iliary benefits including shade, fodder, wind-break, fuel, and wildlife habitat. Another alter-native is subsidizing farmers with livestockfeed or with cash to purchase feed during theperiod when trees are most susceptible to ani-mal damage. Grazing beneath the tree canopysometimes can be beneficial as a means ofweeding. However, livestock grazing on re-cently reforested watersheds can be harmfulbecause animals compact the topsoil, leadingto poor tree growth and increased runoff.

Weeding is an important aspect of plantationestablishment and maintenance. Weeds com-

Photo credt: K. Parker

Using trees as living fence posts in the DominicanRepublic has several benefits. The fence itself providesprotection and shade for animals, while the foliage canbe harvested for forage, fuelwood, or green manure

pete directly with seedlings for light, soilnutrients, and water. Their shade can smotherand eventually kill young trees. They also canincrease fire hazards and shelter harmful ani-mals (18). There are three main methods ofweeding—manual, mechanical, and chemical.The manual method is the most common andrequires little skill or capital. Mechanicalmethods may be used in large plantation proj-ects but generally are not considered profitablein the Tropics. In many tropical countries,chemical weed control techniques have beentested and found successful, but because ofsafety and cost problems they seldom becomethe main means of weed control (1).

Whatever the type and location of tree plant-ing, the cooperation of local people is essen-tial if newly planted trees are to survive (2).Because most trees do not yield much benefitfor several years, the options offered must dem-onstrate explicit benefits to the people. Treeplanting programs are most successful whenlocal communities are involved and when thepeople perceive clearly that success is in theirself-interest.

In local communities, support can be gener-ated through local involvement in project de-sign, demonstration plantings, commercialplantings by entrepreneurs with larger landholdings, education of community leaders, ex-tension and training programs working direct-ly with farmers or laborers, and direct finan-cial assistance or provision of substitutes (63).Village woodlots provide an alternative to cut-ting in larger areas reforested for other pur-poses. Subsidizing kerosene is also an optionuntil wood can be harvested on a sustainablebasis in reforested areas.

Incentives must be created to encourage peo-ple to care for and maintain the reforested areauntil the benefits can be reaped. For example,a village woodlot project in the State of Gujaratin India that involved tree planting on de-graded communal grazing lands was able tomeet people’s needs by allowing grass to be cutfor fodder and carried to livestock during thesecond year of tree growth. This approach en-abled people to continue feeding their livestock


and simultaneously to care for and maintainthe reforested area (2).

Other incentives include guaranteed provi-sion of inputs, credit, and technical assistancewhen required. Where land tenure is a prob-lem, measures can be formulated to offset therisk to participants caused by the lack of secureownership of the trees—e.g., giving title to theland or title to the trees, short-term licenses,or improved financial incentives.

Investment Analysis

Reforestation projects may fail to receive ade-quate funding and support because benefiticostanalyses do not include indirect benefits suchas environmental services, import substitution,and higher productivity of rural labor. Planta-tions have substantial technological require-ments which, combined with the long-term na-ture of forestry, often result in low short-termprofits when compared with those of alterna-tive investments. This is often in conflict withgovernment priorities for projects that producequick returns (for which leaders receive morepolitical credit) and with bankers who use dis-counting methods that assign low value to re-turns that occur 10 years or more in the future.

Adequate analysis requires comprehensivedata on costs, benefits, and man- or machine-times and productivities. Yet much of this in-formation is unknown when projects are be-ing planned. Price estimates often are unreli-able and do not account for inflation. Informa-tion on labor requirements is usually missingas well. Forestry yields are difficult to predictbecause of the long-term nature of the enter-prise, climate and management uncertainty,and, more importantly, a lack of accurate in-formation on site/species interactions. Al-though technologies such as tissue culture toaccelerate vegetative propagation and bacterialinoculation to increase seedling survival are in-creasing yields on reforested degraded lands,methods are not yet developed to measure theimportant but indirect benefits that could helpjustify investment in reforestation.

Constrains and Opportunities

Reforestation technologies are available to beapplied directly to degraded lands. However,forestry has low priority in many tropical coun-tries. Tree planting sometimes does not com-pete well, in economic terms, with other land-use activities. The solution seems to lie in creat-ing better economic terms by reducing thecosts and increasing yields of plantations, byreducing plantation failures, and by develop-ing methods to quantify indirect benefits ofreforestation.

Overall costs could be reduced if land prep-aration were adequate to prevent weed inva-sion and ensure a favorable environment forthe seedlings. The use of nitrogen-fixing treespecies can add fertilizer to degraded soils. Theuse of native species may reduce the risk ofdisease and insect outbreaks and increase localenthusiasm for reforestation. Plantation yieldscan be increased through selecting high-yield-ing, fast-growing, soil-enriching, and stress-tolerant species and provenances. Multipur-pose tree species can increase the diversity ofproducts yielded. Development and implemen-tation of tree selection and improvement pro-grams can produce high-yielding varieties aswell as other characteristics for particular treespecies. Careful provenance testing, matchingthe appropriate race to a particular site, shouldimprove species performance and reduce mor-tality. Perhaps most important is the propermaintenance of reforested sites. Incentives forlocal people should be created to minimize theincidence of fire, grazing, and fuelwoodcutting.

Shortage of seeds is a major technical con-straint to reforestation. No mechanism existsto control the quality of planting stock. It isoften difficult to trace the origin of seed thatdoes perform well to obtain more. Some mech-anism needs to be developed to coordinate col-lection, certification, and international distri-bution of quality seeds in commercial quanti-ties. This could be accomplished through 1) the


Photo credit: J. t?auer

Mahogany seed sun-drying for storage. Shortage of seeds is a major constraint to forestry. Implementation ofprograms to collect and disseminate seeds could increase reforestation efforts

creation of a new institution, 2) expansion ofthe FAO seed program, and/or 3) expansion ofthe seed banks of the CGIAR system to workwith private tree seed production enterprises.

Oftentimes, inappropriate tree species are se-lected because information on optimum spe-cies and provenances for specific sites isunavailable. Much information on proven plan-tation establishment techniques and silvicul-tural data exists and some of it is being pub-lished. Yet, such information is seldom easilyavailable to or studied by those who embarkon planting projects. FAO could provide ab-stract/microfiche/hard copy services for pub-lished literature to operational and researchpersonnel, especially at the field level; providebibliographies, monographs, and manuals onrelevant species, techniques, and systems; and

provide incentives to publish local researchand management techniques.

Furthermore, information on planting sitesoften is inadequate. The need exists for inter-national coordination to disseminate what isalready known about sites and species/site in-teractions so there is some uniformity of ap-proach, at least at the regional level. Follow-ing this, there should be application of a com-parable site classification to those areas mosteligible for planting. There may be reason toestablish two intensities of classification, onegeneric to narrow down the choice of prospec-tively adapted tree species, and one more spe-cific to distinguish good, fair, and poor produc-tivity within each broad class. Given the pres-ent large uncertainties in selecting the bestmethod for reforestation of a degraded site, it


may be advisable to try out several approaches(28).

Reducing the frequency of plantation failuresmay attract more investors to forestry and,thus, increase the extent of land reforested inthe future. Also important are the indirectbenefits from reforestation efforts. Interna-tional development banks treat many of thenonmarket considerations qualitatively ratherthan trying to develop artificial values for them(25), However, simply listing nonquantifiedvariables may serve to remove them from con-sideration. So increased effort must be ex-pended to develop, test, and refine methods ofquantifying indirect benefits so that decision-

makers have an understanding of the economicvalue of reforestation.

Successful reforestation requires sufficientfunds, strong political will, massive popularsupport, and cooperation among all involvedparties. A technical package, once accepted byfunding institutions and the host-country gov-ernment, may solve certain problems, butmany obstacles to its acceptance usuallyremain. Foresters and policy makers mustremember that “forestry is not, in essence,about trees. It is about people. It is only abouttrees so far as they serve the needs of the peo-ple” (26).

CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Allen, T. G., “Plantation Planting and weedingin Savanna, ” Savanna Afforestation in Africa[Rome: FAO, 1977), pp. 139-148. In; Wadsworth,1982.Arnold, J. E. M., “Community Participation inForestry Projects,” prepared for Conference onForestry and Development in Asia, held inBangalore, India, Apr. 19-23, 1982.Batchelder, R. B., and Hirt, H. F., “Fire in Trop-ical Forests and Grasslands, ” U.S. MaterialCommand, U.S. Army Natick Laboratory, Tech-nical Report 67-41-IN, 1966.Bettenay, E., “Trees for Managing Land forWater Yield and Quality, ” Integrating Agricul-ture and Forestry, K, N. W. Howes and R. A.Rummery (eds,), CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia,1978, PP. 33-38.Briscoe, C. B., and Wadsworth F., “Stand Struc-ture and Field in the Tabonuco Forest of Puer-to Rico,” A Tropical Rain Forest, H. T. Odumand R. F. Pigeon (eds.), U.S. Atomic EnergyCommission, 1970, pp. B79-89. In: Wadsworth,1982.Britwum, S. P. K., “Natural and Artificial Re-generation Practices in the High Forest ofGhana,” Ghana Forestry Journa] 2:45-49, 1976.In: Wadsworth, 1982.Burgess, P. F., “Silviculture in the Hill Forestsof the Malay Peninsula, ” research pamphlet,Forest Research Institute, Kepong, Malaya, No.66, 1975. In: Wadsworth, 1982.

8,

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14,

15!

Catinot, R., “Results of Enrichment Planting inthe Tropics,” Report of the Second Session,FAO Committee on Forest Development in theTropics (Rome: FAO, 1969), pp. 38-43. In: Wads-worth, 1982.Cromer, D. A. N., “The Value of Eucalyptus—World-Wide, Particularly Australia,” FinalReport World Eucalyptus Conference, Rome,1956, pp. 3-18. In: Wadsworth, 1982.Danso, L. K., “Enrichment and Management ofthe Ghana Tropical High Forest,” special sub-ject, Commonwealth Forestry Institute, Oxford,England, 1966. In: Wadsworth, 1982.Dawkins, H, C., “New Methods of ImprovingStand Composition in Tropical Forests,” Carib-bean Forester 22(1/2):12-20, 1961. In: Wads-worth, 1982.Dawkins, H. C., “The Productivity of TropicalHigh Forests and Their Reaction to ControllableEnvironment,” Ph. D. thesis, University of Ox-ford, England, 1963, In: Wadsworth, 1982.Dawkins, H. C., “The Productivity of LowlandTropical High Forest and Some ComparisonsWith Its Competitors,” Forest Society Journal(Fifth Series), No. 12,1964, pp. 15-18. In: Wads-worth, 1982,Dawkins, H. C., “Wood Production in TropicalRain Forest,” Journal of Applied Ecology, Lon-don, England 4(1):20-21, 1967. In: Wadsworth,1982.Earl, D, E., “Latest Techniques in the Treatment


of Natural High Forest in South Mengo Dis-trict,” Papers gth British Commonwealth For-estry Review, 1968. In: Wadsworth, 1982.

16. Earl, D. E., “Does Forestry Need a New Ethos?”Commonwealth Forestry Review 52(151):82-89,1972. In: Wadsworth, 1982.

17. Eckholm, E., Losing Ground (New York: W. W.Norton & Co., 1976).

18. Evans, J., Plantation Forestry in the Tropics(Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1982].

19. Ewel, J. J., “Secondary Forests: the TropicalWood Resource of the Future,” Simposio Inter-national sobre Zas ciencias forestalls y su Con-tribution al Desarrollo de la America Tropical,San Jose, Costa Rica, 1979, pp. 53-60.

20, Ewel J,, “Environmental Implications of Trop-

21

22.

23,

24

25

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

ical Forest Utilization, ” International Sym-posium on Tropical Forests Utilization andConservation, F. Mergen (cd.), Yale Universi-ty, 1981, PP. 156-167.FAO, Tropical Forest Resources AssessmentProject (GC-MS): Tropical Africa, Tropical Asia,TropicaZ America (4 VOIS.) (Rome: FAO/UNEP,1981).Fox, J. E. D., “Selective Logging in the Philip-pine Dipterocarp Forest,” MaZayan Forester30(3):182-190, 1967. In: Wadsworth, 1982.Galinato, P. F., “Management and Silvicultureof Philippine Dipterocarp Forests,” special sub-ject, Commonwealth Forestry Institute, Oxford,England, 1966. In: Wadsworth, 1982.Gallegos, C. M,, Davey, C. B., Kellison, R. L.,Sanchez, P. A., and Zobel, B. J., “Technologiesfor Reforestation of Degraded Lands in theTropics,” OTA commissioned paper, 1982.Gregersen, H., “Valuing Goods and ServicesFrom Tropical Forests and Woodlands,” OTAcommissioned paper, 1982.Gribbin, J., “The Other Face of Development,”New Scientist 96(1334):489-495, 1982.Griffith, A. L., “India’s Tropical Wet EvergreenForests,” Forest Research Institute, Dehra Dun(5th British Empire Forestry Conference, GreatBritain, vol. 2), 1947. In: Wadsworth, 1982.Hirschman, A. O., Development Projects Ob-served (Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Insti-tution, 1967).Helm, L. G., Weldon, L. W., and Blackburn, R.D., “Aquatic Weeds,” Man’s Impact on the En-vironment, T. R. Detwyler (cd.) (New York:McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1969).Hoskins, M., “Community Participation in Afri-can Fuelwood Production, Transformation, andUtilization,” paper prepared for workshop on

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40,

Fuelwood and Other Renewable Fuels in Afri-ca, Paris, 1979.Hutchinson, I. D., “Processes of Optimizing andDiversifying Uses of Resources: Approach toDefine Interim Guidelines for Silviculture andManagement of Mixed Dipterocarp Forest inSarawak,” International Forestry Seminar, No-vember 1980, University of Malaysia, KualaLumpur, 1980. In: Wadsworth, 1982.Iyppu, A. L, “The Silviculture and Managementof Evergreen Forests of Kerala State, ” IndianForester 86(9):509-519, 1960. In: Wadsworth,1982.Janos, D. P., “Mycorrhizae Influence TropicalSuccession,” Biotropica 12 (supp1ement):56-64,1980.Jordan, C. F., “Amazon Rain Forests,” Amer-ican Scientist 70(4):394-401, 1982.Kadeba, O., “Nutritional Aspects of Afforesta-tion With Exotic Tree Species in the SavannaRegion of Nigeria,” Commonwealth ForestryReview 57(3):191-199, 1978.Kamsilan, —, “The Place of Agroforestry inLand-Use Planning in Indonesia,” Observationson Agroforestry on Java, Indonesia, J. F. Wier-sum (cd.), Department of Forest Management,University of Wageningen, The Netherlands,1981, pp. 49-55. In: Wood et al., 1982.Keller, W. D., The Principles of ChemicalWeathering (Washington, D. C.: Lucas Bros.Publishing Service [Item 990, No. 5967, January1961], 1962), pp. 540-657.Kio, P. R. O., “What Future for Natural Regen-eration of Tropical High Forest? An AppraisalWith Examples From Nigeria and Uganda,”Commonwealth Forestry Review 55(4):309-318,1976. In: Wadsworth, 1982.Ladrach, W., forester for Carton de Colombia,personal communication, 1982.Lancaster, P. C., “Investigation Into Natural Re-generation in Tropical High Forest in SouthernNigeria, ” Nigerian Forestry InformationBulletin, No. 2, 1960. In: Wadsworth, 1982.

41. Liew That Chin, “The Practicability of ClimberCutting and Tree Making Prior to Logging asSilvicultural Tool in Sabah, ” MalaysianForester 36(2):5-19, 1973. In: Wadsworth, 1982.

42. Lundgren, B., “Soil Conditions and NutrientCycling Under Natural and Plantation Forestsin Tanzanian Highlands, ” Report No. 31, De-partment of Forest Soils, Swedish University ofAgricultural Sciences, Uppsaler, 1978.

43. Menge, J., “Mycorrhiza Agriculture Technol-ogies,” Background Papers for Innovative Bio-


logical Technologies for Lesser DevelopedCountries, Paper No. 9, Office of TechnologyAssessment Workshop (Washington D. C.: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1980), pp. 383-424,

44, Muir, W, D., “The Problems of Maintaining SiteFertility With Successive Choppings, ” Aust. J.Science 32:316-324, 1970.

45. National Academy of Sciences, Sowing ForestsFrom the Air (Washington, D. C.: National Acad-emy of Sciences, 1981).

46. National Research Council, Innovations in

4 7

48.

Tropical Reforestation V: Calliandra (Washing-ton, D. C,: National Academy Press, forthcom-ing).National Research Council, Innovations inTropical Reforestation W: Casuarina (Washing-ton, D. C.: National Academy Press, forthcom-ing).National Research Council, Innovations inTropical Reforestation VII: Mangium and OtherAcacia of the Humid Tropics [Washington,D. C.: National Academy Press, forthcoming),

49. Nicholson, D, I., “An Analysis of Logging Dam-age in Tropical Rain Forest in North Borneo, ”Malaysian Forester 21:235-245, 1958. In:Wadsworth, 1982.

50. Nienstadt, H., “Tree Improvement and Its Place

51

in Intensive Forest Management, ” Proc. 8thWorZd Forestry Congress, Jakarta, )? ID-1/17-28,1978. In: Evans, 1982.Palmer, J. R,, “Towards More Reasonable Ob-jectives in Tropical High Forest Managementfor Timber Production,” Commonwealth ForestReview 54(3/4):273-289, 1975. In: Wadsworth,1982.

52. Pereira, H. C., “Soil and Water ManagementTechnologies for Tropical Countries,” OTAcommissioned paper, 1982.

53. Poulsen, G., Man and Tree in Tropical Africa,International Development Research Center(IDRC), 1978.

54.

55.

56.

57,

58,

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

Ranney, J. W., Cushman, J, H., and Trimble, J.L., “The Short Rotation Woody Crops Program:A Summary of Research Sponsored by BiomassEnergy Technology Division of Oak Ridge Na-tional Laboratory, ” U. S. A., draft, 1982.Redhead, J. F., “An Analysis of Logging Dam-age in Lowland Rain Forest, Western Nigeria, ”Nigeria Forestry Information Bulletin (N, S.) No.10, 1960, In: Wadsworth, 1982.Smith, N,, “Fuel Forests: A Spreading EnergyResource in Developing Countries,” Intercien-cia 6(51):336-343, 1981.Strong, D. R., Jr., “Rapid Asymptotic SpeciesAccumulation in Phytophagus Insect Commu-nities: The Pests of Cacao, ” S c i e n c e185:1064-1066, 1974.Synnott, T. J., “Tropical Rainforest Silviculture:A Research Project Report,” Department of For-estry, Commonwealth Forestry Institute, Uni-versity of Oxford, England, Occasional PaperNo. 10, 1979. In: Wadsworth, 1982.U.N. Conference on Desertification: Round-Up,Plan of Action, and Resolutions (New York:United Nations, 1978).Venekatesh, D. S., “Expected Genetic GainsFrom Forest Tree Breeding, ” Indian Forester102(6):402-407, 1976. In: Wadsworth, 1982.Wadsworth, F., “Secondary Forest Manage-ment and Plantation Forestry Technologies toImprove the Use of Converted Tropical Lands,”OTA commissioned paper, 1982.Weber, F. R,, forestry consultant, personal com-munication, 1982.Wood, P. J., Burley, J., and Grainger, A., “Tech-nologies and Technology Systems for Reforesta-tion of Degraded Tropical Lands, ” OTA com-missioned paper, 1982.Zobel, B., tree geneticist, North Carolina StateUniversity Department of Forestry (professoremeritus), personal communication, 1982.

Chapter 10

Forestry Technologies to

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agroforestry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Watershed Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agroforestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agroforestry Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classification and Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Technology Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Constraints and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Watershed Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ... ... .Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............Watershed Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ... ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .General Technical Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Specific Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Constraints and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter IO References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

Page219219219

219

220220220220224226228

229229230230231232237

238

List of Tables

Table No. Page29.Some Prominent Agroforestry Systems in Developing Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22130. Organizations That Work on Agroforestry Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...6..... 228

List of Figures

Figure No. Page28. Effects of Poor Watershed Management~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23029. Slopes and Appropriate Conservation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23130. Cut-Off Drain to Protect Steep Forested Scarps From Landslip Hazard . . . . . . . 23231. Cross-Sectional View of Eight Types of Conservation Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

Chapter 10

Forestry Technologies toSupport Tropical Agriculture

● The medium- and long-term maintenance oftropical forest resources may depend moreon sustaining lands under cultivation thanon refining the use of the remaining forest.

Agroforestry

● Agroforestry, systems that use trees, crops,and/or animals on the same land, holds greatpromise for improving and sustaining theproductivity of lands under cultivation,

● Genetic improvement of multipurpose treespecies has great potential to increase theproductivity of agroforestry systems,

● Rigid boundaries between disciplines havedeterred agroforestry development. There isa need for a thorough rethinking of the ap-propriate institutional homes for agrofor-estry,

● Implement at ion of agroforestry systems re-lies on removing obstacles to adoption, im-proving extension services, and creating in-centives to encourage farmers to adopt agro-forestry practices.

●

●

●

Watershed Management

Damage to tropical watersheds is most eco-logically and economically significant wheresubsistence farmers and their livestock moveonto steep uplands. Improved farming sys-tems are needed that can ensure and en-hance farmers’ short-term returns and at thesame time modulate water flow.

Where flood protection for large populationsin lower reaches of river valleys depends onprotecting the vegetation on steep upper wa-tersheds, costs for conservation practices inthe uplands should be subsidized by the low-land communities.

More research on the relationship betweenland use and hydrological systems is neces-sary to give watershed managers a better un-derstanding of various management systemsand their tradeoffs.

INTRODUCTION

The major cause of deforestation and forestdegradation in most countries is land clearingfor agriculture. In many places, the quality ofland is degraded by conventional farming orgrazing practices, so the farmers and herdersmust keep clearing more and more forest. Thispractice continues because people have no al-ternatives.

Many of the technologies discussed in thisreport can help to sustain forests by makingforested land more productive and thus canhelp reduce the need for converting the landto nonsustainable uses. However, increasingthe productivity of forests alone is unlikely toprovide enough jobs or income for rapidlygrowing rural populations, For that, the pro-

219


ductivity of agriculture has to be sustained and 1.increased.

Agricultural productivity can be increasedby enlarging the area farmed, maintaining thequality of the land already in use, and increas- 2.ing the per hectare yields. Chapter 11 addressesplanning technologies to direct land clearingonto sites that are appropriate for agriculture.This chapter addresses forestry-related technol-ogies for the other two approaches. The objec-tives of these technologies are:

to enable farmers on marginal soils to con-tinue farming in one location and to main-tain or gradually increase land productivi-ty so they can stop clearing more and moreforest, andto protect and allow improvement of agri-culture in the more fertile river valleys bymodulating waterflows and reducing ero-sion and siltation from upland watersheds.

.,

AGROFORESTRY

Background

Traditional farming methods used in tropi-cal countries were developed to reduce the riskof crop failures more than to provide maximumproduction. As a result, the traditional crop-ping and grazing systems used on relatively in-fertile, dry, or erosion-prone sites often involvemultiple crops, intercropping, and complexcrop rotation schedules. However, the tradi-tional systems are not productive enough toprovide for the rapidly expanding populationsof the Tropics. They need to be modernizedand further developed.

On fertile and well-watered alluvial soilswhere traditional farming was based on mono-cropping of rice or wheat, it has been possibleto increase yields by adapting modern temper-ate-zone technologies, including applicationsof fertilizers and pesticides. But in the less wellsituated sites, many attempts to replace com-plex, traditional farming systems with modernmonocrop agriculture have failed, apparentlybecause of high risks from climate, pests, anddifficult soils and because of the complex so-cioeconomic conditions that often prevail. So,in recent years, some scientists have begun de-veloping modern technologies to improve,rather than replace, the traditional farming sys-tems (26). This approach to tropical agricuhuredevelopment is still promoted by only a smallnumber of agricultural scientists.

Agroforestry is a name for a collection ofland-use systems and technologies where

woody perennials (trees, shrubs, palms, bam-boos, etc.) are deliberately grown on the sameland with agricultural crops and/or animals ineither spatial arrangements or temporal se-quences. Agroforestry is a new word, not anew concept. The novelty lies in formally rec-ognizing that many different tree-based land-use systems possess certain common featuresthat hold great promise in the Tropics.

On fertile lands, intensive agroforestry sys-tems, like intensive agriculture, can supportdense populations. Agroforestry, however, isprobably more important for improving andsustaining the productivity of the lands withsoil fertility and soil moisture problems, andwhere lack of rural infrastructure and cashmake it necessary for people to produce mostof their own basic needs for food, fodder, fuel,and shelter.

Agroforestry Systems

Description

Agroforestry encompasses many well-knownand long-practiced land-use systems on culti-vated or grazed lands in the Tropics (table 29).Traditional shifting cultivation, bush fallowsystems, and all forms of “taungya” afforesta-tion* fall under this term, as do the home gar-dens of the wet tropics and the use of foddertrees and shrubs in the dry Tropics.

*Taungya: Burmese for hill cultivation. Agricultural crops areplanted with trees used for wood production.

Table 29.—Some Prominent Agroforestry Systems in Developing Countries

Mediterranean and Eastern, Central, and Arid and semiaridWest Africa American TropicsMiddle East

1. Olive + cereals(on terraces, ‘ban-quettes’, ‘cuvettes’,etc.)

2. Poplars along irriga-tion canals

3. Trees for sand dunereclamation

Humid West AfricaSoutheast Asia

1. Agro-silvicultureSouthern Asia

Trees in perennialcash crops (coffee,cacao, tea)Trees for organicmatter and mulchwith annual cropsTree live fencesWindbreaks and shel-terbeltsTrees as support forclimbing commercialcropsTaungyaShifting cultivationsystems

1. Taungya2. Plantation crops +

arable crops3. Commercial trees and

fruit trees with crops4. Live fences + shel-

terbelts

1.2.

3.

4.5.6.7.

1.

2.

1.

TaungyaCacao/food crops/forest complexPlantation crops (oilpalm/rubber) and rootcrop complexCoffee + bananaMixed perennial cropsGum arabic + milletShifting cultivation/bush fallow systems

1.

2.

1.

2.

3.

1.

Use of trees on farm-lands for protectiverole (windbreaks,dune fixation)Productive + protec-tive role of trees onfarms (A. albida/Leu-caena + agriculturecrop systems)

1.

2.

3.4.

5.

6.7.

1.2.

1.

2.

3.4.5.6.

7.

Commercial treesamong cropsFruit/shade treesamong cropsLive fencesShelterbeltsTaungyaShifting cultivationsystemsIntercropping in plan-

5. Various trees on farm-lands for productivefunctionsVarious forms ofshifting cultivationMedicinal plants +agriculture species

4. ‘Huertas’ - small plotsirrigated crops +fruit trees

5. Aromatic, medicinalarid fruit trees withcrops

tation crops (rubber,oil palm, coconut)

6.

7.

2. Silvo-pastoral1. Pasture in forest

plantation2. Pasture in secondary

forests3. Commercial trees in

pastures4. Fruit/shade trees in

pasture5. Fodder trees6. Coconuts + pasture

3. Agro-silvo-pastoral

Pasture under treesPlantation crops +cattle grazingFodder trees andshrubsFruit trees and com-mercial trees inpastures

1. Oak forest + grazing2. Pig breeding and

forestry3. Range land

improvement

Gum arabic +livestockPlantation crops(coconut/cashewpasture

Nomadic/semi-nomadic/transhumanSedentary livestockgrazing systems/browsing systemsFodder tree/shrubsystems

Trees in pasturePasture in natural

1.2.

3.

4.

1.

2.

regeneration forest3. Trees lopped for

fodder4. Trees used for

+

browsing

Agriculture plantationcrops (coconut, rubber,fruit, trees) withcrops and pastures

Plantation crops +arable crops +livestockAgriculture tree crops+ grazing in forest

Range land manage-ment

Coconuts/other plan- Forestry dominating1.

2.

3.

4.

Crops and grazing inplantationsAgriculture tree crops+ grazing in forestplantationMultipurpose treeswith crops/animalsIntegrated farmingsystems with agricul-ture plantation crops(rubber, coconut, oilpalm)

1.tation crops + foodcrops + grazing

2. Coffee + banana +dairying

3. Horticultural complexsystems

4. Plough culture com-plex systems

(forest lands)2. Agriculture dominating

(crop lands)3. Livestock dominating

(crop lands)

Table 29.—Some Prominent Agroforestry Systems in Developing Countries—Continued

Mediterranean and Eastern, Central, andSoutheast Asia Southern Asia

Arid and semiaridMiddle East Humid West Africa West Africa

4. Home gardensVarious forms of 1. Multistory plantmultispecies canopies in humidcombination

2.

5. Others1. Silviculture in 1.

mangrove forests2. Agri-silvi-fishery 2.3. Trees on bunds in 3.

fish breeding ponds4. Swidden farming 4.5. Fuelwood agroforestry

regionsArid/semiarid systems

Mixed perennial 1.croppingIrrigation systemsVarious site-specificsystems 2.Fuelwood systems

3.4.

Mainly in large cities Various forms

New system inMorocco (spice

1. Pastoral systemsplan- with corral farming

tation for erosion (highland/lowland)_control) 2. Mixed perennialAgriculture + croppingforestryFruit trees in desertsMushroom cultivationin forest

SOURCE: Anonymous, “A Global Inventory of Agroforestry Systems,” Biomass :241-245, 1983

Various forms

1. Oasis2. Irrigation systems3. Various site-specific

systems

American Tropics

Various forms

Mixed perennialcropping

Ch. 10—Forestry Technologies to Support Tropical Agriculture ● 223—

Rubber trees interplanted with a cover crop of Pueraria phaseoloides and grazed by cattle is one typeof agroforestry system

Agroforestry systems attempt to optimize ●

ecological and economical interactions be-tween various components (trees and shrubs/ ●

crops and animals) to obtain a higher, morediversified, and/or more sustainable total pro-duction than is possible with any single landuse. Typical characteristics of such systems ●

are: 1) two or more species of plants (or plantsand animals), at least one of which is a woody ●

perennial; 2) two or more outputs; and 3) a pro-duction cycle of more than 1 year.

Agroforestry can provide many goods and ●

services. Depending on the particular situation,it may:

increase and improve food productionyields;produce firewood and a variety of otherraw materials from shrubs and trees forfarmers’ subsistence, for local sale, andsometimes for export;protect and improve the soil’s productivepotential;improve social and economic conditionsin rural areas by creating jobs and incomeand reducing risks; anddevelop land-use systems that draw onboth modern technologies and traditionallocal experience and that are compatible


plantation trees has attracted much attentionas a promising way of increasing total yieldfrom the land. An example is the Jari Projectin Brazil, where seeding the pine plantation(Pinus caribea) with forage grass (Panicummaximum) reduced the need for weed control.The cattle then increased the total income fromthe system (21).

Many commercial timber and pulpwoodplantations in the Tropics have been estab-lished through the “taungya” system. Farmersor forest laborers are allowed to grow crops fora few years during land preparation and earlyplantation phases. In exchange, they weed andcare for the young trees. After an agreed-uponperiod, the farmers move on. Taungya has beenused for more than a century and has been ap-plied throughout the Tropics. Although well-planned taungya can provide a sequence ofnew ground for shifting cultivators, it removesthe land from agriculture for a period dictatedby the biology and economics of the forest cropand not by the needs of farmers or forestlaborers.

The widespread use of this system and itsmany local variations is a clear indication ofits success (25). The practice has been success-ful with Terminalia, Triplochiton, and severalMeliaceae in West Africa; Cordia in Surinam;Tectona in Trinidad; and Swietenia in PuertoRico (45). In Nigeria, the system has been ap-plied in both wet and dry zones for tree andfood production. In that country, it has beencredited with providing enough food for about700,000 people, or about 1 percent of Nigeria’sfood needs (13).

The increased use of commercial, commod-ity-oriented agroforestry is attractive in theory.However, the areas under perennial agricul-tural tree/shrub crops occupy about 8 percentof total arable area in developing countries to-day (27). Of this, only a minor part is used forintercropping or grazing. Another 2 millionhectares of perennial agricultural tree planta-tions could be established by the year 2 0 0 0without encountering serious marketing prob-lems (38). But this approach has limited poten-tial for substantially alleviating land problems.Since commercial agroforestry will be intro-

Ch. 10—Forestry Technologies to Support Tropical Agriculture ● 225

duced only where opportunities for profits areclearly perceived, it is unlikely to be used oninfertile land or by people who are not entre-preneurs. This objection applies less to timberplantation land, where small improvements intaungya could produce significant increases infood production. Forest plantation lands couldthen support considerably more people thanthey do now.

Intermediate agroforestry systems are wherefarmers with small to medium sized landhold-ings combine production of perennial crops forcash with annual crops for subsistence. Someof these systems are oriented toward commer-cial production, but they are small and the landis operated by individual farmers. Others aresimilar to subsistence systems. An example isthe combination of gum arabic trees (Acaciasenegal), which can provide good cash incometo farmers, with millet in the Sudan. Anotherintermediate level agroforestry system occurswhen commercial firms enter into contractswith small- and medium-scale farmers to pro-duce raw materials. The British-AmericanTobacco Co. in Kenya has contracts withfarmers who grow tobacco and the fuelwoodneeded for curing it, together with their ownfood crops.

Coffee forms the economic basis for manyintegrated land-use systems in this category,particularly on fertile soils in tropical uplands.In the East African highlands, multistory pro-duction is common. Timber trees such as Al-bizzia and Grevillea shade coffee interplantedwith bananas and beans (33). Similarly, in Cos-ta Rica coffee is grown under the shade of bothtimber trees (Cordia alliodora) and multi-purpose trees (Erythrina spp.) (7,8). Anotherimportant crop in tropical small-holder agro-forestry is coconut. Planting food crops andgrazing cattle under coconuts are commonpractices in the wetter parts of Sri Lanka, India,Southeast Asia, and the Pacific regions (28).

Most of the economically and ecologicallysuccessful examples under this category arefound in areas having relatively fertile soils,good communications, and existing market in-frastructure. But many obstacles can be en-

countered when expanding permanent cashcrops into less favorable areas, where infra-structure and markets are underdeveloped,where land tenure is uncertain, or where theenvironment imposes serious restrictions onintensive land use. Still, there is promise forimproving existing systems through the intro-duction of improved varieties of tree crops,fruit trees, and compatible food crops, as wellas application of fertilizers.

Subsistence agroforestry systems areoriented toward satisfying the basic needs offarmers for food, fuel, and shelter, with someproducts sold for cash income. Such systemsare practiced by a large portion of the popula-tion of the tropical world, from livestock herd-ers in semiarid areas to shifting cultivators inrain forests. These systems usually are prac-ticed where serious ecological and/or socioeco-nomical constraints exist. Infertile soils, ero-sion, and/or drought can be major physical lim-itations. Insecure land tenure and lack of in-frastructure, capital, extension services, andeducation are common socioeconomic con-straints.

Many different subsistence agroforestry sys-tems exist. Shifting cultivation and bush falloware practiced in many forms throughout thetropical world. One well-known form of per-manent traditional agroforestry is the homegardens of Southeast Asia, characterized by amultistory mixture of many species of trees,shrubs, climbers, palms, tubers, and often an-imals (pigs and poultry) (16). Other agroforestryin Asia integrates rice production with treesfor windbreaks, boundary demarcation, andfuelwood production (6,16).

Oases are a prototype of agroforestry in aridlands. They contain ponds to water livestockas well as an upper story of multifunctionaltrees and a lower story of agricultural or hor-ticultural plants. Though only comprising asmall area endowed with water and fertilesoils, they can be extremely well-balanced hu-man ecosystems with species mixture, multi-story structure, and near-perfect recyclingprocesses (44).


.

Photo credit: K. Parker

Chinarnpas in Mexico are centuries-old food production systems used where water is available year round. Narrowirrigation/drainage canals surround the plot and control water supply; mud dredged from canals serves as organicfertilizer; aquatic vegetation serves as “green manure;” fish that colonize the canals provide additional protein; trees

planted along the canals hold the soil in place as well as providing other products

Millions of people practice agroforestry inareas with serious physical and socioeconomicconstraints. The problem of improving the pro-ductivity and sustainability of these people’sagriculture and agroforestry methods is of anentirely different magnitude than that of im-proving commercial and intermediate agrofor-estry systems. Reaching farmers can be diffi-cult, and where subsistence farmers can bereached, they need to be convinced that thecosts, risks, and benefits of new technologiesare favorable. The time between planting a treeand achieving significant yields may involverisks that subsistence farmers cannot take. Italso can be difficult to convince land users tomake long-term investments when land tenureis uncertain. Subsistence agroforestry holds

great potential for improving land use but hasurgent need for technology improvement.

Technology Issues

In general, the concept of agroforestry as asustainable approach to land use is sound. Theaim is to create productive farming systemsable to supply an increasing and sustainableoutput of basic needs, including cash. Main-taining soil ferti l i ty, preventing erosion,moderating microclimate, and other environ-ment-enhancing roles of the tree/shrub compo-nent apparently do help sustain production.

A growing body of information exists on thevarious agroforestry technologies, but this ismainly descriptive and qualitative. Most scien-

Ch. 10—Forestry Technologies to Support Tropical Agriculture . 227

tists’ interest has been in the tree/shrub com-ponent (e. g., potential tree species, their use,and management) because of the novelty ofusing trees and shrubs in agricultural andpastoral lands,

During the last 5 years, many agroforestryresearch projects have been initiated at univer-sity forestry departments and forestry researchinstitutes. These generally study the long-termeconomic and ecological productivity of vari-ous trees, planted at different spacings, andcombined with a food crop, which is often usedas a “test” crop to quantify the competitive orsoil-improving influences of the tree.

Only certain trees and crops prove to be com-patible, Rubber trees, for instance, produce somuch shade that underlying pasture often be-comes useless within 3 years. Oil palm soils areoften clayey and wet and animals tend to com-pact the soil and damage tree roots (17). Somecrops such as sorghum, millet, and pigeon peaare highly competitive with other plants and,thus, may not be suitable for intercropping.Other crops —maize, cotton, and dry rice—areless competitive and can be intercropped. Eachsystem has complex problems of intraspecificand interspecific competition. The aim of ex-perimental research is to optimize combina-tions of agriculture, pastoralism, and forestryover space and time.

Tropical research and development organiza-tions have become much more interested inmultipurpose trees. The legume family has at-tracted particular attention. In general, leg-umes, through their bacterial relationship, canimprove soil fertility and produce good-qualityfuelwood as well as leaves and pods withfodder and food value. Different legume spe-cies also are adapted to a wide range of ecolog-ical conditions. Many multipurpose species arefound in the legume genera Acacia and Pro-sopis. Several nonlegume multipurpose speciesare equally interesting because of their generalversatility, adaptability to less favorable sites,and yield of valuable products. An example isthe neem tree (Azadirachta indica) w h i c horiginated in the dry zones of Asia. It is an ex-cellent timber, fuelwood, and shade tree and

produces tannins, insecticidal chemicals, andfuel/lubricant oil (35).

The greatest potential for improving agrofor-estry systems lies in the practically unexploredfield of genetic improvement of multipurposetrees and shrubs (26). Selecting the species andvarieties that are best adapted to particular pur-poses and site conditions for which the agro-forestry systems are intended is the first step.Traditional agroforestry systems have beendoing this gradually for centuries, but now withmodern communications and techniques forreproducing, transporting, and testing varie-ties, it is possible to greatly accelerate theprocess.

Because the scientific attention to multipur-pose trees is so new, examples of the gains thatcan be achieved by this selection and matchingprocess are rare. The interest in single-purposeuse of trees is older, and gains with these il-lustrate the potential for multipurpose trees.For example, results from 32 sites in 18 coun-tries show that productivity gains of severalhundred percent could be achieved in eucalyp-tus trees simply by selecting the best-adaptedprovenances for prevailing conditions (31).

The second step, which can begin before thefirst is completed, is tree breeding—crossingplants to combine particular desired character-istics, such as fodder and fuel production quan-tity and quality, rooting characteristics, phenol-ogy favorable for interplanting with annualcrops, nitrogen-fixation, pest resistance,drought resistance, or the ability to withstandother stresses.

The potential for agroforestry systems im-provements to be adopted on a large scale byfarmers and pastoralists is difficult to assess.If the relevant land-use problems have beenidentified and an ecologically, economically,and socially well-adapted agroforestry solutionis demonstrated to be feasible, then agrofor-estry improvements may be adopted, However,finding locally acceptable solutions to prob-lems that are perceived by farmers is crucial.Sophisticated trials on the best spacing of treesover crops are, for example, not particularly


relevant if farmers are not interested in thatparticular tree species.

The constraints and problems encounteredin developing and disseminating agroforestrysystems are many. Millions of farmers andlandless people are spread over vast expansesof tropical lands. Rapid population growth, in-secure land tenure, erosion, droughts, floods,declining soil fertility, lack of infrastructure,political instability, illiteracy, and other devel-opment problems often characterize thosebroad regions where agroforestry approacheshave a potential role to play. Therefore, agro-forestry development cannot occur in isolationfrom general social and physical constraintson rural development.


Agroforestry techniques can be used toaddress particular land productivity problems.However, most information on the techniqueis qualitative and advocative. Present researchand field implementation efforts are more adhoc than systematic.

Critical analyses of agroforestry’s constraintsand opportunities must be made if it is to bene-fit from application of the scientific method.Systematic quantitative information can pro-vide a basis from which researchers can formu-late hypotheses and design efficient researchstrategies to develop new agroforestry systems,refine old ones, and adapt proven ones to otherareas. This is necessary to ensure that onlytechnologies with high probability of successare brought to large-scale field implementation.

The effort to organize and assess existing na-tional and international experience in tradi-tional agroforestry technologies and to iden-tify promising technologies for further develop-ment is under way at the International Coun-cil for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF). Tech-nologies that need refinement and farm valida-tion include alley cropping, improved fallows,live fences, contour hedges, mulch productionwith tree species, and fodder production. Somesuch programs already exist, but efforts shouldbe made to strengthen these (table 30).

Table 30.—Organizations That Work onAgroforestry Systems

1. International Council for Research in Agroforestry2. Centro Agronomical Tropical de Investigation y

Ensenanza (CATIE)3. International Tree Crop Institutes (U. K., U. S. A., and

Australia)4. Nitrogen-Fixing Tree Association5. National Academy of Sciences (fuelwood and legume

tree species)6. Commonwealth Forestry Institute (information,

research, and training)7. East-West Center (dissemination and exchange of

agroforestry information)8. United Nations University (workshops and research

programs at cooperating institutions)9. Some components of UN ESCO/MAB research

program10. Some developed country universities11. Some CGIAR institutions (e.g., IITA in Nigeria on alley

cropping and CIAT in Colombia on Leucaena andErytherina)

12. FAO’S Panel of Experts on Forest Gene Resources(data collection and assessment)

SOURCE: B. Lundgren, “The Use of Agroforestry to Improve the Productivity toConverted Tropical Land,” OTA commissioned paper, 1982,

Since agroforestry cuts across several disci-plines, it requires an integrated and multidis-ciplinary approach. Agronomists, foresters,ecologists, sociologists, anthropologists, andexperts in other related disciplines have ac-cumulated much data on various tropicalmixed-cropping systems. Such information canbecome the foundation for research programsto explore ways to integrate sustainable pro-duction of food, forage, and fiber needs on ap-propriate lands. However, too little communi-cation or coordination occur among these dis-ciplines to formulate a strategy for develop-ment of agroforestry technologies. This con-straint would be alleviated if interdisciplinaryteams were established to conduct research onintegrated land-use systems (26).

Agroforestry needs an institutional home toensure its implementation. It is considered asubdivision of forestry, but forestry institutionsdeal with forest land. They seldom address theproblems facing individual users of small andmedium size holdings of cultivated lands. For-estry institutions, in general, do not have therange of expertise needed to develop agrofor-estry’s full potential. The major potential foragroforestry lies in the integration of trees into

Ch. 10—Forestry Technologies to Support Tropical Agriculture “ 229

agricultural and pastoral lands. The develop-ment of these lands is the mandate of agricul-tural institutions, which are not explicitly man-dated to deal with agroforestry.

Rigid boundaries between disciplines affectfunding of agroforestry research, development,and implementation. Forestry and agricultureoften compete for both funds and land. In in-ternational agencies, agricultural divisions arebetter institutionalized, more prestigious, and,thus, better funded than forestry divisions. Theforestry funds that do exist usually are chan-neled to conventional forestry activities.

The ratios of international financial supportfor research in tropical agriculture, forestry,and agroforestry, respectively, are about200:1O:I (26), This may underestimate the rela-tive magnitude of agricultural research sup-port. Although the importance of research isclearly recognized in agriculture, the attitudeof development assistance donors toward re-search in forestry is cool. Thus, as long as agro-forestry funding is channeled through forestrydepartments, little hope exists that sufficientresearch funds will be available. A thoroughrethinking and revision of the appropriate in-stitutional home for agroforestry is needed.

The large-scale promotion of agroforestrywould require incentives to encourage farmersto adopt practices that involve initial risks anddelayed returns. Integrating trees into agricul-tural or pastoral systems is unlikely to succeedwhere short-term, insecure leases for use ofland are prevalent, where trees automatically

become the property of the government, orwhere nonrestricted communal grazing or treecutting rights exist. Neither are farmers likelyto achieve large-scale cash crop production ofwood (i.e., fuelwood, poles, pulpwood, etc.]where prices are set so low that growing treesis not profitable.

To alleviate these constraints, tropical gov-ernments will need to identify and remove con-straints in land tenure and provide incentivesand extension services. Incentives may take theform of credits and loans that reduce initialcapital outlay and minimize risk of failure. Ex-tension services can facilitate supply of mater-ials, train farmers, and make followup visitsto monitor progress of agroforestry develop-ment. Unfortunately, forestry and agroforestryextension efforts often suffer from: 1) lack ofstaff with adequate training, 2) lack of networksof on-farm demonstration plots, 3) inconsistentefforts, 4) difficulty obtaining good seeds ofmultipurpose tree species for mass distributionto farmers, and 5) lack of infrastructure.

As institutional interest and support for agro-forestry increase, it is necessary to take stepsto ensure that the enthusiasm does not lead todisappointment and a sharp reduction of sup-port. Development assistance agencies andresearch institutions have not begun, collec-tively or individually, to formulate a strategyto assure that the necessary and sufficient stepsare taken to develop the potential of agrofor-estry,

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Background

In an undisturbed watershed, the dispositionof rain and snow melt is determined by a com-plex interaction of terrain, soil, climate, geol-ogy, and vegetation. Unfortunately, somecommon land uses seriously disturb thevregetative cover so that both the amount ofwater that upper catchments can hold tempor-arilv during prolonged or heavy rains and the

proportion of rain that percolates into the soilare seriously reduced. This results in muchgreater variations in the seasonal river flows,greater sediment loads during peak flows, andoften a greater proportion of the total rainfallrunning off before it can be used by trees orcrops (fig. 28),

For example, denudation of water catchmentareas in the Indus River svstem has led to

230 . Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources— .

Figure 28.-Effects of Poor Watershed Management

1.

Overgrazing, deforestation, misplaced cultivation, or carelessly bulit roads In

floods far higher in the last 25 years than dur-ing the previous 60 years and has increased ser-ious silting in the reservoirs and canals ofPakistan’s irrigation system (32). In recentyears in India, the cost of repairing flood dam-age below the Himalayan catchments has been,

on average, US $250 million a year, in addi-tion to losses of production and livelihood suf-fered by millions (39).

Technologies can probably be developed andimplemented to help reduce these economicand human costs. The solution to these prob-lems of land misuse depends foremost on de-veloping improved methods of land use that areboth more profitable to local communities andalso give appreciably better control of the waterflow. Soil conservation structures (e.g., terrac-ing), revegetation, and appropriate farming sys-tems are technically adequate to contain thecurrent land degradation trend, but many ofthese techniques are too expensive for thefarmers living in the upland areas.

Watershed Management

Description

Watershed management is concerned withcontrolling water flow above and below theEarth’s surface from the upper to lower regionsof drainage basins. Management of the upperwatersheds aims to maintain or to improve thetiming, quantity, and quality of water that isused in more intensively developed lowlands.

The natural vegetation on tropical mountainslopes that receive high rainfall is closedcanopy evergreen forests, sometimes inter-rupted by shallow-soiled grass or swamp areas.Evergreen forests provide temporary storagefor heavy rainfall, thus delaying water’s move-ment into streams and reducing peak stormflow. The temporary storage occurs partly onthe wetted canopy, partly in the deep forestground-litter, and partly in the topsoil madeporous by vegetation and soil fauna. Some wa-ter drains through these porous surface layersto streams. Some water infiltrates to rechargeground water and thus maintain dry-seasonspring flows. Some water is evaporated fromthe wet canopy and some is transpired backinto the atmosphere through the foliage.

Watershed management includes soil conser-vation, road planning, contour cultivation,grassed waterways, cutoff drains, grass plant-ing on steep banks, and other techniques to

Ch. 10—Forestry Technologies to Support Tropical Agriculture ● 231

control water’s impact. Soil stability, agricul-tural productivity, and the quality of water sup-plied to the lower reaches of the watershed canthus be maintained. Watershed managementis an economic necessity where there is invest-ment downstream in reservoirs for hydropow-er and irrigation or densely settled areas inzones of flood hazard.

General Technical Principles

The choice of technologies for watershedmanagement and rehabilitation varies with top-ography, accessibility, and population densi-ty. One of the best ways to protect downstreampopulations from excessive siltation and flood-ing is to maintain forests on all slopes steeperthan 100 percent grade (45 O). Where steepslopes have been cleared, they should be closedto livestock, protected from fire, and then sta-bilized by planting trees for fuel and fodder,In some cases, simple protection will sufficeto permit natural regrowth. For slopes between100 percent and 20 percent, land should notbe cultivated except where the soil is stable anddeep. Here, cultivation can be done safely only

where level or preferably backsloping terracesare maintained. For slopes less than a 20 per-cent grade, a variety of agricultural technol-ogies for minimizing soil loss can be used(fig. 29),

In sparsely populated watersheds, wherethere are few or no people living in the upperregions of river basins, tropical watershedmanagement is a matter of maintaining or re-storing the vegetative cover that controls waterflows. If forests are intact and populations arelow, intensive management is not necessary,The best and least expensive method of pro-tecting these forests is to designate them parksor protected areas. However, effective parkmanagement can be difficult to obtain. Itshould be based on a comprehensive plan thattakes into account the previous, current, andfuture resource needs of people who livearound and below the protected forest.

The greatest watershed problems in the Trop-ics, however, are not in the upper sparsely pop-ulated reaches of river basins. They are in pop-ulated watersheds, where the upper regions

Figure 29.—Siopes and Appropriate Conservation Measures

Stone-walledlevel benchterrace “

●

.●

narrow-basedterraces orhillsideditches

SOURCE: H. C. Pereira, “Soil and Water Management Technologies for Tropical Forests,” OTA commissioned paper, 1982,


are farmed and grazed, and where mainte-nance of natural closed forest cannot beaccomplished without displacing substantialnumbers of people.

In some cases watershed management tech-nologies can be used without displacing peo-ple from upland areas. For example, where for-ests cover steep escarpments below settle-ments, runoff from the upper slopes can over-load the forest soils and cause large-scale land-slips, especially on geological dip-slopes (fig,30). Such landslips are common in Nepal, partsof Zaire, and in other places where sedimen-tary rock formations are tilted. It maybe possi-ble to stabilize these areas through reforesta-tion and cutoff drains, which intercept andconvey runoff to stable drainage lines and,thus, protect the soils from saturation. Thesedrains need to be protected as well, possiblywith tree cover.

The most critical need for watershed man-agement occurs in the forests immediatelyabove the limits of cultivation (32). Often, these

Figure 30.-Cut”Off Drain to Protect Steep ForestedScarps From Landslip Hazard

Cut-off drain

SOURCE: H C. Pereira, “Soil and Water Management Technologies for TropicalForests, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1982.

are under great pressure from populationgrowth. Such forest areas are usually too steep,shallow-soiled, and rock-encumbered for con-tinuous cropping. Yet, agricultural communi-ties have in many countries established tradi-tional rights for grazing or for collection of fueland fodder from these lands. Massive overgraz-ing inflicts most damage, often preventing theemergence of any effective ground cover.These activities promote erosion, which con-sequently forms major gulleys (29). Some areasare so steep and unstable that the only optionis to prohibit all active use. In moist forestareas, if soil nutrients have not been eroded orleached away, the ability of the land to recu-perate can be high. However, sustainable alter-natives must be found for the displaced peo-ple, or they will, sooner or later, begin to over-use the slopes again.

Tropical forests on land with easy access andgentle topography are likely to be cleared foragriculture or other land uses. When such areasare logged and cleared, soil and water manage-ment problems do occur. Governments shouldrestrict the use of more damaging heavy equip-ment to well prepared roadways. Cable ways,winching, and use of lighter logging and landpreparation machinery, though likely to bemore costly, can be less damaging to the soil.Operational trials with equipment designed toreduce soil damage should be conducted to testand demonstrate its utility (32).

Specific Technologies

The primary technologies available to dealwith watershed problems are those associatedwith alteration of the surface geometry, reveg-etation, and improved farming.

Soil Conservation STRUCTURES

A common method to reduce soil erosionfrom hills in the humid tropics is to change theslope steepness and length. For example, asteep slope can be changed to many continuousflat strips running along the contour across ahillside (terraces), or a long slope can bechanged to a series of shorter slopes by using

Ch. 10—Forestry Technologies to Support Tropical Agriculture Ž 233

discontinuous types of structure. The objectiveof both measures is to divert runoff along thecontour toward protected drainage channelsor waterways at a velocity that reduces erosion,

These and other technologies not only havephysical requirements but financial, labor, andland-use rights requirements. The cost of vari-ous conservation structures per unit area de-pends on slope, soil, type of terraces, width ofbench, presence of rocks or tree stumps, andthe tools needed to build them, Since the struc-tures can be expensive, a cost-sharing or sub-sidy scheme may need to be introduced by thegovernment. Farmers often are reluctant to in-vest the time and effort to build such structuresbecause of insecure land tenure. Further, laboroften is not available,

Few critical, full-scale studies of terracinghave been reported from the Tropics. Many

small runoff plot measurements are made, butthese do not reproduce the conditions of culti-vation by oxen or tractor that determine in-filtration, runoff, and erosion on a practicalscale.

REVEGETATION

Steep mountain areas that have been clearedshould be reforested to protect water and soilresources. If the objective is to stabilize soil andstreamflow, the least expensive method is toprotect the area from grazing livestock and fireso it can regenerate naturally. In some caseswhere erosion has been severe, natural regen-eration needs to be augmented by seeding withgrasses, legumes, and shrubs. More expensivereforestation investments are appropriatewhere the objectives include production offuel, fodder, and timber of desirable species;where grasses and shrubs will not provide

Terracing

Terraces not only control erosion but also can be used to facilitate irrigation and drainage,as well as cultivation. Reversed-slope benches, continuous or discontinuous, differ in width to suitdifferent crops and slopes. Benches improve drainage by concentrating runoff at the outside ofthe bench and then drain it along a controlled lateral gradient to a protected waterway. They aresuited to annual, semipermanent, and mixed crops and can be applied on slopes up to 300. Varia-tions of conservation structures include (fig. 31):

● Bench terraces: a series of level strips running across the slope supported by steep risers.These can be used on slopes up to 25° and are mainly used for upland crops.

• Hillside ditches: a discontinuous type of narrow, reverse-slope bench built across the hillslope in order to break long slopes into many shorter ones. The width of the cultivable stripsbetween two ditches is determined by the slope of the land. They are inexpensive, flexible,and can be built over a period of years. This treatment can be applied to slopes up to 250.

● Individual basins: small, round benches for planting individual plants. They are particular-ly useful for establishing semipermanent or permanent tree plots to control erosion. Theyshould normally be supplemented by hillside ditching, orchard terracing, and crop covering.

● Orchard terraces: a discontinuous type of narrow terrace applicable on steep slopes up to300. Spacing is determined by distance between trees. Spaces between terraces should bekept under permanent grass or legume cover.

● Intermittent terraces: bench terraces built over a period of several years.● Convertible terraces: bench terraces with the spaces between terraces planted with tree crops.● Natural terraces: constructed initially with contour embankments (bunds) 50 cm high on

slopes not over 70 and on soils having high infiltration rates.Ž Hexagons: special arrangement of a farm road that surrounds or envelops a piece of sloping

land treated with discontinuous terraces which are accessible to four-wheeled tractors. Thistreatment is primarily for mechanization of orchards on larger blocks of land and on slopesof up to 20°.


Figure 31 .-Cross-Sectional View of Eight Types of Conservation Structures

(All reverse-sloped benches)

l -bench ter races6-conver t ib le ter races

I 5- in termi t ten t te r races

7-natural terraces

8-hexagonS

Unit hexagon

SOURCE: T c, Sheng, “The Need for soil Conservation Structures for Steep Cultivated Slopes in the Humid Tropices, ”E. W. Russell (eds.) (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981), pp. 357-372.

Tropical Agricultural Hydrology, R. Lai and

Ch. 10—Forestry Technologies to Support Tropical Agriculture • 235

enough runoff control; or where protectionfrom fires cannot be sustained indefinitely.

Efforts to establish tree cover on long steepslopes must overcome the erosion and land-sliding that may be common to those sites. Forinstance, primitive dams made of rock, soil,and, if available, tree stems and branches canbe built in gullies to slow water and trap soiluntil trees can be established. Channels andwalls can be built to divert water flow fromvulnerable areas. Water-spreading techniquescan be used to distribute runoff water overrelatively flat areas, reducing its erosive poten-tial, Terracing, contour hedges and furrows,and low retaining walls can control sheet ero-sion. To establish trees it may be necessary touse contour planting, with graded hillsidebunds or narrow-based terraces at suitable in-tervals to lead runoff into prepared drainagelines.

Perennial tree crops such as tea, oil palm,rubber, or coconut can be almost as effectiveas natural forest to regulate water flow, pro-vided that soil conservation measures such asterraces and sound engineering of roads areincluded. Stormflow control, however, may notbe fully restored, In Kericho, Kenya, wheremeasurements of runoff from a tea plantationwere taken, stormflow peak, although small,remained twice that from a comparable undis-turbed forest. Thus, if large areas of forest areto be converted to tea or other estate crops, ad-ditional reservoir storage will be needed tomodulate peak flows (32),

The same is true for fast growing forest plan-tations with short harvesting schedules. Careis needed during harvesting to minimize neg-ative impacts. Selection of tree species also isimportant. Eucalyptus, for instance, plantedclose together will eliminate all vegetativeground cover and this can accelerate soil ero-sion (40). Pure stands of trees that may havetheir leaves closed during rainstorms, such asLeucaena, provide only partial soil protection(5), Therefore, it maybe necessary to includea second story of shrubs to minimize the im-pact of rain drops falling through or from thecanopy.

In areas with a dry or seasonally dry climate,flood control and ground water recharge maynot be considered so important as maximizingthe amount of water delivered to reservoirs orto farms and cities in the lower regions of thewatershed. In this case, watershed managersmay decide that the closed forest consumes toomuch water and may prefer to maintain a grasscover, since evapotranspiration loss is greaterfrom tall trees than from low shrubs or grass.On the other hand, in some dry, mountainousareas, trees that collect moisture on their leavesfrom wet air are the best mechanism to re-charge ground water (9). Overall, the negativeand positive impacts of grass and tree coverunder tropical conditions are poorly known.Grass cover may increase the amount of runoffand flow rates may not be modulated, thusmaking dams necessary. Improvements in thescience of hydrology are needed to provide bet-ter data to calculate the tradeoffs of manage-ment options,

Complete grass cover is an acceptable vegeta-tion for tropical watersheds only where dryseason grazing and burning can be rigorouslycontrolled. Thus, watershed management be-comes livestock and fire management as well.A strategy to reduce livestock damage in water-sheds should include improving draft powerand milk production per head so as to encour-age farmers to keep fewer and better qualityanimals. This can be accomplished by intro-ducing superior animals, by providing effec-tive marketing systems, and by establishinglivestock exchange programs. The danger ex-ists that farmers will be encouraged to keepmore livestock in addition to or in place offarming.

Fire is used to eliminate old grass growth andimprove the quality of grasses for grazing.However, repeated burnings can damage soilby destroying soil organic matter and conse-quently reducing soil microbiological popula-tions. Human-induced fire is common in grass-lands and is difficult to control. If grass is go-ing to be the primary vegetative cover or eventhe cover while trees are small, methods mustbe devised to control fire as well as regulateits use.


Encouraging stall or pen feeding also reduceslivestock damage. On steep slopes in Pakistan,farmers participating in a reforestation pro-gram cut naturally regenerated grass underyoung trees and carry it to their stall-fedlivestock. More fodder is produced this waythan when the animals graze the hillsides.Another way to encourage stall-feeding is toprovide incentives—e.g., employment of resi-dents to plant fuel and fodder trees and tall fod-der grasses on denuded common land and ineroding gullies. Stall feeding also facilitates thecollection of manure for use as fertilizer.

However, stall feeding can be difficult to im-plement. Local constraints can develop suchas increased need for labor to carry water, toharvest and transport fodder, and to clean upand spread fertilizer. Therefore, informationon who does these jobs (often women) andwhether they have time to take on these newtasks should be gathered before implementingsuch a program.

Fodder supplies can be increased by plantingfodder trees or by introducing annual fodderspecies as a second rotation crop in permanentcropping areas. Fodder trees, pasture grasses,and legumes can be planted on embankmentsof terraces, on risers of terraced farmlands,near houses, and on other marginal land spots.Once vegetation is reestablished on the de-nuded site, controlled grazing may be allowa-ble. However, soil compaction by livestocksometimes inhibits later natural regenerationand increases surface runoff, thus causing ero-sion again.

Livestock management problems in water-sheds become more difficult in drier climates.Semiarid lands present the most urgent chal-lenge. They characteristically have higher rain-fall variability and greater stresses from tem-perature and dessication, so the land and veg-etation are more prone to rapid deteriorationunder misuse. Creative measures must be for-mulated to make it profitable for livestockraisers to limit the number of livestock and tocontrol the timing of grazing.

FARMING SYSTEMS

Damage to watersheds is most ecologicallyand economically significant where subsis-tence farmers and their livestock move ontosteep uplands because they lack other alter-natives. Mechanical structures and replantingprograms will not be implemented adequate-ly unless farmers and herders have incentivesto invest their labor in conservation practices.

Where much of the population in a catch-ment area is dependent on agriculture, themost effective component of a watershed man-agement strategy may be to increase produc-tion per unit area of land on the best sites.Other components include: agroforestry andother cropping systems that eliminate tillageor reduce it, contour plowing, timely sowingof seeds on contours, increasing crop plantdensity, and using improved seeds, fertilizers,and pesticides (48). On steep slopes farmers canbe encouraged to plant hedges of nitrogen fix-ing trees or bushes on the contour, adoptmulching techniques, and interplant with leg-umes and pulses to reduce sheet erosion. Insome places, fodder tree farming or bambooplantations may be appropriate (39).

Some constraints to adoption of these prac-tices are the farmers’ skepticism toward newtechnologies, lack of capital, lack of infrastruc-ture for effective input distribution, and lackof agricultural and forestry extension servicesto accelerate the diffusion of new technologies.Before new technologies are introduced, an-thropological studies are needed to define thecurrent practices, including what rewards peo-ple are getting, what shortfalls they are ex-periencing, and what benefits they expect fromtechnology improvements. Both technicalagents and local residents need to understandthe incentives for change. Residents must beconvinced that the benefits will be what theywant if their cooperation is to be gained.

Inducements that can improve the quality oflife for farmers living in upland watershedareas and encourage shifting cultivators toadopt more stable agriculture practices in-

Ch. 10—Forestry Technologies to Support Tropical Agriculture Ž 237

elude: compensatory payments to farmers ex-cluded from upland grazing areas; timely pro-vision of inputs such as improved seeds, fer-tilizer, and credit; construction of improved ac-cess roads and feeder tracks; and the provisionof social services, such as improved water sup-plies, schools, and health clinics. Such socialmeasures, on the other hand, can have adverseeffects unless combined with rigorous exclu-sion of people and livestock from the steepestslopes. Improved amenities may attract largerpopulations into areas of critical hydrologicalsensitivity.


Upper watersheds tend to be misused be-cause destructive land-use systems usualIy givethe greatest profit in the short term to the localpopulation. The solution to this problem neces-sitates: 1) developing methods of land use thatare more profitable to the local community andat the same time give appreciably better con-trol of water flows, and 2) testing the new tech-nologies and getting them adopted by the localcommunity. New systems that minimize eco-logical damage will be accepted willingly only


if people can see that it will maintain or in-crease their standard of living without an in-crease in the risk of crop failure.

The key issue in watershed management isnot the construction of physical structures butthe need to provide people with improved land-use alternatives. Therefore, a high proportionof total watershed project investment shouldbe devoted to farming systems and institutionalcomponents rather than to soil conservationstructures or infrastructure.

The additional labor and capital costs oftenincurred by new resource conserving systemsare a major constraint to watershed manage-ment. Furthermore, farmers in the upperreaches of river systems generally do notaccept responsibility for damages their landuse may cause to farmers in the lower reaches.Conversely, lowland farmers rarely considerthat they have a duty to help finance uplandfarmers to adopt better systems of land use.Watershed management projects usually havebeen designed to benefit people in the more fer-tile lowlands and have neglected those in theuplands whose lives are being affected moredirectly. This implies that some of the benefitsgained downstream should be transferred up-stream through taxes or perhaps user fees onirrigation water or hydropower.

Finally, there are several important un-knowns regarding the hydrology of tropicalwatersheds. There is a dearth of first-handresearch evidence in the Tropics documentingthe quantitative relationships between variousland uses and their effects on watershedhydrology (20).

The techniques for measuring and predict-ing tradeoffs of different management ac-tions—e.g., grass cover versus tree cover—arenot well developed. For moist climates, treesmay be the best cover; for dry climates, grassesmay be the best cover if fire and grazing con-trol are practical. But for much of the Tropics,the choice is not clear. If more water rushesoff grass-covered surfaces, less will be absorbedinto the ground. Therefore, improved fieldmethods for diagnosis and interpretation ofwatershed hydrology problems are needed toimprove management decisions. The interac-tions of the many variables are too complex toexpect neatly classified prescriptions for water-shed management. Some basic measurementcould be included in all major projects that leadto changes in land use in order to build a moreadequate data base for predicting outcomes.

1. Ahmad, A., “The Current and Potential Usesof Legumes in Various Agroforestry Systems inMalaysia,” paper presented to Regional Work-ing Party Meeting on Agroforestry Researchand DeveZopnent, SEARCA, Los Anos, May 24-25, 1982, In: Lundgren, 1982.

2. Ampuero, E. P., “Ecological Aspects of Agro-forestry in Mountain Zones: The Andean Re-gion. ” In: Chandler and Spurgeon, 1979.

3. Anonymous, “A Global Inventory of Agrofor-estry Systems, ” Biomass: 241-245, 1983.

4. Atmosoedaryo, S., and Wijayakusumah, K.,“Ecological Aspects of Agroforestry in the Low-land Humid Tropics: Southeast Asia,” 1979. In:Chandler and Spurgeon, 1979.

5. Benge, M., Agroforester for Agency for Inter-

national Development, Washington, D. C., per-sonal communication, 1983.

6. ben Salem, B., and van Nao, Tran, “FuelwoodProduction in Traditional Farming Systems,”Unasy~va 33(131):13-18, 1981,

7. Budowski, G., “National, Bilateral, and Multi-lateral Agroforestry Projects in Central andSouth America,” 1979. In: Chandler and Spur-geon, 1979.

8. Budowski, G,, “Quantification of Current Agro-forestry Practices and Controlled Reseach Plotsin Costa Rica, ” paper presented to ConsultativeMeeting on Plant Research and Agroforestry,April 1981, ICRAF, Nairobi. In: Lundgren,1982.

9. Castano-Yepes, Eugenio, “A Systems Design

Ch. 10—Forestry Technologies to Suppot Tropical Agriculture ● 239

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22

Methodology for Natural Resources Planningin the Peruvian Lomas, ” Ph. D. dissertation,University of Arizona, 1979,Chandler, T,, and Spurgeon, D. (eds.), Interna-tional Cooperation in Agroforestry, Proceed-ings of DSE/ICRAF Conference, July 16-21,1979 (Nairobi: ICRAF).Combe, J., and Budowski, G., “Classification ofAgroforestry Techniques,” 1979. In: de lasSalas, 1978, as cited in Lundgren, 1982,de las Salas, G., La Systerna ForestaZ Carava-Upon, CONIF, Ser. Tee, 8 (Bogota, Columbia:CONIF, 1978).Enabor, E., Okojie, J., and Verinumbe, I., “Ta-ungya Systems: Socio-Economic Prospects andLimitations, ” Proceedings of a Workshop onAgroforestry in African Humid Tropics, Iba-dan, Nigeria: United Nations University, April-May, 1981, In: Shaikh, et al., 1983.Food and Agriculture Organization, Agrofor-esterie Africaine (Rome: FAO, 1981). In: Lund-gren, 1982.Food and Agriculture Organization, India andSri Lanka: Agroforestry, Forestry for LocalCommunity Development Programme, GCP/INT/347/SWE (Rome: FAO, 1981).Furtado, J. (cd.), “Tropical Ecology and Devel-opment,” Proceedings of the Fifth InternationalSymposium of Tropical Ecology, Apr. 16-21(Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: The International So-ciety of Tropical Ecology, 1980].Gallegos, C., Davey, C., Kellison, R., Sanchez,P., and Zobel, B., “Technologies for Reforesta-tion of Degraded Lands in the Tropics, ” OTAcommissioned paper, 1982.Generalao, M., “Agroforestry Research and De-velopment in the Philippines, ” paper presentedto RegionaJ Working Party Meeting on Agrofor-estry Research and Development, SEARCA, LosBanes, May 24-25, 1982. In: Lundgren, 1982.Grainger, A., “The Development of Tree Cropsand Agroforestry Systems, ” The InternationalTree Crops Journal 1(1):3-14, 1980.Hamilton, L., and King, P., Tropical ForestedWatersheds: Hydrologic and Soil Response toMajor Uses or Conversions (Boulder, Colo,:YVestview Press, 1983).Hecht, S., “Agroforestry in the Amazon Basin,”1981, to be published in Amazonia: AgriculturalLand Use Research, Hecht and Nores (eds.)(Cali, Colombia: CIAT, in press).International Institute for Tropical Agriculture,Annual Report 1980 of IITA/IDRC AgroforestryProject (Ibadan, Nigeria, IITA, 1980). In: Lund-gren, 1982.

23,

24,

25,

26,

27,

28.

29,

30,

31.

32.

33,

34.

35.

36.

37.

Iyamabo, D., “Ecological Aspects of Agrofor-estry in the Lowland Humid Tropics: West Af-rica,” 1979. In: Chandler and Spurgeon, 1979.King, F., “Agroforestry and the Utilization ofFragile Ecosystems,” Forest Ecology Manage-ment 2:161-168, 1979.King, F., Agrisilviculture—the Taungya System,Bulletin No. 1, Department of Forestry, Univer-sity of Ibadan, 1968. In: Lundgren, 1982.Lundgren, B., “The Use of Agroforestry to Im-prove the Productivity to Converted TropicalLand, ” OTA commissioned paper, 1982.Nair, P., “Plant Associations and AgroforestryLand Use Practices with Coconuts and OtherTropical Plantation Crops,” paper presented toConsultative Meeting on Plant Research andAgroforestry, April 1981 (Nairobi: ICRAF, inpreparation). In: Lundgren, 1982.Nair, P,, and Varghese, P., “Recent Advancesin the Management of Coconut-Based Ecosys-tems in India, ” 1980. In: Furtado, 1980.Nelson, D. O., Laban, P,, Shrestha, B. D., andKandel, G. P., “A Reconnaissance Survey of Ma-jor Ecological Land Units in Nepal and TheirWatershed Condition,” Technical Report: Inte-grated Watershed Management Project, UNDP/FAO (NEP/74/020) (Rome: FAO, 1980). In:Pereira, 1982,Okigo, B., “Plants and Agroforestry in Land UseSystems of West Africa—A Conceptual Frame-work for Planning and Establishment of Re-search Priorities, ” paper presented to Work-shop on Agroforestry in the Humid Tropics,April 27-May 1, 1981, Ibadan, Nigeria (in prep-aration). In: Lundgren, 1982.Palmberg, C., “A Vital Fuelwood Gene Pool isin Danger,” Unasy]va 33(133):22-30, 1981.Pereira, H. C., “Soil and Water ManagementTechnologies for Tropical Forests,” OTA com-missioned paper, 1982.Poulsen, G., “Agroforestry Practice in TropicalAfrica,” 1979. In: Chandler and Spurgeon,1979.Poulsen, G,, MaZawi: The Function of Trees inSmall Farmer Production Systems (Rome: FAO,1981). In: Lundgren, 1982,Radwanski, S., “Neem Tree,” WorZd Crops andLivestock 29:62-66, 111-113, 167-168, 222-224,1977. In: Lundgren, 1982.Seif el Din, A. G., “Agroforestry Practices in theDry Regions,” Buck (cd,), Proceedings of TheKenya National Seminar on Agroforestry, Nai-robi, Nov. 12-22, 1980, ICRAF/University ofNairobi, 1981. In: Lundgren, 1982.Shaikh, A., Qadri, T., and Hale, S., “Fuelwood


38,

394

40,

41.

42.

Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Re-sources,” OTA commissioned paper, 1983.Spears, J., “Can the Wet Tropical Forest Sur-vive?” Commonwealth Forestry Review 58(3):165-180, 1979.Spears, J., “Preserving Watershed Environ-ments,” Unasy]va 34(137):10-14, 1982.Spears, J., and Rowe, D., “Preliminary Guide-lines for Designing Watershed RehabilitationProjects for Bank Financing,” Proceedings of2dAnnual Agricultural Sector Symposia, WorldBank, 1981, pp. 408-427.Torres, F., “Research Objectives in Agrofores-try: A Conceptual Approach,” 1979. In: Chand-ler and Spurgeon, 1979 as cited in Lundgren,1982.Vergara, N. T., IntegraZ Agroforestry: A Poten-tial Strategy for Stabilizing Shifting Cultivationand Sustaining Productivity of the Natural En-vironment, Environment and Policy Institute,East-West Center, Honolulu, working paper,

43.

44.

45.

46,

47.

48.

von Maydell, H., “The Development of Agro-forestry in the Sahelian Zone of Africa,” 1979.In: Chandler and Spurgeon, 1979.von Maydell, H., “Agroforestry in the Sahel–A Contribution to Solving Problems of RuralDevelopment in Semi-Arid Regions,” 1983.Wadsworth, F., “Secondary Forest Manage-ment and Plantation Forestry Technologies toImprove the Use of Converted Tropical Lands,”OTA commissioned paper, 1982.Weaver, P., “Agri-silviculture in Tropical Am-erica,” Unasylva 31(126):2-12, 1979.Wilken, G. C., “Integrating Forest and Small-Scale Farm Systems in Middle America,” Agro-ecosystems 3:291-302, 1977.Wood, P. J,, Burley, J., and Grainger, A., “Tech-nologies and Technology Systems for Reforesta-tion of Degraded Tropical Lands,” OTA com-missioned paper, 1982.

1981.

Chapter 11

Resource Development Planning

PageHighlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Resource Development Planning Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243Biophysical Assessment .. .. .. .. ... .. ........ .. ... .. ..... . . . . . . . . . . . 243

Land Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244Applications of Land Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Financial and Economic Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246Social Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...”...””” 247Monitoring and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248Multiobjective Planning Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Constraints and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

Chapter 11 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....0... . ........””””.. 252

Table

Table No. Page31. Common Land Classification Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Chapter 11

Resource Development PIanning

● Greater use of resource development plan- ●

ning could help sustain tropical forest re-sources. The potential application is good intropical countries where large tracts of forestland are under the custody of the govern-ment.

RESOURCE

The usefulness of planning techniques can beimproved by: 1) increasing the timeliness andfocus of analysis, 2) improving the data base,3) encouraging public participation, 4) adopt-ing a more interdisciplinary approach, and 5)improving communication of findings.

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING TECHNOLOGIES

Most conversion of forest land to other usesoccurs without adequate consideration ofwhether the natural and human resourcesavailable will sustain the new land use (20). Thesuccess of resource development projects is im-peded by unforeseen (but foreseeable) naturalresource and socioeconomic constraints. Theproblem is to match land development activi-ties to the specific capabilities of the site.

Where intensive land uses are compatiblewith natural and human resources at a site,conversion to those uses may be sustainableand result in greater long-term benefits thankeeping the land in natural forest cover. Sitesthat cannot sustain intensive development canbe identified for reforestation or for protectionof natural forest cover. These sites can be man-aged for watershed maintenance, nonwoodproducts, preservation of biological diversity,outdoor recreation, or closely regulated timberharvest.

Some tropical countries have begun to useresource development planning techniques tohelp match land capability with land use. Re-source development planning has four compo-nents: 1) biophysical assessment, 2) financialand economic analyses, 3) social assessment,and 4) monitoring and evaluation, Develop-ment planning is best viewed as a continuous,

iterative process that produces information asneeded rather than as a one-time, preprojectactivity resulting in a blueprint for develop-ment. Having a flexible project design is espec-ially important in development projects wherethe risks are large and the approaches may beinnovative or experimental.

Biophysical Assessment

A biophysical assessment provides one di-mension of information for effective land-usemanagement. The techniques are straightfor-ward and relatively efficient. They can be car-ried out at different levels of detail with vary-ing requirements for monetary resources, staffexpertise, and available data.

Many factors affect the biophysical suitabili-ty of a site, including:

●

●

●

●

climate—precipitation, temperature, wind,droughts, floods, storms, fire potential, andair pollution potential;geomorphology and geology—slopes, loca-tion and uses of surface water and aqui-fers, mass movements of earth, depth tobedrock, unique features;soils—nutrients, structure, depth, erodabil-ity; andflora and fauna—biological diversity, val-

243


uable species, ecosystem fragility, andpests and diseases.

Resource development planning techniquesare most often used to select a site for a par-ticular land use. After identification of thedesired land development, the planner identi-fies constraints that could inhibit that land useand looks for sites where the constraints do notexist or are manageable. The other, less oftenapplied, use of planning techniques is “landclassification’‘—identifying the most appropri-ate types of development for all sites within ageographic area. Planning techniques are sel-dom used fully in tropical nations for either siteselection or land classification (42). The latterapproach has special potential as a technologyto help sustain the long-term productivity offorest resources.

Land Classification

Land classification categorizes land in termsof its suitability for various uses (table 31). Theobjectives of land classification are to identifythe resources of a given area, determine appro-priate management practices for existing landuses, and predict the consequences of proposedchanges in land use and policies (36).

Classifications may be at the microlevel formanaging local parcels or at the macrolevel forestablishing national or regional priorities. Themost immediate need in developing countriesis for macrolevel land classification (9,19). Mi-crolevel analyses subsequently will be neces-sary (32).

In macrolevel land classification, overlaymapping techniques are often used to select

Table 31.—Common Land Classification Methods

1. Australian Land System. –The Australian Land System (10)

2.

3.

4.

uses aerial photos to survey large areas for agricultural,forestry, and recreational potential. A “site” is defined asa uniform land form with common soil types and vegeta-tion. A “land unit” is a collection of related sites with aparticular land form. A “land system” is a group ofgeomorphologically and geographically associated landunits, usually bounded by a geological or geomorpho-genetic feature or process.

Ecological Series Classification.—The Ecological SeriesClassification (37) describes forest habitat types in biocli-matic terms: a plant community’s soil, water, and nutrientregimes; soil surface characteristics; and undergrowthplant distribution. The technique produces site indices foreach habitat type that vary with the productive capacityof the trees, natural regeneration capability, the appropriatespecies for tree-planting, fertility requirements, and engi-neering properties.

Holdridge Life Zones System.—Holdridge Life Zones (24)are broad bioclimatic units defined by mean annual precipi-tation, mean annual biotemperature (air temperaturesadjusted to eliminate negative values), and potentialevapotranspiration. These broad units can be subclassifiedby soil, seasonal rainfall distribution, drainage, and maturevegetation associations.

Canadian Biophysical System.-The Canadian BiophysicalSystem (30) is a-hierarchical classification. The basic unitused is “land type, ” characterized by a homogeneous soilseries and sequence of vegetation. Land types aresubdivided into “land phases” according to their stage ofvegetative succession. “Land systems” are groups of landtypes with a recurring pattern of land forms, soils, and asequence of vegetation. The next broader unit, the “land

district,” has a distinct pattern of relief, geology, geomor-phology, and a sequence of vegetation. Finally, there are“land regions,” distinct climatic zones associated with aparticular climax vegetation.

5. Webb% Structural Classification of Humid Forests.—Thisis a classification system for humid forests based onvegetation structure and physiognomy including such fac-tors as forest structure, composition, canopy closure, typeof emergents, species growth forms, and leaf size (54). Thesystem correlates vegetation, structure, and physiognomywith rain, altitude, cloudiness, temperatures, soils,drainage, and wildlife habitat.

6. Krajlna’s Biogeoclimatic Zonation System.—Krajina’s Bio-

7.

8.

geoclimatic Zonation System (29) is based on forest habitattypes, Each zone is characterized by a climatic climaxvegetation, climate, and soil type. However, “climaticclimax” might be deflected into an “edaphic climax” dueto poorly or excessively drained soils or a “topographicclimax” on steep slopes or alluvial flats.

USDA Soil Conservation Land Capability System.—TheUSDA Soil Conservation Land Capability System (28) usessoil survey mapping units grouped into eight classesaccording to the capability to sustain cultivation, grazing,forestry, wildlife, and recreation without erosion. Theclassification system indicates the degree of limitation tointensive uses.

California Soil Vegetation Survey.—The California Forestand Range Experiment Station (5) developed a classifica-t ion system predicated on the assumption that soil typesare correlated with differences in vegetation onundeveloped lands. Aerial photos are used to observe thetype, age, density, and structure of the vegetation.

SOURCE: Adapted from: L. Hamilton, “Land-Use Planning Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest and Woodlands,” OTA commissioned paper, 1982.

Ch. n-Resource Development Planning ● 2 4 5

sites for particular land uses. One such tech-nique is to produce a separate map for eachof several biophysical attributes, using white,black, or shades of grey to show the suitabilityof locations for a specific type of development(33). The suitability ratings are combined bylaying the maps over each other and examin-ing the distribution of shading intensities. Thisprocedure assigns an equal weight to each bio-physical attribute, The “METLAND” tech-nique (15), an extension of the map overlay ap-proach, uses computers to manipulate data andgenerate alternative plans. Thus, variables canbe given different weights to reflect their rela-tive importance and more variables can be in-cluded.

Both these techniques assume natural systemrelationships are determined by land physiog-raphy, They are not well-suited for analyzingindirect or cumulative impacts of land uses,Unless combined with simulation modeling,these techniques do not reflect changes in themagnitudes or types of impacts over time.

Other techniques reveal site potential for spe-cialized uses, such as the Habitat EvaluationProcedure, which assesses the impacts of landuse changes on the quantity and quality of hab-itat for selected fish and wildlife species (51),The procedure relies on aerial photos or fieldwork and modeling, Since a proposed actionoften results in gains for some species andlosses for others, the Habitat Evaluation Pro-cedure has a provision for calculating relativevalue weights for the indicator species,

Wadsworth’s watershed value index (53) isa numerical scoring system that can be usedas a rule-of-thumb in deciding where forestcover should be retained for watershed protec-tion. The index accounts for slope and criticalenvironmental factors.

Land classification systems can be helpful inresource development planning, but they havelimitations. Some systems are oriented towarda particular land use such as agriculture orforestry and therefore tend to assess suitabili-ty for that use rather than overall land suitabili-ty (31,35,42). No single land classification sys-tem measures land productivity directly; the

cost would be too great and the activity tootime-consuming. Some techniques are more ap-propriate for use in ecological studies than forhelping decisionmakers answer land manage-ment questions (6). None of the techniquesidentifies the direct or indirect biophysical im-pacts of land use conversions. Moreover, thetechniques neglect gradual changes in biophys-ical factors that can eventually limit variousland uses (31).

Applications of Land Classification

Malaysia has one of the best tropical 1and ca-pability planning systems. The system includesgeological surveys, regional soil surveys, andforest inventories, combining the approachesof the Canada Land Inventory and the U.S. SoilConservation Service. It has been particularlyuseful in designating areas for tin mining;large-scale oil palm, rubber, and wood planta-tions; and resettlement projects. One reason forthe effectiveness of the Malaysian system isthat it is carried out by a national economicplanning unit that is able to ensure that its pro-visions are implemented (22,34).

Resource planning techniques have beenused in a number of other tropical nations,though not often as a regular planning processby a government agency or private firm in con-trol of a large area of land. For example, thetechniques have been researched and demon-strated in Venezuela (21) and Mexico (32). Or-ganizations promoting conservation haveworked out ways to integrate several of the ma-jor techniques to determine optimum locationsfor parks and protected areas in Venezuela andBrazil (4).

Development assistance agencies have spon-sored resource development planning for riverbasin development programs. For example, theplanning for development of the Mekong Riverbasin, sponsored by the united Nations Devel-opment Programme, the Agency for Interna-tional Development (AID), and several other bi-lateral agencies, uses many of the planningtechniques.

AID has a number of projects involving re-source development planning in tropical coun-


tries. For example, the AID-funded “Bench-mark Soils Program” in Brazil, the Philippines,Indonesia, and Cameroon identifies soil typesand tests similar soils for crop yields under dif-ferent agricultural practices. The Governmentof Nepal, with AID assistance, has completeda national land inventory that includes topog-raphy, geology, vegetation, climate, and soils(l). Some land classifications have been at-tempted in Indonesia (45), Pakistan (43), andthe Philippines (49). AID also has undertakena major effort to help Sri Lanka plan the reset-tlement and watershed management associatedwith the Mahaweli reservoir (41).

An AID project in the Eastern Andes (theCentral Selva Resource Management Project)was completely redesigned as a result of landcapability analysis (23). The original projectwas to resettle large numbers of households forfarming corn. A Holdridge Life Zone analysisinvolving aerial photos and field work showedthat the land would support only natural forest.Consequently, the project was changed to reset-tle a smaller number of people who are to har-vest 2 hectares of natural forest per householdper year over 30 years.

Financial and Economic Analyses

After the biophysical suitability of a site hasbeen determined, the next step is to analyze fi-nancial and economic benefits and costs. Thepurpose of these analyses is to provide infor-mation on: 1) how to maximize the values ob-tained from natural resources while conserv-ing resources for the future, and 2) how to ob-tain an equitable distribution of income.

A financial analysis considers the antici-pated cashflows to the owner or users of theland. An economic analysis is made from theperspective of society. The financial and eco-nomic impacts of land conversion depend onthe previous land uses; capital, labor, and en-ergy-intensiveness of the technologies; exis-tence of markets and infrastructure; incomelevels; and site location, accessibility, and size.Conflicts often exist between decisions madeby individuals on the basis of their own finan-cial cash flows and the decisions that wouldbe preferred from a societal perspective.

Financial and economic analyses can pro-vide an additional quantitative dimension onthe desirability of land-use changes and offera systematic way to organize information fordecisionmaking. Marketable goods and serv-ices are easiest to value in benefit-cost analysis.Thus, this technique is most applicable in as-sessing agricultural, industrial, or residentialdevelopment. It is most appropriate where de-cisionmakers agree on values and goals (includ-ing production and the distribution of income)and where unintended effects offsite are likely.

The fundamental limitations of benefit-costanalysis are:

●

●

●

●

●

imperfections that tend to distort pricesobserved in real markets, *inability to assess the distribution of costsand benefits among segments of the pop-ulation and across generations,inadequate techniques to measure benefitsor damages associated with environmen-tal effects and insufficient empirical infor-mation on cause-effect relationships,de-emphasis of long-term effects due todiscounting,** andinadequate treatment of risk and uncer-tainty.

Within the past 15 years, a variety of tech-niques used to assign value to environmentalimpacts for benefit-cost analysis have been de-veloped and refined. Four basic types are:

1. Revealed preference measures examineactual consumer behavior and estimateprices for extramarket goods and servicesby examining expenditures to avert dam-ages, replacement costs to repair damages,travel costs to recreational facilities, prop-erty values, and wage differentials;

2. Hypothetical valuation methods rely ondirect questioning, bidding games, use-estimation games, or tradeoff analysis to

*In many cases, estimated values (“shadow prices”) must beused where market prices do not exist or are presumed to reflectsocietal values poorly, However, the use of estimated values canincrease the potential for political manipulation of an economicanalysis (55).

**Discounting is based on the time value of money–i.e., thepresumption that a dollar’s worth of consumption now is worthmore than a dollar’s worth of consumption in the future. Thetime preference is separate from the effects of inflation.

Ch. 11—Resource Development Planning ● 247

3.

4.

elicit the maximum amount that consum-ers are willing to pay for a gain or mini-mum amount of compensation that theyare willing to accept for a loss;Human capital methods are used to placevalues on human mortality and morbidi-ty; andThreshold analysis asks how large thebenefits of preserving land in its currentstate would have to be in order to outweighthe benefits of conversion to other uses.

However, careful attention must be paid tothe assumptions behind these techniques andtheir susceptibility to problems of validity, re-liability, and biases. Many of the techniquestend to underestimate environmental values.This is not a severe problem where decision-makers only need a minimum estimate to sup-port conservation decisions (18), such as incases where some preservation values clearlyexceed the value of a proposed land-use con-version. For example, an analysis for the Peru-vian Amazon showed that wildlife values ex-ceeded wood product values (14). But sincemany situations are not so clear-cut, more sen-sitive techniques are needed. The most impor-tant constraint on economic evaluation of en-vironmental benefits is not the inadequacy ofthe techniques but the dearth of scientific dataon cause-effect relationships for various landuses (8).

Another problem arises because most eco-nomic analyses determine the environmentalvalue of forest resources “at the margin” whichcan be significantly different from the averagevalue of forest resources. For example, if thevalue of genetic resources in any small pieceof a forest is not large, economic analyses mayjustify clearing the forest piece by piece untilit is all converted to nonforest uses, withoutever accounting for the overall loss of geneticresources (18).

Establishing monetary values for the multi-ple benefits of forests can be useful in makingdecisions on the choice of outputs, productiontechniques, regulatory policies, fees for conces-sions and leases, compensation for eminent do-main or offsite damage, and priorities for in-dustrial or social forestry projects (18). The po-

tential users of this information include the pri-vate sector, multilateral development banks,U.N. agencies, bilateral assistance agencies,and tropical governments.

The influence economic analyses have in de-cisions about resource development dependson how well they address the issues importantto decisionmakers, Generally, economic anal-yses are used to justify decisions that alreadyhave been made on other grounds (18). Further-more, economic analyses rarely consider howbenefits and costs affect distribution of incomewithin or across generations.

Social Assessment

The social dimension increasingly is ac-knowledged as an essential part of resourcedevelopment planning, The extent to which so-cial assessments are carried out varies amongprojects and among organizations. However,such analyses can contribute greatly to the suc-cess of development projects. In the past, mul-tilateral development banks viewed large-scaleforestry operations for their economic impactsalone. The poor records of many of those proj-ects have led to an awareness of the impor-tance of the social and institutional dimensionsof land-use decisions (39).

Some proposed development activities arenot feasible because the necessary human re-sources are unavailable or cultural values pre-clude implementation. Variations in the suc-cess rates of projects often can be explainedby differences in the capabilities of local insti-tutions. ” The most common problems are the:1) lack of strong leadership accepted by thecommunity and willing to take the initiative;2) domination of decisionmaking by elites fortheir own special interests; and 3) factionalismor segmentation by socioeconomic, ethnic, orreligious groups that makes it difficult to builda consensus or get people to work together (52).Government laws and policies also can haveunintended effects on people’s decisions to par-

“Institutional capacity includes the framework of laws andpolicies in the forestry sector and the ability of national and localgovernments, cooperatives and associations, or private volun-tary organizations to carry out a project.


ticipate in projects. In particular, land tenureand commodity pricing policies are important.

A development project that involves localpeople is more likely to be successful if the in-tended beneficiaries are brought into the plan-ning process. Otherwise, 1) the intended ben-eficiaries might be unwilling to participate inthe project; 2) the benefits may be capturedonly by people with relatively high incomes,social status, and advanced educations; or 3)tasks may be planned with unrealistic assump-tions about the participants’ skills, capital, oraccess to inputs.

Culture-specific information is needed onhow incentives should be structured to: 1) en-courage two-way communication betweentechnology transfer agents and local people; 2)reduce risks facing innovators (e. g., adoptersof new techniques); 3) encourage activities thatprovide offsite benefits not captured by indi-viduals undertaking the activities (e.g., reducedsoil siltation); and 4) give landless people astake in resource conservation. For example,one common reason why social forestry proj-ects fail is that the local people are not inter-ested in the species of seedlings that are dis-tributed or are unfamiliar with their growth re-quirements or products (2).

Most negative impacts of reforestation or so-cial forestry projects on communal lands fallon the previous users of the land. Little land—even that labeled uninhabited—is totally unoc-cupied by people. Forest reserves in most trop-ical countries contain farmers, hunters andgatherers, and livestock herders. Communallands that at first glance appear to be uselessscrub forests frequently are used for raisingcrops, grazing animals, or the collection offuelwood, polewood, grasses, and a wide varie-ty of nonwood products. Land tenure is par-ticularly important to consider in a socialassessment where much of the land remainsuntitled or under communal status becauselarge landholders or the landless poor mayhave appropriated these lands.

Good social assessments can help plannersavoid or mitigate some of these problems orsuggest ways to compensate the people who

bear negative impacts. If the interests of pastusers are not considered, they may underminethe success of proposed development (25).

U.S. AID conducts some social assessmentfor its projects (including analysis of impactsand absorptive capacity) but the amount andtype are variable. There are written guidelinesto prepare a “social soundness analysis” as partof each project paper (50). However, theseguidelines do not provide detailed, operationalguidance on ways to conduct the analysis (44).

The World Bank’s Operational Manual forProject Analysis is being revised to incorporatesocial assessment procedures (39). writtenguidelines have been prepared for Bank proj-ects affecting tribal groups or involving reset-tlement of populations. All project officers aredirected to consider social factors as part oftheir regular activities (16).

Monitoring and Evaluation

The preproject planning phase is when leastis known about development problems to besolved and about the biophysical and humanresources of the site, Yet, for many projects thishas been the only time when a substantial ef-fort is made to determine how the project’sproducts and services will contribute to largerdevelopment goals.

Monitoring is a continuous process of col-lecting, measuring, recording, analyzing, andcommunica t ing in format ion on pro jec t sregarding 1) timely and appropriate provisionand use of inputs, 2) operation and manage-ment logistics, and 3) production of outputs.Monitoring takes place during implementationand is intended to meet the needs of day-to-dayproject management. It can indicate a needto change the timetable, scale, geographic loca-tion, resource allocation, or s ta f f ing o factivities.

Evaluation measures a project’s outputs andimpacts on intended beneficiaries and assessesthe project’s unintended impacts. Evaluationsemphasize performance, rather than operationand management, and analyze reasons for at-taining or nonattaining objectives. Evaluations

Ch. 11-Resource Development Planning • 249

performed before implementation is completedcan be used to formulate recommendations forchanges in objectives, strategies, techniques,institutional arrangements, priorities, and gov-ernment policies. Their effective use dependson the project’s flexibility-i. e., whether it canrespond to recommended changes. Such eval-uations have a secondary purpose of facilitat-ing communication among project staff, proj-ect management, local people, and external or-ganization. Evaluations conducted after a proj-ect

●

●

●

●

is complete can:

identify a need to compensate people ad-versely affected by environmental impacts,suggest followup or complementary proj-ects that build on the original project,assist in reformulating broader policiesand strategies, andprovide lessons for planning other projectselsewhere.

Monitoring and evaluation produce very dif-ferent measures of project success or failure.Monitoring may indicate that a project is suc-cessfully reaching its targets, while evaluationof the same project may show that the prob-lem has been incorrectly identified.

For example, planners working in the pre-project period may identify reforestation ofprivate lands as the appropriate objective foran area experiencing rapid deforestation anda lack of freely available seedlings as the prob-lem hindering this reforestation. Thus, theymay recommend establishing nurseries to pro-duce seedlings for distribution to local farmers.Monitoring may show that the nurseries areoperating successfully and producing the de-sired number of seedlings. Evaluation, on theother hand, may show that the problem wasmisidentified, that lack of extension programsfor landowners and not seedling availability isthe actual constraint to reforestation.

The distinction between monitoring andevaluation has been recognized only recentlyby development assistance organizations. U.S.AID and the World Bank, among others, areemphasizing the importance of both. Compre-hensive monitoring and evaluation systems area planned component of social forestry projects

in Nepal (3) and Tamil Nadu in India (46). How-ever, the development assistance agencies areonly beginning to learn how to use the infor-mation from evaluation to improve projects.

Even where continuous evaluation is madea part of the project, the resulting informationmay not lead to a project change. One reasonfor this inflexibility is that persons administer-ing resource development projects are usual-ly rewarded when they achieve certain targets(e.g., seedlings distributed per year) from theoriginal project plan, regardless of whetherthose targets prove to be unimportant. More-over, the usefulness of final evaluations can becompromised by agencies’ reluctance to dis-cuss why their projects were not entirely suc-cessful.

Multiobjective Planning Methods

Once information is available on the likelybiophysical, economic, and social/cultural as-pects of a development project, decisionmakersneed some way to judge the relative impor-tance of the various findings. Too frequently,decisionmakers avoid confronting tradeoffsamong conflicting objectives and only considerthe most obvious and serious effects. But con-siderable progress has been made in the pasttwo decades in developing multiobjective plan-ning techniques that address these tradeoffs(12,38). These techniques have been appliedmainly in water resource planning, but withadaptation they are applicable to tropical forestland-use planning as well.

Multiobjective planning is broader than moretraditional single-objective approaches to plan-ning. Single-objective planning techniquessuch as benefit-cost analysis require that all theeffects of alternate projects be measured interms of a single unit, usually money. Multiob-jective planning attempts to compare effectswithin categories, but does not force all effectsinto the same measurement units. The tech-niques also provide formal means for decision-makers to assign relative values to each cate-gory account (e.g., income, numbers of peopleemployed, reduction in peak waterflow).

25-287 0 - 84 - 17


Using multiple objectives in the planning natives usually is identified, and the relation-process can improve resource development in ship between alternatives can be describedat least three ways. First, value judgments are clearly. Third, the analyst’s perceptions of adetermined by decisionmakers rather than by problem will be more realistic if the full rangethe analysts. Second, a wider range of alter- of objectives is considered (12).

Insufficient appreciation by decision-makers. Many decisionmakers do not under-stand resource development planning tech-niques or their potential utility. Consequent-ly, they may make decisions on the basis of po-litical feasibility or intuition rather than plan-ning (3 I). Resource development planning of-ten is not used until after resource use deci-sions have been made. Furthermore, decision-makers often have the misperception that plan-ning leads to permanent land-use dedications.

Limited availability of land use data. Prob-lems associated with collection have led to adearth of land use data. Ground surveys areslow, expensive, and sometimes inadequate.Aerial photographs can only cover a small areaand are relatively expensive. Remote-sensingimages from orbiting satellites are becomingmore widely used. However, with the technol-ogy generally available in tropical countries,interpretation of Landsat can be inaccurate.New optical enhancement techniques improvethe quality of the Landsat images and computeranalyses can increase interpretability. Theserefinements are expensive, but minicomputersare lowering the cost.

Governments in tropical countries have beenable to purchase satellite images at low pricesbecause the fixed, capital costs have been borneby the U.S. Government. This policy maychange, however. The U.S. Government hasproposed selling Landsat to the private sector.

Scarcity of expertise. Effective resourcedevelopment planning requires expertise inmany disciplines: geology, hydrology, clima-tology, ecology, geography, agronomy, forestry,economics, sociology, and planning or publicadministration. Even if sophisticated methods

such as remote sensing and computer analysesare cost effective, the lack of trained govern-ment staff can preclude their use. The scarci-ty of expertise is a principal constraint to re-source development planning (35).

Cost. Detailed resource development plan-ning activities can require a high initial invest-ment because large land areas are involved. Atthe same time, the benefits often are diffuse—spread among large groups of people in pres-ent and future generations rather than amonga few identifiable individuals who would bewilling to bear the costs. Thus, it is likely thatmajor resource development planning effortsin poor countries will require substantial for-eign assistance.

Dominance of decisionmaking by interestgroups. In some countries, there is little actualgovernmental control over public lands be-cause of the influence of large logging, min-ing, or agricultural interests and the inabilityto enforce sanctions in remote locationsagainst large numbers of illegal forest occu-pants, nomadic grazers, or tribal groups withcustomary rights. Even where the governmenthas effective control over public lands, self-interest still can be a constraint. Prerogativesover government lands often are jealouslyguarded by key decisionmakers (47). Forestrydepartments may resist any analyses that couldresult in land classifications that remove landfrom forest reserves (40). In some cases, shorttime horizons, personal favoritism, influenceof special interests, and opportunism may char-acterize decisionmaking.

Increasing the timeliness and focus of anal-ysis. An analysis will be of most use to deci-sionmakers if it is timely and geared to their

Ch. n-Resource Development P/arming • 251

needs. If the scope of the analysis is too nar-row or superficial, decisionmakers will not ob-tain the information they need. On the otherhand, if the scope is too broad, delays will oc-cur. The usefulness of the techniques can beimproved by clearly defining the specific ob-jectives of the analysis and setting priorities forstudy. For some uses, techniques that are rel-atively less precise and less expensive will besatisfactory.

Improving scientific, economic, and socialdata. Although the basic techniques to analyzescientific, economic, and social data for re-source and development planning are reason-ably well-developed, the inadequacy of baselinedata and the limited understanding of cause-effect relationships have hindered applicationof these techniques. Much existing informationon the connections between biophysical fac-tors and land uses is derived from studies oftemperate zone countries (42). The degree oftransferability of this information to the Trop-ics is questionable. It also may not be appro-priate to transfer information obtained in onepart of the Tropics to other parts (13).

Encouraging public participation. Inade-quate social assessment is a weakness sufferedby most resource development planning efforts(35). Greater public participation in the plan-ning process could improve social assessmentsand increase the ability of local people to solvetheir own problems.

However, this can be difficult to obtain. Forthe most part, foresters have not been trainedto facilitate a dialogue with local people todetermine their needs, priorities, and resourcesor to convince them of the desirability of bet-ter land-use management (47). Furthermore, insome cases the rural poor do not speak open-ly for fear of retaliation or simply because theyspeak a different language from the project

staff. Sometimes, individuals with vested inter-ests can dominate participation, while the gen-eral interests of the local population are under-represented (26). Where the rural poor are ex-cluded from political participation in govern-ment, it is unlikely that they will be allowedto participate effectively in the design or opera-tion of development projects (27).

Adopting an interdisciplinary approach.Many government agencies conduct activitiesthat affect land use, especially those concernedwith agriculture, forestry, military operations,water resources, mining, human settlements,transportation, and wildlife. Yet, there is littlecoordination between agencies with differentresponsibilities, and each agency concentrateson its own relatively narrow mission. Forestrydepartments in many tropical countries, par-ticularly those that retain the model set upunder British and French colonial rule, remaindetached from other sectors of public admin-istration (11).

But an interdisciplinary approach using theskills available in the various agencies is themost effective way to plan resource develop-ment. Alternatively, forest departments couldhire expertise in a broader range of disciplinesand train existing staff. Rural sociologists andanthropologists, in particular, should have alarger role in resource development planning(11), The United States offers substantial exper-tise in the various disciplines related to re-source development planning.

Improving the communication of findings.Scientific information needs to be presentedin a simple, yet realistic, form that decision-makers can understand. Key assumptionsshould be stated explicitly and tested. Suffi-cient budget and staff time should be devotedto communication of the fundings or the plansare likely to receive little attention.


CHAPTER 8

1, Ackerson, K., U.S. Soil Conservation Service,personal communication, 1982.

2. Arnold, J. E. M., Food and Agriculture Orga-nization, personal communication, 1982.

3. Bhattarai, T., and Campbell, J. C., Monitoringand Evaluation System for Community ForestryDevelopment in Nepal, Kathmandu Govern-ment of Nepal, HMG/UNDP/FAO CommunityForestry Development Project Field DocumentNo. 4, 1982.

4. Burley, F. W., “Sharing the Heritage Concept,”Nature Conservancy News 32(4), 1982, pp.23-25,

5. California Forest and Range Experiment Sta-tion, Soil Vegetation Surveys in California (Sac-ramento: Department of Natural Resources,1958).

6. Cameron, D., “Problems of Forest Land Classi-fication in Tropical and Subtropical Australia.”In: Carpenter, 1981.

7. Carpenter, R. (cd.), Assessing Tropical ForestLands: Their Suitability for Sustainable Uses(Dublin, Ireland: Tycooly Press, 1981).

8. Carpenter, R., East-West Center Environmentand Policy Institute, personal communication,1983.

9. Catterson, T., U.S. Agency for International De-velopment, personal communication, 1983.

10. Christian, C., and Stewart, C., “Methodology ofIntegrated Survey s,” Proceedings, ToulouseConference on Aerial Surveys and IntegratedStudies (Paris: UNESCO, 1968).

11. Cleveland, D,, International Agricultural Pro-grams, University of Arizona, personal commu-nication, 1983.

12. Cohon, J. L., Multiobjective Programming andPlanning (New York: Academic Press, 1978).

13. di Castri, F., and Hadley, M., “A Typology ofScientific Bottlenecks to Natural Resources De-velopment, ” Geographic Journal 3:513-522,1979.

14. Dourojeanni, M., Animales Sobre—ExpZotadosy Sub-Utilizados en la Amozonia, 1974. In:Gregersen, 1982.

15. Fabos, J., Greene, C., and Joyner, S., Jr., TheMETLAND Landscape Planning Process: Com-posite Landscape Assessment, Alternative PlanFormulation, and Plan Evaluation (Amherst,Mass.: University of Massachusetts Agricultur-al Experiment Station, Research Bulletin No.653, 1978).

REFERENCES

16.

17.

18,

19.

20!

214

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

Fisher, H. B., World Bank, personal communi-cation, 1983.Green, K., U.S. National Zoological Park, per-sonal communication, 1982.Gregersen, H., “Valuing Goods and ServiceFrom Tropical Forests and Woodlands,” OTAcommissioned paper, 1982.Hamilton, L., “Some Unbiased Thoughts onForest Land Use Planning—From an EcologicalPoint of View. ” In: Carpenter, 1981.Hamilton, L., “Land-Use Planning Technolo-gies to Sustain Tropical Forest and Wood-lands,” OTA commissioned paper, 1982.Hawes, R., and Hamilton, L., A Method ofWatershed Land Classification and Assessmentfor the Tropics: A Case Study of Rio Guanare,Venezuela (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University In-ternational Agriculture Mimeograph 77, 1980).Hepburn, A., “The Forest Resources of Sabahand Their Development in the Light of Land Ca-pability Classification,” The MaZaysian Forest-er 37(1974):215-223.Hester, J., U.S. Agency for International Devel-opment, personal communication, 1983.Holdridge, L., Life Zone Ecology (San Jose,Costa Rica: Tropical Science Center, 1967),Hoskins, M., “Benefits Foregone as a MajorIssue for FLCD Success,” Proceedings of theU.S. AID Workshop on Community Forestry,Washington, D. C., 1982.Huizer, G., Preliminary Guidelines for Partici-pation Monitoring and Ongoing Evaluation ofPeople’s Participation Projects (Rome: Food andAgriculture Organization, 1982).

27. Joslyn, D., U.S. Agency for International Devel-opment, personal communication, 1983.

28. Klingebiel, A., and Montgomery, P., Land Ca-

29.

30.

31.

32.

pabi]ity Classification (Washington, D. C.: SoilConservation Service, Agricultural Handbook210, 1961).Krajina, V., “Biogeoclimatic Zonation as a Basisfor Regional Ecosystems,” Symposium onPlanned Utilization of Low Land Tropical For-ests, Cipayung, Bogor, Indonesia, 1973.Lacate, D., “Discussion of Biophysical LandClassification in Canada.” In: Carpenter, 1981.Lee, Peng Choong, “Forest Land Classificationin Malay sia. ” In: Carpenter, 1981.Marten, G., “A Landscape Approach to Re-gional Land Use Planning in Tropical Mexico.”[n: Carpenter, 1981.

Ch. 11-Resource Development Planning • 253

33,

34,

35,

36,

37.

38,

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

McHarg, I., Design With IVature (New York:Natural History Press, 1969).Moss, M., “An Evaluation of Some Existing Bio-physical Land Classification Schemes in theContext of the Felda Land Developments in Ma-laysia. ” IZZ: Carpenter, 1981.Mounkeila, Goumandakoye, Assistant Directorof Forests for Niger, personal communication,1983,Mueller-Dombois, D., “The Ecological SeriesApproach to Forest Land Classification.” In:Carpenter, 1981.Mueller-Dombois, D., and Ellenberg, H,, Aimsand Methods of Vegetation Ecology (New York:John Wiley & Sons, 1974).Nichols, R., and Hyman, E., “An Evaluation ofEnvironmental Assessment Methods,” Journalof the Water Resources Planning and Manage-ment Division, American Society of Civil En-gineers 108, No, WR1 : 87-105, March 1982,Noronha, R,, Sociological Aspects of ForestryProject Design (Washington, D. C.: World Bank,1980).Pandey, J., “Problems of Forest Land Classifica-tion for Sustainable Uses in India. ” In: Car-penter, 1981.Philley, M., U.S. Agency for International De-velopment, personal communication, 1983.Qadri, S., comments on the paper by Hamilton(2o] prepared for the Office of Technology As-sessment, 1982.Quereshi, A., “Forest Land Classification andCapability Assessment in Pakistan. ” In: Car-penter, 1981,Runge, C. F., U.S. Agency for International De-velopment, personal communication, 1983.Sandy, I. M,, “Land Classification System for

46,

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

Land Use Planning in Indonesia.” In; Car-penter, 1981.Sida, —, Social Forestry in Tamil Nadu: Ap-praised Project Document (Stockholm: SwedishInternational Development Assistance Organi-zation, 1981).Stevens, M., U.S. Forest Service, personal com-munication, 1983.Umali, R., “The Application of Remote Sens-ing to Forestry in Developing Countries, ” 1981.In: Carpenter, 1981.Umali, R., “Forest Land Assessment and Man-agement for Sustainable Uses in the Philip-pines, ” 1981. In: Carpenter, 1981.U.S. Agency for International Development,“Social Soundness Analysis,” AID Handbook3, Appendix 3F (Washington, D. C.: U.S. AID,1982).U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Evalua-tion Procedures (Washington, D. C.: Govern-ment Printing Office, Documents ESM 101-104,1980).Van Heck, B., Participation of the Poor in Ruralorganizations (Rome: FAO, 1979].Wadsworth, F., “Techniques for Surveys andthe Ecological Exploitation of Tropical For-ests, ” AnaZs. Acad. BraziZ Ciene. 41 (Sup-plement: 101-109), 1969.Webb, L., et al., “Structural Classification as aMethod to Predict Site Potential in the Develop-ment and Conservation of Tropical Humid For-est Lands, ” Transactions International MA13-LVFRO Workshop on Tropical Rain Forest Eco-systems Research, E. Brunig (cd.) , Ham-burg-Reinbeck, University of Hamburg, 1977.Wisdom, H., comments on the paper by Greg-ersen (181 me~ared for OTA. 1982.

Chapter 12


Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . .Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Technology Transfer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduct ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E d u c a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Professional Education and Technical Training

Forestry Education and Training ProgramsinEnvironmental Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Principles of Environmental Education . . . . . . . .

Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fundamental and Applied ResearchResearch Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fundamental Research . . . . . . . . . .Applied Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dissemination of Research FindingsSummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........1

Technology Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● ✌ ☛ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎

✎ ✌ ✎ ✎ ✌ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎

✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎

✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎

☛ ✎ ✎ ✌ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎

✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎

✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎

✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ ✎ 0..

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● ✎✎✎✎✎☛✎✎ ✎ ✎

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tropical Countries . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Necessarv Conditions for Successful Technology Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Opportunitiesto Improve Technology Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Coordination of Development Assistance Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N e e d f o r P r o f e s s i o n a l s .Technology Transfer Timing

Chapter 12 References . . . . . . . . .

List of Tables

Table No,

. . . . . . . . . . . .and Follow up

. . . . . . .

32.U.S. Priorities for Applied Research . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33. World Bank/FAO Priorities for Forestry Research in Developing Countries . . .34.The East-West Center’s Priority List for Scientific Forestry Research. . . . . . . . .

Page257257257257

257

258258258263264

265265266266266268269

269269270271271272272

273

Page267267267

Chapter 12


●

●

●

●

Education

Most education to support sustainable useof tropical forest resources must be done bytropical nations’ own universities and tech-nical schools. But these schools generally arenew, small, and not yet capable of the task.

U.S. universities can help sustain tropicalforest resources both by educating profes-sionals for work in tropical areas and by sup-porting the development of the tropical uni-versities’ capabilities.

To provide adequate instruction in tropicalforest issues, U.S. universities need to makefundamental curriculum changes, addingmore anthropological and sociologicalperspectives to the education of resourcedevelopment specialists,

Environmental education programs sufferfrom a lack of behavioral science expertiseand from a lack of literature documentingthe reasons for success and failure of pastprograms.

Research

• Fundamental and applied research, especial-ly in the social sciences, are needed to de-velop more techniques that produce suffi-cient profits for investors and simultaneous-ly conserve the renewability of forest re-sources.

● Research on tropical forest resources is poor-ly coordinated. Fundamental researchersknow too little about what information ap-plied researchers need, and applied re-searchers know too little about the needs oftechnology implementors.

Technology Transfer

● Innovative technologies, even successfulones, often do not spread beyond subsidizedpilot projects. Improved technology transferefforts are needed among researchers, be-tween researchers and project managers,and between project managers and individ-ual decisionmakers.

INTRODUCTION

Many technical opportunities to reverse trop-ical forest degradation are attracting attentionfrom development assistance organizationsand from tropical government agencies. Yet,neither governments, private entrepreneurs,nor local people are investing enough capital,land, and labor on these techniques. Methodsto overcome these constraints on such invest-ment include increased professional, technical,

and environmental education, some researchredirection, and improved technology transfer.

Inequitable and insecure land tenure andpopulation growth cause forest resource man-agement problems even more basic than thoseaddressed by forestry education, research, andtechnology transfer. These problems are notamenable to direct action by the U.S. Con-

257


gress—they must be resolved by the tropical na- also indirectly can help improve tropical na-tions themselves. tions’ abilities to make fundamental changes

U.S. assistance can enhance education andin economic and social institutions.

research, particularly in the social sciences. It

EDUCATION

Professionaland Technical Training

Progress in developing and implementingnew forestry technologies is severely con-strained by the scarcity of appropriately ed-ucated personnel. A severe shortage of fieldtechnicians and extension agents with suitabletraining further constrains implementation ofexisting technologies (4,18).

In the short term, an efficient mechanism formatching qualified people to the available jobsis necessary, and sufficient money and otherincentives must be provided. Expatriates, in-cluding U.S. professionals, can carry out cer-tain critical functions. However, over-relianceon expatriates is expensive, maintains depend-ency, may lead to adoption of inappropriatetechnologies, and contributes little to buildinga political consensus on the value of tropicalforests. For these reasons and because thescope of tropical forest development problemsand opportunities is so large, improvement inboth the quantity and quality of education with-in tropical countries is essential to sustain trop-ical forest resources in the long run.

Forestry Education and TrainingPrograms in Tropical Countries

Forestry degree programs are offered by 23universities in tropical Africa, 55 in tropicalAsia, and 39 in tropical America. In addition,tropical Africa has 59 technical schools offer-ing forestry courses, tropical Asia has 118, andtropical America has 51. Nearly all of these,however, are new and produce few graduateseach year.

Most of these professional and technical for-estry programs have focused on commercial

timber production and industrial processing.Now, however, the emphasis in tropical forestresource development is changing to includesocial forestry, agroforestry, and fuelwoodforestry. To support this shift, the tropicalforestry schools need to make some fundamen-tal changes.

ENCOURAGE INTERDISCIPLICIPLINARY APPROACH

Professionals, including foresters, sometimesbecome too narrowly focused (8). This tenden-cy is particularly troublesome in tropical for-estry because the interactions between naturalsystems and social systems are so complex. De-spite widespread agreement that the major con-straints on improved forest resource manage-ment are socioeconomic and institutional, so-cial perspectives remain underrepresented inforestry curricula.

Forestry education has been strongly ori-ented toward biological sciences. It has notfilled a critical need for professional under-standing of and competence in determiningthe potential of forests in rural development;the social values in rural income and employ-ment; reduction of urban migration; land useplanning; diversification of agriculture; thelinkages of the variety of products from forestresources with other sectors of the economysuch as supplying raw material for low costhousing; nor with the way forest industry de-velopment can be directed to fit the variousstages in the country’s development (15).

Special efforts need to be taken to incorpor-ate social science components into forestry andrelated program curricula. Too often, rural so-ciology, applied anthropology, education meth-odology, political science, and history are ig-nored. Although forest economics is includedin many forestry curricula, it needs to incor-

Ch. 12—Education, Research, and Technology Transfer ● 259

porate an orientation more than industrialwood production and demand. Natural re-source development planning, environmentalquality assessment, and administrative andmanagerial skills also have been neglected.Knowledge of agronomy, soil science, rangemanagement, and animal husbandry is also im-portant for forestry professionals in most trop-ical countries.

There are two ways to broaden forestry ed-ucation: provide continuing education in socialand agricultural sciences to forest profession-als and forestry school faculty, and support theaddition or joint appointments of social scien-tists as faculty in forestry schools. The disad-vantage of the first approach is that many ofthese people may not have an inclination or ap-titude for the social sciences. The problem withthe second approach is that social scientists intropical nations may not understand the rela-tionship between their discipline and forestry.This can be ameliorated by providing in-housetraining in forestry and the natural sciences forsocial scientists. It would not, however, solvethe problem of how to attract top quality socialscientists into a field that is undersupportedand generally viewed as less prestigious thanother fields such as health and education.

DEVELOP TEACHING MATERIALS AND FACILITlES

Many faculty members in tropical universi-ties were educated in developed countries.Thus, they are likely to teach concepts and usecourse materials appropriate for capital-inten-sive production forestry in temperate zones.But under tropical conditions the temperatezone forestry technologies may not be econom-ically feasible or socially desirable. Further,temperate zone techniques can be poorlyadapted to ecological conditions in the Tropicsand may require equipment or skilled labor thatis not available (35).

Teaching materials relevant to tropical for-ests are scarce. While some appropriate infor-mation and course materials are available, theyare poorly distributed. This situation could im-prove if teachers and researchers were to re-ceive support to develop original course ma-

terials . Teaching materials developed intropical countries can be evaluated for their ap-plicability in other countries. Funds could beprovided to modify, translate, and distributethese materials internationally. Some surpris-ingly simple and inexpensive efforts can bevery effective. For example, botanists have pro-duced inexpensive and accurate tree identifica-tion handbooks by photocopying leaf, twig,flower, and seed specimens that are availablein U.S. herbaria (21).

Many tropical forestry schools also lack ade-quate library and computer facilities, field andlaboratory equipment, and arboretum or her-barium facilities. Computers, programmablecalculators, and software can greatly facilitateteaching, research, and forest management.For tropical forestry schools, minicomputersare advantageous because they are relativelyinexpensive and easy to operate and repair.

Museums can be teaching tools of great im-portance to tropical forestry. In the UnitedStates, the Smithsonian Institution, Chicago’sField Museum of Natural History, the Missou-ri Botanical Garden, New York Botanical Gar-den, and certain museums affiliated with uni-versities are examples. Museums in tropicalcountries unfortunately are seldom teachingmuseums. They are underfinanced and notparticularly useful to forestry education. Sup-porting development of good teaching muse-ums with well-stocked and well-curated her-barium and arboretums would be an effectiveway to improve tropical forestry education (4).

RECRUIT APPROPRIATE PEOPLE

Forestry education is not a prestigious pro-fession in most tropical countries. Careers inthis field do not offer the social or financialbenefits that many other fields offer. Forestryschool faculties in many countries are poorlypaid and many of the best quickly move on toother occupations. In some countries, teachingstaff are borrowed from the Forestry Depart-ment but are selected on the basis of seniorityrather than teaching ability. Consequently, for-estry education is severely constrained by ashortage of qualified teachers (28) and univer-


sit y forestry programs have difficulty compet-ing with other programs for funds, facilities,and top quality students and scientists.

U.S. scientists could increase their effort tohelp their colleagues in tropical schools gaininternational recognition and, thus, prestige intheir universities. Development assistanceagencies also could invest additional money ingraduate programs for tropical forestryschools, provide continuing education oppor-tunities for faculty, provide scholarships, spon-sor research, and develop facilities (e.g., librar-ies, laboratories, field stations). Developing fa-cilities alone can be a waste of foreign assist-ance funds, however, if expert personnel arenot available or developed simultaneously (4).

DEVELOP GRADUATE PRORAMS

Few forestry schools in the Tropics offergraduate degrees. Although the developmentof a strong undergraduate program is the firstpriority in forestry education, graduate schoolsare important to produce future educators, re-searchers, and upper-level decisionmakers.Graduate programs also are important becausethey involve students and faculty in moderncurrent research. Without a research compo-nent, it is difficult for forestry and relateddisciplines to attract and retain top qualitystudents and faculty.

SUPPORT TECHNICAL SCHOOL PRGORAMS

The shortage of adequately trained forestryextension agents in rural areas probably is agreater constraint on resource-sustaining tech-nologies than the lack of professional person-nel. The need for field technicians and exten-sion workers will increase as tropical nationsbegin to manage forests, promote agroforestry,and disseminate improved wood-use tech-nologies. In particular, more women should beeducated as foresters, technicians, and exten-sion agents because women are heavily in-volved in using forest resources and in manycultures they can be reached best by otherwomen (20).

Recruiting students to work as forestry tech-nicians is a problem. Few students who com-plete technical training take field jobs and

many who do may leave them soon. Educatedpeople generally prefer to live in urban areas,making it difficult to retain good field staff, In-novative approaches to this problem need tobe developed, supported, and documented. Forexample, it may be useful to increase recruit-ment from rural areas, although this might ne-cessitate expanding technical schools’ pro-grams to offer remedial work in basic academicskills.

U.S. forestry schools can improve technicalschools in the Tropics by helping producetraining materials. Also they can supporteducation of technical school instructorsthrough training programs organized by theFood and Agriculture Organization (FAO) orother organizations. U.S. forestry schools gen-erally do not have the ability to contribute moredirectly to training technicians and extensionagents for tropical forestry and agroforestry (4).

IN-SERVICE TRAINING

Even if actions to improve forestry educationprograms begin soon, a substantial lag will oc-cur before those students are in influential posi-tions. Therefore, it is also important to updatetraining of resource management professionalsand technicians.

In-service training enables staff to keep upwith advances in forestry techniques and in re-lated fields such as agriculture, livestock man-agement, and soil and water conservation. Itis particularly important for social forestryprojects because conventional forestry educa-tion has included so little training on social as-pects of resource development. Unfortunate-ly, with the existing shortages of qualified pro-fessionals and technicians, it often is difficultto release forest department staff for extendedtraining courses (40).

The United Nations FAO Forestry Depart-ment has developed a program to supportin-service training of forestry personnel in de-veloping countries. This program receivessome financial support through the U.S. con-tribution to FAO, and this seems an effectivechannel for continued or increased U.S. sup-port of in-service training. However, at present

Ch. 12—Education, Research, and Technology Transfer . 261

U.S. experts play only a small part in the FAOForestry program.

Opportunities for the U.S. in TropicalForestry Education and Training

The United States has important expertiseand experience in forestry education and hassome experts in tropical forestry, botany, zool-ogy, soils, and related topics scattered amongU.S. academic institutions. These experts arecontributing in a piecemeal but significantfashion to education of U.S. and tropical coun-try foresters and other professionals interestedin tropical forest resources.

In the fall of 1982, some 487 students fromdeveloping countries were enrolled at U.S.forestry schools, and a survey of 44 NorthAmerican forestry schools found 33 were an-ticipating expansion of their internationalforestry activities (25). Newsletters, directories,and other networks to facilitate communica-tion among tropical forest experts are being es-tablished, for example, by the InternationalSociety of Tropical Foresters.

IMPROVE THE CAPABILITIES OF U.S. UNIVERSITIES

Most U.S. universities have had only peri-pheral interests and activities in tropicalforestry. This is, in part, because few U.S.faculty have experience in tropical forestry.Many of those work for State-supported univer-sities where overseas work is not well-regarded(43). Consequently, those who seek overseasforestry work often are professionals at the be-ginning of their careers or those nearing retire-ment (4).

Few courses offered by U.S. forestry schoolsfocus on the Tropics or on international eco-nomic and political interactions and resourceinterdependence (34). Some U.S. universitiescan give foreign students an excellent educa-tion in the fundamentals of basic science, forestmanagement, forest industries, and quantita-tive methods (26). But education on the appliedaspects of tropical forest management andecology mostly is lacking. If U.S. forestryschools are to play an effective role in technol-

ogy transfer to the Tropics, changes must bemade in the curricula. Special attention has tobe paid to the appropriateness of the technol-ogies taught. Otherwise, students from theTropics will not be able to apply their newlyacquired knowledge. Few U.S. schools are wellequipped to train U.S. or foreign students insocial or community forestry.

The training of foresters gives them a sensethat they command an expertness and set ofskills which permits them to diagnose andprescribe for society. Community forestryturns that upside down so that the profession-al becomes a coordinator and facilitator ofdiagnoses and prescriptions made by the com-munity (6).

This change requires development of com-munications and public relations skills as wellas sensitivity to cultural factors (13,30).

Lack of a tropical setting for field coursesconstrains U.S. universities’ ability to serve theneeds of students who are to work in the Trop-ics. Education cannot be limited to the class-room. Field courses and internships includingfield work are essential (38). Both the social andnatural science aspects of tropical forestry in-volve problem-solving skills that are betterlearned in the field than in classroom lecturesand laboratory exercises (28).

ENHANCE COMMUNICATION ● ITV9SSN TROPICAL

SCHOOLS AND U-S. INSTITUTIONS

The faculty, administrators, and students intropical schools often find it difficult to locateparticular expertise in U.S. universities. Twin-ning and consortia are two mechanisms thatare used to facilitate communication betweenU.S. and tropical nation schools. Twinning re-fers to the establishment of a special long-termassociation between a forestry school in theTropics and one in another country.

A twinning arrangement can help developteaching and research capabilities in both in-stitutions (4,47). It offers the advantage of con-tinuity, providing time for faculty and admin-istrators on both sides to understand the prob-lems and opportunities in the other country.


It also provides the opportunity to developgood working relationships.

Twinning could be used to broaden tropicalforestry education. For example, some U.S.universities have strong social science exper-tise that could be applied to forest resource de-velopment issues. U.S. faculty can help devel-op teaching materials, design or conduct re-search, and temporarily substitute for tropi-cal university faculty when they are absent forcourse material development, advanced educa-tion, or in-service training.

Twinning, however, has disadvantages. U.S.universities are likely to perceive little benefitto themselves from participating. Thus, twin-ning activities may be assigned a low priorityunless there is sufficient external funding (4).The exchange of faculty, students, and infor-mation may end up being one-way—from trop-ical country institution to developed countryuniversity. Also, since no single U.S. univer-sity offers a comprehensive program in tropicalforest resources, limiting access to the exper-tise available in just one U.S. university couldbe a disadvantage to the tropical university.

Consortia of U.S. universities can resolvesome of twinning’s disadvantages because theycan provide a wider range of expertise to thetropical institutions. The consortium can directtropical faculty, administrators, or students toprograms best suited to their needs. Some suchconsortia already exist (ch. 5). However,neither twinning nor consortia are able to re-solve several major constraints on developmentof U.S. expertise in tropical forestry (4). Theseinclude:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5*

Insufficient faculty competence in tropicalforest resource fields.Lack of tropical forest environments inwhich to teach tropical forest resourcemanagement.Lack of a suitable setting for relevant facul-ty and graduate student research.Lack of a center for exchange of ideasamong tropical forest resource scholars.Lack of a center to house necessary colla-teral institutions, including a tropical her-barium, tropical wood collection, and trop-ical arboretum.

These constraints could be overcome by des-ignating and developing institutions, locatedin U.S. humid tropical and semiarid areas, toserve as centers of excellence in tropical forestresource development. The primary purposeof such centers would be to advance tropicalforest resource education. They also could con-duct research programs and act as informationclearinghouses. For these centers, tropical for-est resources would not be a peripheral inter-est; they would be the main focus. And becausethe research and teaching could be applied toresource development in the area where thecenters are located, they should receive sup-port from State and territorial organizations.

If emphasis on the special importance of so-cial sciences, economic botany, and other dis-ciplines were written into the charters of suchcenters, they could become more truly inter-disciplinary than are conventional forestryschools. It would be difficult to assign perma-nently at one location the breadth of expertisenecessary for an excellent program on tropicalforest resources. This could be accomplishedby using a core staff of research scientiststogether with a series of short-term assign-ments of faculty from various institutions (4).

The information clearinghouse function ofthe centers of excellence could serve not onlyeducation organizations but also resource de-velopment agencies in tropical nations. Thecenters could identify:

●

●

●

●

●

appropriate U.S. organizations where peo-ple from tropical countries could obtaingraduate and post-graduate training,U.S. organizations where tropical univer-sities can find institution-building exper-tise,tropical organizations interested in collab-orative research and instruction with U.S.universities,sources of funding available for these ex-changes, andexpertise on various new or existing tech-nologies.

The U.S. Forest Service has a program provid-ing such information for AID projects. Evalu-ations indicate that the quality of AID’s for-estry-related projects has been substantially im-


proved by this relatively inexpensive effort.Centers of excellence could extend this brokerfunction to institutions other than AID.

Locating the centers of excellence in theUnited States would help assure continuity andstability of funding, thus giving better oppor-tunity for long-term research, training, andservice capabilities (4). Associating such cen-ters with existing institutions could avoid thecosts and risks of establishing entirely new fa-cilities. For example, the U.S. Forest ServiceInstitutes in Puerto Rico and Hawaii could bedeveloped as centers of excellence to servetropical America and tropical Asia, respective-ly. Similarly, the Kleberg Wildlife Research In-stitute in Kingsville, Tex., which conductssome research and training in semiarid landforestry, could be strengthened and broadenedto become a center of excellence.

A major drawback to the center of excellenceconcept is that substantial Federal fundingmight be necessary. Another disadvantage isthat the U.S. tropical island locations are notbiologically typical of forest resources on trop-ical continents, and none of the U.S. locationshave sociological or institutional conditionssimilar to tropical nations. The centers mightovercome these constraints by arranging to usefacilities at tropical universities as field stationsor by helping tropical schools develop newfield stations.

An alternative to establishing new centerswould be for the United States to offer supportto international institutions that are workingto provide tropical forest resource educationand research programs, such as the Interna-tional Council for Research on Agroforestry(ICRAF) located in Kenya, the United NationsUniversity (UNU) headquartered in Japan, andthe Centro Agrontimico Tropical de Investiga-cidn y Ensenanza (CATIE) in Costa Rica. Theseinstitutions have cooperative programs withuniversities in other tropical countries. Con-centrating the U.S. effort on existing interna-tional institutions would not be a complete sub-stitute for a U.S. center of excellence, however.The forestry mandates of these institutions arerelatively narrow—their forestry efforts focus

mainly on agroforestry and, except for ICRAF,their major emphasis is on annual crop agri-culture.

Environmental Education

One reason why the forestry sector has beenrelatively neglected in many tropical countriesis that decisionmakers and the general publicare unaware of the costs of forest degradationand the benefits of forest maintenance. Envi-ronmental education is a term that covers abroad range of efforts to change people’s be-havior by 1) giving them knowledge regardinginteractions between natural resources and thequality of their lives, 2) inspiring an emotionalcommitment to environmental quality, and 3)teaching what actions individuals and groupscan take to sustain or improve the productivi-ty of their environment.

To change people’s attitudes toward naturalresources, an education program should bebased not only on technical knowledge of en-vironmental sciences but also on knowledge ofthe psychological and cultural factors that mot-ivate human behavior (39). However, environ-mental educators are generally not trained inthe sciences of human behavior and so do notapply the scientific method to improve envi-ronmental education techniques. Trial and er-ror with little basis in scientific theory can leadto improvements if the reasons for success andfailure are documented. Unfortunately, envi-ronmental education programs in tropical na-tions, perhaps because they are so small rela-tive to the problems they address, seldom setaside sufficient funds or time for evaluationand documentation (45).

Ideally, environmental education should beincorporated into regular curricula at theprimary school level. That is when basic atti-tudes and values are formed, and primaryschool will be many tropical people’s only for-mal education. Practical considerations, how-ever, constrain this broad and future-orientedapproach. The few environmental educationprograms that exist are poorly funded andunderstaffed. Thus, priorities must be set to en-


sure the effective use of very limited educa-tional resources. For U.S.-funded efforts, themost effective approach may be to focus firston those who make decisions of greater long-term impact—politicians, government officials,and faculty who are teaching potential futureleaders.

Mass media can provide effective means toreach populations outside the classroom. Theycan be used to teach principles of ecology andresource management, to illuminate pressingresource development problems, and to explainhow people can affect resource sustainabilitydirectly or by influencing public policy. Radio,newspapers, pamphlets, and comic books havebeen cost-effective tools for education in trop-ical countries. Environmental education activ-ities also can be tied into development projectsin their public outreach and monitoring andevaluation functions (36).

Principles of Environmental Education

The state of the art in environmental educa-tion is not sufficiently advanced to predict spe-cifically what techniques will succeed in vari-ous situations. But a review of developmentassistance programs with environmental edu-cation components has indicated general prin-ciples for success in environmental education(45). Programs should:

● address specific resource problems,● reach particular audiences,. reach all the decisionmakers who must

participate in the solution to the problem,● be compatible with cultural values and

personal motivations,● include opportunities for continuing eval-

uation, documentation, and adaptation,and

● include opportunities and support to makethe education effort ongoing and capableof spreading to other audiences. (45).

The environmental education task is straight-forward only where benefits accrue directly tothe decisionmaker. For example, a social for-estry project in Northern Pakistan that seeks

to change the use of steep deforested hillsideshas had enthusiastic participation from farm-ers who want to preserve their land’s produc-tivity for the benefit of their children. However,getting government officials to allocate scarceresources to expand the program has not beenso easy. The program benefits some uplandfarmers in a few years and more downstreamfarmers in many years, but it may never direct-ly benefit the government personnel by bring-ing political recognition.

Another example that demonstrates severalof the environmental education principles isa Peace Corps project in Paraguay that trainedrural elementary school teachers in basic en-vironmental education methods. The programwas designed to include the faculty and stafffrom the schools, officials from the Ministriesof Agriculture and Education, and Peace Corpsstaff. Ministry officials were convinced of theimportance of environmental educationthrough workshops and discussions. To en-courage the teachers, the Ministries agreed toprovide salary increases for teachers in a pilotprogram who developed and evaluated an en-vironmental education curriculum for theirstudents. However, the importance of a mul-tilevel approach became apparent when thePeace Corps diminished its involvement withministry officials and focused only on theteachers. Ministry support declined and so theteachers could not spread the curriculum theyhad designed beyond the initial pilot projectarea. This suggests that the program may havefailed to provide for the personal motivationsof all levels of decisionmakers who would af-fect the program’s success.

Because changes in human attitudes are dif-ficult to effect and measure, environmental ed-ucation efforts will remain difficult to evaluate,document, and duplicate. This gives the tech-nology a disadvantage when competing withother, better developed technologies that havemore easily measured results. Although envi-ronmental education lacks a strong basis in be-havioral science, it can still progress if pro-grams are documented by the practitioners.

Ch. 12—Education, Research, and Technology Transfer Ž 265

RESEARCH

Fundamental and Applied Research

Sustaining tropical forest resources dependson implementing technologies that simultane-ously can: 1) provide basic needs (food, fiber,fuel, construction materials, and cash), 2) sus-tain the renewability of the resources, and 3)be profitable and culturally acceptable to dif-ferent groups with different levels of knowl-edge, skills, and resources. Technologies thatmeet all these requirements exist for only a fewtropical forest situations, but probably couldbe developed for other kinds of forests withother socioeconomic conditions. Such technol-ogy development will require fundamental re-search on both natural and manipulated eco-systems, applied research on technologies ap-propriate for specific cultural and ecologicalconditions, projects implementing the technol-

Photo credit: U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization

Forestry research, both fundamental and applied, isoften poorly linked to development programs. However,programs exist that can pay substantial returns on theresearch investment. Here a Teca tree is prepared fortransplanting at the Magdalena Valley Corporation’s

research center at Santa Marta, Colombia

ogies, and evaluation research that leads tocontinuous improvement and diffusion.

The purpose of fundamental forestry re-search is to increase understanding of thestructure and functioning of forest ecosystems,the physiology of plants and animals, and theiruse by humans (33). This work serves as thefoundation for the principles and techniquesused in applied forestry research, which isdirected toward solving particular problems orimproving the use and conservation of forestresources (9). In practice, the distinction be-tween fundamental and applied research oftenis difficult to make.

Fundamental and applied research on forestresource systems typically require long periodsof study before firm conclusions can be drawnbecause:

● tree lifecycles are long,● tropical forest components have complex

interactions,• some of these interactions manifest slow-

ly as cycles of plant succession and climateoccur, and

● interactions can be obscured by changesin weather and hydrologic flows,

Longer terms for research funding (4-5 yearbudgets) generally result in better research and,in the long run, more efficient use of researchfunds (12,33).

Moreover, applied forestry research usuallymust be site-specific, and transferring the re-sults to other locations often necessitates re-peating some of the research. Ecological andsilvicultural research in natural forest manage-ment, soils, pests and diseases, watershed man-agement, and wildlife are especially site-spe-cific (9). Sociological research similarly is area-specific because of differences in cultures andlocal problems (20). Site-specificity, however,can be overemphasized. Well-designed appliedresearch can produce general lessons that canbe extrapolated and can accelerate research atother sites (12,46).

25-287 0 - 84 - 18


Research Priorities

Fundamental Rsearch

Fundamental research on tropical forests hasconcentrated more on evolutionary biologythan on tropical ecosystem processes (12).Much research seems simply to reaffirm whathas been known for decades. Recognition thatthe moist tropical forest exists essentially inbalance with its environment by recycling nu-trients obtained from decaying plant materi-al, not by drawing upon soil minerals, wasrecognized in 1937 (17). The relationship ofchemistry and mineralogy to the hardening ofcertain soils in the hot, wet Tropics after forestclearing was described in 1956 (2). And be-cause it was recognized that soils of the hot,wet Tropics largely were devoid of importantplant nutrients, the overlying forest cover wasdescribed as early as 1958 as being ecological-ly “a desert covered by trees” (10).

Scientists have begun to recognize the needto shift research emphasis to include humanmanipulation of the ecosystems. The Nation-al Academy of Sciences Committee on Re-search Priorities in Tropical Biology has con-cluded that tropical ecosystem studies shouldconcentrate on areas that are “selected becausethey are representative, diverse, and capableof experimental manipulation and because ofscientific and societal importance. ”

The NAS report calls for in-depth study offour types of tropical ecosystems: infertile newworld moist lowland forest, fertile new worldmoist lowland forest, Southeast Asian lowlandforest, and new world deciduous forest. Thereport does not say what technique was usedto calculate tradeoffs in choosing these fourtypes. The semiarid open canopy forests andshrublands of the Tropics are poorly repre-sented in the ranking, which suggests that thescientists on the NAS committee give higherpriority to the goals related to biologically“rich” environments than to environmentswhere the effects of resource degradation onhumans are most immediate.

Regarding priorities for biological inventory,the NAS committee cites areas that contain therichest and most highly endemic biota and

those containing biota in immediate danger ofextinction. This includes the coastal forests ofEcuador, coastal southern Bahia and EspiritoSanto in Brazil, the eastern and southern Bra-zilian Amazon, western and southern Came-roon and adjacent parts of Nigeria and Gabon,Hawaii, Madagascar, Sri Lanka, Borneo, Cel-ebes, New Caledonia, and forested areas inTanzania and Kenya.

The committee assigned highest priority toanthropological studies and to interdisciplinaryrsearch on the historical, political, social, andeconomic phenomena that lead to ecologicalinstability in the Tropics. In Mexico, Indone-sia, and Thailand, ecological and anthropolog-ical research are being combined to investigatetraditional resource use systems (16). This ap-proach seems especially likely to lead to mod-ern techniques that are at once profitable andresource conserving (16).

Applied Research

A common criticism of applied forestry re-search is that it is not focused on resource man-agement needs. Many forest research institutesin developing countries study highly special-ized topics to serve academic purposes (27).The management-oriented research that occurshas emphasized short-term trials of exotic spe-cies and specialized plantation techniques (5).Often research is based on outdated methodsor is implemented incorrectly (22). Further-more, most of the applied research in tropicalforestry has been restricted to biophysical top-ics while many, perhaps most, of the real con-straints are social, economic, or political(23,27).

Applied forest resources research can bemade more relevant if the researchers under-stand the problems faced by technology imple-mentors. Government project managers, exten-sion agents, timber concessionaires, forest in-dustry managers, users of nonindustrial privateforests, and other potential users of researchfindings should help select the research topics(24).

An exchange of information with local peo-ple also is usually necessary to correctly iden-


tify resource development problems. Yet, proc-esses to allocate research funds usually involvelittle interaction with local people until afterthe topic is set (20). Researchers need to in-crease their sensitivity to what is achievablein situations where capital and managementskills are scarce and where labor is abundantbut costly (14).

Before 1980, few systematic attempts hadbeen made to establish comprehensive priori-ties for applied tropical forest research or tocoordinate programs. Since then, various or-ganizations have recognized that the limitedresearch funds must be used more efficientlyand have produced priority lists. Tables 32,33, and 34 show priorities identified by the

Table 32.—U.S. Priorities for Applied Research

1. Reforestation and afforestationA.B.c.D.E.

F.

Species selectionErosion controlMaintenance of soil fertilityNursery establishment and planting techniquesProtection1. Grazing animals2. Pests and disease3. FireShelterbelt configurations

Il. Meeting the demand for fuelsA. Alternatives to fuelwoodB. More efficient, culturally acceptable woodstoves

and charcoal production techniques

Ill. Industrial forestry and conservationA. Properties of species currently not used by

industryB. Techniques for decreasing wood losses in

harvesting, transport, storage, and processing

IV. Remote sensing applications

V. Integration of forest management into comprehensiverural developmentA. Multiple-use managementB. Combinations of activitiesC. Incentives for carrying out sound management

VI. EconomicsA. Relationship between forest land management and

watershedsB. Value of wildlifeC. Relative merits of village woodlots, farm forestry,

reforestation, agroforestry, and strip plantingD. Demonstration effects of forestry programs

SOURCE: U.S. Interagency Task Force in Tropical Forests, The World’s TropicalForests: A Policy Strategy and Program for the United States(Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980).

Table 33.-World Bank/FAO Priorities for ForestryResearch in Developing Countries

1. Forestv in relation to agriculture and rural developmentA. Sociological and institutional researchB. Farming systems using treesC. Watersheds (catchments) and range managementD. Wildlife in relation to rural welfare

Il. Forestry in relation to energy production and useA. Silviculture of biomass/fuelwood species

and systemsB. Yield, harvesting, and propertiesC. Industrial research related to village technologyD. Comparison with alternative fuels (social, technical,

and economic efficiency)E. Wood-based derivatives

Ill. Management and conservation of existing resources(mainly natural forests)A. Resource surveyB. ConservationC. Silvicultural systems for natural forestsD. Whole tree useE. Use and marketing of secondary speciesF. Wood preservation

IV. Industrial forestryA. Silviculture and managementB. Wood properties

SOURCE: World Bank/Food and Agriculture Organization, Forestry Needs inDeveloping Countries: T/me for a Reappraisal? paper for 17th IUFROCongress, Kyoto, Japan, Sept. 6-17, 1981

Table 34.—The East-West Center’s Priority List forScientific Forestry Research

Rank

123456

89

10111213141516171819

Subject

EcologySilvicultureAgroforestryReforestation, afforestationWatershed management, hydrologyFuel, bioenergyForest industries and useSurveys and inventoriesEducation, research, and trainingPolicy and planningLogging and transportNursery practiceGeneticsMarketingEconomics, especially of product processingLand tenureSoilsProtection of wood productsForest products (technological)

SOURCE: E. Brunig, Summary Report on the Asia-Pac/fic Regional Workshop forForest Research Directors (Honolulu, Hawaii, East-West CenterEnvironment and Policy Institute, 1982).


U.S. Interagency Task Force (43), The WorldBank/FAO (47), and the East-West Center Con-ference (5).

The recent creation of research priority listssuggests that organizations funding appliedtropical forestry research may begin to exertmore control over which topics are investi-gated. Other recent developments suggest thatthe scientists who do forestry research are rec-ognizing the urgency of tropical forest resourceproblems and are ready to cooperate with coor-dination efforts.

For example, the International Union of For-estry Research Organizations (IUFRO) has con-centrated on timber production for use in theindustrialized nations. Now, it is shifting itsfocus to forestry in the developing nations andis organizing a series of international work-shops on fuelwood systems and multipurposetrees for reforestation of degraded lands. Theseworkshops are expected to guide researchfunding by donor agencies such as AID. Mean-while, AID is substantially increasing its fund-ing for forestry research over the next 10 years.

Dissomination of Research Findings

Within many tropical countries, little com-munication takes place between research or-ganizations and the government agencies thatcarry out resource development programs (47).In some countries, language barriers and thescarcity and cost of translation services causedifficulties. However, even within the UnitedStates a similar lack of communication occursbetween forestry researchers and technologyimplementors (9). Researchers are not re-warded for publishing in popular literature,and the planners and managers of forest re-source development projects seldom have thetime or inclination to study technical reportsin scientific journals.

Obstacles to effective dissemination include:

● lack of public recognition of the relevanceand urgency of the situation,

• lack of political support,● unwillingness to accept risks,

●

●

●

●

●

●

inadequate verification and demonstrationof findings,incompatibility between donor objectivesand research needs,failure to use the potential of the popularmedia,inadequate funding of dissemination ac-tivities,incomprehensibility of dissemination pres-entations, andinsufficient experience in dissemination(5).

Dissemination of research findings to deci-sionmakers and field staff could be improvedwith better organization and funding (27).IUFRO carries out some dissemination, but itsrole could be increased. IUFRO’S official pub-lications are issued in English, French, andGerman; the lack ‘of Spanish translations is adeficiency. More study tours and exchangesamong developing countries could increasetechnical cooperation (47).

Computerized information storage and re-trieval systems exist in the United States andin other industrial nations that could be usedto improve the dissemination of research re-sults and, thus, could greatly enhance the ben-efits derived from research on tropical forestresources. Examples include the AGRICOLAbibliographic systems of USDA’s National Li-brary of Agriculture, Ecosystematics and otherdata bases at USDA’s Economic Botany Lab-oratory, the Smithsonian Science InformationExchange, the U.S. Forest Service Current In-formation System, and the CommonwealthForestry Institute System (Oxford, England).

The U.S. Forest Service has a popular peri-odical, Treeplanter’s Notes, that disseminatesresearch findings to forestry practitioners. TheFAO Forestry Department does have a publica-tion, Unasylva, but it has a broad focus and isaimed at government decisionmakers in theforestry sector, so it seldom gives the detailforestry practitioners need. Field-level mana-gers need regional publications that are notoverly technical (23). The U.S. Forest Servicefilled this role in one region with The Carib-

bean Forester until this publication was termi-nated in 1963.

AID supports a large number of small news-letters but these are not always well-publicizedand most of them have a narrow focus (23). Oneeffective newsletter published by AID, Re-sources Report, reviews technical reports andwill send copies to less-developed-country sub-scribers who request them. More efforts alsoshould be made to translate key research find-ings into local languages.

Summary

A number of institutional weaknesses in de-veloping countries contribute to the inadequa-cy of forestry research. The most serious defi-ciency in many countries is the shortage ofqualified scientists. Researchers often lackscientific skills as well as related skills inresearch management and administration,technical writing, research design and analysis,foreign language, and data processing (5).Mechanisms exist to provide in-service train-ing to tropical nation scientists at universitiesand herbaria in the United States, and at theresearch stations of the Forest Service andother agencies of the Departments of Agricul-ture and Interior. A thorough review of suchopportunities by the General Accounting Of-fice or a similar agency might reveal ways touse them more effectively.

Well-qualified scientists in tropical nationsoften leave government service or emigrateabroad because of low pay and recognition; in-adequate funding; limited research facilities,equipment, and libraries; or the shortage ofsuitable colleagues. Research is hindered insome countries by bureaucratic rigidities, over-centralization or fragmentation, lack of politi-cal support, and interagency rivalries (9,22,33).In many tropical cultures, little prestige is at-tached to forestry research because the edu-cated, urban class views field work in ruralareas as hardship duty appropriate only forlower level staff (22). U.S. scientists concernedabout the degradation of tropical resourcescould act through their various professional or-ganizations to enhance the prestige of their col-leagues in tropical nations.

Although the United States has recognizedstrengths in the social sciences, the number ofU.S. social scientists with expertise relevant totropical forest resource development is notknown. They may constitute one of the majorU.S. academic strengths for research on tech-nologies to sustain tropical forest resources.One or more centers of excellence in tropicalforestry, as discussed earlier in this chapter,could serve to better coordinate the scatteredU.S. research expertise.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

Background choose, receive, adapt, and deliver technolo-

The experience of U.S. forestry organizationsshows that many potentially profitable tech-niques languish for lack of effective technologytransfer among scientists and between scien-tists and technology users (9). The tropical na-tions facing severe deforestation and rapidpopulation growth cannot afford such ineffi-ciency. Therefore, a concerted effort is neededto build local organizations’ capacities to

gies appropriate to local circumstances.

Technology transfer is the business of the de-velopment assistance agencies, and the way inwhich they conduct their business has a ma-jor influence on whether renewable resourcesare kept renewable. The literature on technol-ogy transfer is voluminous but mainly theoret-ical, and little of this theory is focused onforest-related technologies. So OTA convened


an interdisciplinary panel to consider the con-ditions necessary for successful transfer oftropical forest resource technologies.

Necessary Conditions forSuccesful Technology Transfer

Nine key conditions for successful technol-ogy transfer were identified. First, the tech-nology should be adapted to the local biophys-ical and socioeconomic environment of theusers. The technology to be transferred shouldhave been used successfully elsewhere undersimilar conditions, at least on a pilot scale.Technology transfer should not be confusedwith experimentation or applied research.Otherwise, the technology is likely to be unsuc-cessful and the adopters might become unwill-ing to try other innovations.

Second, technology is transferred most ef-fectively by direct people-to-people actions.People who are to adapt and apply the tech-nology need to learn it directly from peoplewho have experience applying it. Successfultechnology transfers seldom are based solelyon media presentations, such as pamphlets,books, radio programs, or films. Rather, per-sonal interactions are essential. Media presen-tations, however, can help motivate the person-al interaction, supplement technology transferefforts, and support subsequent applications ofthe technology (3).

Third, the technology transfer agents mustbe well-qualified and able to communicate ef-fectively to people who are capable of receiv-ing and applying the technology. Agency per-sonnel who are themselves learning the tech-nology for the first time as they try to transferit are often a cause of failure. Thus, develop-ment assistance agencies need to employ sub-stantial numbers of experienced technicalpersonnel.

A more significant constraint is the lack ofindigenous capacity to continue the technologytransfer beyond the boundaries of developmentassistance projects. Thus, the task for develop-ment assistance agencies is to enable local

organizations to build an effective system oftransfer agents who use personal contact to re-assure people about the appropriateness of aninnovation and who provide the informationneeded for a fair trial.

Fourth, in addition to transfer agents andcapable recipients, “facilitators” or “middle-men” are needed. These people must under-stand the technology transfer process, especial-ly the market for the technology and its prod-ucts and the political, social, and economicconstraints and opportunities affecting theother actors. Because technology transfer isusually a long-term process, subject to mistakesand setbacks, it needs advocates to help thenew technologies compete with establishedways of using resources. Thus, facilitators mustmaintain their roles throughout the transferprocess.

The permanent staff of development assis-tance agencies could act as facilitators. Toooften, however, they are rotated to other partsof the agency before the technology transferprocess is complete. An alternative is for thedevelopment assistance agencies to locate andwork with facilitators among the indigenoustropical people (31).

Fifth, users and transfer agents should be in-volved in choosing, planning, and implement-ing the technology transfer so it meets actualneeds and is appropriate for the situation. Forexample, women are most directly affected bycommunity forestry projects but are usually ex-cluded from problem identification and projectplanning efforts (l).

Sixth, all parties involved must feel that theyare “winners” and must, in fact, be winners.Each actor’s interests should be identified atthe start of the technology transfer process sothey can be addressed. Early in the transferprocess, the potential users must be shown themerits of an innovation (31). Many ideas thatoutsiders think will solve development prob-lems may not seem so beneficial to the peoplewho are directly affected by them. For exam-ple, village woodlots maybe supported by localwomen who otherwise must walk far to col-lect each day’s fuel but resisted by local men

Ch. 12—Education, Research, and Technology Transfer . 271

who may view them as an unprofitable use ofland and by herders who may view them as anintrusion on grazing land.

For technologies designed to produce itemsor services for sale, the intended adoptersusually must have information on markets inorder to anticipate benefits. With reforestationor forest product technologies, the informationcan be obtained through demonstration proj-ects, surveys, and market research. Where ed-ucation and research technologies are beingtransferred, it is necessary to determine whowill reward the educator or researcher forusing the new technologies.

Seventh, the participants must be aware ofsubsequent steps in the transfer process andthe relationship between their actions andthose steps. This requires early definition andcommunication of roles for each person in-volved. A well articulated strategy must be de-vised. Of course, this strategy must be flexible,since it is planned at the time in the transferprocess when least is known about how it willwork. In particular, plans must be made to dis-seminate the technology beyond the pilotproject.

Eighth, demonstrations of the technologyshould take place under conditions similar toconditions that will exist subsequently. Pilotprojects should not be made unrealisticallyeasy by being given unrealistic levels of fundsor other inputs, being located where there arefew socioeconomic or institutional constraints,or being provided with artificial markets.

Finally, the initial commitment of resourcesshould be sufficient to carry the technologytransfer until it is self-supporting. A transferis self-supporting when the techniques havebeen adapted to local conditions and are be-ing adopted spontaneously by organizations orindividuals.

Opportunities to improveTechnology Transfer

In agriculture, development assistance agen-cies have had impressive technology transfersuccesses. Yet, relatively little has been done

in the forestry sector. The need for internation-al assistance in development of forest resourceshas been realized only recently, but there arealready some indications that the level of suchassistance is leveling off (29). The assistanceagencies’ major opportunities, then, lie morein increasing the likelihood of technologytransfer success than in increasing the numberof projects.

Coordination of DevelopmentAssistance Agencies

Many organizations attempt to help tropicalnations develop forest resources, but these ef-forts are poorly coordinated. The causes oftropical forest degradation are so complex thatno single assistance agency is likely to be ableto create sufficient conditions for the foreststo be sustained. To do that the various capa-bilities of all the development assistance agen-cies are needed. However, it is unlikely thatthese capabilities will be applied at the rightplaces at the right times simply by chance.

The need for improved coordination wasstressed in the report of the U.S. InteragencyTask Force on Tropical Forests. In section 118of the Foreign Assistance Act, Congress hasgiven AID a specific mandate to improve coor-dination of forestry and natural resource de-velopment assistance in tropical nations. Butthe needed coordination does not occur be-cause of the structure, staffing, and manage-ment of development assistance bureaucracies.In the tropical countries, these organizationsare generally too understaffed to manage theirown programs sensitively and have no incen-tives to coordinate and collaborate with others(42).

In theory, long range strategies and coordina-tion should be administered by agencies of thetropical nations. In practice, when funding isfrom foreign or international donor agencies,decisions to implement projects are often madewithout reference to a long-term resource de-velopment strategy or to how the project com-pares with alternative investments. Because theavailability of the donor funds usually cannotbe separated from a specific project (41), the


immediate need to maximize foreign donorfunding interferes with the longer term needto coordinate donor efforts.

One way to get around these bureaucraticconstraints is to establish ad hoc internationalorganizations with no programs or policies topromote other than 1) design of long-term strat-egies for technology transfer to effect sustain-able resource development, and 2) coordina-tion of assistance agencies’ contributions tocarrying out those strategies. Coordinated De-velopment in Africa (CDA) is such an ad hocorganization that seems to be gaining the po-litical influence and the technical expertisenecessary to make this approach work. Its ef-forts are directed to designing long-term strat-egies. Whether the coordination necessary tofollow such strategies will be politically feasi-ble remains to be demonstrated.

Need for Profossionals

Another major constraint on successful tech-nology transfer is misidentification of resourcedevelopment problems. This results from a lackof public participation in planning technologytransfers and from a too-narrow technical ap-proach to project planning (19). While the needfor participant planning and interdisciplinarytechnical inputs is widely recognized, it is tooseldom realized. To a large extent this is be-cause of the shortage of technically experi-enced personnel in development assistanceagencies’ offices in the tropical countries (42).

Chronic understaffing means that people incharge must spend nearly all their time doingbureaucratic functions. Technical inputs arethen left almost entirely to contractors. Thismeans the agency staff must make decisionsabout technical matters which they are oftennot qualified to decide.

One opportunity to overcome the shortageof professionals is to encourage experts whowork for U.S. Federal agencies to take tempo-rary assignments in development assistanceagencies (44). This probably cannot be done ef-

fectively without increasing some budgets,however. Supporting U.S. nationals overseasis more expensive than supporting them do-mestically, and their absence would disrupt theprograms of their regular agencies. Public Law85-795 enables domestic agencies to assign per-sonnel to international development organiza-tions, but it is seldom used.

Technology Transfer Timing and Followup

Technology transfer, especially where theemphasis is on building the capacity of localinstitutions to select, adapt, apply, and dissem-inate technical innovations, is a long-term proc-ess. Periods of 10 to 20 years are typicallyneeded before progress can be measured interms of product or income. Yet, short devel-opment project planning and funding cyclesoften mean that projects must be evaluated atthe end of 2 to 5 years to determine whetherfunding is to continue. At this stage, a tech-nology transfer project is barely under way andshould be expected to have revealed problemsand be experiencing setbacks. Thus, the func-tion of an evaluation should be to develop in-formation on how to deal with these. However,this important function is compromised if par-ticipants in the evaluation fear that a seeminglynegative evaluation will lead to premature ter-mination (42).

Once a technology transfer appears to havebecome self supporting on a local level, con-tinuing technical support is often necessary.Unforeseen problems will arise during thetechnology’s diffusion, and these may be be-yond the technical capacity of the local institu-tions. Regional centers of technical expertisethat offer continuing education to technicians,technology managers, and technology transferfacilitators, and that disseminate further in-novations and improvements in technologies,could help solve this problem. This has provensuccessful with remote-sensing technologytransfer projects sponsored by developmentassistance agencies in Africa (7).

Ch. 12—Education, Research, and Technology Transfer Ž 273

CHAPTER 12

1. Agarwal, A., and Arnand, A., “Ask WomenWho Do the Work,” New Scientist, Nov. 4,1982, PP. 302-304.

2. Alexander, L. T., Cady, J, G., Whittig, L. D., andDever, R, F., “Mineralogical and ChemicalChanges in the Hardening of Laterite,” SixthSoil Science Congress, vol. 11, 1956, pp. 67-72.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9,

10,

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

--Beal, G. M., and Bohlen, J. M., “The DiffusionProcess,” Agric. Ext. Spec. Rep. #18 (Ames,Iowa: Iowa State University, 1957). In: Muthand Hendee, 1980.Bethel, J., Burch, W., and Thorud, D., “Profes-sional Education and Technical Training toSupport Development and Implementation ofTechnologies to Sustain Tropical Resources,”OTA commissioned paper, 1982.Brunig, E., Summary Report on the Asia-Pacifi”cRegional Workshop for Forest Research Direc-tors (Honolulu, Hawaii: East-West Center En-vironment and Policy Institute, 1982).Burch, W., “Tropical Forests and U.S. Interests—Some Reminders for Educational Programs,”OTA commissioned paper, 1982.Conitz, M., “Technology Transfer Case Studiesand Comments,” paper delivered at OTA Work-shop on Technology Transfer, Shepard’s Ford,Va., Nov. 17-19, 1982.Coombs, P., “Education on a Treadmill,” Ceres4 (3), 1971.Dawson, D., “Applied Research in the UnitedStates Relevant to Tropical Forests and Wood-Iands, ’’stems That Sustain Tropical Forest andWoodland Resources, ” OTA commissionedpaper, 1982.de la Rue, E. Aubert, “Man’s Influence on Trop-ical Vegetation, ” Proceedings of the Ninth Pa-cific Science Congress, 1958, pp. 81-94.Emmelin, L., “Environmental Education at Uni-versity Level, ” Aznbio 6(4):201-209, 1977.Ewel, J., University of Florida, personal com-munication, 1983.Flores-Rodas, M., “Forestry for Rural Develop-ment: A New Approach, ” Tropical Forests—Utilization and Conservation, Francois Mergen(cd.) (New Haven, Corm.: Yale School of For-estry and Environmental Studies, 1981).Flores-Rodas, M., Research Today for Tomor-row’s Forests: Forestry Research and Develop-ment for SeZf-ReZiance (Rome: Food and Agri-culture Organization, 1981),Fox, G., Forestry in Developing Countries(Washington, D. C.: U.S. Agency for Internation-

REFERENCES

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23,

24.

25.

26.

27,

28.

29.

30.

31.

al Development, 1972), Report TAIOST 72-12.In: Bethel, et al., 1982.Gliessman, S,, “The Use of Traditional Knowl-edge in Development and Implementation ofResource-Use Systems That Sustain TropicalForest and Woodland Resources,” OTA com-missioned paper, 1982.Hardy, F., “Studies on Tropical Soils Identifi-cation and Approximate Estimation of Sesqui-oxide Components by Absorption of Alizarin, ”Jour. Agr. Sci., vol. 21, 1935.Hilmi, H., Reappraisal of Education and Train-ing Needs for Forestry and Forest Industries inAfrica (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion, 1980).Hoskins, M., “Musings on Technology Trans-fer, ” paper prepared for OTA Workshop onTechnology Transfer, Shepard’s Ford, Va., Nov.17-19, 1982,Hoskins, M., Virginia Polytechnic Institute, per-sonal communication, 1983.Ihis, H., botany professor, University of Wis-consin, personal communication, 1982.Janzen, D., “The Relationship of Basic Researchto the Development of the Technologies ThatWill Sustain Tropical Forest Resources,” OTAcommissioned paper, 1982.Joslyn, D,, U.S. Agency for International Devel-opment, personal communication, 1983.I.aarman, J., North Carolina State University,personal communication, 1983.Laarman, J., and Durst, P., “International Link-ages and Activities at North American ForestrySchools,” paper presented at Society of Ameri-can Foresters National Convention, Portland,Oreg., oct. 18, 1983.Ladrach, W., Carton de Colombia, personalcommunication, 1982,Lankester, C., U.N. Development Programme,personal communication, 1983.Margolis, H., Oregon State University, personalcommunication, 1983.McPherson, M. P., Administrator, Agency forInternational Development, Testimony beforethe Subcommittee on Human Rights and Inter-national Organizations, Committee on ForeignAffairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Mar. 30,1982.Miller, K., et al., Strategy for Training inNaturaZ Resources and Environment (Washing-ton, D. C.: World Wildlife Fund, 1980).Muth, R. M., and Hendee, J. C., “Technology


32

33.

Transfer and Human Behavior,” Journal of For-estry 78(3):141-144, 1980.National Academy of Sciences, Committee onResearch Priorities in Tropical Biology, Re-search Priorities in Tropical Biology, 1980.National Task Force on Basic Research in For-estry and Renewable Natural Resources, OurNatural Resources: Basic Research Needs inForestry and Renewable Natural Resources(Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, 1982).

34, Neff, J., “Forestry Curricula: The Missing In-ternational Perspective,” Journal of Forestry 80(1):12, 1982.

35. Nyssonen, A., Post-Graduate Forestry Educa-tion in Europe, With Special Emphasis on theNeeds of Developing Countries (Rome: Foodand Agriculture Organization, 1980).

36. Putney, A., Eastern Caribbean Natural AreaManagement Program, personal communica-tion, 1983.

37. Raven, P., “Basic Research—A Necessary Pre-requisite for Adequate Development of Technol-ogies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources, ”OTA commissioned paper, 1982.

38. Richardson, S. D., “Some Major Issues in Pro-fessional Education for Forestry: An Interna-tional View,” Proceedings of the Second Inter-national Congress of the International Union ofSocieties of Foresters, Helsinki, 1975.

39. Rokeach, M., Beliefs, Attitudes and Values: ATheory of Organization and Change (San Fran-cisco: Jossey Bass PubI., 1976).

40. Rukuba, M,, “Continuing Education Needs of

Developing Countries: A View From Africa,”Proceedings of the Second Congress of the In-ternational Union of Societies of Foresters, Sup-plement, Helsinki, 1975.

41. Shaikh, A., “A Framework for Evaluating theEconomics of Renewable Energy Technol-ogies,” 1982.

42. Stegall, R., “Workshop on Technology Trans-

43

44,

45.

46,

47.

48.

fer,” paper prepared for OTA Workshop onTechnology Transfer, Shepard’s Ford, Va., Nov.17-19, 1982.U.S. Interagency Task Force in Tropical For-ests, The World’s Tropical Forests: A PolicyStrategy and Program for the United States(Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, 1980).Wadsworth, F., “Secondary Forest Manage-ment and Plantation Forestry Technologies toImprove the Use of Converted Tropical Lands,”OTA commissioned paper, 1982.Walton, D., and Wood, D., “Environmental Ed-ucation Technologies as Applied to TropicalForest Management,” OTA commissionedpaper, 1982.Whitmore, L., U.S. Forest Service, personalcommunication, 1983.World Bank/Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion, Forestry Needs in Developing Countries:Time for a Reappraisal? paper for 17th IUFROCongress, Kyoto, Japan, Sept. 6-17, 1981.Yantko, J., and Golley, F,, World Census ofTropical Ecologists (Athens, Ga.: University ofGeorgia, Institute of Ecology, 1977).

chapter 13

Forestry Technologies forU.S. Tropical Territories

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Forestry in the U.S. Tropics

Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

* * * * O * . * . . . . . . . . ● * . , , * . . . . * . . * * . . . . . * . * .

● , . . * * * ● * * * . . . , ● O * * . . * . . . . . . . . . ● , . $ , . . . . . * * * * * .

Technologies for Undisturbed Forests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .S a m p l e E c o s y s t e m s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Making Undisturbed Forests More Valuable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technologies to Reduce Overcutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Industrial Wood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . Wood Fuels.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technologies for Disturbed Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Management of Secondary Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Reforestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . .

Forestry Technologies to Support Agricuhure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Agroforestry .. ● ... ● ●

Watersheds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Resource Development Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Education, Research, and Technology Transfer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Environmental Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........?Professional Education and Technical Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Technology Transfer . . . . . .

Conclusion. . . . . . . .O.. . . .

Chapter 13 References. . . . . . . .

Figure

Figure No.32. Puerto Rico Commonwealth

, . , . . . ., . . . , , .

0 . . . 0 , ,

. 0 . . . . 0

Forests

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 4 6 . , . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . * * ● * O . . *

* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page275

275

276276276277278278279280281281284285287288289289290291292

293

295

Page276

Chapter 13

Forestry Technologies forU.S. Tropical Territories

HIGHLIGHTS●

●

●

The potential of forestry to contribute to eco-nomic development has been underestimatedin the U.S. tropical territories.

Although large-scale industrial forestry is not ●

practical in the island territories, many othertechnologies exist that can help satisfy theneeds of growing populations and sustainthe forest resources.

Implementation of suitable technologies will

these regions and on raising decisionmakerand general public awareness of forest re-source potentials.

until local natural resource agencies haveadequate staff and funding, Federal assist-ance will be required. Without this, neededresource productivity and development op-portunities will be

rely on developing skilled personnel within

FORESTRY IN THE U.S. TROPICS

Until recently the forests in the U.S. tropicalterritories have not been managed actively. Infact, while overexploitation is not now a prob-lem in most areas, poor land uses in the pasthave left the islands with significant amountsof abandoned agricultural land and relativelyunproductive secondary forests.

The U.S. tropical territories also are charac-terized by growing populations, rising importsof food, fuel, and wood, dependence on Federalincome supports, and generally high unem-ployment. Unemployment in Puerto Rico, forexample, exceeds 20 percent in general and ap-proaches 35 percent in rural areas (19). Devel-opment of appropriate forestry and agrofor-estry technologies could help alleviate some ofthese problems. Such technologies could pro-

vide local substitutes

lost.

for imported products,providing employment and income opportuni-ties, and protecting against erosion, floods, andsimilar environmental damage.

The following discussion of technologies thatoffer opportunities for sustainable develop-ment of forest resources in the U.S. tropical ter-ritories is organized in parallel with chapters7 through 10. It deals with conservation of un-disturbed forests, reducing overcutting, man-aging disturbed forests, and forest technologiesto support agriculture. Two other sections, cor-responding to chapters 11 and 12, discuss tech-nologies for resource development planning,professional and technical training, environ-mental education, research, and technologytransfer.

275


Technologies for Undisturbed Forests

Few truly undisturbed forests exist in theU.S. Caribbean and western Pacific territories.Those remaining after the past century’s his-tory of deforestation for agriculture are mostlyin inaccessible regions. There are, however,considerable acreages of secondary forest,some old enough to fit this report’s definitionof undisturbed forest. * Two methods are avail-able to sustain these forest resources: 1) pre-serve samples of forest ecosystems in parks andprotected areas, and 2) make undisturbed for-ests more valuable by increasing sustainableproduction of marketable nonwood products(ch. 7).

Sample Ecosystems

Protected forest areas are well-established inPuerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, butfew have been created in the western Pacific.The most valuable areas of primary forest andthe remaining rare and endemic tree species

*Undisturbed tropical forests are areas where trees are thedominant woody vegetation covering at least 10 percent of theground and where trees have not been cut during the past 60

years.

Figure 32.—Puerto Rico

are protected in Puerto Rico in the Nationaland Commonwealth Forest reserves and in theU.S. Virgin Islands National Park. That parkcovers nearly three-quarters of St. John Island.The Caribbean National Forest in Puerto Ricowas established in 1903 and now encompasses28,000 acres of rain forest. The first Common-wealth forest reserves were formed in 1918.Now 13 of these cover 59,000 acres and theyinclude moist and dry forests and mangroves(fig. 32). Protection policies for these areas havebeen fairly effective and remain strongly sup-ported.

In 1976, the Caribbean National Forest** wasdesignated a biosphere reserve under theUNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) pro-gram. This program is designed to protect rep-resentative samples of major ecosystems andto promote ecologically sound land-use prac-tices in adjacent areas. The forest was subse-quently divided into a central zone where norecreation or management activities are allow-ed, surrounded by a recreation zone that at-tracts hundreds of thousands of visitors each

**The Caribbean National Forest also is known as the LuquilloExperimental Forest and the Luquillo Biosphere Reserve.

Commonwealth Forests

SOURCE: The Geography of Puerto Rico (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1974).

Ch. 13—Forestry Technologies for U.S. Tropical Territories ● 277.

year, and an outer zone where the U.S. ForestService Institute of Tropical Forestry conductsforest management research. Part of the VirginIslands National Park (11,000 acres) and PuertoRico’s Guanica State Forest (10,000 acres) alsohave been designated MAB biosphere reserves(10)0

Creation of a protected area system has beenconsidered in the Pacific Islands for some time,but little has been done. In 1956, the High Com-missioner of the Trust Territory of the PacificIslands established the Ngerukewid IslandsWildlife Preserve (the Seventy Islands Preserve)in the Limestone Islands of Palau (11). This in-cludes war sites and sites where the Yapesepeople carved wheel-shaped stone money thatreaches up to 8 feet in diameter. This preservealso protects the endangered Micronesia meg-apode, the dugong, and other threatened plantand animal species.

The U.S. National Park Service administersthe War in the Pacific National Historical Parkon Guam, which is forest-covered. The U.S.Forest Service helped the Guam Departmentof Agriculture establish the Patti Point NaturalArea on Andersen Air Force Base. In 1973, theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service created the RoseAtoll National Wildlife Refuge at the requestof the government of American Samoa. Sincethen, little activity has been undertaken toestablish protected areas.

Opportunity: Characteristics of the westernPacific Islands such as high endemism, fragileecosystems, and dependence on surface watermake protection of some forest areas on theseislands appropriate. National conservationplans are needed to identify sites that shouldbe protected as permanent preserves and sitesto be protected until management’s plan canbe instituted.

A team effort by appropriate island agencies,U.S. Federal agencies, and local colleges couldbe used to inventory resources and to designparks and reserves. This would build localmanagerial capacity and ensure that protectedareas fit local needs and conditions.

Current resource inventories conductedcooperatively by local and Federal agenciesprovide a base of information for protectedarea establishment. These efforts could be ex-panded to produce comprehensive natural re-source surveys on all the major islands.


One method to sustain forest resources is topromote the profitable and sustainable use ofanimals and plant products other than wood.This could increase the perceived value of theforest without increasing the motivation toovercut its trees. The potential to develop suchproducts is not large in Puerto Rico and theU.S. Virgin Islands, but some opportunitiesexist, such as small-scale production of honey,bamboo products, eucalyptus leaves and oil,molluscicidal Phytolacca, and sphagnum mossfor nursery planting (12). The U.S. Forest Serv-ice has no permanently assigned economic bot-anist and local governments have no plans toassess or develop such resources.

The potential for this sort of development‘seems greater in the western Pacific islandsbecause they have more subsistence-orientedeconomies. Gathering activities are a normalpart of subsistence life on the largely com-munally owned western Pacific islands. How-ever, this has endangered the Micronesiamegapode, a ground-nesting bird whose eggsare considered a delicacy; the dugong, whosevertebrae have been used as wrist and ankleornaments; and the fruit bat, among others,

Efforts to manage the fruit baton a sustainedbasis, including maintenance of its forest hab-itat, are under way. The Yapese fruit bat is en-demic and is Yap’s only indigenous mammal.These bats are a traditional food in Yap andare highly sought after by inhabitants of theMarianas as well. The fruit bats also are be-lieved important for fruit tree pollination andseed distribution, especially for mango trees (6).Recently the Government of Yap State bannedhunting of the bat. The U.S. Forest Service is


Examples include harvest of nonwood forestproducts such as essential oils and mangroveaquatic organisms, and innovative forest re-source management programs that have thepotential to reverse a trend of overharvest.

Technologies tO Reduce Overcutting

Methods to reduce the rate of forest degrada-tion from wood harvest and use include: 1) im-proved harvesting and transport technologiesto reduce the extent of forest harvested and toreduce the adverse impacts of harvesting andtransport; and 2) reduced demand for woodproducts through more efficient use of avail-able products (ch. 8).

Industrial Wood

Relatively little potential for full-scale indus-trial forestry exists in the U.S. territories dueto limited forest acreages, topographical fac-tors, competing land uses, small landholdings,high land prices, and uncertain land tenure.However, potential does exist for small-scaleindustries that can serve domestic markets andcontribute to rising living standards (24).

For example, portable sawmills were intro-duced in Puerto Rico in 1982, Teak, mahogany,and Caribbean pine have been successfully andeconomically thinned, milled, and marketed bythe Puerto Rico Forest Service. There are plansto expand this program. Portable sawmills,combined with regulation of exploitation, areprobably the best-suited harvesting systems forthe western Pacific as well.

Portable sawmills are especially appropriatefor cooperative use because they can be usedas needed and temporarily retired without sig-nificant economic disadvantages. They requirelittle operator training (24). Because they canbe pulled to the harvest site behind small vehi-cles, they cause less harm to thin soils than lar-ger systems. They do not require an extensiveroad system and they leave bark and brancheson the site, thus reducing nutrient loss.

Small-scale sawmills in rural areas can stim-ulate development of local workshops with cor-responding effects on rural employment. These

Ch. 13—Forestry Technologies for U.S. Tropical Territories Ž 279

Photo credit: Williarn Balrner

This plant in Cambalache State Forest, Puerto Rico, is treating posts from both private and Commonwealth lands and is helpingdemonstrate the opportunities for growing and using local wood.

effects could be expanded by introducing facil-ities such as simple and inexpensive solar kilnsor wood preservation equipment. This type offorest industry development can be upgradedas workers improve their skills, local manage-ment masters the task, and local markets growto absorb increased production (24).

Opportunity: Small-scale forest industriesthat supply local markets could serve as a start-ing place for a more comprehensive local for-estry industry. Rural centers could processwood products from portable mills. This wouldencourage the creation of a forest constituen-cy to encourage local private organizations andgovernments to take action to sustain the forest

resources. Governments in both the Caribbeanand Pacific territories are promoting the crea-tion of private cooperatives in agriculture, al-though none have yet been organized in for-estry.

Wood Fuels

Little need exists to reduce demand for mostlocal wood products in the U.S. territories. Im-ports have substituted for products previouslyderived from local forests. However, woodfuels are in short supply in some areas, andwood fuel technologies can be used to increasethe efficiency of forest product use.

25-287 0 - 84 - 19

280 ● Technologies to Sustain Tropica/ Forest Resources

Firewood is not in high demand in PuertoRico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, except forsome recreational uses. There is significant de-mand for charcoal for roadside food stands andhome uses; charcoal is imported from theUnited States, Germany, and the DominicanRepublic (12). Locally produced charcoal ismade by traditional labor-intensive methodsusing earth kilns. As costs of importing fossilfuels increase, the demand for biomass fuelsshould increase.

The U.S. Forest Service uses a more efficient,portable kiln on St. Croix, to produce charcoalwith wood from thinning and other timberstand improvement work in the Estate ThomasExperimental Forest (23). The Puerto RicoForest Service operates one demonstration kilnbut more activity in this area maybe necessaryto encourage timber stand improvement (22).In addition, because the demand for fuelwoodis relatively low in U.S. tropical forests, theyoffer an opportunity to study charcoal produc-tion and conversion technologies in a stable en-vironment.

The demand for fuelwood in the U.S. west-ern Pacific is rising because of increasing pop-ulations and high fossil fuel costs. Perhaps one-third of the Micronesia people have left theirrural lands and are concentrated in urban areas(38). They need inexpensive energy for cook-ing. The availability, transport, and price offuelwood can vary greatly on an island andfrom one island to another. Some towns nolonger have readily available sources of fuel-wood, although accessibility to distant suppliesis increasing as roads are improved.

Improved small-scale charcoal productiontechnologies could make wood a more impor-tant energy source. Markets for charcoal mayexist in Japan and other Asiatic nations. How-ever, this type of commercial involvementshould not be promoted until it has been deter-mined that the islands could meet their ownneeds on a sustained basis. It is likely that man-made plantations and woodlots would be re-quired, although this could also provide a usefor scrub and for senescent coconut trees.

Opportunity: Senescent coconut plantations,a major vegetative cover in the U.S. PacificIslands, could be used to produce charcoal un-til conventional firewood plantations are estab-lished. Old coconut stems cannot be left to rotbecause of the risk of infestation by the Rhinoc-eros Beetle, which breeds in the old stems andattacks the newly planted nuts. Unmanagedcoconut plantations also provide larval mos-quito habitats in water-filled old nuts. The mos-quitos have been known to carry elephantiasis,encephalitis, and dengue* (13).

Coconut stems are unsuitable as firewooddue to a high moisture content and low density,but they have high thermal efficiency as char-coal. The technologies for producing coconutstem charcoal are simple and well-known. Forexample, after air-drying, short billets can beburned in simple kilns or 40-gallon drums.

Development of a coconut stem charcoal in-dustry also could provide some spinoff bene-fits. Coconut shells produce a high grade phar-maceutical charcoal suitable for activation thatis used as a filter in many industrial and phar-maceutical uses. High-value, low-volume com-modities such as this are potential export prod-ucts (18).

Technologies for Disturbed Forests

Most of the island territories were cleared inthe late 19th and early 20th centuries for exportagriculture—primarily sugarcane, tobacco, andcoffee. When production declined, rural pop-ulations reverted to subsistence and local cashcrop production, allowing forests to return onsome areas. More recently, as populations mi-grate to urban areas and as income supportprograms replace subsistence agriculture, thearea of abandoned agricultural lands is againexpanding and much of this is reverting to sec-ondary forest.

Data on the extent of secondary forest are notyet available for most of the western Pacific ter-ritories, but Guam is estimated to have about

*OTA is conducting an assessment of biomedical research andrelated technologies for dealing with tropical diseases.

Ch. 13—Forestry Technologies for U.S. Tropical Territories ● 287

70,000 unmanaged acres covered with brushor trees and 50,000 acres of open or grass-cov-ered land (38). Secondary forest covers 800,000acres of Puerto Rico. Forest and brush cover30,000 acres of the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Much of this land could be used to producetimber and other forest goods, as could somelands that are not naturally regenerating, par-ticularly the savanna lands of the western Pa-cific. Significant potential for commercial for-est plantations exists only for the larger islandsof Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Pon-ape, and Palau. But small-scale timber standimprovement and village woodlots could sup-ply some needs on smaller islands.

Management of Socondary Forests

Brush and secondary forest in the U.S. VirginIslands generally is scrubby and of little inter-est for wood production. A small area on St.Croix might be suitable for this use, but highland prices and land speculation probably pre-vent secondary forest management from beingperceived as a profitable investment.

Puerto Rico has large areas of secondary for-est and its management is a primary focus ofthe U.S. Forest Service Institute of TropicalForestry (ITF). ITF is conducting an inventoryof secondary forest in Puerto Rico. Althoughmost of the trees have little commercial value,the inventory reveals that some valuable timberspecies are regenerating on abandoned lands.Standard timber stand improvement techniquescould result in valuable future timber stands(22).

Some of these techniques such as enrichmentline plantings of mahogany are being used inthe National and Commonwealth forests. Sub-sequent harvest provides income for the PuertoRico Division of Forestry and supports fur-ther management of the National Forest. Eventhough improved timber stands probably willnot become a major land use they do have po-tential to increase the value of private forestlandholdings held for other purposes, such asrecreation, second homes, or inheritance.

Wood harvest in the western Pacific is limitedto fuelwood, some home construction mater-ials, individual tree use by the crafts industry,and some commercial harvest of mangroves(32). Little of the forest has significant poten-tial for commercial timber exploitation becauseof low volume and poor-quality trees (38). Sec-ondary forest management, however, has con-siderable potential to provide locally usedproducts—crafts, poles, construction materials,firewood, and charcoal. Cottage-based indus-tries could be developed around local forestproducts.

Opportunity: Even though managed second-ary forest is not likely to become a major landuse in the U.S. territories, it merits considera-tion as an improvement over unmanaged, low-quality brush or forest land unsuitable for agri-culture. In Puerto Rico, managed secondaryforests can provide a first harvest before con-version to plantation forestry or increase thevalue of land deliberately held out of intensiveproduction [e.g., recreation sites).

Additionally, secondary forest managementwill provide a means for the National and Com-monwealth forests to gain income for furtherforestry and preservation efforts. In the west-ern Pacific, managed secondary forests cansustain the supply of raw materials for locallyused products. Both efforts require further in-formation on the extent, composition, andquality of secondary forests, and on the cur-rent and potential uses of both native and in-troduced species.

Reforestation

Plantations require more intensive manage-ment and a greater initial capital outlay peracre than secondary forests, but usually pro-duce greater wood yields because stockingrates and species composition are controlled.Plantation forestry has greater potential inPuerto Rico than in the other territories be-cause of higher average per capita income andgreater land tenure security. An estimated200,000 acres are suitable for plantation for-


estry (35,36). No plantation inventory has beenconducted in Puerto Rico, but between 35,000and 95,000 acres of plantations, primarily Car-ibbean pine, are estimated to exist. Many ofthese plantings were established in public for-ests during the 1930’s (19).

The yield of a pine plantation in PuertoRico’s moist and wet forests is about 25 cubicmeters per hectare per year (2,000 board feet/acre/year) if production is averaged across therotation (40). Intensive thinning could increasethis yield and produce 1,000 or more posts peracre across a 20-year rotation. Thus, establish-

ment of 100,000 acres of softwood plantationcould produce 2000 million board feet of lumberper year once sustained yields were achieved.

In 1981, 83 million board feet of softwoodlumber, 58 million square feet of softwoodpanels and veneers, and 195,000 poles were im-ported to Puerto Rico. The land potentiallyavailable for plantations could satisfy that levelof demand. However, demand is growing atabout 5 percent annually. The planting of 5,000acres per year for the next 20 years would re-sult in 100,000 acres of plantation, but majorharvests would not begin until the 21st year.


Similarly, if 100,000 acres of high-value hard-wood plantations were established, the averageannual production would be about 70 millionboard feet. In 1981, 11 million board feet ofhardwood lumber and 97 million square feetof hardwood panel and veneer were imported.Here again, the current demand could supporta planting program of this scale. Puerto Rico,however, would still import other products suchas paper, furniture, veneers, and composites.

Plantation forestry has not attracted muchprivate investment on Puerto Rico for severalreasons:

Ž Private landholdings tend to be small,reducing cost effectiveness of intensiveforestry activities and increasing the com-petition between forestry and other landuses (e.g., agriculture or recreation).

● Shortages of capital and credit for small-plot landholders may not permit invest-ment by rural people in plantationforestry,

● Many private landholders in Puerto Ricohold land for its recreational or futuredevelopment values and may not be in-terested in its productive value.

Ž High land prices and a law limitingprivate or corporate landholdings to 500acres may be disincentives to investmentin plantation forestry.

Two Federal programs administered by theUSDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conserva-tion Service (ASCS) are designed to aid privatelandowners in forestry activities: the Agricul-tural Conservation Program (ACP) and the For-estry Incentive Program (FIP). Both providecost-sharing to small-plot landowners.

FIP and ACP were used only in Puerto Rico.Between 1975 and 1980, there had been only23 participants in the FIP program in PuertoRico, reforesting only 213 acres (27). ACPallows greater eligibility and is an older pro-gram. From 1936 to 1980, Federal ACP incen-tives helped to plant over 30,000 acres in PuertoRico for soil erosion control and commercialpurposes. There have been no participants inFIP or ACP in the U.S. Virgin Islands or theU.S. western Pacific territories.

ACP is designed to take land out of annualcrop production that would presumably beworth more to society for its environmentalservices when fallow than for its productswhen cropped. FIP is oriented toward thegreatest return on invested money rather thanto widest spread reforestation and, thus, land-owners with greater earning capacity havepreference over those with greater need forassistance. Neither program assures incomeduring the years before harvest (7).

In recent years, Federal policy has changedemphasis from cost-sharing to income tax in-centives to effect forestry practices on privatelands. So the budget has been reduced for theACP and FIP programs. Forestry incentives inPuerto Rico are lost with this change, ascitizens there are exempt from paying U.S.Federal income taxes.

Successful programs to stimulate private in-vestment in forestry require the simultaneousdevelopment of extension and education pro-grams, nursery production and delivery sys-tems, and trained foresters and forest techni-cians. Loggers, sawmill operators, and lumbertreating and drying experts must be trained,and marketing systems must be developed (19).Since it takes years to develop some of thesesystems, their simultaneous development mustbe part of a long-term continuing effort. Thisrequires a stable political commitment.

Until recently, slow progress in forestry hasbeen due to a lack of Federal and local fundingand political support. The Commonwealth gov-ernment for at least 15 years had not put a highpriority on forestry. But Puerto Rico now hasthe legal (Forest Law No. 133 of 1975) and ad-ministrative structure (through the Departmentof Natural Resources) to develop a strong andeffective Forest Service.

The Puerto Rico Department of Natural Re-sources (DNR) has recently embarked on anambitious program to bring private landownersinto commercial forestry. This program reliesheavily on U.S. Federal cost-sharing programsfor private landholders and on funding fromU.S. Forest Service State and Private Forestrygrants. Unfortunately, these Federal funds are


declining. The program is organized into threephases, as follows: a media program, harvesttechnology demonstration, and organization offorestry cooperatives.

The U.S. Virgin Islands also has a reforesta-tion program for private landowners, fundedby the U.S. Forest Service State and PrivateForestry program and by the local government.This program, in operation since 1967, oper-ates a nursery, runs an urban forestry programon public lands, and runs a rural reforestationprogram, An average of 25 to 30 acres are re-forested each year (3).

The goal of the reforestation program is toprovide a local supply of high-value hard-woods, especially mahogany. As incentives, theVirgin Islands Forestry Program offers low-cost rental of land-clearing equipment as wellas free seedlings and technical advice. In ad-dition, the U.S. Virgin Islands Government of-fers a 95 percent property tax rebate for landsretained in agriculture or forestry, Mostreforested lands are those too steep for cultiva-tion or grazing and, thus, the program indirect-ly reduces runoff and erosion.

The urban forestry program sponsors plant-ing of mahogany and other species on publiclands. Since the potential volume of wood issmall in the U.S. Virgin Islands, local produc-tion of high-value products seems appropriate.Small and low-value trees removed during thin-ning could be used for fence posts and char-coal. Even street and yard trees can be valua-ble: an estimated 500,000 board feet of mer-chantable mahogany exists in the islands (23).

A small wood crafts and specialty furnitureindustry exists on St. Croix. Urban and road-side trees that must be removed for otherreasons supply much of the raw material. Bran-ches and crotches in the trunk provide figuredwood and can be the most valuable part of thetree. This use of available wood could be amodel for economic use of wood where large-scale commercial forestry is not feasible.

Transportation costs and insecure land ten-ure hinder timber production for other thanlocal uses on most western Pacific islands.

Some commercial exploitation of lumber forlocal use could be allowed on larger islands,but in general the forests of the western Pacificislands are too meager to sustain commercialdevelopment of forest products such assawlogs, lumber, wood chips, or paper pulp(15). Local markets for firewood, charcoal, localconstruction materials, crafts, and fruit cropsprovide opportunities for investment in treeplantations. Research and demonstration plotsof native and introduced species and methodsof transferring technologies to villages andprivate landholders need to be established, es-pecially for intensive firewood plantations.

Opportunity: The U.S. Congress and the U.S.Forest Service could jointly provide politicaland financial support for DNR and Virgin Is-lands Department of Agriculture programs toencourage plantation forestry to increase self-sufficiency and build local forest industries.Congress could communicate to the heads ofU.S. Caribbean governments the importanceCongress places on sustainable developmentof local forest resources. The Forest Servicecould provide support for local programsthrough State and Private Forestry grants. Suchactions are needed to ensure continuity of pro-grams despite political changes.

The Forest Service could provide increasedtechnical assistance to U.S. tropical territoriesin the Pacific to identify areas suitable for in-vestment in plantation forestry and to developtechnologies appropriate for forest manage-ment under the tropical island conditions. TheForest Service, in cooperation with the Feder-ated States of Micronesia, is using soil and veg-etation maps to perform the first forest re-source assessment of those islands. Similar as-sessments could be done to develop plans forother areas.

Forestry Technologies toSupport Agriculture

Agroforestry and watershed technologies aredesigned to use trees to support agriculturaland other resources. Coastal resources, in par-ticular, are affected by island forest manage-


Photo credit: William Balmer

Urban forestry in the U.S. Virgin Islands. These trees (hybrid mahogany) will be harvested for lumber

ment. Elevated tropical islands (“high islands”)have steep slopes and, where cleared, tend tohave high erosion rates. The estimated erosionrates in the U.S. Caribbean compared with thecontinental U.S. average are 15 times higherfor ungrazed forest land, nearly 10 times higherfor cleared cropland, and 18 times higher forrangeland.

Agroforestry

Agroforestry is a traditional practice in PuertoRico (coffee/shade tree, fruit tree/plaintain) andon many Pacific islands (tree/yam, coconut/

breadfruit). Teak/forage agroforestry has beenpracticed in the U.S. Virgin Islands, althoughthis has little potential for expansion (23).

Traditional agroforestry systems are becom-ing obsolete because of Federal food assistanceprograms and other alternatives to subsistencefood production. The necessary skills andknowledge gradually are being lost on manyislands or may reside only in the oldest genera-tion (38). The U.S. Forest Service is beginninga small project to evaluate traditional agrofor-estry in Micronesia. Through its vegetationmapping project of the Federated States of Mi-

286 ● Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources— —

Photo credit: C. Whitesell

Breadfruit—used here to make a canoe—is often used in traditional agroforestry practice in the western Pacific. Althoughagroforestry has declined in these islands, it retains considerable potential as a productive and sustainable land use

cronesia and Palau, the Forest Service has lo-cated considerable acreage that is still used fortraditional agroforestry. It can be a sustainableand productive land use, especially on slopeswhere open-land, bare-soil types of agricultureresult in erosion and subsequent siltation.

The U.S. Forest Service Institute of PacificIslands Forestry is pursuing some research inagroforestry. It includes species trials andnursery development in the Marshall Islandsand Yap, studies of the effects of fertilizer ongrowth and yield of certain agroforestry crops,and growth studies of some tree species. TheInstitute of Tropical Forestry in Puerto Ricohas performed a survey of agroforestry tech-niques in Latin America (37) but is not conduct-ing further research on this topic.

Opportunity: Improved agroforestry systemsalined with traditional techniques should be ac-ceptable to people already using agroforestryand transferable to new practitioners. Agrofor-estry in place of cleared-land agriculture, es-pecially in mountainous areas, could reduceerosion and siltation and provide a sustainableuse for some degraded and marginal lands.

In Puerto Rico, which has better road sys-tems and markets than the other islands, agro-forestry producing a cash crop would probablybe best accepted. The USDA Mayaguez Insti-tute of Tropical Agriculture in Puerto Ricocould perform trials on its experimental landsin cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service.

In the western Pacific, subsistence agrofor-estry could be appropriate in the short term,

Ch. 13—Forestry Technologies for U.S. Tropical Territories ● 287—

combined with research on species suitable forcash-crop agroforestry that could be imple-mented as markets develop. Western Pacifictrials could be performed jointly by the U.S.Forest Service, the University of Guam, theNekken Forestry Experiment Station on Palau,the Metalinim Forestry Station on Ponape, andwith other island organizations and agencies.

Watersheds

The most pronounced impacts of forest lossin the U.S. tropical territories are on islandstreams and coastal resources. Deforestationhas caused permanent streams on some islandsto disappear and it contributes to increasedrunoff, flooding, water shortages, and erosion.Siltation has harmful effects on lagoons andreefs, affecting fish and other marine resourcesimportant to island people,

Most upper watersheds in Puerto Rico havesteep slopes and many should remain forest-covered. In general, these lands are also toosteep for significant wood harvest. With ap-propriate regulation, however, some gathering,recreation activities, and residential develop-ment might be allowed.

The U.S. Virgin Islands have major waterproblems. There are no permanent streams onthe islands. Island aquifer water levels aredeclining as growing populations pump outmore water than is recharged. Water suppliesare derived primarily from costly desaliniza-tion of sea water and water barged in fromPuerto Rico. Watersheds in the U.S. Virgin Is-lands are privately owned and mostly brushcovered. Some livestock is run on these lands,but there is little agriculture, except on St.Croix. Nothing is done collectively to managethese lands for water retention and erosion pre-vention.

Natural siltation in the western Pacific regionis greatest around high islands. Elevated water-sheds collect and accelerate runoff. Aroundthese islands, however, mangrove forests andstands of seagrass act as filters to removesediments before the runoff water reacheslagoons or reefs. In many areas, erosion andmarine siltation have been accelerated by de-

Photo credit: William Balmer

This plantation of blue mahoe (Hibiscus elatus), a valuablehardwood that gorws well on many moist sites in Puerto Ricolike others planted on private lands, was established for

watershed protection

forestation, so that plumes of eroded soils oftenare seen near the mouths of streams in Micro-nesia. The silt represents a lost resource andpollutes the marine environment. Activitiesthat aggravate soil erosion include cultivationpractices, construction, roadbuilding, andburning, which removes vegetative cover fromhills, Due to repeated burnings on NorthernBabeldaob (Palau), formerly permanent streamsnow run only when rain falls, and then theyare often fast and muddy (5),


Opportunity: Resource managers disagree onthe relative advantages of reforesting water-sheds or leaving them in grass and brush cover.Reforestation reduces runoff and erosion ratesand so increases catchment lifetimes and pro-tects coastal resources. Some experts believeit might increase aquifer recharge. On the otherhand, trees use more water than grass andbrush, so tree planting reduces the amount ofwater immediately available to catchments. De-graded pasture and brush are more susceptibleto frequent burning and conversion to unsus-tainable land uses than are managed forests(22). A careful assessment is required to deter-mine the optimal vegetation cover for eachwatershed area. There seems little doubt thatsteep coastal slopes should be forested to re-duce erosion and, thus, reduce siltation of la-goons, reefs, and mangroves.

Resource Development PIanning

Most conversion of tropical forest land toother uses is done without adequate consider-ation of whether the natural and human re-sources available at the site can sustain the newland uses. Resource development planning isa systematic attempt to match land develop-ment activities to the capabilities of the specificsites (ch. 11).

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands havebeen extensively studied and are classified un-der the Beard system, based on floristics andspecies composition (1,2); the Holdridge LandClassification System, based on precipitation,biotemperature, and potential evapotranspira-tion (8,9); and the USDA Soil ConservationLand Capability System (28). Because land usesand vegetation are continuously changing, de-tailed land classification data require contin-ued updating and revision.

In the U.S. tropical territories, little use hasbeen made of economic and social assessmentsfor forestry development. The Puerto RicoDepartment of Natural Resources has con-ducted a benefit-cost analysis of an expandedforest tree planting and wood-use program bas-ed on small-scale harvesting (19). DNR has also

prepared a financial analysis of small-scaleprivate forestry (20).

Knowledge of the remaining tropical forestsin the western Pacific, the local uses of tropicalforest products (e.g., medicines), and local cus-toms involving forests is insufficient for plan-ning. Information on the nature and magnitudeof the forest resources, including vegetation,land use, watershed, wildlife, commercialtimber, and ecosystems is either lacking or tooscattered to assist forest management plan-ning and protection programs.

The U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Is-lands (TTPI) Government contracted with theU.S. Soil Conservation Service and the U.S.Forest Service to map the soils and vegetationcover types of the Republic of Palau and thefour states of the Federated States of Micro-nesia. These soil and vegetation maps are usedin land-use planning and are being used to con-duct the first forest resource assessment of theFederated States of Micronesia. Preparation ofState/Territorial Forest Resource ProgramPlans is expected to be completed in 1983.

Similar assessments could be conducted else-where in the western Pacific (38). Currentguidelines and funding permit the U.S. ForestService to conduct resource inventories andforest management research only whencooperating island governments provide fun-ding and field assistance (4). The U.S. ForestService has memoranda of understanding witheach of the island governments regardingresource assessments, but inadequate fundinghas hindered completion of these efforts.

A complementary series of assessments bythe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could deter-mine damage by and control measures neededfor introduced animal species, effects of landuses on coastal organisms, conservation meas-ures for endemic species, and other topics. TheU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recentlycompleted an ornithological and botanical sur-vey on Guam. Additional “terrestrial surveys”in the northern Mariana Islands are under way.Similar surveys are expected to be undertakenon Ponape, Truk, Yap, and Kosrae (17), but


budget reductions have postponed these efforts(39).

Opportunity: Resource development plan-ning could help identify where agricultural ac-tivities should be limited and where they mightrequire special designs. Similarly, such plan-ning could help determine optimal sites forroads from both ecological and social pointsof view. To supplement this, island governmentagencies could prepare environmental impactstatements, hold public hearings, and seek ap-proval from the appropriate local resourceagency to control and monitor logging, landclearing, road construction, coral mining, etc.(38). The U.S. Forest Service and Army Corpsof Engineers could provide assistance whenroad-building activities are being planned.


Lack of awareness of forest resource values,shortages of forest resource professionals, andinsufficient technology transfer are institu-tional constraints that inhibit development ofsustainable forest systems in the U.S. Carib-bean and western Pacific territories (ch. 12).

Environmental Education

Government decisionmakers in the U.S. terri-tories have expressed growing interest in sus-taining and developing their forest resources.However, this interest may be temporary un-less people at all levels of society seek alterna-tives to resource-degrading activities and investin resource-sustaining technologies. Motivat-ing such action is the goal of environmentaleducation.

Like other New World colonies, many Carib-bean islands were almost completely cut overto produce agricultural export crops between1800 and 1898, producing a “burn the forests”attitude toward development (14). As yet, risingincomes and education have not brought abouta widespread environmental awareness move-ment such as that in the continental UnitedStates. The result has been a continuing viewthat the forest is useful for recreation and tour-ism but must be removed to make way for more

productive investments (7). This has begun tochange only recently.

A primary forestry objective of the PuertoRico DNR is to change public attitudes througheducation and incentives to involve people inforestry policy and activities. DNR has one ortwo field agents in each of the five regions ofPuerto Rico who receive 2 weeks of forestrytraining. This training is to be updated regular-ly. In addition, pamphlets on forest plantingmay now be found in all Agricultural Exten-sion Offices and a new pamphlet on the finan-cial opportunities of timber production onprivate lands will soon be disseminated (21).

Education also has been a major focus of U.S.assistance to the western Pacific territories. Pri-mary and secondary education are compulsoryin Micronesia, and the Federal Governmenthas helped create several community collegesand the University of Guam. Each of these hasbeen designated a land-grant college, givingthem access to Federal support for agricultureand forestry.

Many of the inhabitants of the island terri-tories can be reached through education be-cause of the young age structure. For example,44 percent of Micronesia’s population in 1980was under the age of 15. Under the Compactof Free Association agreement, the U.S. Gov-ernment will continue to fund public educa-tion, including a $3 million grant for a highereducation scholarship fund. But many of thesescholarships are based on financial need andnot on the field of study needed for economicgrowth (33). Increased exposure to environ-mental education in primary and secondaryschools, together with awarding scholarshipsto students interested in resource development,may be the first steps toward creating environ-mental awareness.

Opportunity: The Puerto Rican Governmentcould begin to encourage resource-conservingattitudes by increasing environmental educa-tion at all levels. Three interacting activitiesthat could have significant effects are:

1. Create training courses for primary andsecondary level teachers using protectedforests as demonstration areas.


Photo credit: USFS-ITF

Youth conservation worker programs can introduce local people to basic principles of ecology and forest management.Here, Young American Conservation Corps enrollees plant mahogany” in a Puerto Rican public fores{

2.

3.

Increase use of local youth conservationworkers in National and Commonwealthforests and other natural resource areas. *Make forest resource management an areaof study at the University of Puerto Ricoeither by developing a resource manage-ment curriculum or by creating a “centerof excellence” to provide a focus of inter-est and efforts on tropical forest resources(ch. 12).

Environmental education in the U.S. westernPacific seems to have had little effect (15). TheU.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice, National Park Service, National MarineFisheries Service, Peace Corps, and local col-

*Currently, Young American Conservation Corps (YACC)workers in Puerto Rico are trained by ITF personnel and as-signed to Commonwealth and National Forests (30).

leges could collaborate to produce course ma-terials that stress resource awareness andencourage the territorial governments to in-clude resource and conservation programs inschool curricula. They could also translatetechnical environmental information for gen-eral public use (29).

Professional Education andTechnical Training

The U.S. tropical territories do not have astrong constituency concerned with forest con-servation. Developing such a constituency andintegrating natural resource considerations intoeconomic development both will require per-sonnel with substantial knowledge and exper-tise in natural resource management in generaland tropical forestry in particular. In the short


term, a limited number of resource profession-als with expertise in tropical forestry can beattracted to the islands from the mainland. Butthe Forest Service reward structure inhibitsthis, and lack of scientific facilities and fund-ing hinder university personnel. In the longrun, an effective method to educate and trainlocal people is needed.

The University of Puerto Rico lacks a forestrycurriculum. Puerto Rico and the U.S. VirginIslands support only two students per year inforestry and forest ecology training. A similardearth of forestry specialists exists in the U.S.western Pacific. No forestry curriculum existsat the University of Guam, although officialshave expressed a strong interest in developingone (4). The closest forestry school is at the for-est ranger school at the University of Buloloin Papua New Guinea. The need for trained for-esters and forest technicians is particularlyacute as the island governments expand theirgovernment forestry agencies and forestryplans.

Opportunity: Fostering natural resource man-agement training and education in the U.S. ter-ritories could be achieved in four ways:

1.

2.

3.

Students interested in natural resourcemanagement could be encouraged to applyfor scholarships at U.S. schools and intern-ships with private organizations. The bestsponsors for such scholarships might beprivate firms with production facilities ormarkets in the territories.Scholarships also could be provided forforest technician students to attend naturalresource management programs in tropi-cal country schools (e. g., Costa Rica, Ven-ezuela, Papua New Guinea), where tech-nical training may be more relevant.Forestry/forest ecology/conservation cur-ricula could be developed at the Univer-sity of Puerto Rico and the University ofGuam, possibly using McIntyre-Stennisfunds. *

*The McIntyre-Stennis Act of 1962 authorizes cooperativeforestry research between the U.S. Department of Agricultureand state and land-grant universities.

4. Forestry institutions in each region couldbe designated “centers of excellence” ineducation and research related to tropicalforestry resources and as such could pro-vide graduate study and research facilitiesfor students from U.S. and tropical univer-sities (ch, 12).

Research

The U.S. Forest Service Institute of TropicalForestry (ITF) was established in 1939 as a re-sult of congressional recognition that lack oftechnical knowledge hindered successful refor-estation and forestry efforts in Puerto Rico. ITFuses the National Forest, some Commonwealthforests, and the 124-acre Estate Thomas Exper-imental Forest in the U.S. Virgin Islands forresearch. ITF conducts cooperative researchwith agencies such as AID, the Peace Corps,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and several uni-versities and Caribbean nation governments.Recent ITF research is intended to:

●

●

●

develop guidelines to establish and man-age timber plantations (primarily pinesand exotic hardwoods) without adverselyaffecting site productivity;develop knowledge about biological poten-tial of timber production from secondaryforests, with due regard for other environ-mental concerns; anddevelop knowledge about forest wildlifehabitat requirements and techniques tomanage these habitats (focusing on the en-dangered Puerto Rican parrot and associ-ated species).

ITF research activities have traditionally fo-cused on basic ecology and industrial forestry.The latter is not widely applicable to the U.S.Caribbean. Only about 6 percent of landhold-ings are 100 acres or greater, but these cover65 percent of farmland. Most of these largerholdings are commercial farms on the coastalplains or coffee plantations on hilly regions.Many of the large-plot landowners in forestedregions may be real estate investors waiting forland prices in the U.S. Caribbean to increase,and as such may be uninterested in productiveuses of their land. Environmental educationand extension efforts could be made to change

292 . Technologies to Sustain Tropicat Forest Resources

this attitude and some commercial forestry re-search should be conducted for these land-owners.

However, research directions have begun tochange in recent years. Since the Forest andRangeland Renewable Resources Research Actof 1978 (Public Law 95-307) and the concurrentgrowth in interest in international forestry, ITFhas conducted a survey of agroforestry in LatinAmerica (37) and studies of fuelwood produc-tion (30). Yet, ITF budgets have been cut backcontinuously for the past few years and the pri-mary focus is still on industrial production.

Industrial forestry research at the ITF couldbe complemented by research aimed at theneeds of Caribbean society in general (e.g., en-vironmental services, esthetics) and of thesmall-plot landholder. Nearly 90 percent of thefarmland ownerships (covering 270,000 acres),are less than 48 acres (26). Most of these land-owners have low incomes. Rural unemploy-ment is high, implying a need for labor-intensivetechnologies. Profitable agroforestry systemsto produce both subsistence and commercialproducts need to be developed and dissemi-nated. Industrial forestry research could beappropriate for this group if forestry coopera-tives were organized. Research areas such aswatershed and wildlife management, whichprovide benefits to society in general, deservemore attention, particularly given the waterproblems in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Although the U.S. Virgin Islands have littleagriculture and little potential for commercialforestry, protective forestry activities are nec-essary to preserve resources for the inhabitantsand for tourism. ITF research in the EstateThomas Experimental Forest could be expand-ed to include experimental urban forestry, wat-ershed analyses, and other appropriate topics.More research personnel and funding and sel-ection of research topics more relevant to localresearch needs are necessary.

The American Pacific Islands Forestry Re-search Work Unit, at the Institute of PacificIslands Forestry, is part of the U.S. Forest Serv-ice Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experi-ment Station. The Research Work Unit has

only three professional staff comprising 2scientist-years. It is involved in:

●

●

●

●

•

●

●

●

conducting resource inventories in coop-eration with Island governments;testing native and introduced tree species,especially nitrogen-fixing trees;developing silvicultural methods for refor-esting understocked savanna uplands anddeforested coastal areas, thereby increas-ing protection and use of critical water-sheds, and/or for timber production;publishing a nontechnical handbook onforest reestablishment;selecting, establishing, protecting, andusing natural areas;analyzing performance of selected coconutvarieties on tropical islands and atolls;studying potential for sustained-yield man-agement of the indigenous fruit bat; anddeveloping cultural practices to maximizeyields - o f- se lec ted - agroforestry crops(31,39).

As the U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Is-lands government infrastructure is dismantled,the Research Work Unit is developing closeworking relations with the extant and emerg-ing governments in American Samoa and Mi-cronesia. More personnel and funding will berequired to make the best use of this institution.

Technology Transfer

Forestry extension agents and activities inPuerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands arefew. Although there are a number of fieldagents who advise landowners on land-usealternatives in the U.S. Caribbean (Departmentof Natural Resources, U.S. Soil ConservationService, and U.S. Agricultural Extension Serv-ice agents), few have been trained in forestry.Field agents have little incentive to seek thistraining because they typically are responsiblefor many areas of extension and little of theirtime is devoted to forestry. Rural landownersmust rely on the extension and media activitiesof the Puerto Rico DNR and the ITF to becomeinformed of techniques and available incen-tives.

Ch. 13—Forestry Technologies for U.S. Tropical Territories • 293

One U.S. Forest Service person is responsi-ble for State and Private Forestry in PuertoRico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. He helps thePuerto Rico DNR apply for U.S. Forest Servicegrants and coordinates U.S. participation in theCooperative Forest Management Act. This actallows the U.S. Forest Service to cooperatewith the DNR to promote reforestation andprotection of public and private lands (14).There also is only one person assigned to Stateand private forestry activities for Hawaii andthe western Pacific.

The forestry agencies in the western Pacificdo not have organized extension services. Dis-tances between islands compound the prob-lems of devising technologies appropriate tothe area and people. Scientists and technologydevelopers usually can visit only a few islands.

Opportunity: The U.S. Forest Service couldsupport Puerto Rican forestry programs throughincreased State forestry grants. These grantsseem an effective means of stimulating theCommonwealth Forest Service to support, co-ordinate, and demonstrate desirable forestrypractices. The flexibility and individuality ofthe State grant program allow specific applica-tion of funding to U.S. Caribbean problems.This would require increased personnel for theU.S. Forest Service State and Private Forestry

in Puerto Rico. Foresters from the UnitedStates who are experienced in aiding State for-estry organizations can be effective in advisingon nursery operations, logging techniques, usestrategies, genetic improvement programs,research needs, extension practices, and otherelements of program development.

Congress has made special allowance for thePeace Corps to operate in the U.S. Trust Terri-tory, at least until the Compact of Free Associa-tion is signed. These volunteers could providea means for technology transfer and for feed-back to researchers regarding needed adapta-tions of technologies. The Peace Corps couldensure that all its rural volunteers have at leastsome forestry training and are in contact withthe appropriate agencies for technical aid.

A cadre of local, “grass-roots” naturalistscould be created in the U.S. western Pacificwith help from the U.S. Forest Service, Depart-ment of the Interior, Peace Corps, and islandgovernments and universities. Such a programcould provide general training that would qual-ify participants to assist both permanent andvisiting research scientists. They could helpspread information on appropriate land usesand help integrate new technologies with localcustoms (38).

CONCLUSION

If tropical forest resources are to be sustained assistance. The Federal institutions responsiblein the U.S. territories, indigenous resource man- for assisting forestry in the U.S. tropical terri-agement organizations must be strengthened. tories are too small and their focus is too limitedBecause these governments are still heavily to give adequate impetus to local investment.reliant on U.S. assistance and their resource More research and more forestry technologyagencies are in their infancy, the United States transfer are required, as is greater response toretains a substantial role in developing both the the changing needs of the territories.agencies and resource-sustaining technologies. Application of U.S. Expertise: U.S. expertise

In the short run, U.S. technical assistance is relevant to tropical forest resources is not usedneeded to design forest management plans. In effectively in the U.S. tropical territories. Thisthe long run, this assistance could be replaced is partly because many experts consider theby a skilled cadre of people trained in natural U.S. tropical territories a relatively insignifi-resource management at local institutions. Pro- cant part of the overall tropical forest resourcegrams to encourage private forestry for each conservation problem and partly because organ-island probably will also require U.S. Federal izations that might be used to focus professional


expertise on the U.S. tropics do not have thenecessary support to do so.

Definition of Roles in U.S. Western Pacific:Resource development planning in the westernPacific territories is constrained by a lack ofdefinition of the respective roles of local, U.S.Federal, and international organizations. Littleanalysis and no decisions have been made onthe question of whether the authority of theU.S. Federal agencies is adequate or appropri-ate to serve the resource needs of Micronesiaand American Samoa (29). In particular, withthe political changes in the region, applicableFederal programs must be identified and di-rected toward island needs. Under new agree-ments with territory governments, U.S. supportis planned to be offered primarily in cashrather than through Federal categorical pro-grams, although room is left for extension ofagreed-upon programs (34).

The Interagency Task Force on U.S. Terri-tories* could conduct a comprehensive reviewof Federal legislation applicable to natural re-source use in the western Pacific area. This ef-fort could identify legislation needed to supportsustainable natural resource development. Italso could identify alternative ways to imple-ment legislation that would both sustain the re-sources and achieve the goals of the agencies(29).

Local Resource Agencies: Opportunities ex-ist to use forest-resource sustaining technolo-gies in western Pacific territories. The territor-ial governments all have designated naturalresource agencies with a forestry component.But these agencies are relatively new and donot yet have adequate funding, professionalpersonnel or policies to take full advantage ofthe opportunities.

Political support for the natural resourceagencies seems to exist. However, there hasbeen very limited planning for the forestedareas. In practice, some forestry has concen-——. ------——

*The Interagency Task Force on U.S. Territories includes rep-resentatives from most Federal agencies, including Housing andUrban Development, Health and Human Services, Education,Defense, Commerce, Interior, Agriculture, and the Environmen-tal Protection Agency. It is housed under the Department of theInterior’s Office of Territorial and International Affairs.

trated on nursery planting and extension with-out operational plans or assignment of respon-sibility (4). without more outside assistance, de-velopment is likely to proceed so slowly thatneeded resource productivity and economicopportunities will be lost.

The Federal Resources Planning Act of 1974(RPA) as amended, the Cooperative ForestryAssistance Act of 1978, and other recent leg-islation have extended the prospects of Federalforestry assistance to Pacific islands. The U.S.Forest Service could increase aid to territorialgovernments in developing natural resourceagencies, provide technical assistance forresource assessments, help develop policies,management, and enforcement plans, and pro-vide technical assistance for implementation.

Private Forest Investment Programs: Pro-grams designed for the U.S. continental Statesto promote soil and water conservation and pri-vate reforestation usually do not apply well totropical island characteristics. For example,small landholding size, low income, and lackof technical knowledge prohibit many rurallandholders in Puerto Rico from participatingin reforestation.

Because the U.S. tropical territories are so dif-ferent from the 50 States—politically, econom-ically, culturally, and ecologically—investmentincentive programs designed for the States areunlikely to be effective in the islands. And be-cause the territories are themselves heteroge-neous, a single program probably cannot bedesigned to be effective on all islands. An alter-native is to make funds and technical assist-ance available to private investors through indi-vidual territorial governments.

Congress could create a reforestation incen-tives program that could: 1) be operated joint-ly by the U.S. Forest Service and the territorialgovernments, 2) be designed specifically forlocal characteristics, 3) be integrated with othernatural resource development objectives, 4) in-clude agroforestry and/or an annual loan toprovide early income before harvest, and 5) en-courage organization of forestry cooperatives.More generally, Congress could analyze all leg-islation involving proposed or actual naturalresource programs that might be applicable to

Ch. 13—Forestry Technologies for U.S. Tropical Territories . 295

the U.S. territories and write in language ensur-ing applicability to the needs of the territories(20,25). Alternatively, it could create comple-mentary but different natural resource conser-vation and use programs designed specificallyfor the characteristics and needs of theterritories.

U.S. Forest Service Institutes located inPuerto Rico and Hawaii are assisting the terri-tories in developing technologies and institu-

tions to sustain tropical forest resources.However, both institutes have too few staff andbudgets that are small and declining. They can-not support the scale of development activitynecessary to sustain the U.S. tropical forest re-sources. If the institutions are given furtherresponsibilities in international forestry with-out new funding and personnel, their effective-ness will be diminished.

CHAPTER 13 REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Beard, J, S., “Climax Vegetation in TropicalAmerica, ” Ecology 25:127-158, 1944. In:Schmidt (19).Beard, J, S., “The Classification of TropicalAmerican Vegetation-t ypes, ” Ecology36:89-100, 1955. In: Schmidt, (19).Bough, E. L., Director, Forestry Program, U.S.Virgin Islands Department of Agriculture, per-sonal communication, 1983.Clayton, R., “National Progress Report on For-estry for Pacific Islands (USA), ” prepared forthe Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission, EleventhSession, January 1981.Emmons, B. R., “Forestry in Micronesia,” Divi-sion of Agricuhure, Department of Resourcesand Development, Trust Territory of the PacificIslands (available at the Forestry Library,Ponape), 1971.Falanruw, M. C, V., “Study Plan: Ecology andManagement of the Fruitbats of Yap,” U.S.Forest Service Pacific Southwest Forest andRange Experiment Station, Institute of PacificIslands Forestry, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1979.Hess, A., “The Forestry Incentives Program inPuerto Rico,” The Johns Hopkins University,Public Policy Program, thesis, 1982.Holdridge, L. R., Life Zone Ecology, TropicalScience Center, San Jose, Costa Rica, 1967. IZI:Schmidt (19).Holdridge, L. R., Crenke, W. C., Hathaway, W.H., Liang, J., and Tosi, J. A., F’orest Environ-ments in Tropical Life Zones, A Pilot Study (Ox-ford: Pergamon Press, 1971). In: Schmidt (19).International Union for Conservation of Natureand Natural Resources (IUCN), 1982 United Na-tions List of National Parks and ProtectedAreas. Gland. Switzerland, 1982.

11. Johnson, S. P., “Palau and a Seventy IslandsTropical Park,” National Parks and Conserva-tion Magazine 46(4):12-17; (7):4-8; (8):9-13, 1972.

12. Krochmal, C., “Identification and Developmentof New Tropical Forest Resources in Puerto andthe U.S. Virgin Islands,” OTA commissionedpaper, 1982.

13, Lambrecht, F. L,, “Development and Health inthe Tropics, Part 1: West Africa, ” paper pre-pared for AID, Arid Land Study Office, Univer-sity of Arizona, no date.

14. Liegel, L. H., “Woodland Conservation in Puer-to Rico: Its Past, Present and Future, ” NewYork College of Environmental Science andForestry, Syracuse, N. Y., thesis, 1973.

15, Owen, R. P., “Remarks Concerning TropicalForests in Micronesia,” personal communica-tion, Jan. 6, 1982.

16. Pico, R., The Geography of Puerto Rico (Chica-go: Aldine Publishing Co., 1974).

17. Philpot, C. W., “An Administrator’s Look atPrograms in the Pacific Islands, ” Moving For-estry and Wildlife into the 80’s, Proceedings ofHawaii Forestry Wildlife Conference, USDAForest Service, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1982.

18. Richardson, D., “Coconut Charcoal Could FuelShips,” Pacific Islands Monthly, May 1981.

19. Schmidt, R., “Forestry in Puerto Rico and theVirgin Islands,” OTA commissioned paper,1982.

20. Schmidt, R., “Forestry in Puerto Rico, ” F’orestryin the Caribbean, U.S. Man and the BiosphereProgram, 1982.

21. Schmidt, R., Director, Forest Service, PuertoRico Department of Natural Resources, per-sonal communication, 1982.

22. Schmidt, R., personal communication, 1983.

25-287 0 - 84 - 20


23.

24.

25.

26,

27.

28.

29.

30.

31

Somberg, S. I., “Virgin Islands Forestry Re-search: A Problem Analysis, ” College of theVirgin Islands, Virgin Islands Agricultural Ex-periment Station, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands,Report No. 9, 1976.Swiderski, J., “Small-Scale Forest Industries forDeveloping Countries,” FAO position paperprepared for the Eighth World Forestry Con-gress, Jakarta, Indonesia, Oct. 16-28, 1978.Towle, E., Island Resources Foundation, St.Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, personal commu-nication, 1983.U.S. Bureau of the Census, “1978 Census ofAgriculture” (Washington D. C.: U.S. Govern-ment Printing office, 1980).U.S. Department of Agriculture, AgriculturalStabilization and Conservation Service, “For-estry Incentives Program: From Inception ofProgram Through September 30, 1980” (Wash-ington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture,1980).U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conserva-tion Service, Soil Survey of Puerto Rico(Washington D. C.: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, 1942). In: Pico, 1974.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The PacificIslands: The Challenge of the 1980’s, Depart-ment of the Interior, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Region 1, Portland, C)reg., 1978.U.S. Forest Service, Institute of Tropical For-estry, “Annual Letter: 1981,” U.S. Forest Ser-vice, Southern Forest Experiment Station, In-stitute of Tropical Forestry, Rio Piedras, Puer-to Rico, 1981.U.S. Forest Service, Institute of Pacific IslandsForestry, “Pacific Islands (Territories) ForestryResearch Unit,” Pacific Southwest Forest and

32,

33

34

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

Range Experiment Station Publication No.1252, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1981.U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forestand Range Experiment Station, “InternationalForestry Plan for Oceania, Asia, and WesternPacific,” U.S. Forest Service, Pacific SouthwestForest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley,Calif., 1980.U.S. General Accounting Office, The Challengeof Enhancing Micronesia Self-suffi”ciency(Washington, D. C.: U.S. General Accounting Of-fice, 1983).U.S. Congress, U.S. Senate, Energy and Natu-ral Resources Committee, “Oversight Hearingsof Micronesia Political Status Negotiations,June 3, 1980” (photocopy).Wadsworth, F. H., “Timber,” Conceptos, plany programa para una agricultural moderna enPuerto Rico, J. Vicente-Chandler Special Reportto the Secretary of Agriculture of Puerto Rico,1978, pp. 325-340. In: Schmidt (19).Wadsworth, F. H., “Timber and Forest EnergyDevelopment Potentials for Puerto Rico,” 1982,Symposium on Biomass Production in PuertoRico (in preparation). In: Schmidt (19).Weaver, P,, “Agri-silviculture in Tropica lAmerica,” Unasy]va 31(126):2-12, 1979.Whitesell, C. D., Philpot, C. W., and Falanruw,M. C. V., “Congressional Action to Improve theSustainability of U.S. Tropical Forests in thePacific,” OTA commissioned paper, 1982,Whitesell, C., U.S. Forest Service, personal com-munication, 1983.Whitmore J. L., and Liegel, L, H,, “Spacing Trialof Pinus caribaea var. hondurensis,” U.S. ForestService Research Paper SO-162, Southern For-est Experiment Station, New Orleans, La., 1980.

PART III

Options forCongress

●

—.—.

Chapter 14

301

301

303

305

308

311 .

315

316us. Expertise

4

.

Chapter 14

Options for Congress

●

●

●

●

Forestry projects sponsored by the U.S.Agency for International Development(AID), the United Nations, the World Bank,and other agencies are poorly coordinated.

●

Many opportunities exist to modify devel-opment assistance practices so they pro-duce economic benefits while sustaining

●

renewable resources.

Resource development planning can helpmaintain tropical forest resources and si-multaneously make economic develop-ment more profitable, but the techniquesto do so are underused.

●

Research on tropical forest resources

linked more closely to the needs of tech-nology users.

Developed nations benefit from the tropi-cal forests’ biological diversity, so theycould pay a share of the costs of preserv-ing natural forests.

Demand for U.S. expertise in tropical for-est resources is increasing, but U.S. orga-nizations are not well organized or sup-ported to use the limited existing expertiseefficiently or to build more expertise.

Forest resources in the U.S. tropical ter-ritories generally are degraded, underde-veloped, and inadequately managed.

needs to be more interdisciplinary and

INTRODUCTION

Tropical forests in U.S. territories and inother nations are important to the UnitedStates. Forests support economic progress intropical countries, progress which is importantfor humanitarian reasons and for political sta-bility. They supply fuel, food, fodder, andmaterials and will be increasingly importantas population doubles over the next 30 years.Tropical forests also provide many materialsused by U.S. industry and consumers. More-over, they contain a great diversity of biologicalresources. This is important to U.S. agricultureand medicine and will become more importantas nonrenewable resources are depleted. In ad-dition, forests have significant beneficial ef-fects on the conservation of soil and water re-sources and maintenance of environmentalquality.

Although data on the condition of tropicalforest resources are poor, information on theirextent and location is improving. Recent stud-ies indicate that tropical forests are being de-

graded rapidly by unmanaged exploitation andthat substantial areas are being deforested forunsustainable land uses.

Rates of deforestation and forest degradation,and the severity of the consequences, varygreatly from region to region. From a near-termeconomic and social perspective, the loss oftrees is most damaging in dry areas, where de-forestation is both a cause and an effect ofdesertification, and in mountainous water-sheds, where deforestation upsets the hydro-logic cycle and accelerates soil erosion.Resource degradation and deforestation in thehumid tropics are resulting in permanent lossof biological resources.

Many organizations, some funded entirely orpartly by the US. Government, are grapplingwith tropical forest resource problems. Fund-ing and levels of effort have risen substantial-ly during the past 5 years, and progress hasbeen made in developing and transferring tech-

301


nologies that can help sustain tropical forests,both in natural and modified condition. Yet,the rate of technology improvement does notseem sufficient to overcome the processes offorest resource degradation.

Further increases in U.S. and internationalfunding to develop and disseminate technolo-gies will be necessary. But incremental changesin current techniques alone will not suffice tosustain tropical forests. The underlying causesof deforestation and resource degradation areinstitutional, social, and economic. Conse-quently, many needed reforms can only comefrom the governments and people of the tropi-cal nations. Here, too, the United States canbe effective by helping tropical country govern-ments focus on root problems.

The ultimate objective of forest resource de-velopment is to support people. Future genera-tions are expected to need forest products andservices as much as those of the past, so pro-duction of forest goods and services must in-crease as fast as population growth. Today, in-creasing yields of forest products are accom-plished in most tropical regions by sacrificingthe renewability of resources.

Investment in technologies discussed in pre-vious chapters of this report might make it pos-sible to achieve the necessary production whilesustaining the inherent renewability, at leastfor a time. However, if population growth isnot controlled, development and conservationobjectives eventually will not be attainable.Technologies directly related to populationgrowth are outside the scope of this assessmentbut have been addressed in another OTA as-sessment, World Population and Fertility Plan-ning Technologies. 1

U.S. technology has helped stimulate insti-tutional reforms. For example, U.S.-trainedanalysts in tropical countries working withU.S.-provided Landsat imagery have docu-mented deforestation rates (e.g., 2,7 percent peryear in Thailand) that have motivated nationalgovernments to institute new laws giving for-

1World Population and Fertility Planning Technologies: TheNext 20 Years (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Tech-nology Assessment, OTA-HR-157, February 1982).

est conservation a higher priority. U.S. diplo-macy—e.g., supporting and influencing theUnited Nations’ Environment Program andUNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere program—has been effective in raising internationalawareness of tropical forest problems.

Forests in U.S. Caribbean and western Pa-cific island territories have hardly benefitedfrom the increased international awareness ofthe importance of sustainable forest resourcedevelopment. Those forests continue to receivelittle, if any, management, and data on erosionindicate that their potential productivity is be-ing reduced.

Tropical forest resources represent a greatopportunity for sustained development. How-ever, because of complex institutional and tech-nical constraints, too little such developmentis occurring. Congress can encourage sustain-able development of forest resources in theU.S. territories by giving these areas higher pri-ority in domestic natural resource programs.It also could direct domestic agencies to adaptprograms to the special situations that prevailon tropical islands. For other nations congres-sional action can help resolve some institu-tional constraints by enhancing tropical gov-ernments’ abilities to plan and coordinate re-source development projects.

Some technical constraints can be addresseddirectly through congressional actions. U.S. or-ganizations and individuals have the capabili-ty to assist in developing forest use systems thatprovide goods and services for the basic needsof tropical people while conserving forest pro-ductivity. U.S. agencies already applying someof this expertise include the Agency for Inter-national Development, Forest Service, Nation-al Academy of Sciences, National Park Serv-ice, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Soil Con-servation Service.

Congress also could act to improve U.S. ef-forts in technology development. Some actions,such as the establishment of U.S. centers of ex-cellence in tropical forestry or increased U.S.participation in multilateral agencies, wouldrequire increased funding in the near term. Inthe long term, however, these actions should

Ch, 14—Options for Congress ● 303

improve the tropical nations’ own abilities to This chapter identifies several major issuesuse and sustain forest resources and, thus, where Congress could take significant actionshould reduce the need for U.S. Government to improve conservation and sustainable devel-involvement. Other opportunities such as im- opment of tropical forest resources. For eachproved coordination of fundamental research, issue, options for specific actions and their ad-applied research, and technology implementa- vantages and disadvantages are discussed.tion do not necessarily require additional fund-ing but could require redefinition of priorities.

Issue

Most forest resources in U.S. tropical ter-ritories are not now being overexploited, butneither are they being managed or devel-oped. The territories lack strong institutionsconcerned about the productivity and sus-tainability of forest resources. Thus, whenthe demand for land or jobs increases, theproductive potential of the forests is likelyto be sacrificed.

Most forests in the U.S. tropical territoriesare substantially degraded from their originalcondition. However, because of U.S. Federalincome supports and the relatively low popula-tion pressure on some islands, little incentiveexists to exploit them further. There is also lit-tle incentive to develop and conserve the forest.

Whether the forests are stable in their de-graded condition, improving, or continuing todegrade is unclear. Probably all these processesare occurring in different places. Availabledata on soil erosion rates and anecdotal evi-dence suggest that the potential productivityof the islands forests is being lost gradually.

Continued existence of large acreages of rel-atively unproductive forest land may promotethe idea that forests should be removed to makeway for development. Forests need to be man-aged as an integral part of overall island re-source development, especially to protect wa-tersheds and coastal marine environments.

Over the long term, as populations grow andFederal supports decline, the productivity ofthe forests will become more important and yet

more difficult to sustain. Whether that produc-tivity will be realized depends on how soon for-estry becomes integrated into the economic de-velopment of rural areas. Getting the necessarysupport for forestry depends on building an in-formed group of people who perceive that theywill gain from forest conservation.

The U.S. Forest Service’s Institute of Tropi-cal Forestry (Puerto Rico) and Institute of Pa-cific Islands Forestry (Hawaii) will continue tohave the major roles in researching and demon-strating forestry technologies until territorialnatural resource agencies become sufficient.Low levels of onsite research and demonstra-tion will inhibit growth of a constituency thatwants and uses appropriate forest managementtechnologies. Meanwhile, without such tech-nologies, rising populations and expectationsare likely to result in eventual degradation ofthe forest resources,

Unfortunately, many experts consider theU.S. tropical forests to be a relatively insignifi-cant part of the overall tropical forest conser-vation problem. Further, the institutions thatmight be expected to provide professional re-source development expertise in the U.S. trop-ical territories lack the necessary support todo SO.

Natural resource agencies in U.S. tropicalterritories are small or exist in name only. Theyrequire increased funding, professional person-nel, and technical assistance to be effective. Inaddition, Federal resource conservation andproduction programs for privately owned for-


ests are, in general, not compatible with thecharacteristics of the U.S. tropical territories.These program funds might be more effectiveif they supported private forestry programs de-signed and administered by territorial forestagencies.

Option 1:

Congress could increase funding for U.S.Forest Service research and technology de-velopment and could direct the Forest Serv-ice to increase coordination of its activitieswith other resource agencies in the U.S. trop-ical territories.

The Forest Service institutes in Puerto Ricoand Hawaii have small budgets and have beencut back recently. These organizations have toofew staff to support the scale of activity nec-essary to sustain U.S. tropical forest resources.Increased budgets and greater participation byU.S. tropical forest experts are needed.

This option might be coupled with option 22,which is to establish U.S. centers of excellenceto focus U.S. research, teaching, and resourcedevelopment expertise related to forest re-sources. Such centers could demonstrate a va-riety of sustainable management technologiesat sites in the U.S. tropical territories. They alsowould help develop the territories’ human re-sources by supporting education and trainingactivities.

More integration of U.S. Forest Service ac-tivities with the objectives and programs of ter-ritorial agencies responsible for resources otherthan forests (e.g., water and coastal marine re-sources) could help ensure that technologiesare appropriate to the social and ecologicalneeds of individual islands. Also, cooperativeactivities could provide a way to help the localagencies prepare to eventually assume total re-sponsibility.

This option would require increased fundingfor the U.S. Forest Service institutes and couldrequire some reordering of research prioritiesto increase emphasis on such topics as water-shed management and agroforestry. Unlessnew moneys were appropriated, the fundsmight have to be transferred from other U.S.

Forest Service programs. Competition for suchfunds probably would be great.

Option 2:

Congress could support natural resourceagencies in U.S. territories by increasingfunding for the cooperative State and privateforestry programs of the U.S. Forest Serviceinstitutes in Puerto Rico and Hawaii. Con-gress could also create a program of grantsto territorial governments to encourage in-vestment in privately owned forests.

Stronger local capacity to manage forest re-sources would contribute to the territories’ self-sufficiency. In the long run, it might reduce theneed for development assistance from theUnited States. Forestry could provide rural em-ployment and increase sustainable productionof food, wood, and other products that couldbe used instead of subsidized imports. Astronger local research capability could helpensure applicability of technologies to localconditions and could reduce dependence onresearch performed by the U.S. Forest Service.

The Federal Government subsidizes privateforestry with cost sharing and direct paymentsto forest owners. Replacing these subsidieswith a program of grants administered by theterritorial governments would provide the flex-ibility needed to respond to each island ter-ritory’s unique cultural, economic, and ecolog-ical characteristics. Furthermore, it would en-courage the development of a constituencyconcerned with sustaining the forest resources.Such a program could be used to keep the ben-efits available if the Federal forestry cost-sharing programs in other areas were replacedwith income tax incentives as has been pro-posed.

This option would require increased fundsfor the Forest Service institutes both for disper-sal to local natural resource agencies and forincreased administrative and professional per-sonnel. State and private forestry funds (forgrants, loans, subsidized inputs, and extensionservices) have been declining and would needto be increased. This could either be new mon-ey or money reallocated from other U.S. Forest

Ch 14–Opt ions fo r C o n g r e s s ● 3 0 5

Service programs, but these programs have ernments to determine the guidelines for for-been cut substantially in recent years. In the estry program assistance. No resource pro-short term, the local natural resource agencies grams are included under the Compact of Freemight not have the human and logistical re- association. The roles of local, U. S., and i n -sources necessary to implement a greatly ex- ternational resource agencies in the U.S. Pa-panded program. cific territories need to be defined to coordinate

This option also would require new negotia-actions.

tions with the emerging Pacific territory gov-

DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE

Issue (Projects)

Development assistance is making progressto sustain tropical forests, but the gains areinsufficient to offset resource degradation.Many opportunities exist to continue and ac-celerate the progress. But congressional vig-ilance is necessary to ensure that forestryprojects receive an appropriate share of U.S.development assistance funds and that othertypes of projects complement the forestryefforts.

The Foreign Assistance Act directs develop-ment assistance organizations in which theUnited States participates to give higher priori-ty to the problems of loss and degradation oftropical forests. AID, the world Bank, the U.N.Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), andsome other multilateral organizations have in-creased funding for forest-related projects. Fur-thermore, AID has developed new forestry andenvironmental strategies and policies. Addi-tional opportunities for development assistanceprojects to sustain tropical forest resources in-clude greater support for:

●

●

●

Participation by local people in identify-ing resource development problems andopportunities.Agriculture and rural development pro-grams that increase productivity for peo-ple who live near forests. This would en-tail allocating a larger share of agriculturaldevelopment assistance to relativelyremote areas.Agroforestry and innovative crops andtechniques that can sustain permanentagriculture on relatively poor soils.

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Locating new agricultural settlementswhere the natural and human resourcesare capable of sustaining farming practicesused. In some cases, this would mean re-fusing support for settlement projectsplanned for closed forest areas and redi-recting settlements to sparsely populatedareas that are not forested.Reforestation and management of naturalforests to sustain environmental servicesand produce fuelwood, constructionwood, polewood, and nonwood products.Development and dissemination of local-ly acceptable technologies to make wood-fuel use more efficient.Long-range planning for infrastructure de-velopment projects (e.g., hydroelectricdams), so that wood from clearing opera-tions is used effectively, displaced farmersare resettled permanently, and watershedsare protected by forest cover.Institution-building to enable tropical gov-ernments to exercise improved controlover timber concession operators.Technical improvement and increased ap-plication of technologies for sustainable re-generation in logged forests, includingmangrove forests.Plantations of fast-growing industrial treespecies to help take pressure off the re-maining natural forests.Financing wood product developmentprojects that encourage domestic process-ing as opposed to log exports.Innovative institutional approaches to for-estry and agroforestry designed to ensureparticipation of local communities and to


●

increase diffusion of appropriate technol-ogies beyond the boundaries of subsidizeddemonstration projects.Livestock raising projects that do not resultin deforestation or forest degradation.

Option 3:

Committees of Congress could continue per-iodic oversight hearings requiring testimonyfrom AID and U.S. representatives to multi-lateral development assistance organizationson the extent to which development assis-tance practices are being modified to accom-plish the objectives set forth in section 118of the Foreign Assistance Act.

Development assistance projects can beplanned to produce improvements in incomeand income distribution and to simultaneous-ly provide long-term conservation benefits.Such projects are being pursued to some ex-tent by the various agencies. AID has one ofthe best records in this regard. However, thetotal effort is still small compared with other,more conventional approaches to agriculturaland industrial development. Continued pres-sure from Congress, especially on the multilat-eral organizations, might lead to greater in-vestments in resource-conserving projects.This in turn could result in more cost-effectiveand sustainable economic development and,eventually, in a reduced need for U.S. Govern-ment involvement.

Placing a higher priority on resource-conserving forest development might havesome disadvantages. First, higher priority forthese approaches means lower priority forsome others. For example, investment in agri-cultural development in remote areas at theforest fringe may not produce short-term yieldincreases as great as the same amount of in-vestment in already-developed farms on morefertile lands.

Projects designed to increase revenues avail-able for forest management by making forestrymore profitable or more sustainable have someother drawbacks. For example, promotingmanufacture of wood products within tropical

countries might reduce opportunities for em-ployment and profits in industrial countriesthat now import logs and do the manufactur-ing.

Issue (Coordination)

Development assistance organizations gen-erally do not coordinate their projects effec-tively at the country or regional level. To im-prove effectiveness, projects could be orga-nized as steps in a comprehensive strategydesigned to develop sustainable forest man-agement systems. Individual developmentassistance organizations have neither devel-oped nor coordinated such strategies.

The scope of tropical forest resource prob-lems is great relative to available capital andhuman resources. No single project or singleorganization’s program is likely to sustain asubstantial portion of the tropical forest re-sources in perpetuity. The U.S. Congress hasdetermined that improved coordination amongthe various international organizations isnecessary to make forestry projects more costeffective. Section 118 of the Foreign AssistanceAct specifically requires the President to seekopportunities to coordinate public and privatedevelopment activities and investments that af-fect forests in tropical countries. It also in-structs U.S. representatives to multilateralorganizations to promote such coordination.AID recognizes this need in its Policy Deter-mination documents on environment and nat-ural resources and on forestry.

AID and other development assistance orga-nizations do keep track to some extent of whatother agencies and host government depart-ments are doing and try to develop projects ac-cordingly. AID has participated in some impor-tant joint efforts with other internationalorganizations. Also, the International Unionfor the Conservation of Nature and Natural Re-sources, the united Nations Environment Pro-gramme, and the world Wildlife Fund havejointly prepared a world Conservation Strategywhich calls for coordinated global efforts forthe conservation of natural resources. Theseorganizations plan to coordinate their endeav-ors to implement the strategy.

Ch. 14—Options for Congress ● 307

Several regional technical centers have in-formal coordination roles within their area ofexpertise. At the country level, the United Na-tions Development Programme country repre-sentatives sometimes are able to assist withcoordination. Still, little progress has beenmade in getting international organizations towork together to develop national or regionalforest resource plans that would assign specifictasks to each agency.

AID and other development assistance orga-nizations are not likely to follow a long-termplan devised by any one organization becauseeach organization works toward its own par-ticular objectives, Each organization’s countrymission has specific pressures from its centraloffice—whether it is in Washington, Rome, orelsewhere. Many bureaucrats are under pres-sure to spend an exact level of funds duringeach fiscal year. That requires flexibility thatwould be constrained considerably if they hadto follow a strict plan devised under the leader-ship of another organization.

International development assistance orga-nizations are, however, subject to the decisionsand direction of tropical nations’ governments.In theory, these host governments are respon-sible for coordinating development assistanceefforts. In practice, host governments get helpfrom each international organization in iden-tifying projects for that organization and thereare few attempts to make the different agen-cies’ efforts complementary.

Why do host governments not coordinate theinternational organizations’ activities more ef-fectively? One problem is that tropical govern-ments need to maximize assistance funds theyreceive each year, even though that means ac-cepting some projects that are poorly inte-grated into the nation’s long-term developmentplans. Also, different government agencies,and individuals within agencies, have differentgoals. Diplomatic pressure to accept particularprojects can be another problem. Finally, thedevelopment assistance organizations have lit-tle incentive to encourage tropical nations toshow strong leadership.

However, if the U.S. Congress believes thatclose coordination of international develop-ment assistance is necessary and that achiev-ing such coordination is worth relinquishingsome degree of U.S. control over what projectsare funded, Congress could mandate increasedU.S. efforts to enable the tropical nations todo long-term development planning and tocoordinate international assistance moreeffectively,

Option 4:

Congress could direct the Department ofState to report on whether various tropicalnations are able and politically ready to de-velop long-term action plans for sustaineddevelopment of renewable natural resources.AID and the multilateral organizationscould use these assessments as a basis forassisting tropical nations in planning andcoordination.

The purpose of these assessments would beto indicate where institution-building and en-vironmental education should be given a highpriority; it would not be to reduce funding fornations where the political will to conserve anddevelop natural resource productivity is weak.Redirecting the type of aid offered could resultin more cost-effective use of limited funds.

The first steps in assessing institutional ca-pabilities for sustainable development of forestresources are being taken in AID’s Environ-mental Profile reports. However, those reportsnow focus on environmental opportunities andproblems primarily from a biophysical perspec-tive and, to a lesser extent, an economic per-spective. The reports suggested by this optionwould place more emphasis on assessing po-litical will, values, and institutional capabili-ty. For example, does the government have ef-fective control over logging concessionaries?Does it maintain land tenure arrangements thatcause people to clear forest land that will notsustain agriculture?

The Department of State has the expertise toconduct political and economic analyses. Theassessment process could be undertaken in


stages, beginning with syntheses of informa-tion available in Washington, moving laterto work done under the auspices of U.S. em-bassies.

This option has some disadvantages. SinceU.S. embassies would need to make criticaljudgments about political willingness and ca-pabilities, any negative statements might of-fend host government officials. Thus, the De-partment of State might be reluctant to com-ply rigorously. If the reports were given securi-ty classification to minimize this effect, theywould be of limited use in planning develop-ment assistance activities.

Option 5:

Congress could direct the Department ofState and U.S. representatives to multilateraldevelopment assistance organizations to pro-mote international ad hoc committeesformed to assist tropical nations in planninglong-term forest development.

These ad hoc committees could include ex-perts from the United States, other developedcountries, and the developing countries. Theywould identify problems, plan a forest resourcedevelopment strategy, and coordinate variousassistance projects. The committees could bemodeled after the Coordination for Develop-ment in Africa program (CDA).

Many benefits can be anticipated from assist-ing tropical nations to take increased respon-

sibility for planning and coordination. First, ifsuch efforts were effective, the cost effective-ness of U.S. and other nations’ developmentassistance efforts could be improved. Effectivecoordination increases the probability of meet-ing both the necessary and sufficient condi-tions for sustaining tropical forest resources.Second, and perhaps most important in thelong run, improved planning and coordinationmight encourage some tropical governmentsto identify and resolve the institutional con-straints, such as land tenure, that inhibit de-velopment of forests and other potentially re-newable resources.

Increasing tropical nations’ responsibilitiesfor planning and coordinating assistance proj-ects may be difficult and could have some neg-ative effects. For instance, tropical govern-ments might have to reject some inappropri-ate forestry projects and the funds that go withthem. This would be a hard decision political-ly, but such decisions are sometimes made, atleast by some of the wealthier tropical nations.A greater obstacle would arise where govern-ments do not have the necessary expertise forresource development planning. Thus, in ad-dition to the ad hoc committees for nation-levelplanning, it may be necessary to provide in-creased support for development of local plan-ning capabilities.

RESOURCE

Issue

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

use is commonly a side-effect of narrowly

Although resource development planning isessential for sustainable production of forestproducts and environmental services, theavailable planning technologies are seldomapplied to their full potential.

Tropical governments, development assis-tance organizations, and private firms oftenmake forest development decisions withoutsufficient planning. Unplanned forest resource

planned development of some other resourceor other area of the forest. For example, roadsare built into forest land where logging andagriculture are inappropriate. The spontane-ous development that follows usually is not sus-tainable or economic in the long run.

There are several reasons why planning isneglected. First, government and developmentassistance agency decisionmakers maybe un-

C h 1 4 — O p t i o n s f o r C o n g r e s s . 3 0 9

aware or unconvinced of the cost effectivenessof such planning. Second, decisionmakers maydoubt that planners can provide timely resultsfocused on relevant information and presentedin understandable form. Third, many tropicalcountries have too little planning expertise.Fourth, domination of resource-use decisionsby special interest groups can preclude com-prehensive planning.

The effectiveness of planning in tropicalareas is hampered by shortages of data on bio-physical, social, and economic factors and bya lack of knowledge of how such factors inter-act. Many tropical nations need assistance tobuild their own capacity to produce data basesand to use them for planning. For example, im-proved information on biological diversity ofvarious sites is needed to make decisions aboutwhere to locate protected areas.

Biophysical site capability and land classifi-cation are the most commonly applied compo-nents of resource development planning. Thesetechniques are usually not well integrated withanalysis of social, economic, or institutionalfactors. As a result, many development projectsfail even though they may be suitable for thebiophysical characteristics of the chosen sites.

AID is required to consider environmentalimpacts and has a policy requiring a “socialsoundness analysis” as part of project design.However, agency staff vary in their degree ofcooperation with these requirements; some ex-tend such an analysis beyond its useful boundswhile others produce pro forma responses.

Option 6:

Congress could maintain the availability oflow-cost Landsat images to governments inthe Tropics.

Landsat images have proven useful in manytropical nations for measuring forest cover andidentifying broad categories of forest types andconditions. In some instances, images taken atdifferent times have been compared to identi-fy rates and locations of deforestation prob-lems. AID has had successful programs to traintropical government analysts to use Landsatimagery for resource development planning.

The Landsat images have been available at lowcost, but proposals to sell the U.S. satellites toprivate firms have been considered. Privateownership of Landsat could lead to increasesin imagery prices that might discourage the useof this important tool for planning.

Resource planning can be greatly improvedin many tropical nations with maps based onbroad classifications of land capability. UsingLandsat images, such classifications can bemade rapidly and inexpensively for large areas.This is important because timeliness and ex-pense are two of the major constraints on theuse of planning analyses. Landsat is usefuleven where computer analysis is not availablebecause the images can be interpreted visual-ly. Small computers that can analyze the datain digital form are becoming more widespreadin tropical nations and as a result, Landsat in-terpretation is becoming an even more accu-rate tool.

Constraints on the use of Landsat includecloud cover that consistently obscures viewsof some tropical areas. Many tropical govern-ments do not yet have enough skilled person-nel or facilities to use the imagery. Resourceplanning agencies, in some nations, cannot getimages of certain forest areas because they areclassified for security reasons. The major dis-advantage to this option is that the U.S. Gov-ernment would have to continue paying thecosts of the Landsat satellites.

Option 7:

Congress could encourage AID to provide re-source development planning assistance byimproving the use of macrolevel land clas-sification and the analyses of social and in-stitutional factors in AID’s “Follow-onCountry Environmental Profiles.” Congresscould direct the U.S. representatives to in-ternational development assistance organi-zations to promote similar policies.

AID’s Environmental Profile process is prov-ing to be an effective mechanism for environ-mental education as host government agenciesare becoming involved in production of the sec-ond phase of profile reports. Still, this does notguarantee that decisionmakers will consider


the environmental profiles useful for develop-ment planning. Thus, it is important to proceedslowly with these activities until local interestand participation are assured. Followup is nec-essary so that the environmental concerns areincorporated in AID’s country developmentstrategies and in the host country’s develop-ment planning.

Much technical information on natural re-sources in tropical forest areas already existsin the United States. It is scattered in suchplaces as the archives of the Soil ConservationService, the map collections of the Library ofCongress, the Central Intelligence Agency, andthe electronic data bases at USDA’s EconomicBotany Laboratory. This information can beused to produce first approximations of land-capability or life-zone maps. These could thenbe checked for accuracy in the subject nations,as were the first drafts of the EnvironmentalProfiles.

Providing more pragmatic information onnatural and human resource capabilities maymake the reports more useful. Performing theseassessments cooperatively with the host na-tions provides opportunities for U.S. and trop-ical nation personnel to gain new expertise.Cooperative production of the information alsoenhances the likelihood of its use outside ofAID.

A number of objections to this option can beanticipated. It calls for the production of morereports not tied to specific development proj-ects, so some tropical nations may perceivethat it is an activity that only benefits AID.Preparation of such reports maybe perceivedby many AID and host country officials as adistraction of available time and funds.

The fact that much data on tropical forest re-sources gather dust in U.S. archives may indi-cate that many such efforts do not produce use-ful reports. Also, AID has sponsored biophys-ical land capability assessments in the past,and, when necessary, they might do so againwithout special prompting from the Congress.In countries where planning expertise isscarce, promotion of these techniques may bepremature.

Option 8:

Congress could direct the U.S. directors ofmultilateral development banks to promoteenvironmental assessments at an early stageof project planning. Congress could followup on this request by holding periodic hear-ings to determine whether the banks areusing environmental assessment procedureseffectively.

A variety of development assistance projectsaffects tropical forest resources directly and in-directly. The negative effects can best be iden-tified and mitigated at the project level becausethey tend to be highly site-specific. Thus, en-vironmental quality and natural resource con-siderations should be integrated into the designand continuing evaluations of developmentprojects.

For example, irrigation projects should insome cases include funding for protection offorested watersheds. The negative impacts ofprojects that convert tropical forest to otheruses can sometimes be offset by funds to es-tablish protected areas elsewhere. More thor-ough and analytical environmental reviewprocesses could increase the long-term net ben-efits of development projects. They also mighthelp convince tropical governments of the im-portance of these factors.

The U.S. experience with environmental im-pact statements demonstrates the need to focuson tradeoffs that arise in decisionmaking. TheU.S. process has at times been time-consumingand expensive, but it has been an effective toolfor avoiding negative environmental effects.The multilateral development banks are begin-ning to use such procedures. The World Bank,for instance, has established an Office of En-vironmental Affairs. However, the environ-mental reviews occur late in the planning proc-ess, so the information they produce is less use-ful than it could be.

For the banks, it may be more desirable tointegrate environmental quality and natural re-source considerations into the early stages ofplanning than to require separate environmen-tal impact statements. Follow-up monitoringof environmental effects during and after proj-

Ch. 14—Options for Congress . 311

ect implementation also deserves higher priori- ernments do not perceive them to be an impor-ty. However, such analyses could be pro forma tant tool.and superficial if the banks and the host gov-

RESEARCH

Issue (Research)

Fundamental research, applied

AND MARKET DEVELOPMENT

research,and technology implementation related totropical forests are not well coordinated.Moreover, interactions among factors thatconstrain forest resource development arepoorly understood. Consequently, resourcedevelopment projects often fail, and promis-ing technologies too seldom spread beyondthe demonstration areas. Expanded interdis-ciplinary research efforts in tropical forestresources are needed and these need to bemore closely related to technology imple-mentation.

Profitable technologies that can supply localpeople’s needs and simultaneously sustain for-est productivity do not exist for many types oftropical forests, Incremental improvements ofexisting technologies seem unlikely to accom-plish these goals. Rather, new approaches inboth techniques and institutions also must beinvented. These must be based on improvedunderstanding of the biological, economic, andsocial factors affecting forest resources. Thus,new fundamental research is needed. But for-est resource degradation is occurring too rapid-ly for fundamental research to be conductedin the traditional, somewhat aloof fashion. Fun-damental research could play a larger role inconservation and development if scientistswould increase their efforts to understand theneeds of applied researchers and technologyusers.

Interdisciplinary research on tropical forestresources has seldom been based on an ade-quate understanding of the needs of technologyimplementors. Research results often are pre-sented in unusable formats and published inacademic journals that technology implemen-tors have little time and incentive to locate.Consequently, much applied research is not

used for technology development. When it isused, there is often a time lag between com-pletion of the research and its use.

Solutions to this problem include buildingmore research and training components intothe implementation stages of development proj-ects and improving communication among re-searchers and between researchers and tech-nology implementors. Reorganizing researchefforts to improve this communication shouldbe relatively inexpensive.

Option 9:

Congress could conduct hearings to deter-mine 1) whether research agencies (such asthe National Academy of Sciences, the Na-tional Science Foundation, and the U.S. For-est Service laboratories and institutes) aregiving sufficient priority to interdisciplinarytropical forestry studies that link researchand development, and 2) whether the resultsare being disseminated adequately. Congresscould reward those agencies and programsthat follow such priorities.

Hearings are a relatively inexpensive way toexpress congressional recognition of a need,gather information, and provide impetus togovernment agencies and the private sector toredirect and expand their efforts. Hearings cangive recognition to individuals and programsthat have taken desired actions. If hearingsreveal that agencies are doing interdisciplinaryresearch that is used to sustain tropical forestresources, Congress may choose to increasefunding for those agencies.

Hearings alone, however, do not carry leg-islative weight. They usually require followupto affect agency behavior. Since they may re-flect the interest of only a few Members of Con-gress, organizations may not be induced to

25-287 0 - 84 - 21


change their priorities simply as the result ofthe hearing process.

Option 10:

Congress could appropriate funds specifical-ly for UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphereprogram.

The International Man and the Biosphere(MAB) program receives money from the gen-eral funds of UNESCO. Current levels of fund-ing are low and much reduced from previousyears. Concurrently, the Department of Statesupport for U.S. liaison activities with the MABprogram is being cut back.

MAB provides a framework for internation-al cooperation in problem-oriented research onnatural resource development. Part of its budg-et is earmarked for activities concerning theTropics. Continued U.S. support for MABwould strengthen the ability of tropical nationsto conduct significant research and could fa-cilitate communication of research results todevelopers and users of resource-sustainingforest management technologies. In addition,it would help maintain U.S. scientists’ links tothis research network.

This option would require some additionalfunding from Congress. Moreover, increasedsupport may not lead to improved coordina-tion in tropical forestry research or to reorien-tation of research so that it addresses the realneeds of technology implementors.

Option 11:

Congress could determine the feasibility ofestablishing agroforestry and forestry re-search programs at existing ConsultativeGroup on International Agricultural Re-search (CGIAR) institutions.

CGIAR is a network of regional and interna-tional organizations that have experience inconducting agricultural research in developingcountries and in linking research to technologyimplementation. The mandates of the CGIARinstitutions do not include forestry and havebeen interpreted to exclude agroforestry aswell. By developing and promoting agrofores-

try and forestry systems, CGIAR researchcould help alleviate pressures to convert re-maining tropical forests to other uses.

The addition of forestry or agroforestry pro-grams to these institutions could facilitate in-terdisciplinary research cooperation and thedevelopment of production systems in whichagriculture and forestry are integrated. Capitaloutlay would be minimal because the networkand institutional infrastructure already exist.

Adding such programs would involve inter-nal adjustments and priority shifts within andbetween existing institutions, so the CGIAR in-stitutions might resist an attempt to incorporateforestry or agroforestry unless substantial ad-ditional funding were provided. Even with ad-ditional funds the changes might be disruptivefor CGIAR institutions, many of which areoriented not to farming systems but rather toproduction of particular agricultural commod-ities.

Option 12:

Congress could amend existing legislationthat allocates funds for tropical agricultureactivities to include tropical forestry andagroforestry explicitly. To do so would im-prove the likelihood that forestry, agrofor-estry, and conventional crop productionwould be viewed as complementary activi-ties.

Some forestry activities take place underagricultural programs. For example, PublicLaw 480 funds have been used occasionally tosupport reforestation, and a few forestryschools have been awarded Title XII grantswhere “agriculture” has been interpretedbroadly. However, without specific referenceto tropical forestry and agroforestry, importantopportunities to apply techniques that can sus-tain resource productivity may be lost.

Congress could amend Public Law 480, theFood for Peace Act of 1966 (specifically sec.406(a) 2 and 4) so that “agriculture” explicitlyincludes forestry and agroforestry, Similarly,Congress could broaden Title XII of the For-eign Assistance Act (specifically sec. 211(d)),

Ch. 14–Options for Congress • 313

which awards grants to help solve critical foodproblems of the developing world, to increaseinvolvement by U.S. forestry schools and otherappropriate government agencies. These ex-panded mandates could be supported by divert-ing money from other development activitiesor by allocating new moneys through existinginstitutions.

Broadening existing agricultural fundingmechanisms to include forestry and agrofor-estry avoids overhead expenses that would oc-cur if new programs were created. It alsowould help promote a much needed interdis-ciplinary approach to deal with problems oftropical land use.

The major argument against amending ex-isting legislation would be that such an actionmight hinder the achievement of other goalsby diluting limited funds and personnel. Manyexperts believe that substantially more funds ●

will be necessary to advance agroforestry andforestry significantly. Another problem is thateven with explicit direction from Congress, theinstitutions committed to agriculture may con-tinue to give forestry and agroforestry only asmall share of their resources.

Option 13:

Congress could establish a trust fund for theForestry Department of FAO to support im-proved communication among researchersand technology implementors.

FAO has the world’s largest accumulation ofprofessional tropical forestry expertise. Theorganization has strong connections to tropicalgovernments, tropical forestry experts, andboth multilateral and bilateral developmentassistance agencies. FAO’S activities includecreating a world forest resource informationsystem and promoting social forestry. It pub-lishes a forestry journal, Unasylva, and seriesof technical forestry papers. FAO has been in-strumental in focusing world attention on theneed to integrate forestry into communitydevelopment.

The U.S. contribution to FAO goes into ageneral fund; FAO then allocates portions toits various programs. Forestry receives only a

small share and the United States has a relative-ly minor role in FAO’S Forestry Department.A trust fund is a way to ensure that the forestryprogram receives additional money and to en-hance opportunities for use of U.S. expertiseon tropical forests.

A trust fund also would permit the UnitedStates to negotiate some particular prioritiesfor funding. For example, the United Statescould establish a trust fund specifically to sup-port interdisciplinary research components inFAO forestry development projects and to en-hance the communication of research resultsand technical information. Such a trust fundmight support management training programsor the preparation, publication, and dissemina-tion of forestry information in appropriate lan-guages for technical schools and practitioners.

However, FAO may not be the best place toinvest U.S. funds intended to support technol-ogies to sustain tropical forest resources. Thiswould require additional funds beyond the cur-rent statutory limits on the U.S. contributionto FAO. The United States has not had a strongvoice at FAO planning sessions for regular for-estry activities. Finally, political benefits to theUnited States from funds spent through a mul-tilateral agency may be less than political ben-efits from a U.S. bilateral agency.

Option 14:

Congress could amend the Foreign Assis-tance Act (sec. 301, U.S. Voluntary Contribu-tions to U.N. Organizations) to include fund-ing for the United Nations University(UNU).

UNU functions through and strengthens net-works of existing universities and research in-stitutions around the world. It provides a vari-ety of courses, instructors, and research facil-ities. It is an international community ofscholars engaged in interdisciplinary research,post-graduate training, and dissemination ofknowledge to international organizations, gov-ernments, scholars, policy makers, and thepublic. The U.S. Government has never pro-vided financial support to UNU. The main ad-vantage of such a contribution would be pro-motion of interdisciplinary research.


The main objections to this option are thatit requires increased Federal spending and thatfunds might be used more efficiently by theU.S. National Science Foundation or by AID’stechnology transfer programs.

issue (Product and Market Development)

Sustaining forests in many tropical areaswill depend on developing markets for localforest products. Many products that aregathered on a subsistence basis do not attractinvestment for sustainable development be-cause they appear to be ‘free. Furthermore,government agencies are often unaware ofthe forest’s potential to support rural devel-opment.

Tropical forest ecosystems house complexassociations of vegetation, wildlife, and otherpotential resources, some of which could be de-veloped as commodities profitable to harveston a managed basis. Information gathered onnoncommercial tree species and nonwood for-est products is abundant. But it seldom in-cludes more than taxonomic identification anda brief discussion of existing product uses bytropical people. Developing markets for unusedor underused forest products could motivatelocal people and development agencies to in-vest time and capital in managing forest re-sources. Thus, in some areas, product and mar-ket development could be a way to maintainbiological diversity and simultaneously provideprofitable rural development.

Option 15:

a) Congress could mandate and fund the U.S.Forest Products Laboratory to develop newproducts and market information for tropi-cal forest resources and to increase its effortsto transfer the technologies.b) Congress could direct AID to expand itssupport for dissemination of information onunderused tropical forest resources and topursue market development for those prod-ucts that are sustainable with the kinds ofmanagement likely to occur.

Using a wider range of tree species and sizesshould make intensive management of smallerforest areas feasible and profitable. This would

allow larger harvests from smaller areas, pro-tecting biological diversity in unharvestedareas while providing materials for export orlocal development. Use of many tree speciesand sizes can supply growing domestic mar-kets and at the same time continue to producewood for export markets. Logging from smallerareas would also make enforcement of strictregulations regarding road engineering, siteprotection, and restoration of the forest morefeasible.

The U.S. Forest Products Laboratory is con-ducting some research on tropical wood prod-uct use, and several of its projects for temperatezone forestry are producing technologies thatcan be used in the Tropics. A more specificcongressional mandate and additional fundingwould ensure continuation and expansion ofsuch activities and could enhance technologytransfer to tropical areas.

Additional knowledge of the role of forestproducts in subsistence economies and im-proved development of markets for nonwoodforest products could cause decisionmakers tovalue forests more highly. More support couldbe developed for local forestry investments andconservation efforts, Development of produc-tion systems and markets for nonwood tropicalforest resources could provide employmentand income-generating activities for rural peo-ple while reducing incentives to convert forestto unsustainable land uses.

AID has considerable experience with pro-duction system and market development foragricultural products and this could be appliedto tropical forest products, Furthermore, AIDcould increase its support for the BOSTID proj-ect that synthesizes, publishes, and distributesinformation on underexploited tropical re-sources. This relatively inexpensive project al-ready has been very effective in stimulating in-vestment in such resource development.

Several constraints hold back developmentof new forest products. Even if research wereincreased, it is not clear that the potential newproducts would attract investment. One prob-lem is that inexpensive and reliable screeningtechniques for evaluating potential forest prod-

C h 1 4 — O p t i o n s f o r C o n g r e s s Ž 3 1 5

ucts have not been developed. Another prob-lem is that market research for new productsoften must depend on unverified assumptionsabout what the product price will be and onunreliable consumer preference surveys. Also,in many tropical countries capital earns highrates of return and entrepreneurial talent ishighly rewarded in enterprises less risky thannew product development. Furthermore, infor-mation on traditional uses of minor forest prod-ucts is difficult to collect.

Successful product and market developmentshould lead to higher profits from forest re-source harvesting. If governments do not makesimultaneous investments in forest manage-ment and in regulation and control of thosewho harvest the resources, however, marketdevelopment could lead to more rapid deple-tion of the resources.

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

Issue

Benefits from preserving biological diversi-ty of tropical forests accrue to society as awhole, including future generations, yet thecosts are borne by the present generation intropical countries.

Tropical forests are great reservoirs of bio-logical diversity. They contain some 2 millionspecies of plants and animals. But diverse for-est ecosystems generally do not produce highyields per hectare per year of highly valuedproducts. So development usually entails re-placing diverse systems with simpler ones.

Natural forests can be modified to make themeconomically productive while maintainingsignificant biological diversity. However, formany types of forests this will not occur untilmore profitable management technologies aredeveloped. For now, the full original speciescomposition of tropical forests probably canbe preserved only in areas that remain inac-cessible or in areas set aside for research, ed-ucation, and recreation.

Maintenance of some natural forest ecosys-tems can be justified because they are on steep-ly sloping watershed catchments. Cloud forestsare an example. For now, however, invest-ments in protection and maintenance of otherbiologically diverse natural forests will have tobe motivated by recognition of the potentialthese areas and the genetic resources they con-tain hold for future generations.

Option 16:

Congress could conduct hearings on its re-cent amendment to the Foreign AssistanceAct which directs AID, in concert with otherappropriate agencies, to develop a compre-hensive U.S. strategy to maintain biologicaldiversity. Congress also could encourageU.S. representatives to multilateral organi-zations to promote similar strategies.

Over the past 5 years, AID, the World Bank,and some other assistance organizations havedeveloped strategies for investing in forestresources (mainly to produce wood) and forameliorating the negative environmental ef-fects of development projects. The process ofdeveloping and implementing these strategieshas helped educate decisionmakers about en-vironmental consequences of economic devel-opment projects and about new approaches toforestry. The strategies have begun to fostermore sustainable development projects.

The strategy to support biological diversitycan be expected to have a similar effect. If con-servation of biological diversity were made anexplicit goal for development projects, develop-ment agencies would act to keep open futureoptions for development of renewable re-sources. This eventually could lead to newways of using and sustaining these resourcesto meet basic human needs or to produce bio-logical products for export. Maintaining bio-logical diversity can complement sustainableeconomic development because it fosters en-

25-287 0 - 84 - 22


vironmental stability and renewable resourceproductivity.

Some AID officials may be reluctant to com-ply rigorously with the intent of the amend-ment. It may be perceived as another restric-tion that hinders AID and other developmentassistance organizations. Actions will not nec-essarily stem from the strategy unless there isstrong commitment and support within theagencies.

Option 17:

Congress could support the creation of an in-ternational fund to subsidize the establish-ment and maintenance of protected areas inthe Tropics.

Although there are many designated pro-tected areas in the Tropics, most receive littleprotection and many are being deforested ordegraded. Often this is because poor nationscan not afford the costs of adequate protection.Various ways to finance protected areas havebeen suggested. One proposal is to solicit con-tributions from developed countries or to taxsome internationally traded commodities tocreate an international fund. The fund wouldprovide grants to tropical nation governmentsto establish and manage protected areas. An-other suggestion is for the assistance agenciesto finance an international fund that wouldsupport a wide variety of development projectsoutside the forests. These would be

Issue

designed

to reduce the motivation for exploiting the pro-tected areas. The fund would support suchprojects as compensation for the direct and in-direct costs of protected areas. (Indirect costsinclude the foreign exchange and income fore-gone as a result of restrictions on harvestingforest products.)

Creating a major fund for tropical forest pro-tected areas would increase opportunities topreserve these habitats and their vast biologicaldiversity. The fund would make additionalmoneys available for parks where and whenmost needed. Some money is available for pro-tected area establishment from scatteredsources, but it is not sufficient and is rarelyavailable to manage existing protected areas.

This option is likely to be expensive. Thetropical forests to be protected are often inremote areas. The logistics of both policing theprotected areas and creating suitable economicdevelopment opportunities for people outsidethe protected areas would be difficult. Further-more, the suggested funding mechanisms mayface serious objections. International funds forwork on environmental problems, such as de-sertification, have not had much success in so-liciting contributions from developed nationgovernments. Taxes on forest products wouldraise consumer prices in importing countriesand reduce revenues to tropical countries. Di-verting funds from existing development assis-tance activities could have adverse effects onthose activities.

U.S. EXPERTISE

tropical forest resources and has limited fundsto allocate to this field of growing importance.

U.S. expertise on tropical forest resources iswidely scattered and is not being developedor used effectively.

Tropical governments and internationalorganizations are beginning to increase in-vestments in tropical forest resources. As aresult, demands for U.S. technical and finan-cial support are increasing. The United Stateshas few well-qualified, experienced experts on

Nonetheless, U.S. expertise is recognized infields that include reforestation, watershedmanagement, forest industries, resource inven-tory and mapping, resource development plan-ning, information processing, botany, zoology,and environmental education. Furthermore,the United States has a wide variety of publicand private organizations that could contributeto an expanded international program on trop-

C h . 1 4 — O p t i o n s f o r C o n g r e s s Ž 3 1 7

ical forests. Much more could be done to createopportunities for U.S. expertise to help sustaintropical forests.

U.S. science and technology alone cannot besufficient to sustain tropical forests because ofthe scale of the problem and because most ofthe tropical forests are the sovereign resourcesof foreign nations. In the long term, scienceand technology expertise must come fromwithin the tropical countries. However, U.S.expertise is needed now both to assist directlywith technology development and implemen-tation and to build indigenous scientific andtechnical capabilities in tropical nations.

Option 18:

Congress could modify the organic legisla-tion for those U.S. agencies* whose actionsaffect forest resources in tropical nationsand U.S. tropical territories. The amend-ments would state in substance that theagencies, in their regular activities: 1) willnot contribute to or fund conversion or deg-radation of tropical forests unless such ac-tivities are preceded by detailed resourcedevelopment plans indicating that the con-version will result in sustainable land use,and 2) will act to maintain and enhance tropical forest resources and act to slow or stopdeforestation end degradation.

Ensuring that the Federal agencies do notcontribute to the unsustainable use of tropicalforest resources would be a significant firststep. Federal agencies also could do a greatdeal to help develop and use resource-sustain-ing technologies. Such a mandate from Con-gress would signal the importance of maintain-ing tropical forests and the species they con-tain while developing them to benefit those

*Government organizations concerned with tropical forestsinclude the Department of State, Agency for InternationalDevelopment, Council on Environmental Quality, Departmentof Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Industry and Trade Admin-istration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Na-tional Park Service, International Development CooperationAgency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Na-tional Science Foundation, Peace Corps, Smithsonian Institu-tion, Department of Defense, Corps of Engineers, InternationalExecutive Service Corps, Overseas Private Investment Corpora-tion, Export-Import Bank, and Trade and Development Program.

who rely on their products and services forlivelihood.

The U.S. National Park Service, Fish andWildlife Service, and Forest Service have in-ternational offices, but their responsibilities arenot well-defined in the organic legislation. Forexample, the National Park Service’s organiclegislation could be amended to direct thatagency to share its expertise in protected areaestablishment, management, and related train-ing with tropical countries. The Forest Serv-ice’s institutes in Puerto Rico and Hawaii couldbe directed to provide research and trainingin response to tropical nation needs. In addi-tion, various agencies might provide more op-portunities for foreign resource managers toreceive training.

One disadvantage of this option is that ex-panded mandates might conflict with existinginterests and abilities in some agencies. Thus,the changes might not receive support fromagencies that perceive them as hindering theirabilities to function effectively, especially ifsignificant staff time is taken from other re-sponsibilities. In addition, more funds and staffmight be needed, depending on how the man-date is implemented.

Option 19:

Congress could request the General Account-ing Office to determine how Federal agen-cies are using existing legislation enablingFederal employees with appropriate exper-tise to work in international assistance agen-cies, American embassies, and internationalnongovernmental organizations. Where ap-propriate, Congress could hold hearings, update or amend existing legislation, and di-rect the Office of Personnel Management toencourage the use of those laws.

Mechanisms exist that enable U.S. Govern-ment personnel to work on such problems astropical deforestation. To determine if this isoccurring, GAO could review the agencies’ useof the Federal Employees International ServiceAct, the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, andappropriate Executive Orders in the FederalPersonnel Manual (e.g., Executive Order No.11552 of Aug. 24, 1970, enables details and


transfers of Federal employees to internationalorganizations).

Updating or simply calling attention to thesemechanisms for overseas work may encourageFederal employees to work on tropical forestryissues. This would help build a cadre of expe-rienced U.S. tropical forest resource expertsto support future U.S. tropical forestry initia-tives.

Legislation alone may not be enough to in-crease substantially the participation of U.S.forest resource experts overseas. To date, in-volvement of U.S. resource managers abroadhas been limited by absence of long-term careeropportunities. In fact, agencies may discouragestaff participation in international programs.Federal agencies, already short on staff, arereluctant to let personnel go abroad. Thus, em-ployees who do work overseas commonly arein the early stages of their careers or are near-ing retirement. It maybe necessary for Federalagencies to re-examine their reward structuresand ensure re-entry to responsible positionsupon participants’ return to the United States.

Option 20:

Congress could encourage the U.S. privatesector to develop and implement technolo-gies that sustain tropical forest resources.

Congress could encourage the Overseas Pri-vate Investment Corporation (OPIC) and theTrade and Development Programs under theInternational Development Cooperation Agen-cy (IDCA) to give special help to U.S. firms thathave technologies appropriate for maintainingand enhancing tropical forest resources. OPICand IDCA could help such firms establish orexpand operations in tropical nations. In ad-dition, Congress could amend the Foreign As-sistance Act to direct AID mission directors togive such firms a preferred status in procure-ment of technologies, products, or services.This incentive in conjunction with OPIC assis-tance might expedite transfer of resource-sus-taining U.S. technology to tropical nations.

Another law that might be modified is theSmall Business Innovation Research Act,which at present does not require AID’s com-pliance. In addition, the International Execu-tive Service Corps could devote more effort torecruiting volunteer retired executives withexpertise in managing natural resources. Fur-ther opportunities to influence the privatesector could be identified from congressionalhearings.

A wealth of information, technology, and ex-pertise that could be used to help tropical na-tions resides within the private sector. U.S.firms could stimulate investment in forest re-source conservation and development, and, asa consequence, the United States could benefitfrom more reliable sources of goods and fromnew investment opportunities. The private sec-tor can be more efficient than government intechnology research, development, and imple-mentation.

Reinvestment of profits into projects in de-veloping countries, especially joint ventures,is one important mechanism for technologytransfer. Another is private sector exchangeprograms, including on-the-job instruction inthe United States, consulting, onsite workshopsand training programs, support of local scien-tific and educational institutions, serving asguest instructors at foreign universities or man-agement institutes, and sponsoring attendanceof developing country personnel at internation-al symposia and conferences.

Increased involvement of the U.S. privatesector could cause some problems, however.U.S. private businesses might displace or stiflegrowth of some indigenous private businessesin the forestry sector. Markets might collapseor infrastructure might not be maintainedwhen U.S. firms leave a tropical area. In addi-tion, most resource-sustaining ventures involvelong-term commitments of capital which manyprivate businesses may be unwilling to risk inpotentially unstable developing countries, evenwith OPIC insurance. Finally, U.S. businessesare not required to perform environmental im-

Ch. 14—Options for Congress ● 319

pact assessments overseas and may cause un-intended damage to tropical forest resources.

Option 21:

Congress could authorize U.S. participationin the United Nations Associate ExpertsProgram.

Under the U.N. Associate Experts program,developed countries send technical personnelto developing countries to work on U.N. agen-cy projects, including forestry and rural devel-opment projects. The developed country paysthe salary of its own experts. The United Statesdoes not participate in this program, althoughmost OECD countries do. U.S. participationmight be administered through existing officesof the Peace Corps or the Forest Service.

U.S. participation in the Associate Expertsprogram could have advantages for both theU.S. and the tropical nations. U.S. participantswould be able to transfer technical and mana-gerial skills needed for resolving practicalforestry problems in the Tropics. This programalso would increase the visibility of the U.S.role in tropical forestry and facilitate scientificand cultural interchange between Americansand decisionmakers in tropical countries.

The United States has few opportunities todevelop tropical forestry expertise beyond thelevel acquired by Peace Corps volunteers. Thisis one reason why few Americans work on for-estry projects administered by FAO and othermultilateral development organizations. Partic-ipation in the Associate Experts programwould give U.S. experts the needed opportu-nities to acquire tropical experience. Thus, itshould lead to a greater role for U.S. citizensin international agencies and increased mar-ketability of U.S. consulting services abroad.

Since this would be a new program for theUnited States, new funding would be required.Only a small number of qualified U.S. expertsmay be available for participation in this pro-gram. To some extent, the Associate Expertsprogram may overlap with bilateral programsof U.S. AID and other agencies.

Option 22:

Congress could designate U.S. centers of ex-cellence to focus U.S. expertise on tropicalforest resources and provide opportunitiesfor research, education, and technologytransfer.

Effective use and further development ofUnited States tropical forestry expertise areconstrained by a lack of institutions in whichtropical forests are an issue of prime impor-tance. The U.S. experts with knowledge andexperience needed for sustainable develop-ment of tropical forest resources are scatteredamong public, private, and academic institu-tions. The experts have too few opportunitiesto practice or improve their expertise or to pro-vide fieldwork for students. Development as-sistance agencies, private firms, and organiza-tions working with forest resources in tropicalcountries have difficulty locating expert scien-tists. Much of the work by U.S. experts is ter-minated before it succeeds because institution-al continuity is lacking.

Centers of excellence could address many ofthese faults. They could organize educationcurricula and research programs that integratesocial, physical, and biological perspectives.They could establish strong links between fun-damental and applied researchers and commu-nication between researchers and technologyimplementors. They could act as brokers of in-formation and expertise by directing tropicalgovernments, tropical universities and stu-dents, and assistance agencies by directingthem to appropriate U.S. experts. Also, theycould help U.S. experts and students locateprivate firms, tropical universities, or govern-ment agencies interested in collaborative work,and by identifying sources of funding for thesekinds of exchanges.

Centers of excellence in tropical forestrycould be established to correspond to eachgeographic region of the tropical world (tropi-cal America, Asia, and Africa), or centers couldbe organized according to ecological categories(dry open forest, moist closed forest, mountainforest). Possible locations for such centers in-


elude the U.S. Forest Service’s Institute ofTropical Forestry in Puerto Rico (perhaps inconjunction with the USDA Mayaguez Insti-tute of Tropical Agriculture and the Universi-ty of Puerto Rico), the U.S. Forest Service’s In-stitute of Pacific Islands Forestry (in conjunc-tion with the University of Hawaii and theEast/West Center), or the Klieberg Institute atTexas A&I University (in conjunction withother departments of that university).

Locating centers for tropical forestry excel-lence in U.S. tropical or semiarid environmentswould have important advantages. Research,demonstration, and education field work couldbe conducted on technologies appropriate forthe biophysical conditions that prevail in trop-ical regions. The centers could be expected toget more support from local organizations thanif they were located at U.S. sites where theirwork had no local applicability. Centers in theUnited States would be accessible to the U.S.experts and students who are scattered amongmany organizations. This accessibility would

be most important for the expertise brokeringfunction.

There are several arguments against this op-tion. First is the problem of funding. Develop-ing the institutes in Puerto Rico and Hawaiias centers of excellence in tropical forestrywould require significant changes in the For-est Service budget. Another problem is thatmany of the ecological, institutional, social, andeconomic conditions typical of the tropical na-tions do not occur on the U.S. tropical islandsor semiarid sites. Institutes located in tropicalnations would be more accessible to indige-nous tropical scientists and students and somight be more effective in supporting the trop-ical nation’s own institutions. Another prob-lem is that centers of excellence, whether lo-cated in the U.S. or tropical nations, might fo-cus too narrowly on technical issues and bio-physical sciences, thus neglecting institutionaland social issues that are fundamental con-straints on forest development and conserva-tion in tropical countries.

Appendix A

Status of Tropical Forests: Tables

Table A-l.—Closed Forests in Tropical Africa, America, and Asia, 1980(thousands of hectares)

Closed forest Percent of Closed forest Percent ofCountry Total area area total Country Total area area total

226,76034,20026,76747,54459,09992,37732,246

122,19062,29875,261

124,67024,586

9,63223,85463,75493,9702,806

58,03778,30319,6847,3333,613

250,581128,400

5,68019,67238,93611,858

2,6341,040

11,2622,783

57,50082,42927,420

126,700120,383

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tropical America:Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2,176,279

851 ,1%128,522

105,75021,34020,50017,92010,3005,9504,4584,3503,5903,0102,9002,0502,0001,7181,5401,4401,2951,105

935765740660650500304220200186120654726

aaaaa

216,634

-----Tropical Africa:Zaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Congo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gabon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cameroon . . . . . . . . . . . . .Madagascar . . . . . . . . . . .Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ivory Coast . . . . . . . . . . . .Ethiopa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Central African Republic. .Zambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Angola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Liberia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Somalia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tanzania . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Equatorial Guinea . . . . . .Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mozambique . . . . . . . . . . .Uganda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sierra Leone . . . . . . . . . . .Guinea-Bissau . . . . . . . . .Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Togo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senegal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Zimbabwe . . . . . . . . . . . . .Malawi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rwanda . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Benin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Burundi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Botswana . . . . . . . . . . . . .Namibia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Upper Volta . . . . . . . . . . . .Niger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

357,48069,680

46.662.476.637.717.46.4

13.83.65.84.02.38.3

20.87.22.41.5

46.21.91.23.9

10.118.30.30.45.41.10.51.64.66.20.40.9

aaaaa

10.0

42.054.2

Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113,889Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196,718Bolivia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109,858Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91,205Guyana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,497Surinam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,382Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,067French Guiana . . . . . . . . . 9,100Nicaragua . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,000Guatemala . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,889Panama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,708Paraguay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,675Honduras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,209Costa Rica . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,090Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,450Belize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,297Dominican Republic . . . 4,840El Salvador . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,099Jamaica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,142Haiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,775Trinidad and Tobago . . . . 513

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,679,121

Tropical Asia:Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191,930India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328,700Papua New Guinea . . . . . 46,170Burma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67,658Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,008Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,940Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,352Viet Nam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,433Laos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,680Kampuchea . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,104Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80,519Bhutan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,660Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,080Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,558Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,400Brunei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944,769

46,40046,25044,01031,87018,47514,83014,2508,9004,4964,4424,1654,0703,7971,6381,4551,354

6291416748

208

678,655

113,89551,84134,23031,94120,995

9,5109,2358,7708,4107,5482,1852,1001,9411,659

927323

305,510

aNo data; in most cases this is where the areas are very small,

40.723.540.134.985.990.552.697.834.640.854.010.033.932.212.759.013,06.75.91.7

40.6

40.4

59.315.874.147.263.631.818.026.235.541.7

2.745.113.825.3

6.456.0

32.3

SOURCE” Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Tropical Forest Resources Assessment Project (GEMS} Tropical Africa, TropicalAsia, Tropical Arnerica, 4VOIS. (Rome 1981)

323


Table A-2.–Condition of Ciosed Forests in Tropicai Africa, America, and Asia, 1980

Physically Parks andUndisturbed Logged Managed

Countryunproductive protected

(%) (%) ( % ) ( % ) areas

754852391664

1587110

5645

a

176122

713

54

100156aaa

30aaaaaa

164555494469231065841521

96

40181641

301145

68a

2247

87023

aaaaa

55

8154

2840

66817684802751142120

a

38

6119a

20

39

252736

3125

412061574755665318

3364

67 10

aaaaaaaaaaaa

68aa

6

58a

8aaaaaaaaaaaaaa

- i

aaaaaaaaaaaaaa2a

14aaaaa7

—a

1935

35

26501262

316162934

941422

449

5

3647

1765

100a

4092

15aaaaa

51aa9

15aa7aa

23

28

5238aaaa

29

7813a

62aaaaa

20

3610473226271221159

31292320133234

982304829

4

1151

14a42aa1

2

20aaa

3aa

21 2

App. A—Status of Tropical Forests: Tables ● 325

Table A-2.—Condition of Closed Forests in Tropical Africa,America, and Asia, 1980—Continued

Physically Parks andUndisturbed Logged Managed unproductive protected

Country (“/0) ( % ) (“/0) (“/0) areas

Tropical Asia:Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 31 30 5India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8 63 4 13Papua New Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 1 59 aBurma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11 24 1Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 26 12 21 5Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 41 a 20 7Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 a 26 24Viet Nam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 25 1 50 6Laos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 a 57 aKampuchea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 11 28 aPakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 10 19 51 1Bhutan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 30 a 13 aNepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 20 a 18 17Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 73 14 12Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 86 3 6Brunei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 5 a 10 1

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 20 13 28 6‘No data, in most cases this is where the areas are very small.

SOURCE Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, TropicalForest Resources AssessmentProject (GEMS) Tropical Africa, Tropical Asia, TropicalAmerice, 4vols. (Rome: 1981).


Table A.3.–Open Forest and Shrubland in Tropical Africa, America, and Asia, 1980(thousands of hectares)

Open Percent of Percent of Open Percent of Percent ofCountry forest total area Shrubland total area Country forest total area Shrubland total area

Tropical Africa:Zaire . . . . . . . . . . .Angola . . . . . . . . .Sudan . . . . . . . . . .Tanzania . . . . . . . .Botswana ., . . . . .Central African

Republic . . . . .Zambia . . . . . . . . .Ethiopia . . . . . . . .Zimbabwe ... , . .Namibia . . . . . . . .Mozambique . . . .Chad . . . . . . . . . . .Senegal . . . . . . . .Nigeria . . . . . . . . .Mali . . . . . . . . . . . .Guinea . . . . . . . . .Cameroon . . . . . .Somalia . . . . . . . .Upper Volta . . . . .Ghana . . . . . . . . . .Ivory Coast . . . . .Uganda . . . . . . . . .Malawi . . . . . . . . .Benin . . . . . . . . . .Madagascar ., . . .Niger . . . . . . . . . .Guinea-Bissau . . .Togo . . . . . . . . . . .Sierra Leone . . . .Kenya . . . . . . . . . .Gambia . . . . . . . . .Rwanda . . . . . . . .Gabon . . . . . . . . .Liberia . . . . . . . . .Burundi . . . . . . . .Congo . . . . . . . . .Equatorial Guinea

Total . . . . . . . . .Tropical America:Brazil . . . . . . . . . .Paraguay . . . . . . .Bolivia . . . . . . . . .

71,64050,70047,00040,60032,560

32,30026,50022,60019,70018,42014,50013,00010,8258,8008,8008,6007,7007,5107,2006,9755,3765,2504,0853,8202,9002,9001,4451,3801,3151,255

150110

754014

aa

486,445

211,20028,64024.700

31.740.718.843.256.6

51.835.218.750.622.318.510.155.0

9.57.3

35.016.211.826.329.216.726.734.433.9

4.92.3

40.024.317.92.2

14.44.20.30.40.5

aa

22.4

24.870.422.5

11,30016,15087,00013,80020,000

7,0003,200

25,000900

37,31529,000

9,7501,365

36,8006,0007,0009,500

53,0003,000

30060

100380

3,0754,0006,000

172,265

337,500

36090

100a

1,40010

442,740

61,200

9,000

5.013.034.714.734.8

27.34.2

20.52.3

45.337.0

7.66.9

39.85.0

28.520.083.110.9

1.30.20.53.2

27.36.84.70.5

39.9

64.:34.6

3.4

1.:

4.10.4

20.3

7.2

8.2

Colombia . . . . . . .Venezuela ., ...,Mexico . . . . . . . . .Peru . . . . . . . . . . .Surinam . . . . . . . .Ecuador . . . . . . . .Honduras . . . . . . .Costa Rica . . . . . .Guatemala . . . . . .Belize . . . . . . . . . .French Guiana . .Guyana . . . . . . . . .Haiti . . . . . . . . . . .Dominican

Republic . . . . .Nicaragua . . . . . .Panama . . . . . . . .Jamaica . . . . . . . .Trinidad and

Tobago . . . . . . .Cuba . . . . . . . . . . .El Salvador . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . .

Tropical AsiaThailand . . . . . . . .India . . . . . . . . . . .Laos . . . . . . . . . . .Kampuchea . . . . .Papua New

Guinea . . . . . . .Indonesia . . . . . . .Viet Nam . . . . . . .Pakistan . . . . . . . .Nepal . . . . . . . . . .Bhutan . . . . . . . . .Malaysia . . . . . . . .Philippines . . . . .Brunei . . . . . . . . .Sri Lanka . . . . . . .Burma . . . . . . . . . .Bangladesh . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . .

5,7003,3002,1001,120

690550200160100927025

a

aaaa

aaa

5.03.6

3.1504.22.01.83.10.94.00.80.1

a

aaaa

aaa

5,5002,120

59,5003,150

2001,0501,220

1201,505

467

11553

54210

227

305293

278,647

6,4405,3935,2155,100

3,9453,0001,340

29516040

aaaaaa

16.6

12.51.6

22.028.2

8.51.64.00.41.30.9

aaaaaa

30,948 3.3

aNo data; in most cases this is where the areas are very small.

145,881

5005,378

735400

8523,900

3301,105

23025

aa

2152,600

a

35,503

4.82.3

30.32.41.23.9

10.92.4

13.82.00.10.51.9

1.11.6

19.9

1.22.7

14.0

8.7

1.01.63.12.2

0.212.4

1.01.41.60.5

a

3.33.8

a

3.8

SOURCE: Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nati@ns Environment pro9ramme, Tropica/ Forest Resources Assessment Project (GEMS): Tropical Africa, TropicalAsia, Tropical America, 4 VOIS. (Rome: 1981).


Table A-4.—Forest Fallow in Tropical Africa, America, and Asia, 1980 (thousands of hectares)

Coun t r y

Tropical Africa:Sierra Leone . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Liberia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ivory Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Angola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Equatorial Guinea . . . . . . . . . .Togo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mozambique . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Burundi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Zambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cameroon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Madagascar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guinea-Bissau . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rwanda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Benin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tanzania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gabon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Zaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Central African Republic . . . .Congo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Uganda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Somalia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Zimbabwe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Botswana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Namibia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Malawi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Niger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senegal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Upper Volta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total

Ration of forest Ration of forestfallow to closed fallow to closed

Forest fallow forest Country Forest fallow forest

3,8606,5005,5008,4004,8507,750

6001,165

2501,600

500

9004,9003,500

17025

7100

1,5007,800

3001,100

30055aaaaaaaaaaaa

61,646

5.23.82.81.91.71.30.90.90.80.80.50.50.30.30.30.30.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.1

aaaaaaaaaaaa

0.3

Paraguay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dominican Republic . . . . . . . .Belize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Trinidad and Tobago . . . . . . .Nicaragua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Honduras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .El Salvador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guatemala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Costa Rica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Surinam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bolivia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .French Guiana . . . . . . . . . . . .Guyana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Panama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total

Tropical Asia:Viet Nam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Brunei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Laos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Burma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bhutan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Papua New Guinea . . . . . . . . .Kampuchea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total

3,27026,000

700267525

10,65057

1,3708,5002,350

68022

5,35046,420

360120270

1,10075

200124

108,612

Tropical America:Jamaica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Haiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

aNo data; in most cases thisis where the areas are very small,tforest fallow island that has been cleared forcultivstion and subsequently abandoned so that it may again have woody vegetation.

10,750237

5,00018,100

8533,520

3154,8259,470

13,460

110205

1,380200

a69,225

0.80.60.50.40.40.30.30.30.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.1

aaaaa

0.2

1.20.70.60.60.50.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.1

aaa

0.2

SOURCE Food andAgriculture OrganlzatlonlUnlted Nations Environment Pro9ramme, TropkxdFor estResourcesAssessment Pro/ect(GEMS)” TropicalAfrica, TropicalAs/a, Trcpca/Amenca, 4VOIS (Rome 1981)


Table A-5.—Forest Plantations in Tropical Africa, America, and Asia, 1980

Total land Area of Industrial Nonindustrialarea plantations plantations

Countryplantations

(1,000 ha) (ha) (%) (%)

58,693250,658

58,27292,361

124,68038,936

122,18794,23911,84723,85623,60732,24375,2612,635

78,311234,628

2,72126,76611,26147,54134,19919,67127,4185,685

63,73211,135

126,6387,334

128,44923,852

120,3831,040

62,2983,613

82,41657,496

2,805

266,000187,850180,900163,300157,200100,25098,20097,75060,30075,25045,70044,90038,00029,00025,40022,50019,50019,00019,00018,50016,80012,50012,00011,30011,0006,3006,0005,8003,2002,8501,9001,300

500350300

aa

423187904371

16997

30848812638433634156

10028

067

0100

091

07511

100

14100

——

5869131057299931

657016

88371667375944

072

10033

1000

1009

100

89o

100140

——

2,189,595

770,064197,266

11,44891,209

113,880128,51727,067

109,866513

10,8891,141

16,3824,8387,7092,297

40,6745,0912,098

13,92821,497

2,7759,100

11,209

1,564,667

1,780,600

3,855,000159,000157,000124,50095,00084,00043,00025,90016,00015,80012,8008,5005,7004,0003,1003,0002,8001,5001,3001,2001,000

450a

4,620,550

56

5145

10097

10039

10023

100100100100

010010063

100100100100

0100

—

55

44

4 955030

610

770000

10000

370000

1000

—

45


Table A-5.—Forest Plantations in Tropical Africa, America, and Asia, 1980—Continued

Coun t r y

Tropical Asia:India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Viet Nam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Papau New Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Burma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Laos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bhutan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kampuchea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Brunei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total land Area of Industr ia l N o n i n d u s t r i a larea plantat ions plantat ions plantat ions

(1,000 ha) (ha) ( % ) ( % )

328,742191,91429,98133,43380,51914,28468,1526,560

33,06846,17214,14067,80123,679

4,66218,105

576

944,841

2,0613000l,918,000

300,000204,000160,000128,000114,000112,30026,00021,70018,70016,00011,0007,0006,800

a5,111,500 –

741280

10055

10025

0743

7010059—

66

26999892

1000

450

75100269730

41—

34

SOURCE” Food andAgriculture Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Trop@/ Forest Resources AssessrnerrfPro/ect (GEMS) Trop/ca/ Africa, Tropica/Asfa, Tropica/Arnerica, 4VOIS (Rome 1981)

330 Ž Technologies to Sustain Tropical forest Resources

Table A-6.–Deforestation–Tropical Africa, America, and Asia, 1981-85

Annual Annualdeforestation deforestation

of closed Percent of closed Percentforests deforested forests deforested

Country (1,000 ha) per year Country (1,000 ha) per year

Tropical Africa:Ivory Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rwanda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Burundi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guinea-Bissau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Benin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Liberia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Angola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Madagascar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Uganda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Zambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mozambique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sierra Leone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Togo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tanzania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cameroon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Zaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Somalia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Equatorial Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . .Central African Republic . . . . . .Congo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gabon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Botswana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Namibia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Zimbabwe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Malawi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Upper Volta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senegal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Niger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tropical America:Paraguay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Costa Rica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30031

171

46361944

1502210401062

1042

80182

4835

2215aaaaaaaaa

6.55.02.72.72.62.62.31.81.71.51.51.31.31.31.30.8

0.70.60.40.40.20.20.20.20.10.10.1 ,

aaaaaaaaa

1.332

19065

0.6

44.0

Haiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .El Salvador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jamaica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nicaragua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Honduras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guatemala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Panama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Belize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dominican Republic . . . . . . . . . .Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Trinidad and Tobago . . . . . . . . . .Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bolivia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Surinam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .French Guiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guyana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tropical Asia:Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Brunei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Laos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Viet Nam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kampuchea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Burma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bhutan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Papua New Guinea . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

252

121903490

820595

369

4.01,480

2701

12587

2313

4,339

8458

2525

100255

918

65600

714725

1052

22

1,826

3.83.23.02.72.42.42.01.8

0.90.70.60.40.40.40.40.20.10.00.00.0

0.6

4.33.52.71.61.21.21.00.90.70.50.30.30.30.30.10.1

0.6

afqo data. in mostcases this is where the areas are~y small.

SOURCE: Food andAgriculture Organization/United Nations Environment Programme, Tropica/ ForestResources Assessrnerrt Projecf(GEMS~ Tropica/Africa, Tropica/Asia, Tropica/America,4 vols. (Rome: 1981)

App. A—Status of Tropical Forests: Tables Ž 331

Table A-7.—Per Capita Open Forest Areas in Tropical Africa, America, and Asia, 1980

Open forest Hectares of Open forest Hectares ofarea open forest area open forest

Country (1,000 ha) per capita Country (1,000 ha) per capita

Tropical Africa:Botswana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Namibia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Central African Republic . . . . . . . . .Angola ... , , ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Zambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Zimbabwe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Zaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guinea-Bissau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Tanzania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Senegal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Somalia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mozambique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Benin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Upper Volta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cameroon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Malawi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ivory Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Niger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Togo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sierra Leone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Uganda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Madagascar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Gabon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Congo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Equatorial Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Liberia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rwanda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Burundi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TropicalAmerica:Paraguay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bolivia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32,56018,42032,30050,70026,50013,00019,70047,00071,640

1,44540,60010,8258,6007,510

14,5008,8003,8207,2007,7004,085

22,8005,3766,9752,9001,3801,3155,2502,900

15075

1,2558,800

aa

40110

14

486,445

28,64024,700

40.318.314,1

7.24.62.92.72.62.52,52.31,91.71.61.41.31.11.00.90.70.70.70.60.50.50.40.40.30.20.10.10.1

bbbbb

1.4

9.04.4

Surinam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .French Guiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Belize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Venezuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Honduras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Costa Rica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guyana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dominican Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . .Trinidad and Tobago . . . . . . . . . . . .Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Panama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Guatemala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Haiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .El Salvador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jamaica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nicaragua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tropical Asia:Laos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Papua New Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kampuchea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bhutan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Viet Nam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Burma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Brunei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

690211,200

7092

3,3005,7001,120

55020016025

aa

2,100

100aaaa

278,647

5,2153,9455,1006,4405,393

40a

1,3403,000

295aaa

180a

30,948

1.81.71.10.60.20.20.10.10.10.1

bbbbbbbbbbb

0.9

1.41.30.80.1

bbbbbbbbbbbb

b

aNo data. in m~~t cases this is where the areas arevq small.b ’Less than O.05fcrest hectares per capita.

SOURCE: Populaticm Reference Burew, 1983 WoridPopdatiorI Dafa SfreeLWashington, D,C; Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations Environment Programme,Tropical Forest ResourcesAssessment Proiect (GEMS) Tropicsl Africa, Tropical Asia, Tropical America, 4vols. (Rome. 1981)

25-287 0 - 84 - 23

Appendix B

Glossary

Archipelago: An expanse of water with many scat-tered islands; a group of islands.

Agroforestry: A collective name for land-use sys-tems and technologies where woody perennials(trees, shrubs, palms, bamboos, etc.) are deliber-ately used on the same land management unit asagricultural crops and/or animals, either in someform of spatial arrangement or temporal se-quence. In agroforestry systems there are bothecological and economic interactions betweenthe different components.

Alluvial soils: Soils made of materials depositedby running water (e.g., clay, silt, sand, andgravel).

Aquifer: A water-bearing stratum of permeablerock, sand, or gravel.

Atoll: A coral island consisting of a reef surround-ing a lagoon.

Biological diversity: Includes two related concepts,genetic diversity and ecological diversity. Genet-ic diversity is the amount of genetic variabilityamong individuals in a single species, whetherthe species exist as a single interbreeding groupor as a number of populations, strains, breeds,races, or subspecies. Ecological diversity (speciesrichness) is the number of species in a communi-ty of organisms. Both kinds of diversity are fun-damental to the functioning of ecological sys-tems,

Biome: A major ecological community type (e.g.,grassland); a major biotic unit consisting of plantand animal communities having similarities inform and environmental conditions,

Biotic: Of or relating to life; caused or producedby living things.

Broadleaf forest: A type of closed forest wherebroadleaf species (dicotyledons or monocotyle-dons) predominate. The broadleaf trees (espe-cially the dicotyledons) are often referred to as“hardwoods.”

Canopy: The more or less continuous cover ofbranches and foliage formed collectively by thecrowns of adjacent trees and other woody vegeta-tion. Layers (i.e., understory and overstory) of thecanopy may be distinguished.

Clearcutting: The removal of the entire standingcrop of trees. In practice, may refer to exploita-tion that leaves much unsalable material stand-ing (e.g., a commercial clearcutting).

Closed forest: Includes land where trees shade somuch of the ground that a continuous layer ofgrass cannot grow. The tree cover is often multi-storied. Trees may be evergreen, semideciduous,or deciduous. Closed forests grow where the cli-mate is relatively moist. Also called moist forest.

Cloud forests: Forests where clouds impingealmost continuously on tropical mountain vegeta-tion. Generally a dense growth of trees of vari-ous diameters draped with mosses, ferns, andleafy liverworts.

Coir-fiber: A stiff, coarse fiber from the outerhuskof coconut.

Commonwealth: In the context of American terri-torial relations, the status currently held by Puer-to Rico and approved for the Northern MarianaIslands. Denotes a high degree of local autonomyunder a constitution drafted and adopted by thelocal residents,

Conifer: Any of an order (Coniferales) of mostlyevergreen trees and shrubs including forms (aspines) with true cones and others (as yews) withan arillate fruit. Most are needle-leaved trees.Often referred to as softwoods.

Conifer forest: A type of closed forest. It includesonly areas where conifer species (gymnosperm)predominate. These trees are often referred to as“softwoods.”

Conservation: The management of human use ofthe biosphere so that it benefits present genera-tions while maintaining its potential to meet theneeds of future generations.

Converted land: Includes any land that haschanged from a natural to a manipulated state,such as cropland planted annually or every fewyears with food or fiber crops and rangelandcovered permanently with grasses, legumes,and/or herbaceous species and harvested by graz-ing livestock.

Coppice: A forest of trees that has grown fromshoots or root suckers rather than seed. Coppic-ing refers to cutting trees close to ground levelso they will regrow from coppice shoots.

Copra: Dried coconut meat yielding coconut oil.Deciduous: Of perennial plants that are normally

leafless for some period during the year.Deforestation: The conversion of forests to land

uses that have a tree cover of less than 10 percent.Degradation: Refers to the biological, physical, and

332

App. B—Glossary ● 333

chemical processes that result in the loss of theproductive potential of natural resources—e.g.,soil erosion and loss of valuable or potentiallyvaluable genetic types.

Dendrothermal: Caused by or relating to heatgenerated by burning wood.

Desertification: A process of extreme degradationof the biological potential of the land that can leadultimately to desert-like conditions.

Dipterocarp forests: Forests dominated by trees ofthe Dipterocarpaceae family. These are tall treesof tropical Asia, Indonesia, and the Philippinesthat have a twowinged fruit and are the sourceof valuable timber, aromatic oils, and resins.

Disturbed forest: Forest that has been cleared inlarge areas within the last 60 years, commonlyfor crops or pasture. Usually it is sufficiently de-graded or harvested regularly so it does notreturn to its original state. Trees maybe managedor left to natural successions. The term includesplantations.

Dry forest: See open forest.Ecological diversity: See biological diversity.Ecosystem: A unit of plant and animal life, within

its nonliving environment, the components ofwhich are linked together by a variety of proc-esses, including the flow of energy through thesystem and the cycling of nutrients within it.

Endangered species: Species threatened with ex-tinction as listed in the Endangered Species Actof 1973 and subsequent amendments.

Endemic: Restricted or peculiar to a locality orregion. Native.

Eutrophic: Rich in dissolved nutrients (as phos-phates). Often shallow and seasonally deficientin oxygen.

Environmental services: Benefits provided by theenvironment or environmental processes, oftenwith values difficult to quantify. Examples in-clude the erosion control function of vegetationand the filtering function of mangrove forests.

Exotic: Introduced from another country; not na-tive to the place where found.

Free association: Proposed status for the peoplesof Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the FederatedStates of Micronesia—currently the Trust Terri-tory of the Pacific Islands. Provides for full inter-nal self-government and substantial authority inforeign affairs. The United States would haveresponsibility for defense and some specifiedeconomic assistance.

Forest fallow: Land that has been cleared of itstrees for cultivation and subsequently abandonedso that it may again have some woody vegetation.

This includes patches of land that are being usedto grow crops and some patches where forest hasnot been cleared which are too small to accountfor separately, The category does not includeland where erosion or leaching have so degradedthe site that only shrubs or grasses grow after theland is abandoned.

Forest resources: Includes trees, the organismsassociated with them, and the land, waters, andmicroclimates that are substantially affected bythem.

Forest structure: Distribution and arrangement oftrees in a forest.

Fuelwood: Wood used as fuel for purposes of cook-ing, heat, or power production. Wood for char-coal, kilns, and ovens is included,

Genetic diversity: See biological diversity.Geomorphology: Science that deals with the land

and submarine relief features of the Earth’s sur-face; the features dealt within geomorphology.

Germ plasm: Germ cells and their precursors serv-ing as the bearers of heredity and being funda-mentally independent of other cells; the heredi-tary material of the germ cells, Genes.

Hardwood: A conventional term for the timber ofbroadleaved trees, and the trees themselves, be-longing to the botanical group Angiospermae.

Hectare: One hectare equals 2.47 acres. One squarekilometer equals 100 hectares. One square mileequals 259 hectares. Thus, the 1.2 billion hectaresof closed tropical forest is equal to 3 billion acresor 4.6 milhon square miles.

Horticulture: The science and art of growing fruits,vegetables, flowers, or ornamental plants,

Hydrology: The study of the circulation of waterin and between the atmosphere and the Earth’scrust, with particular emphasis on the phases ini-tiated by precipitation and ending with evapo-transpiration. Water cycle.

Hyphae: The threads that make up the myceliumof a fungus.

Indigenous: Native to a specified area or region,not introduced. Endemic.

Industrial plantations: Sites where trees areplanted to produce sawlogs, veneer logs, pulp-wood, and pitprops. The category excludes plan-tations that produce fuelwood for industrial use.

Industrial wood: Wood used for sawlogs, veneerlogs, pit props, pulpwood, chips, particles, orother construction purposes. Does not includefuelwood.

In situ: Protecting stock in the original habitatrather than in cold storage or in places such asgene banks and botanical or zoological gardens.


Insular: Of, relating to, or constituting an island;dwelling or situated on an island.

Laterite: A red residual product of rock decay thathas a high content of oxides of iron and hydrox-ide of aluminum.

Landsat: Originally called Earth Resources Tech-nological Satellite (ERTS). A group of satellitesusing electromagnetic sensors to record reflectedradiation from the Earth to provide imagery todepict ground cover, etc. Remote-sensing tool im-portant for resource inventories.

Leeward: Being in or facing the direction towardwhich the wind is blowing; the side opposite thewindward.

Legally protected forest: Forests where logging isprohibited by law. It includes a variety of typesof parks and protected areas. Illegal logging andagricultural clearing does occur in some of theseareas.

Legumes: Any of a large family (Leguminosae) ofdicotyledonous herbs, shrubs, and trees bearingnodules on the roots that contain nitrogen-fixingbacteria, and including important food, forage,and timber plants (as peas, beans, carob, or rose-wood.)

Littoral: Of, relating to, or situated or growing onor near a shore, especially of the sea.

Logged-over forest: Productive forest area that hasbeen logged or cleared at least once in the last60 years but does not fit the criteria for managedforest. This category is not applied to open for-ests.

Managed forest: Productive forest where harvest-ing regulations are enforced, silvicultural treat-ments are carried out, and trees are protectedfrom fires and diseases.

Mangroves: Any of a genus (Rhizophora, especiallyR. mangle) of tropical maritime trees or shrubsthat throw out many prop roots and form densemasses important in coastal areas.

Manmade forest: See plantations.Marginal land: Land that is relatively infertile or

unproductive for agriculture without extraor-dinary capital imputs (as irrigation, fertilizer).

Merchantable: Of commercially acceptable quali-ty. Salable.

Moist forest: See closed forest.Monoculture: One species planted over a large

area.Montane: Of, relating to, growing in, or being the

biogeographic zone that is made up of relativelymoist cool upland slopes below timberline and

that is characterized by large evergreen trees asa dominant life form.

Mycorrhiza: The symbiotic association of themycelium of a fungus with the roots of a seedplant.

New world: North, South, and Central America.Open forests: Trees cover at least 10 percent of the

ground but still allow enough light to reach theforest floor so that a continuous cover of grasscan grow. Generally occur where the climate isrelatively dry.

Open woodlands: See open forests.Palmito: Any of several usually low-growing fan-

leaved palms. Strips of the leaf blade of a palmet-to used in weaving.

Phenology: A branch of science dealing with therelations between climate and periodic biologicalphenomena (as bird migration or plant flower-ing).

Phenotype: Any organism as observed—i.e., asjudged by its visually perceptible charactersresulting from the interaction of its genetic char-acteristics with the environment.

Pioneer species: A plant capable of invading bareor newly exposed sites and persisting there—i.e.,colonizing them—until supplanted by successionspecies.

Plantation: A forest crop or stand established ar-tificially either by sowing or planting. The termincludes reforestation (reestablishment of a treecover on deforested or degraded forest lands) andreplacement of natural forest by a different treecrop. It does not include artificial regeneration(the application of postharvesting techniques toaccelerate the regrowth of the species that hadbeen logged).

Possession: Used to refer to any unincorporatedterritory of the United States—i.e., any territoryto which the Constitution has not been express-ly and fully extended. Includes American Samoa,Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

Productive forest: The characteristics of the trees,terrain, and forest regulations potentially allowthe production of wood for industrial purposes(e.g., sawlogs, veneer logs, pulpwood, and indus-trial poles). Relates to both closed and open for-ests. The distance to consumption or export cen-ters is not taken into account, so the category in-cludes some forests that are not now economical-ly accessible.

Propagule: A structure (as a cutting, a seed, or aspore) that propagates a plant.

Provenance trials (or tests): Testing populations

A p p . B — G l o s s a r y ● 3 3 5

of the same species to study their performanceunder a range of site and climatic conditions. Ina provenance test, seeds are collected from anumber of widely scattered stands and the seed-lings are grown under similar conditions.

Race: Subdivision of a species distinguished byheritable physiological or morphological charac-teristics resulting from adaptation to a specificenvironmental condition. Tree species races areoften described by referring to the geographiclocation where the race is found naturally.

Rhizomes: Underground, root-like stem of plant.Roundwood: Wood in the natural state as felled,

or otherwise harvested, with or without bark,round, split, or squared. It comprises all woodobtained from removals. Commodities includedare sawlogs, veneer logs, pit props, pulpwood,other industrial roundwood, and fuelwood.

Secondary forests: Forest growth that has come upnaturally after some major interference (e.g., log-ging, serious fire, or insect attack).

Selectively cut: The removal of only the mostvaluable trees,

Shrubland: Land that has woody vegetation cover-ing at least 10 percent of the ground, but the mainwoody plants are bushy species with a height atmaturity of 0.5 to 7 meters, Shrubland maybe thenatural vegetation under dry or otherwise stress-ful conditions, or it may result from severe degra-dation of open or closed forest.

Shifting cultivation (also called slash-and-burnagriculture): Any farming system where land isperiodically cleared, cropped, and returned tofallow.

Siltation: To choke, fill over, or obstruct with siltor mud.

Silviculture: The science and art of cultivatingforest crops, based on a knowledge of forest treecharacteristics.

SociaI and environmental plantations: Plantationsdesigned for soil and water protection or to pro-duce fuelwood and charcoal, polewood, or con-struction wood for local use, or some nonwoodproducts such as gum arabics. The category ex-cludes plantations for major nonwood commodi-ties such as rubber, palm oil, coconuts, cloves,coffee, and cocoa. It also excludes trees plantedto shade agricultural crops.

Softwood: A conventional term for both the timberand the trees belonging to the botanical groupGymnospermae. Commercial timbers of thisgroup are generally confined to conifers.

Sustain (sustaining, sustainable): To maintain or

increase the productivity and renewability of theresources in perpetuity.

Symbiosis: The intimate living together of twodissimilar organisms in a mutually beneficialrelationship.

Taungya: Burmese word for hill cultivation. Theprincipal objective is to plant crops of trees usedfor wood production. People are allowed to growfood crops among the newly planted trees for oneor a few years.

Tissue culture: Microbiological technique for asex-ual reproduction of plants in vitro from a selectedparent.

Tree: A woody perennial plant having a single,usually elongate, main stem generally with fewor no branches on its lower part.

Trust territory: Areas placed under the interna-tional trusteeship system of the United Nations,territories detached from enemy states as a resultof World War II, and territories voluntarilyplaced under the system. Are administered pur-suant to the terms of individual agreements,

Tropics: The region lying between the Tropic ofCancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, 23.5° Northand 23.50 South of the Equator. In this report,tropical forest includes all forest of the 76 listednations, whether or not they are actually in theTropics.

Undisturbed forest: Productive forest that has notbeen logged or cleared in the last 60 years, in-cluding both primary forest and old secondaryforest. Natural tropical forest with at most a fewsmall areas cleared by natural or human-inducedevents, regenerating by natural stages of succes-sion. The term is not applied to open forestsbecause nearly all open forests have been subjectto cutting, burning, and grazing.

Unproductive forest (for physical reasons): Forestunsuitable for industrial wood productionbecause of rough or inundated terrain or poorgrowth characteristics of the trees (stunted orcrooked),

Unproductive land: Land that has been so de-graded that it produces few useful products andprovides minimal environmental services. Itusually supports very little growth of usefulspecies and does not return naturally to othercategories of land.

Watershed: A region or area draining ultimatelyto a particular watercourse or body of water.

Weeding: Eliminating or suppressing undesirablevegetation so as to reduce competition withdesirable vegetation.

Appendix

Commissioned Papers

Technologies to Increase Production FromPrimary Tropical Forests and Woodlands

Peter S. AshtonHarvard Arnold Arboretum

Mark J, PlotkinHarvard Botanical Museum

Methods for Evaluating Tropical Forest andWoodland Plants to Indicate TheirPotential as Resources

Michael J. BalickNew York Botanical Garden

Tree Crops: Key Elements in SustainingTropical Forest Resources

Earle BarnhartThe New Alchemy Institute

Professional Education and TechnicalTraining to Support Development andImplementation of Technologies to SustainTropical Resources

James S. Bethel and David B. ThorudCollege of ForestryUniversity of Washington

William BurchSchool of ForestryYale University

Applied Research in the United StatesRelevant to Tropical Forests and Woodlands

David H. DawsonForestry Sciences Laboratory

Causes of Deforestation and Forest andWoodland Degradation in TropicalLatin America

William M. DenevanDepartment of GeographyUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Technologies for Reforestation of DegradedLands in the Tropics

Carl M. GallegosU.S. Agency for International Development

Charles B. Davey, Robert L. Kellison,Pedro A. Sanchez, and Bruce J. Zobel

Department of ForestryNorth Carolina State University

Afforestation and Management of TropicalWastelands in India

R. C. GhoshAdditional Chief Conservator of ForestsWest Bengal, India

Causes of Deforestation in Tropical Asia

Christopher GibbsBritish Columbia Ministry of Environment

The Use of Traditional Knowledge inDevelopment and Implementation of Resource-Use Systems That Sustain Tropical Forestand Woodland Resources

Stephen R. GliessmanCollege of Environmental StudiesUniversity of California-Santa Cruz

Valuing Goods and Services From TropicalForests and Woodlands

Hans M. GregersenDepartment of ForestryUniversity of Minnesota-St. Paul

Deforestation and Environmental Changein the West African Sahel

Jeffrey Allman GritznerBoard on Science and Technology for

International DevelopmentNational Academy of Sciences

Land-Use Planning Technologies to SustainTropical Forest and Woodlands

Lawrence S. HamiltonEast-West Center

336

App. C—Commissioned Papers Ž 337

Technologies to Improve the Use of TropicalForest and Woodland Products

Joseph Frederick Hughes,Robert Aubrey Plumptre, and Jeffery Burley

Commonwealth Forestry InstituteEngland

The Relationship of Basic Research to theDevelopment of the Technologies That WillSustain Tropical Forest Resources

Daniel H. JanzenDepartment of BiologyUniversity of Pennsylvania-Philadelphia

Identification and Development of NewTropical Forest Resources in Puerto Ricoand the U.S. Virgin Islands

Connie KrochmalEconomic BotanistAgriculture and Science Associates

The Use of Agroforestry to Improve theProductivity to Converted Tropical Land

Bjorn LundgrenInternational Council for Research

in Agroforestry

Professional Education and TechnicalTraining to Support Development andImplementation of Technologies to SustainTropical Resources

Hank MargolisOregon State University

Methods for the Establishment andManagement of Protected Areas for TropicalPrimary Forest and Woodland Resources

Kenton R. Miller and Dennis GlickSchool of Natural ResourcesUniversity of Michigan-Ann Arbor

The Importance of Tropical Forests andWoodland Resources

Norman MyersConsultant in Environment and Development

Soil and Water Management Technologies forTropical Forests

Charles PereiraConsultant in Tropical Agricultural Research

and Land-Use HydrologyEngland

Social Forestry in India: An AnalyticalFramework for Evaluation of Its Problemsand Prospects

Christopher PrinsUniversity of California-Berkeley

Basic Research—A Necessary Prerequisitefor Adequate Development of Technologiesto Sustain Tropical Forest Resources

Peter H, RavenMissouri Botanical Garden

Institutions That Deal With Technologies toSustain Tropical Forest Resources

Bruce RichNatural Resources Defense Council

Private Foundations That Support ProjectsRelating to Technologies to SustainTropical Forest Resources

Bruce M. RichNatural Resources Defense Council

Causes of Deforestation and Forest andWoodland Degradation in Tropical Africa

James C. RiddenLand Tenure CenterUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Dynamics of Tropical Forest Conversion:A Preliminary System Dynamics Model

Jennifer RobinsonDepartment of GeographyUniversity of California-Santa Cruz


Forestry: Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands

Ralph SchmidtForest ServiceDepartment of Natural ResourcesPuerto Rico

Fuelwood Technologies to Sustain TropicalForest Resources

Asif M. Shaikh and Samuel Hale, Jr.Energy Development International

Tahir QadriCARE

Opportunities and Constraints for Improvingthe Use of Tropical Mangrove Forests

Howard J. TeasDepartment of BiologyUniversity of Miami-Coral Gables

Common-Property Resources andIndividual Ownership

Denise M. ToombsResource Policy CenterDartmouth College

Sustaining Tropical Forest and WoodlandAnimal Resources

Noel D. VietmeyerBoard on Science and Technology for

International DevelopmentNational Academy of Sciences

Secondary Forest Management and PlantationForestry Technologies to Improve the Use ofConverted Tropical Lands

Frank H. WadsworthInstitute of Tropical ForestryPuerto Rico

Environmental Education Technologies asApplied to Tropical Forest Management

Diane WaltonInternational Institute for Environment and

Development

David WoodNational Wildlife Federation

Combatting Desertification With Trees

Fred R. WeberInternational Resources Development and

Conservation Services

Halting Tropical Deforestation: The Role ofTechnology

Jack WestobyConsultant in Forest EconomicsItaly

Congressional Action to Improve theSustainability of U.S. Tropical ForestResources in the Pacific

Craig D. Whitesell, Charles W. Philpot, andMarjory C. Falanruw

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experi-ment Station

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Technologies and Technology Systems forReforestation of Degraded Tropical Lands

P. J. Wood, J, Burley, and A. GraingerCommonwealth Forestry InstituteEngland

Index

African Development Bank, 119American Samoa, 27, 29, 127, 128, 141-144, 277, 281Angola, 68, 75Asian Development Bank, 119Australia. 180

Bangladesh, 47, 48, 74, 78Belgium, 120Belize, 64Benin, 64Bioenergy Development Corp., 27, 128Bolivia, 68Brazil, 45, 47, 48, 51, 109, 224

closed forests, 64, 66deforestation, 85forest ownership, 70open forests, 68plantations, 74, 189wood exports, 49, 137

Brunei, 78Burma, 64, 74Burundi. 121

Canada, 50, 120, 137Land Inventory, 245

Caribbean and western Pacific, 127-151common characteristics, 129-132

dependence of coastal ecosystems, 132dependence of water resources, 131endemic species, abundance of, 129invasion by exotic plant and animal species,

vulnerability to, 130land degradation, 132species-rich forests, 129

Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands, 133forests resources, 133history of forest use, 135organizations dealing with tropical forests, 140

U.S. Pacific territories:American Samoa, 141, 143Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,

141, 146forest resources: status and trends, 141Guam, 141, 147, 148history of forest use, 148organizations dealing with tropical forests, 149,

151Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, 141, 144

Caribbean National Forest, 28, 140, 276C. Brewer & Co,, 128Chicago Field Museum of Natural History, 259Civilian Conservation Corps, 136Club du Sahel, 120Colombia, 48Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 27,

141, 146Congo, Republic of, 48, 74, 75

Congress:issues and options for, 23-27, 31-32, 301-320

expand and coordinate development assistance,24, 305, 308

expand U.S. expertise, 26, 316improve research and market development, 25,

311protect biological diversity, 26, 315U.S. tropical forests, 303

Consultative Group on International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR), 26

list of, 111Cooperation for Development in Africa (CDA), 105,

120, 272Costa Rica, 45, 75

Centro Agronomic Tropical de Investigation yEnsenanza, 263

Cuba, 85

deforestation and forest resource degradation, 85-100historical context, 85soil relationship to, 87underlying causes, 98visible agents of forest change, 89

commercial agriculturalists and cattle ranchers,95

fires, 93fuelwood gatherers, 91logging, 97nomadic herders, 90shifting cultivation, 89warfare, 94

disturbed forests, 195-213degraded lands, reforestation of, 200-213

constraints and opportunities, 211technologies, 201-21l

secondary forests, management of, 196-200constraints and opportunities, 200technologies, 196

education, research, and technology transfer, 257-272environmental education, 263

principles of, 264professional education and technical training,

258-263research, 265-269

dissemination of findings, 268fundamental and applied research, 265priorities, 266

technology transfer, 269-272

forestry technologies, 275-295agriculture, 284disturbed forests, 280education, research, and technology transfer,

289-293

341


reduce overcutting, 278wood fuels, 279

resource development planning, 288undisturbed forests, 276

France, 120French Guiana, 75Fulbright Grants, 121

Gabon, 75General Accounting Office, 269Ghana, 44, 64Great Britain, 180Green Revolution, 43Guam, 27, 141, 147, 148, 172, 277, 281, 289, 291Guatemala, 48Gulf of Guinea, 45Guyana, 75

Haiti, 54, 75, 85Hawaii, 127, 128, 129, 131, 263

Bishop Museum, 128College of Tropical Agriculture and Human

Resources, 27Department of Land and Natural Resources, 27,

128East/West Center, 27, 128, 267Forest Service Institute of Pacific Island Forestry,

128Pacific Tropical Botanical Garden, 128

Honduras, 48, 75, 120Hong Kong, 49

India, 40, 47, 70, 74, 186, 249Indonesia, 64, 66, 68, 74Interamerican Development Bank, 119International Council for Research in Agroforestry

(ICRAF), 112, 228, 263International Development Cooperation Agency, 119International Executive Service Corps (IESC), 122International Union for Conservation of Nature and

Natural Resources (IUCN), 160International Union of Forestry Research

Organizations (IUFRO), 105, 112, 268Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone, 40Ivory Coast, 49, 64, 75

Japan, 49, 51

Kenya, 40, 64, 112, 235British-American Tobacco Co., 225fuelwood, 16

Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Kingsville, Tex,,263

legislation:Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, 292Economy Act, 118Endangered Species Act of 1973, 42Federal Resources Planning Act of 1974, 294Foreign Assistance Act, 25, 26, 118, 121, 271, 305

Forest and Rangeland Renewable ResourcesResearch Act of 1978, 292

Government Employees Training Act, 118McIntyre-Stennis Act of 1962, 294

Liberia, 75

Malawi, 121Malaysia, 49, 50, 64Mexico, 45, 66, 68Micronesia, 27, 29, 127, 128, 141, 144, 149, 287Missouri Botanical Garden, 259

Nepal, 246, 249New Guinea, 66, 70, 171, 172, 291New York Botanical Garden, 259Ngerukewid Islands Wildlife Preserve, 277Nigeria, 75, 224Nitrogen-Fixing Tree Association, 27nongovernmental organizations (NGC)S), 110, 121

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 121Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD), 120Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), 122

Pakistan, 44, 74Panama, 45Panama Canal, 47, 54Peru, 66Philippines, 48, 51, 78, 109, 181,

value of wood exports, 49Puerto Rico, 127, 129, 224, 263, 277, 278, 280, 281,

286, 287, 289center of excellence, proposed, 21Commonwealth forests, 276Department of Natural Resources, 28, 140, 283, 288forest resources, 133, 135geoclimatic regions, 137Guanica State Forest, 277imports, 27, 139, 280organizations dealing with tropical forests, 140University of Puerto Rico, 29, 140

Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, 277resource development planning, 243-251

constraints and opportunities, 250-251technologies, 243-250

biophysical assessment, 243financial and economic analyses, 246

land classification, 244monitoring and evaluation, 248multiobjective planning methods, 249social assessment, 247

Sahel, 120Senegal, 121Singapore, 49Smithsonian Institution, 106, 259Somalia, 121

Index ● 343

South Korea, 49Sri Lanka, 64, 181, 185, 246Sudan, 64, 68, 225Surinam, 75, 224

technologies to reduce overcutting, 177-191industrial wood, 178

harvesting, transporting, and handling, 178-179use of more tree species and sizes, 179-182

wood fuels, 182-191fuelwood and charcoal conservation, 183resource substitution, 185

technologies to support tropical agriculture, 219-238agroforestry, 219, 220-229

constraints and opportunities, 228organizations that work on agroforestry systems,

228systems, 220

classification and assessment, 224technology issues, 226

watershed management, 219, 229-238constraints and opportunities, 237description, 230specific technologies, 232-236

terracing, 233technical principles, 231

technology assessment, 14-23disturbed forests, 17

management of secondary forests, 17reforestation of degraded lands, 17

education, research, and technology transfer, 20-23resource development planning, 20

reduce overcutting, 15-16fuelwood, 16industrial wood, 15

tropical agriculture, 18agroforestry, 18watershed management, 19

undisturbed forests, 14maintaining sample ecosystems, 14making undisturbed forests more valuable, 14

Thailand, 64, 68fuelwood, 16

Togo, 64Trade and Development Program (TDP), 122Tribhuvan University, Nepal, 109tropical forest:

importance of, 10, 37-55basic human needs, 45-49commercial forest products,

nonwood products, 5 2products for medicine, 51wood, 49

environment, 53-54future generations, 5 4mangroves, 49, 132political implications, 54

49-52

social and economic context, 37-40tropical agriculture, 43

U.S. interests in, 42water and climate, 40-43

status of, 10-13closed forest, 64data base, 63definitions of forest categories, 65destruction of forest resources, 75-79

deforestation and degradation, 75resource degradation, 78

forest fallow, 68forest management, 69-74

legislation and policy, 69plantations, 74in tropical America, 73wood production, 70-73

open forests and shrublands, 67projection of changes, 79

tropical forest resources, organizations dealing with,105-123

consortia, 107constraints, 114-117foreign bilateral organizations, 109international nongovernment organizations, 108multilateral development banks, 107, 120

U.S. representation, 119nongovernment organizations (NGOS) based in the

United States, 107, 121opportunities, 117-123private sector, role of, 113private U.S. foundations, 108types of organizations in tropical countries, 109U.N. agencies, 108U.S. forestry firms operating in tropical countries,

list of, 114U.S. Government organizations, 106

Uganda, 64UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) program,

14, 23, 25, 123, 159, 165, 166, 276undisturbed forests, 159-174

maintaining sample ecosystems, 160protected areas, status of, 160steps in planning a park or protected area, 164techniques to design, establish, and maintain

protected areas, 160why protect tropical forests?, 160wildlife management categories, 163

making undisturbed forests more valuable, 167-174food sources, 168, 170game ranching, 170innovative products, 171, 172nonwood products, 167, 169small animals, 169

United Nations (U.N.):Commission on Trade and Development, 120Conference on New and Renewable Sources of

Energy, 186Development Programme, 245Environment Program, 23, 63, 108


Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 24, 26,64, 105, 108, 111, 120, 183, 201, 212, 260, 267,305

FAO/UNEP study, 63, 65, 68, 70, 75, 78, 79, 82,160

shifting cultivation, estimate, 4 6U.N. University, 26, 108, 112, 263U.S. representation to U.N. agencies, 119

Upper Volta, 121U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), 9,

23, 24, 26, 105, 106, 118, 120, 121, 122, 140, 245,248, 262, 269, 291, 305

Benchmark Soils Program, 246Central Selva Resource Management Project, 246Environmental Profiles, 25Forest Resource Management Project, 118

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 289U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 106, 268

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service(ASCS), 283

Mayaguez Institute of Tropical Agriculture, 286Natural Resource Inventory, 136Soil Conservation Service, 24, 106, 245

U.S. Department of Energy, 128U.S. Department of the Interior, 106, 127, 141U.S. Department of State, 25, 106, 120, 123, 141U.S. Department of Treasury, 119U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 24, 123, 140, 277, 288,

291U.S. Forest Service, 23, 105, 106, 123, 128, 140, 262,

268, 284, 288, 289congressional interests, 31, 32Forestry Support Program, 118Forest Products Laboratory, 50, 181

Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, 27, 150, 286,292

Institute of Tropical Forestry (ITF), 28, 136, 140,281, 289, 292

State and Private Forestry grants, 28, 29The Caribbean Forester, 22

U.S. Interagency Task Force on Tropical Forests, 271U.S. Landsat program, 64, 302U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 24, 106, 123, 266U.S. National Cancer Institute, 51U.S. National Park Service, 24, 277U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), 106, 123U.S. Peace Corps, 106, 118, 140, 141, 185, 264U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, 27, 141,

144, 277, 288U.S. Virgin Islands, 27, 127, 277, 280, 281, 287, 292

College of the Virgin Islands, 140Department of Agriculture, 28, 140, 284forest resources, 134, 135freshwater resources, 131life zones, 134Luquillo Experimental Forest, 140National Park, 127, 134, 276organizations dealing with tropical forests, 140Thomas Experimental Forest, 140

Venezuela, 48

World Bank, 24, 44, 105, 119, 267, 305Operational Manual for Project Analysis, 248

Zaire, 64, 66, 68Zambia, 64

0

4095857 Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources

Documents

Transcript of 4095857 Technologies to Sustain Tropical Forest Resources