Forest Policy Research Forum: The Role of National Forest

Forest Policy Research Forum: The Role of National Forest Programs to Ensure Sustainable Forest Management 1

Forest Policy Research Forum: The Role of National Forest Programs to Ensure Sustainable Forest Management, 14-17

June, 1999, Joensuu, Finland

Urbanization in Developing Countries - Time for Action for National Forest Programs and

International Development Cooperation for the Urban Millennium

by

Dr. Guido Kuchelmeister TREE CITY Initiative

Office Illertissen: (Coordinator) Graf-Kirchberg-Strasse 26 89257 Illertissen, Germany Tel. +49-7303-43776, Fax: +49-7303-42114 Email:G_Kuchelmeister @Compuserve.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ G_Kuchelmeister

July 15, 1999

Urbanization in Developing Countries - A challenge for NFPs and International Development Cooperation


Table of Content

1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE PAPER ................................................................................... 1 1.2 URBAN FORESTRY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ................................................... 1

2 URBANIZATION, ENVIRONMENT PROBLEMS, POVERTY AND POLICY ..... 2

2.1 ACCELERATED GROWTH OF CITIES..................................................................... 2 2.2 DETERIORATION OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT ................................................... 3 2.3 URBAN POVERTY .............................................................................................. 3 2.4 DECENTRALIZATION AND DEVOLUTION OF FOREST LAND ...................................... 3

3 DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION AND URBANIZATION................................. 4

3.1 RURAL BIAS...................................................................................................... 4 3.2 GREEN AND BROWN AGENDA............................................................................. 5 3.3 FORESTRY AND DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION .................................................... 5 3.4 NATIONAL FOREST PROGRAMS AND URBAN FORESTRY........................................ 6 3.5 IMPLICATIONS OF URBANIZATION FOR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION..................... 8

4 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE URBAN FORESTS .............................................. 8

4.1 MULTIPURPOSE VALUES OF URBAN FORESTS...................................................... 8 4.2 TANGIBLE BENEFITS .......................................................................................... 9 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ............................................................................. 10 4.4 SOCIAL BENEFITS............................................................................................ 11

5 INTEGRATING URBAN STAKEHOLDERS INTO NATIONAL FOREST PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................ 11

5.1 NEED FOR PARTNERSHIPS ............................................................................... 11 5.2 TRADITIONAL LINKAGES ................................................................................... 11 5.3 NEW ALLIANCES.............................................................................................. 12

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. 13

6.1 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................ 13 6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................ 14

References ....................................................................................................... 15



List of Tables TABLE 1. PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION LIVING IN URBAN AREAS BY REGION, 1950–1995,

WITH PROJECTIONS FOR 2015 ............................................................................... 2 TABLE 2. KEY FORESTRY RELATED ISSUES WITH REGARD TO DECENTRALIZATION TRENDS 4 TABLE 3. URBAN FORESTRY (UF) ACTIVITIES AND NATIONAL FOREST PROGRAMS (NFPS) . 6 TABLE 4. URBAN FORESTRY A KEY PRIORITY IN THE NFP OF SOUTH AFRICA..................... 7 TABLE 5. A CANOPIA OF BENEFITS OF URBAN FORESTRY................................................. 8



Abstract Developing countries are undergoing a transformation from rural to urban. Therefore no developing country can afford to ignore the phenomenon of urbanization, which will be one of the strongest social forces in coming years. Within the next 20 years, more poor and undernourished people in developing countries will live in the cities than in rural areas. The rapid urbanization of poverty and the environmental impacts of urban growth on poor communities have received unparalleled attention in the current international debates on development. In this context urban greening is increasingly discovered as a development tool. While most urban greening activities are initiated by the agricultural community and urban initiatives, foresters working in development cooperation have restricted their mandate to rural area in most cases. For instance, recent global policy processes such as National Forest Programs (NFP) hardly have identified urban forestry as a subject. Most of these programs seem to be developed without involvement of urban stakeholders. This paper highlights the growing importance of urban trees and related vegetation in and around densely populated areas in developing countries and its implications for development cooperation. As the pressure continues to further develop open space in developing countries the importance of urban forests as a vital component of the urban landscape and infrastructure will increase. This is expressed in many Local Agenda 21. Where the whole community is considering local quality of life, trees, woods and accessible green space are usually high on the list as measures of environmental quality. To develop and sustain urban forests in low income cities and neighborhoods, the initial focus must be on meeting immediate needs for basic necessities. This can be best achieved by multiple resource management. Forestry and related professionals can actively support initiatives to mitigate urban problems or risk to become increasingly a marginal professional group in development cooperation in the urban millennium. The development cooperation community is therefore encouraged to extend its forestry sector attention significantly beyond rural areas towards the growing cities by: (i) strengthening existing forestry linkages and initiatives (fuelwood, trees in

farming, watershed management, drinking water supply); (ii) supporting and strengthening urban initiatives like Local Agenda 21,

especially those focusing on vulnerable groups; (iii) encouraging the strengthening of mutually beneficial local rural-urban linkages

and mitigating their negative impact; (iv) allocating increasingly resources to research and development of

multipurpose urban forestry in developing countries; (v) updating the forestry research agenda by incorporating urban issues, and

developing strategic urban alliances for refining the urban forestry research agenda;

(vi) considering urban issues in national forestry programs (organization of the process, especially stakeholder identification, strategic planning: reviews of



forestry and urban sectors, development of specific studies, policy formulation; implementation of actions);

(vii) developing guidelines for urban and forestry projects and NFPs to facilitate appraisal, design and implementation of urban greening related activities;

(viii) adding to the discussion on sustainable forest management under the framework of NFPs and other initiatives, models of urban forest sustainability (criteria and indicators) and applying them in pilot cities in developing countries.



1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Paper

Developing countries are undergoing an accelerated process of urbanization. This paper highlights the growing importance of urban trees and related vegetation in and around densely populated areas in developing countries and its implications for development cooperation in general, and for forestry in specific. The purpose is to stimulate the discussion about the need to incorporate urban issues into National Forest Programs (NFP) and development cooperation.

1.2 Urban Forestry in Developing Countries

Urban forestry is a young and growing science, evolved in industrialized countries. In developing countries it is in its infancies. Most urban agriculturists working in development cooperation include forestry in their overall definition of urban agriculture. Conversely, many urban foresters in industrialized countries use "urban greening" and "urban forestry" interchangeably (Kuchelmeister 1997). The broadest urban forestry definitions regard urban forests as the entire area influenced by the urban population, including forests that traditionally are the realm of rural forestry. However, to deserve a new term urban forestry's main focus has to be on the portion of the forest found within the built environment aiming to make trees compatible and functional in an urban environment. Therefore urban forestry should be considered as planning, management and conservation of trees, forests and related vegetation to create or add value to the local community in an urban area (see definition Kuchelmeister 1998a). In the wealthier developed countries, urban forestry has focused on amenities and environmental benefits (Nilsson and Randrup 1997). In poorer countries urban forestry must pay attention on assisting in fulfilling basic necessities first (Lanly 1997). This can be best achieved by multiple resource management. While acknowledging the need for continuity with rural forestry, it would be a mistake to fit urban forestry into established forestry models. Urban planning and management systems must provide the framework in which forestry for cities should be considered. Urban forestry is a modern approach to urban tree management encompassing long-term planning, interdisciplinary professional coordination and local participation. It is aimed at securing the ongoing health and vitality of the urban forest, and hence, the sustained delivery of benefits for both current and future generations of urban dwellers. Despite the benefits derived from urban forests (Chapter 4), little research has been done on urban forestry in developing countries. There is a dearth of published quantitative information about the relationship of urban dwellers (particularly the poor) in developing countries to urban green areas, on how they value, use or would like to use these areas, and how urban forests affect health and well-being. The proper management of urban forest implies an analysis of the social factors, and inventories of green sites (Kuchelmeister 1998a).



In the last two decades in industrialized countries many innovations have been generated in urban forestry, not all of which are appropriate and relevant for resource poor people. On the other hand, there are locally developed practices in urban forestry (like multistorey gardens) that provide a basis to build on (Kuchelmeister 1997). Diverse ongoing urban forestry initiatives and practices in developing countries clearly demonstrate the urban forestry concept in action. These diverse approaches provide an appropriate framework about the benefits, challenges and actions required to facilitate the implementation of urban forestry activities (Braatz 1993, Carter 1993, Kuchelmeister 1998a).

2 Urbanization, Environment Problems, Poverty and Policy

2.1 Accelerated Growth of Cities

Most of the developing countries, which are not yet urbanized societies, will become urban. Between 1990 and 1995, some 260 million people were added to the cities of the developing world - the equivalent of another Shanghai forming every three months. Population increase in urban areas in developing countries will be the distinguishing demographic trend of the next century, accounting for nearly 90 percent of the 2.7 billion people due to be added to world population between 1995 and 2030. By the year 2030, almost 85 percent of Latin Americans will live in cities, as will over one-half of all Africans and Asians. Asia will have the largest urban population in the world, almost twice as many people in cities as in Africa and Latin America combined, and Africa will have more urban residents than Latin America (United Nations 1998). Some 73 percent of Latin Americans now live in cities, making the region roughly as urbanized as Europe and North America. Thus, the most explosive growth in the future is expected in Africa and Asia (see Table 1). Table 1. Percentage of Population Living in Urban Areas by Region, 1950–1995, With Projections for 2015

Region 1950 1975 1995 2015 Africa 14.6 % 25.2 % 34.9 % 46.4 % Asia 1 15.3 % 22.2 % 33.0 % 45.6 % Latin America 41.4 % 61.2 % 73.4 % 79.9 % Industrial Countries 2 54.9 % 69.9 % 74.9 % 80.0 % World 29.7 % 37.8 % 45.3 % 54.4 % 1) Excluding Japan 2) Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and North America excluding Mexico Source: United Nations 1998

Urban growth is the result of natural growth of population, rural-to-urban migration and the redefinition of administrative mandates (Gliese 1999). Migration is most important factor in the early stages of urban transformation, such as in Africa; natural increase tends to dominate the more industrialized countries, such as most of Latin America; and reclassification of peri-urban communities is of particular importance in the densely populated regions of Asia (Brown et al 1999).



2.2 Deterioration of the Urban Environment

Urban areas generate environmental problems felt at all levels from the household to the globe. These problems range from impairment of human health, economic and other welfare losses, to damage the ecosystems. Air and water pollution and hazardous waste generation are among key problems; conversion of open space and agricultural land to urban development is another problem. Urbanization can reduce water permeable areas, upset natural drainage patterns, and cause serious flooding. In resource-poor cities, and particularly their poor neighborhoods, the most threatening environmental problems are usually those close to home. Already straining under the pressures of meeting their peoples' needs for housing, jobs and basic services, cities must also address the environmental and social consequences of rapid urbanization (Bartone et al 1994, World Resource Institute1996).

2.3 Urban Poverty

The World Bank has projected an increase of urban people living in absolute poverty from 400 million in the 1990s to one billion. UNDP estimated a 76 percent increase in urban poor during the 1990s and a decrease in rural poor during the same period. Estimates based on health and environmental conditions suggest about 600 million people in cities live in unhealthy conditions (FAO 1999). It has to be stressed that urban poverty has been underestimated using the income thresholds (Satterthwaite 1997). Recent research suggest that the focus of poverty is shifting to urban areas (Brown et al 1999). Increasingly, it will be the lives of these people - the urban slum dwellers, the street children, those forced to drift between the city and its fringes - that will characterize the face of global poverty.

2.4 Decentralization and Devolution of Forest Land

Decentralization policies and urbanization have placed cities at the forefront of the global economy and have caused a shift in relationships between cities and federal governments. The shift in paradigm in urban planning is also shaping forestry. Increasingly, current management policy advocates a decentralization of responsibilities from central to local government and to communities. A redistribution of responsibilities is emerging with evolving new roles for many actors and the creation of partnerships between the different actors in urban development. For instance, the national Philippine government devolved certain powers to the local government of Puerto Princesa City to manage forests. Further, the city government decentralized certain responsibilities to village level bodies for effective administration and implementation of schemes. Encouraged by the city leadership’s success in preserving its rich natural resources, the national level turned over the management of the world renowned St. Paul Subterranean River National Park, together with the Irawan Watershed, to the Puerto Princesa city government (Kuchelmeister 1998a). Key decentralization-related issues which NFPs will have to face are presented in Table 2.



Table 2. Key Forestry Related Issues with Regard to Decentralization Trends

Checklist of decentralization of forest lands to municipalities 1950 • How will national and departmental government agencies treat municipal involvement in forest-

related issues? • What factors influence whether or not specific municipalities develop competent municipal

forestry units? • To what extent do municipal forestry activities incorporate the participation of local forest users

and respond to their concerns? • Can national government agencies, NGOs, municipal governments, and forest users overcome

their current weakness with respect to sustainable forest management? • Do negotiations between national government agencies, environmental NGOs, municipal

governments, and local community groups develop protected area management that preserves ecological functions and also benefits local communities?

• Will municipal land use planning alter landowners’ use of their resources? Why? • How much does decentralization increase road construction and maintenance in forested areas,

and what impact does that have on forests? • What political, economic, and ecological factors lead some municipalities to promote more

sustainable natural resource management than others? Source: Kaimowitz et al 1997

3 Development Cooperation and Urbanization

3.1 Rural Bias

Still many policymakers and development experts believe that rural conditions are much worse than urban ones; this has been interpreted that resources should not be directed to the urban poor and malnourished. However, urbanization of poverty is one of the greatest challenges in the next millennium (see 2.3). The decision to direct most international development assistance to rural rather than urban areas has also much to do with the traditionally negative image of the city and its impact on rural areas (Hall et al 1996). This rural bias is particularly marked in forestry, which has focused almost exclusively on rural areas (Kuchelmeister 1998a), despite the fact that foresters have highlighted the significance of urban needs more than two decades ago in the Jakarta World Forestry Congress (e.g. Andresen 1978). The relationship between urban and rural areas seems to have been left to either the market or to destiny; there are few specific sound policies in this fundamentally important field. Urbanization generates many unintended impacts on rural areas. There is a growing recognition that rural development policy frameworks should be broadened to include negative and positive aspects of urbanization. It is important to encourage the strengthening of mutually beneficial local rural-urban linkages (flow of people, capital, goods, information, technology) and mitigating their negative impacts (Rabinovitch 1998). Municipal development programming may lead to a review of urban-to-rural relations, particularly in view of sound natural resource management (Giese 1999). Therefore planning and implementation in rural forestry needs to take urbanization into account, too.



3.2 Green and Brown Agenda

The environmental problems most prominent in cities - like air pollution and inadequate water supply - have often been conspicuously absent from the global environmental agenda, which has focused on ozone depletion, climate change, and loss of biological diversity and decline of tropical forests. Aware of this discontinuity between the "green" agenda and the problems confronting cities, a number of research and development organizations over the past few years have advocated a renewed focus on the "brown" agenda, i.e. the problems of pollution, poverty, and environmental hazards in cities (World Resource Institute 1996). Today the rapid urbanization of poverty and the environmental impacts of urban growth on poor communities have received unparalleled attention in the current international debates on development. In this context urban greening is increasingly acknowledged as one development tool. Most current urban greening activities in development cooperation are initiated by the agricultural community, which does not sufficiently support urban forestry. In current urban greening initiatives professional foresters still play a minor role.

3.3 Forestry and Development Cooperation

Over the last few decades there has been much discussion on the decline of the tropical forests in developing countries. Until recently the loss of trees in and around the places where people live has hardly received international attention (Lanly 1997). Nearly all major donor agencies have restricted their forestry mandate to the rural area (Kuchelmeister 1998a). For instance, recent global policy processes such as the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) (Michaelsen, 1999) and the World Bank Forest Policy Review (Knusen 1999) have not yet identified urban forestry as a subject. Most of these programs including NFPs seem to be developed without involvement of urban stakeholders (see Chapter 3.4). The agenda of international forestry research agencies, like CIFOR (Center for Forestry Research Organization) and ICRAF (International Center for Agroforestry) still have an almost exclusively rural focus (Kuchelmeister 1998a). FAO has a modest urban forestry program. USAID is in the process of launching an urban forestry initiative. The Inter-American Development Bank has taken the lead among development agencies in urban greening (Kuchelmeister 1998). One major reason for this neglect is that most contacts for development assistance in forestry are forestry ministries, which are not responsible for urban and peri-urban areas. Furthermore, foresters tend to have less influence in cities than do landscape designers and gardeners (Lanly 1997). Another reason is that the negative image of urbanization is pronounced among foresters. However, there are many urban development projects with an urban forestry component and local and national urban forestry related initiatives. Many cities implementing Local Agenda 21 have incorporated urban greening components. The current discussion on criteria and indicators for urban quality and sustainable human settlements (e.g. Habitat 1997) pay hardly any attention to urban forests, vice versa the development debate on sustainable forest management do not consider urban forests (e.g. Prabhu et al 1998). Models of urban forest sustainability have



been developed and tested in industrialized countries (e.g. the USA, by Clark and Matheny 1998)..

3.4 National Forest Programs and Urban Forestry

The knowledge base which NFP has included urban forestry, how urban stakeholders are involved what approach are used and what are the major reasons not including urban forestry is weak. As one attempt to get more information a survey was sent to national and regional focal points of the NFPs, and relevant documents were reviewed. In addition, TREE CITY's network was used to inquire with urban initiatives if they are aware about NFP. Later was very rare. Results are summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Urban Forestry (UF) Activities and National Forest Programs (NFPs) Country Approach of involvement/ related activities Source URBAN FORESTRY IS A KEY SUBJECT IN NFPs Fiji Approach used: Headquarters ⎡ Division Office ⎡ Beat

Office ⎡ Landowners: (Awareness training, demonstration, application)

Vusoniyasi1999

Sierra Leone Involvement mainly unemployed youth in urban forestry programs

Alieu 1999

South Africa Development an urban forestry strategy and program (see Table 4).

DWAF 1996, Underwood 1999)

URBAN FORESTRY IS A SUBJECT IN NFPs Senegal Promotion of urban forestry FAO 1998b Nigeria Urban forestry project assisted by Federal

Government is part of NFP FAO 1998b

Nicaragua e.g. IDB supported rural development projects, Socioenvironmental and Forest Development Project includes urban forestry programs in some 20 small cities. The Project was born from the FAO*NFP initiative

Kari 1990

Thailand UF is integrated into Forest Sector Master Plan FAO 1998a Cambodia Suggested to develop a scheme to improve the urban

quality of life through tree planting FAO 1998a

Malaysia National forest policy aims to develop a comprehensive program in community forestry to cater the needs of rural and urban communities

FAO 1998a

Philippines Urban forestry is part of the Master Plan for Forestry Development

Kuchelmeister 1998

Bangladesh The Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) integrated a City Greening Project in its Fourth Five Year Plan

Sinha and Enayetullah 1999

As a tentative result it seems that most NFPs in developing countries do not have or have insufficiently considered urban forestry, or no action was taken. The same is true for National Action Programs under the umbrella of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) (Holtsberg 1999). Even in small countries like Haiti, the capital city was not aware of the NFP (Gaspard 1999). Reasons for not incorporated urban forestry as a subject in national planning, are that this is



• a matter of competence of municipal government (Example Argentina Croso 1999).

• not relevant to situation of the country (example Australia, Keeling 1999). On the other side it is assumed that urban Forestry plays a very important role to all the countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, but the scale of priority for certain countries is unknown (Carneiro 1999). Zimbawe has not identified urban forestry as a key subject, but there are good reason to include urban forestry as a subject into the NFP (Gwaze 1999). Other NFPs like the one for Panama consider to incorporate urban forestry, but indicated that they would require assistance in this new field of action (Lombardo 1999). Some National forest policy or Forest Sector Master plans included urban forestry. For instance, in an attempt to institutionalize urban forestry, the Philippine government through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) incorporated urban forestry as one of the major components to its Master Plan for Forestry Development (Kuchelmeister 1998a). In Senegal, South Africa, Sierra Leone, and Fiji urban forestry has been identified as a key subject of the NFP. Cities in Senegal are aware about the NFP process (Ndiaye 1999) and cities in Bangladesh implement urban greening as part of the National Plan (Chowdhuryy 1999). South Africa provides an excellent example how urban forestry can be integrated into a NFP (Table 3). Table 4. Urban Forestry a Key Priority in the NFP of South Africa

Goal Effective support to self-sustaining urban forestry initiatives that secure economic, environmental and social benefits for urban dwellers.

Indicators of Achievement

• Understanding of the benefits of urban forestry • Understanding of the factors that hamper or promote urban forestry • An effective agreed strategy for urban forestry development • Inclusion of urban forestry into urban planning

Strategy To develop and implement a program for urban forestry based on improved understanding of needs, institutional roles and capacities and best practices to support service delivery.

Tasks Responsibility Risks 1. Applying participatory planning to:

• Improve understanding of value of urban forestry

• Identify impeding and promoting factors • Link urban forestry development programs to

Land Development Objectives and Integrated Development Plans

DWAF (Department of Water and Forestry Affairs) with provincial and local Community based organizations (CBOs), NGOs and communities

No risks

2. Identify potential urban forestry service providers and agree on roles and responsibilities

DWAF (with local government, CBOs, NGOs)

Lack of consensus among service providers on responsibilities

3. Develop urban forestry strategy for DWAF and along internal structures, budgets and staff

DWAF No risk

4. Identify, review and evaluate existing and earlier projects and identify and disseminate best practices among all service providers

DWAF (with local government, CBOs, NGOs and communities)

Lessons learned may not be applicable elsewhere

Source: Department of Water and Forestry Affairs (DWAF) 1996.



Nearly 66 % of all South Africans live in cities and towns. A proliferation of urban forestry activities has been carried out as a fragmented series of projects. *Recognizing that the full potential of urban forestry is not being realized, due at least in part of the lack of an integrated strategy urban forestry has been identified as one of the key subjects of the NFP of South Africa. It will be important to learn from these and similar experiences in further developing guidelines for NFPs (DWAF 1996). The NFP made considerable efforts to include urban stakeholders into the NFP (Bantom, Underwood 1999). In other countries the urban stakeholders involved are unemployed youth like in Sierra Leone, or landowners in Fiji. There is an urgent need to develop guidelines how to identify and involve urban stakeholders and disseminate lessons learned from urban forestery programs under the umbrella of NFPs.

3.5 Implications of Urbanization for Development Cooperation

No developing country can afford to ignore the phenomenon of urbanization, which will be one of the strongest social forces in coming years. As cities expand physically, the frontiers between urban, peri-urban and rural activity blur and merge. Within the next 20 years, more poor and undernourished people in developing countries will live in the cities than in rural areas. Urban poverty and food insecurity could worsen if preventive measures are not taken. This demands that policy-makers and development agencies:

• seize opportunities for integrating resource management and planning efforts,

• understanding potential linkages between rural and urban areas, and

• anticipating the changing needs of a country's citizens - both rural and urban. There is an urgent need to update the forest research and development agenda by including urban issues. NFPs may evolve to one good opportunity to incorporate the needs and values of urban people, provided actions are taken now.

4 The Importance of the Urban Forests

4.1 Multipurpose Values of Urban Forests

Urban forests improve the quality of urban life in many ways including tangible and less tangible benefits to meet local necessities (Table 4). The consumable products include fuelwood, food, fodder, and poles. Urban forests improve air, water and land resources, provide habitats for wildlife, control erosion, protect watersheds for urban water supply and can be an outlet for safe disposal of urban wastes. Additional benefits to society, especially for low-income citizens are significant and relate to improvement of health, recreation, environmental education, aesthetics, and enhancement of landscape. Tree products, if sold, provide direct cash benefits; if used within the household they provide indirect cash benefits by Table 5. A Canopia of Benefits of Urban Forestry



Multipurpose Urban Development Forestry = Urban Trees for Local Values Conventional urban forestry focuses on amenity

value Development forestry focuses on economic benefits,

employment and support of agriculture • reduces noise • provides food • reduces air pollution • provides fuel • reduces climatic extremes • provides fodder • cools cities and planet • provides fencing material • conserves energy • provides timber • provides beauty and shade • provides medicine, oil • improves water quality • provides raw material, fiber • controls water runoff • increases cash/subsistence income • provides habitat for wildlife • provides employment • increases recreation value • improves gardening conditions • increases health/well being • plus all benefits of conventional forestry Source: Kuchelmeister 1998a

freeing cash income for other uses. Trees themselves can improve existing savings/investments, secure tenure or increase property value. Urban areas in developing countries face similar problems related to the lack of safe water, inadequate waste management and pollution control, occupation and degradation of sensitive lands, flooding, soil erosion in unauthorized settlements, above all many resource-poor people are mal nutritious and have no space for recreation. Only multi-resource urban forest management is feasible in poor neighborhoods, e.g. Durban, South Africa multi-functional parks are a component of slum improvement program by using parks for storm water catchment and waste water, sewage treatment, recreation and gardening. This new park concept requires partnership between different departments (water and parks) and urban poor (ICLEI NN, Kuchelmeister 1999). Multi-functional urban vegetation resource management is increasingly becoming one key element in designing cities by nature and can be also used as a tool for poverty alleviation.

4.2 Tangible Benefits

There are many tangible produces derived from the urban forests, like food, energy, timber and fodder. Food: Trees can contribute significantly to the food requirements of the urban poor, both on a daily basis and in times of crisis. Urban tree crops can significantly contribute to food security in poor areas (UNDP 1996). Often low-care wild edible plants are excellent multipurpose candidates for use as ornamental roadside plantings. Some parks have been turned into an 'edible' public park to provide fruit, herbs, flowers and vegetables to anyone walking by. Food from agroforestry gardens is significant (Kuchelmeister 1998a). Woodfuel provides between 25 and 90 percent of urban household energy supplies, especially in smaller urban centers (Kuchelmeister 1998a). Urban poor find themselves in a worse position than their rural counterparts in that the safety net of an albeit increasingly scarce, supply of crop residues and fuelwood is not accessible.



Poor urban households spend a significant proportion of their cash income (15 to 22 %) on energy (Barnes et al 1994) or assign labor to fuelwood gathering to offset the costs which they cannot afford. Inexpensive charcoal is as close as many householders in poor countries will come to modern fuels (Van der Plas 1995). Sustainable use of woodfuel is beneficial for the global climate, because it is carbon-neutral, whereas substitution by fossil fuels would add to the greenhouse effect. If the urban poor population continues to grow an increase in the consumption of traded woodfuel is likely to be a consequence (RWEDP 1997).

4.3 Environmental Services

Climate improvement, air quality and CO2 reduction: Trees and related urban vegetation can significantly contribute to improving the air quality by cooling and cleaning the air. Energy conserving landscaping by strategically planting trees can maintain comfort without air conditioning. Since urban trees reduce the need to burn fossil energy, they are a cost-efficient investment for green house mitigation. Urban trees can mitigate pollution through reducing energy use, CO2 emissions, and ground-level ozone, as well as by purifying the air. Water use, reuse and conservation: Trees and other vegetation can help in protection of urban water supply, wastewater treatment systems and storm water management. Most poor cities in the region face significant wastewater treatment challenges and could integrate stabilization ponds into park systems and could reuse wastewater for urban forestry. Reused waste city water not only recharges aquifers but also reduces the demand exerted on scarce water reserves. Soil conservation: With steep terrain and where there is little vegetation and harsh seasonal rains, landslides can be threats to people’s lives and homes. Trees and forests, also used as bioengineering techniques are good soil conservation practices (Kuchelmeister 1998a). Solid waste and land reclamation: Recycling of waste from urban reduces the need to dispose of amounts of waste and secures new raw materials from extraction for re-use. Unused and degraded land and terminated landfill sites can be reclaimed through afforestation and converted to parks (IDB 1997). Natural conservation - wildlife habitat and biodiversity: Older urban gardens and parks often contain noticeably rich biodiversity. On a larger scale urban forests can create or restore biological diversity that will reconnect a city to its surrounding bioregion. Suburban wetlands can be some of the most productive natural ecosystems and can provide important habitat for fauna. Incorporating green areas through networks will improve biological conservation and biodiversity; e.g. greenbelts and greenways (linear parks) can serve as biological corridors (Kuchelmeister 1998a).



4.4 Social Benefits

Health: Vegetation reinforces spontaneous attention by people, allowing sensory apparatus to relax and infusing viewers with fresh energy. Certainly, improving air quality through planting vegetation has passive impact on health with such obvious benefits as decreased incidence of respiratory illnesses. Employment: Urban forestry can provide jobs for the poor as both skilled and unskilled labour. Tree planting and especially urban agroforestry systems can be labour-intensive and provide both initial start up jobs as well as more permanent employment in tree care. There is also considerable income in growing and selling flowers and ornamental plant seedlings. There are also opportunities for all kinds of formal and informal enterprises related to recreation. Education: Urban forests provide many educational opportunities. A number of cities have botanical gardens, zoos, natural trails and even visitor information centers that can inform people about flora and fauna. Recreation: Lower income residents tend to frequent city parks more than wealthier citizens do because they lack the financial constraints and leisure time to reach distant recreation sites. To be useful to low-income people, forests and green areas must be within an affordable travelling distance and have the amenities which people prefer (IDB 1997). Community building: Public involvement with trees in towns can help strengthen local communities. This is a very crucial element, connected to empowerment (Kuchelmeister 1998b).

5 Integrating Urban Stakeholders into National Forest Programs

5.1 Need for Partnerships

The Habitat Agenda recognizes partnerships, networking and decentralized forms of cooperation as effective capacity-building strategies to meet the goal of more sustainable human settlement development (CityNet 1998). Major challenge for NFPs are that forestry circles have no mandate for urban areas, and hence few formal linkages with urban stakeholders exist. The challenge is how to reach urban actors, including government agencies, nongovernmental agencies, business people, civil societies, and residents, men, women and children. The process of decentralization and devolution of forest land which is increasing now managed by municipalities, and impact of urbanization alone justify that NFPs have to deal with urban issues, by strengthening traditional linkages and creating new partnerships.

5.2 Traditional Linkages

Protection of the suburban and rural areas that serve as the source of cities’ water is a traditional forestry linkage to the needs of urban people. There is still much scope



for integrating forestry with other water resource initiatives like waste water treatment activities. Concerning about wood energy many forestry projects have been engaged in urban fuelwood issues. However, wood energy supply and demand in urban areas is a subject that is not understood as thoroughly as in rural areas, despite the fact that the rural economy in areas close to towns and especially in peri-urban areas, are often dependent on the sale of woodfuel. NFPs can improve the urban fuelwood demand and supply by e.g. improving coordination and collaboration between energy and forestry ministries and municipalities. National Environmental Programs, which involve both rural and urban areas, are also existing linkages. Like in the case of Tanzania greater emphasis should be laid in coordination with the National Environmental Action Plan and National Conservation Strategy for Sustainable Development (FAO 1998b).

5.3 New Alliances

There are many local, some national and regional urban forestry related initiatives through which NFPs must work to reach the urban stakeholders. Innovative public-private partnerships in urban forestry are evolving in many countries (Kuchelmeister 1999). Urban tree crops have been overlooked in nutrition surveys (UNDP 1996). Forestry can support the current efforts to improve urban food security. Urban agroforestry and nontimberforest products provide a framework that puts foresters in a position to make a significant contribution to current efforts by agronomists to increase urban food production. Most important new alliance will be all the cities and towns implementing the Local Agenda 21. These consultation processes are a good forum for integrating urban forestry priorities into NFPs. Alliance can be created with interest groups like the Word Forum of Mayors, Cities for Climate Conventions, and urban environmental initiatives like ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives), UN Habitat, UNDP/World Bank's Urban Management Program, to name a few. City-to-city-cooperations exist among international and national municipality associations and a broad range of NGOs. By the early 90s in the UK, the Netherlands and Belgium, there were over 1,200 formal cooperations between cities in the North and the South. This might become a major component of development cooperation (Atkinson 1999). Regional networks include CityNet in Asia and Mercociudades in South America. Thematic networks are the UNDP funded Life Initiative and Public-Private Partnership Program for the Urban Environment. The European Commission is supporting regional urban networks in Africa, Asia and Middle East (Atkinson 1999). There is great potential for South-South cooperation. For instance, the Singapore government provided assistance for the urban forestry program of Manila. Also some sister-sister partnerships between cities of the North and South are engaged in urban forestry. For instance, Guelph in Canada and Jinja in Uganda (Kuchelmeister 1999) and Leon in Nicaragua and Utrecht in the Netherlands (Together Foundation 1999). Transfer is one form of decentralized cooperation. It has been promoted by e.g. CityNet, UNDP, and UNCHS (Habitat) (CityNet 1998). Forestry can join such urban



efforts. Best urban practices, in which also increasingly urban greening related practices have been documented in a database is another interesting effort (see Together Foundation 1999). The increasing generation of solid waste could offer another opportunity that foresters join the solid waste initiatives. There are also many initiatives concerning the quality of life in cities. Forest resource assessment specialists might join these discussions by defining urban forest related indicators and monitoring the progress towards sustainable urban forest management (Kuchelmeister 1998b). People engaged in urban environmental education and health are other potential partners to be included into NFP Program policy dialogue. No matter what kind of partnerships are created prerequisites for successful urban forest initiatives are:

• Participation of diverse stakeholders (men and women) including vulnerable groups

• Creative mix of public and private funding of urban forestry activities

• Focus on meeting basic needs of poor people first

• Integration of a wider range of activities into urban greening programs

• Effective and innovative urban forestry transfer from one place to another place (Kuchelmeister 1999)

6 Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 Conclusions

Until recently the loss of trees in and around the places where people live has hardly received attention in development cooperation. Increasingly urban greening is advocated as one development tool, mainly by the agricultural community, while forestry circles are conspicuously absent. Also most NFPs do not consider urban forestry. In view of the fact that developing countries are undergoing a transformation from rural to urban, and that urban forests are capable of mitigating some of the pressing problems associated with urbanization, there is an urgent need to include in NFPs a focus of the needs and values of urban societies. The policy trends of decentralization and devolution of forests to municipalities is another important consideration to include urban stakeholders in the NFP process. As the pressure to further develop open space continues in developing countries the importance of urban forests as a vital component of the urban landscape and infrastructure will increase. This is expressed in innumerous Local Agenda 21. Where the whole community is considering local quality of life, trees, woods and accessible greenspace are usually high on the list as measures of environmental quality.



To develop and sustain urban forests in low income cities and neighborhoods, the initial focus must be on meeting immediate needs for basic necessities. This can be best achieved by multiple resource management. In a time of continuing urbanisation, the role of urban forestry is expected to grow. As urban values and demands are becoming increasingly dominant world wide, it can be assumed that urban forestry will become the forestry of the future. Forestry and related professionals can actively support initiatives to mitigate urban problems or risk to become increasingly a marginal professional group in development cooperation in the urban millennium. It is overdue, that bi- and multilateral development agencies respond to the growing demand for assistance in urban forestry. It is time for action for the urban millennium. NFPs can become one partner for considering the needs and values of urban people, especially most vulnerable ones.

6.2 Recommendations

NFPs should be reviewed if they sufficiently reflect the needs of the growing urban societies. The development cooperation community should extend its forestry sector attention significantly beyond rural areas towards the growing cities by:

(i) strengthening existing forestry linkages and initiatives with urban stakeholders (fuelwood; trees in farming; watershed management, drinking water supply, National Environmental Plans);

(ii) supporting and strengthening urban initiatives like Local Agenda 21, especially those focusing on vulnerable groups;

(iii) encouraging the strengthening of mutually beneficial local rural-urban linkages and mitigating their negative impact;

(iv) allocating increasingly resources to research and development of multipurpose urban forestry;

(v) updating the forestry research agenda by incorporating urban issues, and developing strategic urban alliances for refining the urban forestry research agenda;

(vi) considering urban issues in national forestry programs (organization of the process, especially stakeholder identification, strategic planning: reviews of forestry and urban sectors, development of specific studies, policy formulation; implementation of actions);

(vii) developing guidelines for urban and forestry projects and NFP to facilitate appraisal, design and implementation of urban greening related activities;

(viii) adding to the discussion on sustainable forest management under the framework of NFP and other initiatives models of urban forest sustainability (criteria and indicators) and applying them in pilot cities in developing countries.



References

Alieu, E.K., 1999. Chief Conservator of Forests, Ministry of Agriculture and Natural

Resources and Forestry, Freetown, Sierra Leone, pers. communication. Andresen, J.W., 1978. Urban forestry and its influences on human settlements.

Agenda Items 28, Discussion Area: Forestry for Quality of Life. Eighth World Forestry Congress, Jakarta, 16-28 October 1978:1203-1221.

Atkinson, A., 1999. Cities and desertification: from definition to action. Paper presented on the World Forum of Mayors on Cities and Desertification Bonn 11-12 June 1999. Bantom, W., 1999. Metropolitan Mayor of Cape Town, South Africa, pers. communication. Barnes, D.F., Dowd, J., Liu, Q., Krutilla, K., Hyde, W., 1994. "Urban Energy

Transitions, Poverty, and the Environment: Understanding the Role of Urban Household Energy in Developing Countries". Draft Report, Industry and Energy Department, World Bank, Washington DC.

Bartone, C., Bernstein, J., Leitmann, J., Eigen, J., 1994. Towards environmental strategies for cities. The World Bank/Urban Management Programme, Urban Management Programme Policy Paper 18, Washington D.C.

Braatz, S., 1993. Urban forestry in developing countries: status and issues, Proceedings of the Sixth National Urban Forestry Conference, Washington D.C.

Brown, L.R., et al. 1999. State of the World 1999. Worldwatch Institute. Washington D.C. Carneiro, C.M., 1999, Regional Focal point NFP Latin America, FAO Santiago de

Chile, pers. communication. Carter, J., 1993. The potential of urban forestry in developing countries, a concept

paper, FAO, Rome. Chowdhuryy, A.M., 1999. Mayor of City of Chittagoon, Bangladesh, pers. communication. CityNet, 1998. A practical manual for South-South cooperation. Bangkok. Clark, J.R., Matheny, N.P., 1998. A model of urban forest sustainability: Application

to cities in the United States. Journal of Arboriculture 24(2): March 1998:112-120. Croso, H., 1999. Native Forestry Resources, Secretariat of Nature Resources and

Sustainable Development, Buenos Aires, personal communication. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF), 1996. South Africa's Forestry

Action Program, Pretoria. FAO, 1998a. Asia and Pacific National Forest Programmes, Update 33, July 1998, RAP Publication 1988/13, Bangkok. FAO, 1998b. Africa/Afrique National Forest Programmes, Update 33, July 1998. FAO, 1999. Urban and peri-urban agriculture, Rome. Gaspard, Y., 1999. Mayor of Port-au-Prince, Haiti, pers. communication



Gliese, J., 1999. Project Partnerships and awareness raising, Paper presented on the World Forum of Mayors on Cities and Desertification, Bonn 11-12 June 1999. Gwaze, D., 1999. Policy Coordinator. Forestry Commission, Forest Research Centre,

Harare, Zimbawe, pers. communication. Habitat (United Nations Centre for Human Settlements), 1997. Global urban

observatory monitoring human settlements with urban indicators guide. Nairobi, draft.

Hall, N., Hart, R., Mitlin, D., 1996. The urban opportunity. The work of NGOs in cities of the South. London.

Holtsberg, C., 1999. Senior Advisor, UNDP, New York, pers. communication. ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives), NN. Multi-functional

park design and management, Durban, South Africa, Case study 27, Toronto. IDB (Inter-American Development Bank), 1997. Good practices for urban greening,

Social Programme and Sustainable Development Department, Environment division, Env-109, Washington D.C.

Kaimowitz, D., Vallejos, C., Pacheco, P. & López, R., 1997. Municipal governments and forest management in lowland Bolivia; CIFOR, Bogor.

Keeling, S., 1999. Forest Industries Branch, Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, Australia, pers. communication.

Knusen, O. ,1999. World Bank, Washington D.C., pers. communication. Kuchelmeister G., 1998b. Urban green for local needs – improving quality of life

through multipurpose urban forestry in developing countries, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Quality of Life in Cities, 4-6 March 1998, Singapore, Volume 1, pp 181-191.

Kuchelmeister, G., 1997. The urban forestry research agenda - one missing link in setting research priorities relevant to tropical forest research, ETFR News Issue No. 22 - December 1997 (Internet: http://www.etfrn.org/etfrn/etfrn-info.html).

Kuchelmeister, G., 1998a. Urban forestry in the Asia-Pacific Region - status and prospects, Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study, Working Paper Series, Working Paper No: APFSOS/WP/44, Forestry Policy and Planning Division, Rome. Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. (Internet: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FORESTRY/APFSOS/apfsoswp.htm.

Kuchelmeister, G., 1999. Innovative partnerships for sustainable urban forestry in developing countries. Prepared for 1999 National Urban Forest Conference, Building Cities of Green, Seattle , in press.

Lanly, J.P., 1997. Forestry and woodland resources, Volume 1, XI World Forestry Congress, 13-22 October 1997, Antalya, Turkey. (http://www.FAO.ORG/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FORESTRY/WFORCONG/PUBLI/V1/T0E/1.HTM#TOP7).

Lombardo, C.V., 1999. Director Forestry Administration, Panama, pers. communication. Michaelsen, T., 1999. United Nations, Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF),

New York, pers. communication. Ndiaye M.L., 1999. Mayor of the City of Linguére, Senegal, pers. communication.


http://www.etfrn.org/etfrn/etfrn-info.html)

http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FORESTRY/APFSOS/apfsoswp.htm

http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FORESTRY/WFORCONG/PUBLI/V1/T0E/1.HTM#TOP7

http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/FORESTRY/WFORCONG/PUBLI/V1/T0E/1.HTM#TOP7


Nilsson, K., Randrup, T.B., 1997. Urban and peri-urban forestry, XI World Forestry Congress 13 to 22 October 1997 Antalya, Turkey, Volume 1, Topic 3.

Prabhu, R., Colfer, C., Shephered, G., 1998. Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management: new findings from CIFOR's Forest Management Unit Level Research, Network Paper 23a, Summer 98. Rural Development Forestry Network, London.

Rabinovitch, J., 1998. Summary report on an International Workshop on Rural-Urban Linkages, Curitiba, Brazil, 10-13 March 1998. United Nationals Development Program, Urban Development Team, Management Development and Governance Division, New York.

RWEDP (Regional Wood Energy Development Programme in Asia), 1997. Regional Study on Wood Energy Today and Tomorrow in Asia, Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study, Working Paper Series, Working Paper No: APFSOS/WP/34, Forestry Policy and Planning Division, Rome. Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.

Satterthwaite, D., 1997. Urban poverty: reconsidering its scale and nature. Error! Bookmark not defined.IDS Bulletin Vol. 28, No.2, 1997. Adobe version http://www.iied.org/grey/download.htm.

Sinha, M., Enayetullah, I., 1999 WASTE CONCERN, Dhaka, Bangladesh, pers. communication.

Together Foundation, 1999. Best Practices Databank. Internet: http://www.bestpractices.org/.

Underwood, M. 1999. Lecturer Community Forestry, Forestry Programme University of Natal Pietermaritzburg South Africa, pers. communication.

UNDP, 1996. Urban Agriculture. Food, jobs and sustainable cities, New York. United Nations, 1998. World urbanization prospects: The 1996 revision. New York. Van der Plas, R., 1995. Burning Charcoal Issues Energy issues, The Wold Bank Group, FTDPD Energy Notes No 1, April 1995 Internet: http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/energy/energynotes/energy01.html. Vusoniyasi, T.V., 1999, Acting Conservator of Forests, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forests, Department of Forestry, Suva, Fiji, pers. communication. World Resource Institute, 1996. World Resources 1996. Washington D.C.


http://www.iied.org/grey/download.htm

Forest Policy Research Forum: The Role of National Forest

Documents

Transcript of Forest Policy Research Forum: The Role of National Forest