review of the status and trends of, and major … · many threats to forests and forest biological...

7REVIEW OF THE STATUS AND TRENDS OF,AND MAJOR THREATS TO, THE FORESTBIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

CBD Technical Series No.Secretariat of the Convention onBiological Diversity

Review of the Status and Trends of, and MajorThreats to, Forest Biological Diversity

Ad hoc Technical Expert Group on Forest Biological Diversity

March 2002

Review of the Status and Trends of, and Major Threats to, the Forest Biological Diversity

ii

Published by the Secretariat of the Conventionon Biological Diversity. ISBN: 92-807-2173-9

Copyright © 2002, Secretariat of theConvention on Biological Diversity

The designations employed and the presentationof material in this publication do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on thepart of the Secretariat of the Convention onBiological Diversity concerning the legal statusof any country, territory, city or area or of itsauthorities, or concerning the delimitation of itsfrontiers or boundaries.

The views reported in this publication do notnecessarily represent those of the Convention onBiological Diversity nor those of the reviewers.

This publication may be reproduced for educa-tional or non-profit purposes without specialpermission from the copyright holders, providedacknowledgement of the source is made. TheSecretariat of the Convention would appreciatereceiving a copy of any publications that usesthis document as a source.

CitationSecretariat of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (2002). Review of the status and trendsof, and major threats to, the forest biologicaldiversity. Montreal, SCBD, 164p. (CBD TechnicalSeries no. 7).

For further information, please contact:Secretariat of the Conventionon Biological DiversityWorld Trade Centre393 St. Jacques Street, suite 300Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Y 1N9Phone: 1 (514) 288 2220Fax: 1 (514) 288 6588E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.biodiv.org

Review of the Status and Trends of, and Major Threats to,the Forest Biological Diversity

1

Table of Contents

PREFACE ...............................................................................................................................................

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: STATUS AND TRENDS OF FOREST BIOLOGICALDIVERSITY AND MAJOR GAPS IN INFORMATION .....................................................................

I. Status and trends of forest biological diversity .....................................................II. Ecosystem functioning and services ......................................................................III. Valuation of forest products and ecosystem services ...........................................IV. Causes of loss of forest biological diversity ..........................................................V. Policy developments ...............................................................................................VI. Conclusions .............................................................................................................

1. STATUS OF FOREST BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY ..............................................................

A. Distribution of the world’s forests .........................................................................B. Status of biodiversity in forest biomes ..................................................................

2. TRENDS IN FOREST BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY .............................................................

A. Introduction ............................................................................................................B. Forest cover ..............................................................................................................C. Forest quality ...........................................................................................................D. Loss of species and genetic diversity ......................................................................E. Forests conserved in protected areas .....................................................................

3. OVERVIEW OF FUNCTIONING OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMSAND RELATED GOODS AND SERVICES ..........................................................................

A. Introduction ............................................................................................................B. Functioning of Forest Ecosystems ..........................................................................

4. SCIENTIFIC AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS RELATINGTO FOREST BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY ............................................................................

A. Introduction ............................................................................................................B. Genetic diversity ......................................................................................................C. Species diversity ......................................................................................................D. Ecosystem and landscape diversity ........................................................................E. The need to develop monitoring programmes .....................................................F. A summary of factors limiting global knowledge

of forest biological diversity ...................................................................................

5. THE VALUE OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS ...........................................................................

A. Introduction ............................................................................................................B. Types of forest values ..............................................................................................C. Economic values ......................................................................................................D. Summary of economic values ................................................................................

3

5

7

71012141516

19

1922

35

3535363845

49

4949

55

5555586266

68

69

69697278


2

6. THREATS TO FOREST BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (CAUSES AND IMPACTS) ............

A. Introduction ............................................................................................................B. Underlying causes ...................................................................................................C. Direct causes of loss of forest biodiversity ............................................................D. Impacts of human activities on forest functioning by biome ..............................

7. CURRENT POSITIVE TRENDS IN FORESTRY AND FOREST POLICIES ....................

A. Global policy developments ...................................................................................B. Criteria and Indicator processes ............................................................................C. Restoration and expansion of woodlands for biodiversity and other goods

and services .............................................................................................................D. Development of more sustainable forest management practices ........................E. Reduced impact logging .........................................................................................F. “Close-to-nature” forestry ......................................................................................G. Agro-forestry ...........................................................................................................H. Establishment of demonstration areas ..................................................................I. Implications of declining trends in FBD ...............................................................

8. RECOMMENDATIONS. OPTIONS AND PRIORITY ACTIONSFOR CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE ............................................................

A. Key actions and priorities to improve conservation and sustainableuse of forest biological diversity ............................................................................

B. Developing recommendations for action ..............................................................C. Options and priority actions .................................................................................

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................

ANNEX I. ...............................................................................................................................................

ANNEX II ..............................................................................................................................................

ANNEX III .............................................................................................................................................

ANNEX IV .............................................................................................................................................

ANNEX V ..............................................................................................................................................

83

838698

106

115

115115

116117118118119120121

125

125126127

135

153

155

156

157

159


3

1. Forest ecosystems cover approximately 30% of the ice-free land area of the Earth and harbour mostof the terrestrial biological diversity. Forests also generate a broad array of marketed and non-marketed goods and services that benefit a wide range of human communities, providing them withtheir livelihoods. Many ecosystem services provided by forests, like regulation of hydrologicalregimes and local climates, or protection against soil erosion, are also of crucial importance to thefunctioning of ecosystems and human land-use widely outside the forested areas. Sustainable use offorest ecosystems can play an important role in poverty alleviation. For these reasons conservationand sustainable use of forests, and in many areas their rehabilitation and restoration, has receivedincreasing attention in the framework of Sustainable Development.

2. The Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Forest Biological Diversity was established by theConference of the Parties in Nairobi, in April 2000 to assist the Subsidiary Body on Scientific,Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) to the Convention on Biological Diversity in its workon forest biological diversity. The members of the Expert Group came from eighteen Parties(Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Estonia, European Community, Ghana, India,Japan, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Mozambique, Poland, Russian Federation and United Kingdom), aswell as from many intergovernmental organizations (CIFOR, FAO, GEF, ITTO, UNEP-WCMC,UNFF, World Bank) and non-governmental organizations (Greenpeace, IUCN, Organization ofIndigenous Peoples in Suriname and WWF). The Group met twice in 2000-2001 and produced abroad review of the status and trends, and major threats to, forest biological diversity. Thedraft review as well as the report of the Expert Group was presented to the seventh meeting of theSBSTTA in November 2001. After some updating and editing, the review produced by the ExpertGroup is now completed.

3. This comprehensive review of forest biological diversity is an important contribution to theinternational debate on conservation and sustainable use of forest biodiversity. The reviewsummarizes important scientific assessments and monitoring programmes of forest biologicaldiversity, including broad-scale information about forest loss and studies on the effects of this lossto ecosystem functioning and consequently to ecosystem services. Careful analyses and manyscientific references support the conclusions of the report. At the outset, the report clearlydemonstrates that loss of forest biodiversity, especially in the tropical forest biome, has reached acrisis state that needs to be addressed immediately and globally to arrest and revert continuedlosses of biodiversity.

4. I would like to briefly highlight some major findings of the Expert Group. Conservation of forestsrequires both protected forest areas and sustainable forest management. Management of forestbiodiversity is a continuum from lightly managed protected areas to heavily managed plantationforests and agro-ecosystems. In all cases, goods and services produced by forest biological diversityare not yet properly valued and taken into account in forest planning and management andnational accounting systems. Many threats to forests and forest biological diversity emanatefrom non-forest sectors such as agriculture, land use, industry, energy and others. The forestbiodiversity losses ultimately arise from major economic and political trends in the societies.Therefore conservation of forests and sustainable forest management has to be integrated to a muchgreater extent than before into national and sectoral policies and programmes.

Preface


4

5. The Expert Group succeeded in developing recommendations for maintaining forest biologicaldiversity in several important areas. The approach taken by the Group was to identify majorcauses of forest biodiversity loss and then to provide recommended objectives to help to resolvethose problems. Recommendations were given under three broad headlines: 1) Assessment andmonitoring, 2) Conservation and sustainable use, and 3) Institutional and socio-economic enablingenvironment. The conclusions and recommendations of the Expert Group was widely used fordeveloping the draft expanded programme of work on forest biological diversity at the seventhmeeting of the SBSTTA in Montreal, in November 2001.

6. The question is how should forest biological diversity be addressed under the Convention onBiological Diversity. At its fifth meeting, in 2000, the Conference of the Parties decided to considerexpanding the work programme on forest biological diversity from research to practical actions atits sixth meeting in 2002 in The Hague. Loss of forests cannot be stopped and reversed withoutaddressing, in a coordinated, cross-sectoral and holistic way, both the direct and underlying causesof loss, which stem from various stakeholder interests and conflicting demands; as well as by athorough understanding of these causes at both the national and international levels andimproving our knowledge of forest ecosystems.

7. Deforestation and forest degradation should be primarily addressed at the national and local levels.Forest management takes place at the local level, and national legislation, forest ownership and userights largely determine the socio-economic environment where various stakeholders’ interestsshould be resolved. Involvement of local communities and indigenous peoples to the forestplanning and management is also taking place primarily in this framework. The development ofcross-sectoral linkages, for example, through a consistent development of national biodiversitystrategies and actions plans and national forest programmes is therefore of crucial importance.

8. International activities are also needed to facilitate conservation and sustainable use of forests.International regulation of trade, development of criteria and indicators for sustainable forestmanagement and the ecosystem approach, capacity building, technology transfer at forestmanagement, inventories, assessments and planning systems, establishment and up-dating ofdatabases are all necessities for successful implementation of national and local activities. Trendstoward better co-ordination and collaboration between various bodies and instruments give betterpossibilities to address conservation and sustainable use of forests. The establishment of theCollaborative Partnership on forests (CPF) indicates the willingness of the CPF members tosupport the UNFF process and to enhance co-operation and co-ordination among the CPFpartners. The establishment of a CBD,/UNFCCC/UNCCD liaison group to ensure synergiesbetween the work programmes of the three conventions is also a welcome development in order tomake international activities more effective.

9. There is an urgent need to address deforestation and forest degradation through direct actionslocally, nationally, and internationally. The review in this document presents us with a snapshot ofthe status and trends of forest biodiversity today. The message it gives is rather pessimistic, althoughmany positive steps in forest conservation and management are also reported. It is only through ourcollective actions that we can hope to reverse losses of forest biological diversity. Let us show thatby acting collaboratively we can achieve results; and in another ten years a similar report candemonstrate more positive global trends in maintaining forest biodiversity.


5

Members of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Groupon Forest Biological Diversity represented a widerange of expertise related to various aspectsof forest biological diversity. Also manyexperts from major agencies and institutes,intergovernmental and non-governmentalorganizations participated in the work of theGroup and contributed to its results. I am verygrateful for their successful work. EspeciallyI would like to thank two co-chairs of the Group,Ian D. Thompson and Gordon Patterson for thetheir valuable efforts.The Secretariat wishes also to acknowledgesome consultants for preparing backgrounddocuments or first drafts of some chapters.Dr. Lex Thompson, hired by FAO, prepared abackground document for the first meeting ofthe Group. Dr. Fabrice Lantheaume, Dr. DavidW. Pierce and Dr. Corin G.T. Pierce madevaluable contributions to Chapters III and V,respectively. Mr. Micheal Garforth was thefacilitator for the Edinburgh meeting.Mrs. Veronique Allain, Mrs. Ione Anderson andMr. Denis Hamel, from the Secretariat, servedthe Expert Group and the editing of the variousdrafts of the document in many ways.

The draft of this report was reviewed externallythrough a peer-review Process. It was alsoposted on the web site of the Convention for thecommenting by the scientific community atlarge. I express my gratitude for their review tothe following invited reviewers: Ron Ayling,Alexander V. Pugatchevsky, Perry S. Ong,Anoja Wickramasinghe. Valuable reviews andcomments were given by The Ministry of theEnvironment in Poland, the National FocalPoints of Canada and New Zealand collectingcomments by many experts and scientists fromtheir countries, Friends of the EarthInternational, World Rainforest Movement,International Research Institute for Maori andIndigenous Studies, Forest Peoples Programme,Gesellschaft für bedrohte Völker (Societyfor threatened Peoples), WWF, FERN,UNEP-WCMC, the Liaison Unit Vienna, PEFCCouncil Secretariat, Confederation of EuropeanPaper Industries. I wish to express mysincere gratitude to all these for their valuablecontributions.

Hamdallah ZedanExecutive Secretary

Acknowledgements


6


7

I. Status and trends offorest biological diversity

1. Forest biological diversity should bequantified and described for a multiple scales,from large forest landscapes of several thousandsquare kilometres, to the genetic level withinindividual organisms. The present report refersto forest landscapes, ecosystems, species, andgenes, and considers the diversity of structure,function, and composition existing at eachlevel. Scale is also considered in a secondsense, including global, regional and local (ornational), required to report activities andoutcomes that address the issue of maintenanceof biological diversity in forests.2. Determining the current global status offorest biological diversity is somewhatproblematic because of difficulties inquantifying biological diversity in a meaningfulfashion. Describing biological diversity on thelocal or national scale for most countries maynot be entirely possible, and even in countriesthat attempt to report on biological diversity,data on indicators are usually not welldeveloped. Further, the extent and rate of changeof the world’s forests are still unclear, especiallyat the national level, and long-term trendsare distorted by the lack of solid baseline dataand inconsistent use of terms. Where forestinventory data do exist, in both the developedand developing world, the information is oftenoutdated, of poor quality and is especiallydifficult to compare among regions because thedata sources, as well as the definitions of forestsand forest types, differ.3. The present report uses the Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO) definition of forests, which has been setfor the monitoring of global changes in forestcover and allows comparison between countries.There is not complete global agreement with theFAO definition of “forest”. However, based onthose FAO data, 3,869 million ha of global forestremain in 2000, and there has been decline in the

forest area by ca. 9.4 million ha (0.22 per cent)annually since 1990, of which most was primaryforest in the tropics. Preliminary estimates showthat net deforestation rates have slightlyincreased in tropical Africa, remained constantin Central America, and declined slightlyin tropical Asia and South America. Theestablishment of plantation forests andreforestation activities in temperate and borealforests of some industrialized countries haveincreased and led to a decline in deforestationrates in those biomes. In the tropical biome, therate of plantation establishment has increaseddramatically during the last decade. However,the Group noted that plantation forestry cannotfully compensate for deforestation of primaryforest in terms of biological diversity, especiallyin the tropics or in temperate regions, whereexotic, rapidly growing tree species have mostoften replaced the original forest types. FAO’sassessments do not encompass forest qualityaspects (e.g. no clear distinction betweenprimary and secondary forests, nor amongdifferent types of plantations), making anassessment of the quality of global forestsdifficult.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: STATUS AND TRENDS OF FOREST BIOLOGICALDIVERSITY AND MAJOR GAPS IN INFORMATION

Box 1. Definition of “forest ecosystem” and“forest biological diversity” proposed by theAd Hoc Technical Expert Group on ForestBiological Diversity'

1 Forest ecosystem: A forest ecosystem isa dynamic complex of plant, animal andmicro-organism communities, and theirabiotic environment, interacting as a functionalunit, where the presence of trees is essential.Humans, with their cultural, economic, andenvironmental needs, are an integral part ofmany forest ecosystems.2 Forest biological diversity: Forest biologicaldiversity means the variability among forestliving organisms and the ecological processes ofwhich they are part; this includes diversity inforests within species, between species and ofecosystems.


8

4. At the broadest level, forests need to be bet-ter categorized to enable a proper global assess-ment of change in forest biological diversity. Atthe very least, it is important to distinguishbetween primary forests, that have not beendirectly influenced by humans and thus havemost of their original biological diversity, andvarious types of secondary forests, that haveregenerated following cutting or clearing, andmay support only a portion of the original bio-logical diversity. Plantations are best described asa class of secondary forests, where often themajor objective is wood production, althoughmany countries are also using plantation forestryto try to recover previously degraded woodlands.Agroforests should also be considered as a dis-tinct class of forests because, while supporting aportion of local forest biological diversity, theylack full species complements.5. Care must be taken in reporting forest cover,relative to biological diversity, by distinguishingamong these broad classes of forests, becausebiological diversity differs in each. There is aneed to harmonize forest reporting on thenational, regional, and global scales to improveunderstanding of forest quality change, and alsoto include within these reports aspects relevantto assessing biological diversity. A key enablingfeature required for reporting is the use of com-parable forest classification systems that can beaggregated to higher scales, from local or nation-al scales, and that will accurately correlate tochanges in forest biological diversity. Essentialimprovements in collecting and reporting forestdata would be, for example, to distinguishbetween various numerical classes of canopycover by forest type, and among primary forests,secondary forests, plantation forests, and prefer-ably, also between young forests and olderforests.6. On very large scales, there is clear evidencethat forest biological diversity is related to totalforest area, and small forest fragments retainonly a small portion of the normal species com-plement. Globally, many primary forests have

become degraded or deforested, so it is clear thatforest biological diversity is rapidly declining,especially in the tropics. The capability of foreststo maintain biological diversity has changed overlarge areas, as primary forests have been defor-ested or replaced by secondary forests of variousqualities as a result of activities such as cutting,land-clearing, deliberate forest fires, fragmenta-tion, conversion to agricultural lands, and thehomogenization of forest stands. Far fewer intactlarger blocks of primary forests now occur, com-pared to in earlier times (e.g., 100 years ago), inall forest biomes.7. Generally, species richness increases withdecreasing latitude, with the highest levels ofendemism in the tropics for flora and fauna.Unfortunately, knowledge and documentationof species follow the opposite trend, and manytropical species and processes remain unidenti-fied. An important difference between tropicalforests and temperate or boreal forests is thehigh local richness per unit of area (alpha diver-sity) in tropical forests and the high endemism,compared to lower alpha diversity in the othertwo biomes at the stand level. Temperate andboreal forests tend to have greater landscapediversity than tropical forests. Yet in all forestbiomes there are areas with very high local diver-sity, and forest sites with high primary produc-tivity maintain greater diversity than those withlow primary productivity. These facts haveimportant implications for landscape manage-ment strategies that differ among the biomes,including protected area placement, adequatesizes of protected areas, and research needs forforests.8. The number of threatened and endangeredforest species seems to correlate with the size andquality of forest habitats, temporal and spatialcontinuity in the forest landscape, and with thehistory of forest use. The current extinction rateis far higher (1,000 to 10 000 times) than the rateat which species evolve, and is at a historicallyhigh level. The majority of animal and plantspecies that are becoming extinct come from


9

forest ecosystems. Current estimated rates ofextinction for most higher life-forms in tropicalrainforests are 1-10 per cent of those species inthe next 25 years. The main direct causesof extinctions are habitat loss, due to landconversion and fragmentation of habitats, alienspecies invasions, and over-harvesting of forestresources, including logging. In future, climatechange may be a further major factor, interactingwith existing problems and contributing toextinctions (see sub-section IV, below “Causes ofloss of forest biological diversity”).9. The number of endangered species, aswell as local extinctions of rare species, canbe expected to rise because of the timedelays (“extinction debt”) associated withfragmentation effects, forest loss, and declines inhabitat quality. In particular, species requiringspecific habitats that may be limiting, orwhich have large home-ranges, will becomeincreasingly endangered as forest area andprimary forests decline. Some well-knownspecies, such as among the great apes and largecarnivores, are expected to become extinct dueto habitat loss, over-exploitation, genetic effectsof small populations and illegal hunting, in spiteof the general positive attitude towards theirconservation and the considerable conservationefforts.10. While there is information on the geneticdiversity of a few animal species and importanttrees, in general few such data exist. However,it is evident, that genetic diversity will beseverely eroded due to forest decline (e.g. localextinctions of small, often unique populations)and that the effects of forest fragmentation anddeforestation on genetic diversity have beenoverlooked.11. Protected forest areas have increased inrecent years, both in number and in area.However, globally forests are neither wellprotected, nor well represented in protectedareas, with less than 8 per cent of the world’sforest afforded some kind of protected status.Furthermore, particularly in tropical areas, only

a minor portion of all the so-called protectedarea is actually secure. Most protected areasare small and insufficient to serve as sourcepopulations for large vertebrate species; nordo they fully protect regional species or localgenetic diversity. The lack of small-scale forestclassifications for all countries precludes anassessment of the representativeness of foresttypes in protected areas. Nevertheless, biologicaldiversity will never be maintained by a networkof protected areas alone, and sustainablemanagement of large associated areas will alsobe required. Protected areas must be consideredas part of a continuum of managed areas, fromprimary protected forest to fibre plantations.12. Regardless of forest type, various characteris-tics develop or accumulate with forest age.Different animal and non-woody plantspecies associate with various stages of forestdevelopment because of these features, and soforest communities change over time in the samelocation. Old forests are an important categoryof forests, because certain species are optimallyor solely associated with such forests. Keyindicators for old forests are known for borealzones and, to a lesser extent, in temperate forests,but are poorly known in tropical forests.13. A body of scientific theory helps tounderstand biological diversity, but muchremains to be understood. In particular, whilebiodiversity is clearly related to forest goods andservices, the exact mechanistic relationships arenot well understood. Further, little testing ofindicators has been carried out in terms of theircapability as predictors of broader changes inbiological diversity, or defining the concept offorest quality and how well it can be predictedby indicators. Finally, there is a clear need tounderstand critical thresholds of forest changethat will produce substantial losses in biologicaldiversity, particularly among key or keystonespecies.14. One source of information that has largelybeen overlooked is the traditional knowledge ofindigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples have


10

knowledge that has developed over manygenerations, but this knowledge has not yet beenfully understood nor recognized, because theorigin, nature, ways of use and transfer of thisknowledge are different from Western “formal”science and scientific practices. In addition, thereis often little mutual trust for sharingtraditional knowledge, due to the absence ofrecognition of indigenous peoples and theirrights.15. Total forest cover is a coarse predictor ofbiological diversity, and much better indicatorsare needed to properly report status and trendsof biological diversity on scales ranging fromnational to global. Most local forest inventoriesare conducted to monitor harvestable volumes,rather than to monitor biological diversity.Monitoring of biological diversity and ofchanges caused by forestry practices is importantin order to assess the effectiveness of manage-ment and cumulative change through forest use.Adaptive management, based on consistentmonitoring and comparison of biologicaldiversity between primary and secondaryforests, is an important part of the ecosystemmanagement protocol. Surrogates for coarse lev-els of biological diversity, such as umbrellaspecies, indicator species, key habitats andstructural indicators, may help to assessand predict the effectiveness of conservationand forest management programmes. Suchsurrogates must be carefully selected, basedon sound scientific understanding of theirproperties. Data on rare and threatened forestspecies alone are insufficient to provide a reliablepicture of broader trends in biological diversity,and species that are naturally rare, or havedeclining populations, represent a special casefor knowledge needs and management. Suchspecies must be identified and understoodin terms of the processes which affect theirpopulations. Often, national biological diversitydatabases do not exist and the availability oflong-term benchmark data for trends in possibleindicators is rare.

16. Aside from the lack of useful indicators,the incomplete and non-standard forestclassifications, and the need for improvedscience, many countries lack the necessaryinfrastructure to report on biological diversity.An important prerequisite in assessing the statusof biological diversity is technology transfer todeveloping nations, along with equipment andtraining in the methods required to evaluatebiological diversity and natural resources, and tomap their distribution.

II. Ecosystem functioning and services

17. Forest ecosystems provide a wide arrayof goods and services, ranging from marketablecommodities such as timber and some non-timber forest resources, to many goods and vitalservices that do not usually have a market value,including, for example, global climate regulationand watershed protection. These non-marketgoods and services are important to humansin general on the local, national, regional, andglobal scales and can often be essential tomaintain the way of life of indigenous and localcommunities.

Box 2. The ecosystem approach

The implementation of the ecosystem approachto forest biological diversity, based on thedescription and the operational guidanceendorsed by the Conference of the Parties indecision V/6, and on the principles recom-mended for application under the same deci-sion, should substantially help to maintainthese non-market goods and services. Theecosystem approach could be considered as astrategy for the integrated management offorests that promotes their conservation andsustainable use in an equitable way. Humans,with their cultural diversity, are an integralcomponent of forest ecosystems. The ecosystemapproach requires adaptive management todeal with the complex and dynamic nature offorest ecosystems and the absence of completeknowledge or understanding of theirfunctioning.According to the ecosystem approach, forestecosystems should be managed for theirintrinsic values and for the tangible benefitsthey provide to human beings, in a fair and


11

18. Sound forest ecosystem functioning and,therefore, the related forest goods and servicesdepend on the maintenance of a whole rangeof interactions between biotic and abioticcomponents. Biologically diverse forests are gen-erally thought to be more resilient and less liableto major outbreaks of pests and diseases.However, understanding the role of biologicaldiversity in the functioning of ecosystems is arelatively new field of research and the linkagesbetween degree of loss of forest biologicaldiversity and the ability of forests to sustain theirrange of goods and services is not well known.Further, within a given ecosystem, identifyingwhich species are or are not redundant is analmost impossible task. There is an urgent needto improve our understanding in this field.Identification of critical thresholds of impactsfor sustaining biological diversity and othergoods and services would be valuable indeveloping management strategies.19. The dependence of indigenous peoples andlocal communities on forest ecosystems andbiological diversity (and the resulting goodsand services) is greater than in the general

population. Alterations and loss of ecosystemsand forests therefore have a direct negativeimpact on the survival of indigenous peoplesand cultures. One important problem is thechange in a local economy from subsistence touse of non-traditonal goods, that results inchanges in land use of formerly forested areas.Such changes often have implications beyondthe economic ones for local communities.20. Each of the three main forest biomes(boreal, temperate, tropical) has characteristicecological functions, and human impacts maythus have different consequences among thebiomes, both currently and in a historical sense.21. The boreal forest biome is characterized bylow species richness and by extreme contrasts inthe functional attributes of species important forecosystem processes. So the loss of a key speciesmay have significant impacts on an ecosystem.Large-scale human activities, such as extensivelogging and those that cause global climatechange, may have a dramatic impact on overallecosystem functioning and forest goods andservices. Boreal forests represent 49 per cent ofthe total vegetation and soil carbon containedin the three biomes, and so play a key role inglobal climate regulation.22. Biological diversity in temperate forestsis determined primarily by historical human-induced changes in land use and forestrypractices, and site quality. Greatest diversity isreached in undisturbed, natural forests and onsites with highest fertility. Land conversion, frag-mentation and air pollution can cause loss ofbiological diversity and ecosystem function, andclimate change is likely to interact with thesefactors to cause further unpredictable changes.Many temperate forests, especially in Europe,have been fragmented, exploited and managedfor many centuries as part of cultural landscapes,and some form of continued management willbe required to maintain characteristic biologicaldiversity and a desirable range of ecosystemgoods and services. Some forest types andhabitats have been particularly heavily destroyed

equitable way. Forest ecosystem managersshould consider the effects – actual or potential– of their activities on forest ecosystems, toavoid unknown or unpredictable effects on theirfunctioning and, therefore, on their values.Forest ecosystems should also be understoodand managed in an economic context. Inparticular, costs and benefits in forestecosystems should be internalized to the extentfeasible. In addition, market distortions thatadversely affect forest biological diversityshould be reduced and incentives that promoteforest biodiversity and sustainable should bealigned.Finally, the ecosystem approach stresses thatforest ecosystems should be managed withinthe limits of their functioning. Therefore,the conservation of their structure andfunctioning should be a priority target. This is aprerequisite for keeping their full values,including the goods and services forests deliverto human beings.


12

or degraded (e.g., Mediterranean forests,riparian forests in general). Only a very smallamount of primary temperate forests remainsand old growth characteristics and structures,such as dead wood, are under-represented in themajority of secondary and plantation forests.Overall, the temperate biome is currently animportant terrestrial net carbon sink.23. The main characteristics of tropical forestecosystems are their high biological richnessand high endemism and, unlike boreal forestecosystems, the number of species greatlyexceeds the number of key ecological processes.This situation gives the ecosystem an apparentstability. Tropical forests are also characterizedby the very slow pace of their development,which produces difficulties in studying theirecological processes. The consequences ofspecies loss through human activity may bedelayed and even possibly offset by redundanciesin functional relationships. Tropical forest soilsare vulnerable to rapid degradation and erosionafter logging/forest clearing, because almost allorganic matter is maintained in the vegetation.Unsustainable use in tropical forests results inthe loss of key animal species, which act asvectors for reproduction and dispersal of foresttrees, and loss of key structural attributes suchas lianas and epiphytes, which could have long-lasting effects on biological diversity and itsrelated goods and services. But there is also someevidence that secondary tropical forests can becarefully managed to sustain traditional prod-ucts as well as some of the biologicaldiversity and other environmental servicesfound in primary forest. Tropical forests hold 37per cent of global forest carbon, but, because ofdeforestation and land use changes, the tropicalforest biome is currently a net source of carbondioxide to the atmosphere.24. Restoration of forest biological diversity indegraded forests and deforested lands is an issueof growing importance in both the developedcountries and the developing world. Moststudies of forest biological diversity have focused

on natural forests. However, in the future there isa need to focus more on the potential, at theregional and landscape scales, for synergy fromcombining management of different forests,including primary, secondary, agro-forests andforest plantations, to achieve a specified range ofgoods and services. Where plantation forests arecreated on former agricultural lands, rather thanas a direct replacement for natural forest, thepotential exists to restore at least some of lostforest biological diversity and other goods andservices, especially where native species of localorigin are used. Short rotation plantations canalso help reduce the pressure on natural forestsfor exploitation for fuel wood and timber. Therate of restoration of forest biological diversity indifferent situations is poorly understood andresearch is required. Although considerablediversity may develop in a few decades, fullrestoration to levels of forest biological diversityapproaching those found in primary forests maytake centuries.

III. Valuation of forest productsand ecosystem services

25. There is a spatial and temporal mismatchbetween those who bear the costs of deforesta-tion, forest change, and biological diversity loss,and those who receive the benefits. Much of thismismatch is related to lack of value attached toall forest goods and services, and the higherpriority that is given to short-term benefits, asopposed to long-term sustainable returns fromforests.26. Forest values include:

Direct use values: values arising fromconsumptive and non-consumptive uses ofthe forest, e.g. timber and fuel, extractionof genetic material, tourism.Indirect use values: values arising fromvarious forest services, such as protection ofwatersheds and the storage of carbon.Option values: values reflecting a willingnessto pay to conserve the option of making useof the forest, even though no current use is


13

made of it.Future option values: values of learningabout future benefits that would beprecluded by loss of forest resources(e.g., values related to the existence ofchemical active principles not discoveredyet).Non-use values (also known as existence orpassive use values): these values reflect awillingness to pay for the forest in aconserved or sustainable use state. However,the willingness to pay is unrelated to currentor planned use of the forest.Intrinsic values such as moral or ethicalvalue, spiritual, religious and cultural value.

27. A focus on those values that can bequantified in economic terms can be justified bythe fact that forest conservation ultimately has tocompete with alternative uses of forest land.Whereas the latter have reasonably clear andidentifiable market values, many forest values arecurrently non-marketed. In a market-orientedworld, therefore, forest conservation, whichprovides few immediate economic benefits, caneasily lose out to the market values of alternativeland uses, such as agriculture or plantations,unless goods and services are valued in theseanalyses or long-term conservation becomesmore attractive because of positive incentives.28. Stakeholder analysis shows that indigenousand local communities are likely to be themajor losers from the conversion of forestedland to other uses. They could, however, bebeneficiaries of processes designed to capturevalues in markets, although there are seriousreservations about whether introducing realmarkets should be contemplated for indigenouscommunities, where the introduction ofthe market economy without appropriateadaptation measures might threaten their way oflife. In many parts of the world, the issue offorest use is also very much related to discussionsabout the rights over land, forested areas andnatural resources. Thorough stakeholder

analysis at all levels, from local to global, wouldbe a valuable basis for ensuring that the interestand potential contributions of different keygroups and organizations are appropriately andfully taken into account.29. Sustainable forest management is, in theshort term, generally less profitable in monetaryterms than ecologically unsustainable forestpractices, so that, in order to be favoured in themarket, non-timber benefits from sustainableforests must exceed this loss of profit. Analysis ofeconomic values of forest goods and services,including timber, fuelwood, non-timber forestresources, genetic information, recreation andamenity, watershed protection, climate bufferingand non-use values suggests, first, that thedominant values are carbon storage and timber.Second, these values are not additive, sincestored carbon is lost through logging. Third,conventional (unsustainable) logging is moreprofitable than sustainable timber management.Fourth, other values do not compete withcarbon and timber, unless the forests have someunique features or are subject to potentiallyheavy demand due to proximity to towns.Unique forests (either unique in themselves or ashabitat for unique species) have high values.Forests near towns have high values becauseof recreational possibilities and the use ofnon-timber forest products and fuelwood. Fifth,non-use values for “general” forests are verymodest.30. There is an urgent need for more research tovalidate these conclusions and also to establishthe direct economic value of biological diversityother than for genetic information. Techniquesfor economic valuation to deal with all forestgoods and services need further development,such as choice modelling methods.31. This analysis suggests that immediate effortshould focus on removing those economicincentives which currently encourage forest lossand degradation. The development of marketsfor forest goods and services will be important,especially for carbon storage and sequestration


14

and, on a more local scale, for tourism andsale of genetic material. Establishing clear,enforceable and transferable property rights forindividuals or communities is likely to bean important precondition for sustainablelong-term conservation and use. Mechanismsare also needed to ensure that the situation ofthose who receive the benefits from forest goodsand services is altered in some way that willcompensate those who bear the costs. Someencouraging examples are now being developed.However, the limitations of market mechanismsalso need to be explored and recognized inrelation to the needs of stakeholders, for exampleindigenous and local communities. Marketmechanisms must complement othermechanisms, including legislation, regulation,certification, capacity-building, and addressingwider underlying causes (see the followingsub-section).

IV. Causes of loss of forestbiological diversity

32. Since there is a clear relationship betweendeforestation and loss of biological diversity, inorder to identify and propose measures aimingto halt and reverse the loss of global forestbiological diversity, the direct and underlyingcauses of forest decline should be addressed.Effective local action will specifically require adetailed understanding of the causes of loss offorest biological diversity.33. Due to the current national and globalpolicy and economic frameworks andmechanisms, it is presently cheaper to log forestsin an unsustainable way than to manage themsustainably. This factor has been identified in thepresent report as one of the primary causes forthe high rate of deforestation and forest degra-dation, and therefore for the current loss of for-est biological diversity.34. Forest decline and/or loss of associatedbiological diversity result from many directcauses, some of which are natural but areaggravated by humans, such as climate change.

The most important factors are human-inducedcauses, including conversion to agriculturalland, dismantling of agro-forestry systems,overgrazing, unmitigated shifting cultivation,unsustainable forest management includingpoor logging practices, over-exploitation oftimber, illegal logging, cutting for fuelwood andcharcoal, over-exploitation of non timber forestresources - including bush meat and other livingorganisms - introduction of alien and/orinvasive plant and animal species, infrastructuredevelopment (road building, hydro-electricaldevelopment, improperly planned recreationalactivities, urban sprawl), mining and oilexploitation, forest fires caused by humans, andpollution.35. The underlying causes of forest decline arethe forces that determine, through complexcausation chains, the actions of the primaryactors. They originate in some of the mostbasic social, economic, political, cultural andhistorical features of society. They can be local,national, regional or global, transmitting theireffects through economic or political actions,such as trade or incentive measures. They areboth numerous and interdependent and theapproaches to deal with them are country-specific and will therefore vary among countries.In analysing the increasing literature available onthe subject, in particular the recommendationsand proposals for actions of theIntergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF),the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF)and the work of the Centre for InternationalForestry Research (CIFOR), the following mainunderlying causes of forest decline wereidentified:

Broader macroeconomic, political and socialcauses, such as population growth anddensity, globalization, poverty, unsustain-able production and consumption patterns,ill-defined and implemented structuraladjustment programmes, political unrestand wars;


15

Institutional and social weaknesses, such aslack of good governance, lack of secure landtenure and uneven distribution ofownership, loss of cultural identity andspiritual value, lack of institutional,technical, and scientific capacity, lack ofinformation, of scientific knowledge and theuse of local knowledge, in particular lack ofawareness of the value of forest biologicaldiversity for provision of goods andservices;Market and economic policy failures, suchas under-valuation of forest biologicaldiversity goods and services; perverseincentives; and subsidies;Other policy failures, such as ill-defineddevelopment programmes, ill-defined orunenforced regulatory mechanisms, lackof clear environmental policies and ofenvironmental impact assessments.

V. Policy developments

36. Conservation and forest-related policieshave, most often, failed to significantly reduceforest decline. This is primarily due to theinability to address the underlying causes ofdeforestation and forest degradation. In manycountries, the weakness of conservation andsustainable management efforts is largely due topoor governance, lack of political will, lack ofclear land tenure and land use rights, lackof adequate valuation of forest biodiversity, lackof appropriate local and global economicenvironments, insufficient implementationcapacity, lack of financial or human resourcesand of environmentally sound technologies.37. Some positive elements are also evident,mostly in the area of forest policies and forestmanagement practices. These have partlyresulted from a series of international (IPF, IFF,United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF)) andregional forest processes and initiatives aroundthe world, addressing the development ofsustainable forest management. National forestprogrammes are increasingly being developed as

a means to address forest sector issues in aholistic manner, taking into account otherrelevant sectors which impact on forests. Theimportance of national forest programmes hasbeen confirmed and stressed by IPF, IFF andUNFF. Due to increasing public awareness ofbiological diversity issues and of the goodsand services forest ecosystems produce, thereis increasing support for sustainable forestmanagement among consumers, politiciansand industry. A substantial section of thetimber trade seems to be prepared to takeenvironmental issues seriously and to make realefforts to change its practices. Althoughsuch positive trends do not yet seem to havesubstantially influenced the loss of forestbiological diversity, it is possible to note some ofthem that may contribute in some way to themaintenance of forest biological diversity:

• Development of national forestprogrammes

• Increased number and area of protectedforest areas

• Development of improved ecologicalforest management and forestry practices,including landscape ecological planningprocedures, identification and preserva-tion of key biotopes and other keyelements in the forest landscape,“reduced impact” logging, and“close to nature” forestry

• Mechanisms to illustrate sustainableforest practices such as demonstrationforests (e.g. International Model ForestsNetwork initiatives)

• Many initiatives on criteria and indicatorsfor sustainable forestry

• Independent certification of sustainableforest management and related labelingof forest products originating fromwell-managed forests.

38. There is also an increase in the willingnessto accept issues related to the rights, needs andparticipatory possibilities of indigenous people


16

and local communities in the context of forestconservation and management. This positivedevelopment includes donor institutions’interest in collaborating directly with indigenousand local communities, policy revision by manyrelevant actors, and increased acceptance oftraditional knowledge and collaborativemanagement in forest conservation andmanagement. However, these changes havehappened largely at the international level andoften have not been sufficiently incorporatedinto national policies.39. Difficulties in addressing relevant socio-economic issues in the context of forestbiological diversity are also related to poorknowledge. Present knowledge concerning theuse and valuation of non-timber forest productsand services, the cultural and spiritual values offorests, or the development of the rights, needsand participatory possibilities by indigenouspeople is sparse or receives inadequate attention.

VI. Conclusions

40. The Expert Group has drawn a number ofkey conclusions from the review of informationsummarized in sections I to V above:

(a) Forest issues relate to a range ofpolitical, economic, social, cultural,environmental and scientific aspects,which must be dealt with in a coordi-nated, cross-sectoral and holistic way;

(b) Assessing the current global statusof forest biological diversity inquantitative as well as qualitativeterms is problematic, because of thedifficulties quantifying biologicaldiversity. An immediate need exists tocategorize and substantially improvethe understanding of biologicaldiversity, with a view to measuringtrends, particularly on regional scales;

(c) The rate of deforestation has been ata high level for many centuries andcontinues to be at a dramatically highlevel, with most current deforestation

occurring in tropical forests;(d) Large-scale degradation of forest

quality occurs in all regions and foresttypes due to human activities, and thisis exacerbated by improved access tointact forests;

(e) The number of extinct and endangeredforest species, already at historicallyhigh levels, can be expected to rise dueto an existing “extinction debt” and thecontinued habitat loss, fragmentation,invasive species and over-exploitation.The evidence also clearly shows that an“extinction debt” exists, i.e. manyextinctions will happen in the futureas a result of the deforestation anddegradation which have alreadyoccurred;

(f) Plantations have a role to play inconserving and enhancing forestbiological diversity, but cannotcompensate for deforestation ofprimary forest and consequent loss ofparticularly rich biological diversity;

(g) There is a clear need to better monitorand report changes in the quality andquantity of the world’s forests, fromthe national to the global level;

(h) Data on rare and threatened forestspecies alone are insufficient to providea reliable picture of broader trends inbiological diversity. Surrogates forbiological diversity, such as umbrellaspecies, indicator species, key habitatsand structural indicators, may help toassess and predict the effectiveness ofconservation and forest managementprogrammes and should be included insustainable forest management criteriaand indicator lists;

(i) There is generally less knowledge withrespect to forest biological diversity intropical forests compared to the othertwo biomes;


17

(j) Adequate attention needs to be givento the principles, methods and waysand means for the potential use oftraditional knowledge of indigenouspeoples and local communities as avaluable tool for forest biodiversitymanagement;

(k) Protected forest areas have increased inrecent years in both number and area.However, globally, forest types areneither well-protected nor well- repre-sented in protected areas. The patternof protected forest areas remainsuneven, especially in terms ofdistribution and the representativenessof many forest types. The effectivenessof the protection provided in protectedareas remains a major problem;

(l) It should be recognized that theconservation of forest biologicaldiversity should be an overall objectiveof sustainable management of all typesof forests by all countries, and not belimited to protected forest areas;

(m) The relationship between biologicaldiversity and ecosystem goods andservices is direct, but the exact linkagesremain unclear, may be idiosynchratic,and require research. Critical levels ofbiological diversity loss and/or change,as well as the human impacts that causethem and which affect forest ecosystemfunctioning and forest goods andservices, are largely unknown;

(n) The implementation of the ecosystemapproach should be the overarchingframework for sustainably managingforests. In particular, the ecosystemapproach requires adaptive manage-ment to deal with the complex anddynamic nature of forest ecosystemsand the absence of complete knowledgeor understanding of their functioning.As a consequence, forest ecosystemmanagers should consider the effects –

actual or potential – of their activitieson forest ecosystems and take intoaccount that forest ecosystems shouldbe managed within the limits of theirfunctioning. In this respect, conserva-tion of forest structure and functioningshould be a priority target;

(o) To help to implement the ecosystemapproach, research must address anunderstanding of the effects of forestmanagement on biological diversity onall scales, from genes to landscapes, toprovide a basic understanding of therole of biological diversity in forestfunctions and processes. Monitoringof forest biological diversity and of thechanges caused by forest managementis important in order to assess theeffectiveness of management strategiesand the cumulative change of forestuse;

(p) Restoration of forest biologicaldiversity in degraded forests anddeforested lands is an issue of growingimportance in both the developedcountries and the developing world.There is a need to focus more on thepotential for synergy from combiningdifferent forest categories, includingprimary and secondary natural forests,agro-forests and new forest plantations,to achieve a specified range of forestbiological diversity and related goodsand services. The means to restoreforest biological diversity in differentsituations are poorly understood andresearch should be increased in thisarea;

(q) Current economic incentives and landpolicies often encourage forest lossand degradation and are thereforedisincentives to sustainable forestry;

(r) Sustainable forest management isgenerally less profitable in monetaryterms than ecologically non-sustainable


18

forest practices. Local and indigenouscommunities and, ultimately, nationsare likely to be the major losers fromthe conversion of forested land toother uses and non-sustainable forestpractices;

(s) There is a need for more effectiveparticipation of the inhabitants offorests, indigenous peoples and localcommunities in all processes related toforest use and management. Astakeholder analysis at all levels, fromlocal to global, would be a valuablebasis for discussions and decisions onforest biological diversity use and itsmanagement;

(t) Effective action for forest biologicaldiversity needs to address both thedirect and the underlying causes ofloss, and this requires a more detailedunderstanding of these causes atinternational and national levels,since each country has differentcircumstances and will need a specificapproach. Many of the issues can onlybe addressed globally or regionally;

(u) The underlying causes of loss offorest biological diversity are veryfundamental and complex and theyderive from broader macro-economic,political and social causes, such aspoverty, rapid population growth,globalization of trade, unsustainableproduction and consumption patterns,political unrest, lack of goodgovernance, land rights disputes andlack of institutional technical andscientific capacity. Loss of forestbiological diversity cannot be stoppedand reversed without addressing theseand other fundamental problems; aswell as improving our knowledge ofbiological diversity and developingmore sustainable forms of forestmanagement;

(v) Many of the threats to forest biologicaldiversity emanate from non-forestsectors, such as agriculture, urban landuse, industry, energy and others. Thedevelopment of cross-sectoral linkages,e.g. through a consistent developmentof national biodiversity strategies andnational forest programmes, possiblywithin the framework of nationalsustainable development strategies, istherefore very important;

(w) Present knowledge concerning the useand valuation of non-timber forestproducts, ecological services, thecultural and spiritual values of forests,or concerning the developments ofrights and participatory possibilities byindigenous people is sparse and needsmore adequate attention.

41. There are some positive trends anddevelopments upon which to build, mainlyin the area of improving forest policies andsustainable forest management practices, whichinclude biological diversity provisions. Publicand consumer awareness is leading to thedevelopment of a more serious interest inbiological diversity and environmental issues byother stakeholders, including politicians and theprivate sector. The promotion of certification offorest products, when done properly, can also bean encouraging development to provide positiveincentives for sustainable forest management.


19

A. DISTRIBUTION OFTHE WORLD’S FORESTS

42. The area1 of the world’s forests (see Annex Ifor use of terms), including natural forests andforest plantations, was estimated to be 3869million ha in 2000, equivalent to almost 30% ofthe ice-free land area of the earth (FAO, 2001).The three major forest biomes are boreal,temperate and tropical. In terms of area, theforests are roughly equally divided betweentropical/sub-tropical forests and temperate/boreal forests (See Table 1). [The original andcurrent forest cover of the Earth is given in map3.] The remaining closed forests amount to21.4% of the Earth's land area, and occur pre-dominantly in boreal forests (1000 million ha)and tropical areas (680 million ha); otherremaining forests (1820 million ha) are frag-mented (UNEP 2001).43. The majority of the forested area consists ofnatural forests (95%), with commercialplantations comprising 3% and other forestplantations making up the remaining 2% (Carleet al., 2001; FAO, 2001). Under the FAO (FAO,2000a) definition, natural forests include allforests “composed of indigenous trees, not

planted by man or in other words, forestsexcluding plantations”, while plantations include“forest stands established by planting or/andseeding in the process of afforestation orreforestation. They are either of introducedspecies (all planted stands) or intensivelymanaged stands of indigenous species, whichmeet all the following criteria: one or two speciesat plantation, even age class, regular spacing”.Detailed information on the world’s forests, atregional and national levels, is given in FAO(1997, 1999, 2001). A little over half (55%) ofthe world’s forests are located in developingcountries. Two-thirds are found in only tendeveloping countries: Brazil has 544 million ha,Indonesia 105 million ha, Democratic Republicof Congo 135 million ha, Peru 65 millionha, India 64 million ha, Mexico 55 million ha,Bolivia 53 million ha, Colombia 50 millionha, Venezuela 50 million ha and Sudan 42million ha. More than three quarters of thetemperate and boreal forests are situated in justfour countries: Russian Federation 851 millionha, Canada 245 million ha, USA 226 million haand China 163 million ha. Global forest cover in2000 for different regions is given in Table 1(from FAO, 2001).

1. STATUS OF FOREST BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

Region Land area Total forest 2000

Million ha Million ha %Africa 2 964 650 17

Asia 3 085 548 14

Oceania 849 198 5

Europe and Russ. Fed. 2 260 1 039 27

North & Central America 2 137 549 14

South America 1 752 886 23

World Total 13 048 3 869 100

Table 1: Regional forest cover (FAO, 2001b)

1. Although there are caveats to the forest data provided by the FAO in the Forest Resource Assessment 2000 based on definitions, samplingtechniques and unclear linkages to forest biological diversity (Stokstad, 2001; Matthews, 2001), these data provide a necessary background forunderstanding global forest change and decline.


20

44. An overall picture on World’s forests can be obtained from three maps representing various aspectsof the global forest cover.

Ecological Zone Total forest Africa Asia Oceania Europe North & Central America South America

million ha % % % % % %

Tropical rainforest 1090 24 17 1 58

Tropical moist deciduous 410 40 14 6 9 31

Tropical dry 180 39 23 6 33

Tropical mountain 150 11 29 30 30

Subtropical humid forest 170 52 8 34 6

Subtropical dry forest 30 16 11 22 30 6 14

Subtropical mountain 130 1 47 13 38 1

Temperate oceanic forest 30 33 33 9 25

Temperate continental forest 270 13 40 46

Temperate mountains 130 26 5 40 29

Boreal coniferous forest 730 2 74 24

Boreal tundra woodland 130 19 81

Boreal mountain 410 1 63 36

TOTAL 3869 17 14 5 27 14 23

Table 2: Total forest area by ecological zone and distribution between regions,according to FRA 2000 global ecological zoning and globalforest cover map.

Distribution of percentages do not exactly tally with other area statistics due to systematic distortions in the

remote sensing classification of forests in the global map.

Map 1. Forests 2000 by major ecological domains is published on the web site for the FAO ForestResources Assessment 2000 (http://www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/index.jsp). The map presentsthe world’s forests according to the main biomes, and classified as a) closed forests, b) open andfragmented forests, and c) other wooded land.

Protected forested areas

45. At the global level about 30,350 protectedareas have been established, covering 8.8% ofland area (IUCN, 1998). Green and Paine (1997)have endeavoured to estimate the extent towhich the major biomes, including various

categories of forest2, are represented in theglobal protected areas network3 (see Table 3).In this analysis, tropical forest types are betterrepresented in protected areas than temperateforest types, mainly due to more extensivedeforestation over a longer period in temperate


21

2. Assessing forest ecosystem diversity requires meaningful systems of classification of forests. Useful systems have usually been developed atnational and regional levels, but are increasingly difficult to generate as the geographical scale increases, and are problematic at the global scale.FAO’s Forest Resource Assessment 2000 (FRA 2000) is addressing this issue through a combination of remote sensing data and eco-regionalclassifications.

3. This particular analysis collectively under-represents the protection of biomes by about 30% because information was not available on theparticular biome represented in many protected areas.

Map 2. Global distribution on current Forests by the UNEP-WCMC (http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/global_map.htm) gives the global distribution on 22 main classes of natural forests and 5 classesof plantations.

Map 3. Original and current Forest Cover by the UNEP-WCMC (http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/original.htm) shows the estimated situation between the end of the last Ice Age and the expansion ofhuman activities, about 8,000 years ago. This map reveals large losses in the global forest cover since thishistoric baseline, as well as great regional differences in the deforestation.


22

B. STATUS OF BIODIVERSITYIN FOREST BIOMES

46. The intent of the following sections is not tobe exhaustive in the review of knowledge aboutbiological diversity, particularly within biomes.For substantial detail, the “Global BiodiversityAssessment” published by UNEP (1995) isrecommended. The intent here is to focus on keyissues that lead to a better understandingof the status of forest biological diversity, causesof loss, as well as to identify gaps in knowledge.This approach leads toward recommendationsof options to improve the conservation and thesustainable management of forest biologicaldiversity.47. Forest biological diversity can be quantifiedat several scales, these include: assessing thegenetic components within species, counting the

number of species per unit area (local, regional,national, continental, global), determiningnumbers and arrangement of forest types andtheir age, classifying types of forest ecosystems,determining communities of species associatedwith forest ecosystems and describing landscapestructure.

Boreal forests

Distribution and structure

48. Boreal forests, including tundra woodlands,extend over about 1270 million hectares, orabout one third of the world’s forest cover. Theboreal forest is the second largest terrestrialbiome after tropical forests. This northerncircumpolar biome is strongly characterised byconiferous ecosystems with low tree speciesrichness, extensive and fairly uniform stands and

Region Forest area (103 km2) Protected forest area (103 km2) % Forest protected

Africa 5,683.1 496.9 8.7

Australasia 1,493.2 125.8 8.4

Caribbean 53.8 7.9 14.7

Central America 902.0 88.1 9.8

Continental SE Asia 1,707.7 192.5 11.3

Europe 1,815.4 144.8 8.0

Far East 1,456.0 77.4 5.3

Insular SE Asia 1,468.4 247.5 16.9

Middle East 1,676.7 6.4 3.8

North America 8,454.0 700.0 8.3

Russian Federation 8,257.1 150.65 1.8

South America 8,429.5 874.9 10.4

Total 39,887.9 3,112.8 7.8

Table 3: Protected forested area as a percent of the total forest area for various globalregions (source: Iremonger et al. 19974).

4. http://www.unep-wcmc.org.uk/forest/data/cdrom2/gtabs.htm#Table15. According to A. Filipchuk (AHTEG member, pers. comm. 2001), the amount of protected nature area is about 5% of the Russian Federation

forest area. The State Natural Reserves (zapovedniks) totaled 33.5 million hectares at the beginning 2001.

regions of Eurasia. The overall figures for tropi-cal forests appear satisfactory, approximating the10% protection target established at the IVWorlds Parks Congress (IUCN, 1993), but inreality overestimate the extent to which forestecosystems are being properly conserved inprotected areas. A recent survey of 10 developing

countries with major forest resources found thatonly 1% of forest protected areas are secure inthe long-term, with 60% currently secure butwith threats likely in the near future and morethan 20% are suffering from degradation,(Dudley and Stolton, 1999).


23

relatively short-lived species (<200 years),which are under fire, wind and insectdisturbance regimes. Extreme oceanic types with

broad-leaved deciduous trees are found innorthwestern Europe, where the tree limit isformed by Betula pubescens subsp. czerepanovii.Similar ecological conditions prevail in northernAsia, Alaska, and northern Canada, with stuntedPicea, Larix, Pinus pumila and Betula nana at thetreeline.49. Boreal landscapes are composed of acomplex of plant communities that, aside fromvast tracts of forest stands, include variouswooded and open mires or bogs, numerouswater bodies of varying size, rivers, rockoutcroppings and natural grasslands and fens(Walter, 1979; Barbour and Christensen, 1993).Local distribution of boreal communitiesis heavily influenced by topography, hydrologyand soils. Spodosoils or podsols dominateupland sites. Glacial features such as eskers,moraines, kettle holes and outwash plains createconsiderable variation in the landscapes.Paludification can be very extensive, especially innorthwestern Europe and Russia, westernSiberia, and the Hudson Bay lowlands andcentral Keewatin, District of Canada. Theextensive continental larch forests of easternSiberia, on permafrost areas with thermokarstformations, show a great diversity of habitats.Most of the conifer species are adapted toregenerate following fire either as a result ofserotinous cones, or as a result of their shade-tolerant development beneath a mixed ordeciduous canopy. Some species cannotregenerate without this canopy, required forprotection from frost and excessive sunlight. Theboreal biome is characterized by an extensivedormant period, often of extreme cold, whichreduces its annual productivity. Net annualprimary production on upland sites varies from400 g/m2 on poor sites to 1300 g/m2 on mesicfertile sites (Barbour and Christensen, 1993).50. In North America, regional classifications ofthe boreal forest ecosystems (e.g., Sims et al.,

1989) are available and collectively defineover 500 forest ecosystems, mostly based onunderstory species. The fire regime andgap-phase dynamics of these forests provide a setof hydrological, edaphic and microclimaticconditions that create a wide array of habitats.The boreal forests also have structuralcomponents that are important to the faunawithin them These include uneven canopy struc-ture, size and age variation of the trees, especial-ly the occurrence of tall, old coniferous anddeciduous trees, stumps of trees andstanding and fallen decaying wood of varioussizes.51. The southernmost cool temperate, oceanicforests found along the western coast of SouthAmerica and New Zealand are considered to be asouthern hemisphere equivalent of borealforests. These forests, rich in epiphyticcryptogams, are dominated by both evergreenand deciduous broad-leaved Nothofagus species,while mires or bogs are also characteristic(Walter 1979).52. In the boreal forest regions, an average dailytemperature of more than 10°C occurs on lessthan 120 days and the cold season lasts longerthan six months. The northern transition fromboreal forest to tundra (barren lands with frozensubsoil) is related to a short growing season(fewer than 30 days with a daily temperatureabove 10°C) and permafrost conditionsunfavourable to tree growth (Walter, 1979). Theecozone between boreal forest and tundra, calledforested tundra, is characterised by stuntedtrees and shrubs and may extend hundreds ofkilometres on flat terrain. At its southwardextremes, the boreal biome reaches areas wherethe climate is sufficiently favourable to supportdeciduous broad-leaved species more typical oftemperate forests. The zone between theconiferous boreal forests and the temperatedeciduous broad-leaved forests often consists ofmixed forests, recognised as a hemiborealor boreonemoral or transitional zone. Theclimate in the vast taiga zone varies widely from


24

cold, oceanic with a relatively small temperatureamplitude, to cold continental in which, inextreme cases, an annual temperature span of90°C may occur. Temperatures also change fromnorth to south, and several subzones can be distinguished: northern, middle, southern andextreme continental.

Species diversity

53. The Wisconsin glacial events, 10,000-14,000years ago, forced plant and animal life south,followed by northward migration, in recurrentcycles. The boreal forest biome is distributedacross areas formerly covered by continentalglaciers and, consequently, the land hassupported forest cover for only 3,000 to 7,000years (Ritchie 1987). The number of tree speciesthat characterise these forests is therefore low,especially in the Euro-Siberian area, where majorwatercourses and mountain ranges run at rightangles to the direction in which the speciesmigrated northwards. As a result of the post-glacial history of the biota, many boreal andsubarctic tundra species have wide distributions.There are relatively few endemics at the specieslevel, and most of these occur in the extremeeastern and western parts of the continents, closeto ancient refuges. Due to wide distributions andvarying environmental conditions, evolution atthe level of ecotypes and subspecies is commonand some genera, such as Salix, Carex andBetula, show wide-scale hybridisation (Jonsell,2000).54. Boreal forest stands normally contain nomore than a few species, primarily of the generaPicea, Pinus, Abies, Larix, Thuja, Betula, Prunus,Alnus and Populus, and they often formmonocultures, particularly in the case of Picea,Pinus and Larix. These genera are panboreal andmembers of the four deciduous genera (Betula,Prunus, Alnus and Populus) grow more rapidlythan the conifers and tend to occupy sitesimmediately following stand disturbance. Treespecies richness in North American forests isgreater than in the Euro-Siberian region. InNorth America, four of the six principle boreal

forest species extend across the continent,though no single tree species is panboreal. Piceamariana grows on poor soils and forms thenorthern treeline continent-wide. Where fire isuncommon, Abies spp. often predominate in theeastern and continental North American borealzone. In Eurasia, this genus is ecologicallylargely replaced by two species of Larix. Larchforests, mostly consisting of Larix gmelinii, cover2.5 million km2 in continental Siberia wheremuch of the terrain has deep permafrost. Larixsibirica often forms monotypic stands followingdisturbance by fire (Schulze et al., 1996). Whilein North America, Larix laricina is rarely adominant species, and is found mainly on cold,wet and poorly drained sites such as insphagnum bogs and muskeg. In Europe, onlyPicea abies and Pinus sylvestris are truedominants of the boreal zone, and are oftenmixed in successional phases with broad-leaveddeciduous tree species such as Betula pendula, B.pubecens, Populus tremula and Alnus glutinosaand A. incana. In more eastern Europeanregions, Picea abies is replaced by the closelyrelated Picea obovata, with Abies sibirica, Larixsibirica and Pinus cembra subsp. sibirica. There isa broad belt of hybrids, Picea abies x P.obovata, between their natural regions. InEurasia, the proportion of Picea graduallydecreases eastward while that of Larix increasescorrespondingly. In northern Japan, the numberof coniferous species increases again.55. Conifers comprise the bulk of the biomass inthese boreal ecosystems, although most forestsalso include a variety of deciduous tree andshrub species, dwarf-shrubs (notably membersof the Ericaceae), grasses, sedges and herbs. Ingeneral, species diversity in taiga communitiesincreases with the length of the growing season,increasing soil fertility and favourable drainage.A comparatively moderate richness ofbryophytes, lichens and fungi occur in manyboreal forest types, they are especially commonin older forests with their greater volume ofdecaying wood.


25

56. Animal species richness generally declineswith increasing latitude, and boreal forestsmaintain fewer species than do temperate ortropical forests. Recent studies have also showna longitudinal gradient in the species richness ofherbivores, with the region near the Bering Seabeing particularly species poor (Danell et al.,1996) The fact that this region supports thewoody species most chemically defended againstbrowsing suggests that such gradients of plantchemical defence in boreal forests may be alsopartly responsible for gradients of mammalianspecies richness (Pastor et al., 1996). Animportant and characteristic component ofboreal fauna is migratory birds which breed insummer in the boreal forest, and winter in moresouthern areas. In many cases, these tropical andneo-tropical migrants travel thousands ofkilometres between their winter and summerranges. Species which must over-winterin northern forests have developed a rangeof adaptations to cold climates includinghibernation, thick fur, denning beneath thesnow, and the ability to maintain life withreduced availability and quality of forage, suchas by storing fat in the fall and then losing weightover-winter. Caribou or reindeer (Rangifertarandus) can make use of lichens, a group ofspecies not fed upon by other boreal animals.Large predators still remain common in Canada,Alaska USA, (bears Ursus americana, Ursusarctos, wolf Canis lupus) and Russian borealforests (wolf and tiger Panthera tigris altaica),but are absent from Scandinavia, althoughwolves have been recorded over the past decade.The large ungulate species are panboreal,including moose (Alces alces) and caribou. Foodwebs are not complicated and are a few commonherbivores dominate the diets of all predators,avian and mammalian. Small herbivores (andtheir predators) in boreal systems arewell-known for their periodicity, or even cycling(e.g., Krebs et al. 1995, Stenseth et al. 1998),which appears related to both food availabilityand predation rate. The dominant cycle length

for a wide variety of mammals and birds inNorth America appears to be about ten years,while in Fennoscandia its length is usually fouryears (Keith, 1963; Finerty, 1980; Erlien andTester, 1984). Such fluctuations represent atemporally dynamic aspect of biodiversity.Cycles of herbivores may result in differentialsurvival of their preferred food species, such asfir, aspen and birch, as well as their predators,such as warblers that prey on budworm(Choristoneura fumiferana), or Canada lynx(Lynx canadensis) that prey on small mammals(Keith, 1963; Hansson, 1979; Haukioja et al.,1983; Bryant and Chapin, 1986; McInnes et al.,1992; Stenseth et al. 1998).57. There appear to be relatively few vertebrateanimal species with highly restricted habitats orniches in boreal forests, although several speciesrelying on dead wood and cavities to nest orbreed find old forest to be optimal habitat (e.g.,Thompson and Angelstam 1999). Relatively fewboreal species are listed by IUCN (2000)as threatened, however, several of the largecarnivores such as Siberian tiger and brown bearare threatened.

Plantations in the boreal biome

58. Plantations are often used as a silviculturaltechnique in boreal forests, replacing a harvestedstand with species from the region, although theplanted species mix may not be exactly the sameas was previously on the site. In particular,conversion from mixed deciduous-coniferousforests to conifer plantations is common. About25-60% of boreal stands that are logged aresubsequently replanted or seeded, depending onthe country. Among the boreal forest countries,Sweden and Finland have the most intensivelymanaged plantations. The major distinctionbetween plantations in boreal forests and thoseof the temperate or tropical biomes is that, inthe boreal biome, there is minimal planting ofexotic species and the plantation forestsmaintain much of the biodiversity thatoriginally occurred at the site. Perhaps the major


26

impact of plantation forestry in the boreal biomeresults from harvesting the stands before theydevelop old forest characteristics, such as cavitytrees and fallen woody debris. These plantedforests are not included in the FAO statistics onplantation forests (FAO, 2001), primarilybecause they cannot be distinguished fromnatural forest through remote sensing.

Temperate forests


59. The temperate forest biome, located in themid-latitudes, occupies a climatic zone withpronounced variations in seasonal temperatures,characterised by distinct winter and summerseasons, but with a daily mean temperature over10°C for more than 120 days (Walter, 1979).This biome occurs primarily in the northernhemisphere, while in the southern hemisphere, itis limited to the southern part of the Andes inChile and in portions of New Zealand, SouthAfrica and southeast Australia. Temperate forestsare dominated by deciduous tree species and,to a lesser extent, evergreen broad-leaf andneedle-leaf species (Melillo et al., 1993). Morethan 50% of the original temperate forest coverhas been converted to agriculture (Matthews,1983). Unfortunately, most forest statisticsdo not distinguish between natural forest,secondary forest and plantations. Occurrence oftemperate forests is highly concentrated in theRussian Federation, Canada and the UnitedStates, which together have over 70% of the total,with the Russian Federation alone holding over41% of the world’s temperate forests. However,from an ecological perspective, some of thesmaller temperate forest areas are critical sourcesof biological diversity, including, for example,those in parts of Europe, Australia, SouthAmerica, the remnant temperate forests of SouthAfrica and geographically isolated and highlyendemic natural forests of New Zealand.60. In Europe, temperate forests extend oversome 160 million ha, which represents slightly

less than half of the original forest cover. In west-ern Europe, it is estimated that the extent ofremaining old growth and semi-natural forest isonly 0.8% of the original forest cover (Matthews,1983). Eastern Europe has more old growthforest than in the west (Ryzkowski et al., 1999).In the United States, less than 2% of the originaltemperate forests remain, although proportionsvary regionally. For example, the states ofWashington and Oregon have 13% oldgrowth temperate forests remaining. In BritishColumbia, Canada, almost 40% of the originalnatural forests remain, although some of theseare subject to intensive forest management(Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, 2000).New Zealand retains less than 24% of its of itsnative forests (Clout and Gaze, 1984) and inAustralia, the amount of the original temperateforest varies from 5-20%. In some temperateareas of developing countries, there is a net lossof forest cover; Chile, for example, loses about20,000 ha/year (FAO, 2001).61. The annual productivity of natural northerntemperate forests is about 900 to 1000 g/m2, but1000 to-1400 g/m2 in old southern temperateforests of North America (Lieth and Whitaker,1975). However, there is obviously a largevariation associated with these figuresdepending on site, elevation, type and age offorest.62. Mediterranean forests constitute a distinctsub-zone of the temperate biome and occurbetween 30 and 40 degrees latitude on the westand south-west coasts of the continents. Theirclimate is characterized by hot, dry summer andmild, moist winters. The Mediterranean sub-zone in the Americas occupies coastal Californiain the United States and the coastal region ofChile. In Africa, similar forests extend aroundthe Cape of Good Hope; and also occur in thesouthern part of Australia. However, the largestMediterranean sub-zone is located around theMediterranean Sea and includes the southernpart of Europe, the south-west part of Asiaand the north coast of Africa. In Europe, the


27

of south-west part of Asia and the north coast ofAfrica. In Europe, the Mediterranean sub-zonehas been the cradle of several civilisations,one replacing another over centuries, andthis has resulted in a long history ofextensive environmental change as a resultof economic, cultural and social activities. Thearea surrounding the Mediterranean Sea wasoriginally covered with forests of Cedrus libani,Quercus ilex, Quercus cerris, Arbutus unedo, Pinushalepensis and, Pinus nigra, but theMediterranean hillsides were transformedhundreds of years ago into terraces offruit orchards, gardens, olive tree and fig treeplantations, as well as human settlements. Areasthat have escaped cultivation are covered withshrubs and bushes, resulting in Maccia (maquis),a woody secondary vegetation cover (Ovington,1983). Few areas of original forest remain, and inparticular the formerly important forest areas ofTurkey, Greece, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, and Syriahave been decimated by many centuries ofhuman exploitation.

Species diversity 6

63. More than 1200 tree species are representedin the temperate biome (Ovington, 1983;Schulze et al., 1996). Globally, temperatedeciduous forests maintain a large variation inspecies richness, resulting largely from climateand differences in geological history. During theTertiary period (3 million+ years ago), the threedeciduous forest regions of the northernhemisphere are thought to have had a fairlyuniform tree flora. Europe and North Americawere still closely related floristically and therewere also many common species in Europe andAsia (Walter and Straka, 1970). However, duringthe Pleistocene glaciation, the east to westorientation of mountain systems, such asthe Alps, the Caucasus and the Himalayas,apparently formed a barrier, resulting in theEuro-Siberian flora being reduced as many

species could not survive the cold in varioussmall refugia. However, in North America, themountain chains are oriented north to south,enabling easy migration, so most speciessurvived the glacial periods in southernlocations (Ritchie, 1987). The highest temperatespecies post-glacial survival, and hence currentdiversity, is in Asia (Ohsawa, 1995), with fourtimes the number of tree species there than inNorth America (Huntley, 1993).64. East Asia’s forests are very rich in woodyplant species, with almost 900 trees and shrubs.That is almost six times greater than inNorth America, where the second most diversetemperate forests occur. The temperate forests ofEurope are more impoverished, with just 106tree species and significantly fewer families andgenera than in North America. The southernhemisphere generally has even fewer species thanEurope (except for Australia with its highdiversity of Eucalyptus and Acacia species), butthere is a high endemism with most speciesbelonging to different families from those foundin the northern hemisphere, suggesting majordifferences in evolutionary history. Transitionzones between tropical and temperate forestbiomes, are comparatively species rich. Theseoccur, for example in Japan and the southernUnited States, where temperate lowland forestsmerge with subtropical evergreen broad-leafforests. In southern Canada, the maximumtree species richness in temperate forests isapproximately 60 species, but by mid-latitudesin the eastern United States, the same biomecontains over 100 tree species, illustrating thegeneral latitudinal relationship of speciesdiversity, i.e. diversity increasing towards theequator (Stevens, 1989).65. Temperate forests tend to support theirlargest variety of species on nutrient-rich soils,and species richness also seems to be greater onalkaline and neutral soils than on acid soils(SCOPE, 1996). Local species richness in many

6. Much of the discussion of temperate forests is taken from Ovington (1983) and Schulze et al. (1996) and these serve as references for allstatements.


28

of these forests is highly variable, ranging frommonocultures to multi-species forests. In manyareas of the temperate biome, large stands ofdeciduous forests may be composed of a singletree species. For instance, Fagus sylvaticadominates deciduous forests in Europe, F.orientalis forms nearly pure stands in themontane region of the Caucasus, and F. crenatais predominant in pure stands in the wetterregions of Japan. In Europe, on calcareous soilswith high water tables, Quercus and Carpinusbecome dominant rather than Fagus. In NorthAmerica, Fagus rarely dominates forests, butpure stands of Betula and Populus are common,as is the case in Siberia and northern Japan.Nothofagus occurs in monocultures in NewZealand and South America. Quercus and Pinusare global species found in most northernhemisphere temperate forests. In Australia,forests are dominated by the extremely diversegenus Eucalyptus with more than 70 species in 16forest types (Ovington and Pryor, 1983) whereasQuercus is absent. Although alpha-diversity(patch-scale or within-site diversity) may be low,beta-diversity (regional or among-site diversity)in the temperate biome forests can be quite high.66. In North America, an important temperateconiferous forest belt occurs along most of thewest coast from Alaska southwards to northernCalifornia. The forests lie on the windward sideof the coastal mountain chain, which runsthe length of the continent. These forests,collectively referred to as temperate rainforests,exhibit a high level of biological diversity with alarge number of endemic plants and animals(Ruggiero et al., 1991). They are characterized byseveral long-lived tree species (>1000 years) andcontain the tallest trees in the world (to 95 m),including: Sequoia sempervirens, Sequoia gigantea,Pseudotsuga menziesii, Picea sitchensis, Tsuga heterophylla, Thuja plicata and Chamaecyparisnootkatensis (Maser, 1990). The management ofthe temperate rainforests forests has generatedmore controversy than that of any of the other

North American forest types because of theirspecies diversity, complex functioning and theparticularly majestic characteristics of the old-growth trees, which can exist for many centuriesin a gap-phase dynamic condition (Maser 1990).67. As with boreal forests, the fauna of temperateforests, especially the birds and mammals, canhave a wide distribution and even extend toother biomes. For example, Neotropical migrantbirds of North America, numbering about 250species, make the annual trip from the tropics tothe temperate regions, and changes in the extentand condition of either forest biome can affectthe populations of these birds in bothcontinents. Survival of these birds is importantbecause smaller numbers may allow defoliatinginsects to reach epidemic proportions morefrequently and this further endangers thesurvival of some species (UNEP, 1995). Not alltemperate forests host fauna with such a widedistribution. In the forests of southern SouthAmerica, Southeast Asia, Australia and NewZealand, there are many endemic species ofmammals and birds that are highly localized.68. More animal species have become extinct inthe past 1000 years, or have had their rangeand population substantially reduced, in thetemperate forest biome than in the other biomes(Hilton-Taylor, 2000). Falling particularly intothis category are the large ungulates includingextinct aurochs (Bos taurus) and tarpan (Equusgmelini silvaticus), endangered bison (Bisonbonasus) and declining fallow-deer (Cervusdama) and moufflon (Ovis musimon) in easternEurope. The general reduction of forest cover,combined with hunting and/or trapping, hascaused the reductions of many large carnivoressuch as the brown bear (Ursus arctos), lynx (Felis spp.), cougar (Puma spp.), glutton orwolverine (Gulo gulo) and wolf (Canis spp.)(Hilton-Taylor, 2000; Pimm et al., 1995). Withinthe past 200 years in North America, thepassenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius),


29

Carolina parakeet (Cornuropsis carolinensis),ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilusprincipalis), Bachman’s warbler (Vermivorabachmanii) and the eastern cougar (Pumaconcolor) have become extinct (Pimm et al.,1995). The USA has the highest number ofthreatened species as listed by IUCN (2000)at 997 species, with most of these occurring intemperate ecosystems.

Plantations in the temperate biome

69. Plantations make up 5% of the world’sforests (FAO, 2001), though only 3% whenconsidering commercial plantations. Accordingto the FAO Forest Resource Assessment (FAO,2000), forest plantations cover 187 million ha, ofwhich those in Asia account for 62%. The largestareas under plantation are found in China (24%)and India (17%). The current area of forest plan-tation has increased significantly compared tothe 1995 estimate of 124 million ha. The newannual planting rate is 4.5 million ha globally,with Asia and South America accounting for89% of that amount. Broad leaf species accountfor 40% of global forest plantation resources,conifers 31% and not specified 29%. Globally,48% of the forest plantation estate is for indus-trial end-use, 26% for non-industrial end-use(fuelwood, soil and water conservation, etc.) and26% is for unspecified use. Forest plantationownership is 27% public, 24% private, 20%other and 29% not specified (Carle et al., 2001).70. Plantations are often locally and regionallyimportant in influencing floral and faunalrichness (Peterken et al., 1992). The recentdramatic increase in the area occupied by forestplantations will have an increasingly importantlong-term negative effect on biodiversity. Inmany areas of the temperate biome, humanactivities have considerably influenced foreststands and landscape structure. This is especiallytrue for countries of Europe and Asia, with theirlong history of habitation, where human use offorests has reduced diversity and many standsmay now have fewer than 10 species of trees and

shrubs. Conversion of broad-leaf forests intoconiferous plantations began in Europe more120 years ago and is still common today. Forexample, the forest cover of Germany haschanged from what was formerly more than 90%broad-leaf forest (mostly Fagus sylvatica), intoabout 80% coniferous plantations (largelyPicea abies). In a similar manner, much mixeddeciduous forest in Japan has been convertedinto Cryptomeria japonica plantations in thesouth of the country and into Abies and Piceaplantations in the north. Large areas of naturalNothofagus forests in Chile have been replaced byplantations of Pinus radiata, and the practicecontinues today (Gajardo, 1994). In NewZealand, planted forests of Pinus radiata werefirst established during the first decades of the20th Century. Production from these plantedforests has largely replaced that from podocarps,hardwood and beech (Nothofagus) naturalforests enabling conservation of these naturalforests. In North America, mixed forests wereoften converted into Pinus taeda plantations inthe south, and P. banksiana and/or P. resinosain southern Canada and the northeastern USA.In Europe, large areas of native temperate forestshave been replaced by plantations of introducedtree species, such as Pseudotsuga menziesii, Piceasitchensis, and Pinus contorta. Many newplantations in European countries areestablished by planting species from non-localprovenances to enhance wood productivity,thereby affecting local gene diversity (Rykowskiet al., 1999).71. The potential for forest plantations topartially meet demand from natural forests forwood and fibre for industrial uses is increasing.Although accounting for only 5% of globalforest cover, forest plantations were estimated, inthe year 2000, to supply about 35% of globalroundwood, with an anticipated increase to 44%by 2020. In some countries, production fromforest plantation already provides the majorityof industrial wood supply.


30

Tropical forests


72. In the tropical forest biome, three majorregions are recognized: American, African andIndo-Malaysian-Australian (Whitmore, 1984,1990). Tropical forests may be broadly classifiedas moist or dry, and further subdivided intorainforest (some 66% of the total tropical moistforests), cloud forest, evergreen seasonal forest,dry evergreen seasonal forest, semi-evergreentropical forest, moist deciduous forest (monsoonforest), dry deciduous forest, and mangrove.Rainforests occur in Central and South America,Africa, the Indo-Malayan region and inQueensland, Australia. Where several drymonths (60 mm rainfall or less) occur regularlyin the tropics, monsoon or seasonal forestsdevelop. Both rain and monsoon/seasonalforests (closed forests) have together beentermed ‘tropical moist forest’ (Sommer, 1976).Cloud forests situated at middle to high altitudesderive a significant part of their water supplyfrom cloud and fog, and hence these support arich abundance of vascular and nonvascularepiphytes. The evergreen seasonal forests arefound in regions where every month is wet (100mm rainfall or more) and in areas with onlyshort dry periods (Whitmore, 1990). Drytropical rainforests were originally described bySchimper (1903) as ‘evergreen, hygrophilousin character, at least 30 m high, rich inthick-stemmed llianas, and in woody as well asherbaceous epiphytes.’ Mangroves are thecharacteristic littoral formations of tropical and

subtropical sheltered coastlines, they have beenvariously described as ‘coastal woodland’, ‘tidalforest’ and ‘mangrove forest’.73. Basing his work on previous classifications,Whitmore (1990) has, for convenience, groupedthe formations within the tropical rainforestaccording to the main physical characteristicsof their habitats, noting that the naming ofvegetation types is always problematic. In thisarbitrary arrangement, the first division isbetween climates with a dry season and thosethat are perhumid (for moist forest), the seconddivision (for the rainforest) is a crude measure ofsoil water availability and distinguishes swampfrom drier land forests. The third division isbased on soils and, within dryland forests,distinguishes those on parent materials withatypical properties – peat, quartz sand,limestone, and ultrabasic rocks – from thewidespread ‘zonal’ soils, mainly ultisols andoxisols. Finally there is a division of the forestson zonal soils by altitude. In the Indo-Malaysianregion the tropical rainforest lies as a belt ofevergreen vegetation extending through theMalay Archipelago from Sumatra in the west toNew Guinea in the east (Whitmore, 1984). Thisis the non-seasonal humid zone of the SoutheastAsian dipterocarp forests. Patches of rainforest,or outliers, are found in southern Thailand, inSri Lanka, India, northern Queensland inAustralia and on the Melanesian islands of thePacific. Box 3 describes the tropical forest typesin Malaysia, as an illustrative example of thecomplexity of tropical forests in general.


31

Box 3. The rainforest types of Malaysia (adapted from Symington 1943 and Wyatt-Smith 1964)

Malaysia’s forests have been categorised into types that have been influenced by either climatic or edaphic factors.Climatic climax forest types traverse an altitudinal gradient, whereas the edaphic forest types are found in thelowlands.

The lowland, hill and upper dipterocarp forests are stratified into three storeys of trees. The Dipterocarpaceae isthe main tree family in the forests of Southeast Asia and forms a high proportion of the upper strata of theforest. At least three-quarters of the forests of Southeast Asia are dipterocarp forests, and in Malaysia, they formover 86% of the forested areas. Dipterocarps do not grow at higher altitudes so are not found in the montane oakforest, which consists of two storeys of trees, or the ericaceous forest, which has a single storey of trees. Themontane subalpine vegetation is low shrub vegetation on mountain peaks. The edaphic climax forest includes thelow-lying swamp forests and forests on sites with extreme drainage and deficiency in available moisture due toviolent winds. In Malaysia, swamp forests, including mangroves, form over 12% of the forested land.

Significant conversion of lowland forests to other land use began with the increase in tin mining activities inthe western parts of Peninsular Malaysia in the middle of the nineteenth century and the beginning of rubber(Hevea brasiliensis) plantations at the start of the twentieth century and, later, the cultivation of oil palm (Elaeisguineensis), which was planted when rubber prices dropped sharply in the world markets in the 1960s. Forestconversion to cash crop agriculture, mainly oil palm, intensified from 1971 to 1990. Over the period 1970 to 1989,forested land in the whole of Malaysia was reduced by 23 per cent (Manokaran 1992). Almost all the forestscleared were lowland forests, the largest reservoir of genetic variation of the dipterocarps and a major storehouseof biological diversity. Species richness in these forests is exemplified by the results of enumeration of woody treesof 1 cm dbh and greater in a 50-ha plot in Pasoh in Peninsular Malaysia. A total of 820 species in 294genera and 78 families were recorded, this being almost one third of the total number of tree species found inPeninsular Malaysia, indicating that small areas can include a surprising large percentage of a region’s woodyplant flora (Kochummen et al., 1990).

Climatic climax forest

Lowland dipterocarp forestHill dipterocarp forestUpper dipterocarp forestMontane oak forestLower ericaceous forestMontane subalpine vegetation

Edaphic climax forest

Heath forest Forest over limestoneForest over ultramafic outcropsBeach stand vegetationMangrove forestBrackish-water forestPeat swamp forestFresh water swamp forestSeasonal swamp forest

7. Not all Bromeliaceae are epiphytes; Cactaceae, Rubiaceae and Asclepiadaceae are not primarily epiphytes.


32

Species diversity

74. Where seasonality of rainfall occurs, itproduces a strong temporal effect on primaryproduction (Orians et al., 1996). Productivityvaries considerably among the primary tropicalforest types; Lieth and Whitaker (1975) andMurphy (1975) provide the following data:tropical rainforest: 1800-3210 g/m2; cloudforest: 2400 g/m2; dry deciduous and mixedtropical forests: 1040-1230 g/m2; for seasonalforest, a single estimate of 1340 g/m2 from westAfrica, and for mangroves: 930 g/m2 from theCaribbean and 1000 g/m2 at 10 to 25 years ofage at Matang, in Peninsular Malaysia. Therainforest data show a primary productivity 2-4times greater than that recorded in borealforests, and correlate broadly to a generallatitudinal reduction in diversity of plants andanimals north from the tropical forest biome.75. Tropical forests are the most species rich anddiverse forests on earth, estimated to contain atleast 50% of all plant and animal species (Myers1986). This is especially true for wet tropicalforests, where, for example, some 700 treespecies have been recorded in 10 selected1-hectare plots in Borneo (UNEP, 1995).Estimated number of tree species in the tropicsranges from 17,000 in Africa (Hamilton, 1989)to more than 30,000 in central America (Prance,1989). However, within tropical moist forests,species richness varies greatly by region andsome tropical moist forests actually haverelatively low tree species diversity. In theAmazon Basin, for example, less than 90 treespecies per hectare have been recorded in theeastern portions compared with nearly 300species/ha in the western areas (WCMC 1992).Mangrove forests have relatively low terrestrialspecies richness, with counts in some river deltasof only about 30 species (IUCN, 2000), althoughthe aquatic life they support is diverse andabundant. African rainforests have fewer plantspecies than other tropical regions (by about20%), with several pantropical genera and

families (e.g., Lauraceae, Myrtaceae and Palmae)being either absent or poorly represented(Jacobs 1981). Lianas and epiphytes are also lessabundant in African rainforests compared to inother tropical regions (Jacobs, 1981).76. Few tropical genera are pantropical andendemism is much higher in this biome than inthe temperate or boreal forest biomes (UNEP,1995). For example, in fourteen areas withexceptionally high species richness in the tropics,on about 300,000 km2., more than 37,000 plantspecies can be found (Myers, 1990). Tree speciesrichness declines as altitude increases and asclimate becomes more seasonal (Orians et al.,1996). The mixture of many tree species, withfew individuals of each, in a given forest area is akey feature of tropical forests and one whichdistinguishes them from forests in the boreal andtemperate biomes. This feature is significantlyrelated to a predominance of dioecious speciesand to a seed dispersal relationship with animalsin the tropics, compared to boreal and temperateforests where wind is often the medium of seeddispersal (Orians et al., 1996). Low density ofindividual species has particular consequenceswith respect to the necessity for large areas forpreserving populations (Gentry, 1992). Wheretropical forests with single dominants do occur(usually dry forest), there are no correspondingspecies among the regions. In the Americas,Eperua and Mora dominate such tropical forests,in Africa, Gilbertiodendron is a commondominant, dipterocarps dominate in areas ofSoutheast Asia, in Indo-Malaysia, Agathis issometimes dominant, while in tropical Australia,Eucalyptus is the dominant genus in low-richness stands (Whitmore, 1990).77. In rainforests, epiphytes, although commonto all regions, are highly distinct and certainfamilies predominate (Gentry, 1992) such as:Orchidacae in Africa; Orchidacae, Bromiliaceaeand Cactacae in the Americas; and Orchidacae,Asclepiadaceae and Rubiaceae7. inIndo-Malaysia: Lianas are another important


33

component of the structure of tropicalrainforests, absent from the other biomes. Theymake up 8% of the species (in Borneo 150genera exist) and are indicators of anundisturbed state of forests (Jacobs, 1981).78. Twelve genera and some 470 species of thefamily Dipterocarpaceae are found in therainforests of the Indo-Malayan region, rangingfrom the Seychelles through Sri Lanka to thesouth of Peninsular India, east to India,Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Indo-China, tocontinental South China (Yunnan, Kwangsi,South Kwangtung, Hainan) and throughMelanesia (natural botanical kingdom compris-ing Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra, Java, LesserSunda Islands, Borneo, the Phillippines, Celebes,the Moluccas, New Guinea and the Solomons)(Ashton, 1982). With the exception perhaps ofNew Guinea and the eastern part of the region,the tropical rainforests of the Indo-Malasianregion are characterised by family dominance ofthe Dipterocarpaceae (See Box 3).79. Tropical dry forests generally host a lowerspecies richness, with fewer endemics thantropical moist forests, although still significantlyhigher than in temperate forests. The richest dryforests, found in northeast Mexico and southeastBolivia, have an average of 90 tree species perhectare (WCMC 1992). Dry forests are moresimilar in species richness to their moistcounterparts in terms of mammal and insectspecies. Tropical dry forests are noted for theirhighly endemic mammal populations, especiallyinsectivores and rodents.80. An important feature of cloud forests andsome other montane forests lies in their highspecies richness of epiphytes, shrubs, herbs,llianas, and ferns (Gentry, 1992). These speciesincrease with altitude in the humid tropicswhereas in the warmer, lowland tropical foresttypes, they tend to be less frequent. In addition,cloud forests often contain high numbers of rareendemic plant and animal species or subspecies,such as the mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorillaberingei) in Central/East Africa, and the quetzal

(Pharamachrus mocinno) of Central America(IUCN, 1995). The percentage of endemicspecies is even higher in cloud forests on islandmountains, such as those in Hawaii and in theFrench overseas territories of Reunion Islandand New Caledonia.81. Mangroves may form very extensive andproductive forests. Throughout the tropics, thereare about 60 species of trees and shrubs that areexclusive to the mangrove habitat, the importantgenera being Avicennia, Bruguiera, Rhizophora,Sonneratia and Xylocarpus. There are alsoimportant, non-exclusive species associated withthe mangroves, including the fern Acrostichumspp., and trees such as Barringtonia racemosa,Hibiscus spp. and Thespesia species.82. High species richness in the tropical biomemay be the result of the large range of availablemicrohabitats and niches, the absence ofmountain systems or their north-southorientation permitting ease of migration and alengthy period without major disturbance(e.g. glaciation) (UNEP, 1995). Terborgh (1986,1989) reported that many avian guilds wereabundant in the tropics but entirely absent intemperate or boreal biomes including: terrestrialfrugivores, dead leaf gleaners, army antfollowers, and many of the frugivores. Highproductivity is sustained annually, as opposed toseasonally, in many tropical areas which allowsmultiple breedings and results in less movementaway from home ranges to avoid seasonality(Margalef, 1968). Further, in places such asMadagascar and the large number of tropicalisland habitats of Southeast Asia and theCaribbean, a high level of endemism is foundbecause of their isolation (Margalef, 1968).83. An important aspect in tropical forests,differing from boreal and temperate forests is thehigh degree of dioeciousness among trees.The coevolution of tree reproduction withpollinators and seed-dispersing organisms is animportant and crucial functional linkage intropical forests. Elimination of certain treespecies through selective logging can lead to


34

losses in animal species closely or obligately tiedto the trees (e.g., Terborgh 1989).84. The forests of South America and Asiamaintain very high animal species richnesscompared to the African tropical forests (UNEP,1995). The rivers of the Amazon Basin host themost diverse fish population in the world andthe insect populations present in its canopy alsohave high species richness (WCMC, 1999).Wilson (1992) recorded 43 species of ants,belonging to 26 genera, on a single tree in Peru,about the same number of species as the entireant fauna of the British Isles. It is not unusual fora square kilometre of forest in Central or SouthAmerica to contain several hundred species ofbirds and many thousands of species of butter-flies, beetles and other insects (Wilson, 1992).Stattersfield et al. (1998) noted that, of the totalworld forest avifauna, 88% are endemic to trop-ical forests, and of those, more than half arefound in wet forest types.85. Large numbers of species are endangered intropical areas, despite incomplete taxonomy. TheIUCN (2000) Red List reports thatthe majority of threatened species are fromtropical areas, and that high levels of speciesendangerment occurs in southeast Asia(Malayasia 805 species, Indonesia 763 species,Philippines 387 species). Further, other smalltropical states have high proportions of theirspecies endangered, for example: Cuba (206species), Jamaica (240 species), Madagscar (302species), and Papua/NewGuinea (265 species).High numbers of endangered species are listed

for some countries with large areas of tropicalforest including Brazil (608 species) and Mexico(418 species).86. In summary, rainforests of the tropicsmaintain a greater level of endemism,interdependence, species richness, symbiosis,and mutualism than in any other forest types.These forests are the most complex andproductive of all Earth's terrestrial ecosystems.

Plantations in the tropical biome

87. In the tropical forest biome, plantations havebeen reported to be successful in terms of rapidgrowth due to favourable conditions, a fact thathas motivated the adoption of plantations as away to improve local forest productivity. Giventhe high biodiversity present in tropicalecosystems, plantations are particularlyvulnerable to diseases and pests, especially whenexotic species are involved. In spite of this,plantations have been promoted as manufac-tures have been increasingly acceptingplantation wood fibre, especially Eucalyptus. As aresult, a great number of large pulpwoodplantations have been established in Indonesia,South Africa and Chile and the area ofplantations is still increasing in other countriessuch as Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Uruguay,Paraguay, Argentina, Venezuela, Colombia,Mexico, Congo and Swaziland (WRM, 1999). In1990, however, only 2% of all tropical forestswere plantations (FAO 1999), with more than75% of these (32.3 million ha) in Asia.


35

A. INTRODUCTION

88. The following section outlines the availableglobal information on the issue of forestbiodiversity (FBD) loss. It is difficult to deal withthe complex issue of FBD loss in acompletely quantitative manner because of theproblems associated wit assessment at all of itslevels. For example, there is a vast numberof undescribed tropical tree taxa and forestinvertebrates, and only a limited number ofstudies of genetic variation and processes amongforest species. Often, there is a lack of thebaseline data necessary to assess long-termtrends in forest biological diversity, and muchmore information is needed about biologicalimpacts of fragmentation, time delays overwhich organisms react to changes in theirenvironments and the impacts of FBD loss,especially in terms of species loss, to themaintenance of goods and services in variousforest ecosystems. Nevertheless, governments,intergovernmental and non-governmentalorganizations (IGOs, and NGOs) have compiledan impressive array of statistics and measures ofindicators and correlates of biodiversity andthese various indicators help to provide a clearerpicture of how forest biodiversity is changing.Further, the application of remote sensing tochanges in forest cover and forest types hasenabled both a retrospective assessment ofchange, as well as a rapid coarse inventory offorests by country and regions. Our capacity tojudge change (and loss) of FBD is far greatertoday than was the case even a decade ago.

B. FOREST COVER

89. Given that the maintenance of FBD is closelycorrelated with the area of forest cover, then theFAO global assessment of forest cover (FRA,2000)8 provides a useful general indicator of thechange in FBD. The FAO figures, however, donot distinguish between primary and secondaryforests (see Annex l for definitions), nor do theyfully distinguish plantation forests from naturalforests, and so those data provide only aconservative index of rates of forest change.However, forest extent is a basic measure ofcondition: if global forest cover shrinks,provision of goods and services from forestecosystems will be reduced (Matthews et al.,2000). According to the FAO global assessmentof forest cover (FRA, 2001), the overall decline inforest cover during the period 1990 to 1995 was0.3% per annum and 0.22% per annum between1990 and 2000. Between 1990 and 1995, the totalarea of forests decreased by 56.3 million hectares– the result of a loss of 65.1 million ha indeveloping countries but with an increase of 8.8million ha in developed countries. The highestrates of forest loss were recorded in the mostbiologically diverse moist and wet/dry tropicalforests, e.g. western Africa (-1.0%), tropical Asia(-1.1%), Central America and Mexico (-1.2%)and tropical South America (-0.6%). Suchdeclines in forest cover have been accompaniedby the loss of particular forest associations,extinctions or endangerment of plant andanimal species and the loss of unique, locallyadapted populations. The disappearance or gross

2. TRENDS IN FOREST BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

8. Forest Resources Assessment (FRA, 2000), managed by FAO Forestry Department, reports information on the extent and condition offorests for the entire world using several sources, including existing forest inventory data. Inventory data are being standardized to a commonclassification system and reference year, viz. 2000, in order to make the figures comparable between countries. This work was carried out in closeco-operation with the respective countries. As part of FRA 2000, FAO and appropriate regional institutions also used satellite remote sensing tostudy changes in forest cover. By interpreting a global, multi-date, objectively selected sample of about 10,000 satellite images conclusions weredrawn as to the type and degree of changes in the world's forest cover over the last two decades. These studies constitute the primary sourceof information on the rate of deforestation, forest fragmentation and land degradation, including statistically significant information at thesubregional (ecological zone) level, and provide insights into the causes of forest loss. The results of FRA 2000, including country profiles,synthesis reports and global maps, is available on the FAO Web Site and as printed reports (in press). Country profiles provide a comprehensivepresentation of forest resources, including a general description of geography and the ecological setting; forest status in terms of coverage,volume and biomass, protection status and other parameters; an assessment of trends; and the sources and baseline data used. FRA 2000 reportssynthesize regional and global overviews of forest status, including results from the remote sensing survey and the special studies. New globalmaps, with a resolution of 1 km, are presented for show forest cover, ecological zones and deforestation risks.


36

reduction in given forest types and ecosystems,or the extinction of a single tropical tree speciesis likely to be accompanied by the loss ofseveral to many obligatory associated species ofarthropods, especially beetles, and microflora(Gentry 1992). Depending on the methodsemployed and associated assumptions andextrapolations, the estimated global rates ofspecies loss in all groups range from 1 to 9% perdecade (Raven, 1988; Wilson, 1988; Reid, 1992).During the 20th Century, many regions sufferedmajor deforestation and irreversible loss of FBD,e.g. 95% of tropical, dry forests in CentralAmerica have been converted to agriculture,often to support cattle production (Janzen,1988).90. The rate of forest decline, particularly in thepast two decades, is alarming. Although there areindications that the rate of deforestation indeveloping countries is marginally decreasing,this trend probably does not suggest any greateremphasis towards conservation. Between1990-2000, the annual estimated loss of forestcover (deforestation plus exotic plantation) of13.7 million ha per year was slightly down fromthe previous decade (1980-1990) when annualestimated loss of forest cover was 15.5 million haper year. However, the average rate reported forthe 1990s was more than 16 million ha/year(FAO, 2001), of which almost 95% was in thetropics (15.2 million ha annually), indicatingthat the rate has increased in the past five yearsand between 1990 and 2000, the area of globalforests decreased by nearly 94 million ha,(-0.78% annually in Africa, -0.07% in Asia,-0.18% in Oceania, +0.08% in Europe, -0.12% inNorth an. This loss is not wholly compensatedby regrowth of natural forests or plantations, butadding those values to area logged and clearedyields a net annual loss of 9.4 million haof forests. The rate of deforestation variesconsiderably among and within regions: forexample rapid clearing of lowland forests inSumatra is likely to lead to almost completeremoval of primary forests within the next 5

years (Jepson et al. 2001). d Central America and–0.41% in South America (FAO, 2001). Theoverall picture is one in which deforestation isproceeding at excessively high levels that willcontinue to result in major losses of FBD.

C. FOREST QUALITY

91. While forest cover is a good general surrogatefor FBD, it does not indicate structural changesin forest stands and ecosystems or changes inthe plant species assemblages including, forexample, plantations of introduced species.There is a need for research to expand theapplication of remote sensing methods to assesschanges in tree species composition (at leastchange in forest types), stand structure, ageclasses, etc. The recent TBFRA (Temperate andBoreal Forest Resources Assessment) report(UN-ECE and FAO, 2000c) includes traditionaldata on area of forest and other wooded areasand wood supply, as well as data on carbonsequestration, biological diversity andenvironmental protection, forest conditionand damage and protective and socio-economicfunctions. This kind of additional informationprovides improved potential to assess changesin forest ecosystems, and hence improvedpredictive capacity for change in FBD.92. The area of forest plantations increased by anaverage of 3.1 million ha per year during the1990s, with half of this increase (1.6 million ha)resulting from afforestation, while the other half(1.5 million ha) resulted from conversion ofnatural forest (FAO, 2001). Global planted forestarea has been estimated to be almost 187 millionha (FAO, 2001). During 1990-2000, Asiamaintained 62% of the total plantation area,Europe 17%, and North and Central America at9%. The quality of plantation forests in terms ofmaintaining biodiversity is often much reducedcompared to primary forests, especially in thetropics where natural forests are converted torapidly growing commercial trees, which areoften exotic species (e.g., LaMonthe 1980,Estades and Temple 1999).


37

93. According to the TBFRA report (UN/ECEand FAO, 2000), 55% of forests in the temperateand boreal regions combined was recognizedas largely primary (natural in the report andundisturbed by man), 41% as secondary (termedsemi-natural in that report) and 4% asplantations. Figures for other wooded lands,such as tundra woodland, shrublands andsavannahs were 39%, and 61%, primary andsecondary, respectively. In both categories thehigh percentage values of natural areas were dueto the vast boreal areas of the Russian Federationand Canada. However, the high values are dueto the ways in which these two countriesdistinguish between natural and disturbed areas.If relative naturalness is analysed outside theRussian Federation and Canada, the figure forprimary forests “undisturbed by man” drops tojust 7% of the total boreal and temperate forestarea.94. Bryant et al. (1997) reported that of theworld’s remaining primary forests 48% areboreal, 44% tropical, and only 3% are temperate;(5% contain both temperate and either boreal ortropical forest). Due to their favourable climate,fertile soils and good access, temperate forestswere the first to be cleared by humans and theremaining primary stands represent areas thatshould likely be fully protected.95. In tropical regions, a considerable portion ofexisting forests can still be classified as primary,although there are great regional differences(Bryant et al., 1997). In Asia and Africa, althoughroughly a third of the original forest coverremains, less than 10% of this original cover stillqualifies as primary forest. Bryant et al. (1997)also estimated that outside of boreal forests,about 75% of the world’s primary forest isthreatened. Matthews et al. (2000) analysed theworld’s forests by using three forms of humanactivities that are known to be good indicators ofenvironmental change: the spread of‘transition zones’ (agriculture practiced at themargin of intact forest), road construction andthe use of fire to clear forests. Their results were

similar to those of the earlier studies ofharvested forests, showing increased rates ofharvest in both in primary forests and insecondary forests. There is a slow but steadyincrease in the amount of harvesting operationsoccurring in secondary forests (FAO 1995). Thissuggests large-scale forest quality changes in allkinds of forests, and consequently fewer foreststands regenerating naturally after cuttingactivities and other human caused disturbances,as well as fewer stands attaining the oldest ageclasses.96. In tropical areas, many lands originallycleared for cattle ranching and cultivation areabandoned for many reasons including soildegradation, poor markets for goods, and otherdifficulties associated with farming in tropicalareas. Management of these secondary forestareas has become important as countriesattempt to recover some of their forests (Brownand Lugo, 1990, Finegan, 1992). Models for trop-ical forest succession are incomplete, but succes-sion is strongly related to the presenceof existing forests as seed sources(Faber-Langedoen, 1992, Finegan, 1996).However, it appears that re-development oforiginal forest types is severely constrained byinvasion and occupation of cleared lands byearly successional plant and tree species(LaCoste, 1991, Finegan, 1996). Tropicalforest recovery and its management requires asubstantial increase in research to enhance bothunderstanding and success (Ramos and delAmo, 1992, Otsamo, 2000, Koskelo et al., 2000.).Even more problematic is recovery of biologicaldiversity normally associated with local forestareas. Degradation of tropical forests leadsto chains of decline in species richness, andbiodiversity, owing to high levels of mutualismand endemism in tropical forests (e.g.,Frumhoff, 1995). Lack of nearby natural forestsmeans no source populations for key species andrelated processes.97. Use of, and change in, forest resources isa serious concern to maintaining biological


38

diversity and proper functioning of forestecosystems. Human disturbance of foresthabitats through logging and road access canaffect species diversity through habitat loss,fragmentation effects and hunting, unless asound sustainable use programme is in place.Habitat loss is one of the three most importantcauses of species extinctions locally and globallyin forest habitats (WCMC, 1992). There isa strong relationship between the extent ofdeforestation and the level of species extinctionsand endangerment (Pimm et al. 1995). Skole andTucker (1993) suggested severe deforestation willcontinue to occur in several areas of the worldover the next 20 years, such as in the AmazonBasin where more than 40% of the forest willbe cleared for development. This rate ofdeforestation will clearly have far-reachingeffects on biological diversity. Even insupposedly well-managed forests, whereextinctions have been few, most evidence to datesuggests that there is a lack of convergencebetween original animal and plant communitiesand those in the regenerating secondary forests(Carleton and MacLellan, 1994; Thompson etal., 1999; Lomolino and Perault, 2000).98. Riitters et al. (2000) studied global-scalepatterns of forest fragmentation based on 1 kmresolution land-cover maps. They found thatwhen anthropogenic causes of fragmentation areconsidered, forests are more likely to bedisturbed where the climate is hospitable, soil isproductive, and access is easy. Boreal countriesstill contain a high percentage of interior forest.However, in temperate Europe and easternNorth America, where the conditions are morehospitable and accessible, humans havefragamented forests by converting large areas tonon-forest uses such as agriculture. Tropicalrainforests remained relatively intact until accesswas provided by governments or industry. Inthe Rondonia region of Brazil, for example, thepattern of residual forest is directly related tothe road pattern (Dale and Pearson, 1997). In theAmazon basin, there are corridors of fragmented

forest that follow major rivers and other accessroutes into larger regions of interior forests.These results clearly indicate the crucial role ofroad networks in both deforestation and forestquality changes.99. In temperate and boreal forests, advancedsilvicultural practices have often caused ageneral homogenization of forest stands andlarger forest landscapes. However, the size offorest patches caused by logging is reducedin comparison to patches created by naturaldisturbance regimes (Perera and Baldwin, 2000).In part change to forest structure and speciescomposition in these biomes has resultedfrom selective logging of tree species, thinningactivities, removal of dead and decayingwood and from managing the forest standssystematically, usually in a short rotation time(Maser 1990).

D. LOSS OF SPECIES ANDGENETIC DIVERSITY

100. Current extinction rates are much higherthan the rate at which species evolve, and muchhigher than background rates (Pimm et al.1995). (see). For bird species, current extinctionrates are estimated to be at least 1000 to 10,000times higher than the 'normal' backgroundextinction rate (Pimm et al., 1995, Lawton andMay 1995). The majority of both animal andplant species going extinct are those from forestand woodland ecosystems (WCMC 1992).Brooks et al. (1999 and references therein)accurately predicted the number of birdextinctions that have occurred in eastern NorthAmerica, a region deforested many hundreds ofyears ago, and in more recently deforested areasin insular South-east Asia and the Atlanticforests of South America. Pimm and Brooks(1999) have predicted that of the 1,111threatened bird species, 50%, or about 500species, will become extinct in the next fifty years(due to the extinction debt – see Box 5).101. The 2000 IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2000) is aninventory of the global endangered status of


39

threatened plants and animal. It uses a set ofcriteria to evaluate the extinction risk ofthousands of species and subspecies. Thesecriteria are intended to be relevant to all speciesand all regions of the world. For the first time,the 2000 Red List combines animals and plantsinto a single list containing assessments of morethan 18,000 species. Across all biomes, it listsover 11,000 species threatened9 with extinction(although this is based on a complete sample ofonly mammals, birds and coniferous trees, andvery incomplete assessments of other taxonomicgroups) (IUCN, 2000). While this is less thanone percent of the world’s described species, itincludes 24% of all mammal species and 12% ofall bird species. While plants have not yet beenevaluated systematically, in an earlier workWalter and Gillett (1998) found that at least12.5% of flowering plants were threatened. The2000 Red List estimates that 25% of reptiles, 20%of amphibians and 30% of fish species arethreatened.102. It is difficult to provide comprehensiveestimates of how many forest species arethreatened since there is no globally acceptedhabitat classification system. More specific dataare available for individual tree species and someforest habitat types. For example, 900threatened bird species rely on tropicalrainforests, with 42% of these occurring almostexclusively in lowland rainforest and 35%occurring in montane rainforest. Amongmammals, 33% of those threatened occur inlowland rainforest and 22% in montane forest,though it is not clear what proportion of thesemammals are totally dependent on forests fortheir survival (Hilton-Taylor, 2000). The WorldList of Threatened Trees (Oldfield et al., 1998)

documents over 7,300 species facing extinction(Table 4). Based on gross estimates of the totalnumber of tree species in the world, thisrepresents about 9% of the world’s tree flora.The species presently included in bothpublications tend to be in certain tree familiesand genera (e.g., conifers, palms anddipterocarps) and on certain countries andregions, e.g. Africa, reflecting the particularinterests and knowledge of the contributors.Together with information in appendices fromJapan, Australia and elsewhere, the total numberof globally threatened10 tree species was reportedto be 8,753, equating to about 9% of the world’sestimated 100,000 tree species11. The loss of anytree genus or species will be accompanied by theloss of a variable and unknown number ofobligate-associated species (including parasites,predators, pollinators and microsymbionts) andunderstory plant and animal species. In thetropics, the number of such associated speciesmay be conservatively estimated12 to be of theorder of 10 to 100 per tree species.

9. On the meaning of “threatened” see the 1994 IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. IUCN. 1994. IUCN Red List Categories. Prepared by theIUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Available at: http://iucn.org/themes/ssc/redlists/ssc-rl-c.htm

10. In order to qualify as globally threatened on the basis of population reduction, the total population of the species had to experience ≥ 20%reduction (either observed, estimated, inferred or suspected) over the past 10 years or three generations.

11. 9% is likely to be an underestimate given the inadequate knowledge for many tropical tree species and gaps in the WMCM database.12. Fröhlich and Hyde (1999) estimate the ratio of host specific-fungal species to be in the range of 26 to 33 per tropical palm species. Erwin found

1,100 species of beetle from a single tropical tree (Luehea seemannii) and estimated that 600 arthropod species are specific to each tropical treespecies (see May, 1986). Each of the 900 Ficus species is pollinated by a different wasp species (Janzen, 1979).


40

103. Few high priority economically importantforest tree species are under immediate threat atthe species level, but in all regions certain speciesare threatened at the population level (basedon Oldfield, 1998). Although not specificallytargeting endangered or threatened tree speciesbecause of their endangered condition, the list ofpriority species established by the FAO Panelof Experts on Forest Gene Resources (FAO,2000b) also suggests that around 9% (48 speciesout of 524 tree species recorded) of the world’smost important trees are threatened, at speciesor population level. That list also suggests over400 tree species as being global, regional ornational priorities and points out those speciesin need of in situ conservation (FAO, 2000b). Anumber of regional workshops have been heldwhich document information on the state offorest genetic resources, including, although notfocussing on, threatened species and populationsin the Boreal Zone (Anon, 1996b), NorthAmerica (Rogers and Ledig, 1996), Europe(Turok et al., 1998), Sub-Saharan Africa (Sigaudet al., 1998), Eastern and Southern Africa(Sigaud and Luhanga, 2000) and the SouthPacific (Pouru, 2000c). For example, a report onthe state of forest genetic resources inthe Sahelian and North Sudan zone of Africashows that many important tree species andpopulations are subject to strong pressures andare at high risk at population level; the report

identifies ten species in need of in situ geneticconservation measures.104. In temperate zones, some tree species arethreatened at the population level. This appliesalso to well-known and economically importanttree species such as Pinus radiata that isthreatened throughout its native range. In thiscase, the three mainland California populationsare threatened by pitch canker disease andurbanization, while on Guadalupe Island(Mexico) the species is not regenerating owingto browsing by goats (Spencer et al., 1998).105. In all areas where deforestation has beenextensive, it is likely that genetically distinct,unique populations of plant and animal specieshave disappeared. This process of extinction oflocal populations will continue over the next fewdecades directly through habitat loss and as aresult of the time lag associated with the processof “relaxation” in which the original number ofspecies in the fragmented area eventually fallsback to a new, lower number (Diamond, 1972).Forest fragmentation effects (Andren 1994) haveresulted in numerous local extinctions (Lovejoyet al., 1986) and provide an important threat tospecies (see Box 5). Bird species in fragmentedtropical forest communities will have declinedabout 50% of the way toward their futureequilibrium after 25-100 years in large fragmentsof about 1000 ha (Brooks et al., 1999). Many birdspecies have been affected in the heavily cleared

13. Adapted from: Table 2: Summary of the number of tree species assessed according to the 1994 IUCN threat categories for inclusion in The WorldList of Threatened Trees. (Oldfield, 1998, p. 17.)

1994 IUCN Threat Category Number of Tree species

Extinct 77

Extinct in the Wild 18

Critically Endangered 976

Endangered 1,319

Vulnerable 3,609

Lower Risk: near threatened 752

Lower Risk: conservation dependent 262

Data Deficient 375

Total 7,388

Table 4: Globally Threatened Tree Species13


41

woodland communities of eastern Australia andare now declining at an alarming rate, with 20%of Australian bird species now consideredthreatened (Garnett, 1993, IUCN 2000).106. The most pervasive threat to birds,mammals and plants is habitat loss and degrada-tion, affecting 89% of all threatened bird species,83% of threatened mammals and 91% ofthreatened plants (WCMC 1992). The primarycauses of habitat loss and degradation areagricultural activities including forest clearing,extractive activities and development ofinfrastructure and settlements. Directexploitation is also a principal danger, affecting37% percent of threatened birds, 34% ofthreatened mammals and 8% of threatenedplants (WCMC, 1999). Some large species, likegreat apes, face a serious combined threat totheir survival, from predation by humans forbush meat and habitat loss through logging andland use changes, see Box 4. Alien invasivespecies are a third major source of threat,affecting 30% of threatened birds, 15% of

threatened plants and 10% of threatenedmammals (Hilton-Taylor, 2000). For tree speciesin particular, the most important threats are:logging, agriculture, expansion of settlement,grazing, burning, invasive species, local use,mining exploration, and tourism/leisure(Oldfield et al., 1998).107. Threats can be recorded at species level (thewhole species is endangered) or at populationlevel (only some populations of the species arethreatened). Threats at population level canseverely reduce genetic diversity and thepotential for breeding and domestication, suchas in the case of wild fruit trees (Fellenberg et al.,2000). A pervasive threat to geneticallydiversified local tree populations, which mayhave developed valuable attributes, lies in theintroduction of non-local forest germplasm forforest plantations or rehabilitation. This couldlead to hybridization of local and introducedtrees and to a dramatic dilution of native,locally-adapted gene pools in subsequentgenerations (Ouedraogo and Boffa 1999).

Box 4. Threats to Great Apes

Great apes are the closest living relatives of humans. The great ape group comprises the chimpanzee Pantroglodytes, the bonobo or pygmy chimpanzee, Pan paniscus, the gorilla Gorilla gorilla, and the orangutan, Pongopygmaeus. All of these species may be keystone species in local forests as they are predominantly fruit eaters andplay an important role in seed dispersal. All the great ape species are classified as “endangered” on the 2000 IUCNRed List of Threatened Species (Hilton-Taylor, 2000), and certain subspecies, notably the mountain gorilla(Gorilla gorilla beringei) are critically endangered. The Red List notes that under a strict interpretation of IUCNcategories, the common chimpanzee may, though, be classified as vulnerable.

The chimpanzee, bonobo and gorilla inhabit equatorial Africa, while the orangutan is found in South-east Asia,on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo. All the great apes face common threats to their survival, predominantlypredation by humans for bush meat and loss of habitat through logging and land use change. In equatorial Africa,political unrest over the last decade has had a severe impact on the apes there (van Krunkelsven et al., 2000; Vogel,2000), with members of the military and refugees using them as a source of meat. Although meat hunting forsubsistence is widespread throughout Central and Western Africa, the loss of the local agricultural economy hasmeant that many people, including the indigenous inhabitants of the Lomako Reserve in the DemocraticRepublic of Congo, are intensifying their commercial hunting efforts (van Krunkelsven et al., 2000). There is acorrelation between logging activities and the bushmeat trade because new roads open up once-remote forestareas (Bowen-Jones and Pendry, 1999). Indeed, Kemf and Wilson (1997) have suggested that thebushmeat trade may now be more of a threat to African primates than habitat loss and degradation. There is alsoan illegal trade in African primates as pets, notably infant bonobos (Vogel, 2000).


42

108. Extinctions may be caused by isolation ofpopulations, followed by inbreeding and lossof fitness to react to environmental changes,competition and natural selection. Lessons frompopulation genetics indicate that in forest areas,large areas of habitat must exist to maintainpopulations of large-bodied species, there mustbe connections between habitat patches toenable gene flow, populations should always belarger than that which is minimally viable, thereshould be multiple separate populations to avoidloss by local catastrophic events, and great careshould be taken to maintain island ecosystems.Florida panthers (Felis concolor coryi) provide anexample of the genetic effects that occur as aresult of small population size. Fewer than 50breeding Florida panthers exist in southernFlorida, USA (Maehr 1992). Low populationhas resulted in a high rate of random genefixation, causing poor sperm viability, low spermmotility, probably low juvenile survivorship andan apparently elevated susceptibility to disease(Hedrick 1995). Despite protection of itsremaining habitat (representing only a smallportion of its former range), the pantherpopulation has continued to decline. Theunderlying causes of decline of this subspeciesare anthropogenic influences on habitatavailability (logging, agriculture, settlement) and

fragmentation of habitat (see Box 5), and thedirect cause of problems for recovery ofthe panther is the loss of genetic diversity. In thiscase, the population has declined well below thegenetically effective breeding level.109. The number of endangered species ina region is correlated to the area of habitatavailable, habitat quality and the history of landuse (Pimm et al. 1995). However, extinction of aspecies may be time-delayed. The number ofspecies that is expected to eventually go extinctdue to past adverse environmental changes iscalled the ‘extinction debt’ (Tilman et al., 1994;Hanski 1999a). In northwestern Europeanboreal forests, there is a gradient in the intensityand continuation of forest use fromFennoscandia, with a historically high intensityof forest use, to north-western Russia where theforests have exploited over a shorter time and ata lower intensity (Martikainen et al., 1996;Martikainen, 2000). This gradient is alsoreflected in the number of forest species on theRed List (IUCN 2000). In Finland, Norway andSweden, forest-dwelling species form 37-51% ofall threatened species (WWF, 2001). However,many species endangered in Fennoscandia stillhave viable populations in Russia. For example,most local extinctions of threatened saproxylicbeetles, which are habitat specialists and good

The dramatic decline in numbers of orangutans has received much attention in recent years. In the Leuser regionin Sumatra, which contains the world’s largest orangutan population, the decrease is estimated to be 45% fromabout 12,000 of these apes in early 1993, to less than 5,500 currently (van Schaik et al., 2001). During 1998-89, itis estimated that losses occurred at a rate of 1,000 orangutans per year (van Schaik et al., 2001). If these lossescontinue, it is predicted that orangutans will be extinct within the next 10 years (van Schaik et al., 2001). The pri-mary cause of the decline of the orangutan on both Sumatra and Borneo is habitat loss through logging, bothlegal and illegal (Robertson and van Schaik, 2001). In the last 20 years, 4 million of the 13 million ha of forest onBorneo were converted to oil palm plantations (Ferber, 2000). Ferber (2000) further reports that the forest fireson Borneo in 1997 destroyed 8 million ha of forest, though some of this had been previously logged. The imme-diate causes of forest loss in Sumatra have been identified as weak compliance with regulations and poor lawenforcement leading to extensive illegal logging (Robertson and van Schaik, 2001). Additionally, orangutans arein demand as pets, and deaths during smuggling operations have been reported (Kemf and Wilson, 1997).


43

indicators of old-growth forests, have happenedin southern areas with the longest history offorest use and smallest proportions of recentold-growth forests (Hanski, 2000) Intensiveforestry has moved from south to north, andconsequently time-delayed extinctions wouldalso be expected to spread from south to north.110. Genetic diversity is important to ensurethe adaptability of a species to changingenvironmental conditions, as well as continuedevolution (e.g., FAO, 1993). With very fewexceptions, long-term conservation of aparticular species is synonymous withmaintaining genetically variable populations,comprising gene complexes co-adapted toparticular environmental conditions. Theprimary objective of gene conservation is tocreate conditions that will enable and enhancefuture evolution of the species, with asubordinate goal being to capture genes atfrequencies >0.01 and to capture existingadaptations that may occur in differentpopulations (Eriksson et al., 1995). This willinvolve maintenance of a dynamic system inwhich the species may continue to evolve inresponse to changes in its environment. At thesame time, management for conservationimplies the avoidance of any rapid erosionof genetic variability. Eriksson et al. (1995)suggested that alleles at frequencies <0.01 havelittle effect on additive genetic varianceand hence are of little immediate effect onadaptability, hence conserving them is desirable,it is not an immediate concern.111. There appears to be no direct relationshipbetween the diversity of species or genes in anecosystem and its biomass, productivity or rolein the biogeochemical cycle (Holdgate, 1996).Relatively low-diversity systems, e.g. nativeforests dominated by a few tree species andvarious monocultural tree plantations, may bestable over many decades. Nevertheless, thelikely impact of loss of biodiversity for ecosystemfunction, in terms of species and within-speciesvariation, is that diverse ecosystems are more

resilient than those with fewer species andtrophic linkages. Large numbers of species in anecosystem provide alternative pathways toprovide various ecosystem services. The loss of afew key species in a low-diversity system maylead to the collapse of the system because of thelack of alternative trophic or nutrient pathwaysto support higher trophic species. Managing tomaintain high levels of genetic diversity withinspecies, and high levels of species diversity, is animportant idea for maintaining ecosystemproduction and services over the long term(Pimm 1991). Biodiversity and the presence ofgreater numbers of species in key functionalgroups may build some redundancy into thesystem, but because we do not know the fullpotential of functional groups or species itis wise not to make assumptions aboutredundancy. Species redundancy is but one ofthe theories explaining biological diversity. Forexample, other theories suggest that no suchredundancies exist and that all species relate insome direct way to total forest function (Ehrlichand Ehrlich 1981). Species richness and geneticinformation may provide a buffer for certainforest types and enable healthy ecosystems to bereconstituted under a wide variety of conditions(Holdgate, 1996), and/or increase reliability oftheir functioning (Naaem, 1998), especially inany rapidly changing environment, as may bethe case with global climate change.


44

Box 5. Extinctions and forest fragmentation

Gilpin and Soule (1986) have grouped extinctions into two kinds: deterministic and stochastic. "Deterministicextinctions are those that result from some inexorable change or force from which there is no hope to escape. Adeterministic extinction occurs when something essential is removed, or when something lethal is introduced.Stochastic extinctions are those that result from normal, random changes or environmental perturbations.Usually such perturbations thin a population but do not destroy it. Once thinned, however, the population is atan increased risk from the same or from a different kind of random event."

Aside from outright loss of forest habitat and degradation, forest fragmentation looms as one of the major threatsto forest biodiversity. According to the theory of island biogeography (MacArthur and Wilson, 1967) when anarea loses a large proportion of its original habitat, especially if the remnants are in fragmented patches, then itwill eventually lose some of its species. Species/area curves offer a quantified prediction that the larger the forestarea, the greater the number of species that can occupy the forest, and vice versa, e.g. reducing a habitat to 10%of its original size may lead to the loss of about 50% of species. Fragmentation exposes populations to thedangers of demographic or environmental stochasticity. Many populations are committed to extinction inthe long term due to this stochasticity, leading to the so-called extinction debt (Hanski, 2000).

However, there is little direct evidence of species extinction in continental forest ecosystems. As an example, theAtlantic forest ecosystem in Brazil has been reduced to around 10% of its original extent over the past century.The theory of island biogeography predicts that around 50% of the species of this ecosystem would have becomeextinct as a result. A thorough survey of this area has shown that only a handful of species appear to have becomeextinct, although many are reduced to small populations and are therefore most likely ‘committed’ to extinction(Brown and Brown, 1992?). Another study, though, (Brooks et al., 1999) points to an extinction lag time, e.g.between deforestation and species extinction. Evidence from studies on saproxylic beetles, which are a goodindicator group of old-growth boreal forests, suggests that most extinctions have happened in areas with thelongest history of forest use and smallest proportion of recent old-growth forests (Hanski, 2000). It is evident thatthe extinction can be long-term process.

Species which have the biological attributes that enable them to adapt to modified remnant forest fragments,including forest/cleared land ecotone, may increase in frequency in the new, more fragmented and disturbedforest regime. They include pioneer and secondary tree species, those with long distance seed and/or pollendispersal, species which can better tolerate some level of inbreeding, or those which can coppice. Thus theincidence of ‘weedy’ species increases with fragmentation.

At the broad scale, fragmentation is relatively easily mapped with the aid of aerial photography or satelliteimagery, but assessment of the long-term impact of such fragmentation on genetic resources of remnant standsis much more problematic. Fragmentation is a very complex threat the impact of which will depend upon manyinteracting factors including size, shape and location of remnant stands, and extent of gene flow betweenfragments, which will be affected by the degree of geographic isolation and the presence of forest corridors orscattered trees that act as bridges (‘stepping stones’) for movement and dispersal of species.

For tree species, the study of key evolutionary processes in fragmented populations will help in assessing thelikely long-term impacts of fragmentation in given areas for given species. This will involve study of, for instance,breeding systems and gene flow through using isozymes and other molecular markers (microsatellites andRFLPs), Studies on the levels of seed set, seed viability and seedling vigour in fragmented stands may be used toprovide early warning of inbreeding. Generally we know that homozygosity increases with fragmentation butthat with time this trend reverses to a more heterozygous condition.


45

Some concluding remarksabout threatened species:

112. Causes of extinction are many: Allee effectsin small populations, environmental change,demographic and genetic stochasticity, excessivekilling by humans, competition from exoticspecies, habitat loss and fragmentation and otherhabitat changes (Box 5). Some clear facts, withrespect to factors affecting the global rate ofextinction, emerge from the above discussion:

(a) Tropical forests are extraordinarily richin endemic biodiversity and so lossof tropical forests tends to result inlarge numbers of species becomingthreatened. This is especially the caseif deforestation occurs in one of theforest areas where there is particularlyhigh concentrations of species, referredto as ‘hotspots’.

(b) Certain forest species are climax forestspecies. There are many species thatdepend, for instance, on standing deadtrees or on dead wood lying on theforest floor, and both of these 'habitats'tend to be absent in highly managedforests.

(c) There is good evidence that, at least incertain parts of the world, extinctionsof forest species take place if the habitatbecomes fragmented and mixed withnon-forest areas (Andren 1994). Suchextinctions can occur even if the forestin the surviving fragments remainsundisturbed. This phenomenon hasbeen demonstrated in particular in theAmericas (Lovejoy et al., 1986), andso connectivity among habitats isimportant.

(d) Economically valuable forest speciesare currently being subjected toparticularly high harvest levels inseveral parts of the world (UNEP1995). Such harvests include thewell-publicised trade in bush meat,

but also harvest for medicinal purposes,valuable timber and a host of othernon-timber forest products. Use offorest species has generally been verydifficult to manage sustainably, partlybecause of the inherent lack of controlsin many major forest areas, a lack ofknowledge of populations and partlybecause of the slow reproductive ratesof many forest species, which meansthat even low levels of removal can bedetrimental.

E. FORESTS CONSERVEDIN PROTECTED AREAS

113. It is readily apparent (Table 3) that data onthe extent of conservation of different, verybroadly classified, forest types (or even biomes)provide only limited insight into how well forestbiological diversity (FBD) is being conserved.Only when vegetation communities (forestassociations or types) have been thoroughlysurveyed and mapped at a sufficiently detailedresolution, e.g. a minimum mapping unit of lessthan 100 ha (Jennings, 1994) and at a minimumof 1:50,000 mapping scale, will it be possible toascertain the extent to which different foresttypes are represented within a protected areasnetwork, and to ascertain the exact contributionof the protected areas system to the overallconservation of FBD. UNEP (2001) estimatesthat 9.5% of the remaining closed forest isprotected to some degree, but coverage in somecountries is very low, for example: Russia <2%,Mexico <3%, and China <4% of their remainingclosed forests.114. Protected areas (PAs) may be exposed tomany threats including a lack of actual enforcedprotection, insufficient control of agricultureand overgrazing, illegal logging operations,wildlife and plant poaching, encroachment byhuman settlements, mining and human-causedfires (Dudley and Stolton, 1999). Larger-scaleinfluences also affect PAs, including pollution,climate change and invasive alien species


46

(Dudley and Stolton, 1999), as well as changes tosurrounding landscapes. Often, the small size ofa given PA will increase the risk to species fromexternal threats and because a high proportion(59%) of protected areas are <1000 ha in size(FAO, 2001), conservation of FBD within theirboundaries cannot be expected to occur unlessthey are located near to and linked withother forested protected areas or subjected tocomprehensive protection and managementregimes. Bruner et al. (2001) analysed theeffectiveness of protected areas in the tropicalbiome and found that protected areas generallystopped land clearing, but were less effective atarresting all logging and use of wood by localpeople for cooking. They also indicated that thecapability of a protected area to maintain itsintegrity and role in biodiversity conservationrelated directly to the extent of enforcement,management, and funding.115. Illegal logging operations are responsiblefor removing valuable mature trees, often of rarespecies and causing overall impoverishment ofthe ecology of many protected areas (Bruner etal., 2001; WWF 2000). WWF has reportedevidence of illegal logging in over 70 countries,including many operations in protected areas,which often appear to be particularly targeted(Carey et al., 2000). Besides these problems,recreation and tourism tend to concentrate onprotected areas resulting in various forms ofdisturbance to these ecosystems. Seriousdegradation to PAs is occurring in many keyforested countries, such as Peru, Indonesia andthe Russian Federation. The threats to PAs arenot evenly distributed around the world – Africagenerally appears to be the worst affected region.However, damage to PAs is not confined to thepoorest countries, and a recent report pointedout that only one of Canada’s 39 national parksis free from ecological damage (WWF, 2000b).Further, even remotely isolated PAs are notimmune from global threats such as climatechange and the current increase in tourism(WWF, 2000b,c).

116. Many of the protected areas marked onmaps have never actually been implemented: aphenomenon known as “paper parks” and havebeen subjected to considerable extractive uses(WWF, 2000b,c). Others have been put in placebut continue to be degraded and, in some cases,destroyed, either because they have not beenprovided with adequate staff and resources orbecause they face threats beyond the capacityor the range of individual managers(Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996). Others still havefailed because protected area managers, or theiremployers, have failed to consider human needsand aspirations and the role of humancommunities living in and aroundprotected areas, or else the involvement of localcommunities in the designating process of theseareas has been deficient (e.g. Richards, 1996).The concept of 'paper parks' has been disputedin the literature by Brunet et al. (2001) whosuggested that parks in tropical areas aregenerally effective. Unfortunately their own data,indicating hunting in 38% and grazing in 40%and no data on wood-gathering in their sampleof 93 parks, coupled with the noted degradationof surrounding lands, do not support that conclusion from the perspective of maintainingbiodiversity and natural processes. For example,a study of the effectiveness of protected areas inmaintaining biodiversity in north-east Indiaconcluded that the protected area network failedto conserve even endemic biodiversity (Khan etal., 1997). This conclusion was shared bySawarkar (1999) who noted that the average pro-tected area size in India is only 300 km2.117. Conservation planning has not always beensystematic, with the result that many PAs arepoorly sited, resource-starved or poorlymanaged, and some new reserves do notcontribute to the representation of biodiversityor take into account the concerns of indigenouspeoples (e.g., Horowitz 1998). As a result, thepattern of protection is still largely uneven. Inparticular, many forest types remain highly


47

under-represented in PAs (ter Steege, 1998), andmost PAs exist as isolated islands, rather thanintegral parts of properly designed reservenetworks and carefully managed landscapes(e.g., Barnard et al. 1998).


48


49

A. INTRODUCTION

118. Forest ecosystems provide a wide array ofgoods and services at a range of scales from localto global. As well as sustaining commodities suchas timber, traditional goods for local populationsand services with economic return such aseco-tourism, forests perform a key role inproviding vital services, which usually have noclear market value, notably global climateregulation and watershed protection. (Box 6).119. The first part of this chapter aims toidentify the key functional mechanisms for eachof the three main forest biomes (boreal,temperate and tropical) and how they relate tobiodiversity. It then assesses how humanactivities affect ecosystem functions andbiodiversity and the ability of forests to delivergoods and services.120. The second part of the chapter assesses thevalues to people of forest goods and services thatare linked to forest biological diversity and theimpacts of human activities on those values.There are many different perspectives on forestvalues, so it is important to distinguish these andanalyse the implications of changes in forestbiological diversity for the range of stakeholderinterests.

B. FUNCTIONING OF FORESTECOSYSTEMS

Elements of forest ecosystem functioning,keystones species, functional groups and thenotion of resilience121. Understanding the role of biodiversity inthe functioning of ecosystems is a relativelynew field of research and many key aspects ofecological processes still need to be understood.Ecosystem functioning denotes the sum total ofprocesses operating at the ecosystem level, suchas the cycling of matter, energy and nutrients, aswell as those processes operating at lowerecological levels which impact on patterns orprocesses at the ecosystem level (UNEP, 1995).Sound ecosystem functioning depends on the

maintenance of a whole range of interactionsbetween biotic and abiotic components. In turn,goods and services provided by forest biologicaldiversity depend upon the maintenance intime of such sound and healthy ecosystemfunctioning.

122. In the context of massive biologicalextinctions driven by human impacts on landuse, species invasions, atmospheric and climatechange, there is an urgent interest inunderstanding how loss of biodiversity affectsecological processes and, in turn, the functioningof the ecosystems. Many studies have focussedon the key ecological processes such as primaryproductivity, nutrient cycling and microbialactivities. It appears that in most biomes,primary productivity seems to be weakly relatedto the number of plant species, although littleto no information exists for forests (UNEP,1995). However, diversity may play a role in themaintenance of productivity in the context ofhuman induced and natural changes (UNEP,1995; Chapin et al., 1998). Some results showthat the form and cause of the relationshipbetween species and diversity and productivitymay be highly dynamic, changing over time andspace (Cardinale et al., 2000).

3. OVERVIEW OF FUNCTIONING OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMSAND RELATED GOODS AND SERVICES

Box 6. Examples of goods and services fromforest ecosystems

Goods:

Timber and wood products, fuelwood andcharcoal, non-wood forest products (such asbushmeat, medicinal and food plants), andbiochemicals (for development of new medicines,etc.).

Services:

Watershed and water quality protection, conserva-tion of biological diversity and genetic resources,purification of air, climate amelioration includingcarbon sequestration, soil conservation, religious,cultural, spiritual and psychological values andrecreational and scenic values includingecotourism.


50

123. Ecosystem functioning can be affected bythe presence of keystone species and functionalgroups. The removal of keystone species cantherefore result in dramatic changes in the func-tional properties of the ecological system. Afunctional group is a set of species that affect orcontrol an ecosystem-level process in similar way(UNEP, 1995). A functional group can, forinstance, be plants that have the same functionsin the ecosystem. The concept of keystonespecies is an attractive one as it suggests potentialindicators and perhaps targets for managementeffort. However it is still a relatively untestedidea.124. Resilience quantifies the speed to return toequilibrium after a perturbation and is closelyconnected to ecosystem functions (Mooney etal., 1996). More biologically diverse forests aregenerally thought to be more resilient and lessliable to be affected by major outbreaks of pestsand diseases. Redundancy may be a commonfeature in forest systems. Further, redundancyamong species roles in ecosystem functioningmay be important over the long term to protectecosystems during periods of change (Sala et al.2000, Hector et al. 2001.)

Boreal Forest Biome

Overview of the functioning of the ecosystem

125. The present boreal forest region is arelatively recent formation (<10,000 years). Theforests are characterised by a low richness of treespecies. However, this low richness suggestspotentially important functional roles forindividual tree species (UNEP, 1995; Pastor andMladenof, 1992). Strong feedbacks betweenspecies life traits, resources and disturbanceregimes may cause cyclic fluctuations in animalpopulations (Hansson, 1979; Haukioja et al.,1983).

Functional mechanisms of biodiversityand functional groups

126. The primary functional grouping is conifervs. deciduous species, and within these groups,

there are also species differences that cause awide range of functional diversity. The lowspecies richness and the important contrastamong species regarding their traits and the lowredundancy within each functional group is amajor characteristic of boreal ecosystem (Pastorand Mladenoff, 1992; Cohen and Pastor, 1995).For example, the genera Betula and Populusrepresent early successional broadleaf species,Abies and Picea are shade tolerant conifers,whereas species of Pinus range from extremelyshade intolerant to moderately shade tolerant.Thus, the removal of any single species from theecosystem may have an important effect onthe forest ecosystem functioning.127. Plant tissue chemistry also represents a keyfunctional attribute in boreal forest ecosystems,which integrates biodiversity with ecosystemproperties. Tissue chemistry (particularlyconcentrations of nitrogen, resin, secondarycompounds and lignin) controls decompositionand nutrient availability, palatability toherbivores and flammability and is alsocorrelated with other functional plant traits suchas life forms, growth rates and longevity (Pastoret al., 1996).128. Outbreaks of phytophagous insects canbe significant regulators of forest primaryproduction by releasing understory trees ofspecies or age classes not susceptible to theoutbreaks, and by returning nutrients to theforest floor (Mattson and Addy, 1975).Phytophagous insects such as spruce budworm(Choristoneura fumiferana), sawfly (Neodiprionsertifer), loopers (many genera), and barkbeetles (e.g., Dendroctonus ponderousae, Ipstypographus) are common major sources of treemortality and morbidity in boreal regions. Theytypically show large oscillations in populationlevels, with spreading outbreaks occurringapproximately ever few decades (Pastor etal., 1996). Because such outbreaks occurperiodically, defoliators and bark beetles play amajor role in maintaining variability anddiversity at the landscape scale by preventing the


51

attainment of stable equilibrium communities(Pastor et al., 1996). Ants also represent animportant component in forest ecosystems. Thegenera Formica and Campanotus form coloniesthat can have strong direct and indirectinfluences on nutrient cycling (Rosengren et al.,1979).

Disturbances and species richness,effect on biodiversity

129. Natural disturbances, such as firesand insects outbreaks, are major processesmaintaining the coexistence of species anddiversity in the boreal zone. Fire is the dominantform of disturbance in boreal forest everywhereand individual fires can be very large (>several100,000 ha), However most are smaller andspatial variation in intensity, site and regenera-tion responses also produce patch responsesat smaller scale (10-1000 ha) within majordisturbances (Baker, 1989; Payette et al., 1985,1989; Johnston, 1992; Mladenoff and Pastor,1993). Fires generally occur in maturestands and in most areas they represent thepredominant mechanism of forest regeneration.Wind is also an important disturbancevector and most older boreal forests havegaps (McCarthy, 2001). By interacting withhydrological processes, the beaver (Castorcanadensis) is an important agent of disturbancein boreal ecosystems and is considered to be akeystone species. Beaver ponds and wetlands cancover at least 13% of the land area in boreallandscapes (Johnston and Naiman, 1990).In North America, beavers are one of the majorfactors creating patches in the forested landscape(Hammerson, 1994).

Temperate Forest Biome


130. Temperate forests are dominated bydeciduous species and to a lesser extent byevergreen broad-leaf and conifer species. Morethan 1200 tree species are represented in thisbiome (UNEP, 1995). On a large geographic

scale, the natural biodiversity of deciduousforests is the result of the distribution of speciesalong different moisture and temperaturegradients. At site level, only one or a few speciesgain dominance (Schulze et al., 1996). Thesetrends are also reflected in relation to elevation.Soil texture and fertility (determined by the basesaturation) is a major factor in determiningtemperate forest biodiversity at site level.Soil acidity and nitrogen are important indetermining the pattern of biodiversity, withmore species growing on neutral or alkaline soilsthan on acid soils (Schulze et al., 1996). Undernatural conditions, the highest diversityis reached at high base saturation and highnutrient levels (Schulze et al., 1996). However,decreases in woodland plant species diversityhave been observed as a result of anthropogenicnitrogen deposition, for example in parts ofEurope. Although high nitrogen depositioncould potentially offset harvesting losses, it isalso likely to exacerbate the acidification of soils(Schulze, 1989).

Effect of biodiversity on productivityand on nutrient cycling

131. There is little evidence for an effect ofbiodiversity on net primary productivity insemi-natural forest stands (Reich et al. 2001).Productivity responds to available light andnutrients regardless of the number of speciespresent in the stand (Schulze et al., 1996). Someauthors have shown that productivity is insteadrelated to soil fertility and stand age. The factormost strongly correlated with productivity andnitrogen cycling is soil texture (Aber et al., 1991)and the correlation is stronger in stands thathave never been harvested. This suggests thatdisturbance by human activities can affectbiogeochemical cycles by changing soilproperties (Schulze et al., 1996).

Effect of biodiversity on forest resilience

132. In general, greater species diversityincreases the resilience of ecosystems againstexternal disturbances (Tilman and Downing,


52

1994). In a stand containing diverse species, theloss of one species can be compensated for bythe remaining ones. For example, the extinctionof Castanea dentata in eastern North America(caused by a fungus) left a gap, which was filledby Quercus spp., suggesting redundancy within adiverse system. The same situation applies in thecase of Ulmus, which was largely eradicated byDutch elm disease in Europe, Canada and theUSA, and was then replaced by Acer, Fraxinusand other species (Schulze et al., 1996).133. However, forest resilience appears todiminish with growing anthropogenic effectssuch as air pollution and nitrogen deposition.Conifer stands in some parts of Europe, wereseriously affected by anthropogenic pollutioncaused by sulphur and nitrogen deposition(Schulze, 1989). Abies alba showed signsof decline, but there was no loss of standproductivity where it grew in close associationwith Fagus sylvatica, which compensated forthe loss. Abies alba disappeared over vastareas, apparently without any major effect onecosystem functioning. In the case of Piceadecline, Fagus and Quercus also showed declinesymptoms and increased susceptibility toparasite damage (Schulze et al., 1996), which hadmore obvious effects on forest structure.

Tropical Forest Biome


134. One of the most distinctive characteristicsof tropical forests is their biological richness,particularly in the number of species per unit ofarea (UNEP, 1995). In addition, for stillunknown reasons, natural forests are relativelyresistant to invasion by alien species. Invadingspecies tend to be restricted to disturbed areas(Rejmanek, 1998; Whitmore, 1991). Thecomplexity and diversity of tropical forests,especially humid forests, can be matched only bythe underwater diversity associated with somecoral reefs (Longman and Jenik, 1974). However,understanding the functioning of tropical forests

is not a simple task because of the large spatialscale of the forests, the long time scale of theirevolution and the high diversity of organisms in the forest fauna and flora. Climate and soils are the main factors controlling thedistribution and the composition of tropicalforests. A third factor is the interactions of theirbiotic components with human activities(Longman and Jenik, 1974).135. The functioning of a tropical ecosystemdepends to a large extent on the formation andmaintenance of structures in the forest, which isthe result of photosynthesis and biogeochemicalcycling over a long time frame (many decades oreven centuries) (Orians et al., 1996). Certainlife forms, such as the one represented bypalms, lianas and epiphytic bromeliads, can beconsidered as “structural keystone species”because their removal would influence the rateof recovery of the forest after perturbations(Denslow, 1996).136. Undisturbed tropical forests are resistant toinvasion by exotic species. The mechanismof this resistance is unknown, however(Rejmanek, 1998). As noted for temperateforests, fragmentation is a deleterious process totropical forest biodiversity (Lovejoy et al., 1986)that has implications over time with isolation offorest areas into agro-forest complexes.

Effect of biodiversity on productive capacity,decomposition and nutrient cycling

137. In tropical moist forests, the number ofspecies within a functional group greatly exceedsthe number of key ecological processes, and evenhighly fragmented and disturbed forests havemore species than the minimum to yieldmaximum primary productivity (UNEP, 1995).Thus, in tropical forests, biomass productionunder relatively constant conditions isinsensitive to species richness (Orians et al.,1996). However, some authors suggest thatspecies richness may influence the rate at whichbiomass accumulates after a disturbance(Denslow, 1996). There is no inter-annual


53

accumulation of litter in tropical soil, as thedecomposition processes are too rapid (Barrow,1991), thus soil degradation occurs very rapidlyfollowing the removal of the forest cover. Soildegradation following land-clearing is furtherenhanced in humid regions through runoffcaused by heavy rains.

Role of mobile species in forest biodiversity

138. Mobile species, such as pollinators and seeddispersal agents, have an important role intropical forests. Many plants depend on a smallsuite of frugivores and nectivores, such as batsands birds, for dispersing their seeds andpollination, and loss of those species can havemajor consequences for the long-term popula-tion dynamics of many tree species (Orians et al.,1996). In turn, loss of individual tree species mayaffect pollinators and dispersal agent diversity.

Mangrove forests

139. The intertidal forested wetlands, knownas mangroves, support a vast amount ofbiodiversity in tropical estuarine ecosystems.Mangroves also play an important role inmaintaining water quality and shoreline stabilityby controlling sediment distribution in estuarinewaters. Although there are relatively few speciesof mangrove trees (see Chapter I, paragraph 86),mangrove ecosystems are unique becausethey include structural niches and refugia fornumerous animal species (UNEP, 1995).For example, crabs, mainly represented by twofamilies - Grapsidae (63 mangrove species) andOcypodidea (over 80 species) - are abundant inmangroves systems and are considered to bekeystone species. The crabs positively influencetree productivity and reproduction, presumablyby aerating the soil through their burrowingactivities (Smith et al., 1991).

Watershed rehabilitation

140. One of the main problems linked todeforestation and, therefore, changes in forestecosystem functioning is the alteration in thequality and quantity of water that drains

through the ecosystem. The situation in theHimalayan foothills is particularly interesting.Because of the massive deforestation forfirewood and agriculture needs, forests havebeen cleared over large areas in the Indian StateForest of Khol-Hai-Dun (Sommer, 1999). As aresult, the soil has been heavily eroded bytropical rains and it has become unsuitable foragricultural practices. Also, siltation has affectedstreams, rivers and lakes. Rehabilitationprogrammes have been implemented throughrestoration of forest and grass cover andmodification of agricultural practices.

Assessing status and trends of forestecosystem functioning

141. There is very little, if any, literature onassessing status and trends of forest ecosystemfunctioning. Identification, refinement andmonitoring of various indicators is desirable todetect status and trends of forest ecosystemfunctioning in relation to goods and services.However, indicators are still being refined andmore work is needed to develop reliable and costeffective ways to monitor biodiversity.142. For natural forest regions being opened upfor the first time a simple and practical means ofassessing forest ecosystem functioning could befound through the monitoring of macro-indicators, such as density of forest roads andsocio-economic surveys. This information couldbe easily collected and analysed. The density ofthe forest road network could give a goodindication of the fragmentation of the forestecosystem, its “penetrability” and how intensivelythe forest is managed and which naturalresources are used. Socio-economic surveys, on alocal or regional basis, can give accurate infor-mation on the goods and services provided bythe forest resources and their associated effect onthe economy and on the benefits to the society.The correlation between these two indicatorscould provide a general idea on status and trendsof the quality of the ecosystem functioning andits capacity to provide goods and services to thesociety.


54


55

A. INTRODUCTION

143. Forest biological diversity can be quantifiedat several scales by assessing the genetic diversitywithin species, counting the number ofspecies per unit area (local, regional, national,continental, global), determining areas and typesof forest ecosystems, determining communitiesof species associated with forest ecosystems,determining numbers and arrangement of foresttypes and ages and through describing landscapestructure. A recent shift in forest managementmethods in many countries, to focus on‘ecosystem management’, is a result of therecognition of the need for a scaled-upapproach. This change accompanied the furtherunderstanding that most species within systemscannot be monitored sufficiently to ensureindependent long-term viability. Monitoringprogrammes are an important component of thesustainable management of forests to ensure thatbiological diversity is maintained in time andover space.

B. GENETIC DIVERSITY

144. Genetic diversity of a given species can beassessed by different techniques, includingstudies of morphological and metric characters,use of biochemical and molecular markers andobservations of ecogeographic variation. A widerange of powerful molecular markers (DNA andisozyme) is now available for assessing geneticdiversity in particular organisms (e.g. Hamrickand Godt, 1990; Szmidt, 1995; Gillet 1999).Depending on the marker used, the informationfrom such studies may provide different insightsinto the level and structure of genetic variationand the evolutionary processes associated withspecies development and maintenance. Forexample, in Acacia mangium, virtually novariation was detected using allozymes (Moranet al., 1989); however an RFLP study revealedconsiderable within- and between-populationvariation with greater variation being correlatedwith better field performance (Butcher et al.,1998). More recently, microsatellite markershave demonstrated much higher variabilitythan RFLP markers in the same species,permitting greater genetic discriminationbetween individuals. Microsatellite markers willbe of great utility in mating system studies(Butcher et al., 2000). Increasingly, attention isbeing given to ensure that the limited resourcesfor genetic research in rare species are used forstudies which will provide information of directuse in developing conservation managementplans for the species (e.g., Hogbin et al.,2000). Quantitative and adaptive traits, e.g.physiological tolerances to various abioticstresses and disease resistance, can be assessedthrough a variety of field and laboratorytechniques.

4. SCIENTIFIC AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS RELATINGTO FOREST BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY


56

145. Genetic diversity is high in widelydistributed forest-dwelling organisms with asexual reproductive system, and will mirrorenvironmental variation. However, with theexception of some species of plants, largermammals and birds, there is limited informationon the genetic diversity present in mostforest-dwelling species. For plants, the level ofgenetic variation, as assessed through isozymestudies, has been found to vary with factors suchas geographic range, breeding and pollinationsystems and seed dispersal mode (see Table 5).146. Forest tree species are typically long-lived,outbreeding and generally highly heterozygousorganisms that have developed naturalmechanisms to maintain intra-specific variation(see e.g., Palmberg-Lerche, 1993). Thesemechanisms, combined with their often variablenatural environments, both in time and space,have contributed to forest tree species evolvinginto the most genetically variable of all livingorganisms (Libby, 1987). This genetic diversityshould be recognized as a major and vital

component of forest biological diversity.147. The genetic diversity present in forestspecies other than plants and high-profilevertebrates has received little study. Geneticstudies carried out on organisms other thanplants often address the extent and temporal orspatial patterns of genetic diversity and theirlinks with a number of environmental orhistorical factors. Although not specific to forestecosystems, several good data sets are nowavailable to trace the influence of global climatechanges, especially since the Quaternary ice ages,on genetic diversity of species and populationsin boreal, temperate and tropical zones (Hewitt,2000). Some birds, insects or amphibians,sensitive to alterations in forest cover, structureor composition, or heavily dependent on a singletree species, have been tested for use asindicators of the degree of forest alteration ordegradation. The mean expected heterozygosityin allozyme data for insects is 0.137 + 0.004, formammals is 0.067 + 0.005, birds is 0.068 + 0.005,and amphibians 0.109 + 0.006 (UNEP, 1995).

CATEGORY Polymorphic Number of Index of genetic

loci (%) alleles per locus diversity (He)

GEOGRAPHIC RANGE

Narrow 45 1.8 0.14

Regional 53 1.9 0.15

Widespread 59 2.3 0.20

BREEDING SYSTEM & POLLINATION

Selfing 42 1.7 0.12

Mixed mating system - animal

pollinated 40 1.7 0.12

Mixed mating system - wind

pollinated 74 2.2 0.19

Outcrossing – animal pollinated 50 2.0 0.17

Outcrossing – wind pollinated 66 2.4 0.16

SEED DISPERSAL

Gravity

46 1.8 0.14

Animal – ingested 46 1.7 0.18

Wind 55 2.1 0.14

Animal – attached 69 3.0 0.20

Table 5: Levels of allozyme variation in plant species (from Hamrick and Godt 1990)


57

Such low heterozygosity can result in high ratesof allele fixing should normal dispersal rates bereduced through fragmentation of foresthabitats. Species that fly, enabling high ratesof gene flow, have shown highest levels ofheterozygosity.148. Theoretical population genetics provides abackground for the conservation of species,populations and genetic resources. The use ofmodels to determine effective population sizeand rates of genetic drift has led to estimates ofthe minimum population size needed forsurvival of a species over various specifiedperiods of time. Understanding processes ofpopulation genetics has led to the conclusionthat maintaining several distinct populationsof a species increases the overall effectivepopulation size, thereby increasing the survivalpotential for species with small populations(Nunney and Campbell, 1993). Geneticdiversity is also the essence of natural selection.Robustness within populations is dependent ona high level of genetic variability, which enablesindividuals within populations to surviveenvironmental variation. From an anthropocen-tric perspective, genetic diversity can be viewedas a resource, which has the potential to providenew drugs, better crops and improved resistanceto pathogens among forest trees, as well asenabling populations to survive environmentalchange.149. Genetic variation may be associated withallelic variation in the DNA present in thenuclear and mitochondrial genomes as well aswith chromosomal variation (ploidy levels). Inplants, genetic variation may also be due todifferences in chloroplast DNA. At the geneticlevel, individual alleles are usually quite discreteand recognisable. However alleles cannot beidentified without expensive and relativelysophisticated detection systems, usually relyingon gel electrophoresis of molecular markers.Furthermore, it is not simply numbers of alleles,but how they combine in forming multilocusgenotypes that determines effective genetic

diversity. The huge number of gene loci alsomakes it impossible to quantify more than asmall sample of total genetic diversity for a givenspecies/population. Gene diversity as measuredby expected heterozygosity (He) or otherparameters, represents only one type of geneticvariation. Many adaptive traits are polygenic,i.e., controlled by the combined effects of manyloci. Such phenotypic traits have a continuousdistribution, often referred to as quantitativevariation. It is unclear how to relate geneticvariation at the molecular level with thequantitative variation observed for polygenictraits. Direct characterisation of individual genesis not possible for quantitative traits, butrecently developed statistical techniques allowinference from estimation of genetic variances(Hamrick and Godt, 1990).150. High-profile vertebrates studied fortheir within-species diversity may receiveconsiderable media coverage and some of themhave become emblematic species for natureconservation campaigns and recovery efforts.Genetic diversity has been examined for someendangered vertebrates, where populations havebecome so small that inbreeding depressionbecame a concern. There has been considerabledebate over the role of genetics in populationdeclines. In some cases, declines that werepreviously thought to have resulted from a lossof heterozygosity may have been the result of other factors (e.g., cheetahs - Caro andLaurenson, 1994). Inbreeding, however, cancertainly be a proximate cause of decline, and invery small populations the genetic consequencesof inbreeding can become a paramountproblem.151. The value of the genetic variation ineconomically important fish species living inflooded forests (e.g. seed- and fruit-eatingtambaqui Colossoma macropomum in theAmazon, trey riel Henichrhynchus siamensis inTonle Sap, Mekong Basin) is just starting to berecognized in aquaculture development. Geneticdiversity of invertebrates or micro-organisms


58

restricted to forest habitat is a nearly completeterra incognita, with the exception of a fewspecies of mycorrhizal fungi or rare vertebrates.152. While some large-scale forest treeinventories support other studies on epiphyticplants, arthropods, fungi and grasses (e.g.inventories of the Pasok Forest Reserve inPeninsular Malaysia), these side studies do notgenerally address the variation within-species.There has so far been no comprehensivecompilation of the information on all biologicaldiversity available at within-species level inforest areas. Since genetic-level assessment ofbiological diversity is generally limited to a fewspecies, a large degree of genetic diversityalteration is probably unnoticed in disturbedforest ecosystems. Lleras et al. (1992)have shown that, while human-induced speciesextension in the Amazon Basin has not beenextensive to date, substantial loss of geneticvariability has occurred in many speciesimportant to humans, both in the Basin and inthe ecotone, between the Amazon and thecerrado.

C. SPECIES DIVERSITY

153. Species, or alpha diversity, is a measure ofthe number of species of all or various taxa perunit area, more properly referred to as speciesrichness. Another diversity measure is gammadiversity, which in effect reports the sum ofalpha diversities across a broader region.Knowledge of the diversity of plant and animalspecies found in forests and their distributionis incomplete. While some groups, such asmammals and birds are often documentedreasonably fully, other taxa such as invertebratesand microbes remain virtually unknown(FAO, 1999). The UNEP Global BiodiversityAssessment (UNEP, 1995) suggested that of theestimated 13.6 million species of organismsworld-wide (including aquatic and oceanicspecies), less than 1.8 million have beendescribed. The majority of species are insects(8 million), fungi (1.5 million) and bacteria

(1 million) and the vast majority of these areundescribed. Even among terrestrial plants,many species are incompletely known in someregions. For example, only 30-40% of 15,000botanical specimens held in the Royal ForestHerbarium could be identified during theFlora of Thailand Project (OEPP, 1997). Forthe poorly known groups of organisms, theestimated number of total species often entailsconsiderable, rather tenuous extrapolation. Forexample, the commonly quoted estimate ofglobal fungus diversity of 1.5 million species(Hawksworth, 1991) has relied on extrapolationfrom studies in temperate zones. However, arecent study of fungi growing on the tropicalpalm, Licuala, suggests that even 1.5 million maybe a conservative estimate (Fröhlich and Hyde,1999). Further, even when a species is identified,considerable work remains to determine itsrange, habitat requirements and relative priorityfor conservation.154. It is well known that primary tropicalforests, particularly tropical wet forests withtheir high per unit area productivity, supportmuch higher species richness than eithertemperate or boreal forests (UNEP, 1995).Latitudinal gradients in species richnesshave often been reported (e.g., Stevens 1989,Ricketts et al., 1999). However, the fundamentalprocesses that influence forest biologicaldiversity are more or less common to all forestbiomes. Species richness in forests is affected byseveral factors operating at local and regionalscales, including long-term history (e.g., glacialevents), ecological space available for niches,forest productivity (which is ultimately relatedto climate, soils and available water), extent offorest cover, forest landscape heterogeneity,species interactions and, for vertebrates, bodysize (Holling, 1992; Ritchie and Olff, 1999). Atlarge scales, Thompson (2000) showed a directlinear relationship exists between bird, mammal,and salamander/reptile species richnessesand net primary productivity in boreal andtemperate forests in Canada. Helle and Niemi


59

(1996) reported that numbers and speciesrichness of birds increased with stand age-classin boreal forests, although the proportion ofNeotropical migrant species declined withsuccessional age in the Palaearctic region. Somelongitudinal variation also exists in the speciesrichness of mammalian herbivores of the borealregion (Danell et al., 1996). At local scales inprimary forests, ecological niche space may bevery high because of the complex vertical andhorizontal structures. This diversity may be lack-ing in secondary forests. Patches of forest havediffering suitability as habitat for a given speciesdepending on their size, presence of requiredstructures, plant species composition, age andisolation from other patches; thesefactors influence patch quality. Some patchesmay be occupied by a given species for extendedperiods, while others may be unoccupied oroccupied infrequently. Quality of a patch toa particular species may be affected by itsisolation from other forests because the speciesis incapable of migrating across the hostilesurrounding areas (Lovejoy et al., 1986). Hence,not all available habitat is necessarily occupied.For this reason, landscape structure andconnectivity among forest patch sizeand continuity are extremely important inmaintaining biological diversity across alandscape (Hanski, 1999a, b).155. Species/unit area curves offer a quantifiedprediction that the larger the area of forest, tosome upper size limit, the greater will be thenumber of species that can occupy the forest(Preston, 1962). The asymptote of the curvedepends to a large extent on beta diversity ofthe landscape. A high beta diversity will resultin high regional diversity, but with low localrichness or alpha diversity (Cornell and Lawton,1992). The relationship between speciesrichness and forest area is valuable for predictingnumbers of species in a sample area and possiblechanges as a result of forest management. Thesame relationship also predicts that most speciesin small patches will be generalists, and that

specialist species, with their stricter habitatrequirements, will primarily exist in self-sustaining populations in large continuousforest areas. This is particularly true of animalspecies with large body sizes and/or large homerange requirements, such as most carnivores.However, as forest patches become smaller andthe distance between them becomes largerwith treeless areas in between, populations ofsmaller-bodied species, such as invertebrates,also become affected. Further, most species thathave narrow habitat tolerances are area-sensitive.Thresholds exist in the reduction of continuousforest into patches beyond which speciesextinctions occur in a rapid and non-linearmanner that is often unpredictable (Andren,1994; Haila, 1999; Hanski, 2000). Andren (1994)indicated that when forests are reduced to10-30% of the original cover, species’ declinesbecome abruptly non-linear. These concepts ofpatch size, connectivity and diversity relate to thegeneral concern about loss of biodiversity withthe global decline of primary forests.

Keystone species

156. Keystone species are those whoseremoval from an ecosystem would result in adisproportionately large impact on processes inthat system (Power et al., 1996). Both plants andanimals can be keystone species. For example, inPeru, twelve species of figs and palms maintainall frugivorous animals for three months eachyear (Terborgh, 1986). There have, indeed, beeninstances of frugivores declining in associationwith loss of their food trees in logged tropicalforests (Frumhoff, 1995). It is the degree ofinteraction, or the linkages, between a particularkeystone species and other species within thesystem that is important. Keystone species donot always occupy an elevated trophic status(Power et al., 1996), and it is likely that mostkeystone species have not been identified as suchbecause many are soil invertebrates, pollinators,mutualists or pathogenic organisms (Krebs,1985; Power et al., 1996). Jones et al. (1994) used


60

the term ‘ecosystem engineers’ (or keystonemodifiers, after Mills et al. (1993)) to refer tospecies that create, modify or maintain certainenvironments. These are keystone speciesbecause they play important functional roles inecosystems by creating habitats required byother species. Therefore, the removal of the engi-neering species from an environment results inspecies impoverishment beyond loss of thespecies itself. In North America, beavers (Castorcanadensis) are a keystone species because theymodify several hectares of forest by creatingimpoundments through damming streams.These impoundments are then used by manyaquatic and semi-aquatic species. Ants may beother keystone species as they are responsible forseed and spore dispersal of certain plants(including many fungi), soil mixing and aerationand decomposition of wood. Ants can also havespecific competitive effects on the distributionof other ant species and ground-dwellingarthropods, certain canopy arthropods andsome vertebrates, including woodpeckersand ant eaters in tropical forest systems (Punttilaet al., 1994; Elmes, 1992; Holldobler and Wilson,1990). Some woodpecker species may also beconsidered keystone modifiers because theyexcavate cavities in large trees that aresubsequently essential for successful reproduc-tion of many other species. If the habitat require-ments of woodpeckers are provided throughcareful planning, then habitat will be created forsecondary cavity-using species including forestbats, cavity-nesting passerines, cavity-nestingowls, certain wasp species and tree squirrels(Thompson and Angelstam, 1999).).

Species that concentrate theirpopulations annually

157. An important aspect of the life history ofmany animal species is their movement torestricted areas that meet their needs for someportion of the year. During periods when aspecies congregates at high density in localizedareas, a large proportion of local populations, or

even the entire population, is particularlysusceptible to disturbance or habitat loss. Inforest ecosystems, there are numerous examplesof species that move into localized high-densityareas, often in winter. For instance, many speciesof amphibians congregate to breed in vernalpools in forests or forests margins. An exampleof a migratory species that concentrates is themonarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) of NorthAmerica (Malcolm and Zalucki, 1993), whichbreeds over much of the United States andCanada and overwinters in small areasin Mexico. A component of ecosystemmanagement is therefore to safeguard theimportant or key habitats associated with speciesthat concentrate and such species are arguably aspecial case for protection to maintain biologicaldiversity (Thompson and Angelstam, 1999).

Species and communities as indicatorsof forest change and habitat loss

158. Indicator species are generally readilyrecognizable and are usually discrete biologicalentities whose predicament and/or conservationneeds easily capture the imagination of thegeneral public and government agencies alike.Tree species may be particularly relevantindicators for those forest ecosystems wheremany animal and fungal species are obligateassociates of particular tree species (e.g.Campbell, 1989). Comparatively good data areavailable on the distribution of many tree species(Van Bueren and Duivendoorn, 1996).Indicators may be used to suggest the effects ofchange within a system at particular scales, orto indicate population trends that resultfrom altered ecological processes. Most often,indicators are chosen as ‘umbrella species’,defined as indicator species that correlatestrongly with the presence of other species,(i.e. their presence indicates, with very highprobability, the presence of several to manyother species). All umbrella species areindicators, but not all indicators are necessarilyumbrella species. The use of indicator species


61

monitoring is becoming an integral componentof a programme of ecosystem management forhigher levels of biodiversity.159. In similar forest patches, not all subsetsof species are necessarily the same, and acrosslandscapes, habitats are not uniform. Thesevariables can lead to a wide disparity in speciesrichness measures across samples from alandscape. Community assemblage may dependto a large degree on history and stochasticity,as well as availability of suitable habitats,environmental gradients and the supply ofspecies through immigration. Numerousprocesses affect a species’ capacity to occupy aforest stand, including competition for resourcesand demographic factors. In studying the effectsof change in forested systems, the concept ofalternative states in the same forest types must beconsidered. In other words, the presence orabsence of a species in an area may be simplya manifestation of the same community in adifferent state, with no change in its functionalcapacity. Further, under metapopulation theory,at any given time a patch of habitat may or maynot be occupied by a certain species (Levins,1992). Therefore, from a forest managementperspective, the lack of a particular species in anarea is not necessarily cause for concern under aproperly replicated census design. On the otherhand, absence of that particular species mayindeed suggest serious problems. Efforts to mapspecies diversity have been limited, mainly toregional levels, and have not usually included aseparate analysis of forest species. Because of thedifficulty and vast resources needed to make aninventory of the total number of species in anarea, certain better-known genera or families areoften used as surrogates for the presence of otherspecies or to indicate functioning ecosystems.However, species may respond individually tochange, as predicted by the unique nichehypothesis, suggesting that changes in numbersof one species do not necessarily correlate tochanges in others (Pianka 1999). Care must,therefore, be taken in the selection of indicator

species, as well as in interpretation of censusresults. The characteristics of useful biologicaldiversity indicator species are discussed in Caroand O’Doherty (1998). Hunter (1990) suggestedthat indicators were species that should bemonitored to reveal the presence/absence ofcertain specific conditions or structures (finefilters) that were missed with coarse filter (orforest type) management. Indicators may beemployed to assess change in a long list of forestaspects including processes and structures fromsites to landscapes, for example, landscapeheterogeneity, or site diversity.160. If forest processes have been altered, thenthe structure of animal communities will likelyalso have been affected (Holling, 1992). It oftenmakes sense to examine species assemblages asindicators, rather than try to monitor individualspecies, in part because of a narrow focus infollowing individual species and also because ofthe general lack of autecological information(Kremen, 1992; Dufrêne and Legendre, 1997).For many taxa of animals or plants, all(or most) species in an area may be sampledsimultaneously. Discarding the broader data setin favour of a few chosen species is notcost-effective when the tools are available to useall the data. For example, theoretically allsongbirds can be recorded in singing malepoint counts, all salamanders may be equallyvulnerable to pitfall trapping or shelter-boardsurveys, and most small mammals species arereadily captured in traps. Therefore, many ofthese data sets lend themselves to communityanalyses. When choosing the communities orspecies assemblages to monitor, their sensitivityto forest change at multiple scales relevant to theproblem should be considered. Westoby(1998) noted that it is important to choose theappropriate scale for assessing local speciesrichness and, because the analysis is statistical,an adequate number of points with which toperform regressions must be obtained.Ordination of communities can aid in decisionsabout what communities might perform well as


62

indicators, or the properties of a particulargroup of species as indicators at a given scale.The pattern of co-variation among species overtime within a community may indicate impactsof effects.

Population viability analysis

161. The presence of a species does notnecessarily indicate that the population issufficiently large to ensure long-term survival ofthe species. Further, even large population sizedoes not guarantee population survival (Mangeland Tier, 1994), hence populations of speciesin more than one location are importantto long-term persistence. Any monitoringprogramme for rare species should be concernedwith population viability analysis (PVA) and alsomodelling to determine minimum viablepopulations (MVP) for key or rare species. Theoutputs from such modelling suggest criticalpopulation sizes needed to maintain geneticdiversity. PVA modelling considers three mainpoints: genetic factors, population demographyand ecological factors (Boyce, 1992). Among theimportant ecological factors are the occurrenceof ecological thresholds such as those caused byfragmentation and Allee effects (inability tolocate mates) due to habitat loss and change inhabitat structure. More recently, Hanski et al.(1996) have developed the term minimum viablemetapopulation, to describe the commonsituation of limited emigration from sourceareas, such as protected areas, to surroundinghabitats. They have suggested that smallnumbers of a local population have a highprobability of extinction due to stochasticevents. However, such modelling requirescertain minimal data, which are most often notavailable, including means and variances of vitalpopulation demographic statistics and howthese may differ in various habitat patches,dispersal rates, dispersal distances andsuccess (Doak and Mills, 1994). Thus, unlessconsiderable research is undertaken, a detailedunderstanding of the likelihood of survivorship

in a population will not be obtained and yet thismay be crucial to management decisions.

D. ECOSYSTEM AND LANDSCAPEDIVERSITY

162. An ecosystem concerns scale relative tothe organism or group of organisms or even the‘question’ being considered. For forests,an ecosystem generally refers to a clearlyidentifiable and distinct area of certain speciesand functional and abiotic components.Ecosystem function is the total of all processesthat occur within the ecosystem includingproduction, nutrient cycling and watermovement. Many forest ecosystem classificationsexist, usually based on an ordination of soils andmoisture regimes, which combine to support aparticular kind of forests, level of functions andassociated organisms. The role that species mayplay in ecosystems was briefly discussed above;considerably more information is needed withrespect to this important concept. Severalhypotheses have been advanced to explain therole of species in ecosystems. These include(Vitousek and Hooper, 1993; Lawton, 1994): a) anull hypothesis, where ecosystem function doesnot change with gain or loss of species; b) theidiosyncratic hypothesis, which predicts thatthere will be a change in function related tospecies loss or gain, but the magnitude anddirection may not be predictable; c) the rivethypothesis (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1981), whichpredicts that all species contribute to functionand that loss/gain in function is equitable foreach, or that thresholds in numbers of speciesexist that once crossed, a disproportionateamount of function is lost; d) the redundantspecies hypothesis that predicts only somespecies contribute to function and the roles of allothers are redundant (Walker, 1992; Lawton andBrown, 1993). There is little evidence to supportany of these hypotheses, particularly forvertebrate species, and certainly we generally donot know the form or shape of the relationship.As a general principle however, theory and


63

experimentation suggest that complexecosystems with large leaf areas are moreproductive and maintain more niche space,and hence more species, than less productiveecosystems with minimal richness in primaryproducers (Tilman et al., 1996, 1997). However,rich systems are also likely to maintain a highspecies redundancy (Lawton, 1994). AlthoughSugihara (1980) suggested communitiesform around a hierarchical niche structure(‘sequential breakage model’) that obviates anyredundancy, work by Tilman and Downing(1994) revealed that reducing the number ofprimary producers from 25 to 10 did not alternet primary productivity in a field experiment.Opposite results were achieved by Symstad et al.(1998) who showed a decline in plant biomasswith species reduction in grassland systems.They also found that nitrogen retention (ameasure of productivity) changed unpredictablydepending on the species removed, supportingthe idiosyncratic hypothesis. A further unknownis the role that rare species may play, underextreme events, in buffering an ecosystemagainst change (Schulze and Mooney, 1993). Areview by Schwartz et al. (2000) suggested thatecosystem function is related to biodiversity, butonly to an asymptote, sometimes at low numbersof species. However a problem arises in trying toidentify which species are important withincomplex ecosystems. Further, redundancy in anecosystem may be important as a mechanism tobuffer a system against perturbations, suchas climate change (Naeem, 1998). henceredundancy may be a highly desirable propertyleading to stability in natural systems. Therelationship between stability in systems andspecies diversity and richness is still obscureand is a source of concern with respect to the useof forests.163. Concerns over resource use and effects onbiodiversity relate to questions about ecosystemresiliency. In other words, can these systems beused in a manner that permits them to return toa state that is similar to the state existing prior

to harvesting and, hence, maintain the samespecies diversity (sustainable use)? If not, thenthey may return to an altered state (Holling1992), with little or no stability, which cannotsupport the biological diversity that existed priorto use. Because forests take many years to grow,this question of sustainability remains open. It islikely that using ecosystems results in less thanoptimal production in the system and thatconstant use impairs maximum production byaltering the ecosystem state beyond certainthresholds. However, predicting thresholds, andhence levels of sustainable use, is problematic.164. A second set of questions with regards tostability in ecosystems pertains to the functionalroles that species may play within the system thatare not directly related to productivity. Forexample, numerous species are responsiblefor pollination of plants, the primary producers.Without these species, which live off excessenergy in the system, the system could not exist.This role may be a ‘keystone’ role as referred toabove. Often, exotic (or non-native) speciesmay affect stability in ecosystems by alteringprocesses such as these.165. Landscape is one of several scales of forestbiological diversity (Noss, 1990), althoughlandscape by itself is a concept of scale. As withecosystems, a particular landscape is definedrelative to the organisms, populations orprocesses under discussion. In the case of aforest landscape, the size reflects the broad-scale processes that cause variation in forestecosystems. Processes that affect forestcommunity structure are largely historical andoperate at large-scales (Cornell and Lawton,1992). An understanding of how past forestlandscapes were formed and how processes havechanged through history is needed to provide aperspective on new landscape structure that isinevitably altered by humans. Contemporaryforestry and land-use practices can substantiallyalter forest landscape structure, oftenirrevocably, through land-clearing, changes topatch size and distribution, through losses of


64

fine-scale structures and microhabitats (Haila etal., 1994), away from heterogeneity towardshomogeneity (e.g., Pickett and White, 1985), andthrough the creation of dynamics that differfrom those under more natural disturbanceregimes (Hunter, 1990; Virkkala and Toivonen,1999). Many animal species, particularly thosewith large body sizes, respond to forestlandscape structure. In addition, the effects offorest fragmentation on species, discussed above,operate at the landscape scale. Therefore, thedistribution of forests across the landscape hasimplications for maintaining biological diversity.166. Suffling (1991, 1995) has advanced thetheory that landscapes are in “constantdisequilibrium”, in other words, stability at thescale of forest landscape never occurs. This viewis shared by Baker (1995) on the basis ofconsiderable modelling of northern temperatemixed forests of the United States. According tothis theory, landscapes are constantly “catchingup” with disturbance regimes that change at twotemporal scales, the longer one in the order ofseveral hundreds of years. Current climate datacan not provide the basis for predicting thatpresent northern temperate and boreal forestecosystems, formed following disturbances100-500 years ago, will recur at any particularpoint in the future, because forest response todisturbance is a complex process involvingnumerous interacting factors and time lags(Drake, 1990; Bonan, 1992).167. The ultimate factors that control landscapestructure act in a “top-down” manner, affectingecological processes over large areas and longtime scales, while more proximate factorsinfluence individual patch sizes and their rates ofchange over shorter time periods. The localdistribution of forest ecosystems is influenced bysite conditions, as modified by disturbanceevents. The development of forest vegetationacross a landscape is influenced by three ultimatefactors acting at large spatial and temporalscales: physical factors (including soils,lithology, elevation and relief), climate (rainfall

and temperature) and anthropogenic factors(including history and livelihood). Physicalgeography and climate set fundamental limits onforest development, while history represents thenet (or ‘combined’ or ‘cumulative’) effect ofspecific events of forest growth, change anddestruction over time. Coupled with theultimate factors are proximate factors, those thatact at more limited spatial and temporal scales toinfluence stand development.168. Palaeoecological research implicates climateas a key factor in temperate and boreal forestchange during the post-glacial period (Webb,1986; Ritchie, 1987) and suggests that plantmigration can generally track climate change,regardless of the speed of that change (Pitelka etal., 1997). Payette (1992) notes that althoughclimate and ecosystem processes can explain themigration and retraction of forest types inboreal and temperate biomes, competition isalso an important factor in structuring plantcommunities. Forest development at large scalesnot only responds to climate, disturbance andforest management, but also to the ability ofindividual species to compete, to given specifichistorical sequences and stochastic events and tospecific soil conditions.169. At large scales, tree species richnesscorrelates with many climatic variables, such asnumber of growing-degree-days, mean annualtemperature, mean annual insolation and totalannual precipitation. Net primary productivityis a variable that integrates many aspects ofclimate, such as length of the growing season,soil temperature and moisture regimes. A studytesting this ‘climate affects species richness’hypothesis for Ontario, Canada (an area of1 million km2, over 13o of latitude) revealeda highly significant positive relationshipbetween tree species richness and net primaryproductivity (Thompson, 2000).170. The association between topography, soilsand forest types (or individual ecosystems) hasbeen reasonably well studied (e.g., Cajander,1948; Daubenmire, 1968) and it has been shown


65

that topography and soil types exert stronginfluences on forest development. Relationshipsexist among slope, soil type, microclimate andsoil moisture content, all of which can be used toinfer local productivity (Brady, 1984).Graumlich and Davis (1993) reported thatsubstrate governs the distribution of pines(Pinus spp.) and birches (Betula spp.) in theNorth American Great Lakes Basin over an areaof hundreds of square kilometres. Knowledge ofthe associations between soil types and plantscan be used to predict and model forestlandscape structure, and also to indicate rareforest types and habitats.171. Proximate factors influence thedevelopment of forest vegetation at a small scale.The principal types of proximate factors arefires, wind, insect infestation, diseases, floodingand human interventions, as well as periodicchanges in weather, competition among speciesand grazing by herbivores. At intermediatescales, human intervention is important to thestructure of forest landscapes. However, it isdoubtful that the complex inter-relationshipsof natural systems can be replicated bymanagement (Hansen et al., 1991; Hunter,1993). Although one of the goals of currentforestry practices in many jurisdictions is toemulate natural processes, the concept that fireor hurricane effects can be emulated throughlogging practices - a cornerstone of sustainableforest management - is unlikely to be valid.Forest harvesting, coupled with fire suppression,has altered forest stand composition.Reforestation strategies and policies havechanged over time, as have silviculturalpractices. These changes have led to theredirection of forest successional trends,particularly compared to natural pathways, andultimately to changes in landscape pattern. Animportant factor affecting the distribution ofindividual species, and ultimately the landscapepattern, is the reduction of seed sources as aresult of past logging over extensive areas. Afurther example of human intervention in

natural processes can be found in the role, whichintroduced fauna species, including ungulatesnow play in altering or inhibiting successionalpathways in many forest types in North America,Australia, New Zealand and Europe.172. Although there is a hierarchy of scales ofprocesses and factors that affect forest landscapepatterns, in which factors at the upper levelimpose constraints on the next, there are alsointeractions among these factors from each level(Allen and Hoekstra 1992). Humans appearto be altering landscape-level processes atintermediate scales by forestry practices and, to alarger extent, by modern silvicultural practicessuch as controlling fires, logging forests andplanting forests of types not expected fromnatural succession They are also causing changesat very large scales by altering climate. The resultis altered landscape patterns at all scales, whichmay have eventual effects on forest plant speciesand their survival. This remains an importanttopic for research.173. Forest landscape patterns are quantified byremote sensing from aerial photograph orsatellite image information that has been enteredinto a geographic information system (GIS),and analysed using any one of several softwaretools, such as FRAGSTATS (McGarigal andMarks, 1995), to quantify landscape variables.Common variables used include amounts offorest types by patch size and age-class, edge tointerior ratio, fractal dimension, distancebetween patches, amount of non-forest, totaledge, shape index, degree of interspersion androad density. The value of these statistics is thatthey enable comparisons between disturbedand undisturbed landscapes (or any twolandscapes) under null models of intrinsicspatial patterns. Results of such comparisons canlead to comparisons and hypotheses with respectto biological diversity at large scales.


66

E. THE NEED TO DEVELOPMONITORING PROGRAMMES

174. Monitoring is an important component of asustainable forest management programme atthe national level (Noss and Cooperrider, 1994,McLaren et al., 1998). Monitoring should, overtime, provide information on the developmentof key-parameters or species that indicateimportant trends in forest biological diversity.This information should be used to evaluatethe current management and to contributeto continuous improvement. Ordinarily,monitoring is used to measure achievement ofpre-determined objectives within the contextof an adaptive management programme(Walters and Holling, 1992).175. Scientifically based general indicators formeasuring biodiversity are not yet available forall forest types or countries, although manycountries have begun reporting on variousindicators. Loss of (natural) forest cover issometimes used as a coarse indicator (seeChapter I) at the global or regional level. Speciesor species groups can be used as indicators at thenational, landscape or ecosystem levels, but veryoften information on species is limited anddifficult to obtain. Nonetheless, species orgroups of species are likely to be used for manyreasons as national or local indicators (Noss andCooperrider, 1994). As an alternative, structuralcharacteristics (tree species composition, treeage, standing dead wood) can be importantparameters on landscape or ecosystem scales andmight make suitable local indicators (Spiesand Franklin, 1991).

Selection of elements for an inventory and tomonitor, and monitoring methods

176. An inventory is a compilation of data, oftenwith maps, on the aspects of biological diversitychosen to monitor, while monitoring refersto the collection of data over time. Forestbiological diversity is an issue of scale. Therefore,compiling an inventory and monitoring of

biological diversity is a hierarchical procedure,requiring various techniques and technologies.Depending on technical capacity and state ofknowledge, aspects to monitor, ranked fromleast to most demanding, include: forest types(area), forest ecosystems (area, age classes),landscape structure (patch sizes, associatedselected variables), species (indicators,endangered species, key species, useful species),and genetic diversity. A starting point for anymonitoring programme is an understanding ofthe distribution of the element to be monitored.177. A serious limitation to detecting change inglobal forest conditions is the lack of capacityin many countries to perform even large-scalemonitoring of forest types and landscapestructure and, more generally, an incompleteknowledge of forest species and forestecosystems. Classification systems for each levelof biological diversity must exist as a pre-condition to compilation of an inventory andmonitoring.178. The use of advanced technology has becomeroutine among developed countries in forestmanagement programs, and lack of suchtechnologies will affect the capacity to protectbiodiversity. Using remote sensing, forest types,ecosystem types and landscape structures can bemonitored to determine changes in tree cover,(main) tree species composition, tree age-classesand availability of successional stages. Thevarious remote sensing methods can be linked tocomputer imaging programs, and geographicinformation systems to produce maps anddatabases. Various sophisticated modelling toolsexist to predict changes in forest ages and typesbased on known and expected rates of logging,autecological rules and expected silvicultureapplications. Modelling, based on sample dataand expert opinion, has become increasinglyimportant in forest management planning topredict large-scale changes.179. Monitoring to examine the effects of forestclearing and forest management is a difficult taskbecause of our incomplete knowledge of species


67

in many countries, difficulties in selectingaspects to monitor, lack of classifications of localecosystems, logistical and cost considerations,and lack of required technologies in manycountries. At the species level, rare, threatenedand endangered species must be monitored totrack populations and indicate effects ofmanagement programmes and protectionschemes. However, other species can also be usedto track broader changes in forest condition.Many techniques exist for monitoring speciesand communities of plants and animals.Regardless of method, an important aspect isthat the methods should be consistent amongsurveys and observers to enable comparisonsamong years and locations. Surveys must also bedesigned to allow proper data analysis, whichgives valid results. Monitoring should also beconducted to test hypotheses that relate tochanges (possibly specific changes) in forestcapability to support biological diversity(Walters and Holling 1992).180. In Canada, McLaren et al. (1998) suggestedthat a series of criteria should be applied to theselection of vertebrate indicator species based onthree main categories: biological factors,available methods for censuses, and politicalconsiderations (see Annex II). While the criteriaof McLaren et al. (1998) were established forvertebrates, they apply equally to plants andinvertebrate species. Noss (1999) has suggested aseries of groups from which indicator speciesmight be selected. These include: area-limitedspecies which require the largest minimumdynamic areas to maintain populations;dispersal-limited species which have only limitedcapacity to move among patches of habitat;resource-limited species that require aresource(s) that is in short supply; process-limited species which are sensitive to certainecological process which are infrequent or at lowlevels; keystone species; and species with limitedgeographical ranges.181. Several models exist that can be used topredict total species based on the number of

species detected in a survey. Rarefaction models(e.g., Krebs, 1989) have been employed for manyyears to suggest upper limits to species richness.Soberon and Llorente (1993) reviewed threespecies accumulation curves where samplingtime was the independent variable: Clenchequation, exponential, and logarithmic models.This approach has not received wide attentionfrom conservation biologists, but the resultsfrom Soberon and Llorente suggest that theapproach has merit in certain situations: forexample, when comparing species presenceamong landscapes where temporal restrictionsapply. Such modelling of communities offers anadditional approach to ‘indicate’ and predictchange in forest function.182. The difficulties and shortcomings withbasing biological diversity conservation effortssolely on individual species management planshave been well documented (Landres et al., 1988;Maddock and Du Plessis, 1999). Nevertheless,both individual and aggregated species data,such as the ‘hotspot’ or ‘centres of diversity’ and‘centres of endemism’ approach (UNEP, 1995)will likely continue to play a role in conservationof forest biological diversity. Priority forestedareas for conservation have sometimes beenidentified by comparing “biological diversity hotspot” data with forest cover data (Mittermeier etal., 1998, Myers et al., 2000, Cincotta et al., 2000).Examples of hotspot data sets include thosedeveloped by WMCM/IUCN (‘centres of plantdiversity’), WWF-US Global 2000 eco-regions,and Conservation International. WWF andIUCN have identified 234 priority centres ofplant diversity or endemism, each with at least1000 vascular plant species, of which 100 ormore are endemic. As mentioned previously, oneof the main problems with this approach is that‘hotspots’ vary among different taxonomicgroups. Furthermore, species distribution dataare incomplete, e.g., data are only available forabout 3 percent of described species (WCMC,1992). However, ‘hotspots’ may reflect ourdegree of knowledge of richness in particular


68

groups of more obvious taxa, in particular, andbetter-sampled areas, as much as representingreal concentration of species diversity.Nevertheless, if a high degree of endemism existswithin a definable area, then the relativeimportance of the area is increased (UNEP1995).183. Monitoring and inventory of geneticdiversity, the finest scale of FBD, may beappropriate for several purposes. First, in thecase of endangered species it is often importantto determine whether a particular population isindeed a separate species or subspecies to meetdesignation criteria. Second, it may becomeimportant to understand whether populationgenetic processes have reduced variability withina species to a point where it may be affectingbreeding success. Inventorying genetic diversitymight be used to determine the future usefulnessof various potential crop plants.

F. A SUMMARY OF FACTORSLIMITING GLOBAL KNOWLEDGEOF FOREST BIOLOGICALDIVERSITY

184. Several factors limit the global knowledgeof forest biological diversity includinginsufficient taxonomy, a poor understanding oftraditional knowledge, insufficient autecologicaland synecological knowledge of species,communities and ecosystems and the lack ofinfrastructure and capacity in many countriesfor inventory and monitoring programmes.Monitoring of biological diversity is ahierarchical procedure requiring a range oftechnologies and information. The scale can bechosen in terms of knowledge from forest typesdown to genetic resources with the associatedrequired technologies and research toaccomplish and develop the knowledge base.Where an individual country or agency is, alongthat scale, depends on its history of conservationpolicies, the dedication of the managementagency to sustainable use, the availability offunding, technical capacity, and research

available.185. The AHTEG suggests that there is the needfor a broad science research programme,and improved consistent data collectionprogrammes, to understand the mechanismsaffecting forest biological diversity and therelationship between biodiversity and forestgoods and services, and to understand observedtrends. The research and management agenda,located in Annex III, provides a path towards thesustainable management of forest resources.186. There is a large number of sources ofinformation pertaining to forest biologicaldiversity, a partial list of such sources is locatedin Annex IV.


69

A. INTRODUCTION

187. This section analyses forest values from aneconomic perspective to explore how far thevalues of forests can be adequately integratedinto markets, economic appraisals anddecision-making in order to achieve sustainableuse of forests and forest biological diversity.Justifications for a focus on economic valueinclude the widely observed fact that forestconservation has ultimately to compete withalternative uses of forest land such as agriculture,agri-business, energy investments, roads andlogging. Whereas these uses have reasonablyclear and identifiable market values, many forestvalues are non-marketed. In a market-orientedworld, therefore, forest conservation can easilylose out to the market values of alternative landuse. However it must be recognized that thereare inherent difficulties in applying economictechniques to values that are non-consumptiveand in a manner that fully reflects the interestsand perspectives of all types of stakeholder.

B. TYPES OF FOREST VALUES

188. Forests world-wide generate a wide range ofgoods and services that benefit humankind.From an economic perspective these values canbe conveniently classified as:

(a) Direct use values: values arising fromconsumptive and non-consumptiveuses of the forest, e.g. timber, fuel,bush meat, food and medicinal plants,extraction of genetic material andtourism.

(b) Indirect use values: values arisingfrom various forest services such asprotection of watersheds and thestorage of carbon.

(c) Option values: values reflecting awillingness to pay to conserve theoption of making use of the forest eventhough no current use is made of it

(d) Non-use values (also known asexistence or passive-use values):these values reflect a willingness topay for the forest in a conserved orsustainable use state, but the willingnessto pay is unrelated to current orplanned use of the forest.

189. There are other notions of value, forexample, moral or ethical value, spiritual andreligious value and cultural value. Moral andethical values tend to relate to 'intrinsic' qualitiesof the forest and are generally not subject toquantification. The same is true of spiritualand religious values whereby forests embodycharacteristics venerated by individuals andcommunities. There are, however, links betweenthese notions of value and economic value.In particular, non-use values are known toreflect many different motivations, motivationsthat include the individual's concern forintrinsic values. But notions of value based onintrinsic qualities are different to economicvalues in that the latter are always 'relational',i.e. they derive from human concerns andpreferences and are therefore, values conferredby human beings.

Stakeholders and Forest Values

190. Stakeholder analysis analyses theindividuals, groups and institutions with aninterest ('stake') in forests, assesses the nature ofthat interest, the impacts that such stakeholdershave on forest integrity and ways in which thoseinterests can be served in a sustainable manner.Table 6 sets out the classification of forest valuesand the interests that various stakeholders havein those values.

5. THE VALUE OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS


70

Forest value Main stakeholders and their interests Impacts on forest integrity

Direct use values

Timber Logging companies (profit) Often unsustainable

Government (royalties) Usually low tax-take

Fuelwood Local* communities (high value) Usually sustainable

NTFPs Local communities (high value) Usually sustainable

Genetic information Plant breeding companies (profit) Sustainable1

- Agriculture Drugs companies (profit) Sustainable

- Pharmaceutical Local communities (medicines) Sustainable

Recreation Tourists (revenue leakage issue)2 Usually sustainable

Nearby urban dwellers Sustainable?

Research/education Local and international universities Sustainable

Cultural religious Local communities Sustainable

Indirect use values

Watershed functions

Soil conservation Local and regional communities Usually unappropriated3

Water supply Local and regional communities Usually unappropriated

Water quality Local and regional communities Usually unappropriated

Flood protection Local and regional communities Usually unappropriated

Fisheries Local and regional communities Usually unappropriated

Global climate

Carbon storage Global community4 (climate protection) Favours conservation

Carbon fixing Local community (carbon trades) Favours conservation

Global community (climate protection) Favours conservation

Global community Favours conservation

Biodiversity Local communities Favours conservation

Amenity (local) Nearby residents Unappropriated benefit5

Table 6: Forest values and stakeholder interests


71

Forest value Main stakeholders and their interests Impacts on forest integrity

Option and existence values Global community Appropriable

debt for nature swaps, donations,

forest funds, GEF etc)

Local and regional communities Not usually appropriated

Land conversion values

Crops Agriculturists Inconsistent

with forest conservation

Pasture Ranchers: Inconsistent

Local communities with forest conservation

Private businesses

Logging Logging companies Generally unsustainable

Governments

Agro-forestry Local communities Potentially sustainable

Agri-business Private companies Inconsistent

with forest conservation

Aquaculture Private companies Usually inconsistent with

(mangrove) Local communities mangrove conservation

Notes:* In all cases ‘local’ is meant to include indigenous communities wherever appropriate1 Forests probably not the main source of agricultural genetic material.2 Revenues accrue to international companies or companies away from forest area, little revenue accrues to local communities.3 Sustainable indirect uses for which no market transaction usually exists, but where market creation is possible (see experience of Costa

Rica).4 World population, especially those in climate-vulnerable areas, plus all institutions (CBD, FCCC etc) seeking climate protection, plus

NGOs.5 i.e. residents not charged for benefit.

191. An important feature of Table 6 is thatforest conversion values can accrue to localcommunities (e.g. shifting agriculture) but thatsuch practices are increasingly unsustainable asless open access forest is available. The effect ofthe 'diminishing frontier' is that fallow plots arerevisited before regeneration has fully occurred,so that second and third round crop productiontakes place on increasingly 'mined' soils.Indigenous peoples and local communities maybenefit at least in the short term from other

conversion activities, e.g. employment fromlogging operations. Often, however, theconverted land use involves ownership by otheragencies, e.g. national or regional governmentand larger corporations, with the effect ofdisplacing local communities. For indigenouspeoples this can also create dependence onthe monetary economy and trigger far-reaching social and cultural disruption, withoutopportunities for earning money.


72

192. Table 6 also illustrates that local communi-ties benefit substantially from forest goods andservices. In particular, fuelwood and otherNTFPs can account for a major fraction of localcommunity income. Communities could benefitfurther from the monetization of carbon storageand sequestration flows through privatecarbon trades and/or trades as envisaged in theflexibility mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol.The same is true of market creation in watershedprotection benefits, as shown in Costa Rica'sForest Law of 1996, and in the formalisationof intellectual property rights in geneticinformation under the Convention on BiologicalDiversity. Local communities might thereforebe beneficiaries of processes designed toappropriate the benefits from forest non-marketvalues. The inverse of this proposition is alsotrue - they are likely to be the major losers fromprocesses that continue to convert forest land.However, there are many potential negativeimpacts with these flexibility mechanisms, suchas displacement of indigenous peoples andlocal communities from their lands, forestdestruction, denial of land and land use rights,commercialization and monetization withoutcorresponding development opportunities.193. Development of a CBD action plan for FBDshould include a thorough stakeholder analysisat global level, in order to ensure that theinterests and potential contributions of differentkey groups and organizations are appropriatelyand fully taken into account.

C. ECONOMIC VALUES

Direct use values

194. The value of forests is most commonlyassociated with the production of timber andfuelwood. These are major products for manycountries, providing building materials, energy,pulp and paper, industrial raw materialsand valuable foreign exchange. Estimates byFAO (2001) show that global production ofroundwood reached 3335 million m3 in 1999, alittle more than half of which is used for

fuelwood and the remainder for industrialroundwood.

Timber values

195. Two types of timber use need to bedistinguished: commercial and non-commercial.Local uses may be commercial or can relate tosubsistence, e.g. building poles. World industrialroundwood production expanded substantiallybetween 1960 and 1990 from some 1.0 billionm3 to 1.6 billion m3 but has since fallen back tosome 1.5 billion m3 in the late 1990s (Barbier etal., 1994; FAO, 2001). Tropical wood productionin 1999 represented a relatively small proportionof overall global production of the variouscommodities: about 15% of the world’sindustrial roundwood production, 14% ofsawnwood, 15% of wood-based panels and 9%of paper and paperboard (FAO, 2001). Industrialroundwood production in 1999 was dominatedby developed countries, which together accounted for 79% of to ta l g l oba lproduction. Industrial roundwood productionvaried from year to year during the 1990s, butthe overall trend was relatively flat. This was asignificant change from the rapid growth thatoccurred prior to 1990. Wood-based panel andpaper/paperboard production show a steadilyrising demand, which is partially offset byreductions in the demand for sawn wood.196. Fibre production has risen nearly 50%since 1960 to 1.5 billion m3 annually. In mostindustrial countries, net annual tree growthexceeds harvest rates; in many other regions,however, more trees are removed fromproduction forests than are replaced by naturalgrowth. Fibre scarcities are not expected in theforeseeable future. The potential for forestplantations to partially meet demand for woodand fibre for industrial use is increasing.Although accounting for only 5% of globalforest cover, forest plantations were estimated, inthe year 2000, to supply about 35% of globalroundwood, with an anticipated increase to 44%by 2020. In some countries, forest plantation


73

production already contributes the majority ofindustrial wood supply (Carle et al., 2001).197. In a comprehensive survey of sustainableforestry practice, Pearce et al. (2001) foundthat sustainable forest management is lessprofitable than non-sustainable forestry, althoughproblems of definition abound. Profit here refersonly to the returns to a logging regime and donot include the other values of the forest.Sustainable timber management can be prof-itable, but conventional (unsustainable) loggingis more profitable. This result is largely due tothe role that discount rates play indetermining the profitability of forestry. Thehigher the discount rate the less market value isattached now to yields in the future. If loggingcan take place in natural forests with maximumharvest now, this will generate more near-termrevenues than sustainable timber practice.Similarly, sustainable timber managementinvolves higher costs, e.g. in avoiding damageto standing but non-commercial trees. Thesignificance of the general result is that thenon-timber benefits, including ecological andother services, from sustainable forests mustexceed the general loss of profit relative toconventional logging for the market to favoursustainable forestry. The conclusion was alsosupported by a study of tropical forests in Peru,by Rice et al. (1997).

Fuelwood and charcoal

198. FAO (2001) statistics suggest that, in 1999,some 1.75 billion m3 of wood was extracted fromforests for fuelwood and conversion to charcoal.Of this total, roughly one-half came from Asia,26% from Africa, 10% from South America, 8%from North and Central America, and 5% fromEurope. The International Energy Agency (1998)estimates that 11% of the world’s energy con-sumption comes from biomass, mainly fuel-wood. IEA (1998) estimates that 19% of China'sprimary energy consumption comes from bio-mass, the figure for India is 42%, and the figuresfor developing countries is generally about 35%

(see also UNDP et al., 2000).All sources agree that fuelwood is of majorimportance for poorer countries and for thepoor within those countries. While fuelwoodmay be taken from major forests, much ofit comes from woodlots and other lessconcentrated sources. Extraction rates mayor may not be sustainable, depending ongeographic region. Almost no fuelwood andcharcoal is traded internationally.199. As with other non-timber products (seebelow), local values of fuelwood and charcoalcan be highly significant in terms of the localeconomy. Shyamsundar and Kramer (1997)show that the value of fuelwood per householdper annum for villages surrounding MantadiaNational Park in Madagascar is $39. This can becompared with an estimated mean annualincome of $279, i.e. collected fuelwood from theforest accounts for 14% of household income.Houghton and Mendelsohn (1996) find that thevalue of fuelwood constitutes from 39-67% oflocal household income from fodder, fuel andtimber in the Middle Hills of Nepal.

Non-timber forest products

200. NTFP extraction may be sustainable ornon-sustainable and few studies makeobservations as to which is the case. Oneexample of sustainable use is in the SinharajaForest Reserve in Sri Lanka, where the mostpopularly collected NTFPs (Calamus species/rattans, Caryota urens/kithul palm used for jaggery production, wild cardamom and amedicinal herb, Costcinium fenestratum) all performed better in selectively logged-over forest than in undisturbed forest, where theywere either absent or showed poor growth(Gunatilleke et al., 1995).201. Extractive uses include: taking mammals,fish, crustaceans and birds for local orinternational trade or for subsistence use, takingplant products such as latex, wild cocoa, honey,gums, nuts, fruits, flowers/seeds, berries,fungi and spices, also plant material for local


74

medicines, rattan and fodder for animals.Detailed analysis of the available studies suggeststhat economic values for NTPF (net values, i.e.net of costs) cluster from a few dollars perhectare per annum up to around US$100/ha/yr.Lampietti and Dixon (1993) suggested a 'default'value of around US$70 per hectare, and Pearce(1998) has suggested US$5014. However, thesevalues cannot be extrapolated to all forest.Typically, the higher values relate to readilyaccessible forests, values for non-accessibleforests would be close to zero in net terms due tothe costs of access and extraction.202. The benefits of NTFPs accrue mainlyto local communities. The size of the populationbase making use of the forests may becomparatively small and the implied value perhectare may therefore also be small due to theunit values being multiplied by a comparativelysmall number of households. It is important todiscern, as far as possible, what the value of theNTFPs is as a percentage of household incomes.Available studies suggest NTFPs may account for30-60% of local community household incomeand in some cases the amount exceeds 100% ofother income. This perspective demonstrates thecritical importance of NTFPs as a means ofincome support. Indeed, it underlines (a) theneed to ensure that measurements of householdincome include the non-marketed productstaken 'from the wild' and (b) the role that NTFPsplay in poverty alleviation.

Biodiversity and genetic information

203. Tropical forests probably contain more thanhalf the world's terrestrial species. Numbers varyaccording to whether mammals, birds, insects orplants are being considered. Islands have acritical role to play in biodiversity, oftencontaining high species endemism. The

economic value of this diversity arises fromthe fact that diversity embodies the value ofinformation and insurance. Existing diversity isthe result of evolutionary processes over severalbillion years and subject to many differentenvironmental conditions. Hence, the diversityof living things also embodies characteristicsthat make them resilient to further 'natural'change (but not to many human interventions).In essence, the existing stock of diversityprovides the entire range of goods and services.204. The value of genetic variation can beexpressed as ecological, economical or ethicalvalue. In practice, however, it is difficultto determine whether a specific genetic form(variant) of a species will be of future value.Hence, within species, it is difficult to distinguishbetween genetic resources and genetic variation(Graudal et al., 1995). Potentially, the informa-tion embodied in biodiversity can be used in, forinstance, plant breeding, into developing drugsand perhaps into industrial processes. The moredistinctive the information is, the morepotentially valuable it is, so that the existence ofsubstitutes is a critical factor affecting theeconomic value of the information. This hasaffected efforts to value the information contentin several ways. First, while forest degradationcontinues, it can be argued that the remainingstock is so large that willingness to pay toconserve part of the stock is currently small.That willingness to pay will rise as the stockdepletes. Second, the willingness to pay will besmall as long as there are substitutes and this istrue of both agricultural germplasm and'medicinal' germplasm. Also relevant is the factthat research and development effort is moreeasily diverted to genetic manipulation than tothe identification of 'wild' genetic information.

14. The values shown also reflect local market conditions and there is no reason why prices will be similar in the different locations, e.g. becauseincomes vary significantly.


75

205. Swanson (1997) reported the results of asurvey of plant-breeding companies, findingthat the sampled companies rely on germ-plasmfrom relatively unknown species for a small partof their research (i.e. on in situ and ex situ wildspecies and landraces). Swanson's analysissuggests that the stock of germplasm within theagricultural system tends to depreciate at a rateof about 8% of the material currently in thesystem. Thus the stock of germplasm within theagricultural system is being renewed at a timeinterval that is probably around 12 years (100/8).But the 8% comes from a stock of natural assets– biodiversity – that is itself eroding. Hence, theloss of biodiversity world-wide imposes anincreasing risk on the agricultural sector.Biodiversity has economic value simply becauseit serves this maintenance function. Without it,there are risks that the system will not be able torenew itself.206. There are several ways of estimating theeconomic value of this germplasm. First, it couldbe argued that the economic value of wild cropgenetic material is what the crop breedingcompanies are willing to pay for it. At aminimum, this must be equal to that portion oftheir R&D budgets spent on germplasm fromthe more remote sources. Second, an effort couldbe made to estimate the crop output that wouldbe lost if the genetic material was not available.This is an approach based on damages. Third,an attempt could be made to estimate thecontribution of the genetic material to cropproductivity – a benefits approach. Thisapproach might proceed by asking what the costwould be of replacing or substituting thewild genetic material should it disappear – a‘replacement cost’ approach.207. The role of forests in providingagriculturally relevant genetic informationshould not be exaggerated. As far as plant basedfoods are concerned, existing widely used cropstend not to emanate from tropical forests butfrom warm temperate regions and tropicalmontane areas. The existing 'Vavilov' centres of

crop genetic diversity are mainly in areas withlow forest diversity. However, it does not followthat forests are irrelevant to future cropproduction. It seems probable that their valuelies more at the regional than the global level(Reid and Miller, 1987). Overall, systematicestimates of the informational value of wildspecies to crop output are not available andremedying this is an important research task.208. The informational value of forest diversityfor pharmaceutical use is better studied. Thereis little dispute about the local values oftraditional medicines, and these are substantialwithin the context of a local economy (see underNTPFs). There is more debate about the ‘global’value of medicinal plant material. In thepharmaceutical context, the relevant economicvalue is the contribution that one morespecies makes to the development of newpharmaceutical products and, by inference, thevalue of one extra hectare of forested land ispartly the value attached to the species in thatarea The ownership rights to this kind ofinformation is a controversial issue and there arevaried views on how to recognise the importanceof indigenous peoples’ traditional knowledgeand whether and how they should becompensated for the use of the information andgenetic material derived from it.209. The available studies that focus on thepharmaceutical value of forests focus on the 'hotspots' - areas of high endemic diversity that areheavily threatened. The evidence suggests thatpharmaceutical genetic material could be worthseveral hundreds of dollars per hectare in mosthotspot areas, and perhaps up to severalthousands of dollars for selected areas. For themajor part of the world's forests, however, valueswill be extremely small or close to zero.210. Diversity is a precondition for all the othervalues defined for the forest, from tourism totimber and non-timber products, and includingthe information flows. On this basis, theeconomic value of diversity as insurance isthe premium that the world should be willing to


76

pay to avoid the value of the forest goods andservices being lost. The actuarially fair premiumfor this insurance, if a market for it existed, is theprobability of the loss occurring multiplied bythe value of all the losses that would occur(Pearce, 1998, Pearce et al., 2001). No attempthas been made anywhere to estimate, evenapproximately, what this premium is, but it isclearly very large since the probability of lossis known to be high15 and the values are alsopotentially high. The complication, again, isthat the premium will be small for the initialcontinuing losses of forest cover, rising only asthe forest cover is lost.

Tourism and recreation values

211. Ecotourism is a growing activity andconstitutes a potentially valuable non-extractiveuse of tropical forests. Caveats to this statementare (a) that it is the net gains to the forestdwellers and/or forest users that matter; (b)tourism expenditures often result in profits fortour organisers who do not reside in or near theforest area, and may even be non-nationals;(c) the tourism itself must be 'sustainable',honouring the ecological carrying capacity ofthe area for tourists. In principle, tourism valuesare relevant for any area that is accessible by roador river. Some forest ecotourist sites attract enor-mous numbers of visitors and consequently havevery high per hectare values. Valuesclearly vary with location and the nature of theattractions and none of the studies availableestimates the extent to which expendituresremain in the region of the forest. For tropicalforests, values range from a few dollars perhectare to several hundred dollars. A substantialnumber of studies exist for the tourism andrecreational value of temperate forests.Indicative values for European and NorthAmerican forests suggest per person willingnessto pay of around $1-3 per visit. The resultingaggregate values for forests could therefore besubstantial. Elasser (1999) suggests that forest

recreation in Germany is worth some $2.2billion per annum for day-users alone and afurther $0.2 billion for holiday visitors.

Indirect use values

Watershed protection

212. Watershed protection functions include:soil conservation and hence control of siltationand sedimentation; water flow regulation,including flood and storm protection; watersupply and water quality regulation, includingnutrient outflow. The effects of forest coverremoval can be dramatic if non-sustainabletimber extraction occurs, but care needs to betaken not to exaggerate the effects of logging andshifting agriculture (Hamilton and King, 1983)or permanent conversion to agriculture.Available studies suggests that watershedprotection values appear to be small whenexpressed per hectare, but it is important to bearin mind that watershed areas may be large, sothat a small unit value is being aggregated acrossa large area. Secondly, such protective functionshave a 'public good' characteristic since thebenefits accruing to any one householder orfarmer also accrue to all others in the protectedarea. Third, the few studies available tend tofocus on single attributes of the protectivefunction - nutrient loss or flood prevention etc.The aggregate of different protective functions isthe relevant value. Fourth, the Hodgson andDixon study (1988) for the Philippines suggeststhat fisheries protection values could besubstantial in locations where there is asignificant in-shore fisheries industry.Comprehensive estimates have still to beresearched.

Carbon storage and sequestration

213. Brown and Pearce (1994) suggestbenchmark figures for carbon content and lossrates for tropical forests. An average closedprimary forest has some 280 tonnes/ha of

15. And could be estimated from the current rates of loss of forest cover.


77

carbon and if converted to shifting agriculturewould release about 200 tonnes of this, and alittle more if converted to pasture or permanentagriculture. Open forest would begin witharound 115 tC and would lose between a quarterand third of this on conversion. Using suchestimates as benchmarks, the issue is what theeconomic value of such carbon stocks is. Asignificant literature exists on the economicvalue of global warming damage and thetranslation of these estimates into the economicvalue of a marginal tonne of carbon. A recentreview of the literature by Clarkson (2001)suggested a consensus value of US$34/tC. Tol etal., (2000) also review the studies and suggestthat it is difficult to produce estimates ofmarginal damage above US$50/tC.16 TakingUS$34-50/tC as the range produces very highestimates for the value of forests as carbonstores. In practical terms, however, a better guideto the value of carbon is the price at which it islikely to be traded in a 'carbon market'. Carbonmarkets have existed since 1989 and refer to thesums of money that corporations and govern-ments have been willing to investin order to sequester carbon or prevent itsemission. More sophisticated markets willemerge as emissions trading schemes developunder the Kyoto Protocol. Zhang (2000) suggeststhat, if there are no limitations placed onworldwide carbon trading, carbon credits willexchange at just under US$10 per tC. At thiscarbon 'price' tropical forest carbon storagewould be worth anything from $500 per hectareto US$2000/hectare, confirming the view of anumber of commentators that carbon valuescould easily dominate the economic values oftropical forests. Carbon regimes in temperatecountries have also been extensively studied andafforestation carbon values probably range fromabout US$100 to $300/ha. These sums are 'oneoff ' and therefore need to be compared to

the price that is paid for forest for conversionto agriculture or logging. In most cases,carbon storage is more than competitive withconversion values. These values relate to foreststhat are (a) under threat of conversion and(b) capable of being the subject of deforestationavoidance agreements.

Option and existence values

214. There are three contexts in which optionand existence values might arise: (a) someonemay express a willingness to pay to conserve theforest in order that they may make some use of itin the future, e.g. for recreation. This is knownas an option value; (b) someone may express awillingness to pay to conserve a forest eventhough they make no use of it, nor intend to.Their motive may be that they wish theirchildren or future generations to be able to useit. This is a form of option value for others'benefit, sometimes called a bequest value; (c)someone may express a willingness to pay toconserve a forest even though they make no useof it, nor intend to, nor intend it for others' use.They simply wish the forest to exist. Motivationsmay vary, from some feeling about the intrinsicvalue of the forest through to notions ofstewardship, religious or spiritual value, therights of other living things, etc. This is known asexistence value.215. There are few studies of the non-use valuesof forests. The available evidence suggests that(a) existence values can be substantial incontexts where the forests in question arethemselves unique in some sense, or containsome form of highly prized biodiversity -the very high values for spotted owl (Strixoccidentalis) habitats illustrate this; and (b)aggregated across households, and across forestsgenerally, existence values are modest whenexpressed per hectare of forest.

16. However it should be noted that current actual prices are often significantly less than this, and there are considerable political, legal, economic,social and technical obstacles to ensuring that the benefits of carbon sequestration are shared equitably.


78

Valuing sustainable forestry

216. One approach to estimating theeconomic value of sustainable, as opposed to'conventional' forest management, is todetermine what consumers are willing to pay byway of a price premium for timber and woodproducts from certified forests. Certificationschemes exist to guarantee the sustainabilityof certain forests, akin to ‘eco-labelling’ ofproducts. Various certifying bodies areaccredited by the Forest Stewardship Council(FSC) and 3.5 million m3 of certified timberentered international trade in 1996, whilst 10million ha of forests had been certified by 1998(Crossley and Points, 1998). Certificationcosts are around US$0.2 to US$1.7 per ha fordeveloping countries and 9-12 cents per acrefor assessment and 1-3 cents per acre per annumfor licensing and auditing in the USA (Crossleyand Points, 1998). Accordingly, any willingnessto pay by consumers above this level of costrepresents the ‘net premium’ for sustainableforest management.217. The evidence on the premium consumersare willing to pay (WTP) for certified timber ismixed. A survey of four studies in Barbier et al.(1994) revealed the following:

(a) a survey of UK manufacturers in 1990suggested 65% were WTP more forcertified timber;

(b) a survey of UK consumers in 1991suggested a 13-14% WTP premium;

(c) a survey of UK consumers in 1992indicated that 58% would not buytimber if they knew it came fromrainforests; and

(d) a 1992 survey of timber importerssuggested that 70% thought theircustomers were not WTP for certifiedtimber.

218. An additional survey in British Columbia,Canada, suggested that 67% of respondents to asurvey would pay 5% more for certified timber,and 13% said they would pay 10% more(Forsyth et al., 1999). Crossley and Points (1998)suggest that certified products are securingpremiums of 5-15% in some cases, but that thereal benefits of certification for industry liein securing greater market share and longer-term contracts. There is some evidence thatcompanies gaining certification secure highercompany value, i.e. the value of certificationshows up in share prices on the stock exchanges.

D. SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC VALUES

219. Table 7 summarises the economic valuesoutlined above. It is important to understand thelimitations of the summarised estimates. Valueswill vary by location so that summary values cando no more than act as approximate indicatorsof the kinds of values that could be relevant.Nonetheless, the table suggests that thedominant values are carbon storage and timber.Second, these values are not additive sincecarbon is lost through logging. Third,conventional (unsustainable) logging is moreprofitable than sustainable timber management.Fourth, other values do not compete withcarbon and timber unless the forests have someunique features or are subject to potentiallyheavy demand due to proximity to towns.Unique forests (either unique in themselves or ashabitat for unique species) have high economicvalues, very much as one would expect.Near-town forests have high values because ofrecreational demand, familiarity of the forest topeople and use of NTFPs and fuelwood.Uniqueness tends to be associated with highnon-use value. Fifth, non-use values for 'general'forests are very modest.


79

Emerging methods for valuingforest goods and services

220. Estimates of economic value of forestservices tend to be based on a few economicvaluation methods. The first of these is the‘production function’ approach whereby someoutput or service is measured. The output orservice is then valued at market prices (e.g. theprice of timber, fuelwood, or medicinal plants,etc.). Some of these values can also be derived bystated preference techniques, notably contingentvaluation. Stated preference techniques seekto elicit willingness to pay through the useof structured questionnaires. The advantageof these techniques is that they measure directlythe total value that users of forest productsare willing to pay for them. For tourism and

recreation the most widely used technique is thetravel cost method. This method looks at theexpenditures made by people travelling to aforest site, using their expenditure as a meansof estimating willingness to pay for the siteexperience. The valuation of genetic informationhas been based on what the purchasers (e.g.a drug company) of that information are,implicitly, willing to pay. In turn, this willingnessto pay reflects the value of the geneticinformation as a potential input to themanufacture of the good in question (e.g. adrug). Hence the value of the genetic material isa ‘derived’ demand and reflects the productionfunction approach again. The same is true ofwatershed values in that the forest, as an ‘input’to watershed protection, defines the object of

Forest good or service Tropical forests Temperate forests

Timber

Conventional logging 200-4400 (NPV)1

Sustainable 300-2660 (NPV)1 -4000 to + 700 (NPV)3

Conventional logging 30- 2662

Sustainable 30- 2662

Fuelwood 40 -

NTFPs 0- 100 small

Genetic information 0-3000 -

Recreation 2- 470 (general) 80

750 (forests near towns)

1000 (unique forests) 80

Watershed benefits 15- 850 -10 to +50

Climate benefits 360- 2200 (GPV)4 90 - 400 (afforestation)

Biodiversity (other than genetics) ? ?

Amenity - small

Non-use values

Option values n.a. 70?

Existence values 2-2 12 - 45

4400 (unique areas)

Sustainable forest 5-15% of timber prices? 5-15% of timber prices?management premium

Notes:1 See SCBD 2001; Annex 1.2 - annuitised NPV at 10% for illustration.2 values vary with the product3 (Pearce 1994).4 assumes compensation for carbon is a one off payment in the initial period and hence is

treated as a present value. It is a gross value since no costs are deducted.

Table 7: Summary economic values (US$/ha/pa unless otherwise stated)


80

value. Avoided expenditures tend to be thesource of the unit value, e.g. the willingness topay of a hydroelectric company for upstreamforest conservation reflects the losses that wouldotherwise accrue due to reservoir sedimentationif the forest was degraded. Climate benefits alsotend to be based on the production functionapproach: climate regulation is an input to manyservices such as avoided sea level rise, crop dam-age etc. The individual forms of damage may bevalued in many different ways, but market pricesand avoided costs tend to dominate. Finally,non-use values can only be valued by stated pref-erence techniques, i.e. through questionnairesabout willingness to pay, because non-use valuesleave no ‘behavioural trail’ for the analysts toassess.221. Table 8 gives valuation techniquesapplicable to some forest goods and services.One technique listed appears to have generalapplication. This is ‘choice modelling’. Choicemodelling refers to a range of techniques in

which respondents to a questionnaire arepresented with options between which they haveto choose. The options combine various featuresor attributes. The level of these attributes isvaried across the options so that respondentsare choosing between different ‘bundles’ ofattributes. A price or cost is generally included asan attribute. Rather than stating their willingnessto pay for the different attributes, respondentsimply valuations through their rankings.The analyst elicits the valuations througheconometric procedures. The relevance of choicemodelling to the forest context will be evident.Potentially, each forest good or service can betreated as an attribute. The attributes will vary inlevel across different forest management systems(and across different forest conversions).In principle, then, choice modelling could leadto valuations of each of the attributes of theforest. To date, there have been only a fewstudies of forest values using choice modelling.

Forest good or service Valuation techniques

PF MP AC CV CM TC HP

Timber • •

Fuelwood • • •

NTFPs • • •

Genetic information • • •

Recreation/Tourism • •

Watershed • • • •

Climate • • • • •

Biodiversity • ? •

Amenity • • •

Non-use values • •

Table 8: Valuation techniques for forest goods and services

PF = production function, MP = market price, AC = avoided costs, CV = contingent valuation,

CM = choice modelling, TC = travel costs, HP = hedonic prices (property prices)


81

Costs and benefits of forest conversion

222. Some attempt can be made to look at thelikely costs and benefits of converting existingforests to alternative uses. Unfortunately, thedata remain very limited and there is the addedproblem that costs and benefits will vary byforest location. It should also be noted that thecomparisons all assume that non-market valuesare actually captured through some marketcreation mechanism. Bearing this in mind, theevidence suggests the following conclusions: 1)converting primary forest to any use otherthan agro-forestry or very high value timberextraction is likely to fail a cost-benefit test; 2)the conversion of secondary forest to the 'cycle'of logging, crops and ranching could makeprima facie economic sense. As with the primaryforest conversion, however, it needs to be bornein mind that the 'sequence' of land use does notalways occur and many conversions to slash andburn agriculture would make no economicsense; 3) the conversion of secondary forest andopen forest to agro-forestry appears to makeeconomic sense assuming that most of theforest's services (including biodiversity) areretained; 4) carbon storage is of the utmostimportance to the economic case for forestconservation; 5) the non-market values almostcertainly fail to capture the economic value ofbiodiversity which, apart from the valueof genetic information, is omitted from theanalysis.


82


83

A. INTRODUCTION

223. It is important to distinguish betweenunderlying or ultimate causes for loss of forestbiodiversity from the direct causes. Theunderlying (or ultimate) causes of forestdestruction are the factors that motivate humansto degrade or destroy forests; complex causalchains are usually involved. The underlyingcauses originate in some of the most basic social,economic, political, cultural and historicalfeatures of society. They can be local, national,regional or global, transmitting their effectsthrough economic or political actions such astrade or incentive measures (WWF, 1998). Thedirect (or proximate) causes of biodiversity lossin forests are human induced actions17 thatdirectly destroy the forests (such as conversion offorest land, continuous overexploitation or largescale logging) or reduce their quality (by, forinstance, unsustainable forest management orpollution). Direct causes of loss are dealt withfollowing a discussion of the underlying causes.224. The driving forces behind direct humanimpact on forest degradation and deforestationand, consequently, on biodiversity loss are bothnumerous and interdependent (e.g., McNeely etal., 1995; Contreras-Hermosilla, 2000). Forestbiodiversity is directly linked to the existence offorest and to the way forests are managed,and that deforestation and forest degradationincluding unsustainable logging, slash and burnagriculture, the building of infrastructure suchas dams and roads, pollution, fires, infestation,and effects of invasive species are themselvesthe main proximate causes for loss of forestbiodiversity. Some of these proximate causes,such as climate change or agriculturaldevelopment, can also act as underlying causes.

Therefore, in order to identify and proposemeasures to halt and reverse global forestbiodiversity loss, the CBD will have to addressboth the direct and underlying causes of forestdecline. Effective action will require first anunderstanding of the underlying causes. It isoften more immediately profitable to deforestareas or to log forests in an unsustainable way,than to sustainably manage them, and this hasbeen identified by the AHTEG as one of theprimary causes for the high rate of deforestationand forest degradation and, therefore, for thecurrent loss of forest biological diversity. Amongunderlying causes are broader macroeconomic,political and social causes such as populationgrowth and density, globalisation, poverty,unsustainable production and consumptionpatterns, structural adjustment, political unrestand war; institutional and social weaknessessuch as lack of good governance, illegallogging, lack of secure land tenure anduneven distribution of ownership, loss ofcultural identity and spiritual values, lack ofinstitutional, technical and scientific capacity,lack of information, insufficient scientificknowledge and inadequate use of localknowledge; market and economic failures suchas under-valuation of FBD goods and services;policy failures such as wrong incentives andsubsidies and ill-defined developmentprogrammes, ill-defined or unenforcedregulatory mechanisms and lack ofenvironmental impact assessments. Theapproaches needed to try and remedy adversehuman impacts are often country specific(WRI et al., 1992; McNeely et al., 1995;Contreras-Hermosilla, 2000; UN ECON. ANDSOC. COUN., 2000; WWF, 2000d).

6. THREATS TO FOREST BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (CAUSES AND IMPACTS)

17. Although natural factors (e.g. glaciations) can contribute to the destruction or degradation of forest ecosystems, in most cases, naturaloccurrences, such as fires, storms, volcanic eruptions, or insect outbreaks, do not destroy forests; they can even be part of their regenerationpatterns. However, it is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish between natural and human induced factors. For instance, factors suchas climate change (human induced) could contribute to an increase in the number and intensity of such so called ‘natural’ factors.


84

225. The interactions between direct andunderlying causes are very complex: thecause-effect relationships will vary considerablyfrom country to country and/or over time andthere can therefore be no overall hierarchybetween the causes; they do not interact linearly,but rather in a circular fashion with manyfeedback loops. Even a single force, such asagricultural intensification, may operate in avery different way under one set ofcircumstances than it would in a differentsituation with other variables involved.Accordingly, remedial measures need to betailored to the very specific situation to whichthey will be applied. There are no simplesolutions to this complex phenomenon.(Sunderlin and Resosudarmo, 1999).226. The distinction between direct andunderlying causes of forest degradation is oftennot so clear as it appears. In reality, thereare long, complex causation chains thateventually lead to deforestation. Causes may behierarchical. For example, a hypothetical chainof causes and effects may operate in this way:shifting cultivators deforest because they need toprovide a means of survival for their families.This is because they are poor and have fewalternatives to deforestation. They are poorbecause present power structures discriminateagainst a large number of people who thereforehave little or no access to alternative means ofsurvival. Present power structures originated inhistorical arrangements such as colonisation.Thus, in this theoretical example, there is acausation chain that starts with colonisation andruns through unequal control over keyresources, to poverty and the need to surviveand, finally, to forest decline.

227. In contrast to the example above, fewcause-effect chains are linear or unidirectional.Instead, there are many branches that constitutesecondary cause-effect loops leading to forestdecline18. Feedback loops complicate analyses ofthe causes of forest decline. For example, alogging company may construct harvestingroads that facilitate the occupation of forestlands by small farmers. After some time, thesefarmers may be successful in lobbying politiciansnot only to improve these roads but also to buildnew roads, thus making it easier for newmigrants to obtain access to forested areaslocated further away.228. Causal factors are likely to vary over time,sometimes drastically. At certain stages ofdevelopment, rapid income growth couldpromote forest decline by, for example,increasing demand for forest products and byenhancing human capacity to alter forests. Wheneconomies reach a certain threshold, the processis reversed. At this point, increases in the level ofincome per capita begin to be associated withfactors such as technological improvements,better functioning of government institutions,urbanisation and less relative dependence onagricultural and forest production. That leadsalso a change in the composition of demand forgoods and services with greater demand forenvironmental services of forests and for uses,such as recreation, that do not necessarily lead tothe loss of forest cover (Contreras-Hermosilla,2000).

18. There are also some important feedback effects working in the opposite direction.


85

Fig. 1: Main causes of forest biological diversity loss

INDIRECT CAUSES

DIRECT CAUSES

MAINCAUSE

LOCAL GLOBAL

FOREST BIOLOGICALDIVERSITY LOSSES

Lack of good governance Poverty

Deficiencies in scientific knowledge & in the use

of local knowledge

Unsustainable consumptionand production patterns

Deficiencies in the flow of information

todecision-makers and to local communities

Globalization and the rise of

corporate power

Inequity inthe ownership,management &

the flow of benefits from both use& conservation

of FBD

Historical, social,political and

economic context of the country

Under-valuationFBD goods and

services

Human populationgrowth and

density

Inequity in the ownership,management& the flow ofbenefits from

both use &conservation

of FBD

Lack of capacity and limited

resources to undertakeconservation or

management actions

Perverse incentivesand subsidies andill-defined development programmes

Political unrest, war

Inappropriate application of

Structural Adjustment

Loss of cultural identity,spirituals value &

land rights

Lack of EIAs and SEAs Ill-defined or uninforcedregulatory mechanisms

Deforestation,forest degradation& fragmentation

Agriculturaldevelopment

Uncontrolled forest fires,

slash and burn

Invasive species

Pollution ofwater, soils and

atmosphere

Infrastructuraldevelopment(roads, dams,

fragmentation,mining, oil

extraction…) Global climatechange

Natural causes(fires, pests,

floods, storms)

Unsustainableforest use (illegal

logging, poaching,overexploitation)

introduction)


86

B. UNDERLYING CAUSES

National and local market, economic,policy failures and institutional andsocial weaknesses

Lack of capacity, technical and financial resources

229. Despite all the efforts of donors andinternational organisations to provide moneyand the technology necessary to help conserveand sustainably manage forests, the lack oftechnical expertise and financial resourcesremains an important cause of forest decline.Understaffed forest authorities, lack ofknowledge about forest biological diversity andrelated goods and services and the lack ofavailable qualified personal lead to little or noapplication or enforcement of forestry laws.In Gabon, for example, only 100 agents wereavailable to monitor and inspect 332 loggingconcessions covering 86,000 km2 (Global ForestWatch, 2000). Another underlying causefor poor forest management is the lack ofappropriate forest management plans andof their implementation. Again in Gabon, onlyfive of 200 logging companies have initiatedwork on a management plan (Global ForestWatch, 2000).

Lack of secure land tenure and land rights anduneven distribution of ownership

230. The lack of secure land tenure and theinadequate recognition of the rights and needsof forest-dependent indigenous and localcommunities have also been recognised as majorunderlying causes of forest decline (UN Econ.and Soc. Coun., 2000). Weak property rightsreduce the incentive for sustainably managingthe forests and unsecured land tenure isoften directly related to deforestation. Localcommunities and indigenous people have, inmany cases, traditional ways of sustainablymanaging the forests, ensuring that they remainviable for use by future generations. Increasinginequality of land ownership often leads tothe breakdown of such common property

management schemes. The rapid depletion ofspecies and destruction of habitats occurin many countries where a minority of thepopulation may own or control most of the land.Quick profits from excessive logging can flowto a small group of people, while the forestdependent local communities pay theprice. Clear ownership rights are one of theprerequisites for developing sustainablemanagement plans and applying regulations forensuring the conservation and sustainablemanagement of forests. Forest land often has asmaller value than agricultural land and, in theabsence of laws that forbid deforestation, it is,therefore, cleared following privatisation. On theother hand, privatisation can be a prerequisitefor ensuring sufficient investments in order toensure the sustainable management of the forest.231. It is well established that the existence ofcomplete, exclusive, enforced and transferableproperty rights is a prerequisite for the efficientmanagement of natural resources. Rights mustbe complete and exclusive to avoid disputes overboundaries and access. They must be enforceableto prevent others from usurping them and theymust be transferable (there must be a customaryor full market in them) to ensure that landis allocated to its best use. The effects ofincomplete or no property rights show up mostclearly in the lack of incentive to invest inconservation and sustainable land uses.Regardless of the 'paper' designation of forestland rights, many forests are de facto open accessresources, i.e. resources for which there is noowner. Other forests are common property andare managed by a defined group of householdswith rules and regulations about access, use andtransferability. Provided common propertyresources are not subject to external forces thatlead to the breakdown of the communal rulesof self-management, common property is areliable and reasonably efficient use of forestland. Factors causing common propertybreakdown include rapid population growthand interference in traditional communal


87

management by central authorities. Traditional,customary and, sometimes, even legally recognized land rights of indigenous peoples canbe hard to establish and are often ignored or violated.232. Establishing property rights in the form ofcommunal or private ownership regimes is aprerequisite to efficient land use, but maystill not guarantee the desirable level of forestprotection. This will be the case where the forestvalues take the form of 'public goods', i.e.services and goods the benefits of which accrueto a wide community of stakeholders and forwhich no mechanism exists to charge them forthe benefits. Forest dwellers may then have noincentive to conserve forests for their benefits todownstream fisheries or water users, since theyreceive no benefit for these services. Institutionalchange designed to compensate forest users forthese services can often be devised (see below),effectively establishing property rights in theunappropriated benefits of forest services.

Lack of good governance

233. The lack of good governance, rampantcorruption and fraud are major underlyingcauses of forest decline as they surround illegallogging and other forest related crimes, suchas arson and poaching. Politicians and civilservants may misuse the public power entrustedto them by, for instance, sale of loggingconcessions for personal enrichment, by notenforcing laws and regulations and by partakingin other illegal and corrupt activities. Thisgenerally weakens the administrative apparatus,deprives the government of income, generatesincentives for “cut and run” logging operations

and increases investment risks, thereby reducingincentives for sustainable forest management.The consequence in terms of forest biologicalloss and loss of related goods and services isoften dramatic.

Ill-defined or regulatory mechanismsand lack of law enforcement.

234. In some countries, the rise of corporatepower has gone hand in hand with a breakdownin the rule of law. Economic hardship and agrowing underclass have combined to create arapid increase in illegal activity, including illegallogging, animal poaching and illegal trade. Lackof law enforcement is also linked to the lack ofadequate financial resources allocated to theimplementation of the regulations. Manynational laws are too weak to provide adequatecontrols and when this is not the case,governments are often too weak to implementthese (see Table 9). Property rights are morelikely to be granted to those who clear the forestsor live in cities than to forest dwellers living bythe sustainable harvest of natural products(e.g., Arnold and Bird, 1999). This favours theextraction of marketable products (e.g. timber)over the sustainable harvesting of products witha limited market value. The range of ill-definedregulations can cover all aspects of the causes offorest decline. As an example, in some countriesthere are government guidelines used topromote forest management activities that aredetrimental to forest biodiversity. For instance,regulations of the former Latvian governmentfor the management of cultivated forest areasrequired that every piece of dead wood beremoved.


88

Illegal logging

235. A number of recent publications haverevealed the extent of the wide range of illegalactivities to be one of the major causes of forestdecline (see Box 7) (e.g., Jepson et al. 2001, FOE,2000, Glastra, 1999, de Bohan et al. 1996, . In the1980s, the Philippines lost about US$ 1.6 billionper year, a large share of the country's grossdomestic product, to illegal logging19. In1993, Malaysian log exports to Japan wereunder-declared by as much as 40%. Up toone-third of the volume of timber harvested inGhana may be illegal and observers indicate thatmoney injected into the country as part of a SAPled to illegal practices on a massive scale(Contreras-Hermosilla, 2000). An internal

report by the Cameroon Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests (MINEF, 1999; see alsoFERN, 2001) provides clear evidence of largescale, illegal activities by logging companies inCameroon. Six companies that are amongst thelargest loggers of Cameroon forests are said notto respect basic requirements of sustainableforest management. For example, they do notprepare management plans and have no respectfor environmental laws.236. In Indonesia, illegal logging has been recog-nised as the most important cause of forestdecline, about half to two thirds (30-50 millionm3) of wood consumed each year comes fromillegal sources. It is exacerbated by bad gover-nance and corruption, which often include the

Direct government investment • Road construction

in the forest sector or in related sectors • Hydropower investments

Government command • Conservation area protection

and control regulations • Obligation to replant harvested areas

• Prohibition to harvest without a permit

• Obligation to prepare forest management plans

as condition for intervening in forest areas

Log export bans

Fiscal, price or monetary policies • Subsidies affecting forest raw materials or other inputs

• Subsidies affecting competitive uses of lands,

such as cattle ranching

• Plantation subsidies

• Price controls

• Subsidies affecting forest harvesting or manufacturing

• Forest products taxes

• Subsidised credit

• Foreign exchange policies affecting competitive

uses of lands

Provision of services • Delimitation, demarcation and land titling

• Actions to promote exports

• Settlement of frontier areas

Table 9: Examples of policy failures that may lead to forest decline(Sunderlin and Resosudarmo, 1999).

19. Philippines had 50% of its primary forests left in 1946, but less than 3% of primary forest, with another 15% of secondary forest, remains.


89

direct involvement of military, police andforestry officials (Forest Liaison Bureau, 2000). Ifthe current rate of deforestation continues inIndonesia, the lowland forest of the Sunda Shelf,some of the richest forests on earth, will be com-pletely degraded by 2005 on Sumatra, and by2010 in Kalimantan (Jepson et al., 2001). GlobalWitness (1998) described the scale of corruptforest activities in Cambodia and stated that in1997 much of the estimated US$184 millionworth of timber felled in the country went intothe pockets of corrupt officials. Illegal loggingcould mean the complete disappearance ofCambodia's forests in only five years time. Allthese studies strongly suggest a close linkbetween illegal and corrupt activities on onehand and forest decline on the other. Greenpeacelaunched a series of press releases that provideevidence of the import of illegally logged wood

products into the United States, Japan andEuropean countries. According to one of theirstudies (Greenpeace, 2000), 80% of all woodlogged in the Amazon is taken illegally.237. The forestry sectors of tropical countries areparticularly susceptible to illegal operations andcorruption. There are several reasons for this:

(a) In most tropical countries, forest activities take place in remote areas,away from the press, the public andofficial scrutiny.

(b) Wood, particularly in tropicalcountries, is valuable but notinventoried. It is thus difficult todetermine how much wood isillegally extracted.

(c) Frequently, officials have substantialdiscretionary power. High timber

Box 7. A catalogue of illegal acts that promote deforestation and forest degradation.

Illegal logging

• Logging timber species protected by national and international law• Contracting with local entrepreneurs to buy logs from protected areas outside the concession• Logging outside concession boundaries• Contracting with local forest owners to harvest on their land but then cutting trees from

neighbouring public lands instead• Logging in protected areas.• Logging in prohibited areas such as steep slopes, riverbanks and water catchments• Removing oversized or undersized trees• Extracting more timber than authorised• Logging in breach of other contractual obligations• Obtaining timber concessions illegally

Timber smuggling

• Exporting tree species banned under international laws such as the Conventionon International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES)

• Exporting illegal logs in contravention of national bans • Exporting forest products in greater quantities than declared

Undergrading, undermeasuring and undervaluing timber and misclassifying species

• Avoiding royalties and duties by declaring lower value and volume of timber than is actuallyextracted from timber concessions

• Declaring exports of lower-priced species instead of the actual higher-priced woods• Overvaluing services provided by overseas businesses (sometimes subsidiaries) to artificially

reduce profits in the exporting country and to avoid corporate taxes

Source: Contreras-Hermosilla, 2000, based on Environmental Investigation Agency, 1996


90

values and high discretionary powerheld by poorly paid government offi-cials are ideal conditions for corruption(Contreras-Hermosilla, 2000).

(d) Investment in enforcement is minimalowing to other priorities.

238. Illegal logging is not limited to tropicalcountries but also occurs in other countriesfacing political and/or economic changes such asthe Russian Federation, where an unknown,but probably substantial amount of timber isillegally logged and traded and exported, mainlyto Chinese and Japanese markets but also towestern Europe (see, for example, FOE, 2000).

Under-valuation of forest biological diversity,goods and services

239. Many forest products are consumeddirectly and never enter markets. For instance,sawn timber, pulpwood, rattan and gums may bemarketed, while food, fuelwood and medicinalplants harvested by local people will usually beconsumed directly by them. Biodiversity benefitsare in large part “public goods” that no singleowner can claim. The benefits of biodiversityare so diffuse that no market incentives forbiodiversity conservation ever develop, which‘justifies’ government policies that furtherencourage conversion of the forest to otheruse with greater direct market values. Thusbiodiversity will probably continue to declinewhile it remains undervalued or not valued.A challenge is to develop a ready means ofattaching greater value to it in order to providean incentive for sustainable management.240. One of the features underlying comparisonsof the relative profitability of different forestland uses is the role of the discount rate. Highdiscount rates favour conventional logging oversustainable timber management, slash-and-burnagriculture over agro-forestry and so on. Theissue is therefore one of knowing how largediscount rates are in such contexts. Existing research suggests that local communities oftenhave high discount rates of well over 10% and up

to 30 or 40%, reflecting their urgent need toaddress subsistence and security needs nowrather than in the future (Poulos andWhittington 1999). While this conclusion shouldnot be exaggerated - there are many examples ofpoor communities investing in conservationpractices - the available evidence supports thetraditional view that many have high discountrates and that these contribute to 'resourcemining'.

Lack of scientific knowledge and inadequate useof local knowledge

241. In many cases there is an inadequateknowledge of natural ecosystems (theircomponents, structure and functioning).Furthermore, destruction and decline ofcultures that possess a traditional understandingof nature is resulting in a permanent loss ofimportant complementary information onecosystems. These gaps in knowledge arise froman insufficient research effort in the study andmonitoring of forest ecosystems. Such research isnecessary in order to improve understanding ofhow various components interact, to improveinformation on traditional use and knowledge ofbiodiversity and to implement appropriatechanges in ecosystem use.

Loss of cultural identity and spiritual values

242. As cultural homogenisation sweeps acrossthe world, the vast range of human knowledge,skills, beliefs and responses to biologicaldiversity is eroded, leading to greatimpoverishment in the fund of humanintellectual resources. Loss of cultural diversity,as a result of globalisation, leads to loss ofbiological diversity by diminishing the varietyof approaches to the coexistence of humans,other animals and plants that have beensuccessful in the past. Loss of the differentcultures also reduces the possibility ofimaginative new approaches being developedin the future.


91

Societal Group Implications of Continued FBD loss

Forest-dwelling • Loss of spiritual values.

indigenous • Disruption of traditional structures and communities, breakdown of

communities family values, and social hardship.

• Loss of traditional knowledge of use and protection of forests in

sustainable ways.

• Reduced prospects for preservation of forest environmental and

aesthetic functions of interest and potential benefit to society

as a whole.

• Loss of forest products providing food, medicine, fuel and

building materials.

Forest farmers and • For shifting cultivators, an immediate opportunity to survive.

shifting cultivators • Forest degradation and declining soil fertility.

• Loss of access to forest land and the possibility of food crop production

and reduced possibilities for harvesting forest products, both for

subsistence and income generation.

• Prospects of malnutrition or starvation.

• Disruption of family structures and considerable social hardship.

Poor and landless local • Decreased availability of essential fruits, fuelwood, fodder and

communities living other forest products.

outside forests • Reduced agricultural productivity, through loss of the soil and water

protection potential of remnant woodlands and on-farm trees and loss

of shelterbelt influence leading to reduced crop yield.

• Reduced income generation and possibilities to escape poverty

Urban dwellers • In developing-country situations, reduced availability (and/or

overpriced) of essential forest products such as fuelwood, charcoal,

fruits, building materials and medicinal products.

• Loss of the amenity and recreational values of urban forests and parks

and those afforded by national forest parks and wilderness areas.

• Reduced prospects for assured supplies of clean drinking water and

clean air.

Commercial forest • Immediate large profits.

Industries and forest • In the long-term, loss of company business and forced

worker communities closure of forest operations.

• Loss of jobs for forest-dependent communities,

social disruption and hardship.

• Loss of income and possible negative social implications of reduced

income of shareholders with significant savings invested in forest

industrial company stocks

Table 10: Consequences of forest biodiversity loss from the perspectivesof different segments of society. (From Sunderlin and Resosudarmo 1999)


92

Societal Group Implications of Continued FBD loss

Environmental • Loss of the essential environmental functions of forests, including

Advocacy groups and biodiversity, climate regulation, preservation of water catchments and

conservation agencies fishery values, that these groups are concerned with preserving.

• Loss of cultural values and social hardship for the underprivileged

communities whose welfare these groups are committed to protect.

• Increased problems of environmental pollution.

• Loss of those forest values that could be of vital importance and/or

interest to the survival and welfare of future generations.

Mining, oil exploration • Improved access to potentially profitable mineral, oil or other

and other industrial interests commercially valuable products located under forests.

• Increased profitability of company operations and returns to

company shareholders.

• Politically negative impact on company operations of criticism

by environmentally concerned groups.

The global • Prospects that continued forest destruction will accelerate global

Community warming with potentially negative consequences for human

welfare and survival.

• Continuing biotic impoverishment of the planet, loss of genetic

resources, and all that implies for sustainable food production and loss

of potentially valuable medicinal and other products.

• Increasing pollution and toxicity of forest soils, contributing to

declining forest health.

National government • Immediate escape from political pressures when impoverished

planners and decision populations migrate to frontier forest areas.

makers • Loss of a potential source of development revenues with consequences

of reduced employment and opportunities, sustainable trade and

economic development.

• Loss of the wide range of environmental functions that forests

provide in contributing to societal needs and an habitable earth.

• Loss of political support in situations where forestry loss and

degradation adversely affect the welfare of many citizens.

Deficiencies in the flow of information todecision-makers and to local communities

243. Where scientific or traditional knowledgeexists, it does not necessarily flow efficiently todecision-makers, who may in consequence oftenfail to develop policies that reflect the full values

of biodiversity. Information also fails to flowefficiently between central decision-makers andlocal communities. To complicate things further,there is a strong public reluctance to acceptpolicies that reduce excessive resourceconsumption, no matter how logical ornecessary such policies may be.


93

Lack of Environmental Impact Assessments orStrategic Environmental Assessments

244. Infrastructure development projects,structural adjustment programmes, develop-ment programmes and trade agreements havebeen identified as possible direct and underlyingcauses of forest biodiversity loss (see above). Theproblem is exacerbated by the fact that very oftenno Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) orStrategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)accompanies the development of these projects.In addition,many of the EIAs and SEAs that areundertaken do not include a concrete analysis oftheimpact of the projects on the quality, size andmanagement of the forests that may be affected.

Perverse incentives and subsidies and ill-defineddevelopment programmes

245. Governments world-wide provide incentivesystems that affect natural resource use. Whileusually conceived with good intentions, theyoften have deleterious effects on naturalresources. Notable examples include the $800billion spent each year on subsidising certaineconomic activities, especially agriculture ($400billion). Most subsidies are in the developedeconomies, where agricultural subsidies areresponsible for some reduction in woodlandarea, the woodland being removed to capture thesubsidies, which are often on a per-hectare basis(Porter 1997, Pearce and von Finklestein 1999,Sizer, 2000). In some parts of the developingworld subsidies exist for the clearance of forestland, and in some cases title to the land cannotbe secured without a given percentage of theland being cleared (Porter, 1997). Other subsi-dies are more subtle, and may take the form ofpreferential logging concessions and low royaltyrates relative to what could be charged withoutdeterring logging companies. Low chargesincrease the 'rent' to be secured from the land.The result is a competition to capture the rent, acompetition that uses up resources to noproductive purpose. Ensuring a good share ofrent capture can involve corrupt practices such

as bribes to officials and politicians. In turn, thiscan result in more extensive logging outside'official' concessions and more intensive logginginside concessions as those responsible forenforcement secure greater rewards from thebribes than they do from normal employment.Unsustainable logging is more immediatelyprofitable and hence there is a financial incentiveto override or ignore regulations designed tosecure sustainable forest management. Theextent of 'illegal' logging is not known with anyaccuracy but is clearly very large and may, insome countries, greatly exceed the officiallydeclared rates of logging. Tackling illegal loggingis immensely complex since it effectively involvestackling the corruption involved. Countervailingpower in the form of NGOs and citizens' groupscan help, as can a free media and internationaldisapproval. Statistical studies suggest thatpolitical freedom may be linked to reduceddeforestation, but the evidence is not firm(Kaimowitz and Angelsen, 1998). Overall,though, there are powerful incentives for illegallogging and deforestation generally (Porter1997).247. Many other sectoral governmental fiscal,monetary and other subsidies and incentivesalso create driving forces for deforestation andforest degradation. For example, transportationpolicies often promote the construction ofroads; agriculture policies tend to promote theconversion of forests into agricultural land;resettlement programmes are frequentlydetrimental to forest areas; and governmentsubsidies promoting mining and hydrologicalinfrastructure are often available. Thesegovernment incentives are regularly supportedthrough ill-defined development aid projects.Furthermore, direct or indirect subsidies aregiven to economic forest operations that candamage biodiversity, such as the drainage offorests and the logging of old growth forests(Sizer and Plouvier, 2000). The most commonand important type of subsidy in the forest


94

sector is that implicit in the low forest chargespaid by timber concessionaires. Although justi-fied on grounds of promoting local developmentand employment, they can sometimes lead to a“boom-and-bust” situation with consequentexcessive and wasteful forest degradation(Contreras-Hermosilla, 2000), and poor forestregeneration.

Broader macroeconomic, politicaland social causes

Poverty

247. Poverty is both a consequence and anunderlying cause of forest decline. The case ofHaiti is just one of many examples showing howtotal deforestation, followed by soil erosion hasdeprived rural populations of their basis forlivelihood (Paskett and Philoctete, 1990).Poverty often leads to deforestation and forestdegradation. Poor people are frequently forcedto slash and burn or otherwise degrade forests inresponse to population growth, economicmarginalisation and environmental degradation.However, linkages between the rural poor andthe forest resources they draw upon are complexand poverty does not necessarily lead to forestdecline. Many poor people are able to adoptprotective mechanisms through collective actionwhich reduces the impacts of demographic,economic and environmental changes.

Population change

248. Brown and Pearce (1994) reviewed theeconometric studies that link deforestation ratesto explanatory factors. They found thatpopulation growth is generally linked todeforestation, although the patterns ofinteraction are complex. However, thoughsimple statements that 'population growthcauses deforestation' are also unquestionablyfalse, many models show that population changeis important (Kaimowitz and Angelsen, 1998).As current population levels rise from 6 billionpeople to a predicted 9 billion in 2050, with

much of the increase in tropical countries,pressures on forest areas must be expected togrow. Lowland-upland migrations and officiallyinduced transmigrations will add to thepressure.249. Another billion people are likely to be addedto the world population for each of the nextthree decades. This population increase willoccur mainly in developing countries, creating astrong demand for agricultural lands, forestproducts and “forest crops” (cocoa, coffee,bananas, etc.). To meet the associatedfood demand, crop yields will need to increaseconsistently, by over 2% every year through thisperiod (Walker and Steffen, 1997). Whilepossible responses to the food supply issuemay be improvements in technology, betterdistribution of food purchasing possibilities,better nutritional education and health care, it islikely that the most immediate response willbe converting more forest ecosystems toagricultural land. However, it is importantto mention that the link between forest declineand population pressure remains unclear due tothe complexity of the factors involved (seeexample in Box 8). Most studies indicate apositive relationship between population anddeforestation, but most analysts are also verycareful to indicate that there are other factorsthat obscure this linkage. For example, manyauthors note that loggers first make the forestsaccessible and then settlers occupy lands. If thisis the case, then population density is the resultof logging and associated initial deforestation orforest degradation, not the other way around. Inaddition, unless reliable information on thechanges in forest cover is available, it is difficultto see the links clearly (Sunderlin andResosudarmo, 1999). At the global level, it isobvious that the enormous and still increasingdemand for forest resources (timber, paper, etc)by developed countries, which do not now facepopulation growth, is another cause of forestloss (see section on globalisation).


95

Globalisation

250. At present, a fifth of the world’s populationuses 85% of its resources. The globalisation oftrade and these demands from the developedworld for paper, timber, minerals and energyprovide the incentive to exploit natural resourcesin the developing world. The financial andpolitical power of large companies addsdramatically to pressures in forest ecosystemsthat had previously been too remote to attractattention, such as some of Central African’srainforests and the taiga in far-eastern Russia.251. In addition, the global exchange economy isbased on principles of comparative advantageand specialisation and has increased in bothuniformity and interdependence. In forest areas,the rapid and total conversion of forests intomonocultural cash crops is widespread. Butwhen the price of palm oil, coffee or cocoadrops, the plantation cannot quickly revert tothe biologically diverse forest that preceded it,even if left alone. This is particularly the casewhere large-scale clearing has occurred, e.g. insouth Sumatran oil palm plantations.

252. If environmental and social externalities(costs and benefits) are not internalised, thenmarket prices do not reflect true socialvalues, causing allocative inefficiency. Whereexternalities are not internalised [should be saidin a simpler way, e.g. giving explanation forexternalities etc. in a footnote?], the increasedeconomic growth from liberalised trade andinvestment will serve only to exacerbate, ratherthan address environmental problems, especiallyin those countries that depend on the export ofnatural resources – e.g. forest products. Theliberalisation of exchange and trade policies canimprove the terms for agriculture expansionand therefore promote the clearance of forestfor agricultural crops. The solution is tocorrect market distortions through soundenvironmental and sustainable developmentpolicies and, in addition, measures identified toensure conservation and sustainable use ofFBD must be implemented before bilateral andmultilateral trade agreements.253. International trade, investment, debt andtechnology transfer issues foster inequitybetween developed and developing countries

Box 8. Population growth and forest cover in Indonesia

Some studies have claimed that population growth is the single most important variable explaining deforestationin Indonesia (Sunderlin and Resosudarmo, 1999). After all, the population of Indonesia has grown from about40 million in 1900 to 200 million in 1997. The area of agricultural land in Indonesia has grown steadily inrelation to this population increase, resulting in substantial loss and degradation of the original natural forestcover. However, the population-centred explanation is distorted and misleading because it rests on a flawed andincomplete view of the role of population in deforestation. Population growth is best viewed as an intermediatevariable affected by others, and not simply as an independent variable that acts alone in influencing the fateof forests.

A study by Sunderlin and Resosudarmo (1999) showed the complexity of the number of variables and theirinteractions that have lead to forest decline in Indonesia; all of them act in conjunction with population growth.They noted that (a) a sharp decline in the rate of growth of the rural population in certain provinces is notmatched by an observable decline in the rate of deforestation and forest degradation; (b) people move to forestmargin areas not only because of population pressure but also because of non-population push factors, such asconversion of agricultural lands and technological change in Java, and transmigration failures in the outerislands; (c) people move to forested areas not only because of push factors but also because of pull factors, suchas road construction, the infrastructure benefits offered through the formal transmigration programme andcertain forms of attractive rural employment; (d) pressures on forests result not just from land clearing by rurallandholders but also from increasing international and per capita domestic demand for the land under forestsand for forest products; and (e) there are considerable pressures on forests that result from the indirect and directeffects of plantation development, mining and the logging sector.


96

that resemble or often reinforce those foundwithin countries. For example, most exportcredit agencies and investment agencies, whichfinance numerous development projects, are notsubject to environmental or social guidelines orstandards that would ensure that they do notcontribute to ecologically or socially harmfulprojects.254. Another effect of globalisation is theincreasing activity of transitional loggingcompanies. These activities often result in anexpansion of destructive logging operations,violation of indigenous rights and, sometimes,widespread corruption. Most of the newinvestment focuses on short-term activities andthe economic benefits to the exporting countryare usually very low. In addition, the forests areoften mined rather than managed, resulting inhigh levels of damage and increased access topreviously untouched areas (Sizer and Plouvier,2000).

Unsustainable production and consumptionpatterns

255. Agenda 21 notes that the major cause ofthe continued deterioration of the globalenvironment is the unsustainable pattern ofconsumption and production, particularly inindustrialised countries. It further notes thatwhile consumption is very high in certain partsof the world, the basic consumer needs of a largesection of humanity are not being met.Changing consumption patterns towardssustainable development will require amulti-pronged strategy focusing on meetingbasic needs and improving the quality of life,while reorienting consumer demand towardssustainably produced goods and services. Percapita consumption increased as real grossdomestic product (GDP) grew at 2.9% per yearwhile population growth was 1.4% per year. Acloser look at economic trends, however, shows

large disparities between and within regions. Asnoted in the UN Human Development Report(1998), 20% of the world’s population, in thehigh-income countries, account for 86 per centof total private consumption expenditures, whilethe poorest 20 per cent, in low-incomecountries, consume a mere 1.3%. Annualconsumption per capita in industrialisedcountries has increased steadily at about 2.3%over the past 25 years, it has increased veryrapidly in East Asia at about 6.1%, and at a risingrate in South Asia at around 2.0%. On the otherhand, the consumption expenditure of theaverage African household is 20% less than itwas 25 years ago (UN, 2001)20. The effectsof these consumption patterns on forestbiodiversity need to be analyzed further.256. As incomes rise, so the demand for naturalresources increases. The relationship is acomplex one, however. For some forest services,the income-demand relationship can be suchthat as incomes grow the demand for thoseservices decrease. An example might be theswitch from wood fuels to liquid fuels asincomes grow. At the global level, however,higher income countries do consume largerabsolute amounts of raw materials. This hasled to the view that deforestation is linked to'excessive consumption' in rich countries. Theissue is complex because the efficiency of rawmaterials use, i.e. the ratio of raw materials toincome, tends to be lower in richer countriesthan in poor countries. Rich countries utilisenatural resources more efficiently, but the scaleof their incomes means that the absolute level ofconsumption is higher than in poor countries.Since the aim of development is to raise percapita income, reducing that income is not arealistic policy option, nor is it clear whatpolicies would bring this about withoutdamaging the factors giving rise to incomegrowth - education, technology etc. But it is

20. United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development acting as the preparatory committee for the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment Organizational Session New York, 30 April-2 May 2001: Report of the Secretary-General on Changing Consumption Patterns.(E/CN.17/2001/PC8)


97

legitimate to ask that rich countries greatlyincrease their resource use efficiency. This willthen translate into reduced demand for rawmaterials, including forest products importedfrom developing countries. Care has to be takenthat this does not damage the export potential offorested countries, but clearly there is scope formaking this transition. Additionally, richercountries can afford to pay premiums on forestproducts to discriminate between sustainablyand unsustainably managed products.

Missing markets

257. Probably the most important feature offorest goods and services is that many of themhave no market. As such, there are no marketforces to send the appropriate price signals tousers of forest land that forests have economicvalue in conservation or sustainable use. Theessential requirement is that conserved orsustainably used forest must secure returns toprovide an economic justification forconservation. While it is not essential that theseconservation values show up as cash flows, orflows in-kind, there is obviously more chancethat conservation will occur if they do haveassociated real benefit flows. The overallconclusion is that, despite the early literaturesuggesting that non-timber benefits couldgreatly outweigh those from slash and burnand/or clear felling, sustainable commercial usesof forest land have considerable difficultycompeting with alternative commercial usessuch as conventional logging, agri-business andagriculture. There will be exceptions to thisrule. Given the difficulties of competing, theimportance of 'encashing' the other benefits offorests is to be emphasised, especially carbonstorage and sequestration and, where relevant,tourism and the sale of genetic material.

Indebtedness

258. It is widely surmised that the moreexternally indebted a forested country is, themore likely it is to engage in policies that resultin deforestation. This happens because thereis pressure to export logs and processed woodand, to a far lesser extent, other forest products,to secure foreign exchange to meet theinterest payments on the debt. A number ofeconometric studies test this relationship andthe balance of evidence suggests that thereis some link between indebtedness anddeforestation (Kaimowitz and Angelsen, 1998).Very few studies find any link between timberprices and deforestation, i.e. the expectedrelationship that logging will increase as worldprices for the wood increase is not found.

Inappropriate application of structuraladjustment policies

259. Structural adjustment policies (SAPs)21 arevery often the major element for developingcountries and countries in transition to developeconomic growth and regain macroeconomicstability and are in many cases imposed byinternational financial assistance such as theInternational Monetary Fund and theWorld Bank. If governments fail to implementmutually supporting policies, SAPs can havedisastrous effects on the forests as they oftenprovide an impetus to mine natural resources inorder to meet demands for foreign exchange andto service dept payments (WWF, 2000a). Thereduction of public expenditure, the reductionof the role of government and the promotion ofprivatisation can reduce the capacity of theforest authority to enforce forest protection lawsand this will open the forest for quick profitseeking private companies. The liberalisation ofexchange and trade policies can improve the

21. The main elements of these policies are: correction of fiscal imbalances mainly through reductions in public expenditure; reduction of the roleof the state in managing the economy; promotion of privatization; removal of obstacles to international capital flows and the formation andexpansion of national capital markets; liberalization of exchange policies; removal of destructive trade policies; and deregulation of labor mar-kets (World Bank. 1990. Adjustment lending: Policies for sustainable growth. Washington, D.C.)


98

terms for agricultural expansion and therebypromote the clearance of forests for agriculturalcrops. SAPs have often been designed withoutcareful analysis of their full potential negativeimpact on forests or important supportivemeasures have not been implemented. However,the impact of SAPs are country specific,sometimes SAPs have not lead to forest declineand a general conclusion as to the effect ofSAPs on forest decline cannot be made(Contreras-Hermosilla, 2000).

Political unrest and war

260. One of the most important waves oflarge-scale forest destruction in Europe,occurring from the 15th to the 17th century, wasdue to the need for wood for military shipbuilding. At the same time, dwindling woodresources for the navy prompted a number offorest protection, conservation, restoration andmanagement measures in a number of Europeancountries that present generations still benefitfrom. There is clear evidence that armedconflicts or political instabilities still correlatewith an accelerated rate of forest destruction.Cambodia, Congo, Indonesia, Laos, Liberia andSierra Leone are just a few of the countries whereforests are logged for quick cash needed topurchase military weapons and where theauthorities have lost control over naturalresources enabling specific actors such as thearmy to deplete the forests, either illegally orlegally. A recent report22 commissioned by theUN Security Council on the illegal exploitationof natural resources and other forms of wealthin the Democratic Republic of Congodemonstrates that illegal logging is linked toarmed conflicts and suggests concrete measuresto reduce trade in so-called “conflict timber”.Forests are also being destroyed (e.g. byherbicides) in order to eradicate shelteringplaces for guerrilla forces, as was a commonpractice during the Vietnam war. In addition,

armed conflicts cause increasing pressure onnon-timber forest products, particularly bushmeat for food for either the armed forces orpopulations that have been forced to move fromthe conflict areas, such as in Central Africa. Thisplaces some already threatened species,e.g. gorillas (see Box 4), in a very dangeroussituation. On the other hand, creating militarysecurity zones has in many areas left larger areasoutside economic activities. In future, many ofthese areas may be suitable for designation asprotected areas.

C. DIRECT CAUSES OF LOSS OFFOREST BIODIVERSITY

Introduction

261. The direct cause of forest biodiversity loss isforest decline, in particular the human-causeddestruction and/or degradation of natural andsemi-natural forest ecosystems (WRI et al.,1992; WCMC, 1992; Barbier et al., 1994a;Stedman-Edwards, 1998). In general, allforest types are affected by deforestation anddegradation. However, at a global level the forestassociations which have already disappearedor are at most risk in the future, are thoseoccupying sites most suited to agriculturaldevelopment, notably lowland forests andwoodland communities on flat fertile terrain. Inaddition, various riparian forest ecosystems havegreatly diminished in extent and quality due toagricultural development, reduced water flowsand/or inundation from dam development(irrigation and hydro-power) and severeflooding events due to catchment changesand/or climate change. Forests associated withcertain mineral ore bodies have also suffered orremain at high risk, e.g. specialised floras onnickel- and heavy metal-rich ultramafic soils inNew Caledonia and the Solomon Islands in thesouth-west Pacific.262. As mentioned earlier, human actions are themost important direct cause of forest loss. Their

22. see : Panel on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth in the Congo, UN Security Council Report S/2001/357


99

destructive actions include: adverse agriculturepractices (conversion to agricultural landand industrial agriculture, overgrazing andunmitigated shifting cultivation); unsustainableforest management (such as poor loggingpractices, over-exploitation of wood for fuel andcharcoal manufacture, over collection ofnon-timber forest resources); introductionof exotic and/or invasive plant and animalspecies; infrastructure development (roadbuilding, hydro-electrical development,improperly planned recreational activities);mining and oil exploitation. In addition, humancause forest fires, pollution and climate changeall of which can lead to forest loss.263. At the species level, extinction is commonlyassociated with extreme rarity, and insufficientreproductive capacity. The six main directcauses of species extinction are habitat loss anddegradation, fragmentation, overexploitation,secondary extinction, introduction of exoticspecies, and climate change (Diamond, 1984;Terborgh and van Schaik, 1997). Loss of geneticdiversity in a species can be associated with lossof genetically distinctive populations, especiallyin those species with high levels of between-population variation. The main causes of localextinction, or the loss of a particular population,are the same as those for loss of a species.264. Current concerns over the rates of loss ofbiological diversity as a consequence of humanpopulation growth and resource use have beenwell-documented (Pimm et al., 1995, UNEP1995, WRI 2000). However, loss of species,including forest dependent species, is anevolutionary fact, as evidenced through thefossil record, which suggests that 95 per cent ofthe species that have ever lived are now extinct(Raup, 1991). Several major periods of massextinction are clearly shown in the fossil record,with the last mass extinction being about 65million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceousperiod. Aside from catastrophic mass extinction,a continuous background extinction rate hasalso been variously estimated, depending on

taxon and species concerned. Interestingly, thebackground extinction rate appears to havedeclined for most taxa (Valentine et al., 1991)except for terrestrial flora, where the rate hasincreased (Niklas et al., 1985). Numeroustheories have been advanced to explain bothbackground and mass extinctions and debatecontinues. However, species accumulation seemsto occur in geologic time following eachextinction event (Jablonbski, 1991).265. Humans have caused extinctions for severalthousands of years (Martin, 1973), and while thecauses of past extinctions remain under debate,the recent phenomenal rate of extinctionsassociated with humans has been substantiatedfor a few specific cases, some noted in Pimm etal. (1995). A particular example is the Polynesianoccupation of Pacific islands, which resulted inthe extinction of more than 2000 bird species(Pimm et al., 1995). Extinction is not always arapid process. Many species may be driven toextinction over the next several hundred years bynow immutable processes. However, in the 15th

and 16th centuries, the global spread of Europeancultures and their livestock, crops, weeds anddiseases increased the loss of island flora andfauna and added to the threats tocontinental species. In later centuries, the growthof trans-oceanic human travel and commerceled to the spread of a tremendous variety ofspecies to new regions of the world and humancolonisation of many uninhabited islands.Native species may be out-competed by theexotic species introduced, deliberately oraccidentally, by humans. Current estimated ratesof extinction for most higher life-forms intropical rainforests are 1-10% of these species inthe next 25 years (or 1000 to 10,000 timesbackground rates) (UNEP, 1995). Of course, inbiological systems, cascading effects can resultfrom individual extinctions, when a specieswith particular functional importance to anecosystem (keystone species) is removed (seeearlier chapters).


100

Agriculture

Conversion of forests to agricultural land

266. The major causes of deforestation are theexpansion of subsistence agriculture and largeeconomic development programmes involvingagriculture. The conversion of forests intoagricultural land has been the major historicalcause for deforestation in Europe, Asia, andNorth America and still is a major driving forcetoday in the tropical and sub-tropical areas.The current agents vary from small farmerspractising shifting cultivation or clearing forestsfor subsistence needs to large agriculturalconcerns that clear vast tracts of forest lands inorder to establish cattle ranches or agro-industrial plantations such as soya beans in LatinAmerica and oil palm in Indonesia/Malaysia.

Dismantling of agro-forestry systems

267. An emerging and rather insidious threat tobiological diversity and tree genetic resources isposed through the dismantling of agro-forestrysystems, i.e. the removal or failure to plant treesin agricultural and horticultural systems. Thisis usually associated with intensified, oftenmonocultural, agricultural and livestockhusbandry practices that eliminate trees fromrural and urban agricultural areas. In Tonga,especially on Tongatapu, successive phases ofunsustainable cash cropping have led to theelimination of trees in agro-ecosystems. In partsof Africa many useful tree species now exist onlyas scattered individuals or highly fragmentednon-viable populations in agro-ecosystems, andare likely to disappear within the next fewdecades (IUCN 2000). Trees in agro-ecosystemsmay disappear either directly through cuttingand clearing, or through the establishment of ahostile environment for regeneration andrecruitment of remnant tree species.

Overgrazing

268. Overgrazing is increasingly a major threatto biodiversity in both tropical and temperate

forests. The main impacts are damage to thetopsoil, destruction of understory vegetationand/or its replacement with a narrower rangeof unpalatable species and selective browsing ofregenerating tree species, which may eventuallyresult in the elimination of particular species.

Unsustainable forest management

269. Poor forest utilisation practicesremain widespread in all forest types, despitewell- documented studies and widespreaddemonstrations of the environmental andeconomic benefits of sustainable managementmethods such as reduced-impact logging (RIL)practices (Putz et al., 2000) or close-to-natureforestry.

Poor logging practices

270. Poor logging practices are those that leadto a longer-term reduction in the actual andpotential economic, ecological and socialfunctions of the forest. For example, large clearcuts using heavy machinery can lead to soilcompaction and nutrient runoff. Another formof poor logging practice is the destruction ofspecific local habitats, such as riparian zones.Poor logging practices adversely impact onbiodiversity values of forests by degrading themin various ways, and sometimes make it morelikely that the areas will be converted to analternative land use at a later date.

Over-intensive forest management

271. In temperate and boreal forests, severalaspects of over-intensive forest managementnegatively impact on forest biodiversity.These include: the replacement of natural andsemi-natural forests by monospecific andeven-aged plantations, large scale clear-cuttingin areas without natural large scale disturbances,the planting of inappropriate species, theremoval of important forest structures such asdead and decaying wood, the destruction of keyhabitats and the disturbance of drainagepatterns.


101

Fuelwood and charcoal collection

272. Excessive fuelwood collection from forestswill often have negative consequences for FBDfor several reasons. In areas where fuelwoodremains plentiful then particular preferredfuelwood species may be targeted and these candecline and eventually disappear. For instance,fire-stick harvesting from Pinus merkusii innorth-east Thailand, a small-scale but highlydestructive practice, is likely to lead to thedisappearance of pine and mixed pine-dryevergreen forest associations in the region. Inareas where fuelwood is in high demand,especially around major population centres,then forest communities may be degradedthrough excessive cutting and/or removal ofbiomass and nutrients. For example, extensiveremoval of fallen leaves for fuel in Eucalyptusand Casuarina plantations can break thenutrient cycle, lower productivity and lead to soilerosion (Srivastava and Ambasht, 1994). Wherelaws exist to prevent overharvesting (for examplein national parks) compliance is low because ofpoor enforcement and minimal penalties foroffenders (Abbott and Mace, 1999). Specificfuelwood plantations can take the pressure offnative forests to provide this commodity, whileinvolving local villagers in thinning and pruningoperations in existing plantations (in which thewood is salvaged for fuel) (Chauhan and Ingle,1988).

Harvesting of non-timber forest products 23

273. Harvesting non-timber forest products(NTFPs) can strengthen sustainablemanagement and conservation of forestbiological diversity through the provision ofdirect benefits to people. There are exceptionshowever, e.g. resin tapping of importantcommercial timber species, including manydipterocarps in South east-Asia, mayconsiderably weaken or kill trees if practised

intensively over a long period of time andaccordingly resin tapping has been banned insome countries. In Central Africa, severallocalised high valuable timber species,Baillonella toxisperma, Milicia excelsa andPterocarpus soyauxii, are also important sourcesof valuable and irreplaceable NTFPs. Thesespecies may be heavily depleted by logging andaccordingly there is a high conflict between theirutilisation for timber and their potential toprovide NTFPs (Laird, 1999). Furthermore,extraction of NTFPs can have major ecologicalimpacts, including adverse consequences forforest biological diversity. Such situationsusually involve commercial extraction, includingexport to areas remote from the production area,rather than subsistence/traditional uses. Theymay also be associated with identification of newmedicines, e.g. taxol and taxine from Taxusbaccata, Himalayan yew, or new markets fortraditional NTFPs, e.g. yohimbine fromPausinystalia johimbe, yohimbe (Sunderland etal., 1999), or with increasing pressure on adiminishing resource base, e.g. Securidacalongipedunculata (‘mother-of-medicine’) inNiger and Alphitonia zizyphoides (toi) andTarenna sambucina (manonu) in Tongatapu,Tonga. Prunus africana is already over exploitedin parts of its natural range for its medicinalbark (Dawson et al., 2000). Reductions in forestarea and associated reductions in availability andaccess to traditional NTFPs, coupled withincreased human pressure, are factors oftenassociated with unsustainable extraction ratesfor NTFPs.274. Genetic impacts of harvesting of NTFPs canbe considerable (see: Namkoong et al., 1997;Peters, 1996; Boyle, 1999). In cases where wholeplants are harvested, the effects of reducedpopulation size may be genetically significant.For a small number of particularly valuablespecies, entire populations have already been lostor severely depleted through over-exploitation of

23. As requested by COP, in its decision V/4, paragraph 14, the issue of impact of, and proposed sustainable practices for, the harvesting of non-timber forest products, including bush meat and living botanical resources will be addressed in-depth in a separate document for SBSTTA 7.


102

NTFPs. Examples include aquaje palm (Mauritiaflexuosa) in Peru (Vasquez and Gentry, 1989),Aquillaria (agarwood) species in South andSouth-east Asia, sandalwood species24 in thesouth-west Pacific (Corrigan et al., 1999) andrattan species in parts of South-east Asia(Dransfield, 1989). Large-scale harvesting ofthe reproductive structures of plants (flowers,fruits, nuts and seeds), will directly reduce theeffective size of the pool of reproductive parentsand reduce genetic diversity in subsequentgenerations. Selective commercial harvesting ofthese parts can also adversely affect the geneticcomposition of the tree species and populationsbeing utilised (Peters, 1990, 1996). In suchcases, harvesting the ‘better’ fruit may removeparticular, advantageous genotypes and mayresult in a population dominated by trees ofmarginal economic value with much less valueas a genetic resource. In cases where a highproportion of flowers and/or fruits of aparticular species is harvested on a regular basis,the most important long-term ecological andgenetic impact will be a reduction in seedlingregeneration and recruitment, possibly leadingto eventual extinction of the population.275. One approach to management andutilisation of NTFPs in the Brazilian Amazoniahas been the establishment of specific“extractive reserves”(see e.g. Kageyama, 1991).Such reserves are managed by the localcommunities that depend on the forest for asignificant component of their livelihood. It wasanticipated that their establishment would resultin sustainable management of the naturalresources in the reserve, e.g. rubber (Heveabrasiliensis) or Brazil nuts (Bertholletia excelsa),and concomitant conservation of forest geneticresources and biological diversity. However, suchexport commodities are very susceptible toexternal market forces. Therefore, when the priceof natural rubber was more than halved in the1990s, production from Amazon forestscollapsed (Assies, 1997). In more recent times,

competition from cheaper Bolivian rainforestsources has contributed to a sharp decline in theexport of shelled Brazil nuts from Brazil (Assies,1999). Peters (1992) has suggested that wheremarket-orientated extraction of NTFPs is theobjective, then it would be best to focus ontropical forests dominated by only one or twouseful species (oligarchic forests), rather thanspecies-rich ecosystems. Peters (1992) gives anumber of examples, mainly palm species, fromAmazonia.

Overexploitation

276. Overexploitation can be the main factorcausing extinction in the case of a relatively smallnumber of species, principally certain valuablelarger animals and tree or other plant species.While numerically small, such losses are of greatconcern, because they may be of species at/ornear the top of the food chain and/or keystonespecies and also because they often represent thefunctional loss of a component of biodiversitythat is more highly valued by humans.Overexploitation typically involves the huntingof larger mammals for subsistence and salein local markets and, more destructively, forlong-distance trade and export. Bush meathunting and trade has in many areas lead to thephenomenon of “empty forests”, i.e. the totalextinction of wildlife, even in natural forests(Carey, 1999) so that in many tropical forestareas, bush meat hunting has become the singlemost important conservation problem(see Chapter IV, Box 9.).277. The Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES)has contributed substantially to the reduction inacross border trade of endangered animal andplant species, but tougher penalties and morecoordinated enforcement may be needed toreduce black markets in the products of somehighly-valued species. In order for CITES tobe fully effective it needs to be appropriatelycomplemented by well-implemented domestic

24. One of the documented species extinctions: Santalum fernandezianum from Juan Fernandez islands.


103

regulations in the countries where thethreatened species occur naturally.

Introduction of invasive alien speciesand genotypes

278. The ever-accelerating rate of biotic invasionof alien species and genotypes is a major elementof human-induced global change. There arewell-documented and numerous examples ofinvasive alien species and diseases causingtremendous damage to FBD (e.g. Dutch elmdisease in eastern North America). Thedamaging species may come from anytaxanomic group (i.e., from micro-organisms tovertebrates), as well as being from all functionlevels (for instance, predators, herbivores,primary producers, parasites). Island forestecosystems and species appear particularlyvulnerable, e.g. the brown tree snake (Boigairregularis) introduced into Guam, in thenorthern Pacific, has devastated the island’sbirds (Jaffe and Savidge, 1994).279. Invasive alien plant species, in particular,pose a well-confirmed and increasing danger toecosystem integrity of many forest ecosystems.For example in the Pacific Islands there are anumber of weedy trees which are having a majornegative impact on FBD:

(a) Leucaena leucocephala has takenover vast expanses in drier forestassociations in the Pacific. It wasdeliberately broadcast on severalwar-disturbed islands after World WarII (e.g. Guam) and more recently hasbeen introduced for agro-forestryplantings (Jaffe and Savidge, 1994).

(b) Miconia calvescens (purple plague), asmall tree from tropical America, is thebiggest invasive species problem inFrench Polynesia. It now covers 60%of Tahiti where is forms monospecificstands and totally shades out nativevegetation. It has become established

on other Pacific islands, including thebiodiverse island groups of Hawaii andNew Caledonia (Meyer and Florence,1996)

(c) Spathodea campanulata (African tuliptree) is a major invasive tree in Guam,Fiji, French Polynesia, Hawaii andSamoa, where it can take over anyforest subject to disturbance, forexample after cyclones. It was originallyintroduced as an ornamental tree(McConnell and Muniappan, 1991).

(d) Cordia alliodora is a major invasive tree of native forest in parts of Fiji,Tonga and Vanuatu where it had beenintroduced from Central America for forestry trials and plantings(Barrance 1989).

Infrastructure Development

Construction of roads

280. The construction of new roads has aprofound impact on the forest. Road building isconsidered to be one of the main causes ofdeforestation. Between 400 and 2000 ha may bedeforested by each kilometre of new roadbuilt into intact primary forests (Contreras-Hermosilla, 2000). For example, theTrans-Amazonian highway opened up millionsof square kilometres of previously inaccessibleforest to colonisation and expansion of the cattleindustry. Main arteries were soon followed bysecondary roads that penetrated deeper into theforest, eventually producing a wide swath ofdeforested land on either side of the road. Allroads that are constructed with the purpose ofproviding better access to less developed regionswithin a country tend to push up real estatevalues for non-forest uses and encourage landspeculation and deforestation. Logging roads areamong the most important types of access roadsthat facilitate deforestation (Roper and Roberts,1999)25

25. A recent study (Laurance et al., 2001) reveals that the dozens of major new highways and infrastructure projects, in which the Braziliangovernment plans to invest $40 billion from 2000 to 2007, would lead to the destruction or heavy damage of 28-42% of the Amazon forest. TheBrazilian government estimates that a maximum of 25% of the forest would be destroyed or damaged.


104

Hydroelectric development

281. Hydroelectric development is anotherimportant factor in deforestation. Reservoirsflood forest lands and transmission linerights-of-ways are cut out of the forest to carrythe energy to consumers, causing permanentloss of forest cover. (Roper and Roberts, 1999).

Residential and cities development

282. Forests are also encroached upon byindustrial and residential development aspopulations grow and cities extend outward(Roper and Roberts, 1999).

Mining and oil exploitation

283. Mining and oil exploration can be animportant local factor in forest decline. Largemines, such as those of Carajás in Brazil and theCopperbelt of Zambia, consumed vast quantitiesof indigenous woodlands to supply fuel to theirsmelting operations before plantations offast-growing species were established. The effectsof gold mining has been widely publicised,particularly placer mining in the Amazon, but itsnegative impacts have affected the indigenouspeoples and the quality of the water more thanthe adjacent forests. Oil exploration activities,such as the clearing of the seismic lines in theforests of eastern Ecuador, not only destroy theforests but also open them up to colonisation bysubsistence farmers who follow the explorationcrews (Roper and Roberts, 1999). More foresthas been cleared for oil exploration in AlbertaCanada than has been harvested for woodproducts (Timoney 2001). Furthermore, oilexploitation often leads to severe pollution dueto the leakage of pipelines; for example, severalareas of the Siberian forests have been affected.

Climate Change

284. Global climate change represents such adisturbing threat to FBD for several reasons.First, because its impact will potentially be felt inmost forest areas, and second, the nature and

scale of its impact will be complex and require acomprehensive and co-ordinated response atboth the regional level and globally. Climatechange can affect biodiversity either directlythrough altering physiological responses orindirectly through altering interspecificrelationships (Peters and Lovejoy, 1992,Kirschbaum et al., 1996). The capacity of forestassociations and individual componentspecies/populations to adapt to changedclimatic conditions has been greatly diminishedby fragmentation, with reduced gene flow andmigration options. Climate change incombination with increasing fragmentation offorests and loss of forest types is likely to causeextinction of many species. More mobile,widespread, genetically variable species withshort generation times will be best able to adaptand survive accelerated climate change.285. Climate change will be a major threat tocurrent forest biodiversity in the near future,although the exact effects are uncertain. Manyforest ecosystems will undoubtedly be subjectedto greater and more frequent disturbances,leading to loss of FBD. This issue has beenaddressed in more depth in the 6th and7th meetings of SBSTTA (UNEP/CBD/STSTTA/6/11, UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/6/INF/13and UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/7/7). Forecasting theprecise impacts of climate change on FBD isdifficult, because they are overshadowed bythe confounding effects of human-inducedmodifications, especially those of dominatingland use patterns (Sala et al., 2000). Despitevarying opinions about the nature and extent ofthe impact of climate change on biologicaldiversity, there is a general agreement thatbiological diversity will decline world-wideunder most models of climate change scenarios(e.g. Bazzaz, 1998, Easterling et al., 2000). Forestfragmentation is likely to increase withglobal warming due to increasing seasonality,desiccation, and higher incidence of forest fires(e.g., Thompson et al., 1998).


105

286. Climate modelling suggests that a warmingtrend will lead to large changes in many areas ofthe earth but especially in the northern latitudes.Climate change represents probably the greatestthreat to the boreal region world-wide (Pastor etal., 1996). A warmer climate will producechanges in the boreal forest biome, where theprimary productivity will increase in the northbut not necessarily in the south (Beuker et al.1996). Although the exact extent and speed ofthe warming is still to be determined, the borealclimate change will dramatically affect theecosystem in various ways. Some reports suggesta general northward shift of forest ecosystems(Emanuel et al., 1985; Thompson et al., 1998).The changes may also result in an invasionof southern species, increasing impacts ofpathogens, altered fire regimes and variousnatural disasters caused by episodic storm events(Shugart et al., 1992, Monserud et al., 1996).The probable destruction of permafrostaccompanying climate change (Dyke andBrooks, 2001) and human land use will causemajor landscape degradation and loss ofbiological diversity over large areas (Sala et al.,2000). Areas of northern taiga and treed tundraare predicted to be replaced by more productiveboreal forests as climate warming occurs, whilesome drier southern boreal areas may becomesavannahs (Solomon, 1993, Suffling, 1995;Thompson et al., 1998).287. Further, the warming might be more rapidthan the migration rates of major tree species,which may result in massive regional extinctions(Reid, 1992, Botkin and Nisbet, 1992,Kirschbaum et al., 1996, Davis and Zabinski,1992). In general, boreal tree species in the southwill be replaced by northern hardwoods orprairie grasslands, and the probability of fire willbe increased over much of the biome. Also theprobability of outbreaks of insect pests mayincrease as trees become drought-stressed andmore susceptible.288. It is also likely that the capacity of forestassociations and individual component

species/populations to adapt to changedclimatic conditions has been greatly diminishedby fragmentation, with reduced genetic diversity,gene flow capacity, and migration options(Thompson et al., 1998). Climate change incombination with increasing fragmentation offorests is likely to cause extinction of certainspecies, especially among arthropods and plants(Reid, 1992; Botkin and Nisbet, 1992;Kirschbaum et al., 1996). More mobile,widespread, genetically variable species withshort generation times will be best able to adaptand survive accelerated climate change. Foreststhat are rich in restricted-range endemic speciesare likely to be particularly adversely affected(Lovett et al., 2000). Further, changes brought onby climate warming must be viewed in thecontext of already disturbed landscapes, makingcomparisons with historical post-glacialmigrations problematic (Kuuluvainen et al.,1996).

Natural Hazards and Forest Fires

289. Natural hazards, such as storms andhurricane damage, forest fires, floods and pestsare natural disturbance regimes in forests. Theycan often have a positive impact on biologicaldiversity. These disturbances, on a small orlarge scale, can create specific habitats that areimportant for the survival of a plethora of floraand fauna; they should, therefore, be mimickedor maintained in forest management(Angelstam, 1998). However, many humaninduced activities exacerbate these disturbancesin a way that makes them an increasing threat toforest biodiversity.290. Natural fires are a crucial element for thesuccession of many forests, especially in borealareas. Prescribed burning, mimicking wildfires,should be used to a greater extent in restorationof forests in conservation areas and also in somemanaged forests. With a changing climate,however, natural and human-caused fires canhave deleterious impacts on FBD; for instance,after the predicted prolonged periods of drought


106

(see in more detail UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/7/7).These fires have destroyed many important firerefugia on which many forest species intolerantto fire are dependent. Both the unusualfrequency and new regional occurrence of firesmay be attributed to climate change.291. Lack of fire in habitats where fire is part ofthe ecological process of regeneration (e.g.savannah woodlands or boreal forests) can havea deleterious effect on biological diversity andits processes in the longer term. However,extreme climatic events generating fire can havedevastating impacts on FBD. For example, aprolonged or abnormally severe drought can befollowed by uncontrolled fire, which can destroysensitive forest communities and species. Inrecent years (1997, 1998 and 2000) forest fireshave been particularly severe and verywidespread (in, for instance, Australia, Brazil,Central America, Colombia, Indonesia, Kenya,Mexico, Mongolia, Papua New Guinea, Peru,Russia, Rwanda, Spain, USA and westernCanada). Fires devastated large forest areas thatnormally do not get burnt. Such unprecedentedfrequency and unusual occurrences of fires maybe attributed to climate change. Fragmentationmay prevent or inhibit recolonisation of burntforest patches by fire-sensitive animal and plantspecies, thereby aggravating the negative impactsof increased fire frequency and intensity on FBD.In Samoa, two severe tropical cyclones in theearly 1990s ravaged the remaining lowlandrainforests, which had been opened up to greaterdestruction through heavy logging. These“secondary” forests are now in a state of arrestedregeneration, mostly smothered by the rampantnative climber (Merremia peltata) andincreasingly subject to periodic wildfire duringEl Niño drought years. Merremia has alsobecome a problem in the Solomon Islands andMalaysia following both fire and logging (Bacon1982, Pinard and Ptuz 1994). This exampleillustrates the point that FBD is especiallyvulnerable to the interactions of multiple threatfactors.

Atmospheric Pollution

292. Increasing atmospheric pollution, forexample so-called acid rain, has had a majordegrading impact on forests, mainly in partsof Europe and around the Great Lakes in UnitedStates and Canada, adversely affectingforest ecosystem functioning. Results of themonitoring of forest condition in Europe showthat atmospheric nitrogen and sulphurdeposition affects nutrient status and treevitality. In 30% of the plots surveyed, thenutrient status is insufficient or unbalanced.Although sulphur deposition has decreased inthe last decade, nitrogen depositions originatingin emissions have increased. On about 50% ofthe plots, N-deposition is over the critical load of14 kg nitrogen per ha/yr, above which adverseeffects are very probable, specifically on theground vegetation. Increased pollution has alsolead to changes in soil properties, which are alsolikely to affect biodiversity (UN/ECE and EU2000, Forest condition report).

D. IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITIESON FOREST FUNCTIONING BYBIOME

Impacts on boreal biome forest function

293. Human activities that have an impact onboreal ecosystems at local and regional scalesinclude resource management activities suchas logging and forest management, firemanagement, and hunting. Intensive hunting offur-bearing mammals since the 16th and 17th

centuries has led to a reduction in thepopulations of brown bears (Ursus arctos)and marten (Martes americana, M. martes,M. zibellina) in their southern ranges, withconsequences on their prey and on theoverall ecosystem (Pastor et al., 1996). Theextermination of beavers from some areas oftheir previous range removed an importantfactor in landscape dynamics (Naiman et al.,1986). However, most boreal mammals speciesare not currently threatened except for some


107

furbearing species that have been over-exploited,some predators considered to be pests, oranimals requiring large undisturbed areas suchas wolves (Canis lupus), brown bears (Ursusspp.), and woodland caribou (Rangifertarandus). Indeed, because of the generally greatadaptability of boreal species (Holling, 1992),most reduced animal populations reboundrapidly once direct exploitation stops (Broschartet al., 1989).294. Logging of natural primary forest may havemajor effects on the biodiversity of borealecosystems, unless old forests are permitted toredevelop (UNEP, 1995). Commercial loggingcurrently dominates human-induced changes inboreal forests. As a result of logging, old growthstands have disappeared from large areas ofboreal biome. Intensive forestry practicesthat consist of large-scale removal of naturalmature stands and regeneration/replanting withan even-aged monoculture, often with soilpreparation and artificial fertilisers, have hadnegative ecological effects (Pastor et al., 1996).More sustainable forest management activitiesare being introduced in Scandinavia and Canadawith the aim of mimicking natural fire and winddisturbance patterns (e.g., Niemelä 1999,Bergeron et al. 2001). These practices use patchfelling, or small clearcuts with the retention ofsome old and dead trees as ‘biological legacies’ .The effects on biodiversity and ecosystemfunction of these ecosystem managementsystems are not yet known.295. Changes in fire regimes through activesuppression of wildfires, partly as a result offorest management, have altered landscape-scalepatch structure and age class distributions, aswell as composition and stand structure(Heinselman, 1973; Baker, 1989). These changesinteract with ecosystem processes to alter futuresuccessional pathways and forest productivityfurther (Pastor et al., 1996). In turn, thesechanges in habitat distribution have an impacton biodiversity, particularly on bird populations(Pastor et al., 1996).

296 Containing 23% of the overall terrestrialcarbon stock and 49% of the total carbon stockof the three main forest biomes, the borealbiome represents the primary terrestrial carbonpool, far ahead of tropical and temperate biomes(UNEP, 2000). More than 84% of the carboncontained in boreal forest is stored in soils(UNEP, 2000). In addition to being the largestterrestrial carbon pool, boreal and temperateforest biomes represent a net sink andcompensate for the net emissions from tropicalecosystems (UNEP, 2000). In this respect, theboreal biome plays a key role in climateregulation and any major disturbance to theecosystem through human activities that causea major release of boreal carbon may havesignificant consequences for global climate. Overthe past century, Canadian boreal forests showeda sharp rise in growth rates consistent with risingtemperatures. Change in age class structuresuggests they have gone from being a sink (about0.2Gt C per year) to being neutral or a slightsource of carbon to the atmosphere (Kurz andApps, 1995; Walker et al., 1999).

Impacts on temperate biome forest function

297. Only 3% of old growth temperate forestremain, and in many regions temperate forestshave a history of management and exploitationwhich has occurred over a large proportion oftheir area. Europe has a particularly long historyof human use of forests and there are very few, ifany, truly natural forests remaining. Many largepredators have been lost from large areas forcenturies, and domestic and wild grazinganimals often have a strong influence onwoodland composition and structure (Mayle,1999). Woodland biodiversity has becomeadjusted to the traditional management andland-use patterns, with a higher proportion ofspecies associated with open and edge habitatsand younger growth stages, leading to moregeneralist species than in the past. However,historical management systems, notably coppice,wood pasture have declined over recent decades


108

and a high forest structure is becoming morepredominant. Ceasing management altogether,especially in fragmented woodland areas, istherefore likely to lead to loss of biodiversity andalso other goods and services, such as recreationvalues, which depend on maintaining a range ofage classes and open and wooded areas.Therefore, although there is a need forminimum intervention in some protected forestareas, (and there will be a place for new andrestored natural forest in which the aim is toallow development with little intervention) theneed in much of the temperate forest in Europeis to adjust forest management to modernconditions, rather than question whether tomanage at all (Rykowski et al. 1999).299. Anthropogenic depositions (Sox, Nox etc.)have an impact on water quality, tree health andsoil properties in some regions, for example inwestern and central Europe. Although the trendsand the mechanisms are not entirely clear(Manion and Lachance, 1992), the changes insoil properties (pH, CEC, N) could have anegative or positive impact on the functioning offorest ecosystems and thus on biodiversity(Emmett et al. 1998). It is likely that Ndeposition has increased forest growth on aglobal average in the past 50-100 years (Aber etal. 1991). This N fertilization is credited withabout one third of the net sink activity of thebiosphere, but there is concern that this Nfertilization cannot continue indefinitely (Aberet al. 1991).299. Various management systems can havedifferent types of impacts on the forestecosystem functioning. For example, patchfelling may have a stronger local impact thanselective logging, especially on soil fertility, asorganic matter is more rapidly decomposed.Patch felling produces gaps in the forest, creatingedge effects and modifies the micro-climaticconditions. However, selective logging and patchfelling at scales and intensities suited to theregeneration ecology of the main tree species aregenerally not disruptive to the ecosystem and

should not significantly affect the futurepotential to supply most goods and services(e.g., Niemela 1999). Logging roads can havestrong negative impacts on the overallforest ecosystem, which can be additive to treeharvesting, especially when layout and usedo not take into account the restrictions oftopography, soils conditions, and hydrology(Schulze et al. 1996).300. The conversion of broad-leaf forest intoconiferous plantations to increase timberproduction rates was prominent during thetwentieth century, in some temperate countries.In these countries, large scale conversion beganmore than 100 years ago but the intensity of thispractice is now reduced, with new approachesadvocating greater use of broad-leaf and nativespecies (Rykowski et al. 1999). For example,Fagus sylvatica forest was massively convertedto Picea abies plantations in Germany, anddeciduous forests in Japan are still beingconverted into Cryptomeria japonica in thesouth, and Abies and Picea in the north (Schulzeet al., 1996). Nearly 40% of the ancient semi-natural broad-leaf woodland in the UK wasconverted to conifer plantation between around1930 and 1985; after 1985 policy shifted towardsconserving and restoring native woodlands(Kirby et al., 1989).301. The impacts of such changes on ecosystemfunctioning are important. The change fromdeciduous forest to conifer species often resultsin a decrease in the cycling of nitrogen betweenplant canopies and the forest soil, by as muchas 75% or more (Schulze et al., 1996). Theimmediate consequence is increased loss ofnitrate to ground water, which can affect waterquality, notably where management involveslarge scale clear felling. There may also be a long-term risk of soil acidification (Brand et al. 1986).Restoration of acidified soils often implies lim-ing, which can have further impact on groundwater quality by increasing nitrogen leaching.302. Other impacts of coniferous conversion on


109

diversity and related goods and services includereduced light penetration associated withevergreen foliage, which maintains drier soilconditions and this, together with the reducedlitter decomposition rates caused by thechemistry of the needles, acts to inhibit the herblayer (Schulze and Gerstberger, 1993), at leastduring the younger stages of forest development.303. Forest fragmentation can lead to an increasein species-richness through edge effects, butoften this is achieved by adding generalistwoodland/agricultural edge species at theexpense of the loss of forest interior specialists(Andren, 1994). Most small wooded areasmaintain only a fraction of the normal speciescomplement compared to similar forest types inlarge or continuous forest areas. Forestfragmentation effects become non-linear atabout 25% of remaining forest cover (Andren1994).304. Agriculture, urbanization and road buildinghave substantially altered temperate forestintegrity and ecosystem functioning.Fragmentation increases ecosystem vulnerabilityto impacts such as invasive species, drift offertilisers and herbicides from agricultural land,and climate change, which may promotelocalised extinctions of vulnerable species.Roads, including logging roads, introducecorridors, which promote the introduction ofinvasive plants, insects and pathogens (Schulze etal., 1996), in addition to fragmenting thenatural habitat for wildlife and modifyingthe drainage pattern. Studies have shown acorrelation between the density of forest roadsand the decrease of some animal populations(Brocke et al., 1989).305. Temperate forests, along with the forestsof the boreal biome, represent an importantterrestrial net carbon sink (net uptake ofcarbon) as forest regrowth absorbs carbondioxide from the atmosphere, where absorptionrates exceed respiration rates. This compensates,but only to some extent, for the net emissionsresulting from land use changes in the tropics

(UNEP, 2000). This situation is explained byland use practices, natural regrowth, the indirecteffects of human activities (e.g., atmosphericCO2, fertilisation and nutrient deposition) andchanging climate (UNEP, 2000). Expectedincreases in plantation areas will absorb morecarbon, but the likely continued rate ofdeforestation will mean the world’s forestsremain a net source of CO2 emissions and acontributor to global climate change (WRI et al.,2000). A plantation forest, managed formaximum volume yield, will normally containsubstantially less carbon than the same area ofunmanaged primary forest (Cannell, 1999).Multi-purpose planted forests, where some areasare allowed to mature and remain unharvestedfor biodiversity and other benefits shouldincrease carbon sequestration compared tosingle purpose timber plantations and providethe best overall mix of goods and services.306. Watershed deforestation and subsequentinappropriate agriculture practices and soilerosion have had important effects on waterquality and water quantity of streams and rivers.Poorly designed or operated logging roads canhave a strong negative impact on the quality ofthe water as a result of erosion (Aber et al.,2000). In some mountainous regions watershedprotection is regarded as the main function offorests, for example in parts of Austria,Switzerland and Japan. New York City recentlydetermined that it should purchase large areas offorested watershed to protect its water supplyinto the future.

Impacts on tropical forest biome function

307. Human impact on tropical forestbiodiversity is mainly through land use changeby converting forest areas to pastures, croplands,and plantations (UNEP, 1995) or by short-termshifting agricultural use and subsequentdegradation and erosion. Arid and savannahforests are also threatened by desertification,which is exacerbated by overgrazing. The extentto which human activities are leading to the


110

extinction of species in tropical forest is poorlydocumented, but current habitat and speciesloss in moist tropical forests are believed to beelevated and more important in tropical regionsthan anywhere in the world (Whitmore andSayer, 1992). Such losses are expected toinfluence functional properties of tropicalecosystem (Orians et al., 1996).308. Forest fragmentation, deforestation,reduction of habitat size and edge effects all haveimportant effects on biotic linkages and onecosystem functioning. Many tropical plants areanimal-pollinated (Bawa and Hadley, 1990) anddepend on animals for the dispersal of theirseeds (Estrada and Flemming, 1986). As a resultof forest fragmentation, the loss of pollinators orother functional guilds, such as seed-dispersingbirds and bats, may affect the plant reproductivebiology, forest structure and dynamics; and itmay also affect the long term population ofmany tree species (UNEP, 1995; Howe andSmallwood, 1982; Terborgh, 1986, Cordeiro andHowe, 2001), all having an impact on potentialgoods and services to humans.309. Forest management in the tropics oftenconsists of selective harvesting of commercialtrees, and many such trees occur at low densitiesrequiring excessive roading. As in the caseof selective harvesting in temperate forests,building of logging roads in tropical forestshas an important negative impact on overallecosystem functioning of the forests as the roadsdisrupt streams, lead to soil erosion, provideaccess to humans and open gaps in the canopy.Furthermore, logging roads in primary tropicalforests often lead to poaching (Peres 2001),uncontrolled settlements, burning, and illegaldeforestation. However, in terms of providinggoods and services, studies have demonstratedthat secondary forests can be managed toprovide many of the products that small-farmerhouseholds traditionally obtained from primaryforests, while providing some of theenvironmental benefits of primary forests(Chapin et al., 1998).

310. Watershed deforestation, inappropriateagriculture practices, and soil erosion havedramatic effects on water quality of streams andrivers. In addition, silt particles, which arecarried to coastal zone, may cause death to coralreefs (UNEP, 1995). Mangrove ecosystems arealso under threat due to human activities such asland use change. Vast areas of mangroves areconverted to other uses. For example, Thailandand Indonesia have lost 50% of their originalmangrove ecosystems, Philippines 80% andMalaysia 32% (UNEP, 1995). Indirect causes ofbiodiversity loss include human alteration ofupland watershed causing changes in freshwaters pathways or pollution (UNEP, 1995).Climate change is also expected to have a directdramatic effect on mangroves through a rise insea level.

Conclusions concerning human impactson ecosystem functioning

311. Human impacts on forest ecosystemfunctioning are numerous. Each of the threemain forest biomes has its own characteristicsand, thus, the consequences of human activitieswithin them will differ (see Table 11). It appearsthat in low-diversity systems, such as in theboreal forests, the full set of species withinthe functional groups may be important. In highdiversity systems, such as the tropical forests, thedeletion of a species may sometimes becompensated for by other species. However thiscompensation does not seem to occur when allof a functional group is lost (UNEP, 1995).Critical levels of biodiversity loss/change canaffect forest ecosystem functioning and, in turn,the goods and services provided by forests, butthese effects are still hard to discern. Therefore,this needs to be a focus for future work. Keystonespecies or structures and functional groups needto be identified and validated in order to developreliable indicators. While it is likely that somedegree of biodiversity loss in some situations will have little or no long term effect on othergoods and services, as long as the forest remains


111

relatively intact, the linkages between biodiversi-ty and ecosystem functions and the criticalthresholds of impacts on biodiversity loss mustbe understood. This reinforces the value offollowing theprecautionary principle when thereis a reasonable doubt about the impacts ofhuman activities on a forest ecosystem.312. Most studies have focussed on loss ofnatural forest to unsustainable exploitation.

There is a need to focus more on the potential atregional and landscape scales for synergy fromcombining primary and secondary naturalforest, agro-forest and plantations on formeropen (non-forest) lands managed sustainably fora range of different packages of goods andservices, including biological diversity. Theapplication of the ecosystem approach advisedby CBD could be a key to the way forward.

Forest biomes Examples of human Key aspect of the Goods and services Medium toactivities that can affect ecosystem affected affected long termthe ecosystem functioning possible main

consequences

Boreal Clearcutting, harvesting Rejuvenation of Global climate Release of soil

and replanting forest stand, age class regulation. carbon. Loss of

variation, diversity. Perturbation of the structures

boreal forest ecosystem

on large scale can

affect the carbon

uptake and storage

capacity. Modification

of landscape patterns.

Fire control Modification of stand Landscape, wildlife Changes in species

structure and populations. composition.

composition,

regeneration, changes

in wildlife habitat.

Hunting Impact on keystone Landscape, wildlife Changes in species

species such as beaver, populations. composition.

moose and on

landscape pattern.

Atmospheric pollution Alteration of nutrient Water quality, changes Changes in forest

cycling, impact on in forest composition, ecosystem

water cycling, impacts wildlife modification composition.

on the overall through habitat

ecosystem changes.

functioning, direct

damages to the

conifers.

Table 11: Summary table on key ecosystem functioning, the principal human impactsand possible consequences on goods and services.


112


consequences

Fragmentation by Stand structure, Animal populations. Changes in animal

silvicultural practices overall ecosystem species,

(patches) functions, wildlife migrations.

habitat.

Temperate Atmospheric pollution Alterations in Forest diversity, Health of the

nutrient cycling, changes in forest overall ecosystem.

alteration of forest composition and Increased

resilience. impacts on the food susceptibility to

chain. outbreaks of

insects and

diseases.

Sustainable forest Patch, group or Timber, amenity, Low levels of old

management systems selective logging and recreation can all growth and

regeneration: benefit, and impacts biodiversity of

structural and species on water soil and dead wood.

composition, few carbon may be small Biodiversity of

old/dead trees; roads; if well planned. Some young and pre-

water and soil. aspects of biodiversity mature stages and

may benefit, others open areas benefit.

may suffer. Most other goods

and services

sustained.

Conversion of broadleaf Stand diversity, Landscape, fauna and Changes in species

forest to plantations of soil fertility, water. flora habitat, composition.

conifer species recreation

and tourism, water

quality.

Plantations on agricultural Development of new All main goods and May take 100-200

land or forest regeneration woodland ecosystem services can develop years or more for

on agricultural land to some degree. full development;

may not be same

as original existing

forest

Forest fragmentation by Overall ecosystem Landscape, fauna, Loss of habitats

urban and infrastructure functions affected. flora. Recreation for fauna.

development. and tourism.


113


consequences

Tropical Deforestation Pollinator keystone NTFP* , fuelwood, Loss of potential

species populations genetic resources, valuable genetic

affected (e.g. bats and timber. Global climate resources for

birds) and impacts regulation. Tropical agricultural and

on regeneration of forests are currently a pharmaceutical

pioneer species and net source of carbon use. Aggravating

ecosystem succession. dioxide. Eco-tourism. factor in the

Species diversity. climate, global

warming by release

of carbon through

burning and

affecting the

carbon uptake

capacity of the

forest.

Soil structure-texture Water quality and Soil erosion,

forest regeneration soil sterilisation.

affected

Water regulation Watershed Flooding, soil

functions protection erosion, impact

on dam reservoir

capacity, coastal

pollution and

impact on marine

life.

Loss of agricultural

soils.

Hunting Impact on keystone NTFP* Change in forest

species and their role structure as seed

on forest ecosystem dispersers such as

regeneration. primates and

Individual species ungulates are

impacts removed.

Extinctions.

Selective harvesting Stand structure, NTFP Changes in fauna

Forest resilience and flora, long-

term consequences

uncertain.


114


consequences

Plantations on recently Dramatic changes in NTFP, biodiversity Dramatic changes

cleared tropical forest the overall original water regulation. in local forest

ecosystem functions conditions, fauna

and flora.

* Non-timber forest products (includes wild animals, fish, birds, honey, nuts, gums, fruits, flowers, spices, plants for local medicine use, fodder foranimal, berries, mushrooms, etc.).


115

A. GLOBAL POLICY DEVELOPMENTS

313. Although increasing forest use has given riseto many threats to FBD, and endangermentof the forest biota has increased, there havealso been many positive developments ininternational and national forest policies. Manyintergovernmental commitments have beenmade to promote sustainability within theforestry sector, such as the decisions made atUNCED (Forest Principles, Agenda 21, Chapter11 on Combating deforestation and others) andsubsequently in The Intergovernmental Panel onForests (IPF, 1995-1997) and in TheIntergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF,1997-2000). The process will continue in theUnited Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF).During this process knowledge, as well as publicawareness, about sustainable forestmanagement, has greatly increased, and theconcept and principles of sustainable forestmanagement, including protection of forestedareas, have been widely introduced. For example,policy measures to implement sustainable forestmanagement have been increasingly adopted,while certain perverse policies have beenabandoned.314. An objective to view forests as ecosystemshas been widely adopted in many national forestpolicies, particularly in developed countries.New tools to implement sustainable forestmanagement, such as criteria and indicators, arebeing introduced. Guidelines for good forestpractices, including low impact logging, naturaldisturbance guidelines, and protection of speciesare being adopted as a part of the ecosystemmanagement methods. At present, it is still tooearly to say what the success may be of thesevarious approaches to maintaining forestbiological diversity.315. Many nations are taking positivesteps towards improving the conservation ofbiodiversity, and improving cross-sectoralpolicies to reduce impacts. The preparation ofnational forest programs (NFPs) in many

countries resulted from the IPF/IFF process andthe assistance provided by internationalorganisations. Both the IPF and the IFF haveconfirmed and stressed the importance of NFPs.NFPs encompass the full range of policies,institutions, plans and programmes to manage,use, protect and enhance forest resources withina given country. Under the Convention onBiological diversity (CBD) most countrieshave prepared country studies and reports onthe state of biodiversity. A further step waspreparation of national biodiversity strategiesand action plans (NBSAPs). These providegeneral information on diversity of forest speciesand ecosystems, and their principal uses inparticular countries. The strength of bothIPF/IFF and CBD processes is related tothe political commitment generated and theflexibility that allows each country to determineits conservation and forest programmesaccording to national conditions. Variouscoordinating bodies are also established in manycountries in order to enhance collaborationbetween various stakeholders and to integratebiodiversity issues into sectoral policies.

B. CRITERIA AND INDICATORPROCESSES

316. The concept of the use of criteria andindicators for sustainable forest managementwas perhaps the most comprehensivepolicy-related, yet practical, tool to gain popularacceptance following UNCED. This is reflectedin the world-wide application of this concept,which began several years ago. Within theforest sector, the approach of identifying anddeveloping indicators has been unique. Underregional and international processes andinitiatives, the components of sustainable forestmanagement have been characterised by criteriafor which indicators are used to transform theconcept into a measurable form. At present thereare nine regional or international processes thathave developed criteria and indicators forsustainable forest management for the specific

7. CURRENT POSITIVE TRENDS IN FORESTRY AND FOREST POLICIES


116

conditions in the respective regions. The nineare: ITTO, CIFOR, ATO, Montreal-Process,Pan-European Forest Process (MCPFE),Tarapoto-process, Dry Zone Africa-process,Near East–Process, and Lepaterique-Process.Some countries have already made changes totheir forest laws and institutions to meetthe requirements of the concept of criteria andindicators. Indeed, this concept is increasinglyused in the context of national forestprogrammes and, more recently, it is being usedat the local and forest management unit levels. Insome countries and initiatives, concept usingcriteria and indicators has been linked tocertification, which has gained increasingattention in recent years.317. The role of regional initiatives in sustainableforest management has been importantin implementing international initiatives. Forexample, in the context of the MinisterialConference for Protection of Forests in Europe(MCPFE) and its follow-up process, theministers responsible for forests in Europeadopted six criteria and endorsed the associatedindicators for sustainable forest management bysigning Lisbon Resolution L2 in 199826.Criterion 4 and the related seven quantitativeand 26 descriptive indicators are focusedexclusively on biological diversity. They relate tothe maintenance, conservation andenhancement of biological diversity, includingrare and vulnerable forest ecosystems,threatened species and biological diversity inproduction forests.

C. RESTORATION AND EXPANSIONOF WOODLANDS FORBIODIVERSITY AND OTHERGOODS AND SERVICES

318. Some countries are attempting to redevelophistorical forest types, based on retrospectivestudies of biodiversity and forest structures. Theidea is to establish a ‘benchmark’ of forest types,

structures and age classes in the landscape andthen to try and redevelop historical ecosystemsthrough silvicultural techniques. For instance, ineastern North America, which has had a historyof clearcutting and high-grade logging over 300years, several important conifer species, suchas white pine (Pinus strobus), red spruce(Picea rubens), and eastern hemlock(Tsuga canadensis) were severely depleted.Redevelopment of historical forest ecosystems,as part of the biodiversity objectives set for theforest, is occurring within the Canadian ModelForest Network Programme (Box 9). A similarrestoration program is also being practised inthe UK in an attempt to recover biodiversitylost historically. This program involves thesupplementation of planted forests with nativespecies and allowing structures and gaps todevelop within older stands.319. Both in Europe and in North America (andin the southern hemisphere) the forest area inmany countries has increased considerablyduring the last 150 years through planting andby natural colonisation of abandoned farmlandand industrial/mining areas. In western Europe,for example in the United Kingdom, restorationof degraded ancient woodlands is becomingwidespread, with the replacing of exotic species(which were planted during the 20th Century toboost wood production) with native species inan attempt to restore their characteristicbiodiversity. Afforestation of agriculture landswith new ‘natural’ woodlands is becoming morepopular, for example in the UK and theNetherlands. There is a programme of ‘newnative woodlands’ where the aim is to developwoodland ecosystems that approach the originalnatural forests in their composition andfunctions and characteristic biodiversity, withinthe constraints imposed by losses of keyspecies in former centuries and the irreversiblenaturalisation of some alien species. It is stillunclear how long it will take for these woodlands

26. Furthermore the Pan-European Operational Level Guidelines (PEOLG) for SFM were endorsed.


117

to approach the biodiversity of survivingremnant natural forest. In the United Kingdom,it may take 200 years or more in some lowlandarable landscapes, but 100 years or less in someupland pastoral landscapes, to allow slowcolonist species to cross hostile habitats.However many common species arrive muchmore quickly, perhaps within 50 years (Peterkenand Game, 1984; Rodwell and Patterson, 1994).Much also depends on the degree of linkage toexisting old woodlands.320. The current ecological value of thesenew woodlands depends on their history(afforestation of agricultural land, heathlandand eroded areas), management and actualforest functions. Where development to morenatural woodlands is accepted or promoted (andespecially in countries with low forest cover)they can contribute to a valuable increase inbiodiversity. Planted forests established onformer agricultural lands, even those composedof exotic species, can eventually acquiresignificant biodiversity value, in combinationwith timber and other objectives (Cannell,1999). Their potential contribution as part oflandscape and regional scale strategies forconserving FBD should be given more attentionin the future, as it is likely to be necessary forplanted forests to continue to expand to relievethe pressure on natural forests for timber andfuelwood. They may help to buffer core naturalforests against fragmentation effects and alsohelp sustain larger populations of many of themore adaptable species .321. Plantations and areas of natural regrowthhave increased recently in some tropical areas,as well as in temperate regions. In Cuba, forexample, forest area has increased from 14% to21.1%, between 1959 and 2000, due to forestplantations and also to recovering natural forests[Modesto Fernandez Diaz-Silveira, pers.comm.]. In the Amazon region, Brazil hasexperienced a number of ambitious projectssuch as the Jari Project and the Projeto GrandeCarajás, Aracruz cellulose pulp plantation

(Rankin, 1985; National Geographic, 1990;World Resource Institute, 1998). In Congo, theeucalyptus plantations at Pointe Noire have beensuccessful as productivity has improved dueto an imaginative and dedicated tree breedingproject. On the other hand, in Senegal and inJava, Indonesia, where there are about 600,000ha of teak (Tectonia grandis), there is someconcern for site deterioration due to repeatedplanting, soil erosion and loss of organicmatter (Evans, 1999), especially as large-scaleplantations are always more vulnerable tonatural disturbances. Most plantation forestry inthe tropics uses exotic species (FAO 1995), pri-marily eucalypts, acacias, and pines, with shortrotation times such as 8 years for theeucalypts. However, as a restoration tool,plantation forests may serve as an importantintermediate step towards recovery of degradedlands towards natural forests (Otsamo, 2000),although considerable research remains to allowunderstanding of recovery processes (e.g.,Finegan, 1996).

D. DEVELOPMENT OF MORESUSTAINABLE FORESTMANAGEMENT PRACTICES

322. Awareness of the importance of forests tothe approximately 400 million people that live inand around them and largely depend on themfor their well-being and subsistence hasincreased, and there is also a rise in willingnessto accept issues related to rights, needs andparticipatory possibilities of indigenous peopleand local communities in the context of forestconservation and management. This positivedevelopment includes interests by donorinstitutions to collaborate directly withindigenous and local communities, policyrevision by many actors (e.g., WWF principles;EU policy on cooperation, donor agencies, WB,UNDP, etc.), increased acceptance of traditionalknowledge and collaborative participation inforest conservation and management, includingparticipation of indigenous people in the


118

management of protected areas However, thesechanges have happened largely at an internation-al level and have not yet materialized sufficientlyin national policies.323. There is a small but growing trend towardsthe redefinition of property rights in forests totake account of factors other than timber values.Carbon trading provides one clear example,whereby corporations or agents in one countryinvest in sequestration or conservation inanother country in return for the paper creditcertifying the amount of carbon so stored orsequestered. Probably the greatest progress inestablishing property rights in forest services hasbeen made in Costa Rica (Chomitz et al., 1998).Costa Rica's forestry law of 1996 recognises thevalue of forests as carbon stores, providers ofhydrological services, protectors of biodiversityand providers of scenic beauty. Sources offinance, e.g. a fuel tax, were designed and therules for paying forest owners for services wereestablished. The Costa Rican governmentcurrently disburses money for reforestation,sustainable forest management and forestpreservation. Landholders cede their rights tothe relevant services to the National ForestryFund (FONAFIFO) for five years in return forthe payments. A summary of this project is in theAnnex 5.

E. REDUCED IMPACT LOGGING

324. Reduced impact logging systems arecurrently being developed in several tropicalcountries in response to concerns over theecological and economic sustainability ofharvesting natural tropical forest stands.Reduced impact logging systems use an array ofbest harvesting techniques that reduce damageto residual forests, create fewer roads and skidtrails, reduce soil disturbance and erosion,protect water quality, mitigate fire risk, helpmaintain regeneration and protect biologicaldiversity (Holmes et al., 2000). Ecologicaldamage is minimised by taking an inventory of

trees before harvesting and cutting only maturetrees.325. Putz et al. (2000) have examined the variouspossible reasons why RIL practices are not beingmore widely applied. These authors concludethat the main reason for low adoption rates isthat, under certain conditions, RIL adds tologging costs rather than delivering savings.These conditions include situations in whichcompliance with logging guidelines restrictsaccess to steep slopes and/or prohibitsground-based timber yarding on wet ground.Putz et al. (2000) conclude that widespreadadoption of RIL may require financialincentives, such as those which may be provideddue to enhanced carbon sequestration incarefully logged forests c.f. conventional logging(e.g. Andrewartha and Applegate, 1999).

F. "CLOSE-TO-NATURE” FORESTRY

326. In many countries of the temperate andboreal zones, forest management methods thattry to maintain a high level of biodiversity inmanaged forests (e.g. “close-to-nature” forestry,or emulation of natural disturbance forestry)have been increasingly applied in recent years(Attiwill 1994). These management methodsemulate natural disturbances regimes, use localand site adapted species for planting, increasethe diversity of species, ages and structures inthe forest stands, maintain important micro-structures such as dead and decaying wood,protect important key habitats and limit the useof pesticides, fertilisers, drainage and damagingmachinery. The Pro-Silva movement, anassociation of European foresters that advocatesclose-to-nature forestry, has developed specificprinciples and guidelines related to sustainableforest management, the conservation ofecosystems, the protection of soil and climate,the production of timber and other forest goodsand the recreational, amenity and culturalaspects of forests (Box 9). According to theGerman National Forest Programme27, close-

27. Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten, 2000: “Nationales Forstprogramm Deutschland


119

to-nature forestry has been developed over thepast few years in all states (Länder) largelyrelying on the use of natural processes andself-steering mechanisms. In many boreal forestcountries (Canada, Finland, Norway, Sweden),private companies, state forest services andforest owners increasingly apply specific forestmanagement techniques such as the retention ofparticular trees and habitats in order to mimicnatural forests following natural disturbances

such as wildfires, they may also use controlledburning to mimic natural fire disturbanceregimes. Many forest certification standardsrequire such forest management methods to beapplied28. Nevertheless, it is well-recognized thatfires and logging are dissimilar processesand monitoring of effects is an importantcomponent of such programs. These techniquesare being used in an adaptive manner.

28. see: The Swedish FSC Working Group 1998: “Swedish FSC Standard for Forest Certification, May 5, 1998, English version, http://www.fsc-swe-den.org/gron/Swedish%20FSC-standard1.html

29. See: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/J_Kuper/prosilva.htm

Box 9. Pro-Silva guidelines for close-to-nature forestry (production of timber) in central Europe29

• Continuous forest cover to protect soil productivity;• Full use of natural dynamic forest processes;• Adding value by selective felling and tending at all stages of development;• Maintaining growing stock at an optimal level;• Working towards a balance between increment and harvesting in each management unit

(i.e. in each compartment);• Increasing forest stability, and consequently reduce production risks, through stabilisation of single trees and

groups of trees;• Paying attention to the function of every single tree in tending and harvesting;• Avoidance of clear-cuts and other methods which destroy forest conditions;• Abolition of rotation age as the instrument for determining when a tree should be cut;• Undertaking renewal of the forest as an integral part of forest tending.• Spontaneous forest renewal and forest development, through single tree harvesting and group harvesting with

long regeneration periods, involving:• use of natural regeneration,• use of natural stem number reduction;• Harvesting methods which do not harm the soil or the stand;• Use of appropriate machines, which suit the structure and features of the forest;• Minimise the use of additional materials (fertilisers, plant protection materials);• Restoration of densities of game species to levels that are in balance with the carrying capacity of the forest.

G. AGRO-FORESTRY

327. Agro-forestry can be considered to be aproductive system which conserves biodiversity,mainly when it is based upon traditionalknowledge, as it causes minimal land degrada-tion and preserves biodiversity as well as nativecrop diversity (Toledo, 1980). It has beensuccessfully used as a sustainable forestmanagement practice in some parts of Centraland Latin America. For instance, in Mexico andColumbia, maize cultivation is combined withrows of Swietenia macrophylla, Cedrela

mexicana and Cordia alliodora, while Erythinaand Cordia shade coffee and cocoa plantations(Burniske, 1993). At present, Costa Rica isdeveloping an ambitious programme thatcombines scientific research with multiple-useagro-forestry projects that include fruit-tree andforest cultivation, with the social support oflandowners. These projects aim to provideseveral environmental services that refer tocarbon sequestration and biodiversityconservation (see e.g., Costa Rica EcomarketsProject – Annex V).


120

H. ESTABLISHMENT OFDEMONSTRATION AREAS

328. Transfer of knowledge to efficient policies topromote sustainable development involves anarray of difficult choices. For example, while weknow that forest clearing for crops and pasture,uncontrolled commercial logging for timber andexpanding infrastructure all contribute todeforestation and degradation, the fundamental

problem facing policy-makers is how to addressthe underlying causes. One way to improveconservation of biodiversity while using theforests is to demonstrate, in a commercial sensethat it can be done. Demonstration areas are oneway to illustrate not only effective policies, buthow such policies can be implemented. Onesuch example is that of the Canadian ModelForest Network and the International ModelForests Network (see Box 10).

Box 10. The Canadian and International Model Forests Network

1. In Canada, demonstration of sustainable forest management is conducted through a network called the ModelForests. This effort was initiated by the Canadian Forest Service in 1992, to address the challenge of balancingthe extensive demands on forests, with the needs of future generations. The principle behind the programmeis that each model forest serves as a working forest demonstration area, with partners representing a diversityof forest values, who work together to achieve sustainable forest management. These forests act as workinglaboratories in which leading-edge techniques are researched, developed, applied and monitored. A modelforest encompasses a area scale land base (several 1000’s of km2), where the participants have a direct interestand influence over the uses in the forest.

2. A model forest partnership typically includes industrial companies, parks, landowners, governments,aboriginal people, academic institutions and environmental groups. Each forest provides a forum where thepartners can gain a greater understanding of conflicting views, share their knowledge and combine theirexpertise and resources to develop innovative, region-specific approaches to sustainable forest management.The result of this grass roots approach is solutions that work and earn local support.

3. Although research and innovation is taking place in each model forest, some activities are pursued at thenational level. This allows the people involved in model forests to share their unique perspectives as they worktoward sustainable forest management on a national scale. In this way, the national perspective is ensured andresults from these projects can be integrated into programs taking place at each site.

4. Currently, there are three national initiatives taking place within the CMFN. Each is an integral component ofthe Model Forest Programme and crucial to the success of the network as a whole: achieving sustainableforest management (SFM), local level indicators (LLI) are developed to suit local and regional conditions, andcriteria and indicators (C&I) such as the national Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) C & I andinternational Montreal Process C&I allow for the measurement of progress towards sustainable forestmanagement along national scales.

5. As a common framework, each model forest used Canada's six criteria for sustainable forest management asdefined by the CCFM: 1.conservation of biological diversity; 2. maintenance and enhancement of forestecosystem condition and productivity; 3. conservation of soil and water resources; 4. forest ecosystemcontributions to global ecological cycles; 5. multiple benefits of forests to society; and 6. accepting society'sresponsibility for sustainable development.

6. Model forests, in collaboration with their partner organizations, are exploring ways to collect and analyse datato effectively and efficiently monitor their local level indicators. Information on various local level indicatorsis collected and used to report and measure on the region's progress towards forest sustainability.


121

I. IMPLICATIONS OF DECLININGTRENDS IN FBD

329. Forest biodiversity is a broad concept withmany dimensions. It includes diversity of genes,species and ecosystems, as well as that of forestlandscapes. Besides producing many kinds ofgoods for humans, forest biodiversity has greatcultural and intrinsic values. FBD also maintainsimportant ecosystems functions and services, itprovides a basis for various livelihoods and forsustainable land use and development. Diversityof genes, ecotypes and habitats is also the bestinsurance against adverse changes in the future,regardless of whether changes are natural orhuman-caused. Naturally diverse forests have thegreatest potential to adapt to unpredictedchanges, as well as to provide new goods andservices as these may be discovered.330. All forest areas have some role inconservation and use of forest biologicaldiversity, but any given forest area cannotproduce all goods and services. Maintenance(and where appropriate enhancement) of FBD isan important aspect of conservation andsustainable forest management; this applies tothe whole range of forests from protectedprimary forests, managed (semi-)natural forests,plantations and other ecosystems that includeelements of FBD.331. WWF and IUCN have identified five prior-ity objectives to halt and reverse the decline inthe global forest estate (WWF/IUCN, 1996;WWF, 2001):

(a) To establish a network of ecologicallyrepresentative, socially beneficial and

effectively managed forest protectedareas.

(b) To achieve environmentallyappropriate, socially beneficial andeconomically viable management offorests outside protected areas.

(c) To develop and implementenvironmentally appropriate andsocially beneficial programmes torestore deforested and degraded forestlandscapes.

(d) To protect forests from pollution andglobal warming by reducing pollutingemissions and managing forests forresilience to climate change.

(e) To ensure that political and commercialdecisions taken in other sectorssafeguard forest resources and result ina fair distribution of associated costsand benefits.

332. It is likely not possible to maintain all of thecharacteristics of a natural forest landscape andforest structure in protected areas. For thisreason, the implementation of sustainablemanagement practices is of utmost importance,coupled with nature reserves to complementbiodiversity programs in managed productionforests. Protected areas also provide scientific‘benchmarks’ against which to measure progresstowards sustainability in forest management.333. Protected forest areas are of special interestbecause their primary aim is the maintenance ofFBD. These areas, however, should be managedin context with surrounding areas becauseforests are not static in time. Semi-natural

7. Because the Canadian Model Forest program was successful, other countries have begun to develop their ownmodel forests. The first country to join the International Model Forest Network was Mexico, and Model Forestsin Calakmul and Chihuahua signed on as members in 1993, followed by Mariposa Monarca in 1995. Russiafollowed with the Gassinski Model Forest in 1994, and the United States has now designated three modelforests: Cispus, Hayfork and Applegate. Other countries currently developing Model Forests include Argentina,Malaysia, China, Japan and Vietnam. Interest in developing model forests has also come from: Australia,Ecuador, Indonesia, Southern African Development Community, and the United Kingdom. An objective forthe IMFN is to represent all forest types ranging from the boreal/subarctic coniferous regions to the tropicalrainforests.


122

managed forests are important in maintainingmany elements of FBD and producing goodsand services. Further, protected areas should alsobe a part of a reserve network at a larger,regional scale. Reserve networks should be bothrepresentative and complementary, which meansthat all habitat types of natural and semi-naturalecosystems should be represented in thenetwork. In particular, lowland forests on fertilesoils, riverine and many coastal woodlands areunder-represented in conservation area systemsof many countries.334. In selecting individual reserves severalaspects should be taken into account(Spellerberg, 1994), including size and extentof the area, diversity of species, communitiesand ecosystems, naturalness, rarity andcommonness, and fragility. The larger the areathe more species that are included and the larger

the population size of the individual species(Connor et al. 2000). In addition, the negativeimpacts of events in surrounding habitats areproportionately smaller on large areas. However,many species and habitats occur in specific,small-scale sites, such as springs, small wetlandsand other various sites with varying edaphic,hydrological and microclimatic conditions(Rabinovitz et al. 1986). In such cases, protectionof small sites/areas is well founded. Diversityof species, communities and ecosystems isimportant, but species-poor habitats should beemphasized if they consist of rare or endangeredspecies or unique habitats. An important aspectof sustainable forestry is the consideration of keybiotypes (see Box 11), i.e. valuable, oftensmall-scale habitats or biotopes of exceptionalnatural value that should either be leftuntouched or managed with special care.

Box 11. Key biotope concept and forest management

One important element of sustainable forestry in the managed forests is the proper management of key biotopes,i.e. biologically important small-scale habitats. The key biotope approach has also been introduced in Estonian,Swedish and Finnish forestry legislation and practical guidance in forest management.

A key Woodland Habitat, as identified in Swedish forests, is an area where one or more Red-listed species occur(Skogstyrelsen, 1998). The number of woodland key habitats is estimated to be around 80,000 with an averagesize of 2.3 ha. The key habitats in Finnish Forest Legislation are valuable, small-scale (usually 0.2-1 ha) habitatsor biotopes of high natural value. They include natural springs, brooks and small ponds with their surroundings,herb-rich woodlands, rich fens, grass- and herb-rich wooded swamps, rocky crevices and gorges, rocky cliffs andunderlying herb-rich forest stands, and some sparse woodland biotopes (exposed bedrock, boulder fields, sparse-ly wooded mires and alluvial forests). It has been estimated that these habitats cover 0.5-1.5 per cent of the forest-ed land, and if other important habitats – various ecotones, shore woods and disturbed key biotopes, which couldbe restored - are taken into account, the areas is perhaps 2-4 per cent.

The identification and management of key habitats varies considerably at present,, but their adoption in the prac-tical forestry guidance will give better results in the longer term. There is as yet minimal scientifically verifiedknowledge about the effects of preservation and management of key biotopes on forest biota. However, they areimportant for species occurring in specific sites in forest landscapes, e.g. in terms of topography, edaphy orhydrology. For example, many locally rare and threatened flora and fauna (such as vascular plants, mosses andliverworts, many groups of invertebrates) are found in these habitats.

335. Forest planning should be carried out at alandscape-scale to ensure long-term sustainableuse. Landscape ecological planning has beenintroduced in recent years in many forest

countries, e.g. all state-owned forest lands inFinland (Karvonen, 2000). Such ecologicalplanning involves an understanding of thenatural disturbances, which controls the


123

landscape structure or pattern. In Sweden, thislandscape approach has been used on the largeforest estates of major forestry companies. Oneearlier application of this thinking is theso-called ASIO model in Sweden. This model hasbeen developed for forestry to better mimic thedisturbance dynamics of different forest types(Angelstam et al. 1993, Angelstam 1997, 1998).The model is based on the intensity andsignificance of fire occurring in different typesof forests. Forests are divided into whose,which burn almost never (A), seldom (S),intermediately (I), and often (O).336. model suggests that different forestrypractices, based on natural disturbance models,should be carried out in these four firefrequency classes.337. A number of traditional and modernsustainable livelihoods exist, which can be wellcombined with forest protection programmesand sustainable forest management. Theseinclude the harvesting of many non-timberforest resources, like collecting food products(wild fruits, mushrooms, berries), medicinalplants, natural rubber, fibres etc. If properlyplanned, these will also have the dual benefit ofrevitalising local economies and fighting ruraldepopulation. Also nature-oriented tourism, ifwell implemented, can be an actively compatibleand even supportive, of the conservation offorest protected areas. When developing theseactivities, needs of Indigenous Peoples and localcommunities should be fully taken into account.Participatory approach and communityinvolvement are key issues in the sustainablemanagement of natural resources.


124


125

A. KEY ACTIONS AND PRIORITIES TOIMPROVE CONSERVATION ANDSUSTAINABLE USE OF FORESTBIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

As a result of the review summarized in chapterII above, the Expert Group identified somekey guiding principles to structure itsrecommendations. These are grouped underthree main headings:

(a) Assessment and monitoring;(b) Conservation and sustainable use;(c) Institutional and socio-economic

enabling environment.

1. Assessment and monitoring

Biological diversity is a scaled consideration,ranging from genes of individual organisms, tolarge forest landscapes, to global biologicaldiversity. Therefore, classification, monitoring,and reporting must occur on all scales andmust involve all stakeholders (in particular theindigenous and local forest communities andnot only the scientific community) to placeforest biological diversity in proper contexts.

2. Conservation and sustainable use

Conservation and, where appropriate,enhancement of forest biological diversityshould be an important aspect of conservationand sustainable use of all types of forests. Thisapplies to the whole range of forest categories,from protected primary forests, secondaryforests, plantations, agro-forests to otherecosystems that include elements of forestbiological diversity.The development and implementation of theecosystem approach, as described in decision V/6of the Conference of the Parties, should be theguiding principle to achieve the conservationand sustainable use of forest biological diversityand it should be applied to the full continuum offorests, from protected areas to plantations.Application of the ecosystem approach to forestmanagement should be based on both science

and adaptive experience.Critical levels of biological diversity loss/changethat affect forest ecosystem functioning, and, inturn, the goods and services provided by forestsare still largely unknown among forest types.This uncertainty emphasizes the value ofapplying the precautionary approach. As statedin the Preamble of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity, lack of full certainty should not beused as a reason for postponing measures toavoid or minimize the threat of significantreduction or loss of biological diversity.

3. Institutional and socio-economicenabling environment

To identify and propose measures to halt andreverse global forest biological diversity loss,both the direct and the underlying causes offorest decline must be addressed.Political and economic decisions taken inforestry and other forest-related sectors shouldsafeguard forest biological diversity and resultin a fair distribution of associated costs andbenefits among resource users.Creating an enabling legal, policy, economic,and institutional environment to address thecauses of forest biological diversity loss is afundamental and urgent prerequisite for theconservation and sustainable use of forestbiological diversity. The Convention onBiological Diversity should place increasedemphasis on this matter in its work programme,and each country should engage in a process toestablish an enabling environment that isconducive to the conservation and sustainablemanagement of forest biological diversity. Theprocess should be specific to the country, theland-use and the context. Key actions necessaryto establish such an enabling environment canbe summarized as follows: (a) increase politicalwill; (b) provide adequate institutional, humanand financial resources; (c) ensure adequateinvolvement at all stages of indigenous peoplesand local communities in forest management;(d) ensure integration of forest biological

8. RECOMMENDATIONS. OPTIONS AND PRIORITY ACTIONS FORCONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE


126

diversity conservation and sustainable use intoall relevant sectors; (e) secure a permanent forestestate and an adequate land tenure and forest usesystem; (f) provide a national and globaleconomic environment conducive to theconservation and sustainable use of forestbiological diversity; and (g) establish and enforceappropriate legislation.

B. DEVELOPINGRECOMMENDATIONS FORACTION

While much effort will be required to reversethe current trend of loss of forest biologicaldiversity, there are a number of key initiativesthat can be readily accomplished, given sufficientwill and effort. In this respect the Expert Groupat its second meeting extensively discussedthe issue of options and priority actions forconservation and sustainable forest use, asrequested by the Conference of the Parties. Itdivided its work in three main areas (a)assessment and monitoring; (b) conservationand sustainable use; and (c) socio-economic andinstitutional enabling environment. The overalloutcome of its work is developed in the matricesprepared by the Expert Group, which regroupedand prioritized objectives and activities toidentify a set of realistic options. These priorityobjectives and activities are presented in sectionIII C below.The Group stressed that activities relevant toa socio-economic and institutional enablingenvironment are a fundamental and urgentprerequisite for the conservation and sustainableuse of forest biological diversity. The Group alsoemphasized the importance of implementingthe ecosystem approach in sustainable forestmanagement and, to that end, requested thatguidance be provided to relevant actors to makethe ecosystem approach easily applicable to theforest sector.The Group took into due consideration the IPFand IFF proposals for action, as well as theproposed multi-year programme of work of

the UNFF and the UNFF plan for action. Therecommended actions will help to implementthe many IPF/IFF proposals for actions relevantfor the conservation and sustainable use of forestbiodiversity.In its scientific assessment, the Group indicatedthat there is sufficient evidence to suggest thatthere has been, and continues to be, widespreadloss of forest biological diversity over time, butthat the rate of loss has increased to a level whereurgent action is required by Governments.Although the relationship between biologicaldiversity and forest function is not yet fully clear,the understanding is sufficient to indicate thatgoods and services provided by forests are injeopardy in many parts of the world. Whilethe Group recognized some positive efforts invarious parts of the world, there is a distinctneed to address, as quickly as possible, theunderlying and direct causes of forest loss anddegradation, in order to halt the decline in forestbiological diversity.To halt this decline, to prevent further loss, andto reverse it, the Group underlined the need toidentify and quantify targets that wouldconcretely address loss of forest biologicaldiversity and stressed that, without targets,action is unlikely to occur. Governments andinternational organizations need to providedirection and develop clear targets to enable theagenda to move forward. Such targets couldbe agreed at the global level, as well as at theregional and national levels, and should benefitfrom appropriate incentives. Targets should beincorporated into national forest and relatednon-forest programmes, including energy,transport, infrastructure development,education, and agriculture, and participatorymonitoring systems for those set targets shouldbe encouraged. Targets could be approachedwith respect to the framework of the three mainareas of options developed by the groupand presented below: (a) assessment andmonitoring; (b) conservation and sustainableuse; and (c) institutional and socio-economicenabling environment.


127

C. OPTIONS AND PRIORITY ACTIONS

1. Assessment and monitoring

GOAL 1:Develop general classification of forest resourceson various scales in order to improve theassessment of the status and trends of forestbiological diversity.

Objective 1: Review and adopt a harmonizedglobal to regional forest classification systemthat can be mapped, based on harmonized andaccepted forest definitions and addressing keyforest biological diversity elements.

Activities:Review and adopt a minimum forestclassification for forest types, compatible withremote-sensing technologies, that includesbroad indicators of biological diversity that betaken into account in all international regionalforest-related programmes, plans and activities;

Increase the frequency of forest resourceinventory to at least every five years;

Review and adopt standard forest definitions tobe used in global reporting to scale of foresttypes.

Objective 2: Develop national forest ecosystemclassification systems and maps.

Activities:Review existing national forest ecosystemclassification systems and maps;

Develop and apply national forest ecosystemclassification systems and maps that include keycomponents of forest biological diversity to beused in assessment reports on forest types.

GOAL 2:Improve knowledge on and methods forthe assessment of the status and trends offorest biological diversity, based on availableinformation.Objective 1: Advance the development andimplementation of international, regional andnational criteria and indicators for forestbiological diversity.

Activities:Develop, select and quantify international,regional and national indicators for forestbiological diversity, taking into account, asappropriate, existing work and processes30, aswell as the knowledge held by indigenous andlocal communities. Such criteria and indicatorsshould be used for assessment reporting atfive-year intervals.

GOAL 3:Improve understanding of forest ecosystemfunctioning.

Objective 1: Conduct key research programmeson forest ecosystem functioning.

Activities:Develop and support focused research toimprove understanding of the relationshipbetween forest biological diversity andecosystem functioning, taking into accountforest ecosystem components, structure,functions, and processes to improve predictivecapability;Develop and support research to understandcritical thresholds of forest biological diversityloss, paying particular attention to key and/orrare forest species;Develop and support research on restoration offorest ecology and test relevant techniques.

30. Such as the Helsinki process for boreal, temperate and Mediterranean-type forests in Europe; the Montreal process for temperate and borealforests outside Europe; the Tarapoto proposal for the Amazon forest; the UNEP/FAO-initiated processes for dry-zone Africa and the Near Eastin arid and semi-arid areas; and the "Lepaterique" process for Central America initiated by FAO and the Central American Commission forEnvironment and Development (CCAD)


128

GOAL 4:Develop infrastructure for data and informationmanagement for accurate assessment andmonitoring of global forest biological diversity.

Objective 1: Enhance and improve thetechnical capacity to monitor forest biologicaldiversity and to develop associated databasesas required on a global scale.

Activities:Develop and implement a strategy and a plan ofaction to provide infrastructure and training indeveloping countries, in order to monitor forestbiological diversity and develop the associateddatabases.Ways and means for, and actors in activitiesrelated to assessment and monitoring:

Ways and means:Expert meetings under the Convention onBiological Diversity;

Programmes and activities of international/regional/national agencies, research institutes,non-governmental organizations, indigenousand local community organizations and theprivate sector.

Actors:Parties and Governments; the Secretariat ofthe Convention on Biological Diversity;

International, regional and national forest-related organizations, agencies and institutes;

Non-governmental organizations;

Indigenous peoples and local communities;

Private sector.

2. Conservation and sustainable use

GOAL 1:Apply the ecosystem approach.

Objective 1: Develop, test, demonstrate andtransfer practical methods for applying theecosystem approach to forest ecosystem man-agement to conserve forest biological diversity,

both inside and outside protected forest areas.

Activities:Develop guidance for applying the ecosystemapproach in forest ecosystems, and clarify theconceptual basis of the ecosystem approach;

Identify key structural ecosystem elements tobe used as indicators for decision-making bydeveloping decision–support tools on ahierarchy of scales;

Develop and implement guidance to help theselection of suitable forestry practices forspecific forest ecosystems;

Develop methods for multi-stakeholderparticipation in ecosystem-level planning andmanagement;

Develop an international network of forest areasfor piloting and demonstrating the ecosystemapproach, incorporating suitable examples fromthe International Model Forests Network.

GOAL 2:Adequately conserve forest genetic diversity.Objective 1: Develop effective informationsystems and strategies for in situ and ex situconservation and sustainable use of forestgenetic diversity, and support countries intheir implementation and monitoring.

Activities:Develop, harmonize and test methods forassessment of forest genetic resources, includingthe identification of priority species, populationsand genes;

Improve understanding of patterns of geneticdiversity and its conservation in situ, in relationto forest management landscape-scale forestchange and climate variations;

Produce guidance for countries to assess thestate of their forest genetic resources, andto develop and evaluate strategies for theirconservation, both in situ and ex situ;


129

Develop policies at the national level to accessaddress forest genetic resources in a holistic way,including issues of access to, transfer of andbenefit-sharing from the use of forestgermplasm, in collaboration with the Panel ofExperts on Access and Benefit-sharing of theConvention on Biological Diversity;

Follow up developments in new biotechnologiesand ensure their applications are compatiblewith the maintenance of forest biologicaldiversity, and develop and enforce regulationsfor controlling the use of genetically modifiedorganisms (GMOs) in accordance withthe Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety of theConvention on Biological Diversity;

Develop a holistic framework for theconservation and management of forest geneticresources at global level.

GOAL 3:Address the direct causes of loss of forestbiological diversity.

Objective 1: Prevent losses of forest biologicaldiversity caused by the introduction or spreadof alien invasive species and genotypes.

Activity:Reinforce, develop and implement strategies atregional and national level to prevent andmitigate the impacts of invasive alien species andgenotypes, including risk assessment,strengthening of quarantine regulation, andcontainment or eradication programmes.

Objective 2: Prevent losses caused byunsustainable harvesting of timber andnon-timber forest resources.

Activities:Develop and implement systems to assess theimpact of harvesting timber and other resourceson forest biological diversity and associatedecosystem goods and services, includingidentification of critical thresholds of impact;

Develop and enforce laws and guidelines(applicable to the private sector) on sustainableharvesting of timber and non-timber resourcesas part of sustainable forest managementpolicies and laws;

Develop, promote and monitor the effectivenessof voluntary timber certification schemes;

Address the lack of private sector compliancewith sustainable logging practices.

Objective 3: Mitigate the impacts of climatechange.

Activities:Increase understanding of predicted impacts ofclimate change on forest biological diversity.

Develop coordinated response strategies andaction plans at global, regional and nationallevels.

Objective 4: Mitigate the impacts of desertifica-tion.

Activity:Develop an understanding of the impacts ofdesertification on forest biological diversity andthe interactions between loss of forest biologicaldiversity and desertification; recommend thatforest biological diversity issues be adequatelyaddressed in the work of the United NationsConvention to Combat Desertification.

GOAL 4:Restore forest biological diversity in theframework of the ecosystem approach.

Objective 1: Restore forest biological diversityin degraded secondary forests and in forestsestablished on former forestlands and otherlandscapes, including plantations.

Activities:Create international, regional and nationaldatabases and case studies on the status ofdegraded forests, deforested, restored andafforested lands;


130

Develop and test systems and practices forrestoration and development of forest biologicaldiversity in accordance with the ecosystemapproach;

Promote and support the implementation ofsystems and practices for restoration, withtraining and demonstration activities.

GOAL 5:Protect, manage and enhance rare andthreatened species.

Objective 1: Ensure that the management ofan ecosystem provides for the conservationand enhancement of rare and threatenedspecies.

Activities:Determine status and conservation needs of rareand endangered species and of managementimpacts;

Develop conservation strategies for rareand threatened species for global or regionalapplication, and practical systems of adaptivemanagement at national level.

GOAL 6:Protect indigenous peoples traditional culturesand promote the participation of indigenouspeoples and local communities in theconservation, management and sustainable useof forest biological diversity.

Objective 1: Assist indigenous and localcommunities in developing adaptivecommunity-management systems to conserveforest biological diversity, which are based ontraditional forest use systems.

Activities:Assist indigenous people and local communitiesto generate opportunities, markets andincentives for sustainable use practices;

Assist indigenous people and local communitiesto resolve land rights and land use disputes;

Develop adaptive practices, based on traditionalknowledge.

GOAL 7:Improve the effectiveness of protected areanetworks in conserving forest biologicaldiversity

Objective 1: Ensure adequate and effectiveprotected area networks.

Activities:Assess the representativeness and adequacyof protected areas relative to forests types andidentify gaps and weaknesses;

Revise networks, selecting additional areas withstakeholder participation in order to completethe representation of natural forest types withecologically viable size and linkage;

Develop and implement methods to assess theefficacy of protected forest areas.

Ways and means for, and actors in activitiesrelated to conservation and sustainable use:

Ways and means:Programmes and activities of forest-relatedinternational/regional/national conventions,agencies, research institute, non-governmentalorganizations and the private sector;

Multi-stakeholder participation;

Increasing transparency in institutions and intransactions;

Developing monitoring and feedbackmechanisms;

Disseminating information through researchresults, guidelines and case studies and use ofdemonstration projects;

Environmental impact assessments;

Establishing education and public awarenessprogrammes;

Establishing capacity-building programmes.


131

Actors:Parties and Governments; Secretariat of theConvention on Biological Diversity;

International, regional and national forest-related organizations, agencies and institutes;

Non-governmental organizations;

Indigenous peoples and local communities;Private sector.

3. Institutional and socio-economic enablingenvironment

GOAL 1:Enhance the institutional enabling environment.

Objective 1: Parties, Governments andorganizations to integrate biological diversityconservation and sustainable use into forestand other sector policies and programmes.

Activities:Parties to formulate and adopt sets of prioritytargets for forest biological diversity to beintegrated into national forest programmes,national sustainable development strategies andnational biological diversity strategies and actionplans;

Donor bodies to incorporate forest biologicaldiversity and sustainable use principles andtargets into forest and related non-forestprogrammes, including energy, transport,infrastructure development, education andagriculture;

Parties and donor bodies to implementstrategies and provide adequate financial humanand technical resources;

Develop harmonized regional policies on forests,including trade, in order to avoid externalizationof national problems;

Develop strategies for effective enforcement ofsustainable forest management and protectedarea regulations, including adequate resourcingand involvement of indigenous and localcommunities.

Objective 2: Improve the understanding of thevarious causes of forest biological diversitylosses.

Activities:Each Party to make/contribute to anddisseminate an analysis, carried out in atransparent and participatory way, of local,national, regional, and global direct andunderlying causes of losses of forest biologicaldiversity.

Objective 3: Parties and Governments toreview and revise forest laws and tenure andplanning systems to ensure a secure forestresource and provide a sound basis forconservation and sustainable use of forestbiological diversity.

Activities:Secure permanent forest estates sufficient toallow for future conservation and sustainable useof forest biological diversity;

Establish land tenure and land use systems,agreed by all stakeholders, which ensureconservation and sustainable use of forestbiological diversity;

Encourage Parties and countries to ensure thatforest-related laws adequately and equitablyincorporate the provisions of the Convention onBiological Diversity and the decisions of theConference of the Parties.

Objective 4: Combat illegal logging and relatedtrade.

Activities:Increase knowledge of illegal logging practicesand identify effective measures to combat them;

Reform legislation to include clear definitionof illegal activities and to establish effectivedeterrents;

Develop capacity and methods for effective lawenforcement;


132

Develop ethical policies and ecologically soundcodes of conduct for forest practices, loggingcompanies and the wood-processing sector.

GOAL 2:Address economic failures and distortions thatlead to decisions that result in loss of forestbiological diversity.Objective 1: Mitigate the economic failuresand distortions that lead to decisions thatresult in loss of forest biological diversity.

Activities:Develop, test and disseminate methods forvaluing forest biological diversity and otherforest ecosystem goods and services and forincorporating these values into forestplanning and management, including throughstakeholder analysis and mechanisms fortransferring costs and benefits;

Incorporate forest biological diversity and otherforest values into national accounting systems;

Ensure that economic incentives and subsidiesare favourable to forest biological diversityconservation and sustainable use and promoterelated economic instruments;

Provide market and other incentives for the useof sustainable practices, develop alternativesustainable income generation programmes andfacilitate self-sufficiency programmes ofindigenous and local communities;

Develop and disseminate analyses of thecompatibility of current and predictedproduction and consumption patterns withrespect to the limits of forest ecosystemfunctions and production;

Ensure that national laws and policies andinternational trade regulations are compatiblewith conservation and sustainable use of forestbiological diversity and promote relatedeconomic instruments.

GOAL 3:Increase public education and awareness.

Objective 1: Increase public support andunderstanding of the value of forest biologicaldiversity and its goods and services at all levels.

Activity:Increase broad-based awareness of the value offorest biological diversity through international,national and local public awareness campaigns;

Promote consumer awareness about sustainablyproduced forest products;

Increase awareness amongst all stakeholdersof the potential contribution of traditionalforest-related knowledge to conservation andsustainable use of forest biological diversity;

Develop awareness of the impact of forest-related production and consumption patternson the loss of forest biological diversity and thegoods and services it provides.

Ways and means for, and actors in activitiesrelated to institutional and socio-economicenabling environment

Ways and means:Programmes and activities of forest-relatedinternational/regional/national conventions,agencies, research institute, non-governmentalorganizations and the private sector;

Ensuring consistency between national strategiesfor sustainable development, national forestprogrammes, and action plans and otherconcerns of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity and UNFF;

Enforcing existing laws and eliminating perverselaws;

Multi-stakeholder participation and publicconsultations;

Improving industry regulations and theircollaboration;


133

Adopting and implement targets;

Independent studies and case-studies;

Establishing education and public awarenessprogrammes Eliminating perverse economicpolicies while promoting positive incentives;

Strategic impact assessments.

Actors:(a) Parties and Governments;

(b) International, regional and national forest-related organizations and institutes;

(c) Non-governmental organizations;

(d) Donor countries and international financ-ing organizations;

(e) Indigenous peoples and local communities;

(f) Private sector;

(g) International, regional and national tradeorganizations;

(h) Media.


134


135

References

Aber J.D., Christensen N., Fernandez I., Franklin J.,Hidinger L., Hunter M., MacMahon J., Mladenoff D.,Pastor J., Perry D., Slangen R., and van Miegroet H. 2000.Applying Ecological Principles to Management of theU.S. National Forests, Issues in Ecology Number 6, Spring2000. http://esa.sdsc.edu/

Aber, J.D., Melillo, J.M. Nadelhoffer, K.J., Pastor, J. andBoone, R. 1991. Factors controlling nitrogen cycling andnitrogen saturation in northern temperate forestecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 1: 303-315.

Abbot, J.O., and Mace, R. 1999. Managing protectedwoodlands: fuelwood collection and law enforcement inLake Malawi National Park. Conservation Biology 13:418-421.

Allen, T.F.H., and Hoekstra, T.W. 1995. Toward aunified ecology. Columbia Univ. Press, NY, USA.

Andren, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation onbirds and mammals in landscapes with differentproportions of suitable habitat: a review.Oikos 71:355-366.

Andrewartha, R. and Applegate, G. 1999. Reduced ImpactLogging as Forest Management and CarbonSequestration Tool for Pacific Island Countries.Pp. 244-250. in H.T. Tang, S. Bulai and B. Masianini(Eds.). Proceedings of Heads of Forestry Meeting,21-25 September 1998 in Nadi, Fiji, RAS/97/330. FieldDocument No. 1 SPC/UNDP/AusAID/FAO PacificIslands Forests and Trees Support Program, Suva, Fiji.

Angelstam, P. 1997. Landscape analysis as a tool for thescientific management of biodiversity. EcologicalBulletins 46:140-170.

Angelstam, P. 1998. Maintaining and restoringbiodiversity in European boreal forests by developing nat-ural bisturbance regimes. Journal of Vegetation Science 9:593-602

Angelstam, P., Rosenberg, P. and Rulcker, C. 1993. Aldrig,sällan, ibland, ofta. Skog Forsk. 93:34-41.

Anon. 1996. Biological diversity in forests. Note by theSecretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/ 3/5, Montreal, Canada.

Anon. 1996b. Natural Resources Canada Report of theInternational Boreal Forest Genetic Resources Workshop.

Canada Forest Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Arnold, J.E.M. and Bird, P. 1999, Forests and thepoverty-environment Nexus, Paper for the UNDP/ECExpert Workshop on Poverty and the Environment,Brussels, Belgium, January 20-21 1999 http://www.undp.org/seed/pei/publication/forest.html

Ashton, P. S. 1982. Dipterocarpaceae, Flora MalesianaSeries I 9: 237-552.

Assies, W. 1997. Going nuts for the rainforests. ThelaPublishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Assies,W. 1999.Amazon nuts, forests and sustainability inBolivia and Brazil. Pp. 95-106 in M.A.F. Ros-Tonen (ed.),Seminar Proceedings ‘NTFP research in the TropenbosProgramme: Results and Perspectives’ 28 January 1999.The Tropenbos Foundation, Wageningen, TheNetherlands.

Attiwill, P.M. 1994. The disturbance of forestecosystems: the ecological basis for conservativemanagement. Forest Ecology and management63: 247-300.

Bacon, P.S. 1982. The weedy species of Merremia occur-ring in the Solomon Islands and a description of newspecies. Botanical Journal Linnean Society 84:257-264.

Baker, W.L. 1995. Long-term response of disturbancelandscapes to human intervention and global climatechange. Landscape Ecology 10:143-159.

Baker, W.L. 1989. Landscape ecology and the naturereserve design in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area,Minnesota. Ecology 70:23-35.

Barbier, E., Burgess, J, Bishop, J and Aylward, B. 1994a.Economics of The Tropical Timber Trade, London:Earthscan.

Barbour, M.G. and Christensen, N.L. 1993.Vegetation. In:Flora of North America. Vol. 1, pp. 97-131. OxfordUniversity Press.

Barnard, P., Brown, A.M., Jarvis, A.M., Robertson, A. andvan Rooyen, L. 1998. Extending the Namibian protectedarea network to safeguard hotspots of endemism anddiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 7:531-547.


136

Barrance, A.J. 1989. Trees for planting in Vanuatu: resultsof forest tree species trialup to 1989. Forest ResearchReport, Vanuatu No. 2. 49pp.

Barrow, C.J. 1991. Land degradation. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Bawa, K. S., and Hadley, M. (Eds.) 1990. ReproductiveEcology of Tropical Forest Plants. UNESCO, Paris andParthenon, London.

Bazzaz, F.A. 1998. Tropical forests in a future climate:changes in the biological diversity and impact on theglobal carbon cycle. Climatic Change 39:317-336.

Bergeron,Y., Gauthier, S., Kafka,V., Lefort, P., and Lesieur,D. 2001. Natural fire frequency for the eastern canadianboreal forest: consequences for sustainable forestry.Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31:384-391.

Bonan, G.B. 1992. Soil temperature as an ecological factorin boreal forests. Pp. 126-143 in H.H. Shugart, R.Leemans, and G.B. Bonan (Eds.), A systems analysis ofthe global boreal forest. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G. 1996. Issues on social policy.Collaborative management of protected areas: tailoringthe approach to the context. IUCN. Switzerland.

Botkin, D.B. and Nisbet, R.A. 1992. Projecting the effectsof climate change on biological diversity in forests. Pp.277-293 - In Global Warming and Biological Diversity.R.L. Peters and T. Lovejoy (Eds.). Yale University Press,New Haven, USA.

Bowen-Jones, E., and Pendry, S. 1999. The threat to pri-mates and other mammals from the bushmeat trade inAfrica, and how this threat could be diminished. Oryx 33:233-246.

Boyce, M.S. 1992. Population viability analysis. AnnualRev. Ecol. Syst. 23:481-506.

Boyle, T.J. 1999. Conserving genetic diversity of foresttrees in managed landscapes. Pp. 131-146, In ForestsGenetics and Sustainability, Forestry Sciences, Vol. 63. C.Matyas (Ed.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,The Netherlands.

Brady, N.C. 1984. The nature and properties of soils.MacMillan Publ. Co., NY. 750 pp.

Brand, D.G., Kehoe, P., and Connors, M. 1986. Coniferousafforestation leads to soil acidification in central Ontario.Canadian-Journal-of-Forest-Research 16:1389-1391.

Brocke, R.H, O’Pezio, J.P., and Gustafson, K.A.A. 1989. A

forest management scheme for mitigating impact of roadnetworks on sensitive wildlife species. Is ForestFragmentation A Management Issue in the Northeast?USFS NE Forest Experiment Station General TechnicalReport NE-140. Washington, DC. USGPO.

Brooks, T.M., Pimm, S.L. and Oyugi, J.O. 1999. Time lagbetween deforestation and bird extinction in tropical for-est fragments. Conservation Biology 13: 1140-1150.

Broschart, M.R. Johnston, C.A. and Naiman, R.J. 1989.Prediction of beaver colony density using impoundedhabitat variable. J. Wild Manage. 53: 929-934.

Brown, K.S., and Brown, G.G. 1992. Habitat alterationand species loss in Brazilian forests. Pages 119-142 inWhitmore, T.C. and Sayer, J.A. (eds.), Tropical deforesta-tion and species extinction. Chapman-Hall, London, UK.

Brown, J and Pearce, D.W. 1994. The economic value ofcarbon storage in tropical forests. Pages 102-123 inJ.Weiss (ed.), The Economics of Project Appraisal and theEnvironment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 102-23.

Brown, S., and Lugo, A.E. 1990. Tropical secondaryforests. Journal Tropical Ecology 6: 1-32.

Bruner, A.G., Gullison, R.E., da Fonseca, G.B.A. 2001.Effectiveness of Parks in Protecting Tropical Biodiversity.Science 291: 125-127.

Bryant, J.P.and Chapin, F.S. III. 1986. Browsing-woodyplant interactions during boreal forest plant succession.Pages 213-235 in K. Van Cleve, F.S. III Chapin, P.W.Flanagan, L.A. Viereck and C.T. Dryness (eds.), Forestecosystems in the Alaskan taiga. Springer, New York.

Bryant, D., Nielsen, D. and Tangley, L. 1997. The LastFrontier Forests: Ecosystems & Economies on the edge,What is the Status of the World’s Remaining LargeNatural Forest Ecosystems? World Resources Institute.

Bueker, E., Kolström, T. and Kellomäki, S. 1996. Changein wood production of Picea abies and Pinus sylvestrisunder a warmer climate: a comparison of field measure-ments and results of a mathematical model. Silva Fennica30: 239-248.

Burniske, G.R. 1993. ITTO projects in Latin America pro-mote the use of Cordia alliodora for sustainable forestmanagement. Tropical Forest Update 3(5): 6-7.


137

Butcher, P.A., Decroocq, S. Gray, Y. and Moran, G.F. 2000.Development, inheritance and cross-species amplifica-tion of microsatellite markers from Acacia mangium.Theor. Appl. Genetics 101 (in press).

Butcher, P.A., Moran, G.F. and Perkins, H.D. 1996.Genetic resources and domestication of Acacia mangium.Pages 467-471 in M.J. Dieters, A.C. Matheson, D.G.Nikles, D.G. and S.M. Walker (eds.). Tree Improvementfor Sustainable Tropical Forestry. Proc. QFRI-IUFROConference, Caloundra, Queensland, Australia. 27October-I November 1996.

Cajander, A.K. 1948. Forest types and their significance.Acta Forestalia Fennica 56: 1-71.

Campbell, D.G. 1989. Quantitative inventory of tropicalforests. Pages 523-533 in D.G. Campbell and H.D.Hammond (eds.), Floristic inventory of TropicalCountries: the status of plant systematics, collections, andvegetation, plus recommendations for the future. TheNew York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York, USA.

Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, 2000 Criteria andindicators of sustainable forest management in Canada:national status 2000. Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa.

Cannell, M. G. R. 1999. Environmental impacts of forestmonocultures: water use, acidification, wildlifeconserva-tion and carbon storage. New Forests, 17: 239-262.

Cardinale, B.J., Nelson, K. and Palmer, M.A. 2000. Linkingspecies diversity to the functioning of ecosystems: on theimportance of environmental context. Oikos 91:175-183.

Carey, C., Dudley, N. and Stolton, S. 2000. SquanderingParadise? The Importance and Vulnerability of theWorld’s Protected Areas. WWF Forests for Life Program,Switzerland.

Carey, J. 1999. Where Have All the Animals Gone?(Forests empty of wildlife due to hunting). InternationalWildlife. Issue Nov.-Doc. 1999.

Carle, J. et al. 2001. Preliminary Analysis of ForestPlantation Development 1980-2000. Working paper pre-pared for the ANAP-IUFRO-Dalarna UniversityInterantional Conference on Nursery Production andStand Establishment for Broad-leaves. Rome, 7-10 May2001 (proceedings in press).

Carleton, T.J., and P. MacLellan. 1994. Woody vegetationresponses to fire versus clearcut logging: a comparativestudy in the central Canadian boreal forests, EcologicalApplications 6:763-773.

Caro, T.M., and Laurenson, M.K. 1994. Ecological andgenetic factors in conservation: a cautionary tale. Science263: 485-486.

Caro, T.M., and O’Doherty, G. 1999. On the use of surro-gate species in conservation biology. ConservationBiology 13: 805-814.

Chapin, F.S. et al. (13 others) 1998. Ecosystem conse-quences of changing biodiversity. Bioscience 48:45-52.

Chauhan, P.S., and Ingle, P.O. 1988. Role of farm forestryin meeting the fuel-wood requirement of the villagers.Advances in Forest Research in India 2: 153-160.

Chomitz, K., Brenes, E and Constantino, L. 1998.Financing Environmental Services: The Costa RicaExperience and Its Implications, Washington DC: WorldBank, mimeo.

CIFOR, 1998. Biodiversity conservation inhttp://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications

Cincotta, R.P., Wineski, J., and Engelman, R. 2000.Human population in the biodiversity hotspots. Nature404: 990-992.

Clarkson, R. 2001. Estimating the Social Cost of CarbonEmissions, London: Department of the Environment,Transport and the Regions.

Clout, M.N. and Gaze, P.D. 1984. Effects of plantationforestry on birds in New Zealand. J. Appl. Ecol. 21:795-815.

Cohen, Y. and Pastor, J. 1995. Cycles, chaos, and random-ness in a forest ecosystem model. Am. Nat.

Connor, E.F., Courtney, A.C. and Yoder, J.M. 2000.Individuals-area relationships: the relationship betweenanimal population density and area. Ecology 81:734-748.

Contreras-Hermosilla,A. 2000. The Underlying Causes ofForest Decline. – CIFOR, Occasional Paper no. 30: 1-25.

Cordeiro, N.J., and Howe, H.F. 2001. Low recruitment oftrees dispersed by animals in African forest fragments.Conservation Biology 151:1733-1741.

Cornell, H.V., and J.H. Lawton. 1992. Species interactions,local and regional processes, and limits to richness of eco-logical communities: a theoretical perspective. Journal ofAnimal Ecology 61:1-12.

Corrigan, H. et al. (12 co-authors), 1999. A Strategy forconserving, managing and better utilizing the geneticresources of Santalum austrocaledonicum (santalwood).Report prepared by Dept. of Forests, Vanuatu underSouth Pacific Regional Initiative on Forest GeneticResources (SPRIG/AusAID). CSIRO Forestry and ForestProducts, Yuarralumla, Australia.


138

Crossley, R and Points, J, 1998. Investing in Tomorrow’sForests: Profitability and Sustainability in the ForestProducts Industry, Worldwide Fund for Nature,Godalming.

Dale, V.H. and Pearson, S.M. 1997. Quantifying habitatfragmentation due to land-use change in Amazonia. Pp.400-410 In (W.F. Laurance and R.O. Bierregaard, ed.)Tropical Forest Remnants: Ecology, Management andConservation of Fragmented Communities. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.

Danell, K., P. Lundberg, and P. Niemelä. 1996. Speciesrichness in mammalian herbivores: patterns in the borealzone. Ecography 19:404-409.

Daubenmire, R.F. 1968. Plant communities: a textbook ofplant synecology. Harper and Row, NY. 300pp.

Davis, M.B. and Zabinski, C. 1992. Changes in geograph-ical range resulting from greenhouse warming : effects onbiodiversity in forests. Pages 297-308 in Peters, R.L. andLovejoy, T. (Eds), Global warming and biodiversity. YaleUniversity Press, New Heaven, CT, USA.

Dawson.I., Were, J. and Lengkeek, A. 2000. Conservationof Prunus africana, an over-exploited African medicinaltree. Forest Genetic Resources 28:27-33.

de Bohan,V., Doggart, N., Ryle, J., Trent, S., and Williams,J. 1996. Corporate power, corruption and the destructionof the world's forests: the case for a new global forestagreement. Environmental Investigation Agency andEmmerson Press, London, UK. 49pp.

Denslow, J.S. 1996. Functional group diversity and recov-ery from disturbance. In: Orians, G.H., Dirzso, R., andCushman, J.H. (Eds): Biodiversity and EcosystemProcesses in Tropical Forests. Springer, Berlin, pp. 127-151.

Diamond, J.M. 1972. Biogeographic kinetics: estimationof relaxation times for avifaunas of Southwest PacificIslands. Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences of theU.S.A. 69:3199-3203.

Diamond, J.M. 1984. ‘Normal’ extinctions of isolatedpopulations. Pages 193-246. In M.H. Nitecki (ed.),Extinctions. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.

Doak, D.F., and L.S. Mills. 1994.A useful role for theory inconservation. Ecology 75:615-626.

Drake, J.A. 1990. Communities as assembled structures:do rules govern pattern? Trends in Ecology and Evolution5:159-164.

Dransfield, J. 1989. The conservation status of rattans in1987. A cause for great concern. Pp. 6-10, In: RecentResearch on Rattans. Proc. of the International Seminar,November 12-14, 1987, Chiangmai, Thailand. (N.A. Raoand I. Vongkaluang, Eds.). Fac. of Forestry, KasetsartUniv. and IDRC, Canada.

Dudley, N. and Stolton, S. 1999. Threats to forest protect-ed areas. A research report from the IUCN and the WorldBank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and sus-tainable Use. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Dufrêne, M., and P. Legendre. 1997. Species assemblagesand indicator species: the need for a flexible approach.Ecological Monographs 67:345-366.

Dyke, L.D. and Brooks, G.R. 2001. Introduction to thephysical environment of the Mackenzie Valley: a baselinefor the assessment of environmental change. GeologicalSurvey of Canada Bulletin #547.

Easterling, D.R., Meehl, G.A., Parmesan, C., Cahgnon,S.A., Karl, T.R. and Mearns, L.O. 2000. Climate extremes:observations, modeling, and impacts. Science 289: 2068-2074.

Ehrlich, P.R., and A.H. Ehrlich. 1981. Extinction: the caus-es and consequences of the disappearance of species. NewYork, Random House.

Elmes, G.W. 1992 in text 1991. Ant colonies and environ-mental disturbance. Symposium Zoological SocietyLondon 63:1-13.

Elsasser, P. 1999. Recreational benefits of forests inGermany, in C.Roper and A.Park (eds), The Living Forest:the Non-market Benefits of Forestry, London: TheStationery Office, 175-188.

Emanuel, W.R., Shugart, H.H. and Stevenson, M.P. 1985.Climate change and the broad-scale distribution of ter-restrial ecosystem complexes. Clim. Change 7: 29-43.

Emmett, B.A., Reynolds, B., Silgram, M., Sparks, T.H., andWoods, C. 1998. The consequences of chronic nitrogenadditions on N-cycling and soil water chemsiitry in aSitka spruce stand, Northern Wales. Forest Ecology andManagement 101:165-175.

Eriksson, G., Namkoong, G. and Roberts, J. 1995.Dynamic conservation of forest tree gene resources.Forest Genetic Resources 23: 2-8.

Erlien, D.A. and Tester, J.R. 1984. Population ecology ofscuirids in northwestern Minnesota. Can. Field. Nat. 98:1-6.


139

Estades, C.F. and Temple, S.A. 1999. Deciduous-forestbird communities in a fragmented landscape dominatedby exotic pines. Ecological Applications 9: 573-585.

Estrada, A. and Fleming, T.H. (eds) 1986. Frugivores andseed Dispersal. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht.

Evans, J. 1999. Sustainability of forest plantations - theevidence. Department for International Development.64 p.

Faber-Langendoen, D. 1992. Ecological constraints onrain forest management at Bajo Calima, westernColombia. Forest Ecology and Management 53: 213-244.

FAO 1993. Forest Resources Assessment 1990: Tropicalcountries. FAO Forestry Paper 112. FAO. Rome.

FAO 1995. State of World’s Forests 1995. Rome, Italy.

FAO. 1997. State of the World’s Forests. Rome, Italy.

FAO 1999a. State of the World’s forests 1999. Rome, Italy.

FAO. 1999b. People and Forests – community forestry atFAO. Workshop on Sustaining agricultural biodiversityand agro-ecosystem functions ("Queen Juliana II") (incollaboration with the CBD secretariat and supported bythe government of the Netherlands) 2-4 December 1998.

FAO. 2000a. On definitions of forest and forest change.Forest Resources Assessment Programme. ForestryDepartment Working Paper 23. Rome, Italy.

FAO. 2000b. Report of the 11th Session of the Panel ofExperts on Forest Gene Resources., 29 Sept-1 Oct 1999.Rome, Italy.

FAO. 2000c. Forest Resources of Europe, CIS, NorthAmerica, Australia, Japan and New Zealand. GenevaTimber and Forest Study Papers, No. 17. Main Report.UN, New York and Geneva.

FAO. 2001. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000.Forestry Paper 140. Rome, Italy.

Ferber, D. 2000. Orangutans face extinction in the wild.Science 288: 1148-1150.

Fellenberg, U., Kadolsky, M., Rumpf, H., Soppa, B.,Fischer, C. 2000. Wild fruit trees and shrubs as an inte-grated part of conservatin and utilization of forest genet-ic resources in northwest germany. Pages 63-66 in Geibel,M., and Fischer, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the EUCARPIAsymposium on fruit breeding and genetics, Vol 1.Dresden, Germany. Acta Horticulturae 538.

FERN. 2001. Special report:EU illegal timber export. EUForest Watch: July/August.

Filipchuk, A., 2001. Forest Resources and theirAssessment in the Russian Federation. All-RussianResearch and Information Centre for Forest Resources(ARICFR). Moscow. 36 pp.

Finegan, B. 1996. Pattern and process in neotropical sec-ondary rainforests: the first 100 years of succession.Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 119-124.

Finegan, B. 1992. The management potential of neotrop-ical secondary lowland rain forest. Forest Ecology andManagement 47: 295-321.

Finerty, J.P. 1980. The population ecology of cycles insmall mammals. Yale University Press, New Heaven, CT.

FOE (Friends of the Earth – Japan, Bureau for RegionalOriental Campaigns, Pacific Environment and ResourcesCenter). 2000. Plundering Russia’s Far Eastern Taiga.Illegal Logging Corruption and Trade (www.pacificenvi-ronment.org).

Forest Liaison Bureau. 2000. Newsletter 3/2000 (e.g.,Mubariq Ahmad. Illegal Logging -the tip of the iceberg.).(www.eu-flb.or.id)

Forsyth, K., Haley, D and Kozak, R. 1999.Will consumerspay much more for certified wood products? Journal ofForestry, February, 18-22.

Fröhlich, J. and Hyde, K.D. 1999. Biodiversity of palmfungi in the tropics: are global fungal diversity estimatesrealistic? Biodiversity and Conservation 8: 977-1004.

Frumhoff, P.C. 1995. Conserving wildlife in tropicalforests managed for timber. Bioscience 45: 456-464.

Gajardo, R. 1994. La vegetacion naturel de Chile: classifi-cation y distrucion geographica. Edit. Univ. Santiago.

Garnett, S. 1993. Threatened and extinct birds ofAustralia. Royal Australian Ornithological Union,Vicotia.212pp.

Gentry, A.H. 1992. Tropical forest biodiversity: distribu-tional patterns and their conservation significance. Oikos63: 19-28.

Gillet, E.M. (ed.), 1999. Which DNA marker for WhichPurpose? Final Compendium of the Research ProjectDevelopments, optimization and validation of moleculartools for assessment of biodiversity in forest trees in theEuropean Union DGXII Biotechnology FW IV ResearchProgramme Molecular Tools for Biodiversity. Inst. FürForstgenetik und Forstpflanzenzüchtung, Univ.Göttingen, Germany.


140

Gilpin, M.E. & Soule, M.E. 1986: Minimum viable popu-lations: processes of species extinction. In: M.E. Soule:Conservation Biology, the Science of Scarcity andDiversity, pp. 19-34. Sinauer Associates, Inc.

GISP 2001. http://jasper.stanford.edu/GISP/

Glastra, R. 1999. Cut and run: illegal logging and timbertrade in the tropics. International Development ResearchCentre Ottawa, Canada.

Global Forest Watch. 2000. A First Look at Logging inGabon. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C., USA. 50pp.

Global Witness. 1998. Going places … Cambodia’s futureon the move. http://www.oneworld.org/globalwitness/reports/Going/Places.htm

Graudal, L., Kjaer, E.D., and Canger, S. 1995. A systemat-ic approach to conservation of forest genetic resources inDenmark. Forest Ecology and Management. 73:117-134.

Graumlich, L.J., and M.B. Davis. 1993. Holocene varia-tion in spatial scales of vegetation pattern in the upperGreat Lakes. Ecology 74:826-839.

Green, M.J.B. and Paine, J. 1997. State of the world’s pro-tected areas at the end of the twentieth Century. Paperpresented at the IUCN World Commission on ProtectedAreas Symposium on ‘Protected Areas in the 21st Century:From Islands to Networks’. Albany, Australia. November.

Greenpeace. 2000. Against The Law – the G8 and the ille-gal timber trade. Unpubl. Report, April, Amsterdam.

Gunatilleke, C.V.S, Gunatilleke, I.A.U.N. and Ashton,P.M.S. 1995. Rain forest research and conservation: theSinharaja experience in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Forester 22:49-60.

Haila, Y. 1999. Islands and fragments. Pages 234-264 inM.L. Hunter (ed.), Maintaining biodiversity in forestecosystems. London, Cambridge University Press.

Haila,Y., I. Hanski, J.Niemelä, P. Punttila, S.Raivio, and H.Tukia. 1994. Forestry and the boreal fauna : matchingmanagement with natural forest dynamics. AnnalesZooloica Fennici 31:187-202.

Hamilton, A. 1989. African forests. Pages 155-182 inLieth, H., and Werger, M.J.A. (eds.) Tropical rainforestecosystems. Ecosystems of the world 14B. Elsevier, TheNetherlands.

Hamilton, L and King, P. 1983. Tropical ForestedWatersheds: Hydrologic and Soils responses to Major usesor Conversions, Boulder: Westview Press.

Hammerson, G.A. 1994. Beaver (Castor Canadensis):ecosystem alterations, management, and monitoring.Natural areas journal 14: 44-57.

Hamrick, J.L. and Godt, M.J.W. 1990. Allozyme diversityin plant species. Pages 43-63 in Plant population genetics,breeding and genetic resources, Brown, A.H.D., Clegg,M.T., Kahler, A.L. and Weir, B.S. (eds.). Sinaur AssociatesInc., Massachusetts, U.S.A.

Hansen, A.J., T.A Spies, F.J. Swannson, and J.L. Ohmann.1991. Conserving biodiversity in managed forests.Bioscience 41:382-392.

Hanski I. 1999a. Metapopulation ecology. OxfordUniversity Press.

Hanski, I. 1999b. Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity,and metapopulations in dynamic landscapes. Oikos 87:209-219.

Hanski. I. 2000. Extinction debt and species credit inboreal forests: modelling the consequences of differentapproaches to biodiversity conservation. AnnalesZoologici Fennici 37: 271-280.

Hanski, I., A. Moilanen, and M. Gyllenberg. 1996.Minimum viable metapopulation. American Naturalist147:527-541.

Hansson, L. 1979. On the importance of landscape het-erogeneity in northern regions for the breeding popula-tion densities of homeotherms: a general hypothesis.Oikos 33: 182-189.

Harte, J., and A.P. Kinzig. 1997. On the implication ofspecies-area relationships for endemism, spatial turnover,and food web patterns. Oikos 80:417-427.

Haukioja, E., Kaipiainen, K., Niemelä, P. and Tuomi, J.1983. Plant availability hypothesis and other explanationsof herbivore cycles: complementary or exclusive alterna-tives? Oikos 40: 419-432.

Hawksworth, D.L. 1991. The fungal dimension of biodi-versity: magnitude, significance and conservation. Mycol.Res. 95: 641-655.

Hector, A., Toshi, J., Lawler, S.P., Spehn, E.M., and Wilby,A. 2001. Conservation implications of the link betweenbiodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Oecologia129:624-628.

Hedrick, P.W. 1995. Gene flow and genetic restoration:the Florida panther as a case study. Conservation Biology9:996-1007.


141

Heinselman, M.L. 1973. Fire in the virgin forests of theBoundary Waters Canoe Area, Minnesota. QuaternaryResearch 3: 329-382.

Helle, P,. and G.J. Niemi. 1996. Bird community dynam-ics in boreal forests. In R.M. DeGraaf (ed.) WildlifeConservation in Forested Landscapes. Elsevier, TheHague.

Hewitt, G. 2000. The genetic legacy of the Quaternary iceages. Nature 405:907-913.

Hilton-Taylor, C. (Compiler) 2000. 2000 IUCN Red Listof Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland andCambridge, UK.

Hodgson, G and Dixon, J. 1988. Measuring economiclosses due to sediment pollution: logging versus tourismand fisheries, Tropical Coastal Area Management, April,5-8.

Hogbin, P.M., Peakall, R. and Sydes, M.A. 2000. Achievingpractical outcomes from genetic studies of rare Australianplants. Australian Journal of Botany, 48: 375-382.

Holdgate, M. 1996. The ecological significance of biolog-ical diversity. Ambio 25: 409-416.

Holldobler, B., and E.O. Wilson. 1990. The ants. BelknapPress, Cambridge University Press, UK. 736 pp.

Holling, C.S. 1992. Cross-scale morphology, geometry,and dynamics of ecosystems. Ecol. Monographs. 62: 447-502.

Holmes, T.P., Blate, G.M., Zweede, J.C., Pereira, R. Jr.,Barreto P., Boltz, F. and Bauch, R. 2000. Financial costsand benefits of reduced impact logging relative to con-ventional logging in the Eastern Amazon. Tropical ForestFoundation, Washington, D.C.

Horowitz, L.S. 1998. Integrating indigenous resourcemanagement with wildlife conservation: a case study ofBatang Ai National Park, Sarawak, Malaysia. Human-Ecology 26:371-403.

Houghton, K. and Mendelsohn, R. 1996. An economicanalysis of multiple use forestry in Nepal. Ambio, 25(3):156-159.

Howe, H and Smallwood, J. 1982. Ecology of seed disper-sal. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 13:201-228.

Hunter, M. F. 1990. Wildlife, forests and forestry. NewJersey, Prentice-Hall.

Hunter, M.L. 1993. Natural fire regimes as spatial models

for managing boreal forests. Biological Conservation65:115-120.

Huntley, B. 1993. Species-richness in north-temperatezone forests. Journal of Biogeography 20: 163-180.

International Energy Agency, 1998. Energy Statistics andBalances of Non-OECD Countries 1995-1996, Paris.

Iremonger, S., C. Ravilious, and T. Quinton. 1997. A sta-tistical analysis of global forest conservation. In:Iremonger, S., C. Ravilious and T. Quinton (Eds.) A glob-al overview of forest conservation. Including: GIS files offorests and protected areas, version 2. CD-ROM. CIFORand WCMC, Cambridge, U.K. http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/data/cdrom2/gtabs.htm

IUCN. 1994. IUCN Red List Categories. Prepared by theIUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland,Switzerland.

IUCN. 1993. Parks for Life: Report of the IVth WorldCongress on National Parks and Protected Areas. IUCN,Gland, Switzerland. 260pp.

IUCN. 1995.A Campaign for Cloud Forests. IUCN FocusSeries. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

IUCN. 1998. 1997 United Nations List of Protected Areas.Prepared byUNEP-WCMC and WCPA. IUCN, Gland,Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 412pp.

IUCN. 2000. The 2000 IUCN red list of threatenedspecies. www.redlist.org

Jablonski, D. 1991. Extinctions : a paleantological per-spective. Science 253 :754-757.

Jacobs, M. 1981. The tropical rainforest. Berlin, Springer-Verlag.

Jaffe, M., and Savidge, J. 1994. And no birds sing : thestory of an ecological disaster in a tropical paradise. NewYork : Simon and Schuster. 283 pp.

Janzen, D.H. 1979. How to be a fig. Annual Review ofEcology and Systematics 10: 13-51.

Janzen, D.H. 1988. Tropical dry forests: the most endan-gered major tropical ecosystem. Pp. 130-137. In: O.E.Wilson and F.M. Peter (Eds.). National Academy Press,Washington DC. USA.

Jennings, M.D. 1994. National Gap Analysis ProjectStandards. In a Handbook for Conducting GAP analysis.Univ. of Idaho, Moscow, USA.


142

Jepson, P., Jarvie, J.K., MacKinnon, K. and Monk, K.A.2001. The End for Indonesia’s Lowland Forests? Science292: 859-861 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5518/859)

Johnston, C.A and Naiman, R.J. 1990. Aquatic patch cre-ation in relation to beaver population trends. Ecology 71:1617-1621.

Johnston, E.A. 1992. Fire and vegetation dynamics: stud-ies from the North American boreal forest. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Jones, C.G., J.H. Lawton, and M. Shachak. 1994.Organisms as ecosystems engineers. Oikos 69: 373-386.

Jonsell, B. (Ed.) 2000. Flora Nordica I. 344 pp. BergiusFoundation, Stockholm.

Kageyama, P.Y. 1991. Management of forests for non-wood products: the case of extractive reserves in BrazilianAmazonia. Proc. 10th World Forestry Congress, Vol. 4.369pp.

Kaimowitz, D and Angelsen, A. 1998. Economic Modelsof Tropical Deforestation: a Review, Bogor, Indonesia:CIFOR.

Karvonen, L., 2000. Guidelines for Landscape EcologicalPlanning. Forestry Publications of Metsähallitus 36: 1-46.

Keith, L.B. 1963. Wildlife’s ten year cycles. University ofWisconsin Press, Madison, WI.

Kemf, E. & Wilson, A. (1997) Wanted Alive! Great Apes inthe Wild. WWF Species Status Report. WWFInternational, Gland, Switzerland. www.panda.org/publi-cations

Khan, M.L., Menon, S., and Bawa, K.S. 1997. The effce-tiveness of the protected area network in biodiversity con-servation: a case-study of Meghalaya state. Biodiversityand Conservation 6: 853-868.

Kirby K.J., Peterken, G.F., Spencer J.W., and Walker G.J.,1989. Inventories of ancient and semi-natural woodland.Focus on Nature Conservation No. 6 (2nd edition).Nature Conservancy Council. Peterborough.

Kirschbaum, M.U.F., Fischlin, A., Cannell, M.G.R., Cruz,R.V.O., Cramer,W.,Alvarez,A. et al. 1996. Climate changeimpacts on forests. Pages 95-129 in R.T. Watson, M.C.Zinyowera and R.H. Moss (eds.), Impacts, adaptationsand mitigations of climate change: Scientific-technicalanalyses. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Kishor, N. and Constantino, L. 1993. Forest managementand competing land uses: an economic analysis for Costa

Rica. World Bank, LATEN. Dissemination Note # 7. 27 p.Kochummen, K.M., J.V. LaFrankie and N. Manokaran.1990. Floristic composition of Pasoh Forest Reserve, alowland rain forest in Peninsular Malaysia. Journal ofTropical Forest Science 3:1-13.

Koskela, J., Nygren, P., Berninger, F., and Luukkanen.2000. Implications of the Kyoto protocol for tropical for-est management and land use: prospects and pitfalls.University of Helsinki Tropical Forest Reports 22. 103pp.

Krebs, C.J. 1989. Ecology: the experimental analysis ofdistribution and abundance. Harper and Row, New York,USA.

Krebs, C.J., Boutin, S., Boonstra, R., Sinclair, A.R.E.,Smith, J.N.M., Dale, M.R.T. and Turkington, R. 1995.Impact of food and predation on the snowshoe harecycle. Science 269:1112-1115.

Kremen, C. 1992. Assessing the indicator properties ofspecies assemblages for natural areas monitoring.Ecological Applications 2: 203-217.

Kurz, W. A. and M. J. Apps. 1995. RetrospectiveAssessment of Carbon Flows in Canadian Boreal Forests,"Chapter 14 in Apps, M.J. and D.. Price (eds.), ForestEcosystems, Forest Management and the Global CarbonCycle (Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Verlag); NATOAdvanced Science Institute Series.

Kuuluvainen, T., Penttinen, A., Leinonen, K. and Nygren,M. 1996. Statistical opportunities for comparing standstructural heterogeneity in managed and primevalforests: an example for boreal spruce forest in southernFinland. Silva Fennica 30:315-328.

Lacoste, J.-F. 1991. Effets de la suppression d'arbres pio-nniers sur l'evolution d'un jeune recrut forestierGuyanais. Editions de l'ORSTOM TDM 74.

Laird, S.A. 1999. The management of forests for timberand non-wood forest products in central Africa. Pp. 51-60in non-wood forest products of Central Africa: currentresearch issues and prospects for development. T.C.H.Sunderland, L.E. Clark and P. Vantomme (eds.). FAO.Rome, Italy.

LaMonthe, L. 1980. Birds of the Araucaria pine planta-tions and natural forest near Bulolo, New Guinea. Corella4: 127-131.

Lampietti, N and Dixon, J. 1993. To See the Forest for theTrees: a Guide to Non-timber Forest Benefits,Washington DC: Environment Department,World Bank,mimeo.


143

Landres, P.B., J. verner, and J.W. Thomas. 1988. Ecologicaluses of indicator species: a critique. Conservation Biology2:316-328.

Laurance, W.F., Albernaz, A.K.M., and Da Costa, C. 2001.Is deforestation accelerating in the Brazilian Amazon?Environmental Conservation 28:305-311.

Laurance, W.F., S.G. Laurance, L.V. Ferreira, J.M. Rankin,C. Gascon, and T.E. Lovejoy. 1997. Biomass collapse inAmazonian forest fragments. Science 278:1117-1118.

Lawton, J.H. 1994. What do species do in ecosystems?Oikos 71:367-374.

Lawton, J.H. and May, R.M. (1995). Extinction Rates.Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Lawton, J.H., and Brown V.K. 1993. Redundancy inecosystems. Pages 255-270 in E.D. Schulze and H.A.Mooney (eds.), Biodiversity and ecosystem function.Berlin, Springer-Verlag.

Levins, S.A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale inecology. Ecology 73:1943-1967.

Libby, W.J. 1987. Genetic resources and variation. In:Forest trees in improving vegetatively propagated crops.New York. Academic Press.

Lieth, H., and R.H. Whitaker. 1975. Primary productivityof the biosphere. New York, Springer-Verlag.

Lleras, E., Leite, A.M.C., Scariot, A.S. and de Sa Brandao,J.E. 1992. DefinicAo de areas de alta diversidade vegetal eendemismos na Amazonia Brasileira. Final Report to UNFood and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Brasilia.65 pp.

Lomolino, M.V., and D.R Perault. 2000. Assembly anddisassembly of mammal communities in a fragmentedtemperate rain forest. Ecology 81:1517-1532.

Longman, K.A., and J. Jenik. 1974. Tropical forest and itsenvironment. UK, Longman Group.

Loreau, M. 2000. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning:recent theoretical advances. Oikos 91: 3-17.

Lovejoy, T.E., R.O Bierregaard, A.B. Rylands, J.R.Malcolm, C.E. Quintela, L.H. Harper, K.S., Brown, A.H.Powell, G.V.N. Powell, H.O.R. Schubardt, and M.B.Hayes. 1986. Edge and other effects of isolation onAmazon forest fragments. Pages 257-285 in M. Soule(ed.), Conservation Biology. Sinauer Press, Sunderland,Mass., USA.

Lovett, J.C., Rudd, S.,. Taplin, J., and Firmodt-Moeller, C.2000. Patterns of plant diversity in Africa south of theSahara and their implications for conservation manage-ment. Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 37-46.

Lubchenco, J. and R.T. Paine. 1996. Challenges in thequest for keystones. Bioscience 46: 609-620.

Mac Arthur, R.H. and Wilson, E.O. 1967. The Theory ofIsland Biogeography. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton,USA.

Maddock, A. and Du Plessis, M.A. 1999. Can species dataonly be appropriately used to conserve biodiversity.Biodiversity and Conservation 8: 603-615.

Maehr, D.S. 1992. The Florida panther. In: Humphrey,S.R. (Ed.), Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Univ. ofFlorida, Gainesville, FL., USA.

Malcolm, S.B., and M.P. Zalucki. 1993. Biology and con-servation of the monarch butterfly. Natural HistoryMuseum of Los Angeles County. Los Angeles, California.

Mangel, M., and Tier, C. 1994. Four facts every conserva-tion biologist should know about persistence. Ecology 75:607-614.

Manion, P.D., and Lachance, D. (eds.) 1992. Forest declineconcepts. APS Press, St. Paul, MN.

Manokaran, N. 1992. An overview of biodiversity inMalaysia. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 5: 271-290.

Margalef, R. 1968. Perspectives in ecological theory. Univ.of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.

Martikainen, P. (2000). Effects of forest management onbeetle diversity, with implications for species conserva-tion and forest protection. Ph.D. Thesis, University ofJoensuu, Finland.

Martikainen, P., Siitonen, J., Kaila, L. & Punttila, P. (1996).Intensity of forest management and bark beetles in non-epidemic conditions: a comparison between Finnish andRussian Karelia. Journal of Applied Entomology. 120:257-264. Massachusetts, USA.

Martin, P.S. 1973. The discovery of America. Science179:969-974.

Maser, C. 1990. The Redesigned Forest. Stoddart Publ.Co., Toronto.

Matthews, E. 1983. Global vegetation and land use: newhigh-resolution data bases for climate studies. Journal ofClimate and Applied Meteorology 23:474-487.


144

Matthews , E. 2001. Understanding the FRA 2000. WRIForest Briefing, No. 1. Washington, DC.

Matthews, E., Payne,R., Rohweder, M. and Murray, S.(2000). Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems. ForestEcosystems. World Resources Institute.

Mattson, W.J. and Addy, N.D. 1975. Phytophagous insectsas regulators of forest primary production. Science 190:515-522.

May, R. 1986. How many species are there? Nature 324:614-615.

Mayle B. 1999. Domestic stock grazing to enhance wood-land biodiversity. Forestry Commission InformationNote 28, Forestry Commission , Edinburgh.

McCarthy, J. 2001. Gap dynamics of forest trees: a reviewwith particular attention to boreal forests. EnvironmentalReviews 9:1-57.

McConnell-J; Muniappan-R. 1991. Introduced ornamen-tal plants that have become weeds on Guam. MicronesiaNo. 3 Supplement: 47-49.

McGarigal, and Marks. 1995. Fragstats: spatial patternanalysis program for quantifying landscape structure.Oregon Sate University, Corvallis.

McInnes, P.F. Naiman, R.J., Pastor, L. and Cohen, Y. 1992.Effect of moose browsing on vegetation and litterfall ofthe boreal forest of Isle Royale, Michigan, U.S.A. Ecology73: 2059-2075.

McLaren, M.A., I.D. Thompson, and J.A. Baker. 1998.Selection of vertebrate indicators for monitoring sustain-able forest management in Ontario. Forestry Chronicle74:241-248.

Mc Neely J.A., Gadgil, M., Levèque, C., Padoch, C., andRedford, K. 1995. Human Influences on Biodiversity. In:Heywood, V.H. and Watson, R.T. (eds.), GlobalBiodiversity Assessment. United Nations EnvironmentProgramme, Cambridge, UK.

Melillo, J.M., A.D.McGuire, D.W. Kicklinger, B. Moor, C.J.Vorosmarty, and A.L. Schloss. 1993. Global climatechange and terrestrial net primary production. Science363:234-240.

Meyer, J.Y., and Florence, J. 1996. Tahiti's native floraendangered by the invasion of Miconia calvescens DC.(Melastomataceae). Journal of Biogeography 23: 775-781.

Mills, L.S., M.E. Soulé, and D.F. Doak. 1993. The key-stone-species concept in ecology and conservation.Bioscience 43: 219-224.

MINEF (Ministère de l’Environnement et des Forêts de laRépublique du Cameroun) 1999. Rapport de la Missiond’évaluation des progrès réalisés sur les concessionsforestières (UFA) attribuées en 1997 dans la province del’Est.

Mittermeier, R.A., Myers, N., Thomsen, J.B., daFonseca,G.A.B., and Olivieri, S. 1998. Biodiversity hotspots andmajor tropical wilderness areas: approaches to settingconservation priorities. Conservation Biology 12: 516-520.

Mladenoff, D.J. and Pastor, J. 1993. Sustainable forestecosystems in the northern hardwood and conifer region:Concepts and management. Pages in 145-180 in G.H.Aplet, N. Johnson, J.T. Olson and V.A. Sample (eds.).Defining sustainable forestry. Island Press, New York.

Monserud, R.A., Tchebakova, N.M., Kolchugina, T.P. andDenissenko, O.V. 1996. Change in Siberian phytomasspredicted for global change. Silva Fennica 30: 185-200.

Mooney, H.A., Cushman, J.H., Medina, Sala, O.E.,Schulze, E.D., 1996. Functional Roles of Biodiversity. JohnWiley, New York. (SCOPE).

Moran, G.F., Muona, O. and Bell, J.C. 1989. Acaciamangium: a tropical tree of the coastal lowlands with lowgenetic diversity. Evolution 43: 231-235.

Murphy, P.G. 1975. Net primary productivity in tropicalterrestrial ecosystems. Pages 217-235 in H. Lieth and R.H.Whitaker (eds.), Primary productivity of the biosphere.New York, Springer-Verlag.

Myers, N. 1986. Tropical forests: patterns of depletion.Pages 9-22 in Prance, G.T., Tropical Rain Forests and theWorld Atmosphere. AAAS Selected Symposium 101.

Myers, N. 1990. The biodiversity challenge: biodiversityhotspots. The Environmentalist 10: 243-256.

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G.,DaFonsca, G.A.B., and Kent, J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspotsfor conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853-858.

Naaem, S. 1998. Species redundancy and ecosystem relia-bility. Conservation Biology 12: 39-45.

Naiman, R.J., Melillo, J.M. and Hobbie, J.E. 1986.Ecosystem alteration of boreal streams by beavers (CastorCanadensis). Ecology 67: 1254-1269.


145

Namkoong, G., Eriksson, G., Gregorius, H-R., Joly, H.,Kremer, A., Savolainen, O., Wickneswari, R., Young, A.,Zhe-Nlo, M. and Prabhu, R. 1997. Criteria and indicatorsfor assessing the sustainability of forest management:Genetic criteria and indicators. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.(in press).

National Geographic. 1990. The Emerald Realm: Earth’sPrecious Rainforests. National Geographic, Washington,D.C.

Niemelä, J. 1999. Management in relation to distrurbancein the boreal forest. Forest Ecology and Management115:127-134.

Niklas, K.J., B.H. Tiffney, and A.H. Knoll. 1985. Patterns invascular land plant diversification: an analysis at thespecies level. In J.W. Valentine, (ed.), PhanerozoicDiversity Patterns, pp. 97-128. Princeton University Press,Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: ahierarchical approach.. Conservation Biology 4:355-364.

Noss, R.F. 1999. Assessing and monitoring forest biodi-versity: a suggested framework and indicators. ForestEcology and Management 115:135-146.

Noss, R.F. and Cooperrider, A.Y. 1994. Saving nature’slegacy. Island Press, Washington, DC. USA.

Nunney, L., and Campbell, K.A. 1993. Assessing mini-mumviable population size: demography meets popula-tion genetics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8:234-239.

OEPP. 1997. Draft National Report on theImplementation of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity – Thailand. The Office of Environment, Policyand Planning, Bangkok, Thailand.

Ohsawa, M. 1995. Latitudinal comparison of altitudinalchanges in forest structure, leaf-type, and species richnessin humid monsoon. Asia. Vegetatio 121: 3-10.

Oldfield, S., Lusty, C. and MacKinven, A. (1998). TheWorld List of Threatened Trees. World ConservationPress, Cambridge UK.

Orians, G.H., Dirzo, R. and Cushman, J.H. 1996. Impactof biodiversity on tropical forest ecosystem processes. In:Mooney, H.A., Cushman, J.H. and Medina E. (eds).Functional Roles of Biodiversity: a global prospective.Blackwell Science.

Otsamo, R. 2000. Secondary forest regeneration underfast-growing forest plantations on degraded Imperatacylindrica grasslands in south Kalimantan, Indonesia.New Forests 19:69-93.

Ouedraogo, A.S. and Boffa, J.M. (Eds.) 1999. Vers uneapproche regionale des ressources genetiques forestieresen Afrique sub-saharienne. IPGI, Rome, Italy.

Ovington, J.D. (Ed.) 1983. Temperate broad-leaved ever-green forests. Amsterdam, Elsevier.

Ovington, J.D., and L.D. Pryor. 1983. Temperate broad-leaved evergreen forests of Australia. Pages 73-101 in J.D.Ovington (ed.) Temperate broad-leaved evergreenforests. Amsterdam, Elsevier.

Palmberg-Lerche, C., 1994. FAO Programmes and activi-ties in support of the conservation and monitoring ofgenetic resources and biological diversity in forest ecosys-tems. FAO of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Paskett, C.J., and Philoctete, C.E. 1990. Soil conservationin Haiti. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45: 457-459.

Pastor, J and Mladenoff, D.J., 1992. The southern boreal-northern hardwood forest border. In Shugart, H.H.,Leemans, R. and Bonan, G.B. (Eds): A Systems Analysis ofthe Global Boreal Forest. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 216-240.

Pastor, J and Mladenoff, D.J., Haila,Y., Bryant and Payette,S. 1996. Biodiversity and ecosystem processes in borealregions. In: Mooney, H.A., Cushman, J.H., Medina, Sala,O.E., Schulze, E.D., Functional Roles of Biodiversity. JohnWiley, New York.

Payette, S. 1992. Fire as a controlling process in the bore-al forest. Pages 144-169 in H.H. Shugart, R. Leemans, andG.B. Bonan (eds.), A systems analysis of the global borealforest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Payette, S, Filion, L., Gathier, L.and Boutin, Y. 1985.Secular climate change in old-growth tree-line vegetationof northern Quebec. Nature 341: 429-432.

Payette, S., C. Morneau, L. Sirois, and M. Desponts. 1989.Recent fire history of the northern Quebec biomes.Ecology 70:656-673.

Pearce, D.W. 1994: Assessing the social rate of return frominvestment in temperate zone forest. Pages 464-490 in R.Layard and S. Glaister (Eds.) Cost-benefit analysis, 2nded. Cambridge University Press.


146

Pearce, D.W. 1998. Can non-market values save the trop-ical forests? In Goldsmith, B (ed.), Tropical Rain Forest: aWider Perspective, London: Chapman and Hall, 255-268

Pearce, D.W., Putz, F and Vanclay, J. 2001. A sustainableforest future? In Pearce, D.W and Pearce, C (eds.),ValuingEnvironmental Benefits: Case Studies from theDeveloping World, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Pearce, D.W., and von Finckenstein, D.F. 1999. Advancingsubsidy reforms: towards a viable policy package. Reportprepared for the Fifth Expert Group Meeting on FinancialIssues of Agenda 21 in Nairobi, December 1999. Centrefor Social and Economic Research on the GlobalEnvironment, UK.

Perera, A.H. and Baldwin, D.J.B. 2000. Spatial patterns inthe managed forest landscape of Ontario. In: Perera,A.H.,Euler, D.L. and Thompson, I.D. (Eds.), Ecology of a man-aged terrestrial landscape: patterns and processes of forestlandscapes in Ontario. Pp. 74-99. UBC Press, Vancouver,Canada.

Peres, C.A. 2001. Synergistic effects of subsistence huntingand habitat fragmentation on Amazonian forest verte-brates. Conservation Biology 15:1490-1505.

Peterken, G.F., Ausherman, D., Buchenau, M. andForman, R.T. 1992. Old-growth conservation withinBritish upland conifer plantations. Forestry 65: 127-144.

Peterken G.F. and Game M., 1984. Historical factorsaffecting the number and distribution of vascular plantspecies in the woodlands of central Lincolnshire. Journalof Ecology 72: 155-182.

Peters, R.L. and T.E. Lovejoy, (eds.) 1992. GlobalWarming and Biological Diversity. Yale University Press,New Haven.

Peters, C.M. 1990. Plenty of fruit but no free lunch.Garden 14: 8-13.

Peters, C.M. 1992. The ecology and economics of oli-garchic forests. Advances in Economic Botany 9: 15-22.

Peters, C.M. 1996. The ecology and management of non-timber forest resources. World Bank Technical Paper No.322. The World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA.

Pianka, E.R. 1999. Evolutionary ecology. Addison-Wesley.

Pickett, S.T.A., and White, R.S. (eds.) 1985. The ecology ofnatural disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic Press,Orlando, Florida, USA. 208pp.Pimm, S.L. 1991. The balance of nature? University ofChicago Press, Chicago, USA.

Pimm, S.L., Russell, G.J., Gittleman, J.L., and Brooks, T.M.1995. The future of biodiversity. Science 269 :347-350.

Pimm, S.L., and Brooks, T.M. 1999. The sixth extinction:how large, how soon, and where? In: P. Raven (ed.). Proc.of the second forum on Biodiversity. National AcademyPress, Washington, DC. USA.

Pinard, M.A., and Putz, M.E. 1994. Vine infestation oflarge remnant trees in loggrf forests in Sabah, Malaysia:biomechanical facilitation in vine succession. Journal oftropical Forest Scieence 6: 302-309.

Pitelka, L.F., et al. (9 others) 1997. Plant migration and cli-mate change. American Scientist 85:464-473.

Porter, G. 1997. Natural resource subsidies, trade andenvironment: the cases of forests and fisheries. Journal ofEnvironment and Development 6.

Poulos, C and Whittington, D. 1999. Individuals' TimePreference for Life Saving Programs: Results from Six LessDeveloped Countries. Unpubl. Rept. University of NorthCarolina.

Pouru, K. 2000. Pacific Sub-regional Action Plan forConservation, Management and Sustainable Use ofForest and Tree Genetic resources. Forest GeneticResources 28:18-20.

Power, M.E., D. Tilman, J.A. Estes, B.A. Menge, W.J. Bond,L.S. Mills, G. Daily, J.C. Castilla, J. Lubchenko, and R.T.Paine. 1996. Challenges in the quest for keystones.Bioscience 46:609-620.

Prance, G.T. 1989.American tropical forests. Pages 99-131in Prance, G.T. (ed.) Biological diversification in the trop-ics. Columbia University Press, Ny, USA.

Preston, F.W. 1962. The canonical distribution of com-moness and rarity. Ecology 43:182-215.

Punttila, P.,Y. Haila, J. Niemelä, and T. Pajunen. 1994. Antcommunities in fragments of old growth taiga and man-aged surroundings. Annales Zoologica Fennici 31 : 131-144.


147

Putz, F.E., Redford, K.H., Robinson, J.G., Fimbel, R. andBlate, G.M. 2000. Biodiversity conservation in the contextof tropical forest management. World Bank.Environment Department Papers, no. 75. 80 pp.

Rabinowitz, D., Cairns, S. and Dillon, T. 1986. Sevenforms of rarity and their frequency in the flora of theBritish Isles. Pages 182-201. In: M.E. Soule (ed.),Conservation Biology: The science of scarcity and diver-sity. Sinauer Press, Sunderland, Mass., USA.

Rankin, J. M. 1985. Forestry in the Brazilian Amazon. InPrance, G. T. and T. E. Lovejoy. 1985. Key environments:Amazonia. Pergamon Press, New York.

Rice, R.E., Gullison, R.E., and Reid, J.W. 1997. Can sus-tainable management save tropical forests? ScientificAmerican 276:44-49.

Raup, D.M. 1991. Extinction: bad genes or bad luck?W.W. Norton and Co., NY, USA.

Raven, P.H. 1988. Our diminishing tropical forest. Pp.119-122 in Biodiversity, E.O.Wilson and F.M. Peter (eds.).National Academy Press, Washington, DC. USA.

Reich, P.B., Bakken, P., Carleson, D., Frelich, L.E.,Froiedman, S.K., and Grigal, D.F. 2001. Influence of log-ging, fire, and forest type on biodiversity and productivi-ty in southern boreal forests. Ecology 82:2731-2748.

Reid, W and Miller, K. 1987. Keeping Options Alive: TheScientific Basis for Conserving Biodiversity, WashingtonDC: World Resources Institute.

Reid, W.V. 1992. How many species will there be? Pages55-73 in T.C. Whitmore and J.A. Sawyer (eds.), Tropicaldeforestation and species extinction. IUCN ForestConservation Programme. Chapman and Hall, London.

Rejmanek, M. 1998. Invasibility of plant communities. In:Drake, J.A, Mooney, H.A., di castri, F., Groves, R. H.,Kruger, F.J., Rejmanek M., (eds), Biological Invasions: Aglobal perspective. SCOPE 37. 369-388. John Wiley, NewYork.

Rice, R.E., Gullison, R.E., and Reid, J.W. 1997. Can sus-tainable management save tropical forests? ScientificAmerican 276: 44-49.

Richards, M. 1996. Protected areas, people and incentivesin the search for sustainable forest conservation inHonduras. Environmental Conservation 23:207-217.

Ricketts, T.H., E. Dinerstein, D.M. Olson, and C. Loucks.1999. Who’s where in North America? Bioscience 49:369-381.

Riitters, K., Wickham, J., O’Neill, R., Jones, B. and Smith,E. (2000). Global/Scale Patterns of Forest Fragmentation.Conservation Biology 4(2): 3. [online] URL:http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss2/art3

Ritchie, J.C. 1987. Postglacial vegetation of Canada.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Ritchie, M.E. and H. Olff. 1999. Spatial scaling laws yielda synthetic theory of biodiversity. Nature 400:557-560.

Robertson, J.M.Y. & van Schaik, C.P. 2001. Causal factorsunderlying the dramatic decline of the Sumatran orang-utan. Oryx 35: 26-38.

Rodwell J.S., and Patterson G.S. 1994. Creating new nativewoodlands. Forestry Commission Bulletin 112, HMSOLondon.

Rogers, D.L. and Ledig, F.T. 1996. The Status of TemperateNorth American Forest Genetic Resources. Report N°16.Genetic Resources Program, Division of Agriculture andNatural Resources, University of California, Davis, USA.

Roper, J. and Roberts, R. W. 1999. Forestry Issues;Deforestation: tropical forests in decline; CFAN – SIDAForestry Advisers Network, http://www.rcfa-cfan.org/english/issues.12.html

Rosengren, R., Vepsäläinen, K. and Wuorenrinne, H.1979. Distribution, nest densities, and ecological signifi-cance of wood ants (the formica rufa group) in Finland.O.I.L.B. Bull. SROP, II. 3: 181-213.

Ruggiero, L.F., Aubrey K.B., Carey, A.B. and Huff, M.H.(eds) 1991. Wildlife and vegetation in unmanagedDouglas fir forests. U.S. Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rept.PNW-GTR-285.

Rykowski, K., Matuszewski, G. and Lenart, E. 1999.Evaluation of the impact of forest management practiceson biological diversity in central Europe. Forest Res. Inst.,Warsaw.

Sala, O. et al. (18 co-authors) 2000. Global biodiversityscenarios for the year 2100. Science 287: 1770-1774.


148

Sawarkar, V.B. 1999. Conserving biodiversity in protectedareas and forested landscapes. Annals of Forestry 7: 163-176.

Schimper, A. F. W. 1903. Plant-geography upon a physio-logical basis (trans., Fisher, W.R., Groom, P. and Balfour,I. B.). Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Schläpfer, F.B. Schmid. 1999. Ecosystem effcets of biodi-versity: a classification of hypotheses and exploration ofempirical results. Ecological Applications 9: 893-912.

Schulze, E.D. 1989. Air pollution and forest decline in aspruce (Picea abies) forest. Science 244: 776-783.

Schulze, E.D., and H.A. Mooney (eds.) 1993. Biodiversityand ecosystem function. Berlin, Springer-Verlag.

Schulze, E.D., and Gerstberger, P. 1993. Functional aspectsof landscape ecology: a Bavarian example. Pages 453-468in Schulze, E.D., and H.A. Mooney (eds.), Biodiversityand ecosystem function. Berlin, Springer-Verlag.

Schulze, E.D., Bazzaz, F.A., Nadelhoffer, K.J., Koike, T. andTakatsuki, S. 1996. Biodiversity and ecosystem function oftemperate deciduous broad-leaved forests. In: Mooney,H.A., Cushman, J.H., Medina, E., Sala, O.E., Schulze, E.D.,Functional Roles of Biodiversity: A Global Perspective.John Wiley, New York.

Schwartz, M.W., Brigham, C.A., Hoeksema, J.D., Lyons,K.G., Mills, M.H., and van Mantgem, P.J. 2000. Linkingbiodiversity to ecosystem function: implications for con-servation ecology. Oecologia 122:297-305.

SCBD (Secretariat of the Covention on BiologicalDiversity) 2001. The Value of Forest Ecosystems. – CBDTechnical Series No 4, 67 pp. (SCBD, Montreal).

SCOPE. 1996. Global change: effects on coniferous forestsand grasslands. SCOPE 56,A.I. Breymeyer, D.O. Hall, J.M.Melillo, and G. Agren (eds.), J. Wiley, U.K. 459 pp.

Shugart, H.H., Leemans, R.. and Bonan, G.B. 1992. A sys-tem analysis of the global boreal forest. University Press,Cambridge, UK.

Shyamsaundar, P and Kramer 1997. Biodiversity conser-vation - at what cost? A study of households in the vicin-ity of Madagascar's Mantadia national park. Ambio26(3): 180-184.

Sigaud, P. and Luhanga, J. 2000. SADC Sub-regionalWorkshop on Forest and Tree Genetic resources. ForestGenetic Resources No. 28, 41-44.

Sigaud, P. and Luhanga, J. 2000. Report on the SADCRegional Workshop on Forest and Tree GeneticResources. Arusha, Tanzania 5-9 June 2000.FAO/IPGRI/ICRAF and the Southern AfricanDevelopment Community-Forestry Sector Technicalcoordination Unit. Forest Genetic Resources No.28. FAOof the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Sigaud, P., Hald, S., Dawson, I.and Ouédraogo, A.S. 1998.FAO/IPGRI/ICRAF Workshop on the conservation,management, sustainable utilization and enhancement offorest genetic resources in dry-zone sub-Saharan Africa.Forest Genetic Resources No.26. pp.9-12. FAO of theUnited Nations, Rome, Italy.

Sims, R.A., Towill, W.D., Baldwin, K.A., and Wickware,G.M. 1989. Forest ecosystem classification for northwest-ern Ontario. Forestry Canada, Ottawa, Canada.

Sizer, N. and Plouvier, D. 2000: Increased investment andtrade by transnational logging companies in Africa, theCaribbean and the Pacific: Implications for the sustain-able Management and Conservation of Tropical Forests,by WWF Belgium, WRI and WWF International.

Sizer, N. 2000. Perverse habits: the G8 and subsidies thatharm forests and economies. Forest Frontier Initiative,World Resource Institure Forest Notes, Washington DC.16pp.

Skogsstyrelsen 1998. Nyckelbiotopsinventeringen 1993-1998. Slutrapport [Inventory of Woodland Key Habitats1993-1998. Final Report]. Skogsstyrelsen. Jonköping,Sweden, 35 pp.

Skole, D. and Tucker, C. 1993. Tropical deforestation andhabitat fragmentation in the Amazon: satellite data from1978–1988. Science 260:1905–1910.

Smith, T.J., Boto, K.G., Frusher, S.D., and Giddins, R.L.1991. Keystone species and mangrove forest dynamics:The influence of burrowing by crabs on soil nutrient sta-tus and forest productivity. Estuarine, Coastal Shelf Sci.33: 419-432.

Soberon, J.M., and J.B. Llorente. 1993. The use of speciesaccumulation functions for the prediction of species rich-ness. Conservation Biology 7:480-488.


149

Solomon, A.M. 1992. Management and planning of ter-restrial parks and reserves during chronic climate change.In: J. Pernetta (Ed.), Impacts of climate change on ecosys-tems and species: implications for protected areas. IUCN,Gland, Switzerland.

Sommer,A. 1976.Attempt at an assessment of the world’stropical forests. Unasylva 28:5-25.

Sommer, M. 1999. Restoration and reclamation strategiesin tropical forest lands.http://www.hort.agri.umm.edu/h5015/99papers/sommer.htm, accessed 17/02/2001.

Spellerberg, I.F. 1994. Evaluation and assessment for con-servation. Chapman & Hall, London, UK, 260 pp.

Spencer, D., Eldridge, K. and Matheson, C. 1998.Strategies for Conserving the Genetic Resources of Pinusradiata outside California and Mexico. Developed at aworkshop held in Canberra on 6 October, 1998. CSIROForestry and Forest Products, Yarralumla, ACT. Australia.

Spies, T.A. and Franklin, J.F. 1991. The structure of natu-ral young, mature and old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Pp.91-110 In: L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubrey, A. B. Carey andM.H. Huff (Eds.) 1991. Wildlife and vegetation inunmanaged Douglas-fir forests. US Forest Service Gen,Tech. Rept. PNW-GTR-285.

Srivastava, A.K.S., and Ambasht, R.S.A. 1994. Soil mois-ture control of N fixation activityin dry tropical planta-tion forest. Journal of Environmental management 42:49-54.

Stattersfield, A.J., Crosby, M.J., Long, A.J. and D.L.Wege.1998. Endemic Bird Areas of the World: Priorities fortheir conservation. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 7.BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK. 846pp.

Stedman-Edwards. 1998. Root Causes of BiodiversityLoss - An Analytical Approach, Report for theMacroeconomics for Sustainable Development ProgramOffice, WWF USA, April 1998.

Stenseth, N.C., W. Falck, K.-S. Chan, O.N. Bjornstad, M.O’Donoghue, H. Tong, R. Boonstra, S. Boutin, C.J. Krebs,and N.C. Yoccoz. 1998. From patterns to processes: phaseand density dependencies in the Canadian lynx. Proc.Nat. Acad. Sci. 95:15430-15435.

Stevens, G.C. 1989. The latitudinal gradient in geograph-ical range: how so many species exist in the tropics. Amer.Naturalist 133: 240-256.

Stokstad, E. 2001. UN report suggests slowed forest loss-es. Science 291:2294.

Suffling, R. 1991. Wildland fire management and land-scape diversity in the boreal forest of northwesternOntario during an era of global warming. Pages 91-106 inS.C. Nodvin and T.A. Waldrup (eds.), Fire and the envi-ronment: ecological and cultural perspectives.Proceedings of an International Symposium, March1990. Knoxville, TN.

Suffling, R. 1995. Can disturbance determine vegetationdistribution during climate warming? A boreal test.Journal of Biogeography 22: 501-508.

Sugihara, G. 1980. Minimal community structure: anexplanation of species abundance patterns. AmericanNaturalist 116:770-787.

Sunderland, T.C.H., Ngo-Mpeck, M-L., Tochoundjeu, Z.and Akoa, A. 1999. The ecology and sustainability ofPausinystalia johimbe: an over-exploited medicinal plantof the forest of central Africa. Pp. 67-77 in non-wood for-est products of central Africa: Current research issues andprospects for development. T.C.H. Sunderland, L.E. Clarkand P. Vantomme, (Eds.). FAO, Rome, Italy.

Sunderlin, W.D. and Resosudarmo, I.A.P. 1999. The effectof population and migration on forest cover in Indonesia.Journal of Environment and Developments 8:152-169.

Swanson, T. 1997. Global Action for Biodiversity.Earthscan, London.

Symington, C.F. 1943. Foresters’ Manual of Dipterocarps.Malayan Forest Records No. 16. New edition, 1974,Penerbit Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.

Symstad, A.J., D. Tilman, J. Willson, and J.M. H. Knops.1998. Species loss and ecosystem functioning: effects ofspecies identity and community response. Oikos 81:389-397.

Szmidt, A. 1995. Molecular population genetics and evo-lution: two missing elements in studies of biodiversity.Pages 177-194 in T.J.B. Boyle and B. Boontawee (eds.).Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity in Tropical andTemperate Forests. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

ter Steege, H. 1998. The use of forest inventory data for anational protected area strategy in Guyana. Biodiversityand Conservation 7:1457-1483.


150

Terborgh, J. 1986. Community aspects of frugivory intropical forests. Pages 371-384 in A. Estrada and T.H.Fleming (ed.). Frugivores and seed dispersal. Dr. W. Junk,Dordrecht, Netherlands.

Terborgh, J. 1989. Where have all the birds gone?Princeton University Press.

Terborgh, J. and van Schaik, C.P. 1997. Minimizingspecies loss: the imperative of protection. Pp. 15-35. In:Kramer, p., van Schaik, C.P. and Johnson, J., Lost Stand –Protected Areas and the Defense of Tropical Biodiversity.Oxford University Press, New York. USA.

Thompson, I.D. 2000. Forest vertebrates of Ontario: pat-terns of distribution. Pages 54-73 in A.H. Perera, D.L.Euler and I.D., Thompson (eds), Ecology of a managedterrestrial landscape: patterns and processes of forestlandscapes in Ontario. Vancouver, UBC Press.

Thompson, I.D., and P. Angelstam. 1999. Special species.Pages 434-459 in M.L. Hunter (ed) Maintaining biodiver-sity in forest ecosystems. London, Cambridge UniversityPress.

Thompson, I.D., Flanningan, M.D., Wotton, B.M. andSuffling, R. 1998: The effects of climate change in land-scape diversity: an example in Ontario forests.Environment Monitoring and Assessment 49:213-233.

Thompson, I.D., H.A. Hogan, and W.A. Montevecchi.1999. Avian communities of mature balsam fir forests inNewfoundland: age-dependence and implications fortimber harvesting. Condor 101:311-323.

Tilman, D., Downing, J.A., and Wedin, D.A. 1994. Doesdiversity beget stability? Nature 371:113-114.

Tilman, D, and Downing, D.A. 1994. Biodiversity and sta-bility in grasslands. Nature 367:363-365.

Tilman, D., C.L. Lehman, and K.T. Thomas. 1997. Plantdiversity and ecosystem productivity: theoretical consid-erations. Proc. Nat. Acad. Aci. USA 94:1857-1861.

Tilman, D., D. Wedin, and J. Knops. 1996. Productivityand sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grasslandecosystems. Nature 379:718-720.

Timoney, KP. 2001. The old growth forest of Alberta..Paper presented to: Canada's old growth forests: a scienceperspective conference. Sault Ste. Marie, Canada, October15-20, 2001.

Tol, R., Fankhauser, S., Richels, R and Smith, J. 2000. Howmuch damage will climate change do? Recent estimates,World Economics 1:179-206.

Toledo, V.M. 1980. La ecologia del modo campesino deproduccion. Antropologia y Marxismo 3: 35-55?

Turok, J., Palmberg-Lerche, C., Skrøppa, T. andOuédraogo, A.S. (eds.) 1998. Conservation of ForestGenetic Resources in Europe. Proceedings of theEuropean Forest Genetics Resources Workshop, 21November 1995, Sopron, Hungary. IPGRI, Rome, Italy.

Udvardy, M.D.F. 1975. A classification of the biogeo-graphical provinces of the world. IUCN Occasional PaperNo. 18. Gland, Switzerland.

UNDP et al. (United Nations Development Programme,UN Department of Economic and Social and Affairs andWorld Energy Council) 2000, World Energy Assessment:Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability, New York.

UN-ECE and EC. Convention on Long-RangeTransboundary Air Pollution International Co-operativeProgramme on Assessment and Monitoring of AirPollution Effects on Forests And European UnionScheme on the Protection of Forests against AtmosphericPollution. 2000. Forest Condition in Europe. UN/ECEand EC, Geneva and Brussels. Online at:http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/fore/con-rep/2000/exec_en.pdf

UN-ECE and FAO (2000). Forest Resources Assessmentfor Europe, the CIS, North America, Australia, Japan andNew Zealand. New York and Geneva. 445p.

UNEP 2001. An assessment of the status of the world'sremaining closed forests. UNEP/DEWA/TR 01-2. 49pp.

UNEP 2000. Land use, land use change and forestry.Special report, Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC). World Meteorological Organization(WMO), and the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme.

UNEP. 1995. Global biodiversity assessment. V.H.Heywood (ed). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/6/11. Biological diversity and cli-mate change, including cooperation with the UnitedNations Framework Convention on climate change. Noteby the Executive Secretary. 21 pp.


151

UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/6/INF/13. Biological diversity andclimate change, including cooperation with the UnitedNations Framework Convention on climate Change.Brief overview of the impact of climate change on forestbiological diversity. Note by the Executive Secretary. 6 pp.

UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/7/7. Main theme: Forest BiologicalDiversity. Consideration of specific threats to forest bio-logical diversity: (a) climate change, (b) human-induceduncontrolled forest fires, 9c) impact of unsustainable har-vesting of non-timber forest resources, including bush-meat and living botanical resources. Note by theExecutive Secretary. 30 pp.

United Nations Economic and Social Council. 2000.Commission on sustainable Development EighthSession, Document Nr. E/CN.17/2000/14 : "Report of theIntergovernmental Forum on Forests on its fourth ses-sion" pages 20-23 .

UN Human Development Report, New York, OxfordUniversity Press, 1998

Valentine, J.W., Triffney, B.N., and Sepkoski, J.J. 1991.Evolutionary dynamics of plants and animals : a co-oper-ative approach. Palaios 6 :81-88.

van Bueren, E.L., and Duivenvoorden, J.F., 1996. Towardspriorities of biodiversity research in support of policy andmanagement of tropical rainforests. The TropenbosFoundation, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

van Krunkelsven E, D.J., van Elsacker, L. and Verheyen,R.F. 2000. Current status of the bonobo (Pan paniscus) inthe proposed Lomako Reserve (Democratic Republic ofCongo). Biological Conservation 94:165-272.

van Krunkelsven, E., Bila-Isia, I. and Draulans, D. 2000. Asurvey of bonobos and other large mammals in theSalona National Park, Democratic Republic of Congo.Oryx 34: 180-187.

van Shaik, C.P., Monk, K.A. & Robertson, J.M.Y. 2001.Dramatic decline in orang-utan numbers in the LeuserEcosystem, Northern Sumatra. Oryx 35:14-25.

Vasquez, R. and Gentry, A.H. 1989, Use and mis-use offorest harvested fruits in the Iquitos area. ConservationBiology 3: 360-361.

Virkkala, R. and Toivonen, H. 1999. Maintaining biodi-versity in Finnish forests. The Finnish Environment 278:1-50. The Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki.

Vitousek, P.M., and D.U. Hooper. 1993. Biological diver-sity and terrestrial ecosystem biogeochemistry. Pages 3-14in E.D. Schulz and H.A. Mooney (eds.) Biodiversity andecosystem function. Berlin, Springer-Verlag.

Vogel, G. 2000. Conflict in Congo threatens bonobos andrare gorillas. Science 287:2386-2387.

Walker, B.H. 1992. Biodiversity and ecological redundan-cy. Biological Conservation 6:18-23.

Walker, B.H. and Steffen, W 1997: The terrestrial bios-phere and global change: Implications for natural andmanaged ecosystems. A synthesis of GCTE and relatedresearch. IGBP Science No. 1. ICSU, Stockholm, Sweden,33 pp.

Walker, B.H., Steffen, W.L., Cannell, J. and Ingram, J.S.I.1999. (eds.). The Terrestrial biosphere and global change:implications for natural and managed ecosystems, pp. 1-18. IGBP Book Series 4. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, U.K., 439 pp.

Walsh, G.E. 1967. An ecological study of a Hawaiianmangrove swamp. In: Lauff, G.H. (Ed): Estuaries. AAASPress, Washington, DC, pp. 420-431.

Walter, H. and H. Straka. 1970. Arealkunde, Einführungin die Phytologie. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart. 478 pp.

Walter, K. S. and Gillet, H. J. (eds.) (1998). 1997 IUCNRed List of Threatened Plants. Compiled by the WorldConservation Monitoring Centre. (?) IUCN – The WorldConservation Union, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,UK. Lxix + 862 pp.

Walter. H. 1979. Vegetation of the Earth, 2nd ed. SpringerVerlag, New York.

Walters, C.J. and Holling, C.S. 1992. Large-scale manage-ment: learning by doing. Ecology 71: 2060-2068.

WCMC - World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 1992.Groombridge, B. (Ed). Global biodiversity: status of theEarth’s living resources. Chapman and Hall, London.549pp

Webb, T. 1986. Is the vegetation in equilibrium with cli-mate? An interpretive problem for late Quarternarypollen data. Vegetatio 67:75-91.

Westoby, M. 1998. The relationship between local andregional diversity: a comment. Ecology 79: 1825-1827.


152

Whitmore, T.C. 1984. Tropical Rain Forests of the FarEast. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Whitmore, T.C. 1990. An Introduction to Tropical RainForests. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Whitmore, T.C. 1991. Tropical rain forest dynamics andits implication for management. In: Gomez-Pompa, A.,Whitmore, T.C. and Hadley, M. (eds), Tropical RainForest Regeneration and Management. UNESCO; Parisand Carnforth, UK.

Whitmore, T.C., and Sayer, J.A. (eds.) 1992. TropicalDeforestation and Species Extinctions. Chapman andHall, London.

Wilson, E.O. 1992. The diversity of life. Belknap Press,Cambridge, Mass., USA.

Wilson, E.O. 1988. The current state of biological diversi-ty. Pp. 3-18. In: Biodiversity, E.O. Wilson and F.M. Peter(eds.), National Academy Press, Washington, DC. USA.

WRI (World Resource Institute). 1998. Aracruz CeluloseS.A. and Riocell S.A.: Efficiency and Sustainability onBrazilian Pulp Plantations. In: MacArthur Foundation,1998. The Business of Sustainable Forestry: Case studies.John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation,Chicago.

WRI, UNEP, UNDP, and WB. 2000. World Resources2000-2001: People and Ecosystems; The Fraying Web ofLife. WRI, Washington, DC, USA. 389 pp.

WRI, IUCN, UNEP. 1992. Global Biodiversity Strategy.Guidelines for Action to Save, Study and Use Earth'sBiotic Wealth Sustainably and Equitably. World ResourceInstitute (WRI), The World Conservation Union(IUCN), United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP).

WRM (World Rainforest Movement). 1999. Plantationscampaign-pulpwood plantations: a growing problem.28 p.

WWF. 1998. Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss: AnAnalytical Approach. WWF MacroeconomicsProgramme Office, Washington, D.C.

WWF. 2000a. Insight into Europe’s Forest Protection.WWF Report, February 2001. Edited by HannuKarjalainen.

WWF. 2000b. Beyond the trees. An International confer-ence on design and management of forest protected areas8-11/05/2000. Bangkok, Thailand.

WWF. 2000c. Squandering paradise? – The importanceand vulnerability of the world’s protected areas, WWFInternational Report, July 2000. Edited by Nigel Dudley.

WWF. 2000d. The Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss.Edited by Wood, Stedman-Edwards, Mang:, WF MPO,Earthscan Publications.

WWF/IUCN. 1996. Forests for Life. The WWF/IUCNforest policy book. WWF-UK, Panda House. 62 pp.

Wyatt-Smith, J. 1964. A preliminary vegetation map ofMalaya with descriptions of the vegetation types. Journalof Tropical Geography 18: 200-213.

Zhang, Z.X. 2000. Estimating the Size of the potentialmarket for the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms. Faculty ofLaw and Faculty of Economics, University of Groningen,Germany. Mimeo.


153

Forest:The group considers the FAO definition of a forest as thebasic one (FAO, 1998; FRA 2000), but acknowledge thatmany other useful definitions of ‘forest’ exist in publishedform. The fact that ‘forest’ has been defined in manyways is a reflection of the diversity of forests and forestecosystems in the world and of the diversity of humanapproaches to forests. In this document, a forest is a landarea of more than 0.5 ha, with a tree canopy coverof more than 10%, which is not primarily underagricultural or other specific non-forest land use. In thecase of young forests or regions where tree growth isclimatically suppressed, the trees should be capable ofreaching a height of 5 m in situ, and of meeting thecanopy cover requirement.

Forest biome:A biome is the broadest forest classification unit. Thisreflects the ecological and physiognomic characteristics ofthe vegetation and broadly corresponds to climaticregions of the Earth. In this document, it is used inreference to boreal, temperate and tropical forest biomes.

Forest type:Within biomes, a forest type is a group of forestecosystems of generally similar composition that can bereadily differentiated from other such groups by their treeand undercanopy species composition, productivity and/ or crown closure.

Forest ecosystem:A forest ecosystem can be defined at a range of scales.It is a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their abiotic environmentinteracting as a functional unit, where trees are a keycomponent of the system. Humans, with their cultural,economic and environmental needs are an integral partof many forest ecosystems.

Forest biological diversity:Forest biological diversity means the variability amongforest living organisms and the ecological processes ofwhich they are part; this includes diversity in forestswithin species, between species and of ecosystems andlandscapes.

Primary forest:A primary forest is a forest that has never been logged andhas developed following natural disturbances and undernatural processes, regardless of its age. It is referred to‘direct human disturbance’ as the intentional clearing offorest by any means (including fire) to manage oralter them for human use [Is this clear enough?]. Also

included as primary, are forests that are usedinconsequentially by indigenous and local communitiesliving traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservationand sustainable use of biological diversity.In much of Europe, primary forest has a differentconnotation and refers to an area of forest land which hasprobably been continuously wooded at least throughouthistorical times (e.g., the last thousand years). It has notbeen completely cleared or converted to another land usefor any period of time. However traditional humandisturbances such as patch felling for shifting cultivation,coppicing, burning and also, more recently, selective/partial logging may have occurred, as well as naturaldisturbances. The present cover is normally relativelyclose to the natural composition and has arisen(predominantly) through natural regeneration, butplanted stands can also be found. However, thesuggested definition above would include other forests,such as secondary forests.

Secondary forest: 31

A secondary forest is a forest that has been logged and hasrecovered naturally or artificially. Not all secondaryforests provide the same value to sustaining biologicaldiversity, or goods and services, as did primary forest inthe same location. In Europe, secondary forest is forestland where there has been a period of complete clearanceby humans with or without a period of conversion toanother land use. Forest cover has regenerated naturallyor artificially through planting.

Old growth forest:Old growth forest stands are stands in primary orsecondary forests that have developed the structures andspecies normally associated with old primary forest ofthat type have sufficiently accumulated to act as a forestecosystem distinct from any younger age class.

Plantation forest:A plantation forest may be afforested land or a secondaryforest established by planting or direct seeding. Agradient exists among plantation forests from even-aged,single species monocultures of exotic species with a fibreproduction objective to mixed species, native to the sitewith both fibre and biodiversity objectives. This gradientwill probably also reflect the capability of the plantationforest to maintain ‘normal’ local biological diversity.[Possible addition: Depending on the intensity ofmanagement, species mix, presence of understoreyvegetation and natural species regeneration within theplanted forest, and proximity to natural forest stands orseed sources, the planted forest may support, to a lesseror greater extent, local biological diversity ]

ANNEX I

USE OF TERMS

31. Locally in Malaysia and South-east Asia, secondary forests refer to highly degraded forests; this is not the intent of the term in this document.


154

Degraded forest:A degraded forest is a secondary forest that has lost,through human activities, the structure, function, speciescomposition or productivity normally associated with anatural forest type expected on that site. Hence, a degrad-ed forest delivers a reduced supply of goods and servicesfrom the given site and maintains only limited biologicaldiversity. Biological diversity of degraded forests includesmany non-tree components, which may dominate in theundercanopy vegetation.

Agro-forest:An agro-forest is a complex of treed areas within an areathat is broadly characterised as agricultural or as an agro-ecosystem.

Reforestation:Reforestation is the re-growth of forests after a temporary(<10 years.) condition with less than 10% canopy coverdue to human-induced or natural perturbations (FAO,FRA 2000).

Afforestation;Afforestation is the conversion from other land uses intoforest, or the increase of canopy cover to the 10% definedthreshold for forest (FAO, FRA 2000).

Forest fragmentation:Forest fragmentation refers to any process that results inthe conversion of formerly continuous forest into patch-es of forest separated by non-forested lands.

Habitat loss:Habitat loss, used with reference to an individual species,is the permanent conversion of former (forest) habitat toan area where that species can no longer exist, be it stillforested or not.

Forest species:A forest species is a species that forms part of a forestecosystems or is dependent on a forest for part or all of itsday-to-day living requirements or for its reproductiverequirements. Therefore, an animal species may be con-sidered a forest species even if it does not live most of itslife in a forest.

Native species:A native species is one which naturally exists at a givenlocation or in a particular ecosystem, i.e. it has not beenmoved there by humans.

Endemic speciesAn endemic species is a native species restricted to a par-ticular geographic region owing to factors such as isola-tion or in response to soil or climatic conditions.

Alien speciesAn alien species is a species, sub-species or member of alower taxon that has been introduced outside its normalpast and present distribution; the definition includes thegametes, seeds, eggs, propagules or any other part of suchspecies that might survive and subsequently reproduce(GISP, 2001).

Invasive alien species An invasive alien species is an alien species whichbecomes established in natural or semi-natural ecosys-tems or habitats. It is an agent of change and threatensnative biological diversity (Hilton-Taylor, 2000).


155

I. Biological Selection Criteria

1. Species is dependent on forest habitats.2. Species is responsive to forestry practices.3. A range of body sizes/home range sizes should

be represented.4. A range of life history strategies should be

represented.4a. All trophic levels should be represented in the suite

of species chosen.4b. Year-round residents should be given priority over

migrants in northern forests.4c. Habitat specialists and generalists should be

included.5. Biologically rare species should be selected,

particularly if their rarity is habitat- related.6. Species should inhabit a range of forest habitats

and structural characteristics (e.g., upper, middle,and lower canopy).

7. Any known keystone species should be selected.

II. Methods Selection Criteria

1. The species must contribute to testing a validhypothesis with respect to factors which mightinfluence the species

2. A sampling protocol must be available.3. Species should be distributed so that a statistically

valid sampling is possible.4. Sampling should be cost effective.5. Whenever possible, a control area, where

populations are determined by natural factors,should be used as part of the sampling design.

III. Status Selection Criteria

1. Nationally or regionally featured species.2. Species with a low or diminishing habitat

availability at the ecoregional scale.3. Species should be ones for which a given

jurisdiction bears a high level of conservationresponsibility (or endemism) based on proportionof total range within the country.

4. Species is easily recognizable by the public andpoliticians.

Source: McLaren et al. (1998)

ANNEX II

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF VERTEBRATE INDICATOR SPECIESFOR FORESTS IN CANADA


156

(a) Determine relative importance of factors affectingforest biological diversityCurrent forest management practices Natural disturbances Current and past land use practicesAlien speciesClimate changePollutionHabitat fragmentation

(b) Develop methods to compile an inventory and tomonitor biological diversityMapping of biodiversity associated with forests at avariety of scalesDevelopment and testing of indicators at coarse and finescales Classification and assessment of forest types, ecosystemsand landscapesPredictive modelling of indicators for forest types andlandscapesDevelop sustainable extractive schedulesPVA for important species

(c) Develop systems for decision makingGap analysisData management, access, integration and analysis ofinformation Forest mapping under GIS and remote sensingIntegration of primary databases with biologicaldatabases

(d) Develop strategies for conservation of biologicaldiversity under sustainable use of forestsProtected areas and heritage programme with objectivesand maintenance strategiesEcosystem management strategiesAdaptive management policies and proceduresRestoration of degraded forest ecosystemsEx situ gene conservation Adaptation of management practices to global climatechange Mechanism to set old growth and primary forestobjectivesAssessment of public and indigenous peoples’ acceptanceof strategies Determining centres of endemism Determining rare and threatened species and theirmanagementImproved understanding of traditional knowledge

(e) Research agenda to support management optionsUnderstanding processes influencing biodiversity at arange of different scalesRelationships between biological diversity andproductivity, biological diversity and stability andbiological diversity and function within forest subtypes orecosystemsProper adaptive management experimentsEffects of forest use on species, communities, ecosystemsand landscapes functioningTesting umbrella properties of indicators and keystonespeciesTaxonomy of poorly defined taxa in tropical forests:fungi, invertebrates, floraFunctional relationship between animals and ecosystemprocessesGene diversityDevelopment of monitoring methods and technologies

ANNEX III

DATA MANAGEMENT AND SCIENCE RESEARCH AGENDA TO UNDERSTANDAND MANAGE FOREST BIODIVERSITY


157

Sources of information on the status of forest biologicaldiversity include those provided by governments,inter-governmental organizations (IGOs) andenvironmental non-governmental organizations(ENGOs) such as:

National Biological Diversity Reports – resultsfrom national reporting (CBD article26), and nationalbiological diversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs;CBD, Article 6) elaborated within the framework of theConvention. The Global Environmental Facility hasprovided support to 120 countries to assist in thepreparation of NBSAPs and their first national report.The 114 national reports received by the Secretariat of theCBD are available at www.biodiv.org. National reportshave been received from all regions as follows: Europe(32), Sub-Saharan Africa (28), Asia (14), MiddleEast/North Africa (9), South America (8), Caribbean (7),Australasia/Oceania (6), Central America (4), IndianOcean Islands/Madagascar (4) and North America (2).National reports vary considerably in the level ofinformation on biological diversity status that theycontain. Most reports include descriptions of the differentforest types present, sometimes with information on areaand protected status. Information on species diversityis mainly total numbers of species present in broadtaxonomic groups, sometimes with information onnumbers of endemics and threatened species.

FAO’s FRA 2000 report (FAO, 2001a) will incorporateinformation related to forest biodiversity, includingforests in protected areas (see paragraph 102).Information on FRA 2000 is available on line atwww.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/index.jsp

Expert Centre for Taxonomic Identification (an NGObased in Netherlands in collaboration with UNESCO) isdeveloping a World Biological Diversity Database. Thisis a continuously growing taxonomic database andinformation system that aims at documenting allpresently known species (about 1.7 million). The WBD[or WBDD?] is currently in test phase and containsapproximately 56,000 taxa and is expected to expand byan additional 50,000 taxa per year. The database containstaxonomic information (hierarchies), species names,synonyms, descriptions, illustrations and literaturereferences when available.

Global Mangrove Database and Information System(GLOMIS), being developed by the International Societyfor Mangrove Ecosystems with support from ITTO.

Global Biodiversity Assessment,V.H. Heywood, ExecutiveEditor, R.R. Watson, Chair, United NationsEnvironmental Programme, Cambridge University Press,1995.

Functional Role of Biological Diversity, ScientificCommittee on Problems on Environment (SCOPE),Mooney at al., 1996.

Various research programmes aimed at examining theeffects of management and other interventions on FBD,the evolutionary processes shaping genetic diversity andthe relationships between biological diversity, forestfunctions, socio-economic development and sustainablelivelihoods.

Reports from the IUFRO units on Biological Diversityand Population, Ecological and Conservation Genetics.

IUFRO - The Global Forest Information Service (GFIS)arises from the Proposals for Action of theIntergovernmental Panel on Forests and theIntergovernmental Forum on Forest. The mission of theGFIS Task Force is to implement an internet-based forestinformation service. The system is based on standardizingmeta-information catalogues. The service will improvethe dissemination and quality of forest-related data andinformation on forest resources, forest policy, criteria andindicators for sustainable forest management, researchactivities and other relevant issues. Members of the GFISTask Force include: European Forest Institute, CIFOR,Forest Research Institute of Ghana, University ofGreenwich, ITTO, CATIE, WRI, IUFRO, ChineseAcademy of Forestry, FAO Forest Division, OxfordUniversity, CAB International, WCMC, Finnish ForestResearch Institute, EMBRAPA Florestas Brazil, US ForestService, Canadian Forest Service, and TechnicalUniversity of Vienna.

The website for GFIS is:http://iufro.boku.ac.at/iufro/taskforce/hptfgfis.htm

Other forest information websites include:

http://www.forest-trends.org/keytrends/trendsinforests.htmhttp://www.fao.org/forestryhttp://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/homepage.htm

The main sources of information on the status of forestgenetic resources at global and regional level are:

Reports of FAO’s Panel of Forest Gene Experts, the mostrecent being the 11th session held in September-October1999 (FAO 2000c).

ANNEX IV

INDICATIVE LIST OF MAJOR SOURCES OF INFORMATION:


158

Country Reports on the State of Forest Tree and ShrubGenetic Resources, available for a number of countries(see FAO 2000c) and regional status and action plans forNorth America (Rodgers and Ledig 1996), the BorealZone (Anon. 1996b) and Europe (Turok et al., 1998)prepared in the lead-up to the Fourth InternationalTechnical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources held inLeipzig, Germany, in June 1996 and more recently fordry-zone Sub-Saharan Africa (Sigaud et al., 1998), thePacific Islands (Pouru 2000), and Southern Africa(Sigaud and Luanga 2000). At a regional level, the maingaps in information on forest genetic resources (diversitylevels, processes and threats) are in South and South-eastAsia, Central and South America and humid-zone,equatorial Africa. However, in a number of countriesresearch projects are in progress to address these issues,e.g. Brazil’ Embrapa Dendrogene Project on geneticconservation within managed forests in Amazonia,Thailand’s Royal Forest Department ForestGenetic Resources Conservation and Management(FORGENMAP) Programme and IPGRI and partnersresearch on genetic processes in India (Western Ghats),Costa Rica and Cameroon.

FAO’s Global Information System on Forest GeneticResources or REFORGEN (http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/reforgen/index.jsp. REFORGEN includesinformation on forest genetic resources for use inplanning and decision-making at the national, regionaland international levels. It presently gathers informationfrom 146 countries on more than 1,600 tree species. Amore complete data set on the threat status, both atspecies and population levels, and conservationmeasures, both in and ex situ, of included tree specieswould enhance REFORGEN’s utility for documentingand planning forest genetic resources conservationmeasures.


159

IntroductionThe objective of the Costa Rica Ecomarkets Project is toincrease the production of environmental services inCosta Rica by supporting the development of marketsand private sector providers for services supplied byprivately owned forests. It directly supports theimplementation of Costa Rica’s Forestry Law No. 7575:providing market-based incentives to forest owners inbuffer zones and interconnecting biological corridorscontiguous to national parks and biological reserves forthe provision of environmental services relating tocarbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, scenicbeauty, and hydrological services.

ObjectivesThe project aims to contribute to environmentallysustainable development in Costa Rica through:

(a) supporting the supply of and demand for envi-ronmental services provided by forest ecosystems;

(b) strengthening management capacity and assuringfinancing of public sector forestry programmesadministered by the Ministry of Environment andEnergy (MINAE), including the National ForestryFinancing Fund (FONAFIFO) and the NationalSystem of Conservation Areas (SINAC);

(c) increasing inflows of private capital into theforestry sector, sustaining natural forests which arecritical for biodiversity conservation and whichform the basis for existing (e.g., ecotourism) andemerging industries.

The global environmental objective of the project is tofoster biodiversity conservation and preserve importantforest ecosystems through conservation easements onprivately owned lands outside protected areas in theMesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC) in Costa Rica.

Key performance indicatorsKey performance indicators related to developmentinclude:

(a) 30% increase in number of providers of environ-mental services by end-of-project

(b) 25% increase in land area covered byEnvironmental Service Payments (ESP) pro-gramme contract;

(c) 30% increase in the participation of women landowners in the ESP;

(d) 30% increase in the participation of women’sorganizations in the ESP.

Key performance indicators related to the GlobalEnvironment objective include:

(a) 50,000 ha of privately owned lands within theMBC incorporated into Costa Rica’s ESPprogramme through conservation easements.

(b) Establishment of a financial instrument tosupport conservation easements in Costa Rica.

(c) Increased landowner participation in, and benefitsfrom, forest conservation-related activities withinthe MBC in Costa Rica.

BackgroundCosta Rica is a leading proponent of environmentallysustainable development, pursuing social and economicgrowth in conjunction with a strong and healthyenvironment. The environmental policy of thegovernment has been progressive, including use ofeconomic instruments such as electricity surcharges andreforestation credits which are targeted at protectingforest ecosystems throughout the country. Nonetheless,Costa Rica was beset with one of the highest rates ofdeforestation worldwide during the 1970s and 1980s. In1950, forests covered more than one-half of Costa Rica;by 1995, forest cover declined to 25% of the nationalterritory. Approximately 60% of forest cover, totalling 1.2million ha, exists on privately owned lands outsideprotected areas. World Bank estimates indicate that 80%of deforested areas, nearly all on privately owned lands,were converted to pastures and agriculture. Deforestationwas principally driven by inappropriate governmentpolicies including cheap credit for cattle, land-titling lawsthat rewarded deforestation and rapid expansion of theroad system. These policy incentives have since beenremoved.

Costa Rica’s efforts to internalise environmental valuesprovided by forest ecosystems dates back to 1979, with thepassage of the first Forestry Law and the establishmentof economic incentives for reforestation. Subsequentlaws strengthened incentives for reforestation,broadening opportunities for landowners to participatein reforestation programmes and making theprogrammes accessible to small landowners within ruralareas. In 1996, Costa Rica adopted Forestry Law No.7575, which explicitly recognizes four environmentalservices provided by forest ecosystems:

ANNEX V

CASE STUDY - DEVELOPING MARKETS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TOSUPPORT FOREST CONSERVATION

The Costa Rica Ecomarkets Project


160

(a) mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, such asCO2;

(b) hydrological services, including provision of waterfor human consumption, irrigation and energyproduction;

(c) biodiversity conservation; and (d) provision of scenic beauty for recreation and eco-

tourism.

The law:

(a) delegates responsibilities and duties inter alia tolicensed forestry regents and municipalities, theNational Forestry Financing Fund (FONAFIFO),the National System of Conservation Areas(SINAC) and the Costa Rican Office for JointImplementation (OCIC);

(b) provides the legal and regulatory basis to contractwith landowners for environmental servicesprovided by their lands and establishes a financingmechanism for this purpose;

(c) empowers FONAFIFO to issue such contracts,subject to provisions such as the availability of aforest management plan certified by a licensedforest regent, for the environmental servicesprovided by privately owned forest ecosystems.

With the passage of Forestry Law No. 7575, the forestrysector has an established modern legal framework, whichrecognizes environmental services provided by forestecosystems. It defines the role of the State in protectingforests as well as in promoting and facilitating privatesector activities, decentralizes duties and responsibilitiesto local actors, including licensed forestry regents,municipalities and regional councils, and establishes thatforests may only be harvested if there exists a forestrymanagement plan that complies with the criteria forsustainable forestry as approved by the State.

Progress so farThe Environmental Service Payments programme,executed through FONAFIFO in close coordinationwith SINAC, aims to protect primary forest, to allowsecondary forest to flourish and to promote forestplantations to meet industrial demands for lumber andpaper products. These goals are met through site-specificcontracts with individual small- and medium-sizedfarmers. In all cases, participants must present asustainable forest management plan certified by alicensed forestry regent, as well as carry out sustainableforest management activities throughout the life ofindividual contracts. Management plans includeinformation on land cadastre, cartography and physicalaccess; description of topography, soils, climate, drainage,

actual land use and carrying capacity with respect to landuse; plans for prevention of forest fires, illegal huntingand illegal harvesting; and monitoring schedules.Commitments associated with the environmental servicecontracts are registered with the deed to the property,such that contractual obligations transfer as a legaleasement to subsequent owners for the life of thecontract. Furthermore, landowners cede their rightsto sequestered carbon to FONAFIFO to sell on theinternational market.Environmental service contracts are based upon the valueof various services provided by primary and secondaryforests, based in part upon studies conducted by theCosta Rica-based Tropical Science Center (see Table 1)and the World Bank (see Table 2). Regulations withinForestry Law No. 7575 establish the conditions forcontracting environmental services. Contracts include:

(a) Forest conservation easements: US$220 perhectare disbursed over a five-year period.Eighty-six percent of environmental servicecontracts in the FONAFIFO programme to datesupport forest conservation easements, which inlarge part are targeted at minimizing disturbanceof vegetative cover in primary and maturesecondary growth forest areas.

(b) Sustainable forest management: US$342 perhectare disbursed over a five-year period. Ninepercent of contracts in the FONAFIFOprogramme support sustainable forestmanagement.

(c) Reforestation: US$560 per hectare disbursed overa five-year period. Landowners must make acommitment to maintain reforested areas for aperiod of 15-20, depending upon tree species. Fivepercent of contracts in the FONAFIFOprogramme support reforestation of degradedand abandoned agricultural lands.

For practical purposes, the ESP programme supports theimplementation of Forestry Law No. 7575 by allowing thegovernment to act as a market intermediary: FONAFIFOpurchases environmental services from privatelandowners (e.g., carbon sequestration, biodiversityconservation, hydrological services) and, in turn, sellsthese services to specific sectors which benefit from theseresources.


161

Environmental Service Primary Forest Secondary Forest

Min. Med. Max. Min. Med. Max.

Carbon 19 38 57 14.6 29.3 43.9

Hydrologic 2.5 5 7.5 1.3 2.5 3.8

Services Biodiversity 5 10 15 3.8 7.5 11.2

Protection Ecosystem 2.5 5 7.5 1.3 2.5 3.8

Totals 29 58 87 21 41.8 62.7

Table 1. Minimum, Medium and Maximum Annual Value (1996 US$/ha) forEnvironmental Services from Primary and Secondary Forests (Tropical ScienceCenter, 1996)

Environmental Service Primary Forest

Min. Max.

Carbon Sequestration (about US$20 per tonne of carbon) 60 120

Hydrologic Benefits 17 36

Ecotourism 13 25

Future Pharmaceuticals 0.15 0.15

Funds transfers for existence and option values 13 32

Totals 102 214

Table 2. Estimated Annual Environmental Values (1989 US$/ha) of Primary Forests(Constantino and Kishor, 1993)

Year Forest Conservation Sustainable Reforestation

Forest Management

Has. No of Has. No of Has. No of

landowners landowners landowners

1995 23,683 423 -- -- --

1997 94,484 1,058 8,449 88 4,782 462

1998 46,391 762 8,663 88 4,470 333

Totals 164,558 2,243 17,112 151 9,252 795

Table 3. Total Area and Number of Participants in Environmental Service PaymentsProgramme by Year


162

From a conservation perspective, FONAFIFO providesmarket-based incentives to conserve natural forestecosystems. These economic incentives help maintainhabitats that are critical to a rich, globally importantbiodiversity and they have the potential to help tomaintain biological corridors linking protected areas.Approaching biodiversity conservation throughthe FONAFIFO mechanism is akin to the system ofconservation easements that are widely used in theUnited States and European countries. In 1997 and 1998,US$15 million were disbursed by FONAFIFO throughthe ESP programme for the conservation and sustainableuse of privately-owned forests; since 1995, over 190,000hectares of forests have been incorporated into theprogramme (Table 3) at a cost of approximately US$47million.

In conclusion, with the introduction of a variety of forestincentives in recent years, Costa Rica has slowed the rapidpace of deforestation witnessed in the 1970s and1980s. In terms of overall land cover, the gross area ofdeforestation has been counterbalanced by regrowth in75% of the previously deforested areas, including theestablishment of forest plantations and spontaneousregeneration of abandoned pasture on poor terrainespecially in the Pacific slopes. While this regrowth mayprovide valuable environmental and economic services, itshould be noted that, in terms of biodiversity values, it isnot equivalent to lost primary forest.

Lessons learned for the next phase of the projectOne of the most important lessons learned from activitiesassociated with the projects within the MesoamericanBiological Corridor is the importance of involving localpopulations and institutions (e.g. local government,community and sectoral organizations, NGOs) in thedesign, implementation and benefits of the projectin order to assure the long-term conservation of thebiodiversity outside protected areas. The project supportsthe inclusion of small landowners in the ESP programMEand technical support for NGOs to provide assistance tosmall landowners and rural women’s organizationsrelating to forest conservation and sustainable resourcemanagement.

A World Bank review of deforestation in Costa Ricacarried out in the early 1990s identified three principaltypes of forest intervention in Costa Rica:

(a) clear cutting to change the use of lands underforest cover;

(b) selective cutting of large, valuable trees in primaryor secondary forest;

(c) exploitation by owners of pasture areas thatcontain patches of forest.

The study confirmed that clear-cutting and selective log-ging are driven by economic interests. While loggers doplay an important role, the main motivation for theseprocesses comes from landowners who wish to obtainrevenue from the sale of timber or who wish to use theland for agriculture, or both. Environmental concernstend not to be taken into account by the owners whenthey are not related to on-site productivity. Hence, theintroduction of economic incentives is required wherethe maintenance of forest ecosystems is considered ofimportance for the country.

The experience of projects throughout the MBC withbuffer zone communities indicates the importance of:

(a) clearly defining the roles of the project and thecommunities in project administration,fund management, decision-making, andimplementation in order to avoid creating falseexpectations or leaving ambiguities which causeimplementation delays;

(b) providing for a strong administrative andcoordination capacity supported by adequatetechnical assistance and, initially, closeimplementation supervision; and

(c) establishing clear linkages between conservationand development activities.

Phase 2: project summary

Project aimsThe next phase of the project will be supported by GEF(World Bank). It aims to increase the production ofenvironmental services in Costa Rica by supporting thedevelopment of markets and private sector providers forservices supplied by privately owned forests, includingprotection of biological diversity, greenhouse gasmitigation and provision of hydrological services. Assuch, the project will support the implementation ofenvironmental policies in the forest sector and contributeto sustainable human development. Additionally, theproject will strengthen offices within the Ministry ofEnvironment and Energy (MINAE) as well as local andregional non-governmental organizations (especiallywomen’s organizations) responsible for the execution,promotion, supervision and monitoring of the forestconservation programme.Costa Rica’s pioneering efforts to achieve environmental

goals through the sustainable use of forest ecosystemsentails developing commercially viable activities, whichare based upon the environmental services provided fromthe nation’s forests. The project will assist in developingmarkets, attracting financing and investment andconsolidating the institutional framework for:


163

(a) marketing global environmental services relatingto the conservation of biodiversity in privatelyowned buffer zones surrounding protected areas,thereby protecting the Costa Rican portion of theMesoamerican Biological Corridor;

(b) marketing global environmental services relatingto the mitigation of greenhouse gases, through thedevelopment of forestry projects promoting car-bon sequestration;

(c) marketing local environmental services providedby forest ecosystems relating to protection of waterquality and dry season stream flows in watershedswhere hydroelectric projects are presently operat-ing or planned.

Key policy and institutional reforms to be soughtThe project will assist in mainstreaming Costa Rica’senvironmental policies into the forestry sector. Withrespect to Forestry Law No. 7575, the project will supportthe contracting of conservation easements for a period oftwenty years under Article 22. To date, FONAFIFO hasonly contracted conservation easements under Article 69,for a period of five years. Under GEF co-financedconservation easements in Tortuguero, La AmistadCaribe and Osa Peninsula, these areas will have acontractual obligation of twenty years. In return for thiscommitment on the part of small- and medium-sizedlandowners in these three Conservation Areas, theselandowners will receive highest priority for contracts forconservation easements. Furthermore, the Governmentof Costa Rica is committed to seek continued financingfor these conservation easements throughout theirtwenty-year life.

Benefits and target populationThe project should:

(a) empower small- and medium-scale private landowners in the conservation and management offorest ecosystems and in making choices thatcontribute to sustainable development;

(b) support the long-term viability of the ESPprogramme and promote increased institutionalefficiency of FONAFIFO, SINAC, local NGOspromoting biodiversity conservation, and privatesector associations; and

(c) benefit regional users of hydrological services bysupporting the provision of high water quality andhydrological stability from forest ecosystems.

Important project benefits include the conservation andsustainable use of forest ecosystems in privately ownedland outside protected areas. Replication of programmeactivities in other countries, including development ofmarkets and private sector providers for environmentalservices, could further expand project benefits.

Also available

Issue 1: Assessment and Management of Alien Species that ThreatenEcosystems, Habitats and Species

Issue 2: Review of The Efficiency and Efficacy of Existing Legal InstrumentsApplicable to Invasive Alien Species

Issue 3: Assessment, Conservation and Sustainable Use of Forest Biodiversity

Issue 4: The Value of Forest Ecosystems

Issue 5: Impacts of Human-Caused Fires on Biodiversity andEcosystem Functioning, and Their Causes in Tropical, Temperateand Boreal Forest Biomes

Issue 6: Sustainable Management of Non-Timber Forest Resources

review of the status and trends of, and major … · many threats to forests and forest biological...

Documents