Embargoed for Release until 12:01 GMT on 7CAMBODIA
June 2011

ASIA AND THE
PACIFIC

Cambodia 146

Myanmar 207

Fiji 158

Papua New Guinea 218

India 168

Philippines 230

Indonesia 181

Thailand 242

Malaysia 196

Vanuatu 253145

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Cambodia

Forest resources
In 2010 Cambodia’s estimated population was
15.1 million people (United Nations Population
Division 2010); it is ranked 137th out of 182
countries in UNDP’s Human Development Index(UNDP 2009). Geographically, Cambodia isdominated by a large alluvial central plain, throughwhich courses the Mekong River. Mountains
and plateaux surround the central plain except
in the southeast. The country also contains thelargest freshwater lake in Southeast Asia, the Tonle
Sap Lake. The climate of Cambodia is tropical,
dominated by the annual monsoon cycle, which isaccompanied by alternating wet and dry seasons.
Cambodia has a relatively large forest resource:
FAO (2010) estimated natural forest cover at
10.0 million hectares, which is 55% of the landarea (18.1 million hectares). The Government of
Cambodia (2011) estimated the forest area at 10.7
million hectares.
Forest types. The Forest Administration conducted
an assessment of national forest cover change
assessment in 2006 using Landsat ETM+ satellite
imagery data. According to this assessment, forest
cover comprises the followinga:•

Evergreen forest – 3.67 million hectares, withthe main characteristic species Dipterocarpus
dyeri, D. corbatus, D. alatus, Anisoptera
cochinchinensis, Hopea spp, Roherea vulgaris andSyzygium spp.

146•

Semi-evergreen forest – 1.36 million hectares,
composed of deciduous dipterocarps such as
Dipterocarpus intricatus, D. obtusifolius andShorea obtusa.

•

Deciduous forest – 4.69 million hectares,
composed of deciduous dipterocarps such as
Dipterocarpus intricatus, D. obtusifolius andShorea obtusa.

•

Wood shrubland (dry) – 37 000 hectares, woodshrubland evergreen – 96 000 hectares, andbamboo – 36 000 hectares.

•

Other forest – 971 000 hectares, including
73 000 hectares of mangroves (Spalding et al.
2010).

Forests in the west are mainly evergreen and thenortheast is largely covered by deciduous forests.
The southern and central parts of the country haveless forest cover and face a shortage of wood supply,in particular for fuel.
Permanent forest estate. Under the 2003 Law
on Forestry, Cambodia’s PFE is composed ofpermanent forest reserves and private forests.
Permanent forest reserves consist of three
categories: production forests, protection forestsand ‘conversion forestland’. Production forests
comprise forest concessions; production forests
not under concession; rehabilitated forests; reserve
forestland for reforestation or tree plantations;reserved forestland for forest regeneration;
degraded forestland; and community forests underagreement. ‘Conversion forestland’ is defined
as “idle land, comprised mainly of secondary
vegetation, not yet designated for use by any sector
that shall be classified as permanent forest reserves
until the Royal Government decide[s] to use anddevelop the land for another purpose”.a
In its submission to ITTO for this report, theGovernment of Cambodia reported that its PFE
comprised all extant forest because the Law on
Forestry does not define ‘non-PFE’.a In the ITTO
estimate of PFE given in Table 1, however, theestimated area of conversion forestland has been
excluded. As of May 2009, about 1000 km of the
PFE boundaries had been demarcated in the field.a
The 2010 estimate of PFE is slightly higher thanthe 2005 estimate. The two estimates are notCAMBODIA

Table 1 Permanent forest estate

*
**

‡
†

Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal naturalforest area,
range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

2005*
2010

9.33–11.1
10.0–10.7

5500
3900

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted

Total

3460
3710b,**

8097
8309

17
69‡

4620
4530†

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Comprises 3.37 million hectares of former or suspended forest concessions and about 331 000 hectares of community forests thatare either operating under community forest agreements (as per the Law on Forestry) or are awaiting MAFF approval (Governmentof Cambodia 2009a).
FAO (2010).
Comprises 1.43 million hectares of protected forests under the jurisdiction of the Forest Administration and 3.10 million hectaresof protected areas under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment.

to be a low priority in the country (Fuels and Fire
Behaviour Research Capacity Building Project 2008).

directly comparable, however: the 2005 estimate
comprised the area of forest under concessions at
the time, plus the area of protection forest.

Vulnerability of forests to climate change.
According to McSweeney et al. (undated), the meanannual temperature of Cambodia increased by
0.8 ˚C between 1960 and 2005, a rate of around0.18 ˚C per decade. The frequency of hot days andhot nights has increased significantly since 1960 inmost seasons, but mean rainfall has not shown any
consistent change. The mean annual temperature is
projected to increase by 0.7–2.7 ˚C by the 2060s,
and by 1.4–4.3 ˚C by the 2090s (ibid.). All climatechange models predict an increase in rainfall until
2060.

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. FAO(2010) estimated that forest cover declined byabout 637 000 hectares between 2005 and 2010
and by 2.85 million hectares between 1990 and2010. The Government of Cambodia reported
that, in the period 2003–2007, 899 000 hectaresof forest were converted legally to agriculturaluses and another 224 000 hectares were converted
illegally.a Estimates of the extent of illegal logging or
shifting cultivation and the impacts of fire, storms,
drought and pests and diseases on the forest estate
were unavailable.a In the period 2002–06 the mostsignificant loss of forests occurred in the northwestof the country, notably Banteay, Meanchey,
Battambong, Siemreap, Oddar Meanchey andPailin provinces (Forest Administration 2010).

Adapting to climate change and mitigating its
effects on forest-based livelihoods is a strategic
objective of Cambodia’s National Forest Program.
Cambodia prepared a NAPA in 2007. According
to it, the area of wet forest will decrease while
the area of moist forest will increase and thearea of dry forest will remain more or less thesame. Forest productivity and biodiversity willchange accordingly (Government of Cambodia2007). Climate change and forest degradation in
combination may result in increased soil erosion(ibid.). A series of projects are proposed in the
NAPA to address these concerns.

An estimated 322 000 hectares of primary forest
remain in Cambodia, but no data were available
on the area of degraded primary forest, secondary
forest or degraded forest land (Table 2). Slashand-burn agriculture, forest land encroachment andland-grabbing are the main causes of forest fire.a
Issues related to forest fire are generally considered
Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

Total’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land

-

-

322
9703
-

147

Status of tropical forest management 2011

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. The 2001 Land Law sets out acomprehensive system of land classification andland ownership rights. It includes provisions onsocial and economic land concessions, Indigenous
land rights, land registration and land-dispute
resolution, and it authorizes the enactment of aseries of other sub-decrees and legislation. All forests
are owned by the state (Table 3). While there isprovision in the 2003 Law on Forestry for private
forests, there are no privately owned forests.
As much as 85% of Cambodia’s population lives
in rural areas (Government of Cambodia 2009a).
Under the 2003 Law on Forestry (Article 40) thestate recognizes the use rights of communities
for the purpose of traditional customs, beliefs,
religion and living. No forest land is owned by
Indigenous communities, but 124 community
forests covering a total area of 145 000 hectares insix provinces (Siem Reap, Kampong Thom, Oddar
Meanchhey, Koh Kong, Bantaey Meanchhey andKampong Leng-Kampong Chhnang) have been
established for (extendable) 15-year terms undercommunity forestry agreements (an additional
140 sites over about 186 000 hectares have beenrecognized by provincial authorities but are
awaiting approval by the Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries – MAFF).a The Governmentof Cambodia has expressed an intent to extend thearea of community forests to 2 million hectares(Government of Cambodia 2009a).
Land appropriation in various forms and conflicts
over land-use rights are reportedly widespread(Fraser Thomas Limited 2009), to the extent
that, in 2006, the Cambodian Centre for Human
Rights reported that land disputes were the“human rights and social problem number one”
for rural Cambodians participating in its regularpublic forums (Centre on Housing Rights andEvictions 2008). In 2006 the Government of
Cambodia established the National Authority forLand Dispute Resolution, although this has been
criticized as creating “another level of bureaucracythat further confuses the situation” (International
Federation for Human Rights 2007).
Criteria and indicators. Cambodia has developed anational format based on the ITTO C&I consistingof seven criteria and 59 indicators for monitoring,assessment and reporting on progress towards SFM.

148

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

Total area

Of which
PFE’000 haState ownership (national,
state or provincial
government)
Other public entities (e.g.
including municipalities,
villages)
Total public
Owned by local communities
and/or Indigenous groups
Privately owned by individuals,
firms, other corporate

10 100

8 336

0

0

10 100
0

8 336
0

0

0

Source: Government of Cambodia (2009b).

The seven criteria are: extent of forest resources;
biological diversity; forest health and vitality;
productive functions of forest resources; protectivefunctions of forest resources; socioeconomic
functions; and legal, policy and institutionalframework. The Government of Cambodia,
through its Forestry Administration, used the ITTO
C&I in its submission to ITTO for this report.a
Forest policy and legislation. In July 2002 thegovernment adopted a national forest policy withthe following objectives: to conserve and sustainably
manage the country’s forest resources; to establish
the remaining forest reserves as PFE; to promote
the maximum involvement of the private sector
and the participation of local people; to establish
a coordinated multi-stakeholder process forforestry development; and to promote programsof forestation on arable lands and farms. Forests
are also a priority under the National Strategic
Development Plan (see Box 1).
The 2003 Law on Forestry, which replaced Decree
No 35 of 1988, defines the framework for the
management, harvesting, use, development,
conservation and protection of forests. The majorstated objective is to ensure SFM and customaryuser rights for local communities. The law refers toa total of 28 regulations, of which eleven remain
under preparation by the Forest Administration.
For the law to be effective, law enforcement
capability needs to be strengthened.a
The 2003 Law on Forestry has been criticizedbecause it does not define forest and therefore risks
overlapping and competing with other land-relatedlaws, with the result that it “adds to the confusion

CAMBODIA

that prevails when demarcating the types of lands
that can be legally given away for private investment
and brought into land markets, and those thatshould be preserved as public goods” (Guttal 2006).
Box 1 Forests in national planning
At the national level, the Rectangular Strategy for Growth,
Employment, Equity and Efficiency (Phase II), supported by
the National Strategic Development Plan and supplemented
by the Cambodia Millennium Development Goals, emphasizes“ensuring environmental sustainability” and prioritizes thesustainable management and use of natural resources,
including forests. The National Strategic Development Plancovers the period of the Fourth Legislature of the National
Assembly (2008–13) and sets a national target of 60% forest
cover, 450 approved community forests, and a reduction in thedependence on fuelwood of 19% by 2013. The Cambodia
Millennium Development Goals also set goals and indicators
for the forest sector by 2015, including an increase in the total
area of forest and the area of protected forest, and a decreasein fuelwood dependency.
Source: Gurung et al. (2011).

A number of guidelines and codes serve to regulate
forest management, including the Cambodian
Code of Practice for Forest Harvesting (1999), theconstruction code for forest engineering works,
guidelines for SFM, and a planning manual for the
management of forest concessions. In its submission
to ITTO for this report, the Government of
Cambodia listed one law, three Royal decrees,
14 sub-decrees, one statement, one declaration,
ten prakas (declarations), one co-prakas, twoannouncements, one decision, two orders andone circulation that are relevant to the sustainable
management of the country’s forests.a
The National Forest Program has six sub-programs(Forest Administration 2010):

capacity of the national community forestry
program; promote the development of technologies
that support community livelihoods and the
responsible governance of forest resourcesmanagement; and seek opportunities to integrate
tree seed genetic conservation into community
forestry.1
Stakeholders have been widely consulted on the
National Forest Program and their ideas, comments
and suggestions have been taken into accountto improve forest management planning andimplementation.a
Institutions involved in forests. The Forest
Administration, which is under MAFF, is
responsible for managing forest resources according
to the National Forest Sector Policy and the Law
on Forestry. Nevertheless, there appears to besome overlap in responsibility with the Fisheries
Administration (also under MAFF), which is
responsible for the management of ‘flooded’
forests, and the Ministry of Environment, whichis responsible for the management of protectedareas.a The Ministry of Land Management,
Urban Planning and Construction is responsiblefor identifying the land use, classification andregistration of state land to prevent forest
encroachment.
In 2003 the Forest Administration was restructured
to decentralize power. It now comprises four
inspectorates, 15 cantonments, 55 divisions and
170 triages (the lowest subdivision of the Forest
Administration) at the local level.
The Forest Administration’s GIS and Remote
Sensing Unit produces national forest-cover maps
and local maps supporting forest demarcation,
the evaluation of forest function and forest
management plans. The unit is well-organized
and capable of producing forest maps by visualinterpretation. It is currently receiving training on
automated remote sensing analysis (Government of
Cambodia 2009a).

•

forest demarcation, classification andregistration•

forest resource management and conservation•

forest law enforcement and governance•community forestry•

capacity and research development

Forest for production•

sustainable forest financing.

Before 1970 the forests of Cambodia were managed
conservatively. Forests were classified into reserves
managed for specific objectives such as production,

In mid 2007 a partnership between Cambodia
and the National Forest Programme Facility wasestablished to strengthen the implementation

Status of forest management

1 www.nfp-facility.org.

149

Status of tropical forest management 2011

wildlife conservation, research and preservation.
The French colonial era ended in Cambodia in
1954 but the centralized forest management systemestablished during it was continued until the early
1970s when a civil war erupted.
In the period 1975–1980, forest governance wasdestroyed under the Khmer Rouge regime. Afterthe defeat of the Khmer Rouge the forest sector wasreformulated under a centralized system (managed
by the Department of Forestry and Wildlife) withvery limited capacity and almost no equipment ortransport capability.
In the early 1990s, a system of forest concessions
was introduced. In Cambodia, harvesting
intensity is expressed in terms of the volume of
merchantable timber or the percentage of thestanding merchantable volume to be removed. The
rate of extraction in evergreen and mixed evergreen
forest was set at 30% of the total volume available
for harvest. Before 1993, felling was mainly done
manually using axes and extraction was by buffalo
or elephant, but harvesting has been mechanizedsince the advent of logging concessions.
The hasty introduction of the concession system
in 1994 caused widespread damage to the forest.
Field inspections and observations indicatedthat “the state of the current concession forest
management is alarmingly at odds with the goal ofsustainability” (World Bank 2000). There was no
reliable assessment of resources and the processing
facilities set up had significant over-capacity. The
period 1994–1998 was also one of uncontrolled
illegal logging, and wood extraction soon reachedunsustainable levels (ITTO 2006). Attempts to
get the concessionaires to manage their forests
sustainably and pay more taxes did not meetwith success. Most companies continued to log
high-value species as quickly as possible, without
following the prescribed 25-year harvesting cycle(the nominal duration of the concession). The
recommended level of harvest was an average of
10 m3 per hectare, but this would scarcely havebeen economically viable and concessionaires
typically harvested four to five times that amount(ibid.).
Between 1994 and 1997 the government granted
36 commercial forest concessions covering
about seven million hectares or around 70% of
Cambodia’s forests. In this way, the government
sought to raise much-needed revenue for national

150

development. Foreign timber companies started
investing from late 1994, peaked in 1996, and thelast concession was granted in 1997. In 1998 thegovernment began to restructure the sector throughthe Forestry Reform Program supported by theWorld Bank. In 2000 the Forest Administration
stipulated that no cutting permits would be issued
until 100% inventories of current annual coupes
had been completed, 5% inventories had been
carried out for the next four annual coupes, and thecompanies had made the required minimum royalty
payments (ITTO 2006).
In 2001 the government introduced additional
legal requirements for concessions, such as
the preparation of long-term strategic forest
management plans consistent with international
standards, and the renegotiation of model forest
concession investment agreements. In December
2001 the government suspended all logging
activities in concessions. The licences of 17
companies covering 3.50 million hectares in 24
concessions were cancelled and twelve concessions
covering a total area of 3.37 million hectares weresuspended. In addition the Forest Administration
closed, and sometimes destroyed, 1351 illegal
sawmills and 653 small wood-processing plants(ITTO 2006).
Some concessionaires have prepared strategic
forest management plans according to themodel, including an environmental and social
impact statement, for review by the Ministry ofEnvironment. Strategic forest management plans
have three levels:•

A long-term forest management plan for an
entire concession based on the length of thecontract (20–30 years).

•

A medium-term forest management plan for acompartment (3–5 years).

•

Annual planning for coupes and blocks,
focusing on yield planning for a one-year
period.

According to the Government of Cambodia an
area of 6.24 million hectares is under management
plansa, but given the logging ban the status ofthese plans is unclear. There was no legal logging
in the period 2004–07.a In 2007, however, asystem of annual bidding coupes was introduced
for forests not under concession with the primary
aim of meeting domestic wood needs. Under this

CAMBODIA

Shifting cultivation in Cambodian evergreen forests.

system, divisions of the Forest Administration
conduct inventories, tree-marking and social andenvironmental impact assessments for annual
coupes and prepare one-year management plans.
When a management plan is approved by the chiefof the Forest Administration the coupe is offered for
public bidding and the successful bidder harvests
the coupe according to the management plan.
Monitoring is conducted centrally by the Forest
Administration.
As of 2009 the Forest Administration had issued
three bidding coupe management plans to three
separate companies covering, in total, 5000
hectares.a No harvesting permits were issued
between 2004 and 2007 due to the suspension of
logging in concessions.
The MAFF has created the Cambodian Forestry
Stamp in order to:•Mark legal logs prior to their removal from firstlog landing.

•Mark illegal logs that are evidence of forest
offences.

All trees in the coupe that are allowed to be felledshould be marked with the Cambodian Forestry
Stamp. A Forest Administration official assesses
the quality and quantity of the harvested forest
products and records the information in ‘Book
A’, which needs to be approved by the Forest
Administration chief. After the payment of royalties
and premiums to the government, logs are given
four marks with the Cambodian Forestry Stampon both cutting ends prior to transport fromthe first landing. A transport permit is issued toallow the transportation of the log to its finaldestination. Logs impounded or detained by the
Forest Administration are given three marks of theCambodian Forestry Stamp in a triangular shape on
both cutting sides and in the middle.
The preparation of forest management plans ishindered by the difficulty in obtaining data at
the sub-national level. Many local communities
have limited education, which makes any public
consultation and planning difficult. Nevertheless,the Government of Cambodia reported theexistence of 65 management plans covering 6.24
million hectares (a significantly larger area than151

Status of tropical forest management 2011

the total estimated production PFE), although
no additional information on the nature of thesemanagement plans was available.a MAFF has also
issued small-scale harvesting permits without theneed for forest management plans, especially for
Hopea odorata, which is used in boat-making.a

in major towns and prices were stable, an indicationthat the effect of the logging ban had been to
stimulate a significant illegal timber industry(ITTO 2004).
Silviculture and species selection. The model
forest concession agreement and the SFM
guidelines require that forests are managed undera selective cutting system based on AAC andsize specifications. The guidelines have elaborate
provisions for the demarcation of area, inventory,tree-marking, stream buffers and conservation
measures, roading standards, skid-trail alignment,
directional felling, the location of log landings,
post-logging operations, etc. These guidelines arebeing implemented to a certain extent in the annual
bidding coupes. Pre-inventory and post-harvest
inventories could be used for monitoring andevaluating the cumulative effects of the silvicultural
system over time.a Table 4 shows the main species
harvested in the annual bidding coupes.

Despite the ban on logging, a report by the NGO
Global Witness (Global Witness 2007) alleged that
Cambodia’s army, military policy, police and Forest
Administration are all “heavily involved in illegal
logging” and made specific allegations against anumber of people. The international monitoring
company SGS was contracted by the Governmentof Cambodia as the independent monitor of forest
crime monitoring and reporting in Cambodia
in 2003–05. In response to the Global Witnessreport the company stated that, while it was notwithin the SGS mandate to conduct criminal
investigations beyond field verification of the facts
presented in Forest Administration and Ministry ofEnvironment reports or in other reports received
from individuals or organizations, “No verifiable
evidence related to the persons named in the Global
Witness report was ever submitted to SGS by anyorganisation” (SGS 2007). An ITTO diagnostic
mission reported in 2004 that timber was available

Planted forest and trees outside the forest.
In its submission to ITTO for this report, theGovernment of Cambodia did not provide data onplanted forests.a FAO (2010) reported a planted
forest area of 69 000 hectares and an annual

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Dipterocarpus alatus (chhoeuteal tan)*

Sawnwood, veneer, plywood; 7221 m3 average annual harvest overthree years to 2008.
Sawnwood, veneer, plywood; 5001 m3 average annual harvest overthree years to 2008.
1337 m3 average annual harvest over three years to 2008.
Sawnwood (decorative, furniture); 691 m3 average annual harvest
over three years to 2008.
901 m3 average annual harvest over three years to 2008.

Anisoptera glabra (mersawa, phdiek)*
Sindora coshinchinensis
Tarrietia javanica*
Parinarium annaamensis*
Also listed in ITTO (2006).
Source: Government of Cambodia (2009b).

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)
Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*

3460

2010

3710

3370
(suspended)
5**

*
**
‡

152

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
150
150‡

CertifiedSustainably
managed

Total

0

0

17

PlantedWith
management
plans
7

0

0

69

-

Certified00

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Annual bidding coupes issued by the Forest Administration. In addition, MAFF has issued small-scale harvesting permits, but thearea covered by these is unreported.
Although the Government of Cambodia (2009b) reported that 6.24 million hectares of forest were under management plans, thenature and status of those management plans is unclear. Therefore, the estimate reported in ITTO (2006) is repeated here.

CAMBODIA

plantation establishment rate (in 2003–07) of 5855
hectares.
Forest certification. The Government of
Cambodia has expressed interest in developing anational forest certification system, and the Law on
Forestry (2003) includes several of the requirements
for certification (FAO 2010). However, as ofNovember 2010 no forest had been certified in
Cambodia (e.g. FSC 2010).
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. No evidence is available
to suggest that any forest in Cambodia’s naturalforest production PFE is under SFM (Table 5).
Timber production and trade. Recorded
wood production in Cambodia fell when forest
concessions were cancelled or suspended; industrial
log production was estimated to have been constantat 118 000 m3 per year in the period 2005–09,
compared to 130 000 m3 in 2004 and 291 000
m3 in 1999 (ITTO 2011). The recorded timber
is obtained from government-approved land
conversion activities and from annual bidding
coupes. As indicated above, however, illegal logging
was reportedly significant, at least in the mid 2000s.
The reported volume of timber exports was small in
2009, comprising 3450 m3 of logs and 17 000 m3
of sawnwood (ibid.).
Non-timber forest products. Many rural people
depend on NTFPs to supplement subsistenceneeds and generate income; it has been estimated,for example, that about 70% of the populationof rural Cambodia relies at least partly on NTFPs
for food and cash income, and that about 90% of
farmers’ income, especially in northeast Cambodia,
comes from NTFPs (Lund 2006). A survey of 502
households in four provinces found that most poor
households derived 10–40% of their livelihood
value from NTFPs, most better-off households
derived 0–20% of their livelihood value from
NTFPs, and a few poor households were highly
specialized in NTFP collection (Hansen 2006).

In 2005 an estimated 559 tonnes of bamboo, 185
tonnes of liquid resin and 4.5 tonnes of rattan were
harvested in forests (FAO 2010).
Forest carbon. Mitigating the effects of climatechange on forest-based livelihoods is a strategic
objective of the National Forest Program. The
program includes the development of carbon-based
financing mechanisms and considers the CDM
and REDD as possible sources of forest-sector
financing (Forest Administration 2009a). Dataon forest carbon are inconclusive; Gibbs et al.
(2007) estimated the national-level forest biomass
carbon stock at 957–1914 MtC, Eggleston etal. (2006) estimated it at 1222 MtC and FAO(2010) estimated it at 464 MtC. The country isundertaking a national REDD readiness processwith the support of the Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility and UN-REDD (Table 6). The Forest
Administration is responsible for REDD-related
activities; for example, it is the designated sellerof forest carbon. The implementation of REDD
is undertaken by an informal REDD working
group led by the Forest Administration, which
includes representatives of key line agencies(e.g. the Ministry of Environment, the Fisheries
Administration and the Ministry of Land
Management, Urban Planning and Construction),development partners and civil-society groups. It
reports to both the Technical Working Group on
Forestry and Environment (the main forum forreview by government and development partners)
and the National Climate Change Committee.
Two government-approved REDD pilots, inOddar Meanchay Province in the northwest and in
Mondulkiri Province in the southeast, are receiving
technical support from PACT Cambodia and the
Wildlife Conservation Society.

Forest for protection
Soil and water. There are laws, rules andregulations (eg the 2003 Law on Forestry, Royaldecrees 1993 and 1999, and sub-decrees 75, 76 andTable 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)% forestwithcanopycover >60%

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

957–1914

39++

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
sink capacity monitoring
capacity
to 2030++++

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

Importance Engagementin theof forest
international
fire/
REDD+
biomass
processes
burning++++++++ high; ++ medium; + low; estimate of national forest carbon based on Gibbs et al. (2007); estimate of % total forest with
canopy cover >60% based on UNEP-WCMC (2010).

153

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Box 2 Number of endangered, rare and threatened forest-dependent species, Cambodia
Forestdependent
species
group
Trees

Of which
Total
speciesEndangered

Legallyprotected

Important species

Endemic

930

78

930

-

Diospyros spp, Dalbergia cochinchinensis, Dalbergia
bariensis, Afzelia xylocarpa, Pterocarpus pedatus

Flowering
plants
Ferns

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Mammals

133

22

123

80

Birds

548

8

545

340

7

ReptilesAmphibians

97
35

Freshwater
fish

500

Butterflies

59

01
21

50
88
28
500

59

3

Pseudonovibos spiralis, Bos sauveli, Naemorhedus
sumatraensis, Manis javanica, Rhinoceros sondaicus
Leptoptilos dublus (greater adjutant), Pseudibis davisoni(white-shouldered ibis), Pseudibis gigantea (giant ibis),
Stema acuticauda (black-bellied tern), Ephippiorhynchus
asiaticus (black-necked stork)
Nja kaouthia (monocled cobra), Naja siamensis (Indochinesespitting cobra), Ophiophagus hannah (king cobra), Lycodon
cardarmimensis (Cardarmom wolf snake)

Giant barb, Thynnichthys thynnoides, Seven-line barb,
thicklipbarb, thinlip barb, Tor sinensis
Stichophthalma cambodia (Cambodian junglequeen),
Meandrusa gyas (brown gorgon), Actias rhodopneuma (lunarmoth), Actias maenas (maenas silkmoth), Actia sinensis(moon moth)

Source: Government of Cambodia (2009b).

77) addressing the role of forests in the protectionof soil and water. The general procedures for
ensuring the protection of downstream catchments
values is stated in the Cambodian Code of Practicefor Forest Harvesting (Section 4) and in the
Guideline for Sustainable Forest Management, butthese are not being implemented or monitored.a
Biological diversity. Fauna surveys covering about
305 000 hectares of the production forest estate
were conducted by the Wildlife Conservation
Society in 2001 and by Conservation International(covering about 402 000 hectares of the protection
forest estate) in 2005.a The data in Box 2 arederived largely from those surveys.
Thirty-three mammals, eleven birds, threeamphibians, two reptiles and one plant foundin forests are listed as critically endangered,endangered or vulnerable on the IUCN red list of
threatened species (IUCN 2011).Three plants arelisted in CITES Appendix I and 34 in Appendix II(UNEP-WCMC 2011).

154

Protective measures in production forests.
Detailed guidelines have been developed forcommercial forestry operations in order to protect
watersheds and to prevent or minimize soil erosion
and stream siltation. Regulations also provide forwildlife protection.
Extent of protected areas. The Governmentof Cambodia estimates that the total area offorests in protected areas that conform to IUCN
protected-area categories I–IV is about 4.05
million hectares, comprising evergreen forest,semi-evergreen forest, deciduous forest, dry woodshrubland and evergreen wood shrubland.a Thisis an increase of nearly 700 000 hectares over thearea reported in ITTO (2006), but no information
is available on the nature of this change.
UNEP-WCMC (2010) estimated the total area offorest in IUCN protected-area categories I–IV at
3.85 million hectares.
Of the 25 protected areas in IUCN categories
I–IV reported by the Government of Cambodia,
twelve are in IUCN categories I and II and 13 are

CAMBODIA

Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)***

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

4620
4530

3360
4050a

4200
551**

1490a

-

As reported in ITTO (2006).
FAO (2010).

in categories III and IV.a Overall, the number ofprotected areas in categories I–IV has decreased overthat reported in ITTO (2006), but no information
is available on the reasons for this change.
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. There are management
plans for nearly 1.5 million hectares of forest inprotected areas.a No additional information wasavailable for this report on the management statusof the protection PFE (Table 7).

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. The Government of Cambodia
reported that, since all forest logging activities
were suspended in 2001, the forest sector madeno contribution to national GDP in the period
2003–08.a However, this does not take into accountillegal activities or subsistence and traditional uses,
the official logging of annual bidding coupes, or
logging carried out under small-scale harvesting
permits. No recent information is available on
employment, income, recreational facilities or otherbenefits.
Livelihood values. Few data are available on thequantity of forest products harvested for subsistenceuse. No quantitative data are available on the role of
NTFPs in maintaining livelihoodsa, although, giventhat an estimated 85% of Cambodia’s population isrural, this role is considerable.
Social relations. Under the Council for Land
Policy, three pilot projects have been establishedto develop enabling legislation consistent with the2001 Land Law for the registration of communal
lands of Indigenous peoples. One of these pilots
is in a heavily forested region (Government of
Cambodia 2009a).
The country’s community forestry program has
increased in scope and size since 1992. A sub-decree
on community forestry management (Sub-decree79, 2 December 2003) provides for an increasein the number (and area) of community forestsand encourages local communities to participate
in SFM. The Forest Administration is committed
to increasing the area of community forests toa total of 2 million hectares (Government of
Cambodia 2009a), up from the 145 000 hectares
that are currently covered by community forestry
agreements involving 124 communities (although
the Forest Administration 2010 reported that
there were 377 community forestry areas covering
348 000 hectares). In 2004 the government
established a community forestry office within
the Forest Administration; this office supports theestablishment of community forests and is in chargeof developing the national community forestry
program (Government of Cambodia 2009a).
There are articles in the Law on Forestry and the
sub-decree on community forestry management toprovide opportunities for communities to receive
benefits from forest management. For example,
the community may use the forest for traditional
purposes without the need for permits. However,these articles have only been applied in the relatively
small area of forest under community forestry
agreements.a
The Forest Administration promotes capacitybuilding among Indigenous people, local
communities and other forest-dwellers throughits working group on the law/regulation
extension program, a public-awareness program,and community forestry. The involvement ofIndigenous people, however, is only moderate.a
Poor roading in remote and rural areas causes
difficulties in conducting forestry extension andforestry awareness programs in local communities.
The Government of Cambodia has establisheda national conflict-resolution committee andprovincial conflict-resolution sub-committees tohelp resolve problems between forest stakeholders.a155

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Summary

Endnotes

Deforestation is still occurring at a rapid pace inCambodia. Even though an estimated 85% of thecountry’s people live in rural areas, only a small areaof forest is under community forest management.
Nevertheless, the Government of Cambodia
is looking to increase this area to two million
hectares and a community forestry office has been
established within the Forest Administration. All
forest is state-owned, and conflicts over land tenure
are a significant problem. The area of natural forests
under management plans appears to have increased
in protection forests (and possibly in production
forests) since 2005. Following a moratorium
between 2004 and 2007 there have been moves toreintroduce commercial logging in natural forests,
but to date the area of forest in which harvesting ispermitted is small. Illegal logging is significant but
unquantified.

aGovernment of Cambodia (2009b).

b

ITTO estimate.

Key points••

Cambodia has an estimated 8.31 million
hectares of PFE, comprising 3.71 million
hectares of natural production forest, 4.53
million hectares of protection forest and 69 000
hectares of industrial timber plantations.
However, data on Cambodian forests are often
inconsistent and unreliable.
A moratorium on logging has been partiallylifted, but no part of the production PFE isconsidered to be under sustainable management.
Insufficient information was available toestimate the area of protection PFE undersustainable management.

References and other sources
Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (2008). Respectfor Housing, Land and Properties Rights in Cambodia.
Occasional Paper No 1. Centre on Housing Rights andEvictions, Geneva, Switzerland.
Eggleston, H., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe,
T. (eds) (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Programme. Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies, Kamakura, Japan.
FAO (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010 country
report: Cambodia (available at http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).
Forest Administration (2009). Regional workshop on forest andclimate change: REDD consultation support to ASEAN
senior officers on forestry and UNFCCC focal points,
conclusions and recommendations of the ASEAN workshop
on forest and climate change. Forest Administration, Phnom
Penh, Cambodia.
Forest Administration (2010). Cambodia Forestry Outlook
Study. Prepared by the Forest Administration, Cambodia.
Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study II. Working
Paper No. APFSOS II/WP/2010/32. FAO, Bangkok,
Thailand.
Fraser Thomas Limited (2009). Joint appraisal of the national
forest programme, Cambodia, 4–14 August, 2009
conducted at the request of the Danish Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. Fraser Thomas Limited, Auckland, New Zealand.
FSC (2010, website accessed November 2010). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).
Fuels and Fire Behaviour Research Capacity Building Project(2008). Milestone 4 (final) report. Fuels and fire behaviour
workshop, Hanoi, Vietnam, December 2008. Departmentof Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra, Australia.
Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007). Monitoringand estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDDa reality. Environmental Research Letters 2 (available at http://
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045023/fulltext).

•

The rates of both legal and illegal deforestation
are significant.

•A ‘forestry stamp’ has been created to assist with
log-tracking and the prosecution of illegal
logging.

•

Forest-sector reforms have been developed but
are yet to be implemented effectively; theenforcement of existing policies, laws andregulations remains weak.

Government of Cambodia (2007). National Adaptation
Programme of Action to Climate Change (NAPA).
Government of Cambodia, Phnom Penh, Cambodia(available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/khm01.
pdf ).

•The Government of Cambodia has been an
active participant in the development of
REDD+, and two pilot projects are under way
in the country.

Government of Cambodia (2009a). Readiness plan idea note.
Submitted to the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility.
Forestry Administration, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

156

Global Witness (2007). Cambodia’s Family Trees: Illegal Logging
and the Stripping of Public Assets by Cambodia’s Elite. Global
Witness, London, UK.

Government of Cambodia (2009b). Report of progress towardachieving sustainable forest management in Cambodia.
Submission to ITTO by the Forestry Administration,
Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

CAMBODIA

Government of Cambodia (2011). Readiness preparation
proposal. Prepared for the Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility. Forestry Administration, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Guttal, S. (2006). Land and Natural Resource Alienation in
Cambodia. Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington,
DC, United States (available at www.rightsandresources.org/
documents/files/doc_414.pdf ).
Hansen, K. (2006). Importance of NTFPs in national policies
and strategies. In: Community Forestry International(ed.) Proceedings of the Non-timber Forest Products (NTFP)Workshop and Seminar. 7–6 December 2006, Phnom Penh,
Cambodia.
International Federation for Human Rights (2007, website
accessed August 2010). The human rights situation in
Cambodia (available at www.fidh.org/The-human-rightssituation-in-Cambodia).
ITTO (2004). Achieving the ITTO Objective 2000 andsustainable forest management in the Kingdom of
Cambodia. Report of the Diagnostic Mission. Presented
at the 37th session of the International Tropical Timber
Council, December 2004. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2011, website accessed March 2011). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).
IUCN (2011, website accessed March 2011). IUCN red list of
threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).
Lund, B. (2006). Keynote speech. In: Community Forestry
International (ed.) Proceedings of the Non-timber Forest
Products (NTFP) Workshop and Seminar. 7–6 December
2006, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

SGS (2007). Forest crime monitoring and reporting in
Cambodia: SGS’ response to the “Cambodia’s Family Trees”
report by Global Witness, June 2007. SGS (available at
http://www.illegal-logging.info/uploads/SGS_response_to_
GW.pdf ).
Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World Atlas ofMangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
Gurung, J., Hou, K., Long, K. & Maginnis, S. (2011).
Communities must see the plus in REDD+: REDD+
demonstration projects are providing important lessons
for a REDD+ framework in Cambodia that works forcommunities. Co-chairs’ summary of an international
REDD+ readiness dialogue held in Cambodia in November
2010. The Forests Dialogue, New Haven, United States.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. UNEP–WCMC,
Cambridge, UK. Data prepared for ITTO, 2010.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March
2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
January 2010). World population prospects: the 2008
revision (searchable database available at http://esa.un.org/
unpp/p2k0data.asp).
World Bank (2000). Cambodia forest sector. Internal assessment
report.

McSweeney, C., New, M. & Lizcano, G. (undated, website
accessed March 2011). UNDP climate change country
profiles: Cambodia (available at http://country-profiles.
geog.ox.ac.uk/).

157

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Fiji
areas of remnant rainforest also occur in thegrasslands on the western slopes, which themselves
are mainly the result of repeated burning of
the drier parts of the rainforests, and there areremnants of the original forest type and a fringeof deteriorating shrubland at the interface of theforest and the grasslands (ITTO 2006). Fiji has an
estimated 40 000 hectares of mangroves (Spalding
et al. 2010).
Permanent forest estate. There is no formallydesignated PFE in Fiji. A national forest inventory
conducted in 2006–08 classified forest as
multiple-use, protection, preserved or plantation.
The estimate of PFE contained in Table 1 comprises
protection forests (as classified by FAO 2010a) andplanted forests, as these are deemed committed topermanent forest use. At present there is no naturalforest production PFE in Fiji, although 656 000
hectares are designated as ‘multiple use’ (FAO
2010a). The Government of Fiji is consulting with
communities on the possible establishment of a
PFE involving communally owned land.a

Forest resources
In 2010 Fiji had an estimated population of about
854 000 people (United Nations Population
Division 2010). The country is ranked 108th outof 182 in UNDP’s Human Development Index(UNDP 2009). Located in the South Pacific it
comprises more than 300 islands, of which about
100 are inhabited, with a total land area of 1.83
million hectares. The two largest islands, Viti Levu
(1.02 million hectares) and Vanua Levu (556 000
hectares), make up 86% of the total land area; they
are mountainous and volcanic in origin. The easternsides of Viti Levu and Vanua Levu receive anannual rainfall of over 2500 mm, while the western
portions receive less than 1700 mm annually. The
estimated forest area (including planted forests) in2010 was 1.014 million hectares (FAO 2010a).

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. Most of
the remaining natural forest in Fiji is on steep andbroken mountainous country and is difficult toaccess. Overall there was no net change in forest
cover between the areas reported by FAO (2010a)
for 2005 and 2010: a reduction in closed forestfrom 602 000 hectares to 566 000 hectares wasoffset by an increase in open forest from 344 000
hectares to 388 000 hectares and in the area ofplanted forest. The estimated area of primary
forest in 2010 (Table 2) was little different fromthat estimated for 2005 (FAO 2010a). Forests
are subject to periodic wind damage of varying
intensity, including cyclonic.

Forest types. The predominant forest type istropical rainforest, which occurs mainly on theeastern sides of Viti Levu and Vanua Levu. Small
Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reporting year

2005*
2010

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)0.82–0.93
1.014

747
566

*
As reported in ITTO (2006).
Source: ITTO (2006), FAO (2010a), unless otherwise stated.

158

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted
0
0

113
176

241
43a

Total

354
219

FIJI

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

Total’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land

-

-

449
388*
-

*
Other naturally regenerated forest’.
Source: FAO (2010a).

In its submission for this report, the Governmentof Fiji estimated that there were 588 000 hectaresof closed natural forest (which it defined as naturalforest with crown cover by trees and/or ferns of
40–100% and ground cover of palms and/or
bamboo of over 20%) and 362 000 hectares ofopen natural forest (which it defined as naturalforest with crown cover by trees and/or ferns of
10–40% and ground cover of palms and/or bamboo
of 50–80%).a
Vulnerability of forests to climate change. The
rate of increase in temperature in the Pacific during
the 20th century exceeded the global average, withdata showing a global mean temperature increaseof around 0.6 °C. The annual number of hot days
and warm nights increased in the South Pacificin the period 1961–2000 (Griffiths et al. 2003).
Recent studies also indicate that the frequency andintensity of tropical cyclones originating in the
Pacific have increased in the last few decades (Fan& Li 2005, cited in FAO 2010b). By the end of the
21st century the temperature is projected to be atleast 2.5 °C higher in the South Pacific comparedwith 1990. Sea-level rise is expected to exacerbate
inundation, storm surges, erosion and other coastal
hazards, threatening infrastructure, settlements
and natural resources. In 2010 Fiji created a
Climate Change Unit within the Departmentof Environment to coordinate a multi-sectoral
team to address climate-change adaptation. Fijiis committed to implementing climate-change
adaptation measures at the community level.

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. There are three types of land
tenure in Fiji: freehold, stateland and native land.
The freeholder exclusively and privately owns
the freehold title and may dispose of it as he or
she pleases. Stateland comprises Schedule A,
Schedule B, State Freehold, State Foreshore andStateland without Title. Schedule A and Schedule

B land is held by the state in trust for Indigenous
landowners. Fijian communal units, commonlyreferred to as ‘landowning units’, own native land.
These may be in the form of a yavusa (tribe),
mataqali (clan), tokatoka (family unit), the chiefin his titular position or descendants of a chief orlady (Native Land Trust Board – NLTB – 2010).
Such units own 89% of unexploited forests and
84% of all Fijian forests, including planted forests(ITTO 2006). For the latter, companies (mostly
government-owned) lease the land from its
Indigenous owners but own the trees.
The NLTB, which was set up in 1940, deals withlocal resource management and administers all
customary land with the consent of landowningunits. FAO (2010a) reported a general trend in thereversion of land ownership from private individuals– mostly ‘foreigners’ – to Indigenous owners.
Nevertheless, land tenure is in a state of flux and theownership of some forest areas is unclear; the total
area classified by tenure in Table 3, therefore, is lessthan Fiji’s total forest area.
Criteria and indicators. The Government of Fiji
used the ITTO C&I in its submission to ITTO for
this report.a
Forest policy and legislation. The forest policyof Fiji was enacted in 1950 by the then Legislative
Council. The sawmilling policy, formulated in
the 1960s, was amended in 1995 to support themodernization of the industry. The 1992 Forest
Decree updated and simplified the 1953 Forest Act.
A new national forest policy was issued in 2007
after three years of multi-stakeholder consultation.
The policy provides a new direction for thedevelopment of the forest sector and was agreed
to by all stakeholder groups. It addresses SFM andthe meaningful participation of forest resource
owners and value adding, and it outlines animplementation strategy and a strategy to financeimplementation.a159

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

Total area

Of which PFE’000 haState ownership (national, state or provincial government)
Other public entities (e.g. municipalities, villages)
Total public
Owned by local communities and/or Indigenous groups
Privately owned by individuals, firms, other corporate

53
0
53
885
59

-

Source: FAO (2010a).

Under the new policy the overall goal of the forest
sector is the “sustainable management of Fiji’s forest
to maintain their natural potential and to achieve
greater social, economic and environmental benefits
for current and future generations”. The policy has
the following five objectives (Anon. 2007):•

Ensured ecosystem stability through theconservation of forest biodiversity, water
catchments and soil fertility.

•

Ensured sustainable supply of forest products
and services by maintaining a sufficiently large
permanent forest area under efficient andeffective management.

•

Increased engagement by landowners andcommunities in SFM and an equitable
distribution of benefits from forest products andprocesses, including ensured protection of
intellectual property rights.

•

Increased employment in the forest sector,
sufficient supply of domestic markets andincreased foreign exchange earnings throughsustainable forest-based industry development
and trade.

•

Enhanced national capacity to manage anddevelop the forest sector in a collaborative
approach with the involvement of all
stakeholders.

The Fiji Rural Land Use Policy addresses the
management of land use in Fiji. On the basis of
the policy the Government of Fiji is developing anational land-use plan and a legal framework forthe environmentally sustainable use of Fiji’s land
resources. The ultimate goal of the policy is the
allocation of land use according to land capability
and good land-use practice. It will also address
the need to identify areas to be kept or managed
as a PFE and to create a protected-area system forthe conservation of representative sites of Fiji’s
indigenous forest types. The Ministry of Agriculture
is responsible for the implementation of the policy.a160

The 2004 Native Land Forest Policy was developedby the NLTB to address issues that the NLTB feels
is important to forest owners but is not particularly
covered by the forest policy (which covers all lands,
including state and freehold land).a
The Environment Management Act (2005)
requires that all logging operations undergo anenvironmental impact assessment before approval.
The Forestry Department and the Departmentof Environment (which is responsible for the
implementation of the Act) are still working on
ways to ensure that this requirement is dealt witheffectively.aFiji developed its Biodiversity Strategy and Action
Plan in 2007 as part of its national implementation
plan under the CBD. The Forestry Department is
responsible for implementing its forest biodiversity
component.
The Mahogany Industry Development Decree(2010) and the Fiji Pine Decree (1990) address
legal issues related to the development of industries
based on mahogany and pine, respectively. The
Endangered and Protected Species Act (2002)
requires that all businesses trading in threatened
timber species are registered with the Director ofEnvironment. Timber exporters must pay a fee toobtain a CITES certificate for the export of CITESlisted species. The commercial use of endangered
species (even if not listed in CITES) require special
approval from the Department of Environment.a
To address the gap that was created in 2007
between the requirement of the new forest policy
and the prevailing forest decree, a review process has
been undertaken to align the decree with the new
direction of the forest policy. The review was due tobe completed by the end of 2010.a
The 1990 National Code of Logging Practice has
also been reviewed to ensure that it accommodates
the new requirements of the forest decree, andFIJI

Fiji has drafted a REDD+ policy to guide thedevelopment of any REDD+ activity that may
occur in Fiji’s forests. Both documents are now
awaiting government endorsement.a
Institutions involved in forests. There areseveral governmental/quasi-governmental
institutions responsible for or otherwise involvedin forest management. These are the NLTB, forthe leasing of native land for forestry purposes;
the Forestry Department (under the Ministryof Fisheries and Forestry), for the licensingof timber harvesting, transport and export,
policy and planning, and research, training andoverall forest management, including extension
plantations and timber production statistics; theDepartment of Environment, for the formulationand implementation of Fiji’s environmental
laws; Fiji Pine Limited (FPL), a public company
wholly owned by government and landowners,
incorporated in 1991, which is responsible for pine
plantation establishment, management, utilizationand marketing; the Fiji Hardwood Corporation
Limited (FHCL), a government-owned subsidiary
incorporated in 1999 under the purview of the
Ministry for State-owned Enterprises, responsible
for the hardwood plantations and in the processof becoming a government–landowner company
similar to FPL; the Fiji Mahogany Trust and theFiji Pine Trust, for the management of landownerinvolvement in the development of the mahogany
and pine plantations; and the Fiji National Trust,for the conservation and management of sites with
cultural, national and natural significance. The
potentially high value of the mahogany resourceand disputes over ownership and control of the
FHCL were contributing factors in a military coupthat took place in Fiji in 2000 (ITTO 2006).
About 110 people are involved in forest
management across the public and private sectors.
In the public sector there are six professionals and
56 technical staff and in the private sector there are
13 professionals and 35 technical staff.a According
to FAO (2010a), the Forestry Department employs
about 118 people (including six women), ofwhom ten have university degrees or an equivalentqualification.
A number of NGOs are active in Fiji, including
Nature Fiji, IUCN, Conservation Internationaland Wetlands International. The University of
the South Pacific and the Fiji National University

provide training and other capacity-building. The
Secretariat of the Pacific Community/GTZ provides
some technical support.a
The highest forum in the forest sector is theForestry Council, which is chaired by the minister
responsible for forests. The Council meets every
two months and is attended by representatives of awide range of stakeholder groups.a

Status of forest management
Forest for production
Logging on native land is allowed only with theconsent of both the mataqali and the NLTB.
Timber-cutting rights are negotiated between
concessionaires or licensees and the NLTB, whichauthorizes the Forestry Department to issue logging
licences and to administer concession agreements(ITTO 2006).
ITTO (2006) reported that about 0.29 million
hectares of forest were allocated to concessions andlong-term licences, but updated information was
not available for this report. Royalties are collectedby the Forestry Department and passed on in fullto landowners, except for an administration levy
deducted by the NLTB. The National Code ofLogging Practice (currently under revision, withthe revised version expected to come into force in2011a) gives practical guidance to those involved
in logging, prescribing operational, safety andenvironmental standards. The Forestry Department
monitors and evaluates adherence to this code
but lacks independence, and the results of suchmonitoring and evaluation are not available publicly(Wilkinson & Prescott 2009).
To harvest timber on any land, ‘forestry rightlicences’ are required. These are of four kinds:
timber concessions (10–30 years); long-term
licences (ten years); annual licences; and otherlicences and prepayment licences (usually forland-clearing). One important government
initiative was the development of a naturalforest management pilot project to assess theeffect of different intensities of logging on theregenerative capacity of the forests. It was aimed atmaintaining the composition and structure of thenatural forest and stimulating growth and naturalregeneration while ensuring the active participationof landowners. The results will now be appliedin a much bigger forest area to test the initiative’s

161

Status of tropical forest management 2011

commercial applicability. The Forestry Department
organizes training in logging to improve skills
and techniques, reduce environmental damage
and improve efficiency. However, the forest-sector
workforce is currently too small and lacks thenecessary skills and support to implement SFM(ITTO 2006).
In 2011 under the revised National Codeof Harvesting Practice, tree-marking will be
introduced for trees that may be removed according
to diameter limits. Monitoring and verifying thisnew requirement will be a major challenge for theForestry Department. Given that it is likely toslow down harvesting operations, resistance to themeasure in the industry is expected. Internal andexternal awareness and capacity-building will be
required.a
Fiji has begun to establish permanent sample plots
in all forest types. Information is collected for all
plant species with the aim of providing information
on biodiversity, regeneration, tree growth andcarbon storage. Over time, it is intended that forestowning communities will become increasingly
involved in data collection and the management of
the permanent sample plots.a
Silviculture and species selection. Logging in
natural forests is based in most cases on a selection
system. The normal diameter limit for felling is 35
cm at dbh. Twenty-two species are included in an‘obligatory list’ and these must be felled irrespectiveof market demand. Despite provisions in the licenceagreements, pre- and post-harvest silviculturalprescriptions do not receive adequate attention(ITTO 2006). Also often neglected are enrichment
and rehabilitation planting in logged-over forestsand compensatory afforestation to make up for landtransfers. Most of the larger sawmills have their own
logging areas and logging operations, but they carryout almost no planting.
More species than the obligatory 22 are used in
production and trade. The most readily available

and commercially valuable indigenous timbers
are retailed directly under their own local names
or in mixtures called ‘Fiji hardwood’ or ‘mixed
hardwood’. The main commercial species fromnatural forests are Agathis vitiensis (kauri or dakua
makadre), Myristica spp (kaudamu), Endospermum
macrophyllum (kauvula), Calophyllum spp(damanu), Palaquium spp (sacau) and Intsia bijuga(vesi). No recent information was available on
the most commonly harvested species; Table 4,
therefore, shows the species listed in ITTO (2006).
Planted forest and trees outside the forest.
The large-scale planting of pine and hardwoodsby government began in the 1960s. According
to FAO (2010a) there are about 68 000 hectaresof hardwood plantation (up from the 61 000
hectares reported for 2005) and 108 000 hectares ofsoftwood plantation (up from the 93 000 hectares
reported for 2005). There are also about 28 000
hectares of coconut plantations.
The main softwood plantation species is Pinus
caribaea var. hondurensis (Caribbean pine); it
is mostly under the management of FPL andlocated mainly in the drier zones of Viti Levu andVanua Levu. Forestry Department plantings ofCaribbean pine began on a small scale around 1950
and, by 1972 (when the expanded ‘pine scheme’
began), had grown to about 12 000 hectares. The
ownership of what are now the FPL plantations
has had a chequered history. Cyclone damage
was almost the only one of the many problems
that plagued the scheme that did not originate indisputes over land tenure (ITTO 2004a).
According to the Government of Fiji, the biggest
threat to pine plantations is careless burning by
surrounding communities.a Long-term awarenessprograms have been conducted to foster a senseof ownership of the pine resource among thesecommunities, since they are the landowners andalso shareholders in FPL. Additional fire towers
have been installed to assist in early fire detection.a

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Swietenia macrophylla (mahogany)
Pinus caribaea (Caribbean pine)
Myristica spp (kaudamu)
Endospermum macrophyllum (kauvula)
Agathis vitiensis (dakua makadre)

From planted forests.
From planted forests.
Natural-forest species used in sawmilling.
Natural-forest species used in construction and joinery.
Natural-forest species used for decorative purposes.

Source: ITTO (2006).

162

FIJI

The main planted hardwood species, Swietenia
macrophylla (mahogany), is managed by FHCL.
Mahogany plantations also began in the early 1950s
and the expansion of establishment had grown toaround 1000 hectares a year by the mid 1960s.
The program virtually stopped in 1971 because ofwidespread attack by the ambrosia stem borer but
resumed after a few years with the development of
successful containment measures (ITTO 2006).
The annual sustainable production of mahogany
is estimated at about 100 000 m3. FHCL has
had recurring financial difficulties, with the Fiji
government needing to provide guarantees to enable
the company to source capital from the domestic
financial market. Stringent monitoring of thefinancial performance by government is necessary toraise the level of returns on the government’s equity
in FHCL and to ensure the financial viability of thecompany (Government of Fiji 2006).

Mangrove forest, Fiji. © S. Baba

Forest certification. A Fiji Forest Certification
Standard that is aligned with FSC requirements
was completed in 2008 with the aim of setting arecognized national standard for certifying Fijian
forest products. In mid 2009 the Department ofForestry was awaiting approval of the standard by
the FSC (Ministry of Fisheries and Forestry 2009).
No forest has been certified in Fiji.

Originally the Government of Fiji held 100%
shareholding interests in FHCL but, in December
2005, 10% of the existing issued share capitalwas gifted to the mahogany landowners via theestablishment of the Fiji Mahogany Trust. This
trust is the vehicle that government intends tooversee the landowners’ participation at all levelsof the mahogany industry (Department of PublicEnterprises 2010).

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. No natural forest is
contained in the nominal production PFE, andthere is little evidence of sustainable managementin the forest concessions. An exception is the Drawa
model area for community-based SFM, locatedin the centre of Vanua Levu, where primary andsecondary native forest is being managed according
to a management plan by eleven mataqali in thearea (Secretariat of the South Pacific 2010; Table5). FAO (2010a) reported this area as sustainably
managed on the basis of information supplied by
the Government of Fiji. No other natural forests
have integrated forest management plans, althoughthese are required under the new national forest
policy.a

The involvement of landowners in the pine andmahogany plantations is much more advanced
than in natural forests, facilitated by a government
budget of close to US$250 000 annually to ensure
landowner involvement. Landowners in the pineand mahogany industries are usually involvedin contracts for logging operations, including
felling and haulage; the government assists in theinitial capital investment at the community andindividual levels through the Fiji Pine Trust andthe Fiji Mahogany Trust. Moreover, in the 2007
national forest policy the government endorsed theestablishment of forest landowner associations.a

The national forest policy also requires commercial
plantations of both pine and mahogany tosubmit integrated forest management plans to
the Forestry Department. A management plan

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)
Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

0
0

-

*
**
‡

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
6.3**

Certified

0

-

113

PlantedWith
management
plans
90

6.3**

176

68‡

Sustainably
managed

Total

Certified00

As reported in ITTO (2006).
This forest has not been designated as part of the PFE but is counted here because of its model-forest status.
Mahogany plantation.

163

Status of tropical forest management 2011

has been submitted for the mahogany plantation,
and a management plan for the pine plantationis under development. The Forestry Department
has insufficient capacity to monitor or verify the
implementation of management plans in forest
plantations; significant capacity-building andre-organization is needed for the department toimplement this requirement.a
Timber production and trade. In 2004 there were
26 licensed sawmills, 18 of which were operating(only one of which was large); there were also two
small veneer and plywood mills and one woodchip
plant integrated with the large sawmill. Conversion
efficiency was thought to be around 50% (ITTO2006).
In 1995 the government directed that all circular
mills in Fiji should convert to band saws. In 2005,
portable sawmills were introduced to communities
for the sawing of small logs that are left behindby loggers. These measures were introduced to
improve conversion efficiency, but there is still
considerable inefficiency in the conversion process.
The government is working to improve its training
centre for timber-processing with the aim of
improving conversion efficiency in the sawmillingindustry.a
The estimated industrial roundwood production in2009 was 466 000 m3, of which 300 000 m3 was
softwood from pine plantations (ITTO 2011); thiswas similar to the estimated 470 000 m3 of totalindustrial roundwood production in 1999 (ibid.).
In 2009 Fiji produced 90 000 m3 of sawnwood(down from 96 000 m3 in 2004 but up from
64 000 m3 in 1999), 9000 m3 of veneer and 11 000
m3 of plywood, and it exported 10 000 m3 ofsawnwood and 2200 m3 of plywood (ibid.).
Mangroves are harvested for fuelwood, charcoal
and timber. There is significant and apparently
sustainable commercial fuelwood production in the
Rewa Delta (Spalding et al. 2010).

plants are used as foods, medicines, construction
and roofing materials, artisanal products and dyes,
and in ceremonials and rituals. Wildlife, especiallypigs, is a valuable source of food. Mud crabs,
lobster and shellfish are harvested in mangrove
forests. Stems of tree ferns are collected from forest
areas and made into ornamental posts, which arewidely used. Some plants, such as Piper methisticum(yaqona), from which the mild narcotic beveragekava is made, are now largely cultivated, but others
are still collected from the wild. A few are marketed,such as Morinda citrifolia (nono), which is widelyand increasingly used as a medicinal plant withhuge potential in international markets. Santalum
yasi (sandalwood) is another forest product with alarge potential market: prices of 40 Fiji dollars ormore per kilogram have reportedly encouraged its
illegal harvest (Fiji Times Online 2009).
Along with tuber crops, Artocarpus utilissimus(bread fruit) is a staple food. Another item of
ceremonial and niche-market significance is cloth
made from the bark of Broussonetia papyrifera
using natural dyes such as those from Elaeocarpus
pyriformis and Aleurites triloba.
Forest carbon. There are no estimates of forest
carbon in Fiji in the literature. Based on theextent of forests and forest plantations, however,the biomass carbon stock could be in the range
80–100 MtC. There are no reported activities forprotecting or expanding forest carbon stock or
pursuing REDD+, although Fiji joined the REDD+
Partnership in 2010. Table 6 summarizes Fiji’s
potential for forest carbon capture and storage.

Forest for protection
Soil and water. Land-use practices pay attention
to the need for soil and water conservation.
About 304 000 hectares of forest are classified asprotection forests. These are located mainly on
steep land with slopes over 30° and have shallow,
unstable soils.

Non-timber forest products. NTFPs are of great
importance, especially to rural communities. Many
Table 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)% forestwithcanopycover >60%

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

80–100No data++++ high; ++ medium; + low; - no activity/capacity.

164

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
sink capacity monitoring
capacity
to 2030+-

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

Importance Engagementinof forest
international
fire/
REDD+
biomass
processes
burning
+

-

FIJI

Socioeconomic aspects

Biological diversity. Four mammals, seven birds,
one amphibian and one plant found in forests
are listed as critically endangered, endangered orvulnerable on the IUCN red list of threatened
species (IUCN 2011). Twenty-six plants arelisted in CITES Appendix II and one is listed
in Appendix III (UNEP-WCMC 2011). The
Government of Fiji (2010) identified 127 plant
species, 4 mammals, 45 land birds, twelve sea
birds, ten reptiles, one amphibian, 17 fish and two
butterflies as endangered.a

Economic aspects. In 2005 the Government ofFiji generated 3.82 million Fiji dollars in revenue
from the domestic production and trade of forest
products and services, and the sector provided
employment for about 1400 people (FAO 2010a).
In 2008 the forest sector contributed 1.4% ofFiji’s GDP (US$15.9 million), which was lessthan the 1.6% (US$20.7 million) contributed in
2005.a In 2005 the sector generated 45.1 million
Fiji dollars in export earnings (Government of Fiji
2006). In the period 2003–07 the average value ofthe industrial roundwood harvest was 71 million
Fiji dollars (FAO 2010a). The royalties paid tocustomary owners for the timber harvest on theirlands provide a significant proportion of rural
income (ITTO 2006).

Protective measures in production forests. The
prevention of soil erosion has long been a national
priority because of the risk of flooding, siltationand damage to coastal ecosystems. Nevertheless,present forest extraction techniques damage the soil.
The National Code of Logging Practice is the only
guideline protecting endangered species, although it
provides only very general guidance.a

In 2008 the export of sawnwood, plywood
and veneer was worth an estimated US$15.1
million, more than US$12 million of which
was coniferous (ITTO 2010); Fiji also exports
woodchips and plywood.a In an attempt to increase
its log-processing capacity, FHCL purchased
the Waivunu sawmill in Galoa, Serua andremanufacturing assets in Navutu, Lautoka, in 2005
(Department of Public Enterprises 2010).

Extent of protected areas. The total estimatedextent of the protection PFE is 92 000 hectares.
According to UNEP-WCMC (2010), about
117 000 hectares of forest are in protected areas that
conform to IUCN protected-area categories I–IV.
However, the Government of Fiji (2010) reported
42 700 hectares of forest in 22 protected areas.a
This smaller figure is used in Table 7.

The timber sector employs about 3000 people,
which is 8% of the Fijian workforce.a There
are 15 forest recreation sites in Fiji which,combined, might receive about 150 000 visits
per year, although data are not collected on forest
recreational use.a

Little political attention has so far been paid
to the protection of forests for their biologicaldiversity. According to FAO (2010a), however,the protected-area estate in Fiji is set to increase
dramatically as conservation activities expand in
the country. Issues affecting new conservation sites
include conflicts of interest among landowningunits and the payment of adequate financial
compensation to landowners.

Livelihood values. The culture and livelihoods of
traditional landowning communities are closely
linked to their forest resources. It is difficult toquantify this value.

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. No data were available
for an assessment of the extent of protection PFE
under SFM (Table 7).

Social relations. The system of land tenure in Fiji
was introduced in colonial times, based on a local
traditional system, and continues to be fraught withdifficulty. For example, in developing leaseholdarrangements with potential forest developers,
a majority of individual members of a mataqali

Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)*

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

241
43

3
43

18
304

37
-

55
-

As reported in ITTO (2006).

165

Status of tropical forest management 2011

must agree to the proposal to the satisfaction of the
NLTB (ITTO 2006). There have been tensions overcontrol of the mahogany resource (ibid.). Forestowners are involved in whatever development
takes place and can stop an operation if dissatisfied
with it. The land on which the country’s pine andmahogany plantations grow are leased from the
Indigenous landowners, who are shareholders in
FPL and FHCL.a
In 2010 the Forestry Department challenged
the country to plant a million trees between
March 2010 and March 2011, thus bridging
the International Year of Biodiversity and theInternational Year of the Forests. Methods fordisseminating this challenge included the use of
billboards and radio talkback shows. A local NGO
translated the national forest policy into the Fijian
language – an important step given that morethan 90% of forests are owned by Indigenous
communities. The same NGO is currently carryingout awareness-raising activities among forestowning communities with the aim of creating anenvironment conducive to the creation of a PFE.a

Summary
Most of Fiji’s remaining natural forest is on steep
and broken mountainous country and difficult toaccess. There is a general trend for land ownershipto revert from private individuals – mostly’foreigners’ – to Indigenous owners, but theownership of some forest areas is unclear. A national
forest policy was issued in 2007 after three years ofmulti-stakeholder consultations; it aims to ensure
ecosystem stability and a sustainable supply of forest
products and services, increase the engagement oflandowners in SFM and employment in the forest
sector, and encourage collaborative management
approaches. Under the revised National Code ofLogging Practice, due to come into force in 2011,
tree-marking will be introduced for trees that
may be removed according to diameter limits.
Permanent sample plots are being established.
Despite Fiji’s vulnerability to climate change, there
have been no official moves to pursue REDD+.

Key points•

Although Fiji has no formal PFE, some forests
have equivalent status. The PFE, therefore, isestimated at 219 000 hectares (compared with
354 000 hectares in 2005), comprising 176 000

166

hectares of planted production PFE (comparedwith 113 000 hectares in 2005) and 43 000
hectares of protection PFE (compared with
241 000 hectares in 2005).
•

About 6300 hectares of the natural production
forest (although not part of the PFE) is
considered to be sustainably managed. No
estimate was possible of the area of protection
PFE so managed.

•

Fiji has about 176 000 hectares of planted
forests, mostly comprising the high-value species
Swietenia macrophylla (mahogany) and Pinus
caribaea; an estimated 100 000 m3 of mahogany
is harvested annually.

•

The timber industry is inefficient, but the
government is working to improvewood-processing skills. Portable sawmills havebeen introduced to communities to enable themto saw small logs. The timber sector employs
about 8% of the Fijian workforce.

EndnoteaGovernment of Fiji (2010).

References and other sources
Anon. (2007). Fiji forest policy statement: summary. November
2007 (available at http://groups.google.com.fj/group/fiji-forest-policy-2007?hl=en).
Department of Public Enterprises (2010, website accessed
April 2010). Government commercial company: Fiji
Hardwood Corporation Limited (available at http://
www.publicenterprises.gov.fj/index.cfm?si=main.
enterprises&cmd=fhcl).
Fan, D.D. & Li, C.X. (2005). Complexities of Chinese coast in
response to climate change. Advances in Research on Climate
Change 1: 111–114 (in Chinese with an English abstract), as
seen in FAO (2010b).
FAO (2010a). Global forest resources assessment 2010 country
report: Fiji (available at http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).
FAO (2010b). Forests and Climate Change in the Asia-PacificRegion. Forests and Climate Change Working Paper 7. FAO,
Rome, Italy.
Fiji Times Online (2009, website accessed December 2010).
Police uncover timber scam (available at http://www.
fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=133748).
FSC (2010, website accessed April 2010). fsc certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).
Government of Fiji (2006). Strategic Development Plan
2007–2011. Parliamentary Paper No 92 of 2006. Ministryof Finance and Planning, Suva, Fiji.

FIJI

Government of Fiji (2010). Report of progress toward achieving
sustainable forest management in Fiji. Submission to ITTO.
Fiji Forestry Department, Suva, Fiji.
Griffiths, G.M., Salinger, M.J. & Leleu, I. (2003). Trends
in extreme daily rainfall across the South Pacific andrelationship to the South Pacific Convergence Zone. Journalof Climatolology 23: 847–86.
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2011, website accessed March 2011). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).
IUCN (2011, website accessed March 2011). IUCN red list of
threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).
Ministry of Fisheries and Forestry (2009). Investing in Fiji’s
forestry industry. Fiji Forestry Policy Brief. Ministry ofFisheries and Forestry, Suva, Fiji.
NLTB (2010, website accessed April 2010). Native Land Trust
Board (available at http://www.nltb.com.fj).
Secretariat of the South Pacific (2010, website accessed April2010). Planning workshop for the Drawa model area forcommunity-based forest management (available at http://
www.spc.int/lrd/Highlights_Archive/highlights_Drawa_
model.htm).

Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World Atlas ofMangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. UNEP-WCMC,
Cambridge, UK. Data prepared for ITTO, 2010.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March
2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database available at www.cites.org/eng/
resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
April 2010). World population prospects: the 2008 revision(searchable database available at http://esa.un.org/unpp/
p2k0data.asp).
Wilkinson, G. & Prescott, M. (2009). Report on theproceedings of the regional workshop on strengthening theimplementation of codes of practice for forest harvesting
through effective systems of monitoring and evaluation,
Beijing/Yanji, People’s Republic of China, 22–24 June
2009. Asia Pacific Forestry Skills and Capacity Building
Programme, FAO.

167

Status of tropical forest management 2011

India
area can therefore be estimated by summing theforest areas of all states and territories that lie in thetropics (i.e. south of the Tropic of Cancer).1 Thus,
India’s total tropical forest area is estimated at 37.8
million hectares, comprising 4.13 million hectaresof ‘very dense’ forest (i.e. forest with canopy
cover greater than 70%), 19.0 million hectares of‘moderately dense’ forest (i.e. forest with canopy
cover between 40% and 70%), and 14.6 million
hectares of ‘open’ forest (i.e. forest with canopy
cover between 10% and 40%).
Legally proclaimed and gazetted forest is classified
as:•Reserved forest – a forest area notified under theprovisions of the Indian Forest Act or other state
forest acts, having a full degree of protection
and where all activities are prohibited unlessexplicitly permitted.

•

Protected forest – a forest area notified under theprovisions of the Indian Forest Act or other state
forest acts, having a limited degree of protection
and where all activities are permitted unlessexplicitly prohibited.

•

Unclassed forest – a forest area recorded as forest
in government land records but not notified as
reserved or protected forest under the Indian
Forest Act or other state forest acts.a

Forest resources
India has the world’s second-largest population –an estimated 1.21 billion people in 2010 (United
Nations Population Division 2010) – and a landarea of 316 million hectares. In 2005 about 25%of the population was living below the poverty line,
as officially defined by the Government of India(Ghosh 2010). India is ranked 134th out of 182
countries in UNDP’s Human Development Index(UNDP 2009).
Systematic, consistent and accurate informationon the extent and especially the condition andmanagement of the country’s tropical forests isdifficult to obtain. According to FAO (2010), thetotal area under effective forest cover in India is
68.4 million hectares, including substantial areas offorest north of the Tropic of Cancer.
The Forest Survey of India (FSI) has assessed forest
cover every two years since 1987; since 2001 theassessment has been conducted digitally on the basisof satellite imagery at a scale of 1:50 000 (FAO
2010). In its 2009 state of the forests report, FSI(2009) estimated the total forest area in India at
69.1 million hectares using data generally collected
in 2006 and 2007. Although they differ, theestimates of both FAO (2010) and FSI (2009) areused in this report.
FSI (2009) also contains information on forest
area by state and territory; the total tropical forest

168

In the tropical states and territories, the total areaof reserved and protected forest is 25.0 million
hectares, and the remainder is unclassed forest.
In some states and territories, however, the area
officially designated as reserved and protected
forest is greater than the actual total area of forest;
in Andhra Pradesh, for example, the official areaof reserved and protected forest is 6.32 million
hectares but the total actual forest area is 4.52
million hectares (FSI 2009).
Forest types. India’s forests range from tropicalrainforests in the south and northeast to dry alpine
forests in the northwest Himalaya. They havebeen classified into 16 types – including tropical
wet evergreen, tropical semi-evergreen, tropical
1 Andaman Islands, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Dadra-Nagar-Haveli,
Daman, Diu, Goa, Gujarat, Karaikal, Karnataka, Kerala, Laccadive
Islands, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Nicobar Islands, Orissa,
Pondicherry, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal.

INDIAmoist deciduous, littoral and swamp, tropical dry
deciduous, tropical thorn, tropical dry evergreen,and others – and 221 subtypes on the basis ofclimatic and edaphic conditions and dominant
species (Champion & Seth 1968).
Tropical wet evergreen forests occur in the south
and northeast and in the Andaman and Nicobar
islands. The most widely distributed genera are
Dipterocarpus, Hopea, Callophyllum and Syzgium,and the families Lauraceae and Myrthaceae are also
well-represented. Tropical moist deciduous forests
occur in areas with monsoonal rainfall; some ofthese are characterized by Tectona grandis (teak)and others by Shorea robusta (sal). FSI (2009)
estimated the total area of mangrove forest at
464 000 hectares; Spalding et al. (2010) estimatedit at 433 000 hectares, about 23% of which occur
on the west coast, 59% on the east coast and muchof the remainder on the Andaman and Nicobar
islands.
Permanent forest estate. In India, the entire
forest area, whether owned by government orcommunities or privately, is considered to be PFE.b
FAO (2010), however, estimated the PFE (forIndia’s entire forest estate) at 65.9 million hectares,
which is 2.5 million hectares less than the estimatedtotal forest area. In FAO (2010) the PFE wascalculated by “taking a proportion of forested area
within recorded forest area as obtained from the
NFI [national forest inventory] to the area underreserved and protected forest”. This estimate was
extrapolated to 2010 on the basis of “the averageannual growth rate” (presumably of total forest area)
during 2000–05. In total, the estimated production
PFE in 2010 for all India was the same as that in2005 (46.1 million hectares), but the protection
PFE was nearly 6 million hectares smaller (19.8
million hectares).
In this report, the total PFE has been reduced ona pro rata basis to estimate the tropical PFE. The
tropical forest area (37.8 million hectares) is 55% of
the total forest estate (69.1 million hectares, using
the estimates of FSI 2009); therefore, the tropicalPFE is estimated at 36.3 million hectares (Table 1).
The total area of protected areas south of the Tropicof Cancer is estimated at 4.54 million hectares on
the basis of an estimate by UNEP-WCMC (2010);
therefore, the production PFE is taken to be 36.3
million hectares less this amount (i.e. 31.8 million
hectares). The methodology for reaching theseestimates is admittedly flawed; ideally, each tropicalstate would provide estimates of its production andprotection PFEs, which, combined with estimates
for any PFE on federal lands, could then be collated
to obtain an estimate for the total tropical PFE. The
proportion of the tropical PFE comprising planted
forests is assumed to constitute the same percentage(i.e. 55%) of the total plantation estate.

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. India’s
annual rate of deforestation in the 1970s was an
estimated 1.3 million hectares. By the 1990s,
however, the situation had changed to one of net
forest gain (estimated at about 25 000 hectares
per year since 2000), due mainly to the extensive
planting of trees and woodlots outside forests.
Nevertheless, natural forest was still being lostat a rate of 30 000–40 000 hectares per year due
to conversion to non-forest uses (ITTO 2006b).

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)2005* (all India)
2010**(tropical)

64.1–76.8
37.8

22 50023 100‡

*
**
‡
†
§

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlantedTotal

13 50026 16071 70036 30032 6005600†

25 6004540§

As reported in ITTO (2006a); estimates are for all India.
As estimated by ITTO on the basis of data provided by FSI (2009) and FAO (2010); estimates are for tropical forest only.
Comprises forest with a density of greater than 40% canopy cover, as estimated by FSI (2009) for tropical states.
55% of the total plantation estate, as estimated by FAO (2010).
In 2005 the protection PFE was estimated at 25.6 million hectares for all India. The estimate for 2010 is for actual forest area inprotected areas south of the Tropic of Cancer.

169

Status of tropical forest management 2011

The Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 makes it
difficult for ‘notified’2 forest to be formally excisedthrough de-reservation. However, some state forest
departments have authorized what are effectively
permanent changes in land use (known as‘diversions’) without de-reservation (ibid.).
Irrespective of the apparent reduction in net
deforestation, a number of commentaries onforest quality indicate an ongoing process of forest
degradation in India. Afforestation through theestablishment of agroforestry crops and woodlots
raised by farmers and other private-sector
enterprises does not necessarily offset the loss ofnatural forests and their ecosystem functions,
including biodiversity conservation. Continuing
deforestation through encroachment in notified
forest areas, in particular protected forests andunclassed forests, and through the excision ofreserved forests, has rendered the security of the
PFE tenuous. The situation has been exacerbatedby the excessive harvesting of fuelwood, NTFPs,
poles and timber, including through illegal logging(ibid.). In the five years to 2005, an average 1.6
million hectares of forest per year were reportedly
subject to wildfire (FAO 2010).
FAO (2010) estimated the total area of primary
forest in India at 15.7 million hectares, with theremainder classified as ‘other naturally regenerated
forest’ (Table 2). FSI (2009) reported the following
forest areas (for all India), by canopy density:•

canopy density >70%: 8 351 000 hectares•

canopy density 40–70%: 31 901 200 hectares•

canopy density 10–40%: 28 837 700 hectares.

Major invasive plant species in India include
Lantana camara (lantana), Eupatorium odoratum,
E. adenophorum, Parthenium hysterophorus (carrot
grass), Ageratum conyzoides, Mikania micrantha,
Prosopis juliflora and Cytisus scoparius. Alien aquatic
weeds such as Eichornia spp (water hyacinth) are
increasingly choking waterways and degrading
freshwater ecosystems. Lantana and carrot grasscause major economic losses in many parts of India.
Highly invasive climbers such as Chromolaena and
Mikania species have over-run native vegetation in
the northeast Himalayan region and Western Ghats.
Illegally introduced catfishes (such as the African
2 ‘Notified’ forest is forest for which a state government has issued anotification in the Official Gazette declaring that the land has been
constituted as forest.

170

magur) and also the big-head carp are known tohave had an adverse impact on native fish diversity.b
The tsunami of 26 December 2004 affected
approximately 2260 km of India’s coastline andcaused extensive damage to life and property in
the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Pondicherry
and the coastal districts of the states of Andhra
Pradesh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. A total of 12 600
hectares of forest were lost, including 43 hectaresof mangrove forest in the affected states (Indian
Institute of Forest Management 2009).
Vulnerability of forests to climate change.
The mean annual temperature in India showeda significant warming trend during the period
1901–2007, increasing by 0.51 °C (INCCA
2010); accelerated warming was observed in the
period 1971–2007. The increase in mean annual
temperature is contributed mainly by the two
post-monsoon seasons, which have increased
by 0.80 °C and 0.82° C, respectively, over thelast hundred years. Mitchell and Hulme (2000)
predicted an increase of temperature of 3.7–5.7 °C
over the course of the 21st century. Forests insemi-arid regions of India are expected to besensitive to greater climate variability such aschanges in temperature, rainfall and seasonality.
Long-term observations are not available bywhich changes in biodiversity due to observedchanges in climate might be detected (INCCA
2010). However, a study on the projected impactsof climate change on forests in 2050 and 2080
indicates shifts in forest boundaries, changes inthe species composition of forest types, changes in
net primary productivity, and potential losses of
biodiversity. It is projected that, by 2050, most of
the forest biomes in India will be highly vulnerable
to climate change and 70% of the vegetation will beless than optimally adapted to its existing location(ibid.).

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. Most forests are under theownership and control of state governments,
although some forests are administered bycommunities or owned privately. According to
FAO (2010), about 86% of forests are under the
management of forest departments and 14% areadministered by communities or are under private
ownership; communities hold the management
rights to an estimated 21.6 million hectares ofINDIA

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

Total’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land--

15 70042 500*-Note:
Data are for all India.
*‘Other naturally regenerated forest’.
Source: FAO (2010).

publicly owned forest. RRI (2009) estimated that49.5 million hectares of publicly owned forests
were administered by government and 17.0
million hectares were reserved for communities
and Indigenous people, and there were also about
1.07 million hectares of privately owned forest. The
forests administered by communities are counted
as state-owned in Table 3. The legal transfer ofownership to Indigenous communities may increase
under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional
Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act,
2006, although the implementation of this Act has
so far proved problematic (see below). Reserved andprotected forests are government-owned and theownership status and level of protected of unclassed
forest varies from state to state.

land uses almost inevitable in areas where there
is strong competition for land. These diversions
in land use are covered by state forest department
pattas (land-use leases of defined periods such as
five or ten years), similar to the agricultural leases
granted by the Revenue Department. The state
forest departments are hampered in defending theboundaries of notified forests by outdated ways ofvaluing forest resources (according to out-of-dateroyalty values, not by total economic value) whichprevail at both the state and central levels (ibid.).

Ownership category

Total area

Despite debates extending over decades, there isno effective national land capability mapping or
integrated land-use planning. A central-government
unit for the coordination of land capability survey
and land-use planning, together with state interdepartmental land-use boards, existed until the late1980s. Since then, demographic pressures have risen
and demands on natural resources have increased as
India continues to develop. Conflicts over priorities
in land use – such as between agriculture, forestry,
housing, industry, infrastructure, livestock, mining,
tourism, water structures and reservoirs – cannot be
resolved by appeal to Central or Union policies orlegislation (ITTO 2006b).

State ownership (national,
state or provincial
government)
Other public entities (e.g.
municipalities, villages)
Total public
Owned by local communities
and/or Indigenous groups
Privately owned by individuals,
firms, other corporate

66 500-0-66 500
0

-

1070

-

This lack of coordination in land-use planning iscompounded by complexities in land tenure. The
lack of systems to avoid or resolve land-use conflicts
is evident in the frequent reporting of corruption
in land dealings, especially in peri-urban areas as
cities expand and formerly arable and forest lands
are converted to housing lots and industrial plots.
The regulation of de-reservation and the excisionof notified forests under the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980 makes ad hoc diversion into other

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Of which
PFE’000 ha

Note:
Data are for all India.
Source: RRI (2009). FAO (2010) reported 58.0 million hectaresof forest in public ownership and 9.70 milion hectares inprivate ownership.

Criteria and indicators. A set of C&I for thesustainable management of the dry-zone forests
of India was developed under the Bhopal-India
Process initiated by the Indian Institute of Forest
Management in 1998, and a similar process isunder way for tropical forests under an ITTO
project. Recognizing the importance of C&I, theGovernment of India constituted a taskforce in
1999, which endorsed the C&I developed by the
Bhopal-India process. C&I were identified as athrust area for the forest sector during the eleventh

171

Status of tropical forest management 2011

five-year plan, and funds were made available
for the incorporation of the C&I monitoring
approach in 50 forest working plans nationwide
over the period of the five-year plan. In 2008 theConference of Forest Secretaries endorsed eight
criteria and 37 indicators as the national set of
C&I. An SFM ‘cell’ was created in the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests, and similar cells havebeen created in many state forest departments. The
national government has created committees forthe inclusion of the C&I in the National Working
Code; in the future, working plans will therefore
involve the use of C&I as the basis for monitoring
the sustainability of forests.aTeams for pilot-testing the national set of C&I
were established in twelve states: testing has been
completed in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh,
Gujarat, Orissa, Kerala and Sikkim and is under
way in Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Assam,
Jharkhand, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.a
A team has also been formed to develop C&I for
the sustainable management of forest plantations,and work – including field-testing – is now inprogress. C&I for the sustainable management of
NTFPs have also been developed. The submission
by the Government of India for this report was notin the ITTO C&I reporting format.a
Forest policy and legislation. India is a federal
union of states. At independence in 1947, forestry
was assigned to the States List but in 1976 (42ndamendment of the Constitution) it was included in
the Concurrent List, meaning that the states have
responsibility for forest management subject tocertain controls by the central government (ITTO
2006b). The national forest policy dates from1988 and there has been no major change sincethen. The guiding legislation is the Indian Forest
Act, 1927 (amended in 1951). While policies haveundergone changes, the legislation has not changed
correspondingly, continuing to focus on theprevention of offences. Other national legislation
relevant to forestry includes the Mines Act, 1952;
the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (amended in2003); the Forest Conservation Act, 2003; theEnvironmental Protection Act, 1986; and the
Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
State governments generally have the freedom
to manage forest resources on the basis of forest
management plans. Under the Forest Conservation

172

Act, 2003, however, state governments must obtainprior approval from the national government for
any forest clearance for non-forestry purposes(ITTO 2006a).
The 1988 national forest policy embodies mostelements of SFM. It focuses on the maintenanceof environmental stability and the restoration of
ecological balance; the conservation of the country’s
natural heritage and biological diversity; improved
soil and water conservation; increasing forest cover(to the target, set in 1952, of 33% of the country’s
total land area) through massive afforestation andsocial forestry programs; providing the basic needsof the rural and tribal populations; increasing
forest productivity; improving the efficiency
of forest product utilization; and minimizingpressure on existing forests. The policy stipulates
that requirements for industrial wood should be
met increasingly from trees outside forests. It isnoteworthy, however, that the reiterated target of
33% forest cover is backed neither by an in-depth
assessment of the need for this level of forest
cover or the type or location of the forest to beestablished, nor by the institutions and resources
needed to achieve the target (ITTO 2006b).
The national forest policy pays little or noattention to a range of what are now recognizedglobally as important forest services, such as the
supply of clean water, biodiversity conservation,
carbon sequestration, and aesthetic, cultural andrecreation services. The National Forestry Action
Programme was conceived in 1999 by the Ministryof Environment and Forests but its implementation
has had little effect on shaping policy and the legal
framework. Nor has the underlying forest legislation
been amended to reflect new developments.b
A 2006 amendment to the Wildlife (Protection)
Act, 1972 provides for the creation of conservation
foundations in the country’s tiger reserves with amandate to support protected-area management
through independent revenue generation(Government of India 2009). In 2002 India
enacted the Biological Diversity Act following
a wide-ranging, eight-year consultative process.
The Act gives effect to the provisions of the CBD,
addressing, for example, access to biologicalresources and associated traditional knowledge
to ensure the equitable sharing of benefits arisingfrom the use of those resources. The Act is to be

INDIA

implemented through a three-tiered institutional
structure:•

the National Biodiversity Authority•

state biodiversity boards•

biodiversity management committees.

The National Biodiversity Authority was establishedin 2003. Twenty states have established biodiversityboards, and biodiversity management committees
are being set up in some states (Government ofIndia 2009).
The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest
Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act was
passed by the national Parliament in 2006 and theRules to the Act – which provide its operational
details – were gazetted into force on 1 January
2008. According to its preamble, the Recognitionof Forest Rights Act is designed “to recognise andvest the forest rights and occupation in forest landin forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and othertraditional forest dwellers who have been residing insuch forests for generations but whose rights could
not be recorded; to provide for a framework forrecording the forest rights so vested and the natureof evidence required for such recognition andvesting in respect of forest land”.
Certain provisions in the Recognition of Forest
Rights Act are unclear and appear to be in conflictwith existing legislation related to forest andwildlife.b In November 2009, the Campaign for
Survival and Dignity3 (2010a) made the following
statement regarding the Act: “Passed in December
2006, the … Act was hailed as a historic step
towards recognising the rights of forest dwellers andcorrecting a gross injustice. Almost three years later,
it is clear that the government has no intention ofallowing it to be implemented.” Overall, it seems
that the Act is proving difficult to implement (Dash2010).
The National Green Tribunal Bill, 2009 was passed
in both houses of Parliament in 2010 and is now
awaiting Presidential assent. The aim of the Billis to set up specialized environmental courts –‘green tribunals’ – comprising judicial and expert
members to adjudicate substantial questions of theenvironment and to award civil penalties (Ministryof Environment and Forests 2010).
3 A federation of tribal and forest dwellers’ organizations from elevenstates.

Institutions involved in forests. At the national
level, forestry falls under the purview of the
Ministry of Environment and Forests and its
Indian Forest Service; there are also forest
departments at the state level with defined
functions and responsibilities. Within the Ministryof Environment and Forests are divisions of forest
conservation, forest policy, forest protection,
forest services, research and training (forestry)
and climate change, as well as the National
Afforestation and Eco-development Board andthe Combating Desertification Cell. While at thenational level the Forest Service focuses mainlyon the provision of advice and guidance, the state
forest departments are custodians of the publicforest resource and act as the forest authorities.
Often they also perform an enterprise function,
becoming involved in production, processing andtrade. All India’s forested states have set up forest
development corporations, which are responsible
for production within the public forest estate. These
corporations are meant to operate as autonomous
business entities but, in reality, most function asextensions of the forest departments and enjoy
hidden subsidies (ITTO 2006b). Not all forest
development corporations are still active.
A number of specialized institutions are linked
directly to the Ministry of Environment andForests. These include the Indian Council ofForestry Research and Education, the Indian
Institute of Forest Management, the Indira Gandhi
National Forest Academy, the Wildlife Institute ofIndia and the FSI. In 2008, 565 students (55% ofthem women) graduated with forest-related masters
degrees, 808 students (50% women) graduated with
forest-related bachelor degrees, and 3000 students(2% women) graduated with forest technician
certificates or diplomas (FAO 2010).
The National Afforestation Programme (NAP),
initiated in 2000, amalgamates all the previous
centrally sponsored forest programs except thoseon parks and wildlife conservation. The NAP is
implemented in a decentralized manner throughforest development agencies (FDAs). FDAs, which
are different to the forest development corporations
referred to above, are autonomous entities at thelevel of forest divisions in which all the village forest
committees (VFCs) within the respective forest
division are represented. The central governmenttransfers funds directly to the FDAs. FDAs are thus
an institutional arrangement to implement the173

Status of tropical forest management 2011

NAP on the basis of micro-plans developed for that
purpose. The NAP has been taken up in all states ofIndia since 2002.
Joint forest management (JFM), which wasintroduced formally in the 1988 national forest
policy, is implemented with the involvement oflocal communities at the village level and through
FDAs at the district level. JFM, known by various
labels in different states, is a forest management
strategy by which a state forest department anda village community enter into an agreement tojointly protect and manage forest land adjoining
villages and to share responsibilities and benefits
through JFM committees (JFMCs). There has been
gradual progress in the creation of JFMCs, from36 130 in 1999 to 106 479 in 2007. In 2007, 22
million people were involved in the management of
22 million hectares under JFM.b
The rapid expansion in the number of JFMCs issaid to be partly a function of donor target-setting.
The capacity-building needed if the JFMCs are to
become fully effective is a major challenge, as state
forest department budgets are not directed towards
it and some resources of the Rural Development
Department are also unavailable. Rights of accessto forest resources, such as fuelwood and fodder, isperhaps the greatest common benefit afforded to
JFMCs (ITTO 2006b). Constitutional Amendment
No 73 provides for the transfer of ownershipof NTFPs to Gram Sabhas/ Panchayats (village
assemblies) in states with sizeable tribal populations.
A criticism of JFM was that it covered only theprotection and maintenance of degraded forests.
To correct this, the Government of India issued, inJanuary 2000, a circular concerning the extensionof JFM to better-stocked forests. It also provided
for the mandatory (50%) involvement of women in
JFM activities.
Another criticism is that JFM has become a way
for state forest departments to extend their control
over land. According to Campaign for Survival andDignity (2010b), “the ‘participatory’ plans for forest
protection have to fit entirely within existing Forest
Department plans. [The JFMCs] are not given any
rights but instead promised a share in timber andother revenues in exchange for free labour; and theshare is often never paid”. Many JFM schemes are
inadequate in the demonstrative sharing of rights,
responsibilities and benefits, although there aresome good exceptions (ITTO 2006b).

174

India has many national- and state-level NGOs
involved in forestry, wildlife conservation,
environmental protection and community
development. These organizations play a crucialrole in capacity-building and in the implementationof JFM. A number of forest-related internationalNGOs are also active in India.

Status of forest management
Forest for production
India follows a system of preparation and periodical
revision of working plans or management plansfor established forest divisions or FMUs. Working
plans are tactical documents but lack a strategic
framework; moreover, they do not seem to include
model-based yield calculations and predictions.
An estimated 75% of notified forests were underworking plan prescriptions in 2005, but it is unclear
what area of forest was involved (ibid.). According
to FAO (2010), 30.6 million hectares of forest
nationwide are subject to management plans. ITTO
(2006a) reported that “nearly 10 million hectaresof the production PFE” were thought to be underworking plans, almost half of which had been somanaged for more than 30 years. The managementof government forest land is the direct responsibilityof state forest departments. In some cases, industrial
units are allowed to extract trees marked under aselection system. There are no long-term timber
concessions of the kind practised in Southeast Asian
countries. In recent years, logging in natural forests
has been discouraged and, in several cases, locallybanned. The resulting wood scarcity has provided
impetus for the development of farm forestry,homestead forestry and agroforestry.
Some states, such as Andhra Pradesh, are developing
joint management schemes in closed-canopy areasof natural forest. The silvicultural harvesting ofteak, sal and other natural forests is allowed in statessuch as Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra and Orissa on the basis of working
plan prescriptions. In others, only salvage fellingsof dead, damaged and diseased trees are allowed.
Harvesting operations are mostly done using simple
hand tools such as axes and crosscut saws, which areassociated with high wastage of valuable butt logs.
There seems to be no application of reduced impact
logging. Trees tend to be bucked into much shorter
lengths than in other tropical countries, possibly

INDIA

reflecting the low power and small size of extraction
equipment (ITTO 2006b).
Although there may be empirical knowledgeof the factors leading to forest degradation, themonitoring mechanisms and limited resources ofstate forest departments do not enable coordinatedor effective measures to reduce the progressive
reduction of natural forest assets (ibid.).
Forest governance in India faces several serious
problems. Corruption is prevalent in the sector,
affecting efficiency.b There is inconsistency inthe recruitment of foresters at all levels. The
forest sector must plan and manage forests on along-term basis (e.g. the rotation period for teakand sal is 40–60 years), but recruitment policies
are short-sighted and the distribution of staff by
age and experience is uneven. Although forestry isa field-oriented job, few foresters spend significant
time in the forest, preferring white-collar jobs intowns with modern amenities. The general levelof commitment for forestry and professional fieldknowledge has declined, although some officers arevery good. Often, the commitment to forestry isstronger in communities than among the forestry
profession.b
The existing structure and functioning of state
forest departments are inadequate to deal effectively
with the problems facing the sector. Althoughgood policies and legal instruments exist, these areoften not fully complied with and the gap between
the intended situation and actual condition is
widening.b
Silviculture and species selection. Several
silvicultural systems are prescribed in the working
plans for Indian natural forests, varying according
to the ecological potential of the dominant timber
species. They include a selection system in the wet
evergreen and semi-evergreen forests; a shelterwood
system in coniferous forests and certain types ofmoist deciduous forests; and gap felling and coppice
management in dry deciduous forests. Table 4 lists
some commonly harvested species of natural-forest
tropical hardwoods. Others include Adina cordifolia,
Albizzia lebbek (kokko), Cedrela toona, Gmelina
arborea (gamari, yemane), Grewia spp, Pterocarpus
spp and Xylia xylocarpa.
Planted forest and trees outside the forest. The
total area of planted forests India-wide in 2010
has been estimated at 38.6 million hectares; basedon survival rate and stock density, however, theeffective area is thought to be about 50% of therecorded total – i.e. 19 million hectares.b FAO(2010) estimated that the actual area of planted
forest was even lower, at 10.2 million hectares. The
wide range of estimates may also be explained partly
by differing definitions of ‘planted forest’, withhigher estimates including some ‘natural’ foreststhat have been subject to enrichment planting
with local species, especially teak (sometimes called‘semi-natural’ forest).
New planted forests are being established at an
estimated rate of 1.48 million hectares per year
(FAO 2010), of which public planting (mainly
by forest development corporations) accounts
for two-thirds and private planting for one-third(ITTO 2006b). India also has an estimated
2.15 million hectares of agro-industrial coconut
plantations and at least 1 million hectares of rubber
plantations (ibid.).
Planted species include fast-growing (and shortrotation) species of Eucalyptus (E. grandis, E.
tereticornis) and Acacia (A. auriculiformis, A.
mearnsii, A. nilitica), and other common hardwood
species such as Albizia spp, Azadirachta indica,
Casuarina equisetifolia, Dalbergia sissoo and Gmelina
arborea. Teak (Tectona grandis) is the most widely
planted timber species in India, covering nearly
2.6 million hectares in 2005 (STCP Engenharia deProjetos Ltda 2009).

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Tectona grandis (teak)*

Most of the teak is harvested in planted forests; the total potential
sustainable yield has been estimated at 12.8 million m3 per year
(STCP Engenharia de Projetos Ltda 2009).

Shorea robusta (sal)*Dalbergia spp*
Acacia catechu*
Eucalypt* and poplar

From planted forests.

*
Also listed in ITTO (2006a).
Source: P. Kotwal, pers. comm., 2010 – see endnote b.

175

Status of tropical forest management 2011

information has been received for the current report
to indicate a change in this situation; therefore, the2005 estimate is assumed to apply in 2010 (Table 5).

A woman collects seeds from Madhuca trees in an Indian dry
teak forest.

While impressive in area, the performance of India’s
forest plantations in terms of survival, growth andyield has often been poor due to inadequacies in site
selection and site–species matching, poor planting
stock and a lack of maintenance and protection(Saigal et al. 2002). Fifty per cent of all plantations
raised since 1980 are in an agroforestry (or at least
a non-notified forest) environment, with varying
intensities of management (ITTO 2006b).
Forest certification. The Ministry of Environment
and Forests has constituted a national forest
certification committee to develop certification
standards and processes and their accreditation. It
also envisages the establishment of an independent
National Certification Council.b As of August2010 the FSC had issued 125 chain-of-custodycertificates to the timber industry in India and one
forest-management certificate for a small area (676hectares) of rubber plantation in Tamil Nadu (FSC2010).
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. Under the national
forest policy, no forest is permitted to be worked
without an approved management plan, whichshould be in a prescribed format. Nevertheless, dataon the area of production forest currently being
managed under approved management plans were
unavailable for this report.
ITTO (2006a) estimated that 9.72 million
hectares of the production PFE (all India) werebeing managed under regular working plans, ofwhich at least 4.8 million hectares were considered
to be sustainably managed. This area comprises
forest reserves that have been managed according
to working plans for more than 30 years. No

176

Timber production and trade. About 50% of
India’s wood supply is provided by non-forest
sources and the rest is accounted for by imports
and the supply from public forests, mainly
planted forests. India’s official total roundwood
production in 2005 was 307 million m3, of
which 261 million m3 (85%) was fuelwood (FAO
2010), although only about 55.1 million m3
was from forests. India produced 20.3 million
m3 of non-coniferous tropical hardwood logs in
2009, unchanged from 2004 but considerably
more than the 14.0 million m3 produced in 1999
(ITTO 2011). Non-coniferous tropical sawnwood
production was estimated at 4.89 million m3 in
2009, non-coniferous tropical veneer production
was estimated at 270 000 m3 and tropical plywood
production was estimated at 2.13 million m3(ibid.).
In 2009 India imported about 3.0 million m3 of
non-coniferous tropical logs (ibid.), mainly from
Malaysia, Myanmar and, increasingly, Africa. The
total value of imports of primary timber products(industrial roundwood, sawnwood, plywood
and veneer) in 2009 was US$1.47 billion (ibid.).
According to ITTO (2004), the Indian timbermarket is not well organized, reducing timber’scompetitiveness against substitute products.
Non-timber forest products. NTFPs suchas bamboo (e.g. Melocanna baccifera – muli),
thatching materials and medicinal plants are
essential components of the livelihoods of many
local communities. Some NTFPs, such as latex,
bamboo, gums, sandalwood, resins and aroma
chemicals, support value-added processing, nichemarketing and an export trade. FAO (2010)
reported that the total value of removals of ninegroupings of NTFPs (tendu leaves, gums, bamboo,
resin, fodder, drugs, cane and rattan, lac, and sal
seeds) in 2005 was 5.85 billion rupees (about
US$120 million at 2010 exchange rates). This is
likely to be a significant underestimate because it
excludes NTFPs collected by forest-dwellers.b
Forest carbon. A report on India’s GHG emissions
released in May 2010 indicates that India is now
ranked fifth in global GHG emissions behind theUnited States, China, the European Union and theRussian Federation, with net annual emissions of

INDIA

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)
Reportingyear

2005* (allIndia)
2010
*
**
‡

†
§

Total

Available for
harvesting

13 50013 500NaturalWithmanagement
plans
9720

26 160**(tropical)

16 800(tropical)

16 800‡(tropical)

CertifiedSustainably
managed04800

PlantedCertifiedWith
managementplans
32 600
8150
0

0

4800†

5600§

Total

-

0.68

As reported in ITTO (2006a).
Natural and planted forest.
FAO (2010) reported that 30.6 million hectares of forest (tropical and non-tropical) were under management plans in 2010. The
estimate given here assumes that these management plans are applied on a proportional basis between tropical and non-tropicalforest.
All India.
The estimated area of planted forests for all India in 2010 was 10.2 million hectares (FAO 2010). The large difference between the2005 and 2010 estimates for all India is most likely due to different interpretations of planted and semi-natural forest, and also torevisions made on the basis that some previously established planted forests had failed.

Table 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)% tropicalforest with
canopycover >60%

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

5085–8560

13+

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
sink capacity monitoring
capacity
to 2030++++++

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity

Importance Engagementinof forest
international
fire/
REDD+
biomass
processes
burning

+++

++

+

+++ high; ++ medium; + low; estimate of national forest carbon based on Gibbs et al. (2007); estimate of % total forest with canopy cover>60% based on UNEP-WCMC (2010).

around 1.7 billion tonnes of CO2e (Governmentof India 2010a). On the other hand, India’s forests
sequestered 67.8 million tonnes of CO2 in 2007
(ibid.). Gibbs et al. (2007) estimated the nationallevel forest biomass carbon stock at 5085–8560
MtC, but FAO (2010) estimated it at only 2800
MtC.
India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change
contains a ‘National Green India Mission’, whichaims to double the area of afforestation and forest
restoration in the next ten years to 20 million
hectares, which would result in an increased
sequestration rate of 43 million tCO2e annually(Government of India 2010b).
India currently has two afforestation/reforestation
CDM projects, one in Andhra Pradesh andthe other in Haryana. In order to develop
methodologies and procedures for assessing andmonitoring REDD+ activities, a technical group
and a REDD coordinating committee have been set
up under the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
India is a member of the REDD+ Partnership.
Table 6 indicates India’s potential for forest-basedcarbon capture and storage.

Forest for protection
Soil and water. The Government of Indiaemphasizes the environmental protection andconservation roles of forest in preference to theireconomic role; measures are being taken to protect
upland watersheds through forest conservation andafforestation (ITTO 2006a). According to FAO(2010), protection of soil and water is the primary
designated function of 10.7 million hectares offorest nationwide.
Biological diversity. India is one of the twelve
megadiverse countries, hosting 7% of the world’s
biodiversity and supporting 16% of its major
forest types. Twenty-three mammals, four reptiles,
two amphibians, 20 fish, 16 arthropods and209 plants found in India’s tropical forests4 arelisted as critically endangered, endangered orvulnerable on the IUCN red list of threatened
species (IUCN 2010). Twelve plants are listed
4 Only Indian states located south of the Tropic of Cancer were includedin the search of the IUCN Red List database: Andaman Islands, Andhra
Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Dadra-Nagar-Haveli, Daman, Diu, Goa, Gujarat,
Karaikal, Karnataka, Kerala, Laccadive Islands, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Nicobar Islands, Orissa, Pondicherry, Tamil Nadu and West
Bengal.

177

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Socioeconomic aspects

in CITES Appendix I, 401 in Appendix II andthree in Appendix III (UNEP-WCMC 2011).
Threats to biodiversity stem mainly from habitat
fragmentation; degradation and loss; shrinking
genetic diversity; invasive alien species; a declining
forest resource; climate change and desertification;
the overexploitation of resources; and the impacts ofdevelopment projects and pollution.a

Economic aspects. The contribution of forestry
to GDP fell from about 2.9% in 1981 to 1.7%
in 1991, 1.1% in 2005 and 0.9% in 2006 (CSO
2006). These figures exclude the contributions offorest-based industries (which are counted under
manufacturing), as well as the vast amount of
products such as fuelwood and fodder, the useof which is unrecorded, and the contributionof ecosystem services such as water and soil
conservation. According to one estimate, about 7.5
million people, mostly in rural and tribal settings,
are in forest-related employment.b According
to FAO (2010), about 6.19 million people are
employed in the primary production of forest
goods, mostly related to plantations, 5.68 millionof whom are in paid employment. A further
24 600 people are employed in the management ofprotected areas.

Protective measures in production forests. India’snational forest policy requires that production
forests are managed in ways that are consistent withenvironmental conservation, and this stipulationmust be reflected in the prescriptions and practiceof working and management plans. In 2007 India
established the National Wildlife Crime Control
Bureau to combat illegal trade in wildlife and its
derivatives (Government of India 2009).
Extent of protected areas. Protected areas in India
cover about 4.8% of the country’s geographical area
(15.9 million hectares), comprising 99 nationalparks, 515 wildlife sanctuaries, 43 conservation
reserves and four community reserves; there arealso 37 tiger reserves and 26 elephant reserves(Government of India 2009). Of these, 61 nationalparks with a total area of 1.57 million hectares
and 334 wildlife sanctuaries with a total area of
8.22 million hectares are south of the Tropic ofCancer, although the total area of forest withinthese protected areas is unclear.b According toUNEP-WCMC (2010), 4.54 million hectares oftropical forests are in protected areas that conform
to IUCN protected-area categories I–IV; thisequates to about 46% of the total tropical protectedarea.

Livelihood values. Some 740 million people (68%of the total population) live in rural areas, of whomwell over 200 million are considered to be forestdependent, particularly the 90 million Scheduled
Tribal People. Small-scale agriculture remains themainstay of livelihoods, especially for 600 million
farmers, and forest-based activities are highly
significant in providing fuel, housing materials andemployment. More than 300 million people subsist
on less than US$1 per day, most of them in forestfringe areas (ITTO 2006b).
Social relations. Local rights govern the use offorest resources by rural and tribal communities
living in and near forests. The plight of mostof these communities is one of great hardshipand requires the settling of tenure issues andthe rationalization of the system of people’s
participation in forestry. JFM is India’s flagshipprogram enabling participation and it has the
support of the national forest policy, but it has
several constraints. The introduction of the
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest
Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act could

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. Most of India’s nationalparks – which are subject to the provisions of the
Wildlife (Protection) Act – have management plansthat are generally well-implemented.b An area of
722 000 hectares (which is 46% of the total area ofnational parks in the tropics) is assumed, therefore,
to be under SFM (Table 7).
Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)
Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed2005*
2010(tropical)

25 600 (all India)
4540

3060 (tropical)
4540

4540b

722

722

*

178

As reported in ITTO (2006a).

INDIA

have far-reaching effects for millions of tribal people
and their relations with government, including thefederal and state forest departments, but to date its
implementation appears to have been inadequate.

Summary
In India, state forest departments are custodiansof the public forest resource and act as the forest
authorities. Increasingly, some responsibilities
for and benefits from the forests are being sharedwith local communities; for example, joint forest
management approaches are now being applied
to at least 22 million hectares, including in someclosed-canopy tropical forests. Moreover, farmers
are becoming more involved in tree-growing,
the private sector is participating more in forest
management, and partnerships between forestproduct manufacturing companies and local
farmers are developing. A new national law should
enable the transfer of ownership of certain forest
lands to Indigenous communities, although it is
yet to be fully implemented. While India appears
to be expanding its forest area (including througha large-scale expansion of the planted forest
estate), its natural forests remain under threat fromunauthorized (and sometimes authorized) land-use
change and various agents of degradation, including
illegal forest activities.

Key points•

The estimated 36.3 million hectares of India’s
tropical PFE comprises 31.8 million hectares of
production forest and 4.54 million hectares ofprotection forest.

•

While India appears to be adding forest cover,natural forest continues to be lost or degraded.

•

An estimated 4.8 million hectares of India’s
production PFE and an estimated 722 000
hectares of India’s tropical protection PFE isunder SFM.

•

In many states, forest departments lack thecapacity to deal effectively with the problems
facing the sector, and forest law enforcement isoften inadequate.

•

Information on the extent and management offorests is fragmentary and often unreliable.

•

Forest management is becoming increasingly
decentralized and community-based approaches
are becoming more common.

•

A national afforestation program was initiatedin 2000 and operates at the level of forest
divisions within states through forest
development agencies and village forest
committees.

•

India’s wood-based industries face a serious
scarcity of raw materials and are increasingly
dependent on non-forest and external sources.
The country has become a major importer oftropical timber, particularly logs.

•

A very large number of people (up to 7.5
million people) are in forest-related
employment, and over 200 million people areconsidered to be forest-dependent.

•

Tenure reforms pose a serious challenge. The
Recognition of Forests Rights Act, which wasenacted in 2006, is designed to recognize andvest forest rights to forest-dwelling tribes andother traditional owners; however, theimplementation of this law has been slow.

•

India is highly exposed to the negative effects ofclimate change. The forest sector has been
identified as a priority sector for climate-change
adaptation. A national REDD+ program isbeing developed with the aim of greatly
increasing forest carbon stocks.

EndnotesaGovernment of India (2010c).

b

Personal communications with P.C. Kotwal, consultant,
2010.

References and other sources
Campaign for Survival and Dignity (2010a, website accessed
December 2010). Chargesheet on government’s violationsof forest rights (available at http://www.forestrightsact.
com/current-situation/75-chargesheet-on-governmentsviolations-of-forest-rights-act).
Campaign for Survival and Dignity (2010b, website accessed
December 2010). Land grabbing on the quiet (available at
http://www.forestrightsact.com/statements-and-news/89land-grabbing-on-the-quiet).
Champion, H. & Seth, S. (1968). Forest Types of India.
Manager Publications, Government of India, New Delhi,
India.
CSO (2006). Report of the Central Statistical Organisation.
Central Statistical Organisation, Government of India, New
Delhi, India.
Dash, T. (2010). The ineffective Forest Rights Act. India Times,
24 April 2010.

179

Status of tropical forest management 2011

FAO (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010
country report: India (available at http://www.fao.org/
forestry/fra/67090/en/).

ITTO (2006b). Achieving the ITTO Objective 2000 andsustainable forest management in India: report of thediagnostic mission. ITTC(XLI)/7. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.

FSC (2010, website accessed August 2010). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).

ITTO (2011, website accessed March 2011). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/
annual_review_output/?mode=searchdata).

FSI (2009). State of Forest Report 2009. Forest Survey of India,
Dehra Dun, India (available at http://www.fsi.nic.in/
sfr_2009.htm).

IUCN (2010, website accessed April 2010). IUCN red list of
threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).

Ghosh, J. (2010). Poverty Reduction in China and India: Policy
Implications of Recent Trends. DESA Working Paper No.
92, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United
Nations, New York, United States.

Ministry of Environment and Forests (2010, website accessed
August 2010). Available at http://moef.nic.in/index.php.

Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007).
Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon
stocks: making REDD a reality. Environmental Research
Letters 2 (available at http://iopscience.iop.org/17489326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Government of India (2009). Non-legally Binding Instrument
on All Types of Forests: Voluntary sharing of information
on progress. Suggested format. Report submitted by theGovernment of India to the United Nations Forum on
Forests.
Government of India (2010a). Taking on Climate Change.
Post-Copenhagen Domestic Actions. Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests, New Delhi, India.
Government of India (2010b). National mission for a green
India. Draft mission document, version 1.0 (available at
http://envfor.nic.in 2010)
Government of India (2010c). India’s progress towards SFM.
Country report to ITTO. Prepared by P.C. Kotwal, Bhopal,
India.
INCCA (2010). Climate Change and India: a 4x4 Assessment.
A Sectoral and Regional Analysis for 2030s. INCCA Report#2. Indian Network for Climate Change Assessment,
Ministry of Environment and Forests (available at http://
envfor.nic.in).
Indian Institute of Forest Management (2009). Country
report based on national set of criteria and indicators forsustainable forest management. Indian Institute of Forest
Management, Bhopal, India.
ITTO (2004). Annual Review and Assessment of the World
Timber Situation 2003. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.

ITTO (2006a). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005.
ITTO, Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.
int/en/sfm/).

180

Mitchell, T. & Hulme M. (2000). A Country-by-country
Analysis of Past and Future Warming Rates. Tyndall Centre
for Climate Change Research Working Paper 1. Universityof East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
RRI (2009). Who Owns the Forests of Asia? An Introduction
to the Forest Tenure Transition in Asia, 2002–2008. Rights
and Resources Initiative, Washington, DC, United States.
Saigal, S., Arora, H. & Rizvi, S. (2002). The New Foresters: The
Role of Private Enterprise in the Indian Forestry Sector.
International Institute of Environment and Development,
London, UK.

Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World
Atlas of Mangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
STCP Engenharia de Projetos Ltda (2009). Encouraging
Industrial Forest Plantations in the Tropics: Report of a
Global Study. ITTO Technical Series 33. ITTO, Yokohama,Japan.

UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. Data prepared for
ITTO. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March
2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
April 2010). World population prospects: the 2008 revision(searchable database available at http://esa.un.org/unpp/
p2k0data.asp).

INDONESIA

Indonesia
forests inland to wide seagrass beds and coral reef
communities offshore (Spalding et al. 2010).
Permanent forest estate. Land-use planning,
including on the location and extent of ‘permanent
forest’, is ongoing in Indonesia under processes suchas Forest Land Use by Consensus and Provincial
Spatial Planning. In its submission for this report,
the Government of Indonesia estimated the PFE at
114.1 million hectares and the area of convertible
forest FPE at 22.8 million hectares, according to thefollowing categorizationa:•conservation forest (23.3 million hectares)•

protected forest (31.6 million hectares)•

limited production forest (22.5 million hectares)•

permanent production forest (36.6 million
hectares)•convertible forest for non-forestry use (22.8
million hectares)•

game hunting parks (234 000 hectares).1

Forest resources
Indonesia is a 5200-km-long chain of about 17 000
islands. Its population (in 2010) of 233 million
people (United Nations Population Division
2010) lives on a land area of about 190 million
hectares. The country is ranked 111th out of
182 countries in UNDP’s Human Development
Index (UNDP 2009). It has a considerable rangeof climates, including equatorial regimes in
Kalimantan, Sumatra and West Irian and those witha pronounced dry season, such as in Java and the
Moluccas. Soils vary from the rich volcanic soilsof Java and Madura to the leached lateritic soilsof Kalimantan. Estimates of forest area, including
plantation forests, range from 94.4 million hectares(FAO 2010a) to 98.5 million hectares.a
Forest types. For the purposes of management,
six forest types are distinguished by government:
mixed hill forests; submontane/montane and alpine
forests; savanna/bamboo/deciduous/monsoon
forests; peat swamp forests; freshwater swamp
forests; and tidal forests (mangroves). Mixed hill
forests account for about 65% of the natural forests
and are the most important for timber production.a
Indonesia has an estimated 3.19 million hectaresof mangrove forest, which is 21% of the global
total (Spalding et al. 2010). In many locations,
Indonesia’s mangroves are closely linked to adjacentecosystems ranging from peat swamp and lowland

Given that these figures suggest a PFE that issignificantly larger than the total forest estate, theestimate in Table 1 of the area of forest in the PFE
has been made on the basis of other data in the
Government of Indonesia’s submission.

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. There has
been a rapid loss of forest cover in the last 40 years;
FAO (2010a) estimated that forest cover declined
by 3.42 million hectares between 2005 and 2010
and by 24.1 million hectares between 1990 and2010. Moreover, periodic serious fires have affectedlarge areas of forest, especially in Kalimantan andparts of Sumatra, partly influenced by the El Niño/
Southern Oscillation phenomenon and aggravatedby land clearance, the accumulation of combustible
matter after logging, disputes over land tenure, andthe presence of burning coal seams in the surface
strata. Wildfire was particularly prevalent in the
1 More recent data put the official PFE at 114.2 million hectares (and thearea of convertible forest at 22.7 million hectares), comprising 23.4
million hectares of conservation forest, 31.6 million hectares ofprotected forest, 22.3 million hectares of limited production forest, 36.7
million hectares of permanent production forest, 22.7 million hectaresof convertible forest, and 168 000 hectares of game hunting parks(T. Yanuariadi, pers. comm., 2011).

181

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

2005*
2010

105–120
94.4–98.5

100 382
69 230*****‡†

PFE (’000 ha)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlantedTotal

46 00038 600a,‡

71 00068 400†

2500
2500a

22 50027 300As reported in ITTO (2006).
Calculated using the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) (69.1%) and the total
natural forest area as estimated by FAO (2010a).
Includes game hunting parks. FAO (2010a) reported a production forest area of 49.7 million hectares, including forest outside thePFE.
FAO (2010a) reported a PFE of 77.1 million hectares.

flooding, and prolonged droughts, all of which
could have harmful effects on agriculture, fisheries
and forestry and threaten food security andlivelihoods. Ten of the biggest natural disasters
in Indonesia in the period 1907–2007 occurred
after the 1990s – they were largely climate-related
disasters, especially floods, droughts and forest fire
(Government of Indonesia 2007).

period 1998–2002, but less so since. Table 2 showsthe estimated area of primary forest and secondary
forest.
In 2008, 30 ‘technical recommendations’ were
issued for the conversion of forest to non-forest
uses (such as mining, transmigration or industrial
agriculture) in 30 ‘location units’; ten such
recommendations were expected to be issued in2009.a The area involved is unclear, however,
and a recent agreement between the Governmentof Indonesia and the Government of Norway
to suspend, for two years starting in 2011, all
new concessions for the conversion of peat andnatural forest may have changed the situation(Governments of Norway and Indonesia 2010).

The National Strategy on Climate Change
Adaptation acknowledges that forest conservation
would help Indonesia adapt to climate change
because forests provide communities and thenation with a wide range of ecosystem services,
resources and products that enhance livelihoods andresilience. The National Action Plan for Addressing
Climate Change (Government of Indonesia 2007),
which was drafted by the Ministry of Environmentand other agencies and presented to Cabinet inNovember 2007, guides various institutions incarrying out coordinated and integrated efforts
to tackle climate change (Hayes 2010). In 2010
it was incorporated in the National Mid-Term
Development Plan 2010–2014.

Vulnerability of forests to climate change.
The mean annual temperature in Indonesia has
increased by around 0.3 °C since 1990; the 1990s
were Indonesia’s warmest decade of the 20th
century and an increase of almost 1 °C in 1998
made that year the country’s warmest of the century(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change2007). Climate change is projected to result in a
2–3% increase in annual rainfall per year in themain islands (Sari et al. 2007).

SFM policy framework

Indonesia is highly vulnerable to the impacts ofclimate change, such as an increased frequency of
extreme weather events, heavy rainfall leading toForest tenure. Article 5 of the Forestry Law (Law
41/1999, see below) sets out two types of forest
tenure: state and titled. A titled forest is a forest

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

Total’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land*
‘Other naturally regenerated forest’.
Source: FAO (2010a).

182

-

-

47 20043 600*-INDONESIA

located on land on which the land title is registered.
Traditional community rights (adat) to forest
resources are also widely recognized based on the
Customary Act (1999). Most of Indonesia’s forest
is owned by the state (Table 3). The state also
holds the management rights to about 38.2 million
hectares of forest, while private corporations andinstitutions directly manage 51.2 million hectares,
individuals about 32 000 hectares and communities
only 3300 hectares (FAO 2010a).
Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

State ownership (national,
state or provincial
government)
Other public entities (e.g.
municipalities, villages)
Total public
Owned by local communities
and/or Indigenous groups
Privately owned by individuals,
firms, other corporate

Total area

Of which
PFE’000 ha

89 500-0-89 500
0

-

8410

-

*

Data are for 2005; total forest area, therefore, is higher
than estimated for 2010.
Source: FAO (2010a).

Criteria and indicators. Indonesia demonstrates
a commitment to SFM through its membershipof a range of international organizations andits adherence to all relevant major international
conventions. It has established its own C&I,
developed national standards for forest certificationand introduced the mandatory verification of
SFM (ITTO 2006). The country’s revised C&I(2009) for SFM consist of four criteria (enabling
conditions, production, ecology, and social
aspects) and 24 indicators; these are being usedin the mandatory certification of SFM, which
was imposed by the national government throughMinisterial Forestry Regulation No. 4795/
Kpts-II/2002, issued on 3 June 2002. Indonesia’s
submission to ITTO for this report was not in the
ITTO C&I reporting format.
Forest policy and legislation. For many years thelegal and policy framework for forests was provided
by the Basic Forestry Law of 1967 (5/1967).
This was replaced by Forestry Law 41 (1999),
which is now the primary source of authority andguidance on forest stewardship, forest ownershipand forest management. Other relevant policy andlegal instruments include Law 5 (1990) on theconservation of natural living resources and theirecosystems; Law 24 (1992) on spatial planning;
Law 23 (1997) on environmental management;
Law 25 (2002) on anti-money laundering; and Law
7 (2004) on water resources.
There are also hundreds of other laws, government
regulations and presidential decrees relevant toforest governance, resulting in an often conflicting
policy and legal environment. For example, there
are conflicts between forest and mining laws inwhich large areas of forested land are licensed for
opencast mining despite being nominally protectedfrom clearing under forestry regulations. There
are also conflicts between forestry and agriculture
regulations, particularly in relation to oil-palm
plantation development. Regulatory inconsistency
in Indonesia has been compounded by conflicts
between central, provincial and district-level
regulations (Lawson & MacFaul 2010).
The Ministry of Forestry has formulated fivepriority policies – to be implemented progressively– to halt deforestation and forest degradation andto support efforts towards SFM. These are theelimination of illegal logging; overcoming forest
fires through preventive measures; restructuring
the forest sector by increasing the efficiency andeffectiveness of forest resource management;
the conservation of forest resources through therehabilitation of degraded forests and land; andthe decentralization of the forest sector. The
Government of Indonesia recently concluded
negotiations with the European Union to establish a
VPA for timber exports to the European Union.
Institutions involved in forests. Before
decentralization, the Ministry of Forestry was
responsible for the management and control offorests and the conservation of natural resources.
At the provincial level there were two different
forestry offices: regional forestry offices (kanwil
kehutanan), and provincial forestry offices (dinas
kehutanan propinsi). The former, as an extension of
the Ministry of Forestry, coordinated all technicalaspects of forestry in the provinces. This dual
control system came to an end in 1999 with theenactment of Law 22 (amended by Law 32 of 2004
on regional administration) and Law 25 (amended
by Law 33 of 2004 on the fiscal balance between
the central government and regional governments);
the field role of the Ministry of Forestry was

183

Status of tropical forest management 2011

reduced and authority over forest management wasvested in the provinces and particularly the districts(kabupaten) (there were also ‘special autonomy’provisions applicable to Papua and Aceh).
All forest land except national parks and nature
reserves are to be managed by the kabupaten
governments. Under Law 22 (1999), there isno hierarchical relationship between the central
departments, the provincial forest services and the
district forest services.
This decentralization has created confusion in
the field and widened the scope of corruption at
the provincial and district levels. Moreover, laws
prohibiting the harvest of trees within protectedareas, of small size classes, on steep slopes, or nearstreams are routinely ignored, causing widespreadenvironmental damage. Such problems eventually
forced the re-centralization of some aspects offorest control, such as land-conversion permits forthe establishment of plantations, although local
governments continue to issue their own permits,adding to confusion about the legality or otherwiseof a range of forest activities (Human Rights Watch2009).
The national-level Ministry of Forestry is
responsible for developing forest policy andeconomic incentives and the provinces and districts
are responsible for implementing those policies,
including by approving annual harvesting quotas.
The annex of Government Regulation 38/2007
states that:••

Provincial governments will perform forest
inventories of production forest, protection
forest, conservation forest and watershed areas
across the regency areas. The central government
will create the norms, standards, procedures andcriteria of forest inventories.
Provincial governments will devise forestry plansat the provincial level, set up information
systems, issues permits for timber andnon-timber harvesting from the production
forest, issues permits for the use of forests andthe production of ecosystem services, issue
permits for forest industry with a production
capacity of less than 6000 m3 per year, andpublish technical advice for the establishment offorest industries with a production capacity
greater than 6000 m3 per year.

184•

Provincial governments will design, form andpropose management areas for protection andproduction forests.

•

Provincial governments will approve short-term
management plans for production areas.

•

Provincial governments will manage forestparks.

•

Provincial governments will undertake andmaintain forest rehabilitation in production
forest, protected forest and forest parks.

In 2009 and 2010 the Minister of Forestry
stipulated the following regulations and guidancea:•

The Periodical Entire Forest Inventory atManagement Unit (Minister of Forestry Decree
P33/Menhut-II/2009).

•

The Application of Multiple Silviculture atConcession Area (Minister of Forestry Decree
P.11/ Menhut-II/2009).

•

The Standard and Guidance for Valuation of
Sustainable Production Forest Performance andVerification of Log Legality for Concession
Holder or Titled Forest (Minister of Forestry
Decree P38/Menhut-II/2009).

•

The Designation of Permanent Forest (Ministerof Forestry Decree P50/Menhut-II/2009).

•

The Working Plan of Concession of Timber
Utilization of Natural Forest and Ecosystems
Restoration (Minister of Forestry Decree P56/
Menhut-II/2009).

•

The Valuation of Competent and Certified
Technical Personnel (Professional) for Achieving
SFM (Minister of Forestry Decree P58/MenhutII/2009).

•

The Costing Standard in SFM Achievement(Minister of Forestry Decree P.69/MenhutII/2009).

•

The Manual for Changing of Forest Purpose
and Function (Government Regulation 10
Tahun 2010).

•

The Use of Forest Area (Government
Regulation 24 Tahun 2010).

An estimated 16 800 people are employed inpublic forest-related institutions at the national andsub-national levels, nearly one-third of whom have
university degrees or equivalent and about 18% ofwhom are women (FAO 2010a).

INDONESIA

For many years, international NGOs have pressed
for forest policy reform; this role has largely been
assumed and greatly expanded by IndonesianNGOs. Networks link many hundreds of NGOs;
prominent are WAHLI (Indonesian Forum ofEnvironmental NGOs), KPSHK (Community
Forest System Development Group), JKPP
(Participatory Mapping Network) and WWF
Indonesia. There are also a number of timberindustry organizations, such as the Association ofIndonesian Forest Concessionaires, the Indonesian
Wood Panel Producers Association and theIndonesian Sawmill and Woodworking Association.
The Forest Industry Revitalization Board (BRIK)
was set up by the Ministry of Forestry to help in the
restructuring of the forest sector.
In February 2007, prompted by a number ofNGOs led by WWF, the governments of Indonesia,
Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam signed theHeart of Borneo Declaration, which sets out
commitments for the three countries to sustainably
manage up to about 24 million hectares of forest in
Borneo designated as protected areas, production
areas and sustainable land-use areas.

Status of forest management
Forest for production
In order to open up the huge and valuable forest
resource outside Java, Indonesia enacted legislationin 1967 to encourage the participation of private
investors. The large-scale exploitation of forests
began in 1969 with the issuance of Government
Statute 5/1967, followed by Government
Regulation 21 (1971) on forest concessionaires.
Under the concession system, state-owned
companies (central-government or localgovernment), domestic private companies,
cooperatives and foreign private companies withIndonesian legality may apply to manage and use
available forest resources. HTIs were permits forthe establishment, management and harvestingof plantation forests. There were two categories
of concession for logging in natural forests: forest
concession rights (hak pengusahaan hutan –HPHs), and forest products collection rights (hakpemungutan hasil hutan – HPHHs). HPHs were
non-transferable long-term rights and required
concession-holders to follow the principles of SFM,
as prescribed by the Indonesian Selective Cutting
and Replanting System.

HPHHs ceased to be issued after July 1989 but
were revived after decentralization in the form oflog exploitation permits (izin pemanfaatan kayu
– IPKs), which are awarded to companies by theprovincial forest service for the conversion of forests
to enable the harvesting of logs. Conversion forests
are defined as those with a standing volume of lessthan 20 m³ per hectare which are proposed to becleared for agriculture, plantation, transmigration
or industrial forest plantations.
By the early 1990s the number of HPHs had
reached 584, with a total area of about 68 million
hectares. The recorded production of industrial
wood increased from 5 million m3 in 1965 to about
47 million m3 in 1990, a trend which led to thedevelopment of forest industries on the basis of‘supply-push’. In 2001, there were 354 HPHs and102 HTIs covering 39.3 million hectares (ITTO2006).
HPHs and HTIs were replaced under Government
Regulation 34 (2002), which created licences
to commercially use timber in natural forests(IUPHHK HAs) and plantation forests (IUPHHK
HTs). By December 2008, 308 IUPHHK HA
permits had been issued over a total area of 26.2
million hectares, a reduction of 2.1 million hectares
compared with the area of forest under concessions
in 2007.a
Another permit type is the Hak pengusahaan
hutan (HPHTI), an industrial forest plantation
permit that allows concessionaires to plant andharvest plantation timber on unproductive areas ofpermanent production forest.
The Ministry of Forestry also created a restoration
ecosystem policy for natural production forest
via Decree of Forestry Minister P61/2008: The
Issuance of Timber Utilization Permit in Natural
Production Forest through Ecosystem Restoration.
By March 2010, timber utilization permits had
been issued for twelve units covering a total area of
1.17 million hectares.
Regulation 6/2007 and its amendment, 3/2008,
establish a system for the allocation of conservation
forests, protected forests and production forests into
FMUs called forest management totalities (KPHs).
National parks, for example, are being allocatedto conservation KPHs. By 2008, KPHs had been
designed for 23 provinces, reservation directives for
KPHs had been issued for 15 provinces, governors

185

Status of tropical forest management 2011

in four provinces had made requests to the Ministerof Forestry for the establishment of KPHs, and theMinister had established KPHs in one province. It
was expected that, by the end of 2009, KPH design
would have been completed for 27 provinces,reservation directives issued for 27 provinces, KPH
establishment requests made by 28 provinces, and
KPHs established by the Minister of Forestry in 28
provinces.
In the field, a pilot KPH serves as a model forthe preparation of an operational KPH. It wasenvisaged that, in the period 2005–09, one pilot
KPH would be established in each of 22 provinces(South Kalimantan would have two such pilots),
comprising two conservation KPHs, six protectedforest KPHs (known as KPHLs – ‘sustainable
management units of protection forest’) and 15
production KPHs (known as KPHPs – ‘sustainable
management units of production forest’). In 2009
the aim was to established five pilot KPHs in fiveprovinces, comprising one KPHL and four KPHPs.a
At a policy level, the national AAC was reduced
from 22 million m3 in the 1990s to 4.8 million m3
in 2006. Given that aspects of forest management
have been decentralized, however, the extent towhich a national AAC can be enforced is unclear;in any case, much timber is still harvested illegally,
reducing the significance of an AAC (ITTO
2006, Human Rights Watch 2009). In general,
Indonesian forest management needs urgent
improvement. Many of the concessions do not haveclearly demarcated boundaries, and forest fires,
illegal land clearance and shifting cultivation are
widespread.
Population growth, land-based national
development and decentralization are all major
challenges for achieving sustainability in Indonesia’sforests. Greater coordination between the levels ofgovernment is needed to overcome problems in,for example, land-use allocation, forest conversion,illegal logging, illegal timber trade and industrial
inefficiency.a
The eradication of illegal logging is one of the
top priorities of the Forestry Department in
the planning periods 2005–09 and 2010–14. A
number of policy measures have been put in place,including:•Presidential Instruction Inpres 4/2005:
Eradication of Illegal Logging and Its
Distribution at the Entire Indonesian Territory.

186•

The development of a draft regulation on illegal
logging eradication.

•

Improving the forest-product distribution
system and the system of log legality
verification.

•

Capacity-building measures, including theestablishment of national park and natural
resource conservation offices, and province/cityforest offices and human resource development
through the establishment of the Quick
Response Forest Police Unit (SPORC) and thetraining of investigating civil officers.

•

Improvements in forest protection infrastructureand facilities.

•

Increased national and international cooperation(with China, Malaysia, the United States,
Europe and Australia).

The number of investigations of illegal logging
decreased dramatically in the five years to 2009,
from 7201 in 2005 to 107 in 2009. The extent towhich this reflects a decline in illegal activities is
unclear, although the Environmental Investigation
Agency (EIA), an NGO, acknowledged that “By2009 the rate of illegal logging in Indonesia wasestimated to have halved to 40 per cent. EIA/
Telapak field investigations found a significant
decline in the volumes of illicit Indonesian timber
reaching China and Malaysia, with traders in thosecounties [sic] bemoaning the improved enforcementin Indonesia”. Nevertheless, on the basis of a
recent undercover investigation, EIA alleged that“significant amounts of illegal merbau, in the formof square logs and rough sawn timber, continue tobe smuggled out of Indonesia, with the bulk boundfor China” (EIA 2010).
Human Rights Watch (2009) suggested that
operations to crack down on illegal logging haddone little to bring legal accountability to thesector. Moreover, it is “low-level laborers, often local
residents desperate to make a living, who are mostoften snared in these crackdowns”.
Silviculture and species selection. Indonesia’sforests contain about 4000 tree species, 267 ofwhich are traded; the most important are treesof the Dipterocarpaceae family (ITTO 2006).
No recent information was available on the mostcommonly harvested species. Table 4, therefore,shows the species listed in ITTO (2006). Gonystylus
bancanus (ramin), a valuable timber tree which

INDONESIA

was logged heavily in the past, is now listed in
CITES Appendix II. The silvicultural system
originally prescribed for logging in concession
areas was the Indonesian Selective Cutting System(Tebang Pilih Indonesia – TPI). Only matureand overmature trees conforming to prescribed
conditions were to be removed. It was later realizedthat the concessionaires were only complying
with the minimum felling diameter limit andignoring the other requirements of the system (e.g.
residual stand inventory, post-harvest tending andenrichment planting) (ITTO 2001). In 1989 theMinistry of Forestry introduced the IndonesianSelective Cutting and Replanting System (Tebang
Pilih Tanam Indonesia – TPTI), based on a 35-year
cutting cycle, which placed greater importanceon natural regeneration and enrichment planting.
Under the TPTI, the minimum cutting limit
prescribed for production forest is 50 cm, forlimited production forest it is 60 cm and for swamp
forest it is 40 cm, and, in each forest type, at least
25 commercially valuable trees per hectare must be
retained. The diameter of these residual trees should
be in the range of 20–50 cm in production forest,
20–60 cm in limited production forest, and 20–40
cm in swamp forest. A further modification, theSelective Cutting and Strip Planting System (Tebang
Pilih Tanam Jalur – TPTJ), was introduced in the
1990s.
In 2005 the Ministry of Forestry’s Directorate
General of Forestry Production Development
introduced a new approach, ‘intensified
silviculture’ (SILIN), with the aim of increasing
stand productivity and planting intensity inlogged-over areas as well as to facilitate supervisionby government agencies, alongside the TPTI. By
December 2008 SILIN had been applied in 29
IUPHHK-HAs over an area of 55 000 hectares andto 29 plantation units covering 66 600 hectares.
Enrichment planting was carried out on a further
16 900 hectares of logged-over forest.

The Directorate General of Forestry Production
Development has also overseen a project for themodel development of a management unit of
meranti (Shorea spp) forest, which commenced in
2003. As of 15 November 2008 the project had
been implemented in just over 12 000 hectares.a
Planted forest and trees outside the forest.
According to FAO (2010a), 404 000 hectares ofplantation were established, on average, each year
in the period 2003–2007 through afforestation
and reforestation, compared to an annual averageof about 119 000 hectares in 1998–2002.
Afforestation comprised community forests (Hutan
Rakyat), terras rehabilitation, city forests, mangrove
rehabilitation, the development of community
forest outside forestland and Ministry of Forestry
rehabilitation plantings along rivers and roads,
but excluded oil-palm plantations. Reforestation
included activities such as re-greening, social
forestry and community forest on forestland.
Despite the high rate of annual planting, the areaof productive industrial timber plantations does
not appear to have increased above the 2.5 million
hectares cited in ITTO (2006).a Estimates vary:
FAO (2010a), for example, estimated the planted
forest estate at 3.55 million hectares in 2010, downfrom 3.70 million hectares in 2005. Important
planted species are teak (1.47 million hectares),
Pinus merkusii and other pines (0.77 million
hectares), Acacia spp (0.64 million hectares),
Eucalyptus spp (0.13 million hectares), and otherbroadleaved species (3.39 million hectares),including Gmelina arborea, Albizia and Melaleuca(ITTO 2006). The sum of these areas is muchlarger than both estimates of total planted-forest
area given above, implying that large areas havebecome unproductive.
As part of Indonesia’s commitment to achieving
the Millennium Development Goal of ‘ensuring
environmental sustainability’ it has developed an
ambitious program to expand the area of forest

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Shorea spp (meranti)
Dipterocarpus spp (keruing)
Dryobalanops spp (kapur)
Anisoptera spp (mersawa)
Tectona grandis (teak)

Used for sawnwood and plywood.
Used for sawnwood and plywood.
Used for sawnwood and plywood.
Used for sawnwood and plywood.
From planted forests.

Source: ITTO (2006).

187

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Box 1 Target of planting plan, 2010–2020
Communityand village
forest

Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Total

Area to be established (’000 hectares)
Supported
Logged-over
Watershed
Plantation
communityarea
rehabilitation
forestforestrestoration

500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
5500

300
300
300
350
350
300
300
300
350
350
350
3550

450
550
500
600
550
450
550
500
600
550
500
5800

300
350
450
650
750
300
350
450
650
750
750
5750

50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
550

Total
1600
1750
1800
2150
2200
1600
1750
1800
2150
2200
2150
21 150Source: Government of Indonesia (2010).

plantations and to restore degraded forests. Box 1
shows that the aim is to establish or improve forests
on a total area of more than 21 million hectares by
2020.
Forest certification. A system of timber
certification has been developed through theIndonesian Ecolabelling Institute (Lembaga Ekolobel
Indonesia – LEI). Established in 1993 and assisted
by an ITTO project, LEI has devised C&I for
the auditing of forest management in logging
concessions, the ecolabelling of products from theseconcessions, chain-of-custody certification and a log
audit system. It has also developed C&I for planted
forests, community-based forest management and‘legal origin verification’. In addition, LEI has
developed a joint certification program with the
FSC.
Since 2002/03 the Government of Indonesia
has adopted a mandatory certification approach(Lembaga Penilai Independen – LPI) for concessionholders based on an independent assessment
against C&I for SFM set by government. These
C&I, in turn, are based on those of ITTO, FSC
and LEI. Independent auditors are engaged
through a selection process and are accredited by
LEI; the selection process has been criticized as
non-transparent, however. By 2009, 153 of the
308 existing IUPHHK-HAs had been assessed for
mandatory certification over a total area of 13.7
million hectares (Box 2).

188

The data provided by the mandatory certification
system suggest that the performance of
IUPHHK-HAs has improved. In 2005 and 2006,
none was assessed as ‘good’ against the C&I, but
in the period 2007–2009, 13 IUPHHK-HAs
covering a total of 2.10 million hectares received a‘good’ rating. Government is developing incentives
designed to reward good management performance(ratings of ‘good’ and ‘fair’). Following the audit
the licence-holder and the Ministry of Forestry
agree on an action plan to address the areas where
improvement is required. Regulation 39 prescribes
penalties for non-compliance with certification,
the most severe of which is non-renewal of theconcession licence, but this is rare. Generally, there
has been a positive response from industry to theevaluation process. The mandatory certification
rating is referred to in requests from IUPHHK-HA
holders for extensions to their concessions.
A number of organizations in addition to ITTO,
including the Tropical Forest Foundation, The
Forest Trust and the Borneo Initiative Foundation,
are assisting Indonesian companies to improveforest management at the concession level.
The Nature Conservancy has assisted several
management units to identify and manage
high-conservation-value forest and has also
introduced mono-cable skidding to reduce soil
compaction and erosion on steep sites.a
There has been a significant increase in the extent ofvoluntary certification since 2005. In June 2010, theINDONESIA

Box 2 Mandatory certification of IUPHHK-HAs
Year

Number of
IUPHHK-HAs
assessedSize (ha)

Good

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Total

43
21
31
44
14
153

5 010 266
2 116 200
2 451 353
3 351 590
797 259
13 726 668

0
0
5
6
2
13

Evaluation
Fair
Bad
Very bad
Number of IUPHHK-HAs rated
17
12
8
21
5
63

26
6
14
14
5
65

0
3
4
3
2
12

Source: Government of Indonesia (2010).

FSC had certified 618 000 hectares of natural forest
and about 195 000 hectares of plantation forest(FSC 2010). Most of the FSC-certified certified
area was also certified by LEI, and LEI had also
certified another 486 000 hectares of industrial-scale
operations in natural forest. In addition, LEI had
certified just under 21 000 hectares of communitymanaged forests. The figure for certified forest shownin Table 5 includes only those forests certified undervoluntary schemes (FSC and LEI).
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. The Government ofIndonesia (2010) considered those KPHs assessed
as under ‘fair’ management through the LPI to beunder sustainable management, but only those
rated as ‘good’, a total of 2.10 million hectares, areconsidered here. In addition, 1.125 million hectares
have been certified under voluntary schemes.
According to the Government of Indonesia (2010),
1.06 million hectares of the area certified by the
FSC or LEI are not counted in the LPI assessment
and therefore can be added to the LPI total. Thus,
the total area of forest considered to be undersustainable management is at least 3.16 million
hectares (Table 5).

Timber production and trade. Average annual
wood production in the period 2003–2007 wasestimated at about 101 million m3, consisting of
14.4 million m3 of industrial wood and86.4 million m3 of fuelwood. Overall this wasa reduction of about 17 million m3 per year on
the average total wood production in the period
1998–2002 (FAO 2010a). ITTO (2011) estimatedtotal industrial log production in 2009 at 36.0
million m3, up from 24.8 million m3 in 2004;
however, the volume of illegal logging has been
estimated to be about equal to the official harvest(Human Rights Watch 2009). The Governmentof Indonesia (2010) estimated that total log
production in 2008 was 32 million m3, more thandouble official production in 2004. Most of thereported increase was from plantation forests, where
wood production increased from 8.25 million m3 in2004 to 22.4 million m3 in 2008. These data havebeen criticized as unreliable (Human Rights Watch2009).
The production of tropical hardwood plywood
in 2009 was estimated at 3.20 million m3, downfrom 4.51 million m3 in 2004 and 7.50 million
m3 in 1999 (ITTO 2010). The recent decline has
been attributed to reductions in logging quotas
and crackdowns on illegal log flows that have

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)
Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

46 00038 60043 20026 200***NaturalWithmanagementplans
18 40013 700

Certified

275
1125

2940

2500

PlantedWith
management
plans
2500

3160**

2500

2500

Sustainably
managed

Total

Certified

0.152
195

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Comprises 2.10 million hectares of forest where management is rated as ‘good’ under the LPI, and 1.125 million hectares of forest
certified by the FSC or LEI.

189

Status of tropical forest management 2011

restricted log availability for plywood production(ITTO 2009). The estimated volume of tropical
hardwood sawnwood produced in 2009 was 4.17
million m3, compared with 4.33 million m3 in2004 and 6.5 million m3 in 1999 (ITTO 2011).
In 1999 Indonesia produced 50 000 m3 of tropical
hardwood veneer; this grew to 220 000 m3 in 2009
(ibid.).

NTFPs, consisting, in total, of 557 species plant
and animals. Five species groups – rattan, bamboo,
bees, silk and sandalwood – have been affordeddevelopment priority.

•

resin (damar), 689 tonnes

In 2009 Indonesia exported an estimated 2.15
million m3 of tropical hardwood plywood, 698 000
m3 of tropical hardwood sawnwood, 11 000 m3 oftropical hardwood veneer and 67 000 m3 of tropical
hardwood logs. The total export value of primarywood products (including coniferous wood) was
about US$2.15 billion, down from US$2.89 billion
in 1999 (ITTO 2011).

•

rattan, 563 tonnes•

cajuput oil, 88.8 tonnes•

sap (getah-getahan), 44.4 tonnes•

gum resin (gondorukem), 18.3 tonnes•

turpentine, 12.6 tonnes•

honey (madu), 2.19 tonnes•

agarwood (gaharu), 2.36 tonnes.

In 2008 there were 227 production units with an
installed capacity of more than 6000 m3 per year.
Total processing capacity was 23.4 million m3 per
yeara, but in 2005 the installed capacity utilization
rate was less than 50% in both the plywood/veneer
and sawmilling sectors. On the other hand, thepulp industry has been expanding, based mainly on
the plantation resource, and in 2005 was operating
at over 80% capacity (Forest Industry Revitalization
In-house Experts Working Group 2007).
In 2007 the Ministry of Forestry issued a ‘road map’
for revitalizing the forest industry. The vision ofthis road map was “A high quality and competitive
Indonesian timber industry supported bysustainable and growing sources of raw materials”.
The road map sets out objectives, targets, strategy
recommendations and follow-up steps, anddescribes the enabling conditions that are necessary
for the road map to work (ibid.).
Non-timber forest products. A wide range
of NTFPs are produced in Indonesia – rattan,bamboo, Nipa fronds, Metroxylon spp (sago starch),
resin from Pinus merkusii, Shorea javanica (damar
mata kucing), copal, Melaleuca (kaya putih oil),Santalum album (cendana), Aquilaria malaccensis(agarwood), medicinal plants, fibres, and fruits
such as Durio zibethinus (durian). Wood-carving
for souvenirs is important, using woods such
as Hibiscus tiliaccus, Manilkara kauki (sawokecik), Artocarpus heterophyllus (jackfruit), teak,sandalwood and ebony.
Forestry Minister Regulation P35/Menhut-II/2007
identified nine potential and prospective groups of190

FAO (2010a) reported the following removals for2005:

No data were available for other NTFPs, such as
birds’ nests, grass, medical herbs, fruits, fish andlive animals, which are commonly traded by local
communities.a
As of 2009, 316 registered companies were involvedin the breeding of wild plant and animals (not allforest-based), comprising 124 units of Arwana fish
breeding, 31 units of crocodile breeding, 30 units ofbird breeding, 53 units of decorative coral breeding/transplants, three units of molusca breeding, 17
units of plant breeding, 31 units of reptile breeding,
20 units of mammal breeding and nine units ofinsect breeding. Exports of wild plants and animals
earned a total non-tax state income of 2.26 billion
Indonesian rupiah in 2008.a
Forest carbon. Gibbs et al. (2007) estimatednational-level forest biomass carbon stock in therange 13 143–25 547 MtC and FAO (2010b)
estimated it at 13 017 MtC. Deforestation,
peatland degradation and forest fires have put
Indonesia among the world’s top three emittersof GHGs; emissions resulting from deforestationand forest fires are five times those of non-forestry
emissions. Carbon emissions from Indonesia’s
deforestation and forest degradation are estimatedat 55 MtCO2e per year.
Indonesia has significant potential for carbon
capture and storage and is well-advanced in its
planning (Table 6). Following the 13th Conferenceof the Parties to the UNFCCC, which washeld in Bali in 2007, the Ministry of Forestry
prepared a national REDD+ policy and strategy

INDONESIA

A typical forest/rotational agriculture landscape in an ITTO project area, Malinau, East Kalimantan.

and established a climate-change working group.
The REDD+ strategy includes reducing forest
conversion and forest access that causes permanentchange; forest management; improving fire
management; tackling illegal logging; rehabilitating
degraded lands; and restoring forest ecosystems.
The Government of Indonesia also works toconserve the forest carbon pool through forest
conservation. Various Forest Minister decrees (e.g.
P68/Menhut-II/2009, P30/Menhut-II/2009,
P30/Menhut-II/2009 and P36/Menhut-II/2009)
regulate REDD+ approaches and REDD+
demonstration activities.
REDD+ is being carried out in three steps. The
first step (2007–2010) is preparation by identifying
the state of science and related policy. The second
step (2009–2012) is ‘readiness’, which is to set

the method and policy used. The third step isfull implementation (Ministry of Forestry 2010).
Indonesia participates in all major international
REDD+ initiatives, including the REDD+
Partnership, the Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility, UN-REDD and the Forest Investment
Program. A considerable number of regionallybased foreign-supported REDD+ pilots are being
implemented throughout the country. As part ofthe climate-change partnership established between
the Government of Indonesia and the Governmentof Norway, the latter has stated its intention tocontribute funds to Indonesia’s REDD+ efforts inthe order of US$1 billion. In December 2010 theGovernment of Australia also announced it would
join the partnership and pledged to contribute
US$45 million to it.

Table 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)
13 143–25 547% forest
canopycover >60%

69

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to
2030
+++

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
sink capacity monitoring
capacity
to 2030+++++

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity++

Importance Engagementinof forest
international
fire/
REDD+
biomass
processes
burning+++++++++ high; ++ medium; + low; estimate of national forest carbon based on Gibbs et al. (2007); estimate of % total forest with canopy cover>60% based on UNEP-WCMC (2010).

191

Status of tropical forest management 2011

In 2010, while announcing a voluntary target to
reduce the country’s GHG emissions, Indonesia
took steps toward a coordinated approach forboth managing climate-change activities andensuring that related finances received externallyare harmonized with the country’s priorities. The
government established the Indonesian Climate
Change Trust Fund, which seeks to co-financeinvestments in adaptation and mitigation activities,
including those involving forests.

of streams/rivers and roads, the alignment of skid
trails, directional felling, and enrichment andprotective planting.
Extent of protected areas. Indonesia has allocatedover 10% of its land area as protected areas (Yeager2008). As of 2009 there were 50 national parks(16.3 million hectares), 248 strict nature reserves(4.8 million hectares), 75 wildlife sanctuaries(5.1 million hectares), 118 nature recreationparks (750 000 hectares), 14 game-hunting parks(225 000 hectares) and 22 grand forest parks(344 000 hectares).

Forest for protection
Soil and water. Indonesia pursues integrated
watershed management. Some 28% of the total
forest area is managed primarily for the protectionof soil and water.a Forest concession agreements
have conditions covering the establishment of
buffer strips along streams and protective belts
along roads.

The establishment of conservation forest
management units is in progress under Government
Regulation 6 (2007) for the following ten nationalparks: Berbak, Ujung Kulon, Gunung Halimun
Salak, Tanjung Putting, Kutai, Meru Betiri, Alas
Purwo, Bali Barat, Gunung Rinjani and Bunaken.
Many of the protected areas are thought to be
degraded, due largely to illegal activities (ITTO2001). According to UNEP-WCMC (2010), 14.1
million hectares of forest are in protected areas that
conform to IUCN protected-area categories I–IV.

Biological diversity. Indonesia is a megadiverse
country. With about 1.3% of the earth’s land
surface, it contains an estimated 10% of the world’s
plants, 12% of mammals, 16% of reptiles andamphibians, and 17% of birds. One hundred andseventy-four mammals, 90 birds, 30 amphibians,
three reptiles, eleven arthropods, one fish and21 plants found in forests are listed as criticallyendangered, endangered or vulnerable on the
IUCN red list of threatened species (IUCN 2011).
Twenty-seven plants are listed in CITES Appendix
I and 880 in Appendix II (UNEP-WCMC 2011).
Under Government Regulation 7 (1999) on the
Preservation of Plant and Animal Species, 58
plant species and 236 animals are threatened byextinction and must be preserved.a

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. Management plans
have been prepared for the Betung Kerihun andKayan Mentarang national parks in Borneo, which
together cover about 2.18 million hectares of forest,
and their management is being strengthened under
two projects implemented by WWF Indonesia
and the Ministry of Forestry’s Directorate Generalof Forest Protection and Nature Conservation(previously with ITTO funding). WWF Indonesia
has had a presence in the Kayan Mentarang
National Park since the 1990s, developing a
25-year management plan that is now under
implementation. In general, however, there islittle information on the management status of
the protection PFE. Therefore, the estimate given
in Table 7 comprises only the Kayan Mentarang
National Park.

Protective measures in production forests. In
addition to stipulations for conservation measurescontained in forest concession agreements, elaborate
guidelines are set out in various forest regulations,such as the Forestry Law (1999) and Decree 32(1990) concerning the management of protectedareas. Regulations include specifications for road
construction, protective belts along the margins
Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)
Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

22 50027 30014 40014 100**

16 00026 400b

5000
2180

1360
1360

*
**

192

As reported in ITTO (2006).
UNEP-WCMC (2010).

INDONESIA

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. Forests and forest industries
make a substantial contribution to Indonesia’ssocioeconomic development. The wood-products
sector, for example, employed 205 000 people in2008.a In 2005 the forest sector generated about
3.25 trillion rupiah in revenue for the state (FAO
2010a). Nevertheless, Human Rights Watch (2009)
estimated that the Indonesian government lost
US$2 billion in 2006 due to:•Forest taxes and royalties never collected onillegally harvested timber.

•

Shortfalls due to massive unacknowledged
subsidies to the forestry industry (including
basing taxes on artificially low market price andexchange rates).

•

Losses from tax evasion by exporters throughtransfer pricing.

It is estimated that between 500 000 and 600 000
people are directly employed in the forest
industry. This figure would be much higher if all
those employed in agroforestry activities and inwoodworking and the small-scale production ofsawnwood, particleboard, fibreboard and wooden
handicrafts were taken into account (Thang, H.C.,
pers. comm., 2011).
Livelihood values. There are about 32 000 forestrelated villages in Indonesia, 1305 of which arein forest (including 208 in Central Kalimantan),
7943 are adjacent to forest, and 22 709 are in thevicinity of forest. In Central Java there are 1581
adjacent-to-forest villages and 6795 villages in thevicinity of forest.a About 50 million people live inthese villages, about 10 million of whom have been
categorized as poor or left-behind.a
The Indonesian government has introduced
the Forest Village Community Development
and Empowerment Program (PMDH) to assist
such people. Concession-holders in Java are also
developing communal joint forest management(PHBM), and there are other social forestry,
community forest and village forest programs. The
PMDH started in 2003 and has been extended to
267 villages in 169 IUPHHK HAs in 16 provinces
involving 20 542 families. The PHBM involves
about 16 000 families in IUPHHK-HAs and
30 600 families in IUPHHK-HTs. As of December
2008, another program (Rural Development, or

Bina Desa) has involved 19 810 families in forest
communities. The social forestry program covers
8614 hectares and involves 540 families.
Social relations. In many cases forest
concessionaires have neglected or rejected the
traditional rights of local communities; insome areas this has prompted communities tocollaborate with illegal loggers and/or to takerevenge by damaging the forest (ITTO 2001).
Some concessionaires are working towards
repairing relations with local communities in aneffort to improve acceptance of their activities.
Decentralization has often complicated disputes
over land and usufruct rights but in the long run
could provide mechanisms for resolving them.
Disputes related to tribal rights need to be resolved
if there is to be tenure security and businesscertainty. Decentralization still needs better
coordination and synchronization to achieve good
governance; nevertheless, it offers promise that thefair economic distribution of benefits from forest
management can be realized through community
empowerment.a The other important aspect thaturgently needs to be strengthened is land reform,
for example with respect to land-use change.a
While corruption remains a problem in theforest sector, there have been improvements inforest management under the administrationof President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (whohas been president since 2004), and successes inanti-corruption efforts have resulted in significant
gains in Indonesia’s score on World Bank measuresof control of corruption (Human Rights Watch2009). There remains a lack of transparency
at the national, provincial and district levels ofgovernment, however, and accurate information
about the forest sector is difficult to obtain (ibid.).

Summary
Indonesia’s forests face many threats, including
illegal logging, fire, encroachment, poor logging
practices, inefficient timber-processing, unsettled
land claims and regulatory inconsistency andconfusion. A process to decentralize forestry
administration has been partially reversed,
and greater coordination between the levels ofgovernment is needed to overcome problems in,for example, land-use allocation, forest conversion,illegal logging, illegal timber trade and industrial
inefficiency. Efforts are under way at the national

193

Status of tropical forest management 2011

level to combat illegal logging and it appears
that some progress has been made. A two-year
suspension of new forest-clearing concessions wasannounced in 2010 as part of a climate-change
partnership between the Government of Indonesia
and the Government of Norway that aims to
reduce GHG emissions from Indonesian forests.
A compulsory certification scheme for concessionholders imposes a certain degree of oversight onforest operations.

Key points
•

•

•

•

•

•

Indonesia has an estimated PFE of 68.4 million
hectares (compared with 71.0 million hectares
in 2005), comprising 38.6 million hectares ofnatural production forest (compared with 46.0
million hectares in 2005), 27.3 million hectaresof protection forest (compared with 22.5
million hectares in 2005) and 2.5 million
hectares of planted forest (no change since2005).
As of 2009, 153 of the 308 existing commercial
logging licences (IUPHHK-HAs) had beenassessed for mandatory certification over a total
area of 13.7 million hectares. The performance
was assessed as ‘good’ over about 2.10 million
hectares.
The area of independently certified natural
production forest is 1.125 million hectares, up
from 275 000 hectares in 2005. An estimated
3.16 million hectares of the production PFE are
under SFM. An area of 1.36 million hectares ofprotection PFE, in one national park, isconsidered to be under SFM.
The Indonesian timber sector has been
undergoing massive change. For example, thevolume of tropical hardwood plywood produced
in 2009 was one-third the volume produced in
1995.
A program to restore degraded forests andespecially to establish new planted forests has
been announced, with the aim of covering morethan 21 million hectares.
Climate-change concerns are being integrated
into Indonesia’s forest-related institutions and anational strategy for REDD+ is being
implemented in stages, including through thelarge-scale funding of REDD+ pilot projects.

194

EndnotesaGovernment of Indonesia (2010).

b

ITTO estimate.

References and other sources
EIA (2010). Rogue Traders: the Murky Business of Merbau
Timber Smuggling in Indonesia. Environmental
Investigation Agency, London, UK, and Telepak, Bogor,
Indonesia.
FAO (2010a). Global forest resources assessment 2010
country report: Indonesia (available at http://www.fao.
org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).
FAO (2010b). Forests and Climate Change in the Asia-PacificRegion. Forests and Climate Change Working Paper 7.
FAO, Rome,Italy.
Forest Industry Revitalization In-house Experts Working
Group (2007). A road map for the revitalization ofIndonesia’s forest industry. Ministry of Forestry, Jakarta,
Indonesia.
FSC (2010, website accessed June 2010). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.
org/PublicCertificateSearch).
Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007).
Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon
stocks: making REDD a reality. Environmental Research
Letters 2 (available at http://iopscience.iop.org/17489326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Government of Indonesia (2007). Rancana Aksi Nasional
Dalam Menghadapi Perubahan Iklim (National Action
Plan Addressing Climate Change). Government ofIndonesia, Jakarta.
Government of Indonesia (2010). Report of progress towardachieving sustainable forest management in Indonesia.
Submission to ITTO by the Government of Indonesia,
Jakarta, Indonesia. Unpublished.
Governments of Norway and Indonesia (2010). Letterof intent on cooperation on reducing greenhouse gas
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. 26
May 2010.
Hayes, A. (2010). The governance of national climate change
adaptation strategies: an Indonesian case study. Paper
prepared for the Conference on Democratizing Climate
Governance, held 15–16 July 2010, Australian National
University, Canberra, Australia.
Human Rights Watch (2009). Wild Money: The Human
Rights Consequences of Corruption and Illegal Logging inIndonesia’s Forestry Sector. Human Rights Watch, New
York, United States.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007).
Summary for policymakers. In: Parry, M., Canziani,
O., Palutikof, J., van der Linden, P. & Hanson, C.
(eds) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.

INDONESIA

ITTO (2001). Achieving sustainable forest management inIndonesia. Report of the diagnostic mission. Presented
at the thirty-first session of the International Tropical
Timber Council, November 2001. ITTO, Yokohama,Japan.
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005.
ITTO, Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.
int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2009). Annual Review and Assessment of the World
Timber Situation 2008. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO (2011, website accessed March 2011). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/
annual_review_output/?mode=searchdata).
IUCN (2011, website accessed March 2011). IUCN red listof threatened species (searchable database available atwww.redlist.org).
Lawson, S. & MacFaul, L. (2010). Illegal Logging and Related
Trade: Indicators of the Global Response. Chatham House,
London, UK.

Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World
Atlas of Mangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March
2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
Species (searchable database at available at www.cites.
org/eng/resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
March 2010). World population prospects: the 2008
revision (searchable database available at http://esa.
un.org/unpp/p2k0data.asp).
Yeager, C. (2008). Conservation of tropical forests andbiological diversity in Indonesia. Submitted inaccordance with Foreign Assistance Act Sections
118/110 for the United States Agency International
Development.

Sari, A., Maulidya, M., Butarbutar, R., Sari, R. &Rusmantoro, W. (2007). Executive summary: Indonesia
and climate change: working paper on current status andpolicies. PT Pelangi Energi Abadi Citra Enviro, Jakarta,
Indonesia.

195Status of tropical forest management 2011

Malaysia

Forest resources
Malaysia is a federation of 13 states and threefederal territories comprising two distinct regions– Peninsular Malaysia, with eleven states, andthe states of Sarawak and Sabah (East Malaysia)
in Borneo. In 2010 the country’s estimatedpopulation was 27.9 million people (United
Nations Population Division 2010), and it is ranked
66th out of 182 countries in UNDP’s Human
Development Index (UNDP 2009). Estimatesof total natural forest area include 18.4 million
hectares (excluding mangroves)a and 18.6 million
hectares (FAO 2010a), which is 56% of the total
land area (33.0 million hectares).

Forest types. Malaysia reports its forests according
to three forest types: dry inland forest (synonymouswith the dipterocarp forests reported in ITTO
2006, dominated by trees of Dipterocarpaceae);peat swamp forest; and mangrove forest. Common
tree species found in the dry inland forests include
Anisoptera, Dipterocarpus, Dryobalanops, Hopea,
Shorea and Parashorea. Of the estimated 17.1
million hectares of dry inland forests, 5.48 million
hectares are in Peninsular Malaysia, 7.83 million
hectares are in Sarawak and 3.84 million hectares
are in Sabah.a There are also 1.31 million hectaresof peat swamp forest (down by about 230 000
hectares from the area reported in ITTO 2006),
890 000 hectares of which are in Sarawak. Major
timber species found in this forest are Gonystylus
bancanus (ramin), Durio carinatus and various
species of Shorea. Mangrove forests cover an
estimated 709 700 hectares, 59% of which are in
Sabah (Spalding et al. 2010).
Permanent forest estate. In 2008 the area of
natural-forest PFE was 13.9 million hectares (42%of the total land area), which was slightly lessthan the 14.4 million hectares reported in ITTO
(2006). Of this, 13.3 million hectares were dryinland forests. The natural-forest PFE comprises
10.3 million hectares of production forest (74% of
the natural-forest PFE) and 3.58 million hectares(26%) of protection forest (Table 1). These forests
are gazetted in accordance with the National
Forestry Act (1984) in Peninsular Malaysia andTable 1 Permanent forest estate
Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

2005*
2010

19.3–19.5
18.4–18.6

19 14814 700**

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlantedTotal

11 200
10 29814 59314 416‡

183
539

3210
3579

Of which:

Of which:

Of which:

2738 in
Peninsular
Malaysia

109 in Peninsular
Malaysia

1969 in
Peninsular
Malaysia

2790 in Sabah

230 in Sarawak

4770 in Sarawak***

200 in Sabah

610 in Sabah
1000 in Sarawak

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Calculated using the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) (79%) and the total
natural forest area as estimated by FAO (2010).
‡
FAO (2010a) reported a total PFE of 14.3 million hectares.
Source: Government of Malaysia (2009).

196

MALAYSIA

area of primary forest of 3.82 million hectares andPeninsular Malaysia reported 191 000 hectaresof degraded primary forest in the PFE (Table 2).
There were an estimated 2.70 million hectares ofsecondary forest in Sabah’s PFE, the only region forwhich data on that parameter were available.a

the relevant state forest ordinance/enactment in
Sabah and Sarawak. Peninsular Malaysia contains
4.71 million hectares (34%) of the total naturalforest PFE, Sabah 3.40 million hectares (25%) andSarawak 5.77 million hectares (42%).a The increasein protection PFE from the value reported in ITTO
(2006) is due mainly to an increase in the area ofwater catchment forest within the PFE.b

Vulnerability of forests to climate change. In
the past 100 years, mean surface temperatures
have increased in the range of 0.3–0.8 °C acrossSoutheast Asia (IPCC 2010). No long-term trend
in mean annual rainfall has been discernible overthat period. Similarly, no identifiable change in thenumber, frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones
is observable; however, decadal-scale variations haveoccurred. From 2006 to 2009, Malaysia conducteda series of multi-stakeholder consultations to assist
the drafting of a national climate-change policy.
The aims of the policy are to mainstream climatechange measures, integrate balanced adaptation–
mitigation responses, and strengthen institutional
and implementation capacity, with an emphasison maximizing adaptive capacity in the face of
expected climate change.

A significant proportion of the total PFE (i.e.
natural forests and planted forests combined) has
been demarcated on the ground. Licensed land
surveyors mark the boundaries of the PFE by theplacement of permanent boundary stones; thepainting of trees with three rings of red paint at
10-metre intervals; and the erection of noticeboards
at 800 m intervals and at all entrances to the forest.
In Peninsular Malaysia, an estimated 65% of the
production PFE has been demarcated in this way,
6% has been demarcated in Sabah and 72% has
been demarcated in Sarawak. About 25% of theprotection PFE has been demarcated in Peninsular
Malaysia, 41% in Sabah and 80% in Sarawak.a

Forest ecosystem health

SFM policy framework

Deforestation and degradation. According to
FAO (2010a), Malaysia’s total forest area decreasedby 434 000 hectares between 2005 and 2010 (anannual decline of 0.42%) and by 1.92 million
hectares between 1990 and 2010. The Malaysian
government reported that a total of 12 359
hectares of forest were formally converted toagriculture in the period 2004–07 (all in Peninsular
Malaysia because data were unavailable for Sabah
and Sarawak), while just over 53 000 hectares
were formally added to the forest estate in thesame period. An estimated 20 000 hectares wereconverted illegally in Sabah.a Human-induced
forest fire was reported to be negligible, as wasillegal harvesting.a FAO (2010a) estimated a total

Forest tenure. All forests in Malaysia are owned
and managed by the state governments (Table 3).
The federal government is responsible for trade
policies on forest products and provides technicaladvice to the states.
Criteria and indicators. The Government of
Malaysia used the ITTO C&I in its submission to
ITTO for this report.a The Malaysian Criteria andIndicators for Forest Management Certification(MC&I 2002), which form the basis of the
Malaysian Timber Certification Scheme (MTCS),
draw on the principles, criteria and indicators of the
FSC.

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

Total’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land***‡

191a,**
2700a,‡
-

-

3820*
-

FAO (2010a).
Data available for Peninsular Malaysia only.
Data available for Sabah only.

197

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

Total area

State ownership (national, state orprovincial government)
Other public entities (e.g.
municipalities, villages)
Total public
Owned by local communities and/orIndigenous groups
Privately owned by individuals, firms,
other corporate

Of which
PFE*’000 ha18 25714 420--18 2570

14 420
0

0

0

Notes

State governments.

Includes only natural forest.
*
Source: Government of Malaysia (2009).

Forest policy and legislation. A national forest
policy (NFP) was adopted in 1978 as a framework
for SFM. It was revised in 1992 in response to
growing concern for the conservation of biologicaldiversity, the sustainable use of genetic resources
and the participation of local communities inforestry. The Malaysian C&I for SFM weredeveloped in 2000 based on the ITTO C&I andrevised in 2002. Malaysia is also negotiating a VPA
with the European Union, under which it will
institute a system to verify the legality of its logs,
sawnwood, veneer and plywood exports to theEuropean Union.
Under the Federal Constitution of Malaysia,
land use falls within the jurisdiction of the states.
Each state is empowered to enact laws, formulate
forest policy and manage its forests. The legislative
framework is defined in the federal National
Forestry Act (1984) and the Wood-based Industries
Act (1984). The National Forestry Act establishes
the general laws on forestry and each state isempowered to enact state laws and regulations inline with the federal Act. The federal government
also provides advice and technical assistance,
maintains experimental stations and funds researchand training.
The National Land Council, empowered under
the Malaysian Constitution to formulate a national
policy for the promotion and control of land use
for mining, agriculture and forestry, serves as aforum for coordination between the federal andstate governments in the discussion and resolutionof problems and issues relating to forest policy,
administration and management, including thedetermination of the annual timber harvest.

198

There is a commitment in the NFP that sufficientland strategically located throughout the country
should be dedicated as PFE; the permanent
forests should be managed in accordance with theprinciples of sound forest management; and theefficient harvesting and use of forest products andthe development of forest industries should bepromoted.
The National Forestry Act (1984) was amended
in 1993 to provide more stringent penalties forcertain forest offences, particularly illegal logging.
Provision was also made for the police andarmed forces to undertake surveillance of forest
activities, especially in curbing illegal logging, theencroachment of forested areas, and timber theft.
The National Forestry Act (1984) is adopted for
implementation by all states in Peninsular Malaysia
and is complemented by relevant laws dealing withland and water conservation, environmental quality,
wildlife protection, the management of national

Log landing at Ravenscott in Sarawak.

MALAYSIA

parks, biodiversity conservation, and the rights ofIndigenous communities. The International Tradein Endangered Species Act was enacted in 2008;
among other things, this Act prohibits any personfrom trading scheduled species (which may include
species found in forests) without a permit.
Incentives provided by the federal government toencourage forest-based development include:•

Pioneer status for forest plantation projects:
pioneer status exempts companies from income
tax for a period of ten years, starting from thedate of first harvest of the first planted block.

•

Investment tax allowance for forest plantation
projects: this provides a 100% tax allowance for
qualifying expenditure – including the cost ofclearing and preparing land, and theconstruction of roads and bridges – incurred
within five years of date of project approval.

•

Qualifying capital expenditure: this provides
private companies undertaking forest plantation
projects to offset qualifying capital expenditures,such as in the clearing and preparation of land,
the planting of timber seedlings, the provisionof plant and machinery, the building of accessroads and bridges and the construction orpurchase of buildings against income from thecompany’s other business sources. Expenditure
may be for the preparation of a forest
management plan and an environmental impact
assessment; fees related to the procurement oftimber certification; and enrichment planting,silviculture, pest and disease control and fire
management.

•

Soft loans: private companies may obtain loans
to develop forest plantations, where upon
harvesting the matured trees the companies
must repay the government at 3.5% interest.

•

Infrastructure allowance: logging companies
located in the Eastern Corridor of Peninsular
Malaysia and in Sabah and Sarawak can beconsidered for a 100% allowance for five years
on expenditure incurred in the development of
infrastructure such as bridges, jetties, power
stations, ports, connecting roads and electricity
cables.

•Incentives for research and development: forest
concessionaires that undertake research anddevelopment activities to enhance SFM are
eligible for incentives such as deductions on

research and development expenditure andexemption from import duty and sales tax on
machinery and equipment used in research anddevelopment.
•

Incentives for training: forest concessionaires canclaim deductions for the training of staff.

In addition to federal incentives and provisions
under the National Forestry Act (1984), the state
governments of Peninsular Malaysia set royalty rates
for various timber species to encourage the greateruse of lesser-used species and small-diameter logs.
Each of the states also has a forest development
fund that can be used:•

For the preparation of state forest management
plans.

•For the preparation and implementation offorest restoration plans.

•

For the preparation and implementation ofprograms related to amenity forests.

•

To meet expenses incurred in theimplementation of reforestation plans in theevent of a licensee failing to do so.

In 2008, total government funding available forforest management, administration, research andhuman resource development at the national andsub-national (Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah andSarawak) levels was about US$139 million.a This
amount does not include grants or loans frominternational development partners and private
sources.
The National Timber Industry Policy 2009–2020
was launched in February 2009 with the aim ofchanging the character of the industry from being acommodity producer to a manufacturer of globallysold high-value products. By 2020, the policy
foresees that 60% of the value of exports will bederived from further-processed timber products(Malaysian Timber Council 2009).
Institutions involved in forests. The Forestry
Department Headquarters, Peninsular Malaysia, is
responsible for overall forest-sector planning, forest
management, forest development and operational
studies, the provision of technical advice andservices, and staff training in Peninsular Malaysia.
The individual state forestry departments in
Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah are responsible forthe administration, management and developmentof forest resources, the regulation of forest

199

Status of tropical forest management 2011

harvesting, the collection of forest revenue, andthe planning and coordination of the developmentof wood-based industries in their respective states.
In Sarawak, these functions are carried out by theSarawak Forestry Corporation, while the Forestry
Department is vested with regulatory functions.
Apart from the forestry departments there are
a number of specialized institutions, including
the Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, theMalaysian Timber Industry Board (MTIB), theMalaysian Timber Council, the Malaysian Timber
Certification Council (MTCC), and university
forestry faculties.
In total, about 8700 personnel work in government
to support forest management. Of these, nearly
500 (170 in Peninsular Malaysia, 126 in Sabah
and 200 in Sarawak) have a university or technicalqualification.a
The implementation of the NFP, the 1998 National
Policy on Biological Diversity and matters relating
to the upstream activities of the forest sector are
under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environment. Timber and otherdownstream activities of the sector, including
processing, manufacturing, marketing, trade,
export and international cooperation are under
the responsibility of the Ministry of Plantation
Industries and Commodities, which replaced
the Ministry of Primary Industries in 2004.
Within each state, consultative committees at thevillage, Mukim and district levels enable public
participation in forest management.
The forest industry is strongly involved at both thefederal and state levels through, for example, theMTIB, the Malaysian Timber Council, the Sarawak
Timber Industry Development Corporation, theSabah Timber Association, the Sarawak Timber
Association and other associations.

Status of forest management
Forest for production
Malaysian forest policy emphasizes the sustainable
management of forests and the balance between
protection and production. Regulations are set
out in codes of forest practice, forest harvesting
guidelines and standard road specifications for thecountry’s three broad forest types (dry inland forest,
peat swamp forest, and mangrove forest). These
specify, in detail, the silvicultural and harvesting200

steps to be followed. Reduced impact logging andhelicopter logging are being carried out with anemphasis on reducing environmental impact and(for the latter) on timber harvesting in terrain andconditions that preclude ground-based systems.
The Logfisher winch system, a Malaysian-developed
technology for extracting logs on level terrain withthe minimal use of tractors, has been deployed in
one FMU.a
In Peninsular Malaysia, a forest management plan isprepared for each FMU covering a ten-year periodwith a review in the fifth year; it is designed to act
as a master plan for the long term and is creditedwith being instrumental in the achievement of
SFM.a It serves as the basis for the preparation of
five-year working plans at the forest district level
and annual operating plans at both the district and
FMU levels.
In Sarawak, each concession has its own forest
management plan, which is a legal document
and an integral part of the forest timber licence.
It is revised periodically to take into accountnew information and requirements. The forest
management plan sets out how harvesting should be
conducted in the concession, including the species
to be removed; the minimum diameter cutting
limit; the annual harvest areas; and the volumeof timber allowed. It also prescribes the penalties
for damaging residual trees and includes a forest
engineering plan.
As of 2009 there were eleven forest management
plans in Peninsular Malaysia (one each for theeleven FMUs there), 24 in Sabah and 64 in
Sarawak. In total, these 99 forest management plansaccounted for 9.91 million hectares of the PFE.a
All timber harvesting and related management
operations are carried out by contractors operatingon the basis of either a long-term logging agreement(i.e. 100 years) or a short-term licence (i.e. 1–2
years for 0–1000 hectares). Large concessions arenormally granted under legally binding agreements;
these are often tied to wood-based industries andsome cover periods of up to 30 years. Logging
licences generally stipulate size limits, intensity of
extraction, logging sequence, methods of treatment,
transport routes, standards of road construction,
etc.
The sustainable level of timber harvesting in
natural forests is based on an AAC (calculated

MALAYSIA

on the basis of harvest area rather than volume
extracted) approved by the government. In brief,
the calculation of the AAC involves an estimateof the net productive area of the production PFE(i.e. the production PFE less forest plantations
and unproductive areas such as rivers, roads andelectricity transmission lines), which is then divided
by 30 years, which is the length of the cutting
cycle under the Selective Management System(SMS). The total AAC in the production PFE
was 266 940 hectares for the period 2006–2010,
comprising 36 940 hectares in Peninsular Malaysia,
60 000 hectares in Sabah, and 170 000 hectares inSarawak. The average area harvested annually in thethree-year period 2006–08 was 33 001 hectares in
Peninsular Malaysia, 76 876 hectares in Sabah and154 694 hectares in Sarawak.a,b
Silviculture and species selection. The silvicultural
system used for managing Malaysian dry inland
forests has changed over the years. Regeneration
improvement felling was replaced by the Malayan
Uniform System in the 1950s; these two mainly
applied to lowland forest. The SMS was introduced
in 1978 as logging moved into the hill dipterocarp
forests and as advances in wood-processing
technology rendered marketable many species thatwere previously not so.
In Peninsular Malaysia, the dry inland forests aremanaged under two management systems: theModified Malayan Uniform System and the SMS.
Under the Modified Malayan Uniform System, themature crop may be removed in a single felling of
all trees down to 45 cm dbh for all species. Under
the SMS, the current cutting limit prescribed for
dipterocarp species is 65 cm dbh, that prescribed fornon-dipterocarps is 55 cm dbh, and the maximum
permitted harvested volume is 85 m3/hectare.

In Sabah, dry inland forests are harvested selectively
based on a 50-year cutting cycle in which only trees
greater than 60 cm dbh may be removed.
In Sarawak, the cutting cycle prescribed for dry
inland forest is 25 years and the prescribed cutting
limits for dipterocarp and non-dipterocarp species is
60 cm dbh and 45 cm dbh, respectively. An averageof 7–9 trees are harvested per hectare, and theaverage volume removed per hectare is 54 m3.
Peat swamp forest in Peninsular Malaysia ismanaged under a modified SMS in which higher
cutting limits apply due to a lower stocking of
natural regeneration in the stand. The minimum
cutting limit prescribed for dipterocarp species is 60
cm dbh and that prescribed for non-dipterocarps,
including ramin, is 50 cm dbh. In Sarawak the
cutting cycle for peat swamp forest is 45 years. The
prescribed cutting limit is 40 cm dbh for ramin and50 cm dbh for other species.
Only merchantable trees (up to about ten trees per
hectare) may be harvested. Post-harvest treatments
concentrate on assessing the condition of the crop
after logging and measures for the rehabilitationand enhancement of the crop determined according
to its condition at the time. By the end of 2003,
2.1 million hectares of logged-over forests had beentreated silviculturally and an additional 50 000
hectares had been enriched with native species(ITTO 2006).
More than 120 species are used for timber
production. Table 4 shows the most important
species or species groups harvested in Peninsular
Malaysia, and their average harvested volumes. The
most important harvested species in Sarawak aregrouped by common name: dark red meranti,

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood, Peninsular Malaysia
Species

Average annual harvest (average production
2006–08), PFE and non-PFE combined

Red meranti**,‡ (Shorea parvifolia, S. macroptera and other Shorea
spp)
Dark red meranti**,‡ (Shorea pauciflora, S. curtusii and other
Shorea spp)
Keruing‡ (Dipterocarpus spp)
Kempas (Koompassia malaccencis)
Balau† (S. kunstleri, S. guiso, S. collina, S. ochrophloia and other
Shorea species)

838 000 m3.

**‡†
Source:657 000 m3.
562 000 m3.
385 000 m3.
218 000 m3.

Red and dark red meranti are distinguished by their specific gravities: 0.38–0.58 for red meranti and >0.58 for dark red meranti.
Also listed in ITTO (2006).
Comprising red and yellow balau.
Government of Malaysia (2009).

201

Status of tropical forest management 2011

selangan batu (also known as balau), yellow
meranti, light red meranti, and kapur.a
Planted forest and trees outside the forest. In
2009, the total area of planted forest for marketabletimber was 620 000 hectares, of which 539 000
hectares were inside the PFE (Thang, H.C.,
pers. comm., 2010). There were also about 5.86
million hectares of commercial agricultural tree
plantations in 2009 – comprising oil palm (4.69
million hectares), rubber (1.06 million hectares)
and coconut (114 000 hectares) (Government of
Malaysia 2010). Many of these, especially rubber,
are also used for wood production.
The main species planted in Peninsular Malaysia are
Acacia mangium, Tectona grandis, Azadirachta excels,
Hevea braziliensis (timber latex clones) and Pinus
carribaea. The main species in Sabah are Acacia
spp, Albizia falcataria, Gmelina arborea, Eucalyptus
grandis, Tectona grandis and Hevea braziliensis(timber latex clones). In Sarawak the main species
planted are Acacia spp, Albizia falcataria, Eucalyptus
spp and Anthocephalus cadamba.
In Sarawak, 2.4 million hectares have been set
aside since 1998 and 39 licences for planted forests
have been awarded to the private sector for thedevelopment of forest plantations of exotic andnative tree species (Thang, H.C., pers. comm.,
2010).
Forest certification. In 2008 the MTCS
began operating as part of a new institutionalarrangement, whereby the MTCC continues toplay the role of the national governing body for thenational certification scheme and the independent
assessors become certification bodies, which receiveand process applications for certification, conduct
assessments and make decisions on awarding
certificates for forest management and/or chainof custody. The certification bodies are required
to be accredited by the Department of Standards
Malaysia, the national accreditation body in
Malaysia (MTCC 2010). In May 2009 the MTCS
was endorsed by the PEFC Council after meeting
its requirements; the endorsement is valid for five
years. The MTCS uses the PEFC International
Chain of Custody standard for the purposes ofchain-of-custody certification.
As of April 2010, ten Certificates for Forest
Management (Natural Forest) had been issued
by either the PEFC or the MTCS to FMUs
covering 4.953 million hectares, which was 48%

202of the natural-forest production PFE. Eight of thecertified FMUs (Kelantan, Kedah, Johor, Negeri
Sembilan, Pahang, Perak, Selangor and Terengganu)
are in Peninsular Malaysia, and the other two are
the Anap-Muput FMU in Sarawak and the Segaliud
Lokan FMU in Sabah (Thang, H.C., pers. comm.,
2010). In addition, as of May 2010 the FSC had
certified five FMUs totalling 203 842 hectares:
the KPKKT concession at Dungun (108 900
hectares of natural forest), Asiaprima (4884 hectaresof plantation), the Perak State Development
Corporation (9000 hectares of natural forest),
Sabah Softwoods (25 919 hectares of plantation),and the Sabah Forestry Department (55 139
hectares of natural forest at Deramakot) (FSC2010). The first three of these are in Peninsular
Malaysia and are already counted as certified
under the MTCS/PEFC schemes. An additional
301 202 hectares in Sarawak are verified at the
Verification of Origin stage of SGS’s TLTV scheme,
while 288 623 hectares in Sabah are verified under
SmartWood’s Verification of Legal Origin schemeand 188 520 hectares, also in Sabah, are verified
under the SmartWood’s Verification of Legal
Compliance scheme (Thang, H.C., pers. comm.,
2010).
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. Data presented below(see ‘timber production and trade’) suggest that asustainable harvest is still to be achieved in Sarawak:
by 2020 the allowable cut is predicted to decline
by 30% over 2006 levels, mostly as a result of adecrease in the timber harvest outside the PFE.
In Sabah, the cutting cycle is 50 years (twice thelength of the cutting cycle in Sarawak) and theofficial AAC is not being exceeded. This is anencouraging sign for the sustainable managementof Sabah’s production PFE, although the overall
harvest in that state is still expected to decline by2020 as a more conservative harvesting regime takes
effect. Most production PFE in Peninsular Malaysia
has been certified and a high-quality monitoring
regime is in place.
On the basis of an estimate provided by theGovernment of Malaysia, FAO (2010a) reported
that 14.3 million hectares of natural forest were
under SFM, which was the entire PFE identified
in that report. Nevertheless, a lack of clear
information on the status of forest managementin parts of the country suggests that a degree ofcaution is warranted. The area of natural-forest

MALAYSIA

production PFE under SFM in 2010 is therefore
estimated to be at least 5.95 million hectares,
comprising the total area certified by the MTCS
or the PEFC, the concession at Deramakot in
Sabah, the 778 345 hectares of forest in Sabah andSarawak with controlled-wood certification, and the
162 000-hectare Bintulu Model Forest in Sarawak(Table 5). More than 50% of the natural-forest
production PFE is certified.
Timber production and trade. Total Malaysianindustrial log production was 18.0 million m3(mostly from natural forests) in 2009, down from
24.7 million m3 in 2004 (ITTO 2011); in 1990 theestimated total industrial log production was 39.1
million m3 (ITTO 1995). In the period 2011–15,
total annual log production is projected to be
29.2 million m3. Production from natural forests
will decline to 15.5 million m3 but the harvest fromforest plantations will grow to 11.8 million m3,
with most of the expansion occurring in Sarawak(and 1.90 million m3 will also be harvested inrubber plantations). In the period 2016–2020,
annual natural forest production will decline to11.5 million m3, while production from plantations
will increase to 16.1 million m3. Thus, annual
log production from natural forests is expected to
decline from 19.3 million m3 per year in 2006 to
11.5 million m3 in 2020, but total log production(i.e. from natural and planted forests combined)
will increase. Over the period, the decline in annual
log production in the PFE in Peninsular Malaysia,
Sabah and Sarawak will be due mainly to theintroduction of more conservative forest-harvesting
practices and stringent enforcement.a Most of the
projected decline in natural-forest production in
Sarawak (from 11.5 million m3 per year in 2006–10
to 8.0 million m3 per year in 2016–2020) is due
to a reduction in log production from non-PFE
natural forests. There will be a slight reduction in
the harvest in the PFE, from 8.5 million m3 to
8.0 million m3.b

Log exports fell from 6.73 million m3 in 1999 to
4.37 million m3 in 2009 (ITTO 2011), continuinga downward trend since 1990, when exports
were estimated at 20.3 million m3 (ITTO 1995).
Sawnwood production fell from 5.24 million m3 in1999 to 4.49 million m3 in 2009 (ITTO 2011).
The main wood-based industries are sawmilling,wood-based panel products, wood moulding
and furniture manufacture. The contributionof wood-based products to export earnings issignificant: in 2008, for example, the export ofwooden furniture from Malaysia was valued atmore than US$2 billion and the value of plywood
exports was nearly US$1.9 billion.a The total valueof all wood-based product exports in 2008 was
US$6.6 billion.b
Non-timber forest products. The fourth national
forest inventory, completed in 2007, contained dataon some NTFPs in Peninsular Malaysia. However,the Government of Malaysia’s submission for thisreport included little information on NTFPs.a In
Peninsular Malaysia, about 35 000 m3 of rattan and
300 000 m3 of bamboo are harvested each year. The
combined value of rattan furniture exports from
Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah was just over
US$10 million in 2008.a In 2005 the harvest of
agarwood was valued at 92 million ringgit and theharvest of birds’ nests was worth 22 million ringgit(FAO 2010a).
Forest carbon. Forest carbon loss is linked
mainly to the planned conversion of non-PFE
to commercial crops, in particular oil palm, andto intensive logging, particularly in Sarawak. An
estimated 4036 MtC are stored in Malaysia’s forests(PFE and non-PFE combined), comprising 2831
MtC in above-ground biomass, 679 million tonnes
in below-ground biomass, and 526 MtC in deadwood.a Gibbs et al. (2007) estimated nationallevel forest biomass carbon stock in the range
2405–4625 MtC, and FAO (2010b) estimatedit at 3212 MtC. Malaysia’s potential to conserve

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)
Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

11 200
10 298

6790
9910

*
**

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
11 2009910

Certified

4620
5228**

Sustainably
managed

Total

4790

183

5950

539

PlantedCertifiedWith
management
plans
183
183
539

35

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Includes an area of 223 000 hectares with FSC controlled-wood certification.

203

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)% forestwithcanopycover >60%

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

2405–4625

79+

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
sink capacity monitoring
capacity
to 2030+++++

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity

Importance Engagementinof forest
international
fire/
REDD+
biomass
processes
burning+++++ high; ++ medium; + low; estimate of national forest carbon based on Gibbs et al (2007); estimate of % total forest with canopy cover>60% based on UNEP-WCMC (2010).

the existing forest carbon stock is high (Table 6).
Nonetheless, Malaysia is one of the few tropicalforest countries not yet engaged in major REDD+
activity (as of November 2010).

ramin (UNEP-WCMC 2011).
Protective measures in production forests. In
the production PFE, no logging is allowed in areas
higher than 1000 m above sea level or on slopes
greater than 25 degrees. In Peninsular Malaysia,
there are procedures designed to specifically reducethe impact of logging on soil and water values.
Implementation is monitored by an internal
auditing team and, in certified forests, by thirdparty assessors auditing for compliance with the
Malaysian C&I or the FSC’s PCI.a

Forest for protection
Soil and water. An estimated 5.197 million
hectares of forest are managed primarily for theprotection of soil and water (designated ‘water
catchment forest’).a Of this, about 3.58 million
hectares are in the protection PFE.
Biological diversity. Malaysia is one of the twelve
megadiverse countries. It is estimated to have
12 500 species of flowering plants and more than
1100 species of ferns. In Peninsular Malaysia, 26%of tree species are endemic. Sabah and Sarawak are
key areas of endemism. The fauna is consideredeven richer than the flora: it includes 300
mammals, 750 birds, 350 reptiles, 165 amphibians,
more than 300 freshwater fish and 1040 butterflies.
Of Malaysia’s estimated 19 335 forest-dependent
species, 72 mammals (including the orang utan,
proboscis monkey, Sumatran rhinoceros, sun bearand clouded leopard), 542 birds, seven amphibians
and 29 butterflies are considered endangered.a

Extent of protected areas. Of the total PFE, 3.58
million hectares can be classified as protection
forest. According to UNEP-WCMC (2010) 1.98
million hectares of forest are in reserves classified in
IUCN protected-area categories I–IV. One million
hectares of protection PFE are located in Sarawak.
The management of the Lanjak-Entimau Wildlife
Sanctuary, which covers 187 000 hectares, benefited
from a long-running ITTO-funded project,while the extended Pulong Tau National Park
(covering 165 000 hectares) is also the subject of an
ITTO-funded project. The 434 000-hectare Taman
Negara National Park, which straddles the statesof Pahang, Terengganu and Kelantan in Peninsular
Malaysia, was established in 1939 and is managed
by the Department of Wildlife and National Parks
Peninsular Malaysia.

Sixty-five mammals, 34 birds, 46 amphibians, two
reptiles, six arthropods, 30 molluscs and 19 plants
found in forests are listed as critically endangered,endangered or vulnerable on the IUCN red list of
threatened species (IUCN 2011). Twenty plant
species that occur in Malaysia are listed in CITES
Appendix I and 734 in Appendix II, including

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. The area of protection
PFE under sustainable management is estimatedat 3.58 million hectares (Table 7), the total area

Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)
Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

3210
3579

1400
1980

3210
3579

3210
3579

3210
3579

*

204

As reported in ITTO (2006).

MALAYSIA

of protection PFE. Protected forest areas outside
the PFE may also be so managed but data were
unavailable for this report.

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. The forest sector in Malaysia
directly contributed about US$2.88 billion to the
Malaysian economy in 2008 (up from US$2.33
billion in 2003), which was about 1.3% of GDP(down from 1.9% in 2003).a In 2008 about
167 000 people were employed directly in timber
harvesting and primary processing (the lattercomprising sawmills and plywood and veneer
mills), and another 19 400 were employed inother wood-processing factories.a,b In Peninsular
Malaysia, the 31 750 people estimated to be
employed in timber harvesting and primaryprocessing comprised 26 865 males and 7255
females.a About 2000 people are employed in the
management of protected areas (FAO 2010a). In
2005, government revenues from the forest sector
were estimated at 1.6 billion ringgit and total public
expenditure was estimated at 373 million ringgit(ibid.).
Livelihood values. The rights of Indigenous
communities for the subsistence use of forest
products are recognized officially. Timber
concessionaires are required to designate
community-use zones within licensed forest areas.
Sabah’s licensing agreements for concessionaires
include local communities in the classificationof forest areas. In Sarawak, the law allows
community access rights to collect forest products
for subsistence. Sago palm (Eugeissona utilis andMetroxylon spp), meat, fish, wild honey andmushrooms are collected, as are medicinal plants,
dart poison, birds’ nests, rattan and bamboo.
Social relations. As part of the requirements ofcertification under the Malaysian C&I (2002),
consultations before, during and after logging
on the impacts of logging are carried out withlocal communities via questionnaires. Several
mechanisms exist for resolving disputes between
forest stakeholders, including village development
and security committees, Mukim coordinationcommittees, district action committees, stateworking committees, state development/action
committees, and state executive councils.
In Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah, about 76 600
hectares of forest are designated as community

forests, in which local people may pursue traditionaland subsistence uses. Peninsular Malaysia also has
just over 17 000 hectares of forested ‘Indigenous
peoples reserves’.a
Logging in forest areas claimed by Indigenous
communities has created conflicts between timber
operators and local communities, particularly in
Sarawak involving the Penan. In 2007, people
living in Sarawak’s Long Benalih community
blockaded a logging track in the area. This dispute
was investigated by the Human Rights Commissionof Malaysia, Suhakam (Suhakam 2007), whichconcluded that “despite efforts by numerousorganisations and continuous recommendations to
the Government, the Community seems nowhere
near to achieving its perceived rights to ancestralland, or to economic and social development.
Urgent steps have to be taken to ensure that
State laws do not deprive the Penan of inherent
rights without adequate compensation andalternative resettlement areas”. Suhakam (2007)
further concluded that there was “a need for theGovernment to balance the country’s economic
development and exploitation of resources with thepromotion and protection of basic human rights
of its citizens, especially, those as vulnerable as thePenan”.

Summary
Malaysia’s forests are generally well managed,
and there is a well-defined and demarcated PFE.
Forests are managed by the states and there aredifferences in the approach to SFM between Sabah
and Sarawak and states in Peninsular Malaysia.
Generally the quality of information about theforest sector is high, although it varies by state,
and relatively little information on Sarawak wasavailable for this report. There has been little change
in forest-related policies since 2005, although anational timber industry policy launched in 2009
aims to encourage further processing. More than
50% of the natural-forest production PFE has
been certified, mainly under the Malaysian Timber
Certification Scheme. The forest sector plays animportant role in the Malaysian economy and is asignificant employer. A large part of the furniture
manufacturing sector is based on rubberwood,
which is grown in plantations, while much of
the harvest in natural forests is still exported as
plywood, sawnwood and logs. Well-organized andresourced forest administrations at both federal

205

Status of tropical forest management 2011

and state levels have the capacity to ensure thatconcessionaires adhere to prescribed practices
and to oversee the long-term management of theresource.

Key points
•

•

•

•

•

Malaysia has an estimated PFE of 14.4 million
hectares (compared with 14.6 hectares in 2005),
comprising 10.3 million hectares of natural
production forest (down from 11.2 million
hectares in 2005), 3.58 million hectares ofprotection forest (compared with 3.21 million
hectares in 2005) and 539 000 hectares ofplanted forest (compared with 183 000 hectares
in 2005).
An estimated 5.95 million hectares of the
production PFE is under SFM; 5.23 million
hectares of the natural production PFE and35 000 hectares of the planted-forest PFE arecertified. Progress in certification is advanced in
Peninsular Malaysia but less so in Sabah andSarawak.
The entire protection PFE is considered to beunder management that is consistent withsustainability.

FAO (2010b). Forests and Climate Change in the Asia-PacificRegion. Forests and Climate Change Working Paper 7. FAO,
Rome, Italy.
FSC (2010, website accessed April 2010). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).
Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007). Monitoringand estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDDa reality. Environmental Research Letters No. 2 (available at
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Government of Malaysia (2009). Report of progress towardachieving sustainable forest management in Malaysia.
Submission to ITTO by the Ministry of Plantation
Industries and Commodities, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Unpublished.
Government of Malaysia (2010). Yearbook of Statistics Malaysia
2009. Department of Statistics, Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
IPCC (2010, website accessed December 2010).The regional
impacts of climate change. Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (available at http://www.grida.no/
publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/climate/ipcc/regional/281.
htm).
ITTO (1999). Annual Review and Assessment of the World Timber
Situation 1998. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2011, website accessed March 2011). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).

The harvest in natural forests is declining andwill continue to decline until at least 2020. The
shortfall in production from natural forests is
expected to be met by planted forests, especiallyin Sarawak. The forest sector in Malaysia
contributed about US$2.88 billion to the
Malaysian economy in 2008.

IUCN (2011, website accessed March 2011). IUCN red list of
threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).

There remains a need to better address theconcerns and land claims of Indigenous
communities, especially the Penan in Sarawak.

Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World Atlas ofMangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.

Endnotes

Malaysian Timber Council (2009). Blueprint for growth:
Malaysia’s National Timber Industry Policy (NATIP)
launched. Timber Malaysia 15:1, Jan–Feb 2009.
MTCC (2010, website accessed May 2010). Available at http://
www.mtcc.com.my.

Suhakam (2007). Penan benalih blockade issue. Suhakam, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.

aGovernment of Malaysia (2009).

UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.

b

Personal communications with officials in the Ministry of
Plantation Industries and Commodities, Government of
Malaysia, 2010.

UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. UNEPWCMC,
Cambridge, UK. Data prepared for ITTO.

References and other sources
FAO (2010a). Global forest resources assessment 2010 country
report: Malaysia (available at http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).

206

UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March
2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
January 2010). World population prospects: the 2008
revision (searchable database available at http://esa.un.org/
unpp/p2k0data.asp).

MYANMAR

Myanmarhectares (in 2006, including beach and tidal forests)
a and 33.0 million hectares.b Not all Myanmar’s

forests are tropical, but tropical and non-tropicalforests are not disaggregated in this report.

Forest resources
Myanmar lies between India and Bangladesh to
the west and Thailand, Laos and China to the eastand stretches from a latitude of 9° north in the Kra
Isthmus to about 27° north in the Himalayas. In
2010 it had an estimated population of 50.5 million
people (United Nations Population Division 2010)
and it is ranked 138th out of 182 countries in
UNDP’s Human Development Index (UNDP2009). Rainfall varies from 500 to 5000 mm andthere is a marked dry season. Topographically,
the country varies from flat lands at sea level tosnow-capped peaks of nearly 6000 m. The total
natural forest area in Myanmar is estimated at 30.8
million hectares, which is 45% of the total landarea (FAO 2010). The Government of Myanmar
reported total natural forest areas of 35.4 million

Forest types. Because of its wide geographicalspread, Myanmar’s forests are very varied.
Important forest types are mixed deciduous forest(38% of the total forest area); hill evergreen
forest (25%); evergreen (16%); dry forest (10%);deciduous dipterocarp forest (5%); and tidal, beach,dune and swamp forest (4%).a Tectona grandis(teak) is found in mixed deciduous forest andthe economically most appreciated teak varieties
mainly grow in moist upper mixed deciduous
forest. Of the world’s 19 million hectares of natural
teak forests, more than 16 million hectares are
in Myanmar. Mangroves cover about 0.5 million
hectares along nearly the entire coast. However,they are disappearing faster in Myanmar than in
any neighbouring country (Spalding et al. 2010).
Permanent forest estate. In ITTO (2006) the
country’s PFE was estimated at 13.7 million
hectares (Table 1), comprising 10.4 million hectaresof production forest (including 710 000 hectares ofplantations) and 3.3 million hectares of protection
forest. In 2010 the Government of Myanmar
reported its PFE to comprise 15.8 million hectaresof production forest and 5.33 million hectares ofprotection forest; this is the total area under thejurisdiction of the Forest Law (and “may include
non-forest areas”).b In this report the production
PFE is assumed to be the total area of designatedreserved and public protected forests and the total
area of planted forests. The total area of forest

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reporting year

2005*
2010
*
**

‡

†

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)34.4
30.8–35.4

32 70017 500a,**

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted9700
15 800b,‡710
882b,†

3300
5330b,**

Total

13 71022 012

As reported in ITTO (2006).
This estimate, which was provided by the Government of Myanmar (2010), is similar to the estimate calculated using the ratio offorest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) and the total natural forest area estimated by FAO(2010), which is 17.8 million hectares.
Comprises the total area under the jurisdiction of the Forest Law and may include non-forest areas and also non-tropical forest.
As of 2006.

207

Status of tropical forest management 2011

designated as the protection PFE comprises alreadyannounced and proposed protected areas. It was notpossible to disaggregate tropical and non-tropical
PFE.

UNFCCC focal point and the Department ofMeteorology and Hydrology under the Ministryof Transport is overseeing the preparation of the
NAPA.

Forest ecosystem health

SFM policy framework

Deforestation and forest degradation. The
Government of Myanmar reported that no data
were available on forest conditionb, although it
was able to supply an estimate of the area of closed
forest (see Table 1). The data shown in Table 2 arefrom FAO (2010).

Forest tenure. Almost all forests are owned by
the state; they are designated as reserved forestsand public or unclassified forests, and commercial
timber and NTFPs may be extracted from bothclasses. Reserved and public forests constitute thePFE. Particular rights apply to teak: according to
the 1992 Forest Law (Chapter III), “a standing
teak tree wherever situated in the state is ownedby the state”. RRI (2009) reported that about
40 000 hectares of forest were designated for use
by communities or Indigenous groups, an increase
from zero in 2002. This area is shown in Table 3 as‘owned’ by local communities and/or Indigenous
groups, although its ownership status is unclear.
The Government of Myanmar reported in 2010that no detailed information on tenure classes wasavailable.b

Myanmar lost an estimated 1.55 million hectares(4.7%) of its forest between 2005 and 2010
and 7.44 million hectares (19%) between 1990
and 2010 (FAO 2010). Global Witness (2009)
reported that, since 2006, deforestation to makeway for sugar cane, tapioca, castor oil and rubber
plantations has become one of the biggest threats to
Myanmar’s northern frontier forests.
According to the Government of Myanmar, about
half the total forest estate (17.5 million hectares)
comprised closed forest and the remainder (15.5
million hectares) consisted of open forest.b
Vulnerability of forests to climate change.
Given its exposure to the monsoon, Myanmar isparticularly vulnerable to the effects of climate
variability, such as drought, inundation andtropical storms. A rise in sea-level would have amajor impact on the well-populated coastal zone.
Myanmar is preparing a NAPA with support from
UNEP-WCMC; it will likely include the protection
and restoration of mangrove forests as a priority.
The National Commission for Environmental
Affairs under the Ministry of Forestry is Myanmar’s

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

State ownership (national,
state or provincial
government)
Other public entities (e.g.
municipalities, villages)
Total public
Owned by local communities
and/or Indigenous groups
Privately owned by individuals,
firms, other corporate

Total area

Of which
PFE’000 ha33 300-0-33 30041-

0-Source: FAO (2010).

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE
Area of primary
forest-

Non-PFE’000-

Area of degradedprimary forest
Area of secondary
forestArea of degraded
forest land

-

-

0

-

-

27 593*--0*‘Other naturally regenerated forest’.
Source: FAO (2010).

208

Total
3192

Criteria and indicators. Identification of
Myanmar’s C&I for SFM at both national and
FMU levels was completed in October 1999 andformally approved by the Ministry of Forestry.
Myanmar’s C&I, which are based on the 1998
version of ITTO’s C&I, comprise seven criteria;
there are 78 indicators and 257 required activities
at the national level and 73 indicators and 217
activities at the FMU level, together with standardsof performance for each activity. The Forest
Department has been testing the adequacy andapplication of Myanmar’s C&I at the FMU level.

MYANMAR

Nevertheless, Myanmar’s submission to ITTO for
this report was not in the ITTO C&I reporting
format.aForest policy and legislation. There has beenno significant change in Myanmar’s forest-related
policies and laws since 2005.a
Myanmar was once a province of British India,
and the 1894 Indian Forest Policy guided forest
management until the Burma Forest Act wasenacted in 1902; this, in turn, was replaced by the
Forest Law (1992). Other regulations such as theForest Rules and the National Code of Practicefor Forest Harvesting (promulgated in 2000)
also help guide forest management. The national
forest policy, developed in 1995, focuses on theprotection of soils, water, vegetation and wildlife;
the sustainability of forest resources; satisfying thebasic needs of the people; efficiency in harnessing
the full economic potential of the forests; people’s
participation in forest management and biodiversity
conservation; and raising the awareness of thepeople and decision-makers in forestry.a The
Wildlife Protection Act (1936) was replaced by
the Protection of Wildlife and Wild Plants andConservation of Natural Areas Law (1994).
The Forest Rules, originally prescribed in 1902,
were replaced by a new set in 1995, issued by the
Ministry of Forestry, to facilitate implementationof the Forest Law (1992). The new set of rules
emphasizes the increased formation and protectionof reserved forests and protected public forests,
the sharing of forest management responsibility
with local communities, the establishment of
fast-growing plantations on degraded forest lands
to conserve soil, water and biodiversity, and theharvesting of timber and other forest products in anenvironmentally sound manner.aCommunity forestry instructions were issued by the
Forest Department in 1995 to grant tree and forest
land tenurial rights to local communities for an
initial 30-year period, which is extendable.a
Institutions involved in forests. The Ministryof Forestry has primary responsibility for
implementing the forest policy, for theadministration and management of the forest
sector and, since January 2005, for environmental
protection (Global Witness 2005). The Ministryof Forestry oversees forest management andprovides guidance to the Forest Department, theMyanmar Timber Enterprise (MTE), the Dry Zone
Greening Department, the Planning and Statistics
Department, the Institute of Forestry and the
National Commission for Environmental Affairs.
The Minister of Forestry may constitute thefollowing categories of reserved forest bydemarcation on land at the disposal of government:commercial extraction reserve forest; local supply
reserved forest; watershed or catchment reserved
forest; environment and biodiversity conservation
reserved forest; and other categories of reserved
forest. The minister may also declare specific areas
as protected public forest.
The Forest Department is the main arm ofgovernment for forest-sector policy and program
implementation. The Environmental Conservation
Committee, which is headed by the Minister ofForestry, oversees the conservation of soil, water andbiodiversity. There are also government-sponsoredNGOs, such as the Forest Resource, Environment,
Development and Conservation Association; theForest Joint Venture Corporation Ltd; and theTimber Merchants’ Association.
The Forest Research Institute (FRI), located in
Yezin, is under the administrative control of the
Director-General of the Forest Department. It
has 77 researchers and 202 supporting staff. It
has published over 230 research papers, and 19
research studies in diverse fields of forestry areon-going. The main clients for FRI research are theForest Department and the Dry Zone Greening
Department. However, it has little interaction withother user agencies and, as a result, the lab-to-landtransfer of research findings is constrained.a
Collaborative research, including with research
institutes in other countries, is still being sought.
The University of Forestry has been relocated andupgraded at Yezin; it offers a Bachelor of Science inForestry, post-graduate diplomas, Masters’ degrees
in forestry and, since 2003, doctorate degrees.
There is also a technical training school at Pyin
Oo Lwin. An in-service and public training centre
supported by the Japan International Cooperation
Agency has been established at Hmawbi.
The adoption of a market economy was firstannounced in September 1988, and many private
timber companies became involved in timberindustries. For teak, however, the MTE has amonopoly on harvesting, processing and export,

209

Status of tropical forest management 2011

and the private sector is not permitted to export
logs of any species. With a view to stepping up the
manufacture of forest products and to promoteinternal and external distribution, the Forest
Products Joint Venture Corporation Ltd wasestablished by the MTE, the Forest Department
and private enterprises.
The level of decentralization is low and confinedto the delegation of powers to parallel and verticalinstitutions. Privatization and private-sector
involvement are meagre.
Participation by civil society takes place throughgovernment-sponsored NGOs such as those listed
above. ITTO (2006) reported that farmers’ andwomen’s income generation groups were being
formed with the aims of raising off-farm incomes
and helping advance SFM. No data were available
on how many such groups are currently active.b

Status of forest management
Forest for production
There are 63 FMUs in Myanmar, of which 41 arededicated to timber production. Thirty-four FMUs
are actively managed for teak and other hardwoods,
covering an area of about 470 000 hectares.b An
estimated 19.6 million hectares of forest is allocatedfor production, and a further 8.7 million hectares
is allocated for multiple-use (FAO 2010). In thenatural teak forest, mature teak trees selected for
harvesting are normally girdled and left standing
for three years before felling and extraction. Thisis done to season the timber and make it buoyant,as logs are normally transported by floating themdown rivers; in more accessible areas, mature teaktrees are felled and extracted green. The Forest
Department selects mature trees for harvesting
while the MTE is responsible for the actual
harvesting of both teak and other hardwoods. The
MTE operates 38 extraction and rafting agencies
throughout the country. Most log-skidding is doneby elephant, which has been shown to do lessdamage to the forest than machines, and wastage isless.bMechanical extraction is not favoured as it is
not considered economically feasible under the
Myanmar Selection System and is only used inlimited areas. So far, heavy equipment has beenused mainly for road construction, the loading andunloading of logs, and for transportation.b

210

The area harvested annually has averaged about
411 000 hectares in the last five years; 52% oflogging areas are under management plans or
harvesting schemes.b Logging is guided by the
National Code of Practice for Forest Harvesting,which includes detailed guidelines for work such as
the alignment and construction of extraction roads,
skid trails and stream crossings; the mapping of tree
positions; climber cutting before felling; and the
directional felling of selectively marked trees. Forest
management in general and teak management inparticular have various constraints and problems.
Timber extraction is concentrated on only a few
economically important species. This ‘creaming’ of
the forest, if unabated, will lead to the devaluationof the forests in the long run through a decreaseof valuable species. Other problems are the illegal
logging of trees for commercial use; the extensionof pasture land and swidden agriculture; andover-harvesting for fuelwood and charcoal.b
The political situation in remote areas creates anenvironment that allows wasteful and unplanned
logging and possible illegal cross-border trade.
Since 2003/04 the annual allowable cut for teakhas been 334 000 m3, but the actual harvest in the
period 2003/04–2006/07 averaged 588 000 m3
per year. The allowable cut for other hardwoods inthat period was 1.602 million m3 but the actual
cut averaged 2.113 million m3 per year. Production
exceeded the annual allowable cut because of anincrease in production in areas where insurgency
made production impossible in the past andwhere land-use change occurred for development
programs (Zaw Win Myint 2009).
Illegal logging is a challenging issue in Myanmar.
National efforts to control it are hampered by thefact that a considerable share of the timber tradeoccurs in areas under the control of minority
ethnic groups and outside of the government’s
effective reach with respect to law enforcement andpolicy implementation (Global Witness 2009).
Action against illegal logging taken by the Forest
Department includes the formation of ‘special
task forces’ for operations in specific areas, mostly
along the country’s northern and eastern borders,in close cooperation with military and police forces
and local authorities. The Forest Department has
also formulated a forest administrative unit called
a beat in each township for the conservation andprotection of forest. The beat officer is normally adeputy ranger. Nevertheless, forest law enforcement

MYANMARis hampered by a lack of legal knowledge among
Forest Department officers, a lack of cooperation
with financial and police institutions in theprosecution of offenders, and a lack of softwareand hardware for the effective detection of illegal
activities (Zaw Win Myint 2009).
In the period 2001–2009, 241 000 tonnes of illegal
timber was seized by authorities. In the 2008/09
financial year, 7093 breaches were reported, 37 600
tonnes of timber, 389 vehicles and 69 boats wereseized, and 6149 offenders were arrested (Zaw Win
Myint 2009).
In the past, the Forest Department has lacked theresources to exercise control in remote areas (Global
Witness 2003). Logging in Kachin state on theborder with China (which is outside the tropics)
has had serious environmental impacts (Global
Witness 2005). Nevertheless, the Government of
Myanmara reported that illegal logging is “almost
under control”. It has implemented the following
measures:•

Strict enforcement of the existing forest law,rules and regulations.

•

The setting up of checkpoints along the maintransport routes.

•

The inspection of logging operations to ensurethat they are carried out in accordance with theprocedures and prescribed rules and regulations.

•

The adoption of an incentive scheme for staff
and those who are actively engaged in protecting
illegal logging.

•

The forming of a partnership with theinstitutions concerned and local communities incombating illegal logging.

•

Cooperation and coordination with theneighbouring countries in fighting illegal
logging along the borders.

Global Witness (2009) reported that “log imports,
across the Burma-China land border, have fallenfrom 1 million cubic metres in 2005 to 270 000
m3 in 2008 according to Chinese import data”, due
mainly to measures put in place by the Chinese
authorities. Nevertheless, it was “probable” that
90% of that trade was still illegal (ibid.).
Silviculture and species selection. Forest
management during the colonial period was based
solely on teak. British foresters formulated andput into practice what was originally known as‘sustained yield management of teak in Myanmar’.
The Brandis Selection System, modified into the
Myanmar Selection System in 1920, is a selection
and stand improvement system, the main featureof which is to protect immature stock and assist
it to attain maturity. Forests are managed underworking plans, which generally form working
circles. The working circles consist of groups ofreserves that are divided into felling series for theconvenience of working according to drainage
and other geographical features. The fellingseries is subdivided into 30 annual coupes, which
can be further subdivided into compartments
approximately 250 hectares in size (ITTO 2006).
Each year, trees are selected for felling in coupes
and the whole felling series is therefore worked
over in a felling cycle of 30 years. Traditionally, theyield capacity of the forest is determined from dataobtained from the 10% enumeration of trees below
the felling limit carried out along with girdling
operations. Complete enumeration of teak is carriedout down to 39 cm dbh. At the time of felling, allmarketable trees that have attained the minimum
harvestable dbh are selected for cutting. The
prescribed girth size varies with the type of forest.
The dbh limit is 73 cm in good (moist) teak forestsand 63 cm in poor (dry) forests.a
Silvicultural tending is necessary to guarantee thesustainability of teak in Myanmar’s multi-species
and complex teak-bearing forests. In the absence ofsuch tending, bamboo and light-demanding species
will suppress teak regeneration. The extent to which
tending is carried out was not reported by theGovernment of Myanmar.a
The Forest Department has been undertaking thefollowing major activitiesa:•

Reservation of forest lands on up to 30% of thecountry’s total land area, up from the present
status of about 15%.

•

Establishment of forest lands in a system ofprotected areas of up to 10% of the country’s
total land area, up from the present status of
about 7%.

•

Preparation and updating of ten-year
management plans at the district level for theefficient conservation and development of theforest sector.

211

Status of tropical forest management 2011•

An initiative to introduce a ‘polluter pays’
system for the protection of forest resources.

•

The initiation and practice of establishing ‘cessmoney’ from the commercial trade of timberand other forest products.

•

Introduction of the sharing of management
responsibilities through the adoption ofcommunity participatory forestry to rehabilitate
degraded forest lands.

•

The continuation of a reforestation program at
an annual rate of about 20 000 hectares.

•

The periodical review of forest policy, legislationand institutional arrangements to keep pacewith social preference and international
priorities.

•

A continued effort to formulate and adopt
multi-sectoral national land-use policy respectedby all parties concerned.

•

A continued effort to promote the private sector
in forestry development programs withoutcompromising the carrying capacity of forest
ecosystems and the well-being of future
generations.

•

A continued effort to promote wood-basedindustries for the increased production of valueadded finished products.

•

The encouragement and liberalization of trade
and tariff policies to ensure the reasonablestability of the declared policies.

•

A continued effort to strengthen research anddevelopment activities.

•

A continued effort to promote human-resource
development and institutional capacitybuilding.

Commonly used timber species include teak, Xylia
dolabriformia, X. kerri (pyinkado), Pterocarpus
macrocarpus (padauk), Terminalia tomentosa(htauk kyant), Millettia pendula, Adina cordifolia,
Anogeissus spp, Bridelia retusa, Dalbergia oliveri,
Dipterocarpus spp, Homalium tomentosum andLagerstroemia flos-reginae. Table 4 shows the annual
harvested volume of teak and other hardwoods.
Planted forest and trees outside the forest. The
area of planted forests in 2006 was estimated at
882 000 hectares, about 373 000 hectares of whichwere teak, 62 000 hectares of which were Xylia kerri

212

Table 4 Annual harvested volume of teak and otherhardwoods, 1996–97 to 2005–06 (’000 m3)
Year

Teak

Other hardwood

Total

1996–97
1997–98
1998–99
1999–20
2000–01
2001–02
2002–03
2003–04
2004–05
2005–06

415
431
454
470
451
497
537
652
541
553

1320
1490
1560
1530
1710
2050
1930
2030
2070
2120

1735
1921
2010
2003
2164
2544
2470
2683
2612
2674

Note:
Totals might not tally due to rounding.
Source: Personal communications – see endnote b.

(pyinkado), and about 79 000 hectares of whichwere eucalypt species.b
Myanmar has a long tradition of forest plantations:teak plantations were introduced in 1856 undera taungya system. About 30 000 hectares ofplantation are established per year, including about
12 000 hectares of teak. For example, 28 300
hectares of plantation were established in 2006,
including 11 800 hectares of teak.b At this rate, thetotal planted forest area in 2010 was probably close
to 1 million hectares (although the 2006 figure isused in Table 1 and Table 5).
The Forest Department establishes four types ofplantation, of which local supply plantations andwatershed plantations especially aim to satisfy thewoodfuel demands of local communities and torehabilitate degraded watershed areas. In 2006,
483 000 hectares of the plantation estate wasdesignated for commercial production, 208 000
hectares for village supply, 72 000 hectares forindustrial use, and 118 000 hectares for watershedrehabilitation. The entire plantation estate wasbeing managed under approved management
plans.b
A Special Teak Plantation Program was launched
in 1998, structured as a series of eight consecutive
phases. Each phase, to be implemented over a
five-year period, consists of 20 plantation centres.
Each centre establishes 405 hectares of teakplantation annually, which will be clearcut after
40 years. Over 40 years, therefore, the program
will have established 324 000 hectares of teakplantation.a

MYANMARA villager gathers bamboo and wood from a nearby forest, Myanmar.

Desertification is a major environmental threat in
the dry zone of central Myanmar caused by theexcessive cutting of trees and clearing of naturalforests for farming under harsh climatic conditions.
The Dry Zone Greening Department was therefore
formed in 1997 with the task of restoring theenvironment, preventing desertification andmitigating climate change in the dry zone of central
Myanmar. Since then, the Dry Zone Greening
Department has been establishing forest plantations
in order to meet these objectives. There are 1.72
million hectares of closed forest in the dry zone,
which is about 20% of the total land area of theregion. The policy is to increase this area to 35%
by conserving and improving degraded forests andby artificially regenerating suitable sites. Therefore,
approximately 730 000 hectares of the degraded

forests will be conserved and restored by natural
means, and 323 750 hectares will be planted by
2030. In addition, about 500 000 hectares ofnatural and planted forests will be converted tocommunity forests.a
Forest certification. As of mid 2010, no forest
in Myanmar had been certified (e.g. FSC 2010).
The Timber Certification Committee (TCC) was
formed in August 1998 by the Ministry of Forestry.
Since then the TCC has been establishing links
with other timber certification bodies on a bilateralbasis, including the Malaysian Timber Certification
Council and the Indonesian Eco-labeling Institute.
The TCC is developing a timber certification
scheme that reflects Myanmar’s forest management
system, using Myanmar’s C&I as the basis of atimber certification checklist at the FMU level.a

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)
Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

9700
15 800

-

*
**
‡

-

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
9700
15 800

CertifiedSustainably
managed

Total

0
0

291
291**

710
882‡

PlantedWith
management
plans
0
882

Certified00

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Semi-natural teak forest; assuming no change since 2005.
As estimated in 2006.b

213

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. All the production PFE
is covered by management plans formulated by the
Forest Department in cooperation with the MTE(FAO 2010 and personal communications – see
endnote b), and nearly half a million hectares ofteak forest are under active management. In 2005
the area of forest under sustainable management
was estimated at 291 000 hectares, comprisingsemi-natural planted teak forest (ITTO 2006). No
information has been received for the current report
to indicate a change in this situation; therefore, the2005 estimate is assumed to apply in 2010
(Table 5).
Timber production and trade. Roundwood
production in 2005 was estimated at 43.1 million
m3, of which 39.2 million m3 (91%) was fuelwood(FAO 2010). The estimated production ofindustrial roundwood in 2009 was 4.24 million
m3, as it was in 2004 (although it was only about
3.35 million m3 in 1999; ITTO 2011). Myanmar’s
estimated production of tropical hardwood
sawnwood in 2009 was 897 000 m3, down from979 000 m3 in 2004 and up from 298 000 m3 in
1999. An estimated 1.38 million m3 of tropical
hardwood logs were exported in 2009, similar
to the 1.37 million m3 exported in 2004 (ibid.).
Major export destinations are India (reported by
the Government of India at 741 000 m3 in 2008),
China (reported by the Government of China at
462 000 m3 in 2008) and Thailand (96 600 m3 in2008). The estimated value of Myanmar’s exports
of primary timber products amounted to US$859
million in 2008, of which logs contributed US$716
million (83%) (ITTO 2010).
Non-timber forest products. Many NTFPs areused locally and marketed, the most important
being bamboo and rattan. Others, such as cutch(extracted from Acacia catechu), tannin, honeyand beeswax, pine resin and birds’ nests, are also
widely used. Forest recreation and ecotourism areimportant: eleven areas are set apart as recreation
forest (ITTO 2006).
Forest carbon. Gibbs et al. (2007) estimatedthe national-level forest biomass carbon stock in
Myanmar at 2377–5182 MtC, Eggleston et al.
(2006) estimated it at 4867 MtC and FAO (2010)
estimated it at 1654 MtC. Climate change in
general and REDD+ in particular have not been
integrated into Myanmar’s forest policies andlaws, although the need to mainstream REDD+
in national forest management plans was raised
by Myanmar at a meeting of the ASEAN Social
Forestry Network in June 2010. Myanmar’s initialnational communication to the UNFCCC is being
prepared. The Small-scale Reforestation Project inMangrove Forests of Ayarwaddy Delta, a CDM
project, was also under way in 2010 (Kyaw & San2009). To date Myanmar has not become involvedin any of the major ongoing REDD+ initiatives.
Table 6 summarizes the country’s current forest
carbon potential.

Forest for protection
Soil and water. The Government of Myanmar
reported that the total area of the PFE allocated forsoil and water and covered by management plans is21.1 million hectares.b This is a massive increase to
the area reported in ITTO (2006) and is likely due
to differences in interpretation.
In response to a request by the Ministry ofAgriculture and Irrigation, the Forestry Department
has proposed a special project to rehabilitate thewatersheds of 53 important reservoirs. The total
watershed area of these 53 reservoirs is about 3.6
million hectares and the project is establishingabout 4900 hectares of plantation per year.a
Biological diversity. Myanmar is one of themost biologically diverse countries in mainland
Southeast Asia, with about 11 800 plant species
recorded to date, 1071 of which are endemic.
There are also over 1000 species of birds, more

Table 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)% forestwithcanopycover >60%

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

2377–5182

58+++

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
sink capacity monitoring
capacity
to 2030+++

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

Importance Engagementinof forest
international
fire/
REDD+
biomass
processes
burning++++ high; ++ medium; + low; estimate of national forest carbon based on Gibbs et al. (2007); estimate of % total forest with canopy cover>60% based on UNEP-WCMC (2010).

214

MYANMAR

Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)*

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

3300
5330

195
1370

6560
21 1005330-

As reported in ITTO (2006).

than 300 species of mammal (including the Asianelephant, tiger, Thamin deer, Ayeyarwady dolphin
and guar) and 400 reptile and amphibian species.
Myanmar has the most diverse snake fauna in theold-world tropics, and it has the world’s fifth-richest
assemblage of swallow-tail butterflies (68 recorded
species). Forty-one mammals, 27 birds, one reptile
and three plants found in forests are listed as
critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable on
the IUCN red list of threatened species (IUCN
2011). Nine plants are listed in CITES Appendix
I, 158 in Appendix II and two in Appendix III(UNEP-WCMC 2011).
Protective measures in production forests.
Protective measures in production forests areprovided for in guidelines on logging, road
construction, pre- and post-logging operations,and the protection of river banks and road margins(ITTO 2006).
Extent of protected areas. There is confusion
over the extent of forested protected areas
in Myanmar. The total official extent of theprotection PFE is 5.33 million hectares, although
it is unclear how much of this is forested.b The
Government of Myanmar lists 34 protected areas
in its protected-area system (as of 2008) coveringa total area of 2.66 million hectares.b According
to UNEP-WCMC (2010), 1.37 million hectaresof forest are in protected areas that conform to
IUCN protected-area categories I–IV. According
to the Government of Myanmar (2010), all thoseforests allocated for soil and water protection arecovered by management plans. Since the protection
PFE is assumed to be a subset of those forests, all
the protection PFE is assumed to be covered bymanagement plans.
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. No information
is available on the management status of theprotection PFE (Table 7).

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. ITTO (2006) reported thatabout 30 600 people were employed by thegovernment in the forest sector, including 1400
professionals and 29 200 technical staff. Of thesestaff, 11 000 were in the Forest Department,
19 300 were in MTE and about 300 were in the
Dry Zone Greening Department.b Overall, some
500 000 people are thought to be dependent on
the forest sector for employment; the contributionof forestry to GDP was an estimated 0.4% in
2005/06.b In 2007/08 the Forest Department
spent 11.5 billion kyat on capital and operations
and generated 6.03 billion kyat in revenue. The
Department has been operating at a loss since
2000/01 (Zaw Win Myint 2009).
Livelihood values. Some 38 million people are
dependent on the forest for at least part of theirlivelihood. They have access to about 7.1 million
hectares of forest made available through the ‘local
supply working circle’.b
According to the Government of Myanmar, shifting
cultivation is a major cause of forest depletionand degradation in the country.a It is an economic
practice of the landless poor living in and aroundthe forests and also a cultural practice and way oflife. The government has developed a national-level
multi-sectoral program of highland reclamation to
encourage the upkeep of the traditional land-use
system, customary rights and cultural values. In
cooperation with other sectors, the Myanmar
Forestry Department has been pursuing a numberof strategies, including:•Community forestry based on agroforestry
systems.

•

The provision of improved technologies,
complementing traditional forest-related local
knowledge.

•

The recruitment of shifting cultivators into
routine forestry operations such as plantation
establishment.

215

Status of tropical forest management 2011•

The enhancement of income-generating
opportunities.

•

Provision of awareness-raising campaigns andextension services.a

Social relations. Community forestry instructions
were issued in late 1995 to promote and facilitatecommunity participation in managing forests.
These emphasized the management of forests
by rural communities through the protectionof natural forest and the establishment of forest
nurseries and planted forests to enable such
communities to meet their needs for fuelwood
and small-diameter timber. The instructions also
focus on the flow of benefits to those communities
participating in forest management. In 2010
there were 517 community forest agreements/
user groups, which participate in the conservationof forest resources and newly established forest
plantations.b Community forestry has a numberof problems, however, especially with regard totenure and the security of agreements reachedwith government agencies. Cross-border illegal
timber trade has reportedly fuelled ethnic tensions,entrenched power structures and created conditions
under which local warlords can thrive (Global
Witness 2005). The control of teak-planting
by government also limits the profitability ofcommunity forestry.

Summary
There appears to have been little change in theapproach to forest policy since 2005, with theForest Law (1992) still applying. Myanmar onceboasted an exemplary system of forest management,
particularly in its large area of teak forests, but
in recent decades there has been significant
deforestation and forest degradation. Deforestation
may have increased recently in the country’s
northern frontier forests. The annual allowable
cut has been exceeded in recent years, for several
reasons. Illegal logging appears to be significant,and the Forest Department has endeavoured tobring it under control by the introduction of
measures such as checkpoints along transportroutes, inspections of logging operations, and an
incentive scheme for staff. Myanmar has an active
program for establishing planted forests, includingof teak, and is also expanding its protected areasystem. The forest sector is a major employer,
and it also generates considerable export revenue

216(an estimated US$859 million in 2008), but theForest Department operates at a substantial loss.
Community forestry faces a number of challenges,
such as a lack of security of agreements reachedwith government agencies.

Key points•

Myanmar has an estimated PFE of 22.0 million
hectares (compared with 13.7 million hectares
in 2005), comprising 15.8 million hectares ofnatural production forest (compared with 9.7
million hectares in 2005), 5.33 million hectaresof protection forest (compared with 3.3 million
hectares in 2005) and 882 000 hectares ofplanted forest (compared with 710 000 hectares
in 2005).

•

The increase in estimates of the PFE are most
likely due to differences in assessment method
rather than a real increase.

•

An estimated 291 000 hectares of the
production PFE are under SFM. No forest iscertified, and no estimate was possible of theprotection PFE under SFM.

•

There are 63 FMUs in Myanmar, of which 41
are dedicated to timber production. Thirty-four
FMUs are actively managed for teak and otherhardwoods, covering an area of about 470 000
hectares.

•

Many of Myanmar’s forests are becoming
degraded, exacerbated by a lack of law
enforcement, particularly in remote regions.

EndnotesaGovernment of Myanmar (2010).

b

Personal communications with officials at the Forestry
Department, Myanmar, 2010.

References and other sources
Eggleston, H., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe,
T. (eds) (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories Programme. Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies, Kamakura, Japan.
FAO (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010
country report: Myanmar (available at http://www.fao.
org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).
FSC (2010, website accessed July 2010). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).

MYANMAR

Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007).
Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon
stocks: making REDD a reality. Environmental Research
Letters 2 (available at http://iopscience.iop.org/17489326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Global Witness (2003). A Conflict of Interests: the Uncertain
Future of Burma’s Forests. Briefing document, October
2003. Global Witness, London, UK.
Global Witness (2005). A Choice for China: Ending the
Destruction of Burma’s Northern Frontier Forests. Global
Witness, Washington, DC, United States.
Global Witness (2009). A Disharmonious Trade: China andthe Continued Destruction of Burma’s Northern Frontier
Forests. Global Witness, London, UK (available at www.
globalwitness.org/media_library_detail.php/856/en/a_disharmonious_trade_china_and_the_continued_dest).
Government of Myanmar (2010). Report of progress towardachieving sustainable forest management in Myanmar.
Submission to ITTO by the Forest Department,
Myanmar.
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005.
ITTO, Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.
int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2010). Annual Review and Assessment of the World
Timber Situation 2009. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO (2011; website accessed March 2011). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/
annual_review_output/?mode=searchdata).

RRI (2009). Who Owns the Forests of Asia? An Introduction to
the Forest Tenure Transition in Asia, 2002–2008. Rights
and Resources Initiative, Washington, DC, UnitedStates.
Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World
Atlas of Mangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. UNEP-WCMC,
Cambridge, UK. Data prepared for ITTO, 2010 (see Annex
1).

UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March
2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
March 2010). World population prospects: the 2008
revision (searchable database available at http://esa.
un.org/unpp/p2k0data.asp).
Zaw Win Myint (2009). Status of forest law enforcement
and governance (FLEG) in Myanmar. Union of
Myanmar country paper at the Asia-Pacific Regional
Workshop on Strengthening Forest Law Enforcement
and Governance (FLEG), 30 November–1 December
2009, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

IUCN (2011, website accessed March 2011). IUCN red listof threatened species (searchable database available atwww.redlist.org).
Kyaw Htun & San Oo (2009). R-PIN and REDD activities
review: Myanmar. Presentation given at the regional
workshop on forest and climate change: REDD
consultation support to asean senior officers on forestry
and UNFCCC focal points, 25–26 May 2009, Phnom
Penh, Cambodia (available at www.iddri.org/Activites/
Interventions/090525_ASEAN_REDD_Myanmar.pdf ).

217

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Papua New Guinea(20.3 million hectares), lower montane forest (8.91
million hectares), upper montane forest (702 000
hectares), swamp forest (3.4 million hectares), dryevergreen forest (750 000 hectares) and mangrove
forest (575 000 hectares). According to Spalding
et al. (2010), PNG has 426 000 hectares ofmangroves, which is 75% of all mangroves in the
Pacific.
Typical tree species in PNG forests are Terminalia
spp, Melaleuca spp and Pterocarpus spp (coastal
rainforest); species of Alstonia, Calophyllum andPometia (lowland rainforest); species of Canarium,
Celtis and Hopea (lower montane rainforest); andspecies of Araucaria, Agathis, Lithocarpus andNothofagus (in the upper montane forest). Anotherimportant species is Eucalyptus deglupta (ITTO2006).

Forest resources
Papua New Guinea (PNG) has a land area of
46.3 million hectares. Its population in 2010 was
estimated at 6.9 million people and the population
grew by about 2.37% per year in the period
2005–10 (United Nations Population Division
2010). PNG is ranked 148th out of 182 countries
in UNDP’s Human Development Index (UNDP2009).
PNG consists of over 600 islands and atolls infour major groups: the eastern half of the islandof New Guinea; New Britain; New Ireland; andBougainville. The western half of the island of New
Guinea is a province of Indonesia and, to the south,
PNG is separated from Australia by Torres Strait.
A spine of mountains, the Owen Stanley Range,
runs east to west, on both sides of which are fertile
plains, flooded deltas, mangrove swamps and broad,sandy beaches.
Shearman et al. (2008) estimated PNG’s forest areaat 33.0 million hectares in 2002, which was 71%
of the total land area (46.3 million hectares). FAO(2010) estimated the forest area at 28.6 million
hectares in 2010. The estimates of Shearman etal. (2008) and FAO (2010) are both used in thisprofile for various parameters.
Forest types. The forests are varied, stretching fromsea level to an altitude of over 4000 m. Shearman
et al. (2008) classified them as lowland rainforest

218

Permanent forest estate. There is no formallydesignated PFE in PNG. The estimate in ITTO
(2006) was made on the basis of areas set aside by
the government for timber development or reservedfor protection; that estimate also comprises the2010 estimate (Table 1). Under the 2009 Revised
National Forestry Development Guidelines, a PFE
is to be established comprising 8 million hectares ofnatural forests and 800 000 hectares of plantations.
Given the country’s forest-ownership structure,
however, it is unclear how, where or when these
forests will be secured.a

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. Shearman
et al. (2008) estimated that, in 2002, the rate offorest loss was 1.41%. They also estimated thata total of 5 million hectares of forest was cleared
between 1972 and 2002, reducing overall forest
cover from 38 million hectares to 33 million
hectares. Over the same period, 2.9 million hectaresof rainforest had become degraded, principally
due to logging. FAO (2010) estimated that forest
cover declined by 711 000 hectares (2.4%) between
2005 and 2010 and by 2.80 million hectares(8.9%) between 1990 and 2010. Extrapolatingfrom historical data, Shearman et al. (2008)
estimated that the annual rate of deforestationand forest degradation in the period 2002–06
was 0.89% and 0.82%, respectively. Shearman

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Table 1 Permanent forest estate***‡

Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

2005*
2010

30.6
28.6–33.0

30 15022 800**

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted

Total

8700
8700*

10 48010 458

80
58‡

1700
1700*

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Calculated using the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) (79.8%) and the total
natural forest area estimated by FAO (2010).
As reported by the Government of PNG (2010b). This is lower than the area reported in ITTO (2006) because rubber plantations
are excluded.

et al. (2008) estimated the total area of primary
forest at 30.1 million hectares (Table 2), but FAO(2010) estimated it at 26.2 million hectares. The
Government of Papua New Guinea did not provide
data on forest condition for this report.a

increase in the annual number of hot days andwarm nights in the region. Climate-change
projections indicate a warming trend for all small
island states involving an annual mean increase of
1.98 °C by 2050 and 2.81 °C by 2080 (ibid.).

Much of the deforestation is caused by conversion toother land uses, particularly agriculture.b Oil-palm
development, for example, has led to the rapid
clearing of forest in the West New Britain and
Milne Bay provinces, and in several other provinces
tropical forests are being similarly earmarked. Some
proposed ‘oil-palm projects’, however, are designed
mainly for log extraction, with investors with noexpertise in oil palm applying for and obtaining
permission to clear foresta and subsequently making
large profits from timber sales. Shearman et al.
(2008) blamed logging as “the major driver of
deforestation”, estimating that it was responsible
for almost half (48%) of the “total forest change”(deforestation and forest degradation) that occurredin the period 1972–2002. Fire affected about
347 000 hectares over the same period.

The Government of PNG has established the
Office of Climate Change and Environmental
Sustainability to address climate-change adaptationand mitigation. PNG’s initial communication
to the UNFCCC reported that the country will
be increasingly vulnerable to climate change incoming years. The government developed the
Climate Compatible Development Strategy in2009, which recognizes the sensitivity of PNG
to natural climate-related hazards such as coastal
flooding, inland flooding, landslides and drought
and indicated that forest and agricultural land will
be particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate
variability in coming decades.

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. Customary land ownership isguaranteed by the PNG Constitution and covers
nearly the entire country. Ninety-seven percent of
the land is held as communal or clan commons,
while the remainder is under state or individual/
private ownership. There is a large number of clans
and tribes, speaking more than 800 languages.

Vulnerability of forests to climate change. Recent
studies have shown that the annual and seasonal
ocean surface and island air temperatures in thesouthern Pacific, including PNG, have increased by
0.6–1 °C since 1910 (Government of PNG 2010a).
Over the period 1961–2003 there was a significant
Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

Total’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land--

30 1002 920-*
Note that, in this case, ‘degraded primary forest’ includes secondary forest.
Source: Shearman et al. (2008).

219

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 3 shows estimates of the area of forest owned
by clans and the state. Customary rights include
rights to all natural resources with the exception ofminerals, petroleum, water and genetic resources.
Landowner groups are legally entitled to be
involved in decisions concerning the managementof their forest land. FAO (2010) noted that a trend
is emerging in PNG where individuals are buying
land from tribal/clan groups for their individual
use, although no data were available on the extent
of this trend.
Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

State ownership (national,
state or provincial
government)
Other public entities (e.g.
municipalities, villages)
Total public
Owned by local communities
and/or Indigenous groups
Privately owned by individuals,
firms, other corporate*

Total area

Of which
PFE’000 ha

260*

-

0

-

260
25 510-0-ITTO & RRI (2009); total tenure does not equal to total
estimated forest area because of the use of different
datasets. Note that FAO (2010) estimated the area
owned by the state at 883 000 hectares and the area
owned by Indigenous communities at 28.6 million
hectares.

Criteria and indicators. The Government of PNG
did not provide data according to the ITTO C&I
reporting format for this report, stating that “PNG
has been very slow to recognize the importance of
C&I as a tool to guide the policy and operational
aspects of forest use and management. … A review
using ITTO C&I can only be possible after it
has been accepted and implemented at Forest
Management Level”.a
Forest policy and legislation. The main objectivesof PNG’s national forest policy, which was approvedin 1991, are the management and protection of thenation’s forest resources as a renewable natural asset;
and the utilization of the nation’s forest resourcesto achieve economic growth, employment, greater
Papua New Guinean participation in industry, andincreased viable in-country processing. Parallel tothe development of this policy, the National Forests
and Conservation Action Plan was formulated andofficially approved in 1996. Three policies linked
to the national forest policy were adopted in 2003:

220

the National Eco Forestry Policy; the National
Reforestation Policy; and the National Policy on
Downstream Processing of Forest Products.
The legal provisions for the implementation of therecommendations of the national forest policy arecontained in the following instruments: the Forestry
Act (1991, as amended in 2000, 2006 and 2010);
the National Forestry Development Guidelines(revised in 2009); the Planning, Monitoring andControl Procedures for Natural Forest Logging
Operations (1995); the Key Standards for Selection
Logging in Papua New Guinea (1995); the PNG
Logging Code of Practice (1996); the National
Forest Plan (1996; a draft of a new national forest
plan was prepared in May 2006); Procedures for
Exporting Logs (1996); and Forestry Regulations(1998) (amended in 2010). PNG has establisheda number of regulatory instruments to support
SFM but there are gaps in implementation. Other
legal instruments relevant to forestry are the Land
Groups Incorporation Act (1974); the PNG Labour
Law (1990); and the Environmental Act (2000).
The revised National Forestry Development
Guidelines contain the latest government policy
framework for the forest sector. These have been
approved by the National Forest Board but are yet
to be endorsed by the National Executive Council.
The guidelines provide for the establishment of a
PFE, and, as of 1 January 2010, the requirementthat “all new concessions will be for 100 percent
downstream processing”, but in other respects it
appears to differ little from the previous version of
the guidelines issued in 1993.a
The 2010 amendment to the Forestry Act (anda similar amendment to the Environment Act) is
designed to prevent landowners and third parties
from suing resource developers over environmental
problems. The amendment has been criticizedby NGOs such as Greenpeace PNG as removing“people’s rights to go to court and to protect theirresources and to protect their rights, rights to life”(Radio National 2010).
Institutions involved in forests. The PNG Forest
Authority was created in 1991 under the provisionsof the Forestry Act. In 2010 it had a staff of about
325, of whom 126 were based in Port Moresby.
Four staff had doctorate degrees, six had masters
degrees, 70 had bachelor degrees and there were
109 diploma-holders.b,c

PAPUA NEW GUINEAThe Forest Authority comprises the National
Forest Board (NFB) and the National Forest
Service (NFS). A number of regulatory andadministrative responsibilities have been delegatedto the provincial level. The NFB operates througha system of specialist advisory committees andprovincial forest management committees that areserviced by the NFS. In the five years to 2006 theannual government budget appropriations for theForest Authority averaged 23 million kina (plusaround 3 million kina for log export monitoring,which is contracted out), compared with theestimated budget request of about 52 million
kina. Box 1 sets out some of the Forest Authority’s
perceived strengths and weaknesses.

however, that PFMCs are not functioning anywhere
near an optimal level, due in part to a lack of
capacity to enforce their mandates.b
The PNG Forest Research Institute is a specialized
agency under the purview of the Forest Authority.
Its key areas of research are SFM (silviculture
and regeneration management); forest biology;
forest products; and forest protection. The PNG
Forest Research Institute ”has great potential to betransformed into a regional-class research resource”b
but is greatly under-resourced. Moreover, thefollowing issues need to be addressed:

The main function of provincial forest management
committees (PFMCs), as stipulated in the Forestry
Act, is to facilitate consultation with, and ensure
the proper involvement of, provincial governments
and customary landowners. In addition, PFMCs
are entrusted with assisting provincial governmentsin the preparation of forest plans and development
programs and in recommending to the NFB theterms of forest management agreements (FMAs– see below), the selection of operators, thepreparation of timber permits and the enforcementof timber-permit conditions. There are indications,•

There has been insufficient coordination
between the Institute and other technicaldivisions of the Forest Authority in dealing with
SFM and with ITTO’s Objective 2000 andC&I.

•

Silvicultural information on indigenous species
has been presented and made available but has
not been used for plantation development.

•

Forest product research to deal with processing
efficiency and treatment has been overlooked.

•

Measurements from permanent sampling plots
have not been analysed to provide certainty on
the future availability of resources.aBox 1 Strengths and weaknesses of the PNG Forest Authority
Strengths

Weaknesses•

It is the government’s priority economic sector agency.

••

Good policy and legal framework for achieving SFM.

•

Few funds invested in SFM by government. Much of theannual allocation is for administrative overheads and staff
salaries.
Weak implementation/enforcement of policies and laws.

•••

Positive foreign-donor support for forest sector.
Reforestation levy collected and held in trust.
Has developed key standards for logging natural forests(Planning, Monitoring and Control Procedures Manual).

•
•
•
•

Inadequate staffing levels in monitoring projects.
Lack of capacity to receive and implement aid projects.
High landowner demands and disruptions.
Poor industry–government cooperation.

••PNG Logging Code of Practice.

•

Lack of support for field staff, transport and communication
facilities for improved monitoring.
NGO-government cooperation lacking (but improving).

•

Project supervisors in the field.

•

Investment in forest plantation is almost negligent.

•

Implementation of ITTO C&I at FMA level unduly delayed.

•

Poor coordination and interface between the PNG Forest
Research Institute and NFS management.

•

Reforestation levy not enough to establish new plantations or
improve management of existing plantations.

•

Inadequate cooperation between the Department ofEnvironment and Conservation and the Forest Authority.

Source: Government of PNG (2010b).

221

Status of tropical forest management 2011

The PNG Forest Industries Association is anincorporated national association representing andpromoting the interests of the PNG forest industry.
The Association is working to forge a closer
working relationship between the Forest Authority
and industry members with regards SFM and its
various components, such as legality of source,
governance, and changing the industry’s negative
public image.a
The Department of Environment and Conservationis responsible for the administration of protectedareas and also has a monitoring role with respect toadherence to environmental regulations.
The staff of both the Forest Authority and theDepartment of Environment and Conservation,
especially those that are field-based, appear to be
overworked and under-resourced and therefore
unmotivated. Even though their work is mainly
the policing of logging operations, they lack thefacilities to do so: each field officer must attend to alarge area – often hundreds of thousands of hectares– with almost no equipment or infrastructure.b
Log shipments are monitored by SGS, which has
officers at all log export sites or projects who check
10% of all logs prior to shipment.c There is nomonitoring of sawn timber and no tracking of logs
to end-users.a The process has enabled the captureof substantial revenues by the PNG government,
but it does not provide information on the level ofsustainable practice of the timber permit-holder.b
The Land Groups Incorporated Act empowers
landowners within a group to form a single legal
body – an incorporated landowner group (ILG).
Each ILG is required to list its members and landboundaries, but the land is not usually registered in
the specific ILG name. Due to shortcomings – suchas undefined boundaries, a lack of prior informed
consent, and failure to follow formal procedures– many logging projects are implemented without
an ILG certificate. Proceeds from FMAs are paid
directly to clan agents representing landowners,
who are supposed to distribute the money amongclan members according to customary laws.
The delay in the disbursement of royalties fromthe Forest Authority to the agents, exacerbatedby disputes about land tenure, compound theinefficiency of the system. Several modifications
have been proposed and some implemented, butthere is growing criticism by landowners about theeffectiveness of the system.b222

National and international NGOs have taken a leadin the development of ecoforestry initiatives. They
also have programs to train landowners in SFM.

Status of forest management
Forest for production
According to the 1991 Forestry Act (Section 56)
the government may acquire timber rights from
customary owners pursuant to an FMA between
the customary owners and the government. The
National Forest Development Guidelines specify
that the customary land over which an FMA
has been negotiated and a timber permit issued
should be managed so as to maintain or improve
the forest’s capacity to produce timber and othercommercial forest products on a sustainedyield basis and to provide opportunities for themeaningful participation of the customary owners.
The PNG Logging Code of Practice and KeyStandards for Selective Logging in PNG also
provide specifications and prescriptions for reducing
the impact of logging.
Before the promulgation of the Forestry Act,timber rights were acquired by a process referred
to as timber rights purchase. The rights acquired
under this system were only for the harvestingof merchantable timber and did not transfer the
responsibility for forest management to the stateor concessionaires. The national forest policy
confirmed the government’s intention to proceedwith the acquisition of timber rights and to provide
for their long-term management. In an FMA the
Forest Authority secures a commitment from thecustomary landowners to follow recommended
forest management practices while simultaneously
offering investors access to the forest for aminimum of 35 years. Implementation may occur
according to one of several kinds of licence, underwhich the state manages the forest on behalf of thelandowners for the duration of the FMA. With theconsent of the landowners through an FMA, themanagement roles of the state, including timber
harvest and construction of infrastructure, may
be implemented by an investor. Management
responsibility can also be delegated to legally
established landowner companies. The FMA should
specify the returns due to the landowner.
According to the draft national forest plan, thetotal area of forests classified as production forestsis 13.75 million hectares – to which could be added

PAPUA NEW GUINEA‘reserve forests’1 and ‘salvage forests’, which could
potentially be allocated to timber production.b
This is an administrative classification, since theactual harvesting of these forests ultimately depends
on the development of FMAs between the Forest
Authority and landowner groups. FAO (2010)
estimated the total area available for production
at 8.54 million hectares, comprising production
forests and multiple-use forests.

The Forest Authority is expected to contributeto the government’s Medium Term Development
Strategy by facilitating the development ofwhat have been termed impact forest projects,
which would involve a commitment of currently
unallocated production forests. Given the lack of
capacity within the Forest Authority to oversee themanagement of existing production forest, thiswould be a cause for concern.b

The system for the awarding of FMAs is amuch-debated and frequently challenged
process and contains elements of several types ofconcession-granting modalities. Some observers
have noted that it has some of the undesirable
characteristics of its predecessors, especially withregard to the rights of customary landowners andto environmental protection provisions. There are
additional controversies and misgivings about thegeographical extension of some FMAs and theprocess of renewal of some agreements beyond
their original expiry dates. The means by which
the government, including the Forest Authority,
deals with such issues appear to be non-transparent
and non-participatory. Many FMAs have been
the subject of litigation over their validity and theextension of licences or permits.b

For some years the AAC from natural forests
has been set at about 3 million m3 based on theallowable harvest levels specified under timber
permits and FMAs. If this AAC was to be met
it would involve the harvest of about 120 000
hectares of natural forest per year.a

As of 2010, the PNG government had acquired
timber rights from customary landowners involving
about 12 million hectares of forest.a These rights
are normally allocated to foreign developers with
the necessary financial capabilities. Of the acquiredarea, an estimated 4.9 million hectares of forests
were under active timber extraction licences in
2007; of this, Rimbunan Hijau or its affiliatedcompanies had logging concessions amounting to2.55 million hectares.b
For the total forest area under active timber
extraction licences, 41 project supervisors of theForest Authority are assigned to field monitoring.
Communication is difficult between headquarters
and project supervisors. Often there is no road to
the FMA from Port Moresby, no telephones andno functioning radio communication. Government
field staff are often dependent on the contractor’stransport to access the FMA and to travel within it.b

1 There are 13.2 million hectares of ‘reserve forest’, which are forests inareas that are inaccessible by road but which can be logged using
methods such as skyline logging or helicopter logging. Such methods,
however, are not practised in PNG due to their cost and a lack ofavailable technology.c

The AAC has been set without the benefit of anational forest inventory, even though such an
inventory is stipulated in the national forest policy.
Much of the resource inventory, therefore, iscarried out speculatively – mostly by the project
proponent or permit-holder – to estimate volume,
yield, type and characteristics of the forest resource.
In 2006 the PNG Forest Research Institute wasrequested to develop a proposal for a national forest
inventory to be submitted to the Forest Authority
Forest Planning Division. However, no financial
provisions have been allocated within the National
Forest Service budget for this activity.b
Permit-holders are required to submit five-yearplans and annual plans incorporating details of theiroperations. Combined, these plans should address,
among other things, the forest management
procedures to be employed, environmental issues,
project benefits, infrastructure development(including for the community), reforestation,
employment and training, and reforestation.
However, verification procedures to ensure thatthese planned operations are achieved, as wellas independent operational and financial audits
and long-term post-logging inventories, are often
lacking.
The creaming of premium species (and the leavingof other commercial, but less-valuable, species,
which should be removed for silvicultural reasons)is not permitted but is reported to be taking place.
Re-entry to ‘closed’ logging areas is also known
to occur: both creaming and re-entry are serious
factors undermining SFM.a223

Status of tropical forest management 2011

The AAC does not take into account the timber
harvested under forest-clearance authorities for
agriculture, estimated at about 1.8 million m3 peryear.aLand leases, landowner disruptions and fiscalarrangements have not been resolved andare obstacles to the success of private-sector
partnerships in resource management.a
There is a lack of transparency in the forest
sector. For example, in the acquisition of forest
areas for FMAs the only aspect publicized is thenotice of tender; no subsequent steps related tothe acquisition and management of the FMAs or
the extension of timber rights, or the associatedfinancial assessments, are available publicly. Other
problems associated with the process of developing
FMAs include:•

The absence of an adequate national forest
inventory.

•

Controversies associated with the selection ofconcessionaires.

•

The virtually complete absence of field
monitoring.

•

Questions arising from the calculation ofrevenues and from incomplete and delayed
remittances to landowners.b

Recent amendments to the Forestry Act havemade it easier to clear forest for agriculturaland road-construction projects, placing the
responsibility for the vetting of proposals andthe selection of investors with government
agencies other than Forest Authority, such as the
Department of Agriculture and the Department ofLivestock and Works. The Forest Authority controls
the project through the issuance of forest clearance
authorities (FCAs) and renewals upon satisfactory
performance at various stages. Recently more thansix large-scale FCAs have been issued, opening theway for a huge (albeit temporary) increase in the log
harvest.a,cSilviculture and species selection. The
silvicultural system prescribed for natural forests isselective logging, involving the removal of matureand overmature trees to allow the remaining crop
to grow naturally to maturity. Even though thepre-FMA system was also described as selective
logging, all trees above the prescribed limit in a
management unit were cut over within 10–20

224

years (i.e. less than the planned felling cycle),thus consuming the resource faster than could
be sustained. Since 1991–92, all new forestry
operations have had an assigned cutting cycle of 35
years.
The results of the ‘reforestation naturally’ program,which was designed and initiated under theKandrian–Gloucester Integrated Development
Program, indicate that this could be a successful
forest replacement and management option if
applied widely. In the period 1997–2006, however,its implementation covered only 43 000 hectares
at a total cost of 2.7 million kina, which was
drawn from a reforestation levy paid to the Forest
Authority by log exporters. Growth measurements
are yet to be analysed but observations suggestthat the program is showing signs of success in theregeneration of commercial species in logged-overforests. Sixty percent of the budget for the programis used to pay for the engagement of landowners,
who plant wildlings on former skid tracks andlog landings and in other gaps where there is little
spontaneous regeneration of commercial species.a
The tropical forests of PNG consist of aheterogeneous mixture of about 200 tree species.
Based on quality and market acceptability, these
species have been categorized into four groups
for fixing royalties and charges. Important species
harvested include Intsia bijuga (kwila), Pometia
pinnata (taun), Pterocarpus indicus (rosewood),
Calophyllum spp, Celtis spp, Canarium indicum,
Dillenia papuana, Terminalia spp, Buchanania spp,
Palaquium spp and Homalium foetidum. No data
were available on the relative economic importanceof these or other species at the national level. In
the absence of updated information, Table 4 shows
the list of commonly harvested species reported in
ITTO (2006).
Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial
roundwood
Timber species
Pometia pinnata (taun)
Intsia bijuga (kwila)
Eucalyptus deglupta
Calophyllum spp
Anisoptera thurifera
Source: ITTO (2006).

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Planted forest and trees outside the forest.
Estimates of the area of planted forest vary from57 900 hectares, comprising Forest Authority
plantations of 25 400 hectares and private
plantations of 32 500 hectares (reported in Table5)a, to 63 200 hectares (FAO 2010), and there arealso about 23 800 hectares of rubber plantations(ibid.). The rate of expansion of the plantation
estate is low: about 200 hectares of Pinus species
and Eucalyptus pellita (an indigenous species)
are being established per year at Umi in Morobe
Province.a
Across the plantation estate, E. deglupta (anotherindigenous species) is the main planted tree,
along with E. grandis, Acacia mangium, Tectona
grandis, Terminalia brassii, Pinus caribaea, P. patula,
Araucaria spp, Ochroma lagopus and Octomeles
sumatrana.
Forest certification. PNG has a national FSC
working group and has developed national
certification standards. In 2008 SGS developed
a timber legality and traceability standard for
PNG. Two forest areas have been FSC-certified:a natural forest covering 2705 hectares managed
by the Foundation for People and Community
Development near Madang, and an area of 19 920
hectares of planted forest (mostly Eucalyptus
deglupta) managed by Open Bay Timber2 (FSC2010).
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. A small area of
production forest is operating under management
plans. Five-year working plans are a broad statementof how an FMA will be managed by its permitholder. Annual logging plans focus on harvesting at
the coupe level.c
In addition to the forests that have been certified,
two forest operations have demonstrated
high-quality forest management: Cloudy Bay
Sustainable Forestry Limited, and Vanimo Forest
Products.c The Cloudy Bay operation commenced
in 2003 under an FMA covering 148 900 hectares.
The annual allowable cut is 60 000 m3: thecompany’s first sawmill, at Bonoabo, is processing
15 000 m3 per annum and a second sawmill isunder construction at Bam that will process 45 000
2 Open Bay Timber has also harvested timber in the natural forests of thearea but ceased doing so at the expiry of the timber rights purchaseagreements between the landowners and the state. The Forest
Authority is in the process of renewing the agreements to enable
natural-forest harvesting in an area of about 100 000 hectares.c

NTFPs play many cultural roles in PNG.

m3 per annum. The concession has been allocatedfor a 35-year period.
Vanimo Forest Products is one of the major
operators in the West Sepik (Sandaun) Province aswell as in PNG as a whole. The combined harvestof the company’s licensed areas, which cover
545 000 hectares, is 444 000 m3 per year. The
company has a sawmill with an annual log output
of 50 000 m3 and the balance is exported as roundlogs. The following observations can be made:•The field operations in the Vanimo licensed
areas are planned and executed well, and aresupervised by NFS officers.

•

Roads are well-constructed and are used by boththe company and community services because
they link remote villages.

•

Logged-over forests appear to show goodregeneration of commercial species, but their
management requires further input from theForest Authority.

225

Status of tropical forest management 2011

At least 193 000 hectares of natural forest areconsidered to be under sustainable management,
comprising the area of certified forest, the Cloudy
Bay Sustainable Forestry operation, and thesmall area of forest managed by the Foundation
for People and Community Development near
Madang (Table 5). It would appear, therefore, thatthe estimate of 1.5 million hectares of sustainably
managed forest made in ITTO (2006) was asignificant overestimate.
Timber production and trade. Total industrial
log production in PNG was estimated at 2.91
million m3 in 2009, up from 2.25 million m3 in2004 and 2.12 million m3 in 1999 (ITTO 2011).
The forest industry is based predominantly on log
exports. An estimated 1.93 million m3 of logs were
exported in 2009 (ITTO 2011), making PNG theworld’s second-largest exporter of tropical logs after
Malaysia. PNG earned US$172 million in 2009
from timber exports, US$141 million of which wasfrom logs (ITTO 2011).
Non-timber forest products. The people of PNG
make use of many NTFPs for their livelihoods andconsume bush meat, wild tubers, medicinal plants
and other produce on a daily basis. Butterflies, live
birds, Gyrinops ledermannii (eagle wood), Santalum(sandalwood) and rattan products are importantsources of local income. Despite the significant

value of and community dependence on NTFPs,
there appear to be no firm government policies fortheir management and exploitation. Within theForest Authority there is a general lack of capacity
to assess the market for timber, valued-added forest
products, and NTFPs.b
Forest carbon. Gibbs et al. (2007) estimatednational-level forest biomass carbon stock at
4154–8037 MtC and FAO (2010) estimated it at
2306 MtC. PNG was one of a group of rainforest
nations which, in 2005, promoted the REDD
agenda within the framework of the UNFCCC.
At the national level, the Forest Authority has
developed a policy framework called the Forestry
and Climate Change Framework for Action
2009–2015. Given PNG’s complex tenurial
conditions (for example, most forest is undercustomary ownership, but this does not include theright to benefit from forest carbon projects), further
policy work is required to balance the competinginterests of local communities, government andindustry. PNG participates in the Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility and the REDD+ Partnershipbut has not yet formulated an overall readiness plan.
The country has considerable potential to reduce
emissions from forest degradation and to enhancecarbon sinks through SFM (Table 6).

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)
Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

8700
8700

5600
4900

*
**

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
4980
738

CertifiedSustainably
managed

19
2.7

1500

80

PlantedWith
management
plans
-

193

58

31.2**

Total

Certified0
19.2

As reported in ITTO (2006).
The Bulolo forest plantation in Morobe Province, and the certified area of Open Bay Timber.

Table 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)% forestwithcanopycover >60%

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

4154–8037

79+++

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
sink capacity monitoring
capacity
to 2030++

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

Importance Engagementinof forest
international
fire/
REDD+
biomass
processes
burning+++++++ high; ++ medium; + low; estimate of national forest carbon based on Gibbs et al. (2007); estimate of % total forest with canopy cover>60% based on UNEP-WCMC (2010).

226

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Forest for protection

protected areas, provincial parks, reserves, wildlife
management areas and sanctuaries, although theextent to which these areas are forested is unclear.
According to the Forest Authority there are 1.2
million hectares of protection forestsa, and athird estimate puts the area of protection forest at
547 000 hectares.b UNEP-WCMC (2010) was
unable to provide an estimate of the area of forest
in protected areas in PNG. The delineation ofprotected areas on the ground, the institution withmanagement authority over them, and the extent ofmonitoring and enforcement are all uncertain.b

Soil and water. PNG’s rugged terrain and steep
slopes mean that soil and water conservation will
always be important. The Logging Code of Practice,which is applied to state-acquired concession areas,
includes measures for the protection of water andsoil resources, but these are not always adhered to.
No data are available on the extent of catchment
protection forests.
Biological diversity. New Guinea is one of themost floristically rich islands on the planet. An
estimated 20 000 species of higher plants have beenfound – about 7.5% of the world’s total number ofhigher plant species. The world’s greatest diversityof orchids (over 2000 species) and a similar numberof fern species occur there. PNG also contains
important representatives of the flora of the ancient
super-continent Gondwanaland, including alarge contingent of southern conifer species andNothofagus (southern beech). Thirty-five mammals,
30 birds, ten amphibians, two reptiles and one plantfound in forests are listed as critically endangered,endangered or vulnerable on the IUCN red list of
threatened species (IUCN 2011). Six plants arelisted in CITES Appendix I and 109 are listed inAppendix II (UNEP-WCMC 2011).

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. Details are scant about
the system and condition of protected areas. The
Department of Environment and Conservation
is mandated to manage protected areas and tomonitor adherence to environmental regulations.
However, the Department’s role has been marginalin administering protected areas, with limited staff
based in Port Moresby and limited operational
interaction with the Forest Authority.b
Insufficient information was available to estimate
the area of protection PFE under SFM (Table 7).

Socioeconomic aspects

Protective measures in production forests. There
are regulations for commercial forestry operations
in order to protect catchments and prevent soil
erosion. As noted earlier, however, the enforcementof these is often problematic.

Economic aspects. Forestry is the third-largest
foreign-exchange earner after mineral andagricultural exports (Overseas Development
Institute 2007). The forest industry employs an
estimated 10 000 people.a The government collects
revenues from a log export tax and a reforestation
levy, while resource owners receive a royalty on
timber harvested (10 kina per m3) and other levies
and premiums. It has been observed, however, thatmany of the benefits of forestry operations havegenerally not filtered through to landowners, andincome has not been saved or invested to ensure
long-term development (PNG Forest Authority
2002). In 2005 the forest sector generated revenue
worth about 130 million kina and total public
expenditure in the sector was about 23.4 million
kina.

Extent of protected areas. At present there is noagreed legal national definition of protected areasin PNG.b Data on protected areas and protection
forests as identified by the Forest Authority andthe Department of Environment and Conservation
are vague and vary widely, which is perhaps areflection of poor communication between thetwo organizations. According to the Departmentof Environment and Conservation there are
1.64 million hectares of protected areas in PNG,
comprising national parks, memorial parks,

Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)*

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

1700
1700

362
-

0

-

-

As reported in ITTO (2006).

227

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Livelihood values. About 80% of the PNG
population is rural and dependent on forests for awide range of subsistence needs, including food,
fuel, shelter, medicines and cultural aspects, as wellas to supply land that is used in shifting agricultural
systems. No quantitative information was available
for this report.

Summary

Since the 1970s the PNG government has put
in place various mechanisms designed to enable
the participation of customary landowners in thedevelopment of their forest resources. Broadly, thepolicy evolution has proceeded in the following
wayc:

Revised forestry development guidelines have beendeveloped although they have not been endorsed by
the National Executive Council. Although similar
to those issued in 1993, these guidelines specify
the establishment of a PFE. Presently, PNG does
not have a formal PFE and almost the entire forest
estate is under customary land ownership. A recent
amendment to the Forestry Act may reduce therights of customary landowners to sue resource
developers over environmental problems. The PNG
Forestry Authority has well-qualified staff but isseriously under-resourced and is unable to conduct
significant field monitoring. Provincial forest
management committees established to facilitate
consultation with landowners are also underresourced. The use of a private company to monitor
log shipments has enabled the PNG government tocapture significant revenue from export levies. The
distribution of revenue from logging contractors
to clan members is often delayed and exacerbatedby land-tenure disputes. A post-logging forest
regeneration regime has been developed and applied
to a relatively small area of forest.

•

Key points

Social relations. Customary landowners participate
in the process of timber rights purchases by the
Forest Authority but are not much involved in thesubsequent management and development of theresource.a The purchase of rights usually involves
payments or royalties and levies to landownergroups, and this has led to conflicts and tensions
within such groups. The presence of logging
camps (and the associated disruptions to social andcultural environments) has also created tensions insome communities.

••

In the late 1970s to the mid 1980s thegovernment established an entity called theForest Development Corporation for
landowners and the respective provincial
governments to have a stake in the developmentof the forest resources. This concept failed due
to limited knowledge of the forestry business.
In the mid 1980s to the late 1990s thelandowner company concept was introduced.
Alhough the concept was good there were
instances where company directors were nottrue representatives of the resource owners, andthis led to the misuse of funds.
Since the late 1990s all clan groups signatory to
an FMA become an incorporated entity and thechairman of the group automatically becomes
the director of the landowner company. Thus,
the landowner group forms the building blockof the landowner company, a legitimate
company representing the landowners. This
concept appears to be working, even though
there have been some cases of funds
mismanagement.

228•

PNG has about 10.5 million hectares of forest(the same as estimated for 2005) that might beconsidered permanent; these include 8.7 million
hectares of forest over which timber rights havebeen acquired (production PFE – as for 2005),
1.7 million hectares allocated for protection (asfor 2005) and about 58 000 hectares of timber
plantations.

•

An estimated 193 000 hectares of the
production PFE are under SFM, 2700 hectaresof which are certified. No estimate was possibleof the area of protection PFE under SFM.

•

As of 2010, the PNG government had acquired
timber rights from customary landowners
involving about 12 million hectares of forest.
These rights are normally allocated to foreign
developers with the necessary financial
capabilities. Of the acquired area an estimated
4.9 million hectares of forests were under active
timber extraction licences in 2007.

•

Re-entry to ‘closed’ logging areas and the‘creaming’ of premium species are undermining
SFM.

PAPUA NEW GUINEA•PNG is a major exporter of tropical logs,
shipping out an estimated 1.93 million m3 in
2009.

•

PNG’s forests are thought to be vulnerable toclimate change, but the country also has
potential for forest-based carbon capture andstorage.

EndnotesaGovernment of Papua New Guinea (2010b).

b

ITTO (2007).

c

Personal communications with D. Kare, who wascommissioned to prepare PNG’s submission for this report.
As part of the submission he reviewed the operations of
Cloudy Bay Sustainable Forestry Limited and Vanimo Forest
Products.

References and other sources
FAO (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010 country
report: Papua New Guinea (available at http://www.fao.org/
forestry/fra/67090/en/).
FSC (2010, website accessed July 2010). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).
Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007). Monitoringand estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDDa reality. Environmental Research Letters 2 (available at http://
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Government of PNG (2010a). Pilot program for climate
resilience. Proposal for Papua New Guinea Phase 1
activities. Submitted to Climate Investment Funds, World
Bank, May 2010. http://www.climateinvestmentfunds.
org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/Papua%20
New%20Guinea%20Phase%201%20Proposal.pdf
Government of Papua New Guinea (2010b). Report of progress
toward achieving sustainable forest management in Papua
New Guinea. Submission to ITTO by the PNG Forest
Authority, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Prepared by
Dike Kari.
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).

ITTO (2011, website accessed March 2011). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).
ITTO & RRI (2009). Tropical forest tenure assessment. trends,
challenges and opportunities. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan andRights and Resources Initiative, Washington, DC, UnitedStates.
IUCN (2011, website accessed March 2011). IUCN red list of
threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).
Overseas Development Institute (2007). Issues and Opportunities
for the Forest Sector in Papua New Guinea. Overseas
Development Institute, London, UK.
PNG Forest Authority (2002). National forest policy review.
Country report presented at the 19th Session of the
Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia,
28–30 August 2002.
Radio National (2010). Greenpeace accuses PNG govt over new
environment laws. Transcript of interview with Dorothy
Tekwei, Greenpeace PNG. Pacific Beat, Radio National(available at http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/pacbeat/stories/201006/s2920632.htm).
Shearman, P., Bryan, J., Ash, J., Hunnam, P., Mackey, B. &Lokes, B. (2008). The State of the Forests of Papua New
Guinea: Mapping the Extent and Condition of Forest Coverand Measuring the Drivers of Forest Change in the Period
1972–2002. University of Papua New Guinea, Port
Moresby, PNG.
Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World Atlas ofMangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. Data prepared for
ITTO. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March
2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
March 2010). World population prospects: the 2008
revision (searchable database available at http://esa.un.org/
unpp/p2k0data.asp).

ITTO (2007). Achieving the ITTO Objective 2000 andsustainable forest management in Papua New Guinea:
report of the diagnostic mission. ITTC(XLII)/7. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan.

229

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Philippinesclassified into five broad forest types on the basis of
species composition:•

Dipterocarp forests, in which timber species ofthe dipterocarp family, such as Pentacme contorta(white lauan), Shorea negrosensis (red lauan) and
Dipterocarpus grandiflorus (apitong), dominate
stands. In the past, this forest type was the main
source of raw material for the timber industry.

•

Molave forest, which is more open thandipterocarp forest, with a timber volume
averaging 30 m3 per hectare. This forest typeoccurs in regions where there are distinct wet
and dry seasons. Major species include Vitex
parviflora (molave), Pterocarpus spp (narra) andIntisa bijuga (ipil).

•Pine forests, which are found in the highmountainous regions of northern Luzon andMindoro. The principal species are Pinus
insularis and P. merkusii.

•

Mangrove forests, which occur on tidal flats inestuaries and on the shores of protected bays. In
the 1950s mangrove forests covered an area ofmore than 375 000 hectares, but today
degraded mangrove forests cover about 250 000
hectares (Spalding et al. 2010).

•

Beach forests, which occur along streams and on
tidal flats. They usually comprise pure stands ofnipa palm (Nipa fruticans), but may also containspecies such as Terminalia catappa (talisai),
Barringtonia asiatica (botong) and Calophyllum
inophyllum (palomaria).

Forest resources
The Republic of the Philippines lies to the east ofcontinental Asia between the South China Sea andthe Philippine Sea, extending from 5° to 20° northof the equator. It comprises an archipelago of over7000 islands with a total land area of 29.8 million
hectares. In 2010 the estimated population of thePhilippines was 93.6 million people and the growthrate in the ten years to 2010 was about 1.87%(United Nations Population Division 2010). The
Philippines is ranked 105th out of 182 countries
in UNDP’s Human Development Index (UNDP2009).
FAO (2010) estimated the forest area in thePhilippines at 7.66 million hectares, which is 26%of the total land area. The Government of thePhilippines estimated the total forest area at 7.17
million hectares (including 737 000 hectares thatare outside the ‘forestlands’ category).a
Forest types. The Philippines has two broad
biogeographical regions: the east, which remains
wet throughout the year, and the west, which
has a dry season. The forests have been classified
by climate and altitude into evergreen rainforest(81%), semi-evergreen forest (10%) and mountain
forest (9%). They have also been classified as closed
forest (i.e. with greater than 40% cover), open
forest (10–40% canopy cover), mangrove forests,
and plantations.a Philippine forests may also be

230

Permanent forest estate. The country’s land
resources are classified into forestlands and alienable
and disposable (A&D) lands. All lands in the publicdomain with slopes of 18% or greater are classified
as forestlands and are owned by the state. A&D
lands are subject to the granting of private rights
and allocation to various (principally agricultural)
uses. The entire extent of forestlands (15.9 million
hectares) has been demarcated with ‘monuments’a;within this area there is no differentiation in thefield between production and protection forest.
Information on the extent and condition offorestland and A&D land is often confusing.
Most forests are found on forestland, and most

PHILIPPINES

cropland on A&D land, but these land uses are
not always consistent with the legal classes. Of thearea presently classified as A&D land, 30–35%
has slopes greater than 18%. Conversely, as muchas 28% of forestlands have slopes of less than
18%. About 40% of classified forestlands are notused for forestry purposes (e.g. in urban areas
such as Quezon City, General Santos City andMetropolitan Cebu).a On the other hand, certain
A&D lands or even private lands cannot be used incommunity-based forest production due to policy
constraints.
The actual extent of forest in the PFE is also
unclear. For example, in its submission to ITTO
for this report, the Government of the Philippines(2009) variously reported a PFE of 15.9 million
hectares (when reporting the extent of designatedforestlands), 6.82 million hectares (when reportingon forest condition classes), 6.43 million hectares(when reporting on forest area by forest type), and
5.4 million hectares (when reporting on changes inforest area). Moreover, it reported identical areas forprotection forests in both the PFE and non-PFE(1.339 million hectares in each). The estimate ofproduction PFE given in Table 1 is based on theestimate given in ITTO (2006). It is assumed
that no forests on A&D lands are in the PFE. The
total extent of planted forest is also unclear, withestimates of 314 000 hectaresc, 330 000 hectares(FMB 2010) and 352 000 hectares (FAO 2010).

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation.
Deforestation occurred at an annual rate of about
316 000 hectares in the 1980s, caused by land
conversion, shifting cultivation, forest fire andover-logging.a According to FAO (2010), total
forest area increased by 274 000 hectares between

2005 and 2010 and by 1.10 million hectares
between 1990 and 2010, mainly due to naturalregeneration on degraded lands.
In 2006 about 28 000 hectares of forest wereformally cleared for agriculture, settlements,
infrastructure or other purposes, unplanned fire
destroyed an estimated 9000 hectares, and drought,storms and pests and diseases reportedly affected
about 7700 hectares of forest.a Based on arrests,
illegal exploitation was reported to have occurred
on about 1500 hectares of forestland, although thisis perhaps more a reflection of the efficacy of forest
law enforcement than of the absolute extent ofillegal forest activities.a Table 2 presents an estimateof the area of natural forests by condition.
Vulnerability of forests to climate change. Mean
annual temperature has increased in the Philippines
in the last 20 years. Those regions that have warmed
the most (northern Luzon and Mindanao) have also
dried the most. There has also been an increase in
the frequency of typhoons and other wind damage.
Floods have caused widespread damage and large
numbers of casualties in recent years.
About 1.02 million hectares of natural forests are
considered highly vulnerable to climate variability(Cruz & de Luna 2009), mostly located in Davaodel Sur, Leyte, Sarangani, Sultan Kudarat andZamboanga del Norte. Natural forests in Leyte
are at risk of increased damage from strong winds
and excessive rain associated with typhoons. In
Mindanao, which is not frequently affected bytyphoons, the natural forests are more likely to beaffected by drought, although the risk is unknown.
Among other things, higher drought frequency andseverity can increase the risk of grass, brush andforest fires (ibid.).

Table 1 Permanent forest estate

*
**

‡
†

Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(‘000 ha)

2005*
2010

5.4–7.2
7.17–7.66

5288
3248**PFE (‘000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted

Total

4700
4700‡

6514
6354

274
314b,†

1540
1340a

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Calculated using the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) (42.4%) and the total
natural forest area as estimated by FAO (2010). DENR (undated) estimated the area of closed natural forest at 2.48 million
hectares.
Based on ITTO (2006) and personal communications – see endnote b.
Based on projected planting rate. FAO (2010) reported a planted-forest area of 352 000 hectares but noted that data onreforestation are weak because of the possibility of double-counting.

231

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

Total’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land*

0-822c,*
0
2560c
4031c

FAO (2010) reported a primary forest area of 861 000 hectares, which was unchanged since 1990 on the basis that a 1990
DENR regulation provided for a shift in logging from old-growth forest to residual forest.

The Presidential Task Force on Climate Change
was created in 2007 with the aim of providing
mitigation and adaptation measures to reduce theimpacts of climate change on identified sectors,
including the forest sector. The Government of
the Philippines has also established the InterAgency Committee on Climate Change, whichis responsible for ensuring that the Philippines
meets its obligations to the UNFCCC. The
Philippine Climate Change Act (RA 9729), enactedin October 2009, created the Climate Change
Commission, the sole policymaking body on
climate-change issues, and initiated the formulationof the National Framework Strategy on Climate
Change (which was approved by the President of
the Philippines in April 2010).

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. The entire land area formallydesignated as forestland is owned by the state. Since
the PFE falls within that estate, the entire PFE is also
owned by the state (Table 3). Considerable portionsof forest are held by the private sector, communities,
people’s organizations and Indigenous people undervarious kinds of tenure arrangement that do notinclude outright ownership. These include:•-

Community-based forest managementagreements (CBFMAs) – 25-year leases forcommunities, renewable for another 25 years
over forest areas of a maximum of 5000 hectares
each.

•

Industrial forest management agreements –25-year production-sharing agreements forprivate companies, renewable for another 25
years, mainly comprising industrial plantations.

•Socialized industrial forest managementagreements (SIFMAs) – 25-year leases forcommunities, renewable for another 25 years,
mainly comprising community-based
plantations.

232•

Timber licence agreements (TLAs) – 25-yearleases renewable for another 25 years. These are
no longer allowed under the Constitution andwill cease once the last TLA expires in 2011
(land currently assigned under TLAs will haveto shift to other production-sharing or jointventure agreements).

•

Certificates of ancestral domain title, which are
titles or certificates to ancestral land domains on
both forestland and A&D lands.

An estimated 7.1 million hectares of land (bothwithin and outside the PFE) has been allocatedto Indigenous communities under certificatesof ancestral domain title or are under ancestral
domain claim.a It is unclear, however, what effect
the granting of rights to ancestral lands anddomains has on ownership; it appears that, while
recognizing rights, the state retains ownership of theresources on those lands (Fey 2007). The rights ofIndigenous peoples over ancestral domains are clear.
While the government retains legal ownership overnatural resources (although this is being contested),
Indigenous peoples are given the preferential option
to use those resources and thus other bodies/
entities intending to extract resources or conduct
any development options in the area must obtainthe free, prior informed consent of the relevant
Indigenous community (C. Guerrero, pers. comm.,
2010).
In recent years a new forests and forestlands
management strategy has started to emerge thatrecognizes, through a co-management approach, thecrucial role that local government units and uplanddwellers play in forest and land management.
The issuing of individual property rights (IPR)
agreements is a means by which the Departmentof Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
and the local government units share stewardshipof forests and forestlands with claimants/occupants.
An IPR agreement gives each occupant in a

PHILIPPINES

co-managed area the right to use, develop andmanage a maximum of five hectares of land for
25 years, renewable for another 25 years at theoption of both parties. Claimants can use the land
to farm and harvest the crops they have planted.
As stewards and managers of the resource they arebound to help protect and conserve the forest andits resources, and to reforest open and denuded
areas. IPR agreements allow community members
to benefit commercially from their upland farms,
thus motivating them to develop bare forest­
lands and adopt sustainable and environmentfriendly farming methods, such as agroforestry,that minimize forest conversion, slash-and-burn
activities and wanton timber-cutting. With thesupport of local government units, DENR, civilsociety and the private sector, IPR agreementholders are encouraged to use their own labour,know-how and available capital to develop theirclaims, consistent with the co-managementagreement and in support of the land-use plans oflocal government units.
The role of IPR agreements is still in its infancy. In
January 2007, in a milestone for forest managementin the country, IPR agree­ments covering about 20
hectares were issued by the municipal governmentof Quezon and the Provincial Environment andNatural Resources Office to eight upland farmers.
Another 43 farmers were party to IPR agreements
in February 2008.
Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

State ownership (national,
state or provincial
government)
Other public entities (e.g.
municipalities, villages)
Total public
Owned by local communities
and/or Indigenous groups
Privately owned by individuals,
firms, other corporate

Total area

Of which
PFE’000 ha

-

6354

-

0

-

6354
0

-

0

Source: Government of the Philippines (2009).

Criteria and indicators. The Philippine system of
C&I for the sustainable management of forests is
an adaptation of the ITTO model (ITTO 2005)
refined to suit the local context. Specifically, thepurpose of the Philippine C&I is to provide thegovernment, through DENR, and other forest

managers with an improved tool for assessingchanges and trends in forest conditions andforest management systems. The Philippine C&I
provide a means of assessing progress towards theattainment of the objective set under Executive
Order 318, otherwise known as Promoting
Sustainable Forest Management in the Philippines.
The approved set of Philippine C&I is used
formally by the government in the performance
evaluation of various types of FMUs through amemorandum order issued by DENR in July 2007.
The Government of the Philippines used the ITTO
C&I in its submission to ITTO for this report.a
Forest policy and legislation. The foundationof forest policy is Presidential Decree 705 (1975),
as amended; it is known as the Revised Forestry
Code of the Philippines. According to this Code
(Section 2), the components of forest policy are themultiple-use of forests, the systemization of land
classification, the establishment of wood-processing
plants and the protection, development andrehabilitation of forestlands. The Code was drawn
up when the major emphasis was on the largescale commercial harvesting of state-owned naturalforests by large corporations.
The 1987 Constitution, which reflects a generalreorientation of natural resource management
policies in favour of co-production, installed
community-based forest management (CBFM)
as the main framework for forest resource
management. Today, communities are the main
implementers of SFM strategies and programs inboth planted and natural forests. Nevertheless, asystematic approach to SFM is not yet apparent on
the ground. A major law on a National Integrated
Protected Area System (NIPAS), the NIPAS Act,was enacted in 1992 and the Indigenous Peoples’
Rights Act was enacted in 1997; both provide
overarching directions for forest management.
Other relevant laws include the Local Government
Code, enacted in 1991, and the Wildlife
Conservation and Protection Act, enacted in 2001.
The Forestry Code and subsequent laws andregulations have not been fully harmonized
and updated to reflect this reorientation. A
Sustainable Forest Management Bill has been underconsideration by the national legislature since
1989 but, to date, has not been passed into law.
The bill has seven guiding principles: watershed
as the basic forestland management unit; multisectoral participation; CBFM; the protection of233

Status of tropical forest management 2011

forestlands and natural resources as a priority
concern; reforestation as a priority measure; securityof tenure of stakeholders; and professionalism in theforest service (Fourteenth Congress of the Republicof the Philippines undated).
The optimal use of the country’s land andits sustainable management, as set out in anational land-use plan, is the key feature of themuch-awaited Act on National Land-use Policy.
Should the Act pass into law, it would, among otherthings, identify mechanisms for the allocation ofunused and under-used private and A&D lands
for tree plantations to augment the limited wood
supply from natural secondary forests.
Institutions involved in forests. DENR is thegovernment agency responsible for the managementof forests and protected areas. Other institutions
with responsibilities related to forests include theForest Management Bureau (FMB, part of DENR),
which has responsibility for the management of
the country’s forest resources; the Environmental
Management Bureau, which is responsible forthe management of the overall environment; theProtected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, which is
responsible for the management of an integrated
protected areas system and the conservation of
biological diversity; and the Ecosystem Researchand Development Bureau, which is responsible
for forest ecosystem research and technology
development. The Philippine Wood Producers’
Association is responsible for carrying out timber
production and processing on government
forestlands. The total 2009 budget of DENR for
forest management and administration and forestrelated projects was US$84.8 million.a
Under Executive Order 606 (27 February 2007)
on sustainable upland development, DENR
has embarked on a comprehensive uplanddevelopment program. The organization’s 2009
resources for forest development and management
were substantially reconfigured to focus on therestoration of the ecosystem services provided
by vital watersheds and protected areas while
simultaneously catalysing improvements in uplandproductivity, creating incomes for upland poor,
mitigating hunger among highly vulnerable
populations, engaging with organized uplandcommunities, and providing a climate for gainful
economic production among poor upland dwellers.a

234

The Philippines Local Government Code (1991)
confers certain central government powers relating
to forest taxation, budgeting, planning and project
management on local government units. Some
officers, mostly involved in social forestry, were also
devolved to local governments, which created theirown environment and natural resources offices.
The process of devolution in the government
forest sector is ongoing, with closer coordination
between DENR and the Department of Interiorand Local Government. Local government units are
assuming a greater role in forest management andstrengthening co-management mechanisms with
DENR in agroforestry and watershed management.
Several foreign-funded forestry projects are being
implemented with local governments as executing
agencies.
With support from ITTO, DENR is developing
a forest information system to promote SFM
and aid policy formulation and decision-making
through improved data collection and information
processing. Also through an ITTO-funded project,
the FMB has been developing an integrated
chain-of-custody and timber-tracking system,
particularly to assist in identifying and quantifying
illegal timber and other forest products. The
project assessed the impacts of the existing Log
Control Monitoring System and the Forest StockManagement System, as pilot-tested in selected
regions in the Philippines, to determine gaps inthe system and to expand it to include a chainof-custody module. The resultant Philippine
Timber Tracking System includes improved fieldprocedures in data-gathering at the seven nodes
identified for chain of custody and timber-tracking,software for data entry and report generation, anda database for timber-tracking. The system has
been piloted in one Integrated Forest Management
Agreement (IFMA) operation and DENR plans
to implement the system nationwide. It is hopedthat this management tool will facilitate forest law
enforcement, chain-of-custody procedures andforest certification.a
In 2008 the FMB computerized its forms forcertificates of timber origin and certificates oflumber origin. These are management tools formonitoring and tracking the movement and legalityof origin of locally produced forest products that aretransported and traded within the country.

PHILIPPINES

Status of forest management
Forest for production
No other Asia-Pacific country was deforested as
extensively as the Philippines in the period afterWorld War II. Even though TLAs, until recently thesystem for allocating logging rights, stipulated thatlogging operations should be conducted according
to a system of selective logging, the detailed
guidelines for forest management were hardly everapplied. Many of the problems associated withthe large-scale destruction of the forest resource
can be linked to a combination of land-tenure andconcession-tenure issues and the lack of ability or
will to enforce the conditions of the concessions.
In order to prevent the loss of old-growth forests,
Decree 24/1991 imposed a ban on old-growth (orprimary-forest) logging from January 1992 andshifted logging to second-growth (residual) forests.
Silvicultural prescriptions were not followed.
Today, the control of illegal activities remains amajor challenge and is considered one of the main
obstacles to SFM (ITTO 2006).
The legal basis of the TLA system changed underthe 1987 Constitution, resulting in a dramatic
reduction in the awarding of concessions. However,
TLA-holders were allowed to continue to operate
until the expiry date indicated in the original
agreements, subject to certain requirements. Areas
under TLAs started to be phased out in favourof awarding forest harvesting rights embodied intimber production sharing agreements (TPSAs).
The TPSA system increased government revenues,
but these revenues did not generally go back into
forest management as originally intended.
TPSAs evolved into IFMAs, SIFMAs and
CBFMAs, all of which aim to encourage investment
in maintaining the forest growing stock througha performance bond. These instruments take into
account the provisions of the Indigenous People’s
Rights Act (1997), according to which Indigenous
people have the right to title over their ancestral
lands and to have a say in the management of thoselands.
Most expiring TLAs have opted to convert to
IFMAs, but CBFMAs are becoming the dominant
form of allocation (by area). TLAs whose permits
have expired and which have not been converted to
IFMAs or CBFMAs become open-access areas.

As of early 2009 there were forest-use agreements
covering a total of 7.2 million hectares, comprising:•Six operating TLAs covering 325 310 hectaresof forestlands.

•

148 IFMAs with an operational area of 782 931
hectares of forestlands.

•

1803 SIFMAs covering 34 727 hectares offorestlands.

•

5503 communities with CBFMAs covering 5.97
million of forestlands.

•

198 tree farm and agroforestry farm leaseagreements covering 99 994 hectares.a

Little information is available on the statusof management under any of these forest-use
agreements.
Under CBFMAs, organized communities operate
within allowable-cut limits set by government.
They harvest timber and other forest products
to sell, use for their own needs, or process, andat the same time protect the forest against illegal
logging and other unauthorized activities. The
sale of timber, rattan, bamboo and other forest
products has provided additional income for uplandcommunities.
All holders of TLAs and IFMAs are required tosubmit to DENR a five-year medium-term forest
management plan, an integrated annual operation
plan and a yearly concession report. These plans
are oriented to sustainable production basedon prescribed selective logging appropriate for
the Philippine dipterocarp forest. The generalobjective of the medium-term forest management
plan is to sustainably manage natural forests
for the production of high-quality dipterocarp
timber without jeopardizing the rights of affected
communities, including Indigenous people, or
impairing the non-timber benefits obtained fromthe forest. In dipterocarp forest, only mature andovermature trees of merchantable height with adbh of 60 cm and above may be harvested ona minimum operable production area of 1200
hectares. Sustained-yield management is supported
by growth and yield studies for various forest types.
In the case of IFMAs with attached natural forest,
licensees are required to submit a management
plan and an integrated annual operation plan forsustainable production from adequately stocked235

Status of tropical forest management 2011

forest and the conversion to plantations of
inadequately stocked natural forest. The cuttingof trees in areas greater than 50% slope or within
20 m of rivers and roads is not allowed. Licensees
are also required to plant trees in bare areas and tokeep them under permanent forest cover. Objectives
and prescriptions are similar to the requirements for
TLAs.
CBFMA-holders are required to submit acomprehensive management and development
plan (oriented to plantation establishment, sinceforest areas are mainly denuded or degraded). In
rare cases, secondary-growth forests are attached to
CBFM areas.
The medium-term plan and integrated annual
operation plan are submitted to the FMB and
DENR for review and evaluation prior toharvesting and other forest operations in theoperable production forest. The FMB conducts
yearly evaluations of the performance of eachlicensee, using a composite team of professionals
from DENR and the academic sector to determine
conformance with rules and regulations on timber
harvesting, selective logging, AAC, pre-logging
and post-logging operations, forest protection,community services and environmental compliance.
DENR also conducts ad-hoc, unannounced field
inspections of production areas under licence todetect violations of rules and regulations, illegal
logging and poaching, and the improper use of
documents such as the certificates of timber origin.
These mechanisms have resulted in the suspension
and cancellation of licence-holders not following
prescriptions and conducting illegal activities.a The
main violations include over-cutting in operable
areas, illegal logging in non-operable areas oroutside boundaries, poor forest protection leading
to encroachment in production areas, and therecycling of permits and documents for harvest andtransport. There are also cases of non-payments offorest charges, silvicultural fees, the environmental
guarantee fund, and trust funds for reforestationand timber stand improvement.
In IFMAs with responsibility for the managementof natural forests, provisions for the replacement of
inadequately stocked natural forest with plantations
were often abused, as adequately stocked forest was
logged and sold. This led to a suspension of this typeof IFMA for several years to prevent further abuse
and the destruction of potentially viable secondary
forests. There have been no reported violations
in IFMAs that are solely conducting plantation
activities on denuded and degraded areas.a
Silviculture and species selection. TLAs for
logging in natural forest follow a system of selective
cutting, while forest plantations follow a system ofclearfelling and artificial regeneration. Many species
are used, and it is difficult to determine which are
the most commercially important. Most of thespecies listed in Table 4 are from plantations.
Planted forest and trees outside the forest. There
are an estimated 314 000 hectares of planted forestsin the Philippines. They include those developedby the government in regular reforestation projects,
by communities in CBFMAs and SIFMAs, and byindustrial concerns through IFMAs, as well as tree
farms developed by small landholders on private
lands. No recent aggregated information is available
on the survival, growth or yield of plantations,but all are thought to be low. Corporatesector involvement in the growing of industrial
plantations is being encouraged through IFMAs
for the development of integrated industrial forest
plantations.
Forest certification. As of December 2010, no
forest in the Philippines had been independently
certified as well managed (e.g. FSC 2010).

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Paraserianthes falcataria (falcata)

Harvest in 2006 = 413 000 m3/year; from secondary forests andplanted forests.
Harvest in 2006 = 263 000 m3/year; from planted forests.
Harvest in 2006 = 126 000 m3/year; from planted forests.
Harvest in 2006 = 34 000 m3/year; from planted forests.
Harvest in 2006 = 78 000 m3/year; from planted forests, used insawmilling and plywood industries.
Harvest in 2006 = 24 300 m3/year; used in sawmilling andplywood industries.

Gmelina arborea (yemane)
Acacia mangium (mangium)
Eucalyptus deglupta (bagras)
Swietenia mahoganii (mahogany)
Shorea negrosensis (red lauan)
Source: Government of the Philippines (2009).

236

PHILIPPINES

Young forest-dwellers collect NTFPs in Mindanao.

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. Given a lack of
information on forest management at the FMU
level, the extent of SFM is difficult to gauge. Forest
management is still evolving towards communitybased approaches, but there is a lack of policies tosupport communities in adopting SFM practices,and the effectiveness of current arrangements forco-production is a subject of debate. The total
area of PFE under management plans is 822 000
hectares (of which about 80% is probably naturalforest), a slight decrease over the area reported
for 2005 (and less than the 2.25 million hectares
reported in FAO 2010). On the basis of an estimate
provided by the Government of Philippines, FAO(2010) reported that 4.05 million hectares ofnatural forest were under sustainable management,
the Government of the Philippines reporting that“all forest area covered with management plans is
considered to be under sustainable management”.
In general, however, data on the quality ofmanagement are lacking. The area of natural forest
managed sustainably is estimated by ITTO to
be at least 79 000 hectares, comprising a forest
concession managed with ITTO assistance inSurigao del Sur (Table 5).

Timber production and trade. The productionof industrial roundwood in the Philippines peakedat 11.2 million m3 in 1974 (FAO 2001); in 1977
there were 325 sawmills and 70 wood-based panel
manufacturing units (ibid.). Production fell to a
low of about 401 000 m3 in 2001 before recovering
to 857 000 m3 in 2009 (ITTO 2011). In 2009 thePhilippines imported 89 000 m3 of logs, 165 000
m3 of sawnwood, 24 000 m3 of veneer and 111 000
m3 of plywood (ibid.).
Non-timber forest products. An estimated 5.15
million linear metres of un-split rattan (froman annual allowable cut of 21.9 million linear
metres – FMB 2010), 13.2 million pieces of nipa
shingles, 872 000 pieces of bamboo, 196 000
pieces of anahaw leaves, and 248 000 kilograms ofalmaciga resin were harvested commercially in thePhilippines in 2008, and NTFP exports were worth
an estimated US$873 000 (ibid.). The leaves ofNipa fruticans are used for thatch and its sap is used
for the manufacture of vinegar, alcohol and sugar.
Forest carbon. Changes in land use are the greatest
source of GHG emissions in the Philippines.
Gibbs et al. (2007) estimated the national-level
forest biomass carbon stock at 765–1530 MtC,

237

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)
Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

4700
4700

4700*****NaturalWithmanagement
plans
910
658a,b,c

Certified76

274

PlantedWith
management
plans
274

79a

314

164a,b,c

Sustainably
managed

0
0

Total

Certified00

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Note that the Government of the Philippines (2009) reported that 7.2 million hectares were under licence. However, this area isgreater than the natural-forest production PFE, and, while it is under some form of contractual arrangement, it is unclear how
much of the land is actually forested or is intended to be returned to forest cover. The figure given here equates to the total
production PFE.

Eggleston et al. (2006) estimated it at 2503 MtC
and FAO (2010) estimated it at 663 MtC. In
2009 in collaboration with Intercooperation,
IUCN-Netherlands and GTZ the Governmentof the Philippines initiated a national process
to develop a bottom-up, participatory, mulitstakeholder REDD+ strategy with an emphasis oncommunity-based approaches. The Philippines
is a participant in UN-REDD and the REDD+
Partnership.
The Philippines REDD process is designed as amechanism for consultation with strong civil-society
participation with the aim of preventing further
deforestation and forest degradation; increasing
carbon stocks; delivering co-benefits such as
biodiversity conservation, ecological restoration andequitable benefit-sharing; and addressing progressive
pro-community land-tenure and forest management
policies. The country has a relatively high potential
for the enhancement of carbon sinks (Table 6).

Forest for protection
Soil and water. The Philippines has 126
watershed forest reserves covering an area of
1.50 million hectares, of which 87 are managed
under the NIPAS Act. Although these reserves are
principally protected and managed for soil andwater conservation, most do not have management
plans. The government has commenced a process
to prioritize watersheds for integrated land-use

planning purposes in conjunction with thedelineation of forest boundaries, and DENR has
provided detailed guidelines on the preparation of
integrated watershed management plans throughMemorandum Circular 2008–05 (22 October2008). The watershed and ecosystem management
framework prescribed by government will be usedprincipally to strengthen the co-management ofwatersheds by DENR and local government units.
The Revised Forestry Law (Chapter III) and thePhilippine Environment Code (Chapter III and
Chapter VI) have provisions on watershed andecosystem management, including proceduresfor the protection and management of sensitive
areas for soil and water conservation. A July 2007
DENR memorandum order mandated the review
of all titled properties within protected areas andproclaimed watersheds.
Biological diversity. The Philippines is rich inbiodiversity, containing an estimated 38 600 forestdependent species of mammals, birds, reptiles,
amphibians and fish.a Thirty-three species ofmammal, 57 birds, 28 reptiles, 48 amphibians, one
fish, eight arthropods and 31 plants found in forests
are listed as critically endangered, endangered orvulnerable on the IUCN red list of threatened
species (IUCN 2011). Thirteen plants are listed
in CITES Appendix I and 135 in Appendix II(UNEP-WCMC 2011).

Table 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)% forestwithcanopycover >60%

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

765–1530

42+

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
sink capacity monitoring
capacity
to 2030+++++

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity++

Importance Engagementinof forest
international
fire/
REDD+
biomass
processes
burning+++++++ high; ++ medium; + low; estimate of national forest carbon based on Gibbs et al. (2007); estimate of % total forest with canopy cover>60% based on UNEP-WCMC (2010).

238

PHILIPPINES

Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)***

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

1540
1340

1540
1950

613**

1340a

-

As reported in ITTO (2006).
FAO (2010).

DENR Administrative Order 2007–01 (22 January2007) established a national list of threatened
Philippine plants and their categories, aligned with
CITES appendices. The list includes 99 species thatare critically endangered, 187 that are endangered,
176 that are vulnerable, and 64 that are threatened.a
Protective measures in production forests.
Protective measures and procedures havebeen prescribed to protect biodiversity andenvironmental attributes in production forests,
focusing on retaining undisturbed areas; protecting
rare, threatened and endangered species; protecting
features of special biological interest such as nestingsites, seed trees, niches and keystone species; andassessing recent changes on these aspects throughinventories, monitoring and assessment programs
and comparisons with control areas. The Biological
Monitoring System being implemented by DENR’s
Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau is used toassess changes in biological diversity in bothproduction forest and protected areas.
Wood production from natural forests is
progressively being reduced and efforts are being
made to increase the area of planted forest.
Extent of protected areas. As of 2007, 107protected areas covering about 3.34 million
hectares had been proclaimed under the NIPAS
Act. According to UNEP-WCMC (2010), 1.95
million hectares of forest are in protected areas that
conform to IUCN protected-area categories I–IV.
Many of the forests in protected areas are residual
forests that were previously part of the production
forest estate.
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. Management plans arebeing formulated for conservation reserves andwatershed areas with international assistance. For
example, the Global Environment Facility andthe World Bank are supporting management andimplementation activities in the four priority
watershed areas of Sierra Madre: the Angat–Ipo andDona Remedios Trinidad watersheds, Bicol River
Basin, Kanan Watershed and Ligawasan Marsh. The
FMB evaluated 14 watershed management plans in
2008.
Insufficient data were available to estimate the areaof the protection PFE under SFM (Table 7).

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. The estimated contribution of
the forest sector to GDP was 1.6% in 1975, 0.14%
in 1999, 0.05% in 2003 and 0.7% in 2008.a FAO(2010) estimated total government revenue fromthe forest sector in 2005 at 136 million Philippine
pesos, while the estimated total government
expenditure in the forest sector was 1.98 billion
Philippine pesos.
An estimated 21 000 people are employed in theforest products industry (excluding furnituremaking), of which about 17 000 are male and4000 are female. About 630 people are employed
in direct forest operations under TLAs or IFMAs.
The government sector employs about 22 500
professionally qualified people supporting forestry
and about 900 trained forest workers.a FAO (2010)
estimated that about 910 people were employed inprotected-area management in 2005.
Livelihood values. About one-third of thePhilippine population lives below the poverty line.
About 25 million Filipinos live in uplands, half ofthem occupying forestlands and dependent on themfor subsistence uses and traditional and customary
lifestyles. Communities occupying 1.6 million
hectares of forestlands under CBFMA tenure aremostly dependent on government assistance andforest-based subsistence activities while awaiting
plantation development.aSocial relations. The Philippines has been
experimenting with people’s participation for morethan 30 years. CBFM has been given the status of
the flagship/banner program of DENR, particularly
to address poverty and the lack of economic

239

Status of tropical forest management 2011

development in upland and forest-dwelling
communities.
About 12 million Indigenous people representing
110 different ethno-linguistic groups live in various
forest, lowland and coastal areas. The Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act (1997) recognizes, promotes andprotects the following rights of Indigenous peoples:
the right to ancestral domains/lands; the right toself-governance and empowerment; the right tosocial justice and human rights; and the right tocultural integrity. The law provides an enabling
legal framework for the participation of Indigenous
people in SFM, principally through CBFM andforest protection in their ancestral lands.a
Nevertheless, Indigenous and non-Indigenous
people in many forest areas have limited meansof earning cash and many therefore engage inunregistered logging or rattan extraction. Attempts
by DENR to police such activities are often seen
as unjust, since corporations or local personalities
similarly engaged may be prosecuted less readily.
Non-indigenous groups have few legal options forprotecting their rights, and those that are available
are highly bureaucratic. There are many cases ofoverlapping land-tenure claims by Indigenous
and non-indigenous groups, including in theimplementation of the NIPAS (Fey 2007).

Key points•

The Philippines has an estimated PFE of 6.35
million hectares (compared with 6.51 hectares
in 2005), comprising 4.70 million hectares ofnatural production forest (the same as estimatedfor 2005), 1.34 million hectares of protection
forest (compared with 1.54 million hectares in2005) and 314 000 hectares of planted forest(compared with 274 000 hectares in 2005).

•

At least 79 000 hectares of the production PFE
are under SFM. No forest is certified, and nodata were available on the area of the protection
PFE under SFM.

•

In addition to existing mechanisms forcommunity forestry, the federal and local
governments are beginning to share thestewardship of forests and forestlands with local
people under individual property rights
agreements, although to date few suchagreements have been issued.

•

Resources within the Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources have beenreconfigured to focus on the restoration of
ecosystem services and the creation of economic
opportunities in upland areas.

•

A timber-tracking system is being piloted andthere are plans to deploy it nationwide in thehope it will facilitate forest law enforcement.

•

The Presidential Task Force on Climate Change
was created in 2007 to, among other things,
provide mitigation and adaptation measures for
reducing the impacts of climate change on theforest sector.

•

The Government of the Philippines is strongly
engaged in international REDD+ processes. The
country has considerable potential for carbon
capture and storage through forest restoration
and afforestation, if forest governance can be
improved.

Summary
The Philippines has lost a substantial part of its
natural forest, and timber production has declined
dramatically in the last three decades. Considerable
efforts have been made to encourage community
forestry on degraded forestland. More than 5000
communities have community-based forest
management agreements with the government overnearly 6 million hectares, and there is now alsoa mechanism for individuals to engage in forest
stewardship. However, the extent to which thesemeasures provide secure tenure is contested, andnational legislation to bring greater certainty to theforest sector is stalled. Carbon capture and storage
has the potential to increase the income that can beearned from forest restoration. In the longer term,
this could help to improve the ability of uplandareas to provide a range of ecosystem services.

240

EndnotesaGovernment of the Philippines (2009).

b

ITTO estimate.

cPersonal communications with R. Umali, 2010. Ricardo
Umali is President and CEO, Sustainable Ecosystems
International Corp., and worked as a consultant in the
preparation of Government of the Philippines (2009).

PHILIPPINES

References and other sources
Cruz, R. & de Luna, C. (2009). Climate change impacts,
vulnerabilities and adaptation in the forestry sector.. Excerpt
from the report Vulnerability and adaptation assessment for
the forestry sector (forestry, biodiversity and water resources)
as a contribution to the preparation of the second national
communication to the UNFCCC.
DENR (undated, website accessed March 2011). Statglance2009(available at http://forestry.denr.gov.ph/).
Eggleston, H., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe,
T. (eds) (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Programme. Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies, Kamakura, Japan.
FAO (2001). Yearbook of Forest Products. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010 country
report: Philippines (available at http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).

ITTO (2003). Achieving the ITTO Objective 2000 andsustainable forest management in the Philippines. Report ofthe diagnostic mission. Presented at the thirty-fifth sessionof the International Tropical Timber Council, November
2003. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO (2005). Revised ITTO Criteria and Indicators for the
Sustainable Management of Tropical Forests Including
Reporting Format. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2011, website accessed March 2011). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).
IUCN (website accessed March 2011). IUCN red list of
threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).
Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World Atlas ofMangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.

Fey, C. (2007). Review of legal frameworks for communitybased
natural resource management in selected asian countries(draft). World Agroforestry Centre, Bogor, Indonesia.

UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.

FMB (2010, website accessed 2010). 2008 Philippine forestry
statistics (available at http://forestry.denr.gov.ph/stat2007.
htm). Forest Management Bureau.

UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries Data prepared for
ITTO.. UNEPWCMC, Cambridge, UK.

Fourteenth Congress of the Republic of the Philippines(undated). Senate SB No 80. Introduced by Senator
Loren Legarda (available at http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/41423550!.pdf ).

UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March
2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html).

FSC (2010, website accessed December 2010). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).

United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
March 2010). World population prospects: the 2008
revision (searchable database available at http://esa.un.org/
unpp/p2k0data.asp).

Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007). Monitoringand estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDDa reality. Environmental Research Letters 2 (available at http://
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Government of the Philippines (2009). Report of progress
toward achieving sustainable forest management in
the Philippines. Submission to ITTO by the Forest
Management Bureau, Department of Environment andNatural Resources, the Philippines.

241

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Thailandevergreen forests, dominated by species of thegenera Dipterocarpus, Hopea, Shorea,
Lagerstroemia, Diospyros, Terminalia and
Artocarpus.

Forest resources
Thailand is located in the southeastern part ofcontinental Asia, bordered by Myanmar, the Lao
People’s Democratic Republic, Cambodia andMalaysia. It has a land area of 51.3 million hectares
and a population in 2010 of 68.1 million people(United Nations Population Division 2010); it
is ranked 87th out of 182 countries in UNDP’s
Human Development Index (UNDP 2009).
Thailand is divided into five regions: Northern,Northeastern, Central, Eastern and Southern,with a total of 76 provinces and 716 districts.
Each district is further divided into sub-districts(tambons).a
Estimates of forest cover include 15.9 million
hectares (Government of Thailand 2009) and 19.0
million hectares (FAO 2010). A change in themethodology used to estimate forest cover led toa significant increase in reported forest cover from1998 (13.0 million hectares) to 2000 (17.1 million
hectares; Government of Thailand 2009).
An analysis of 2008 Landsat data indicated that
55.3% of the Northern region, 32.9% of theCentral region, 27.4% of the Southern region,
22% of the Eastern region and 16.5% of theNortheastern region were forested.a
Forest types. The forests can be classified as:•

Evergreen forests with three sub-types – tropicalrainforests, semi-evergreen forests and hill

242•

Pine forests, mainly of Pinus merkusii.

•

Mangrove and coastal forests, the main
mangrove genera being Rhizophora, Avicennia
and Bruguiera and the main beach genera being
Diospyros, Lagerstroemia and Casuarina.

•

Mixed deciduous forest, the dominant species
being Tectona grandis (teak), Xylia kerrii,
Pterocarpus macrocarpus, Dalbergia spp andAfzelia xylocarpa.

•

Dry dipterocarp forest (ITTO 2006a).

Mangrove forests containing more than 35
species occur mainly on the country’s west coast.
While estimates vary it is likely that about halfof Thailand’s mangroves have been lost since the1960s. Currently there are an estimated 248 000
hectares (Spalding et al. 2010).
Permanent forest estate. In Thailand the PFE
is not deliberately demarcated and reserved, andthe area of reported PFE has, therefore, changed
over time. In 1991 the reported area of PFE was
23.5 million hectares, much of it already without
forest cover. Table 1 presents an estimate of thecurrent PFE based on a review by ITTO (2006b);
it comprises 1.9 million hectares of state-owned
plantations, an area of semi-natural teak forest
categorized here as part of the natural production
PFE, and just over ten million hectares ofprotection forest. Theoretically, forest reserves (seebelow) should be classified as PFE. Despite theirlegal status, however, they lack protection and manyof them have lost their forest cover; moreover, few
have an inventory or a management plan (ITTO
2006b).

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. During
the 1960s and 1970s, widespread deforestation
was caused by timber extraction and clearing for
subsistence farming and commercial agriculture.
During this time it is estimated that forest coverdeclined from 60% of the land area to around 25%

THAILAND

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlantedTotal(million ha)
2005*
2010
*
**
‡
†

§

13.0–16.8
17.2–19.0

10 1276140**

0
251‡

1870
1900†

8260
10 00010 13012 160§As reported in ITTO (2006a).
Calculated using the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) (32.3%) and the total
natural forest area as estimated by FAO (2010).

Semi-natural planted teak forest.
Derived from STCP Engenharia de Projectos Ltda (2009), including eucalypt, pines, acacias and teak plantations. An additionarea of 2.1 million hectares is planted with Hevea brasiliensis (but is not counted here).

FAO (2010) estimated the PFE to be 16.4 million hectares.

(RECOFTC–ASFN 2010). Growing realizationof the importance of forests for environmental
protection, ecosystem services and livelihoods led
to the introduction of a logging ban in 1989 toprotect the remaining natural forest. According
to FAO (2010), the annual rate of deforestation
has been declining for some years, from 0.77%
between 1990 and 2000, to 0.11% between 2000
and 2005, to 0.08% between 2005 and 2010. An
increase in the area of planted forest, however,masks a continued decline in the natural forest area
(ITTO 2006b). Even taking into account planted
forest (excluding plantations of Hevea brasiliensis),the Government of Thailand (2009) indicatedsignificantly greater deforestation, from 17 million
hectares in 2000 to 15.9 million hectares in 2006,
an average annual rate of 1.1%. Many of theremaining native forests have been over-exploitedand are now seriously deficient in growing stockand biodiversitya, although there are about 6.7
million hectares of primary forest (Table 2).

caused by encroachment for agriculture, refugees
from neighbouring countries seeking living space,the development of infrastructure, and illegal
logging (ITTO 2006a).
Vulnerability of forests to climate change.
Thailand’s weather is greatly influenced bymonsoons that produce three seasons in the northand two seasons in the southern peninsular region.
As with other countries in the region, Thailand
is at risk from sea-level rise, higher temperatures,
more frequent droughts, and changes in rainfall
patterns that are likely to affect agriculture andcause increased flooding. Data from Thailand’s
Meteorological Department show that averagetemperatures have increased steadily in the last
40 years and rains have been arriving later. The
agricultural sector, which employs 49% of the
population and contributes 10% of GDP, is mostat risk. Extreme climatic events, including floods,
are likely to become more frequent and/or severe
with future climate change (IPCC 2001). Thailand
completed a first draft of its National Climate
Change Master Plan (2010–2019) in early 2009.
As of mid 2010 this was still under review bystakeholders.

The estimated annual average area of forest
affected by fire in the period 2003–07 was 21 000
hectares, which was dramatically less than the
350 000 hectares per year reported for the period
1998–2002 (FAO 2010). Forests are also subject
to a range of other disturbances, including those
Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

Total’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land

-

-

6726
8728*
-

*
‘Other naturally regenerated forest’.
Source: FAO (2010).

243

Status of tropical forest management 2011

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. Forests in Thailand are owned by
the state, except for planted forests establishedon private lands. FAO (2010) estimated that 2.2
million hectares of forests were owned by private
firms or individuals and the remainder was ownedby the state (Table 3). About 250 000 hectaresof forests are reserved for Indigenous and local
communities (RRI 2009).
Thailand has 1221 national forest reserves covering
an area of 23.4 million hectares (nearly half of thecountry’s total land area), although large parts ofthese reserves are no longer forested. The largest
share (11.2 million hectares) of the national forest
reserves are in the Northern Region. About 20%of the country’s 56 000 villages are located within
national forest reserves (ITTO 2006b).
The government has issued various types of tenurerights for people living in national forest reserves.
The establishment of community forests is currently
permitted in national forest reserves under formal
management by the Royal Forest Department(RFD) and in other forests which are not yet
occupied or developed for use (RECOFTC–ASFN
2010). Local communities have no formal use
rights in protected areas, although they are allowed
to collect some basic forest products such as dry
fuelwood and NTFPs for household use, withpermission from the Department of National Parks,
Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP).
Criteria and indicators. Although Thailand does
not have an official C&I framework for monitoring,assessment and reporting on SFM in natural forests,
it has prepared a set of C&I for the sustainable
management of planted forests and also benefited
from an ITTO C&I training workshop in 2009.
The Thai Industrial Standard Institute (TISI), a

government agency that has responsibility for the
preparation, adoption and application of standards,
has prepared two draft proposals, Sustainable Forest
management System: Guidelines for Sustainable
Forest Management System Auditing (TIS 1406Y),
and Sustainable Forest Management System:
Guidelines on Competence of Sustainable Forest
Management System Auditors (TIS 1406X), tobe approved by the relevant Thai authorities. The
submission to ITTO for this report was not in the
ITTO C&I reporting format.
Forest policy and legislation. The 1997
Constitution recognizes the right and dutyof traditional and other local communities toparticipate in natural resource management, andthe right of the Thai people to participate innational policy formulation regarding resourcesand environmental development and conservation.
A process of drafting a Community Forest Bill toprovide a legal framework for community forestry
began in 1991, but it has been hampered by a lackof consensus on key issues, in particular whether
community forestry should be permitted inprotected areas. The Bill was passed by the National
Legislative Assembly in November 2007 but it has
since been challenged in the Constitutional Court.
Thai forestry is regulated by a number of legislative
instruments, including the Forest Control Act(1941), the National Park Act (1961), the National
Reserved Forest Act (1964), the Wild Animal
Reservation and Protection Act (1992), the Forest
Plantation Act (1992) and the Reforestation Act(1992). Overall more than 20 laws and a number ofCabinet decisions are relevant to forest management(ITTO 2006b).
The 1941 national forest policy focused on timber
production and dealt solely with the management

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category
State ownership (national, state orprovincial government)
Other public entities (e.g.
municipalities, villages)
Total public
Owned by local communities and/orIndigenous groups
Privately owned by individuals, firms,
other corporate
Source: FAO (2010).

244

Total area Of which PFE Notes’000 ha
16 700

12 20000

16 7000

12 20002200

0250 000 hectares reserved for Indigenous and local
communities, mainly in the Northern Region.

.

THAILAND

of plantations and logging concessions in naturalforests. The 1985 forest policy sought to establish
the long-term coordinated management of forest
resources, envisaging increasing the area of forest
to 40% of the land area (15% for conservation and
25% for production).
With the imposition of a logging ban in 1989
the focus of forestry moved strongly towards
conservation. The First Policy and Prospective
Plan for the Enhancement and Conservation of
National Environmental Quality (1997–2016)
included guidelines for institutional reforms forthe management of community forests, water,
biodiversity and watershed protection, and theparticipation of people and communities. The
forest-cover target was set as 50% (30% forconservation and 20% for production) (ITTO
2006b).
References to the forest sector in the country’s 9th
National Economic and Social Development Plan
(2002–06) were general and provided insufficientguidance to government and stakeholders on thedevelopment of the forest sector (ITTO 2006b).
The 10th plan (2007–2011), however, contains
several specific targets to ‘conserve natural resources
and biodiversity’, including:•

Maintaining forest at not less than 33% of thetotal land area, including conservation forest at
no less than 18% of the total land area.

•

Restoring 2.9 million rai (464 000 hectares) ofconserved forest.

•

Developing a GIS database and a 1:4000
information map to be used together with local
participation in identifying reserved forest
boundaries.

•

Promoting community rights and participationin resource management, including throughmeasures that would promote communities asstrong social network bases for natural resource
recovery and management.

Institutions involved in forests. The RFD
was established in 1896 as the sole agency forthe administration and management of forest
resources. As a result, the ownership and control
of all forests were transferred from feudal chiefs
to the government. In 2002 the RFD was divided
into three departments: the RFD, the DNP and
the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources(DMC). All three are under the supervision of the

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.
The RFD is responsible for forests outside protectedareas (protected areas are the DNP’s responsibility).
The DMC is responsible for the management ofcoastal flora and fauna, including mangrove forests,
and the Forest Industry Organization is responsible
for government-owned plantations (Government ofThailand 2009). The total staff employed in publicforest institutions in 2007 was 2329 (FAO 2010).
The DNP and RFD have regional offices, which
are responsible for all forest-related activities. Theseliaise with the superintendents of national parks andwildlife sanctuaries as well as with provincial andlocal authorities, such as Tambon administrations.
Technical extension assistance to forest farmers
is provided by specialized departments and theregional offices (Government of Thailand 2009).
The Forest Industry Organization was established in1956 to oversee the industrial use of Thai forests. It
has evolved into a diversified organization operatingin resource management, industrial timberprocessing and marketing, tourism, conservationand social development. The organization lacks aclear long-term vision and strategy about its futurerole (ITTO 2006b).
Some community forest organizations have built
regional networks. For example, the Northern
Farmer’s Network is active across several northern
sub-watersheds (Government of Thailand 2009).
The Indigenous Knowledge and Peoples Network
is a regional network of Indigenous communities
throughout mainland Southeast Asia with theaim of protecting, promoting and enhancing
the practice of Indigenous landscape and forest
management.
Mutual suspicion between NGOs and forest-related
public agencies has been diminishing, partly asa result of the opening-up of policy processes tobroader participation, and there is an appreciation
among most parties of the need to cooperate.
However, government policies still tend to be
opaque and access to information still needs tobe improved. From the government’s perspective,
the fragmentation of the NGO community makes
dealing with them somewhat cumbersome (ITTO
2006b).
Research in forestry is scattered. The RFD Research
Division was divided into two when the DNP
was established and there is no central body forforestry research, which has resulted in some245

Status of tropical forest management 2011

overlap and a lack of coordination. Many actors
including universities and the private sector are
conducting forestry-related research on specificissues of immediate interest to them. The Forest
Restoration Research Unit1 conducts participatory
forest restoration research and capacity-building in
northern Thailand.

Status of forest management
Forest for production
Prior to 1989, Thailand approached natural forest
management on the basis of forest management(working) plans. General management guidelines
prescribed that deciduous teak forest should bemanaged under a 30-year felling cycle. The dry
dipterocarp forest was to be managed under themodified ‘coppice’ and ‘coppice with standards’
systems, based on a 20-year rotation. For thetropical evergreen forest, the management system
adopted was similar to the selection cutting systemprescribed for the deciduous teak forest, based on a
30-year felling cycle.
In the period 1960–1988, timber harvesting
was carried out through more than 500 timber
concessions covering about half the country;
under this system the forests were over-harvested
and residual stands were badly damaged. In
1989, after disastrous flash floods in 1988 in
Nakomsithammarat Province, the government
banned logging in natural forests, cancelled allconcessions and abandoned the working-plansystem (ITTO 2006a).
Despite the logging ban, however, the forests
remained accessible and forest clearance andencroachment became widespread. In 1995 it wasestimated that about 10 million people were livingon state forest lands; these lands were subsequently
allotted to the squatters (Nalampoon 2002). In
1996, the Government of Thailand revoked all
logging licences in mangrove forests to reduce theirdestruction. Today, there is no official logging in
natural forest.
National efforts by the DNP and the RFD tocombat forest loss and degradation have focusedon encouraging local community and forestdwellers to participate in conservation and forest
restoration projects as well as on strengthening

1 www.forru.org.

246

law enforcement and public-awareness campaigns.
In the Tenasserim Biodiversity Corridor in theprovinces of Ratchaburi and Kanchanaburi, a pilot
REDD initiative is testing the use of participatory
governance structures and mechanisms such as acommunity revolving fund to enable communities
to manage forests and undertake livelihood
activities (Government of Thailand 2009).
The most critical constraints impeding progress
towards SFM in Thailand are bottlenecks in theregulatory framework; a lack of coherence between
public policies; widely varying perceptions among
stakeholders about how Thailand’s forests should beconserved and managed; a lack of coherent support
for communities and the private sector to manage
forest resources; institutional uncertainty related
to the administration of public forests; deficient
information systems; and a lack of systematic
strategies for human-resource development andextension (including processing industries) (ITTO
2006b). Effective land-use and land-tenurearrangements are needed in places where forestdwellers and ethnic minorities claim ancestral landthat is now in protected areas (Government ofThailand 2009).
ITTO (2006b) found many gaps and weaknesses in
the management of Thailand’s forests but formed
the view that corrective actions could address manyof these, stating that Thailand had accumulated “awealth of knowledge and well-trained professional
human resources, on which basis further progress
towards the SFM goal can be made”. ITTO has
since funded a project to establish a national forest
resources monitoring information system to provide
change and trend data on timber and non-timber
forest resources.
Silviculture and species selection. Various
silvicultural systems, such as selection, shelterwood,coppice with standards and modified coppice, havebeen attempted in Thailand. Thailand has never
had a systematically applied, long-term silvicultural
management system, however, despite successful
experiences in neighbouring countries, particularly
Myanmar, with similar forest types. Moreover,the logging ban, in place since 1989, impedes
silvicultural improvement in national forest reservesbecause treatment to liberate trees would involve
harvesting (ITTO 2006b).
Another factor inhibiting silviculture is a lack ofnational-level forest inventories. Prior to the logging

THAILAND

ban, inventories were regional or local in scale andonly data on teak were collected (ibid.). As part ofmoves to participate in REDD, Thailand recently
commenced a preliminary mapping of tree volume
involving a ‘panel’ approach for plot measurement
whereby one-fifth of plots are re-measured eachyear. The sampling design comprises a single
systematic sample of points on a 20 km x 20 km
uniform grid, covering Thailand’s entire land mass
(there are a total of 1287 monitoring points, ofwhich 425 are in forests). Data from sample plots
are expected to provide valuable input for updating
information on forest cover and deforestation(Government of Thailand 2009).
Prior to the logging ban, the five most important
species in the timber market were Dipterocarpus
alatus (29%), Shorea obtusa (12%), teak (8%),
Hopea spp (8%) and Xylia kerrii (5%) (ITTO
2006a). Now, plantation species have taken theplace of all but teak (Table 4), which is largely
derived from ‘semi-natural’ forest.
Planted forest and trees outside the forest. The
total extent of planted forest, including Hevea
brasiliensis (rubber), was estimated by FAO (2010)
at 3.99 million hectares and by ITTO (2009) at
4.88 million hectares; not all of this is in the PFE(as shown in Table 1). In 2005 the estimated annual
rate of reforestation and afforestation was 27 300
hectares. Species planted include teak (see below),
Eucalyptus spp, Acacia mangium and other Acacia
spp, other broadleaved species, Pinus merkusii
and other Pinus spp, and other conifers (ITTO
2006a). The most important plantation species forthe timber industry is rubber; the country’s large
estate of this species (estimated by FAO 2010 to be
2.1 million hectares), planted originally for its latex,
is increasingly being harvested for timber. Timberfrom agroforestry plots, home gardens, avenue trees
and farm trees is also increasing in importance.
The RFD began planting teak in 1906 on an areaof less than one hectare. By 1980, the annual area

Planted managed teak forest, Thailand.

planted was about 160 000 hectares, under thetaungya system. The state enterprises (the Forest
Industry Organization and the Thai Plywood
Factory) also established teak plantations to feed
the industry. In 1992 the government passed theForest Plantation Act, allowing the private sector
to establish plantations on degraded forest land.
In 1994 the RFD launched a forest plantation
promotion project to encourage and support private
landowners and local farmers to establish forest
plantations of commercial tree species and to help
the country become more self-sufficient in timber.
Forest certification. As of September 2010, forests
totalling 19 000 hectares were certified by the FSC(FSC 2010). In Table 5, 11 000 hectares of these
are counted as natural forest (being semi-natural
teak forests) and 8000 hectares are counted asplanted forests.
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. With logging activities
banned in the natural-forest PFE, there is nonatural forest area sustainably managed for timber
production. However, semi-natural planted teakforest in which timber production is possible may
be considered as natural forest. According to theGovernment of Thailand, 251 000 hectares ofsemi-natural forest are subject to management
plansa, in sharp contrast to the 16.4 million hectares

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Hevea brasiliensis (rubberwood)*
Tectona grandis (teak)*
Eucalyptus spp*
Acacia spp*
Pinus spp*

Used in furniture manufacturing.
Expensive cabinet wood.
Cheaper utility wood, pulpwood, cellulosic biofuel.
Cheaper utility wood.
Construction timber and utility wood.

*
Also listed in ITTO (2006). In the case of Pinus spp, Pinus merkusii was listed in ITTO (2006).
Source: Government of Thailand (2010) and personal communications (see endnote b).

247

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)
Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

0
251**

251

*
**
‡

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
251

11

-

1870

PlantedWith
management
plans
250

11

1900

8‡

Sustainably
managed

Total

Certified

1
8

As reported in ITTO (2006a).
State-owned semi-natural teak forest.
May include forest not in the PFE.

estimated by FAO (2010) (an area that is more than
4 million hectares greater than the total estimated
PFE). The two estimates are difficult to reconcile,
but in the absence of further information on theextent to which such management plans are current,
the smaller estimate has been applied in Table 5(the semi-natural forests being treated as natural).
The 11 000 hectares of certified semi-natural forest
is included in the total.
Timber production and trade. Each year morethan 40 million tonnes of wood is produced andconsumed in the form of fuelwood and charcoala(although FAO 2010 reported a total woodfuelharvest of only 7000 m3). The two main sourcesof industrial wood are eucalypt plantations andrubber plantations; estimated annual production
in 2009 was 5.1 million m3, the same as reported
for 2005–2008 (ITTO 2011). No estimates wereavailable of the volume of timber harvested illegally.
Thailand exported 1.62 million m3 of sawnwood
in 2009 (ITTO 2011), and the total value ofwood-product exports – including paper products,
fibreboard and wooden furniture – in that year
was 100 000 million baht (about US$3.2 billion at2010 exchange rates).a
Thailand is a net importer of primary timber
products. In 2009 it imported 272 000 m3 ofindustrial logs (down from 468 000 m3 in 2004),
1.69 million m3 of sawnwood (1.84 million m3
in 2004) and 217 000 m3 of plywood (ITTO
2011). In 2009 the total value of primary timber
product imports was about US$376 million. By
comparison, total primary timber-product exports
were worth US$307 million (ibid.).
Non-timber forest products. At least five million
people are thought to be critically dependent on
NTFPs, which provide material needs, cash income
and employment at levels which are significant to
the rural and national economies (ITTO 2006b).

248

CertifiedThailand has twelve genera and about 60 species ofbamboo. The most recent survey, in 1998, showedthat bamboo covered a total area of 800 000
hectares. On the basis of an average annual yield of
0.1 tonnes per hectare green weight and assumingthat this area has been maintained, Thailand’s
potential annual production of bamboo fromnatural sources is about 500 000 tonnes. Bamboo
is used extensively as a substitute for timber inconstruction, scaffolding, ladders, bridges, fences
and pulp-making. The unregulated removal ofbamboo from forests has created a shortage,
however, which is a serious constraint for artisans
and small and medium-sized enterprises. Shortagesof rattan – another important NTFP in Thailandused in furniture manufacture and also as a food –in natural forests have prompted the establishmentof plantations: by 2006 nearly 5000 hectares ofrattan plantation had been established on statelands (ibid.).
Lac is the resinous secretion of several species of
insect (the most common species being Laccifer
lacca) used as a varnish and dye. Thailand is thesecond-largest lac-producing country after India.
Lac is collected from the branches of numerous
tree species (on which it has been secreted) in
the natural forests of Thailand’s Northern andNortheast regions (the Northern Region accounts
for 80–90% of total production) (ibid.).
The national parks system is of growing importanceto Thailand’s ecotourism industry. With mostparks easily accessible by road, there exists excellent
potential to expand the number of visitors who
use them. There is particular potential for naturebased tourism in northeastern Thailand. Nationalparks close to the Mekong River include sites ofprehistoric, archaeological and natural significance.
As the Mekong region increases in its exposure andpopularity, the number of visitors to these parks is

THAILAND

expected to experience. Ecotourism projects havebeen attempted since the late 1990s in several of
Thailand’s national parks and wildlife sanctuaries,
with varying success.
Forest carbon. Thailand has an approved Strategic
Plan on Climate Change (2008–2012), whichemphasizes land use and forests. Gibbs et al.
(2007) estimated national-level forest biomass
carbon stock at 1346–2215 MtC, and FAO(2010) estimated the carbon content in the living
forest biomass at 880 MtC. The Government ofThailand prepared a readiness idea note for theForest Carbon Partnership Facility and joined
the REDD+ Partnership in 2010. A pilot REDD
project is being implemented in the Tenasserim
Biodiversity Corridor. This project, which started
in 2006, covers the largest contiguous stretch ofprimary forest in Thailand; it is an internationallyrecognized site for biodiversity and a global priority
area for tiger conservation, and it also contains
considerable stocks of carbon. However, REDD+
is a controversial issue in Thai society because
questions concerning the access of Indigenous
people to protected forest lands have not yet been
resolved (RECOFTC–ASFN 2010). In order tomake broad progress on REDD+ it will be necessary
to address Indigenous rights and community
forestry and to ensure that local people receive
adequate benefits from forest protection efforts.

Fifty mammals, 30 birds, four amphibians, four
arthropods and seven plants found in forests arelisted as critically endangered, endangered orvulnerable on the IUCN red list of threatened
species (IUCN 2011). Fifteen plant species arelisted in CITES Appendix I, 232 in Appendix II
and one in Appendix III (UNEP-WCMC 2011).
Protective measures in production forests. As
there is no timber production in natural forests,
all natural forests are considered to be protection
forests, although many are still harvested for NTFPs
for local consumption.

Soil and water. The forest area managed primarily
for the protection of soil and water is estimated atabout 1.33 million hectares (FAO 2010).

Extent of protected areas. An estimated 8.85
million hectares of forest is designated for theconservation of biodiversity in Thailand, another
130 000 hectares are designated for ‘social services’and a total of 9.43 million hectares of forest is withinprotected areas (FAO 2010). Thailand has set a targetof 25% of the country’s total land area in protectedareas; in 2006 the coverage was about 20%. The
protected-area network comprises 227 declaredprotected areas (covering 11.3 million hectares,
not all of it forest) under the control of the DNP.
Although extensive, the protected-area network
contain disproportionate amounts of upland forest
and very little lowland evergreen forest; nevertheless
it is considered to be one of the best in Southeast
Asia (ITTO 2006b). UNEP-WCMC (2010)
estimated that about 10.2 million hectares of forest
were in protected areas that conformed to IUCN
protected-area categories I–IV, including 553 000
hectares with 10–30% canopy cover, 2.16 million
hectares with 30–60% canopy cover and 7.43
million hectares with >60% canopy cover.

Biological diversity. Thailand is endowed with
about 7% of the world’s known flora and fauna.
There are an estimated 12 000 vascular plant
species, including 1140 orchid species, and 2145
non-vascular plant species. Thailand also has an
estimated 4600 species of vertebrates and 83 000
invertebrates (Chen et al. 2011).

Protected-area advisory committees have been
established to assist in the management of protectedareas. These are multi-stakeholder bodies, themembership of which includes ethnic minorities,
forest dwellers and women. They are working
effectively in many protected areas, while others needstrengthening (Government of Thailand 2009).

Forest for protection

Table 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)% forestwithcanopycover >60%

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

1346–2215

32++

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
sink capacity monitoring
capacity
to 2030++++

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

Importance Engagementinof forest
international
fire/
REDD+
biomass
processes
burning++++++ high; ++ medium; + low; estimate of national forest carbon based on Gibbs et al. (2007); estimate of % total forest with canopy cover>60% based on UNEP-WCMC (2010).

249

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Socioeconomic aspects

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. Data on the status ofmanagement in a large part of the protection
PFE are unavailable. Of the total 103 gazetted
national parks, the government had preparedmaster plans for 55 by 2006 (ITTO 2006b). Valid
management plans existed for only 15 gazettedparks; another 45 areas had been proclaimed but
not yet gazetted. Of the 55 wildlife sanctuaries,
only 25 had management plans under preparation.
Management plans have not necessarily led to
improved protection as they have often lacked
implementation (ibid.).

Economic aspects. The cessation of commercial
harvesting in natural forests had reduced thecontribution of forestry to GDP to about
0.1% by 2005 (ITTO 2006b). However, thewood-processing sector has increased production
in recent years using timber obtained mostly fromplantations, non-forest sources and imports, andthe sector’s contribution to GDP, therefore, is
probably growing. Tourism is the country’s primarysource of foreign exchange and protected forests area significant attraction. The government collected
45.7 million baht in forest-related revenue in 2007
(down from 131 million baht in 2002), including
licence fees, forest improvement fees and royalties
from timber harvesting (FAO 2010).

ITTO is providing support for the managementof the Pha Taem Protected Forests Complex
in northeastern Thailand as part of a wider
transboundary biodiversity conservation area
between Thailand, Cambodia and Laos. The
project extends over an area of 174 000 hectaresin Thailand and includes four protected areas anda fifth proposed protected area. ITTO (2006a)
included this area in its estimate of sustainably
managed protection forest. However, significant
deforestation was observed in the Complex between
2002 and 2008 (from 66% cover to 62% cover),mostly in two of the protected areas and the
proposed protected area (Trisurat & Gasana 2010).
Recent conflict between Thailand and Cambodia
in this area has affected project implementation.
Therefore, the forests of only two of the protectedareas, the Pha Taem National Park (approximately
31 800 hectares of forest) and the Yot Dom Wildlife
Sanctuary (approximately 22 400 hectares of forest),
are included in the estimate given in Table 7.

Livelihood values. Due to the logging ban,villagers are not allowed to fell or harvest any kindof living trees from natural forests for household
or commercial purposes, although they haveusufruct rights to NTFPs. They may, however,
harvest plantation forests for timber and fuelwood,
although a permit is required for teak and other‘reserved’ species.
Forests have always been integral to rural life in
Thailand and they play important social, economic
and cultural roles. An estimated 1.2–2.0 million
people live in and around protected areas (nationalparks and wildlife sanctuaries) and rely on forests
for livelihoods. Another 20–25 million people
live in or near national forest reserves and collectforest products from them, both for household
consumption and to sell in markets for cash (ITTO
2006b).

Another ITTO project supports the developmentof the buffer zone of the 348 000-hectare Kaeng
Krachan National Park using participatory
approaches. The approach to the management of
this park is evolving towards a more participatorymodel (Suwanmanee 2009) and is thought to beconsistent with sustainability.

Social relations. In Thailand, mistrust between
authorities and communities has constrained
implementation of community forestry as a
key strategy for improving forest management(FAO 2009). The Community Forest Bill was
expected to help community forestry to gain newprominence in Thailand and to resolve conflicts

Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)
Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

8260
10 0005450
10 200**

9320
1330

402

522
402‡

*
**
‡

250

As reported in ITTO (2006a).
UNEP-WCMC (2010).

Comprises the Pha Taem National Park, the Yot Dom Wildlife Sanctuary and the Kaeng Krachan National Park.

THAILAND

between the national forestry administration andlocal communities, but activists are challenging
it in the Constitutional Court (Governmentof Thailand 2009). It has been criticized forits potential to negatively affect more than
20 000 communities, which could be prevented
from accessing and/or managing their current
community forests because they are located withinpreviously designated protected areas (Weatherby &Soonthornwong undated).
Despite various government policies aimed at
encouraging it, less than 1% of the forest estate has
been brought under community management. Key
issues and constraints facing community forestry
development include the following (ITTO 2006b):•

Authorities and many vocal NGOs have little
trust or confidence in local communities ascustodians of forests and fear that community
forestry will contribute to further degradation of
the remaining forests.

•

The number of illegal immigrants is growing,
especially in protected areas bordering
Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia: it is feared that
community forestry would give illegal
immigrants use rights to forests and serve as ameans for the immigrants to obtain Thai
citizenship.

•

Individual land-grant programs are transferring
land to individual households in both protectedareas and national forest reserves, possibly inareas that would otherwise be assigned ascommunity forests.

•

From the perspective of many villagers, whoalready have usufruct rights to forests, a formallyregistered community forest would appear tobring no additional direct benefits to them but,rather, would bring more responsibilities forforest protection and management.

•

The lack of an appropriate regulatory
framework has resulted in confusion about what
can and cannot be done in a community forest,
often contributing to frustration among, andfrictions between, concerned parties. Field
forestry staff often have to take personal risks topromote community forestry as later it may be
determined that such activities were illegal.

•

There is an inadequate framework forcommunity forestry, including a lack of policy
goals corresponding to local realities regarding

environmental degradation, inappropriate
resource use, the imbalance between the
demand and supply of forest products, thelongstanding ban on logging, and uncertainties
in the use of plantations.
The Government of Thailand has officiallyrecognized ten ethnic minority groups known
as ‘hill tribes’, concentrated in 20 provinces in
the northern regions of Thailand. Increasingpressure on land and in-migration, especially inthe north, has led to the need for measures toprotect watersheds and forests in those provinces.
The success of such measures, including through
REDD initiatives, will primarily depend on theactive participation of the hill tribes, and their
input is needed to improve REDD planning andimplementation (Government of Thailand 2009).

Summary
Logging in natural forests has been banned since
1989 in Thailand, but the forests remain underpressure from encroachment, illegal logging, fireand other agents. The Community Forestry Bill,
which was first drafted in the early 1990s, finallypassed into law in 2007 but its implementation
has been held up by a legal challenge. It has been
criticized on the basis that it could prevent somecommunities from accessing existing community
forests because they are inside protected areas.
The country’s 10th National Economic and Social
Development Plan (2007–2011) contains several
targets for the conservation of natural resources.
The regulatory framework for community forestry
is unclear, and there is a lack of trust between forest
authorities and forest communities. Plantations(especially of rubberwood) and imports aresupplying the country’s thriving downstreamprocessing timber industry. National parks are of
growing importance to Thailand’s economicallyimportant tourism industry.

Key points•

Thailand has an estimated PFE of 12.2 million
hectares (compared with 10.1 million hectares
in 2005), comprising 251 000 hectares ofsemi-natural teak planted forest, 10.0 million
hectares of natural protection forest (comparedwith 8.26 million hectares in 2005) and 1.90
million hectares of planted forest (comparedwith 1.87 million hectares in 2005).

251

Status of tropical forest management 2011•

An estimated 11 000 hectares of semi-natural
teak planted forest, and 402 000 hectares of theprotection PFE, are under SFM.

•

The Community Forestry Bill, which has finallypassed into law, is under legal challenge.

EndnotesaGovernment of Thailand (2010).

b

Input by participants at the ITTO Workshop on Criteria
and Indicators for the Management of Tropical Forests held
in Chiang Mai, Thailand on 26–29 May 2009.

References and other sources
FAO (2009). Thailand Forestry Outlook Study. Asia-Pacificforestry sector outlook study II. Working Paper Series,
Working paper No APFSOS II/WP/2009/22. FAO,
Bangkok, Thailand.
FAO (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010
country report: Thailand (available at http://www.fao.
org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).
FSC (2010, website accessed September 2010). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.
org/PublicCertificateSearch).

Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007).
Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon
stocks: making REDD a reality. Environmental Research
Letters 2 (available at http://iopscience.iop.org/17489326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Government of Thailand (2009). R-PIN submission. Revised
submission 16 Feb 2009.
Government of Thailand (2010). Report of progress towardachieving sustainable forest management in Thailand.
Submission to ITTO, Bangkok, Thailand.
Chen, H.K., Hewitt, J., Thang, H.C. & Agung Prasetyo,F. (2011). Scoping baseline information on timbertrade and governance for Insular Southeast Asia Region(Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines,
Singapore) and Timor-Leste. FLEGT Asia Regional
Programme, 26 February 2011 (Final Draft).
IPCC (2001). Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
ITTO (2006a). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005.
ITTO, Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.
int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2006b). Achieving the ITTO Objective 2000 andsustainable forest management in Thailand. Reportof the diagnostic mission. ITTC(XLI)/6. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO (2011, website accessed March 2011). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/
annual_review_output/?mode=searchdata).

252

IUCN (2011, website accessed March 2011). IUCN red listof threatened species (searchable database available atwww.redlist.org).
Nalampoon, A. (2002). Thailand national forest policy
review. Country report presented at the 19th sessionof the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission, Ulaanbaatar,
Mongolia, 28–30 August 2002.
RECOFTC–ASFN (2010, in prep.). Social forestry
programs to support climate change mitigation andadaptation schemes in ASEAN countries: an overview.
Centre for Peoples and Forest–ASEAN Social Forestry
Network. Swiss Development Cooperation and ASEAN.
December 2010.
RRI (2009). Who Owns the Forests of Asia? An Introduction
to the Forest Tenure Transition in Asia, 2002–2008. Rights
and Resources Initiative, Washington, DC, United States.

Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World
Atlas of Mangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
STCP Engenharia de Projetos Ltda (2009). Encouraging
Industrial Forest Plantations in the Tropics: Report of a
Global Study. ITTO Technical Series 33. ITTO, Yokohama,Japan.

Suwanmanee, A. (2009). Natural resource management
policy implementation at the local level: tensions andcontradictions in and around a Thai national park.
Doctorate of Philosophy thesis, School of Earth andEnvironmental Science, Faculty of Science, University of
Wollongong. Wollongong, Australia.
Trisurat, Y. & Gasana, J. (2010). Consequences of land-use
change on transboundary biodiversity conservation:
Emerald Triangle Protected Forests Complex: Thailand,
Cambodia and Laos. Presentation at the International
Conference on Biodiversity Conservation inTransboundary Tropical Forests. Quito, Ecuador, 21–24
July 2010.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP–WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. Data prepared for
ITTO. UNEP–WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March
2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
September 2010). World population prospects: the2008 revision (searchable database available at http://esa.
un.org/unpp/p2k0data.asp).
Weatherby, M. & Soonthornwong S. (undated). The
Thailand community forest bill (available at http://www.
rightsandresources.org/blog.php?id=34).

VANUATU

Vanuatu
380 hectares of woodland. Despite its extensive
coastline, Vanuatu does not host a large area ofmangroves, due in part to the steepness of its shores
and continuing volcanic activities; the total areaof mangroves is estimated at about 2050 hectares(Spalding et al. 2010). The mid-to-high forest(canopy height in the range of 20–30 m) and low
forest (canopy height in the range of 10–20 m)
fall under the broad category of tropical evergreen
forests, the main species being of the genera
Calophyllum, Campnosperma, Dillenia, Elaeocarpus,
Endospermum and Gmelina. The common species
in the mangrove forests belong to the genera
Rhizophora, Avicennia, Lumnitzera, Sonneratia and
Xylocarpus (ITTO 2006).

Forest resources
Vanuatu is an archipelago of volcanic islands andsubmarine volcanoes extending some 1300 km
from north to south in the western Pacific Ocean. It
comprises over 80 islands and has a total land areaof 1.23 million hectares. The two largest islands,
Espiritu Santo and Malekula, comprise nearly 50%of the total land mass. Vanuatu had a populationin 2010 of about 246 000 people (United Nations
Population Division 2010) and is ranked 126th outof 182 countries in UNDP’s Human Development
Index (UNDP 2009).
Vanuatu is vulnerable to a broad range of natural
disasters. Earthquakes are frequent, although
they often originate at considerable depth and are
therefore not too destructive. The majority of therural population (about 80% of the total) lives ina subsistence economy. FAO (2010) estimated thearea of natural forests at 440 000 hectares (36%of the land area). There are also about 476 000
hectares of ‘other wooded land’, some of which
may qualify as forest under FAO’s definition. The
estimate of forest and other wooded land in FAO(2010) is based on data from a forest inventory
conducted in 1989–92.
Forest types. The aforementioned forest inventory
estimated that forests and other wooded landcomprised 205 000 hectares of mid-to-highforest, 239 000 hectares of low forest, 434 000
hectares of thickets, 45 000 hectares of scrub andPermanent forest estate. Vanuatu has no legallydefined PFE. Since all land is owned by individuals
or clans, a future PFE will need to be negotiatedwith and agreed by the respective landowners. The
estimates given in Table 1 for 2005 represented thearea of forest that could possibly comprise a PFE in
the future. In this report, however, the production
PFE is shown as zero, since there has been noapparent move to create a PFE. The 2005 estimate
is repeated for the protection PFE, since this area
has been created, at least in part, with the supportof landowners.

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. Few data
are available on the condition of Vanuatu’s forests(Table 2). Using data of “unknown accuracy”,
the Government of Vanuatu (2008) estimatedthat about 1700 hectares of forest were cleared
annually in the period 2000–2005. The drivers andextent of deforestation and forest degradation vary
between islands, with most deforestation occurringon the four main islands of Espiritu Santo, Efate,
Tanna and Erromango. An estimated 50% of all
deforestation is due to subsistence land use.
Vulnerability of forests to climate change. The
climate in Vanuatu varies from wet tropical in
the northern islands to drier sub-tropical in thesouthern islands. The climatic-change patterns
in temperature and rainfall are similar to thosedescribed for PNG. Recent studies have shown,for example, that the annual and seasonal ocean

253

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reporting year

2005*
2010

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

0.902
0.440

442
394**

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted
117
0

2.10
0

Total

8.37
8.37

127
8.37

*
**

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Calculated using the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) (89%) and theestimated total natural forest area.
Source: ITTO estimate based on ITTO (2006).

a climate that is conducive to timber production.
Challenges for the sector, as set out in the NAPA,
include the development of an SFM plan, thereplanting of logged-over areas, the promotion ofcommercial tree plantations and the expansion ofagroforestry (ibid.).

surface and island air temperatures in the southern
Pacific have increased by 0.6–1 °C since 1910
(Government of PNG 2010). Over the period
1961–2003 there was a significant increase in theannual number of hot days and warm nights in
the region. Climate-change projections indicate
a warming trend for all small island states in thesouthern Pacific involving a mean annual increaseof 1.98 °C by 2050 and 2.81 °C by 2080 (ibid.).

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. Under Vanuatu’s Constitution,
all lands, including forest lands, are vested in the
Indigenous people as customary owners (Table3). Only Indigenous citizens who have acquired
their land in accordance with a recognized systemof land tenure can own it in perpetuity. Land may
be leased for a period of up to 75 years. Under
the Land Leases Act, leases are administeredby the government on behalf of the customary
owners. This allows the government to oversee
lease transactions in accordance with Article 79of the Constitution, which requires government
permission before land transactions may occur
between Ni-Vanuatu (Indigenous people) andnon-Indigenous citizens. Land-tenure disputes
among tribal groupings are a common feature of
Indigenous land-use planning (Government of
Vanuatu 2008).

All island developing states are highly vulnerable
to climate change and sea level rise owing partly totheir small land masses surrounded by ocean andtheir location in regions prone to natural disasters.
Vanuatu is subject to frequent cyclones. A total of
124 tropical cyclones affected the country between
1939 and 2005 (Government of Vanuatu 2007); on
average, a cyclone causes significant forest damage
once every five years.
The Government of Vanuatu established the
National Advisory Committee on Climate Change
as early as 1989. It finalized its NAPA in 2007
(ibid.). The forest sector is listed in the NAPA asa key sector to be addressed for climate-change
adaptation, along with agriculture, fisheries,
water and tourism. According to the NAPA theforest sector is vulnerable to the effect of climate
variability; for example, cyclones regularly open
up large gaps in the forest canopy and allow theinvasion of the vine Merremia, which hinders
regeneration. The sector also presents considerable
opportunities: Vanuatu possesses excellent soils andCriteria and indicators. No submission – either in
the ITTO C&I reporting format or otherwise – wasreceived from the Government of Vanuatu for thisreport.

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

Total’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land

254

-

-

-

VANUATU

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

State ownership (national,
state or provincial
government)
Other public entities (e.g.
municipalities, villages)
Total public
Owned by local communities
and/or Indigenous groups
Privately owned by individuals,
firms, other corporate*

Total area

Of which
PFE’000 ha

0

0

0

0

0
440*

0
0

0

0

100% of the total forest area assumed to be undercustomary ownership.

Forest policy and legislation. Article 7(d) of
Vanuatu’s Constitution states that “every person
has the fundamental duty to … safeguard thenatural wealth, resources and environment in theinterest of the present generation and of the future
generations”.
In 1991 the government instituted its national
forest program, an important outcome of which
was the draft national forest policy of 1995,
which was later issued as the formal Vanuatu
National Forest Policy Statement of 1997. During
its preparation the views of stakeholder groups,
including national and provincial governments,
chiefs, community leaders, churches and the forest
industry, were sought. Consultative meetings
and workshops were held in every province.
The national forest policy contains an indicative
program of action in all aspects of the managementof Vanuatu’s forests which, if fully implemented,
would lead to a significant improvement in forest
management (ITTO 2006). It also makes specificrecommendations for the management of forests inthe various islands.
In 2010 the Vanuatu Department of Forests (VDF)
reportedly undertook a review of the national
forest policy with the aim of addressing current andemerging issues such as forest products and trade,
SFM and climate change. A draft revised policy wascirculated in May 2010, and an endorsement of the
new policy by the Vanuatu Council of Ministers
was expected by the end of 2010 (Tudrau-Tamani2010).
The principal forest law is the Forestry Act (2001),
which superseded the Forest Act (1982). Other lawsthat support the implementation of the forest policy

include the International Trade (Flora and Fauna)
Act (1989), the National Parks Act (1993) and theTimber Rights Guarantees Act (2000). Under theprovisions of these acts, several rules and regulations
have been issued: e.g. a ban on log exports (1993),
a code of logging practice (1996), mobile sawmill
regulations (1996) and sandalwood regulations(1997).
Institutions involved in forests. The Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries is responsible forforestry. Within the ministry, the VDF, establishedin January 1980, is responsible for the managementof natural forests through policy development,planning, protection, silvicultural principles andguidelines. It is also responsible for all reforestation,afforestation and small-scale sawmilling. In 2008
there were 19 staff (five of whom were women),
including five with university degrees or anequivalent qualification (FAO 2010). This appears
to be inadequate for policing adherence to forestrelated rules and regulations; the VDF and otherdepartments depend largely on the owners of theresource to come forward to report breaches of theregulations by concessionaires (ITTO 2006). In
2005, total public expenditure on the VDF was
48.5 million Vanuatu vatu and total revenue was
4.9 million Vanuatu vatu (FAO 2010).
The VDF maintains a policy of open cooperation
with NGOs and collaborates closely with some
programs carried out by them. NGOs such as
the Foundation of the People of the South Pacificsupport and assist in training and extension
programs. The Forestry Act (2001) provides
a mechanism for wider and more consultativeplanning in forest management (ITTO 2006).

Status of forest management
Forest for production
Under the system of forest ownership existingin Vanuatu, the role of the government throughthe VDF is to provide guidance and support
to customary owners in planning the use anddevelopment of their forest resources. The
final decision on how to use the resource is theprerogative of the owners. Guiding regulations
include the following:•

Harvesting quotas allocated to each of the fourmain islands (which are regarded as FMUs),
based on estimated AACs.

255

Status of tropical forest management 2011•

Minimum diameter limit set for each timber
species.

•

Periodic closure of harvesting in sandalwood
areas.

•

Licensing of operators to help ensure good
logging practice.

•

Selection logging to be practised.

Even though the importance of long-term forest
management plans is emphasized in the Forestry
Act (2001), as of 2005 no such plans had been
prepared for any of the four main islands or forindividual concessions (ITTO 2006). According to
the Forestry Act, logging companies are required
to prepare and submit a coupe harvesting plan,
providing details of all operations, which must be
approved by the VDF before logging commences.
The national forest inventory estimated that the
total forest area suitable for logging in Vanuatu wasaround 117 000 hectares, about 25% of the total
forest resource, and the total forest growing stock
was about 13 million m3. The remainder of theforest was considered unsuitable due to steep slopes,
dissected land forms and low sawlog volumes andfor cultural reasons. The quality of the naturalforest for commercial forestry is low: in over 50 000
hectares of harvestable natural forests, the expected
timber yield is about 20 m3 per hectare and even in
the best parts of it the yield will not be more than
30 m3 per hectare.
A harvesting plan is normally prepared throughconsultations involving representatives of theprovincial government, the VDF, the Departmentof Environment, the Lands Department, resource
owners’ representatives and the logging company.
The Code of Logging Practice has been developedin consultation with the industry that is designed
to foster the application of sustainable forest
harvesting to reduce damage, soil disturbanceand canopy openings. A lack of monitoring andpost-harvest surveying of logging operations means
limited information on the quality of harvesting
is available. Logging concession agreements are
relatively short-term (5–10 years); in 2005, 7200
hectares were allocated for logging under eight
separate concessions. The largest concessions were
foreign-owned (by operators from Malaysia and
New Zealand). The estimated annual sustainabletimber yield from the 117 000 hectares of naturalforest suitable for logging is 68 000 m3 (ITTO

256

2006). In the period 2001–05 about 103 000 m3
were harvested under a selective logging regime. In
2001–04 the average volume harvested was about
23 900 m3, but there was a significant (althoughunexplained) fall in the harvest in 2005, to 7270
m3 (Government of Vanuatu 2008).
Silviculture and species selection. There areno comprehensive guidelines for the silvicultural
management of the production forests, although
it is broadly suggested that selective logging withminimum diameter cutting limits be employed.
About 20 species are generally recognized as
marketable but the timber industry in Vanuatu
concentrates on just a few species, mainly fordomestic sale. Many species cut elsewhere in
the Pacific are not used in Vanuatu. Besides the
species listed in Table 4, commonly used species
are Syzygium spp, Myristica fatua, Elaeocarpus
angustifolius, Antiaris toxicaria and Castanospermum
australe. In addition, Agathis macrophylla(kauri) is much sought-after for timber and has
been an important export in the past. Easily
accessible stands are now exhausted. Santalum
austrocaledonicum (sandalwood), valued for the
essential oil in its heartwood, is a major silvicultural
challenge, in particular regarding its regeneration(ITTO 2006).
Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial
roundwoodSpecies
Dysoxylum confertiflorum
Pterocarpus indicus (bluwota)
Intsia bijuga (natora)
Calophyllum neo-ebudicum
Endospermum medullosum (whitewood)

Source: ITTO (2006).

Planted forest and trees outside the forest. The
area of planted forest in Vanuatu is about 2100
hectares, including about 300 hectares of privately
owned Endospermum medullosum. The annual
planting rate is reported to be 30–40 hectares.
Agro-industrial plantations of Cocos nucifera(coconut), with an area of 215 000 hectares, are an
important non-forest source of wood (ITTO 2006).
Planted forests tend to be established in small
woodlots, generally of less than one hectare.
Pinus caribaea and Cordia alliodora are the mostimportant plantation species, and Swietenia
macrophylla and Tectona grandis have been usedVANUATU

recently, together with agroforestry tree species.
Currently, there is little logging for commercial
purposes in planted forests. Considering theinadequacies of Vanuatu’s natural forests for
production purposes because of their quality,
composition and distribution, planted forests
will have to play a much larger role if future
timber needs are to be met, but, to date, thesector has been short on planning and effective
implementation. The national forest policy
suggested an initial target of 20 000 hectares ofplanted forests by 2020. Trees outside the forest are
mainly coconut and fruit trees in home gardens.
Trees on farms and cattle ranches are important formeeting local needs for timber.
Forest certification. There have been no moves
towards certification in the country.
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. In the absence oflong-term management plans, post-harvest care or
recent information on improvements, production
forests in Vanuatu cannot be considered to be
managed sustainably (Table 5).

Forests protect the Cascades Waterfall, a tourist attraction
near Port Vila, Vanuatu. © istockphoto/H. Mette

Non-timber forest products. Being the raw
material to produce sandalwood oil, sandalwood(Santalum album, S. austrocaledonicum) is themost important NTFP in Vanuatu. About 70
tonnes were exported in 2000, much of it to
Taiwan Province of China, with a total estimatedvalue of 700 000 Australian dollars (Berry 2002,
cited in Robson 2004). The estimated sustainableannual yield of sandalwood is 80 tonnes. An
oil-extraction facility has recently been constructed
for the domestic production of sandalwood oil.
Other important NTFPs that are locally processedand exported include sago fruit shells, Canarium
nuts and Barringtonia nuts. Bamboo, palm fibres,
medicinal plants and live birds are important
locally. Forest recreation is an emerging activity.
There is an ecotourism facility in one of the forested
protected areas (ITTO 2006).

Timber production and trade. Total roundwood
production in 2005 was estimated at 137 000
m3, of which 105 000 m3 was used as fuelwood(FAO 2010). The production of industrial logs
in 2009 was estimated at 30 000 m3, unchanged
since 2002 (ITTO 2011). The 2009 log harvest
yielded an estimated 14 000 m3 of sawnwood,
about 2500 m3 of which was exported (ITTO
2011). Wood-processing units are small and of
low technology. The exploitable forest resource is
probably too limited and geographically dispersed
to encourage the establishment of competitive
international-scale mills. There are two significantsized, fixed-site mills and several smaller mills, plus
around 50 portable sawmills. The fixed-site mills
generally have some form of wood-preservation
treatment facility (ITTO 2006).

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)
Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

117
0

0

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
0
0

Certified

0
0

0

2.1

PlantedWith
management
plans
2.1

0

0**

0

Sustainably
managed

Total

Certified00*
As reported in ITTO (2006).
**
2100 hectares of plantations have management plans but are not shown in the table because they are part of a PFE.
Source: ITTO (2006).

257

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Forest carbon. No forest carbon estimates for
Vanuatu are available in the literature. Based on
the estimated forest area and assuming the samecarbon density found in similar forest ecosystems,
the total forest biomass carbon stock could bein the range of 35–60 MtC. Although it appears
that there is relatively little deforestation or forest
degradation in Vanuatu at present, the pressure on
forests could increase in coming years as the supplyof roundwood from the Solomon Islands decreases.
The Government of Vanuatu submitted a readinessplan idea note to the Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility in 2008 and is a member of the REDD+
Partnership. Table 6 shows Vanuatu’s current forest
carbon potential.

Forest for protection
Soil and water. Much of the natural forest in themountainous interior plays a primarily protectiverole. However, some of these forests have been
degraded by grazing and, in places, by burning.
In some areas, erosion and soil degradation are
significant problems. No data are available on theextent or percentage of forest managed primarily
for the protection of soil and water, althoughsome areas are reserved for this purpose in coupe
harvesting plans (ITTO 2006).
Biological diversity. Vanuatu’s forests are relatively
species-poor and structurally less complex than theforests of the Solomon Islands and PNG due to thegeological youth of the archipelago, its isolationand frequent cyclones. The degree of endemism inthe Vanuatu flora is not as great as in neighbouring
countries, either; around 15–20% of trees andshrubs are thought to be endemic. Five mammals,
six birds, one reptile and one plant found in forests
are listed as critically endangered, endangered orvulnerable on the IUCN red list of threatened
species (IUCN 2011). Twenty-six plants are listed
in CITES Appendix II (UNEP-WCMC 2011).
Vanuatu has national conservation strategies for six
commercial tree species (Endospermum medullosum,

Agathis macrophylla, A. silbae, Intsia bijuga,
Pterocarpus indicus and Santalum austrocaledonicum)(ITTO 2006).
Protective measures in production forests.
The Code of Logging Practice has provisions for
exclusion zones (e.g. steep slopes, environmentallysensitive and unstable soils and stream buffers),
guidelines for establishing infrastructure (e.g. roadstandards) and operational controls.
Extent of protected areas. ITTO (2006) reported
five forest protected areas totalling 8366 hectares.
These comprise mid-to-high forest (6349 hectares– 3% of all mid-to-high forest), low forest (1717
hectares – 0.7% of all low forest) and mangrove
forest (300 hectares – 12% of all mangroves)(ITTO 2006). According to UNEP-WCMC(2010), no forests are in reserves conforming to
IUCN protected-area categories I–IV, but this may
be due to the low resolution of UNEP-WCMC
data, and the ITTO (2006) estimate is used inTable 7. The boundaries of protected areas are
not demarcated on the ground but are mappedusing customary land boundaries, which usually
use physically prominent features such as trees,
coastline, ridges and rivers; they are therefore
known to most people living near the area (ITTO2006). There is limited capacity in the country
to implement the National Parks Act for theprotection of these areas. Although the systemof customary landownership makes it difficult
to create new protected areas, more than 50%
of existing protected areas were either initiatedor supported by landowners and surrounding
communities (ITTO 2006).
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. No information on
the status of management in protected areas wasavailable for this report (Table 7).

Table 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)
35–60% forest Deforestation/ Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
degradation
withpotential to sink capacity monitoring
canopycapacity
to 20302030
cover >60%
89

+

++

+

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

Importanceof Engagementin
forest fire/international
biomassREDD+
burning
processes++++++ high; ++ medium; + low; biomass forest carbon estimated by ITTO; estimate of % total forest with canopy cover >60% based on
UNEP-WCMC (2010).

258

VANUATU

Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)
Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

8.37
8.37

0
0

0

0

0

*
As reported in ITTO (2006).
Source: ITTO (2006), UNEP-WCMC (2010).

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. Forestry’s contribution to GDP
was about 7.7% (US$2.84 million) in 2000 (ITTO2006). In 2007 the contribution of formal forestry
and logging to Vanuatu’s economy was
102 million Vanuatu vatu, which was 0.5% of GDP(Asian Development Bank 2009). An estimated 500
people are employed directly in the logging sector(ITTO 2006).
Livelihood values. Eighty percent of the
population lives in rural areas and almost all
people are engaged in some form of small-scalecommercial or subsistence forestry activities(Asian Development Bank 2009). In addition tocommercial forestry operations, fuelwood, herbal
medicines, bush meat, edible nuts, thatch grass,and plants used for ceremonial purposes and the
manufacture of musical instruments are all part ofthe subsistence needs of rural communities (ITTO2006).
Social relations. The Forestry Act (2001)
provides a mechanism for a broad consultativeplanning process comprising a management
committee involving a provincial representative,
a representative of the resource owner, andrepresentatives of the VDF, the Environment
Department and the Lands Department. The lowlevel of literacy in Vanuatu makes it difficult forforest officers to fully explain forestry issues andterminology to landowners (ITTO 2006).

Summary
Vanuatu faces a number of development
constraints, including its vulnerability to natural
disasters, its small domestic market, and low
existing business capacity. Notwithstanding these
constraints, however, there is a strong traditional
culture that promotes social stability, and thecountry has valuable natural resources, including
its forests and woodlands. ITTO did not receive asubmission from the Government of Vanuatu forthis report, and relatively little recent informationon the status of forest management was available.
No formal PFE has been created in Vanuatu
because all forests are under customary ownership.
There appears to have been little change in theforest-policy environment since 2005, and no
indications of an improvement in the approach to
SFM.

Key points•

All lands, including forests, are customarily
owned, and there is no formal PFE, although
8370 hectares of protected forests may beconsidered permanent.

•

Production forests are not covered by long-term
management plans and therefore cannot be
considered sustainably managed. No estimate
could be made of the area of protection PFE
under SFM.

•

The national forest policy contains an indicative
program of action on all aspects of the
management of Vanuatu’s forests which, if fully
implemented, would lead to a significant
improvement in forest management.

References and other sources
Asian Development Bank (2009). Vanuatu Economic Report
2009: Accelerating Reform. Asian Development Bank,
Mandaluyong City, Philippines.
Berry, A. (2002). Vanuatu country report. In Proceedings of SPC
Regional Workshop on Sandalwood Research, Development
and Extension in the Pacific Islands and Asia. 7-11 October
2002, Noumea, New Caledonia.
FAO (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010 country
report: Vanuatu (available at http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).
Government of PNG (2010). Pilot program for climate
resilience. proposal for Papua New Guinea Phase 1 activities.
Submitted to the Strategic Carbon Funds, World Bank,May 2010 (available at http://www.climateinvestmentfunds.
org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/Papua%20
New%20Guinea%20Phase%201%20Proposal.pdf ).

259

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Government of Vanuatu (2007). National implementation
programme for action. National Advisory Committee on
Climate Change, GEF and UNDP, Port Vila.
Government of Vanuatu (2008). readiness plan idea Note. 29
July 2008. Government of Vanuatu, Port Vila, Vanuatu.
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005.
ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO (2011, website accessed March 2011). Annual Review
Statistics Database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).
IUCN (2011, website accessed March 2011). IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).
Robson, K. (2004). Experiences with sandalwood in plantationsin the South Pacific and north Queensland. Paper presented
at Prospects for high-value hardwood timber plantations inthe ‘dry’ tropics of northern Australia, Mareeba, 19th – 21st
October 2004.
Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World Atlas ofMangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.

260

Tudrau-Tamani, A. (2010). Vanuatu forest policy undergoes
review. All headline news (available at http://www.
allheadlinenews.com/articles/7019008722?Vanuatu%20
Forestry%20Policy%20Undergoes%20
Review#ixzz0wH8A4rKN).
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. Data prepared for
ITTO. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March
2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
March 2010). World population prospects: the 2008
revision (searchable database available at http://esa.un.org/
unpp/p2k0data.asp).