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

PART 1 OVERVIEWStatus of tropical forest management 2011

An iguana lies on a forest log, Trinidad and Tobago.

16

OVERVIEW

Introduction
In 1987 the International Tropical Timber
Organization (ITTO) commissioned a survey oftropical forests in its member countries, specificallydirected at the management of forests for timber
production. The scope of that survey was later
extended by the publication No Timber without
Trees (Poore et al. 1989), which set it in the wider
context of the management of tropical forests for
all purposes. It concluded that an insignificant
proportion of the world’s tropical forests wasmanaged sustainably, although some – but not all –of the conditions for sustainable management were
present in a much larger area.
At its 30th session in 2001, the International
Tropical Timber Council decided to prepare a newand more comprehensive survey of sustainable
forest management (SFM) in the tropics and, in
its Decision 9(XXX), authorized the Executive
Director “to prepare and publish [a] Status of Forest
Management Report, based on available evidence”.
The main report of that survey, which used 2005 asits nominal reporting year, was published in 2006
(ITTO 2006).
In its 2008–09 Biennial Work Programme, theInternational Tropical Timber Council madeprovision for a further report on the status oftropical forest management, and it made funds
available to member countries to assist in the
preparation of national reports that were to be
used as one of the sources of information. This
document is an outcome of that process, presenting,in effect, a third survey of the status of tropicalforest management in the tropics.

Survey coverage
The present survey covers the same 33 ITTO
producer member countries (referred to as ITTO
producers in the figures and tables below) as werecovered in the 2005 survey. It is divided into two
main parts: this overview, and detailed profiles of
all ITTO producer member countries, arranged
according to region as follows:•

Africa – Cameroon, Central African Republic(CAR), Democratic Republic of the Congo(DRC), Republic of the Congo (abbreviated toCongo), Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Ghana, Liberia,
Nigeria and Togo.

•

Asia and the Pacific – Cambodia, Fiji, India,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines,
Papua New Guinea (PNG), Thailand andVanuatu.

•

Latin America and the Caribbean – Bolivia(Plurinational State of, abbreviated to Bolivia),
Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Guyana,
Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Suriname,
Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.

The year of reporting for all data is nominally 2010
– that is, five years after the nominal reporting year,
2005, used in ITTO (2006) – but the actual year
to which data refer varies according to availability.
Appendices to this report contain data on tropicalforest area (Appendix I), summary tables on a rangeof parameters for ITTO producer member countries(Appendix II), notes on methodology (Appendix III),a list of tropical timber species and their common
names by country (Appendix IV), and a tabulationof industrial roundwood production versus areaof production forest for ITTO producer member
countries (Appendix V).

ITTO forests in a global setting
Almost all of the world’s closed tropical forests
are found in 65 tropical countries, of which 33
are members of ITTO. The forests of these 65
countries cover about 1.66 billion hectares, andITTO member countries account for 1.42 billion
hectares (85%) of this (Table 1; Figure 1). Of the
65 countries, the top seven in terms of total forest
area are ITTO producer member countries – Brazil(520 million hectares), DRC (154 million hectares),Indonesia (94 million hectares), India and Peru (68million hectares), Mexico (65 million hectares) and
Colombia (60 million hectares). The reported areaof forest categorized by the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO 2010)as ‘primary forest’ amounts to about 887 million
hectares, of which ITTO producer member
countries contain 96%. Brazil has an estimatedprimary forest area of 477 million hectares, which
is more than 50% of primary tropical forests
worldwide. Data for all 65 countries are presented
in Appendix I.

Definitions
In a survey of this scope, which relies on such awide range of sources (see below), clear definitions
are essential. The following are definitions of themost important terms used in this survey.

17

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Figure 1 Tropical forested countries and ITTO members

Table 1 Global tropical forest area, by region
Region (number of countries)

Tropical Africa (26)
ITTO (10)Other (16)Tropical Asia and the Pacific (16)
ITTO (10)Other (6)Tropical Latin America and the Caribbean (23)
ITTO (13)Other (10)Global total (65)
Total ITTO producers (33)
Total non-ITTO (32)Note:

Total forest
area(million ha)% of forests in
ITTO producer
countries

Primary
forest(million ha)% of primary
forests in ITTO
producercountries

440
270
170
317
282
35
907
868
38
1664
1421
243

61

102
100
2
108
104
3
678
647
30
887
851
35

98

89

96

85

97

96

96

Totals might not tally due to rounding. 'Other' refers to non-ITTO member countries with significant closed forests in the tropics. A
few countries in Africa with at least part of their territories in the tropics – i.e. Sudan, Ethiopia, Namibia and the countries of the
Sahel belt – are not counted here. While the open savannas of these countries are of significant value for many ecological,
economic and social reasons, their low productivity means that they are not major contributors to the tropical forest products andservices that are ITTO’s main interest (see also definition of permanent forest estate below).
Source: FAO (2010). Note, however, that FAO (2010) does not provide estimates of primary forests for several countries, including the large
forest area of DRC, in which cases ITTO estimates are used.

18

OVERVIEW

Forest
The definition of forest used by FAO is applied
here. The definition is:Land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees
higher than five metres and a canopy cover of morethan 10%, or trees able to reach these thresholds insitu. It does not include land that is predominantly
under agricultural or urban land use (FAO 2010).

Tropical forest
Consistent with the International Tropical Timber
Agreement, 1994, this report defines tropical forest
as forest lying between the tropics of Cancer andCapricorn (so forests at higher altitudes within thetropics that effectively are temperate forest types arestill ‘tropical’). Several producer countries – Brazil,
India, Mexico and Myanmar – have significant
areas of forest outside the tropics. In ITTO (2006)
at attempt was made to distinguish tropical from
non-tropical forests but it was not possible to doso from the available data for India. In this report,
however, an attempt has been made to do so. This
posed certain difficulties in comparing the results ofthe two surveys for India because in many cases theparameters being measured were different.
Primary forest
The term primary forest is used in some country
profiles and also in this overview. Much of the dataon primary forest has been obtained from FAO(2010), which defines it as:
naturally regenerated forest of native species, where
there are no clearly visible indications of humanactivities and the ecological processes are notsignificantly disturbed.

Closed forest
The definition of closed forest used in this survey
is forest whose tree canopy covers 60% or moreof the ground surface, when viewed from above.
In the case of India the percentage cover used was
40%, since only this measure of canopy cover wasavailable for India’s tropical forests.
Sustainable forest management
ITTO (2005) defined SFM as:
the process of managing permanent forest land toachieve one or more clearly specified objectivesof management with regard to the production ofa continuous flow of desired forest products andservices without undue reduction in its inherent
values and future productivity and without undue
undesirable effects on the physical and social
environment.

To elaborate the definition and assist themonitoring, assessment and reporting of SFM,
ITTO has developed a set of key criteria andindicators (C&I) for the sustainable managementof tropical forests. These comprise the essential
elements of SFM and are consistent with theseven thematic elements of SFM specified in the
Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All Types ofForest (United Nations General Assembly 2007).
Along with the definition of SFM given above,
they constitute the basis for the assessment of SFM
presented in this report.
The definition of SFM given here was notformulated for application in forests in totallyprotected areas, where forest goods are usually
not extracted. Nevertheless, it can still be appliedin such forests with the understanding that theextraction of ‘desired goods’ (both timber andnon-timber forest products – NTFPs) should be
zero, or close to zero, for SFM to be achieved.
Permanent forest estate
ITTO policies stress the need for countries toestablish a PFE, which is defined in ITTO (2005)
as:Land, whether public or private, secured by law andkept under permanent forest cover. This includes
land for the production of timber and other forest
products, for the protection of soil and water, and forthe conservation of biological diversity, as well as land
intended to fulfil a combination of these functions.

In this report, two types of PFE are distinguished:production and protection. The production PFE
includes both natural forest and planted forest,
quantified separately. Figures given for production
PFE are usually relatively dense forest and therefore
large areas of savanna (even though they arecounted as forest under FAO’s definition of forest
if canopy cover is 10% or greater) are often notincluded in the production PFE. In general, then,production PFE in this report comprises thosetropical forests and planted forests (except thoseestablished solely for protective purposes) deemed
to be accorded ‘permanent’ status. In general,
protection PFE is considered to be the area of forest
inside designated protected areas, where timber

19

Status of tropical forest management 2011

production and other forms of resource exploitationsuch as mining and commercial hunting are notlegal land uses.
Planted forest
The term ‘planted forest’ is preferred to‘plantations’, but the two are used interchangeably
in this report. ITTO (2005) defined planted forestas:
A forest stand that has been established by planting
or seeding.

FAO (2010) used the following definition:
Forest predominantly composed of trees establishedthrough planting and/or deliberate seeding.

These two definitions are essentially complementaryand constitute the definition of planted forests usedin this report.
In some countries the distinction between planted
forest and natural forest is blurred, especially whereindigenous species have been planted. In somecases, such forests are regarded as ‘semi-natural’
forests. In this report, some ‘semi-natural’ forests aretreated as natural forests, as indicated in individual
country profiles.

Sources of data
The country profiles presented in this reportwere compiled from many sources. The mostimportant sources, however, were reports of the
ITTO producer member countries as requestedby the International Tropical Timber Council in
the format devised for the ITTO C&I. The ITTO
C&I have been revised periodically in the light ofexperience and developments in international forest
policy. The previous survey (ITTO 2006) used asa source of information questionnaires submitted
by ITTO producer member governments basedon a set of C&I published in 1998. ITTO (2005)
presented a revision of the C&I, reducing thenumber of indicators and simplifying the reporting
format. ITTO producer member countries wererequested to use this revised set of C&I as a basis
for submitting information to ITTO for the present
survey.
Other datasets were also used. These included
FAO’s Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010,
country reports submitted to the World Bank’s
Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, and others

20such as web-based datasets maintained by theInternational Union for Conservation of Nature(IUCN), the United Nations Environment
Programme-World Conservation Monitoring
Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and ITTO member
countries. Other useful sources included diagnostic
missions conducted by ITTO at the request ofmembers, ITTO field projects, national-leveltraining workshops on the application of the ITTO
C&I, field visits, investigative reports publishedby non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
and personal communications with organizations
and individuals with specialist knowledge.
Sources varied by country, and are identified ineach country profile. Some countries provided
maps of ecological zones, forest types or otherrelevant parameters. Where they were of sufficient
resolution, these maps are presented in the country
profiles in their original languages.
The data obtained from such diverse sources arenecessarily highly variable, which often posedconsiderable difficulties in interpretation. These are
discussed later.

Estimating the area under SFM
In order to assess progress in the achievement of
SFM, this report estimates the area of natural forest
in each ITTO producer member country that canreasonably be thought to be under managementthat is largely consistent with SFM. These estimateshave been derived for the natural-forest production
PFE by adding the forest management units(FMUs) that have been independently certified
or in which progress towards certification is being
made; have fully developed, long-term (ten years
or more) forest management plans with firm
information that these plans are being implemented
effectively; are considered as model forest units
and information is available on the quality ofmanagement; and/or are community-based
units with secure tenure for which the quality ofmanagement is known to be of a high standard.
Since trends are more useful than one-off
measurements in determining progress towards
sustainability, the assessment of SFM requires thelong-term monitoring of forest values, but there arevery few tropical production forests in which this iscarried out. For some forests, therefore, information
on changes in the quality of management isanecdotal or unpublished.

OVERVIEW

Many people living in Amazon have a high dependency on forests for their livelihoods. © J. McAlpine

In most cases the estimates should be considered
conservative, since they include only those forest
areas where information about the quality of forest
management was available. It is possible that
other forest areas are also being managed well, but
information was not available to identify these.
The resulting estimates of SFM in this report givethe area of forests being managed in a way that is
unlikely to cause long-term, undue harm to the
biological, physical and social environments (asconsistent with the definition of SFM).
Where data allowed, estimates were also made ofthe extent of protection PFE under management
considered consistent with SFM. These estimates
were derived from information provided bycountries and from other (mostly unpublished)sources. Areas included are those with secureboundaries and a management plan (usually fully inplace, but in some instances still being developed),that are generally considered in the country and byother observers to be well managed, and that are
not under significant threat from destructive agents.
Other methodological matters are described inAppendix II.

Recent developments
There has been considerable change in the global
policy environment in the five years since thepreparation of ITTO’s report on the status oftropical forest management in 2005 (ITTO 2006).

Some of these changes have had, or are likely tohave, a significant effect on efforts to promote SFM
in the tropics. Many of them also feature in the
country profiles in the second part of this report,
and they are therefore described briefly below.
REDD+
A concept that was only nascent in debateson tropical forests in 2005 is that of REDD
(reduced emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation) and its more evolved form, REDD+.
REDD+ is part of a broader development agendathat particularly addresses the role of tropical forests
in climate-change mitigation and adaptation.
The term has been defined in the framework of
the climate-change negotiations of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) as “policy approaches
and positive incentives on issues relating to
reducing emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation in developing countries; and therole of conservation, sustainable management offorests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks indeveloping countries” (UNFCCC 2007). REDD+
has developed since 2008 as a major new policy toolin tropical forests and has the potential to provide
substantial new and additional funding for thesustainable management of tropical forests.
REDD+ focuses on the capacity of forests,
especially in the tropics, to capture and store

21

Status of tropical forest management 2011

carbon. Forest carbon occurs in living and deadabove-ground biomass, litter, below-groundbiomass (roots) and the organic soil (collectively,‘carbon pools’). In most closed tropical forests,
living biomass is by far the most importantcomponent of the carbon stock (although there are
exceptions, such as heath forests on poor podsolic
soils and, in particular, peat swamp forests). Carbon
may accumulate rapidly in young planted forests orin recently harvested forest stands but is mostly loston harvesting, unless retained in the form of wood
products. Primary forests often have the largest
accumulation of carbon in their biomass but theytend to sequester little new carbon. A sustainably
managed production forest is carbon-neutral in
the long term – that is, there is no long-term net
emission or sequestration of carbon.
Forests sequester and store more carbon thanmost other terrestrial ecosystems and could play
an important role in mitigating climate change.
When forests are cleared or degraded, however,their stored carbon is released into the atmosphereas carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases(GHGs; such as methane). Tropical deforestation
is estimated to have released in the order of 1–2
billion tonnes of carbon per year over the past 20
years, with estimates of the contribution to global
GHG emissions ranging up to 20% (e.g. Houghton2005). There are no estimates of counteracting
sequestration. The largest source of GHG emissions
in most tropical countries is deforestation and forest
degradation. In Africa, for example, deforestationaccounts for nearly 70% of total emissions (FAO
2005). Moreover, clearing tropical forests further
destroys globally important carbon sinks that are
currently sequestering CO2 from the atmosphereand are critical to future climate stabilization.
The aim of REDD+ is to provide financial
incentives to help tropical countries voluntarily
reduce national deforestation, conserve andsustainably manage their permanent forest estates,
and increase forest cover through reforestation andafforestation. Thus, REDD+ could simultaneously
mitigate climate change (through carbon captureand storage), conserve biodiversity, protect otherecosystem goods and services, increase income forforest owners and managers, and help address issuesof forest governance.
The operationalization of REDD+ will require
accurate monitoring and reporting; forest

22

management activities included in REDD+
schemes are likely to be subject to high levels of
scrutiny and accountability at the international
level. Concepts such as PFE and SFM are likely
to be adapted for use in REDD+ schemes. In thisreport, each country profile includes information
on forest vulnerability to climate change and thecountry’s potential to address the challenges andopportunities for tropical forests stemming from aninternational climate-change regime.
Vulnerability of forests to climate change
Climate change and climate variability1 could
be among the most serious threats to sustainable
development, with potential adverse impacts onnatural resources, physical infrastructure, humanhealth, food security and economic activity.
Forests and rural landscapes in the tropics may
be particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate
variability, for example extreme weather events suchas droughts (and associated wildfires), flooding
and storms. At the same time, forests have thecapability to reduce both environmental and social
vulnerability.
In many tropical countries the climate appears to bechanging. Recent data (as reported in Part 2) provide
evidence of, for example, increasing temperaturesand prolonged dry periods in some regions, andincreased rainfall and more frequent tropical storms
in others. In Mexico, there has been an increase
in mean annual temperature of 0.6 °C in the past
four decades. In Peru, average annual temperature
has increased by 0.3 °C in the last 50 years. In
Ghana, average annual temperature has increasedby 1.0 °C since 1960, thus damaging the integrityof forest ecosystems. Adaptive approaches to forest
management will become increasingly important in
the face of climate change. Regardless of the pace ofsuch change, healthy forests maintained under SFM
will be better able to cope than those weakened
and/or degraded by over-exploitation.
Rise of local stakeholders
In many countries, not only in the tropics,
forest management has often taken a ‘top-down’approach, whereby a central forest administration
has supervised the harvesting and management of
1 Climate change refers to long-term changes of climatic parameters,such as temperature, while climate variability refers to short-termchanges and extreme weather conditions, such as droughts andincreased frequency or intensity of storms.

OVERVIEW

large areas of forest. In recent years, however, people
living closer to the forest, including Indigenous
communities, have begun to express, at the national
and international levels, their strong desire formore control over local resources. This trend has
been strengthened in the United Nations with the
adoption, in 2007, of the Declaration on Rights
of Indigenous Peoples. Among other things, thisdeclaration:and local communities have customary land-rights
claims over those forests. At the international level
and in many countries, including some in thetropics, efforts are being made to strengthen theparticipation of Indigenous and local people inpolicy debates and decisions and to reform land
tenure, including forest tenure.

•States that Indigenous peoples have the right “tothe recognition, observance and enforcement oftreaties” concluded with states or theirsuccessors.

•

Prohibits discrimination against Indigenous
peoples.

•

Promotes the full and effective participation ofIndigenous peoples in all matters that concern
them.

•

Declares that states should consult andcooperate in good faith with Indigenous peoples
in order to obtain their free, prior and informed
consent before adopting and implementing
legislative or administrative measures that may
affect them.

The role of tropical forests in the provisionof ecosystem services, such as catchment
protection, biodiversity conservation and carbon
sequestration, is increasingly being recognized.
Markets to facilitate payments for such services
have been created in a number of countries andalso internationally. At the international level, thevolume and value of payments is still low, but, as
discussed above in the context of REDD+, there issubstantial potential for an increase, especially forcarbon sequestration.

The effects of this rise of local stakeholders vary. At
the international level, the increased influence ofIndigenous peoples is having an effect in shaping
policies, especially in climate-change relatedbodies such as the UNFCCC, the Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility and the REDD+ Partnership. In
Latin America, there has been a significant transfer
of forest ownership from the state to Indigenous
and local communities. In Asia a similar if lesssignificant trend has been observed, but there has
been less change in Africa (ITTO & RRI 2009). In
some instances there has been increased tension at
the local and national levels over rights to land andresources.
The rise of local stakeholders has highlighted
the limitations of what has been termed the‘big-conservation’ model, whereby biodiversity
conservation is achieved through the creationof large protected areas, often withoutaccommodating the traditional ownership
attached to, or the use made of, those areas by
Indigenous and local people. In recent years
there has been a strengthening of the view that a
big-conservation approach to forest protection canbe counterproductive where Indigenous people

Ecosystem services

Tropical timber trade
The tropical timber trade faces increasing
competition from non-tropical timber and arange of substitute products such as aluminium,
plastics and steel. Moreover, some export markets
are increasingly requiring evidence that imported
timber is legal and, in some cases, that it has been
produced in well-managed forests or is certified assustainably produced. In some countries, especiallyin Africa, these demands appear to be having aneffect on forest management.
Figure 2 shows that official timber (industrial
roundwood or log) production was more-or-lessstable in the 16 years from 1995 to 2010 in eachof the three tropical regions, with declines in
production in natural forests in some countries
offset by increases in production from planted
forests. Figure 3 shows charts of regional priceindices derived by combining data for species
tracked in ITTO’s Annual Review and Assessmentof the World Timber Situation (ITTO 2010). The
charts show that despite the cyclical nature oftropical timber commodity markets, most products
have experienced modest price increases over the
past decade. African and Asian logs (both up by
over 60% in real terms since January 2000, an
average increase of about 5% per year) were thebest performers, due to continuing demand fromcountries such as China and India and supply
restrictions (including export bans) in several

23

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Measures to combat illegal timber trade

Figure 2 Tropical timber production, by region,
1995–2010100
90
Volume (million m3)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

AfricaAsia-Pacific

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

0

Latin America/Caribbean

Note:

Data reflect official production statistics from mostcountries.
Source: ITTO (2010).

exporting countries. African and Latin American
sawnwood prices have risen by over 40% during theperiod (averaging about 3.5% per year), while Asianprices remained at 2000 levels at the end of 2010.
Asian plywood prices were up by around 20% from2000 levels at the end of 2010 (an annual increaseof less than 2%), while Latin American plywood
prices rose by around 15%. Even the average annual
increase in log prices identified above barely kept
pace with inflation in most exporting countries.
The global financial crisis led to significantly lower
prices for most tropical timber products in thesecond half of 2008 (although it had little apparent
impact on overall timber production), and pre-crisis
prices had generally not been attained by December
2010.
Tropical plywood exports, once a mainstay ofthe sector in several countries, have declined
dramatically since the 1990s (Figure 4). Overall,many tropical countries are concerned that theirnatural-forest-based timber sectors are in decline,with key export markets turning away from natural
tropical timber, supply dwindling, and prices
stagnant or rising only slowly.
Nevertheless, the tropical timber sector also has
opportunities to consolidate its position by moving
towards SFM and by improving marketing andthe use of innovative wood technologies. Somegovernments and industry segments believe that amove towards the production of certified, highervalue products would capitalize on an emerging‘green economy’ and help to secure a viable future
for the natural-forest-based tropical timber sector.

24

A number of consumer markets are becoming
increasingly sensitive about the environmental
credentials of timber products. New tradelegislation, procurement policies and buyer
preferences for legality-verified wood (as aminimum) are being developed and enforced. In
2008, the United States passed legislation (theLacey Act) that makes it a criminal offence toimport or trade in timber products that have been
harvested illegally. The Government of Japan has
adopted a public purchasing policy whereby only
legally produced timber products may be procured
for government projects. The European Union has
passed legislation that requires all entities placing
timber products on the European Union market
to implement management systems that provide
assurance that such products have been produced
legally. In addition, several European Union
member states have adopted public procurement
policies that demand legally or sustainably
produced timber, and the European Commission
has issued guidelines for green public procurementthat recommend legally produced timber as aminimum requirement.
Such measures could have a dramatic impact
on the tropical timber trade, and many exportoriented companies and countries are moving
to adapt their management systems to meetthese market demands. To assist such moves, theEuropean Union is providing, through its Forest
Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Action
Plan, technical assistance to governments, industry
and NGOs to improve forest governance and the
production and trade of legal timber products. In
some cases this assistance is being provided on thebasis of ‘voluntary partnership agreements’ (VPAs)
between the European Union and timber-exporting
countries, which, once entered into, become legallybinding on both parties, committing them to trading
only legal timber. Under VPAs, exporting countries
develop systems to verify the legality of their timber
exports to the European Union. The European
Union and its member states provide support tohelp implement those systems. Other organizations
are also helping tropical countries to address forest
governance and timber legality through a range ofmeasures. ITTO, for example, is assisting its member
countries through several national-level projects andthrough its Tropical Forest Law Enforcement andTrade thematic program.

OVERVIEW

Figure 3 Tropical timber price indices, 2000–2010(Jan 2000 = 100)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Assessment of data reliability

15/01/11

15/01/10

15/01/09

15/01/08

15/01/07

15/01/06

15/01/05

15/01/04

15/01/03

15/01/02

15/01/01

15/01/00

Africalogs index

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

sawnwood index

sawnwood index

15/01/11

15/01/10

15/01/09

15/01/08

15/01/07

15/01/06

15/01/05

15/01/04

15/01/03

15/01/02

15/01/01

15/01/00

logs index
180

plywood index

Latin America and the Caribbean

140
120
100
80
60
40
20

sawnwood index

15/01/11

15/01/10

15/01/09

15/01/08

15/01/07

15/01/06

15/01/05

15/01/04

15/01/03

15/01/02

15/01/01

15/01/00

0

plywood index

Source: ITTO (2010).

Figure 4 Aggregate tropical plywood exports, majorcountries, 1996-201014

Volume (million m3)

12
10
8
6
4
2

Source: ITTO (2010).

Indonesia

China

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

0

Malaysia

The capacity of countries to provide data for thepresent survey varied considerably, and no country
was able to provide data for all indicators. In somecases there were differences in the ability to provide
data depending on the legal status of the forests:
for example, good-quality data might have been
available for production forests, but few or no data
were available for forests in protected areas.
Federations have an additional challenge insupplying national-level information because theymust collate sometimes inconsistent data from theirstates or provinces. This is also an issue in countries
undergoing decentralization.

Asia and the Pacific160

Status of Tropical forest
management

Nevertheless, there has been a significant
improvement in the information submitted by
ITTO producer member countries. This can beseen in the overall response: in the 2005 survey,
21 of 33 countries submitted reports as requested,compared with 32 of 33 in the present survey(Vanuatu was the only country that did not submit
a report). Moreover, Table 2 shows that, overall, theusefulness of country responses also increased.
Notwithstanding improvements in the information
provided by countries, however, overall the data
available for the present survey must be viewed,
in many cases, as still unreliable or, at best,
inconsistent. Ten countries2 did not submit theirreports in the ITTO C&I reporting format andthere was a lack of recent quantitative data on
a range of parameters. Estimates for the same
parameter often differed according to source.
Where the sources were credible, such contradictory
estimates are included here, partly to illustrate theuncertainty associated with the data and partly toprovide readers with realistic bounds for estimates.
Overall, there remain serious deficiencies inthe data, which should be borne in mind whenassessing the report’s conclusions.
For example, there were often very large differencesin the estimates of total forest cover made by
FAO (2010) and UNEP-WCMC (2010). These
differences can be explained, at least in part, by
the different methods employed in producing theBrazil2 CAR, Gabon, Indonesia, India, Liberia, Mexico, Myanmar, Papua New
Guinea, Thailand and Trinidad and Tobago.

25

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 2 Assessment of ITTO producer responses, ITTO C&I reporting format , by region
Criterion*
Africa2005
2010

Average score**
A/P
LAC
2005
2010
2005
2010

1.6
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.2
0.9
1.2
1.2

2.1
1.8
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.8
1.7

1. Enabling conditions for SFM
2. Extent and condition of forests
3. Forest ecosystem health
4. Forest production
5. Biological diversity
6. Soil and water protection
7. Economic, social and cultural aspects
Average, all criteria
Note:
*

**

2.3
2.0
1.5
2.1
1.6
1.2
1.9
1.8

2.0
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.8

2.3
2.1
1.8
1.6
1.8
0.9
1.7
1.7

Overall average
2005 2010

2.3
2.2
2.1
2.4
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.2

2.0
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.1
1.5
1.5

A/P = Asia and the Pacific; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean.
The wording of criteria 2, 3, 4 and 6 has changed slightly. The criteria used in ITTO (2006) were: 2) Forest resource security; 3)
Forest ecosystem health and condition; 4) Flow of forest produce; 6) Soil and water. Nevertheless, the scoring is comparable
between reports.
0 = no information submitted; 1 = information given was not useful for reporting; 2 = information was partly useful for reporting;3 = information was useful for reporting.

two datasets, but they nevertheless complicate
any attempt at interpretation. For FAO (2010),
the countries themselves provided estimatesof their forest cover reached in various ways.
UNEP-WCMC (2010), on the other hand,
generated estimates of forest cover (in three crowncover classes – 10–30%, 30–60% and >60%) on
the basis of MODIS satellite imagery, which isunable to resolve at less than a 25-hectare scale.
Under the approach taken by UNEP-WCMC(2010), any imagery pixel containing at least 10%
canopy cover was counted as completely coveredby forest, resulting in forest-cover estimates that arelikely to be considerable over-estimates, as shown in
Table 3.
This discrepancy in forest-cover data according todifferent sources and methods of data collection
illustrates the difficulty of preparing consistentestimates of the many forest parameters that shouldbe measured for the assessment of the status offorest management. While the estimates of overall
forest cover provided by UNEP-WCMC (2010)

are not used in this report, data from that source
were used in several ways, as detailed in Appendix
II. Moreover, the forest-cover maps generated by
UNEP-WCMC for each ITTO producer member
country (and each tropical region) on the basisof that organization’s forest-cover estimates areincluded here to indicate areas with significant
forest cover, although overall these maps almost
certainly over-estimate forest cover.
Inconsistency in the data makes comparisons
between the 2005 and 2010 surveys difficult. The
sources of data, or the methodology by which
they were obtained, often differ: for example, theGovernment of Brazil did not submit a C&I reportfor the 2005 survey, but provided a great deal ofuseful information for the 2010 survey. There may
also be differences in the parameters measured. To
again use Brazil as an example, its tropical forest
estate is taken to comprise forests in Amazonia, on
the Atlantic coast, and in the cerrado and caatinga,
although parts of some of these occur outside thetropics.

Table 3 Comparison of forest area estimates
Country
DRC
Ghana
GuatemalaHonduras
Indonesia
Nigeria
*

26

2.2
2.1
1.8
2.1
1.8
1.6
1.9
1.9

FAO (2010) and other sources*’000 ha
112 000–154 000
4680
2850–4290
5190–6660
94 400–98 500
9040

Other sources are specified in country profiles in Part 2.

UNEP-WCMC (2010)
224 000
19 00010 600
11 000182 000
52 300OVERVIEW

Log landing in the buffer zone of the Pulong Tau National Park, Sarawak, Malaysia, with Batu Lawi in the background.

There is often uncertainty about what constitutes
a PFE. In many countries a PFE could not be
identified, data were ambiguous, forest designatedas PFE had not been allocated to a particularfunction (e.g. production or protection), or it was
unclear how much of a legally designated PFE wasactually forested. As far as possible, anomalies in
the PFE, and in the interpretation adopted here,
are identified, by country, in the country profiles.
In the case of the protection PFE, information
was often deficient because the management ofprotected areas comes under a different jurisdiction
to that of the institution providing the report to
ITTO and internal communications between suchinstitutions are often less than optimal.
Given their inconsistency, the data presented inthis report should in many cases be treated withcaution. Nevertheless, some broad legitimate
conclusions can be drawn on the status of tropicalforest management, and on the changes that haveoccurred since 2005, based on the following results.

Forest area and deforestation
Table 4 shows the estimated total forest area, total
area of closed forest, and area of planted forest
in ITTO producer member countries. By far thelargest share of both total forest and closed forest
is in Latin America and the Caribbean, due mainly
to Brazil, which has an estimated 520 million
hectares of forest (including non-tropical forest), an
estimated 265 million hectares of which is closed
forest.
The total estimated area of productive planted
forest in ITTO producer member countries is 22.4
million hectares, more than half of which is in the
Asia/Pacific region. Compared with other sources,
such as FAO (2010) and ITTO (2009a), this is alow estimate, and indicates a halving in the areaof planted forests since the 2005 survey (when atotal planted forest area of 44.8 million hectares
was reported). However, the entire apparent decline
is accounted for by India, where the 32.6 million
hectares reported in ITTO (2006) is now regarded
as a significant over-estimate and has been reduced

Table 4 Total forest, closed forest and planted forest, ITTO producers by region, 2010

Total forest area*
Total closed**
Total planted**
Note:
*
**

AfricaA/P
LAC
million ha

Total

270
153
0.95

282
162
12.0

1421
811
22.4

868
497
9.4

Totals might not tally due to rounding. A/P = Asia and the Pacific; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean.
Source: FAO (2010); estimates include non-tropical forest in Brazil, India, Mexico and Myanmar. Total forest area includes naturaland planted forest.
Source: Country profiles in Part 2.

27

Status of tropical forest management 2011

to 5.60 million hectares in this report. The apparent
decline in area of 27 million hectares in India isdue partly to the consideration in the report ofIndia’s tropical forest area only, partly to differingdefinitions of ‘planted forest’ (the higher estimate
included ‘natural’ forests that had been subject toenrichment planting of local species, especiallyteak), and partly to the reportedly very low survival
rates of newly established planted forests in India.
The decline in India’s reported planted forest area
is partly offset in the regional and global totals
shown in Table 4 by gains in a number of countries,
the largest increases (in gross area) being in Brazil,
Colombia, Malaysia, Myanmar and Peru.

Figure 5 Total, production and protection naturalforest PFE, ITTO producers, 2005 and 2010
1000

million ha

800
600
400
200
0
Total

Production
2005

Protection

2010

Source: Country profiles in Part 2.

PFE in the temperate forest zone. If Brazil andIndia are ignored, the area of PFE in the tropics
increased somewhat between surveys.

In most ITTO producer member countries,
deforestation rates in the period 2005–10 weregenerally well below 1%. Countries which exceeded
this were Togo (5.75%), Nigeria (4.0%), Ghana(2.19%), Honduras (2.16%), Ecuador (1.89%),
Guatemala (1.47%), Cambodia (1.22%) and
Cameroon (1.07%) (FAO 2010).

Sixty-three percent (482 million hectares) of thetotal natural-forest tropical PFE is in Latin America
and the Caribbean, 22% (167 million hectares)
is in Asia-Pacific and 15% (112 million hectares)
is in Africa. Brazil accounts for 40% (310 million
hectares) of the entire PFE of all ITTO producers,
and about one-third of the total tropical naturalforest production PFE. Other countries with large
natural-forest PFEs include Indonesia (65.9 million
hectares), DRC (48.3 million hectares), Bolivia(38.2 million hectares) and Peru (38.1 million
hectares).

Permanent forest estate
Overall, the global natural-forest tropical PFE in
ITTO producer member countries reported here
(761 million hectares) is lower than that reported
for 2005 (814 million hectares; Table 5; Figure 5).
This is not likely to be due to an actual reduction in
the PFE, however. As noted above, the Governmentof Brazil did not submit data for the 2005 survey;
the overall decrease in the estimated total PFE
in Brazil (and differences in estimates for the
production and protection PFE) between the 2005
and 2010 surveys is most likely due to differencesin the definition of what constitutes PFE rather
than to a significant change in legal status or forest
area. In India, estimates of PFE for 2005 and 2010refer to different kinds of forest; in 2010 only the
PFE situated in the tropical part of India has beencounted, whereas the 2005 estimate also included

The concept of PFE was first conceived for forests
under state ownership and centralized control.
It remains important for SFM and is likely to be
crucial in REDD+, but, in many countries, its
status under the law, its identification, and its
demarcation on the ground remain problematic.
This is not always for want of trying. Many
conflicts over land tenure, discussed in greater
detail below, are yet to be resolved and complicate
efforts to prescribe a PFE or ensure its security on
the ground. A trend towards greater community

Table 5 Total, production and protection natural-forest PFE, ITTO producers, by region
RegionAfrica
A/P
LAC
Total

Total PFE

Natural-forest PFE

2005

2010

2005

2010

Of which
Production PFE
Protection PFE
million ha
2005
2010
2005
2010

111
206
542
859

113
179
491
783

110
168
536
814

112
167
482
761

70.5
97.4
185
353

68.2
108
227
403

39.3
71.0
351
461

Planted-forest PFE

2005

2010

0.82
38.3
5.60
44.8

0.95
12.0
9.4
22.4

43.7
58.4
256
358

Note:
Totals might not tally due to rounding. A/P = Asia and the Pacific; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean.
Source: Country profiles in Part 2.

28

OVERVIEW

Table 6 Natural-forest production PFE, ITTO producers by region, 2005 and 2010
RegionAfrica
A/P
LAC
Total

Total

Total available
for harvesting

2005

2010

2005

2010

With
management
plans
million ha
2005
2010

70.5
97.4
185
353

68.2
108
227
403

44.0
72.5
34.7
151

45.7
62.8
56.9
165

10.0
55.1
31.2
96.2

28.0
58.0
44.7
131

CertifiedSustainably
managed

2005

2010

2005

2010

1.48
4.91
4.15
10.5

4.63
6.37
6.02
17.0

4.30
14.4
6.47
25.2

6.56
14.5
9.51
30.6

Note:
Totals might not tally due to rounding. A/P = Asia and the Pacific; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean.
Source: ITTO (2006) for 2005 estimates, country profiles in Part 2 for 2010 estimates.

ownership need not render the PFE concept
obsolete, although it could mean that it will need tobe approached in new ways.
Many countries still have large areas of forest
outside the PFE. These are sometimes set aside
deliberately for later planned conversion orreservation for other uses – as agricultural land,for example. Sometimes, however, land-use plans– if formulated – are not followed and forest –including in parts of the PFE – is parceled up
and converted to other uses in an ad hoc fashion,jeopardizing efforts to achieve SFM.

Natural-forest production PFE
The total area of natural-forest production PFE
in ITTO producer countries reported here is 403
million hectares (53% of the total PFE), comparedwith 353 million hectares in 2005 (Table 6). The
estimate for Brazil in 2010 was considerably larger
than in 2005 (135 million hectares compared with
98.1 million hectares), and it was larger in mostother countries in Latin America and the Caribbean
and in India and Myanmar. The estimated areaof natural-forest production PFE decreased inIndonesia, from 46.0 million to 38.6 million
hectares.
The extent of the production PFE in African ITTO
member countries was relatively stable between
the two surveys, although there was an increase
in CAR and a decrease in Cameroon and Congo.
Of the 403 million hectares of natural-forest
production PFE, 165 million hectares are available
for harvesting (e.g. they have been allocated asconcessions, are under harvesting licences, orcommunities have harvesting rights), an increase of
14 million hectares compared with 2005.

Management plans
The area of natural-forest production PFE undermanagement plans increased in each region between
the 2005 and 2010 surveys (Figure 6). Overall, an
estimated 131 million hectares of the natural-forest
production PFE is subject to management plans,
an increase of about 35 million hectares since 2005.
There were significant increases in the area subject
to management plans in Bolivia, Brazil, Cameroon,
Congo, DRC, Gabon, Myanmar, Peru andVenezuela, and there was a decrease in Indonesia. In
Latin America in particular, a large area of PFE isneither harvested nor subject to management plans
and may be under no threat due to its remoteness.
A part of the estimated change in area can be
attributed to improved information.
Certified forest
The area of certified natural-forest production
PFE increased in each region between 2005 and2010 (Figure 7). In all three regions combined, thecertified forest area grew from 10.5 million hectares
to 17.0 million hectares, an increase of 63% (1.3
million hectares per year). In percentage terms the
Figure 6 Area of natural-forest production PFE withmanagement plans, ITTO producers by region, 2005
and 2010
Total
AfricaAsia and the Pacific
Latin America andthe Caribbean
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

million ha
2005

2010

Source: Country profiles in Part 2.

29

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Figure 7 Area of certified natural-forest production
PFE, ITTO producers by region, 2005 and 2010

Figure 8 Area of sustainably managed natural-forest
production PFE, ITTO producers by region, 2005 and
2010

Total

Total

AfricaAfricaAsia and the PacificAsia and the Pacific

Latin America andthe Caribbean
0

5

10

15

20

Latin America andthe Caribbean

million ha
2005

0

2010

5

10

15

20

25

30

million ha
2005

Source: Country profiles in Part 2.

2010

Source: Country profiles in Part 2.

biggest growth was in Africa, where the certified
forest area more than tripled, from 1.48 million
hectares to 4.63 million hectares.
The general upward trend in the area of certified
forest masks declines in some countries. In Bolivia,
for example, there was a decline of about 500 000
hectares between the two surveys, and in Mexico
there was a drop of about 150 000 hectares.
Under SFM
The area of production PFE considered to be under
SFM increased between the 2005 and 2010 surveys,
from 25.2 million hectares to 30.6 million hectares,
an increase of about 20% (1.1 million hectares
per year). This was despite a significant decline in
the area under SFM in PNG (where the estimate
made in the 2005 survey was likely a significant
over-estimate) and lesser decreases in several othercountries, such as CAR, Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana.
Figure 8 shows that the area was steady in Asiaand the Pacific and increased in Africa and Latin
America and the Caribbean.
Even though the estimated total area of natural-forest
production PFE is somewhat larger than the area
estimated in 2005, the area under SFM as a percentageof the natural-forest production PFE increased slightly,
from 7.1% in 2005 to 7.6% in 2010.

Planted-forest production PFE
ITTO producer countries have an estimated 22.4
million hectares of timber-producing planted
forests, of which 54% is in the Asia-Pacific region,
42% is in Latin America and the Caribbean, andonly about 4% is in Africa (Table 5).

Protection PFE
The area of natural-forest protection PFE reported
here is 358 million hectares (47% of the total
PFE), compared with 461 million hectares in2005 (Table 7). The estimated protection PFE for
Brazil was considerably lower in 2010 (175 million
hectares) than in 2005 (271 million hectares),which, combined with a decrease in protection
PFE in India (from 25.6 million hectares to 4.54
million hectares), accounts for most of the decline.
The protection PFE increased or was relatively
stable in most other countries. Exceptions tothis included Suriname, Mexico and DRC. All
the apparent declines were due to the supply of
better information, which allowed a more accurate
estimation, rather than to changes in legal status.

Table 7 Protection PFE, ITTO producers by region, 2005 and 2010
RegionAfrica
A/P
LAC
Total

Total
2005

2010

39.3
71.0
351
461

43.7
58.4
256
358

With management plans
million ha
2005
2010
1.22
8.25
8.37
17.8

Note:
A/P = Asia and the Pacific; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean.
Source: Country profiles in Part 2.

30

6.0
15.0
30.8
51.9

Sustainably managed
2005

2010

1.73
5.15
4.34
11.2

4.38
6.06
12.3
22.7

35

OVERVIEWManagement plans
The estimated area of protection PFE with forest
management plans in 2010 (51.9 million hectares)
is significantly higher than the estimate made for2005 (17.8 million hectares). The largest regional
increase in percentage terms was in Africa, and thelargest in terms of gross area was in Latin America
and the Caribbean (Figure 9).
Part of the overall increase in 2010 may be due
to better information. For example, no data wereavailable in 2005 on the extent of protection PFEcovered by management plans in Myanmar, but
an estimate of 5.33 million hectares was provided
for 2010. Nevertheless, there has also been a real
expansion in the use of management plans forprotected areas. For example, considerable progressin the development of management plans has
occurred in Cameroon (2.23 million hectaresof protection PFE now covered by management
plans, compared with none in 2005), provisional
management plans are now in place for about 1.23
million hectares of protection PFE in Gabon, andabout 11.6 million hectares of protection PFE in
Peru are now subject to some sort of management
planning.
Under SFM
The estimated area of sustainably managed
protection PFE more than doubled over the period,
from 11.2 million hectares in 2005 to 22.7 million
hectares in 2010. This increase was due mostly to anear tripling of the area in Africa and Latin America
and the Caribbean (Figure 10).
To a very large extent the apparent increase isdue to the better availability of information on
the management of protected areas. In 2005, noestimates were made of the area of protection
PFE under SFM in 19 of the 33 ITTO producer
member countries; in 2010, estimates have been
made in all but seven countries. Nevertheless,payments for ecosystem services, and international
donors, including NGOs, are playing an increasingrole in the financing of protected-area managementin tropical countries and thereby helping to ensure
the sustainable management of the protection PFE.
If protected areas are to be effective in theconservation of biodiversity it is essential that,among other measures, large samples of each forest
type should be conserved in all the ecoregionsin which they occur. For this, a division into

Figure 9 Area of protection PFE with management
plans, ITTO producers by region, 2005 and 2010

Total
AfricaAsia and the Pacific
Latin America andthe Caribbean
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

million ha
2005

2010

Source: Country profiles in Part 2.

Figure 10 Area of protection PFE under SFM, ITTO
producers by region, 2005 and 2010
Total
AfricaAsia and the Pacific
Latin America andthe Caribbean
0

5

10
2005

15
million ha

20

25

2010

Source: Country profiles in Part 2.

ecoregions and a classification of forest types isnecessary. Many classifications have been devisedfor this purpose. The World Wide Fund for Nature(WWF)’s ‘ecoregions framework’ was used recently
by Coad et al. (2009) in a review of progress
towards the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD)’s targets on protected-area coverage. This
framework distinguishes five tropical ecoregions –Neotropic, Afrotropic, Indo-Malay, Australasia andOceania – and identifies twelve tropical forest types(plus some areas of ‘unresolved tree cover’). For eachof these forest types, Coad et al. (2009) estimatedthe area of forest in IUCN protected-area categories
I–IV globally, as shown in Table 8.
One of the CBD’s targets with respect toprotected-area coverage is “at least 10% of each of
the world’s ecological regions effectively conserved”.
Table 8 shows that, at the global scale, this target
has been achieved or exceeded in six of the twelve
tropical forest types, is relatively close to being
achieved in four tropical forest types, and is someway from being achieved in tropical freshwater

31

Status of tropical forest management 2011swamp forest and tropical mixed needleleaf/
broadleaf forest. There is immense ecologicalvariation within these broad categories whichshould be considered in the design of protected-area
networks at the subregional and national levels.
In some ITTO producer member countries
there are moves towards an expansion of theprotected-area network, as illustrated by a growing
trend towards the establishment of transboundary
conservation areas (that is, complexes of protectedareas and sustainable-use areas involving crossborder cooperation, many of which havebeen supported by ITTO). More data on the
representativeness of protected-area networks are
required, however.

Data on forest ownership were not tabulated in the2005 survey and the discussion below relates to thepresent situation and qualitative changes that haveoccurred in recent years. Figure 11 shows that thetrend towards greater ownership by Indigenous andother local communities is most pronounced, byfar, in Latin America and the Caribbean. Generally,
however, data on forest tenure are patchy, andfew countries were able to provide data on tenure
specific to the PFE. In some countries, confusion
about the status of land tenure may partly be thecause of the generally poor data available on forest
ownership.

Forest ownership

In most countries in West and Central Africa
the state has claimed legal title since the colonial
period, although the customary ownership of thesame areas dates back centuries. In Ghana, forests
are owned by tribal chiefs but held in trust by thestate. The disconnection between the legal andcustomary systems in Africa is a hindrance to SFM,
exacerbating problems of governance, inequity
and conflict and restricting the capacity of local
communities to pursue development opportunities(ITTO 2009b). Nevertheless, in some Africancountries, such as Cameroon and Liberia, there
are signs that governments have recognized the
problem and are moving to address it.

There have been many recent developments inforest tenure and ownership in response to a general
movement to involve local communities more closely
in decisions about the future of the forests and therealization that clear tenure is a prerequisite for SFM.

In Asia, too, the overwhelming majority of forest
is owned by the state, with greater than 80%
public ownership in Cambodia, India, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines and Thailand.
In the Pacific Island states of Fiji, Papua New

Moreover, as noted earlier, the concept of big
conservation – the setting aside of large areas offorest, where human disturbance is discouraged –can be counterproductive where Indigenous people
and local communities have customary land-rights
claims over those forests. In many countries, further
work is required to ensure that the establishment
and management of representative protected-area
networks are compatible with the rights and needsof Indigenous and local people.

Table 8 Tropical forest types, and their representation in IUCN protected-area categories I–IV
Tropical forest type
Upper montane forest
Semi-evergreen moist broadleaf forest
Sclerophyllous dry forest
Mangrove
Lower montane forest
Lowland evergreen broadleaf rainforest
Thorn forest
Deciduous/semi-deciduous broadleaf forest
Needleleaf forest
Sparse trees/parkland
Freshwater swamp forest
Mixed needleleaf/broadleaf forest
Total forest cover
Note:

Total area
47.6
84.3
24.1
11.9
44.8
649
1.01
173
3.20
101
44.0
0.89
1180

Area in IUCN I–IV
million ha
8.65
14.9
3.87
1.69
5.69
66.7
0.10
15.4
0.28
8.02
3.01
0.04
128

% of total
in IUCN I–IV
18
18
16
14
13
10
9.5
8.9
8.8
8.0
6.9
4.3
11.3

This table gives a lower estimate of total tropical forest cover than that shown in Table 1. In part this is due to differing assessment
methodologies, including in the definition of tropical forest.
Source: Coad et al. (2009).

32

OVERVIEW

Figure 11 Tropical forest ownership, ITTO producers
by region, 2010
100

% of
forest estate

80
60
40
20

PublicIndigenous/community

0
LAC

A/P

PrivateAfricaColombia, Guatemala and Mexico. In contrast,
almost all forest is owned by the state in Suriname
and Venezuela, and 80% or more is owned by
the state in Guyana, Panama and Trinidad andTobago. In Brazil, where about 20% of the forest
is already owned privately, a law approved in 2009
will facilitate the further privatization of federally
owned forest in the Legal Amazon. As elsewhere in
the tropics, disputes over land tenure are common
in Latin America and the Caribbean, and recent
tensions have been observed in Bolivia, Colombia,
Mexico and Peru.

Timber production

Note:

A/P = Asia and the Pacific; LAC = Latin America andthe Caribbean.
Source: Country profiles in Part 2.

Guinea and Vanuatu, in contrast, almost all forest
is under Indigenous or community ownership,
although compared with the Asian countries thearea of forest involved is small. Conflicts overland ownership are reported to be widespread in
Cambodia, and there is an ongoing dispute overland ownership between the state and the Penan inSarawak, Malaysia. In India, 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 that Act has
so far proved problematic.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, large areasof forest are owned by Indigenous people andother local communities. In Brazil, for example,
106 million hectares of the Amazon Basin havebeen allocated to Indigenous communities, andthe majority of those lands have been regularized(meaning that full rights have been secured). Morethan 50% of Ecuador’s forest is under Indigenous
or community ownership, and there are alsosignificant areas under such ownership in Bolivia,

Table 9 shows the total official industrial
roundwood production and the area of production
PFE, by region. The ratio of these two parameters
gives an approximation of the average harvest per
hectare per year, an (albeit rough) indicator of thesustainability (or otherwise) of timber production.
It is generally accepted that the mean annual
increment of well-managed tropical forest isabout 1 m3 per hectare. As Table 9 shows, average
production is well below this in all three regions,and a country-by-country analysis (Appendix IV)
shows that this is true for the great majority of
ITTO producer countries. For 24 countries theaverage annual industrial roundwood harvest isunder 0.5 m3 per hectare. Harvest levels exceed
1 m3 per hectare per year in the following fivecountries: Ghana (1.39 m3 per hectare per year),
Nigeria (2.29 m3 per hectare per year), Togo
(8.2 m3 per hectare per year), Malaysia (1.64 m3
per hectare per year) and Thailand (2.37 m3 perhectare per year). Note, however, that even in thesecountries the harvest in the PFE may not exceed
the sustainable yield, since some of the recorded
harvest was obtained from planted forests (with amuch higher annual yield per hectare than naturalforests) and/or from outside the PFE (in conversion

Table 9 Industrial roundwood production versus area of production PFE, ITTO producers by region
RegionIndustrial roundwood
production (2009)(million m3/year)

Total area of production PFE(million ha)

Average annual production
per ha of production PFE(m3/ha)Africa
A/P
LAC
Total

18.8
85.5
31.7
136

69.2
120
236*
425

0.27
0.71
0.13
0.32

Note:
A/P = Asia and the Pacific; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean.
*
Includes planted forest in Brazil, some of which is non-tropical.
Source: Country profiles in Part 2, and ITTO (2011).

33

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Figure 12 High and low estimates, forest carbon(above-ground living biomass), ITTO producers

GtC

forests, for example). Moreover, the sustainable
mean annual increment may be higher than 1 m3
per hectare in some forest types. On the other hand,official data for timber harvests often do not take
into account illegal and other informal extraction(often including fuelwood harvesting) and therefore
may underestimate the actual off-take. In addition,some of the PFE (e.g. some planted forest in Brazil)
is outside the tropics.

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
AfricaForest carbon
The IPCC (2007) estimated the total global carbon
stock in above-ground living forest biomass in
the range 352–536 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC).
There is considerable uncertainty about forest
carbon estimates, however, because there is no
methodology for measuring it directly. Someauthors have proposed lower estimates for aboveground living forest biomass than those of the
IPCC because of forest degradation and the effects
of management interventions on carbon stock; forexample, Kauppi (2003) estimated it at 300 GtC.
Outside the tropics, the stock of carbon in aboveground living forest biomass is reasonably wellknown on the basis of ongoing forest inventories(Houghton 2005), but data on the carbon stock
in tropical forests is much more uncertain because
only a few tropical countries have reliable forest
inventory data. Thus, the range of estimates ofcarbon emissions arising from tropical deforestationand forest degradation is broad. This uncertainty
over the size of tropical-forest carbon pools andemissions, and their potential as sinks, is one of themain challenges for the readiness phase of REDD+.
This report provides estimates of the total
above-ground forest carbon stock on the basis of
Gibbs et al. (2007) and other sources for the 33
ITTO producer member countries. In total, theestimates by Gibbs et al. (2007) are in the range
157–247 GtC, which is more than 80% of the total
estimated above-ground forest carbon stock in thetropics. Figure 12 summarizes these estimates byregion. For both the high and low estimates, Latin
America and the Caribbean accounts for about
57% of the total, due mainly to the vast stocks in
the Amazon.
The vegetation density of a country is a good
indicator of its potential for both the conservationof existing forest carbon stock and the creation of
additional carbon sinks. Figure 13 shows, for each

34

Low estimate

A/P

LAC
High estimate

Note:

A/P = Asia and the Pacific; LAC = Latin America andthe Caribbean.
Source: Country profiles in Part 2, based on data in Gibbs et al.
(2007).

ITTO producer member country, the area of forest
with canopy cover greater than 60%, based on data
provided by UNEP-WCMC (2010).

Adaptation to climate change
Few data are available on the adaptive capacity of
ITTO producer member countries to address theissue of vulnerability in the forest sector. Moreresearch and action-oriented planning is needed toassess more exactly the possible nature of climaticchanges in each instance, the vulnerability of theforest to these anticipated changes, and the mostsuitable adaptive measures in each case. Many
management options are available to increase theresilience of forest ecosystems, including adaptive
silviculture and, in planted forests, judicious species
selection. At the landscape scale, the protectionof large areas of forest with internal variations inclimate, altitude and soils and the developmentof linking networks of forest would likely enable
the internal migration of species and decrease
vulnerability to climate change.
ITTO producer member countries have addressedthe vulnerability of their forest sectors to climatechange in various ways. Those classified as Least
Developed Countries – Cambodia, CAR, DRC,
Liberia, Togo and Vanuatu – are eligible forfunding to develop national adaptation programsof action (NAPAs), which include references tothe importance of ecosystems, including forests, inclimate-change adaptation. Other countries (e.g.
Indonesia, Ghana and Peru) have included forestsin their national adaptation strategies and linked
their forest-based adaptation agenda to REDD+.

OVERVIEW

Conclusions andrecommendations

Figure 13 Percentage of forest with canopy cover>60%, ITTO producers

Key parameters

Suriname
GuyanaVanuatu
Liberia
Gabon
Peru
PNG
Malaysia
Indonesia
DRC
Congo
Trinidad & Tobago
Bolivia
Colombia
Ecuador
MyanmarVenezuela
Cameroon
Honduras
GuatemalaBrazilPanamaPhilippines
Cambodia
CAR
MexicoThailandGhana
Côte d’Ivoire
India
Nigeria
Togo

Overall, there appears to have been continuing
progress towards SFM in tropical forests in the
period 2005 to 2010. Some of the developmentsthat were identified as indicating progress towards
SFM in the 2005 survey have continued since,
including the move towards the enactment of newforest laws and regulations and the reorganizationof departments responsible for forests. Increasing
interest in certification is also apparent within bothgovernment and the private sector. There have beendevelopments in forest law compliance, stimulatedparticularly by demands from importing countries
for legality-verified products.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Note:
Data unavailable for Fiji.
Source: UNEP-WCMC (2010).

Involvement in REDD+
As of March 2011, only seven of the 33 ITTO
producer members (Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Malaysia,
Myanmar, Togo, Vanuatu and Venezuela) were notparticipating in one or more of the major global
initiatives on REDD+ readiness (i.e. the Forest
Carbon Partnership Facility, UN-REDD, the Forest
Investment Program, the Global Environment
Facility and major bilateral programs on REDD+).
Some ITTO producers (e.g. Brazil, DRC, Indonesia
and others) are involved in several such initiatives.
Each country profile presented in this reportcontains a qualitative assessment (on the basis ofa methodology proposed by Herold 2009) of thecountry’s potential for forest carbon capture andstorage and (where available) information on thechallenges facing the country in exploiting that
potential.

The REDD+ concept has been embraced in many
countries, stimulated in part by the growing
availability of funds to support such measures.
Overall there have been increases in the areasof production and protection PFE subject tomanagement plans and the area of production PFE
that is certified, and there has been a significant
increase in the total area of production andprotection PFE under management considered
consistent with sustainability, from 36.4 million
hectares in 2005 to 53.6 million hectares in 2010,
an increase of nearly 50%, or about 3.4 million
hectares per year. Part of this increase may be due
to improvements in information, especially for theprotection PFE.
The improvement in the quality of information
submitted by countries for the survey is noteworthy.
This is no doubt due in part to the revision of
the ITTO C&I reporting format (and associatednational training workshops), which reduced thenumber of indicators and provided clearer guidance.
Moreover, there have been improvements in many
countries in data collection and management.
For the present survey, eight countries3 submitted
reports without financial assistance from ITTO,
suggesting a growing capacity to generate andsupply data as part of routine work. However, many
countries are still unable to provide reliable dataon a range of parameters, and there is a continuing
need to improve data collection and management.
For example, few countries provided estimates of
3 Brazil, Fiji, Guyana, Honduras, Malaysia, Myanmar, Trinidad and Tobago
and Suriname.

35Status of tropical forest management 2011sustainable timber yields or data on actual off-takes
in their PFEs.
There has been a continued devolution of
responsibility to lower echelons of government andto communities. In the long run this may have abeneficial effect on SFM but, in the short term,
local governments and communities often lack thehuman and financial resources to pursue SFM.
In many countries, the capacity of Indigenousorganizations requires strengthening to ensure that
SFM is feasible on lands under their control andthat Indigenous rights are upheld. In some cases,
community enterprises have struggled to sustain
certification programs because of their relatively
high cost and uncertain benefits. While somecountries have enacted laws designed to clarify
land (including forest) tenure and to recognize
customary ownership, the pace of such reforms isoften slow. Conflicts over resource ownership anduse continue and appear to be particularly prevalent
in countries that are not moving to address tenure.
Countries that appear to have made significant
progress towards SFM in the past five years include
Brazil, Gabon, Guyana, Malaysia and Peru. These
countries were all able to supply useful informationin the C&I reporting format (with the exceptionof Gabon, whose report was not in the C&I
format), they have generally progressive forestrelated policies, laws and regulations, relatively clear
tenure regimes and strong institutions, and law
enforcement is improving on the ground. There
has been a general improvement in countries of theCongo Basin, including rapid growth (albeit from a
low base) in the area of certified natural forest.
While almost all countries have seen improvements
in forest management in the past decade, somecountries appear to be making less progress
towards SFM than others. A number of ITTO
producer countries – for example, Cambodia,
Côte d’Ivoire, DRC, Guatemala, Liberia andSuriname – have endured major conflicts in recent
decades, greatly hindering the development of theinstitutions required to put SFM into effect andrestricting the development of local expertise. In
countries such as Nigeria and PNG, the forest
administration lacks the resources to adequately
supervise the forest management regime. A
lack of forest law enforcement remains a major
problem in many countries, and there has beenless progress in identifying, demarcating and36

securing PFEs than ITTO and other observers
hoped for. While Vanuatu has not been subject
to conflict, its inability to provide informationon the management of its forest resources may be
indicative of a lack of capacity to implement SFM.
ITTO and others will continue working with allcountries to try to accelerate progress towards SFM.
Natural-forest production PFE
Significant progress has been made since the 2005
survey towards the sustainable management of the
production PFE. There has been an increase in
the overall area of the PFE (403 million hectares,
compared with 353 million hectares in 2005), in
the area covered by management plans (131 million
hectares, compared with 96.3 million hectares in2005), in the area certified (17.0 million hectares,
compared with 10.5 million hectares in 2005),
and in the area considered to be under SFM (30.6
million hectares, compared with 25.2 million
hectares in 2005). Table 10 summarizes these trends
for the natural-forest production PFE in each of thethree regions.
As noted in the 2005 survey, the area of production
PFE under management plans is much greaterthan the area considered to be under SFM.
Part of the discrepancy may be because more
information is available on the area covered bymanagement plans than on the extent to whichsuch management plans are being implemented.
The process of developing management plans isimportant in itself because it requires the collection
and collation of data on the forests in question anda clear statement of management objectives andrequirements. If SFM is to be achieved, however, at
any scale, management plans must be implemented,
their implementation must be supervised, andtheir impacts must be monitored and reported.
Ultimately, new knowledge must be gained throughmonitoring and experience to feed into the futureplanning of adaptive forest management.
In many ITTO producer member countries, sucha process is lacking or only nascent; it is hampered
by a general lack of capacity in the agencies andcommunity organizations that have responsibility
for overseeing forest management. Increased
international support, including that envisaged
through REDD+, would help to address thisproblem, as would increased domestic support forforest administration.

OVERVIEW

Table 10 Regional trends, production PFE, ITTO producers
RegionProduction PFE
Africa
A/P
LAC
All
Note:






Area of forest in:
Certified
Production PFE undermanagement plans
forestProduction PFE under SFM











Trend assumed to be steady if less than 5% change. Trends in individual countries may differ from regional trends. A/P = Asia andthe Pacific; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean.

Planted-forest production PFE
Planted forests are playing an increasingly
significant role in the supply of tropical timber.
Although the quality of data on the area of
productive planted forests is highly variable, it
is clear that the area of planted tropical forest
has expanded considerably in the last 15–20
years. Some areas where trees were planted but
subsequently died or were otherwise removed arestill recorded as plantations in forest area statistics
of a number of countries. The estimated 22.4
million hectares of productive planted forests in
ITTO producer countries is about 5% of the total
production PFE. This percentage varies by country
and region. In the Asia-Pacific region, for example,
planted forests comprise about 10% of the total
production resource.
Often, countries with scarce natural-forest resources
have particularly focused on their planted-forest
estates, but an exception is Brazil, which not only
has the single-largest natural-forest resource among
ITTO producer member countries but also a large
area of planted forests. In some countries, theabsence of well-defined property rights has been
an obstacle to attracting investment in planted
forests. Additional constraints are competition
for land; low technical or organizational ability inthe management of planted forests; little dialogue
between the public and private sectors; insufficientresearch and development; and a lack of financing
mechanisms.
In some countries, the expansion of planted forests
will ease pressure on natural forests as they meetan increasing proportion of those countries’ timberneeds. On the other hand, this easing of pressure
may be at least partly offset by the superior financial
performance of well-managed plantations, which

increases their attractiveness as a land-use, possiblyat the expense of natural forests. Many industrial
forms of agriculture have a similar superior
financial performance, and this is a major cause of
deforestation.
Non-timber forest products
Although NTFPs are important for local livelihoodsin all ITTO producer member countries, and many
are traded in significant quantities at the local,
regional and global levels, data on their use andeconomic value remain scarce. Moreover, in many
countries the management of NTFPs is ad hoc, andlittle is known about its sustainability. There is little
doubt that some NTFPs, such as some forms ofbush meat, are being harvested unsustainably, andmore effort is needed to regulate their management,
harvesting and trade.
Protection PFE
Significant progress has been made since the 2005
survey towards the sustainable management of
the protection PFE. The apparent decrease in theoverall area (358 million hectares, compared with
461 million hectares in 2005) is due mainly togreater clarity in the data rather than to any change
in legal status of such areas. There have been large
increases in the area covered by management
plans (51.9 million hectares, compared with 17.8
million hectares in 2005) and the area considered
to be under SFM (22.7 million hectares, comparedwith 11.2 million hectares in 2005). Table 11
summarizes these trends for the protection PFE ineach of the three regions.
Data are still sparse on the extent to which theprotection PFE represents the full diversity offorest ecosystems found in tropical countries.
Until recently, the designation of protected areas

37

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 11 Regional trends, protection PFE, ITTO producers
RegionProtection PFE

Area of forest in:Protection PFE undermanagement plans

Protection PFE under SFM
















Africa
A/P
LAC
All
Note:

Trend assumed to be steady if less than 5% change. Trends in individual countries may differ from regional trends. A/P = Asia andthe Pacific; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean.

has often been relegated – not just in the tropics– to those areas of land left over when all othereconomic land-uses have been satisfied or that are
too difficult to harvest. But it is now recognizedthat protected areas should be selected according totheir intrinsic value for biodiversity conservation,
which usually means the inclusion of representative
samples of all forest ecosystems; any areas of
exceptional biological richness or where there
are concentrations of endemic species; and thebreeding, feeding and staging grounds of migratory
species. It is desirable that protected areas are large
and contain internal variation and, ideally, theyshould constitute a network of connected habitats
if they are to accommodate large animals and be
buffered against environmental change. They also
depend crucially on the cooperation and support oflocal communities. Data were generally insufficient
to assess the extent to which the present allocationof protected areas takes account of such factors.
Forest carbon
Most ITTO producer member countries haveconsiderable potential for forest-based carbon
capture and storage, and most have taken steps toprepare for REDD+. Given the high expectations
in many countries that REDD+ could generatesignificant funds for tropical forest management,
clear signals from international climate-change
negotiators, including the eventual establishmentof a market in forest carbon credits, are to bewelcomed.

Summary of change
The following points summarize the present status
of SFM in ITTO producer countries.
•

38

In many countries, more progress is needed toclarify the concept of PFE according to national

circumstances and to identify, inventory,
demarcate and protect the PFE.
•

Forest-related laws and regulations continue to
evolve, for the most part in a direction
compatible with SFM.

•

A general trend towards decentralization andgreater recognition of Indigenous and local
people is not yet matched by a flow of resources
to support efforts to achieve SFM at thedecentralized level.

•

Forest law enforcement is often weak,
exacerbated by a lack of enforcement capacity,
confusing and sometimes conflicting laws,
especially those related to tenure, anduncertainty generated by decentralization
processes, including disputes over jurisdiction
between government agencies. In somecountries, the demand for legality-verified
timber is having an effect on timber exports.

•

The resources allocated by governments anddevelopment assistance agencies to forest
management remain seriously inadequate,
reflected in a lack of capacity in government
agencies.

•

Information about SFM continues to improve
but is still far from adequate for thecomprehensive monitoring, assessment andreporting of SFM and any large-scale
fund-transfer mechanism arising out of REDD+
or other schemes designed to improve themanagement of tropical forests.

Constraints to SFM
Putting aside the difficulties caused by wars andarmed conflicts, which are profound, several
constraints frequently recur in the country
profiles. Probably the most important, and theOVERVIEW

Ghanaian scientists assess plant biodiversity in a forest plot in Ghana. © L. Amissah

most generally applicable, is that the sustainable
management of natural tropical forests is lessprofitable as a land use than other ways of using theland, especially some forms of agriculture but alsourban development and mining. As a result, SFM
tends to be a low priority for governments and theprivate sector often lacks incentives to pursue it. In
general, tropical timber prices remain relatively low.
It is possible that they will increase in the future tobetter reflect the true cost of production, including
the opportunity cost of retaining natural forest, but
to date there is no sign of this.
Nevertheless, natural tropical forests are recognizedincreasingly as a valuable resource at the local,
national and global levels, especially for the
ecosystem services they supply. In some countries,
payments are being made for such ecosystemservices, and REDD+ offers a potentially importantrevenue-earning opportunity for forest owners.
In the long run, the extent of payments for the
ecosystem services supplied by tropical forests– made at either the national level or the global
level – are likely to play a large part in determining
the fate of the remaining tropical forests. In orderfor such payments to achieve their potential toimpact forest management, constraints related
to governance also need to be overcome. Those
governments, companies and communities thathave been striving to improve forest management,even when they have not yet been wholly
successful, merit the long-term support of markets,
development assistance agencies, NGOs and thegeneral public.
Another constraint to SFM is confusion overownership. Without the security provided bycredible, negotiated arrangements on tenure, SFM
is unlikely to succeed. In many countries, resolving
disputes over land tenure is no easy task but it must
be tackled – preferably through a transparent andequitable process – if resource management is everto become sustainable. If the trend towards greatercommunity and Indigenous ownership, and lessstate ownership, continues, the concept of PFE
may need to be re-thought, but it should not be
discarded.

Future directions
The global setting for the management of tropicalforests is changing. Populations and aspirations are
growing and the ability of people living in remoteareas to communicate with others is escalating at
phenomenal speed. The agricultural frontier is
continuing to advance at the expense of forests.
For timber, the demand for certified and/or
legality-verified wood is starting to influence themanagement of export-oriented suppliers, but

39

Status of tropical forest management 2011

this effect may be very small for the majority ofthe tropical forest estate. Conversely, the readyavailability of relatively cheap commodity timbers
from non-tropical forests, tropical planted forestsand illegal operations, as well as other substitutematerials, will restrict the price increases that are
possible for timber from sustainably managed
natural tropical forests for as long as it remains acommodity product.
The global market for tropical timber is alsochanging. Demand in the traditional export
markets of Europe, Japan and North America
has declined, and ITTO producer countries areexporting increasing quantities of timber to China
and India and intra-regionally. Domestic markets
are growing. Some of these markets place littleemphasis on certification or legality-verification.
The continued growth of these markets may reducethe incentive to pursue SFM, but certification andlegality-verification will likely emerge as drivers insome of them.
Standards of forest management tend to improveas countries become richer and better able toallocate resources to enforce forest laws andimplement SFM. It is likely, therefore, that SFM
will become more widespread in the tropics as
economies grow, although such growth might also
increase deforestation, at least temporarily. In someinstances there may be migration from the forest
to cities, which may reduce pressure on the forest.
Eventually, countries that continue to develop
economically will attain the capacity necessary
to safeguard their PFEs and to manage themsustainably. Conversely, continued poverty poses a
significant threat to tropical forests.
A review of the information used to assemble thisreport indicates that a number of developments
in tropical forests are possible in coming years,
including the following.
•

•

40

A continued expansion of planted forests andthe use of agricultural tree crops for timber may
reduce timber-demand pressure on the naturalforest by supplying an increasing proportion ofwood production, although it may also cause
more deforestation, as might an increased
demand for biofuels.
Declining timber prices, increased prices for
agricultural products and/or a larger shift toemerging markets could undermine efforts
towards SFM.

•

A flow of funds for REDD+ and other forest
services could stimulate increases in the capacity
to manage, monitor and police forests; it could
also induce efforts in reforestation and forest
restoration.

•

A greater focus on the management ofhigh-value timber species, an expanded range of
species, and/or increased value-added
production could help increase the profitabilityof natural forest management.

•

Changes in climate or weather patterns could
affect the growth, yield and vitality of forests.
Extreme weather conditions, such as prolonged
droughts, torrential rain and tropical storms
could reduce the stability of forest structure andlead to increased erosion, forest fire and winddamage, and changes in the incidence of pests
and diseases. Adaptive management, and adiverse forest resource, will increase resilience.

•

Tenure issues could be resolved more often on
the basis of transparent and equitablenegotiation between claimants. As their rights
become more recognized, Indigenous peoples
could play an increasing role in the managementof natural forests.

•

The wider responsibilities of communities andIndigenous people living in constant contact
with the forest may lead to a diversification offorest use, with more emphasis on ecosystemservices.

Overall, it seems likely that the global area of
natural tropical forests will continue to decline
in the medium term as land is diverted tomore profitable uses. On the other hand, themanagement of the PFE is likely to continue toimprove, although the pace of such improvement isless easy to predict. Those countries with clear andundisputed forest tenure, a well-defined PFE andadequate resources for administering the resource
are best placed to make rapid progress. ITTO andothers seeking to promote SFM in the tropics
must be vigilant for change, remain flexible inapproach, but continue to press for the sustainable
management and conservation of tropical forests.

Recommendations
The usefulness of this survey will be enhanced if
it continues to be repeated at reasonably regular(and frequent) intervals, because the identification

OVERVIEWof trends is essential in assessing progress
towards SFM. It is therefore recommended that
regular reporting on the status of tropical forest
management be continued at the international level.
Given that FAO has also started to provide data on
SFM in its five-yearly forest resources assessment,
there will be benefits in continuing to align the twoprocesses more closely.
Many countries still lack the capacity to collect,analyze and make available comprehensive dataon the status of forest management. Assisting
countries to improve the quality of data on
forest management should be a priority for theinternational community.
A crucial element of improving forest management
is an accurate picture of the PFE. Many countries
still lack such an accurate picture, and assistanceshould be provided as a matter of urgency to enable
them to establish their PFEs if they have not alreadydone so and to undertake detailed inventoriesof these areas. This will be even more crucial
should significant funds become available through
REDD+.
A general progression towards SFM in the tropics
will be faster and more robust if SFM is seen as afinancially competitive land-use. Another priority
for the international community should be toincrease payments for the global ecosystem services
provided by natural tropical forests, including thoserelated to carbon capture and storage.
Member countries should be encouraged to buildon the advances identified in this report. ITTO willcontinue working with its many partners to help
them to do so.

References

Herold, M. (2009). An Assessment of National Forest
Monitoring Capabilities in Tropical Non-annex I Countries:
Recommendations for Capacity Building. Final report.
GOFC-GOLD Land Cover Project Office, Friedrich
Schiller University, Jena, for The Prince’s Rainforests Project
and the Government of Norway.
Houghton, R. (2005). Aboveground forest biomass and theglobal carbon balance. Global Change Biology 11, 945–958.
IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007. Working Group III:
Mitigation of climate change. IPCC fourth assessment
report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Geneva, Switzerland (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch9s9-4-1.html).
ITTO (2005). Revised ITTO Criteria and Indicators for the
Sustainable Management of Tropical Forests including
Reporting Format. ITTO Policy Series No 15. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO (2009a). Encouraging Industrial Forest Plantations in the
Tropics: Report of a Global Study. ITTO Technical Series No.
33. August 2009. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO (2009b). Owning forest in Africa. A special edition of theTropical Forest Update (19:2) based on the outcomes of theInternational Conference on Forest Tenure, Governance andEnterprise: New Opportunities for Central and West Africa,
which was held in Yaoundé, Cameroon in May 2009.
ITTO (2010). Annual Review and Assessment of the World Timber
Situation. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO & RRI (2009). Tropical Forest Tenure Assessment. Trends,
Challenges and Opportunities. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan andRights and Resources Initiative, Washington, DC, UnitedStates.
Poore, D., Burgess, P., Palmer, J., Rietbergen, S. & Synnott,
T. (1989). No Timber Without Trees: Sustainability in the
Tropical Forest. Earthscan, London, UK.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. Data prepared for
ITTO. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
United Nations General Assembly (2007). Non-Legally Binding
Instrument on All Types of Forest. Sixty-second session,
Second Committee, Agenda item 54. United Nations, New
York, United States.

Coad L., Burgess, N.D., Bomhard, B. & Besancon, C. (2009).
Progress on the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2010
and 2012 Targets for Protected Area Coverage. A technicalreport for the IUCN international workshop “Looking to
the Future of the CBD Programme of Work on Protected
Areas”, Jeju Island, Republic of Korea, 14–17 September
2009. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
FAO (2010). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. FAO
Forestry Paper 163. FAO, Rome, Italy.
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).

41