Status of tropical forest management 201138
technical Serie S

Status of tropical forest
management 2011

JUNE 2011

ITTO Technical Series 38

INTERNATIONAL TROPIC AL TIMBER ORGANIZATIONInternational Organizations Center, 5th Floor, Pacifico-Yokohama, 1-1-1, Minato-Mirai, Nishi-ku, Yokohama, 220-0012, Japan
Tel 81-45-223-1110 Fax 81-45-223-1111 Email itto@itto.int Web www.itto.int

INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL TIMBER ORGANIZATION

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Status of tropical forest
management 2011
International Tropical Timber Organization

1

INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL TIMBER ORGANIZATION

Status of Tropical Forest Management 2011
Juergen Blaser, Alastair Sarre, Duncan Poore and Steven Johnson
ITTO Technical Series No 38
The International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) is anintergovernmental organization promoting the conservation andsustainable management, use and trade of tropical forest resources.
Its 60 members represent about 85% of the world’s tropical forestsand over 90% of the global tropical timber trade. ITTO develops
internationally agreed policy documents to promote sustainable
forest management and forest conservation and assists tropicalmember countries to adapt such policies to local circumstances
and to implement them in the field through projects. In addition,
ITTO collects, analyses and disseminates data on the production
and trade of tropical timber and funds projects and other actions
aimed at developing industries at both community and industrial
scales. All projects are funded by voluntary contributions, mostly
from consumer member countries. Since it became operational
in 1987, ITTO has funded over 1000 projects, pre-projects andactivities valued at around US$350 million. The major donors are
the governments of Japan, Switzerland, the United States, Norway
and the European Union.
Front cover photo credit: istockphoto/afby71
Back cover photo credit: istockphoto/Sjo
All other photographs not credited in this report arecourtesy of J. Blaser.

©ITTO 2011
Preferred way to cite this publication:
Blaser, J., Sarre, A., Poore, D. & Johnson, S. (2011). Status of
Tropical Forest Management 2011. ITTO Technical Series No 38.
International Tropical Timber Organization, Yokohama, Japan.
This work is copyright. Except for the ITTO logo, graphical andtextual information in this publication may be reproduced in whole
or in part provided that it is not sold or put to commercial use andits source is acknowledged.

ISBN 4-902045-78-8

Design and layout:
Design One, www.design1.com.au

This document is printed on recycled paper.

2

Status of tropical forest management 2011

KEY FINDINGS• The estimated size of the natural tropical permanent forest estate (PFE) is 761 million hectares,
comprising 403 million hectares of production forest and 358 million hectares of protection forest.
Between 2005 and 2010, the area of natural forest under management plans in ITTO producer
countries increased by 69 million hectares, to 183 million hectares, which is 24% of the PFE.
• The area of certified forest in ITTO producer countries grew from 10.5 million hectares in 2005
to 17.0 million hectares in 2010. The forest area certified in Africa more than tripled, to4.63 million hectares.
• The area of PFE considered to be under management consistent with sustainability increased from36.4 million hectares to 53.3 million hectares, comprising 30.6 million hectares of production PFE(compared with 25.2 million hectares in 2005) and 22.7 million hectares of protection PFE(compared with 11.2 million hectares in 2005).
• New international measures to combat trade in illegal timber have been introduced. In many
countries there is increased transparency in forest operations, increased participation of stakeholders,and increased interest in forest conservation and SFM at the community level.
• The information submitted by ITTO producer countries has improved significantly, but in manycases quantitative data are still unreliable.
• Many ITTO producer countries are positioning themselves to take advantage of incentives that
may become available for reducing deforestation and forest degradation, including through theconservation and sustainable management of forests and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks(REDD+).
• International assistance is required urgently to help ITTO producer countries undertake detailed
inventories of their PFEs. This is particularly important given the requirements of REDD+ forreference-level data on forest extent and quality.
• Countries that made notable progress towards SFM during the period include Brazil, Gabon,
Guyana, Malaysia and Peru.

3

INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL TIMBER ORGANIZATIONFOREWORD
What is happening in the world’s tropical forests?
Until recently it was difficult to know. Few
developing countries in the tropics have funds forregular forest inventories, so even basic information
on forest extent and condition is at best out-dated
and often non-existent. Information on how
tropical forests are being managed has been evenmore difficult to obtain.
Starting almost a decade ago, ITTO began tackling
the problem head-on by launching its Status of
Tropical Forest Management report. The first ofthese, published in 2006, compiled all available
sources of information and resulted in the firstcomprehensive estimates of the extent of tropicalforest under sustainable management. This reportbuilds on that work, detailing progress towards
sustainable forest management (SFM) in ITTO
producer member countries during a periodthat has seen important global developments ofrelevance to tropical forests and their management.
The country profiles contained in this reporthold a wealth of information on the 85% of
global tropical forests contained in ITTO
member countries, structured using the criteria
and indicators framework that ITTO pioneered
more than two decades ago. As the profiles show,major developments in the past five years include
increased stakeholder (particularly community)
involvement in forest management; significant
increases in the area of timber production forest
independently certified as sustainably managed in
all three tropical regions; increases in protected areas
under sustainable management; and efforts to assess
the role of forests in mitigating/adapting to climatechange, including preparatory work to benefit
from international efforts to reduce emissions fromdeforestation and forest degradation (REDD+).
A key finding of this report is that, worldwide,
the area of tropical forest considered to be under
SFM has increased by around 3 million hectares
per year in the past five years, with significant
increases in SFM observed in forests earmarked forboth production and protective purposes. While
this increasing trend is a cause for optimism, it istempered by the fact that less than 10% of the total
tropical forest resource that countries intend tomaintain as forest (the “permanent forest estate”) is
being managed sustainably.

4

A complementary and even more disturbing fact
is that every year many millions of hectares ofprecious tropical forest continue to be lost to (orseriously degraded by) alternative land uses. Whyis this? After all, the potential value of the many
goods and services provided by these forests far
outweighs the benefits that can be obtained fromalmost any alternative land use. Recent studies havefound, for example, that the value of tropical forest
services (such as carbon sequestration, biodiversity
conservation and soil and water protection) could
reach many thousands of dollars per hectare.
Unfortunately, markets to remunerate such services,where they exist, remain in their infancy. In theface of economic and social pressure to convert
forest land to other purposes, it is essential that
all the values of tropical forests are recognized
and compensated to promote their retention
and sustainable management. The information
contained in this report will be crucial toestablishing the robust monitoring mechanisms thatwill be needed in any eventual market mechanism
for REDD+ or related schemes.
On behalf of ITTO I thank the donors (particularly
Switzerland and Japan) who made this reportpossible, the many individuals from member
countries who put time and effort into theircountry submissions for this report and provided
personal insights, and the talented team of authors
who compiled the information and wrote thereport. ITTO is indebted to all these contributors.
2011 is both the 25th anniversary of ITTO’s
founding and the International Year of Forests.
It is fitting that this excellent report is publishedduring this special year to further guide the work of
ITTO and to contribute to the efforts of our many
partners working to improve forest management in
the tropics.
Emmanuel Ze Meka
Executive Director
International Tropical Timber Organization
Yokohama, June 2011

Status of tropical forest management 2011

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors and ITTO thank the following people for their valuable contributions to this report: O. S.
Adedoyin, Chantal Adingra, Victor Kwame Agyeman, E. Collins Ahadome, Mario José Añazco Romero, Yumiko
Arai, Varigini Badira, François Kapa Batunyi,Pradeepa Bholanath, Josefina Braña Varela, Amha Bin Buang,
Ramon Carrillo Arellano, Yosenia Castellanos, Jean-Christophe Claudon, Irving Ricardo Díaz Halman, Richard
Gbadoe Edjidomele, the late Bledee Enwol, Eduardo Enrique Escalante Fuentes, Mario Arturo Escobedo López,Vernonica Galmez, Patrice Gouala, Henry Granados, Maria Cristina Guerrero, Rubén Darío Guerrero Useda,
Karina Hernández, Francois Hiol Hiol, Sofia Hirakuri, Mohd Salehim Hj Ibrahim, Hawa Johnson, Gunther
Joku, Pearl Jules, Rosemarie Jungheim, Adjumane Aime Kadio, Dike Kari, Roberto Kometter, Chris Kossowski,
Prem Chand Kotwal, Nikhom Laemsak, Samuela Lagataki, Ann Larson, John Leigh, Qiang Li, Hour Limchhun,
Carlos Linares Bensimon, Ricardo Linares Prieto, Erica Lopez, Juliana Lorensi do Canto, Mette LoycheWilkie,
Koh Hock Lye, Hwan Ok Ma, N’Sitou Mabiala, Felix Magallon Gonzalez, Eduardo Mansur, Polycarpe MasupaKambale, Michael Maue, Claudia Maria Mello Rosa, Marlo Mendoza, Myat Su Mon, Saúl Benjamín Monreal
Rangel, Josué Ivan Morales Dardon, Antonio Murillo, Georges N’Gasse, Namiko Nagashiro, Samuel Ebamane
Nkoumba, Agung Nugraha, Melissa Núñez, Kwame Antwi Oduro, Femi Ogundare, Rafael Oqueli, Pablo
Pacheco, Catherine Poitvin, Kanawi Pouru, Seepersad Ramnarine, Nhek Ratanapich, Alejandra Reyes, Ken
Rodney, Martini Mohamad Safai’ee, Gabriel Samol, Khon Saret, Kim Sobon, Manoel Sobral Filho, Ty Sokhun,
Rene Somopawiro, Suon Sovan, Hooi Chiew Thang, Raquel Thomas, Lombardo Tibaquirá Contreras, Patricia
Tobón, Ivan Tomaselli, Pei Sin Tong, Wollor Topor,Gisela Ulloa, Ricardo Umali, Samreth Vanna, Joberto Veloso
de Freitas, Tetra Yanuariadi, Tania Zambrano and Emmanuel Ze Meka.

5

INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL TIMBER ORGANIZATIONACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
A&D
AAC
ABRAE

alienable and disposable Philippines
annual allowable cut
Area Bajo Régimen de
Administración Especial (special
designated forest areas) Venezuela
ABT
Autoridad de Fiscalización yControl Social de Bosques yTierras (Authority for the Social
Monitoring and Control of Forestsand Lands) Bolivia
ACR
area de conservación regional(regional conservation area) Peru
AFE-COHDEFOR Administración Forestal delEstado–Corporación Hondureñade Desarollo Forestal (State
Forestry Administration) Honduras
AIMA
Asociación Ecuatoriana deIndustriales de Madera Ecuador
ANAFOR
Agence Nationale deDéveloppement des Forêts
(National Agency for Forestry
Development) Cameroon
ANAM
Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente(National Environmental
Authority) Panama
ANCON
Asociación Nacional para laConservación de la Naturaleza(Association for the Conservationof Nature) Panama
ANPN
Agence Nacionale des Parcs
Nationaux (Agency for National
Parks) Gabon
ASEAN
Association of South East Asian
Nations
ASL
agrupacion social del lugar (local
social group) Bolivia
ASOTECA
Asociación Ecuatoriana deProductores de Teca y Maderas
Tropicales Ecuador
ATO
African Timber Organization
ATO/ITTO PCIATO/ITTO Principles, Criteria
and Indicators for the Sustainable
Management of African Natural
Tropical Forests
BosnasForest and Management Authority
Suriname
Forest Industry Revitalization
BRIK
Board Indonesia
criteria and indicators
C&I
CAR
Central African Republic
CBD
Convention on Biological Diversity

6

CBERS
CBFM
CBFMA
CDM
CERFLORCFAD

CGFLOP

CH-CFV
CIB
CIEF

CIFOR
CITES

cm
CNFP

CNIAF

CO2
CO2e
COMAFORSCOMETCOMIFAC

CONAFLORCONAFORCONAMA

China–Brazil Earth Resources Satellite
community-based forest management
community-based forest managementagreement Philippines
Clean Development Mechanism
Certificação Florestal (Forest
Certification) Brazil
concession forestière sous aménagement
durable (forest concession undersustainable development) Gabon
Comissão de Gestão de Florestas
Públicas (Commission on Public Forest
Management) Brazil
Honduran Council for Voluntary
Forest Certification
Congolaise Industrielle des Bois CongoCentro de Informacion Estrategica
Forestal (Center for Strategic Forestry
Information) Peru
Center for International Forestry
Research
Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna andFloracentimetre
Cadastro Nacional de Florestas Publicás(National Register of Public Forests)
BrazilCentre National d’Inventaire etd’Aménagement des Ressources
Forestières et Fauniques (National
Centre for the Inventory andManagement of Forest and Wildlife
Resources) Congocarbon dioxide
CO2 equivalent
Corporación de Manejo Forestal
Sustentable Ecuador
Consortium des ONG en matièred’Environnement au Togo
(Consortium of NGOs Concernedwith the Environment in Togo)
Commission en Charge des Fôrets
d’Afrique Centrale (Commission in
Charge of Forests in Central Africa)
Comissão Nacional de Florestas(National Forest Commission) Brazil
Programa de Desarrollo Forestal(National Forestry Commission)
MexicoConama Conselho Nacional do Meio
Ambiente (National Council for theEnvironment) Brazil

Status of tropical forest management 2011

CONAP

CONIF

CPE
CSO
CVD
dbh
DEGRAD

DENR
DETER

DETEX
DGEF

DGF
DGFFS

DIARF

DMC
DNP
DRC
ECOFACEIAEMBRAPAENF
ESNABIO
FAO
FCA
FCFA

Consejo Nacional de Areas Protegidas(National Council of Protected Areas)
GuatemalaCorporación Nacional de Investigacióny Fomento Forestal (National
Corporation for Forestry Research andDevelopment) Colombia
Constitución Política del Estado(Bolivian Constitution) Bolivia
Central Statistical Organisation India
comité villageois de développement(village development committee) Togo(tree) diameter at breast height
Sistema de Mapeamento de
Degradação Florestal (System for
mapping forest degradation) Brazil
Department of Environment andNatural Resources Philippines
Detecção de Desmatamento em
Tempo Real (System of Deforestation
Detection in Real Time) Brazil
Detection of Selective Logging
Activities Brazil
Direction Générale des Eaux et Forêts
(Directorate for Forests and Water)
Gabon
Direction Générale des Forêts
(Directorate for Forests) Gabon
Direccion General de Flora y Fauna
Silvestre (Direction General of Forests
and Wildlife) Peru
Direction des Inventaires, desAménagements et de la Régénération
des Forêts (Directorate of Forest
Inventory, Management andRegeneration) Gabon
Department of Marine and Coastal
Resources Thailand
Department of National Parks, Wildlife
and Plant Conservation Thailand
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Ecosystem Forestier d’Afrique Centrale
Environmental Investigation Agency
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa
Agropecuária (Agricultural Research
Corporation) Brazil
Evaluación Nacional Forestal (National
Forest Inventory) Honduras
Brazilian National Policy and Strategy
for Biodiversity
Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations
forest clearance authority PNG
Franc Communauté Financière
Africaine

FDA
FDA
FDF
FHCL
FLONA
FMA
FMB
FMC
FMU
FNDF

FONABOSQUE

FONDEFOR

FORIG
FPA
FPDMC
FPL
FRI
FSC
FSI
FSP
FUNAI
GDP
GEF
GFC
GGMC
GHG
GIS
GPS
GtC
GTZ

ha
HKV
HPH
HPHH
HPHTI

Forestry Development Authority
Liberia
forest development agency India
Federal Department of Forestry Nigeria
Fiji Hardwood Corporation Limited
floresta nacional (national forest) Brazil
Forest management agreement PNG
Forest Management Bureau Philippines
forest management contract Liberia
forest management unit
Fundo Nacional de Desenvolvimento
Florestal (National Forest Development
Fund) Brazil
Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Forestal(National Forestry Development Fund)
Bolivia
Fondo de Protección y Desarrollo
Forestal (National Fund for Forest
Development and Protection) Panama
Forestry Research Institute of Ghana
Forest Producers Association Guyana
Forest Products and Marketing Councilof Guyana
Fiji Pine Limited
Forest Research Institute Myanmar
Forest Stewardship Council
Forest Survey of India
Foundation for the Peoples of theSouth PacificFundação Nacional do Indio (Indian
National Foundation) Brazil
gross domestic product
Global Environment Facility
Guyana Forestry Commission
Guyana Geology and Mines
Commission
greenhouse gas
geographic information system
global positioning system
gigatonne(s) of carbon
Gesellschaft für Technische
Zusammenarbeit (Society forTechnical Cooperation) Germany(now part of Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Internationale Zusammenarbeit –German Company for International
Cooperation)hectare(s)houtkapvergunningen (communal
wood-cutting permit) Suriname
hak pengusahaan hutan (forest
concession right) Indonesia
hak pemungutan hasil hutan (forest
products collection right) Indonesia
industrial forest plantation permit (hakpengusahaan hutan) Indonesia

7

INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL TIMBER ORGANIZATION

HTI
IBAMA

ibid.
ICF

ICL
ICRAF
IDEAM

IFB
IFM
IFMA
IPK
IUPHHK HA
IUPHHK HT
IARNA

ICCN

ICF

IFM
IFMA
IITA
ILG
ILO
INAB
IMAZON8

hutan tanamaan industri (industrial
forest plantations) Indonesia
Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente
e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis
(Brazilian Institute of Environment andRenewable Resources)
Ibidem – as per previous citation.
Instituto Nacional de Conservaciòn y
Desarrollo Forestal, Areas Protegidas
y Vida Silvestre (National Instituteof Conservation of Forests, Protected
Areas and Wildlife Development)
Honduras
incidental cutting licence Suriname
World Agroforestry Center
Instituto de Hidrologia, Meteorologia
y Estudios Ambientales (Instituteof Hydrology, Meteorology andEnvironmental Studies) Colombia
Industrie Forestière de Batalimo
independent forest monitoring Guyana
Integrated Forest Management
Agreement (IFMA) Philippines
log exploitation permit (izinpemanfaatan kayu) Indonesia
licence to commercially use timber innatural forests Indonesia
licence to commercially use timber inplantation forests Indonesia
Instituto de Agricultura, Recursos
Naturales y Ambiente, Universidad
Rafael Landivar (Institute ofAgriculture, Natural Resources
and Environment, Rafael Landivar
University) Guatemala
Institut Congolais pour laConservation de la Nature (Congolese
Institute for the Conservation of
Nature) DRC
Instituto Nacional de Conservaciòn y
Desarrollo Forestal, Areas Protegidas
y Vida Silvestre (National Instituteof Conservation of Forests, Protected
Areas and Wildlife Development)
Honduras
independent forest monitoring Guyana
industrial forest managementagreement Philippines
International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture
incorporated landowner group PNG
International Labour Organization
Instituto Nacional de Bosques(National Forest Institute) Guatemala
Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente
da Amazônia (Amazon Institute ofPeople and the Environment) Brazil

INCCA
INCRA

INPA

INPE

INRENA

IPK
IPCC
IPR
IRAD
ITTA
ITTC
ITTO
IUCN
IUPHHK HA

IUPHHK HT

JFM
JFMC
JKPP
KPH
KPHL
KPHP
KPKKT
KPSHK
LAS
LBB
LEI

Indian Network for Climate Change
Assessment
Instituto Nacional de Colonização
e Reforma Agrária (National
Colonization and Agrarian Reform
Institute) Brazil
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da
Amazonia (National institute of
Amazonian Research) Brazil
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas
Espaciais (National Institute for Space
Research) Brazil
Instituto Nacional de Recursos
Naturales (National Institute of
Natural Resources) Peru
izin pemanfaatan kayu (log exploitation
permit) Indonesia
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Changeindividual property rights [agreement]
Philippines
Institute of Agricultural Research forDevelopment
International Tropical Timber
AgreementInternational Tropical Timber Council
International Tropical Timber
Organization
International Union for Conservationof Nature
Izin Usaha Pemanfaatan Hasil Hutan
Kayu Hutan Alam (natural forest
concessions) Indonesia
Izin Usaha Pemanfaatan Hasil Hutan
Kayu Hutan Tanaman (timber
plantation concessions) Indonesia
joint forest management India
joint forest management committee
India
Participatory Mapping Network
Indonesia
forest management totality Indonesia
sustainable management units ofprotection forest Indonesia
sustainable management units ofproduction forest Indonesia
Kumpulan Pengurusan Kayu Kayan
Terengganu Sdn Bhd Malaysia
Community Forest System
Development Group Indonesia
Legality Assurance System Guyana
Lachtwet en BosBeheer (Forest Service)
Suriname
Lembaga Ecolobel Indonesia(Indonesian Ecolabelling Institute)

Status of tropical forest management 2011

LGDFS

LPI

m3
MADR

MAE
MAFF
MAGA
MARN

MAT

MDF
MECNT

MEFCPEMEF
MEFEPA

MERF

MINAG
MINAM
MINAMBIENTE

Ley General de Desarrollo Forestal
Sustentable (General Law for
Sustainable Forest Development)
MexicoLembaga Penilai Independen (mandatory independent certification )Indonesia
cubic metre(s)Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo
Rural (Ministry of Agriculture andRural Development) Colombia
Ministerio del Ambiente (Ministry ofEnvironment) Ecuador
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries Cambodia
Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería yAlimentación Guatemala
Ministerio de Ambiente y Recursos
Naturales (Ministry for Environment
and Natural Resources) Guatemala;Ministerio del Ambiente y de losRecursos Naturales (Ministry of theEnvironment and Natural Resources)
Venezuela
Ministerio del Poder Popular para laAgricultura y Tierras (Ministry for
Agriculture and Lands) Venezuela
medium density fibreboard
Ministère de l’Environnement,
Conservation de la Nature et duTourisme (Ministry of Environment,
Nature Conservation and Tourism)
DRC
Ministère des Eaux, Fôrets, Chasses,Pêches, Environnement et du Tourisme(Ministry of Environment, Water,
Forests, Hunting and Fishing) CAR
Ministère de l’Economie Forestière(Ministry of Forest Economy) Congo
Ministère de l’Economie Forestière, desEaux, de la Pêche et de l’Aquaculture(Ministry of Forest Economy, Water,
Fisheries and Aquaculture) Gabon
Ministère de l’Environnement et desRessources Forestières (Ministry for
Environment and Natural Resources)
Togo
Ministerio de Agricultura (Ministry ofAgriculture) Peru
Ministerio del Ambiente (Ministry ofEnvironment) Peru
Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienday Desarrollo Territorial (Ministryof Environmental, Housing andTerritorial Development) Colombia

MINEEF

MINEF
MINEP
MINFOF

MLF
MMA
MODIS
Modeflora
MPPA

MtC
MTCC
MTCS
MTE
MTIB
NAP
NAPA
NB
NFS
NFB
NFP
NFS
NGO
NIPAS
NLTB
NTFP
ODEF

OIPR

OSINFOR

PAFC

Ministère de l’Environnement,
des Eaux et Forêts (Ministry for
Environment, Water and Forests) Côte
d’Ivoire
Ministry of Environment and Forests
Cameroon
Ministry for the Environment and theProtection of Nature Cameroon
Ministère des Forêts et de la Faune(Ministry of Forests and Fauna)
Cameroon
Ministry of Lands and Forestry Ghana
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente(Ministry of the Environment) Brazil
moderate resolution imaging
spectroradiometer
Digital Model of Forest Exploitation
BrazilMinisterio del Poder Popular parael Ambiente (Ministry for theEnvironment) Venezuela
million tonne(s) of carbon
Malaysian Timber Certification
Council
Malaysian Timber Certification
SchemeMyanmar Timber Enterprise
Malaysian Timber Industry Board
National Afforestation Programme
India
National Adaptation Programme of
ActionNature Conservation Division
Suriname
National Forest Service PNG
National Forest Board PNG
National Forestry Policy Malaysia
National Forest Service PNG
non-governmental organization
National Integrated Protected Area
System Philippines
Native Land Trust Board Fijinon-timber forest product
Office de Développement etd’Exploitation des Forêts (Office for
Forest Development and Harvesting)
Togo
Office Ivoirien des Parcs et Reserves
Naturelles (National Office for
National Parks and Nature Reserves)
Côte d’Ivoire
Organismo Supervisor de Recursos
Forestales y del Fauna Silvestre (Agency
for the Supervision of Forest Resources
and Wildlife) Peru
Pan-African Forest Certification

9

INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL TIMBER ORGANIZATION

PAFSI
PAFSU
PANE
PCI
PEA
PEF
PEF 2025
PEFC
pers. comm.
PFA
PFMC
PFE
PHBM
PHS
PINFORPINPEP

PLANFOR
PMDH

PMFS

PNAE

PNF
PNG
POMF
PROCYMAF

PRODEFORPRODEPLAN

10

simplified forest management plan
Ecuadorsustainable management area Ecuador
patrimonio de áreas naturales delestado Ecuador
principles, criteria and indicators
permis d’exploitation etd’amanagement CAR
périmètre d’exploitation forestière(forest harvesting area) Côte d’Ivoire
Programa Estratégico Forestal 2025
(Strategic Forestry Plan 2025) Mexico
Program for the Endorsement of Forest
Certification Schemes
personal communication
permis forestièrs associé (associatedforest permit) Gabon
provincial forest management
committees PNG
permanent forest estate
communal joint forest management
Indonesia
Platform for the Timber Sector in
Suriname
Programa de Incentivos Forestales
GuatemalaPrograma de Incentivos para Pequeños
Poseedores de Tierras de Vocación
Forestal o Agroforestal Guatemala
Plan de Acción Forestal (Forestry
Action Plan) Honduras
Forest Village Community
Development and Empowerment
Indonesia
plano de manejo florestal sustentável(sustainable forest management plan)
BrazilPlan National d’Action pourl’Environnement (National
Environmental Action Plan) Togo
Programa Nacional de Florestas(National Forest Program) Brazil
Papua New Guinea
plan de ordenación y manejo forestal(forest management plan) Venezuela
Programa de Desarollo Forestal
Comunitario (community forest
management project) Mexico
Programa de Desarrollo Forestal (Forest
Development Programme) Mexico
Programa para el Desarollo dePlantaciones Forestales Comerciales(Programme for the Developmentof Commercial Forest Plantations)
Honduras, Mexico

Monitoramento da Floresta Amazônica
Brasileira por Satélite (Program for the
Calculation of Deforestation in the
Amazon) Brazil
Procuraduría Federal de Protección
PROFEPAal Ambiente (Federal Office forEnvironmental Protection) Mexico
PROFORESTALUnidad para el Desarrollo Forestal delEcuadorpoverty reduction strategy Liberia
PRS
PTE
Permis de transformation etd’exploitation (wood harvesting andprocessing permit) Côte d’Ivoire
RECOFTC–ASFN Centre for Peoples and Forest–ASEAN
Social Forestry Network
REDD
reduced emissions from deforestationand forest degradation
REDDES
ITTO Thematic Programme
on Reducing Deforestation andForest Degradation and Enhancing
Environmental Services
REDD+
Policy approaches and positive
incentives on issues relating to reducing
emissions from deforestation andforest degradation in developing
countries; and the role of conservation,
sustainable management of forests andenhancement of forest carbon stocks
in developing countries From the Bali
Action Plan of the UNFCCC
RFDRoyal Forest Department Thailand
RFID
radio frequency identification device
RKT
annual work plan (rencana kerja
tahunan) Indonesia
RRI
Rights and Resources Initiative
SAG
Secretaría de Agricultura y Ganadería(Secretariat for Agriculture and Cattle
Ranching) Honduras
SBB
Stichting voor Bosbeheer en
Bostoezicht (Foundation for Forest
Management and Forest Control)
Suriname
SEMARNAT
Secretaría de Medio Ambientey Recursos Naturales de México
(Secretariat for Environment andNatural Resources) Mexico
SENPLADES
Secretaría Nacional de Planificacióny Desarrollo (National Secretariat for
Planning and Development) Ecuador
Servicio Nacional Forestal y de Fauna
SERFOR
Silvestre (National Forest and Wildlife
Service) Peru
Secretaria de Recursos Naturales y
SERNAAmbiente (Secretariat for Natural
Resources and Environment) Honduras
PRODES

Status of tropical forest management 2011

SERNANP

SFM
SFP
SGS
SIFMA
SIFOR/BOL
SIGAP

SILIN
SINAP

SINANPE

SMS
SNAP

SNBG
SNR
SNUC

SODEFOR

SPNN

SPORC
TCC
TCO
TISI
TLA
TLTV
TPI
TPSA

Servicio Nacional de Areas Naturales
Protegidas (National Service forProtected Areas) Peru
sustainable forest management
state forest permit Guyana
formerly Société Générale deSurveillancesocialized industrial forest managementagreement Philippines
Sistema Nacional de Información
Forestal Bolivia
Sistema Guatemalteco de Areas
Protegidas (Guatemalan Protected
Areas System) Guatemala
intensified silviculture Indonesia
Sistema Nacional de Areas Naturales
Protegidas (National System ofProtected Areas) Mexico; Sistema
Nacional de Áreas Protegidas dePanamá (Panama National System ofProtected Areas)
Sistema Nacional de Areas Naturales
Protegidas por el Estado (National
System of Public Protected Areas) Peru
Selective Management System Malaysia
Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas(National System of Protected Areas)
Bolivia, Ecuador
Société National des Bois du Gabon
Service National de Reboisement(National Reforestation Service) Congo
Sistema Nacional de Unidades deConservação da Natureza (National
System of Nature Conservation Units)
BrazilSociété de Développement des Forêts
(Forest Development Agency) Côte
d’Ivoire
Sistema de Parques Nacionales
Naturales (National Park System)
Colombia
Quick Response Forest Police Unit
Indonesia
Timber Certification Committee
Myanmartierras comunitarias de origen(indigenous community lands) Bolivia
Thai Industrial Standard Institutetimber licence agreement Philippines
Timber Legality and Traceability
Verification (issued by SGS)
Tebang Pilih Indonesia (IndonesianSelective Cutting System)
timber production sharing agreement
Philippines

TPTI

TPTJ

TREC
TSA
TSC
TSS
TUC
TUP
UFA
UFE
UNDP
UNEP-WCMCUNFCCCUNODC
UN-REDD

USAID
VDF
VFC
VPA
WAHLI
WCL
WWF

Tebang Pilih Tanam Indonesia(Indonesian Selective Cutting and
Planting System)
Tebang Pilih Tanam Jalur (Selective
Cutting and Strip Planting System)
Indonesia
Timber Rights Evaluation Committee
Ghanatimber sales agreement Guyana
timber sales contract Liberia
Tropical Shelterwood System Nigeria
timber utilization contract Ghana
timber utilization permit Ghana
unité d’aménagement forestier (forest
management unit) Congo
unité forestière d’exploitation (forest
logging unit) Congo
United Nations Development
Programme
United Nations Environment
Programme-World Conservation
Monitoring Centre
United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change
United Nations Office on Drugs andCrime
United Nations Collaborative
Programme on Reducing Emissions
from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation in Developing Countries
United States Agency for International
Development
Vanuatu Department of Forests
village forest committee India
FLEGT voluntary partnershipagreementIndonesian Forum of EnvironmentalNGOswood cutting lease Guyana
World Wide Fund for Nature

11

INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL TIMBER ORGANIZATIONCONTENTS
Key findings................................................................................................................................................... 3
Foreword........................................................................................................................................................ 4
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................... 5
Acronyms and abbreviations........................................................................................................................... 6

Part 1 OVERVIEWIntroduction
Survey coverage...................................................................................................................................... 17
ITTO forests in a global setting.............................................................................................................. 17
Definitions............................................................................................................................................. 17
Sources of data........................................................................................................................................ 20
Estimating the area under SFM.............................................................................................................. 20
Recent developments.............................................................................................................................. 21

Status of tropical forest management
Assessment of data reliability.................................................................................................................. 25
Forest area and deforestation................................................................................................................... 27
Permanent forest estate........................................................................................................................... 28
Natural-forest production PFE............................................................................................................... 29
Planted-forest production PFE............................................................................................................... 30
Protection PFE....................................................................................................................................... 30
Forest ownership..................................................................................................................................... 32
Timber production................................................................................................................................. 33
Forest carbon.......................................................................................................................................... 34
Adaptation to climate change.................................................................................................................. 34
Involvement in REDD+......................................................................................................................... 35

Conclusions and recommendations
Key parameters....................................................................................................................................... 35
Summary of change................................................................................................................................ 38
Constraints to SFM................................................................................................................................ 38
Future directions..................................................................................................................................... 39
Recommendations.................................................................................................................................. 40

References...................................................................................................................................................................................... 41

12

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Part 2 Country profiles
AfricaCameroon.................................................................................................................................................... 46
Central African Republic.............................................................................................................................. 55
Congo.......................................................................................................................................................... 64
Cote d’Ivoire................................................................................................................................................ 72
Democratic Republic of the Congo.............................................................................................................. 81
Gabon.......................................................................................................................................................... 90
Ghana.......................................................................................................................................................... 99
Liberia........................................................................................................................................................ 112
Nigeria....................................................................................................................................................... 124
Togo........................................................................................................................................................... 135

Asia and the PacificCambodia.................................................................................................................................................. 146
Fiji............................................................................................................................................................. 158
India.......................................................................................................................................................... 168
Indonesia................................................................................................................................................... 181
Malaysia..................................................................................................................................................... 196
Myanmar................................................................................................................................................... 207
Papua New Guinea..................................................................................................................................... 218
Philippines................................................................................................................................................. 230
Thailand.................................................................................................................................................... 242
Vanuatu..................................................................................................................................................... 253

Latin America and the Caribbean
Bolivia........................................................................................................................................................ 262
Brazil.......................................................................................................................................................... 274
Colombia................................................................................................................................................... 289
Ecuador...................................................................................................................................................... 299
Guatemala.................................................................................................................................................. 309
Guyana...................................................................................................................................................... 319
Honduras................................................................................................................................................... 333
Mexico....................................................................................................................................................... 343
Panama...................................................................................................................................................... 353
Peru............................................................................................................................................................ 363
Suriname.................................................................................................................................................... 374
Trinidad and Tobago.................................................................................................................................. 386
Venezuela................................................................................................................................................... 393

13

INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL TIMBER ORGANIZATION

Appendices
Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix III
Appendix IV
Appendix V

Tropical forest area, 65 countries......................................................................................... 405
Summary tables, ITTO producers...................................................................................... 407
Notes on methodology....................................................................................................... 410
Timber species and their common names, by country......................................................... 412
Industrial roundwood production versus area of
production PFE, ITTO producer countries........................................................................ 418

Overview tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11

Global tropical forest area, by region....................................................................................... 18
Assessment of ITTO producer responses, ITTO C&I reporting format, by region.................. 26
Comparison of forest area estimates........................................................................................ 26
Total forest, closed forest and planted forest, ITTO producers by region, 2010....................... 27
Total, production and protection natural-forest PFE, ITTO producers, by region................... 28
Natural-forest production PFE, ITTO producers by region, 2005 and 2010........................... 29
Protection PFE, ITTO producers by region, 2005 and 2010.................................................. 30
Tropical forest types, and their representation in IUCN protected-area
categories I–IV........................................................................................................................ 32
Industrial roundwood production versus area of production PFE,
ITTO producers by region...................................................................................................... 33
Regional trends, production PFE, ITTO producers................................................................ 37
Regional trends, protection PFE, ITTO producers.................................................................. 38

Overview figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13

14

Tropical forested countries and ITTO members...................................................................... 18
Tropical timber production, by region, 1995–2010................................................................. 24
Tropical timber price indices, 2000–2010............................................................................... 25
Aggregate tropical plywood exports, major countries, 1996–2010........................................... 25
Total, production and protection natural-forest PFE,
ITTO producers, 2005 and 2010 . ......................................................................................... 28
Area of natural-forest production PFE with management plans,
ITTO producers by region, 2005 and 2010............................................................................ 29
Area of certified natural-forest production PFE,
ITTO producers by region, 2005 and 2010............................................................................ 30
Area of sustainably managed natural-forest production
PFE, ITTO producers by region, 2005 and 2010.................................................................... 30
Area of protection PFE with management plans,
ITTO producers by region, 2005 and 2010............................................................................ 31
Area of protection PFE under SFM,
ITTO producers by region, 2005 and 2010............................................................................ 31
Tropical forest ownership, ITTO producers by region, 2010................................................... 33
High and low estimates, forest carbon (above-ground living biomass),
ITTO producers..................................................................................................................... 34
Percentage of forest with canopy cover >60%, ITTO producers.............................................. 35

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

Status of tropical forest management 201142

PART 2 country profiles

Status of tropical forest management 2011

A moabi tree in the production PFE, Cameroon.

44

CAMEROONAFRICA

Cameroon 46

Gabon 90

Central African Republic 55

Ghana 99

Congo 64

Liberia 112

Cote d’Ivoire 72

Nigeria 124

Democratic Republic of
the Congo 81

Togo 135

45

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Cameroonof Guinea, and the Congo Basin forests in
Cameroon’s south and southeast. The Biafran
forest, which formerly covered the entire coastal
lowland, has been largely cleared. Where it still
exists it consists of secondary forests and degradedprimary forests, characterized by species such as
Lophira alata (azobé) and Sacaglottis gabonensis(ozouga). Mangroves are found along most of the
Cameroonian coast, with a total area of about
120 000 hectares. The two largest areas are in
the Rio del Rey estuary and the Bay of Douala(Spalding et al. 2010).

Forest resources
Cameroon has a land area of 47.5 million hectares
and an estimated population in 2010 of 19.9
million people (United Nations Population
Division 2010). Cameroon is ranked 153rd out of
182 countries in UNDP’s Human Development
Index (UNDP 2009). The country stretches
between latitudes 2° and 13° north from theGulf of Guinea to Lake Chad. The coastal plain
is about 600 km long and 100–200 km wide, its
inland limit marked by slopes and steep scarps.
The southern plateau, the site of Cameroon’s major
closed-forest area, is 500–800 m in altitude and thecentral Adamaoua high plateau is generally 1000 m
or more above sea level. Estimates of forest area varyfrom 19.7 million hectares (MINFOF 2008), to21.2 million hectares (Government of Cameroon
2009, FAO 2010), to 27.2 million hectares (deWasseige et al. 2008). The latter estimate includes
the categories forest–cropland mosaic and forest–
savanna mosaic.
Forest types. Cameroon’s forests are mainly tropicalrainforests of two predominant types: lowland
evergreen (54% of total forest area), and lowland
semi-deciduous (28%).a They are particularly richin commercial species, including various species ofMeliaceae, such as Entandrophragma cylindricum(sapelli) and E. utile (sipo). The evergreen forests
can be divided into two broad categories: theBiafran forests, forming an arc around the Gulf

46

The Congo Basin forests differ from the Biafran
forests in the absence of species of Caesalpiniaceae,with the exception of Gilbertiodendron dewevrei;
another feature is the importance assumed
by Baillonella toxisperma (moabi). Inland,semi-evergreen lowland forest gives way to a mosaic
of degraded rainforest and secondary grassland.
The medium-altitude closed semi-deciduous forests
are marked by an abundance of Sterculiaceae, suchas Cola spp, Eribroma oblonga (eyong), Mansonia
altissima (bété) and Triplochiton scleroxylon(ayous). North of this is Sudanian woodland, withpredominantly Acacia wooded grassland.
Permanent forest estate. The Forest Law (1994)
divides the forest area into permanent andnon-permanent forest areas (domaine forestierpermanent et non permanent). The permanent forest
includes the categories forest reserves, protectedareas and council forests; non-permanent forest
includes community forest and private forest(ITTO 2006). The Government of Cameroon(2010) estimated that there is 12.8 million hectaresof natural-forest PFE, comprising 7.6 million
hectares of production forest and 5.2 million
hectares of protection forest (Table 1). The exact
extent of protection PFE is unclear, however: figures
vary between 3.9 million hectares and 7.2 million
hectares (Government of Cameroon 2005).

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. Cameroon’s
net deforestation rate is relatively low (0.14% –about 270 000 hectares per year; Governmentof Cameroon 2008) compared with many othertropical countries, but it is among the highest inCAMEROON

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reporting year

2005*
2010
*
**
‡
†

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)13.3–23.8
19.7–21.2

19 98516 900**

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted

Total

8840
7600‡

12 75712 800

17
19

3900
5200†

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Dense humid forest, including 120 000 hectares of mangroves (de Wasseige et al. 2008).
Includes FMUs, other production forests, forest reserves and communal forests.
Includes forest protected areas in IUCN categories I–IV (4.4 million hectares) and the area of conservation FMUs (800 000 hectares).

reduce the vulnerability of agriculture, and they canalso serve as a social ‘safety valve’. Forest fires appear
to have been increased in the last decade in the driernorthern part of the country and there is anecdotal
evidence that this is caused by the lengthening of
the dry season.b

the Congo Basin. The Government of Cameroon(2008) cited the following as the main direct
and indirect drivers of deforestation and forest
degradation: the development of agriculturalactivities – both slash-and-burn subsistence
agriculture and cash crops (e.g. cocoa); the illegal
exploitation of timber outside the PFE; theexploitation of fuelwood, particularly around majorurban centres; and the development of the mining
sector (bauxite, cobalt), which attracts workers (andhence increased hunting and other environmental
stressors) to forested areas. Population growth is afactor near towns and cities and in the coastal forest
zone, where the rate is nearly 5% per year (ibid.).

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. The PFE in Cameroon belongs
to the state, although the state has transferredcertain rights to legal communes for a portion ofit (414 000 hectares of the 12.8 million hectaresof PFE; Table 3). The permanent forest in themain forest zone in the south is nearly all stateowned under the categories of timber production,
protected and protection forests. Generally, people
living in forest areas fully retain their traditionaluser rights (ITTO 2009a). In the non-PFE(domaine forestier non permanent), a process for the
allocation of tenure and user rights is under way(ibid.). Stakeholder disputes over forest ownershipand the demarcation of boundaries have beencommon in the past (ITTO 2006) and remain sotoday.aAccording to a national forest inventory conducted
in 2004, primary forests comprise about 18% anddegraded primary forest nearly 50% of total forest
cover (Table 2).
Vulnerability of forests to climate change. The
Cameroonian agricultural sector is potentiallyvulnerable to climate change, raising concerns about
future food security. According to McSweeney etal. (undated), the mean annual temperature in
the country has increased by 0.7 °C since 1960,
an average rate of increase of 0.15 °C per decade.
Mean annual rainfall per month has decreased byaround 2.9 mm (2.2%) per decade since 1960.
Cameroon experienced particularly low rainfall
between 2003 and 2006 (ibid.). Forests are a meansfor protecting soils and watersheds and can help

Criteria and indicators. Cameroon adopted the
ATO/ITTO principles, criteria and indicators(PCI) for the sustainable management of African
natural tropical forests in 2004. However, only
those companies that have been or are in a processof certification are applying the PCI as a tool

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

Total’000 haPrimary forest
Degraded primary forest
Secondary forest
Degraded forest land

-

-

3250
8600
4500
-

Source: Government of Cameroon (2009).

47

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

Total area Of which PFE Notes’000 haState ownership (national, state orprovincial government)
Other public entities (e.g. villages,
municipalities)
Total public
Owned by local communities and/orIndigenous groups
Private owned by firms, individuals,
other corporate-

12 400

414

414

652

12 8000--State forest: includes forest reserves (production and protection
forests, reforestation areas and others) and protected areas.
Forests owned by legal communes.
Only figures for PFE available.
In the non-PFE: area designated for communities andIndigenous peoples, including (in 2009) 171 community forests
with signed contracts and simple forest management plans.aPrivate forests have never been inventoried and their area is
unknown.a

Source: Government of Cameroon (2009).

for control and monitoring (ITTO 2009a). The
Government of Cameroon used the ITTO C&I in
its submission to ITTO for this report.a•

Putting in place a legal framework conducive tothe development of the private sector, based onlong-term conventions and industrialization.

Forest policy and legislation. Cameroon’s forest
policy was published in 1993 and adapted overtime. In 2005 the Forestry and Environment Policy
Letter (Government of Cameroon 2005) was signed
between the Ministry for the Environment and theProtection of Nature (MINEP) and the Ministry
for Forestry and Wildlife, setting out the basic
principles for sustainably managing Cameroon’s
forest estate (see also Topa et al. 2009). The
Forestry Code was adopted in 1994 (Law 94/01)
and the Environment Code in 1996 (Law 96/12).
Cameroon’s forest policy and strategic framework
centres on the following aspects (Government of
Cameroon 2005):•

The harmonization of the regional management
system through a zoning plan.

•

The improvement of governance throughincreased transparency and the systematic
dissemination of information to the public.

•

The sustainable management of forests, with thecreation of a PFE and the setting up of FMUs
to replace forest permits.

•

Contributing to economic growth and poverty
alleviation by ceding part of the income fromtax revenue to village councils, creating jobs andallocating community forests.

•

Participatory management through consultation
with civil society and the private sector,
increasing the understanding of rural people
about their responsibilities for forests, andpermanent dialogue with the international
community.

•

The conservation of biodiversity through anational network of protected areas.

•

Building the capacity of the public sector in theperformance of its key functions and the transfer
of productive functions to the private sector.

48

Through close collaboration with its development
partners, Cameroon has made significant
achievements in implementing its forest policy,
including the maintenance of a well-conserved
forest resource and relatively good control
over deforestation; the improvement of forest
management practices in the formal forest industry;
growing recognition of customary rights andthe contribution of forests to social welfare; andeffective collaboration between forest institutions
and civil society, which has led to improved forest
governance and transparency (Topa et al. 2009).
Outstanding needs include an improved approachto addressing the needs of Indigenous peoples;
greater attention to NTFPs; financing for forest
conservation efforts; the reshaping of community
forestry; and greater attention to small-scale forest
management and domestic forest product markets(ibid.).
At the international level, Cameroon signed
a FLEGT VPA with the European Union in
May 2010 and the first VPA-licensed products
were expected in December 2011. Cameroon
is a signatory to the Yaoundé Declaration and amember of the Commission in Charge of Forests
in Central Africa (Commission en Charge des Fôrets
d’Afrique Centrale – COMIFAC).

CAMEROON

Institutions involved in forests. In December
2004 the Ministry of Environment and Forests(MINEF) was replaced by two successor ministries,
the Ministry of Forests and Fauna (Ministère desForêts et de la Faune – MINFOF) and MINEP,
which is also responsible for the developmentof REDD+. MINFOF is primarily responsible
for forest policy, the forest legislative frameworkand the enforcement of forest laws, as well as forinternational conventions with respect to forests
and wildlife (ITTO 2009a).
Within MINFOF are three main technicaldirectorates dealing with forestry: the Directorateof Forests (Direction des Forêts), which is
responsible for forest management, inventories, law
enforcement, reforestation and community forestry;the Directorate of Promotion and Transformation,
which deals with the wood-processing industry,
NTFPs, forest statistics and timber certification;and the Directorate of Wildlife and Protected
Areas, which manages protected areas. MINFOF
is represented in all provinces and the country’s
58 divisions. It employs 101 people centrally and930 people in total, including 220 forest engineersand 25 agronomists and technical engineers.a The
National Agency for Forestry Development (Agence
Nationale de Développement des Forêts – ANAFOR)
is a parastatal technical agency whose mandate is topromote forest plantations by individual farmers,
communities and the private sector.a
Forest research is conducted by several institutions(i.e. the Institute of Agricultural Research forDevelopment – IRAD, the World Agroforestry
Centre – ICRAF, the Center for International
Forestery Research – CIFOR, and the International
Institute of Tropical Agriculture – IITA) andforestry courses are offered by the universities of
Dschang and Yaoundé, the Forestry School of
Mbalmayo, the Wildlife School of Garoua andthe regional agricultural teaching centre, Centred’Enseignement Spécialisé en Agriculture (ITTO
2009a). Many national and international NGOs,
including major international conservation NGOs,
play a direct role in the forest sector throughpartnerships with governmental agencies or insupport of civil society. International donor agencies
coordinate their support for MINFOF throughthe coordination body, Cercle de Concertation desPartenaires du MINFOF.

Status of forest management
Forest for production
Law 94/01 provids a good basis for introducing
SFM. It stipulates the compulsory preparation andimplementation of long-term forest management
plans in concessions and simple forest management
plans (plan simple de gestion) in forests attributed
to communities; the introduction of provisions forconcession allocation; and the creation of forest
brigades and an inspection panel at the national
and provincial levels for forest control. Commercial
forestry is implemented in the PFE mainly
through concessions and timber-licence contracts
between the state and private entrepreneurs. FMUs
(unités forestières d’aménagement) are the basic
unit of timber harvesting. They are limited to a
maximum size of 200 000 hectares and allocatedby public tender (ITTO 2006). A forest concession
consists of one or several FMUs. A systematic
bidding, management and business concept
for the attribution and management of FMUs
was introduced between 1998 and 2007. The
procedures are described in ITTO (2006), and adetailed analysis on their effectiveness was carriedout by Topa et al. (2009). In 2005, 32 of the 72
FMUs had approved management plans (ITTO2006).
Today, the proportion of Cameroon’s production
forests covered by forest management plans ishigh compared with most tropical countries(Topa et al. 2009). In 2009, 103 FMUs had been
attributed over a total area of 6.1 million hectares,of which 74 had an approved management plan;
this corresponds to an area of just over 5 million
hectares.a Of the 74 FMUs with management plans,
41 (covering an area of 2.9 million hectares) havebeen managed under forest management plans for

Log landing in a Cameroonian concession.

49

Status of tropical forest management 2011

more than five years.a Poor logging practice, illegal
logging and encroachment that had reportedly
been common in the past (ITTO 2006) have been
reduced in these managed FMUs in the last five
years.a

Planted forest and trees outside the forest.
About 2000 hectares of new plantations werecreated between 2005 and 2009 (ITTO 2009a).
Despite the newly created ANAFOR, which aims
to support community and private investment
in forest plantations, no information is available
about private planted forests. There are extensiveagro-industrial plantations, including morethan 50 000 hectares of rubber.a Many timber
plantations were established during the 1950s,
with species such as Terminalia ivorensis, Aucoumea
klaineana, Tectona grandis, Pinus spp, various
Meliaceae and eucalypts. In addition, Gmelina
arborea was planted to produce matches. Fuelwood
plantations, and plantations to protect soil andfarmland and for other purposes, were started about
30 years ago with good results; species used include
Cassia siamea and Dalbergia sissoo (ITTO 2006).

In addition to the allocation of large tracts ofproduction forests to industrial investors throughtimber concessions, there are seven other types oftimber-harvesting contracts, including community
forest contracts and council contracts. For example,
communities can manage community forests fortimber and non-timber production (up to 5000
hectares) using simplified forest management plans.
In 2008, six council forests covering an area of
about 141 000 hectares had been allocated, fourof them with fully formulated forest management
plans, and 177 community forest contracts had
been allocated for 632 000 hectares, 143 of which(covering an area of 546 000 hectares) had simple
forest management plans (de Wasseige et al. 2008).

Forest certification. In 2005 there were no certified
forests in Cameroon (ITTO 2006), but third-party
certification has progressed rapidly in recent years.
In July 2010, five concessions (Lokoundjé – 69 000
hectares; SFIL Decolvenare – 70912 hectares; TRC– 125 500 hectares; Palissco – 341 700 hectares;
Cafeco Wijma – 71 800 hectares; and Wijma –97 000 hectares) hold valid Forest StewardshipCouncil (FSC) forest management certificates (FSC2010). An additional 1.2 million hectares of FMUs
are in the process of certification (ITTO 2009a).
Along with all other ITTO member countries inthe subregion, Cameroon has been participating,since 2005, in a regional ITTO project that is
helping to build capacity for the implementation of
the ATO/ITTO PCI at the national level in African
ITTO member countries. It aims to train at least 60
forestry staff in each country in the implementationof the PCI, develop an auditing framework for
African forests, and train at least 60 trainers in theprocedures for conducting audits based on the PCI
at the FMU level. This project has contributed tothe progress of certification in Cameroon.

Silviculture and species selection. A 1998 decreeof Law 94/01 stipulates silvicultural standards
for forest management. The felling cycle is set
at 30 years and minimum harvesting diameters
are indicated for each species (ITTO 2006). The
standards further describe a polycyclic management
regime, which includes the designation of future
crop trees, the tending of natural regeneration,
thinning, enrichment planting and refinement(Topa et al. 2009). Cameroon has over 600 tree
species, of which about 300 are fairly common
in the humid forests. Of those, fewer than 30 are
currently used in significant quantities for timberand fewer than a dozen species make up the bulk
(80%) of domestic utilization and trade (ITTO2006). Besides the five species listed in Table 4,other commonly harvested timber species are
Terminalia superba (fraké), Cylicodiscus gabunensis(okan/adoum), Distemonanthus benthamianus(movingui), Entandrophragma candollei (kossipo)
and Pterocarpus spp (red padouk) (MINFOF 2008).

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes**

Triplochiton scleroxylon (ayous)*
Entandrophragma cylindricum (sapelli)*
Erythrophleum ivorensis (tali)
Lophira alata (azobe, bongossi)*
Chlorophora excelsa (iroko)*

About 800 000 m3 annually (35% of total production).
About 390 000 m3 annually (17%).
About 170 000 m3 annually (7%).
About 5% of total production.
About 4% of total production.

*
**

50

Also listed in ITTO (2006).
According to MINFOF (2008); average production for 2005–07.

CAMEROON

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. A significant volumeof timber is now harvested in FMUs that are
subject to rigorous regulations (Topa et al. 2009).
The total area of FMUs that are FSC-certified is705 000 hectares (as of July 2010). About 550 000
hectares of FMUs are close to certification.b The
area of certified forest and the area of forest close
to certification comprise the estimated area ofsustainably managed forest shown in Table 5.
Timber production and trade. The total annual
roundwood production (2005–09) is estimated atabout 14 million m3, of which 9.5–12 million m3 isfuelwood.a According to ITTO (2011), the averageannual industrial roundwood production in the
period 2007–09 was 2.27 million m3, comparedwith 1.75 million m3 per year in 2004 and 2.65
million m3 in 1999. Average annual sawnwood
production in 2007–09 was about 773 000 m3,
compared with 702 000 m3 in 2004 and 600 000
m3 in 1999. Plywood production was 24 000
m3 in 2009, compared with 36 000 m3 in 2004
and a significantly higher 92 000 m3 in 1999. An
estimated 79 000 m3 of veneer were produced
in 2009, compared with 43 000 m3 in 2004 and53 000 m3 in 1999.
The ratio of domestically used timber toexported timber is 2.4:1 (ITTO 2009b). The
informal domestic market also provides timber toneighbouring Chad, Nigeria and Sudan. Cameroon
is now the tenth-largest tropical timber exporter(it was the seventh-largest in 2005) and is still thesecond-largest timber exporter among African
ITTO producer countries after Gabon. The main
export destinations are the European Union (about
60% of all timber exports) and Asia (22%).
Non-timber forest products. The NTFP sector
is expanding rapidly, but few reliable data are
available on production and trade (ITTO 2009a).
NTFPs are traded regionally, in particular with
Nigeria. Bush meat is of major significance inboth rural and urban areas. The bark and fruits ofGarcinia kola and G. lucida (onie and essok) areused as medicines and stimulants, and the leaves of
Gnetum spp are consumed as a delicious meal andtraded locally and regionally with Nigeria. Palm oil
is extracted from the nuts of Elaeis guineensis (Etonpalm) and palm wine is extracted from the upper
part of the stem. Irvingia spp (andok or wild mango)
and Ricinodendron heudelotii (ezezang) are used ascondiments and Dacryodes edulis (plum or assa) is a
popular food. The bark of Prunus africana is sold topharmaceutical companies for use in the treatmentof prostate-related disorders. The powdered barkof P. africanum (also known as pygeum or Pygeum
africanum) is also used worldwide to control urinary
disorders in men and as a herbal supplement for
benign prostatic hyperplasia. Baillonella toxisperma(moabi), a high-priced hardwood species of
the Sapotaceae family, is traditionally used byforest-dwellers for the oil from its seeds. All theseproducts, as well as extracts of Tabernante iboga,
Cinchona spp, Strophanthus spp, Voacanga africana,
Rauwofia vomitaria and Paunsinvstalia yohimbe, arecommercialized in Cameroon, generally in local
markets. There are reportedly conflicts in some forest
areas between concessionaires and local people, inparticular Pygmy communities, over the use of forest
products, in particular in the cases of moabi andEntandrophragma cylindricum (sapelli) (ibid.).
Forest carbon. Gibbs et al. (2007) estimated
Cameroon’s national-level forest biomass carbon
stock at 3454–3721 MtC, Eggleston et al.
(2006) estimated it at 6138 MtC and FAO(2010) estimated it at 2696 MtC. Cameroon isparticipating in the Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility and submitted a readiness idea note in2008 (Government of Cameroon 2008), in which
the main potential REDD strategies were listed as
the development of integrated protected areas in
the PFE; the strengthening of sustainably managed
production forests; the fight against illegal logging;
the effective distribution of revenues; and support

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

Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

8840
7600

4950
6100a

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
1760
5000

Certified

0
705

500

17

PlantedWith
management
plans
-

1255

19

2

Sustainably
managed

Total

Certified00

As reported in ITTO (2006).

51

Status of tropical forest management 2011

for the agricultural sector to reduce pressure on
forests. Table 6 shows the estimated forest carbon
potential of the country. There is good potential
to reduce forest degradation and enhance forest
carbon sinks, in particular through restoration
and reforestation, but there is a need to strengthen
inventory and monitoring capacities.

located in the Sudanian savanna and woodlandvegetation in the north of the country), six wildlife
reserves (740 000 hectares), four wildlife sanctuaries(95 000 hectares) and 77 forest reserves covering
880 000 hectares. A further 867 000 hectares offormer production FMUs have been set aside forconservation purposes (ITTO 2006).

Forest for protection

In mid 2010, seven national parks and one wildlife
reserve had approved management plans. Twotransboundary protected areas are supported by
ITTO: the Lobéké National Park (part of thetri-national Sangha transboundary conservationarea); and the tri-national protected area of
Dja-Odzala-Minkébé (TRIDOM), comprising
forest in Cameroon, Congo and Gabon.

Soil and water. No estimate of the extent of
natural forest and planted forest set aside primarily
for water and soil protection was available for thisreport.
Biological diversity. Cameroon is rich inbiodiversity, accommodating more than 8300 plant
species, about 297 mammal species and 848 bird
species. Nearly half of all the bird and mammal
species of Africa are present in Cameroon’s forests(ITTO 2006).
Twenty-eight mammals, eleven birds, 50
amphibians, two reptiles, eleven arthropods and
246 plants found in forests are listed as criticallyendangered, endangered or vulnerable on the
IUCN red list of threatened species (IUCN 2011).
Twenty-five plant species are listed in CITES
Appendix II, including two tree species, Pericopsis
elata (afrormosia) and Prunus africana (UNEPWCMC 2011).
Protective measures in production forests. The
forest management prescriptions have gradually
been widened since 1998 to include measures toprotect soil, biodiversity and the flow of waterin concession areas. They also include a series ofstand treatments to encourage the regeneration ofcommercial tree species in natural stands.
Extent of protected areas. An estimated 5.2
million hectares of closed and open forests are
in reserves conforming to IUCN protected-area
categories I–IV, comprising 15 national parks (2.7
million hectares, of which seven national parks are

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. Although considerable
progress has been made since 2005 in the
preparation of management plans for protectedareas and in re-classifying forest protected areas,
it remains difficult to estimate the real extent offorest protected areas and in particular the areaof protection PFE that is under SFM (Table 7).
The Biosphere Reserve of Dja, which has received
continuous support since 1992 by the ECOFAC(Ecosystem Forestier d’Afrique Centrale) program of
the European Union, with a total area of 526 000
hectares, can be considered well managed, as can
the nine conservation concessions (non-allocatedFMUs) registered with MINFOF, totalling 895 000
hectares.

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. Forest products are a principal
source of export income in Cameroon. The export
value of timber was about 320 billion FCFA
(US$650 million) in 2004 (ITTO 2009a), up
from US$210 million in 2001. According to theirlicence contracts, forest concession-holders mustlink their concessions with industrial processing
units, thus providing stable employment in remote

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

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

3454–3721

54++

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

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

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

52

CAMEROON

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

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

3900
5200

2650
4400

-

2230**

1420

As reported in ITTO (2006).
MINFOF (2008).

rural communities and additional revenue flows
for the state (ITTO 2006). An economic study
in 2006 estimated the manpower engaged in thetimber industry at 16 000a; if the domestic woodsector is included, total forest-based employment
is estimated at 45 000 (ITTO 2009a). Harvestingtaxes provide an important revenue stream, whichis shared between the state (50%), communes(40%) and local communities (10%). In 2005, forexample, the total tax revenue was US$26 million(ibid.). The amount has increased steadily over theyears (Topa et al. 2009).
Livelihood values. Forests provide many local
communities with foods, medicines and locallytraded goods. Forests also have a major spiritualvalue for many ethnic groups. Forestry has been
included in the country’s poverty reduction
strategy.aSocial relations. Cameroon contains around
230 ethnic groups, many of them with a close
association with forests. The Pygmy people, who
are traditional hunters and gatherers, are the ethnic
group most threatened in their traditional wayof life by forest loss and degradation, restrictions
on forest access and a lack of basic human rights(Government of Cameroon 2008). Progress has
been made in recent years in the recognition of
local user rights in forests, in the consultation
process of opening-up new harvesting permits,
and in the system for sharing tax revenues withlocal communities. Increasingly, permits are being
granted to local communities to manage forests fortimber and NTFPs.

Sector Policy Letter defines the common
responsibility for forests between MINFOF andthe Ministry for Environment and Protection of
Nature, the latter being responsible for climatechange adaptation and mitigation and REDD+.
However, the capacity of both ministries to fully
enforce the forest law and implement forestand environmental policies is low. Cameroon isprogressing well towards SFM, in particular in someselected FMUs, but has yet to translate many of its
ambitious forest management goals into practiceand to effectively protect its PFE.

Key points•

Cameroon has an estimated 12.8 million
hectares of PFE (similar to 2005), comprising
7.60 million hectares of natural production
forests (compared with 8.84 million hectares in2005), 5.20 million hectares of protection
forests (compared with 3.90 million hectares in2005) and 19 000 hectares of industrial timber
plantations (compared with 17 000 hectares in2005).

•At least 1.25 million hectares of natural-forest
production PFE are estimated to be under SFM.
Forest management plans have been developed
for and are being implemented in 5.0 million
hectares of the production PFE (compared with
1.76 million hectares in 2005). An estimated1.42 million hectares of the protection PFE isunder SFM.

•

Despite considerable efforts in forest law
enforcement in the past five years, the integrityof the PFE is threatened by encroachment,poaching and poor logging practices, including
illegal logging, but no official data on the extent
of these are available.

•

Mining is an increasing threat to forest stability,
as is population pressure, especially in coastal
forests. Cameroon has good potential to develop
REDD+ initiatives that address these threats.

Summary
Cameroon possesses significant forest resources
and has confirmed over the past five years its
considerable potential for SFM. The policy
environment is sound and governmental
responsibility for forests is vested in a single
ministry, the Ministry of Forests and Fauna,
MINFOF. A joint 2005 Forest and Environment

53

Status of tropical forest management 2011•

Forests are the living environment of many
ethnic groups, particularly Pygmy communities.
Ensuring the rights of these ethnic groups
remains a major challenge for achieving SFM.

EndnotesaGovernment of Cameroon (2009).

ITTO (2009b). Annual Review and Assessment of the World
Timber Situation 2008. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO (2011, website accessed March 2011). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).
IUCN (2011, website accessed March 2011). IUCN red list of
threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org ).

b 	 Personal communications with officials in the Governmentof Cameroon, 2010.

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

References and other sources

MINFOF (2008). Indicateurs FORAF pour le suivi de l’état desforets d’Afrique Centrale, Cameroon. Ministry of Forests
and Fauna, Yaoundé, Cameroon.

Eggleston, H., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe,
T. (eds) (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Programme. Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies, Kamakura, Japan.

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

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

Topa, G., Karsenty, A., Megevand, C. & Debroux, L. (2009).
The Rainforests of Cameroon: Experience and Evidence froma Decade of Reform. The World Bank and PROFOR,
Washington DC, United States.

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

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

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).

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

Government of Cameroon (2005). Forest and environment
sector policy letter. Ministry for the Environment and theProtection of Nature and Ministry for Forestry and Wildlife,
Yaoundé, Cameroon.
Government of Cameroon (2008). Readiness plan idea note
Cameroon. Prepared by the Ministry of Environment andNature Protection (MINEP) of the Republic of Cameroon
for the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (available at www.
forestcarbonpartnership.org).
Government of Cameroon (2009). Report of progress towardachieving sustainable forest management in Cameroon.
Submission to ITTO by the Ministry of Forests and Fauna,
Yaoundé, Cameroon.
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2009a). ITTO mission in support of the efforts by theGovernment of the Cameroon to achieve the ITTO 2000
Objective and sustainable forest management. Report ofthe diagnostic mission. Presented at the 45th session of theInternational Tropical Timber Council, November 2009.
ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.

54

UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed July 2011).
UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed species(searchable database at available at www.cites.org/eng/
resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
July 2010). World population prospects: the 2008 revision(searchable database available at www.esa.un.org/unpp/
p2k0data.asp).
de Wasseige C., Devers D., de Marcken, P., Eba’a Atyi R., Nasi,
R. and Mayaux Ph. (eds) (2009). The Forests of the Congo
Basin: State of the Forest 2008. Publications Office of theEuropean Union, Luxembourg.
WRI (2007, website accessed March 2011). Atlas forestierinteractif du Cameroun (version 2.0) (available at http://
www.wri.lcotton.com/Guide/Html/guide_francais.htmlv).
World Resources Institute.

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Central African Republic
Forest types. The forest types of CAR arevery diverse. The major closed forest typeis semi-deciduous rainforest, located in thesouthwestern and southeastern parts of thecountry (the southwestern massif and the Forêt
de Bangassou), the latter covering about 6.5
million hectares.a Large parts of these forests are
unexploited. The semi-deciduous forests in thesouthwest, which form part of the Congo Basinrainforests, extend over an area of about 5.2
million hectaresa; they are among the richest in
Africa, containing a high density of high-value
timber species such as Terminalia superba (limba),
Entandrophragma cylindricum (sapelli) andTriplochiton scleroxylon (ayous), as well as large
mammals such as gorillas, forest elephants andbongo.

Forest resources
The Central African Republic (CAR) has a landarea of 62.3 million hectares and an estimatedpopulation in 2010 of 4.5 million people (United
Nations Population Division 2010). Numerous
political crises have seriously damaged the country’ssocial and economic web and weakened economic
capacity. As a result, CAR is one of the world’s
least-developed countries, ranked 179th out of
182 countries in UNDP’s Human Development
Index (UNDP 2009). Situated in the northern
Congo Basin, this landlocked country comprises
three broad bio-geographical zones. They are, fromsouth to north, the humid Guinean zone, withannual precipitation between 1500 and 1800 mm
and covered by dense humid forest; the SudanoGuinean zone (including its drier component
to the north), containing scattered semi-humid
forests and open dry forests and savanna; andthe Sahel zone, characterized by dry savanna
and annual precipitation of less than 800 mm.
The general relief of the country is formed by aplateau with altitudes varying between 500 m and
700 m and two separate basins, the Chad Basinin the north and the Congo Basin in the south.
Estimates of forest area range from 22.7 million
hectares (FAO 2010) to more than 30 million
hectares (Government of CAR 2008; de Wasseige
et al. 2009). The larger estimates include forest–
savanna mosaic, forest–cropland mosaic and dense
deciduous (miombo) forests.

The total standing volume of timber in thesouthwestern forests was estimated in a forest
inventory conducted in 1991–93 to be more than
127 million3 (ITTO 2006). North of the closed
forest is a transition zone between forest andsavanna which stretches in an east–west direction.
Beyond this, gallery forests border large rivers.
But by far the largest forest area is the open bushy
savanna that gives way to the Sahel, covering about
17 million hectares (ibid.).
Permanent forest estate. The total PFE, as definedin the 2008 Forest Code, extends over about 5.8
million hectares and includes 5.2 million hectares of
production PFE and 520 000 hectares of protection
PFE. The PFE includes the inventoried forests inthe southwest (3.8 million hectares) and the less
known, largely unexploited forest of Bangassou in
the southeast (1.9 million hectares).a About 3.1
million hectares in the southwest has been allocatedto forest concessions and the remaining closed
forest area is protection PFE.a Countrywide 46
classified forests (forêts classées), ranging in size from
20 to 120 000 hectares and covering a total area of
633 000 hectares, were set aside between 1948 and1955 for conservation and production purposes.
Many of these classified forests are no longer
forested, however.
Table 1 shows the estimated PFE. The projected
total PFE is larger in extent than the closed
forest area determined by satellite imagery. There55

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reporting year

2005*
2010
*
**

‡
†

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)22.9–29.3
22.7– 30.1**4826
4600**PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted

Total

3500
5200‡

3803
5763

3
3

300
560†

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Dense humid forest, based on land cover data (de Wasseige et al. 2009). This figure is 8.69 million hectares when calculatedusing the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) and the estimated total naturalforest area according to FAO (2010).
Projected.
Only the protected areas in the humid forest zone are counted here. The total protected area, most of which is located in savanna,is estimated at 6.04 million hectares.a

is a significant area of degraded primary andsecondary forest – nearly 1 million hectares in thesouthwestern forest area, in particular in the zoneof Lobaye – that has the potential to be productive
under SFM (ITTO 2006).

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. The annual
deforestation rate in 1990–2000 was estimatedat 0.19% (de Wasseige et al. 2009). Bushfires arewidespread, particularly in the savanna and in
the transition zone from forest to savanna andit is difficult to give a conclusive figure about
the extent of deforestation (ITTO 2006). Forest
degradation is significant in the production forest
zone and in areas near urban centres that are underheavy pressure for fuelwood collection. The main
direct causes of deforestation are the expansion ofsubsistence and cash agriculture, which particularaffects gallery forests along waterways, humaninduced wildfire in the savanna, wood-gathering
around human settlements, and mining (for gold,
diamonds and uranium) (Government of CAR
2008).

Table 2 indicates forest condition in the main
southeastern forested region, based on the 1991–93
forest inventory (ITTO 2006). Due to intensive
logging activities in the last 15 years, the share ofprimary forest has diminished today and the shareof degraded and secondary forest has increased.
Vulnerability of forests to climate change. Given
its location between the humid and dry tropics,
agricultural production capacity is low in CAR andcannot satisfy the needs of the growing population,even without the effects of climate change(Government of CAR 2008). With the increases
in temperature and decreases in precipitation
projected by climate models, agricultural
productivity will decline further, exacerbating
poverty and reducing food security (ibid.). The
semi-arid climatic zone is projected to become
more arid, while in the humid zone a projected
increase in the risk of periodic drought and wildfire
will increase forest vulnerability. The forested
zones have potential for agriculture in the face ofclimate-induced food shortages, which could leadto increased deforestation. The country’s NAPA
(MEFCPE 2008) prioritizes the prevention of forest

Table 2 Forest condition*
PFE*

Non-PFE

Total’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land***Southwestern forest area only.
**
Partly savanna and raphia wetland.
Source: ITTO (2006).

56

2400
900
80
220

-

2400
900
80
220

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

degradation and the sustainable management ofexisting forests as options (among others concerning
other sectors) to help in climate-change adaptation.

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. All land belongs to the state (Table3). The non-permanent forest estate is composed ofcommunal, community and private forests.a A legal
framework specific to communal and community
forests is yet to be produced.
Criteria and indicators. In 2009 the Governmentof CAR adopted the ATO/ITTO PCI for thesustainable management of African natural tropicalforests as an instrument for monitoring progress
towards SFM. With the support of a regional ATO/
ITTO project, the CAR PCI were improved with adefinition of the means of verification and related
sources of information. The Government of CAR’s
submission to ITTO for this report was not in the
ITTO C&I reporting format.a
Forest policy and legislation. As part of its
poverty reduction strategy, the government’s
aim is to enhance the transparency of forest andwildlife resource management while creating amore attractive business environment. A process
is ongoing to replace the forest policy adopted in
1989 (see ITTO 2006) and to develop a sectoral
policy for the sustainable management of forest
resources that will rationalize their potential anduse; protect biodiversity; combat desertificationand its damaging effects; and increase the sector’s
contribution to economic growth and job creation.
The new Forest Code (Code Forestier, Law 08-022),
which supersedes a 1990 forest code (Law 90-003),
was prepared through a participatory approach thatinvolved various stakeholders and was promulgatedby the Head of State on 17 October 2008. Alsoin 2008 a new environmental code (Law 07-018)
was enacted. Several other reforms have been
undertaken, including two decrees that appointed
border control inspectors and created mobile‘forestry and wildlife’ intervention and verificationbrigades. The main purpose of these inspectors
and brigades is to control the movement of timber,secure forestry and wildlife revenues, and strengthen
monitoring and control capacities. Anotherdecree, issued in 2008, created the Forest Industry
Observatory within the Ministry of Water, Forests,
Hunting, Fishing and Environment (Ministère desEaux, Forêts, Chasses, Pêches et de l’Environnement– MEFCPE), which will support decisionmaking and supply reliable and relevant economic
information on the industry.
In 2009, two new decrees on the modalities of
the implementation of the Forest Code and theallocation of timber concessions were introduced.
Forestry and wildlife revenues are now being
deposited in a bank account opened in thecentral bank in the name of communities in theaffected areas. These revenues are supervised by atechnical committee comprising representativesof the ministries concerned (the Ministry of theInterior, the Ministry of Finance and Budget, and
MEFCPE) and it is intended that there will be
local management of these funds. The principal
task of the technical committee is to validate theemployment programs developed by municipalities
and to monitor projects financed from these funds
as part of the campaign against rural poverty incommunities in or bordering forest lands underoperating permits. Such dynamic lawmaking
activities are part of a sectoral adjustment program
under the poverty alleviation strategy.
The Government of CAR is actively involved invarious regional initiatives to promote SFM in the

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

Total area Of which PFE Notes’000 ha
22 7005763

0022 700
0

5763
0

0

0

Small areas of forest plantations are privately owned or owned
by communities.

Source: Government of CAR (2010).

57

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Congo Basin, in particular through COMIFAC.
It recently requested formal discussions with
the European Union for developing a VPA. In
2008, a FLEGT working group, which includes
representatives of civil society, was set up, andformal negotiations commenced in 2009.
Institutions involved in forests. Forests areadministered by the MEFCPE. While theoverall mission of the MEFCPE has remained
the same since 1982, there is political instability
in leadership; between 2003 and 2008, forexample, there were ten different ministers.a The
MEFCPE, through the General Forestry and Water
Commission and the Wildlife and Protected Areas
Department, is responsible for forest management
and conservation as well as for the monitoring offorest resources. It enforces forest laws through its
forestry and wildlife brigades. The Department ofForest Inventory and Management Planning deals
with inventories and forest management planning.a
The total staff of the MEFCPE for forests andwildlife management, at both the central anddecentralized levels, was about 190 in 2008 (deWasseige et al. 2009).
Staff training and forestry research are undertakenby the University of Bangui and its Agronomic
Research Institute. However, both are constrainedby a lack of funds and capacity and mostprofessional and technical training is provided on
the job by forest companies (ITTO 2006). The
Higher Institute for Rural Development trains
technicians and engineers.a A number of local
NGOs, such as the Committee for the Integrated
Development of Communities, Green Pavilion,
Amis de la Nature, the Mouvement FemmesEnvironnement and the Organisation Centrafricainede Défense de la Nature, are also active in the forest
sector, although they still play only a marginal rolein forestry matters.a WWF supports staff training,
C&I development and certification efforts.a
A number of development partners, including

the African Development Bank, GTZ and theInternational Monetary Fund, also support thedevelopment of the forest sector.

Status of forest management
Forest for production
Large-scale industrial harvesting started in 1968
in the southwestern forests, following an intensive
inventory. A second forest inventory carried out in
1991–1993 estimated the standing volume of the
18 most important species at 93 million m3. Basedon a 30-year rotation, the commercial volume
harvestable per hectare was estimated at 15–20 m3
per year (ITTO 2006).
Harvesting in the PFE is carried out in largescale concessions using a permit known as a PEA(permis d’exploitation et d’aménagement). Under the2008 Forest Code, artisanal logging is allowablein production forest in areas of ten hectares or
less, although permits (permis artisanal) need tobe renewed annually. PEAs that in the past had
been awarded for the lifetime of the company(ITTO 2006) are now valid for only one harvestingrotation, generally 30 years.a They are allocatedthrough an open bidding process and subject tolong-term forest management plans, five-yearbusiness plans (plans de gestion quinquennaux) andannual operational plans.a
In early 2010, twelve timber companies had been
allocated concessions in the southwest of thecountry over a total area of 2.3 million hectares of
PEA. At least three more concessions may be leased
out, which would increase the allocated southwest
production forest area to 3.1 million hectares.a The
size of forest concessions varies between 156 000
and 475 000 hectares. One small concession of
42 000 hectares still operates under a special cutting
permit.a As of September 2010, eight companies
had finalized the preparation of their long-term
forest management plans over a total area of 2.4

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species
Entandrophragma cylindricum (sapelli)*
Triplochiton scleroxylon (ayous)*
Aningeria spp (aniegré-longhi)*
Entandrophragma utile (sipo)*
Chlorophora excelsa (iroko)**
Also listed in ITTO (2006).
Source: Government of CAR (2010).

58

Estimated annual log production
300 000 m3
90 000 m330 000 m3
25 000 m3
20 000 m3

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Log landing in a concession in the Central African Republic.

million hectares and management planning was
progressing for another 580 000 hectares (D.
Hubert, pers. comm., 2010).
PEAs stipulate that local people living in or
adjacent to concessions must be involved in theprocess of establishing permits (ITTO 2006). With
recent investments in a wider sector adjustment
program, the MEFCPE has increased its capacity tooversee the management of the PFE and to enforce
the lawa; its effectiveness still needs to be proven,however. Concession-holders pay rent on the area
and a flexible fee related to the volume produced
and exported.a
Silviculture and species selection. While the 1990
Forest Code made specific reference to silvicultural
management criteria, including quantitative limits
on logging to avoid creaming and favour naturalregeneration (see ITTO 2006), the 2008 Forest
Code only includes general guidance on forest
management planning. In principle, PEAs are
renewable; long-term management and harvest
planning should therefore be possible. There areabout 300 potential timber species in the closed
forest area but only 34 species are harvested.a
Table 4 lists the five species that made up 85%
of production between 2005 and 2008. Other

important species that are increasingly harvested
are Entandrophragma candollei (kossipo), Guarea
cedrata (bossé), E angolense (tiama), Pterocarpus spp(padouk) and Lovoa trichilioides (dibétou bibolo).
Planted forest and trees outside the forest.
Planted forests cover an estimated 1800–3000
hectares. In addition, the country’s single Hevea
brasiliensis (rubber) plantation covers about 1000
hectares. There are no reports of new plantations
established since 2005.
Various tropical hardwoods, including Tectona
grandis and Gmelina arborea, have performed quite
well in experimental trials, but these have not beenscaled up (ITTO 2006). Small community-based
fuelwood plantations of eucalypts, Acacia mangium
and Cassia siamea are important in non-forested
areas. In drier areas, trees planted outside forests
are of some importance, including neem,
Butyrospermum parkii (karité), Anacardium excelsum
and Acacia albida (ibid.).
Forest certification. As of mid 2010, no forest
had been certified as well managed in CAR(e.g. FSC 2010). ITTO (2006) referred to one
concession, Industrie Forestière de Batalimo, 186 000
hectares in size, that was in an advanced process of59

Status of tropical forest management 2011

certification, but it has not achieved certification todate. One company – OLB – operating in a forestof 195 000 hectares, has had a certificate of timber
origin and legality since 2007. The Governmentof CAR is actively engaged in the VPA process andnegotiations with the European Commission on a
VPA were expected to be reaching a conclusion inlate 2010 (Anon. 2010).
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. The objective of theGovernment of CAR is that, by 2011, all forests
are under forest management plans.a In 2009, ofthe eleven PEAs operating in the southwesternpart of the PFE, eight were operating under fullmanagement plans and three were developing their
management plans.a This indicates significant
progress towards SFM, since in 2005 only twocompanies with concessions totaling about 650 000
hectares were working under comprehensive forest
management plans (ITTO 2006). However, the
MEFCPE still lacks the know-how and capacity tomonitor the implementation of these management
plans effectively.a With finance from the African
Development Bank a major project is under way
in the southwestern forest area with the overall aimof achieving the sustainable management of forests
and woodlots by communities.a Despite these
positive developments, a lack of strong evidence ofthe extent to which management plans are being
implemented means that no forest can be classified
as under SFM (Table 5).
Timber production and trade. Total roundwood
production in 2008 was an estimated 3 million m3,
of which at least 2.5 million m3 was fuelwood.a
CAR produces relatively low volumes of mostly
high-value timbers. In 2009, total industrial timber
production amounted to an estimated 533 000 m3,
slightly more than the 509 000 m3 produced in
2004 (ITTO 2010). The country produced 95 000
m3 of sawnwood in 2009, up from 67 000 m3 in
2004. About 81 000 m3 of logs were exported in
2009, compared with 93 000 m3 in 2004. The
decline in log exports was matched by an increasein sawnwood exports, from 11 000 m3 in 2004 to
22 000 m3 in 2009 (ITTO 2010). CAR’s exports
face numerous constraints: as a land-locked country
it needs to transport its products either throughneighbouring Congo by train or by road throughCameroon. The main export destinations are China
and Hong Kong (37%), European Union countries(40%), Turkey and, increasingly, Cameroon.a60

Non-timber forest products. The forests playa fundamental role in the lives of many people
in CAR, including by providing medicinal andedible plants, fruits and fungi, game, timber andfuelwood.a Bush meat is the most economicallyimportant forest product besides fuelwood andtimber. Many foodstuffs, medicinal plants andcondiments – including Piper guineense (forest
pepper), Xylopia aethiopica and Afromomum spp –are collected in closed and savanna forests and soldlocally or exported (ITTO 2006). No quantitative
data were available on NTFP production and trade.
Forest carbon. The total carbon stock in forests
and woodlands in CAR is estimated at 5500
MtC, of which about 900 MtC are in the closed
humid forests (de Wasseige et al. 2009). Gibbs etal. (2007) estimated the national forest biomass
carbon stock at 3176–4096 MtC, Eggleston et al.
(2006) estimated it at 7405 MtC and FAO (2010)
estimated it at 2861 MtC.
The Government of CAR is participating in theForest Carbon Partnership Facility and submitted areadiness idea note in 2008 (Government of CAR
2008). Proposed REDD+ strategies include inparticular the further development and financing
of integrated protected areas; improved fuelwood
management in peri-urban areas; and improved
management of forest mosaics and savanna. Table
6 indicates the country’s forest carbon potential.
Capacity needs to be strengthened considerably
if the country is to implement REDD+. There isconsiderable potential to reduce GHG emissions
and enhance carbon sinks, in particular through the
improved control of wildfire in the savanna.

Forest for protection
Soil and water. A number of small areas totalling
about 5700 hectares has been set aside for catchment
protection purposes (mise en défense) (ITTO 2006).
Biological diversity. CAR contains more than
3600 plant species, 224 mammal species and668 bird species. Seven mammals, one bird andeight plants found in forests are listed as criticallyendangered, endangered or vulnerable on the
IUCN red list of threatened species (IUCN 2011).
One non-tree plant species is listed in CITES
Appendix I and two in Appendix II (UNEPWCMC 2011).
Several other mammals are locally threatened. The
elephant population, for example, has reportedly

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

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

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

3500
5200

2920
3100

*
**

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
650
2320

CertifiedSustainably
managed

0
0**

186

3

PlantedWith
management
plans
-

0

3

0

Total

Certified00

As reported in ITTO (2006).
A certificate of legality has been issued for 155 000 hectares of forest, however.

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

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

3176–4096

38+

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

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity

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

decreased to a critical level due to unabatedpoaching, especially in the north. Nevertheless, thecountry probably still has the highest densities oflowland gorillas and forest elephants in Africa (deWasseige et al. 2009).

five national parks (category II), and two special
reserves, five wildlife reserves and two biospherereserves (category IV).a These mostly comprisesavanna and dry shrub land. The Dzanga Sangha
Special Reserve, the Dzanga Ndoki National Park
(CAR’s part of a tri-national protected area between
CAR, the Republic of the Congo and Cameroon),and two smaller reserves are the only forested
protected areas, covering a total of about 560 000
hectares.a

Protective measures in production forests.
The 2008 Forest Code makes provisions forthe protection of biodiversity and to set aside
ecologically fragile zones in PEAs (articles 83 and87). Protective measures must be described in thelong-term and mid-term forest management plans.

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. Few data are available
on the status of forest management in CAR’s
protection PFE. Considerable efforts have been
made to protect the 122 000-hectare DzangaN’doki National Park, which provides habitat forlarge mammals such as forest elephants, bongos
and gorillas. The Dzanga-N’doki National Park is
counted in Table 7 as under SFM.

Extent of protected areas. The first forest
conservation areas to protect the now locally extinct
white rhinoceros were created in 1925 (Réserve deZimongo and the parks of Baminigui, Bangoranand Manovo-Gonda-Saint Floris), covering morethan 1 million hectares of open savanna (ITTO2006). The total area in IUCN protected-area
categories I–IV is now about 6 million hectares,
including one integral reserve (IUCN category I),
Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)***

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

300
560

3090
6040**

6
6

120

120

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

61

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. The main exports of CAR are
coffee, cotton, diamonds, gold and timber, withdiamonds and timber representing almost 80% of
total export revenues (International Monetary Fund2009). Forest taxes account for about 14% of staterevenues and its contribution to GDP rose from
2.6% in 1997 to 5% in 2005.a About 4000 people
are employed directly in the formal forest sector(ITTO 2006). Rents and felling taxes on forest
harvesting are required to be distributed among
beneficiaries as follows: 30% to the Treasury, 40%
to the Forest and Tourism Development Fund, and
30% to communities (ITTO 2006). There is an
important artisanal timber sector. The bush-meatindustry has a turnover of more than 2% of GDP(de Wasseige et al. 2009).
Livelihood values. Bush meat and the gatheringof edible fruits, nuts, insects and roots are of great
importance for local communities dependent on
forests, in particular Pygmy communities. Yams
(Dioscorea spp) are a staple food of the Pygmies(ITTO 2006).
Social relations. The population of CAR is
ethnically diverse and the unifying factor is Sangö,
the national language. The 2008 Forest Coderecognizes the traditional rights of local users andmentions, in particular, the rights of Indigenous
peoples in PEAs. However, there are restrictions onforest use in protected areas (articles 14–18).

natural production forest (compared with 3.50
million hectares in 2005) and 560 000 hectaresof protection forest (compared with 300 000
hectares in 2005).
•

No part of the production PFE is considered to
be under SFM. Nevertheless there has been adramatic increase in the area of production
forest covered by forest management plans, from
650 000 hectares in 2005 to 2.32 million
hectares. An estimated 122 000 hectares ofprotection PFE is under SFM.

•

Twelve privately owned timber companies
manage a total area of 2.3 million hectares of
production PFE in the southwestern part of thecountry. Management permits (Permis
d’exploitation et d’aménagement) are now valid
for only one harvesting rotation, generally 30
years.

•

There are no community forests, but the 2008
Forest Code provides for the establishment ofcommunity and municipal forests. The ministryin charge of forests, MEFCPE, lacks capacity tooversee management of the PFE and to enforce
the law.

•

Forest production provides important export
revenue and contributes 5% or more to GDP.
The forest sector generates about 14% of staterevenues through logging activities. According
to the Forest Code, a significant share ofrevenues generated by forest taxes is to beredistributed to local communities. However,such revenues are unevenly distributed between
and within such communities.

Summary
CAR is one of the poorest countries in the world.
Forest products play an important role in generatingstate income but also in the livelihoods of the
majority of the people. The largest proportion offorests is savanna woodland; closed humid forests
are found in the south and southwestern part ofthe country. Nearly the entire closed forest area iseither occupied by timber concessions or has someform of protected-area status. Progress has been
made in recent years to improve the quality of forest
concession management and to regulate protectedareas.

Key points•

62

CAR has an estimated 5.78 million hectares of
PFE (compared with 3.80 million hectares in2005), comprising 5.2 million hectares ofEndnoteaGovernment of CAR (2010).

References and other sources
Anon. (2010, website of the European Commission accessed
September 2010). FLEGT (available at http://ec.europa.
eu/development/policies/9interventionareas/environment/
forest/forestry_intro_en.cfm).
Eggleston, H., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe,
T. (eds) (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Programme. Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies, Kamakura, Japan.
FAO (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010 country
report: Central African Republic (available at http://www.
fao.org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

FSC (2010, website accessed July 2010). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).
Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007). Monitoringand estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDDa reality. Environmental Research Letters 2 (available at http://
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Government of CAR (2008). Readiness Plan Idea Note Central
African Republic. Prepared by the Central African Republic
for the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (available at www.
forestcarbonpartnership.org).
Government of CAR (2010). Rapport relatif à la progression dela gestion durable des forêts en République Centreafricaine.
Bangui, Central African Republic.
International Monetary Fund (2009). Central African Republic:
poverty reduction strategy paper. First annual progress
report. Country report No 09/240. International Monetary
Fund, Washington DC, United States.
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2010, website accessed December 2010). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).
IUCN (2011, website accessed March 2011). IUCN red list of
threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).

MEFCPE (2008). République Centrafricaine: programmed’action national d’adaptation aux changements climatiques.
Ministère des Eaux, Forêts, Chasse et Pêche, Bangui,
Central African Republic.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. Data prepared for
ITTO. 2010.UNEP–WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March 2011).
UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed species(searchable database at available at www.cites.org/eng/
resources/species.html ).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
July 2010). World population prospects: the 2008 revision(searchable database available at http://esa.un.org/UNPP).
de Wasseige C., Devers D., de Marcken, P., Eba’a Atyi R., Nasi,
R. & Mayaux Ph. (eds) (2009). The Forests of the Congo
Basin: State of the Forest 2008. Publication Office of theEuropean Union, Luxembourg.
World Resources Institute (2010, website accessed March
2011). Interactive forest atlas for Central African Republic(Atlas forestier interactif de la République Centrafricaine)(available at http://www.wri.org/publication/interactiveforest-atlas-central-african-republic).

63

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Congo
road between Brazzaville and Pointe-Noire andrepeated logging. It covers less than 1 million
hectares, including extensive secondary forests(ITTO 2006). The Chaillu forest area, covering
about 3.4 million hectares, is rich in okoumé‚
Terminalia superba (limba), Pycnanthus angolensis(ilomba) and Entandrophragma utile (sipo); it has
been locally over-harvested and is increasingly
encroached upon by farmers. Together, these
two forest areas form the southern sector. The
northern forests contain redwoods, especially sipo,
Entandrophragma cylindricum (sapelli) and Millettia
laurentii (wengé), as well as light hardwoods (e.g.
Triplochiton scleroxylon – ayous); they cover 16.5
million hectares, about 40% of which is situatedon soils that are flooded for a large part of the year
(ITTO 2006).

Forest resources
The Congo (officially known as Republic of theCongo) has a land area of 34.2 million hectares. In
2010 it had an estimated population of 3.7 million
people (United Nations Population Division 2010).
Congo is ranked 136th out of 182 countries in
UNDP’s Human Development Index (UNDP2009). Stretching from 3° north to 5° south, it
can be divided into three broad biogeographicalzones: the southern zone, which covers the forested
Mayombe and Chaillu mountains and savanna; thecentral zone, which consists of the Bateke Plateau
highlands, wholly covered by grass or shrub savannaapart from gallery forests and scattered forest
islands; and the northern zone, located mostly
north of the equator, which consists of three heavily
forested subregions, from south to north Cuvette,
Sangha and Likouala.
The total forest area is estimated at about 22.4
million hectares (CNIAF 2008; FAO 2009). de
Wasseige et al. (2009) estimated the extent of dense
humid forests on the basis of land-cover data at
18.5 million hectares, and there was an additional
8.4 million hectares of forest–cropland mosaic,
forest–savanna mosaic and semi-deciduous miombo
forests. Congo has an estimated 1670 hectares ofmangroves (Spalding et al. 2010).
Forest types. The Mayombe forest, originallyrich in Aucoumea klaineana (okoumé), has beenheavily cleared due to colonization along the64

Permanent forest estate. The PFE includes forestsin the national forest estate, forests owned publicly,
communes and other local collectives (articles 5 and6, Law16/2000). The non-permanent forest estatecomprises non-gazetted protected forests (Article
13, Law16/2000). Since the 1960s, Congo has
divided its national forest estate into three sectors
and a variable number of forest management units(unités d’aménagement forestier – UFAs); virtually
all closed natural forest is contained within Congo’sPFE (Table 1). Some UFAs in the south and in thecentre are subdivided further into forest logging
units (unités forestières d’exploitation – UFEs). In
mid 2009, 52 forest management/forest logging
units covering an area of nearly 12 million hectares
had been established, the majority in the north. The
plan is that 15.2 million hectares will be allocatedfor production forestry. An area of about 3.2
million hectares of PFE is unallocated. UFAs can be
managed for both production and protection.

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. Congois a country with high forest cover and low
rates of deforestation and forest degradation.
The Government of Congo (2010b) estimatedthe annual deforestation rate at 0.03% (67 000
hectares per year) and the annual degradation
rate at 0.01%. Deforestation is more intense in
the south; the north is only sparsely populated

republic of the congo

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reporting year

2005*
2010
*
**
‡

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)20.3–22.1
22.4–26.9

22 00018 500**

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlantedTotal

18 40015 200‡21 30018 900

72
85

2860
3650

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Based on de Wasseige et al. (2009).
Data on the extent of the production PFE are contradictory, even within the same ministry. This figure is estimated according to
the plan for the PFE set out by MEF.

Sovereign National Conference. Theoretically, state
forest can belong to government, local councils(collectivités locales) and public bodies. Oncedeclared, any community or communal forest isregistered as the private domain of the relevantgroup. Although the principle of ownership rights
for local communities is in effect, no transfers
have been implemented. As for individuals, theregistration of customary titles remains an issue.
The presumption of ownership remains with thestate, which is still the sole owner and manager offorests (Table 3).

and to a large extent inaccessible.The main directcauses of deforestation and forest degradation
are unsustainable slash-and-burn practices;
unsustainable fuelwood production andconsumption; unsustainable and illegal logging;and urban development. These direct causes arecompounded by underlying factors such as alack of a common land-planning vision among
stakeholders; rural poverty; population growth; alack of alternative sources of energy adapted to low
incomes; inefficient charcoal production and use;
and weak forest governance (Government of Congo
2010b). Table 2 provides an estimate of forest
condition.

Criteria and indicators. Congo developed its own
set of PCI based on those of ITTO and ATO in
2007. The Government of Congo used the ITTO
C&I in its submission to ITTO for this report.a

Vulnerability of forests to climate change. Congo
has not submitted a NAPA to the UNFCCC andno information was available for this report on
the country’s strategy to adapt to climate change.
Increasing vulnerability in Congo may be expectedin peri-urban areas, particularly with regard to adwindling water supply and associated health risks.
A drying of the climate would likely increase theincidence of forest fire in the southwest and in thesavanna.

Forest policy and legislation. The legal frameworkfor government policy on forests and theenvironment mainly includes: Law 003/91 (1991),
on environmental protection; Law 20/96 (1996,
amending the 1984 law), instituting Tree Day; Law
16/2000 (2000), which sets out the Forest Code;Law 17/2000 (2000), on tenure; Law 10/2004(2004), providing for the State Estate Code; andLaw 37/2008 (2008) on fauna and protectedareas. The Forest Code, the law on fauna andprotected areas and all other laws developed after
the United Nations Conference on Environmentand Development in 1992 integrate wider concerns
to ensure the economic, environmental andSFM policy framework
Forest tenure. Under Article 35 of the Forest Code(2000) the state recognizes the ownership rights
of private forest owners, based on tenure titles orcustomary tenure rights, as recognized by the 1991
Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

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

7500

-

7500

15 100-15 100---Source: Government of Congo (2010a).

65

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

Total area Of which PFE Notes’000 ha22 10018 787113

113

22 200-18 900---The exact extent of the state forest area is not known.
Refers to allocated réserves communautaires.

The area of planted forest by the private sector is unknown.

Source: ITTO estimate based on Government of Congo (2010a).

social sustainability of natural resources (land,
forest, water and fauna). Under the Forest Code,development plans must be prepared for each UFA.
The Forest Code describes the bidding process forthe allocation of UFAs and, through subsequent
decrees, regulates forest management planning andmakes specific technical management directives,
including on community development. National
standards for additional studies (e.g. socioeconomicand environmental) were added by decree in 2005.
The forest policy is linked with the wider
development agenda of the country. The
National Land Planning Scheme (2005), thePoverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2008) andthe National Action Plan (2008) all include
forests as an important element in the country’s
development. Congo is a signatory to the Treaty
on the Conservation and Sustainable Managementof Forest Ecosystems in Central Africa (signed
in Brazzaville in 2005; ratified by Congo in Law
35/2006, 2006) and participates in COMIFAC.
Institutions involved in forests. The missionof the former Ministry of Forestry Economy andEnvironment (Ministère de l’Economie Forestière
et de l’Environnement) has been reassigned to
the Ministry of Forest Economy (Ministère del’Economie Forestière – MEF) and the Ministry of
Tourism and the Environment. MEF is responsible
for forest policies and strategies, the monitoringof forest management, the forest economy, thesupervision of rural forestry, the management of
wildlife resources, and training and research. The
total staff assigned for these tasks is about 750, ofwhom 350 are technicians. MEF lacks the humanand material resources to manage the country’s
large forest estate effectively. There are four stateagencies with specific tasks: the Forestry Fund

66

(Fonds Forestier); the National Reforestation Service(Service National de Reboisement); the National
Centre for the Inventory and Management ofForest and Wildlife Resources (Centre Nationald’Inventaire et d’Aménagement des Ressources
Forestières et Fauniques – CNIAF), which is incharge of developing forest management plans andthe monitoring of their implementation; and theMonitoring Service for the Export and Import ofForest and Wildlife Products (Service de Contrôledes Produits Forestiers et Fauniques à l’Exportation
et l’Importation), which has outsourced offices in
the country’s main production forest areas. Law
enforcement is carried out by MEF’s departmental
directorates.
Research and technological development fromministries and NGOs is coordinated by a specificbody, the Office for Scientific and TechnologicalResearch (Délégation Générale de la Recherche
Scientifique et Technique). There are two training
institutes, the Ecole Nationale des Eaux et Forêts in
Mosendjo and the Institut de Développement Rural.
Several international NGOs operate in Congoin close partnership with MEF, including the
Wildlife Conservation Society in protected-areamanagement, and the World Resources Institute,which supports the monitoring of commercial
forestry operations.

Status of forest management
Forest for production
Timber has been harvested commercially insouthern Congo since 1910 and in northern Congo
since the 1970s.a Today, 70% of timber production
occurs in the sparsely populated northern Congo,
which contains large areas of primary forest.
Concessions in the UFAs are allocated eitherrepublic of the congo

knowledge of, interest in or capital for forest
management, and damage is widespread.a

Forest inventory at the CIB Pokola concession.

through an industrial processing agreement(convention de transformation industrielle), a
management and processing agreement (conventiond’aménagement et de transformation) or a special
permit (permis spécial). In addition to these, Article
65 of the 2000 Forest Code specifies les permis decoupe des bois de plantations for the harvesting ofplantations. Enterprises that are candidates forthe development of a UFA are selected by tender.
Harvesting is carried out in designated areas
according to an AAC, which corresponds to the
maximum annual volume authorized by the forest
administration.
In mid 2009, 52 UFAs and UFEs covering an areaof nearly 12 million hectares had been established,about 8 million hectares of which were in thenorth as large-scale concessions and about 4
million hectares of which were in the south andon the plateau, often divided into UFEs that are,on average, about 50 000 hectares in size.a Forest
management is very different in the southern
Mayombe and Chaillu regions compared with
the northern part of Congo. Southern forests aredegraded, and current timber harvesting is often
the third or fourth re-entry into logged-over forests(ITTO 2006). In addition, the former UFAs
have been divided into smaller logging units,providing mainly national extractors with accessto the resources. Many of these logging units havebeen subcontracted to logging operators without

In northern Congo, in contrast, the integrity oflarge UFAs has been maintained and the average
size of UFAs is about 400 000 hectares. These
concessions have been allocated to large industrial
companies with an annual production capacityof over 100 000 m3, large enough to warrant
investment in wood-processing units (ITTO2006). The concessionaires already implement
or are preparing forest management plans. In
theory, these plans are to be prepared by the forest
administration in close collaboration with the forest
concession-holders, but, in practice, the concessionholders undertake most of the work (ibid.). By
mid 2009, forest management plans had been
finalized for 3.83 million hectares of concessions
and was ongoing for an additional 6.84 million
hectares. It is estimated that, by 2012, about 13.4
million hectares of production forests will be undermanagement plans (Government of Congo 2010a).
Silviculture and species selection. Congo has along tradition of forest research and education, andthere is broad scientific knowledge of silviculture
and forest dynamics in natural and planted forests.
Under the 2000 Forest Code, forest management
plans must specify the species selected for fellingand for conservation, silvicultural treatments,
including enrichment planting, and the silviculturalplanning schedule for each harvesting plot. Felling
cycles may vary between 25 and 50 years andharvestable diameters between 60 and 80 cm
according to species (ITTO 2006). Harvesting in
UFAs for which a management plan has not yet
been approved should be preceded by a fellinginventory for the specified area (ibid.).
In northern Congo, 20–25 timber species are
harvested, primarily for the export market. The
five major timber species listed in Table 4 makeup nearly 80% of total production and, with anadditional four species (Triplochiton scleroxylon–ayous, Millettia laurentii – wengé, Terminalia
superba – limba and Chlorophora excelsa –iroko),made up 90% of log production between 2006 and2009.a In the south, the production is more diverse
and involves mostly secondary forest species, suchas Aucoumea klaineana (okoumé) and Gambeya
africana (longhi).
Planted forest and trees outside the forest. The
total area of planted forests has been estimated at

67

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Entandrophragma cylindricum (sapelli)*
Aucoumea klaineana (okoumé)
Entandrophragma utile (sipo)*
Guarea cedrata (bossé)
Entandrophragma candollei (kossipo)More than 40% of total production, 100% for export.
About 23% of total production, exported mainly to Asia.
About 6%, decorative species, important for veneer.
About 4% of total production.
About 3% of total production.

*
Also listed in ITTO (2006).
Source: Government of Congo (2010a).

about 85 000 hectares.a A special unit develops
agroforestry plantations and enrichment planting
in logged-over and degraded forests; since 1996,
12 000 hectares of enrichment plantings have been
established using local hardwood species. Where
follow-up treatments are carried out (e.g. in theCongolaise Industrielle des Bois – CIB – concession),these enrichment plantings develop well.b Most
afforestation has been established in low-fertility
savannas by introducing eucalypts (e.g. in theregion of Pointe Noire).
A 40 000-hectare clonal eucalypt plantation, whichis planned to be extended to 60 000 hectares, isbeing developed by a private firm (Canadianowned Mag-Industries) in conjunction with theconstruction of a woodchip factory (de Wasseige
et al. 2009). There are also oil-palm and rubber
plantations in southern Congo but their extent is
unknown.
Forest certification. Three main concessions
in northern Congo, owned by Industrie
Forestière d’Ouesso and CIB, hold valid FSC
forest management certificates over an area of
1.91 million hectares (FSC 2010). Since June
2010, the Mokabi concession of Rougier (586 000
hectares) has received a certificate of legality
and is progressing towards forest management
certification. Congo and the European Union
signed a VPA in May 2010.

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. The three concession
areas owned by Industrie Forestière d’Ouesso and CIB
operating with FSC certification, and the Mokabi
concession of Rougier, which currently holds a
Timber Legality and Traceability Verification(TLTV) certificate, are counted here as sustainably
managed (Table 5).
Timber production and trade. Total annual
roundwood production is estimated at 2.55 million
m3, of which 1.98 million m3 was industrial
roundwood in 2009 (ITTO 2010). In 2009, nearly
80% of the entire industrial roundwood harvest wasundertaken by three Malaysian-owned and three
European-controlled firms.a
Timber companies must process at least 85% of
their production in the country or pay a surcharge
on log exports.a Sawnwood production was
369 000 m3 in 2009, up from 200 000 m3 in2004 and 109 000 m3 in 2000 (ITTO 2010). Log
exports increased from 209 000 m3 in 1999 to apeak of 844 000 m3 in 2004; in 2009, 769 000
m3 of logs were exported (ibid.). The volume ofsawnwood exports increased from 31 000 m3 in
1994 to 283 000 m3 in 2007; in 2009, 264 000
m3 of sawnwood were exported. About 8700
m3 of veneer were exported in 2009. The costof exporting timber is relatively high in Congocompared to other countries in the Congo Basin.
Timber produced in northern Congo must be

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

Total

Available for
harvest

2005*
2010

18 40015 2008440
11 980***68

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
1300
8270**

Certified

0
1908

1300

72

PlantedWith
management
plans
45

2494

85

45

Sustainably
managed

Total

Certified00

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Includes the area managed under approved forest management plans and areas that have management plans in advanced
preparation.

republic of the congotransported more than 1000 km by road to the portof Douala in Cameroon, and labour costs are thesecond-highest in the region (after Gabon; ITTO
2006).
Non-timber forest products. The commercial
harvesting of NTFPs (produits accessoires) isregulated through special permits (in particular for
firewood and charcoal). Many foods, medicinal
plants and condiments are collected in closed andsavanna forests, and are mainly sold domestically.
Fibres such as raphia and rônier leaves (Borassus
aethiopum) are traded with neighbouring countries.
Mammals (especially antelopes), invertebrates,snails and fish are important sources of protein
for forest-dwelling communities. The trade inbush meat now involves many species, including
protected species such as apes and elephants innorthern Congo. Hunting for bush meat has
become a major problem since the opening-up of
the forests to commercial logging (ITTO 2006).
Forest carbon. The total forest carbon stock was
estimated by de Wasseige et al. (2009) at about
4200 MtC, of which about 3300 MtC are in closed
humid forests. Gibbs et al. (2007) estimated thenational forest biomass carbon stock at 3458–4739
MtC, Eggleston et al. (2006) estimated it at 5472
MtC and FAO (2010) estimated it at 3438 MtC.
Congo has submitted a readiness idea note to theForest Carbon Partnership Facility and prepareda draft readiness preparation plan. The country’s
proposed REDD+ strategy includes enhancing
forest-tenure security; sustainably managing forest
resources; improving agricultural production
systems; streamlining fuelwood production and use;
and addressing extra-sectoral factors that lead to
deforestation and degradation. Table 6 summarizes
Congo’s forest carbon potential. The large area of
intact forest suggests significant potential for theconservation of existing forest carbon stocks.

Forest for protection
Soil and water. In southern and central Congo,
about 3.66 million hectares of forests are managed
primarily for soil and water protection (ITTO2006). However, no maps or specific management
plans have been prepared for these forests.a
Biological diversity. Congo is host to more than
6500 plant species, 200 mammal species, more than
600 inventoried bird species, 45 reptile species,
36 amphibian species, 103 fish species and at least800 butterfly species.a Seven mammals, one birdand six plants found in forests are listed as criticallyendangered, endangered or vulnerable on the
IUCN red list of threatened species (IUCN 2011).
Seven plant species are listed in CITES Appendix
II, including one hardwood timber species,
Pericopsis elata (UNEP-WCMC 2011).
Protective measures in production forests. Forest
management plans prescribe measures to protect
water resources, biodiversity and soils. Withintimber concessions, areas are set aside to protect
biodiversity. In 2009, the combined area of suchprotected forests was about 600 500 hectares.a
Extent of protected areas. About 3.5 million
hectares, or nearly 11% of the country’s total area,
has been classified as protected areas. There arethree national parks: Odzala-Kokoua National Park
(126 000 hectares) dating from 1935; NouabaleNdoki National Plark (410 000 hectares), createdin 1993; and the Conkouati-Douli National
Park (505 000 hectares), created in 1999. These
three national parks and three sanctuaries haveprotected-area status equivalent to IUCN categories
I and II over a total area of 2.47 million hectares,of which about 2.07 million hectares is lowland
evergreen broadleaved rainforest. Four wildlife
reserves, two hunting reserves, one biosphere reserveand one community reserve (IUCN categories V
and VI) cover a forest and savanna area of about

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

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

3458–4739

68++

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
monitoringsinkcapacity
capacity to
2030
++

++

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

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

69

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

2860
3650

2470
2470**

3660
3660

380
536

380
536‡

*
**
‡

As reported in ITTO (2006).
UNEP-WCMC (2010).
Comprises Odzala National Park and Nouabale-Ndoki National Park, as well as the protected areas within the certified UFAs in
northern Congo.

1.2 million hectares. Of the 14 protected areas,
twelve are linked by forest corridors (ITTO 2006).
The Conkouati-Douli National Park faces several
threats, notably from illegal logging and mining,road access, and a relative high population density
around the park; there is intensive poaching andcommercial bush-meat hunting.b
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. The Nouabale-Ndoki
National Park (410 000 hectares) is covered bya management plan that is being implemented
effectively; CIB is harvesting timber in the bufferzone and implementing measures to further protect
the integrity of the park. This national park istherefore considered to be under SFM. Due to its
remoteness and its 80 years of existence, the Odzala
National Park is also considered to be under SFM(Table 7).

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. Forestry contributes about
6% of GDP and 3% of tax income. About
15 000 people obtain their income from forestry,
not counting the informal sector, in particularin fuelwood and charcoal production and local
carpentry. Forestry is particularly important as an
employer in northern Congo.
Livelihood values. Bush meat and the gathering ofedible fruits, nuts and roots are of great importancefor forest-dependent local communities, particularly
Pygmies in closed forest. Leaves of Gnetum spp
are widely used as vegetables. Fruits of Irvingia
gabonensis, Gambeya africana and others are also
eaten. The government’s procedures for forest
management plans contain provisions for the local
use of NTFPs (ITTO 2006).
Social relations. In northern Congo, communities
living in or near forests rely heavily on hunting for
subsistence, but this is often affected by logging
and particularly the presence of logging camps.

70

Over-hunting occurs in areas with rapid population
growth caused by the opening-up of the forest
frontier. Indeed, the bush-meat question andsocial relations between Indigenous forest-dwellers
and migrants attracted by the forest industry are
possibly the biggest constraints to SFM in northern
Congo (ITTO 2006). Local populations often
benefit from the long-term presence of forest
companies, which construct roads that can beused for the transport of goods. Such companies
also establish medical services and schools and, tosome extent, provide services that normally are theresponsibility of government (ibid.).

Summary
Congo has a large forest resource, supportive
government policies and considerable technical andfinancial support from international development
partners. There is little population pressure inits main forest area, and a growing number ofconcessionaires are advancing along the path
to SFM. The stage therefore seems set for theforest sector to expand the area of forest under
SFM, provided that issues related to Indigenous
communities and the commercial over-huntingof certain mammal species can be addressed.
Most progress towards high standards of forest
management is occurring in the northern part ofthe country; a major challenge is to extend this tothe forests in the south.

Key points•

Congo has an estimated PFE of 18.9 million
hectares (compared with 21.3 million hectares
in 2005), comprising 15.2 million hectares of
production forest (compared with 18.4 million
hectares in 2005), 3.65 million hectares ofprotection PFE (compared with 2.86 million
hectares in 2005) and about 85 000 hectares ofplanted forests.

republic of the congo

•

•

•

Management plans exist or are at an advanced
stage of development for about 8.27 million
hectares of production PFE. An estimated 2.49
million hectares of the natural production PFE
and an estimated 536 000 hectares of protection
forests are under SFM.
The over-hunting of bush meat withinconcessions, and social relations between
Indigenous forest-dwellers and migrants, arepossibly the biggest constraints to SFM in
northern Congo.
There is potential for carbon conservation innatural forests and sequestration in planted
forests under REDD+.

Endnotes

Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007). Monitoringand estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDDa reality. Environmental Research Letters 2 (available at http://
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Government of Congo (2010a). Rapport sur les progrès
accomplis par la République du Congo vers la réalisation
de l’aménagement forestier durable et de l’Objectif 2000
de l’OIBT. Submission to ITTO by the Ministère del’Economie Forestière du Congo, Brazzaville, Congo.
Government of Congo (2010b). Readiness preparation
proposal. Ministry of Sustainable Development, Forest
Economy and Environment (MDDEFE) (available at www.
forestcarbonpartnership.org).
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2010, website accessed December 2010). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).

aGovernment of Congo (2010a).

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

b

Personal communications with officials and resource persons
at Brazzaville, 2010.

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

References and other sources
CNIAF (2008, website accessed October 2010). Website of theCentre National d’Inventaire et d’Aménagement des Ressources
Forestières et Fauniques (available at www.observatoirecomifac.net/indicators.php?lvl=cntr&country=COG&tab=2).
Eggleston, H., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe,
T. (eds) (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Programme. Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies, Kamakura, Japan.
FAO (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010 country
report: Republic of the Congo (available at http://www.fao.
org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).
FSC (2010, website accessed November 2010). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).

UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March
2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html).
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. Data prepared for
ITTO. 2010.UNEP–WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
July 2010). World population prospects: The 2008 revision(searchable database available at www.esa.un.org/unpp/
p2k0data.asp).
de Wasseige C., Devers D., de Marcken, P., Eba’a Atyi R., Nasi,
R. & Mayaux Ph. (eds) (2009). The Forests of the Congo
Basin: State of the Forest 2008. Publication Office of theEuropean Union, Luxembourg.

71

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Côte d’Ivoire
10.4 million hectares (32% of the land area), which
is a slight increase over the estimate for 1990.

Forest resources
Côte d’Ivoire, which is situated in the Gulf ofGuinea, has a total land area of 32.2 million
hectares and an estimated population in 2010 of
21.5 million people (United Nations Population
Division 2010). It is ranked 163 out of 182
countries in UNDP’s Human Development
Index (UNDP 2009). The tropical moist forest
belt (commonly called the zone forestière) extends
inland from the coast for more than 250 km (toabout 8° north), beyond which there is extensive
savanna (domaine soudanais). The western part ofthe country is in the Guinea highlands, where thehighest summits rise to more than 1500 m above
sea level. With the exception of small areas ofremaining primary forests (e.g. in the Taï reserveand the western mountains), forests are heavily
degraded. FAO (2010a) estimated forest cover at

Forest types. Two main forest types can be
distinguished in the south: wet evergreen, andsemi-deciduous. The former is poorly stocked incommercial timber, although it contains species
such as Uapaca spp, Guarea cedrata (bossé),Tieghemella heckelii (makoré), Tarrietia utilis(niangon) and Triplochiton scleroxylon (samba). The
semi-deciduous forests, occurring in the central
and northern parts of the zone forestière, was oncerich in valuable timber species, including samba,
Mansonia altissima (beté), Nesogordonia papaverifera(kotibé) and Khaya ivorensis (acajou). Outside asmall number of effectively protected areas, mostforests of both forest types are heavily degraded orare at an early stage of secondary growth.a In thedomaine soudanais there are some dry forests andgallery forest containing species such as Daniellaoliveri, Isoberlinia doka and Afzelia africana. There
are about 10 000 hectares of mangrove forests,
characterized by Rhizophora racemosa and Avicennia
germinans (Spalding et al. 2010).
Permanent forest estate. The PFE officiallycomprises the 231 classified forests (forêts classées)
zoned for production and protection, which coveran area of 4.2 million hectares. However, only
about 1.95 million hectares of these are still forested(Table 1).a There are nearly 2.1 million hectaresof forest in protected areas. Outside the PFE, inthe rural forest domain (domaine forestier rural)
there were 385 forest harvesting areas (périmètres
d’exploitation forestière – PEFs) in 2008; 80–90% of
the entire timber production of the country comesfrom these areas (ITTO 2008).

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reporting year

2005*
2010
*
**
‡
†

72

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)7.1–11.7
7.52–10.4**

3248
1760‡

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted

Total

3400
1950†

4301
4220

167
180

734
2090

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Area of public forests and dense forests in domaine forestier rural estimated at 7.52 million hectares.
Calculated using the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) (16.9%) and the total
natural forest area estimated by FAO (2010a).
Estimated actual forested area in the forêts classées. The large decrease compared with 2005 is based on a 2008 assessment of theextent of forest in the forêts classées (Government of Côte d’Ivoire 2009).

Côte d’Ivoire

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. According
to FAO (2010b), the deforestation rate in Côte
d’Ivoire was insignificant in the period 2005–10
but was 15 000 hectares per year in 2000–05.
Deforestation is caused mainly by land-use change
to agriculture: 7.5 million hectares of former forest
land are used today for swidden agriculture, andabout 3.3 million hectares of former forest land areused for the production of commercial crops suchas coffee, cocoa, palm oil, rubber and pineapple.a
Timber theft and illegal logging are widespread
and are the primary reasons for the degradation ofnatural forests in the forêts classées and the domaine
forestier rural (ITTO 2006). Bushfire is common
in Côte d’Ivoire’s savanna and transitional forest–
savanna. Fire in the zone forestière, mainly humaninduced, affects more than 25 000 hectares annually(ITTO 2008). Table 2 summarizes forest condition;
more than 90% of remaining forests in Côte
d’Ivoire are secondary or degraded primary forests.b
Vulnerability of forests to climate change. Côte
d’Ivoire has prepared a detailed national reporton climate change. As in other countries in West
Africa, rainfall in Côte d’Ivoire depends on the
monsoon system associated with the inter-tropicalconvergence zone. The surface temperatures in
the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, as well as the El

Niño phenomenon, will be significant drivers ofWest Africa’s future climate. The mean annual
temperature in Africa is projected to increaseover the next 60 years by 3–4°C (IPCC 2007).
There may also be an increased frequency of heavy
rainstorms and drought, which could lead to an
expansion of agricultural areas to the detriment offorests and increases in migration, uncontrolled fireand conflict over access to forest land.

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. There are two main categories ofnatural-forest ownership:•

Public (state-owned) forests, which are divided
into two kinds of land use: the permanent forest
domain (domaine forestier permanent), which
includes the reserved forest area and protectedareas; and the domaine forestier rural, which
includes PEFs and forests reserved for
agricultural purposes.

•

Community forests, which are based on
traditional customary rights recognized in allforest areas in the country. There are 6705
registered sacred forests (forêts sacrées) covering a
total area of 36 435 hectares; these are under thefull jurisdiction of local communities.a Many
more forests may have cultural or spiritual value
but are not registered.

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

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

625
3260
-

10
6110
-

630
9380
-

Source: Government of Côte d’Ivoire (2009) and FAO (2010a).

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

Total area Of which PFE Notes’000 ha
6125

-

-

-

6125
-

-

12

-

4.2 million hectares in 231 forêts classées and 1.9 million
hectares in 13 protected areas.

Privately owned forest plantations (mainly teak).

Source: Government of Côte d’Ivoire (2009).

73

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Criteria and indicators. ITTO’s C&I are usedin Côte d’Ivoire as an instrument for forest
management planning. The Government of Côte
d’Ivoire used the ITTO C&I in its submission
to ITTO for this report.a Côte d’Ivoire finalized
its set of ATO/ITTO PCI in 2006. The trainingof 25 Ivoirians in the use of the ATO/ITTO PCI
was organized by a regional ITTO project on the
promotion of SFM in Africa. The Governmentof Côte d’Ivoire extended this training to 30
additional senior forest officers.
Forest policy and legislation. The Forest Code(Law 65/425) dates from 1965. Since then, allmajor decisions on land use, forest management,
the organization of the forest service and thecommercialization of forest products have been
made through decrees or ministerial orders (arrêtés),
including Decree 78/231 (1978), which prescribes
the management of the PFE, and Decree 94/385(1994), which sets out forest-harvesting reforms.
A process to revise the Forest Code began in 2002
with support from FAO and was finalized in 2005.
Since then, a series of stakeholder workshops havebeen held and a process to finalize the new forest
code is under way prior to its introduction to the
National Assembly for adoption.a
The main law on wildlife protection and hunting
also dates from 1965 (Law 65/255). Additional
elements relating to the financing and managementof national parks and other protected areas are
specified in Law 102/02 (2002).a
A forest master plan (plan directeur forestier) was
formulated in 1988 for a span of 25 years. This wasevaluated in 1998 and the Framework Program on
Forest Management (Programme Cadre de Gestion
des Forêts) was developed in 1999, valid for 14
years (ITTO 2006). Systematic improvements
in forest management were hindered up to 2008
by severe socio-political crises and the divisionof the country into two parts. After the signingof the Ouagadougou Peace Accord in 2007 thecountry gradually re-formulated its state policies
and re-organized its institutions. The forest policy
was revised in 2010 and a strategic plan for its
implementation in 2010–15 approved. This plan
includes, among other things, the creation of aforest development fund (Fonds de Développement
Forestier), the continuation of the revision of theforest code, a new direction for reforestation andnew prescriptions for the management of the74

domaine forestière rural.a The impact of the mostrecent political crisis on forest policy is unclear but
is unlikely to have been positive.
Institutions involved in forests. Under Decree
06/310 (2006), the Ministry for Environment,
Water and Forests (Ministère de l’Environnement,
des Eaux et Forêts – MINEEF) is responsible for the
management of the forest estate. To manage theforests of the domaine forestière rural, MINEEF is
supported by the Directorate for Water and Forests,
which has four central divisions, ten regional
directorates, 54 forest offices (cantonnements deseaux et forêts) and 70 forest posts (postes des eauxet forêts). MINEEF also oversees four specialist
institutions, including the Forest Development
Agency (Société de Développement des Forêts –SODEFOR) and the National Office for National
Parks and Nature Reserves (Office Ivoirien des Parcset Réserves Naturelles – OIPR) for the managementof protected areas.
SODEFOR was created in 1966 and is entrusted
today with the management of the 231 forêts classées
and with technical advisory functions for planted
forests and social forestry. MINEEF has a staff
of about 1600 people, of whom nearly 700 are
employed by SODEFOR and 250 by OIPR.
In 2008, a specialized agency for forest development(Agence Nationale de Développement des Forêts) was
created with the task of improving the managementof remaining forests in the domaine forestier rural.
Previously, forest harvesting in the domaine forestierrural was conducted exclusively by the private
sector.
The forest industry is organized in syndicates and isquite effective in defending its interests. A numberof national and international NGOs are engaged
in forest conservation and village development,
including reforestation and agroforestry.
Civil society is not actively involved in forest
management (ITTO 2006).

Status of forest management
Forest for production
Two forest management systems are employed. In
production forests, the management of forêts classées
is carried out by SODEFOR, while in the domaine
forestier rural it is carried out by private concessionholders. In the past, timber was harvested mainly inreserved forest areas, but excessive extraction over

Côte d’Ivoire

Ceiba pentandra logs await processing in an Ivoirian plywood mill.

the past 35 years has led to their depletion. Today,
nearly 90% of timber is extracted from the domaine
forestier rural (ITTO 2008).
Until 2002 forest harvesting in the domaine forestierrural was based on a licence system called thePTE (permis de transformation et d’exploitation),
which allocated areas of up to 2500 hectares toa large number of concessionaires. With a policy
revision in 2004, the PTE system was abolished andreplaced by a system based on PEFs. By law, a PEF
is at least 25 000 hectares in size and is allocated for
15–20 years; it can be renewed if management by
the concession-holder is satisfactory. Concessionholders are obliged to present a forest management
plan that includes a reforestation scheme andsocial investments in rural communities in or
adjacent to the PEF. Management plans must also
include prescriptions for sustained-yield harvesting
and the silvicultural treatment of harvested
forests, and measures against wildfire. However,few management plans have been prepared andharvesting is still based mainly on high-grading theremaining high-value timber.c
As of 2007, 373 PEFs had been attributed to 112
concessions, covering a total area of about 1.4
million hectares of productive forest.a In the pastten years the average timber harvest was 1.6 million
m3 per year.a
SODEFOR prepares and implements forest
management plans for the forêts classées. Since 2005

it has been possible for such forests to be managed
by private concession-holders in partnership with
SODEFOR. A total of 40 forêts classées, covering
more than 1.2 million hectares, are so managed.a
Limited information about the quality of thismanagement is available. Forest management plans
have been or are being prepared for 89 of the 231
existing forêts classées (in 2002, 25 forest reserves
had an approved management plan and 1.5 million
hectares were being managed). The size of the units
varies, the smallest (Semien) being 3381 hectares
and the largest (Rapids-Grah) 315 000 hectares.
Forest reserves are to be managed in perpetuity(ITTO 2006). In a process to clarify the extent
of forest, shifting cultivation and commercial
agricultural crops within the forêts classées, in 2008
SODEFOR determined that only 1.947 million
hectares of such forest remained.a
Despites the scarce forest resources, some large
international timber companies of French, Italianand Lebanese origin still operate in Côte d’Ivoire.
Due to the earlier log export ban and the growing
scarcity of the resource, these companies haveinvested in downstream wood-processing. The
French company, Inprobois, for example, holds
seven PEFs totalling 366 000 hectares and manages
forêts classées of 22 000 hectares in partnershipwith SODEFOR. The company is pursuing FSC
certification for this forest, which benefits from amanagement plan prepared by SODEFOR. Almost
all the company’s production, which specializes in75

Status of tropical forest management 2011

plywood and veneer, is for export. Other foreigncompanies possess several PEFs that add up tolarge areas. For example, SNG has licences to
480 000 hectares of forest, CIB has licences to
628 000 hectares and SIFCI has licences to 505 000
hectares.c
Silviculture and species selection. Silviculturalprescriptions were developed in the 1990s and havebeen fully applied in some forêts classées (e.g. Irobo,
Tene and Mopri), but not yet in the entire PFE. To
date, no silvicultural directives have been appliedin the domaine forestier rural. The forests of Côte
d’Ivoire contain more than 700 hardwood species,
about fifty of which are commonly used. Besides
those listed in Table 4, the most valuable species
are Terminalia ivorensis (framiré), Entandrophragma
candollei (kossipo), beté, Entandrophragma angolense(tiama), Lovoa trichilioides (dibetou), bossé,
kotibé, Pterygota macrocarpa (koto), Canarium
schweinfurthii (aiélé), makoré, Pycnanthus kombo(ilomba), Afzelia africana (lingué), Lophira alata(azobé), niangon and planted teak. Côte d’Ivoire
has made efforts to explore the silvicultural
behaviour of and to market lesser-known species
such as Copaifera salikounda (etimoé) andChrysophyllum spp (aniégré).
Planted forest and trees outside the forest. The
planted forest area has been estimated at 180 000
hectares (ITTO 2008) and 212 000 hectaresa; thelatter is an estimate of forest plantations in the forêts
classées and domaine forestier rural. Outside forests,
the most important non-forest tree plantations areoil palm (about 160 000 hectares), rubber (70 000
hectares) and coconut (30 000 hectares). The
National Reforestation Programme (Programme
National de Reboisement), created in 2005, is themain policy instrument for promoting reforestationin the forêts classées and by communities.

Plantation development started in 1926 withenrichment plantings of hardwood species such as
acajou, fraké, niangon, sipo and later teak, bossé
and other species. By 1945 about 8000 hectares had
been established. Between 1966 and 1988, 20 000
hectares of mainly teak plantations were developed
and another 90 000 hectares were planted
between 1990 and 2007 (ITTO 2008). Due to arequirement since 1995 that PEF-holders invest
in forest plantations, most planted forests (about
70 000 hectares) are located in the domaine forestierrural. There is, however, insufficient control and alack of data to assess the state and quality of theseplantations.
More than 35 species have been planted in the forêts
classées. Today the most widely planted species isteak, with a total area of about 67 000 hectares in2007.a Other important species are fraké, 25 800
hectares; framiré, 14 000 hectares; Cedrela odorata,
10 100 hectares; Gmelina arborea, 8000 hectares;
samba, 3600 hectares; acajou, 2900 hectares; sipo,
over 2200 hectares; and niangon, 7800 hectares.a
About 27 000 hectares are registered as mixed
hardwood plantations. Of the estimated 60 000
hectares or more of planted forest in the domaine
forestier rural, about 15 000 hectares have beencreated as community forests, often to produce
firewood.
Forest certification. There is no forest certification
scheme nor any certified forests in Côte d’Ivoire(e.g. FSC 2010). One company, Inprobois, ispursuing FSC certification for the management of
22 000 hectares in a forêt classées, in partnershipwith SODEFOR.
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. In the domaine forestierrural, where the majority of timber is cut, there isvirtually no management and the already degraded
forests are being further depleted. The situation is

Table 4 Commonly harvested timber species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Ceiba pentandra (fromager)*

Often off-reserve harvesting; more than 360 000 m3 harvested in
2008.
White wood, also planted; 170 000 m3 harvested in 2008.
More than 70 000 m3 harvested in 2008.
Nearly 70 000 m3 harvested in 2008.
About 63 000 m3 harvested in 2008.

Triplochiton scleroxylon (samba, ayous)*
Terminalia superba (fraké)*
Chlorophora excelsa and C. regia (iroko)
Khaya ivorensis and K. anthotheca*
Also listed in ITTO (2006).
Source: Government of Côte d’Ivoire (2009).

76

Côte d’Ivoire

neighbouring countries (ITTO 2008). Since 1994
there has been a ban on the export of logs of several
high-value timber species obtained from naturalforests.

better in the forêts classées, which are managed by
SODEFOR, but even in forests where the necessary
elements of good forest management appear tobe present, law enforcement is poor and illegal
logging and deforestation widespread.c As of 2008,
management plans had been prepared in 89 out of
the 231 forest reserves, 26 of which, covering an
area of 1.36 million hectares, had been approved.
About 200 000 hectares are considered to be wellmanaged (Table 5), comprising the forêts classées ofCavally, Besso, Bossematié and Haut-Sassandra.

Non-timber forest products. MINEEF taxes
commercial collectors for the harvest of 44 NTFPs.a
Many more NTFPs are traded locally and used
for subsistence. Among the most important arebamboo, Laccosperma spp (rattan) and Raphia spp(raphia palm) for basketry, furniture and housing,and the leaves and fruits of Thaumatococcus danielli(feuille d’attiéké) for medicinal purposes and as asweetener.

Timber production and trade. The forest industry
is composed of several hundred small processing
units and there are 18 enterprises with a processing
capacity of more than 10 000 m3 per year; 70%of the industry is foreign-owned (ITTO 2008).
Total annual roundwood production per year in
the period 2004–08 was estimated at about 21.5
million m3, of which nearly 20 million m3 was forfuelwood and charcoal.a

Forest carbon. Gibbs et al. (2007) estimatedthe national-level forest biomass carbon stock at
750–1238 MtC, Eggleston et al. (2006) estimatedit at 3355 MtC and FAO (2010a) estimated it at1842 MtC. Despite the absence of Côte d’Ivoire
in REDD+ readiness programs (e.g. the Forest
Carbon Partnership Facility and UN-REDD), thecountry’s engagement in the UNFCCC is high;it has conducted its first GHG inventory and has
considerable capacity for monitoring forest-areachange. The proportion of intact forests is relatively
low, as well as the proportion of tree cover over
60% (an estimated 16.9% of the total forest area;
UNEP-WCMC 2010). There is potential toenhance carbon stocks through forest restoration
and reforestation in heavily degraded forêts classées.
Table 6 summarizes Côte d’Ivoire’s forest carbon
potential.

Industrial log production in Côte d’Ivoire fell
from 5.3 million m3 in 1977 to 3.3 million m3 in
1985, 1.9 million m3 in 2003, 1.5 million m3 in2007 (ITTO 2008) and 1.47 million m3 in 2009
(ITTO 2010). Total sawnwood production was
about 471 000 m3 in 2009, veneer production was
396 000 m3 and plywood production was 81 000
m3 (ITTO 2010). In 2009 an estimated 125 000
m3 of logs were exported, as were 252 000 m3 ofsawnwood, 103 000 m3 of veneer and 11 000 m3of plywood (ibid.). Exports went mainly to Europe(80%), the United States, Japan, the Maghreb andTable 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)*

Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

3400
1950

1870
1950

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
1110
1360

Certified

277

167

PlantedWith
management
plans
120

200

180

133

Sustainably
managed

0
0

Total

Certified00

As reported in ITTO (2006).

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

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

750–1238

17+

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
monitoringsinkcapacity
capacity to
2030
++

+

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity++

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

77

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Forest for protection

land area. Of the protection PFE, two nationalparks (Comoé, 1.15 million hectares; and Taï,457 000 hectares) account for more than 60% of
the area. Comoé, created in 1983, is one of thelargest protected areas in West Africa. Taï, created asa forêt classées in 1926, was designated as a nationalpark in 1972 and added to the list of Natural World
Heritage Sites in 1982; it contains one of the last
major remnants of primary tropical forest in West
Africa. There are also two transboundary protectedareas, one on the border with Guinea and Sierra
Leone and the other in the Tano River Basin on theborder with Ghana.

Soil and water. A total area of 374 000 hectares
is set aside for the protection of soil and water inthe 26 forêts classées that are managed according toforest management plans prepared by SODEFOR.a
A number of small forêts classées in the vicinity of
Abidjan, such as Angédédou (5600 hectares), andthe National Park of Banco (3400 hectares), havespecific functions in catchment protection.a
Biological diversity. Côte d’Ivoire has a very
high level of biodiversity, with over 12 000
forest-dependent species, including 1265 animal
species (232 mammals, 712 birds, 134 reptiles,
76 amphibians and 111 fish) and 8200 plant
species, including over 3500 tree species.a Eighteen
mammals, ten birds, twelve amphibians, two
reptiles and eight plants found in forests are listed
as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable
on the IUCN red list of threatened species (IUCN
2011). Seven plant species are listed in CITES
Appendix II, including one hardwood timber
species, Pericopsis elata (UNEP-WCMC 2011).
Thirty tree species, including iroko and acajou, areconsidered vulnerable.a

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. Poaching and otherillegal activities are thought to be a significant
problem in many forested reservesc, due largely toa lack of sufficient financial resources for field-level
enforcement (ITTO 2006). About 840 000 hectaresof protection PFE are covered by management
plans that are being implemented effectively. This
comprises forests managed for soil and water
conservation in forêts classées administered by
SODEFOR (374 000 hectares), the Taï National
Park (457 000 hectares), a number of small
protected areas managed primarily for water andsoil conservation, and the reserve at Mount Nimba(9000 hectares). This constitutes the estimate ofprotection PFE under SFM shown in Table 7.

Protective measures in production forests.
Timber harvesting is limited in swampy areas, on
steep slopes and along streams (for the latter, a stripof between 100 m and 1 km in width, dependingon the size of the stream, is excluded fromharvesting). Detailed prescriptions for biodiversity
conservation are applied in the 26 forêts classées
managed by SODEFOR.

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. Until about 1985, timber was
Côte d’Ivoire’s third most important export byvalue, but the industry has declined as the forests
have been logged and depleted of commerciallyvaluable trees. In 2006 the economic contributionof the formal forest sector was estimated at 1.9% ofGDP.a The total annual value of wood production(timber and fuelwood) is estimated at US$323
million.a,b No assessment has been carried out on

Extent of protected areas. Côte d’Ivoire has eightnational parks and six nature reserves, one wildlife
reserve and 17 botanic reserves. In addition, partsof 26 forêts classées totaling 374 000 hectares
are managed for soil and water conservation.
Combined, the protection PFE is estimated to be
2.09 million hectares, which is 6% of the country’s
Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)
Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

734
2090

734
2090

195
374**

345
840

150
840

*
**

78

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Technically this area is part of the production PFE because it is within forêts classées.

Côte d’Ivoire

the economic value of NTFPs, carbon, water orbiodiversity.
Livelihood values. Forests are important forsustaining the livelihoods of many people inCôte d’Ivoire. Edible and medicinal plants arecollected in great quantities. Bush meat remains
a major source of protein in rural areas, eventhough hunting regulations are very restrictive; theharvested volume is estimated at more than 120
tonnes per year.a The consumption of fuelwood,
including charcoal, is estimated at more than 20
million m3 per year (ITTO 2008, Government ofCôte d’Ivoire 2009).
Social relations. The 1965 Forest Code, which isstill in force, does not specify the direct involvementof local people in forest management, althougharticles 16 and 20 set forth rights for riverine
populations within forêts classées. Nevertheless, local
people may collect wood and NTFPs in all forests.
Social considerations have been taken into accountin various recent governmental decrees concerning
forests. Relationships between concession-holders
and local people are often strained. In some areas,
local communities help protect forêts classées fromencroachment and bushfire. Local cooperatives andvillages also often engage in reforestation activities.

Summary
Deforestation and forest degradation are major
problems in Côte d’Ivoire, and most naturalforest is considered degraded or secondary. The
country’s 231 state-owned forêts classées have been
over-harvested and have become depleted of timber;natural forests in the domaine forestier rural andplanted forests are providing an increasing partof the timber supply. The level of enforcementof existing laws and decrees appears to be low inmuch of the PFE. Forest management plans areunder preparation or have been prepared for theforêts classées, but few have been prepared for thedomaine forestier rural. While the recorded area ofwell-managed protection forest has increased, thisis most likely due to improved information rather
than a general improvement in forest management.
Systematic improvements in forest management
have been hindered in recent years by socio-politicalcrises and a lack of political will. Illegal logging isthought to be widespread.

Key points•

Côte d’Ivoire has an estimated PFE of 4.22
million hectares (compared with 4.30 million
hectares in 2005), comprising 1.95 million
hectares of natural production forest (comparedwith 3.40 million hectares in 2005), 2.09
million hectares of protection forest (comparedwith 734 000 hectares in 2005) and 180 000
hectares of planted forest (compared with
167 000 hectares in 2005).

•

An estimated 200 000 hectares of the
production PFE is under SFM, no forest iscertified, and an estimated 840 000 hectares ofprotection PFE is under SFM.

•

Forest administration is currently the
responsibility of the Ministry for Environment,
Water and Forests (MINEEF), which operates
under the 1965 Forest Code and subsequent
decrees. A process to revise the Forest Code has
been under way for many years but has not yet
resulted in a new legislative framework. The
implementation capacity of MINEEF is low.

•

There is a discrepancy between the standards
applied in the forest reserves of the PFE and in
the domaine forestier rural, where mostharvesting takes place.

•

There is conflict between communities andharvesting operators over the use of forests.
Poaching and timber theft are significant
problems.

EndnotesaGovernment of Côte d’Ivoire (2009).

b

ITTO estimate.

cPersonal communications with various officials of theGovernment of Côte d’Ivoire, 2010.

References and other sources
Eggleston, H., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe,
T. (eds) (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Programme. Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies, Kamakura, Japan.
FAO (2010a). Global forest resources assessment 2010 country
report: Côte d’Ivoire (available at http://www.fao.org/
forestry/fra/67090/en/).
FAO (2010b). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 Full
Report. FAO, Rome, Italy.

79

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

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).

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

Government of Côte d’Ivoire (2009). Rapport sur les progrès
accomplis par la République du Côte d’Ivoire vers laréalisation de l’aménagement forestier durable et del’Objectif 2000 de l’OIBT. Submission to ITTO by
the Ministère de l’Environnement, des Eaux et Forêts,Libreville, Côte d’Ivoire.
IPCC (2007). Climate Change: Forth Assessment Report. Working
Group ii report: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva,
Switzerland (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_
and_data/publications_and_data.shtml).
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2008). Mission d’appui au Gouvernement de laCôte d’Ivoire en vue d’atteindre l’Objectif de l’OIBT etl’aménagement forestier durable. Report of the diagnostic
mission. ITTC (XLIV/11). ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO (2010, website accessed August 2010). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).

80

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

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

Democratic Republic of
the Congo
demeusei, Entandrophragma palustre and Garcinia
spp. DRC has one of the world’s largest contiguousareas of swamp forest.
Permanently flooded swamp areas host almost
monospecific stands of Raphia palm. The total areaof dense humid forests (lowland and montane) is
about 98 million hectares (forest types 1–4 in Box
1). Open forests, including miombo woodland,
cover about 56 million hectares (forest types
5–6 in Box 1). They also include montane andsubmontane sclerophyllous forests of Grewia spp,
Carissa edulis and Euphorbia spp, which cover theeastern part of the country.
Box 1 Forest area, by forest type, DRC
Forest typeArea (’000ha)

Lowland humid tropical forest(forêt dense de basse altitude)
Submontane forest (900–1500 m)(forêt sub-montagnarde)
Mountain forest (>1500 m)(forêt de montagne)
Swamp forest(forêt marécageuse)
Forest–savanna mosaic(mosaïque forêt–savane)
Semi-deciduous dry forest(miombo)

83 700% offorest
area
54

6000

4

1000

1

8200

5

28 60018

28 00017

Forest resources
The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)
has a land area of 233 million hectares and, in
2010, an estimated population of 66 million people(United Nations Population Division 2010). DRC
is ranked 176th out of 182 countries in UNDP’s
Human Development Index (UNDP 2009). It
lies entirely within the Congo Basin, with only 42
km of coastline on the Atlantic Ocean, and mostly
comprises plateaux that are 600–800 m above sea
level in the north and 1000–2000 m in the south.
The highest peaks reach 4500 m in the Virunga
volcanic massif on the border with Rwanda andexceed 5000 m in the Ruwenzori Mountains on theborder with Uganda. About 77% of the country
is above 1000 m above sea level. Estimates of total
forest cover include 112 million hectaresa and 154
million hectares (FAO 2010a).
Forest types. Lowland evergreen andsemi-deciduous forests occupy much of DRC’s
central and western regions, with moist evergreen
forests accounting for about one-third of thecountry’s forests. Submontane and montane
closed forests include about 7 million hectares ofmontane rainforests. Swamp forests extend overabout 9 million hectares of the central basin andare characterized by species such as Guibourtia

1
2
3
4
5
6

Source: Based on De Wasseige et al. (2009).

Although DRC has only 42 km of coastline, thelarge estuary of the Congo River is lined with
mangroves, covering a total area of about 193 000
hectares (Spalding et al. 2010).
Permanent forest estate. DRC does not have anofficially adopted land-use plan, which impedes aproper classification of the forest estate.a The state
forest area (domaine forestier de l'Etat) comprises
three forest-use categories:•

Classified forests, which are subject to legal
restrictions regarding user and harvesting rights.
They generally include reserves and protectedareas.

81

Status of tropical forest management 2011•

Protected forests, which have a less restrictive legal
regime than classified forests. They include
community forests, small-scale concession
contracts and forest–subsistence-farming
mosaics.

•

Permanent production forests, which include
previously allocated forest concessions andnewly identified production forests (allocatedand unallocated concessions). These forests arereserved for industrial-scale logging under an
SFM regime.

(0.2%) per year, similar to the rate reported by theGovernment of DRC for the period 2005–10 of
320 000 hectares per year.a Deforestation and forest
degradation are not distributed homogeneously
over the country: deforestation hot spots occur
near large cities in the savanna belt, the Basinand the Albertin Rift zone (Government of DRC
2010). Countrywide, slash-and-burn agriculture
and fuelwood-harvesting are the most importantdrivers of deforestation. Commercial logging
and mining cause forest degradation and also
facilitate migration into forest areas. For example,
the road network developed for commercial
logging constitutes 38% of all roads in the Congo
Basin (Government of DRC 2010). Table 2
indicates forest condition based on satellite image
interpretation in 2008.a

Table 1 shows the estimated PFE. It comprises
those permanent production forests that had valid
concession agreements in 2009, and the area ofclassified forests. There is potential to classify muchlarger areas as PFE – up to 87 million hectares –mainly in the provinces of Équateur, Orientale,
Bandundu and Maniema.a However, the processneeds to be harmonized with overall land-use
planning in the newly decentralized governanceregime.b

Vulnerability of forests to climate change. The
Government of DRC submitted a NAPA to the
UNFCCC in 2007. Subsistence rain-fed farming
and non-timber forest activities support 70% of the
population. Extreme weather is already the causeof regular humanitarian alerts as households havelittle adaptive capacity. Assuming similar changes
in climate to those projected for Cameroon and
Gabon, climate change will affect food production
and water regimes. Forests and trees in agroforestry

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. FAO(2010b) reported the deforestation rate in DRC
in the period 1990–2010 at 311 000 hectares
Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reporting year

2005*
2010
*
**
‡

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)128–135
112–154

126 200
87 800**

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlantedTotal

20 50022 500‡,a

47 50048 30055
67a

27 00025 800As reported in ITTO (2006).
Calculated using the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) (65.5%) and the total
natural forest area estimated by FAO (2010a).

Allocated production forest area covers 12.3 million hectares. Ten million hectares of potential production PFE remain
unallocated and are still under review.b

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

Total’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land
Source: Government of DRC (2009).

82

-

-

79 00017 000
13 0003000

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

systems will undoubtedly play an important role
in reducing vulnerability to the negative effects ofclimate change.

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. According to Law 021/1973, thestate is the sole owner of land, and this is confirmed
by Law 11/2002 (the ‘Forest Code’) (Table 3).
Although the state owns the forests, the law details
different procedures for its use by local people
and concessionaires (de Wasseige et al. 2009).
Local users may collect forest products within theframework of user rights. In protected forests they
may also practice shifting cultivation, althougha permit issued by the provincial governor isrequired to clear an area of more than two hectares(de Wasseige et al. 2009). Communities andmunicipalities have customary rights over the forests
within their jurisdictions and are able to become
long-term concession-holders of such forests. The
state can also allocate forests to local communities
as community forests, although there are no clear
examples of this having occurred.b
Criteria and indicators. In December 2010,
DRC, with the support of WWF and ITTO,
completed a process to develop PCI based on the
ATO/ITTO PCI for the sustainable managementof African natural tropical forests as an instrument
for monitoring progress towards SFM. An ITTO
C&I workshop was held in August 2010. The
Government of DRC used the ITTO C&I in its
submission to ITTO for this report.a
Forest policy and legislation. The 2002 Forest
Code, which succeeded colonial legislation datingfrom 1949, became law in August 2002. DRC’s
new Constitution (2006) reorganized the country’s

administrative structure. Twenty-five provinces andthe town of Kinshasa are provided with legal status
and are able to exercise local authority. Designingforest-sector activities of national interest (e.g.
forest conservation) remains the responsibility of
the national government, but the design of natural
resource programs, including forestry, agriculture
and mining, are now the responsibility of theprovinces. Given that the Forest Code was approved
prior to the approval of the Constitution, the effectof the new decentralized entities, or of planned
future decentralized entities (sectors and chiefdoms
in the forest sector), on governance in the forest
sector is unclear. The extent to which these entities
are able to represent local interests will be crucial forthe implementation of SFM (Government of DRC
2010).
The Forest Code describes the institutions andresponsibilities regarding forest management andlays down prescriptions for national forest planningand forest management. For example, it devotes anentire chapter to forest management and another tolocal community rights. It alludes to the concept ofcommunity forests, but there are no procedures to
put this into effect. A difficulty with the applicationof the Forest Code is the fact that customary rights
are exercised by local people who do not know its
provisions; this results in frequent conflicts between
concessionaires and local stakeholders.b
Institutions involved in forests. The Ministry ofEnvironment, Nature Conservation and Tourism(Ministère de l’Environnement, Conservation de la
Nature et du Tourisme – MECNT) is in charge offorests and employs about 840 people. Structuralreform undertaken in 2009 reduced the number oftechnical services from 24 to twelve.a They include

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

Total area Of which PFE Notes’000 ha
112 000

38 200--112 000-

38 200--8

According to the 2002 Forest Code, all forests belong to thestate.
The law makes provision for community and municipal forests,
but no data are available.

Some small forest plantations – e.g. the CDM-fundedplantation in Batéké.

Source: Government of DRC (2009).

83Status of tropical forest management 2011

the Directorate of Forest Management (Direction
de la Gestion Forestière), which is responsible formonitoring forest management and harvesting,the Direction des Inventaires et de l’Aménagement
Forestier, which is responsible for forest inventories
and the formulation of management norms, andthe Direction de la Conservation de la Nature,
which is responsible for biodiversity conservationand international conventions.a Also under
the MECNT is the Congolese Institute for theConservation of Nature (Institut Congolais pourla Conservation de la Nature – ICCN), which
has the overall task of ensuring the protection of
wildlife and flora in natural reserves and nationalparks; ICCN employs more than 2000 people.a
Nevertheless, the lack of trained and motivatedstaff to manage and regulate forests is a crucial
bottleneck in building an effective institutionalframework for SFM.a
The main training institutions with forestry
curricula are the University of Kisangani, l’Institut
Supérieur d’Etudes Agronomiques (in Bengamissa)
and the University of Kinshasa. There is a
research institute for forest research, l’Institut pourl’Etude et la Recherche Agronomique, which wasestablished in 1948. Today, several hundred NGOs
and associations are involved in forest-related
activities. The forest-management reform process
is particularly supported by DRC’s development
partners, such as the European Union, a numberof European states, the African Development
Bank, the Global Environment Facility, theUnited Nations Development Programme and
UNEP-WCMC. Some multinational NGOs,
including Conservation International, the Wildlife
Conservation Society and WWF, have also
been engaged in the process, as well as in forest
conservation. The National Forest and Nature
Conservation Programme was launched in 2009 bya coalition of development partners, including theWorld Bank, to increase the capacity of governmentand other stakeholders to manage forests sustainably
and equitably. The SGS (formerly, Société Générale
de Surveillance) Forestry Monitoring Programme
signed a five-year contract with MECNT in early2010 to develop an integrated forest control system
for monitoring and verifying logging, chain-ofcustody and forest product exports.

84

Status of forest management
Forest for production
Being relatively accessible, the western forests havebeen logged heavily since colonial times. Morerecently, harvesting has moved into the central
basin, where subsistence agriculture accompanies
the opening up of forests. Farther inland, outside
concession areas, forest harvesting mainly consistsof the often illegal removal of trees of the mostprofitable species. According to the 2002 Forest
Code, industrial forest concessions are awarded
by tender (Article 83) or sometimes by mutual
agreement (Article 86). Concessions may beallocated for 25 years and are renewable. The
maximum area of a forest concession is 500 000
hectares. One requirement of the Forest Code is
the preparation of forest management plans. For
these, technical standards on inventories, mapping,
low impact logging, silviculture and consultation,
among others, have been and are being preparedthrough ordinances and decrees, with the technicaland financial support of development partners.
In 2003 about 20 million hectares of the 22.5
million hectares of production PFE were allocatedto commercial forest operations and there wereplans that this area would be extended to 50
million hectares (ITTO 2006). In 2004, however,the Government of DRC issued a moratorium on
new logging concessions and announced a reviewof the status of existing concessions in order toapply the environmental, forest management andsocial requirements that had been defined in theForest Code. Between 2005 and 2009 a multistakeholder forest title conversion process andlegal review was undertaken in order to convert
old logging titles into new forest concessions. In
2009, of the initial 156 titles for which a request
for conversion had been submitted to the DRC
government, only 65 had been declared convertible
by the Interministerial Commission, covering a
total area of about 10 million hectares out of the 20
million hectares under review.b The remaining titles
were deemed illegal and subject to cancellation.b
This conversion process has set the groundworkfor transparency, accountability and SFM in
the DRC forest sector. Today, for the first time,complete information on logging titles is available
publicly. Information on the progress, constraints,
limitations and results of the entire forest titlingprocess is also available in reports and on websites.b

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

In mid 2010, 65 companies were operating withtimber licences in an area of about 9.1 million
hectares, the smallest concession covering 19 200
hectares and the largest 293 000 hectares.b In 2009,46 FMUs covering about 6.6 million hectares werepreparing fully fledged management plans (deWasseige et al. 2009). Nearly all timber exports areproduced by only ten companies; two Swiss-based
holdings (Danzer and North-South Timber Group)
are responsible for two-thirds of production.
Silviculture and species selection. The only
silvicultural prescriptions contained in the Forest
Code (2002) are the determination of a minimum
harvesting diameter by species, and specificrequirements for certain timber species, including
the preservation of seed trees. DRC’s forests havean enormous diversity of tree species. The total
number of commercial tree species is more than200, of which about 25 are sold internationally.
The five most important commercial timbers
over the past few years are shown in Table 4.
Other important species include Chlorophora
excelsa (kambala, iroko), Gambeya africana(longhi), Entandrophragma angolense (tiama),
Entandrophragma candollei (kossipo), Guarea cedrata(bossé), Guibourtia spp (benge), Lovoa trichilioides(dibetou), Brachystegia spp (bomanga), Canarium
schweinfurthii (aiele), Terminalia superba (limba)
and Nauclea diderrichii (bilinga).
Planted forest and trees outside the forest.
Planted forests have been established to produce
both timber and fuelwood and to protect
land from erosion. The Government of DRC
estimated the area of planted forest at 67 000
hectares, including about 8000 hectares of Acacia
auriculiformis established in the late 1980s.a
Terminalia superba (limba) was once the main
species used in plantations, the first of which were
established in 1905. Agroforestry plantations(taungya) were introduced in the 1940s and are stillwidespread. Other species planted for industrial

wood production before the 1960s include Ceiba
pentandra, Bombax flammeum, Entandrophragma
spp, Lovoa trichilioides, Eucalyptus spp, Grevillea
robusta, Casuarina equisetifolia and Cupressus spp.
More recent plantations comprise fast-growing
Eucalyptus and Acacia species. A new plantation area
is being established under the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM) and under community
forestry regimes. About 2500 hectares have been
established under these schemes in the past three
years; the objective is to establish 8000 hectares ofcommunity forest plantations by the end of 2012.a
Given the size of the country and its huge naturalforest resource, the development of planted forests
is a low priority.
Forest certification. No forests have been certified
in DRC (e.g. FSC 2010), but some foreigncompanies are undertaking baseline studies forcertification. One company (SIFORCO) obtained
a certificate of legality in 2007. Another company,
Sodefor, recently went through an FSC pre-audit
process. The Government of DRC participated in
an ATO working group on an African certification
scheme, and DRC is a candidate country for a VPA
with the European Union.
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. While some progress has
been made towards SFM, no forest concession can
yet be classified as sustainably managed. The statusof three forest sites dedicated to forest research andeducation (totaling 284 000 hectares) and listed assustainably managed in 2005 could not be verified
in 2010 (Table 5).
Timber production and trade. Total estimatedannual roundwood production is about 80
million m3 (FAO 2010a), the vast majority of
it fuelwood. The timber resources of DRC are
generally considered to be of low quality. Most
forests are difficult to access and thus productivity
is low relative to neighbouring Congo and Gabon.

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Entandrophragma cylindricum (sapelli)*
Millettia laurentii (wengé)*
Pericopsis elata (afrormosia)
Entandrophragma utile (sipo, lifaki)
Gossweilerodendron balsamiferum (tola)*

About 20% of total production (2006–08).
Around 50 000 m3 per year; about 15% of the total production.
About 10% of total production.
About 10% of total production.
About 8% of total production.

*

Also listed in ITTO (2006).

85

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

20 50022 50015 500
9100*

*
**
‡

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
1080
6590**

Sustainably
managed

0
0

284

55

PlantedWith
management
plans
40

0

67

43

Total

Certified02‡

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Management plans in advanced stage of preparation.
CDM-certified (Batéké).

Average industrial timber production, produced
by eleven concession-holders in the past three
years, was approximately 300 000 m3 per year (upfrom 90 000 m3 in 2003); artisanal permits add
another 25 000 m3 per year (de Wasseige et al.
2009). Timber produced by the informal sector
for the local market and neighbouring countries issubstantial, probably exceeding 2 million m3 peryear.b In 2009 DRC exported about 226 000 m3 oflogs, compared with 101 000 m3 in 2004 (ITTO2010). DRC produced 92 000 m3 of sawnwood in2009 (of which 62 000 m3 were exported), up from70 000 m3 in 2004. The European Union remains
the main international timber market. The Asianmarket is increasing but still small.

Ayous in lowland forest, DRC.

86

Certified

Non-timber forest products. No statistics are kept
on NTFP production and trade, with the exceptionof the collection of the bark of Prunus africana.
NTFPs derived from closed forests are a cornerstoneof the informal sector. Of particular importanceis the production of charcoal and firewood andthe collection of NTFPs for food (e.g. honey),
medicinal use and as stimulants (e.g. cola).a It isestimated that 90% of the population in DRC
regularly uses one or more of the 500 medicinal
plants growing in the forests of the Congo Basin.a
NTFPs are also used for construction (e.g. rattan,
Raphia spp, Elaeis guineensis) and the wrapping offood (using Afromomum leaves). Bush meat is amajor source of protein.
Forest carbon. Gibbs et al. (2007) estimatedthe national-level forest biomass carbon stockat 20 416–24 020 MtC, Eggleston et al. (2006)
estimated it at 36 670 MtC and FAO (2010a)
estimated it at 19 639 MtC. The total forest
carbon stock, including all five forest carbon
pools, has been estimated at 27 200–36 700 MtC(UN-REDD 2010). The REDD+ potential to 2030
has been estimated at about 20 MtCO2e (about
5.4 MtC) for all forest-related activities (Aquino
et al. 2010). The Government of DRC is actively
engaged in the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility
and UN-REDD processes and has benefited from
ITTO assistance in this regard. In 2010 began
implementing a national REDD+ strategy througha readiness preparation proposal. DRC has also
been chosen by the Forest Investment Program
as a pilot country for REDD+ investment. The
country’s REDD+ strategy includes activities withlow opportunity costs, such as afforestation andreforestation, reducing demand for fuelwood,and improving subsistence farming (Aquino et al.
2010). A CDM community-based reforestation
project is being implemented over an area of more

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

than 4000 hectares and an agreement for the sale of
2.4 MtCO2 (0.6 MtC) over the next 30 years has
been signed (Government of DRC 2010). Table 6
summarizes DRC’s overall forest carbon potential.

Forest for protection
Soil and water. No specific measures to promotesoil and water conservation in closed forest are inplace, although the 2002 Forest Code cites the needto protect, among others, springs and streams andto conserve soils. Soil and water conservation isregulated by a 1958 decree. Some small plantations
have been established for erosion control in the last
30 years (ITTO 2006).
Biological diversity. DRC has great biodiversity, atboth the ecosystem (e.g. according to de Wasseige etal. 2009 there are 19 ecosystem types) and species
levels. Of the more than 10 500 known species ofplant in DRC, at least 1337 are considered endemic(de Wasseige et al. 2009). Forest inventories suggestthat tree species number more than 700, and there
are an estimated 415 mammal species and 1086
bird species (ITTO 2006). Twenty-three mammals,
20 birds, 14 amphibians, one reptile, twoarthropods and 17 plants found in forests are listed
as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable
on the IUCN red list of threatened species (IUCN
2011). Although the country is large, poachingplaces enormous pressure on wildlife. Bush meatis in demand in rural and urban markets. The
elephant population in the forest zone (numbering
about 300 000 before 1980) had been reduced
to less than 50 000 by 2000 (ITTO 2006). Eightplant species are listed in CITES Appendix I and 35
in Appendix II, including the tree species Pericopsis
elata and Prunus africana (UNEP-WCMC 2011).
Protective measures in production forests. Article
48 of the 2002 Forest Code prohibits logging along
streams and within 50 m of riverbanks and 100 mof springs. Measures have been described in new
standards for forest management planning, which

include setting aside biodiversity conservation zones
within forest concessions.b
Extent of protected areas. The national objective
is to reserve 15% of the national territory (about
35 million hectares) in protected areas.a In 2010
the country had 14 integral nature reserves (IUCN
category I), 14 national parks (IUCN categoryII) and 22 hunting reserves (IUCN category VI),
totalling about 26.3 million hectares.a Another 30%of the land area has high protective potential or
potential as biological corridors.a
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. Protected areas
are generally without effective control, andencroachment, hunting for trophies and bush
meat, and timber theft are widespread (ITTO2006). None of the protected areas has an officiallyadopted management plana, with the exceptionof the Kahuzi-Biega park (600 000 hectares),where a management plan is being finalized.
This park is located in eastern DRC and is oneof the last refuges of the eastern lowland gorilla.
Despite management efforts, it is likely that recent
fighting in DRC has moved within the boundariesof the park, causing looting and forest fire.b A
management plan also exists for the Luki Biosphere
Reserve (33 000 hectares), located 120 km fromthe Atlantic coast. However, this reserve is underheavy human pressure. None of the protection PFE,
therefore, can be classified as sustainably managed(Table 7).

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. Recently the contribution of
the forest sector to GDP has been about 1.4% or
US$100 million per year.a Officially about 15 000
people derive their income from the forest sector.
However, given the very large informal sector,
the overall contribution of the forest sector to
the national economy is likely much higher thansuggested by official figures. The forest sector

Table 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)
20 416–24 020% forest Deforestation/ Enhancement Forest area Forest/ Importance Engagementinof forest
GHG
changeof carbon
degradation
withinternationalfire/sink capacity monitoring inventory
potential to
canopyREDD+biomass
capacity
capacity
to 20302030
cover >60%
processes
burning
66

++

++

+

+

++

+++

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

87

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

27 00025 8009320
16 300

-

630

0
0

*

As reported in ITTO (2006).

could become a pillar of economic development in
DRC given a stable political and macroeconomic
environment.b
Livelihood values. Seventy percent of the people
live in rural areas, the great majority of them on lessthan US$1 per day (Aquino et al. 2010). Naturalforests play a major role in the livelihoods of many
people, in particular as a source of food and energy(ITTO 2006).
Social relations. The 2002 Forest Code (articles
111–113) requires that the local population be
consulted before any area is awarded as a concession
or given protected status. The local population also
has the right to be compensated through specificarrangements with concession-holders (througha cahier de charge).a However, the Code does notaddress local rights governing the use of forest
resources. There is widespread frustration among
rural communities because forest concessions
generally only benefit local leaders, who often do
not share the benefits with the wider community(ITTO 2006). On the other hand, in remote areasin particular, forest concessions are sometimes the
only providers of primary-school education andhealth care, and forest roads have improved accessto many remote villages (ITTO 2006).

forests in the production and protection PFE.
DRC has become engaged in the development of anational REDD+ mechanism.

Key points•

DRC has more than 112 million hectares ofclosed tropical forests and a relatively low levelof conversion of forest to other uses. The forest
sector, however, is in disarray as the country
emerges from civil conflicts. Structural andsocial adjustment is ongoing, with considerable
effects on the development of the forest sector.

•

DRC has an estimated 48.3 million hectares of
PFE, comprising 22.5 million hectares of
production PFE (compared with 20.5 million
hectares in 2005) and 25.8 million hectares ofprotection PFE (compared with 27.0 million
hectares in 2005). The PFE could besubstantially increased once land-use planning isundertaken in the various provinces.

•

None of the natural-forest production PFE isbeing managed sustainably, although some
progress has been made in the establishment offorest management plans. Of the 9.1 million
hectares of allocated forest concessions in 2010,
about 6.59 million hectares have been subject todetailed forest management planning. No
protection PFE is considered to be under SFM.

•

Although not under formal management, large
areas of DRC’s forests are currently under nothreat from deforestation or other significant
human-induced disturbance due to theirremoteness.

•

The increased engagement of the international
community and of civil society in the country
has improved transparency and accountability
and also brought knowledge and monitoring
technology to the forest sector. The difficulty istranslating reform proposals in the field due to alack of capacity and an effective decentralized
governance structure.

Summary
DRC has the potential to develop its forest
economy, both through a timber industry basedon a sustainable resource base and throughconservation. Although notable progress has been
made in recent years, civil conflicts make it difficult
to realize this potential. The institutional reform
process is in its early stages and the legal framework– including the decentralization process – needs
to be further developed and harmonized. Despite
its large forest resource and considerable humanresources, DRC is the smallest timber exporter inthe region and the country has limited capacity to
add value to its enormous forest resources. SFM
has not yet been achieved on the ground, althoughmanagement plans have been developed for some88

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO•

The volume of timber harvested in DRC is only
a tiny fraction of the potential sustainable yield,
even accounting for likely significant levels ofillegal logging.

EndnotesaGovernment of DRC (2009).

b

Information derived from the report of, and discussions
with participants at, a training workshop on ITTO criteria
and indicators, held 15-19 August 2010, Kinshasa, attended
by representatives of government, civil society and theprivate sector.

References and other sources
Aquino, A. (2010). Democratic Republic of Congo and reduced
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation-plus(REDD+): challenges and opportunities. World Bank
internal report.
Eggleston, H., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe,
T. (eds) (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Programme. Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies, Kamakura, Japan.
FAO (2010a). Global forest resources assessment 2010 country
report: Democratic Republic of the Congo (available at
http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).
FAO (2010b). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 Full
Report. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FSC (2010, website accessed July 2010). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).
Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007). Monitoringand estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDDa reality. Environmental Research Letters 2 (available at http://
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Government of DRC (2009). Rapport sur la progression de lagestion durable des forêts en République Démocratiquedu Congo et l’avancement vers l’Objectif 2000 de l’OIBT.
Submission to ITTO by the Ministère de l’Environnement,
Conservation de la Nature et Tourisme, Kinshasa, DRC.

Government of DRC (2010). Readiness preparation proposal.
Prepared by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation of
Nature and Tourism, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Kinshasa (available at www.forestcarbonpartnership.org).
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2010, website accessed August 2010). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).
IUCN (2010, website accessed November 2010). IUCN red listof threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).
Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World Atlas ofMangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. Data prepared for
ITTO. 2010. UNEP–WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March 2011).
UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed species(searchable database at available at www.cites.org/eng/
resources/species.html ).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
July 2010). World population prospects: the 2008 revision(searchable database available at www.esa.un.org/unpp/
p2k0data.asp ).
de Wasseige C., Devers D., de Marcken, P., Eba’a Atyi R., Nasi,
R. & Mayaux Ph. (eds) (2009). The Forests of the Congo
Basin: State of the Forest 2008. Publication Office of theEuropean Union, Luxembourg.
World Resources Institute (2010, website accessed March
2011). Interactive forest atlas for Democratic Republicof the Congo (Atlas forestier interactif de la République
Démocratique du Congo) (available at http://www.wri.org/
publication/interactive-forest-atlas-democratic-republic-ofcongo).

89

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Gabon
it at about 24.6 million hectares. Gabon has an
estimated 160 000 hectares of mangroves (Spalding
et al. 2010).

Forest resources
Gabon has a land area of 26.8 million hectares andan estimated population in 2010 of 1.5 million
people (United Nations Population Division 2010).
It is ranked 103rd out of 182 countries in UNDP’s
Human Development Index (UNDP 2009). The
country is in the western part of the Congo Basinand is characterized by three biogeographic regions:a coastal sedimentary basin containing forest andsavanna; a medium-altitude Precambrian plateau(averaging 600 m above sea level), which covers
about two-thirds of the country and is largely
forested apart from savanna in the east; and almost
entirely forested granite massifs in the north andsouth – Cristal Mountains, Mayombe and Chaillu –where altitudes range between 800 m and 1000 m.
FAO (2010) estimated Gabon’s total forest area at
21.7 million hectares, which is nearly 85% of theland area, and de Wasseige et al. (2009) estimatedForest types. There are three major forest types:
evergreen rainforest in the west, which has beenheavily harvested, degraded and in some areas
reduced to secondary forest characterized by anabundance of Aucoumea klaineana (okoumé) andDacryodes buettneri (ozigo); the central Gabonese
forest, covering most of the country, which isvery similar to the closed humid forest foundelsewhere in the Congo Basin and also in Liberia,with many of the same tree species (e.g. Canarium
schweinfurthii – aiélé, Lophira alata – azobé,
Entandrophragma spp, Khaya spp and Triplochiton
scleroxylon – ayous); and a semi-deciduous
forest type in the northeast, characterized by a
predominance of Maranthaceae in the sub-layer andtrees such as Terminalia superba (limba), Millettia
laurentii (wengé) and ayous.
Permanent forest estate. The PFE is estimated at
13.5 million hectares (Table 1).a

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. With alow overall population density and 60% of the
population living in urban areas, there is little
anthropogenic pressure on Gabon’s forests. The
Government of Gabon (2008) indicated an averageannual deforestation rate of 0.12% (about 10 000
hectares per year) and an average degradation rateof 0.09%, based on satellite coverage between 1990
and 2000. Most of the forest estate is still composedof primary forest (Table 2). The main causes ofdeforestation are small-scale agriculture established

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reporting year

2005*
2010
*

90

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

25.8
21.8–24.6

21 80018 700As reported in ITTO (2006).

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlantedTotal

10 60010 600a

13 325
13 525

25
25a

2700
2900

GABON

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

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

20 4004200-

Source: ITTO estimate.

along the roadways and urban development. The
main causes of forest degradation are industrial
mining and illegal logging in opened-up areas.
Vulnerability of forests to climate change. Given
its low population density and large forest area,
Gabon is less vulnerable to climate change thanmany other countries in Africa. The mean annual
temperature has increased by 0.6 °C since 1960,
an average rate of 0.14 °C per decade. Model
projections all indicate increases in the frequency of‘hot’ days and nights (McSweeney et al. undated).
Mean annual rainfall has decreased at an averagerate of 3.8 mm per month (2.6%) per decade since1960. All models indicate a considerable decrease in
rainfall over the next 50 years (ibid.).

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. All forest is owned by the state(Table 3). The 2001 Forest Code divides forests
into two distinct categories. The first includes the
production PFE managed by private concessionaires
and the protection PFE managed directly by thestate. The second, the non-PFE, known as thedomaine rural, includes open-access forests for
hunting, agriculture, mining and the gathering of
NTFPs; sacred forests; and community protectedareas (generally land and forest for which usage
rights are limited to local communities). Rural
communities and forest-dwellers are free to exercise

their customary rights in the domaine rural,
provided they respect all conditions imposed by
the forest administration. The production PFE is
exclusively owned and administered by the state.
Criteria and indicators. Gabon finalized its own
set of PCI in 2006 on the basis of the ATO/ITTO
PCI for the sustainable management of African
natural tropical forests. Since then Gabon has
worked to develop a country-wide certification
system and has harmonized its PCI with thestandards set by the Program for Endorsementof Forest Certification schemes (PEFC). The
orientation of the timber sector towards export
markets, particularly environmentally sensitive
European markets, helps to explain interest incertification.
Forest policy and legislation. Forest and wildlife
management are governed by the Forest Code (Law
16/01), which was enacted in December 2001.
The Code contains two major elements: SFM,
and forest industry development (including theallocation of forest concessions and fiscal aspects). It
also provides for the creation of community forests(Article 156). A 2008 decree (011/PR08) modified
certain elements of the Forest Code, including theabolishment of the monopoly of the state-owned
Société Nationale des Bois du Gabon (SNBG), thecommercialization of okoumé and ozigo and theprocess for the allocation of forest permits. Other

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

Total area Of which PFE Notes’000 ha
13 50013 5008300

021 800-13 500---

Production and protection PFE.
Area owned by the state, but with extended user rights(non-PFE, domaine rural).
Could include sacred forests, but their extent is unknown.
Some small plantations, community or privately owned, but nodata are available on their extent.

Source: Government of Gabon (2009).

91

Status of tropical forest management 2011

important legal texts are the 1993 Environment
Law (Law 16/93), the Mining Code (Law 05/2000)
and the land-ownership regime, which dates backto 1963 (Law 15/63). A law approved in 2007 (Law003/2007) governs the management of nationalparks.
Gabon’s forest policy was adopted in May 1996. It
focuses on maximizing the economic contributionof forests while ensuring a lasting resource basethrough the implementation of forest management
programs and national capacity-building. Phase
1 of the policy (1998–2002) focused on the
preparation of forest management plans and theestablishment of sustainable management standards.
Phase 2 (2002–10) focuses on the nationwide
implementation of the plans. The initial aim tohave 4 million hectares under management plansby 2010 was almost achieved; there is a further aim
that 5 million hectares will be under SFM by 2025.
Under the forest policy the government also plans
to have a total of 200 000 hectares of private-sector
and state-managed plantations by 2025.
Institutions involved in forests. The Ministryof Water and Forests (Ministère des Eaux etForêts – MEF) was created in January 2011
with a mission to develop and implement the
government’s policy on fisheries, forests, wildlife
and protected areas (excluding national parks,
which are managed by a separate agency). The
ministry in charge of forests has changed several
times in the last three years, from the Ministry for
Forest Economy, Inland Waters and Fisheries in
Charge of the Environment and National Parks(Ministère de l’Économie Forestière, des Eaux, dela Pêche, Chargé de l’Environnement et des Parc
Nationale), to the Ministry for Forest Economy,
Inland Waters, Fisheries and Aquaculture (Ministèrede l’Economie Forestière, des Eaux, de la Pêche et del’Aquaculture), to the Ministry of Inland Waters,
Forests, Environment and Sustainable Development(Ministère des Eaux et Forêts, de l’Environnement etdu Devéloppement Durable).
MEF has four technical directorates: the General
Directorate of Forestry (Direction Générale desForêts); the General Directorate for Wildlife andProtected Areas (Direction Générale de la Faune
et des Aires Protégées); the General Directorate
for Aquatic Ecosystems (Direction Générale desEcosystèmes Aquatiques); and the General Directorateof Forest Industries, Timber Trade and Value
Addition of Forest Products (Direction Générale des92

Industries, du Commerce du Bois et de la Valorisation
des Produits Forestiers). At time of publication the
Cabinet was considering a restructure of the MEF,
including a possible reduction in the number of
directorates to three.
The Ministry of Environment, Sustainable
Development and Nature Protection, Prevention
and Management of Natural Disasters (Ministèrede l’Environnement, du Développement Durable
et de la Protection de la Nature, Prévention etGestion des Calamités Naturelles) is in charge ofthe development of REDD+. In 2007 the Agency
for National Parks (Agence Nacionale des Parcs
Nationaux – ANPN) was created to manage
protected areas under the Ministry of Tourism andNational Parks.
Besides the technical agencies, a number of otheractors are involved in the development of SFM,
including the state timber enterprise, SNBG, which
is now under MEF and which, until recently, had amonopoly over the export of logs of the two main
species, okoumé and ozigo. There are five research
institutions dealing with forest-related issues andone forest training institute, Ecole Nationale desEaux et Forêt; the later operates under the auspicesof MEF. International development partners (theEuropean Union, the French Development Agency– Agence Française de Développement, and USAID)
are strong supporters of Gabon’s forest reform
agenda, as are international environmental NGOs
such as the Wildlife Conservation Society, WWF
and the World Resources Institute, and national
civil-society organizations such as Brainforest andCroissance Saine. The Government of Gabon isan active member of COMIFAC; it also has anagreement with Global Forest Watch to support themonitoring of illegal logging in the country.a

Status of forest management
Forest for production
In the production PFE, all concessionaires must,within three years of allocation, submit a forest
management plan that includes timber and wildlife
management and socioeconomic studies. It mustalso include consultation between concessionaires,the forest administration and local people. Twotypes of management permits are issued:•

Forest concession under SFM (concession
forestière sous aménagement durable – CFAD),GABON

which has a minimum size of 50 000 hectares
and a maximum size of 600 000 hectares. A
CFAD must have a forest management plan andan industrialization plan and is awarded throughauction.
•

Associated forest permit (permis forestier associé –PFA), which is also awarded by auction but isreserved exclusively for Gabonese nationals. A
PFA can be integrated into an existing CFAD ormanaged on its own as a concession. The
minimum size is 15 000 hectares and the
maximum size is 50 000 hectares.

Under the 2001 Forest Code, forest in the domainrural (non-PFE) may be set aside as community
forests. Community forests should be managed
for timber and NTFPs according to a simplified
forest management plan developed with support
from the DGF. The community must prepare
supply contracts with local processing companies(de Wasseige et al. 2009). Cutting permits are alsoavailable to Gabonese nationals in the non-PFE for
up to 50 trees.
The forest area open to timber harvesting has
been divided into three zones. The first comprises
the coastal plains and is rich in okoumé andcharacterized by relatively easy transport. Mostof this zone has been harvested 1–3 times since
the end of the 19th century (ITTO 2006). The
second zone is less rich in okoumé and access ismore difficult. It has now been almost completely
harvested for the first time (ibid.), facilitated by theestablishment of the Transgabonais, the railway thathas granted access to a large part of the centre andeast of the country. Still less okoumé is found in theforests of the third zone, where the species reaches
the limits of its distribution.
There has been a significant increase in the areaof forest allocated for production since 2005,
including apparently outside the PFE. In March
2009, 48 concession areas were leased over a total
area of 10.3 million hectares and another 212
other permits were also active over an area of about
3 million hectares.a In 2010 an estimated 6.27
million hectares of production forests were active as
industrial timber production areasa, up from 4.55
million hectares in 2002 (ITTO 2006). In 2002
about 1.46 million hectares of forest were coveredby forest management plans (ibid.) but, in March
2009, 4.14 million hectares had been inventoried
and about 3.45 million hectares had fully developed

An example of limba in production forest, Gabon.

and approved management plans.a As of 2009, ten
foreign operators had the lion share of industrial
concessions in Gabon – they were from Europe(France, Italy and Portugal), Asia (China, India andMalaysia) and Lebanon. World Resources Institute(2009) contains a detailed analysis of the forest
concessions in Gabon.
Silviculture and species selection. Timber
harvesting is selective and focuses on high-value
species. At present, only 4–5 m3 is extracted,
on average, per hectare. In the first and second
harvesting zones this is due to previous overcuttingof okoumé; in the third, high transport costs mean
it is only economically viable to harvest the mostvaluable tree species. Table 4 shows the five mostharvested species in the past few years. Ayous,
Testulea gabonensis (izombe), Guibourtia demeusei(kevazingo), Piptadeniastrum africanum (dabéma)and Baillonella toxiperma (moabi) are among a
number of species that are being harvested inincreasingly large volumes. It is anticipated thatthe number of species acceptable to international
markets will continue to increase from the current
20 or so to 35–40 species in coming years.a
The gross standing volume of trees with diameter at
breast height (dbh) greater than 10 cm is estimatedat 250 m3 per hectare in unexploited forest and93

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Aucoumea klaineana (okoumé)*
Triplochiton scleroxylon (ayous)
Cyclodiscus gabunensis (okan)Distemonanthus benthamianus (movingui)
Dacryodes buettneri (ozigo)*

Average annual production of about 939 000 m3 (2006–08).
Up to 40 000 m3 produced annually on average (2006–08).
More than 20 000 m3 produced annually.
Nearly 20 000 m3 produced annually.
Production is declining, to less than 15 000 m3 annually.

Also listed in ITTO (2006).
*
Source: Government of Gabon (2009).

220 m3 per hectare in logged-over forest (ITTO2006). The commercial standing volumes are 55 m3
per hectare and 42 m3 per hectare, respectively.
Generally, forest resources can be divided into
two main categories: forests with okoumé andozigo, which regenerate well, and forests without
large amounts of those two species. In its range,
okoumé is the predominant species, with an average
standing volume of about 10 m3 per hectare. A
specific silvicultural system is applied in okoumé
forests, the méthode okoumé, based on favouring
natural regeneration and continuous thinning
until there are 80 stems per hectare with a dbh ofover 70 cm. Gabonese forests regenerate well and,if management prescriptions are followed, they
will maintain their productive value over several
rotations (Drouineau & Nasi 1999).
While the number of hardwood species being
used by industry is increasing, to a large extent
the financial viability of SFM is based on the highquantity and quality of okoumé. The appropriate
silvicultural management of okoumé forest istherefore important for ensuring the continued
abundance of this species because it is the backbone
of Gabon’s forest development. There are signs,
however, that silvicultural treatments are not being
conducted to the full extent needed (de Wasseige etal. 2009).
Planted forest and trees outside the forest.
Planted forests cover about 25 000–30 000 hectares(Government of Gabon 2009; de Wasseige et al.
2009). The government plans to increase the areaof planted state forest to 100 000 hectares and topromote the establishment of an additional 100 000
hectares of private plantations, but planting rates
are presently minimal.a Agro-industrial plantations
include about 11 000 hectares of rubber and somesmall plots of oil palm and coconut (ITTO 2006).
Reforestation and enrichment planting are generally
not undertaken in logged-over forests due to the94

relative ease of natural regeneration (ibid.). Existing
plantations are mainly on former natural-forest sites
and consist primarily of okoumé and, to a limited
extent, Terminalia superba (limba). There are also
some plantations of pines and clonal eucalypts(ibid.).
Forest certification. After more than five years ofintensive work, the Gabonese Pan African Forest
Certification Scheme (Système Panafricain deCertification Forestière) was endorsed for a periodof three years by the PEFC Council in April 2009.
This first-ever approved African national standard
provides buyers with evidence that the timber they
buy was harvested in well-managed forests. In
addition to this overall national approach to forest
certification, as of June 2010 six forest concessions,covering a total area of 1.874 million hectares, werecertified under the FSC (some of them also had
ISO 14001 and Keurhout certificates). A FLEGT
process is under way in Gabon and the Governmentof Gabon has shown interest in developing a VPA
with the European Union.a
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. The entire FSC-certified
forest area of 1.8 million hectares and two
additional forest concessions that are in a process
of forest management certification and have TLTV
certificates covering an area of about 622 000
hectares (de Wasseige et al. 2009) are counted inTable 5 as under SFM.
Timber production and trade. The total standing
timber volume (dbh >10 cm) is estimated at 2.60
billion m3 and the possible sustainable annual
yield of potentially marketable timber species isan estimated 12–15 million m3 (ITTO 2006). An
estimated 3.4 million m3 of industrial logs were
harvested in 2009, similar to the 3.5 million m3
estimated to have been produced in 2004 (ITTO2010). Note that okoumé accounted for nearly
30% of total production.

GABON

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

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

10 60010 6006923
10 300***NaturalWithmanagement
plans
2310
3450**,aCertified

1480

25

PlantedWith
management
plans
10

2420

25

10

Total

Sustainably
managed1480
1870

Certified00

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Comprising only areas with approved management plans in March 2009.

An estimated 1.87 million m3 of logs were exported
in 2009, up from 1.51 million m3 in 2004;
157 000 m3 (roundwood equivalent) were exported
as sawnwood in 2009, up from 124 000 m3 in
2004. The log market for okoumé and ozinga ismainly oriented towards Asia, while dark hardwood
species are often exported to Europe. In 2009
Gabon was the second-largest exporter of tropical
hardwood logs (after Malaysia), Central Africa’s
largest timber producer and the world’s largest
supplier of okoumé. However, the Governmentof Gabon issued a ban on unprocessed timber
exports in January 2010 to encourage value-adding
to timber products. In mid 2008, Gabon had 48
operating sawmill facilities, nine peeling units
and three plywood plants with a potential annual
processing capacity of about 1.7 million m3 oflogs (de Wasseige et al. 2009), about half of total
production.
Non-timber forest products. As in the othercountries of the Congo Basin, many foodstuffs,
including bush meat, roots, fruits, leaves and nuts,
as well as medicinal plants and condiments, arecollected in forests. They are an integral part ofthe subsistence of local people and some, such as
the fruits of Irvingia, lianas of Gnetum, and plants
and nuts of Garcinia species, are also marketedat the national level. Bamboo and fibres such as
Marantaceae (rattan), raphia and the leaves ofBorassus aethiopum (rônier) are important productsthat are also traded regionally. Trade data on NTFPs
were unavailable for this report. Charcoal-making
supplies a small but efficient informal market(ITTO 2006). NTFPs are mentioned in the 2001
Forest Code and forest management plans must
include information on the potential of NTFPs inconcession areas.
Forest carbon. Gibbs et al. (2007) estimatedthe national-level forest biomass carbon stock at3063–4114 MtC, Eggleston et al. (2006) estimatedit at 4742 MtC and FAO (2010) estimated it at2710 MtC. de Wasseige et al. (2009), taking into
account all five carbon pools, estimated the forest
carbon stock at about 4300 MtC. Gabon was oneof the founding members of the Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility and submitted a readinessidea note in 2008; by mid 2010, however, there
had been no progress on a readiness preparation
proposal. As laid out in Government of Gabon(2008), the government’s REDD strategy includes
the pursuit of sound land-use management andintensive agricultural production, including
agroforestry; the strengthening of sustainably
managed production forests; and the conservationof forests through effective protective-areamanagement. The country’s REDD+ potential
lies particularly in the sustainable management of
production and protection forests and conservationof the existing forest carbon stocks. Table 6
summarizes Gabon’s forest carbon potential.

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

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

3063–4114

87+

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

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity++

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

95

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Forest for protection

categories I–IV, compared with 570 000 hectares in2005. ITTO and WWF continue their joint workwith the government to manage the Minkébé Forest
Reserve, which together with the Minkébé National
Park makes up an ITTO-supported transboundary
conservation area linked to the Mengame protectedarea in Cameroon.

Soil and water. No forests are set aside specificallyto be managed primarily for the protection of soil
and water.aBiological diversity. Gabon contains more than
6500 plant species, 320 mammal species and 617
bird species. Ten mammals, two birds, one reptile,
three amphibians and 47 plants found in forests
are listed as critically endangered, endangered orvulnerable on the IUCN red list of threatened
species (IUCN 2011). Seven plant species arelisted in CITES Appendix II, none of which is a
hardwood timber species (UNEP-WCMC 2011).
Although Gabon is sparsely populated, some fauna
species are under pressure in some areas due to anincreasing demand for bush meat (ITTO 2006).

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. The total protection PFE
under SFM is estimated at at least 1.23 million
hectares (Table 7), comprising the ITTO-supported
Minkébé National Park (750 000 hectares) andthe Lopé National Park (484 000 hectares, part ofwhich is savanna). These areas (which were alsoclassified as sustainably managed in 2005) areconsidered to be managed and protected effectively,
although poachers continue to be a threat to theseand other protected areas.

Protective measures in production forests. Underthe 2001 Forest Code, forest management plans
must include measures to protect soil, biodiversity
and water resources in forest concession areas.
Provisions designed to protect wildlife specify thezones where hunting is permitted and the lengthand dates of the hunting season. However, hunting
is a major problem within and in the vicinity offorest concessions.a

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. National resource use,
including oil extraction, timber harvesting andmining, is the cornerstone of Gabon’s economy (deWasseige et al. 2009). Oil alone generates 42% ofGDP, followed by timber (about 6% of GDPa). The
forest sector is the primary employer in the private
sector with about 13 000 employees, not counting
the informal sector.a The forest service itself
employs about 600 officers and support staff.aExtent of protected areas. Gabon has 13
national parks and a special presidential park,
two hunting zones and wildlife reserves – mostof them forested – covering about 2.9 million
hectares.a In mid 2009, four parks (PlateauxBatéké, Minkébé, Lopé and Moukalaba-Doudou)
had provisional management plans.a A National
Biodiversity Observation Board was createdin 2000 to support the implementation of the
GEF-assisted National Strategy and Action Plan for
Biodiversity (ITTO 2006). With the creation of
the ANPN, the national park network has clearly
been strengthened. More than 2.1 million hectaresof forest are now in reserves classified in IUCN

Livelihood values. Forests are the main sourceof subsistence for Indigenous peoples living in
the forests of Gabon. The law stipulates that local
people have free access to all forests as long as they
possess appropriate customary rights and do notjeopardize the sustainability of the forest products
they collect. Industrial forest management requires
the consent of the local population.a Bush meat andedible fruits such as aiéle, leaves of Gnetum species,and nuts and roots (igname) are of great importancefor forest-dependent local communities, particularly

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

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

2700
2900

570
2191**

0
0

491
1230‡

1090
1230†

*
**
‡
†

96

As reported in ITTO (2006).
UNEP-WCMC (2010).
Provisional management plans.
Pertains to the same two national parks considered under SFM in 2005, but new data (World Resources Institute 2009) suggest aslightly larger park area.

GABON

Pygmies. Bush-meat availability may be threatened
locally because of over-hunting.
Social relations. The community forests allowed
under the 2001 Forest Code replace the former‘family logging’ rights. The Forest Code specifies
that there should be a zone around each production
forest to accommodate the customary rights ofsurrounding communities. While a memorandum(lettre de politique) of forest policy published by thegovernment in May 2004 indicated an intention toincrease the future role of local users in community
forest management, little progress has been madein the last five years to introduce community forest
management.

Summary
Undeniable progress has been made in Gabon
towards SFM. The government continues toimprove its legal and institutional framework toregulate and monitor production forests and toeffectively manage protected areas. The 2001 Forest
Code is complemented by additional regulations
and field-based actions, including an improved
forest monitoring system. Principles, criteria andindicators have been formulated and adapted tothe conditions in Gabon and voluntary forestmanagement certification is well-developed.
Forestry will remain one of the pillars of Gabon’s
economic and social development. Based on
clear policy measures from the government, theprivate sector is a major driver of industrial forest
development and the export of semi-finishedforest products. The government has introduceda system to institutionalize community forestry
as a way of meeting local needs for timber andother forest products, although this system is yet
to be implemented. The country is engaged in
REDD+ processes, and it has a low deforestation
rate. Problems remain, mainly in governance;
for example, there is little civil advocacy and few
participatory processes in the forest sector.

Key points•

Gabon has a large forest resource with arelatively low risk of conversion to other uses.

•

Gabon has an estimated PFE of 13.5 million
hectares (compared with 13.3 million hectares
in 2005), comprising 10.6 million hectares ofnatural production forest (the same as in 2005),
2.90 million hectares of protection forest(compared with 2.70 million hectares in 2005)
and 25 000 hectares of planted forest (the sameas in 2005).
•

An estimated 2.42 million hectares of thenatural production PFE is under SFM,
including 1.87 million hectares of certified
forest. An estimated 1.23 million hectares ofprotection PFE is under SFM.

•

Forest management plans are fully developed in
3.45 million hectares of forest in concessions andwere under preparation for another 6 million
hectares of forest in concessions. High standards
for concession management have been developedon paper, but still need to be fully introduced on
the ground.

•

Gabon has the largest area of certified naturalforests in Africa.

•

The new national park network has great
potential and an increased focus will need to begiven to developing and implementing
long-term management plans.

•Community forests may be created in thedomain rural, but their development has been
insignificant to date.

•

Management for bush meat and other NTFPs isstill largely uncontrolled, even though theseissues must be addressed in forest management
plans.

EndnoteaGovernment of Gabon (2009).

References and other sources
Drouineau, S. & Nasi, R. (1999). L’Aménagement Forestierdu Gabon: Historique, Bilan, Perspectives. CIRAD-Forêt,Montpellier, France.
Eggleston, H., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe,
T. (eds) (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Programme. Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies, Kamakura, Japan.
FAO (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010
country report: Gabon (available at http://www.fao.org/
forestry/62318/en/).
FSC (2010, website accessed June 2010). FSC Certification
Database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.
org/PublicCertificateSearch).
Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007). 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).

97

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Government of Gabon (2008). Readiness plan idea note.
Prepared by the Republic of Gabon for the Forest
Carbon Partnership Facility (available at www.
forestcarbonpartnership.org).

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

Government of Gabon (2009). Report of progress towardachieving sustainable forest management in Gabon.
Submission to ITTO by the Nsitou Mabiala, Libreville,
Gabon.

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

ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2010, website accessed December 2010). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).
IUCN (2011, website accessed April 2011). IUCN red list of
threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).
McSweeney, C., New, M. & Lizcano, G. (undated). UNDP
climate change country profiles: Gabon (available at http://
country-profiles.geog.ox.ac.uk/).
Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World Atlas ofMangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.

98

United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
July 2010). World population prospects: the 2008 revision(searchable database available at www.esa.un.org/unpp/
p2k0data.asp).
de Wasseige C., Devers D., de Marcken, P., Eba’a Atyi R., Nasi,
R. & Mayaux Ph. (eds) (2009). The Forests of the Congo
Basin: State of the Forest 2008. Publication Office of theEuropean Union, Luxembourg.
World Resources Institute (2010, website accessed March 2011).
Interactive forest atlas for Gabon (Atlas Forestier Interactif
de la Gabon) (available at http://www.wri.org/publication/interactive-forestry-atlas-gabon).

GHANA

Ghana
natural forest in 2010, which is about 20% of theland area. Spalding et al. (2010) estimated the total
area of (mostly degraded) mangroves at 13 700
hectares.

Forest resources
Ghana is located on the west coast of Africa,
bordered by Togo in the east, Côte d’Ivoire in thewest, Burkina Faso in the north and the Atlantic
Ocean in the south. It has a land area of 23.9
million hectares and in 2010 it had an estimatedpopulation of 24.3 million people (United Nations
Population Division 2010). The country is ranked
152nd out of 182 countries in UNDP’s Human
Development Index (UNDP 2009).
Ecologically Ghana is divided into a high-forest
zone in the south, accounting for about one-thirdof the land area (8 million hectares), a savanna zone
(14.7 million hectares), mostly in the north, and atransition zone (1.1 million hectares). FAO (2010)
estimated that Ghana had 4.68 million hectares ofForest types. The high forest zone is divided
into nine forest types: wet evergreen; moist
evergreen; moist semi-deciduous (southeast); moistsemi-deciduous (northwest); dry semi-deciduous(inner zone); dry semi-deciduous fire zone; uplandevergreen; southern marginal; and southern
outlier.a The semi-deciduous and evergreen forests
constitute the main timber-producing areas. The
main species in the semi-deciduous forests are
Triplochiton scleroxylon (wawa), Mansonia altissima(mansonia), Nesogordonia papaverifera (danta)
and Khaya ivorensis (mahogany); in the evergreen
forests the main species are Guarea cedrata (guarea),
Tieghemella heckelii (makore), Tarrietia utilis(niangon) and Uapaca spp (assam) (ITTO 2006).
Box 1 shows Ghana’s vegetation zones.
Permanent forest estate. Ghana’s forests are
divided into forest reserves and ‘off-reserve’ areas:of the 266 forest (production) reserves, 216 occur
in the high-forest, timber-producing zone, and theremainder occur in the savanna. Forest reserves
were originally established by the state to promoteecological stability while seeking to guarantee
the flow of goods and services for socioeconomic
development (Bird et al. 2006).
Ghana’s PFE is estimated at 1.43 million hectares,
which is the area of forest in forest reserves plus
the area of planted forests and the area of forest
in protected areas (Table 1). The total is 170 000
hectares less than that reported in 2005.

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reporting
year

2005*
2010
*
**
‡

Estimatedtotal naturalforest area,
range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)2.72–6.34
4.68

1634
838**

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted
1150
774a

97
164‡

353
396a

Total

1600
1334

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Calculated using the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) (18%) and theestimated total natural forest area.

FAO (2010) estimated the total planted forest estate at 260 000 hectares.

99

Status of tropical forest management 2011

The area of protection PFE reported for 2010is about 43 000 hectares more than the figure
reported in 2005. With recent activities to revise
and write new management plans for globallysignificant biodiversity areas (see below), some areasthat were previously not demarcated or measured
have now been demarcated, which might explainsome of the increase.b

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. The
condition of Ghana‘s forests has been in decline
for many years, particularly since the 1970s. Many
forest reserves are heavily encroached and degraded,
and the off-reserve stocks are being rapidly
depleted. Immediate drivers include forest industry
over-capacity; policy/market failures in the timber
sector; burgeoning populations in both rural andurban areas; increasing local demand for agriculturaland wood products; high demand for wood andforest products on the international market; heavy
dependence on charcoal and woodfuel for ruraland urban energy; and limited technologicaldevelopment in farming systems and continued
reliance on cyclical slash-and-burn methods tomaintain soil fertility (Forestry Commission 2010).
Deforestation in Ghana usually commences with thedegradation of well-stocked forests by excessive (often
illegal) logging, slash-and-burn agriculture, mining
and quarrying, and fuelwood collection. Degraded
forests are then often completely deforested
by wildfire, illegal occupation and/or land-use
changes. These destructive forces are influenced
by population pressure and poverty and also by
infrastructure and economic development programs.
Road construction near or within forest reserves
facilitates encroachment. Internal migration to thewestern forests for cash-crop cultivation accounts
for the high rate of degradation in those forests.
An estimated 395 000 hectares of primary forest
remain in Ghana, but no estimates were availableof the area of degraded primary forest, secondary
forest or degraded forest land (Table 2). Almost

all forests have suffered depletion, creating eroded
hillsides in some cases and destroying genetic
diversity in others (ITTO 2006). FAO (2010)
reported a change in natural forest area of 677 000
hectares between 2005 and 2010, an annual averageloss of 135 000 hectares. An estimated 66 500
hectares of wet evergreen, moist evergreen andmoist semi-deciduous forest (in the southwest) in
the PFE were formally converted to agriculture in
the most recent five-year reporting period.a
Forest fires affect an estimated 500 000 hectaresof forest per year, the majority (80%) of which
are unplanned (FAO 2010). Excessive logging canmake the forests more vulnerable to fire by causing
the accumulation of residues, which become
readily flammable when dry. Illegal forest activities,
including the use of portable chainsaw mills, arewidespread in the high-forest zone, particularly
in off-reserve areas. The invasion of woody weeds
affects an estimated 50 000 hectares.
Vulnerability of forests to climate change.
According to McSweeney et al. (undated), theaverage annual temperature in Ghana has increasedby 1.0 °C since 1960, an average rate of 0.21 °C
per decade; daily temperature data indicate thatthe frequency of ‘hot’ days has also increased
significantly. The mean annual temperature is
projected to increase by 1–3 °C by 2060 and by
1.5–5.2 °C by 2090. Rainfall trends are difficult
to identify; rainfall was high in the 1960s but
decreased to particularly low levels in the late1970s and early 1980s, resulting in an overall
decreasing trend (ibid.). According to the second
communication to the UNFCCC (in preparation),
two sectors are particularly vulnerable to theeffects of climate change in Ghana: health, due
to an increase in tropical diseases; and land
management, due to reduced crop production,
including cocoa and root crops, decreasing soil
fertility and moisture, particularly in savanna areas,decreased freshwater availability, biodiversity loss,
and coastal erosion. In the forest zone, a species’
shift is occurring through a process of competitive

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

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

100

395a
-

0
-

395
4285a
-

GHANA

1997, the 1998 Timber Resources Management
Regulations, and the Forestry Commission Act,
1999 (Act 571). The Timber Resource Management(Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 617), also recognizes
private tree ownership rights.

displacement, which, with increased warming,
deforestation and degradation, could be dramatic(Dixon et al. 1996).

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. Land-tenure systems varysignificantly from area to area in Ghana, withmajor regional differences between the north andsouth and between the Akan and related peoples ofsouth and southwest Ghana and the neighbouring
Ewe-speaking populations in the southeast. The
territories of the Akan people largely coincidewith the high-forest zone. Nearly all their land isunder some form of ownership, and most landsin the Akan areas are under the authority of thechieftaincy (the ‘stool’). This is a titular authority,
conferring the right to tribute and, in appropriate
instances, a share of land-based revenues. It is nota full proprietary interest (Government of Ghana2008). Such lands may be managed directly by thestool, or by sub-chiefs and other ‘captains’ who,
either by themselves or via their ancestors, haveobtained a claim over particular blocks of land
within their natal chieftaincies (ibid.). Some areas,
including forest reserves, have been acquired by
the government, though ultimately ‘owned’ by thechieftaincy; these are referred to as ‘vested lands’.

Criteria and indicators. The Governmentof Ghana (2010) used the ITTO C&I in its
submission to ITTO for this report. In September
2010, with the support of a regional ATO/ITTO
project, Ghana finalized the harmonization processof its SFM standards according to the ATO/ITTO
PCI for the sustainable management of African
natural tropical forests. The ITTO C&I and the
ATO/ITTO PCI are incorporated in the Forestry
Commission’s various forest-management manuals
and guidelines, providing a cornerstone for naturalforest management.

Thus, in Ghana, forests are owned by communities
vested in traditional authorities, held in trust
for them by the state, and logged by private
contractors; traditionally owned forest lands are
known variously as ‘stool land’ or ‘skin land’.
However, both Government of Ghana (2010)
and FAO (2010) report that forests are entirely inpublic ownership (Table 3), since they are ‘held in
trust’ by the state. Ownership arrangements are also
reflected in the Timber Resource Management Act,Two laws have been enacted recently by Parliament
with potential implications for forests. These arethe:Forest policy and legislation. The first forest
policy was established in 1947; this was revised
in line with Ghana’s 1992 Constitution andapproved in 1994 as the Forest and Wildlife Policy.
No significant changes have been made to forest
laws, policies or regulations since the last report.
However, the government is in a consultative
process to review the Forest and Wildlife Policy andthe 1996 Forestry Development Master Plan (whichspans 1996–2020).

•

Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703),
which may have a bearing on national objectives
for forests and on the control of illegal activities
in forests.

•

Lands Commission Act, 2008 (Act 767), which
established the Lands Commission to integrate,

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

Total area Of which PFE Notes’000 ha
0

0

4680

1430

4680
0

1430
0

0

0

Forests are owned by communities vested in traditional
authorities, held in trust for them by the state. They may belogged by private contractors.

Source: Government of Ghana (2010), FAO (2010).

101

Status of tropical forest management 2011subject to the Constitution, the operations ofpublic-service land institutions under theCommission in order to secure effective andefficient land administration and to provide forrelated matters. This Act may have implications
for national forest objectives, forest tenure andproperty rights, and the control of illegal
activities in forests.
The Government of Ghana listed 28 forest-related
acts and decrees and 24 forest-related regulations,some of which overlap, duplicate or contradict.a
The fines for breaches of forest-related laws andregulations have not been reviewed for many years
and are outdated. A single, consolidated forest
law would be desirable, and the governance andcontrol system needs to be reformed to improve
its efficiency and effectiveness. There is a need forenabling legislation to provide for the voluntaryestablishment of dedicated off-reserve forests and topromote private-sector plantations.a
Institutions involved in forests. The main
institution in charge of forests is the Ministryof Lands and Forestry (MLF) supported by the
Forestry Commission, which was established in
1980, and the Forestry Commission divisionsof Forest Services, Wildlife, Timber Industry
Development, Wood Industries Training Centre
and Resource Management Support Centre. The
Forestry Commission, which employs about 550
professional and technical forestry personnel, is
responsible for coordinating, implementing andenforcing policies, laws and regulations for thedevelopment, management and regulation of theuse of forest and wildlife resources.a
The main institutions involved in forestry research
are the Forestry Research Institute of Ghana(FORIG) under the Ministry of Environment,
Science and Technology; the Renewable Natural
Resources Institute of Ghana; and the University of
Ghana. FORIG employs about 90 people.a Overall,an estimated 3576 people were employed in publicforest-related institutions in 2008, 51 of whom had
university degrees, including 19 with doctorates(FAO 2010).
Community participation in forestry is being
facilitated through community forest committees:
the Forestry Commission aims to create 100
such committees.a Active NGOs include
Friends of the Earth Ghana (15 employees), theGhana Association for the Conservation of Nature

102(three employees), Green Earth (19 employees),
and Tropenbos International (twelve employees).a
The Timber and Wood Workers Union of the Trade
Union Congress of Ghana is also an important
stakeholder. However, there are often problems of
coordination between the trade union, NGOs andgovernment forestry agencies (ITTO 2006).

Status of forest management
Forest for production
The 1994 Forests and Wildlife Policy abolishedthe existing concession system and replaced itwith a new system intended to promote efficiency,transparency and accountability. Under the system
there are two types of permits: competitive bidding
and administrative permits.
•

Competitive bidding: the allocation of forest
resources through competitive-price bidding fortimber rights is a fundamental feature of the1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy, which calls forthe “award of timber rights on the basis ofcompetitive bidding and periodic audit of forest
utilization operations to ensure compliance with
forest management specifications andenvironmental protection standards”. The
regulations governing competitive bidding fortimber rights in the form of timber utilization
contracts (TUCs) are outlined in the Timber
Resource Management Act, 1997 (Act 547), as
well as the accompanying Timber Resources
Management Regulations (1998; LI 1649).
Competitive bidding is mandatory in theawarding of all timber rights in the form ofTUCs on both reserve and off-reserve areas.
Under the competitive bidding framework, theallocation of TUCs is made on the basis of
public bidding for rights to harvest timber ineach area on the basis of an annual timber rights
fee. TUCs for forest reserves have a term of 40
years, while TUCs for other lands have a termof five years.
All applications for the granting of timber rights
are evaluated by the Timber Rights Evaluation
Committee (TREC) to determine those entities
that are pre-qualified for the granting of timberrights. All TUCs require parliamentary
ratification and timber rights acquired under a
TUC cannot be transferred without the writtenconsent of the minister. All applications for suchtransfer should be evaluated by TREC.

GHANA•

Administrative permits: there are two types ofadministrative permit––

Timber utilization permits: timber may
be allocated through timber utilization
permits (TUPs; LI 1649). Based on
an application by a district assembly,
town committee, any rural community
group or an NGO and subject to suchconditions as the Forestry Commission
may determine, the Forestry Commission
may issue a TUP exclusively for harvestinga specified number of trees in an area ofland not subject to a TUC. Any timber
harvested or converted to lumber under
a TUP may be used only for social orcommunity purposes and may not be soldor exchanged. Thus, any timber harvested
for commercial purposes that was allocatedunder a TUP does not qualify as legal
timber.
Salvage felling permits: permits may be
issued for the salvage of trees from an areaof land undergoing development such as
road construction, the expansion of humansettlement or the cultivation of farms. No
such permit is issued in respect of land
under a TUC. Salvage felling permits are
subject to corruption and other forms ofabuse: since timber from TUPs cannot be
distinguished from other timber in thecommercial market, a major challenge is toprevent timber harvested under TUPs fromentering the commercial market.a

Timber harvesting is used as both a silviculturaland a management tool. National forest inventories
were undertaken in forest reserves in 1985–1992
and 2002, and the data from these have been used
for, among other things, setting the AAC. Forest
protection strategies have been incorporated anddescribed in the 1995 Manual of Procedures for
Stock Survey and Yield Allocation and backed by
the 1998 Logging Manual.
The Manual of Procedures for Stock Survey andYield Allocation documents the steps to be taken
and operations to be carried out to ensure thattrees in production forest reserves are felled ona sustained-yield basis. The Logging Manualprescribes the code of timber-harvesting practiceand technology that all holders of timber utilizationrights are required to adhere to. The manual isFuelwood-gathering in western Ghana.

written primarily to guide timber contractors
on planning and operational aspects of timber
harvesting and provides basic information for acode of good working practice. To ensure thatharvesting meets the required forest management
standards, the following criteria have been set:•

Each TUC area in a forest reserve should have aharvesting schedule.

•

Permanently and temporarily protected areas aswell as conversion and research areas should be
excluded from the schedule.

•

The period of the schedule should be 40 years.

•

The duration of each felling coupe should notexceed five years.

•

Each five-year coupe should be allocatedone-eighth (± 10%) of the area of allcompartments in the TUC area.

•

The harvesting schedule should be practical.

A compartment is not released for logging if it does
not appear in the harvesting schedule.
The Forest Services Division of the Forestry
Commission is responsible for supervising andmonitoring TUCs. The Division’s district forest
manager and regional staff are responsible for
ensuring that contractors follow the guidelinesof the Logging Manual and fully adhere to thetimber operational specifications and the social
responsibility agreement specified in contracts.
In particular the field staff must ensure thatcompartment plans are followed, that theconditions for forest protection are adhered to, andthat payments are made in accordance with contract
agreements.

103

Status of tropical forest management 2011

The Forestry Commission also uses the 1998 Manualof Procedures for Forest Resource Management
Planning in the High-forest Zone, under which
logging plans are prepared by the contractor and theforest reserves are divided into compartments of 128
hectares each (1600 m x 800 m). The 2002 Law on
Timber Resource Auctioning establishes that timberrights will be awarded by tender. The Forestry
Commission allocates the volumes to be harvested
annually based on an ‘interim yield formula’, which
depends on the size of the TUC. One hundred
percent of the boundaries of forest reserves havebeen demarcated.a
A national AAC of 500 000 m3 has been set forforest reserves using results of inventories and aharvesting rotation of 40 years. This AAC is applied
to 64 economic species, grouped in accordance with
their level of harvesting in relation to their total
stocks: 18 Scarlet Star species, comprising the main
traditional commercial timbers now under threatof economic extinction, where the level of cut isgreater than 200% of the sustainable level; 16 Red
Star species, for which the level of cut is 50–200%
the level considered to be sustainable and which will
eventually become economically extinct withouta major reduction in harvest; and 30 Pink Star
species, some of which are being exploited but not
at a rate to cause concern – i.e. less than 50% of thesustainable cut.a
The estimated total AAC of 683 100 m³(comprising 115 900 m3 of Scarlet Star species,
208 700 m3 of Red Star species and 358 500 m3 of
Pink Star species – see Table 4) was rounded down
to 500 000 m³ because many Pink Star species are
currently regarded as unsaleable. The AAC has been
set at 1.5 million m³ for off-reserve forests, giving a
total national AAC of 2 million m3.a
The AAC in forest reserves (500 000 m3) has been
criticized as being unsustainable, partly because“the timber industry has failed to heed repeatedwarnings to shift exploitation from [traditional,
high-value] species to lesser-used species” (Bird etal. 2006). Outside the forest reserves, the annual
production of timber by illegal chainsaw milling isreported to be as high as 2.5 million m3, five times
the total AAC in the formal sector (Marfo 2010).
In the past, forest management plans have notbeen very successful in protecting the forest fromdegradation and over-exploitation. In line withnew thinking about forest management, new104

management plans are being prepared. Twenty-one
plans have been developed covering an area ofjust over 400 000 hectares of the PFE, and theirimplementation was scheduled to begin in January
2010. If the implementation of these initial 21plans is successful, a second phase will involvethe development of plans for the remaining
production forest reserves. The introduction of low
impact logging techniques is under consideration.
Constraints to SFM encountered in the past include
inadequate funding; institutional weaknesses; a lackof adequate equipment; the poor implementationof management plans; increasing demand for forest
resource use, sometimes resulting in conflicts; andencroachment and unapproved harvesting.a
A range of measures has been put in place tohelp reduce the impact of fire, including wildfire
management plans, the establishment of a green firebelt, incentive schemes for fighting fires (volunteer
schemes), education and awareness creation, andarrests and prosecutions. Such measures havehelped to reduce the incidence of wildfire in somefire-prone communities.a
The management of many forest reserves is thought
to be quite good. In others, however, inadequate
control of TUCs has allowed over-harvesting.
Repeated re-entries take place depending on
demand for logs, often facilitated through salvage
permits. There is inadequate surveillance tosafeguard the integrity and ensure the security of
the PFE. There are also inadequacies in survey
records, maps and boundary maintenance (ITTO2006).
The formal timber industry has traditionallyconcentrated on exports. Domestic supplies,
therefore, are supplemented by illegal logging:according to one estimate, 84% of domestic timber(about 497 000 m3) is supplied by illegal chainsaw
milling operations, and an additional 260 000
m3 of timber from such operations is exported toneighbouring countries (Marfo 2010). Most of thelogs are obtained from off-reserve sources (including
in concessions, at the expense of concessionholders), although there is anecdotal evidence that
forest reserves are increasingly being raided (ibid.).
Measures have been put in place to reduce illegal
forest activities, including the formation of amilitary task force, which patrols the forest;
increased arrests and prosecutions; a ban on thesale of chainsaw lumber; and the development of aGHANA

VPA with the European Union (see below). Suchmeasures have enhanced the Forestry Commission’s
capacity to control legal and illegal forest activities.a
Another potential measure is a new timber-tracking
system, which is currently being piloted. Thissystem is designed to monitor the movement oftimber from standing trees in forests (including
in forest reserves, off-reserve forests, and timber
plantations) to processing facilities, or from pointof-import to processing facility, and to local sales
outlets or export facilities. The system will enable
the tracking of individual logs and consignments
of processed products, and will include productlabelling, physical inspections and documentary
checks. It will have four main components:•

The identification and tagging of individual
products or consignments using bar-codedlabels or radio frequency identification devices(usually known as RFIDs).

•

The incorporation of these tag numbers onto
the statutory forms used for declarations,inspections and other relevant records andreports.

•

The use of electronic technology for datacollection and transmission.

•

The development of a database to receive,
analyse and report all wood production andmovement.

The system will provide the full traceability oftimber from both the PFE and the non-PFE
and certify the origin and legal and regulatorycompliance of all timber products. Initially thescope will be limited to information on forest andtimber operations and will include:•

log production•

log movements from forest to mill•

mill inputs and outputs•

processed timber production and transport•

processed timber exports•

log and processed timber imports.

Silviculture and species selection. The silvicultural
system used in natural forests is a polycyclic
selection felling system using a cutting cycle of 40
years. The AAC in the natural forests is decided on
the basis of stock surveys and size limits prescribed

for the different commercial species by the Forest
Services Division of the Forestry Commission.
Only 20% of the trees above the diameter limit are
to be harvested (around three trees per hectare),with the rest retained for the next entry in 40
years. Post-logging silvicultural operations are alsoprescribed to promote growth and sustainability.
There are many hardwood timber species, but themore commercially valuable are becoming scarce.
Table 4 shows the three groupings of species, andthe harvesting volumes in each.
Planted forest and trees outside the forest.
The National Forest Plantation Development
Programme, which was launched in early
2010, aims to encourage the development of asustainable forest resource base that will satisfy
future demand for industrial timber and enhanceenvironmental quality. The program is being
implemented under three main strategies. The firstof these, the modified taungya system, involves theestablishment of plantations by the Forest Services
Division in partnership with farmers. The Forest
Services Division provides technical direction
and demarcates degraded forest reserve lands andsupplies pegs and seedlings, while the farmers
provide all the labour involved in site-clearing,
pegging, planting, maintenance and fire protection.
Farmers are permitted to cultivate their food crops,
which are inter-planted with tree crops. In addition
to the food crops they harvest, farmers earn a 40%
share of the returns on investment. The government
also receives a 40% share and the landowner andcommunity earn a 15% and 5% share, respectively.
The second strategy uses hired labour and contract
supervisors to establish industrial plantations.
Plantation workers are hired and paid a monthly
allowance to establish and maintain plantations,while plantation supervisors are given one-year
renewable contract employment to supervise
and offer technical direction. The Forestry
Commission’s Plantation Department exercises
general oversight and monitors field activities
to ensure compliance with quality standards forplantation establishment. This strategy is employedby the Government Plantation Development
Programme, which is funded through the Highly
Indebted Poor Countries initiative. The plantations
developed under this scheme are owned bygovernment and those landowners who are entitled
to royalty payments.

105

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species grouping

Notes

Scarlet Star*

An estimated 115 900 m3 are harvested each year in forest
reserves, and 100 185 m3 are harvested off-reserve.
An estimated 208 700 m3 are harvested each year in forest
reserves, and 41 778 m3 are harvested off-reserve.
An estimated 358 500 m3 are harvested each year in forest
reserves, and 360 916 m3 are harvested off-reserve.

Red Star**
Pink Star‡*

Scarlet-star species comprise the main traditional timbers now under imminent threat of extinction: Albizia ferruginea, Aningeria
altissima/robusta (also listed in ITTO 2006), Daniella ogea/thurifera, Entandrophragma angolense, E. cycylindricum, E. utile,
Guibourtia ehie, Khaya anthotheca/grandifolia, Khaya ivorensis, Milicia excels/regia, Nauclea diderrichii, Pericopsis elata,
Pterygota macrocarpa and Tieghemella heckelii.
**
Red-star species comprise other traditional timbers for which current rates of exploitation present a significant danger of extinction:
Afzelia africana/bellea, Canarium schweinfurthii, Distemonanthus benthamianus, Rhodognaphalon/Bombax brevicuspe, Antiaris
toxicaria, Antrocaryon micraster, Ceiba pentandra (also listed in ITTO 2006), Chrysophyllum spp, Entandrophragma candollei,
Guarea spp, Heritiera utilis, Lophira alata, Lovoa trichilioides, Mansonia altissima, Piptadenisatrum africanum and Terminalia
ivorensis,‡
Pink-star species comprise the following lesser-used species: Albizia adianthifolia, Anopyxis klaineana, Berlinia spp, Cynometra
anatana, Erytrophleum sauaveolens, Hallea spp/Mitragyna spp, Holoptelea grandis, Lannea welwitschii, Petersianthus
macrocarpus, Strombosia glaucescens, Trichilia tessmannii, Albizia zygia, Alstonia boonei, Amphimas perocarpoides, Berlinia
confusa, Celtis midbraedii/zenkeri, Coryanthe pachyceras, Cylicodiscus gabonensis, Dialium aubrevillei, Klaindoxa gabonensis,
Mammea africana, Morus mesozygia, Ongokea gore, Parinari excelsa, Parkia bicolor, Pycnanthus angolensis, Rhodognaphalon/
Bombax buonopozense, Ricinodendron heudelotii, Sterculia rhinopetala, Terminalia superba (also listed in ITTO 2006), Trilepisium
madagascariense and Triplochiton scleroxylon (also listed in ITTO 2006).
Source: Government of Ghana (2010).

The third strategy involves the release of degraded
forest reserve lands by the Forestry Commission
to private entities after vetting and endorsing theirreforestation and business plans. The operations ofthese private developers are then monitored throughperiodic field visits by the Plantation Department
to ensure compliance with the approved
reforestation plans. The private investor earns 90%of the total proceeds from the plantation while theForestry Commission, landowner and community
earn 2%, 6% and 2%, respectively.
The estimated area of planted forest in 2010 was
about 260 000 hectares (FAO 2010). Ghana beganplanting Tectona grandis (teak) in the Volta regionin 1875, and teak is the most dominant species
in today’s plantation estate. Teak yields average
8–10 m3 per hectare per year on a 25-year cycle,
and there is a ready demand for teak timber, bothin domestic and export markets. The indigenous
species planted are mainly Mansonia altissima,
Terminalia superba, T. ivorensis, Entandrophragma
angolense, Khaya ivorensis, Ceiba pentandra, Heritiera
utilis and Triplochiton scleroxylon. Other than teak,the exotic species are predominantly Cedrela odorata
and Eucalyptus camaldulensis.b
A total of 68 558 hectares of plantation were
established in the period 2005–08.b As of the endof 2008, 9095 hectares of plantation were covered106

by management plans and a further 15 031 hectares
were confirmed to be covered by reforestation plans.
For the remaining areas, a validated figure could not
be readily obtained.b
Forest certification. Ghana has been engaged in
the development of forest certification for morethan a decade. There is interest in developing anational scheme partly because FSC-accredited
certification bodies, using their generic standards,
have been unable to certify significant areas offorests in Ghana because existing TUPs andcontracts might be in conflict with recent laws.
Another reason is that management plans writtenby the Forestry Commission are at various stagesof consultation (i.e. drafts) and are unapproved(Purbawiyatna & Simula 2008). As of February
2011 a small area of teak plantation and about
150 000 hectares of natural forest was certified by
the FSC (FSC 2011).
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. On the basis of
information supplied by the Government of Ghana,
FAO (2010) reported that 1.38 million hectaresof forest was under sustainable management.
ITTO (2006) estimated that 270 000 hectaresof natural forest was being managed in a mannerconsistent with sustainability, including theoperation of Samartex, a Ghana company with FSC

GHANA

controlled-wood certification for 150 308 hectaresof natural forest in Samreboi. Controlled-woodcertification certifies that the wood supply does
not include wood that is illegally harvested;
harvested in violation of traditional and civil rights;
harvested in forest management units in which highconservation values are threatened by management
activities; harvested in areas in which forests arebeing converted to plantations or non-forest use;or harvested from forests in which geneticallymodified trees are planted. This area, and the area
contained in the Bobiri Forest Reserve, are includedin the estimated area of forest under SFM presented
in Table 5.
Timber production and trade. Total industrial
roundwood production in 2009 was 1.32 million
m3, little changed from the 1.37 million m3
recorded in 2004 (ITTO 2011). Sawnwood
production was 532 000 m3 in 2009, comparedwith 490 000 m3 in 2004 and 454 000 m3 in 1999.
About 191 000 m3 of plywood was produced in
2009, compared with 140 000 m3 in 2004 and
75 000 m3 in 1999; 274 000 m3 of veneer was
produced in 2009, compared with 301 000 m3 in2004 and 150 000 m3 in 1999 (ITTO 2011). The
estimated export value of primary timber products
was US$207 million in 2009, comprising logs
(US$17.3 million – presumably teak and otherplantation logs), sawnwood (US$70.0 million),
veneer (US$63.4 million) and plywood (US$56.0
million) (ITTO 2011).
The export of round and square logs (other thanplantation teak) has been banned since 1997 andlevies imposed on exports of air-dried timber ofnine important species. In 2008 Ghana reported
exports of 191 000 m3 of sawnwood (including
20 700 m3 to the United States, 18 700 m3 toGermany, and 13 800 m3 to Italy) and 69 700 m3

of veneer (including 21 400 m3 to the United States
and 9450 m3 to Italy) (ITTO 2010). In that year
it exported 8220 m3 of teak logs to India; the totalexport volume of teak lots was 87 100 m3 but thedestination of most of these was unreported (ibid.).
Non-timber forest products. An estimated
380 000 tonnes of bush meat are consumed
annually, mainly from forests, at an estimatedvalue of about US$350 million.a Animal and plant
products used in traditional medicine and cultural
practices have an estimated value of about
US$13 million.a Over 600 000 women in northern
Ghana collect about 130 000 tonnes of nuts yearly,
about 40% of which is exported. This contributes
about US$30 million annually to the national
economy (Osei-Tutu et al. 2010).
Efforts are being made to market, internationally, atleast two Ghanaian NTFPs: thaumatin, a sweetenerfrom seeds of Thaumatococus danielli, which is
reputed to be easy to cultivate under plantation
trees; and novella, an oil/margarine from seeds ofAllanblackia parviflora. A small-scale processing
facility for thaumatin production is being
established; the value of exports of this productin 2004 was reportedly $430 million (Okeke
2009). The contribution of ecotourism, including
in forests, to Ghanaian GDP is 12%.a
Forest carbon. Ghana is developing acomprehensive low-carbon growth plan that willaddress climate change as part of a national andsectoral development strategy and set REDD+
in a wider development context (Anon. 2010).
Estimates of national-level forest biomass carbon
stocks vary from 381 MtC (FAO 2010) to 610–890
MtC (Gibbs et al. 2007), to 2100 MtC (Eggleston
et al. 2006). There is no recent estimate of the net
emissions of GHGs caused by deforestation and

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

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

1150
774

1035
1124*****‡†NaturalWithmanagement
plans
1150
774‡,aCertified

0
150

270

97

PlantedWith
management
plans
97

155†

164

24

Sustainably
managed

Total

Certified0
1.8

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Assumed to be the area classified as ‘production’ in FAO (2010).
Total area under ‘old’ management plans. Recently, new forest management plans have been developed for 408 000 hectares of
the PFE and are in the early stages of implementation.
Comprising the certified forest area and the Bobiri Forest Reserve, where a management plan and a TUC operational plan arebeing implemented effectively.b107

Status of tropical forest management 2011degradation; estimates made in 1994 suggest that
40% of the country‘s emissions may come fromdeforestation (Government of Ghana 2008). Ghana
is actively engaged in the Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility and is developing a national REDD+
strategy. It has also been chosen as a pilot countryof the Forest Investment Program for up-scaled
REDD+ investment. The initial REDD+ strategy
comprises two broad and overlapping thematic
areas:

Protective measures in production forests.
About 100 000 hectares of the production PFE are
considered environmentally sensitive (i.e. on steep
slopes or erodible soils, or in streamside buffers).a
Measures exist to minimize damage in such areas:for example, no logging operation is permitted
within buffer strips (25 m on either side of streams,
and 50 m either side of rivers). No felling into
buffer strips is permitted, and any tree or debris that
falls within watercourses must be removed.

•

Timber policy and supply – approaches will
focus on traditional timber-sector operations,processes, policies and laws and on the potential
for broadening public participation.

•

Wider aspects of forest policy, including
agroforestry and other carbon-conserving
activities.

Extent of protected areas. The estimated areaof protection PFE is 396 000 hectares. The
Government of Ghana (2010) reported 31
protected areas in IUCN categories I and II
covering a total area of 1.10 million hectares, mostof which is (non-forest) grass savanna, as well
as 7000 hectares in IUCN categories III and IV
and 3.69 million hectares in IUCN category V.
According to UNEP-WCMC (2010), 973 000
hectares of forest are in protected areas conforming
to IUCN protected-area categories I–IV (including
about 97 000 hectares of closed-canopy forest).
The large difference between this and the estimatedprotection PFE may be caused partly by the
inclusion, in the UNEP-WCMC estimate, of areasof savanna not included in the estimate of theprotection PFE.

Table 6 summarizes Ghana’s overall forest-basedcarbon capture and storage potential.

Forest for protection
Soil and water. The Government of Ghana (2010)
reported that the country’s entire protection PFE(350 000 hectares) is managed exclusively for theprotection of soil and water.
Biological diversity. At least 674 tree species,
225 mammal species, 728 bird species, 340
butterfly species, 221 amphibian species, 157
fish species and four reptile species are found inforests.a Twelve mammals, six birds, two reptiles,
eleven amphibians, one arthropod and nine plants
found in forests are listed as critically endangered,endangered or vulnerable on the IUCN red list of
threatened species (IUCN 2011). One plant species
is listed in CITES Appendix I and 18 are listed inAppendix II (UNEP-WCMC 2011).

A national biodiversity strategy has beenformulated that seeks to ensure the development
and implementation of a well-coordinatedbiodiversity policy for the in situ and ex situ
conservation of the nation’s biological resources.
The document contains a strategic framework
for biodiversity conservation and managementin Ghana. In addition, management plans for 30‘globally significant biodiversity areas’ covering
230 000 hectares have been developed (including
through flora and fauna surveys) and are being
implemented.a

Table 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)% intact
forest/tree
canopycover >
60%

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

610–89018++

Enhancement Forest areaof carbonchangesink capacity monitoring
capacity
to 2030++++

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity++

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

108

GHANA

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

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

353
396

174
174**

353

230‡

108
230

As reported in ITTO (2006).
In the absence of reliable updated information, the 2005 estimate is repeated here.
For globally significant biodiversity areas.

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. Table 7 shows theestimated area of protection PFE under SFM.

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. Forests accounted for 6%
of GDP in 2004 (US$520 million), and exportsof timber products were worth an estimated
US$186 million in 2008.a The formal forest sector
employs about 120 000 people, including about
50 000 in the wood-products industry. About 70
companies are involved in timber harvesting, 70 are
involved in primary processing, 127 are involved
in secondary processing, and 1650 are involvedin tertiary processing.a According to Mayers et al.
(2008) about 30 000 small-scale carpenter firms
employ an estimated 200 000 people, and there areabout 5000 woodcarvers and 1500 canoe carvers.
Chainsaw milling, although illegal, provides jobs
for about 130 000 Ghanaians and livelihood
support for about 650 000 people (Marfo 2010);
5000–6000 people are estimated to be employed in
the bush-meat industry.a The extent of overlap inthese various estimates is unclear.
The VPA between Ghana and the European
Union, which was signed in November 2009,
could have significant economic repercussions for
Ghana. An assessment of its potential impact onforest governance and economics by Mayers et al.
(2008) compared a business-as-usual scenario witha ‘legitimate-timber’ scenario (such as might occur
under the VPA) and a ‘sector-reform’ scenario. The
main components of the legitimate-timber scenario
were a national legality standard; chain-of-custodysystem (timber-tracking); a verification-of-legality
system (licensing by a new timber-validation
entity); the piloting of the legal assurance system;
and independent monitoring. The sector-reform
scenario would involve a broader set of fiscal,
regulatory, trade and tenure improvements. The
assessment predicted that, under the legitimate-timber scenario, the national timber harvest would
drop by about 20% by 2012 and still further (morethan 50% compared to the present level) by 2020,
although this would still be above the sustainablelevel predicted under the sector-reform scenario.
The first VPA-licensed products were anticipatedin December 2010.
Livelihood values. An estimated 2 million
people depend on forests for subsistence uses andtraditional and customary lifestyles.a Forest-adjacentcommunities undertake a wide range of forestrelated activities, including fuelwood and charcoal
production, wood-carving, canoe-carving, rattan
production and chewstick-gathering.
Social relations. The Constitution provides forthe sharing of royalties between government andtraditional owners as follows: 40% to stools and
60% to the state in reserve forests; and 60% tostools and 40% to the state in off-reserve forests.
Social-responsibility agreements are reached
between TUC-holders and the communities wheretimber extraction takes place for the provision ofagreed social services and amenities; a process of
consultation is also undertaken.
The following benefit-sharing arrangement forthe modified taungya system and commercial
plantation developers is in place: farmers and theForestry Commission should each receive 40% of
benefits accruing based on their inputs; landowners
should receive 15% (comprising traditional
authorities 7% and tribal landowners 8%); andforest-adjacent communities should receive 5%.

Summary
A number of factors is driving the depletion of
Ghana’s forests, particularly off-reserve forests
but also forest reserves. Forest-related laws
are sometimes contradictory or overlapping.
Nevertheless, steps are being taken to increase
community participation in forest management.
Ghana has a strong Forestry Commission, a long109

Status of tropical forest management 2011

history of forest management, and capacity forforest research. The forest industries are a large
employer, much of it in the informal sector. The
Forestry Commission has an established approach
to forest management in forest reserves and has
set an annual allowable cut of 500 000 m3, which
has been criticized as unsustainable. Outside forest
reserves there is little control of harvesting andthe annual production is reportedly much higher
than the allowable cut in forest reserves. A rangeof measures has been put in place to reduce theincidence of wildfire, and these appear to havebeen at least partially effective. Measures havebeen put in place to reduce illegal logging (whichis reportedly high), including a timber-tracking
system. A national forest plantation development
program has been launched with the aim ofdeveloping a sustainable forest resource base. Ghana
has been chosen as a pilot country for up-scaled
REDD+ investment through the Forest Investment
Program.

Key points•••

The PFE is an estimated 1.33 million hectares(down from 1.6 million hectares in 2005),
comprising 774 000 hectares of natural-forest
production PFE (down from 1.15 million
hectares in 2005), 396 000 hectares ofprotection PFE (up from 353 000 hectares in2005) and 164 000 hectares of plantations (upfrom 97 000 hectares in 2005).
At least 155 000 hectares of natural-forest
production PFE are under SFM, down fromabout 270 000 hectares in 2005; an estimated
230 000 hectares of protection PFE are somanaged, up from 108 000 hectares in 2005.
There are manuals for production, management
and planning, which set out the obligations oflogging contractors.

EndnotesaGovernment of Ghana (2010).

b

Personal communications with officials in the Governmentof Ghana, 2010.

References and other sources
Anon. (2010). Recommendations for pilots under the FIP.
Report of the expert group to the FIP subcommittee, March
2010. Forest Investment Program (available at http://www.
climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/node/5)
Bird, N., Fometé, T. & Birikorang, G. (2006). Ghana’s Experiencein Timber Verification System Design. Verifor Country Case
Study 1. Overseas Development Institute, Oxford, UK.
Dixon, R., Perry, J., Vanderklein, E. & Hiol, F. (1996).
Vulnerability of forest resources to global climate change:case study of Cameroon and Ghana. Climate Research
6:127–133.
FAO (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010 country
report: Ghana (available at http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).
Forestry Commission (2010). Readiness preparation proposal.
Prepared by the Government of Ghana. Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility.
FSC (2011, website accessed February 2011). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).
Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007). Monitoringand estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDDa reality. Environmental Research Letters No. 2 (available at
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Government of Ghana (2008). Readiness preparation
information note. Submitted to the Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility. October 2008.
Government of Ghana (2010). Report of progress towardachieving sustainable forest management in Ghana.
Submission to ITTO by the Ghana Forestry Commission,
Ministry of Lands and Forestry, Accra, Ghana.
Eggleston, H., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe,
T. (eds) (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Programme. Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies, Kamakura, Japan.
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).

•

Ghana is strongly engaged in REDD+.

ITTO (2010). Annual Review and Assessment of the World Timber
Situation 2009. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.

•

As many as 800 000 people may be employed inforest industries, including an estimated
650 000 in the informal sector.

ITTO (2011, website accessed March 2011). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).
IUCN (2011, website accessed March 2011). IUCN red list of
threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).
Marfo, E. (2010). Chainsaw Milling in Ghana: Context, Drivers
and Impacts. Tropenbos International, Wageningen, theNetherlands.

110

GHANA

Mayers, J., Birikorang, G., Danso, E.Y., Nketiah K.S. &Richards, M. (2008). Assessment of potential impacts in
Ghana of a voluntary partnership agreement with the EC on
forest governance. Final report. IIED, London, UK.
McSweeney, C., New, M. & Lizcano, G. (undated). UNDP
climate change country profiles: Ghana (available at http://
country-profiles.geog.ox.ac.uk/).
Okeke, N. (2009). Boosting export with thaumatin. The
Guardian, 30 December 2009 (available at http://www.
ngrguardiannews.com/industry/article02//indexn3_html?
pdate=301209&ptitle=Boosting%20export%20with%20
Thaumatin&cpdate=010110).
Osei-Tutu, P., Nketiah, K., Kyereh, B., Owusu-Ansah, M. andFaniyan, J. (2010). Hidden Forestry Revealed: Characteristics,
Constraints and Opportunities for Small and Medium Forest
Enterprises in Ghana. IIED Small and Medium Forest
Enterprise Series No. 27. Tropenbos International andInternational Institute for Environment and Development,
London, UK.

Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World Atlas ofMangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Data prepared for ITTO, July 2010.
UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March
2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
March 2010). World population prospects: the 2008
revision (searchable database available at http://esa.un.org/
unpp/p2k0data.asp).

Purbawiyatna, A. & Simula, M. (2008). Developing Certification:
Towards Increasing the Comparability and Acceptance of Forest
Certification Schemes Worldwide. ITTO Technical Series 29.
ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.

111

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Liberia
Sacoglottis gabonensis, while Meliaceae (one of themost important timber families in West Africa) isrepresented by only two species: Lovoa trichilioides
and Guarea cedrata (bossé). The semi-deciduous
forests cover the northern half of the country
and contain a higher representation of Meliaceae,
the characteristic species being Nesogordonia
papaverifera (danta) and Aningeria robusta.
Common shade-intolerant species are Albizia
spp, Fagara spp, Terminalia spp and Pycnanthus
angolensis. Liberia has an estimated 10 900 hectaresof mangroves, concentrated around coastal lagoons
and along estuaries; Rhizophora racemosa is thedominant mangrove species, along with Avicennia
germinans and Acrostichum aureum (Spalding et al.
2010).

Forest resources
Liberia has a land area of 11.1 million hectares andan estimated population in 2010 of 4.1 million
people (United Nations Population Division 2010).
The country is ranked 169th out of 182 countries
in UNDP’s Human Development Index (UNDP2009). It is bounded by Sierra Leone to the west,
Côte d’Ivoire to the east, Guinea to the northand the Atlantic Ocean to the south. FAO (2010)
estimated Liberia’s total forest area at 4.329 million
hectares, which is 39% of the total land area.
A 2004 analysis of GIS and satellite image data
estimated that Liberia had 4.39 million hectares offorest.a Liberia has large areas of secondary forests
on abandoned agricultural land (J. Blaser, pers.
comm., 2010).
Forest types. The three main categories ofvegetation cover in Liberia are mangrove swamps
and beaches along the coast; wooded hills andsemi-deciduous shrublands in the middle belt; anddense tropical forests and plateaux in the interior.
The bulk of the forest is concentrated in two large
blocks: evergreen lowland forests in the southeast,and the semi-deciduous mountain forests in thenorthwest. There are ten national forests and twonational parks. Counties that have significant
forested land are Gbarpolu, Grand Gedeh, Rivercess
Sinoe and River Gee.a
Characteristic species of the moist evergreen
forests are Lophira alata, Heritiera utilis and112

Permanent forest estate. The natural PFE isestimated at 2.72 million hectares, comprising
1.7 million hectares of production forest (consistingof 1.36 million hectares in ten ‘national’ forests1
and 340 000 million hectares in other forests, suchas state forests and also forests that are under thecontrol of traditional authorities) and 194 000
hectares of protection PFE, which comprises the
180 000-hectare Sapo National Park and the
13 600-hectare East Nimba Strict Nature Reserve(Table 1).

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. A studyof remote sensing data indicates that deforestation
increased from 0.2% in 1986–2000 to 0.35%
in 2000–2006 (Government of Liberia 2008).
Shearman (2009), however, suggested that
this might be a substantial underestimate due
to methodological problems and that recent
deforestation could have been as high as 1%.
Almost all clearing is in the form of numerous
small (<10 hectare) clearings around towns andalong roads near towns for shifting cultivationand conversion to single-crop plantations. The
country’s long-running civil conflicts, which forced

1 Officially Liberia has eleven national forests. The ‘Small Gbe’ in Nimba
County is partially degraded from encroachment by farmers and has
been classified in land-use suitability studies as a salvage area, which
effectively means that its merchantable timber can be removed without
the need to fulfil the requirements of SFM. Therefore, this national
forest has not been included in the PFE (W. Topor, pers. comm., 2010).

LIBERIA

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reporting year

2005*
2010

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)3.48–5.66
4.33–9.60

4124
2420a

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted

Total

1310
1700

1411
1904

9.7

101
194**

*
As reported in ITTO (2006).
**
An expansion of the protected-area estate has been proposed, to a total of 1.02 million hectares.
Source: Blaser (2008), ITTO estimate, FAO (2010), UNEP-WCMC (2010).

In 2004 Liberia had an estimated 2.42 million
hectares of closed dense forest.a The open dense
forest (forest logged in the ten years or so prior
to 2004) was estimated at 1.02 million hectares,
while there were 0.95 million hectares of forestthat had been subject to extensive use by local
people and were in varying states of degradation,from moderate to severe (Table 2). An additional
1.28 million hectares of forest was classified as
mixed agriculture and forest.a None of the forest in
agricultural landscapes (i.e. 0.95 million hectares +1.28 million hectares) is included in the estimateof total forest area given above, mainly becauseof its highly fragmented nature, although it may
constitute an important resource at the local level.
FAO (2010) estimated that Liberia had only
175 000 hectares of primary forest.

many people to leave the countryside and moveto the capital and elsewhere, was one reason why
deforestation rates were low historically comparedto elsewhere in the region. Now that peace has
been restored, there is a general return of the
population to rural areas, assisted by the repair
of infrastructure such as road and bridges. These
factors, coupled with expanding global markets
for tropical agricultural products, biofuels andtimber, are exerting pressure on forests and, without
preventative measures, the deforestation rate is
likely to increase (Government of Liberia 2008).
In addition to subsistence farming, a significant
cause of forest degradation is chainsaw logging
and associated pit-sawing, as well as other forms of
uncontrolled logging. In the absence of sawmills,
pit-sawing is a major source of timber supply forreconstruction. Blackett et al. (2009) identified two
problems affecting the sustainability of remnant
forests: over-harvesting per hectare, and the lack of
post-logging management. Chainsaw logging occurs
in all counties at distances of up to 5 km from roads– four-fifths of production forests are now within
3 km of a road (ITTO 2005). Other threats include
conversion to small-scale agriculture (especially dry
rice cultivation), and illegal alluvial mining for goldand diamonds, which can damage rivers, streams
and soils. As with deforestation, these threats are
increasing as internally displaced people return tothe hinterland from urban centres.

Vulnerability of forests to climate change.
The south of Liberia has an equatorial climate,with rainfall exceeding 5000 mm. The northern
regions are strongly influenced by the West African
monsoon, with a severe wet season between
May and November. The rainy season is heavily
influenced by the Inter-Tropical Conversion Zone.
Mean annual temperature in Liberia increased
by 0.8 °C between 1960 and 2006, an average of
0.18 °C per decade (McSweeney et al. undated).
Mean annual rainfall has decreased since the early
1960s, but it is difficult to determine whether this ispart of a long-term trend. Variations are associated

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

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

-

-

2420
1010
950

*
Closed dense forest, 2004.
Open dense forest (forest logged in the ten years prior to 2004).
**
Source: Government of Liberia (2010).

113

Status of tropical forest management 2011

with the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, which
irregularly brings drier conditions to West Africa(ibid.). Mean annual temperature is projected toincrease by 0.9–2.6 ˚C by 2060 and by 1.4–4.7 ˚Cby 2090 (ibid.). In 2007 Liberia prepared a NAPA
to respond to the country’s urgent and immediateneeds to adapt to climate change. The NAPA
states that agriculture, forestry, fisheries, wetlands
and public health are of immediate concern.
However, the potential impacts of climate change
on Liberian agriculture and forestry are largely
unknown. Liberia’s 2008 Food and Agricultural
Policy establishes the monitoring of climate change
and the provision of support for climate-change
adaptation in agriculture and forestry as key action
areas (Government of Liberia 2011).

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. According to the National Forest
Reform Law, 2006, “All forest resources in Liberia… are held in trust by the Republic for the benefitof the people” (Table 3). Although the term landownership is in common use in the country, it is
not possible, in a strict sense, to own the land itself.
Rather, it is the right to use land, or the resources on
it, that can be owned by an individual or group.
Land ownership rights are held under three tenuresystems: the customary land-tenure system; theAnglo-American system of land tenure, also known
as the deed system; and the land registration system(Blaser 2008). Communal land is designated forthe exclusive use of local communities for purposes
other than logging. Customary rights over suchland are not recognized automatically; they musthave been documented previously. The only private
forest resources are those that have been developed
through artificial regeneration on privately owned

land. An ITTO diagnostic mission in 2005 (ITTO2005) reported that the traditional land andresource rights of the majority rural population
have been systematically ignored and underminedby a small elite throughout Liberia’s 150-year
history. Nevertheless, the Liberian Constitution andspecific laws, such as the National Environmental
Protection Act (2002), note the rights of rural
people.
The right to control the exploitation of natural
resources such as timber and diamonds has beentreated in the past as a prize of political office,especially under presidents Doe (1980–90) andTaylor (1997–2003). Armed factions also controlled
territory to exploit natural resources, which helped
to drive the conflicts of 1990–96 and 2000–03.
Communities claim land that has been designatedas national forest and there are also apparent
conflicts over some large and long-term rights,
such as those held by the Liberian Agricultural
Company. The real extent of these conflicts, claims
and challenges to ownership is unclear (Blaser
2008).
The most pressing issue affecting all land use in
Liberia is the lack of legal clarity over property
ownership and use rights. Security of land tenure
in today’s Liberia is weak or non-existent andits restoration is essential to the developmentof Liberia’s economy and democracy. Rights ofaccess to and use of natural resources, including
land, minerals, forests and water, are shrouded ina state of tenure insecurity, vague and ambiguous
legislation, conflicting and competing tenurearrangements, and constant and persistent clashesof customary and statutory rights (Government of
Liberia 2008). There is scope under the National
Forest Reform Law for community and private

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

Total area

Of which PFE’000 haState ownership (national, state or provincial government)
Other public entities (e.g. municipalities, villages)
Total public
Owned by local communities and/or Indigenous groups
Privately owned by individuals, firms, other corporate
Source: Government of Liberia (2010).

114

4330
0
4330
0
0

2720
0
2720
0
0

LIBERIA

ownership, but all forests remain public pending theresolution of the land ownership issue (FAO 2010).

lifted its timber export sanctions, allowing thecountry to redevelop its commercial forest sector.

Criteria and indicators. With the support of the
ATO/ITTO regional project, Liberia’s ATO/ITTO
PCI for SFM scheme was completed in January
2010. These PCI were formulated by a technicalcommittee selected and mandated through anational working group and the draft document
was vetted at a high-level national workshop
attended by a range of stakeholders.a A field test
was conducted and its results were validated during
a multi-stakeholder workshop. Training on the useof the Liberia ATO/ITTO PCI was also organized,
although more is needed because of the low humanresource capacity of Liberia’s forest sector. Liberia’s
submission to ITTO for this report was not in the
ITTO C&I reporting format.

The National Forestry Reform Law provides forfour principal commercial forest exploitation
contracts and permits:

Forest policy and legislation. Before 2004,
timber revenues and profits were controlled andmanipulated by former president Charles Taylor totighten his grip on the country. Existing logging
concessions were taken from their previous owners
and given to Taylor cronies (for example, Taylor’s
brother ran the Forest Development Authority –FDA). Revenues were diverted to buy arms and toacquire personal assets. Combatants were employedby logging companies and used to quell local
opposition. Wildlife was hunted intensively (Blaser
2008).
In July 2003, the United Nations Security Council(2003) imposed sanctions on exports from
Liberia – including timber exports – to restrict
the flow of arms and to weaken the Taylor regime.
Sawmills, plywood mills and all other forest
products’ industry infrastructure were destroyed bylooters. Some companies lost millions of dollars ininvestment.
After eviction of the Taylor government and a moveto a transitional government, free elections were
held in November 2005 and a new government
headed by Ellen Johnson Sirleaf was elected. Since
then, rapid progress has been made in the forest
sector, driven initially by the National Forest
Monitoring Committee with assistance from the
Liberia Forest Initiative, a multi-donor support
mechanism. Based on this collaboration, the FDA
is undertaking profound reforms. A new forest law,
the National Forestry Reform Law, was approved
by Parliament and enacted in October 2006. In thesame month the United Nations Security Council•

Forest management contracts (FMCs): contracts
for the management of forest areas between
50 000 and 400 000 hectares in size.

•

Timber sales contracts (TSCs): contracts for the
management of forest areas of 5000 hectares orless for a period of no longer than three years.

•

Forest use permits: for non-timber forest uses
(e.g. tourism and the harvesting of NTFPs).

•

Private use permits: to regulate commercial
activities on private land.

The Government of Liberia has adopted a newconceptual approach to the development of theforest sector, referred to in the Liberian forest policy(adopted in 2006) as the principles of the three Cs –commercial, conservation and community forestry.
The policy aims to conserve and sustainably manage
all forest areas so that they continue to produce acomplete range of goods and services for the benefitof all Liberians and contribute to national poverty
alleviation, while maintaining environmental
agreements and conventions. Nevertheless, thepolicy has been criticized for lacking a clear strategy
for reforestation and afforestation, NTFPs andvalue-added, and a failure to address the issue ofillegal chain-saw operators (Blaser 2008).
The four strategies for implementing Liberia’s
forest policy – as spelt out in the National Forest
Management Strategy of 2007 – are:•Strategy for commercial forestry: this focuses on
improving forest concession management,
reforestation and forest plantation development
and the modernization of the wood-processing
industry.

•

Strategy for community forestry: this strategy
acknowledges the need for the greater
involvement of local people in all aspects of theforest sector and pays special attention to thepotential for forests to contribute more to local
people and communities. It focuses on the
production of bush meat, woodfuel and other
NTFPs, as well as the management of forests by
local communities to meet differing objectives.
However, the dissociation of forest-use rights

115

Status of tropical forest management 2011

from land ownership in the National Forest
Reform Law makes the implementation ofcommunity forest management by local people
a contentious issue.
••

Strategy for forest conservation: this includes the
management of specific sites of highconservation value and the integration ofconservation objectives with all aspects of forest
management. The strategy focuses on wildlife
and protected-area management, themanagement of wetlands and mangroves, andthe development of ecotourism and nature
tourism.
Cross-cutting activities: to support the above
strategies, cross-cutting activities are to be
implemented to strengthen the overall
framework for the development of the forest
sector. These include activities on issues related
to land tenure, ownership and land-use
planning; public administration (including
financial management); research, information,
education and training; and legislation and law
enforcement.

The Community Reform Law was enactedin October 2009 and the National Wildlife
Conservation and Protected Area Management
Law is awaiting ratification (Government of Liberia2011). The extended delay before enactment of
the latter has fostered a perception that Liberia‘s
3Cs have differing priorities, with ‘commercial’
as the big C. This notion has been reinforced bymaps that apparently confuse the relative areas offorest suitable for commercial, conservation andcommunity uses (Government of Liberia 2011).
A forest suitability study undertaken as part of
the National Forest Management Strategy initially
identified 3.41 million, 1.14 million and 0.05
million hectares of forest suitable as ‘multiple
sustainable use’ areas, protected areas and pilot
community forests, respectively. It also stated thatmultiple sustainable-use areas may be managed
either by commercial firms or through community
forest management, with at least 1.09 million
hectares of forest suitable for community forest
management (Government of Liberia 2011).
The Environmental Protection Act, which became
law in 2003, is designed to enhance and manage
Liberia’s environment and natural resources.
The Environmental Protection Agency, createdunder the Act, is to provide an inter-ministerial

116

mechanism for addressing and coordinating
responses to Liberia’s environmental problems.
It should also establish a policy framework forenvironmental issues (including forest management,
nature conservation and environmental impact),
but this has not yet been done.
The Public Procurement and Concession Act(2005) establishes the rules for the acquisition anddisposal of government assets, requires national andinternational competitive bidding for all timber
concessions, and sets standards for pre-qualifying
prospective timber concession-holders. Other lawsthat are being formulated include the Wildlife Law
and the Community Rights Law.
Under the National Forest Reform Law the FDA
has promulgated ten core regulations to ensure thatthe country’s forests are managed in a way that is
consistent with SFM and other requirements. They
are 101: Public Participation; 102: Forest Land Use
Planning; 103: Prequalification; 104: Tender, Award
and Administration; 105: Pre-felling Operations;
106: Benefit Sharing; 107: Forest Fees; 108: Chainof Custody; 109: Penalties; and 110: Rights ofPrivate Land Holder.
The Community Rights Law with Respect to Forest
Lands, which was approved in October 2009, aims
to empower communities to “fully engage in thesustainable management of the forests of Liberia, bycreating a legal framework that defines and supports
community rights in the management and use offorest resources”. Among other things it defines
the rights and responsibilities of communities toown, manage, use and benefit from forest resources.
Forest lands ranging from 5001 and 49 999
hectares may be designated as community forest
land. Communities have the right to enter into
commercial agreements with logging companies
to log community forest lands, subject to a rangeof conditions, and have the right to 55% of therevenues generated.
Draft Guidelines for Forest Management Planninghave been developed to help forest managers andstaff of companies that have been allocated FMCs,
TSCs or other commercial permits, as well as
staff at the FDA and other government agencies,
to prepare and approve (respectively) forestmanagement and timber-harvesting plans. The
planning requirements for harvesting forests underthe various contractual arrangements differ in boththe types of plans to be submitted and also theLIBERIA

level of detail. Notwithstanding these differences,
however, the guidelines are designed to ensure that
all logging companies conduct harvest activities in a
way that meets SFM standards.
This is the first set of guidelines for forest
management planning prepared in the country.
It is designed to be read in conjunction with the
Liberian Code of Forest Harvesting Practices, theobjectives of which are to:•Provide forest operators with guidelines andstandards for improved forest harvesting practices
that improve standards of logging/utilization andreduce environmental impacts, and so contributeto the conservation of forests through their wiseuse.

•

Promote the health and safety of forest workers.

•

Provide a framework for effective control oftimber harvesting with predeterminedguidelines and benchmarks.

In 2007 the Government of Liberia entered into anagreement with SGS to develop a chain-of-custodysystem for Liberia’s forest sector for the tracking
and verification of round logs. The tracking
system, known as LiberFor, is claimed to be theworld’s most advanced nationwide verification
system in place to monitor wood products andassociated revenues (Pichet et al. 2009). Data
are collected through physical inspections,documentary control and (eventually) legality
audits and registered on a web-based information
system. The implementation of the system faces
several challenges, however, including a lack of
capacity among forest stakeholders and a legacy
of weak governance, which still impacts on forest
management practices (ibid.).
The Government of Liberia signed a VPA with theEuropean Union in April 2009, committing it todevelop and implement a legality assurance system
to ensure that all timber products specified in the
VPA are produced legally.
Institutions involved in forests. An Act ofParliament in 1976 established the FDA as the
body responsible for forestry in Liberia and also
recognized the importance of forests as a key
renewable natural resource. Amendments to thisAct in 1988, 2000 and 2003 sought to strengthen
the FDA’s ability to manage and protect forests.
The FDA is the agent through which policy isimplemented, including forest management plans.
However, the FDA has limited human resources– in 2008 it had about 300 staff. More personnel
will be required if the 3C approach is to be adopted
and as more TSCs and FMCs are awarded. The
FDA regional and district offices were destroyed
during the civil conflicts. The FDA is struggling torenovate about one unit per region to accommodate
regional offices, including supportive logistics(Blaser 2008). Integrating the 3C concept ischallenging for the FDA, particularly at the FMU
and regional levels.
Liberia has two professional forestry education
institutions, both of which are inadequate and theircurricula are outdated. The main facilities at theCollege of Agriculture and Forestry, University of
Liberia, including dormitories and accommodation
for teaching and support staff, are damaged andhave not been renovated or refurbished. The college
has been a pipeline of foresters to the FDA, offeringa bachelor’s degree, but the forestry program isunderstaffed, underfunded and there is a limited
number of advanced degree-holders (Blaser 2008).
The Forestry Training Institute (recently renamed
the Anthony Sayeh Forestry Training Institute)is the only institution for training middle-level
forestry technicians in 60% practical and 40%
theoretical forestry. During the civil conflicts theschool facilities were looted and the structure
de-roofed. The school resumed operations in2008 and work is ongoing, including throughan ITTO-funded project, to restore its training
services.

Status of forest management
Forest for production
In the late 1990s more than 30 companies held
logging concessions covering 40% of the national
territory. The Oriental Timber Corporation alone
was logging some 1.6 million hectares both within
the PFE and outside it. During the reform process,however, all existing concession agreements werecancelled. With the cessation of formal logging,most of the forest industrial infrastructure waseither destroyed or left idle to rust and decay.
Skilled workers as well as professional foresters
have been unable to exercise their skills for many
years, and many either passed away or reachedretirement age.

117

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Nevertheless, FDA staff, private operators andnewly developed civil-society organizations andtheir personnel have worked hard to develop a
positive sense of entrepreneurship in the sector,
which now has the potential to become an engine
of development in Liberia (Blaser 2008). With thelifting of United Nations sanctions in 2006 the
FDA set about developing new concessions andallocating them.
Under the National Forest Reform Law, FMCs
must meet all of the following requirements:•

The land involved must be identified as apotential concession in the national forest
management strategy in effect at the time theconcession is offered.

•

The land involved must not include private land.

•

The contract must require the holder toperform actions necessary for sound, long-term
forest management, including inventories,
preparation of management plans, and annual
operations plans.

•

The contract must require the holder to prepare
all environmental impact assessments required
under the laws governing environmental
protection.

•

The contract must require the holder to submit
a business plan to the FDA and to demonstrate
to the FDA’s satisfaction that the holder has thetechnical and financial capacity to manage theforest sustainably.

•

The contract must require the holder toestablish a social agreement with local forestdependent communities, approved by the FDA,
that defines those communities’ benefits andaccess rights.

•

The contract must require the holder to pay thegovernment the fee that the holder bid in theconcession process, in addition to any otherapplicable taxes and fees.

•

The basic term of the contract must
approximate the length of a forest rotation on
the land based on a sustainable yield of timber
products, although the contract may beterminated sooner.

•

The land area subject to the contract must be atleast 50 000 hectares and no more than 400 000
hectares.

118•

The size of annual coupes must allow the holder
to harvest every suitable area once during theterm of the contract.

•

No holder can fell trees before the felling
effective date.

•No holder can fell trees unless they possess avalid annual harvesting certificate.

•

The FDA will issue an annual harvestingcertificate to a holder only after all the following
conditions have been met for the year:–

The holder has an approved annual
operations plan.

–

The holder has an approved forest
management plan that covers the specificarea to be harvested.

–

The holder has met the previous logging
season annual audit requirements.

FMCs will comprise 90% of the areas allocated,with only 4% of the area subject to harvestingin any one year. Harvesting will be selective
and designed to encourage the rapid growth ofremaining stock. The design of FMCs includes
set-aside areas ( slopes, sacred areas, watercourses,etc) amounting to about 20% of the area, which
will be excluded from logging. In aggregate, thisarea is about one-third of the total designatedprotected areas of Liberia (Government of Liberia2008).
The requirements for TSCs (for areas of forest no
larger than 5000 hectares) are less stringent than for
FMCs, but an approved annual operations plan anda valid annual harvesting certificate are required.
It is difficult to assess the sustainable potential of
Liberia’s forests because there has been no forest
inventory for 40 years and records of logged-overareas and volumes extracted in the last 20 years
are incomplete and unreliable. Growth and yield
dynamics are not well known and there are no
permanent sampling plots or research on growth
and replenishment rates (Blaser 2008). As of July
2009, seven forest management conces­sions had
been formally designated over an area of about
1 million hectares, and three awarded under FMCs,
but logging had yet to commence. Shearman(2009) recalculated harvestable volumes over the
1 million hectares designated for forest management
concessions and concluded that the actual volume
would be in the range of 25–50% of the volume

LIBERIA

calculated by the FDA and, moreover, that the
25-year felling cycle was too short to be sustainable.

current condition and stocking of most existing
plantations is unknown.

It has been suggested that up to 500 000 hectaresof community forest land, designated andrecognized under the Community Rights Law,might be managed as carbon concessions in which
commercial forestry operations would take place
according to raised logging standards (Governmentof Liberia 2011).

Forest certification. No Liberian forests are
certified (e.g. FSC 2010) and there has been no
move to develop policies in this direction.

Silviculture and species selection. There is a lackof silvicultural knowledge about Liberia’s forests,
and much of the documentation of research
programs in the 1970s and 80s has been lost (FDA2006). Neither the National Forest Reform Law,
the national forest policy, nor the guidelines forforest management planning specify a silvicultural
approach; rather, the silvicultural system tobe employed is to be specified in each forest
management plan. FMCs are issued for a periodof 25 years, implying a felling cycle of the same
duration; the bid document issued by the FDA for
Forest Management Contract Area ‘K’ (which has agross forest area of 267 000 hectares), for example,
specifies a felling cycle of 25 years. The Liberian
Code of Forest Harvesting Practices specifies
cutting limits for a number of species based on dbh,
as well as a range of post-harvesting requirements.
No recent information was available on the mostcommonly harvested species; Table 4, therefore,shows the species listed in ITTO (2006).
Planted forest and trees outside the forest.
The area of planted forest is about 9700 hectares,
comprising mainly Gmelina arborea, Tectonia
grandis, Eucalyptus spp, Pinus spp and a number of
hardwood species. There are also important rubber
estates over several thousand hectares on agriculturalland, which are generally in poor condition (Blaser
2008). There are large areas of oil-palm plantations,most of which are not currently managed. The

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. At present, no forest canbe considered to be managed sustainably (Table 5).
Timber production and trade. Total industrial
roundwood production in Liberia was estimated at
360 000 m3 in 2009, compared with 280 000 m3
in 2004 and 766 000 m3 in 2002, and sawnwood
production was estimated at 80 000 m3 (ITTO
2011). In 2009 the estimated value of exports oflogs and sawnwood was US$1.18 million, up from
US$295 000 in 2008 and only about US$11 000 in2007 (ibid.).
Liberia has four sea ports, all of which weredamaged during the civil conflicts. The National
Port Authority has fully renovated the port at
Monrovia, and Mittal Steel is about to renovate the
Buchanan port. The other two ports (Harper andGreenville) both need considerable investment if
they are to facilitate timber exports (Blaser 2008).
Non-timber forest products. Fruits, roots,
mushrooms, leaves, honey, snails and bush meat are
all harvested from forests and used as food by local
communities. Bush meat – harvested both legally(but unsustainably) and illegally – accounts for up
to 80% of meat consumption in Liberia (Blaser
2008). The most commonly hunted species areantelope, deer and monkey. Gums, resins, medicinal
plants and cola nuts (Cola spp) are marketed locallyand serve as sources of income. An estimated 98%
of Liberia’s energy needs are met by fuelwood andcharcoal.
Forest carbon. Gibbs et al. (2007) estimated
Liberia’s national forest biomass carbon stock at
506–707 MtC; Eggleston et al. (2006) estimated

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial hardwood
Species

Notes

Lophira alata (ekki)
Ceiba pentandra (ghe)Hallea ciliata (abura)
Entandrophragma candollei (kossipo)
Gilbertiodendron preussii (limbali)

Largest quantity harvested; regenerates well in forests.
From open areas; for veneer and plywood.
General-purpose timber; from swampy areas.
Used for flooring and furniture-making; difficult to regenerate.
Used for heavy carpentry and shipbuilding, etc; difficult toregenerate.

Source:ITTO (2006).

119Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

1310
1700

1310
1000

*
**

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
0
265**

Certified

0-

PlantedWith
management
plans
0

0

9.7

0

Sustainably
managed

0
0

Total

Certified00

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

it at 1302 MtC and FAO (2010) at 585 MtC. The
large tracts of land that became overgrown by bushand secondary forests during the civil conflicts are
not counted in these estimates. Liberia has createda climate-change and REDD working groupwithin the FDA. The FDA submitted a projectidea note to the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility
in 2008 and a readiness preparation proposal in
March 2011. It is collaborating with Conservation
International and the World Bank to develop a
REDD+ strategy for the country. This is hindered,however, by the country’s limited human-resource
capacity in policy and research institutions and in
civil society. Table 6 summarizes Liberia’s forest
carbon potential. Liberia has significant intact forestand potential for conserving existing carbon stocks
through avoided deforestation.

Forest for protection
Soil and water. No areas have been designated as
primarily for soil and water conservation.
Biological diversity. Biologically, Liberia is
exceptionally diverse, with high rates of endemism.
The country’s forests serve as a sanctuary for almost
half of the remaining forest in the Upper Guinean
Forest Hotspot (one of 34 hotspots worldwide
that represent areas with 75% of the planet’s mostthreatened species). Liberia’s forests are home toat least 2900 flowering plants, 240 timber species,
150 mammals, 620 birds and 125 reptiles andamphibians. Some of the well-known species,
whose conservation depends to some extent on

Liberian habitat, include Pan troglodytes (western
chimpanzee), Piliocolobus badius (red colombus
monkey), Cercopithecus diana diana (diana monkey),
Hexaprotodron liberienses (pygmy hippopotamus) and
Loxodonta africana cyclotis (forest elephant). Fifteen
mammals, ten birds, one reptile, four amphibians,
one fish, eight arthropods and three plants found inforests are listed as critically endangered, endangeredor vulnerable on the IUCN red list of threatened
species (IUCN 2011). One plant species (Cyathea
camerooniana, a tree fern) is listed in CITES
Appendix II (UNEP-WCMC 2011).
Protective measures in production forests. The
Liberian Code of Forest Harvesting Practices
prescribes a number of exclusion areas: protectedareas; protected animal species habitat; areas
susceptible to degradation (such as steep slopes);
watercourses; and cultural and customary tenure
areas. No trees may be felled within such exclusionareas or their buffer zones, and no machines may
access them (except at designated watercourse
crossings). The Code prescribes a number of otherprotective measures in production forests, such as
directional felling, wildlife management withinconcession areas, and waste management.
Extent of protected areas. There are two main
protected areas in Liberia: Sapo National Park(180 000 hectares) in the southeast and the East
Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (13 600 hectares),which is less than 2% of the country’s land area.
Fauna and Flora International, other NGOs and theGovernment of Liberia developed a five-year ‘action

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

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

506–707

88++

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

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

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

120

LIBERIA

plan’ for Sapo National Park in 2005. Although
not strictly a management plan, this constitutes theextent of protection PFE under management plansshown in Table 7.
The Government of Liberia through the FDA has
identified the Gola National Forest (Gbarpolu
County), Wonegizi National Forest (Lofa County)
and Lake Piso Basin (Grand Cape Mount and Bomi
counties) as areas to be upgraded and incorporated
into the national protected forest areas network.a
Consultative meetings with the citizens of Grand
Cape Mount and Bomi counties about the creationof Lake Piso Multiple Use Protected Area areunder way. Lake Piso, as well as the Mesurado andMarshall wetlands, have been declared as Ramsar
sites (Spalding et al. 2010). Initial meetings havebeen held on the creation of a transboundary peacepark that will coordinate the management of theGola forests on both sides of the border between
Liberia and Sierra Leone (Blaser 2008), and thepark was launched by the presidents of the twocountries in May 2009 (Gasana 2010).

The Forestry Training Institute, now the Anthony Sayeh
Forestry Training Institute, in Monrovia, Liberia.

The government’s poverty reduction strategy (PRS)
is predicated on, among other things, exploiting
Liberia’s rich natural resource base (Government of
Liberia undated). It predicted that forestry would
be one of the main components of rural economic
growth in the PRS period (April 2008–June2011), contributing 14–15% of real GDP. Forestry
production was projected to grow substantially by
2011 to more than 1.3 million m3, but this seems
overly optimistic given that by late in 2009 logging
had not recommenced. The predicted growth
was based on the progressive reintroduction ofcommercial logging in all regions, and secondaryand higher processing of logs was expected to
become a significant source of value-adding andjobs from 2009 onwards.

A four-year GEF project titled Consolidation of
Liberia’s Protected Area Network was launched in
May 2008. Managed by the FDA, it will assist withthe development of a comprehensive approach to an
expanded protected-areas network.
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. No protection PFE isconsidered to be under SFM (Table 7).

In addition to the formal sector, informal forestbased activities play a vital role in the livelihoodsof many Liberian citizens. Fuelwood and charcoal
production employ numerous people and remain,by far, the most important energy sources in the
country. Similarly, the harvesting and sale of bushmeat and NTFPs make a significant contribution
to local income and employment while providing amajor share of protein in the average diet.

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. Long in tatters, the Liberian
economy has started to grow. GDP grew by 2.6%
in 2004 to 5.3% in 2005, 7.8% in 2006 and 9.5%
in 2007. Nevertheless, poverty remains widespread:for example, 58% of households headed byprofessionals fall below the United Nationsdesignated poverty line of US$1 per day.a

Livelihood values. About one-third of the
population lives in forested areas and depends

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

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and water

Protected areas
with management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

101
194

101
97**

0
0

0
180

0
0

*

As reported in ITTO (2006).

**

UNEP-WCMC (2010).

121

Status of tropical forest management 2011

on forests for housing and furniture materials, avariety of foods and traditional medicines, healthywatersheds for fish, clean water and soil, microclimate stabilization and some cash income. Rural
communities were particularly dependent on
forests for subsistence during the recent civil strife.
Thousands of people make their living from theprovision of charcoal and fuelwood to urban centres(ITTO 2005). The traditional ‘Sande’ (females) and‘Poro’ (male) (secret) societies that are of significant
importance to rural communities conduct theirrituals in certain groves and rivers within isolated
forest areas.a
Social relations. Until recently, local andtraditional forest use and ownership rights
had not been recognized in Liberia. Under theJohnson Sirleaf government, however, community
involvement in forestry has become a major goal.
The National Forestry Reform Law specifies therights and responsibilities of communities withrespect to the ownership and use of forest resources,
and the Community Rights Law with Respect
to Forest Lands further sets out those rights andresponsibilities and specifies that forest lands
5001–49 999 hectares in size may be designated ascommunity forest land that communities can use to
generate revenue, including by logging. Although
its stated objective is to empower local communities
to fully engage in the sustainable management of
Liberia’s forests, it has been criticized for weakening
controls on the allocation and management oflogging concessions (Global Witness 2009).
The government conducted intensive forest
management outreach over several months prior
to the final drafting of the National Forest Reform
Law in 2006. The various regulations based onthat law require public communication throughradio and newsprint media, as well as consultationin affected communities. In practical terms, thismeans that communities in or around proposed
timber concessions or protected areas must be fully
consulted in an environmental and social impact
assessment (Government of Liberia 2008). A similar
process has been used recently to validate draft
proposals for an expanded network of protectedareas.

122

Summary
Deforestation appears to have increased in Liberia
since the end of the civil conflicts as people return
to rural areas. In addition to subsistence farming,a significant cause of forest degradation is chainsaw
logging and associated pit-sawing, as well as otherforms of uncontrolled logging. The Governmentof Liberia has adopted a new conceptual approachto the development of the forest sector, referred
to as the principles of the three Cs – commercial,conservation and community forestry, and there
is a new Community Rights Law with Respect
to Forest Lands. Draft guidelines for forest
management planning, and a log-tracking system,
have been developed. As of July 2009, sevenforest management conces­sions had been formallydesignated over an area of about 1 million hectares,
but logging had yet to commence. Nevertheless,forest production is projected to grow substantiallyin the next few years as commercial logging isreintroduced.

Key points•

Liberia’s PFE covers an estimated 1.90 million
hectares (compared with 1.41 million hectares
in 2005), comprising 1.70 million hectares ofnatural-forest production PFE (compared with
1.31 million hectares in 2005) and 194 000
hectares of protection PFE (compared with
101 000 hectares in 2005).

•

None of the PFE is currently considered to beunder SFM. The existing protection PFE
comprises about 4.5% of the lower estimate of
total forest area.

•

An embargo on the export of timber imposedby the United Nations Security Council in 2003
was lifted in October 2006.

•

Liberia has a new forest policy and a new forest
law (the National Forestry Reform Law) and isin the process of developing national-level PCI
for SFM.

•

Little is known about the potential impacts ofclimate change on Liberian forests. Liberia hassignificant intact forest and therefore potential
for conserving existing carbon stocks throughavoided deforestation.

LIBERIA

EndnoteaGovernment of Liberia (2010).

References and other sourcesBlackett, H., Lebbie, A. & Marfo, E. (2009). Chainsaw
logging in Liberia: an analysis of chainsaw logging(pit-sawing) in the natural forests of Liberia. Towards
a more sustainable production. Forest Development
Authority, Monrovia, Liberia.
Blaser, J. (2008). Assessment of the current status of theforest sector in Liberia. And identification of priority
needs for development assistance through ITTO project
activities. Report prepared for ITTO by Juergen Blaser
and Bledeeh V. Dagbe.
Eggleston, H., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe,
T. (eds) (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories Programme. Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies, Kamakura, Japan.
FAO (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010
country report: Liberia (available at http://www.fao.org/
forestry/fra/67090/en/).
FDA (2006). National Forest Policy and Implementation
Strategy. Government of Liberia, Monrovia, Liberia.
FSC (2010, website accessed July 2010). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).

Gasana, J. (2010). Governing TBCAs. ITTO Tropical Forest
Update 20:12–14.
Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007).
Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks:
making REDD a reality. Environmental Research Letters
No. 2 (available at http://iopscience.iop.org/17489326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Global Witness (2009). Background investigations into
companies bidding for Liberian forest management
contracts. memorandum. Global Witness, London, UK(available at www.globalwitness.org/media_library_detail.php/780/en/liberia_poised_to_hand_forests_to_timber_pirates_global_witness_warns_).
Government of Liberia (undated). Poverty Reduction Strategy.
Government of Liberia, Monrovia, Liberia.
Government of Liberia (2008). Readiness program idea note
(R-PIN) for reducing emissions from deforestation anddegradation (REDD). Submission to the World Bank
Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (available at www.
forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/node/72).
Government of Liberia (2010). Report of progress towardachieving sustainable forest management in Liberia.
Submission to ITTO. Prepared by Dr. Wollor Topor,
Professor, College of Agriculture and Forestry, Universityof Liberia .

Government of Liberia (2011). Readiness preparation
proposal (R-PP) of the Republic of Liberia. Revised
version submitted to the Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility, World Bank, March 2011 (available at http://
www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/).
ITTO (2005). Achieving the ITTO Objective 2000 andsustainable forest management in Liberia. Report of thediagnostic mission. Presented at the thirty-eighth sessionof the International Tropical Timber Council, June
2005. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005.
ITTO, Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.
int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2011, website accessed March 2011). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/
annual_review_output/?mode=searchdata).
IUCN (2011, website accessed March 2011). IUCN red listof threatened species (searchable database available atwww.redlist.org).
McSweeney, C., New, M. & Lizcano, G. (undated). UNDP
climate change country profiles: Liberia (available at
http://country-profiles.geog.ox.ac.uk/).
Pichet, T., Laval, M. & de La Rochefordière, A. (2009). The
opportunities and challenges of implementing a timberchain-of-custody system in post-conflict Liberia. Paper
prepared for the XIII World Forestry Congress, Buenos
Aires, Argentina, 18–23 October 2009.
Shearman, P. (2009). An assessment of liberian forest area,
dynamics, fda concession plans, and their relevance torevenue projections. A report commissioned by Green
Advocates, Monrovia, Liberia. Rights and Resources
Initiative, Washington, DC, United States.
Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World
Atlas of Mangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. Data prepared for
ITTO. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March
2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
March 2010). World population prospects: the 2008
revision (searchable database available at http://esa.
un.org/unpp/p2k0data.asp).
United Nations Security Council (2003). Report of theSecretary-General in pursuance of paragraph 19 ofresolution 1478 (2003) concerning Liberia, 5 August
2003.

123

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Nigeria

Forest resources
Nigeria has a land area of 92.4 million hectares. It is
Africa’s most populous country, with an estimatedpopulation in 2010 of 158 million people, up from
141 million in 2005 (United Nations Population
Division 2010). Nigeria is ranked 158th out of
182 countries in UNDP’s Human Development
Index (UNDP 2009). The climate is humid in thesouth and drier to the north. A large proportionof the country sits on a plateau, which is divided
into three parts by the Niger River and its main
tributary, the Benue. Mountain ranges, including
some peaks above 2000 m, occur along the central
and northern borders with Cameroon. There are
two major vegetation zones: the forest zone, which
occurs in a belt 50–250 km wide adjacent to the
Atlantic coast; and a savanna zone to the north,which can be subdivided into the Guinea, Sudan
and Sahel zones.
Based on a linear extrapolation of surveys from1977 and 1994, FAO (2010) estimated forest coverin 2010 at 9.04 million hectares. Only a smallpart of this forest is lowland rainforest: even in thelate 1990s it was estimated that only 1.19 million
hectares of lowland rainforest remained in the
country, only about 288 000 hectares of which wasin official forest reserves.b
Forest types. Nigeria’s forest types comprise
open tree savanna, mangrove and coastal forest,
fresh water swamp and lowland wet forest. The

124

latter type (also called ‘high forest’) is divided
into lowland rainforest in the south and mixed
deciduous forest to the north. These forest types,
although heavily degraded, are the main remaining
sources of hardwood timber; there is an estimated
3.94 million hectares of lowland rainforest.a
Meliaceae and Leguminosae species such as Khaya
ivorensis (Lagos mahogany), Entandrophragma spp,
Lovoa trichilioides (cedar) and Gosweilerodendronbalsamiferum (agba) are characteristic of therainforest area, whereas Sterculiaceae, Ulmaceae andMoraceae species such as Nesogordonia papaverifera(otutu), Triplochiton scleroxylon (obeche), Celtis
spp and Chlorophora excelsa (iroko) characterizesemi-deciduous forests. The transitional area on
the northern fringes of the forest zone has beenheavily degraded by human activity and is now
characterized by fire-tolerant savanna species such as
Parkia spp, Daniellia oliveri, Afzelia africana, Ceiba
pentrandra and Butyrospermum paradoxum (sheabutter tree), some of which yield valuable products.
Riparian (gallery) forests are the only closed forest
in the savanna zone, characterized by species suchas Mitragyna ciliate, Lophira lancolata, Terminalia
glaucescens and Uapaca spp.
Nigeria has the largest extent of mangroves inAfrica, with more than 730 000 hectares (Spalding
et al. 2010). The largest areas are around the Niger
delta, where they are found up to 40 km inland.
The Niger delta constitutes one of the world’s
largest contiguous blocks of mangrove forest (ibid.).
Some of Nigeria’s forests are so heavily degradedthat secondary forest succession is impeded. Elaeis
guineensis (oil palm) regenerates naturally in manydegraded areas of the high-forest zone. Importantsecondary forest species in degraded forest and inunmanaged rubber and Gmelina plantations are
Trema guineensis, Pentaclethra macrophylla, Musanga
cecropioides and Anthocleista spp (ITTO 2006).
Permanent forest estate. In the 1960s thegovernment set aside an area of 9.7 million hectares,
about 10% of the country, as forest reserves. These
were distributed over 445 sites, 75% of whichwere in the savanna and 25% of which were in thehigh forest. The total area available for harvestingin forest reserves in the seven ‘productive’ states(Cross River, Edo, Ekiti, Ogun, Ondo, Osun

NIGERIA

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reporting year

2005*
2010
*
**
‡
†
§

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)9.7–13.5
9.04

4456
958**

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted

Total

2720
2720‡

4105
5622

375
382†

1010
2540§

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Calculated using the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) (10.6%) and the total
natural forest area as estimated by FAO (2010).
Updated information was unavailable. Therefore, the estimate of ITTO (2006) is used here.
FAO (2010).
UNEP-WCMC (2010).

and Oyo) is 3.92 million hectaresa; it is unclear,
however, how much forest remains in theseareas. More than 60% of the initial forest reservearea had been lost by 2000 due to agricultural
encroachment, illegal logging, planned agriculturaldevelopment and urbanization. No new data on
the production PFE was available for this report.
The estimate of protection PFE in Table 1 is takenfrom UNEP-WCMC (2010), which is similar to
the estimate by FAO (2010). It indicates an increasesince 2005 (which was based on an estimate by
UNEP-WCMC in 2004), but this is most likely
due to differences in assessment method rather thana real increase.

2005, compared with the world average for that
period of 3.3%.
FAO (2010) also reported that the area of primary
forest declined from 326 000 hectares in 2005
to zero in 2010 (Table 2). There are likely to besmall areas of intact forest, however. For example,
owing to its rugged terrain, most of the Afi forest
reserve (about 8500 hectares) in Cross River Stateis still primary forest.a The main direct causes ofdeforestation and forest degradation are oil andgas exploitation in the coastal forests and shifting
cultivation, fuelwood-gathering, charcoal-making,illegal logging and urbanization.
Vulnerability of forests to climate change.
The mean annual temperature in Nigeria has
increased by about 0.2 °C over the past three
decades (McSweeney et al. undated). Mean annual
rainfall has decreased since the early 1960s, but
it is difficult to determine whether this is partof a long-term trend. It is projected that theannual temperature will increase by 0.9–2.5 °C
by the 2060s (ibid.), with warming most rapid in
the northern, drier part of the country (Federal
Ministry of Environment 2003). Since the forest
area has been reduced dramatically in the past
50 years and most of the remaining forests aredegraded, the ecosystem services performed byforests are greatly diminished.

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. While it isapparent that Nigeria’s forests have been declining
in both extent and condition, no reliable data are
available on the extent of forest loss or degradation.
The change in forest area reported by FAO (2010)
was calculated using a linear extrapolation ofdata from 1977 and 1994. By this method it wasdetermined that the forest area declined from 13.1
million hectares in 2000 to 11.1 million hectares in2005 and to 9.04 million hectares in 2010. On thebasis of the data presented in FAO (2010), Nigeria
lost 21% of its forest cover between 1990 and
Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

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

0
-

0
-

0
8660*
-

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

125

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Nigeria’s climate-change strategy includes a focus
on forests and trees as an effective adaptation
measure (Government of Nigeria 2010a). Forestrelated actions include avoiding unregulated forest
exploitation; the implementation of a national
afforestation program using appropriate tree species
to protect watersheds; and the development ofagroforestry and organic farming as a means to help
people to adapt to changing climatic conditions.
The Ministry of Environment identified the biggest
obstacles to climate-change adaptation as a lackof awareness and knowledge about the impacts ofclimate change.

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. Forests are state-owned (Table 3).
Forest reserves, which cover around three-quartersof the forest area, are held in trust for the people.
Their management and control is vested in state
governments, although dual ownership of naturalforests by local and state governments still exists
in the northern states. Thus, local governments
are responsible for communal forest areas, state
governments are in control of forest reserves, gamereserves and sanctuaries, and national parks areunder the control of the federal government.a
Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

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

Total area

Of which
PFE’000 ha

9040

5622

0

0

9040
0

5622
0

0

0

Source: 	Based on the estimate of total forest cover and total PFE
shown in Table 1.

Individuals or private organizations may occupy
land on leases (usually 99 years), but only thatwhich the occupier puts on the land belongs to theoccupier. The government may withdraw authority
to occupy land at any time, with appropriatecompensation paid (FAO 2010). Tree tenure rights
in communal areas are ascribed to the person who
planted the tree or the person who uses the land on
which the tree lies.b

126

A total of 16 states (Abia, Akwa Ibom, Anambra,
Cross River, Delta, Edo, Enugu, Ebonyi, Imo,
Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Ekiti, Osun, River andBayelsa) contain high forests and have special forest
laws to administer their tenure (ITTO 2006).
Criteria and indicators. Nigeria is a member ofthe ATO and, since 2001, of ITTO. The C&I
frameworks of these two organizations are therefore
available for uptake in Nigeria. With the support of
the ATO/ITTO regional project, the Governmentof Nigeria finalized, in May 2010, the developmentof a national version of the ATO/ITTO PCI for thesustainable management of the country’s naturalforests, and conducted training in their use. The
Government of Nigeria used the ITTO C&I in its
submission to ITTO for this report.a
Forest policy and legislation. Nigeria has had
forestry and natural-resource conservation laws
since the first half of the 20th century. The first
Forestry Act was enacted in 1937, which established
a forest reserve system under the state governments.
A more comprehensive forest law was enacted in1956 – the Law for the Preservation and Control ofForests in Eastern Nigeria. This gives the designatedminister responsibility for the protection, control
and management of forest reserves and protectedareas and the power to de-reserve forests (i.e.
re-classify them for other uses). Some states
have enacted specific regulations to monitor andcontrol the reserves, but the apparent high rate of
deforestation suggests that overall control has notbeen effective.
Nigeria’s national agricultural policy, adopted
in 1988, set forth a national policy on forest
management and the sustainable use of forest
resources. The goal was to achieve self-sufficiency
in all aspects of forest production. Major goals
included the expansion of the forest estate and its
management for sustained yield, the promotion offorest regeneration at rates higher than harvesting,the protection of forest resources from fire andgrazing, and the development of forest industry.
To achieve these objectives, it aimed to expand
the forest estate from 10% to 20%. Nevertheless,de-reservation and deforestation expanded over thelife of the policy (ITTO 2006).
A 2002 participatory review of the 1988 policy led
to the approval (in 2006) of a new national forest
policy, the first to stand alone and not be subsumed
within the policy of another sector. A forest law that

NIGERIA

has been in preparation for several years to provide
legal backing to the new policy is yet to be passed,
however (in August 2010 it was before the Federal
Ministry of Justice before going to the National
Assembly for approval).a The policy review took
into account changes in the present state of theforest sector in Nigeria and also addressed emergent
global issues. The overall objective of the new policy
is “to achieve sustainable forest management thatwould ensure sustainable increase in economic,
social and environmental benefits from forests andtrees for the present and future generation including
the poor and vulnerable groups”.a
An analysis of the new policyb showed that it
has some major points of departure from the oldpolicy that could strengthen sustainable forest
use and environmental protection. Unlike theold policy, the new policy focuses on creating thenecessary environment to ensure the longer-termsustainability of forest resources. For example, it
mandates the preparation and implementation ofscientific forest management plans; stresses theimportance of developing community-based forest
protection and management; and urges the federal
and state governments to increase revenue by
valuing forest products at their true market value
and tightening the control of harvest operations.
It recommends special funding arrangements
to support research and development and the
expansion of the forest estate.
A comprehensive national land-use policy is underdevelopment. Among other things it contains
an action plan for forestry and wildlife habitat
development.
The four-year (2000–03) National Forestry
Development Programme, which aimed toestablish forest plantations through community
participation, was approved for implementationby the National Executive Council. Due to theunavailability of funds, however, implementation
was stalled and the program was extended to thenext four years (2003–07). The extent to which it
was implemented in that period is unclear.
Programs dealing with environmental management
have been in constant flux, with negative
consequences. For example, the federal Ministry ofEnvironment (2001) stated that efforts to combat
desertification “have been adversely affected byfrequent shifts in policy by government. Suchpolicy shifts have been observed to be dictated by
the country’s economic fortune or misfortune”.
Institutions involved in forests. The forest sector
is administered at the federal, state and local
government levels. Responsibilities, authority andresources are shared among these levels according
to the 1999 Constitution, which gives control
over the development of natural resources tolocal governments and the states. However, there
is a lack of clarity in the respective mandates of
the responsible bodies (there are 36 state forest
departments and 774 local councils), which leads toinefficiencies.
The Federal Department of Forestry (FDF),
created in 1970, is currently under the Ministryof Environment; it has no authority over forest
management and is mainly responsible forinternational treaties and for providing policy
guidelines to state forest authorities. The National
Forestry Development Committee is responsible
for formulating national forest policy and technicalforest management guidelines. In order to facilitate
field operations the FDF fosters forest andenvironmental development through six divisions:
Forestry Management; Forest Resource Survey;
Forest Resources Utilization; Agroforestry; Support
Services and Extension; and Environmental
Conservation. The Forestry Research Institute ofNigeria has a mandate for research and education
on forestry and the use of forest products.
The University of Ibadan, the University ofAgriculture and the Federal University ofTechnology, Akure provide training for forestry
professionals.a In 2008, 180 students (12% of them
women) graduated with forest-related masters
degrees, 400 students (12% women) graduated with
forest-related bachelor degrees, and 560 students(12% women) graduated with forest technician
certificates or diplomas (FAO 2010).
Forest-sector development has been hindered
by a lack of funds and frequent policy changes,
despite (or perhaps partly because of ) the extensive
bureaucracy involved in overseeing the sector(ITTO 2006).
Direct investment and reinvestment in forest
management, administration, research andhuman resource development in 2009 by thefederal government, sub-national governments,
private sources and international governmental

127

Status of tropical forest management 2011sources were estimated at US$19.2 million,
US$9.24 million, US$800 000 and US$650 000,
respectively.a In 2008 an estimated 13 100 people
were employed in public forest institutions,
including at the state level, 5320 of whom had
university degrees or equivalent and 9% ofwhom were women (FAO 2010). An estimated180 professional staff and 250 technical staff areemployed in forestry in the federal government.a
Several NGOs provide inputs to the managementof forest resources. Notable among these are theNigerian Conservation Foundation, the Nigerian
Environmental Study and Action Team, Savannah
Conservation Nigeria, the Forestry Associationof Nigeria and local initiatives such as the Ekuri
Initiative in Cross River state.

Status of forest management
Forest for production
According to FAO (2010), the available
information on Nigeria’s forests “is either obsolete
or based on extrapolation from very old data.
Nigeria falls short of the basic standard of acquiring
regular and up to date data on the forest resources”.
While many forest reserves were intensively
managed in the past for timber production, asignificant number has also been almost completely
deforested while retaining the designation, leading
to the apparent contradiction of non-forested forest
reserves (ITTO 2006).
There are generally three types of logging operationin Nigeria:•

Small-scale operations that use chainsaw mills(accounting for more than half of the log
volume taken from forests). Fees for this type of
logging are usually assessed on a stumpage basis.

•

Medium-sized operations that are usually an
integral part of a medium-to-large industrialorganization. This type of logging is usuallyorganized by concessionaires and annual
production generally amounts to
10 000–20 000 m3 per operation.

•

Larger operations, also conducted byconcessionaires, generally producing about
60 000 m3 per year.b

According to Sanwo (2005), 70% of the total
timber extracted in high-forest states in Nigeria

128

is stolen, with no records kept. The state forest
departments have been unable to adequately protect
the forest estate from encroachment.
The state allocation of timber resources has,since the 1970s, systematically moved awayfrom long-term tenures to short-term (1–3 year)
concessions. This prompted an exodus of large
and sometimes foreign-owned concessionaires andnow concessions are largely in the hands of small
concessionaires. In off-reserve areas, communities
have rights to trees and negotiate freely with timber
operators for the sale of trees. Forest planning is
minimal. Timber resources are generally allocatedby discretion. In some states (e.g. Ondo and Edo),a committee screens applicants and forwards
a list of registered concessionaires who meetstatutory requirements to the commissioner for
his final decision. In Ogun State, the allocationis administered directly by the commissioner.
These allocations are not based on sound technicalconsiderations but rather on political patronage.b
An exception to how the state forest services areorganized is in Cross River state, which is the only
state to have established a forestry commission
instead of a department within the ministriesof agriculture or environment. The Cross River
Forestry Commission is headed by a board
comprising representatives of various stakeholders.
Its most important difference compared to forest
departments is its (semi-) financial autonomy. Dueto a revision of state laws, the Forestry Commission
is able to directly access part of the revenue
generated from forests with which to manage its
programs.b
Silviculture and species selection. Initially,
the forest resources in the high-forest zone weremanaged for timber production on a felling
cycle of 100 years, with a specified minimum
diameter limit for various species of 60–90 cm(FDF 1996). Forests in the southern and southcentral regions were sub-divided into numbered
mile-square compartments managed on the basisof working plans prepared by the FDF. In response
to harvesting pressures, the felling cycle for naturalforests was reduced to 50 years and has since
been further lowered. Natural regeneration of theharvested forests was stimulated by the Tropical
Shelterwood System (TSS). By the mid 1960s,
200 000 hectares in the western region of Nigeria
was managed under the TSS. Owing to the low

NIGERIA

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Mansonia altissima (ofun)
Tectona grandis (teak)Terminalia superba (afara)
Entandrophragma candollei (omu)
Triplochiton scleroxylon (obeche)

From southern deciduous forests.
Plantation timber.
Rare as large trees but regenerating in secondary forests.
From natural forests, increasingly rare.
Timber from natural forests and agroforestry plantations.

Source: ITTO (2006).

growth rates of the natural forest, the TSS wasabandoned in the early 1970s in favour of artificial
regeneration under the taungya system. The earlytaungya plantations led to subsequent major
plantation schemes in the high-forest zone (ITTO2006).
More than 300 tree species have been identified as
possible timber species; about 40 were reportedly
being harvested on a significant scale in 2005
(ITTO 2006). In addition to the five species
listed in Table 4 and Gmelina arborea fromplanted forests, Entandrophragma cylindricum(sapele), Gossweilerodendron balsamiferum (agba),
Chlorophora excelsa (iroko), Terminalia ivorensis(edo), Brachystegia spp and Lophira alata (ekki)
are common species harvested for timber (ITTO2006), although recent information was unavailable
for this report.
Planted forest and trees outside the forest. The
estimated planted forest area of 382 000 hectares
in 2010 (FAO 2010) was thought to comprise atleast 168 000 hectares of Gmelina arborea and teak.
Other planted hardwood species include Terminalia
ivorensis, Nauclea diderrichii, Triplochiton sceroxylon,
acacias and eucalypts, and about 10 000 hectaresof various pines (Okonofua 2005). However,
the estimate by FAO (2010) is based on a linear
extrapolation of past establishment rates.
Many of the planted forest areas are being harvested
today, but few of them are adequately managed forlong-term production (ITTO 2006).
The Presidential Initiative on Afforestation for
Economic and Environmental Sustainability waslaunched in 2008 with a focus on promoting
indigenous forest species and an overall target of
expanding national forest cover by 25% in ten
years. To finance afforestation the government
recently directed that 60% of the Ecological Fund1

1 The Ecological Fund was established in 1981 by the Government of
Nigeria to address the serious ecological problems facing the nation.

should be used for the massive afforestation of thecountry as a sign of a firm commitment to theattainment of sustainable forest development in
Nigeria. Towards this end, the first tranche of
5 billion naira has been released to the EcologicalFund Office for the first phase of the program for
upgrading forest nurseries and raising 1 million
tree seedlings in each of Nigeria’s 37 states forplanting in the 2011 planting season.a In addition,
about 400 hectares of new plantations have been
established in degraded forest reserves in ten statesin the last two years.a
Forest certification. No Nigerian forest has so far
been certified (e.g. FSC 2010), and no certification
initiative in the country has been reported.
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. The Government of
Nigeria (2010) reported that 3.45 million hectaresof production forest were under management
plans (an area significantly greater than the total
production PFE), on the basis of reports fromstate forestry departments, but the status of thesemanagement plans is unclear, and no data for thisparameter are shown in Table 5. A lack of detailed
information makes it difficult to estimate the areaof forest under active management and to assess
the quality of that management. The only area offorest for which available information suggests asustainable regime is the Ekuri community forest in
Cross River state.
Timber production and trade. The total fuelwood
production in 2005 was estimated at 70.4 million
m3 (FAO 2010). Nigeria’s total production ofindustrial roundwood was estimated at 7.10 million
m3 in 2009, although this figure is repeated fromprevious years and its accuracy is unclear (ITTO
2011). On the other hand, the Governmentof Nigeria (2010) reported an average annual
sawnwood harvest of 7.52 million m3 in the PFE
and 1.98 million m3 in other forest. An estimated
2.0 million m3 of sawnwood, 56 000 m3 of129

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

2720
2720

1060
1060*****‡†NaturalWithmanagement
plans
650
-‡

0
0

-

375

PlantedWith
management
plans
175

33†

382

-

Sustainably
managed

Total

Certified00

As reported in ITTO (2006).
As reported in ITTO (2006). No new data were available for the present report.
Government of Nigeria (2010) reported that 3.45 million hectares were under management plans, but the extent to which theseare operational is unclear.
The Ekuri community forest in Cross River state.

plywood and 1000 m3 of veneer were produced,
and about 64 000 m3 of logs and 163 000 m3 ofsawnwood were exported (ibid.).
The Nigerian industrial forest sector comprises
about 2000 sawmills of various sizes, ten plywood
mills, two functional paper mills, eight safety-match
factories and four particleboard mills. The sector is
producing at 30–40% of installed capacity. The rateof recovery in the sawmilling sector is lower than
40%, partly because of the use of obsolete machinesdesigned for the conversion of large-diameter logs.
Most sawmill owners are unable to replace theirmachines with more modern equipment suited tothe changing nature of the resource. The forest fees
and tariffs levied on standing timber or cut logs arevery low. Combined with a protectionist policy (i.e.
a log export ban), this reduces timber prices and socontributes to inefficiency and waste in the logging
and industrial processes – they may be profitable
while being totally inefficient.b
In 2009 the total value of exports of primaryindustrial wood products was US$28.2 million(up from US$22.8 million in 2004 but downfrom US$53.9 million in 2002) and the total
value of imports was US$11.4 million (up from
US$800 000 in 2004 and US$1.76 million in2002) (ITTO 2011).
Non-timber forest products. Marketed NTFPs
include Acacia senegal (gum arabic), rattan
and fibres such as Raphia spp, Garcinia afzelii(chewsticks), and sheabutter from nuts of Vitellaria
paradoxa (syn. Butyrospermum parkii). Many
NTFPs are locally traded and consumed by ruralcommunities, including leaves (eg Abura spp), fruit,bark, nuts, honey, mushrooms, resins, canes andmedicinal plants such as Garcinia spp. Bush meatis perhaps the most important NTFP, providing
a source of protein for rural people in isolated

130

Certified

high-forest areas and in the savanna zone. Plantsthat provide edible products are Irvingia gabonensis;
Spondias mombin and Dacryodes edulis; Gnetum
africanum leaves as vegetables; the seeds of Parkia
biglobosa (dawa-dawa); and the nuts of Cola spp.
Fruits of oil palm and Raphia spp are used widelyfor palm wine. No national data are available on
the volume or value of the harvest of any of theseproducts.
As forests become increasing degraded, competition
for NTFPs becomes fiercer and market failures andthe absence of clear property rights result in the
non-management of those resources (FAO 2001).
Ecological services provided by the forest include
protection from erosion, floods and desertification,
the regulation of stream flow, wildlife habitat, theprotection of biodiversity, carbon sequestration,and microclimatic benefits, among others. These
ecological services have not been evaluated and are
rarely considered in policy decisions.b
Forest carbon. Gibbs et al (2007) estimatedthe national-level forest biomass carbon stock at
1278–1805 MtC, Eggleston et al. (2006) estimatedit at 3952 MtC and FAO (2010) estimated it at1085 MtC. Due to past deforestation, Nigeria
has relatively limited potential for avoiding
deforestation. On the other hand it has considerable
potential to sequester carbon through forest
restoration (Table 6). In 2010 Nigeria establishedthe Nigerian Climate Change Commission
within the federal Ministry for the Environment.
The Commission will address issues related toenvironmental pollution, erosion, deforestation,desertification and climate change and has prepareda national climate-change policy and legislation.
REDD+ is a key concern in Nigeria’s climatechange negotiation strategy at the UNFCCC.
In mid 2010 Nigeria was granted observer status

NIGERIA

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

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

1278–1805

11++

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
monitoringsinkcapacity
capacityto
2030
+++

+

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

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

at UN-REDD. The Nigeria REDD+ readinessprogram was submitted to the UN-REDD Policy
Board in March 2011. It focuses on Cross River
State, which contains about 50% of the remaining
rainforests in Nigeria and is rich in biodiversity.

Forest for protection
Soil and water. An estimated 57 300 hectares offorest are managed primarily for the protectionof soil and water.a No further information on
measures to conserve soil and water was available
for this report.
Biological diversity. Twenty mammals, seven birds,
twelve amphibians, one reptile, ten arthropods and68 plants found in forests are listed as criticallyendangered, endangered or vulnerable on the
IUCN red list of threatened species (IUCN 2011).
Two plant species are listed in CITES Appendix I
and 25 in Appendix II (UNEP-WCMC 2011).
Protective measures in production forests.
The principal constraints on conservation in the
production PFE are poaching, over-harvesting,illegal burning, grazing and deforestation. Few
protective measures are undertaken in forest reserves(ITTO 2006).
Extent of protected areas. The federal government
controls Nigeria’s eight national parks through the
National Parks Service. Nature conservation laws
include the Wild Animals Preservation Act (1916)
consequently modified and adopted by the states),
the Endangered Species Decree (1985) and theLand Use Act (1976). According to UNEP-WCMC(2010), 2.54 million hectares of forest are in IUCN
protected area categories I–IV; while this is likely anover-estimate, in the absence of other data it is usedin this report to represent the area of the protection
PFE.

1993; and the Kamuku and Okomu nationalparks in 1999. Five of these national parks arelocated close to borders with neighbouring
countries, suggesting potential for transboundary
conservation. The Cross River National Park, forexample, borders Cameroon’s Korup National
Park. A transboundary conservation initiative inthe region could help to address illegal logging,and unsustainable hunting and NTFP extraction,
all of which are prevalent in the area (Eniang et al.
2010). A successful challenge by the Governmentof Cameroon in the International Court overthe location of the border has also led to theunauthorized shifting of boundary markers by local
people (ibid.).
Some national parks have been degraded bylogging, grazing, burning and the hunting andsmuggling of primates, all of which are illegal
within park boundaries.
The NGO Pro-Natura International (Nigeria)
recently announced a project in collaboration
with the Nigerian Conservation Foundation andseveral donors in the Omo-Oluwa-Shasha Forest
in southwestern Nigeria with the aim of protecting
the forest from further degradation. Project
activities include capacity-building, an investigation
into alternative livelihood approaches, and thedevelopment of a REDD+ initiative (Pro-Natura
International 2011).
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. Given the lack of clear
information on what is happening in the field,
the generally widespread problems of degradation,illegal logging, poaching and encroachment, andthe lack of data on management plans and theirimplementation, no area of protection PFE isconsidered to be under SFM (Table 7).

The first national park, Kainji Lake, was establishedin 1973; the Chad Basin, Cross River, GashakaGumti, Old Oyo and Yankari national parks in

131

Status of tropical forest management 2011

A forest-dependent family near Abeokuta, Nigeria.

Socioeconomic aspects

Livelihood values. Forest products, particularly
NTFPs, support the subsistence of local
communities: an estimated 48 million people
depend significantly on forest resources for theirlivelihoods. Sustainable rural-based programs tostabilize ecosystems and diversify products in order
to meet the continuing needs and livelihoods offorest-dependent communities are being carriedout in some states as pilot projects, although no
information on these is available.a

Economic aspects. Although forests are importantfor domestic energy, food and medical supplies,
these are not fully reflected in formal national
accounts. Officially, the forest sector contributed
2.5% to Nigeria’s GDP in 2008 and 3% (US$692
million) in 2009.a
A major problem facing Nigerian forestry
is inadequate funding. In 1993 the federal
government urged state governments to pay 10%
of forestry revenues into a trust fund for forest
management, but only a few state governments
have implemented this proposal. The setting andcollection of forest revenues is at the discretionof state governments and sometimes local
communities, so there are large variations, byregion, in the fees charged (ITTO 2006).

Social relations. The sharing of benefits fromforest activities between state governments andlocal communities varies from state to state. State
governments are supposed to share a percentage
of any revenues collected from forest activities
outside forest reserves (on average 25–40% ofrevenues in the savanna and 30–35% in the closed
forest) with local communities, but this is often

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

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

1010
2540

1010
2536**

-

-

-

*
**

132

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

NIGERIA

not done in practice (ITTO 2006). Nevertheless,in many FMUs communities have used royalty
payments to develop, renovate and upgrade basic
local infrastructure such as schools, health centres,
roads and markets, and also to provide training on
alternative livelihood options such as bee-keeping,snail-rearing, livestock, tree-crop nursery raising,and improved crop husbandry for cash crops suchas cocoa and oil palm.a
The continuing decline and degradation offorest resources in Nigeria suggest that therelationship between local communities andforest administrations is not conducive to forest
conservation and SFM in most of the high-forest
states of Nigeria (ITTO 2006). Community-based
forest management is pursued in only one state,
Cross River.anatural production forest (the same as estimatedfor 2005), 2.54 million hectares of protection
forest (compared with 1.01 million hectares in2005), and 382 000 hectares of planted forest(compared with 375 000 hectares in 2005).
•

Data are generally weak. Increases in estimatesof the PFE are most likely due to differences inassessment method rather than real increases. A
forest reserve system to be managed by state
governments was created in 1937, but theextent to which forest reserves are still forested isunclear.

•An estimated 33 000 hectares of the production
PFE is under SFM. No forest is certified, andno part of the protection PFE is under SFM.

•

A new national forest policy was approved in2006. The Presidential Initiative on
Afforestation was launched in 2008, and funds
were made available to encourage afforestation.

•

The wood-processing industry is characterizedby outdated technology, poor recovery andinefficiency.

•

There is a lack of awareness in Nigeria about thepotential impacts of climate change, including
with respect to forests. Nigeria has considerable
potential for carbon capture and storage
through forest restoration and afforestation, if
forest governance can be improved.

Summary
One of the obstacles to SFM identified in 2005
was the lack of reliable forest data. There appears
to have been little improvement in this regard sincethen; even estimates of forest cover are derived
using deforestation rates that are up to two decades
old. It is unclear how much forest remains inwhat was set aside in the 1960s by government
as forest reserves. A new forest policy with several
positive features was approved in 2006, but thelaw to implement the policy is yet to be passed.
Despite the apparently poor and worsening stateof Nigeria’s forests, an estimated 48 million people
depend significantly on them for their livelihoods.
Chainsaw milling accounts for more than half thelog volume harvested. Illegal logging is reportedly
high. State forest administrations are generally
severely under-resourced, although the Cross River
Forestry Commission has direct access to part of
the revenue generated from forests with which
to finance its programs. Since 2008 a national
afforestation program has been under way with
an ambitious target for expanding national forest
cover. Nigeria has a relatively limited potential foravoiding deforestation. On the other hand it has
considerable potential to sequester carbon throughafforestation and forest restoration.

Key points•

Nigeria has an estimated PFE of 5.62 million
hectares (compared with 4.10 million hectares
in 2005), comprising 2.72 million hectares ofEndnotesaGovernment of Nigeria (2010b).

b

ITTO (2007).

References and other sources
Eggleston, H., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe,
T. (eds) (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Programme. Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies, Kamakura, Japan.
Eniang, E., Olajide, O., Egwali, E. & Ebin, C. (2010).
Presentation made by Edem Eniang at the International
Conference on Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary
Tropical Forests, Quito, Ecuador, 21–24 July 2010.
FAO (2001). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. FAO
Forestry Paper 140. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010 country
report: Nigeria (available at http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).
FDF (1996). Nigerian Forestry Action Programme. FDF, Abuja,
Nigeria.

133

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Federal Ministry of Environment (2001). National action
programme to combat desertification. Submitted to the UN
Convention to Combat Desertification. Federal Ministry ofEnvironment, Abuja, Nigeria.

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

Federal Ministry of Environment (2003). Nigeria’s first national
communication under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. Ministry of Environment,
Abuja, Nigeria.

Okonofua, S. (2005). Silvicultural management of natural andplanted forests in Nigeria – an overview. Presented at the
ITTO national workshop on criteria and indicators forsustainable management of tropical rain forests in Nigeria,
12–16 December 2005, Abeokuta, Nigeria.

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

Pro-Natura International (2011, website accessed February2011) (available at http://www.pronatura-nigeria.org/
splash/?p=883).

Government of Nigeria (2010a). Draft second national
communication under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. Abuja, Nigeria.

Sanwo, K. (2005). Effects of pilferage and biopiracy on thedevelopment and harnessing of renewable resources in
Nigeria. National Research Network on Pilferage inAgriculture, College of Agricultural Sciences, Yewa Campus,
Ayetoro, Ogun State, Nigeria.

Government of Nigeria (2010b). Report of progress towardachieving sustainable forest management in Nigeria.
Submission to ITTO by the Federal Department of Forestry,
Abuja, Nigeria.
Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007). Monitoringand estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDDa reality. Environmental Research Letters No. 2 (available at
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045023/fulltext).

Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World Atlas ofMangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.

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

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

ITTO (2007). Achieving the ITTO Objective 2000 andsustainable forest management in Nigeria: report of thediagnostic mission. ITTC(XLIII)/6. ITTO, Yokohama,Japan.

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

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

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

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

134

TOGO

Togo

Forest resources
Togo lies north of the Gulf of Guinea in West
Africa. It has a land area of 5.68 million hectares
and an estimated population in 2010 of 6.8 million
people (United Nations Population Division
2010). Togo is ranked 159rd out of 182 countries
in UNDP’s Human Development Index (UNDP2009). The country is characterized by a narrow
east–west extension of between 50 and 150 km
and a longer length from north to south of about
600 km. There is an extensive inland plateau,rising from 60 m to 450 m in altitude towards
the north and the Atakorian Mountains in thewest. The highest peak (Mount Agou) reaches analtitude of 986 m. There is little forest in Togo.
FAO (2010a) estimated the forest area at 486 000
hectares in 2000 and 386 000 hectares in 2005 andextrapolated the forest area to 287 000 hectares
in 2010. The Government of Togo estimatedthe extent of open forests and planted forests at
511 000 hectares in 2009a; in addition there areabout 1.18 million hectares classified as bush andtree savanna.a Togo also has an estimated 11 000
hectares of mangroves.
Forest types. Originally only about 17%
of Togo was forested.a The country has lostnearly 50% of its forests since 1990, mainly to
subsistence agriculture. Apart from fragmentsof closed semi-deciduous forests and degradedsemi-deciduous forests in the southwest (which

cover less than 120 000 hectares), there are
only a few small islands of dry forests (forêts
denses sèches) in southern and central Togo (lessthan 30 000 hectares) and gallery forests alongwatercourses.a The majority of the forest is in aforest–savanna mosaic (about 320 000 hectares),which extends from the Guinean vegetation zone
into the Sudanian vegetation zone. On the plateau,dense savanna forests are characterized by Ceiba
pentandra, Daniellia oliveri and Butyrospermum
paradoxum. Further north, Khaya senegalensis
and Prosopis africana predominate, along withthe palm Borassus aethiopum. There are stands ofsemi-deciduous closed forest in the mountains(about 40 000 hectares), with Antiaris africana andChlorophora excelsa among the most typical species.
Togo has only about 50 km of coastline, which
is mostly sandy with some lagoonal waters where
mangroves are rare. In total, Togo has less than
1000 hectares of mangroves, which occur in small
patches near the border with Benin (Spalding et al.
2010).
Permanent forest estate. No distinction is madein Togo between production PFE and protection
PFE; harvesting is undertaken in all areas, evenin officially protected areas (ITTO 2008). Togo’s
PFE consists of 83 forest areas, including 71
classified forests (forêts classées, estimated at 217 000
hectares), two national parks (357 000 hectares)
and ten wildlife reserves (218 000 hectares). Of
the total theoretical PFE of 792 000 hectares, large
areas are either very open forests or deforested.
About one-third of the PFE is estimated to becompletely without forest cover and the remaining
area consists of heavily degraded and secondary
forests and human-induced savanna dominated by
Ceiba pentandra.a UNEP-WCMC (2010) estimatedthe forested protected area (with 30% and morecrown cover) at 368 000 hectares; this estimate isused in Table 1.

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. Becauseof its small forest area and the continuing pressureson it, Togo has one of the world’s highest rates ofdeforestation, losing an estimated 5.75% (20 000
hectares) of its forest estate per year (FAO 2010b).

135

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reporting year

2005*
2010
*
**
‡

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)0.5-1.09
0.5–1.68**

368
287

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted
41
0

14
15‡

313
368

Total

368
383

As reported in ITTO (2006).
The higher figure includes an estimated area of 1.179 million hectares of bush and tree savanna.
FAO (2010a). In addition to state-owned plantations there are an estimated 21 000 hectares of privately owned plantations,which are not considered to be part of the PFE (ITTO 2008).

natural forest areas (Government of Togo 2009a).
Uncontrolled forest fires already occur regularlyin the latter stages of the dry seasons and cause
additional damage to degraded forest areas.

Most of the deforestation appears to be occurringin wetter areas, where forests are important forwatershed protection. The major threats to thescarce remaining dense forests include uncontrolled
fire (the main cause of deforestation in non-PFE
forest), excessive fuelwood harvesting, shifting
cultivation, and illegal cutting of the few remaining
commercial tree species. In addition, in the past
35 years the frontier of cotton plantations (inparticular in the southern zone around the forestof Abdoulaye and in the western Tchilla-Monota
forest area) has advanced at the expense of forest.
There is no primary forest left in Togo (Table 2).
More than one-third of the forest in forest reserves
has been converted to agricultural uses.

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. According to the 2008 Forest Code,there are three types of forest tenure: the publicforest domain (domaine forestier de l’Etat), which
includes forest reserves; the collective forest domain(domaine forestier des collectivités territoriales) andprivate forest (domaine forestier des particuliers)(Table 3). Closed forests and dense tree savanna
are generally part of the public forest domain.
In all forest reserves, user rights exist for local
communities (as per the colonial forest code of1938, articles 12–18, and reconfirmed by the 2008
Forest Code).

Vulnerability of forests to climate change.
Togo’s climate varies from humid tropical totropical savanna. Togo finalized its NAPA in
September 2009, according to which climatechange is projected to increase average monthly
temperatures by 1–1.25 °C on a south–north
gradient. These warmer temperatures are projected
to be accompanied by a drying trend, which would
have a major impact on various economic sectors.
The main climate-related risks identified in Togo
are flooding, drought, altered distribution of rain,
late rains, violent winds and coastal erosion. Acrossthe country, climate change could increase theincidence of drought, wildfire and flooding. The
most vulnerable ecosystems are coastal ecosystems,
agricultural ecosystems and some of the remaining

The new collective forest domain comprises thoseforest lands that have been legally classified assuch. Communes, prefectures and regions haveterritorial authorities (collectivités territoriales),which have legal status and financial independence
under Law 98/006 (amended in 2001). They have
responsibilities in the management of state lands
and on environmental issues. Communes andprefectures generally have a keen interest in the
management of forest reserves.
Villages adjacent to forest reserves generally havea village development committee (comité villageois

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

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

0
287
-*

0
407**

*
Most of the former forest land has been converted to agriculture and is now considered as such.a**
Degraded since 1990 (derived from FAO 2010a); most of this land is now productive agricultural land.
Source: Government of Togo (2010).

136

0
287
407

TOGO

de développement – CVD), which attempts to ensurethat local interests are accommodated in the use offorest reserves and is responsible for the managementof committed forests. Outside the reserves, all trees
and plantations belong to local communities andprivate citizens, with little control from the state(ITTO 2006). Such off-reserve forests provide mostof the forest products sold locally.a
Criteria and indicators. Togo participated in the
C&I processes of ITTO, Dry-zone Africa and
ATO/ITTO, but no adequate C&I framework for
SFM has yet been developed for local conditions.
No strategic plan or actions are foreseen beyond
securing forest reserves from further conversion
and encroachment. The Government of Togo used
the ITTO C&I In its submission to ITTO for thisreporta, and a national validation meeting of the
C&I report was convened in March 2010.
Forest policy and legislation. Until 2008, forest
use was regulated by the 1938 forest code andthe 1988 environmental code. A new forest code
was approved by parliament in June 2008 (Law2008/009), as was a new law on the environment(Law 2008/005). The 2008 Forest Code addresses
issues of participation, SFM, ecological security andthe role of the forest industry in the framework ofsustainable development. It specifies the definitionof the national forest domain; rules for classifying
and declassifying forests and for forest management
planning; and the institutionalization of local
management through the creation of CVDs.a
Although CVDs have been assigned management
authority over forests, overall responsibility fornatural resource management has mostly remainedwith the central Ministry for Environment andNatural Resources (Ministère de l’Environnement etdes Ressources Forestières – MERF).

The national environmental policy of 1998,
completed in 2001 as the National Environmental
Action Plan (Plan National d’Action pourl’Environnement – PNAE), is the most important
policy framework for forests. A project todevelop a specific forest policy, initiated in 2000,
was never concluded. In December 2009, theDeclaration of a National Forest Policy was
submitted to the government for approval. Thisdeclaration canvasses a participatory approach
to forest management and greater decentralized
responsibility in managing forests; the divisionof tasks between local stakeholders and the state;
the principles of sustainably managing forest
resources; the valorisation of biodiversity; therecognition of the role of forests in climate change;
and the organization of the forest sector. The
new forest policy was to be prepared through a
consultative approach in 2010. In December 2009
the Government of Togo approved a declaration
on a national policy for land-use management(Politique Nationale d’Aménagement du Territoire)that encompasses environmental management, rural
economic development and social integration. The
forest policy will need to be consistent with thisrecently initiated policy process.
Institutions involved in forests. MERF was
reorganized in 2008 (under Decree 2008/090PR)
to create a central service and decentralized units,
coordinated by a Secretary General.a The central
service comprises three general directorates:
Environment; Forest Resources; and Common
Programmes. The Office for Forest Development
and Harvesting (Office de Développement etd’Exploitation des Forêts – ODEF), which
was attached to MERF, was also reorganized
and is due to be changed from an ‘office’ to a

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category
State ownership (national, state orprovincial government)
Other public entities (e.g.
municipalities, villages)
Total public

Owned by local communities and/orIndigenous groups
Privately owned by individuals, firms,
other corporate

Total area Of which PFE Notes’000 ha
--Domaine forestier de l’Etat (not clear in extent).

-

-

-

369

Domaine forestier des collectivités territoriales(not clear in extent).
The distribution of forest between the two categories domaine
forestier de l’Etat and domaine forestier des collectivités
territoriales needs to be clarified.

281

27

domaine forestier des particuliers; includes privately owned
forest plantations (mainly teak) and other areas.

Source: Government of Togo (2010).

137

Status of tropical forest management 2011

semi-governmental organization supervised by aboard. Nevertheless, by mid 2010, none of thelegally decided changes had been installed and theformer organization (as described in ITTO 2006)
was still functional.a ODEF is responsible for the
management of forest reserves, forestry extension,
harvesting and reforestation.a Following the 2008
institutional reform, four new organizations havebeen created with a mandate attached to MERF:
the National Forest Development Fund (Fonds
National de Développement Forestier); the National
Agency for the Management of the Environment(Agence Nationale de Gestion de l’Environnement);
the National Fund for the Environment (Fonds
National de l’Environnement); and the National
Commission for Sustainable Development(Commission Nationale du Développement Durable).
In 2010 MERF employed 1213 staff, substantiallymore than in 2005 (937 people); 550 havespecialized functions in the management of forest
resources, 20 have university degrees and 73 arehigh-level technicians.a
The University of Lomé and the Togo Agricultural
Research Institute (Institut Togolais de Recherche
Agronomique) have mandates in forest-based
research. The country’s only forestry training
institute, Institut National de Formation Agricole,in Tové, was closed between 1990 and 2004 but
restarted in 2006 to train agricultural technicianswith specialization in forestry. A post-graduate
course in natural resource management is planned
to start in 2011 at the Agricultural University (Ecole
Supérieure d’Agronomie).
No major international NGO works in forestrelated areas in Togo, but a considerable numberof civil-society and national NGOs are engaged inlocal forest development, generally organized inregional federations. Three groupings have someinfluence on forest development: the Consortiumdes ONG en matière d’Environnement au Togo
(COMET), a consortium of NGOs dealing
with the environment; ROSCTOCC, a Togolese
network of civil-society organizations concernedwith climate change; and REBIOTOG, a network
concerned with biodiversity (ITTO 2008). There
has been a general trend towards wider public
participation in the management of forests.
Communities and NGOs are often involved inprotecting forests, such as from fire (throughbrigades de feux de brousse).

138

Status of forest management
Forest for production
The rural population traditionally depends onforests and trees for fuelwood, fodder, timber andother forest products. This heavy dependence
generates great pressure on forests. Most of the 71
remaining forest reserves are heavily degraded andare deforested to a great extent.
For more than 20 years, no long-term concession
contract (permis de coupe conventionnée) has been
allocated because there are no commerciallyexploitable forests left in Togo. Today, timberharvesting rights are assigned (through cutting
permits – permis de coupe spécial) to individuals
and collectives for small-scale timber harvestingor the cutting of single trees. There are no forest
management prescriptions (e.g. pre-inventory of
diameter limits) for this type of timber harvesting(cahier de changes); harvesting is based simply on
the availability of sizeable trees in a given area.
Thus, even official timber operations are donewith complete informality (ITTO 2008). The only
obligation of a timber operator is to pay a forest tax(which for the time being is not centralized) andto submit to passive control by the forest service.
Such a procedure is convenient to the operator,
who does not need to follow rules and is thus
able to maximize profits. It is also open to misuse
and risks the development of a petty corruption
system among officials. Conflicts arise where local
communities exercise their traditional land rights.
Should this system continue, the scarce remaining
timber resources are likely to be completely
depleted within a short time.
Silviculture and species selection. Timber
harvesting takes place in some forest reserves,in savanna and in planted forests; trees outside
forests are also harvested. Silvicultural rules do notexist to manage natural production forest. A large
array of species is used for timber, but no data are
available about the volume harvested. Besides thoselisted in Table 4, the most commonly harvested
timber and fuelwood species from degraded andsecondary forests are Afzelia africana, Albizia spp,
A. zygia, Alstonia congensis, Anogeissus leiocarpus,
Ceiba pentandra, Cola cordifolia, Daniellia oliveri,
Dichostachys glomerata, Dialium guineense,
Harungana paniculata, Isoberlinia doka, Lophiraalata, Macaranga spinosa, Malacantha alnifolia,
Parkia biglobosa, Prosopis Africana, Pterocarpus

TOGO

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Tectona grandis (teak)*From planted forests; annual production about 40 000 m3,
including state forests and private plantations.
20–30 additional species are also harvested in natural forests andsavanna. The harvest volume is unknown. One species (Pterocarpus
erinaceus) is currently exported by a Chinese trader with anindicative volume of about 3500 m3 per year.a

Khaya grandifolia (acajou)*, Pterocarpus spp, Pterocarpus
erinaceus (véne), Chlorophora excelsa (iroko)*, Antiaris africana(ako)*, Triplochiton scleroxylon (ayous)**
Also listed in ITTO (2006).
Source: Government of Togo (2010).

planting rate is generally considered inadequate
to meet the timber needs of the country; a rate of2000 hectares per year of industrial plantations
would be needed to meet domestic requirements forconstruction timber alone (ITTO 2006).

erinaceus, Pycnanthus angolensis, Terminalia superba,
Trichilia africana and Uapaca heudelotii.
The most important commercial tree species is
Tectona grandis (teak) from planted forests androadside plantings. Teak was introduced in 1910
and has become well adapted to the country; it is
known commercially as ‘Togo teak’. The species
regenerates naturally in Togo and is used widelyin agroforestry plantations, as street trees and incommercial planted forests. ODEF has developed asilvicultural system to induce natural regenerationand this is practised in some of the older teakstands.

Forest certification. There is no certified forest in
Togo (e.g. FSC 2010). Both state and private teakplantations have potential for certification, but
most of the harvested timber is exported to markets
where there is little demand for certified timber.
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. About 7000 hectaresof teak and eucalypt plantations (state andprivately owned) have some sort of management
and harvesting plan (Government of Togo 2010,
ITTO 2008). As there is no production PFE andharvesting occurs in all kinds of forests, including
protected areas, no forest can be considered to beunder SFM (Table 5).

Planted forest and trees outside the forest.
Planting new forests and trees is possibly the
only way for Togo to address some of its biggest
environmental problems, such as deterioratingwatersheds and freshwater supply, climate change,
and increasing shortages of fuelwood, timber and
NTFPs. Nonetheless, the development of newplantations is hampered by a lack of knowledge, ashortage of funds and a high level of insecurity withrespect to land tenure and the use and frequencyof forest fire. Between 1970 and 2009, about
38 000 hectares of forest plantations were created,
including 24 000 hectares outside the PFE byindividuals and private firms (ITTO 2008). The
main planted species is teak (estimated at morethan 18 000 hectares). The planned planting rate ofteak is 300 hectares per year, mainly on agriculturalland using the taungya system (ITTO 2006). This

Timber production and trade. Total roundwood
production was estimated at 6 million m3 in 2008
(FAO 2010a). In 2009 Togo produced about
123 000 m3 of industrial roundwood (ITTO2010), predominantly teak – the public sector alone
produced about 27 000 m3 of teak per year between
2006 and 2008.a Log production has fluctuated in
the last decade, declining from 314 000 m3 in 1999
to 65 000 m3 in 2004 before recovering slightly(ITTO 2010). No data are available on the volumeof timber harvested by the informal sector (ITTO2008).

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

Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

41
0

41
0

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
5.5
0

CertifiedSustainably
managed

0
0

5.5

14

PlantedWith
management
plans
1.2

0

15

7

Total

Certified00

As reported in ITTO (2006).

139

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Fruits, roots and medicinal plants are collected but
are no longer available in the required quantities
or qualities. The three spices mostly used in Togo
are the seeds of Monodora myristica (false nutmeg)
and the fruits of Piper guineense (African pepper)
and Xylopia aethiopica (Guinean pepper); each hascommercial value in Togo (Kokou et al. 2005).
Bush meat is the most important NTFP in forest
reserves. Another considerable source of income,although illegal, is the collection of wild reptiles forexport. At least 18 reptile species are produced inanimal farms for export, in particular Python regius(royal python) but also chameleons (Chamaeleo
gracilis, and C. senegalensis), big lizards (Varanus
niloticus and V. exanthematicus) and turtles (e.g.
Kinixys belliana, K. erosa and K. homeana).

Five-year-old private teak plantations in Togo in a taungyasystem.

Nearly all of Togo’s wood exports are in the formof logs. An estimated 95 000 m3 were exported
in 2009, up from only about 12 000 m3 in 2004.
The major export species was teak, but 3500 m3 of
Pterocarpus were also recorded.a The main export
destinations are in Asia, including India, Pakistan
and China.a Timber products from neighbouring
countries (mainly Ghana) are traded in the Togomarket but are also exported from the free port ofLomé. Trees harvested in the savanna, including
teak, limba, ayous, ceiba and cola, are providing
an increasing share of the raw materials for local
sawmills (ITTO 2006). There are more than 200
depots for construction wood, many of them of
an informal nature.a Commercial fuelwood andcharcoal production is estimated about 2 million
m3 per year (ITTO 2006).

Forest carbon. Togo has one of the lowest national
forest carbon stocks in sub-Saharan Africa. Gibbs
et al. (2007) estimated the total forest biomass
carbon stock at 145–252 MtC and Eggleston etal. (2006) estimated it at 510 MtC. Togo has notparticipated in any of the forest carbon initiatives
in REDD+ or in afforestation and reforestation
projects through the CDM. In March 2011,
however, the country began preparing a REDD+
strategy with the support of the ITTO Thematic
Programme on Reducing Deforestation and Forest
Degradation and Enhancing Environmental
Services (REDDES). Togo has considerable
potential for the enhancement of carbon sinks
through reforestation and agroforestry activities andincreased efficiency in the use of forest biofuels.
Togo participates actively in the UNFCCC climatechange adaptation program. The Governmentof Togo (2009a) listed forests as an important
adaptation measure in its national reporting to
the UNFCCC. Table 6 summarizes Togo’s current
forest carbon potential.

Forest for protection

Non-timber forest products. Forest fragments
harbour a variety of plants that are used in dailyliving or as a supplemental source of income.

Soil and water. While soil and water protection isa major objective of forest management in Togo,

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

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

145–252

2+

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

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

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

140

TOGO

no forest is set aside primarily for the protectionof soil and water.a An estimated 5700 hectares ofprotection plantations was established between
2000 and 2007 in forest reserves (e.g. Kara – 362
hectares; Namon – 413 hectares; Asrama – 338
hectares; and Avétnou – 1100 hectares), theobjectives of which expressly include the protectionof soil and water resources.aBox 1 Bird-watching in Togo
In Togo, small forest areas, such as the classified
forest of Missahoe and the adjacent classified
forest of Damétui, may have surprising assets.
The Missahoe–Damétui forest, for example, is aheavily degraded semi-deciduous forest
dominated by Antiaris africana and Chlorophora
excelsa. It only covers an area of about 5000
hectares, yet it is catalogued by Bird Watch
International as an excellent spot forbird-watching.

Biological diversity. Togo contains considerable
biological diversity due largely to its ecologicaldiversity (ranging from savannas in the north tohumid tropical forests in the southwest). There
are at least 3085 plant species, 228 mammal
species, 708 bird species, 156 reptile species and
42 amphibian species (Government of Togo
2009b). Mammals that once occurred in Togo but
have largely or entirely disappeared include thechimpanzee, the red-bellied monkey, the Dianamonkey, the African lion and the wild dog (ibid.).
Six mammals, two amphibians and one arthropod
found in forests are listed as critically endangered,endangered or vulnerable on the IUCN red list of
threatened species (IUCN 2011). One plant species
is listed in CITES Appendix I and three are listed inAppendix II (UNEP-WCMC 2011).

Source: www.birdlife.org/index.html.

in Togo is the encroachment of parks by the local
population, in particular for subsistence agriculture;
fuelwood cutting and poaching; and the lack ofmeans for participatory management planningwith local stakeholders. Togo’s fourth assessment
report to the CBD on its biodiversity (Governmentof Togo 2009b) estimated that at least 125 000
hectares of officially protected areas are encroached.
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. In general, insufficient
data were available for an estimate to be made on
the area of protection PFE under SFM. Missahoe,
the site of a former ITTO project area, is also
supported by Birdwatch International and IUCN
Netherlands. It constitutes the only forest area
known to be under management consistent withsustainability, as shown in Table 7. Nevertheless, thecommunity in this area needs further support in its
efforts to maintain the integrity of their forest.

Protective measures in production forests.
Provisions are made in the 2008 Forest Code toprohibit logging on slopes susceptible to erosion as
well as for the protection of streams, springs andwatersheds. None of these measures is implemented
effectively, however.
Extent of protected areas. Estimates of Togo’s
protection PFE are highly uncertain because noneof the protected areas is effectively delineated or thedemarcation is no longer recognizablea; moreover, it
is unclear how much of these areas are still forested.
According to UNEP-WCMC (2010), 368 000
hectares of forest are in protected areas conforming
to IUCN protected-area categories I–IV, and thisfigure is used as a proxy for the protection PFE.
The main problems of protected-area management

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. The contribution of the forest
sector to GDP was about 3.5% annually in the
period 2006–08a, although this estimate does notaccount for informal activities (especially related towood energy). Since 2000 there has been modest

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

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

313
368

61
368

200
200

5

5**

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Missahoe and the adjacent Damétui classified forest (see Box 1). But there is a need to further support the community in its
efforts to maintain the integrity of the heavily degraded forest.

141

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Box 2 Sacred forests
A special role for biodiversity conservation can be
attributed to sacred forests, in particular in thehuman-populated region of southeast of Togo(see also Kokou et al. 2005). Sacred forests arescattered throughout the semi-deciduous forest
fragments and range in size from less of one
hectare to tens of hectares. Inventories haveshown that these forests are a last refuge of many
tree and fauna species. They are considered an
important part of the heritage in the riparianvillages, as they are sometimes useful catchment
areas for rivers and provide NTFPs. With thedecreasing social and economic cohesion,
however, sacred forests are increasingly under
threat.
private investment in teak plantations on private
land. The formal private enterprise employs about1000 salaried full-time and part-time workers. It isestimated that forestry provides about 90 000 jobs
in the informal sector, 77% of them for women andchildren, many in commercial fuelwood collection
and charcoal-making (ITTO 2006).
Livelihood values. The few existing forests areoften considered by rural people as the only
available reserves of land. Therefore they are heavily
encroached upon and claimed for subsistence
production. Forest reserves provide an importantsource of protein for people living in rural areas.
Forests are also a place of ritual and spiritualsignificance for many ethnic groups.
Social relations. The participation of local
stakeholders in forest decision-making andmanagement is not well-developed. Where afunctional working relationship exists (e.g. in
Missahoe through a number of projects), effective
partnerships between local population and theforest authorities can be established.

environmental deterioration are deforestation anddegradation; desertification; soil erosion in all
forms and all ecological zones; the sedimentationof lakes and waterways; the salinization of thecoastal sedimentary basin; a generalized drop inwater quality; a loss of soil fertility; and biofuel
shortages. The main difficulty in protecting andmanaging forests in Togo is the heavy pressure onthem from an impoverished rural population. The
Ministry for Environment and Natural Resources isin charge of forests but capacity is low. This affects
many forestry operations through, for example, thefailure to secure the integrity of classified forests andforest protected areas and the inability to enforce
forest laws and regulations. Progress is slow in forest
restoration and reforestation.

Key points•

Togo has an estimated PFE of 383 000 hectares(compared with 368 000 hectares in 2005),
comprising 15 000 hectares of state-owned
forest plantations (compared with 14 000 in2005) and 368 000 hectares of protection forest(compared with 313 000 hectares in 2005).

•

There is no natural-forest production PFE andtherefore no natural-forest production PFE
under SFM. An estimated 5000 hectares ofprotection PFE (an area also used for
production) is sustainably managed.

•

There is no regulated forest industry in Togo.
Timber and fuelwood harvesting is occurring in
all forests, irrespective of their legal status.

•

Togo has the highest relative forest loss inAfrica. The main direct threats to forest
resources are uncontrolled fire; excessive
harvesting for fuelwood; agricultural
encroachment; illegal cutting; and poaching andhunting.

•

A process is ongoing to reclassify forest reserves
and protected areas and to develop collaborative
forms of management.

•

The Government of Togo adopted a new forest
policy in 2008 and is developing a wider forestand environmental policy that aims to increase
the participation of local people in forest andnatural resource management. Support by theinternational community would greatly assist in
the implementation of this forest-reform
process.

Summary
Togo faces numerous environmental challenges,
including a growing population, poverty, andan imbalance between the consumption of
resources and the rate of restoration. Forest-sectorplans and programs give little consideration
to the environmental and social dimensionsof management. The most visible signs of

142

TOGO

EndnotesaGovernment of Togo (2010).

b

ITTO (2008).

References and other sources
Eggleston, H., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe,
T. (eds) (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories Programme. Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies, Kamakura, Japan.
FAO (2010a). Global forest resources assessment 2010
country report: Togo (available at http://www.fao.org/
forestry/fra/67090/en/).
FAO (2010b). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 Full
Report. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FSC (2010, website accessed August 2010). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).
Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007). Monitoringand estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDDa reality. Environmental Research Letters 2 (available at http://
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Government of Togo (2009a). Plan d’Action Nationald’Adaptation au Changement Climatique – Togo. Ministère del’Environnement et des Resources Forestières. Lomé, Togo.
Government of Togo (2009b). Quatrième rapport national de ladiversité biologique. Rapport du MERF au CBD (available
at http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/tg/tg-nr-04-fr.pdf ).

Government of Togo (2010). Deuxième rapport duTogo sur la gestion durable des forêts pour la période
2005–2009. Submission to ITTO by the Ministère del’Environnement et des Ressources Forestières, Lomé,
Togo.

ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2008). Mission d’appui au Gouvernement Togo en vue
d’atteindre l’Objectif de l’OIBT et l’aménagement forestierdurable. Report of the diagnostic mission to Togo. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO (2010, website accessed August 2010). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).
IUCN (2011, website accessed March 2011). IUCN red list of
threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).

Kokou, K., Kossi, A. & Hamberger, K. (2005). Les forêts
sacrées de l’aire Ouatchi au sud-est du Togo et lescontraintes actuelles des modes de gestion locale
des ressources forestières. Vertico 6, December 2005
(available at http://vertigo.revues.org/).
Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World Atlas ofMangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. Data prepared for
ITTO. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March
2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/

eng/resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (website accessed July2010). World population prospects: the 2008 revision(searchable database available at http://esa.un.org/unpp/
p2k0data.asp).

143

Status of tropical forest management 2011

144

CAMBODIA

ASIA AND THE
PACIFIC

Cambodia 146

Myanmar 207

Fiji 158

Papua New Guinea 218

India 168

Philippines 230

Indonesia 181

Thailand 242

Malaysia 196

Vanuatu 253145

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Cambodia

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

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

146•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

Table 1 Permanent forest estate

*
**

‡
†

Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal naturalforest area,
range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

2005*
2010

9.33–11.1
10.0–10.7

5500
3900

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted

Total

3460
3710b,**

8097
8309

17
69‡

4620
4530†

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-PFE

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

-

-

322
9703
-

147

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

148

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

Total area

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

10 100

8 336

0

0

10 100
0

8 336
0

0

0

Source: Government of Cambodia (2009b).

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

CAMBODIA

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

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

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

•

forest demarcation, classification andregistration•

forest resource management and conservation•

forest law enforcement and governance•community forestry•

capacity and research development

Forest for production•

sustainable forest financing.

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

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

Status of forest management

1 www.nfp-facility.org.

149

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

150

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

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

•

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

•

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

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

CAMBODIA

Shifting cultivation in Cambodian evergreen forests.

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

•Mark illegal logs that are evidence of forest
offences.

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

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

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

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

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Dipterocarpus alatus (chhoeuteal tan)*

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

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

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

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*

3460

2010

3710

3370
(suspended)
5**

*
**
‡

152

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
150
150‡

CertifiedSustainably
managed

Total

0

0

17

PlantedWith
management
plans
7

0

0

69

-

Certified00

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

CAMBODIA

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

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

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

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

957–1914

39++

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

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

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

153

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

Of which
Total
speciesEndangered

Legallyprotected

Important species

Endemic

930

78

930

-

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

Flowering
plants
Ferns

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Mammals

133

22

123

80

Birds

548

8

545

340

7

ReptilesAmphibians

97
35

Freshwater
fish

500

Butterflies

59

01
21

50
88
28
500

59

3

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

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

Source: Government of Cambodia (2009b).

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

154

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

CAMBODIA

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

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

4620
4530

3360
4050a

4200
551**

1490a

-

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

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

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

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Summary

Endnotes

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

aGovernment of Cambodia (2009b).

b

ITTO estimate.

Key points••

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

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

•

The rates of both legal and illegal deforestation
are significant.

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

•

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

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

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

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

156

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

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

CAMBODIA

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

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

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

157

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

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

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

2005*
2010

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

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

747
566

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

158

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted
0
0

113
176

241
43a

Total

354
219

FIJI

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

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

-

-

449
388*
-

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

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

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

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

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

Total area

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

53
0
53
885
59

-

Source: FAO (2010a).

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

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

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

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

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

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

161

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

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

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

Source: ITTO (2006).

162

FIJI

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

Mangrove forest, Fiji. © S. Baba

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

0
0

-

*
**
‡

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
6.3**

Certified

0

-

113

PlantedWith
management
plans
90

6.3**

176

68‡

Sustainably
managed

Total

Certified00

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

163

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

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

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

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

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

164

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

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

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

-

FIJI

Socioeconomic aspects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

241
43

3
43

18
304

37
-

55
-

As reported in ITTO (2006).

165

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

Key points•

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

166

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

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

•

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

•

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

EndnoteaGovernment of Fiji (2010).

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

FIJI

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

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

167

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

•

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

•

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

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

168

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

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

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

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

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

64.1–76.8
37.8

22 50023 100‡

*
**
‡
†
§

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlantedTotal

13 50026 16071 70036 30032 6005600†

25 6004540§

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

169

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

canopy density >70%: 8 351 000 hectares•

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

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

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

170

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

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

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

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

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

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

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

Ownership category

Total area

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

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

66 500-0-66 500
0

-

1070

-

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

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

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

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

171

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

172

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

INDIA

implemented through a three-tiered institutional
structure:•

the National Biodiversity Authority•

state biodiversity boards•

biodiversity management committees.

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

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

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

174

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

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

INDIA

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

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Tectona grandis (teak)*

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

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

From planted forests.

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

175

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

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

176

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

INDIA

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

2005* (allIndia)
2010
*
**
‡

†
§

Total

Available for
harvesting

13 50013 500NaturalWithmanagement
plans
9720

26 160**(tropical)

16 800(tropical)

16 800‡(tropical)

CertifiedSustainably
managed04800

PlantedCertifiedWith
managementplans
32 600
8150
0

0

4800†

5600§

Total

-

0.68

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

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

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

5085–8560

13+

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

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity

Importance Engagementinof forest
international
fire/
REDD+
biomass
processes
burning

+++

++

+

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

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

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

177

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Socioeconomic aspects

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

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

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

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

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

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed2005*
2010(tropical)

25 600 (all India)
4540

3060 (tropical)
4540

4540b

722

722

*

178

As reported in ITTO (2006a).

INDIA

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

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

Key points•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

EndnotesaGovernment of India (2010c).

b

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

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

179

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

180

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

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

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

INDONESIA

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

protected forest (31.6 million hectares)•

limited production forest (22.5 million hectares)•

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

game hunting parks (234 000 hectares).1

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

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

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

181

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

2005*
2010

105–120
94.4–98.5

100 382
69 230*****‡†

PFE (’000 ha)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlantedTotal

46 00038 600a,‡

71 00068 400†

2500
2500a

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

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

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

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

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

SFM policy framework

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

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

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

182

-

-

47 20043 600*-INDONESIA

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

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

Total area

Of which
PFE’000 ha

89 500-0-89 500
0

-

8410

-

*

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

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

183

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

184•

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

•

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

•

Provincial governments will manage forestparks.

•

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

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

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

INDONESIA

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

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

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

185

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

186•

The development of a draft regulation on illegal
logging eradication.

•

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

•

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

•

Improvements in forest protection infrastructureand facilities.

•

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

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

INDONESIA

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

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

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

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

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

Source: ITTO (2006).

187

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

188

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

Box 2 Mandatory certification of IUPHHK-HAs
Year

Number of
IUPHHK-HAs
assessedSize (ha)

Good

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Total

43
21
31
44
14
153

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

0
0
5
6
2
13

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

26
6
14
14
5
65

0
3
4
3
2
12

Source: Government of Indonesia (2010).

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

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

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

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

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

Certified

275
1125

2940

2500

PlantedWith
management
plans
2500

3160**

2500

2500

Sustainably
managed

Total

Certified

0.152
195

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

189

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

•

resin (damar), 689 tonnes

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

•

rattan, 563 tonnes•

cajuput oil, 88.8 tonnes•

sap (getah-getahan), 44.4 tonnes•

gum resin (gondorukem), 18.3 tonnes•

turpentine, 12.6 tonnes•

honey (madu), 2.19 tonnes•

agarwood (gaharu), 2.36 tonnes.

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

FAO (2010a) reported the following removals for2005:

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

INDONESIA

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

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

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

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

69

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to
2030
+++

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

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity++

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

191

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

22 50027 30014 40014 100**

16 00026 400b

5000
2180

1360
1360

*
**

192

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

INDONESIA

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

•

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

•

Losses from tax evasion by exporters throughtransfer pricing.

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

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

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

193

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

Key points
•

•

•

•

•

•

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

194

EndnotesaGovernment of Indonesia (2010).

b

ITTO estimate.

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

INDONESIA

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

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

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

195Status of tropical forest management 2011

Malaysia

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

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

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

2005*
2010

19.3–19.5
18.4–18.6

19 14814 700**

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlantedTotal

11 200
10 29814 59314 416‡

183
539

3210
3579

Of which:

Of which:

Of which:

2738 in
Peninsular
Malaysia

109 in Peninsular
Malaysia

1969 in
Peninsular
Malaysia

2790 in Sabah

230 in Sarawak

4770 in Sarawak***

200 in Sabah

610 in Sabah
1000 in Sarawak

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

196

MALAYSIA

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

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

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

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

Forest ecosystem health

SFM policy framework

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

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

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

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

191a,**
2700a,‡
-

-

3820*
-

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

197

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

Total area

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

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

14 420
0

0

0

Notes

State governments.

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

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

198

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

Log landing at Ravenscott in Sarawak.

MALAYSIA

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

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

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

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

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

For the preparation of state forest management
plans.

•For the preparation and implementation offorest restoration plans.

•

For the preparation and implementation ofprograms related to amenity forests.

•

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

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

199

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

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

MALAYSIA

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

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

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

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

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

838 000 m3.

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

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

201

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

MALAYSIA

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

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

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

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

11 200
10 298

6790
9910

*
**

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
11 2009910

Certified

4620
5228**

Sustainably
managed

Total

4790

183

5950

539

PlantedCertifiedWith
management
plans
183
183
539

35

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

203

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

2405–4625

79+

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

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

3210
3579

1400
1980

3210
3579

3210
3579

3210
3579

*

204

As reported in ITTO (2006).

MALAYSIA

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

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

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

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

205

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

Key points
•

•

•

•

•

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endnotes

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

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

aGovernment of Malaysia (2009).

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

b

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

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

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

206

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

MYANMAR

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

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

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

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

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reporting year

2005*
2010
*
**

‡

†

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

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

32 70017 500a,**

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

3300
5330b,**

Total

13 71022 012

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

207

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

Forest ecosystem health

SFM policy framework

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

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

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

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

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

Total area

Of which
PFE’000 ha33 300-0-33 30041-

0-Source: FAO (2010).

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE
Area of primary
forest-

Non-PFE’000-

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

-

-

0

-

-

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

208

Total
3192

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

MYANMAR

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

209

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

210

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

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

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

•

The setting up of checkpoints along the maintransport routes.

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

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

•

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

•

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

211

Status of tropical forest management 2011•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

A continued effort to strengthen research anddevelopment activities.

•

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

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

212

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

Teak

Other hardwood

Total

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

415
431
454
470
451
497
537
652
541
553

1320
1490
1560
1530
1710
2050
1930
2030
2070
2120

1735
1921
2010
2003
2164
2544
2470
2683
2612
2674

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

9700
15 800

-

*
**
‡

-

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
9700
15 800

CertifiedSustainably
managed

Total

0
0

291
291**

710
882‡

PlantedWith
management
plans
0
882

Certified00

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

213

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

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

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

2377–5182

58+++

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

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

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

214

MYANMAR

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

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

3300
5330

195
1370

6560
21 1005330-

As reported in ITTO (2006).

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

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

•

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

•

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

215

Status of tropical forest management 2011•

The enhancement of income-generating
opportunities.

•

Provision of awareness-raising campaigns andextension services.a

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

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

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

Key points•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

EndnotesaGovernment of Myanmar (2010).

b

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

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

MYANMAR

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

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

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

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

217

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

218

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

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

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Table 1 Permanent forest estate***‡

Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

2005*
2010

30.6
28.6–33.0

30 15022 800**

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted

Total

8700
8700*

10 48010 458

80
58‡

1700
1700*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-PFE

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

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

219

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

Total area

Of which
PFE’000 ha

260*

-

0

-

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

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

220

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

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

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

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

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

Weaknesses•

It is the government’s priority economic sector agency.

••

Good policy and legal framework for achieving SFM.

•

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

•••

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

•
•
•
•

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

••PNG Logging Code of Practice.

•

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

•

Project supervisors in the field.

•

Investment in forest plantation is almost negligent.

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

Source: Government of PNG (2010b).

221

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

The absence of an adequate national forest
inventory.

•

Controversies associated with the selection ofconcessionaires.

•

The virtually complete absence of field
monitoring.

•

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

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

224

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

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

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

NTFPs play many cultural roles in PNG.

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

•

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

•

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

225

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

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

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

8700
8700

5600
4900

*
**

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
4980
738

CertifiedSustainably
managed

19
2.7

1500

80

PlantedWith
management
plans
-

193

58

31.2**

Total

Certified0
19.2

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

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

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

4154–8037

79+++

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

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

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

226

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Forest for protection

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

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

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

Socioeconomic aspects

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

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

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

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

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

1700
1700

362
-

0

-

-

As reported in ITTO (2006).

227

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

Summary

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

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

•

Key points

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

••

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

228•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

•

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

EndnotesaGovernment of Papua New Guinea (2010b).

b

ITTO (2007).

c

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

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

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

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

229

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

•

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

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

•

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

•

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

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

230

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

PHILIPPINES

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

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

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

Table 1 Permanent forest estate

*
**

‡
†

Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(‘000 ha)

2005*
2010

5.4–7.2
7.17–7.66

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

Total

4700
4700‡

6514
6354

274
314b,†

1540
1340a

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

231

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

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

0-822c,*
0
2560c
4031c

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

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

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

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

•

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

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

232•

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

•

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

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

PHILIPPINES

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

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

Total area

Of which
PFE’000 ha

-

6354

-

0

-

6354
0

-

0

Source: Government of the Philippines (2009).

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

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

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

234

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

PHILIPPINES

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

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

•

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

•

1803 SIFMAs covering 34 727 hectares offorestlands.

•

5503 communities with CBFMAs covering 5.97
million of forestlands.

•

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

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

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Paraserianthes falcataria (falcata)

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

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

236

PHILIPPINES

Young forest-dwellers collect NTFPs in Mindanao.

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

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

237

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

4700
4700

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

Certified76

274

PlantedWith
management
plans
274

79a

314

164a,b,c

Sustainably
managed

0
0

Total

Certified00

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

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

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

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

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

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

765–1530

42+

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

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity++

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

238

PHILIPPINES

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

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

1540
1340

1540
1950

613**

1340a

-

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

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

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

239

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

Key points•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

240

EndnotesaGovernment of the Philippines (2009).

b

ITTO estimate.

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

PHILIPPINES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

241

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

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

242•

Pine forests, mainly of Pinus merkusii.

•

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

•

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

•

Dry dipterocarp forest (ITTO 2006a).

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

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

THAILAND

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range

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

§

13.0–16.8
17.2–19.0

10 1276140**

0
251‡

1870
1900†

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-PFE

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

-

-

6726
8728*
-

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

243

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

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

244

Total area Of which PFE Notes’000 ha
16 700

12 20000

16 7000

12 20002200

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

.

THAILAND

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

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

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

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

1 www.forru.org.

246

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

THAILAND

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

Planted managed teak forest, Thailand.

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

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

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

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

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

247

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

0
251**

251

*
**
‡

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
251

11

-

1870

PlantedWith
management
plans
250

11

1900

8‡

Sustainably
managed

Total

Certified

1
8

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

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

248

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

THAILAND

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forest for protection

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

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

1346–2215

32++

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

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

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

249

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Socioeconomic aspects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

8260
10 0005450
10 200**

9320
1330

402

522
402‡

*
**
‡

250

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

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

THAILAND

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

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

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

Key points•

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

251

Status of tropical forest management 2011•

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

•

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

EndnotesaGovernment of Thailand (2010).

b

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

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

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

252

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

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

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

VANUATU

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

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

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

253

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reporting year

2005*
2010

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

0.902
0.440

442
394**

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted
117
0

2.10
0

Total

8.37
8.37

127
8.37

*
**

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

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

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

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

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

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

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

254

-

-

-

VANUATU

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

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

Total area

Of which
PFE’000 ha

0

0

0

0

0
440*

0
0

0

0

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

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

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

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

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

255

Status of tropical forest management 2011•

Minimum diameter limit set for each timber
species.

•

Periodic closure of harvesting in sandalwood
areas.

•

Licensing of operators to help ensure good
logging practice.

•

Selection logging to be practised.

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

256

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

Source: ITTO (2006).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

117
0

0

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
0
0

Certified

0
0

0

2.1

PlantedWith
management
plans
2.1

0

0**

0

Sustainably
managed

Total

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

257

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

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

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

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

+

++

+

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

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

258

VANUATU

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

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

8.37
8.37

0
0

0

0

0

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

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

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

Key points•

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

•

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

•

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

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

259

Status of tropical forest management 2011

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

260

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

BOLIVIALATIN AMERICA
AND THECARIBBEAN

Bolivia 262

Mexico 343

Brazil 274

Panama 353

Colombia 289

Peru 363

Ecuador 299

Suriname 374

Guatemala 309

Trinidad and Tobago 386

Guyana 319

Venezuela 393

Honduras 333

261

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Boliviapart thereof ) and (northwestern) Cochabamba.
There are twelve tropical forest types, which arerich in timber species such as Swietenia macrophylla(mara), Hura crepitans (ochoó), Calophyllum spp(palo maría) and rubber, as well as NTFPs such as
Bertholletia excelsa (Brazil nut). The semi-humid
forest, the Chiquitania, is located mainly in thedepartment of Santa Cruz and is characterized by
species such as Astronium urundeuva (cuchi) andTabebuia spp (tajibo). Sub-Andean and Andean
forests cover the western flank of the Andean chain
at altitudes between 400 and 3500 m. These arecharacterized by Lauraceae and Meliaceae up to
900 m, by walnut–pine forests (Juglans australis andPodocarpus spp) between 1200 m and 1700 m and,beyond that up to 2700 m, by Alnus acuminata(aliso) (ITTO 2006).

Forest resources
The landlocked country of Bolivia has a land area of
110 million hectares and an estimated populationin 2010 of 10.4 million people (United Nations
Population Division 2010). It is ranked 113th outof 182 countries in UNDP’s Human Development
Index (UNDP 2009). Bolivia has the following
broad biogeographical zones: the high-altitude,
unforested altiplano (highlands in the Andean
mountain zone), with peaks exceeding 6000 m;
los yungas and los valles, which include the valleys
on the eastern flank of the Andes; and the tropicallowlands of Amazonia (el oriente), containing
moist tropical forests in the northeastern part andsubtropical plains in the southeast (El Chaco).
About half the country – mainly in the northernand eastern lowlands – is less than 500 m above sea
level. Bolivia has the sixth-largest area of tropicalrainforests in the world and the 15th-largest forest
area. FAO (2010a) estimated the total forest area
at 57.2 million hectares, while the Government of
Bolivia (2009, citing Olguin 2009) estimated it at
52.4 million hectares.
Forest types. Few countries have as great a diversityof ecosystems as Bolivia; the major biomes aretropical forests, including tropical humid forestsand semi-humid forests; mountain forests and highAndean grassland plains; savannas; and wetlands.a
The tropical forests of Bolivia lie in the departmentsof Beni, Pando, Santa Cruz, La Paz (the northern

262

Permanent forest estate. Land-use plans covering
agriculture, forests and other land uses exist for
about 76.5 million hectares of the country (ITTO2006). Under Decree DS 26075 (February 2001)
about 41.2 million hectares of forest have been
declared as lands for permanent forest production(i.e. PFE); nevertheless, these forests are underpressure and at least three million hectares havealready been converted to agriculture.a The areaclassified as production PFE comprises several
tenure regimes: Indigenous lands, individual
landholdings, public forests under concessions(including concessions assigned to local socialgroups – agrupaciones sociales del lugar – ASLs;
see below), and public forestlands withoutclassification. Of the 41.2 million hectares of thenominal PFE, 28.1 million hectares are classified forsustainable forest production without restrictions,
2.4 million hectares are classified as potentially
productive but reserved for recreational or other
non-timber use, and the remaining 10.7 million
hectares are classified as legally protected areas(Table 1 shows these figures net of the 3 million
hectares converted to agriculture).

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. FAO(2010b) estimated the annual forest-cover change
between 2000 and 2005 at 270 000 hectares,
or 0.5% per year, which is considerably higher

BOLIVIA

Table 1 Permanent forest estate

*
**
‡
†

ReportingYear

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

2005*
2010

52.2–59.5
52.4–58.7

47 99936 700**

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlantedTotal

17 00025 100‡31 76038 27360
73

14 70013 100†As reported in ITTO (2006).
Calculated using the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) (64.1%) and the total
natural forest area as estimated by FAO (2010a) (57.2 million hectares).
The nominal area is 28.1 million hectares, but at least 3 million hectares have been deforested and converted to agricultural uses.
In the PFE, non-forested areas can only be counted as forest if there is a strong intention to reforest.
Based on an estimate by UNEP-WCMC (2010) of IUCN protected-area categories I–IV.

Table 2 shows the estimated area of primary forest,
degraded primary forest and secondary forest; no
in-depth assessment of forest condition has yet been
made, however.

than the estimated deforestation for the period
1990–2000 of 161 000 hectares per year (ibid.).
The Government of Bolivia (2009) estimated thatover 300 000 hectares of forest are currently being
lost per year as a result of an expanding agriculture/
livestock frontier; fire; infrastructure projects (e.g.
roads, dams and energy infrastructure); mining; andan expansion of coca production. Illegal logging
is one of the main causes of forest degradation inlowland forests. Fuelwood extraction has degraded
forest fringes, especially in mountainous areas anddry forests. Accumulated deforestation in Bolivia is
about 6 million hectares, of which about 3 million
occurred in the last decade, about 80% of it illegally(Government of Bolivia 2008). Approximately 82%
of deforestation occurs in the north and east ofSanta Cruz as a result of agro-industry development(biofuels, sugarcane and soy), while deforestation
around Cobija in Pando and Riberalta in Beni
and in northern La Paz tends to be a result of smallscale shifting cultivation (ibid.). Legal, policy andinstitutional weaknesses stimulate deforestationand promote forest degradation, exacerbatedby the politicization of forestry institutions anda lack of innovative approaches that promoteforest management over clearing (ibid.). Road
development plans in the Amazon could further
increase the rate of colonization and lead tosignificant deforestation and forest degradation(ibid.).

Vulnerability of forests to climate change. The
effects of climate change can be observed in an
increase of extreme events like droughts and floods,
the retreat of glaciers (by more than 60% in somecases) and higher levels of vulnerability in natural
ecosystems, water resources, food security, healthand infrastructure (Government of Bolivia 2008).
Taking into account Bolivia’s topography, climatechange could potentially cause major alterationsin the geographical and altitudinal distributionof forest species and ecosystems. In parallel,poverty related to environmental degradation andan increase in the vulnerability of marginalized
communities increase pressure on forest resources,
resulting in further deforestation and environmental
degradation, particularly in the more populated
mountainous areas.

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. A portion of forests are publicly
owned and others are in lands that have been
granted under both private individual landholdings
and collective rights for Indigenous people andagro-extractive communities. Yet available dataon forest tenure reform are confusing. ITTO andTable 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

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

38 200
10 0003000

Source: Government of Bolivia (2009).

263

Status of tropical forest management 2011

RRI (2009) estimated the extent of governmentadministered forests at 22.9 million hectares (butdid not provide clear criteria for these estimates).
Using official sources, Pacheco (2008) estimatedthe publicly owned PFE at 16 million hectares,
comprising forest classified as protected areas (9million hectares), forests granted as concessions toeither timber companies (4.8 million hectares) or
ASLs (0.7 million hectares), and forest reserves tobe granted as non-timber forest concessions (1.3
million hectares) (Table 3). These numbers areindicative only, since the area of forest concessions
declined recently and the process for the allocationof non-timber forest concessions has been delayed.
A portion of the PFE has being encroached illegally(P. Pacheco, pers. comm., 2010).
The area of forest that has formally been granted
to individual and collective landholders has grownover time, and there is an ongoing process of land
titling. It is unclear how much forest is in private
hands because official data were unavailable forthis report. Using data from the land regularization
process, Pacheco (2008) estimated that at least 4
million hectares of forests were in the hands of
medium- and large-scale landholders, although this
could be much higher if informally encroachedpublic forests are taken into account.
The forestland controlled by smallholders is
estimated at about 2.6 million hectares, while
the total land under colonization in the lowlands
is about 3.8 million hectares (ibid.). The areaof forest in the hands of communities, mainly

Indigenous groups, has also grown over time due tothe formalization of Indigenous community lands(tierras comunitarias de origen – TCOs).
About 20 million hectares have been claimed by
Indigenous groups, but the titling of these lands is
conditional on a process of verification of needs andthe rights of other landholders. The titling process
has been relatively slow and bureaucratic, although
it has accelerated under the current administration.
Currently, about 11.4 million hectares of land
have formally been granted to Indigenous people(National Institute for Agrarian Reform 2010),
not all of which is forested. Taking into account all
the Indigenous land claims admitted by the state,
Pacheco (2008) estimated that 8.7 million hectaresof forests were controlled by Indigenous people.
The creation of TCOs has a potentially positiveeffect in bringing together Indigenous communities
with private commercial actors in the forest sector.
The National Law 3760 (2007) adopted the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples, with the likely effect of strengthening local
forest ownership. Nevertheless, despite efforts toclarify access to and ownership of forest resources,
there are still frequent land invasions and illegal
logging in Indigenous territories, legal forest
concessions and forest protected areas, jeopardizing
efforts to achieve SFM.a Table 3 summarizes
estimates of tenure in the PFE.
Criteria and indicators. In 1995, Bolivia adopted
the Tarapoto Proposal of C&I for the sustainabilityof the Amazon forest, which was sponsored by the

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

Total area Of which PFE Notes’000 ha-15 293-681-

15 974
11 406-

4000

Includes forests granted as concessions to timber companies
and ASLs, barracas* and protected forests.
Correspond to municipal forest reserves granted to ASLs.

Includes forestlands under admitted TCOs, and forestlands
occupied by smallholder colonists.
Includes only titled land in favour of medium- and large-scale
landholders, and does not include the amount of PFE that has
been informally encroached.

Barracas are areas of forest held by a person or family under locally recognized exclusive rights to harvest rubber or Brazil nuts.
Between 1930 and the mid 1980s both Brazil nut and rubber extraction coincided and barraca owners held labourers under afeudal dependency living permanently on the estate. The area of barracas declined from 3.5 million hectares at its peak to lessthan 1.8 million hectares in 2005 (de Jong et al. 2006).
Source: ITTO estimate based on Pacheco (2008).

264

BOLIVIA

Riverine vegetation, Tambopata Transboundary Conservation Area, Bolivia. © H. Castro/Conservation International

Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization. The
Government of Bolivia used the ITTO C&I in its
submission to ITTO for this report.a
Forest policy and legislation. The Bolivian
Constitution (Constitución Política del Estado –CPE), adopted in 2009, has created a new legislative
framework in Bolivia. The CPE restates the keyrole that natural forests play in the developmentof Bolivia (CPE Article 386) and confirms theprovisions for SFM and forest conservation madein the Forest Law 1700 (1996; CPE articles 38 and
299). On the basis of the CPE and the result of a
recently conducted national assessment of forest
policy and law implementation, Bolivia is reviewing
the Forest Law with the aim of expanding the scope
beyond timber to integrated forest management.a
Law 3525 of November 2006 regulates the
production and use of NTFPs. Regulations were
put in place in 2008 to implement the National
Forest Development Fund (Fondo Nacional de
Dessarrollo Forestal – FONABOSQUE), which was
designed to promote SFM. Supreme Decree 29643(2008) established norms and incentives to support
forest management for both timber and NTFPs
by rural and Indigenous communities throughcommunity forestry organizations.a

The current forest policy is driven by the broader
national development plan for 2006–2011 entitled
Bolivia Digna, Soberana, Productiva y Democratica
para Vivir Bien. This plan recognizes that natural
resources play an important role in the country’s
development. Hydrocarbons, minerals, hydropower
and renewable biological resources (i.e. biodiversity
and forests) are considered to be the four pillarsof economic development. A more specific forest
development plan (Plan para la Revolución Rural,
Agraria y Forestal) was produced in 2007. A national
policy for the integrated management of forests(Politica Nacional para la Gestión Integral de losBosques) was announced in 2008, along with anational plan for integrated forest management, thelatter of which is being pilot-tested in the northernpart of the Bolivian Amazon.a In March 2010,
the National Forest and Reforestation Program(Programa Nacional de Forestación y Reforestación)
was installed through Presidential decree (BO-DSN443) with the aim of contributing to biodiversity
protection, forest restoration, SFM, the reductionof deforestation and the creation of new forests.
Also in 2010, the National Strategy on Forest
and Climate Change was produced with the aimof promoting integrated forest management as aframework for forest-related initiatives to address265

Status of tropical forest management 2011

climate-change adaptation and mitigation. These
recent documents will also help the process ofreformulating Forest Law 1700.
Institutions involved in forests. The Departmentof Environment, Biodiversity, Climate Change andForest Management and Development, under the
Ministry of Environment and Water, has overall
responsibility for forest administration at thenational level. The General Directorate of Forests(Dirección General Forestal) within the Departmentof Environment, Biodiversity, Climate Change
and Forest Management and Development is
responsible for the implementation, monitoring andevaluation of forest management and conservation,in close coordination with departments, prefectures(prefecturas) and municipalities (municipíos).
The Forestry Superintendency (Superintendencia
Forestal), which was the regulating body in 2005
(ITTO 2006), was replaced in 2009 by the
Authority for the Social Monitoring and Control
of Forests and Lands (Autoridad de Fiscalización yControl Social de Bosques y Tierras – ABT), whichdevelops programs for the control, monitoring andsupervision of the use of forest and land resources;
issues permits for forest exploitation; and guarantees
the sustainable management of forests according to
the law. However, the transition from the Forestry
Superintendency to the ABT caused delays inadministrative, financial and control processes.
FONABOSQUE, which is financed throughforest taxes, has been functional since 2008; it isdesigned to provide incentives for SFM and forest
conservation but to date it has been relatively
unsuccessful.
Sustenar, a decentralized unit created in 2007, is
responsible for the implementation of two programs(Sustentar and Conservar), the aim of which is tosupport sustainable production forestry and forest
conservation at the local level.
Among the NGOs that have experience inmonitoring access to and the use of forests are the
Friends of Nature Foundation (Fundación Amigosde la Naturaleza), the Bolivian Institute of Forestry
Research (Instituto Boliviano de Investigación
Forestal), currently linked to the Gabriel Rene
Moreno Public University (Universidad Autonoma
Gabriel Rene Moreno), Conservation International(Conservación Internacional) and others.
The Law of Popular Participation (Ley deParticipación Popular, Ley 1702, 1996) conferred266

more autonomy on local governments andurban and rural municipalities and gave them
responsibility for, among other things, the use
and management of forests. Territorial grassroots
organizations such as ‘peasant communities’and ‘neighbours’ councils’ were recognized andgiven tasks in the new structure for the use of
public resources (ITTO 2006). The 1994 Law ofPopular Participation (Ley 1551) subdivided the
Bolivian territory into 311 municipalities, eachgiven an equitable share of resources. It created
prefectures in the country’s nine departments withresponsibility for the regulation, planning andcoordination of activities in the municipalities
within them. Prefectures develop and implement
forest development plans, including for watershedmanagement, forest plantations, conservation,and extension and research. They are also incharge of implementing Decree BO-DS-N443(see above), and they prepare programs to support
municipalities in forest management.
Municipalities propose to the ministry thedelimitation of the PFE as municipal reserves(reservas municipales) and support ASLs in the
management of their delimited forests. They
also have control of forest management planningand planned deforestation activities, regulate
and control forest use, and detect illegal forestry
activities.a However, even though the regulations
are clear between these decentralized levels,
widespread poverty limits the prioritization of forest
management on the local development agenda; alack of resources is reflected in the weak capacityof local agencies to apply the regulations. At themunicipal level, FMUs are also weak due to a lackof funds and because the institutional framework
under construction is generating uncertainty among
local actors (G. Ulloa, pers. comm., 2010).
The country is strengthening the ability of its
personnel to implement SFM by providing
in-service training and maintaining forestry
education at a high level, including throughspecialization courses in forest management at the
University of Cochabamba (ITTO 2006).
The FSC established the Bolivian Council for
Voluntary Forest Certification (Consejo Bolivianopara la Certificación Forestal Voluntaria) in 1995 tooversee the establishment of a certification system
in Bolivia. The private sector is organized through a
producers’ association coordinated by the Bolivian
Forestry Chamber (Cámara Forestal de Bolivia).

BOLIVIA

The Chamber also includes a technical component
known as the Promabosque which, among othertasks, promotes SFM in natural and planted forests.

Status of forest management
Forest for production
According to Forest Law 1700 (1996), access toforest resources in the PFE is based on:•

Forest concessions in state lands (tierras fiscales)
for large-scale companies.

•

Forest concessions in state lands for ASLs.

•

Harvesting permits in privately owned forest
lands, divided into two categories – sustainable
forestry with management plans, and conversion
permits (permisos de desmonte).

•

Forest management in TCOs.

Forest concessions are granted for a period of 40
years, subject to a five-yearly audit of the forest
management plan (which has not been effective
in practice) and operational annual plans for the
extraction of timber and NTFPs. Management
plans and auditing are also required in TCOs
and private forests. The exclusive user rights ofIndigenous groups are guaranteed in TCOs.
In privately owned forests, a permit for conversion
to other economic land uses can also be obtained.
The rules for forest management plans are describedin Forest Law 1700 and complementary regulations(Supreme Decree 24453/96). A management plan
must be prepared by a professional forester who is
independent of the concessionaire. In 2003, a totalof 86 commercial forest concessions were operating

in an area of 5.47 million hectares, most of themwith valid management plans (ITTO 2006). In
2008, 3331 FMUs were in place over a total areaof 9.68 million hectares, including 83 commercial
forest concessions covering 5.6 million hectares,
243 TCOs covering 930 000 hectares, and 32 ASLs
covering 720 000 hectares (see Box 1).a
Although a system of auditing has been developed
it has proven difficult to monitor concessions.a
Nevertheless, the certification of a significant areaof forest indicates that a high standard of forest
management is being achieved in many FMUs
(regulations under Forest Law 1700 recognize
audits carried out by an international system ofvoluntary forest certification, properly accredited
by credible international bodies). In the past, forest
owners have complained about the complicatedprocedures (in particular for local communities)
in fulfilling the demands for inventory and forest
management planning and the high transaction
costs that are incurred in the planning process.a The
ABT has therefore attempted to reduce this burden
by allowing smaller forest owners (in particular)
to comply with a reduced set of planning andmanagement standards.a
In coming years the recently approved National
Plan for the Integrated Management of Forests is
expected to introduce a series of modifications toforest management systems deployed in FMUs.
It will broaden the focus of forest management
plans to improve control over resources, including
timber and NTFPs, increase community-based
production forestry, and include the management
and conservation of forest services.aBox 1 Forest permits in FMUs, 2008
Rights category

Communally owned
TCOs
ASLs
Privately owned
Long-term extraction contracts
Forest enterprises (concessions)*
Total

Number of
permits

Total area (ha)Mediansize of FMU
(ha)

876
243
32
2095
2
83
3331

580 000
930 000
720 000
1 820 000
230 000
5 400 000
9 680 000

662
3827
22 500869
115 000
65 060*

These data may no longer be valid since the area of forest concessions was reduced significantly in mid 2010, from 5.4 million
hectares (granted in 1996) to about 3.2 million hectares in 2010. Barracas are included under long-term extraction contracts andconcessions. No recent information on approved plans in individual landholdings, TCOs or community lands was available for thisreport.
Source: Government of Bolivia (2009).

267

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Hura crepitans (ochoó)*
Dipteryx odorata (almendrillo)
Tabebuia spp (tajibo)*
Amburana cearensis (roble)*
Ceiba spp (ceiba)*

By far the most harvested species (>1 million m3 per year).
About 87 000 m3 per year (average 2006–08).
About 75 000 m3 per year (average 2006–08).
About 53 000 m3 per year (average 2006–08).
About 45 000 m3 per year (average 2006–08).

*
Also listed in ITTO (2006).
Source: Personal communications with Bolivian foresters and administrators – see endnote b.

Silviculture and species selection. Detailed
technical norms for silvicultural management(IDF 003-2006) were introduced in 1997 andcomplemented in 2006. They include adaptive
management according to forest type and pre- andpost-harvesting inventories; the marking of future
crop trees and seed trees; the cutting of climbers;
and liberation thinning.a Permanent sample plots
must be established after harvesting to monitor
regeneration. In reality, only those FMUs that
follow a certification regime are fulfilling theserequirements; the large majority of forest owners
ignore silvicultural activities after logging.a
Harvesting itself must be conducted according toprescriptions and a detailed annual operational
plan.
There are more than 2000 tree species in Bolivia,of which at least 220 have been used and marketed(ITTO 2006). In the past, forest operations in
Bolivia were based on the selective logging of a few
valuable species, in particular Swietenia macrophylla(mara) and Cedrela odorata (cedro). In recent years,
the number of harvested species has increased andthis has resulted in higher removals. In 1995 (before
the enactment of Forest Law 1700), for example,
mara accounted for around 16% of the commercial
timber removed (ITTO 2006); currently, however,it officially constitutes less than 1%. The volume
of cedro harvested in 2000 was more than 100 000
m3; today less than 20 000 m3 of that species isharvested annually.b In addition to the species listed
in Table 4, important timber species harvested in
Bolivia include Anadenanthera colubrine (curupaú),Caesalpinia pluviosa (momoqui), Vochysia haenkeana(cambará), Aniba guianensis (canelón), Terminalia
amazonica (verdolago), Ficus spp (bibosi), Swartzia
jorori (jorori), palo maría, Sterculia apetala (sujo),
Cariniana ianarensis (yesquero blanco) andSchizolobium amazonicum (serebó).
Planted forest and trees outside the forest. In
2008 the total area of planted forests in Bolivia

268

was estimated at around 73 000 hectares.a Planted
forest plots are generally small and include
both indigenous and exotic tree species. A large
proportion of the planted forest is located in thedepartments of Cochabamba and Chuquisaca. Most
has been established under programs supported byinternational organizations, the main focus being
on local communities with various aims including
increasing revenues for small landowners, restoring
degraded lands and eradicating coca plantations(ITTO 2006).
The major species planted – mostly in higheraltitude areas – are Eucalyptus globulus and Pinus
patula; these two comprise about 90% of the total
plantation area. Although considered relatively
ineffective for controlling soil erosion, both species
were planted for this purpose because they wereconsidered suitable for cool climates (ITTO 2006);
today they are major providers of fuelwood andlocal timber. Other species planted include Alnus
acuminata, Pinus radiata, P. pseudostrobus, Cupressus
lusitanica and Acacia spp. More than 25 speciesof eucalypt and pine have been tried. Private
plantations using teak and high-yielding eucalypts
have been established in recent years in lowlands
on private land; such plantations are expected
to expand, particularly on former pasture land.b
Plantation timber is not yet used to any great extent
in international trade.
Forest certification. In 2005 Bolivia had thelargest area of certified natural tropical forest in
Latin America. As of September 2010, there were
20 certified management units (including one
small timber plantation) covering a total area of
1.72 million hectares (FSC 2010), down fromabout 2.2 million hectares in 2005 (ITTO 2006).
Growth in the international market for certified
wood products from Bolivia has been slow and thedecrease in certified forest area can be attributed
to a lack of market incentives. Many Bolivian
companies see little attraction in maintaining forest

BOLIVIA

management certification in the long term.b Legaland institutional uncertainty for investments has
also become a disincentive (G. Ulloa, pers. comm.,
2010).
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. In 2009, there were3331 forest management plans covering an area of
9.68 million hectares.a There are 19 natural-forest
FMUs with valid FSC certificates, ranging in size
from 15 000 to 220 000 hectares and covering a
total area of 1.72 million hectares; this constitutes
the estimate of sustainably managed natural forest
given in Table 5. In addition, 40 000 hectares ofplanted forests are considered to be well managed(ITTO 2006), comprising community forests
in mountain regions and one certified timber
plantation in the lowlands. The 2.4 million hectaresof production forests set aside for protection
purposes are not counted in the estimates given in
Table 5.
Timber production and trade. The estimatedindustrial roundwood production in Bolivia
in 2009 was 910 000 m3 (ITTO 2010); theGovernment of Bolivia (2009) estimated the total
average annual log production at 1.77 million m3.
On average an estimated 460 000 m3 of sawnwood
were produced annually between 2007 and 2009
(ITTO 2010). Nearly 100% of log production
and 85% of sawnwood are used domestically(ibid.), although there are reports of increased
exports in recent years, mainly to China. Although
the country produces a significant quantity ofcertified wood, access to environmentally sensitive
international markets is limited.
The wood-products industry consists primarilyof small and medium-sized enterprises withmostly obsolete technology producing solid wood
products.a In 2008, 428 sawmills were registeredby the ABT and there were an estimated 2100

enterprises in secondary wood-processing.a
The current insecurity of tenure for industrial
enterprises has resulted in insufficient investment inforest industry and there is a risk that the relatively
high standard of wood-processing will disappear. A
major handicap for Bolivia’s wood industry is thehigh cost of production per unit volume due tofactors such as a low rate of extraction per hectare;the high cost of forest management; and the costof essential inputs such as machinery, fuel andtransportation. Wood prices are more than twice
as high as in Brazil, Bolivia’s principal competitor(USAID 2008).
Non-timber forest products. Brazil nut (alsocalled castaña) is by far the most important NTFP
exported by Bolivia, with annual production
exceeding 45 000 tonnes. Palm hearts (palmito –Euterpe predatoria) are harvested mostly in private
forests and are subject to management plans;
nationally, annual production amounts to about
350 tonnes. Wild cocoa (Theobroma cacao) iscollected as a niche export product. Many other
NTFPs are used locally, such as the fruits and leavesof the motacú palm (Attalea phalerata); medicinal
plants (e.g. uña de gato – Uncaria tomentosa); wild
fruits (e.g. majo – Oenocarpus bataua and hoja depatujú – Phenakospermum guianense); and materials
for roofing. Fuelwood collection is an important
activity. Hunting provides protein for local
communities, and some native species (e.g. caiman– Caiman yacare) are bred in captivity.
Forest carbon. According to inventories of
GHG emissions made by the National Climate
Change Program (Programa Nacional de Cambios
Climáticos), the vast majority (83%) of CO2
emissions stem from changes in land use, inparticular the conversion of forests to fields andpastures for agriculture and livestock. Gibbs et al.
(2007) estimated the forest biomass carbon stockat 2469–9189 MtC, while FAO (2010a) estimated

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

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

17 00025 1005470
9680*****‡NaturalWithmanagement
plans
5470
9680‡

Certified

2210
1720

2210

60

PlantedWith
management
plans
-

1720

73

-

Sustainably
managed

Total

Certified

00.2

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Only a relatively small portion of this is probably under concession, since it also comprises private (individual and collective) land.
According to Government of Bolivia (2009); however, it is unclear if management plans have been formally approved for the entire
area.

269

Status of tropical forest management 2011

it at 4442 MtC. The carbon capture potential of
Bolivia’s forests has been estimated at 2.4 tonnesof carbon per hectare per year for dry tropicalforest ecosystems, and 5–8 tonnes of carbon perhectare per year in humid tropical forests (USAID
2008). Bolivia submitted a readiness idea note to
the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility in 2008
but then ceased involvement with the Facility. The
government received exploratory missions from
UN-REDD in 2009 and submitted its National
Joint Program to UN-REDD in 2010. Funds havealso been made available by bilateral cooperation
agencies for implementing pilot projects related
to REDD+. Experience with certified emission
reductions through the Noel Kempff Mercado
Climate Action Project will assist Bolivia’s future
participation in REDD+ schemes. Table 6
summarizes Bolivia’s REDD+ potential.

Forest for protection
Soil and water. In general, forests in the upper
watersheds are a high priority for maintaining
functional landscapes. These forests protect soils on
steep slopes and improve downstream water quality
by reducing siltation; they catch, hold, and slow
runoff from precipitation, thereby reducing peakflows and flooding and stabilizing flows during thedry season. The 1992 Environmental Law (Ley 1333
del Medio Ambiente) dedicates two chapters to soil
and water protection and defines soil and watershed
conservation as a specific responsibility of the state.
Many small-scale plantations have been establishedto protect watersheds in the Bolivian Andes,
mainly to control soil erosion but also as a local
source of fuelwood and products for local markets.
Examples of market-like payments, compensationand incentive schemes for conserving hydrologicalservices have been developed in certain municipalities(USAID 2008), mostly in Santa Cruz.
Biological diversity. Bolivia is ranked seventhin the world for the diversity of its birds, tenthfor other vertebrates and 15th for primates; italso contains at least 18 000 species of plants, ofwhich approximately 2700 are trees.a There is ahigh degree of endemism and many of Bolivia’s
ecosystems are undisturbed. Fifteen mammals,
16 birds, one reptile, 26 amphibians and one
plant species found in forests are listed as criticallyendangered, endangered or vulnerable on the
IUCN red list of threatened species (IUCN 2011).
Bolivia has eight plant species listed in CITES
Appendix I and 319 in Appendix II (UNEPWCMC 2011). Timber species include mara,
Cedrela spp and Podocarpus parlatorei. Cedrela spp
are listed in Appendix III.
Protective measures in production forests.
Detailed regulations have been established under
Forest Law 1700 for commercial forestry operations
to assist in protecting watersheds and soil. Forest
management plans must make special provision forbiological corridors, the regulation of hunting andthe conservation of endangered plant and animal
species. About 2.4 million hectares of production
forests have been set aside for protection purposes.a
Extent of protected areas. Bolivia’s National
System of Protected Areas (Sistema Nacional deAreas Protegidas – SNAP) comprises 22 protectedareas of national interest and numerous others at
the departmental and municipal level covering an
area of 10.7 million hectares, which is about 16%
of Bolivian territory. All major ecosystem types
are represented. SNAP is an ambitious program
given the human and financial constraints faced
by Bolivia. A foundation for the development of
SNAP, FUNDESNAP, was created in 2000.
SNAP comprises five official protected-area
categories: national parks; natural monuments;
wildlife sanctuaries; wildlife reserves; and naturalareas for integrated use. Five protected areas,
covering a total area of 4 million hectares situatedin lowland areas, are interconnected throughpermanent production forests (ITTO 2006).

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

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

2469–9189

64+++

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
monitoringsinkcapacity
capacity
to 2030+++

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity++

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

270

BOLIVIA

Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)***

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

14 70013 1007660
10 7006790-

3500**

2380
2690

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Comprising the Noel Kempff and Madidi national parks and a private reserve covering about 109 000 hectares.

The Noel Kempff National Park was extended
in 2005 through the buy-out of logging rights
for 832 000 hectares of forest by a consortiumof three organizations and its incorporation
into the national park as part of a large-scalecarbon offset project. This first known REDD
project has certified nearly 1 million tons of CO2(Government of Bolivia 2008). However, nofinancial compensation has been paid due to a lackof institutional and legal agreements and regulations
regarding the distribution of carbon credits.
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. The estimated 10.7
million hectares of forested protected areas in the
SNAP benefit from decrees or simple management
directives and are staffed with forest rangers.
Additional efforts to develop management plans
and to protect the integrity of the forest have been
made in two national parks – the 1.52-millionhectare Noel Kempff National Park, which isone of the largest and most intact national parks
in the Amazon Basin, and the Madidi National
Park, which is located in the upper Amazon region
covering an area of about 1.89 million hectares andwas supported for several years by an ITTO-funded
project. The Noel Kempff National Park and anarea of about 1.17 million hectares comprising
the lower-lying areas of the Madidi National Parkare counted in Table 7 as sustainably managed
protection PFE. Insufficient information is available
on the status of management in other protectedareas.

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. Forestry accounted for 0.9%
of GDP (approximately US$39 million) and the’wood and wood products’ sector represented
1.1% of GDP (approximately US$45 million) in2008 (National Institute of Statistics of Bolivia2010). The forest sector contributes directly to thegeneration of more than 90 000 jobs, and about
160 000 families benefit from employment in

the forest sector (Government of Bolivia 2008).
Community forest-user groups are responsible
for less than 6% of forest production (Pacheco2008) because most of the harvest is conducted on
private lands and in forest concessions. A significant
informal sector is involved in logging and industrial
operations.
Livelihood values. Tropical forests are of greatvalue to forest-dwellers, including Indigenous
peoples who have subsistence user rights for
non-commercial purposes throughout the forest
estate without the need for permits; hunting andfishing are the most important activities. Forest
areas are also considered as a reserve of available
land and are used for subsistence agriculture.
Pacheco (2005) estimated that about 1.3 million
people rely on forest resources for at least part oftheir livelihoods, including 180 000–200 000
Indigenous people. An estimated 25 000–30 000
families live in or next to dense forests inthe northern Amazon in Bolivia and rely on
agro-extractive systems and the seasonal collectionof Brazil nuts for income. Some 500 000–600 000
colonists and small-scale farmers settled in Santa
Cruz, Chapare and Yungas harvest subsistence
goods from forests (e.g. fuelwood, wood forbuilding, fodder and fruits) and obtain indirect
benefits from forests, such as through ecosystemservices (Pacheco 2005). About 400 000 people
living in the temperate valleys of Cochabamba,
Tarija and Chuquisaca use forest resources – mainly
fueldwood – for subsistence (ibid.).
Social relations. The inclusion and empowerment
of Indigenous and other marginalized social groups
has been a major political achievement in Bolivia,
especially the enactment of Law 1702 on public
participation. What is still uncertain, however, is theform that such social inclusion and empowerment
will take and the mechanisms through which
they will be achieved (USAID 2008). A variety of
new laws and regulations guarantee local rights
to the use of forest resources, but the system still271

Status of tropical forest management 2011

needs to be fully implemented. In fact, weak law
enforcement and land-tenure problems are creatingsocial unrest and jeopardizing the introduction of
SFM. Local tensions between legally defined forest
users and other interested parties remain unabated.
Illegal logging of high-value timber species is anunresolved problem. Illegal crops, particularly coca,
are planted by farmers in fields and small openings
and are often a major reason for violence in forested
areas.a

Key points•

Bolivia has an estimated PFE of 38.3 million
hectares (compared with 31.8 million hectares
in 2005), comprising 25.1 million hectares ofnatural production forests (compared with 17.0
million hectares in 2005), 13.1 million hectaresof protection forest (compared with 14.7
million hectares in 2005) and 73 000 hectaresof planted forest (compared with 60 000
hectares in 2005).

Summary•

An estimated 1.72 million hectares of thenatural production PFE (all of which is
certified) are under SFM. An estimated 2.69
million hectares of protection PFE are underSFM.

•

A large area of partly unexploited forest in the
Amazon Basin remains protected due to its
remoteness. However, there are plans to open up
these areas for economic development.

•

The management of forest resources has been
decentralized and is undertaken at the prefecturelevel and by municipalities and a variety of local
community-based and Indigenous institutions,which lack sufficient resources and capacity.

•

About 30% of the PFE is owned by local andIndigenous communities.

•

The once well-established wood-processing
industry with a strong body of professional
knowledge and with significant areas ofcertified forests is confronted by a number ofdifficulties, including high costs. In addition,access to markets for certified timber remains
problematic and the lack of a significant pricepremium may make it difficult to maintain highstandards.

•

The system of protected areas in Bolivia isambitious, but there is a lack of capacity andfunding to fully implement it.

•

In many areas, illegal logging and illegal crops
are major constraints to the full adoption of
SFM and the effective conservation of protectedareas.

The new governance paradigm and development
model in Bolivia has brought dramatic changes.
While it provides new opportunities for forest
management, a number of challenges must
be tackled in the longer term. Forest-related
policies and laws are generally progressive but
there is insufficient capacity to implement themand difficulties in assigning responsibilities andauthority to the various levels of government.
The capacity of Indigenous organizations needs
strengthening to ensure that Indigenous rights
are upheld, particularly within the protected-areasystem. Land tenure and property rights remain
uncertain, leading to a lack of investment in forest
management and downstream wood-processing.
Plans to open up large areas in the Amazon throughroad development could increase colonization andexacerbate deforestation and forest degradation.
Nonetheless, Bolivia has made remarkable progress
towards SFM in the past 15 years. It has launched
and implemented a comprehensive and ambitious
reform of its forest sector and embarked on amajor process of conferring property rights fornatural forests to Indigenous communities. Forest
certification is a major factor in the introduction of
SFM practices – although the area of certified forest
has declined in recent years as economic rewards
have failed to materialize. New management
paradigms have been defined recently to include
a broader integrative forest management concept
for SFM. While generally this is a positive
development, there is a risk that it will lead to alowering of the standards of forest management.

272

BOLIVIA

EndnotesaGovernment of Bolivia (2009).

b

Information derived from discussions held withrepresentatives of government, civil society and the private
sector at an international workshop on governance and
REDD, held 30 August–3 September 2010, Oaxaca,
Mexico.

References and other sources
FAO (2010a). Global forest resources assessment 2010 country
report: Bolivia (available at http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).
FAO (2010b). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 Full
Report. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FSC (2010, website accessed June 2010). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).
Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007). Monitoringand estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDDa reality. Environmental Research Letters 2 (available at http://
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Government of Bolivia (2008). Readiness plan idea note
Bolivia. Prepared by the Ministry of Development
Planning-National Climate Change Programme for theForest Carbon Partnership Facility (available at www.
forestcarbonpartnership.org).
Government of Bolivia (2009). Informe sobre el progresoalcanzado en a ordenación sostenible do los bosquestropicales de Bolivia. Ministerio de Desarrollo Rural y
Tierras. Viceministerio de gestión y desarrollo forestal.
October 2009. Prepared by Namiko Nagashiro.
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).

IUCN (2011, website accessed January 2011). IUCN red list of
threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).
de Jong, W., Ruiz, S. & Becker, M. (2006). Conflicts andcommunal forest management in northern Bolivia. Forest
Policy and Economics 8 (2006) 447–457.
National Institute for Agrarian Reform (2010). Saneamiento ytitulacion de tierras 1996-2010. Powerpoint presentation.
Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria.
National Institute of Statistics of Bolivia (2010, website accessed
December 2010). Instituto Nacional de Estadística deBolivia (available at http://www.ine.gob.bo/).
Olguín, L. (2009). Superficie de bosques en Bolivia.
Unpublished.
Pacheco, P. (2005). Towards a forestry strategy in Bolivia: helping
forests to help people. Report to FAO. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Pacheco, P. (2008). Cambios recientes y nuevos desafíos para lagestión de los bosques. In Belpaire, C. & Ribero, M. (eds)
Estado Ambiental de Bolivia 2007–2008. Liga de Defensa delMedio Ambiente, La Paz, Bolivia.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. Data prepared for
ITTO. 2010.UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed January2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
July 2010). World population prospects: the 2008 revision(searchable database available at http://esa.un.org/UNPP/).
USAID (2008). Bolivia tropical forestry and biodiversity
assessment. Final report. Prepared for the United States
Agency for International Development, Contract Number
511O-00-08-00040-00.

ITTO (2010, website accessed October 2010). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).
ITTO & RRI (2009). Tropical forest tenure assessment. trends,
challenges and opportunities. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan andRights and Resources Initiative, Washington, DC, UnitedStates.

273

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Braziland epiphytes. In the open humid forests the trees
are more widely spaced and palm creepers andbamboos are more common.

Forest resources
Brazil has a land area of 846 million hectares andan estimated population in 2010 of 195 million
people (United Nations Population Division 2010);
the country is ranked 75th out of 182 countries
in UNDP’s Human Development Index (UNDP2009). Ninety-three per cent of the country is
below 800 m in altitude. The highest peaks, atabout 2500 m, are found on the northern borderwith Venezuela and in the southeast on the Atlantic
coast. The vast Amazon Basin contains the world’s
largest area of tropical rainforest; the majority of it
is Brazilian territory. FAO (2010a) and Governmentof Brazil (2010) both estimated Brazil’s total forest
cover in 2010 at 519 million hectares, including
both tropical and non-tropical natural and planted
forests; an estimated 354 million hectares of thetotal was in the Amazon.a
Forest types. Brazilian forests can be classified
broadly as Amazon rainforest, Atlantic rainforest(Mata Atlântica) (28.8 million hectares), central
cerrado savanna (70 million hectares), arid caatinga(46.8 million hectares) and the wetlands of thePantanal (8.55 million hectares; Government ofBrazil 2010).
The two main forest types in the Amazon are dense
and open ombrophilous (humid) forests. The
dense humid forests are characterized by large andmedium-sized trees (with canopy up to 50 m andemergent trees up to 40 m) and abundant lianas274

The predominant vegetation in the cerrado issavanna (forested, arborized and steppe). Savanna
formations also predominate in the Pantanalbiome, which also contains savanna as well as small
areas of semi-deciduous and deciduous forest.
The caatinga comprises predominantly steppesavanna, interrupted by clusters of deciduous andsemideciduous forest and savanna. To the north,pioneer formations occur, represented by marshes
and swamps on the coast. The Mata Atlântica
biome consists of humid (dense, open and mixed)
and seasonal (deciduous and semi-deciduous)
forests. Pioneer formations occur, represented bymarshes and swamps along the coast, and savanna
occurs in small areas in the northeast near thecoast.aBrazil has more mangrove forests than any
country other than Indonesia, with about 1.3
million hectares, which is 8.5% of all mangroves.
Mangroves occur on the northern coastline,
intermittently in estuaries and coastal lagoons in
the northeast, and south beyond the Tropic of
Capricorn (Spalding et al. 2010).
Permanent forest estate. Brazil’s tropical-forest
PFE may be considered to comprise 117 million
hectares of federal and state conservation units(Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservaçãoda Natureza – SNUC – and Sistema Estados
Unidades de Conservação da Natureza, respectively),
106 million hectares of Indigenous lands, 50.2
million hectares of legal reserves and permanent
preservation areas on rural properties, and 36.1
million hectares of ‘other public forest’ protectedby law.1 This area includes the Amazon, caatinga,cerrado and Mata Atlântica biomes and may include
some non-forest and some non-tropical forest.
Box 1 shows the areas in each specific conservation
unit category.
1 Federal and state conservation units and Indigenous lands include
forest and other kinds of vegetation. For some categories the area may
be under-estimated because of a lack of data on land under state
responsibility (e.g. federal conservation units). ‘Other public forests
protected by law’ refers to public forests listed in the National Registerof Public Forests. They are not yet assigned to any function; however,according to Law 11 284/2006, public forest should be maintained asforests indefinitely.

BRAZIL

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

2005*
2010

444–515519

489 515264 700

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlantedTotal

98 100
135 000

372 910316 650

3810
6650**

217 000
175 000

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Being mostly privately owned and not required by law to be maintained as forest, strictly speaking this area is not part of the PFE
but is included here to minimize confusion. Includes some non-tropical planted forest..
Source: Government of Brazil (2010) , CNUC (2011), and personal communications – see endnote b.
***

The SNUC, which was established by Law
9985/00, is divided into two groups:•

35% of rural properties located in savanna areasin the Legal Amazon.

••

20% of rural properties located in forest orother vegetation in other (i.e. non-Legal
Amazon) regions.

•

20% of rural properties in native grasslands inany region.

•

Units of integral protection, whose purpose is topreserve nature – use does not involve theconsumption, collection, damage or destructionof natural resources. Categories in this group are
ecological stations, biological reserves, nationalparks, national monuments and wildlife refuges.
Sustainable use units, which aim to reconcile
nature conservation with sustainable use,
involving the collection and use, commercial orotherwise, of a portion of a unit’s natural
resources. Categories in this group include
national (and state) forests (florestas nacionais –FLONAs), extractive reserves and sustainable
development reserves.

There are 69.4 million hectares of units of integral
protection, 25.5 million hectares of FLONAs, 10.2
million hectares of sustainable development reserves
and 12.3 million hectares of extractive reserves inthe tropical PFE (J. Lorensi do Canto, pers. comm.,
2011; CNUC 2011).2 The estimate of protection
PFE in Table 1 comprises the total area of forest in‘units of integral protection’ plus the total area of
Indigenous lands.
Under the Brazilian Forest Code (Law 4771/65),
the following percentages (at least) of private
land must be maintained under native vegetation(called ‘legal reserves’), in addition to permanent
protection areas (areas to be preserved along rivers,
hills and others):•

80% of rural properties located in forest areas in
the Legal Amazon.3

2 Data are for both federal and state lands.
3 The Legal Amazon was set by law for economic planning reasons. It
comprises the states of northern Brazil (Acre, Amazonas, Amapá, Pará,Rondônia, Roraima and Tocantins), part of the states of Mato Grossoand Maranhão, and a small portion of the state of Goiás. It covers an
area of more than five million km2, which is about 61% of the Brazilian
territory.

Legal reserves are forest areas that may be harvested
for timber and other products on the basis ofsustainable forest management plans (planos demanejo florestal sustentável – PMFSs – see below).
The extent to which these restrictions are adhered
to is unclear.
The total PFE reported here is considerably lessthan that reported for 2005, most likely due todifferences in definition of what constitutes PFE
rather than to a significant change in legal status
or forest area. The Government of Brazil did not
make an official submission for the 2005 survey;
therefore, the data presented here for 2010 are likely
to be more accurate than those given in ITTO
(2006).

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. Brazil lostan estimated 2.19 million hectares of forest per
year in the period 2005–10. This is an annual rateof deforestation of 0.42%, which is lower than theestimated annual rate of deforestation in the period
2000–2005 (0.57%) (FAO 2010b). In the period
2005–09 about 1.07 million hectares of forest waslost per year in the Amazona and 929 000 hectares
were lost per year in the cerrado (FAO 2010a).
Brazil has an estimated 477 million hectares ofprimary forests (Table 2).
The Brazilian government’s National Institute forSpace Research (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas

275

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Box 1 Brazil’s PFE, by tenure type and government jurisdiction

Conservation units
FLONAs/state forests
Extractive reserves
Sustainable development reserves
Units of integral protection

Production PFE

Protection PFE
million ha

Total

16.1
9.40
12.3
0.67
0.64
9.53
48.64

35.8
33.6
69.4
106

16.1
9.40
12.3
0.67
0.64
9.53
35.8
33.6
118.04106
50.2

FederalState
FederalState
FederalState
FederalState

Subtotal
Indigenous lands
Legal reserves and permanent preservation areas onprivate land
Other public land
Total

50.2
36.1
134.94175.4

36.1
310.34

Includes the Amazon, caatinga, cerrado and Mata Atlântica biomes; may include some non-forest and some non-tropical forest.
Note:
Source: CNUC (2011) and personal communications – seen endnote b.

Espaciais) monitors forest cover in the Amazon bysatellite using four operating systems: PRODES,DETER, DEGRAD and DETEX. These systems
are complementary and are designed to meetdifferent goals. PRODES (Program for the
Calculation of Deforestation in the Amazon –Monitoramento da Floresta Amazônica Brasileira
por Satélite) has measured the annual rate ofclearcutting since 1988. Using Landsat satellite
images, it can account for deforestation that takes
place on areas greater than 6.25 hectares. DEGRAD(System for Mapping Forest Degradation –Sistemade Mapeamento de Degradação Florestal), which
was developed in 2007, uses images from theLandsat and CBERS (China–Brazil Earth Resources
Satellite) satellites to map areas in the process ofdeforestation where forest cover is not completely
removed and therefore not counted by PRODES.
DETER (System of Deforestation Detection in
Real Time – Detecção de Desmatamento em Tempo
Real) uses MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging
Spectroradiometer) and CBERS satellite data to
publish, on a monthly basis, maps of areas greaterthan 25 hectares which have either been completely
deforested or are in the process of deforestation.
DETEX (Detection of Selective Logging Activities),
developed with the support of the Brazilian Forest
Service (Serviço Florestal Brasileiro), generates
information for monitoring management plans

276

in forest concessions (created by Law 11 284/06)
and in public forests in general. Using images fromLandsat and CBERS, multi-temporal DETEX
studies have been conducted in national forests andforest concessions, especially in the vicinity of the
BR-163 and BR-319 roads to identify instances of
exploratory timber activity. All public forests in the
Amazon have been monitored by this system since2008.
An estimated 244 000 hectares of FLONAs wereaffected by fires in 2008, and a similar area wasburned in 2007.a
Vulnerability of forests to climate change. Brazil
is vulnerable to climate change, not least becauseof its fragile, biologically diverse ecosystems (Lèbre
La Rovere & Pereira 2007). The Amazon forests
and Pantanal wetlands are of particular concern.
A number of studies suggest a drying trend inAmazon forests, such as an increased frequency ofyears with reduced precipitation, as was particularly
the case in 1997, 1998, 2005 and 2010 (Perez2011). Such dry years make spontaneous fires more
frequent. These droughts have started to change
the general view that Amazon forests can resist fire
because of the moisture stored beneath the densetree canopy. It has been suggested that extreme
droughts could breach the flammability thresholdof Amazon forests, triggering a feedback loop that
leads to increasingly frequent wildfires (ibid.) andBRAZIL

Table 2 Forest condition*
PFE

Non-PFE

Total’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land--

477 000
36 500**-*All forests.
**‘Other naturally regenerated forest’.
Source: FAO (2010a).

affecting vast areas of previously unburnt Amazon
forests. Changing rainfall patterns, especially in the
drought-affected northeast region of the country,
could reduce the quality and quantity of water
resources available for agriculture. The hydrologicalservices of Amazon forests require further study tofacilitate adaptation. The monitoring of climate
variability and its effects on the Amazon forests
is also important because of the crucial role thatthose forests play as the world’s largest storage ofterrestrial carbon.

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. Even though much production
forest is privately owned, under the 1988 Federal
Constitution (Article 225) forests are considered
to be a common asset for all inhabitants, andownership and tenure disputes are a major problem.
Private owners are only able to exercise their rights
within the limits imposed by the 1965 Forest
Code, which regulates the harvesting of timberresources. There are legal stipulations to set aside‘legal reserves’ and ‘permanent preservation areas’ inprivate forest areas (Article 2). More than one-thirdof the tropical PFE is owned by Indigenous
communities (Table 3).
Extractive reserves are state-owned areas in which
use rights are granted to traditional extractive
populations whose subsistence is based on theharvesting of naturally growing products such aslatex, nuts, fruits and oils as well as on agriculture
and animal-raising. The purpose of extractive
reserves is to protect the livelihoods and culturesof those traditional extractive populations and toensure the sustainable use of natural resources in thereserves. There are 62 extractive reserves in Brazil(mostly in the Amazon), comprising a total area of
12.96 million hectares – 12.3 million hectares ofwhich are on federal lands and 667 000 hectares ofwhich are on state lands (Box 2). Although timber
harvesting is generally not permitted, these areas
are counted as part of the production PFE (in total,
12.3 million hectares in the Amazon). All extractive
reserves have a management plan prepared by the
managing agency (the Chico Mendes Institute of
Biodiversity Conservation).
Under the Federal Constitution, Indigenous lands(lands traditionally occupied by Amerindians) aredefined as: “those where they live on a permanent
basis, those used for their productive activities,
those essential to the preservation of environmental
resources necessary for their well-being and for their
physical and cultural reproduction, according totheir habits, customs and traditions”. Amerindians
have the permanent possession and “exclusive useof the riches of the soil, rivers and lakes” existing on
their lands. Nevertheless, such lands constitute theproperty of the state and, as public goods of special

Box 2 Area of federal and state extractive reserves, by biome (ha)BiomeAmazonCerradoCoastalMata Atlântica
Total

Area of federal extractive reserves
11 597 193

Area of state extractive reserves
667 438

107 249-587 6761178
12 293 296

667 438

Source: CNUC (2011).

277

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure*
Ownership category

Total area Of which PFE Notes’000 haState ownership (national, state orprovincial government)-

Other public entities (e.g.
municipalities, villages)
Total public
Owned by local communities and/orIndigenous groups
Privately owned by individuals, firms,
other corporate-

113 000-

113 000
106 000-

54 100Includes federal conservation units, which comprise forest andother kinds of vegetation (and therefore may overestimate PFE
in this category); in some cases the area may be anunderestimate because of a lack of data for forests under state
responsibility. Also includes ‘Other public forests protected bylaw’, which refers to public forests registered in the National
Register of Public Forests. Such forests are not yet assigned toany function; according to Law 11284 (2006), however, publicforest should be maintained as forests indefinitely.

Includes forest and other kinds of vegetation. These forests
remain the property of the state.
Includes ‘legal reserves’ and ‘permanent preservation areas’ onrural properties and forests under PMFSs in the Amazon andcaatinga biomes.

*
Tropical forests only.
Source: Government of Brazil (2010).

use, besides being inalienable and unavailable(can not be disposed of or alienated), they cannot
be the object of use of any kind by anyone otherthan the Amerindians themselves.a Of the 106
million hectares of forest in the Amazon allocatedto Indigenous communities, 1.75 million hectares
have been ‘bounded’, 8.1 million hectares have been‘declared’, 3.6 million hectares have been ‘approved’
and 92.2 million hectares have been ‘regularized’(i.e. full rights have been secured).a
According to FAO (2010a), communities in Brazil
have management rights in 160 million hectares ofpublicly owned forest (including indigenous lands
outside the Amazon region).
In 2009 President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva
approved Law 11952, which provides for thelegalization of occupied federal land in the Legal
Amazon through the sale and grant of right ofuse of real estate. The aim of the law is to reduce
legal uncertainty, which promotes the illegal
appropriation of land, the intensification of agrarian
conflicts and deforestation. Under the law, certain
unallocated federal land will be transferred tomunicipalities in order to expedite its privatization.
The law establishes size limits for areas to be
privatized, the terms of payment and other legal
and financial aspects.
Under the new law, squatters occupying up to 100
hectares of land will be given title to the land free ofcost. Lots measuring between 100 and 400 hectares

278

will be sold at a ‘symbolic cost’, and holdings of
400–1500 hectares will be sold at market prices.
Larger lots of up to 2500 hectares will be auctioned
to the highest bidder. Anything larger can only besold with congressional approval.4
Criteria and indicators. The Government ofBrazil participates in the Tarapoto C&I processcoordinated by the Amazon Cooperation Treaty
Organization and used the ITTO C&I in its
submission to ITTO for this report.a
Forest policy and legislation. Brazil is a federationof 26 states, a federal district and more than 5500
local governments (municipalities – municípios).
The adoption of a new constitution in 1988
prompted decentralization in the managementof natural resources and the implementation ofdevelopment programs. Considerable politicaland tax power and fiscal revenue shifted from thecentral government to states and municipalities, andprivatization and economic liberalization policies
were also pursued.
Forest-related legislation includes:•

Law 4771 (1965) – Forest Code (as amended).

•

Law 5197 (1967) – Protection of Fauna.

•Law 6938 (1981) – National Environmental
Policy.

4 www.illegal-logging.info/item_single.php?it_id=3493&it=news.

BRAZIL•

Law 9433 (1997) – Water Resources Policy.

•

Law 9605 (1998) – Environmental Crimes.

•

Decree 3179 (1999), which establishes penalties
for forest crimes.

•

Decree 3420 (2000), creating the National
Forest Programme.

•

Decree 4340 (2002), which regulates articles of
Law 4771 and various other laws. It also
provides regulations for the exploitation,
suppression and clear-cutting of forests andsucceeding formations; PMFSs; forest
replanting; and licences to transport forest
by-products.

•

Law 11 284 (2006) (the Public Forest
Management Law), which provides for publicforest management for sustainable production,
creates the Brazilian Forest Service within the
structure of the Brazilian Ministry of theEnvironment, establishes the National Forest
Development Fund (Fundo Nacional de
Desenvolvimento Florestal – FNDF), and makesother provisions.

•

Resolution 378 (2006), which defines
undertakings that may potentially cause
national or regional environmental impact andmakes other provisions; and subjects forest
exploitation to permits issued by the Brazilian
Institute of Environment and Renewable
Resources (Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente
e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis – IBAMA).

•

Resolution 379 (2006), which creates andregulates the database on forest management at
the National Environmental System (Sistema
Nacional do Meio Ambiente) level.

•

Decree 6063 (2007), which regulates, at thefederal level, provisions of Law 11 284.

•

Resolution 406 (2009), which establishes
technical standards to be adopted in theformulation, presentation, technical evaluationand implementation of PMFSs for logging
purposes in native forests and their succeeding
formations in the Amazon biome.

•

A number of normative instructions relating toforest use.a

The enactment of the Public Forest Management
Law in 2006 was a significant achievement.
Previously, although large areas of forest are locatedon public land in Brazil, there was no regulatory
framework to deal with their management. This
made it difficult for the government to establish
policies that could ensure the maintenance of
those forests as an asset belonging to all Brazilians.
In the case of the Amazon the situation was evenmore worrisome because for decades the advanceof agriculture had led to large losses of forest coverand land-grabbing. In 2004, the federal government
initiated the formulation of a legal framework toallow for the management of public land in a waythat would halt land-grabbing, introduce a forest
concessions system to maintain the capacity of theforests to provide goods and services in perpetuity,and serve as a socioeconomic development
alternative. The 2006 law and subsequent
resolutions, decrees and instructions were the result.
In 2004 the Government of Brazil announced its
Action Plan to Prevent and Control Deforestationin the Amazon involving eleven ministries led by
the President’s Cabinet. The action plan comprises
144 actions under three main strategies: land-tenure
and territory planning; environmental monitoring
and control; and incentives for sustainableproduction. Under the action plan, by 2008
ten million hectares of Indigenous territories, 20
million hectares of protected areas and 3.9 million
hectares of ‘sustainable settlement’ projects had
been created and 66 000 illegal land titles had beencancelled.b
Institutions involved in forests. The Ministryof Environment (Ministério do Meio Ambiente –MMA) is responsible for forestry as well as forplanning, coordinating and controlling activities
related to the national environment policy andpolicies for developing the Amazon. It supervises
the activities of IBAMA and the Brazilian Forest
Service, chairs the National Council for theEnvironment (Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente)
and takes part in the President’s Chamber for
Natural Resources Policies, which coordinatesvarious aspects related to forests. Other agencies
with responsibilities related to forest resources
include the National Colonization and Agrarian
Reform Institute (Instituto Nacional de Colonização
e Reforma Agrária), and the Indian National
Foundation (Fundação Nacional do Índio), whichis responsible for the preservation of Amerindianculture. In 1999, a Secretariat for Biodiversity
and Forests was created in MMA. Among otherfunctions, IBAMA, which was established in 1985,

279

Status of tropical forest management 2011

implements and coordinates the National Forest
Program. In some states in the Legal Amazon and
the Northeast Region, state-government institutions
issue forest management permits and conduct state
forest inspections.
The National Forest Commission (Comissão
Nacional de Florestas – CONAFLOR), which
was established by Decree 3420/00, is composedof 39 representatives distributed between thegovernment (20 representatives) and civil society(19 representatives), including federal government
agencies and entities, state environmental agencies,
civil-society groups, forest industry, NGOs andeducational and research institutions. CONAFLOR
provides guidelines for the implementationof procedures in national forests and enables
the participation of various interest groups indeveloping public policies for the forest sector.a
The Public Forest Management Law (2006)
established the Brazilian Forest Service as an agencyof the federal government under the MMA, withresponsibility over public forest management forsustainable production; thus, it is responsible
for concessions (i.e. timber harvesting and theextraction of NTFPs) in FLONAs and otherpublic forests. The Brazilian Forest Service isalso responsible for managing the FNDF and
the National Register of Public Forests (Cadastro
Nacional de Florestas Publicás). The goal of the
National Register is to set up a database of
geo-referenced data for the identification of publicforests in order to provide public managers and the
population in general with a reliable database onforest management.a
The main instruments used by the Brazilian
Forest Service for the sustainable production andmanagement of federal public forests are forest
concessions and allotment to local communities.
A forest concession is a chargeable warrant for
the right to practise SFM for the exploitation of
a forest’s products and services. The allotmentof public forests to local communities is carriedout through the identification of areas occupied
by traditional populations, such as Indigenous
communities, slave-descendant communities(known as quilombolas) and settlements. The
Brazilian Forest Service assists in the identificationof those populations and encourages and promotes
community forest management by providing
technical support and capacity-building.a

280

A draft Bill before the Brazilian Congress would,
if passed, transform the Brazilian Forest Service
into an autonomous institution. As part of theFederal Government administration under the
MMA, the Service currently lacks the necessary
institutional conditions to efficiently carry out thetasks allocated to it under the law, thus hindering,for example, the speed at which concessions areassessed and approved (or otherwise). Currently, theService has 240 employees, of whom only 56 arecareer public servants. As the Service consolidates
itself, increasing institutional demands – such as
the increasing number of concession applications– will require a speedy, dynamic process to build
up and enlarge its workforce. According to aninternal study, an additional 760 new positionsof ‘environment’ career specialists and 62 new
director-level positions will be needed by 2012.a
The Commission on Public Forest Management(Comissão de Gestão de Florestas Públicas –CGFLOP) is an advisory body of the Brazilian
Forest Service which aims to advise, evaluate
and propose guidelines for the management ofpublic forests in Brazil, especially regarding theAnnual Forest Concessions Plan (Plano Anualde Outorga Florestal). The CGFLOP, which wasestablished by Law 11 284/06 and regulated by
Decree 5795/06, is composed of 24 representatives
appointed by the holders of the respective agencies,groups, organizations and sectors involved in theprocess and designated by the Minister of State for
the Environment. The Commission meets at least
twice a year or as requested by its chairman or atleast one-third of its members.
Average total annual direct investment by thefederal government in forest management,
administration, research and human resource
development in the period 2005–09 was about
141 million reais (R$), including R$56.1 million
through the MMA, R$9.72 million throughthe Brazilian Forest Service and R$25.8 million
through IBAMA. Some R$26.1 million was
allocated to the Chico Mendes Institute of
Biodiversity Conservationa, which is responsible forthe management of all federal conservation units.
The aim of the FNDF is to foster the developmentof forest-based sustainable activities in Brazil andpromote technological innovation in the sector. Its
main source of funds is revenue generated by forest
concessions in compliance with the percentages

BRAZIL

outlined in the Public Forest Management
Law (2006). Moreover, the FNDF may receive
donations from national and international public
and private entities.
It was estimated that R$2.2 million would beallocated in 2010 for measures to bolster forest
management. Based on estimated future revenue
from forest concessions, the FNDF will have an
allocation of R$4 million in 2012 and R$29 million
in 2015.
FNDF resources are to be allocated primarily to
projects in the following areas:

and Sustainable Use of Forest’ program, the aim ofwhich is to support the reforestation, conservationand forest recovery of degraded or converted areas
and the sustainable use of native areas through
SFM.
The Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation(Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária –EMBRAPA) spent an average R$2.37 million onforest-related research per year in 2005–09. In thesame period the total annual research expenditureby the Ministry of Science and Technology, throughsuch institutions as the National Institute of
Amazonian Research (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas
da Amazonia), based in Manaus, the Mamirauá
Institute of Sustainable Development and the
Emílio Goeldi Museum, was R$21.3 million.a•technological research and development inforest management•

technical assistance and forest extension•

recovery of degraded areas with native species•

rational and sustainable economic use of forest
resources•

control and monitoring of forest activities anddeforestation•

capacity-building in forest management•

environmental education

Universities, large forestry enterprises, and NGOs
such as the Amazon Institute of People and theEnvironment (Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente
da Amazônia) also engage in forestry research.
University education in forestry started in 1960;
currently, 51 universities offer teaching and researchin forest management.a There are about 7000 forest
engineers working in Brazil, 1600 with master’s
degrees and 300 with PhDs.

•

environmental protection and natural resources
conservation.a

Status of forest management

The Amazon Fund, which was established in 2008
by Decree No 6527, aims to attract donations
for non-refundable investments in deforestation
prevention, monitoring and combat, and also
to promote the conservation and sustainable useof forests in the Amazon biome. Specifically it isdesigned to support projects in the following areas:

Forest for production•

public forests and protected areas management•

environmental control, monitoring andenforcement•

SFM

By law the use of natural forest resources on bothprivate and public land requires the presentation ofa PMFS to IBAMA and its approval by that bodyand/or the relevant state environment agency.

•

economic activities developed as a result of
forest sustainable use•

ecological–economic zoning, land-use planningand land regulation•

biodiversity conservation and sustainable use•

recovery of degraded areas.

In 2010 the Brazilian Development Bank
established the ‘Support to Reforestation, Recovery

The forest management system adopted for
Amazonian dense tropical rainforest is a polycyclic
system involving the selective logging of commercial
forest species in cutting cycles of 25–35 years.
FMUs are usually divided into annual production
units according to the cutting cycle adopted.

Since 2006 forest management (i.e. timber
harvesting) has been permitted in Brazil’s publicforests through forest concession contracts thatcan span up to 40 years. Concessions are granted
through a transparent tendering and/or bidding
process for the production of timber and/or
non-timber products or services. Each year theBrazilian Forest Service prepares an Annual Forest
Concessions Plan, which is a major instrument ofpolicy planning for forest concessions in publicforests. A national policy to support community

281

Status of tropical forest management 2011

forest management has also been implemented(Decree 6874/2009) with the aim of encouraging
and organizing the country’s forest management
activities, and it also establishes minimum prices for
NTFPs.
MMA Normative Instruction 5 (2006) introduced
important changes to the parameters of forest
management on both public and private land. The
main features were:•

The maximum allowable harvest is 30 m3 perhectare when harvesting is mechanized and10 m3 per hectare when the operation does notuse heavy machinery, with harvesting cycles of
35 years and ten years, respectively.

•

For those forest species whose minimum cutting
diameter had not previously been determined,
the minimum cutting diameter is set at 50 cm.

•

At least 10% of each exploited tree species
which could be harvested are to be left standing
as seed bearers, selected in each 100-hectare
working unit.

•

A tracking system (chain of custody) is requiredfor harvested trees.

•

The use of waste wood is allowed.

Since September 2006, forest producttransportation has been controlled through anational information system, IBAMA’s Forest
Origin Document system. Under it, forest products
are tracked from their harvest to the final stage ofmarketing. The entire supply and transportation
chain must be updated online in real time. The
system has significantly improved the control ofillegal logging in Brazil.a
A forest planning process called Modeflora(Digital Model of Forest Exploitation), hailed as atechnological breakthrough in forest management,
has been tested successfully by EMBRAPA
researchers. It consists of the georeferencing andgeomonitoring of all phases of forest management,from the preparation of a forest management plan
to its implementation, combining the use of forest
inventory techniques, operational research and arange of technologies such as global positioning
systems (GPS), GIS, radar and satellite images(Figure 1). Modeflora enables a reduction of at least
30% in the cost of preparing and implementing
forest management plans. It also reduces field error
and increases the accuracy of tree-tracking and282

micro-zoning by enabling the production of maps
at a scale of 1:15.a
In public forests under forest concession, theBrazilian Forest Service subsidizes the price ofwood for those concessionaires who promote valueadding near the forest concession, the installationof permanent plots, and biodiversity monitoring.
Nevertheless, despite the existence of pilot projects
in SFM and technical standards for the adoption ofbest forest management practices in the Amazon,
the level of adoption of these practices is still
incipient.a
Control and law enforcement in the Amazon are
extremely difficult because of the vastness of thearea, poor infrastructure, a lack of capacity and thelarge number of actors contributing to deforestationand illegal logging. Other problems facing forestryin Brazil are the remoteness of many forestsfrom centres of commerce and control; the weakeconomic competitiveness of SFM as a land use;
the lack of competitiveness of the tropical timberindustry, for various reasons; extensive degraded
forests; lack of full-cost pricing and the abundantavailability of low-cost timber; and a serious
shortage of management skills (ITTO 2006).
The scarcity of information on forest management
for business people and a lack of technical capacity
are other barriers to the widespread adoptionof SFM. Most employers still do not know themeaning of SFM and are unaware of the potential
financial benefits of good forest management. The
technologies adopted by these timber companies
generally correspond to the practices used for
decades in conventional exploitation.a
The enlargement of the agricultural frontier, whichcauses deforestation and is associated with illegal
wood supply, continues to be a limiting factor
to the promotion of forest management in the
Amazon.aBox 3 shows the planning process before thecommencement of logging in the Amazon.
Silviculture and species selection. The main
silvicultural process proposed for the Brazilian
Amazon is as follows:•

E minus 2 years (where E = forest harvesting
event) – delimitation and subdivision of theannual production unit (external delimitationand internal subdivision to facilitate themapping of trees).

BRAZIL•E minus 1 year – forest inventory at 100% (i.e.
the measurement of all commercial trees withdbh ≥ 40 cm).

•

E minus 1 year – liana cutting (for commercial
species above the minimum cutting diameter).

•E minus 1 year – installation and measurementof permanent plots.

•

E minus 1 year – exploration planning (primaryand secondary roads; pre-selection of trees basedon inventory; preparation of map of annual
production unit).

•

E minus 1 year – opening of roads, sidings andmarshalling yards (forest roads, bridges,
drainage system, and 25x25 m marshallingyards).

•

E – forest harvesting (reduced impact).

•

E plus 1 year – assessment of damage caused byharvesting (evaluation of remaining trees, skid
trails and cutting quality).

•

E plus 1 year, E plus 3 years, and henceforth
every five years – re-measurement of permanentplots.

•

E plus 4 years – silvicultural treatments (e.g.
girdling of non-commercial trees to make room
for commercially promising trees).

As reported above, the maximum allowable harvest
is 30 m3 per hectare when harvesting is mechanizedand 10 m3 per hectare when the operation does notuse heavy machinery, with harvesting cycles of 35
years and ten years, respectively.
Table 4 lists some commonly harvested tropicaltimber species.

Box 3 Flow-chart of Amazon logging planning
process
Georeferencing of the forest area (owner/concessionaire)
Prior-authorization request made to relevant
environmental agency (owner/concessionaire)
Analysis and consideration of prior-authorization
request (environmental agency)100% inventory carried out (owner)Technical analysis of the sustainable forest
management plan (environmental agency)
Development of PMFS (owner)Statement of responsibility on forest maintenanceregistration (termo de responsabilidade demanutenção da floresta) (owner)
Authorization of the PMFS
(environmental agency)
Development of the annual operating plan(owner)
Submission of the annual operating report(owner/concessionaire)
Analysis of the annual report and technicalinspections (environmental agency)

Table 4 Commonly harvested tropical species for industrial roundwood
Species
Manilkara huberi (maçaranduba)
Dinizia excelsa (angelim)
Goupia glabra (cupiúba)
Hymenaea courbaril (jatobá)*
Erisma uncinatum (cedrinho)**

Volume (m3) transported in 2007
592 395
390 330
361 628
336 662
293 922

Also listed in ITTO (2006).

Source: Personal communications – see endnote b.

283

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Planted forest and trees outside the forest.
Brazil’s plantation estate comprises about 4.52
million hectares of Eucalyptus species, 1.79
million hectares of Pinus species, and 344 000of other species (including Acacia mearnsii, A.
mangium, Schizolobium amazonicum, Tectona
grandis, Araucaria angustifolia and Populus spp),
for an estimated total plantation area of 6.65
million hectares.a Significant areas of plantations(especially Pinus spp) are outside the tropics. There
are also about 128 000 hectares of rubber (Hevea
brasiliensis) plantation. Even though planted forests
account for little more than 1% of the total forest
area in Brazil, they make a substantial contribution
to industrial wood production.
Forest certification. As of October 2010, a totalof 6.16 million hectares of natural and planted
forests had been certified under the FSC umbrellain Brazil. Of this, about 2.70 million hectares were
natural tropical forest and 2.13 million hectares
were planted tropical forest (FSC 2010); mostof the remainder were non-tropical plantations.
The certified natural forest includes 47 000
hectares in the Antimary State Forest in the stateof Acre, which is being managed according toa management plan developed under an ITTO
project.
The Brazilian forest certification system(Certificação Florestal – CERFLOR), was initiatedin the 1990s and became operational for planted
forests in 2003. As of 16 September 2010, a totalof 1.25 million hectares of forest plantations
were certified under CERFLOR, but the only
CERFLOR-certified native-forest operation(73 000 hectares in the Amazonian state ofRondônia) was under suspension.5 CERFLOR isendorsed by the PEFC.
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. Brazil’s native-forest
concession system for public forests is still in an
early stage of implementation, with only one
concession (covering an area of 96 300 hectares)
approved in the Amazon. In total, 2.94 million
hectares of Amazonian forest and (295 000 hectaresof caatinga) are subject to approved PMFSs; allextractive reserves are also subject to management
plans. An estimated 2.70 million hectares of natural
tropical forest are certified by the FSC (FSC 2010).
On the available information, therefore, the total
5 www.inmetro.gov.br/qualidade/cerflor.asp.

284

A rubber-tapper community in the Antimari State Forest, Acre,
Brazil.

area of natural tropical production PFE considered
to be under SFM is at least 2.70 million hectares(Table 5).
Timber production and trade. On average, anestimated 247 million m3 of logs were produced
annually in Brazil in the period 2005–08,
comprising 81 million m3 of logs from naturalforests and 166 million m3 of logs from plantations.
FAO (2010a) estimated that over half of this is
fuelwood.
Brazil produced an estimated 23.7 million m3of (non-coniferous) tropical logs for industrial
purposes in 2009, down from a peak of 29.7
million m3 in 2003. About 15.5 million m3 oftropical sawnwood were produced in 2009 (upslightly from the 14.4 million m3 produced in2003), of which 1.06 million m3 were exported. In
the same year, Brazil produced about 600 000 m3 oftropical plywood, down from a peak of 1.38 million
m3 in 2003 (ITTO 2010).
Brazil’s production of tropical logs is less than
one-quarter of total industrial roundwood
production, which was 105 million m3 in 2009.
Log-processing capacity in the Legal Amazon
declined from 10.4 million m3 per year in 2004 to
5.8 million m3 per year in 2009 (ibid.).
Non-timber forest products. Brazil owes its nameto brazilin, a red dye from Caesalpinia echinata,and to the dye extractors, brasileiros. A very large
number of NTFPs (e.g. food, medicinal plants,
perfumes, dyes and tannins, natural rubber,
Brazil nut, handicraft and construction materials,
exudates, honey and wax) are used locally. About
45 700 tonnes of Brazil nut were harvested in 2009,
and the export of this product was worth US$20.3
million.a About 121 000 tonnes of açai berries,
7890 tonnes of latex, 3790 tonnes of copaiba oil

BRAZIL

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)
Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

98 100
135 000

15 340***‡†NaturalWithmanagement
plans
5250
15 340**

Certified

1360

3810

PlantedWith
management
plans
1350

2700

6650‡

3380†

Sustainably
managed

1160
2700

Total

Certified

1350
3380†

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Comprises 3.04 million hectares under PMFSs in the Legal Amazon and 12.3 million hectares of extractive reserves, all of which are
subject to management plans.
Tropical and non-tropical.
Tropical certified plantations (other tropical plantations may have management plans, but data were unavailable).

and 644 tonnes of cumaru almonds were harvested
in the Amazon in 2009.a
Forest carbon. Brazil has the world’s largest forest
carbon stock. Gibbs et al. (2007) estimated thetotal forest biomass carbon stock at 54 700–82 700
MtC and FAO (2010a) estimated it at 62 000
MtC. An estimated 54% of Brazil’s GHG emissions
come from land use and deforestation and 25%
come from the agricultural sector (Lèbre La
Rovere & Pereira 2007). In 2008 Brazil created
the Amazon Fund (see above) as a tool to combat
deforestation and promote sustainable developmentin the Amazon. The goal is a 70% reduction in
deforestation by 2018 (compared with the average
between 1996 and 2006). REDD+ is considered
to be a major opportunity in efforts to achieve thistarget. Any project funded through the Amazon
Fund must comply with Brazil’s National Planon Climate Change. Through internationalarrangements, for example with the Government of
Norway, considerable funding is being provided toinitiate the Amazon Fund and for the developmentof an effective forest monitoring system.
Brazil is closely engaged in the international
REDD+ Partnership and is co-chairing this process
in 2011. The country has been a participant in
the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility since 2008
and is a recipient country of the Forest Investment
Program. Significant investments in forest carbon

are also being made at the state level. In Acre,for example, a US$100 million investment madethrough the Inter-American Development Bankwas used to initiate, in the period 2007–10, a major
investment promotion with the aim of creating asustainable financing scheme for REDD+ in thatwestern Amazonian state. Through REDDES,
Brazil participates in and benefits from an ITTO
project implemented by the Amazon Cooperation
Treaty Organization for capacity-building on
monitoring land use, land-use change and forestsin the Amazon region. Table 6 summarizes Brazil’s
current forest carbon potential.

Forest for protection
Soil and water. The Amazon Basin produces 20%of the world’s freshwater; it is therefore vital that its
soil and water resources are properly protected. An
estimated 243 million hectares of forest in Brazil aremanaged primarily for soil and water protection.a
Biological diversity. Brazil’s forests containa significant share of the world’s biodiversity,
including an estimated 56 000–62 000 higher
plant (not including mosses, lichens and fungi)
and mammal species. The Amazon is home toabout 20% of the world’s plant species, 20%of bird species and 10% of mammal species.
Sixty-four mammals, 78 birds, five reptiles, 24
amphibians, eight arthropods and 14 plants foundTable 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forest carbon(MtC)% forestwithcanopycover>60%

54 700–82 700

51

Deforestation/ Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
degradation
sink capacity monitoring
potential tocapacity
to 2030
2030
+++

+++

+++

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+++

Importance Engagementinof forest
international
fire/
REDD+
biomass
processes
burning++++++++ high; ++ medium; + low; estimate of national forest carbon based on Gibbs et al. (2007); estimate of % total forest with canopy cover>60% based on UNEP-WCMC (2010).

285

Status of tropical forest management 2011

in Table 1 and Table 7 comprises conservation units
of integral protection and Indigenous reserves. The
estimate is considerably less than that reported
in ITTO (2006), most likely due differences indefinition of what constitutes PFE rather than to asignificant change in legal status or forest area.

in Brazil’s forests are listed as critically endangered,endangered or vulnerable on the IUCN red list of
threatened species (IUCN 2010). Wood species in
the Amazon considered endangered or threatenedwith extinction are Amburana cearensis var. acreana(cerejeira), Peltogyne maranhensis (pau-roxo),
Bertholletia excelsa (castanheira), Swietenia
macrophylla (mogno – also known as mahogany)
and Euxylophora paraensis (pau-amarelo). There arealso seven such species in the Mata Atlântica biome
and two in the cerrado/caatinga.a

All conservation units of integral protection (i.e.
federal and state lands in the categories nationalparks, biological reserves, ecological reserves,
national monuments and wildlife refuge areas)
must have management plans. These are technicaldocuments which, depending on the purposes of theconservation unit, establish the limits of the unit andthe rules for its management and use, including the
installation of infrastructure. However, the status ofthese management plans is unclear: some of them areunder preparation but, for others, the preparation
process has not yet begun. Management plans forconservation units of integral protection require,among other things, studies on vegetation, wildlife
and soils and socioeconomic surveys in order tosupport zoning and the identification of appropriate
management practices.b

Brazil has 28 plant species listed in CITES
Appendix I, 429 in Appendix II and 3 in Appendix
III (UNEP-WCMC 2011), including mogno, cedro
and a few other tree species for which production
and trade is minimal. The Brazilian National Policy
and Strategy for Biodiversity and the National
Biodiversity Programme are designed to address thesituation through in situ and ex situ measures andthe management of biotechnology.
Protective measures in production forests.
Measures taken to protect the production forestsas part of the country’s forest conservation strategy
include a moratorium on the harvesting and sale ofover-harvested species such as mogno and virola;
the introduction and implementation of measures
to control illegal logging through sophisticateddevices for timber-tracking and satellite datatransfer; limiting the area allowed for farming inforest properties in the Amazon; yield regulationin natural selection forests; forest restoration; theestablishment of ecological corridors; incentives
for municipalities that have environmental
conservation areas through the transfer of a‘products and services tax’; and broadening thescope of eligible activities for CDM support.a

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. Data on the status ofmanagement of the protection PFE were unavailable
for the purposes of this report (Table 7). However,vast areas of the Amazon are currently under nothreat of deforestation or other significant humaninduced disturbance due to their remoteness.

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. Forest-based industries
contributed an estimated 3.4% to Brazil’s GDP
in 2007, down from 4.5% in 2003. An estimated580 000 people were directly employed in theformal forest and wood products sector in Brazil
in 2010a, although data on the number of people
employed in that part of the sector specifically
based on natural tropical forests were unavailable
for this report.

Extent of protected areas. There is uncertainty
about the extent of protected areas in Brazil; partly
this stems from differences in the definition of‘protected’ and the extent to which extractive uses
are permitted. The estimate of protection PFE given
Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)
Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

271 000
175 000

19 00040 200**243 000

-

-

*
**

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Amazon biome only. An additional 643 000 hectares in the caatinga biome, 5.23 million hectares in the cerrado biome and 2.21
million hectares in the Mata Atlântica biome are in IUCN categories I–IV.
Source: CNUC (2011) and personal communications – see endnote b.

286

BRAZIL

Livelihood values. The Indigenous communities
in the Amazon, dwellers in extractive reserves, andcaatinga forest users in the northeast depend inlarge measure on forests for subsistence. However,no data on the extent of this dependence wereavailable for this report.
Social relations. There are 227 Indigenous societies
in Brazil, with a total population of about 600 000
people. These people have rights to 106 million
hectares of land in the Amazon, which is 13% of
the national land area. Demarcation of the land isvery slow, however, which leads to encroachment
and conflict, and there is insufficient support foreconomic development (Sobral 2009).
The slow process of recognition and approvalof tenure causes dissatisfaction on the part ofIndigenous communities. Nevertheless, the situation
has improved in some areas; Indigenous peoples’organizations are now both stronger and more
numerous and Indigenous communities have started
to grow, thus reducing fears of their extinction.
On the other hand, the majority of Indigenous
people still suffer from economic marginalization,
malnutrition and inadequate assistance andprotection (as they remain under the guardianship ofthe federal government). The quilombolas are anothermarginalized group with land rights: the government
recognizes their right to the land where they live
but, again, the process of formal recognition is slow
(ibid.). The majority of the Amazon’s inhabitants arerecent settlers and differences in their backgrounds
lead to frequent friction.

Summary
Significant advances have been made towards
sustainable management in the Brazilian Amazon;
for example, the area of certified natural forest
has doubled since 2005. Despite continuing
deforestation, clearance rates have declined
dramatically in the last five years. Moreover,funds are being made available to improveforest management and protection, forest law
enforcement is being strengthened, and new laws
and regulations provide for improvements inforest management. A number of data-gathering
services are greatly improving the availability andtimeliness of forest-related information, althoughdata on the management of forested protectedareas were unavailable for this report. Efforts arealso under way to clarify land tenure and to put

FLONAs under management plans, and large
areas of forest are managed by Indigenous andother local communities (although the processof recognition and approval of tenure is slow).
Nevertheless, significant problems remain in theapplication of SFM in the tropical PFE. They
include poor infrastructure; the remoteness of many
forests from centres of commerce and control;
the weak competitiveness of SFM as a land use;
declining wood-processing capacity in the Amazon;
and a lack of awareness about SFM – and its
potential benefits – among timber operators. Given
that development will continue in the region,
probably at an accelerated rate, the Governmentof Brazil is pursuing several models to improve thecompetitiveness of natural forest management as aland use. It is also working to address institutional
barriers to SFM and recent initiatives offer hopethat the area of tropical PFE under SFM will
expand significantly in the future.

Key points•

Brazil has a tropical-forest PFE of 310 million
hectares, the largest in the tropics. Despite
continuing deforestation, there are still hugeforest resources in the Amazon.

•

There has been a significant increase in the areaof certified natural forest in the Amazon.

•

At least 2.70 million hectares of natural tropicalforest production PFE are being sustainably
managed; insufficient information was available
to estimate the area of protection PFE somanaged.

•Vast areas of the Amazon are currently under nothreat of deforestation or other significant
human-induced disturbance due to theirremoteness.

•

Since 2006, timber harvesting has been
permitted in Brazil’s public forests throughforest concession contracts that can span up to
40 years; this system is in the early stages of
implementation.

•

A wide range of policies, strategies, laws andregulations have been developed to facilitate
forest administration, improve timber legality
and achieve SFM. Law enforcement has beenstrengthened, but the vastness of the resource
and the spread of colonization make it difficult
to control forest illegality.

287

Status of tropical forest management 2011•

New laws have been enacted in an effort toimprove the clarity of forest tenure in the
Amazon and the management of public lands.
Large areas of forest are allocated to Indigenous
and quilombola communities, and a new law
will increase opportunities for squatters to own
land. Nevertheless, disputes over tenure remain
a significant problem.

EndnotesaGovernment of Brazil (2010).

b

Personal communications with officials in the Brazilian
Forest Service, 2008, 2010, 2011.

References and other sources
CNUC (2011, website accessed January 2011). Cadastro
Nacional de Unidades de Conservação (available at
http://www.mma.gov.br/sitio/index.php?ido=conteudo.
monta&idEstrutura=119).
Convention on Biological Diversity (2010, website accessed
October 2010). LifeWeb. Consolidating the Brazilian
National System of Conservation Units – SNUC. Annex
5: List of Brazilian protected areas. http://www.cbd.int/
lifeweb/project.shtml?did=6351
FAO (2010a). Global forest resources assessment 2010 country
report: Brazil (available at http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).
FAO (2010b). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 Full
Report. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FSC (2010, website accessed October 2010). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).
Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007). Monitoringand estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDDa reality. Environmental Research Letters 2 (available at http://
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Government of Brazil (2010). Report of progress towardachieving sustainable forest management in Brazil.
Submission to ITTO by the Brazilian Forest Service,
Brasilia, Brazil.

288

ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2010, website accessed November 2010). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).
IUCN (2010, website accessed March 2010). IUCN red list of
threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).
Lèbre La Rovere, E & Pereira, A. (2007, website accessed
December 2010). Brazil and climate change: a country
profile. Available at http://www.scidev.net/en/climatechange-and-energy/policy-briefs/brazil-climate-change-acountry-profile.html.
Perez C. (2011, website accessed February 2011). The
burning question. eco Amazonia (available at http://www.
oecoamazonia.com/en/articles/9-artigos/140-the-burningquestion).
Sobral, M. (2009). Progress in Brazil. ITTO Tropical Forest
Update 19:2.
Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World Atlas ofMangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. UNEP–WCMC,
Cambridge, UK. Data prepared for ITTO, 2010.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March
2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
Species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
December 2010). World population prospects: the 2008
revision (searchable database available at http://esa.un.org/
unpp/p2k0data.asp).

COLOMBIA

Colombia
Forest types. The moist forest of the Darien
Chocó on the Pacific coast covers about 4.9
million hectares. It includes terrace forests
containing valuable timber species such as Virola
spp, Brosimum utile, Campnosperma panamensis,
Jacaranda copaia, Couma macrocarpa, Tabebuia
rosea and Humiriastym procerum; there are also large
tracts of swamp and ‘catival’ forests characterized bystands of Prioria copaifera.
Box 1 Forest cover, by biogeographical region

Forest resources
Colombia has a land area of 114 million hectares
and an estimated population in 2010 of 46 million
people (United Nations Population Division 2010).
It is ranked 77th out of 182 countries in UNDP’s
Human Development Index (UNDP 2009).
Colombia can be divided into five biogeographicalregions: Amazonia, Orinoco, Andes, Caribbean and
the Pacific, each of which is composed of a numberof ecoregions. The Andes comprise the Eastern,
Central and Western Cordilleras. The Pacific region
is a coastal strip about 50 km wide between theWestern Cordillera and the Pacific Ocean. The
Amazon and Orinoco regions lie to the southeastand east of the Eastern Cordillera; their main rivers
are the Putumayo and the Caqueta in the Amazon
Basin and the Guaviare and the Meta in the
Orinoco Basin. On the northern Caribbean coast,
the Sierra de Santa Marta rises to over 5000 m
above sea level.
FAO (2010a) estimated Colombia’s total forest areaat 60.5 million hectares, the Institute of Hydrology,
Meteorology and Environmental Studies (Institutode Hidrologia, Meteorologia y Estudios Ambientales –IDEAM) (2010) estimated the area of natural forest
at 61.5 million hectares (Box 1) and Governmentof Colombia (2011) estimated it at 56.9 million
hectares. IDEAM (2010) and FAO (2010) both
estimated the area of planted forest at 405 000
hectares.

RegionForest cover(million ha)

AndeanPacific
AmazonOrinocoCaribbean
Total

10.2
4.9
40.8
4.6
1.0
61.5

Source: Derived from IDEAM (2010).

The various moist forest types of the Amazon coverabout 40.8 million hectares, or 90% of Colombia’s
Amazonian territory. The main timber species are
Couma macrocarpa, Virola spp, Jacaranda copaia andCedrela odorata. The moist forests of the Orinoco
cover about 4.6 million hectares.
In the Caribbean, the two main forest types – themoist forests of Urabá-Magdalena, and dry forests– have been reduced to about 1 million hectares,
which is less than 20% of their initial area. The
several types of submontane and montane Andean
forests have also been reduced in size and, in total,
now cover about 10.2 million hectares; common
tree species include Quercus humboltii (roble) andPodocarpus spp. Colombia’s mangroves cover an
estimated 408 000 hectares (Spalding et al. 2010),
more than 75% of which are on the Pacific coast.
Permanent forest estate. There is no formal PFE
in Colombia; the estimates presented in Table 1
are indicative only. A forest law drafted in 2006
distinguishes between forest protected areas (areas
forestales de protección) and forest production areas(areas forestales de producción), but this law has notbeen enacted (see below).
Forests in Colombia are classified as national forest
reserves (reservas forestales de orden nacional) and289

Status of tropical forest management 2011

national parks (as part of the National Park System– Sistema de Parques Nacionales Naturales – SPNN).
Other categories used for management are private
reserves (reservas naturales de la sociedad civil) andintegral reserves (distritos de manejo integrado y deconservación).

hectares (0.4%) per year estimated for the period
1990–2000. However, a specific study by IDEAM(2010) using high-resolution MODIS imagery
indicated that about two million hectares of forests
were lost between 2000 and 2007 – a deforestation
rate of nearly 300 000 hectares per year.

In 1959, Law 2 established seven national forest
reserves covering 51.3 million hectares, of which
43.2 million hectares were still forested in 2002.a
The SPNN includes 55 protected areas in IUCN
categories I–IV, which cover nearly 12.6 million
hectares (9.3 million hectares of which areforestedb). An estimated 8.74 million hectaresof national parks has been established on landoriginally designated as national forest reserves;
thus, the forest area actually managed as national
forest reserves is 34.8 million hectares.b Not allforest in national forest reserves is regarded as partof the PFE; in the absence of clearer data, therefore,
the production PFE estimated in ITTO (2006)is used in Table 1 as the basis for the estimate for2010.

Deforestation is highest in the Amazon (Caquetá,
Putumayo and Guaviare rivers); the Pacific region(moist forest); the Andean region (sub-humid
high-altitude forests, tropical dry Andean forests,
pre-montane forests and forests in the Andean
foothills) and the Caribbean region (sub-humid
and dry forests in the plains, and riparian forests)(Government of Colombia 2008). Accordingto Romero et al. (2008), the main cause of
deforestation is colonization, including throughsmall-scale and medium-scale agriculture, which
contributes to about 73% of deforestation. In
certain areas, illegal crops are another significant
cause.
Small-scale logging is the most important cause offorest degradation: Romero et al. (2008) estimatedthat 42% of all logging carried out in Colombia is
illegal. Table 2 shows an estimate of primary andsecondary forest in Colombia.

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. Basedon a visual classification of Landsat images madeby IDEAM, FAO (2010b) estimated the averageannual rate of deforestation in the period 2000–10
at about 101 000 hectares (0.17%) per year,
significantly lower than the estimated 190 000

Vulnerability of forests to climate change.
Colombia’s climate varies considerably between andwithin regions. In the Pacific region, for example,
average annual rainfall varies between 3000 and
10 000 mm, depending on location. Changing

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reporting year

2005*
2010
*
**
‡

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)49.6–65.6
56.9–64.4

51 43751 300**

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted

Total

5500
5500*

14 50815 240

148
405‡

8860
9340

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Derived from Government of Colombia (2009) and personal communications (see endnote b).
IDEAM (2010).

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

Total’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land*
‘Other naturally regenerating forest’.
Source: FAO (2010).

290

-

-

8540
51 600*-COLOMBIA

Box 2 Land ownership ('000 ha)
Category
Forest reserves
National parks
Peasant reserves
Without category*

State-owned(public)

Community-owned
Resguardos indígenas Consejos comunitarios

Area overlap*

14 2775858
501

18 086
3478

2454
2

1 area-10 7414

1

somei.e. between resguardos indígenas and consejos comunitarios.

Source: Personal communications (see endnote b).

patterns in temperature and rainfall could leadto changes in forest ecosystems. For example,
changes in humidity (in windward and leeward
areas) could cause considerable change in mountain
forest ecosystems, including cloud forest (bosquede niebla). Pacific forests and cloud forests host asignificant portion of the country’s biodiversity andthe consequences of their exposure to changing
climatic patterns are unknown.
Forest fire has increased in frequency and intensity
in recent years, possibly partly as a result of climatechange. Colombia has prepared a map on thesensitivity of ecosystems to fire; the most sensitive
are in the Orinoco and Amazon regions (IDEAM
2010). Generally, natural hazards affecting forests
include those associated with the El Niño/Southern
Oscillation phenomenon; hurricanes occasionallyaffect forests on the Caribbean coast.

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. Since 1973 under Law 89/1890
the state has recognized the rights of Indigenous
communities to land, and the 1991 Constitution
recognizes the ancestral rights to land of Indigenous

and Afro-Colombian traditional communities andtheir right to control and use their communal forest
territories according to their social and culturalvalues. About half the country’s forests (29.8
million hectares) are titled to Indigenous peoples (inwhat are known as resguardos Indígenas) in the wider
Amazon region and Afro-Colombian communities
in the Pacific region (in consejos comunitarios), andmost of the remainder is state-owned (Table 3).
Afro-Colombian and Indigenous communities haveobtained titles to more than 35 million hectaresof land, of which around 29.8 million hectares areforest. In some cases, there is overlap between these
titles and national forest reserves (20.4 million
hectares of overlap) and national parks (3.5 million
hectares of overlap) (IDEAM 2010). About half amillion hectares are designated as peasant reserves(reservas campesinas), which are set aside as special
development areas for rural communities. Box 2
shows the breakdown of state and community owned
forests in Colombia.
Criteria and indicators. Colombia has developed
its own set of C&I for SFM based on the ITTO
C&I and is also involved in the C&I processcoordinated by the Amazon Cooperation Treaty

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category
State ownership (national, state orprovincial government)
Other public entities (e.g.
municipalities, villages)
Total public
Owned by local communities and/orIndigenous groups
Private owned by firms, individuals,
other corporate

Total area Of which PFE Notes’000 ha31 377-0-31 37729 867-200-

Includes about 15.4 million hectares of state/federal forest
land.

Comprises 26.3 million hectares of Indigenous territories(resguardos indigenas) and 3.5 million hectares ofAfro-Colombian land (consejos communitarios).
Owned by companies or associations.

Source: Government of Colombia (2009), IDEAM (2010).

291

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Organization. The Government of Colombia used
the ITTO C&I in its submission to ITTO for thisreport.aForest policy and legislation. Colombia’s principal
forestry policy is defined in the National Forestry
Development Plan (Plan Nacional de Desarollo
Forestal) published in 2000, which is designed
to span 25 years and comprises 16 sub-programs
to promote planted forests and natural forest
management. The National Biodiversity Policy(Política Nacional de Biodiversidad), issued in 1995,
and its associated action plan, has three components– conserve, understand and utilize (conservar,
conocer y utilizar) – and 92 actions.
In early 2006 the Colombian Congress passed andthe President signed a new General Forest Law (LeyGeneral Forestal, Ley 1021), replacing the 1959
forest law. This law was challenged, however, anddeclared unconstitutional by the Constitutional
Court on the basis that it did not sufficiently take
into account the requirements of the International
Labour Organization’s Convention 169 (Indigenous
and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989). As aconsequence, in addition to the National Forestry
Development Plan, the government’s priorities withregard to forests are established under the 2007 law
on a national development plan for 2006–10 (Ley
1151, 2007).b
Regulations for conservation and forest
management include the Forest Law (1959), which
established the seven national forest reserves, a1974 decree (Decreto 2811), which adopted the
National Code of Renewable Natural Resources(Código Nacional de Recursos Naturales Renovables yde Protección al Medio Ambiente), the 1993 General
Environment Law (Ley General Ambiental, Ley 99),
which adopted the National Environmental System,
and a 1996 decree (Decreto 1791), which adopted aforest harvesting regime.
In 2010, Law 1377 was approved, which permits theuse of planted forests for production purposes, even if
they have been declared as protection forests. In orderto improve efficiency and competitiveness it also
eliminates the requirement that the owners of planted
forests receive government permission to harvest theircommercial plantations. Regulations that restrict theexport of logs from natural forests have been in place
for more than 15 years; only roundwood harvested inplanted forests may be exported.

292

Institutions involved in forests. Law 99 (1993)
created the Ministry of Environment, which
replaced the former forest service (Instituto de
Desarrollo de los Recursos Naturales Renovables).
In 2001, the Ministry of Environment became
the Ministry of Environment, Housing andTerritorial Development (Ministerio de Ambiente,
Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial), now known
as MINAMBIENTE. According to Law 1377
(2010), the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development (Ministerio de Agricultura yDesarrollo Rural – MADR) is the main agency forcommercial plantation forestry, the formulationof policies for commercial forest activities, andthe implementation of an incentive program(Certificado de Incentivo Forestal) to support
commercial forest development. MINAMBIENTE
formulates policy on the environment andrenewable natural resources and establishes
the broad guidelines, rules and criteria for theenvironmental regulation of land use, including
forestry (in close collaboration with MADR withregard to commercial forest plantations).
Law 99 (1993) also created five entities to promoteresearch on the conservation and sustainable useof biodiversity in Colombia: IDEAM; Instituto deInvestigaciones Marinas y Costeras ‘José Benito Vivesde Andreis’; Instituto de Investigación de Recursos
Biológicos ‘Alexander Von Humboldt’; Instituto
Amazónico de Investigaciones Científicas; andInstituto de Investigaciones Ambientales del Pacífico
‘John Von Neumann’. These institutes have no
specific functions in forestry, but they do influence
forest management and conservation.b The
National Corporation for Forestry Research andDevelopment (Corporación Nacional de Investigacióny Fomento Forestal – CONIF), created in 1974,
supports the forest administration through capacitybuilding and research, and performs knowledge
management functions in natural resource
management.b
Colombia is one of the most decentralizedcountries in Latin America: 40% of total public
expenditure is managed locally (by municipalities).
The management of forests is part of the National
Environmental System (Sistema Nacional
Ambiental), which was established by Law 99(1993) and consists of 33 autonomous regional
corporations (corporaciones autónomas regionales ylas corporaciones de desarrollo sostenible). These areresponsible for the management and administration

COLOMBIA

of all natural resources in the area of theirjurisdiction, including the granting of concessions,permissions and authorizations for forest harvesting(ITTO 2006).

implementation of a national forest inventory, andremote sensing techniques are now used widely
and the knowledge base about forest resources is
improving.b

International and Colombian NGOs play animportant role in the development and monitoringof forest resources – they include WWF, The
Nature Conservancy, Conservation International
and Fundación Natura. Public universities, suchas Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Universidad
de Tolima, Universidad Distrital Francisco José deCaldas and Universidad Industrial de Santander, also
have functions in forest research and development.
There are no major forest industry associations andinternational donor support for forestry is relatively
limited.

Silviculture and species selection. Forest
harvesting is generally carried out under timberlicence contracts and authorizations granted to
private owners by regional corporations. There
are 19 regional corporations in major forest areas,
which allocate, on average, about 100 cutting
permits per year; nationwide, therefore, about 1900
cutting permits are granted annually.a Generally,
there is no systematic application of silviculture,even though this is required for ongoing logging
activities under Decreto 2811 (1974; Article 213)
and Decreto 1791 (1996, Article 5b) (ITTO 2006).

Status of forest management
Forest for production
Colombian regulations related to the harvesting oftimber resources differentiate between public andprivate lands. For public land, access is obtained
through permits and concession contracts; forprivate land, special authorizations are required.
No forest concession has been allocated in naturalforests in the last 25 years. Cutting permits,which include legal requirements for management
procedures, are used widely in natural forests. When
forests are converted to other land uses or for thedevelopment of infrastructure, the law stipulatescompensation measures, generally in the form ofprotective planted forests. There is considerable
legislation governing forest management, withdetailed instructions on the preparation ofmanagement plans. However, the degree of control
exercised by regional corporations in charge offorest management is not clear and there may belarge differences in the way in which management
standards are applied in different parts of thecountry (ITTO 2006). Work has started on the

IDEAM (2010) reported that more than 14
million m3 were harvested in the period 2004–09.
About 251 timber species are used, but nine species
predominate. The average harvest in natural forest isin the range of 20–50 m3 per hectare. Many timber
species are subject to uncontrolled salvage logging,
especially in the Pacific region, among themBrosimum utile (sande, huina), Carapa guianensis(andiroba), Cedrela odorata (cedro), Prioria copaifera(cativo), Campnosperma panamensis (sajo) andTabebuia serratifolia/T. rosea (cedro rosado). Table
4 lists five commonly harvested timber species inColombia.
Planted forest and trees outside the forest.
The estimated planted forest area in 2010, bothfor production and for protection purposes, was
405 000 hectares. The main plantation species
are Pinus caribaea, P. oocarpa and, in particular,
P. patula (pino candelabro); these comprise
55% of the total planted forest area. Eucalypts(including Eucalyptus globulus, E. camaldulensis
and E. urophylla) account for about 20% of theplanted forest area, and Acacia mangium andother broadleaved species, in particular Gmelina

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Eucalyptus spp*
Pinus spp (pino)*
Prioria copaifera (cativo)*

From commercial plantations; more than 500 000 m3 per year.
At least four species; more than 200 000 m3 per year.
Often in nearly pure stands (cativales; more than 100 000 m3 peryear).
100 000+ m3 per year (Cauca and Nariño regions).
Widely distributed; outdoor and indoor use, furniture.

Campnosperma panamensis (sajo)
Cariniana pyriformis (abarco)**
Also listed in ITTO (2006).
Source: Government of Colombia (2009).

293

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. Little information
is available on the quality of natural forest
management in Colombia. Data on the extent of
natural forests under forest management plans are
scarce, although about 19 million hectares of forest
land have been classified or described under forest‘ordination’ plans, which are the major planning
instruments used by regional corporations tomanage forest land.barborea and Tectona grandis (teak, teca), arealso widely planted. Indigenous species usedin plantations include Cordia alliodora (vara dehumo), Bombacopsis quinata (ceiba tolúa), Tabebuia
rosea, Alnus acuminata (aliso), Lafoensia speciosa
and Quercus humboltii (roble) (ITTO 2006). The
country intends to increase its planted forest area,
particularly for production purposes, to 5 million
hectares or more in coming years.a
The National Forestry Development Plan proposesthat larger plots of degraded forest should be
identified as potential production forest, butcurrently no large permits have been granted.
Pilot projects have developed management plans
and silvicultural interventions for certain areas,
including three ITTO-supported field projects– in Guaviare (74 000 hectares, including 2500
hectares of managed natural forest), Chocó (2000
hectares of protective planted forest) and an areaof 64 000 hectares of degraded natural forest andplanted forest in San Nicolás/Río Negro. In the
Amazon region there are pilot areas totalling about
120 000 hectares that include sustained-yield
management (ITTO 2006). In all these pilot areas,
forest management plans have been prepared andare being implemented through multi-stakeholder
approaches. An estimated 200 000 hectares ofprotective plantations were established in the period
2002–2010.b

ITTO activities support forest management in a
number of areas. The forest area influenced by theformer ITTO project in San Nicolás/Río Negro
continues to benefit from high forest management
standards. These areas together cover about
50 000 hectares of natural forests. In addition,
the small community managed certified forests in
Chocó (9742 hectares) are counted in Table 5 assustainability managed. Other initiatives that are
implementing SFM-based approaches include the
USAID-supported More Investment in Alternative
Sustainable Development Program (Programa Mas
Inversión para el Desarrollo Alternativo Sostenible),which funded five community forest projects in
the Pacific region in the period 2007–10 over an
area of about 120 000 hectares of natural forest.
Also in the Pacific region (Department of Chocó)
the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime(UNODC) is funding the Monte Bravo project,which is supporting local communities to formulatea sustainable forest plan for 38 000 hectares ofnatural forest and to assemble an efficient systemfor extraction and wood processing. In addition, theEuropean Commission has supported, since 2007,
the projects Bosques FLEG [Forest Law Enforcement
and Governance] Colombia and Proyecto Forestal
Guaviare over an area of 97 000 hectares in the
Amazon region. Thus, the total natural forest area
considered to be under SFM in the production PFE
is around 315 000 hectares.

Forest certification. Voluntary certification is
gaining ground in Colombia. In 2005 two planted
forest areas covering 58 444 hectares were certified(ITTO 2006). In December 2010, three forest
plantations covering an area of 96 167 hectares
were certified by the FSC; in addition, a group
community certification in natural forests has
been issued in Chocó (comprising the Darién
community and Dos Bocas Rio Sucio), covering a
total area of 9742 hectares (FSC 2010). Thirty-fivechain-of-custody certificates were valid in
December 2010.

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)
Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

5500
5500

2150
-

*

294

As reported in ITTO (2006).

NaturalWithmanagement
plans-

CertifiedSustainably
managed

0
9

200

148

PlantedWith
management
plans
80

315

405

150

Total

Certified

58
96

COLOMBIA

Timber production and trade. The productionof industrial roundwood from natural and planted
forests in 2009 was estimated at 2.05 million m3,
compared with 3.01 million m3 in 2004 (ITTO
2011). Nearly all this timber served the domestic
market. Industrial wood is used in Colombia forsawnwood, plywood, particleboard and pulp. An
estimated 723 000 m3 of sawnwood was produced
in 2009, compared with 407 000 m3 in 2005
(ITTO 2011). Overall, total domestic production
is relatively low compared with the economic
potential of the country. Fuelwood production isestimated at 10–12 million m3 per year and has
remained more-or-less stable in the past ten years.a
Non-timber forest products. More than 300
NTFPs are known in Colombia. A wide range of
medicinal herbs are gathered and used locally andsometimes sold in local markets or even packaged
for more distant markets.a Few data are available
on the variety, value and production systems of
NTFPs, however. Guadua angustifolia (guadua),
a native bamboo, is used mainly for local housing
construction but also by modern architecturaldesigners and in handicrafts. In the departmentsof Caldas, Quindío, Risaralda, Tolima and Valledel Cauca the natural area of guadua is about
21 000 hectares, supplemented by 5100 hectaresof plantations; total annual production exceeds
250 000 m3 (CONIF 2004). The principal NTFPs
harvested in natural forests are rubber, palm fruits(particularly Mauritia flexuosa – canangucha– and Euterpe precatoria – asahí), fruits from
Theobroma grandiflorum (copoazu), Euterpe oleracea(palm hearts), Chamaedorea spp (xate leaves) for
ornamental use, and wildlife, especially fish andreptiles. Coca, although illegal, is widely grown.
Forest carbon. Information on forest carbon
in Colombia is relatively limited, with existing
information at the national level distributed among
various entities and institutions. Gibbs et al. (2007)
estimated the total forest biomass carbon stockBox 3 Average forest carbon per hectare, by region
RegionLiving biomass
above ground (t/ha)

Carbon(t/ha)

Andes
Pacific
AmazonOrinocoCaribbean

251
182
257
203
245

126
91.0
128
101
122

Note:
One tonne of carbon is equivalent to 3.67 tonnes of CO2e.
Source: IDEAM (2010).

in the range 2529–10 085 MtC, Eggleston etal. (2006) estimated it at 11 467 MtC and FAO(2010) estimated it at 6805 MtC. IDEAM (2010)
made a preliminary estimate at the tier 1 level forthe five main biogeographical regions (Box 3),
and estimated total biomass carbon stock at 7443
MtC. The carbon capture and storage potential ofColombia’s forests through reduced deforestationand forest degradation and enhanced forest
restoration and establishment is relatively high.
In partnership with ITTO, Colombia implemented
one of the first projects on forest carbon storage
and sequestration, starting in 1999. This projectgenerated knowledge and experience on carbon
accounting and the benefit-sharing issues
surrounding a potential REDD+ mechanism;
it is now integrated with the World Bank’s
Biocarbon Fund. Colombia is also participating
in international REDD+ initiatives, including
the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (since2008) and the REDD+ Partnership (since 2010).
The Government of Colombia is an observerat UN-REDD. Table 6 summarizes Colombia’s
current forest carbon potential.

Forest for protection
Soil and water. Colombia is one of the ten mostproductive countries in terms of freshwater yield(ITTO 2006). Environmental campaigns have been

Table 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)
2529–10 085

Deforestation/ Enhancement Forest area
% forest
changeof carbon
degradation
withsink capacity monitoring
potential to
canopycapacity
to 20302030
cover >60%
60

+++

+++

++

Forest/ Importance Engagementinof forest
GHG
internationalfire/
inventory
REDD+
biomass
capacity
processes
burning+++++++++ high; ++ medium; + low; estimate of national forest carbon based on Gibbs et al. (2007); estimate of % total forest with canopy cover>60% based on UNEP-WCMC (2010).

295

Status of tropical forest management 2011

launched in major cities to inform communities
about the importance of water conservation.
Fifty-two protection forest areas have beenclassified, covering about 306 000 hectares.a In
addition to the SPNN, over 3.8 million hectaresof land are classified for their protective functions,comprising forest reserves (522 000 hectares),productive–protective forest reserves (252 000
hectares), integrated management districts (2.78
million hectares) and conservation districts(300 000 hectares). Through its system of regional
corporations, the government promotes watershedreforestation projects: in the past 15 years, morethan 310 000 hectares of new protective plantations
have been established.b Many Colombian electricity
and water companies charge customers an extra fee
to cover the cost of watershed management.a

Forest landscape restoration under the ITTO–Cornare forest
carbon project in Valle San Nicolas.

of protected area are the SPNN and civil-society
reserves. The SPNN comprises 55 protectedareas in IUCN categories I–IV, covering nearly
10.3 million hectares (9% of the country’s landarea). Thirteen percent of the Amazon region
and 13% of the Andean region are in protectedareas, of which 9.34 million hectares are forested(IDEAM 2010, WCMC-UNEP 2010). Nationalparks overlap about 40% of the territories owned
by Indigenous communities, or about 1 million
hectares (Kernan et al. 2006). No data are available
on the connectivity of the protected-area system.
According to UNEP-WCMC (2010), about 8.3
million hectares of protected areas in IUCN classes
I–IV have a crown cover of 60% or more.

Biological diversity. Colombia has one of thehighest levels of species diversity in the world,
boasting some 55 000 plant species, of which
one-third are endemic (Colombia is one of the
top 20 countries in the world in this respect), as
well as 1721 bird species and 205 reptile species.
Forty-three mammals, 73 birds, 203 amphibians,
four reptiles, one arthropod and 13 plants foundin forests are listed as critically endangered,endangered or vulnerable on the IUCN red list of
threatened species (IUCN 2011). Six plant species
are listed in CITES Appendix I, 250 plant species
are listed in Appendix II and two species are listed
in Appendix III (UNEP-WCMC 2011). Timber
species listed in Appendix II include Swietenia
macrophylla, S. mahagoni and Guaiacum officinale.
At least 40 tree species in Colombia are threatenedby over-exploitationa, including, besides those listed
in CITES appendices, Aniba perutilis (comino
crespo), sande, Cariniana pyriformis (abarco),
Huberodendron patinoi (carra) and Humiriastrum
procerum (chanó).a

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. In some areas theintegrity of forest protected areas is secure but inother areas it is threatened by a lack of control,
the activities of guerrillas and paramilitaries, anddrug-trafficking. It is considered that the 456 000
hectares of forests that fulfil particular soil andwater protection functions are sustainably managed
because they are covered by management plans andtheir management is financed partly by payments
for ecosystem services (Table 7).c Large tracts ofother protection forest may also be secure due totheir remoteness.

Extent of protected areas. The total extent
of protected area in Colombia is 12.6 million
hectares, including both forested and non-forested
land (IDEAM 2010). The two main categories
Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)
Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

8860
9340

8860
9340

312
456**

456

456

*
**

296

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Comprises water and soil protected areas and special reforestation areas for water and watershed protection.

COLOMBIA

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. Although forests cover morethan half of Colombia, their contribution to its
GDP is only about 1%.a This is due partly tothe absence of large-scale timber concessions andrelated industries and to widespread uncontrolled
deforestation and degradation, which makes woodabundant and keeps domestic prices for timberand fuelwood low. In Colombia, there is little priceincentive for natural forest management.a The
trade balance in forest products is negative becauseof the import of pulp and paper, although the gap
declined from US$280 million in the 1990s to
US$50 million now.a It is estimated that the forest
sector provides employment for 54 000 people,
comprising 24 000 in forest industry and 30 000 inreforestation (ITTO 2006).
Livelihood values. Hundreds of plants are usedby local communities for medicinal purposes.
The domestication of wild animals is anotherimportant economic activity, including species
as different as crocodiles and butterflies. The
gathering of ornamental plants, particularly
orchids, is important in the low-level cloud forestand contributes locally to livelihoods. Illegal coca
production and trade remain the most attractive
economic activities for many colonists living in thefoothills of the Andes in the agricultural frontierareas of Alto Putumayo, Alto Caquetá, Macarena,
Guaviare, Nariño and Magdalena Medio. This is
despite a sharp decrease in production area, from
more than 170 000 hectares in 2000 to 81 000
hectares in 2008 (UNODC 2009).
Social relations. The main forest zones are
inhabited nearly exclusively by Indigenous or
Afro-Colombian communities. Their traditional
lifestyles are linked closely to the use of forest
resources through shifting cultivation and hunting,fishing and the gathering of forest products. The
1991 Constitution and laws 99 and 70 (1993)
recognize this and make specific reference to suchtraditional forest uses. There are conflicts overtimber resources and illegal crops between local
forest users and the armed forces of various factions.
A considerable number of Colombian Indigenous
and Afro-Colombian organizations are active in
the national dialogue on forests, including theOrganización Nacional de Indígenas de Colombia, theConsejo Regional Indígena del Cauca, the Asociaciónde Cabildos Indígenas del Norte del Cauca and theOrganización Indígena de Antioquia. Representing
Afro-Colombian communities are the Proceso de
Comunidades Negras, the Conferencia Nacional de
Organizaciones Afrocolombianas, the Asociación deAfrocolombianos Desplazados and the Movimiento
Nacional Cimarrón.

Summary
Nearly the entire natural forest estate of Colombia
is officially protected and the main forest products
are ecosystem services or forest products otherthan timber. The 1991 Constitution recognizes therights of Indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombians
over their territories and their right to control anduse their communal forest territories according totheir social and cultural values. Forests in Colombia
are administered within the wider context ofenvironmental management, and existing policy
goals emphasize protection and conservation
functions as well as forest restoration and forest land
rehabilitation. Generally, there is little control overforest resources on the ground and illegal activities
in forest areas appear to be widespread. Large forest
tracts remain inaccessible for legal management
activities because rebels and paramilitaries exercise
control over them. Despite these difficulties there is
progress in the collection of data on tropical forestsand biodiversity, the demarcation of property
boundaries and the provision of land titles, theimplementation of conservation programs, and theenforcement of land-use plans and regulations.

Key points•

Colombia has an estimated PFE of 15.2 million
hectares (compared with 14.5 hectares in 2005),
comprising 5.5 million hectares of potential
production PFE (the same as in 2005, mainly
degraded forests available for plantations), 9.34
million hectares of protection forest (comparedwith 8.86 million hectares in 2005) and
405 000 hectares of planted forest (comparedwith 148 000 hectares in 2005).

•

At least 771 000 hectares of natural forest,
comprising 315 000 hectares of production PFE
and 456 000 hectares of protection PFE, areconsidered to be under SFM; about 9000
hectares of community-managed natural forest
is certified. Forest land-use plans exist over an
area of about 19 million hectares.

297

Status of tropical forest management 2011•

Combined, Indigenous communities in the
Amazon region and Afro-Colombiancommunities, mainly in the Pacific region, own
nearly 30 million hectares of natural forests,
nearly half the total forest estate.

•

No specific standards have been established forlarge-scale timber production forestry and nopolicy for timber concessions is in place.

•

There are well-established systems for protectedareas and biodiversity monitoring.

•

The wider role of forests in providing ecosystemservices (such as hydrological services) is
recognized in Colombia and considerable areasof forest benefit from payments for them.

EndnotesaGovernment of Colombia (2009).

b

Discussion and information exchange with the sustainable
forest management group (Grupo de Desarrollo Sostenible deBosques), Dirección de Ecosistemas, Ministerio de Ambiente,
Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial, 2011.

c

ITTO estimate.

References and other sources
CONIF (2004). Sector Forestal Colombiano. Fuente de Vida,
Trabajo y Bienestar. Corporación Nacional de Investigación yFomento Forestal. Bogotá DC, Colombia.
Eggleston, H., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe,
T. (eds) (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Programme. Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies, Kamakura, Japan.
FAO (2010a). Global forest resources assessment 2010
country report: Colombia (available at http://www.fao.org/
forestry/fra/67090/en/).
FAO (2010b). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 Full
Report. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FSC (2010, website accessed December 2010). FSC
Certification Database (searchable database available at
http://info.fsc.org/PublicCertificateSearch).
Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007).
Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon
stocks: making REDD a reality. Environmental Research
Letters 2 (available at http://iopscience.iop.org/17489326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Government of Colombia (2008). Readiness plan idea note
Colombia. Prepared by Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienday Desarrollo Territorial for the Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility.

298

Government of Colombia (2009). Reporte sobre la evaluaciónde los criterios e indicadores para la ordenación sostenible delos bosques tropicales naturales para la OIMT. Ministerio deAmbiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial, Direccion deEcosistemas, Bogotá DC, Colombia.
Government of Colombia (2011). Colombia readinesspreparation information note. Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility (available at http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/).
IDEAM (2010). Informe Anual sobre el Estado del Medio
Ambiente y los Recursos Naturales Renovables en Colombia:
Bosques 2009. Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología yEstudios Ambientales, Bogotá DC, Colombia.
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005.
ITTO, Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/
en/sfm/ ).
ITTO (2011, website accessed March 2011). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).
IUCN (2011, website accessed March 2011). IUCN red listof threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).
Kernan, B., Monje, C. & Hildebrand, P. (2006). Report on
Tropical Forests and Biological Diversity. Country Strategy
Statement FY 2006–2010. USAID/Colombia, Bogotá DC,
Colombia.
Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World
Atlas of Mangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
Romero, M., Cabrera, E. & Ortiz, N. (2008). Informe
Sobre el Estado de la Biodiversidad en Colombia 2006–2007.
Instituto de Investigación Alexander von Humboldt, Bogotá,
Colombia.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, United States.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. Data prepared for ITTO.
UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March
2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/eng/
resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
July 2010). World population prospects: the 2008 revision(searchable database available at http://esa.un.org/UNPP/).
UNODC (2009). Colombia: Coca Cultivation Survey. United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and Government ofColombia, Bogotá DC, Colombia (available at http://www.
unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Colombia_coca_survey_2008.pdf ).

ECUADOR

EcuadorInga spp, Pourouma chocoana and Ceiba pentandra(kapok). The main commercial species in the driersemi-humid forests in central areas and the south
coast are Cordia alliodora (laurel), Pseudosamanea
guachapele, Tabebuia spp and various Bombacaceae(e.g. Ceiba and Bombax spp, and balsa – Ochroma
lagopus).

Forest resources
Ecuador has a land area of 27.7 million hectares
and an estimated population in 2010 of 13.7
million people (United Nations Population
Division 2010). Ecuador is ranked 80th out of 182
countries in UNDP’s Human Development Index(UNDP 2009). The country comprises four main
biogeographical zones: the Andean mountains(sierra); the Pacific coast; the Amazon Basin; and,1000 km from the coast in the Pacific Ocean,the Galapagos Islands. FAO (2010a) estimatedthe forest area at 9.87 million hectares in 2010,
which is 36% of the land area. The Governmentof Ecuador (2009) estimated the total forest area at
11.2 million hectares.
Forest types. There are three major forest types:
Amazon rainforest, comprising about 62% of theforest estate; montane (sierra) forests of various
types in the Andes (on the western and eastern
slopes, at lower and upper levels, and towards theAndean high peaks), comprising about 21% of theforest estatea; and tropical rainforest in the coastal
plains of the Pacific region (mainly in Esmeraldas
Province), which contains about 17% of the forests.
Mangrove forests were once widespread but now
cover only about 158 000 hectares (Spalding et al.
2010).
The most common commercial species in the morehumid northern part of the country are Protium
and Dacryodes spp, Laureaceae, Brosimum utile,

Permanent forest estate. Ecuador has not defineda PFE but there is a clear distinction between
forests for (potential) production and forest forprotection, and the latter is clearly delimited.a The
Government of Ecuador (2009) estimated the total
area that is potentially used as production forest at
4.51 million hectares and the total area of protected
forests at 6.55 million hectares, but the production
forest area that can be considered as permanent
forest estate is only about 2 million hectares (Table1).a Protection forests are classified in the national
system of protected areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas
Protegidas – SNAP). The area of forest that might
be considered PFE is about 8.7 million hectaresa,
most of it part of the SNAP. Only a small portionof the production PFE is considered economicallyharvestable due to steep slopes in mountainous
terrain, low timber density, difficulty of access, andsocial constraints (ITTO 2006). There are about
175 000 hectares of planted forests.a

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation.
Ecuador has the highest rate of deforestation of
any South American country. This is due to anumber of factors, including policies favouring
the development of pastures and commercial
agriculture; colonization; oil and timber
exploration; insecure land tenure; and weak public
institutions. Aquaculture for shrimp production has
expanded rapidly on the Pacific coast in the past
15 years and is responsible for the loss of nearly
80 000 hectares of mangrove forests.a FAO (2010b)
estimated the annual loss of forest cover between
2005 and 2010 at an average 198 000 hectares(1.89%) per year. In relative terms, deforestation
is highest in the dry forest of the southern coastal
region (more than 2% per yeara), but it is also highin the humid tropical lowland forests of the Pacificcoast and is increasing in the Amazon region.

299

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

2005*
2010

8.4–11.4
9.87–11.2

10 8545813*****‡†PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted

Total

3100
1964‡

7564
8693

164
175

4300
6554†

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Calculated using the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) (58.9%) and the total
natural forest area as estimated by FAO (2010a).
Includes harvested areas in state forests (patrimonio forestal del estado), as reported by Government of Ecuador (2009).
Includes public protection forests and the area in SNAP. Some of this area may no longer be forested.a

SFM policy framework

Illegality and corruption contribute indirectly to
deforestation and biodiversity loss by undermining
enforcement by government institutions (USAID
2006).

Forest tenure. Most of Ecuador’s forests are
owned by local communities and Indigenous
groups (ancestral Indigenous or Afro-Ecuadorian),although the majority are not subject to official
land titles. The National Strategy for Sustainable
Forest Development (Plan Nacional de Desarrollo
Forestal Sostenible) 2007–2011 includes legal
provisions for the allocation of forests to Indigenous
communities, farmers and other groups alreadyin possession of forest lands on the condition thatthey guarantee the sustainable management andconservation of the allocated forests.a The country’s
2008 Constitution also fully recognizes the rights ofIndigenous communities (see below).

Table 2 summarizes forest condition. Intact orslightly degraded primary forests cover about
3.9 million hectares, and secondary forests andscrublands (matorrales) together cover about 6.3
million hectares. Most of the secondary forests arein the Pacific coast region.a
Vulnerability of forests to climate change.
Ecuador is highly vulnerable to the impacts ofclimate change due to its geographical location,
rugged topography and exposure to El Niño events,
as well as to the dependence of key economic
sectors on resources that are affected by climate.
Many population centres are at high altitudes andrely particularly on receding alpine glaciers andhigh-elevation forests and grasslands for their watersupply. High-altitude ecosystems are likely to suffer
more from climate-change impacts than lower-lying
areas (IUCN 2009). Uncontrolled forest fires area major threat, particularly on the Pacific coast;landslides in mountainous regions are also common
after heavy rainfall.

There is a great deal of overlap between the areasin the SNAP and private and Indigenous lands.
International support is needed to help secure
tenure, mark boundaries and establish participatory
surveillance systems over 1.6 million hectares ofIndigenous land.a Table 3 summarizes the foresttenure situation.
Criteria and indicators. Ecuador established its
own set of C&I for SFM based on those of ITTO.
This has been used in strategic planning but today
its use is limited.a The Government of Ecuador
used the ITTO C&I in its submission to ITTO for
this report.a

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

Total’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land
Source: Derived from Government of Ecuador (2009).

300

-

-

3900
1300
1200
3800

ECUADOR

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category
State ownership (national, state orprovincial government)
Other public entities (e.g.
municipalities, villages)
Total public
Owned by local communities and/orIndigenous groups
Private owned by firms, individuals,
other corporate

Total area Of which PFE Notes’000 ha
3940

-

-

-

3940
6830

-

40

-

State production forests and SNAP/patrimonio forestal delestado.
Municipalities regulate freshwater protection and thus also
large parts of protection forests.
Includes forested areas and formerly forested areas now used asvillage agricultural land.
Mainly forest plantations; agroforestry plantations are notconsidered forest land.

Source: Based on ITTO & RRI (2009).

Forest policy and legislation. Ecuador’s 20thconstitution since 1830 was approved in September
2008. The rights established by its Article 84
enfranchise thousands of Indigenous people,
many of them living in forested areas. Along with
Indigenous rights, the Constitution recognizes therights of naturea and the role of the state in theconservation, sustainable use and restoration offragile ecosystems such as the páramo (non-forested
sub-alpine areas), humid areas, mangroves, cloudforests and tropical dry and humid forests (Article406). Article 407 prohibits extractive activities inprotected areas, including timber harvesting.b
The Forest Law (Codificación de la Ley Forestal yde Conservación de Áreas Naturales y Vida Silvestre,
L.74-PCL. RO 64), which dates from 1981, assigns
the ownership and control of all forest resources tothe national government. The provisions of the Forest
Law were never fully implemented, however, andmany substantial changes in the administration andcontrol of Ecuador’s forests have been made by the
Ministry of Environment (Ministerio del Ambiente).a
The Forest Law provides the legal basis for the
SNAP and for the protected-area system that was
created under Article 86 of the 1998 Constitution(patrimonio de áreas naturales del estado – PANE).
A new forest law based largely on the examples ofChile and Costa Rica was prepared in 2001 but
never approved.a The Forest Law (1981) is underrevision to reflect the new orientation of the state as
defined by the new Constitution.b The baseline of
the revision is the National Strategy for Sustainable
Forest Development 2007–2011, a multistakeholder document that lays out a vision for
SFM and forest conservation and which recognizes
the important role of local communities and othersectors in achieving SFM.b

The National Forest and Reforestation Programme(Plan Nacional de Forestación y Reforestación), which
was approved in September 2006, includes amongits goals the creation of 750 000 hectares of new
industrial forest plantations, 150 000 hectaresof agroforestry schemes and 100 000 hectares ofprotective plantations in a 20-year period.
In September 2008, the Ministry of Environment
launched its SocioBosque Program as one of theelements of a national REDD framework (seebelow). SocioBosque provides economic incentives tolandowners who voluntarily decide to protect theirforest. SocioBosque aims to preserve natural forestsand other native ecosystems and thereby protect
their ecological, economic, cultural and spiritualvalues. It also aims to achieve a significant reduction
in deforestation and associated emissions of GHGs.
SocioBosque is fully financed by public funds but
additional funds are required from internationalsources, including those associated with REDD, inorder to fully accomplish its goals.a
Institutions involved in forests. Many Ecuadoriangovernment institutions have responsibilities related
to forests and the conservation of biodiversity. At
the national level, the Ministry of Environment
and its Forest Service (Dirección Forestal, under
the Sub-Secretaría del Patrimonio Nacional)
administers forests and protected areas, enforces theForest Law and international treaties, implementsinternational conservation projects, and approves
environmental assessments. Through Executive
Decree 931 of February 2008, responsibility forindustrial plantations and agroforestry was assigned
to the Ministry of Agriculture, Aquaculture andFisheries (Ministerio de Agricultura, Acuaculturay Pesca), which subsequently created in the same
year a specific institution (Unidad para el Desarrollo

301

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Forestal del Ecuador – PROFORESTAL) to
fulfill this task. The Ministry of Environment is
responsible for the program to establish and manage
protective plantations (Programa de Plantaciones
para la Protección y Conservación de los Recursos
Naturales).
The principal state institution in charge of theplanning and operation of production forestryis the National Secretariat for Planning andDevelopment (Secretaría Nacional de Planificacióny Desarrollo – SENPLADES), which is in chargeof the implementation of the overall development
plan for Ecuador. SENPLADES closely coordinates
forest planning with the Forest Service and
PROFORESTAL.
Ecuador has more than 60 non-profit
environmental NGOs. Some, such as Fundación
Natura, are large, while others may consist of only
a few people working on a specific environmental
problem in a restricted geographic area. Indigenousorganizations have a profound impact on theconservation of biodiversity and forests because they
represent the owners of over 6 million hectares ofland, much of it in the biodiversity-rich Amazon.
Many Ecuadorian businesses are involved in theextraction and processing of natural resources.
National and international companies involvedin oil production, mining, tourism, agribusinessand the wood industry, for example, can stimulate
deforestation and forest degradation. Oil isparticularly important to Ecuador’s economy. Oil
exploration, extraction, transport and processing
can cause large-scale, permanent direct and indirect
negative impacts on forests.
Forest-owners and timber industries areorganized in associations (Asociación Ecuatoriana
de Industriales de Madera – AIMA, Asociación
Ecuatoriana de Productores de Teca y Maderas
Tropicales – ASOTECA and others) and special
initiatives (e.g. Corporación de Manejo Forestal
Sustentable – COMAFORS). They play an active
part in policymaking and forest development. Eight
universities offer forestry education, including
la Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo,
Universidad Técnica Estatal de Quevedo, Universidad
Técnica de Esmeraldas, Universidad Nacional deLoja, Universidad Agraria del Ecuador, Universidad
Técnica del Norte, Universidad Estatal del Sur deManabí and Universidad Internacional SEK.a

302

Status of forest management
Forest for production
Forest use is regulated through a number of norms
dealing with forest management, particularly:•

Rules on Sustainable Forest Management for
Timber Harvesting in Moist Forests (Normas
para el Manejo Forestal Sustentable para
Aprovechamiento de Madera en Bosque Húmedo –Acuerdo Ministerial 039, 2004).

•

Rules for Timber Harvesting in Plantation
Forests and Trees in Agroforestry Systems(Normas para el Aprovechamiento de Madera en
Bosques Cultivados y de Árboles en Sistemas
Agroforestales – Acuerdo Ministerial 040, 2004).

•

Rights to Timber Harvesting (Derecho deAprovechamiento de Madera en Pie – Acuerdo
Ministerial 041, 2004).

•

Directives on Log-scaling for Forest Control at
Road Checkpoints (Instructivo de Cubicación deMaderas para Controles Forestales en Vías
Terrestres – Acuerdo Ministerial 053, 2001).

Forest harvesting in state production forests requires
a forest inventory, the preparation of a forest
management plan, the physical demarcation ofconcession limits, social payments and payments
for silvicultural treatments. A forest-control entity
called Vigilancia Verde has been in place since 2001
with the overall task of supervising the flow offorest products from the forest to the marketplace.
Another body, Regencia Forestal, was created toincrease the transparency of Vigilancia Verde,to provide technical assistance and support law
enforcement in forest operations, and to oversee theimplementation of C&I in forest management.
There is no coordinated approach to naturalforest management in Ecuador; many potential
management techniques have not yet been put
into practice. Before 1980, several licensed logging
concessions operated in defined areas with specified
annual yields. The legal and practical provisions
were similar to those operating in many othercountries and, as elsewhere, there were serious
difficulties of control, supervision and protection.
Concession management was abandoned in theearly 1980s (ITTO 2006). Ecuador now uses a
system of short-term logging licences which, in
addition to its impact on the quality and efficiency
of logging operations, has encouraged foresters to

ECUADOR

consider other ways of ensuring future long-term
supplies of timber, particularly through thedevelopment of forest plantations and agroforestry.
There is strong pressure on the natural-forest
resource from informal and illegal operators, who
resist regulations they see as unrealistic. Illegal
logging is therefore widespread; it is estimated, forexample, that 85% of the Cedrela odorata (cedro)
harvested in the Ecuadorian Amazon is illegal.a
Most timber harvesting today is done on
Indigenous and small-farmer community lands andprivate lands. Legal harvesting is carried out under
three kinds of permit: cutting permits (the great
majority until 2005 – ITTO 2006); areas harvested
according to simplified forest management plans(Programas de Aprovechamiento Forestal Simplificado– PAFSIs), which mainly involve non-mechanized
extraction; and areas with integrated management
and sustainable management areas (Programas deAprovechamiento Forestal Sustentable – PAFSUs),
which involve relatively large areas that are suitablefor industrial harvesting. In 2009, 921 forest
management permits (PAFSIs and PAFSUs) were
issued (up from 815 in 2008). In 2008, a total of
205 000 m3 of timber were harvested from about
10 000 hectares in PAFSUs and 259 000 m3 fromabout 29 000 hectares in PAFSIs.a
Silviculture and species selection. Diameter
limits are assigned for each harvestable species andare relatively low: for example, the limit is 40 cm
for cedro and 35 cm for Tabebuia chrysantha andMyroxylon peruiferum.a Post-harvesting treatments
in natural forests are compulsory and include
liberation thinning, the cutting of lianas and,based on a silvicultural assessment, enrichment
planting.a About 120 timber species are used in thedomestic market. The prime species harvested arefrom forest plantations (eucalypts and pines). In
natural forests, 80% of the harvested volume comesfrom about 25 species (ITTO 2006). Besides thoselisted in Table 4, important commercial species are

Semi-natural production forest in Ecuador, with Cordia alliodora
and Terminalia spp.

Virola spp, Otoba glycycarpa (sangre de gallina),
Cedrelinga catenaeformis (chuncho), Podocarpus
spp and Prumnopitys spp (romerillo, azucena) fromthe southeastern forests, and Tratinnickia glaziovii(copal).
Planted forests and trees outside the forest.
The creation of new forests and agroforestry
plantations is a major goal of Ecuador’s forest andenvironmental policy, and PROFORESTAL wascreated to fulfill ambitious industrial-plantation
and agroforestry targets. The total state budget
allocated to this purpose in 2008 was US$15
million.a The total area of planted forest in 2008
was about 175 000 hectares, which was 11 000
hectares more than reported in 2005 (ITTO 2006).
About 80% of the plantations are composed of
eucalypt and pine species and located in the Andes;
the remaining 20% is mainly in the coastal region
and largely comprises balsa and a range of otherindigenous species such as laurel, Schizolobium
parahybum (pachaco), Jacaranda copaia, Parkia
multijuga (cutanga), chuncho and Hyeronima
alchornoides (mascarey). Some certified plantations
and agroforestry schemes are now exploiting these

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Eucalyptus globulus (eucalipto)
Ochroma lagopus (balsa)
Brosimum utile (sande)*
Cordia alliodora (laurel)*Pinus radiata and P. patula (pino)*

From plantations in mountainous areas, 190 000 m3 in 2008.
From plantations more than 40 000 m3 annually.
The main natural forest species in the Pacific region.
From secondary forests, pastures and plantations.
From forest plantations in mountainous regions.

Also listed in ITTO (2006).
*
Source: Government of Ecuador (2009).

303

Status of tropical forest management 201119 species for their roots (mainly as medicines),
25 species for their bark and 19 species for theirseeds (Añazco et al. 2004). NTFPs of commercial
importance include Guadua (bamboo); latex;
gum; palm products, particularly palm hearts;and medicinal plants. Tagua (vegetable ivory), theseed of the palm Phytelephas macrocarpa, is usedcommercially in handicrafts, as are fibres of Bactris
gasipaes and Carludovica palmata (paja toquilla).
Widely used NTFPs in Ecuador’s Amazon forests
include Genipa americana, a natural colorant;
Poulsenia armata and Byrsonima japurensis fortheir fibre; Caryodendron orinocense and Plukenetia
volubilis as vegetable oil; and Uncaria tomentosa,
Croton lechleri and Strychnos peckii for medicinal
purposes.a On average, exports of NTFPs were
worth US$13 million per year between 2006 and2008.aresources. Tectona grandis (teak, teca), Acacia
mangium and Gmelina arborea are planted inlowland areas and Alnus acuminata (aliso) is plantedin the mountains.
Forest certification. As of mid 2010, five FMUs
managing planted forests and semi-natural forests
were certified under the FSC, covering a total areaof 41 200 hectares (FSC 2010). No natural forests
were certified.
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. The estimated areaof natural-forest production PFE under SFM is
at least 176 000 hectares (Table 5), comprising
forests that are currently managed under PAFSUs
with adequate supervision by authorities and somesemi-natural forest stands that have been managed
for more than 20 years.a The latter areas include
private forest lots and planted and natural forests inthe sierra managed by communities.

Forest carbon. One of the objectives of the
National Development Plan, designed under theleadership of SENPLADES, is the cessation of
deforestation. The Ministry of Environment has
identified the following elements of a national
REDD strategy: forestry control; management
information systems; a GHG monitoring system;land-tenure regularization in forest areas; SFM;
afforestation and reforestation; and an appropriate
legal and institutional framework. SocioBosque is an
important element of the strategy.

Timber production and trade. It is estimated thatabout 4.8 million m3 of roundwood was extracted
annually from Ecuadorian forests between 2006
and 2008a, including for fuelwood. Of the total
in 2006 an estimated 460 000 m3 of industrial
roundwood was harvested in tropical naturalforests and 480 000 m3 were harvested in planted
forests.a Total industrial log production in 2009 wasestimated at 711 000 m3, down from 1.81 million
m3 in 2000 (ITTO 2011). In 2009 Ecuador
exported about 74 000 m3 of logs, 55 000 m3 ofsawnwood, 3000 m3 of veneer and 67 000 m3 ofplywood (ibid.). There are two large wood industry
groups in Ecuador – Durini and Alvarez-Barba– and hundreds of smaller formal and informal
wood-using enterprises (USAID 2006).

According to national carbon inventories, Ecuador’sforests and other wooded land contain about 420
MtC, of which 320 MtC are in natural forests.a
Gibbs et al. (2007) estimated the national-level
forest biomass carbon stock at 351–1379 MtC, andEggleston et al. (2006) estimated it at 2071 MtC.
Ecuador has the highest deforestation rate in Latin
America, resulting in significant carbon emissions,mainly in the lowlands; it has considerable
potential for carbon capture and storage (Table
6). The Government of Ecuador is taking firm

Non-timber forest products. At least 589 species
are used as NTFPs in Ecuadorian forests, of which
79 species are used for their edible fruits, 68
species for their leaves, 28 species for their flowers,

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)
Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

3100
1964

115

*
**

304

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
65
86

Certified

0
0

101

164

PlantedWith
management
plans
65

176**

175

90

Sustainably
managedTotal

As reported in ITTO (2006).
includes 21 000 hectares of semi-natural forest as enrichment plantings with local species in natural forest areas.

Certified

21
41

ECUADOR

Table 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)% forestwithcanopycover >60%

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

351– 1379

59+++

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
sink capacity monitoring
capacity
to 2030++++

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

Importance Engagementinof forest
international
fire/
REDD+
biomass
processes
burning++++++++ high; ++ medium; +low; estimate of national forest carbon based on Gibbs et al. (2007); estimate of % total forest with canopy cover>60% based on UNEP-WCMC (2010).

steps towards REDD (Chiu 2009). For example,
it is preparing a low-carbon development planfor 2010–2012 and a national REDD+ strategy
with support from the German government andConservation International (Government of
Norway 2010). Ecuador is also involved in the
UN-REDD process and the REDD+ Partnershipand the government has established permanent
forest monitoring facilities through the Center for
Remote Sensing.

Forest for protection
Soil and water. Protection and protected forests
are regulated through the 2003 Environmental Law(Texto Unificado de Legislación Ambiental, Libro
III: Del Régimen Forestal, DE-3516) and the 1999
Law of Environmental Management (Ley de Gestión
Ambiental 37, RO-245). There are 162 registeredprotection forests in Ecuador, covering an area of
about 2.3 million hectares.a Protection forest lands
include state land as well as privately owned or
occupied land on steep slopes or water catchments
and other areas unsuitable for agriculture or
livestock production. Municipal governments
provide drinking water and protect forests forthis purpose. The provision of clean, abundant
water is an ecosystem service that may help pay
for conservation; for example, Quito’s water fund,
FONAG, is paying part of the cost of protecting
and restoring the Cayambe–Coca EcologicalReserve.
Biological diversity. Ecuador has a wide range of
ecosystems and is considered a megadiverse country.
It has more than 20 100 plant species, of which
5317 are endemica, and there are also at least 369
native mammals, 1616 birds, 394 reptiles and 415
amphibians. Most of the 1435 species found inforests (34 mammals, 56 birds, 155 amphibians,
eleven reptiles, one arthropod, twelve molluscs and1166 plants) that are listed as critically endangered,endangered or vulnerable on the IUCN red list of

threatened species are endemic to the Galapagos
Islands (IUCN 2011). On the mainland, 14 species
are so listed (ibid.). Eight plant species are listed
in CITES Appendix I and 584 in Appendix II(UNEP-WCMC 2011). Swietenia macrophylla andCedrela spp are protected under national law.aProtective measures in production forests.
Amendments made in 2004 to the 1981 Forest
Law introduced new harvesting rules in accordancewith reduced impact logging as a prerequisite for
harvesting. Logging is prohibited within specified
distances of waterways, lakes and rivers, on slopes
greater than 45%, in the highest areas of microwatersheds (línea de cumbres de microcuencas
primarias), and in various ‘special areas’.a
Extent of protected areas. The 2008 Constitution
defines, in its Article 405, a new sub-category of
the SNAP, the PANE, which includes 35 special
protected areas, including major national parks,
reserves and wildlife preservation areas. On the
Ecuadorian mainland, protected areas cover 4.67
million hectares (17% of the total land area),
distributed in various categories defined by law(national parks, biological reserves, ecologicalreserves, geo-botanical reserves, bird reserves,
wildlife reserves, etc). The protected area estatealso includes about 2 million hectares of soil andwater protection areas, mostly forested, classified
in IUCN categories V and VI.a The total protectedarea comprises non-forested areas and also 1.55
million hectares of lowland rainforest. In addition,
the biological reserve of the Galapagos Islands
covers 14.1 million hectares of land and marine
ecosystems.
Some protected areas are threatened byencroachment. For example, Podocarpus National
Park, a unique montane primary forest relictof more than 120 000 hectares, is threatenedby illegal gold-mining and associated mercury
contamination.

305

Status of tropical forest management 2011

There are three major biosphere reserves besides
Galapagos – Yasuní, Sumaco Napo Galeras, andPodocarpus–El Condor – which, combined,
cover nearly 3 million hectares. There are also
five biological corridors in mainland Ecuador(corredor ecológico Llanganates-Sangay, corredor
biológico Awacachi, corredor ecológico CuyabenoPañacocha, corredor de conservación comunitaria ElÁngel-Golondrinas, and corredor ecológico AntisanaLlanganates) connecting 20 protected areas.aa high number of small timber extractors andwood-processing units with low capital input
and by poor working conditions; it has difficulty
delivering high-quality processed products. It isestimated that there are more than 500 units ofactive extractors and timber companies, most ofthem producing less than 2000 m3 annually. An
estimated 235 000 people are in employment
linked to the forest and timber industry, which is
8% of the country’s active economic population.a

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. Little information
was available for this report on the quality ofmanagement in the protection PFE (Table 7).
About 2.21 million hectares of protected areas
reportedly had management plans in 2009.a The
129 000-hectare Condor Biosphere Reserve, partof a transboundary conservation area on the borderwith Peru, was threatened by the expansion ofunsustainable agriculture and cattle-ranching,but its integrity has been substantially improved
through a project supported by various donors,
including ITTO. Forest management planning has
advanced in the Yasuni National Park (985 000
hectares) in the Napo region. A United Nationsadministered international trust fund, initiatedthrough SocioBosque, has been put in place toguarantee payments for non-exploitation of theconsiderable oil reservoirs in the core area of Yasuni(500 000 hectares). The core areas of the Condor
Biosphere Reserve and Yasuni National Park, bothnearly 100% forested, are counted in Table 7 assustainably managed.

Livelihood values. Forests have great value for local
forest-dwellers, with hunting and fishing the mostimportant activities. Forests are also considered asa land reserve and are converted for subsistence
agriculture. About 7.5 million hectares of forest
are used directly or indirectly by Indigenous
communities to provide at least part of theirlivelihoods.a It is estimated that about 850 000
people depend directly on forest resources for theirlivelihoods.a
Social relations. The country’s populationconsists of four broad groups – Mestizo (65%);
Amerindian (25%); Spanish descendant (7%); andAfro-Ecuadorian (3%) – each of which has a uniqueculture. Amerindian groups play a particularly
important role in the management of forests andthe conservation of Ecuador’s biodiversity because
they control large areas of forested land. Conflicts
over oil exploitation and illegal harvesting arewidespread and illicit crops are found in certain
forest areas (ITTO 2006). Recently, as part of theSocioBosque program, Indigenous communities andorganizations signed 20-year agreements with the
Ministry of Environment under which, in returnfor preserving native forests, landowners receive
annual incentive payments from the government.
These agreements reinforce existing titles.

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. The GDP of Ecuador was
US$108 billion in 2009, of which forest-based
activities contributed about 2% (USAID 2006).
However, data are quite unreliable due to thehigh level of informality in the forest sector. The
forest and timber industry is characterized by
Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)
Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

4300
6554**

1790
4670‡

2403
2355

513
2211

629

*
**
‡

306

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Includes water and soil protection forests and protected areas. UNEP-WCMC (2010) estimated the total area of forested protectedareas at 2.085 million hectares. Partly there is overlap of areas in the various categories.
Includes the land area of the Galapagos Islands, not all of which is forested.

ECUADOR

Summary
Ecuador, a megadiverse country, suffers thehighest rate of deforestation of any Amazonian
country – primarily as a result of increased access,colonization, oil and timber exploration, a lack of
incentives for conservation, insecure land titles,
and weak public institutions. Ecuador has a large,
often contradictory and unclear body of laws andregulations that affects the sustainable managementof its biodiversity and tropical forests and whichusually is only partially enforced. The Forestry
Law is under revision, taking into account the newframework provided by the 2008 Constitution.
SFM is a long way from being achieved in most of
Ecuador’s production and protection forests. On thepositive side, there is a declared political willingness
to increase the country’s capacity to manage andconserve forest resources sustainably.

•

There is a discrepancy between forest
regulations and actual harvesting practice. The
high rigour of legal provisions for harvesting
operations may push forest users towards
illegality.

•

Considerable efforts have been undertaken inrecent years in the management of theprotection PFE and there is increased politicalsupport for forest conservation. The emergenceof REDD+ could further strengthen the
management of the protection PFE.

EndnotesaGovernment of Ecuador (2009).

b

Ministry of Environment website, accessed October 2010.
Available at www.ambiente.gov.ec.

ePersonal communications with officials in the Governmentof Ecuador, 2010.

Key points

References and other sources•

Añazco, M., Loján, L. & Yaguache, R. (2004). Productos
Forestales no Madereros en el Ecuador (PFNM). Una
Aproximación a su Diversidad y Usos. Ministerio delAmbiente. Quito, Ecuador.

•

Ecuador has no officially designated PFE. An
estimated 8.69 million hectares of forest might
be considered to constitute a PFE (comparedwith 7.56 million hectares in 2005), comprising
1.96 million hectares of natural production
forest (compared with 3.10 million hectares in2005), 6.55 million hectares of protection forest(compared with 4.30 million hectares in 2005)
and 175 000 hectares of planted forest(compared with 164 000 hectares in 2005).
An estimated 176 000 hectares of the
production PFE is under SFM. No naturalforest is certified. About 2.21 million hectares ofprotected areas have valid management plans
and an estimated 629 000 hectares of theprotection PFE is under SFM.

•

Information on the forest sector is often poorand contradictory.

•

There is strong pressure on the forest frominformal and illegal operators resisting change
towards SFM, and illegal logging is widespreadin all three forest regions.

•

Pronounced social and ethnic divisions
complicate SFM and forest conservation. In
many cases, and despite new legislative
provisions, forest tenure remains unclear.

Chiu, M. (2009). Ecuador: taking firm steps towards REDD.
UN-REDD Newsletter 4 (2009).
Eggleston, H., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. & Tanabe,
T. (eds) (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Programme. Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies, Kamakura, Japan.
FAO (2010a). Global forest resources assessment 2010 country
report: Ecuador (available at http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).
FAO (2010b). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 Full
Report. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FSC (2010, website accessed July 2010). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).
Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007). Monitoringand estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDDa reality. Environmental Research Letters 2 (available at http://
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Government of Ecuador (2009). Informe nacional del Ecuador
sobre el estado de la ordenación forestal sostenible dolos bosques tropicales. September 2009. Prepared by
Mario Añazco Romero. Ministry of Environment, Quito,
Ecuador..
Government of Norway (2010). Synthesis report: REDD+
financing and activities survey. Prepared by anintergovernmental taskforce. Government of Norway, Oslo,
Norway.

307

Status of tropical forest management 2011

ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2011, website accessed January 2011). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).
ITTO & RRI (2009). Tropical forest tenure assessment. trends,
challenges and opportunities. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan andRights and Resources Initiative, Washington, DC, UnitedStates.
IUCN (2009, website accessed October 2009). Corridors –routes for adaptation (available at www.iucn.org/knowledge/
news/focus/2009_eba/ground/?uNewsID=4135).
IUCN (2011, website accessed July 2010). IUCN red list of
threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).
Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World Atlas ofMangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.

308

UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. Data prepared for
ITTO. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March 2011).
UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed species(searchable database at available at www.cites.org/eng/
resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
July 2010). World population prospects: the 2008 revision(searchable database available at http://esa.un.org/UNPP/).
USAID (2006). Report on Tropical Forests and Biological Diversity.
Country Strategy Statement FY 2007–2012. United States
Agency for International Development, Quito, Ecuador.

GUATEMALA

Guatemalain Guatemala are classified as conifer forests,
broadleaved forests, mixed forests and mangrove
forests. Their characteristics and distribution are as
follows:•

Closed natural pine forest in the highlands(bosque de pino denso) – these are dominated by
one or several Pinus spp (pine species), Abies
guatemalensis (pinabete), Cupressus lusitanica(cypress), Taxodium mucronatum (sabino) or
Juniperus comitana (juniperus). The mostcommercially important species is Pinus oocarpa.
The closed natural pine forests cover about
300 000 hectares and can be found in
Huehuetenango, San Marcos, Quiche, Baja
Verapaz and Totonicapan.

•

Broadleaved forest (bosque latifoliado) – in thistropical humid forest type, more than 300 tree
species have so far been identified, but twogenera, Dialium and Brosimum, predominate.
The largest areas of broadleaved forest are in the
Petén but there are also areas in Alta Verapaz,
Izabal, Quiche and Huehuetenango. They cover
more than 3 million hectares.

•

Mixed hardwood and pine forest (bosque mixto)– these cover about 600 000 hectares, composedof two main tree associations: pine–oak, andLiquidambar styraciflua (liquidambar). Cypress,
Betulaceae (Ostyra spp and Alnus spp) and
Lauraceae (Ocotea spp, Nectandra spp and Perseaspp) occur in this forest type. It is
predominantly found in Quiche,
Huehuetenango, Alta Verapaz, Chiquimula andZacapa.

•Relicts of mangrove forest (bosque de manglar)
cover about 17 700 hectares on the Pacific coast,
particularly in estuaries and lagoons (Spalding etal. 2010). The largest areas are in thedepartments of Retalhuleu, Santa Rosa,
Escuintla, Jutiapa, Suchitepequez and San
Marcos.

Forest resources
Guatemala has a land area of about 10.9 million
hectares and an estimated population in 2010 of
14 million people (United Nations Population
Division 2010). It is ranked 78th out of 182
countries in UNDP’s Human Development Index(UNDP 2009).
The country can be divided into three main
biogeographical regions. The first, where most of
the population lives, comprises highlands madeup of several mountain chains stretching from theborder with Mexico southwards to the border with
Honduras. The highest peaks are steep volcanic
cones reaching more than 4000 m above sea level;
the country’s main conifer forests are found there.
The second is the Pacific plain, stretching along the
Pacific coast, which is characterized by rich volcanic
soils and is highly developed for agriculture. The
third, the Petén, is a flat, low-lying region in
the north of the country bordering Mexico andBelize. This is mainly a limestone plateau covered
with dense humid tropical forests, swamps andgrasslands, and features the ruins of ancient Mayan
cities. Recent estimates of Guatemala’s forest area
range from 3.66 million hectares (FAO 2010a) to
4.55 million hectares (Government of Guatemala
2010, based on 2003 satellite cover interpretation).
Forest types. Ten physiographic regions, sevenbiomes, 14 ecoregions, 66 ecosystems and 14 life
zones have been identified in the country.a Forests

Permanent forest estate. The estimated total
area of PFE is 2.46 million hectaresa (Table 1),comprising 1.14 million hectares of production
forest, 1.24 million hectares of protection forest and85 000 hectares of planted forest.b The distributionof the PFE by forest type is as follows: tropical309

Status of tropical forest management 2011

fires and drug-trafficking.a The country has about
one million hectares of secondary forests (bosques
secundarios, arbustales). Table 2 indicates forest
condition; about 37% of the total forest area isconsidered to be more-or-less intact.a

hardwood forest – 1.7 million hectares; conifer
forest – 100 000 hectares; mixed hardwood andpine forest – 130 000 hectares; and open woodlands
and secondary forests – at least 500 000 hectares(ITTO 2006).

Vulnerability of forests to climate change.
Possible consequences of climate change in
Guatemala include variations in precipitation andtemperature patterns, accompanied by changes
in soil moisture, soil chemistry and species
composition and structure. Local and nationalhydrological cycles could be disrupted, andsurface water supplies could become unreliable(Government of Guatemala 2001). Observationsin the Petén suggest that lakes and other water
bodies there are recording consistently lower
volumes than previously. A change in climate could
directly affect the productivity of agriculture andforestry and diminish livelihoods (Tolisano &López-Selva 2010). Climate change could also havea significant impact on conservation needs andpriorities. For example, under some future climate
scenarios, a considerable number of protectedareas will no longer be able to fulfill their role ofprotecting representative habitat for species targeted
for conservation (Mansourian et al. 2009). As aconsequence, changes to forest management may berequired, including habitat restoration with a focus
on resilience.

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. According
to FAO (2010b), Guatemala lost about 56 000
hectares per year in the period 2006–2010, anannual deforestation rate of 1.47%. Overall,between 1990 and 2010, Guatemala lost 23% of its
forest cover, or around 1.1 million hectares (FAO
2010b).
There has been deforestation in the conifer forestsof the highlands for centuries, but today it mostly
takes place in the Petén. Large-scale deforestation
started there in the 1970s as a result of a landcolonization program initiated by the government
and accelerated in the 1980s, when entire villagesof Indigenous people sought refuge during thecountry’s civil war (ITTO 2006). An estimated
78% of the deforestation in the Petén is caused byshifting cultivation and the remainder is caused bycattle-ranching and other causes, such as mineraland petroleum development.a The degradation andfragmentation of forests result from widespread
illegal logging and fuelwood gathering, unmanaged
Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

2005*
2010

2.85–4.29
3.65–4.51

2824
1850*****‡PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted
1140
1140

71
85‡

1240
1240

Total

2451
2465

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Calculated using the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) (50.6%) and the total
natural forest area as estimated by FAO (2010a).
According to Government of Guatemala (2010), with the entire area situated in the PFE. FAO (2010a) estimated the total planted
forest area at 173 000 hectares, which probably includes tree plantations on agricultural land.

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

Total’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land*
Corresponds to the total area deforested since 1960.
Source: Derived from Government of Guatemala (2010).

310

-

-

1620
1800
1000
1100*

GUATEMALA

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. Forest ownership in Guatemala
may be public or private. An estimated 1.5
million hectares of forest are owned by local andIndigenous communities, 1.4 million hectares
are national forests, and about 930 000 hectares
are municipally/communally owned (Table 3).
Indigenous communal lands (known as ejidales)
have special status by law. Because of the civil war(which ended formally in 1996), the ownershipof about 212 000 hectares of forest is uncertain,
although some of this area is owned privately. Landtenure was complicated by the displacement in the
1980s and 1990s of more than one million people
from their traditional lands (ITTO 2006) and by
the existence of a number of overlapping claims.
Despite recent efforts, therefore, tenure rights,
particularly among the poor, remain insecure.
Under Programa de Incentivos para Pequeños
Poseedores de Tierras de Vocación Forestal oAgroforestal (PINPEP) Law No 3937 (Decreto51), which was approved in late 2010 (Rights andResources Initiative 2011), the National Forest
Institute (Instituto Nacional de Bosques – INAB)
has established a program of incentives for smallscale owners of land with forestry or agroforestry
potential to engage in natural forest management
and agroforestry. Under the program, economic
incentives are available to small-scale landowners
with secure property titles in natural forest for up to
five years to support approved forest management
initiatives, and to small-scale landowners proposing
agroforestry activities on land suitable for forestry.a
Criteria and indicators. Guatemala is involved in
the Lepaterique C&I process of Central Americancountries. For the last decade the country has been

engaged in a major effort to test and adopt FSC
standards as a binding instrument for monitoring
forest management. The country has also adapted
the ITTO C&I to use as an instrument formonitoring progress towards SFM at the national
level. The Government of Guatemala used the
ITTO C&I in its submission to ITTO for thisreport.aForest policy and legislation. The present forest
law (Decreto 101-96 Ley Forestal, October 1996)
emphasizes the importance of reforestation andforest conservation and makes reference to SFM(Article 48). New implementation rules for thislaw were approved in December 2005 (Resolution
01/43), including with respect to the system of
incentives for forest management.a The Law on
Protected Areas (Ley de Áreas Protegidas, Decreto
4-89, 1989), amended in 1996 and 1997, regulates
the Guatemala System of Protected Areas (Sistema
Guatemalteco de Areas Protegidas – SIGAP).
The ministry in charge of rural development
until 2000 (Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganaderíay Alimentación – MAGA) established anenvironmental policy in 1998, identifying
sustainable development as its primary goal.
The current forest policy, which was formulated
in 1999, promotes the concept of productive
management of natural forests (fomento al manejo
productivo de bosques naturales), with the aimof making natural forests a feature of economic
development in order to conserve biodiversity andimprove the living conditions of forest-dependent
people. The policy also defines policies for forest
biodiversity and protected areas.a A national
strategy for the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity was approved in 1999.

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category
State ownership (national, state orprovincial government)
Other public entities (e.g.
municipalities, villages)
Total public
Owned by local communities and/orIndigenous groups
Private owned by firms, individuals,
other corporate

Total area Of which PFE Notes’000 ha
1367

-

934

-

2301
1531

-

212

-

Legal forest estate owned and administered exclusively bygovernment.
Community-managed, but governments invariably retain strong
authority.
Privately owned forest lands where rights cannot be unilaterally
terminated by government.
Other lands, including individually owned forests and also
forests with unclear ownership.

Source: Derived from Government of Guatemala (2010).

311

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Based on the forest policy, a strategic plan wasdeveloped that includes financial mechanisms
such as incentive payments for reforestation (e.g.
PINPEP), afforestation/reforestation under the
CDM, and payments for ecosystem services,
especially water. In 2009, the National Policy for
Rural Development (Política Nacional de Desarollo
Rural Integral) was approved that addresses forests
as an integrated element in rural landscapes.a The
national climate-change policy (2009) emphasizes
the role of forests in reducing GHG emissions,particularly through REDD+.a
Institutions involved in forests. Through acongressional decree approved in December 2000
(Decreto 90-2000), the Ministry for Environment
and Natural Resources (Ministerio de Ambientey Recursos Naturales – MARN) shares authority
over natural resources with MAGA. However, therelative responsibilities of the two ministries forforest management remain unclear.a
INAB was created in 1996 as an independentand decentralized state agency. It is responsiblefor developing SFM in natural forests and for theestablishment and management of planted forests.
MAGA chairs INAB’s board (junta directiva),
which also comprises representatives of MARN,
the private sector, civil society and the national
association of municipalities. INAB is supported
through a national incentive program (Programade Incentivos Forestales – PINFOR). INAB isalso responsible for forest inventories and the
preparation of forest management plans in bothplanted and natural forests.
The National Council of Protected Areas (Consejo
Nacional de Areas Protegidas – CONAP), establishedunder MARN in 1989, is responsible for managing
SIGAP, including the Maya Biosphere Reserve in
the Petén, the largest tract of closed humid tropicalforest in Guatemala, and the Sierra de las Minas
Biosphere Reserve. CONAP is also responsible
for the delivery and supervision of long-term
community and industrial concessions, particularlyin the multiple-use zone of the Maya Biosphere
Reserve. Some of the communities that became
involved in forest management under this concept
have managed, with international support, to certify
their forest operations.a
The forest industry is represented politically by
Gremial Forestal de Guatemala, which is also amember of the INAB board. The Cluster Forestal

312

is a multi-sectoral forum that promotes the roleof forests in Guatemalan society. The National
Association of Municipalities (Asociación Nacionalde Municipalidades) represents local governments on
the boards of INAB, CONAP and MARN. Local
governments are taking increasing responsibility
for the management of forests under a process ofdecentralization that is an expression of national
reconciliation after the civil war. Each national
institution has its own criteria for decentralization.
Municipalities are required to create environmental
offices and are encouraged to conduct reforestation
projects; municipalities can keep 50% of therevenues from concessions and harvesting licences(ITTO 2006). By the end of 2006, a total of 108
municipal forest offices had been established.a
An association of NGOs (Asociación Nacional de
Recursos Naturales y Medio Ambiente) participatesin the supervisory committee of INAB and in
the consultative groups of MARN and CONAP.
Another association, the National Council for
Sustainable Forest Management Standards (Consejo
Nacional de Estándares de Manejo Forestal Sostenible
para Guatemala) maintains a national dialogue on
forests and promotes forest management standards
and certification.

Status of forest management
Forest for production
Forest management goals vary throughout thecountry. The community forests in the highlands
consist mainly of coniferous or mixed forests andprincipally produce fuelwood and construction
wood for household consumption and the domestic
market.a In contrast, community forest operations in
the tropical broadleaved forests of the Petén produce
timber from both high-value and lesser-known
species for national and international markets, aswell as NTFPs (Tolisano & López-Selva 2010).
The Maya Biosphere Reserve was created in1990 and covers an area of 2.11 million hectares.
It has three zones: the core zone, consisting of
national parks and biotopes (747 800 hectares);the multiple-use zone, where forest concessions arelocated (864 300 hectares); and the buffer zone,
where cooperatives and municipal common lands
are located and where land use is generally restricted(about 500 000 hectares). About 540 000 hectaresof forests have been granted as forest concessions in
the multiple-use zonea; these concessions constitute

GUATEMALA

the largest FMUs in the country. Of the 18 FMUs
nationally, twelve are community concessions,four are cooperatives or municipal common lands
in mountainous areas, and two are industrial
concessions situated in the Petén.a All concessions
are required to obtain FSC forest certification
within three years of their establishment (Stoian &Rodas 2006).

Silviculture and species selection. Forest
concessions in the Petén are managed according to apolycyclic silvicultural system with a cycle of 30–40
years.a The logging intensity is 1.5–3 trees (3–4 m3)
per hectare. Thirty per cent of commercial trees must
be kept as seed trees.a The minimum cutting diameterfor caoba and Cedrela odorata (cedro) is 60 cm (55 cm
in certain FMUs); for other species it is 45 cm.

The 1996 Forest Law made the preparation offorest management plans compulsory for long-term
forest users. Timber harvesting in the PFE requires
an approved forest management plan and a licenceissued through INAB; INAB-approved forest
management plans are required for planted forests,
including agroforests. Forest concessions in theMaya Biosphere Reserve must fulfil similar review
and licensing procedures, but through CONAP.a
Some operators have cited the overlap in forest
management responsibilities between INAB and
CONAP as a bureaucratic complication.aOf the 424 known indigenous tree species, 320 are
considered to be suitable for certain uses (ITTO2006); about 25 species are traded. Traditionally
important commercial species in the mountainous
areas are pines (Pinus oocarpa, P. pseudostrobus
and P. maxiinoi), cypress and Quercus spp (roble).
Caoba and cedro are the main commercial species
in the hardwood forests of the Petén; despite heavy
logging in the past 60 years or so, both species
occur in abundance in all forest layers (ITTO2006). Table 4 shows five species that constitutethe most commonly harvested species for industrial
roundwood.

INAB has adopted a methodology prepared by
the former Regional Forest Program for Central
America and the Tropical Research and Higher
Education Centre (Centro Agronómico Tropical deInvestigación y Enseñanza) involving the preparationof simplified management plans for hardwood
forests and forest management plans for Central
American conifer forests (ITTO 2006). In 2008,
a total area of 692 200 hectares in the PFE wascovered by management plansa, 483 000 hectares ofwhich were in tropical hardwood forests, 172 000
hectares of which were in mixed forests and 37 200
hectares of which were in pine forests. These areas
are unchanged since 2005 (ITTO 2006).
The most serious problem in forest management
is extensive small-scale illegal logging of single
trees. In the tropical hardwood forests, Swietenia
macrophylla (caoba) and the various species of
Cedrela are the species most targeted by illegal
logging. In the highlands, illegal logging particularly
threatens pinabete and cypress (ITTO 2006).

Planted forest and trees outside the forest. The
total planted forest area in 2008 was estimatedat 85 000 hectaresa, an increase of about 14 000
hectares over the estimate in ITTO (2006). Most
plantations consist of local pine species. About 2.2
million hectares of non-forested land are considered
suitable for tree-planting.a
Relatively small areas of tree plantations arescattered throughout the country; these are often
established without a clear purpose (ITTO 2006).
Four conifer species (P. caribaea, P. maximinoi, P.
oocarpa and C. lusitanica) and two broadleaved
species (Tectona grandis – teak, teca – 4000 hectares,
and Gmelina arborea) make up 70% of existing
plantations, and Hevea brasiliensis is planted forboth rubber and timber (ibid.). The forest policy
seeks to encourage the establishment of 15–20 000
hectares per year through the use of incentives inorder to generate wood and other products for theforest industry and local consumption.a

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Swietenia macrophylla (caoba)*
Lonchocarpus castilloi (manchiche)*Calophyllum brasiliense (santa maría)*
Bucida buceras (pucte)*
Pinus spp (tajibo)*

50% of total export value in 2008, 17% in volume.
Mainly for domestic use.
Mainly for domestic use.
Exported for flooring and parqueting.
Most important timber for domestic use.

*
Also listed in ITTO (2006).
Source: Government of Guatemala (2010).

313

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Forest certification. The National Council for
Sustainable Forest Management Standards hasdeveloped national certification standards forboth natural and planted forests, which are now
implemented throughout the country.a With
international support, considerable effort was madein the period 2002–05 to certify forests in the
PFE. By December 2005, a total area of 522 870
hectares in 15 FMUs had been certified under the
FSC umbrella (ITTO 2006). In December 2010,
there were eight FSC certificates, of which two
were group certificates and six were certified FMUs
in community concessions; the total certified area
was 481 440 hectares (FSC 2010), the majority ofwhich was in the Maya Biosphere Reserve.
While there has been only a relatively small decline
in the certified forest area since the last survey,
there is a concern that the trend is downward rather
than up. In particular, the considerable transaction
costs incurred by local communities to maintaincertification status, and the lack of adequate pricepremiums for certified timber and timber products,
raise questions over the long-term viability ofcertification in the Guatemalan context.
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. About 700 000 hectaresof the production PFE are under some sort ofmanagement, of which about 260 000 hectares areconifer and mixed forests, both natural and planted.
Assessments of the management of community
forest concessions indicate that forest management
is being applied in most of these community
forests. At least 630 000 hectares of natural-forest
production PFE are considered to be under SFM(Table 5), comprising the certified forests and thosenatural pine forests and mixed forests managed
according to defined management principles.b
Timber production and trade. Total roundwood
production, including for fuelwood, was estimatedat 16 million m3 in 2008 (Tolisano & López-Selva

2010). Total industrial roundwood production
in 2009 was 443 000 m3 (of which an estimated363 000 m3 was coniferous), slightly morethan the estimated 419 000 m3 in 2004 (ITTO
2011). Approximately 90% of harvested timber is
destined for the national market. Total sawnwood
production declined from about 200 000 m3 in2000 to 54 000 m3 in 2009 (ibid.); however, thedata are unreliable and it is estimated that a largepart of the timber production is processed by the
informal sector and thus is not recorded in official
statistics.
About 75% of total sawnwood production isexported to other countries in Central America
and the Caribbean and to North America, mostly
as certified products. Caoba is the most important
export species by value, followed by Calophyllum
brasiliense (santa maría), Cybistax donnell-smithii(palo blanco), cedro and Castilla elastica (castilla).
A considerable volume of timber – up to 30–50%
of the official roundwood production – is harvested
illegally (Stoian & Rodas 2006). Fuelwood andcharcoal are important products in local markets.
Non-timber forest products. Amonginternationally traded NTFPs are pine resin,pine seeds from mountain forests, copal (Bursera
bipinnata, Protium copal and other species), xate
leaves (from the Chamaedorea palm), Pimenta
dioica (pimiento) and chicle gum (Manilkara
zapota – a dominant tree in the primary forests of
the Petén). An estimated 4.2 million pounds of xate
and 300 000 pounds of chicle gum are produced
annually, worth US$660 000 and US$ 310 000,
respectively.a Community concession-holders havelong-standing experience with forest enterprises
through the management, harvesting and marketingof NTFPs, in particular chicle gum and xate.
Another species used as an NTFP is hombre grande(Quassia amara), a natural biocide used in organic
agriculture in the Petén.

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)
Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

1140
1140

540
540**,‡

*
**
‡

314

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
697
697‡

Certified

520
481

672

71

PlantedWith
management
plans
27

630

85

27‡

Sustainably
managedTotal

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Comprising timber concessions, community concessions and community forests.
Since more recent data were unavailable, assumed unchanged since 2005 (as reported in ITTO 2006).

Certified

80

GUATEMALA

Forest carbon. It is estimated that more than
60% of Guatemala’s GHG emissions are caused
by deforestation and forest fires (Governmentof Guatemala 2008). Thus, efforts to reduce
deforestation and unmanaged fires could produce asignificant reduction in national GHG emissions.
Gibbs et al. (2007) estimated national-level forest
biomass carbon stock in the range 787–1150 MtC.
FAO (2010a), in contrast, estimated it at only 281
MtC.
Guatemala is one of 37 countries selected by the
Forest Carbon Partnership Facility to prepare
its national REDD+ strategy, and the country’s
readiness idea note was approved in 2008.
Guatemala has been participating in the REDD+
Partnership since 2010 and is an observer in
UN-REDD. Table 6 summarizes Guatemala’s
current forest carbon potential.

Forest for protection
Soil and water. In Guatemala, in situ and ex situ
biodiversity and forest conservation is carried out
under the jurisdiction of MARN, the associated
National Council for Protected Areas, and INAB.
The system of protected areas, SIGAP, comprises
nearly 950 000 hectares of special protection forests(zonas de amortiguamiento).a An estimated 201 900
hectares of forest land are managed primarily forsoil and water protection; this includes the area
managed by PINFOR (18 200 hectares) and several
pilot forests (13 000 hectares), as well as 24 700
hectares of protected forests in the Manantiales
reserve and the forest area of the Sierra de la Minas
Biosphere Reserve (146 000 hectares of a total
protected area of 236 000 hectares).a The Direct
Forest Support Pilot Program (Programa Piloto de
Apoyos Forestales Directos) finances the sustainable
protection and conservation of natural forests byproviding payments for conservation activities toprotect watersheds, particularly natural forests, andwater resources. Such payments are designed to

A specimen of caoba (Swietenia macrophylla) in the Petén.

reduce the conversion of forest land to agriculture
and to improve the security of water supplies inrural areas. Payments are provided to beneficiaries
for five years. An estimated 220 registered owners
are now participating in the project, with more than
33 000 hectares of natural forest under protection.a
Biological diversity. Guatemala is a very biodiverse
country, with flora and fauna representative ofboth temperate and tropical America. CONAP(2008) reported the total number of plant species
in Guatemala at 10 364 species, although it also
noted that floristic research in Guatemala is at an
early stage of development. There are 6463 known
species of flowering plant, 28 species of conifer,
637 species of fern, 527 species of orchid and 519
species of moss (ibid.). The most recent count ofvertebrate fauna reported 3025 species, including
735 bird species, 244 mammal species, 143

Table 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)% forestwithcanopycover >60%

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

787–1150

51++

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
sink capacity monitoring
capacity
to 2030+++

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

Importance Engagementinof forest
international
fire/
REDD+
biomass
processes
burning+++++++ high; ++ medium; + low; estimate of national forest carbon based on Gibbs et al. (2007); estimate of % total forest with canopy cover>60% based on UNEP-WCMC (2010).

315

Status of tropical forest management 2011

amphibian species, 243 reptile species, and 1033
fish species (IARNA 2009). Thirteen mammals,
nine birds, seven reptiles, 81 amphibians, three
invertebrates and five plants found in forests arelisted as critically endangered, endangered orvulnerable on the IUCN red list of threatened
species (IUCN 2011). Two plants (including theconifer Abies guatemalensis) are listed in CITES
Appendix I, 288 (including Swietenia macrophylla
and S. humilis) are listed in Appendix II and two arelisted in Appendix III (UNEP-WCMC 2011).

protected areas are considered to be part of the PFE(ITTO 2006). Forty-three reserves in the SIGAP
are smaller than 1000 hectares and five are larger
than 100 000 hectares. More than 150 private
natural reserves covering about 30 000 hectares
are registered with CONAP, and several additional
properties are in the process of being registered.a
CONAP maintains responsibility for legally
recognizing private natural reserves and INAB
collaborates with reserve operators on projects,
including payments for ecosystem services.a

According to the list of endangered species
published by CONAP, there was an increase of
1.3% in the number of endangered plant species
from 1999 to 2006 (CONAP 2008).

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. Little information isavailable for estimating the extent of protection
PFE under SFM. Those areas protected for waterand soil conservation are considered to be under
SFM because they are subject to well-resourced
management programs, as are the 30 000 hectaresof private reserves, which are mostly used for
ecotourism (Table 7).

Protective measures in production forests.
Concession-holders are required, among otherthings, to conserve seed trees, set aside areasfrom which tree-felling is excluded, make special
provisions for biological corridors, regulate hunting,and conserve endangered plants and animals (ITTO2006).
Extent of protected areas. Legally protected areas(i.e. those in the SIGAP), comprising both forest
and non-forested land, cover about 3.3 million
hectares (Box 1), or 30% of the national territory.
This is about 200 000 hectares more than reported
in ITTO (2006). However, some of the ecoregions
specified in Box 1, although nominally forest, arelikely to be partly without forest cover. Forty-sevenof the 121 protected areas in Guatemala are interconnected.a About 1.2 million hectares of thoseSocioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. Guatemala’s forest sector
is estimated to contribute approximately 2.5%
of GDP through the production of timber and
NTFPs. It generates an estimated 37 000 jobs,
involving about 1.5% of the economically active
population.a
Livelihood values. Hunting and the gatheringof edible plants such as Manilkara zapota havebeen of great importance for the Mayan culture
for centuries. In the humid forest zone, bothBox 1 Distribution of Guatemala’s protected areas, by ecoregion
Ecoregion*
Atlantic humid forests
Pine-oak forests
Motagua Valley thornshrub
Petén Veracruz humid forests
Sierra Madre Chiapas humid forests
Yucatan humid forests
Central American montane forests
Central American dry forests
Mangroves (Belizian coast)
Mangroves (Tehuantepec-El Manchon)
Mangroves (northern region)
Total

Extent of SIGAP protectedareas (ha)% of total
ecoregion

172 800
234 000
46 0002 523 000
7100
11 300251 000
21 40028 5004600
1800
3 301 500

22
8
20
53
1
93
42
3
80
5
94

Ecoregions without SIGAP areas are the Chiapas montane forests, the depression dry forests, and the Pacific coast dry mangrove
forests.
Source: CONAP (2008).

*

316

GUATEMALA

Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)*

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

1240
1240

836
836

184
235

-

265

As reported in ITTO (2006).

Indigenous communities and colonists use forest
products in their households; products include thefibres of bayal (Desmoncus spp) and sabal (palmleaves) for housing. In the highlands, fuelwood
harvested in forests is the most important source ofenergy (ITTO 2006).
Social relations. Guatemala has 24 ethnic groups.
More than two-thirds of the population is of
Indigenous descent and 61% lives in rural areas(Tolisano & López-Selva 2010). There is a long
tradition of forest conservation, particularly in thehighlands. For many years Guatemala has been
implementing a decentralization policy aimed at
engaging municipal governments and traditionaland Indigenous communities in the issuing of
permits, monitoring, and the enforcement of
national policies.a Local institutions are in charge offorest administration, and a village council generally
deals with forest-related issues. However, such local
institutions, communities and local NGOs havelong been excluded from forest management, except
in a few cases in the Petén. Since the end of the civil
war there has been participation in the classificationand management of protected areas throughnational and regional roundtables (mesas de diálogo)
and in forest development through consultation
roundtables convened by INAB.

forests and agroforestry. A relatively high percentageof the production PFE is certified and more thanhalf of it is considered to be under SFM.

Key points•

Guatemala has an estimated PFE of 2.46
million hectares (compared with 2.45 million
hectares in 2005), comprising 1.14 million
hectares of natural production forest (asestimated for 2005), 1.24 million hectares ofprotection forest (as estimated for 2005) and85 000 hectares of planted forest (comparedwith 71 000 hectares in 2005).

•

An estimated 630 000 hectares of the
production PFE are under SFM, including
481 000 hectares of certified forest. An
estimated 265 000 hectares of the protection
PFE are considered to be under SFM.

•

The system of protected areas and themonitoring of biodiversity are both longestablished. Information on the status ofprotected-area management is limited, however.

•Considerable efforts have been made in the last
decade or so to reorganize the control andmanagement of forest resources; this has
included the decentralization of management
and law enforcement. There have also beensignificant efforts to develop an ongoing multistakeholder dialogue on forest conservation anddevelopment•

There is long-standing experience in the
management of conifer forests. The concession
management policy introduced in lowland
rainforests 6–8 years ago continues to play animportant economic and ecological role in theregion and is helping to improve livelihoods andsupport forest conservation. Nevertheless, there
are considerable threats, including illegal
logging and drug-trafficking.

•A large area (more than one-third) of the
production PFE is certified, but there areconcerns about the long-term viability of

Summary
Forests play an important role in Guatemala. In
the uplands, large areas are owned by communities,
who manage natural pine and mixed forests for
multiple uses. In the rainforests of the Petén, large
community-run timber concessions allow local
people to improve their livelihoods on the basis offorest resources. However, SFM is hindered by highrates of deforestation and forest degradation driven
by agricultural expansion, mining, illegal logging,drug-trafficking and other threats. Great efforts arebeing made in the country to maintain an active
dialogue on forest-based development and various
incentive programs are in place to protect existing
forests and support the development of planted

317

Status of tropical forest management 2011

certifying forests given the considerable
transaction costs incurred by local communities
to maintain certification status and the lack ofadequate price premiums for certified timber
and timber products.

EndnotesaGovernment of Guatemala (2010).

b

ITTO estimate.

References and other sources
CONAP (2008). Guatemala y su Biodiversidad: Un EnfoqueHistórico, Cultural y Económico. Consejo Nacional deÁreas Protegidas, Guatemala City, Guatemala.
FAO (2010a). Global forest resources assessment 2010
country report: Guatamala (available at http://www.fao.
org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).

ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2011, website accessed February 2011). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).
IUCN (2011, website accessed February 2011). IUCN red list of
threatened species (available at www.redlist.org).
Mansourian, S., Belokurov, A. & Stephenson, P. (2009). The roleof forest protected areas in adaptation to climate change.
Unasylva 60, 231/232.
Rights and Resources Initiative (2011, website accessed February2011). News from RRI: Forest community actions in
Guatemala achieve passage of PINPEP law (available at
http://www.rightsandresources.org/blog.php?id=632).
Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World Atlas ofMangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.

FAO (2010b). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 Full
Report. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Stoian, D. & Rodas, A. (2006). Community forest enterprisedevelopment in Guatemala: a case study of Cooperativa
Carmelita R.L. Rights and Resources Initiative,
Washington, DC, United States (available at http://www.
rightsandresources.org/documents/files/doc_220.pdf )j.

FSC (2010, website accessed December 2010). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).

UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.

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).

UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. Data prepared for
ITTO. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.

Government of Guatemala (2001). Primera Communicación
Nacional sobre Cambio Climático. Ministerio de Ambiente y
Recursos Naturales, Guatemala City, Guatemala.

UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed April 2011).
UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed species(searchable database at available at www.cites.org/eng/
resources/species.html ).

Government of Guatemala (2008). Guatemala readiness planidea note. Submitted to the Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility.

United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
July 2010). World population prospects: the 2008 revision(searchable database available at http://esa.un.org/UNPP/).

Government of Guatemala (2010). Encuesta de informaciónpara indicadores a nivel nacional. Submission to ITTO by
INAB, Guatemala City, Guatemala.

Tolisano, J. & López-Selva, M. (2010). Guatemala Biodiversity
and Tropical Forest Assessment. United States Agency forInternational Development, Washington DC, United States.

IARNA (2009). Perfil Ambiental De Guatemala 2008: Señales
Ambientales Críticas Y Su Relación Con El Desarrollo.
Instituto de Agricultura, Recursos Naturales y Ambiente,
Universidad Rafael Landivar, Guatemala.

318

GUYANA

GuyanaClathrotropis brachypetala (aromata). Seasonal
forests have a lower canopy and include deciduoustrees; they are found in the North Rupununi andupper Berbice areas. Dry evergreen forests occupy
belts of leached white sands and are also foundthroughout the Pakaraima mountains (ITTO2006).

Forest resources
In 2010 the estimated population of Guyana
was 761 000 people (United Nations Population
Division 2010) and the country is ranked 114th outof 182 countries in UNDP’s Human Development
Index (UNDP 2009). It has a very humid climate
and can be divided into four biogeographical zones:
the narrow coastal plain; the ‘rolling hills’ – anextensive, forested area with sandy acid infertile
soils reaching 90 m above sea level; a Precambrianlowland region of tropical rainforest; and, bordering
Venezuela and Brazil, the Pakaraima mountains, aforested sandstone plateau 1000 m or more above
sea level. FAO (2010) estimated that Guyana had
15.2 million hectares of natural forest in 2010,
which is 71% of the total land area (21.5 million
hectares). Guyana has an estimated 39 600 hectaresof mangroves, the largest tracts of which are in thenorthern half of the country (Spalding et al. 2010).
Forest types. The Government of Guyana
recognizes the following forest types: dry evergreen
forest, marsh forest; montane forest; swamp
forest mangrove forest; and mixed forest.a The
composition of the forest changes considerablyfrom north to south and reflects varied topographic
and geological conditions. Mixed forest is the mostcommon type and the most important source oftimber; common species include Mora gonggrijpii(morabukea), Chlorocardium rodiei (greenheart),
Vouacapoua macropetala (sarabebeballi) andPermanent forest estate. About 13.6 million
hectares have been classified as state foresta,
although FAO (2010) estimated that the actualarea of this estate is 12.2 million hectares. About
6.85 million hectares of state forest is allocatedto commercial use and 1.11 million hectares toresearch and protection.b The remaining state
forest land, mainly in the south of the country,
is unallocated; a lack of ready access and long
distances to market make the commercial
harvesting of these forests economically infeasible
at present. Gazetted state forest is strictly allocatedfor production, harvesting, biodiversity and research
and will not or is not converted in anyway to
non-forested uses.a Therefore, all state forest may be
regarded as part of the PFE (Table 1).
Agricultural leases may be issued by the Guyana
Lands and Surveys Commission for areas outsidestate forest. If an agricultural lease overlaps withareas within state forest the lessee must apply to the
Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) prior to any
removal of timber.b

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. Most of
Guyana’s forests are still intact, unexploited andnot threatened by the expansion of agriculture,
although more than half of the forest estate has
been categorized as ‘naturally regenerating’ (Table2). In its submission for this report the Governmentof Guyana did not report the area of forest affectedby mining, slash-and-burn agriculture or fire.a
The total area of forest formally converted toagriculture to 2009 was 25 121 hectares. FAO(2010) estimated the deforestation rate in Guyana
in the period 2005–10 at 0%. According to a recent
study (GFC & Pöyry Forest Industry 2010), thedeforestation rate for the period 1990–2009 was
0.02% per year, increasing to 0.06% in 2010.

319

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

2005*
2010

16.9
15.2–20.5

16 916
13 600*****‡†

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted

Total

5450
11 090‡6442
12 212†

12
12a

980
1110

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Calculated using the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) (89.2%) and the total
natural forest area estimated by FAO (2010).
Includes that part of the Iwokrama forest allocated for production. Also includes 4.24 million hectares of state forest currently
unallocated to either production or protection.
Includes forest on Amerindian lands within the state forest estate but excludes forest on private property.

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

Total’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land

-

-

6790
0
8415*
0

*
‘Other naturally regenerating forest’.
Source: FAO (2010).

Vulnerability of forests to climate change.
The mean annual temperature is projected toincrease by 0.9–3.3 °C by the 2060s (McSweeney
et al. undated). All climate-change projections
indicate substantial increases in the frequency ofdays and nights that are considered hot in thecurrent climate. This will affect forest growth andincrease the vulnerability of forest ecosystems.
Guyana’s low-lying coastal plains are vulnerable
to sea-level rises that may occur due to the effects
of global warming (ibid.). In its submission to the
UNFCCC, Guyana completed a vulnerability andadaptation assessment, the first step towards theformulation of a climate-change adaptation strategy
for Guyana. The first draft of the Low Carbon
Development Strategy was published in June2009 and the third draft in May 2010, outlining
a comprehensive approach to fostering Guyana’s
development while combating climate change(Office of the President 2010).

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. The bulk of Guyana’s forests isowned by the state (Table 3). Under the Forest
Law and national forest policy, the ownership of allforest resources, except those on private property
and Amerindian (Indigenous) Lands, are vested

320

in the state. About 1.31 million hectares of forest
has been formally gazetted as Amerindian lands.
State Lands, formerly called Crown Lands, arecontrolled by the Commissioner of Lands andSurveys. The GFC, the Guyana Geology and Mines
Commission (GGMC) and the Lands and Surveys
Department administer, respectively, land that isused for forestry, mining and agriculture. Each ofthese three government agencies may issue titles
for different purposes over the same land (National
Development Strategy Secretariat 2000).
Criteria and indicators. Guyana was a participant
in the development of the Tarapoto C&I, which
was coordinated by the Amazon Cooperation Treaty
Organization. In 2001 the GFC reviewed both theTarapoto and ITTO C&I in the development of
a new national forest plan. The submission of theGovernment of Guyana to ITTO for this report
was in the ITTO C&I reporting format.a
Forest policy and legislation. The overall objectiveof Guyana’s national forest policy, as set out inits 1997 National Forest Policy Statement, is“the conservation, protection, management andutilisation of the nation’s forest resources, while
ensuring that the productive capacity of the forests
for both goods and services is maintained orenhanced”.a

GUYANA

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category
State ownership (national, state orprovincial government)
Other public entities (e.g.
municipalities, villages)
Total public
Owned by local communities and/orIndigenous groups
Privately owned by individuals, firms,
other corporate
Total

Total area Of which PFE Notes’000 ha12 200

12 2000-

12 200
1307

-

1676

-

2983

-

Managed by the GFC.

Gazetted Amerindian lands.
Amerindian areas that have not been gazetted; agriculturalleases; transported properties*; etc.

*

Privately owned. The owner of a transported property theoretically owns the land from the centre of the earth to the sky above
subject to government interests (e.g. airplanes flying overhead, minerals, etc).
Source: ITTO estimate based on data in Government of Guyana (2009) and FAO (2010).

The specific objectives are to:•Promote sustainable and efficient forest
activities which utilize the broad range of forest
resources and contribute to national
development while allowing fair returns to local
and foreign entrepreneurs and investors.

•

Achieve improved sustainable forest resourceyields while ensuring the conservation of
ecosystems, biodiversity and the environment.

•

Ensure watershed protection and rehabilitationby preventing and arresting the erosion of soils
and the degradation of forests, grazing lands,
soil and water; promoting natural regeneration,afforestation and reforestation; and protecting
the forest against fire, pests and other hazards.

The policy was prepared over two years through aprocess of broad consultation with sector interest
groups and was formally approved by Cabinet in
October 1997. It recognizes that there have beenchanges in Guyana’s economic, social and politicalenvironment over the nearly 50 years since theprevious forest policy was published. It marks asignificant shift in emphasis from the developmentof the timber resources to a broader approach to
management for multiple goods and services for thenational benefit.
The Forest Act – Chapter 67.01 of the Laws ofGuyana – governed the administration of Guyana’s
forests from 1953 to January 2009, when the
Parliament passed the Forest Bill (2009). As of
October 2009, however, this Bill was still awaiting
assent by the President of Guyana. When it comes
into effect it will repeal Law 67.01 (and others)
and is designed to “consolidate and amend the law

relating to forests”. Specifically, it sets out to providefor:•

The sustainable forest management of state
forests.

•

The protection and conservation of forests(excluding the Iwokrama forest, Kaieteur
National Park, and any other area designated asa conservation area, all of which are dealt with
under other laws).

•

The regulation of forest operations and activities
relating to forest produce and quality control forvalue-added forest produce, having regard to
Guyana’s international legal obligations.

Features of the Forest Bill (2009) include thefollowing:•

Before granting or renewing any concession overan area of state forest 8097 hectares or smaller,
the GFC shall– by public notice invite applications for aconcession over the area and notify thelocations where the relevant documents
may be inspected or bought–•

provide any other publicity that the GFC
considers necessary to bring the invitation
to the attention of persons likely to beinterested in obtaining a concession over
the area.

The GFC shall make available for inspection atits offices and for sale at a reasonable pricecopies of all documents in its possession
concerning the forest produce and other featuresof the area that the GFC considers relevant to
the preparation of applications.

321

Status of tropical forest management 2011•

A consolidated effort towards maintaining
environmental integrity and social development
in communities by using relevant sections ofboth the Amerindian Act (2006) and theEnvironmental Protection Act (1996). Specificprovisions are made for community forest
management and extractive and primaryprocessing forest operations.

•

Recognition of the importance of ensuring
sustainability in forest resource use. Part 2 of
the Bill deals with SFM, recognizing that theminister has overall directive input on all
activities.

•

Forest concession agreements are streamlinedwith specific size classes. More importantly, thesystem for granting and renewing these
agreements is systematic and transparent inkeeping with international best practices.

•

A proposal to make mandatory the submissionof annual and management plans by larger
concessions, and a further stipulation that all
harvesting activities are to be carried out incompliance with approved plans.

•

Allowance for competitive bidding in forest area
allocation in the event of multiple applications,
thereby improving transparency in the process.

•

It provides communities with a clear means ofacquiring and securing rights to manage forest
areas and of benefiting from their local forest
while ensuring sustainability, stimulating
income generation and fostering environmental
stability.

•

•

•

•

It addresses areas such as afforestation,
occupational health and safety, forest
conservation, the maintenance of soil and water
quality, and the preservation of biologicaldiversity.
It guards against pricing below the true market
value. The GFC and the Forest Products andMarketing Council of Guyana (FPDMC) advise
stakeholders on prevailing market prices.
The clauses on forest offences and the appeals
which may be made are also strengthened toreflect more severe penalties for abuse of power,
negligence and misconduct.
It allows for the more efficient and optimal useof Guyana’s state forest resources bystrengthening the revenue system. This is done322

by creating a more efficient revenue structure
which seeks to capture area management fees,
fees for the standing stock of timber, an
incentive to encourage SFM, and other related
charges. The Bill provides for these monies to be
paid over to the Consolidated andContingencies Fund.
•

It provides a robust mechanism for theauthorization of state forest leases in cases of achange in ownership and effective control.

Institutions involved in forests. The GFC
was created in 1979 under the GFC Act 67:02.
In 2008 a new law, the GFC Act 2007, waspassed by Parliament to “repeal and replace
the Guyana Forestry Commission Act 1979,
re-establish the Guyana Forestry Commission,and provide for incidental matters”. The GFC isa semi-autonomous public agency with the aimof encouraging the development and growth offorestry in Guyana on a sustainable basis. Amongother things it advises the Minister of Agriculture
on and carries out forest policy, and administers
the Forests Act, including by carrying out theCommission’s functions under that Act andcollecting and recovering all fees, charges, levies,
premiums, fines, penalties, costs, expenses, andother monies payable under the Act.
The GFC is also mandated to:•

Prepare plans, codes of practice and guidelines
for the conservation and management of forests.

•

Research, collate, analyse, prepare anddisseminate data, statistics and otherinformation about forests and all aspects offorestry, including forest ecology and the use offorest produce.

•

Make forest inventories.

•

Provide or facilitate education and training inforestry and forestry-related jobs.

•

Provide forestry extension services and give
advice to persons and communities interested or
involved in forestry.

•

Provide an inspection, certification andaccreditation service for quality control of forest
produce.

•

Represent the Government in regional andinternational forestry meetings and negotiations,and in relation to Guyana’s international
obligations concerning forestry.

GUYANAThe GFC is a member of the Cabinet
Sub-Committee on Natural Resources andEnvironment. This body, comprising policy andtechnical representatives, provides guidance andtechnical support to Cabinet. Its work is supportedby the Natural Resources and Environment
Advisory Committee, which is chaired by thePrime Minister and coordinated by the Adviser
to the President on Sustainable Development.
In 2010, 260 people were employed in publicforest institutions, including 60 with university
degrees or an equivalent qualification. Total public
expenditure in the forest sector in 2010 was 500
million Guyanese dollars.b
At the operational level, the GFC works in close
collaboration with the FPDMC and the Forestry
Training Centre. The Minister of Agriculture has
established a Technical Committee comprising
the GFC and the Forest Producers Association(FPA) and a Ministerial Committee comprising
the GFC, the FPA and the Guyana Manufacturing
and Services Association as part of efforts to fostera closer working relationship with the private sector
and industry stakeholders. These fora allow open
dialogue and act as problem-solving mechanisms
for issues related to natural resource management,
including in areas of harvesting, forest industry andexport regulations.
One forest producers’ association and a numberof smaller, community-based loggers’ associations
represent loggers and sawmillers in the forest sector
and endeavour to ensure collaboration in activities
such as training, information, public awareness andinstitutional development. National environmental
NGOs are weak, but international environmentalorganizations are assuming independent roles inforest control and information-sharing, partly incollaboration with the forest administration.

exploratory permits (see below) or if they are for‘forest conservation operations’, which are definedby the Bill as the preservation of forests for the
purpose of carbon sequestration or any otherform of environmental service1; the conservationof biological diversity; or ecotourism. Forest
operations under these larger concessions can only
be carried out after the GFC has approved a forest
management plan of at least five years’ duration andan annual operations plan for the concession area.
Exploratory permits may be granted under theBill for exploratory operations within a specified
area of state forest with a view to later applying fora concession in the area. The Bill does not statea limit on the size of the forest area that may beallocated under such permits. The Bill also specifies
the parameters of community forest managementagreements.
In its submission to ITTO, the Government of
Guyana reported forest use on the basis of theForest Act (1953), since the Forest Bill (2009) was
yet to come into effect.a Under the Forest Act,
forest harvesting permits are allocated according to
the following three categories:•

Timber sales agreements (TSAs): concessions are
granted on a lease of 20 years or more over an
area of 24 000 hectares or more. As of June
2010, 25 TSAs had been allocated to local andinternational companies covering an area of
4.53 million hectares ( 47.7% of all state
forest).a The average size of a TSA is 75 000
hectares (ranging from 50 000 to 100 000
hectares), and companies may hold more than
one TSA at a time.

•

Wood cutting leases (WCLs): licences are granted
on 3–10-year leases for areas of 8000–24 281
hectares. As of June 2010, there were twolicences covering a total area of about 30 500
hectares.a•State forest permits (SFPs): cutting permits are
granted on an annual basis for areas of state
forest up to 8094 hectares in size. SFPs are
generally issued to small-scale operators; 386
permits covering a total area of 1.35 million
hectares were allocated as of June 2010 (14.2%

Status of forest management
Forest for production
The Forest Bill (2009) makes significant changes tothe allocation of state forest for harvesting. Under
the Bill, the GFC may grant forest concessions
up to 8097 hectares in size for the harvesting offorest produce, including timber. Concessions
may be larger on application by holders of

1 This provision is designed to allow conservation organizations to pay anamount equivalent to that which would have been paid for commercial
harvesting rights for the exclusion of timber harvesting from particularforest areas.

323

Status of tropical forest management 2011of all commercial allocations).a,b There are also
permits called 'SFPs in conversion'.2•

State forest exploratory permits: before a WCL ora TSA is issued, a three-year exploratory permit
may be granted to allow the collection of
information for the preparation of aninvestment proposal, an environmental andsocial impact assessment, and a forest
management plan. In June 2010, six
exploratory permits covering an area of
797 000 hectares were in effect.a

In 1998 the GFC introduced the Code ofPractice for Timber Harvesting based on FAO’s
Model Code of Forest Practice. The Code, which
was revised in 2002 (GFC 2002), prescribesinternationally accepted standards for exclusionareas and buffer zones, 100% pre-harvest inventory,road construction, felling, skidding, trucking,operational and camp hygiene, and occupational
health and safety. Besides exclusion areas andbuffer zones, the Code restricts logging on slopes
greater than 40% and sets a minimum distance of
10 m between harvest trees to minimize the size of
canopy openings.
The Code of Practice for Timber Harvesting
is not prescribed under the Forest Bill (2009).
Instead, the Bill specifies that the GFC “may at
any time submit to the Minister a proposed codeof practice to regulate any class or description offorest operations”. Such a code, if adopted by theminister, must then be adhered to during forest
operations.
Guyana’s forests are characterized by a
predominance of relatively slow-growing,high-density timber species and smaller trees
compared with most other tropical regions due tothe inherently low fertility of soils derived from theancient Guiana Shield. Commercial timber occurs
in spatially segregated ‘reefs’ or stands in which one
or two commercial species dominate. Nevertheless,a large proportion of the commercial stock in thesestands is defective (hollow or crooked), possibly
due to the poor nutrient status of the soils anda very low rate of natural disturbance (which
2 These are areas exceeding 24 000 hectares that were previously issued
as SFPs. These concessions are being regularized and some are being
converted to the larger-sized category (TSAs) while others are being
reduced to the smaller category (SFPs). The use of these areas is forsustainable production. The word ‘conversion’ therefore does not referto land use but to a process of recategorization. These areas were notincluded in the figures provided for TSAs or SFPs.

324

seems to have resulted in overmature stands), andcommercially viable stands are usually separated bystands that are nearly devoid of commercial species.
Forest harvesting is, therefore, highly selective; on
average, 2–3 trees are felled per hectare, with anaverage yield of about 7 m3. The national forest
plan guidelines prescribe a cut of up to 20 m3 perhectare on a 60-year cycle. Owing to the limited
range of commonly used species, however, theextraction rate is only about half this maximum
allowable cut.
Guyana has developed principles, policies andguidelines for improved forest management andtimber harvesting practices. This is reflected in
the 1997 national forest policy as well as in forest
legislation, forest management guidelines and codesof practice. Among these guidelines are:•Code of Practice for Timber Harvesting•

Guidelines for Conducting Management-level
Inventory and 100%-level Inventory•

Guidelines for the Preparation of Forest
Management Plans and Annual Operational
Plans.

Prior to the approval of operations, large
concessions (TSAs) are required to submit to the
GFC a detailed management plan and annual
operations plan. The latter specifies, among otherthings, the forest blocks to be harvested thatyear and the volume to be extracted. Volume iscalculated based on area and felling cycle and tags
are issued accordingly. Prior to the renewal of
operations for the following year, harvested blocks
are inspected by GFC field staff to ensure adherence
to the annual operations plan.
Also stipulated in the management guidelines is therequirement that all large concessions allocate 4.5%of the total area to biodiversity conservation for thelife of the concession. A number of criteria are set
out for the selection and identification of this area:•

The area identified must be representative of thevarious vegetation types found in thatconcession and the area identified must
represent all flora and fauna found in theconcession.

•

No harvesting may take place within this area
once approved for biodiversity conservation.

•

The GFC must conduct a reconnaissance survey
to verify that the area selected is indeed

GUYANA

representative of the vegetation type(s) found in
the concession.
•

The GFC must give official approval for thisarea to be allocated to biodiversity conservation.

A national log-tracking system was established in
1999 and is based on international best practiceto ensure transparency.a It works on the groundthrough the GFC’s 26 forest stations, enablinga forest officer to track timber from the stump.
Harvesting can therefore be monitored to ensurethat the requirements established in the approvalof management plans and annual operation plans
are met. The system, further developed in recent
years with ITTO assistance, reduces the risk ofover-harvesting within a concession and helps
ensure that harvesting is carried out only in thoseareas identified and approved by the GFC for
harvesting.
The log-tracking system functions via the use of log
tags which are assigned (free of charge) to operators
at the annual renewal of their licences. Each
operator is given a unique set of tags, which arevalid only for a period determined by the GFC (twoyears for SFPs and one year for large concessions).
Half of the tag is affixed to the stump at the timeof felling and the other half, which bears the same
sequence of numbers, is affixed to the produce
being conveyed. All timber is tagged, including
logs, lumber, piles, poles and posts.
The system is currently applied to all forestry
operations in state forests and on Amerindian
reservations and private properties. All timber
legally originating in Guyana can therefore be
traced back to the stump. A bar-code system isunder development. This system of log-tagging
appears to have been accepted by the industry andhas increased the capability of the GFC to monitor
timber transactions.
Reduced impact logging techniques are promotedby the ITTO-funded Forestry Training Centre, Inc,a subsidiary of the GFC, through demonstration
forests and hands-on training. To October 2009
the Forestry Training Centre had provided training
for 1036 persons from academic institutions, forest
administration, NGOs, logging enterprises andcommunities. This figure includes 345 persons
from community-level operations, largely in
Indigenous communities, who received training in2010.bThe Iwokrama International Centre for Rainforest
Conservation and Development (known as
the Iwokrama forest) is responsible for the
management, conservation and sustainable
development of almost 372 000 hectares of tropicalrainforest, which the government of Guyana
allocated as a way of demonstrating that tropicalforests can provide economic benefits while also
conserving biodiversity. Its operation has been
supported by a range of donors, including ITTO.
The GFC is coordinating a program of workon forest law enforcement and legality with thesupport of the Forest Products Development andMarketing Council, the Forestry Training Centre
Inc., and private-sector counterparts. One of theoutputs of this process has been the developmentof the Guyana Legality Assurance System (LAS)
through a process of stakeholder consultationand participation. In June 2006, Proforest (aninternational firm specializing in forest legality
systems) was contracted to assist in the development
and field-testing of an independent, transparent
and suitable timber legality verification system
for Guyana’s forest sector. The LAS complements
other efforts towards ensuring legality, suchas ongoing concession-level monitoring, thenational log-tagging and tracking system, and theimplementation of the Code of Practice for Timber
Harvesting.
A memorandum of understanding between the
Government of Guyana and the Governmentof Norway outlines a number of activities
to be undertaken in 2009–10, including theestablishment of a system for independent forest
monitoring (IFM). This will build on work alreadyunder way in Guyana and will allow for thedevelopment of a mechanism for assessing illegality
in the forest sector. It will cover all significant
drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in
Guyana and thus has direct links to a REDD+
monitoring program. The IFM is not intended
to replace the LAS, ongoing dialogue with theEuropean Union’s Forest Law Enforcement,
Governance and Trade initiative, or existing legality
procedures/systems. Instead, it will serve as anational system of legality assessment at the broader
country level, addressing relevant drivers of forestchange that are linked to forest legality/illegality
and providing a system that can be recognizedglobally. The IFM will be implemented in state
forests and Amerindian villages that opt into the325

Status of tropical forest management 2011

country’s Low Carbon Development Strategy. It
will be applied to logs (roundwood, piles, poles
and posts) and lumber. It will cover all stages of
the chain of custody – harvesting, transportation,
processing and export. The initial activity in late2010 was to be a scoping mission. The GFC will
implement recommendations over a one-year
period. Thereafter, monitoring assessments will be
conducted at two-year intervals (or less).
Silviculture and species selection. The default
silvicultural system in use in Guyana is naturalregeneration with polycyclic cuts, without
post-harvest silvicultural interventions. Under theForest Act (1953), yield is regulated by a minimum
diameter limit of 34 cm, while forest management
plans for WCLs and TSAs must specify the cutting
cycle and yield per cutting cycle; they must also
indicate species for harvesting and harvesting rules.
The Forest Bill (2009) does not specify a minimum
diameter limit.
There are more than 1000 tree species in Guyanese
forests, more than 30 of which are marketed andexported to destinations in Asia, Europe, North
America and the Caribbean (Table 4 shows five of
these). Chlorocardium rodiei (greenheart), Peltogyne
venosa (purpleheart), Eperua spp (wallaba) andHymenaea courbaril (locust) are some of the species
most favoured by international markets. In the
Iwokrama forest, the second most abundant species
after greenheart is Dicorynia guianensis (wamaradan,also known as Angelique in French Guiana) (K.
Rodney, pers. comm., 2011).
Greenheart is resistant to attack by marine borers
and is highly valued, especially as piling for wharvesand for other marine applications. The ‘special’
category of timber, which includes greenheart,
purpleheart, bulletwood, red cedar, brown silverballi
and letterwood, accounted for about 35% of totallog production in 2009.b The production of piles
and chainsaw lumber is not included in thesefigures. Other important species are Goupia glabra(kabukalli), Trattinickia spp (ulu), Pouteria speciosa(suya), Aspidosperma spp (shibadan), Simarouba
amara (marupa), Carapa guianensis (crabwood) andCatostemma commune (baromalli).
Planted forest and trees outside the forest. About
12 000 hectares of planted forest, mainly Pinus
caribaea, were established in the 1960s. They wereoriginally intended to supply a pulp industry but
are now maintained as permanent sample plots326

under the management of the GFC.b No newplanted forests are being established.b FAO (2010)
reported that there were no planted forests inGuyana.
Forest certification. ITTO (2006) reported that
two concessionaires were engaged in the processof obtaining forest-management and chainof-custody certification under the FSC, while
two more had shown an interest in pursuingcertification. Currently, however, there is only one
certified forest area – the Iwokrama forest (372 000
hectares, including 184 500 of production forestsin the ‘sustainable utilization area’, FSC 2010).3
The estimated sustainable yield in Iwokrama's
sustainable utilization area is about 22 000 m3
per year (Iwokrama International Centre for Rain
Forest Research and Development 2009).
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. Table 5 shows thatthe total size of the production PFE and the area
allocated to concessions or otherwise under licencehave both increased compared with 2005. Guyana
is making good progress towards SFM and thelog-tracking system has added transparency to thesystem. The Government of Guyanab reported that“all concession harvesting activities are managed
in keeping with sustainable forest management
principles … There is overall compliance with
GFC principles and management practices acrossissued concessions. GFC has 26 field stations
as well as mobile stations that monitor forest
operations. Additionally, routine monitoringand environmental audits are conducted to testcompliance with set principles and practices.
These have overall indicated positive results
and compliance.” On the basis of an estimate
provided by the Government of Guyana, FAO(2010) reported that the entire state forest estate(12.2 million hectares) was under sustainable
management.
In 2005, two concessionaires were working towards
the certification of their forests under the FSC
scheme. Several companies have since had someexperience with certification (K. Rodney, pers.
comm., July 2010):•

Barama Co. Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiaryof Samling Global Limited with concessions

3 The Iwokrama forest was the second Guyanese forest to be certified.
The Barama concession was the first, but lost its certificate following an
FSC audit (K. Rodney, pers. comm., 2011).

GUYANA

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Peltogyne venosa (purpleheart)

Used mainly in high-end internal construction applications and for
furniture and components.
Used mainly for outdoor structural applications and marine works.
Used mainly for furniture, and components.
Used mainly for building construction, especially flooring.
Used mainly for heavy construction, house framing, flooring anddecking.

Chlorocardium rodiei (greenheart)*
Swartzia leiocalycina (wamara)Mora excelsa (mora)*
Goupia glabra (kabukalli)*
Also listed in ITTO (2006).
Source: Government of Guyana (2009).

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)
Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

5450
11 0903800
6710**,a***NaturalCertifiedWith
management
plans
3730
0
4053a
184.5

Total

520

12

520

12

PlantedCertifiedWith
management
plans
0
0
0

0

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Existing TSAs, WCLs and SFPs.

covering about 1.6 million hectares of forest(Barama 2010), had certification, but this has
lapsed.
•Sustainably
managedDemerara Timbers Ltd (DTL) has a chain-ofcustody certificate in compliance with a UK
government standard.

•

Variety Woods & Greenheart Limited hassought FSC certification but it is unclear how
far it has progressed.

•

Toolsie Persaud Ltd underwent a pre-assessment
audit with The Forest Trust.

•

Iwokrama’s joint venture partner (Tigerwood
Guyana Inc) has an FSC chain-of-custodycertificate.

Although Iwokrama is the only operation in
Guyana with an FSC forest-management certificate,
the strong field presence of the GFC, moves by
several companies towards certification, and thedevelopment of a trained cadre of forest operators
suggests that a significant area of the Guyana’s forest
is being managed in a way that is consistent withsustainability. At the very least it seems unlikely thatthe area under such management has declined since
the previous report.
Timber production and trade. Total industrial
log production was 299 000 m3 in 2009, downfrom 474 000 m3 in 2006 and 366 000 in 2004
(ITTO 2011). About 64 000 m3 of sawnwood were

produced in 2009, an increase over the 56 000 m3
produced in 2004 and the 50 000 m3 produced
in 1999. Plywood production, on the other hand,declined from 87 000 m3 in 1999 to 54 000 m3 in2004 and to 21 000 m3 in 2009 (ibid.).
The total export value of logs, sawnwood andplywood in 2009 was US$48.1 million, comparedwith US$38.3 million in 2004 and US$31.3
million in 1999 (ibid.). In 2009, Guyana exported
91 000 m3 of logs, 49 000 m3 of sawnwood and
17 000 m3 of plywood (ibid.).
In January 2009 the Government of Guyana
introduced a national log export policy that
increased the export commission rate on key
species used locally in value-added production.
The policy was in response to the perceived needamong various stakeholders to stimulate morevalue-added activities in Guyana, to increase the useof lesser-used species, and to ensure that domestic
downstream processors of logs receive adequate
supplies of materials. The policy has three elements:•

Raise the export commission rate from 2% to7% from January 2009, to 10% from January
2010, and to 12% in the period January–
December 2011, for logs of the following
species: purpleheart, Cedrela fissilis, C. odorata(red cedar), Piratinera guianensis (letterwood),
Manilkara bidentata (bulletwood), Bagassa
guianensis (cow wood), Diplotropis purpurea

327

Status of tropical forest management 2011

(tatabu), kabukalli, shibadan,
Humiria balsamifera (tauroniro), Tabebuia
serratifolia (washiba), Loxopterygium sagotii(hububalli), Dipteryx odorata (tonka bean),Hymenolobium flavum (darina), greenheart andLicaria canella (brown silverballi).
•

Raise the export commission rate from 2% to
7% in January 2009 and to 10% in the period
January 2010 to December 2011 for logs of thefollowing species: Swartzia benthamiana(itikiboroballi), Ocotea rubra (determa),
wamara, Tabebuia capitata or insignis (hakia),
mora, Parahancornia fasciculata (dukali), Ocotea
puberula (keriti silverballi), wallaba, Terminalia
amazonica (fukadi) and Jacaranda copaia (futui).

•

Impose the same export commission rates as
specified in the first part of the policy to theexport of squares with dimensions of 20.3 cm x
20.3 cm and greater (or 8” x 8” and greater) to
the following species: purpleheart, red cedar,
letterwood, kabukalli, shibadan, washiba,
hububalli and tonka bean.a

Only companies holding forest concessions are
permitted to export logs. The log export policy is
expected to induce a reduction in the volume ofwood exported in log form and as squares.
Non-timber forest products. Many NTFPs are
harvested from natural forests but only a few are
extracted commercially. Significant volumes of
Euterpe oleracea (palm heart, manicole) are exported
in canned form; in 2008 about 2.7 million palm
hearts were harvested in Guyanan forests, up from
2.48 million in 2007.b Nibi and kufa (rattan-like
Heteropsis flexuosa and Clusia spp) are used for
furniture-making and exported to the Caribbean
islands, the United Kingdom and North America.
Fibres of Mauritia flexuosa (ité palm) are used tomake baskets, mats and other items for export.
Other products include latex from Manilkara
bidentata (balata), Bixa orellana (annatto dye) andCarapa guianensis (crabwood oil). Mangrove bark isexported for tanning leather. There is a legal tradein wildlife, especially birds, reptiles and amphibians.
Forest carbon. Gibbs et al. (2007) estimatedGuyana’s forest carbon at 2490–3740 MtC andFAO (2010) estimated it at 1629 MtC. Since 2000,
GHG emissions from deforestation are estimatedto have averaged about 22.6 million tonnes ofCO2e per year (Government of Guyana 2008). In
preparing its REDD+ strategy the Governmentof Guyana engaged with the Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility and UN-REDD, and it is anactive member of the REDD+ Partnership. On 9
November 2009 the governments of Guyana and
Norway signed a memorandum of understandingthat sets out how the two countries will “worktogether to provide the world with a relevant,replicable model for how REDD+ can align thedevelopment objectives of forest countries with theworld’s need to combat climate change”. Norway
committed to providing financial support of up to
US$250 million by 2015 for results achieved by
Guyana in limiting emissions from deforestationand forest degradation under its Low Carbon
Development Strategy (Office of the President
2010). This strategy sets out Guyana’s approach totransition to a green economy, with the stated aimof combating climate change while simultaneously
promoting economic growth and development. It
sets out how Guyana’s economy can be realigned
along a low-carbon development path by investing
payments received for avoided deforestation
into strategic low-carbon sectors (Governmentof Guyana 2011). The increase in deforestation
reported in 2010 may be due partly to an
expectation of tighter controls under this strategy.
Guyana has also established a National Climate
Committee comprising representatives of a numberof government agencies, NGOs and the private
sector. This committee has a reporting responsibility
to the Government and the Parliament of Guyana.
The National Climate Unit within the Ministryof Agriculture is the implementing entity for the

Table 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)% forestwithcanopycover >60%

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

2490–3740

89.2+

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
sink capacity monitoring
capacity
to 2030++++++

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity++

Importance Engagementinof forest
international
fire/
REDD+
biomass
processes
burning+++++++ high; ++ medium; + low; estimate of national forest carbon based on Gibbs et al. (2007); estimate of % total forest with canopy cover>60% based on UNEP-WCMC (2010).

328

GUYANA

Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)***

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

980
1110

980
1040

-

243
332**

243
332**

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Comprises Conservation International’s conservation concession (which, strictly speaking, is part of the production PFE but is notcounted there), the protected portion of the Iwokrama forest, and Kaieteur National Park.

committee and manages and coordinates day-to-day
climate-change procedures. Guyana has alsoestablished an Office for Climate Change and a
REDD+ Secretariat to execute aspects of climaterelated activities and REDD+. Table 6 summarizes
Guyana’s carbon potential.

Forest for protection
Soil and water. Forests are still intact over large
areas. There are, however, threats to biodiversity andto soil and water, of which mining – particularly forgold – may be the greatest. Small-scale gold-mining
takes place over a wide area; impacts include
localized deforestation, the removal of topsoil andthe pollution of watercourses with sediment andmercury. Trees felled by gold-miners cause blockages
to rivers, sometimes resulting in downstream
flooding. Guyanese soils are essentially alluvial; they
are acidic, with a pH as low as 3.6, and quickly
degenerate once trees are removed (Clarke 2006).
Biological diversity. Guyana’s large areas of intact
forest ecosystems have a very high conservationand ecological value. More than 1200 vertebrate
species were counted in a 1997 inventory, including
198 mammals, 728 birds, 137 reptiles and 105
amphibians, and more than 6000 flowering plant
species, of which about one hundred are forest treesof commercial interest. It is almost certain thatmany more species remain to be discovered. No
species found in Guyana’s forests are listed on the
IUCN red list of threatened species (IUCN 2011).
Guyana has two plant species listed in CITES
Appendix I, 42 in Appendix II and one in Appendix
III (UNEP-WCMC 2011). Bulletwood is protectedunder the Forest Act for its value to Indigenous
communities and because of the limited occurrenceof this species in Guyanan forests.
Protective measures in production forests. The
Code of Practice for Timber Harvesting includes
provisions for protecting watercourses, reducing theimpact of logging on residual stands and conserving
protected wildlife. Forest management plans must

identify representative biodiversity reserves covering
at least 4.5% of the productive forest area thatare then excluded from harvesting. The GFC’s
monitoring division monitors TSAs against thestandards prescribed by the Code.
Extent of protected areas. Guyana has two
formally established protected areas in forests (bothof which are established under separate laws): theKaieteur National Park, which is 63 000 hectares
in size, and the Iwokrama forest, of which 187 500
hectares are set aside for forest conservation
purposes. Under the proposed National Protected
Areas System, more areas could be allocatedfor protection, including Shell Beach (which
includes mangrove forests), Kanuku Mountains,
Mount Roraima, and Orinduik Falls.4 In 2002
Conservation International was awarded a 30-year
conservation concession of 81 000 hectares to thesouth of Iwokrama called the Upper EssequiboConservation Concession.5 There are also eleven‘GFC reserves’ covering a total area of 17 800
hectares. UNEP-WCMC (2010) estimated that
there were 1.04 million hectares of forest in IUCN
protected-area categories I–IV.
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. The estimated area ofprotection PFE under sustainable management
is at least 331 500 hectares (Table 7). This area
comprises the Kaieteur National Park, Conservation
International’s conservation concession, and theconservation area set aside in the Iwokrama forest. The
area under sustainable management has increased since2005, due mainly to the addition of CI’s conservation
concession but also to a slight amendment in the sizeof Iwokrama’s conservation area.

4 www.guianashield.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_
content&view=article&id=173:wwf-grant-agreements&catid=1:latestnews&Itemid=50〈=en, accessed 9/9/09.
5 www.conservation.org/FMG/Articles/Pages/guyana_conservation_
concession.aspx, accessed 9/9/09; the Upper Essequibo Conservation
Concession Guyana fact sheet; seen at http://www.conservation.org/
Documents/guyanaconcession_factsheet.pdf.

329

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. An estimated 24 100 people
are employed in forest operations in Guyana and19 800 people in the forest products industry.b
There is also considerable – but un-estimated– informal and unrecorded employment andeconomic activity. The total value of wood exports
in 2008 was US$56.7 millionb; the country also
exported fuelwood valued at about US$151 000
and NTFPs (not including canned palm hearts)
valued at about US$96 000.a
Livelihood values. Forests are an integral partof Amerindian culture and are important for the
supply of building materials, fibres for textiles
and weaving, and tannins and dyes, as well as forwildlife, fruit, seeds and nuts that are hunted orgathered for food. Medicines are obtained from
more than 130 plant species (van Andel et al.
2003). Some communities have undertaken thecommercial harvesting of these resources.
Social relations. Amerindians comprise 9.1% of
the Guyanese population and own 13.9% of theland. Amerindian communities are generally locatedin areas remote from urban centres and rely on
subsistence fishing, shifting cultivation and hunting.
The creation of a Ministry of Amerindian Affairs
in 1992 has facilitated a more participatory role
for these communities in national development.
The Amerindian Act (2006), too, gives Amerindian
communities legal powers to manage and conserve
their lands. Ninety-six communities have titles, butanother ten communities do not have formal legal
title to the lands they occupy. Guyana’s Low Carbon
Development Strategy identified, as a priority
activity, the titling of these areas.b The Amerindian
Act empowers Amerindian communities to create
and enforce protected areas on their lands. A
community can, for example, prohibit or control
entry and access to its territory and traditional
knowledge, prohibit or control mining, zone its
lands, protect sacred sites, and regulate hunting,fishing, tourism and research. All Amerindian lands
are owned collectively by communities (called‘villages’) and administered through village councils(Anon. 2008).
Amerindian communities are afflicted by severesocial and health problems, particularly incommunities adjacent to gold-mining and timber
concessions. The Ministry of Amerindian Affairs
and the GGMC have collaborated to train a

330

A greenheart tree in a logging concession, Guyana.

number of rural residents as rangers to complement
GGMC’s monitoring efforts in mining districts.
The Iwokrama forest initiative has had significant
success in involving local Amerindian communities
in forest management (Bakken Jensen 2005).
The GFC has managed a number of outreach,
communications and extension programs with
communities and Amerindian groups. It hasestablished a community forestry program which
entails the formation of community forestry
organizations, which are provided with accessto state forest lands and, in some cases, withequipment. Several Amerindian communities havealso been provided with extension services andtraining in reduced impact logging. In the North
Rupununi area, a community forestry project has
been implemented, reduced impact logging skills
transferred and other forest management services
extended (Government of Guyana (2008).
When it comes into force the Forest Bill (2009) will
provide communities (including but not restricted
to Amerindian communities) with a means ofacquiring clear and secure rights to manage andbenefit from their local forests on a sustainablebasis in order to help meet local needs, stimulate

GUYANA

income generation and economic development, andenhance environmental stability. Under the Bill,
properly established community groups can apply
to the GFC for community forest use agreementsthat would authorize the group to occupy a
specified area of state forest and to manage it inaccordance with the agreement.
The GFC’s Community Development Unit,
which sits within its Planning and Development
Division, has a mandate to build capacity in forestbased communities. Community forestry is being
formally undertaken on an area of about 114 000
hectares under SFPs.a

Summary
Most of Guyana’s forests are still intact, unexploitedand not threatened by the expansion of agriculture.
Guyana is pursuing a well-designed forest
management and control system in its timber
production forests. A new law, the Forest Bill, isawaiting assent by the President of Guyana. Thislaw will provide for the sustainable management,
protection and conservation of state forests and theregulation of forest operations, and it will also makeconsiderable changes to the allocation of state forest
for harvesting. The Guyana Forestry Commission
appears to be well-organized and responsive andhas a substantial field presence. Guyana has madeprogress in a number of areas, including thedevelopment of a legality assurance system andindependent forest monitoring, which will not only
provide a basis for international scrutiny and accessto REDD+ initiatives but also enable the validationand improvement of existing forest management
systems. At the forest industry level, however,significant progress is required to fully realize theSFM goal.

Key points••

Guyana has an estimated PFE of 12.2 million
hectares (compared with 6.44 million hectares
in 2005), comprising 11.1 million hectares ofnatural production forest (compared with 5.45
million hectares 2005), 1.11 million hectares ofprotection forest (compared with 980 000
hectares in 2005) and 12 000 hectares ofplanted forest (the same as reported in 2005).
A new forest law is due to come into effect.

•

Gold-mining is a significant cause of forest
degradation and environmental pollution.

•

At least 520 000 hectares of production PFE isbeing managed sustainably. Given the generallack of threats to the forest, the high-quality
training available to forest operators, andpositive moves by the Guyana Forestry
Commission to institute improved tracking andmonitoring systems, this is likely anunderestimate.

•

At least 332 000 hectares of protection PFE isbeing managed sustainably. Given the generallack of threats to Guyana’s forests, this is also
likely to be an underestimate.

•

Wood exports make a significant contribution
to Guyana’s foreign-exchange earnings. A newnational log export policy has been introducedwith the aim of encouraging local woodprocessing.

•

Guyana has considerable potential forparticipation in a global REDD+ scheme foravoided deforestation and forest degradation.

EndnotesaGovernment of Guyana (2009).

b

Personal communications with officials of the Governmentof Guyana, 2009, 2010.

References and other sources
van Andel, T., MacKinven, A. & Bánki, O. (2003).
Commercial Non-timber Forest Products of the Guiana
Shield: An Inventory of Commercial NTFP Extraction andPossibilities for Sustainable Harvesting. The Netherlands
Committee for IUCN, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Anon. (2008, website accessed March 2010). Available at
cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/guyana_legal_survey.doc.
Bakken Jensen, O. (2005). Iwokrama’s plan for SFM. ITTO
Tropical Forest Update 15/2.
Barama (2010, website accessed July 2010). Available at http://
www.baramaguyana.com/eng/about/overview.htm.
Clarke, G. (2006). Law compliance and prevention andcontrol of illegal activities in the forest sector in Guyana.
Preliminary report prepared for the World Bank. The WorldBank.
FAO (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010 country
report: Guyana (available at http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).
FSC (2010, website accessed July 2010). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).

331

Status of tropical forest management 2011

GFC (2002). Code of Practice for Timber Harvesting. 2nd edition.
Guyana Forestry Commission, Georgetown, Guyana.

Available at www.iwokrama.org/dwsite/Forestry%20
Survey%20and%20Estimated%20Sustainable%20
Yields%20.html.

GFC & Pöyry Forest Industry (2010). Guyana REDD+
monitoring reporting and verification system (MRVS)
interim measures report. GFC and Pöyry Forest Industry,
Georgetown, Guyana.

McSweeney, C., New, M. & Lizcano, G. (undated). UNDP
climate change country profiles: Guyana (available at http://
country-profiles.geog.ox.ac.uk/).

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).

National Development Strategy Secretariat (2000, website
accessed January 2010). Guyana national development
strategy (available at http://www.ndsguyana.org/document.
asp).

Government of Guyana (2008). Republic of Guyana Forest
Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Readiness Plan Idea
Note (R-PIN). Ministry of Agriculture, Georgetown,
Guyana.

Office of the President (2010). A low-carbon development
strategy: transforming Guyana’s economy while combatingclimate change. Third draft, May 2010. Office of the
President, Republic of Guyana.

Government of Guyana (2009). Report of progress towardachieving sustainable forest management in Guyana.
Submission to ITTO by the Guyana Forest Department,
Guyana.

Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World Atlas ofMangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.

Government of Guyana (2011, website accessed January 2011).
Guyana’s Low Carbon Development Strategy (available at
http://www.lcds.gov.gy/).
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO (2011, website accessed March 2011). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).
IUCN (2011, website accessed March 2011). IUCN red list of
threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).
Iwokrama International Centre for Rain Forest Research andDevelopment (2009, website accessed September 2009).

332

UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. UNEPWCMC,
Cambridge, UK. Data prepared for ITTO (see Annex 1).
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March
2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
January 2010). World population prospects: the 2008
revision (searchable database available at http://esa.un.org/
unpp/p2k0data.asp).

HONDURAS

Hondurasof a 2009 analysis. FAO (2010a) estimated the total
forest area at 5.19 million hectares, which is morethan the estimate reported in FAO (2006) of 4.65
million hectares.

Forest resources
Honduras, the second-largest country in Central
America, has a land area of 11.2 million hectares
and an estimated population in 2010 of 7.6 million
people (United Nations Population Division 2010).
Honduras is ranked 112th out of 182 countries
in UNDP’s Human Development Index (UNDP2009). It comprises three distinct biogeographic
regions. The central highlands cover about 60%of the country, with fertile valleys and steep slopes
between 700 m and 1900 m above sea level, thehighest peak reaching more than 2800 m. A second
region is the vast northern coastal plain abutting
the Caribbean Sea, which can be divided into two
subregions: the central plain covered mainly bygrassland, swamps, secondary palm forests and pine
forests; and the northeastern plain – the Mosquito
Coast (La Mosquitia) – which is sparsely populated
and covered by pine forests, humid forests and somemangrove forests. The third biogeographic region isa narrow strip of land along the Gulf of Fonseca on
the southern Pacific coast, which mainly comprises
agricultural land and some remnant mangroves.
According to the most recent national forest
inventory (ENF 2006), forests cover an area of 5.79
million hectares (52% of the land area), including
4.83 million hectares of assessed forests and another
960 000 hectares of unclassified forests. The
Government of Honduras (2010a) estimated thetotal forest area at 6.66 million hectares on the basis

Forest types. The central highlands and theMosquito Coast savannas are covered by nearly two
million hectares of pine and mixed forests, while
about 3.5 million hectares of broadleaved forests
cover much of the Caribbean coast, the Agalta
mountains and the eastern lowlands (ENF 2006);
these constitute the country’s major closed forests.
Honduras is one of the few tropical countries withlarge areas of natural conifer forests, which arecomposed of one or several of seven Pinus species,
as well as species of the genus Abies. At lower
altitudes (up to 700 m above sea level), P. caribaea(pino costanero) dominates; between 700 and 1400
m, Pinus oocarpa (pino ocote) occurs often in purestands; and between 1500 m and 1900 m above sea
level a mixture of pino ocote, P. maximinoi (pinollorón) and P. tecumumanii (pino rojo) constitutes
the major forest layer. Above 2000 m, P. ayacahuite,
P. pseudostrobus (pinabete), P. hartwegii (pino demontaña) and species of the genus Abies occur.
Natural pine forests are used intensively by local
communities and by industry.
Tropical broadleaved forests are found mostly inthe north. The most common species are Vochysia
hondurensis, Virola koschnyi, V. sebifera, Luehea
seemanii, Terminalia amazonia, Cordia alliodora,
Cedrela mexicana, Ceiba pentandra, Carapa
guianensis and Tabebuia guayacan. The Acrocomia
palm is common in all these forests. Mangroves arefound on the Caribbean coast, notably in protectedlagoon and estuarine formations; they extent overabout 62 000 hectares (Spalding et al. 2010).
Permanent forest estate. Honduras defines its
PFE as those forests that are included in protectedareas and declared micro-watershed areas, andthose areas of production forests that are coveredby forest management plans.a In all those areas, it
is prohibited to change the land use from forests
to other uses. As of 2009 the entire area of the
production PFE and 57% of the protection PFE
had been delimited on the ground.a The PFE
extends over an estimated area of 3.62 million
hectares, including about 2.5 million hectares of333

Status of tropical forest management 2011

The existence of pine forests in Honduras isclosely linked to repeated fire, which aids theirregeneration, but frequent human-induced fires
have led to their widespread degradation. The
productivity and genetic quality of the pine forests
have declined, mainly as a result of fire, disease andselective felling. Table 2 shows that the majority ofremaining natural forest in Honduras is considered
to be degraded primary forest.

tropical broadleaved forests, 1.1 million hectaresof conifer forests (some of them mixed withbroadleaved species) and 70 000 hectares ofmangrove forests (Table 1).a The potential PFE (i.e.
including forests that could be included in the PFE
in the future) has been estimated at 4.68 million
hectares (ENF 2006).

Forest ecosystem health

Vulnerability of forests to climate change. While
Honduras is largely unaffected by the earthquakesthat afflict other Central American nations, it isvulnerable to hurricanes and frequent flooding
along the north coast and in other regions.
Climate models project an increased frequency
and severity of such storms, constituting a risk toforest ecosystems and the people who depend on
them. In terms of the relative number of deaths
and economic losses (Harmeling 2010), Honduras
was one of three countries (the other two being
Bangladesh and Myanmar) most affected byextreme weather events between 1990 and 2009.

Deforestation and forest degradation.
Deforestation averaged an estimated 120 000
hectares per year between 2005 and 2010, anannual rate of 2.16% (FAO 2010b), the highest ratein the Americas. Deforestation is most prevalent
in the eastern tropical broadleaved forest. In thepast, deforestation was due to agro-industrial
development, mainly for banana plantations. Today,
demand for land by small-scale farmers is thought
to be the major cause (ITTO 2006); often, suchsmall-scale farmers ultimately sell the deforested
land to larger farmers and agro-industrial owners.
In recent years, people involved in illegal activities(i.e. drug-trafficking) have also acquired this sort ofland.

SFM policy framework

Forest degradation is also widespread in the humid
broadleaved forests, due mainly to small-scale
illegal logging (Paaby Hansen & Florez 2008).

Forest tenure. With the passing of a law on themodernization of agriculture (Ley de Modernización
Agrícola, Decreto 31-92) in 1992, some state-owned

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

2005*
2010

5.38
5.19–6.66

3811
2630*****‡†PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted

Total

1590
1096‡

3238
3617

48
48

1600
2521†

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Calculated using the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) (50.6%) and the total
natural forest area as estimated by FAO (2010a).
According to Government of Honduras (2010b).
Includes the declared protected areas and proposed protected areas according to ENF (2006).

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

Total*’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land

-

-

457**
3823
550
-

*
Based on a total forest area of 4.8 million hectares, as per ENF (2006).
**
Primary tropical broadleaved forests only. The figure for secondary forests includes young pine and broadleaved forest.
Source: ENF (2006).

334

HONDURAS

forests were transferred to municipal and private
ownership (ITTO 2006). Today, forest ownershipmay be public (tierras nacionales), which is under
the direct administration of the forest service,municipal, community or private (Table 3).
There are still many claims for the use of forests,
particularly over public lands, and large tracts ofhumid forest have no clear ownership status. Thus,
there is still considerable uncertainty about forest
tenure. An estimated 60% of forest administrators
do not know exactly the areas and borders of their
FMUs (ENF 2006).
The 2007 Forest Law (Decreto 98-2007) provides
for the participation of communities in forest
consultative councils and the regularization offorested lands through the demarcation of areasfor protection, conservation and community
management. According to a recent decree,
the ownership of public lands that have been
appropriated informally by communities andprivate landowners will be defined and given legal
status, and the administration of public forest
lands will be strengthened. The law’s implementing
regulations were finalized in early 2009. Since thelaw was passed, five new titles of 40 000 hectares
have been granted to five communities, andfour consultative councils have been established,increasing community participation in the processof drafting regulations (ITTO & RRI 2009).
Indigenous property rights have not been resolved,
however.
Criteria and indicators. Honduras has adopted
the ITTO C&I to monitor progress towards SFM.
The Forestry Action Plan (Plan de Acción Forestal –PLANFOR) 1996–2015 is aligned to the principles

of sustainable forest development, the conservationof ecosystems, integrated watershed management,
forest utilization and industrialization, and forestry
extension and research. The Government of
Honduras used the ITTO C&I in its submission to
ITTO for this report.a
Forest policy and legislation. Forest Law 98 (Ley
Forestal, Areas Protegidas y Vida Silvestre), enacted in
2007, replaced Forest Law 85 (1972). The new law
addresses the conservation of national forests andintroduces provisions to support the managementof forests by communities, such as technical supportand subsidies for tree-planting. Nevertheless, ingeneral the legal provisions pertaining to forests
remain weak and illegal activities by some actors
persist as a serious hindrance to the widespread
adoption of SFM.
The vision for the period 2002–2025, articulated
in the national forestry policy, views the sector’s
contribution to economic development asfollows: “Forest resources and their biodiversity
are conserved and managed efficiently, increasing
production and productivity of goods and services,increasing forest cover, recuperating deforested
areas and generating benefits through the threemain basic functions of forest – economic, socialand environmental/ecological – significantly
contributing to the socioeconomic development of
all Honduran people and specifically supporting
poverty reduction”.
Local governments have increased responsibilities
for forests and protected-area management underthe 2007 Forest Law and the 1990 Municipalities
Law (Ley de Municipalidades 134-90, revised

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

Total
area*

Of which PFE Notes

State ownership (national, state orprovincial government)*
Other public entities (e.g.
municipalities, villages)
Total public
Owned by local communities and/orIndigenous groups
Private owned by individuals, firms,
other corporate

2230

-

Including 1.2 million hectares of forest protected areas.

570-

Ejidal**/municipal (335 000 hectares) and communities(235 000 hectares).

2800
160

-

1840

-

’000 haTribal and forest consultative councils.
Private individuals (1.83 million hectares) and enterprises(30 000 hectares).

*
Based on a total forest area of 4.8 million hectares, as per ENF (2006).
**
Community land.
Source: Derived from ENF (2006).

335

Status of tropical forest management 2011

in 2010). In state forests and private forests
this responsibility is limited to informationand control but, in the case of ejidales (areas ofcommunity land), management has been entirely
decentralized to municipalities, as long as theactivities undertaken are embedded in a sustainable
development approach (for details see Vallejo &Coronado 2006). Box 1 shows the responsibilities
of municipal governments in the management offorests in the ejidales.
Institutions involved in forests. Three institutions
have responsibilities for forests and biodiversity
at the national level: the National Institute ofConservation of Forests, Protected Areas andWildlife Development (Instituto Nacional deConservación y Desarrollo Forestal, Areas Protegidas
y Vida Silvestre – ICF), which replaced manyof the functions of the former State Forestry
Administration (Administración Forestal del Estado–
Corporación Hondureña de Desarrollo Forestal –AFE-COHDEFOR), the Secretariat for Natural
Resources and Environment (Secretaría de Recursos
Naturales y Ambiente – SERNA); and the Secretariat
for Agriculture and Cattle Ranching (Secretaría de
Agricultura y Ganadería – SAG).
Perhaps the most significant change in recent years
is that the forest administration (i.e. the ICF) is
now administratively and financially independentof the SAG. The ICF was established in 2008
by Decree No 98-2007 as a dependency of the

President’s Office and has a mandate to implement
the National Policy on Conservation, Forestry,Protected Areas and Wildlife (la Política Nacional deConservación y Desarrollo Forestal, Áreas Protegidas y
Vida Silvestre; Article 14). It brings many previously
disparate activities, roles and responsibilities into
one organization, including:•Supporting the creation and operation ofcommunity consultative boards to improveparticipation and transparency in the
management of forest resources.

•

Supporting forest management and reforestation
programs through government-funded incentive
programs.

•

Implementing the national forest program
2010–2030, which is now a legal obligation.

The Research System for National Forests,
Protected Areas and Wildlife (Sistema deInvestigación Nacional Forestal, Áreas Protegidas
y Vida Silvestre) has been created to promote
applied and scientific forestry research, involving
municipalities and other organizations capableof sustaining forest research. In addition, thestate, through the ICF, will promote and support
forest certification as an incentive for SFM and toguarantee the quality of forest products.a
The National Forestry School (Escuela Nacionalde Ciencias Forestales) provides technical support
for the implementation of forest policy alongBox 1 Municipal government responsibilities for forest management in ejidales
Area

Responsibilities

Exploitation
Protected areas••

Rationalize the use and exploitation of municipal resources.
Create municipal areas.

Economic resources••

Provide a hearing for the procedure of including ejiadal forest in the public forest register.
Obtain resources and invest them in environmental protection.

Protection••

Charge taxes for extracting or otherwise exploiting forest resources.
Protect municipal ecosystems and the environment.

•

Preserve forests for water protection and preserve watersheds.

Administration and norms••

Participate in the prevention of forest fires, pests and diseases.
Grant permits or contracts for the establishment of forest industries.

•

Assist in administering forest law enforcement and governance.

Reforestation••

Grant permits or contracts together with the forest authority, when they concur on forest exploitation.
Promote reforestation projects.

Control and monitoring••

Implement reforestation works at the sources of water supply.
Supervise compliance with the norms related to waste industries.

•

Monitor protected areas and sources of water supply.

Source: Modified from Vallejo & Coronado (2006).

336

HONDURAS

with the Agenda Forestal Hondureña, an organizedstakeholder platform promoting SFM. About
690 people dealing with forests are employed ingovernmental institutions.

Status of forest management
Forest for production
Forest management plans have been mandatory inproduction forests for more than 15 years, basedon management and silvicultural norms establishedin 1995–96. Before a forest management plan isprepared, the forest owner must clearly establish
legal tenure (ITTO 2006). Besides directions forsilviculture and harvesting, management plans
should contain prescriptions covering the protectionof soil, water and biodiversity and measures for the
management of fire, pests and diseases.
Forest harvesting is based on a contract between
the ICF and the forest owner, which also specifies
the silvicultural and conservation measures of theforest management plan. Before harvesting, theowner must give a bank guarantee in favour of the
ICF, which is cancelled once all silvicultural andconservation measures are complete. Incentives
to promote SFM include exemption from taxes
up to a certain amount if a forest owner invests
in reforestation; technical assistance to preparereforestation plans; and the provision of seeds andnursery stock.
The sustainable management of pine forests should
be relatively straightforward. Honduran pine forests
have a great capacity for regeneration if fire canbe controlled and used effectively to accelerate
re-growth and if regenerating seedlings areprotected from animals. Pines are fast-growing and,if management guidelines are followed, continuous
production is assured (ITTO 2006). However,in many cases the harvesting plan is the only
component of the forest management plan applied.
Illegal practices are still common in FMUs andthere is a general problem of non-compliance withmanagement prescriptions.a As a result, average
production has dropped to 1–2 m3 per hectare per
year, much less than the 4–5 m3 per hectare per
year considered feasible if sustainable silvicultural
practices were to be applied.a
There is little experience in the management ofbroadleaved forests in Honduras and there are few
management prescriptions for SFM. A former

Pine forest area in central Honduras.

ITTO project examined the impact of intensive
harvesting on lesser-used species in the broadleaved
forests of northeastern Honduras and resulted in
the development of new management prescriptions.
Honduran broadleaved forests carry a total
commercial timber volume of about 33.5 million
m3, with an average stocking of 22 commercial trees
per hectare (ENF 2006). The commercial stock of
conifer forests is estimated at 72 million m3.
As of early 2010, management plans covered a totalof 1 095 622 hectares of pine forests, most of them
privately owned, and 96 000 hectares of tropicalmoist forests.a In total, 903 FMUs had management
plans, 97 of which were in public forests, 78
in forests under the responsibility of municipal
governments and 728 in private forests.a The total
AAC in the pine forests was 1.97 million m3.a
The extent to which management plans arebeing applied is unclear, however. In 2005, theEnvironmental Investigation Agency (EIA), an
NGO, described what it believed was an “illegal
logging crisis in Honduras”, in which an estimated
80% of mahogany and up to 50% of pine wasbeing produced in violation of government
regulations (EIA 2005).
Silviculture and species selection. Of 332 forest
tree species inventoried in the country (ENF 2006),
about 25 are used commercially in significant
quantities. The two most important species by
far are pino costanero and pino ocote (Table 4).
Important hardwood species in the broadleaved
forests, in addition to those listed in Table 4, are
Dialium guianesis (andiroba), Vochysia guatemalensis(san juán), Brosimum alicastrum (ramón, breadnut),
Virola koschnyi (palo de sangre), Terminalia

337

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Pinus caribaea (pino costanero)*
Pinus oocarpa (pino ocote)*
Calophyllum brasiliense (santa maria)*
Cordia alliodora (laurel)*Ceiba pentandra (ceiba)*

From natural pine forests and plantations.
From natural pine forests.
Mainly for domestic use.
From off-forest areas, village plantations and natural forests.
Mainly off-forest trees are harvested.

Also listed in ITTO (2006).
*
Source: Government of Honduras (2010b).

amazonica (cumbillo), Swietenia macrophylla(mahogany), Carapa guianensis (macho), Cedrela
odorata (cedro) and Tabebuia rosea (apamate).
Planted forest and trees outside the forest.
Because natural pine forests are so abundant, there
has been relatively little development of planted
forests. Based on data from 2000, the planted forest
estate is estimated at about 48 000 hectares (nomore recent data were available for the preparationof this report, although there are indications thatnew planted forests have been established, especiallyon the north coast). Nearly all planted forests are
privately owned and the main plantation species
are native pines (up to one-third of all plantations).
Species such as Gliricidia sepium, Leucaena spp,
Gmelina arborea and eucalypt species are an
essential part of agroforestry; another important
planted tree is Tectona grandis (teak, teca).
Forest certification. Certification is supported by
the ICF and promoted by the Honduran Council
for Voluntary Forest Certification (CH-CFV),
which is a national initiative of the FSC. However,there is little market incentive for certification. In
2010 a total area of 34 300 hectares was certified
in natural broadleaved and pine forests for wood
production and 76 600 hectares were certified for
NTFPs (Elaeis oleifera and Carapa guianensis) (FSC2011). An additional 3370 hectares of planted
forest was certified.
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. About 700 000 hectaresof the production PFE are subject to some kind ofmanagement, a figure which includes an estimated
265 000 hectares of pine and mixed forests
outside the humid forest zone (ITTO 2006). It isestimated that an area of at least 276 000 hectaresof natural PFE is sustainably managed (Table 5).
This comprises about 180 000 hectares of naturalpine forests managed effectively by communities(of which a portion is certified)a and the certified

338

forest area for the production of timber and NTFPs(see above). It also includes an area of about 45 000
hectares of tropical broadleaved forests in the upper
Cangrejal River Basin, where local communities
have benefited from considerable support from theinternational community in managing their forests.
Timber production and trade. Total annual
roundwood production in 2006 was estimatedat 10.8 million m3, of which about 9.9 million
m3 was fuelwood (FAO 2010a). In 2009, theestimated production of industrial pine logs was
750 000 m3 (compared with 920 000 m3 in 2005
and 744 000 m3 in 2000), while the production oftropical hardwoods was 20 000 m3, compared with
15 200 m3 in 2005 and 12 000 m3 in 2000 (ITTO
2011). Total sawnwood production in 2009 was
349 000 m3 (342 000 m3 of which was coniferous),compared with 406 000 m3 in 2005 and 437 000
m3 in 2000 (ibid.).
Nearly all Honduran wood production serves thedomestic market, although a small amount of pinesawnwood is exported to other countries in theregion. Official production figures do not take into
account timber harvested illegally. Based on data in
EIA (2005), illegal production might have exceeded
official production by a factor of 3–4 as recently
as 2004, but few data are available on whether
such illegal production has since been curbed. In
2008, a timber-tracking manual (Manual de laCadena de Custodia para Madera Aserrada de Bosque
Latifoliado) was introduced but, to date, it has only
been applied in the Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve.a
Non-timber forest products. Fuelwood in theform of firewood and charcoal (70% of whichcomes from hardwood forest species such as Quercus
spp – roble) is the most economically important
NTFP in Honduras. It is an essential energy
source for many people, especially rural people.
Internationally tradable NTFPs include pine resin,HONDURAS

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)*

Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

1590
1096

1070
1096

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
671
1096

Certified

187

48

PlantedWith
management
plans
28

276

48

31

Sustainably
managed

37
111

Total

Certified0
3.4

As reported in ITTO (2006).

with an estimated production in 2008 of 14 800
barrelsa, liquidambar resin (76 barrels in 2008a(compared with 251 barrels reported in ITTO
2006), and pine seeds for export. Also, Indigenous
communities in the forests of the Mosquito Coast
have been producing about of 80 000 litres ofbatana oil (derived from the American oil palm
– Elaeis oleifera) for export per year for the last
seven years (C. Sandoval, pers. comm., 2010), andtheir operations were certified recently by the FSC(FSC 2011). Besides its use as timber, Brosimum
alicastrum also produces what is known as Mayannut, which has been a staple food for the Maya for
more than 2000 years.
Forest carbon. ENF (2006) estimated the total
forest carbon stock in the living biomass at
294–402 MtC, Gibbs et al. (2007) estimated it
at 852–1268 MtC, and FAO (2010a) estimatedit at 330 MtC. The potential for carbon captureand storage by reducing deforestation and by
restoring forests and expanding planted forests is
relatively high (Table 6). Forest fires are frequent:
it is estimated that more than 55 000 hectares offorests burn each year.a Honduras has submitted
a readiness idea note to the Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility and is a member of the REDD+
Partnership.

Forest for protection
Soil and water. Many municipalities manage
micro-watersheds declared for the protection of
freshwater sources (ITTO 2006). Such micro-

watersheds are delimited in the field (generally
fenced) and no activities are permitted other thanfor the protection of water resources. A total forest
area of 544 000 hectares has been classified for the
primary purpose of protecting water and water
resources, of which 319 000 hectares are in the
PFE.a In addition, about 494 000 hectares havea specific role in soil protection as well as otherfunctions (ENF 2006).
Biological diversity. The forests of Honduras
are characterized by flora and fauna that are
representative of both temperate and tropical
America. Detailed biological inventories are
not unavailable, although it is known that there
are more than 700 breeding bird species andan additional 225 that are migratory (ITTO2006). Five mammals, seven birds, six reptiles,
60 amphibians and four plants found in forests
are listed as critically endangered, endangered orvulnerable on the IUCN red list of threatened
species (IUCN 2011). Two plant species are listed
in CITES Appendix I, 171 in Appendix II and two
in Appendix III (UNEP-WCMC 2011).
Protective measures in production forests. Forest
management plans contain detailed prescriptions
for protective purposes, such as the maintenanceof unlogged strips along watercourses, reduced
impact logging, logging restrictions on slopes
and vulnerable areas, and specific provisions
for biodiversity conservation in both pine andbroadleaved forests.a

Table 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)% forestwithcanopycover >60%

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

852–1268

51++

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
sink capacity monitoring
capacity
to 2030+++

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

Importance Engagementinof forest
international
fire/
REDD+
biomass
processes
burning+++++++ high; ++ medium; + low; estimate of national forest carbon based on Gibbs et al. (2007); estimate of % total forest with canopy cover>60% based on UNEP-WCMC (2010).

339

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Extent of protected areas. SERNA, in partnershipwith The Nature Conservancy and WWF,
undertook a conservation gap analysis to 2008 to
better define conservation priorities. As a result,
Honduras established a 12% conservation goal forthe country’s 59 terrestrial ecosystems. In 2009
there were 51 declared terrestrial protected areas,
covering nearly all ecosystems over a total area of
1.37 million hectares. Another 21 areas covering
509 000 hectares were proposed to be added tothe protected-area network in order to address
deficiencies identified in the gap analysis (Paaby
Hansen & Florez 2008). UNEP-WCMC (2010)
estimated the forest area in IUCN categories I–IV
at 976 000 hectares. The Río Plátano Biosphere
Reserve in northeastern Honduras is designed
to protect the largest intact lowland tropicaland pine forests within Honduras and includes
community-based production forest (some of whichis certified). All cloud forests (bosques nublados)are protected in ten national parks, eight wildlife
reserves and 18 biological reserves; even so, mostare degraded (ITTO 2006). Honduras is part of the
Mesoamerican Biological Corridor.
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. In 2010, management
plans had been prepared for 19 protected forest
areas covering a total area of about 608 000
hectares.a Areas that are co-managed by NGOs orthat receive support from the international donor
community (e.g. USAID, UNDP, the Global
Environment Facility and the World Bank) haveapproved protected-area management plans inplace, including the Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve,
The Tawahka Biosphere Reserve, the Patuca
National Park, the El Chile Biological Reserve,
the Güisayote Biological Reserve, the Cuero y
Salado Wildlife Refuge, the Jeannette Kawas
Park, the Wildlife Refuge and Islas de la Bahía.
The Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve, which covers
439 000 hectares, is part of the largest extant areaof relatively undisturbed tropical rainforest in
Honduras and one of the few remaining in Central
America. Management plans are being implemented
in its totally protected portion and considerable
efforts are being made in forest law enforcement.
This area is counted here as sustainably managed(Table 7), although until recently a threat was posedby illegal loggers seeking mahogany and othervaluable hardwoods (EIA 2005).

340

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. Forestry contributes
significantly to Honduran national income, peaking
at more than 10% of GDP late in the 1990s. In
2006, the sector’s economic contribution was 9.9%of GDP, making forestry the fourth most importanteconomic activity (AFE-COHDEFOR 2008). The
forest sector generates nearly 68 000 direct jobs anda similar quantity of indirect jobs (ibid.).
Livelihood values. Honduras has high levels ofpoverty in both rural and urban areas. Forests
constitute an important supplement to livelihoods– both in the provision of goods and services andfor land. Informal harvesting and trade in a variety
of forest products are important in forested areas
to sustain livelihoods. Nevertheless, these issues
need to be tackled to make informal forest use
compatible with the objectives of SFM (ITTO2006).
The concept of payments for ecosystem services has
gained momentum in recent years, but experiences
are nascent. Most focus on water resources as
the principal service emanating from forests, andother services such as carbon sequestration andecotourism warrant further exploration.
Social relations. Even though the law has madeprovisions for local communities to own forests,
there are great difficulties in practice in protecting
these forests from encroachment, timber theft andillegal hunting. For example, the La Mosquitia
Biosphere Reserve and the Indigenous communities
of Miskito, Pech and Garifuna are greatly
threatened by unregulated colonization (ITTO2006).

Summary
It is estimated that 80 000–100 000 hectares ofmainly broadleaved forests are lost annually to the
expansion of agriculture as well as to forest fire andillegal felling. Pine forests sustain the livelihoods ofmany communities in the highlands of Honduras.
These forests, although stable in area, have declined
in productivity and genetic quality. This is ofconcern because the forest sector, which is largely
reliant on this resource, generates an estimated
68 000 direct jobs.
Management of the broadleaved natural forests in
Honduras is sometimes more a matter of extracting
the most valuable species than of silvicultural

HONDURAS

Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)*

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

1600
2521

434
434

352
319

608

439

As reported in ITTO (2006).

management. Silvicultural and conservation
measures described in forest management plans
are often not respected and there is a risk thatlogged-over areas will become degraded. Illegal
logging is probably widespread. More attention has
been paid to protected areas in recent years but inmany areas they remain vulnerable to degradationand clearing.

Key points••

Honduras has an estimated PFE of 3.62 million
hectares (compared with 3.24 million hectares
in 2005), comprising 1.1 million hectares ofnatural production forest (compared with 1.59
million hectares in 2005), 2.52 million hectaresof protection forest (compared with 1.6 million
hectares in 2005) and 48 000 hectares ofplanted forest (as in 2005).
An estimated 276 000 hectares of the natural
production PFE is under SFM, including
111 000 hectares of certified forest. An
estimated 439 000 hectares of the protection
PFE is under SFM.

•

The broadleaved moist forest could make alarger contribution to sustainable developmentin Honduras if all goods and services were taken
into account and illegal activities controlled.

•

A new forest law has been in place since 2007. A
new forestry administration assumed oversightof forest production in 2008, under the
direction of the President’s Office.

••Management norms for the pine forests havebeen formulated and are being implemented insome of these forests. Silvicultural prescriptions
for the sustainable management of moist
broadleaved forests also exist but the extent towhich they are being applied is unclear.
Forest tenure, particularly on public land,remains subject to dispute, and large tracts ofbroadleaved forests have no clear ownershipstatus.

EndnoteaGovernment of Honduras (2010b).

References and other sources
AFE-COHDEFOR (2008). Anuario estadístico forestalde Honduras (available at http://www.icf.gob.hn/
DOCUMENTOS/anuario%20estadistico%20
forestal%202008%20VERSION%202.pdf ).
EIA (2005). The Illegal Logging Crisis in Honduras: How US
and EU Imports of Illegal Honduran Wood Increase Poverty,
Fuel Corruption and Devastate Forests and Communities.
Environmental Investigation Agency, Washington, DC,
United States.
ENF (2006). Resultados del inventario de bosques y árboles.
Evaluación Nacional Forestal, Secretaria de Agricultura yGanaderia, Tegucigalpa, Honduras.
FAO (2005). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005. FAO
Forestry Paper 147. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO (2010a). Global forest resources assessment 2010
country report: Honduras (available at http://www.fao.
org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).
FAO (2010b). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. FAO
Forestry Papers 163. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FSC (2011, website accessed February 2011). FSC
certification database (searchable database available at
http://info.fsc.org/PublicCertificateSearch).
Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007).
Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon
stocks: making REDD a reality. Environmental Research
Letters 2 (available at http://iopscience.iop.org/17489326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Government of Honduras (2010a). Readiness project idea
note. Submitted to the Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility. Available at http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.
org/fcp/.
Government of Honduras (2010b). Informe de Honduras
basado en los criterios e indicadores para la ordenación
forestal sostenible de los bosques tropicales. Preparedby Alejandra Reyes, Antonio Murillo, Rafael Oqueli,
Melissa Núñez, Karina Hernández, Henry Granados andYosenia Castellanos. Instituto Nacional de Conservacióny Desarrollo Forestal, Areas Protegidas y Vida Silvestre,
Tegucigalpa, Honduras.
Harmeling, S. (2010). Global Climate Risk Index 2011.
Germanwatch, Bonn, Germany.
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005.
ITTO, Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.
int/en/sfm/).

341

Status of tropical forest management 2011

ITTO (2011, website accessed January 2011). Annual
Review statistics database (available at http://www.itto.
int/annual_review_output/?mode=searchdata).
ITTO & RRI (2009). Tropical forest tenure assessment.
trends, challenges and opportunities. ITTO, Yokohama,Japan and Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington,
DC, United States.
IUCN (2011, website accessed January 2011). IUCN redlist of threatened species (searchable database available atwww.redlist.org).
Paaby Hansen, P. & Florez, E. (2008). Tropical forestsand biodiversity faa 118 and 119 analyses. USAID,
Washington, DC, United States.
Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World
Atlas of Mangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.

342

UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March
2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html).
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. Data prepared for
ITTO. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
August 2010). World population prospects: the 2008
revision (searchable database available at http://esa.
un.org/unpp/p2k0data.asp).
Vallejo, M. & Coronado, I. (2006). Descentralización de laGestión Forestal en Honduras: Mirando Hacia el Futuro.
CIFOR and the International Development ResearchCentre, la Paz, Bolivia.

MEXICO

Mexicotemperate/subtropical region is Quercus (oak) forest,
which may be pure or mixed with other temperateclimate broadleaved species such as Liquidambar
styraciflua (sweet gum) and Fagus mexicana (beech).
The ‘conifer and broadleaved forests’ category of
the national forest inventory is characterized bya few dominant species, such as Pinus and Abies,
combined with various species of Quercus, Cupressus
and Juniperus.

Forest resources
With a land area of 194.2 million hectares, Mexico
is the third-largest country in Latin America
after Brazil and Argentina. It had an estimatedpopulation in 2010 of 110 million people (United
Nations Population Division 2010). Mexico isranked 53rd out of 182 countries in UNDP’s
Human Development Index (UNDP 2009). The
country is mainly mountainous, with more thanhalf of its land area above 1000 m. The northwestof the country supports dry, open forest but tropicalmoist forests are found further south, where rainfall
is higher. The Southern highlands are composedof a number of steep mountain ranges, deep
valleys and dry plateaux, including the Chiapas
highlands bordering Guatemala, which constitutean important forest zone. CONAFOR (2010) andFAO (2010a) estimated the total forest area at 64.8
million hectares, of which 31.4 million hectares arein the tropics. According to the definition of forest(adopted at a workshop held in March 2009) usedin the context of climate change, there were about
85.5 million hectares of forests in Mexico in 2007,
including shrub forests (matorales) and ‘vegetation’cover in arid zones (Government of Mexico 2010a).
Forest types. Mexico’s eco-climatic zones canbe divided into three approximately equal areas:
tropical (in the south and southeast), subtropical/
temperate, and semi-arid/arid. The tropical region
includes rainforests, which originally covered about
6% of the country. The major forest type in the

Tropical forests are found on slopes along the Gulf
of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean, on the Isthmus
of Tehuantepec and in southern Yucatán in thestates of Campeche, Chiapas, Oaxaca, Quintana
Roo, Tabasco and Veracruz. They can be divided
into three major types: high forests (selva alta),
with a canopy height of 30 m and above composedof a large variety of species such as Brosimum
spp, Bursera spp, Cedrela odorata, Dialium spp,
Lonchocarpus spp, Manilkara zapota, Tabebuia spp,
Terminalia spp and Swietenia macrophylla; medium
forests (selva mediana), with a canopy height of
15–30 m and species such as Lysiloma spp, Bucida
buceras, Manilkara zapota and Ceiba spp; andlow forests (selva baja) with a height of 4–15 m
and species such as Annona glabra, Calophyllum
brasiliense and Eugenia spp.
Mexico has 770 000 hectares of mangroves(Spalding et al. 2010). They occur in a considerable
variety of settings and formations on both the
Pacific and Atlantic coastlines and in conditions
that range from arid to wet tropical.
Permanent forest estate. Mexico does not have aformally allocated PFE. The estimate of tropical
production PFE shown in Table 1 for 2005 wasbased on data supplied by the Government of
Mexico to ITTO in conjunction with a C&I
workshop convened in April 2005 and the estimate
of protection PFE was based on data reported by an
ITTO diagnostic mission to Mexico. The estimatesfor 2010 are based on data supplied in Governmentof Mexico (2010a and 2010b).

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. Mexico
suffered rapid deforestation and degradationin the period 1970–2000. For example, theestimated average annual deforestation rate in the343

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

2005*
2010

64.0–65.2
64.8

33 12022 600*****‡

PFE, tropical forests only (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
Total
NaturalPlanted
7880
8400

100
171‡

5600
3649

13 58012 220As reported in ITTO (2006).
Calculated using the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) (35.1%) and the total
natural forest area as estimated by FAO (2010a).
Tropical, including plantations for production and for protective functions.

Vulnerability of forests to climate change.
The climate varies greatly from north to south.
The varied topography results in further climaticdifferences between the various regions of thecountry. In the north, rainfall can be as low as 50
mm per year, while in the south and the central
highlands there are distinct wet and dry seasons,with rainfall of up to 550 mm per month. The
rainfall received in these regions is controlled largelyby the North American monsoon and the positionof the Intertropical Conversion Zone. Coastal areas
are vulnerable to hurricanes from both the Atlantic
and Pacific oceans.

period 1990–2000 was about 354 000 hectares(FAO 2010b). In the past decade, however, theannual rate of net forest loss has diminished, toabout 155 000 hectares, although an estimated
250 000–300 000 hectares of forest were degraded
between 2005 and 2010 (Government of Mexico
2010a). Uncontrolled logging (over-harvesting
and/or illegal logging), forest fires, grazing
in forests, forest diseases and pests, fuelwood
harvesting, population pressure and shifting
cultivation are the main direct causes of forest
degradation.a
Various factors have helped to reduce forest loss
in recent years. These include greater government
support for forestry and conservation; low prices
for agricultural commodities; a general shift ofpeople from rural areas to urban centres; and thelow suitability for agriculture of most remaining
forest lands. In addition, efforts are being madeto address deforestation and forest degradation
through an emerging REDD agenda. According to
the Government of Mexico (2010b), deforestationin areas where forest management plans are being
executed is significantly lower than in areas where
no management plans are established, indicatingthat forest management may reduce deforestation.
The same is true for areas within and outside
federally protected areas. Table 2 shows the best
available estimates of forest condition.

Mean annual temperature has increased by 0.6 ˚Csince 1960, a rate of around 0.13 ˚C per decade,with the rate of increase most rapid in the dry
season (McSweeney et al. undated). Mean annual
rainfall in Mexico has not shown any consistentincrease or decrease since 1960. Climate models
project an increase in average annual temperature
in Mexico of 1.1–3 ˚C by 2060 and substantial
increases in the frequency of days and nights thatare considered ‘hot’ in the current climate (ibid.).
In the tropical part of Mexico, an increased
frequency and intensity of tropical storms has
been observed in the past 10–20 years.a Climate
models suggest that tropical hurricanes are likely
to become more intense under a warmer climate
as a result of higher sea surface temperatures, butthere is uncertainty over changes in frequency andTable 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

Total*’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land*

All forests – no data available specifically for tropical forest.

Source: CONAFOR (2010).

344

-

-

34 30030 500-MEXICOchanges to storm tracks and their interactions withother features of climate variability, such as the El
Niño–Southern Oscillation (ibid.). Fire is a serious
problem, particularly in the semi-arid parts of thecountry, and is caused mainly by agricultural andgrazing activities.

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. Tenure rights are relatively secure in
Mexico, although agrarian conflicts persist in someareas.a Article 5 of the 2003 Forest Law (see below)
states that the forest resources belong to communes(ejidos), local communities, Indigenous peoples
and Indigenous communities, private landowners
or the government, depending on the location of
the forest (ITTO 2006). Most of Mexico’s forests(55–68%, depending on the source) are owned
by 8500 communities and ejidos or by individuals(27–33%), with relatively few state-owned forests(Table 3).
The risk of deforestation and degradation is higher
in areas with unresolved land-tenure conflicts,
where illegal logging and forest fires are the mostcommon problems (Government of Mexico 2010a,
2010b). Problems of access to some areas whereconflict is high due to the presence of organizedcrime (sometimes drug-related) or political unrest
hampers further the clarification of land rights.
About 2 million hectares are disputed among
Indigenous groups or between Indigenous andother communities.b
Criteria and indicators. Mexico has acomprehensive national forest program as well as
the National Strategic Forestry Plan 2025 (Programa
Estratégico Forestal – PEF 2025). Combined, these
set the framework for SFM. Mexico has developed

C&I frameworks for both its temperate forests(based on the Montreal Process framework) and its
tropical forests (based on the ITTO C&I). Mexico’s
submission to ITTO for this report was not in the
ITTO C&I reporting format.
Forest policy and legislation. As one of the main
actions specified in PEF 2025, a new forest law (theGeneral Law for Sustainable Forest Development,
Ley General de Desarrollo Forestal Sustentable –LGDFS) was prepared in 2003 and its regulations
enacted in 2005, when the incorporation of theforest sector in a broader environmental framework
was formalized. The law emphasizes the importanceof forest ecosystem services and their consideration
in forest management.
The LGDFS establishes eight instruments: Forest
Development Planning (La Planeación del Desarrollo
Forestal); the National Forest Information System(Sistema Nacional de Información Forestal); theNational Forest and Soil Inventory (Inventario
Nacional Forestal y de Suelos); forest zoning; theNational Forest Registry (Registro Forestal Nacional);
official forest regulations (Normas Oficiales
Mexicanas en Materia Forestal); the National System
of Forest Management (Sistema Nacional de Gestión
Forestal); and an annual satellite assessment offorest-cover change.
A number of special programs have been set up
in the last 15 years to bring greater consistency
to forest policy. Among the most important are
the Forest Development Program (Programa de
Desarrollo Forestal – PRODEFOR); the National
Reforestation Program (Programa Nacional de
Reforestación), which is designed to promote thereforestation of deforested and/or degraded areas;
the Program for the Conservation and Sustainable
Management of Forest Resources in Mexico

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

Total*Of which PFE Notes’000 haState ownership (national, state orprovincial government)
Other public entities (e.g.
municipalities, villages)
Total public
Owned by local communities and/orIndigenous groups
Privately owned by individuals, firms,
other corporate

2900

-

0

-

2900
45 700-17 000-National forests and forests that have not been allocated to anon-state owner.

The total area is unclear and varies according to source.
The total area of privately owned forest is unclear. Plantation
development also affects the area that is classified under
privately owned forests.

*
Includes non-tropical forests. Note that the total differs to that shown in Table 1 due to differing sources.
Source: Government of Mexico (2010b), CONAFOR (2010).

345

Status of tropical forest management 2011

(Programa de Conservación y Manejo Sustentable
de Recursos Forestales en México); the program forpromoting and developing commercial plantations(PRODEPLAN) and, among various programsfor ecosystem services, the Program for Payments
for Environmental and Hydrological Services(Programa de Pago por Servicios Ambientales ehidrológicos) under the broader ProÁrbol programof the National Forestry Commission (Programade Desarrollo Forestal – CONAFOR). These
programs are geared mainly towards community
development and the reduction of poverty throughthe restoration of natural capital.
Institutions involved in forests. Mexico is a
representative, democratic and federal republic
comprising 31 states and one federal district.
Each state is autonomous in all internal affairs.
Many of the states have considerable interest inenvironmental issues such as forest restorationand conservation, and several have their own
secretariats for environmental and forestry issues(ITTO 2006). At the federal level, the Secretariat
for Environment and Natural Resources (Secretaríade Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales de México –SEMARNAT) is the government agency responsible
for natural resources, including forests. With the
new forest law entering into force, SEMARNAT
was assigned the task of “formulating andrunning the national policy for sustainable forest
development, and assuring its coherence withenvironmental and national natural resources aswell as those policies related to rural development”.
This function is carried out in coordination
with CONAFOR through the eight instruments
established in the LGDFS.
SEMARNAT is responsible for the sectoral planand maintains control over the formulation of forest
management plans. Through its recently created
32 state offices, CONAFOR is responsible for,among other things, the implementation of PEF
2025.b CONAFOR has the objective of developing,encouraging and driving activities associated withproduction, conservation and restoration in forests,
as well as participating in the formulation of plansand programs and the application of SFM policy.
The Federal Office for Environmental Protection(Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente –PROFEPA) is in charge of inspection, surveillanceand sanctions within forest production areas andnatural protected areas. There are also technicaland capacity-building institutes such as the346

National Forest and Agriculture Research Institute(Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales yAgropecuarias).
Other institutions that play a supportive and/or
complementary role in conserving and managing
Mexico’s forest estate are the National Commission
for Natural Protected Areas (Comisión Nacionalde Áreas Naturales Protegidas); the National
Biodiversity Commission (Comisión Nacional parael Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad); and the
National Institute of Ecology (Instituto Nacional deEcología).
NGOs play a major advocacy role on behalfof communities and are also important in
information-sharing and capacity-building forcollaborative forest management. Community
organizations have a strong influence on the use andmanagement of forest areas. However, communities
still need to be more strongly involved in thedevelopment of forest policy if they are to become
active agents in the design of solutions rather
than simply receivers of subsidies (Government of
Mexico 2010a).

Status of forest management
Forest for production
SEMARNAT issues authorizations to owners forforest harvesting, based on technical studies andforest management plans (programas de manejo
forestal) as required by forest law. Three kinds ofharvesting permit are available: small-scale, for areasof up to 20 hectares; medium-scale, for areas of
20–250 hectares; and commercial scale, for areas
larger than 250 hectares in size (ITTO 2006).
PROFEPA is responsible for the enforcement of
harvesting authorization. Even though capacity
for law enforcement is growing and forest law
clearly establishes measures to punish unauthorized
land-use change and illegal logging, insufficienthuman and financial resources are available toenforce laws effectively. Moreover, there are areas
within the country where government personnel
have limited access due to the presence of organizedgroups of illegal loggers and drug-traffickers(Government of Mexico 2010a).
Tropical production forests in Mexico are located in
the states of Campeche and Quintana Roo, where
forest management is conducted largely by ejidos.
Ejidos not only harvest natural forests, they also

MEXICOconduct enrichment planting and forest restoration
activities on the basis of forest management plans.
The total area of potentially managed tropicalforests is estimated at 8.4 million hectares.a Logging
in tropical forests is carried out by forest owners andcommunities as well as by contractors working fortimber traders or the forest industry. Forest owners
must employ at least one forestry professional
who is in charge of forest management, and theymust also present a forest management plan and a
yearly harvesting plan. Minimum cutting diameters
vary by state. In Quintana Roo, for example, theminimum diameter is 55 cm for high-value species
and 35 cm for other species (ITTO 2006).
The majority of forest production is carried out by
ejidos. The extent of forest within ejidos varies, fromaround 300 hectares to nearly 450 000 hectares. An
estimated 9 million hectares of closed forests (bothtemperate and tropical) are covered by management
plansc for the production of timber and/or NTFPs.
The estimated total tropical forest area harvested
annually is 750 000 hectares, distributed in 584
forest management units.
Timber harvesting in moist tropical forest involves
the selective cutting of high-value tree species, inparticular Cedrela odorata (cedro rojo) and Swietenia
macrophylla (caoba) and 20–30 common hardwood
species. Well-established silvicultural systems
known as the Silvicultural Development Method(Método de Desarrollo Silvícola) and the Mexican
Method of Forest Management (Método Mexicanode Ordenación de Montes) are applied in temperate
and pine forests. In the Mayan zone in the state of
Quintana Roo, several well-functioning FMUs areapplying polycyclic forest management and someare certified (ITTO 2006). In general, however,ejidos find themselves in a vicious circle: income
derived from forest activities is often insufficient
to justify the long-term investments required to
improve their operations.b

A national forest and soils inventory involving
26 220 geo-referenced permanent plots was carriedout between 2004 and 2007. About 20% of theplots were re-measured in 2008–09.
Silviculture and species selection. According toGovernment of Mexico (2010b), approximately
1.4% of total national timber production comesfrom tropical species (common and precious).
Caoba and cedro rojo are the most economicallyimportant species harvested in natural forests.
In some ejidos these two species are also used inplantations and for enrichment planting. Besides
the species listed in Table 4, the following species
are harvested in significant volumes: Brosimum
alicastum (ramón), Bucida buceras (pucte), Ceiba
pentandra (seiba), Bursera simarouba (chaka),
Dalbergia spp (guanciban, granadillo), Dendropanaxarboreus (sac-chaca), Dialium guineense (tamarindo),
Enterolobium cyclocarpum (guanacaste),Pseudobombax ellipticum (amapola), Simarouba
glauca (pasak), Tabebuia donnell-smithii (guayacán)
and Terminalia amazonica (roble).a
Planted forest and trees outside the forest. In
2006 Mexico had an estimated 170 000 hectaresof planted forests in the tropics, including 88 000
hectares for timber production.a FAO (2010a)
reported a total planted forest area (tropical andtemperate) of 3.20 million hectares and estimatedthe annual increase in the total area of planted
forests country-wide in the period 2005–10 at
162 000 hectares.
The main planted species in tropical Mexico are
eucalypts (Eucalyptus urophylla, E. grandis andE. urograndis), Gmelina arborea (melina), Hevea
brasiliensis (hule, for timber production) and
Tectona grandis (teca). The latter is becoming
increasingly important, with plantations now
covering about 19 000 hectares.a Increasingly,
native species are being used in new plantations.

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Swietenia macrophylla (caoba, kobchi)*

The most important harvested species by value; together with cedrorojo accounts for about 15% of the annual production.
Both caoba and cedro rojo are being planted due to shortage ofsupply.
Known also as sabicu or wild tamarind. Wood is highly valued,
especially for shipbuilding.
Common wood for construction and furniture.
Decorative species for interior use.

Cedrela odorata (cedro rojo)*
Lysiloma latisiliquu; L. bahamensis (tzalam)*Lonchocarpus lanceolatus (machiche)*Metopium brownei (chechen, palo roso)**
Also listed in ITTO (2006).
Source: Government of Mexico (2010b).

347

Status of tropical forest management 2011

The estimated area of cedro rojo and caoba
plantations in 2010 was 25 000 hectares.a There
are about 4000 hectares of plantations of othernative species, in particular Terminalia amazonica,
Tabebuia spp and Ceiba pentandra; outside thetropics, most plantations are of pines.a Chamaedorea
elegants (palma camedor) is the main tree species
planted for NTFPs. A national forest inventory in1994 estimated that 10.7 million hectares of land
were available in Mexico for the establishment ofplanted forests, although only 4–5 million hectares
are suitable for that purpose (ITTO 2006).

hectares of production forests are not yet sustainably
managed (Government of Mexico 2010b). Of
the 8500 ejidos, about 2500 were conducting
commercial harvesting in 2008 (ibid.). Staff at
CONAFOR estimate that about 750 000 hectaresof the tropical production PFE is under sustainable
management.b This is the figure used in Table 5;
it includes the six formerly certified natural forests(where management has not changed significantly
since certification lapsed) and semi-natural planted
forests in three other ejidos now in the process ofcertification.

Forest certification. As of February 2011, about
614 000 hectares of forest were certified (mostly
outside the tropics, down from 750 000 in
mid 2010) (FSC 2011). In December 2010 an
estimated area of 98 960 hectares of forests (inboth tropical and temperate areas) were in theprocess of certification.b A total of 31 FMUs ofnatural and planted forests are FSC-certified, thegreat majority of them in ejidos. In 2006 there
were six FSC-certified FMUs covering about
163 000 hectares of tropical forests in Quintana
Roo, but as of December 2010 none of thosecertificates remained valid. The main reason for thenon-renewal of certificates appears to have been
financial rather than technical, particularly thehigh transaction costs for maintaining certification
status and the lack of a sufficient price premiumfor certified timber and timber products. The only
valid certified forests in tropical Mexico were twoplanted forests covering an area of about 20 600
hectares and a small area of 12 000 hectares ofnatural forests (FSC 2011).

Timber production and trade. Total roundwood
production in Mexico was estimated at morethan 40 million m3 in 2008.a There are differing
estimates of tropical hardwood production. About
495 000 m3 of tropical industrial roundwood
was produced in 2008 (7.3% of total industrial
roundwood production), of which 37 683 m3 wereof the ‘noble’ species cedro rojo and caoba and theremainder were of common hardwood species.c
ITTO (2011) reported a total non-coniferous
tropical industrial roundwood production of
942 000 m3 in 2008.

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. As most forests are either
community or privately owned, the implementationof SFM requires extensive and continuous
consultation with landowners. SEMARNAT
estimates the total area managed sustainably inthe country at 9 million hectares, while 12 million

Nearly the entire volume of industrial roundwood
production is for internal consumption. The areaof cedro, caoba and teak plantations is increasing tohelp satisfy demand for high-quality hardwoods.a
Non-timber forest products. NTFPs play animportant role in the economies of many ejidos
in the tropical part of Mexico.a More than 1000
species are used as NTFPs throughout Mexico,of which 70 are subject to some form of control(ITTO 2006). NTFPs include ornamental plants,
resin, bamboo fibres, wax, tannin and gums,
medicine, fruits, nuts, spices and honey. Naturalgum (chicle natural) from Manilkara zapota)
recently became an important niche product forexport, providing employment for more than 2000
people in the states of Campeche, Quintana Roo
and Yucatán.a Besides chicle, the most important

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)
Reporting
year

Total

2005*
2010

7880
8400

Natural (tropical forests)
CertifiedWith
Available for
harvesting
management
plans
8600
8600
163
8400
750
12

*

As reported in ITTO (2006).

**

Includes semi-natural planted forests.

348

Sustainably
managed

Total

163

100

PlantedWith
management
plans
34

750**

171

84

Certified

0
20.6

MEXICOproducts from tropical regions include copal,
products from different palms such as Chamaedorea
spp (palma camedor or palmilla), Sabal spp (palmade sombrero), Scheelea liebmannii (palma real),
Byrsonima crassifolia (fruits of nanche) and Pimenta
dioica (pimienta gorda).
Forest carbon. According to Gibbs et al. (2007),
Mexico’s tropical forests contain 4360–5920 MtC
in their biomass. Masera et al. (2001) estimatedthe total forest carbon stock of Mexican forests(temperate and tropical) at about 17.8 GtC.
According to the Government of Mexico (2010a),
14% of Mexico’s total GHG emissions areproduced by deforestation and forest degradation,
including as a result of forest fire, erosion andpests. In preparing for REDD+, Mexico has
been able to build on its relative strengths, suchas policy experience in community forestry andecosystem services as well as on past investments inforest assessment and management (Governmentof Mexico 2010a). Mexico is engaged in theForest Carbon Partnership Facility and is one of
the recipient countries of the Forest Investment
Program. It is also a leading country in the REDD+
Partnership and is engaged in UN-REDD as anobserver. Mexico has a REDD working group in
CONAFOR, a working group on climate change
in SEMARNAT, and an inter-secretary commission
on climate change to ensure the consideration offorests in the wider climate-change agenda. Table 6
indicates Mexico’s forest carbon potential.

Forest for protection
Soil and water. Large parts of Mexico’s forest estate
are classified as water protection areas (cuencas deamortiguamiento), particularly in the tropical southeastern part of the country. For example, 40% of
the country’s freshwater is produced in the Selva
Lacandona, a tropical forest in the state of Chiapas.a
The Government of Mexico supports watershed
protection through a system of payments for

Chicle and timber production in a certified ejido in Quintana
Roo (left: tree of Manilkara zapota; right: tree of Swietenia
macrophylla).

ecosystem and watershed services (programa de pago
por servicios ambientales e hidrológicos de ProÁrbol).
ProÁrbol produces maps that identify zones that are
eligible for payments for hydrological services. No
figures are available on the extent of forests set aside
for mainly water and soil protection purposes.
Biological diversity. Mexico is one of the world’s
top ten most biologically diverse countries withregard to the number of vertebrate and vascularplant species. It has the highest diversity of reptilesof any country and is third for bird diversity andfourth for terrestrial mammals. There are more
plant species in Mexico than in the United States
and Canada combined. Seventy mammals, 26 birds,
54 reptiles, 196 amphibians, eight arthropods and47 plants found in forests are listed as criticallyendangered, endangered or vulnerable on the
IUCN red list of threatened species (IUCN 2011).

Table 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)% forestwithcanopycover >60%

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

4360–5920

35*++

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
sink capacity monitoring
capacity
to 2030++++++

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+++

Importance Engagementinof forest
international
fire/
REDD+
biomass
processes
burning+++++++++ high; ++ medium; +low; estimate of national forest carbon based on Gibbs et al. (2007); estimate of % total forest with canopy cover>60% based on UNEP-WCMC (2010).
*
Tropical forests only.

349

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Mexico has listed 53 plant species in CITES
Appendix I and 1439 plant species in Appendix II,
including Swietenia macrophylla (UNEP-WCMC
2011).
Extent of protected areas. About 24.4 million
hectares of tropical and temperate forests andsemi-arid woodlands are officially declared asprotected areas (áreas naturales protegidas), of which
53% (12.9 million hectares) are part of the national
system of protected areas (Sistema Nacional deAreas Naturales Protegidas – SINAP).a This figure
is significantly higher than that reported in ITTO
(2006), of 17.9 million hectares. Discrepancies
remain in the definition and number of protectedareas; for example, it appears that some designatedprotected areas are on private land, and theirprotection status is unclear (ITTO 2006). In thetropical zone, 19 forested protected areas and one
monument – with various designations, such as
biosphere reserves, national parks, flora and fauna
reserves, and monuments – are integrated in SINAP,
covering a total area of about 3.015 million hectares(Box 1).a In the temperate zone, twelve forested
protected areas are part of SINAP, covering an areaof 1.25 million hectares.a
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. The majority of Mexico’s
tropical forests have protected-area status; generally,

this status is respected and laws are enforced.aConsequently, all those protected areas in SINAP
are considered in this report to be under SFM(Table 7).

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. The direct contribution of thetropical timber sector to employment could be as
high as 90 000 jobs, but a considerable numberof people employed in the sector work informallyand are not counted in official statistics.a The
contribution of the national forest sector to GDP
in 2007 was about US$2 billion (1.5%)a, comparedwith 1% in 2003 (ITTO 2006). In 2009, about
26% of the national consumption of wood products
was produced domestically and the remainder(mainly cellulose and paper) was imported, valued
at more than US$5 billion (CONAFOR 2010).
Livelihood values. It is estimated that 12–13
million people live in forest areas in Mexico, about
five million of whom are Indigenous. Most forestdependent Indigenous people live in conditions of
extreme poverty, with limited access to education,
public services and labour (Government of Mexico
2010b). Impoverished people tend to rely on
fuelwood as an energy source for cooking, which
may cause forest degradation where fuelwood is
scarce. In Mexico, tropical forests are nearly entirely

Box 1 Forested protected areas in tropical Mexico
Protected area

State

Area (ha)Calakmul Biosphere Reserve
Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve
Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve
Montes Azules – Selva Lacandona Biosphere Reserve
Parque Nacional Isla Contoy
Pantanos de Centla Biosphere Reserve
Chamela – Cuixmala Biosphere Reserve
La Encrucijada Biosphere Reserve
Yum Balam Flora and Fauna Protection Area
Arrecifes de Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve
Lacantún Biosphere ReserveÁrea de Protección de Flora y Fauna Chan-KinÁrea de Protección de Flora y Fauna Uaymil
Ría Lagartos Biosphere Reserve
Ría Celestún Biosphere Reserve
Los Petenes Biosphere Reserve
Parque Nacional de Xcalak
Parque Nacional Huatulco
Monumento Natural Bonampak
Total

Calakmul, Campeche
Quintana Roo
Veracruz
ChiapasQuintana Roo
TabascoJaliscoChiapasQuintana Roo
Quintana Roo
ChiapasChiapasQuintana Roo
Yucatán
Yucatán and CampecheCampeche
Quintana Roo
OaxacaChiapas723 185528 148
155 122331 2005126
302 70713 142144 868
154 052
34 92761 87412 18589 11860 34881 482282 858
17,94911 8914357
3 014 539

Source: www.conanp.gob.mx/que_hacemos/sinap.php.

350

MEXICO

Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)***

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV
(tropical only)

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

5600
3649**

1040
3015

-

3015

3015

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Only forested protected areas classified in SINAP in tropical areas.

owned by ejidos, and forest management for timberand NTFPs generates a significant part of family
livelihoods.a
Social relations. Communities in Mexico are
greatly involved in both forest management andconservation. There are many models for good
resource management and forest enterprises,
such as the PROCYMAF (Programa de Desarollo
Forestal Comunitario), a community forest
management project.a Generally, however, ejidos
and communities lack the organization and funds
to manage forests and woodlands effectively.a Thereis also often a divergence between national interests
to protect and manage forests and particular local
interests. There is an ongoing conflict in tropicalforests in the states of Chiapas and Oaxaca overa lack of access to land and insecurity of tenure(Government of Mexico 2010a).

Summary
The management of Mexico’s forests differs
greatly between the pine and oak forests in thetemperate zone, the forests in semi-arid regions,and the moist tropical forests in the south. The
majority of tropical forests are managed bycommunities. Problems that obstruct progress
towards the sustainable management of closed
forest areas in ejidos include a lack of resources
and know-how for the economic use of forest
resources, and discrepancies in the objectives
between communities, the private sector and forest
authorities. There have been considerable advancesin policies that give greater recognition and rights
to ejidos and communities. Nevertheless, land
allocation and land-use change remain a key issue in
Mexico’s forests.
Good progress has been achieved in forest
certification, although to date much of it has beenoutside the tropics. The government has taken
steps to tackle deforestation and forest degradation
through REDD+, address shortcomings in the

sector, combat illegal logging and improve fire
management.

Key points•

Mexico has no formally designated PFE.
Nevertheless, about 12.2 million hectares(compared with 13.6 million hectares in 2005)of tropical forest may be considered toconstitute a tropical-forest PFE, comprising
8.40 million hectares of natural production
forest (compared with 7.88 million hectares in2005), 3.65 million hectares of protection forest(compared with 5.60 million hectares in 2005)
and 171 000 hectares of planted forest(compared with 100 000 hectares in 2005).

•

Differences in estimates of the PFE between
2005 and 2010 are most likely due to the lackof a formal PFE rather than to real change.

•

Overall, the rate of deforestation has apparently
slowed but is still high in some states.
Over-harvesting and the illegal harvesting offorest resources are still widespread, although
now less so in the tropics than in the temperate
zone.

•

An estimated 750 000 hectares of the tropical
production PFE and the entire protection PFE
is under SFM.

•

Considerable efforts are under way to increase
the planted-forest estate, including with local
broadleaved species.

•

Ejidos, local communities and private owners
hold tenure rights to more than 90% of
Mexico’s forests. The area of state-owned forests
is less than 5%. Nevertheless, continuing
conflicts over land use and land-use change areapparently inhibiting SFM in some states,
including in the tropics.

•

Mexico is actively pursuing REDD+ as a major
new instrument for encouraging the protection

351

Status of tropical forest management 2011and management of natural forests, mainly
through community-based forest management.

ITTO (2011, website accessed January 2011). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).

aGovernment of Mexico (2010b).

IUCN (2011, website accessed January 2011). IUCN Red listof threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).

b

Information derived from discussions held withrepresentatives of government, civil society and the private
sector at the international workshop on governance and
REDD, held 30 August­–3 September 2010 Oaxaca,
Mexico.

Masera, O., Ceron, A. & Ordóñez, J. (2001). Forestry
mitigation options for méxico: finding synergies between
national sustainable development priorities and global
concerns. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Climate
Change 6(3-4): 289-310.

c

Personal communications with officials at SEMARNAT,2010.

McSweeney, C., New, M. & Lizcano, G. (undated, website
accessed March 2011). UNDP climate change country
profiles: Mexico (available at http://country-profiles.geog.
ox.ac.uk/).

Endnotes

References and other sources
CONAFOR (2010, website accessed July 2010). Available at
http://www.conafor.gob.mx/portal/.
FAO (2010a). Global forest resources assessment 2010 country
report: Mexico (available at http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).
FAO (2010b). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 Full
Report. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FSC (2011, website accessed February 2011). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).
Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007). Monitoringand estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDDa reality. Environmental Research Letters 2 (available at http://
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Government of Mexico (2010a). Readiness preparation proposal.
Submitted to the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility(available at http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/
node/257).
Government of Mexico (2010b). Informe de Avances deMéxico sobre el Estado de la ordenación forestal en losbosques tropicales y templados. Submission to ITTO by
CONAFOR, Mexico City, Mexico.
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).

352

SEMARNAT (2005). Vulnerabilidad y adaptacion (available
at http://www.semarnat.gob.mx/queessemarnat/
politica_ambiental/cambioclimatico/Documents/enac/
sintesis/070110%20HENAC.2.VYA_compl.pdf ).

Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World
Atlas of Mangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. Data prepared for
ITTO. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed January2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
March 2010). World population prospects: the 2008
revision (searchable database available at http://esa.
un.org/unpp/p2k0data.asp).

PANAMA

Panamaas well as species from the Cicadaceae, Rubiaceae,
Mirsinaceae, Musaceae and other families.
Panama’s mangroves cover about 174 000 hectares(Spalding et al. 2010) on the Pacific coast and,to a lesser extent, on the Atlantic coast. Tropicalevergreen humid forests, receiving 2500 mm rain
per year or more, occur typically in low-lying andmedium-altitude areas of the Atlantic coast, where
they cover a considerable area. Other forest types
characterized by the dominance of a few species are:•Oak (Quercus spp) montane forests, which arefound in the Talamanca mountains. These aresometimes fully closed, with a dominant storeyof two species of oak and a few other species.

•

Cativo (Prioria copaifera) forests, which arefound alongside mixed forest stands, always in
the proximity of rivers on inundated areas at
low altitudes, covering about 40 000 hectares.

•

Orey (Campnosperma panamensis) forests, which
occur on poorly drained ground in the western
Atlantic coastal region in Bocas del Toro
Province, covering about 3500 hectares.

Forest resources
Panama has a land area of 7.48 million hectares
and an estimated population in 2010 of 3.5 million
people (United Nations Population Division 2010).
Panama is ranked 60th out of 182 countries in
UNDP’s Human Development Index (UNDP2009). It can be divided into four biogeographicalzones: the Cordillera de Talamanca, which extends
southwards from Costa Rica in the west, withpeaks of more than 3000 m; the central lowlands,
which are bisected by the Panama Canal; the largely
forested eastern region (Darién), characterized by aseries of mountain ranges (San Blas and Portobello)
up to 1000 m in altitude and hilly landscapes up to
800 m; and the lowlands on the Caribbean coast.
Nearly 90% of the country lies below 1000 m.
FAO (2010a) estimated the forest area at 4.29
million hectares (57% of the land area), while theGovernment of Panama (2009a) estimated it at
3.07 million hectares (41% of the land area).
Forest types. The prevalent forest type in Panama
is deciduous tropical semi-humid forest, together
with dry, moist submontane and montane forests.
Stands of the tropical semi-humid deciduous forest
are heterogeneous, with Cavallinesia platanifolia
an emergent species above the forest canopy.
Anacardium excelsum and Hura crepitans are among
the most common species in the dominant storey.
The lower storey contains various species of palms

Permanent forest estate. According to existingland-use plans, 75% (5.6 million hectares) of theland area in Panama is suitable for forest use.a In
some areas, forests are used in shifting cultivationand for cattle-ranching with low productivity. The
1994 Forest Law (Ley Forestal 1/94) classifies forest
into production, protection and ‘special’ areas;
the latter includes scientific, historic, educational,
tourism and recreational areas. Indigenous
territories (comarcas1) contain an estimated 150 000
hectares of production forest. About 140 000
hectares in the provinces of Colon, Bocas del Toro
and Veraguas have not yet been harvested and may
also be considered potential production forest.
The Government of Panama (2009a) reported 2.3
million hectares of permanent production forests,
which is an increase of nearly 300 000 hectares
over that reported for 2005. The production
PFE shown in Table 1 is unchanged from 2005
but the protection PFE has increased due to theclassification of additional protected areas.
1 In Panama, the comarca indígena is an administrative region for an
area with a substantial Indigenous population. Three comarcas areequivalent to provinces and two smaller comarcas are subordinate toprovinces and considered equivalent to a corregimiento (municipality).

353

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal forest
area range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

2005*
2010

2.9–3.5
3.1–4.3

3052
2110*****‡PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted

Total

350
350‡

1986
2301

56
71

1580
1880‡

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Calculated using the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) (49.2%) and the total
natural forest area as estimated by FAO (2010a).
According to Government of Panama (2009a).

Forest ecosystem healththe Kuna Yala (also known as San Blas) comarca,
since most of its 47 communities are on low-lying
coralline atolls. Some communities have alreadyindicated a need to re-locate to the mainland.

Deforestation and forest degradation. On
average, Panama lost an estimated 42 000
hectares of forest per year in the 1990s (1.18%
per year, FAO 2010b). ANAM (2008) estimatedthe deforestation rate of natural forests between
2000 and 2008 at about 27 800 hectares (0.96%)
annually, significantly less than in the previous
decade, and FAO (2010b) put the rate at 0.36%
for the period 2005–10. The highest rate of
deforestation was in Darien Province, where nearly
4400 hectares were being cleared per year, followed
by Colon Province (3700 hectares), the Ngäbe
Bugle comarca (3400 hectares) and Bocas del Toro
Province (3000 hectares) (ANAM 2008). Drivers ofdeforestation include urbanization, cattle-ranching,agro-industrial development, unregulated shifting
cultivation (rozas), open mining, poor logging
practices, charcoal-making and fire (ITTO 2005).
Table 2 shows the estimated area of degraded andsecondary forests.

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. Forest ownership is divided into
public, private, comarcas and, since 2008, a new
category of Indigenous land rights known as tierras
colectivas. The majority of the forest estate, however,is state-owned (Table 3). The 1972 Constitution
recognizes comarcas and gives the Indigenous
communities therein authority to manage theirlands. In total, the comarcas comprise 28% of
the national territory, several of which are mostly
forested (e.g. Emberá Wounaan comarca, 90%;
Kuna Yala comarca 86%, Government of Panama
2009b). As of 2008, the government agency
responsible for legal landholding titles, Programa
Nacional de Administración de Tierras, had legalized
102 000 land titles, but none in natural forest areas.
Criteria and indicators. The Government ofPanama used the ITTO C&I in its submission to
ITTO for this report.a

Vulnerability of forests to climate change.
Human-induced forest fire currently affects, on
average, about 7000 hectares of forest annually.a
The main issue related to vulnerability andadaptation to climate change pertains to low-lying
villages and communities that would be threatenedby a rise in sea level. This is especially true for

Forest policy and legislation. Forests do notreceive high political priority in Panama due totheir low contribution to economic development.a

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

Total’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land*

-

-

700
2000
730
900

*
An estimated 2 million hectares of former forest land is thought to be heavily degraded, mainly in the Central Cordillera.
Source: Government of Panama (2009a).

354

PANAMA

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

Total area Of which PFE Notes’000 haState ownership (national, state orprovincial government)
Other public entities (e.g.
municipalities, villages)
Total public
Owned by local communities and/orIndigenous groups
Private owned by individuals, firms,
other corporate

3955

3955

3955
753

3955
753

60

0

The 1994 Forest Law states that state forests include all naturalforests, the soils on which those forests are located, and statelands suitable for forestry. Nevertheless, under certain
conditions state forest lands can be titled (Larson 2006).
Natural forests in comarcas.
Regulations for forest management clearly recognize private
property rights to forests.

Source: Government of Panama (2009a).

Under a recent amendment to Law 30 (Leysobre Estudios de Impacto Ambiental, 1994),
environmental impact assessment processes may be
bypassed if the government determines there is a‘social interest’ in doing so. In 2010 an office wascreated in the Ministry of the Presidency (Ministeriode Presidencia) called ProDar, the goal of which is todevelop the Darien Gap, an area of forest separating
Darien Province from Colombia. Plans that could
affect forests there include the construction of aconnecting road with Colombia (the ‘missing link’in the Pan American Highway), the constructionof an electricity transmission line to Colombia
through the Emberá Wounaan comarca, andpetroleum exploration. Mining is anotherdevelopment priority for the government, which
could affect forests in the Cordillera de Talamanca.
In 2008 the Government of Panama published the
National Forest Development Plan (Plan Nacionalde Desarrollo Forestal: Modelo Forestal Sostenible).
Key elements of that policy are the establishmentof a PFE; inventories and forest management
plans for production and protection forests; andenvironmental impact assessments for production
forestry. With a change of government, however,the future of this plan is uncertain.

and research, and extension. By mid 2010,
however, the fund was still not functioning, andall forest-related taxes were going to generalrevenue.a Law 1/94 is currently being revisedwith a view to incorporating, among otherthings, forest management planning, forest
certification, forest auditing, regulations for
FONDEFOR, direct and indirect incentives fornatural and planted forests, the demarcation of
the PFE, the participation of stakeholders, andthe creation of a C&I national commission.
•

Law 24/1992 created incentives for reforestation
and Article 43 of Law 1/94 states further that all
private forest land covered by forests, either
natural or planted, is exempt from national
taxes, provided that the landowner is registeredin the Registro Forestal and a certificate ofownership has been issued. Although aimed atenterprises, associations, community
organizations and cooperatives, according tosome commentators only commercial
enterprises have benefited from the incentives sofar. Problems relate to tax evasion, theover-stating of costs, and a failure to maintainplantations over time.

•

The Wildlife Law (24/95) establishes thatwildlife is part of the natural patrimony ofPanama and provides for the protection,
restoration, research, management anddevelopment of the country’s genetic resources,
including rare species.

•

The 1998 General Law on the Environment(Ley General de Ambiente, 41/98) establishes thebasic principles and norms for the protection,conservation and restoration of the environment
and promotes the sustainable use of natural
resources. It governs the administration of the

The main laws pertaining to forests are set out
below.
•

Panama’s first specific forest law (Law 1/94) was
passed in 1994, replacing Law 39 (1966), withthe aim of conserving and managing forest
resources sustainably. It emphasizes logging andreforestation and established the National Fundfor Forest Development and Protection (Fondode Protección y Desarrollo Forestal –FONDEFOR) to assist in forest promotion,
protection, management, supervision, control

355

Status of tropical forest management 2011environment and integrated social andeconomic objectives, and recognizes the right ofIndigenous communities to manage forests inthe comarcas (Article 98).
•

Decree Law No 2 (2003) approves a set of forest
management guidelines for Panama.

•Law 5 (Ley sobre Delito contra el Medio
Ambiente, 2005) sets out penalties forenvironmental crimes, such as illegal logging.

•

The Tierras Colectivas Law (Ley 72 sobre Tierras
Colectivas, 2008) establishes a procedure for theawarding of collective ownership oflands traditionally occupied by Indigenous
peoples and communities that are not within
the comarcas.

Panama is highly centralized, but this may change.
The aim of Law 37 on the Decentralization of
Public Administration, enacted in 2009, is “thepromotion of systematic decentralization of public
administration in the municipalities, to achievesustainable development of the country through thedelegation and transfer of administrative, economic,
political and social competence of the Executive
Body, in a gradual, progressive, orderly, regulated
and responsible manner”.
Institutions involved in forests. The 1998 GeneralLaw on the Environment established the National
Environment Authority (Autoridad Nacional del
Ambiente – ANAM) as an autonomous entity.
ANAM has a mandate to rule on matters of natural
resources and the environment, including forests,
and to ensure compliance with and the enforcementof applicable laws, regulations and national policies.
ANAM develops basic principles and norms forthe protection, preservation and restoration of
the environment and promotes the sustainable
use of natural resources, including forests. There
are about 130 forest professionals in Panama, ofwhom approximately 50 work for ANAM.a Within
ANAM, the forest department (Departamento
de Desarrollo y Manejo Forestal) is responsible
for the implementation of the National Forest
Development Plan, but it has limited capacity.
In 2008 the Aquatic Resources Authority(Autoridad de los Recursos Acuáticos de Panamá)assumed responsibility for mangrove forest
management outside protected areas. The
Authority of the Panama Canal (Autoridad delCanal de Panamá) has a specific mandate for the356

management and conservation of forests in thevicinity of the Panama Canal.
Various NGOs are active in forest management andconservation, including the National Association
for the Conservation of Nature (Asociación
Nacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza), the
NATURA Foundation (Fundación NATURA) andthe National Reforestation Association of Panama(Asociación Nacional de Reforestadores de Panamá).

Status of forest management
Forest for production
Integrated land-use planning has been applied inseveral provinces since 2005. In that year, the first
integrated forest plan was prepared for 27 000
hectares in the Emberá-Wounaan comarca, with thehelp of WWF. Plans have also been prepared for an
additional 45 000 hectares in the comarcas.
Forest management in natural forests is carried out
by way of various types of timber-cutting licences.
These include logging permits for domestic use (e.g.
for housing and boat–building), special permits
for subsistence (granted to poor individuals for
cutting a small number of trees for personal use orfor sale to commercial enterprises), five-year forest
concessions for areas 1000–5000 hectares in size,and 20-year concessions for areas larger than 5000
hectares.
Logging in natural forests on private lands requires
a forest inventory, a management plan and themarking of the trees to be cut. On state lands, anenvironmental impact assessment is also required.
The allocation of concessions larger than 5000
hectares is subject to public bidding. On sites
smaller than 5000 hectares, the entity seeking theconcession must publish its intentions for threeconsecutive days in a national newspaper so thatany conflicting claims on the area in question canbe addressed. If any of the area overlaps with acomarca, authorization by the comarca authority isrequired.
Under the Forest Law (1994), permits andconcessions for logging on comarcas and Indigenous
reserves are authorized by ANAM and by the
congress of the respective comarca, after a studyof the “scientific management plan” (Article 44).
Nevertheless, virtually no incentives or special
programs are available to promote or facilitate thePANAMA

production PFE, selective logging is conductedunder existing community permits, generally done
without regard to forest management guidelines(ITTO 2005). Moreover, Indigenous communities
have been known to sell their rights to such permits
to private companies at low prices.a

Twelve-year-old teak plantation on former pasture land in
Panama.

management of natural forests, which encourages
the high-grading of forests (mainly through cutting
permits), without regard to sustainability.b
Before 2002, 29 forest concessions were granted
over 67 150 hectares; since then, no new forest
concession licences have been requested or issued.
Seventeen permits (covering 3400 hectares of forest)
have been issued on private farms and 66 permits(covering 15 000 hectares) have been issued tocommunities. Six community permits have been in
operation since the end of 2004, while ANAM had
granted 5854 subsistence permits as of 2008.b
As of mid 2009, forest inventories had been
conducted over 127 000 hectares (including 94 500
hectares in the PFE). Seventeen forest management
plans had been approved in the PFE for an areaof 25 300 hectares, integrated forest/land-use
management plans had been developed for about
47 000 hectares, and an additional 140 000 hectares
were under consideration for further management
planning.a Nevertheless, over the majority of theForest management is occurring in some privately
owned plantations and national parks, and in
privately owned tracts of forests located mostly ineastern Panama. The Forest Law stipulates thatthe granting of licences for new concessions isconditional on the preparation of integrated forest
management plans for SFM and independent
monitoring of implementation, but few such plans
have been prepared.
Silviculture and species selection. No formal
silvicultural systems are applied in natural forests.
The most commonly harvested tree species areshown in Table 4; 12–15 tree species are harvested
and marketed to a significant extent. Species
commonly harvested in the past include Carapa
guianensis (tangare), Prioria copaifera (cativo),
Tabebuia rosea (oak), Calophyllum brasiliense(maria), Copaifera aromatica (cabimo), Dalbergia
retusa (cocobolo), Ocotea spp (bambito) and
Swietenia macrophylla (caoba). Species now being
considered in the market include Miroxylon
balsamum (bálsamo), Platymiscium pinnatum(quira), Hieronyma alchorneoides (zapatero), Puteria
spp (platano), Gyranthera darinensis (cucharo) andAstronium graveolens (zorro). Since 1970 about 50
species have been used by rural communities for
local use.a
Planted forest and trees outside the forest. In
2009 there were about 71 000 hectares of planted
foresta, an increase of 15 000 hectares over thatreported in ITTO (2006). Most are privately

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Anacardium excelsum (espavé)*

Important timber species over the past ten years with an annual
cut of more than 5000 m3.
Major timber species in the national market annual cut more than
4000 m3.
Important timber species that has maintained its value for many
years.
Old secondary forests, annual cut nearly 2000 m3.
From plantations, increasingly important in the national timbermarket; nearly 7000 m3 per year.

Miroxylum balsamum (bálsamo)*
Bombacopsis quinata (cedro espino)*
Cedrela odorata (cedro amargo)
Tectona grandis (teca)**

Also listed in ITTO (2006).

Source: Government of Panama (2009a).

357

Status of tropical forest management 2011

owned.a About 1.2 million hectares of land ispotentially available for plantation development.a
Of the total planted forest estate, 59 000 hectares
have been established since 1992a,b, the majority
by private and community landowners. While themain plantation species before 1990 was Pinus
caribaea (pino caribe), Tectona grandis (teak, teca)
has become the major species, with more than
47 000 hectares established since 1995.a Combined,
teca and pino caribe (11 000 hectares in 2008)
account for about 82% of the planted area. Other
planted species include valuable timber species
such as Cordia alliodora (laurel, planted as a shadetree for cacao), Bombacopsis quinata (cedro espino),
Terminalia amazonia (amarillo), caoba, zapatero,
Dipteryx panamensis (almendro) and cocobolo.

78 000 m3 in 2005 (ITTO 2011), but there isalso considerable production that is not officiallyregistered.b
Sawnwood production in 2009 was estimated atonly 9000 m3, down from about 30 000 m3 in2005 (ITTO 2011). The production of veneer
and plywood was negligible (ibid.). Total installedsawmill capacity is unknowna, although it has
been estimated at 200 000 m3 (ITTO 2006). The
primary processing industry is very small. There areabout 250 small secondary processing units using
antiquated equipment located in the periphery of
Panama City and in the central provinces.a
Panama exported about 7000 m3 of tropical
hardwood logs in 2009, down from about 37 000
m3 in 2008 and nearly 80 000 m3 in 2004. The
main exported timber is a planted species, teca, but
a significant quantity of bálsamo is also exported.

Forest certification. Nine companies have valid
FSC certificates covering a total area of 16 430
hectares (FSC 2011); all are for teak plantations.
No natural forests have been certified.

Non-timber forest products. Numerous wildlife
species provide important sources of protein in
Indigenous territories, including Agouti paca(conejo pintado), saino and venado. Many plants
are collected for medicinal purposes. Handicraft
products are important, such as the palm fruit
Phytelephas seemannii (tagua, known as vegetableivory) and more than 70 species producing
fibres such as Astrocaryum spp (chunga, used forbaskets), Socratea durissima (jira) and, in particular,
Carludovica palmata (the Panama-hat palm). The
wood of Dalbergia retusa is also the main raw
material for wooden handicrafts. Poles and theleaves of the palms Cryosophila guagara and Sabal
mauritiiformis (guágara) and various species ofbamboo are used for local construction. Fruits
and nuts from forest trees are collected for local
use and sale, including Borojoa patinoi (borojó),
a fruit with aphrodisiac properties, the fruit of
Quararibea cordata, which was introduced from
Colombia, and the oil of Jessenia bataua (aceite detrupa, an alternative to palm oil). The key cultural
plant for both the Kuna and the Embera is Genipa

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. Of the 350 000 hectaresof production forests, 27 000 hectares managed
by the forest enterprise of five communities in
Río Tupiza in the Emberá-Wounaan comarca canbe considered as sustainably managed for timber
production, as can an area of about 17 000 hectaresin Río Marragantí (Table 5). Another 18 000
hectares have been inventoried in Río Tuqueza
and an inventory for 10 000 hectares in Río
Chucunaque is being prepared (Diaz 2009, I. Diaz,pers. comm., 2010). The total area of forest coveredby management plans is about 72 000 hectares.
More than 1000 small landowners manage about
60 000 hectares of planted forest (ANAM 2008),
which can also be considered as well managed.
Timber production and trade. Total roundwood
production in 2005 was estimated at 1.54 million
m3, the majority of which was for fuelwood(FAO 2010a). Official industrial log production
was estimated at 42 000 m3 in 2009, down from

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)
Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

350
350

86
86**

*
**

358

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
63
72

CertifiedSustainably
managed

Total

0

56

PlantedWith
management
plans
32

44

71

47

0
0

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Comprising forests under concession or private and community permits.

Certified

12
16

PANAMA

americana, which is used for body-painting (C.
Potvin, pers. comm., 2010).
Forest carbon. According to Government ofPanama (2009b), forests and other wooded land
stock 1250 million tonnes of carbon in the fivecarbon pools (above and below-ground living
biomass, dead wood, litter, and soil organic carbon),of which 620 million tonnes are in living forest
biomass. Gibbs et al. (2007) estimated the forest
biomass carbon stock at 509–763 MtC and FAO(2010a) estimated it at 367 MtC.
Panama was one of the first countries to preparea REDD+ readiness plan for the Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility. Panama is participating in
UN-REDD and is a member of the REDD+
Partnership. Panama’s engagement in global
REDD negotiations was high to early 2010, but it
is unclear how the new government will position
itself. Panama has also submitted five reforestation
projects to the CDM.
A good proportion of Panama’s forests are intact, andthere is considerable potential to enhance carbon
stocks through forest restoration and reforestation(Government of Panama 2009b; Table 6).

Forest for protection
Soil and water. Forests managed principally
to protect soil and water cover about 156 000
hectares.a An estimated 406 500 hectares areclassified under the National System of Protected
Areas of Panama (Sistema Nacional de Áreas
Protegidas de Panamá – SINAP) as protection
forests.a Most of this forest is situated in thewatershed of the Panama Canal, which covers an
area of 518 000 hectares (ITTO 2005); forests havethe important function of protecting the Canalfrom siltation and ensuring an adequate supplyof water for the locks. The Ministry of Health,supported by ANAM, has a program of forest
restoration and reforestation in small watersheds
that serve as water sources for rural communities
and municipalities, supporting 200 tree nurseries.a

Biological diversity. Panama is very biodiverse forits size, with more than 10 400 species of vascularplants, 259 mammal species, 957 bird species, 229
reptile species and 179 amphibian species, and 1059
plant species are endemic.a Eleven mammals, 16
birds, 50 amphibians, one insect and eleven plants
found in forests are listed as critically endangered,endangered or vulnerable on the IUCN red listof threatened species (IUCN 2011). Four plant
species are listed in CITES Appendix I, 462 species– mainly from the families Orchidaceae, Cactaceae
and Zamiaceae, but also the tree species Swietenia
macrophylla, S. humilis, Guaiacum officinale and G.
sanctum – are listed in Appendix II, and three arelisted in Appendix III (UNEP-WCMC 2011).
Protective measures in production forests. No
protective measures are applied in the production
PFE beyond some general measures described in
the Forest Law. However, in those areas where
integrated forest management plans are being
implemented, high standards of soil and water
protection are being applied.a
Extent of protected areas. Currently 34% of thetotal land area of Panama is classified as underprotection. The legal basis for this is Resolution
JD-022-92, which defines the SINAP, and the1998 General Law on the Environment. SINAP(which includes the production PFE) covers morethan 2.95 million hectares, of which 2.69 million
hectares are terrestrial and 1.88 million hectares
are forested.a The smallest protected area is 290
hectares in size, the largest greater than 0.5 million
hectares.a Protected areas (not including the
production PFE) are distributed according to thefollowing management categories (not all of which
are forested):•

Seventeen national parks with a total area of 1.3
million hectares, of which 1.08 million hectares
are forested (IUCN category II).

Table 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)% forestwithcanopycover >60%

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

509–763

49++

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
sink capacity monitoring
capacity
to 2030++++

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

Importance Engagementinof forest
international
fire/
REDD+
biomass
processes
burning++++++ high; ++ medium; + low; estimate of national forest carbon based on Gibbs et al. (2007); estimate of % total forest with canopy cover>60% based on UNEP-WCMC (2010).

359

Status of tropical forest management 2011•

Three natural monuments totaling 5700
hectares (IUCN category III).

•

Five forest wildlife sanctuaries (136 000
hectares), six (partly forested) wetlands (192 000
hectares) and two protected landscapes (13 000
hectares), all corresponding to IUCN category V.

There are also 20 areas covering a total of
580 000 hectares in hydrological reserves, natural
recreational areas, biological corridors, multiple-use
areas and municipal protected areas not classified
into IUCN categories.a
The Darien National Park encompasses nearly 59%
of the total forested protected area. Twenty-four of
the 65 protected areas in SINAP are reported to beinterconnected.a
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. An estimated 722 000
hectares of forests in the protection PFE are coveredby administrative instruments (ITTO 2005) andbenefit from some form of management.a Simple
management plans exist for 29 protected forested
areas, covering about 368 000 hectares, althoughthese are generally not implemented due to a lackof financial resources and personnel.a Oestreicher
et al. (2009) concluded, however, that a great
majority of Panama’s forests in protected areas has
been protected effectively by applying a balanceof strong surveillance and enforcement measuresand stakeholder participation to find protection
strategies that generate alternative livelihood
options and economic benefits from conservation
for local communities. The core protected forest
area in the watershed of the Panama Canal/
Chagres National Park (about 180 000 hectares) is
generally considered well managed.b About 108 000
hectares of forested protected areas are physicallydemarcated.a These areas, together with the core
forest zone of the Panama Canal/Chagres National
Park and the high mountain cloud forest area of
the La Amistad International Park/Bocas del Toro

A member of the Kuna Yala community, Panama.

(which stretches across the border between Panama
and Costa Rica and covers about 80 000 hectares)
comprise the estimate of the protection PFE
considered to be under SFM shown in Table 7.

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. The contribution of the forest
sector to GDP was a low US$510 million in2008 (about 0.3% of GDP).a The sector makes
an important contribution locally, however,particularly in Indigenous communities. The
National Forest Development Plan estimated thepotential value of forest services at US$3180 per
hectare, of which US$782 is the estimated carbon
value. The forest sector employs about 10 600
people, many of them working in forest plantation
development. An additional 2000 people are
employed in processing units such as sawmills andtimber workshops.a

Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)
Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

1580
1880

1040
850**

326
406‡

396
396

180
368

*
**
‡

360

As reported in ITTO (2006).
According to UNEP-WCMC (2010). The Government of Panama (2009a) estimated 1.1 million hectares.
156 000 hectares are allocated strictly for watershed protection; 406 000 hectares are considered protection forests in moregeneral terms.

PANAMA

Livelihood values. Forty-four per cent of Panama’s
population lives in rural areas. Most of these people
are classified as either poor or extremely poor
(Larson 2006). Forests are generally considered acommon good and there is little awareness among
stakeholders – local communities, settlers invading
forest areas from other regions, and commercial
logging operators – of sustainable management
practices. ANAM gives special consideration to thecomarcas, where community forest concessions cancontribute to the livelihoods of local communities.
Such an approach has been tested through an
ITTO project in the Kuna Yala communities on the
Atlantic coast, with limited success.

Key points

Social relations. Indigenous peoples comprise 10%of the Panamanian population. The seven major
Indigenous groups – Ngabes (60% of the total
Indigenous population), Kunas (21%), Emberá,
Buglé/Bokata, Wounaan, Nasos and Bri-Bri(Moreno 2005) – (headed by a total of eleventraditional authorities) are represented in an apex
body, the Organisation Coordinadora Nacional delos Pueblos Indigenas de Panamá, which acts as aunited body in Indigenous matters (C. Potvin, pers.
comm., 2010). There is constant migration between
comarcas and tierra collectivas and urban centres forschooling and employment (ibid.).

•

Panama has an estimated PFE of 2.30 million
hectares (compared with 1.99 million hectares
in 2005), comprising 350 000 hectares ofnatural production forest (the same as estimatedfor 2005), 1.88 million hectares of protection
forest (compared with 1.58 million hectares in2005) and 71 000 hectares of planted forest(compared with 56 000 hectares in 2005).

•

An estimated 44 000 hectares of the production
PFE is under SFM. No forest is certified. An
estimated 368 000 hectares of the protection
PFE is under SFM.

•

The forest law recognizes the rights ofIndigenous communities to manage forests in
Indigenous reserves (comarcas).

•

Until recently, at least, the Government ofPanama has been fully engaged in REDD
negotiations and initiatives. The new
government has placed an emphasis on
development, including through the economic
development of Darien.

•

ANAM has insufficient human and financial
resources to carry out the field-level monitoring
and control of forest operations necessary toensure adherence to forest-related laws andregulations.

•

The private sector and civil society have been
involved only minimally in the preparation of
SFM policies and strategies. REDD-readinessplanning and ANAM’s new forest strategy may
lead to a more inclusive role for all stakeholders
in forest-based development.

•

There is a lack of information on the state of theforests and silviculture in the country’s naturalforests and an apparent lack of research andtraining capacity.

•

Illegal logging is widespread in the humid
forests, even in protected areas, and remains asignificant impediment to SFM.

Summary
The management of Panama’s PFE remains
problematic. Some pilot efforts have been initiatedand increased attention has been paid recently
to the preparation of inventories and forest
management plans, but small-scale subsistencelogging is still being carried out with little
oversight and makes a significant contribution tocontinuing forest degradation. Forest plantations
are continuously being developed, mainly on
private properties, and are the main driver of forest
development. The wood-processing industry is ina poor state, with antiquated equipment and anunder-supply of legally produced timber. Large
areas of forest are classified as protected, but arelatively small area of these is considered to beunder SFM. Forest management appears strongest
near the Panama Canal, indicating the importanceof forests for watershed protection, while increased
efforts are being undertaken to improve themanagement of production and protection forestsin the comarcas.

EndnotesaGovernment of Panama (2009a).

b

Information derived from the report of, and discussions
with participants at, a training workshop on ITTO criteria
and indicators, held 29 March–2 April 2004, Panama City,
Panama, attended by 42 people from government, civilsociety and the private sector.

361

Status of tropical forest management 2011

References and other sources
ANAM (2008). National report to the forest law compliance andgovernance process. Workshop FAO/ITTO, Accra Ghana.
Report prepared by MINEEF.
Diaz, I. (2009). Aplicación de los criterios e indicadores para eldesarrollo forestal sostenible de Panamá. Estudio del Casode la Empresa Forestal Comunitaria del Rio Tupiza. Reportto ITTO.
FAO (2010a). Global forest resources assessment 2010 country
report: Panama (available at http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).
FAO (2010b). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 Full
Report. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FSC (2011, website accessed January 2011). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).
Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007). Monitoringand estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDDa reality. Environmental Research Letters 2 (available at http://
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Government of Panama (2009a). Informe sobre los criterios
e indicadores de la OIMT para la ordenación sostenible
de los bosques tropicales. Formatos con respuestas para laactualización del progreso alcanzado por Panamá desde2004 a 2008 en materia de ordenación forestal. Preparedby Irving Diaz and 19 others. Autoridad Nacional del
Ambiente, Panama City, Panama.

ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2010, website accessed August 2010). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).
IUCN (2011, website accessed April 2011). IUCN red list of
threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).
Larson, A. (2006). Panama country case study. Rights andResources Initiative, Washington, DC, United States.
Moreno, A. (2005). Plan de desarrollo de los pueblos Indígenas,
Proyecto PPRRN-CBMAP II.
Oestreicher, J., Benessaiah, K., Ruiz-Jaen, M., Sloan, S., Turner,
K., Pelletier, J., Guay, B., Clark, K., Roche, D., Meiners, M.
& Potvin, C. (2009). Avoiding deforestation in Panamanianprotected areas: An analysis of protection effectiveness andimplications for reducing emissions from deforestationand forest degradation. Global Environmental Change 19:279–291.
Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World Atlas ofMangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. Data prepared for
ITTO. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.

Government of Panama (2009b). Readiness preparation
proposal (RPP). Submitted to the Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility, October 2009 (available at http://www.
forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/node/257).

UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed April2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html).

ITTO (2005). Consecución del Objetivo 2000 y la ordenación
forestal sostenible en Panamá. Report of the diagnostic
mission. Presented at the thirty-seventh session of theInternational Tropical Timber Council, December 2005.
ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.

United Nations Population Division (2011, website accessed
January 2011). World population prospects: the 2008
revision (searchable database available at http://esa.un.org/
unpp/).

362

PERU

Peru
are generally 35–40 m in height. These forests
have been used intensively in the past, leaving large
expanses of secondary forest (purma) dominatedby stands of fast-growing, light-demanding pioneer
species.
There are about 11.2 million hectares of arid andsemi-arid forests on the coast and semi-humid
forests in mountain and inner-mountain valleys.a
Peru has about 5300 hectares of mangroves at
Tumbes, in the extreme north bordering Ecuador(Spalding et al. 2010).

Forest resources
Peru has a land area of 129 million hectares and an
estimated population in 2010 of 28 million people(United Nations Population Division 2010). It
is ranked 78th out of 182 countries in UNDP’s
Human Development Index (UNDP 2009).
Peru has three broad ecoregions: the desert coastal
region, which covers 13.6 million hectares; thesemi-arid Andean mountain range (sierra), which
covers 39.2 million hectares; and the Amazon
Basin, including the eastern humid slopes of
the Andes, covering 75.7 million hectares. FAO(2010a) estimated Peru’s forest cover at 67.9
million hectares, which is 53% of the total land
area; 92% of these forests are in the Amazon Basin.
Other estimates of forest area include 71.3 million
hectaresa and 72 million hectares (Government of
Peru 2010).
Forest types. The main forest type in Peru is humid
forest (rainforest) in the Amazon. It covers about
57 million hectares, with sub-types that dependon altitude and soils, particularly their position
in relation to rivers. Terrace and hill forests – onrolling terrain with moderate slopes – are the mostwidespread humid forest sub-type, covering about
37 million hectares. The alluvial forests, including
those on the lower river terraces, offer some of thebest potential for integrated forest management andagroforestry because of their vigorous growth, flat
terrain and good accessibility; their upper stories

Permanent forest estate. Under the 2000 Forest
Law (Ley 27308/2000), the forest is classified
into the following categories: production forests(permanent and in reserve); forests on protection
land; forests for future use (forest plantations,secondary forests and degraded forests forrestoration); natural protected areas; forests in
Indigenous and rural communities; and local
forests. Permanent production forests are intended
for timber and non-timber production and theconservation of forest resources, and an approved
forest management plan is required. As of 2010,33.3 million hectares of permanent production
forests had been classified within the PFE.a
However, only an area of 18.7 million hectares
has so far been allocated for production purposes(Kometter 2010), and this figure is used in Table
1 for the production PFE. The area of protection
forest is about 19.4 million hectares, including
forests designated in the national protected-areasystem, privately protected areas, and regional
protected areas (áreas de conservación regionales).a
About 15.4 million hectares of forests areunallocated. The total planted forest is estimatedat 820 000 hectaresa, nearly 600 000 hectares ofwhich are for timber and fuelwood production andthe remainder are for protection.a The map in Box
1 shows Peru's production forests.

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. The
estimated average annual rate of forest change
in Peru in the period 1990–2000 was 269 000
hectares, or 0.4%; between 2000 and 2010 it was
94 000 hectares (0.1%) (FAO 2010b). Directcauses of deforestation include the development363

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Box 1 Permanent production forests, Peru

Amazon region; agricultural policies favouring
cash-crop development; development policies thatfavour energy generation; and new investment
opportunities due to globalization (ibid.). About
one-third of the forest estate is degraded or
secondary (Table 2).
Vulnerability of forests to climate change. Peru
is highly vulnerable to climate change, having
low-lying coastal areas; arid and semi-arid areas,
forested areas and areas liable to forest decay; areas
prone to natural disasters; areas liable to droughtand desertification; areas of high urban atmosphericpollution; areas with fragile ecosystems, including
mountainous ecosystems; and an economy thatis highly dependent on income generated fromthe production, processing, export and/or on
consumption of fossil fuels and associated energyintensive products.

Note:
Inserted as supplied, in original language.
Source: Government of Peru.

of new infrastructure such as highways (e.g.
carretera Iquitos–Nauta, the Brasil–Peru Interocean Highway and carretera Pucallpa–Lima);
new settlements in the Amazon Basin, including
the expansion of urban centres; the expansionof the agricultural frontier, including for cash
crops and shifting cultivation; the expansionof oil exploitation and hydro-electric schemes;
mining in the southern part of the Peruvian
Amazon; illegal logging; and the illicit cultivationof coca (Government of Peru 2010). Indirectcauses of deforestation include migration to thePeru has 70% of the world’s tropical glaciers, manyof which are retreating at a rapid rate (there has
been a decrease of 30% of glacial mass in 40 years;
Government of Peru 2008). A prolonged glacial
melt will exacerbate water shortages, mainly in thedrier areas of the country.
Peru is strongly affected by hydro-meteorologicalphenomena associated with el Niño. An estimated
72% of registered emergencies (e.g. droughts, heavy
rains, floods, frosts, hailstorms, avalanches andlandslides) are related to these phenomena, which
increased more than six-fold between 1997 and2006. Climate models project that el Niño will
intensify in coming decades.
According to the Government of Peru (2008), there
was a mean increase in temperature in the 20th
century of 0.31 °C and climate models projectthat there will be a minimum increase in mean
temperature of 2.6 °C in the next 50 years. Almost
the entire agricultural sector is suffering from

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

2005*
2010

65.2–86.4
67.9–72.0

64 20455 990**

*
**
‡
†

364

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlantedTotal

24 60018 700‡41 15038 920200–300
820†

16 30019 400As reported in ITTO (2006).
Calculated using the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) (81%) and the total
natural forest area as estimated by FAO (2010).
Includes only state production forests for timber use.
Comprises 580 000 hectares of production plantation, 240 000 hectares of plantations for protective purposes.

PERU

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

Total’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land

30 3005600
1200-

10 4007100
4500-

40 70012 7005700-

Source: Derived from Government of Peru (2010).

increasing water stress due to melting glaciers andchanging precipitation patterns. The productivityof especially small-scale agricultural production
systems is under threat, particularly in mountainous
regions, jeopardizing the income of smallholder
families.
Through a supreme decree, the Government of
Peru recently established the National Commission
for Climate Change (Comisión Nacional de Cambio
Climático) led by the Ministry of Environment(Ministerio del Ambiente – MINAM) comprising
representatives of government agencies, NGOs
and the private sector. The 2003 Climate Change
National Strategy is being updated. Forests andtrees play an important role in Peru’s climatechange adaptation strategy. However, adaptationand mitigation strategies remain separate, and forest
activities are considered to deal with mitigation
rather than adaptation.

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. Table 3 shows Peru’s forest area by
tenure. Forest lands are classified as public forests,
Indigenous forests or private forests. Communities
own an estimated 12.6 million hectares of thecountry’s forests (ITTO & RRI 2009), and nearly
1200 Indigenous communities possess land

rights in the Peruvian Amazon. However, there is
uncertainty over this ownership.a
Criteria and indicators. Peru has developed
standards for forest management. It has adopted
national C&I based on the Tarapoto Process, andconcession management plans are based on these.
The Government of Peru used the ITTO C&I in
its submission to ITTO for this report.a
Forest policy and legislation. The revised
national forest strategy prepared in 2002 wasofficially adopted by the Peruvian government inAugust 2004 (in Decreto Supremo 031-2004-AG)(ITTO 2006). It is implemented through theForestry and Wildlife Law (Ley Forestal y de Fauna
Silvestre – Ley 27308), which was adopted in
2000. The law prescribes several options for SFM
and reforestation, including 40-year concessions
for commercial timber, NTFPs, ecotourism andenvironmental services (Article 10); the sustainable
management of forests belonging to Indigenous
communities (Article 12); the sustainable
management of local forests by local governments
and rural populations (Decree 014/2001); and theestablishment of 40-year reforestation concessions(Article 28) (ITTO 2006).
As a consequence of the ratification of the UnitedStates–Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, in 2007

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

Total
area*

Of which PFE Notes

State ownership (national, state orprovincial government)

54 500**’000 haOther public entities (e.g.
municipalities, villages)
Owned by local communities and/orIndigenous groups
Private owned by individuals, firms,
other corporate***

39 3002900
13 20013 2001950

1650

PFE: publicly administrated forests, including forest concessions
for timber and Brazil nut, state reforestation and protectedareas.aForests reserved for communities and Indigenous groups (ITTO& RRI 2009).
Tierras de comunidades indígenas (ITTO & RRI 2009).
Industrial owners and smallholders combined.a (ITTO & RRI
2009 gave a figure of 5.2 million hectares.)

Note that the total is in the range given in Table 1.
Includes 15.2 million hectares of forests that are not yet classified.

365

Status of tropical forest management 2011

the Government of Peru embarked on a process
to reform the forest policy and law as well as torestructure and decentralize the system of forest
administration and governance. This was done ona fast track through a series of supreme decrees,
including the issuance of a new forest law. However,
the outcome was highly controversial and led to a
prolonged period of (at times violent) protest by
civil society and Indigenous people. Ultimately it
led to the rescinding of the forest law and otherrelated decrees and to the formation of a nationalroundtable for dialogue and reconciliation.
The approval of transference of responsibilities
from the National Institute of Natural Resources(Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales –INRENA, the former forest service) to regional
governments for forest-sector administration andgovernance was enacted by Supreme Decree No
011-2007-AG. Decentralization focuses on four
key faculties: administration; control; monitoring;and promotion. The process of decentralizing
facilities to regional governments has been slow
and problematic, and the transfer of funding andresources is proving to be a major obstacle.
Based on the extended reform dialogue since2007, a process to completely review the forest law
and forest policy was launched in 2009 throughthe creation of a multi-stakeholder platform toadvance the reform process in a participative andtransparent way. The proposed new law emphasizes
issues relating to the governance of forest resources
and SFM and particularly refers to participatory
forest management and the need to apply theprinciple of free, prior and informed consent
to the management and conservation of forest
resources. The draft law proposes the creation of
the National Forest and Wildlife Service (Servicio
Nacional Forestal y de Fauna Silvestre – SERFOR)
under the Ministry of Agriculture as the national
forest authority. It further recognizes regional
governments as the regional forest authorities
following the prescriptions of Article 51 of theOrganic Law on Regional Governments (Ley
Orgánica de Gobiernos Regionales).
The National Forest Conservation Program for
Climate-Change Mitigation (Programa Nacionalde Conservación de Bosques para la Mitigación delCambio Climatico) was launched in July 2010
and is considered to be the country’s major forest
development plan. The project Conserving
Community Forests (Conservando Bosques

366

Comunitarios) is the Program’s first intervention,
aiming to generate direct financial transfers to
Indigenous communities that contribute to forest
conservation.
Institutions involved in forests. Restructuring
and decentralization processes are ongoing in
the administration of forests in Peru and there
have been rapid and sometimes chaotic changes(Kometter 2010). The first steps were taken in2007 with the dismantling of INRENA andthe redistribution of its forest administrationand governance functions to the Ministry ofAgriculture (Ministerio de Agricultura – MINAG),
the newly created MINAM, and the Agency for
the Supervision of Forest Resources and Wildlife(Organismo Supervisor de Recursos Forestales y delFauna Silvestre – OSINFOR). OSINFOR was
created in June 2008 under the Presidency of theCouncil of Ministers (Presidencia del Concejo de
Ministros) and oversees forest-related taxation,
the sustainable management of forest goods andservices and forest conservation. Within MINAG,a new General Directorate of Forests and Wildlife(Direccion General de Flora y Fauna Silvestre –DGFFS) was created in 2008. However, for mostof the period since its creation the DGFFS has
operated with a very limited budget and few staff.
In mid 2010, based on the proposals made in thedraft forest law, SERFOR was made operational
under MINAG, with particular functions in a new
system of decentralized forest management under
the regional authorities for forests and wildlife(Government of Peru 2010). The National Service
for Protected Areas (Servicio Nacional de Areas
Naturales Protegidas – SERNANP) under MINAM
manages the National System of Public Protected
Areas (Sistema Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas
por el Estado – SINANPE). MINAM is also
responsible for the development of REDD+ in Peru.
Indigenous peoples’ associations have an
increasing influence on the development of forest
policies in Peru. The Inter-ethnic Association for
Development of the Peruvian Jungle (Asociación
Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana) andthe National Institute for the Management ofAndean, Amazonian and Afro-Peruvian Settlements(Instituto Nacional de Desarrollo de Pueblos Andinos,
Amazónicos y Afroperuanos), which deals with theprotection of the interests and cultural heritagesof Indigenous peoples in Peru as well as territorialreform, are both strongly involved in forest issues.

PERU

Box 2 Active forest concessions by administrative region (December 2009)
RegionNumber of concessions

Total area (ha)Average area (ha)

48
250
85
34
171
588

284 3422 644 756
1 267 111
494 668
2 871 925
7 562 802

5923
10 57914 907
14 54916 79412 861

HuánucoLoretoMadre de Dios
San Martin
Ucayali
Total
Source: Based on Kometter (2010).

The National Strategic Planning Centre (Centro
Nacional de Planeamiento Estratégico) also plays arole on questions relating to forest-tenure allocationand forest use.
National development institutions such as the
Peruvian Amazon Research Institute (Instituto deInvestigación de la Amazonía Peruana) continue
to play important roles in the promotion of SFM
at the local level. National and internationalNGOs are very active in Peruvian forestry andare influential in the development of policy. For
example, WWF Peru, Foro Ecológico, Conservation
International Peru, ProNaturaleza (Fundación
Peruana para la Conservación de la Naturaleza)
and Red Ambiental are important in driving forest
conservation and the forest concession reform
process. Various private-sector organizations arealso involved, the most active being the National
Forestry Chamber (Cámara Forestal Nacional),
the National Timber Corporation (Corporación
Nacional de la Madera del Perú) and regional forest
producer associations, in particular those of Madrede Dios and Ucayali. The University Agraria La
Molina has a strong forestry faculty that is actively
involved in SFM research and serves in an advisory
capacity to MINAG regarding CITES listings oftimber species.

Status of forest management
Forest for production
Details on the allocation of forest concessions in
Peru given in ITTO (2006) were still valid in 2010.
As of the end of 2009, 588 forest concessions had
been registered in the Huánuco, Loreto, Madrede Dios, San Martín and Ucayali regions of Peru
over a total area of 7.56 million hectares (Kometter
2010; Box 2). Five hundred forest concessions had
approved and valid contracts with government, 27
concession contracts were under review, contracts

had been annulled in 29 concessions, and 32
contracts were in the process of annulment. Of
all concessions (most of them established between
2002 and 2004), 85% had contracts at the
beginning of 2010 (Kometter 2010).
The average area per concession is quite small –12 900 hectares. Given their relatively small size,
their financial viability will depend in large measureon their ability to obtain good prices. Many are informerly selectively harvested areas such as the floodzone along Amazonian tributaries and constitute
what in some areas will be the third intervention
within the last 30–40 years (ITTO 2006). Sincemany primary species are no longer present in large
volumes, the concessions are increasingly harvesting
lesser-known species and intensifying their logging
operations.
In addition to forest concessions, there are
two other concession types that allow for the
exploitation of timber: Brazil nut concessions
and reforestation concessions. There are a total of983 Brazil nut concessions, all located in Madrede Dios, covering an area of 864 000 hectares(Kometter 2010). As of the end of 2009, 293
reforestation concessions covering 135 000 hectares
were registered in Peru, with most (245) located in
Madre de Dios over an area of 112 000 hectares.
The forest law still in force (Law 27308, 2000)
specifies forest audits every five years. The renewal
or suspension of concession agreements depends
absolutely on the results of such audits, which are
based on the application of a set of C&I for SFM
derived from ITTO and the Tarapoto Process(ITTO 2006). In addition, inspections are still
being carried out in forest concessions as partof the country’s CITES Appendix II mahogany
observation strategy (Kometter 2010).
Silviculture and species selection. The regulations
for concession agreements require the application of367

Status of tropical forest management 2011detailed silvicultural prescriptions. Concessionaires
must apply a polycyclic management system witha minimum rotation of 20 years.a A minimum
diameter limit is determined for each species, andat least 10% of adult trees of each species must
be retained in each harvest area as seed trees.a
Liberation thinning, refinement and enrichment
planting are specified to help regenerate forests after
harvesting.
At least 100 species are used for timber, but about
25 meet 80% of the demand.a In the past, the mostimportant timber species harvested in the Peruvian
Amazon was Swietenia macrophylla (caoba). Whilestill an important species, caoba is no longer in the
top ten harvested species by volume. However, thefalsification of information concerning the illegal
cutting of caoba and other illegal practices havebeen reported: in 2008, for example, 32 concessions
covering an area of more than 400 000 hectares
were prosecuted for such offences.a
Peru and Bolivia are the largest exporters of caoba,
while Guazuma spp (bolaina) and Calycophyllum
spruceanum (capirona) are the most traded species
in the domestic market. Other important species
include Virola spp (cumala) Amburana cearensis(ishipingo), Dipteryx micrantha (shihuahuaco),
Hura crepitans (catahua) and Cariniana decandra(cachimbo). Table 4 shows the five most commonly
harvested species, ranked by average sawnwood
production for the period 1991–2008. The mostimportant fuelwood species are Prosopis pallida(algarrobo), Eucalyptus globulus (eucalipto),
Calycophyllum spruceanum (capirona), Acacia
macracantha (huarango) and Polylepis spp(queuña).a
Planted forest and trees outside the forest. Peru
has the third-largest area of forest plantations
in tropical America (820 000 hectares). Most
plantations are located outside the Amazon in

the Andes and the main species being planted
are Eucalyptus globulus, Polylepis spp and Alnus
acuminata. Many of these plantations are on
poor soils and have had only limited success.a
Reforestation was declared of national interest by
Supreme Decree 003-2005-AG (2005); a national
reforestation plan has been developed and is to belaunched shortly.
In the Amazon, a considerable number of long-term
reforestation and enrichment-planting trials ofnative species such as Cedrelinga catenaeformis(tornillo), Simarouba amara (marupa), Parkia
velutina (pashaco) and others in the Peruvian
Amazon (e.g. in Jenaro Herrera, Bosque Von
Humbolt and Tingo Maria) have been established,with good results (ITTO 2006). However, thesetrials have not yet been expanded to an operational
scale. Reforestation concessions have been created
to promote planted forests in the Amazon using
valuable species. Numerous such concessions
have been registered but, to date, the associatedregulations have not been put in place.
Forest certification. The Government of Peru
promotes voluntary forest management certification
as a tool for SFM.a Since 2004, a national working
group on forest certification coordinated by WWF
Peru has been working on the establishment of an
FSC-accredited system for voluntary certification.
According to Kometter (2010), a total areaof 713 380 hectares was certified as of early
2010, including 15 forest concessions covering
458 600 hectares and 16 community forest areas.a
Combined, three export-oriented forest enterprises(Aserradero Espinoza, Empresa Forestal Venao,
and A&A Perú) have 256 100 hectares of certified
forest. Twelve native communities have a group
certificate over a total area of 150 700 hectares(ibid.). The certified area has increased more thantenfold since 2005.

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes*

Eucalyptus globulus (eucalipto)
Virola spp (cumala)**Cedrelinga catenaeformis (tornillo)**
Chorisia intregrifolia (lupuna)Cedrela odorata (cedro)**258 000 m3; from planted forests in Andean valleys.
218 000 m3; from low-lying and low hill Amazon forests.
173 300 m3; from low hill Amazon forests.
147 100 m3; from terrace and low hill Amazon forests.
127 000 m3; from inundated and low hill Amazon forests.

*
Volumes are average sawnwood production for the period 1991–2008.
**
Also listed in ITTO (2006).
Source: Kometter (2010).

368

PERU

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. Since 2005, regulated
concession management in the Peruvian Amazon
has been launched. All active concessions musthave a forest management plan and are closely
monitored. Nevertheless, it is too early to assess theeffect of this new system on SFM. Table 5 showsthe estimated sustainably managed production
forest in Peru comprising the FSC-certified forest
area and the 890 000 hectares under Brazil nut
concession (Kometter 2010).
Timber production and trade. There has been asteady increase in log production in Peru in recent
years, from 1.29 million m3 in 2003 to 2.37 million
m3 in 2009 (ITTO 2010). Sawnwood production
in 2009 was 1.12 million m3, more than doublethat in 2003. The export of logs is not permitted
but about 40% (480 000 m3) of sawnwood
production is exported (ibid.). The maximum
sustainable harvest under a 40-year polycyclic
system is estimated to be in the range 25–40 m3
per hectare (ITTO 2006); current off-take would
appear to be well below that. There are about
250 sawmills in Peru, most of which have a small
installed capacity (averaging 2900 m3 per year).
Only about 25% of sawmills have band-saws anda capacity of 10 000 m3 per year or more (ibid.).
The export value of timber products increased from
US$66 million in 2000 to US$191 million in 2008
(WWF Peru 2009).
Non-timber forest products. The use of NTFPs is
widespread in Peru. Over 130 products have been
identified in the Amazon for local consumption
and national and international trade. Tara (obtained
from Caesalpinia spinosa) is the basis of a growing
industry in Peru. It is an excellent source ofenvironmentally friendly tannins (tara tannins). It
is used as a hydrocolloid thickener and gelling agent
and has application in frozen desserts, instant soups,
cream cheese, baked goods and other products.

Logs at the Port of Pucallpa, Peru.

Brazil nut is another important NTFP produced
for export in Amazon forests, with an annual
production of more than 1 million kg. Extractsof Lonchocarpus nicou (barbasco) are exported as avegetative insecticide.
The production of palm hearts (palmito, 200 000
kg per year) is also important. Medicinal plants,
such as cat’s claw (Uncaria tomentosa – uña de gato,
500 000 kg per year), and sangre de grado (Croton
lechleri), are increasingly popular.a
Forest carbon. Gibbs et al. (2007) estimatedthe forest biomass carbon stock in the range
7690–11 520 MtC and FAO (2010a) estimatedit at 8560 MtC. Land use, land-use change andforestry contribute about 60% (110 000 gigagramsof CO2e) of Peru’s annual GHG emissions.
MINAM is responsible for REDD+ andcoordinates the National Commission on Climate
Change. A multi-stakeholder REDD Group (Mesa
REDD) was formed in 2008 to support MINAM
in the further development of REDD+ in Peru
(Government of Peru 2010).

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)
Reporting
year

Total

2005*
2010

24 60018 700*****‡NaturalAvailable forWith
harvesting management
plans
8000
5000
8431
7563‡

Certified Sustainably
managed
59
713

560
1603

PlantedCertifiedWith
managementplans
200–300
8
0
Total

820

-

0

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Potential timber concession areas as classified by law (Government of Peru 2010).
Only timber concessions (unidades de manejo forestal and community concessions) valid as of end 2009 counted here.

369

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Peru is a participant in the Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility, and its REDD readinesspreparation proposal was approved in March 2011.
Peru is a recipient country of the Forest Investment
Program, and it benefits from bilateral support
programs in REDD+ in the Amazon region.
Several REDD+ pilot projects are under way inthe country’s forested regions. The proportion of
intact forests with crown cover greater than 60%
is high (81% of the total forest area). There is also
considerable potential to enhance carbon stocks
through forest restoration and reforestation in
deforested landscapes. Table 6 summarizes Peru’s
forest carbon potential.

Forest for protection
Soil and water. Soil and watershed conservation
are of considerable importance in Peru, particularlyin the Andes. The National Program for theManagement of Water Catchments and Soil
Conservation (Programa Nacional de Manejo deCuencas Hídrograficas y de Conservación de Suelos),which is implemented by Agrorural, is conducting
the country’s most extensive forestry program withthe aim of applying participatory approaches tosoil and water conservation based on reforestation.
In 2008, a legislative decree (Decree 1081) was
enacted to create the National System for Water
Resources (Sistema Nacional de Recursos Hídricos),which emphasizes the protection and restoration ofwatersheds. A total of 389 000 hectares of forest isclassified as exclusively for soil and water protection.
In addition, in 2007 an area of about 367 000
hectares was reforested for the single purpose ofprotecting destabilized watersheds.a
Biological diversity. Peru has a great range of
geographical conditions and is very biodiverse.
It contains 10% of the global total of flowering
plant species (40 000–50 000 plant species),
462 mammals, 1816 birds, 360 reptiles, 332
amphibians, 2000 sea fish and 797 freshwater fish
(ITTO 2006). Thirty-seven mammals, 61 birds,

77 amphibians, two reptiles and seven plants
found in forests are listed as critically endangered,endangered or vulnerable on the IUCN red list of
threatened species (IUCN 2011). Eight plants arelisted in CITES Appendix I, 363, including caoba,
are listed in Appendix II, and three (including
cedro) are listed in Appendix III (UNEP-WCMC
2011).
Protective measures in production forests.
Management-plan prescriptions for forest
concessions give clear and detailed instructions
on leaving protection strips along streams, andthey specify species to be protected and refer towildlife protection in concession areas. There arealso prescriptions for reduced impact logging andrelated measures.a Tree species that are officiallyexcluded from commercial harvesting are palo deora, romerillo, cedro de altura and nogal.a
Extent of protected areas. In 2001, new naturalprotected areas were defined and existing protectedareas were reclassified. The well-developed andrelatively well-funded system of protected areas,
SINANPE, now contains 61 protected areas
covering an area of 18.5 million hectares, or 15%of the country. Protected areas include nationalparks, national reserves, national sanctuaries andother zones (Box 3). SINANPE is complemented
by regional conservation areas (areas de conservación
regionales – ACRs). Recently there has been a moveto encourage the creation of ACRs by regional
governments: Presidential Resolution 205-2010SERNANP (dated 26 October 2010) is designed
to stimulate the creation of ACRs through regional
governments that are also financing such areas.
Three ACRs have been created: Choquequirao,
Bosque de Puya Raimondi-Titankayocc andAmpiyacu–Apayacu.
A large part of the protected-area network is heavily
forested. An estimated 13.7 million hectares offorested land are classified under IUCN protectedarea categories I–IV.a Many protected areas are

Table 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)
7690–11 520% forest Deforestation/ Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
degradation
withsink capacity monitoring
potential to
canopycapacity
to 20302030
cover >60%
81

+++

++

++

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity+

Importance Engagementinof forest
international
fire/
REDD+
biomass
processes
burning++++++++ high; ++ medium; + low; estimate of national forest carbon based on Gibbs et al. (2007); estimate of % total forest with canopy cover>60% based on UNEP-WCMC (2010).

370

PERU

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. Large areas of theprotection PFE are under no imminent threat
due to their remoteness but are not counted here
as under SFM. A total area of about 11.6 million
hectares of protected area is clearly defined and iscovered by some sort of management planning.a
The area of protection PFE managed sustainably isestimated at 1.88 million hectares (Table 7). This
includes the core water protection forests of about
60 000 hectares and the totally protected portionof the Peruvian part of the transboundary protectedareas of Tambopata (1.09 million hectares) and El
Condor (253 000 hectares), both of which havebeen supported by ITTO and other international
donors, plus the areas under conservation andecotourism concessions.

Box 3 Categories of protected areas
Category
National parks
National reserves
National sanctuaries
Historical sanctuaries
Landscape reserves
Protection forests
Communal reserves
Reserved zones
Hunting reserves
Wildlife refuges
Small islands
Total SINANPE
Regional conservation
areas
Private conservation
areas
TOTAL

NumberArea (ha)

12
13
9
4
2
6
8
9
2
2
67
5

7 967 119
3 719 347
317 366
41 279711 818389 987
1 777 466
3 396 364
124 735
8 591
140 833
18 594 909
695 22720

124 99192

19 415 127

Socioeconomic aspects

Source: Kometter (2010).

Economic aspects. The contribution of the forest
sector to GDP is about 1.02% of a total GDP of
US$1.03 trillion.a An estimated 250 000 jobs are
generated directly by forestry activities, over 50%of them in the Peruvian Amazon (ITTO 2006).
The forest industry, including many small andmedium-sized enterprises, are mostly located in
Lima, Trujillo, Chiclayo, Cuzco, Iquitos, Pucallpa
and Tarapoto and employ more than 82 000 people(ibid.). The contribution of forestry, however, is
not only made through direct employment but also
through the provision of a wide range of goods for
consumption, handicrafts and small commerce.
Fuelwood collection is still the main extractive useof the country’s forests, in particular in forest-poor
mountain areas. Small-scale logging is important
both economically and socially in the Amazon, andnearly all forest areas close to the main rivers havebeen heavily harvested.

under pressure, however, including from conversion
to other land uses (particularly shifting cultivation
but also monoculture agriculture and illegal crops
such as coca), small-scale and large-scale timbertheft, illegal mining, oil and gas exploration, andillegal hunting and fishing.
In 2001 INRENA granted an area of 135 832
hectares as a ‘conservation concession’ for a periodof 40 years to a private association (the Amazon
Watershed Conservation Association – Asociaciónpara la Conservación de la Cuenca Amazónica). In
2010 a total of 423 000 hectares were under suchconcessions and another 55 000 hectares were
under ecotourism concessions. These areas are notcounted as part of the protected-area network. In
such concessions, protection activities, ecotourism
and the sustainable use of NTFPs may be carriedout, but not logging. It is expected that moreconcessions will be granted in the future for NTFPs
and conservation.

Livelihood values. Many NTFPs are used andtraded locally, such as fruits and vegetables likeaguaje (Mauritia flexuosa), camu-camu and palmito,
local bamboo (Guadua angustifolia), palms andTable 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)***

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Forests attributed
to IUCN categories
I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

16 30019 4003130
3404**

390
389

11 6001540
1880

As reported in ITTO (2006).
According to UNEP-WCMC (2010).

371

Status of tropical forest management 2011

fibres. Wildlife, particularly fish, is an importantsource of protein throughout the Amazon.
Social relations. The Peruvian Amazon remains
a frontier for settlers from other parts of Peru,
many of whom engage in small-scale agriculture
and the gathering of forest products, often illegally.
Poaching, the illegal harvesting of valuable timber
species and illegal mining are all widespread.a
Narcotic crops, particularly coca, are planted byshifting cultivators in fields and small openings
in the forests. The social impacts of the newconcession system are unknown. Logging byoutsiders of Indigenous and community lands cancause intra-community conflicts, including over the
distribution of payments.
More than 1354 Indigenous communities(comunidades nativas) are known to make theirliving in the Peruvian Amazon, occupying about
14.95 million hectares or 17% of the total area of
the Peruvian Amazon. Their livelihoods are closelyinterlinked with forests. An estimated 13.5 million
hectares of potentially productive forests are in areas
claimed by Indigenous peoples and about 1.75
million hectares are situated within Indigenous
reserves. About 100 timber licences are located in
the immediate vicinity of Indigenous territories(G. de Freitas, pers. comm., 2009). While newforms of collaboration and benefit-sharing arebeing established between concession-holders andlocal people, the new situation is also prone tomisunderstanding and conflict. Although REDD+
is developing rapidly in Peru, many local andIndigenous people see it as a threat. Considerable
efforts are needed to clarify REDD+ and related
forest issues with local stakeholders.

Summary
The forest sector of Peru has been undergoing
rapid change. After signing the Trade Promotion
Agreement with the United States in 2007, theGovernment of Peru embarked on a new process
to reform the forest policy and law as well as
to restructure and decentralize the system offorest administration and governance. This wasdone on a fast track through a series of supreme
decrees, including the issuance of a new forest law,decentralization efforts and new central institutions.
However, the outcome was highly controversial andled to a prolonged period of protest by civil society
and Indigenous peoples. Nevertheless, Peru has

372

taken significant steps towards integrating the forest
sector into the broader macroeconomic objectivesof sustainable development and has put in placea system of control that allows further progress in
SFM. An independent forest-control mechanism
has been established and a broad coalition of
stakeholders from the public and private sectors
and civil society works together to develop theforest agenda. The Government of Peru is engaged
in the development of REDD+ with a nested
approach and in a broad stakeholder dialogue todevelop REDD+ as a major instrument for forestbased development in the Amazon. Peru still facessome major challenges in enforcing and applying
regulations and planning instruments in the
country’s vast Amazon forests and in guaranteeing
the rights of Indigenous and local people.

Key points•

Peru has an estimated PFE of 38.9 million
hectares (compared with 41.1 million hectares
in 2005), comprising 18.7 million hectares ofnatural production forest (compared with 24.6
million hectares in 2005), 19.4 million hectaresof protection forest (compared with 16.3
million hectares in 2005) and 820 000 hectaresof planted forest (compared with 200–300 000
hectares in 2005).

•

An estimated 1.60 million hectares of the
production PFE is under SFM. About 713 000
hectares of natural production forest is certified(compared with 59 000 hectares in 2005). An
estimated 1.88 million hectares of protection
PFE is under SFM. Large areas of the protection
PFE, even if not formally under SFM, are under
no imminent threat due to their remoteness.

•

The rate of deforestation has declined. The
country has an ambitious plan to reduce
deforestation to zero by 2020 and has put inplace programs (e.g. the National Forest
Conservation Program) for this purpose.

•

A broad consultation process on the preparationof a new forest law and policy is under way andnew institutions have been created to manage
forests on the principles of SFM.

•

Despite the difficult macro-economic situation
for the timber trade, Peru has increased its
exports of hardwood timber and further
developed its domestic timber industry.

PERU

Nevertheless, most exports are in the form ofsawnwood and there has been only limited
development of further-processing in Peru.
•

There is considerable potential for REDD+ in
Peru. However, many local and Indigenous
people see it as a threat, and considerable efforts
are needed to clarify REDD+ and related forest
issues with local stakeholders.

EndnoteaGovernment of Peru (2009).

References and other sources
FAO (2010a). Global forest resources assessment 2010
country report: Peru (available at http://www.fao.org/
forestry/fra/67090/en//).
FAO (2010b). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 Full
Report. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FSC (2010, website accessed September 2010). FSC
certification database (searchable database available at
http://info.fsc.org/PublicCertificateSearch).
Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007).
Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon
stocks: making REDD a reality. Environmental Research
Letters 2 (available at http://iopscience.iop.org/17489326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Government of Peru (2008). Second national communication to
the UNFCCC. National Environmental Council of Peru,
Lima, Peru (available at http://www.adaptationlearning.net/
projects/peru-second-national-communication).
Government of Peru (2009). Informe sobre el Progreso del Peru
den Alcanzar la gestión forestal sostenible y el Objective
2000 de la OIMT (periodo de evaluación: 2002–2008).
Ministerio de Agricultura, Dirección General Forestal y deFauna Silvestre, Lima, Peru.

ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2010, website accessed December 2010). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).
ITTO & RRI (2009). Tropical forest tenure assessment. trends,
challenges and opportunities. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan andRights and Resources Initiative, Washington, DC, UnitedStates.
IUCN (2011, website accessed April 2011). IUCN red list of
threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).
Kometter, R. (2010). Situación del sector forestal del Peru.
WWF-Intercooperation internal paper.
Michell, T. & Hulme, M. (2000). A country-by-country analysis
of past and future warming rates. Tyndall Centre for
Climate Change research http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/
default/files/wp1.pdf
Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World Atlas ofMangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed April2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
July 2010). World population prospects: the 2008 revision(searchable database available at http://esa.un.org/unpp/
p2k0data.asp).
WWF (2009). Analysis of Current situation of forest
concessions, forest sector reform and decentralization, andforest trade in Peru. WWF Peru Programme.

Government of Peru (2010). Peru readiness preparation
proposal. Submitted to the Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility, September 2010. (available at http://www.
forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/node/257).

373

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Suriname•

low savanna forest – 18 000 hectares•

high swamp forest – 483 000 hectares•

low swamp forest – 239 000 hectares•

mangrove forest – 100 000 hectares•

marsh forest – 468 000 hectares•

ridge forest – 35 000 hectares.

The Government of Suriname (2009a) estimatedthe total area of mangroves at 115 000 hectares, but
FAO (2010) put the area at 100 000 hectares andSpalding et al. (2010) at about 50 900 hectares.

Forest resources
In 2010 the estimated population of Suriname
was 524 000 people (United Nations Population
Division 2010), and the country is ranked 97th outof 182 countries in UNDP’s Human Development
Index (UNDP 2009). A lowland region and thesouthern highlands account for 80% of the country
and form part of the pre-Cambrian Guyana Shieldthat straddles Suriname, Guyana and French
Guiana. Along the northern edge of the shield liesa savanna belt, beyond which is a narrow swampy
coastal plain where 90% of the population isconcentrated. The estimated forest area is 14.8
million hectares (FAO 2010, Government ofSuriname 2009a), which is 91% of the total landarea (16.3 million hectares).
Forest types. Three broad forest zones can be
distinguished, corresponding to the three major
biogeographical zones: the hydrophytic forestsin the north, which comprise swamp forests,
mangroves and ridge and marsh forests; xerophyticsavanna forests in the savanna belt; and the
predominant mesophytic humid forest types of
the Guyana Shield. These, in turn, comprise thefollowing forest typesa:•

high dryland forest (rainforest) – 13.3 million
hectares•high savanna forest or dry evergreen forest –132 000 hectares

374

Permanent forest estate. There is no formallyestablished PFE in Suriname. Nevertheless, allformally established nature reserves and otherprotected and conservation areas have been
established by explicit legal documents thatprovide strict guidelines for protection and use,thus providing a reasonable guarantee that those
protected areas will be maintained as such. Since
the establishment of the first protected areas in
the 1950s, no protected area has been revoked.
Recently, a procedure has been introduced to use acompatible GIS–GPS system to determine the exact
location of boundaries and whether any given pointon the ground is inside or outside the nature reserveor other protected area.
Concession areas are also allocated on the basis of
explicit legal documents that provide information
on boundaries as well as guidelines for their
management and use. In practice, however, there
are few guarantees that these areas will remain in
the category of production forest. In the past, someconcessions have been converted to protection
areas or assigned to other economic uses (such as
mining or large-scale agriculture). This was thecase, for example, for the community forest in
the Brokopondo district, which was allocated toCambior (now Iamgold) for gold-mining, andsome concessions in the district of Marowijne,
which have been allocated to China Zhong Heng
Tai Investment (Suriname) NV for large-scaleoil-palm plantations. The vast majority of forests
in Suriname is legally classified “as forests to beprovisionally maintained”; forests thus classified will
be maintained as forest until such time that they arelegally designated to a specific use.

SURINAMEIn Table 1, PFE has been taken to include allformally established protected forest areas andall forest concessions and formally designatedcommunity forests, but forests “to be maintained
provisionally” have been excluded. Also excluded
are forested lands of the state that are leased to
private individuals for conversion (mainly toagriculture), as well as privately owned forested landthat is currently used for timber production but
could be converted to non-forest at any time at thediscretion of the owners.
Thus, 5.32 million hectares of forest may beconsidered to be designated as production forest
in the PFE, while 2.19 million hectares have been
designated for protection and conservation.
Since the PFE has restricted formal status,
its demarcation on the ground is minimal.
Concessionaires are supposed to demarcate theirconcession boundaries but, in practice, this is
generally confined to the cutting and maintenanceof outer boundaries of the cutting compartment
under harvest.

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. Suriname
does not face the population and migrationpressures that have led to deforestation in manyother countries. According to FAO (2010),

Suriname lost 18 000 hectares of forest between
1990 and 2010 (0.1%). The estimated forest loss
since 1650 is 400 000 hectaresa, or less than 3% of
the extant forest estate. Until about 1980, mining
on forested land was mainly for bauxite, which
was exported. In the 1980s, however, gold-mining
emerged as an activity of growing importance, both
economically and environmentally. The total area offorest destroyed due to gold-mining is about 90 000
hectaresa, including 30 000 hectares in the last
decade (Fox 2010). An estimated 14 000 small-scale
miners and service providers work in Suriname’sinterior (ibid.). There is no significant occurrence offorest fire from natural causes.
At least 13 million hectares of Suriname’s forest
estate is primary foresta; Table 2 presents anestimate of 13.8 million hectares, which is slightly
less than the estimate shown in FAO (2010). Of
the 4.5 million hectares of forest designated fortimber production, an estimated 744 000 hectares
have been logged selectively over time and more
intensively, though still selectively, in the last five
decades. This forest is considered ‘selectively logged
primary forest’. The low intensity of harvesting overrelatively long felling cycles has helped to maintainthese forests in relatively good shape. About
250 000 hectares of forest are used for shifting
agriculture and could be considered degraded; theextent of this area is not increasing.a There is also

Table 1 Permanent forest estate

*
**
‡
†

Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

2005*
2010

13.6–14.8
14.8

14 10014 100**

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted

Total

6890
5319‡

11 327
7513

7
13†

4430
2194

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Calculated using the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) (95.5%) and theestimated total natural forest area.
Includes inactive concessions (either not issued or revoked or lapsed), active concessions, and community forests.
Government of Suriname (2009a). The status of this planted forest in the PFE is unclear and is not included in the total.

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

Total’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of selectively logged primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land

6769
744
0
0
0

7037
0
250
0
90

13 806
744
250
0
90

Source: ITTO estimate based on Government of Suriname (2009a) and FAO (2010).

375

Status of tropical forest management 2011degraded forest in the vicinity of mining operations,although the extent of this is unquantified.
Vulnerability of forests to climate change. The
mean annual temperature in Suriname is projected
to increase by 0.9–3.3 °C by 2060 (McSweeney
et al. undated). Increased rainfall variability andchanges in the geomorphology of the coast and inwater resources are also projected (Government ofSuriname 2002). Suriname’s low-lying coastal zone
is vulnerable to seal-level rise. This is Suriname’s
most fertile land, where most economic activities
are practised and where the population is mostly
concentrated (ibid.). Inland forests are vulnerable
to increased drought and forest fire in extreme elNiño years.

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. According to the 1987 Constitution,
all forests, except those on privately owned land,
belong to the state. Accordingly, Table 3 shows that
almost all of Suriname’s forest estate is publicly
owned, although more than 1 million hectares havebeen allocated as private concessions (see below).
The Constitution does not provide for collective
rights or the collective use of land, but Amerindianand Maroon people (the latter being descendants ofslaves of African origin) claim these rights.
Criteria and indicators. The Forest Management
Act (1992) provides criteria for the sustainable useof forest resources. The Government of Suriname
used the ITTO C&I in its submission to ITTO for
this report.a

Forest policy and legislation. The Forest
Management Act (1992) covers the sustainable andrational use of forest resources, taking into accountthe interests of forest-dwellers and the conservationof nature and biological diversity. It provides
rules governing timber production (and, to someextent, timber processing) and export. It covers
the various licences for forest harvesting, including
different types of timber concession and the use ofcommunity forests.
A national forest policy was adopted in 2003
after an extensive process of consultation withstakeholders. This policy provides broad guidelines
for the use of forests for production, protection
and conservation. According to the policy, themain goal of forest management is “enhancing
the contribution of the forests to the national
economy and the welfare of the current and future
generations, taking into account the preservationof the biodiversity”. It contains economic,
sociocultural and environmental goals of equal
weight. The Interim Strategic Action Plan for theForest Sector was published in 2008.
An environmental law was drafted in 2001 anda revised version is under review by the Ministryof Labour, Technological Development andEnvironment. If enacted, this law will haveimportant procedural consequences for the issuanceof timber licences and the installation of timberprocessing units. In the absence of agreed national
C&I, the environmental impact assessments
described in the draft law will be essential formonitoring progress towards SFM.

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

Total area Of which PFE Notes’000 haState ownership (national, state orprovincial government)

14 7527513

0

0

14 752
0

7513
0

24

0

Other public entities, including
municipalities, villages, etc.*
Total public
Owned by local communities and/orIndigenous groups
Private owned by individuals, firms,
other corporate

Source: Government of Suriname (2009a).

376

PFE includes nature reserves and other protected areas,
MUMAs, community forests, inactive concessions, and active
concessions held by firms, associations, individuals or families.
Non-PFE includes ‘forests to be provisionally maintained’, andforest for which leases have been issued for clearing anddevelopment.
With its centralized government structure, Suriname’s regional
governments at the district and local levels do not own (forest)
land.

SURINAME

Institutions involved in forests. The government
institutions responsible for the management andprotection of Suriname’s forest resources are the
Ministry of Physical Planning, Land and Forestry
Management, the semi-autonomous Foundation for
Forest Management and Forest Control (Stichting
voor Bosbeheer en Bostoezicht – SBB), and NB (theNature Conservation Division of the old Suriname
Forest Service – Lachtwet en BosBeheer, LBB). SBB
is responsible for the enforcement of the Forest
Management Act (1992) and, consequently, forthe management of production forests. NB is
responsible for the enforcement of the Nature
Conservation Act (1954) and the Game Act (1954)
and, consequently, for the management of nature
reserves and other protected areas. There has been
an ongoing process to establish a single authority
for the management of production and protection
forests, the Forest and Nature Management
Authority (Bosnas), but this is still pending.
Suriname has one university (Anton de Kom
University of Suriname) with a modest schoolfor forestry, one for biology and another forthe environment. Most currently active forestry
professionals in Suriname, however, received
their education abroad. The Institute for
Natural Resources and Engineering Studies isa well-established training institute for forestry
technicians, one level below the Bachelor of
Science. The Interim Strategic Action Plan for
the Forest Sector includes an ambitious training
component in line with the recommendations
made on the training needs of the forest sector in
the context of ITTO pre-project proposal PPD
97/04(I). The Jan Starke Vocational Training andRecreation Center provides forest-related vocationalcourses, although it is in decline.

restricted to salvage logging areas and conversion
forests.
In early 2010, a total area of 1.22 million hectares1
were under 68 active concessions, comprising 34
licences for areas smaller than 5000 hectares in size
(116 000 hectares in total), ten licences for areas
5000–10 000 hectares in size (69 000 hectares
in total), three licences for areas 10 000–15 000
hectares in size (32 300 hectares in total), fivelicences for areas 15 000–25 000 hectares in size
(83 700 hectares in total), twelve licences for areas
25 000–50 000 hectares in size (411 000 hectares intotal), and four licences for areas 100 000–150 000
hectares in size (507 000 hectares in total). In
addition, community cutting licences have been
issued for 437 000 hectares, and 114 000 hectares
have been designated as community forests for
Indigenous or Maroon communities. Six ICLs
have been issued for a total of 54 800 hectares, andone ICL for Submerged Wood has been issued for
116 000 hectares. In total, cutting licences of all
forms have been issued for about 2 million hectaresof forest.b

There are several systems for timber harvesting,including concessions, community forests andincidental cutting licences (ICLs). The proceduresfor granting concessions and licences were nottransparent in the past.

Effective forest management and forest production
control were virtually non-existent when SBB wasestablished in 1998 with a mandate to establish aleaner and more cost-effective forest management
organization than the Forest Service it replaced.
SBB subsequently developed a comprehensive
computerized log-tracking system, LogPro, tomonitor harvesting operations, the payment offorest fees and forest planning at the FMU level.
Although this system is still under development
it has already proved useful in promoting SFM.
GIS technology was introduced in the forest sector
with the support of the WWF Guianas program
for the mapping and planning of forest operations
on the ground. Initially this was done for SBB’s
own operations, but the system has been extended
gradually to logging companies and other private
operators in the forest to facilitate the mutual
exchange of planning and other information related
to ground-level activities. Training courses in theuse of GIS were conducted for representatives of theprivate sector, including consultants, who are being
hired increasingly by logging companies to prepare

Although for a decade or longer prior to theestablishment of SBB, ICLs had become a popular
way to evade the relative rigid requirements forconcessions, in the last decade this practice has
been redressed almost completely. ICLs are now

1 In October 2010 this had reportedly increased to 1.3 million hectares in
62 concessions, comprising 18 intensively managed concessions
covering 605 000 hectares, 16 extensively managed concessions
covering 55 000 hectares, and 28 “idle concession or preparatory
harvesting activities” covering 640 000 hectares.b

Status of forest management
Forest for production

377

Status of tropical forest management 2011

the planning of their operations to the (higher)
standards that now prevail.
The management and control style adopted by
SBB can be categorized as either intensive forest
management (for large concessions) or extensive forest
management (for small concessions).
Operators with a relatively large production
capacity, including operators that produce mainlyfor export, were deemed capable of causing
extensive damage to a large area of forest in a
relatively short time. A high priority was therefore
placed on ensuring their adherence to stringent
regulations. Application for concessions larger
than 5000 hectares must include a businessplan (including a financial feasibility plan forwood-processing and logging activities, and aforest management plan) that sets out the intended
approach of the applicant to the development of
the concession, if granted. After the granting of
the concession and before any actual harvesting, amore detailed overall management plan must be
submitted to SBB indicating the division of annual
cutting areas and the infrastructure to be built.
In addition, specific planning is required for eachannual cutting area for that year, including 100%
inventories and the detailed layout of skidding
roads, taking into account the maximum allowable
cut as suggested by the Celos Management System(normally 20–25 m³/hectare) and the selection
and marking of the trees to be felled (in the field aswell as on tree maps to be included in the planningdocuments for submission to SBB for approval).
Since the requirements for 100% inventories in
cutting blocks were introduced, about 17 500
hectares (175 blocks of 100 hectares each) havebeen surveyed in this way.
Restricting harvesting to inventoried 100-hectare
cutting blocks allows the close monitoring of
the actual cut in relation to inventoried stock.
According to observations of 87 cutting blocks
exploited between 2006 and 2009, the average
harvest in intensively managed concessions was
12.3 m3 per hectare.a The average annual harvest
area for concessions and community forests in the
PFE is about 13 500 hectares.
The approved harvest plan forms the basis ofproduction control by SBB. The trees actually
cut are labelled with a polyethylene label with aunique number that is issued by SBB from LogPro,
its computerized log-tracking system. These378

label numbers, together with the tree number asassigned in the 100% tally and indicated on thetree map included in the approved harvest plan,
must be entered in a felling register, as prescribedby law. The label numbers are thus linked to thetree numbers of the inventory. When the logs areprepared for transport from the production sitetheir label numbers are entered in a way bill. If
the original log is cross-cut prior to transport fromthe production site, the resulting smaller logs arenumbered with new labels linked to the number ofthe original log (and therefore automatically to thetree number assigned in the 100% tally). A copy ofthe felling register must be presented to the forest
guard covering the particular production area, who
forwards it to SBB headquarters, where it is enteredinto LogPro. Systematic inspections of sawmills
and other processing facilities are also conductedto ensure that any timber not seen during earlier
inspections is detected, registered, and entered into
LogPro.
Despite the establishment of these elaborate
planning and administrative procedures, for avariety of reasons only a relatively small area andonly a few operators are presently under such‘intensive’ management.
Extensive forest management is confined tosmaller operators, including those active incommunity forests. Such operators must maintainthe boundaries of their concessions and of theannual cutting areas in which they are active (justas in intensive management). Systematic 100%
inventories are not required, but the felled timbermust be registered in a felling register, as requiredfor intensive management operations. Extensive
forest management is applied in concessions where
the impact of harvesting on the economy and theenvironment is relatively low. The ultimate goal isthat all concessions are managed according to theprocedures of intensive management. All granted
licences, whether for intensively managed or
extensively managed concessions, are monitoredby SBB.b An estimated 10–20% of (commercial)
production is not registered (FAO 2010).
Although there is growing interest among private
forest-owners to produce timber on a sustainablebasis, for which they seek assistance from thegrowing number of consultants available for thiskind of supporting service, the practice is not wellestablished and cannot be enforced by SBB given

SURINAME

Forest river scene near Botopasie, Suriname. © istockphoto/B. Coenders

its current capacity.a It should be noted that timber
production in conversion forests is, by definition,unsustainable.
Under SBB, significant progress has been madetowards SFM in Suriname’s forests, but for a varietyof reasons the impact is currently sub-optimal.a A
major constraint is the relatively low educational
level of the forestry workforce, although, to someextent, this problem has been reduced by thedevelopment of a group of reasonably competent
forestry professionals acting as consultants to assist
in the planning of operations by both smaller andlarger operators. Another major constraint for theindustry is a lack of capital, which hampers theacquisition of equipment that would, for example,
enable the effective application of reduced impact
logging techniques. An even bigger constraint is of
an institutional nature: the formal establishmentof the Bosnas has been delayed for more than four
years, with a consequent impact on the availabilityof the resources needed for adequate coverage of theentire production forest area.a
Silviculture and species selection. The forests
are characterized by a wide variety of species –more than 600 tree species have been described.
Some 50 species are known as class A commercial
species and about 100 as class B. There has beena significant shift in the last three decades in thespecies harvested for industrial roundwood. An
important reason for this shift pertains to therestricted access to the production forests in more
remote parts of the interior during the country’s
civil war (1986–1993), which led to the use of
species previously considered useless or of low value.
Many such species proved highly suitable for somevery demanding applications in construction andfurniture manufacturing.
About 375 000 hectares of the PFE have been
inventoried for their standing timber stocks. Table 4lists some of the most commonly harvested species.
Planted forest and trees outside the forest. In
ITTO (2006) the area of forest plantations, andthe area of plantations under management plans,
were both reported at 7000 hectares. In this report,
the estimated planted-forest area has been adjusted
to 13 000 hectares on the basis of Suriname’s
submissiona, but the area under management
plans is probably zero (Table 5). The predominant

379

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Annual harvest quantity (m3)

Qualea spp*
Dicorynia guianensis*
Goupia glabra*
Vochysia tomentosa
Vatairea guianensis

PFE
27 17522 11411 019
4621
6644

Notes

Non-PFE
6507
8136
3851
5502
1674

Harvested predominantly from highdryland forest.

*
Also listed in ITTO (2006). In the case of Qualea, Q. rosea was specified in ITTO (2006).
Note:
Data are averages for 2004–2008.
Source: Government of Suriname (2009a).

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)
Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

6890
5319

1740
2000

*

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
73
899

Certified

0

7

247

13

-

Total

Certified00

As reported in ITTO (2006).

planted species for industrial purposes is Pinus
caribaea, comprising about 58% of the plantation
estate. The principal indigenous species are Cedrela
spp, Cordia alliodora and Simaruba amara; the main
broadleaved exotic species are eucalypts. There islittle information about standing volume, growth
rates or current condition. No expansion of theplantation estate, or replanting of harvested sites, isplanned.
Forest certification. The FSC has certified one
forest area operated by Timberindustry Suriname
NV, with a total production area of 23 858 hectares(FSC 2010).
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. Of the 1.30 million
hectares in the PFE under concessions (plus another170 000 hectares under ICLs), 899 000 hectares
are covered by, in total, 21 management plans.a
Two concessions (one of which is FSC-certified),covering a total of about 89 000 hectares, areunder harvest using reduced impact logging toa high standard. A further 158 000 hectares ofconcessions are being harvested using ‘controlled’
logging (i.e. natural directional felling, and planned
skidding), and 655 000 hectares are being harvested
using sometimes poor techniques.a Given the
low volume of timber extracted per hectare, thefirst two of these harvesting categories (a total of
247 000 hectares) may be considered to be under

380

0
89

PlantedWith
management
plans
7

Sustainably
managedSFM. Apart from some areas where gold-mining
is occurring, the remainder of the production PFE
is likely to be under little threat of deforestation ordegradation.
Timber production and trade. The annual
production of industrial roundwood in 2009 wasestimated at 190 000 m3, up from about 94 000
m3 in 1999 and 159 000 m3 in 2004. Sawnwood
production increased from 28 000 m3 per year
in 1999 to 65 000 m3 per year in 2009, plywood
production decreased from 4000 m3 in 1999 to1000 m3 in 2009, and veneer production increased
from zero in 1999 to 3000 m3 in 2009 (ITTO
2011). Installed national sawmilling capacity is
estimated at 280 000 m3 per year. In total, morethan 160 species are harvested.a In 2009, Suriname
exported logs valued at US$2.70 million andsawnwood valued at US$2.80 million (ITTO
2011).
Non-timber forest products. NTFPs are used tovarying degrees by different groups, predominantly
people living in the country’s interior. Apartfrom incidental small-scale efforts, no significant
inventory of NTFPs has been conducted to date.
There is a significant export trade of Surinamese
wildlife: FAO (2010) reported that wildlife exports(mainly birds) were worth about US$404 000
in 2007 (a reduction of more than US$500 000
compared to 2004, due largely to a ban on bird

SURINAME

Table 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)% forestwithcanopycover >60%

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

663–2753

96+

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
sink capacity monitoring
capacity
to 2030+++

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity

Importance Engagementinof forest
international
fire/
REDD+
biomass
processes
burning++++++++ high; ++ medium; + low; estimate of national forest carbon based on Gibbs et al. (2007); estimate of % total forest with canopy cover>60% based on UNEP-WCMC (2010).

imports in the European Union during an outbreakof Avian flu). In 2006 an estimated 55 000 kgof medicinal plants valued at US$453 000 were
exported to the Netherlands.
Forest carbon. Suriname has a large and mostly
intact forest resource. The REDD+ mechanism
is designed to assist countries like Suriname byproviding positive incentives for conserving forestsand improving forest management. Taking into
account Suriname’s developmental needs, REDD+
could assist in mitigating some of the drivers ofdeforestation and forest degradation.
Gibbs et al. (2007) estimated Suriname’s forest
biomass carbon stock at 663–2753 MtC, and FAO(2010) estimated it at 3165 MtC. Box 1 shows
the quantity of carbon contained in Suriname’s
forests estimated by Tjon (1998) on the basis ofobservations in 30 plots distributed over a range offorest types.
Box 1 Forest carbon stock, Suriname
Carbon store (MtC)
PFE
Non-PFE
Above-ground biomass
Soil

1340
365

1210
330

Source: Based on estimates by Tjon (1998) of carbon stocks invarious forest.types.

Nearly one-third (31%) of Suriname’s GHG
emissions are produced by the land-use change
and forest sector (Government of Suriname 2002).
Since 2009 the Government of Suriname has
been developing a REDD+ readiness preparation
proposal in the framework of the Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility and is a member of the REDD+
Partnership. The preparation of a national REDD+
strategy is coordinated by the National REDD+
Working Group, which comprises representativesof governmental institutions, forest-dependentcommunities (Indigenous and Maroon peoples), thetimber industry, academia, civil society and otherobservers (Government of Suriname 2009b). Table
6 summarizes Suriname's forest carbon potential.

Forest for protection
Soil and water. No part of Suriname’s forest is
managed exclusively for the protection of soil andwater, but the relative lack of human pressuremeans that, in effect, vulnerable slopes in thehinterlands, the productive capacity of the soils,
and the water storage and production capacity ofthe vast majority of forested lands are generally
well conserved. Nevertheless, threats do exist. For
example, some waterways are contaminated withmercury as a result of uncontrolled gold-mining,
and river siltation and soil erosion are prevalent(ITTO 2003b, Fox 2010).
Biological diversity. Suriname has large intact
forest ecosystems of global significance and forests
have extremely high conservation and ecologicalvalues, particularly in the swamps and on the
Guyana Shield. The inventoried biota comprises
5800 species of plant, including 200 endemic
species, 185 species of mammals, 668 speciesof birds, 152 species of reptiles, 95 species ofamphibians and 790 species of fish (Malone 2007);
it is certain that much remains to be discovered.
Five mammals, one amphibian, one arthropod
and one plant are listed as critically endangered,endangered or vulnerable on the IUCN red list of
threatened species (IUCN 2011). Two plant species
are listed in CITES Appendix I, 30 in Appendix II
and one in Appendix III (UNEP-WCMC 2011).
Protective measures in production forests.
Harvesting guidelines to protect soil, waterand conservation values devised by SBB must
be incorporated in the harvesting plans ofconcessionaires and approved prior to actual
harvesting. They include the maximum allowable
cut per hectare and the alignment and maximum
area of skidding roads to be constructed in a felling381

Status of tropical forest management 2011

and currently comprises at least five significant-sizedcompanies. Local consumption as well as exports ofbottled water are growing steadily, although no dataon the value of these were available for this report.

compartment. In addition, rules are stipulated
in concession agreements regarding the storage
and disposal of chemicals, machine oils and otherchemical waste. These are closely monitored by SBB
and adhered to reasonably well by loggers, althoughstandards related to the spillage of used motor oils
and waste may slip through control from time totime, meaning that adherence may be less than
optimal.a

The Government of Suriname charges a fee per m³of timber felled and per hectare of forest concession
held. However, there are inconsistencies in thefee structure: for example, there is little differencein the level of fees for timber according to themarketability of species and therefore there is little
incentive to use lesser-known species (moreover,
local forestry entrepreneurs consider the fees to be
too high). The fees per area of concession are very
low, which tends to encourage the application forand holding of large concessions for speculation
rather than production. For these reasons, a revisionof the forest charges system has been prepared,
and will soon be enacted, in which the number oftimber classes for fee calculation will be increased,
there will be greater differentiation between timberclasses, and, overall, the average fee per m3 will be
reduced by about 50%. Concurrently, the fee per
area of concession will be increased significantly,
which will help to compensate government for thedecrease in revenue resulting from the reduction in
the fee per m³. The fee per area will be lower for
remote areas to encourage their development and to
alleviate pressure on timber production areas closer
to existing infrastructure.

Extent of protected areas. According to theGovernment of Suriname (2009a), an estimated1.89 million hectares of forest are contained withinprotected areas classified in IUCN protected-area
categories I–IV, including 1.15 million hectaresof lowland evergreen broadleaved rainforest. The
estimate of UNEP-WCMC (2010) is slightly lower,
at 1.46 million hectares. Of particular significanceis the Central Suriname Nature Reserve, createdin 1998 (1.6 million hectares). A further 245 000
hectares are in protected areas classified as IUCN
protected area categories V–VI. Just under
1.5 million hectares of protected areas are coveredby management plans (Table 7).a
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. Most of the protectedarea – and a large area of ‘unprotected’ forest in
remote parts of the country – is intact due to a lackof development pressure. Therefore, all protectedareas subject to management plans are assumed to
be under sustainable management.

An estimated US$60 million has been invested inforeign-owned logging operations and processing
equipment. The Government of Suriname invests
in SFM through its funding of SBB and NB.
Combined, those two institutions have an annual
budget for forest management, administration,
research and human-resource development of
about US$2.56 million. Annual grants and loans
from international organizations amount to about
US$850 000.a In total, just under 1100 people
work in the forest sector to implement or support
forest management, including 133 with professional
qualifications (45 in government and 88 in theprivate sector) and 135 trained (part-time or
full-time) forest workers (51 in government and 84

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. Forest-based activities
contributed about 2% of Suriname’s GDP, which
was worth about US$1.8 billion in 2007. The
formal market value of timber and NTFPs wasestimated at about US$19 million and the valueof the informal market was estimated at US$2.52
million.a In addition, the Water Supply Companyof Suriname reported a production of 32 million m3
of drinking water in 2007, with an estimatedmarket value of US$18 million.a The water-bottlingindustry has developed rapidly in the last decade
Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)
Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

4430
2194

1390
1890

1160
0

1460a

1460

*

382

As reported in ITTO (2006).

SURINAME

in the private sector). The private sector comprises
29 logging companies and about 30 consultants (17of whom are university-trained). In addition, thewood-processing sector has about 2400 employees.a
About 250 people are employed in the managementof protected areas (FAO 2010).
Livelihood values. An estimated 65 000 Amerindianand Maroon people rely on forests for 50% or moreof their livelihoods, particularly in the districts of
Sipaliwini, Brokopondo, Para and Marowijne.a Forest
resources are important for medicines, building
materials and fibres, but particularly for wild animals,
fruit, seeds and nuts, which are major food sources.
More than a thousand plant and animal species are
known to be used in one form or another (van Andelet al. 2003).
People inhabiting the more remote hinterlands havevery large areas of forests available for subsistence
purposes: while their daily activities would mostly
be confined to a couple of kilometres from theirsettlements, they may also undertake longer trips
by boat or by foot away from their settlements (e.g.
for prospecting, hunting and fishing). The issue of‘how much land’ is required for customary use has
emerged in discussions regarding the land rights
claims of Amerindian and Maroon peoples, and an
attempt has been made to identify the extent of thearea around their settlements that could eventually
be declared their economic zone. In the settlements
closest to Paramaribo and other urban centres, theneed to share living space has given rise to a certainbalance, whereby traditional lifestyles tend to be
confined closer to settlements. However, in largepart this issue remains to be resolved.
About 550 000 hectares of forest has been
allocated to Amerindian and Maroon peoples ascommunity forests. SBB considers these to be under‘extensive’ managementb, although some have been
over-exploited due to weak communal business
management capacity, which allows the forest
to be logged by entrepreneurs from outside thecommunities on the basis of very poor agreements.a
SBB, Celos (an agricultural research organization)and WWF are working together to provide trainingthat will enhance the capacity for sustainable
management among communities in the Pokigron
and Marshall Creek region.
Social relations. Suriname’s people comprise a racial
mix of Amerindians, Creoles, Hindus, Maroons,
Javanese, Chinese and Caucasians. About 10% of

the population is Amerindian or Maroon, who claim
collective land-use rights, including to forests.
Amerindian and Maroon groups have soughtinternational support for their land-rights claims,
including through the Inter American Court ofJustice. In 2007 this court delivered a verdict infavour of the Saramaccan tribes, who had filed acomplaint that the Government of Suriname had
neglected their land rights by granting concessions
and other rights to people from outside theircommunity without their permission. The Court
ordered the government to redress the disputed acts
and to recognize the claimed rights.
Land rights continue to be a difficult issue between
the government, tribal communities and otherstakeholders. The government has established an
official working group to help find a resolution.a
Seminars, workshops and other interactive
communication modalities involving all relevant
stakeholders have, to a certain extent, proveneffective in reconciling views over forest policy
development and SFM. Well-identified stakeholder
groups with strong voices in such processes are:•

The Platform for the Timber Sector in
Suriname (PHS), comprising a relatively small
but vocal number of private logging
entrepreneurs, with a persistent dislike of any
initiative undertaken by the SBB.

•

Representatives of Indigenous and Maroon
people who live in the forests in the hinterlandsof the country.

•

Several national and international NGOs,
including Conservation International, WWF
and Tropenbos Suriname.a

SBB has also often been able to provide effective
mediation in conflicts between concessionaires
over boundary demarcation. Where this mediation
proves insufficient, the protagonists may take thecase to a judicial court. Conflict prevention, or the
early resolution of emerging conflicts between the
Government of Suriname (particularly the forest
management agencies) and private operators, isattempted by providing for a representation of
relevant stakeholders in the governing bodies ofthe forest management agencies. Representatives of
stakeholders are also included in ad hoc committees
and work-groups dealing with particular issues
regarding the sustainable use and management of
the country’s forest resources.a383

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Not all attempts at conflict resolution have beensuccessful. Some stakeholders have failed to taketheir seats in the governing bodies of existing andproposed management agencies. It has also provenvery hard to obtain agreement between the forest
management agencies and some stakeholders,
particularly the PHS, on most of the issues subject
to discussion.a
In all sectors, including the forest sector, the rules
and requirements regarding health and safety inthe workplace are set out in the Safety Act (1947),
which is administered by the Ministry of Labor,
Technological Development and Environment.
The Directorate for Labor in this ministry conducts
frequent inspections in different working locations,
including sawmills and timber-harvesting sites. Thereis close correspondence between the prevailing labour
regulations and International Labour Organization(ILO) conventions. Labour unions play a role inassuring that ILO recommendations and regulations
are taken into account and adhered to. However,labour unions have only a limited role in companies
active in the forest sector.aAmong the 29 enterprises interviewed in thecontext of the present report, two deaths wererecorded in forest-based operations in the three
years to 2009. In addition, three cases of permanent
disabilities and six instances of injuries followed bycomplete recovery were recorded.a
The contribution of members of the Amerindianand Maroon communities to tree-spotting andbotanical research regarding plant species in theforest is indispensable, as is their contribution to all
forms of surveys in forest areas in the hinterlands.a

Summary
Suriname has taken some important steps towards
SFM. A GIS–GPS system has been introduced
to help locate boundaries of protected areas andto assist in the mapping and planning of forest
operations. A computerized log-tracking system isbeing rolled out. There is almost no deforestation,and most of the forest estate is primary forest.
There is an interim strategic action plan for
implementing the national forest policy. About
2 million hectares of forest are under licence,
although not all concessions are currently under
harvest. There has been an ongoing process toestablish a single authority for the management of
production and protection forests, the Bosnas, but384

this is still pending. A number of steps have beentaken to improve conflict resolution in Suriname’s
forests, but land rights are an ongoing issue between
government, Amerindian and Maroon peoples, andother stakeholders.

Key points•

More than 90% of Suriname is forested, andvery little deforestation is taking place.
Gold-mining has become a significant cause offorest and environmental degradation.

•

Suriname has an estimated PFE of 7.51 million
hectares (compared with 11.3 million hectares
in 2005), comprising 5.32 million hectares ofnatural production forest (compared with 6.89
million hectares in 2005) and 2.19 million
hectares of protection forest (compared with
4.43 million hectares in 2005).

•

As of late 2010, 62 logging concessions had
been allocated over a total area of 1.3 million
hectares.

•An estimated 247 000 hectares of the
production PFE is under SFM, including
89 000 hectares that are certified.

•

An estimated 1.46 million hectares of theprotection PFE is under SFM.

EndnotesaGovernment of Suriname (2009a).

b

Personal communications with officials of the Governmentof Suriname, 2010.

References and other sources
van Andel, T., MacKinven, A. & Bánki, O. (2003). Commercial
Non-timber Forest Products of the Guiana Shield: An
Inventory of Commercial NTFP Extraction and Possibilities
for Sustainable Harvesting. The Netherlands Committee for
IUCN, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
FAO (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010 country
report: Suriname (available at http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).
Fox, B. (2010). Gold rush is growing threat to Suriname
rainforest. Associated Press, 31 August 2010 (available
at http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/
ALeqM5h7d2bEgNJaV-9s1ouca5UZi1sjKgD9HT9KN80).
FSC (2010, website accessed December 2010). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).
Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007). Monitoringand estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDDa reality. Environmental Research Letters 2 (available at http://
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045023/fulltext).

SURINAME

Government of Suriname (2002). First national communication
to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. National Institute for Environment andDevelopment, Suriname.
Government of Suriname (2009a). Report of progress towardachieving sustainable forest management in Suriname.
Submission to ITTO by the Foundation for Forest
Management and Production Control, Ministry of PhysicalPlanning, Land and Forestry Management, Paramaribo,
Suriname.
Government of Suriname (2009b). Readiness preparation
proposal Suriname. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility(available at http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/
fcp/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/
PDF/Jan2010/RPP_Suriname_second_submission_11_
January_2010.pdf ).
ITTO (2003a). Annual Review and Assessment of the World
Timber Situation 2002. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO (2003b). Achieving the Year 2000 Objective andsustainable forest management in Suriname. Report of thediagnostic mission. Presented at the thirty-fifth session of
the International Tropical Timber Council, November 2003.
ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. ITTO,
Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2011, website accessed March 2011). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/annual_
review_output/?mode=searchdata).

Malone, S. (2007). Management of environmental funds for thefinancial sustainability of biodiversity conservation: How
do we achieve effective management of protected areas andbuffer zones in Suriname. Paper presented at the RedLAC
Workshop, 8 – 11 May 2007, Lima, Peru.
McSweeney, C., New, M. & Lizcano, G. (undated). UNDP
climate change country profiles: Suriname (available at
http://country-profiles.geog.ox.ac.uk/).
Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World Atlas ofMangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
Tjon, K. (1998). Monitoring tropical rainforest in Suriname.
Internal memorandum. NARENA/CELOS.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. Data prepared for
ITTO. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March
2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
January 2010). World population prospects: the 2008
revision (searchable database available at http://esa.un.org/
unpp/p2k0data.asp).

IUCN (2011, website accessed March 2011). IUCN red list of
threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).

385

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Trinidad and Tobago

Forest resources
Trinidad and Tobago consists of two main islands
and a number of small islets; it has a total land areaof 513 000 hectares. In 2010 it had an estimatedpopulation of 1.34 million people (United Nations
Population Division 2010) and it is ranked
64th out of 182 countries in UNDP’s Human
Development Index (UNDP 2009).
Trinidad, the much larger island, is traversed bythree ranges of hills running more-or-less east to
west with a highest point in the northern rangeof 936 m. Tobago has a central ridge that runs
for two-thirds the length of the island and rises
to 576 m. FAO (2010) estimated the forest areaat 226 000 hectares. A new forest-cover map of
Trinidad and Tobago under development by theUnited States Department of Agriculture, expected
to be available by the end of 2010, will provide new
information on the country’s forest resources.a

Forest types. There are nine forest types in Trinidad
and Tobago: evergreen seasonal forest; semi-green
seasonal forest; deciduous seasonal forest; dryevergreen forest; montane forest; mangrove forest;
herbaceous swamp; palm marsh; and marsh
forest. The most widespread forest formation isevergreen (about 94 000 hectares – FAO 2010)and semi-evergreen seasonal forest (about 14 000
hectares – Pantin & Ram 2010), characterized in
the lowlands by two main canopy species, Carapa
guianensis (crappo) and Eschweilera subglandulosa(guatecare). Tropical evergreen submontane andmontane forests occur in the northern range ofhills. There are also about 14 000 hectares of swamp
forests (FAO 2010). Mangrove forests cover about
6500 hectares. The largest area of mangrove cover
is Caroni Swamp, which is south of Port of Spain(Spalding et al. 2010). Mangrove forests are widelyused for timber and charcoal production and play
an important role as near-shore fisheries, including
for oyster, crabs and shrimps (ibid.).
Permanent forest estate. An estimated 131 500
hectares of state-owned forests are designated as‘proclaimed forest reserves’ and 11 700 hectares
are designated as ‘unproclaimed forest reserves’,
comprising both natural and planted forests. These– and some other protection forests – constitute thePFE (Table 1). Only state forests are counted, since
the permanency of private forest is unreported.
FAO (2010) reported that the PFE (for production)
was ‘fixed’ at 143 000 hectares. Due to agricultural
encroachment, squatting for housing, and illegal
quarrying, however, the actual forest area has been
reduced.

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reporting year

2005*
2010
*

**

386

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)0.248–0.259
0.226

250
150**

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlanted
128
127

15.4
15.4

59.1
59.1

Total

202.5
201.5

As reported in ITTO (2006).

Calculated using the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) (66.4%) andthe estimated total natural forest area.

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

Forest ecosystem healthincreased biodiversity loss, coral bleaching and anincreased risk of insect-borne diseases. The effects
of climate change and climate variability include
an increased frequency of flooding and extreme
weather events (such as hurricanes, which can havea major effect on forest structure). Rising sea level
is of concern, mainly in the Caroni Basin and forcoastal settlements. Increased coastal erosion has
been observed at Cedros and saltwater intrusion isa problem on the southwest peninsula of Trinidad.
Trinidad and Tobago is involved in the regional
efforts of the Caribbean Community to address
climate change, which are coordinated by the
Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre.

Deforestation and forest degradation. According
to FAO (2010), the total forest area decreased by3600 hectares between 2005 and 2010 and by
14 300 hectares between 1990 and 2010. Bothnatural forests and plantations are affected byover-harvesting, encroachment, fire and otherforms of damage, although the extent of thesehas generally not been quantified (ITTO 2006).
FAO (2010) reported that fire affected about 9500
hectares of forest and other wooded land in thefive-year period 2004–08. ITTO (2003) identified
non-legal settlement (squatting) as a major cause of
deforestation in forest reserves. Another factor thathas resulted in forest degradation is strip-mining ofsand and gravel; this activity has degraded forests
in large areas of the forest reserves, especially along
the southern foothills of the northern range. Table 2
presents available estimates of forest condition.

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. Most forested land is owned andadministered by the state (Table 3). State-owned
forest accounts for 192 200 hectares, including all
the PFE, and the remainder is owned privately.

Vulnerability of forests to climate change. As asmall island state, Trinidad and Tobago is among
the most vulnerable countries to climate change andhas a relatively low adaptive capacity. According to
the Caribbean Community (CARICOM 2010), thedirect effects of temperature rises in the Caribbean
are periodical heat stress of the vegetation,

Criteria and indicators. Trinidad and Tobago hasa long history of systematic forest management. For
example, its block management and shelterwood
systems have been applied for more than 60 years(ITTO 2006), but it lacks a system of C&I suited
to its needs. Trinidad and Tobago’s submission to

Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land

-

-

Total
62.4
146*
-

*
‘Other naturally regenerated forest’.
Source: FAO (2010).

Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category
State ownership (national, state orprovincial government)
Other public entities (e.g.
municipalities, villages)
Total public
Owned by local communities and/orIndigenous groups
Privately owned by individuals, firms,
other corporate

Total area Of which PFE Notes’000 ha
192

143

-

-

192
-

143
-

34

-

Includes some planted forests.

Note:

FAO (2010) estimated the area of forest under public ownership in 2005 at 174 000 hectares and the area of forest under private
ownership at 56 000 hectares.
Source: ITTO estimate based on Government of Trinidad and Tobago (2010).

387

Status of tropical forest management 2011

ITTO for this report was not in the ITTO C&I
reporting format.
Forest policy and legislation. Trinidad and Tobago
adopted its first forest policy for the sustainable
management of its PFE in 1942. A revision wasmade in 1981 to take into account the significant
social, economic, political and technologicalchanges that had taken place in the country since
1942, but it was never adopted by government. A
further revision took place in 1998 and while thecabinet has approved this revision it has not been
adopted formally. There is an absence of an agreed
strategy and policy in the forest sector (ITTO2006).
Recently a new draft forest policy (2008) and adraft protected-areas policy were produced andpublic consultations undertaken. It is expectedthat the final review of both these policies will
be completed shortly for approval by Cabinet.
The purpose of the draft national forest policy
is to guide the sustainable management of theforest resources of the nation, including their use
and the impacts and consequences of that use. It
covers natural as well as plantation forests, includes
deforested and degraded forest lands, and addresses
forests located on both private and public lands.
The draft national forest policy recognizes thatwhile a few government agencies will have primary
responsibility for implementing the policy it will
inform the behaviour, programs and activitiesof all stakeholders, including state, private andcommunity groups.a
Institutions involved in forests. In Trinidad, theForestry Division of Agriculture, Land and Marine
Resources is the state’s sole management authority
for the forest sector, having responsibility forforestry, watershed management, wildlife, parks,use, research and services in support of the private
forest sector. In the last decade, three strategic plans
were produced for the Forestry Division to cover
the periods 2001–05, 2006–09 and 2009–12,
respectively. It is expected that the latter plan, if
approved, will enable the Division to be more
effective and efficient in delivering goods andservices demanded by emerging challenges. Apartfrom a restructuring of the existing professional
staff, several specialist positions are being sought
to meet the challenges of added roles and responsi­
bilities (the seeking of specialist positions was also
reported in ITTO 2006). In Tobago, forests are388

under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Conservatorof Forests, who reports to the Secretary ofAgriculture, Land Marketing and the Environment.
In 2008 the total number of people employed inpublic forest institutions in the country was 946(19% of whom were women), including 16 with auniversity degree or equivalent (FAO 2010).
Civil-society organizations are gradually becoming
more involved in forest management. Throughthe National Reforestation and Watershed
Rehabilitation Programme, for example, several
community-based groups and organizations are
becoming active in the growing and protection offorests. Others are involved in the protection ofleatherback turtles during the nesting season (from
April to August) and in other conservation-oriented
activities.a

Status of forest management
Forest for production
Both natural forests and particularly planted forests
are actively managed. About 75 000 hectares ofnatural forests are regarded as intensively managed
and have management plans. All forest reserves
and the external boundaries of the PFE have been
fully demarcated. However, the boundaries are
not properly maintained and there are frequent
incursions/encroachments. The police force andhonorary game wardens participate in forest patrols
to help control illegal activities. The most recent
official forest inventory was carried out in 1969; thelack of up-to-date data is an obstacle to forest policy
reform and financing (Patin & Ram 2010).
Up to the 1980s, management plans for forest
reserves were written and followed. These lapsed orwere not followed in a period spanning the early
1980s to 2003, but new management plans were
written for all forest reserves for the period 2004–08
and are being revised at present.a The managementof natural forests has followed a form of selection
known as the ‘open-range system’, with diameter
limits as the main form of control. Individuallylicensed loggers are allowed to cut a specified
number of trees or volume as defined by the
Forestry Division. In many cases this has amounted
to a ‘logger’s selection system’, uncontrolled by
the Forestry Division. In order to ensure adequate
controls a block system of management was
introduced, in which areas are opened up for saleon a polycyclic basis. Several variations of thisTRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

system have been employed from time to time,
known variously as silvicultural marking in blocks
and the periodic block system.
Because forest resources are limited, there are
no forest concessions. Some 400 private loggers(mainly wood-workers) are registered (licensed)
by the Forestry Division and allotted marked trees
for extraction and use. Illegal encroachment andillegal logging certainly occur in the PFE, although
their extent is unknown; the police-assisted patrols
no doubt reduce their preva­lence. In the case ofplantations, particularly Tectona grandis (teak)and Pinus caribaea (Caribbean pine), coupes to
be clearfelled are sub-divided into five-hectare
units and coupes to be thinned are sub-divided
into ten-hectare plots for allocation to sawmillers,
licensees, furniture manufacturers and logging
contractors.
Silviculture and species selection. The harvestingof plantation teak and Caribbean pine provided up
to 28% of the local timber supply in 2008 (Table4). Enrichment planting in natural forests is stillpracticed in depleted and poorly stocked forest to
improve the growing stock and thereby support
multiple use and sustainability.
Planted forest and trees outside the forest. The
total industrial planted-forest area is reported to
be stable at about 15 400 hectares, with felledplantations replaced with new plantations but
no new areas planted.a The planted forest estatecomprises 9100 hectares of teak (introduced from
Myanmar in 1913), 4200 hectares of Caribbean
pine and other pine species, and 2100 hectares of
mixed hardwoods.
Other species planted on a limited scale in bothpure and mixed stands, including by enrichment
planting, include Cedrela odorata (cedar), Cordia
alliodora (cypre), Swietenia macrophylla (mahogany)
and Tabebuia rosea (apamate).

In 1998 the government approved a private
reforestation program and made subsidies
available to assist private forest farmers. To
date, 3907 hectares of mixed hardwood forest
have been established on private lands. In 2004
the government also established the National
Reforestation and Watershed Rehabilitation
Programme to reforest denuded lands across thecountry. Operations commenced in 2005 and 1722
hectares of forests have been planted in various
areas. By the end of 2010 the total planted forest in
both state lands and private lands was likely morethan 21 000 hectares.a
Forest certification. So far no forests have beencertified in Trinidad and Tobago (e.g. FSC 2010).
Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. Of the natural forests,
ITTO (2006) reported that 15 000 hectares
had been managed for many years according
to management plans which conform to basic
principles of SFM and are harvested according
to the periodic block system, which is considered
generally consistent with sustainability; there isno evidence to suggest that the management ofthese forests has changed (Table 5). The balanceof production forest has been managed under
the open-range system and is now considered to
be degraded (ITTO 2006). On the basis of an
estimate provided by the Government of Trinidad
and Tobago, FAO (2010) reported that 143 000
hectares of natural forest were under sustainable
management.
Timber production and trade. Trinidad andTobago produces modest quantities of industrial
timber and depends mainly on imports to cover its
needs for sawnwood, plywood and paper products.
Its net timber import bill in 2008 amounted toabout US$80 million.a Total industrial roundwood
production in 2009 was about 50 000 m3, which

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
SpeciesHarvested volume (m3), 2008

Tectona grandis (teak)*Spondias mombin (hogplum)
Cedrela odorata (cedar)
Pinus caribaea (Caribbean pine)*
Virola surinamensis (cajuca)
Others (estimated)
Total (estimated)

9536 (17.7% of total harvest)
6266 (11.6%)6254 (11%)
5711 (10.6%)
1857 (3.5%)
24 232 (45%)
53 856 (100%)*
Also listed in ITTO (2006). In the case of Pinus caribeaa, Pinus spp were listed.
Source: Government of Trinidad and Tobago (2010).

389

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)
Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

128
127

75
75

*

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
75
75

Certified

15

15.4

PlantedWith
management
plans
15.4

15

15.4

15.4

Sustainably
managed

0
0

Total

Certified00

As reported in ITTO (2006).

(along with about 1750 m3 of imported logs)
yielded about 31 500 m3 of sawnwood and 2000
m3 of veneer (ITTO 2011). Plantation areas to bethinned or clearfelled are allocated to sawmillers
and woodworkers on a quota system. Annual blocks
to be thinned or clearfelled are notified for sale;
sawmillers are expected to indicate their interest in
working in particular areas. In 2009 there were 89
licensed sawmills whose combined input capacity
was 100 000 m3 per year.a These ranged in size
from typical family enterprises to large companies
and processed both the domestic supply of timberand imports of round logs and squares fromneighbouring Guyana and Suriname. In 2009
there were 118 registered and several unregistered
furniture factories that processed lumber into
finished products for domestic use and for exports.a

Forest carbon. FAO (2010) estimated the forest
carbon stock in the living forest biomass at 19
MtC. Alternatively, using forest data produced by
UNEP-WCMC (2010) the forest biomass carbon
stock can be estimated at 25–32 MtC.b Trinidad
and Tobago is not engaged in international REDD+
processes. There is, however, a carbon sequestration
project – the Nariva Ecosystem Restoration andCarbon Sequestration Project, which is financedby an investment loan from the World Bank. It
comprises two components. The first is to sequester
carbon through afforestation and reforestationof selected areas of the Nariva wetland ecosystemand the second is to mitigate methane emissions
through the restoration of surface hydrology. Table
6 summarizes Trinidad and Tobago’s current forest
carbon potential.

Non-timber forest products. Little information
was available for this report on the domestic
production of the country’s major NTFPs. Bamboo
is grown as a commercial crop. Some NTFPs areimported from Venezuela and the countries of the
Guyana Shield. Edible products such as wild tubers,
bush meat, honey, beeswax and thatching grass
are used extensively by rural communities but the
royalty rates for such items are nominal and there isvery little data capture of their harvest. In 2005 an
estimated 12 000 kg of bush meat and 60 000 kg of‘other plant products’ were harvested from forests(FAO 2010).

Forest for protection
Soil and water. There are about 2000 hectaresof protection plantations in the coastal regions.
It is generally recognized that there is a need toreforest and rehabilitate critical watersheds, but landoutside the forest is generally occupied. Efforts arebeing made to rehabilitate degraded land throughtree-planting in parts of the islands. Some 37 000
hectares of forest are reportedly managed primarily
for the protection of soil and water a (FAO 2010
reported an area of 51 300 hectares).
Biological diversity. Trinidad has surprising
biodiversity for its size, brought about by its
proximity to other Caribbean islands and,

Table 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)% forestwithcanopycover >60%

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to
2030

19–32

66

+

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
sink capacity monitoring
capacity
to 2030+-

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity-

Importance Engagementinof forest
international
fire/
REDD+
biomass
processes
burning+-+++ high; ++ medium; + low; estimate of national forest carbon based on FAO (2010) and ITTO; estimate of % total forest with
canopy cover >60% based on UNEP-WCMC (2010).

390

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

particularly, to continental South America. Morethan 2280 species have been recorded, 215 ofthem endemic. There are over 100 mammals (therichest mammal biota in the Caribbean), 420 birds
and 70 reptiles. One bird and eight amphibians
found in forests are listed as critically endangered,endangered or vulnerable on the IUCN red list of
threatened species (IUCN 2011). Thirty plants
are listed in CITES Appendix II (UNEP-WCMC
2011).
Protective measures in production forests. Forest
management plans prescribe measures to protect
riverbanks, rare plants and wildlife in production
forests.

Shoreline forest vegetation, Trinidad and Tobago.
© istockphoto/R. McClean

ecotourism, in which forests will undoubtedly playa substantial role.a

Extent of protected areas. A system of 61 nationalparks and other protected areas was proposed in
1980. About 40 such national parks and otherprotected areas have been established and aremanaged by the Forestry Division; two are being
developed with funds from the Inter-American
Development Bank. FAO (2010) reported that
100 000 hectares had been proposed for the systemof national parks and protected areas, but only
8000 hectares of forests were being managed in thesystem. FAO (2010) reported that the conservationof biodiversity was the primary designation for
19 500 hectares of forest.

In 2005 the forest sector generated an estimated
7.42 million Trinidad and Tobago dollars. Total
public-sector expenditure in the sector in thatyear – including on the conservation of forest
biodiversity, reforestation, the protection of soil andwater, forest stand improvement, the establishment
and management of protected areas, and patrols toprotect turtles during the nesting season – was 88.1
million Trinidad and Tobago dollars (FAO 2010).
Pantin and Ram (2010) reported that total public
expenditure (capital and recurrent) on forestrelated activities amounted to US$10.78 million in
2005, US$10.71 in 2008 and US$12.43 million
in 2009, which was about 0.1% of GDP and lessthan one-third the estimated ‘basic’ annual funding
requirements for SFM. They concluded that theunderfunding was due primarily to “incorrect pricesignals and insufficient recognition of economic
values of forest services and products”. They
recommended that greater emphasis be placedon generating revenue for the provision of forest
ecosystem services, such as water production.

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. Insufficient information
was available to estimate the area of sustainably
managed protection PFE (Table 7). Some
protection forests are covered by management plans
and are used widely for ecotourism.

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. Forests cover most requirements
for fuelwood and some of the nation’s timber needs.
At present, about 10 000 people are employed inlocal forest-related jobs and many others are linked
indirectly to forestry. The Tourism Master Plan aims
to make Trinidad and Tobago the foremost tourism
destination in the Caribbean. This will involve

Livelihood values. Forests do not generally
provide the living area of the poor but they
provide important subsistence products for many
people. There is no direct conflict between timber
harvesting and livelihood interests, but forest is
still being cleared for agriculture, mining for sands

Table 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)*

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

59.1
59.1

29.2
8

-

12
12

-

As reported in ITTO (2006).

391

Status of tropical forest management 2011and gravels, oil and gas exploration, and otherpurposes.
Social relations. Although there are no significant
social conflicts associated with the management of
the country’s forests, the draft forest policy proposes
the increased involvement of local communities
in forest management. Some ten sites have been
earmarked for recreation and are visited byapproximately 300 000 people annually.a

Summary
There has been little change in the status of forest
management in Trinidad and Tobago since 2005. A
new draft forest policy and a draft protected areas
policy have been produced and have undergone aprocess of public consultation. Management plans
for forest reserves are being revised. The lack of
up-to-date information about the forests, the lackof a modern forest policy, and the underfundingof forest management all hinder the application of
SFM.

Key points•••

Trinidad and Tobago has an estimated PFE of
201 000 hectares (similar to 2005), comprising
127 000 hectares of natural production forest(compared with 128 000 hectares in 2005),
59 100 hectares of protection forest (as for2005) and 15 400 hectares of planted forest (asfor 2005).
An estimated 15 000 hectares of the natural
production PFE is under SFM. No forest iscertified, and no estimate was possible for thearea of protection PFE under SFM.
A new draft forest policy and a draft protectedareas policy have been produced and haveundergone a process of public consultation.

EndnotesaGovernment of Trinidad and Tobago (2010).

b

ITTO estimate.

392

References and other sources
CARICOM (2010, website accessed December 2010).
Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre(available at http://www.caricom.org/jsp/community/
ccccc.jsp?menu=community).
FAO (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010
country report: Trinidad and Tobago (available at http://
www.fao.org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).
FSC (2010, website accessed August 2010). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).
Government of Trinidad and Tobago (2010). Report of progress
toward achieving sustainable forest management in Trinidad
and Tobago. Submission to ITTO by the Forestry Division,
Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.

ITTO (2003). Achieving the ITTO Objective 2000
and sustainable forest management in Trinidad andTobago. Report of the diagnostic mission. Availableat www.itto.int/direct/topics/topics_pdf.../topics_
id=2110000&no=1.
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005.
ITTO, Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.
int/en/sfm/).
ITTO (2011, website accessed March 2011). Annual Review
statistics database (available at http://www.itto.int/
annual_review_output/?mode=searchdata).
IUCN (2011, website accessed March 2011). IUCN red list of
threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).
Pantin, D. & Ram, J. (2010). Facilitating financing forsustainable forest management in small islands developing
states and low forest cover countries An analytical report
prepared by Indufor for the United Nations Forum on
Forests. Country case study: Trinidad and Tobago. Draft,
October 2010. Indufor, Helsinki, Finland.

Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World
Atlas of Mangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. Data prepared for
ITTO. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed March
2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html).
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
April 2010). World population prospects: the 2008 revision(searchable database available at http://esa.un.org/unpp/
p2k0data.asp).

VENEZUELA

Venezuela

Forest resources
Venezuela has a land area of 91.2 million hectares
and a population in 2010 of 29 million people(United Nations Population Division 2010). It
is ranked 58th out of 182 countries in UNDP’s
Human Development Index (UNDP 2009).
Venezuela comprises three main biogeographicalregions: a narrow coastal area; the Andean
mountain range, which reaches 5000 m above sea
level and supports dry and humid montane andcloud forests; and the basins of the Orinoco andAmazon rivers. The Orinoco Plain is part of thellanos biome1, which covers 31% of the country.
The Guayana region (the states of Bolivar andAmazonas), which is part of the Guiana Shield,
occupies about half the country and contains 70%
of its forests. FAO (2010) estimated Venezuela’s
forest area at 46.3 million hectares.
Forest types. Tropical humid forest, Venezuela’s
most extensive forest type, occurs in the Orinocodelta, the Guayana region and in small areas southand southwest of Lake Maracaibo; it stretchesfrom sea level to 400 m in altitude. The mostcommon species found in the tropical humid
forest are Couroupita guianensis, Ceiba pentandra,
1 An extensive system of grasslands, seasonally-flooded plains and forests
shared by Venezuela and Colombia. It is located to the north and westof the Orinoco River and borders the Amazon Basin along its entire
southern edge. About 61% (27.5 million hectares) of the llanos biome
lies within Venezuela.

Coumarouna punctata, Erisma uncinatum andCarapa guianensis. Tropical mountain forest isfound in three zones: the Merida range; the coastal
range by the Caribbean; and the eastern massif in
the states of Sucre and Monagas. Cloud forest forms
in the Andes between 500 and 2000 m. Valuabletimber species found in Venezuela’s cloud forest
include Cedrela mexicana, Guarea spp, Roupalamontana, Terminalia spp, Virola sebifera, Rollinia
fendleri, Calophyllum brasiliense and, in higher areas,
species of Podocarpus. Deciduous forest occurs in
the llanos, generally on flat ground of the Orinoco
Plain, but has nearly disappeared due to conversion
to agriculture and pasture. Once-common species
in these forests include Swietenia macrophylla(caoba), Bombacopsis quinata, Tabebuia pentaphylla
and Ceiba pentandra. Venezuela has an estimated356 900 hectares of mangroves, a significant part ofwhich is under threat (Spalding et al. 2010).
Permanent forest estate. The entire forest area iscontained within specially designated areas (áreas
bajo régimen de administración especial – ABRAEs)
managed for specific purposes according to law.
About 16.2 million hectares of the country’s
estimated 46.3 million hectares of forest areallocated for production as part of the PFE, but
3.38 million hectares of these are classified asprotection forestsa and are therefore not includedin the estimate of production PFE shown in
Table 1. The production PFE is made up of 15
forest reserves (12.8 million hectares, of which
two reserves, El Caura in Bolivar and Imataca in
Delta Amacuro and Bolivar, make up about 8.8
million hectares) and four forest lots (lotes boscosos –covering about 83 000 hectares). The total planted
forest area is about 845 000 hectares, a considerable
part of which is in forest reserves. The total areaof officially classified protection forests (forests inprotected areas and forests set aside for soil andwater protection) is at least 19.6 million hectares(Table 1).

Forest ecosystem healthDeforestation and forest degradation. FAO(2010) estimated the average annual rate of
deforestation between 2000 and 2010 at 288 000

393

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Table 1 Permanent forest estate
Reportingyear

Estimatedtotal forest
area, range(million ha)

Total closed
natural forest(’000 ha)

2005*
2010

49.5–55.0
46.3

49 92625 300*****‡†

PFE (’000 hectares)
Production
Protection
NaturalPlantedTotal

13 00012 920‡34 46333 405863
845

20 60019 640†As reported in ITTO (2006).
Calculated using the ratio of forest with greater than 60% forest cover estimated by UNEP-WCMC (2010) (54.7%) and the total
natural forest area estimated by FAO (2010).
Areas for permanent forest production, including forest reserves (reservas forestales) and forest vocation land areas (areas devocación forestal) within the ABRAEs, less those forests classified as ABRAEs for protection (Government of Venezuela 2010).
Includes environmental recovery and protection areas (áreas de protección y recuperación ambiental (APRA) – 15.2 million
hectares; wildlife fauna reserves (reservas de fauna silvestre) – 0.3 million hectares; 3.38 million hectares of protection forests
classified in production ABRAE (Government of Venezuela 2010); and watershed and soil protection areas.

de Nuestra América). Nevertheless, land-use change
and human-induced forest degradation are expected
to have a larger impact on forest vulnerability in thenext two to five decades. Uncontrolled forest fires
occur regularly, both in natural and planted forest.
There are, on average, more than 3000 forest fires
annually, affecting at least 100 000 hectares of forest
per year.ahectares (0.6%). In the past, deforestation was
highest in the llanos; for the last 20 years, however,it has been highest in the drier northwestern Zulia
region, which has lost almost two-thirds of its forest
cover, and south of Orinoco (Guayana region).
The main causes of deforestation are the expansionof commercial crops and small-scale farming.
A significant part of Venezuela’s forest estate isdegraded (Table 2), caused partly by small-scaleand larger-scale mining, which is also a significant
cause of river pollution. Informal gold and diamondminers are particularly active in Bolivar state, where
there is a history of violent conflict between miners
and local Indigenous peoples. Successive Venezuelan
governments have taken steps to control mining in
the region but have made relatively little progress.b

SFM policy framework
Forest tenure. There is no forest cadastre in
Venezuela and thus it is difficult to estimate theownership status of forestsa, although the vast
majority is owned by the state (Table 3). There
are private forest lots in both natural and planted
forest areas, but their extent is unknown. The 1999
Constitution recognizes the right of Indigenous
people to the collective ownership of forest
territories, access to resources and cultural uses
(articles 119–126), but no demarcation or formal
recognition process is in place.b The extent to which
local communities have the right to administer,conserve and manage timber resources in ABRAEs
remains unclear. Venezuela’s legislature passed a
new law on Indigenous peoples and communities(Ley Orgánica de Pueblos y Comunidades Indígenas)
in 2005, which includes a provision ensuring theVulnerability of forests to climate change.
Climate change is considered by the Governmentof Venezuela to be a significant threat. Extreme
weather events such as inundations and extended
droughts are occurring with increasing intensity andfrequency, claiming lives and causing considerable
damage. Venezuela is participating in international
negotiations on climate-change adaptation andis playing a leading role on climate-related issues
within the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of
Our America (Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos
Table 2 Forest condition
PFE

Non-PFE

Total’000 haArea of primary forest
Area of degraded primary forest
Area of secondary forest
Area of degraded forest land*--

Source: Derived from Government of Venezuela (2010) and personal communications – see endnote b.

394

21 00018 0007 000-

VENEZUELA

Constitution, which define the framework ofenvironmental rights. Sustainable natural resource
management is defined as a fundamental taskof the state; it is the basic principle of the 2006
Organic Law for the Environment (Ley Orgánica
del Ambiente), which replaced the 1976 Law for
the Environment. The 1983 Organic Law of Land
Management (Ley Orgánica para la Ordenación
del Territorio) defines territories that are under aspecific management regime, including naturalforests and areas for reforestation and rehabilitation(Article 15). The Penal Law of the Environment(Ley Penal del Ambiente), which came into force in
1992, defines offences against the environment. In
December 2008 a new law for the management of
biological diversity (Ley de Gestión de la Diversidad
Biológica) was passed, replacing the former law of2000.

Small-scale mining in Guiana, Venezuela.

land and property rights of Indigenous peoples
and communities (ITTO & RRI 2009). Thislaw recognizes ancestral rights to forestlands
and specifies the process for demarcating andtitling Indigenous lands. Approximately 700 000
hectares have been titled to Indigenous peoples’
communities in agricultural areas (ibid.).

Decree 6070 of June 2008 constitutes the Law on
Forests and Forest Management (Ley de Bosquesy Gestión Forestal), superseding the Forest Law(1966). It contains the framework for SFM andforest protection and recognizes the wider functionsof forests for the production of goods and services
as well as the environmental and cultural values
linked to forests.a Since 2009 the Forest Service(Dirección General de Bosques) has been developing
revisions to the new law, including provisions forthe national development plan (Proyecto Nacional
Simón Bolívar) and the emerging role of forests
in climate change. Those revisions are underdiscussion in the national legislature.

Criteria and indicators. Venezuela has a long
tradition of forest management and professional
foresters are involved at all levels of forest
production and conservation. The country is anactive member of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty
Organization, which has developed the TarapotoC&I framework for SFM and a platform for
dialogue between national forest authorities. The
Government of Venezuela used the ITTO C&I in
its submission to ITTO for this report.a

The country’s domestic timber trade is regulated by
the 1966 Forest Law for Soil and Water (Ley Forestal
de Suelos y de Aguas) and the international tradeby the Fiscal Law (Ley de Timbre Fiscal, Decreto

Forest policy and legislation. The frameworkfor forest conservation and management is laidout in articles 127–129 of the country’s 1999
Table 3 Forest area, by tenure
Ownership category

Total area Of which PFE Notes’000 haState ownership (national, state orprovincial government)
Other public entities (e.g.
municipalities, villages)
Total public
Owned by local communities and/orIndigenous groups
Private owned by individuals, firms,
other corporate

46 300-No distinction can be made between state ownershipcategories.

46 300
-

-

120

-

About 0.7 million hectares have been attributed to Indigenous
peoples’ groups, but it is unclear how much of this area isforested.
Mainly planted forests owned by private persons or enterprises.

Source: Government of Venezuela (2010).

395

Status of tropical forest management 2011363/1999). The latter includes tariff instruments
for the control of imports and exports and stipulates
that logs harvested in natural forests cannot beexported. Industrial logging (since 1978; Decree269) and mining (since 1989; Decree 2552) areprohibited in Amazonas, the country’s secondlargest state after Bolivar (ITTO 2006). The extent
to which these regulations are still being applied isunclear, however.
A new forest policy to replace the general policyof 1998 (Politica Nacional de Bosques) is underpreparation, with a view to better encompassing
the human dimension and sustainable development
approaches to forest management. The principle ofthe new forest policy is to secure the multiple andsustainable uses of forest resources, with particularemphasis on the livelihood values of forests for local
people. Special emphasis will be given to the controlof illegal logging and encroachment in forest
reserves by shifting cultivators and illegal miners.
Institutions involved in forests. The Ministry
for the Environment (Ministerio del Poder Popularpara el Ambiente – MPPA) is the lead ministry
responsible for forests (replacing the former
Ministry for Environment and Natural Resources).
The Forest Service is the MPPA’s implementation
agency. Other ministries involved in forest
development are the Ministry for Agricultureand Lands (Ministerio del Poder Popular para laAgricultura y Tierras – MAT) and the Ministry
for Sciences and Technology (Ministerio del Poder
Popular para la Ciencia, Tecnología e Industrias
Intermedias). Particularly south of Orinoco, which isalso an important development area, there is a lackof clarity on the relative roles and responsibilities of
institutions, in particular between the MPPA, MAT
and the Ministry for Energy and Petrol (Ministeriodel Poder Popular para la Energía y Petróleo, theformer Ministry for Energy and Mining).
Other important institutions supporting thedevelopment of SFM in Venezuela include theReforestation Company (Compañía Forestal de
Reforestación), which deals with plantation forest
development and forest restoration on public
and private land; and the Institute for National
Parks (Instituto Nacional de Parques), which deals
with forest conservation and protected areas.
The Forestry Institute of Latin America (Instituto
Forestal Latinoamericano) is responsible for forest
research, along with other institutions such as the
National Forest Products Laboratory (Laboratorio

396

Nacional de Productos Forestales) and the BotanicalInstitute Foundation of Venezuela (Fundación
Instituto Botánico de Venezuela). The university in
Merida, Universidad de los Andes, is the main bodyfor high-level forest education in the country.
To monitor forest management and trade in forest
products, the MPPA has a functional national
forest information statistical system (Sistema
Nacional de Información Estadística Forestal),initiated with the support of ITTO, and an
information system for forest inventory (Sistema
de Información Nacional del Inventario Forestal),
which allows the management of forest growthdata and the monitoring of forest carbon. The firstcomprehensive national forest inventory is underpreparation and results are expected in 2012.
Decentralization was proposed in the Law ofDecentralization (1989) and reinforced byprinciples embodied in the 1999 Constitution.
However, natural resource management and, inparticular, forest management remain under thecontrol of the centrally organized Forest Service– with the exception of urban forestry, which ismanaged directly by the municipalities (ITTO2006).

Status of forest management
Forest for production
In mid 2010, the total area managed underintegrated forest management plans for goods andservices was 4.38 million hectares, comprising
three forest reserves – Imataca, Guarapiche andTicoporo.a Timber harvesting in natural forests
is done on a relatively small scale in Venezuela.
Under the new national forest policy, the integrated
co-management of forests in collaboration withlocal populations will involve multiple land
uses and the production of timber, NTFPs
and ecosystem services. Model forest and land
management plans have been prepared to fully
integrate various interests in the management offorest reserves in Ticoporo (187 000 hectares, plan
approved in 2008) and Caparo (174 000 hectares,
plan currently at the approval stage); both reserves
are located in the llanos. Only small parts of thesereserves are dedicated to timber production and amultiple-use management approach is employed.
SFM for timber production is being tested overabout 3% of the 3.8 million hectares of the Imataca
Forest Reserve in the Guayana region.a

VENEZUELA

Two kinds of permit for timber production areavailable: forest concessions, granted for areasof more than 5000 hectares; and annual logging
permits, for areas smaller than 5000 hectares. Forest
concessions are granted for 20–40 years in forest
reserves and forest lots, the latter established by the
MPPA (ITTO 2006). The forest concession policy
lacks clarity. Concessions are officially granted at
public auction, but information about the process is
not available publicly and the criteria for awarding
concessions are not transparent.b Concessionaires
often struggle to comply with the forest law, butthere is no public information on how and to what
extent they fail to comply (ITTO 2006).
Because nearly all forest reserves north of the
Orinoco River are deforested, all forest concessions
are now south of the Orinoco in the Guayana
region. In mid 2003, 14 forest concessions wereoperating in forest reserves and in forest lots overa total of 1.21 million hectares (ITTO 2006). No
newer information was available for this report.b In
June 2010, through Governmental Decree 7.457,
the Social Forest Enterprise (Empresa Socialista
Forestal S.A.) was created under the MPPA toreform forest concession management.
All concessionaires are Venezuelan nationals.
Concession management is based on detailed
forest management plans (planes de ordenación ymanejo forestal – POMFs) that include inventories
of commercial timber species. High-grading, inwhich only the most valuable species are extracted, iscommonplace (ITTO 2006). By law, all concessions
must be managed by professional forest engineers
and trained foresters. Harvesting in concessions iscarried out on the basis of an annual cutting plan
approved by the MPPA. Concessionaires are required
to establish line enrichment planting after harvestingat a distance between strips of 30–50 m. Annual
logging permits require a simplified management
plan prepared by a forest engineer (ibid.).

Silviculture and species selection. The minimum
cutting diameter for native species was reassessed
through Government Resolution 30 of June 2009.
At least 40 species are harvested from naturalforests.a Commonly harvested species are shown in
Table 4; others include Copaifera officinalis (aceite),
Tabebuia rosea (apamate), Hymenaea courbaril(algarrobo), Catostemma commune (baramán),Sterculia apetala (camoruco), Carapa guianensis(carapa), Simarouba amara (cedro blanco), Ceiba
pentandra (ceiba), Brosimum alicastrum (charo),
Pterocarpus officinalis (drago), Hura crepitans(jabillo), Qualea dinizii (guarapo), Spondias mombin(jobo), Nectandra spp (laurel), Anacardium excelsum(mijao), Mora excelsa (mora), Erisma uncinatum(moreillo), Piptadenia spp (palo blanco), Cordia
alliodora (pardillo), Manilkara bidentata (purguo),
Tabebuia serratifolia (puy), Peltogyne pubescens(zapatero) and Pithecellobium saman (samán).a
Under Government Resolution 217 (2006) the
following species are completely protected and may
not be harvested: Tabebuia espectabilis (acapro),
Swietenia macrophylla (caoba), Cedrela odorata(cedro), Anacardium excelsum (mijao), Cordia
thaisiana (pardillo negro) and Bombacosis quinata(saqui saqui).a Under Government Resolution 35(2008), the harvesting of samán, the main species
remaining in the scattered forests north of the
Orinoco region, is prohibited in the states of Apure,
Aragua, Barinas, Portuguesa and Zulia.a
Planted forest and trees outside the forest.
There has been a tradition of official and private
plantations in Venezuela for nearly 60 years.
Venezuela had an estimated 727 000 hectares ofplantations in 1998 (of which 115 000 hectares
were private; ITTO 2006). The MPPA reported anincrease of planted forest between 2002 and 2007of 118 000 hectares (20 000 hectares by privatecompanies), which would bring the planted-forest
area to about 845 000 hectares. The majority ofthe plantations are for industrial purposes. The

Table 4 Commonly harvested species for industrial roundwood
Species

Notes

Pinus caribaea (pino caribe)*
Eucalyptus spp
Pithecellobium saman (samán)*Erisma uncinatum (moreillo)*
Manilkara bidentata (purguo)

From plantations – about 79% of the total harvest in 2004–08.
From plantations – about 10% of the total harvest in 2004–08.
From open forests – about 45 000 m3 per year.
From the Guayana region – about 30 000 m3 per year.
From the Guayana region – about 6000 m3 per year.

*
Also listed in ITTO (2006).
Source: Government of Venezuela (2010).

397

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Timber production and trade. Nearly the entire
volume of timber production serves the domestic
market. ITTO (2011) estimated a total industrial
roundwood production in 2009 of 2.35 million m3(1.71 million m3 of which was softwood, mainly
Pinus caribaeaa), up from 1.44 million m3 in 2005.
An estimated 93% of roundwood is cut outside
forest reserves and forest lots.a

most important species is Pinus caribaea (pinocaribe), which provides more than two-thirds ofthe country’s total roundwood production. Other
planted species include Eucalyptus spp, Gmelina
arborea, Leucaena leucocephala, Fraxinus americana,Cupressus lusitanica, Tabebuia rosea, cedro, caoba
and Tectona grandis.a
A new reforestation plan (Plan Socialista de
Plantaciones Forestales) was approved in early 2010
with the aim of establishing 2 million hectares ofadditional planted forests in the next 20 years.a A
plantation program using Acacia mangium has beenlaunched in the south of Apure state with the aimof planting 300 000 hectares of new forests there.a

A considerable portion of total industrial
roundwood production is used for pulp and paper.
A large part of the remainder is used for sawnwood:for example, an estimated 950 000 m3 of sawnwood
was produced in 2009 (ITTO 2011). Exports ofprimary timber products are negligible, but thevalue of primary wood product imports has grown
to over US$59 million per year, mostly comprising
sawnwood and plywood (ibid.). Hardwood
from Roraima state in the Brazilian Amazon isincreasingly important because of a new andwell-maintained road system (ITTO 2006).

Forest certification. As of October 2010,
Venezuela had one certified planted forest of Pinus
caribaea covering an area of 139 650 hectares.
Natural-forest certification has not generated
interest among producers in Venezuela because theentire production is used to satisfy the domestic
market, which is not yet demanding certified
timber.

Non-timber forest products. Between 30 and 50
NTFPs are important and used at the local, regionaland national levels. Among them are various palm
products for food, construction, medicine andhandicrafts, including the fruits of Bactris gasipaes(pejibaye), Dipteryx odorata (sarrapia), Mauritia
flexuosa (moriche palm) and Bactris gasipaes(pijiguao). The latter two are important foodsources for Indigenous communities in the Orinocodelta and the Amazon.a Cooking oil is extracted
from the Acrocomia aculeata palm (corozo).
Palm heart (palmito) from Euterpe oleracea is an
important export product; it is now increasingly
planted and integrated into multiple-use forest
management plans. Other products are various
nuts, including Brazil nut and merey (Anacardium
occidentale), pepper, cinnamon, bamboo, nutmeg,
aniseed, cumin, ginger, cucumber and resins,
many sold in the national market. A food additive

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for production. According to one
government estimate, 77% of the volume of timber
harvested – 40% from areas under POMFs and
37% from plantations of Pinus caribaea – wasderived from sustainably managed sources andtherefore met the ITTO Year 2000 Objective(ITTO 2006). The estimate of sustainably managed
natural-forest PFE given in Table 5 is moreconservative and corresponds to timber concessions
that have been managed according to forest
management plans for more than 25 years. An
estimated area of about 510 000 hectares of naturalforests is currently managed under rigid silviculturalprovisions by eight enterprises in forest reserves andforest lots.a

Table 5 Management of the production PFE (’000 hectares)
Reporting
year

Total

Available for
harvesting

2005*
2010

13 00012 9203120
4379*****

398

NaturalWithmanagement
plans
1480
4379**

CertifiedSustainably
managed

0
0

480

863

PlantedWith
management
plans
727

510

845

845

Total

Certified140
140

As reported in ITTO (2006).
Government of Venezuela (2010). Includes the production forest area of the Imataca Forest Reserve (about 1.37 million hectares).

VENEZUELA

extracted from Bixa orellana (onoto o achote) is also
widely used.a Heteropsis spruceana (mamure), a local
liana, has been used as a raw material for furniture
but is now threatened by over-use (ITTO 2006).
Forest carbon. Deforestation is a significant factor
in Venezuela’s carbon budget, accounting for morethan 40% of national GHG emissions (UNFCCC
undated). Human interference has affected large
areas of forest; many forests have been cleared for
agricultural and pasture development and otherprojects. Gibbs et al. (2007) estimated the biomass
carbon stock in a broad range of 2326–9202 MtC
and FAO (2010) did not provide an estimate. An
industrial plantation (Uverito) and a managed
protected area (Ticoporo Reserve) have been used
as case studies of carbon emissions reduction andsequestration. The Uverito plantation achieved a
net carbon storage of 6.2 MtC in 100 000 hectaresof new plantations at a net cost of US$17/tC(UNFCCC undated). The Ticoporo Reserve stored
an estimated 75 tonnes of carbon per hectare, or
7.5 MtC for 100 000 hectares of natural forest
management. The costs for this latter type of
project were estimated at about US$700 per
hectare, including the opportunity cost of land.
Thus, the cost for carbon storage was an estimated
US$9 per tonne of carbon (ibid.).
The Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of Our
America, of which the Government of Venezuela
is a member, made a submission to the Conferenceof the Parties to the UNFCCC in 2010 in which
it proposed that polluting countries directlytransfer financial and technological resources topay for the restoration and conservation of forestsand jungles, in favour of Indigenous peoples andancestral social structures. While Venezuela is anactive participant in climate-change negotiations,
it does not participate in any of the major ongoinginternational REDD+ initiatives (Table 6).

Forest for protection
Soil and water. A significant area of forest is set
aside for the protection of soil and water within
ABRAEs. These forests are classified under‘normative protection’ (protección normada) andinclude:•Soil and watershed protection forests (zonas
protectoras) – 7.9 million hectares.

•

Watershed reserves (reservas hidráulicas) –1.7 million hectares.

•

Reserves for dams and reservoirs (zonas dereserva para construcción de presas y embalses) –7800 hectares.

•

Protected areas for public infrastructure (áreas deprotección de obras públicas) – 133 400 hectares.

•

Critical areas for restoration (áreas críticas con
prioridad de tratamiento) – 4.5 million hectares.

•

Environmental rehabilitation and protection
areas (áreas de protección y recuperación
ambiental) – 2350 hectares.a

Fourteen ABRAEs serve primarily watershed
protection functions and extend over about 1.74
million hectares.a Large tracts of forests in the
Guayana region help to regulate the flow of water
into the Guri Dam, which provides 70% of thenation’s electricity. The most extensive protectedareas are in the Andean mountain belt, where
forests are important in watershed protection.
Biological diversity. The country harbours asignificant portion of the world’s biodiversity,
ranking in the top 20 countries in the number ofendemic plants, birds, amphibians and reptiles(ITTO 2006). More than 8000 plant species
have been recognized as endemic, as have some
122 amphibians, 66 reptiles, 40 birds and 15
mammals. Twenty-six mammals, 22 birds, two
reptiles, 65 amphibians, four arthropods andTable 6 Forest carbon potential
Biomass
forestcarbon(MtC)% forestwithcanopycover >60%

Deforestation/
degradation
potential to2030

2326–9202

55+++

Enhancement Forest areachangeof carbon
sink capacity monitoring
capacity
to 2030++++

Forest/GHG
inventory
capacity++

Importance Engagementinof forest
international
fire/
REDD+
biomass
processes
burning+++-+++ high; ++ medium; + low; estimate of national forest carbon based on Gibbs et al. (2007); estimate of % total forest with canopy cover>60% based on UNEP-WCMC (2010).

399

Status of tropical forest management 2011

three plants found in forests are listed as criticallyendangered, endangered or vulnerable on the
IUCN red list of threatened species (IUCN 2011).
Four plants are listed in CITES Appendix I, 163,
including Swietenia macrophylla and S. humilis,
in Appendix II, and two in Appendix III (UNEPWCMC 2011). Several timber species have special
protection status under national law, including
Podocarpus rospigliosii, Pterocarpus spp, Spondias spp,
Tabebuia espectabilis, Cedrela odorata, Anacardium
excelsum, Cordia thaisiana and Pithecellobium
saman.aProtective measures in production forests. The
Law on Forests and Forest Management requiresthat 10% of the managed production forest be
protected as a preservation zone, with emphasis on
areas along watercourses and swamps.a
Extent of protected areas. The estimated total
area contained in reserves compatible with IUCN
categories I–IV is 17.9 million hectaresa, including
94 ABRAEs, as shown in Box 1.
This amounts to nearly 20% of the national
territory, one of the largest proportions of any
country worldwide. As well as forests, protectedareas include montane ecosystems and othernon-forested areas. UNEP-WCMC (2010)
estimated the total area of forests in protected areas
conforming to IUCN protected-area categories I–
IV at 16.5 million hectares. Although the declaredprotected area is huge, only about 15–20% has
land-use and zoning plans. In addition, many
conservation sites are subject to unresolved landclaims by Indigenous groups (ITTO 2006). Someof the protected areas (e.g. the protected areaclassified within the Imataca Forest Reserve innortheastern Venezuela) have been seriously affectedby commercial gold and diamond mining. In 2008
the President of Venezuela ordered a complete
cessation of mining activities in protected areas.a

Estimate of the area of forest sustainably
managed for protection. Of the 265 ABRAEs withprotection status (including 64 protected areasa),
71 have forest management plans (Bevilacqua etal. 2004). Thirty-five per cent of the protectedareas in IUCN protected-area categories I–IV
have management plans or instructions for theiruse (reglamentos de uso) (ibid.). However, manyof these areas exist only on paper. Protected areas
are used for logging and mining – both illegal
and government-sanctioned – and other forms
of development, while some protected areas havebeen designated despite being cleared long ago.
It is difficult to secure the integrity of some ofthese areas, particularly in the llanos and south of
Orinoco, because of mining and other explorative
activities (ibid). For example, it has been reported
that legal and illegal miners and loggers haveencroached the Cainama National Park – famousfor Angel Falls, the world’s tallest waterfall – inrecent years.b Nonetheless, much of the protectedforest estate is intact and faces relatively little
development pressure.a It is estimated that about
10% of the protection PFE with management plans
can be classified as sustainably managed (Table 7).

Socioeconomic aspects
Economic aspects. Forests provide less than 1% ofGDP.a Data on the number of people employed in
the forest sector were unavailable for this report.
Livelihood values. NTFPs are essential for the
livelihoods of Indigenous peoples living in the
Guayana and Amazon regions. Wildlife and fish still
supplement the protein needs of a large part of the
population in the states of Bolivar and Amazonas.
Wildlife also provides raw material for handicrafts
and medicines. Intensified hunting and fishingwith new techniques and in-migration into frontierareas may increase pressure on some animal species

Box 1 Protected areas, Venezuela
ABRAE
National parks (parques nacionales)
Natural monuments (monumentos naturales)
Wildlife refuges (refugios de vida silvestre)
Wildlife sanctuaries (santuario de fauna silvestre)
Wildlife reserves (reservas de fauna silvestre)
Total
Source: Government of Venezuela (2010).

400

NumberArea (’000 ha)% of land area

43
36
7
1
7
94

13 100
4280
251
0.072
293
17 900

14.3
4.7
0.3
0
0.3
19.5

VENEZUELATable 7 Management of the protection PFE (’000 hectares)

*
**
‡
†

Reportingyear

Protection PFE

Attributed to IUCN
categories I–IV

Allocated for soil
and waterWith management
plans

Sustainably
managed

2005*
2010

20 60019 64020 60016 500**

1740
1740‡

7210
7250†

725

As reported in ITTO (2006).
UNEP-WCMC (2010).
Including reservas hidráulicas, zonas de reserva para construcción de presas y embalses and áreas de protección de obras
públicas.
Including the protected area in the new management plan of Caparo.

(ITTO 2006). Some 20 000 Warao Indians in the
Orinoco delta have a semi-nomadic lifestyle anddepend heavily on mangroves for fishing (Spalding
et al. 2010).
Social relations. Significant populations of
Indigenous people live in three forest reserves– Sipapo (1.2 million hectares) in Amazonas;
Imataca (3.7 million hectares) in Amacuro Delta
and Bolívar; and El Caura (5.1 million hectares)in Bolívar. The two main economic activities inthese reserves are logging and mining for gold anddiamonds, which have brought improved healthand education services to local people and induced
a trend towards settlement (ITTO 2006). They
have also brought non-indigenous settlers (colonos)
into the areas, increasing conflicts with local people
and pressure on existing forest resources, especiallyalong access roads and around settlements. Northof the Orinoco River, particularly in the Provinceof Barinas bordering Colombia, nearly all forest
reserves have been encroached by colonos.

Key points•

Venezuela has an estimated PFE of 33.4 million
hectares (compared with 34.5 hectares in 2005),
comprising 12.9 million hectares of natural
production forest (compared with 13.0 million
hectares in 2005) and 19.6 million hectares ofprotection forest (compared with 20.6 million
hectares in 2005).

•

Venezuela has the second-largest extent ofplanted forests in tropical America, with aplantation estate of 845 000 hectares. The
government has ambitious plans to continue
increasing the estate.

•

An estimated 510 000 hectares of the
production PFE and 725 000 hectares ofprotection PFE are under SFM. No naturalforest is certified.

•

The forests north of the Orinoco River (llanos)
are heavily degraded and encroached. South of
the Orinoco River are extensive and timber-richforest resources with good potential for SFM,
although this area is under increased pressure,with new roads and planned conversion toagriculture.

•

A national forest inventory is currently being
conducted and a forest database is underestablishment, which will help improve themonitoring of forest resources and theimplementation of SFM.

•

The Ministry in charge of forests and the Forest
Service have proposed revisions to the main
forest-related laws and are currently formulatinga new forest policy.

•

A national forest enterprise (Empresa Socialista
Forestal) was created in June 2010 that willprobably replace the former forest concession
structure.

Summary
Venezuela possesses considerable untouched forest
resources in its two largest states of Bolivar andAmazonas. Relatively modest logging concessions
and cutting permits have been granted over the past
40 years. Instead of increasing the harvest of naturalforests, a well-developed plantation sector is the mostimportant source of industrial timber in the country.
Over the past few years, the government has mademany political and institutional changes to the forest
sector, maintaining strong environmental provisions
and increasing legislative provisions for the inclusionof local communities in forest management. SFM has
not yet been fully achieved, however. The enforcementof forest regulations still requires strengthening andillegal logging, hunting and encroachment (e.g.
mining) are reportedly widespread. Nevertheless, abasis has been laid for the development of SFM andeffective forest conservation.

401

Status of tropical forest management 2011

EndnotesaGovernment of Venezuela (2010).

b

Information derived from the report of, and discussions
with participants at, a training workshop on ITTO criteria
and indicators, held 30 August–4 September 2004, Cuidad
Bolivar, Venezuela, attended by 47 people from government,
civil society and the private sector, updated through email
exchanges in 2010.

References and other sources
Bevilacqua, M., Cardenas, L., Flores, A., Hernandez, L.
& Lares, E. (2004). Las Areas Protegidas en Venezuela:
Diagnóstico de su Condición para el Período 1993-2003.
ACOANA, IUCN Venezuela, Fundación Polar andConservation International, Caracas, Venezuela.
FAO (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010
country report: Venezuela (available at http://www.fao.
org/forestry/fra/67090/en/).
FSC (2010, website accessed December 2010). FSC certification
database (searchable database available at http://info.fsc.org/
PublicCertificateSearch).

Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007).
Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon
stocks: making REDD a reality. Environmental Research
Letters 2 (available at http://iopscience.iop.org/17489326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
Government of Venezuela (2010). Informe sobre el estado
actual de la ordenación forestal sostenible en Venezuela.
Compiled by Eduardo E. Escalante, national consultant.
Ministerio del Poder Popular pare el Ambiente,
Dirección General de Bosques, Caracas, Venezuela.
ITTO (2006). Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005.
ITTO, Yokohama, Japan (available at http://www.itto.
int/en/sfm/).

402

ITTO (2011, website accessed January 2011). Annual
Review statistics database (available at http://www.itto.
int/annual_review_output/?mode=searchdata).
ITTO & RRI (2009). Tropical forest tenure assessment.
trends, challenges and opportunities. ITTO, Yokohama,Japan and Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington,
DC, United States.
IUCN (2011, website accessed January 2011). IUCN red list of
threatened species (searchable database available at www.
redlist.org).

Spalding, M., Kainumu, M. & Collins, L. (2010). World
Atlas of Mangroves. Earthscan, London, UK.
UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009. United
Nations Development Programme, New York, UnitedStates.
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests withinprotected areas in ITTO countries. Data prepared for
ITTO. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
UNEP-WCMC (2011, website accessed January2011). UNEP-WCMC species database: CITES-listed
species (searchable database at available at www.cites.org/
eng/resources/species.html).

UNFCCC (undated, website accessed December 2010).
Venezuela and the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change: national
communication. Available at http://unfccc.int/resource/
ccsites/venezuel/index.htm.
United Nations Population Division (2010, website accessed
December 2010). World population prospects: the 2008
revision (searchable database available at http://esa.un.org/
unpp/p2k0data.asp).

APPENDICES

appendices403

Status of tropical forest management 2011404

APPENDICES

Appendix I	Tropical forest area, 65 countries
Country

Total forest area’000 haAngolaBenin
BurundiCameroon
CAR
Congo
Côte d’Ivoire
DRC
Equatorial Guinea
Gabon
GambiaGhana

58 4804561
172
19 91622 60522 411
10 403154 1351626
22 000480
4940

Deforestation rate
2005–10%

Primary forests’000 ha

-0.21
-1.06
-1.01
-1.07
-0.13
-0.05
-0.20
-0.71
0
0.38
-2.19

0
0
40
3250
2370
7436
625
69 0000
14 3341395

Guinea

6544

-0.54

63

Guinea Bissau

2022

-0.49

0

Kenya

3467

-0.31

654

Liberia

4329

-0.68

175

Madagascar

12 553

-0.45

3036

Mozambique

39 022-0.53

0Nigeria

9041

-4.00

0

Rwanda

435

2.47

7

Sierra Leone

2726

-0.70

113

Tanzania

33 428

-1.16

0

Togo

287

-5.75

0

Uganda

2988

-2.72

0

Zambia49 468-0.33

0Zimbabwe

15 624-1.97

801

Subtotal

440 450Brunei Darussalam102 260

380

-0.47

263

10 094

-1.22

322

Fiji

1014

0.34

449

India

68 4340.21

15 701Indonesia

94 432-0.71

47 236

Lao PDR

15 751

-0.49

1490

Cambodia

Malaysia

20 456

-0.42

3820

Myanmar

31 773

-0.95

3192

PNG

28 726-0.49

26 210

7665

0.73

861

Solomon Islands

2213

-0.25

1105

Sri Lanka

1860

-0.77

167

Thailand

18 9720.08

6726

Timor Leste

742

-1.44

0

Philippines

Vanuatu

4400-Vietnam

13 7971.08

80

Subtotal

316 749

107 622405

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Country

Total forest area’000 haDeforestation rate
2005–10%

Primary forests’000 haBelize

1393

-0.68

599

Bolivia

57 196-0.53

37 164

Brazil519 522-0.42

476 573

Colombia

60 499

-0.17

8 543

Costa Rica

2605

0.90

623

Cuba

2870

1.25

0

Dominican Republic

1972

0

-

Ecuador

9865

-1.89

4 805

El Salvador

287

-1.47

5

French Guiana

8082

-0.04

7690

Guatemala

3657

-1.47

1619

15 205

0

6790

101

-0.77

0

Honduras

5192

-2.16

457

Jamaica

337

-0.12

88

Mexico64 802-0.24

34 310

Nicaragua

3114

-2.11

1179

Panama

3251

-0.36

0

Paraguay

17 582

-0.99

1850

Peru

67 992-0.22

60 178Suriname

14 758-0.02

14 001

226

-0.32

62

46 275-0.61

21 000

GuyanaHaiti

Trinidad & Tobago
Venezuela
Subtotal
Total 65 countries

906 783

677 536

1 663 982

887 418

Source: Based on FAO (2010). Data in italics are from country profiles in Part 2. Countries in bold are ITTO producer member countries.

406

APPENDICES

Appendix II	 Summary tables, ITTO producers
Total forest area (range), and area of closed forest (’000 hectares)
Country
Cameroon
CAR
Congo
Côte d’Ivoire
DRC
Gabon
Ghana
Liberia
Nigeria
Togo
SubtotalCambodia
Fiji
India (tropical)
Indonesia
Malaysia
Myanmar
PNG
Philippines
Thailand
Vanuatu
Subtotal
Bolivia
BrazilColombia
EcuadorGuatemala
GuyanaHonduras
MexicoPanamaPeru
Suriname
Trinidad and Tobago
Venezuela
Subtotal
Total

Estimated total forest area, 2010
Minimum
Maximum
19 70021 20022 70030 10022 40026 9007500
10 400112 000
154 000
21 80024 600
4680
4680
4330
9600
9040
9040
500
1680
224 650292 200
10 00010 7001014
1014
37 80037 80094 40098 50018 40018 60030 80035 40028 60033 0007170
7660
17 200
19 000440440
245 824
262 11452 40058 700519 000
519 000
56 90064 4009870
11 2003650
4510
15 20020 5005190
6660
64 80064 8003100
4300
67 90072 00014 80014 800226
226
46 30046 300859 336887 396
1 329 810
1 441 710

Closed forest
16 9004600
18 5001760
87 80018 700
838
2420
958
287
152 7633900
566
23 10069 23014 70017 50022 800
3248
6140
394
161 578
36 700264 700
51 3005813
1850
13 6002630
22 6002110
55 99014 100150
25 300496 843
811 184

Source: Derived from country profiles in Part 2.

407

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Production PFE (’000 hectares)
Country
Area

Cameroon
CAR
Congo
Côte d’Ivoire
DRC
Gabon
Ghana
Liberia
Nigeria
Togo
SubtotalCambodia
Fiji
India
Indonesia
Malaysia
Myanmar
PNG
Philippines
Thailand
Vanuatu
Subtotal
Bolivia
BrazilColombia
EcuadorGuatemala
GuyanaHonduras
MexicoPanamaPeru
Suriname
Trinidad andTobagoVenezuela
Subtotal
Total

Available for
harvesting

Natural-forest PFE
With management
plans

2005
8840
3500
18 4003400
20 50010 600
1150
1310
2720
41
70 4613460
0
13 50046 000
11 200
9700
8700
4700
0
117
97 37717 00098 100
5500
3100
1140
5450
1590
7880
350
24 600
6890

2010
7600
5200
15 2001950
22 50010 600
774
1700
2720
0
68 2443710
0
26 16038 600
10 29815 800
8700
4700
251
0
108 21925 100
135 000
5500
1964
1140
11 090
1096
8400
350
18 700
5319

2005
4950
2920
8440
1870
15 500
6923
1035
1310
1060
41
44 0493370
13 50043 2006790
5600
72 460
5470
2150
540
3800
1070
8600
86
8000
1740

2010
6100
3100
11 9801950
9100
10 300
1124
1000
1060
0
45 7145
16 80026 200
9910
4900
4700
251
0
62 7669680
15 340
115
540
6710
1096
8400
86
8431
2000

2005
1760
650
1300
1110
1080
2310
1150
0
650
5.5
10 015.5150
9720
18 400
11 200
9700
4980
910
0
55 060
5470
5250
65
697
3730
671
8600
63
5000
73

2010
5000
2320
8270
1360
6590
3450
774
265
0
28 029150
6.3
16 80013 7009910
15 800
738
658
251
0
58 013.3
9680
15 340
86
697
4053
1096
750
72
7563
899

128

127

75

75

75

13 000184 728352 566

12 920226 706403 1693120
34 651
151 160

Certified

2005
0
0
0
0
0
1480
0
0
0
0
1480
0
0
275
4620
0
19
0
0
4914
2210
1160
0
0
520
0
37
163
0
59
0

2010
705
0
1908
0
0
1870
150
0
0
0
4633
0
0
0
1125
5228
0
2.7
0
11
0
6366.7
1720
2700
9
0
481
184.5
111
12
0
713
89

2005
500
186
1300
277
284
1480
270
0
5.5
4302.5
0
4800
2940
4790
291
1500
76
0
14 397
2210
1360
200
101
672
520
187
163
0
560
0

2010
1255
0
2494
200
0
2420
155
0
33
0
6557
0
6.3
4800
3160
5950
291
193
79
11
0
14 490.3
1720
2700
315
176
630
520
276
750
44
1603
247

75

0

0

15

15

4379
1480
4379
56 85231 17444 690165 332 96 249.5 130 732.3

04149
10 54306019.517 019.2

Note:
Refer to country profiles for explanations of change between 2005 and 2010.
Source: Derived from country profiles in Part 2.

408

Sustainably
managedPlanted-forest PFE
Area
With
management
plan
2005
2010
2005
2010
17
19
2
3
3
0
72
85
45
45
167
180
120
133
55
67
40
43
25
25
10
10
97
164
97
24
9.7
0
0
375
382
175
14
15
1.2
7
825
949.7
488.2
264
17
69
7
113
176
90
68
32 600
5600
8150
2500
2500
2500
2500
183
539
183
539
710
882
0
882
80
58
31.2
274
314
274
164
1870
1900
250
8
2.1
0
2.1
0
38 349.1
12 038 11 456.1
4192.2
60
73
3810
6650
1350
3380
148
405
80
150
164
175
65
90
71
85
27
27
12
12
0
0
48
48
28
31
100
171
34
84
56
71
32
47
250
820
8
7
13
7
15.4

15.4

15.4

15.4

480
510
863
845
6468
9506
5604.49383.425 167.5 30 553.3 44 778.5 22 371.1

727
2373.414 317.7845
4669.49125.6

APPENDICES

Protection PFE (’000 hectares)
Country

Cameroon
CAR
Congo
Côte d’Ivoire
DRC
Gabon
Ghana
Liberia
Nigeria
Togo
SubtotalCambodia
Fiji
India
Indonesia
Malaysia
Myanmar
PNG
Philippines
Thailand
Vanuatu
Subtotal
Bolivia
BrazilColombia
EcuadorGuatemala
GuyanaHonduras
MexicoPanamaPeru
Suriname
Trinidad and Tobago
Venezuela
Subtotal
Total
Note:

Area
2005
3900
300
2860
734
27 000
2700
353
101
1010
313
39 2714620
241
25 60022 500
3210
3300
1700
1540
8260
8.37
70 979.37
14 700271 000
8860
4300
1240
980
1600
5600
1580
16 3004430
59.1
20 600351 249.1
461 499.47

2010
5200
560
3650
2090
25 800
2900
396
194
2540
368
43 6984530
434540
27 300
3579
5330
1700
1340
10 0008.37
58 370.37
13 100175 000
9340
6554
1240
1110
2521
3649
1880
19 4002194
59.1
19 640255 687.1
357 755.47

Allocated for soil andwater protection
2005
2010
6
6
3660
3660
195
374
0
0
353
0
0
200
200
4061
4593
4200
551
18
304
4540
16 00026 400
3210
3579
6560
21 100
0
613
9320
1330
0
39 30858 4176790
243 000
312
456
2403
2355
184
235
352
319
326
406
390
389
1160
0
1740
1740
13 657248 900
57 026311 910

With management
plans
2005
2010
2230
120
380
536
345
840
630
491
1230
230
0
180
5
1216
6001
1490
37
722
5000
2180
3210
3579
5330
1340
402
0
8247
15 043
3500
456
513
2211
243
332
608
3015
396
396
11 600
1460
12
12
7210
7250
8374
30 84017 83751 884

Sustainably managed
2005
380
150
0
1090
108
0
1728
55
1360
3210
522
5147
2380
243
180
1540
4343
11 218

2010
1420
120
536
840
0
1230
230
0
5
4381
722
1360
3579
402
0
6063
2690
456
629
265
332
439
3015
368
1880
1460
725
12 25922 703

Refer to country profiles for explanations of change between 2005 and 2010.

Source: Derived from country profiles in Part 2.

409

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Appendix III Notes on methodology
Forest area
Although the data in UNEP-WCMC (2010) are likely to lead to a consistent over-estimate of forest cover,they can still be used in several ways. For example, the data become more reliable when the forest is relatively
intact. Protected areas typically include relatively intact tracts of contiguous forest, in which case estimates offorest are likely to be closer to reality than in more fragmented landscapes. Therefore, UNEP-WCMC (2010)
estimates of forest in protected areas are used in this report where other data are lacking.
In addition, since FAO (2010) did not report on the area of closed forest, this parameter is estimated in thisreport using UNEP-WCMC (2010) estimates of forest with greater than 60% canopy cover and total forest
cover to calculate the percentage of total forest with greater than 60% canopy cover (a surrogate for closed
forest). This ratio was then applied to total forest-cover estimates provided by FAO (2010) to derive a new
estimate of forest with greater than 60% canopy cover (i.e. closed forest area). For example, UNEP-WCMC(2010) estimated that Nigeria had a total forest area of 52.3 million hectares, including 5.53 million hectaresof forest with greater than 60% canopy cover. Therefore, the estimated area of forest with greater than 60%
canopy cover is 10.6% of total tree cover. Using the FAO (2010) estimate of forest area (9.04 million hectares)
and the ratio calculated using UNEP-WCMC (2010) data, the area of forest with greater than 60% canopy
cover is estimated at 0.958 million hectares. The accuracy of this methodology is unknown, and therefore
estimates of closed forest given in this report should be treated with caution.
Significant figures
Throughout the report, estimates given in tables are generally made to three significant figures, except where
they are the product of summing within tables.
IUCN red list of threatened species
For each country, the following criteria were used to report on critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable
species, using the searchable database at www.iucnredlist.org:
Taxonomy:

No taxonomy classifiers specified.

Location:

Relevant country specified (in the case of India, only Indian states located mostly in thetropics specified) (default ‘native’ modifier applies).

Systems:

No systems specified.

Habitats:

Forests specified.

Threats:

No threats specified.

Assessment:

Critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable specified. All available years (1996(animals only), 1998 (plants only), 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007,2008, 2009,2010) specified.

Life history:

No life history specified.

410

APPENDICESCITES appendices
For each country, the number of species listed in Appendix I, Appendix II and Appendix III, as shown in the
UNEP-WCMC searchable database (available at www.cites.org/eng/resources/species.html), are given. The
number of reservations and withdrawals were not taken into account.
Forest carbon
Assessing forest carbon is a relatively new undertaking and few data are available. Quantitative estimates offorest carbon stocks (forest biomass carbon stocks, reported as millions of tonnes of carbon) are based on an
analysis by Gibbs et al. (2007), and, where available, other estimates are given in the text. While there is nopractical method to directly measure all forest carbon stock in a country, both ground-based and remotesensing measurements of forest attributes can be used to estimate national carbon stock using allometric
relationships. Gibbs et al. (2007) synthesized, mapped and updated forest biomass carbon databases andcreated a first complete set of national-level forest carbon stock estimates.
In each country profile in Part 2, Table 6 summarizes some of the parameters that indicate a country’s capacity
for carbon capture and storage, along the lines of the methodology proposed by Herold (2009). These are
deforestation/degradation potential to 2030; enhancement of carbon sink capacity to 2030; capacity forforest and GHG inventories; the role of forest fire and biomass burning; and engagement of the country ininternational REDD+ processes. Table 6 also provides an estimate of the percentage of forest with a canopy
cover greater than 60%, derived from UNEP-WCMC (2010) (see above).
References
UNEP-WCMC (2010). Spatial analysis of forests within protected areas in ITTO countries. Data prepared for ITTO.
UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
Gibbs, H., Brown, S., Niles, J. & Foley, J. (2007). Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD a
reality. Environmental Research Letters 2 (available at http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045023/fulltext).
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.

411

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Appendix IV Timber species and their common names, by country
AfricaScientiﬁc nameCommon name(s)Afzelia africana

lingué (Côte d’Ivoire)

Aningeria spp

aniegré-longhi (CAR)

Antiaris africanaako (Togo)

Aucoumea klaineana

okoumé (Gabon, Congo)

Baillonella toxisperma

moabi (Gabon, Cameroon)

Borassus aethiopum

rônier (Gabon, Congo)

Brachystegia spp

bomanga (DRC)

Butyrospermum paradoxum

shea butter tree

Butyrospermum parkii

karité (CAR)

Canarium schweinfurthii

aiélé (Côte d’Ivoire, DRC, Gabon)

Ceiba pentandra

ghe (Liberia), fromager (Côte d’Ivoire)

Chlorophora excelsa

iroko (Cameroon, CAR, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, DRC, Nigeria, Togo); kambala (DRC)

Chlorophora regia

iroko (Côte d’Ivoire)

Chrysophyllum spp

aniégré (Côte d’Ivoire)

Copaifera salikounda

etimoé (Côte d’Ivoire)

Cylicodiscus gabunensis

okan (Gabon);okan/adoum (Gabon)

Dacryodes buettneri

ozigo (Gabon)

Distemonanthus benthamianus

movingui (Cameroon); movingui (Gabon)

Entandrophragma angolense

tiama (DRC, Côte d’Ivoire, CAR)

Entandrophragma candollei

kossipo (Cameroon, CAR, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, DRC, Liberia); omu (Nigeria)

Entandrophragma cylindricum

sapelli (Cameroon, CAR, Congo, DRC); sapele (Nigeria)

Entandrophragma utile

sipo (Cameroon, CAR, Congo, DRC); sipo or lifaki (DRC)

Eribroma oblonga

eyong (Cameroon)

Erythrophleum ivorensis

tali (Cameroon)

Gambeya africana

longhi (DRC, Congo)

Gilbertiodendron preussii

limbali (Liberia)

Gossweilerodendron balsamiferum

tola (DRC); agba (Nigeria)

Guarea cedrata

bossé (CAR, Congo, Liberia, Côte d’Ivoire, DRC); guarea (Ghana)

Guibourtia demeusei

kevazingo (Gabon)

Guibourtia spp

benge (DRC)

Hallea ciliata

abura (Liberia)

Khaya anthothecairoko (Côte d’Ivoire)

Khaya grandifolia

acajou (Togo)

Khaya ivorensis

Lagos mahogany (Nigeria); mahogany (Ghana); acajou (Côte d’Ivoire)azobe (Cameroon); azobé (Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon); bongossi (Cameroon); ekki (Nigeria,
Liberia)

Lophira alata
Lovoa trichilioides
Mansonia altissima

dibetou (Côte d’Ivoire, DRC); dibétou bibolo (CAR); cedar (Nigeria)bété (Cameroon); ofun (Nigeria); mansonia (Ghana); beté (Côte d’Ivoire); iroko(Côted’Ivoire)

Millettia laurentii

wengé (Gabon, Congo, DRC)

Nauclea diderrichii

bilinga (DRC)

Nesogordonia papaverifera

otutu (Nigeria); danta (Liberia, Ghana); kotibé (Côte d’Ivoire)

Pericopsis elata

afrormosia (Cameroon, DRC)

Piptadeniastrum africanum

dabéma (Gabon)

Pterocarpus erinaceus

véne (Togo)

Pterocarpus spp

padouk (CAR); red padouk (Cameroon)

Pterygota macrocarpa

koto (Côte d’Ivoire)

412

APPENDICES

Africa (cont'd)Scientiﬁc nameCommon name(s)Pycnanthus angolensis

ilomba (Congo)

Pycnanthus kombo

ilomba (Côte d’Ivoire)

Raphia spp

raphia palm (Côte d’Ivoire)

Sacaglottis gabonensis

ozouga (Cameroon)

Tarrietia utilis

niangon (Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana)

Tectona grandis

teak (Ghana, Nigeria, Togo)

Terminalia ivorensis

framiré (Côte d’Ivoire);edo (Nigeria)

Terminalia superba

fraké (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire); afara (Nigeria); limba (CAR, Congo, Gabon, DRC)

Testulea gabonensis

izombe (Gabon)

Tieghemella heckelii
Triplochiton scleroxylon

makore (Ghana);makoré(Côte d’Ivoire)ayous (CAR, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Togo, Cameroon); obeche (Nigeria); samba(Côte d’Ivoire); wawa (Ghana)

Uapaca spp

assam (Ghana)

Asia and the Pacific
Scientiﬁc nameCommon name(s)Acacia mangium

mangium (Philippines)

Agathis macrophylla

kauri (Vanuatu)

Agathis vitiensis

kauri, dakua makadre (Fiji)

Albizzia lebbek

kokko (India)

Anisoptera glabra

mersawa, phdiek (Cambodia)

Anisoptera spp

mersawa (Indonesia)

S. kunstleri, S. guiso, S. collina, S. ochrophloia
and other Shorea spp
Barringtonia asiatica

Balau (Malaysia)

Calophyllum inophyllum

palomaria (Philippines)

Calophyllum spp

damanu (Fiji)

Cocos nucifera

coconut (Vanuatu)

Shorea pauciflora, S. curtusiim and other
Shorea spp
Dipterocarpus alatus

dark red meranti (Malaysia)

Dipterocarpus grandiflorus

apitong (Philippines)

Dipterocarpus spp

keruing (Indonesia)

Dryobalanops spp

kapur (Indonesia)

Endospermum macrophyllum

kauvula (Fiji)

Endospermum medullosum

whitewood (Vanuatu)

Eucalyptus deglupta

bagras (Philippines)

Gmelina arborea

yemane (India, Philippines); gamari (India)

Gonystylus bancanus

ramin (Indonesia, Malaysia)

Hevea brasiliensis

rubber, rubberwood

Intsia bijuga

vesi (Fiji); natora (Vanuatu); kwila (PNG); ipil (Philippines)

Koompassia malaccencis

kempas (Malaysia)

Dipterocarpus spp

keruing (Malaysia)

Lantana camara

lantana (India)

Myristica spp

kaudamu (Fiji)

Nipa fruticans

nipa palm (Philippines)

Nothofagus spp

southern beech (PNG)

Palaquium spp

sacau (Fiji)Parthenium hysterophorus

carrot grass (India)

Pentacme contorta

white lauan (Philippines)

botong (Philippines)

chhoeuteal tan (Cambodia)

413

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Asia and the Pacific (cont'd)Scientiﬁc nameCommon name(s)Pinus caribaea

Caribbean pine (Fiji)

Pometia pinnata

taun (PNG)

Pterocarpus indicus

rosewood (PNG); bluwota (Vanuatu)

Pterocarpus macrocarpus

padauk (Myanmar)

Pterocarpus spp

narra (Philippines)

Shorea parvifolia, S. macroptera and other
Shorea spp
Santalum album

red meranti (Malaysia)

Santalum spp

sandalwood (Vanuatu)

Shorea negrosensis

red lauan (Philippines)

Shorea robustasal (India)

Shorea spp

meranti (Indonesia)

Swietenia macrophylla

mahogany (Fiji)

Swietenia mahoganii

mahogany (Philippines)

Tectona grandisteak

Terminalia catappa

talisai (Philippines)

Terminalia tomentosa

htauk kyant (Myanmar)

Vitex parviflora

molave (Philippines)

Xylia kerri

pyinkado (Myanmar)

cendana (Indonesia)

Latin America and the Caribbean
Scientiﬁc nameCommon name(s)Abies guatemalensis

pinabete (Guatemala)Alnus acuminata

aliso (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador)

Amburana cearensis

cerejeira (Brazil); ; roble (Bolivia); ishipingo (Peru)

Anacardium excelsum

espavé (Panama); mijao (Venezuela)

Anadenanthera colubrine

curupaú (Bolivia)

Aniba guianensis

canelón (Bolivia)

Aniba perutilis

comino crespo (Colombia)

Aspidosperma spp

shibadan (Guyana)

Astronium graveolens

zorro (Panama)

Astronium urundeuva

cuchi (Bolivia)

Bagassa guianensis

cow wood (Guyana)

Bertholletia excelsa

castanheira (Brazil)

Bombacopsis quinata

cedro espino (Panama); saqui saqui (Venezuela); ceiba tolúa (Colombia)

Brosimum alicastrum

charo (Venezuela); ramón (Mexico, Honduras); breadnut (Honduras)

Brosimum utile

sande (Colombia, Ecuador); huina (Colombia)

Bucida buceras

pucte (Guatemala, Mexico)

Bursera simaroubachaka (Mexico)

Caesalpinia pluviosa

momoqui (Bolivia)

Calophyllum brasiliense

santa maria (Guatemala, Honduras); palo maría (Bolivia); maria (Panama)

Calophyllum spp

palo maria (Bolivia)

Calycophyllum spruceanum

capirona (Peru)

Campnosperma panamensis
Carapa guianensis

sajo (Colombia)
crabwood (Guyana); andiroba (Colombia); crappo (Trinidad and Tobago); carapa(Venezuela); macho (Honduras); tangare (Panama)

Cariniana ianarensis

yesquero blanco (Bolivia)

Cariniana decandra

cachimbo (Peru)

Cariniana pyriformis

abarco (Colombia)

Carludovica palmata

paja toquilla (Ecuador)

414

APPENDICES

Latin America and the Caribbean (cont'd)Scientiﬁc nameCommon name(s)Castilla elastica

castilla (Guatemala)Catostemma commune
Cedrela odoratabaromalli (Guyana); baramán (Venezuela)
cedro (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Peru, Venezuela); red cedar(Guyana); cedro rojo (Mexico); cedro amargo (Panama); cedar (Trinidad and Tobago)

Cedrelinga catenaeformis

tornillo (Peru); chuncho (Ecuador)

Ceiba pentandra

ceiba (Honduras, Venezuela), kapok (Ecuador), seiba (Mexico)

Ceiba spp

ceiba (Bolivia)

Chamaedorea elegants

palma camedor (Mexico)

Chlorocardium rodiei

greenheart (Guyana)

Chorisia intregrifolia

lupuna (Peru)

Clathrotropis brachypetalaaromata (Guyana)

Copaifera aromatica

cabimo (Panama)

Copaifera officinalis
Cordia alliodora

aceite (Venezueala)vara de humo (Colombia); cypre (Trinidad and Tobago); laurel (Ecuador, Honduras,
Panama); pardillo (Venezuela)

Cordia thaisiana

pardillo negro (Venezuela)

Cybistax donnell-smithii

palo blanco (Guatemala)Cupressus lusitanica

cypress (Guatemala)Dalbergia retusa

cocobolo (Panama)

Dalbergia spp

guanciban, granadillo (Mexico)

Dendropanax arboreus

sac-chaca (Mexico)

Dialium guianensis

andiroba (Honduras)

Dialium guineense

tamarindo (Mexico)

Dicorynia guianensis

wamaradan (Guyana)

Dinizia excelsa

angelim (Brazil)

Diplotropis purpurea

tatabu (Guyana)

Dipteryx micrantha

shihuahuaco (Peru)

Dipteryx odorataalmendrillo (Bolivia); tonka bean (Guyana)

Dipteryx panamensis

almendro (Panama)Enterolobium cyclocarpum

guanacaste (Mexico)

Eperua spp

wallaba (Guyana)

Erisma uncinatum

cedrinho (Brazil); moreillo (Venezuela)

Eschweilera subglandulosa

guatecare (Trinidad and Tobago)

Eucalyptus globulus

eucalipto (Ecuador, Peru)

Euxylophora paraensis

pau-amarelo (Brazil)

Fagus mexicana

beech (Mexico)

Ficus spp

bibosi (Bolivia)

Gmelina arborea

melina (Mexico)

Goupia glabra

kabukalli (Guyana); cupiúba (Brazil)

Guazuma spp

bolaina (Peru)

Gyranthera darinensis

cucharo (Panama)

Hevea brasiliensis

hule (Mexico)

Hieronyma alchorneoides

zapatero (Panama)

Huberodendron patinoi

carra (Colombia)

Humiria balsamifera

tauroniro (Guyana)

Humiriastrum procerum

chanó (Colombia)

Hura crepitans

ochoó (Bolivia); catahua (Peru); jabillo (Venezuela)

Hyeronima alchornoides

mascarey (Ecuador)

Hymenaea courbaril

jatobá (Brazil); locust (Guyana); algarrobo (Venezuela)

Hymenolobium flavum

darina (Guyana)415

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Latin America and the Caribbean (cont'd)Scientiﬁc nameCommon name(s)Jacaranda copaia

futui (Guyana)

Licaria canella

brown silverballi (Guyana)

Liquidambar styraciflua

liquidambar (Guatemala); sweet gum (Mexico)

Lonchocarpus castilloi

manchiche (Guatemala)Lonchocarpus lanceolatus

machiche (Mexico)

Loxopterygium sagotii

hububalli (Guyana)

Lysiloma latisiliquu, L. bahamensis

tzalam (Mexico)

Manilkara bidentata

bulletwood (Guyana); purguo (Guyana)

Manilkara huberi

maçaranduba (Brazil)

Metopium brownei

chechen, palo roso (Mexico)

Miroxylon balsamum

bálsamo (Panama)Mora excelsa

mora (Venezuela, Guyana)

Mora gonggrijpii

morabukea (Guyana)

Nectandra spp

laurel (Venezuela)

Quercus spp

oak (Panama)

Ochroma lagopus

balsa (Ecuador)

Ocotea puberula

keriti silverballi (Guyana)

Ocotea rubra

determa (Guyana)

Ocotea spp

bambito (Panama)Campnosperma panamensis

orey (Panama)

Otoba glycycarpa

sangre de gallina (Ecuador)

Parahancornia fasciculata

dukali (Guyana)

Parkia multijuga

cutanga (Ecuador)

Parkia velutina

pashaco (Peru)

Peltogyne maranhensis

pau-roxo (Brazil)

Peltogyne pubescens

zapatero (Venezuela)

Peltogyne venosa

purpleheart (Guyana)

Pinus ayacahuite
Pinus caribaea

pino blanco (Honduras)
Caribbean pine (Trinidad and Tobago); pino costanero (Honduras); pino caribe (Panama,
Venezuela)

Pinus hartwegii

pino de montaña (Honduras)

Pinus maximinoi

pino llorón (Honduras)

Pinus oocarpa

pino ocote (Honduras)

Pinus patulapino candelabro (Colombia)

Pinus pseudostrobus

pinabete (Honduras)

Pinus radiata and P. patulapino (Ecuador)

Pinus spp

pino (Colombia); tajibo (Guatemala)Pinus tecumumanii

pino rojo (Honduras)

Piptadenia spp

palo blanco (Venezuela)

Piratinera guianensis

letterwood (Guyana)

Pithecellobium saman

samán (Venezuela);

Platymiscium pinnatum

quira (Panama)

Pouteria speciosasuya (Guyana)Prioria copaifera

cativo (Panama, Colombia)

Prumnopitys spp

romerillo (Ecuador), azucena (Ecuador)

Pseudobombax ellipticum

amapola (Mexico)

Pterocarpus officinalis

drago (Venezuela)

Puteria spp

platano (Panama)

Qualea dinizii

guarapo (Venezuela)

Quercus humboltii

roble (Colombia)

416

APPENDICES

Latin America and the Caribbean (cont'd)Scientiﬁc nameCommon name(s)Quercus spp

roble (Guatemala)

Sabal mauritiiformis

guágara (Panama)sabinoTaxodium mucronatum (Guatemala)Schizolobium amazonicum

serebó (Bolivia)

Schizolobium parahybum

pachaco (Ecuador)

Simarouba amara

marupá (Guyana); marupa (Peru); cedro blanco (Venezuela);

Simarouba glauca

pasak (Mexico)

Spondias mombin

hogplum (Trinidad and Tobago); jobo (Venezuela)

Sterculia apetala

sujo (Bolivia); camoruco (Venezuela)

Swartzia benthamiana

itikiboroballi (Guyana)

Swartzia jorori

jorori (Bolivia)

Swartzia leiocalycina
Swietenia macrophylla

wamara (Guyana)mahogany (Honduras, Trinidad andTobago)l; mara (Bolivia); kobchi (Mexico); caoba(Panama, Peru, Venezuela, Guatemala, Mexico); mogno (Brazil)

Tabebuia capitata or insignis

hakia (Guyana)

Tabebuia donnell-smithii

guayacán (Mexico)

Tabebuia espectabilis
Tabebuia rosea

acapro (Venezuela)
apamate (Venezuela); oak (Panama); apamate (Honduras); apamate (Trinidad andTobago)Tabebuia serratifolia

washiba (Guyana); puy (Venezuela)

Tabebuia serratifolia/T.rosea

cedro rosado (Colombia)

Tabebuia spp

tajibo (Bolivia)
teak, teca (Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama; teak (Trinidad
and Tobago)
amarillo (Panama); cumbillo (Honduras); fukadi (Guyana); verdolago (Bolivia); roble(Mexico)Tectona grandis
Terminalia amazonia
Trattinickia glaziovii

copal (Ecuador)

Trattinickia spp

ulu (Guyana)

Virola koschnyi

palo de sangre (Honduras)

Virola spp

cumala (Peru)

Virola surinamensis

cajuca (Trinidad and Tobago)

Vochysia guatemalensis

san juán (Honduras)

Vochysia haenkeana

cambará (Bolivia)

Vouacapoua macropetalasarabebeballi (Guyana)417

Status of tropical forest management 2011

Appendix V Industrial roundwood production versus area of
production PFE, ITTO producer countries
Country

Cameroon
CAR
Congo
Côte d’Ivoire
DRC
Gabon
Ghana
Liberia
Nigeria
Togo
Subtotal (Africa)
Cambodia
Fiji
India
Indonesia
Malaysia
Myanmar
PNG
Philippines
Thailand
Vanuatu
Subtotal (A/P)
Bolivia
BrazilColombia
EcuadorGuatemala
GuyanaHonduras
MexicoPanamaPeru
Suriname
Trinidad and Tobago
Venezuela
Subtotal (LAC)
Total

Industrial roundwood
production, 2009('000 m3)

Total production PFE(’000 ha)

2270
533
1980
1470
300
3400
1300
330
7100
123
18 806113
166
20 30034 20017 800
4050
2860
857
5100
30
85 4767619
5203
15 2852130
22 567
10 625
938
1710
3102
15
69 1943779
176
31 76041 100
10 83716 682
8758
5014
2151
0
120 257

0.30
0.10
0.13
0.69
0.01
0.32
1.39
0.19
2.29
8.20
0.27
0.03
0.94
0.64
0.83
1.64
0.24
0.33
0.17
2.37
0.00
0.71

903
23 700
1180
238
443
299
770
911
41
2360
190
45
642
31 722136 004

25 173
141 650
5905
2139
1225
11 102
1144
8571
421
19 5205332
142
13 765236 089425 540

0.04
0.17
0.20
0.11
0.36
0.03
0.67
0.11
0.10
0.12
0.04
0.32
0.05
0.13
0.32

Note:
A/P = Asia and the Pacific; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean.
Source: Country profiles in Part 2.

418

Industrial roundwood
production per ha production
forest, 2009 (m3/ha)

Status of tropical forest management 201138
technical Serie S

Status of tropical forest
management 2011

JUNE 2011

ITTO Technical Series 38

INTERNATIONAL TROPIC AL TIMBER ORGANIZATIONInternational Organizations Center, 5th Floor, Pacifico-Yokohama, 1-1-1, Minato-Mirai, Nishi-ku, Yokohama, 220-0012, Japan
Tel 81-45-223-1110 Fax 81-45-223-1111 Email itto@itto.int Web www.itto.int

INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL TIMBER ORGANIZATION