Review of forest rehabilitation in the Asia- Pacific ... · 3/11/2013 Review of forest rehabilitation in the Asia-Pacific Region: Lessons from the past •Afforestation, Reforestation

Review of forest rehabilitation in the Asia -Pacific Region: Lessons from the past 3/11/2013

Review of forest rehabilitation in the Asia-

Pacific Region: Lessons from the past

Forest Landscape Restoration Workshop

Pre- session Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission meeting

Unna Chokkalingam

Rotorua, 3 November 2013


• Afforestation, Reforestation

• Plantations

• Enrichment Planting

• Restoration

• Assisted Natural Regeneration

• Agroforestry

• Forest Landscape Restoration

Rehabilitation broadly to encompass all types

• Tropical Asia

Focus

Scope of presentation

Forest rehabilitation in the Asia Pacific


• Very long history of attempted rehabilitation in the

region

• In response to:

• Deforestation and degradation of forest resources

• Timber shortages

• Environmental problems

• Local farmer and community needs

• Increasingly for climate change mitigation

• China

• Vietnam (declining primary forest)

• India

• Philippines

• Bhutan

• New Zealand

Increasing forest cover

Stable forest cover and increasing primary forest – Japan

Nepal & Thailand – stabilizing?

Declining forest cover – rest

Forest Cover Trends Asia Pacific 1990-2010 (FAO)


1. Colonial forest rehabilitation trials (1700s to 1940s)

2. Lessons from the early experiences

3. Post-colonial forest rehabilitation in India and Myanmar

4. Rehabilitation efforts in China, Vietnam, Philippines,

Indonesia

5. Rehabilitation approaches used across the region

6. Summary of historical review

7. Some key lessons for long-term success

Outline

Colonial Forest Rehabilitation Trials: India Late 1700s-early 1800s

3/11/2013

Teak plantations in Bengal and beyond for timber

supply

Farm forestry scheme growing teak on “waste

jungle tracts”

Mixed plantations of teak, mahogany, sissoo

Calcutta Botanical gardens – seeds, advice,

support

Individuals – Roxburgh, Wallich

Colonial Forest

Rehabilitation

Trials: Burma

1850s to 1940s

• 1850s – unregulated logging - rapid loss of timber

• Start of scientific forest management – Brandis (Selection

systems in managed teak areas, fully-stocked large stands)

• Taungya forestry in shifting cultivation systems for teak

regeneration

• Failed in long term: Poor plantation development, supervising

expanding areas, site selection, disease and pests, new forest estate

in upper Burma, local needs and practices conflicting with state

commercial use, shifting political priorities

/2013

• Temperate areas : Planted oak, magnolia, walnut and extended it

through the taungya method

• Lower elevations: Teak & mixed teak plantations. Farm forestry

systems

• 1900s: Conflict with existing use rights (forest products, cultivation,

grazing) – diversity of forest and land use practices/ arrangements

• Excluded fire, then brought it back by 1915-25 – ecological

connections and long-term practices.

Colonial Forest Rehabilitation India 1850s to 1940s

• By 1920, failure of natural regeneration &

crop improvement methods – led to Taungya

forestry for sal and teak

• Taungya forestry given up in next 10 years

Some early lessons

3/11/2013

Need sound long-

term management

Match the local

context -

ecological and

socio-cultural

Need strong

institutional support w

adequate resources

Problems with

monocultures &

uniform systems

Due consideration of

local claims, objectives,

needs and practices

Understanding the

dynamics of disturbance-

adapted secondary

landscapes

The importance of

markets

Strong & consistent

political backing

The importance of

single individuals

Post-colonial forest rehabilitation: India

1952-76: Traditional forest management and fast growing timber

plantations by govt. by 1980, over 2.2 M ha industrial plantations

1976-1988: Commercial forestry on Forest lands, social and farm

forestry on village and private degraded lands – fuelwood, fodder.

Dwindling forests, high livelihood pressures, traditional management not

working

1988 onwards: JFM for conservation and local livelihood needs with

benefit sharing (incl regeneration, agroforestry, plantations). Varying

degrees of success

JFM problems: weak land and resource rights, unsuitable species for site

and objective of meeting subsistence needs, did not relieve pressures on

natural forests, poor success rate, market problems

New developments: 2006 Forest Rights Act, Booming timber demand,

Climate Change mitigation goals

Recent efforts and outcomes: India and Myanmar

India: 1990s on increasing plantation area

(low biodiversity plantations)

40% FC degraded, low productivity

2011 National Mission for a Green India

(expand 5 M ha, quality 5 M ha). $10 B.

State/local Govt reforestation initiatives

CDM AR – pvt sector on smallholder lands

61000

62000

63000

64000

65000

66000

67000

68000

69000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1990 2000 2005 2010

Plantation (1000 ha) Total forest (1000 ha)

Myanmar: Plantation forestry problems

In 1980s, extensive teak plantations

established with well-defined rotations

(initially 80 years, later 60). 332,000 ha of

teak plantations now. Global teak supplier.

30,000 ha annual planting - Govt & private

41,500 ha community forestry (30 year dur)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1990 2000 2005 2010

Plantation (1000 ha) Total forest (1000 ha)

Vietnam rehabilitation programs since 1950s

Since mid 1950s: scattered tree planting initiatives, agroforestry

1975-2000: World Food Program included farmer afforestation/AF

1992-1998: Greening Barren Hills Program 327 – state funds –

protection and rehabilitation of special use and protection forest

1998-2010: 5MHRProgram 661 – to afforest 1 million ha and

regenerate 1 million ha of protection and special use forests, 3

million ha of production forests, and conduct dispersed planting

Of the cumulative area of 4 million ha planted from 1961 to 2001,

half may have been lost. Poor tending, poor species selection, low

investments, low survival rates, fires over time

Target - nationwide forest cover 16.2 M ha by 2020

Vietnam forest cover

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Natural forest Plantation

Significant FC increase since

1990: 1.9 M ha natural forest

and 2.5 M ha plantations

Conducive policy/ legislation -

tenure, production benefits,

other incentives

Up to 80% of total forest area is

poor quality natural forests

Major plantation areas. Acacia,

eucalyptus, pine, bamboo,

some native species

(Million ha)

Date Program Outcomes

1950s-70s Many shelterbelt protection programs

in North.

Timber plantations in collective forest

farms in South

23.69 M ha planted. Many

shelterbelt species. C Fir

dominant timber sp plus

other native and exotic

monocultures

1984-89 Taihang Mountain greening; coastal

shelterbelt; F-G H-Y forest

plantations; Yangtze Shelterbelt,

Plain regreening

Rapid FC increase. 4 M

ha annual reforestation in

1990s. Poor timber

quality, pest and fire

problems. 1989 Regreening barren hills campaign

1990s 5 additional shelterbelt programs

1998 Regrouped into 5 Rehab programs –

Grain for Green, Natural forest

protection, desertification control,

shelterbelts, forest industrial base

Targets from 8-32 million

ha. Tree planting,

mountain closure, aerial

seeding. Only a few sp

used in a single project.

China’s large rehabilitation programs

Date Activities

1980s on Independent provincial and local government efforts

Private sector (farmers, companies, individuals) for own

income, particularly in South.

Many mixed institutional arrangements.

Incentives – policy, land reform, liberalised timber markets

1998 Forest environmental benefit compensation fund for

ecological forest rehabilitation. Commercial forests by

private sector through markets.

2000s on Forest carbon initiatives at different scales

China’s rehabilitation history

Outcomes: Significant FC increase, improved survival, poor

quality and condition, monocultures, both positive and

negative socio-economic and environmental outcomes

Philippines (1910-2011)


Adapted from Acosta (2003)

Philippines

• Planted 180,000 ha

• Plantations

• Native & exotic sp

• Costs 134-581 P/ha

• Small Govt projects

• Govt budgets, low

• Drivers: science, environment, timber

• Government lands, local evictions

• Poor L-T outcomes

1910-74 • Planted 1.59 M ha

• Plantations , agroforestry. little ANR, EP

• 80% exotic species

• Costs 20,000-40,000 P/ha

• Multi-sectoral, large programs, big targets & many smaller projects

• Loans, grants, govt and private funds

• Drivers: envir, timber, livelihood needs

• Increased tenure, livelihood options, participation

• Increased FC from 1988, other outcomes & L-T sustainability unclear

• Problems - social, institutional, financial, policy

1975 -present

Indonesia

1983: MOF reforestation of protection conservation forests,

afforestation of community areas

1988: HTI industrial plantations to rehabilitate logged areas

HPH logging concessions to plant and regenerate

State-owned companies assigned rehabilitation task

1998-2004: Small-scale CBFM for community and timber

2000: Master plan for rehabilitation

2002: Reforestation funds regulation

2003: National movement for rehabilitation

2004: Ecosystem Restn Licenses for Degr Prodn Forests

Last decade: Climate change & REDD+

PA

GOI

Indonesia had >400

rehabilitation projects

1990s to 2004 - little

positive outcome (Nawir)

Problems


Technical

• No baseline site data

• Species chosen by government

• Few nurseries

• Planting at wrong time

• Inadequate budget

Economic

• Inadequate econ viability analysis

• No clear market integration

• No funding plan after project

Socio-cultural

• Limited rights issued

• Limited consultation

• No conflict resolution mechanism


Rehabilitation approaches used across

the region

3/11/2013

• Mainly monocultures and uniform age stands of exotic and

few native fast-growing species, limited mixed species

• Few quality hardwoods established in plantations

• Many large-scale planting programs – forest management

areas, projects, scattered planting

• Mostly government driven. Smallholder and private sector

commercial plantations more recently

• Increased forest cover in places and failure in others

• Reasons for success/failure – mix of technical, socio-

economic and policy reasons

• Concerns: Replacing natural forest landscapes with

monocultures, not meeting environmental/livelihood needs

1. Mainly Plantations over much of Asia

2. Agroforestry


Long-standing efforts by smallholders.

Continued through donor, research and NGO projects

Sloping Agricultural Land Technology (SALT) or contour

hedgerow farming – Since late 1980s in Mindanao. Crops

in bands between contoured rows of leguminous trees

and shrubs. Income from food crops and timber trees.

Rotational agroforestry – rattan and rubber with food

crops (Indonesia)

Permanent agroforests – damar, rattan, mixed tree

gardens (Indonesia, Philippines)

Less intensive investments, inputs, technology.

Intermediate ecosystems – diverse species, structure, age

3. Enrichment planting


Supplementary planting of indigenous or useful species

in degraded forests, fallow forests and woodlots for

production, environment, forest restoration.

Laos, Malaysia, Rattan by smallholders in Kalimantan,

Benzoin in Sumatra, Similar practices in Philippines,…

4. Natural Forest Ecosystem Restoration


Limited efforts though key objective in many conservation and

livelihood projects. Can serve multiple objectives. Mostly from

research institutions and projects. Need models, dissemination,

planting material.

Planting a mix of native species – For conservation forest

restoration in Sabah, Laos, Vietnam

Assisted Natural Regeneration – Philippines, Auroville India,

Vietnam, Laos, China, Thailand (community initiatives)

Rainforestation farming – VSU & GTZ, Philippines. Adopted by

DENR.

‘Framework species' approach - FORRU, Thailand. Expanded

across Thailand & SE Asia (Vietnam,..).

Ecosystem Restoration Licenses for Degraded Production

Forests to outside entities: Indonesia 2004.

Constraints affecting ANR


•Little knowledge on ANR, limited implementation experience

•Plantation approaches more familiar and commonly used for

restoration

•Mostly used for environmental objectives, not for community

benefits. So little incentive for participation and seen as more

appropriate for protected forests

•Does not ensure growth of commercial species, time to production

long and uncertain, so economic viability perceived to be low

•Rights to natural regeneration/native trees uncertain

•High density, low quality, low resources, low tending, not much

evaluation of forest or benefits. – perception of extensive but

ineffective forest establishment

5. Forest Carbon Enhancement Projects


•CDM Afforestation/ Reforestation – 16 registered projects, 8 in

pipeline, some withdrawn.

•Voluntary Carbon Markets A/R, Agroforestry – 6

•Many other pilot projects at various stages targeted at carbon

markets and national, bilateral and other mechanisms.

•Also many REDD+ projects include A/R and other approaches

•Could be 50 projects total now – bulk in India (22) and China (13)

•Pilot jurisdictional-level initiatives in Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia,

China

•National-level Reforestation Programs also being linked to carbon

CDM AR experiences


1. Helped to start and expand reforestation/afforestation

projects – lot of effort and investment

2. Private sector has stepped in to develop projects

3. Has attracted buyers for the carbon credits thus

demonstrating room for a performance-based mechanism

for rehabilitation

4. Much of the purchase is pre-verification, pre-issuance of

credits – so longer-term reforestation outcome remains to

be seen

CDM AR experiences


5. In Asia, mostly conventional timber species and

agroforestry on local community or small farmer lands.

6. Aims to protect the environment and provide income to

local communities (timber and carbon) - outcomes need

review

7. Concerns raised about additionality, social and

environmental benefits, and sustainability with attempts to

address the same

8. REDD+ more complicated, still in early stages

9. Long-term prospects and financing for FC/REDD+

performance unclear w/o strong international climate

change commitments

6. Forest Landscape Restoration


Summary of historical review


•Long history

•Variety of approaches driven

by different considerations –

slowly moving from

plantations of single species

to other approaches

•Players: Gov major role early

on. More room for community,

private sector and local

government now.

•Many different tenure and

institutional arrangements

•Intermittent large-scale efforts

driven by political motivations

•L-T outcomes on ground

unclear. Increased forest

cover reported in countries.

Other parameters unclear.

•Funding mainly from

government in past.

Increasingly through donor

funding and self-funding by

the private sector

Some key lessons for long-term

success and meeting objectives


1. Long-term


• Long term management

• Planning

• Extension support

• Tenure duration

• Institutional arrangements

• Incentives

• Financing

NATIONAL TREE PLANTING DAY

15 October 2013

Save the planet

Well done,

lets go home!

Short-term Projects/

Ad hoc campaigns

2. Local context

3/11/2013

Root in local context – Objectives and

approach (technical and socio-

economic) should make sense in

terms of site conditions; markets;

local stakeholder needs, skills,

practices; local environmental

concerns; address underlying drivers

Top down approaches


• Planted 10,000 trees

• Employed 500 people

• Prepared 100 contracts

• Increase in forest cover

Outcomes of Rehabilitation Project 101

• Unknown

Did it meet other objectives?

• Unknown

Long-term sustainability

• Green the barren hills

• Produce timber

• Alleviate poverty

• Protect the watershed

• Mitigate climate

• Conserve soil

• …

• …51

Objectives of Rehabilitation Project 101

3. Design not just to increase forest cover but for other

desired objectives and evaluate outcomes in all aspects

Much effort resulted in

Need improved technical knowledge for natural forest restoration, for indigenous

species, different approaches for different conditions and objectives, socio-economic

models

Easily accessible information repository and effective sharing of that knowledge and

experience

Good demonstration models, Development of adequate planting material for native

species

Rights to natural regeneration, native tree species developed

4. If you want more of this

5. Social elements critical

Participatory/ multi-stakeholder

approaches work better

Building local organisations and

capacity of diff stakeholders

Clear institutional

arrangements, roles

and responsibilities

– legal agreements

Social safeguards

Land Use allocation and

tenure clarity & security

6. Economic elements critical

Careful design of socio-

economic incentives and

benefits for participation

Market orientation/

integration, Marketing

support

Economic feasibility

assessment – do the

numbers add up?

Building in sustained

long-term financing, re-

investment strategy

PES

• Strong political will

• Clear and supportive policies & legal framework

• Stable policy environment

• Clear tenure rights and other critical incentives

• Adaptive to emerging lessons

• Effective implementation

7. Policy environment CBFM harvesting

rights issued

Harvesting

ban

Ban lifted

Floods in north –

ban re-imposed

?


Thank you for your kind attention

Documents

Review of forest rehabilitation in the Asia- Pacific ... · 3/11/2013 Review of forest rehabilitation in the Asia-Pacific Region: Lessons from the past •Afforestation, Reforestation