Agricultural progress is a cornerstone of social and economic development in most tropical countries. Yet ground-breaking research by two CIFOR economists points out the danger of assuming that increased agricultural productivity will discourage farmers in developing countries from cutting down more trees for shifting cultivation, as many experts have assumed.

Based on case studies from around the world, Arild Angelsen and David Kaimowitz show that agricultural progress often increases deforestation by making farming on marginal lands more profitable. The introduction of better soybean varieties and mechanised production in southern Brazil, for example, led to a shift from more environmentally benign coffee production to large-scale soybean farming. Forest cover declined as a result. Similarly, tse-tse fly control efforts in Ethiopia have opened large areas to farming, sometimes at the loss of natural vegetation.

These and other case studies were examined at a 1999 meeting in Costa Rica sponsored by CIFOR and the Tropical Agricultural Centre for Research and Higher Education (CATIE), with major funding from Norway. The CIFOR scientists used the case studies and additional analysis to sort out the conditions that determine whether technological advances in agriculture are good or bad for forests. Key factors include the kind of technologies introduced, the availability of local labour and whether the farm products are bound for domestic or global markets. The findings indicate that labour-saving and capital-intensive technologies are more likely to spur forest clearing than production systems requiring a large work force.

These findings relate specifically to technological progress in "frontier" farming – that is, on land adjacent to forests. In contrast, boosting the productivity of land already under intensive cultivation is likely to be benign, the CIFOR researchers concluded. A book due in 2000 will aid wide dissemination of this important work. Dr. Angelsen cautions: "It’s important to recognise that there may be trade-offs between poverty reduction and forest conservation goals unless countervailing measures are taken into account."

In a 12 November news report in the journal Science, World Bank senior environmental adviser John Spears called this research "extraordinarily valuable", adding that the Bank was taking the findings into account in its policies to insure forest protection.

CIFOR research in two countries, Cameroon and Indonesia, offers an interesting look at how major economic crises can inadvertently spur deforestation. The results of this authoritative work have been widely consulted by government officials, policy makers and analysts in the two countries, as well as international donor and development programmes.

"The World Bank should acknowledge many situations are not ‘win-win’, help analyse the trade-offs and encourage debate on the appropriate balance between conflicting objectives."
CIFOR Report on Non-Sector Policies That Affect Forests

The research in Cameroon focuses on the effects of economic turbulence resulting from an oil boom collapse in the mid-1980s and the loss of foreign exchange earnings from oil, cocoa and coffee. Studies led by CIFOR’s William Sunderlin and his colleague Jacques Pokam showed that as urban incomes fell drastically, many city dwellers moved to the countryside to seek a livelihood from forest land and resources; others who had migrated to cities also returned home. As village populations grew more rapidly after 1986, households chopped down more trees to grow food, which also helped compensate for lower earnings from cocoa and coffee.

Related research by Ousseynou Ndoye and David Kaimowitz found that increased logging, extraction of fuelwood and collection of non-timber forest products have further degraded Cameroon’s forests. A currency devaluation in 1994 encouraged a rise in these forest-based activities. Families partially compensated for lower incomes from tree crops by selling more fuelwood and non-timber forest products.

Results from these and related field studies support satellite imagery showing a dramatic loss of forest cover in Cameroon since the end of the oil boom and the introduction of corrective economic measures.

Better awareness of these links should help avert further loss of the nation’s forests. Researchers from national and regional forestry institutions in Cameroon have been key partners in this research, better ensuring that the findings will be incorporated into policies and planning. Major funding for this work came from the UK’s Department for International Development and the Central African Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE), supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development.

In Indonesia, an economic crisis that struck in 1997 gave scientists at CIFOR an opportunity to study first-hand the effects on the nation’s forests and the people who inhabit them. Although no time-series satellite imagery data are available to compare pre- and post-crisis levels of forest cover, evidence from extensive field studies suggests that substantially more forest was cleared in the second year of the crisis (1998-99) compared with the year before the crisis began.

The initial phase of this research, completed in 1999, looked at how the crisis affected forest-based people and related patterns of farming and land use. CIFOR researchers interviewed households in 30 villages of six outer island provinces of Indonesia about 18 months after the crisis began. Even though analysts had predicted that agriculture would cushion the blow of the economic crisis for rural Indonesians outside of crowded Java, the surveys showed that most of those interviewed were worse off during the second year of the crisis compared with their economic status in the year before krisis moneter (krismon) began.

The research, led by William Sunderlin, Ida Aju Pradnja Resosudarmo and Arild Angelsen, showed that the country’s forests suffered from this decline in family incomes and welfare. Almost a third of the households in the CIFOR survey who reported being worse off during the crisis said they had expanded their area of cultivated land. As an added pressure, about 17 percent of those who said they were better off during the crisis – in large part because of income from export crops – said they had used increased earnings to buy additional land. The World Bank and the MacArthur Foundation, in arrangement with Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Jakarta, were the chief funders of this research.

Two additional studies sponsored by CIFOR provided insight into large-scale land use changes that have significantly altered Indonesia’s forest landscape in recent years. Chris Barr, in an analysis done jointly with the World Wide Fund for Nature, showed how the commercial timber sector – a prime agent of forest degradation in recent years – has shifted its focus from the production of plywood to supplying raw material to a greatly expanded pulp and paper industry. One notable effect, compounded by the economic crisis, has been an acceleration of illegal logging. Meanwhile, Anne Casson examined the spread of oil palm estates that has caused rapid and widespread forest clearing in many regions of Indonesia. She found that the expansion slowed during the economic crisis, but the industry is poised for further growth down the road. With these trends apparently set to continue, CIFOR analysts and others warn that the demands on the nation’s forests from commercial interests is reaching increasingly unsustainable levels.

CIFOR provided considerable input into the World Bank’s newest forest-related policies, which are likely to reflect a greater awareness of how lending and development activities can lead unintentionally but dramatically to increased deforestation.

When the Bank adopted a major strategy on forests in 1991, it vowed to take a multi-sectoral approach reflecting indirect causes of forest loss and degradation. But, as the Bank itself acknowledged, that did not happen. A review of the plan, concluded in 1999, follows the most comprehensive analysis of its forest-related activities the Bank has ever undertaken. In the review process and preparations to draft a new forest strategy, the World Bank sought CIFOR’s expertise through several channels – a reflection of the centre’s highly respected work in analysing underlying causes of deforestation.

William Sunderlin, David Kaimowitz, Arild Angelsen, Mafa Chipeta and Godwin Kowero participated in consultative meetings involving experts in the international forestry community. They provided critical insight on forest-related poverty, community forestry, carbon trading prospects and sustainable forest management. Experience from CIFOR’s considerable research in Southern Africa helped reorient the Bank from a focus exclusively on rain forests to one that encompasses dry forests and woodlands, which are a critical part of the equation because they support the livelihood of many rural communities in Africa and elsewhere.

Also at the Bank’s request, CIFOR prepared an analytical report in 1999 describing extra-sectoral factors that influence forests and forest-dependent people. It summarises what is known about forest-related effects of macroeconomic policies, agriculture and land tenure, transportation, energy and mining, lending and investment. The report further recommends "best practices" for Bank activities in these areas.

CIFOR was also asked to review case studies of forest developments in Brazil, Cameroon and Indonesia, where CIFOR has well-grounded research projects. The Indonesia analysis pointed out, for example, how World Bank attempts to promote oil palm development has increased pressure on forests. In the case of Cameroon, CIFOR concluded, among other things, that the Bank’s forest policy reform efforts had failed largely because the Bank promoted its own agenda while giving short shrift to domestic concerns and debate.

Forests, Carbon Markets and Climate Change Mitigation

Under the Kyoto Protocol, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed in 1997 to include forestry and land use change as "sinks" or "sources" of greenhouse gas emissions. In line with this, forestry and land use change may be included in climate change mitigation projects under the Clean Development Mechanism that would allow developed countries to purchase carbon credits from selected land use and forestry projects in developing countries.

CIFOR has been engaged in policy work on projects that might be possible under the Clean Development Mechanism as well as in field research to better understand forest carbon dynamics and forest carbon accounting methods. Funding for this work has come from the United States and the Nature Conservancy.

In a study done in the Peruvian Amazon, Joyotee Smith and her co-investigators from Peru and the Imperial College London examined whether trade in forest carbon could induce improved land use in slash-and-burn agriculture. They concluded that farmers place a high value on forest products, and that small-holder carbon projects may be more competitive with large-scale forest protection projects if the land use change allows sustainable management for forest products, rather than outright protection. Thus, including sustainable forest management as an option among the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol may increase the opportunity for small holders to competitively supply forest carbon services.

Predicting how carbon stocks will change over time in tropical forests is important in establishing baseline conditions for climate change mitigation projects. CIFOR conducted a field study in the plantation forest on its Bogor campus to calibrate a model known as CENW, developed originally for coniferous forests in Australia by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Although the calibration is not yet complete, early results indicate that CENW can be used in tropical mixed hardwood forests with moderate levels of data collection, allowing the prediction of carbon flows over time.

Building a Record of Impact at CIFOR

Impact is the aim of any strategic research that strives to solve existing problems. But how can you insure it happens? That’s the challenge for Mike Spilsbury, a scientist who seeks ways of incorporating the likelihood of impact into every major research project at CIFOR.

Achieving impact requires knowing the needs and capabilities of target beneficiaries, including how they acquire research results and apply them. Dr. Spilsbury helps staff researchers identify "impact pathways" – avenues to on-the-ground changes that will translate into improved forest management or a better quality of life for forest-dependent people. CIFOR’s strong policy-level focus and broad range of user groups offer many opportunities for "uptake" of results and research impact. In the bigger picture, impact planning and assessment are part of a larger institutional process of priority setting and capacity building.

In 1999 this programme, which derives support from the United Kingdom through the Department for International Development, began its first case study: looking at the effects of CIFOR’s criteria and indicators project. Surveys and interviews with hundreds of actual and potential users of the C&I are being done to determine positive response as well as limitations that may be hindering broader acceptance. Among the preliminary findings, users say they find the approach scientifically credible and well thought out, but more and better training is needed and the project should have closer ties with the private sector.

"Most research is focused on developing the product. We need to learn from the private sector and put more effort into understanding the market for that product."
CIFOR Scientist Mike Spilsbury

Knowledge to Aid Biodiversity Conservation

CIFOR and the International Union of Forestry Research Organisations (IUFRO) collaborated in 1999 to provide managers of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) with suggestions on how that mechanism could – and should – be used to promote biodiversity conservation in timber-producing forests of developing countries.

In arguing for a broader and more realistic approach by the GEF, the authors point out that even ardent proponents of biodiversity protection assume only about 10 percent of forests will be set aside for parks and reserves. "Obviously the fate of much biodiversity will depend upon what happens to the residual 90 percent of the forest estate," say the authors of the report, written by Robert C. Szaro of IUFRO and, at CIFOR, Jeffrey A. Sayer, Douglas Sheil, Laura Snook and Andy Gillison, with contributions from Grahame Applegate, John Poulsen and Robert Nasi. Production forests are a critical component of that large forest inventory. They harbour a considerable amount of the world’s plant and animal species. Yet they are not likely to be shut down any time soon because tropical countries are heavily dependent on them for national revenue and local economic development.

Regardless of setting, biodiversity protection entails social choices and fair allocation of costs and benefits, combined with appropriate incentives and regulatory measures. To achieve that, the authors explain, management approaches are needed that can reconcile the many competing values and interests that different groups have in relation to a given forest. The report suggests that the GEF can strengthen its species protection efforts by promoting better management of production forests. It appeals to the GEF to leverage its authority and resources toward halting ecologically destructive logging practices in tropical forests around the world.

In other work on global biodiversity issues, CIFOR assisted the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity in preparing a summary report on "Forest Biological Diversity: Status and Trends and Identification of Options for Conservation and Sustainable Use". Meanwhile, a Biodiversity Convention sub-group drew on CIFOR’s work in developing criteria and indicators (C&I) for sustainable forest management as the foundation for drafting a "universal" set of biodiversity-related C&I.

Supporting Global Dialogue on Forest Issues

In 1999 CIFOR again contributed its expertise to the United Nations Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF), which is seeking agreement on ways to implement the "Forest Principles" and "Agenda 21" adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

At the third session of the IFF, a discussion of how to improve research priorities benefited from CIFOR’s participation in an International Expert Consultation on Research and Information Systems in Forestry, which was held in 1998. Among a number of recommendations, the IFF urged that consideration be given to developing a global forest information service. On another topic, the IFF called for further study of the causes of deforestation outside the forest sector, including the impacts of poverty and the relationship with land tenure. This interest is particularly relevant to CIFOR because Underlying Causes of Deforestation is one of the centre’s core research programmes.

A discussion of traditional forest-based knowledge proved contentious because of concerns about the intellectual property rights of indigenous people. CIFOR reinforced its commitment to recognising traditional knowledge and drawing on it to complement modern scientific knowledge about forests. CIFOR and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) were given the task of preparing a briefing on possible approaches to identifying, collecting and recording traditional forest-based knowledge, in preparation for resuming the dialogue at the fourth IFF session early in 2000.

Besides participating in the discussions, CIFOR and the FAO worked closely with a dozen countries to prepare a study for the IFF titled "Outlook for Plantations".

Funding to the international forestry community totals an estimated US$1 billion annually. Still, there are frequent pleas in international forums for additional money. Arguing that the assistance provided so far has not always been successful, CIFOR’s Assistant Director General Reidar Persson initiated an international dialogue in 1999 aimed at looking at how available resources might be used more effectively. "If we don’t find ways of improving the use of funds we have, we may soon see that the aid money going to forestry will decrease," he observes.

In an overview paper on the issue, which incorporates comments from an extensive on-line review, he lays out problems in donor organisations and recipient countries that have led to the present situation. One key problem is that donors often drive the nature of aid projects. Recent studies by the World Bank and other agencies, for example, have shown there is generally little relationship between assistance and growth – mainly because assistance is often given for political reasons rather than in response to clearly identified needs. This dominance by donors also means there is often limited local "ownership" and political commitment by recipient countries.

Dr. Persson says much could be learned from past experience about what works and what does not in assistance programmes, and urges the international forestry community to better heed these lessons. He suggests a number of "best bets" to improve the situation in the short term. These include giving greater attention to local and national capacity building, strategic research and improved analysis of forest-related problems through the use of modern technologies and other means.

This work, supported by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, has been discussed at meetings of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests, the International Forestry Advisors Group and the European Tropical Forestry Advisors Group, among others, and is the basis for a major report to the International Union of Forest Research Organisations.

Top