a review of tropical forestry and agroforestry problem...

WORKING PAPER NO. 5Oct 1994

A Review of Tropical Forestry and AgroforestryProblem Areas and Policy Research Needs and thePlanned Response of the CGIAR System

J. Spears, P. Oram, N. Byron, S. Scherr and A.M. Izac

Summary

Recognizing that policy research would become a high priority for CGIAR related forestry andagroforestry research, it was decided in 1990 to sponsor a series of forestry and agroforestiy policyworkshops involving national forest policy and research institution leaders, representatives of local andinternational NGOs and donor agencies. The objective was to obtain a better understanding of the mainproblem areas that could benefit from a CGIAR strategic research input.

The key issues that emerged from the five workshops are summarized in this report. Tropical forestryand agroforestry problem areas and policy research needs are reviewed in Part I and Annex 3 of thereport. Based on the discussion in Part I, Part II introduces the policy research programs of the CGIARCentres, focusing on CIFOR, ICRAF and IFPRI, and presents the research priority setting and plannedresponses of these CGIAR Centres to each of the identified five problem areas.

The program of intercentre collaboration and possible research activities outlined in the report isbased on unconstrained resources which would ensure that CIFOR, ICRAF and IFPRI are allocated theresources requested in their Medium Term Plans. Thus, the Workshop series and this final report shouldnot only be viewed as a research agenda which will trigger immediate responses but also as a usefulmechanism for formulating the CGIAR Centres' long-term policy research direction and research needsto be addressed by national research institutions.

In Collaboration with

CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY RESEARCHJalan Gunung Batu 5 Bogor 1600 1 Indonesiatel.: +62(25 1) 34-3652 fax: +62(25 1) 32-6433ICRAF email: [email protected]

The CGIAR System,

The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is an informal association of 41 public and private sector donors that supports a network of sixteen international agricultural research centers, CIFOR being the newest of these centers. The Group was established in 1971. The CGIAR centers are part of a global agricultural research system which endeavor to apply international scientific capacity to solution of the problems of the world’s disadvantaged people.

CIFOR

CIFOR was established under the CGIAR system in response to global concerns about the social, environmental and economic consequences of loss and degradation of forests. It operates through a series of highly decentralized partnerships with key institutions and/or individuals throughout the developing and industrialized worlds. The nature and duration of these partnerships are determined by the specific research problems being addressed. This research agenda is under constant review and is subject to change as the partners recognize new opportunities and problems.

CONTENTS

Executive Summary 1

Part I: A Review of Tropical Forestry and Agroforestry Problem Areas andResearch Needs

10

IntroductionThe Policy Workshops

The Global WorkshopThe Asia WorkshopThe Africa WorkshopThe Latin American Workshop

101111121418

Discussion of Predominant Common Themes 20

Forestry and Agroforestry Policy Research Methodology and Institutional Capacity 21

Part II: The Forestry and Agroforestry Policy Research Programs of the CGIAR Centers 22

(a) Criteria for the Selection of Problem Areas and Research Needs that would be mostappropriate for CGIAR Support

22

(b) Emphasis on Forestry and Agroforestry Policy Research in the Medium Term Plansof CIFOR, ICRAF and IFPRI

23

(i) Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) 23(ii) International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) 23(iii) International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) 23

(c) The CGIAR’s Planned Response to the Recommendations of the RegionalForest Policy Workshops

24

Problem Area I: Policies to Contain inappropriate Tropical DeforestationProblem Area 2: Valuation of Forest and Tree BenefitsProblem Area 3: Local ParticipationProblem Area 4: The Role of Trees and Forests in Rural WelfareProblem Area 5: Policy Options for Improving the Efficiency of Forest Industries

and Productivity of Forest Management

2526272829

(d) Alternative Modes of Intercentre Collaboration 29

(i) Containment of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: the GlobalAlternatives to Slash and Burn Project

30

(ii) Testing of Alternative Institutional approaches to Forest Management 32

(e) Phasing of the CGIAR Centres’ Forestry and Agroforestry Policy Research Activities 34

Annex 1: Priorities for Forestry and Agroforestry Policy Research 35

Annex 2: Synthesis of Main Problem Areas and Research Needs 38

A Review of Tropical Forestry and Agroforestry Problem Areas andPolicy Research Needs and the Planned Response of the

CGIAR System

J. Spears1, P. Oram2, N. Byron3, S. Scherr2 and A.M. Izac4

Background

The idea of holding an international workshop on priorities for forestry/agroforestry policy researchstemmed from discussions among a number of concerned scientists, some of whom (Hans Gregersen,Peter Oram, John Spears) had been involved in TAC, CGIAR, IUFRO, and other discussions oninternational research needs for the forestry sector, the potential role of the CGIAR and what IFPRI’scontribution might be within this larger framework. IUFRO and USAID offered to fund such aworkshop, and it was agreed to hold it in Washington with IFPRI as the operational focus and host.

A key recommendation of this workshop was to follow up with similar workshops in each of themajor geographical regions where tropical forestry is important, and IFPRI was asked to pursue this.The aim was to delineate more specifically the problems and priority areas for research, and to identifythose researchable issues common to several countries, the results of which would have broadapplicability; as well as where international action might be needed when problems transcendednational boundaries or presented difficult methodological challenges.

IFPRI agreed to take on this task, and Peter Oram, who had the primary responsibility fororganizing the international workshop, was designated by IFPRI as task manager. John Spears andHans Gregersen played an important advisory role, and John participated in the Asian and Africanworkshops. Sara Scherr, who had been present at the international workshop and who joined IFPRI in1991, participated in the Asian, African, and Latin American Workshops; Manuel Paveri of FAO alsoparticipated in the Asian, African, and Latin American workshops and provided a valuable link withFAO’s Forest Policy Program. Marc de Montalambert, Director, Forest Policy and Planning Divisionin FAO, also attended the International and Asian workshops, and FAO was the lead agency managingthe joint FAO/IFPRI Asian workshop in Bangkok. Ronnie de Camino was the main partner in theLatin American initiative. Peter Oram played the leading role in raising funds, organising all of theworkshops jointly with IFPRI’s partners in Asia (FAO), Africa (ICRAF), and Latin America (IICA),running the three regional meetings, and writing the reports. He, John Spears, Sara Scherr and Ann-Marie Izac participated in the Bogor workshop and contributed to the draft report. Neil Byronconvened and organised this last meeting and also attended the Washington and Asian workshops.

Executive Summary

The key issues that emerged from regionalworkshops are summarised in this report. It wasrecognized from the outset that the range ofproblem areas and policy research topics likelyto emerge from this exercise would far exceedthe capacity of the CGIAR system to respond.Nevertheless, it was considered useful informulating research agendas, to carry out abroadly based review of this subject working inclose collaboration with IUFRO and FAO.PART I of this report provides regional andglobal overviews of key problem areas, common

themes and research topics, based on interactionwith a wide range of national and internationalpolicy leaders, scientists, FAO, NGOs and donoragency representatives. PART II of the reportsummarises the planned responses of the CGIARCentres.

Discussion of Predominant CommonThemes

An analysis of the main problem areas and highpriority research needs emerging from the

1. Formerly with CGIAR Secretariat in Washington, D.C.2. International Food Policy Research Institute, 1200 Seventeenth Street N.W. Washington, D.C.

20036-3006, USA.3. Center for International Forestry Research, P.O.Box. 6596, JKPWB, Jakarta 10065, Indonesia.4. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, United Nations Avenue, PO Box. 30677,

Nairobi, Kenya.

2 ClFOR Working Paper No. 5: Review of Policy Research Needs

workshops suggests that five broad problemareas appear to be of common concern to policyleaders in the Asia, Africa and Latin Americanregions. They are:

l Th e impact of tropical deforestation onhuman welfare as well as on both local andglobal environments; the need for improvedunderstanding of the main underlyingcauses of deforestation; and policy reformsthat could most effectively contribute to itscontainment.

l The uses of the forests, and their economicand environmental values and benefits arepoorly understood an d frequentlyunderestimated. This has had a negativeeffect on national government, aid agencyand private sector resource allocations andinvestment priorities relating toconservation and management of forestresources.

l Past policies that have placed strongemphasis on centralised decision making,ownership and control of forest resources,have deterred involvement of local peoplein their management. These policies havebeen partly responsible for past failures toprotect forests and for the extensivedegradation of forest lands in many parts ofthe tropics.As natural forests throughout thedeveloping world have been depleted anddegraded, local populations haveincreasingly turned to remnant patches ofopen woodlands, forest fallows and otheragroforestry farming systems for supplyingtheir essential forest product needs and forinputs required to maintain agriculturalproductivity.This evolution of supply sources of tree

products from natural forest/gathered orharvested products to products that areobtained from domesticated on-farm orcommunity wood-lot trees or plantations,has led to many new policy challenges.Because the interactions between crops,livestock and trees are not well understood,government agroforestry incentive andextension policies are frequently ineffectiveand wasteful of scarce resources.

l The countries of South East Asia, WestAfrica and Latin America with abundanttropical timber have in the past, or stil doto a significant degree, depend on timberharvesting and forest product exports for

generating revenues that support economicdevelopment.A combination of political pressures to

accelerate harvesting, corruption, theweakness of government forestadministrations, inappropriate concessionlicense allocation and timber taxationsystems, and the negative impact ofmacroeconomi c trade, exchange rate andstructural adjustment policies, have led towasteful use of resources and failure tocapture economic rental values.The introduction o f accelerated

industrialisation policies has, in somesituations, exacerbated poor forestmanagement and been costly in terms of jobcreation, loss of potential revenues, lack ofpreservation of the environmental benefitsof forests and loss of agriculturalsustainability.Environmental concerns to protect

rainforests for global benefit and to protectthe way of life of forest dwellingcommunities have led to pressures onsouthern governments to restrict timberexports, to the introduction of tropicaltimber import restrictions and to otherinterventions. The impact of theseinterventions on local people, on economicgrowth prospects and on the possibilities forimproved conservation and management offorest resources is poorly understood.

Annex 2 of this report summarises high priorityresearch needs for addressing the five problemareas outlined above, based on the conclusionsand recommendations of this series of PolicyWorkshops.

Planned Forestry and AgroforestryPolicy Research Programs of theCGIAR Centres

In responding to the above problems, theCGIAR Centres are giving high priority toresearch topics that fit with the CGIAR’sMission Statement which requires the Centresto focus on:

“International research and related activities inpartnership with national research institutionsthat will contribute to sustainable improvementsin the productivity of agriculture, forestry and

3

fisheries in developing countries in ways thatenhance nutrition and well being, especially oflow income people."

Working within this framework, the CGIARsystem is well placed to make a significantcontribution to tackling many of the key aspectsof the five problem areas summarised above.

Center for International Forestry Research(CIFOR)

In broad terms, CIFOR will concentrate its mainpolicy research effort on tackling underlyingcauses of’ tropical deforestation; on improvedunderstanding of policies and incentives toensure increased productivity and sustainablemanagement of natural forests and reforestationof degraded lands; on researching systemsaimed at valuation and more equitabledistribution of the benefits of forest goods andservices (with a special focus on non-timberforest products); on alternative institutionaloptions for involving local people in forestmanagement and on policies that will help toimprove the quantification, preservation andmonitoring of the environmental benefits oftropical forests (including the biodiversity oftropical forest ecosystems and their carbonsequestration potential). CIFOR’s PolicyResearch Program will embrace five main areasof activity:

. Policies and Incentives for SustainableForest Management. (IFPRI)

. Valuation and Equity of Benefits and Costsof Forest Goods and Services.

. Adoption of Policy Change.

. Employment and Income from Forests andWoodlands.

. Future Supplies and Demands for ForestGoods and Services.

International Centre for Research inAgroforestry (ICRAF)

ICRAF’s policy related research will continuethe strong emphasis that ICRAF has given overthe last 15 years to farm level research aimed atimproved understanding of household level andcommunity perceptions of the value and uses ofon-farm trees and remnant woodlands,particularly from the perspective of the role thatthey play in contributing to agricultural

sustainability and food security, and to thefarmers’ welfare.

ICRAF is also spearheading the Global“Alternatives to Slash and Burn” Projectthrough which a consortium of national andinternational research institutions isimplementing a research program aimed attackling one of the main contributors to tropicaldeforestation, i.e. shifting cultivation insituations of increasing population pressure,shortening fallow periods, declining crop yieldsand ecological degradation. ICRAF’s MediumTerm Plan defines three main areas ofagroforestry policy research. They are:

. Agroecosystem characterisation of priorityenvironments and land use systems toidentify constraints and opportunities foragroforestry research and to delineateextrapolation domaines.

. Development of an understanding of howselected policies constrain or support theadoption of agroforestry technologies anddesign of adoption mechanisms for policyimplementation.

. Impact assessment, the objectives of whichare to measure the ecological, economicand social impacts of key agroforestrytechnologies on agricultural sustainability,rural poverty, farmers’ welfare,environmental preservation and climatechange.

International Food Policy Research Institute

IFPRI’s main contribution will be implementedby IFPRI’s recently established Environmentand Production Technology Division,particularly through two projects that will focuson “Forest Margins” and “Fragile Lands”. Theseprojects will incorporate case studies ofinstitutional arrangements for promotingsustainable resource use; marketing studiesfocussing particularly on forest and non-foresttree products; methodologies for assessing theinterrelationships among soil degradation andfarm level resource management decisions(especially forest conversion); participatorycommunity monitoring systems to assess theeffect of policies on natural resourcemanagement (including forests and trees). AlsoIFPRI will continue to work on howmacroeconomic and structural adjustmentpolicies affect agricultural productivity, equity,

4 CIFOR Working Paper No. 5: Review of Policy Research Needs

trade and the environment (areas in which . The importance of closest possibleIFPRI’s past research experience could be of collaboration with NARs. These wereconsiderable relevance to the forestry sector). defined in a broad context to include a

IFPRI will also play a role in the range of different local institutions such associoeconomic policy research dimensions of national forestry research institutions,the Global “Alternatives to Slash and Burn” universities, specialised policy researchProject. Five main areas of agroforestry and institutes, NGOs and government policyforestry policy related research to be undertaken researchers and decision makers located inby IFPRI include: various different ministries.

. Arresting deforestation and resourcedegradation in the forest margins of thehumid tropics.

. Sustainable development in fragile forestlands.

. Property rights and communal action forforest resource management.

. Tree product markets.

. Macroeconomic policy, trade and theenvironment.

. The role of the CGIAR Centres in PolicyResearch Training.

The CGIAR’S Planned Response tothe Recommendations of the RegionalForest Policy Workshops

In response to the recommendations of theRegional Forest Policy Workshops, CIFORhosted a Forest Policy’ Workshop in Bogor,Indonesia in February 1994. Representativesfrom four Centres - CIFOR, ICRAF, IFPRI andCIAT - participated in that Workshop. The twomain objectives of this Workshop were:

. Selection of problem areas and researchneeds that tit well with the various CGIARCentre mandates, in execution of which theCGIAR would have some comparativeadvantage and which, in terms of CGIARgoals are deserving of highest priority.. Possible modes of intercentre collaborationthat would exploit the complementarystrengths of different Centres.

These three latter points (and particularly therole of the NARs) will be a major focus of thefollow up discussions that the three individualCentres are now in the process of implementingwithin the various geographic regions in whichthey will be concentrating their policy relatedresearch activities. Because these regionalinteractions with NARs are still ongoing, andbecause further time is needed to develop morespecific proposals on the CGIAR Centres’possible contribution to policy research training,this report only summarises the conclusions andrecommendations of the Bogor Workshopemerging from discussions of the two mainobjectives of the meeting. Table 1 at the end ofthis Executive Summary lists the research topicsemerging from the Bogor Workshop discussionsthat were regarded as being of high priority forCGIAR support and that fit well with theresearch agendas already defined in the MediumTerm Plans of CIFOR, ICRAF and IFPRI,which cover the period 1994-1998. Theseinclude 28 of the 40 different research topicsidentified by the Regional Workshops. Table 1also indicates the research areas of particularinterest to CIFOR, ICRAF and IFPRI.

The main problem areas and research needsdiscussed were those identified by the RegionalWorkshop participants as summarised aboveand in Annex 2 of this report. In addition to thetwo main objectives of the meeting, theWorkshop also briefly discussed:

More detailed discussion of the preciseareas of research that will be pursued by thesethree Centres is the main subject of Part II ofthis report. In discussing this question theWorkshop was particularly concerned that thecomplementary areas of interest and researchexpertise which they possess are used to the bestadvantage.

. Preliminary identification of geographicsituations where CGIAR field research sitesmight be located.

In addition to the planned forestry andagroforestry policy related research activities ofthese three Centres, the CGIAR designated“ecoregional” Centres such as CentroInternational de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT)in Latin and Central America, The InternationalInstitute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in WestAfrica, The International Crops Research

5

Institute for the Semi Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)in the arid zones of South Asia and Africa, TheInternational Rice Research Institute (IRRI)working in the humid tropics of South EastAsia, and the International Centre forAgricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA)in the Middle East will also be playing asignificant role in natural resource relatedresearch in the ecoregional zones that fallwithin their geographic mandates.

Of these other ecoregional Centres, onlyCIAT was represented at this Workshop. Thecontribution of the CGIAR ecoregional Centresto forestry and agroforestry research will also bea focus of the follow up discussions andresearch activities that CIFOR, ICRAF andIFPRI have already initiated, or which they nowplan to undertake within the regions. For thatreason no attempt has been made in this reportto cover the likely research agendas of theseCentres.

Modes of Intercentre Collaborationand Complementary Research

A major thrust of the Workshop discussionsfocussed on the interdependency andinterlinkages between many of the 28 researchtopics that appear to be most appropriate forCGIAR support, and on how the Centres couldmost effectively collaborate so as to addressthese research topics in an integrated way. It isthe CGIAR’s intention to combine the biologicaland socioeconomic scientific expertise ofvarious CGIAR Centres to take into accounttheir comparative strengths and complementaryresearch mandates.

To tackle major globally importantenvironmental problems (such as the negativeimpact on human welfare and the globalenvironment of slash and burn agriculture intropical forests), some of the five problem areasidentified in Part I of this report might mosteffectively be addressed by establishing anecoregional network of CGIAR Centres,national research institutions and specialisedresearch agencies working collaboratively inpreselected sites in each of the three majorgeographic regions (Asia, Latin America andAfrica).

There would be advantages in appointing a"Convening Centre” the function of whichwould be to orchestrate and ensure the creation

of effective coordination mechanisms for suchglobal research programs. This is the model thathas been followed in setting up the Global“Alternatives to Slash and Burn” (ASB) Projectfor which ICRAF is acting as the ConveningCentre.

Options were explored for achieving costsavings in situations where all three Centreshave an interest in pursuing a topic from theirrespective perspectives (such as the influence ofvarious land tenure systems on the interest oflocal communities and small scale farmers toconserve and manage forest and tree resources).In such situations it would clearly be possiblefor the three Centres to combine in engaging theservices of a single social scientist who, workingcollaboratively with an appropriate nationalresearch institution, would be able to implementthe necessary research on a site of mutualinterest to all three Centers. Other majorproblem areas and strategic research needs ofcommon interest to the three regions mightmore effectively be tackled by an informalconsortium of CGIAR Centres, nationalinstitutions and specialised agenciesindependently working on various interrelatedaspects of the same problem over a range of mutually agreed sites. For such networks theremay be no need for a “Convening Centre”provided that clearly defined arrangements areput in place for ensuring commonmethodological approaches, for periodicinteraction on progress and assessment ofemerging results. To illustrate how thesealternative approaches might work in practice inrelation to CGIAR implemented agroforestryand forestry research programs, the BogorWorkshop discussed two specific problem areas.These were:

. Containment of deforestation in theRondonia/Acre region of the Brazilian

Amazon (which is one of eight benchmarksites selected for implementation of theGlobal ASB Project).

. Testing of various alternative institutionalapproaches to forest and agroforestrymanagement over a range of Asian, Africanand Latin American regional sites. Specialemphasis will be given to testing thevalidity of a hypothesis that in manytropical forest and agroforestry situations,forest resources are likely to be conservedand more productively managed by localcommunities, “user groups” or other locally


devised institutional approaches, rather the ongoing research programs of CIFOR,than by centralised public forest agencies. ICRAF and IFPRI.

Discussion of the former topic was based on thepremise that as the ASB Project proceeds theresearch agenda in its Phase II will bebroadened to focus on the sort ofmacroeconomic and other policy dimensionslisted under Problem 1 in Table 1. There arehighly complementary areas of research in theASB Project that could benefit from a stronginput from all three Centres in addition to theexpertise that is already being brought to bearon the slash and burn problem by social scienceresearchers from CIAT, IITA and IRRI. Furtherdetails of how such complementarity will workin practice, in implementation of Phase II of theASB Project are discussed in this report.

Forestry and Agroforestry PolicyResearch Methodology andInstitutional Capacity

An alternative mode of operation wasexplored for tackling issues such as that of“Alternative Institutional Approaches to Forestand Agroforestry Management”. The BogorWorkshop gave very high priority to thedesirability of a more concerted research effortin this area. Out of the range of possibleresearch needs listed in Annex 2 that emergedfrom the Regional Workshops, it concluded thatthe six topics listed under points 3.1-3.6 ofTable 1 are those that should be stronglysupported by the CGIAR.

In all live Workshops concerns were expressedabout weaknesses in current forest andagroforestry policy research methodology andthe weakness of national institutional capacityfor policy analysis. A particularly criticalconstraint is the lack of solid empirical data onwhich to base meaningful policy analysis. Anassociated issue is the need for more effectiveways of ensuring that the recommendationsarising out of policy research are more widelyadopted. A range of options was discussed forovercoming these bottlenecks.(for detaileddiscussion see section on the Africa RegionWorkshop Report). Some of the most pressingneeds identified in this area included forexample:

In contrast to the mode of intercentrecollaboration described above for the ASBProject (where several CGIAR Centres andnational institutions are all working within thesame ecoregional site), the Workshop concludedthat research on local participation issues suchas those identified in Table 1 might be moreeffectively implemented through a more diffusenetworking approach.

. A more interdisciplinary approach to fieldfarm and forest surveys to developquantitative measures of key variables ontree production, income, use, etc. and toprovide benchmarks for research analysis.

. Historical reconstruction of land use changeusing archival research, oral history,historical studies in geography,anthropology and farm management, plusreview of local legal records to identifychanges in ownership and land useconflicts.

Under this alternative mode of operationthere may be no need for a “Convening Centre”provided that at the outset, there has been acollective effort firstly, to establish commonresearch methodologies; secondly, to coordinateselection of collaborating NARs and specialisedresearch institutions; thirdly, to arrange regularinteraction in reviewing emerging results andprogress (much of which can now be assured atrelatively low cost by making effective use ofelectronic networking); fourthly, to possess clearmutual understanding from the outset on thelikely outputs and potentially different targetbeneficiaries of such research. Part II of thisreport discusses how the above mode ofoperation is already being applied in practice to

. Rigorously designed qualitative studies tounderstand patterns of consumption, treeuse preferences, and control andmanagement.

. Exploring options for permanentmonitoring systems to parallel those alreadywidely used for crops and livestock.Examples cited included nationalagroforestry surveys under implementationin Burundi, analysis of trees in land usethrough use of remote sensing techniques,tree product market surveys and long termmonitoring of agroforestry farming systemyields.

. Better understanding of the political andinstitutional constraints to adoption ofpolicy reforms. This reflects the reality that

7

despite the considerable investment that has been directed to policy research in the past and the prodigious lists of recommendations that have been generated for policy reform and institutional change, the political unacceptability of such recommendations has frequently precluded their adoption. Better mechanisms are needed for interaction with political leaders and national government agencies responsible for policy formulation.

It was recognized that institutional approaches to research require closer integration among forestry research institutions and specialised, socioeconomic, anthropological, agriculture and energy research agencies.

Phasing of the CGIAR Centres’ Forestry and Agroforestry Policy Research Activities

The Bogor Workshop discussions were primarily concerned with the substance of a desirable CGIAR research agenda and with the issue of how to ensure effective intercentre collaboration. The program of possible research activities outlined above is based on unconstrained resources which would ensure that the three main Centres under discussion are allocated the resources requested in their Medium Term Plans. The current financial climate in which the CGIAR is operating may require hard decisions to be made about prioritisation and phasing of their forestry and

Table 1.

agroforestry policy research activities.

I FOREST POLICY RESEARCH SYNTHESIS WORKSHOP

.i%BLEM 1: POLICIES TO cONTArri’I&APPROPR DRESTATION

The influence of macroeconomic and sectoral policies (including structural adjustments) on regional development patterns, on economic growth prospects, trade, and on incentives for deforestation and tree/forest management.

PROBLEM AREA

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

Analysis of factors that influence population migration at source and monitoring of the dynamics of population migration patterns (e.g.

land tenure).

The i ntl uence of agricultural policies on colonization, agricultural and forest conversion, including the impact of slash and burn farming on deforestation.

Improved understanding of the potential of forest buffer zone policies to relieve pressure on biologically unique forest reserves and protected areas and of land tenure and incentive policies that are likely to be most effective in involving local people in their protection and management.

Pol;icics for nut.jor highway and rail construction programs that divert infrastructure projects away from forest inhabited by indigenous forest dwellers and from high priority biodiversity reserves.

Intersectoral planning processes as they relate to forest resources.

CIFOR

X

X

X

X

ICRAF q.Jc&: ‘;‘ *.I

I .a , ,

X

X

X

IFPRI ” ‘%I ‘, *; .: .,I PA.‘:,: , ,*’ ’ , ,, , ’ . . ,’ .<, ‘, I ..% >

X

X

X

X

X

1


PROBLEM AREA CIFOR ICRAF IFPIU

EirR~~~~~~~~;~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~;~17,B~,~~~~~~;‘~~,;‘~: ‘.: : .: :: ” ,‘, ,’ T,, “’ ,, . ..‘r. ,r’ - :,+,>,* p<.< <,p*m,,, I, ,: * ;: 1, . . _I

2.1 Improved methods for evaluating the costs and benefits of tree/forest goods and services, including human and environmental effects of deforestation, the impact of commercialization of forest products X X X on different socioeconomic and gender groups, externality benefits of forests and trees.

2.2 Testing standardized methodologies for the valuation of non-traditional forest products and monitoring the dynamics of demand, supply and X X X

prospects for domestication and commercialization.

2.3 Evaluation of tree product markets. X X X

2.4 Obtain data on the potential effects of low impact harvesting technologies and more careful forest management on carbon emissions,carbon X X X sequestration value of forests, evaluate possible mechanisms for NorthSouth concessional transfers to provide incentive for setting aside and or establishment of forests reserves in the interest of protecting environment.

3.1 Improved understanding of factors influencing X X X household level decisions to conserve, manage forests, trees and of policy incentives to encourage their involvement.

3.2 How various forms of land tenure and tree ownership policies can influence the prospects for improved welfare of forest dwelling people and more X X X

effective conservation and management of forest resources and influence the adoption of agroforestry.

3.3 Analysis of the legal and institutional constraints to X X X local participation in forest conservation and management and adoption’of agroforestry systems and policies to address them.

3.4 Standardized methodologies for evaluating and monitoring alternative institutional approaches to forest management, in terms of their impact on X X

human welfare, the productivity of forest resources and on environmental protection.

3.5 Improved understanding of indigenous forest X X dwelling people’s rights of use and access, and policies to preserve those rights.

3.6 Policy options for reform of public sector forest X agencies (including analysis of past experiences).

9

PROBLEM AREA 1 CIFOR

Understand and quantify the contribution of on farm trees and remnant woodlands and forests to nutrition, food security, agricultural sustainability, rural income generation, reduction of risk in farming systems and protection of soil and water resources.

4.2 Policy research into traditional agroforestry farming systems and into policies that would stimulate their wider adoption and improved productivity.

4.3 How to get household agroforestry needs (distinguished by gender, etc.) incorporated into public agency support policies.

4.4 Evaluation of policy options for degraded land reclamation.

X

4.5

5.2

5.3

5.4

Agroeconomic zoning including use of satellite monitoring and GIS technology for policy planning (e.g. definition of areas scheduled for reclamation by afforestation).

X

Viability and constraints to improved efficiency of small scale wood using industries and into their potential contribution to rural welfare and economic growth.

Effect of macroeconomic and trade policies on the timber trade (e.g. structural adjustments, exchange rates, tariffs).[cross referenced with 1.11

Improved quantification of the costs and benefits of accelerated industrialization policies, including increased domestic processing, versus log exports.

Impact of government timber concession license and taxation policies on the prospects for improved rental capture and more intensive forest management.

53 Improved understanding of the likely impact on the livelihood of local people, on economic growth and on forest conservation and management of environmentally driven proposals for restrictions on tropical logging and the timber trade (eco-labelling).

X

X

10 CIFOR Working Paoer No.5: Review of Policy Research Needs

Part I: A Review of TropicalForestry and Agroforestry ProblemAreas and Policy Research Needs

Introduction

During the latter half of the 1980s the CGIAR,interacting with both national and internationalscientific leaders, environmental groups anddonor representatives, undertook an intensivereview of its mandate with the objective ofstrengthening its strategic research relating tothe conservation and sustainable management ofnatural resources. As one outcome of thatdebate, a decision was taken to incorporateforestry research into the CGIAR system. Afterreviewing several alternative institutionaloptions it was decided to bring two newresearch centres into the system:

. CIFOR ( Center for International ForestryResearch, in Bogor, Indonesia), and

. ICRAF ( International Centre for Researchin Agroforestry, in Nairobi, Kenya)

CIFOR’s mission statement is:

“Promoting the sustained well being of peoplein developing countries particulurly in thetropics through collaborative strategic andapplied research on forestry systems and bypromoting the adoption of improvedtechnologies and management practices.”

ICRAF has as its mission statement:.

“Increasing the social, economic andnutritional well being of the people ofdeveloping countries and, through the use ofresearch and relhted activities, to integratewoody perennials in farming and related landuse systems in order to increase productivity,profitability, sustainability, diversity of outputand the conservation of natural resources.

In addition to the forestry and agroforestryrelated research of these two Centres, it was alsoagreed that several other InternationalAgricultural Research Centres (IARCs) withinthe CGIAR system and particularly IFPRI (TheInternational Food Policy Research Institute),CIAT (Centro International de AgriculturalTropical), and IPGRI (The International Plant

Genetic Resources Institute) would also givesome attention to forestry and/or agroforestryresearch problems (the latter mainly related tothe biological and institutional aspects ofgermplasm and biodiversity conservation).CIFOR which came into existence in 1993 andICRAF which had been in existence as a non-CGIAR Research Council since 1978, both givestrong emphasis to policy research in theirMedium Term Plans (MTPs), which cover theperiod 1994-98.

In the case of CIFOR, there is clearrecognition in its MTP that much inappropriateland use and tropical deforestation can beattributed to inappropriate institutionalarrangements and government economic andsectoral policies. In allocating priorities betweenvarious programs, CIFOR gives policy researcha very high profile, in recognition thatinvestment in policy research leading to policyand institutional reforms, will yield a high pay-off in terms of prospects for improved wellbeing of forest dwelling people and betterconservation and management of tropical forestresources.

ICRAF, from the beginning, gave specialattention to interactive socioeconomicdiagnostic research at the farm household level.The intention was to ensure that its researchprograms were based on farmers' perceptions ofthe usefulness of trees in agroforestry farmingsystems and their traditional tree managementpractices.

This emphasis has carried through toICRAF’s current MTP which includes a majorobjective of developing an understanding of howselected policies constrain or support theadoption of agroforestry technologies. It alsorecognizes that strategic research onagroforestry can contribute to resolution ofglobally important environmental issues such asthe negative impact of slash and burnagriculture on rural poverty and forestdegradation.

Whilst the primary concern of the CGIARis strategic research of global relevance, verystrong emphasis is given to the importance ofclose collaboration with national agriculture andforestry research institutions and with NGOs,universities and specialised policy researchinstitutions in the implementation of the IARCs’policy research agendas.

The CGIAR Centres are also heavilyinvolved in programs aimed at strengthening

11

the research capability of national researchinstitutions. About 20 per cent of past CGIARexpenditures have been devoted to research,training and dissemination of researchinformation.

CIFOR, which is a “centre without walls”will implement a very substantial part of itspolicy research agenda through collaborativeand contractual arrangements with bothnational and international institutions. Priorto the incorporation of ICRAF and CIFOR intothe CGIAR system, IFPRI carried the mainresponsibility in the CGIAR system foragriculture related policy research. It hadconducted a number of policy research studiesrelevant to the forestry sector. IFPRI thereforetook a lead role in initiating this work. CIFORundertook the responsibility for consolidation ofthe Workshop output and organisation of anintercentre dialogue on how the CGIAR couldrespond to priority research needs mosteffectively.

The Policy Workshops

(a) The Global Workshop

The Global Workshop which initiated thisseries, brought together forty participants fromcountries. The objectives were to sound outexpert opinion on the potential of policyresearch to contribute to resolution ofconstraints to sustainable forest conservation

and management, giving high priority to therole that forests and trees play in meetinghuman needs, contributing to agriculturalsustainability, protecting the environment andto economic growth. The initial discussionsfocussed on defining information requirementsfor different stages of the policy researchprocess (see Table 2).

The Global Workshop discussionsrecognized that many forestry and agroforestrypolicy issues are quite site and situation specificand that much current research is in the form ofcase studies that do not lend themselves toextrapolation. A critical challenge is to designstudies using standardised or comparablemethods and carefully selected cases to providerigorous empirical evidence that can beextrapolated to address broader policy concerns.

Common Policy Themes and Research Areas

Most of the issues suggested by the Workshopparticipants fell into six cross cutting categories:

Macroeconomic policies that influenceforest land use and distribution of forestbenefits.Land and tree tenure issues.Ways of optimizing land use and ruralwelfare.The effects of institutional reform.Institutional support services andinfrastructure.Markets, subsidies and incentives.

Table 2.Questions at Each Stage Leading to PolicyChanges1. What is the existing situation and whatchanges are desirable to achieve particulardevelopment objectives related to sustainabledevelopment and the environment?

Information Requirements

Background informationNeeds and problem assessmentMarket informationTechnical information (biophysical, social andeconomic)

2. What inputs into the local, regional, or Research on the means for changing forestrynational economy have to change to achieve and agroforestry activities, reflecting social andthese development objectives? economic constraints and opportunities.3. What policies have been effective in achieving Policy Researchdevelopment objectives? What policy changes Studies of effects and opportunities forare required to alter the existing situation in a achieving development objectives throughway that meets development objectives? policy change related to incentives and

regulations.

12 CIFOR Working Paper No.5: Review of Policy Research Needs

Within the above framework, the GlobalWorkshop examined how the abovecategorisation of research themes might beapplied in practice to some of the more obviousproblem areas that have been widely recognizedboth at the national and international levels asbeing in urgent need of attention. These fiveproblem areas were:

. The relationship between populationdistribution and growth, deforestation andsustainable land use in the humid tropics.Special attention would be given to policiesthat would help to address the problem ofshifting cultivation and forest migrantpressures on forest resources.

. Policy options that could have a beneficialimpact on reclamation and improvedutilisation of degraded forests in drylandregions.

. Policies that could influence thepossibilities for sustainable land use,containment of erosion and regulation ofstream flow in upland watersheds.

l The role of trees in income .and welfaresecurity addressing social and economicissues relating to the use of trees and treeproducts in farming systems bycommunities and small scale wood usingenterprises.

. Intersectoral issues affecting the forestrysector, such as those influencingagricultural expansion, structuraladjustment programs, road developmentsand energy sector policies and strategies.

The outcome of this analysis is summarised inAnnex 1. The purpose of the Global Workshopwas to provide a starting point for this policyresearch review and to stimulate furtherdiscussion of key issues. The RegionalWorkshops which followed were intended tosound out the perceptions of local people,national policy leaders, NGOs and others on keyproblems and researchable issues as seen fromtheir perspective. The following sections of thisreport summarise the key topics andrecommendations that emerged during theregional meetings that were held in Asia, Africaand Latin America.

(b) The Asia Workshop

The participants in the Asia region Workshopwere representative of several quite differentagroecological zones and countries withsubstantially different fores resourceendowments. The first broad grouping includedthe countries of the South East Asia region suchas Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, and PapuaNew Guinea, which contain very substantialnatural forests that are a major source of exportearnings and local employment. They includethe biologically diverse dipterocarp rain foreststhat have been the target of much internationalattention and environmental concern over thelast decade.

A second grouping included the countriesof the South Asia region such as India,Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lankawhich contain substantial areas of dry or semiarid zone woodlands, extensive mountainuplands, degraded lands and areas of very highpopulation density in which the natural forestshave been largely depleted but in which openwoodlands, agroforestry and homestead treeplantings play a major role in meeting humanneeds.

Problems and research needs of the islandsof the South Pacific region were represented bythe participation of Fiji. Problems of temperateforest region emerged from input of therepresentatives of China, Japan, New Zealandand Australia.

The representatives of both Thailand andPhilippines highlighted the perspective ofcountries that have, in the past, been majorexporters of forest products, but in which thenatural forests have now been severely depletedto the point that forest policies are stronglydriven by the need to preserve the remainingforests and to accelerate reforestation in order tomeet rapidly rising domestic needs for forestproducts.

Despite the disparity between the forestrysituations of these various groupings, severalcommon problems that are of regional concernquite quickly emerged. Those that featured mostprominently in the discussions were:

13

(i) Problems of increasing pressures onforest resources, the negative effects ofdeforestation and the need for improvedunderstanding of policies that can help tocontain forest encroachment.

Prominent among the possible research topicssuggested that could help to address thisproblem were

. Macroeconomic policies that may have anegative impact on forests. These includeindirect pressures from structuraladjustment and other macroeconomicinterventions such as export and exchangerate policies, environmental relatedpressures exerted through trade relations,timber boycotts, debt for nature exchanges,the conditional lending policies of aidagencies and the policies of NGOs.

. Intersectoral effects of national governmentpolicies on both forestry and agroforestry.

. Improved understanding of policies thatcould help to reduce shifting cultivation,including those likely to influence plannedand spontaneous migration, such as skewedland tenure and the easier access to cheapforest land provided by highways andlogging roads.

Notwithstanding the overriding concerns ofnational forest policy leaders to conserve whatremains of the natural forests of the Asia region,it was acknowledged that some continueddeforestation is inevitable (particularly whereforests situated on relatively flat land overliesoils with reasonable agricultural potential andwhere there is still a possibility to increaseagricultural production by transfer of forest landto agriculture).

In situations where further transfer offorest land to agriculture is being contemplated,a priority will be to identify and exclude fromthe forest excision process, areas of forest thatare particularly important sources of biodiversegermplasm of plant and animal species, and/orwhich protect critical upland watersheds.Research into the socioeconomic and soilcapability aspects of alternative forest land uses(including protection of the interests of forestdwelling communities) should precede suchland transfers wherever possible.

Policy research needs in this latter areainclude improved understanding of theeconomic trade-off between forest and

alternative forms of land use and of theincentive, land tenure and other policies thatwill help to ensure an orderly transfer fromforestry to agriculture or other uses.

(ii) The need to broaden the technologicalbasis for sustainable management of naturalforests by greater emphasis on the harvestingand management of non-traditional forestproducts.

High priority research topics in this areaincluded:

. Improved knowledge on the uses and valuesof non-traditional products.

. Marketing prospects and pricing policiesthat encourage their increased butsustainable productivity.

. Issues of the protection of local people’srights relating to ownership of germplasm,forest products or processing methods, andof policies that can preserve those rights.

(iii) Institutional concerns relating topossibilities for decentralisation ofmanagement responsibility for forestresources and involvement of l o c alcommunities, user groups and privateenterprises of various kinds in forestmanagement.

Discussions of this topic covered a wide rangeof options and ongoing experiences rangingfrom the recent joint management schemes thatare being tested in India to small user groupexperiences in Nepal, the transition fromcentrally planned resource management inChina to management by local communities andindividuals, and transfer of managementresponsibility to large scale private sectorindustrial enterprises as has occurred with therecent privatisation of plantation forests in NewZealand Priority research topics included:

. Policies that affect ownership and tenurerights to both forest lands and trees.

. The need for improved methodologies forassessing the equity, technical effectivenessand environmental impacts of transferringownership of forest resources.

. Policy research directed at options forreform of traditional forest services toencourage improved integration and


collaboration with other both public and likely to be economically viable andprivate sector agencies including NGOs. socio economically acceptable.

(iv) Policies affecting trees in land useoutside forests including those that are likelyto have a beneficial impact on acceleratedadoption of improved agroforestry farmingsystems and reclamation of degraded lands.

(v) Industrialisation policies that areintended to stimulate improved harvestingand forest management, the creation of localemployment and increased revenuegeneration.

As the natural forests of the Asia region arebeing depleted, many of the products theysupplied such as fuelwood, fruits, tree fodder,building poles and timber are now beingsubstituted by similar products harvested fromremnant patches of open woodland, forestfallows, individual indigenous trees that havebeen protected in the course of conversion fromforest to agriculture and especially by on-farmtree planting as an integral component of theagroforestry farming systems that are widely inevidence throughout the region. Thissignificant change in the structure of forestproducts supply has led to many new policychallenges. There is also growing concern in theregion about the extensive areas of former forestbut now degraded imperata grasslands, salinesoils and arid zone wastelands; and trees have auseful role to play in the reclamation of suchlands. Key research topics to address theseproblems would include:

These issues that were of primary interest tomajor timber producing countries such asIndonesia, Myanmar, Malaysia and Papua NewGuinea led to identification of the followingresearch needs:

The influence of macroeconomic andstructural adjustment policies on theproductivity and viability of forestindustries.

. Evaluation of economic returns to land andlabor in agroforestry systems, includingtrees, crops, livestock, income generationand the potential of various components ofthese farming systems to contribute tofamily employment, nutrition andsustainable agricultural productivitycompared to other alternative forms of landuse.

. Tree product market research including thepotential of forest products derived fromagroforestry farming systems to substitutekey subsistence products and farming inputneeds that were formerly derived fromnatural forests.

. Incentive measures to stimulate trees inland use or to remove disincentives (taxeson trees, or tree products, bans on treecutting, etc.).

. Agroeconomic zoning research aimed atimproved delineation of areas of degradedland where reforestation or afforestation are

Options for improved license and taxationsystems for timber concessions.Improved understanding of the economicand technical impact of log export bans andaccelerated domestic industrialisationpolicies.improved understanding of the policies thatcould foster the development of smallerscale rural wood-using enterprises andintroduction of low impact harvestingtechnologies.Policy options for maximizing economicrental capture from harvesting of naturalforests and improved mechanisms forensuring equitable revenue sharing withlocal communities as well as adequateresource allocations and incentives toencourage more intensive and sustainableforest management.Improved understanding of the impact ofenvironmentally driven trade embargoessuch as timber boycotts on forest industrialdevelopment on both human welfare andthe conservation and improvedmanagement of forest resources.

(c) The Africa Workshop

This Workshop was attended by 42 policymakers, senior staff of public and privateforestry institutions, agroforestry specialists andNGOs. As in the Asia Workshop, theparticipants represented several quite differentagro ecological, socio economic and forest

15

resource endowment situations. Those Africancountries that still contain substantial areas ofnatural forest and which have either in the pastor still do rely on trade of forest products as apotential source of revenue and employment,were represented by participants from Côted’Ivoire, Cameroon, Nigeria and Zaire. Thearid zone countries of the Sahel and WestAfrica region in which savanna woodlands havebeen heavily depleted by a combination ofagricultural cropping, grazing and fuelwoodharvesting pressures, were represented by Nigerand Benin.

The countries of the East and SouthernAfrican region in which climatic and soilconditions are in many areas quite favorable forforest growth but in which agriculturalpopulation pressures have already causednatural forest depletion, or are likely to in thefuture, were strongly represented by participantsfrom Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Malawi,Lesotho, Botswana and South Africa. In somecountries in this region there has been quitevigorous development in agroforestry farmingsystems.

Fast growing industrial plantations ofmainly exotic species such as pines, eucalyptsand cypress play a key role in several of thesecountries in meeting domestic timber needs and,in some countries, paper and paperboard needs.Several of the African region participants hadspecialised expertise in this area. The interestsof conservation and NGO groups wererepresented by UNEP and CARE. Severalleading socioeconomic policy researchers fromAfrican universities and agricultural and landtenure policy research specialists from overseasinstitutes also participated. Based onconsiderable earlier interaction with policyresearchers and NGOs from the region andconsultation with African policy leadersattending the 1992 FAO Africa RegionalForestry Commission, it had been agreed inadvance to focus discussion around five mainthemes. These were:

. Population distribution and growth; relatedchanges in land use and their impact ondeforestation in the humid tropical forestzone of the West Africa region. Specialemphasis was given to identification ofpolicies that could help ease the transitionfrom slash and burn to more sedentaryfarming systems.

. Identification of policy measures that couldhelp shift the emphasis from traditionalforest products to multipurpose end useforest management (giving specialreference to improved understanding of theconsumption patterns, marketing prospectsand sustainable management options forforest-based foods, fruits, fuelwood, fodder,mulch, medicinal and other products).

. Improved understanding of how modifiedgovernment forest revenue and timberallocation policies influence sustainableforest management and of the scope forpotentially beneficial policy changes.

. Improved understanding of the potentialbenefits and risks associated withdevolution of responsibility for naturalforest management from governmentcontrol to management at the local level bycommunities, user groups, privateindividuals or commercial companies, andof the policies that could help encouragesmooth shifts in tenure or ownership offorest resources.

. Research on the role of trees in ruralincome, subsistence and food and energysecurity with special emphasis on improvedunderstanding of policies that cancontribute to more accurate targeting ofincentive mechanisms for encouraging useof trees in farm and community forestry.

Four working groups reviewed these and relatedissues, and the Regional Report on thisWorkshop sets out the detailed discussions andconclusions of those working groups. The initialworking group discussions identified about 35major problem areas. A preliminary list of about120 research needs emerged. Considerable timewas spent in synthesizing the most crucial crosscutting problem areas and research topics thatseemed most relevant to addressing theseproblems. In summary the following fourproblem areas and related research prioritiesreflect the main conclusions andrecommendations of the Africa Workshop:

(i) Inadequate understanding of the uses andvalue of forests, open woodlands and trees.

The historical preoccupation of most AfricanGovernment Forest Departments with control,protection and management of “reserved”forests for preserving water catchment areas,


wildlife reserves and with harvesting andmanagement of forests for conventional forestproducts such as lumber, plywood and pulp andpaper, is largely a heritage of colonial forestadministrations.

Population pressures on many of thesegovernment controlled forest “reserves” were, inthe early days of their creation, not perceived asa major problem. Little importance was attachedto economic quantification of forest values.Primary management objectives in earlier timeswere strongly driven by the conviction that itwas the responsibility of Government ForestDepartments to protect and manage these forestreserves on behalf of the people and in theinterest of future generations. Local people’srights and communal land ownership of forestlands were frequently ignored in the process offorest reservation.

Population pressure and deforestation haveled to the recognition that national forestpolicies need to place stronger emphasis onincentives for the development of improvedagroforestry farming systems, on themanagement of open savanna woodlands,fragmented patches of natural forest outsideforest reserves and on improved management offorest fallows and shrubs (which in total accountfor more than 70 per cent of Africa’s woodedarea). However so far, there has been inadequateattention on research into the uses and values ofnon-traditional forest products, the relevance ofsavanna woodland trees and forest fallows tosustainable agriculture or to improvedunderstanding and quantification of the widerenvironmental benefits of forests. WithinAfrica the main ongoing research into improvedunderstanding of forest values is beingconducted by relatively few African universities,by overseas specialised policy research institutesand NGOs and in the case of research intoagroforestry benefits, by ICRAF working mainlywith local farmers and national agricultural andforest department researchers. The low level ofresources devoted to this topic and lack oftrained social scientists within Africa, areconstraints to improving knowledge.Formulation of incentive policies for ensuringthat the benefits of a wider range of forestproducts and environmental services areincorporated into national forest policies anddevelopment programs, requires that greaterresearch be devoted to:

Agroecological research aimed at clarifyingthe significantly different uses and values offorests in Africa’s various ecozones (forexample, research issues in the Sahelregion are substantially different from thoseof the East and Central African highlandsand from those of the humid tropicalcountries of the West Africa region).Understanding and quantifying thecontribution of forests, open woodlands andtrees to nutrition, food security, agriculturalsustainability, rural income generation,reduction of risk in farming systems; tomedicinal needs and other non-traditionalforest product needs.Understanding the potential fordomestication and/or cultivation ofindigenous fruits, medicine and other non-wood products of value for localconsumption or sale.Identifying policies to encourage protectionof existing tree resources (standing trees,natural regeneration) including forest andland use regulations, market incentives,land and tree tenure and processing.Improved methodologies for assessing thewider ‘environmental benefits of forestry,including preservation of biodiversity,climatic influences and for monitoring offorest land use change.In this context there is potential to makemore effective use of satellite technologybacked up by cheap and rapid groundappraisal and evaluation methods supportedby GIS (Geographic Information Systems).

(ii) Legal, tenurial and institutionalconstraints to effective community andprivate sector participation in forestmanagement.

Incentive policies and institutional reforms areneeded that will enable farmers and localcommunities to play a more effective role inresource conservation and management of forestresources. For example, recent forestry sectorstudies carried out in Zimbabwe, analysed theuses and values of forest products harvestedfrom savanna woodlands and the incentives,land tenure, legal and institutional reforms thatcould be helpful in securing the participation ofvillage communities in common property forestmanagement of the savanna woodlands located

17

in the Communal Areas. Research needsidentified by the Workshop in this areaincluded:

. Identifying the factors affecting people’sdecision to protect existing forest resourcesand to plant trees. Improving understandingof how local regulations or other policieswith respect to land tenure, land reform,access to land, customary user rights andrestrictions on harvesting or sale of treeproducts impact on local people’swillingness to plant and care for trees.

. Assessment of the comparative advantageof different institutional arrangements forthe management of forest lands, includingexperimental testing and monitoring ofalternative tenurial and managementoptions. The role of NGOs in assisting inthe formulation and testing of pilotapproaches was recognized as being ofparticular importance.

. Development of standardisedmethodologies for measuring theeffectiveness of alternative institutionalapproaches in relation to their impact onhuman welfare, agricultural sustainabilityand the environment.

(iii) Containing population migration intonatural forests and woodlands and the needfor improved understanding of policies thatcould help to slow migratory pressures.

In the humid tropical forest zone of WestAfrica, this problem is perhaps most acute inCôte d’Ivoire where over the last 15 years, some5 million hectares of forest land have beenconverted to agriculture. Much of this is slashand burn farming being carried out in situationsof increasing population pressure, shortenedfallow periods, declining soil fertility and cropyields.

In the East and Southern African regions,the already quite small remaining areas ofnatural forest which were originally set aside toprotect watersheds and wildlife resources arebeing eroded in some areas by populationpressure on the forest fringes and the acute needto increase food supplies.

The savanna woodlands of northernNigeria, the countries of the Sahel region and ofTanzania, Zimbabwe and other countries, havein some areas been heavily depleted by acombination of annual burning (to stimulate

regrowth of fodder grasses or as a step towardsconversion to agriculture), and by concentratedfuelwood harvesting particularly for charcoalproduction in the vicinity of major townships,and by large scale mechanised farming schemessuch as those introduced in Sudan. Priorityresearch needs in this area include:

. Improved understanding of the underlyingcauses of population migration at sourceand of the dynamics of populationmigration patterns.

. Policies aimed at the protection of forestdwelling communities who depend to ahigh degree on forest products for theirsubsistence needs and welfare.

. Research into alternative farming systemsto slash and burn and into policies that willspeed their adoption.

. Research into off-farm employmentopportunities including the potential ofsmall scale forest-based enterprises and therole that harvesting and sustainablemanagement of forest products in bufferzones can play in helping to relievepressure on protected forest areas.

. Improved understanding of the economicsand environmental implications of land usechange. (This is a highly relevant issue inparts of the Central and Southern Africanregion where substantial areas of opensavanna woodland situated on relatively flatland overlie soils with reasonableagricultural potential). It also hasimplications for part of the West Africanhumid tropical forest zone where furtherconversion of some forest land to perennialtree crops can arguably be defendedprovided that care is taken to channel suchdevelopment away from unique biodiversityareas and to protect the interests of forestdwelling communities.

(iv) The influence of macroeconomic andnational development policies on forests andon prospects for sustainable forest productstrade.

Research needs to address this problem include:

. Identification of the impact of governmentfinancial, fiscal, regulatory, tenurial andother policies on people’s incentive to adoptsustainable forest conservation andmanagement practices.


. The impact of structural adjustment policieson forests.

. The impact of trade restrictions, taxes, logexport embargoes, import tariffs andexchange rate changes on forestmanagement.

. The influence of government concessionlicense arrangements and private sectorindustrial development policies onharvesting and management.

(d) The Latin American Workshop

The regional participants in this Workshoprepresented three distinctly different forestrysituations. The countries of the Amazon Basinthat contain about half of the world’s remainingrainforest were represented by participants fromBrazil and Venezuela. The countries of theLatin American “cone” region, in whichtemperate climatic conditions predominate, useplantation forests to meet their industrial needs.In the case of Chile, these sustain a verysubstantial export trade in forest products.These countries were represented by Chile andUruguay. Their concerns differ substantiallyfrom those in most tropical developingcountries.

The Central American and Caribbeancountries contain substantial areas of loggedover and, in parts, badly degraded forestsinterspersed with fairly densely populated farmlands in which there has been substantialagroforestry tree planting. These countries wererepresented by participants from Costa Rica,Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, Santo Domingoand Jamaica.

Agronomic and technical forestry expertisewas represented by participants from Brazil,Costa Rica and by several leading agriculturaland forestry scientists from both national andinternational agencies. NGO andenvironmental concerns were raised byrepresentatives from the Smithsonian Institutionand also by several aid agency representativeswho have been on the receiving end of bothnational and global environmental criticisms ofnational government and aid agency forestpolicies. CGIAR institutes were represented byparticipants from IFPRI, ICRAF and CIFOR.

The main problem areas that were raisedby representatives of the Amazon Basincountries focussed on both national andinternational concerns about tropical

deforestation and its negative effects onprospects for sustainable forest products tradeand forest land use. The key environmentalissues of international concern such aspreservation of biodiversity, the implications ofdeforestation for global warming andpreservation of the human rights of forestdwelling tribal communities, are frequently atvariance with national government and localauthority preoccupations with povertyalleviation, economic growth and mobilisationof government revenues.

The preoccupations of the temperate“cone” countries stemmed from their desire toconsolidate, expand and improve theproductivity of fast growing plantation forestsand to improve the efficiency and market shareof their large scale forest industries. Majorconcerns of the Central American andCaribbean countries included policy options thatwould stimulate regeneration and improvementof secondary forests, incentives for greaterinvolvement of local communities in forestmanagement and the need to broaden theemphasis of forest management to give moreattention to non-traditional forest products.Very similar concerns were raised to those thathad surfaced in the three earlier workshopsabout the need to improve the understanding ofpolicies and incentives that would lead to bettertargeting of agroforestry incentive policies andaccelerated adoption of more promisingagroforestry technologies. With thisbackground the main problem areas of commoninterest were:

(i) How both national and internationalmacroeconomic and environmental policiesinfluence the possibilities for forestconservation, the welfare of forest dwellingpeople, forest products marketing and trade,and prospects for sustainable management offorest resources

Because of the currently poor understanding ofsuch relationships, high priority was given tothe need for intensified research into:

. Marketing and export promotion policiesthat will make it possible for the countriesof the region with surplus forest resourcesto meet domestic demands and toconsolidate and expand their market shareof international forest products trade.

19

. The impact of structural adjustment,exchange rate, taxation, pricing and subsidypolicies on forest industrial development,on forest management and on people’swelfare.

. How the policies of other sectors andagencies responsible for formulation oftransportation, agricultural colonisation,industrial and mining sector policies andsubsidised private sector investment in suchprojects may negatively impact on forestresources and the livelihood of forestpeople.

. How to mobilise concessional funding forconservation of forest resources insituations where countries of the region arebeing urged to forego the potential benefitsfrom forest harvesting in the interest ofprotecting biodiversity and the carbonsequestration potential of tropical forests forglobal benefit.

(ii) Improved understanding of the factorsinfluencing population migration at sourceand of policies that could help to deterfurther migration into forests.

Key research needs identified include:

. The impact of skewed land distribution andpotential of land reform to relievepopulation migration pressures.

. Better understanding of populationdynamics and of the likely future trends inrural to urban population ratios.

. Possibilities for influencing highway andrailway construction policies so as to avoidopening of unique forest ecosystems andtribal lands.

. Elimination of government supportedagricultural subsidy policies that encouragespeculation in forest land.

. Policies that will help to intensifyagricultural productivity and encourage thedevelopment of stabilised communitiesaway from forest areas.

(iii) The problem of undervaluation of forestresources.

Very similar concerns to those that had arisenin earlier Workshops were expressed, namelythe desirability of intensified research on:

. Improved knowledge of the uses and valueof non-timber forest products and ofpossibilities for their domestication andmarketing.

. Improved quantification of the potential ofsmaller scale forest-based rural enterprisesto contribute to rural income generation,economic growth and improved humanwelfare.

. Improved quantification of theenvironmental externality benefits of forestsand factoring of the costs of forest depletioninto national accounting systems.

(iv) Policy options that would help to ensuregreater participation of local communities,small farmers and private sector industrialenterprises in sustainable management offorest resources.

NGO-supported experimental approaches forinvolving local communities in forestmanagement have been attempted in countriessuch as Peru, Mexico and Costa Rica. ExtractiveReserves have been set aside in Brazil, butprospects for their economic viability andsustainable management remain unclear. Fiscalincentives have been widely used in countriessuch as Chile and Brazil to induce privatefarmer and industrial company investment inplantation forestry. Despite the significantimpact of these incentives in stimulating verylarge scale afforestation, past policy researchhas questioned the design of some of thoseprograms. In particular, there was discussionswhether enough attention was given at theoutset to economic zoning of situations wheresuch subsidies would have to lead toeconomically viablk forest industrialdevelopment. Research priorities included:

. Standardised methodologies for assessingthe socioeconomic acceptability, technicalperformance and environmentalsustainability of differing institutionalapproaches.

. Improved understanding of the costeffectiveness and justification for fiscalincentives and the need for agroeconomiczoning studies that can provide a basis fordefining areas where such afforestationincentives are likely to be botheconomically justified and effective.


. Improved understanding of the relativeroles of the public and private sectors, andof institutional policy reforms that wouldresult in more effective collaborationinvolving both local people and NGOs inpolicy dialogue.

(v) The need for improved understanding ofpolicy options that would help to ensure moreeffective targeting of agroforestryinterventions, of household level perceptionsof the usefulness and improved managementoptions for on-farm tree resources anddegraded forest lands.

These issues are central preoccupations ofseveral Central American and Caribbeancountries. Technological and socioeconomicresearch carried out by CATIE in collaborationwith national forestry and agricultural researchinstitutions in the region have already made asignificant contribution to improvedunderstanding of the issues. Research needsincluded: .

. Improved methodologies for monitoring thecomparative impact of alternativeagroforestry and more conventionalfarming systems on agriculturalproductivity and farm incomes.

. The relevance of different forms of landtenure and tree ownership to people’swillingness to protect and manage on-farmtrees.

. Gender issues as these affect householdlevel decisions about forest and treemanagement.

. Improved understanding of the need andeconomic justification for fiscal incentiveand other forms of subsidy that are aimed ataccelerated adoption of tree planting andbetter tree management.

. Market research and processingopportunities for farm-derived forestproducts and of definition of policies thatwill enhance marketing and processingprospects.

Discussion of Predominant CommonThemes

To summarise, the analysis of the mainproblems emerging from the series of

Workshops suggests that the following fivebroad problem areas appear to be of commonconcern in the Asia, Africa and Latin Americanregions:

The impact of tropical deforestation onhuman welfare and on both local and globalenvironments, and the need for improvedunderstanding of the main underlyingcauses of deforestation, and policy reformsthat could most effectively contribute tocontainment of further deforestation.The uses of the forests, their economic andenvironmental values and benefits arepoorly understood and frequentlyunderestimated. This has had a negativeeffect on national government, aid agencyand private sector resource allocations andinvestment priorities relating toconservation and management of forestresources.

Past policies that have placed strong emphasison centralised decision making, ownership andcontrol of forest resources, have deterredinvolvement of local people in theirmanagement. These policies have been partlyresponsible for past failures to protect forestsand for the extensive degradation of forests inmany parts of the tropics. As natural foreststhroughout the developing world are beingdepleted and degraded, local populations haveincreasingly turned to remnant patches of openwoodlands, forest fallows and other agroforestryfarming systems for supplying their essentialforest product needs and for inputs required tomaintain agricultural productivity. Thisevolution of supply sources of tree productsfrom natural forest/gathered or harvestedproducts to products that are obtained fromdomesticated on-farm or community wood-lotsor plantations, has led to many new policychallenges. However, government forest policiesin many countries have failed to provideadequate policy incentives and support servicesto ensure either that remnant woodlands arewell managed, or to enable local people tocapitalise on the potential of agroforestryfarming systems to supply essential human andlivestock needs, and to contribute to increasedagricultural productivity. Because theinteractions between crops, livestock and treesare not well understood, governmentagroforestry incentive and extension policies are

sometimes ineffective and wasteful of scarceresources.

. The countries of South East Asia, WestAfrica and Latin America with abundanttropical timber have in the past, or to asignificant degree still do, depend on timberharvesting and forest product exports forgenerating revenues that support economicdevelopment.

A combination of political pressures toaccelerate harvesting, corruption, the weaknessof government forest administrations,inappropriate concession license allocation andtimber taxation systems, and the negativeimpact of macroeconomic trade, exchange rateand structural adjustment policies, have led towasteful use of resources and failure to captureeconomic rental values. The introduction ofaccelerated industrialisation policies has insome situations exacerbated poor forestmanagement and has been costly in terms of jobcreation, loss of potential revenues andpreservation of the environmental benefits offorests. Environmental concerns to protectrainforests for global benefit and to protect theway of life of forest dwelling communities haveled to pressures on southern governments torestrict timber exports, to the introduction oftimber import restrictions and to otherinterventions. The impact of these interventionson local people, on economic growth prospectsand on the possibilities for improvedconservation and management of forestresources is poorly understood.

Annex 2 summarises high priorityresearch needs for addressing the five problemareas outlined above, based on the conclusionsand recommendations of the series of PolicyWorkshops.

Forestry and Agroforestry PolicyResearch Methodology andInstitutional Capacity

The Workshop participants expressed concernssabout weaknesses in both current forestry andagroforestry policy research methodology and innational institutional capacity for policyanalysis. A particularly critical constraint isthe lack of solid empirical data on which to basemeaningful policy analysis. An associated issuewas the need for more effective ways of

ensuring that the recommendations arising outof policy research are more widely adopted.

A range of options was discussed forovercoming these bottlenecks. Some of themost pressing needs identified in this areainclude:

A more interdisciplinary approach to fieldfarm and forest surveys to developquantitative measures of key variables ontree production, income, use, etc. and toprovide benchmarks for research analysis.Historical reconstruction of land usechange, using archival research, oralhistory, historical studies in geography,anthropology and farm management, plusreview of local legal records to identifychanges in ownership and land useconflicts.Rigorously designed qualitative studies tounderstand patterns of consumption, treeuse preferences, and control andmanagement.Exploring options for permanentmonitoring systems to parallel those alreadywidely used for crops and livestock.Examples cited, included nationalagroforestry surveys under implementationin Burundi, analysis of trees in land usethrough use of remote sensing techniques(under implementation in Kenya), treeproduct market surveys (as have beencarried out in parts of India), and long termmonitoring of agroforestry farming systemyields (as implemented by CATIE inCentral America).Better understanding of the political andinstitutional constraints to adoption ofpolicy reforms. This reflects the reality thatdespite the considerable investment that hasbeen directed to policy research in the pastand the prodigious lists ofrecommendations that have been generatedfor policy reform and institutional change,the political unacceptability of suchrecommendations has frequently precludedtheir adoption. Better mechanisms areneeded for interaction with political leadersand national government agenciesresponsible for policy formulation. The roleof NGOs in this area is of particularinterest.

Institutional approaches to research requirecloser integration betweenforestry research


research institutions and specialised,socioeconomic, anthropological, agriculturaland energy research agencies.

Part II: The Forestry and Agro-forestry Policy Research Programs ofthe CGIAR Centres

(a) Criteria for the Selection of problemareas and research needs that are mostappropriate for CGIAR Support

In developing a CGIAR response to the problemareas and research needs emerging from theRegional Forestry and Agroforestry policyWorkshops, priority was given to tacklingproblem areas and research topics that clearlymeet the requirements of the CGIAR’s recentlybroadened mission statement which reads asfollows:

“Through international research and relatedactivities, and in partnership with nationalresearch systems, to contribute to sustainableimprovements in the productivity of agriculture,forestry and fisheries in developing countries inways that enhance nutrition and well being,especially of low income people”.

That mission statement implies a focus on:

. International research that complementsand supports national research efforts.

. Satisfying human needs from agriculture,forestry and fisheries without degrading theenvironment or the natural resource base.

. The large numbers of poor people living indeveloping countries.

. The role of technological change ingenerating new income streams for thepoor.

. Other activities aimed at strengtheningnational research capacities, such asspecialised training, institution buildingand information services.

Secondly, the choice of research topics forCGIAR support was influenced by considerationof the types of strategic research that are mostlikely to be of global and/or regionalsignificance such as the development oftechnologies or policies for resource

management and sustainable land useappropriate for application to a range ofagroecological conditions widely distributedaround the globe. Thirdly, there has beengrowing recognition within the CGIAR systemover recent years of the desirability of a moreintercentre collaborative approach to tacklingresource management problems in anecoregional context, combining socioeconomic,biological and physical research in an integratedway. This approach is a response to therecommendations of a recent overview by theCGIAR’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)of CGIAR Strategies and Priorities. That review(“A Possible Expansion of the CGIAR”AGR/TAC/IAR/90/24) and further analyses by TAC were concerned with the institutional andresearch implications of the revised goals of theCGIAR that now include much strongeremphasis, than in the past, on conservation andsustainable management of natural resourcesincluding soils, water, forests and fisheryresources.

One outcome of that review was a decisiontaken in 1990 to add an additional five centresto the CGIAR System (including ICRAF andCIFOR). At the same time it was agreed tobroaden the mandate of several of the existingcentres to include more intensive research onnatural resource conservation and managementwithin their own particular regions. Thus, CIATis now taking a lead role in defining resourceconservation and management research needswithin selected agroecological zones of theLatin and Central American regions. Similarly,IITA is playing a lead role in the humid tropicsof the West Africa region, ICRISAT in the semiarid and arid drylands of South Asia and theSahelian countries of Africa, IRRI in the humidtropics of South East Asia, and ICARDA in thearid zones of the Middle East. Within the aboveframework, the CGIAR system is well placed tomake a significant contribution to tacklingmany key aspects of all five problem areasidentified in Part I of this report. The threeCentres that will be most directly concernedwith forestry and agroforestry policy researchare CIFOR, ICRAF and IFPRI. In addition tothese three Centres, the designated ecoregionalCentres all have the potential to take on specificforestry and agroforestry research problems ofrelevance to their respective ecoregional spheresof operation. So far, the possible contribution ofthese ecoregional Centres has been most clearly

23

defined for CIAT working in the forest hillsidesand forest margins of Central America and theAmazon Basin. As CGIAR research in this fieldevolves, it is likely that other ecoregionalCentres will also be able to make a usefulcontribution.

(b) Emphasis on Forestry and Agro-forestry Policy Research in theMedium Term Plans of CIFOR,ICRAF and IFPRI

( i ) Center for International ForestryResearch (CIFOR)

In broad terms CIFOR will be concentrating itsmain policy research efforts on tacklingunderlying causes of tropical deforestation, onimproved understanding of policies andincentives to ensure the sustainablemanagement and increased productivity ofnatural forests and reforestation of degradedlands, on researching systems aimed atvaluation and more equitable distribution ofbenefits and costs of forest goods and services(with a special focus on non-wood forestproducts), on alternative institutionalarrangements for involving local people inforest management, and on policies that willhelp better to quantify and preserve theenvironmental and biologicdl benefits of forests,including the preservation of biodiversity andcarbon sequestration CIFOR’s Policy ResearchProgram will embrace five main areas ofactivity:

. Policies and Incentives for SustainableForest Management.

. Valuation and Equity of Benefits and Costs.

. Adoption of Policy Change.

. Employment and Incomes from Forests andwoodlands.

. Future Supplies and Demands for ForestGoods and Services.

(ii) International Centre for Research inAgroforestry (ICRAF)

ICRAF’s policy related research will continuethe strong emphasis that ICRAF has given overthe last 15 years to farm level research aimed atimproved understanding of local farmer andcommunity perceptions of the value of on-farm

trees and woodlands, particularly from theperspective of the role that trees can play incontributing to agricultural sustainability and tothe farmers’ welfare. ICRAF is alsospearheading a Global “Alternatives to Slashand Burn” (ASB) Project aimed at tackling oneof the main contributors to tropicaldeforestation, i.e. shifting cultivation insituations of increasing population pressure,shortening fallow periods, declining crop yieldsand ecological degradation. ICRAF’s Program1 defines three main areas of agroforestry policyresearch. They are:

. Agroecosystem characterization of priorityenvironments and land use systems toidentify constraints and opportunities foragroforestry research and to delineateextrapolation domains.

. Development of an understanding of howselected policies constrain or support theadoption of agroforestry technologies anddesign of adoption mechanism for policyimplementation.

. Impact assessment, the objectives of whichare to measure ecological, economic andsocial impacts of key agroforestrytechnologies on agricultural sustainability,rural poverty, farmers’ welfare,environmental preservation and climatechange.

(iii) International Food Policy ResearchInstitute (IFPRI)

.

IFPRI’s main contributions to tackling theproblem areas outlined in Part I of this reportwill be implemented by IFPRI’s Environmentand Production Technology Division,particularly through two projects that focus on“Forest Margins” and “Fragile Lands”. Theseprojects incorporate case studies of institutionalarrangements for promoting sustainableresource use; marketing studies focussingparticularly on forest and non-forest treeproducts; methodologies for assessing the inter-relationships among soil degradation and farmlevel resource management decisions (especiallyforest conversion); participatory communitymonitoring systems to assess the effect ofpolicies on natural resource management(including forests and trees). Also IFPRI willcontinue to work on how macroeconomic andstructural adjustment policies affect agriculturalproductivity, equity, trade and the environment


(areas in which IFPRI’s past research experiencecould be of considerable relevance to theforestry sector). Five main areas of agroforestryand forestry policy related research to beundertaken by IFPRI include:

. Arresting deforestation and resourcedegradation in the forest margins of thehumid tropics.

. Sustainable development in fragile forestlands.

. Property rights and communal action forforest resource management.

. Tree product markets.

. Macroeconomic policy, trade and theenvironment.

(c) The CGIAR’S Planned Responseto the Recommendations of theRegional Forest Policy Workshops

In response to the recommendations of theRegional Forest Policy Workshops, CIFORhosted a Forest Policy Workshop in Bogor,Indonesia in February 1994. Representativesfrom four Centres - CIFOR, ICRAF, IFPRI andCIAT - participated in that Workshop. The twomain objectives of this Workshop were:

. Selection of problem areas and researchneeds that fit well ‘with the various CGIARCentre mandates, in execution of which theCGIAR would have some comparativeadvantage and which, in terms of CGIARgoals are deserving highest priority.

. Possible modes of intercentre collaborationthat would exploit the complementarystrengths of different Centres.

The main problem areas and research needsdiscussed were those identified by the RegionalWorkshop participants as summarised in Part Iand Annex 2 of this report. In addition to thetwo main objectives of the meeting summarisedabove, the Workshop also briefly discussed:

. Preliminary identification of geographiclocations where additional CGIAR fieldresearch sites might be located.

. The importance of closest possiblecollaboration with NARs. These were

defined in a broad context to include arange of different local institutions such asnational forestry research institutions,universities, specialised policy researchinstitutes, NGOs and government policyresearchers and decision makers located invarious different ministries.

. The role of the CGIAR Centres in PolicyResearch Training.

These three latter points (and particularly therole of the NARs), will be a major focus of thefollow up discussions that the three individualCentres are now in the process of implementingwithin the various geographic regions in whichthey are concentrating their policy relatedresearch activities. Because these regionalinteractions with NARs are still ongoing, andbecause further time is needed to develop morespecific proposals on the CGIAR Centres’possible contribution to policy research training,this report only summarises the conclusions andrecommendations of the Bogor Workshopemerging from discussions of the two mainobjectives of the meeting as defined.

Table 1 summarises the research topicsemerging from the Bogor Workshop discussionsthat were regarded as being of high priority forCGIAR support and that fit well with theresearch agendas already defined in theirMedium Term Plans which cover the period1994- 1998. These cover 28 of the 40 differentresearch topics identified by the RegionalWorkshops. Table 1 also indicates the researchareas of particular interest to CIFOR, ICRAFand IFPRI.

As noted earlier, CGIAR Centres such asCIAT in Latin and Central America, IITA inWest Africa, ICRISAT in the arid zones ofSouth Asia and Africa, and IFPRI's in the humidtropics of South East Asia, will also be playing asignificant role in natural resource relatedresearch in the ecoregional zones that fallwithin their geographic mandates. Of theseother ecoregional Centres, only CIAT wasrepresented at this Workshop. The contributionof the CGIAR ecoregional Centres to forestryand agroforestry research will also be a focus ofthe follow up discussions and research activitiesthat CIFOR, ICRAF and IFPRI have alreadyinitiated, or which they now plan to undertakewithin the regions. For that reason no attempthas been made in this report to cover the likelyresearch agendas of these other centres.

A major thrust of the Workshopdiscussions focussed on the interdependencyand interlinkages between many of the 28research topics that appear to be mostappropriate for CGIAR support, and on how theCentres could most effectively collaborate so asto address these research topics in an integratedway. It is the CGIAR’s intention to combine thebiological and socioeconomic scientificexpertise of various CGIAR Centres to take intoaccount their comparative strengths andcomplementary research mandates.

The following sections summarise how thethree Centres intend to address the five mainproblem areas that were regarded by theRegional Workshop participants as being ofhighest priority.

Problem Area 1: Policies to containinappropriate Tropical Deforestation

Both the underlying causes of tropicaldeforestation and possible solutions varygeographically and ecoregionally. The problemembraces closed forests, watersheds and openwoodlands. The pervasiveness of this problemand complexity of the wide range of possiblepolicy, institutional reform and technologicalsolutions, requires a concerted and integratedeffort by the three Centres, all of which willparticipate in addressing various facets of theproblem.

In the context of tropical deforestation, theCCIAR is strongly committed to contributing toresolution of the concerns expressed at the RioUNCED conference about the negative impactof deforestation on human welfare, agriculturalsustainability and the environment. Thosenegative effects include the decliningavailability of fuelwood, fodder, medicinal andother essential forest products and forest derivedagricultural inputs (which impact mostnegatively on the rural poor), permanent loss ofgermplasm of important agriculture and forestcrops, ecological deterioration of fragile uplandenvironments in which deforestation contributesto accelerated soil erosion and disruption ofstream flow; and the negative impact of forestburning on global warming.

Notwithstanding these concerns, arecurring theme of the Policy Research Agendasof the Medium Term Plans of all three centres isthe desirability of improved economic andenvironmental analysis of different land use

options in tropical forest areas. The CGIARwants to introduce a less emotive, morebalanced and scientifically based dimension intothe deforestation debate. It is clear that not alldeforestation is inappropriate. Given theinevitability of increasing population pressureson tropical forest lands, the Bogor Workshopparticipants strongly endorsed therecommendations of the Regional Workshopsthat more attention should be devoted todistinguishing between situations whereconversion from forestry to productive andsustainable agriculture does not imply seriousrisk of ecological deterioration or loss ofbiodiversity.

For example, large areas of the miombosavanna woodlands on acid soil of southernAfrica have good potential for food productionand are situated on relatively flat land whereconversion to agriculture does not pose seriousrisks of erosion or disruption of water catchmentyield (see, for example, “Soils Research inAfrica: A Long Term Strategy” by Sanchez,Swift, et. al., A Report to the RockefellerFoundation, January 1991). The implication isthat CGIAR research into underlying causes ofdeforestation should incorporate, at a very earlystage, a review of the already available studiesand data on tropical deforestation, based oncriteria that will bring into sharper focus thedifference between productive and non-productive deforestation.

With reference to the six specificmacroeconomic policy research topics that wererated by the Regional Workshops as being ofhighest priority for containment of deforestation(see Problem Area 1 in Table l), IFPRI will becollaborating closely with CIFOR in addressingresearch topic 1.1 which focusses on theinfluence of macroeconomic and sectoralpolicies (including structural adjustments) onregional development patterns, rural povertyand prospects for economic growth and trade.These are areas in which IFPRI’s experience intackling similar issues in the agricultural sectorcan be of particular relevance to forestry.

Within the context of the ASB Project,either IFPRI or ICRAF, or both, will focus onthe analysis of factors that influence populationmigration (research topic 1.2); the influence ofagricultural policies on colonisation, conversionfrom forest to agriculture and the negativeeffects of slash and burn agriculture on humanwelfare and the environment (research topic1.3); the influence of highway and rural


infrastructure programs on forests (researchtopic 1.5) and intersectoral planning processesthat may influence deforestation (research topic1.6).

CIFOR will be concentrating its researchin Problem Area I on the influence ofalternative logging road and extraction policieson population migration into forest lands(research topic 1.2). As an input to the ASBProject, and also in the context of its ownresearch programs aimed at preservation ofbiodiversity, CIFOR will undertake researchaimed at improving the understanding of thepotential of buffer zone policies to relievepressure on biologically unique forests andprotected areas, and on incentive policies forsustainable forest management, forestconservation and reforestation (research area1.6). In these areas CIFOR plans to workcollaboratively both with IFPRI and ICRAF.The latter will be addressing the possiblecontribution of policies designed to acceleratethe adoption of improved agroforestry farmingsystems within the buffer zones that have thepotential to relieve pressure on natural forests.

Problem Area 2: Valuation of Forestand Tree Benefits

The development of improved methods forevaluating the costs and benefits of tree andforest goods and services, assessment of thehuman and environmental effects ofdeforestation, estimation of externality benefitsand the impact of commercialisation of forestproducts on different socioeconomic and gendergroups, were all rated as research areas of highpriority for the CGIAR.

Despite the high priority accorded to thistopic by the Regional Workshops, concernswere expressed about the lack of reliable data onwhich to base scientific analysis of forestbenefits. For example, notwithstanding growingrecognition of the useful role that non-timberforest products play in contributing to ruralpeople’s needs and the desirability of improvedmethods of evaluation of these products, verylittle systematic physical research has beencarried out on the distribution, availability,growth characteristics and possibilities forsustainable management of such products.

This problem area is important to CIFOR’sPolicy Research agenda which is based on an

underlying hypothesis that one reason whyforests are disappearing is because they areconsistently undervalued by almost allstakeholders. The reasons are manifold (e.g.market distortions, insecure tenure of farmers orconcessionaires, arbitrary timber pricing andallocation policies by governments, etc.). In thiscontext CIFOR will support rcscarch on variousaspects of research topics 2.1 and 2.2.

IFPRI's comparalivc advantage in this areaarealies in development of methodologicalapproaches for evaluation of natural resourceswithin the framework of its more broadly basedresearch on natural resource evaluation. Fromthis perspective it is well placed to make asignificant contribution to tackling researchtopic 2.2 which will be testing standardisedmethodologies for the valuation of non-traditional and non-wood forest products.Working in that area, it will be heavilydependent on close collaborative linkages withCIFOR’s biological and policy researchactivities on the same topic.

CIFOR, IFPRI and ICRAF will collectivelybe addressing different facets of research topic2.3, which focusses on evaluation of treeproduct markets. Emphasis is on products thatcan be produced from natural closed forests(CIFOR’s area of concern), common lands orsmallholder farms (the latter being ICRAF’smain interest). Research will highlightconstraints to development of markets,particularly for non-timber forest products(which is an area of special concern to CIFOR),with special emphasis on market characteristics,common types of market failure and theirimplications for evaluation of equitable sharingof benefits by local communities and treegrowers. In this latter area IFPRI’s experience oftackling similar issues as they relate tomarketing of agricultural and livestockcommodities, should be of considerablerelevance to the forestry sector.

Research area 2.4 is an activity of specialconcern to CIFOR, which in the context ofdeveloping methods for complete evaluation offorests, will be concerned with valuation ofbiodiversity and quantification of externalities.ICRAF is also involved in valuation studies ofthe biodiversity and environmental benefits ofagroforestry systems. This work is intended tolead to identification of policies andmechanisms for ensuring equity in thedistribution of total costs and benefits among all

27

stakeholders. This could include, for example,compensation to local tree growers forexternalities including, at the internationallevel, setting aside of forests for preservation ofbiodiversity and carbon sequestration. Inthis latter context, there is a close link withinCIFOR to the research it is conducting on thepotential of reduced impact harvesting andmanagement technologies to contribute toincreased carbon sequestration.

Problem Area 3: Local ParticipationImproved understanding of the factorsinfluencing household level decisions toconserve and manage forests and trees, and ofthe policy incentives to encourage people’sinvolvement received the highest priority of allresearch needs reviewed by the BogorWorkshop participants. All three Centres see aneed to focus on that topic. There are stronglinkages between research in this area and thoseresearch topics discussed under both Problem 2,and Problem 3 which is concerned with the roleof trees and forests in improving humanwelfare.

For example, the willingness of localpeople to participate in the management of awide range of both timber and non-timber forestproducts depends firstly on better knowledge ofthe availability, value and possibilities forsustainable management and marketing of thoseproducts (research topics 2.1 and 4.1), andsecondly on the introduction of satisfactorytenurial options that provide the necessaryincentive for local people’s participation (e.g.the need for improved institutionalarrangements that will effectively involve localcommunities in the sustainable management ofcommon property resources). Thisinterdependency of research needs between thevarious Problem Areas has implications for bothresearch project design and selection of researchsites. In practice it should be possible toundertake much of the research proposed underProblems 2, 3 and 4 on the same sites.

CIFOR’s focus will be on modelling thevariables to which households respond inrelation to their perception of the usefulness offorest goods and services, and their willingnessto undertake protection and management ofclosed forests. CIFOR is giving high priority toresearch on impediments to local managementof forests. Recently it conducted a workshop in

the Southern Africa region that examinedresearch needs relating to improved prospectsfor management and conservation of thesavanna woodlands of the miombo region.

ICRAF's work in this area will be moreconcerned with household decision making inrelation to adoption of new or improvedtraditional agroforestry systems. IFPRI'sresearch will be carried out within theframework of IFPRI’s more broadly basedinvestigations into how household leveldecisions affect prospects for effectiveconservation and management of a wider rangeof natural resources. A similar pattern ofcomplementarity will be applied to addressingthe research needs listed in Items 3.2 and 3.3 ofTable 1 which are concerned with the questionsof how various forms of land tenure, treeownership policies and legal constraintsinfluence the possibilities for local people’sparticipation in forest and tree management. Anarea of special concern in this context is thequestion of how to devise effective institutionalarrangements that will provide incentives forlocal community involvement in themanagement of common property resources.

The issues in this area are somewhatdifferent in closed forests and forest margins oragroforestry situations. In the former there isneed for a greater emphasis on the question ofhow centralised control and management ofclosed forests and the tenurial and legalregulations that are frequently applied in naturalforests under government control, may activelyinhibit local participation. This is the majorthrust of planned CIFOR research. Outsideforest margins and in agroforestry situations,there are frequently tree ownership and fellingrestrictions that discourage the effectivemanagement of on-farm trees or commonproperty woodlands, where there may be genderproblems that exclude the participation ofwomen in decision making about the use andmanagement of common property or on-farmtree resources. These latter concerns are ofparticular interest to ICRAF and IFPRI.

Research topic 3.4 is of special relevanceto the ongoing attempts by CIFOR to developand test more standardised and systematicquantification of the impact on human welfare,productivity of forests and the environment ofthe many small scale experimental attempts thatare now being made to introduce alternativeinstitutional options for encouraging localparticipation. Most of the reporting to date on


progress in this area has been more anecdotalthan scientific. There are strong linkagesbetween this work and that proposed underresearch topic 3.6 which will address policyreform options for public forest sector agencies.Research topic 3.5 which deals with improvedunderstanding of indigenous forest dwellingpeople’s rights of use and access to forests, is aparticularly relevant research issue for thecountries of the Amazon Basin where“extractive reserves” have been proposed as onepossible option for protecting indigenouspeople’s interests. There are many unansweredquestions about the economic viability and longterm sustainability of such reserves that CIFORplans to address. Before embarking on researchin this area, it would be useful to carry out athorough literature review of the many earlierstudies of “extractive reserve” experiences andof the concerns that have been raised about theireconomic viability.

Problem Area 4: The Role of Treesand Forests in Rural Welfare

This problem area responds firstly to growingrecognition that an increasingly high proportionof rural people’s needs for essential forestproducts such as fruits, fuelwood, fodder,building poles and even for more conventionalforest products such as timber, is now beingproduced from agroforestry farming systems,forest fallows and remnant patches of naturalforest, open woodlands or from commonproperty grazing lands that are frequentlyoutside the jurisdiction of government forestagencies. It was partly recognition of this factthat triggered the decision taken in 1978 tocreate ICRAF, which operated as anindependent non-CGIAR Centre for some 13years before it was incorporated into the CGIARsystem in 1991.

Within the remaining closed naturalforests of the tropics, the objectives ofmanagement have evolved from an earlierstrong emphasis on production of conventionalforest products (which dominated national forestpolicy and aid agency support programsthroughout the 1960s and early 1970s). Today amuch broader set of management objectives isreflected in most national forest policies,including increasing emphasis on the role thatliterally hundreds of forest plants, trees and

wildlife species play in meeting subsistenceneeds and contributing to the livelihoods ofindigenous forest dwelling and forest fringecommunities.

Another aspect of Problem Area 4 is theconcern that is now widely shared by manytropical country governments about the vastareas of former forest, but now degraded lands(such as the imperata grasslands and salinelands of Asia). Reclamation of part of theseareas could play a significant role in meetingfuture food and forest product needs. All threefacets of Problem Area 4 fit very closely to theobjectives of the CGIAR’s Mission Statementwhich is primarily concerned with thesustainable improvements in the productivity ofagriculture, forestry and fisheries in ways thatwill enhance the nutrition and well being of lowincome people for subsistence or for industry.All three of the CGIAR Centres havecomplementary but interrelated roles to play inimplementing the research listed under Problem4 in Table 1. For example, Item 4.1 which isconcerned with improved quantification of therole of trees and forests in contributing to ruralwelfare and is closely linked to the “valuation”issues discussed in Problem Area 2 above, isalready a major thrust of the research agendasof both ICRAF and IFPRI. As CIFOR’s researchinto the valuation, dynamics of consumptionand marketing prospects for non-timber forestproducts gains momentum, there will be obviousbenetits from close collaboration between allthree Centres in developing commonmethodologies and defining an operationalframework for measuring the impact o fadoption of improved agroforestry and forestmanagement systems.

Research topic 4.2 which deals with policyresearch into traditional and new agroforestrysystems and policies that will encourage theirwider adoption, is another key component ofICRAF's program which is likely to benefit fromthe more broadly based research being carriedout by IFPRI on policy incentives relating to awider range of natural resource managementissues.

In this context, IFPRI is collaboratingclosely with CIAT in the Central and LatinAmerican region in researching policy optionsthat could have a positive impact on themanagement of fragile uplands as part ofCIAT's Forest Hillsides and Forest Marginsprograms.

29

Research topic 4.3 involves research bothby ICRAF and IFPRI, into how to factor supportfor agroforestry needs (including genderconcerns) into public agency strategies andprograms.

Research topic 4.4 which deals withevaluation of policies that could have abeneficial impact on reclamation of degradedlands, is an issue of concern to all three Centres.CIFOR and ICRAF are already collaborating inthe development of a research agenda that dealswith reclamation of imperata grasslands.Research topic 4.5 is concerned with thepotential of agroeconomic zoning, application ofsatellite monitoring and GIS based analyses todefine priority areas for research in the contextof reclamation of degraded lands. It reflectsconcerns that given the enormous geographicextent of degraded land (e.g. more than 16million hectares of imperata grasslands inIndonesia alone), research on this topic needs asharp focus on demographic, socioeconomic,marketing and other factors that will ensure thatthe outputs of research in this area arechanneled towards sites and situations wherereclamation is likely to be socially acceptableand economically justified.

Problem Area 5: Policy Options forImproving the Intensity andProductivity of Forest Managementand the Efficiency of Forest Industries

The research needs on this topic are primarilywithin CIFOR’s mandate although in someareas (such as the influence of macroeconomicpolicies, structural adjustment and other policieson the timber trade), IFPRI should also be ableto make a substantial input. The latter’s ongoingprogram related to agricultural food productionand trade policies has considerable relevance toforestry.

Item 5.1 which focusses on the viabilityand constraints to improved efficiency of smallscale rural forest-based industries and theirpotential contribution to rural welfare andeconomic growth, will build on earlier FAOstudies of this issue. CIFOR will be active inthis area, initially in South Asia and in theSouthern African region where as already noted,it recently hosted a workshop on social,economic and institutional reforms of thesavanna woodlands of that region.

In this area there will be strong linkageswith research by both CIFOR and IFPRI intoTree Product Markets already discussed underProblem Area 2 and into Valuation and LocalParticipation issues discussed under Problems 2and 3 above. The desirability of verticalintegration between growers and processors offorest products (as a way of ensuring equitabledistribution of benefits) implies that CGIARresearch in this area will inevitably have toexplore the technological and economicimplications of growing, processing,transporting and marketing of forest products.

Under research topic 5.3 which isconcerned with improved quantification of thecosts and benefits of acceleratedindustrialisation policies on incomes, welfareand forest management, CIFOR research willbuild upon ongoing research into this topic bymany other research and government forestagencies. CIFOR’s support will be in the contextof the implications of such policies to humanwelfare and equity. The implications ofalternative industrialisation policies forconserving environmental benefits of forestssuch as biodiversity preservation and carbonsequestration will also be considered.

Research topic 5.4 which addresses theimpact of government timber concession licenseand taxation policies on possibilities forimproved rental capture and improved forestmanagement, is another area where research isalready being supported by other agencies suchas the World Bank. The role that CIFOR mightplay in this area is still under review, as it is ofhigh priority only in a few countries.

Similarly under research topic 5.5 whichwill examine improved understanding of thelikely impact of environmentally drivenconcerns to restrict tropical logging on thelivelihood of local people, economic growth andforest conservation, CIFOR’s precise role hasstill to be defined. There are obvious potentiallinkages with other areas of biological researchthat CIFOR will be implementing whichaddress the need for standardised methodologiesfor measuring the impact of various industriallogging systems on biodiversity and on carbonsequestration.

(d) Alternative Modes of IntercentreCollaboration

To tackle globally important environmentalproblems (such as the negative impact on

30 CIFOR Working Paper No.5: Review of Poiicv Research Needs

human welfare and the global environment ofslash and burn agriculture in tropical forests),some of the five problem areas identified in PartI of this report might most effectively beaddressed by establishing an ecoregionalnetwork of IARCs, national research institutionsand specialised research agencies workingcollaboratively in preselected sites in each of thethree major geographic regions (Asia, LatinAmerica and Africa).

There would be advantages in appointing a“Convening Centre” the function of whichwould be to orchestrate and ensure the creationof effective coordination mechanisms for suchglobal research programs. This is the modelused in setting up the Global ASB Project forwhich ICRAF is acting as the lead centre.Other major problem areas and strategicresearch needs of common interest to the threeregions might more effectively be tackled by aninformal consortium of IARCs, nationalinstitutions and specialised agenciesindependently working on various interrelatedaspects of the same problem over a range ofmutually agreed sites. For such networks theremay be no need for a “Convening Centre”provided that clearly defined arrangements arePut in place for ensuring commonmethodological approaches for periodicinteraction on progress and assessment ofemerging results. To illustrate how thesealternative approaches might work in practice inrelation to CGIAR implemented agroforestryand forestry research programs, the BogorWorkshop discussed two specific problem areas.These were :

. Containment of deforestation in theRondonia/Acre region of the BrazilianAmazon (which is one of the eightbenchmark sites selected forimplementation of the Global ASB Project).

. Testing of various alternative institutionalapproaches to forest management over a

. range of Asian, African and LatinAmerican region sites. Special emphasiswill be given to testing the validity of ahypothesis that in many tropical forestsituations, forest resources are likely to beconserved and more productively managedby local communities, “user groups” orother locally devised institutionalapproaches, rather than by centraiisedpublic forest agencies.

(i) Containment of Deforestation in theBrazilian Amazon: The Global “Alternativesto Slash and Burn” Project

The overall goals of the ASB Project are toreduce the rate of deforestation caused by slashand burn agriculture, to rehabilitate degradedlands caused by slash and burn and to improvethe well being of slash and burn farmers byproviding alternative land use practices.Succinctly stated the project addresses thequestions:

“What are the alternative land use systems toslash and burn that reduce deforestation,poverty and global environmental changes suchas decreased greenhouse gas emissions and lossof biodiversity, and how can these alternativesystems be promoted?”

The following main research activities toachieve this goal have been identified.

Identifying appropriate technologies andimproved production systems that areeconomically feasible, socially acceptableand environmentally sound alternatives tocurrent systems.Assessing the socioeconomic andbiophysicai processes leading todeforestation, including decision makingpatterns of farmers practising slash andburn.Quantifying the contribution of slash andburn agriculture and alternative land usepractices to global environmental changes.Identifying policy options and institutionalmanagement issues that facilitate theadoption of the improved systems and alsodiscourage further deforestation.

Phase I of the ASB Project has madeconsiderable progress in addressing the first twoof the above objectives. The policy relatedresearch dimensions of Phase I have beenprimarily concerned with characterisationrelated research at three regional benchmarksites and very much focussed on household levelanalysis of the various factors that have beentriggering expansion of slash and burnagriculture and on technologies and policyincentives that will provide an alternative.Phase I did not include the wider range of policyresearch topics identified by the Regional

31

Workshops and discussed at the BogorWorkshop that will need to be addressed iftropical deforestation is to be contained. As theASB Project proceeds (particularly in Phase II),more attention will be devoted to addressing thethree latter objectives set out above.

In the context of socioeconomic policyresearch required to address the deforestationproblem effectively, the range of plannedCGIAR research activities summarised in pointsl.l-1.6 under Problem Area 1 of Table 1, werethose identified by the participants in the BogorWorkshop as being of highest priority.

Working from the premise that thesepolicy research topics will be included in PhaseII of the ASB Project, the Bogor Workshopexplored how in practice the planned policyresearch activities of the three CGIAR Centreswould complement each other. The assumptionwas made that all three Centres will becollaboratively working in one or more of theeight research sites already selected for suchwork (which is the case in the Rondonia/Acreregion of the Brazilian Amazon).

To illustrate how the different Centresintend to collaborate and harmonise theirresearch on a single site, the Workshopparticipants discussed, in relation to ProblemArea 1 (“Policies to Contain InappropriateDeforestation”), how to use the respective areasof comparative advantage of the three Centresin contributing to future implementation of theASB Project most effectively.

Whilst all three Centres have a stronginterest in researching this issue, theirrespective research goals and anticipatedresearch outputs will be significantly different.Thus, CIFOR’s policy related research in thisarea will be particularly focussed on policiesthat will lead to improved possibilities forinvolvement of local communities in themanagement of closed forests in buffer zonessurrounding high priority biodiversity reserves.

CIFOR will be particularly concerned withsuch issues as the possible influence of varioustenurial, institutional and processing andmarketing options on local people’s interest inprotecting and sustainably managing naturalclosed forests for a range of subsistence andcommercially saleable products. Also theirinfluence on the willingness of timbercompanies to organise logging operations in away that would be least damaging to soil andwater resources and to young naturalregeneration would be considered. CTFOR’s

planned research on improved understanding ofglobal externality benefits such as preservationof biodiversity and carbon sequestration, and onthe justification and institutional possibilities forNorth-South concessional funding transfers(e.g. by the Global Environmental Facility),clearly has the potential to make a significantcontribution to slowing the pace ofinappropriate deforestation.

ICRAF’s policy related research in theASB Project will continue to focus on theinfluence of various tenurial and other incentivepolicies that will encourage the more rapidadoption of improved agroforestry systems.ICRAF is particularly concerned with suchissues as the potential contribution of on-farmtrees to increase farm productivity, improvedfood security, reduced farm risk, generation ofrural incomes and protection of soil and waterresources. Those research topics are distinctlydifferent from those planned by CIFOR asoutlined above (and they require a somewhatdifferent range of socioeconomic and farmingsystems research expertise). Nevertheless,within the context of the ASB Project, the majorobjective of both Centres is same, i.e. how canimproved forestry and agroforestry policies helpto contain inappropriate deforestation?Accelerated adoption of improved agroforestrysystems in forest margins and buffer zoneforests has obvious potential for reducingencroachment pressures on natural forests.

IFPRI will also play a key, but differentlyfocussed role in this area, concentrating ontopics where IFPRI has a comparativeadvantage such as the influence ofmacroeconomic, trade and structural adjustmentpolicies on forest land use. Similarly, IFPRI’sHousehold Decision Making research in thisarea will be a continuation of IFPRI’s morebroadly based research into the influence ofvarious tenurial, agricultural pricing, marketingand institutional options for conservation andmanagement of a wide range of naturalresources, including soil, water and vegetationmanagement in rangelands, upland watershedsand forest margins. The implication is thatlessons may emerge from IFPRI’s improvedunderstanding of the likely impact of policyreforms on these areas of natural resourcemanagement that could be of relevance tostabilising land use management in forestry andagroforestry land use situations such as forestareas being converted to slash and burnagriculture.


Integration of the findings of these various The Bogor Workshop gave very highinter-related research programs into the broader priority to more concerted research efforts inresearch agenda of the ASB Project will be this area. Out of the range of possible researchachieved through the project’s existing Global needs listed in Annex 2 that emerged from theCoordinating Committee which meets regularly Regional Workshops, it concluded that the sixat one of the eight benchmark sites selected for topics listed under points 3.1-3.6 of Table 1 arethat project (which are located in Brazil, those that should be strongly supported by theMexico, Peru, lndonesia, Philippines, Thailand, CGIAR. In summary the main research needs inCameroon and Zambia). this area include:

Working within this broad collaborativeframework, possibilities for substantial costsavings will likely emerge. For example allthree Centres have expressed their intention towork on similar topics such as betterunderstanding of the influence of various landtenure options on people’s willingness tosustainably manage forest resources oragroforestry farming systems. Notwithstandingthe different aspects of this topic that the threeCentres may wish to pursue, there would beobvious advantages in all three Centrescombining to engage the services of a singlesocial scientist with specialised land tenureexperience to implement tenure related researchin an integrated way within the same ASB site.

Improved understanding of factorsinfluencing household level decisions toconserve and manage forests and trees, andof policy incentives to encourage theirinvolvement.

Such collaboration will be even more costeffective and more likely to achieve a localimpact, if it builds on the social sciencecapability of a single national researchinstitution (such as the University of Sao Paulo)which would become the focal point forinteraction between the three CGIAR Centresand national research institute on this topic.

How various forms of land and treeownership policies can influence theprospects for improved welfare of forestdwelling people.Analysis of the legal and institutionalconstraints to local participation, andpolicies to address them.Standardised methodologies for evaluatingand monitoring alternative institutionalapproaches to forest management in termsof their impact on human welfare, theproductivity of forest rcsources and theenvironment.

(ii) Testing of Alternative InstitutionalApproaches to Forest Management

Improved understanding of the rights of useand access of indigenous people dwelling inthe forest, and policies to preserve thoserights.Policy options for reform of public sectorforest agencies.

Problem Area 3 listed in Table 1 (LocalParticipation) is an issue that featuredprominently in all the Regional Workshops. Torecapitulate, there has been increasingawareness in recent years that centralisedmanagement of forest resources by governmentagencies has, in many situations, Inhibitedinvolvement of local communities inconservation and management of forests andtrees. There have been numerous experimentaland pilot attempts to test alternativeinstitutional approaches to forest management.However there has been very little systematicresearch aimed at quantifying the impact ofthese experiments on the welfare of localcommunities, on forest productivity or on theenvironment.

In contrast to the mode of intercentrecollaboration described above for the ASBProject (where several IARCs and nationalinstitutions will all be working within the sameecoregional site), the Workshop concluded thatresearch on Local Participation issues such asthose identified above might be more effectivelyimplemented by a more diffuse networkingapproach.

Part of the rationale for this alternativemode of operation is the desirability of coveringquite a wide range of experimental approachesthat are already ongoing in many different sitesand agroecological zones, some of which are notlikely to fall within the geographic spheres ofinfluence and interest of the CGIAR ecoregionalCentrcs (for example the Latin American“Cone” region countries).

33

Secondly, the potential nationalcollaborating partners in this work also cover awide range of situations. Given the limitedresources of the CGIAR system and thecapability of some of the stronger NARs andspecialised policy research institutions to makea significant contribution to research in thisfield, the need to concentrate the activities of agroup of IARCs in the same ecoregional site isless compelling.

The Workshop therefore concluded thatthe alternative of an informal consortium ofIARCs, national institutions and specialisedpolicy research institutes, independentlyworking on inter-related aspects of this problemover a fairly wide range of mutually agreedsites, would be more appropriate.

Under this alternative mode of operationthere may be no need for a “Convening Centre”provided that at the outset of such a program,there has been a collective effort firstly toestablish common research methodologies;secondly, to ensure coordination in selection ofcollaborating NARs and specialised researchinstitutions; thirdly, to arrange regularinteraction in reviewing emerging results andprogress (much of which can now be assured atrelatively low cost by making effective use ofelectronic networking); fourthly, to possess clearmutual understanding from the outset on thelikely outputs and potentially different targetbeneficiaries of such research.

To illustrate how such a network mightoperate in practice, the planned activities ofCIFOR, ICRAF and IFPRI in this area werediscussed. CIFOR for example recently financeda major workshop in India devoted toexamining various experimental approaches todevolution of responsibility for management ofdegraded public forest resources to localcommunities in 15 Indian States. CIFORresearchers will collaborate with researchers inexisting national policy research institutions(such as India’s Xavier Institute), experts fromvarious local Indian NGOs, the FordFoundation, and with experts of the variousState Forest Departments, in implementing thisresearch program.

As a parallel activity, ICRAF, working inthe East and Southern African highlands, hasalready established strong linkages with manynational agricultural and forestry institutions,universities and overseas specialised researchagencies in the course of reviewing alternativeinstitutional approaches for more effective local

community and farmer involvement inagroforestry systems. ICRAF has on its ownstaff considerable socioeconomic expertise thatit can bring to bear on this topic.

IFPRI has an ongoing major programdevoted to Property Rights and CommunalAction for Forest Resource Management. Itscheduled an international workshop in 1994 on“Policies to Support Local Organisations inNatural Resources Management”. Thisworkshop laid out a conceptual framework andmethodologies for comparative research in thisarea. Both CIFOR and ICRAF participated inthat workshop. A major focus of IFPRI’sresearch will be on management of local treeresources, including private agroforestrypractices which require group coordination orco-management of forests by localorganisations.

IFPRI’s main research on this topic will beconducted in Central and Latin America as anintegral component of IFPRI’s collaborativeresearch with CIAT on Forest Hillsides andICRAF on Forest Margins.

In terms of the planned outputs of researchby the three Centres, the target beneficiaries(which will include public forest and land usemanagement agencies), will be different.CIFOR’s research, for example on thepossibilities for devolution of responsibility formanagement of public forest lands to localcommunities, individuals or to private sectorcompanies, will be primarily targeted togovernment forestry and environmentalagencies.

The output of ICRAF’s parallel work onpolicies for accelerated adoption by localcommunities of improved agroforestry systemsin the East and Southern African bimodalhighlands, will be primarily targeted at smallfarmers, government agriculture and ruraldevelopment institutions in that region. Theseresearch results are also likely to be of particularinterest to the many local NGOs who areinvolved in supporting various agroforestryprograms.

IFPRI’s joint work with CIAT and ICRAFin the Forest Hillsides and Forest Margins ofCentral America and the Amazon Basin ofLatin America, would similarly be targeted atsmaller farmers, relevant government decisionmakers and NGOs in that region.

Notwithstanding the differing facets of thisresearch topic and different target beneficiaries,mutually reinforcing and cross cutting policy


recommendations are likely to emerge fromthese parallel efforts that on conclusion of thisresearch will justify a consolidated synthesis bythe various national institutions and CGIARCentres who will have been supporting thiswork.

that the three main Centres under discussion areallocated the resources requested in theirMedium Term Plans. The current financialclimate in which the CGIAR is operating mayrequire hard decisions to be made aboutprioritisation and phasing of their forestry andagroforestry policy research activities.

(e) Phasing of the CGIAR Centres'Forestry and Agroforestry PolicyResearch Activities

The Bogor Workshop discussions wereprimarily concerned with the substance of adesirable CGIAR research agenda and with theissue of how to ensure effective intercentrecollaboration. The program of possible researchactivities outlined above is based onunconstrained resources which would ensure

35

Annex 1. Priorities for Forestry and Agroforestry Policy Research

Box 1. Priorities for policy research on population distribution and growth, deforestation, and landuse in wet tropical forest zones.

Research should be geared primarily toward reducing migration to agricultural frontiers and towardspeeding the transition to more sustainable forms of land use. The following research areas shouldhave high priority.

- research on macroeconomic processes that lead to migration from source areas to environmentallyfragile lands; relationship of structural adjustment lending to migration;

- research on institutional reforms needed to strengthen tenure of individuals or of groups to treesand land; the devolution of responsibility for natural resources from government to others; thestructure of tenurial arrangements; improvements in public-sector natural resource management;coordination between agencies;

- research on the role of infrastructure and its relationship to deforestation, on logging roads and therate of migration to frontier areas, and on effects of market access on returns to land use;

- studies on the potential for sustainable land-use technologies to improve returns to land users; - research on subsidies and pricing policies to understand how to reduce incentives for land

clearance and to encourage the adoption of sustainable land uses; - research on means for stabilizing the distribution and growth of rural populations through off-farm

employment and income generation opportunities; - studies on land-use potential and its relationship to population demographics and biological

conservation priorities; - research into methods for improving the valuation of environmental services provided by forests

and trees such as soil erosion prevention, catchment protection, biodiversity, and so on; and - research on the impact of forest and agricultural-sector policies on deforestation, particularly on

policies regarding the development of buffer zones, licenses and concessions, and the relationshipbetween plantation forestry, biological conservation and deforestation.

Box 2. Priorities for policy research on the reclamation and utilization of degraded forest lands anddrylands. These areas are located primarily in the arid, semi-arid, and seasonally dry tropics, and inthe subtropical semi-arid ecological region of West Asia and North Africa.

Studies of improvement of land-use to increase rural welfare should be undertaken to reflect the rangeof social and economic conditions that are often a function of ecological potential in dryland areas,These include

- research on optimal land-use strategies, and the policies necessary to encourage the adoption ofthese strategies, in dryland areas; problems of reconciling local, regional, national andinternational points of view;reviews of policies affecting trees and tree planting that encourage the rationalization of nationalpolicies and traditional practices;studies of tenure and customary rights to trees to identify how tenure and usufruct act asincentives or barriers to tree management; andresearch on the improvement of markets for tree products from dryland areas to improve marketaccess and returns to forest products.


Box 3. Priorities for policy research on intensive, sustainable land use in upland watershedareas and woodland preservation.

Research in upland watershed areas should be designed to evaluate how the quality of life of peopleiving in these areas can be improved, and how environmental conditions in upland areas can bemaintained in a way that benefits populations both upstream and downstream. Research shouldinclude

- the development of better information about externalities related to upland watershedmanagement, particularly identification of incentives to protect, plant, maintain trees and forestcover; the measurement of social, economic, and ecological interactions between upland andlowland communities and land uses; and how production processes in these respective areas can bestabilized;

- the development of better forest and tree management through understanding of why farmers plantwhat they do when they do, more creative management systems, tenure and traditionalmanagement strategies, and economically viable management systems for extensive commercialforestry that do not compromise the protective functions of forest ecosystems; and

- research into problems of infrastructure, institutions, and marketing, to identify ways to developmore effective market opportunities and new markets; research on how roads and transportatioraffect development and migration into upland watershed areas, and how local, regional, andnational institutions could best work together to manage and protect forest, tree and landresources.

Box 4. Priorities for policy research on the role of trees in rural income and subsistence security.

Proposed research priorities in this area focused primarily on the relationship of trees and forests tohousehold income and subsistence security.

- research on patterns of demand and use of tree products and services in rural areas; - studies of markets, marketing, and pricing of tree products from rural households, with a

particular view toward more orderly development of tree product markets;- comparative analysis of alternative forestry and agroforestry systems in the stabilization of

existing and new land-use systems, particularly to investigate the evolution of these systems inresponse to increasing demographic pressures;

- research into aspects of land and tree tenure and control to clarify the relationship betweenchanging land tenure relationship and tree rights;

- studies of common property management of tree resources by individuals, communities, and thestate to identify where macro policies conflict with communal management objectives, todetermine how these management strategies are affected over time, and to determine how greaterlocal responsibility can be placed over local resources; and

- research about institutional support and services, such as the role of extension, research, andeducation linkages, and the role of credit and subsidies.

37

Box 5. Priorities for policy research on intersectoral policy issues.

Research in this area is needed to assess the effects on forests and on trees on farms and in rural areas,of policies in other sectors to evaluate how policy measures can reduce negative intersectoral effectsand enhance positive intersectoral effects.

- research on macroeconomic policies affecting forests, such as structural adjustment programs,economic liberalization programs, agricultural and fiscal policies, and industrial development;

- microlevel research on agriculture and forest interactions, particularly to explore the relationshipof policies to deforestation, and to identify how negative intersectoral effects can be reduced bystabilizing populations on the extensive margin through practices that increase household income;

- research on institutional implications of intersectoral linkages, such as the impact of restructuringinstitutional responsibilities to increase collaboration and coordination between institutions;


Annex 2. CGIAR Sponsored Forest Policy Workshops - Synthesis of MainProblem Areas and Research Needs

Problem Area 1

The Negative Effects of Tropical Deforestation and Options or its Containment

Throughout the 1980s there was growing awareness and concern about thc negative impact of tropicaldeforestation on human welfare and on both local and global environments. FAO’s earlier 1980 ForestResource Assessment, which had estimated deforestation at something on the order of 11 millionhectares a year, was revised upwards in 1990 to a figure of 17 million hectares.

The underlying causes of deforestation are complex. They include for example inappropriatemacroeconomics, land use, agricultural subsidy and timber taxation policies, excessively centralisedcontrol and management of forest resources, migration of rural landless people into forest areas insearch of agricultural land, political pressures to open up virgin forests in order to generate revenuesfor economic development or to consolidate national political boundaries, the weakncss ofgovernment forest administrations, fairly widespread corruption in the allocation of timber licensesand other factors. In addressing this issue a primary thrust of the CGIAR’s response should focus on:

“Research directed towards improving the welfare of people who have long resided in orrecently migrated into tropical forests or forest margins, and towards improving theproductivity of encroached forest lands.”

This approach is consistent with the mandate of the CGIAR which calls for a research agenda thatwill give high priority to sustainable improvements in the productivity of agriculture, forests andfisheries in ways that will enhance the nutrition and well being of low income people.

Agroecological zoning, population migration, and GIS-based information research could lead tosharper definition of the numbers and geographic locations of various socioeconomic and culturalgroups of forest dwelling communities. One objective of such research would be to provide a basis formore accurate targeting of research effort. A second would be clearer definition of research objectivesand anticipated impact. Some of the possible areas for further analysis and research are likely toinclude:

1. Improved understanding of how household level perceptions of the usefulness of forests andtrees are likely to influence their willingness to protect and manage forest resources.

2. Improved understanding of the degree of dependence of forest dwellers and migrants on bothtraditional and non traditional forest products for meeting subsistence needs for incomegeneration, and on prospects for their marketing and processing.

3. Research into improved understanding of the rights of indigenous forest dwelling people, and ofpolicies that are likely to be most effective in preserving those rights.

4. How various forms of land tenure and tree ownership policies can influence the prospects forimproved welfare of forest dwelling people and for more effective conservation and managementof forest resources.

5. Improved understanding of the potential of forest buffer zone policies to relieve pressure onbiologically unique forest reserves and protected areas, and of policies that are likely to be mosteffective in involving local people in their protection and management.

A second major thrust of planned CGIAR work on the tropical deforestation issue will focus on:

“Research aimed at improved understanding of the underlying external causes of deforestation and of policies that will help to contain it.”

There is now widespread recognition that many of the underlying causes of deforestation arise fromoutside the forestry sector and that research needs to address how more effective linkages between

39

forestry and other sectors can be achieved. However, many of the internationally supported campaignsand action programs that have been developed over the last decade to contain tropical deforestation(including the Tropical Forestry Action Program) have failed to address these external causes.

High priority research needs include:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Analysis of factors that influence population migration at source and monitoring of thedynamics of population migration patterns.The influence of government and international macroeconomic policies (including structuraladjustments) on regional development patterns, rural poverty, economic growth prospects, trade,and the rate of urbanisation.Research into the impact of land tenure policies on population migration and on the potential ofland reform to reduce migratory pressures.The influence of major highway and railway construction programs on forest resources and thepossibility of influencing those national transportation policies in a way that would divert suchinfrastructure projects away from forest areas inhabited bv indigenous forest dwellers and fromhigh priority biodiversity reserves.Ways and means of influencing agricultural policies to discourage colonisation and commercialagricultural schemes in unique forest lands where negative impacts on forest people are likely,or in biologically important forest reserves.Policy dialogue with government, industry and energy agencies based on research into thepotentially negative effects of large scale mining, other major industrial and/or damdevelopments on forest resources and on local people’s welfare.Research into timber industry policies and harvesting methods that open up logging roads intoforest lands and provide easy access to forest migrants. Improved understanding of the influenceof low impact harvesting technologies on forest access, improved prospects for forestregeneration and reduced risk of forest encroachment.

Problem Area 2

Undervaluation of Forest Benefits

The negative effects of undervaluation of forest resources recurred as a major theme of commonconcern in all regions and to most of the national forest policy leaders participating in the Workshopseries. It is now widely recognized that most earlier studies of forest values over-emphasised timberand traditional forest product benefits. As appreciation of the environmental importance of forestsevolved, more attention is now being given to quantifying externality benefits and to developingmodified approaches to pricing of forest products, goods and environmental services. Research thatcould help address this problem include:

1. Improved methods of data collection for evaluating the costs and benefits of forest goods andservices, including data on the human and environmental effects of deforestation, the impact ofcommercialisation of forest products, different socioeconomic and gender groups; improved dataon the quantified externality benefits of forests and trees (e.g. their role in containment of soilerosion and regulation of water supplies); and in a global environmental context, data on thepotential effects of low impact harvesting technologies and more careful forest management oncarbon emissions and the carbon sequestration value of forests.

2. Testing standardised methodologies for the valuation of non-timber forest products and formonitoring the dynamics of demand and supply, and prospects for their domestication andcommercialisation.

3. Formulation of multiple-end use forest policies that broaden the range of harvested and managedproducts and ensure increased and sustainable access by local people to these products.Valuation studies that guarantee local communities an equitable share in the benefits to bederived from more broadly based and intensified forest management.


4. Improved and standardised methodologies for biodiversity assessment valuation and monitoringof the impact of different protection and forest management approaches including use of remotesensing and indicator species techniques.

5. Policies that will encourage the accelerated adoption of forest harvesting, regeneration andmanagement techniques that will be most beneficial in reducing carbon emissions from forestburning and increased carbon sequestration.

6. Policies that will provide justification and improved mechanisms for North-South concessionaltransfers to provide incentives for the setting aside of tropical forests in the interest of protectingthe global environment.

7. Policies that will help to improve the way in which current national accounting systems quantifyforest benefits. Special emphasis is needed on the possibilities for factoring in the economic andsocial costs of forest depletion and modifying forest product pricing policies so that they reflectmore accurately the ecological benefit to national economies of forest protection and open upnew mechanisms for improved economic rental capture.

Problem Area 3

Institutional Reforms aimed at Ensuring greater Local Participation in the policy Dialogue andin the Conservation and Management of Forest Resources

Centralised management of forest resources has been a feature of many developed and developingcountries’ forest policies over the last century. Earlier theories about the need for governmentappointed and managed forest agencies to act as custodians of natural resources on behalf of localpeople have been seriously questioned. They have clearly failed to contain tropical deforestation. Norhave they ensured local communities an equitable share of forest derived benefits.

Recently there have been many experimental attempts to devolve responsibility for managementof formerly government owned forest lands to local communities. NGOs have been particularly activein this area. However monitoring of these pilot experiences has been weak. Most of the dialogue ondecentralised management is of an anecdotal nature. There has been very little systematicquantification of the impact of communal management on local people’s incomes, the status of theforests after local management has been introduced and the environmental impact of thesedecentralised approaches.

Part of the continued reluctance of many government forest agencies to proceed further withdevolution of forest management to local communities, farmers and/or private industrial companies,stems from the lack of hard evidence that these decentralised management schemes can be safelyintroduced without serious risk of accelerated forest destruction and environmental damage.Systematic research of these issues could help to clarify the risks involved and develop guidelines forsuccessful devolution of forest management. Priority research topics include:

1. Improved understanding of factors influencing household level decisions on people's willingnessto conserve and manage forests and trees, and of policy incentives to encourage theirinvolvement.

2. Analysis of the tenurial, legal and institutional constraints to local involvement, and of policyreforms that could help remove them.

3. Standardised methodologies for evaluating and monitoring the effectiveness of alternativeinstitutional approaches to forest management in terms of their impact on human welfare, theproductivity of forest resources and environmental protection.

4. Policy options for reform of public sector forest agencies with special reference to improvemechanisms for ensuring local involvement in policy dialogue and forest management, and fordeveloping stronger intergovernmental agency natural resource planning and environmentalprotection capability.

5. Historical analyses of how previous centralised forest management policies have impacted onprospects for local involvement. These analyses need to focus on both the negative and positive

41

aspects of past reservation policies. They could include case studies where reasonable sharing offorest benefits between local people and government forest agencies have been successfullyachieved.

Problem Area 4

Policy Research into the Role of Trees in Rural Welfare

This problem embraced improved understanding of policies that aim to increase the productivity ofagroforestry systems as well as the role of trees in reclamation of degraded lands. As natural foreststhroughout the developing world are being depleted, local populations have increasingly turned toremnant patches of open woodlands, forest fallows and agroforestry systems for supplying theiressential forest product needs and for sustaining agricultural productivity.

This evolution of supply sources of tree products from natural forests to products that areharvested from remnant woodlands, domesticated on-farm trees or community woodlots has raisedmany new policy challenges.

However because the interactions between crops, trees and livestock are not well understood, andbecause government forest institutions have been heavily involved in protection and management ofclosed natural forests, government agroforestry incentive policies and support services have frequentlybeen ineffective and wasteful of resources. Priority research needs in this area include:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Improved understanding and quantification of the contribution of on-farm trees and remnantwoodlands to nutrition, food security, agricultural sustainability, rural income generation,reduction of risk in farming systems and protection of soil and water resources.Policy research into traditional agroforestry systems and into policies that would stimulate theirwider adoption and improved productivity.Tenurial, legal and institutional constraints to adoption of agroforestry systems and of policyoptions for their removal.Household level and in particular gender influenced decisions about the usefulness of on-farmtrees, and policy options for ensuring that these are taken into account in the formulation ofpublic agency support policies.Policies aimed at restructuring forestry extension services and their closer integration withagriculture, energy and other rural extension assistance programs.Agroeconomic zoning studies aimed at definition of those areas scheduled for reclamation byafforestation to ensure that they do not impact negatively on the rural poor and landless and thatthere are reasonable marketing prospects for programs that are likely to produce large volumesof commercially useful forest products.Evaluation of the trade-offs between forest-based and alternative agricultural or engineeringsolutions to degraded land reclamation.

Problem Area 5

Policy Options for Improving the Efficiency and Profitabi1ity of Forest Industries and theIntensity and Productivity of Forest Management

Concerns about these problems emanated particularly from those countries abundant with timber thatdepend to a high degree on forest product exports for generating development revenues and localemployment. They are also relevant to countries such as Chile, Brazil, Kenya, Zimbabwe, China andIndia that have developed significant large scale plantation-based forest industries. Research prioritiesincluded:

1. Effect of macroeconomic policies onthetimber trade includingthe impact of structural adjustmentsandexchange rates.

governmentexport policies,and


2.3.

4.5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Marketing prospects for traditional forest products.Improved understanding of the impact of tariff barriers and other trade restrictions on thetropical timber industry and on forest management.Scope and justification for subsidies for industrial forest management and plantation forestry.Improved understanding of the likely impact of environmentally driven proposals for restrictionson tropical logging and the timber trade (for example of ecolabelling mechanisms) on thelivelihood of local people, economic growth and forest conservation and management.In those situations where environmental restrictions relating to reduction of logging in theinterest of global benefits prevail, improved understanding of North-South concessional fundingtransfer mechanisms.Increased emphasis on research into the viability of and constraints to improved efficiency ofsmall scale forest-based industries, and into their potential contribution to rural welfare andeconomic growth.Improved quantification of the costs and benefits of accelerated industrialisation policiesincluding increased domestic processing versus log exports.Impact of government timber concession license and taxation policies on the prospects forimproved rental capture and for more intensive forest management.Improved administrative policies and mechanisms for monitoring the performance of privatesector timber companies.

a review of tropical forestry and agroforestry problem...

Documents