Presentation Outline FINAL REPORT

TRANSITIONS TO SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT AND REHABILITATION IN MALAYSIA

by Wan Razali W.M. & Mohd Shahwahid H. O.

Universiti Putra Malaysia

► INTRODUCTION ► CRITICAL ISSUES IN FORESTRY: DEFORESTATION & RESOURCE DEGRADATION ► DEFINITIONS OF & FOREST TRANSITIONS IN MALAYSIA? ► POLICY & INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND DRIVERS OF DEFORESTATION

• CASE STUDY 1: Determinants of deforestation and estimation of EKC curve in Peninsular Malaysia

► SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT • CASE STUDY 2: Transitions to sustainable forest management and rehabilitation: sustaining timber production - an achievable goal for Malaysia?

► WAY FORWARD

APFNet /APAFRI Final Project Meeting: Beijing, China 21-23 Oct 2013

Move from log surplus to

log deficient

Forestry Sector today in general is marked by various dimensions and diversity

INTRODUCTION(1): Critical and current dimensions leading to the continued environmental and resource deterioration that require

the scientific community to concentrate efforts to address and minimize their impacts:

(1) Global warming and climate change

(2) Deforestation, forest degradation and loss of biodiversity

(3) Food security and social problems

INTRODUCTION(2): Critical and current dimensions leading to the continued environmental and resource deterioration that require the scientific community to concentrate efforts to address and minimize their impacts:

(4) Increasing agricultural wastes especially from oil

palm

(5) Unstabilized land utilization and agricultural

activities

(6) Inefficient energy consumption

INTRODUCTION(3): Critical and current dimensions leading to the continued environmental and resource deterioration that require the scientific community to concentrate efforts to address and minimize their impacts:

► These dimensions and diversity had resulted in a major shift from

Sustained Yield Forest Management [short term economic profitability as the bottom line, e.g. to

contribute to its foreign exchange earnings and the country’s economic development]

⇓ ⇓ ⇓ Sustainable Forest Management

[integration of economic, environment & social best practices / bench-markings]

⇓ ⇓ ⇓ • Countries either shown an increase in forest cover • Countries shown a shrinking forest cover

INTRODUCTION(4): Critical and current dimensions had resulted in ………………

FOREST TRANSITIONS.....

DEFINITIONS OF “ FOREST TRANSITIONS”

....... termed as the forest transitions ► the change from shrinking to expanding forests (Mather 1992)

►shifting from deforestation to reforestation (Mather, Fairbairn & Needle 1999)

►the passage from net deforestation to net reforestation” (Mather 2004).

....... Business As Usual !

Moving towards targets India (reforestation target = 33%) Philippines (reforestation target = 27%) Thailand (reforestation target = 40%) Vietnam (reforestation target = 47%)

Attained target China (reforestation target = 20%)

A situation to ponder: Is the target (expanding

forest % ) reasonable and universally agreeable?

Business As Usual Model

►The definitions of Forest Transitions, i.e. from shrinking to expanding forests and/or (net) deforestation to (net) reforestation, need to address a fundamental issue, i.e. (i) what would be an acceptable minimum level of

forest cover a country has to start with and then to attain to before it can be considered as experiencing forest transitions?

e.g. does a country have to wait until its forest cover decreases to a minimum of 10%, then increases to a minimum of 30% or 40% or 50%, etc?

Forest Transitions...?

Other common definitions of Forest Transitions Business Not Usual Model!

A reversal in the forest cover trend A change in emphasis from production to

protection and conservation A transition to sustainable forest management

Borrowing definitions from Jeremy Broadhead, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok @Workshop on transition to sustainable forest management in Asia-Pacific region, 10-11 Nov. 2011.

We argued that the definitions by Mather (1992 & 2004) & Mather, Fairbairn & Needle (1999) are

rather restrictive - good BAU model indeed, but....!

A reversal in the forest cover trend (Moving from “forest sufficient” to “forest deficient)

Cambodia (existing forest = 60%) Indonesia (commitment = increase in forested area) Lao PDR (existing forest = 70%) Myanmar (existing forest = 50%) Nepal (existing forest = 40%)

⇨ Change in position/ stage: the transition from, for example, state of “forest” to “non-forest” or from “forest sufficient” to “forest deficient”, etc.

A transition to sustainable forest management

⇔ Malaysia (target /commitment = at least 50% natural forest based on land area) ⇨ Change in concept/ subject: the transition from, e.g. traditional sustained yield forest management to sustainable forest management and certification, etc.

► Business As Usual Model: Expanding forests and/or (net) deforestation to (net) reforestation are not necessarily pre-requisite to sustainable forest management if a country has had a “minimum” forest cover (usually a minimum of 30%??), though forest expansion is a necessity for economics of forest management! ►Business Not Usual Model/Thinking Out of Box: A shift from unsustainable to sustainable forest management can be regarded as experiencing “Forest Transitions” in order to achieve forest sustainability in the long run!

⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ BOTH SCENARIOS LEAD TO

IMPLICATIONS OF “FOREST TRANSITIONS”

2 CASE STUDIES in Malaysia

Overview of Forest Transitions in Malaysia

Although Malaysia was categorized as a HFHD (High Forest Cover with High Rates of Deforestation) country, it is quite

difficult to categorize the country as experiencing forest transitions due to its officially fluctuating forest areas

gazetted by the Government:

"Pledge @Langkawi Declaration – 1st CHOGM 1989” / COP 9 - UNFCCC @Copenhagen 2009

“... that the Government of Malaysia undertakes to ensure at least 50 percent of our land area will remain permanently under natural forest cover" -- Greening of the World to a Better Living - Siri Ucapan Penting: Jabatan Perkhidmatan Penerangan Malaysia, May 1992, p.16) So far the trend (% of the total land area ~ 32.83 mil ha.)

Year Hectare (%) Year Hectare (%) 1966 ~ 7.86 mil ha (24%) 1974 ~ 7.24 mil ha (22%) 1984 ~ 6.50 mil ha (20%)* 1988 ~ 20.10 mil ha (61%) 1989 ~ 19.47 mil ha (59%) 1992 ~ 19.15 mil ha (58%) *Implementation of National Forestry Policy 1978 (Revised

1992)

1994 ~ 19.00 mil ha (58%) 1996 ~ 18.87 mil ha (57%) 2003 ~ 19.54 mil ha (59%) 2005 ~ 18.31 mil ha (56%) 2007 ~ 18.23 mil ha (56%) 2010 ~ 20.46 mil ha (62%)

*Gazettement of National Forestry Act 1984 (Amended

1993). Figures for 1966, 1974 & 1984 excludes Sabah

& Sarawak.

YEAR

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

mill

ion

hect

are

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

Total Forested Area for Malaysia

2010 ~ 20.46 mil ha (62%)

1966 ~ 7.86 mil ha (24%)

1988 ~ 20.10 mil ha (61%)

1988 ~ 20.10 mil ha (61%)

Changing Forest Area: Malaysia

7

FOREST RESOURCES IN MALAYSIA in 2011 (million ha)18.48 million ha (56.4%)

Production (Development)

State/Alienated Land

(11.0%)

PRF (79.1%)PM= 4.92 m; Sabah=3.60mil,

S’wak=6.09mil

NationalPark/Wildlife & Bird Sanctuary

(9.9%)2.04 mil ha 14.61 mil ha 1.83 mil ha

2.04 mil ha

Production(SFM)

Production (SFM)Totally Protected

11.38 3.23

Totally Protected

1.83 mil ha

72.6% 27.4%

13.42 mil ha 5.06 mil ha

Production Protection

(Source: Abd. Rahman A. R. 2012.)

Policy and Institutional Framework in Malaysia Land Capability Classification (LCC) system was instituted in the 1970 was essentially an application of the economic concepts that assigned land uses to capability classes. According to the LCC, forestry did not belong in Classes I-III because it generated lower rents than competing uses, but it did belong in Classes IV-V, where it generated higher rents.

⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ Turning Point for expanding agriculture, leading to deforestation?

or blessing in disguise?

In the Malaysian Federation, the 13 states have jurisdiction over lands, forests, fishery, agriculture, and water resources within their respective boundaries, including the power to decide (by its own forestry department) on the administration, management, use and allocation of its forest resources. The Federal Government is responsible for trade policies on forest products and provides technical advice to the states via National Land (Forestry) Council on forestry matters.

Drivers of Deforestation and forest degradation in Malaysia

• commercial logging, • land use change and logging prior to

agriculture development, • agriculture expansion, • growth in gross domestic product (GDP), • export of timber products, and • population growth.

This creates a conflict between agriculture production, forest management and the country’s economic development.

We think that the main question will be whether a transition from production forestry to forest conservation and protection can be efficiently managed by Malaysia.

CASE STUDY 1

Determinants of deforestation and estimation of EKC curve in Peninsular Malaysia

This case study on deforestation in Peninsular Malaysia from 1960 - 2010 found that the GDP, area of oil palm planted, export of timber products and population have significant influences on the rate of deforestation. With the exception of population, the changes in the other three variables were related to rising deforestations. Instead rising population alone in Peninsular Malaysia did not seem to increase deforestation.

An investigation on the possible presence of the EKC in deforestation rates did not materialize. The result does not support the long-run inverted-U relationship between economic growth and deforestation rate in Peninsular Malaysia.

CASE STUDY 2

Transitions to sustainable forest management and rehabilitation: sustaining timber production - an

achievable goal for Malaysia?

⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ broadening the definition of forest transitions

“from sustainable yield manageent to sustainable forest management”

Pen. Malaysia: Continuous supply of timber from sustainably managed forests

(i) a minimum commercial logs production of 3.2 million m3/year from 1991 to 1995 and 2.7 million m3/year from 1996 until the year 2011 from the undisturbed (virgin) natural forests in accordance

with the set annual allowable cut (AAC)

Slide id S29

(ii) a continuous production of commercial logs from second cycle natural forests managed under Malayan Uniform System (MUS)

and Selective Management System (SMS) of about 12 million m3 in 2012 to about 6 million m3 in 2020

Pen. Malaysia: Continuous supply of timber from sustainably managed forests

(iii) a further production of commercial logs of about 10 - 16 million m3/year from second cycle natural forest managed under

MUS from 2021 until year 2045;

Pen. Malaysia: Continuous supply of timber from sustainably managed forests

(iv) a complementary supply of commercial logs from both plantations of Acacia and Rubber:

• 1 to 3 million m3/year from the year 2000 onwards (Acacia timber); and • 1.5 to 2 million m3/year from 1994 onwards (Rubberwood).

Pen. Malaysia: Continuous supply of timber from sustainably managed forests

Region

Year

Sustainable log supply

Domestic consump-

tion4

Export demand5

Supply avai. minus domestic consump. Surplus (+) Deficit (-)

Supply avai. minus domestic

consumption & export Demand

Surplus (+) Deficit (-)

Natural Forest

Pltn

Forest

Rubber

Pltn

Logs

Processed Products

Pen. Malaysia

1987 1995 2000 2015

Perpetuity

8.06 4.80 4.80 4.80 5.70

- -

1.13 3.00

2.302

1.16 2.41 2.61 2.0 2.0

3.69 4.29 4.66 5.76

-

0.054 0.020 0.020 0.020

-

5.78 6.98 6.98 6.98

-

+ 5.97 + 2.91 + 3.87 + 4.04

-

+ 0.14 - 4.08 - 3.12 -2.95

Table 1: Projected sustainable log production and domestic consumption and export demand up to the year 2015 compared with 1987

(million m3 – roundwood equivalent)

1[See: FRIM Reports No.49 (1988) – pg. 29: Columns 3 & 5, allowing 10% harvesting loss] 2Based on 188,000 ha and rotation period of 15-years for sawlog production with a net volume of 180m3 /ha 4Domestic consumption based on average per capita wood consumption of 0.27m3 and 2% population increase per year (base year 1987) = 13.684 million people – Peninsular Malaysia = 1.305 million people – Sabah = 1.555 million people – Sarawak 5Export demand assumed constant. Processed products include timber, plywood, veneer, and moulding.

Region

Year

Sustainable log supply

Domestic consump-

tion4

Export demand5

Supply avai. minus domestic consump. Surplus (+) Deficit (-)

Supply avai. minus domestic

consumption & export Demand

Surplus (+) Deficit (-)

Natural Forest

Pltn

Forest

Rubber

Pltn

Logs

Processed Products

Sabah

1987 1995 2000 2015

Perpetuity

11.50 1.67 1.24 2.80 4.50

-

3.00 4.00 8.10 4.683

- - - - -

0.35 0.41 0.44 0.55

-

7.50 8.50 8.50 8.50

-

1.98 2.85 2.85 2.85

-

+ 11.15

+ 4.26 + 4.80

+ 10.35 -

+ 1.67 - 7.09 - 6.55 - 1.00

Sarawak

1987 1995 2000 2015

Perpetuity

13.66 10.15 10.15 7.00 7.54

- - - - -

- - - - -

0.41 0.49 0.53 0.65

-

12.64 10.00 10.00 10.00

-

0.18 0.70 0.70 0.70

-

+ 13.25 + 9.66 + 9.62 + 6.35

-

+ 0.43 - 1.04 - 1.08 - 4.35

Table 1: Projected sustainable log production and domestic consumption and export demand up to the year 2015 compared with 1987

(million m3 – roundwood equivalent)

3Based on 390,000 ha and rotation period of 15-years for sawlog production with a net volume of 180m3 /ha 4Domestic consumption based on average per capita wood consumption of 0.27m3 and 2% population increase per year (base year 1987) = 13.684 million people – Peninsular Malaysia = 1.305 million people – Sabah = 1.555 million people – Sarawak 5Export demand assumed constant. Processed products include timber, plywood, veneer, and moulding.

Table 2: Wood Consumption and Sustainable Timber Production from Natural Forests

(million cubic meter)

Region Year Sustainable Log Domestic Export Supply Consumption Availability Malaysia 1995 16.62* 5.19 11.43 2000 16.19* 5.63 10.56 2015 14.60 6.96 7.64 In Perpetuity 17.74 - - ___________________________________________________ * Average Annual Production 1995-2000: 28 million cu. meter

Way Forward: Enhancing Sustainable Forest Management & Promoting Forest Transitions and Rehabilitation

(i) reviewing policies on logging with respect to annual allowable cut (ha/yr) & maximum extractable volume (m3/ha) – essentially enforcing equitable “windfall” profit between loggers and States, and on log export with the aim of further restricting such activity;

(ii) ensuring that the land remains in forest after harvesting/ logging; (iii) ensuring sufficient efforts and funds to reforest unproductive logged-

over forests to ensure its continued productivity; (iv) enhancing the treatments of logged-over forests (silviculture

treatments) to ensure higher productivity per unit area; (v) implementing successful industrial forest plantations – including high

value and market proven or speciality timber species, to offset the anticipated shortfall of general utility timber from the natural forests; and

(vi) improving current forest policy and administration, intensifying natural forest management practices and research & innovation capabilities.

.

Will crisscross institutions, disciplines, organizations, specializations, roles, and identities. Foresters will enter the debates on when, where, why, and how forests should be managed, including for what purpose and by whom. No longer foresters alone be authorized to determine how forests are managed…………. Margaret Shannon & Alexios Antypas: 1997

Thank You

Terima Kasih