Forests in sustainable mountain development a state of knowledge report for 2000 task force on forests in sustainable mountai

Zimmermann Case study: The Kyrgryz forestry concept: policy changes for a multipurpose management of mountain forests in I.. Foreword: Linking mountain forests conservation with sustaina

IUFRO Research Series

IUFRO Research Series

The International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO), with its14,000 scientists from 700 member institutions in 100 countries, is organizedinto nearly 300 research units that annually hold approximately 60 confer-ences, workshops and other meetings The individual papers, proceedingsand other material arising from these units and meetings are often publishedbut in a wide array of different journals and other publications The object ofthe IUFRO Research Series is to offer a single, uniform outlet for high qualitypublications arising from major IUFRO meetings and other products ofIUFRO’s research units

The editing, publishing and dissemination experience of CABI Publishing

and the huge spread of scientific endeavours of IUFRO combine here to makeinformation widely available that is of value to policy makers, resourcemanagers, peer scientists and educators The Executive Board of IUFRO formsthe Editorial Advisory Board for the series and provides the monitoring anduniformity that such a high quality series requires in addition to the editorialwork of the conference organizers

While adding a new body of information to the plethora currently ing with forestry and related resources, this series seeks to provide a single, uni-form forum and style that all forest scientists will turn to first as an outlet fortheir conference material and other products, and that the users of informationwill also see as a reliable and reputable source

deal-Although the official languages of IUFRO include English, French,German and Spanish, the majority of modern scientific papers are published

in English In this series, all books will be published in English as the main

language, allowing papers occasionally to be in other languages Guidelinesfor submitting and publishing material in this series are available from thePublisher, Books and Reference Works, CABI Publishing, CAB International,Wallingford, Oxon OX10 8DE, UK, and the IUFRO Secretariat, c/o FederalForest Research Centre, Seckendorff-Gudent-Weg 8, A-1131, Vienna, Austria.IUFRO Executive Board:

J Burley, Oxford, UK

D.P Dykstra, Portland, Oregon, USA

R Elena Rosello, Madrid, Spain

D.W Flinn, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia

R Guevara Moncada, Turrialba, Costa Rica

J Hong, Beijing, China

D.F Karnosky, Houghton, Michigan, USA

P.K Khosla, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh,

India

N.E Koch, Hoersholm, Denmark

F.J Kruger, Sunnyside, South Africa

D.K Lee, Seoul, South Korea

J.A Prado Donoso, Santiago, Chile

P.N Sall, Dakar, Senegal

M.N Salleh, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

K Sassa, Uji Kyoto, Japan

R Schlaepfer, Lausanne, Switzerland

H Schmutzenhofer, Vienna, Austria

L Sennerby-Forsse, Uppsala, Sweden

R Seppaelae, Helsinki, Finland

B Solberg, As, Norway V.V Strakhov, Moscow, Russian Federation

E Teissier du Cros, Avignon, France

K Vancura, Praha, Czech Republic

K von Gadow, Goettingen, Germany J.L Whitmore, Washington, DC, USA

C Winget, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada J.A Youngquist, Madison, Wisconsin, USA

Titles Available:

1 Forest Dynamics in Heavily Polluted Regions

Edited by J.L Innes and J Oleksyn

2 Forest History: International Studies on Socioeconomic and Forest Ecosystem Change

Edited by M Agnoletti and S Anderson

3 Methods and Approaches in Forest History

Edited by M Agnoletti and S Anderson

4 Air Pollution and the Forests of Developing and Rapidly Industrializing Countries

Edited by J.L Innes and A.H Haron

5 Forests in Sustainable Mountain Development: a State of Knowledge Report for 2000

Edited by M.F Price and N Butt

Forests in Sustainable Mountain

Development: a State of Knowledge Report for 2000

Task Force on Forests in Sustainable Mountain Development

SWISS AGENCY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND COOPERATION

SDC

THE ROYAL MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

CABI Publishing is a division of CAB International

USA Tel: +1 212 481 7018 Fax: +1 212 686 7993 Email: cabi-nao@cabi.org

© CAB International 2000 All rights reserved No part of this publication may

be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronically, mechanically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the

copyright owners.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library, London, UK.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Forests in sustainable mountain development : a state of knowledge report for 2000 / edited by M.F Price and N Butt.

p cm (IUFRO research series ; no 5) Includes bibliographical references (p ).

Typeset by AMA DataSet Ltd, UK

Printed and bound in the UK by Biddles Ltd, Guildford and King’s Lynn

Contents

Foreword: Linking mountain forests conservation with sustainable

1 Mountain Forests: Location, Characteristics and Trends 1

V Kapos, J Rhind, M Edwards, M.F Price and C Ravilious

V Kremsa and S Varela

Case study: Mapping and monitoring biodiversity and

M Castro and M Kappelle

Case study: Monitoring of degraded mountain forests in

T Zawila-Niedzwiecki, M Iracka and E Wisniewska

1.2 Expansion of European mountain forests 19

P Piussi

Case study: Woodland expansion in the Welsh mountains 25

J.E.G Good, J.W Humphrey, D Clough and T.H Thomas

G Grabherr

Case study: Mountain forests, biodiversity and people

M Kappelle and M.E Juárez

N Ndam, J.R Healey, J Acworth and P.G Tchouto

D.L Peterson, S.J Prichard and D McKenzie

1.5 Restoration of Andean forests for conservation

F.O Sarmiento

M Beniston

1.7 Forest decline, air pollution and other anthropogenic

J.L Innes

H Kreutzmann and C Stadel

2.2 Impacts of population increase and economic change

S.J Scherr and S.R Templeton

Case study: Forests of the Usambara Mountains: historical

A.R.S Kaoneka, Y.M Ngaga and G.C Monela

2.3 Mountain women and their forests 103

Atul and Punam

J.D Gurung

P.S Ramakrishnan

Case study: Environmental perception and the sacred in the

V Castro

Case study: Sacred forests in the Sierra Nevada de Santa

G.E Rodríguez Navarro

3 Interdependencies between Mountain and Lowland

El Hadji M Sène

Case study: Creating common interests around Huascaran

Case study: Ecosystem services of forest gardens in Sri Lanka 153

F.L Sinclair and G Hitinayake

3.3 Sustainably balancing downstream and upstream benefits in

P.C Zingari

Case study: Urban sprawl and peri-urban mountain forests inGreece: conflict and co-existence in a quest for survival 161

P.C Xanthopoulos

4 Perceiving and Assuring the Multiple Functions of

A Zanzi Sulli

4.2 The importance of empirical research on public perceptions

and attitudes towards forests for participatory policy

W Zimmermann and F Schmithüsen

4.3 Traditional knowledge, Western science and environmental

A.J Thomson, M.N Jimmie, N.J Turner and D Mitchell

4.4 Approaches to multifunctionality in mountain forests 187

G Buttoud

Case study: Multifunctional use and sustainable management

G.K Solntsev and M.V Pridnya

4.5 Silvicultural problems in subalpine forests in the Alps 197

W Schönenberger

Case study: Multifunctionality in the Fiemme Valley,

S Cattoi, C Pollini and V Tosi

Case study: ‘Close-to-nature’ silviculture in the Italian Alps:

Case study: Quantitative analysis of fragmented landscapepatterns resulting from timber harvesting practices in the

M Shiba

Case study: Designing sustainable mountain landscapes in

A.J Thomson and S.A Akenhead

Case study: Participatory photo-mapping in Nepal 218

R.A Mather

5 Multiple Functions from Mountain Forests I Mountain

H.R Heinimann

Case study: Renaturalization of coppices in the National Park

R Spinelli, R Spinelli and G Fabbri

Case study: Labour costs in the forests of the Alps and

Case study: Planting stock quality and establishment in the

N.J Ledgard and G.C Baker

Case study: Choosing which trees to plant in the Ecuadorian

R.G.M Hofstede, W Jongsma, R Coppus, J.P Groenendijk and J Fehse

6 Multiple Functions from Mountain Forests II Agroforestry

6.1 Agroforestry in sustainable mountain development 270

K Atta-Krah and Tang Ya

Case study: Chagga agroforests on Mount Kilimanjaro,

E.C.M Fernandes

6.2 Improved agroforestry systems for steeplands in the

M.A McDonald, J.R Healey, P.A Stevens and P.V.D Prasad

Case study: Evaluation of trees indigenous to the montaneforest of the Blue Mountains of Jamaica for reforestation and

M.A McDonald and J.R Healey

Case study: Sustainable management of the Himalayan

R.M Singhal, V Kumar and P Kumar

J.E.M Arnold and M Ruiz Pérez

N Ndam and B Ewusi

Case study: Edible herbs and wildflowers in mountain areas of

D.K Lee and G.T Kim

Case study: Production of mountain mushrooms in Korea 310

Y.-C Youn

6.4 The potential of medicinal and aromatic plants for sustainable

T.B Shrestha and S Pokharel

Case study: The potential of bamboo resources in mountainous

M Ruiz Pérez, F Maoyi, B Belcher and Y Xiaosheng

7 Multiple Functions from Mountain Forests III Diverse

S.F McCool and P.R Lachapelle

7.2 Recreation and landscape management impacts in

H Liniger and R Weingartner

7.8 Research, planning and implementation of watershed

H Schreier

Case study: The World Overview of Conservation Approaches

H Liniger

M Aldrich

8 Legislation, Policies and Economic Instruments 399

8.1 The role of forest and environmental legislation in sustainable

F Schmithüsen and W Zimmermann

Case study: The Kyrgryz forestry concept: policy changes for

a multipurpose management of mountain forests in

I Yunusova, A Chingojoiev and G Buttoud

Case study: Mountain forest policies in Austria 413

G Weiss

8.2 European mountain forest policies – a comparative analysis 415

A Ottitsch and G Weiss

R Beck and M Suda

Case study: Payments for watershed services in Costa Rica 428

J.C Calvo

K Thornber

9.1 Evaluation of organizational performance in mountain

9.4 Forests as common property in the Swiss Alps 459

I Kissling-Näf

9.5 Privatization of mountain forest land in countries in

D Pettenella

P Branney and M Hobley

10.2 Participatory monitoring and evaluation for collaborative

P Warren

Case study: Assessment of the wide range of forest productsthrough a simple participatory forest inventory 494

R aus der Beek

Contributors

I.V Abrudan, Faculty of Silviculture and Forest Engineering, 1 Sorul

Beethoven, Brasov-2200, Romania

J Acworth, The Mount Cameroon Project, Limbe Botanic Garden, PO Box

437, Limbe, South West Province, Cameroon

S.A Akenhead, Facet Division Systems, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

M Aldrich, Forests for Life Programme, WWF International, Avenue du

Mont Blanc, 1196 Gland, Switzerland

J.E.M Arnold, 19 Hayward Road, Oxford OX2 8LN, UK

K Atta-Krah, Eastern and Central Africa Regional Programme, ICRAF, PO

Box 30677, Nairobi, Kenya

Atul, Department of Agroforestry and Environment, COA, Himachal Pradesh

Agricultural University, Palampur 176062, India

R aus der Beek, Ekantakuna, Jawalakhel, PO Box 113, Kathmandu, Nepal G.C Baker, Forest Research, Forestry Road, University of Canterbury, Ilam,

Christchurch, New Zealand

R Beck, Technical University of Munich, Am Hochanger 13, 85354

P Branney, 5 Little Road, Edinburgh EH16 6SH, UK

S.R Brechin, School of Natural Resources and Environment, The University

of Michigan, 430 E University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA

G Buttoud, Unité Économie et Politique Agricole et Forestiére, Institut

National de la Recherche Agronomique, 14 Rue Giradet, CS4216-54042, Nancy Cedex, France

J Calvo, Centro Cientifico Tropical, Apartado 8-3870, 1000, San José, Costa

Rica

J Campos, Jose Jaquin Campos, Natural Forest Management Unit, CATIE

7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica

M Castro, Proyecto ECOMAPAS, Institution Nacional de Biodiversidad

(INBio), PO Box 22-3100, Santo Domingo de Heredia, Costa Rica

V Castro, Departmento de Antropología, Facultad de Ceincias Sociales,

Universidad de Chile, Ignacio Carrera Pinto 1045, Nuñoa, Santiago,Chile

S Cattoi, Forest and Range Management Research Institute, 38050

Villazzano, Trento, Italy

A Chingojoiev, First-Deputy Director, State Forest Agency of the

Government of the Kyrgyz Republic, 276 Abdymomunov Street,Bishkek 720033, Kyrgyz Republic

D Clough, Chris Blandford Associates, Archway House, Station Road,

Chester CH1 3DW, UK

R Coppus, Department of Physical Geography and Soil Science, University

of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, 1018 VZ Amsterdam, TheNetherlands

O Dubois, IIED, 3 Endsleigh Streeet, London WC1H 0DD, UK

M Edwards, WCMC, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK

B Ewusi, The Mount Cameroon Project, Limbe Botanic Garden, PO Box 437,

Limbe, South West Province, Cameroon

G Fabbri, CNR-IRL, via Barazzuoli 23, I-50136 Firenze, Italy

L Fé d’Ostiani, FAO/TCOC, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome,

Italy

J Fehse, Department of Physical Geography and Soil Science, University of

Amsterdam, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, 1018 VZ Amsterdam, TheNetherlands

E.C.M Fernandes, Department of Crop and Soil Science, Cornell University,

624 Bradfield Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA

J.E.G Good, Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Bangor Research Unit,

University College of North Wales, Deiniol Road, Bangor, GwyneddLL57 2UP, UK

G Grabherr, Department of Vegetation Ecology and Conservation Biology,

University of Vienna, Althanstraße 14, A-1090 Vienna, Austria

H.M Gregerson, Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota,

St Paul, MN 55108, USA

J.P Groenendijk, Department of Physical Geography and Soil Science,

University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, 1018 VZAmsterdam, The Netherlands

M.R Guariguata, Jose Jaquin Compos, Natural Forest Management Unit,

CATIE 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica

J.D Gurung, International Center for Integrated Mountain Development

(ICIMOD), 4/80 Jawalakhel, PO Box 3226, Kathmandu, Nepal

J.R Healey, Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor,

Gwynedd LL57 2DG, UK

H.R Heinimann, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Forest Engineering

Section, ETH-Zurich, CH-8092, Switzerland

G Hippoliti, Istitudo di Assestamento e Tecnologia Forestale, Via San

Bonaventura 13, 50145 Firenze, Italy

G Hitinayake, Department of Crop Science, University of Peradeniya,

Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

M Hobley, Glebe House, Thorncombe, Chard, Somerset TA20 4PP, UK

T Hofer, FAO, Forest Resources Division, Forestry Department, Viale delle

Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy

R.G.M Hofstede, University of Amsterdam, Proyecto Paramo, Isla

Fernandina, N93-41 y T de Berlanga, Quito, Ecuador

C Howard, Forest House, Tropical Research Consultancy, Barbadoes Hill,

Tintern, Monmouthshire NP16 6SU, UK

J.W Humphrey, Forest Research, Northern Research Station, Roslin,

Midlothian EH25 9SY, UK

J.L Innes, Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia,

Forest Sciences Centre, 2424 Main Hall, Vancouver, British Columbia,V6T 1Z4, Canada

M Iracka, Institute of Geodesy and Cartography, Department of

Cartography, 2/4 Jasna St, 00-950 Warsaw, Poland

M.N Jimmie, Nicola Tribal Association, 2090 Coutlee Avenue, PO Box 188,

Merritt, BC, V1K 1B8, Canada

J.E Johnson, College of Forestry and Wildlife Resources, 324 Cheatham

Hall, Virginia, Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0324, USA

W Jongsma, Department of Physical Geography and Soil Science, University

of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, 1018 VZ Amsterdam, TheNetherlands

A.L Joshi, NARMSAP, PO Box 8713, Babar Mahal, Kathmandu, Nepal M.E Juárez, Proyecto ECOMAPAS, Institution Nacional de Biodiversidad

(INBio), PO Box 22-3100, Santo Domingo de Heredia, Costa Rica

A.R.S Kaoneka, Sokoine University of Agriculture, PO Box 3010,

Morogoro, Tanzania

V Kapos, WCMC, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK

M Kappelle, Proyecto ECOMAPAS, Institution Nacional de Biodiversidad

(INBio), PO Box 22-3100, Santo Domingo de Heredia, Costa Rica

G.T Kim, Department of Forest Resources, College of Agriculture and Life

Sciences, Seoul National University, Suwon 441-744, Republic ofKorea

I Kissling-Näf, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), 8092 Zurich,

N Ledgard, Forest Research, Forestry Road, University of Canterbury, Ilam,

Christchurch, New Zealand

D.K Lee, Department of Forest Resources, College of Agricultural and Life

Sciences, Seoul National University, Suwon, 441-744, Republic ofKorea

H Liniger, Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), Institute of

Geography, University of Bern, Hallerstraße 12, 3012 Bern,Switzerland

F Maoyi, Research Institute of Subtropical Forestry (RISF), Chinese Academy

of Forestry, Fuyang, 311400 Zhejiang, People’s Republic of China

R.A Mather, Forest Products Research Centre, Buckinghamshire Chilterns

University College, Queen Alexandra Road, High Wycombe,Buckinghamshire HP11 2JZ, UK

S.F McCool, School of Forestry, The University of Montana, Missoula, MT

R Motta, Department Agroselviter, University of Turin, 44 Via Leonardo Da

Vinci, 10095 Grugliasco (TO), Italy

N Ndam, The Mount Cameroon Project, Limbe Botanic Garden, PO Box 437,

Limbe, South West Province, Cameroon

S.K Nepal, Centre for Development and Environment, Institute of

Geography, University of Bern, Hallerstrasse 12, 3012 Bern,Switzerland

Y.M Ngaga, Sokoine University of Agriculture, PO Box 3010, Morogoro,

Tanzania

H Omura, Department of Forestry, Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu

University, Fukuoka, 812 8581, Japan

A Ottitsch, Policy Analysis, European Forest Institute, Torikatu 34,

Fin-8010, Joensuu, Finland

S Pandey, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development

(ICIMOD), 4/80 Jawalakhel, PO Box 3226, Kathmandu, Nepal

D.L Peterson, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Box

352100, Seattle, WA 98195-2100, USA

D Pettenella, Dipart Territoriae Sistemi Agro-Forestal, Università di

Padova, Agripolis, I-35020 Legnaro PD, Italy

P Piussi, Istituto di Selvicoltura, Via S Bonaventura, 13, 50145 Firenza,

Italy

S Pokharel, IUCN Nepal, PO Box 3923, Kathmandu, Nepal

C Pollini, Forest and Range Management Research Institute, 28050

Villazzano, Trento, Italy

P.V.D Prasad, Department of Life Sciences, University of the West Indies,

Mona, Kingston 7, Jamaica

J.D Pratt, Mountain Institute, Main and Dogwood Streets, PO Box 907,

Franklin, WV 26807, USA

M.F Price, Director, Centre for Mountain Studies, Perth College, University

of the Highlands and Islands, Crieff Road, Perth PH1 2NX, UK

S.J Prichard, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle,

WA 98195, USA

M.V Pridnya, Research Institute of Mountain Forestry and Forest Ecology,

Russian Federal Forest Service, 74 Str Kurotnyi Prospekt, KrasnodarRegion (Kray), Sochi 354002, Russia

U Pröbstl, Freie Landshaftsarchitekin, BDLA, St Andra-Strasse 8, 82398,

Etting-Polling, Germany

Punam, Department of Agroforestry and Environment, COA, Himachal

Pradesh Agricultural University, Palampur, 176062, India

P.S Ramakrishnan, School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru

University, New Delhi, 110067, India

C Ravilious, WCMC, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK

F Reimoser, Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology, Vienna Veterinary

University, Savoyenstrasse 1, A-1160 Vienna, Austria

J Rhind, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Room G33, Nobel

House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR, UK

K Rijal, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development

(ICIMOD), PO Box 3226, Jawalakhel, Kathmandu, Nepal

G.E Rodríguez Navarro, Fundación Pro-Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta,

Calle 17, No 3-83, Santa Marta, Magdalena, Colombia

M Ruiz Pérez, Departmento de Ecologia, Facultad de Ceincias-Edificio

Biológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain

F.O Sarmiento, Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, The

University of Georgia, Room G40, Baldwin Hall, Athens, GA30602-1619, USA

S.J Scherr, Agricultural and Resources Department, 2200 Symons Hall,

University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA

F Schmithüsen, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETHZ), CH 8092,

Zurich, Switzerland

W Schönenberger, Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape

Research, CH 8903, Birmensdorf, Switzerland

H Schreier, Institute for Resources and Environment, University of British

Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

W Sekot, Universität für Bodenkultur, Gregor Mendel Strasse 33, A-1180,

Wien, Austria

E.H.M Sène, Forest Resources Division, Forestry Department, FAO, Viale

delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy

M Shiba, Forest Information and Resource Management Science, Graduate

School of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Kitashirakawa, Oiwake-cyo,Sakyo-ku, 606-8502 Kyoto, Japan

T.B Shrestha, IUCN Nepal, PO Box 3923, Kathmandu, Nepal

F.L Sinclair, Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor,

Gwynedd LL57 2DG, UK

R.M Singhal, Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, PO Box

New Forest, Dehradun, 248006, India

G.K Solntsev, Research Institute of Mountain Forestry and Forest Ecology,

Russian Federal Forest Service, 74 Str Kurortnyi Prospekt, KrasnodarRegion (Kray), Sochi, 354002, Russia

R Spinelli, CNR-IRL, via Barazzuoli 23, I-50136 Firenze, Italy

C Stadel, Institut für Geographie und Angewandte Geoinformatik,

Universität Salzburg, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria

P.A Stevens, Department of Life Sciences, University of the West Indies,

Mona, Kingston 7, Jamaica

M Suda, Technical University of Munich, Am Hochanger 13, 85354

Freising, Germany

P.G Tchouto, The Mount Cameroon Project, Limbe Botanic Garden, PO Box

437, Limbe, South West Province, Cameroon

S.R Templeton, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics and

Policy, 207 Gianni Hall, MCH 3310, University of California, USA

T.H Thomas, Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor,

Gwynedd LL57 2DG, UK

A.J Thomson, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, 506 West

Burnside Road, Victoria, British Columbia, V8Z 1M5, Canada

K Thornber, International Institute for Environment (IIED), 3 Endsleigh

Street, London WC1H 0DD, UK

G Torta, Viale A Volta, 81-50122 Florence, Italy

V Tosi, Forest and Range Management Research Institute, 38050

Villazzano, Trento, Italy

N.J Turner, School of Environmental Studies, Box 1700, University of

Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 2Y2, Canada

S Varela, Ministry of the Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries,

Mexico

P Warren, Via Gratia Deledda 100, 00137 Rome, Italy

R Weingartner, Group for Hydrology, Institute of Geography, University of

Bern, Hallerstrasse 12, 3012 Bern, Switzerland

G Weiss, Institute of Forest Sector Policy and Economics, Universität für

Bodenkultur Wien, Gregor Mendel Strasse 33, A-1180, Vienna, Austria

E Wisniewska, Institute of Geodesy and Cartography, Department of

Cartography, 2/4 Jasna St, 00-950 Warsaw, Poland

P.C Xanthopoulos, Economic and Regional Development Department,

Panteion University, Athens, Greece

Y Xiaosheng, Research Institute of Subtropical Forestry (RISF), Chinese

Academy of Forestry, Fuyang, 311400 Zhejiang, People’s Republic ofChina

T Ya, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD),

4/80 Jawalakhel, PO Box 3226, Kathmandu, Nepal

Y.C Youn, Department of Forest Resources, Seoul National University,

Suwon, 441-744, Republic of Korea

I Yunusova, Kyrgyz–Swiss Forestry Support Programme, Forest Institute,

PO Box 2011, Bishkek 720000, Kyrgyz Republic

A Zanzi Sulli, DEEAF, Piazza delle Cascine 18, 50144 Florence, Italy

T Zawila-Niedzwiecki, Institute of Geodesy and Cartography, Department

of Cartography, 2/4 Jasna St, 00 950 Warsaw, Poland

W Zimmermann, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETHZ), CH-8092

Zurich, Switzerland

P.C Zingari, European Observatory of Mountain Forests, Les Thermes,

F-73230 Saint Jean d’Arvey, France

Foreword: Linking mountain forests

conservation with sustainable human development

For aeons, mountains, particularly those covered in deep forest, have ated an aura of hidden power, mysticism and spiritual authority on humanlife As a multidimensional landscape, their towering features are believed tocontrol human welfare Even now, many believe that these ancient percep-tions are real This was demonstrated by the inclusion of mountains in Agenda

gener-21 of the 1992 Earth Summit While this blueprint for sustainable humandevelopment recognized that mountain forests play a central role in providinggoods and services for the benefit of humankind, there is a paucity of targetedresearch and empirical data demonstrating tangible links between mountainforest conservation and sustainable human development

The problem

Japan, South Korea, Sweden and Finland are among the countries where forestconservation is most intimately linked with economic development, yet nearly60–80% of their surface area is forested, in contrast with the world average ofless than 27% In these four countries, both tangible and intangible values offorests have been integrated into forest policies and plans Consequently, forestcover has not diminished here Natural forest in most of the world is shrinking

as forestry management, particularly extraction of indigenous species, hasnot been sustainable Global loss of forest cover is forecasted to be between

16 million and 20 million ha in the next two decades (Palo and Uusivuori,1999) These observations raise the question: Can the forestry policies and

practices in Japan, Korea, Sweden and Finland be replicated elsewhere indeveloping countries? Are these options practical and pragmatic in poordeveloping mountainous countries with limited capacity? These questions willremain largely theoretical unless the developing countries follow the examples

of these four countries They too must orient forestry research and practices

to respond to national priorities and paradigms with agendas based not onrhetoric but on harsh realities

Japan, Korea, Sweden and Finland have demonstrated that good sciencecoupled with good economics and pragmatic politics, can be effective in linkingmountain forests with sustainable human development It would be risible toassume otherwise merely because international donors and NGOs makeclarion calls for ‘sustainable development’ as a panacea for developingcountries’ problems

Sustainable development vs sustainable use

While ‘sustainable development’ was the buzzword of the 1990s, it meansdifferent things to different people, particularly when ethical values, culturaland religious beliefs rather than economic parameters are considered Theparameters and tools used to measure sustainable development have been atbest ‘creatively vague’ Consequently, developing country planners often findthe difference between ‘normal’ development and ‘sustainable development’ isblurred, particularly when addressing issues related to health, education,poverty, unemployment and underemployment Without clearly definedoperational parameters, time frames and verifiable time-sensitive indicators,these discussions will remain largely hypothetical

In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Developmentdefined sustainable development as ‘the ability to meet the needs of the presentwithout compromising the ability of future generations to meet their ownneeds’ (WCED, 1987) Consequently, sustainable development has often beenequated with sustainable use Sustainable use is more complex in mountainforests than the lowlands In the mountains, the non-timber value of forests forthe goods and services they render may often exceed the commercial value

of exploitation of forest produce It is thus necessary to review the role ofmountain forests holistically, in the context of sustainable use of the ecosystemrather than sustainable use of forest produce

Use-it-or-lose-it vs no-use-is-best-use

Recently, sustainable use has triggered debates among economists, ecologistsand natural resource managers These debates can be generalized in two

categories Firstly, the Use-it-or-lose-it mantra; secondly, the

No-use-is-the-best-use paradigm Nowhere is this epitomized more than by mountain forests.

Proponents of Use-it-or-lose-it preach that only tangible market-based

usage provides the best options to link forest conservation with sustainabledevelopment; they have faith in market-based incentives to resolve the

problems In contrast, supporters of No-use-is-the-best-use claim that

non-tangible benefits, and the services provided by mountain forest in sustainingclean air and clean water, and their role in controlling land degradation andenvironmental pollution, outweigh any financial value They question thepracticality of attaching a market value to the non-marketable goods andservices of mountain forests They also challenge the morality of attaching aprice tag to ethical and spiritual values of ‘Mother Nature’

Strategic options for the next millennium

The role of mountain forests in protecting soil and water supplies, maintainingrainfall, tourism development, providing water and energy, holding worldbiodiversity, ethical values and spiritual needs, has been greatly amplified(Messerli and Ives, 1997) However, few of these prescriptions have beentranslated into concrete action Mountain ecosystems in general do not ratehigh in the priority list of development aid agencies and governments exceptfor a handful of accessible or tourism sites This will remain largely unchangedunless the linkages between mountain forest conservation and sustainabledevelopment can be empirically demonstrated with science-based facts andfigures

Strategic options for targeted research and development must be site- andobjective-specific Five strategic options could be optimized to link mountainforest conservation with sustainable human development, as described below

Link mountain forest conservation with potable water supply

Water gives life – mountain ecosystems are water reservoirs for civilization Aunique feature of mountain forests is that they harvest a significant amount ofwater in the clouds engulfing them; forest canopies continually trap moisturefrom the clouds Consequently, they regulate precipitation and evaporationrates and control the water supply Forest felling in the mountains changes notonly the volume but also the distribution of water in the lowlands

The state of New York provides a good example of linking highland forestswith lowland water supply; although 200 km from New York, large areas ofthe Catskill Mountains are preserved solely to protect the water source.Government law prohibits any resource harvesting This is akin to forestprotection on the southern slopes of Langtang–Gosikunda–Helembu in order

to assure water supply to the burgeoning population and water deficient city ofKathmandu, yet engineers and development planners who have designedmultimillion dollar schemes to harvest water in Melamche in the Gosikunda–Helembu axis have largely ignored this linkage.

Link mountain forests with soil and water conservation, prevention of land degradation and hydrological benefits

The assumed linkages between deforestation in the highland with water-flowreductions in the lowland are not new Greek philosophers as far back as in

400BCbelieved that loss of hillside forests reduced the availability of spring andground water, yet there is a dearth of scientific research to substantiate theseassumptions It is claimed that lack of forest litter and undergrowth (ratherthan lack of canopy) are the key factors triggering erosion, but also believedthat it is not tree removal itself, but the methods of extraction that triggermassive erosion

A few studies have linked deposits of eroded materials and river-bornesediments with reducing the benefits accrued by dams, hydropower, irrigationand flood control devices The global cost of loss of reservoir capacity isestimated to be US$6 billion per annum (Mahmood, 1987) However, there isonly a handful of studies that provide any hard data on the economic impacts

of upland forestry practices on dam performance A large effort is needed toconvince decision-makers to take the issues seriously

Link mountain forest conservation with climate change

In the later part of the 20th century, climate change became a popular topic ofconcern The causes and consequences of climate change recognize no politi-cal boundary; mitigation measures are recognized as their ‘common future’ forboth developed and developing countries

While the 1997 Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework tion on Climate Change specifically recognizes the role of forests in combatingglobal warming, scientific data linking climate change with mountain forests

Conven-is grossly inadequate Price and Barry (1997) have reviewed the relationshipsand gaps in research in linking climate change and mountain ecosystems.More targeted research is needed to substantiate the intrinsic value of moun-tain forests with regard to climate change, particularly as carbon sinks

Link mountain forest conservation with sustainable tourism

Tourism is the world’s largest industry Mountain tourism, particularly in theHimalayas and the Andes, has the highest growth rates In the past, much

attention has been paid to the negative impacts of tourism on the forests,particularly in the Himalayas.

The criticisms stemming from tourism impacts on forests and culture areoften voiced by outsiders, mostly anthropologists and environmentalists,rarely by residents The residents see tourism as source to supplement theirlivelihood and escape from poverty The Annapurna and Sagarmatha (MtEverest) basins in Nepal clearly demonstrate that despite criticism and con-cerns of its impacts on forest and local culture, mountain tourism is notwaning, but increasing Procrastination by a few outsiders will not drivetourism away; the efforts of targeted research in the mountain forests shouldnot now be geared only towards looking at the negative aspects of tourism, butshould be turned around to investigate the mitigation and positive aspects,particularly on how to manage tourism and orient it towards sustainabledevelopment

Link mountain forest with biodiversity benefits

Mountain forests are a repository for the world’s highly significant species,ecosystems and genetic material; half of the world’s 90,000 species of higher

plants in the neotropics are found in the montane zone (Churchill et al., 1995).

The total number of plant species in the Himalayas alone is estimated to be over25,000 In addition, the forests and grasslands in the same region areestimated to harbour 75,000 species of insects and invertebrates and morethan 1200 species of mammals and birds Mountain forests are also home tomany of the world’s endemic species, and species of high value for pharma-ceutical and agricultural industries

The rationale for conserving biodiversity has been extensively described(UNEP, 1995) Direct consumptive economic benefits stem from their use forfood, fodder and medicinal plants, mostly critical to modern pharmaceuticaland agro-based industries The value of mountain forest biodiversity to servicehumankind has not been fully realized – an inventory of medicinal andaromatic plants, and other species, in the world’s mountain forests is lacking.Though more than 100 million people in and around the Himalayas usetraditional medicine, applied research in ethnobotanical studies is scarce Gaps

in scientific research have promoted inconsistencies in policy and practice onconservation and sustainable use They have also been detrimental to themountain communities by directly affecting their incomes (Olsen and Helles,1997)

Today, the forests in developed and industrialized countries seem to be ing In contrast, the developing countries, particularly the tropical countries,are losing 14 million ha of forests annually (FAO, 1997a) In developedcountries, the relationship between good science and sustainable development

expand-has been essential in linking forestry with economic growth and quality oflife Unless forestry research can produce a clear and simple picture thatconcomitantly links good forestry practices in mountain ecosystems withsustainable human development, the fate of mountain forests in developingcountries is, at best, uncertain.

Nearly a decade has passed since the Earth Summit adopted mountainecosystems, yet progress is not satisfactory With the probable exception of afew such as Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Centre forIntegrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) and some research orientedbodies and NGOs, most governments and development aid agencies have onlypaid lip service to the mountain ecosystems chapter (Chapter 13) of Agenda

21 The GEF has developed an operational programme specifically targeted atmountain ecosystems This operational programme embodies cross-cuttingglobal themes for sustainable development, as outlined in Chapter 13 ofAgenda 21, as it links conservation of mountain forests and biodiversitywith socio-economic development goals It has also provided more thanUS$60 million to assist developing countries and countries in transition forconservation and sustainable use of mountain ecosystems The GEF is only one

of the players – it cannot face all of the emerging challenges alone

The challenges include: How to conserve and manage dwindlingmountain forest resources in a sea of conflicting resource consumption andland-use practices? How to integrate traditional practices and cultural values

in forest conservation with economic growth? How to fulfil the needs of manydiverse players and stakeholders when all sectors seek preferential treatment?How to garner public support and acceptance for sustainable development,which by nature is long term? How to resolve conflicts without imposing thetop-heavy command and control approaches prevalent today? How to findfunds for research and development, and how to implement their findings?

It has often been said that linking forest conservation with sustainablehuman development is not science but politics; it is an art – an art of thepossible This art of the possible also requires an ability to distinguish betweenwhat is desirable and what is practicable Good science and good research havebeen the foundation of successful programmes The art of linking mountainforest conservation with sustainable development is no exception to this rule.These five areas provide some viable strategic options for the new millennium.But the outcomes of these science-based practices must not only be tangibleand visible; they must also be ecologically sustainable, politically palatable andeconomically viable

Hemanta R MishraGlobal Environment Facility Secretariat, World Bank,

Washington, DC 20433, USA

Preface

In 1996, the Executive Board of the International Union of Forestry ResearchOrganizations (IUFRO) established a Task Force on Forests in SustainableMountain Development This report is the primary output of the Task Force,which concludes its work at the IUFRO Congress 2000 Its terms of referencerecognize that it should build on four linked trends:

1. A widespread shift in the science and practice of forestry, from emphasis

on the production of wood towards management based on recognition thatforests serve multiple functions and produce a wide range of outputs (as recog-nized in many recent actions and initiatives, including those relating to thework of the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests);

2. Changing expectations regarding the roles of mountain forests amongpopulations around the world, in an increasingly urbanized global society;

3. Rapid rates of change, both perceived and measured, in the cover and uses

of forests and adjacent ecosystems in mountains around the world;

4. The growing recognition of the global importance of mountain regionsand their inhabitants, underlined by the inclusion of a chapter (Chapter13: Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Sustainable Mountain Development)

in ‘Agenda 21’, which notes the central role of mountain people inmanaging mountain resources and the importance of integrated watershedmanagement

With respect to the roles of forests in the sustainable development of mountainareas, the general objectives of the Task Force were to:

1. Advise IUFRO’s Executive Board on current issues, initiatives, andresearch needs;

2. Provide a framework for developing and strengthening linkages, bothwithin the IUFRO membership and between the membership and otherrelevant organizations and initiatives

Initial activities of the Task Force included developing a database of activeindividuals and a side meeting at the World Forestry Congress, held inAntalya, Turkey, in October 1997 (see http://iufro.boku.ac.at/iufro/taskforce/tffmd/evtffmd.htm) Together with these activities, it is hoped thatthis report goes a considerable way towards achieving the objectives of theTask Force It should be realized, however, that the report does not provide anexhaustive overview of all of the highly diverse range of topics which itconsiders; particularly for general background on sustainable development in

mountain regions, the reader is directed to Mountains of the World: a Global

Priority (Messerli and Ives, 1997) Another major recent publication is the

proceedings of IUFRO’s Inter-divisional conference on ‘Forest ecosystem andland use in mountain areas’, held in Seoul, Korea, in October 1998 (KoreanForestry Society, 1998)

The authors of the 91 contributions to this report come from a very diverserange of backgrounds, and I am grateful to each of them for their time, energyand willingness to be flexible For some topics, authors have been able toprovide a comprehensive overview at the global scale For others, an overview

is provided at a regional or country scale Other authors have provided casestudies which illustrate topics at local to national scales This approach wastaken in recognition that a comprehensive global overview of all the relevanttopics is probably not possible at present; in addition, a secondary aim was toensure reasonable representation within the authorship – and the topicsconsidered – from different parts of the world The need for such a diversity of

authors has been noted as a problem with Mountains of the World: a Global

Priority, which was largely written by male authors from Western Europe and

North America However, given the relative availability of literature resourcesand the variation in scientific cultures across the world, the principle ofdiversity may in some cases have led to a less developed treatment of an issuethan might be expected

Each author was asked to include the following elements in her or hiscontribution:

1. Why we need to know (i.e importance of topic vis-à-vis the roles of forests

in sustainable development in mountain regions);

2. What we know (e.g results of research);

3. How we know (e.g methodology);

4. What we need to know (e.g missing information or data, importance ofgaps in information or data; or insufficient research activities in certain places

or on certain sub-topics);

5. What next (e.g desirable future research or other activities)

Most authors attempted to answer these questions – or were asked to do so,after review of their initial contributions – and the recommendations for futureaction deriving from the answers to the last two questions may be used todefine priorities for future research and action, as discussed in the intro-ductions to each of the ten sections of the report

The selection of authors and the structure of the report were developed asfollows, with the help of a number of people whose assistance is gratefullyacknowledged A review of recent literature was undertaken in summer 1998

by Mark Dwyer This was then used as the basis for a first draft table ofcontents, including potential authors of papers, prepared by Thomas Mather.This, and a series of later drafts, were circulated among members of the FAOForestry Department, the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests, the IUFROTask Force, the Mountain Institute, and the Swiss Agency for Developmentand Cooperation, who commented on the structure and contents andsuggested potential authors I am particularly grateful to Elizabeth Byers,Larry Hamilton, Christian Küchli, Mette Løyche Wilkie, Uli Lutz, DougMcGuire, Tage Michaelsen, Jane Pratt, Pietro Piussi and El Hadji Sène for theirassistance in this phase and later in the preparation of the report All of thiswork was done on a voluntary basis; however, the process of contactingauthors, commissioning contributions, editing and compilation requiredsignificant funding I am very grateful to the following agencies for theirfinancial contributions to the eventual production and dissemination of thereport: the Department for International Development (UK), the Swiss Agencyfor Development and Cooperation, the Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations, and the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Theirassistance permitted me to employ Nathalie Butt to assist in all aspects ofpreparing the report, and I would like to record my great appreciation for herpatience, efficiency and hard work in ensuring its eventual smooth delivery –especially after her computer crashed just before the manuscript wascompleted Finally, I would like to thank Jeff Burley, President of IUFRO, forgiving me the opportunity to coordinate the Task Force, and Tim Hardwick

of CAB International, for his support during all phases leading up to the

publication of this report

Martin F PriceOxford, December 1999

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

CATIE Centre Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza

CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

CIFOR Centre for International Forestry Research

CNR Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Italy

CONDESAN Consorcio para el Desarollo Sostenible de la Ecorregión

Andina

COST European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical

Research

DFID Department for International Development

ETHZ Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich

FAIR The EC specific programme for Research, Technological

Development and Demonstration in the Field of Agricultureand Fisheries

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN

FDF Forestry Development Fund, Costa Rica

FECOFUN Federation of Community Forest Groups of Nepal

FNCFF National Federation of Forest Communes, France

FONDECYT National Fund of Science and Technology, Chile

HIFCOM Hindu Kush–Himalayan Forum for Forest Conservation

ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development

ICRAF International Centre for Research on Agroforestry

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

IIED International Institute for Environment and Development

ILRI International Livestock Research Institute

INBAR International Network on Bamboo and Rattan

INBio National Biodiversity Institute, Costa Rica

INEF International Network on Ethnoforestry

INGO international non-governmental organization

ISO International Organization for Standardization

ITE Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, UK

ITTO International Tropical Timber Organization

LIFE L’Investissement Financier pour l’Environment (EC)

MINAE Ministry of Environment and Energy, Costa Rica

NUKCFP Nepal–UK Community Forestry Project

ONF Office National des Forêts, France

PEFC Pan-European Forest Certification Scheme

SEEA System of Integrated Economic and Environmental

Accounting

UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and

Development

UNCSD United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

Organization

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

US-EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

WECS Water and Energy Commission Secretariat, Nepal

Mountain Forests: Location, Characteristics and Trends

Chapter 1

1

Mountain Forests: Location,

Characteristics and Trends

The principal focus of this report is on the world’s mountain forests However,until now there has been no clear definition of where these forests are.Consequently, as part of the funding for the report from the Swiss Agency forDevelopment and Cooperation, a map of the world’s mountain forests wascommissioned from the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) The

process of developing the map is described in the first section, by Kapos et al It

shows that, globally, there are about 9 million km2of mountain forest: 28% ofthe total global forest area However, while based on consistent data, this result

is preliminary, and further research could be valuable to refine the approach,particularly at regional and national scales

The other contributions in Chapter 1 provide the broad context for the rest

of the report, primarily from a biophysical viewpoint, but also referring tohuman populations as they interact with mountain forests in various ways.Three case studies continue the theme of mapping and monitoring mountainforests at national and regional scales: Kremsa and Varela describe themapping of Mexico’s forests; Castro and Kapelle discuss the development of ageographic information system (GIS) focusing on the biodiversity resources of

Costa Rica; and Zawila-Niedzwiecki et al present the results of a detailed study

of the decline of mountain forests in Central Europe using remote sensing All

of these case studies show that it is essential to combine a wide variety ofdata and information sources to characterize mountain environments, asnoted in the only book to focus on GIS and mountain environments (Price andHeywood, 1994) Particularly in terrain whose high topographic complexity

is overlain with a remarkable variety of ecosystems and changing land usepatterns – and where cloud cover is frequent – data from the interpretation of

CAB International 2000 Forests in Sustainable Mountain Development

remotely sensed images and aerial photographs must always be combinedwith ground surveys and map interpretation to deliver products that aremeaningful and useful However, when this is done in a GIS, this can become

an irreplaceable means for aiding understanding, management and making

decision-As noted by Sène in this volume (page 138), FAO’s Forest ResourcesAssessment (FRA) unit is beginning to give special attention to trends in thestatus of mountain forests Data from the previous FRA (FAO, 1993b) showedthat tropical upland forests were disappearing at a greater rate than forests inany other biome: 1.1% per year The forthcoming assessment will showwhether this rate has increased or decreased; and deforestation continues inmany tropical regions due to a complex combination of economic, political anddemographic factors However, the pattern is rather different throughoutmuch of the temperate zone, where the area and/or the density of mountainforests is generally stable or increasing Piussi describes the process of sponta-neous reforestation in Europe, noting that its principal cause is land abandon-ment by farmers and shepherds; and that this is not a new phenomenon,having occurred during previous phases of depopulation, such as wars andplagues Another cause of an expansion of forest area is plantations, as

described by Good et al in their case study on the Welsh mountains Mountain

forests are also increasing in area and/or density in Japan, Korea and NorthAmerica, again primarily because of changing economic forces and/or depop-ulation Given the widespread nature of this phenomenon, research is needed

on a number of topics From the biophysical side, these include the need tobetter understand the dynamics of ecological processes and the impacts ofchanging forest cover and composition on water flows and erosion Research

is needed on best practices for establishment (for afforestation, rather thanspontaneous reforestation), management and marketing of forest products.The interactions of ecological and societal forces also need to be better under-stood, in order to determine which areas should be allowed to return to forest,

or planted, in relation to societal values and goals

Among the central values of mountain forests is their rich biodiversity.Grabherr notes that mountains are biodiversity hotspots, and provides anoverview of the various factors that make them so Kappelle and Juárez provide

an overview of one of these hotspots – Costa Rica – detailing research activitiesand needs, the designation and roles of protected areas, and the societal values

of these forests Ndam et al discuss the issues affecting Mount Cameroon,

one of the most biodiverse parts of Africa These three contributions make itclear that the conservation of biodiversity is a long-term process that must beimplemented with the full involvement of local people, and must not be based

on purely scientific justifications However, as Grabherr states, knowledgeregarding the biodiversity of mountain forests is scattered There are major

gaps with regard to almost every aspect, from inventory and description,

to understanding and prioritising human uses, and predicting the potentialimpacts of climate change While a Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessmenthas recently been started by Diversitas, in partnership with the InternationalGeosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) and Swiss organizations (http://www.unibas.ch/gmba/), this only focuses on the ecosystems from the uppermontane forest upwards A coordinated effort is also needed to address thediverse aspects of mountain forest biodiversity

One characteristic of mountain ecosystems is that they are particularlydynamic in both space and time Major disturbances may only occurinfrequently, but have significant influences on forest ecosystems Peterson

et al outline the three most common ‘natural’ types of disturbance – fire,

wind and geomorphic – and note their interactions both with other types

of ecological processes and with human activities Moving on from thisglobal overview, Sarmiento discusses the history of ‘natural’ and humandisturbance of Andean forests, and the needs and means for their restoration.Both of these papers stress the importance of bringing together a wide range

of players – research scientists, foresters, engineers, local communities, ernmental bodies – in all aspects of research, decision-making and programmeimplementation, and that much research is needed to better understandprocesses of disturbance and restoration at all temporal and spatial scales.Sarmiento also calls for specific legislation and policies to foster restoration

gov-of degraded ecosystems; an issue discussed particularly in Chapter 8 gov-of thisreport

Peterson et al note that global climate change and air pollution may

be considered as particular types of anthropogenic disturbance, and that, overthe time scale of decades to centuries, global climate change may be the mostsignificant agent of change in many of the world’s mountain ecosystems.These two major issues for the future are considered in papers by Benistonand Innes Beniston begins by stressing the importance of the interannual andintra-annual variability of climate, and particularly extreme events, formountain forests He traces recent research on climatic variability, long-termclimatic changes and extreme events in the mountains of Europe and else-where, and presents modelling approaches developed to try to understand thepotential responses of forests to climate change Innes delves in greater detailinto the responses of forests to both air pollution and climate change, under-lining the fact that species respond individually to environmental change, andthat most studies of such responses have considered the impacts of only onetype of change on mountain forests Both authors identify major areas forexperimental research, field studies, monitoring, and modelling, all with theultimate aim of providing usable multidisciplinary information for decision-making for sustainable management

1.1 Developing a map of the world’s mountain forests

V Kapos, J Rhind, M Edwards, M.F Price and C Ravilious

The many contributions in this book consider the diverse roles of mountainforests in relation to sustainable development To provide a global context forthese contributions, it is first necessary to define the locations and types ofmountain forests

The first global digital map of forests was published by the World vation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) in 1996, but this did not identify mountainforests While subsequent versions did identify some mountain forests based onclassifications in the source data, coverage of these important ecosystems wasnot consistent Global forest data are constantly being updated both at WCMCand through remote sensing programmes (e.g US Geological Survey’s EROSData Centre in collaboration with FAO and WCMC), but explicitly identifyingmountain forests in a globally consistent manner is not at present included inany of these efforts

Conser-In this paper, we present the approach taken by WCMC to generating amap of the distribution of the world’s mountain forests This required us todefine and map mountains in a manner that could be used to identify thesubset of the world’s forests that fill the important roles and characteristics ofmountain forests

1.1.1 Defining mountains

In the extensive literature on mountains that has developed in recentyears there has been a distinct reluctance to produce a concise definition ofmountains or mountain areas Although this is to some degree justified by thestatement that mountains are defined by local perceptions, it is not helpful inproviding a global overview of mountains in a geographical context Gerrard(1990) noted that ‘Numerous definitions of what constitutes a mountainhave been proposed, but mountains are extremely diverse landforms and ithas proved difficult to achieve consistency in description and analysis Severalcriteria have been used, such as elevation, volume, relief, and steepness, as well

as spacing and continuity’ A recent map of ‘Mountains and highlands ofthe world’ in Messerli and Ives (1997) used altitude as its only criterion, and asdiscussed below, highlights large areas of mid-elevation plateau that cannotreally be considered mountainous, while failing to distinguish low mountainareas It neither substantiates nor provides an alternative to the often-citedstatistic of 20% of the globe being mountainous (Louis, 1975); a statistic usedless often is that of Fairbridge (1968), who estimated that 36% of the Earth’sland area is composed of mountains, highlands and hill country

The agreed components in defining mountains are (relative) altitudeand steep slopes, which combine to generate environmental gradients and

‘high energy’ unstable environments (Ives et al., 1997) It is difficult to select

a specific threshold altitude for defining mountains While there is littledispute that very high elevations are mountain environments, and humanphysiology is affected by changes in atmospheric oxygen levels at elevationsabove about 2500 m (Houston, 1964), there are a number of recognizedmountain areas at rather low elevations Using simple altitude thresholdsboth excludes older and lower mountain systems, such as the Appalachiansand the Urals, and includes areas of relatively high elevation that have littletopographic relief and few environmental gradients, such as the US state ofKansas and the East African Rift Valley, which are largely above 1500 m.Using slope as a criterion on its own or in combination with altitude canresolve the latter problem, but not the former Steep slopes are a feature ofyoung mountain systems, but older mountains are characterized by moregentle topography

It is also difficult to link these physical parameters to ecological variation

in any simple fashion The effect of altitude on natural vegetation varies withlatitude, continentality and size of the mountain mass A number of reviewsaddress the issues of what factors determine the altitude of timberline, theupper limit of forest growth, which varies from below 500 m at high latitudes

to nearly 5000 m near the equator (Troll, 1973; Tranquillini, 1979;Holtmeier, 1994) However, the variation at any given latitude is also large,for example 1100–2500 m at 44° N Lower limits to biological variationassociated with mountains are also difficult to pinpoint In recent vegetationmapping efforts in Central America, a regional committee of experts agreedthat montane forest formations can usually be identified by a loweraltitudinal threshold of 1000–1200 m and premontane vegetation by limits of500–700 m However, it is well recognized that isolated mountains and smallmountain masses in the same region have a much-compressed zonation ofvegetation due to a tropical version of the Massenerhebung effect (Grubb,1977)

Another previous area of study has been to identify mountain protectedareas (Thorsell and Harrison, 1992) This approach used both a minimumaltitude threshold (1000 m) and total elevation range (1500 m) to identifythese areas These criteria were useful for limiting the number of protectedareas under consideration, but excluded a number of mountain areas ofconsiderable importance

In the present study, we used digital data on elevation and forest cover,first to define mountain areas by empirically testing combinations of elevation,slope and local elevation range, and subsequently to identify forest coveroccurring in mountain areas

1.1.2 Data and Methods

Digital elevation model (DEM)

GTOPO30 is a global digital elevation model (DEM) with a horizontal gridspacing of 30 arc seconds (approximately 1 km) GTOPO30 was derived fromseveral raster and vector sources of topographic information GTOPO30,completed in late 1996, was developed over a 3-year period through acollaborative effort led by staff at the US Geological Survey’s EROS DataCentre We used ARC-INFO and this dataset both to identify the location ofareas above particular altitudes and to generate grids containing the followingparameters:

• Slope – this is calculated by fitting a plane to a nine-cell grid centred on thetarget cell and using trigonometric relations to calculate the plane’s slopeangle, which is then assigned as the slope of the target cell

• Local elevation range – by defining a radius of interest around each gridcell it is possible to measure the maximum and minimum elevation within

a particular neighbourhood, and their difference This enables one toidentify areas that occur in regions with significant relief, even thoughelevations may not be especially high, and conversely high-elevationareas with little local relief

Forest data

In recent years, WCMC has compiled digital maps of global forest cover

by drawing together data from a variety of national and international

sources These include: the WWF World Forest Map (WCMC, 1996); the data compiled for the CD-ROM, A Global Overview of Forest Conservation

(WCMC, 1997a); and the updated version included in the final report ofthe World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development (1999).The data used in this analysis are a further update, version 3, in whichforest cover in the early 1990s (on average) is mapped in a total of 26temperate and tropical classes at a nominal resolution of 1 km The classesare principally closed forests (canopy cover >30%), with the exception ofthe ‘sparse trees and parkland’ classes, which represent open forests and

woodlands with a canopy cover of 10–30% (Iremonger et al., 1997) The

sources of the data are predominantly satellite remote sensing, but a widerange of national sources and biological information were used to produce thisdataset Full source information for the forest data can be obtained fromWCMC

Defining mountains

We combined the parameters derived from the DEM iteratively, starting from anumber of first principles Firstly we used 2500 m, the threshold above whichhuman physiology is affected by oxygen depletion, as a limit above which anyenvironment at all would be considered mountainous Secondly, we consid-ered that at middle elevations, some degree of slope was a necessary feature ofmountainous terrain, and that slopes should be steeper at lower elevations Weused empirical testing to select a slope criterion that was effective in excludingmid-elevation plateaux like those in Kansas and East Africa Finally, weexamined local elevation range as a way of including low-elevation and oldermountains of regional significance without designating all areas at theseelevations as mountains The local elevation range was evaluated for a five-cell (or 7 km) radius around the target cell

Identifying mountain forests

Although some of the source data on forests include explicit identification ofmontane forests, many of the other sources used in the WCMC global forestdataset do not Therefore, the forest data with a simplified classification wereoverlaid on the mountains map so that forests of all classes occurring inmountain areas could be identified in a consistent manner

1.1.3 Results

The analytical approach described above led us to identify six classes of

moun-tain area as shown in the insert map, Mounmoun-tain Areas of the World – 2000.

The upper three classes are delimited purely by elevation: 2500–3499 m;3500–4499 m and≥4500 m Land between 1500 m and 2499 m is classed asmountain if it slopes more than 2°; this threshold proved to be appropriate foreliminating mid-elevation plateaux Between 1000 m and 1499 m, land thateither surpasses a steeper slope threshold of 5°, or has a local elevation range

of 300 m or more, is classified as mountain Between 300 m and 999 m, landwas classed as mountainous if the local elevation range was 300 m or more.Finally a spatial filter was applied that reclassified isolated ‘non-mountain’grid cells in mountain areas according to the predominant class among theimmediate neighbours

The map shows clearly the major high-altitude mountain ranges of theworld and equally clearly the lower, gently sloping older mountain ranges,such as the Urals, the Appalachians and the Atlantic Highlands of Brazil.Mountains such as the Rwenzori that rise from mid-elevation plateaux are