Sustaining Tropical Forest Resources: U.S.and International Institutions

May 1983

NTIS order #PB84-104058

I::>U::>I'AIININlr, TROPICAL RESOURCES

BACKCROUND rAru II

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 83-600534

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402

This background paper explores the roles of national, regional, and interna-tional institutions and the private sector in developing and implementing technol-ogies to sustain tropical forests. It is part of the Office of Technology Assessment’sforthcoming report Technologies To Sustain Tropical Forest Resources, A concur-rent background paper, Reforestation of Degraded Lands, focuses on the actualreforestation technologies available. These analyses were requested by the HouseCommittee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Committee on Energy and NaturalResources, and supported by the House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs of theCommittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and the Senate Subcommittee on Envi-ronmental Pollution of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

This paper: 1) explains how U.S. and international institutions affect the devel-opment and implementation of technologies to sustain tropical forest resources;2) reviews the capabilities of a range of selected US. institutions, developed anddeveloping world institutions, funding foundations, and private sector organiza-tions; and 3) discusses the constraints and opportunities faced by these institutions.This is not an exhaustive study; rather it reports on a broad sampling of importantinstitutions and highlights the most troubling constraints and most promisingopportunities.

Congress has both legislative and oversight responsibilities related to U.S. andinternational institutions, and this paper provides information designed to helpCongress in those deliberations. Congress has direct responsibility for the Agencyfor International Development and has given the agency explicit direction to beconcerned with tropical deforestation. Congress also affects the actions of the U.S.Forest Service, the U.S. Park Service, and other U.S. agencies that could play anexpanded role in tropical forest efforts. Congress indirectly influences various in-ternational institutions through allotment of funds and policy direction. Thus, OTAhopes this compilation will be a useful review of many of the various institutionsof concern to Congress.

This paper was prepared by OTA analyst Chris Elfring. OTA also wishes toacknowledge the tropical forest resources advisory panel and executive agencyliaisons who reviewed this document and contributed helpful information to theOTA staff.

. . .Ill

Technologies To Sustain Tropical Forest Resources Advisory Panel

Leonard Berry, Panel ChairmanCenter for Technology, Environment, and Development

Clark University

Eddie AlbertConservationist

Hugh BollingerDirectorPlant Resources Institute

Robert CassagnolTechnical CommitteeCONAELE

Robert CramerFormer PresidentVirgin Islands Corp.

Gary EilertsAppropriate Technology International

John EwelDepartment of BotanyUniversity of Florida

Robert HartWinrock International

Susanna HechtDepartment of GeographyUniversity of California

Marilyn HoskinsDepartment of SociologyVirginia Polytechnic Institute

John Hunter*Michigan State University

Norman JohnsonVice President, North Carolina RegionWeyerhaeuser Co.

Jan LaarmanDepartment of ForestryNorth Carolina State University

Charles LankesterU.N. Development Programme

Robert OwenChief Conservationist (retired)Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

Christine PadochInstitute of Environmental StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin

Don PlucknettCGIARWorld Bank

Allen PutneyECNAMPWest Indies Lab

Jeff RommDepartment of ForestryUniversity of California

Richard E. SchultesHarvard Botanical MuseumHarvard University

John TerborghDepartment of BiologyPrinceton University

Henry TschinkelRegional Office for Central American ProgramsAgency for International DevelopmentU.S. Department of State

Resigned in July 1982.

iv

OTA Tropical Forestry Staff

H. David Banta, Assistant Director, OTAHealth and Life Sciences Division

Walter E. Parham, Program ManagerFood and Renewable Resources Program

Chris Elfring Alison Hess

Susan Shen Bruce Ross-Sheriff

Contracted Staff

Bruce M. Rich

Administrative Staff

Phyllis Balan, Administrative Assistant

Nellie Hammond Carolyn Swarm

OTA Publishing Staff

John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer

John Bergling Kathie S. Boss Debra M. Datcher Joe Henson

Doreen Foster Linda Leahy Donna Young

v

Contents

Chapter Page

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Selected Institutions , .,,,,...,,....,.,., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3. Private Sector Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,,,. 494. Constraints and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

vii

Chapter 1

Introduction

Tropical Forests and Woodlands, for the Purpose of the Report, Are Located at LatitudesSouth of 23.5° N and North of 23.5° S, and at Other Frost-Free Localities

2

i“, . .

PageBackground . . . . . . . . 3

Diversity

The Role

of Institutions...... ..., 3of Institutions **.,.* ....,., ,. 4

‘

h

.

c .......

Chapter 1

Introduction

BACKGROUND

Each year, some 11 million hectares of theworld’s remaining tropical forests are con-verted to other land uses or to wasteland (8).Where the cleared land is developed for sus-tainable agriculture, deforestation can bebeneficial. But most of the forest being clearedtoday cannot sustain farming or grazing undercurrent practices. Thus, potentially productiveforest land is degraded into less productivegrasslands and wastelands.

Deforestation can be caused by a variety offactors, depending on the site. In general, it iscaused by a complex combination of demo-graphic, cultural, political, and economicforces that are intensified by ever-growingpopulations in need of food, fuelwood, andemployment. These increasing pressures leadto overuse and mismanagement of tropical re-sources (22) and perpetuate a vicious circle ofresource degradation and poverty.

Where human pressure on natural resourcesincreases rapidly, natural vegetation recedes

and soil fertility drops. This triggers a chainof events: adverse changes in microclimates,reduced biologic soil activity, increased windand water erosion, and pressures to open ad-ditional land to compensate for reduced fer-tility, etc., all leading to yet more pressure andmore rapid deterioration of the soil and vege-tative cover (26).

Deforestation has economic and environ-mental consequences for both the developedand the developing world. It jeopardizes U.S.imports of agricultural germ plasm, pharma-ceuticals, chemical feedstocks, animals formedical research, tropical hardwoods, veneer,and wood products. Deforestation also limitsthe effectiveness of U.S.-funded developmentprojects in tropical countries, reduces habitatneeded by U.S. migratory wildlife species, andcould upset the stability of global climates.Tropical deforestation also increases pressureon world oil supplies and plays a role in theincreasing number of economic refugees seek-ing U.S. entry.

DIVERSITY OF INSTITUTIONS

An enormous amount of institutional activityis occurring worldwide that directly or in-directly affects tropical forest resources. TheU.S. Agency for International Development,the United Nations (U. N.) agencies, the WorldBank, and others have increased their attentionto forestry in recent years. Nonprofit institu-tions and American corporations also havebeen involved in the search for solutions totropical deforestation and forest managementproblems. And importantly, many tropical na-tions’ governments have come to recognizethat deforestation constrains their economiesand their development options. Thus, manycountries are making institutional changes to

help slow deforestation and accelerate refor-estation.

There are at least 600 forestry research in-stitutions in the world, with at least 90 conduct-ing significant programs related to tropical for-ests (27). The number of implementation-ori-ented institutions is similarly large. There isalso a broad range of private enterprise en-gaged in the design, development, and imple-mentation of technologies with potential tohelp sustain tropical forest resources. Thispaper could not identify every pertinent institu-tion, organization, and firm. Rather, it reviewsa selection of the institutions in the United

3

— — —

4 Ž Background Paper #2: U.S. and International Institutions

States and abroad that work to sustain tropicalforest resources through basic research, tech-

nology development, technology transfer andimplementation, and funding.

THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS

It is difficult to generalize about the roles thevarious institutions play in sustaining forestresources because these differ with the partic-ular objectives of each institution. Indeed, ef-fectively matching institution to task is itselfoften difficult. Some institutions are set up tosupport basic research, others to promote im-plementation. Some act locally, on small scales,while others are organized for large-scale, in-ternational, or even global efforts. Many in-stitutions have a mandated focus, whether aparticular region or a particular issue. Thesame individuality is true of funding founda-tions and the private sector. Each institution,foundation, and firm has unique goals, so eachalso has unique potentials.

Since the problems relating to tropical forestresources are themselves broad and variable,this institutional diversity can bean asset. Withsuch diversity, it is possible to combat the prob-lems on many fronts, on a variety of levels, andwith a range of approaches. This diversitymeans that there are mechanisms to act both

to plant trees needed for immediate needs andto conduct the research needed to develop sus-tainable forestry systems for the future. Itmeans there are institutions to work at the vil-lage level and others to coordinate internation-al efforts. The institutional diversity also en-sures that there will be no unrealistic searchfor the “one answer” to deforestation prob-lems.

This diversity of function and goals, how-ever, can create problems and inefficiencies.Often, different institutions can work at crosspurposes, with or without knowledge of theother’s actions. Other times, there is unneces-sary duplication of efforts. On occasion, therecan be an unhealthy, and certainly counter-pro-ductive, “competition” between organizationsor between assistance-giving nations. Often,there simply is a lack of communication amongthe various groups. Coordination and coopera-tion must be improved if deforestation is to becombated effectively.

Chapter 2

Selected Institutions

PageIntroduction . ...,...0.,,,.,,.,......,,. 7 Missouri Botanical Garden,

U.S.-Based Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7St. Louis, Mo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Science Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Volunteers in Technical Assistance,

National Academy of Sciences . . . . . . . . . . 7 Arlington, Va. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agency for International Development . . . 9 World Wildlife Fund-United States,

Peace Corps 10 Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..oo. *.** .*. *.** *,** .o .**U.S. Department of Agriculture. . . . . . . . . 10 National Wildlife Federation,

Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Department of State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Sierra Club, International Earth Care

Smithsonian Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Center, New York, N.Y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Organization for Tropical Studies, Inc., CARE, New York, N.Y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Durham, N.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 The Nature Conservancy, InternationalProgram, Leesburg, Va. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Universities for International Forestry,Syracuse, N.Y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Rare Animal Relief Effort,

South-East Consortium for International New York, N.Y.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Development, Chapel Hill, N.C. . . . . . . . 15 East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. . . . .

New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 16 Natural Resources Defense Council,

Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University.. 10 . International Project, Washington, D.C.

Pacific Tropical Botanical Garden, Developed World Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . .Lawai, Kauai, Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . e. . . 16 Canada.. . . . . oo. ... ... ... .b . . . . . . .

17

17

17

18

1818

18

1919

19

2020

.CO

F r a n c e .*. ,*****. *****o**.****** 20Japan . . . . . . . *.*. . . .*.**. .***.******* 21Sweden . . . . , * . * * * o . . . . . . ..o*o*. * c 0 * * 21United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21West Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Developing World Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Cameroon *. . . . * . . . ** .* . ,..,..0. ,,** 25Ghana ....,,. ..*.***. ****... . . . . . . . . 25Indonesia. .. ... ... .....~. . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Ivory Coast . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . 0 . . * * . . * . * ,0. 26Liberia ....*.* ..*.**.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Malaysia . . . . 0 . 0 . . * . . . * . . . , 0 0 . . * . * . 26Mexico ..s.,.. . , . . . . .* ,**..O*O . * * , . * 27Nigeria ***.*.. *****..* ******.* **** 28Papua New Guinea .. .. .. .+ . . ...99.... 28Philippines .**..*** **...... * * * * * * * * 28Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Regional Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30BIOTROP, Bogor, Indonesia. . . . . . . . . . . . 30Centro Agronomico Tropical de

Investigation y Ensenanza, Turrialba,Costa Rica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Eastern Caribbean Natural AreasManagement Program, Christiansted,St.Croix . l 30

International Council for Research inAgroforestry, Nairobi, Kenya . . . . . . . . . 31

International Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31World Bank, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.... 31Inter-American Development Bank,

Washington, D.C., U.S.A. ..**.** **C* 32Asian Development Bank, Manila,

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Food and Agriculture Organization of

the United Nations, Rome, Italy . . . . . . . 33

Consultative Group on InternationalAgricultural Research, Washington,D.C., U.S.A. ..000.. . . . ** .* ..**...* .

United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan.United Nations Environment

Programme, Nairobi, Kenya . . . . . . . . . .United Nations Educational Scientific, ~

and Cultural Organization, Paris,France 6....*.* ,*** .* .* ,......8. . .

International Union of Forestry ResearchOrganizations, Vienna, Austria . . . . . . . .

International Society of TropicalForesters, Bethesda, Md U.S.A. . . . . . .

World Wildlife Fund-International,Gland,Switzerland .. .. ... ... ...+....

International Union for the Conservationof Nature and Natural Resources,Gland, Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lutheran World Service, Lutheran WorldFederation, Geneva, Switzerland . . . . . .

Lutheran World Relief New York, N.Y.U.S.A .******. *****... ***.***. .***

3435

35

36

37

37

37

37

38

38

Private Funding Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Selected Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Foundations: Constraints and

Opportunities. e.o co o....... . . . . . . . . . 44

,

List of Tables

Tabie No.I. Institutions Included . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82. OTS Member Institutions, 1981-82 . . . . . . 153. Private U.S. Foundations Funding

Tropical Forestry Research and Projects. 39

Chapter 2

Selected Institutions

This section describes selected institutions Although this section attempts to describe ain the United States and abroad that deal with broad selection of research and implementa-technologies to sustain tropical forest resources. tion institutions—their purposes, strengths, andThe activities, staff, funding, and potentials of weaknesses—it cannot cover all the institutionsmore than 50 governmental and nongovern-mental institutions are examined, with specialemphasis on U. S.-based institutions and majorinternational organizations funded by theUnited States. Selected regional and nationalinstitutions in 20 countries of the developedand developing world are also described (seetable 1).

that exist. The activities of most of the moresignificant U.S. and international institutionsare described, but the selection of non-U, S. in-stitutions is necessarily limited,

U.S.-BASED

National Science Foundation (NSF)

NSF is the principal institution throughwhich the Federal Government funds basicscientific research by U.S. citizens. It is themain funding source for U.S. research in trop-ical biology and ecology. NSF funding is alsothe principal support for research sojourns ofU.S. scientists in tropical countries, therebypromoting international cooperation and infor-mation exchange.

Most NSF funding related to tropical forestsis awarded through its Environmental BiologySection, which is one of five sections in theBiological, Behavioral, and Social SciencesDivision. In fiscal year 1981, the total NSFbudget was $1.08 billion, of which $41.1 millionwere allotted to the Division of EnvironmentalBiology, with $8.6 million going for tropicalbiology.

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

Most NAS activities related to sustainingtropical forest resources are conducted throughthe Board on Science and Technology for Inter-national Development (BOSTID) of the Office

INSTITUTIONS

of International Affairs of the National Re-search Council. BOSTID’s total annual budgetis about $6 million. It has a full-time staff ofabout 45, approximately half of whom are pro-fessionals. As a rough estimate, about 20 per-cent of BOSTID activities are related to sustain-ing tropical forest resources,

Over the past few years, BOSTID, throughits Advisory Committee on the Sahel, has as-sisted the U.S. Agency for International Devel-opment (AID) and the governments in the Sahelin efforts to develop stable food supply systems,a goal in turn dependent on maintenance andrehabilitation of local ecosystems.

The BOSTID Advisory Committee on Tech-nology Innovation is doing a series of studieson useful tropical forest genetic resources, in-cluding two studies on firewood crops. In addi-tion, BOSTID recently completed a study onthe diffusion of biomass-based, renewable en-ergy technologies for the Rockefeller Founda-tion.

Finally, the BOSTID Committee on Researchhas begun a 5-year Research Grants Programwhich will award about 150 grants (averaging$100,000) in 14 research areas. Of the first six

7

— ——

8 Ž Background Paper #2: U.S. and International Institutions

Table 1.— Institutions Included

U. S-based Institutions1. National Science Foundation2. National Academy of Sciences3. Agency for International Development4. Peace Corps5. U.S. Department of Agriculture:

Q Office of International Cooperation and DevelopmentAgricultural Research Service

. Forest ServiceSoil Conservation ServiceCooperative State Research Service

6. Department of InteriorNational Park Service, International Affairs StaffFish and Wildlife Service, International Affairs Staff

7. Department of State (including U.S. Man and the BiosphereProject)

8. Smithsonian Institution

9. Organization for Tropical Studies10. Universities for International Forestry11. South-East Consortium for International Development12. The New York Botanical Garden13. Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University14. Pacific Tropical Botanical Garden15. Missouri Botanical Garden16. Volunteers in Technical Assistance17. World Wildlife Fund—United States18. National Wildlife Federation19. Sierra Club20. CARE21. The Nature Conservancy, International Program22. Rare Animal Relief Effort23. East-West Center24. Natural Resources Defense Council, International Project

Developed world institutions1. Canada: 5. United Kingdom:

Canadian International Development Agency Overseas Development AdministrationInternational Development Research Center . Intermediate Technology Development Group

2. France: . Institute for Terrestrial EcologyCentre Technique Forestier Tropical Commonwealth Forestry Institute

3. Japan: 6. West Germany:Japanese Overseas Afforestation Association Bundesministerium fur Wirtschaftliche

4. Sweden: ZusammenarbeitSwedish International Development Agency Duetsche Gesellschaft fur Technische

Zusammernarbeit

Institutions In developing countries1. Brazil 8. Mexico2. Cameroon 9. Nigeria3. Ghana 10. Papua New Guinea4. Indonesia 11. Philippines5. Ivory Coast 12. Thailand6. Liberia7. Malaysia

Regional Institutions1. BIOTROP2. Centro Agronomic Tropical de Investigation y Ensenanza3. Eastern Caribbean Natural Areas Management Program4. International Council for Research in Agroforestry

International institutions1. World Bank 9. International Union of Forestry Research Organizations2. Inter-American Development Bank 10. International Society of Tropical Foresters3. Asian Development Bank 11. World Wildlife Fund-International4. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 12. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and5. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Natural Resources6. United Nations University 13. Lutheran World Service, Lutheran World Federation7. United Nations Environment Programme 14. Lutheran World Relief8. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

Organization.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

Ch. 2—Selected Institutions 9

research areas selected, three deal with tropicalforest related resources: grain amaranth, nitro-gen-fixing trees, and biological nitrogen fixa-tion.

Other tropical forest related research hasbeen undertaken by the NAS Assembly of LifeSciences. The two most recent projects werea report on Research Priorities in Tropical Biol-ogy (1980) and a study on the Ecology of Devel-opment in the Humid Tropics (1982).

Agency for InternationalDevelopment (AID)

AID is the largest U.S. bilateral developmentagency. In fiscal year 1982, AID received totalappropriations of $4.37 billion, of which ap-proximately $139 million were used for proj-ects or project components concerning forest-ry, natural resources, and environment. A partof AID’s money goes to finance other institu-tions listed in this paper.

As of January 1982, AID had 96 ongoing andplanned bilateral assistance projects in 37countries that had forestry-related components.Their total “life of project” cost was $772 mil-lion, of which $216 million were forestry re-lated. More than three-quarters of the forestry-related funds were earmarked for activitiesother than actual tree planting, Most AID-funded tree planting occurs under Public Law480 “Food for Peace” programs, which receiveover $1.6 billion a year and are administeredby AID. (Public Law 480 programs will be dis-cussed in more detail after examining othercomponents of AID’s tropical forest resourcerelated activities.)

AID recently received a number of specificcongressional mandates to devote more re-sources to forests and forest-related problemsin the developing world. In 1979, section 103(b)of the Foreign Assistance Act was amended toprovide explicit authorization for assistance to“maintain and increase forest resources. ” Sec-tion 118 of the Foreign Assistance Act author-izes AID to develop and strengthen “the capac-ity of less developed countries to protect andmanage their environment and natural re-

sources. ” In 1981, section 118 was furtheramended to express congressional concern“about the continuing and accelerating altera-tion, destruction, and loss of tropical forestsin developing countries. ” A new subsection (d)of section 118 instructs the President to con-sider the recommendations of the U.S. Inter-agency Task Force on Tropical Forests in for-mulating and carrying out development assist-ance programs. It also calls on the Presidentto instruct U.S. representatives to internationalorganizations to place higher priority on thetropical deforestation problem and to improvecooperation among these organizations in re-gard to tropical forests.

Recently, AID increased efforts to collabo-rate with other bilateral development agencies,especially in Africa, and with other interna-tional and regional organizations such as theCentro Agronomic Tropical de Investigationy Ensenanza (CATIE), the International Coun-cil for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF), andthe Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).As an example, the United States, United King-dom, Belgium, Canada, France, and West Ger-many have formed a Cooperation for Develop-ment in Africa (CDA) group. CDA will coor-dinate the efforts of the development assistanceagencies to aid African countries in reforesta-tion and fuelwood programs. AID also has in-creased its collaboration with the Peace Corpsas a result of a 1980 cooperative agreementunder which the Peace Corps will train andplace forestry and conservation volunteers forjoint AID/Peace Corps projects. AID and thePeace Corps also have sponsored a number ofregional forestry workshops in Latin Americaand Asia.

AID has increased its forestry staff by threetimes in the last 3 years. It also received sup-port from a Resource Support Services Agree-ment with the U.S. Forest Service (FS). Theresulting Forestry Support Program providesnatural resource specialists to help AID proj-ects around the world. In addition, the ForestrySupport Program acts as a clearinghouse to putAID in touch with forestry and natural re-source consultants and institutions as they maybe needed.

10 • Background Paper #2: U. S. and International Institutions

Public Law 480, title II assistance, plays animportant role in AID’s forest resource assist-ance, but exact figures are not available. TitleII authorizes food donations for emergency ordisaster relief, and for assistance programssuch as Food for Work and the FAO WorldFood Program. Both these programs have thegoal of alleviating the need of poor people inthe developing world for food assistance. Therequested appropriation for all title II programsin fiscal year 1983 is $650 million.

Some tree planting occurs under title IIEmergency Food Aid programs, but more isundertaken through Food for Work programs.It is estimated that 1982 U.S. support of WorldFood Program forestry projects is between $10million and $12 million a year. Altogether, titleII Food for Work and FAO World Food Pro-gram contributions are responsible for fundingthe planting of at least twice as many treesworldwide as AID bilateral assistance projects,although there are still problems with maintain-ing the trees planted.

Peace Corps

In 1982, the Peace Corps had over 400 volun-teers working on projects concerned with con-servation and natural resources. Approximate-ly half are involved with forestry related ac-tivities. Peace Corps forestry projects focus onreforestation, village fuelwood lots, agrofor-estry, and promotion of wood-conserving tech-nologies (such as efficient stoves).

The Peace Corps Forestry Sector Staff inWashington, D. C., is minimal (four people in1982). Because of budget cutbacks, there is nolonger any staff on loan from the U.S. ForestService.

As a consequence of a U.S. Interagency TaskForce on Tropical Forests recommendation,the Peace Corps and AID signed a collaborativeagreement in 1980 for fiscal year 1982-83.Under the agreement, AID provides financialsupport to further Peace Corps professionaltechnical programing while the Peace Corpswill train and place its volunteers in AID natu-ral resources and forestry projects around theworld.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

USDA administers both research and imple-mentation programs related to technologies tosustain tropical forest resources. The most im-portant programs are administered by the Of-fice of International Cooperation and Develop-ment, the Agricultural Research Service, theForest Service, the Cooperative State ResearchService, and the Soil Conservation Service.

Office of International Cooperationand Development (OICD)

OICD is USDA’s foreign development arm.OICD’s funding comes principally from AIDand international agencies such as FAO andthe Organization of American States (OAS). Ina typical year, OICD administers approximate-ly 150 development assistance projects in 57countries (principally with AID). A number ofthese OICD-AID projects deal directly or in-directly with tropical forest resources. In addi-tion, OICD conducts technical assistance pro-grams for non-AID countries on a fully reim-bursable basis.

OICD also acts as the liaison between USDAand international organizations and promotesscientific exchanges and training programs. Of47 training courses offered by OICD in 1982in conjunction with AID and a number of U.S.universities, three or four dealt directly withtropical forest resources.

Finally, OICD administers foreign agricul-tural research grants that are financed with for-eign currencies accruing to the credit of theUnited States from sales of farm productsabroad under Public Law 480. Of 239 foreignagricultural research grants active as of Sep-tember 1981, three could be considered to bedirectly related to sustaining tropical forestresources. These three grants were for sumsof approximately $165,000,$53,000, and $148,000for genetic improvement of Eucalyptus andother fast-growing species in Egypt, improve-ment of mysorgum trees in India, and evalua-tion of hydrologic performance and soil conser-vation measures on comparative watersheds inthe subtropical scrub zone of Pakistan. Much

.

Ch 2—Selected Institutions Ž 11

more of foreign currency is available from Pub-lic Law 480 food sales in India, Pakistan, andEgypt and could be used to finance additionalforest research.

Agricultural Research Service (ARS)

ARS conducts a number of activities relevantto technologies to sustain tropical forests, mostimportantly its activities aimed at improvingproductivity on exploited tropical lands, thusreducing pressures to convert remaining tropi-cal forests to agriculture.

ARS administers:

the Soil and Water Conservation ResearchUnit at Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico,the Plant Research and Insect PopulationControl Research Unit at St. Croix in theVirgin Islands, andthe Mayaguez Institute of Tropical Agri-culture (MITA] in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico.

The Soil and Water Conservation ResearchUnit is particularly concerned with increasingproductivity in highly acidic tropical soils withlow fertility and in developing effective soil,water, fertilizer, and crop management systemson humid, hilly, tropical lands. Its budget forfiscal year 1981 was $421,000; the staff had foursenior scientists. The Plant Research and In-sect Population Control Research Unit had astaff in fiscal year 1981 of one entomologist andfour technicians; the budget was $186,000.

MITA conducts some research programsconcerning nutritional improvement of grainlegumes and beans, tropical leaf proteins, raretropical fruits, etc., which may indirectly helpto sustain tropical forests by increasing the effi-ciency of tropical agriculture. For fiscal year1981, MITA had a budget of just over $1 mil-lion and a staff of 6 scientists and 27 techni-cians and support staff.

In addition, ARS administered in fiscal year1982$3,715,000 of funds for tropical agricul-tural research under section 406 of Public Law89-808. Most section 406 moneys are adminis-tered through U.S. land grant universities hav-ing tropical or subtropical programs, such asthe University of Florida, the University of

Hawaii, the University of Puerto Rico, the Col-lege of the Virgin Islands, and the Universityof Guam. Hawaii is the focus for research con-cerning the Pacific basin, and Florida andPuerto Rico are the centers for research onagricultural problems concerning Latin Amer-ica, the Caribbean, and West Africa.

Forest Service (FS)

FS operates two research organizations con-cerned with managing and sustaining tropicalforest resources—The Pacific Southwest Forestand Range Experiment Station (PSW), and itsInstitute of Pacific Islands Forestry (IPIF) inHawaii, and the Institute of Tropical Forestryof the Southern Forest Experiment Station inRio Piedras, Puerto Rico.

PSW has the largest tropical forestry researchprogram within the U.S. Forest Service. Re-search has included timber and watershedmanagement, ecosystem dynamics, threatenedand endangered birds and plants, forest pro-tection, forest soils, and biomass for energy.For fiscal year 1982, IPIF had a budget of $1.3million and 29 scientific staff. The fiscal year1983 budget is $855,400; the staff size has beenreduced to 15.

PSW conducts research outside Hawaii inthe U.S. Pacific Territories—the Trust Territoryof the Pacific Islands, Commonwealth ofNorthern Marianas, Guam, and AmericanSamoa. PSW is (1982) supporting forestry re-search by one biologist on Yap and a foresterin the Marshall Islands, with backup supportfrom the IPIF. PSW has conducted forestryresearch on Guam for 17 years, but recentbudget cuts have reduced IPIF programs. Forinstance, one project managing Pacific islandforest ecosystems, primarily in Hawaii, waseliminated as of May 1982. Another project onforestry resource assessment in the AmericanPacific islands (American Samoa, Guam,Palau, Yap, Northern Mariana Islands, etc.)underwent major cuts in October 1982.

Over the past 40 years, the Institute of Tropi-cal Forestry at Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico, hasdone much research on timber managementand plantation silviculture. The budget for fis-

12 • Background Paper #2: U.S. and International Institutions

cal year 1982 was $836,000, an increase in ab-solute figures over previous years, but actuallya substantial decline in real resources available,with budgeted scientist-years declining from7.5 to 4.9 in 1981. The Institute has an exten-sive tropical forestry library and access to bothmoist and dry experimental forest reserves atthe Luquillo Experimental Forest (11,000 hec-tares (ha)) (also called the Caribbean NationalForest), in Cambalace (250 ha) and in the VirginIslands at the 50-ha Estate Thomas Experimen-tal Forest. The Institute collaborates with theUniversity of Puerto Rico, MITA, the VirginIslands Government, the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, and several universities on the U.S.mainland.

Soil Conservation Service (SCSI

SCS had a 3-year (1979-82), $2.13 million con-tract with AID to provide a Soil ManagementSupport Service (SMSS) to less developed coun-tries (LDCs). Proper soil classification is a pre-requisite for determining the possible sustain-able uses of tropical forest ecosystems. ManyLDCs lack the personnel and institutional ca-pacity to develop detailed knowledge of theirsoils and the possible uses. Thus, the purposeof the SMSS program is to develop the institu-tional prerequisites for soil conservation, main-tenance of soil fertility, and soil based agrotech-nology use in tropical and subtropical coun-tries.

SMSS has a staff of 5 scientists and a 12-member advisory panel. In fiscal year 1980,SMSS provided technical assistance and aidedin soil science technology transfer in Sudan,Tanzania, Senegal, Ecuador, Surinam, FrenchGuyana, Belize, Thailand, Western Samoa, In-donesia, Syria, and Jordan.

Cooperative State ResearchService (CSRS)

CSRS allocates Federal funds for agriculturaland forestry research to universities and re-search institutions in the 50 States. CSRS fi-nanced 13 research projects in 1982 that wererelated to sustaining tropical forest resources.Six of these were at the University of Hawaii

at Honolulu, and the others were at the Univer-sity of Washington at Seattle, the University ofFlorida at Gainesville, the University of Michi-gan at Ann Arbor, North Carolina State Uni-versity at Raleigh, the University of Illinois atUrbana, and Purdue University.

Department of the Interior

National Park Service (NPS)

Domestically, NPS manages eight units total-ing about 2 million acres which include appre-ciable segments of tropical forests. Some of thelargest units are Hawaii Volcanoes, Haleakala,Virgin Islands, and Everglades National Park.Activities at these areas include a wide rangeof natural resource protection, resource man-agement, research, and visitor service pro-grams.

The International Park Affairs Branch ofNPS undertakes park planning, management,and conservation activities, as well as trainingprograms, in collaboration with foreign gov-ernments and international and nongovern-mental institutions. These activities are carriedout in response to various statutes and conven-tions such as the Convention Concerning theProtection of the World Cultural and NaturalHeritage, the Convention on Nature Protectionand Wildlife Conservation in the Western Hem-isphere, Executive Order 11911, and the En-dangered Species Act.

Of some 90 ongoing and proposed interna-tional projects for fiscal years 1982-83, aboutone-third were in some way concerned withsustaining tropical forest resources. The Branchmanages an AID-financed project under whicha book entitled “Ecological Aspects of Develop-ment in the Humid Tropics” was published in1982 (in cooperation with several universitiesand the U.S. National Research Council), anda series of regional development case studiesfrom Latin America and the Caribbean are be-ing prepared (in cooperation with OAS). Otherrecent activities include assistance with aRanger Skills Training Course for 15 Pana-manian park rangers; technical assistance inIndia’s Kanha National Park and Saudi Ara-

Ch 2--Selected Institutions • 1 3

bia’s Asir Kingdom Park; a Wildlife Manage-ment Training Course for Peace Corps volun-teers and their counterparts from Paraguay,Guatemala, Ecuador, and Costa Rica; and an-nual international seminars and workshops onpark-related matters.

The Branch has a professional staff of 14, 3trained in forestry, as well as language capa-bilities in Spanish, Urdu, Portuguese, andArabic. The considerable expertise of NPScould be more fully used to support tropicalforest resources if given a clear mandate to doso. The Branch’s budget for fiscal year 1982was approximately $460,000. Because of thecollaborative nature of most of the projects inwhich it participates, the scope of its ongoingactivities is considerably larger than its smallbudget indicates,

Fish and Wildlife Service

The Fish and Wildlife Service has authorityunder a number of statutes and conventionsto undertake cooperative activities relating toconservation of tropical forest fauna and habi-tats. Two of the most important are section 8of the Endangered Species Act (which givesauthority to tap various funding sources totransfer wildlife management techniques abroad)and the Convention on Nature Protection andWildlife Preservation in the Western Hemi-sphere.

Recent activities have included a cooperativeprogram with the Peace Corps to conduct a bio-logical inventory in Paraguay and create a nat-ural history museum; training wildlife profes-sionals, mostly in Latin America, with priorityon establishing national wildlands programs;and teaching sustained-yield management ofAmazonian forest wildlife resources in Ecua-dor and Brazil.

The Service is an underused institutional re-source for implementing technologies to sus-tain tropical forest resources. The Fish andWildlife Service has a long-standing legal man-date to conduct international cooperative pro-grams to sustain wildlife resources and inter-nationally recognized expertise. For fiscal year1982, total resources committed to interna-

tional activities in the Western Hemisphereamount to only $25,000 and 2 person-years.The rest of its fiscal year 1982 internationalprogram related to tropical countries consistsof a commitment of 1 person-year for India,and $400,000 in excess Indian currency fromPublic Law 480 programs.

The International Staff of the Fish and Wild-life Service has formed working partnershipswith the National Wildlife Federation, theWorld Wildlife Fund-U. S., and a number ofother U.S. nongovernmental agencies (NGOs)concerned with destruction of tropical foresthabitats.

Department of State [includingU.S. Man and the Biosphere Program)

The State Department Office of Food andNatural Resources has been active in pro-moting and coordinating a number of activitiesto help the United States formulate a tropicalforest resource strategy. These activities in-clude the U.S. Strategy Conference on TropicalDeforestation, held jointly with AID in 1978,the Inter-Agency Tropical Forest Task Forcestrategy document published in 1980, and theState Department/AID Strategy Conference onBiological Diversity, held in November 1981,Although the Inter-Agency Task Force onTropical Forests continues to be the key U.S.governmental institution for coordinating andpreparing U.S. policy positions on tropicalforest resource issues, it took no new initiativesin 1982 to promote the implementation of thestrategy set out in the 1980 Task Force report.

The State Department also provides person-nel for the U.S. Man and the Biosphere (MAB)Secretariat and coordinates the U.S. Commit-tee for the UNESCO MAB Program. In the past2 years, the U.S. MAB has seen a drastic cur-tailment of activities. Only 4 projects could befunded in fiscal year 1982, as opposed to 9 infiscal year 1981 and 16 in fiscal year 1980.Funding levels for fiscal year 1983 had not yetbeen determined as of January 1983 (20). Inpast years, between one-third and one-half ofthe MAB research has concerned tropical for-est resources. Many experts believe that MAB

14 Ž Background Paper #2: U.S. and International Institutions

funding could make important inroads intotropical forest problems and decry the reduc-tions in support that have occurred.

Smithsonian Institution

The Smithsonian Institution is one of the leadinstitutions in the United States doing basicresearch for conservation of tropical forest eco-systems. Tropical forest research is conductedprimarily by the following organizations of theSmithsonian: the National Museum of NaturalHistory, the Smithsonian Tropical Research In-stitute (STRI) in Panama, the Office of Bio-logical Conservation, the National ZoologicalPark, and the U.S. National Herbarium.

The National Museum of Natural History isundertaking a strategic studies program oncritically endangered tropical and desert hab-itats, with the goal of preparing predictive eco-system models. Other research includes studiesin the central highlands of New Guinea andBrazil.

The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institutein Panama administers Barro Colorado Island,located in Gatun Lake in the Canal Zone. BarroColorado is a biological reserve of significantscientific importance, and researchers from allover the world come to study its fauna andflora. Under a recently signed agreement withthe Government of Panama, STRI will admin-ister a 5,400 ha Barro Colorado Nature Monu-ment, including not only the island of BarroColorado but also a number of other islandsand adjacent areas. STRI is conducting anumber of research activities, including studiesof tropical forest succession, anteater preda-tion, the role of mycorrhizae in tropical treegrowth, and the socioeconomic of alternativefarming systems. In addition, STRI has createdan Office of Conservation and EnvironmentalEducation with two full-time staff.

The Office of Biological Conservation has aThreatened Plants Committee which is work-ing with IUCN on a Latin American Programto inventory endangered plant species andtheir habitats in Latin America.

The National Zoological Park (NZP) is con-ducting field research concerning tropicalforest flora and fauna and their habitats in anumber of countries, including Madagascar,Venezuela, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Indonesia.Other NZP research deals with methods to sus-tain its captive collection of species includingendangered species from tropical forest hab-itats and with ecological theory.

Finally, the U.S. National Herbarium of theSmithsonian is the third largest herbarium inthe United States. Many of its 4. I millionspecimens are from tropical areas of the West-ern Hemisphere. Thus, it is an important na-tional and international resource for researchconcerning neotropical flora.

Organization for Tropical Studios, Inc.(OTS), Durham, N.C.

OTS is a consortium of 22 American and 3Costa Rican universities whose purpose is topromote research in tropical biology andecology. Member institutions as of 1981-82 arein table 2.

OTS has a 3,500-acre” field station in CostaRica, Finca La Selva. Sixty-five percent of LaSelva is undisturbed lowland tropical wetforest; the rest consists of abandoned pasturesor secondary forest. Since its founding in 1963,OTS has provided facilities for thousands ofscientists to study tropical habitats at La Selvaand also at other sites in Costa Rica. OTS alsoconducts graduate training programs that in-troduce young scientists to the complexities offield research in the tropics. Over 1,300 scien-tists have participated in these training pro-grams.

OTS plans to become involved in tropicalecosystem research (there are two proposals inprocess for 1983). OTS headquarters are atDuke University, where there is a four-personstaff; the Costa Rican staff numbers about 10.Funding comes from membership dues ($5,000per year for each institution) and from supportand maintenance grants from NSF. For the pe-riod 1982-85, the NSF maintenance grant is ap-proximately $500,000.

Ch. 2—Selected Institutions Ž 15

Table 2.—OTS Member Institutions, 1981.82

University of California Duke University University of Michigan University of Southern(System) Durham, N.C. Ann Arbor, Mich. California

Berkeley, Calif. University of Florida University of Minnesota Los Angeles, Calif.

University of California Gainesville, Fla. Minneapolis, Minn. State University of New YorkLos Angeles, Calif. University of Georgia Museo Nacional de Costa Stony Brook, N.Y.

University of Chicago Athens, Ga. Rica

Chicago, Ill. San Jose, Costa Rica Texas Tech UniversityHarvard University

Universidad Nacional Lubbock, Tex.University of Connecticut Cambridge, Mass.Storrs, Corm,

HerediaUniversity of lowa

University of WashingtonCosta Rica

lowa City, IowaSeattle, Wash.

Cornell University University of NorthIthaca, N.Y. University of Kansas Carolina Washington University

Lawrence, Kans. St. Louis, Mo.Universidad de Costa Rica Chapel Hill, N.C.

Ciudad Universitaria University of Miami Smithsonian Institution University of WisconsinCosta Rica Coral Gables, Fla. Washington, D.C. Madison, Wis.

SOURCE: B. Rich, “Institutions That Deal With Technologies To Sustain Tropical Forest Resources,” OTA commissioned paper, 1982.

Universities for International Forestry(UNIFOR), Syracuse, N.Y.

UNIFOR is a consortium of seven U.S. uni-versities that have international programs inthe management of forest and forest dependentresources. It was founded in 1978. The memberuniversities are the State University of NewYork, College of Environmental Science andForestry at Syracuse; the University of Wash-ington College of Forest Resources at Seattle;the North Carolina State University School ofForest Resources at Raleigh; the University ofMichigan School of Natural Resources at AnnArbor; the University of Idaho College ofForestry, Wildlife, and Range Sciences atMoscow; and the University of Arizona Schoolof Renewable Resources at Tucson.

The objective of the consortium is to providea basis for combining the faculty, staff, andother resources of the cooperating institutionsin order to conduct joint programs of educa-tion, training, research, and other professionalservices in the field of forestry and forestry-related problems in developing countries.

The UNIFOR universities have had substan-tial experience in tropical countries in dis-ciplines such as forest and range resourcesmanagement and analysis, agroforestry, en-vironmental impact assessment, forest conser-vation and protection, forest soil and water

relationships, forest and range wildlife man-agement, and the sociocultural context of forestresources.

South-East Consortium forInternational Development (SECID),

Chapel Hill, N.C.

SECID, founded in 1977, is a consortium of32 academic and research institutions in theSouthern and Eastern United States. SECID in-cludes certain 1890 Land Grant Institutions,Tuskegee Institute, 11 of the 1862 Land GrantUniversities, Duke University, the Universityof North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Georgia In-stitute of Technology, and the Research Tri-angle Institute. SECID coordinates the re-sources of member institutions to collaborateon projects that provide research, training, andextension services to developing nations andto resource-poor people in the United States.In 1980, SECID had total expenditures of $5,2million.

SECID is divided into Offices of Training,Administration, and Institutional Develop-ment; Program Development; and Environ-mental Management. Only the Office of En-vironmental Management has been directly in-volved with forestry activities. Its ongoing ac-tivities include a 5-year, $8.7-million AIDAfrican Environmental Training and Manage-

16 Ž Background Paper #2: U.S. and lnternational Institutions

ment Project and a 5-year, $20.8-million AIDResource Conservation and Utilization Projectin Nepal. The Nepal project involves reforesta-tion, village forestry, introducing more ef-ficient wood stoves, establishing agroforestryresearch and demonstration facilities, andtraining and upgrading Nepali forestry andnatural resource personnel.

New York Botanical Garden,Bronx, N.Y.

The New York Botanical Garden is ownedby the city of New York and is an international-ly recognized center for research in the plantsciences. The garden has an annual budget ofover $10 million and a staff of about 350 scien-tists, horticulturalists, other professionals, andsupport staff. A significant portion of thegarden’s substantial resources is devoted to ac-tivities related to tropical forest flora. The gar-den’s primary commitment is to taxonomic re-search, much of it in tropical forest areas,especially in Latin America.

The garden’s herbarium contains one of theworld’s largest and most important collectionsof neotropical plants (mostly from tropical for-est areas), and is often consulted about foodand natural resource programs in the tropics.The library holds over 600,000 items and is thelargest botanical and horticultural collectionin the United States.

In 1981, the garden adopted a master planfor its future activities. Of particular sig-nificance is the proposed creation of an In-stitute of Economic Botany which would in-vestigate little known plants used by sub-sistence societies (often in tropical forest areas)and identify those species with potential fordomestication as agricultural crops. The In-stitute also would investigate and developspecies that would have potential as energysources, particularly species with fast growthrates and those that produce wood of high cal-orific value.

Arnold Arboretum,Harvard University

The Arnold Arboretum contains over 4 mil-lion specimens. The arboretum herbarium andlibrary are especially rich in collections con-cerning the woody plants and trees of tropicalAsia and the Far East. With a staff of 57, it isa leading institution in the Western Hemi-sphere for the study of Asian tropical botany,

The Arnold Arboretum is an important mem-ber of a community of museums and other in-stitutions that comprise the Department ofOrganic and Evolutionary Biology of HarvardUniversity. As a university research facility, thework of the arboretum is focused primarily onsystematic and population biology, essential forproviding the basic knowledge of tropical eco-systems on which applied research can bebased.

Pacific Tropical Botanical Garden,Lawai, Kauai, Hawaii

The Pacific Tropical Botanical Garden is theNation’s only privately supported tropicalbotanical garden chartered by Congress. Thecharter (Public Law 88-449) was granted in1964 and provides for the establishment of anonprofit corporation “for the benefit of thepeople of the United States . . . . in the form ofa tropical botanical garden or gardens, togetherwith such facilities as libraries, herbaria,laboratories, and museums which are appro-priate and necessary for encouraging and con-ducting research in basic and applied tropicalbotany;” which will “foster and encourage fun-damental research with respect to tropicalplant life and . . . . encourage research andstudy of the uses of tropical flora in agriculture,forestry, horticulture, medicine, and othersciences . . . . “

The garden has a special role because Hawaiihas the greatest number of identified endan-gered species (800) of any locality on Earth;

Ch. 2—Selected Institutions Ž 17

most of these species are tropical forest relatedor dependent,

The garden’s 186-acre headquarters site inthe Lawai Valley, Kauai, was opened in 1971.The garden maintains two satellite sites,Kahanu Gardens (120 acres) on the island ofMaui, and the Limahuli Valley Satellite gardenand Preserve (1,000 acres) on Kauai. TheKahanu site is the center for ethnobotanicalplants and breadfruit, coconut, and loulu palmcollections. The Limahuli Valley site containsnewly discovered species of rare native Hawai-ian plants. The garden has plans to develop ex-tensive collections of plants of nutritionalvalue, ethnobotanical interest, medicinal value,rare and endangered species, plants of unex-ploited potential, tropical fruits, spices, and anumber of special collections. The garden alsohas access to the facilities of the Departmentof Botany of the University of Hawaii and isconstructing extensive laboratory, library, andherbarium facilities.

The garden has about 21 full-time staff at itsheadquarters in Lawai, 4 staff at Kahanu, and2 at Limahuli. The budget for fiscal year 1982was approximately $750,000.

Missouri Botanical Garden,St. Louis, Mo.

The Missouri Botanical Garden is a private,independent institution and is the secondoldest botanical garden in the United States.The garden is one of the leading, and most ac-tive, botanical institutions in the world. Withover 3 million specimens, it has this country’sfourth largest herbarium. The herbarium is par-ticularly strong in collections from the Neo-tropics and is also the U.S. national center forAfrican collections.

Of total operating expenses for fiscal year1981 of $4.3 million, approximately $650,000were spent on tropical research. As of July1982, the garden had nearly $2 million worthof grant support for ongoing tropical research.Many projects, of course, continue over a dura-

tion of several years. Almost all of this supportwas from NSF.

The herbarium has 14 Ph.D.-level botanistson its staff, and the library of the garden hasone of the finest collections in systemic biologyin North America. The Missouri Botanical Gar-den is also one of the leading centers for educa-tion of plant scientists in North America.

Volunteers in Technical Assistance(VITA], Arlington, Va.

VITA is a nonprofit organization with amembership of over 4,000 technical specialistswho volunteer or sell their services to helpresolve technical problems in developing coun-tries. Seventy-five of these specialists havetraining and experience in forestry. As of May1982, however, VITA had no current programsdirectly concerned with sustaining tropicalforest resources. In the past, VITA profes-sionals have participated in a number of forestrelated programs, such as agroforestry and in-tegrated farming projects. VITA is an impor-tant source of information—e.g., their publica-tion “Wood-Conserving Cooking Stoves. ”

World Wildlife Fund-United States(WWF-US), Washington D.C.

WWF-US is the principle private source ofU.S. funding for the conservation of livingresources worldwide. In 1980, WWF-US spentsome $2.9 million on more than 100 projectsall over the world. The largest single WWFgrant in 1980 was $116,000 for study of tropicalforest ecosystems in Brazil with the goal ofdetermining the minimum size necessary forprotected areas to sustain rainforest plant andanimal species. Other WWF-US projects con-cerned with tropical forests involved fundinga forest biosphere reserve in Honduras, train-ing and conservation education in tropicalcountries, conservation of endangered pri-mates in Brazil and Sierra Leone, funding twoU.S. NGOs active in promoting conservationof tropical forests, and promoting the WorldConservation Strategy.

—

18 • Background Paper #2: U.S. and International Institutions

National Wildlife Federation (NWF),Washington, D.C.

NWF is the largest conservation organizationin the Western World. It has more than 4½million members and a budget of over $27 mil-lion annually. Until recently, however, its em-phasis was almost exclusively domestic. In1982, NWF initiated its international program.This new program focuses on three activities:investigating the policies and actions of theUnited States that affect management of nat-ural resources in developing countries; assist-ing conservation NGOs in Latin America andthe Caribbean; and public education efforts inthe United States to explain the relationshipbetween resource problems at home andabroad.

Sierra Club, International Earth CareCenter, New York, N.Y.

This section of the Sierra Club is an infor-mation clearinghouse and educational resourcecenter with the objective of providing informa-tion on the environmental implications of de-velopment decisions. The center has threeareas of focus: protection of fragile naturalareas, the marine environment, and tropicalrainforest management and conservation.

In 1974, the center carried out a UNEP-sup-ported project to develop guidelines for the ra-tional management of tropical forest resourcesin Venezuela. This served as the basis for aseries of training workshops in that country forgovernment employees and conservationists.The center is promoting plans for mangrovemanagement and conservation in Venezuela,Trinidad, and Tobago. It had a fiscal year 1982budget of $350,000 (30 percent for tropicalforest efforts) and seven staff.

CARE, New York, N.Y.

CARE is an important development aid pri-vate volunteer organization (PVO). In 1981,CARE provided overseas assistance valued atover $250 million. Of this, 83.6 percent was forfood distribution and 13.9 percent was for tech-nical assistance, mainly health and village in-

frastructure projects. However, there wereprojects for tree planting, erosion control, andconservation in Guatemala, Columbia, Indo-nesia, and Niger.

CARE is now engaged in a 3-year (1982-85),$5.4-million program to conserve renewableresources (forests, soil, and water) in thedeveloping world, Half of this program isfinanced through an AID matching grant. TheCARE renewable resources program focuseson village and community forestry to promoteeconomic self-reliance. It involves creatingshelterbelts and fuelwood lots in arid lands,planting trees to control erosion in hill lands,and transferring agroforestry techniques. proj-ects are planned for 11 countries (Guatemala,Honduras, Niger, Cameroon, Mali, Sudan,Kenya, Nepal, Haiti, and two yet to be iden-tified). Although only a small part of CARE’stotal budget, their efforts to promote conser-vation of forests and forest dependent re-sources in the tropics is the largest ongoingprogram of any PVO in the United States.

The Nature Conservancy,International Program, Leesburg, Va.

The Nature Conservancy is a nonprofit, pri-vate conservation organization whose goal isto preserve natural diversity by setting up pro-tected areas in the United States and abroad.The Nature Conservancy owns the largest sys-tem of privately managed natural areas in theworld, about 700 preserves totaling nearly500,000 acres. The conservancy has a largedomestic program, with expenditures over $69million in 1981. Of their 226 domestic projects,two or three are in Florida and could be con-sidered to involve tropical forest resources.

The Nature Conservancy’s smaller Interna-tional Program, on the other hand, is chieflyconcerned with promoting the inventory andprotection of natural areas, principally tropicalforests, in Latin America and the Caribbean.The International Program has a full-time staffof eight and a 1982 project budget of $387,000,

The International Program hopes to promoteprivate institutional land-saving capacity on acountry-by-country basis in Latin America. As

Ch. 2—Selected Institutions . 19

a first step, it has established or is establishingcooperative relationships with national conser-vation organizations in Costa Rica, Ecuador,the Netherlands, Antilles, Venezuela, Mexico,and Argentina. The conservancy hopes tomodify and transfer its domestic “Natural Her-itage” ecological inventory methodologies toselected Latin American organizations andassist these organizations technically andfinancially in acquiring biologically significantnatural areas from local landowners,

Rare Animal Relief Effort (RARE),New York, N.Y.

RARE is a nonprofit, nongovernmental or-ganization dedicated to preserving biologicaldiversity, especially in the tropics. RARE’sprimary commitment is to environmental ed-ucation and training in Latin America. It isundertaking a Resource Management Educa-tion Program in which RARE staff and facul-ty from several universities in Costa Rica andthe United States are preparing environmen-tal teaching materials (with an emphasis on theimportance of tropical forests) for use inprimary schools in Latin America. RARE seeksto promote public environmental awareness inthe developing world and has helped to designeducation centers in Costa Rican nationalparks.

RARE is a newly formed organization anddepends on corporate and foundation support.In 1982, it had four full-time paid staff membersand a budget of about $200,000. RARE reliesheavily on volunteer assistance by qualifiedprofessionals.

East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii

The East-West Center was established by theU.S. Congress in 1960 to promote better rela-tions among the peoples of Asia, the Pacific,and the United States. The Center is a nonde-gree-granting graduate research institutionconcerned primarily with problems of popula-tion, natural resources, environment, culture,and communications. Most of the tropical for-est resource programs are conducted under the

auspices of the Environment and Policy Insti-tute, one of five institutes within the Center.

The Environment and Policy Institute (EPI)is involved in a number of information transferand dissemination projects concerning tropicalforest resources—principally workshops, train-ing seminars, and preparation of state-of-the-art handbooks and bibliographies. EPI’s focusis on forest watershed systems, agroforestry (incooperation with CATIE, ICRAF, and the U.N.University), fuelwood systems, and mangroveforests.

The Center has a unique role as a regionalcenter for the discussion and study of naturalresource issues of Pacific Basin countries. Forexample, in August 1982, the Center sponsoreda meeting of the national forestry research in-stitute directors of 16 countries in the region.The Center also has conducted a number ofworkshops and seminars to strengthen regionalforestry institutions and upgrade the trainingof forestry personnel.

The Center plays a significant role in pro-moting forest resource research in the Pacificregion through its fellowship, internship, andprofessional associate programs. A total of1,500 people take part in such academic sup-port programs each year, and a considerablenumber of them are involved directly or in-directly in disciplines related to sustainingtropical forest resources.

The East-West Center has a permanent staffof 250, and of its fiscal year 1982 budget of$21.3 million, $164,000 was devoted to tropicalforestry research. Nearly 90 percent of the Cen-ter’s support comes from the U.S. Government,but contributions from countries in the PacificBasin have been increasing in recent years.

Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC), International Project,

Washington, D.C.

NRDC is a nonprofit, tax-exempt organiza-tion dedicated to the wise management of nat-ural resources. NRDC has approximately45,000 contributing members in the United

20 Background Paper #2: U.S. and International Institutions

States and abroad and has a professional staffof over 40 lawyers, scientists, and other spe-cialists.

NRDC’s International Project has been ac-tively involved in activities concerned with theconservation of tropical forest resources. TheInternational Project works in two areas. First,NRDC monitors decisions of U.S. and interna-tional agencies affecting tropical forestecosystems. Second, NRDC cooperates with

and makes its expertise available to foreign en-vironmental scientists and groups.

The International Project serves as the secre-tariat of a U.S. Nongovernmental WorkingGroup on Tropical Forests which consists ofover 100 individuals from over 50 different in-stitutions. The Working Group worked close-ly with the U.S. Inter-Agency Task Forcewhich formulated a U.S. strategy to deal withtropical deforestation.

DEVELOPED WORLD INSTITUTIONS

Canada

Canadian International DevelopmentAgency (CIDA), and the InternationalDevelopment and Research Center(IRDC)

A substantial portion of CIDA forest projectsis concerned with developing forest industryinfrastructure—e. g., building sawmills, pur-chasing lumbering equipment, training forestindustry technicians, etc. From 1976-82, about38 percent of total funding for projects witha forestry component was for projects with aforest industry development component. More-over, most of the other projects characterizedas nonindustry activities were at least indirect-ly related to forest industry development—e.g.,technical, planning, and inventorying assist-ance related to exploiting forest resources.

Some 43 percent of CIDA projects with for-estry components are in French-speakingAfrica, especially the Sahel. Some of these proj-ects are oriented towards sustaining tropicalforest resources, including a $40 million anti-desertification project for Upper Volta, sched-uled to be implemented from 1982-87. General-ly, however, there is a lack of emphasis on long-term conservation of forest resources in thefinancing of many CIDA projects. CIDA For-estry Sectorial Guidelines do, however, containa number of well-formulated suggestions con-cerning the need to allocate funds for in-novative forestry development projects even ifthey will not show a conventional satisfactory

rate of economic return over the first 10 to 12years. In particular, the guidelines suggest thatCIDA take initiatives in pioneering afforesta-tion projects in degraded forest areas. Theguidelines suggest that Food for Peace pro-grams would be an especially appropriatemeans for implementing such programs. Theguidelines also recommend increased em-phasis on research and implementation ofagroforestry systems.

Tropical forestry resource research is carriedout by a separate agency, IDRC. The majorfocus of the IDRC research is to support studiesconcerning increased agricultural productionusing agroforestry systems. Other research isdirected towards social forestry in tropicalzones.

F r a n c e

Centre Technique Forestier Tropical (CTFT)

In France, forestry projects for CTFT arefinanced and implemented by le Fends d’Aideet de Cooperation (FAC), the Caisse Centralede Cooperation Economique, and the Bureaud’Etudes Techniques. FAC has an annualbudget of 1 billion francs ($167 million), ofwhich 20 million francs ($3.3 million) goes forforestry-related technical assistance, mainly inFrench-speaking African countries. The CaisseCentrale de Cooperation Economique spent 43million francs ($7 million) in 1979 and 16million francs ($2.7 million) in 1980 on forestryprojects in Africa.

Ch 2—Selected Institutions • 21

The Bureau des Études Techniques (BET) ofCTFT is the implementation branch of whatis otherwise a research institution. BET has astaff of 9 (3 professionals) in France, and 30overseas (8 professionals). In 1980, it had abudget of 17 million francs ($2,8 million), 60percent of which was spent on plantation op-erations run or assisted by CTFT, 23 percenton planning forest resource inventories andstudies of various kinds, and most of the reston fishery and pisciculture development.Eighty-seven percent of the activities of BETwere in Africa.

For 1980 (the last year for which a detailedresearch report is available), CTFT activitiesconcentrated on improving plantation silvicul-ture, with particular emphasis on tropical pinesand Eucalyptus trees. Other activities includedstudies of forest ecosystem transformation inFrench Guinea caused by different land usepatterns, research concerning reforestationpossibilities in the Sahel, and consolidation ofa tropical forest gene bank at CTFT head-quarters.

France is losing its skilled tropical forestryprofessionals through attrition. About 16 or 18members of the former overseas colonial for-estry corps (corps d’ingenieurs des eaux etforêts d’Outre Mer) will be retired by 1986. Theremaining handful of professionals with trop-ical forest expertise are associated with theEcole Nationale du Génie Rural des Eaux et desForêts, and with the Ecole Nationale des In-genieurs des Travaux des Eaux et Forêts.

Japan

Japanese Overseas AfforestationAssociation (JOAA), Tokyo, Japan

JOAA was established by 11 paper and pulpcompanies in Japan. JOAA is engaged in pro-moting trial plantations, generally of exoticspecies, in tropical East Asia. It is engaged inevaluating the viability of various afforestationand reforestation techniques, with a primarygoal of ensuring future pulp supplies. In thewords of one AID document, “JOAA feelsstrongly that there needs to be formed a world-

wide afforestation/reforestation organizationand center to coordinate and conduct trialplantations in all of the tropics” (14).

Sweden

Swedish international DevelopmentAuthority (SIDA)

SIDA is active in tropical forest resource re-lated projects in nine especially poor countries:Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Zam-bia, Lesotho, Tanzania, India, Bangladesh, andLaos. The emphasis of Swedish bilateral proj-ects is oriented as much towards developmentof the infrastructure for forest industries astowards sustaining forest resources. Such de-velopment includes construction and improve-ment of forest roads, pulp and paper mills, andsawmills. However, other project componentsinclude reforestation and afforestation, soilconservation, and training of forest wardensand personnel.

More recently, SIDA has become concernedwith the fuelwood crisis in Africa and Asia. Toaddress this problem SIDA is increasing its col-laboration with FAO with respect to village andcommunity forestry.

Overseas(ODA)

United Kingdom

Development Administration

ODA is active both in financing research re-lated to sustaining tropical forest resources andin technology transfer through its Land Re-sources Development Centre (LRDC). About 1percent of the ODA budget for bilateral aid isfor forestry studies. ODA’s total expenditureon forestry research for 1981-82 was about440,000 pounds ($250,000). In addition, ODAprovides the core funding for the Common-wealth Forestry Institute (see separate listing),

ODA’s forestry research focuses on geneticimprovement of selected tropical species andtraditional silviculture. As of 1980, at least halfof the total forestry research funding was de-voted to improving various species of CentralAmerican and Mexican pines.

22 Background Paper #2: U.S. and International Institutions

The LRDC division of ODA is involved in ac-tivities related to implementing and transfer-ring agricultural and forestry developmenttechnologies, In particular, LRDC offers tech-nology transfer services in forest resourceevaluation, forest management and planning,and pilot development projects. LRDC has astaff of 60 scientists including specialists intropical soil science, ecology, hydrology, irriga-tion engineering, agriculture, land use plan-ning, economics, and sociology. LRDC had sixforestry experts on its staff in 1982.

Intermediate Technology DevelopmentGroup (ITDG)

ITDG is a nonprofit organization formed in1965 by the late E. F. Schumacher to give in-formation and advice on appropriate technol-ogies for developing countries. ITDG has a staffof about 60 and is assisted by nearly 300 volun-tary experts who provide advice in many fields,including forestry and forest industries. Twoorganizations within ITDG are of special rel-evance to sustaining tropical forest resources:Intermediate Technology Industrial Services(ITIS) and Intermediate Technology Consult-ants Ltd.

ITIS is involved in alternative energy devel-opment studies and projects which, when im-plemented, could lessen the pressures on trop-ical forests. ITIS is at work on a project todevelop and introduce more efficient fuelwoodstoves in Indonesia, Nepal, and Sri Lanka.

Intermediate Technology Consultants Ltd.has an Appropriate Technology for Forestry(ATF) branch. This is a consultancy service toprovide an integrated approach to forest devel-opment using intermediate and small-scaletechnology. ATF has special expertise in socialforestry, creating village woodlots, and design-ing and developing fuel-efficient systems forcooking and power generation.

Institute for TerrestriaI Ecology

The Institute has eight research laboratoriesin the United Kingdom, one of which, the

Penicuik Station, has worked since 1974 on aproject concerning the reproduction, conser-vation, and improvement of tropical hard-woods. This project was funded by the U.K.Overseas Development Administration in co-operation with the West African HardwoodImprovement Project of the Forestry ResearchInstitute of Nigeria. Attention has been givento the West African hardwood Triplochitonscleroxylon with respect to techniques forvegetative propagation, the management ofstockplants, the selection of superior clonesthrough a study of branching processes, andthe stimulation of precious flowering and seedproduction, These studies are of importancefor the propagation and conservation of othertropical trees, since already 37 other speciesin moist and arid zones have been found torespond to techniques developed for T.scleroxylon.

Commonwealth Forestry Institute,Unit of Tropical Silviculture

The Commonwealth Forestry Institute con-sists of the Department of Forestry of OxfordUniversity, its library, and the CommonwealthForestry Bureau. The Unit of Tropical Silvicul-ture of the Oxford Forestry Department isengaged in research and training in tropicalforestry and is the main center for such re-search in the United Kingdom.

The unit’s program is directed toward help-ing tropical forest countries obtain increasedand sustained outputs of wood. Particular at-tention has been given to the use of degradedsites, cutover areas, or land unsuitable for per-manent agriculture. Recent research in gyne-cology, taxonomy, and variation has been di-rected to promote plantations of fast-growingtree species such as Central American pines.

The unit’s staff includes 13 professional re-search officers, 3 research assistants in com-puting and training, 5 technicians, and a cler-ical staff of 4. In 1980-81, total expenditureswere 361,311 pounds (approximately $206,500).

Ch 2—Selected Institutions • 23

West Germany

Bundesministerium furWirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit(BWZ), and Deutsche Gesellschaft fürTechnische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)

The West German Federal Ministry for Eco-nomic Cooperation (BMZ) funds German de-velopment aid projects, Forestry projects areimplemented by the German Agency for Tech-nical Cooperation (GTZ). Out of 494 field staffin agriculture and forestry, GTZ has 21 univer-sity trained forestry and timber experts and 9technicians. In addition to its staff, GTZ relies

on German universities and especially on theGerman Public Forestry Administration fortechnical support. GTZ forestry professionalsare concentrated heavily in Africa, where 18of the forestry field staff of 30 work. Nine staffmembers work in Asia, and three in LatinAmerica.

GTZ forestry policy has three priority areas:forest conservation and production; institutionbuilding; and forest industries, timber tech-nology, and processing, whose goal is increas-ing the efficiency of forest and timber indus-tries.

DEVELOPING WORLD INSTITUTIONS (ASIA, AFRICA, LATIN AMERICA)

Brazil

A comprehensive description of Brazilian in-stitutions concerned with sustaining tropicalforest resources would be an enormous task.This section only describes some of the majorinstitutions, focusing on those that promote amore innovative and ecologically oriented ap-proach to research and implementation.

In 1980, the Brazilian Government publisheda comprehensive listing of ongoing forestryresearch projects in the country. This com-pendium listed 1,365 projects, of which 1,119involved silviculture, 61 environmental andecological research, 63 forestry administration,and 123 forest industry technology. The singlemost important area in silviculture researchconcerned genetic improvement of species(mainly plantation type trees such as eucalyp-tus and pine) with 598 ongoing projects.

Principal institutions undertaking ongoingresearch were the Instituto de Pesquisas eEstudos Florestais in Piracicaba, Sao Paulostate, and the Instituto Brasiliero de Desen-volvimento Florestal (IBDF), Brasilia, and mostimportant for the purposes of our study theEmpresa Brasiliera de Pesquisa Agropecuaria(EMBRAPA) (Brazilian agricultural researchenterprise]. IPEF’s work mainly involves tradi-tional plantation silviculture.

IBDF works closely with EMBRAPA. IBDFis principally an administrative and financingagency, while EMBRAPA actually undertakesand implements national forestry research.

A 1980 project, Agricultural Research II (ARII) calls for a $7.62-million forestry researchprogram that will concentrate on agroforestryand the use of marginal, degraded land forforestry. This program is an innovative depar-ture from the emphasis of most previous for-estry research programs in Brazil on traditionalplantation silviculture. The agroforestry re-search will focus on the potential of taungyasystems, agroforestry systems using mediumcycle and perennial crops (coffee, cacao,palmito, ipecacuanha, etc.), and forestry-livestock combinations.

The marginal land forestry research willfocus on rehabilitating and reforesting eco-logically degraded areas near Brasilian popula-tion centers, particularly in the overpopulatedand deforested northeast.

EMBRAPA has a total professional researchstaff of 34, with 124 technical support person-nel. The AR II plan will add 14 more scientiststo the professional staff, for an eventual totalof 48.

The Forestry Research Unit of the Agricul-tural Research Center for the Semiarid Tropics

24 Ž Background Paper #2: U.S. and International Institutions

(CPATSA) at Petrolina, Pernambuco state, isaddressing the problem of reforestation and af-forestation of Brazil’s most ecologically de-graded, poorest, and densely populated region—the Northeast. This area is now principallycovered by a sparse, brushy type of vegetationknown as “caatinga.” CPATSA is undertakingagroforestry experiments to identify and prop-agate tree species with high wood and forageyields. Research is also under way on geneticimprovement of species suitable for fuelwoodand charcoal production.

Other institutions involved with sustainingtropical forest resources include a number ofBrazil’s 57 universities and 803 institutes forhigher learning. Three universities in par-ticular have strong programs in natural re-source and forestry management: the Univer-sidade Federal de Parana, the UniversidadeFederal de Vicosa em Minas Gerais, and theEscola Superior de Agricultural ‘luiz deQuieroz’ in Piracicaba, Sao Paulo state.

Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas daAmazonia (INPA)

INPA, another Brazilian institution, is oneof the most important developing country re-search institutions dealing exclusively withtropical forest resources and their sustainablemanagement. INPA has over 700 staff, morethan 140 of whom are university trained re-searchers. It is divided into eight departments:ecology, tropical pathology, tropical silvi-culture, botany, natural products, limnology,and aquatic biology, technology, and agro-nomic sciences.

The Department of Ecology has studied thephysical and chemical environment of Ama-zonian organisms, with emphasis on regionalwater, carbon and mineral cycles, and energybudgets and on the systematic and ecology ofinsects. The Department of Pathology has fo-cused attention on parasite and disease vectorsin the Brazilian Amazon, and the Tropical Sil-vicultural Department is devoting much of itsresources to a project entitled “EcologicalManagement and Exploitation of Moist Trop-ical Forests,” with special emphasis on natural

regeneration. Among the most important proj-ects of the Department of Botany is the“Amazonian Flora Project,” a species inven-tory supported by NSF of the United States.With NSF support, 11 binational expeditionswere conducted from 1977 to 1980 in differentbiotic areas of the Amazon Basin by Brazilianand American researchers, resulting in thegathering for herbarium collections of about25,000 different species of organisms.

The Department of Natural Products is car-rying out unique research on the chemical andpharmaceutical properties of tropical forestorganisms in the Amazon. Particular attentionis being focused on plants possessing biolog-ically active alkaloids, plants used by variousIndian groups for their contraceptive proper-ties, and little known fruits and vegetables thatappear to be rich sources of vitamins and pro-teins.

The Department of Aquatic Biology and Lim-nology focuses mainly on systematic charac-terizations of Amazonian fish species and lim-nological data on lakes and rivers in the region,with special attention given to aquatic macro-phites and their potential use as fertilizer andcattle food. The technology department is con-cerned with research relating to the possibleindustrial uses of wood and fibrous materialsfrom the region, especially for pulp and paperproduction. Finally, the Department of Agro-nomic Sciences is focusing on genetic improve-ment and intercropping systems for fruit treesand the following species: peach, palm, sour-sop, cupuacu, South American sapote, uvilla,araca-boi, araca-pera, camu-camu, and lacuma.Research on erosion control, conservation, andnitrogen fixation in Amazonian aquatic plantsand termites is being conducted by the Depart-ment’s Division of Soils, and the Division ofAlternative Energy Sources is developing proj-ects concerning the use of river currents forenergy production, biogas, and charcoal gases.

INPA is also a graduate and postgraduate ed-ucational institution. From 1974 to 1981, it pro-duced 54 graduates at the Master’s level andfour Ph.D.s. Courses are offered in forest man-

Ch. 2—Selected Institutions Ž 2 5

agement, botany, ecology, entomology, andfreshwater biology and fisheries.

Cameroon

The Ministère d’ Agriculture (MINAGRI) inYaounde is responsible for all activities in theforestry sector. Within MINAGRI, the Direc-tion des Eaux et Forêts et des Chasses overseesreplanting programs and the management ofstate forests. The Fends National Forestier etPisicole manages an inadequate reforestationprogram of 2,500 ha per year. Forestry researchis undertaken at the Institute de la RecherchAgronomique, and the Ecole Nationale Superi-eure Agronomique at Nikolbisson provides for-estry training at the technical level. There isa school for training wildlife specialists (Ecolepour la Formation des Specialists de la Fauve)in Garoua. It is affiliated with FAO and the Col-lege of African Wildlife Management inMweka, Tanzania.

Ghana

The principal institutions in Ghana con-cerned with implementing technologies to sus-tain tropical forest resources are the ForestryDepartment (FD) and the Forest Products Re-search Institute (FPRI). FD is a constituentdepartment of the Ministry of Lands, NaturalResources, Fuel, and Power and is responsi-ble for the management of forest reserves andresources. As of 1979, FD had a staff of 24forestry professionals, 133 senior technical of-ficers, 387 technical assistants, and 1,316 forestguards.

FPRI is one of the most important forest re-source institutions in West Africa. It conductsbasic and applied research concerning, amongother things, natural regeneration of the trop-ical high forest, agrosilviculture, and protec-tion of seedlings against fungi and weevils. Asof 1980, FPRI had a staff of 32 professionals,22 senior technicians, 80 junior techniciansand field assistants, and 466 tradesmen andlaborers.

Management and efficiency of FD and FPRIhave deteriorated over the past decade. The

professional staff is good, but political prob-lems exist, Another constraint is a shortage ofsufficiently experienced staff (less than 80 per-cent of established professional posts are filled),inadequate facilities, and the lack of a profes-sional level forestry school.

Lack of effective coordination among govern-ment forestry agencies has been helped by theWorld Bank and FAO, which created a For-estry Commission in 1980. Its task is to coor-dinate and integrate the functions of FPRI, FD,the Department of Game and Wildlife, and theGhana Timber Marketing Board.

Responsibility for forestry is divided betweenthe Directorate General for Forestry (LPPH-Lembaga Pusat Penelitian Hutan), which over-sees national forest policy and planning, and27 Provincial Forest Services (Dinas Kehu-tanan), which are directly responsible to thegovernors of the respective provinces, In ad-dition, forestry activities in the three heavilypopulated provinces of Java are managed bythe State Forestry Corporation, Perum Per-trulani. As a consequence of this institutionalfragmentation, coordination in forestry plan-ning is lacking. The provincial forest servicesare important institutions, since they havedirect authority to manage most of Indonesia’sremaining forest resources.

The most important institution involved inconserving Indonesia’s forest resources is theDirectorate of Nature Conservation (PPA). PPAhas received substantial aid from FAO, UNEP,and WWF to develop management plans for24 protected areas covering 6.8 million ha (outof a total of 77 legally established areas withan area of 8.7 million ha). The Directorate Gen-eral of Forestry plans to implement five of themanagement plans in 1982. Despite this am-bitious program, PPA will have difficulty pre-serving even a proportion of these reserves,

Indonesia has a substantial and growinggrass roots environmental movement, much ofwhose concern is directed towards deforesta-tion. Seventy-nine of these groups have formed

26 Ž Background Paper #2: U.S. and International Institutions

a national coalition known as the IndonesianEnvironmental Forum, which receives someassistance from a recently formed (1978) StateMinistry for Development Supervision and En-vironment (Menteri Negara Pengawasan-Pem-bangunan Dan Lingkungan Kidup). This Min-istry is involved in preparing environmentalassessments and in integrating environmentalconsiderations into the state’s economic devel-opment plans.

Ivory Coast

The principal forestry institutions in theIvory Coast are the Ministère des Eaux etForêts, which includes the Direction des ParesNationaux and the Société pour le Développe-ment des Plantations Forestieres (SODEFOR)(State Company for the Development of For-estry Plantations). SODEFOR is responsible forreforestation and management of national for-ests. However, in its first 10 years (1966-76),only 15,000 ha were reforested.

There is no university level forestry training,but there are forestry technical schools atBouake and Banco which offer 2-year trainingcourses. Although the Banco Forestry Schoolwas founded in the 1930’s, relatively recentreports (1979) state that it is in a state of neglectand lacks equipment.

Liberia

The Forest Development Authority is respon-sible for the administration of national forestareas, forest and land use policies, and re-search and forestry training. The ForestryTraining Institute in Boni Hills provides tech-nical staff training for about 20 Liberians and5 Sierra Leonean forest rangers per year. TheCollege of Agriculture and Forestry in theUniversity of Liberia graduates four to six pro-fessional foresters a year.

Malaysia

Malaysia is a federation of 14 states, 12 inpeninsular Malaysia, and 2, Sabah and Sara-wak, on the island of Borneo. Institutions in-volved in forestry research and management

in peninsular Malaysia are the best financedand most professionally competent in South-east Asia; Sarawak and Sabah, where most ofMalaysia’s remaining tropical forest resourcesare located, are less developed.

The Malaysian constitution makes forest re-source management the responsibility of thestate governments. There is a Federal ForestryDepartment in the Federal Ministry of PrimaryIndustries, but only the states in peninsularMalaysia recognize its authority, Forestry ad-ministration is autonomous and separate inSarawak and Sabah. As of December 1980,total forestry staff in peninsular Malaysia wasabout 5,600, nearly 5,000 of whom were withthe state forest departments. There were 280professional level staff.

The Forest Research Institute (FRI) at Ke-pong, while technically the national forestryresearch institution, is actually the research in-stitute for peninsular Malaysia. FRI has a sub-stantial international reputation. It has been aleader in research into sustained yield manage-ment of mixed dipterocarp forest.

The FRI library has over 100,000 volumesand is the most comprehensive forestry libraryin Southeast Asia. In addition, FRI has a her-barium with 120,000 specimens. FRI has a staffof 400, with about 80 professional positions.A major institutional problem is the low payand resulting short tenure of staff members,who try to move on to better paying positionsin the Federal Forestry Department as quick-ly as possible.

Training in forestry is provided at both theprofessional and technical levels. The Agricul-ture University of Malaysia, at Serdang, has 4-and 3-year diploma courses in forestry and pro-duces about 60 graduates annually. The univer-sity has extension courses and seminars, butresearch is limited and underfunded. A majorinstitutional problem is the lack of contact andexchanges between the forestry faculty mem-bers and their colleagues in other SoutheastAsian countries and the rest of the world.

In Sarawak, forest resources are adminis-tered by the Forestry Department (FD) and theSarawak Timber Industry Development Corp.

Ch. 2—Selected Institutions 2 7

(STIDC), both of which are part of the SarawakMinistry of Forestry. In 1980, FD had a staffof about 1,000, 80 of them senior level profes-sionals, FD has a forestry research staff of 130(15 professionals) whose main interest is thesilviculture of the mixed dipterocarp forest.

The Sabah Forestry Department (FD) is partof the Sabah Ministry of Natural Resources.Located at Sandakan, it has a staff of about1,000, with 60 senior level professionals. TheFD also has responsibility for game and wildlifeaffairs and maintains an orangutan rehabilita-tion center at Sepilok.

The Sabah Foundation owns all governmentland in Sabah and thus in some respects is themost important forest resource institution inSabah, since it has title to much of the remain-ing forested areas. The Sabah Foundation isengaged in an aggressive program of conversionof forested lands for agricultural development.

Unlike many nations in Latin America, Mex-ico possesses an active scientific communitythat has become increasingly concerned aboutthe ecological costs of economic growth, in-cluding the effects of development on tropicalforest resources. Reflecting this concern, Presi-dent Luis Echeverria (1970-76) encouraged theNational Council for Science and Technologyto create or expand a number of specializedresearch facilities throughout the country. Thethree most important with respect to tropicalforest resources are the Instituto Nacional deInvestigaciones Forestales in Mexico City, theInstituto Nacional por Investigaciones sobreRecursos Bioticos in Jalapa, Veracruz, and theInstituto Nacional de Ecologia in Mexico City.

During the past 5 years, forestry research inMexico has increased by 100 percent; the num-ber of professionals working in tropical areashas grown from 2 to about 30. The NationalInstitute of Forest Research operates nineregional research centers, of which threeare concerned with tropical moist forests:Campeche (covering the states of Campeche,Quintana Roo, and Tabasco), Oaxaca (Oaxaca,

Guerrero, Chiapas) and Veracruz (Veracruzand the northern gulf coast). Although researchpriorities vary among these facilities, the In-stitute maintains eight major programs: forestmanagement (including silviculture researchfor sustained yield); forest protection, forestplantations (both for industrial and protectiveends), forest products research (including op-timal use of forest resources], surveys and plan-ning, multiple use of forest resources (e.g.,agroforestry and other mixed crop systems),methods of harvesting and extraction, andwildlife and protection of endangered species.

The National Institute for Research on Bio-logical Resources (INIREB] has 70 professionalresearch staff. INIREB focuses on applied re-search to develop appropriate technology forecologically sustainable development. A sec-ond priority is basic research. INIREB has themost extensive research program concerningtropical forest resources in Mexico and one ofthe most important in Latin America. It alsoconducts training courses for research scien-tists and extension courses for peasants andfishermen.

The Institute has an innovative research pro-gram to develop ecologically sustainable agri-cultural systems with increased productivity.It has a special interest in chinampas, mixedcropping for coffee production, agroforestry,and aquiculture.

The National Institute for Ecology (Institutode Ecologia) is affiliated with the NationalMuseum of Natural History. For 1981-82, theInstitute had 11 projects. Five projects involvedresearch, planning, and development of eco-logical or biosphere reserves. Biosphere re-serves are part of a global network of protectedrepresentative ecosystems under the UNESCOMan and the Biosphere Program Project 8.They have had varying successes in Mexico—from being virtual legal fictions, in the case ofthe Lacandon rainforest in southeastern Mex-ico, to relative effectiveness, as with theMapimi Biosphere Reserve in the desert areaof Durango state. The key factor in the successor failure of protected areas in Mexico has beenthe degree of support and participation that hasbeen elicited from local farmers and ranchers.

28 • Background Paper #2: U.S. and International Institutions

The 1982 budget of the Institute is about 90million pesos, or approximately $1.8 million atthe July 1982 exchange rate.

Nigeria

Nigeria is a federation of 19 states, and theState Forest Services have the direct respon-sibility for the actual management and protec-tion of forest reserves. These constitute 10 per-cent of Nigeria’s land surface. The Forest Serv-ice of each state is usually within the Ministryof Agriculture and Natural Resources and isheaded by a Chief Conservator of Forests. Asof 1978, budget expenditures for the StateForest Services were 400 percent greater thanthe total federal forestry budget.

The Federal Department of Forestry is adepartment of the Federal Ministry of Agri-culture and Water Resources. It formulates na-tional forest policy and monitors state forestryactivities.

The Forest Research Institute of Nigeria(FRIN) in Ibadan is an important forest re-search facility. FRIN has a library of over37,000 items and 900 permanent staff, of whichmore than 80 are senior level forestry profes-sionals. FRIN has nine divisions, five directlyconcerned with sustaining tropical forest re-sources: the Tree Crop Production Division(which conducts research in Agrisilviculture),the Soil and Tree Nutrition Division, the ForestPathology Division, the Ecology Division, andthe Education and Training Division.

The University of Ibadan has a forestry de-partment which graduates about 70 profes-sionals a year. It serves as the professionalforestry school for most of English-speakingWest Africa, including Ghana. In addition,there are two vocational Forestry Schools thattrain 300 forest technicians a year. As in otherWest African countries, however, there is ascarcity of trained manpower, and 20 to 60 per-cent of the established federal and state forestryposts at different levels are unfilled.

Papua Now Guinea

The Wau Ecology Institute is dedicated toecology and conservation education and re-search. Located in the mountains of easternPapua New Guinea, it has an arboretum ofnative plants, a zoo, a small museum, and someresearch facilities. The Institute receives fund-ing from a variety of foreign governmental andnongovernmental agencies.

Since 1976, the Institute has done researchto develop gardening systems that could serveas alternatives to present patterns of slash andburn cultivation. Initial efforts involved tryingto develop more efficient gardening—usingconventional methods such as comporting,mulching, crop rotation, etc.—but researchrevealed that such systems involved greaterlabor inputs than existing systems and thus hadno attraction for indigenous farmers. Presentefforts are concentrated on assisting localfarmers to make the most efficient use of theirland in the context of existing use patterns. Inaddition, the Institute has embarked on a long-term program to develop agroforestry garden-ing systems using fast-growing legume trees.

Present staff for the Wau Ecology Institute’sagroforestry project includes a director withconsiderable experience in improving sub-sistence agriculture systems, four national staffwith professional university training, a gardenmanager, and several laborers.

Philippines

Until 1978, the Bureau of Forest Develop-ment (BFD) in the Ministry of Natural Re-sources had jurisdiction over all governmentforest lands, including national parks. In 1978,Government dissatisfaction with the steward-ship of BFD led to the transfer of all watershedlands (80 percent of the forested areas) to thejurisdiction of the Ministry of Energy.

BFD has a permanent staff of 10,000 employ-ees and in fiscal year 1981 had a budget of ap-

Ch 2—Selected Institutions 2 9

proximately $53 million. But a recent U.S. For-est Service Study states that inconsistency, lackof commitment, and corruption in governmentagencies that are responsible for forestry great-ly diffuse the effectiveness of any long-rangeforest projects conducted or supported bydonor agencies (28). On the other hand, forestresearch institutions in the Philippines areamong the most developed and best managedin tropical East Asia.

The Forest Research Institute (FORI) is atLaguna, near Manila. FORI has a staff of about2,500, of whom approximately 350 have sometechnical training. FORI has 24 forestry fieldresearch stations and 10 special research cen-ters, including research centers for agro-forestry, mangrove management, and diptero-carp management. Also at Laguna is the Col-lege of Forestry of the University of the Philip-pines at Los Banes. It is an institution that iswidely respected in East Asia. As of 1981, theForestry College had 300 students enrolled inits B.S. program, 130 in the M.S. program, anda dozen or so pursuing Ph.D.s.

The Development Bank of the Philippinesand the Paper Industries Corp. of the Philip-pines (PICOP), with assistance from the WorldBank, have undertaken over the past 10 yearsan agroforestry project in Mindanao. This proj-ect has been cited as one of the most success-ful examples of implementation of technologyto sustain tropical forests. A key factor seemsto be PICOP’s efforts to pay attention to theneeds of local people and to secure their par-ticipation in planning.

Thailand

The Royal Forestry Department (RFD) wasfounded in 1896 and has responsibility for allforest resource related matters, includingresearch and administration of protected areas.RFD has a staff of 5,860 permanent employees,of whom 3,000 have received some sort of for-estry training. Total annual funding for RFDis approximately $250 million a year.

RFD has 12 divisions, including a NationalParks Division (staff approximately 180) and

a Wildlife Conservation Division (staff approx-imately 200). The Silviculture and WatershedManagement Divisions are engaged in exten-sive reforestation activities. RFD has 21 region-al offices and 71 provincial offices.

The Forestry Industry Organization (FIO) isthe other principal forestry institution inThailand. It has a mandate to promote the con-trolled exploitation of forests and the develop-ment of the forest industry. The ReforestationDivision of FIO is working closely with RFDin an extensive nationwide reforestation pro-gram whose eventual success or failure willhave implications for similar programs else-where.

A major constraint for conserving forest re-sources in Thailand has been the fact that allforest land and much farm land is owned bythe RFD. As a consequence, local farmers havelittle incentive to conserve or sustainably man-age forested areas.

Disappointing results from such uncoordi-nated government activities led to the formula-tion of a new approach to reforestation, oneaimed at village forestry that would incorporateanthropological studies, land use planning, andrural development with reforestation and agro-forestry. Socially and economically sustainablereforestation is to be accomplished by estab-lishing forest villages in deforested areas,whereby the government provides a social in-frastructure (schools, water, electricity) andgives each family 1.6 ha of land to farm in ataungya fashion, intercropping teak seedlingswith rice, yams, and various other crops. In ad-dition, small cash bonuses are given for suc-cessful maintenance of taungya areas once theyare established. The goal is to create aneconomically viable, self-sustaining villageforest community that will have a vested in-terest in maintaining the taungya forest cover.

Only 48 or so forest villages have been estab-lished, each containing no more than 100 fam-ilies. The goal is to establish 4,500 forestvillages over a 25-year period.

Thailand has one undergraduate and grad-uate level forestry school, the Faculty of

—

30 Ž Background Paper #2: U.S. and International Institutions

Forestry at Kasetsart University in Bangkok. torates, and about 100 students a year areThere are 60 faculty members, 25 with doc- graduated.

REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS

BIOTROP, Bogor, Indonesia

BIOTROP (Regional Center for TropicalBiology) was established by the SoutheastAsian Ministers of Education Organization(SEAMEO) to help member states (Indonesia,Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore,Laos, Viet Nam, and Kampuchea, the latterthree being inactive) identify biological prob-lems whose solutions will enhance economicgrowth. BIOTROP is managed by the admin-istration of the Bogor Agricultural Universityin Indonesia and many of its 50 staff have full-time jobs on the Faculty of Forestry or else-where.

BIOTROP is an information clearinghouse,training center, and research institute in trop-ical forestry and biology. However, a recentvisit by two USFS foresters indicated that lit-tle of BIOTROP’s $1.3 million total annual ex-penditures was devoted to research and thatits numerous training programs were suitablefor technicians rather than university grad-uates (5).

Centro Agronomic Tropical doInvestigacion y Ensenanza (CATIE)

Turrialba, Costa Rica

CATIE, with a budget in 1979 of over $6million and a professional staff of over 100is one of the most important regional institu-tions in Latin America. CATIE’s mandate is toimprove the standard of living of low-income,small-scale farmers in the American tropics byconducting research to increase agricultural,animal, and forest production. CATIE uses amultidisciplinary, participatory strategy in itsresearch, including socioeconomic and physio-biological factors.

Most of CATIE’s research is directed to-wards improving annual and perennial crop

production systems and towards improvinganimal production on small farms. Given theimportant role of subsistence farmers in con-verting tropical forests, such research is an im-portant component of any strategy to reducethe pressures that are forcing small farmers toclear forested areas.

Another component of CATIE’s research isits Natural Renewable Resources Program,which is the part of CATIE’s work most direct-ly concerned with tropical forest resources.This program has about 20 staff, includingtraining officers. It is working on managementof secondary forests and plantations as ap-propriate tools for sustainable use of tropicalforests. CATIE believes that tropical deforesta-tion is best avoided by settling people on sus-tained schemes in areas already deforested andthat financing long-term reforestation schemesis a major need.

The Natural Renewable Resources Programis also involved in research concerning inten-sive silviculture of rapid growing species forindustrial uses, and with management ofwatersheds and primary, protected forest areassuch as the Rio Plantano Biosphere Reserve inHonduras.

Eastern Caribbean Natured AreasManagement Program (ECNAMP)

Christiansted, St. Croix

ECNAMP is a cooperative effort of the Carib-bean Conservation Association and the Univer-sity of Michigan’s School of Natural Resourceswith governmental and nongovernmental or-ganizations in the smaller islands of theEastern Caribbean. ECNAMP conducts re-search, training, and field projects tostrengthen local capacity to manage livingnatural resources in natural areas.

Ch. 2—Selected Institutions 3 1

Of ECNAMP’s annual budget of about$175,000, one-third is devoted to activitiesdirectly connected with tropical forests; suchprojects include the design of natural parksmanagement plans, workshops on park plan-ning and ecologically sound development, andthe development of conservation strategies forislands in the region. ECNAMP has seven staffmembers.

International Council for Researchin Agroforestry (ICRAF),

Nairobi, Kenya

ICRAF sees itself as a “Council with a globalmandate to promote, initiate, and support re-search in developing countries, It is not,however, an institute with an infrastructureand resources to carry out technology gener-ating research on its own. The most efficientway for ICRAF to make a significant researchcontribution to agroforestry development has

therefore been deemed to be by focusing onidentifying methods which can be used by fieldresearch institutes in developing countries. ”

ICRAF plans to emphasize agroforestry as aland use system. It hopes to build a multidis-ciplinary team of scientists who will identifysocial, economic, and ecological constraints inexisting land-use systems and assess the poten-tial of agroforestry technologies to overcomethese constraints. The Swiss DevelopmentAgency, IDRC, the German DevelopmentAgency, and the Dutch Ministry for Develop-ment Cooperation have agreed to send seniorstaff to ICRAF for periods of 2 to 3 years, andother support is forthcoming from AID.

As of April 1982, ICRAF had 13 senior scien-tists with training and experience in agronomy,horticulture, forestry, economics, anthro-pology, and other related fields. ICRAF’s costsfor 1982 are projected to be $2.2 million, ris-ing to $3 million by 1984. Funding for theseprojected budgets is still lacking.

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

World Bank, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

Along with FAO, the World Bank is the mostimportant international institution imple-menting technologies to sustain tropicalforests. This is not only because of its sizableand growing financial support for forestry proj-ects ($114 million for fiscal year 1981; $600million in 40 countries from 1978-81) but alsobecause of the considerable multiplier effectthat Bank projects have in the developingworld. Although loans earmarked for forestryprojects represent less than 1 percent of totalWorld Bank commitments, its programs haveboth positive and negative indirect impacts ontropical forests. In this respect, the role of theBank’s Office of Environmental Affairs (OEA)is crucial, since it can recommend that up to3 to 4 percent of the funds committed for proj-

ects can be earmarked for conservation and en-vironmental protection.

In the past, World Bank forestry projectshave focused on plantation monoculture andforest industry development, with much lessemphasis on fuelwood production and water-shed protection. However, the Bank’s 1978Forestry Sector Policy Paper declared theBank’s increasing concern with the role offorests in rural development (rural forestry) andenvironmental protection, The policies of theForestry Sector Paper have as yet not beencompletely implemented.

The Bank is especially concerned about thefuelwood crisis and plans to increase itsalready large fiscal year 1981 commitment (44percent of new forestry loans) to promotingvillage fuelwood lots and village forestry. A

32 . Background Paper #2: U.S. and International Institutions

major constraint for these plans is the lack ofinstitutions in most developing countries to im-plement village fuelwood programs.

Another Bank forestry priority for the com-ing years is strengthening forestry institutionsand extension services in the developing world.Since 1978, Bank support for forestry researchinstitutions in the tropics has totaled $22.7million, less than 3 percent of total forestrylending for this period. In 1981, FAO and theWorld Bank commissioned a study on forestryresearch needs in the developing world (“For-estry Research Needs in Developing Countries-Time for a Reappraisal”). One of its mainrecommendations was that more “twinning”exchange arrangements be established betweenleading forestry institutions in the developedand the developing world (27).

The World Bank employs 14 professional for-esters; 10 are based in Washington, 3 at FAOheadquarters in Rome, and 1 in India. Only oneforester is assigned to Latin America, wheremore than half of the Earth’s remaining moisttropical forests are found.

The Office of Environmental Affairs has apotentially important role because it reviewsall projects for negative environmental impactsand identifies potential protected areas. For ex-ample, a recent Bank-financed highway con-struction and agricultural colonization projectin Northwest Brazil provided funding to estab-lish three tropical forest protected areas andfour ecological stations. The number of Bankprojects potentially having direct or indirectnegative impacts on tropical forests is fargreater than the very small proportion prin-cipally oriented towards reforestation or sus-tainable forest development. Such projects in-clude large-scale hydroelectric schemes, irriga-tion, agricultural development and coloniza-tion projects, and highway construction pro-grams.

Inter-American Development Bank(IDB), Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

IDB traditionally has devoted relatively lit-tle attention to the question of long-term sus-tainable management of Latin America’s trop-

ical forest resources. From 1974 to 1981, themost important IDB forestry project involveda series of loans totaling over $180 million forindustrial development (construction of roads,sawmills, etc. ) of the Olancho Caribbean PineForest reserve area in Honduras, the largest re-maining reserve of Caribbean Pine in CentralAmerica. New forestry loans approved for 1980totaled $32.6 million. Up to 1980, IDB did notemploy any full-time professional foresters; asof 1982 it had hired one.

Although the Bank’s forestry policy paper,formulated in 1975 (being revised) talks brief-ly about questions of long-term sustainable useand conservation of forest resources, the Bankcan finance almost any type of project for-mulated by the member governments.

The Bank has been influenced by recentchanges in FAO and World Bank forestry pol-icies, which now emphasize village forestry,agroforestry, fuelwood projects, and watershedmanagement. Although IDB may give more at-tention to these aspects of forestry develop-ment in the future, it appears that other institu-tions such as the World Bank, FAO, and AIDwill be the leaders in formulating a sustainableforest resource development policy.

Asian Development Bank,Manila, Philippines

The Asian Development Bank has preparedtwo policy documents concerning forestry inrecent years. The first, the Bank’s 1978 SectorPaper on Forestry and Forest Industries, iden-tified the following priority program areas:development of industrial forestry and planta-tions, use of hitherto inaccessible forest by log-ging and development of infrastructure, andinstitution building. In 1980, the Bank pub-lished a position paper on the “Role of Com-munity Forestry in Rural Development in theAsia-Pacific Region” which gave special em-phasis to the Bank’s role in promoting com-munity forestry for fuelwood needs and en-vironmental protection.

From 1977 to 1982, the Bank granted loansamounting to $60.8 million for six forestry sec-tor projects. Two were for community forestry

Ch. 2—Selected Institutions 3 3

in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, and four wereforestry industry development projects inBurma, Laos, Nepal, and Western Samoa. TheNepal and Western Samoa projects had impor-tant reforestation components.

Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations (FAO)

Rome, Italy

FAO has the greatest accumulation of pro-fessional tropical forestry expertise in theworld. Its Forestry Department employs 62professionals at headquarters in Rome andabout 250 specialists working in 70 countriesin the field. Of FAO’s total working budget for1982-83 of $368 million, $14.7 million is allo-cated for the regular program of the ForestryDepartment. In addition, some $60 million inextra budgetary funds will be administered bythe Forestry Department in FAO’s Field Pro-gram. These are substantial amounts, but for-estry still has a secondary role at FAO. Forcomparison, the 1982-83 working budget forthe Agriculture Department is $127.9 million,with over $475 million in extra budgetaryfunds.

FAO’s forestry activities for 1982-83 aredivided into four programs: forest resourcesand environment, forest industries and trade,forest investment and institutions, and forestryfor rural development. The Forestry Invest-ment and Institution Program is the most heav-ily funded, with a working budget of over $4million. Components of the program includetraining and institution building, investmentplanning and statistics, and development offorest policy and information. The Forest In-dustries and Trade Program is budgeted at $2.7million for the next fiscal period and has thegoal of promoting and assisting the forest in-dustry sector in developing countries.

Of most relevance to technologies for sustain-ing tropical forest resources are the ForestResources and Environmental Program andthe Forestry for Rural Development Program,budgeted at $2.38 million and $2.5 million,respectively. The Forest Resources and Envi-ronment Program focuses on these objectives:

creating a world forest resources informationsystem, expanding forest tree plantations forenvironmental protection and as renewablesources of energy and food, developing uplandforests for erosion control and watershed man-agement, and managing wildlife. To accom-plish these objectives, FAO will update theTropical Forest Resources Assessment thatthey recently completed for UNEP (see UNEPsection), expand the Forest Data ProcessingSystem (FIDAPS), promote tree improvementand plantations with emphasis on fuelwoodand multiple purpose species, improve uplandconservation practices through integratedwatershed and forest land development, andpromote wildlife and national park policies inthe context of national renewable resourcemanagement.

The Forestry for Rural Development Pro-gram of FAO’s Forestry Department plays aninnovative role in promoting community for-estry and agroforestry, with an emphasis onalleviating the fuelwood crisis in many devel-oping countries. Most of the funding in theFAO Field Program goes for forest manage-ment and afforestation, education and train-ing, institution building, and development ofthe forest industry sector. For 1980-81, forestryprojects represented about 11 percent of theFAO Field Program, with expenditures of $60million out of a total of $561 million. Increasedemphasis is being given to community forestryand small-scale forestry industry projects.UNDP supplies about 60 percent of funds forFAO field projects in general and nearly allUNDP forestry sector projects are imple-mented through the FAO Field Program.

The combined total funds (Regular Programplus Field Program) administered by FAO’sForestry Department for the 1982-83 bienniumare $80.8 million out of total FAO funds of$1.05 billion. Regionally, the greatest allotmentof funds is for Africa, $25.7 million, followedby Asia and the Pacific, $20.7 million. LatinAmerica, with half of the world’s remainingtropical moist forests, is budgeted for $13.4million.

It is important to note that the Forestry Pro-gram is the smallest of FAO’s three technical

34 Ž Background Paper #2: U.S. and International Institutions

programs—agriculture, fisheries, forestry—andindeed is dwarfed by the size of the agriculturalcomponent of FAO activities. As with other de-velopment institutions, the question remainswhether FAO’s support of large-scale projectsthat promote expanding agricultural produc-tion may be doing more to reduce tropical for-est resources than smaller scale programs toconserve these resources can combat. Second,it may be asked whether a similar contradic-tion exists within the Forestry Departmentitself—whether, for example, FAO projects todevelop forest industry and trade, such as theUNDP/FAO Pulp and Paper Industries Devel-opment Program, may be promoting unsustain-able alteration of tropical forest ecosystems insome regions, while elsewhere other FAO pro-grams are working to promote conservation.

Despite FAO’s unequaled technical exper-tise, it is less effective than it might be in fur-thering policies and systems to sustain forestresources because of a relative lack, for wantof a better term, of political effectiveness. Thevarious development banks, particularly theWorld Bank, may have a more immediate anddirect effect in promoting policies to sustainresources because of their very nature as finan-cial institutions whose loans must be repaid.

Consultative Group on InternationalAgricultural Research (CGIAR),

Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

CGIAR is an informal association of govern-mental, regional, and international organiza-tions and foundations whose task is to supportand promote an international system of agri-cultural research centers and programs. Thegoal of these research centers and programsis to increase the quality and quantity of foodproduction in the developing world. By devel-oping and promoting more efficient cropstrains and agricultural systems, CGIARresearch could help to alleviate pressures toconvert remaining tropical forests to otheruses. However, some CGIAR research pro-motes existing land use patterns—e. g., the ex-pansion of cattle pastures on acidic soils ofconverted tropical moist forest areas. Such

research may, at least indirectly, contribute tothe destruction of tropical forest resourcesrather than to their conservation.

CGIAR was founded in 1971 under the jointsponsorship of the World Bank, UNDP, andFAO. The CGIAR Secretariat is located in Bankheadquarters in Washington, and the CGIARTechnical Advisory Committee (TAC) is inFAO headquarters in Rome. TAC consists of13 scientists who review the scientific andtechnical aspects of CGIAR programs and for-mulate suggestions for future activities. In1980, CGIAR had 13 research centers and abudget of over $120 million.

The CGIAR supported centers are:

Centro International de AgriculturalTropical (CIAT), Apartado Aereo 6713,Cali, Columbia

Centro International de la Papa (CIP),Apartado 5969, Lima, Peru

Centro International de Mejoramiento deMaiz y Trigo (CIMMYT), Londres 40,Mexico 6, D.F. Mexico

International Board for Plant GeneticResources (IBPGR), Crop Ecology andGenetic Resources Unit, Food andAgriculture Organization of the UnitedNations, Via delle Terme de Caracalla,00100 Rome, Italy

International Center for AgriculturalResearch in the Dry Areas (ICARDA),P.O. Box 114/5055, Beirut, Lebanon

International Crops Research Institute forSemi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), PatancheruP. O., Andhra Pradesh 5022 324, India

International Food Policy ResearchInstitute (IFPRI), 1776 MassachusettsAvenue, N. W., Washington, D.C. 20036,USA

International Institute of TropicalAgriculture (IITA), P.O. Box 5320,Ibadan, Nigeria

International Laboratory for Research onAnimal Diseases (ILRAD), P.O. Box30709, Nairobi, Kenya

Ch. 2—Selected Institutions 3 5—

International Livestock Centre for Africa(ILCA), P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa,Ethiopia

International Rice Research Institute(IIRI), P.O. Box 933, Manila, Philippines

International Service for NationalAgricultural Research (ISNAR), P.O. Box93375, 2509 Aj, The Hague,The Netherlands

West Africa Rice DevelopmentAssociation (WARDA), E. J. RoyeMemorial Building, P.O. Box 1019,Monrovia, Liberia.

Two of these institutions–CIAT and IITA–have programs of special relevance to tropicalforest resources, since their focus is on improv-ing agricultural systems in the humid tropics.CIAT studies the tropical areas of Latin Amer-ica and the Caribbean with the goal of increas-ing food production on small farms and devel-oping technology to promote agricultural pro-duction in underused areas with acidic, infer-tile soils. CIAT’s research concentrates on fourcommodities: beans, cassava, rice, and beef intropical pastures. CIAT has 90 international-ly recruited agricultural scientists as staff andhad a budget of $17.7 million in 1981. In addi-tion, 250 participants are involved in researchtraining internships at CIAT every year,

IITA has worldwide responsibility amongCGIAR centers for the improvement of cow-pea, yam, cocoyam, and sweet potato; it hasregional responsibility (i.e., for lowland humidAfrica) for research concerning cassava, rice,maize, soybean, lima been, winged bean, andpigeon pea. Of most direct relevance to sustain-ing tropical forest resources is IITA’s FarmingSystems Program, which is conducting re-search on traditional and new intercroppingsystems, including ones using fast-growing treelegumes.

United Nations University,Tokyo, Japan

The U.N. University was chartered in 1975under the joint sponsorship of the U.N. andUNESCO. Its purpose is “to be an international

community of scholars, engaged in research,post-graduate training and dissemination ofknowledge in furthering of the purposes andprinciples of the Charter of the United Na-tions” (U. N. University Charter, art. I, sec. 1).Up to 1982, the university has had three prin-cipal programs: World Hunger, Human andSocial Development, and Natural Resources.

The U.N. University Natural Resources Pro-gram has funded agroforestry activities at arate of $200,000 a year, primarily in coopera-tion with CATIE in Costa Rica. The universi-ty has had a number of workshops, sponsoredindividuals in training courses at CATIE, andconducted research projects in northern Thai-land, Costa Rica, Papua New Guinea, and theSouth Pacific. Other relevant activities withinthe Natural Resources Program include a High-land-Lowland Interactive Systems Project (withan agroforestry component), an Arid LandsSub-Program, and a subprogram concerningenergy systems for rural communities.

The U.N. University is being reorganizedinto three divisions: development studies(which will continue most of the tropical forestresource related work), regional and globalstudies, and global learning.

United Nations EnvironmentProgramme, Nairobi, Kenya

UNEP’s role in the U.N. system is to serveas a catalyst and coordinating agency for en-vironmental activities. This means that UNEPitself does not have the technical and profes-sional capacity to undertake research or im-plementation projects concerning tropical for-est resources. In conjunction with other institu-tions, such as FAO and UNESCO, UNEP hashelped to initiate and support a number of trop-ical forest related projects.

Through the Global Environment Monitor-ing System, UNEP supported FAO in a com-prehensive survey of tropical forest resourcesthat established the first reliable estimates ofthe rate of conversion of tropical forests world-wide. UNEP cooperated with IUCN/WWF,UNESCO, and FAO in preparing the WorldConservation Strategy, which articulated

36 Ž Background Paper #2: U.S. and International Institutions

definitive guidelines for reconciling develop-ment and conservation priorities.

Unfortunately, efforts by UNEP to initiateand promote international plans to deal withthe problems of desertification and tropicaldeforestation have been unsuccessful, TheU.N. Conference on Desertification in Nairobiproduced a plan with 28 recommendations, butit has not been implemented, funded, or pur-sued. More recently, UNEP, FAO, andUNESCO jointly sponsored two meetings(Nairobi, 1980; Rome, 1982) to formulate a planto combat tropical deforestation. A number ofkey tropical forest countries such as Brazil andZaire refused to attend, objecting to interna-tional deliberations over what they regard astheir domestic resources. The Rome meetingfailed even to produce a plan, but rather issueda document that identified 30 elements of ac-tion and left concrete activities to the discre-tion of individual countries.

United Nations Educational, Scientific,and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),

Paris, France

UNESCO sponsors activities that deal bothwith research concerning tropical forest re-sources and with protected natural areas(which can include tropical forest ecosystems).

The UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Pro-gram was established in 1971 and has the goalof using an international, interdisciplinaryresearch program to find practical solutions toproblems of natural resource and land develop-ment/management. MAB is divided into 13projects, including over 1,000 field projects inmore than 90 countries. These projects usual-ly include research, demonstration, training,and educational activities. The total proposedUNESCO MAB budget for 1981 to 1983 is $22.5million. Nearly one-fourth of this is earmarkedfor activities concerning humid tropical zones,and additional individual country contribu-tions for specific projects in humid tropicalareas total about $20 million.

MAB Project 1 is entitled “Ecological Effectsof Increasing Human Activities on Tropical

and Subtropical Forest Ecosystems” and in-cludes about 40 field projects concerning trop-ical forest ecosystems, The projects are moreor less equally divided among Latin America,Asia, and Africa. Typical MAB Project 1 proj-ects include research pilot studies in Mexicoon the feasibility of using pre-Columbian agri-cultural systems such as chinampas (raisedfields in moist tropical forest areas) for in-creased food production and a series of base-line ecological studies on the effects of differentland use patterns on the Tai rainforest in theIvory Coast.

A number of other MAB projects have somerelation to research on tropical forest re-sources:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Project 3, “Impact of Human Activitiesand Land Use Practices on Grazing Lands:Savanna, Grasslands (From Temperate toArid Areas), Tundra;”Project 4, “Impact of Human Activities onthe Dynamics of Arid and Semiarid ZoneEcosystems With Particular Attention tothe Effects of Irrigation;”Project 6, “Impact of Human Activities onMountain Ecosystems;”Project 7, “Ecology and Rational Use ofIsland Ecosystems;”Project 10, “Effects on Man and His En-vironment of Major Engineering Works;”andProject 12, “Interactions Between Envi-ronmental Transformations and Geneticand Demographic Changes. ”

UNESCO has two programs to set aside nat-ural protected areas, including tropical forests.The MAB Project 8, “Conservation of NaturalAreas and of the Genetic Material They Con-tain, ” aims to establish a global network ofrepresentative samples of major ecosystems.The biosphere reserve concept embodies a corearea that is left completely intact, surroundedby a semiprotected area where human modi-fication of the ecosystem is allowed and canbe studied. The UNESCO-administered WorldHeritage Convention aims to protect selectedsites of outstanding cultural or natural value.The Convention also establishes a World Her-

Ch. 2—Selected Institutions Ž 37

itage Fund for the financing of some of the pro-tected sites chosen by signatory nations,

Both MAB Project 8 and the World HeritageConvention are promising mechanisms forhelping to establish protected tropical forestareas. Neither program is exclusively con-cerned with tropical forests, and they cannot,even if fully implemented, meet the need fora worldwide network of protected tropical for-est ecosystems.

Total proposed funding for both programsfor 1981-83, including contributions from theWorld Heritage Fund and UNEP, is slightlymore than $2 million,

International Union of ForestryResearch Organizations (IUFRO),

Vienna, Austria

IUFRO is not a research or implementationagency; rather, it exists to promote interna-tional cooperation in forestry research, re-search techniques, and systems of measure-ment. It functions through correspondence,seminars, and, every 3 to 5 years, a World Con-gress where all aspects of forestry research arediscussed. IUFRO has greatly expanded itsmembership in recent years from a nucleus ofinstitutions based in Europe to a global net-work with, at the end of the 1970’s, a member-ship of over 500 institutions and 10,000 scien-tists from 89 countries,

IUFRO is divided into more than 200 Scien-tific Research Units which are organized intosix divisions—forest environment and silvi-culture; forest plants and forest protection;forest operations and techniques; planning,economic growth, and yield; management andpolicy; and forest products and general sub-jects.

International Society of TropicalForesters (lSTF), Bethesda, Md., U.S.A.

After several years of inactivity, ISTF wasreactivated in 1979 and now has over 1,000members in more than 100 countries. Nearlytwo-thirds of the membership is outside the

United States. The principal objective of ISTFis the transfer of information to improve theprotection, management, and use of tropicalforests. ISTF publishes a quarterly newsletterand plans to sponsor technical conferences,workshops, and training sessions on tropicalforests. It is exploring ways to work with theInternational Council of Agricultural Researchand the International Union of Forestry Re-search Organizations.

World Wildlife Fund-International(WWF), Gland, Switzerland

WWF is the world’s largest nongovernmen-tal conservation organization. In 1980, WWFspent nearly $10 million on 650 projects aroundthe globe. WWF has 26 national affiliates in thedeveloped world, and these affiliates, includingWWF-US, spent $4.2 million on 382 national-ly managed projects. WWF-International,through IUCN, managed 270 projects in 1980whose cost totaled $5.39 million. Of this, about$2.5 million went to protecting endangeredspecies, $0.5 million for protected areas, andthe rest for educational programs, law, institu-tions, administration, development planning,protection of ecosystems, and area-based con-servation projects. WWF/IUCN has been espe-cially active in Indonesia, where they havecompleted a 5-year, $1.5 million program topromote the establishment of national parksand reserves.

For 1982-84, WWF is undertaking a $3 mil-lion fund raising campaign to support a pro-posed IUCN/WWF international conservationprogram for tropical forests and primates.

international Union for theConservation of Nature and NaturalResources (IUNC), Gland, Switzerland

IUCN is an independent, international non-governmental organization whose purpose isto promote scientifically based action directedtowards the sustainable use and conservationof natural resources. IUCN has a permanentstaff of about 20 professionals and does muchof its work through a global network of over

38 • Background Paper #2: U.S. and International Institutions

1,500 scientists and other professionals orga-nized on six IUCN commissions: ecology, ed-ucation, environmental planning, species sur-vival, national parks and protected areas, andenvironmental policy, law, and administration.IUCN helps to design and manage the projectsof WWF, many of which are concerned withconserving tropical forest species and habitats.

More recently, IUCN has undertaken a num-ber of special initiatives to help conservetropical forest resources. IUCN was the leadinstitution in preparing the World Conserva-tion Strategy, a joint UNEP/WWF/IUCN/FAO/UNESCO plan to promote sustainable develop-ment through conservation of natural re-sources. The IUCN Species Survival Commis-sion has prepared a primate conservation plan,and IUCN’s plans for 1982-84 include a majorworldwide program to conserve tropical for-ests and primates. IUCN recently formed aConservation for Development Center (CDC),which provides technical assistance to ThirdWorld countries and development assistanceagencies to implement the environmental com-ponents of development projects. The biggestongoing project of the CDC is a $250,000 WorldConservation Strategy follow-up project toassist developing countries in preparing na-tional conservation strategies.

IUCN has a membership of 54 governments,114 government agencies, and 294 nongovern-mental national and international organiza-tions representing in total 110 nations. Unfor-tunately, IUCN’s funding, dependent mainlyon WWF and UNEP, was halved within 2 years(1979-81) and for 1981 was at a level of 5.9million Swiss francs, or less than $3 million.

Lutheran World Service (LWS),Lutheran World Federation,

Geneva, Switzerland

LWS works with a number of U.N. agenciesand international voluntary organizations toprovide assistance to the developing world. ItsCommunity Development Service has dis-bursed over $90 million for more than 875 proj-ects in about 50 countries since its foundingin 1962. More than half of these projects havebeen in Africa, and they have focused on tradi-tional community development priorities suchas agricultural development, health care, andeducation. A number of these projects have hadreforestation and community forestry com-ponents, especially in the Sahel region.

Lutheran World Relief (LWR)New York, N.Y., U.S.A.

Lutheran World Relief is the U.S.-based in-ternational Lutheran assistance service and isfunded by the U.S. Lutheran churches. It is ac-tive in over 40 countries in the developingworld and has disbursed over $10 million inassistance in 1981. LWR rarely operates itsown programs—rather, it supports the projectsof other public and private international orga-nizations, including, of course, those of theLutheran World Federation-Lutheran WorldService, Of 25 recent LWR-supported pro-grams, four deal principally with tropical forestresources: an agroforestry project, a fruit treenursery project, a community gardening proj-ect in Niger, and a community reforestationproject in India.

Only a handful of U.S. foundations have sub- probably averages between $10 million and $12stantial international programs. Support for all million a year. Interest in tropical forest re-international and foreign-oriented projects sources—as reflected in the popular press, con-amounts to only about 4 percent of the approx- ferences, and publications—is higher than inimately $2.4 billion awarded each year by U.S. the past, so funding is probably as high as itprivate foundations (24). Total support for trop- has ever been.ical forest projects, though difficult to calculate, This section describes 19 U.S. foundations

—

Ch. 2—Selected Institutions Ž 3 9

that have made significant grants in the past3 years for projects related to technologies tosustain tropical forest resources (see table 3).It highlights numerous funding opportunities,including some that might be important foruniversity programs and research.

The Ford Foundation, which accounts fornearly half of the total amount granted annual-ly by U.S. foundations for tropical forest relatedprojects, concentrates on community forestry.The Rockefeller Brothers Foundation spendsabout $600,000 a year on ecodevelopment proj-ects, mainly in the Caribbean. The Andrew W.Mellon Foundation has averaged $400,000 ayear in awards to U.S.-based institutions withstrong tropical forest related research pro-grams. In recent years, the MacArthur Founda-tion and the Richard King Mellon Foundationhave each given one-time grants of $15 millionto establish a World Resources Institute andto protect subtropical forests along U.S. south-ern rivers. Other foundations have grantedsmaller amounts, often because their limitedmandates permit them only to fund projects forspecial purposes or for institutions in a limitedgeographical area. The oil company founda-tions such as Shell, Mobil, ARCO, and Exxondisburse over $30 million annually for generaleducation purposes, but very little has been

Table 3.—Private U.S. Foundations FundingTropical Forestry Research and Projects

1. Ford Foundation2. Rockefeller Brothers Fund3. Andrew W. Mellon Foundation4. Richard King Mellon Foundation5. Rockefeller Foundation6. W. F. Kellogg Foundation7. Tinker Foundation8. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation9. Weyerhaeuser Foundation

10. Wallace Gerbode Foundation11. Ahmanson Foundation12. Camille and Henry Dreyfus Foundation, Inc.13. Ford Motor Co. Fund14. Mobil Foundation15. Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of New York16. Shell Companies Foundation17. Exxon Education Foundation18. Atlantic Richfield Foundation19. Inter-American FoundationSOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment

granted for projects relating to tropical forestresources.

Opportunities for funding correspond to thepurposes foundations are emphasizing—for ex-ample, education and research, rural and com-munity development, agricultural research,support of regional U.S. institutions, and somespecial purposes (e. g., chemical research) areareas of prime concern. The greatest unusedopportunity for funding tropical forest projectsappears to be the very important general educa-tion and university research support that oilcompany foundations provide. The widely dif-fering purposes and procedures of differentfoundations inhibit effective and efficient fund-ing of institutions and organizations seekingsupport.

SeIected Foundations

Ford Foundation

The Ford Foundation is the largest privatefunding agency supporting programs that di-rectly or indirectly contribute to sustainingtropical forest resources. It is estimated thatabout 5 or 6 percent of Ford’s annual programgrants of approximately $90 million a year(1981) are somehow related to sustaining trop-ical forest resources (7).

The level of funding for such programs hasgenerally remained constant over the past 4 or5 years and was not substantially affected bythe administrative reorganization of the foun-dation in 1980-81. Ford programs are dividedinto three main divisions: National Affairs,Education and Public Policy, and Internation-al. The International Division accounts for ap-proximately 40 percent of Ford disbursements;within the International Division in 1981, nineFord field offices in Asia, Africa, and LatinAmerica spent more than $22 million.

The Ford Foundation focus is on projectsand programs dealing with rural poverty anddevelopment. The field offices have consider-able freedom to formulate their own programswithin the general policies of the foundation.Perhaps as much as half of the amount dis-bursed by the field offices for rural develop-

40 Ž Background Paper #2: U.S. and International Institutions

ment touches natural resource management is-sues. The largest field offices are in India, In-donesia, and the Philippines, and are support-ing innovative programs in community andsocial forestry and strengthening local govern-mental, academic, and nongovernmental insti-tutions that deal with forest resources. An im-portant part of Ford’s support for social for-estry programs is its commitment to help ruralcommunities organize to more efficiently useexisting institutional and governmental re-sources.

For example, in 1981 Ford awarded grantstotaling over $400,000 to the University of thePhilippines at Los Banes, De La Salle Univer-sity (Philippines), and the Philippine Bureau ofForest Development for research, training, andcommunity pilot projects to halt the destruc-tion of upland forest areas. The foundation alsogave substantial grants to a number of volun-tary community organizations and universitiesin India to support village reforestation andfuel conservation efforts in the Himalayan foot-hills. A noteworthy element in Ford-supportedcommunity forestry projects is the importanceplaced on the role of women, who in manyareas of the Third World have the central rolein production and gathering of fuelwood andfodder.

Ford also is supporting key tropical forest re-source research institutions in other parts ofthe world, such as ICRAF in Nairobi and theNational Institute of Ecology and NationalInstitute for Research on Biotic Resources inMexico.

Rockefeller Brothers Fund, he.

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund is disbursingapproximately $600,000 a year in grants forecodevelopment as part of its international pro-gram. A substantial number of these grants aredirectly or indirectly related to sustaining trop-ical forest resources. It should be noted, how-ever, that in recent years (1980-81) over $20.6million of the fund’s total annual grant awardsof $25 million have been given to U.S. nationaland New York City projects.

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund stands outamong major U.S. foundations by its strongsupport for the findings and implications of theGlobal 2000 Report—which identified tropicaldeforestation as perhaps the most serious andimmediate ongoing global environmental prob-lem. Since the mid-1970’s, the fund has beena principal supporter of institutions in globalenvironmental and resource research, such asthe Worldwatch Institute and the InternationalFederation of Institutions for Advance Study,and, more recently, the University of Michi-gan’s School of Natural Resources.

The fund’s support has focused heavily onthe Caribbean region. In 1981, grants were ap-proved for the Caribbean Conservation Associ-ation, FAO, VITA, and the Sierra Club Founda-tion. In some instances, sustaining forest re-sources is a component of a broader project topromote environmentally sound development.In other instances the fund has supported proj-ects exclusively oriented towards sustainingforest resources, as is the case with its 1981grant of $20,000 to the Sierra Club Foundationfor its Caribbean mangrove management proj-ect.

Andrew W. Mellon Foundation

The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation distrib-utes approximately $5.1 million of its total an-nual grants ($58 million) for proposals dealingwith conservation and the environment. Thefoundation has no international program andthus only is able to fund the tropical forest-related activities of U.S. institutions. Tropicalforest-related grants in 1981 included $320,000to the World Wildlife Fund—U.S. for basic eco-systems research on the tropical forests of theAmericas and $160,000 to the Yale School ofForestry and Environmental Studies toward aprogram of visiting professorships. In 1980, thefoundation awarded $240,000 to the Organiza-tion of Tropical Studies at Duke University forsupport of training and research in environ-mental management, and $180,000 to theWashington, D. C.-based Worldwatch Institutein support of studies of population, conserva-tion, and natural resource issues.

Ch. 2—Selected Institutions • 41

The foundation devotes nearly half of its an-nual support to higher education, but in recentyears this aid has been exclusively focused onprograms in the humanities.

Richard King Mellon Foundation

The Richard King Mellon Foundation awardsa substantial portion of its approximately$25-million-a-year disbursements to nationalconservation organizations such as the NatureConservancy and the World Wildlife Fund.Support is given for general purposes as wellas for specific projects. In this sense, the foun-dation can be said to support technologies tosustain tropical forests by giving overall sup-port to U.S. domestic conservation organiza-tions that have international programs involvedin tropical forest areas. In future years, thefoundation’s support of conservation activitiesat the international level could expand.

In 1980, the foundation gave a single grantof $15 million to the Nature Conservancy forthe Rivers of the Deep South Conservation Proj-ect, a lo-year effort to protect the bottomlandhardwood forests that form the corridors andwatersheds for six important rivers.

The Rockefeller Foundation

The Rockefeller Foundation is most renownedfor its support of the agricultural research in-stitutions that originated and promoted the“Green Revolution” —the Consultative Groupon International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)network. The Conquest of Hunger Program ofthe foundation continues to emphasize the im-portance of food production for sustainable de-velopment. One component of this program fo-cuses on promoting the use of fragile environ-ments and marginal lands in the tropics. Suchsupport could be said to contribute to the stew-ardship of tropical forest resources by ensur-ing that the conversion of forest lands that doesoccur is sustainable. On the other hand, it canbe argued that, in the social and economic con-text of many countries, such research to ex-pand agricultural activity on fragile tropicalforest soils can only contribute to the ongoingdestruction of the remaining tropical wood-lands.

Four of the five projects funded in 1981 inthe “Utilization of Fragile Environments andMarginal Lands” subprogram concerned tropi-cal forest resources. A $35,000 grant was givento the Centro International de Agricultural Trop-ical in Colombia to prepare proposals on sus-tainable agricultural development in the Ama-zon; $100,000 to North Carolina State Univer-sity for research on soil nutrient problems inthe Amazon; $10,000 to the Instituto Nacionalde Investigation Agraria in Peru for the estab-lishment of an Amazon agricultural researchnetwork; and $58,000 to the Rockefeller Foun-dation itself for research on opportunities forsustainable agricultural development in fivemajor marginal land areas of the tropics.

Foundation funding is about $43 million ayear, with $8 million annually going to the Con-quest of Hunger program. Last year, about$220,000 of this went for marginal lands useprojects.

Over the past few years the foundation hashad an Education for Development Programthat has funded social science and agriculturalresearch and programs in universities in devel-oping countries; this program is being phasedout. An environmental quality program thatsupported U.S. domestic environmental orga-nizations also has been discontinued.

W. K. Kellogg Foundation

The Kellogg Foundation is one of the threelargest funding foundations in the UnitedStates, disbursing $53.2 million in grants in1971, The foundation supports projects in thefields of agriculture, health, and education, andlimits its geographic scope to the United States,Canada, Latin America, Australia, and a num-ber of European countries, The foundationdoes not fund basic research and is not sup-porting any projects directly concerned withsustaining tropical forest resources. Indirectly,some of its agricultural projects in Latin Amer-ica and the Caribbean may affect tropical forestresources, In 1981, agricultural projects inLatin America received $1.24 million.

42 . Background Paper #2: U.S. and lnternational Institutions

The Tinker Foundation, inc.

The Tinker Foundation was established topromote better understanding among the peo-ples of Latin America, Spain, and Portugal. Un-til 7 years ago, the foundation supported proj-ects dealing exclusively with research in thesocial sciences, but since then has broadenedits scope to include research dealing with nat-ural resources and environment.

The Tinker Foundation disburses approxi-mately $1.4 million to $1.8 million a year, ofwhich about $300,000 goes for natural resourcerelated programs. Of these programs, on theaverage only two grants a year deal with trop-ical forest resources, for an average fundinglevel of around $30,000.

In 1978, the foundation awarded the secondpart of a 2-year grant to the Institute of Cur-rent World Affairs in New York City for itsForest and Man Fellowship Program. Thefoundation also gave a small grant to the Smith-sonian Institution that year for a scientific con-ference on the processes of human adaptionto the Amazon Basin. In 1981, 2 grants out of45 dealt with tropical forest resources. The firstwas a grant of $7,500 to the International Soci-ety of Tropical Foresters to fund publicationof a Spanish edition of the ISTF QuarterlyNews, which disseminates information on for-estry research and technology transfer. Thesecond grant was for $35,000 to Tulane Univer-sity to establish a Mesoamerican EcologyInstitute.

The Tinker Foundation also awards 6 to 10postdoctoral fellowships per year. On the aver-age, one fellowship has been awarded to ascholar working on a subject dealing directlyor indirectly with forest resources.

John and Catherine T. MacArthurFoundation

With assets of nearly $1 billion and grantawards averaging $42 million a year, the Mac-Arthur Foundation is one of the five most im-portant in the country. In 1982, the foundationawarded $15 million to establish and supporta World Resources Institute that will be located

in Washington, D.C. The Institute will conductpolicy research and analysis concerning globalresource and environmental issues. The goalof the World Resources Institute will be to con-duct studies to strengthen the capacity of gov-ernments, private corporations, and other insti-tutions to understand and respond to the chal-lenges posed by global environmental and re-source problems. The foundation’s support forthe Institute is its first commitment to a proj-ect touching on tropical forest resource issues.In the future, the MacArthur Foundation plansto focus on domestic health, social, and polit-ical issues.

Weyerhaeuser Foundation

The Weyerhaeuser Foundation is a relativelysmall institution (current funding level is 12grants a year totaling about $200,000) whichin recent years has given significant supportto projects concerned with tropical forest re-sources. In 1979, the foundation gave a 3-year,$50,000 grant to the World Wildlife Fund-U.S.for a study of the ecological basis for tropicalforestry and reserve design in the Amazonbasin, That same year Weyerhaeuser granted$20,000 to the African Wildlife LeadershipFoundation in Washington, D. C., to initiatewildlife clubs in Tanzania.

The Weyerhaeuser Foundation is unusual fora small foundation in that it prefers to focuson proposals of national or international scope.It does not make grants to regional or localorganizations in fields such as education,health, human services, and education. It doesnot fund university research or development,

The Wallace Gerbode Foundation

The Gerbode Foundation restricts its grantsto projects having impacts on the San Francis-co Bay area and Hawaii. The foundation favorsresearch-oriented projects in the fields of envi-ronment, arts, education, and urban affairs. In1980, the foundation awarded $18,000 to thePacific Tropical Botanical Garden in Lawai,Kauai, Hawaii, to support the study and col-lection of medicinal plants in the Hawaiian

.

Ch. 2—Selected Institutions 4 3

Islands . Total grants amount to about $500,000annually.

The Ahmanson Foundation

The Ahmanson Foundation is one of the 25largest foundations in the country and is dis-bursing some $7 million annually for broadpurposes (education, health, humanities, socialwelfare), but exclusively to Southern Californiaand Pacific Coast oriented organizations. In1980, the foundations awarded a grant of$10,000 to the Pacific Tropical Botanical Gar-den in Hawaii,

The Camile and Henry DreyfusFoundation, Inc.

The Dreyfus Foundation awards about $1.75million in grants every year “to advance thescience of chemistry, biochemistry, chemicalengineering, and related sciences as a meansof improving human relations and circum-stances throughout the world. ” In 1980, thefoundation gave $31,900 to the New York Bo-tanical Garden for research in chemical aspectsof plant-insect interactions and biochemicalsystematic of tropical plants,

Ford Motor Co. Fund

The Ford Motor Co. Fund distributes about$10 million in grants each year. Its primaryfocus is education, including research grantsto universities and university-connected insti-tutions, and secondarily social welfare, health,civic, and cultural programs. In 1980, i tawarded $6,000 to the Missouri Botanical Gar-den for general support,

Mobil Foundation, Inc.

The Mobil Foundation disburses more than$8 million annually for general purposes; edu-cation (including research) receives over $3.5million. In 1979, the foundation awarded$5,000 to the World Wildlife Fund-U.S.

Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. ofNew York Charitable Trust

The Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of NewYork Charitable Trust awards nearly $2 million

annually in grants. Although projects relatingto health, welfare, and urban affairs have re-ceived more than half the amounts awarded inprevious years, higher education, science, theenvironment, and international affairs are alsoareas that the foundation funds. In 1980, thetrust gave an award of $5,000 to the WorldWildlife Fund-U.S.

.

Shell Companies Foundation, Inc.

As of 1980, the Shell Companies Foundationawarded grants totaling nearly $5.7 million ayear. About 33 percent of this was disbursedin direct grants to universities and colleges.Although no funds were given for universitytropical forest related activities, such grants donot appear to be beyond the foundation’s man-date. In 1979, the foundation gave a small sup-port grant of $5,000 to the World Wildlife Fund-U.S.

Exxon Education Foundation

The Exxon Education Foundation is disburs-ing more than $15 million a year in grants topublic and private colleges, universities, andprofessional education associations. Althoughthe emphasis is on supporting interdisciplinarystudies that address major social issues and onthe economics and management of higher edu-cation, aid for tropical forest related researchby universities is within the mandate of thefoundation. In 1980-81, however, the only grantawarded that related to tropical forest re-sources was an award of $166,170 to Clark Uni-versity for a seminar program for graduate stu-dents from lesser developed countries on theeffective management of natural resources.

The Atlantic Richfield Foundation

The Atlantic Richfield Foundation (1981) isdisbursing about $26 million a year, of whichnearly $10 million goes for programs in highereducation and environment. The only recentgrant relating to tropical forest resources wasan award of $100,000 to the International Insti-tute for Environment and Development inWashington, D. C., in 1980.

44 . Background Paper #2: U.S. and International Institutions

Inter-American Foundation

The Inter-American Foundation is a publiccorporation created by the U.S. Congress in1969 to pursue experimental alternatives indevelopment assistance in Latin America andthe Caribbean. In 1980, the foundation awardedgrants totaling $23,2 million to nongovernmen-tal peasant and community groups and serv-ices, cultural, and research organizations.About half of all project grants were for agri-culture and rural development. Although no1980 grants were specifically concerned withtropical forest resources, in 1982 the Founda-tion awarded $500,000 to the FundacionNatura in Quito, Ecuador, to be disbursed toIndian communities in the Andean highlandsfor social forestry.

Foundations: Constraints andOpportunities

The problem of sustaining tropical forestresources—viewed in isolation from other con-cerns—is an issue of low priority for a hand-ful of foundations and completely outside theagenda of the majority. Moreover, foundationconcern for international issues such as trop-ical deforestation has been in a general declinefor the past half decade. Only a few U.S. foun-dations have substantial international pro-grams, and support for international activitiesof any kind amounts to only 3 to 4 percent ofthe $2.4 billion total disbursed by U.S. privatefoundations annually (23,24). Total U.S. foun-dation support for projects relating to tropicalforest resources is estimated to average $10million or $12 million a year, about half awardedby the Ford Foundation.

The early and mid-1970’s were a time ofheightened domestic environmental concern,and major foundations such as Ford and Rock-efeller established environmental programs. Insome instances these supported U.S. environ-mental organizations that were engaged in in-ternational activities relating to tropical forestresources. At Ford and Rockefeller, such fund-ing has been phased out. One foundation thatis continuing to support international tropicalforest resource related activities of U.S. envi-

ronmental groups is the Andrew W. MellonFoundation.

However, U.S. foundations are continuing tosupport tropical forest related projects thathave been designed to correspond to the cate-gories of projects that the foundations do em-phasize: education and research, rural andcommunity development in the Third World,agricultural research and experimentation todeal with world hunger, support of U.S. re-gional institutions, and special purposes (e.g.,support of chemical research).

Although a superficial survey of foundationsupport for tropical forest related activities andresearch is discouraging, there are consider-able opportunities for increasing support bypresenting programs and projects in the con-text of the current priorities of a number offoundations.

For example, the Ford Foundation is spend-ing at least $5 million of its $90 million yearlydisbursements on village and social forestryrelated projects and related research in the de-veloping world, Although the stated policy ofFord is to promote projects addressing ruralpoverty in the developing world, sustainingtropical forest resources through social forestrypilot projects and research is a key element ofits strategy (10). Ford is also playing an inno-vative—and regrettably almost unique—role inpromoting the role of NGOs and women’sgroups in relation to its community forestry ac-tivities. The Inter-American Foundation—which is a U.S. Government-supported and nota private institution—is the only other U. S.-based foundation that has a mandate or policyto give substantial support to private voluntaryorganizations and other NGOs in the ThirdWorld.

Opportunities for increased support can befound in foundations whose mandates mightat first seem to be far removed from the topicof tropical forest resources. These includefoundations that only support programs or in-stitutions in a particular U.S. region or city.The Gerbode and Ahmanson Foundations, forexample, have mandates limited to Hawaii andto the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas,

Ch. 2—Selected Institutions 4 5

respectively. Yet, both recently gave supportgrants for tropical forest related research to thePacific Tropical Botanical Gardens in Hawaii.As another example, the Dreyfus Foundationhas a mandate to advance the science of chem-istry and chemical engineering, and in 1980 thefoundation granted over $30,000 to the NewYork Botanical Garden for research concern-ing the chemical aspects of plant-insect interac-tions in tropical forests.

The greatest opportunities for increased sup-port lie in the field of university education andresearch. This is the most heavily supportedgrant area for many U.S. foundations. It is im-portant to remember, however, that some foun-dations are narrowly focused in their supportfor higher education. For example, althoughthe Andrew Mellon Foundation supports tropi-cal forest related work of domestic environ-mental groups (including university-affiliatedinstitutions such as the Organization for Trop-ical Studies), the nearly $25 million it disbursesannually for higher education is used to sup-port the humanities and liberal arts (l). On theother hand, a number of substantially endowedfoundations—particularly the oil companyfoundations such as Mobil, Atlantic Richfield,and Exxon—have mandated commitments togeneral support of higher education and re-search. These foundations have supported rela-tively little tropical forest related work. But thisis not because of an aversion to internationalnatural resource and environmental issues, asrecent small grants to the World Wildlife Fund-U.S. indicate. U.S. botanical gardens, univer-sity consortia, and other research institutionswith programs related to tropical forest re-sources might do well—given the increasing-ly apparent constraints to Federal support–to explore these foundations with more persist-ence.

Some of the constraints to U.S. private foun-dation support of tropical forest resource re-lated programs have already been mentioned–i.e., diminishing concern in most foundations,and in American public policy as a whole, forinternational and environmental problems.

The orientation of many leading foundationshas become more concentrated in the past 3or 4 years on domestic economic and socialconcerns, and their international programshave focused on analogous issues concerningrural development and food supply in the ThirdWorld.

This has not caused a substantial decline insupport for tropical forest resource relatedprojects, as that issue has only become a sub-ject of more widespread international and do-mestic concern within the past 4 years. Theshift in priorities of major foundations doesmean that institutions and programs seekingsupport must be more creative in researchingexisting opportunities for support.

The bewilderingly different policies and pro-cedures among the foundations that supporttropical resource related programs present aformidable obstacle to individuals and organi-zations seeking support. Thus, it would be use-ful to have a centralized information systemto match prospective donors and proposals. Animportant step towards establishing such a sys-tem occurred in 1981 with the founding ofGrantmaking International (77 United NationsPlaza, 5th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10017). Grant-making International is a mechanism for ex-change of information and grant proposalsamong grantmakers who wish to improve andcoordinate their funding efforts in the inter-national field (23,24].

Another prime constraint on effective chan-nelling of private foundation funds into proj-ects to sustain tropical forest resources comesfrom the lack of consensus domestically andworldwide on the best strategy for dealing withnatural resources threatened by population andeconomic pressures. The World ConservationStrategy, prepared by the International Unionfor the Conservation of Native and Natural Re-sources with the aid of the U.N. EnvironmentalProgramme and the World Wildlife Fund, isone attempt to alleviate this constraint andmight be a useful guide at both the national andinternational levels.

Chapter 3

Page

The Role of the Private Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . * 49

The Effects of Size on Private Sector Involvement in the Tropics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

C o n c l u s i o n . . . . . . . . . . .r d. .. .O*e, .O. .. OOoo@Ofo OOTtO “OOOOO~OCO”OCOODOO”O””O 51

Table

Table No. Page

4. U.S. Forestry Firms in Tropical Countries ... . . 49

Chapter 3

Private Sector Involvement

THE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR

Historically, perhaps the greatest involve-ment of U.S. interests in tropical forests hasbeen in the private sector. U. S-based compa-nies have been involved in forestry operationsin tropical areas at least since the early 1900’s.The value of tropical hardwoods (logs, lumber,plywood, and veneer) imported into the UnitedStates totaled $537 million in 1978, By the year2000, U.S. demand for tropical hardwood saw-timber is expected to increase 75 percent. Be-cause of the longer growing seasons and fastergrowth rates possible in tropical forests, theU.S. paper industry is expected to begin usingwood from the tropics for its processes as well.

Other forest products have drawn an increas-ing variety of private businesses to opportu-nities in tropical forests. For example, as manyas one-half of all U.S. prescriptions contain in-gredients of natural origin, and they are val-ued at over $3 billion (16).

The extent of the private sector’s role in theresearch, development, and implementation oftechnologies to sustain tropical forest resources(i.e., the search for ways to keep the forestseconomically and environmentally stable infuture years) is not clear. Involvement has var-ied from company to company because eachfirm has its own perceptions of needs and op-portunities and of the current and future eco-nomic outlook. Only a few U.S. firms specializ-ing in exploitation of primary resources (e. g.,timber or minerals) have contributed directlyor substantially to developing technologies forthe tropics. The more important role such firmsplay is transferring technologies to local institu-tions, which then adapt them to tropical situ-ations,

The private sector certainly has skills andknowledge important for forestry activities intropical countries. The expertise varies accord-ing to the type of business, its size, and the cor-porate philosophy. Generally, the opportunities

for information transfer fall into two categor-ies: technical skills and business skills.

U.S.-based multinational forestry corpora-tions traditionally have had the most to offerand the most to gain in ensuring that tropicalforest resources are maintained. These com-panies are a great storehouse of informationand experience in forest management or, morespecifically, in converting natural forests intomanaged forests. Although much of that knowl-edge and experience was acquired in temper-ate climates, the technical know-how for nurs-ery and seed orchard establishment; the meth-ods to establish tree improvement, pest control,fertilization, and other silviculture programs;and the capability to adapt various harvesting,transportation, and processing equipment tolocal sites can be transferred. Companies alsocan contribute by sharing organizational andmanagerial skills.

Although U.S. forestry companies with over-seas concessions have in the past concentratedon manufacturing and marketing tropical for-est products, in light of dwindling supplies theyhave started applying their expertise to manag-ing the forests within their concessions. About23 U.S.-based forestry firms (see table 4) have

Table 4.—U.S. Forestry Firms inTropical Countries (1981)

1. Balsa Ecuador 12. John Miles Co.2. Boise Cascade 13. Kimberly Clark3. Champion International 14. Olinkraft4. Container Corporation 15. Pascagoula Veneer

of America 16. Resources International5. Continental Forest 17. Robinson Lumber

Products 18. Scott Paper6. Crown Zellerbach 19. Sonoco Products7. Ford International 20. St. Regis8. Georgia-Pacific 21. U.S. Plywood/Champion9. Gould Paper 22. West Virginia Paper Co.

10. International Balsa 23. Weyerhaeuser11. International PaperSOURCE: J. S. Bethel, et al., “The Role of US. Multinational Corporations in Com-

mercial Forestry Operations in the Tropics, ” a report submitted to theDepartment of State, University of Washington, 1982, 306 pp.

49

50 Ž Background Paper #2: U.S. and International Institutions

operations in the tropics. Some of these firmsare pulp and paper facilities that buy pulp andconvert it into end products; some use nonfor-est resources (e.g., bagasse or waste paper) forpulp and paper facilities; some have simply setup offices to explore the feasibility of establish-ing operations in the host country; some areconducting joint research studies; less than halfactually have active forest concessions (3). Inthe future, it is likely that there will be contin-ued transfer of industrial development projects(e.g., large sawmills, plywood plants), as wellas U.S. involvement in the management oflarge-scale forest plantations and natural for-ests. Given the size, scope, and orientation ofprofitmaking companies, the potential contri-bution that the U.S. forest industry can maketo tropical forestry is more relevant to theneeds of regional or national development thanto the needs of local populations,

Other kinds of private industries could alsomake important contributions to the research,development, and implementation of technol-ogies to sustain tropical forest resources. Forexample, pharmaceutical companies might beinvolved because chemical compounds ex-tracted from tropical forest plants have beenused directly as drugs, starting materials forthe synthesis of drugs, or models for drug syn-thesis (2). In fact, approximately 25 percent ofall the prescriptions written in the UnitedStates contain at least one product from a plantand the market for natural-plant-derived drugsis estimated to be $8.1 billion (1980 estimate)a year in the United States (9). Yet, only about10 percent of the roughly 250,000 kinds ofplants have ever been examined to see if theycontain any product of potential commercialvalue (18).

In the past, some pharmaceutical firms had“natural products programs” to conduct sys-tematic studies of exotic flora for compoundsof pharmacological interest (12). Other firmsviewed this sort of plant screening as unpro-

ductive, with results less than proportional tothe effort involved. Few companies now con-duct research on higher plants as a source ofnew drugs and the National Cancer Instituterecently ended its screening program. Thereare many reasons for this decline in interestin botanical. First, the research investmentsoften do not pay off because it is difficult topatent a natural compound extracted from aplant (though it is less difficult to patent an ex-traction process). Further, natural substanceshave trouble meeting the specifications of theFood and Drug Administration. Because theprocess for introducing a new drug can take6 or 7 years, companies are increasingly un-willing to make such investments. Despitethese constraints, U.S. pharmaceutical com-panies do possess the technical knowledge andthe financial capital to invest in plant screen-ing programs, either through direct financingor through collaboration with pharmaceuticalindustries in developing countries.

Agribusiness is another industry that contrib-utes to sustaining tropical forest resources. Itsrole would be similar to that of the forest prod-uct industry: help research and develop sus-tainable agriculture technology systems, trainlocal people, establish nurseries and orchardsfor planting materials, produce mycorrhiza,apply tissue culture techniques, etc. The possi-ble effects include: more cash flow, more pro-duction per unit of land, and less pressure onforest lands.

U.S.-based agribusinesses also are conduct-ing research that could have indirect applica-bility in the tropics. For instance, one companyis conducting a feasibility study of growingwood for biomass to produce electricity topower its mills. If successful, fast-growing bio-mass energy plantations could be establishedelsewhere, especially where fuelwood is inhigh demand and the cost of oil is prohibitive-ly high.

Ch 3—Private Sector Involvement Ž 51

THE EFFECTS OF SIZE ON PRIVATE SECTORINVOLVEMENT IN THE TROPICS

The private sector can be further divided intolarge and small businesses, each structure hav-ing its own strengths and weaknesses. As indi-cated in the previous section, large businesseshave the capital, labor, and skills to devote tothe research, development, and implementa-tion of technologies to sustain tropical forestresources. However, their size and complexorganizational structure tend to make largebusinesses cautious, conservative, and inflex-ible (4). Small businesses, on the other hand,have certain advantages that might be capital-ized upon in the quest for improved use of trop-ical forest resources. Foremost among these isinnovation.

Throughout history, independent entrepre-neurs and small enterprises in the UnitedStates have been frequent purveyors of innova-tion. Two-thirds of patented major inventionsin the last 50 years were discovered by individ-uals or small businesses (15). This occurs inpart because the independent entrepreneur hasmore freedom to create and pursue new ideasor products. Small enterprises are usually moreadaptable to change. Decisionmaking is oftenconfined to one or two persons. They also tendto have closer communication with their cus-tomers, thus enabling them to meet special cus-tomer needs. For a small business, a single newproduct can play a significant role and thus canreceive a large commitment of energy andfunds. That same product might be insignifi-cant in relation to a large corporation’s sales

or services. Small firms are often product-research-oriented and opportunistic in re-search and development. They often “fill thegaps” that big companies leave out and con-sider too risky, not proven, and too future-ori-ented. These advantages could be important indeveloping technologies to sustain tropicalforest resources.

Biotechnology firms, for example, alreadyare pioneering the use of vegetative propaga-tion and tissue culture techniques for a numberof tropical food and tree crops. Because mar-kets are small, it is small businesses that aresupplying seeds and seedlings to tropical coun-tries for plantation projects. Further, a greatdeal of information is transferred by individ-uals and small firms acting as consultants ina variety of activities: they conduct feasibilitystudies, build nurseries, establish research fa-cilities, and supply expertise on many topics.

The role of small enterprises is highly indi-vidualized. Each company has different per-sonnel, expertise, and goals and thus has differ-ent effects. Often, a small firm will reflect thepersonality of its creator quite strongly. Therealso are disadvantages in small businesses thatmust be considered (e.g., such firms may haveless investment capital or their staff may lackmanagement skills). Overall, however, it seemsthat there might be special potential for the in-volvement of small enterprises in developingand implementing technologies for sustainingtropical forest resources.

CONCLUSION

The private sector has much to offer to the and new investment opportunities. A numberresearch, development, and implementation of of businesses are interested in increasing pri-technologies to sustain tropical forest resources. vate sector exchange programs which include:This sector can help stimulate the less devel- on-the-job instruction in the United States, con-oped countries growth and, in the process, it suiting, onsite workshops and training pro-can benefit from more reliable sources of goods grams, support of local scientific and educa-

— —— ———— . .- —

52 . Background Paper #2: U.S. and International /institutions

tional institutions, serving as guest speakers at contributions are investment in research andforeign universities or management institutes, development of technologies, transfer of ex-and sponsoring attendance of developing coun- isting technologies and their adaptation to localtry personnel at international symposia and conditions, and training of managers and tech-conferences (13), The private sector’s major nicians.

Chapter 4

Constraints and Opportunities

Page

Institutional Roles, Involvement, and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 600 .. et .~O. .coOe 00$00 0” ”OO” +00* 5$Lack of Communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*.***. 56Lack of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.0..... ..6**.** .***..* .00*0*$o $* 56Lack of Adequate Technologies . . . +, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Lack of Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Political, Cultural, and Institutional Constraints .. t.. ~.. ... ....~ . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Contradictory Efforts ..,. ,,0$.... . 57

Opportunities .,,,*** . * * 58Strengthening Existing Institutions .......+..~..~,....~,.,,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58“Twinning” ,...,.. . . . 0 0 . . . * . * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . * 4 . . . . . . 0 ..,.0.0. 59Establishing a Small, Central Coordinating Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Increasing the Role of the private Sector and private Voluntary Organizations. . 60

Summary ,,.,... . 0 . . . , . . . . . * * . . * * * * . . . . * . . * . * . . * * . . * * . * . * * * . . . * . . . * * . 61

—. —

Chapter

Constraints and Opportunities

INSTITUTIONAL ROLES, INVOLVEMENT, AND COORDINATION

U.S. and international institutions play avariety of roles in developing and implement-ing technologies to sustain tropical forests, Thenature of each institution’s activities, and theireffectiveness, is highly variable, The U.S. in-stitution with the largest impact, and the great-est opportunity for future impacts, is the Agen-cy for International Development (AID). Thisagency has a strong legislative mandate direc-ting it to act to sustain tropical forest resourcesin support of basic human needs, International-ly, the World Bank, the Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO), World Wildlife Fund, andcertain other institutions have been increasingtheir involvement in forestry-related activities,

It is important not to be misled by the ap-parently large number of institutions listed inthis document. Even though OTA located morethan 50 institutions involved in tropical for-estry work, in few of these was reforestation,forest maintenance, or conservation a highpriority. These institutions devote far morestaff, funds, and other assistance to other typesof development activity than to forestry, Fur-thermore, international funding for forestry ac-tivities is dominated by industrial projects.Analyzing the effects of that dominance, a re-cent U.S. Forest Service report states:

Industrial assistance projects cover heavilycapitalized pulpmills or sawmill complexes,rather than on-the-ground establishment andmanagement of forest stands. Continuation ofthis trend would exert greater pressure on ex-isting forest reserves and contribute to thedeforestation problem (25).

The Forest Service also points out that fewdonors are involved in forest conservation ac-tivities, probably because conservation projectsoften do not seem economically viable. Someother relevant conclusions from that study are:

A number of donor projects are con-tributing to deforestation or will fail in re-ducing the problem because inadequate at-tention is paid to ecological effects. Roadbuilding, agriculture, hydroelectric, col-onization, and industrial forest harvestprojects are potential causes of defores-tation,Donor agencies operating in the samecountry tend not to communicate witheach other. This leads to duplication of ef-forts or failure to learn from the mistakesand successes of others.Forestry projects are often imposed onlocal residents rather than being based onwhat the community wants and needs. Asa consequence, many donor projects failbecause of “lack of cooperation” fromlocal residents.Donor organizations often exhibit little ac-ceptance or understanding of the valuesystems, cultures, and traditions of therecipient countries in the design and im-plementation of forestry projects.It is possible to create a negative impactby flooding a country with excessive donoractivities or funds. Donor organizationsmay implement oversized projects in coun-tries not yet ready to absorb them into theirexisting political and economic structure.Often, when project funding has ended,the country is ill-equipped to carry onbecause of bottlenecks in education, mana-gerial talents, and other factors.Projects are often started but left unfin-ished, or not properly followed up, be-cause of inadequate funding beyond initialbudget commitments. Also, donors oftenfail to recognize the long-term nature offorestry activities in their budget alloca-tions (25),

55

56 Ž Background Paper #2: U.S. and International Institutions

CONSTRAINTS

Lack of Communication

One constraint emphasized in the ForestService report is inadequate communication.Projects suffer when researchers or field staffdo not communicate with each other, whenplanners do not communicate with recipients,and when donor agencies do not communicatewith other agencies. The widespread lack ofcommunication and coordination greatly re-duces the effectiveness of existing programs,but improving communications is more diffi-cult, and more expensive, than might be ex-pected. Distribution of timely information,especially when the most important audienceis in developing countries, can face manyobstacles, both logistical (getting informationto appropriate recipients) and human (findingthe right readers and getting them to read anduse the information).

Encouraging donor agencies to communi-cate and coordinate with each other should bea less formidable task, but in reality it is not.First, there are a great number of national, in-ternational, regional, and local institutions tofollow. Many agencies simply do not have thecapacity to do this. Communicating with otheragencies is often seen as an inappropriate in-fringement on staff time simply because inter-agency coordination is seldom an explicit ob-jective in agency policies. In some cases, donorinstitutions compete with each other for influ-ence and thus avoid communication for whatis an unhealthy and counterproductive ration-ale. More often, there are simply too manyother things for an institution to accomplishwith limited staff and funds. Finally, there isthe additional problem of language—often thetechnical literature is in English rather thanlanguages more useful to the recipients.

Communication between donor institutionsand recipients (both at a country and locallevel) was once a sorely neglected aspect ofproject planning and implementation. Recent-ly, however, the cultural and social elementsof projects have been receiving much greaterattention.

Lack of Funds

Constraints on attempts to sustain tropicalforest resources can occur at various levels:within the aiding institutions (whether UnitedStates, international, or regional), within therecipient countries, and within the local re-cipient communities. One constraint oftencited at all levels is lack of funds. More money,it is so often argued, will bring more results.It is heard from the field, from project design-ers, and from the institutions themselves whensoliciting support from their governments orcontributors. The problem is, of course, thatthe current economic climate makes it exceed-ingly difficult to obtain increased funds or newfunds. Many legitimate development issuesneed financial support and thus compete fora limited resource—money. Thus, while addi-tional financial support will be needed todevelop forest resources on a sustainable basis,institutions need to search for more innovativeand effective ways to use the existing funds.

Lack of Adequate Technologies

Many experts believe that the major con-straints on sustained use of tropical forests areinstitutional, social, and political, not technical.Some techniques that can be used to reforestdegraded lands, for example, are relatively wellknown (see the OTA Background Paper Sus-taining Tropical Forest Resources: Reforesta-tion of Degraded Lands). Why, then, are thesetechniques not widely in use? One reason isthat although they are technically feasible, theyoften are not economically attractive enoughto compete successfully against the forest-degrading practices. Thus, there is a strongneed to develop technologies that are bothscientifically and socioeconomically sound.

Lack of Knowledge

Tropical ecosystems are extremely complex.Further, forest resource problems—and theirsolutions—are very site-specific. There is a vastamount of knowledge yet to gain about the

Ch. 4—Constraints and Opportunities 5 7

functions and potential products supplied bynatural forests. Because research often is site-specific, the knowledge gained is not alwaystransferable. Better baseline research is neededto develop a sustainable, scientifically soundresource-use system for many of the endan-gered tropical forest regions. Site-specific re-search is necessary both to understand the re-sources and the needs of the local populations,Unfortunately, such knowledge cannot begained quickly.

Political, Cultural, andInstitutional Constraints

The key factors constraining many forestmanagement efforts are social, not scientific.What is often lacking is the political commit-ment to allocate more staff and funds to:

conduct the necessary, long-term baselineecological and sociological research;

• provide ecologically sound support for lo-cal populations during the lag between in-vestments in trees and realization of thebenefits; and

provide necessary, long-term monitoringof projects so that they can be improvedas needed.

Working on one front alone is not enough, TheUnited States cannot have great influence onthe internal politics of natural resource use inthe tropical countries, or on the cultural con-straints, but it can work to improve institu-tional capabilities.

Institutional constraints vary greatly depend-ing on the institution and its purposes. Re-gional and international research institutionsoften have difficulty being site-specific andstaying attuned to local ecological, an-thropological, economic, and political condi-tions, This can inhibit efforts to develop tech-nologies, especially if there is a lack of localinstitutions to adapt the technologies to localconditions, In some cases, capable local institu-tions do exist, but are under political con-straints that limit communication with the in-ternational institutions. Innovative national in-

stitutions that have successfully adapted andimplemented technologies include INIREB,EMBRAPA, and INPA. These might be suit-able subjects for in-depth case studies to deter-mine whether their success could serve as amodel for developing similar institutions else-where.

One important political constraint is the at-titude toward tropical forest resources. Often,forestry concessions are viewed just as rev-enue-raising devices rather than also as forestmanagement tools. Legislation is needed topromote integration of forestry and land useplanning within the affected countries, but onlya gradual education process can assure govern-ment backing for such policies.

Contradictory Efforts

There is a general lack of consensus andunified policy on how to reconcile economicdevelopment of tropical forest resources withthe need to preserve genetic diversity and othernonindustrial forest functions. This sometimesleads to institutions working at cross purposes.At times the contradictory efforts are acciden-tal; one donor agency simply did not knowwhat other agencies were doing. Other timesthey seem truly schizophrenic—one hand of aninstitution financing a reforestation projectwhile the other finances projects to convert pri-mary forest into agricultural land.

Sometimes such apparent conflicts are theinevitable result of different institutions hav-ing different, though equally legitimate, goals.For instance, the Consultative Group on Inter-national Agricultural Research (CGIAR) institu-tions strive to increase and promote agricul-tural production and expansion. The expan-sion often occurs at the expense of forests andin conflict with institutions that are workingto prohibit agricultural clearing on forest landsthat cannot sustain it. In times when develop-ment funds were more plentiful, coordinationof effort may have been less important. Buttoday coordination is essential to assure effi-cient use of existing staff and funds.

58 Ž Background Paper #2: U.S. and International Institutions

OPPORTUNITIES

The constraints listed in the previous sectionare not insurmountable. There have been en-couraging signs in the past few years that someof the leading multinationals such as WorldBank and FAO have begun to shift their forestdevelopment priorities from nearly total em-phasis on industrial forestry to more work oncommunity forestry, agroforestry, and institu-tional building. While there is criticism that im-plementation of these new priorities has lagged(25), the shift in policy is an important be-ginning.

Strategies to improve the capabilities of in-stitutions to develop and implement technol-ogies to sustain tropical forest resourcesinclude:

strengthen existing institutions,pair existing national institutions in devel-oping tropical nations with institutions indeveloped nations that can provide tech-nical support (twinning),

establish a small coordinating secretariat(a CGIAR-like institution) to focus on trop-ical forest resources, and

increase the role of the private sector andprivate voluntary organizations.

Strengthening Existing Institutions

Given the vast array of institutions listed inthis study alone, it is clear that substantial in-stitutional capacity exists to deal with the prob-lems of deforestation, forest use, and mainte-nance. Thus, one way to enhance tropical for-estry efforts is to determine which of these in-stitutions are most capable and to strengthenthem. This could increase effectiveness, reduceduplication, and concentrate available staff andfunds. This strategy could capitalize on thegreat diversity among existing institutions.

In the United States, a number of oppor-tunities exist to strengthen existing programs,projects, and agencies. Foremost among thesewould be to support and encourage forestry ef-forts of AID. AID has a clear mandate from

Congress to develop and strengthen “the ca-pacity of less developed countries to protectand manage their environment and natural re-sources” (Section 118 of the Foreign AssistanceAct) with explicit authorization for assistanceto “maintain and increase forest resources”(sec. 103 b). In 1981, section 118 was furtheramended to express congressional concern“about the continuing and accelerating altera-tion, destruction, and loss of tropical forestsin developing countries. ”

One step in strengthening AID, then, wouldbe to see this policy mandate translated moreoften into action. This could be done in anumber of ways, beginning with educatingAID personnel to the importance of these for-estry concerns. More AID projects and pro-grams could include environmental compo-nents to enhance their impacts on tropical for-est resources. More project designs could al-locate a percentage of funds to relevant envi-ronmental protection measures—for instance,hydroelectric development could include com-ponents to maintain forest cover on the sur-rounding watersheds. Because many develop-ment activities AID conducts have direct andindirect impacts on tropical forests, to considerreforestation and similar actions only on thoseprojects specifically aimed at forest conserva-tion is missing opportunities to have a muchwider impact.

Another way AID could enhance its effec-tiveness in this sphere is through its ad-ministration of the public Law 480 Food forPeace program. AID administers some $1.6 bil-lion per year in Food for Peace activities, butat present, only about 1 percent of the PublicLaw 480 projects are concerned with sustain-ing tropical forest resources. More of thesefunds could be directed to planting trees andassuring local involvement. Public Law 480foreign currency reserves could also be usedto fund forest research, perhaps including agreater involvement by the U.S. Forest Service.

This redirection of existing efforts is one wayto increase U.S. involvement without adding

Ch. 4—Constraints and Opportunities • 59

new financing. Similarly, the internationalcomponents of other U.S. Government agen-cies and programs could be expanded to playa more active role in sustaining forest re-sources, Both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv-ice and the National Park Service, for instance,have much relevant expertise and could be en-couraged to expand their international involve-ment. Both agencies could do more to fosterinternational coordination and disseminationof research and management technologies re-lated to wildland tropical forest resources,

The international importance of the U.S. Na-tional Science Foundation (NSF) and the Na-tional Academy of Sciences (NAS) should notbe underestimated. Research sponsored by orfinanced by these two agencies has significantdirect and indirect impacts on sustaining trop-ical forest resources, These two agenciesshould continue to be seen as key componentsof science research and should be rewardedand encouraged for their work on importantinternational environment issues.

Another opportunity to strengthen existinginstitutional structures concerns the UNESCOMan and the Biosphere (MAB) program. MABhas supported some 1,000 field projects in 90countries. Nearly one-fourth of its $2 million1981-83 budget is for activities related to humidtropical zones, and MAB has a commendablerecord of supporting innovative research ontropical forest resources. It has a good inter-national reputation and has been successful insupporting small-scale and pilot project re-search. UNESCO is the organizing agency forMAB, but each country’s effort is funded in-dependently. The U.S. contribution now comesalmost entirely from the Forest Service.

There has been much debate on which of theexisting institutions ought to take the “lead”in tropical forest resources work. The discus-sions revolve around which institution is mosteffective and whether it might be encouragedto become the center and coordinator for alltropical forestry programs. Two institutionssometimes mentioned for this role are FAO andthe International Union of Forestry ResearchOrganizations (IUFRO).

FAO has a great wealth of tropical forestryexpertise and experience, Its Forestry Depart-ment employs about 300 people working in 70countries and had a regular program budgetof $14.7 million in 1982-83. It is actively in-volved in field programs and technology trans-fer. It is important to note that the FAO forestryprogram is dwarfed by the size of FAO’s agri-cultural component. It maybe that an organiza-tion with such a strong commitment in onefield could not make the necessary adjustmentsin internal priorities to lead effectively in thearea of forestry as well. In fact, one frequent-ly cited criticism of FAO is that it is a huge,slow-moving bureaucracy in which forestry isnot a significant issue (20,21). FAO is consid-ered effective in some of its technology transferefforts, but lacks the political influence of otherinstitutions such as World Bank or AID. FAOis also sometimes limited by its own policy ofresponding only to in-country requests. It can-not initiate projects of its own.

IUFRO, on the other hand, is specificallycommitted to forestry, but it is a smaller, lessactive, and less visible organization. IUFROpromotes international cooperation in forestryresearch and in recent years has expanded itsmembership to some 600 institutions and10,000 scientists from 89 countries. Its currentfunctions, however, are research oriented andwould need to be expanded to include imple-mentation. Further, IUFRO operates on a min-imal budget that would need to be expandedif its responsibilities change. Both FAO andIUFRO could play increasingly important rolesbut neither organization alone seems suitableto be the leading coordinator of internationalefforts in tropical forestry work.

"Twinning”

In September 1981, at the meeting of theIUFRO members held in Kyoto, Japan, a jointWorld Bank/FAO paper was presented (“For-estry Research Needs in Developing Coun-tries—Time for Reappraisal]”) that outlined aninnovative arrangement to improve capabilitiesfor conducting research and technology trans-fer in developing countries called “twinning.”

60 • Background Paper #2: U.S. and International Institutions

During discussions at the IUFRO meeting andafterwards, many leading donor agencies de-bated priorities for continued research andtechnology implementation and the strengthsand weaknesses of various international andnational institutions. The general consensusthat emerged was that:

There is a need to shift the emphasis of for-estry research in developing countries to-ward new areas of concern such as agro-forestry, biomass, and tropical forest eco-system conservation.In building up research capability, the firstpriority should be given to strengtheningnational institutions within the developingcountries themselves.Both IUFRO and FAO should take stepsto strengthen their capability for technicalsupport of research in developing coun-tries.More effective use should be made of theresearch capability that already exists inmany research centers identified in theWorld Bank/FAO report (11,27).

One way to accomplish these goals is a“twinning” arrangement, in which a develop-ing country research institution is paired in along-term, mutually supportive arrangementwith a specific external institution that has rele-vant expertise. The developing country institu-tions have the best ability to understand social,economic, and political factors, while the ex-ternal institutions have needed research capa-bilities and technical expertise (27).

Twinning arrangements allow more and con-tinued contact between the staffs of the pairedinstitutions. They also encourage institutionsto use existing resources. For instance, thecombination of forestry and agriculture is arelatively new field of research. At the nationallevel in the developing countries, however,there already exist more than 1,000 agriculturalresearch institutes or agencies. Thus, whenICRAF sought to do agroforestry research inKenya, they chose as the site an existing agri-cultural research station. The station had beenstudying appropriate farming systems for semi-arid lands for many years and had extensivecontacts and experience in the area. By graft-

9

ing the forestry work onto a well-establishedprogram, there are increased opportunities forrapid transfer of the agroforestry research tothe level of the small-farm operator (27).

Establishing a Small, CentralCoordinating Institution

Lack of communication and coordination isa major constraint to the development and im-plementation of technologies to sustain tropicalforest resources. Various donor agencies havecommented that developing countries’ pro-grams could be more effectively supported bycreating a small International Tropical For-estry Secretariat. Its main functions would bekeeping scientists in developing countries in-formed of other projects and research, pro-moting new research, helping organize confer-ences, and ensuring that research agencies indeveloping countries are aware of appropriatepublications and information (27). The secre-tariat could also be used to coordinated twin-ning arrangements.

Such a forestry secretariat could be patternedafter CGIAR. CGIAR is an informal associationof 44 country-members. It supports 13 agricul-tural research institutions located in develop-ing countries and serves to foster communica-tion and coordination. If a forestry secretariatis formed, it could consist of a small core staffand need not be involved in implementing itsown research projects. As in the CGIAR struc-ture, various forestry institutions could developspecializations to avoid duplication (e.g., oneinstitution could focus on nitrogen-fixing trees,another on Eucalyptus, etc.). The secretariatmight be established within the existing IUFROor FAO structure. A major interagency prob-lem would remain, however, as such a small,international body could do little to coordinateefforts within nations.

Increasing the Role of thePrivate Sector and Private

Voluntary Organizations

The private sector can be an effective tech-nology transfer agent and could play an impor-tant part in efforts to develop and implement

Ch. 4—Constraints and Opportunities 6 1

technologies to sustain tropical forest re-sources. Of course, the types of research anddevelopment that interest commercial firms areusually limited because they are looking forpotential profits.

Private voluntary organizations (PVOs), onthe other hand, operate from a different phi-losophy and thus offer different potential ben-efits. They, like private businesses, are gen-erally able to act with more speed than can the

they can have a wider range of involvement.PVOs are especially successful in small- andpilot-scale projects and should be encouragedto continue such work. The World WildlifeFund, for example, is well known for its effortsto conserve wildlife and habitats and has beenincreasingly effective in some of its projects(20). Considering the success of some grass-roots environmental movements (for example,India’s “Chipko,” or “hug a tree” movement),there are also opportunities to strengthen PVOs

public sector. But since profits are not an issue, in the

SUMMARY

developing countr ies . -

There are as many as 600 forestry researchinstitutions in the world, with at least 90 con-ducting significant programs related to tropicalforests. The number of implementation-ori-ented institutions, funding foundations, privatevoluntary organizations, and private firms in-volved in tropical forestry is also large. Whileit is difficult to generalize about the roles theseinstitutions play in sustaining tropical forestresources because they vary with the objectivesof each institution, it is clear that existing in-stitutional structures provide ample opportuni-ty for efforts to sustain tropical forest re-sources.

The great number of groups involved, andthe diversity of their goals, can be both an assetand a constraint. The diversity can be an assetbecause it allows the problems of tropical for-ests to be combated with multiple strategies,It can be a constraint, however, because itcauses problems and inefficiencies. Often, forinstance, different institutions work at crosspurposes, with or without knowledge of theoverlap. Other times, there is unnecessaryduplication of efforts or competition betweenorganizations. Often, there is simply a lack ofcommunication between the various groups,

Improved coordination and communicationare essential if efforts to sustain the tropicalforests are to be successful,

Actions to sustain tropical forest resourcesmust be seen in the context of overall devel-opment—as part of a comprehensive programto both immediate and future human needs.The key institutional factors for successful im-plementation of existing technologies include:coordination among donor agencies withinspecific countries; development of mechanismsto ensure local participation in planning andimplementation, including economic incen-tives; and integration of economic and land useplanning to assure alternative ecologically sus-tainable means of support to rural populations(6). Long-term support for baseline ecologicalresearch to develop systems that would permitsustainable, efficient use of tropical forests isan important element of this. Expanded anthro-pological and social research, especially in-cluding more attention to the role of womenin forest use, also is needed to increase the like-lihood that forestry projects will be acceptedby the local populations and thus become self-sustaining.

References

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.11.

12.

13.

Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Report of theAndrew W. Mellon Foundation 1980, 1981,Ayensu, E., “Plants for Medicinal Uses WithSpecial Reference to Arid Zones,” in Arid LandPZant Resources, H. Goodin and D. Worthington(eds.), proceedings of the International Arid-lands Conference on Plant Resources, TexasTech University, 1979, pp. 117-178,Bethel, J. S,, et al., “The Role of U.S. Multi-national Corporations in Commercial ForestryOperations in the Tropics, ” a report submittedto the Department of State, University of Wash-ington, 1982, 306 pp.Brown, R. D., and Petrello, G. T., Introductionto Business, Zd cd., Glencoe Publishing Co.,1nc,, 1979.Callaham, R. Z., and Buckman, E, E., Some Per-spectives of Forestry in the Philippines, Indo-nesia, MaZaysia, and Thailand, U.S. Departmentof Agriculture Forest Service report, December1981.Christophersen, K., et al., “Response of Inter-national Donors to Forestry problems in Devel-oping Countries, ” JournaZ of Forestry, April1982.Collins, N., Program Officer in charge, RuralPoverty and Resources, Ford Foundation, per-sonal communication, 1982.Food and Agriculture Organization/U.N. Envi-ronmental Programme, 7’ropicaZ Forest Re-sources, Jean-Paul Lanly, Forestry Department,Food and Agriculture Organization, ForestryPaper #30, 1982.Farnsworth, N., and Loub, W., “InformationGathering and Data Bases Pertinent to Further-ing the Economic Potential of Plants, ” OTAcommissioned paper, 1982.Ford Foundation, Annual Report 1981, 1982.Fishwick, R., forester for World Bank, personalcommunication, 1982.Hansel, R., “Medicinal Plants and EmpiricalDrug Research, “ in Plants in the Developmentof Modern Medicine, T. Swaine (cd.) (Cam-bridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1972),Pp. 160-174.Hormats, R,, “U.S. Foreign Aid and the PrivateSector: Is Partnership Possible?” hearing beforethe Subcommittee on Trade, Productivity, andEconomic Growth of the Joint Economic Com-mittee, U.S. Congress, 1981.

14. Laundrie, J. F., and Baker, A. J., Report of Trav-el to Australia, Papua New Guinea, the Philip-pines, and Japan, U.S. Department of Agricul-ture Forest Service, April 1979.

15.

16

17,

18,

19.

20.

21.

22,

23.

24,

25.

26.

27.

28.

Macrae, N., “Entrepreneurial Now: Big GoesBust, ” Economist 283:67-72, 1982,Myers, N., The Sinking Ark: A New Look at theProbZem of Disappearing Species (Elmsford,N. Y.: Pergamon Press, 1979).OTA, discussion of “Technologies To SustainTropical Forest Resources” advisory panel, 1982.Raven, P., “Basic Research: Increasing Qualityof Information Needed for Development andImplementation of Technologies To SustainTropical Forest Resources,” OTA commis-sioned paper, 1982.Rich, B., Natural Resources Defense Council,personal communication, 1983.Rich, B,, “Institutions That Deal With Technol-ogies To Sustain Tropical Forest Resources, ”OTA commissioned paper, 1982.Rich, B., “Private Foundations That SupportProjects Relating to Technologies To SustainTropical Forest Resources,” OTA commis-sioned paper, 1982.Riddell, J., “Causes of Deforestation and ForestResources Degradation in Tropical Africa,”OTA commissioned paper, 1982.The Rockefeller Foundation, The President’sReview and Annual Report 1981, 1982.Teltsch, K., “Philanthropic Coalition to ExpandAid Abroad,” New York Times, Jan. 31, 1982.U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service,Forestry Activities and Deforestation Problemsin Developing Countries, report to the Office ofScience and Technology, Development SupportBureau, and Agency for International Develop-ment, 1980.Weber, F., “Combating Desertification WithTrees,” OTA commissioned paper, 1982.World Bank/Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations, Forestry Needs in Devel-oping Countries: Time for a Reappraisal? paperfor 17th IUFRO Congress, Kyoto, Japan, Sept.6-17, 1981.Zerbe, J., et al., Forestry Activities and Defor-estation Problems in Developing Countries,report to the Office of Science and Technology,Development Support Bureau, and Agency forInternational Development, 1980.

65