Scientific forest boundary demarcation or delineation of forest boundaries based on forest and land cover was introduced to Laos in the late 1980s. Since then, the government has developed institutions that not only mark the spatial boundaries of forests, but also define ways in which resources are managed. The Protected Areas System, introduced to Laos in 1993, is an example of state territoriality. As a case study, this paper examines the divergent interpretations of government policy on forest boundary delineation in Northwest Vientiane, which are conflicting with customary resource management practices. In particular this study investigates areas where access to natural resources is highly disputed due to the designation of protected areas.

View full abstract

This study analyzes the role of Gunung Halimun National Park in the livelihoods of three communities living in and around or near the park, and the impact of the national park on the local people already living in or using resources from the area before it was designated as a national park. Local people practiced agriculture in the park area and collected forest products even within the park itself. Additionally, local people used a variety of plants, including trees, shrubs, herbs and vines, for food, construction, everyday implements, medicine, fuel and so on. Local people in the three villages frequently used domesticated plants, from swidden cultivation or gardens, as food. The use of fuelwood differed among the three villages. The people in the villages adjacent to the park and within an enclave inside the park had alternative places to gather fuelwood. They planted trees that were useful for fuelwood in gardens or took branches of clove or tea trees from neighboring plantation areas. However, as the amount of fuelwood from these resources did not meet their daily needs, they also gathered fuelwood from the national park forest. On the other hand, the fact that one village was located (illegally) within the park did not promote strong incentives for its people to manage domesticated plants for fuelwood; instead they depended largely on the park’s forest. It is concluded that the existence of the national park scarcely changed the relationship between local people and the surrounding environment, but that the presence of local people had fewer negative effects than other disturbing influences like illegal logging or conversion. Rather, the current lack of adequate monitoring has made it possible for customary use of resources and the ideology of nature conservation to coexist. The unclear relationships between the park management and local people may be effective for the ad hoc park management, but may not necessarily ensure biological conservation for the future. Integrated management of the protected areas can be achieved only when institutional arrangements are constructed, in which benefits from protected areas are distributed equally among related stakeholders, leading to effective collaborative management.

View full abstract

Indonesia is five times as big as Japan, and occupies most of the equatorial zone of Asia. Though the most land might be covered by forest in old age, the forest coverage is 58% of the land in 2000, and annual decreasing rate is 1.2%. The protected area is 7% of the land, and the condition of protection is becoming worse. The forest coverage rates in most of developed countries are less than 20% except Japan (64%). They are, however, increasing the forest areas gradually. The forest in Indonesia will continue to decrease in the 21st century. In future such as the 22nd century, we cannot deny the possibility of the increase of forested area. If the social conditions will change to protect and increase the forests, it will be not so difficult to increase the forest biomass with plantation. Although the recovery of biodiversity will be much difficult, and extinct species will never appear again. Then the protection of natural forests now is important for the future.

View full abstract

Tropical forest policy based on the view of foresters, who intended to control and steer the forest with strong sense of responsibility as experts, has failed to manage forests in sustainable way. Even though participation of the local people has been tried since the late 1970s, foresters have confronted difficulties to cooperate with the local people in sustainable forest use and management, because conventional concept of forest policy, or autocratic forest governance by experts, had been retained.
Recently West Kutai district of East Kalimantan, Indonesia, tried to establish collaborative local forest governance where various stakeholders such as the local people, private company, governmental officials, NGOs, and academics have discussed the problem, proposed 52 actions to be taken, and drafted district regulations. This effort could give us important implications and hints to consider how forest policy should be in the future.
Collaborative governance of the forests can be regarded as a new concept of forest policy. The new concept could be enriched by both of “open-minded localism” under which the local people intend to collaborate with outsiders, and “principle of involvement/commitment” under which the more a person (even outsider or the local people) is involved in foresee use and management, the stronger rights the person have to speak and decide.

View full abstract

In Asian Region, quite a few, only five countries had introduced National Parks and protected areas system before World War II including Japan, whose first National Parks, Kirishima, Setonaikai and Unzen were designated on March 16th 1934 as the first National Parks in Asian Region as well. Indonesia followed with the designation of Berbak National Park (Sumatra) in 1935, then India’s Corbett National Park (Uttar Pradesh) in 1936, Sri Lanka’s Ruhuna and Wilpattu National Parks in 1938, and Malaysia’s world famous Taman Negara National Park in 1939. These were all 14-18 years prior to gaining independent state-hold from former suzerain states of the Netherlands or the United Kingdom.
The National Parks Act, enforced in 1933, prescribed that the Director of the Forestry Service would be appointed to the authority of National Parks management in the Philippines, and the Government of Japan nominally designated National Parks in Taiwan prior to and during the period of World War II, however according to the present official records the Philippines established five Natural (not National) Parks in 1996-97 and Taiwan designated its first park, Kenting National Park, in 1982 followed by its second park, Yushan National Park, in 1985.
In terms of the first designation/establishment of National Parks, South-East Asian (ASEAN) countries can be divided into four groups excluding Singapore as a city-state: i.e. 1) prior to World War II; Indonesia and Malaysia, 2) in response to the 1st World Conference on National Parks in 1962; Thailand and Vietnam, 3) in response to the global trends of environmental issues during 1980s; Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Myanmar and the Philippines, and 4) still no designation/establishment; Lao PDR, with the exception of National Biodiversity Conservation Areas in response to the World Summit in Rio de Janeiro.
In relation to the ASEAN member countries with their earliest designation/establishment of National Parks and protected areas, this article attempts to analyze mainly the present state and perspectives on National Parks and protected areas in this particular sub-region, putting special emphasis on tropical natural and remaining forests using data on natural forest areas from 1995, and annual deforestation rates from 1981-1990 and from 1990-1995 by IUCN, among others.
Deforestation has continued steadily within ASEAN countries, except in Thailand. There might exist correlations among National Parks areas and all categories of Protected Areas in ASEAN countries. It should be pointed out that Thailand has remarkably high percentages of both National Parks area per natural forest area (47%), and of all categories of Protected Areas per natural forest area (76%). Particular emphasis on international cooperation should be considered and assistance should be given to Lao PDR and Myanmar (in quantity; establishment of protected areas), and Cambodia & Vietnam (in quality; management of protected areas).

View full abstract