CRS Report: 92-764 - Deforestation: An Overview of Global Programs and Agreements

Specialist in International Environmental Policy
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division

In recent years, global environmental concerns have figured prominently on the American political agenda. In particular, tropical deforestation and its implications for global climate change and biological diversity loss have prompted public outcry. Concerns have since grown to include other forest types as well. The Congress has considered a variety of legislation to stem the tide of increasing deforestation and the United States has supported a number of bilateral and multilateral initiatives to assist other countries in managing their forest resources.

In addition, the issue of deforestation has garnered increasing attention in international arenas which has translated into a bewildering array of programs, principles, and policies regarding forests. This paper provides some background on four of the main multilateral avenues for addressing deforestation and clarifies their roles and interrelationships. The organizations, processes, and negotiations covered here include: the Tropical Forestry Action Programme (TFAP), the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), and the World Bank. Considered as a whole, these efforts represent attempts by the international community to address deforestation -- in the tropics, as well as in temperate and boreal forests. This review provides the history and structure of these programs, together with the critiques and arguments concerning their success or weakness, in order to provide the context for continuing congressional oversight of global forest issues and the consideration of legislation on appropriations for these programs.

The TFAP has created a framework for bringing the nations of the North and South together. It has helped many countries to analyze their forest resources more rigorously and has generated high-level attention on forest issues. The ITTO has become a vehicle for conservation concerns and established targets and standards for sustainable tropical timber management. UNCED focused unprecedented attention on forest-related issues. The final documents relating to forests articulate the concept of sustainable development. And the World Bank's new forest policy requires environmental assessments and prohibits the financing of commercial logging in moist tropical forests under any circumstances.

These are notable achievements, but deforestation continues. Critics point to the need for refinements or improvements (and in some case major restructuring) in all of these international programs and policies. A closer look at the progress and pitfalls of these efforts indicates that international mechanisms for addressing deforestation require lengthy and often laborious negotiation, while the sense of urgency concerning continuing very rapid deforestation grows.

INTRODUCTION

Despite years of public outcry, the world's tropical forests are being cut down at a rate 40 percent faster today than they were 10 years ago, according to a report of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) released in Paris last September.(1) In what is considered to be the most authoritative assessment to date, the FAO reported that approximately 17 million hectares of tropical forest were cleared in 1990, an area about the size of Washington State, or more than an acre every second. In 1981, by contrast, about 11 million hectares of tropical forest were lost in a single year. (One hectare equals 2.47 acres.)

The figures generated by the FAO are based on satellite images of forest cover, reports from participating governments, and spot-checks on the ground by FAO workers or their consultants. The study, which surveyed 87 tropical countries, generated the following regional data of forest cover and annual rates of deforestation:

	Forest Area (1980)	Forest Area (1990)	Annual Deforestation (1981-1990)
Total (hectares)	1,884,100,000	1,714,800,000	16,900,000

Latin America	923,000,000	839,900,000	8,300,000
Asia	310,800,000	274,900,000	3,600,000
Africa	650,300,000	600,100,000	5,000,000

The rapid deforestation currently occurring in developing countries recalls an earlier epoch in the history of industrialized nations, when much of the world's temperate forests were cleared for agriculture, construction materials, and fuelwood. Net deforestation has stabilized in most of the North, and for temperate areas as a whole, forest area is increasing. FAO figures indicate that these forest areas increased by about five percent in the period from 1980 to 1990.(2)

The causes of deforestation in the moist tropics are complex, and the amounts of forest loss attributable to each cause are not precisely known.

One common misconception about responsibility for deforestation was, until recently, the perception that tropical timber extraction for export was mainly to blame. In fact, timber extraction, especially for export, is much less common than the clearing of forest for other purposes. The spread of agriculture, including crop and livestock production, is the single greatest factor in forest destruction, accounting for roughly 60 percent of annual clearing.(3) Its effects dwarf the total impact of wood and timber extraction on tropical forests.

However, the indirect effects of logging multiply its impact several times. When logging companies build roads into the forests, landless farmers use them to reach the once inaccessible forest, where they cut and burn the remaining trees to clear the land for agriculture. In many cases, tropical forest soils are poor and can support crops for only a few years. After the soil is depleted, the land is often abandoned or turned over to ranching.

The underlying causes of deforestation in developing countries are poverty, skewed land distribution (due to historical patterns of land settlement and commercial agriculture development), and low agricultural productivity. These factors, combined with rapid population growth, have led to increasingly severe pressure on forest lands.

In many cases, government policies have accentuated the pressures on tropical forests. Developing countries frequently have forestry policies, such as direct subsidies and lenient forest concession terms, that foster unsustainable use of forest resources. Similarly, agriculture, land settlement, and other non-forestry policies often lead to encroachment on forests.

Developed countries also contribute to deforestation in developing countries. Developed country demand for tropical timber has been rising steadily. For many developing countries desperate to earn foreign exchange to ease their international debt problems, forests represent a ready source of income. A related problem is the generally low price paid for tropical timber. When prices are too low to fully reflect the growing and replacement costs for forests, there is little incentive to manage the resource for the long term.

Forests are not just a source of timber. They perform a wide range of social and ecological functions. They provide a livelihood and cultural integrity for forest dwellers and a habitat for plants and animals. They protect and enrich soils, provide natural regulation of the hydrologic cycle, affect local and regional climate through evaporation, influence watershed flows of surface and groundwater, and help to stabilize the global climate by sequestering carbon as they grow.

Public recognition of the scale and implications of deforestation gradually took hold in the 1970s. In 1980, the "Global 2000" report to President Carter identified tropical deforestation as the most serious environmental problem that the world would face over the next two decades.(4) In recent years, foreign assistance priorities have also shifted. Total international funding for forests in developing countries doubled in the past decade to more than $1 billion.(5)(6)

Substantial tropical forest management expertise is deployed through bilateral aid programs as well, and resources to this sector have recently been significantly increased. One of the largest single sources of grant and soft-loan funding for environmentally oriented development activities in tropical forest areas is the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

It should be noted that assistance to the forest sector in both bilateral and multilateral programs historically has been focused on forest industry development operations, or agroforestry (use of trees in agriculture). Only a very small proportion of that assistance has gone toward forest preservation or management of "old growth" forests.

Congressional concern over effective measures to reduce deforestation often has centered on oversight hearings and legislation on bilateral and multilateral assistance to developing countries where deforestation is most rapid. A range of multilateral aid channels are currently being employed to address rapid deforestation. This report focuses on some of the main international institutions and initiatives in this area: the Tropical Forestry Action Programme, the International Tropical Timber Organization, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development Forest Principles and Agenda 21 chapter on forests, the U.S. Forests for the Future Initiative, and the World Bank. While some of these programs are strictly concerned with tropical deforestation, others encompass temperate and boreal forests as well. Consequently, relatively recent events, like discussions surrounding the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development and the formulation of the World Bank's new forest policy, are broadly framed to address all forest types --tropical, temperate, and boreal. The pages that follow briefly describe these schemes for addressing deforestation and their interrelationships.

THE TROPICAL FORESTRY ACTION PROGRAMME

The Tropical Forestry Action Programme (TFAP) was launched as the Tropical Forestry Action Plan in June 1985 with the aim of slowing tropical deforestation and helping countries formulate blueprints for environmentally sustainable forest management at the national, regional, and global levels.(7) It emerged from a collaboration among the World Resources Institute (WRI), the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and work by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The Plan provides a forum for development assistance agencies to coordinate their forestry programs and a process for tropical countries to formulate forestry plans that are then likely to be funded by the development agencies. To date, 90 developing countries are participating -- 38 African countries, 20 in Asia and the Pacific, and 32 in Latin America and the Caribbean.(8) More than 40 aid agencies, which together account for virtually all of the official development assistance provided to the forestry sector, have joined in supporting the TFAP.(9)

The TFAP has created a framework for bringing the nations of the North and South together to begin dealing with tropical deforestation. In the process, it has generated national-level attention to forestry issues and helped many countries analyze their forest resources in a more disciplined fashion. However, widely held criticisms have emerged concerning the program's objectives, structure, and impact. These have cast a cloud over its future. New goals and objectives have been developed, but consideration of needed changes in the management of the TFAP has been subsumed into the complex and contentious global debate on the stewardship of forest resources. At this point, the TFAP's future seems to hinge on whether improvements can be implemented effectively, and especially on whether an independent Consultative Forum to guide the program can be instituted.

An understanding of the TFAP's history, its problems, and current reform efforts is important to consideration of U.S. bilateral assistance connected to the program. Also, the issues that have emerged through the TFAP experience are directly relevant to ongoing discussions taking place in the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) and other multilateral development agencies and especially through discussions that have taken place as a part of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) debate on forests.

In response to rapid deforestation in the tropics, an international task force set up by World Resources Institute (WRI), the World Bank, and the UNDP published Tropical Forests: A Call for Action in 1985, based on a six-month study of the extent and magnitude of tropical deforestation, actions needed to control the crisis, and "successes" in numerous priority program areas.(10) At the same time, the FAO published the Tropical Forestry Action Plan.(11) In July of 1987, the FAO, WRI, the World Bank, and the UNDP convened a high-level meeting in Bellagio, Italy. That meeting brought the two parallel initiatives together, and a summary document was produced under the title The Tropical Forestry Action Plan.(12)

A major premise of the document was that tropical deforestation could be reduced through the use of a new, coordinated approach to managing tropical forest resources. The TFAP is comprised of a series of strategies and action areas that could be the basis for the formulation of individual country evaluations and for the plans to facilitate tropical forest management and to coordinate foreign assistance in tropical forestry.

The Plan identified five priority areas for forest plans by tropical countries. As defined by the 1987 TFAP, they were as follows:

The priority of the Plan is to assist developing countries in deciding national priorities, usually in each of the five areas listed above, in adapting their current policy framework, in preparing proposals for programs and projects at the country level, and in securing the financial support needed to put plans into action.

The FAO, the lead U.N. agency for forestry, is responsible for promoting and coordinating implementation of the TFAP. Day to day administration of the TFAP is carried out by the TFAP Coordinating Unit, a small secretariat within the FAO Forestry Division. The work is subject to the control of two inter-governmental bodies which oversee the FAO's Forestry Department, namely the Committee on Forestry Development in the Tropics (CFDT) and the Committee on Forestry (COFO), with overall supervision by the CFDT. The TFAP Coordinating Unit of the FAO regularly reports to the national delegations of these statutory bodies regarding the status and progress of the TFAP. These bodies, in turn, adopt resolutions regarding the FAO's continued role in the TFAP, and recommend actions related to the implementation of the TFAP. The FAO Forestry Department itself, other U.N. agencies, and representatives of multilateral and bilateral aid agencies have been directly involved as "participating agencies" in the planning and implementation of the TFAP. Governments of donor countries have been represented most often by the chief forestry advisor of their development assistance agencies. Developing country governments have been involved primarily through their national Forestry Departments, as well as through other government agencies that negotiate development assistance.

Coordinating work is done through the TFAP Forestry Advisors Group, which works to promote information sharing and collaboration among the various aid agencies, national government agencies, and other organizations involved in implementing the TFAP. The Advisors Group, which is made up of representatives from donor countries, development banks, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and developing country observers, provides a forum for planning and organizing national sector review missions, reviewing the results of such missions, and coordinating follow-up. The Advisors Group meetings, which take place twice a year, also provide an opportunity for dialogue between the TFAP's funding agencies and a number of NGOs with an interest in the TFAP. However, the Advisors Group has no institutional stature or authority to insure compliance with the TFAP guidelines or to otherwise influence TFAP planning at the national level.

The TFAP is a process of reviewing and evaluating a country's forest resources, developing a forestry strategy including the identification of specific forestry projects for implementation, and adopting the strategy as official policy by the host country government.

In general, the TFAP has been implemented at the national level by following the sector review mission approach used by the World Bank. Thus, a TFAP country exercise involves all or some of the following five elements, depending on the national circumstances, as identified in the TFAP:

In practice, tropical forest countries commence their involvement with the TFAP by expressing an interest in participating in the TFAP process. Ideally, they then proceed through six further stages.

Few countries have strictly adhered to this idealized sequence. The involvement of NGOs varies considerably from country to country. According to the FAO guidelines for implementing the TFAP, the host country government is responsible for arranging the involvement of national NGOs and the private sector. Where there has been such involvement, it is usually confined to the final phases of the TFAP process.

To date, 29 countries have completed the Planning Phase of the TFAP. Eight countries have completed a Sector Review, 40 have a Sector Review underway, and 13 have requested a TFAP exercise. (13) (See Appendix A: Status of TFAP Exercises).

The TFAP's Task Force envisioned spending $8 billion of public and private investment in forestry over five years (from 1987 to 1991). This sum was to be divided among the five designated priority areas (forestry in land use; forest-based industrial development; fuelwood and energy; conservation and tropical forest ecosystems; and institutions).

Information on proposed and actual investments in the TFAP is difficult to obtain. A review of 11 national TFAPs for which detailed information is available indicates that investment levels of about $28 million per country per year are being proposed. If all countries now preparing and implementing national TFAPs require this same amount on average, roughly double the current levels of development assistance in the forestry sector will be needed to finance them.(14)

In general, forestry in land use and forest industries together account for more than half the proposed investment in 12 national TFAPs studied by WRI, while forest conservation and fuelwood programs only amount to 20 percent of total investment.(15) However, these global averages obscure comparatively larger shares earmarked for forest conservation or land use in some countries.

In addition, sketchy data indicate that national TFAPs are receiving different levels of funding. At the high end is Nepal, which has received 65 percent of what it has requested from interested donor countries. At the other extreme are Peru, Colombia, Panama, and Argentina, which received only a small proportion (less than 10 percent) of the total funding outlined in their TFAP investment plan.

Since its inception, the TFAP has been heavily criticized, especially by environmental and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Among the main criticisms of the plan is that it is too focused on the forest sector alone and that it places undue emphasis on financing classical forestry projects, such as logging, road-building, and the establishment of plantations, to develop commercial forestry and industrial forest-based enterprises. Critics claim that in some cases, this emphasis on timber production has led to the formulation of national plans that would increase deforestation by facilitating timber harvests in new and more extensive areas.

Critics have also targeted the plan for being both unrealistic in its approach to forest problems and dictatorial in its formulation and implementation. Frequent criticisms of individual country plans include the following:

In 1990, concern over the problems associated with the TFAP began to coalesce. Several NGOs published critiques of the Plan. The World Rain Forest Movement, for example, claimed that timber extraction and rates of deforestation would probably increase as a result of the implementation of National Forestry Action Plans in six out of nine countries for which plans had been prepared,(16) often because forestry assistance would involve roads or other measures to open new areas to timber harvest. In April 1990, over 50 environmental NGOs called for a moratorium on international funding for the TFAP in its current form.

The World Resources Institute released its report, Taking Stock: The Tropical Forestry Action Plan After Five Years in June 1990, concluding that while the TFAP has had some positive results, serious problems remain: "The most important conclusion of this assessment is that, despite some successes, the TFAP as currently implemented is not achieving many of the plan's original objectives."(17)

As a result of the widespread criticism of the TFAP, the FAO authorized an independent review of the initiative. The review team, headed by Ambassador Ola Ullsten, ex-Prime Minister of Sweden, also identified a number of areas where the TFAP had fallen short of its goals in May 1990.(18) It found that most national plans simply justify increased investment in the forestry sector -- a focus too narrow to adequately address the root causes of deforestation much less to affect them significantly.

A principal recommendation of the FAO independent review team was that the TFAP process should shift from a donor-led, project-oriented approach to one of long-term partnership between developed and developing countries -- a country-led, process-oriented approach. This was to be accomplished by building up the institutional and human capacity of tropical countries to conserve and manage their forests. The team emphasized the need to establish a policy-making process that would lead to sustainable forest management. This capacity building and planning process would then generate projects which donors could support.

The FAO independent review team also identified the need for a more dynamic coordinating and monitoring mechanism. The reviewers suggested that the TFAP be restructured by designating it a "program" rather than a "plan" and by separating the TFAP from the FAO's Forestry Department. Under this proposal, the TFAP would become a distinct administrative unit under the FAO's umbrella. This was proposed by Ullsten to "avoid bureaucratic suffocation and encourage effective leadership." The Ullsten team recommended that the TFAP Coordinating Unit be removed from the Forestry Division of FAO in order to encourage a more multidisciplinary approach and that the co-founders appoint a steering group to oversee the TFAP process and provide it with needed leadership and direction.

To consider the recommendations of the review team, the TFAP co-founders -- the FAO, WRI, the World Bank, and the UNDP -- convened a "high level" meeting in Geneva in April 1991. Participants in the meeting included representatives from tropical countries, donor agencies and NGOs from both the North and the South. The conclusion of the meeting was that a free standing Consultative Forum, made up of more diverse interests than the current TFAP Coordinating Unit housed at the FAO in Rome, was needed to provide international leadership and quality control to the TFAP process. This Consultative Forum would be chaired by a World Bank vice president and would be composed of 28 to 37 members. A small secretariat, possibly based in the UNDP, would provide logistical support to the Consultative Forum. The composition of the group would be similar to that of the high-level Geneva meeting itself.

Another result of the Geneva meeting was a revised and strengthened statement of the goals and objectives of the TFAP, stressing the need for a country-driven TFAP process and one which follows a set of general principles like the importance of a policy-oriented, multi-sectoral process. The new and highly ambitious goal recommended for the TFAP places a strong emphasis on curbing deforestation and departs considerably from the previously defined goal of promoting partnerships. In order to achieve this revised goal, the TFAP Forestry Advisors Group explicitly stated its intention to look to the UNCED process to provide an improved and politically and financially more secure framework for the TFAP process. This revised statement of goals and objectives is significant because it reflects an international consensus on how to approach tropical forest utilization and conservation and on the appropriate mandate of the TFAP. (See Appendix B: Revised Goals and Objectives for the TFAP.)

Questions regarding the TFAP's future remain unresolved. Since the Geneva meeting, the reform process has stalled over the issue of the composition and function of the proposed steering group or Consultative Forum. Although some consensus has been reached regarding its functions, other issues remain unresolved, such as the relationship between the Consultative Forum and the FAO. Some country representatives are wary of structures which they perceive as possibly infringing upon national sovereignty, state control of forests or development objectives. A few -- such as India and Malaysia -- even question the need for a Consultative Forum. Other tropical countries take a more moderate approach, recognizing that a Consultative Forum is probably politically necessary for continued donor support of the TFAP.

In addition, the debate surrounding the establishment of the Consultative Forum is being fueled by rivalries between the agencies that wish to cash in on the global concern for tropical forests. For example, Japan has not supported the TFAP, preferring to see the Yokohama-based ITTO expand to be a world center for forestry. However, the FAO would like to see an international forest treaty that would provide for a permanent umbrella body for the TFAP within the FAO's own bureaucracy in Rome. Critics charge that the FAO has sought to control the TFAP in a way that is contrary to the consensus positions hammered out with developing country governments, donors, NGOs, and other relevant organizations in Geneva, and that the FAO has forfeited its leadership role where the TFAP is concerned. Such observers see FAO support for a global forest agreement as a means of allowing the FAO to carry on business as usual during the many years that it would take to get a meaningful convention ratified.

Since the Geneva meeting, the FAO has formed an Ad Hoc group to further discuss the substantive issues of TFAP reform. So far, the group is still struggling with these questions. As of its last effort, in May 1992, at its Second meeting in Rome, the Ad Hoc group was still unable to obtain a consensus. The only agreement reached was to create a small follow-up group of four or five countries plus the chair to study the options for institutional arrangements for the TFAP and to hold another meeting after UNCED in September.

Though criticism of the TFAP has been widespread, the Plan also has its positive aspects. The TFAP has offered a framework to bring rich nations together with developing countries to address the threat of tropical deforestation. It has provided a basis for determining investment priorities and funding requirements to lay the foundations for longer-term solutions. And it has offered an opportunity to improve aid coordination and to stimulate institutional reforms and new initiatives for a concerted global effort.

Furthermore, the TFAP process has been successful in prompting a re-examination of forest policy in several countries and in increasing awareness of forest issues both in developing and developed countries. In many countries, the TFAP has generated national-level attention to forest issues and has often brought them to the attention of decision makers at high levels.

The TFAP may also have been successful in promoting an increase in international aid to forestry and in changing the nature of that aid. The past decade has been a period of enormous growth in public awareness of deforestation problems. It is difficult to say what changes might have happened without the TFAP, but the TFAP may well have been an important factor.

The TFAP provides a model for country-based planning, though it has not yet met its primary objectives, namely, an observable impact on arresting deforestation and moving toward sustainable management of forest resources. Yet, the TFAP could be viewed as a relative success, especially compared to some other major initiatives such as the Plan of Action to Combat Desertification. Certainly at the country level, it can be argued that more good has been accomplished than is sometimes acknowledged. In particular, many countries have analyzed their forest resources in a more disciplined way than ever before and more donors are seeking ways to support countries' efforts to arrest deforestation and promote sustainable management of forest lands. In addition, the TFAP experience has prompted many major international organizations to pay closer attention to the complexities surrounding tropical deforestation.

In the past year a number of major steps have been taken and consensus positions reached. Most important is the revised and greatly strengthened statement of goals and objectives, one which stresses the need for a country-driven TFAP process and which follows a set of general principles like the importance of a policy-oriented, multi-sectoral process. But the final step from the Geneva meeting remains to be taken: the creation of a Consultative Forum, composed of representatives from all of the major TFAP actors, to provide guidance to the TFAP process and to remind developing countries and their donors of the revised goals and objectives of the TFAP.

If the reform process is allowed to stall over the issues of the composition and function of the Consultative Forum, the TFAP may lose the support of its donors, becoming merely a set of country-specific exercises, informed by some generally established principles, but lacking international commitment and leadership. Some observers assert that if the Consultative Forum is not established and full reform is not instituted, the TFAP should be terminated without delay so that something new and more hopeful can be created at the international level in its stead. However, it is unclear how a new mechanism to facilitate country-based planning would differ from the TFAP "model" or how it would achieve more positive results given the present context.

At this point, the future of the TFAP is unclear. For now, this international initiative for forest conservation in the tropics remains at a critical juncture.

1. Forest Resources Assessment 1990 Project, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. "Second Interim Report on the State of Tropical Forests." Paper presented at the 10th World Forestry Congress. Paris, September 1991 (rev. October 15,1991).

2. World Resources Institute. World Resources 1992-93. Oxford University Press. New York, 1992. p. 118.

3. World Bank. World Development Report 1992. Oxford University Press. New York, 1992. p. 58.

4. See: United States Interagency Task Force on Tropical Forests. The World's Tropical Forests: A Policy, Strategy, and Program for the United States. Department of State Publication 9117. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC, May 1980.

5. Development assistance for forestry expanded from $400-500 million per year in the 1975 to 1985 period to $1093 million per year in 1988. An increasing proportion of that aid is going toward conservation activities.

6. Committee on Forest Development in the Tropics, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Review of International Cooperation in Tropical Forestry. Prepared for the Ninth Session of the Committee on Forest Development in the Tropics. Rome, July 1989.

7. Note that, in 1991, the name of the TFAP was changed from the Tropical Forestry Action Plan to the Tropical Forestry Action Programme to reflect a broader agenda.

8. TFAP Coordinating Unit, Forestry Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. TRAP Update No. 26. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, August 1992. p. 22.

9. Winterbottom, Robert. Taking Stock: The Tropical Forestry Action Plan After Five Years. World Resources Institute. Washington, DC, 1990. p. 10.

10. See: Report of an International Task Force convened by the World Resources Institute, The World Bank, and the United Nations Development Programme. Tropical Forests: A Call for Action. World Resources Institute. Washington, DC, October 1985.

11. See: Committee on Forest Development in the Tropics, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Tropical Forestry Action Plan. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, 1985.

12. See: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Resources Institute, World Bank, United Nations Development Programme. The Tropical Forestry Action Plan. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, 1987.

16. See: Colchester, Marcus and Larry Lohmann. The Tropical Forestry Action Plan: What Progress? World Rainforest Movement. Penang, Malaysia, 1990.

18. See: Ullsten, Ola et al. Tropical Forestry Action Plan: Report of the Independent Review. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, May, 1990.

Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment*



	National Council for Science and the Environment 1725 K Street, Suite 212 - Washington, DC 20006 202-530-5810 - info@NCSEonline.org