The Evolution, Paradigm Shift and Guidelines for Foreign Aid in Forestry

  • Pekka E. Kauppi


A companion to the previous chapter, Chap. 9 by Pekka Kauppi looks at how forestry aid has evolved over time, from the emphasis of foreign aid to incentivize industrial forestry in the 1960s to the new focus on REDD+ during the last decade, and argues that while investments in forestry have been associated with the value of timber as a global commodity, environmental and social concerns still remain. Kauppi discusses the history, scalability and transferability of tree planting and initiatives aimed at improving cooking stoves to save trees and to improve human health. He also points towards the important role of local universities in catalysing research towards forest conservation in developing countries, especially in Africa where university education is limited.


  1. Angelsen, A. 2009. Policy Options to Reduce Deforestation. In Realising REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options, ed. A. Angelsen. Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
  2. Ausubel, J.H., I.K. Wernick, and P.E. Waggoner. 2013. Peak Farmland and the Prospect for Land Sparing. Population and Development Review 38 (Suppl): 217–238.Google Scholar
  3. Defries, R.S., T. Rudel, M. Uriarte, and M. Hansen. 2010. Deforestation Driven by Urban Population Growth and Agricultural Trade in the Twenty-first Century. Nature Geoscience 3 (3): 178–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Goodale, C.L., M. Apps, R. Birdsey, C. Field, L. Heath, R. Houghton, J. Jenkins, G. Kohlmaier, W. Kurz, S. Liu, G. Nabuurs, S. Nilsson, and A. Shvidenko. 2002. Forest Carbon Sinks in the Northern Hemisphere. Ecological Applications 12 (3): 891–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hayward, F.M. 2012. Graduate Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Prospects and Challenges. International Higher Education 66: 21–22.Google Scholar
  6. Houghton, R.A. 2003. Revised Estimates of the Annual Net Flux of Carbon to the Atmosphere from Changes in Land Use and Land Management 1850–2000. Tellus B 55: 378–390.Google Scholar
  7. Kauppi, P.E., J.H. Ausubel, J. Fang, A.S. Mather, R.A. Sedjo, and P.E. Waggoner. 2006. Returning Forests Analyzed with the Forest Identity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 (46): 17574–17579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lambin, E.F., and P. Meyfroidt. 2011. Global Land Use Change, Economic Globalization, and the Looming Land Scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108 (9): 3465–3472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lambin, E.F., B.L. Turner, H.J. Geist, S.B. Agbola, A. Angelsen, J.W. Bruce, O.T. Coomes, et al. 2001. The Causes of Land-use and Land-cover Change: Moving Beyond the Myths. Global Environmental Change 11 (4): 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mather, A.S. 2007. Recent Asian Forest Transitions in Relation to Forest-transition Theory. International Forestry Review 9: 491–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mather, A.S., and C. Needle. 1998. The Forest Transition: A Theoretical Basis. Area 30: 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Meyfroidt, P., and E.F. Lambin. 2008. The Causes of the Reforestation in Vietnam. Land Use Policy 25 (2): 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Michaelson, M. 1994. Wangari Maathai and Kenya’s Green Belt Movement: Exploring the Evolution and Potentialities of Consensus Movement Mobilization. Social Problems 41 (4): 540–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moyo, D. 2006. Dead Aid. Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  15. Niu, X., B. Wang, S. Liu, C. Liu, W. Wei, and P.E. Kauppi. 2012. Economical Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Services in China: Characteristics and Implications. Ecological Complexity 11: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pan, Y., R.A. Birdsey, J. Fang, R. Houghton, P.E. Kauppi, W.A. Kurz, O.L. Phillips, A. Shvidenko, S.L. Lewis, J.G. Canadell, P. Ciais, R.B. Jackson, S. Pacala, A.D. McGuire, S. Piao, A. Rautiainen, S. Sitch, and D. Hayes. 2011. A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World’s Forests. Science 333: 988–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Persson, R. 2003. Assistance to Forestry: Experiences and Potential for Improvement. Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
  18. Rautiainen, A., I. Wernick, P.E. Waggoner, J.H. Ausubel, and P.E. Kauppi. 2011. A National and International Analysis of Changing Forest Density. PloS One 6 (5): e19577. Scholar
  19. Rudel, T.K., O.T. Coomes, E. Moran, F. Achard, A. Angelsen, J. Xu, and E. Lambin. 2005. Forest Transitions: Towards a Global Understanding of Land Use Change. Global Environmental Change 15: 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ———. 2013. Defensive Environmentalists and the Dynamics of Global Reform. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Saikku, L., S. Soimakallio, and K. Pingoud. 2012. Attributing Land-use Change Carbon Emissions to Exported Biomass. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 37: 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sedjo, R.A. 1999. The Potential of High-Yield Plantation Forestry for Meeting Timber Needs: Recent Performance, Future Potentials, and Environmental Implications. New Forests 17: 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Soulé, M.E., and B.A. Wilcox. 1980. Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  24. UN/FAO. 2000. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Main Report. Forestry Paper 140. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010: Main Report. Forestry Paper 163. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  26. Vanhanen, M. 2012. ENO’s Final Breakthrough in Rio+ Summit. Accessed 17 October 2013.
  27. Wilson, E.O., and F.M. Peter, eds. 1988. Biodiversity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© UNU-WIDER 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pekka E. Kauppi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations