(Chatterton et al., 2000). South Asia has relatively little for­est cover.
     Native forests are not limited to terrestrial environ­ments. Asia and the Pacific are also home to the greatest concentration of mangroves. Once thought of as coastal wasteland, mangroves were destroyed at an alarming rate for agriculture, aquaculture and firewood. Almost half the mangrove destruction in recent years has been prompted by the desire to create shrimp farms (UN Atlas of the Ocean, 2002). Over the last 20 to 30 years, with help from the UNESCO Mangrove Programme and other international initiatives, government planners and fisheries experts have become more aware of how mangroves are a nursery for many coastal and aquaculture fish, a buffer that reduces sediment flows to offshore reefs and a barrier against storm surges and tsunamis (Vannucci, 1997). About 90% of all marine organisms spend some portion of their life within mangrove systems (Adeel and Pomeroy, 2002).
     Most countries in the region have well-defined policies, laws and programs to regulate the use of forests and the de­velopment of forestry activities, although they are rarely con­sistently enforced. As a result, corruption and illegal logging are significant in many ESAP countries. Indonesia loses $1.4 billion a year as a result of the trade in illegal logging (DFID, 2007). Historically, most ESAP countries have regulated forest management by assigning management responsibili­ties to government agencies and attempting to enforce strict controls on forest access. Transient upland populations and traditional tenure systems based on common access to forests have often conflicted with government policy initiatives.
      Asia and the Pacific had over 552 million ha of forests, of which 477 .7 million ha, 86%, were natural forests. (The FAO 2001 figures were 709 million ha, which could be an overestimate due to the forest cover classifications used.) However, only about 249 million ha, 45%, were available and suitable for harvesting (Waggener, 2001). The natural forests throughout ESAP had, until very recently, been seen mostly as a vast source of raw timber to generate export income. However, there is now general agreement on the need to change from a focus on timber exploitation to em­phasizing management for sustainable, multiple-use natural forests (Enters, 1997). In the face of increasing deforestation China, New Zealand, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Viet Nam have imposed several total, partial, temporary or selective bans on logging in natural and old-growth forests. The results of these restrictions have been mixed. Several case studies indicate that such bans could have unantici­pated effects on timber supply, forest harvesting, transport, processing and consumption of forest products. The restric­tions affect forest residents and those who depend on for­estry for their livelihoods (Waggener, 2001).
     The need for sustainable forest management has been clearly recognized throughout ESAP, but few examples of ef­fective management have been implemented on a large scale. In some areas, improved practices such as reduced-impact logging, forest and timber certification and log tracking sys­tems have been introduced as avenues for more sustainable management. Forest certification involves certification by a third party that an area of forest is being managed in ac­cordance with a defined set of standards. Chain of custody certification tracks wood products from a certified forest to

the point of sale. However, incorporating social criteria and indicators into forest management and harvest practices was criticized as difficult to assess and interpret in the field (Wol-lenberg and Colfer, 1996). Although there was no significant effect of timber certification on loss of tropical forests over the last two decades, timber certification is expected to cre­ate greater awareness among forest managers of the need to protect the environment and minimize the loss of biological diversity (Thang, 2003).
     In addition to the limited use of technology to reduce the effect of logging on the environment and the forest soils, different governments in the region have put in place poli­cies designed to reduce environmental damage and increase the economic returns from forestry. Thailand has a total ban on logging within its borders, the Philippines has banned the export of unprocessed logs and Bhutan has mandated that the country must keep 60% of the land under forest cover (UNEP, 2005). However, the effectiveness of these laws and plans is often greatly reduced because of limited resources, shortage of skilled staff, corruption and weak law enforce­ment. Rather than the need for new technology, the critical issue has been the lack of political will in most countries to enforce existing policies and regulations (Enters, 1997).
     Outside reforestation, natural forest management has focused on forest harvest techniques to minimize the adverse effect on natural regeneration, ground cover and underlying forest soils. In some places traditional cut-and-drag systems have been replaced by less-damaging methods. In Malaysia skyline cables and helicopters are used to minimize degrada­tion from harvesting timber on steep slopes. These and other technologies developed for forestry in temperate areas could be adapted for tropical forests. The real constraint is that most forest harvesting in ESAP is done by private compa­nies, where profit is the driving force in management prac­tice. Portable wood chippers are available, but there are few or no economic incentives for extracting or on-site process­ing harvest waste. Helicopter logging and cable and skyline yarding represent a large capital investment that might not be justified by the value of the timber, especially if there are no impositions upon the harvester to conserve soil and wa­ter or limit the damage to the residual stand. Although cable yarding systems damage soils and understory less than cut-and-drag systems, they may be more difficult to use in the selectively harvested forests common in Asia, rather than clear felling, common in temperate forests.

2.2.5.2   Nontimber forest products
Managing native forests to collect and produce nontimber forest products has received little attention, other than as a component of agroforestry and a traditional agroforestry practice. There is not even clear agreement on what non-timber forest products are. The broadest definition would include all biological material harvested from forests for hu­man use. Scale, mode of harvesting and market distinguish nontimber  forest  products  from  forest wood  products. Nontimber products  are  usually harvested by individu­als, households or small groups and marketed directly by the harvester or through small-scale processing operators. Nontimber forest products generally are forest plants and animals used for food, beverages, forage, medicine and fi­ber. Although many upland households harvest, process and