Next Article in Journal
Nucleation Process of the 2017 Nuugaatsiaq, Greenland Landslide
Previous Article in Journal
Relationship between Photosynthetic Characteristics, Anatomical Structure, and Physiological Indexes of Two Halophytes in Different Habitats
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 14
Issue 1
10.3390/f14010001
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Societal and Economic Impact of Reforestation Strategies and Policies in Southeast Asia—A Review

by
Mujib Rahman Ahmadzai
1,2,
Pakhriazad Hassan Zaki
1,
Mohd Hasmadi Ismail
1,*,
Paiman Bawon
1 and
Daljit Singh Karam
3
1
Department of Forestry Science and Biodiversity, Faculty of Forestry and Environment, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia
2
Department of Natural Resources Management, Faculty of Environment, Kabul University, Kabul 1001, Afghanistan
3
Department of Land Management, Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2023, 14(1), 1; https://doi.org/10.3390/f14010001
Submission received: 21 November 2022 / Revised: 11 December 2022 / Accepted: 12 December 2022 / Published: 20 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Economics, Policy, and Social Science)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper assesses the existing reforestation and forest conservation policies and strategies in Southeast Asia and how they have impacted people’s lives. Southeast Asia contains 11 countries and is home to 20% of the world’s species. Unfortunately, the region has been practising deforestation at an alarming rate. The main cause of deforestation in the region is the creation of land for agriculture, with forest fires and the growing demand for timber also contributing. As a result, the region has lost 376,000 km2 of forest in the last 30 years. Parts of the region have been involved in international efforts to protect forests, such as the 2016 Paris Agreement. However, some of these policies have not made much difference because most countries are not willing to support the necessary strategies. From the study findings, the main strength of the existing polices and strategies is that they are being amended to suit different changes in demographics and the practical needs of the sector. The sector has been able to shift from the initial state forestry management to making forests a multi-sectoral economic development agent. On the other hand, there are few polices at the national level that ensure every citizen participates in tree planting and that they understand the need to stop deforestation. In addition, many countries in the region are less willing to join the international communities in fighting climate change; that is, they do not agree with international partnerships like the Pris Climate Change Agreement.

1. Introduction

Southeast Asia contains 11 countries: Brunei, Malaysia, Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, East Timor, Indonesia, and the Philippines [1]. The need for reforestation in this region has been increasingly apparent since international agencies began intervening in the region’s deforestation rates. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN-FAO), the rate of deforestation in Southeast Asia is higher than in any other part of the world. Another UN-FAO survey concluded that the region lost 376,000 km2 of forest cover between 1990 and 2020 [2,3,4]. Cambodia and Indonesia were the most affected, losing one-quarter and one-fifth, respectively [5,6,7,8].
The rationale behind deforestation is not similar but changes from one country to another. For instance, in Malaysia and Indonesia, the main cause of deforestation is agriculture since farmers need land to cultivate food to feed the increasing population. These two countries are the main producers of palm oil, and its production has led to deforestation of an estimated 3700 km2 since 2000 [9,10,11]. In Vietnam, shifting cultivation is the main source of deforestation. Farmers want to cultivate land that has gained productivity from forest growth. Thus, they clear a small portion of land and then relocate to another after some time. Deforestation has also been on the rise in the region due to the increased overseas market for timber [12,13,14]. This timber is not only from natural trees but also from plantations. For instance, in Indonesia, 15% of the natural forest has been cleared to plant new trees that will be harvested to export timber [15,16,17,18].
Initially, Indonesia was home to 23% of the entire world’s mangrove forests, but deforestation has claimed 40% of this area in the last 50 years [19]. The country continues to lose 2.5 million ha of forest cover annually to deforestation. This high rate of deforestation in the region has had negative societal and economic impacts due to the severe effects of climate change [20]. Due to climate change, the country cannot attain food security since the climate is no longer favourable for agriculture [21]. Consequently, 40 million people in Indonesia are living below the poverty line [22,23]. Deforestation began in the Philippines in the early 1960s and has now claimed 90% of the initial forest cover [16]. The main causes of deforestation in the region are slash-and-burn for agricultural purposes, logging, and land development [24,25,26].
Hence, there is a need to examine the existing polices and strategies that have been implemented by countries in Southeast Asia. This is because despite the implementation of policies and strategies, climate change is resulting in severe impacts on the region; moreover, there should be an assessment of the existing policies to identify the strengths and weaknesses of these policies so that policy makers can use the findings to amend these policies in order to make them effective for fighting climate change.

2. Materials and Methods

For this review paper, we assessed a large number of research and review papers published in scientific journals between 2010 and 2022. The journals were sourced from repository sites such as Google Scholar, ResearchGate, and Mendeley. The search terms were “reforestation policies and strategies in Southeast Asia”, “impact of reforestation on social lives”, “government interventions on deforestation in Southeast Asia”, and “forest conservation strategies”. These search terms were in line with the research objectives of the study. The study objectives included:
  • To identify the strategies implemented by the regions to fight deforestation;
  • To identify the need for reforestation in the region;
  • To examine the significance of the international climate change mitigation agreements that the region has embraced for fighting climate change;
  • To find out the strengths and weaknesses of the region’s existing strategies and policies on reforestation.
A total of 125 papers were selected, covering various topics on deforestation and reforestation to meet the study objectives. A method of analysis of abstracts was used to identify the peer-reviewed articles for the research. The main key aspects that the researchers looked at in the abstract were if the reason for writing was related to reforestation in Southeast Asia. Another consideration was the problem that the paper aimed to solve. In this case, the researchers focused on papers that aimed at making changes to the existing reforestation policies and strategies. All journals had relevant information about deforestation and reforestation in Southeast Asia and were within the 12-year range. These papers are listed in the reference section and available on Mendeley. The papers examined the various impacts of reforestation policies and its strategies for the welfare of people in Southeast Asia. The review lists some of the unfavourable and beneficial effects mentioned in the publications.

The Study Region

Southeast Asia covers an average of 4,500,000 km2, which is 3% of the Earth’s total surface and 10.5% of Asia’s total surface. It is home to over 675 million people and an average of 8.55% of the world’s population. The region has 204 million hectares that are covered with trees of various species [27,28]. The various types of forests in the region include tropical rain forests, evergreen mountain forests, evergreen lowland forests, swamp forests, mangrove forests, and deciduous forests. For example, the Tam Quy Forest in Thanh Hoa Province in Vietnam is the largest in the region and covers over 520 ha, and it is a protected region for the endangered tree, Madhuca Pasquieri.

3. Results

3.1. Need for Reforestation in the Region

3.1.1. Biodiversity

Over one-fifth of the world’s species live in Southeast Asia, making it among the most biodiverse places on the planet. The most significant human-related activities contributing to the reduction in biodiversity in the area are the spread of agriculture, urbanization, and trading in endangered species [29,30]. For the majority of the countries in the region, agriculture still significantly contributes to economic productivity. More notably, the region’s agricultural production increased dramatically during the 1960s, with the majority of the countries more than doubling their cultivated land. The principal victims of this agricultural growth were natural ecosystems, particularly primary forests [31,32].
Even though this may be expected in a region that has some of the highest rates of undernourishment in the world, it is important to note that the expansion of agriculture coincided with an increase in the volume of agricultural commodities traded in the region [33,34,35]. For example, palm oil production in Indonesia and Malaysia has experienced significant growth since the 1960s and now accounts for more than 90% of the world market [36,37,38].
This expansion is connected to significant detrimental impacts on the environment since the region’s primary and secondary tropical forests have been replaced by oil palm plantations to a significant degree [39,40]. According to several studies, 55–59% of primary forests in Malaysia and at least 56% of those in Indonesia were cleared to establish oil palm plantations [6,41,42].
As a result of the proliferation of oil palm plantations, Malaysia lost a total of 1 million ha of forest during 1990–2005, while Indonesia lost between 1.7 and 3 million ha of forest [43,44,45]. Due to the growing local and international demand for palm oil biodiesel, it is anticipated that more oil palm development in the two countries will lead to an increase in the amount of land cleared for agricultural purposes [46,47,48]. Elephants, tigers, and other large mammals such as white rhinos (Asian rhinos include the Sumatran rhino and the Javan rhino) are at risk of being lost forever due to increased deforestation in the region. The region has lost over 150,000 blocks of primary forests, which house over ten species of large mammals [49,50]. These forests should be planted with new trees or left for a long period to recover.

3.1.2. Climate Change

When trees are cut down, they expose water catchment areas and, in turn, rivers dry up. In addition, trees are an important carbon sink and removing them increases carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere [51,52]. Trees release the already stored carbon into the atmosphere when they are being cut. Thus, tropical deforestation is responsible for 20% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions [1,53]. In 2015, Indonesia was the greatest emitter in absolute terms, emitting more than superpowers like the United States and China [54,55]; however, Indonesia’s forest peat contains 12 times more carbon than all mineral soil tropical forests [25,56,57].
According to a United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the region is facing increasing droughts, intense rainstorms, heat waves, and rising sea levels. Another study claims that 96% of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region will likely face drought. In addition, 64% will face extreme drought while sea levels continue to rise, thereby affecting the economy and the entire population [58,59,60]. In 2020, approximately 5 million individuals were victims of Typhoon Vanco in Vietnam and the Philippines. In Cambodia, 289 people died due to floods caused by tropical storms, according to a report by the Red Crescent [61,62]. This indicates that global warming has led to an intense loss of life in the region and that reforestation is needed to lower the severity of these effects of global warming.

3.1.3. Floods, Storms and Erosion

Hydrometeorological hazards continue to be a threat to livelihoods in Southeast Asia. Floods have destroyed homes, and eroded the fertile soil for agriculture, power supplies, and transportation. For instance, in Vietnam, thousands were displaced by floods after storm Sonca dumped 500 mm of rainfall [63]. The central province of Vietnam has also faced similar floods emanating from tropical storm Sonca, which displaced 14,000 people and flooded 25,000 homes [63]. Storm Nalgae killed over 45 people in Maguindanao Province in the Philippines. The country experiences 20 typhoons and tropical storms every year. Most of these disasters originate from Nalgae and the Pacific Ocean. Singapore experiences 167 days of thunderstorms every year. In addition, the country also faces 176 days of lightening annually [64].

3.2. Existing Policies and Strategies on Reforestation in the Region

3.2.1. Social Forestry

Social forestry entails the utilization of unused and fallow land to safeguard forests from exploitation by planting fast growing tree species for fuelwood and fodder. In the early 1990s, social forestry started to gain traction in Indonesia as a viable practice. This new development was in line with the global concepts of community-based management, which were being promoted by programs supported by international organizations such as the Ford Foundation. Instead of seeing social forestry as a tactic for the decentralization of rights, the Government of Indonesia first viewed it as a “development” program for communities living in forested areas and utilized the forest tree resources available there [12]. In Indonesia, the modified Forestry Law of 1999, as well as subsequent policies and regulations, led to sustainable forestry management. The practice of social forestry has been given the green light in Indonesia, where it is now practiced legally under a total of five different schemes or licenses [61,65]. Each of these programs has its management structure, licensing procedures, eligible candidates, and extent of rights permissible in certain forest zones.
Vietnam began to use social forestry to find a solution to stop the depletion of forest resources brought on by excessive harvesting in the 1990s [52,66]. Implementing a logging moratorium as a solution to this issue was a financial disaster for a majority of state forest firms and culminated in the dismantling of the centralized forest management systems. Furthermore, the term, “forest socialization”, originated in Vietnam and referred to the process of emphasizing the contributions of many stakeholders in society toward effective forest governance [67,68]. Social forestry was promoted as a consequence of the Doi Moi socioeconomic changes, which included the 1993 Land Law and commercial liberalization. Residents were encouraged by the Forest Protection and Development Law of 2004 to increase their incomes through community forestry, and the law authorized the transfer of ownership of natural forests to the control of local communities [9,69,70]. This was despite the law placing restrictions on how the natural forests could be used. The Land Law of 2013 continued to provide only a small number of severely restricted rights to the local people, despite the Forestry Law of 2017 giving major recognition to religious and customary forestry practices [71,72,73].
Since the 1950s, the state of Sabah in Malaysia has been engaged in industrial-scale logging, which reached its zenith during the early 1980s. The Community Forestry Cess Fund was established in 1989 and served as the primary funding mechanism for sustainable forestry projects when they first commenced [74,75,76]. The amount of fees received from timber companies was formerly determined by the volume of timber shipped or processed; these payments are now taken into consideration when determining whether to issue license agreements for sustainable forest management.

3.2.2. Declaration of the Glasgow Leaders on the Use of Forest and Land

This agreement emphasizes the vital and interdependent role that all types of forests play, as well as steps to preserve the biodiversity and sustainable usage of a particular forest. The declaration intended to fulfill the goals of global sustainable development and strike a balance between the removal of carbon sinks and the emission of greenhouse gases caused by human activities [77,78]. In addition, the declaration also highlights the preservation of ecosystem services and how to respond to climate change. Six commitments were made in the declaration, as follows:
  • Hasten the process of re-establishing terrestrial ecosystems while simultaneously preserving forests;
  • Facilitate trade and development plans on both the national and international levels to promote the production and consumption of commodities in a sustainable manner, which is to the benefit of all nations and helps to stop deforestation and land degradation;
  • Empowering local communities, developing lucrative and sustainable agriculture, and recognizing the numerous advantages of forests are all strategies to minimize vulnerability, create resilience, and enhance rural livelihoods [41,79];
  • Put in place agricultural policies and programs and, if necessary, reorganize them so as to promote environmentally friendly farming practices, enhance national food security, and safeguard the natural environment;
  • Reaffirm international financial commitments in order to support Indigenous peoples and local communities and enable sustainable agriculture and forestry management, as well as forest conservation and restoration [80];
  • Ensure that effective rules and procedures are in place so that the transition to a resilient economy may be sped up and that progress can be made toward achieving biodiversity, climate, and forest preservation goals. To halt deforestation and forest loss, it is important to make it easier for financial flows to match international goals.

3.3. The New York Declaration on Forests

Some Southeast Asian countries (the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam) endorsed the New York Declaration on Forests. The agreement’s main aim was to conserve forests because more than 1.6 million individuals rely on forests for water, food, fuel, livelihoods, and medicine. Forests also play a key role in the fight against climate change and protect 80% of terrestrial biodiversity [67,81,82]. The summit also realized that despite all the positive impacts of forests in our lives, 13 million ha of forests disappear every year. The member states who endorsed this agreement vowed the following concerning their capabilities, circumstances, and abilities:
  • Work to stop the loss of natural forests by 2030 and at least halve the worldwide natural forest loss rate by 2020;
  • Acknowledging that many companies have even loftier objectives, provide backing and assistance to the private sector’s goal of eliminating deforestation caused by the production of agricultural products such as palm oil, soy, paper, and cattle products by the year 2020 at the very latest;
  • By the year 2020, considerably reduce the amount of deforestation caused by other economic sectors;
  • Promote alternatives to deforestation that meet fundamental needs and contribute to the advancement of sustainable and equitable development, such as farming for subsistence and the use of wood as a source of energy;
  • By the year 2020, repair at least 150 million ha of damaged landscapes and forestlands. Then, by the year 2030, increase global restoration rates to the point where at least another 200 million ha have been restored;
  • The post-2015 global development framework will contain ambitious and quantifiable aims for protecting and restoring forests for the year 2030. These targets are a part of the new worldwide sustainable development objectives;
  • As part of a post-2020 global climate agreement, member states reached a consensus in 2015 to reduce deforestation and forest degradation emissions. This must be done in accordance with globally recognized norms and in a manner compatible with preventing temperature increases of more than 2 °C;
  • Encourage the development and implementation of programs that will reduce the number of emissions produced by forests;
  • Reward nations and regions that reduce forest emissions through action, particularly through governmental policies, to scale-up rewards for emissions reductions that can be confirmed and private-sector sourcing of commodities.

3.4. Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI)

The goal of Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI) is to increase the likelihood that a “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation” (REDD+) mechanism will be incorporated into a post-2012 climate system. This will involve achieving verifiable reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases while simultaneously protecting natural forests [83,84]. The REDD+ payments are in the form of carbon offsetting [84]. Some evidence suggests that not all participants in the nations who are now partners have a complete understanding of this essential notion. Both this and the fact that the existing utilization of assistance resources does not imply that NICFI intends an aid-based approach in the long run need to be addressed. Associated with this is the challenge that certain partner nations face because, in the past, assistance financing has not been rigorously connected to performance [85,86]. It appears that several stakeholders are also unclear on this aspect, despite the fact that any REDD+ system will be far more tightly related to performance than previous aid has been.
Indonesia and Vietnam have benefited from the REDD+ scheme, which allowed them to receive EUR 280 million annually. The funding is used to prevent forest fires, encourage reforestation, and to conduct scientific research to preserve and conserve their forests.

3.5. 2016 Paris Agreement

At the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP 21) on 12 December 2015, the Paris Agreement was adopted by 196 Parties, and on 4 November 2016, it went into force [87]. Its purpose is to guarantee that the average temperature of our Earth does not go over 2 °C beyond its pre-industrial levels, and that the temperature should remain below 1.5 °C. For the nations of the world to meet their long-term temperature goal and achieve climate neutrality by the middle of this century, they have established the objective to reach the peak in global greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as is possible [88,89]. The Paris Agreement represents a watershed moment in the battle against climate change and the attempt to adapt to its consequences on a global scale since it is the first time that all countries have come together in the fight against climate change and to adapt to its effects; this is because it is the very first time that all countries have come together under a legally binding agreement [90].
The Paris Agreement must be implemented with the most advanced, scientifically grounded economic and social change that is now accessible. The Paris Agreement requires governments to take climate action that is gradually more stringent over the course of a period of five years. Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are plans that governments have outlined for how they intend to combat climate change by the year 2020 [91,92]. In their NDCs, nations outline the measures they intend to take to cut the amount of greenhouse gases they emit to fulfil the Paris Agreement’s requirements. In addition, in their NDCs, countries detail the actions they intend to take to improve their ability to adapt to the consequences of global warming. In order to channel efforts more effectively toward the achievement of the long-term goals, the Paris Agreement requires countries to devise and present long-term development plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020 (LT-LEDs). The LT-LEDs give NDCs their long-term perspective and horizon; however, in contrast to NDCs, they are not obligatory [81,93]. Nevertheless, they give a vision and a route for future growth by establishing the NDCs within the context of nations’ long-term planning and development ambitions.
By 2030, industries that contribute approximately 70% of the world’s emissions could have zero-carbon alternatives. Indonesia plans to reduce yearly deforestation by more than half from its present level to contribute towards achieving the Paris Agreement’s aim, which is to reduce the rate of global warming [94]. Vietnam, Cambodia, and Myanmar have also committed to expanding the amount of land covered by forests.

3.6. The Bonn Challenge

The Bonn Challenge is a global strategy to bring 150 million ha of degraded and deforested landscapes into restoration by 2020 and 350 million ha by 2030 [95]. The Bonn Challenge’s total commitment since its inception in 2011 reached 150 million ha as of 2017 [96]. Presently, about 210 million ha of damaged and deforested lands are being restored by more than 70 pledgers from more than 60 nations. Asia’s first roundtable reforestation in 2017 helped the Bonn Challenge pass its 150-million-ha pledge milestone three years early [97]. Furthermore, the ASEAN incorporates the Bonn Challenge to promote capacity building and exchange of sustainable practice measures for restoring forest landscape.

3.6.1. The Bonn Challenge Illustrative: Case Study 1

In countries such as Vietnam and Thailand, where mangroves are frequently cut down to make way for shrimp ponds, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Netherlands Development Organization are working to restore these degraded regions while also assisting farmers in switching to organic shrimp farming techniques [98,99].
This approach was tested in Vietnam on a 12,000-ha plot managed by the Nhung Mien Forest Management Unit, where 4103 shrimp farmers received training in organic shrimp growing. These comprised 1150 farmers that collectively covered 6972 ha and signed contracts agreeing to keep a mangrove cover of at least 50% in their respective farms [100,101,102]. About 553 shrimp farmers have been certified by the Nhung Mien Forest Management Unit [32].
In addition to providing payment of VND 3000 per kilogram of certified organic shrimp for sale, Minh Phu, the company that exports the most shrimp from Vietnam, provides farmers with VND 500,000 per ha of mangroves located on their land [103,104]. This corresponds to around a 7% increase in total income. Moreover, a provincial ruling published in January 2016 acknowledges organic shrimp farmers as providers of environmental goods and services as a component of the worldwide payment for ecosystem services (PES) system that links producers and consumers globally. This is a significant development and not only establishes the rights and responsibilities of processors and farmers, but also connects farmers and customers in every region of the world. According to research that utilized satellite images, the percentage of land covered by mangroves rose from 39% to 44% between the years 2013 and 2015 [7,105]. The outcomes and lessons acquired were considered when deciding how to spend USD 310 million on the project. The World Bank approved the loan for this amount in June 2016, when it was requested. This money assisted in replicating organic shrimp farming in the three provinces of Ca Mau, Ben Tre, and Tra Vin, which account for around 70% of Vietnam’s mangroves [106,107,108].

3.6.2. The Bonn Challenge Illustrative: Case Study 2

In Thailand, the local government is actively pushing for the growth of organic shrimp production as part of conserving the marine and mangrove forests under Thailand’s Marine and Coastal Resource Management Act 2016 [109,110].

3.6.3. The Bonn Challenge Illustrative: Case Study 3

The Kelola Foundation and the Blue Forests Foundation have been providing assistance to communities in Indonesia by restoring abandoned aquaculture ponds and educating communities about the role that mangroves play as nurseries and carbon sinks [111,112,113]. The way Indonesian practitioners approach mangrove restoration is changing due to this pilot project, which is a cooperative and adaptive management model. As a result, about 2000 ha of mangrove plantations in different regions of Indonesia have been effectively rehabilitated [32,114,115].

3.7. Strategies Implemented in Some ASEAN Countries

3.7.1. Cambodia Forest Investment Strategy

The Cambodia Forest Investment Strategy was designed to support the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the Forest Administration, and any national-level project to protect and keep data collection for developing forest management policies [116]. In the first phase, the strategy aims to improve the living standards of citizens in rural areas by lowering green gas emissions, improving ecosystem connectivity, and bringing together many stakeholders to strengthen forest management and conservation. In addition, the strategy also aims to improve production forestry levels to meet future requirements for fuelwood and wood products. Thus, reforestation must ensure there are enough trees to meet the demand for fuelwood and wood products [117]. Hence, the government is partnering with the private sector to fund reforestation to achieve that particular aim. In the third dimension, the strategy calls for the implementation of national forest monitoring. This agency will examine the state of forests in the country. It will be responsible for data collection and analysis to assist state agencies and the government in making good forestry policies.
The main challenge to this strategy is the weak law implementation rates [116]. In addition, there is huge forest estate differentiation and the absence of state land registration. As much as reforestation strategies are being implemented, people continue cutting trees to prepare for agriculture.

3.7.2. Singapore National Strategy and Action Plan for Protecting and Sustaining Biodiversity (NBSAP)

This action plan is intended to encourage the conservation of biodiversity in the high population density countries such as Singapore [118]. A wide variety of public sector institutions and environmental advocacy groups have been taken into account in the preparation of NBSAP in order to ensure holistic management of biodiversity and to achieve the objectives of said plan. The master plan also meets the state’s commitments to regional and international organizations, with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) being the most significant of these obligations.
Singapore increased NBSAP from 35.7% to 46.5% between the years 1986 and 2007 while having a population that increased by 68%—from 2.7 million to 4.6 million people [119]. This was achieved via careful preparation and planning. Nearly 10% of its surface is covered by parks and other places devoted to environmental preservation. The CBD currently has 191 Parties. On 12 June 1992, Singapore signed the CBD and became an official Party on 21 December 1995 [119]. This refers to the area that is characterized by a preponderance of vegetation. Following some study on the topic, the Centre for Remote Imaging, Sensing, and Processing (CRISP) at the National University of Singapore arrived at the following: incorporation of natural ecosystems into parks, the clustering of parks with habitats and activities that are complementary to one another, and the connection of these parks in an island-wide network of green linkages are all factors contributing to the further improvement of space within the city. Due to its verdant foliage and moderate tropical climate, Singapore is home to a wide variety of plant and animal species, despite the country’s relatively small geographical area. Around 57 species of animals, 98 species of reptiles, and 25 species of amphibians are found on the island [118]. Additionally, the island is home to more than 2000 native vascular plants. There are more than 355 distinct species of birds that may be seen and more than 282 distinct species of butterflies.

3.7.3. Vietnam’s Strategy to Plant One Million Trees

The Prime Minister of Vietnam recommended that one billion trees be planted across the country by the year 2025 to reduce the likelihood of landslides and floods in the wake of a string of powerful typhoons in 2020. Surprisingly, the government claims that tree planting will be concentrated in urban and industrial areas, but has not provided any additional information on the tree species that will be planted, where planting will take place, who will be doing the planting, or how much the project will cost. Previous reforestation projects have successfully expanded the total tree cover of the nation. This was accomplished by creating plantations of non-native species that are frequently clear-cut for paper or timber production. Several groups and farmers in Vietnam are striving to modify the current plan for reforestation. It is now widely acknowledged that the government’s campaign to plant one billion trees is an initiative with several goals, including protecting ecosystems, improving the environment, fighting against climate change, and stimulating economic growth [120].
The official regulation that describes the effort, which is only available in Vietnamese, mentions that planting would be emphasized in metropolitan areas, industrial zones, export-processing zones, and transportation corridors; however, it does not explain why this will be the case [121]. Following the introduction, which asserts that “drastic forest development” is both “an immediate necessity and a long-term strategic objective”, the following discussion examines the consequences of climate change and extreme weather events on the lives and properties of individuals.

4. Discussion

4.1. General Comment on the System of Forestry Policy

4.1.1. Strengths

  • During the time the country is reforesting, Vietnam’s forestry policy framework is complete and all-encompassing [122,123]. It encompasses a diverse range of forestry operations, such as forest management, protection, development, business production, and environmental preservation, all while providing optimum conditions for the management of the sector [124]. Many restrictions need to be incorporated, such as those governing the use of land as well as the growth and preservation of forests. Following these laws, the government and its ministerial sublevels developed several essential legal papers;
  • The policies are being amended to suit different changes in the demographics and the practical needs of the sector. The sector has been able to shift from the initial state forestry management to making forests a multi-sectoral economic development agent [125].

4.1.2. Weaknesses

  • Unsteady forestry policy structure that prioritizes subsidies in a way that hinders the development of forestry socialization and market mechanisms [35,126];
  • Violence-related offenses receive a punishment that is too mild, failing to prevent lawbreakers from continuing to disrespect authorities (Criminal law, 2009 regulating highest punishment level for deforestation of 15 years in prison and a maximum fine of VND 100 million) [127]. Moreover, because the persons involved are frequently too impoverished to pay the fee, collecting fines for unlawful logging and encroachment is frequently impossible;
  • No policy exists to create a stable national forest estate [128];
  • There are inappropriate forest investment approaches that are incompatible with forestry characteristics, both for plantations and naturally occurring forests. In addition to unequal credit availability for state-owned and non-state-owned enterprises, local people have difficulty obtaining investment support loans [129];
  • Limited ability to organize the implementation of policies. Along with poor effectiveness and effect, there is a lack of consistent and close guidance;
  • Policy makers should use the above strengths and weaknesses to identify which polices and strategies should be reinforced and which ones should be amended. In addition, the journal has outlined the need for having a policy that will ensure that every country has a national forest estate to increase forest cover in the region. In addition, policy makers should come up with a new way of fighting logging other than collecting fines. For instance, those found guilty should be asked to plant and nurture a specific number of trees.

4.2. Pertinent Information That May Have Been Missed

This study strived to meet the objectives, but some information may have been missed. For instance, countries have had many policies and strategies for reforestation and climate change mitigation. Thus, we might not have covered all strategies used in the individual ASEAN member states. In addition, many states in the region are unwilling to join the international community in fighting climate change; however, this study did not examine the reasons behind such reluctance to join international climate mitigation agreements.

5. Conclusions

Southeast Asia has adopted many reforestation and forest conservation policies at both the national and international levels. These policies aim at conserving forests to improving people’s lives in the region. Forests improve lives since they are a source of rivers, food, medicine, and biodiversity, and by sequestering carbon, they help to protect against climate change. In Southeast Asia, the increasing deforestation rates have greatly affected people’s lives. The main causes of deforestation are clearing land for agriculture, urbanization, increasing overseas markets for timber, and forest fires. Due to the increasing population in the region and increased demand for housing and raw materials for factories, forests are being cleared to cultivate enough food crops to secure food security and raw materials for factories. However, clearing these forests exposes water catchment areas and affects microorganisms and animals in the natural forests. Although 20% of the world’s species live in Southeast Asia, some are at risk of extinction. In addition, Southeast Asia has suffered severe consequences from climate change. Floods and volcanic eruptions have caused deaths and displaced many individuals in the region. Consequently, ASEAN member states have signed international forest conservation treaties, such as the 2016 Paris Agreement, aimed at conserving the environment and reducing the negative effects of climate change. Most Southeast Asia countries are set to endorse such international policies, but their national policies are not working efficiently since the region’s deforestation rates are increasing.
Many states in the region suffer greatly from climate change yet are not willing to join international community strategies such as the Paris Agreement to combat climate change. Thus, studies should be conducted to determine why these states are less willing to fight climate change in conjunction with states from all continents. In addition, the main cause of deforestation in the region is agriculture. Further studies should examine how to increase agricultural production using a smaller land area.

Author Contributions

Data curation, M.R.A.; formal analysis, M.R.A.; funding acquisition, M.R.A. and P.H.Z.; investigation, M.R.A.; methodology, M.R.A.; resources, M.R.A. and P.H.Z.; supervision, P.H.Z. and M.H.I.; writing—original draft, M.R.A.; writing—review & editing, P.H.Z., M.H.I., P.B. and D.S.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by grants from the Islamic Development Banks (IsDB) to Ahmadzai Mujib Rahman, as an IsDB Ph.D. scholar at the Universiti Putra Malaysia. All of the authors are grateful to the IsDB for the financial support.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abidoye, B.O.; Kurukulasuriya, P.; Mendelsohn, R. South-East Asian Farmer Perceptions of Climate Change. Clim. Chang. Econ. 2017, 8, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. COP26. Draft CMA Decision Proposed by the President. 2021. Available online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Overarching_decision_1-CMA-3.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2021).
  3. He, C.; Liu, Z.; Bliesner, B.L.; Brady, E.C.; Zhu, C.; Tomas, R.; Gu, S.; Han, J.; Jin, Y. Deglacial variability of South China hydroclimate heavily contributed by autumn rainfall. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 5875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sulser, T.B.; Beach, R.H.; Wiebe, K.D.; Dunston, S.; Fukagawa, N.K. Disability-adjusted life years due to chronic and hidden hunger under food system evolution with climate change and adaptation to 2050. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2021, 114, 550–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bowen, K.J.; Ebi, K.L. Health risks of climate change in the World Health Organization South-East Asia Region. WHO South-East Asia J. Public Health 2017, 6, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Cuong, N.D.; Michael, K.; Volker, M. Land use spatial optimization for sustainable wood utilization at the regional level: A case study from Vietnam. Forests 2021, 12, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Park, J.; Park, J.; Yi, S.; Kim, J.C.; Lee, E.; Jin, Q. The 8.2 ka cooling event in coastal East Asia: High-resolution pollen evidence from southwestern Korea. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 31002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Reed, B.; Mendelsohn, R.; Abidoye, B.O. The Economics of Crop Adaptation to Climate Change in South-East Asia. Clim. Chang. Econ. 2017, 8, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chua, T.H.; Manin, B.O.; Vythilingam, I.; Fornace, K.; Drakeley, C.J. Effect of different habitat types on abundance and biting times of Anopheles balabacensis Baisas (Diptera: Culicidae) in Kudat district of Sabah, Malaysia. Parasites Vectors 2019, 12, 3627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lim, H.Y.; Gardner, P.C.; Abram, N.K.; Yusah, K.M.; Goossens, B. Identifying habitat and understanding movement resistance for the Endangered Bornean banteng Bos javanicus lowi in Sabah, Malaysia. ORYX 2021, 55, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Love, K.; Kurz, D.J.; Vaughan, I.P.; Ke, A.; Evans, L.J.; Goossens, B. Bearded pig (Sus barbatus) utilisation of a fragmented forest-oil palm landscape in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo. Wildl. Res. 2017, 44, 603–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kozar, R.; Galang, E.; Sedhain, J.; Alip, A.; Subramanian, S.M.; Saito, O. Place-Based Solutions for Conservation and Restoration of Social-Ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes in Asia; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 117–146. [Google Scholar]
  13. Son, D.; Alday, J.G.; Chu, Y.; Lee, E.J.; Park, S.; Lee, H. Plant species colonization in newly created road habitats of South Korea: Insights for more effective restoration. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 719, 137476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Wang, F.; Maksyutov, S.; Janardanan, R.; Tsuruta, A.; Ito, A.; Morino, I.; Yoshida, Y.; Tohjima, Y.; Kaiser, J.W.; Janssens-Maenhout, G. Interannual variability on methane emissions in monsoon Asia derived from GOSAT and surface observations. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 024040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Astuti, R.; McGregor, A. Indigenous land claims or green grabs? Inclusions and exclusions within forest carbon politics in Indonesia. J. Peasant Stud. 2017, 44, 445–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sharma, S.; Yonariza, U. Evaluating forest reforestation policies in Southeast Asia: A case study from Indonesia, Philippines, and Thailand. In Natural Resource Governance in Asia: From Collective Action to Resilience Thinking; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 79–97. [Google Scholar]
  17. Tan, Z.D.; Carrasco, L.R.; Taylor, D. Spatial correlates of forest and land fires in Indonesia. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 2020, 29, 1088–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Windyswara, D. Alasan Pemerintah Indonesia Meratifikasi Paris Climate Agreement Tahun 2016. J. Ilmu Hub. Int. 2019, 7, 69–90. Available online: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php (accessed on 6 September 2018).
  19. Devaraju, N.; Bala, G.; Modak, A. Effects of large-scale deforestation on precipitation in the monsoon regions: Remote versus local effects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 3257–3262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Lechner, A.M.; Gomes, R.L.; Rodrigues, L.; Ashfold, M.J.; Selvam, S.B.; Wong, E.P.; Raymond, C.M.; Zieritz, A.; Sing, K.W.; Bolla, P.; et al. Challenges and considerations of applying nature-based solutions in low- and middle-income countries in Southeast and East Asia. Blue-Green Syst. 2020, 2, 331–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mendelsohn, R. Climate Change Impacts on Southeast Asian Agriculture. Ph.D. Thesis, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  22. Jourdain, D.; Boere, E.; van den Berg, M.; Dang, Q.; CU, T.P.; Affholder, F.; Pandey, S. Water for forests to restore environmental services and alleviate poverty in Vietnam: A farm modeling approach to analyze alternative PES programs. Land Use Policy 2014, 41, 423–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nambiar, E.K.S. Small forest growers in tropical landscapes should be embraced as partners for Green-growth: Increase wood supply, restore land, reduce poverty, and mitigate climate change. Trees For. People 2021, 6, 100154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cao, F.; Dan, L.; Ma, Z.; Gao, T. Assessing the regional climate impact on terrestrial ecosystem over East Asia using coupled models with land use and land cover forcing during 1980–2010. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 59503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Payne, A.E.; Demory, M.-E.; Leung, L.R.; Ramos, A.M.; Shields, C.A.; Rutz, J.J.; Siler, N.; Villarini, G.; Hall, A.; Ralph, F.M. Responses and impacts of atmospheric rivers to climate change. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2020, 1, 143–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhai, J.; Mondal, S.K.; Fischer, T.; Wang, Y.; Su, B.; Huang, J.; Tao, H.; Wang, G.; Ullah, W.; Uddin, M.J. Future drought characteristics through a multi-model ensemble from CMIP6 over South Asia. Atmos. Res. 2020, 246, 105111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Razal, R.A.; Guerrero, M.C. Scoping Study on Cutting-Edge Technology and Strategic Knowledge on ntfps for the Green Economy; NTFP-EP: Manilla, Phillipines, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cunningham, S.C.; Nally, R.M.; Baker, P.J.; Cavagnaro, T.R.; Beringer, J.; Thomson, J.R.; Thompson, R.M. Balancing the environmental benefits of reforestation in agricultural regions. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2015, 17, 301–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Antons, C. The role of traditional knowledge and access to genetic resources in biodiversity conservation in Southeast Asia. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19, 1189–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Fitzmaurice, M. Biodiversity and climate change. Int. Commun. Law Rev. 2021, 23, 230–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gray, C.L.; Slade, E.M.; Mann, D.J.; Lewis, O.T. Do riparian reserves support dung beetle biodiversity and ecosystem services in oil palm-dominated tropical landscapes? Ecol. Evol. 2014, 4, 1049–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Escalada, M.; Hv, C. Restoration Restoration of rice landscape biodiversity by farmers in Vietnam through education and motivation using media. Sapiens 2014, 7, 2. [Google Scholar]
  33. Guharajan, R.; Arnold, T.W.; Bolongon, G.; Dibden, G.H.; Abram, N.K.; Woan, T.S.; Magguna, M.A. Survival strategies of a frugivore, the sun bear, in a forest-oil palm landscape. Biodivers. Conserv. 2018, 27, 3657–3677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wong, M.-K.; Tsukamoto, J.; Yusufin, Y.; Tanaka, S.; Iwasaki, K.; Tan, N.-P. Comparison of soil macro-invertebrate communities in Malaysian oil palm plantations with secondary forest from the viewpoint of litter decomposition. Forest Ecol. Manag. 2016, 381, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yi, Z.F.; Cannon, C.H. Reply to “Letter to the editor regarding the article “developing indicators of economic value and biodiversity loss for rubber plantations in Xishuangbanna, southwest China: A case study from Menglun township”by Yi et al. (2014), published in Ecological Indicators 36 (2014), 788–797”. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 66, 632–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pascual, A.; Tupinambá-Simões, F.; Guerra-Hernández, J.; Bravo, F. High-resolution planet satellite imagery and multi-temporal surveys to predict risk of tree mortality in tropical eucalypt forestry. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 310, 114804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Wang, B.; Biasutti, M.; Byrne, M.; Castro, C.; Chang, C.-P.; Cook, K.; Fu, R.; Grimm, A.M.; Ha, K.; Hendon, H.; et al. Monsoons climate change assessment. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2021, 102, E1–E19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhao, L.; Oleson, K.; Zeid, E.; Krayenhoff, E.S.; Bray, A.; Zhu, Q.; Zheng, Z.; Chen, C.; Oppenheimer, M. Global multi-model projections of local urban climates. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2021, 11, 152–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chambers, J. Global and cross-country analysis of exposure of vulnerable populations to heatwaves from 1980 to 2018. Clim. Chang. 2020, 163, 539–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ramachandran, S.; Rupakheti, M.; Lawrence, M.G. Aerosol-induced atmospheric heating rate decreases over South and East Asia as a result of changing content and composition. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 76936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Nasi, R. The glasgow leaders’ declaration on forests and land use: Significance toward ‘Net Zero’. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2022, 28, 1951–1952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sweet, T. Narrating Animal Extinction from the Pleistocene to the Anthropocene. In The Cambridge Companion to American Literature and the Environment; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kimuli, J.B.; Di, B.; Zhang, R.; Wu, S.; Li, J.; Yin, W. A multisource trend analysis of floods in Asia-Pacific 1990–2018: Implications for climate change in sustainable development goals. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 59, 102237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Poortinga, A.; Thwal, N.S.; Khanal, N.; Mayer, T.; Bhandari, B.; Market, K.; Nicolau, A.P.; Dilger, J.; Tenneson, K.; Clinton, N.; et al. Mapping sugarcane in Thailand using transfer learning, a lightweight convolutional neural network, NICFI high resolution satellite imagery and Google Earth Engine. ISPRS Open J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2021, 1, 100003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yang, X.; Quam, M.B.M.; Zhang, T.; Sang, S. Global burden for dengue and the evolving pattern in the past 30 years. J. Travel Med. 2021, 28, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Elias, D.M.O.; Robinson, S.; Both, S.; Goodall, T.; Lee, N.M.; Ostle, N.J.; McNamara, N.P. Soil Microbial Community and Litter Quality Controls on Decomposition Across a Tropical Forest Disturbance Gradient. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2020, 3, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lamchin, M.; Lamchin, M. Understanding global spatio-temporal trends and the relationship between vegetation greenness and climate factors by land cover during 1982–2014. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 24, 1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mullin, K.E.; Yoh, N.; Mitchell, S.L.; Basrur, S.; Seaman, D.J.; Bernanrd, H.; Struebig, M.J. Riparian Reserves Promote Insectivorous Bat Activity in Oil Palm Dominated Landscapes. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2020, 3, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nakagawa, T.; Tarasov, P.; Staff, R.A.; Ramsey, C.R. The spatio-temporal structure of the Lateglacial to early Holocene transition reconstructed from the pollen record of Lake Suigetsu and its precise correlation with other key global archives: Implications for palaeoclimatology and archaeology. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2021, 202, 103493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Venkatappa, M.; Sasaki, N.; Huang, J.; Phoumin, H. Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture in South-East Asia—Drought Conditions and Crop Damage Assessment. In Economics, Law, and Institutions in Asia Pacific; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  51. Mason-Case, S. International climate change law. Int. Aff. 2018, 94, 940–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Scott, D.; Hall, C.M.; Gössling, S. Global tourism vulnerability to climate change. Ann. Tour. Res. 2019, 77, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kumaresan, J.; Narain, J.P.; Sathiakumar, N. Climate change and health in South East Asia. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag. 2011, 3, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Romijn, E.; Coppus, R.; de Sy, V.; Herold, M.; Roman-Cuesta, R.M.; Verchot, L. Land restoration in Latin America and the Caribbean: An overview of recent, ongoing and planned restoration initiatives and their potential for climate change mitigation. Forests 2019, 10, 60510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. FAO; UNEP. The State of the World’s Forests 2020; FAO: Rome, Italy; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  56. Gu, H.; Wang, G.; Yu, Z.; Mei, R. Assessing future climate changes and extreme indicators in east and south Asia using the RegCM4 regional climate model. Clim. Chang. 2012, 114, 301–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kjellstrom, T.; Lemke, B.; Otto, M. Climate conditions, workplace heat and occupational health in South-East Asia in the context of climate change. WHO South-East Asia J. Public Health 2017, 6, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Gosling, S.N.; Arnell, N.W. A global assessment of the impact of climate change on water scarcity. Clim. Chang. 2016, 134, 371–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Lukose, L.P. Global Warming and Climate Change: A Critique on International Law and Policy. J. Contemp. Urban Aff. 2017, 1, 38–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ramalho, Q.; Tourinho, L.; Almeida-Gomes, M.; Vale, M.M.; Prevedello, J.A. Reforestation can compensate negative effects of climate change on amphibians. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 260, 109187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Eccles, R.; Zhang, H.; Hamilton, D. A review of the effects of climate change on riverine flooding in subtropical and tropical regions. J. Water Clim. Chang. 2019, 10, 687–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Hector, A.; Fowler, D.; Nussbaum, R.; Weilenmann, M.; Walsh, R.P.D. The future of South East Asian rainforests in a changing landscape and climate. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2011, 366, 3165–3167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Aung, M. RW COVID-19 Page: Find Latest Updates on Global Humanitarian Responses Myanmar: COVID-19 Situation Overview; UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  64. Tkalich, P.; Vethamony, P.; Babu, M.T.; Malanotte-Rizzoli, P. Storm surges in the Singapore Strait due to winds in the South China Sea. Nat. Hazards 2013, 66, 1345–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Chen, W.; Wang, L.; Feng, J.; Wen, Z.; Ma, T.; Yang, X.; Wang, C. Recent Progress in Studies of the Variabilities and Mechanisms of the East Asian Monsoon in a Changing Climate. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 2019, 36, 887–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zhao, A.D.; Stevenson, D.S.; Bollasina, M.A. The role of anthropogenic aerosols in future precipitation extremes over the Asian Monsoon Region. Clim. Dyn. 2019, 52, 6257–6278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Bergsagel, D.; Lynch, T.D. Harvesting New York City-Old-growth urban forestry. In Proceedings of the 20th Congress of IABSE, New York 2019: The Evolving Metropolis-Report, New York, NY, USA, 4–6 September 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 832–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Rathore, P.; Roy, A.; Karnatak, H. Modelling the vulnerability of Taxus wallichiana to climate change scenarios in South East Asia. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 102, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chapman, P.M.; Loverridge, R.; Rowcliffe, J.M.; Carbone, C.; Bernard, H.; Davison, C.W.; Ewers, R.M. Minimal Spillover of Native Small Mammals From Bornean Tropical Forests Into Adjacent Oil Palm Plantations. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2019, 2, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Wang, G.; Mang, S.L.; Riehl, B.; Huang, J.; Wang, G.; Xu, L.; Huang, K.; Innes, J. Climate change impacts and forest adaptation in the Asia–Pacific region: From regional experts’ perspectives. J. For. Res. 2019, 30, 277–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kanupriya, P.; Kumar, C.; Sane, A. An assessment of fruiting and polyembryony in Langsat (Lansium domesticum Corr.) from Nilgiris, India. J. Hortic. Sci. 2019, 14, 79–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Meijaard, E.; Sherman, J.; Ancrenaz, M.; Wich, S.A.; Santika, T.; Voigt, M. Orangutan populations are certainly not increasing in the wild. Curr. Biol. 2018, 28, R1241–R1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Mwampamba, T.H.; van Schaik, N.L.M.B.; Castillo-Hernandez, L.A. Incorporating ecohydrological processes into an analysis of charcoal-livestock production systems in the tropics: An alternative interpretation of the water-energy-food nexus. Front. Environ. Sci. 2018, 6, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Gibling, M.R. River systems and the anthropocene: A late pleistocene and holocene timeline for human influence. Quaternary 2018, 1, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Islam, M.R.; Khan, N.A. Threats, vulnerability, resilience and displacement among the climate change and natural disaster-affected people in South-East Asia: An overview. J. Asia Pac. Econ. 2018, 23, 297–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Nordqvist, P.; Krampe, F. Climate change and violent conflict: SPARSE evidence. Stock. Int. Peace Res. Inst. 2018, 4, 1–2. Available online: http://www.jstor.com/stable/resrep24462 (accessed on 1 November 2022).
  77. Gerden, T. The adoption of the kyoto protocol of t he united nations framework convention on climate change. Prisp. Novejso Zgodovino 2018, 58, 160–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Wang, T.; Gao, X. Reflection and operationalization of the common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities principle in the transparency framework under the international climate change regime. Adv. Clim. Chang. Res. 2018, 9, 253–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. UNFCCC. Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use; UNFCCC: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  80. Department of State U.S. China Joint Glasgow Declaration on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s; United States Department of State: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. Available online: https://www.state.gov/u-s-china-joint-glasgow-declaration-on-enhancing-climate-action-in-the-2020s/ (accessed on 10 November 2021).
  81. Kameyama, Y. Climate Change Policy: Can New Actors Affect Japan’s Policy-Making in the Paris Agreement Era? Soc. Sci. Japan J. 2021, 24, 67–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Esch, F.; Van Joosen, R. D2.1c Comparative Cognitive Mapping Guidelines; University of Utrecht: Utrecht, The Netherland, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hermansen, E.A.T.; McNeill, D.; Kasa, S.; Rajão, R. Co-operation or co-optation? NGOs’ roles in Norway’s international climate and forest initiative. Forests 2017, 8, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. McNeish, J.-A.; Camargo, M.; Pedroni, L. Real-Time Evaluation of Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative. Contributions to National REDD + Processes 2007–2010; Country Report; NORAD Brazil: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  85. Hermansen, E.A.T. Policy window entrepreneurship: The backstage of the world’s largest REDD+ initiative. Environ. Pol. 2015, 24, 932–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Müller, F. Can the subaltern protect forests? REDD+ compliance, depoliticization and Indigenous subjectivities. J. Polit. Ecol. 2020, 27, 419–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Streck, C. The Paris Agreement. Summary; Brief. Note III; UNFCCC: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  88. Ferreira, A.; Pinheiro, M.D.; de Brito, J.; Mateus, R. Decarbonizing strategies of the retail sector following the Paris Agreement. Energy Policy 2019, 135, 110999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Zimm, C.; Nakicenovic, N. What are the implications of the Paris Agreement for inequality? Clim. Policy 2020, 20, 458–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Seo, S.N. Beyond the Paris Agreement: Climate change policy negotiations and future directions. Reg. Sci. Policy Pract. 2017, 9, 121–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Arantegui, R.L.; Jäger-Waldau, A. Photovoltaics and wind status in the European Union after the Paris Agreement. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 2460–2471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Nauels, A.; Gütschow, J.; Mengel, M.; Meinshausen, M.; Clark, P.U.; Schleussner, C.F. Attributing long-term sea-level rise to Paris Agreement emission pledges. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 23487–23492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Nisbet, E.G.; Manning, M.R.; Dlugokencky, E.J.; Fisher, R.E.; Lowry, D.; Michel, S.E.; Lung, M.; Platt, S.M.; Bousquet, P.; Allen, G.; et al. Very Strong Atmospheric Methane Growth in the 4 Years 2014–2017: Implications for the Paris Agreement. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2019, 33, 318–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Zhang, T.; Ma, Y.; Li, A. Scenario analysis and assessment of China’s nuclear power policy based on the Paris Agreement: A dynamic CGE model. Energy 2021, 228, 120541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Dave, R.; Maginnis, S.; Crouzeilles, R. Forests: Many benefits of the Bonn Challenge. Nature 2019, 570, 164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Stanturf, J.A.; Kleine, M.; Mansourian, S.; Parrotta, J.; Madsen, P.; Kant, P.; Burns, J.; Bolte, A. Implementing forest landscape restoration under the Bonn Challenge: A systematic approach. Ann. For. Sci. 2019, 76, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Verdone, M.; Seidl, A. Time, space, place, and the Bonn Challenge global forest restoration target. Restor. Ecol. 2017, 25, 903–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Esteves, L.S.; Foord, J.; Walters, G. Assessment of Natural Resources Use for Sustainable Development-DPSIR Framework for Case Studies in Portsmouth and Thames Gateway, U.K. In Environmental Stresses and Resource Use in Coastal Urban Peri-Urban Regions; University of Sapienza: Rome, Italy, 2014; Volume 7, pp. 235–282. [Google Scholar]
  99. Hoque, M.A.; Scheelbeek, P.F.D.; Vineis, P.; Khan, A.E.; Ahmed, K.M.; Butler, A.P. Drinking water vulnerability to climate change and alternatives for adaptation in coastal South and South East Asia. Clim. Chang. 2016, 136, 247–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Bhattacharjee, A. Forest Landscape Restoration as a NbS Strategy for Achieving Bonn Challenge Pledge: Lessons from India’s Restoration Efforts; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  101. Wainaina, P.; Minang, P.A.; Gituku, E.; Duguma, L. Cost-benefit analysis of landscape restoration: A stocktake. Land 2020, 9, 465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Do, H.T.T.; Grant, J.C.; Trinh, N.B.; Zimmer, H.C.; Tran, L.D.; Nichols, J.D. Recovery of tropical moist deciduous dipterocarp forest in Southern Vietnam. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 433, 184–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Cuong, N.D.; Volker, M.; Köhl, M. Facilitating objective forest land use decisions by site classification and tree growth modeling: A case study from Vietnam. IForest 2019, 12, 542–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Hai, N.H.; Tan, N.T.; Bao, T.Q.; Petritan, A.M.; Mai, T.H.; Hien, C.T.; Anh, P.T.; Hung, V.T.; Petritan, I.C. Changes in community composition of tropical evergreen forests during succession in ta dung national park, central highlands of vietnam. Forests 2020, 11, 1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Zhang, Y.; Li, D.; Fan, C.; Xu, H.; Hou, X. Southeast Asia island coastline changes and driving forces from 1990 to 2015. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2021, 215, 105967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Elz, I.; Tansey, K.; Page, S.E.; Trivedi, M. Modelling deforestation and land cover transitions of tropical peatlands in Sumatra, Indonesia using remote sensed land cover data sets. Land 2015, 4, 670–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Schleussner, C.F.; Lissner, T.K.; Fisher, E.M.; Wohland, J.; Perrette, M.; Golly, A.; Rogelj, J.; Childers, K.; Schewe, J.; Frieler, K.; et al. Differential climate impacts for policy-relevant limits to global warming: The case of 1.5 °C and 2 °C. Earth Syst. Dyn. 2016, 7, 327–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Yue, S.; Brodie, J.F.; Zipkin, E.F.; Bernard, H. Oil palm plantations fail to support mammal diversity. Ecol. Appl. 2015, 25, 2285–2292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. van Bijsterveldt, C.E.J.; Van Wesenback, B.; Ramadhani, S.; Raven, O.V.; van Gool, F.E.; Pribadi, R.; Bouma, T.J. Does plastic waste kill mangroves? A field experiment to assess the impact of macro plastics on mangrove growth, stress response and survival. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 756, 143826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Ward, R.D.; Friess, D.A.; Day, R.H.; Mackenzie, R.A. Impacts of climate change on mangrove ecosystems: A region by region overview. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2016, 2, 1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Kim, I.; Le, Q.B.; Park, S.J.; Tenhunen, J.; Koellner, T. Driving forces in archetypical land-use changes in a mountainous watershed in East Asia. Land 2014, 3, 957–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Vanlisuta, C. The Conceptual Structure for a Depletion of Global Warming through Proficient Reforestation in South East Asia. Int. J. Model. Optim. 2014, 4, 354–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Yi, Z.F.; Cannon, C.H.; Chen, J.; Ye, C.X.; Swetnam, R.D. Developing indicators of economic value and biodiversity loss for rubber plantations in Xishuangbanna, southwest China: A case study from Menglun township. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36, 788–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Köhl, M.; Lasco, R.D.; Cifuentes, M.; Jonsson, O.; Korhonen, K.T.; Mundhenk, P.; Navar, J.; Stinson, G. Changes in forest production, biomass and carbon: Results from the 2015 UN FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 352, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Payn, T.; Carnus, J.-M.; Freer-Smith, P.; Kimberley, M.; Kollert, W.; Liu, S.; Orazio, C.; Rodriguez, L.; Neves Silva, L.; Wingfield, M.J. Changes in planted forests and future global implications. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 352, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Pham, T.T.; Hoang, T.L.; Nguyen, D.T.; Đào, T.L.C.; Ngo, H.C.; Pham, V.H. The Context of REDD+ in Vietnam: Drivers, Agents and Institutions, 2nd ed.; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor Barat, Indonesia, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Wanjakur, M. Conserving Our Biodiversity Singapore’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan; National Park Boards: Singapore, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  118. USAID. SFB_Final_Report. In Supporting Forests and Biodiversity; USAID: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  119. Dwiyahreni, A.A.; Fuad, H.A.H.; Sunaryo; Soesilo, T.E.B.; Margules, C.; Supriatna, J. Forest cover changes in indonesia’s terrestrial national parks between 2012 and 2017. Biodiversitas 2021, 22, 1235–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Tatarski, M. ‘Drastic Forest Development’: Vietnam to Plant 1 Billion Trees—but How? 2021. Available online: https://news.mongabay.com/2021/05/drastic-forest-development-vietnam-to-plant-1-billion-trees-but-how/ (accessed on 1 November 2022).
  121. Braje, T.J.; Erlandson, J.M. Human acceleration of animal and plant extinctions: A late pleistocene, holocene, and anthropocene continuum. Anthropocene 2013, 4, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Buerki, S.; Forest, F.; Stadler, T.; Alvarez, N. The abrupt climate change at the Eocene-Oligocene boundary and the emergence of South-East Asia triggered the spread of sapindaceous lineages. Ann. Bot. 2013, 112, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Traut, M.; Larkin, A.; Anderson, K.; McGlade, C.; Sharmina, M.; Smith, T. CO2 abatement goals for international shipping. Clim. Policy 2018, 18, 1066–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Nijnik, M.; Halder, P. Afforestation and reforestation projects in South and South-East Asia under the Clean Development Mechanism: Trends and development opportunities. Land Use Policy 2013, 31, 504–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Catacutan, D.C.; Villamor, G.B. Gender Roles and Land Use Preferences-Implications to Landscape Restoration in Southeast Asia. In Land Restoration: Reclaiming Landscapes for a Sustainable Future; Academic Press: London, UK, 2016; pp. 431–440. [Google Scholar]
  126. Robinson, S.A. Climate change adaptation in small island developing states: Insights and lessons from a meta-paradigmatic study. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 85, 172–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Lee, E.; Krasny, M.E. Adaptive Capacity in Community Forest Management: A Systematic Review of Studies in East Asia. Environ. Manag. 2017, 59, 34–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Lampela, M.; Jauhiainen, J.; Sarkkola, S.; Vasander, H. Promising native tree species for reforestation of degraded tropical peatlands. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 394, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Wills, J.; Herbohn, J.; Moreno, M.O.M.; Avela, M.S.; Firn, J. Next-generation tropical forests: Reforestation type affects recruitment of species and functional diversity in a human-dominated landscape. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 54, 772–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ahmadzai, M.R.; Zaki, P.H.; Ismail, M.H.; Bawon, P.; Karam, D.S. The Societal and Economic Impact of Reforestation Strategies and Policies in Southeast Asia—A Review. Forests 2023, 14, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14010001

AMA Style

Ahmadzai MR, Zaki PH, Ismail MH, Bawon P, Karam DS. The Societal and Economic Impact of Reforestation Strategies and Policies in Southeast Asia—A Review. Forests. 2023; 14(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14010001

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ahmadzai, Mujib Rahman, Pakhriazad Hassan Zaki, Mohd Hasmadi Ismail, Paiman Bawon, and Daljit Singh Karam. 2023. "The Societal and Economic Impact of Reforestation Strategies and Policies in Southeast Asia—A Review" Forests 14, no. 1: 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14010001

APA Style

Ahmadzai, M. R., Zaki, P. H., Ismail, M. H., Bawon, P., & Karam, D. S. (2023). The Societal and Economic Impact of Reforestation Strategies and Policies in Southeast Asia—A Review. Forests, 14(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14010001

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop