Who Pays for and Who Benefits from Improved Timber Harvesting Practices
in the Tropics?Lessons Learned and Information Gaps
Grahame Applegate, Francis E. Putz and Laura K. Snook
Who Pays for and Who Benefits from ImprovedTimber Harvesting Practices in the Tropics?Lessons Learned and Information Gaps
Grahame Applegate1 , Francis E. Putz 2 and Laura K. Snook3
1 Forest Scientist, Center for International Forestry Research; current address: URS Forestry, Jl. DR Kusuma Atmaja No.75, Jakarta10310, Indonesia, Phone : 62-21 3926870, Fax : 62-21 3161731, Email: [email protected] Senior Associate, Center for International Forestry Research, PO Box 6596 JKPW, Jakarta 10065, Indonesia.Ph: +1 (352) 392 1486 Fax: +1 (352) 392 3993 Email: [email protected] Scientist, Center for International Forestry Research, PO Box 6596 JKPW, Jakarta 10065, Indonesia; Ph: +62 (251) 622 622Fax: +62 (251) 622 100 Email: [email protected]
Published byCenter for International Forestry ResearchMailing address: P.O. Box 6596 JKPWB, Jakarta 10065, IndonesiaOffice address: Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang,Bogor Barat 16680, IndonesiaTel : +62 (251) 622622Fax : +62 (251) 622100E-mail : [email protected] site : http://www.cifor.cgiar.org
Cover photo by Laura Snook© 2004 by Center for International Forestry ResearchAll rights reserved. Published in 2004Printed by Subur Printing
ISBN 979-3361-42-5
iii
Table of Contents
Abbreviations and Acronyms iv
Acknowledgements v
Summary vi
1.1.1.1.1. IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction 11.1 Contribution of Reduced-Impact Logging to Sustaining Timber Yields
and Sustainable Forest Management 11.2 Who Pays for and Who Benefits from Improved Forest Harvesting Practices? 2
2.2.2.2.2. TTTTTimbimbimbimbimbeeeeer Hr Hr Hr Hr Harararararvvvvvestestestestesting in the Ting in the Ting in the Ting in the Ting in the Trrrrrooooopicspicspicspicspics 32.1 Recognition of the Need for Improved Timber Harvesting Practices 32.2 Experience with Improved Harvesting Practices in the Tropics 42.3 Guidelines for Improved Timber Harvesting 4
3.3.3.3.3. Components of Reduced-Impact LoggingComponents of Reduced-Impact LoggingComponents of Reduced-Impact LoggingComponents of Reduced-Impact LoggingComponents of Reduced-Impact Logging 63.1 Pre-Harvest Activities 63.2 Timber Harvesting Operations 73.3 Post-Harvest Operations 7
4.4.4.4.4. Incentives For and Constraints on the Adoption of ImprovedIncentives For and Constraints on the Adoption of ImprovedIncentives For and Constraints on the Adoption of ImprovedIncentives For and Constraints on the Adoption of ImprovedIncentives For and Constraints on the Adoption of ImprovedTimber Harvesting PracticesTimber Harvesting PracticesTimber Harvesting PracticesTimber Harvesting PracticesTimber Harvesting Practices 84.1 Calculating the Financial Costs of Logging Using RILSIM 84.2 Distributions of the Costs and Benefits of RIL 94.3 Does Adoption of RIL Necessarily Reduce Timber Harvests? 104.4 Lack of Agreement on Costs 14
5.5.5.5.5. Disaggregation of Costs and Benefits of Improved HarvestingDisaggregation of Costs and Benefits of Improved HarvestingDisaggregation of Costs and Benefits of Improved HarvestingDisaggregation of Costs and Benefits of Improved HarvestingDisaggregation of Costs and Benefits of Improved HarvestingPractices by ComponentPractices by ComponentPractices by ComponentPractices by ComponentPractices by Component 165.1 Topographic and Stock Mapping 175.2 Road Planning and Construction 185.3 Directional Felling 195.4 Skid Trail and Road Closure 20
6.6.6.6.6. VVVVVararararariatiatiatiatiatioioioioion in Cn in Cn in Cn in Cn in Costs and Bosts and Bosts and Bosts and Bosts and Beeeeenenenenenefits ofits ofits ofits ofits offfff I I I I Implemplemplemplemplememememementntntntnting RIL ing RIL ing RIL ing RIL ing RIL AAAAAmomomomomong Dng Dng Dng Dng Diffiffiffiffiffeeeeerrrrreeeeent Fnt Fnt Fnt Fnt Fooooorrrrrest Test Test Test Test Tyyyyypppppeseseseses 22
7.7.7.7.7. Conclusions and RecommendationsConclusions and RecommendationsConclusions and RecommendationsConclusions and RecommendationsConclusions and Recommendations 24
8.8.8.8.8. ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences 25
AAAAAppppppppppeeeeendix Indix Indix Indix Indix I. Some Recent and Ongoing Projects for Improving Harvesting Practices in the Tropics 30
iv
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AusAID Australian Assistance for International Development
BOLFOR Proyecto de Manejo Forestal Sostenible en Bolivia
CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research
CL Conventional Logging
COLP Code of Logging Practice
Dbh Diameter at breast height (1.3 m)
FCT Future Crop Trees
FFT Fundação Florestal Tropical
FORMISS Forest Management Information System - Sarawak
FSC Forest Stewardship Council
IFF International Forum on Forests
ILO International Labour Organisation
IPF International Panel on Forests
ITTO International Tropical Timber Organization
LEI Lembaga Ekolabel Indonesia (Indonesian Ecolabelling Institute)
PCT Potential Crop Trees
RIL Reduced-Impact Logging
SFM Sustainable Forest Management
SFMP Sustainable Forest Management Project
SFMS Sustainable Forest Management System
SPC South Pacific Commission
STY Sustainable Timber Yield
TFF Tropical Forest Foundation
UNCED United Nations Convention on Environmental Development
UNFF United Nations Forum on Forests
v
Acknowledgements
Partial funding for this synthesis was provided by a grant to CIFORfrom the Global Bureau/Forestry, now the Bureau for Economic Growth,Agriculture and Trade (EGAT), of the US Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID), for studies on the Opportunities and Constraintsfor the Adoption of Sustainable Management Practices. The opinionsexpressed in this paper are the sole responsibility of the authors and donot necessarily reflect those of USAID.
vi
Although reduced-impact logging (RIL) techniquesare well known and generally endorsed by tropicalforesters, rates of adoption of RIL by loggers havebeen less than encouraging. The principalimpediment to proper planning of loggingoperations, training and supervision of forestworkers, and the other components of RIL isapparently the belief on the part of loggers that theseimprovements are costly to implement. Althoughthere are reasons to doubt that many forest managersand forest operators are fully aware of the costs ofeach component of their timber harvestingoperations, it cannot be disputed that there areadditional costs of implementing some aspects ofRIL for some forest stakeholders over some timeperiods. It should therefore be useful to all partiesconcerned to disaggregate RIL into its componentsand to analyse the costs and benefits of each from
different perspectives. For example, if timberharvesting companies only obtain a portion of thebenefits of RIL, then from their perspective it maynot be appropriate to pay all of the supplementarycosts associated with implementing RIL practices.To explore this issue in detail, we analyse fourcomponents of improved timber harvesting practices(stock and topographic mapping, directional felling,road planning and construction, and skid trail androad closure) on the basis of who pays the costs ofimplementation and who derives the benefits overboth short and long terms. We hope that theinformation generated will assist in efforts atidentifying which improved timber harvestingpractices may require incentives and which canreasonably be considered the intrinsic responsibilityof the timber harvesting company or contractor.
Summary
1
1Introduction
Discussions about the potential contributions of well-managed forests to conservation in the tropics areoften burdened by lack of clarity about whatconstitutes ‘good’ management. In particular, thecontributions of reduced-impact logging (RIL) tosustained timber yields (STY) and the moreencompassing and elusive goal of sustainable forestmanagement (SFM) are not always clear (Rice et al.1997, Poore et al. 1998, Pearce et al. 2002). There areconflicting claims in the literature about the costsand benefits of RIL (Barretto et al. 1998, Holmes etal. 2002, Healey et al. 2000, Applegate 2001). In thisreport we endeavour to clear up some of thisconfusion by disaggregating RIL into its principalcomponents and then by analysing the costs andbenefits of these components from the perspectivesof forest workers, logging contractors/forestconcession holders, forest owners (state or private),and the global community.
1.1 Contribution of Reduced-ImpactLogging to Sustaining TimberYields and Sustainable ForestManagement
The goal of sustainable forest management (SFM)will forever remain elusive. It will only be possibleto claim in retrospect and with complete knowledge
that a forest was managed sustainably. Sustainingtimber yields (STY), once the principal goal of manyforest management plans, is now generallyrecognised as only one of a multitude of sometimes-conflicting objectives of SFM. Leaving aside thevagaries involved in defining SFM, it seemsimportant to consider the extent to which followingRIL guidelines contributes to achieving both STYand SFM. One factor complicating this analysis isthat while many RIL principles are likely to becommon across forest types, the actual guidelinesshould be tailored to suit local forest conditions andexplicit management objectives. What may representexcessive and avoidable damage in one forest (e.g.,soil scarification) may be prescribed in another forestto promote regeneration of a harvested or otherwisedesirable species. To frame this discussion, three foresttypes have been selected on the basis of differences inclimate, terrain, harvesting intensities, and modes ofregeneration of the principal commercial timberspecies (see Table 1).
Given the wide range of conditions in the three foresttypes described in Table 1, it should not be surprisingthat only some components of the generic RILguidelines under consideration are generallyapplicable, several are of little concern in someforests, and others would actually be contrary to the
Table 1. Selected Characteristics that Influence the Costs of Implementing RIL, in Three Very Different Typesof Vegetation
Forest Types
Lowland DipterocarpForest
Location Indonesia, Malaysia Bolivia Zambia, Tanzania
Rainfall 2000–3000 mm/yr 1000–2000 mm/yr 400–1000 mm/yr
Dry Season Duration 0–3 months 3–4 months 4–8 months
Terrain Hilly Flat Flat
Harvesting Intensity 80–120 m3 /ha 1–15 m3 /ha 1–4 m3 /ha
Principal Modes ofTree Regeneration
Dry Deciduous Forest Miombo Woodland
Advanced regeneration Seeds and coppice Coppice
Characteristics
2
Who Pays for and Who Benefits from Improved Timber Harvesting Practices in the Tropics
goals of STY and SFM, if followed. In contrast,activities that result in excessive soil erosion, such asblading skid trails on steep slopes, and those thatendanger workers, are undesirable regardless of foresttype or whether the forest is destined for conversionto some other land use. It is obvious, for example, thatprohibitions on harvesting on steep slopes and duringwet weather do not pertain to areas where the terrainis flat, soil is well drained and logging operations areonly conducted during a pronounced dry season (e.g.,Miombo woodlands and dry Amazonian forests). Asan example of RIL guidelines that are inappropriateunder some forest conditions, we suggest that the goalof minimising soil surface disturbance may bemisdirected in forests where light-demanding andsmall-seeded commercial timber species regeneratepreferentially on exposed mineral soil in clearings (e.g.,many species in dry deciduous forests in the Amazon).Under these conditions, tree regeneration might beenhanced by carefully managed soil surfacescarification in unstocked felling gaps.
Following RIL guidelines that reflect appropriatesilvicultural practices for a specific forest conditionrepresents a necessary, but not sufficient, steptowards the goals of STY and SFM (Applegate 1997a,Applegate and Andrewartha 1999b). The potentialcontribution of RIL to both sustaining timber yieldsand satisfying the multitude of criteria for SFM variessubstantially among forests. Timber harvestingshould be considered one of many potentialsilvicultural treatments, given that the way a forest isharvested will greatly influence post-harvesting foreststructure and composition. It is unreasonable to expectthis one treatment to achieve all the goals of both STYand SFM. However, if RIL guidelines are not followed,the silvicultural interventions required to return theforest to the paths of STY and SFM are likely to besubstantial, costly, and problematic. Furthermore, itshould be recognised that the goals of STY and SFMare themselves sometimes at odds, depending on thevalues of the person defining SFM.
1.2 Who Pays for and Who Benefitsfrom Improved Forest HarvestingPractices?
Although in some forests and for some foreststakeholders, non-timber forest products areextremely valuable, timber harvesting in tropicalproduction forests is generally the largest source offorest-based revenue. It also has the greatest primaryand secondary impacts. Because of the extent ofharvesting operations and their impacts on tropicalforests, there are worldwide and well-justifiedconcerns about the intensities and methods oftimber harvesting. Although many managers oflogging companies are aware of ways that they couldreduce worker injury rates and minimise thedeleterious environmental impacts of theiroperations, few adopt RIL techniques out ofenlightened self-interest.
One of the impediments to adoption of improvedtimber harvesting practices is that the financial costsand benefits of applying these practices vary accordingto the perspectives of the various stakeholders. Whilerecognising that there are many different beneficiariesof reduced damage to tropical forests from whichtimber is harvested, we focus on forest workers, ownersof timber harvesting operations (contractors orconcession holders), and forest owners (privateindividuals or the state). We also recognize the rangeof stakeholders who benefit from or are concernedabout environmental services provided by forests, aswell as those concerned about social welfare and thelong-term economic viability of forest management.In undertaking this analysis, we hope to clarify wherethe benefits and costs accrue, and thus identify howchanges to costing and economic rent paymentstructures might increase the rate of adoption ofvarious components of RIL by timber producers.
3
Timber Harvestingin the Tropics 2
Large-scale industrial timber harvesting first beganin the tropics after World War II, when bulldozersbecame readily available (Dawkins and Philip 1998,Dykstra 2001) and initially concentrated on heavyand cabinet-grade woods (Kartawinata et al. 1998).Harvesting was usually based on the allocation ofconcession areas to private companies, whilegovernmental agencies focused on developing forestregulations and controlling the operations. Timberharvesting in the tropics increased rapidly in the1970s in response to the development of largeplywood manufacturing and sawmilling industriesin both producer and consumer countries (Sayer andByron 1996). Forest policies in many tropicalcountries were initially developed to promote large-scale industrial development as part of a broader goalof supporting national development (Sayer andByron 1996; Kartawinata et al. 1998). Because of suchpro-development policies, a situation developed inwhich demand for industrial output in many tropicalcountries exceeded the sustainable supply (Brown1999). The result was rapid overcutting of forests andforest degradation due to poor harvesting practicesand lack of appropriate silviculture (Poore et al.1998). It is ironic that where effective silviculturaltreatments were developed and applied at largescales, such as in the lowland dipterocarp forests ofPeninsular Malaysia (Manokaran 1998), the forestshave long since been converted to oil palmplantations and other more intensive non-forestuses.
2.1 Recognition of the Need forImproved Timber HarvestingPractices
For more than 40 years, tropical foresters haveexpressed concern about forest loss and degradationcaused by poor timber harvesting practices (Dawkins1958; Nicholson 1958, 1965, 1979; Gilmour 1967;Fox 1968; Dawkins and Philip 1998; Putz et al.2000b). The critical connection between forestplanning and sustainability was expounded as early
as the 1970s and 1980s (Nicholson 1979; Ewel andConde 1980). In response to widespread forestdegradation resulting from poor timber harvestingpractices, many authors recommended theintroduction of guidelines designed to reduce thenegative impacts of logging on residual stands andsoil and water resources, with the aim of sustainingforests for future harvesting (Redhead 1960, Eweland Conde 1976, Hendrison 1990, Dykstra andHeinrich 1992, Dykstra et al. 1996). Since at leastthe early 1980s, RIL guidelines have beenimplemented to some degree in various parts of thetropics, most notably in Australia (Queensland DoF1983, 1988; Ward and Kanowski 1985).
The total area of tropical forest harvested annuallycontinues to be large, with the volumes removedestimated in the late 1990s to be 80–120 million m3
annually (FAO 1997). The amount of damagesustained by the residual forest has increased withthe size of the machinery used in harvestingoperations, and with increasing volumes of timberremoved (Bruijnzeel and Critchley 1994). Inresponse to the extent of destructive logging practicesin tropical forests, international and local pressureson forest agencies to promote sustainable forestmanagement are increasing. FAO (1995) recognisedthat ‘…well-planned and carefully controlledharvesting systems are superior economically,environmentally and silviculturally’—a pointreiterated by many others (Hendrison 1990, Dykstraand Heinrich 1992, Pinard et al. 1995, Sayer et al.1995, Bruenig 1996, Marsh et al. 1996, Moura-Costa1997).
Demands on tropical forests are numerous andexpanding, with many external factors causingincreased pressure on forest resources, includingdemographic changes, perverse tax incentives, andglobalisation of forestry industries. These competingand increasing demands have stimulated the worldcommunity to take an active interest in tropical forestmanagement. Concerns have been highlighted in a
4
Who Pays for and Who Benefits from Improved Timber Harvesting Practices in the Tropics
number of major initiatives, including the UnitedNations Conference on Environment andDevelopment (UNCED), the Intergovernmental Panelon Forests (IPF) and its successors, theIntergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF), theUnited Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), and theInternational Tropical Timber Organisation’s(ITTO) ‘Target 2000.’ While it is recognised thatimproved timber harvesting practices do notconstitute SFM, they are a necessary step towardsthis goal (Palmer and Synnott 1992).
2.2 Experience with ImprovedHarvesting Practices in theTropics
Research on improved timber harvesting practices inthe tropics has been underway for several decades (e.g.,Nicholson 1958, Gilmour 1967, Cassells and Bonnell1984, Gilmour and Applegate 1984, Queensland DoF1988). Research in Australia, Brazil, Guyana, Indonesia,Malaysia, Vanuatu, and Fiji contributed to thedevelopment of formal codes of harvesting practice formany countries in the Asia-Pacific region and otherparts of the tropics (Applegate and Andrewartha 1999a,Dykstra 2001). These guidelines were developed topromote the use of harvesting practices that improveefficiency and mitigate the adverse social andenvironmental impacts of timber harvesting (Korsgaard1985, South Pacific Commission 1994, de Vletter 1995,Pinard et al. 1995, Dykstra and Heinrich 1996, Applegate1997b, Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission 1999,Applegate and Andrewartha 2000). Key guidelines forimproved timber harvesting address: forestmanagement planning (strategic, tactical, andoperational levels); pre-harvesting activities; harvestingactivities; post-harvesting activities; and monitoringand evaluation procedures designed to measureimprovement in operating standards and training.
The first formal code of practice for harvestingtropical forests was apparently completed in Fiji in1990 (Fiji Ministry of Forestry 1990). The Fiji Codewas developed by a national committee composedof representatives from the Forestry Department andthe timber industry and staff from the InternationalLabour Organisation (ILO). It emphasised operatorsafety and training. During the1990s, many othercountries began to develop formal codes of loggingpractices (Applegate and Andrewartha 1999a).
Several RIL demonstration and research projects havebeen carried out recently in various regions of thetropics. Some of these are listed in Appendix I, alongwith some of the findings and contact addresses ofthose involved. Given the problems with scaling upfrom small research plots to industrial loggingoperations, we also note the approximate areas towhich RIL techniques were applied in these studies.
2.3 Guidelines For Improved TimberHarvesting
A number of countries in the tropics have begun todocument their improved harvesting practices ascodes of practice, while others have developedreduced-impact logging guidelines, or both. Codesof practice for forest harvesting are sets of standardsand norms applied in forests designated primarilyfor timber production. They are minimum standardsand technical requirements for implementingvarious components of the harvesting operations.The codes are usually designed to target traditionalland users, landowners, industry/concessionaires/contractors and the government agency responsiblefor forest policy implementation and monitoring(ITTO 1992, Dykstra and Heinrich 1996, Blate 1998,Applegate and Andrewartha 1999a, Department ofForestry and Wildlife 1999). Reduced-impactguidelines are complementary to codes of practiceinsofar as they detail how the code of practice shouldbe implemented.
The codes of timber harvesting practice for tropicalforests developed over the past decades typicallyinclude the following components:• That prescriptions for logging should be based
on knowledge of the ecology of commercial treespecies;
• Pre-harvest inventory of timber stocks and mapsshowing the locations of existing roads and skidtrails;
• Improved road planning, construction andmaintenance to increase efficiency of log hauling;
• Reduced areas of skid trails and log landings tominimize soil erosion;
• Climber cutting to minimise collateral damageto residual trees and to increase the efficiency andsafety of timber extraction;
• Training to improve overall timber harvestingefficiency, reduce accident rates and reduce
5
Grahame Applegate, Francis E. Putz and Laura K. Snook
negative impacts on residual stands and soils;• Tree marking and mapping to improve the
efficiency of timber extraction, minimise woodwaste and decrease the likelihood of losing logs;
• Directional felling to improve worker safety,reduce wood waste and improve efficiency oftimber extraction;
• Restrictions on harvesting operations on wet soilsto minimise damage to machines, residual standsand soils;
• Marking and mapping of trees to be harvested,potential future crop trees and trees near skidtrails and log landings that skidder drivers shouldavoid;
• Post-harvest operations to include closure anddrainage of skid trails, roads, log landings andquarries as well as revegetation of quarries and loglandings;
• Post-harvest assessment and reporting on thestatus of residual stands, including damaged treesand the quality of post-harvest road and skid traildrainage, rehabilitation of log landings and campclosures.
It is widely agreed that forests harvested accordingto well-formulated RIL guidelines are better able tosupply society with goods and services. It is thereforereasonable to ask why RIL techniques are not beingmore widely adopted. To answer this question, it isimportant to determine the costs of the variouscomponents of RIL at operational scales, to considerwho is paying for which activities within eachcomponent, what benefits the investors derive fromthese expenditures, and who are the non-payingbeneficiaries of investments in RIL.
6
Components ofReduced-Impact Logging
Although there are common principles andminimum standards for improved timber harvestingoperations, there is no one set of RIL guidelines forall of the tropics. Furthermore, there are manyreasons why a logger might choose to adopt somecomponents of RIL and not others. Disaggregrationof the costs associated with these different componentsmight therefore help timber producers make moreinformed decisions and also assist policymakers andforest owners to understand the costs involved inimplementing different components of a RILprogramme. This information may also be useful indetermining the specific aspects of RIL that need tobe enforced by regulation or encouraged throughincentives, and which should be adopted out ofenlightened self-interest.
3.1 Pre-Harvest Activities
The following is a summary of the principal pre-harvest activities that are generally required forsuccessful implementation of RIL.
TTTTTrrrrraining aining aining aining aining represents a fundamental prerequisite forsuccess in implementing a programme of improvedtimber harvesting. Training is required to improveinstitutional capacity as well as the capabilities of allthose involved in production, from forest workersto environmental monitors. The institutionaldevelopment and training required to implementimproved timber harvesting involves threevocational levels: policymakers and senior managers;middle-level managers and forest supervisors; andforest operators and field staff. Training is neededbefore commencing a RIL programme. It is thentypically adapted while the programme is underwayand additional training needs become apparent.
TTTTTooooopppppooooogggggrrrrrapapapapaphic mapshic mapshic mapshic mapshic maps at a high level of accuracy arerequired for harvest planning. These maps need toclearly indicate the location of all existing roads, skidtrails, log landings, stream crossings, and areas thatare environmentally sensitive due to steep slopes,proximity to water bodies, or poor drainage.
Pre-harvestPre-harvestPre-harvestPre-harvestPre-harvest inventory of the forest provides anestimate of the timber available for harvesting.Estimates of potential harvestable volumes, as wellas information about species composition and thelocation of areas where the commercial volume isconcentrated, are all needed for proper planning ofharvesting operations.
StStStStStoooooccccck mapk mapk mapk mapk mapping and tping and tping and tping and tping and trrrrreeeeee mare mare mare mare markingkingkingkingking involve locatingtrees on the relevant maps. Stock maps are used byfellers, skid-trail planners and skidder operators tolocate trees in the field. Stock maps reduce the timerequired to find trees, provide a foundation forefficient skid trail layout and reduce the number oflogs lost in the forest. In addition, stock mapsfacilitate auditing and provide the informationnecessary for harvesting by species to meet specificmarket demands.
Planning oPlanning oPlanning oPlanning oPlanning offfff ne ne ne ne new rw rw rw rw roooooaaaaads and stds and stds and stds and stds and strrrrream cream cream cream cream crossingossingossingossingossingsssssdefines their design, cost, and location. Planning andimplementing the plan can reduce the costs of roadconstruction, use, and maintenance whileminimising the negative impacts on soil and water.Planning skid trail layouts and landings (locationand size) has been shown to increase productivityand reduce the cost of skidding.
EEEEExxxxxccccclllllusiousiousiousiousion zn zn zn zn zooooonesnesnesnesnes should be marked on harvestingplans to indicate where timber harvesting isprohibited. These zones may include areas thatcontribute to biodiversity conservation and areaswhere the terrain is too steep or rocky for safe loggingoperations. Stream and road buffers (exclusionzones) are required to protect hydrological functionsand other buffer zones are needed to protect culturalor religious sites.
PPPPPrrrrre-fe-fe-fe-fe-feeeeelllllling vling vling vling vling vine cuine cuine cuine cuine cuttttttttttinginginginging is sometimes necessary tominimise damage to residual trees during harvesting,to protect workers, and to reduce post-harvest vineproliferation. The cost of vine cutting varies withthe density of vines, their sizes, wage rates,topography, and accessibility. To avoid the costs of
3
7
Who Pays for and Who Benefits from Improved Timber Harvesting Practices in the Tropics
multiple entries by work crews, vine cutting is bestcarried out at the time of the forest inventory, nolater than 6 months prior to timber harvesting.
3.2 Timber Harvesting Operations
CCCCCooooonstnstnstnstnstrrrrrucucucucuctttttioioioioion and maintn and maintn and maintn and maintn and mainteeeeenancnancnancnancnance oe oe oe oe offfff r r r r roooooaaaaads and lods and lods and lods and lods and loggggglandinglandinglandinglandinglandingsssss determines road width, surfacing, landinglocations and dimensions, drainage, river and streamcrossings, and culvert locations and sizes. Theseparameters influence the financial costs andenvironmental impacts of logging, as well as theefficiency of harvesting operations.
SSSSSkid tkid tkid tkid tkid trrrrrail oail oail oail oail opppppeeeeening and usening and usening and usening and usening and use defines skid trail width,wet weather usage, machinery to be used, surfaceblading, and timing of operations. Skidding logs tolandings with minimal environmental impact to soiland the residual stand involves additional training ofoperators, but these costs may be offset by reducedmachine maintenance costs, less downtime, andincreased efficiency.
TTTTTrrrrreeeeee fe fe fe fe feeeeellllllinglinglinglingling. Directional felling to avoid unnecessarydamage to the residual stand also facilitates yardingoperations and reduces danger to fellers. Costsincurred include training of fellers and the use ofspecialized equipment.
3.3 Post-Harvest Operations
CCCCClosloslosloslosururururure oe oe oe oe offfff r r r r roooooaaaaads and skid tds and skid tds and skid tds and skid tds and skid trrrrrailsailsailsailsails primarily involvesstabilising soil and water movement on roads, skidtrails, and landings after the machines havecompleted the removal of logs from the site. Theactivities to be undertaken include constructing cross
drains on skid trails and roads, removing temporarywatercourse crossings (bridges and culverts), draininglandings and quarries (rehabilitating the sites withrevegetation where necessary), and physically closingroads where appropriate.
CCCCCamp/wamp/wamp/wamp/wamp/wooooorrrrrkshokshokshokshokshop cp cp cp cp clean uplean uplean uplean uplean up is undertaken after theharvesting activities are completed and the area isno longer in use. Removal of camp structures andrehabilitation of these sites is usually undertaken bythe concessionaire or contractor.
MMMMMooooonitnitni tni tni tooooorrrrr ing and eing and eing and eing and eing and evvvvva la la la la luatuatuatuatuatioioioioionnnnn of harvestingoperations and closure of skid trails and camps areusually undertaken by the forest manager or forestowner after all activities have been completed. Theinspections are used to monitor the operators forcompliance with the codes of practice and anyrequired silvicultural prescriptions. RRRRReeeeepppppooooorrrrrttttting ing ing ing ing isgenerally the final activity in RIL but is critical forthe continued improvement of harvestingoperations. Reports on harvesting operations areoften prepared for different purposes by contractors,concessionaires, and forest owners. The reportcompiled by the forest owner should containinformation on the forest, including volumes andspecies removed, status of the harvesting operations,names of the concessionaire/contractor, equipmentused for logging, and maps indicating the areasactually logged as well as the locations of skid trailsand landings. A post-harvest inventory and a generaldescription of post-harvest forest condition shouldalso be included in the report. This is valuableinformation required for the determination of thesecond cutting cycle and the need for silviculturaltreatments.
8
Incentives for and Constraints onThe Adoption of Improved TimberHarvesting Practices
On the basis of the frequently cited financial and otherbenefits of RIL (Jonkers 1987, Holmes et al. 2002,Klassen 2001), the failure of most loggers tospontaneously adopt the practices described aboverepresents something of a paradox. In fact, it appearsthat improved harvesting practices have usually onlybeen adopted when outside forces intervene. Theseforces are in place when loggers are forced to postperformance bonds, when criteria for good forestmanagement practices are enforced due to requirementsfor forest product certification and labelling, when fundsare available from forest-based carbon offset projects,and when researchers effectively control loggingpractices in their research plots.
Loggers and concessionaires gave researchers (Blate1997, Putz et al. 2000a, Klassen 2001) the followingreasons for their hesitation to adopt improvedharvesting practices:• RIL is too expensive;• There is nothing wrong with current logging
practices;• Markets do not demand that RIL practices be
implemented;• Lack of governmental incentives to change
logging practices (or failure to enforceregulations);
• Forest will be converted anyway;• Available equipment is unsuitable for RIL;• Lack of training and guidance by RIL experts;• Lack of focussed pressure for better logging from
environmental groups.
These reasons vary in their defensibility andseemingly in their importance to decision-makingprocesses, but the first stands out as most prominent.Unfortunately, discussions about the cost-effectiveness of RIL have been hampered by a lackof clarity about a number of critical factors. Theapparently unjustified generalisations about thefinancial benefits of RIL to those harvesting thetimber have also reduced the credibility of itsproponents. One has simply to review the
contrasting conclusions about cost-effectiveness ofRIL drawn by Tay (1999), Healey et al. (2000), andHolmes et al. (2001), to realise that the reluctance ofloggers to adopt RIL practices might be financiallyjustified under some conditions.
Whether or not cost savings during timber harvestingresult from following RIL guidelines varies with theperspective of the stakeholder, time scales, sectoral andextrasectoral policies, and the particular componentsof RIL under consideration. In the following sectionswe deal with some of these issues, focussing on theshort-term financial costs and benefits of RILadoption. Longer-term silvicultural consequences ofdifferent logging practices are not considered here, norare the environmental and social benefits derived fromRIL (for a discussion of these ‘externalities’ see Pearceet al. 2002).
4.1 Calculating the Financial Costs ofLogging Using RILSIM
RILSIM, a ‘Reduced-Impact Logging Simulator,’ isan open access software package developed by D.P.Dykstra to calculate the costs of any sort of logging(http://www.blueoxforestry.com). It was designed tobe user-friendly and flexible enough to allowcomparisons of RIL and conventional logging undera wide variety of conditions. The RILSIM sourcecode is available on the web for those who want tomodify the program, but most users should find allthey need in the users’ manual. The two scenariosworked through in detail in the users’ manual arebased on data from Brazil (Holmes et al. 2002) anda combination of data sets from Indonesia andMalaysia (Tay 1999, Healey et al. 2000, Ruslim et al.2000 and others).
The user interface of RILSIM is a series of electronicdata forms in which users fill in data about a loggingoperation they have done, plan to do, or otherwisewant to consider. Information about the areaharvested, interest rates, volumes extracted,
4
9
Who Pays for and Who Benefits from Improved Timber Harvesting Practices in the Tropics
equipment used, difficulty of the terrain, productivityrates, and personnel costs are used to calculate thefinancial cost of a logging scenario. RILSIM wasdeveloped partially in response to requests from forestindustry representatives for a way of disaggregatingthe costs of applying different techniques designed toreduce the deleterious impacts of logging. It shouldbe useful to logging contractors, forest owners, andanyone else interested in estimating the costs of timberharvesting using a variety of methods.
4.2 Distributions of the Costs andBenefits of RIL
To understand better the apparent hesitation ofloggers to adopt improved harvesting practices, itseems worthwhile to examine the issue from thepoints of view of forest workers (e.g., fellers andskidder operators), timber harvesting contractors,forest owners, and forest authorities. For example,if adherence to RIL guidelines requires that timberharvesting operations cease when the soil is wetfollowing heavy rain, while they would typicallycontinue in conventional harvesting operations, theincomes of forest workers paid by days worked orvolumes harvested are reduced. In contrast, the samewet weather shutdowns might financially benefit thelogging contractor who pays for road and skid trailmaintenance and whose costs increase substantiallyif roads are used during wet weather. Anotherexample is the cost of safety equipment. Whilelogging contractors might be expected to pay forchainsaw safety equipment (e.g., helmets, protectivepants, and steel-toed boots), the safeguarded workerswould be the primary beneficiaries. Where insurancepremiums and the like are not at issue, which is thecase in much of the tropics, calculating the financialbenefits of safety equipment is challenging.Nevertheless, logging contractors clearly benefitfrom their outlay of funds for safety equipment iftheir workers suffer fewer accidents and thus aremore productive.
Although we are aware of the importance of differentperspectives regarding the costs and benefits of RIL,our analysis pertains mostly to logging contractorsand their equivalents. Limiting our evaluation of RILto its strict financial and short-term aspects ismisleading insofar as it downplays the benefits toworker safety and environmental protection, as well
as long-term benefits to the production of forestgoods and services. Our justification for this focusis that it is the timber harvesting contractors whoare principally responsible for adopting RIL, whichmakes their perspective of critical importance. In thisanalysis, we make the implicit assumption that mostlogging contractors or companies involved in timberharvesting are not fully aware of the total costs oftheir current timber harvesting operations.Consequently they may not be able to appreciatesome of the financial advantages they could obtainfrom adopting RIL techniques.
To what extent do timber harvesting companiesemploy unnecessarily destructive harvesting practicesbecause they are unaware of the inefficiencies of theiroperations and the financial benefits they could derivefrom following RIL guidelines? Do these companieshave the information needed to assess and improvethe efficiency of their current operations? The answerto these seemingly simple questions varies amongcompanies and could be influenced by unwittingbiases of researchers, ourselves included. Although itis an oversimplification, it sometimes appears thatresearchers either assume that timber harvestingcompanies require the enlightenment that research canprovide or, conversely, that these companies operateas completely rational firms. Addressing this issue isfurther complicated by the common practice ofkeeping ‘double books’ or otherwise obfuscating truecosts, in order to avoid taxes and more ‘informal’ levies.
Overall, it appears that many timber harvestingcompanies do not know, and really have no way ofknowing, many of the component costs involved indelivering their product to the point of sale. Forexample, where timber harvesting operations insome forest types are not guided by 100% stockmaps, and particularly where felling and yarding(skidding and landing) operations are not closely co-ordinated, a distressing number of marketable logsare left lying on the forest floor. Published estimatesof felled trees that are missed during harvestingoperations are certainly substantial enough tocommand attention (Dykstra 1992). For example,in one study in Brazil, 7 m3/ha, or 20% of extractedvolume, was felled but never skidded to the landing(Uhl et al. 1997). In another study in Amazonia, 6.6m3/ha, or 22% of the commercial timber volume,never made it to the log landings during conventional
10
Who Pays for and Who Benefits from Improved Timber Harvesting Practices in the Tropics
logging operations (Winkler 1997). Similarly, inSarawak, 11 m3/ha (20%) of the harvested volume wassimply missed by skidder drivers (Mattsson-Marn andJonkers 1981). Despite the comparable figures for Asiaand South America in the studies cited, there is as yetno way of knowing whether these estimates are typicalor if they represent extremes of inefficiency. In anyevent, the estimates are large enough to have attractedthe attention of timber harvesting interests in Brazil(Blate et al. 2001) and should likewise influence timberharvesting elsewhere in the tropics.
More complex than measuring volumes and values oftimber lost due to poor organisation of harvestingoperations is calculating the financial costs and benefitsof training and, alternatively, the often hidden costs ofnot training workers. It is easy to determine the costsof trainers, training facilities and reduced productivityduring training sessions. But as J. Zweede fromFundação Florestal Tropical (FFT) in Brazil regularlypoints out, it is much harder to estimate the costs ofallowing untrained workers to adjust chainsaws, felltrees, and drive expensive skidders. Similarly, althoughsome log breakage during felling operations isunavoidable, feller training typically results in 10–15%higher volume recovery due to fewer broken logs, lower
stumps, and improved bucking techniques (Dykstra andHeinrich 1996). One study in Brazil reported substantialreductions in wasted timber associated with felling andbucking following introduction of improved practices(Winkler 1997).
Variations in the quality of training delivered toharvesting crews and managers also makes it difficultto calculate the corresponding costs and benefits.One could equate the time and money invested intraining with the quality of the instruction, but thismight be misleading. Instead we suggestcompetency-based evaluations of quality (Box 1).
4.3 Does Adoption of RIL NecessarilyReduce Timber Harvests?
Timber harvesting intensities in ‘selectively’ loggedtropical forests range over three orders of magnitudein volume (<1 m3/ha to >100 m3/ha; Putz et al.2000b) and nearly as much in number of treesharvested (<1 to >20 trees/ha). This variation makesit hard to generalise about the likely effects of RIL.Because the per unit costs of harvesting timberdecrease with increasing timber volumes harvested perunit area, logging intensity may very well influence
Box 1. Competency-based Training for Improved Timber Harvesting
The institutional development and training required to implement improved timber harvesting practicesinvolves three vocational levels:• Policymakers, senior managers;• Middle-level managers/supervisors;• Forest operators, contractors, landowners, and field staff.
Traditional training in forest management usually involves fixed learning periods with variable outcomes.This approach to training has typically met with limited success in areas requiring radical change in timberharvesting procedures. An approach to training that involves measuring minimum performance outcomesafter different amounts of training may be more appropriate.
A competency-based approach to training recognises that people learn at different rates and throughdifferent means, partially because they have different backgrounds and experiences. This approach requiresthat individuals achieve and demonstrate specific knowledge and skills in relation to specified competency-based standards. Thus, it also formally recognises prior learning. A certificate of achievement can be issuedto the trainee once competency is acquired in a certain task (Andrewartha et al. 1998; Applegate andAndrewartha 1999a).
The main purpose of competency-based training in improved timber harvesting is to ensure that the‘certificate’ issued is based on reaching and demonstrating competence rather than just participating in aspecified training event. It represents a shift away from the traditional emphasis on the process involved intraining (inputs) and focuses on the outputs. This approach is appropriate for forest managers and supervisors,as well as for landowners and field crews.
11
Grahame Applegate, Francis E. Putz and Laura K. Snook
the relative costs and benefits of RIL and conventionalapproaches to timber harvesting. For example, iffollowing RIL guidelines requires the use of concretebridge abutments for logging roads or manufacturedculverts on principal skid trails, the costs of theseimprovements, per unit volume harvested, declineswith increasing harvest rates or timber volumesaccessed using these infrastructural improvements. Theissue of whether calculations of costs and benefits arebased on the net area logged or the total area designatedfor possible logging is explored in Box 2.
Contributing to the difficulty in generalising aboutthe costs and benefits of RIL relative to conventionaltimber harvesting practices is the fact that there isno one sort of conventional harvesting. Similarly, RILguidelines can and do vary with forest conditions(see Box 6). For example, there are no reductions inharvest yields resulting from RIL-required wetweather shutdowns in areas where rainfall isdistinctly seasonal and logging operations typicallyshut down for the rainy season. In contrast, the rateof logging can be reduced substantially where loggersare required by RIL guidelines to cease theiroperations during wet weather, while conventionalloggers continue harvesting.
4.3.1 Impact of topography and otherconstraints on logging cost calculations
There are many difficulties involved in providingrealistic and credible financial cost-benefit analyses ofRIL and conventional logging. Of the many forest
characteristics that appear to influence the comparativefinancial benefits of RIL, topography is prominent. Thescale or size and heterogeneity of areas used to determinecosts also affect financial cost estimates.
The influence of topography on ground-basedskidding and yarding costs is a major considerationfor determining relative costs of RIL. Althoughreliable data are scarce, logging is clearly more costlyand more damaging on steep terrain. RIL guidelinestypically set limits on the slopes that can be accessedby ground-based yarding equipment. Such limits forskid trails range from a 17º slope limit suggested byDykstra and Heinrich (1996) and 15º for major skidtrails and 25º for minor skid trails suggested in theCode of Practice for Forest Harvesting in the AsiaPacific (APFC 1999), to the 35º slope limit used bythe Forest Department of Sabah, Malaysia (Pinardet al. 1995). If, by adhering to these slope restrictions,timber harvesting companies following RILguidelines harvest less timber than would beexpected in conventional harvesting operations, thenthey could argue that the value of the foregonetimber should be considered as a cost. In contrast,forest owners and stakeholders concerned aboutenvironmental damage and sustainability of forestmanagement are unlikely to accept that compliancewith the law represents a redeemable cost.
A similar difference in perspective is likely in calculatingthe costs of respecting harvest exclusion areas, such asstream buffer zones, as well as RIL-related restrictions
Box 2. Area Estimation for Tropical Forest Harvesting Operations
Accurate estimates of loggable forest areas are essential in yield prediction, since any errors in area estimatesare directly proportional to errors in final yield estimates. Portions of most logging areas cannot be logged,at least using ground-based yarding equipment, due to adverse slopes, boulders or soils of extremely lowtrafficability. But because different RIL guidelines call for different set-asides, buffer zones and otherrestrictions, which vary in their impact on the total area logged, being clear about this issue is critical for theevaluation of the costs and benefits of RIL.
Gross Productive Area is determined directly from 1:50 000 maps as areas designated to be logged and‘zoned for logging’ on zoning or management maps. Gross Productive Area is unsuitable for sustainedyield computation because it includes areas that will not be logged under any circumstances. Maps at 1:50000 (1 mm = 50 m) cannot show minor areas that are not to be logged or that were logged in the past. Useof such maps could lead to significant overestimation of the timber harvesting area.
Sampling and more thorough mapping must be carried out within the Gross Productive Area to account forareas of inaccessible terrain, patches of rock, stream buffers, and other set asides to determine the NetProductive Area. This is the actual ‘on ground’ area of loggable forest used for yield calculations.
12
Who Pays for and Who Benefits from Improved Timber Harvesting Practices in the Tropics
on harvesting trees of some species or sizes. In forestsin which such areas and trees abound, the profitabilityof RIL will be reduced as compared to conventionallogging, but it is not clear how these ‘costs’ should bedealt with in financial comparisons of RIL andconventional logging.
4.3.2 Organisation of Timber HarvestingOperations
The manner in which timber harvesting operationsare coordinated may influence, in ways that need tobe explored, the cost-effectiveness of RIL comparedwith conventional logging. For example, in manyconventionally harvested areas in lowland Bolivia(mean harvesting intensity of 1–3 m3/ha), treefinders (tree spotters) spend the months of the rainyseason searching for trees to be harvested. They marktrails to each tree, and then later direct the skidderdrivers to the trees to be harvested. While few treesare lost and the long skid trails are typically narrow,this organisation of harvesting operations falls farshort of a full RIL treatment. In contrast, felling andskidding operations in conventionally logged forestsin Indonesia and Malaysia are typically disconnectedand very wasteful; tree fellers cut the trees and thenthe skidder drivers traverse the forest on theirmachines searching for canopy gaps to locate the felledtrees. These practices, coupled with logging intensitiesseveral times greater than those typically observed inBolivia, make RIL implementation comparativelymore urgent in Southeast Asia.
In most conventional harvesting operations in manyparts of the tropics, planning teams, timberharvesting teams, tree markers, cutters and skidderoperators all work quite independently of each other.For example, even if harvest planners with access toaccurate and detailed maps plan harvestingoperations, these plans are seldom provided to thefield operation’s managers. Commonly, fieldmanagers do not have sufficient skills to takeadvantage of the information provided and areuntrained in many aspects of professional timberharvesting operations. The main aim of most loggingsupervisors is to maintain log supplies to processingmills or points of sale.
When logging contractors and forest workers arepaid on the basis of the volume of timber deliveredto landings or log ponds, they are quite reasonablyreluctant to adopt practices that reduce theirproductivity. An obvious prerequisite forimplementation of RIL techniques is therefore theinstitution of payment systems that maintainprofitability but reduce the damage workers do tothemselves and the residual forest.
4.3.3 Effects of Forest Harvesting RegulationsDirect and indirect benefits of violating or followingforest harvesting regulations need to be consideredcarefully when carrying out financial comparisonsof RIL and conventional logging operations. Shouldprofits obtained from logging prohibited species,
Box 3: Reduced-Impact Harvesting and Portable Sawmills in the Pacific Region
The number of mobile or portable sawmills in the Pacific has increased dramatically in recent years. Theircosts range from US$230 for chainsaw mills to US$17 000 for large mobile bandsaw mills. Most of the millsare operated by landowners or by communities and play important roles in local development in PapuaNew Guinea, Solomon Islands, New Caledonia, Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa. Often the mills operate illegally,without timber licences, without proper agreement from landowners and without adherence to the relevantcodes of logging practice. The mills are moved frequently from one location to another and disputes overownership of trees and the resultant sawn timber are very common. The impact of these small mills onforests is substantial because they are commonly operated without control over species harvested, treesizes or number of trees harvested per hectare. Marketing of the sawn timber is often problematic due topoor quality control. While most operators can cut 4–5 m3 per day and make a profit of US$50, there isoften little understanding of the problems of cash flow and loan repayment, costly breakdowns, poormaintenance and lack of spare parts.
To mitigate some of the problems associated with mobile sawmills, the Forestry Department in Vanuatu hasnow issued Mobile Sawmill Timber Licences that specify volumes to be harvested on a given area for aperiod of two years. They have also started training programmes on the technical aspects of mill operationand seasoning of sawn boards, as well as training on the code of practice for logging in Vanuatu.
13
Grahame Applegate, Francis E. Putz and Laura K. Snook
undersized trees, or areas to which timber harvestersare denied access by law or RIL guidelines beincluded in cost-benefit comparisons? Whatever theanswer to this question, researchers need to be veryexplicit about their assumptions and data analysismethods. In many cases, it is difficult to judgewhether or not regulations are being violated,because the regulations themselves are vague.
A common situation in which compliance with lawsand other regulations is somewhat confusing pertainsto cutting trees or constructing skid trails on slopesthat exceed a designated limit. A regulation that mightseem easy for a trained forester to apply is madeproblematic when the length of slope over which thecalculation is determined is not specified. Calculatingthe slope on which a tree is growing obviously dependson whether the slope is averaged over 10 m, 100 m or1000 m. Large areas with steep slopes can generally beidentified on 1: 50 000 topographic maps and deletedfrom harvesting operations before they commence.More problematic are small areas of steep slopes andareas of relatively flat terrain that can only be reachedby traversing areas that exceed slope limits. Harvestingcontractors generally claim that they should becompensated for timber they would normally harvest,but to which they are denied access by RIL codes ofpractice; but the state and other stakeholders just asreasonably view this situation differently. How thisdilemma is resolved makes a huge difference in costcomparisons between RIL and conventional logging.
Ambiguities in the interpretation of regulations cannotbe totally avoided, no matter how detailed theguidelines. Although it complicates the analyses, werecommend that cost-benefit comparisons of RIL andCNL keep separate the profits derived from timberharvested illegally, and account separately for thetimber foregone by compliance with RIL guidelines.
4.3.4 Influence of Forest Sector PoliciesA wide range of forest sector policies need to beconsidered when making financial comparisonsbetween RIL and conventional logging, especiallywhen the results of these comparisons are to begeneralised. It is relevant, for example, whether timberharvesting contractors/concessionaires paylandowners for stumpage or for harvesting rightswithout regard to the volume of timber extracted.High-grading and wastage may be favoured when
timber harvesters pay forest owners on the basis oftimber volumes delivered to the mill gate, but this willbe not be a significant problem if measured logs aresold at the stump. Area-based fees, depending on theavailability of the timber resource, can promote eithercareful or destructive timber harvesting practices.
Installed timber processing capacity and demand fortimber that exceed the forest’s ability to provide theraw material both tend to increase the price oftimber, and often lead to increased harvestingpressure. This is a current problem in many parts ofIndonesia, for example. The problem is furtherexacerbated by poor monitoring and control oflogging operations by forestry officials, communitiesand other forest owners.
There is an increasing emphasis in the tropics ondevolving much of the decision making about forestmanagement and harvesting to rural communities(e.g., White and Martin 2002). From a forestmanagement perspective, this process has beensuccessful where communities have the necessaryskills to manage the forest and negotiate contractswith contractors and log buyers (Box 4). Somecommunities have even benefited from developingprocessing capacities through pit sawing, small-scalemills, or portable sawmills. In too many places,however, the transfer of management and user rightsto rural communities has far exceeded theirinstitutional and technical capacities. Often, soonafter communities take control of their forests, thedisplaced concessionaires simply return ascontractors to harvest the timber. When thishappens, these companies are usually no longerresponsible for implementing RIL guidelines becausethey are no longer the managers. In all too manycases, the resulting timber harvesting operations havehad more substantial negative impacts on thephysical environment than were suffered prior todevolution of forest control to local communities(see Iskandar et al. in review). Furthermore,communities that choose to process their owntimber often do so with relatively low-cost portablesawmills with very low recovery rates of sawn timber.Although the use of portable sawmills usually resultsin less soil disturbance than extraction of logs fromthe forest, it also promotes high-grading of the forestand utilization of only small portions of themerchantable stems.
14
Who Pays for and Who Benefits from Improved Timber Harvesting Practices in the Tropics
4.3.5 Influence of Extrasectoral PoliciesIt is often difficult to determine in advance whichpolicies might influence the relative cost-effectiveness of RIL and conventional logging. Forexample, in Brazil, where tractor-mounted winchesand other tools useful for implementing RIL incur ahigh import duty, adoption of this equipment forwinching logs from the stump, an importantcomponent of reduced-impact logging, is impeded(J. Zweede, pers. comm.).
Land tenure security, concession security and forestsecurity also greatly influence concessionaires’ andlandowners’ decisions about investing in futuretimber yields by following RIL guidelines. Wheresecurity is lacking, it is financially rational to harvestas rapidly as possible, without regard to theenvironment or future productivity.
4.4 Lack of Agreement on Costs
4.4.1 Potential Cost Savings of RILThere is considerable confusion about the costs ofimplementing RIL guidelines. On one side of thedebate, environmentally concerned researchers andadvocates broadcast the message that when RILguidelines are implemented, profit margins are higher(Holmes et al. 2002). In contrast, Healey et al.(2000),using the data from Tay (1999), show why, under someconditions, timber harvesting companies mightjustifiably doubt the veracity of this claim. Part of thereason for this apparent dilemma is a lack ofuniformity in calculating the financial costs of RIL incomparison with the cost of conventional timberharvesting (Buenaflor 1989, Barretto et al. 1998,Holmes et al. 2002, Matikainen and Herika 2000, Putzet al. 2000a, Applegate 2001). Different analysts includedifferent components of the logging process and mayuse different methods in the financial analyses. For
Box 4. Improved Forest Practices in Highly Disturbed Forests owned by Communities
The majority of forests in Vanuatu are owned by customary landowners, not by the national government(Alatoa et al. 1984). Customary owners and those villagers related to them are therefore the fundamentalstakeholders in any decision-making process related to land or forests in Vanuatu. The two major biophysicalchallenges for forest managers in Vanuatu are invasive vines such as Merremia spp. and the destructive forceof cyclones that regularly hit the island. Many of the valuable tree species (for timber and non-timberproducts) are at least moderately light-demanding and regenerate, along with vines, after the forest ispounded by cyclones. As was described for lowland Bolivia in Box 6, on Vanuatu there is a need to reduce thedamage to the forest during timber harvesting, but not to such an extent that high light-demandingregeneration of valuable timber species is inhibited.
In the past, conventional logging in Vanuatu caused excessive damage to advanced regeneration andresulted in large canopy openings, vine infestations, and exposed soil that often covered more than 50% ofthe harvested area (Applegate 1992). There was an obvious need to develop harvesting techniques thatmaintained basic forest canopy integrity, while providing for gaps of appropriate size for the regenerationof valuable species. Following collation of ecological data and a consultative process involving timberprocessing companies, customary landowners, non-governmental organisations and staff from theDepartment of Forests, silvicultural prescriptions and RIL practices were developed for a number of‘silvicultural forest harvesting types’. The recommended changes in harvesting practices included raisingthe cutting limit for species that grow mainly in clumps (e.g., Endospermum sp), thereby reducing gap sizeswith the aim of reducing vine infestations. A contrasting change was the lowering of the minimum cuttinglimit for Castanospermum sp. on the western, drier parts of the island, where they become less merchantableonce they reach a large diameter.
These recommended practices resulted from an understanding by concerned stakeholders of the practicalrealities of the forest types and climatic conditions and the need to maintain a forest for both timber andnon-timber products and services. These needs were balanced with the ecological requirements of boththe wanted and unwanted species, resulting in the development of harvesting practices that are sociallyacceptable, technically feasible, and effective.
15
Grahame Applegate, Francis E. Putz and Laura K. Snook
example, interest on pre-harvest operationexpenditures (e.g., stock mapping) influences theoverall costs from the perspective of the logger, but isoften not considered. Hopefully the availability of theRILSIM software package will lead to standardizationin the way forest harvesting cost data are analysed.
Another challenge in making comparisons betweenRIL and conventional logging is deciding how to dealwith activities that are linked in ways that influencetheir costs and benefits. Furthermore, the cost of oneof the linked components often depends on thequality of the implementation of the other. Forexample, roads have large impacts on the efficiencyof timber harvesting operations, as well as on theforest environment. Roads that are poorly located,poorly designed and poorly constructed lead toincreased costs of road maintenance, bridgeconstruction, skid trail construction, skidding andlog transportation. Planning and constructing roadscarefully, therefore, can greatly reduce costs of otherharvesting operations in comparison to roads thatare designed from the seat of a bulldozer, a far toofamiliar practice in the tropics. RILSIM allows forsuch connections to be considered during costanalyses, but data are often lacking.
Another problem to be confronted in comparing thecosts of RIL and conventional timber harvestingpractices is the lack of knowledge of the costs of thevarious components. This problem involves bothlack of knowledge of true costs and failure toconsider costs of all harvesting activities (Pulkki1997). Incompleteness of evaluations andundervaluing the harvesting operation can lead notonly to misrepresentation of the total costs of theimproved practices, but also invariably result inmiscalculations of the true costs of conventionalharvesting (Pearce et al. 2002). Cost and benefitcomparisons of improved and conventionalharvesting practices are made even more difficultwhen the various cost components and activities arelumped together (Elias 2000, Matikainen and Herika2000, Ruslim et al. 2000) and the beneficiaries arenot specified. By using RILSIM, some of theseproblems are alleviated, and the accompanying user’s
guide provides data that can be used in place of actualdata from the logging operation being considered.
4.4.2 Influence of Spatial and TemporalScales of Harvesting on Cost
Scaling-up to commercial timber harvestingoperations (1000 ha or more harvested per year) theresults of costing studies based on 10 ha or even 100ha research plots, involves difficulties that need to beconsidered carefully. This issue is especially pertinentif research plots are not well-replicated or are locatedto avoid steep terrain, river margins and other areasthat should not be harvested under RIL guidelines butwould be harvested under conventional operatingconditions. Furthermore, the location and quality ofmajor roads influence a range of components oftimber harvesting operations in ways that may not beimmediately obvious, but that are not consideredadequately in small plot-based studies. Finally, smallplot-based methods of determining costs seldominclude all the harvesting activities.
The temporal scale of harvesting operations, theimpact of topography, and the question of howrepresentative various areas are of the overalloperational conditions under which logging takesplace, substantially influence costs. Much of the costanalysis work to date has been carried out on smallareas (Holmes et al. 2002, Matikainen and Herika 2000,Ruslim et al. 2000) and does not take into account thehuge variation in roading costs across an area of forestinvolving thousands of hectares. Specifically, roadingcosts vary from location to location within a concessionas a result of differences in topography, soil type andgeology. In contrast, on more favourable terrain and inlow rainfall zones, road design and location may havelittle impact on the relative costs of reduced-impact andconventional logging. For these reasons, results offinancial evaluations based on small plot-based studiesin which plots are located in such a way that the costsassociated with timber harvests foregone (e.g., resultingfrom excluding adverse terrain or ecologicallyimportant areas) are not taken into account, areobviously biased and should be scrutinised carefully(Holmes et al. 2002, Elias 2000, Ruslim et al. 2000,Applegate 2001, Dagang et al. 2001).
16
Disaggregation of Costs andBenefits of Improved HarvestingPractices by Component
Disaggregation of component costs of improvedtimber harvesting practices is essential to determinewho pays for and who benefits from different aspectsof RIL. Benefits may accrue to timber harvestingcontractors, concessionaires, or forest owners, whileother benefits accrue to spatially or temporallyremote stakeholders, including future generations.
To the extent possible, we will identify the likelybeneficiaries of the evaluated components of RIL soas to inform debates about using incentives topromote better harvesting practices. What makes thedisaggregation of RIL components difficult is thattimber harvesting operations are complex andintegrated. Hence cost-cutting inputs for one set ofactivities might result in substantially increased costsin another. For example, a timber harvesting
contractor might initially save money by notbothering to plan road layouts, but these savings willlater be lost due to increased yarding and haulingcosts. With this caveat in mind, in this section wepropose a breakdown of harvesting operations thatwe hope will be useful in cost accounting, and thenconsider four components in more detail. Thesecomponents were selected from different stages in atypical timber harvesting operation and seemrelevant as examples of activities for which differentfinancial and economic factors must be considered.The four examples, which also pertain to a range ofbeneficiaries over different time scales, are:• Topographic and Stock Mapping;• Road Planning and Construction;• Directional Felling;• Skid Trail and Road Closures.
Box 5. Malinau Research Forest: Science And Sustainability
The Ministry of Forestry (MOF) in Indonesia designated 321 000 ha of forest in East Kalimantan, Indonesia,to be developed as a long-term model of exemplary research-based forest management by the Center forInternational Forestry Research (CIFOR). Research is designed to identify the range of values of the forestto forest-dwelling people as well as its value to those outside the immediate area. Researchers are alsoassessing the level of dependence on what the forest has to offer and the various trade-offs likely if the useof the resource is to be optimised. As conflicts over land allocation and use continue to increase in themodel forest area, developing the principles and mechanisms required to manage conflict as part of theprocess of developing a joint vision for the management of the resource is also of utmost importance. It isalso critical to determine how conflicts and negotiations influence progress towards the goal of moresustainable land use. Given that many new districts in Indonesia lack the institutions required to deal withdecentralization, training in the tools and methods of government is critical, as is the development ofpolicies to support decision-making. The strengthened institutions will then be better prepared to draftand implement community-based management plans.
In the context of current Ministry of Forestry policies in Indonesia, concessionaires must work towardssustainable forest management practices in the framework of ITTO’s Target 2000. A partnership involvingINHUTANI II (a concessionaire operating in the model forest), local authorities, and communities providesthe opportunity to improve the capacity to undertake improved forest management. Training in RIL practicesand on measuring the effects of logging is underway. The integration of RIL and improvements to silviculturalregimes requires an understanding of tree regeneration mechanisms, as well as monitoring of permanentsample plots. Studies are also underway to identify regulations that constrain the adoption of RIL, such aslocal community access to information, harvesting cost, taxes, and lack of trained staff. This research involvesinterviews and systems modelling to determine costs and benefits of improved practices. A comparisonbetween the constraints to adoption of best practice in the model forest and in other tropical forests will beundertaken to identify common constraints to improved tropical forest management.
5
17
Who Pays for and Who Benefits from Improved Timber Harvesting Practices in the Tropics
5.1 Topographic and Stock Mapping
High quality maps suitable for timber harvestplanning are rare in many tropical countries. Toadequately plan harvesting operations, small-scale(1:2000–1:10 000) maps are required, with contourintervals of 5–10 m. Additionally, the locations oftrees to be harvested and those to remain forsubsequent harvests are also often required. Accessto quality maps facilitates planning of roads and skidtrail locations and, if used by trained technicians toplan and implement harvesting operations, cangreatly improve the efficiency of these operations.
5.1.1 Stock MappingMapping of trees to be harvested, and those thatshould be protected for future harvests, involves coststhat are generally borne by the concessionaire/contractor. Typical short-term benefits of stock mapsinclude fewer lost logs and more efficient skid traillayout. In addition, the existence of a stock mapcreates the opportunity to harvest by species and sizeclasses to meet specific market demands. Whenfuture crop trees (FCTs) are mapped and marked inthe forest, damage to these trees during felling andskidding can be reduced substantially (Kreuger2004). The benefits and beneficiaries of this longer-term impact vary with concession policies (e.g.,duration or transferability), tenure or resource usesecurity, markets, and various sectoral and non-sectoral factors. The impediments to adoption of thestock mapping component of RIL are related to theissues of who pays for the mapping and who benefits,in both the long and short terms, from this activity.
5.1.2 Topographic MappingIn the tropics there is a general lack of maps suitablefor timber harvest planning (1:5000 or more detailed).In a few places this problem has been solved by usingcomputer-generated maps with slope data obtainedduring the pre-harvest inventory (Klassen 2001). Thesemaps are also important for the accurate designationand delineation of exclusion zones and protected trees.Furthermore, the existence of accurate topographicmaps is a prerequisite for effective mapping of trees tobe harvested and future crop trees.
5.1.3 Benefits of MappingAccess to accurate topographic and stock mapsprovides benefits during planning of timber
harvesting, during harvesting and during futureharvests. Quality maps:• Assist with the location of trees for harvesting,
which is especially useful where harvestable treesare widely scattered;
• Reduce the number of merchantable trees thatinadvertently remain unharvested and thenumber of logs that should have been yarded thatare left on the forest floor;
• Serve as a basic tool for efficiently locating roads,skid trails, and landings to reduce costs ofskidding;
• Assist with the location of individual species(permitting response to specific marketdemands);
• Assist with monitoring and evaluation ofoperations by both tree harvesting supervisorsand forest owners;
• Are inexpensive to produce relative to the benefitsderived and the overall cost of harvesting.
5.1.4 Direct Financial Costs of MappingThe following direct costs are attributed to themapping operations:• Tree identification training is required, which is
costly but necessary for accurate stock mapping;• Training in surveying techniques is required to
ensure the field measurements are accurate andmade as efficiently as possible to reduce costs;
• Full stock surveys or censuses are required, butthese are inexpensive relative to overall loggingcosts;
Contour map preparation, including the costs ofhardware, software and printing are generally borneby harvesting companies.
5.1.5 Other Issues Related to ImprovedMapping
While some of the main costs of mapping have beenoutlined, there are other issues that influence the useand value of maps as management tools:• Stock maps are less cost-effective if logs are sold
at the stump;• Stock maps are useful where trees are spread
relatively evenly in the harvesting area, forestworkers are competent at tree marking, and treesare marked for felling as well as for retention;
• Mapping costs are directly related to the numberof species and the minimum diameter of treesincluded. Considering future harvest trees that
18
Who Pays for and Who Benefits from Improved Timber Harvesting Practices in the Tropics
are currently in precommercial size classes canincrease mapping costs considerably;
• Detailed stock maps are less critical whereforesters traverse the forest systematically before,during, and after harvesting operations;
• Maps are seldom used where there are few formallinks between the planners and the implementersof harvesting operations;
• Mapping is often done by poorly trained and low-paid staff, thus leading to poor quality maps thatare not very useful and not often used;
• Stock maps are often drawn with little concernfor precision (or are entirely fabricated) and usedonly to comply with administrative requirements;
• Although computing software is costly, manycompanies are now using satellite imagerycoupled with Geographical Positioning Systems(GPS) and Geographic Information Systems(GIS) to prepare maps.
5.1.6 Who Benefits from and Who Pays forMapping?
While there are a number of issues related to thequality of maps and their use, there are others relatedto the costs and benefits of map preparation:• Mapping is more likely to represent a net cost to
the timber harvesting company if they are notused fully or if the harvesting techniques usedare poor;
• Mapping is more likely to result in net benefitsto loggers if their field crews are competent intheir use;
• The financial benefits of mapping to loggers aregreater if the trees to be harvested are veryvaluable and widely scattered;
• Over the long term, to the extent that the use ofaccurate maps reduces environmental damage,both forest managers and society as a wholebenefit.
5.2 Road Planning and Construction
Most of the direct environmental impacts of timberharvesting operations on forest ecosystems are relatedto the design, location, construction, maintenance, anduse of roads. Erosion from road surfaces, cut-and-fillslopes and bridge abutments contribute most of thesediment that ends up in streams that pass throughtimber harvesting areas (Wells 2001). Landslides alsotend to be concentrated along roads, particularly near
roads that are improperly sited, poorly constructed andinsufficiently drained. Road building and maintenanceare also among the most costly of forest harvestingoperations. In hilly terrain, for example, the constructionof a kilometre of logging road may cost US$30 000 ormore. Our goal here is not to review the engineeringstandards for logging roads, which are readily available(e.g., Keller and Sherar 2003) and generally figureprominently in RIL guidelines, but rather to considerwhy poor road building and maintenance practicestypify many tropical forest harvesting operations.Nevertheless, it is important to point out thatcompliance with the engineering standards for tropicalforest road construction, as outlined in many codes ofpractice, depends on the availability of accurate andprecise maps (Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission 1999,Wells 2001).
Road building, like other timber harvesting activitiesdiscussed, does not occur in isolation but instead isintimately linked to other operations. Because ofthese interconnections, specifying the costs andbenefits of proper road design, engineering,construction and maintenance represents aconsiderable challenge. For example, uphill skiddingis generally recommended for safety reasons and toreduce soil erosion. The willingness of timberharvesting contractors to skid predominantly uphillobviously depends on road locations. Similarly, therelative distances logs are moved within a forest byskidders vs. loaded on log trucks depends on the roadlayout.
5.2.1 Benefits of Improved Road Planning andConstruction Techniques
Some of the benefits of improved road design, layout,and construction include:• Increased efficiency in hauling logs to the point
of sale or processing facility;• Improved access for monitoring timber
harvesting operations by forest owners;• Decreased road maintenance costs during
logging;• Decreased road maintenance costs for the forest
owner after timber harvesting operations arecompleted;
• Decreased maintenance costs to local authoritiesif timber harvesting roads are used as part of theregional transportation network;
• Reduced soil erosion and stream sedimentation;
19
Grahame Applegate, Francis E. Putz and Laura K. Snook
• Reduced impacts on residual stands because lessforest is cleared for road construction;
• Reduced likelihood of invasion of light-demanding weeds because the forest roadopenings are narrower;
• Reduced impacts on wildlife;• Reduced vehicle maintenance costs;• Reduced risk of fire spread into logged forest.
5.2.2 Issues That May Influence Adoption ofImproved Roading Practices
The following issues influence the adoption ofimproved roading standards:• The degree to which managers consider the costs
of production delays caused by road closures,reduced hauling capacities of trucks due to poorroad surface conditions, and truck damage andsubsequent unavailability;
• Inefficiencies such as the presence of idlemachinery and inefficient deployment ofmachines in use;
• The presence of engineers with experience intropical forest road design and construction;
• Poor road location and design due toinexperienced staff, which results in excessive sidecutting (increased cost), numerous watercoursecrossings and steep grades, and may exacerbateland disputes;
• The cost of gravel for road surfacing. However,even if this is expensive, judicious use oftenreduces overall roading costs;
• Supervision: properly exercised, this can improveconstruction efficiency;
• Availability and use of appropriate machinery forroad construction and maintenance are critical.For example, it is not efficient to use bulldozersfor grading and compacting roads.
5.2.3 Who Benefits from and Who Pays forImproved Roads?
There are many benefits and beneficiaries ofimproved road design and construction, but in mostcases it is the timber harvesting company that paysthe costs. Some of the issues relating to the benefitsand beneficiaries of improved roading include:• Benefits of training in road design and
construction are enjoyed by harvestingcontractors, timber harvesting companies, forestowners, and the general public, who may use theroad for commerce and tourism;
• Good roading benefits current and future timberharvesting companies, as well as society at large,due to reduced erosion, siltation and waterpollution;
• Other environmental benefits of good roadinginclude less wasted wood, less damage to theforest structure resulting from narrower roads,increased residual growing stock and reduceddamage to future crop trees;
• Benefits also accrue to local governmentauthorities if they take over the roads afterharvesting, because good roads require lessmaintenance.
5.3 Directional Felling
Securing all the various benefits of directional fellingrequires investment in the appropriate equipmentas well as the training of fellers and tree markers.While some of the direct financial benefits ofdirectional felling (e.g., efficient skidding) accrue totimber harvesting contractors and operators, forestowners and the global community also benefit fromreduced damage to the residual stand, increasedcarbon retention, and biodiversity conservation.Adoption of directional felling techniques by treemarkers and fellers is influenced by the paymentsystem (daily wage vs. per cubic metre yarded), safetyissues, equipment, and recognition of the benefitsof the practice. Adoption of directional fellingtechniques is also somewhat dependent on theorganisation of harvesting and by the manner inwhich the logs are sold (i.e., at the stump, landing ormillgate).
5.3.1 Benefits of Directional FellingThe benefits of tree marking and directional fellinginclude the following:• Enables implementation of a ‘herringbone’
pattern of planned skid trails on flat land in orderto reduce yarding costs;
• Reduces log breakage by avoiding felling trees ontop of one another, across streams or overboulders;
• Reduces damage to future crop trees;• Improves worker safety. International Labour
Organization (ILO) data on fatalities and injuriesto fellers suggest that directional felling and theassociated training reduce harvesting-relatedaccidents. With improved practices will come
20
Who Pays for and Who Benefits from Improved Timber Harvesting Practices in the Tropics
more accurate reporting of injuries;• Increases direct financial benefits to loggers from
improved timber recovery from harvested treesand improved operational productivity;
• Facilitates yarding because logs are orientated tofacilitate skidding, to minimise skidding distancesand to obviate the need for log rotation duringyarding, which reduces damage to the log andnearby trees.
5.3.2 Issues That May Influence Adoption ofDirectional Felling Techniques
Training of fellers results in their having a heightenedsense of professionalism, which may stimulatedemands for higher wages, benefits and safetyequipment. Although satisfaction of these demandsincurs direct costs, compliance should result in feweraccidents and lower insurance costs. Feller trainingand licensing, as required in some countries, furtherpromotes professionalism, which in Sweden andTasmania resulted in increased adoption of improvedtimber harvesting practices.• When directional felling reduces production
rates, especially if production is further reduceddue to work stoppages during wet weather, it maybe necessary to develop incentive systems beyondsimple payment on the basis of volumes felledor yarded to the roadside;
• Availability of trainers and training materials thatare appropriate for field crews can influence theadoption of directional felling techniques. Field
guides to directional felling such as thoseproduced by BOLFOR, the Vanuatu SustainableForest Utilisation Project, and FFT in Brazil,coupled with professional training by qualifiedconsultants, increase understanding of the needfor directional felling and encourages itsadoption.
5.3.3 Who Benefits from and Who Pays forDirectional Felling?
Among the issues related to the benefits andbeneficiaries of directional felling, the followingseem most critical:• The financial benefits of directional felling
derived from increased log recovery, reducedbreakage and decreased yarding costs are oftenshared by logging contractors and workers;
• Training costs could be borne by fellers,contractors, forest owners or outside agenciessuch as NGOs;
• Benefits of training in directional felling accrueto fellers, timber harvesting companies, forestowners and the general public.
5.4 Skid Trail and Road Closure
The main aims of purposeful post-logging roadclosure, prohibiting vehicle access to logging areas,and stabilising skid trails and landings aftercompletion of harvesting operations, are to minimiseerosion and facilitate forest regeneration. The
Box 6. A Silvicultural Paradox: Benefits of Increasing (Some) Impacts of Logging in Bolivia
Regeneration of many light-demanding tropical timber species is promoted by opening the canopysubstantially and exposing mineral soil. Paradoxically, avoiding the creation of large clearings and minimisingsoil disturbances are explicit and important goals of many sets of RIL guidelines. Where light-demandingtimber species are being harvested, and sustaining timber yields of the same species is a goal of management,care is warranted when developing RIL guidelines that are appropriate for local conditions (Fredericksen andPutz 2003, Fredericksen et al. 2003, Putz et al. in press).
Many commercial timber species in the dry and moist forests of Bolivia, including the most valuable (Swieteniasp., Cedrela sp., and Amburana sp.), regenerate best in severely disturbed areas (Pinard et al. 1999). Becauselogging intensities in Bolivia are typically very low (1–3 trees/ha or 1–5 m3/ha), and most logging operationsare carried out with rubber-tyred skidders on fairly level terrain during the pronounced dry season, standdamage caused by even the most destructive commercial logging operations is seldom sufficient to providethe conditions required to secure regeneration of the harvested species. Even worse, the logging damagethat does occur often promotes development of vine tangles rather than stimulating commercial treeregeneration. And finally, widespread wildfires, which are presumably promoted by logging, can result insevere stand degeneration. The silvicultural challenge is therefore how to promote regeneration of light-demanding commercial timber trees without exacerbating these other environmental problems.
21
Grahame Applegate, Francis E. Putz and Laura K. Snook
logging contractor is typically responsible forinstalling diversion drains on roads and skid trails,erecting physical barriers to stop road access byvehicles, removing temporary stream crossings, andstabilising log landings through ripping compactedsoil, installing drains, and planting cover crops.
5.4.1 Benefits of Skid Trail and Road ClosureThe main benefits from draining and closing skidtrails and roads following harvesting are:• Stabilising the surfaces of the skid trails and roads
to reduce erosion;• Improving natural regeneration of the bare soil
areas by reducing soil movement;• Reducing the incidence of timber and wildlife
poaching;• Reducing the likelihood of forest ignition by
people;• Reducing the time taken for forest recovery,
which favours both biodiversity conservation andfuture production.
5.4.2 Issues That May Influence AdoptionThe timber harvesting contractor is the maincontributor to this activity and incurs most of thecosts apart from some supervision and monitoring,which may be borne by the forest owners or thegovernment. Consequently, efforts to increaseadoption of road and skid trail closure operationsshould focus on the firm, individual or communityresponsible for carrying out the closure activities.Some of the issues that influence the adoption ofthese activities are:• Availability of direct financial compensation for
costs associated with closure operations;• Costs of closure operations relative to timber
revenues;• Appropriateness of mandated closure operations
to local conditions. For example, local people mayobject to bridge removal if it reduces access totheir community;
• Anticipation of forest closure requirementsduring forest harvest planning. For example, if
forest managers know that they will be requiredto remove bridges, they might design them tofacilitate this operation;
• Use of compliance-motivating policies such asinitially assigning small fines but increasing themif noncompliance continues;
• Inclusion of closure operations as part of theHarvesting Agreement.
5.4.3 Who Benefits from and Who Pays forClosing Skid Trails and Roads?
Two groups typically pay for forest closureoperations:• Timber harvesting contractors or concessionaires
who do the work and pay for the machinery,operator time and associated overheads. Thecompany also pays for training of operators andfield staff to ensure compliance with the technicalspecifications of closure requirements;
• Forest owners who pay to monitor compliancewith closure regulations.
The major beneficiaries of forest closure are:• Forest owners who obtain the benefits of having
bare soil surfaces stabilised, which helps to ensurefuture production;
• Forest owners who benefit from reduced illegallogging and hunting;
• Society members who live off-site benefit fromthe effects of reduced soil erosion, reducedsedimentation and minimisation of hydrologicalchanges that might otherwise result in propertydamage or even loss of life;
• Governments that gain considerable cost savingsfrom these practices, with improved longevity ofdams and a secured supply of clean water;
• The public, who derive health benefits fromreduced mosquito breeding in ponds abovecollapsed culverts and bridges;
• Stakeholders who derive all or part of theirlivelihood from the forests and or the rivers thatflow through them benefit directly from reducedenvironmental damage from harvesting.
22
Variation in Costs and Benefits ofImplementing RIL AmongDifferent Forest Types
The costs and benefits of improved harvestingpractices relative to conventional logging aredetermined by which RIL components are requiredand how much they cost, which varies by forest type.Many components of RIL are essential in almost allforest types and in harvesting operations of all sizes.In contrast, the importance of other RIL componentsvaries with forest type and harvesting system.
6.1 Forest Type-Dependent Factors
Some of the components and activities associatedwith improved harvesting practices that vary withforest type and conditions include:• Harvesting intensity, which is related more to the
silvicultural regime applied than harvestingpractices and greatly influences logging damage.The higher the harvesting intensity, the greater thedisturbance to the soil and residual stand andhence the greater the need to implementharvesting practices that are designed to meet thesilvicultural requirements of the residual stand.These standards may include specifying thenumber of trees to be felled in a clump, thedensity of landings and skid trails, andsequencing of harvesting activities and areas tobe harvested. It is critical to note that if thesilviculturally appropriate intensity of harvestingis exceeded, even strict adherence to RILguidelines will not assure sustainable forestmanagement (Sist et al. 2003).
• Forest characteristics, in particular topography,greatly influence the importance and cost of anumber of RIL activities. Where forests occupysteep slopes, better planning and construction ofroads, skid trails and landings can significantlyreduce the negative impacts of timber harvesting.In contrast, in areas where the topography isrelatively flat, with few streams, the planning ofroads and skid trails and improved standards ofconstruction to minimise earthworks and streamcrossings are far less important. Under theseconditions, roads and skid trails can even be
arranged in regular grids. For example, in areas suchas the Miombo woodlands of Africa, whereharvestable trees tend to be scattered in flat, openforest and where logs are hauled on trailers or bysmall, rubber-tyred tractors, improving thequality of skid trail planning and construction isnot of much concern.
• Seasonality of rainfall influences implementationof the different harvesting components. ManyRIL guidelines include prohibitions on ground-based yarding when the soil in the forest is wetand during periods of rain. Where logging iscarried out only during the dry season, some RILcomponents related to wet-weather shutdownsbecome irrelevant.
• Soil compaction is of less concern where timberharvesting occurs on well-drained soils duringthe dry season.
• Regeneration requirements incorporated intosilvicultural prescriptions should be supportedby the appropriate harvesting practices. Forexample, reducing the impact of timberharvesting by minimising gap size will benefitforests with commercial species that regeneratein small gaps, but not forests managed for morelight-demanding species that require larger gapsand exposed mineral soil for regeneration. It istherefore important to understand thesilvicultural requirements of the species for whichthe forest is being managed before setting RILspecifications.
6.2 Forest Type-Independent Factors
Most of the components outlined in generic codesof harvesting practice (e.g., Dykstra and Heinrich1996, Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission 1999) areintended to be guiding principles and, as such, aremostly relatively independent of forest conditions,the institutions involved in timber harvesting andthe species harvested. Some of the components andactivities that are little influenced by forest typeinclude the following:
6
23
Who Pays for and Who Benefits from Improved Timber Harvesting Practices in the Tropics
• Training is universally necessary for the adoptionand implementation of improved harvestingpractices. Training and awareness raising arerequired for senior management, middle-levelmanagement, and field supervisors and operators(Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission 2000). While thetypes of training differ for each group, it isimperative that all stakeholders involved understandthe need for improved forest harvesting practices,which activities are appropriate for their forests,their relative costs and benefits, and the beneficiariesof improved practices.
• Harvest planning is required for all harvestingoperations. Plans should include information onthe inventory of the growing stock, species to beharvested and areas to be harvested, as well asthe network of roads and skid trails to be builtand the locations of stream crossings and loglandings.
• Exclusion Zones, which are areas where harvestingis prohibited due to excessive steepness,susceptibility to erosion, or biodiversityconservation, are required in most forest types.
• Recommended harvesting practices that do notvary with forest type include tree marking(including the direction of fall), sound fellingtechniques (to ensure low stump heights and to
reduce waste from breakage and poorcrosscutting), and avoidance of damage topotential crop trees. In open forests andwoodlands where crop trees are less dense,directional felling is still required to facilitateextraction. Techniques that minimise soildisturbance are also important, irrespective offorest type, and involve improved roading andskid trail design and layout, watercoursecrossings, and log landing size, location, and use.
• Worker health and safety, as well as camp hygiene,are important for society and forestry personnelin all forest harvesting operations. For example,correct handling of fuels and disposal ofunwanted material from machinery workshopsand log landings is important for reducingpollution and other deleterious environmentalimpacts.
• Post-harvesting operations involving closure ofskid trails, log landings and roads, along withcamp site restoration, are essential for reducingthe adverse impacts of harvesting.
• Supervision, monitoring and regular evaluationare important for maintaining and improvingstandards as well as for providing a mechanismfor identifying training needs.
24
The capacity to determine the actual costs, to loggingcontractors, forest workers, forest owners, andsociety at large, of implementing or failing toimplement improved harvesting practices, is acritical prerequisite for improving forest harvestingpractices. Use of RILSIM facilitates the calculationsof the financial costs of harvesting operations, butdetailed and reliable data are needed on each of thecomponent activities. Such data, when available, willallow any interested party to evaluate the costs ofimplementing changes in harvesting practices,including major changes in equipment and workerdeployment as well as minor changes in sequencingof activities. Some improved practices are likely tobe adopted out of enlightened self-interest whereasthe adoption of others will require policy change andenforcement. Researchers and decision makers needto recognise that the applicability of different RILtechniques varies with forest conditions,management structures, and silvicultural goals.Understanding this variation is necessary foridentifying the impediments to adoption of bettertimber harvesting practices.
Given that RIL guidelines are presumably beingfollowed in the substantial forest areas certified aswell-managed by the Forest Stewardship Council, itseems reasonable for researchers to start treatingentire logging areas as replicates in large-scalecomparisons. Admittedly, when working at suchscales, some experimental control of extraneousvariables is sacrificed. However, researchers need toaddress what Francis Crome (1996) called ‘wickedreal problems instead of tame toy problems, theformer being large, complex, and multidimensionalwhereas the latter are simple, small, well-structured,and controllable.’
Efforts at reconciling differences among forestowners, logging contractors, forest workers,neighbouring communities, and society at large willbe enhanced if it is recognized that the costs andbenefits of using improved forest harvestingtechniques vary among stakeholders. Asdeforestation and forest degradation due to poormanagement practices continue in the tropics, thisreconciliation becomes ever more critical.
Conclusions and Recommendations7
25
Alatoa, H., Bakeo, T., Hakwa, S., Van Trease, H. andTaurakoto, P. 1984 Land tenure in Vanuatu.University of South Pacific, Port Vila.
Andrewartha, R.K. and Applegate, G.B. 1998 Reducedimpact logging guidelines as a management andcarbon sequestration tool for Pacific Islandcountries. In: Heads of Forestry Conference Suva,Fiji, pp. 6.
Andrewartha, R.K., Raymond, D., Applegate, G.B. andWood, D. 1998 Training of trainers in codes ofpractice for forest harvesting, silviculturalprescriptions and reduced impact loggingguidelines: Outputs and lessons learnt in the Pacific.In: Pacific Heads of Forestry Meeting Suva, Fiji.
Applegate, G.B. 1992 Rainforest Regeneration Studyin Vanuatu. Vanuatu National Forest ResourceInventory Project Report for AIDAB(unpublished).
Applegate, G.B. 1997a Improved regeneration andmanagement of natural forests in Vanuatu.Vanuatu Sustainable Forest Utilisation Project,Port Vila.
Applegate, G.B. 1997b Reduced impact loggingguidelines for Vanuatu. AusAID, Port Vila.
Applegate, G.B. 2001 Financial costs of reducedimpact timber harvesting in Indonesia: case studycomparisons. In: Enters, T., P. B. Durst, G.B.Applegate, P. C.S. Kho and G. Man (eds.), ApplyingReduced Impact Logging to Advance SustainableForest Management, 179-91. RAP Publication 2002/14. Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations. Bangkok.
Applegate, G.B. and Andrewartha, R.K. 1999aDevelopment of codes of practice for tropicalforests in Asia-Pacific. In: Practising forestrytoday: 18th Biennial Conference of Institute ofForesters of Australia, 61–7. Hobart, Australia.
Applegate, G.B. and Andrewartha, R.K. 1999bVanuatu silvicultural prescriptions. VanuatuDepartment of Forests, Port Vila.
Applegate, G.B. and Andrewartha, R.K. 2000Development and adoption of improved forestharvesting and management of rainforests in
Vanuatu. Paper presented to Satellite Meeting onImproved Forest Management and HarvestingPractices for Tropical Forests at the IUFRO XXIWorld Congress, Kuala Lumpur, August 7-12.
Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission 1999 Code ofPractice for forest harvesting in Asia-Pacific. FAORegional Office For Asia and the Pacific (RAP),Bangkok.
Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission 2000 Regionalstrategy for implementing the Code of Practice forforest harvesting in Asia-Pacific. CIFOR, Bogor,Indonesia.
Barretto, P., Amaral, P., Vidal, E. and Uhl, C. 1998 Costsand benefits of forest management for timberproduction in Eastern Amazonia. Forest Ecologyand Management 108: 9–26.
Blate, G. 1997 Sustainable forest management in Brazil.Tropical Forest Update 7: 14–15.
Blate, G. 1998 The Tropical Forest Foundation’s lowimpact logging program. Internal Document, TheTropical Forest Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Blate, G.M., Putz, F.E. and Zweede, J.C. 2001 Progresstowards RIL adoption in Brazil and Bolivia: drivingforces and implementation successes. pp. 227–51 In:Enters, T., P. B. Durst, G.B. Applegate, P. C.S. Kho andG. Man (eds.), Applying Reduced Impact Loggingto Advance Sustainable Forest Management. RAPPublication 2002/14. Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations. Bangkok.
Boltz, F., Carter, D. R., Holmes, T. P. and Pereira, R. Jr.2001 Financial returns under uncertainty forconventional and reduced-impact logging inpermanent production forests of the BrazilianAmazon. Ecological Economics 39: 387–398.
Brown, D.W. 1999 Addicted to rent: corporate andspatial distribution of forest resources in Indonesia.Implications for forest sustainability andgovernment policy. Indonesia-UK Tropical ForestManagement Programme, Jakarta.
Bruenig, E. 1996 Conservation and management oftropical rainforests: An integrated approach tosustainability. CAB International, University Press,Cambridge, UK.
References 8
26
Who Pays for and Who Benefits from Improved Timber Harvesting Practices in the Tropics
Bruijnzeel, L.A. and Critchley, W.R.S. 1994Environmental impacts of logging moist tropicalforests. UNESCO, Paris.
Buenaflor, V.D. 1989 Logging in Papua New Guinea.FAO, Rome.
Cassells, D.S. and Bonnell, M. 1984 Watershed forestmanagement practices in the tropical rainforest ofNorth East Australia. In: Proceedings of theSymposium on the Effects of Forest Land Use onErosion and Slope Stability, 289–99.Environment and Policy Institute, East-WestCenter, Honolulu.
Crome, F.H.J. 1996 A novel Bayesian approach toassessing impacts of rain forest logging.Ecological Applications 6: 1104–23.
Dagang, A.A., Richter, F., Hahn-Schilling, B. andManggil, P. 2001 The financial and economicanalysis of conventional and reduced impactharvesting systems in the FOMISS-Samling pilotarea, Sarawak. pp. 163–78 In: Enters, T., P. B. Durst,G.B. Applegate, P. C.S. Kho and G. Man (eds.),Applying Reduced Impact Logging to AdvanceSustainable Forest Management. RAP Publication2002/14. Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations. Bangkok.
Dawkins, H.C. 1958 The management of tropical highforest, with special reference to Uganda. ImperialForestry Institute, Oxford.
Dawkins, H.C. and Philip, M. 1998 Tropical moistforest silviculture and management: a history ofsuccess and failure. CAB International, Oxford.
de Vletter, J. 1995 Natural forest management pilotproject. Fiji Department of Forestry, Suva.
Department of Forestry and Wildlife 1999 TheCambodian Code of Practice for forestharvesting. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry andFisheries, Kingdom of Cambodia.
Dykstra, D.P. 1992 Wood residues from timberharvesting and primary processing: a globalassessment of tropical forests. FAO, Rome(unpublished).
Dykstra, D.P. 2001 Reduced impact logging: conceptsand issues. pp. 3–10 In: Enters, T., P. B. Durst, G.B.Applegate, P. C.S. Kho and G. Man (eds.), ApplyingReduced Impact Logging to Advance SustainableForest Management. RAP Publication 2002/14.Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations. Bangkok.
Dykstra, D.P. 2004 RILSIM. http://www.blueoxforestry.com/RILSIM/.
Dykstra, D.P. and Heinrich, R. 1992 Sustaining tropicalforests through environmentally sound harvestingpractices. Unasylva 43: 9–15.
Dykstra, D.P. and Heinrich, R. 1996 FAO model codeof forest harvesting practice. FAO, Rome.
Dykstra, D.P., Kowero, G.S., Ofosu-Asiedu, A. andKio, P. 1996 Promoting stewardship in forests inthe humid forest zone of Anglophone West andCentral Africa. UN Environment Programmeand CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Elias 2000 Reduced impact timber harvesting in theIndonesian selective cutting and planting system.Paper to Satellite Meeting on Improved ForestManagement and Harvesting Practices forTropical Forests at the IUFRO XXI WorldCongress, Kuala Lumpur, August 7-12.
Ewel, J. and Conde, L. 1976 Potential ecologicalimpact of increased intensity of tropical forestutilizations. USDA Forest Service Forest ProductsLaboratory, Hawaii.
Ewel, J. and Conde, L. 1980 Potential ecologicalimpact of increased intensity of tropical forestutilization. BIOTROP Special Publication No.11.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations (FAO) 1997 FAO Production Yearbook.FAO, Rome.
Fiji Ministry of Forestry 1990 Code of loggingpractice. Ministry of Forestry, Suva.
Fox, J.E.D. 1968 Logging damage and the influenceof climber cutting prior to logging in the lowlanddipterocarp forest of Sabah. Malaysian Forester31: 326–47.
Fredericksen, T.S. and Putz, F.E. 2003 Silviculturalintensification for tropical forest conservation.Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 1445–1453.
Fredericksen, T.S., Putz, F.E., Pattie, P., Pariona, W.and Peña-Claros, M. 2003 Tropical forestry inBolivia: The next steps from planned loggingtowards sustainable forest management. Journalof Forestry 101: 37–40.
Gilmour, D.A. 1967 The effects of logging onstreamflow and sedimentation in a NorthQueensland rainforest catchment.Commonwealth Forestry Review 50: 38–48.
Gilmour, D.A. and Applegate, G.B. 1984 Communityforestry as an option for containingenvironmental degradation - a case study fromNepal. East-West Center, Honolulu.
Healey, J.R., Price, C. and Tay, J. 2000 The cost of carbonretention by reduced impact logging. Forest
27
Grahame Applegate, Francis E. Putz and Laura K. Snook
Ecology and Management 139: 237–255.Hendrison, J. 1990 Damage-controlled logging in
managed tropical rain forest in Suriname.Agricultural University, Wageningen, TheNetherlands.
Holmes, T.P., Blate, G.M., Zweede, J.C., Periera, R.,Barretto, P., Boltz, F. and Bauch, R. 2002 Financialand ecological indicators of reduced impact loggingperformance in the eastern Amazon. Forest Ecologyand Management 163: 93–110.
Holmes, T.P., Boltz, F. and Carter, D.R. 2001 Financialindicators of reduced impact logging performancein Brazil: case study comparisons. pp. 152-162 In:Enters, T., P. B. Durst, G.B. Applegate, P. C.S. Kho andG. Man (eds.), Applying Reduced Impact Loggingto Advance Sustainable Forest Management. RAPPublication 2002/14. Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations. Bangkok.
Inglis, C.J., Sutton, G. and Lawson, G.J. 1996 Researchand monitoring for sustainable forest managementin NW Guyana. In: Dykstra, D.P. and Heinrich, R.(eds.) Research on environmentally sound forestpractice to sustain tropical forests, 27–36. FAO/IUFRO Satellite meeting, IUFRO XX WorldCongress.
Iskandar, I., L. Snook, T. Toma, K. MacDicken and M.Kanninen. In review. A comparison of damage dueto logging under different forms of resource accessin East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Forest Ecology andManagement.
International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO)1992 ITTO Guidelines for the sustainablemanagement of natural tropical forests. In:International Timber Trade Organization PolicyDevelopment Series No. 1. ITTO, Yokohama,12 p.
Jonkers, W.B.J. 1987 Vegetation structure, loggingdamage and silviculture in a tropical rainforest inSuriname. Wageningen Agricultural University,Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Karsenty, A. 1998 The economic implications of reducedimpact and conventional logging. In: Bertault, J.-G.and Kosasi Kadir (eds.) Silvicultural research in alowland mixed dipterocarp forest of EastKalimantan, 163–70. CIRAD-forêt, FORDA and P.T.INHUTANI I, Jakarta.
Karsenty, A. 2000 Economic instruments for tropicalforests: the Congo Basin case. IIED, CIFOR andCIRAD.
Kartawinata, K., Jessup, T.C. and Vayda, A.P. 1998Exploitation in Southeast Asia. In: Lieth, H. and
Werger, M.J.A. (eds) Tropical rain forestecosystems: biogeographical and ecologicalstudies, 591–610. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Keller, G. and J. Sherar. 2003 Low-Volume RoadsEngineering: Best Management Practices FieldGuide.U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Agency forInternational Development.
Kennard, DK., Gould, K., Putz, F.E., Fredericksen,T.S. and Morales, F. 2002 Effect of disturbanceintensity on regeneration mechanisms in atropical dry forest. Forest Ecology andManagement 162: 197–208.
Klassen, A.W. 2001 Impediments to adoption of RILin the Indonesian corporate sector. pp. 19-30 In:Enters, T., P. B. Durst, G.B. Applegate, P. C.S. Khoand G. Man (eds.), Applying Reduced ImpactLogging to Advance Sustainable ForestManagement. RAP Publication 2002/14. Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations.Bangkok.
Korsgaard, S. 1985 Guidelines for sustained yieldmanagement of mixed dipterocarp forests ofSouth East Asia. FAO, Rome.
Krueger, W. 2004. Effects of future crop tree flaggingand skid trail planning on conventional diameter-limit logging in a Bolivian tropical forest. ForestEcology and Management 188: 381–393.
Manokaran, N. 1998 Effect, 34 years later, of selectivelogging in the lowland dipterocarp forest atPasoh, Peninsular Malaysia and implications onpresent-day logging inhill forests. In: Lee, S.S.,May, D.Y., Gauld, I.D. and Bishop, J. (eds)Conservation management and development offorest resources, 41–60. Forest Research InstituteMalaysia, Kepong.
Marsh, C.W., Tay, J., Pinard, M.A., Putz, F.E. and Sullivan,T.E. 1996 Reduced impact logging: a pilot projectin Sabah, Malaysia. Dipterocarp forest ecosystems:Towards sustainable management. World ScientificPublishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
Matikainen, M. and Herika, D. 2000 The financialbenefits of reduced impact logging. Berau ForestManagement Project and INHUTANI I, Jakarta,Indonesia.
Mattsson-Marn, H.G. and Jonkers, W. 1981 Loggingdamage in tropical high forest. Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nationsproject FO:MAL/76/008. FAO, Rome.
Moura-Costa, P. 1997 Reduced impact loggingtechniques as a means for carbon offsets. In:
28
Who Pays for and Who Benefits from Improved Timber Harvesting Practices in the Tropics
Proceedings of the FAO/IUFRO Satellite Meetingon Research on Environmentally Sound ForestPractices to Sustain Tropical Forests. Held inconjunction with the IUFRO XX World Congress,Tampere, Finland. FAO, Rome.
Nicholson, D.I. 1958 An analysis of logging damagein tropical rainforests of North Borneo.Malaysian Forester 21: 235-44.
Nicholson, D.I. 1965 A review of naturalregeneration in the dipterocarp forests of Sabah.Malaysian Forester 28: 4–26.
Nicholson, D.I. 1979 The effects of logging andtreatment on the mixed dipterocarp forests ofSoutheast Asia. FAO, Rome.
Palmer, J. and Synnott, T.J. 1992 The managementof natural forests. In: Sharma, N.P. (ed.)Managing the world’s forests, 337–73. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co, Dubuque, Iowa.
Pearce, D., Putz, F.E. and Vanclay, J. 2002 Sustainableforestry: panacea or pipedream? Forest Ecologyand Management 172: 229–247.
Pinard, M.A. and Putz, F.E. 1996. Retaining forestbiomass by reducing logging damage. Biotropica28: 278–295.
Pinard, M.A., Putz, F.E., Jardim, T., Rumiz, D. andGuzman, R. 1999 Ecological characterisation oftree species to guide forest managementdecisions: an exercise in species classification insemi-deciduous forests of Lomerío, Bolivia. ForestEcology and Management 113: 201–13.
Pinard, M.A., Putz, F.E., Tay, J. and Sullivan, T.E. 1995Creating timber harvest guidelines for a reduced-impact logging project in Malaysia. Journal ofForestry 93: 41–5.
Poore, D., Blasser, J., Burgess, P., Bruenig, E., Cabarle,B., Cassells, D., Putz, F.E. and Whitmore, T. 1998No forests without management. Tropical ForestUpdate 8: 7–9.
Pulkki, R. 1997 Modelling future availability of non-coniferous veneer logs and sawlogs in tropicalforests. FAO, Rome.
Putz, F.E., Dykstra, D.P. and Heinrich, R. 2000a Whypoor logging practices persist in the tropics.Conservation Biology 14: 951–6.
Putz, F.E., Redford, K.H., Robinson, J.G., Fimbel, R.and Blate, G.M. 2000b Biodiversity conservationin the context of tropical forest management. TheWorld Bank Environment Department No.75. 80p.
Putz, F.E. Are you a logging advocate or aconservationist? In press. In: Zarin, D., Putz, F.E.
Alavalapati, J. and Schmink, M. (eds.) WorkingForests in the Tropics. Columbia University Press,New York.
Putz, F. E., M.A. Pinard, T.S. Fredericksen, and M. Peña-Claros. In press. Forest science and the BOLFORexperience: lessons learned about natural forestmanagement in Bolivia. In: Zarin, D., Putz, F.E.Alavalapati, J. and Schmink, M. (eds.) WorkingForests in the Tropics. Columbia University Press,New York.
Queensland Department of Forests (DoF) 1983 50years of rainforest research in North Queensland.Queensland Department of Forests, Brisbane.
Queensland Department of Forests (DoF) 1988 NorthQueensland rainforest management. Guidelinesand procedures for sustained timber harvesting.Queensland Department of Forests, Brisbane.
Redhead, J.R. 1960 An analysis of logging damage inlowland rain forest in western Nigeria. NigerianForestry Information Bulletin (New Series) 10:5–16.
Rice, R.E., Gullison, R.E. and Reid, J.W. 1997 Cansustainable management save tropical forests?Scientific American, April, 1997: 44–9.
Ruslim, Y., Hinrichs, A., Sulistioadi, B. and PT LimbangGaneca 2000 Study on implementation of reducedimpact tractor logging. Indonesian-GermanTechnical Cooperation and Ministry of Forestryand Estate Crops in Cooperation with DeutscheGesellschaft Fur Technische Zusammenarbeit.Samarinda, Indonesia.
Sarre, A. 1996 Reduced impact, increased cost? TropicalForest Update 6: 10–11.
Sayer, J.A. and Byron, R.N. 1996 Technologicaladvances and the conservation of resources.International Journal of Sustainable Developmentand World Ecology 3: 43–53.
Sayer, J.A., Zuidema, P.A. and Rijks, M.H. 1995Managing for biodiversity in humid tropical forests.Commonwealth Forestry Review 74: 282–7.
Sist, P., Sheil, D., Kartawinata, K. and Priyadi, H. 2003Reduced-impact logging in Indonesian Borneo:some results confirming the need for newsilvicultural prescriptions. Forest Ecology andManagement 179: 415–427.
South Pacific Commission 1994 Code of conduct forlogging of indigenous forests in selected SouthPacific countries. South Pacific Commission, Suva,Fiji.
Tay, J. 1999 Economic assessment of reduced impact
29
Grahame Applegate, Francis E. Putz and Laura K. Snook
logging in Sabah, Malaysia. University of NorthWales, Bangor.
Uhl, C., Barreto, P., Verissimo, A., Vidal, E., Amaral,P., Barros, A. C., Souza, C., Johns, J. and Gerwing,J. 1997 Natural resource management in theBrazilian Amazon: an integrated approach.Bioscience 47: 160–8.
Vincent, J.R. 1992 The tropical timber trade andsustainable development. Science 256: 1651–5.
Ward, J.P. and Kanowski, P.J. 1985 Implementingcontrol of forest harvesting operations in NorthQueensland rainforests. In: Shepherd, K.R. andRichter, H.V.R. (eds.), Managing the tropicalforests, 165–86. Report to an International TropicalForest Management Workshop, AustralianDevelopment Assistance Bureau, Gympie,Queensland. Development Studies Centre, TheAustralian National University, Canberra.
Wells, C.H. 2001 Forest harvesting roads meetingoperational, social and environmental needs withefficiency and economy. pp. 40-51 In: Enters, T., P.B. Durst, G.B. Applegate, P. C.S. Kho and G. Man(eds.), Applying Reduced Impact Logging toAdvance Sustainable Forest Management. RAPPublication 2002/14. Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations. Bangkok.
White, A. and A. Martin. 2002 Who Owns the World’sForests? Forest Tenure and Public Forests inTransition. Forest Trends, Washington, D.C.
Winkler, N. 1997 Report of a case study on‘environmentally sound forest harvesting’: testingthe applicability of the FAO Model Code in theAmazon in Brazil. FAO, Rome.
30
Who Pays for and Who Benefits from Improved Timber Harvesting Practices in the Tropics
Pro
ject
Nam
eD
escr
ipti
on
Pro
duc
tsFi
ndin
gs/
Less
ons
Co
mm
ents
Van
uatu
Sus
tain
able
Fo
rest
Uti
lisat
ion
Pro
ject
and
the
Van
uatu
Dep
artm
ent
of
Fore
stry
Dir
ecto
r o
f Fo
rest
ryD
epar
tmen
t o
f Fo
rest
ry,
Vanu
atu
Imp
rove
d f
ore
st m
anag
emen
tth
roug
h:•
RIL
Gui
del
ines
fo
r Va
nuat
u•
Vanu
atu
Co
de
of
Log
gin
gP
ract
ice
(CO
LP)
•Tr
aini
ng f
or
CO
LP•
Trai
ner-
trai
ning
fo
r C
OLP
•P
olic
y an
d l
egis
lati
on
for
CO
LP•
Imp
rove
d t
imb
er u
tilis
atio
n•
Land
ow
ner
awar
enes
sra
isin
g•
Imp
rove
d s
ilvic
ultu
ral
reg
imes
•D
emo
nstr
atio
n an
d t
rain
ing
fore
st
•O
ver
100
inte
rnal
pro
ject
rep
ort
s an
d t
rain
ing
man
uals
, p
olic
y d
ocu
men
ts,
CO
LP,
RIL
gui
del
ines
and
silv
icul
tura
l re
gim
es f
or
Vanu
atu.
•D
emo
nstr
atio
n an
dTr
aini
ng F
ore
st d
evel
op
ed1
hour
’s d
rive
fro
m P
ort
Vil
a
•R
IL a
nd C
OLP
dev
elo
pm
ent
is p
ract
ical
•Tr
aini
ng i
s p
oss
ible
fo
r al
lst
akeh
old
ers
in C
OLP
and
RIL
•Le
gis
lati
on
to s
upp
ort
CO
LP i
s p
oss
ible
•C
OLP
is
bei
ng p
ract
ised
Vanu
atu
is a
sm
all
tim
ber
-p
rod
ucin
g c
oun
try
and
is
ther
efo
re i
dea
l fo
r th
ed
evel
op
men
t o
f sy
stem
s fo
rC
OLP
im
ple
men
tati
on
asm
od
els
for
oth
er p
lace
s in
Mel
anes
ia a
nd A
sia.
Fore
st T
rees
Pro
gra
m (
SPC
)
Sout
h P
acifi
c Is
land
co
untr
ies
Mr
Kan
awi
Po
uri
kan
awio
@sp
c.in
tP
acif
ic I
slan
d C
oun
trie
s/SP
C/
Au
sAID
Stre
ngth
en n
atio
nal
cap
abili
ties
in
Pac
ific
Isla
ndco
untr
ies
and
ass
ist
with
dev
elo
pm
ent
of
fore
stre
sour
ces
on
soun
d a
ndsu
stai
nab
le b
asis
to
enh
ance
qua
lity
of
life
•N
umer
ous
pro
ject
rep
ort
s•
Trai
ning
rep
ort
s o
n C
OLP
•Tr
aine
r-tr
aini
ng r
epo
rts
•Q
uart
erly
new
slet
ter
•Tr
aini
ng i
s su
cces
sful
on
are
gio
nal
bas
is f
or
trai
ning
of
trai
ners
in
CO
LP a
ndR
IL.
Reg
iona
l tr
aini
ng o
n co
mm
on
sub
ject
mat
ter
is v
ery
effic
ient
.Tr
aini
ng o
f tr
aine
rs i
s al
soco
st-e
ffec
tive
on
a re
gio
nal
bas
is.
Ap
pen
dix
I. S
om
e R
ecen
t an
d O
ngo
ing
Pro
ject
s fo
r Im
pro
ving
Har
vest
ing
Pra
ctic
es in
The
Tro
pic
s
31
Grahame Applegate, Francis E. Putz and Laura K. Snook
Pro
ject
Nam
eD
escr
ipti
on
Pro
duc
tsFi
ndin
gs/
Less
ons
Co
mm
ents
Fore
st M
anag
emen
tIn
form
atio
n Sy
stem
Sar
awak
(FO
MIS
S)
Sara
wak
Fo
rest
Dep
artm
ent,
Kuc
hing
Sam
ling
Str
ateg
icC
orp
ora
tio
n Sd
n.B
hd,
Mir
i
To d
evel
op
a S
usta
inab
leFo
rest
Man
agem
ent
Syst
em(S
FMS)
and
im
ple
men
t R
IL o
n20
00 h
a o
f fo
rest
.
•P
roje
ct r
epo
rts
•D
emo
nstr
atio
ns o
fre
duc
ed-
imp
act
log
gin
gac
tivi
ties
.•
Tim
ber
har
vest
ing
co
sts
•E
cono
mic
inc
enti
ves
req
uir
ed
•Tr
aini
ng o
f fie
ld s
taff
(fel
ling
, w
inch
ing
)•
RIL
is
ben
efic
ial
in r
educ
ing
neg
ativ
e en
viro
nmen
tal
imp
acts
•R
IL r
equi
res
invo
lvem
ent
of
all
pla
yers
•In
cent
ives
req
uire
d a
tg
ove
rnm
ent
and
pri
vate
sect
or
leve
ls•
RIL
nee
ds
to b
e b
acke
d b
yo
vera
ll SF
M a
pp
roac
h w
ith
mo
nito
ring
and
eva
luat
ion
of
imp
acts
inc
lud
ing
eco
nom
ic a
nd f
inan
cial
imp
acts
in
the
long
and
sho
rt t
erm
s to
pro
mo
tead
op
tio
n
Pro
ject
co
mm
ence
d i
n 19
96.
Man
y o
utco
mes
rep
ort
ed w
ith
2000
ha
of
fore
st l
og
ged
und
er r
educ
ed-i
mp
act
log
gin
g.
Pay
men
t sy
stem
fo
r lo
gg
ing
team
is
imp
ort
ant
for
RIL
imp
lem
enta
tio
n.P
aym
ent
now
bas
ed o
np
rod
ucti
vity
– n
ot
cond
uciv
eto
RIL
.
Sust
aina
ble
Fo
rest
Man
agem
ent
Pro
ject
(SF
MP
Sam
arin
da)
P.T.
Lim
ban
g G
anec
a, K
anw
ilD
epH
utB
un S
amar
ind
a
Imp
lem
enta
tio
n o
f sp
ecifi
c R
ILco
mp
one
nts:
inv
ento
ry,
pla
nnin
g,
felli
ng,
skid
din
g,
clo
sing
-up
, co
ntro
l/b
lock
insp
ecti
on
wag
es (
ince
ntiv
es)
•M
od
el f
ore
st f
or
SFM
imp
lem
enta
tio
n•
Co
mp
arat
ive
stud
y: R
IL v
s.C
L•
Dev
elo
ped
gui
del
ines
fo
rto
po
sur
vey
•R
IL T
ract
or
Log
gin
g p
73an
d S
FMP
No
. 1
•Ti
mb
er C
ruis
ing
SFM
PN
o.1
6•
RIL
pra
ctic
al G
uid
elin
eSF
MP
No
. 10
•Ti
mb
er h
arve
stin
g c
ost
stu
die
s
•R
IL n
ot
diff
icul
t at
pla
nnin
gan
d o
per
ato
r le
vel
•R
IL r
equi
res
inte
nsiv
eco
ntr
ol
•R
IL n
eed
s fin
anci
alin
cent
ives
•R
IL s
kid
din
g i
s lo
wer
pro
duc
tivi
ty,
but
pla
nnin
gm
akes
it
mo
re e
ffic
ient
•R
IL i
s no
t lin
ked
to
TP
TI i
nfi
eld
•R
IL i
s ke
y in
dic
ato
r fo
r LE
I-F
SC
•R
IL i
s im
po
rtan
t fo
rce
rtif
icat
ion
Nee
d t
o g
athe
r re
leva
ntin
form
atio
n an
d f
rom
var
ious
reg
ions
in
the
tro
pic
s an
dan
alys
e w
hy R
IL i
s no
tst
and
ard
pro
ced
ure.
Ap
pen
dix
I. C
ont
inue
d
32
Who Pays for and Who Benefits from Improved Timber Harvesting Practices in the Tropics
Pro
ject
Nam
eD
escr
ipti
on
Pro
duc
tsFi
ndin
gs/
Less
ons
Co
mm
ents
Sust
aina
ble
Fo
rest
Man
agem
ent
on
pri
vate
land
s in
the
Wet
Tro
pic
s o
fN
ort
h Q
ueen
slan
d,
Aus
tral
ia
Que
ensl
and
Fo
rest
Res
earc
hIn
stit
ute,
Aus
tral
ia
Co
nser
vati
on
of
nati
ve f
ore
sts
on
pri
vate
lan
ds,
by
imp
lem
enti
ng s
usta
inab
lefo
rest
man
agem
ent
pra
ctic
es,
incl
udin
g t
imb
er h
arve
stin
gw
hile
mai
ntai
ning
oth
er f
ore
stva
lues
. N
eed
fo
r R
IL a
ndo
ther
pra
ctic
es t
o b
e ap
plie
dto
pri
vate
tro
pic
al f
ore
sts
•P
rop
osa
l b
ased
on
NQ
Sust
aina
ble
Fo
rest
Man
agem
ent
Syst
em f
or
tro
pic
al f
ore
sts
•R
esul
ts o
f nu
mer
ous
RIL
stu
die
s•
Gro
wth
and
yie
ldin
form
atio
n b
ased
on
ala
rge
num
ber
of
per
man
ent
sam
ple
plo
ts
•In
cent
ives
rat
her
than
leg
isla
tive
reg
ulat
ion
are
mo
re p
ract
ical
fo
rm
anag
emen
t
Dem
ons
trat
ion
fore
st i
n N
Qfo
r tr
op
ical
co
untr
ies
dev
elo
ped
by
Gra
ham
eA
pp
leg
ate
and
Mar
kA
nn
and
ale
Pro
po
sal
dis
cuss
ed w
ith
Go
vern
men
t o
f A
ustr
alia
and
stat
e g
ove
rnm
ent
inQ
ueen
slan
d
No
rth
Wes
t G
uyan
aSu
stai
nab
le T
imb
erP
rod
ucti
on
Pro
gra
mm
e
Bar
ama
Co
mp
any
Ltd
Ed
inb
urg
h C
entr
e fo
r Tr
op
ical
Fo
rest
sG
ove
rnm
ent
of
Guy
ana
Sust
aini
ng t
he f
ore
st w
hils
tse
lect
ivel
y ha
rves
ting
a m
ajo
rna
tura
l res
our
ce f
or
the
ben
efit
of t
he c
om
pan
y, p
eop
le a
ndG
ove
rnm
ent o
f Guy
ana
thro
ugh
a p
rog
ram
me
of
rese
arch
and
mo
nito
ring
•W
ritt
en r
epo
rts,
unp
ublis
hed
and
pub
lishe
d(a
vaila
ble
on
req
uest
)•
RIL
res
earc
h re
sult
s•
Ing
lis e
t al
. (1
996)
•Im
pro
ved
ski
d t
rail
cons
truc
tio
n is
eff
icie
nt•
RIL
ski
lled
sta
ff i
s d
iffic
ult
to f
ind
and
ret
ain
-in
cent
ives
par
t o
f th
eso
luti
on
•N
eed
fo
r m
oni
tori
ng,
trai
ning
and
sup
ervi
sio
n fo
rR
IL t
o w
ork
•N
eed
to
ad
dre
ss a
ll R
ILco
mp
one
nts,
no
t ju
stcu
ttin
g a
nd s
kid
din
g•
Wo
od
was
te a
nd s
kid
tra
ild
esig
n ar
e im
po
rtan
t is
sues
Iwo
kram
a
Dir
ecto
rP
O B
ox
1083
0, G
eorg
eto
wn
Gu
yan
a
To d
evel
op
par
tner
ship
sre
qui
red
fo
r th
e su
stai
ned
pro
duc
tio
n o
f a
wid
e ra
nge
of
go
od
s an
d s
ervi
ces
wit
h hi
gh
stan
dar
ds
of
envi
ronm
enta
lst
ewar
dsh
ip a
nd s
oci
alre
spo
nsi
bili
tyTh
e su
stai
nab
le m
anag
emen
to
f tr
op
ical
rai
nfo
rest
s ai
ms
tod
emo
nstr
ate
how
fo
rest
s ca
nb
e co
nser
ved
, util
ised
, and
yiel
d e
cono
mic
and
so
cial
ben
efit
s
•R
oad
Man
agem
ent
Pla
n•
Zo
ning
Pla
n fo
r W
ilder
ness
Res
erve
and
Sus
tain
able
Uti
lisat
ion
Are
a•
Gre
enhe
art
dis
trib
utio
nm
od
el u
sing
to
po
gra
phi
cal
and
mul
tiva
riat
e an
alys
is•
Spat
ial
and
tem
po
ral
bio
mas
s co
mp
aris
ons
of
diff
eren
t fo
rest
typ
es
•Iw
okr
ama’
s g
ove
rnan
ce i
sin
tern
atio
nal
so i
t fo
cuse
so
n al
l fo
rest
val
ues
and
follo
ws
an i
nteg
rate
dap
pro
ach
to c
ons
erva
tio
nan
d d
evel
op
men
t.
Iwo
kram
a fo
cuse
s o
nsu
stai
nab
le d
evel
op
men
t an
dd
emo
nstr
ates
ho
w r
ainf
ore
stec
osy
stem
s ca
n b
e co
nser
ved
whi
le c
ont
rib
utin
g t
o l
oca
lan
d n
atio
nal
dev
elo
pm
ent
Ap
pen
dix
I. C
ont
inue
d
33
Grahame Applegate, Francis E. Putz and Laura K. Snook
Ap
pen
dix
I. C
ont
inue
d
Pro
ject
Nam
eD
escr
ipti
on
Pro
duc
tsFi
ndin
gs/
Less
ons
Co
mm
ents
Man
agem
ent o
f Mio
mb
oW
oo
dla
nd
s
CIF
OR
, H
arar
e, Z
imb
abw
eP
rofe
sso
r W
.S.
Ab
eli
Soko
ine
Uni
vers
ity
of
Ag
ricu
ltur
eM
oro
go
ro,
Tan
zan
ia
Trop
ical
Fore
st F
oun
dat
ion
(TFF
) In
do
nesi
a
Man
gg
ala
Wan
abak
ti,
Blk
IV
9th F
loo
r, Ja
kart
a, I
ndo
nesi
a
Inno
pri
se C
orp
ora
tio
n
Inno
pri
se C
orp
ora
tio
n Sd
nB
hd
Ko
ta K
inab
alu,
Sab
ah,
Mal
aysi
a
To a
sses
s th
e p
rod
uctiv
ity o
fco
nven
tio
nal
harv
esti
ngm
etho
ds,
pro
duc
tio
n o
fre
sid
ues
and
env
iro
nmen
tal
imp
act
of
harv
esti
ng i
nw
oo
dla
nd.
To
dev
elo
pst
rate
gie
s fo
r th
e im
pro
ved
harv
esti
ng p
ract
ices
and
man
agem
ent
of
the
tim
ber
/w
oo
d c
om
po
nent
of
the
wo
od
land
s in
Tan
zani
a an
dZ
amb
ia.
•D
raft
rep
ort
on
app
rop
riate
timb
er h
arve
stin
g p
ract
ices
for
Mio
mb
o w
oo
dla
nds
inTa
nzan
ia a
nd Z
amb
ia•
Tree
pro
duc
tivi
ty a
ndb
iod
iver
sity
of
a co
mm
unal
Mio
mb
o w
oo
dla
nd i
nH
and
eni
Dis
tric
t, T
anza
nia.
•St
reng
then
ed li
nks
bet
wee
nth
e So
koin
e U
nive
rsity
of
Ag
ricul
ture
and
Co
pp
erb
elt
Uni
vers
ity in
Zam
bia
Pre
limin
ary
resu
lts f
rom
the
harv
estin
g im
pac
t st
udie
s ar
eav
aila
ble
.
This
is a
uni
que
op
po
rtun
ity t
oin
vest
igat
e ap
pro
pria
teha
rves
ting
pra
ctic
es i
nw
oo
dla
nd c
om
mun
itie
s as
mo
st s
tud
ies
are
und
erta
ken
in t
he h
igh
tro
pic
al m
ois
tfo
rest
s in
Afr
ica,
Asi
a an
dLa
tin
Am
eric
a.
The
Tro
pic
al F
ore
st F
oun
dat
ion
(TFF
) is
an in
tern
atio
nal N
GO
with
a m
and
ate
to p
rom
ote
red
uced
-imp
act l
ogg
ing
thro
ugh
info
rmat
ion
dis
sem
inat
ion,
tra
inin
g a
ndex
tens
ion
in S
out
heas
t A
sia.
•Tr
aini
ng c
our
se in
RIL
tech
niq
ues
•M
anua
ls f
or
RIL
op
erat
ions
•C
orp
ora
te s
ecto
r is
the
key
to a
do
pti
on
of
RIL
•La
ck o
f un
der
stan
din
g i
nin
dus
try
of
ben
efit
s o
f R
IL•
Lack
of
trai
ning
and
educ
atio
n is
a m
ajo
rim
ped
imen
t to
ad
op
tion
of
RIL
Fore
st m
anag
ers
and
fo
rest
com
pan
ies
mus
t ac
cep
t a
gre
ater
res
po
nsib
ility
fo
r th
eac
hiev
emen
t o
f im
pro
ved
fore
st m
anag
emen
t an
d t
head
op
tio
n o
f R
IL
The
Inno
pris
e C
orp
ora
tion,
inas
soci
atio
n w
ith
the
New
Eng
land
Po
wer
, d
evel
op
edan
d i
mp
lem
ente
d r
educ
ed-
imp
act
log
gin
g g
uid
elin
es o
n24
00 h
a o
f d
ipte
roca
rp-
do
min
ated
fo
rest
s in
Sab
ah
•R
educ
ed-Im
pac
t Log
gin
gG
uid
elin
es d
evel
op
ed a
ndap
plie
d o
ver
4000
0 ha
•C
ost
est
imat
es o
f ca
rbo
nre
tent
ion
fro
m R
IL•
Fina
ncia
l as
sess
men
t o
f R
IL•
Trai
ning
fo
r o
ver
2000
wo
rker
s im
ple
men
ted
•R
IL r
educ
es d
amag
e o
n so
ilsan
d r
esid
ual f
ore
st b
y 50
%•
RIL
is m
ore
exp
ensi
ve t
han
CL
in h
illy
terr
ain
•R
IL r
educ
es n
et l
og
gab
lear
ea,
whi
ch i
s su
bst
anti
al i
nhi
lly t
erra
in•
Cur
rent
mo
de
of p
aym
ent
of
fore
st w
ork
ers
anim
ped
imen
t to
ad
op
tion
of
RIL
The
Sab
ah s
ite p
rovi
des
evid
ence
tha
t R
IL c
an b
eo
per
atio
nal,
but
als
oin
dic
ates
whe
re m
od
ifica
tio
nsm
ay b
e re
qui
red
if
RIL
is
to b
ere
adily
ad
op
ted
in
very
hill
yte
rrai
n. A
lter
nati
ves
tog
roun
d-b
ased
tim
ber
harv
esti
ng o
per
atio
ns m
ayal
so n
eed
to
be
cons
ider
ed i
nve
ry h
illy
terr
ain
34
Who Pays for and Who Benefits from Improved Timber Harvesting Practices in the Tropics
Ap
pen
dix
I. C
ont
inue
d
Pro
ject
Nam
eD
escr
ipti
on
Pro
duc
tsFi
ndin
gs/
Less
ons
Co
mm
ents
Pro
yect
o d
e M
anej
o F
ore
stal
Sost
enib
le e
n B
oliv
ia (B
OLF
OR
)
http
://b
olfo
r.che
mo
nics
.net
/
BO
LFO
R is
a m
ultif
acet
edfo
rest
co
nser
vati
on
and
dev
elo
pm
ent
pro
ject
tha
tin
clud
es r
esea
rch
on
and
imp
lem
enta
tio
n o
f R
IL a
s o
neo
f it
s co
mp
one
nts.
•C
oup
led
with
new
mar
ketin
gst
rate
gie
s, m
any
com
po
nent
s o
f R
IL a
reco
st-e
ffec
tive
•Lo
gg
ers
who
are
aw
are
of
the
ben
efit
s o
f R
IL a
do
pt
som
e o
f th
e co
mp
one
nts
spo
ntan
eous
ly (
e.g
., s
tock
map
pin
g a
nd s
om
e vi
necu
ttin
g)
•Va
rio
us p
ublic
atio
ns o
nR
IL,
SFM
, an
d S
TY
BO
LFO
R w
ill e
nd in
200
4 b
utm
ost
of
the
fore
stry
-rel
ated
acti
viti
es w
ill b
e co
ntin
ued
by
its
coun
terp
art
org
anis
atio
ns,
incl
udin
g t
heSu
per
inte
nden
cia
Fore
stal
and
the
Mus
eo d
e H
isto
raN
atur
al N
oel
Kem
pff
Mer
cad
o i
n Sa
nta
Cru
z,B
oliv
ia.
Fund
acão
Flo
rest
al T
rop
ical
(FFT
) B
razi
l
Joha
n Zw
eed
eB
elem
, B
razi
l
TFF
and
its
Bra
zilia
n su
bsi
dia
ryFu
ndaç
ão F
lore
stal
Tro
pic
al(F
FT) a
re b
eco
min
g w
idel
yre
cog
nise
d fo
r es
tab
lishi
ngd
emo
nstr
atio
n m
od
els
and
trai
ning
to
sho
w t
head
vant
ages
and
tea
ch t
hep
rinc
iple
s o
f su
stai
nab
lefo
rest
man
agem
ent
thro
ugh
RIL
in
Bra
zil.
•Tr
aine
d la
rge
num
ber
s o
fp
erso
nnel
in
RIL
tec
hniq
ues
fro
m 1
995
•E
stab
lishe
d s
ever
al 1
00 h
aha
rves
ting
dem
ons
trat
ion
mo
de
ls•
Trai
ning
pro
gra
mm
es o
nR
IL•
Trai
ning
man
uals
on
RIL
•R
IL r
educ
es d
amag
e to
resi
dua
l st
and
and
so
ils•
RIL
cre
ates
few
er r
oad
s an
dsk
id t
rails
, re
duc
es s
oil
dis
turb
ance
and
pro
tect
sb
iod
ive
rsit
y•
RIL
is
seen
as
an i
nteg
ral
par
t o
f fo
rest
cer
tific
atio
nan
d m
ay p
rovi
de
low
-co
sto
pti
ons
fo
r ca
rbo
n si
nks
•P
aper
on
‘Fin
anci
al C
ost
san
d B
enef
its
of
Red
uced
Imp
act
Log
gin
g i
n th
eE
aste
rn A
maz
on’
The
TFF
has
pro
gra
mm
es b
eing
imp
lem
ente
d in
oth
er p
arts
of
Latin
Am
eric
a, n
amel
y G
uyan
aS.
A.,
as w
ell a
s In
do
nesi
a, a
ndth
ere
are
pla
ns t
o e
xpan
d t
oA
fric
a.
•Tr
aine
d fi
eld
cre
ws
in R
ILte
chni
que
s fr
om
199
4•
Est
ablis
hed
lar
ge-
scal
e (2
7ha
) an
d r
eplic
ated
silv
icul
tura
l tr
eatm
ent
plo
tsw
ith
diff
eren
t in
tens
itie
s o
fsi
lvic
ultu
ral
trea
tmen
ts•
Ass
iste
d i
n d
evel
op
men
t o
fth
e te
chni
cal
stan
dar
ds
for
imp
lem
enta
tio
n o
f th
e 19
96Fo
rest
Law
35
Grahame Applegate, Francis E. Putz and Laura K. SnookA
pp
end
ix I.
Co
ntin
ued
Pro
ject
Nam
eD
escr
ipti
on
Pro
duc
tsFi
ndin
gs/
Less
ons
Co
mm
ents
Mal
inau
Res
earc
h Fo
rest
Min
istr
y o
f Fo
rest
ry In
do
nesi
aan
d C
IFO
R
The
Min
istr
y o
f Fo
rest
ry in
Ind
one
sia
des
igna
ted
321
000
ha o
f fo
rest
in
Eas
tK
alim
anta
n, In
do
nesi
a, fo
r th
eC
ente
r fo
r In
tern
atio
nal
Fore
stry
Res
earc
h (C
IFO
R)
tob
e d
evel
op
ed a
s a
long
-ter
mm
od
el f
ore
st o
f ex
emp
lary
rese
arch
-bas
ed m
anag
emen
t.R
esea
rch
is d
esig
ned
to
char
acte
rise
the
co
ord
inat
ion
and
dec
isio
n-m
akin
gp
roce
sses
am
ong
sta
keho
lder
sto
det
erm
ine
sust
aina
ble
use
of
the
fore
sts
and
to
det
erm
ine
and
imp
lem
ent s
usta
inab
lefo
rest
man
agem
ent
in t
hem
od
el f
ore
st a
rea
•A
naly
sis
of l
og
gin
g d
amag
eco
mp
aris
on
bet
wee
n C
L an
dR
IL.
•C
ost
-ben
efit
anal
ysis
of
RIL
•B
iod
iver
sity
and
geo
gra
phi
cal
info
rmat
ion
for
imp
rove
d l
and
use
dec
isio
ns;
mul
tid
isci
plin
ary
land
scap
e as
sess
men
ts•
To p
rovi
de
a b
ette
rkn
ow
led
ge
of
fore
stp
rod
ucts
and
of
fore
stp
eop
le i
n th
e m
od
el f
ore
star
ea
•A
ctio
n re
sear
ch o
nne
go
tiat
ing
co
nflic
t an
dco
mm
unit
y em
po
wer
men
tin
fo
rest
are
as;
par
tici
pat
ory
map
pin
g o
fth
e vi
llag
es a
long
the
Mal
inau
Riv
er,
Eas
tK
alim
anta
n•
Red
uced
Im
pac
t Lo
gg
ing
Gui
del
ines
fo
r Lo
wla
nd a
ndH
ill D
ipte
roca
rp F
ore
sts
inIn
do
nesi
a, w
hich
pro
vid
edth
e m
inim
um s
tand
ard
s fo
rth
e co
mp
one
nts
of
the
RIL
vs.
CL
exp
erim
ents
.•
Red
uced
Im
pac
t G
uid
elin
esfo
r In
do
nesi
a
•C
om
par
ativ
e an
alys
is o
f R
ILvs
. C
L o
n 30
0 ha
usi
ngsa
mp
le p
lots
. T
he r
esul
tssh
ow
ed t
hat
RIL
red
uced
the
dam
age
by
50%
and
that
fel
ling
int
ensi
ty o
f 7–
9tr
ees
per
ha
caus
edd
amag
e to
the
res
idua
lst
and
and
so
il an
d w
ater
reso
urce
s at
acc
epta
ble
leve
ls.
•A
co
mp
arat
ive
anal
ysis
of
the
eco
nom
ic a
nd f
inan
cial
cost
s o
f se
lect
edco
mp
one
nts
of
RIL
and
CL
foun
d t
hat
a p
rod
ucti
vity
incr
ease
in
felli
ng a
ndsk
idd
ing
of
28%
and
25%
resp
ecti
vely
was
po
ssib
le.
RIL
was
les
s ex
pen
sive
tha
nC
L un
der
the
se c
ond
itio
ns.
•D
ata
pro
duc
ed f
rom
land
scap
e as
sess
men
ts f
or
land
use
pla
nnin
g a
ndb
iod
iver
sity
ass
essm
ent
•A
gro
-eco
nom
ic s
urve
y w
asal
so c
om
ple
ted
in
5vi
llag
es,
whi
ch s
how
ed t
hed
egre
e o
f d
epen
den
cy o
fd
iffer
ent
com
mun
itie
s o
nfo
rest
pro
duc
ts•
Dev
elo
pm
ent
of m
od
els
toid
entif
y tr
end
s in
fo
rest
dep
end
ence
, ho
w c
hang
es in
fore
st c
ond
itio
n m
ight
aff
ect
livel
ihoo
ds
•A
dap
tive
co-m
anag
emen
t of
fore
sts
actio
n re
sear
ch o
nco
nflic
t re
solu
tion
and
com
mun
ity e
mp
ow
erm
ent i
nth
e m
od
el f
ore
st a
rea
The
CIF
OR
co
mm
itmen
t and
rese
arch
is o
ngo
ing
.
CIF
OR
wel
com
es s
cien
tist
s to
colla
bo
rate
wit
h us
in
wo
rkin
g i
n th
e M
alin
auFo
rest
, E
ast
Kal
iman
tan,
Ind
on
esi
a.