Who pays for and who benefits from improved …Who Pays for and Who Benefits from Improved Timber Harvesting Practices in the Tropics? Lessons Learned and Information Gaps Grahame

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


• 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


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


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


• 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.

Documents

Who pays for and who benefits from improved …Who Pays for and Who Benefits from Improved Timber Harvesting Practices in the Tropics? Lessons Learned and Information Gaps Grahame