Advertisement

The Value of Timber and Non-timber Forest Products

  • Alastair Fraser
Chapter
Part of the Sustainable Development Goals Series book series (SDGS)

Abstract

In this chapter, the disparity in value between the marketable values of forests and the main alternative land-uses is discussed. This results from the low value of logs and, especially in the tropics the low proportion of commercially usable log volume. Thus the returns on investing in sustainable forest management and the establishment of plantations are low compared with alternatives. If land developers had to pay for all the carbon in forest that they wished to clear it would raise the opportunity cost substantially and give a strong incentive to minimise the area cleared and focus on making the alternative land-use as efficient as possible. The low value of logs especially those harvested illegally is a disincentive to invest in modern efficient wood processing resulting in very high levels of waste. The area of plantations needs to be greatly expanded, but finding suitable land will be difficult, and the plantations will need to be made more environmentally acceptable by incorporating multi-purpose species.

Keywords

Opportunity cost Timber values Carbon price Wastage Plantations 

References

  1. Asian Development Bank. (2017). Project completion report, forest for livelihood improvement in the Central Highlands Project in Vietnam. Manila, Philippines.Google Scholar
  2. Bowman, M. S., Soares-Filho, B. S., Merry, F. D., Nepstad, D. C., Rodrigues, H., & Almeida, O. T. (2011). Persistence of cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon: A spatial analysis of the rationale for beef production. Journal of Land-use Policy, 29(3), 558–568.  https://doi.org/10.1016/jlandusepol.2011.09.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burke, W. J., Hchaambwa, M., Banda, D., & Jayne, S. (2011). The cost of maize production by smallholder farmers in Zambia (Working Paper 50). Lusaka: Food Security Research Project.Google Scholar
  4. Ding, H., Nunes, P. A. L. D., & Enofri, L. (2007). An economic model of bioprospecting contracts. Fondazione Ena Enrico Mattei Nota di Lavoro 102. www.feem.it/feem/Pub/Publications/WPapers/default.htm
  5. Faruqi, S., Wu, A., Bous, E., Ortega, A. A., & Batista, A. (2018). The business of planting trees; a growing investment opportunity. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute and the Nature Conservancy.Google Scholar
  6. Kusser, T. A., Caballero-George, C. C., Capson, T. L., Cabello-Rios, L., Gennet, W. H., Gupta, H. P., et al. (2006). Securing economic benefits and promoting conservation though bioprospecting. Bioscience, 53(12), 1005–1912.Google Scholar
  7. Millum, J. (2016). How should the benefits of bioprospecting be shared? The Hastings Center Report, 40(1), 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Rabobank (2017) Raboresearch Beef quarterly Q2, 2017 the following website may be added: https://services.rabobank.com/publicationservice/download/.../rkWyrYMd6hWcVScJKR.
  9. Novak, S. (2017). Fodder trees on dairy farms. In Agroforestry innovations 45, Agforward research project. France: INRA. www.agforward.euGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alastair Fraser
    • 1
  1. 1.Consultant in Forest Policy and EconomicsPerthshireUK

Personalised recommendations