Financial and Economic Analysis of Reduced Impact Logging

Reference work entry

Abstract

Concern regarding extensive damage to tropical forests resulting from logging increased dramatically after World War II when mechanized logging systems developed in industrialized countries were deployed in the tropics. As a consequence, tropical foresters began developing logging procedures that were more environmentally benign, and by the 1990s, these practices began to be described as “reduced-impact logging” (RIL) systems. As scientific evidence accumulated demonstrating that RIL techniques could substantially reduce logging impacts on the residual forest relative to conventional logging (CL), attention turned to understanding the financial conditions under which logging firms would choose to implement RIL. While most studies conducted in Latin America show that RIL is financially competitive or superior to CL, research in Southeast Asia and Africa suggests that economic incentives will likely be required to induce logging firms to adopt RIL. One approach that appears promising to promote better logging practices in the tropics is to offer payments for the incremental carbon retained by RIL systems.

Keywords

Bioeconomic models Carbon payments Forest damage Forest resilience Sustainable tropical forest management 

References

  1. Amaral P, Veríssimo A, Barreto P, Vidal E (1998) Florest para sempre: um manual para a produção de madeira na Amazônia. IMAZON, BelémGoogle Scholar
  2. Asner GP, Broadbent EN, Oliveira PJC, Keller M, Knapp DE, Sliva JNM (2006) Condition and fate of logged forests in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103(34):12947–12950CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Asner GP, Rudel T, Aide TM, Defries R, Emerson R (2009) A contemporary assessment of change in humid tropical forests. Conserv Biol 23(6):1386–1395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bach CF (1999) Economic incentives for sustainable management: a small optimal control model for tropical forestry. Ecol Econ 39:251–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barlow J, Peres CA (2008) Fire-mediated dieback and compositional cascade in an Amazonian forest. Philos Trans R Soc B 363:1787–1794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barreto P, Amaral P, Vidal E, Uhl C (1998) Costs and benefits of forest management for timber production in eastern Amazônia. For Ecol Manage 108:9–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauch SC, Amacher GS, Merry FD (2007) Cost of harvesting, transportation, and milling in the Brazilian Amazon: estimation and policy implications. For Policy Econ 9:903–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blaser J, Sarre A, Poore D, Johnson S (2011) Status of tropical forest management 2011, vol 38, ITTO technical series. International Tropical Timber Organization, YokohamaGoogle Scholar
  9. Boltz F, Carter DR, Holmes TP, Pereira R Jr (2001) Financial returns under uncertainty for conventional and reduced-impact logging in permanent production forests. Ecol Econ 39:387–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boltz F, Holmes TP, Carter DR (2003) Economic and environmental impacts of conventional and reduced-impact logging in Tropical South America: a comparative review. For Policy Econ 5:69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boscolo M, Vincent JR (2000) Promoting better logging practices in tropical forests: a simulation analysis of alternative regulations. Land Econ 76:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowles IA, Rice RE, Mittermeier RA, da Fonseca GAB (1998) Logging and tropical forest conservation. Science 280(5371):1899–1900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boxman O, de Graaf NR, Hendrison J, Jonkers WBJ, Poels RLH, Schmidt P, Sang RTL (1985) Towards sustained timber production from tropical rain forests in Suriname. Neth J Agric Sci 33:125–132Google Scholar
  14. Chazdon RL (1998) Tropical forests – log ‘em or leave ‘em? Science 281:1295–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chazdon RL, Peres CA, Dent D, Sheil D, Lugo AE, Lamb D, Stork NE, Miller SE (2009) The potential for species conservation in tropical secondary forests. Conserv Biol 23(6):1406–1417CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Chichilnisky G (1997) What is sustainable development? Land Econ 73(4):467–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cochrane MA, Skole DL, Matricardi EAT, Barber C, Chomentowski W (2004) Selective logging, forest fragmentation, and fire disturbance: implications of interaction and synergy. In: Zarin DJ, Alavalapati JRR, Putz FE, Schmink M (eds) Working forests in the neotropics: conservation through sustainable management? Columbia University Press, New York, pp 310–324Google Scholar
  18. Dykstra D (2002) Reduce impact logging: concepts and issues. In: Enters T, Durst PB, Applegate GB, Kho PCS, Man G (eds) Applying reduced impact logging to advance sustainable forest management. FAO, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  19. Dykstra D, Heinrich R (1996) FAO model code of forest harvesting practice. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  20. FAO (2004) Reduced impact logging in tropical forests: literature synthesis, analysis, and prototype statistical framework, Forest harvest and engineering programme. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher B, Edwards DP, Wilcove DS (2014) Logging and conservation: economic impacts of the stocking rates and prices of commercial timber species. For Policy Econ 38:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fox JED (1968) Logging damage and the influence of climber cutting prior to logging in the lowland dipterocarp forest of Sabah. Malay For 31:326–347Google Scholar
  23. Frederickson TS, Putz FE (2003) Silvicultural intensification for tropical forest conservation. Biodivers Conserv 12:1445–1453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frumhoff PC, Losos EC (1998) Setting priorities for conserving biological diversity in tropical timber production forests. Union of Concerned Scientists, Center for Tropical Forest Science, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 14 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. Gaveau DLA, Curran LM, Paoli GD, Carlson KM, Wells P, Besse-Rimba A, Ratnasari D, Leader-Williams N (2012) Examining protected area effectiveness in Sumatra: importance of regulations governing unprotected lands. Conserv Lett 5:142–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gibson L, Lee TM, Koh LP, Brook BW, Gardner TA, Barlow J, Peres CA, Bradshaw CJA, Laurance WF, Lovejoy TE, Sodhi NS (2011) Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining biodiversity. Nature 478:378–383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Healey JR, Price C, Tay J (2000) The cost of carbon retention by reduced impact logging. For Ecol Manage 139:237–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hendrison J (1990) Damage-controlled logging in managed tropical rain forest in Suriname. Doctoral thesis, (available online from) Wageningen Agricultural University. Also published in the series Ecology and management of tropical rain forests in Suriname, Wageningen Agricultural UniversityGoogle Scholar
  29. Holmes TP, Blate GM, Zweede JC, Pereira R Jr, Barreto P, Boltz F, Bauch R (2002) Financial and ecological indicators of reduced impact logging performance in the eastern Amazon. For Ecol Manage 163:93–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Indrajaya Y, van der Werf E, van Ierland E, Mohen F (2014) Optimal forest management when logging damages and costs differ between logging practices, CESfio working paper no 4606. Available at http://hdl.handlee.net/10419/93387
  31. Johns JS, Barreto P, Uhl C (1996) Logging damage during planned and unplanned logging operations in the eastern Amazon. For Ecol Manage 89:59–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jonkers WBJ (1987) Vegetation structure, logging damage and silviculture in a tropical rain forest in Suriname, vol 3, Ecology and management of tropical rain forests in Suriname. Wageningen Agricultural University, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  33. Krueger W (2004) Effects of future crop tree flagging and skid trail planning on conventional diameter-limit logging in a Bolivian tropical forest. For Ecol Manage 188(1):381–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Macpherson AJ, Schulze MD, Carter DR, Vidal E (2010) A model for comparing reduced impact logging with conventional logging for an eastern Amazonian forest. Forest Ecol Manage 260:2002–2011Google Scholar
  35. Malhi Y, Aragão LEOC, Galbraith D, Huntingford C, Fisher R, Zelazowski P, Sitch S, McSweeny C, Meir P (2009) Exploring the likelihood and mechanism of a climate-change-induced dieback of the Amazon rainforest. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:20610–20615CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Mazzei L, Sist P, Ruschel A, Putz FE, Marco P, Pena W, Evandro J, Ferreira R (2010) Above ground biomass dynamics after reduced-impact logging in the Eastern Amazon. For Ecol Manage 259:367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Medjibe VP, Putz FE (2012) Cost comparisons of reduced-impact and conventional logging in the tropics. J For Econ 18:242–256Google Scholar
  38. Nepstad DC, Veríssimo A, Alencart A, Nobre C, Lima E, Lefebvre P, Schlesinger P, Potter C, Moutinho P, Mendoza E, Cochrane M, Brooks V (1999) Large-scale impoverishment of Amazonian forests by logging and fire. Nature 398:505–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nicholson DI (1958) An analysis of logging damage in tropical rainforest, North Borneo. Malay For 21:235–245Google Scholar
  40. Peña-Claros M, Frederickson TS, Alarcón A, Blate GM, Choque U, Leaño C, Licona JC, Mostacedo B, Pariona W, Villegas Z, Putz FE (2008) Beyond reduced impact logging: silvicultural treatments to increase growth rates of tropical trees. For Ecol Manage 256:1458–1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pinard MA, Putz FE (1996) Retaining forest biomass by reducing logging damage. Biotropica 28:278–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pinard MA, Barker MG, Tay J (2000) Soil disturbance and post-logging forest recovery on bulldozer paths in Sabah, Malaysia. For Ecol Manage 130:213–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Putz FE, Pinard M (1993) Reduced-impact logging as a carbon-offset method. Conserv Biol 7:755–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Putz FE, Dykstra DP, Heinrich R (2000) Why poor logging practices persist in the tropics. Conserv Biol 14(4):951–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Putz FE, Blate GM, Redford KH, Fimbel R, Robinson J (2001) Tropical forest management and conservation of biodiversity: an overview. Conserv Biol 15:7–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Putz FE (2004) Are you a conservationist or a logging advocate? In: Zarin DJ, Alavalapati JRR, Putz FE, Schmink M (eds) Working forests in the neotropics: conservation through sustainable management? Columbia University Press, New York, pp 15–30Google Scholar
  47. Putz FE, Zuidema PA, Pinard MA, Boot RGA, Sayer JA, Sheil D, Sist P, Elias, Vanclay JK (2008) Improved tropical forest management for carbon retention. PLoS Biol 6:e166–e167CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Putz FE, Zuidema PA, Synnott T, Pẽna-Claros M, Pinard MA, Sheil D, Vanclay JK, Sist P, Gourlet-Fleury S, Griscom B, Palmer J, Zagt R (2012) Sustaining conservation values in selectively logged tropical forests: the attained and the attainable. Conserv Lett 5(4):296–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rice RE, Gullison RE, Reid JW (1997) Can sustainable management save tropical forests? Sci Am 276:44–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sist P, Brown N (2004) Silvicultural intensification for tropical forest conservation: a response to Fredickerson and Putz. Biodivers Conserv 13:2381–2385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sist P, Ferreira FN (2007) Sustainability of reduce-impact logging in the Eastern Amazon. For Ecol Manage 243:199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sist P, Fimbel R, Sheil D, Nasi R, Chevallier M-H (2003) Towards sustainable management of mixed dipterocarp forests of Southeast-Asia: moving beyond minimum diameter cutting limits. Environ Conserv 30:364–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sist P, Mazzei L, Blanc L, Rutishauser E (2014) Large trees as key elements of carbon storage and dynamics after selective logging in the Eastern Amazon. For Ecol Manage 318:103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stolle F, Chomitz KM, Lambin EF, Tomich TP (2003) Land use and vegetation fires in Jambi Province, Sumatra, Indonesia. For Ecol Manage 179(1):277–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tay J (2000) Economics of reduced impact logging techniques in Sabah, Malaysia. Ph.D. thesis, University College of North Wales, BangorGoogle Scholar
  56. Tay J, Healy J, Price C (2002) Financial assessment of reduced impact logging techniques in Sabah, Malaysia. In: Enters T, Durst PB, Applegate GB, Kho PCS, Man G (eds) Applying reduced impact logging to advance sustainable forest management. FAO, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  57. Uhl C, Barreto P, Veríssimo A, Vidal E, Amaral P, Barros AC, Souja C Jr, Johns J, Gerwing J (1997) Natural resource management in the Brazilian Amazon: an integrated research approach. BioScience 47:160–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van der Hout P (1999) Reduced impact logging in the tropical rain forest of Guyana: ecological, economic and silvicultural consequences, vol 6, Tropenbos-Guyana series. Tropenbos Foundation, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  59. Wadsworth FH, Zweede JC (2006) Liberation: acceptable production of tropical forest timber. For Ecol Manage 233:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Winkler N (1997) Environmentally sound forest harvesting: testing the applicability of the FAO model code in the Amazon in Brazil, vol 8, Forest harvesting case study. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  61. Wyatt-Smith J, Foenander EC (1962) Damage to regeneration as a result of logging. Malay For 25:40–44Google Scholar
  62. Zarin DJ, Alavalapati JRR, Putz FE, Schmink M (2004) Working forests in the tropics: conservation through sustainable management? Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. Zweede J, Merry FD, Dias A (2003) Three years after: early stand re-entry in reduced impact logging in neo-tropical forests. Int J For Eng 14:102Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (outside the USA) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Research Triangle ParkAsheville, NCUSA

Personalised recommendations