Is multiple-use forest management widely implementable in the tropics?

García-Fernández, Carmen; Ruiz‐Pérez, Manuel; Wunder, Sven

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.04.029

Cited by 75 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Here, a challenge will be to translate storylines of scenarios to actual changes in ESS (Priess and Hauck 2014), especially at the local scale. The applied mapping approach should be transferable to most urban forests in Europe; the comparison between ESS and forest functions might not only be limited to countries with the forest function concept, but could be done with other forest planning and prioritization instruments, which are used to satisfy multiple-use forestry worldwide (McArdle 1953, García-Fernández et al 2008). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do ecosystem services provide an added value compared to existing forest planning approaches in Central Europe?

Meyer¹,

Schulz²

2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. In forestry research, the concept of ecosystem services (ESS) is less prominent than in agricultural studies. One reason might be that multifunctional forestry and the concept of forest functions, i.e., societal demand from forest, are established and legally required planning approaches in Central Europe, e.g., in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. To explore differences in concept and perspective, we conducted a participatory stakeholder workshop to identify, score, and map ESS in an urban forest in Germany. For comparison, we used existing forest function maps. Forest function mapping as planning approach is based on a regional-scale expert assessment of forest agencies. The local ESS scoring showed a clear preference for recreation, drinking water, biodiversity, mediation of climate and water, and wood provision in decreasing order. Most stakeholder groups scored recreation highest. Drinking water was also important for most stakeholders. Recreation stakeholders scored unbalanced with an apparent focus on their own demand (Gini coefficient: 0.83). Contrastingly, forestry stakeholders scored the ESS in a balanced manner (Gini coefficient: 0.47). ESS and forest function maps highly overlapped. The stakeholders identified both synergies and trade-offs between timber and biodiversity and between drinking water and biodiversity depending on the management. Recreation has mostly trade-offs, with timber, hunting, and drinking water. The stakeholders mapped only few ESS in addition to forest functions, e.g., feed production, beekeeping, and biodiversity hotspots. Although forest functions consider most forest benefits despite weak stakeholder consultation, the opportunity to prioritize forest benefits and to analyze interactions is a clear added value of the ESS approach. The paradigm of simultaneous provision of all forest functions does not reflect heterogeneous societal preferences. The stakeholders showed a rather low level of conflict and a high level of understanding for differences in their prioritization. The reason might be the long local tradition of multiple-use forestry beginning in the late 1800s. The study area is an example for an urban forest of a larger city in Europe with high pressure from local recreation. It would be interesting to test the approach for other environmental conditions and locations of an urban forest. In general, the developed approach could be used to evaluate the quality of other planning instruments for multiple-use forestry worldwide regarding their consideration of stakeholder requirements and the potential added value of the ESS approach.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do ecosystem services provide an added value compared to existing forest planning approaches in Central Europe?

Meyer¹,

Schulz²

2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The conceptual underpinnings of multiple-use forest management (MFM) for timber and non-timber values in tropical forests were laid down almost 20 years ago [15]. Since then, only a few MUFM systems have been implemented in the tropics, the most cited examples being those implemented in Guatemala and Mexico [14,16]. If multiple use management in tropical forests is recognized to be the preferred alternative, in practice, so far, it has remained an elusive goal and is largely ignored as a forest management alternative by stakeholders of the forestry sector.…”

Section: Profits From Timber Harvesting Andiroba Oil Production and mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the expected advantages of combining timber harvesting with NTFPs is generating alternative income during the timber rotation cycle, which usually corresponds to a period of at least 30 years (Garcia-Fernandez et al , Sist et al 2008. Although multiple forest management practices are still common worldwide, their adoption in formal forest management models, especially in the tropics, has serious technical and economic limitations [16]. In the Amazon, multiple use forest management has high potential, as more than 40% of timber species also provide non-timber products [17], some of the main products on existing markets being andiroba oil (Carapa guianensis Aubl.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Contribution of Multiple Use Forest Management to Small Farmers’ Annual Incomes in the Eastern Amazon

Sist

Sablayrolles²,

Barthelon³

et al. 2014

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Small-scale farmers in the Brazilian Amazon collectively hold tenure over more than 12 million ha of permanent forest reserves, as required by the Forest Code. The trade-off between forest conservation and other land uses entails opportunity costs for them and for the country, which have not been sufficiently studied. We assessed the potential income generated by multiple use forest management for farmers and compared it to the income potentially derived from six other agricultural land uses. Income from the forest was from (i) logging, carried out by a logging company in partnership with farmers' associations; and (ii) harvesting the seeds of Carapa guianensis (local name andiroba) for the production of oil. We then compared the income generated by multiple-use forest management with the income from different types of agrarian systems. According to our calculations in this study, the mean annual economic benefits from multiple forest use are OPEN ACCESSForests 2014, 5 1509 the same as the least productive agrarian system, but only 25% of the annual income generated by the most productive system. Although the income generated by logging may be considered low when calculated on an annual basis and compared to incomes generated by agriculture, the one-time payment after logging is significant (US$5,800 to US$33,508) and could be used to implement more intensive and productive cropping systems such as planting black pepper. The income from forest management could also be used to establish permanent fields in deforested areas for highly productive annual crops using conservation agriculture techniques. These techniques are alternatives to the traditional land use based on periodic clearing of the forest. Nevertheless, the shift in current practices towards adoption of more sustainable conservation agriculture techniques will also require the technical and legal support of the State to help small farmers apply these alternatives, which aim to integrate forest management in sustainable agricultural production systems.

show abstract

“…Pese a estas limitaciones, a continuación se ofrecen algunas sugerencias para seguir avanzando en este sentido. García-Fernández et al (2008) plantean la hipótesis de que las condiciones favorables de gobernanza relacionadas con políticas de restitución de tierras, instituciones colectivas efectivas y diseño de modelos de gestión que incluya diferentes grupos de usuarios del recurso forestal constituyen factores claves en propiciar el éxito del uso forestal múltiple en el trópico. Hasta cierto punto, esto ha ocurrido en Petén, Guatemala.…”

Section: Conclusionesunclassified

Hacia un manejo múltiple en bosques tropicales: Consideraciones sobre la compatibilidad del manejo de madera y productos forestales no maderables

Guariguata¹,

Fernández²,

Nasi³

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is multiple-use forest management widely implementable in the tropics?

Cited by 75 publications

References 52 publications

Do ecosystem services provide an added value compared to existing forest planning approaches in Central Europe?

Do ecosystem services provide an added value compared to existing forest planning approaches in Central Europe?

The Contribution of Multiple Use Forest Management to Small Farmers’ Annual Incomes in the Eastern Amazon

Hacia un manejo múltiple en bosques tropicales: Consideraciones sobre la compatibilidad del manejo de madera y productos forestales no maderables

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Is multiple-use forest management widely implementable in the tropics?

Cited by 75 publications

References 52 publications

Do ecosystem services provide an added value compared to existing forest planning approaches in Central Europe?

Do ecosystem services provide an added value compared to existing forest planning approaches in Central Europe?

The Contribution of Multiple Use Forest Management to Small Farmers’ Annual Incomes in the Eastern Amazon

Hacia un manejo m&uacute;ltiple en bosques tropicales: Consideraciones sobre la compatibilidad del manejo de madera y productos forestales no maderables

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Hacia un manejo múltiple en bosques tropicales: Consideraciones sobre la compatibilidad del manejo de madera y productos forestales no maderables