- Email: [email protected]
Multiple use management of tropical production forests: How can we move from concept to reality?
Forest Ecology and Management 263 (2012) 170–174
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Forest Ecology and Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco
Multiple use management of tropical production forests: How can we move from concept to reality? Manuel R. Guariguata a,⇑, Plinio Sist b, Robert Nasi a a b
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), P.O. Box 0113 BOCBD, Bogor 16000, Indonesia CIRAD-ES, UR B&SEF, Montpellier, France
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 18 September 2011 Received in revised form 21 September 2011 Accepted 23 September 2011 Available online 21 October 2011 Keywords: Management trade-offs Silviculture Spatial planning Adaptive management Training and education
a b s t r a c t Constraints in making multiple use forest management a more widespread land use type across the tropics still prevail. Technical and managerial capacities usually differ for different forest products, market opportunities and degrees of market knowledge. Local communities or small-scale forest operators face difficulties in adjusting traditional practices to implement official forestry regulations, that are usually drafted with little harmonization of different management objectives and also little consideration of local socio-ecological contexts. Strategies that optimize trade-offs, by nature more complex than trade-offs in single-commodity production systems, have been neglected. Although the available evidence suggests that formal management practices favor specialization over integration, studies that attempted to discern or draw lessons learned seem, to date, limited. This Special Issue is intended to further contribute to the knowledge related to biophysical, institutional, regulatory and socio-economic aspects influencing the design, implementation and effectiveness of multiple use management throughout the forested tropics. A few messages emerge. Although the constraints impeding the implementation of multiple use of forests differ little from the constraints in plans that only include timber, the required trade-offs in the former are expected to be more problematic. Refining the scientific basis for assessing and minimizing trade-offs at different spatial scales is warranted. As important as it may be to establish multiple use objectives from the outset and involve different stakeholders in the planning process, social learning and multistakeholder dialogue in the context of adaptive management are needed to maintain these objectives over time, both from the top down and the bottom up. For managers and practitioners to work on multiple forest use in the tropics they must consider spatial aspects in detail, from the stand to the landscape. Finally, moving from ‘‘concept to reality’’ will also require new forestry training and education approaches to keep up with the ever-growing methods for valuing and using tropical forests. Ó 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction ‘‘Some uses do not interfere with others, some are even complementary; but others are conflicting. The dominant, coordinate, or subordinate role of each use must be recognized’’ (Wadsworth, 1952). Tropical forest management systems that explicitly aim at producing multiple goods and services (see e.g., Panayotou and Ashton, 1992) are perceived as some by having made little or no progress in moving from timber-dominated into more pluralistic production models (García-Fernández et al., 2008). This perception has occurred in spite of such diversified production models having widely acknowledged social and financial advanta⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +62 251 8622622; fax: +62 251 8622100. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.R. Guariguata). 0378-1127/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.09.032
ges (Kant, 2004; Wang and Wilson, 2007). The distinction made by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in its recent global Forest Resources Assessment (FAO, 2010a) between ‘‘production’’ forests and ‘‘multiple use’’ forests perhaps reflects this failure, particularly as the ‘‘multiple use’’ category includes production purposes. Admittedly, timber remains the primary commodity derived from humid, lowland tropical forests. The area of natural forest under formal management plans across the 33 producer countries of the International Tropical Timber Organization has increased steadily over time, to 183 million ha today (Blaser et al., 2011) and largely focused on timber production. At the same time, the various demands that society imposes on tropical forests for the provision of multiple goods and services have increased. For example, tropical forests undergo frequent assessments for their capacity to sequester atmospheric carbon (Pan et al., 2011) and for how this globally significant ecosystem service
M.R. Guariguata et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 263 (2012) 170–174
links with biodiversity conservation (Venter et al., 2009). Research on ‘‘reduced-impact logging’’ has demonstrated how carefully planned timber harvesting operations, as opposed to conventional logging, can be economically viable and environmentally compatible with enhanced reductions in carbon emissions (Putz et al., 2008; van Kuijk et al., 2009). The need to ‘‘move beyond reduced-impact logging’’ (Sist et al., 2008) is now challenging timber-oriented management models and explicitly asking for the integration of other goods such as non-timber forest products (NTFPs; Tieguhong and Ndoye, 2007; Menton et al., 2009) whose value mostly accrues to local communities (Shackleton et al., 2011). On the contrary, large forest areas originally designated only for harvesting NTFPs, such as the Brazilian ‘‘extractive reserves’’ (Fantini and Crisóstomo, 2009) and Peruvian NTFP concessions (Cossío-Solano et al., 2011), are undergoing thorough re-evaluation regarding prospects for potentially sustainable timber harvesting. Concomitant to these trends, some argue that forest policies are in need of further refinement to achieve both societal inclusiveness and new demands (Cubbage et al., 2007). Such a holistic approach to tropical forest management would necessitate improvements in knowledge management: closer dialogue between tropical forest scientists and traditional knowledge holders (Lawrence, 2007), and modernized curriculums (Temu et al., 2006; Kammesheidt et al., 2007; Guariguata and Evans, 2010). Constraints in making multiple use forest management a more widespread land use type across the tropics still prevail (GarcíaFernández et al., 2008). First, technical and managerial capacities usually differ for different forest products, market opportunities and degrees of market knowledge. Second, local communities or small-scale forest operators face difficulties in adjusting traditional practices to implement official forestry regulations, that are usually drafted with little harmonization of different management objectives and also little consideration of local socioecological contexts (Nasi et al., 2011a). Third, strategies that optimize trade-offs, by nature more complex than trade-offs in single-commodity production systems, have been neglected (Panayotou and Ashton, 1992). For example, and in the case of concurrent management of timber and NTFPs, social, biophysical and market factors may operate in conflict, at times working against integrated management approaches (Herrero-Jáuregui et al., 2009; Guariguata et al., 2010). It may not be surprising then that only 7 out of 22 cases catalogued as ‘‘exemplary’’ in achieving sustainable forest management across Latin America and the Caribbean met either ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘exceptional’’ levels of compliance for the criterion of ‘‘diversification of uses’’ (FAO, 2010b). A similar exercise across Asia and the Pacific (Durst et al., 2005) that included ‘‘holistic management’’ as a specific selection criterion generated only four ‘‘exemplary’’ cases out of 28 (excluding extra-tropical cases). The available evidence suggests that formal management practices favor specialization over integration. However, we have yet to see sufficient empirical or analytical evidence in the literature as to which issues may hamper or facilitate multiple use management systems. It is not always possible to discern the underlying factors that affect ‘‘success’’ or ‘‘failure’’, or the main lessons learned from the existing experiences. Hence, this Special Issue is intended to further contribute to the knowledge related to biophysical, institutional, regulatory and socio-economic aspects influencing the design, implementation and effectiveness of multiple use management throughout the forested tropics. This collection of papers covers issues related to multiple management of goods and services from a cross-continental, regional, and local perspective. We aim at both deriving widely applicable lessons learned and providing insights into future research directions.
171
2. Multiple use management of tropical production forests: how can we move from concept to reality? 2.1. Integration: acknowledging multiple uses, multiple parameters, multiple actors Extraction and management of multiple forest products requires a broad range of objectives informed by extensive traditional and new knowledge and practices (e.g., Toledo et al., 2003). Furthermore, if multiple forest use is to become a viable land use alternative, its resource base needs, at a minimum, to be maintained. In the first contribution, Porter-Bolland et al. (2011) assess the extent to which locally managed tropical forests are able to retain their original cover (as a proxy for the resource base) when compared to more restrictive types of forest use. Through a meta-analysis of peer reviewed literature, the authors suggest that forests managed for multiple goods and services can be as effective as strictly protected areas in conserving tropical forest cover (Nelson and Chomitz (2011) present similar findings in a recent study that uses fire occurrence as a proxy for deforestation and degradation). The results by Porter-Bolland et al. (2011) provide some insights about some of the factors that favor multiple forest use systems in the tropics managed or comanaged with local participation and link to the second paper of this Special Issue. The second paper, by Radachowsky et al. (2011), gives an overview of lessons learned after a decade of implementation of multiple use objectives by local communities in the Petén forest of Guatemala. The authors analyze the key biophysical, socioeconomic and economic factors driving success or failure in pursuing sustainable forest management for 14 community forestry concessions representing 800,000 ha of forest. Not surprisingly, concessions with the highest degrees of both product diversification and social organization appear better able to buffer economic uncertainties. In addition to timber, this diversification includes the harvest of NTFPs (some certified; Pinelo, 2009) and recreational hunting both of which seem largely compatible with well-managed selective timber extraction (see also the paper by Baur et al. (2011) in this issue). Social cohesiveness plays a key role in the long-term sustainability of some concessions. Those concessionaires with long term residency in Petén who voluntarily agreed to manage their forests have fared better than colonists from outside the area who were also granted concessionaire status. The third paper by Taylor (2011) further examines the performance of such community forest concessions in Guatemala from a socio-institutional angle, when grassroots organizations have acquired the rights to manage their forests. The author describes in detail both the role of communitybased social movements and their evolution in keeping up with the challenges of increased management complexity that inevitably arise with diversification of forest products and the concomitant economic and organizational changes affecting local forest users. Timber and NTFPs coexist in tropical forests in varying degrees of abundance and species composition and both are exploited commercially (and usually by different actors; Sheil et al., 2006; Tieguhong and Ndoye, 2007; Menton et al., 2009). For multiple use models to gain a stronger foothold, research that assesses perceptions of different stakeholders with interests in particular types of forest products is in dire need. To this end, the fourth paper by Duchelle et al. (2011) presents a quantitative, cross-country comparison of the main factors determining the viability of a multiple use scenarios in the Western Amazon forests spanning the trinational frontier region of Perú, Brazil and Bolivia. Here, timber exploitation occurs alongside the extraction over vast areas of an
172
M.R. Guariguata et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 263 (2012) 170–174
economically important NTFP, the fruits of the canopy-emergent forest tree, the Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa); while forest management plans hardly consider integrated approaches. The author’s results suggest a high potential for integrated extraction and management of both forest products but also highlight striking differences in perception among stakeholder groups within and among countries as they make integrated management a reality. The fifth paper, by Cronkleton et al. (2011), examines in greater detail to what extent the norms and regulations governing the extraction of both timber and Brazil nuts in Bolivian Amazon forests actually promotes integrated approaches and how the involvement of local stakeholders in the decision-making process could help to minimize damage to Brazil nut trees during selective timber harvesting.
2.2. Not by timber alone We know a lot about the impacts of selective timber harvesting on forest structure and composition (e.g., Putz et al., 2001; Meijaard et al., 2005) but much less is known about how this activity affects the NTFP resource base. In the sixth paper of this Special Issue, Rist et al. (2011) review the impacts of selective timber harvesting on the NTFP resource base and identify two general cases: one where the extracted products compete requiring negotiated trade-offs, the other one where the extracted products do not necessarily compete. One important conclusion is that literature to support either case is scant, calling for further research on the topic. However, their findings indicate that overall, fewer NTFP resources are available following selective logging. This effect seems the combined result of ‘‘conflict of use’’ (i.e., tree species with both timber and NTFP values) and of both direct and indirect logging impacts. In the seventh paper, Shanley et al. (2011) document ways to minimize ‘‘conflict of use’’ through concrete field evidence, promoting combined timber and NTFP use for three highly valued Amazonian tree species. Their results indicate that the NTFP value of these species is diminishing at current timber harvesting intensities, but also that locally developed management approaches by smallholders in Amazonian logging frontiers are helping to mitigate logging-related losses of the NTFP resource base. The authors recommend the integration of this hitherto undocumented knowledge into the design of silvicultural systems by professional foresters to further promote multiple use practices in the study region. This issue of ‘‘conflict of use’’ is taken a step further in the eighth paper by Klimas et al. (2011) for the Amazonian tree species Carapa guianensis, valued for both its timber and the oil extracted from its seed. Combining an economic model with empirical data on tree population dynamics and harvest simulations for seed and timber, the authors estimate the potential income from the separate and combined use of both products. They conclude that managing Carapa for both timber and seeds can be profitable than either use separately in their study area. They show that, in certain Amazonian forest types, the opportunity costs of maintaining forest cover between successive timber harvest rotations could be minimized if multi-use management of Carapa is inserted into the suite of activities carried out by communities. In the ninth paper of this issue, Soriano et al. (2011) evaluate the effects of selective timber harvesting on natural regeneration of the Brazil nut tree in the Bolivian Amazon. Their main finding is that, although the Brazil nut tree require large canopy openings to regenerate from seed (Cotta et al., 2008), at the current low harvesting intensities (2 m3/ha), density of saplings and small trees appears unaffected. Their results point to compatibility of timber extraction and maintenance of the Brazil nut population structure. Yet, the authors warn that complying with current regulatory and legal requirements remains a challenge and that simplification of
existing norms for management of both products is warranted (see also Cronkleton et al., 2011 abovementioned). 2.3. Integrating wildlife management into selective timber harvesting operations The incorporation of wildlife management into timber management remains an overlooked aspect of multiple use management in tropical forests. Empirical evidence shows that selective logging for timber usually leads to overexploitation of wildlife for human consumption for many various reasons including enhanced access (e.g., Poulsen et al., 2009). The last two papers of this Special Issue consider, however, specific strategies of wildlife management in the context of timber harvesting. Nasi et al. (2011b) take a regional approach, drawing from experiences in Congo Basin countries where about 22 million ha are under some sort of formal management status today, with approved plans or plans in preparation. One of their main recommendations is that for wildlife concerns to be fully integrated into timber management, a landscape approach involving the explicit incorporation of adjacent protected areas is essential. The authors point out that promoting ‘‘multiple use thinking’’ and its eventual implementation in the Congo Basin region still presents enormous challenges. The final paper of this Special Issue by Baur et al. (2011) describe lessons learned during the design and implementation of a community-based, commercial recreational hunting program in the Petén forest concessions in Guatemala which began a decade ago (see also Radachowsky et al., 2011). The authors find that this activity is currently highly compatible with the harvesting of timber and NTFPs while bringing economic benefit to the concessionaires. Among the reasons for success are the high level of social organization of the participating concessions, the biological resilience of the target species to hunting pressure, and the spatial and temporal separation of hunting and forest extraction activities. 3. Moving forward This Special Issue presents a novel contribution, enhancing our knowledge of factors that enable or hamper the development of more holistic approaches to tropical production forests. We draw a few main messages, addressed across the individual papers. 3.1. Trade-offs are complex and acute Although the constraints impeding the implementation of multiple use of forests differ little from the constraints in plans that only include timber (e.g., Nasi et al., 2011a), the required trade-offs in the former are expected to be more problematic. These will surface at the level of landscapes (Nasi et al., 2011b), species (Klimas et al., 2011; Rist et al., 2011; Soriano et al., 2011; Shanley et al., 2011), stakeholder interests (Duchelle et al., 2011; Radachowsky et al., 2011; Taylor, 2011) and norms and regulations (Cronkleton et al., 2011). Refining the scientific basis for assessing and minimizing trade-offs at different spatial scales is warranted. Both Frost et al. (2006) and Lafortezza et al. (2008) provide insight to managers as well as practitioners on this topic. 3.2. Social learning and multi-stakeholder dialogue is essential As important as it may be to establish multiple use objectives from the outset and involve different stakeholders in the planning process (Duchelle et al., 2011), social learning and multistakeholder dialogue in the context of adaptive management are needed to maintain these objectives over time, both from the top down (Radachowsky et al., 2011) and the bottom up (Taylor,
M.R. Guariguata et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 263 (2012) 170–174
2011). This is potentially critical when designing policy or regulatory frameworks for multiple forest goods whose values accrue to different users and where both customary regulations and tenure issues should be respected (Cronkleton et al., 2011). Our own experience suggests difficulties in integrating the concept of multiple use in national forest regulations as most management plans are conceived and validated with a timber mindset, even when national legislation promotes in theory multiple forest uses. 3.3. Management practitioners must take the long view and adapt The papers by Baur et al. (2011), Radachowsky et al. (2011) and Taylor (2011), all from Guatemala’s community forestry concessions highlight another message: in trying to achieve sustainable forest management, lessons learned cannot be drawn out without long-term vision and commitment viewed as an ongoing experiment along with an integrated, monitoring-reflection component (see further cases in Colfer, 2005). 3.4. Managers can pay more heed to spatial planning For managers and practitioners to work on multiple forest use in the tropics they must consider spatial aspects in detail. From a strictly spatial standpoint, trade-offs can be optimized by segregating management objectives (Wang and Wilson, 2007). Others have proposed a ‘‘middle ground’’ through optimally distributing different and complementary uses, thus optimizing the total area of forest needed to provide a given economic return (Sayer et al., 2005). The reality, however, is that spatial planning for long-term forest production is generally disregarded across the tropics. For example, timber concessions are sometimes gazetted with little or no attention to factors such as degree of soil fertility, forest types or floristic composition (e.g., Hammond and Zagt, 2006; Salo and Toivonen, 2009). In turn, NTFP concessions, more often than not, include vast quantities of commercially valuable timber often prompting uncontrolled extraction by third-party loggers (e.g., Cossío-Solano et al., 2011). The mutual role of protected forest areas and well managed timber concessions in maintaining viable wildlife populations is well acknowledged yet further research on collaborative governance at landscape levels is needed (Clark et al., 2009; Nasi et al., 2011b). The extent to which production for either timber or NTFPs, for example, is maximized across different forest types (Klimas et al., 2011) also deserves further investigation. 3.5. Minimize trade-offs in small forest areas Equally important, however, is to further minimize management tradeoffs when timber and NTFP-bearing trees coexist in small forest areas where spatial segregation is not practical (e.g., Menton et al., 2009; Soriano et al., 2011). As Rist et al. (2011) point out, research on logging impacts on tree-based NTFP resources in tropical forests remain understudied for the most part (see also Ticktin, 2004). 3.6. New forest science and training approaches are needed Finally, we believe that moving from ‘‘concept to reality’’ will also require new forestry training and education approaches to keep up with the ever-growing methods for valuing and using tropical forests. If forests used for the provision of multiple goods and services may in fact fare as good as strictly protected forests in terms of reducing deforestation (Porter-Bolland et al., 2011; Nelson and Chomitz, 2011), modernizing forestry curriculums with a firm insertion of multiple use frameworks from the biophysical, so-
173
cio-cultural and economic dimensions is perhaps a worthwhile investment. References Baur, E.H., McNab, R.B., Williams, L.E., Ramos, V.H., Radachowsky, J., Guariguata, M.R., 2011. Multiple forest use through commercial sport hunting: lessons from a community-based model from the Petén, Guatemala. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.06.005. Blaser, J., Sarre, A., Poore, D., Johnson, S., 2011. Status of Tropical Forest Management 2011. ITTO Technical Series No. 38. International Tropical Timber Organization, Yokohama, Japan. Clark, C., Poulsen, J., Malonga, J.R., Elkan, P.W., 2009. Logging concessions can extend the conservation estate for Central African Tropical Forests. Conservation Biology 23, 1281–1293. Colfer, C., 2005. The complex forest: communities, uncertainty, and adaptive collaborative management. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, USA. Cossío-Solano, R.E., Guariguata, M.R., Menton, M., Capella, J.L., Ríos, L., Peña, P., 2011. El Aprovechamiento de Madera en las Concesiones Castañeras (Bertholletia excelsa) en Madre de Dios, Perú: Un Análisis de su SituaciónNormativa. Documento de Trabajo 56. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Cotta, J.N., Kainer, K.A., Wadt, L.H.O., Staudhammer, C.L., 2008. Shifting cultivation effects on Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa) regeneration. Forest Ecology and Management 256, 28–35. Cronkleton, P., Guariguata, M.R., Albornoz, M.A., 2011. Multiple use forestry planning: timber and Brazil nut management in the community forests of Northern Bolivia. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/ j.foreco.2011.04.035. Cubbage, F., Harou, P., Sills, E., 2007. Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management. Forest Policy and Economics 9, 833–851. Duchelle, A.E., Guariguata, M.R., Less, G., Albornoz, M.A., Chavez, A., Melo, T., 2011. Evaluating the opportunities and limitations to multiple use of Brazil nuts and timber in Western Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/ j.foreco.2011.05.023. Durst, P.B., Brown, C., Tacio, H.D., Ishikawa, M., 2005. In search of excellence: exemplary forest management in Asia and the Pacific. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. Fantini, A.C., Crisóstomo, C.F., 2009. Conflitos de interesses em torno da exploração madeireira na Reserva Extrativista Chico Mendes, Acre, Brasil. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas 4, 231–246. FAO, 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment. FAO Forestry Paper 163. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. FAO, 2010b. Standing tall: exemplary cases of sustainable forest management in Latin America and the Caribbean. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and Junta de Castilla y León, España. Frost, P., Campbell, B., Medina, G., Usongo, L., 2006. Landscape-scale approaches for integrated natural resource management in tropical forest landscapes. Ecology and Society 11 (2), 30. García-Fernández, C., Ruiz Pérez, M., Wunder, S., 2008. Is multiple-use forest management widely implementable in the tropics? Forest Ecology and Management 256, 1468–1476. Guariguata, M.R., Evans, K., 2010. Advancing tropical forestry curricula through non-timber forest products. International Forestry Review 12, 418–426. Guariguata, M.R., García-Fernández, C., Sheil, D., Nasi, R., Herrero-Jáuregui, C., Cronkleton, P., Ingram, V., 2010. Compatibility of timber and non-timber forest product management in natural tropical forests: perspectives, challenges and opportunities. Forest Ecology and Management 259, 237–245. Hammond, D.S., Zagt, R.J., 2006. Considering background condition effects in tailoring tropical forest management systems for sustainability. Ecology and Society 11 (1), 37. Herrero-Jáuregui, C., Garcia-Fernández, C., Sist, P., Casado, M.A., 2009. Conflict of use for multi-purpose tree species in the state of Pará, Eastern Amazonia, Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation 18, 1019–1044. Kammesheidt, L., Idrus, R.M., Trockenbrodt, M., Hahn-Schilling, B., 2007. Linking academic forestry education with employers’ demands: a case study from Malaysia. International Forestry Review 9, 661–669. Kant, S., 2004. Economics of sustainable forest management. Forest Policy and Economics 6, 197–203. Klimas, C.A., Kainer, K.A., Wadt, L.H.O., 2011. The economic value of sustainable seed and timber harvests of multi-use species: an example using Carapa guianensis. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.03.006. Lafortezza, L., Chen, J., Sanesi, J. (Eds.), 2008. Patterns and Processes in Forest Landscapes: Multiple Use and Forest Management. Springer-Verlag, New York. Lawrence, A., 2007. Beyond the second generation: towards adaptiveness in participatory forest management. CABI reviews: perspectives in agriculture, veterinary science. Nutrition and Natural Resources 2 (28), 1–15. Meijaard, E., Sheil, D., Nasi, R., Augeri, D., Rosenbaum, B., Iskandar, D., Setyawati, T., Lammertink, M., Rachmatika, I., Wong, A., Soehartono, T., Stanley, S., O’Brien, T., 2005. Life after Logging: Reconciling Wildlife Conservation and Production Forestry in Indonesian Borneo. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. Menton, M., Merry, F.D., Lawrence, A., Brown, N., 2009. Company-community logging contracts in Amazonian settlements: impacts of livelihoods and NTFP harvests. Ecology and Society 14 (1), 39.
174
M.R. Guariguata et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 263 (2012) 170–174
Nasi, R., Putz, F.E., Pacheco, P., Wunder, S., Anta, S., 2011a. Sustainable forest management and carbon in tropical Latin America: the case for REDD+. Forests 2, 200–217. Nasi, R., Billand, A., van Vliet, N., 2011b. Managing for timber and biodiversity in the Congo Basin. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/ j.foreco.2011.04.005. Nelson, A., Chomitz, K.M., 2011. Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods. PLoS ONE 6(8) e22722. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022722. Pan, Y. et al., 2011. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993. Panayotou, T., Ashton, P.S., 1992. Not by Timber Alone: Economics and Ecology for Sustaining Tropical Forests. Island Press, Washington, DC. Pinelo, G., 2009. Qué factores favorecen la compatibilidad del manejo para madera y la palma de xate (Chamaedorea spp.) en Guatemala? In: Guariguata, M.R., García-Fernández, C., Nasi, R., Sheil, D., Herrero-Jáuregui, C., Cronkleton, P., Ndoye, O., Ingram, V. (Eds.), Hacia un manejo múltiple en bosques tropicales: consideraciones sobre la compatibilidad del manejo de madera y productos forestales no maderables. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, p. 18. Porter-Bolland, L., Ellis, E.A., Guariguata, M.R., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Negrete-Yankelevich, S., Reyes-García, V., 2011. Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.034. Poulsen, J.R., Clark, C.J., Mavah, G., Elkan, P.W., 2009. Bushmeat supply and consumption in a tropical logging concession in Northern Congo. Conservation Biology 23, 1597–1608. Putz, F.E., Blate, G.M., Redford, K.H., Fimbel, R., Robinson, J., 2001. Tropical forest management and conservation of biodiversity: an overview. Conservation Biology 15, 7–20. Putz, F.E., Zuidema, P.A., Pinard, M.A., Boot, R.G.A., Sayer, J.A., et al., 2008. Improved tropical forest management for carbon retention. PLoS Biol. 6 (7) e166. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060166. Radachowsky, J., Ramos, V.H., McNab, R., Baur, E.H., Kazakov, N., 2011. Forest concessions in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala: a decade later. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.08.043. Rist, L., Shanley, P., Sunderland, T., Sheil, D., Ndoye, O., Liswanti, N., Tieguhong, J., 2011. The impacts of selective logging on non-timber forest products of livelihood importance. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/ j.foreco.2011.04.037. Salo, M., Toivonen, T., 2009. Tropical timber rush in Peruvian Amazonia: spatial allocation of forest concessions in an uninventoried frontier. Environmental Management 44, 609–623. Sayer, J., Elliot, C., Maginnis, S., 2005. Protect, manage and restore: conserving forests in multifunctional landscapes. In: Sayer, J. (Ed.), The Earthscan Reader in Forestry and Development. Earthscan, London, pp. 415–421.
Shackleton, S., Delang, C.O., Angelsen, A., 2011. From subsistence to safety nets and cash income: exploring the diverse values of non-timber forest products for livelihoods and poverty alleviation. In: Shackleton, S. et al. (Eds.), Non-Timber Forest Products in the Global Context. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 55–81. Shanley, P., Silva, M.d.S., Melo, T., Carmenta, R., Nasi, R., 2011. From conflict of use to multiple use: Forest management innovations by small holders in Amazonian logging frontiers. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/ j.foreco.2011.05.041. Sheil, D., Puri, R., Wan, M., Basuki, I., van Heist, M., Liswanti, N., Rumiyati, Rachmatika, I., Samsoedin, I., 2006. Recognizing local people’s priorities for tropical forest biodiversity. Ambio 35, 17–24. Sist, P., García-Fernández, C., Fredericksen, T.S., 2008. Moving beyond reducedimpact logging towards a more holistic management of tropical forests. Forest Ecology and Management 256, vii–ix. Soriano, M., Kainer, K.A., Staudhammer, C.L., Soriano, E., 2011. Implementing multiple forest management in Brazil nut-rich community forests: effects of logging on natural regeneration and forest disturbance. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.010. Taylor, P.L., 2011. Multiple forest activities, multiple purpose organizations: Organizing for complexity in a grassroots movement in Guatemala’s Petén. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.007. Temu, A.B., Okali, D., Bishaw, B., 2006. Forestry education, training and professional development in Africa. International Forestry Review 8, 118–125. Ticktin, T., 2004. The ecological implications of harvesting non-timber forest products. Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 11–21. Tieguhong, J.C., Ndoye, O., 2007. The Impact of Timber Harvesting on the Availability of Non-wood Forest Products in the Congo Basin. Forest Harvesting Case Study 23. FAO, Rome. Toledo, V.M., Ortiz-Espejel, B., Corté, L., Moguel, P., Ordoñez, M.J., 2003. The multiple use of tropical forests by indigenous peoples in Mexico: a case of adaptive management. Ecology and Society 7 (3), 9. van Kuijk, M., Putz, F.E., Zagt, R., 2009. Effects of Forest Certification on Biodiversity. Tropenbos International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Venter, O., Meijaard, E., Possingham, H.P., Dennis, R., Sheil, D., Wich, S., Hovani, L., Wilson, K.A., 2009. Carbon payments as a safeguard for threatened tropical mammals. Conservation Letters 2, 123–129. Wadsworth, F.H., 1952. Forest management in the Luquillo Mountains. II. Planning for multiple land use.. Caribbean Forester 13, 49–61. Wang, S., Wilson, B., 2007. Pluralism in the economics of sustainable forest management. Forest Policy and Economics 9, 743–750.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Forest Ecology and Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco
Multiple use management of tropical production forests: How can we move from concept to reality? Manuel R. Guariguata a,⇑, Plinio Sist b, Robert Nasi a a b
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), P.O. Box 0113 BOCBD, Bogor 16000, Indonesia CIRAD-ES, UR B&SEF, Montpellier, France
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 18 September 2011 Received in revised form 21 September 2011 Accepted 23 September 2011 Available online 21 October 2011 Keywords: Management trade-offs Silviculture Spatial planning Adaptive management Training and education
a b s t r a c t Constraints in making multiple use forest management a more widespread land use type across the tropics still prevail. Technical and managerial capacities usually differ for different forest products, market opportunities and degrees of market knowledge. Local communities or small-scale forest operators face difficulties in adjusting traditional practices to implement official forestry regulations, that are usually drafted with little harmonization of different management objectives and also little consideration of local socio-ecological contexts. Strategies that optimize trade-offs, by nature more complex than trade-offs in single-commodity production systems, have been neglected. Although the available evidence suggests that formal management practices favor specialization over integration, studies that attempted to discern or draw lessons learned seem, to date, limited. This Special Issue is intended to further contribute to the knowledge related to biophysical, institutional, regulatory and socio-economic aspects influencing the design, implementation and effectiveness of multiple use management throughout the forested tropics. A few messages emerge. Although the constraints impeding the implementation of multiple use of forests differ little from the constraints in plans that only include timber, the required trade-offs in the former are expected to be more problematic. Refining the scientific basis for assessing and minimizing trade-offs at different spatial scales is warranted. As important as it may be to establish multiple use objectives from the outset and involve different stakeholders in the planning process, social learning and multistakeholder dialogue in the context of adaptive management are needed to maintain these objectives over time, both from the top down and the bottom up. For managers and practitioners to work on multiple forest use in the tropics they must consider spatial aspects in detail, from the stand to the landscape. Finally, moving from ‘‘concept to reality’’ will also require new forestry training and education approaches to keep up with the ever-growing methods for valuing and using tropical forests. Ó 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction ‘‘Some uses do not interfere with others, some are even complementary; but others are conflicting. The dominant, coordinate, or subordinate role of each use must be recognized’’ (Wadsworth, 1952). Tropical forest management systems that explicitly aim at producing multiple goods and services (see e.g., Panayotou and Ashton, 1992) are perceived as some by having made little or no progress in moving from timber-dominated into more pluralistic production models (García-Fernández et al., 2008). This perception has occurred in spite of such diversified production models having widely acknowledged social and financial advanta⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +62 251 8622622; fax: +62 251 8622100. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.R. Guariguata). 0378-1127/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.09.032
ges (Kant, 2004; Wang and Wilson, 2007). The distinction made by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in its recent global Forest Resources Assessment (FAO, 2010a) between ‘‘production’’ forests and ‘‘multiple use’’ forests perhaps reflects this failure, particularly as the ‘‘multiple use’’ category includes production purposes. Admittedly, timber remains the primary commodity derived from humid, lowland tropical forests. The area of natural forest under formal management plans across the 33 producer countries of the International Tropical Timber Organization has increased steadily over time, to 183 million ha today (Blaser et al., 2011) and largely focused on timber production. At the same time, the various demands that society imposes on tropical forests for the provision of multiple goods and services have increased. For example, tropical forests undergo frequent assessments for their capacity to sequester atmospheric carbon (Pan et al., 2011) and for how this globally significant ecosystem service
M.R. Guariguata et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 263 (2012) 170–174
links with biodiversity conservation (Venter et al., 2009). Research on ‘‘reduced-impact logging’’ has demonstrated how carefully planned timber harvesting operations, as opposed to conventional logging, can be economically viable and environmentally compatible with enhanced reductions in carbon emissions (Putz et al., 2008; van Kuijk et al., 2009). The need to ‘‘move beyond reduced-impact logging’’ (Sist et al., 2008) is now challenging timber-oriented management models and explicitly asking for the integration of other goods such as non-timber forest products (NTFPs; Tieguhong and Ndoye, 2007; Menton et al., 2009) whose value mostly accrues to local communities (Shackleton et al., 2011). On the contrary, large forest areas originally designated only for harvesting NTFPs, such as the Brazilian ‘‘extractive reserves’’ (Fantini and Crisóstomo, 2009) and Peruvian NTFP concessions (Cossío-Solano et al., 2011), are undergoing thorough re-evaluation regarding prospects for potentially sustainable timber harvesting. Concomitant to these trends, some argue that forest policies are in need of further refinement to achieve both societal inclusiveness and new demands (Cubbage et al., 2007). Such a holistic approach to tropical forest management would necessitate improvements in knowledge management: closer dialogue between tropical forest scientists and traditional knowledge holders (Lawrence, 2007), and modernized curriculums (Temu et al., 2006; Kammesheidt et al., 2007; Guariguata and Evans, 2010). Constraints in making multiple use forest management a more widespread land use type across the tropics still prevail (GarcíaFernández et al., 2008). First, technical and managerial capacities usually differ for different forest products, market opportunities and degrees of market knowledge. Second, local communities or small-scale forest operators face difficulties in adjusting traditional practices to implement official forestry regulations, that are usually drafted with little harmonization of different management objectives and also little consideration of local socioecological contexts (Nasi et al., 2011a). Third, strategies that optimize trade-offs, by nature more complex than trade-offs in single-commodity production systems, have been neglected (Panayotou and Ashton, 1992). For example, and in the case of concurrent management of timber and NTFPs, social, biophysical and market factors may operate in conflict, at times working against integrated management approaches (Herrero-Jáuregui et al., 2009; Guariguata et al., 2010). It may not be surprising then that only 7 out of 22 cases catalogued as ‘‘exemplary’’ in achieving sustainable forest management across Latin America and the Caribbean met either ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘exceptional’’ levels of compliance for the criterion of ‘‘diversification of uses’’ (FAO, 2010b). A similar exercise across Asia and the Pacific (Durst et al., 2005) that included ‘‘holistic management’’ as a specific selection criterion generated only four ‘‘exemplary’’ cases out of 28 (excluding extra-tropical cases). The available evidence suggests that formal management practices favor specialization over integration. However, we have yet to see sufficient empirical or analytical evidence in the literature as to which issues may hamper or facilitate multiple use management systems. It is not always possible to discern the underlying factors that affect ‘‘success’’ or ‘‘failure’’, or the main lessons learned from the existing experiences. Hence, this Special Issue is intended to further contribute to the knowledge related to biophysical, institutional, regulatory and socio-economic aspects influencing the design, implementation and effectiveness of multiple use management throughout the forested tropics. This collection of papers covers issues related to multiple management of goods and services from a cross-continental, regional, and local perspective. We aim at both deriving widely applicable lessons learned and providing insights into future research directions.
171
2. Multiple use management of tropical production forests: how can we move from concept to reality? 2.1. Integration: acknowledging multiple uses, multiple parameters, multiple actors Extraction and management of multiple forest products requires a broad range of objectives informed by extensive traditional and new knowledge and practices (e.g., Toledo et al., 2003). Furthermore, if multiple forest use is to become a viable land use alternative, its resource base needs, at a minimum, to be maintained. In the first contribution, Porter-Bolland et al. (2011) assess the extent to which locally managed tropical forests are able to retain their original cover (as a proxy for the resource base) when compared to more restrictive types of forest use. Through a meta-analysis of peer reviewed literature, the authors suggest that forests managed for multiple goods and services can be as effective as strictly protected areas in conserving tropical forest cover (Nelson and Chomitz (2011) present similar findings in a recent study that uses fire occurrence as a proxy for deforestation and degradation). The results by Porter-Bolland et al. (2011) provide some insights about some of the factors that favor multiple forest use systems in the tropics managed or comanaged with local participation and link to the second paper of this Special Issue. The second paper, by Radachowsky et al. (2011), gives an overview of lessons learned after a decade of implementation of multiple use objectives by local communities in the Petén forest of Guatemala. The authors analyze the key biophysical, socioeconomic and economic factors driving success or failure in pursuing sustainable forest management for 14 community forestry concessions representing 800,000 ha of forest. Not surprisingly, concessions with the highest degrees of both product diversification and social organization appear better able to buffer economic uncertainties. In addition to timber, this diversification includes the harvest of NTFPs (some certified; Pinelo, 2009) and recreational hunting both of which seem largely compatible with well-managed selective timber extraction (see also the paper by Baur et al. (2011) in this issue). Social cohesiveness plays a key role in the long-term sustainability of some concessions. Those concessionaires with long term residency in Petén who voluntarily agreed to manage their forests have fared better than colonists from outside the area who were also granted concessionaire status. The third paper by Taylor (2011) further examines the performance of such community forest concessions in Guatemala from a socio-institutional angle, when grassroots organizations have acquired the rights to manage their forests. The author describes in detail both the role of communitybased social movements and their evolution in keeping up with the challenges of increased management complexity that inevitably arise with diversification of forest products and the concomitant economic and organizational changes affecting local forest users. Timber and NTFPs coexist in tropical forests in varying degrees of abundance and species composition and both are exploited commercially (and usually by different actors; Sheil et al., 2006; Tieguhong and Ndoye, 2007; Menton et al., 2009). For multiple use models to gain a stronger foothold, research that assesses perceptions of different stakeholders with interests in particular types of forest products is in dire need. To this end, the fourth paper by Duchelle et al. (2011) presents a quantitative, cross-country comparison of the main factors determining the viability of a multiple use scenarios in the Western Amazon forests spanning the trinational frontier region of Perú, Brazil and Bolivia. Here, timber exploitation occurs alongside the extraction over vast areas of an
172
M.R. Guariguata et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 263 (2012) 170–174
economically important NTFP, the fruits of the canopy-emergent forest tree, the Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa); while forest management plans hardly consider integrated approaches. The author’s results suggest a high potential for integrated extraction and management of both forest products but also highlight striking differences in perception among stakeholder groups within and among countries as they make integrated management a reality. The fifth paper, by Cronkleton et al. (2011), examines in greater detail to what extent the norms and regulations governing the extraction of both timber and Brazil nuts in Bolivian Amazon forests actually promotes integrated approaches and how the involvement of local stakeholders in the decision-making process could help to minimize damage to Brazil nut trees during selective timber harvesting.
2.2. Not by timber alone We know a lot about the impacts of selective timber harvesting on forest structure and composition (e.g., Putz et al., 2001; Meijaard et al., 2005) but much less is known about how this activity affects the NTFP resource base. In the sixth paper of this Special Issue, Rist et al. (2011) review the impacts of selective timber harvesting on the NTFP resource base and identify two general cases: one where the extracted products compete requiring negotiated trade-offs, the other one where the extracted products do not necessarily compete. One important conclusion is that literature to support either case is scant, calling for further research on the topic. However, their findings indicate that overall, fewer NTFP resources are available following selective logging. This effect seems the combined result of ‘‘conflict of use’’ (i.e., tree species with both timber and NTFP values) and of both direct and indirect logging impacts. In the seventh paper, Shanley et al. (2011) document ways to minimize ‘‘conflict of use’’ through concrete field evidence, promoting combined timber and NTFP use for three highly valued Amazonian tree species. Their results indicate that the NTFP value of these species is diminishing at current timber harvesting intensities, but also that locally developed management approaches by smallholders in Amazonian logging frontiers are helping to mitigate logging-related losses of the NTFP resource base. The authors recommend the integration of this hitherto undocumented knowledge into the design of silvicultural systems by professional foresters to further promote multiple use practices in the study region. This issue of ‘‘conflict of use’’ is taken a step further in the eighth paper by Klimas et al. (2011) for the Amazonian tree species Carapa guianensis, valued for both its timber and the oil extracted from its seed. Combining an economic model with empirical data on tree population dynamics and harvest simulations for seed and timber, the authors estimate the potential income from the separate and combined use of both products. They conclude that managing Carapa for both timber and seeds can be profitable than either use separately in their study area. They show that, in certain Amazonian forest types, the opportunity costs of maintaining forest cover between successive timber harvest rotations could be minimized if multi-use management of Carapa is inserted into the suite of activities carried out by communities. In the ninth paper of this issue, Soriano et al. (2011) evaluate the effects of selective timber harvesting on natural regeneration of the Brazil nut tree in the Bolivian Amazon. Their main finding is that, although the Brazil nut tree require large canopy openings to regenerate from seed (Cotta et al., 2008), at the current low harvesting intensities (2 m3/ha), density of saplings and small trees appears unaffected. Their results point to compatibility of timber extraction and maintenance of the Brazil nut population structure. Yet, the authors warn that complying with current regulatory and legal requirements remains a challenge and that simplification of
existing norms for management of both products is warranted (see also Cronkleton et al., 2011 abovementioned). 2.3. Integrating wildlife management into selective timber harvesting operations The incorporation of wildlife management into timber management remains an overlooked aspect of multiple use management in tropical forests. Empirical evidence shows that selective logging for timber usually leads to overexploitation of wildlife for human consumption for many various reasons including enhanced access (e.g., Poulsen et al., 2009). The last two papers of this Special Issue consider, however, specific strategies of wildlife management in the context of timber harvesting. Nasi et al. (2011b) take a regional approach, drawing from experiences in Congo Basin countries where about 22 million ha are under some sort of formal management status today, with approved plans or plans in preparation. One of their main recommendations is that for wildlife concerns to be fully integrated into timber management, a landscape approach involving the explicit incorporation of adjacent protected areas is essential. The authors point out that promoting ‘‘multiple use thinking’’ and its eventual implementation in the Congo Basin region still presents enormous challenges. The final paper of this Special Issue by Baur et al. (2011) describe lessons learned during the design and implementation of a community-based, commercial recreational hunting program in the Petén forest concessions in Guatemala which began a decade ago (see also Radachowsky et al., 2011). The authors find that this activity is currently highly compatible with the harvesting of timber and NTFPs while bringing economic benefit to the concessionaires. Among the reasons for success are the high level of social organization of the participating concessions, the biological resilience of the target species to hunting pressure, and the spatial and temporal separation of hunting and forest extraction activities. 3. Moving forward This Special Issue presents a novel contribution, enhancing our knowledge of factors that enable or hamper the development of more holistic approaches to tropical production forests. We draw a few main messages, addressed across the individual papers. 3.1. Trade-offs are complex and acute Although the constraints impeding the implementation of multiple use of forests differ little from the constraints in plans that only include timber (e.g., Nasi et al., 2011a), the required trade-offs in the former are expected to be more problematic. These will surface at the level of landscapes (Nasi et al., 2011b), species (Klimas et al., 2011; Rist et al., 2011; Soriano et al., 2011; Shanley et al., 2011), stakeholder interests (Duchelle et al., 2011; Radachowsky et al., 2011; Taylor, 2011) and norms and regulations (Cronkleton et al., 2011). Refining the scientific basis for assessing and minimizing trade-offs at different spatial scales is warranted. Both Frost et al. (2006) and Lafortezza et al. (2008) provide insight to managers as well as practitioners on this topic. 3.2. Social learning and multi-stakeholder dialogue is essential As important as it may be to establish multiple use objectives from the outset and involve different stakeholders in the planning process (Duchelle et al., 2011), social learning and multistakeholder dialogue in the context of adaptive management are needed to maintain these objectives over time, both from the top down (Radachowsky et al., 2011) and the bottom up (Taylor,
M.R. Guariguata et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 263 (2012) 170–174
2011). This is potentially critical when designing policy or regulatory frameworks for multiple forest goods whose values accrue to different users and where both customary regulations and tenure issues should be respected (Cronkleton et al., 2011). Our own experience suggests difficulties in integrating the concept of multiple use in national forest regulations as most management plans are conceived and validated with a timber mindset, even when national legislation promotes in theory multiple forest uses. 3.3. Management practitioners must take the long view and adapt The papers by Baur et al. (2011), Radachowsky et al. (2011) and Taylor (2011), all from Guatemala’s community forestry concessions highlight another message: in trying to achieve sustainable forest management, lessons learned cannot be drawn out without long-term vision and commitment viewed as an ongoing experiment along with an integrated, monitoring-reflection component (see further cases in Colfer, 2005). 3.4. Managers can pay more heed to spatial planning For managers and practitioners to work on multiple forest use in the tropics they must consider spatial aspects in detail. From a strictly spatial standpoint, trade-offs can be optimized by segregating management objectives (Wang and Wilson, 2007). Others have proposed a ‘‘middle ground’’ through optimally distributing different and complementary uses, thus optimizing the total area of forest needed to provide a given economic return (Sayer et al., 2005). The reality, however, is that spatial planning for long-term forest production is generally disregarded across the tropics. For example, timber concessions are sometimes gazetted with little or no attention to factors such as degree of soil fertility, forest types or floristic composition (e.g., Hammond and Zagt, 2006; Salo and Toivonen, 2009). In turn, NTFP concessions, more often than not, include vast quantities of commercially valuable timber often prompting uncontrolled extraction by third-party loggers (e.g., Cossío-Solano et al., 2011). The mutual role of protected forest areas and well managed timber concessions in maintaining viable wildlife populations is well acknowledged yet further research on collaborative governance at landscape levels is needed (Clark et al., 2009; Nasi et al., 2011b). The extent to which production for either timber or NTFPs, for example, is maximized across different forest types (Klimas et al., 2011) also deserves further investigation. 3.5. Minimize trade-offs in small forest areas Equally important, however, is to further minimize management tradeoffs when timber and NTFP-bearing trees coexist in small forest areas where spatial segregation is not practical (e.g., Menton et al., 2009; Soriano et al., 2011). As Rist et al. (2011) point out, research on logging impacts on tree-based NTFP resources in tropical forests remain understudied for the most part (see also Ticktin, 2004). 3.6. New forest science and training approaches are needed Finally, we believe that moving from ‘‘concept to reality’’ will also require new forestry training and education approaches to keep up with the ever-growing methods for valuing and using tropical forests. If forests used for the provision of multiple goods and services may in fact fare as good as strictly protected forests in terms of reducing deforestation (Porter-Bolland et al., 2011; Nelson and Chomitz, 2011), modernizing forestry curriculums with a firm insertion of multiple use frameworks from the biophysical, so-
173
cio-cultural and economic dimensions is perhaps a worthwhile investment. References Baur, E.H., McNab, R.B., Williams, L.E., Ramos, V.H., Radachowsky, J., Guariguata, M.R., 2011. Multiple forest use through commercial sport hunting: lessons from a community-based model from the Petén, Guatemala. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.06.005. Blaser, J., Sarre, A., Poore, D., Johnson, S., 2011. Status of Tropical Forest Management 2011. ITTO Technical Series No. 38. International Tropical Timber Organization, Yokohama, Japan. Clark, C., Poulsen, J., Malonga, J.R., Elkan, P.W., 2009. Logging concessions can extend the conservation estate for Central African Tropical Forests. Conservation Biology 23, 1281–1293. Colfer, C., 2005. The complex forest: communities, uncertainty, and adaptive collaborative management. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, USA. Cossío-Solano, R.E., Guariguata, M.R., Menton, M., Capella, J.L., Ríos, L., Peña, P., 2011. El Aprovechamiento de Madera en las Concesiones Castañeras (Bertholletia excelsa) en Madre de Dios, Perú: Un Análisis de su SituaciónNormativa. Documento de Trabajo 56. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Cotta, J.N., Kainer, K.A., Wadt, L.H.O., Staudhammer, C.L., 2008. Shifting cultivation effects on Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa) regeneration. Forest Ecology and Management 256, 28–35. Cronkleton, P., Guariguata, M.R., Albornoz, M.A., 2011. Multiple use forestry planning: timber and Brazil nut management in the community forests of Northern Bolivia. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/ j.foreco.2011.04.035. Cubbage, F., Harou, P., Sills, E., 2007. Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management. Forest Policy and Economics 9, 833–851. Duchelle, A.E., Guariguata, M.R., Less, G., Albornoz, M.A., Chavez, A., Melo, T., 2011. Evaluating the opportunities and limitations to multiple use of Brazil nuts and timber in Western Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/ j.foreco.2011.05.023. Durst, P.B., Brown, C., Tacio, H.D., Ishikawa, M., 2005. In search of excellence: exemplary forest management in Asia and the Pacific. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. Fantini, A.C., Crisóstomo, C.F., 2009. Conflitos de interesses em torno da exploração madeireira na Reserva Extrativista Chico Mendes, Acre, Brasil. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas 4, 231–246. FAO, 2010. Global Forest Resources Assessment. FAO Forestry Paper 163. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. FAO, 2010b. Standing tall: exemplary cases of sustainable forest management in Latin America and the Caribbean. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and Junta de Castilla y León, España. Frost, P., Campbell, B., Medina, G., Usongo, L., 2006. Landscape-scale approaches for integrated natural resource management in tropical forest landscapes. Ecology and Society 11 (2), 30. García-Fernández, C., Ruiz Pérez, M., Wunder, S., 2008. Is multiple-use forest management widely implementable in the tropics? Forest Ecology and Management 256, 1468–1476. Guariguata, M.R., Evans, K., 2010. Advancing tropical forestry curricula through non-timber forest products. International Forestry Review 12, 418–426. Guariguata, M.R., García-Fernández, C., Sheil, D., Nasi, R., Herrero-Jáuregui, C., Cronkleton, P., Ingram, V., 2010. Compatibility of timber and non-timber forest product management in natural tropical forests: perspectives, challenges and opportunities. Forest Ecology and Management 259, 237–245. Hammond, D.S., Zagt, R.J., 2006. Considering background condition effects in tailoring tropical forest management systems for sustainability. Ecology and Society 11 (1), 37. Herrero-Jáuregui, C., Garcia-Fernández, C., Sist, P., Casado, M.A., 2009. Conflict of use for multi-purpose tree species in the state of Pará, Eastern Amazonia, Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation 18, 1019–1044. Kammesheidt, L., Idrus, R.M., Trockenbrodt, M., Hahn-Schilling, B., 2007. Linking academic forestry education with employers’ demands: a case study from Malaysia. International Forestry Review 9, 661–669. Kant, S., 2004. Economics of sustainable forest management. Forest Policy and Economics 6, 197–203. Klimas, C.A., Kainer, K.A., Wadt, L.H.O., 2011. The economic value of sustainable seed and timber harvests of multi-use species: an example using Carapa guianensis. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.03.006. Lafortezza, L., Chen, J., Sanesi, J. (Eds.), 2008. Patterns and Processes in Forest Landscapes: Multiple Use and Forest Management. Springer-Verlag, New York. Lawrence, A., 2007. Beyond the second generation: towards adaptiveness in participatory forest management. CABI reviews: perspectives in agriculture, veterinary science. Nutrition and Natural Resources 2 (28), 1–15. Meijaard, E., Sheil, D., Nasi, R., Augeri, D., Rosenbaum, B., Iskandar, D., Setyawati, T., Lammertink, M., Rachmatika, I., Wong, A., Soehartono, T., Stanley, S., O’Brien, T., 2005. Life after Logging: Reconciling Wildlife Conservation and Production Forestry in Indonesian Borneo. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. Menton, M., Merry, F.D., Lawrence, A., Brown, N., 2009. Company-community logging contracts in Amazonian settlements: impacts of livelihoods and NTFP harvests. Ecology and Society 14 (1), 39.
174
M.R. Guariguata et al. / Forest Ecology and Management 263 (2012) 170–174
Nasi, R., Putz, F.E., Pacheco, P., Wunder, S., Anta, S., 2011a. Sustainable forest management and carbon in tropical Latin America: the case for REDD+. Forests 2, 200–217. Nasi, R., Billand, A., van Vliet, N., 2011b. Managing for timber and biodiversity in the Congo Basin. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/ j.foreco.2011.04.005. Nelson, A., Chomitz, K.M., 2011. Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods. PLoS ONE 6(8) e22722. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022722. Pan, Y. et al., 2011. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993. Panayotou, T., Ashton, P.S., 1992. Not by Timber Alone: Economics and Ecology for Sustaining Tropical Forests. Island Press, Washington, DC. Pinelo, G., 2009. Qué factores favorecen la compatibilidad del manejo para madera y la palma de xate (Chamaedorea spp.) en Guatemala? In: Guariguata, M.R., García-Fernández, C., Nasi, R., Sheil, D., Herrero-Jáuregui, C., Cronkleton, P., Ndoye, O., Ingram, V. (Eds.), Hacia un manejo múltiple en bosques tropicales: consideraciones sobre la compatibilidad del manejo de madera y productos forestales no maderables. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, p. 18. Porter-Bolland, L., Ellis, E.A., Guariguata, M.R., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Negrete-Yankelevich, S., Reyes-García, V., 2011. Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.034. Poulsen, J.R., Clark, C.J., Mavah, G., Elkan, P.W., 2009. Bushmeat supply and consumption in a tropical logging concession in Northern Congo. Conservation Biology 23, 1597–1608. Putz, F.E., Blate, G.M., Redford, K.H., Fimbel, R., Robinson, J., 2001. Tropical forest management and conservation of biodiversity: an overview. Conservation Biology 15, 7–20. Putz, F.E., Zuidema, P.A., Pinard, M.A., Boot, R.G.A., Sayer, J.A., et al., 2008. Improved tropical forest management for carbon retention. PLoS Biol. 6 (7) e166. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060166. Radachowsky, J., Ramos, V.H., McNab, R., Baur, E.H., Kazakov, N., 2011. Forest concessions in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala: a decade later. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.08.043. Rist, L., Shanley, P., Sunderland, T., Sheil, D., Ndoye, O., Liswanti, N., Tieguhong, J., 2011. The impacts of selective logging on non-timber forest products of livelihood importance. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/ j.foreco.2011.04.037. Salo, M., Toivonen, T., 2009. Tropical timber rush in Peruvian Amazonia: spatial allocation of forest concessions in an uninventoried frontier. Environmental Management 44, 609–623. Sayer, J., Elliot, C., Maginnis, S., 2005. Protect, manage and restore: conserving forests in multifunctional landscapes. In: Sayer, J. (Ed.), The Earthscan Reader in Forestry and Development. Earthscan, London, pp. 415–421.
Shackleton, S., Delang, C.O., Angelsen, A., 2011. From subsistence to safety nets and cash income: exploring the diverse values of non-timber forest products for livelihoods and poverty alleviation. In: Shackleton, S. et al. (Eds.), Non-Timber Forest Products in the Global Context. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 55–81. Shanley, P., Silva, M.d.S., Melo, T., Carmenta, R., Nasi, R., 2011. From conflict of use to multiple use: Forest management innovations by small holders in Amazonian logging frontiers. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/ j.foreco.2011.05.041. Sheil, D., Puri, R., Wan, M., Basuki, I., van Heist, M., Liswanti, N., Rumiyati, Rachmatika, I., Samsoedin, I., 2006. Recognizing local people’s priorities for tropical forest biodiversity. Ambio 35, 17–24. Sist, P., García-Fernández, C., Fredericksen, T.S., 2008. Moving beyond reducedimpact logging towards a more holistic management of tropical forests. Forest Ecology and Management 256, vii–ix. Soriano, M., Kainer, K.A., Staudhammer, C.L., Soriano, E., 2011. Implementing multiple forest management in Brazil nut-rich community forests: effects of logging on natural regeneration and forest disturbance. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.010. Taylor, P.L., 2011. Multiple forest activities, multiple purpose organizations: Organizing for complexity in a grassroots movement in Guatemala’s Petén. Forest Ecology and Management, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.007. Temu, A.B., Okali, D., Bishaw, B., 2006. Forestry education, training and professional development in Africa. International Forestry Review 8, 118–125. Ticktin, T., 2004. The ecological implications of harvesting non-timber forest products. Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 11–21. Tieguhong, J.C., Ndoye, O., 2007. The Impact of Timber Harvesting on the Availability of Non-wood Forest Products in the Congo Basin. Forest Harvesting Case Study 23. FAO, Rome. Toledo, V.M., Ortiz-Espejel, B., Corté, L., Moguel, P., Ordoñez, M.J., 2003. The multiple use of tropical forests by indigenous peoples in Mexico: a case of adaptive management. Ecology and Society 7 (3), 9. van Kuijk, M., Putz, F.E., Zagt, R., 2009. Effects of Forest Certification on Biodiversity. Tropenbos International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Venter, O., Meijaard, E., Possingham, H.P., Dennis, R., Sheil, D., Wich, S., Hovani, L., Wilson, K.A., 2009. Carbon payments as a safeguard for threatened tropical mammals. Conservation Letters 2, 123–129. Wadsworth, F.H., 1952. Forest management in the Luquillo Mountains. II. Planning for multiple land use.. Caribbean Forester 13, 49–61. Wang, S., Wilson, B., 2007. Pluralism in the economics of sustainable forest management. Forest Policy and Economics 9, 743–750.