Topic 7.3: Site Assessment

Many natural forest management efforts in the tropics have failed because the areas selected for management were inappropriate.  The list of potential conflicts with forest management is exceedingly long, but perhaps the first issue of concern is: Who owns or otherwise has rights to the land and the timber and other forest products that grow on it?  Contested land titles, overlapping claims, (e.g., timber concessions granted in areas claimed by indigenous communities), state-owned timber on private land, and conflicting land uses (e.g., forest management areas that are parcelled out for colonization or set aside in parks) are situations familiar to most foresters.  Another related issue to be considered is concession duration; the shorter the concession the lower the vested interest of the concessionaire in long-term management.  However, long-term concessions may be a necessary but not sufficient motivation for sustainable forest management.  That is, granting long-term concessions does not guarantee good forestry practices will be utilized but it may help.

When long-term economic benefits are considered, including biodiversity maintenance, watershed protection, and protection of other ecosystem functions that are not generally bought and sold in the marketplace, natural forest management is the favored land use in many areas of the tropics.  It may be hard for some foresters to accept, but other, more intensive land uses, can  yield higher profits and may even be sustainable on some sites.  Furthermore, due to human population pressure, foreign debt, and other needs for revenue, some lands that would be best left forested will unavoidably be converted to housing developments, plantation agriculture, and swidden agriculture.  Foresters and others interested in forest conservation need to recognize, for example, that from the point of view of a landless farmer, slash-and-burn agriculture is a rational land use, even if the site will support crops for only 1-3 years.  Foresters should strive to increase public awareness of the importance of forests and the economic viability of natural forest management.  At the same time, they need to recognize that on sites with nutrient-rich, arable soil and substantial pressure for forest conversion, more intensive land uses are likely.  Above all, every effort should be made to assure that rational land use programs are implemented.

Where pressure for forest conversion comes from local people who want land for agricultural purposes, involving them in all phases of forest management, including profit-taking, can reduce deforestation.  Furthermore, forest management planning and field operations are likely to benefit from their knowledge of the forest.  Finally, because forest neighbors and forest inhabitants are the people most likely to suffer if a resource is wastefully converted or poorly managed, it seem just that they play key roles in the forest management process.  If they are full stakeholders, they will have a vested interest in protecting investments in forest management.

Due to the presence of rare species, especially high biodiversity, erodibility, religious/historical/cultural significance, recreational value, and other reasons, some forests should not receive any silvicultural treatments.  Even when these sites are located within designated forest management areas, they should be identified, demarcated on maps and in the field, and left alone.  In addition to being unethical and environmentally unsound, by allowing such areas to be disturbed, foresters risk tarnishing the reputation of their profession, a reputation that is very important to defend.