Presentation by David Lamb on alternative methods for tropical forest restoration. Besides large scale reforestation activities, David Lamb argues to look for smaller scale silvicultural alternatives as well which are more suitable for farmers.

1. My argument
•• Plantations of fast-growing exotics grown in
monocultures will continue to play a role
Regreening the barren hills:
alternative methods of tropical •• However, should not be seen as only way in
which reforestation can be done
forest restoration
•• Farmers are different to large companies -
David Lamb they deserve a wider range of silvicultural
alternatives to suit their circumstances
University of Queensland
Australia •• Likewise, those (Governments, NGOs,
communities) interested in supplying
ecological services need alternatives
1 2
In the last 100 years ……
Human populations have
grown
Need for agricultural land
has increased
Forest cover has declined
Many remaining forests have
been heavily logged 3 4
Consequences In response
•• Much wealth generated - but continued •• Reforestation to create new forest resources
rural poverty and replace those lost
•• Worlds plantations now 6.6% of total forest
•• Increased agricultural land but much cover*
under-used/degraded lands
–– Area of Imperata across SEA region = 20+ •• Annual global plantings = 5 mill ha/y*
million ha (Cambodia = 17.6 m ha, Phillipines = 29.8 m ha)
•• How is this being done? Mostly:
•• Future forest resources? –– a few fast-growing exotic species
5 –– simple monocultures 6
*FAO 2010
1

2. Recent large reforestation initiatives
But changes may be underway
•• In past - reforestation to produce ‘‘goods’’ Country Scale Date and Purpose
such as timber (m ha)
Korea 2 1950s; originally production,
•• Now - increasing demand for reforestation to
but later ecological services
supply ecological services as well as goods
Vietnam 5 1998; 3 m ha production, 2 m
–– Clean water ha for protection
–– Stable hillsides
China 32* 2001; protection forests
–– Habitats for biodiversity (* this just in Sloping Land Conversion Program)
–– Carbon stores, etc. Brazil 15 2009; Ecological services
•• Temperate counties and tropical countries (Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact)
India 5 2010; Ecological services
7 8
Who has done reforestation in Who does reforestation?
past?
Area of productive plantations in 2005 (x1000ha)
•• Initially by governments (develop Public Corporate Smallholder Other
(NGOs?)
methods, reduce risks)
Global 77,352 27,176 49,980 492
•• Then by private companies SE Asia 6,758 636 2,302* 65
•• But also by smallholders * May be under-estimate
• Indonesia and Myanmar classify all plantations as publicly owned
• Thailand so same except rubber
9 (Source: FAO 2006 Planted Forests and Trees Working Paper FP38) 10
Questions Arising From this Background
In this talk …….
1. Will the types of plantation used in 1. Consider some alternative types of
the past still be suitable? reforestation
•• Can they supply the required ecological
services?
2. Look at capacity of these to supply
Ecological Services
2. Are the silvicultural methods
developed for industrial-scale
3. Look at capacity of these to benefit
reforestation able to benefit
farmers (and so encourage these
smallholders?
farmers to use them)
11 12
2

3. Types of reforestation Types of reforestation
SIMPLE MONOCULTURE MIXED-SPECIES ECOLOGICAL
•• Monocultures –– fast growing exotics (e.g.
PLANTATIONS RESTORATION
C2 D A Acacia mangium)
O C1
STRUCTURE
•• Monocultures –– slower growing species (e.g.
E teak, native species)
BIOMASS
REGULATED
•• Mixed-species plantations
LOGGING
PRODUCTION
F
B
POORLY
REGULATED
•• Ecological Restoration
LOGGING
•• Natural regeneration
BIODIVERSITY 13 14
2. Monocultures- slower growing
1. Monocultures- fast growing exotics
higher value (native?) species
•• Widely used by Government, Corporations and some •• Advantages
smallholders
–– Higher priced timbers
•• Advantages •• still profitable when distant from roads or markets
–– Seeds and silvicultural technology available –– Other products (resins, medicines, fruits)
–– Productive (including on poor soils)
–– Commercially attractive
–– Better future markets as natural forests decline?
•• Disadvantages •• Disadvantages
–– Narrow range of products –– less suited to small farmers?
–– Unable to supply some ecological services –– Slow growth = delayed financial return
–– Logs cannot be transported long distances –– Less tolerant of highly degraded sites
–– Risky
•• Ecologically (diseases and pests) –– Seed less available
•• Economically (one product for single market) 15 –– Silviculture less understood 16
Australia 3. Mixed-species plantations
Vietnam •• Advantages
–– Wider range of products –– reduce economic risks?
–– Wider range of ecological services
–– Some production/nutritional advantages
–– Some financial advantages
–– Reduced ecological risks?
With long rotations
1. Simple plantations may become •• Disadvantages
more complex over time
–– More difficult management
2. Colonist join canopy layer –– Must have complementary species –– not random
3. A failure or success?
mixes
17 18
3

4. Some silvicultural options
There are many types of mixtures Mono-
cultures
Mixtures
Uniform Trees un-even aged Trees even-aged
age
Mono- Mixtures 1 2 3 4 5
cultures Trees only Trees +
understorey
Trees only Different
rotation
Single long
rotation
lengths
Uniform Trees un-even aged Trees even-aged
Simple NTFPs Plant Sp 1 short Permanent
age plantation under
established
target spp. Sp 2 long
under
mixture
trees nurse trees
1 2 3 4 5 To match species
with sites
Trees only Trees + Trees only Different Single long
understorey rotation rotation
lengths
To improve cash flows To improve variety of goods,
improve resilience and
Landscape NTFPs Plant Sp 1 short Permanent generate a conservation
mosaics of under target Sp 2 long mixture of benefit
simple established spp. under few or many
plantations trees nurse spp. To facilitate establishment To improve cash flow
trees 19 of preferred species 20
Model 1: monocultures form
mixtures at a landscape scale
•• Embed monocultures
with a species-rich
matrix (regrowth?)
Model 2
•• Have a mosaic of
monocultures
–– fit species to preferred
sites?
–– protect regional
biodiversity?
A D
H
•• Diversity occurs at
level of landscape C E F
A
B
rather than site 21 Model 3 Model 5 22
G
Silviculture of mixtures
•• Much to discuss about
–– Which species?
–– What proportions
–– How to manage stands as they age
•• Many farmers have used similar techniques in
their agroforestry practices
•• Foresters could learn much from them
Model 4: Short rotation and Long Rotation
Complementary pairs – differing market values and canopy architectures 23 24
4

5. 4. Ecological
Restoration
•• Advantages
–– Best method for conserving
biodiversity
–– Good watershed protection
–– Buffered against disturbances
•• Disadvantages
–– Costly
–– Needs knowledge of species
biology
–– Methods?
•• Framework
•• Maximum diversity Thailand - 800 ha restoration planting, 15 years
25 26
Enrichment
5. Natural forest regrowth planting
•• Advantages Sabah
–– Many trees already present (no planting needed)
–– These are adapted to site
–– It provides many ecological services 30,000 ha
–– It can provide some goods
–– It can be improved by enrichment
•• Disadvantages Line planting
–– We know surprisingly little about
•• Extent
•• The age classes present
•• The species present
•• The changes underway (productivity, composition) After 10 y
–– Often seen as worthless and available for replacement
27 28
These types of reforestation differ in
Reminder - the original questions their capacity to provide ecological
services!
1. Will the types of plantation used in Type Carbon Water Biodiversity
the past still be suitable? Habitats
Can they supply the required ecological Monocultures (L or H)* (L)** L
services?
Mixtures M* H M
Mixtures
2. Are the silvicultural methods
developed for industrial-scale Ecological M*** H H***
Restoration
reforestation able to benefit
smallholders? Natural M*** H H***
regrowth
29 Depends on - * market rules; **understorey; ***age 30
5

6. Time to provide ecological services
IN ADDITION……
•• Delivery may depend on Scale
–– May need minimum area (natural +
restored) forest service provided
–– Hence many landholders? (and higher
transaction costs?)
•• Effectiveness can depend on Location
–– Biodiversity (need connectivity)
–– Watershed protection (best on steep
slopes, riverine areas)
31 32
Raises new questions!!! Reminder –– the original questions
•• How much reforestation? 1. Will the types of plantation used in
•• Where should this be
the past still be suitable?
located? Can they supply the required ecological
services?
•• What type of
reforestation at these
locations? 2. Are the silvicultural methods
•• Who decides? developed for industrial-scale
•• How to achieve reforestation able to benefit
agreement amongst smallholders?
stakeholders?
33 34
NOT ALL FARMERS ARE THE SAME
A classification of farmers in northern Vietnam
Farmers and silvicultural options C
8%
D
6%
“well off”
Can tolerate
some risks
Household income
Enough food
B E and some
•• Farmers not the same. Differ in ––
44% 18%
spare income
OK but no
–– Household income (off-farm income?)
A F
19% 6% spare income
Cannot tolerate
risks
–– Amount of household labour < 2 ha >
Land available to household for reforestation
–– Land area and quality (and tenure!)
Proportion in each class wanting more
–– Technical knowledge of tree-growing technical information
–– Knowledge of markets C
80%
D
67%
“well off”
Can tolerate
some risks
Household income
–– Tolerance of risk Enough food
B E and some
96% 94%
spare income
•• All these affect silvicultural choices
OK but no
A F
93% 100% spare income
Cannot tolerate
risks
< 2 ha >
35 Land available to household for reforestation 36
6

7. Back to the beginning - my
Choice of silvicultural method original argument was ……
•• Industrial silvicultural methods OK if •• Plantations of fast-growing exotics grown in
monocultures will continue to play a role
1. Market for chips or small logs nearby
2. They can afford fertilizer (2R)
3. Farmers have large land areas •• However, should not be seen as only way in which
reforestation can be done
•• Alternative methods may be better if
1. More isolated - not near market
•• Farmers are different to large companies - they
2. Plantations not primary income source deserve a wider range of silvicultural alternatives to
3. Farmers need to diversify to minimize risks suit their circumstances
4. There are funds to establish protection forests
5. There is a market for ecological services (eg.
watershed protection, C) •• Likewise, those (Governments, NGOs, communities)
interested in supplying ecological services need
alternatives
37 38
Conclusions
1. There are a variety of other reforestation options
available
2. Some have the potential to provide more ecological
services than monocultures of exotic species
3. Likewise some more suitable for many smallholders
than fast-growing exotics
4. BUT if this is to occur
•• More work needed to develop silvicultural systems
•• More landscape planning for strategic interventions
•• Greater linkages between foresters and
economists/sociologists
39
7