1

1

Regreening the barren hills: alternative methods of tropical

forest restorationDavid Lamb

University of QueenslandAustralia

2

My argument

�• Plantations of fast-growing exotics grown in monocultures will continue to play a role

�• However, should not be seen as only way in which reforestation can be done

�• Farmers are different to large companies -they deserve a wider range of silvicultural alternatives to suit their circumstances

�• Likewise, those (Governments, NGOs, communities) interested in supplying ecological services need alternatives

3

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 4

5

Consequences�• Much wealth generated - but continued

rural poverty

�• Increased agricultural land but much under-used/degraded lands�– Area of Imperata across SEA region = 20+

million ha (Cambodia = 17.6 m ha, Phillipines = 29.8 m ha)

�• Future forest resources?6

In response�• Reforestation to create new forest resources

and replace those lost

�• Worlds plantations now 6.6% of total forest cover*

�• Annual global plantings = 5 mill ha/y*

�• How is this being done? Mostly: �– a few fast-growing exotic species�– simple monocultures

*FAO 2010

2

7

But changes may be underway�• In past - reforestation to produce �‘goods�’

such as timber�• Now - increasing demand for reforestation to

supply ecological services as well as goods�– Clean water�– Stable hillsides�– Habitats for biodiversity�– Carbon stores, etc.

�• Temperate counties and tropical countries

8

Recent large reforestation initiatives

2010; Ecological services5India

2009; Ecological services(Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact)

15Brazil

2001; protection forests (* this just in Sloping Land Conversion Program)

32*China

1998; 3 m ha production, 2 m ha for protection

5Vietnam

1950s; originally production, but later ecological services

2Korea

Date and PurposeScale(m ha)

Country

9

Who has done reforestation in past?

�• Initially by governments (develop methods, reduce risks)

�• Then by private companies

�• But also by smallholders

10

Who does reforestation?

Area of productive plantations in 2005 (x1000ha)

652,302*6366,758SE Asia

49249,98027,17677,352Global

Other (NGOs?)

SmallholderCorporatePublic

* May be under-estimate• Indonesia and Myanmar classify all plantations as publicly owned• Thailand so same except rubber

(Source: FAO 2006 Planted Forests and Trees Working Paper FP38)

11

Questions Arising From this Background

1. Will the types of plantation used in the past still be suitable?

�• Can they supply the required ecological services?

2. Are the silvicultural methods developed for industrial-scale reforestation able to benefit smallholders?

12

In this talk �….1. Consider some alternative types of

reforestation

2. Look at capacity of these to supply Ecological Services

3. Look at capacity of these to benefit farmers (and so encourage these farmers to use them)

3

13

REGULATED LOGGING

POORLY REGULATED LOGGING

BIODIVERSITY

STRUCTURE

BIOMASS

PRODUCTION

A

B

C1

C2 D

ECOLOGICALRESTORATION

SIMPLE MONOCULTURE MIXED-SPECIESPLANTATIONS

O

E

F

Types of reforestation

14

Types of reforestation�• Monocultures �– fast growing exotics (e.g.

Acacia mangium)

�• Monocultures �– slower growing species (e.g. teak, native species)

�• Mixed-species plantations

�• Ecological Restoration

�• Natural regeneration

15

1. Monocultures- fast growing exotics�• Widely used by Government, Corporations and some

smallholders

�• Advantages�– Seeds and silvicultural technology available�– Productive (including on poor soils)�– Commercially attractive

�• Disadvantages�– Narrow range of products �– less suited to small farmers?�– Unable to supply some ecological services�– Logs cannot be transported long distances�– Risky

�• Ecologically (diseases and pests)�• Economically (one product for single market) 16

2. Monocultures- slower growing higher value (native?) species

�• Advantages�– Higher priced timbers

�• still profitable when distant from roads or markets�– Other products (resins, medicines, fruits) �– Better future markets as natural forests decline?

�• Disadvantages�– Slow growth = delayed financial return�– Less tolerant of highly degraded sites�– Seed less available�– Silviculture less understood

17

With long rotations1. Simple plantations may become more complex over time

2. Colonist join canopy layer

3. A failure or success?

Australia

Vietnam

18

3. Mixed-species plantations�• Advantages

�– Wider range of products �– reduce economic risks?�– Wider range of ecological services�– Some production/nutritional advantages�– Some financial advantages�– Reduced ecological risks?

�• Disadvantages�– More difficult management�– Must have complementary species �– not random

mixes

4

19

There are many types of mixtures

Permanentmixture of few or many spp.

Sp 1 shortSp 2 long

Plant target spp. under nurse trees

NTFPsunder established trees

Landscape mosaics of simple plantations

Single long rotation

Different rotation lengths

Trees onlyTrees +understorey

Trees only

54321

Trees even-agedTrees un-even agedUniformage

MixturesMono-cultures

20

Some silvicultural options

Permanentmixture

Sp 1 shortSp 2 long

Plant target spp. under nurse trees

NTFPsunder established trees

Simple plantation

Single long rotation

Different rotation lengths

Trees onlyTrees +understorey

Trees only

54321

Trees even-agedTrees un-even agedUniformage

MixturesMono-cultures

To improve cash flows

To facilitate establishmentof preferred species

To improve variety of goods,improve resilience and generate a conservation benefit

To improve cash flow

To match species with sites

21

Model 1: monocultures form mixtures at a landscape scale

�• Embed monocultures with a species-rich matrix (regrowth?)

�• Have a mosaic of monocultures �– fit species to preferred

sites? �– protect regional

biodiversity?

�• Diversity occurs at level of landscape rather than site

A DH

BFC

G

AE

22Model 5

Model 2

Model 3

23Model 4: Short rotation and Long RotationComplementary pairs – differing market values and canopy architectures 24

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

5

25

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

26

Thailand - 800 ha restoration planting, 15 years

27

5. Natural forest regrowth�• Advantages

�– Many trees already present (no planting needed)�– These are adapted to site�– It provides many ecological services�– It can provide some goods�– It can be improved by enrichment

�• Disadvantages�– We know surprisingly little about

�• Extent�• The age classes present�• The species present�• The changes underway (productivity, composition)

�– Often seen as worthless and available for replacement28

Enrichment plantingSabah

30,000 ha

Line planting

After 10 y

29

Reminder - the original questions

1. Will the types of plantation used in the past still be suitable?

Can they supply the required ecological services?

2. Are the silvicultural methods developed for industrial-scale reforestation able to benefit smallholders?

30

These types of reforestation differ in their capacity to provide ecological

services!

H***HM***Natural regrowth

H***HM***Ecological Restoration

MHM*Mixtures

L(L)**(L or H)*Monocultures

Biodiversity Habitats

WaterCarbonType

Depends on - * market rules; **understorey; ***age

Mixtures

6

31

Time to provide ecological services

32

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)

33

Raises new questions!!!

�• How much reforestation?�• Where should this be

located?�• What type of

reforestation at these locations?

�• Who decides? �• How to achieve

agreement amongst stakeholders?

34

Reminder �– the original questions

1. Will the types of plantation used in the past still be suitable?

Can they supply the required ecological services?

2. Are the silvicultural methods developed for industrial-scale reforestation able to benefit smallholders?

35

Farmers and silvicultural options

�• Farmers not the same. Differ in �–�– Household income (off-farm income?)�– Amount of household labour�– Land area and quality (and tenure!)�– Technical knowledge of tree-growing�– Knowledge of markets�– Tolerance of risk

�• All these affect silvicultural choices36

NOT ALL FARMERS ARE THE SAMEA classification of farmers in northern Vietnam

< 2 ha >Land available to household for reforestation

Hou

seho

ld in

com

e

A19%

F6%

C8% D

6%

E18%

“well off”Can tolerate some risks

Enough food and some spare income

OK but no spare incomeCannot tolerate risks

B44%

Proportion in each class wanting more technical information

< 2 ha >Land available to household for reforestation

Hou

seho

ld in

com

e

A93%

F100%

C80% D

67%

E94%

“well off”Can tolerate some risks

Enough food and some spare income

OK but no spare incomeCannot tolerate risks

B96%

7

37

Choice of silvicultural method�• Industrial silvicultural methods OK if

1. Market for chips or small logs nearby2. They can afford fertilizer (2R)3. Farmers have large land areas

�• Alternative methods may be better if1. More isolated - not near market2. Plantations not primary income source3. Farmers need to diversify to minimize risks4. There are funds to establish protection forests5. There is a market for ecological services (eg.

watershed protection, C)

38

Back to the beginning - my original argument was �…

�• Plantations of fast-growing exotics grown in monocultures will continue to play a role

�• However, should not be seen as only way in which reforestation can be done

�• Farmers are different to large companies - they deserve a wider range of silvicultural alternatives to suit their circumstances

�• Likewise, those (Governments, NGOs, communities) interested in supplying ecological services need alternatives

39

Conclusions1. 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