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

Abstract

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

Population Structure and Fruit Production of Carapa guianensis (Andiroba) in Amazonian Floodplain Forests

“…This reverse-J population structure is characteristic of shade-tolerant canopy tree species and signals that recruitment is constant and probably sufficient for population maintenance (Peters, 1996). While mean C. guianensis seed production rates reported from monitoring of small samples (5-103 trees) range from 0.2 to 80.2 kg of seeds/tree/year McHargue & Hartshorn, 1983;Plowden, 2004;Ranklin, 1978), our substantially larger sample (n ¼ 556) revealed averages ranging from 2.6 to 5.5 kg of viable seeds/tree/year-consistent with the average of 5.8 kg of viable seeds/tree/year in terra firme forest in the eastern Amazon (Sist et al, 2014). Production variation close to two orders of magnitude among individuals in our va´rzea study area suggests that larger samples are required for reliable population-level production estimates.…”

Promoting Multiple-use Forest Management: Which trade-offs in the timber concessions of Central Africa?

“…Most publications mention trade-offs between competing or complementary activities, but there are very few quantitative estimates of gains and losses related to the passage of conventional logging to MFM. Some recent examples come from South America (Menton et al, 2009;Sist et al, 2014), but no similar studies exist in Central Africa. The article attempts to fill this gap and assumes that the financial evaluation of the benefits and costs related to conflicts' resolution clarifies the trade-offs to be made by each stakeholders to support formal MFM in timber concessions.…”

Annual Cash Income from Community Forest Management in the Brazilian Amazon: Challenges for the Future

“…Like in other countries, one of the main challenges in Brazil is to increase the competitiveness and attractiveness of SFM compared with other land uses [24,25]. Understanding monetary costs and benefits thus plays a central role in developing equitable benefit sharing arrangements and assessing whether the net gains from timber harvesting under CFM are sufficient to encourage a community's long-term commitment to SFM for commercial purposes.…”

“…More recently, a financial analysis of three CFM projects demonstrated that their financial viability was fragile, and that they needed subsidies or access to credit to cover the fixed costs of salaries [10]. Another recent case study confirmed that potential income from multiple use forest management remains modest and lower than potential agricultural incomes on a per hectare basis [25]. The main limitations of these studies are that the results were based on a one-year assessment and, as pointed out by the authors themselves, costs and benefits can vary greatly from one year to another.…”