VoRLD's FoRESTS 2001 gnificantly(Bach, 1999). The financial benefits, owner or manager will be able to operate long however, are perhaps less obvious. RiL entails enough to gain these benefits are essential additional investments in planning, training and preconditions. A lack of long-term security of the construction of road and skid trails(Ahmad, resource use rights to forest land is likely to limit Brodie and Sessions, 1999). Some studies claim the use of ril When the right conditions are in that the higher costs of Ril methods are more lace and operators are committed to than compensated for by the various benefits that environmentally sound timber harvesting practices, would not otherwise materialize. One recent effective implementation will require considerable research report makes the following suggestions. capacity building and field training efforts. higher costs required for implementing RIL are associated with increased planning and Restrictions on timber harvesting more developed management and information Many regions of the world continue to experience systems. The financial benefits relate to high rates of deforestation and forest degradation, increased production, combined with less despite efforts to ensure forest protection and waste and reduced costs resulting from the conservation. Excessive commercial logging is more efficient use of machinery. commonly (although sometimes erroneous The savings in machine costs marginally blamed for the rapid decline of natural forest outweigh the resulting additional costs. When resources and for floods and landslides. This has e value of the increased production(because led to political decisions in some countries to ban of reduced harvesting waste)is added, the logging in natural forests, either totally or partiall adoption of ril techniques may significantly Other countries are considering bans and reduce the production costs per cubic metre of restrictions on timber harvesting as a strategy fo conserving their diminishing natural forests. Savings are also achieved at the operational The effects of harvesting restrictions or bans level. With increased production per unit area, may be wide-ranging. Among other things, they there can be a consequent reduction in the can shift harvesting pressure from one forest area allocation of the fixed cost of road construction to another, affect forest-dependent people per cubic metre harvested. increase or decrease employment opportunities Other recently published studies indicate that: (both inside and outside the forest sector); change total logging costs decrease slightly when ril trade patterns and regional financial flows; and is applied (Bach, 1999) disrupt existing markets or encourage new increased operational costs associated with RIL markets- both domestic and international are offset by the financial gains from increased A number of questions therefore need to be timber utilization(Ruslim et al, 2000, Van der answered: Do logging bans really help conserve Hout, 2000) forests? Can deforestation be halted or reduced by Despite the promising findings, the economic restricting timber harvests, particularly in natural and financial viability of ril still needs to be forests? What are the key elements for demonstrated under a wide range of conditions In implementing such bans successfully? What have addition, the higher costs of implementing Ril are been the experiences of countries that have benefits, which may only become available in the such measures hada bans and what impacts have likely to act as a deterrent unless the financial implemented logging b longer term, can be captured. Both demonstrated The effects of logging bans differ dramatically financial viability and an assurance that the forest with the type of restriction, the exact details of the restriction, the products affected, the extent of other restrictions, the policies pursued by other 7FAO. 1997a: FAO. 1997b: FAo. 1998a: FAo. 1998b countries, market conditions, etc. Some of the dinburgh Centre for Tropical Forests. 2000. Activities and outputsforthe Barama Company Limited Reportonreduced impact effects may be positive, others negative. The outcome is neither straightforward nor predictable10 STATE OF THE WORLD’S FORESTS 2001 significantly (Bach, 1999). The financial benefits, however, are perhaps less obvious. RIL entails additional investments in planning, training and the construction of road and skid trails (Ahmad, Brodie and Sessions, 1999). Some studies7 claim that the higher costs of RIL methods are more than compensated for by the various benefits that would not otherwise materialize. One recent research report8 makes the following suggestions. • The higher costs required for implementing RIL are associated with increased planning and more developed management and information systems. The financial benefits relate to increased production, combined with less waste and reduced costs resulting from the more efficient use of machinery. • The savings in machine costs marginally outweigh the resulting additional costs. When the value of the increased production (because of reduced harvesting waste) is added, the adoption of RIL techniques may significantly reduce the production costs per cubic metre of wood. • Savings are also achieved at the operational level. With increased production per unit area, there can be a consequent reduction in the allocation of the fixed cost of road construction per cubic metre harvested. Other recently published studies indicate that: • total logging costs decrease slightly when RIL is applied (Bach, 1999); • increased operational costs associated with RIL are offset by the financial gains from increased timber utilization (Ruslim et al., 2000; Van der Hout, 2000). Despite the promising findings, the economic and financial viability of RIL still needs to be demonstrated under a wide range of conditions. In addition, the higher costs of implementing RIL are likely to act as a deterrent unless the financial benefits, which may only become available in the longer term, can be captured. Both demonstrated financial viability and an assurance that the forest owner or manager will be able to operate long enough to gain these benefits are essential preconditions. A lack of long-term security of resource use rights to forest land is likely to limit the use of RIL. When the right conditions are in place and operators are committed to environmentally sound timber harvesting practices, effective implementation will require considerable capacity building and field training efforts. Restrictions on timber harvesting Many regions of the world continue to experience high rates of deforestation and forest degradation, despite efforts to ensure forest protection and conservation. Excessive commercial logging is commonly (although sometimes erroneously) blamed for the rapid decline of natural forest resources and for floods and landslides. This has led to political decisions in some countries to ban logging in natural forests, either totally or partially. Other countries are considering bans and restrictions on timber harvesting as a strategy for conserving their diminishing natural forests. The effects of harvesting restrictions or bans may be wide-ranging. Among other things, they can shift harvesting pressure from one forest area to another; affect forest-dependent peoples; increase or decrease employment opportunities (both inside and outside the forest sector); change trade patterns and regional financial flows; and disrupt existing markets or encourage new markets – both domestic and international. A number of questions therefore need to be answered: Do logging bans really help conserve forests? Can deforestation be halted or reduced by restricting timber harvests, particularly in natural forests? What are the key elements for implementing such bans successfully? What have been the experiences of countries that have implemented logging bans and what impacts have such measures had? The effects of logging bans differ dramatically with the type of restriction, the exact details of the restriction, the products affected, the extent of other restrictions, the policies pursued by other countries, market conditions, etc. Some of the effects may be positive, others negative. The outcome is neither straightforward nor predictable. 7 FAO, 1997a; FAO, 1997b; FAO, 1998a; FAO, 1998b. 8 Edinburgh Centre for Tropical Forests. 2000. Activities and outputs for the Barama Company Limited. Report on reduced impact logging research. (unpublished)