Tropical Forest Community Ecology

Ecologists and Forest Conservation 479

Financial profitability (per ha)

Low High

Biodiversity conservation value (per ha)Small

Great Parks

NTFP

RIL

STY

Conventional

logging

Total area with conservation potential

Low High

Parks

NTFP

PES PES

RIL

STY

Conventional

logging

(a) Financial gains (per ha) (b) Total potential worldwide

Ecotourism Ecotourism

Figure 28.3 Biodiversity value of tropical forest conservation options versus (a) their financial gains on a per unit
area basis, and (b) the total forest area with conservation potential (i.e., where conversion might be avoided) under
these management regimes. Shaded options are low-intensity uses; white options are more intensive uses. Parks,
protected areas; PES, payments for environmental services (e.g., carbon sequestration and hydrological function
protection); NTFP, non-timber forest product harvesting; STY, sustained timber yield; RIL, reduced impact logging.

currently demarcated in preserves (Chapeet al.
2005) is unlikely due to social, economic, and
political conditions (Schwartzmanet al. 2000,
Balmford and Whitten 2003), ecologists need to
conduct more research in degraded and managed
landscapes to inform efforts at enhancing their
value for conservation and development. NTFP
harvesting, for example, can be carried out sus-
tainably or not (e.g., Pereset al. 2003), but even
where not sustainable, such harvesting generally
has only minor direct impacts on forest struc-
ture and composition (Ticktin 2004). In contrast,
if collectors of forest fruit, bark, and other
products hunt for market purposes, widespread
defaunation often results (Peres and Zimmerman
2001).
The selective logging that characterizes most
tropical timber harvesting causes more forest
damage than NTFP harvesting but is also often
more lucrative (Putzet al. 2001, Chomitz 2007).
Although uncontrolled logging by untrained and
unsupervised crews paid solely on the basis
of the volumes of timber they harvest can be

extremely damaging to soils and residual trees,

substantial and often cost-saving improvements

are possible through implementation of reduced

impact logging (RIL) techniques (e.g., Dykstra

and Heinrich 1996). For example, planning of

skid trail locations, directional felling, and cut-

ting of woody vines on trees to be harvested

can reduce stand damage by 50% (Pinardet al.

2000, Putzet al. 2008). It should be noted, how-

ever, that even poorly loggedforests support many

species and supply many of the ecosystem ser-

vices that society values (e.g., Chazdon 1998,

Ter Steege 2003, Arets 2005, Azevedo-Ramos

et al. 2005, Meijaardet al. 2005). In contrast, if

logger-built roads open forest to hunters, render

it fire-susceptible, and increase its accessibility to

agricultural colonists, then the secondary impacts

are substantial (e.g., Robinson and Bennett 2000,

Fimbelet al. 2001, but see Blate 2005). Whether

further forest degradation follows logging depends

on the pressures on the area for conversion

and on the effectiveness of governance (Chomitz

2007).