Close Home
Journal of Biogeosciences and Forestry published by SISEF
ISSN: 1971-7458
iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry
vol. 4, pp. 1-6 (Jan 2011)
Copyright © 2011 by the Italian Society of Silviculture and Forest Ecology
doi: 10.3832/ifor0556-004

Research Articles

Approaches to classifying and restoring degraded tropical forests for the anticipated REDD+ climate change mitigation mechanism

N. Sasaki (1-2)Corresponding author, G.P. Asner (3), W. Knorr (4), P.B. Durst (5), H.R. Priyadi (6-7), F.E. Putz (8)

Introduction 

Tropical forests support much of the Earth’s biological diversity and contribute substantially to the global economy, to local human welfare, and to the global carbon budget. Based on 109 case studies from across the tropics (TEEB Climate Issues Update 2009 as cited in [43]), if all the ecosystem services provided by tropical forests were paid for, they would generate about US$ 11.1 trillion year-1 (US$ 6 120 ha-1 ·1807 million ha), nearly equivalent to the European Union’s GDP in 2009. Unfortunately, the capacity of tropical forest to provide these services is reduced each year by deforestation ([25], [12]) as well as by degradation principally due to uncontrolled logging ([14], [4], [5], [11], [44]) and fires ([30], [40]). With regard to degradation, at least 392 million ha, or 20% of the total area of humid tropical forests, were logged during 2000-2005, and about 50% of standing humid tropical forests retained 50% or less cover as of 2005 ([4], [12]). The limited data available on carbon emissions due to forest degradation suggest that they double the 1.5-2.2 PgC yr-1 released by deforestation ([5], [17], [21], [35]). Furthermore, deforestation and forest degradation also affect 89% of all threatened birds, 83% of threatened mammals, and 91% of threatened plants (⇒ http:/­/­www.­iucn.­org/­).

There is growing recognition of and increasing interest in generating carbon credits through reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation with enhancement of carbon sinks (REDD+), as evident by the recognition in the Copenhagen Accord adopted at the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ([49]) in December 2009. Unfortunately, most of the international attention has focused on avoided deforestation ([24], [17]) and enhancement of carbon sinks through reforestation and afforestation ([47]) either within or outside the framework of the Kyoto Protocol. Much less attention has been paid to halting and reversing forest degradation through restoration, interventions that in addition to increased forest carbon stocks have many collateral benefits including the improved capacity of forest lands to provide other ecosystem services, support biodiversity, and contribute to social welfare. With negotiations about REDD+ intensifying, an urgent issue now is how to restore degraded forests in socially viable, environmentally acceptable, and economically cost-effective manners. Restoration strategies should be a key element of any REDD+ agreement, and therefore such strategies need to be clarified. Here we focus on the causes of degradation, propose a classification scheme that reflects the severity of degradation, and point to ways to restore degraded forests that are appropriate for the classes proposed.

Defining “Forest” for the purposes of reversing forest degradation 

For the purposes of elucidating forest degradation, we adopt the UNFCCC’s definition of “forest” and the linked definitions of “deforestation” and “forest degradation” (Marrakesh Accord, Decision 11/CP.7) in full recognition of their limitations ([37], [19], [36]). Although we are particularly concerned about the lack of reference to species composition in this definitions, we take a “forest” to be an area of > 0.05 ha with tree crown cover >20% with a “tree” defined as a plant with the capacity to grow to >3 m tall. It follows then that “forest degradation” is the loss of trees and their carbon stocks down to the point that an area no longer qualifies as being forested, at which point the area is “deforested.” We further define “restoration” as management activities that help degraded forests recover their lost carbon stocks, biodiversity, and capacities to provide other goods and environmental services.

Restoration strategies and approaches 

Tropical forests are degraded in ways that reduce tree cover and carbon stocks principally by indiscriminate logging ([3], [5]), fires ([32], [2]), shifting cultivation ([27]), and harvesting trees for charcoal production ([1]). To counter the effects of degradation, whatever the causes and regardless of the degrees, tree planting is often prescribed ([26], [8]). Without denying the value of tree planting where seed sources have been eliminated and degradation is otherwise severe, there are other approaches to forest restoration that are often more cost-effective and that engender fewer ecological concerns ([13], [28], [34], [38], [51], [52], [55]). By categorizing forests on the basis of degrees of degradation (Fig. 1), we can select from among these approaches with more assurance of success in terms of low financial costs, better biodiversity conservation, and broad social and environmental benefits.

Fig. 1 - Schematic diagram of different states of forest degradation and time courses for restoration. The right and left Y-axes represent different degrees of degradation expressed qualitatively as carbon stocks and percent canopy cover, respectively. (P0): pre-harvest level of primary or old growth forest; (A): only authorized trees are harvested; (B): all trees larger than the minimum diameter for cutting are harvested; (C): all marketable trees are harvested; (D): no longer forest according to forest definition adopted by the UNFCCC in 2001 (Marrakesh Accord, Decision 11/CP.7); (E): Deforested. (D to E) is eligible for reforestation or afforestation under the clean development mechanism (CDM) if deforested prior to 1989 or 1940, respectively; (A to D): degradation; (D to E): deforestation; (T1 -T2): restoration period. Negotiations to include avoiding deforestation and degradation (AE) are underway.

To facilitate communication about restoration strategies for forests modified from their primary, old growth, or mature condition (P0 in Fig. 1), we define the following arbitrary set of states. Forests in state A are slightly degraded but retain some trees above the minimum diameter at breast height (DBH) for legal harvesting (DBH limits for tropical countries are provided in Tab. SM1 of the Supplementary Material 1). Forests in state B are moderately degraded due to having lost their legally harvestable trees but retain many that are just smaller than the minimum cutting diameter (for legal harvest). Forests in state C are highly degraded insofar as they contain only trees much smaller than the minimum cutting diameter. Finally, forests in state D are critically degraded insofar as they have few residual trees of any size (but enough for the area to still be considered “forest” - Fig. 2).

Fig. 2 - Primary and degraded natural forests. Points A & B are tags on a mature tree that was authorized for felling in Cambodia. Tree species, DBH, block, and coupe numbers are noted on each tag. To be considered legal, the feller must cut this tree between the two tags. All felled trees without such tags are considered illegal.

To provide rough estimates of the carbon stocks lost from forests degraded from point A to point D, data from Cambodia ([22], [23]), Indonesia ([41]), Brazil ([54], [29]), and Panama ([7]) suggest restorable losses of above-ground carbon stocks of 26.3 to 173.0 MgC ha-1 with an average of 112.4 MgC (Fig. 3 and Tab. 1). Depending on the degree of degradation, ecological characteristics of the residual species, needs and preferences of critical forest stakeholders, availability of funds, and accessibility, any of three general approaches to restoration can be appropriate, presented below in reference to these categories of degraded forest.

Fig. 3 - Above-ground carbon stocks in slightly (SDF), moderately (MDF), highly (HD), and critically (CDF) degraded forests. If CDF can be gradually restored back to the SDF, more carbon will be sequestered and stored in the forest. Note 1: due to variations in carbon stocks in various forest types across the tropics, here in the Fig. 3, we assume that SDF, MDF, HDF, and CDF contains trees with DBH≥10 cm, 10-49 cm, 10-29 cm, and 10-19 cm, respectively. With these assumptions, carbon stocks in relevant degraded forests are shown in the Fig. 3 above. Note 2: Data for Preah Vihear 1 (unlogged forest in Preah Vihear province, Cambodia), Preah Vihear 2 (logged forest in Preah Vihear province, Cambodia) were adopted from Kao & Iida ([22]); data for forests in Kampong Tom province, Cambodia were adopted from Kim Phat et al. ([23]); data for forest in Kalimantan (East Kalimantan, Indonesia) were taken from Sist and Saridan (1998); data for forests in Panama were adopted from Chave et al. ([7]); data for Amazon 1 and Amazon 2 were adopted from Wellhöfer ([54]) and Nascimentoa & Laurance ([29]), respectively.
Tab. 1 - Average above-ground carbon stocks in tropical forests and percentages. - Note: Data in Tab. 1 were derived from two sites in Brazil ([54], [29]), three sites in Cambodia

Restoring slightly degraded forest (SDF, P0 to A to PA)

SDF refers to areas where timber harvesting was restricted to the legally permitted fraction of trees and only occurred in accordance with government-specified minimum cutting cycles or at longer intervals. The degradation is due to regulated harvests being more intensive and more frequent than the forest can biologically sustain, at least in the absence of silvicultural treatments, as well as due to harvesting by untrained and inadequately supervised workers operating without the aid of adequate harvest plans. The consequent reductions in carbon stocks and high-value tree species are represented by the transition from points P0 to A.

To restore SDF, we propose reductions in logging intensities, avoidance of timber harvesting from steep slopes and other environmentally sensitive areas, and lengthening of cutting cycles, as appropriate, coupled with the use of reduced-impact logging techniques and liberation treatments of future crop trees in the residual stand. These changes in management practices that serve to reduce wood waste and logging damage, and to increase the growth of future crop trees are termed reduced-impact logging plus silviculture (RIL+; refer to Tab. SM1 in the Supplementary Material 1 for explanations of terms and impacts of various logging practices in the tropics). RIL+ involves worker training, harvest planning, site preparation, directional felling, and use of appropriate equipment for log yarding. Liberation treatments might include mechanical girdling and/or killing with herbicides of non-commercial trees that overtop future crop trees, plus vine cutting to accelerate the recruitment and growth of trees that have the capacity to grow to be large. Such treatments can accelerate average tree growth by 9-27% for all tree species, and by 50-60% for future crop trees ([34], [52]); application of such treatments to a selectively logged forest in Amazonian Brazil doubled the annual rate of above-ground biomass recovery from 0.16 to 0.33 Mg C ha-1 yr-1 (see SM for calculations) during at least the initial 6 years following logging ([53]). It is important to note, however, that in Indonesia, the benefits of RIL for the residual stand disappeared where the logging intensity was > 8 trees ha-1 ([42]). Reduced felling intensities benefits not only regeneration and growth of the residual stand, but also the long-term ecological sustainability of forest management operations.

Restoring moderately degraded forest (MDF, P0 to B to PB)

In MDF, more commercially high-value trees are harvested than authorized, and excessively damaging logging practices are employed. Unfortunately, failure to enforce forest management regulations is commonplace in the tropics ([18]) and results in substantial but avoidable losses in forest carbon stocks (down to point B on Fig. 1). These logging practices result in substantial losses of commercially high-value timber species ([50]) and substantial canopy opening, which renders forests susceptible to further degradation by drought and fires. MDF still contains some intermediate size trees, some of which are reproductively mature, and some large trees with defective stems, but carbon stocks are reduced by half of that in SFD (Tab. 1). MDF requires human intervention to protect the intermediate size trees and accelerate their growth. Forests in this category could be restored by active liberation and other silvicultural treatments to enhance the growth of future crop trees (B to A’), or more passively by preventing pre-mature re-entry logging and the continued use of poor logging practices (A’ to PB).

Restoring highly degraded forest (HDF, P0 to C to PC)

In HDF even trees smaller than the legal- size limit (see Tab. SM2 in the Supplementary Material 2) and reproductively mature trees of low financial value were harvested presumably in response to strong demand for timber and fuelwood coupled with weak governance. Due to substantial canopy opening caused by excessive and repeated tree harvesting, such forests are very susceptible to further degradation by fire or grazing coupled with invasion by fire-favoring graminoids. HDF is assumed to still contain some small residual forest trees, but carbon stocks are further reduced from those in MDF (Tab. 1). Restoration of HDF requires the cessation of the causes of degradation (B’ to A”) followed by intensive liberation treatments to stimulate the growth of trees with the capacity to grow to large sizes. In forests allocated for timber production, one goal is to bring the degraded forest back to a point where there are some sound trees larger than the legal limit for harvesting (C to B’); if natural regeneration and seed trees of heavily exploited species are too scarce, enrichment planting with native species might be justified.

Restoring critically degraded forest (CDF, P0 to D to PD)

CDF corresponds to areas that barely qualify as forest under the UNFCCC’s definition and that are at the ecological threshold from which unassisted recovery is unlikely ([26]). CDFs have been stripped of most trees by over-harvesting of timber and fuelwood collection, and are often burned, overgrazed, and dominated by lianas, shrubs, giant herbs, graminoids, or other non- arboreal species, both native and exotic. At point D, the risk of further degradation and transformation to non-forest land is generally very high ([46]). CDF still contains some small trees, but carbon stocks are reduced to < 20% of SDF values (Tab. 1). Initial restoration of such areas begins with stopping the causes of degradation and allowing natural recovery processes to proceed, but such processes often need to be accelerated by various forms of more active restoration. The restoration strategies recommended for moving from point D to C’ generally involve replanting (e.g., [26], [8], and [39]), which is costly and therefore unlikely to be widely implemented. Based on various studies across the tropics (e.g., [13], [38]), “assisted natural regeneration” is likely to be more cost-effective than replanting, thus making large-scale implementation more feasible. This approach might include fire management, grazing restrictions, suppressing the growth of invasive and fire-favoring graminoids (e.g., Imperata cylindrica, Pennisetum purpureum, and Urochloa maxima), protecting naturally regenerated native tree species, weeding, fertilizing, and, if necessary, inter-planting of native or even exotic nitrogenfixing trees. Depending on geographic locations and forest conditions, another possible approach is to apply an “agro-successional” restoration approach that has proven effective with forest-dependent communities that farm ([51]). Agro-successional approach involves the use of a “taungya” system in which native tree species are inter-planted with annual crops; after two or so food crops have been harvested, the trees come to dominate the area and the farmers move to another area to repeat the process. Eventually, thinning may be needed to accelerate the growth of desired individuals, thus speeding the transition from point C’ to B”. The residues from pruning and thinning might be used for forage or fuelwood by nearby communities. With increasing forest stature, stopping the causes of degradation continues to be important as the recovery proceeds from B” to A”. Eventually, during the final restoration phase (A’” to PD), RIL+ treatments become appropriate.

Making these strategies work 

A major constraint on the success of restoration interventions is the continued availability of funding, but some of the options we describe are not expensive to implement. For example, the switch from excessively destructive to reduced-impact logging reportedly ranges from having slight negative ([45]) to large positive effects on profits from timber harvesting ([20]). Depending on geographical location, season, and equipment, costs for liberation treatments by girdling of unwanted trees are likewise modest; in Bolivia they were estimated at US$ 0.21-1.04 per tree or about US$ 5.08-25.17 ha-1 ([31]; this assumes girdling of 24.2 competing trees ha-1 on average, based on [53]). The costs of restoration using assisted natural regeneration techniques are far less than enrichment planting and other conventional plantation development techniques because the costs of propagating, raising, and planting seedlings are avoided ([13], [38]). Average costs of ANR in three sites in the Philippines are approximately US$ 579 ha-1 compared to US$ 1.048 ha-1 for conventional reforestation methods ([10]). Furthermore, forests resulting from assisted natural regeneration are more biologically diverse and provide more benefits to local people than plantations. As restoration proceeds, more long-term benefits from ecosystem services and employment are expected, especially where efforts are financially supported by either the voluntary carbon market or funds from a future REDD+ agreement. Financial support for the latter is pledged at US$ 3.5 billion annually between 2010 and 2012 ([16]) and more is likely for an expected post-Kyoto implementation period between 2013 and 2020. Successful implementation of payments for ecosystem services for restoring forests in Costa Rica ([33], [6]) and in South America ([48]) provide evidence in support of the financial viability of our proposed approaches to restoration.

Effective and efficient monitoring and verification are essential to any global program that includes halting degradation and restoration among possible climate mitigation strategies. The framework we propose fits well with the latest techniques in satellite monitoring that allow direct estimation of canopy loss, recovery, and closure at a range of logging intensities ([3], [9], [15]). Moreover, the next generation of biomass-sensitive satellite sensors will soon be launched, with many more planned ([15]), which further supports the proposed strategy. Due to technological advancements and the availability of free data, the costs for monitoring carbon stocks and emissions are already as low as US$ 0.06 ha-1 in Madagascar, and US$ 0.08 ha-1 in Amazonian Peru ([5])

Conclusions 

Restoring degraded tropical forests has a huge potential for mitigating global climate change by enhancing carbon stocks. Among the approaches discussed, the first is to stop the causes of degradation and allow forests to regenerate on their own. The second approach is to accelerate tree regeneration and growth through application of any of a variety of silvicultural treatments. The third general approach is to plant seeds or seedlings in natural or artificial gaps, a process often referred to as enrichment planting. To promote widespread implementation of these strategies under REDD+ initiatives, appropriate incentives, policies, institutional arrangements, and local participation are required. Since restoration takes time, long-term political commitments by participating countries will be required. REDD+ funded forest restoration will contribute to sustainable development and help secure the ecosystem services upon which billions of people depend.

Acknowledgements 

We thank D. R. Foster, B. A. Colburn, K. Tanaka, B. B. Eav, M. Suwa, D. Orwig, and S. Seng for helpful comments, and S. Ouk, S. Ty, and E. Cadaweng for photos. N. Sasaki was supported through the Harvard Forest’s Charles Bullard Fellowship in Forest Research for Advanced Research. G. Asner was supported by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

References

(1)
Ahrends A, Burgess ND, Milledge SA, Bulling MT, Fisher B, Smart JC, Clarke GP, Mhoro BE, Lewis SL (2010). Predictable waves of sequential forest degradation and biodiversity loss spreading from an African city. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107: 14556-14561.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(2)
Aragão EOCL, Shimabukuro EY (2010). The incidence of fire in Amazonian forests with implications for REDD. Science 328: 1275-1278.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(3)
Asner GP, Broadbent EN, Oliveira PJ, Keller M, Knapp DE, Silva JN (2006). Condition and fate of logged forests in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103: 12947-12950.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(4)
Asner PG, Rudel KT, Aide TM, De Fries R, Emerson R (2009). A contemporary assessment of change in humid tropical forests. Conservation Biology 23: 1386-1395.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(5)
Asner GP, Powell GVN, Mascaro J, Knapp DE, Clark JK, Jacobson J, Kennedy-Bowdoin T, Balaji A, Paez-Acosta G, Victoria E, Secada L, Valqui M, Hughes FR (2010). High-resolution carbon stocks and emissions in the Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107: 16738-16742.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(6)
Calvo-Alvarado J, McLennan B, Sánchez-Azofeifa A, Garvin A (2009). Deforestation and forest restoration in Guanacaste, Costa Rica: Putting conservation policies in context. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 931-940.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(7)
Chave J, Condit R, Lao S, Caspersen JP, Foster RB, Hubbell PS (2003). Spatial and temporal variation of biomass in a tropical forest: results from a large census plot in Panama. Journal of Ecology 191: 240-252.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(8)
Chazdon RL (2008). Beyond deforestation: restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. Science 320: 1458-14560.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(9)
Curran LM, Trigg SN (2006). Sustainability science from space: quantifying forest disturbance and land-use dynamics in the Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 103: 12663-12664.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(10)
Durst PB, Sajise P, Leslie RN (2010). Forests beneath the grass. In: “Proceedings of the regional workshop on advancing the application of assisted natural regeneration for effective low-cost restoration. Bohol (Philippines) 19-22 May 2009. RAP Publication 2010/11, FAO, Bangkok, Thailand.
::Google Scholar::
(11)
FAO (2006). Global forest resources assessment 2005. FAO Forestry Paper 147, FAO, Rome.
::Google Scholar::
(12)
FAO (2010). Global forest resources assessment 2010. Main Report. FAO Forestry Paper 163, FAO, Rome.
::Google Scholar::
(13)
Ganz DJ, Durst PB (2003). Assisted natural regeneration: an overview. In: “Advancing assisted natural regeneration (ANR) in Asia and the Pacific” (Dugan PC, Durst PB, Ganz DJ, McKenzi PJ eds). FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 1-4.
::Google Scholar::
(14)
Gaston G, Brown S, Lorenzini M, Singh KD (1998). State and change in carbon pools in the forests of tropical Africa. Global Change Biology 4: 97-114.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(15)
GOFC-GOLD (2009). Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries: a source book of methods and procedures for monitoring, measuring and reporting. Report version COP14-2, GOFC-GOLD Project Office, Natural Resources Canada, Alberta, Canada.
::Google Scholar::
(16)
Grassi G, Federici S, Pilli R (2010). What happened to forests in Copenhagen? iForest 3: 30-32.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(17)
Gullison FR, Frumhoff CP, Canadell GJ, Field CB, Nepstad DC, Hayhoe K, Avissar R, Curran LM, Friedlingstein P, Jones CD, Nobre C (2007). Tropical forests and climate policy. Science 136: 985-986.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(18)
Gustafsson L, Nasi R, Dennis R, Nguyen Hoang Nghia, Sheil D, Meijaard E, Dykstra D, Priyadi, H, Pham Quang Thu (2007). Logging for the ark: improving the conservation value of production forests in South East Asia. CIFOR Occasional paper 48, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
::Google Scholar::
(19)
Hance J (2010). Rainforest scientists urge UN to correct “serious loophole” by changing its definition of “forest”. Web site.
::Google Scholar::
(20)
Holmes TP, Blate GM, Zweede JC, Pereira R, Barreto P, Boltz F, Bauch R (2002). Financial and ecological indicators of reduced impact logging performance in the eastern Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management 163: 93-110.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(21)
Houghton RA (2003). Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and land management 1850-2000. Tellus 55B: 378-390.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(22)
Kao D, Iida S (2003). Structural characteristics of logged evergreen forests in Preah Vihear, Cambodia, 3 years after logging. Forest Ecology and Management 225: 62-73.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(23)
Kim Phat N, Ouk S, Uozumi Y, Ueki T (2000). Stand dynamics of dipterocarp trees in Cambodia’s evergreen forest and management implications; a case study in Sandan District, Kampong Thom. Journal of Forest Planning 6: 13-23.
::Google Scholar::
(24)
Kindermann G, Obersteiner M, Sohngen B, Sathaye J, Andrasko K, Rametsteiner E, Schlamadinger B, Wunder S, Beach R (2008). Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105: 10302-10307.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(25)
Lambin EF, Geist H, Lepers E (2003). Dynamics of land use and cover change in tropical regions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 28: 205-241.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(26)
Lamb D, Erskine PD, Parrotta JA (2005). Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Science 310: 1628-1632.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(27)
Lawrence D (2005). Biomass accumulation after 10-200 years of shifting cultivation in Bornean rain forest. Ecology 86: 26-33.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(28)
Letcher SG, Chazdon RL (2009). Rapid recovery of biomass, species richness, and species composition in a forest chronosequence in northeastern Costa Rica. Biotropica 41: 608-617.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(29)
Nascimentoa EMH, Laurance FW (2002). Total aboveground biomass in central Amazonian rainforests: a landscape-scale study. Forest Ecology and Management 168: 311-321.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(30)
Nepstad D, Veríssimo A, Alencar A, Nobre C, Lefebvre P, Schlesinger P, Potter C, Moutinho P, Lima E, Cochrane M, Brooks V (1999). Large-scale impoverishment of Amazonian forests by logging and fire. Nature 398: 505-508.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(31)
Ohlson-Kiehn C, Pariona W, Fredericksen TS (2006). Alternative tree girdling and herbicide treatments for liberation and timber stand improvement in Bolivian tropical forests. Forest Ecology and Management 225: 207-212.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(32)
Page SE, Siegert F, Rieley JO, Boehm HD, Jaya A, Limin S (2002). The amount of carbon released from peat and forest fires in Indonesia during 1997. Nature 420: 61-65.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(33)
Pagiola S (2008). Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics 65: 712-724.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(34)
Peña-Claros M, Fredericksen TS, Alarcón A, Blate GM, Choque U, Leaño C, Licona JC, Mostacedo B, Pariona W, Villegas Z, Putz FE (2008). Beyond reduced-impact logging: Silvicultural treatments to increase growth rates of tropical trees. Forest Ecology and Management 256: 1458-1467.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(35)
Putz FE, Nasi R (2009). Carbon benefits from avoiding and repairing forest degradation. In: “Realising REDD+: national strategy and policy options” (Angelsen A ed). Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia, pp. 249-262.
::Google Scholar::
(36)
Putz FE, Redford HK (2010). Tropical forest definitions, degradation, phase shifts, and further transitions. Biotropica 42: 10-20.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(37)
Sasaki N, Putz FE (2009). Critical need for new definitions of “forest” and “forest degradation” in global climate change agreements. Conservation Letters 2: 226-232.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(38)
Shono K, Cadaweng EA, Durst PB (2007a). Application of assisted natural regeneration to restore degraded tropical forestlands. Restoration Ecology 15: 620-626.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(39)
Shono K, Davies SJ, Chua YK (2007b). Performance of 45 native tree species on degraded lands in Singapore. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 19: 25-34.
::Google Scholar::
(40)
Siegert F, Ruecker G, Hinrichs A, Hoffmann AA (2001). Increased damage from fires in logged forests during droughts caused by El Niño. Nature 414: 437-440.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(41)
Sist P, Saridan A (1998). Description of the primary lowland forest of Berau. In: “Silvicultural research in a lowland mixed dipterocarp forest of east Kalimantan” (Bertault JG, Kadir K eds). The Contribution of STREK Project. CIRADFORDA-P.T. INHUTANII, pp. 51-94.
::Google Scholar::
(42)
Sist P, Sheil D, Kartawinata K, Priyadi H (2003). Reduced impact logging in Indonesian Borneo: some results confirming the needs for new silvicultural precriptions. Forest Ecology and Management 179: 415-427.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(43)
Sukhudev P (2010). The economics of biodiversity and ecosystem services in tropical forests. ITTO Tropical Forestry Update 20: 8-10.
::Google Scholar::
(44)
Tacconi L (2007). Illegal logging: law enforcement, livelihoods and the timber trade. Earthscan, London, UK.
::Google Scholar::
(45)
Tay J, Healey J, Price C (2002). Financial assessment of reduced impact logging techniques in Sabah, Malaysia. In “Applying reduced impact logging to advance sustainable forest management” (Enters T, Durst PB, Applegate GB, Kho PCS, Man G eds). FAO Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 125-140.
::Google Scholar::
(46)
Du Toit JT, Walker BH, Campbell BM (2004). Conserving tropical nature: current challenges for ecologists. Trends in Ecology Evolution 19: 12-17.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(47)
Thomas S, Dargusch P, Harrison S, Herbohn J (2010). Why are there so few afforestation and reforestation clean development mechanism projects? Land Use Policy 27: 880-887.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(48)
Turpie KJ, Marais C, Blignaut NJ (2008). The working for water programme: evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa. Ecological Economics 65: 788-798.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(49)
UNFCCC (2009). Copenhagen Accord. Web Site.
::Google Scholar::
(50)
Uryu Y, Mott C, Foread N, Yulianto K, Budiman A, Setiabudi, Takakai F, Nursamsu, Sunarto, Purastuti E, Fadhli N, Hutajulu MBC, Jaenicke J, Hatano R, Siegert F, Stuwe M (2008). Deforestation, forest degradation, biodiversity loss and CO2 emissions in Riau, Sumatra, Indonesia. WWF Indonesia Technical Report, Jakarta, Indonesia.
::Google Scholar::
(51)
Vieira LMD, Holl KD, Peneireiro MF (2009). Agro-successional restoration as a strategy to facilitate tropical forest recovery. Restoration Ecology 17: 451-459.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(52)
Villegas Z, Peña-Claros M, Mostacedo B, Alarcón A, Licona JC, Leaño C, Pariona W, Choque U (2009). Silvicultural treatments enhance growth rates of future crop trees in a tropical dry forest. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 971-977.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(53)
Wadsworth FH, Zweede JC (2006). Liberation: acceptable production of tropical forest timber. Forest Ecology and Management 233: 45-51.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(54)
Wellhöfer S (2002). Environmentally sound forest harvesting in Brazil - Assessment of regeneration and environmental impacts four years after harvesting. FAO Forest Harvesting Case Study 19. FAO, Rome.
::Google Scholar::
(55)
Zimmerman JK, Aide MT, Lugo EA (2007). Implications of land use history for natural forest regeneration and restoration strategies in Puerto Rico. In: “Old fields: dynamics and restoration of abandoned farmland” (Cramer AV, Hobbs JR eds). Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 51-74.
::Google Scholar::

Download

Paper Contents

Paper Sections

Paper Figures

Paper Tables

Supplementary Material