United States Office of Research and EPA/600/3-91/067
Environmental Protection Development October 1991
Agency Washington DC 20460
«£PA
;¦>
Assessment of Promising Forest
Management Practices and Technologies
for Enhancing the Conservation and
Sequestration of Atmospheric
Carbon and Their Costs at the Site Level
-------
Assessment of Promising Forest Management
Practices and Technologies for Enhancing the
Conservation and Sequestration of Atmospheric
Carbon and Their Costs at the Site Level
Edited by
Robert K. Dixon
USEPA
USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory - Corvallis
Paul E. Schroeder
ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.
USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory - Corvallis
Jack K. Winjum
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement
USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory - Corvallis
Contributors
G.A. BaumgardneT, P.M. Bradley, M.A. Caims, R.K. Dixon, G.A. King,
J.J. Lee, L.H. Liegel, R. McKelvey, R.A. Meganck, C.E. Peterson,
P.E. Schroeder, J.K. Winjum
October 1991
US Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis OR 97333
USA
-------
Disclaimer
The research described in this report has been funded wholly by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and
administration review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA Document.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
ii
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
iii
Tables
V
Figures
vi
Boxes
vii
Acknowledgments
viii
Preface
ix
Executive Summary
X
1.0 Introduction
1
1.1 Carbon Sequestration
1.2 Biomass Utilization
1.3 Carbon Conservation
1.4 Global Forest Management Agreement Proposal
1.5 Scope and Prior Reports
1.6 EPA's Global Change Study
1.7 Assessment Objectives
1.8 Assessment Limitations
2.0 Background: World Forests 8
2.1 Uses of World Forests
2.2 Forest Management Concerns, Constraints and Approaches
2.3 Global Carbon Cycle
2.4 Climate Scenarios: Potential Redistribution of Forests
2.5 Climate Change Projections
2.6 Vegetation Redistribution
2.7 Limitations of GCMs and Vegetation Models
2.8 Forest Dieback and Climate Change
2.9 Implications of Vegetation Redistribution on Strategies for Conserving and
Sequestering Carbon
3.0 Materials and Methods 22
3.1 Data Collection
3.2 Technical Database
3.3 Forest Growth and Carbon Storage
3.4 Costs of Management Practices
3.5 Land Area Technically Suitable
3.6 Statistical Analysis
3.7 , Limitations of the Analysis
• • •
HI
-------
4.0 Global Assessments of Promising Management Options 29
4.1 Managing the Terrestrial Biosphere to Conserve and/or Sequester
Carbon
4.2 Matching Promising Practices to Global Strategies
4.3 Cost of Forest Management Options at the Site Level
4.4 Costs and Yield Efficiency of National Programs
4.5 Synthesis: Global Assessment of Carbon Storage and Costs
4.6 Summary and Limitations
5.0 National Assessment of Forest Management Options 47
5.1 National Highlights
5.2 Carbon Storage by Ecoregions
5.3 Costs
5.4 Tree Genera and Global Forest Management
5.5 Benefits of Forest Resource Management Options
5.6 Land Suitability
5.7 Conclusions and Constraints to Forest Management
6.0 Implementation Plan Using Noordwijk Goal: A Suggestion 66
6.1 Theoretical Total Forestation Goal
6.2 Obstacles and Cautions
6.3 "Easy-first" Paradigm
6.4 Mount St. Helens: An Example
6.5 "Easy-first" Approach for the Noordwijk Declaration
6.6 Emerging Noordwijk Declaration Goal
6.7 Concluding Perspective and Caveats
7.0 Research Needs 78
8.0
Summary and Conclusions
80
9.0
References: Text and Database
83
10.0
Appendices
99
A. Tree species, codes and wood densities
B. Bailey's map of ecoregion domains and divisions
C. National data summaries
D. International survey contacts
E. Metric units and conversion factors
F. Database frequency distributions
iv
-------
Tables
Table Page
1.1 Potential global biological carbon sequestration and conservation, above 2
and below ground, to reduce atmospneric C02
2.1 Forest land areas of the world 9
2.2 Estimates of worldwide deforestation in developing nations 12
2.3 Estimates of land ecologically suitable for reforestation, natural 14
growth and agroforestry compared to total forest land
2.4 General Circulation Models used to generate double C02 climate scenarios 18
3.1 Continents, nations and number of records in global database of 23
promising forest practices and their costs at the site level
3.2 Costs and benefits of 3 sustainable agricultural systems in Latin America 26
3.3 Ecoregion classifications 27
4.1 Sequestered carbon lost from global deforestation 31
5.1 Brazil's FLORAM reforestation potential 48
5.2 Potential carbon storage for forest management practices in different 53
ecoregions of 16 key nations
5.3 Initial costs (VJ on a 50 year basis for forest management practices for the 16 57
key nations
5.4 initial cost per ton of carbon (tC) for forest management practices for the 59
16 key nations
5.5 Cost and financial rates of return for selected forest establishment 60
and management options in India
5.6 Cost and financial rates of return for small farm fuelwood and 60
agroforestry systems in West and Central Africa
5.7 Land area (million ha) technically suitable or available for reforestation, 61
natural regrowth, and agroforestry within tropical latitudes
6.1 Constraints and cautions to implementing a world-wide forestation 67
program to increase rates of reforestation and afforestation
6.2 Ancillary benefits from expanding the world's forests through 68
reforestation and afforestation
6.3 Estimated world forest contributions toward a goal for the 1989 70
Noordwijk Declaration of 35 million ha/yr by the forest management
options of Andrasko et al. (1989)
6.4 Average annual reforestation rates and total forest area for forested nations 72
of the world
6.5 Forest management USSR: a boreal example 73
6.6 Forest management United States: a temperate example 74
6.7 Forest management Brazil: a tropical example 75
6.8 Examples of dedicated national reforestation and tree planting programs 76
v
-------
Figures
Figure Page
1.1 Total lands and forested lands of the 16 key nations 4
2.1 Global forests in relation to total land area 8
2.2 Sequestered carbon in global ecoregions 9
2.3 Area of managed and unmanaged forests 11
2.4 The global carbon cycle, including major pools and annual flux of 16
carbon
2.5 Global predicted future vegetation 19
2.6 Potential effect of climate change on global forests 20
4.1 Carbon storage for forest management options 30
for boreal, temperate, and tropical regions
4.2 Initial costs for forest management options for boreal, temperate, 34
and tropical regions
4.3 Cost and yield efficiency of national reforestation programs based 36
on median values of initial costs (V0in $/ha) divided by the
respective median mean standing stock (tC/ha) to get §/tC
4.4 Efficiency and yield of reforestation, afforestation, natural regen- 39
eration, agroforestry and silvicultural practices in USSR, US, and
Brazil
4.5a Total initial global costs of sequestering carbon in forest systems 41
employing forestation and forest management practices
4.5b Marginal initial cost of sequestering carbon in forest systems 41
employing forestation ana forest management practices
4.6a Distribution of land among ecoregions of 16 key nations for 42
different levels of carbon storage
4.6b Distribution of stored carbon among ecoregions of 16 key nations 42
for different levels of total carbon storage
4.7a Distribution of land among ecoregions of 16 key nations for 43
different levels of carbon storage under reduced land area
scenerio
4.7b Distribution of stored carbon among ecoregions of 16 key nations 43
for different levels of total carbon storage under reduced land
area scenerio
6.1 Illustration of the current level of tropical deforestation and 66
Noordwijk Declaration goal
6.2 Schematic diagram of easy-first paradigm for achieving national 69
forestation toward Noordwijk Declaration goal
vi
-------
Boxes
Box Page
1.1 The biosphere reserve management concept 3
1.2 Definition of terms employed in the assessment 5
2.1 Saving the forest by using them 10
3.1 Ancillary benefits of forest management 28
4.1 Forest village program in Thailand 32
4.2 Costs of sequestering carbon through tree planting and forest 38
management in the United States
4.3 Debt for nature swaps, how they work 40
5.1 Carbon sequestration in urban forests 49
5.2 Carbon sink forests - socially responsible resource management 51
5.3 Soil management perspective 62
vii
-------
Acknowledgments
The editors gratefully acknowledge all persons whose willing contributions led to the
completion of this document. This especially includes the following:
1.0 Writers, Database Design, and Technical Advisors:
R.G. Bailey, USDA Forest Service
G.A. Baumgardner, ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.
P.M. Bradley, Ability Network, Inc.
M.A. Cairns, US Environmental Protection Agency
R.K. Dixon, US Environmental Protection Agency
G.A. King, ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.
J.J. Lee, US Environmental Protection Agency
L.H. Liegel, USDA Forest Service
R. McKelvey, University of Montana
R.A. Meganck, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement
C.E. Peterson, ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.
P.E. Schroeder, ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.
J. Van Sickle, Oregon State University
J.K. Winjum, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement
2.0 Document Production:
V.M. Avila, Ability Network, Inc.
D.D. Cook, Ability Network, Inc.
B.J. Hagler, Computer Sciences Corp.
S. Henderson, ManTech Enviromental Technology, Inc.
J.A. Kirk, Ability Network, Inc.
S.E. Kirk, Ability Network, Inc.
R.C. McVeety, Computer Sciences Corp.
B.J. Rosenbaum, ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.
3.0 Reviewers:
Internal
D.S. Coffey, ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.
A.R. Hairston, ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.
T.D. Droessler, ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.
S.A. Peterson, US Environmental Protection Agency
External
D.K. Lewis, Oklahoma State University
D.C. Malcolm, University of Edingburgh
W. Park, Organization of American States
L. Pitelka, Electric Power Research Institute
P. Prins, ARBEX Forestry Consultants
R.A. Sedjo, Resources for the Future
B. Utria, The World Bank
J.D. Walstad, Oregon State University
A special thanks to all - RKD, PES, and JKW.
viii
-------
Preface
This report was prepared by the Global Mitigation and
Adaptation Team of the Global Change Research Program
(GCRP) at the US Environmental Protection Agency's
Environmental Research Laboratory (ERL-C) in Corvallis,
Oregon, USA. The research was completed in cooperation
with the USDA Forest Service and Oregon State University,
as part of the ERL-C GCRP commitment to (ORD) Office of
Research and Development for fiscal year 1991. The overall
ORD GCRP plan identified two areas of research for ERL-C:
1) process and effects of projected climate change on terres-
trial systems, and, 2) management of terrestrial systems to
conserve and/or sequester carbon and reduce accumulation
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The report prima-
rily addresses the second objective. Portions of this report
have been presented at workshops and scientific meetings.
Sections of this report have been (or will be) submitted to
scientific journals or proceedings volumes for publication.
ix
-------
Executive
Summary
The accumulation of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere, particularly C02, is pro-
jected to alter the earth's climate. The
response and feedbacks of forest systems to
climate change are expected to be signifi-
cant. Forest systems are prominent in the
global carbon cycle through photosynthetic
uptake of C02 and release by respiration
and decay of organic residues. This forest
carbon cycle accounts for over 90 Gt of
annual carbon flux out of a total of 110 Gt
annually for all terrestrial ecosystems. The
global carbon content of forest systems,
above and below ground, is about 1400 Gt
within a worldwide terrestrial pool of about
2200 Gt.
Prior reports suggest managed forest and
agroforestry systems have the potential to
sequester and conserve up to 10 Gt of car-
bon annually in the terrestrial biosphere.
Management of forest and agroforestry
systems could help reduce the accumulation
of carbon in the atmosphere while continu-
ing to provide needed goods and services
for people, especially in tropical nations.
Uncertainties include: 1) estimates of carbon
cycling and biogeochemistry in boreal,
temperate, and tropical forests; and 2) the
social, political, and economic acceptance of
these managed systems in the world at
significantly increasing levels of use.
The international community, however,
recognizing the prominent role of forest
biomes in global ecology and the global
carbon cycle, has agreed to promulgate a
Global Forest Agreement (GFA) by 1992.
The proposed Global Forest Agreement and
earlier international agreements such as the
1989 Noordwijk Ministerial Declaration,
have identified global forest management
goals to: slow deforestation; stimulate
sustained forest management and produc-
tivity; protect biodiversity; and reduce
environmental threats to world forests. The
appropriate mix of technical options, how-
ever, to manage global forests for these
goals have yet to be identified.
The objectives of this report are to assess
and synthesize current knowledge on three
policy-science topics:
1. Identify promising technologies and
practices that could be utilized at techni-
cally suitable sites in the world to man-
age forests and agroforestry systems for
sequestering and conserving carbon.
2. Assess available data on costs at the
site level for promising forest and agro-
forestry management practices.
3. Evaluate estimates of land technically
suitable in forested nations and biomes
of the world to help meet the Noordwijk
forestation targets and the proposed
Global Forest Agreement goals.
The assessment is based upon the develop-
ment of a global database on managed
x
-------
forest and agroforestry systems. The data-
base includes information on the rates of
carbon sequestration per hectare for many
practices, their implementation costs, and
estimates of the amounts of land suitable for
the practices. The database was compiled
through an assessment of current published
technical information and a survey of pro-
fessionals in the forestry sector of nations
throughout the world. Information on
forestry and agroforestry practices was
assembled for forested nations representing
boreal, temperate, and tropical regions on
all six continental areas with forests. Key
findings of the assessment are highlighted
in the following paragraphs.
Forest systems occupy over 4 billion ha of
the earth's surface (29% of the land area).
However, only about 10% of the world's
forests are actively managed - that is forests
for which significant investments of time
and money are made to enhance productiv-
ity as opposed to those claimed to be man-
aged but are only included as part of the
forest inventory in broad national plans.
Forest systems provide a flow of goods and
services to nations worldwide, but demo-
graphic pressures and environmental
stresses have significantly altered the global
forest resource base. Degradation, decline,
and harvest of the world's forests are esca-
lating. Currently in the tropics; approxi-
mately 17 million ha are deforested annu-
ally compared to 11 million ha/yr in 1980.
Globally, estimates of carbon emissions
resulting from tropical deforestation range
from 1-2 Gt (about 20 to 40% of the fossil
fuel emissions) on an annual basis.
Conventional forest management practices
included within three broad categories
(reforestation/afforestation technologies,
silvicultural practices, and agroforestry
systems) have been developed for a wide
range of site conditions, tree species, and
climates in the 94 nations surveyed. This
assessment found that over 90 nations have
active forest management programs that fall
within these major categories, and they
extend across the boreal, temperate, and
tropical biomes. In recent years, concerted
reforestation programs have been an-
nounced by, or implemented, in Australia,
Brazil, China, India, Japan, and the US,
partly in response to environmental con-
cerns. Globally, approximately 15 million
ha are reforested annually. Throughout the
world, established forestry programs have a
common feature: long-term commitments
by involved decision makers, professional
land managers, and especially local popula-
tions in the planning, implementation, and
maintenance of tree crops from establish-
ment through harvest.
In addition to conventional forest and
agroforestry practices, the database identi-
fied other innovative approaches favoring
reduced deforestation. Most of these prac-
tices are being practiced in the tropical
regions on a limited basis. Examples in-
clude biosphere reserve management (Box
1.1), extractive reserve forests (Box 2.1),
forest village programs (Box 4.1), debt for
nature swaps (Box 4.3), and improved soil
management (Box 4.3). If such practices
were expanded, they could not only reduce
deforestation but also provide a stable
xi
-------
source of agricultural products in tropical
regions where destructive practices such as
slash-and-burn agriculture currently pre-
dominate.
Forest and agroforestry management op-
tions which conserve and sequester carbon
in forest and agroforestry systems can be
grouped by three major functions: 1) main-
tain existing sinks of greenhouse gases; 2)
reduce biogenic sources of greenhouse
gases; and 3) expand sinks of greenhouse
gases. This assessment indicates that the
most promising forest management prac-
tices to sequester carbon in the terrestrial
biosphere include: reforestation in the
temperate and tropical latitudes; afforesta-
tion in the temperate regions; and agrofor-
estry and natural reforestation in the trop-
ics. Least promising from a carbon storage
standpoint are the application of silvicul-
tural practices; such as thinning, fertiliza-
tion and other stand improvement treat-
ments, in all latitudes.
The potential carbon storage ranges of forest
management and agroforestry practices by
major latitudinal biomes based on a 50 year
period are:
Forestation Silviculture
tC/ha
Boreal 15-40 3-10
Temperate 30-180 10-45
Tropical 30-130 14-70
The median cost efficiency across all man-
agement practices as determined from
establishment costs over a 50 year period is
about $5/tC with an interquartile range of
$1 to $19/tC. The most cost-efficient forest
and agroforestry practices, based on estab-
lishment costs, within zones of latitude are:
Median Interquartile
range
$/tC
Boreal:
natural regeneration 5 4-11
reforestation 8 3-27
Temperate:
natural regeneration 1 0.01 - .43
afforestation 2 0.22 - 5
reforestation 6 3-29
Tropical:
natural regeneration 0.90 0.54 - 2
agroforestry 5 2-11
reforestation 7 3-26
Research in the tropical latitudes has shown
that agroforestry systems can technically be
practiced in a sustainable manner. How-
ever in many cases, social and economic
conditions are such that long-term continu-
ous use of these practices remains uncertain
or impractical (Boxes 4.3 and 5.2). From a
technical perspective, agroforestry produc-
tion of food, fiber, and other basic goods
and services could significantly decrease the
need for slash-and-burn or shifting agricul-
ture now practiced at accelerated rates in
the tropics.
Replacement of shifting agricultural prac-
tices by agroforestry could potentially
reduce deforestation and, consequently,
reduce carbon emissions from tropical
regions, i.e. conservation of existing stored
carbon. Research results indicate that agri-
cultural products from one hectare of agro-
xii
-------
forestry land could replace equivalent
products from 5 to 10 ha of slash-and-burn
agriculture. Each hectare of tropical forest
burned releases approximately 220 tons of
carbon into the atmosphere. Each hectare of
established, continuously producing agro-
forestry will maintain approximately 100 tC
in storage. At a 10-for-l offset, therefore,
the combined total of carbon sequestered by
agroforestry and conserved by maintaining
the tropical forest would be about 2300 tons
([220 t/ha x 10 ha] + 100 t/ha) saved from
release into the atmosphere. In other
words, for each hectare of agroforestry
established on deforested land in the trop-
ics, an estimated 2300 tC could be prevented
from going into the atmosphere.
Preliminary estimates compiled in the
database indicate that large amounts of land
which are technically suitable for expanding
the area of managed forest and agroforestry
systems exist in the world. Approximate
areas of suitable land by latitudinal regions
are: boreal, 400 million ha; temperate, 600
million ha; and for the tropics, estimates
range from 620 million to almost 2 billion
ha. Nations with estimates of 100 million ha
or more that are technically suitable for new
forestation programs are (Table 2.3):
Boreal: USSR;
Temperate: China, and US; and
Tropical: Brazil, India, Mexico, and
Zaire.
These estimates of technically-suitable lands
must be viewed with caution. The actual
amount of land available from a social and
economic standpoint remains uncertain, but
it is likely to be much less, in most cases,
than the land area that is technically suit-
able. The fallow stage of a shifting agricul-
tural cycle serves as an illustration. Techni-
cally, such land is suitable for natural veg-
etative regeneration and the accompanying
accumulation of biomass and carbon. In
reality, such land may be a part of an im-
portant mosaic of land use patterns that is
required to support the agricultural require-
ments of local populations. Therefore, more
complete data on the amount of land actu-
ally available for expanding forest and
agroforestry systems is clearly needed, and
research efforts are underway to achieve
this objective.
Database values on carbon storage, estab-
lishment costs, and land area were inte-
grated to develop global marginal and total
cost curves (Section 4.5). Forest manage-
ment practices and their associated potential
land areas were ranked in ascending order
based on cost per ton of carbon stored for
each ecoregion/country combination. The
practices and land areas that store carbon
least expensively were at the top of the
ranked list and the most expensive were at
the bottom. The analysis of data from 94
nations found that the marginal cost of
storing 45-65 Gt C is about $3/tC. Above 70
Gt C the marginal cost escalates sharply to
over $100/tC. The cost of land (rent or
purchase), forest maintenance costs, and the
value of benefits (e.g., flow of forest-based
products) were not included in the analysis.
Further, marginal costs estimated by this
approach are highly sensitive to the land
area available. Unfortunately, land avail-
ability estimates are one of the most uncer-
xiii
-------
tain factors in the analysis at this time.
Cost/benefit evaluations, however, can be
expected to evolve as estimates of the land
area and value of forest benefits are im-
proved.
How to significantly expand forest and
agroforestry management on a global scale
to sequester and conserve carbon while
providing needed goods and services is a
challenge. This report includes a suggested
technical approach (Section 6.0). The
Noordwijk Ministerial Conference (1989)
proposed a global forest goal of using
forestation practices to increase carbon
sequestration and conservation worldwide.
The proposal is to achieve an annual net
increase of 12 million ha of new forest area
over world deforestation. This forestation
rate has been proposed for the period 2000
to 2040.
Though large in scale, the goal appears
achievable when viewed on a step-wise
basis within individual forested nations. A
suggested approach to facilitate receptivity
and early momentum is for each nation to
commit to forestation of easy-to-do lands
first. At the same time, research would be
ongoing to resolve technological constraints
related in more difficult areas. Results
would be sought to allow these areas to be
successfully forested in the latter portion of
the 40 year period.
Similarly, many associated social and eco-
nomic issues that might present constraints
would need the development of equitable
solutions, also likely in an easy-to-difficult
sequence. To illustrate, the assessment
suggests theoretical forestation plans for the
USSR, US, and Brazil using an "easy-first"
approach. Under this scheme, the annual
share of new forestation toward the
Noordwijk goal by these three nations
would be approximately 8.0, 2.6, and 4.5
million ha, respectively. These annual rates
would require doubling present reforesta-
tion levels for the USSR and US, and a ten
fold increase in Brazil -- large undertakings
but perhaps doable under an "easy-first"
approach.
Overall, the biological opportunity to con-
serve and sequester carbon in the terrestrial
biosphere, especially in forest systems,
appears significant. Through careful plan-
ning and implementation, management
practices useful for this carbon benefit
appear to have potential to provide food,
water, wood, and other basic human needs.
Though implementation costs seem modest,
a primary research objective is to place
reliable values on all forest benefits pos-
sible. Benefit values would allow a clearer
determination of the net costs of sequester-
ing carbon through forest management and
agroforestry systems. These benefit values
on a global basis, along with more accurate
estimates of land availability, will ulti-
mately lead to a more definitive assessment
of promising forest and agroforestry prac-
tices to sequester and conserve carbon.
xiv
-------
1.0 Introduction
The accumulation of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere due to anthropogenic activi-
ties (e.g., deforestation, fossil fuel combus-
tion) may have begun to change the global
climate (IPCC 1990). Given our current
understanding of global carbon sources and
sinks, the prospects for managing the terres-
trial biosphere to alter the carbon cycle to
help offset climate change appear promising
(Dixon and Turner 1991).
1.1 Carbon Sequestration
Forests and agroforestry systems play a
prominent role in the global carbon cycle
(Tans et al. 1990). Forests alone contain an
estimated 66% of the terrestrial above-
ground carbon,'and approximately 45% of
the terrestrial soil carbon. Global forests
account for some 90% (90 Gt) annually of
the carbon flux between the atmosphere and
terrestrial ecosystems. Based on current
estimates, application of forest management
and agroforestry practices on a global scale,
could potentially sequester or conserve up
to 10 Gt carbon annually (Table 1.1); a range
commonly quoted is 3 to 8 Gt/yT (Dixon
and Turner, 1991).
1.2 Biomass Utilization
The potential exists to substitute biomass
energy for some portion of fossil fuels to
reduce the most significant anthropogenic
factor in global warming, i.e., additional
increases of atmospheric COz from fossil
fuel combustion. Utilization of biomass,
both for fuel and other products, is a requi-
site for a significant carbon sequestration
program since forestry and agricultural
management options are temporary and
finite, and stored terrestrial carbon will
eventually return to the atmosphere (Peer et
al. 1991). Currently, harvesting is respon-
sible for 40% of total biomass costs. Prepa-
ration of biomass for various combustion
processes may also be expensive. Techno-
logical advances in both of these areas
should substantially reduce the cost burden
and must be addressed (Wright et al. 1991).
The assessment of carbon losses because of
fossil fuel use for forestation activities and
biomass energy combustion are beyond the
scope of this assessment, but they are given
preliminary consideration in some early
evaluations (Harmon et al. 1990; Row and
Phelps 1990a; Hall et al. 1991; Wright et al.
1991).
1.3 Carbon Conservation
Conservation efforts can be employed to
retain carbon in the terrestrial biosphere.
Most notably, conservation practices could
slow global deforestation which is esti-
mated to release 1-2 Gt carbon annually to
the atmosphere (Houghton et al. 1991).
Biosphere reserves are one approach to
1
-------
Table 1.1 . Potential global biological carbon sequestration and conservation,
above and below ground, to reduce atmospheric CO ? {Dixon and
Turner 1991; Andrasko 1990a; OTA 1984).
us
Boreal
Tropical
Temperate
Gt C/yr
Sequestration
* Forestation
0.10
0.1
1.9
1.6
* Agroforestry
0.05
...
2.1
0.1
* Revegetation
0.05
0.4
0.9
0.2
" Silviculture
0.03
0.1
0.2
0.1
Conservation
" Reduce deforestation
...
0.1
1.5
...
* Halt desertification
...
...
0.2
0.2
' Fire management
...
0.2
...
0.2
Totals
0.23
0.9
6.8
2.4
A range of terrestrial biosphere management optons which conserve or sequester carton are available
or util,ration in the US and bcmes
worldwide. Based on current estimates. appJcanon ol forest management and agroforestry systems on
a g!oba> scale could potently &equ-
ester and/or conserve up to 10.1 Gi C annuaify. Many ol these options have value added benefits beyond the reduction of greenhouse gases.
forest conservation that has been imple-
mented successfully in many parts of the
world. Such programs help preserve pri-
mary forests while integrating economic
endeavors into surrounding lands. (Box
1.1).
Agricultural systems contain about 12% of
the world's terrestrial soil carbon, and
conservation of this pool is essential to
sustained crop productivity and decreasing
C02 emissions (Bouwman 1990). Many
agricultural practices have been shown to
increase soil carbon content by increasing
carbon sequestration and/or reducing the
loss of carbon. Practices such as reduced
tillage, crop residue incorporation, field
application of manure and sludge, and
rotations using cover crops or leguminous
crops store more carbon than conventional
technology (Johnson and Kern 1991). Addi-
tional benefits resulting from the implemen-
tation of agricultural practices that conserve
soil carbon, include increased soil water
holding capacity and nutrient availability,
improved soil physical properties, and
decreased soil erosion by wind and water
(Jenkinson and Rayner 1977).
1.4 Global Forest Management Agreement
Proposal
Recently, the G-7 nations (Canada, France,
Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, US),
recognizing the prominent role of forest
biomes in global ecology and the global
carbon cycle, agreed to a process to promul-
gate a Global Forest Agreement (GFA) by
1992 (Maini 1991). The stated intent of this
agreement is to:
• curb deforestation,
• protect biodiversity,
• stimulate sustained forest
management and productivity, and
• address threats to the world's forests.
Of primary concern in shaping these objec-
tives were several proposals in the past year
for an international convention, charter,
protocol, or other agreement to maintain,
manage, or protect, boreal, temperate or
tropical forests (Maini 1991). The 1989
Noordwijk Ministerial Conference recog-
nized the role of forests in transnational
environmental issues, including global
climate change, and stimulated interest in
2
-------
Box 1.1 The biosphere reserve management concept.
~ Core area
fMl Buffer
I I Transition
E3 Human settlements
i Research station
R
I Tourism/recreation
T
I Education/training
E
I Monitoring
M
Fig. a
Fig. b
The origin of Biosphere Reserves
can be traced to the mid 1970's
and UNESCO's Man and the
Biosphere Program (MAB).
However, the concept has
evolved from one aimed at
preserving a worldwide network
of areas for basic ecological
research, to one where develop-
ment and management of the
surrounding region is viewed as
essential to the maintenance of the
preserve area. Three specific
management objectives are
implicit in this concept: i) habitat
preservation (providing protec-
tion of genetic resources on a
worldwide basis), ii) logistical
coordination (interconnected
facilities for research and moni-
toring) and iii) sustainable devel-
opment (preservation through
development of a range of eco-
nomically viable and sustainable
options for rural peoples living in
proximity to the preserves)
(Batisse 1980; 1990).
Four Major Zones
Miller (1978) identifies 4 major
zones which should be identified
in each biosphere reserve: The
protected core serves as the
baseline or scientific study area
and includes the most pristine
habitat in the region. This zone
must be as large as possible to
permit natural ecosystem func-
tioning and is generally sur-
rounded by a buffer zone in
which limited anthropogenic
activities can be permitted as long
as they do not compromise the
ecological integrity of the core.
Resource extraction, tourism and
other forms of resource conver-
sion can be undertaken under
strict controls. Often the buffer
zone is adjacent to restoration
zones, areas which have been
severely altered but for which
management is being intensified
as a means of contributing to the
sustained and economically
viability of the region. Finally,
there are the developed zones,
including villages and related
infrastructure.
In theory, each reserve has all
four zones forming a gradient of
management intensities aimed at
protecting the ecological structure
and function of the core (Fig. a).
The management of the entire
region would ideally respond to a
unified management structure
and be protected by national law.
In practice however, it seldom
works out that way, due to the
scarcity of natural habitat, exist-
ing management and jurisdic-
tional structures and boundaries,
established land use patterns, etc.
(Fig b). In fact, most of the initial
reserve "designations" were in
existing protected areas. Profes-
sor Batisse claims this was
initially seen as a "quality label",
providing additional prestige or
clout in the scientific-political
arena. Today there are some 285
reserves in 72 countries represent-
ing a range of scale, ecological
importance, management objec-
tives and success (Batisse 1990;
MacKinnon et a!. 1986).
The major obstacles to proper
management of biosphere re-
serves are not technical or scien-
tific but managerial and institu-
tional (Batisse 1990). Perhaps the
real importance of the biosphere
reserve concept is that it helps
focus the issues involved in
collaborative management of a
natural resource base. Many
groups, including the Department
of Regional Development and
Environment of the Organization
of American States, The Nature
Conservancy, Conservation
International and others, have
tested and improved upon the
basic MAB model and achieved
definitive results in both preser-
vation of habitat and resource
management for economic
development.
3
-------
Figure 1.1 Total lands and forested lands of the 16 key forest nations (WR11990).
Forests in proportion to total lands
D Forests
I Non- Forests
USSR
Argentina
Australia
China
New Zealand
Germany
S. Africa
Indonesia
Malaysia
Mexico
0.00
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Land (billions of hectares)
2.50
Total
Total
Region
land
forest
Key nation
(billions of hectares)
Boreal
Canada
0.99
0.26
USSR
2.24
0.79
Temperate
Argentina
0.28
0.04
Australia
0.77
0.04
China
0.96
0.10
New Zealand
0.03
0.01
Germany
0.04
0.01
S. Africa
0.12
0.04
US
0.94
0.21
Tropical
Brazil
0.85
0.36
Congo
0.03
0.02
India
0.32
0.04
Indonesia
0.19
0.11
Malaysia
0.03
0.02
Mexico
0.20
0.05
Zaire
0.23
0.11
Total
8.21
2.21
accelerated forestation and sustainable
ecosystem management options (Noordwijk
Conference Report, 1989). There were 67
countries represented at the Conference in
the Netherlands, most of them at the Minis-
terial level. Eleven international organiza-
tions also attended. The Conference recog-
nized the significance of the observed in-
creases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and
established a provisional goal of a world net
forest increase of 12 million ha a year in the
beginning of the next century.
1.5 Scope and Prior Reports
In the late 1980's, the US Congress re-
quested that EPA undertake two assess-
ments of projected "climate change due to
the greenhouse effect". One assessment
evaluated the potential effects of climate
change on United States agriculture, forests,
human health, water systems, and other key
resources (Smith and Tirpak 1989). The
second assessment considered "policy
options to stabilize current levels of atmo-
spheric greenhouse gas concentrations"
(Lashof and Tirpak 1989).
This assessment builds on the stabilization
report prepared by Lashof and Tirpak
(1989), as well as other research efforts
conducted by the US Global Change Re-
search Program. A large body of literature,
including Andrasko (1990a), Grainger
(1990), King et al. (1990), Houghton et al.
(1991), Trexler (1991c), Winjum et al. (1991),
provides background on the role of forest
systems in climate change. In addition, this
research effort acknowledges parallel and
complementary research efforts currently
underway in Australia, the European Com-
munity, and key developing nations (e.g.,
4
-------
Box 1.2 Definitions of terms employed in the assessment.
1. Assessment - an appraisal of
the value or potential utility of
forest management practices.
2. Promising - those practices or
technologies which have a high
probability of being useful today
from the standpoint of:
a. Conserving and/or seques-
tering significant amounts of
carbon;
b. Implementation at reason-
able costs/land unit;
c. Applying broadly to lands
within the tree-growing
regions of the world that are
technically suitable for forestry
or agroforestry management;
d. Generally consistent with
desirable ancillary benefits
such as:
o resource conservation
o pollution prevention
o environmental restoration
o economic sustainability
o international cooperation
3. Forest - conventionally, "a
forest is a biological community
dominated by trees and other
woody vegetation"; here the
definition will be modified to
mean:
A biological community with
at least 10% coverage by trees
or other woody vegetation
with or without the use of the
understory for short-term
plant or animal production;
not including urban forests.
4. Forest Management - the
application of forestry principles
to the operation of ecologically
suitable lands and lands that are
available from a social and
political viewpoint for the pro-
duction of forest resources,
carbon sequestration, and other
desirable ancillary benefits (see
above). Forest management
practices, therefore, may include:
a. Forest establishment prac-
tices such as:
o Reforestation or the artificial
establishment of forests on
land which previously did
carry forests. It frequently
involves the replacement of
the previous forest stand by a
new crop through natural
means or artificial procedures
such as planting or seeding.
o Afforestation or the artificial
establishment of forests on
land which previously difi not
carry forests, i.e., within living
memory or within 50 years.
b. Silvicultural treatments -
primarily, the increase in
forest yields through biological
manipulations to established
stands such as weed control,
thinning (i.e.stocking control),
fertilization, etc. Synonyms
are timber stand improvement
(TSI) or forest tending.
c. Agroforestry - "a land use
that involves deliberate
retention, introduction, or
mixture of trees or other
woody perennials in crop/
animal production fields to
benefit from the ecological and
economic interactions"
(MacDicken and Vergara,
1990);
o the growing of trees is
generally for the long-term
production of wood or other
tree yields such as fruit,
foliage, sap, etc.
India). Many of these reports also address
social and economic costs and benefits
which must be analyzed before decisions
favoring specific land management prac-
tices are implemented.
The potential role of forests in carbon se-
questration has recently been evaluated by a
number of authors (Marland 1988;
Andrasko et al. 1991; Grainger 1991;
Houghton et al. 1991; Sedjo and Solomon
1991). These analyses have emphasized the
major forest regions on a continental basis,
especially within tropical latitudes. Though
preliminary, these analyses suggest that
forest establishment, management, and
agroforestry could contribute to global
carbon sequestration and conservation
while providing goods and services in local
communities within many nations.
1.6 EPA's Global Change Study
As part of EPA's Global Change Research
Program, an assessment was initiated in
1990 to evaluate forest establishment and
management options to sequester carbon in
the terrestrial biosphere and reduce accu-
mulation of greenhouse gases in the atmo-
sphere. Information on promising forestry
5
-------
Box 1.2, cont.
o production of agricultural
plants or animals provides
annual yields and therefore
income, but the goal is sustain-
able, continuous production
over the long term.
5. Technologies include:
bodies of skill, knowledge,
procedures, and equipment for
making, using, and doing
useful things. Examples are:
fire detection and suppression
skills; knowledge which
ensures that the best-adapted
tree species are matched to
each site in forest establish-
ment projects; and procedures
such producing, storing, and
transporting planting stock to
the field in ways that promote
and retain high seedling vigor.
6. Enhance - to increase over
what is happening already; here,
to aid in reducing the buildup of
atmospheric C02.
7. Conservation - maintaining the
carbon already fixed in global
forest ecosystems, e.g., improving
forest health of existing forests;
avoiding deforestation; stabilizing
soil to prevent loss of carbon; etc.
8. Sequestration - adding to the
amount of carbon in the terrestrial
ecosystems of the world through
application of forest management
practices to productive lands,
under-utilized lands, or degraded
lands.
9. Technically Suitable - Charac-
teristic of management practices
that are ecologically capable of
maintaining a continuous flow of
goods and services from forest
lands without environmental
degradation. Whether practices
are socially or economically
sustainable was beyond the scope
of this assessment.
10. Costs:
a. For forestation, expendi-
tures per ha for forest manage-
ment practices that are initial
capital investments of funds in
forest stands with a useful life
longer than one year, e.g.,
dollars/ha spent for site
preparation, tree planting or
seeding, weeding, pruning,
pre-commercial thinning,
fertilization, etc. (Does not
include annual maintenance
costs or land values.)
b. For agroforestry, it is the
same as for forestation with
regard to the tree crop. For
the annual agricultural crop,
the costs would not be capital
costs, but the costs of produc-
ing an annual crop.
11. Site Level:
Using the basic land unit of a
hectare (10,000 mz), a site level
focus would typically have a
size of about 100 ha (1 km3).
Representative sites will be
considered within nations in
boreal, temperate, and tropical
latitudes.
12. Land for forest and agrofor-
estry systems
a. Suitable - land that is
ecologically capable of sup-
porting tree crops from the
standpoint of soils and current
climate
b. Available - land that is
ecologically suitable and that
can be used for growing tree
crops from a social, political
and economic standpoint.
and agroforestry practices within forested
nations representing the boreal, temperate,
and tropical regions on all six continental
areas with forests was reviewed. Within
this framework, the initial focus was on 16
key forested nations (as defined in Section
3.2), which contain slightly over 50% of the
world's forests (Figures 1.1 and 2.1), though
data have been obtained for about ninety
nations to date (Table 3.1).
1.7 Assessment Objectives
Given the scope of the EPA Global Research
Program and the science-policy needs
regarding global forests, climate, and car-
bon sequestration, three specific objectives
were established:
1. Identify promising technologies and
practices that could be utilized at techni-
cally suitable sites in the world to man-
age forests and agroforestry systems to
sequester and conserve carbon.
2. Assess available data on costs at the
site level for promising forest and agro-
forestry management practices.
3. Evaluate estimates of land technically
suitable in forested nations and biomes
of the world to help meet the Noordwijk
forestation targets and the proposed
6
-------
Global Forest Agreement goals.
1.8 Assessment Limitations
The assessment focused on forest practices
and the tree component of agroforestry
systems used in the world's closed forests
and woodlands. Coverage included for-
ested nations in the boreal, temperate, and
tropical latitudes of all continents except
Antarctica. The definition of pertinent
terms used in the assessment are given in
Box 1.2.
Information and data used in the assess-
ment is empirical as reported in the literar
ture or offered by field investigators.
Information on long-term, site specific,
ecological responses of terrestrial ecosys-
tems to forest management practices needs
strengthening for many forest biomes.
Furthermore, how effectively and the de-
gree to which present-day forest manage-
ment practices can simultaneously accom-
plish objectives as different, for example, as
maintenance of global forest area, sustain-
able economic development, and conserva-
tion of biodiversity is still untested (M.
Trexler, WRI, pers. comm.). These issues
and other information needs for more
comprehensive assessments are the basis for
research to follow this assessment (Section
7.0).
7
-------
2.0 Background: World Forests
In the 1980's, forests were estimated to cover
4.08 billion ha in the world, or about 29% of
the total land area, excluding Antarctica
(WR1 1990) (Figure 2.1). Another 1.04 billion
ha, or 7%, is classified as shrubland and
forest fallow (i.e., cleared, not fully refor-
ested, but with scattered trees (Postel and
Heise 1988). The total by this classification,
therefore, is about 36% of the world's land
area in the 1980's. Matthews (1983) esti-
mated that in pre-agricultural history, world
forests were about 15% greater in extent than
they are today.
2.1 Uses of World Forests
Forests are a significant component of the
landscape on every continent and large
island group in the world except Antarctica
(Young 1982) (Table 2.1). They have histori-
cally contributed to human economic and
social progress by providing such resources
as shelter, fuel, food, water, recreation, and
commercial products (Perlin 1989). The
ability of forests to sequester (i.e., to capture
and hold) vast quantities of carbon, espe-
cially to aid in reducing the buildup of
atmospheric C02, is now another role of
vital importance to humankind (Figure 2.2).
In contrast, predictions from some global
vegetation models suggest that forests could
become major sources of carbon that might
stimulate global climate change (Leemans
1990; Smith et al. 1991). However, before
any final determination can clearly be made
about forests and carbon flux, forest man-
agement practices for timber commodities,
Figure 2.1 Global forests in relation to
total land area (WRI 1990).
3.66 billion
hectares
0.42 billioi
hectares
9.88 billion
hectares
~ Non-forest land
B Managed forests
§1 Non-managed
forests
Total Land -13.96 billion
hectares (excl. Antartica)
along with other forestry goals such as
bioenergy production, habitat protection,
etc. should be tested. Further, test results
are needed from a range of ecological,
socio-political and economic environments
to provide comprehensive input to develop-
ing and effectively managing the global
forest resource.
Forests are commonly classified as commer-
cial and noncommercial. For example, the
USDA Forest Service calls forests commer-
cial if they can grow 1.4 m3/ha/yr of wood
that is of sufficient quality to justify timber
harvests (USDA Forest Service 1982). Both
commercial and noncommercial forests can
be either coniferous, broadleaved, or a
mixture (Young 1982). Noncommercial
forests, though less productive in commer-
8
-------
Figure 2.2
Ecoregions
Swamp and marsh
Agricultural
Extreme desert
Desert scrub
Tundra and alpine
Temperate grassland
Tropical savanna
Woodland and shrubland
Boreal forest
Temperate lorest
Tropical forest
Sequestered carbon in global ecoregions (Waring and Schlesinger 1985).
CH Carbon in Soils
I Carbon in Vegetation
100 200 300 400 500
Sequestered carbon (Gt)
600
700
cial wood yields than commercial forests,
nevertheless have significant roles in pro-
viding resources such as food, water, recre-
ation and fuel wood, and sustaining biologi-
cal diversity (Reid and Miller 1989).
Typically, ecological forest classifications
are by tree density or crown cover. Closed
forests are those in which the tree canopy
cover is about 20% or more of the land
surface (Westoby 1989). These forests grow
where the annual precipitation is at least
400 mm. In drier areas, forests have more
scattered trees so the canopy covers only
about 5-20%. These plant communities are
called open forests or woodlands (Young
1982). Closed forests of the world represent
about two-thirds of the forest land area and
woodlands make up the other third (2.84
and 1.24 billion ha), respectively.
Managing forest lands for the production of
multiple goods and services can be accom-
plished by many approaches while simulta-
neously conserving and storing carbon.
These approaches include preservation of
existing forests for
use as extractive
reserves (Box 2.1),
recreation, or wilder-
ness areas (Meganck
and Goebel 1989).
Reforestation and
regeneration of
deforested and de-
graded watersheds
can conserve both soil
and water. Planta-
Table 2.1 Fores! land areas of the world (billions of hectares).
Region
Forest area
Percent of
world forest
Coniferous
Broadleaved
Total
based on proportions by Young 1982
WRI 1990
North America
6.48
C\J
CO
o
0.80
20%
Latin America
0.03
0.83
0.86
21%
Europe (excl. USSR)
0.10
0.06
0.16
4%
Africa
0.01
0.67
0.68
17%
Asia
0.07
0.42
0.49
12%
USSR
0.72
0.21
0.93
23%
Oceania
0.02
0.14
0.16
4%
World (excl. Antarctica;
1.37
2.71
4.08
100%
9
-------
Box 2.1 Saving the forests by using them.
Net present value (NPV) of future forest yields
$7,000
S6.000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
Clearcut
Pasture Plantation
Land Use
Forest Harvest
Extractive reserves are forests
from which a community harvests
very reduced amounts of timber,
relying primarily on collection
and management of non-wood
products with high economic
return, such as fruits, nuts, latex,
and medicinal plants, to sustain
income and jobs.
Until recently, this approach was
generally considered a mecha-
nism to supplement other proven
income generators such as har-
vesting large tracts of tropical
hardwoods for timber sales,
ranching or agricultural opera-
tions. Recent research has ques-
tioned the financial logic of these
traditional land use management
decisions. Peters et al. (1989)
concluded that intact, managed
natural forests are worth consid-
erably more than the market
benefits realized from large scale
timber harvesting, whether the
plot is replanted with frees or
dedicated to another agricultural
use. In fact, the total net revenues
generated by sustained utilization
of 'minor' forest products can be
two to three times more than
those from forest conversion
practices.
The net present value of future
yields of species-rich Amazonian
forest near Iquitos, Peru was
calculated as $6330 per hectare if
fruits, resins and latex were
sustainably harvested, $3184 if the
hectare was converted to planta-
tion managed for pulpwood,
$2960 if converted to pasture, and
as little as $1000 if the plot was
clear-cut and the merchantable
timber sold. The authors con-
cluded that on specific sites, up to
90 percent of the combined
financial worth is found in the
market value of fruits and latex
(Peters et al. 1989). Of course, the
sustained production of a range of
marketable products is directly
tied to the maintenance of natural
forest and its ecosystem services
and functions, many of which are
lost when forest is permanently
converted (Meganck and Goebel,
1989). In fact, it is the undervalu-
ing of these services which "often
reinforce and even exacerbate
these (large-scale land clearing)
tendencies by employing mis-
guided policies and sanctioning
inappropriate resource rights to
forests" (Barbier et al. 1991).
Extractive reserves present an
alternative which combines the
often contradictory goals use and
conservation, by offering policy
makers an opportunity to exam-
ine the comparative economics of
forest management options within
a social and economically sustain-
able context. However, accord-
ing to Goodland et al. (1990),
extractive reserves should not be
viewed as a panacea. Unman-
aged, these areas are also suscep-
tible to short-sighted
overharvesting and therefore
require careful management.
Almost any individual product
coming from a natural forest can
be intensively managed in a
plantation, and therein lies the
temptation to clear forests and
intensify production. The attrac-
tion of the extractive reserve is
that it permits a community to
use the forest for economic gain
as well as other values too costly
or impossible to replicate once the
forest is gone.
10
-------
tion forests provide a variety of products
including pulpwood and sawlogs, as well
as fuelwood for heating, cooking and en-
ergy (Mather 1990). Agroforestry products
include not only tree crops, but annual food
crops as well. Agroforestry involves the
deliberate retention, introduction, or mix-
ture of trees or other woody perennials in
crop/annual production yields in order to
benefit from the resultant ecological and
economic interactions (MacDicken and
Vergara 1990) (Box 1.2).
2.2 Forest Management Concerns, Con-
straints and Approaches
Although forests occupy 30% of the earth's
surface, only about 10% is managed at some
active level (Figure 2.3). Boreal and tropical
systems constitute nearly 75% of world
forests, yet less than 6% receive any degree
of management. Few tropical forests are
considered to be managed on a technically
sustainable basis (Goodland et al. 1990;
Poore et al. 1990). Approximately 25% of
the world's temperate forests are managed,
although with great variability in intensity.
Despite these differences in amount of
management, the fact that expansion or
intensification of establishment and man-
agement practices can improve the continu-
ous flow of goods and services from the
world's forests is widely accepted (Allan
and Lanly 1991). However, wide-scale
forest management will probably not hap-
pen without an increase in : 1) multilateral
funding; 2) policy changes to stimulate
action to increase forest management; and
3) a greater awareness on the part of deci-
sion makers for both local concerns and
those raised by the international community
of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
(Brown et al. 1989; Shepard et al. 1991).
Estimates of global forest distribution and
condition vary widely (Table 2.2). The wide
range of global deforestation estimates also
Figure 2.3 Area of managed and unmanaged
forests (WRI 1990).
0 Unmanaged
¦ Managed
2.50%
24%
Boreal
Temperate
Tropical
Total - 4.08 billion ha
Unmanaged - 3.66 billion
Managed - 0.42 billion
reflects the paucity of unbiased monitoring
systems. No reliable estimates of variability
are available (Houghton et al. 1985; FAO
1989). The FAO (1989) and Myers(1989)
estimates of deforestation are based on
long-term data sets, collected in a disparate
manner. The WRI (1990) deforestation data
are based on national and FAO estimates.
Thus, the results differ significantly, i.e.,
seven developing nations appear on all
three lists although deforestation rates vary
up to eleven times e.g., Zaire. Other nations
with wide ranges of reported deforestation
rates include Brazil, Indonesia, and Thai-
land. These data, therefore, should be
interpreted with caution until improved
assessments are available. The UN FAO, US
NASA, and other organizations are begin-
ning to implement a global forest monitor-
ing system based on remote sensing imag-
ery and related to ground information
(Allan and Lanly 1991).
The status and development of forests have
been influenced by continuous demo-
graphic and environmental pressure
(Gregerson et al. 1989; Schneider 1989b). In
excess of 2.5 billion people live in or near
tropical forest ecosystems and are highly
11
-------
Table 2.2 Estimates of worldwide deforestation in developing nations.
According to FAO (1989)
According to Myers
1989) *
According to WRI (1990)
Country
(10A3 ha/yr)
Country
(10*3 ha/yr)
Country
(10*3lia/yr)
Brazil
1480
Zaire
2000
Brazil
9,050
Indonesia
600
Thailand
1380
India
1.500
Philippines
291
Brazil
1160
Indonesia
920
Cote d'lvoire
290
Indonesia
850
Colombia
890
Thailand
245
Cote d'lvoire
700
Myanmar
677
Zaire
180
Philippines
600
Mexico
615
Madagascar
150
Ghana
500
Cote d'lvoire
510
Nicaragua
121
Lao People's Dem
300
Sudan
504
Myanmar
102
Malaysia
285
Nigeria
400
Lao People's Dem
100
Madagascar
250
Thailand
397
Malaysia
90
Myanmar
142
Zaire
370
Costa Rica
65
Papua New Guinea
138
Ecuador
340
Liberia
46
Liberia
130
Peru
270
Ghana
22
Nicaragua
80
Malaysia
255
Papua New Guinea
22
Costa Rica
40
Venezuela
245
Bangladesh
8
Bangladesh
8
Paraguay
212
* mean values
Cameroon
190
Vietnam
173
dependent on them for fuel, food, and fiber
(Taylor and Medema 1987). The legitimate
concerns of these people will continue to
influence the ability of technical assistance
agencies to implement forest policy for
what are often viewed as esoteric needs by
local officials (R. Meganck, NCASI, pers.
comm.). Globally, up to 20 million ha of
forests are estimated to be degraded or
harvested annually (WRI1990). The impor-
tant point is that the forests play an increas-
ingly significant role in helping to stabilize
local economies as well as providing capital
for economic expansion. For example, apart
from providing employment and traditional
non-market goods and services required for
subsistence (clean water, soil building, etc.),
tropical forests can contribute substantial
and continuous market benefits. This is
particularly tTue if forest resources are
appropriately utilized and if non-timber
products are managed in conjunction with
wood fiber production (Peters et al. 1989).
Interest in technically sustainable forest
management options has also been influ-
enced in recent decades by the increasing
global deforestation rates, loss of biodiver-
sity, energy and commodity scarcity, deser-
tification, and accumulation of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere (Maini 1991; NAS
1991). Slowing tropical deforestation and
expanding reforestation have been widely
proposed as cost-effective means to protect
soils and watersheds, to provide a continu-
ous source of fuel, food and fiber, as well as
to conserve or sequester carbon in the ter-
restrial biosphere (IPCC 1990; Allan and
Lanly 1991). An essential precondition of
comprehensive and effective forest mea-
sures, however, is that management options
meet local social and economic objectives
(Gregerson et al. 1989).
Research on the social and economic impli-
cations of such policies has been undertaken
by several scientists. Peters et al. (1989)
reported that it may be more efficient, even
for the small land holder, to manage forests
intact rather than practice shifting agricul-
12
-------
ture. Comparative economics may provide
the strongest argument for integrated forest
management practices, at least on a local
level where use of the resource can be
intensely rontrolled and the benefits di-
rectly realized by community members (Box
2.1). Sanchez (1990) also proposed such an
integrated approach as a means of reducing
the pressure for further deforestation in
tropical nations. However, success of this
approach is heavily influenced by the abil-
ity to establish sustainable crop agriculture
which reduces deforestation. Government
policies which support the approach are an
important requirement for its effectiveness.
Sanchez reports that one hectare managed
on a sustainable basis, will offset the need to
clear as much as ten ha of forests. In the
tropics, results from the assessment indicate
that the total reduction in atmospheric
carbon by the 1:10 ratio would be about
2300 tons (Section 4.2).
Andrasko (1990a) provides a comprehen-
sive analysis of forest management alterna-
tives to address climate change and other
social issues. In the forestry sector of that
report, carbon sequestration and conserva-
tion strategies are divided into three classes:
1) reduce sources of greenhouse gases; 2)
maintain existing sinks of greenhouse gases;
and 3) expand sinks. Suggested options
within each strategy are as follows:
1. Reduce sources of greenhouse gases:
o Substitute technically sustainable,
sedentary, agricultural technologies
for slash-and-bum agriculture re-
quiring deforestation.
o Reduce the frequency, interval,
scale, and amount of forest and
savannah consumed by biomass
burning to create or maintain pasture
and grassland.
o Decrease consumption of forests,
and trees for.cash crops and develop-
ment projects, through environmen-
tal planning and management.
o Improve the efficiency of biomass
(fuel wood) combustion in cooking
stoves and industrial uses.
o Discourage the production of
disposable forest products by substi-
tuting durable wood or other goods,
and by recycling wood products.
2. Maintain existing sinks of greenhouse
gases:
o Conserve standing primary and
old-growth forests as stocks of bio-
mass, offering a stream of economic
benefits.
o Introduce forest management
systems utilizing low impact harvest-
ing methods to replace destructive
high impact logging practices.
o Create financial and policy incen-
tives to reduce rates of forest conver-
sion for unsustainable agriculture
and forest harvesting.
o Substitute extractive reserves pro-
ducing timber and non-timber prod-
ucts sustainable through integrated
resource management and develop-
ment schemes.
o Increase harvest efficiency in for-
ests by harvesting more species with
methods that damage fewer standing
trees and utilize a higher percentage
of total biomass.
o Prevent loss of soil carbon stocks
by slowing erosion in forest systems
caused by harvesting and from
13
-------
Table 2.3
Estimates of land ecologically suitable for reforestation,
natural growth and agrotorestry compared to total forest land
(WRi 1990; Houflhton et aL 1991).
Total forest
Managed for
Estimates of suitable land
Region
Closed
Closed
Open
increased
Optimistic
Pessimistic
Key nation
total
managed
woodlands
production
level
level
10A6 ha
Boreal
Canada
264.1
172.3
0.14
5.7
USSR
791.6
191.6
137.0
600.0
421.0
Temperate
Argentina
44.5
31.7
17.1
Australia
41.7
65.1
10.2
China
97.8
17.2
295.0
New Zealand
7.2
2.3
3.0
Germany
9.7
6.6
0.5
0.02
0.08
S. Africa
0.3
0.01
0.5
U.S.
209.6
102.4
86.4
3.3
265.3
Tropical
Brazil
357.5
157.0
307.4
130.0
Congo
21.3
9.4
1.3
India
36.5
31.9
27.7
153.2
80.4
Indonesia
113.9
0.04
3.0
51.8
4.7
Malaysia
21.0
2.5
1.5
11.3
0.4
Mexico
46.3
2.1
119.9
63.4
Zaire
105.8
71.8
99.6
6.4
Totals
2168.7
335.0
742.4
604.9
1785.0
303.7
overgrazing by livestock.
o Expand fuel wood plantations to
provide energy sources close to
populated areas and reduce pressure
on natural forests.
3. Expand sinks of greenhouse gases:
o Improve forest productivity on
existing forest lands through man-
agement and genetic manipulation.
o Establish plantations on surplus
cropland and urban lands.
o Restore degraded forest and savan-
nah ecosystems through natural
regeneration, reforestation, and
protection.
o Establish plantations and agrofor-
estry projects in the tropics using
both fast-growing and high-biomass
species on short rotations for biomass
and timber.
o Explore opportunities to increase
soil carbon storage by leaving slash
after harvest.
For slowing emissions of greenhouse gases,
Trexler (1991c) suggests four different types
of forestry efforts:
o Protect or manage existing forests.
o Promote the recovery of degraded
or secondary forests as well as the
regeneration of forest cover on
14
-------
suitable cleared lands.
o Deploy farm and agroforestry
techniques on existing agricultural
lands.
o Deploy commercial plantations for
timber, fuelwood, biomass or other
products.
The critical point which many authors agree
upon is that forest carbon sequestration
options alone will not solve the problems
related to greenhouse gases. Addressing
this climate change issue on a global scale
will require complex adaptation and mitiga-
tion measures affecting all social and eco-
nomic sectors (NAS 1991).
The 1989 Noordwijk Conference considered
options to reduce accumulation of green-
house gases and identified a target of a
global net increase in forest cover of 12
million ha, annually, starting in the year
2000. Preliminary estimates suggest that a
rapidly growing area of new forest of 400-
500 million ha established over a period of
50 years is required to sequester 3 Gt of
atmospheric C02 annually (Grainger 1991).
The issue of land suitability then becomes
the next logical question.
Estimates of global land areas suitable for
forestation activities vary widely. For the
16 key nations in this assessment, the esti-
mates range from 0.3 to 1.8 billion ha (Table
2.3). Edaphic and climatic, as well as social,
political, and economic factors, influence
the amount of land suitable for expanding
the forest area (Grainger 1988). Trexler
(1991a) suggests that social barriers affect-
ing land availability rather than land suit-
ability are more likely to be the limiting
factor in Africa, Latin America and Asia to
implement "forestry solutions" to sequester
carbon. Logged forests, fallow land, unpro-
tected watersheds or semi-arid lands are
four categories of land technically suited for
forestation (Grainger 1991). However, it is
never a straight-forward task to estimate
land suitability for forest or agricultural
production. Even national estimates vary
widely due to the matrix of biophysical,
social, political, and infrastructural vari-
ables influencing classification systems
(Houghton et al. 1991).
Trexler (1991b) surveyed governmental and
non-governmental experts in selected na-
tions to provide realistic estimates of land
availability (what is reasonable as opposed
to what is physically suitable) for foresta-
tion activities. The survey also attempted to
determine rates at which forestry efforts
could be implemented in each nation to the
year 2050. Additional data was gathered
through the circulation of a questionnaire to
forestry officials in key nations. In addition,
Houghton et al. (1991) estimated land suit-
able for management to accumulate woody
biomass by comparing current land use
information with a map of vegetation prior
to human disturbance. The rationale is that
formerly forested lands provide the greatest
potential for re-establishment as productive
forests. Grainger (1991) asserts that inad-
equate and inaccurate data on resource
distribution and the state of degraded lands
inhibits accurate predictions of land avail-
ability. The use of high resolution satellite
imagery as an input to a G1S system capable
of superimposing and analyzing vegetation,
land use and climate data is the recom-
mended technique to evaluate land suitabil-
ity (Bouwman 1990).
2.3 Global Carbon Cycle
The global carbon cycle links significant
biogeochemical processes that affect the flux
(movement) of carbon between the atmo-
sphere, terrestrial biosphere, and ocean
pools (Schneider 1989a; Dixon and Turner
1991). Although the general outline of the
15
-------
Figure 2.4 The global carbon cycle, including major pools and annual flux of
carbon (Schneider 1989b).
Atmosphere
740 Gt (in 1988)
+3 Gt per year
I 10 Gt
Photosynthesis
93 Gt
Biological
I & I
Chemical
Processes
5 Gt
Fossil Fuel Use
1-2 Gt
Deforestation
55 Gt
90 Gt
Biological
I & I
Chemical
Processes
Respiration
B30 Gt
4-55 Gt
Decomp
Fossil Fuels
5.000-10,000 Gt
'¦»"•>»
r.um
Soil, Litter, Peat
1.170-1,740 Gt
Ocean
38,500 Gt
cycle is well known, large uncertainties still
exist in estimates of the magnitude of car-
bon pools and flux.
In general, the oceans store by far the larg-
est fraction of carbon on the globe (38,500
Gt), followed by fossil fuels in the earth's
crust (i.e., coal and oil; 5,000-10,000 Gt)
(Figure 2.4; Bolin et al. 1979; Schneider
1989a). For terrestrial ecosystems, estimates
of above-ground carbon storage are highly
uncertain, but they range from 560 to 830 Gt
(Whitaker and Likens 1975; Ajtay et al. 1979;
Olson et al. 1983; Schlesinger 1984; Mooney
et al. 1987; Schneider 1989a). The earth's
atmosphere is estimated to have 740 Gt of
carbon, about the same amount as terrestrial
vegetation. Terrestrial soils, however,
contain between about 1.5 to 2.5 times as
much carbon (1170 to 1740 Gt) as either
terrestrial vegetation or the atmosphere.
Even though the terrestrial biosphere stores
much less carbon than the amount stored in
oceans, the annual carbon flux to the atmo-
sphere is comparable between the terrestrial
biosphere and the oceans, and when com-
bined, their total is about 30% of the carbon
stored in the atmosphere. There is an an-
nual flux back to these systems of about the
same order of magnitude (Figure 2.4; Bolin
et al. 1979; Schneider 1989a).
These characteristics of terrestrial biosphere
flux imply that changes in land use and
land management practices impact global
carbon flux (e.g., deforestation, reforesta-
tion, conservation of soil carbon) and could
have significant impacts on the atmospheric
C02 concentration. That the terrestrial
biosphere can affect atmospheric concentra-
tion of C02is best illustrated by the seasonal
and annual changes in atmospheric C02
(Tucker et al. 1986; Keeling et al. 1989),
which are caused by seasonal and annual
changes in the relative magnitude of photo-
synthesis and respiration in the biosphere
(King et al. 1987; Mooney et al. 1987).
Of concern from the perspective of possible
16
-------
global climate change is that the flux into
and out of the atmosphere is not balanced,
and the atmosphere is gaining about 3 Gt of
carbon per year (Schneider 1989b; Tans et
al. 1990). The two principal sources of the
additional atmospheric C02 are fossil fuel
combustion (MarlaiVd 1989; Schneider
1989b) and deforestation (Houghton et al.
1983; Woodwell et al. 1983; Houghton et al.
1985; Palm et al. 1986; Detwiler and Hall
1988). The annual contributions of these
two carbon sources total 6-7 Gt which is
double the 3 Gt of carbon accumulating in
the atmosphere each year. Moreover, the
contributions from the terrestrial biosphere
(Keeling et al. 1989) and fossil fuel combus-
tion are increasing with time.
One of the critical unknowns in balancing
the carbon budget is determining where the
carbon released to the atmosphere from
deforestation and fossil fuel combustion is
stored, since only about half accumulates in
the atmosphere. The only two possibilities
are the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere.
A recent study suggests that the terrestrial
biosphere (primarily at temperate latitudes)
is a greater sink for the remaining carbon
than previously thought (Tans et al. 1990).
Increased productivity of vegetation caused
by carbon fertilization could be affecting the
amount of carbon being stored in the terres-
trial biosphere (Keeling et al. 1989), al-
though this has not been demonstrated.
The other large uncertainty in balancing the
carbon budget is the amount of carbon
being released to the atmosphere through
deforestation (Table 2.2). Current estimates
are about 1-2 Gt per year (Figure 2.4). How-
ever, there are uncertainties about rates of
deforestation, the amount of carbon in
cleared forests, decomposition rates, and the
amount of regrowth after deforestation
(Woodwell et al. 1983; Houghton et al. 1987;
Detwiler and Hall 1988; Dixon et al. 1991).
Clearly, more research is needed to measure
terrestrial carbon flux and to improve the
understanding of the processes driving
atmosphere-biosphere carbon exchanges
(see Keeling et al. (1989) and Tans et al.
(1990) for a discussion of uncertainties in
balancing the carbon budget and research
needs).
Recent findings by Sedjo (1991) assert that
northern forest ecosystems are a significant
carbon sink on the order of about 0.7 Gt
annually. A sink of this size is outside the
range commonly used for purposes of
estimating the global carbon budget (e.g.,
Detwiler and Hall 1988). Sedjo also esti-
mated that the nearly 600 million ha of
tropical secondary forests are capable of
taking up 1.5 Gt C/yr- Inclusion of these
two sinks, northern forests and tropical
secondary forests, in the global carbon
budget would largely eliminate the carbon
budget imbalance formulated by Detwiler
and Hall (1988). However; terrestrial eco-
system carbon budget values of this magni-
tude are not entirely consistent with the
partial pressure requirements estimated by
Tans et al. (1990).
To conclude, recent research has clearly
indicated that the terrestrial biosphere is an
important component of the global carbon
cycle, particularly as it affects flux to and
from the atmospheric carbon pool. Future
changes in the terrestrial biosphere caused
by climate change and human activities can
be expected to further influence atmo-
spheric carbon pools and thus global cli-
mate.
2.4 Climate Scenarios: Potential Redistri-
bution of Forests
Large increases in the concentration of
carbon dioxide and other relatively impor-
tant trace gases in the atmosphere are likely
to cause large climate changes over the next
century (IPCC 1990; NAS 1991). These
17
-------
simulated climate changes, if realized, could
result in the significant redistribution of
vegetation on regional to continental scales.
The redistribution of vegetation could in
turn affect the rate and magnitude of cli-
mate change via several feedback mecha-
nisms. Climate change also could affect the
success of various carbon sequestration
strategies such as reforestation, afforesta-
tion, and agroforestry. These issues are
briefly discussed below.
2.5 Climate Change Projections
Computer models of the earth-atmosphere
system have been used to estimate the
sensitivity of global climate to the increase
in greenhouse gases. According to the
models, global mean temperatures could
increase by 1.5° to 4.0° C as a result of an
effective doubling of carbon dioxide con-
centrations, with a warming of 2.5° C most
probable (IPCC 1990). Globally, precipita-
tion could increase 7% to 11% (Smith and
Tirpak 1989). These estimates of climate
change are for equilibrium conditions, that
is, they suggest the magnitude of the cli-
mate change after stabilization of the earth-
atmosphere system to the increased radia-
tive forcing. The rate of change is of equal
or greater importance because it affects the
ability of human institutions and natural
ecosystems to successfully adapt to climate
change. Generally, the faster the change,
the more severe the impacts. The rate of
change in part depends on the emission rate
of greenhouse gases. Under the IPCC
business as usual scenario (no emission
controls), global temperatures are expected
to rise about 0.3° C per decade over the next
century. The decadal rate could vary
between 0.2° C to 0.5° C. Consequently,
global mean temperatures could be 1° C
warmer by 2025, and 3° C warmer by 2100.
In models, the rate of change decreases
with slower emission rates.
Regional changes in climate, as predicted by
sophisticated climate models called General
Circulation Models (GCMs), are less certain
than global averages (Dickinson 1986).
Generally, high latitudes are expected to
warm more than lower latitudes. Precipita-
tion changes are more uncertain than tem-
perature changes. As a point of compari-
son, the expected temperature increases by
the end of the next century would make the
globe warmer than at any time during the
last 150,000 years, and the rate of change
faster than any occurring over the past
10,000 years (IPCC 1990). Global tempera-
tures have increased 0.3° C - 0.6° C over the
last century.
2.6 Vegetation Redistribution
The potential effects of climate change on
global vegetation have been estimated using
scenarios of future climate produced by
GCMs and a variety of global vegetation
models. Results from two vegetation mod-
els will be summarized here. The
Holdridge Life Zone Classification
(Holdridge 1967) relates the major plant
formations of the world with two indepen-
dent climate variables, biotemperature (an
index of growing season) and total annual
precipitation. The Box life-form model (Box
1981) relates the distribution of 90 plant life
forms (e.g., summergreen broadleaved
trees) with eight climate variables. This
model has been updated by Bergengren and
Thompson (NCAR, pers. comm.) to im-
Tablfi 2.4 Gonarel circulation models used to generate
double - C02 climate scenarios.
Model name
Reference
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
(GFDL)
Goddard Institute lor Space Studies
(GISS)
Oregon Stale University
(OSU)
United Kingdom Meteorological OHice
(UKMO)
Manabe and Wetherland
1987
Hansen el al.
1983
Schlesinger and Zhao
1989
Mitchell el al.
1989
18
-------
Figure 2.5 Global areas (black) in which predicted future vegetation is different from
current vegetation. The vegetation scenario was created using the UKMO
climate scenario and Holdridge life form classification system (Smith et al.
1991).
prove its accuracy and precision. Climate
scenarios produced by the Geophysical
Fluid Dynamics Model (GFDL, Manabe and
Wetherald 1987), Goddard Institute for
Space Studies (GISS, Hansen et al. 1983),
Oregon State University (OSU, Schlesinger
and Zhao 1989), and United Kingdom
Meteorological Office (UKMO, Mitchell et
al. 1989) were used to drive the models
(Table 2.4).
Large shifts in the distribution of vegetation
are predicted by both vegetation models
under each climate scenario (Figures 2.5 and
2.6; Smith et al. 1991; Bergengren and
Thompson [NCAR, pers. comm.]). The
Holdridge model projects that 16% to 56%
of the earth's land surface could change
vegetation type. Generally, both the
Holdridge and Box models project the same
direction of change in the areal extent of
major biomes for a given climate scenario
(Figure 2.6), but can differ appreciably in
the magnitude of the change. Tropical and
temperate forests are projected to expand by
up to 20%, whereas boreal forest could
decrease up to 50%. Globally, the
Holdridge model projects unchanged or a
slight increase (+5%) in the areal extent of
forests, while the NCAR Box model projects
decreases in forests of 1 to 11%. The de-
crease in global forests is driven by the
large decrease in the areal extent of boreal
forests. Grassland/shrublands show mod-
erate to large increases in extent, whereas
the tundra zone decreases by about 50%.
2.7 Limitations of GCMs and Vegetation
Models
The vegetation scenarios presented here
should be viewed as sensitivity analyses
due to the limitations of both the dimate
and vegetation models used to project the
vegetation changes. Key limitations of the
climate models include the poor simulation
of cloud processes and ocean-atmosphere
interactions, and low spatial resolution
(Gates 1985; Schlesinger and Mitchell 1985;
Dickinson 1986). The Holdridge and NCAR
19
-------
Box models also have significant limita-
tions. Neither incorporates the direct effects
of C02 on plants, which may mitigate the
effect of drought stress on plants (e.g.
Norby et al. 1986a,b; Mooney et al. 1991).
Furthermore, both models are steady-state
models and do not simulate the dynamic
response of vegetation to climate change.
Migration and succession are not included
in the models. The transient response of
vegetation (as described below) could
produce a positive feedback to climate
change that is masked in steady state sce-
narios. Also, it may take 200-500 years for
vegetation to equilibrate to a double C02
climate change. Finally, both models are
formulated using correlations between
present vegetation and climate, correlations
that may change in the future under differ-
ent climate conditions. New classes of
vegetation models need to be developed
based on a physiological understanding of
how vegetation responds to climate
(Neilson et al. 1991).
2.8 Forest Dieback and Climate Change
Even if climate change produces a net
increase in global forest acreage, the time-
dependent response of forests to an en-
hanced greenhouse effect could produce a
temporary but significant positive feedback
to the climate system through the global
carbon cycle. Specifically, the vegetation
models suggest that there will be a signifi-
cant northward movement of forests in
response to climate change (Figure 2.6).
Species at the southern edge of a forested
biome will be replaced by those from the
northern edge of the adjacent biome to the
south. If this vegetation change occurs
through a slow process of competitive
displacement, the effects of this displace-
ment process on terrestrial carbon pools will
be minimal. However, if forests at the
southern edge of a biome die back rapidly
Figure 2.6 Potential effects of climate change on global forests.
Boreal
Temperate
0.00
%A'020
-0.40
n
-0.60*
GISS
OSU
UKM0
GFDL-
QFLX
tn id o l —
c/2 m 2_i
o o ^ Q u.
°
Tropical
m
%A o.io
Holdridge
NCAR PCM
The effect of future climate change on the areal extent of global forests has been esti-
mated using two different vegetation models, the Holdridge life form classification
system (Holdridge 1967), and the NCAR Plant Community Model (PCM; Bergengren
and Thompson, NCAR pers. comm.). Generally, the models predict the same direction of
change for boreal, temperate, and tropical forests under each climate scenario, but differ
in the magnitude of the change. Boreal forests are simulated to decrease in areal extent
by up to 50%, while temperate and tropical forests are simulated to expand up to 20%.
20
-------
via increased fire frequencies caused by
climate change (e.g., increased drought
stress), terrestrial carbon pools could be
temporarily reduced with corresponding
increases in atmospheric C02 (Neilsori and
King 1991). A simple model of forest die-
back and regrowth using the Holdridge
vegetation scenarios suggests that the re-
lease of carbon to the atmosphere by forest
redistribution could total up to 3 Gt of
carbon per year (King et al. 1990; Neilson
and King 1991). At the high end of this
range, the release of carbon from forest
dieback could reach,50% of current levels of
fossil fuel emissions/ These results must
also be viewed as a sensitivity analysis due
to current data limitations and the simple
nature of the model.
2.9 Implications of Vegetation Redistribu-
tion on Strategies for Conserving and
Sequestering Carbon
The potential for significant redistribution
of vegetation in response to global climate
change complicates the development of
greenhouse gas strategies based on increas-
ing carbon sequestration in the terrestrial
biosphere. Of most importance in design-
ing reforestation/afforestation programs is
the recognition that over time, regional
changes in climate will change the species
best adapted to grow at a particular loca-
tion. A marginal site for tree growth today
may not be able to support trees in the
future as regional climate changes. Thus in
designing reforestation and other forest
management programs, policy analysts
must consider whether a proposed location
would support trees and increased eco-
nomic activity in the future, and if it can,
what species would be best suited for the
site under a changing climate. If climate
change is relatively slow compared with the
desired lifetime of the plantation project,
this compounding effect is less important.
The more rapid the change, the more cli-
mate change will need to be factored into
the design criteria. Climate change may
also change the carbon sequestration poten-
tial of a given species at a site over time
even if the species' potential survival at the
site is unaffected by the climate change.
Consequently some sites may become more
productive, some less productive.
21
-------
3.0 Materials and Methods
The approach to the assessment was the
development of a global database of bio-
logic and economic information on forest
establishment and management options.
Information and analysis of promising
practices and costs within forested nations
representing boreal, temperate, and tropical
regions on six continents were considered.
3.1 Data Collection
Regional and national data were collected in
three major categories: forest growth or
conservation resulting from forest establish-
ment and management practices; the associ-
ated costs for each management practice;
and the area of land potentially suitable for
each practice. Information was gathered
from the technical literature published over
the past 10 years, from the responses to an
international survey of 150 scientists and
forest managers around the world, and
from professional forestry organizations
worldwide (Appendix D).
3.2 Technical Database
The biologic and economic information
from 94 nations has been collected and
entered into the report database (Table 3.1).
Although over 90 nations are represented,
this assessment focuses on 16 key nations to
gain early insights on the role of promising
forest management practices. Key nation
criteria included: world political impor-
tance; amount of forest lands, existing and/
or potential; a useful level of available data
on the nation's forests and tree-crop man-
agement practices; and a deliberate attempt
to attain representation across the boreal,
temperate, and tropical latitudes (Allan and
Lanly 1991).
Forest growth and economic data, including
over 40 variables, were organized in a
spreadsheet database to facilitate the analy-
ses reported in the main body of this report.
The database electronically references the
technical source of all information on all
variables.
The database is stored in a Lotus 1-2-3
spreadsheet system on a Unix-based Sparc
1+ workstation (Cobb et al. 1989). This
allows fast and efficient manipulation of
large spreadsheets without the usual prob-
lem of inadequate memory of Personal
Computers. Data were exported from the
spreadsheet to the SAS statistical package
for analysis. In the future, a networked
database management system will be incor-
porated into the workstations. This will
allow easier and more direct access of the
database for a larger number of users.
22
-------
Table 3,1
Continents, nations and number of records in global database of
>
promising forest practices and their costs at the site level.
fiFwcmmzmmm
N. AMERICA 417
AsiA-mvmsoet1
Algeria
8
Belize
8
Bangladesh
1
Angola
8
Canada *
34
China *
57
Benin
8
Costa Rica
41
India *
67
Botswana
8
Cuba
3
Indonesia *
37
Burkina Faso
10
Guatemala
21
Israel
1
Burundi
9
Haiti
5
Malaysia *
31
Cameroon
20
Honduras
11
Myanmar
17
Cape Verde
8
Jamaica
1
Nepal
10
Cent. Af. Rep. 8
Mexico *
28
Pakistan
11
Chad
8
Nicaraqua
9
Philippines
19
Comoros
8
Panama
8
South Korea
2
Congo *
14
United States *
248
Sri Lanka
16
Djibouti
8
Taiwan
3
Equ. Guiena
8
S;:AMERICA • Hi343 :
Thailand
33
Egypt
2
Argentina *
135
Turkey
1
Ethiopia
8
Bolivia
8
Gabon
8
Brazil *
70
EUROPE :
Gambia, The
12
Chile
27
Austria
2
Ghana
17
Colombia
55
Czechoslovakia
3
Guinea
8
Ecuador
21
Finland
3
Ivory Coast
22
French Guinea
8
France
4
Kenya
5
Paraguay
8
Germany *
12
Lesotho
8
Peru
11
Great Britain
13
Liberia
9
Greece
1
Madagascar
12
OCEANIA
B2:M
Ireland
9
Malawi
10
Australia *
54
Netherlands
1
Mali
9
Fiji
8
Poland
7
Mozambique
11
New Zealand *
11
Portugal
4
Niger
8
Papua N. Guinea
9
Sweden
1
Nigeria
17
USSR *
21
Rwanda
11
* 16 key forest nations
Senegal
12
PRIMARY VARIABLES COLLECTED
Sierra Leone
8
Somalia
8
1) Biomass growth
South Africa
38
2) Rotation length
Sudan
11
3) Initial costs
Swaziland
8
4) Annual costs
Togo
10
5) Land suitability
Uganda
8
Zaire *
16
The total database includes:
Total nations
94
Zambia
20
Total entries
1678
23
-------
3.3 Forest Growth and Carbon Storage
Because the stem wood of trees usually has
the highest commercial value in forests,
growth and yield are normally expressed in
terms of volume of stem wood. It was
necessary, therefore, to convert these esti-
mates of stem volume to whole tree carbon.
First, it was assumed that 1 cubic meter of
stem wood is associated with 1.6 cubic
meters of whole-tree biomass (roots,
branches, leaves, etc.) (Marland 1988; Sedjo
1989a; Schroeder and Ladd 1991). Although
widely employed, the 1.6 cubic meter figure
is probably not an accurate constant for all
forests. However, more site, species, or
ecoregion specific constants are not cur-
rently available. Developing such constants
would be a valuable contribution to this
area of study. Whole-tree volume was
multiplied by the density (i.e., specific
gravity, Appendix A) of wood for each
species to yield whole-tree biomass. Fi-
nally, it was assumed that the carbon con-
tent of whole-tree biomass was 50% (Brown
and Lugo 1982). To summarize:
Carbon content -
Stem volume*1.6*Density*0.5 (1)
Most published analyses of the feasibility of
forest management practices to slow the
increase of atmospheric C02 acknowledge
the temporary nature of forestry carbon
sequestration options (Dyson 1977; Marland
1988,1989; Sedjo 1989a, 1989b; Schroeder
and Ladd 1991; Sedjo and Solomon 1991).
When trees and forests are in their active
growth phase, they remove carbon from the
atmosphere. As forests age, however, their
growth slows and eventually stops, and
they are no longer an active sink for carbon
(although they continue to store it) (Harmon
et al. 1990). For long-lived tree species, the
active growth phase may last for a century
or more. For some very fast growing, but
short-lived, tree species it may be only a
decade or less (Schroeder 1991). Conven-
tionally, trees are harvested at or before the
culmination of active growth. Depending
on the end use, much or all of the harvested
carbon returns to the atmosphere in a rela-
tively short time (Harmon et al. 1990).
However, even though plantations may be
harvested regularly, they still represent an
amount of carbon removed from the atmo-
sphere and stored. If they are promptly
replanted after harvest, plantation lands
should always be covered with trees. What
is required is an estimate of the amount of
carbon that can be stored on average over
many decades and rotations.
The relevant parameter in terms of carbon
cycle calculations is the average amount of
carbon on-site over an indefinite number of
rotations. Graham et al. (1990) used similar
logic in assessing the potential for planta-
tion forestry in Africa to store carbon. The
approach was also described and used by
Schroeder (1991). If it is assumed that the
system is sustainable and there is no yield
reduction in later rotations, the result is the
same as the average amount of carbon on-
site over one full rotation. Any number of
biological, climatic, or social events, how-
ever, could contribute to some level of yield
reduction that cannot be predicted (Smith
1962; SAF 1984). The approach presented
here, therefore, may represent an upper
bound. This calculation can be made by
summing the carbon standing crop for
every year in the rotation and dividing by
the rotation length, the calculation of a
mean:
Mean Carbon Storage =
n
m C standing crop (2)
Rotation length
Where n=rotation length
This approach assumes that at, or shortly
after, harvest, all stored carbon returns to
the atmosphere.
-------
3.4 Costs of Management Practices
Interamerican Dev. Bank, pers. comm.).
Cost data were collected concomitantly with
growth and yield data. Costs used in this
assessment are based on implementation
costs per hectare of the various forest and
agroforestry practices. Implementation costs
are reported in.various ways throughout the
world, but they generally include site
preparation, stock costs (i.e., seed/cuttings,
nursery/greenhouse propagation, packing,
storage, and transportation), and planting
labor plus supervision. Thus, there are three
important constraints to these data. First,
the cost of land was not included because:
1) data were limited; 2) land cost varies
widely around the world; and 3) land
values are difficult to establish where: a)
land is held in common by communities; or
b) virtually all land is government-owned
and no land market values exist (Trexler
1991b): Second, the analysis also did not
include annual or maintenance costs. How-
ever, an analysis'of annual maintenance
costs and associated benefits will be com-
pleted by the EPA Global Change Research
Program in the future. Third, neither social
nor political variables affecting costs of
management practices are constant nor
discernible in the data.
Economic data are reported in US dollars.
US dollar costs for any reference year were
adjusted to 1990 US dollars based on the
inflation and exchange rates for individual
nations. The currency exchange rate for the
reference year was taken from the Interna-
tional Financial Statistics Tables (IFS) pub-
lished by the International Monetary Fund
(IMF 1990,1991). A nation's inflation rate
for the reference year, as measured by the
Consumer Price Index, was extracted from
the IFS tables. The reference year cost was
then converted to a 1990 value and con-
verted back to US dollars at the 1990 ex-
change rate. This method accounted for
fluctuations in both exchange and inflation
rates that are nation specific (J. Anas,
Because forests are renewable resources
(Smith 1962), the costs of initiating forest
management or establishing plantations are
recurring costs. Jn estimating costs, it is
important to account for these additional
costs that will occur at more or less periodic
intervals in the future (Davis and Johnson
1987). The following standard formula was
used to compute the present value of series
of successive future costs:
V„ = I(l+i)w]a (l+i)n -1
[(l+i)w-l](l+i)n (3)
Where:
V0=present value of costs
i=interestrate
w=length of recurring period, or rotation
length
a=amount of cost recurring every w years
n=total length of the analysis period
The interest rate used was 5% net of infla-
tion. The interest rate of 5% was based on
advice received from economists at Oregon
State University (J.D. Brodie, pers. comm.),
the Interamerican Development Bank (J.
Anas, pers. comm.), and the International
Monetary Fund (H. Suarez, pers. comm.).
For n,.the length of the analysis period, a
period of 50 yrs was assumed. This is only
an assumption, but it seems like an appro-
priate one for a global program of forest
management which would require signifi-
cant operational start-up time, as well as a
lag time before planted trees reach their full
biological potential (Grainger 1991).
Cost per ton of carbon was calculated as the
present value of all establishment costs over
a 50 year period (from equation 3) divided
by mean carbon storage (from equation 2).
It is critically important to emphasize that
costs computed in this manner donot ac-
count for any financial benefits that result
from the initial investment and the produc-
25
-------
Table 3.2 Costs and benefits of 3 sustainable agriculture
systems in Latin America {Arxirasko et al. 1991).
Sustainable Cost &
agriculture
data
Extensive
i^rbJorestry
Low Input
cropping
Intensive
agroforestry
Costs (labor,
materials) / ha
$47
$737
$767
Gross revenues / ha
$76
$2229
$1059
Net revenues / ha
$29
$1492
$292
Genera]
assumptions
Extensive
agroforestry
Low Input
cropping
Intensive
agroforestry
Agricultural
extension costs /ha
$5
$5
$5
Hectares of
deforestation
avoided / year
5
4.6
20
Reforestation costs
avoided / year
$3500
$3220
$14000
Tons of C emission
from deforestation
avoided / year
350 tons C
322 tons C
1400 tons C
Costs and
benefits
Extensive
agroforestry
Low Input
cropping
intensive
agroforestry
Total costs
$52
$742
$772
Total benefits
$3529
$4712
$14292
tion of useful products (Gregerson 1989). In
this respect, costs presented here should be
considered as "gross" costs; to calculate
"net" costs the present value of future
revenues as well as any "subsidy inputs"
would have to be subtracted. Three ex-
amples of analyses, including both costs
and benefits, are shown in Table 3.2.
3.5 Land Area Technically Suitable
The carbon calculations described above
were all conducted on a per unit area basis
(e.g., tons carbon/ha). The suitable land
area for each management practice is re-
quired to estimate a total
amount of atmospheric
carbon removal and storage.
It is widely recognized that
reliable and up-to-date in-
ventories of land cover and
land use on a global scale are
limited and represent critical
data needs for the assessment
of forest management poten-
tial in the context of both the
Noordwijk Conference and
the proposed Global Forest
Agreement (Maini 1991).
Nonetheless, because of
growing interest in global
forest management, a num-
ber of analyses of land suit-
ability have recently been
published (Grainger 1991;
Houghton et al. 1991; Trexler
1991b).
This report draws on data
from the estimates published
to date. For the tropics, the
report relies primarily on the
recent assessment by remote-
sensing technology by
Houghton et al. (1991), al-
though, other sources were used as appro-
priate. For the temperate zones, all avail-
able sources were consulted, including
government reports on national resources
(e.g., Moulton and Richards 1990).
Both land area and carbon storage for dif-
ferent management practices were classified
within nations by ecoregion following the
system devised by Bailey (1989). The
broadest level of Bailey's classification, the
domain level, which contains four subdivi-
sions: boreal, humid temperate, dry, and
humid tropical was employed. A distinc-
tion was recognized within each of these
between lowland and upland regions. This
26
-------
simplification of the Bailey system, there-
fore, utilizes eight ecoregion categories
(Table 3.3; Appendix B), i.e., lowland and
upland for each of the four domains: boreal
(instead of polar); humid temperate; dry;
and humid tropical.
3.6 Statistical Analysis
As explained earlier in this section, the data
from which this report was compiled were
collected from a very wide variety of
sources (Section 9.0). The outcome of this
approach is that many of the data are not
normally distributed but are unimodal with
a positive skew, i.e., highest frequency for
the low numbers (Appendix F). Conven-
tionally, statistics used to characterize
sample data, mean and standard error, are
not appropriate for non-normally distrib-
uted data. A more appropriate measure of
central tendency for this type of data is the
median because it is resilient to extreme
values and skewed distributions (Devore
and Peck 1986). Therefore, in the following
presentations of results, major figures and
tables (Figure 4.1 and 4.2, Tables 5.2 and
5.3) present the sample medians of the data.
Variation in the data is indicated by presen-
tation of the interquartile ranges (middle
50% of observations). The sample sizes are
also shown.
3.7 Limitations of the Analysis
Analyses of growth rates, costs of various
Table 3.3 Ecoregion classifications ,
(Baileyl989). '
Ecoregion
Boreal lowland
Boreal upland
Humid temperate lowland
Humid temperate upland
Dry lowland
Dry upland
Humid Iropical lowland
Humid tropical upland
forest management and agroforestry prac-
tices, and land suitability are based upon
several thousand data points. The data
used in the document's various analyses
and summaries can be supported with the
reference citations listed in Section 9.
In a broad review involving large amounts
of data from many sources, data quality will
vary. Referenced technical data are consid-
ered the best available. In a few cases,
professional judgement called for the use of
a regional average where a key nation had a
significant data gap. When data on land
productivity or initial costs were encoun-
tered that were clearly outside reported
ranges and were not adequately explained,
these data were not used in the analyses
reported in this document.
The forest productivity data in terms of tree
growth rates (later converted to tons C/ha/
yr as explained in Section 3.3) were as
reported in the technical literature or known
by professional experts. That is, the growth
rates do not represent an unbiased random
experimental sample from across the major
forested regions of the world. Gaps in
representative data (e.g., tropical dry for-
ests) will have to be filled by future investi-
gations.
Cost data for implementing the various
forest management practices and agrofor-
estry systems are initial establishment costs.
Land costs and annual maintenance costs
are recognized as significant aspects of a
full cost/benefit analysis. Analysis of
benefits will be the subject of the next phase
of these forest management assessments.
Likewise, the benefits side of the equation
must eventually be added to such analyses
before clear decisions about the role of
forest management practices can be deter-
mined (Gregerson et al. 1989). Benefits in
$/ha are not as readily available as costs. In
some cases, it is not known how to place a
27
-------
Box 3.1 Ancillary benefits of forest management.
This report has identified some of
the more promising means for
enhancing carbon sequestration
and conservation in world forests.
Furthermore it has documented,
to the precision which present
information sources allow, the
extent and location worldwide of
lands suitable for afforestation,
and the carbon-pool enhancement
which could thereby be accom-
plished.
The scale to which such an
afforestation effort will be at-
tained is of course dependent on
the goals and priorities of the
major forested countries and of
the community of nations. It also
depends on political and social
circumstances in each country,
often outside of the forestry sector
and not entirely predictable.
Benefits Beyond Carbon Seques-
tration
There are many benefits to
afforestation, other than carbon
sequestration (Repetto and Gillis
1988). These include: a) provid-
ing wood products — lumber and
pulpwood for an expanding
market, b) collecting and storing
water resources, c) serving as a
vast energy collector to provide
fuelwood for the tropics, and
biomass for power and transpor-
tation in the developed world,
and d) helping to achieve sustain-
able natural resource-based
economies worldwide.
Preserving Biodiversity
Of global significance is the
central role of forested lands in
the conservation of biological
diversity. Tropical forests, with
some 7% of the earth's land
surface, are estimated to contain
50% of all plant and animal
species - some 3 to 8 million
species overall (Myers 1986).
Because many of these are en-
demic and with limited ranges,
their viability is threatened by the
current pattern of burning or
clearing of forested lands - with
some 50 thousand square kilome-
ters being lost annually in the
moist tropics.
Conservationists have begun to
identify the highest priorities for
preservation of virgin tropical
forest ecotypes. But conservation-
ists and development experts
alike have urged the necessity of
embedding such preserves in an
extended matrix of utilized but
still largely natural forest lands:
including native reserves, low
intensity harvested lands, and
agroforestry plantations (Miller
1988). Furthermore, sustainability
of the forest-based economy
depends on its ability to absorb
population levels above those of
traditional forest societies -
underlining the importance of
labor-intensive forest plantations
and value-added forest-based
industries.
In temperate regions as well, the
impulse for biodiversity conserva-
tion is likely to lead to establish-
ment of extensive virgin forest
preserves as parts of larger
sustained-management forested
lands (Norse 1980). Preeminent
examples in the U.S. are the
evolving management of moist
temperate forests in the North-
west to maintain threatened
populations of marbled muraletes
and spotted owls, and in the
Southwest to maintain the threat-
ened cockaded woodpecker.
reliable dollar value on many ancillary
benefits of forest management and agrofor-
estry systems. As methods are developed
and all benefits can be fully accounted for, it
is likely that the value of the benefits will
compensate for, if not exceed, a large por-
tion of the costs (Box 3.1).
The analyses reported at this time are an
important first step toward estimating the
role of forest management and agroforestry
systems to conserve and sequester atmo-
spheric carbon. In addition, the results
serve to identify where the major data gaps
are located and what research is required to
fill them.
28
-------
4.0 Global Assessment of Promising
Management Options
The biological opportunity to conserve and
sequester carbon in the terrestrial biosphere,
especially in forest systems, appears signifi-
cant. Through careful planning and imple-
mentation, management practices useful for
this carbon benefit appear to have potential
to provide food, water, wood, and other
basic human needs.
4.1 ManagingtheTerrestrial Biosphere to
Conserve and/or Sequester Carbon
Preliminary assessments suggest that world
forest areas, as well as agricultural lands,
can be managed to sequester and/or con-
serve enough carbon to significantly reduce
accumulations of C02 in the atmosphere.
This concept of managing the terrestrial
biosphere became one focus of the
Noordwijk Ministerial Conference (1989)
and resulted in development of a global
forest management goal (Section 1.4). Later,
three global strategies to accomplish the
goal through forest management and agro-
forestry systems were proposed by
Andrasko et al. (1991): 1) maintaining forest
area; 2) reducing losses of forests; and 3)
expanding forest area.
Related evaluations of forest management,
agroforestry systems, and agricultural
options, including land suitable for their use
and their associated costs and benefits, have
been completed (Grainger 1990; Andrasko
et al. 1991). These early evaluations suggest
that forestry, agroforestry and agricultural
systems can be managed with technical
sustainability to meet all three strategies
listed above (Dixon and Turner 1991).
However, many of these first evaluations
have been site specific and extrapolation to
a national or global scale is risky (Moulton
and Richards 1990). Moreover, the social
and political context of every site is some-
what distinct and will have a significant
impact on what forest practices can be
implemented, and at what scale and costs,
as part of large development programs.
Moreover, the early global evaluations or
assessments have been based on fragmented
data from disparate sources. The present
assessment is useful in that it expands the
capability to estimate the potential of forest
management and agroforestry systems
globally to accomplish the three strategies
and their costs at the site level. The relative
costs of promising management options
used in this assessment were estimates of
direct costs at the site level for labor, materi-
als, transportation, and the initial infrastruc-
ture (for three years) to employ the options.
Scaling of costs (between small and large
projects) was not considered because previ-
ous analyses suggest this approach may be
invalid (Row 1978).
4.2 Matching Promising Practices to Glo-
bal Strategies
A wide range of promising forest manage-
ment and agroforestry practices and tech-
nologies were identified in the global sur-
vey (Figure 4.1). These include reforesta-
tion, afforestation, natural regeneration,
29
-------
Figure 4.1
Carbon storage for loresl management options for (a) boreal, (b) temperate, and (c) tropical
regions. Median values are indicated by the widest horizontal lines. Boxes represent
interquartile ranges (middle 50% of observations), shaded circles are means and vertical
lines indicate lull ranges of data. Combined frequency distributions shown in Appendix F.
(a)
70
60
SO
40
o
— 30
20
10
0
Boreal
(14)
(1)
(nt
(19)
(12)
(10)
Reforestation AHorestation Nat. regen Silviculture
Management option
Shod rot.
(b)
350
300
250
c 200
— 150
100
50
0
(212) (119)
(n)
(6) (62)
(10)
(2)
m.
Temperate
Reforestation Afforestation Nat regen. Silviculture
Management option
Short rol. Agrotoreslry
(o)
700
600
500
400
o
300
200
100
0
(136)
(3)
(n)
(3)
(12)
(16)
m-
Tropical
Reforestation AHorestation Nat. regen. Sifvicuhuie
Management option
Agroforestry
1. Carbon standing stock lor shon rotaton loresl crops in the boreal region is approximately the same as for temperate regions (R.K. Pnon, USEPA. pers, comm.).
30
-------
Table 4.1 \
S©qu©slW9(J 6artX)f1 tost Iron --
--
glob a}
-------
Box 4.1 Forest village program in Thailand (Boonkird et al. 1991).
The Forest Village program
was introduced by the
Government of Thailand,
Forest Industries Organiza-
tion (FlO) in 1967 to slow
deforestation due to shifting
cultivation. The underlying
principle of the program is to
link sustainable forest
establishment and manage-
ment with the socio-eco-
nomic needs of resource-
poor farmers. The specific
objectives of the program
includes: 1) attract shifting
cultivators and landless
people to establish them-
selves in forest villages
which offer improved
infrastructure for a stabile
rather than nomadic li/estyle; 2) encourage partici-
pants to establish taungya agrofoTestry plantations
in order to reforest degraded land; and 3) provide
long-term employment in the forest sector for
participants which lead to sustained flow of goods
and services.
In 1991, there are over 60 forest villages throughout
Thailand and plantation establishment is approxi-
mately 20,000 ha, annually. Various agroforestry
systems have been employed within forest villages
including: silviculture, intercropping, aquaculture,
and homegarden systems. Prominent tree genera
planted in forest villages include: Tectona, Eucalyp-
tus, Acacia, Casuarina, Hevea, Shorea and Melia.
These fast-growing multipurpose tree species
provide a sustained (yield) of goods and services for
villagers. Other benefits of forest village programs
include: employment and income for shifting
cultivators, rehabilitation of
natural resources, protection
of watersheds and biodiver-
sity.
Agroforestry and plantation
systems employed by FIO
sequester significant amounts
of carbon above and below
ground. The relatively fast
growth of trees planted and
the large land area covered
by forest villages have
resulted in approximately
0.01 Gt of above ground
carbon sequestration in
Thailand since 1967. Prelimi-
nary estimates suggest for
every hectare of agroforestry
system established, defores-
tation is offset by 5-20 hectares.
The pragmatic concept of forest villages represents a
sound approach to slowing deforestation and land
degradation, with concomitant socio-economic
benefits to shifting cultivators, land-less people, and
resource-poor farmers. The village forest program
has been sustained in Thailand for over 20 years and
has recently been employed in Kenya, Gabon,
Uganda, India, Nigeria and Cambodia. The cost/
benefit ratio of this system is highly favorable when
compared to conventional programs of forestation in
other countries. With appropriate infrastructures
and technological support, this program envisions
the sustained use of forests for food, fuel, fiber and
other goods and services, by resource-poor people
who could otherwise be engaged in forest destruc-
tion.
Agroforestry is a combination of trees and agronomic
crops. A wide array of agroforestry systems are
established and managed within temperate and tropical
latitudes to produce food, fuel, and fiber. The nit
primary productivity of these systems is relatively high
and the potential to sequester and conserve carbon is
approximately 2 Gt. annually, worldwide.
destructive land uses resulting from such
practices as slash and burn agriculture.
Integrated sustainable management options
such as farm forestry, selected agroforestry
systems (Box 4.1), and natural forest man-
agement appear most promising to slow
deforestation by resource-poor farmers in
tropical latitudes to conserve carbon in the
terrestrial biosphere. Sanchez and Benitez
(1987) estimated that agricultural products
from one hectare of agroforestry land could
replace equivalent products from 5 to 10 ha
of slash-and-burn agriculture. Thus, where
agroforestry systems can be implemented
on a broad scale, the possibility of reducing
deforestation appears significant. For
example, each hectare of tropical forest
burned releases approximately 220 tons of
carbon into the atmosphere. Each hectare of
established, continuously producing agro-
forestry will maintain approximately 100 tC
in storage. At a 10-for-l offset, therefore,
the combined total of carbon sequestered by
agroforestry and conserved by maintaining
32
-------
the tropical forest would be about 2300 tons
([220 t/ha x 10 ha] + 100 t/ha) saved from
release into the atmosphere. In other
words, for each hectare of agroforestry
established on deforested land in the trop-
ics, an estimated 2300 tC could be prevented
from going into the atmosphere. The esti-
mate is based upon two assumptions: 1) the
median standing stock of carbon in tropical
agroforestry systems is 100 tC/ha (Figure
4.1); and 2) the mean above-ground biomass
of one ha of tropical forest contains 220 tC/
ha (Waring and Schlesinger 1985).
Further, forest management practices, such
as reforestation and afforestation/should be
implemented on a sustainable basis to
provide a continuous flow of goods and
services for local populations. Where this is
possible, forestry and agroforestry options
which include a technically sustainable
approach are the most likely practices to be
implemented (Gregerson et al. 1989;
Winjum et al. 1991).
For expanding world forests, an analysis of
the database information on potential car-
bon sequestration values by management
practices provides insight into those that are
most promising (Figure 4.1). Based upon
the median values for carbon sequestration
in tons of carbon/ha, the five most promis-
ing practices, from high to low, appear to
be:
Natural reforestation in the tropics. This
practice has a median value of 195 tons C/
ha. This is the highest median value found
in the database, and it possibly reflects the
great biomass productivity rates of natural
ecosystems,in the humid tropics (Figure
2.2). However, it should be noted that this
practice had only three data points in the
database as it currently stands; more data is
clearly needed to verify these results.
Afforestation in the temperate latitudes.
The median .value is 120 tons C/ha and the
interquartile range is 90 to 178 tons C/ha.
This high median value likely reflects the
high growth rates of plantations established
on marginal agricultural lands, which,
though medium to poor for crop productiv-
ity, are often quite suitable for forest planta-
tion growth (Hughes 1991).
Agroforestry in the tropics. The assessment
shows a median value for this practice of 95
tons C/ha and an interquartile range of 60
to 125 tons C/ha. the practice has been
under intensive study for only a decade
(MacDicken and Vergara 1990) so that, in
comparison to reforestation, fewer data are
available (e.g., only 16 data entries are in
the database to date). These moderately
high values for agroforestry, however, are
encouraging because this practice is also
one that will be important from the stand-
point of supporting local populations.
Reforestation in the tropics. This practice
has a median carbon sequestration value of
65 tons C/ha and an interquartile range of
46 to 105 tons C/ha. The 136 entries in the
database lend considerable weight to the
validity-of these sequestration values. The
high ranking of this practice supports the
conclusion, often advanced, that reforesta-
tion in the tropical latitudes has great poten-
tial. That conclusion is usually based upon
the high mean annual increments (e.g., up
to 60 mV'ha/yr for eucalyptus and
Caribbean pine) for rotations of 20 years or
less. These plantation crops, however, do
not always store the greatest amount of
carbon over an extended period because
short rotations limit biomass accumulation
(Schroeder 1991). Despite this caveat about
short rotation plantations, tropical reforesta-
tion is still a promising forest practice to
sequester carbon even when compared to
other global forest practices on the same
33
-------
Figure 4.2 Initial costs for forest management options for (a) boreal, (b) lemperate, and (c) tropical
regions. Median values are indicated by the widest horizontal lines. Boxes represent
interquartile ranges (middle 50% of observations), shaded circles are means and vertical
lines indicate full ranges of data. Combined frequency distributions shown in Appendix F.
(a) I
600 i
500
400 ¦
300
200
100
(16)
(1)
(n)
(19)
(13)
Boreal
Reforestation Aflorestation Nat. regen. Si^curtute
Management option
1
Shorl rol.
(b)
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
-er
**
2000
1500
1000
500
0
(n)
(80) (110) (11) (64) (10)
(1)
I
Temperate
Reforestation Atlorestaton Nat. regen. Silviculture Short rot. Agroforeslry
Management option
(c)
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
(75)
(2)
(n)
(3)
(3)
(13)
m
Tropical
Reforestation Afforestation Nat. regen. Silviculture
Management option
Agrotorestry
No implementation oosls available in current database lor short rotanon lores! crops in the boreal zone.
34
-------
basis.
Reforestation in the temperate latitudes. At
a median value of 56 tons C/ha and an
interquartile range of 32 to 96 tons C/ha>
this approach is the fifth highest on the list
of promising practices for carbon sequestra-
tion. The estimates are based on 212 entries,
the largest number in the database.
The lowest median values among all the
practices in the three latitudinal regions
were for silviculture: in tons C/ha, boreal =
10; temperate = 26; and tropical = 34 (Figure
4.1). Silvicultural treatments, such as thin-
ning and fertilization in plantations, will
likely play a role in adapting forests to the
warmer climates which are now projected
by global-change research. However, by
themselves, such treatments would not
produce an •increase in forest area in the
world, and the results also show that as
"promising" practices to aid in offsetting
the buildup of atmospheric C02, the poten-
tial may be low. Therefore, silviculture
could be dropped from the list of promising
practices for purposes of expanding forest-
area. Other investigators have reached the
same conclusion (Marland 1988; Andrasko
1990a; Sedjo and Solomon 1991). From the
standpoint of cost/tC, however, values are
favorably low for silvicultural practices
(Section 4.3):so that where used, they do
make a,cost-efficient contribution to carbon
sequestration.
Overall, the database estimates of the poten-
tial to sequester carbon through forest
management and agroforestry systems in
the boreal, temperate, and the tropical
latitudes are 16 tons C/ha (n = 38), 68 tons
C/ha (n = 220), and 66 tons C/ha (n = 170),
respectively. The Kruskal-Wallis non-
parametric test (i -c., a Chi-square approxi-
mation) indicates that: 1) the median values
for the temperate and tropical latitudes
were significantly greater (by a factor of
over four times) than for the boreal (prob. =
<1%); and 2) the temperate and tropical
median values are not significantly different
(prob. = <1%).
The lower value for carbon sequestration in
the boreal latitudes is not surprising. Under
today's climate, the boreal latitudes have a
shorter and cooler growing season distinctly
limiting carbon sequestration values for tree
crops belowthose of the more southerly
latitudes (Young 1982).
The non-significant difference between the
above median values for temperate and
tropical latitudes is interesting. As noted
under the reforestation outcome above, the
rapid biomass growth rates of forest ecosys-
tems in the tropics are well known, but
tropical forests do not always store the
greatest amount of carbon over an extended
period (Schroeder 1991). When considered
over, several decades or centuries, (Section
3), temperate forest ecosystems can average
the same amount of standing stock carbon/
ha as those in the tropics. That is, the longer
rotation lengths generally practiced in the
temperate zones allow levels of biomass
accumulation comparable to short cropping
cycles in the tropical plantations.^ This
mearis that other factors besides carbon
sequestration rates, such as economic and
social considerations; must be used to deter-
I* - ' , '
mine which is the better regional choice
(temperate or tropical latitudes) to aid in
offsetting increases in atmospheric COr
4.3, Cost of Forest Management Options at
the Site Level
The cost of carbon sequestration options at
the site level, for forest and "agroforestry
practices was one of the primary objectives
of this assessment. As noted in Section 3.4,
this assessment is based on implementation
35
-------
Figure 4.3 Cost and yield efficiency of national reforestation programs based on median values of initial
costs (Vo in $/ha) divided by the respective median mean standing stock (tC/tia) to get $/tC.
80 -r
70 --
60 --
50 --
40 --
30 --
20 --
10 --
~EGV
~VEN
~NZL
~ZAR
DEU ~CIV
k *
'CRI
FIN
~CAN
~BRA *ND
~ARG
~COL
~FRA
~HVO
ECU
~
3N ~ZAF
~SUN
~PHL
TIIA
« GHA
~SEN
~TGO
20
40
60
-------
Implementation or initial costs of forest
establishment and management generally
appear least in boreal regions. (Figure 4.2).
As management intensity increases in
temperate and tropical regions, initial coists
per ha escalate accordingly (Dixon et al.
1991). Natural regeneration, silvicultural
treatment, agroforestry, and forestation are
the least expensive practices within tropical
latitudes (Swisher 1990).
For the boreal forest system, natural foresta-
tion practices and artificial reforestation
could sequester carbon most efficiently at a
cost of $90-325/ha (Figure 4.2). At seques-
tration values of about 17 tons C/ha and 39
tons C/ha> respectively. (Figure 4.1), the
initial cost for the two. practices is $5($4-ll)
and $8($3-27)/tC. Silvicultural treatments
may also be a cost-effective means to se-
quester and conserve carbon in boreal forest
systems at $74/ha. At a sequestration value
of 10.5 tons C/ha (Figure 4.1), the initial
cost is then $7($5-76)/tC. Dixon et al. (1991)
and Allan and Lanly (1991) also reported
that forestation and forest management
practices in boreal systems can be sustained
and provide a high rate of return on initial
investment.
Within temperate regions, reforestation,
afforestation, natural regeneration, and
silvicultural practices offer the least expen-
sive opportunities to sequester carbon.
Artificial reforestation can cost $350/ha, at a
sequestration value of 56 tons C/ha (Figure
4.1). Carbon is stored at an initial cost of $6
($3-29)/tC depending on site conditions,
tree species, and management intensity.
Afforestation can store about 120 tC/ha at a
cost of $260/ha or $2($0;22-5)/tC. Natural
regeneration can be very inexpensive at less
than $10/tia or at 9 tons C/ha (Figure 4.1),
the cost is less than $1 ($0.01-0.43)/tC Inter-
mediate silvicultural treatments (e.g., thin-
ning and fertilization) enhance carbon
storage in temperate forests at a median cost
of about $350/ha; at 27 tons C/ha (Figure
4.1), the initial cost is $13($3-158)/tC. In the
temperate zone, agroforestry costs are $790/
ha, and the practice stores carbon at 34 tons
C/ha (Figure 4.1) for an initial cost of.
$23($14-66)/tC.
The widest range of costs were reported for
forest carbon conservation/sequestration
options within tropical latitudes (Figure
4.2). Natural regeneration, short-rotation
fuelwood plantations, and agroforestry
systems can all be established for less than
$1000/ha (50 year cost basis) (Figure 4.2).
Reforestation and agroforestry can seques-
ter carbon at less than $10($2-26)/tC be-
cause of high sequestration values, i.e.,
about 100 tons C/ha (Figure 4.1). Interme-
diate silvicultural treatments (e.g., thinning
and fertilization) stimulate productivity and
can sequester carbon at approximately
$500/ha or $8.50($1.50-36)/tC at a seques-
tration value of 59 tons C/ha (Figure 4.1).
Therefore, in the tropics, natural regenera-
tion, agroforestry, reforestation, and silvi-
culture sequester carbon at median initial
costs, respectively, of: $0.90($0.54-2)/tC
($178/ha *195 tC/ha);:$4.80($2-ll)/tC
($454/ha -r95 tC/ha); $6.90($3-26)/tC
($450/tC 4-65 tC/ha); and $8.50($'l .50-37)/
tC ($289/tC -r34 tC/ha). These initial costs
per ton of carbon sequestered are1 all under
$10 which compares favorably to'many non-
forest options to sequester or conserve
carbon that are $30/tC or more (NAS 1991).
Ultimately, total net costs will be the more
reliable comparison (Section 7).
4.4 Cost and Yield Efficiency of National
Programs
The previous section revealed that establish-
ment of plantations or agroforestry systems
were cost efficient means of sequestering
37
-------
Box 4.2 Costs of sequestering carbon through tree planting and forest
management in the United States (Moulton and Richards 1990).
1000
Carbon Sequestrator) by Land Type
(MBions of Tons of Carbon Annually)
^ 600
I
I
e
600
|
Ctvptod Cwbon
400
?
£
5
200
ISO
so
100
0
Mi:ioru ol Acrm
Forests on Private Lands
Large-scale tree planting and
forest management programs to
reduce the accumulation of
greenhouse gases in the atmo-
sphere have been announced or
implemented in over 20 nations.
A hypothetical assessment of US
options to sequester carbon in
forest systems on private land
was recently completed. The plan
involves establishment and
managment of forests on private
lands in most regions of the US.
Future assessments should
consider opportunities to seques-
ter carbon on public lands.
New Forest could offset 50% US
Carbon Emissions
Establishment of new forests and
intensive management of existing
stands on private lands could
sequester carbon equal to 50% of
current US CO, emissions. This
program would involve approxi-
mately 70 million ha of land (31 %
pastures, 52% woodlands, and
17% croplands). The marginal
cost of capturing 10, 20, 30 and 56
% of US carbon emissions in a
forestation program is $17, $21,
$24 and $43 per ton, respectively.
The major cost of this program is
rental of land from the private
sector, with forest establishment
costs less than half of annualized
costs.
Could Substitute Biomass for
Fossil Fuel
A large-scale tree planting pro-
gram will eventually increase the
wood supply of the US. A
portion of this carbon is stored in
durable forest products {Row
1990). Forests can also supply
energy from biomass and de-
crease dependence on fossil fuels.
Substitution of biomass for fossil
fuels will reduce emission of
greenhouse gases. The US
Department of Energy in conjunc-
tion with the US Forest Service
have developed Short Rotation
Intensive Culture (SRIC) and
biomass utilization technology
which has been partially deployed
in the US.
Carbon Sequestration "No
Regrets"
The preliminary assessment of
carbon sequestration options in
the US has several limitations and
the data should be interpreted
with caution. However, the US
National Academy of Sciences
and other institutions have
characterized forest-based carbon
sequestration options as "no
regrets". US forests provide a
sustained flow of goods and
services including a number of
intangible social, environmental
and economic benefits. Establish-
ment and maintenance of forests
on economically marginal and
environmentally sensitive pasture
lands and woodlands could be
completed without disrupting
flow of food, fuel and fiber
commodities.
Marginal Co&l ol Carton Sequestering
(Doliart/Ten of Carbon Margin)
50
4C
-
J »
C
2
* *
. • * '
10
TOO 400 600
800
1000
huto*! d Tons or Carton 5icu«iwk1
38
-------
Figure 4.4 Efficiency and yield of reforestation, afforestation, natural regeneration,
agroforestry and silvicultural practices in USSR. US, and Brazil.
USSR
30
$/tC = 155 - 0.48(tC/ha)
0
i4=043
25
20
O
— 15
10
5
o
0
o
o
M o
-J A
0
0
5
10 15 20
Total tons Carbon / hi
Legend
© Reforestation
Afforestation
B Nat. regen.
^ Silviculture
X Agroforestry
Brazil
100 I
o
$/tC= 13.4e7'",c/w
1^=0.40
80
©
X
X
« 60
© o
40
20
O 8 CP n A «
o *
0^
X (fsS?
0>h n X^vXJn , o jg, r\ ,
)
50.
100 150 200 250
Total tons Carbon / hi
us
$/tC = 2.1e&s/
<3U
4 ^=078
25
I
20
\
a
r £
15
W
-------
Box 4.3 Debt for nature swaps, how they work.
Debt for nature process
Debl
purchaser
Nj/
Dollar
denominated
debt
Debt for nature process
Exchanged
lor
National
currency
equivalents
60.05/peso
BO%
Discount
lac«' v*Jue
US $1 mdfaon
US (200,000
J 'mar*©!* value
15 million poses
13 conservation
»nJowin#fH
Background
Two increasingly serious problems
facing many lesser developed
countries (LDCs) are a crushing
debt load and rapidly deteriorating
na tural resource base. In fact these
two issues are interdependent,
particularly in natural resource-
based economies. In the absence of
long range planning, exceeding the
sustainable production capacities of
forests and other resources was an
accepted method for trying to
service debt load by selling more
commodities on the export market.
The problem with this method is
that it both reduces natural recu-
peration rates while at the same
time requiring the use of other
resources to meet demands for
normal economic growth. It also
reduces options for future genera-
tions. In short, it is not sustainable.
These facts combined with a
worldwide recession in 1982,
helped create a debt crises which
stifled development efforts in much
of the Third World, led to a num-
ber of nations suspending interest
payments on international debt and
set back burgeoning efforts to
manage habitat for preserving
biodiversity and other values.
Debt For Nature Model
Debt for Nature swaps convert
unpaid or uncollectible loans to
indebted countries into funds for
conservation activities in those
countries. The mechanics are fairly
straightforward. A swap occurs
when a country allows a foreign
investor to acquire a portion of its
debt held by a creditor bank. Debt
is dona ted or purchased a t a
discount, usually by a non-profit,
non-governmental organization
(NGO) which converts the debt
into national currency bonds and
expends it according to a contract
between the Bank, the NGO and
the Government. Recently adapta-
tions to this process have also
involved development banks.
A simple example will help illus-
trate the steps involved. In the
figure, US $1 million worth of debt
(face value of debt) is selling at an
80% discount (20 cents on the
dollar), or US$ 200,000 (market
value). The exchange rate is US$
.05/peso, which means that the
US$ 1 million is worth 20 million
pesos, but the Government only
allows you to dedicate up to 75% to
the local NGO, which means the
local endowment will receive 15
million pesos. Therefore, for an
investment of US$ 200,000 (4
million pesos) the NGO "controls"
15 million pesos. The balance of 5
million pesos goes directly to the
government, providing a way for
them to "contribute to the effort."
The power of the debt for nature
mechanism lies in the difference in
value between the face and market
values, as well as in the banks
desire to realize some payment and
the countries desire to get debt
relief.
Obstacles to Success
After the initial euphoria surround-
ing debt exchanges subsided,
recipient nations expressed first
caution and then concern. Whether
labeled protectionism, nationalism,
xenophobia or neocolonialism,
LDCs have supported a fairly
homogeneous policy of tightening
foreign ownership of production
capabilities,particularly when
natural resource patrimony is
involved. The fear of allowing
foreign ownership of habitat,
natural national treasures, biodiver-
sity, etc. caused enough concern
that several nations actually took
legislative action to block such
actions. In response the NGOs now
insist on a fourth player the local
environmental group which is
charged with administering the
funds generated by the swap.
In the end, debt for nature is
merely a tool to enhance local
capacity to effectively manage the
natural resource base. Perhaps in
the long term its most important
contribution will be having brought
the financial community into the
land management arena.
40
-------
Figure 4.5a Total initial global cost of sequestering carbon in forest systems
employing Prestation and forest management practices.
50Q
450
•sr 400'
£ 350
S 300
1 250
| 200
¦g 150
^ 100
50
0
10 20 30 40 50
Total tons C (x 10*9)
60
70
80
Figure 4:5b Marginal initial costs of sequestering carbon in forest systems
employing Prestation and forest management practices.
120
s*
100
80
I
I
60
.6
1
40
f
20
0 t*
rrtiMr-flr
10 20 30 40 50
Carbon stored (tons x10A9)
60
70
60
41
-------
Figure 4.6a Distribution of land among ecoregions of 16 key nations lor different levels of carbon storage.
2
1.8
1.6 ¦
1 4 ¦
r
#
1.2
o
1 •
"5
0 8 •
a
0.6 ¦
0.4 ¦
0.2 ¦
0
Tons C (Gt)
Carbon
Hectares (billions)
(Gt)
Ecoregions
100
200
300
400
10.0
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.07
20.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
30.0
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.16
40.0
0.00
0.04
0.16
0.19
50.0
0.00
0.08
0.22
0.19
60.0
0.00
0.46
0.22
0.19
70.0
0.30
0.54
0.23
0.29
Ecoregions (Bailey 1989)
100 Boreal
200 Humid Temperate
300 Dry
400 Humid Tropical
Figure 4.6b Distribution of stored carbon among ecoregions of 16 key rations for different levels ol total
carbon storage.
[200J
[Took
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Total Hectares (billions)
1.6
1.8 2
Billions
Carbon (Gt)
of
Ecoregions
Hectares
100
200
300
400
0.2
0.0
1.0
0.6
23.3
0.4
0.0
2.1
14.8
24.0
0.6
0.0
11.2
20.1
24.1
0.8
0.0
14.6
20.1
24.1
1
0.0
17.3
21.2
26.9
1.2
0.6
17.4
21.2
30.3
1.4
1.2
17.4
21.2
30.3
1.6
1.8
17.4
21.2
30.3
1.8
2.0
19.7
21.6
31.8
Ecoregions (Bailey 1989)
100 Boreal
200 Humid Temperate
300 Dry
400 Humid Tropical
carbon compared to other options (NAS
1991). A comparison of cost and yield
efficiency for selected nations is presented
in Figure 4.3. The costs used in this effi-
ciency analysis are just as reported for forest
management in the various national pro-
grams, i.e. generally they include more than
only implementation costs as used in Sec-
tion 4.3. The result is a first estimate of cost
and yield efficiency for national programs,
and they can be broken into three levels:
high, medium, and low. The valuation in
these national values are shown in Appen-
dix C. Costs of carbon sequestration in
forestation programs were highest in Egypt,
New Zealand, Zaire and Venezuela. In
contrast, costs were significantly lower in
Australia, Brazil, China, Congo, Mexico, US,
and USSR. The remaining nations surveyed
were intermediate in costs. These calcu-
lated values for cost and yield efficiency of
42
-------
Figure 4.7a Distribution of land among ecoregions ot 16 key nations for different levels of carbon storage
under the reduced land area scenario.
10 15
Tons C (Ol)
Carbon
ha (billions)
(Gt)
Ecoregions
100
200
300
400
3.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
6.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
9.0
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.05
12.0
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.06
15.0
0.00
0.02
0.07
0.06
18.0
0.00
0.14
0.07
0.06
21.0
0.09
0.16
0.07
0.09
Ecoregions (Bailey 19B9)
100 Boreal
200 Humid temperate
300 Dry
400 Humid tropical
Figure 4.7b Distribution of stored carbon among ecoregions of 16 key nations for different levels of total
carbon storage under the reduced land area scenario.
ic^
0.12
0.24 0.3S
Total ha (billions)
0.48
0.6
Billions
Carbon (Gt)
of ,
Ecoregions
ha
100
200
300
400
0.2
0.00
0.3
0.2
7.0
0.4
0.00
0.6
4.4
' 7.2
0.6
0.00
3.4
6.0
7.2
0.8
0.00
4.4
6.0
7.2
1.0
0.00
5.2
6.4
8.1
1.2
0.18
5.2
6.4
9.1
1.4
0.36
5.2
6.4
9.1
1.6
0.54
5.2
6.4
9.1
1.8
0.60
5.9
6.5
9.5
Ecoregions (Bailey 1989)
100 Boreal
200 Humid temperate
300 Dry
400 Humid tropical
national forestation programs do not con-
sider land rental costs, but they are similar
to earlier estimates (e.g., Andrasko et al.
1991).
The efficiency and yield of specific practices
(artificial reforestation and afforestation,
natural reforestation, intermediate silvicul-
tural practices, and agroforestry) is pre-
sented in more detail for the USSR, US, and
Brazil (Figure 4.4). These data suggest a
range of low-cost options to sequester
carbon through forest management in
representative boreal, temperate and tropi-
cal biomes. Collectively, these nations
represent 30% of the earth's land area, and
implementation of these practices on a large
scale could sequester significant amounts of
carbon. Moulton and Richards (1990) and
Swisher (1991) observed similar carbon
sequestration values and cost trends in their
assessments of US (Box 4.2) and Central
43
-------
American forest management options,
respectively.
4.5 Synthesis: Global Assessment of Carbon
Storage and Costs
A synthesis of the carbon storage potential
of forest management practices, based on
integrating data for their carbon storage
capabilities, initial costs, and the amount of
land suitable for the practices, provides
interesting insights. One approach is to
develop a total initial cost curve for forest
management practices (Figure 4.5a).
The development of the curve requires
seven steps. The starting step is to rank the
practices with those of the lowest $/tC first,
using values from Table 5.3. The second
step is to assign potential hectares to prac-
tices within ecoregions using best available
technical information (Bailey 1989; Moultan
and Richards 1990; WR1 1990; Grainger
1991; Houghton et al. 1991;) The third step
is to calculate the total carbon potentially
stored for each practice by multiplying
estimates of suitable land for each practice
by its mean standing stock in tons C/ha
from Table 5.2. The fourth step is to take
the calculated products from step two and
through a cumulative summation process,
show how the total potential carbon stored
builds up, starting with the lowest through
to the highest practice, based upon step one,
i.e., $/tC. These cumulative sums provide
the x values to plot along the horizontal axis
of the cost curve in Figure 4.5a.
The values for the vertical axis require two
more steps. That is, the fifth step is to
multiply the land estimates per practice
times the initial cost/ha for each practice
from Table 5.3. Sixth, these calculated
products, as in step four, undergo a cumula-
tive summation process to provide the y
values to plot along the vertical axis of
Figure 4.5a.
Plotting the x and y values from the cumu-
lative summation, as a seventh step, gives a
rising curve showing the total initial cost
required to sequester total amounts of
carbon ranging from 1 to 80 Gt (Figure
4.5a).
In like manner, the marginal initial cost as
$/tC can be plotted using the same x values
for the horizontal axis, but changing step six
for the y values. That is, using the cumula-
tive summation process for just the initial
costs/ha from Table 5.3, the marginal initial
costs can be plotted on the vertical axis
starting near zero and increasing to about
$100/tC (Table 4.5b). Marginal costs are
less than about $10/tC until over 70 Gt of
carbon are sequestered, then quickly in-
crease to over $100/tC for additional levels
of sequestration. Thus, large amounts of
carbon (up to 70 Gt) can be sequestered
without costs/tC escalating.
Total initial cost rises relatively gradually
up to a carbon storage level of about 55 Gt
(Figure 4.5a) At that level of carbon storage,
the total cost would be approximately $150
billion. Beyond 55 Gt of carbon storage, the
total cost begins to escalate at a more rapid
rate. An examination of the land area
required to achieve this level of carbon
storage shows why (Figure 4.6).
These initial and marginal cost curves
(Figures 4.5a and 4.5b) were developed
from median data points as a first approxi-
mation. As the database becomes more
comprehensive, similar curves could be
developed from the maximum and mini-
mum values to indicate a reasonable esti-
mate of the variability about the curves.
Figure 4.6a demonstrates the distribution of
land among ecoregions that would be
44
-------
required.to achieve different levels of car-
bon storage! It was derived by considering
the area of land technically suitable for
different practices in each ecoregion and the
amount of carbon that those practices could
store. The slope of the lines is relatively
gradual up to 55 Gt. This indicates that
relatively large increments of carbon can be
stored on relatively small amounts of land.
The slope becomes much steeper at 55 Gt;
larger increments of land, and,, therefore,
higher establishment costs, are needed to
store additional increments of carbon. More
carbon could be stored, but it becomes less
and less economical. This may be because
the most productive and least expensive
lands would likely be placed under man-
agement first.
A total of approximately 570 million ha
would be required to, store 55 Gt of carbon
(Figure 4.6a). Given the limited extent of
data on land suitability arid availability, this
total would be distributed as 190 million ha
in the humid tropics, 220 million ha in
dryland ecoregions, and 160 million ha in
the humid temperate zones. Land in the
boreal zone would only be included at
higher levels of carbon storage. Improved
information on land resources in the future
could alter these estimates. Figure 4.6b
illustrates the distribution of carbon be-
• ^ ¦ '« ¦>
tween ecoregions. At the 55 Gt. carbon level,
24 Gt would be stored in the humid tropics,
20 Gt in dryland ecoregions, and 11 Gt in
the humid temperate zones.
A large uncertainty is associated with esti-
mates of. land areas suitable and available
for forest establishment that could affect the
estimates discussed above. For example,
Trexler (1991c) estimated that social, demo-
graphic, political, and other factors could
result in a 70% reduction in the available
land estimates for tropical Africa and Asia
that were reported by Houghton et al.
(1991). A sensitivity analysis was con-
ducted to determine the possible effects of a
70% reduction in land available for forest
establishment and management. A linear
70% reduction in available land area evenly
distributed over all nations and ecoregions
would result in a reduction of total carbon
storage potential to about 16.5 Gt C. Total
cost, however, would also be reduced to $45
billion. The total land area under this
reduced area scenario would be about 170
billion ha (Figure 4.7a). The area of land
and amount of carbon that would be located
in each ecoregion would also be reduced
(Figures 4.7a and b).
4.6 Summary and Limitations
Past efforts to develop forest establishment
and management cost estimates at the site
level for sequestering and conserving car-
bon in the terrestrial biosphere have been
preliminary (Andrasko et al. 1991; Dixon et
al. 1991). Site-level (Dixon et al. 1991),
regional (Peters et al. 1989), national
(Moulton and Richards 1990; Swisher 1991;
Trexler 1991a), and global (Andrasko 1990a;
Grainger 1990; N AS 1991) assessments have
been completed. Major findings of these
early evaluations are that:
1. globally, the most cost-effective means of
sequestering and conserving carbon include
reforestation, establishment of agroforestry
systems and fuel wood plantations; and
2. to reduce the emission of C02 and bther
biogenic gases in the atmosphere, mainte-
nance of carbon stocks in existing stands of
boreal, temperate and tropical forests is the
most efficient and cost effective method
(Woodwell et al. 1991).
Inappropriate land-use practices, such as
deforestation and biomass burning, have
significantly contributed to the emissions of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
(Houghton et al. 1985). Several mechanisms
45
-------
to enhance conservation and protection of
global forest systems have been proposed
(Box 4.3 and Boxes 1.1, 2.1, 3.1,4.1, 5.1, 5.2,
and 5.3). Many of these conservation op-
tions are a no-regrets (e.g., multiple ben-
efits) approach to carbon conservation and
provide many ancillary benefits, including
the protection of biodiversity (Goodland et
al. 1990) (Box 3.1).
The current assessment of biologic and cost
information from over 90 nations world-
wide represents the first significant attempt
to develop a bottom-up global analysis. The
forest management practices identified here
can be applied to a wide range of ecosys-
tems in boreal, temperate, and tropical
biomes. However, before practices can be
widely and successfully implemented,
consideration must be given to the array of
possible economic and socio-political con-
straints (Section 7.0, Research Needs).
However, from the standpoint of biomass
productivity, afforestation in the temperate
latitudes, agroforestry systems in the trop-
ics, and reforestation in both the temperate
and tropical latitudes are the best options.
When considering initial costs and dollars
per ton of carbon, attractive options include
natural and artificial reforestation in boreal
latitudes; natural and artificial reforestation,
afforestation and silvicultural practices in
the temperate latitudes; and for the tropics,
reforestation and agroforestry systems
appear the most cost efficient. The ultimate
mixture of greenhouse gas reduction op-
tions for key nations and the global commu-
nity (e.g., forest management, alternative
fuels, conservation agriculture) will be
driven by the socio-economic and political
factors (Goodland et al. 1990; NAS 1991;
Trexler 1991c).
The costs of carbon sequestration options at
the national level have been the focus of
several recent research efforts in the US
(Moulton and Richards 1990), Germany
(FRG 1991), the Netherlands (GON 1991),
Brazil (Fearnside 1989), Costa Rica (Swisher
1991), and other nations (Sargent 1991). In
addition, analyses of the impact of the
Tropical Forest Action Plan on carbon
sequestration have been completed for some
nations and regions (Allan and Lanly 1991).
The cost estimates of national carbon se-
questration efforts in the current study
suggest that programs could be effectively
established in most of the major forested
nations of the world.
Forest management programs and agrofor-
estry programs have been successfully
implemented in several nations with a
range of tree species, site conditions, and
financial support (Gregerson et al. 1989). A
number of the national forest-based pro-
grams are for carbon sequestration and
conservation purposes (Table 6.8). It must
be stressed, that a key factor in successful
forest management and agroforestry pro-
grams is the involvement and support of
local populations in the planning and
implementation phases (Gregerson et al.
1989).
Past and current analyses suggest the next
step is micro- and macro-modeling of the
biologic and economic potential of carbon
conservation and sequestration efforts
(Section 7). Regional, national and global
carbon budgets (anthropogenic and bio-
genic pools and flux) can be simulated with
various process models (Apps and Kurz
1991; Gucinski et al. 1991). The menu of
forest establishment and management
options developed in this report, can be
used to define appropriate options to re-
duce atmospheric greenhouse gases on
regional, national and global scales. Such
an approach has been used for preliminary
evaluations of forest sector policy options at
national and global levels (Andrasko
1990b).
46
-------
5.0 National Assessment of Forest
Management Options
This section summarizes forest establish-
ment and management practices and their
costs at the site level for key forest nations.
It is important to consider that the data
reported below are not the result of a nor-
mally distributed sample, but are unimodal
with a skewness toward the lower end of
the range of values (Appendix F). How-
ever, all of the data presented here are
specific examples of what has actually been
accomplished in specific national forest
establishment and management programs.
Because the data come from experiments,
case studies, and planting trials conducted
under a very wide variety of conditions,
only tentative comparisons can be made
between nations.
5.1 National Highlights
The global survey of forest establishment
and management practices and initial costs
at the site level included assessments from
94 nations. Data from 16 key nations se-
lected by criteria noted in Section 3.2, are
emphasized in this section. The following
national highlights are derived from Tables
5.2,5.3, and 5.4.
ARGENTINA
Approximately one-half of Argentina is
pasture land or open woodland. Both
reforestation of formerly forested areas and
afforestation of pastures appear to be viable
options. Carbon storage levels for these
practices in Argentina are from 41 to 60 tons
C/ha. Costs of carbon sequestration range
between $16 and $41 /tC.
AUSTRALIA
Although Australia is a very large nation,
much of the land is too arid for forestry.
Some of the Australian lands with a suitable
climate, however, can be among the most
productive forest lands in the world. The
Australian government has committed to a
national reforestation program (one billion
trees) that will eventually encompass 10
million ha. Carbon storage ranges from 30
to 75 tons C/ha. Costs of carbon storage are
from $11 to $17/tC.
BRAZIL
Deforestation in Brazil is a significant
source of greenhouse gases. A large body
of literature reviews the current deforesta-
tion and forest degradation patterns in
Brazil (Fearnside 1989). Approximately
one-half of Brazil is covered with wood-
lands and closed forests. Given the rich
biodiversity and large stock of standing
carbon in forest systems, the most cost
efficient option may be to conserve the
remaining forests in Amazonia. Large-scale
forestation projects (e.g., FLORAM) (Table
5.1) have been proposed, but demographic
and political factors are significant barriers
to implementation. Approximately 20
million ha are available for forestation.
Carbon sequestration levels range from 41-
47
-------
Table 5.1 Srazifs FLORAM reforestation potential (Andrasko et at. 1991).
Type of
reforestation
Total area
(10*6 ha)
Total carbo
30 yrs
(10*6 tC)
n fixed
(tC/ha)
Cost / tC at different costs / ha
$400 /ha | $700/ha | $1000 /ha
(S/tc)
Industrial
Reforestation
Corrective
Reforestation
Mixed
Reforestation
Totals
14.47
1691.22
116.90
3.42
5.99
8.55
2.89
363.41
125.74
3.18
5.57
7.95
2.79
364.23
130.50
3.07
5.36
7.66
20.15
2418.85
120.05
Mean
3.22
5.64
8.05
157 tons C/ha. Initial costs of carbon se-
questration were estimated to be at $1-41 /
tC.
CANADA
Forest harvesting and regeneration failure
have resulted in a large area suitable for
forestation. Because of its high latitude,
forest growth and carbon accumulation are
relatively low in much of Canada. Carbon
storage can range from 10-44 tons C/ha for
several boreal tree species and management
practices. Based on initial costs, forestation
can sequester carbon at $6 to $33/tC.
CHINA
Approximately 10% of China is covered
with closed forests. Population pressures
have stimulated a large demand for
fuelwood. The potential for forestation and
establishment of agroforestry systems is
estimated to range from 200-300 million ha,
depending on future human population
growth rates. The Green China program
has a goal of establishing 10-15 million ha of
forest annually. The program is aimed at
restoration of abandoned or under-utilized
land, as well as providing employment,
income, and other social benefits.
China is phyto-
geographically
transitional and
a large number
of woody gen-
era are avail-
able to employ
in forestry
programs.
Carbon seques-
tration can
range from 12-
93 tons C/ha;
exact figures
are dependent
upon site conditions and species planted as
well as the forest management practice. The
initial costs of carbon sequestration ranges
from $4-66/tC.
CONGO
Currently, over two-thirds of the Congo is
closed forest with the remainder in pasture
and woodlands. Demographic factors
suggest establishment of agroforestry sys-
tems (silvopastoral) which yield a sustained
flow of goods and services as the most
appropriate technology for indigenous
peoples. Forestation efforts with exotic
genera (e.g., Pinus) have resulted in signifi-
cantly lower carbon sequestration levels
than similar efforts with native species.
GERMANY
Germany has identified over 700,000 ha of
land that is suitable for afforestation with
pine and spruce species. Carbon storage for
forestation in Germany was 42-55 tons C/ha
and cost $8-87/tC. Silvicultural practices
can result in modest increases in carbon
storage, but cost more than $50/tC. Urban
forestry as commonly practiced in Ger-
many, may also provide opportunity for
carbon sequestration throughout Europe
(Box 5.1).
48
-------
Box 5.1 Caibon sequestration in urban forests (Grey and Deneke 1978).
Urban forests constitute a
signficant portion of the Earth's
managed forest rsources. Trees
established in green belts, parks,
right-of ways and lawns within
cities constitute urban forests.
These forests offer a number of
benefits including: recreation,
climate amelioration, soil and
watershed protection, and noise
and pollution barriers.
A significant opportunity exists to
expand urban forests in the US
and abroad. It is estimated an
additional 60 million trees are
needed to fully stock the urban
forest system in the US. Several
million hectares of highway right-
of-way could also be forested.
Approximately 0.1 Gt of carbon
could be sequestered annually if
the urban forest resource was
expanded to if s full potential in
theUS.
Internationally, urban centers are
growing rapidly in developed and
developing nations and the
opportunity to establish urban
forests is immense (Trexler
1991c). Of the more than 125
countries worldwide, most have
several urban areas with signifi-
cant opportunity to establish
woody vegetation. Gtiessuchas
Berlin, Delhi, Kuala Lumpur,
London and Paris have large
urban forest systems.
Urban forests ameliorate adverse
climatic conditions and can
reduce energy required to heat or
cool urban areas. A reduction in
energy needs can decrease
dependency on fossil fuels and
subsequent emission of green-
house gases. Establishment of
broadleaved trees around a home
in the southern US can reduce
energy needs up to 25% during
summer months. Similarly,
shelter belt plantings in northern
climates can reduce energy needs
for heating. Improvements in
energy efficiency associated with
tree planting have relatively low
initial costs and show a net
benefit.
INDIA
The forests of India have been degraded
and harvested due to extreme demographic
and environmental pressures. At the begin-
ning of the 20th century, over one-half of
India was forested. Today less than 10% of
India is occupied by closed forests. A
rapidly growing population and industrial-
ization has created a large demand for
fuel wood. Over 800 million cattle, sheep,
and goats browse most forests and wood-
lands. Forestry practices on dryland sites
could sequester 19-74 tons C/ha.
Establishment of intensive plantations and
agroforestry systems in humid regions
could sequester over 100 tons C/ha. Costs
are $2-49/tC in the dry areas and $7-42/tC
in humid regions. Implementing forest
management and agroforestry systems in
India would also provide numerous social
benefits such as jobs and wood building
materials. Further, wood stock for a
biofuels program would greatly supplement
national energy resources. Constraints to
large-scale forest programs include a low
level of needed training, poor forest man-
agement infrastructure and available fi-
nances (Sharma et al. 1989).
INDONESIA
Indonesia has initiated an active reforesta-
tion program which aims at the establish-
ment of 2 million ha of Pine, Eucalyptus,
and Albizzia species for international mar-
kets. Carbon storage by plantations in
Indonesia is 80 tons C/ha at a cost of $8/tC.
Natural forest regeneration and regrowth
could store 41 tons C/ha, with the initial
costs only about $2/tC.
MALAYSIA
Malaysia is very active in the international
forest-product markets. The states of Sabah
and Sarawak, in particular, are major ex-
porters of tropical hardwoods. Carbon
storage of reforestation practices in Malay-
sia revealed a median of 66 tons C/ha
(Table 5.2). Dividing this figure into the
49
-------
Box 5.2 Carbon sink forests-socially responsible resource management.
Background: The causes of and
responses to global warming have
fueled scientific and political
debate for several decades.
Estimates and opinions on any
issue vary widely; but if forestry
were "the" solution, somewhere
between 400 million and 1 billion
hectares of new forests would be
needed to stabilize global C02
levels and offset greenhouse risks
for the next 30 - 50 years
(Goodland 1990; Trexlerand
Faeth 1977). Of course, no one
expects this total to be planted. A
more logical approach includes a
broad spectrum of forest manage-
ment options as well as other
conservation and technological
measures, all contributing to a
solution.
The Project Proposal: Ln 1988,
Applied EneTgy Systems (AES)
constructed a 183MW coal-fired
utility in Connecticut. The fact
that the plant was expected to
release about 15.5 million tons of
C02 during its 40 year life (ap-
proximately 387,000 tons annu-
ally), led company officials to
request the World Resources
Institute (WRI), a non-profit
environmental policy think-tank,
to suggest alternatives for offset-
ting this contribution to global
warming. WRI recommended
that AES help fund a range of
forestry activities in the tropics
due to: 1) the great need for social
forestry activities as both an
employment generator and as an
example of integrated land
management, 2) the higher
potential for growing biomass, 3)
reduced costs of project execution
and 4) as a demonstration of the
global nature of this problem and
die types of creative management
which will be required to success-
fully address scientific issues
within the social context.
WRI issued a request for propos-
als (RFP) and received eight
proposals. It decided upon a
proposal submitted by CARE to
be undertaken in Guatemala.
Four major criteria were used in
approving the proposal:
-Carbon offset: An estimated
18 million tons of C02 will be
offset during the next 40 years
according to WRI analysis of
the CARE proposal. Some 52
million trees will be planted
during the next ten years; 25
million on 12,000 ha in
woodlots, and 27 million on
60,000 ha in agroforestry
applications.
-Local participation: The
CARE proposal was viewed as
a continuation of their work by
both WRI and AES, not a new
venture. Overtime, 40,000
mral families will be involved
in the production, planting,
and maintenance of nearly 7
million seedlings which will be
propagated annually. In
addition 3,000 km of live
fencing will be installed and
intensive soil stabilization
activities undertaken on 2,000
ha in the project site.
-Grant leveraging: AES was
willing to provide $2 million
as a grant to the project. Since
total costs for work of this
nature would be much more,
the ability of the executing
agency to leverage this amount
was critical. In response,
CARE budgeted $2 million
and in addition was able to
secure assistance from the
Government of Guatemala
($1.2 million), USAID<$3.6
million) and the US Peace
Corps ($7.5 million) in cash or
in-kind services to support the
project.
-Institutional experience/
leveraging: CARE had many
years of forestry experience
and, as a non-profit agency,
was accustomed to working
with local counterparts, inter-
national agencies and other
NGOs. (Trexler et al. 1989;
median initial cost of the practice, i.e., $303/
ha (Table 5.3), indicates a sequestration cost
of $5/tC (Table 5.4). Carbon storage and
cost for natural regeneration and regrowth
are about the same as for Indonesia.
MEXICO
Demographic factors have significantly
contributed to deforestation in Mexico.
Today, less than 25% of Mexico is covered
with forests. The potential for forestation
and establishment of agroforestry and
fuelwood systems is approximately 120
million ha. The carbon sequestration poten-
tial is 31-144 tons C/ha. Initial costs of
carbon sequestration are consistently low
for Mexico and range from $2-6/tC.
NEW ZEALAND
New Zealand's highly productive tree
plantations have mean carbon storage
values of over 90 tons C/ha. Given that the
short rotation forestry practiced in New
Zealand requires frequent replanting and
50
-------
Box 5.2, cont.
Estimate of carbon sequestration for CARE's Guatemda la
- AES agroforestry prefect
Carbon
10*6 tons
Carbon sequestration
• Net addition to standing Inventory of
btomass carbon
• Usable harvested carbon
• Standing forest carbon retained as a result
of demand displacement
• Carbon added to protect area soils
• Standing forest carbon protected through
fire control
2.6
9.7
14.4
0.4
0.7
Total lohH-term ct^h»equ«8trai&hii::: ;j
iiiiiHSJtiiiijii
• 40 year emissions as AES utility
• Projected net project benefit
15.5
£6
Trexler 1991a; WRI1990).
In deciding to support this
project, AES set at least four
important precedents:
-It marked the first time a
private energy company
directly and voluntarily in-
vested in a forestry project in
the tropics for carbon offset
purposes in the same way that
federal and state laws require
for other pollutants (Trexler et.
al. 1989).
-In an important departure
from traditional preservation
and forest plantation carbon
offset models, this investment
was planned as an integrated
agroforestry project, specifi-
cally "to improve the
livehoods of
farmers in the
highlands by
improving the
management of
the natural
resource base"
(Trexler 1991a).
Carbon seques-
tration was an
ancillary
benefit.
-The process of
project solicita-
tion, review and approval set a
new standard for industiy-
nongovernmental organiza-
tion-government collaboration
in planning, implementing,
and managing development
projects.
-Success to date has helped
catalyze other similar endeav-
ors. In 1990 the Netherlands
agreed to plant 250,000 ha in
Bolivia, Peru and Colombia to
offset an estimated 6 million
tons of C02 from two new
coal-fired electricity plants
(Goodland et al. 1990).
Much of the carbon offset through
plantation and agroforestry
efforts will be released overtime
as a result of harvesting activities
scheduled to begin within three to
five years. The long-term carbon
storage offset will primarily result
from protecting and enhancing
existing natural forests which
would otherwise provide the
goods and services required by
local inhabitants (Table 5.1)..
Summaiy:
As straightforward as this project
seems, ifs ultimate success is
probably more dependent upon
social and economic variables
than upon the accuracy of scien-
tific calculations. Whether or not
a precise amount of carbon is
sequestered is only part of the
issue. It is known that trees can
be planted for a variety of ends,
but can they be managed over
time to provide sustained goods
and services? Survival needs of
growing rural populations,
political instability and equity,
and other unpredictable situations
may actually result in the destruc-
tion of standing forests as well as
the project forests. The outcome
is simply not predictable. This
project is as much an experiment
in carbon modelling as it is in
social forestry. The important
point is that a connection between
carbon emissions and forest
management options has been
made by a private energy pro-
ducer.
intensive culture, costs can be as high as
$53/tC. However, the internal rate of
return of intensive forestry in New Zealand
is financially attractive.
SOUTH AFRICA
A large proportion of the land area in South
Africa is dedicated to pasture or other non-
forest uses. Livestock grazing is a promi-
nent industry. Silvopastoral systems which
integrate livestock and forests may be
appropriate. Forestation can sequester
carbon at less than $10/tC in many
ecoregions of South Africa at levels exceed-
ing 100 tons C/ha.
USSR
The USSR covers one-sixth of the earth's
land area. Boreal forest systems in the
Russian Republic occupy approximately 800
million ha. Moreover, boreal forests of the
51
-------
Table 5.2
Potential caifcon storage for forest management practices in
different ecoregions of 16 key rations. These ecoregions
are discussed in section 3.0 and listed in Table 3.3.
Ecoreglon
Lower
Upper
Nation
(appendix C)
Practice
quartlle
Median
quartlle
n
tC/ha
ARGENTINA
Humid temp, low
Reforestation
36
60
86
46
Afforestation
57
63
74
4
Dry lowlands
Reforestation
32
58
98
60
Afforestation
39
53
61
9
Dry uplands
Reforestation
38
41
74
5
AUSTRALIA
Humid temp, tow
Reforestation
25
44
97
6
Silviculture
28
30
51
13
Humid trop. low
Reforestation
55
75
123
7
Silviculture
41
67
76
6
BRAZIL
Dry lowlands
Reforestation
71
71
71
1
Agroforestry
88
116
195
3
Humid trop. low
Reforestation
53
65
102
56
Afforestation
128
128
128
1
Nat. regen.
119
157
195
2
Agroforestry
39
41
77
4
CANADA
Boreal low
Reforestation
39
39
39
5
Silviculture
10
10
10
5
Humid temp, low
Reforestation
44
44
44
2
Nat. regen.
17
20
23
9
Silviculture
11
11
11
2
Humid temp, up
Reforestation
39
39
39
1
Nat. regen.
7
8
31
3
Silviculture
10
10
10
1
CHINA
Humid temp, low
Reforestation
24
82
126
20
Agroforestry
12
12
12
1
Humid temp, up
Reforestation
30
40
55
15
Agrolorestry
12
12
12
1
Dry low
Reforestation
28
31
36
6
Humid trop. low
Reforestation
90
93
95
2
CONGO
Humid trop. low
Reforestation
111
111
111
1
Afforestation
46
46
46
1
Nat. regen.
41
41
41
1
Humid trop. up
Afforestation
29
29
29
1
GERMANY
Humid temp, low
Reforestation
39
42
93
3
Silviculture
3
5
7
2
Humid temp, up
Reforestation
31
55
78
3
Silviculture
3
5
7
2
INDIA
Dry lowlands
Reforestation
15
19
41
8
Nat. regen.
61
61
61
1
Agroforestry
68
74
81
2
Humid trop. low
Reforestation
44
66
136
13
Agroforestry
92
160
228
2
Humid trop. up
Reforestation
90
90
90
1
52
-------
Table 5.2 corn.
lillili
iilllfl
Eco region
Lower
Upper
Nation
(appendix C)
Practice
quartlle
Median
quartlle
n
tC/ha
INDONESIA
Humid trop. low
Reforestation
64
80
143
19
Nat. reqen.
41
41
41
1
MALAYSIA
Humid trap, low
Reforestation
60
66
115
14
Nat. regen.
41
41
41
1
Silviculture
18
18
18
1
MEXICO
Dry lowlands
Reforestation
98
98
98
1
Agroforestry
98
98
98
1
Dry uplands
Reforestation
112
112
112
1
Agroforestry
97
97
97
1
Humid trop. low
Reforestation
78
78
78
1
Nat. regen.
41
41
41
1
Humid trop. up
Reforestation
47
101
154
6
Silviculture
11
31
40
7
Agroforestry
133
144
154
2
NEW
Humid temp, low
Reforestation
75
94
113
4
ZEALAND
SOUTH
Humid temp, low
Reforestation
103
111
118
2
AFRICA
U.S.S.R.
Boreal low
Reforestation
9
15
17
4
Nat. regen.
12
15
18
2
Silviculture
2
3
3
4
Boreal up
Nat. regen.
7
7
7
1
Humid temp, tow
Reforestation
13
26
38
2
Afforestation
15
15
15
1
Nat. regen.
14
17
18
4
U.S.A.
Humid temp, tow
Reforestation
56
101
126
9
Afforestation
104
131
198
48
Nat. regen.
28
44
113
4
Silviculture
15
18
43
11
Agroforestry
57
57
57
1
Humid temp, up
Reforestation
51
56
75
6
Afforestation
97
121
175
36
Nat. regen.
23
23
23
1
Silviculture
46
50
65
5
Dry lowlands
Afforestation
90
115
175
16
Nat. regen.
121
121
121
1
Silviculture
41
41
41
1
Dry uplands
Afforestation
173
192
211
4
ZAIRE
Dry lowlands
Nat. regen.
18
18
18
1
Humid trop. tow
Reforestation
36
36
36
1
Nat. regen.
41
41
41
1
Humid trop. up
Reforestation
38
83
128
2
Agroforestry
53
53
53
1
53
-------
USSR contain over 1/6 of the carbon in the
terrestrial biosphere. Although a complete
forest inventory of the USSR has not been
completed, the opportunity for forestation,
stand improvement with silvicultural treat-
ments, and forest protection appear signifi-
cant. The area of mature and overmature
forests is over 200 million ha, and silvicul-
tural treatments can stimulate carbon se-
questration. Carbon sequestration potential
for forestation and silvicultural treatments
range from 3 to 26 tons C/ha. Initial costs
of carbon sequestration are $3-12/tC.
UNITED STATES
The most comprehensive analysis to date of
carbon storage by forest management in the
US was done by Moulton and Richards
(1990). They estimated that an extensive
tree planting and forest management pro-
gram on private lands could store up to 730
million tons C. The total cost of this pro-
gram, including land rental cost, would be
$19.5 billion.
ZAIRE
Approximately one half of Zaire is covered
by forests, but this forest resource is declin-
ing. The growing population of cattle and
sheep have accelerated pressures to clear
land for grazing purposes. The potential for
forestation is approximately 100 million ha.
Establishment of agroforestry systems and
plantations could sequester 18-83 tons C/
ha. Initial cost of carbon sequestration is
estimated to be $2-58/tC.
Other nations with promising forestation
activities are:
COSTA RICA
Approximately 30% of Costa Rica is covered
with closed forests. Swisher (1991) did an
extensive analysis of carbon conservation
and sequestration options in Costa Rica,
including their costs at the site level. This
assessment revealed that forest restoration,
establishment of plantations and agrofor-
estry systems, and natural forest manage-
ment can sequester 40-70 tons C/ha over a
60 year rotation. The unit cost of maintain-
ing carbon in established forest reserves is
less than $3/tC. Sequestration of carbon in
plantations ranges from $12-16/tC.
GUATEMALA
Guatemala is home to one of the very few
forest management projects that was devel-
oped for the expressed purpose of storing
carbon. The project is described in Box 5.2.
FINLAND
Forest establishment and management in
Scandinavian nations (Finland, Norway and
Sweden) is a well developed science. Forest
stewardship has resulted in efficient plant-
ing and tending programs. Thus, the op-
portunity for expansion of existing forests is
small. Kellomaki et al. (1988) suggested
that silvicultural practices could be em-
ployed to stimulate stand development, and
an additional 273 million tons of carbon
could be stored in above-ground biomass.
Alternative silvicultural practices could
actually lower costs of forest management
in Finland by over 40%.
THE NETHERLANDS
This nation has been a leader in the effort to
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and
conserve carbon in the terrestrial biosphere.
Preliminary assessments suggest 10-20% of
current agricultural lands in the Nether-
lands could be planted with forest planta-
tions to sequester carbon. The costs of
carbon sequestration are dominated by land
rent and range from $25-100/tC.
54
-------
5.2 Carbon Storage by Ecoregions
The potential average carbon storage per
unit area by various forest management
practices within ecoregions can clearly be
seen through summary data for the 16 key
nations (Table 5.2). As discussed in Section
3.5, the median and interquartile ranges for
carbon storage are shown as calculated by
equations (1) and (2). Carbon storage var-
ied from 5 tons C/ha to over 150 tons C/ha.
The most extensive and reliable data are for
carbon storage by reforestation and affores-
tation. Pooling data across nations and by
ecoregions, the median carbon storage for
these practices is 66 tons C/ha for the hu-
mid tropics, 103 tons C/ha for the humid
temperate zones, 39 tons C/ha for boreal
zones, and 31 tons C/ha for drylands.
Pooling data across nations again for natu-
ral regeneration and regrowth, the median
carbon storage is 41,tons C/ha in the humid
tropics, 20 tons C/ha for humid temperate
zones, 18 tons C/ha for boreal zones, and 40
tons C/ha for drylands.
Additional carbon storage resulting from
silvicultural practices is 40 tons C/ha for the
humid tropics, 28 tons C/ha for the humid
temperate zones, and 10 tons C/ha for the
boreal zones. There are insufficient data to
make generalizations for silviculture in
dryland areas or for other forest manage-
ment practices. Median carbon storage
values for agroforestry are 92 tons C/ha in
the humid tropics, 35 tons C/ha in the
humid temperate zones, and 97 tons C/ha
for the dryland areas.
5.3 Costs
In all discussions of costs in this report, it is
important to emphasize that reported costs
are gross implementation costs as noted in
Sections 3.4 and 4.3. For example, natural
reforestation in the boreal region has a
median implementation cost of $93/ha,
while the median implementation cost of
temperate reforestation is $350/ha (Figure
4.2). Also, no estimates of any benefits,
market or otherwise, have been taken into
consideration. Further, all costs are ex-
pressed in equivalent US dollars adjusted
for inflation to 1990 (Section 3.4). Since the
calculation of carbon storage (equation 2)
allows for the harvest and utilization of
planted trees, these benefits woulid be
significant, and net costs could very well be
negative (Andrasko et al. 1991).
Fores* management1 costs (V^, on a per unit
area basis, for the 16 key nations are shown
in Table 5.3. Costs per ton of carbon are
shown in Table 5.4. As for carbon seques-
tration, the most complete cost data are for
reforestation and afforestation. The median
of these costs was $637/ha for the humid
tropics, $343/ha for the humid temperate
zones, $313/ha for the boreal zones, and
$99/ha for dryland zones: Some of the
individual entries for reforestation costs in
Table 5.3 illustrate the effect of recurring
establishment costs in short rotation re-
gimes. For example, $3777/ha for the
tropical uplands of India at first may appear
high. However, this represents the dis-
counted total of a series of $850/ha estab-
lishment costs that recur every 5 years (by
using equation 3).
The median initial cost of natural regenera-
tion and forest regrowth, is $70/ha for both
the humid tropics and the dryland regions.
The humid temperate zones show a natural
regeneration/regrowth median cost of $93/
ha, the boreal zones have a cost of $83/ha.
An assessment of agroforestry revealed the
cost to be $589/ha for the humid tropics,
and $229/ha for drylands.
The median cost per ton of carbon for refor-
estation and afforestation is $8/tC for the
humid tropics, although the variation in the
55
-------
Table 5.3
Initial costs (Vo) on a 50 year basis for forest management practices
for the 16 Key nations. Ecoregions are those fisted inTable3.3.
Ecoregion
Lower
Upper
Nation
(appendix C)
Practice
quartlle
Median
quartile
n
$/ha
ARGENTINA
Humid temp, low
Reforestation
662
1684
1684
6
Afforestation
988
988
988
4
Nat. regen.
70
70
70
1
Dry lowlands
Reforestation
1684
1684
1684
1
Nat. regen.
70
70
70
1
Dry uplands
Reforestation
1684
1684
1684
1
AUSTRALIA
Humid temp, low
Reforestation
345
749
2325
7
Silviculture
345
345
591
13
Humid temp, up
Reforestation
300
300
300
1
Silviculture
345
345
345
1
Humid trop. low
Reforestation
258
396
318
8
Silviculture
546
1034
1034
6
BRAZIL
Dry lowlands
Reforestation
443
443
443
1
Nat. regen.
178
178
178
1
Agroforestry
159
454
699
3
Humid trop. low
Reforestation
266
637
1231
51
Afforestation
2274
2274
2274
1
Nat. regen.
106
172
237
2
Agroforestry
354
1682
2836
4
CANADA
Boreal low
Reforestation
313
408
484
7
Silviculture
74
179
225
5
Humid temp, low
Reforestation
407
460
513
2
Nat. regen.
112
126
163
9
Silviculture
231
319
406
2
Humid temp, up
Reforestation
548
548
548
1
Nat. regen.
93
93
279
3
Silviculture
334
334
334
1
CHINA
Humid temp, low
Reforestation
323
393
395
6
Agroforestry
790
790
790
1
Humid temp, up
Reforestation
334
380
425
2
Agroforestry
790
790
790
1
Humid trop. low
Reforestation
393
393
393
1
CONGO
Humid trop. low
Reforestation
335
335
335
1
Afforestation
3191
3191
3191
1
Nal. regen.
70
70
70
1
Humid trop. up
Afforestation
3191
3191
3191
1
GERMANY
Humid temp, low
Reforestation
1391
3662
3662
3
Silviculture
281
281
281
1
Humid temp, up
Reforestation
442
442
1391
3
Silviculture
281
281
281
1
INDIA
Dry lowlands
Reforestation
31
938
1845
2
Nat. regen.
70
70
70
1
Humid trop. tow
Reforestation
331
463
914
8
Nat. regen.
70
70
70
1
Humid trop. up
Reforestation
3777
3777
3777
1
INDONESIA
Humid trop. low
Reforestation
675
675
675
1
Nat. regen.
70
70
70
1
Silviculture
289
401
513
2
56
-------
Table 5.3 cont.
Econeglon
Lower
Upper
Nation
(appendix C)
Practice
auartile
Median
auartile
n
$/ha
MALAYSIA
Humid trop. tow
Reforestation
285
303
309
5
Nat. regen.
70
70
70
1
Agroforestry
1483
1483
1483
1
MEXICO
Dry lowlands
Reforestation
319
319
319
1
Nat. regen.
70
70
70
1
Agroforestry
255
255
255
1
Dry uplands
Reforestation
636
636
636
1
Agroforestry
352
352
352
1
Humid trop. low
Reforestation
402
402
402
1
Nat. regen.
70
70
70
1
Humid trop. up
Reforestation
388
402
416
2
Agroforestry
162
229
299
2
NEW
Humid temp, low Reforestation
4415
4972
5530
2
ZEALAND
i
SOUTH
Humid temp, low Reforestation
911
952
993
2
AFRICA
U.S.S.R.
Boreal low
Reforestation
61
120
171
4
Nat. regen.
59
78
98
2
Silviculture
24
34
49
5
Boreal up
Nat. regen.
83
83
83
1
Humid temp, toiv Reforestation
83
83
83
1
Afforestation
171
171
171
1
Nat. regen.
83
83
83
1
U.S.A.
Humid temp, tovt Reforestation
53
326
326
11
Afforestation
31
240
262
48
Nat. regen.
9
9
9
5
Silviculture
110
110
118
12
Humid temp, up
Reforestation
201
346
610
11
Afforestation
368
445
484
36
Nat. regen.
9
10
346
3
Silviculture
85
117
170
7
Dry lowlands
Reforestation
53
53
205
4
Afforestation
39
41
95
16
Nat. regen.
9
9
9
2
Silviculture
70
95
120
2
Dry uplands
Reforestation
221
221
221
1
Afforestation
173
221
269
4
Nat. regen.
9
9
9
1
Silviculture
46
46
46
1
ZAIRE
Dry lowlands
Nat. regen.
70
70
70
1
Humid trop. low
Reforestation
2094
2094
2094
1
Nat. regen.
70
70
70
1
Humid trop. up
Reforestation
2094
2094
2494
1
Agroforestry
628
628
628
1
57
-------
data is considerable. As discussed above,
the highest costs are for short rotation prac-
tices that incur frequent planting and inten-
sive management costs. For the humid
temperate zones the median cost is $14/tC,
for the boreal zones it is $10/tC, and for the
dryland zones it is $6/tC. For natural
regeneration and regrowth, the costs are
$2/tC, for the humid tropics, $5/tC for the
humid temperate zones, $9/tC for the
boreal zone (USSR), and $2/tC for drylands.
5.4 Tree Genera and Global Forest Man-
agement
The global survey revealed a wide range of
tree species that could be employed in
forestation and forest management options
to conserve and sequester carbon (Appen-
dix A). The gene pool of forest species is
quite broad, and tree improvement pro-
grams can have significant impacts on
growth and yield of forest systems. Within
tropical latitudes the genera Leucaena,
Eucalyptus, Pinus, Acacia, Prosopis, and
Tectona (in order of decreasing utility) were
commonly used in the forestation and
agroforestry programs evaluated (Appendix
C). Pinus, Picea, Populus, Salix, Betula, and
Quercus species were frequently employed
in temperate systems forestry programs. In
boreal forest systems, Pinus, Larix, Picea,
and Populus are most often cited for fores-
tation programs.
Many factors, including biologic, climatic,
and socio-economic variables, influence the
selection of tree species in forestation and
forest management programs (Famum et al.
1983; Anderson 1987; Taylor and Medema
1987). Many of the species which sequester
carbon efficiently also serve other purposes
such as the production of food, fuel, and
fiber (Burley and Stewart 1985; MacDicken
and Vergara 1990). Some families of frees
like the Dipterocarpaceae which occurs
within tropical latitudes, store vast quanti-
ties of carbon (Fearnside 1989).
5.5 Benefits of Forest Resource Manage-
ment Options
Boreal, temperate, and tropical forest sys-
tems provide a sustained flow of goods and
services to societies worldwide. Many
millions of people depend directly on for-
ests for food, medicine, and other basic
human needs (OTA 1984). Forests also
provide a number of non-monetary benefits
such as protection of biodiversity and wa-
tersheds (Allen and Lanly 1991). Unfortu-
nately, past and current social, political, and
economic factors have not always encour-
aged long-term management of forests or
agroforestry systems, particularly within
tropical latitudes (OTA 1984; Gregerson et
al. 1989). Global forest systems influence
the economic viability and stability of na-
tions worldwide (McGaughey and
Gregerson 1988). Correctly planned and
implemented, health is maintained while
forest commodities are produced so that
long-term forests of the world can continue
to play this supporting role to all forested
nations (Franklin et al. 1986; Franklin 1988).
The previous sections surveyed initial costs
of forest establishment and agroforestry at
the site level for major forest biomes of the
world. These data suggest that forests can
be effectively managed to conserve and
sequester significant quantities of carbon.
However, carbon sequestration is only one
of many benefits associated with sustained
forest resource management. It is beyond
the scope of this document to survey the
multiple benefits associated with forest
management. However, three specific
examples of the costs and benefits of forest
establishment and management will be
briefly considered: India, West and Central
Africa, and the USSR.
58
-------
Table 5.4 initial cost par ton of carbon (tC) few forest management practices for the 16 key ,
rations. Calculated Iron the median values presented in Tables ,5.2 and $.3.
Ecoregions are those fisted in Tabte 3,3! ' s ^
Nation
Eco region
Practice
Cost
Nation
Ecoregion
Practice
Cost
(appendix C)
$/tc
(appendix C)
Vtc
ARGENTINA
Humid temp, low
Reforestation
28
MALAYSIA
Humid temp, low
Reforestation
5
Afforestation
16
Nat. reaen.
2
Dry lowlands
Reforestation
29
MEXICO
Dry lowlands
Reforestation
3
Dry uplands
Reforestation
41
Agroforestry
3
AUSTRALIA
Humid temp, tow
Reforestation
17
Dry uplands
Reforestation
6
Silviculture
11
Agroforestry
4
BRAZIL
Dry lowlands
Reforestation
6
Humid trop. low
Reforestation
5
Agroforestry
4
Nat. regen.
2
Humid trop. low
Reforestation
10
Humid trop. up
Reforestation
4
Afforestation
18
Agroforestry
2
Nat. regen.
1
NEW
Humid temp, low
Reforestation
53
Agroforestry
41
ZEALAND
CANADA
Boreal low
Reforestation
10
SOUTH
Humid temp, tow
Reforestation
9
Silviculture
18
AFRICA
Humid temp, low
Reforestation
10
U.S.S.R.
Boreal tow
Reforestation
8
Nat. regen.
6
Nat. regen.
6
Silviculture
29
Silviculture
11
Humid temp, up
Reforestation
14
Boreal up
Nat. regen.
12
Nat. regen.
12
Humid temp, low
Reforestation
3
Silviculture
33
Afforestation
11
CHINA
Humid temp, tow
Reforestation
5
Nat. regen.
5
Agroforestry
66
U.S. A.
Humid temp, low
Reforestation
3
Humid temp, up
Reforestation
10
Afforestation
2
Agroforestry
66
Nat. regen.
0.2
Humid trop. low
Reforestation
4
Silviculture
6
CONGO
Humid trop. low
Reforestation
3
Humid temp, up
Reforestation
6
Afforestation
69
Afforestation
4
Nat. regen.
2
Nat. regen.
0.4
Humid trop. up
Afforestation
110
Silviculture
2
GERMANY
Humid temp, low
Reforestation
87
Dry lowlands
Afforestation
0.4
Silviculture
56
Nat. regen.
0.1
Humid temp, up
Reforestation
8
Silviculture
2
Silviculture
56
Dry uplands
Afforestation
1
INDIA
Dry lowlands
Reforestation
49
ZAIRE
Dry lowlands
Nat. regen.
4
Nat. regen.
2
Humid trop. low
Reforestation
58
Humid trop. tow
Reforestation
7
Nat. regen.
2
Humid trop. up
Reforestation
42
Humid trop. up
Reforestation
25
INDONESIA
Humid trop. tow
Reforestation
8
Agroforestry
12
Nat. regen.
2
59
-------
Table 5.5
Cost and financial rales of return for selected forest establishment
and management options in locfia (GregBrson et al. 1909, Sharma
el a}. 1989}.
Initial
State
Option
Investment
Rotation
IRR
Comments
(US$/ha)
(years)
(%)
Punjab
Eucalyptus/Populus
150
5 to 10
15 to 25
Intensive
plantation
management
Tamil Nadu
Casuarina fuelwood
30
4 to 6
30 to 50
Soil
reclamation
Utlar Pradesh
Shorea plantation
60
30 to 50
6 to 10
Minimal
management
Kerala
Leucaena/maize
55
5 to 7
18 to 30
Adequate
agroforestry
rainfall and
nutrition
INDIA
On the subcontinent of India, forest systems
once occupied significantly more land area,
characterized as temperate or tropical, than
they do today. A growing population,
sporadic rainfall, and non-sustainable land-
use practices have resulted in over 43 mil-
lion ha of substandard or degraded soils
(Sharma et al. 1989) These degraded soils
support sparse vegetation and have very
poor biological, physical, and chemical
properties (e.g., infertile, highly imperme-
able, and high salt content). Growing fuel,
fodder, and food deficits in over 500,000
villages prompted the Government of India
to establish tree plantations and forest
management programs on these wastelands.
The Ministry of Forests
and Environment,
National Watershed
Development Board,
Department of Non-
Conventional Energy
sources, and other
agencies have spear-
headed a program to
establish over 5 million
ha of trees on degraded
lands in the 1980's (Jain
et al. 1989).
The costs and benefits of
forest establishment and
management for repre-
sentative sites in four
locations in India are
presented in Table 5.5.
Initial investment costs to
establish plantations or
agroforestTy systems
range from $35-1050/ha
for one rotation (Appen-
dix C).
Intensive management of
Populus plantations in the Punjab requires
significant investment in site preparation
and seedling costs. The financial internal
rate of return to the farmer ranges from 6-
50%. The highest rate of financial return
was associated with short term forest man-
agement options. Ancillary benefits of
forest management practices include soil
reclamation and sustained flow of food,
fuel, and fiber to resource-poor farmers
(Shepard et al. 1991).
WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICA
Dry tropical forests occupy large areas of
West and Central Africa (WR1 1990). A
growing population and commensurate
Table 5.6
Costs and financial rates of return for small farm fuelwood and
agroforestry systems in West and Centra) Africa {J. Francois, Chiel
Conservator of Forests, Department of Forestry, Ghana, Pers.
Comm." Gregerson et
a). 1989).
Initial
Nation
Average
Genera
Rotation
End
Investment
IRR
farm size
product
per ha
to farmer
(ha)
(years)
(USS)
(%)
Ghana
15
Casuarina
7
Fuel/
20
9 to 32
Furniture
Malawi
15
Casuarina/
8
Poles' grain
35
65
maize
Nigeria
30
Eucalyptus
10
Poles/ fuel
45
7.4 (16.9)
Senegal
20
Acacia/millet
5
Gum Arabic/
30
15
grain
60
-------
demand for food, fuel, fiber, and animal
grazing practices as well as unfavorable
edaphic and climatic factors have contrib-
uted to a reduction in the size and condition
of primary and secondary forests (Allan and
Lanly 1991). Sustainable forest and agricul-
tural management options are required to
provide goods and services to rapidly
growing local populations. A long-term
tradition of farm forestry or agroforestry
systems by local populations provide viable
options to establish and manage trees
(Shepard et al. 1991).
Establishment and management of multi-
purpose trees on small farms (15-30 ha) in
short-rotation culture have a favorable
financial return on investment because of
multiple goods and services derived (e.g.,
food, fuel, fiber) (Table 5.6). Agroforestry
systems, which produce an annual food
crop, have the highest internal rate of re-
turn. The initial investment cost at the site
level range from $20-45/ha. Farmers are
willing to invest in agroforestry systems
which minimize their risk and maximize
income (MacDicken and Vergara 1990).
USSR
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
(USSR) covers one-sixth of the world's land
area and contains approximately 810 mil-
lion ha of forests (Anuchin and Pisarenko
1989). Boreal forest systems occur primarily
in the Russian Republic and occupy 800
million ha of the USSR. The extensive area
of forests in the USSR and their remote
nature currently preclude a wide-scale
application of intensive management op-
tions. Dominant forest genera include
Larix, Pinus, Betula, Picea, and Populus.
Biomass growth ranges from 0.5 to 20 m3/
ha/yr and is highly dependent on tree
species and site conditions.
Forest establishment and management
technology are applied in some regions of
Tflble 5.7 Land area
suitable
-------
Box 5.3 Soil management perspective.
Distribution of carbon in world soils
Wetland
202
J3oreal forests
182
Tundra
avanna
130
Cultivated land
168
emperate
forests
104
rropical forests
185
Gt
The emphasis in this report is on
sequestering and conserving
carbon in forest vegetation.
Another component of forests
with a capacity for carbon storage
is the soil. What is the potential
for managing forest soils to
sequester or conserve atmo-
spheric carbon?
Globally, there is 1.5 to 3 times as
much carbon in soils as in terres-
trial vegetation. About 470 Gt
(34%) of carbon is in temperate,
tropica], and boreal forest soils.
Another 130 Gt is in savanna
soils, for a total of 600 Gt (43%).
Thus the global pool of carbon in
forest soils is comparable to the
atmospheric carbon pool.
Soil management can cause rapid
changes in soil carbon. Conver-
sion of forest or grassland to
agriculture generally results in a
decrease in soil carbon because of
increased rates of decomposition
(Mann 1986; Schlesinger 1984).
Conversely, reforestation or
conservation tillage can increase
soil carbon (Brown and Lugo
1982; Rasmussen and Rohde
1988). Long-term manuring can
create a "plaggen epipedon", an
organic-rich layer at least 50cm
thick. The changes in carbon
content will depend on the nature
of the ecosystem and the manage-
ment. In general, increased
carbon accumulation in soils is
associated with practices that
promote cooler soils (e.g., mulch,
shade), wetter soils (irrigation),
more fertile soils (fertilize, use
nitrogen fixers), and soils with
reduced aeration (limited tillage,
less disturbance).
Carbon sequestration rates for
several common land manage-
ment practices range from 21 t/
ha/yr for stubble-mulch wheat-
fallow management in a semi-arid
environment to 240 t/ha/yr from
manuring a farm
plot in the tropics.
For forests, the
rates range from
26Gt/ha/yr for
80 years at the
Rothamsted plots
to 97 Gt/ha/yr for
31 years of sec-
ondary succession
in the Oregon
Cascades. The
latter was attained
on a poor site by a
Douglas-fir stand
that developed
with a nitrogen
fixer (snowbush,
ceanothus) during the early
successional stages. This suggests
that, with proper management,
reforestation of degraded lands
can sequester large amounts of
carbon in the soil.
A workshop to consider the
potential for conserving and
sequestering carbon in soils was
held by EPA in Corvallis, OR,
USA in February, 1990 (Johnson
and Kern 1991). The participants
identified three general strategies:
maintaining, restoring, and
enlarging soil carbon pools.
Management practices to imple-
ment these strategies for forests
are identified below:
Reforest: Reforestation can
sequester large amounts of carbon
both above and belowground,
especially on carbon-depleted
soils. [High priority]
Maintain/improve soil fertility:
Maintaining soil fertility helps
sustain primary production,
which in turn helps to conserve
carbon by sustaining the input of
carbon to soils. Carbon can be
sequestered in soils by improving
soil fertility. Municipal, animal,
industrial, and food processing
wastes can be used as cheap
fertilizers. (High priority]
Concentrate tropical agriculture:
Intensive management of tropical
agricultural lands an maintain or
increase their productivity. This
reduces the need for slash and
burn agriculture (deforestation),
and thus conserves soil carbon by
reducing losses associated with
the conversion of forests to
agriculture. Lands removed from
shifting agriculture can be refor-
ested, thus sequestering carbon in
soils. [High priority]
Increase efficiency of forest
product use: Reducing waste and
increasing the life-span of forest
products can reduce the rate of
forest harvesting, thus maintain-
ing above and below-ground
carbon pools. {High priority]
Remove marginal lands from
agricultural production: Affores-
tation of marginal agricultural
lands (steep, naturally infertile,
degraded) can restore soil carbon
to previous or near previous
levels. [Medium priority]
Retain forest slash on site: Forest
harvest residues are removed or
burned to expedite and reduce
the cost of replanting. Removing
62
-------
Box 5.3, cont.
slash removes nutrients,promotes
soil erosion, increases runoff and
evaporation, and increases soil
temperature. Leaving residues
helps new rotations to become
established more quickly and be
more productive, while conserv-
ing or sequestering soil carbon.
[Medium priority]
Minimize site disturbance:
Extensive use of ground systems
during forest harvesting may
compact or disrupt large portions
of soil. This can reduce site
productivity and promote loss of
soil carbon through oxidation and
erosion. {Medium priority]
Once it occurs, soil compaction
can persist for several decades.
The two most important natural
processes that correct compaction
are shrink-swelling of clays and
frost-heaving (Froehlich and
McNabbl984). Both require
fairly narrow conditions: shrink-
swelling requires appropriate clay
mineralogy, and frost-heaving
requires cold, moist conditions
without snow-cover.
Depending on depth, compaction
is easily corrected by tilling the
soil or by subsoiling. If done in
conjunction with other operations,
subsoiling is
extremely cost
effective (approxi-
mately $50/ha;
Stewart et al.
1988). The cost
increases substan-
tially if subsoiling
is done as a
completely
separate operation
(approximately
$250/ha). On
steep topography,
subsoiling may
not be practical at
any cost.
Use low temperature prescribed
burning: Hot slash burns can
directly remove soil carbon
through combustion. They can
also severely damage the soil and
thus decrease productivity.
[Medium priority]
Control erosion: The surface layer
of soil is generally more fertile
and has better water holding
characteristics than the lower soil
horizons. Soil erosion can reduce
productivity and, consequently,
cause reduction of soil carbon
pools. Thus, controlling erosion
conserves soil carbon. On highly
eroded land, erosion control may
be necessary for revegetation.
[Medium priority]
Augment Nutrients: The two
nutrients most commonly sup-
plied through fertilization are
nitrogen and phosphorous. In the
Pacific Northwest, the addition of
nitrogen increases the growth rate
of Douglas-fir and ponderosa
pine; however, the use of fertiliz-
ers to enhance the productivity of
other forest species is limited in
this region (Powers 1989; Gessel
et al. 1990; Miller et al. 1979), In
contrast, fertilizer application
(especially phosphorous) is
widespread in other areas includ-
ing the Southeastern US
(Comerford etal. 1982; Allen
1987; Terry and Hughes 1975),
Australia (Turner 1982; Waring
1981), New Zealand Turner and
(Gessel 1991), and South Africa
(Schonau 1984; Herbert 1984). It
is an essential practice for much
of the area of tropical radiata pine
foirestation and short rotation
hardwood plantations (Turner
and Lambert 1986; Gentle et al.
1986; Turner and Gessel 1991;
Turner 1982; Waring 1981;
Schonau 1984; Herbert 1984).
Mulch: Mulching or using plant
residues to cover the soils,
reduces extreme soil temperature
and maintains moister conditions
This slows decomposition and
thus conserves soil carbon.
[Medium priority]
Promote urban forestry: An
opportunity exists, albeit small, to
use small forests and individual
trees to sequester caiton in
biomass and soils. A more
important effect is that urban
forests reduce urban tempera-
tures (Box 5.1). The reduced
demand for air conditioning
conserves carbon by reducing the
demand for electric power. [Low
priority]
$oma observed long-term increase* In toil cartooti (Johnson ft Kom 1991). ^
System Type
Management
Location
References
C-rate
Time
(t/ha/y)
(V)
Agriculture
Manuring
Rothamsted
Jenkinson 1977
5.2
80
¦
•
•
A Rayner
8.1
60
Woodland
Old field
ft
Jenkinson 1981
2.6
60
to
¦
¦
•
5.3
80
Agriculture
Low Intensity
Georgia
Jones el al. 1966
6.1
40
«
Manuring
India
Shinde
24
10
ft Ghosh 1976
N
Cons, tillage
E. Oregon
Rasmussen &
2.1
25
Smiley 1989
Forest
N-fixation in
W. Washington
Tarrant & Miller 1963
6.6
26
m
seoondary
Oregon Cascades
Binkleyetal. 1982
9.7
31
m
succession
N. Carolina
Boring & Swank 1984
2.6
3B
63
-------
Wirijum et al. 1991). Because of population
pressures and demands by competing land
uses (primarily agriculture), much of the
land that appears to be technically suitable
for forest management may not be avail-
able. An example would be the forest
fallow stage of a shifting cultivation cycle.
Technically, such land is suitable for protec-
tion to allow for natural regeneration and
regrowth and the accompanying accumula-
tion of biomass and carbon. In reality, such
land may be a part of an important mosaic
of land use patterns that is required to
support the agricultural requirements of the
local population. Competing uses illustrate
the importance of integrating forest man-
agement for carbon storage with existing
land use patterns and local requirements
(Boxes 2.1 and 5.2).
Even though the picture of land availability
and suitability is clouded by a lack of reli-
able data and complicated by economic,
social, and land use issues, it still appears
that there is a large area of land in the
world that is available for tree planting and
that would benefit from it (Figure 2.1 and
Table 2.3). For the tropics alone, three
recent estimates are summarized in Table
5.7. Grainger (1991) estimated that in the
tropics there are 621 million ha technically
suitable for the establishment of tree planta-
tions. Houghton et al. (1991) estimated that
in the tropics there are 579 million ha avail-
able for plantation establishment, 858 mil-
lion ha available for natural regeneration
and regrowth, and 500 million ha available
for agroforestry. Trexler (1991b) attempted
to factor in social and competing land use
constraints and estimated that for tropical
Africa and Asia alone there are 46 million
ha available for plantation establishment,
163 million ha available for natural regen-
eration and regrowth, and 102 million ha
available for agroforestry. The magnitude
of these estimates, as well as their range,
argue for the need and relevance of better
and more reliable data on which to base
future assessments.
5.7 Conclusions and Constraints to Forest
Management
The national assessments of forest manage-
ment and agroforestry systems show the
promising role of these practices to conserve
and sequester carbon worldwide. Forest
lands can be managed through a wide
range of approaches to serve humankind in
many essential ways (Perlin 1989; Andrasko
1990a). At the same time significant
amounts of carbon can be sequestered and
conserved on a world scale and for quite
modest costs per ton of carbon (Table 5.3).
The database assembled for the 16 key
nations lends support to this conclusion.
Forest growth across an array of manage-
ment practices, when converted to carbon
storage, ranged from 3 to 192 tons C/ha
(Table 5.2). Initial establishment costs
during a 50 year period ranged from $9/ha
to almost $5000/ha (Table 5.3). Though the
initial dollar costs vary, when divided by
the sequestration levels in individual na-
tions and the several cropping approaches,
the cost per ton of carbon narrows to be-
tween $1 and $100. The median of all cost
values in Table 5.5 is $7/tC with an
interquartile range (middle 50% of observa-
tions) of $14.50/tC. These values, together
with the estimates of potentially suitable
lands in just the 16 key nations, underscore
the promise of forest management and
agroforestry systems for slowing the accu-
mulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Tree planting programs are reported in 95
nations (Table 6.4). Assuming the majority
of these nations have some form of national
forestry or agroforestry programs, it indi-
cates that a substantial infrastructure al-
ready exists in the world upon which to
build. A growing global consensus is build-
ing to conserve and expand forests and stop
64
-------
deforestation (Noordwijk Conference Re-
port 1989). The world presently has about
220 nations, states or territories, and of these
140 report some forest lands for.a total of
slightly over 4 billion ha (Table 2.1). If the
majority of these forested nations, states, or
territories found ways to exercise their land
management options over the next several
decades, their collective contributions could
significantly aid in reducing the increase of
atmospheric greenhouse gases. An imple-
mentation approach is suggested in Section
6.0 of this document. This report has thus
far focused on carbon stored above-ground
in vegetation. Box 5.3 discusses important
aspects of below-ground carbon.
Although it appears theoretically, possible to
store significant additional amounts of
.carbon in forests, several important con-
straints could limit what can actually be
accomplished. These include land tenure
issues, limited infrastructure, and.huinan
population pressures on forest resources
(Trexler 1991b). Where land is not privately
owned by individuals, there is an under-
standable reluctance to invest labor and
capital in tree planting. People are con-
cerned that they may not be able to claim
the fruits of their labor when the trees
mature several years in the future. Land
reform and other economic incentives to
tree growing might encourage a higher
level of tree growing by individuals.
In many parts of the world the infrastruc-
ture required to cany out a large forest
management program is simply nonexistent
(Trexler 1991a). This includes road and
transportation systems, nurseries, and
seedling handling and storage facilities. An
institutional infrastructure or framework in
the form of an extensive and well qualified
forestry department may also be, lacking.
This may be a difficult limitation to over-
come and will require both time and
money.
The most complex constraint, however,
derives from human population pressures
on forest resources around the,world. This
results in the need for ever more agricul-
tural land and is a leading cause of defores-
tation (Allan and Lanly 1991). Because
forestry and agriculture are generally com-
peting land uses, massive expansion of
reforestation efforts in the face of current
population pressures may not be feasible.
Solutions must come from the social and
political arena, but technically sustainable
resource management practices like agrofor-
estry may help to support humariipopula-
tions in the interim.
65
-------
6.0 Implementation Plan Using Noordwijk
Goal: A Suggestion
Can forest management and agroforestry
practices throughout the world undergo
large-scale expansion soon enough to sig-
nificantly aid in offsetting the building of
atmospheric C02? In total, the task seems
formidable; viewed stepwise, it seems
possible. Using the forest goals of the
Noordwijk Declaration as a framework, a
stepwise approach is developed below
suggesting a positive answer to this key
question.
In 1989, international representatives at the
Dutch Ministerial Conference in Noordwijk,
The Netherlands, discussed the role of
world forests as carbon sinks. They recog-
nized the significance of this role as a poten-
tial aid to offsetting current increases of
atmospheric C02 projected to lead to global
warming. An agreement was reached to
recommend to the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) that a world goal
be adopted to achieve a net increase in
forest area of 12 million ha/year by the
beginning of the next century (Figure 6.1).
This goal, i.e., the Noordwijk Ministerial
Declaration, would be achieved through
conservation of existing forests, reforesta-
tion of degraded forest lands, and afforesta-
tion of marginal agricultural, pasture and
savanna lands (Noordwijk Conference
Report 1989).
Figure 6.1 Illustration of the current level of
tropical deforestation (Allan and Lanly
1991) and Noordwijk Declaration goal
(Noordwijk Conference Report 1989).
Net 12 million ha
1990
Years
2000 to 2040
6.1 Theoretical Total Forestation Goal
Current estimates of the annual deforesta-
tion rate in the world are about 17 million
ha, primarily within the tTopical latitudes
(Allan and Lanly 1991). Projections by
Houghton (1990), Myers (1986b), and others
are that the rate of deforestation in the
tropics could reach 30 million ha per year
by 2045. For the temperate and boreal
regions, the net change in forest area is
virtually zero at the present time (Allan and
Lanly 1991). If adopted, the Noordwijk
declaration goal, therefore, would call for
66
-------
Table 6.1 Constraints and cautions to implementing a work^wtde forestation
program to increase rates of reforestation and affordstatfon {Andrasko
" ;1990a;Andraskoelal. 19S1 ;Traxler 1991a; and Winfumetal 1991).
Category
Constraints and cautions
Social
* Human population pressures for food, fuel, fodder, and crop land
* Limited national infrastructure for forestation work
* Low numbers of trained personnel and the long time to get them in place
* Land tenure, land-use customs, and cultural taboos
Economic
* Large sums of money required to expand forests
* Lack of financial incentive for private landowners
* Long time for tree crops to mature so it is difficult to get loans
* More plantations might swamp wortd market, depress prices, and force
alternative land uses
Eco logic
* Limited knowledge on management systems for some tree species
* For the tropics,
- Rapid removal of soil nutrients by plantations
- Plantation protection against aggressive weeds, animals and pests
- Seed: low supplies; limited germination on degraded lands
- Reduced biodiversity including genetic variability
more intensive forest practices on about 30
to 40 million new hectares a year in order to
net a 12 million ha increase over deforesta-
tion beginning in the year 2000 (Figure 6.1).
This discussion will assume the target is 35
million ha/yr for the period 2000-2040.
In the 1980's, less than 10% of the 4070
million ha of closed and woodland forest
lands were reported to be under some form
of active forest management (Mather 1990;
WRI1990). Precise estimates of the number
of hectares under management are elusive
since national reports vary considerably in
their definition of forest management
(Mather 1990).
Broadly, however, the potential to signifi-
cantly increase the amount of forests under
management seems possible. But an in-
crease of 35 million ha per year would be a
major undertaking. It means that in no
more than 10 to 12 years, the area under
active management in the 1980's would be
almost doubled. Indeed, such expansion
would be particularly difficult in the face of
increasing pressures to convert more forest
land to agriculture each year to provide
food to feed increased human populations.
Allen and Lanly (1991) estimate a need for 5
million ha per year for agriculture over the
next several decades from current forested
areas.
6.2 Obstacles and Cautions
The cited obstacles to increased forestation
and forest management are numerous
(Table 6.1). The obstacles, however, can be
viewed as precautions or as matters to
resolve squarely while progress is at-
tempted. Not all obstacles apply every-
where or at the same time, and a consider-
able amount of active forest management is
ongoing in the world upon which to lever-
age increased effort. Nor does all the goal
have to be achieved in a few year's time. It
should be remembered that the Noordwijk
goal is to reach the net increase of 12 million
ha/yr by the year 2000 and then sustain it
for about 40 years. Further, there are many
ancillary benefits to increasing the world's
managed forested areas (Table 6.2) which
serve as significant added incentives for the
work.
67
-------
Table 6.2 AnciSary benefits from expanding the world's forests through re-
forestation and afforestation (Andrasko 1990a; Andrasko et aL
l99t;Trexler 1991a: and Winjumet A 1991).
Category
Benefits
Social
* Increases fuel, food, and shelter materials for local people
* Provides fodder for domestic animals
* Improves community stability
* Enhances recreation and aesthetic values on degraded lands
Economic
* Increases land productivity
* Provides local jobs and income
* Adds to national wealth
* Promotes sustainable land management
Ecologic
* Reduces soil erosion
* Reslores hydrologic cycle, i.e. improved water availability
* Decreases deforestation
* Increases carbon sequestration
* Favors biodiversity on degraded lands
* Increases wildlife habitat
Overall, the situation calls first, for a world
commitment to a goal like the Noordwijk
Declaration; and second, for a plan that
breaks down the effort into feasible steps.
Policy makers are currently at work on
these tasks, particularly the first need, e.g.,
international discussions toward a Global
Forestry Agreement (UNCED 1991). A
suggestion for the second need follows.
6.3 "Easy-first" Paradigm
In regard to a global net forestation plan, an
"easy-first" paradigm is suggested. By this
approach, plans are made which allow the
program to get started where the obstacles
are minimal. This creates a "can do" enthu-
siasm and momentum toward implementa-
tion (Shair 1991). Simultaneously, research
and negotiations can be underway to re-
solve obstacles that could stall forestation
progress in the years ahead.
The "easy-first" approach is not suggested
as a total solution. It is overly simple com-
pared to the many day-to-day resource
constraints as well as the specific social,
economic, and political issues within indi-
vidual nations. The approach would need
to be developed into a solid, multi-faceted
plan at both international and national
levels - beyond those that have been at-
tempted in the past (B. Utria, World Bank,
pers. comm.). But the point that the "easy-
first" approach attempts to illustrate is that
all financial commitments, socio-political
agreements, technical know-how, etc.,
though critical, do not have to be fully in
place for work to start. Forestry projects by
their complex and long-term nature are
sometimes not thought feasible when
viewed in sum. Taken by steps, however,
with the easy ones first, the size, costs, and
the litany of possible obstacles become less
imposing and a fee ling of feasibility is
established at the outset.
6.4 Mount St. Helens: An Example
One example of the "easy-first" concept
from a forest management view is the
rehabilitation of the commercial forest lands
devastated by the eruption of Mount St.
Helens in the southwest area of Washington
State, USA, in May 1980. The lateral blast in
the initial minutes of the eruption blew
down, broke, or killed all trees in the conif-
erous forest over a 60,000 ha zone north of
the volcano.
68
-------
Figure 6.2 Schematic diagram of the "easy-first" paradigm for achieving national forestation toward the
Noordwijk Declaration goal. Forestation begins in the "easy" area first and is completed from year 2000 to
2010; from 2011 to 2025, woik progresses through the "more difficult" areas, and finally through the "most
difficult" during years 2026 to 2040. Research and negotiation deal with the "more difficult" from 2000 to
2010 and the "most difficult" from 2011 to 2025 resolving obstacles for forestation in the later two periods.
Theoretical regions in
a nation suitable for
expanding forested
MretPifticutt
—» 2026 to
2040
—» 2011 to 2025
More Difficult
—> 2011 to
2025
—> 2000 to
2010
Forest managers for the Mount St. Helens
area - private, state and federal - were
suddenly faced with a land management
situation unique in forestry history. Many
obstacles to recovery were apparent, aside
from the newness of dealing with an active
volcano and the vast moonscape of the
devastation zone that had replaced a green
and vigorous forest area. Forest recovery,
however, in the devastation zone proceeded
by an "easy-first" concept - from both a
forestry management and natural recovery
standpoint. Reforestation began on the
hectares of shallow-ash-covered lands, i.e.,
the easy first. Research also began so that
reforestation in areas with ash deposits up
to a meter in depth was possible in later
years. Through this combination of refores-
tation on the easiest lands first, simulta-
neously with research on the more difficult
lands, all available blast zone land had been
successfully reforested after the first major
eruption (Holbrook 1986). It should be
noted, that natural ecological restoration of
the plant cover in the devastation zone has
also followed an "easy-first" course, i.e.,
shallow-ash-covered land first, then lands
with deeper ash deposits later (Franklin et
al. 1985).
6.5 "Easy-first" Approach for the
Noordwijk Declaration
The "easy-first" paradigm may be a useful
approach to achieve the goals of the
Noordwijk Declaration. A starting assump-
tion is that the main goal is to increase the
forest area of the world by about 35 million
hectares beginning in the year 2000 and
continuing for 40 years. Research and
negotiations would begin also by the year
2000 to resolve obstacles associated with the
more difficult areas to be placed under
management in later years (Figure 6.2). In a
more recent analysis of "forest management
practices with potential to slow deforesta-
69
-------
Table 6.3 Estimated world forest contributions toward a goal lor
the 1989 Noordwtjk Declaration of 35 million ha/yr by the
forest management options of Andrasko et al. (1991).
Forest management
Boreal
Latitudinal zones
Temperate Tropic
Total
options
ha x 10*6/yr
1. Maintaining forest area
Protection of forest reserves
(including reforestation of
harvested and forests lost
by wildfire and pests)
Extractive reserves "\
all nations
at their
current
levels
2. Reduce loss of forests I
Natural forest management r
Increased use of pastures J
Sustainable agriculture
Aqroforeslrv
0.5
0.5
7.5/
5.0
-10.0
5.0
3. Expand forest area
Reforestation (S afforestation)
Restoration of degraded lands
2.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
3.0^
10.0/
" 20.0
Total
3.5
4.5
27.0
35.0
tion and increase forest
area", Andrasko et al.
(1991) suggest three
Strategies. These are: 1)
maintain forest area; 2)
reduce loss of forests;
and 3) expand forest
area. Using this scheme,
approaches to the goal
of 35 million ha/yr
follow.
Agriculture Plus Forest
Conservation. As a
start, increasing sustain-
able agricultural prac-
tices in the tropics
would contribute sig-
nificantly to strategies 1
and 2. Sanchez (1990)
estimates that for every
hectare placed in sus-
tainable soil management for agriculture, 5
to 10 ha (assume an average of 7.5 ha) of
tropical rain forest could be preserved.
Ross-Sheriff and Cough (1991) suggest it is
not unreasonable that with great commit-
ment, a rate of about 1 million ha per year
could be achieved in ten years, starting with
a first year level of 50,000 ha. If the ratio of
sustainably-managed hectares to reduced
deforestation averages 7.5, then 7.5 million
(7.5 x 1 million ha/yr of new sustainable
agricultural area) of the 35 million ha goal
could be achieved by the year 2000 (Table
6.3).
Andrasko et al. (1991) suggest that other
approaches to Strategies 1 and 2 are the
protection of forest reserves, extractive
reserves (Box 2.1), natural forest manage-
ment, and increased use of pastures. As-
suming the potential of these approaches
could offset another 2.5 million ha/yr of
deforestation by the turn of the century,
then perhaps 10 million of the 35 million ha
goal could be achieved by sustainable
agriculture, extractive reserves, natural
forest management and pasture use (Table
6.3).
Agroforestrv. For agroforestry, Houghton
et al. (1991) estimate that about 500 million
ha of former forest land might be available,
i.e., degraded forest land, 60 million ha;
woodlands, 38 million ha; and grasslands,
402 million ha. If implementation of agro-
forestry could increase to an annual rate of
1% of the total 500 million ha, then as much
as 5 million ha of new tree growing land
(i.e., agroforestry systems) could be added
each year (Table 6.3).
Reforestation and Afforestation. That
leaves 20 million ha per year as a goal for
reforestation and afforestation. Tree plant-
ing programs are reported in 95 nations out
of 140 nations, states, or territories having
some forest lands (Table 6.4). Thus, at least
two-thirds of the world's nations have
organized forest management activities of
some kind. This is a significant infrastruc-
ture on which to build. In total, the esti-
mated current rate of reforestation world-
70
-------
wide is about 15 million ha per year
through tree planting projects reported in at
least 95 nations (Table 6.4). However,
almost 14 million of the annual 15 million
ha occur in the boreal and temperate re-
gions; these plantations just meet the
amount harvested or lost because of wild-
fires and forest pests. The remaining 1
million ha of new plantations are estab-
lished in the tropics on lands formerly
supporting forests (Postel and Heise 1988)
while the tropical deforestation rate is near
17 million ha/yr (Allan and Lanly 1991).
These plantations, i.e., the 15 million ha/yr,
do not, therefore, represent a net gain in
new land supporting forests.
To increase forest area, both reforestation
and afforestation in the world are required
at increasing rates. Reforestation refers to
starting new forest crops on lands which
had forests in recent years, but now are
open because of harvest or natural events,
e.g., wildfires (Box 1.2). Many of these
lands are in a degraded state because of
abuse caused by unsustainable agricultural
practices leading to nutrient depletion and/
or soil erosion (Jain et al. 1989). Afforesta-
tion means the establishment of plantations
on lands not recently having a forest cover,
often marginal agricultural lands (Box 1.2).
In this discussion on achieving the
Noordwijk Declaration goal, it is assumed
that the annual rates of reforestation and
afforestation of marginal lands can be
increased over today's rates (Table 6.4). By
the year 2000, it is not unreasonable to
suggest increases of 2 million ha/yr in the
boreal latitudes, and 3 million ha/yr each in
the temperate and tropical latitudes (Table
6.3).
Restoration of Degraded Lands. The tropi-
cal latitudes have the primary potential for
restoration of degraded lands. Grainger
(1991) estimates that 621 million ha of de-
graded tropical land have the potential to
support forest plantations. Houghton et al.
(1991) conclude that about 580 million ha of
degraded but ecologically suitable lands
could be put into plantations. The two
estimates are similar, lending weight to the
possibility that 600 million ha of degraded
land exists in the tropics.
Assuming the 600 million ha is a reasonable
approximation of the amount of degraded
lands in the tropics today, a Noordwijk goal
is suggested for restoration of about 10
million ha per year starting in the year 2000.
In India, approximately one million ha of
degraded land is reclaimed each year
(Sharma et al. 1989). For the boreal and
temperate latitudes, it is also assumed that
each of these areas would have approxi-
mately 1 million ha of degraded land that
could be restored annually (Table 6.3).
In total, these estimates reflect a potentially
large enough pool of land for expanding the
world's present forest area by about 20
million ha annually. Reforestation and
afforestation would account for 8 million ha
of the yearly total, and restoration of de-
graded lands for 12 million ha (Table 6.3).
6.6 Emerging Noordwijk Declaration Goal
If the possibility of global climate change
becomes a convincing reality in the next few
years, the world will have to squarely face
such change and its possible consequences.
Perhaps a consensus will emerge calling on
each nation to make a fair-share contribu-
tion toward offsetting rapid climate change
and its possible adversities for humankind
(Victor 1991). In that event, forest manage-
ment would likely be one of the possible
and essential contributing measures. Fur-
ther, some goal approximating the
Noordwijk Declaration might be required.
All 140 forested nations, states, or territories
of the world may be called upon to choose
-------
Table 6.4 Average annual reforestation rates and total forest area for forested
nations of the world (Wfll 1990).
Total
Total
Forests
Reforested
Forests
Reforested
Nation
(10A3 hectares)
Nation
(10A3 hectares)
'China
115047
4552
Tanzania
42040
9
U.S.S.R.
928600
4540
Ireland
380
9
United States
295989
1775
Guatemala
4542
8
Canada
436400
720
Colombia
51700
8
Brazil
514480
449
Pakistan
2480
7
Japan
25280
240
Fiji
811
7
Sweden
27842
207
Switzerland
1124
7
Korea, Dem.
4800
200
Cote d'lvoire
9834
6
Finland
23225
158
Peru
70640
6
India
64200
138
Uruguay
490
5
Indonesia
116895
131
Swaziland
74
5
Poland
8726
106
Portugal
2976
4
Spain
10811
92
Nepal
2121
4
Turkey
20199
82
Zimbabwe
19820
4
Norway
8701
79
Ecuador
14730
4
Chile
7550
74
Mozambique
15435
4
Korea, Rep.
4887
67
Senegal
11045
3
South Africa
300
63
Tunisia
297
3
Germany, Fed Rep.
7207
62
Jordan
50
3
Australia
106743
62
Rwanda
230
3
Yugoslavia
10490
53
Burundi
41
3
Algeria
1767
52
Angola
53600
3
France
15075
51
Netherlands
355
2
Philippines
9510
50
Burkina Faso
4735
2
Bulgaria
3728
50
Liberia
2040
2
New Zealand
9500
43
Uganda
6015
2
Argentina
44500
40
Israel
100
2
United Kingdom
2178
40
Egypt
2
Czechoslovakia
4580
37
Zambia
29510
2
Libya
190
31
Papua N Guinea
38175
2
Viet Nam
10110
29
Niger
2550
2
Nigeria
14750
26
Ghana
8693
2
Thailand
15675
24
Paraguay
19710
1
Mexico
48350
22
Malawi
4271
1
Austria
3754
21
Mali
7250
1
Malaysia
20996
20
Lao People's Dem Rep.
13625
1
Venezuela
33870
19
Cameroon
23300
1
Hungary
1637
19
Lesotho
1
Belgium
762
19
Somalia
9050
1
Bangladesh
927
17
Cape Verde
1
Italy
8063
15
Trinidad and Tobago
208
1
Sudan
47650
13
Nicaragua
4496
1
Sri Lanka
1659
13
Jamaica
67
1
Morocco
3236
13
Bhutan
2140
1
Madagascar
13200
12
Gabon
20575
1
Cuba
1455
11
Dominican Rep.
629
1
Ethiopia
27150
10
Bolivia
66760
1
Kenya
2360
10
Totals
3653718
14,707
72
-------
Table 6.5 Forest management in USSR: a boreal example
Total present forested area
Potential additional forested area (15%)
Current harvest rate
Current reforestation rate
Noord.Decl. goal for USSR
929 10*6 ha
139 10^6 ha
3.1 10*6 ha/yr
4.5 10*6 ha/yr
8.0 10*6 ha/yr
Available for expansion?
Easy*
Proportion
Priority
Foreat options
Capital Labor Land
first
ranking
of goal
ha x10*6
lor
*R&N
1. Maintaining forest area
a) Protection of forest reserves
b) Extractive reserves
(Required by all Countries at Current Levels)
no mod. no mod.
low
mod.
2. Reduce toss of forests
a) Natureal forest management
b) Increased use of pastures
c) Sustainable agriculture
d) Aqroforestry
mod. yes yes
mod. mod. no
mod. yes yes
no no no
yes
mod.
mod.
no
high
low
mod.
low
1.0
0.525
low
mod.
low
mod.
3. Expand forest area
a) Reforestation (& afforestation)
b) Restoration of degraded lands
yes yes yes
mod. yes mod.
yes
mod.
v high
mod.
3.5
3.0
low
high
Total
8.025
* R & N • research and negotiations
among the various offsetting options for
their contribution(s) to reducing the atmo-
spheric greenhouse gases.
National Forestation Goals. The forested
nations could select from a list of forest
management options (Table 6.3) and make
their contribution to the forest management
goal according to: 1) the size of their respec-
tive forest land base; and 2) most impor-
tantly, the "easy-first" concept. Criteria for
the latter might be on the basis of social,
economic, and ecological constraints (Table
6.1) and benefits (Table 6.2). Options where
the essential social, economic, and ecologi-
cal elements were all or nearly all in place,
would be primary elements of the start-up
plan. Equally important would be a plan
for research and/or negotiations which
would resolve obstacles to achieving future
forest management goals.
Three examples are shown: USSR, United
States, and Brazil (Tables 6.5,6.6, and 6.7).
These nations represent a range in their
levels of forest management as well as
examples of the boreal, temperate and
tropical latitudes. That is, the US with
largely temperate forests has a highly devel-
oped forest management; the USSR with
largely boreal forests has a moderately
developed forest management; and Brazil
with largely tropical forests has a develop-
ing forest management program (Mather
1990).
For illustration purposes, a simple computa-
tion was made to define a possible national
goal supporting the Noordwijk Declaration.
That is, the nation's total forested area
(Table 6.4) was expressed as a fraction of
the world's total forest area, multiplied
times the Noordwijk world goal of 35 mil-
lion ha/yr. For USSR, the computations
gave about 8 million ha/yr; for the US, 2.6
million ha/yr; and for Brazil, 4.4 million
ha/yr. For the USSR this means nearly
doubling the rate of land now being refor-
73
-------
Table 6.6 Forest management in United States:
a temperate example.
Total present forested area
298
x10A6 ha
Potential additional forested area (15%)
44.7
CO
JZ
CD
<
o
X
Current harvest rate
2
x 10A6 ha/yr
Current reforestation rate
1.8
x 10A6 ha/yr
Noord.Decl. goal for United States
2.6
x 10*6 ha/yr
Available for expansion?
£asy-
Proportion
Priority
ftrst
of goat
for
Forest options
Capital
Labor
Land Tech.
ranking
hax 10*6
* R & N
1. Maintaining forest area
a) Protection of forest reserves
(Required by all nations at current levels)
b) Extractive reserves
mod.
mod.
mod. mod.
low
0.025
mod.
2. Reduce loss of forests
a) Natural forest management
mod.
mod.
yes mod.
los
0.300
mod.
b) Increased use of pastures
yes
yes
mod. yes
mod
0.250
mod.
c) Sustainable agriculture
yes
yes
yes yes
v high
0.500
low
d) aqroforestry
yes
yes
mod. yes
high
0.250
mod.
3. Expand forest area
a) Reforestation (& afforestation)
yes
yes
mod. yes
high
0.750
mod.
b) Restoration of degraded lands
mod.
mod.
yes yes
mod.
0.500
high
Total
2.575
* R & N ¦ research and negotiations
ested; for the US it is a 1.7 times increase;
and for Brazil a ten-fold increase. Of
course, not all of each nation's contribution
would be only in reforestation, but it would
be distributed over several management
options (Tables 6.5, 6.6, and 6.7). Interna-
tional agreements would have to set goals
based on some method to ensure equity for
all nations.
Carbon Stock Trading and Forests. Proto-
cols for carbon stock trading are currently
under development at the international and
even the intra-national level (Noordwijk
Conference Report 1989; IPCC 1990;). Basic
to the process is research to establish the
carbon budgets for each nation or each
major geographical region within large
nations. For example, it is estimated that
the forest lands of the US currently contain
12 Gt of carbon (Gucinski et al. 1991). These
carbon budgets define the total amount of
carbon released to the atmosphere, prima-
rily as C02, from anthropogenic and bio-
logical sources. In addition, the amount of
carbon conserved in terrestrial sinks and the
amount sequestered from the atmosphere
are quantified. By this means, the direction
of carbon flux is established for specific
nations or geographic areas as well as the
size of the carbon sources and sinks in each
location. Once carbon budgets are devel-
oped, they can become the basis for negoti-
ating trades, allowing individual nations to
control their carbon emissions in a manner
that is most economically efficient to them
(IPCC 1990; Lee 1991; OTA 1991).
Since forests are the largest terrestrial car-
bon sinks in the world (Figure 2.2), and
humankind can manipulate them through
management practices, national strategies to
achieve contributions to the Noordwijk goal
could become one aspect of the carbon stock
trading process. One example is CARE's
forestry projects in Guatemala negotiated to
offset carbon emissions from an electrical
power plant in Connecticut, USA (Box 5.2).
-------
Table 6.7 Forest management in Brazil: a tropical example.
Total present forested area 514.5 x 10A6 ha
Potential additional forested area (15%) 77.2 x10A6 ha
Current harvest rate 34 x 10*6 ha/yr
Current reforestation rate 0.45 x 10*6 ha/yr
Noord.Deci. goal for Brazil 4.5 x 10*6 ha/yr
Forest options
Available for expansion?
HEasy-i
ranklrm
Proportion
of goal
Ha* 10*€
Priority
for
* R &N
Capital Labor Land Tech.
1. Maintaining forest area
a) Protection of forest reserves
b) Extractive reserves
(Required by all nations at current levels)
mod. yes yes mod.
mod.
0.200
high
2. Reduce loss of forests
a) Natural forest management
b) Increased use of pastures
c) Sustainable agriculture
d) aaroforestry
mod. yes yes yes
mod. yes yes mod
mod. yes yes yes
ves ves ves ves
high
mod
high
v hiah
0.500
0.250
1.000
1.000
high
mod.
mod.
mod.
3. Expand forest area
a) Reforestation (& afforestation)
b) Restoration of degraded lands
mod. yes yes yes
mod. yes yes low
high
mod.
0.750
0.750
mod.
high
Total
4.450
* R & N • research and negotiations
Reforestation projects are reported for 95
nations in the world (WR11990) with some
dedicated to carbon sequestration among
other objectives (Table 6.8 and 6.4). Trades
involving forest sequestration and conserva-
tion of carbon stocks, therefore, have poten-
tial among nations, regions, and even conti-
nents.
Goal trends after 2000. If the 35 million ha
annual goal were reached by the year 2000
and sustained for five to ten years, then the
total could be reduced. This is because 15
million ha/yr (Table 6.3) is accomplished by
management options which reduce defores-
tation. Thus to the extent that these options
are effective, the total needed to attain a net
12 million ha/yr over deforestation could
be reduced. In that event, the total required
by the year 2010 might be closer to 20 mil-
lion ha/yr.
Twelve million ha per year net over defor-
estation for 40 years would amount to 480
million ha of new forest area under some
form of management. By using suitable
land data from Table 2.3, lands in the six-
teen key nations are shown to sequester 18.5
Gt carbon under the optimistic estimates
and 15.5 Gt carbon under the pessimistic
estimates. Conservation of existing forests,
i.e., offsetting deforestation, would also
significantly reduce increases in atmo-
spheric C02.
Similar estimates have been made by other
investigators. For example, Grainger (1990)
proposed three scenarios for reforesting
degraded tropical forest lands. These in-
clude planting 6 million ha/yr over 10
years; 8 million ha/yr over 20 years; and 10
million ha/yr over 30 years. TTiese refores-
tation rates would offset 5%, 13%, and 26%
of the current 5.5 Gt carbon emitted in the
world annually from fossil fuel burning.
Approximate costs total $2.4, $3.0, and $4.0
billion/yr, respectively. Grainger goes on
to discuss the merits of each scenario de-
-------
Table B.8 Examples of dedicated national reforestation and tree
planting programs.
Location
Program
Goal
Reference
Australia
One billion trees on
one million ha by 2000
To restore degraded
lands & sequester carbon
Eckersley 1989
Brazil
FLORAM reforestation
recommendation is
20.1 x10A6 ha in 30 years
Degraded soil
reclamation
US EPA 1990
China
45 x10A6 ha/yr of new
plantations in the 1980's
Increase timber resource
for the broad range
of wood uses.
Richardson 1990
WRI 1990
Germany
10 x10A3 ha/yr to year 2050
Afforestation of
non-forested lands
Fed. Rep. of
Germany 1991
Guatemala
1.3 x10A3 ha in new
woodlot plantations
To restore degraded
lands and sequester
carbon
Trexler 1991a
India
Nalional goal is
5 x10A6 ha in short
rotation intensive culture
Degraded soil
reclamation
Sharma el al.
1989
Japan
Eucalyptus plantation
in Chile
Fiber production
(N.Y. Times 1991,
news report)
Netherlands, The
4 x10A3 ha/yr during
the 1990's
Wood production,
landscape development,
recreation and
carbon sequestration
Fed. Rep. of
Germany 1991
United Kingdom
20 1o 30 x10A3 ha/yr
in the 1980's
Wood production
woodland amenity
Fed. Rep. of
Germany 1991
United States
Plant 600 x10a3 ha for
10 to 20 years
starting in 1991
President's America
the Beautiful
Program
Andrasko 1990a
USSR
4.5 xl 0A6 ha per year
Reforestation
WRI 1990
pending upon potential trade-offs among
the planting rates, costs, and carbon seques-
tration.
6.7 Concluding Perspective and Caveats
Section 6.0 has two aims. The first is to
explore an approach towards implementing
and achieving a world forestation goal such
as the one proposed in the Noordwijk
Declaration. Using available data and a
number of assumptions, rough calculations
lead to a breakdown of the 35 million ha/yr
goal into portions to be accomplished by
various forest management options in three
regions of the world (Table 6.3). Contribu-
tions toward the goal would be on a na-
tional basis over the period 2000-2040.
The second aim is to suggest an "easy-first"
concept for use in each nation's forestation
plan that would facilitate achieving its goal.
Simply put, it is doing forestation on the
easy lands first while working out the
solutions to obstacles and constraints to
achieving forestation on the more difficult
lands later.
76
-------
Together, the two aims were to provide a
basis of feasibility about implementing a
world forestation program. Global and
national agreements, together with appro-
priate legislation, are needed to consolidate
andstimulate forest management goals.
Many social and-political concerns need
resolution before goals can be met. Also,
detailed cost/benefit analyses must ulti-
mately be included. Obviously, large costs
are involved, but so, too, are benefits
(Gregerson et al. 1989). When it is learned
.how to put values on all benefits, the dollar
values could possibly cover many of the
costs, and perhaps all in some cases. How-
ever, start-up discussions should continue,
despite unknowns, in the same vain as Shair
(1991) noted of many historical advances by
humankind, where successes were made
when the focus was "on what might be,
rather on what might appear impossible at
the time."
77
-------
7.0 Research Needs
In the course of conducting this assessment
of promising forest management and agro-
forestry practices to conserve carbon on a
world scale, it became apparent that the
global level of information requires
strengthening in several important areas.
To meet this need, research by EPA and
other national and international groups is
recommended on the following topics:
Biomass Productivity. While this subject is
the most strongly supported in the current
database, more values would raise the level
of the usefulness of the assessment. For
example, within the practices, coverage of
reforestation is strongest while knowledge
of agroforestry, a practice which appears to
have great potential, needs strengthening
(Figures 4.1 and 4.2; Tables 3.2 and 5.2).
Further, biomass productivity data are
needed for more forested
nations in the world. While some data were
obtained in this initial phase of the assess-
ment for over 90 nations, approximately 50
nations, states, or territories with forests are
not yet represented. Even within the 16 key
nations, coverage is uneven (Tables 5.2, 5.5,
and 5.6), calling for additional data in a
follow-up phase.
Another important area in need of more
biomass productivity data is the below-
ground component of managed forests and
agroforestry systems. As noted in Section 3,
the most data is available for the above-
ground biomass since data collection has
been associated with tree stem wood, his-
torically the most commercially valuable
component of forests.
Costs of Practices. This assessment focused
on initial site-level costs of implementing
management practices involving tree
growth in the world. To fully develop a
cost/benefit analysis (below), the full range
of costs from implementation to harvest are
required. Thus, future research should also
focus on the cost of land (i.e., the concept of
land rent); crop maintenance costs, includ-
ing many forms of protection and other
fixed and variable costs; and site-related
parameters (including social and physical,
e.g., fossil fuel burning for forestation
activities and harvesting) required to pro-
duce, harvest, and process the managed
forest or agroforestry yields.
Benefits of Practices. Reference is often
made of the many benefits related to man-
aging tree-growing lands in addition to
carbon sequestration and conservation (Box
3.1). Monetary values can readily be placed
upon tangible benefits such as food,
sawlogs, and fuelwood; for more intangible
benefits such as conservation of natural
forests, biodiversity, water production, and
soil conservation, valuation is much more
difficult, particularly on an international
basis. Yet, to establish the monetary value
of benefits is a serious need so that the net
cost (+ or -) of carbon sequestration and
conservation can be more accurately esti-
mated.
-------
Benefit/Cost Analyses. Ultimately, na-
tional, and international policymakers must
decide whether forestry and agroforestry
projects are worth undertaking compared to
alternative opportunities. Once benefits
and costs are more clearly established,
analyses aimed at benefit/cost analyses will
be possible providing a more precise deci-
sion framework. By this means, a carbon
stock trading system can be developed to
include guidelines, issues, and goals among
the forested nations of the world (including
the wood-importing nations) who may be
participating in the proposed Global Forest
Agreement.
Risk. Uncertainty and Constraints. Grow-
ing trees as a crop, for what ever purpose,
involves years and often decades of com-
mitment. For such investments, risk and
uncertainty usually increase with time.
Field data for forestry and agroforestry test
crops and programs for a range of nations
and regions must be obtained to make
realistic assessments among the array of
management options to conserve or seques-
ter carbon.
Many social, political, and economic con-
straints to implementing or expanding
promising forest management and agrofor-
estry systems have been noted in the previ-
ous sections. Examples are population
pressures which cause non-sustainable use
of forest and agricultural lands; lack of
government infrastructure; and low-level
economic support or incentives. Much
better information will be required on the
array of such constraints
to fully define the potential of management
practices which initially appear promising.
Land Use Most forested nations of the
world have only broad inventoriessof their
lands which are under natural or managed
tree-growing systems. Currently, estimates
of land available for forest management and
agroforestry systems are the weakest part of
the database assembled for this assessment.
Much more data will be necessary on a
national and regional basis for a full and
definitive assessment of the carbon potential
of lands on a national scale. Priority topics
are:
o area of land technically suitable and socio-
politically available for forest management
and agroforestry;
o level of deforestation through global
monitoring of:
-annual rates.of deforestation;
-amount of deforestation offset by sustain-
able practices such as agroforestry;
o quantification of changes in the above two
categories in the event of rapid climate
change.
Validation.. Aggregating data ori promising
practices from around the world jhas per-
mitted a valuable first phase assessment.
Future higher-level assessments,;based on
research case studies and additional on-the-
ground pilot studies, should be conducted
to refine and validate the estimates pre-
sented here.
Related Issues. At the periphery of this
document's subject are a number of impor-
tant issues which will be needed for a total
perspective of the potential of world forest
management practices. This perspective can
be achieved by the coordination with other
research groups working on such issues as:
valuation of non-timber values; links be-
tween socially and politically sustainable
land use practices and forest management;
restoration of degraded environments for a
range of goals; biodiversity and habitat
protection; effects of global climate change
on forests and their processes; national and
regional carbon budgets; satellite monitor-
ing of land use; and others.
79
-------
8.0 Summary and Cor
Previous assessments suggested that forest
and agroforestry systems could be managed
to sequester and conserve carbon in the
terrestrial biosphere, and reduce accumula-
tion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The 1989 Noordwijk Ministerial Conference
set a net global forestation goal of 12 million
ha annually (net over deforestation) to
sequester carbon in forest systems. Recog-
nizing the prominent role of forest biomes
in global ecology and the global carbon
cycle, the US and other nations have agreed
to promulgate a Global Forest Agreement
within the 1990's.
The objectives of this report, proposed by
USEPA Global Change Research Program,
are to assess and synthesize information in
support of three policy-science topics:
1.Identify promising technologies and
practices that could be utilized at techni-
cally suitable sites in the world to manage
forests and agroforestry systems for seques-
tering and conserving carbon.
2.Assess available data on costs at the site
level for promising forest and agroforestry
management practices.
3.Assess knowledge of land technically
suitable in forested nations and biomes of
the world to help meet the Noordwijk
forestation targets and the proposed Global
Forest Agreement goals.
Forestation technologies, silvicultural prac-
tices, and agroforestry systems have been
developed for a wide range of site condi-
tions, tree species, and climates in the 94
nations surveyed. The primary conclusions
for each objective of this assessment are
summarized below.
1. Promising forest practices are applicable
to forested areas on all continents of the
world (except Antarctica) and across the
boreal, temperate, and tropical latitudes.
o Forest systems occupy over 4 billion ha of
the earth's land area, but a relatively small
proportion (about 10%) are under active
forest management as defined in Box 1.2.
o Demographic and environmental pres-
sures have escalated the degradation and
harvest of world forests. In the tropics,
approximately 17 million ha are deforested
annually, compared to 11 million ha in 1980.
o Implementation of forest sector options
(e.g., forestation, silviculture prescriptions,
reducing deforestation, etc.) is estimated to
potentially conserve and sequester up to 10
Gt carbon annually worldwide.
o Potential carbon storage ranges of forest
establishment and management practices
for major latitudinal biomes over a 50 year
period are:
80
-------
Establishment Management
tC/ha
Boreal 15-4 03-21
Temperate 30-180 10-120
Tropical 30-130 15-195
o Within latitudinal biomes, the practices
found to sequester the most carbon per
hectare are:
Boreal: Reforestation, short rotation inten-
sive culture, and natural regeneration;
Temperate: Afforestation, reforestation,
and natural regeneration; and
Tropical: Natural regeneration, agrofor-
estry, and reforestation.
o The least carbon was sequestered by
silvicultural practices, e.g. thinning, fertili-
zation, and other stand improvement treat-
ments, in all latitudinal biomes.
o The assessment revealed a wide array of
tree genera used in practices to establish
managed forests and agroforestTy systems
in major latitudinal biomes. Examples air,e:
Boreal: Pinus, Larix, Picea, and Populus;
Temperate: Pinus, Picea, Populus, Salix,
Betula, and Quercus; and
Tropical: Leucaena, Eucalyptus, Pinus,
Acada, Prosopis, and Tectona.
2. Implementation costs of forest manage-
ment and agroforestry practices at the site
level were assessed. Specific highlights of
the cost assessment include:
o The mbst cost-efficient management
practices based on initial costs and a 50 year
period are:
Median Interquartile range
$/tC
Boreal: natural regeneration
5
4-11
reforestation
8
3-27
Temperate: natural regeneration 1
0.01 - .43
afforestation
2
0.22 - 5
reforestation
6
3-29
Tropical: natural regeneration
0.90
0.54-2
agroforestry
5
2-11
reforestation
7
3-26
o The cost of national forestation and forest
management programs can be broken into
high, medium, and low levels. Examples of
nations at each level are (Table 2.3):
High cost: Egypt, New Zealand, South
Africa, Venezuela, and Zaire;
Medium cost: Argentina, Brazil, Germany,
and Finland; and
Low cost: Australia, China, Congo, Mexico,
US, and USSR.
o Carbon storage for forest management
and agroforestry practices in 16 key nations
varied from 3 to 192 tons C/ha. Establish-
ment costs range from $9/ha to almost
$5000/ha. From these values, calculations
show that the, cost of carbon across all prac-
tices ranges from $l/tC to $100/tC. The
median cost is$7/tC with an interquartile
range of $14.50/tC.
o The analysis found that the marginal cost
of storing 45-65 Gt C is about $3/tC. Above
70 Gt C the marginal cost escalates sharply
to over $100/tC. The cost of land, mainte-
nance costs, and potential benefits were not
included in the analysis. This approach is
highly sensitive to the values used for land
area. These cost curves can be expected to
81
-------
evolve as the land area estimates are im-
proved.
3. Estimates of land area technically suitable
for expanding forest practices are highly
variable. Though a continuous program to
reliably monitor such lands is not in place,
recent estimates show that the opportunity
for expansion of forest practices may be
large. Published data and insights are:
o Within tropical latitudes, the estimates of
land suitable for expanding forestation
programs range from 0.6 to 1.9 billion ha.
By continent they are: Africa 173-953 mil-
lion ha; Asia 174-226 million ha; and Latin
America 222-809 million ha.
o Nations with estimates of 100 million ha
or more that are technically suitable for new
forestation programs are:
Boreal: USSR;
Temperate: China, and US; and
Tropical: Brazil, India, Mexico, and Zaire.
o A suggestion for achieving the 1989
Noordwijk Ministerial Conference goal of
net increases in forestation of 12 million ha
annually might be an "easy-first" approach.
That is, within each forested nation, prac-
tices could begin on the easiest lands first
while constraints to forestation on difficult
lands are resolved.
o Several key forest nations including Aus-
tralia, China, India, US, and others have
established national forestation programs to
conserve and sequester carbon.
4. Many constraints to extensive use of
forest management practices and agrofor-
estry systems exist in the world today.
Those noted throughout this assessment
and others span a range of social, economic,
political and ecologic considerations (Table
6.1). Examples of major constraints include:
o Human population pressure on forest
resources around the world.
o Limited national infrastructure of foresta-
tion projects.
o Lack of land tenure systems or financial
incentives that favor sustainable practices.
o Capital limitations for and wariness of
long-term forest investments.
o Low levels of technically trained people at
the local level.
o Poorly-developed methods for managing
and integrating productive tree crops along
with other basic human needs from the
land.
In large part, such constraints appear to be
the reasons that currently only 10% of the
world's 4 billion ha of forests are actively
managed, and implementation of agrofor-
estry systems has been slow on a world
scale. The challenges for expanding these
forest and tree-growing practices are un-
questionably great. Over time, however,
the emerging need to store more atmo-
spheric carbon on present and potential
forest lands could serve as a catalyst toward
finding solutions to constraints of the
present day.
82
-------
9.0 References: Text and Database
A]) references from the published literature used to
produce this assessment are presented below as a matter
of completeness and assistance to possible users of the
document. This means that reference citations given below
include all those cited in the text of the document as well
as those recorded for each entry in the datahase. Not all
references below, therefore, appear in the text as many
support the database. Some references, however, support
both the text and the database that was assembled for the
assessment.
Ajtay, G.L., P. Ketner, and P. Duvigneaud. 1979. Terres-
trial primary production and phytomass. In: SCOPE
13: The Global Carbon Cycle. Bolin, B., E.T. Degens,
S. Kempe, and P. Ketner, eds. Wiley, New York, NY.
pp. 129-182.
Allen, H.L. 1987. Forest fertilizers. ). For. 85(2):37-46.
Allen, J.C. 1985. Wood energy and preservation of
woodlands in semiarid developing countries: The
case of Dodoma region, Tanzania. J. Dev. Economics.
19:59-94.
Allan, T. and J. P, Lanly. 1991. Overview of status and
trends of world forests. In: Proceedings of a Tropical
Workshop to Explore Options for Global Forest
Management, April 1991. Paper No. 3.1, Bangkok,
Thailand. 35 pp.
Alves, T. and C. de Sousa. 1989. Trees for development: a
country report (Mozambique). In: Trees for Develop-
ment in Sub-sa ha ran Africa. Proceedings of a regional
seminar, Nairobi, Kenya, February, 1989. Interna-
tional Foundation for Science, Stockholm, Sweden,
pp. 186-194.
Anderson, D. 1987. The economics of afforestation: a case
study in Africa. The World Bank. Occasional Paper
Number 1 /New Series. 86 pp.
Andrasko, K. 1990a. Climate Change and Global Forests:
Current Knowledge of Potential Effects, Adaptation
and Mitigation Options. Forestry Dept., UN Food &
Agriculture Organization, No. FOiMISC/90/7, Rome,
Italy. 76 pp.
Andrasko, K. 1990b. Forestry Chapter. In: Policy Options
to Stabilize Global Climate. Report to Congress. D.
Lashof and D. Tirpak, eds. US E.P.A., Washington,
D.C. pp. 175-237.
Andrasko, K., K. Heaton, and S. Winnett. 1991. Estimat-
ing the costs of forest sector management options:
overview of site, national and global analyses. In:
Proceedings of a Technical Workshop to Explore
options for Global Forest Management. Bangkok,
Thailand. 22 pp.
Anuchin, V. and A. Pisarinko. 1989. Forest Encyclopidia,
Volume 1,11, State Forest Committee, Moscow, USSR.
Apps, M.J. and W. A. Kurz. 1991. Assessing the role of
Canadian forests and forest activities in the global
carbon budget. Second International Conference on
Scientific and Policy Issues Facing all Governments,
April 1991, Chicago, IL. USA. (In press).
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
(CIAR). 1986. Multipurpose Australian Trees and
Shrubs: Lesser-known Species for Fuelwood and
Agroforestry. Australian Centre for International
Agricultural Research, Canberra, Australia. 316 pp.
Awang, K. 1989. Social forestry: a forester's perspective.
In: Social Forestry in Malaysia. Proceedings of a
workshop held in Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia, 6
December, 1989. A. A. Nuruddin, K. Awang, and Z.
Emby, eds. Faculty of Forestry, Universiti Pertanian
Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia, pp. 7-16.
Azfal-Ata, M., B. Md. Noor Nur Supardi, and P. Selvaraj.
1985. Local volume tables for plantation Kapur
(Dryobalanops aromatica) at Sungai Puteh Forest
Reserve. Malaysian Forester. 48:276-287.
Bailey, R.G. 1989. Explanatory supplement to ecoregions
map of the continents. Env. Conservation. 16(4):307-
309.
83
-------
Bannister, M.H. and H. R. Orman. 1960. Cupressus
lusitanica as a potential timber tree foi New Zealand.
New Zealand ]. For. 8(2):203-217.
Barbier, E.J. Burgess, and A. Markandya. 1991. The
economics of tropical deforestation. Ambio. 20(2):55-
58.
Barrett, J.W. 1979. Silviculture of ponderosa pine in the
Pacific Northwest The state of our knowledge.
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Portland, OR. 106 pp.
Batisse, M. 1980. The relevance of MAB. Env. Conserva-
tion. 7(3):179-184.
Batisse, M. 1990. Development and implementation of the
biosphere reserve concept and its applicability to
coastal regions. Env. Conservation. 17(2):111-116.
Bickerstaff, A.W., L. Wallace, and F. Evert. 1981. Growth
of Forests in Canada, Part 2: A Quantitative Descrip-
tion of the Land Base and the Mean Annual Incre-
ment. Info. Rep. Pl-X-1; Tables 3,6-17. Canadian
Forest Service, Environment, Canada. 136 pp.
Binkley, D„ K. Cromack, and R. L. Fredriksen. 1982.
Nitrogen accretion and availability in some snow-
brush ecosystems. Forest Science. 28(4):720-724.
Bolin, B„ E. T. Degens, S. Kempe, and P. Ketner, eds. 1979.
SCOPE 13: The Global Carbon Cycle. Wiley, New
York. 491 pp.
Boonkird, S.A., E. C. M. Fernandes, and P. K. R. Nair.
1991. Forest villages: an agroforestry approach to
rehabilitating forest land degraded by shifting
cultivation in Thailand. In: Agroforestry Systems in
the Tropics. P. K. R. Nair, ed. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Boston, MA. pp. 211-228
Boring, L.R. and W. T. Swank. 1984. The role of black
locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia) in forest succession. J.
Ecology. 72:749-766.
Bouwman, A.F. 1990. Exchange of greenhouse gases
between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere.
In: Soils and the greenhouse effect: Proceedings of
the international conference on soils and the green-
house effect. A. F. Bouwman, ed. Wiley, New York,
NY. pp. 62-127.
Box, E.0.1981. Macroclimate and Plant Forms: An
Introduction to Predictive Modeling in Phytogeogra-
phy. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, The Nether-
lands. 258 pp.
Brandao, L.G. 1984. No.l. The New Eucalyptus Forest. In:
Lectures Given by 1984 Marcus Wallenberg Prize
Winners at the Symposium in Falun, Sweden,
September 14,1984. The Marcus Wallenberg Founda-
tion. pp. 3-15.
Brown, L.R., A. Durning, C. Flavin, L. Hesse, J. Jacobson,
S. Postel, M. Renner, C. Pollock-Shea, and L. Starke.
1989. State of the World - 1989, A Worldwatch
Institute Report on Progress toward a Sustainable
Society. Norton, New York, NY. 256 pp.
Brown, S., J. R. Gillespie, and A. E. Lugo. 1989. Biomass
estimation methods for tropical forests with applica-
tions to forest inventory data. Forest Science.
35(4):88l-902.
Brown, S. and A. Lugo. 1990. Tropical secondary forests. /.
Tropical Ecol. 6:1-32.
Brown, S. and A. E. Lugo. 1982. The storage and produc-
tion of organic matter in tropical forests and their role
in the global carbon cycle. Biotropica. 14(3):161-187.
Brown, S. and A. E. Lugo. 1984. Biomass of tropical
forests: a new estimate based on forest volumes.
Science. 223:1290-1293.
Budowski, G. 1987. Living fences in tropical America, a
widespread agroforestry practice. In: Agroforestry:
Realities, possibilities, and potentials. H. Gholz, ed.
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, MA. pp. 169-
178.
Burand, D.K. 1989. The debt-for-nature exchange: A tool
for international conservation. Conservation Interna-
tional, Washington, D.C. 43 pp.
Burley, J., F. B. Armitage, R. D. Barnes, G. L. Gibson, P. D.
Hardcastlle, and P. J. Wood. 1989. Forestry Research
in Eastern and Southern Africa. Tropical Forestry
Papers No. 19. Oxford Forestry Inst., University of
Oxford, U.K. 60 pp.
Burley, J. and J. Stewart. 1985. Increasing productivity of
multipurpose trees. International Union of Forest
Research Organizations, Vienna, Austria. 560 pp.
Burschel, P., R. Eder, D. Kantarci, and D. Rehfuess. 1977.
Effects of different soil cultivation procedures on
growth, phytomass accumulation, and nutrient
supply of young pines (Pinus sylverstris) in forest
ecosystems. Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt.
96:321-338.
Cailliez, F. 1991. Industrial Eucalyptus plantations in the
People's Republic of the Congo—Technical, Socio-
logical and Ecological Aspects. In: Proceedings of the
International Workshop on Large-Scale Reforestation.
J. K. Winjum, P. E. Schroeder, and M.J. Kenady, eds.
USEPA, No. EPA/600/9-91/014, Washington, D.C.
pp. 87-96.
84
-------
Campinhos, E. 1991. Presentation. In: 1. The New
Eucalypt Forest. Proceedings of the Marcus
Wallenberg Foundation Symposia, Falun, Sweden,
Sept 1984. B. J. Zobel, ed. pp. 21-27.
Cannell, M G R. 1982. World Forest Biomass and Primary
Production Data. Academic Press, London, UK. 391
pp.
Carton de Colombia, S.A. 1985. Forest Research in the
Bajo Calima Concession. Ninth Annual Report, Cali,
Colombia. 226 pp.
Carvalho, J.A. 1954. Cupressus lusitardea em S. Paulo.
Annuario Brasileiro de Economic Florestal. 7:124-142.
Chaturvedi, A.N. 1986. Bamboos for Fanning. U.P. Forest
Bulletin No. 52, India. 36 pp.
Chaturvedi, A.N. 1991. Reforestation in India. In: Proceed-
ings of the International Workshop on Large-scale
Reforestation. J. K. Winjum, P. E. Schroeder, and M.
S. Kenady, eds. US EPA, No. EPA/600/9-91 /,014,
Washington, D.C. pp. 109-115.
Chen, C.L. 1962. The physical properties of 101 Chinese
woods. Forest Products }. 12(7):339-342.
Chew, T.K. 1982. The cost and effectiveness of the
aboricide 2,4,5-T in a GCL operation carried out for
enrichment planting at the Tekam Forest Preserve,
Pahang; Malaysia. Malaysian Forester. 45:394-397.
Chong; T.K. and N. Jones. 1982. Fast growing hardwood
plantations on logged over forest sites in Sabah.
Malaysian Forester. 45:558-575.
Chudnoff, M. 1979. Tropical Timbers of the World.
USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory,
Madison, WI. 750 pp.
Cobb, D., S. S. Cobb, and G. B. Cobb. 1989. Douglas
. Cobb's 1-2-3 Handbook. Bantam Books, New York,
NY. 774 pp.
Cody; B.1988. Debt-for-nature swaps in developing
countries: An overview of recent conservation efforts.
CRS report for Congress, Washington, D.C. 34 pp.
Comerford, N.B., R.F. Fisher, and W. L. Pritchett. 1982.
Advances in forest fertilization on the Southeastern
Coastal Plain. In: Proceedings from the 1982IUFRO
Symposium on Forest Site and Continuous Productiv-
ity, Seattle, WA; General Technical Report PNW-163.
R. Ballard and S. P. Gessel, eds. USDA Forest Service
Pacific NW Forest and Range Experiment Station,
Portland, OR. pp. 370-378.
Cozzo, D. 1976. Tecnologia de la forestacion en Argentina
y America Latina. Editorial Hemisferio Sur, Buenos
Aires, Argentina. 610 pp.
Current, D. 1988. Agroforestry practice in selected areas of
Burma: preliminary recommendations. Winrock
International, Arlington, VA. 45 pp.
Darrow, W.K. 1980.251 Pamphlet: The D.R. de Wet
Forestry Research Station. The Department of
Forestry, Private Bag X93, Pretoria, Republic of South
Africa. 21 pp.
Davis, L.S. and K. M. Johnson. 1987. Forest Management.
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 790 pp.
de Jesus, R.M. 1991. The need for reforestation. In:
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Large-
Scale Reforestation. J. K. Winjum, P. E. Schroeder,
and M. $. Kenady, eds. USEPA, Washington, D.C.
pp. 81-86.
Detwiler, R.P. and C. A. S. Hall. 1988. Tropical forests and
the global carbon cycle. Science. 239:42;46.
Devore, J. and R. Peck. 1986. Statistics, The Exploration
and Analysis of data. West Publ. St. Paul, MN. 699
PP-
Dickinson, R.E. 1986. How will climate change: The
climate system and modeling of future climate. In:
Scope 29: The Greenhouse Effect, Climatic Change
and Ecosystems. Bolin, B. R. Doos,J. Jager, and R. A.
Warrick, eds. Wiley, New York, NY. pp. 221-231.
Dixon, R.K. 1988. Forest biotechnology opportunities in
developing countries. J. Developing Areas. 22:207-218:
Dixon, R.K. 1991. Responses and feedbacks ;of global
forests to climate change. In: Proceedings of Sympo-
sium on Management and Productivity of Western-
Montane Forest Soils. R. Klade, ed. USDA FSGTR.
(In press).
Dixon, R.K. and D. P. Turner. 1991. The global carbon
cycle and climate change: Responses and feedbacks
from below-ground systems. Environmental Pollution.
(In press).
Dixon, R.K,, J. K. Winjum, and O. N. Krankina. 1991.
Forestation and forest management options and their
costs at the site level. In: Proceedings of Technical
Workshop to Explore Global Forest Management
Options, Bangkok, Thailand. (In press).
Dover, M. and L. Talbot. 1987. To Feed the Earth: Agro-
Ecology for Sustainable Development. World
Resources Institute, VVashington, D.C.
Dubois, M., W. F. Watson, T. J. Straka, and K. L. Belli.
1991. Costs and cost trends for forestry practices in
the South. Forest Farmer. 50(3):26-32.
Dyson, F.J. 1977. Can we control the carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere? Energy. 2:287-291.
85
-------
Eckersley, R. 1989. Regreening Australia: The environ-
mental, economic, and social benefits of reforestation.
Occasional Paper 3. CSIRO, E. Melbourne, Australia.
28 pp.
Eldridge, K.G. 1982. Genetic improvements from a radiata
pine seed orchard. J. Forestry Science. 12(2):404-411.
Evans, J. 1982. Plantation Forestry in the Tropics.
Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. 472 pp.
Evans, J. 1983. Maintaining and improving the productiv-
ity of tropical and subtropical plantations. In:
Proceedings of the 1982 IUFRO Symposium on Forest
Site and Continuous Productivity, Seattle, WA;
General Technical Report PNW-163. R. Ballard and S.
P. Gessel, ed. USDA Forest Service Pacific NW Forest
and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. pp.
312-322.
Farnum, P., R. Timmis, and J. Kulp. 1983. Biotechnology
of forest yield. Science. 219:694-702.
Fearnside, P.M. 1989. Contribution to the greenhouse
effect from deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia.
Paper presented to the International conference on
soils and the Greenhouse Effect, Wageningen, The
Netherlands, 14-18 August, 1989. 43 pp.
Federal Rep. Germany (FRG). 1991. Assessment of
potential, feasibility, and costs of forestry options in
the temperate and boreal zones - interim report. In:
Proceedings of a technical workshop to explore
options for global forest management. Federal
Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Forestry (FRG),
Bangkok, Thailand. 37 pp
Fenton, R. 1979. Comparisons of Chilean and New
Zealand radiata pine plantations. Neu> Zealand ]. of
Forestry. 24C1 ):13-24.
Ferreira, L. 1983. Melhoramento florestal e silvicultura
intensiva com eucalipto. Silvicultura. 29:5-11.
Flavin, C. 1989. Slowing global warming: A worldwide
strategy. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C. 94
pp.
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). 1977. Sa-
vanna afforestation in Africa. FAO Forestry Paper
No. 11. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Rome, Italy. 312 pp.
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). 1982. Forestry
in China. Forestry Paper 35. Food and Agricultural
Organization of the UN., Rome, Italy. 308 pp.
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). 1985. Inten-
sive multiple-use forest management in the tropics.
FAO Forestry Paper No. 55. Food and Agricultural
Organization of the UJsI., Rome, Italy. 180 pp.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1985. Tropical
forestry action plan. Food and Agriculture Organiza-
tion of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 275 pp.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1987. Produc-
tion Yearbook. Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 350 pp.
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). 1989. Man-
agement of Tropical Moist Forests in Africa. Forestry
Paper 88. Food and Agricultural Organization of the
United States, Rome, Italy. 165 pp.
Forest Industry Organization. 1991. Forest Plantation of
Forest Industry Organization. Royal Forest Dept.,
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative, Bangkok,
Thailand. 9 pp.
Franklin, J.F. 1988. Structural and Functional Ehversity in
Temperate Forests. In: wilson, E.O., and F.M. Peter,
eds. Biodiversity. Nat. Acad. Press. PP. 166-175.
Franklin, J.F., J. A. MacMahon, F. J. Swanson, and J. R.
Sedell. 1985. Ecosystem responses to the eruption of
Mount St. Helens. National Geographic Research.
1(2):198-216.
Franklin, J.F., T. Spies, D. Perry, M. Harmon, and A.
McKee. 1986. Modifying Douglas-fir Management
Regimes for Nontimber Objectives. In: Oliver, C D.,
D.P. Hanely, and J.A. Johnson, eds. Douglas-fir
Stand Management for the Future. College of Forest
Resources, Univ. Washington, Seattle, pp. 373-379.
Froehlich, H.A. and D. H. McNabb. 1984. Minimizing Soil
Compaction in Pacific Northwest Forests. In: Forest
Soils and Treatment Impacts. Proceedings of Sixth
North American Forest Soils Conference. E. L. Stone,
ed. Univ. of Tenn. Conferences, Knoxville, TN. pp.
159-192.
Fronz, E. 1991. Tropical Forestry. In: Workshop on
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agricultural
Systems: Summary Report. IPCC, Washington, D.C.
31 pp.
Gates, W.L. 1985. Modeling as a means of studying the
climate system. In: Projecting the Climatic Effects of
Increasing Carbon Dioxide. M. C. MacCracken and F.
M. Luther, eds. DOE/ER-0237, US Department of
Energy, Washington, D.C. pp 57-80.
Gentle, S.W., F. R. Humphreys, and M. J. Lambert. 1986.
Continuing response of Pinus radiata to phosphatic
fertilizers over two rotations. For. Sci. 32:822-829.
66
-------
Gessel, S.P., R. E. Miller, and D. W. Cole. 1990. Relative
importance of water and nutrients on the growth of
coast Douglas fir in the Pacific Northwest. Forest
Ecology and Management. 30:327-340.
Gillis, M. 1988. Indonesia: Public policies, resource
management, and the tropical forest. In: Public
Policies and the Misuse of Forest Resources. R.
Repetto and M. Gillis, eds. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 43-114.
Gillis, M.,1988. Malaysia: public policies and the tropical
forest. In: Public Policies and the Misuse of Forest
Resources. R. Repetto and M. Gillis, eds. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge/UK. pp. 115-164.
Gillis, M. 1988. West Africa: resource management
policies and the tropical forest. In: Public Policies and
the Misuse of Forest Resources. R. Repetto and M.
Gillis, eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK. pp. 299-351.
Glenn, E.P., K. J. Keut, T. L. Thompson, and R. J. Frye.
1991. Seaweeds and halophytes to remove carbon
from the atmosphere. ER/EN-7177 Research Project
8011-3. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo'Alto,
CA. 69 pp.
Golfari, L. 1968. Alguns aspectos sobre reflor. no sul do
Brasil; Annuario Brasileiro deEconomia Florestal.
19:233-236.
Goodland, R., E. Asibey, J. Post, and M. Dyson. 1990.
Tropical moist forest hardwoods: the urgent transi-
tion to sustainability. The Intern. Soc. Ecol. Econ.
Conference, May 1990. The World Bank, Washing-
ton, D.C. 36 pp.
Gov. of The Netherlands. 1991. The potential contribution
of forestry in tropical countries to decrease atmo-
spheric carbon content. In: Proceedings of a Tropical
Workshop to Explore Options for Global Forest
Management, April 1991. Paper No. 3.4, Bangkok,
Thailand. 18 pp.
Graham, R.L., R. D. Perlack, A. M. G. Prasad, J. W.
Ranney, and D. B. Waddle. 1990. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions in Sub-Saharan Africa. U.S. Dept. Energy,
Oak Ridge Nat'l Lab, No. ORNL-6640, Tennessee.
135 pp.
Grainger, A. 1988. Estimating areas of degraded tropical
lands requiring replenishment of forest cover.
International Tree Crop J. 531-61.
Grainger, A. 1990. Strategies to control deforestation and
associated carbon emissions in the humid tropics. In:
Proceedings of the Intergovernmental Pariel on
Climate Change, Conference on Tropical Forestry
Response Options to Global Climate Change, Sao ;
Paulo, Brazil, 9-12 January 1990. US Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. pp. 105-119.
Grainger, A. 1991. Overcoming constraints on assessing
feasible afforestation and revegetation rates to combat
global climate change. In: Proceedings of a Technical
Workshop to Explore Options for Global Forest
Management, April 1991. Paper No. 4.1, Bangkok,
Thailand. 13 pp.
Greaves, A. and P. S. McCarter. 1990. Cordia alliodora: a
promising tree for tropical agroforestry. Tropical
Forestry Paper No. 22. Oxford Forestry Institute,
Oxford. 37 pp.
Gregersen, H., S. Draper, and D. Elz. 1989. People and
Trees: The role of social forestry in sustainable
development. EDI Seminar Series. World Bank,
Washington, D.C. 273 pp.
Grey, D.C. and E. O. Jacobs. 1987. The impact of harvest-
ing on forest site quality. South Africa For. J. 140:60-
66.
Grey, G.W. and F. J. Deneke. 1978. Urban Forestry. Wiley,
New York, NY. 150 pp.
Gucinski, H., C. Peterson, J. Kern, J. Baglio, D. Turner,
and D. Pross. 1991. Tlie Role of Country Carbon
Budgets in Global Climate Change Analysis, PACLIM
Symposium, Monterey, CA, March 1991. (In press).
Hall, D.O., H.E. Mynick and R.H. Williams. 1991. Cooling
the Greenhouse with Bioenergy. Nature. 353:11-12.
Hansen, A.S., T. A. Spies, F. J. Swanson, and J. L.
Ohmann. 1990. Conserving biodiversity in managed
forests. Bioscience. 41(6):382-392.
Hansen, J., G. Russell, D. Rind, P. Stone, A. Lacis, S.
Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, and L. Travis" 1983! Efficient
three-dimensional global models for climate studies:
Models I and II. Monthly Weather Review.111:609-662.
Harmon, M.E.,' W. K. Ferrell, and j. F. Franklin. 1990.
Effects on carbon storage of conversion ,of old-growth.
forests to young forests. Science. 247:699-702.
Hartshorn, G.S., R. Simeone, and J. A. Tosi. 1987. Sus-
tained yield management of tropical forests: A
synopsis of the Palcazu development project in the
Central Selva of the Peruvian Amazon. English
version of paper published in Spanish. In: Manage-
ment of the Forests of Tropical America: Prospects
and Technologies. ]. Figueroa, F. Wadsworth, and S.
Branham, ed. Institute of Tropical Forestry, Rio
Piedras, Puerto Rico. pp. 235-243.
Haugen, C. 1990. Multipurpose tree species research for
small farms: strategies and methods. Winrock
International, Arlington, VA. 211 pp.
87
-------
Heinsdijk, D. and O. R. Soares. 1962. Plantacoes de
coniferas no Brasil. Estudo peliminar sobre volumes e
rendimentos da Araucaria angustifolia, Cryptomeria
japonica, Cunninghamia lanceolata e Pinus elliottii.
Boletim No. 5. Servico Florestal do Ministerio da
Agricultura. Setor de Inventarios Florestais, Rio de
Janeiro, Brasil.
Helms, J.A., C. Hipkin, and E. B. Alexander. 1986. Effects
of soil compaction on height growth of a California
ponderosa pine plantation. Western ]. Applied Forestry
1(4):104-108.
Herbert, M.A. 1984. Variation in the growth of and
responses to fertilizing black wattle with nitrogen,
phosphorus, potassium and lime over three rotations,
in: Proceedings from the Symposium on Site and
Productivity of Fast Growing Plantations, Pretoria
and Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, April 30- May 11,
1984. D. C. Grey, A. P. G. Schonau, C. J. Schutz, and
A. Van Laar, eds. International Union of Forestry
Research Organizations, pp. 907-920.
Holbrook, J.J. 1986. Replanting St. Helens. American
Forests. May:16-19.
Holdridge, L.R. 1967. Life Zone Ecology. Tropical Science
Center, San Jose, CA.
Holowacz, J. 1985. Forests of the USSR. The Forestry
Chronicle. October:366-373.
Houghtalieg, T.W. and H. M. Gregerson. 1980. Economic
Analysis of Forestry Projects. FAO Forestry Paper
77:2. Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome,
Italy. 215 pp.
Houghton, R.A. 1990. The future role of tropical forests in
affecting the carbon dioxide concentration of the
atmosphere. Ambio. 19(4):204-209.
Houghton, R.A., R. D. Boone, J. R. Fruci, J. E. Hobbie, J.
M. Melillo, C. A. Palm, B. J. Peterson, G. R. Shaver,
and G. M. Wood well. 1987. The flux of carbon from
terrestrial ecosystems to the atmosphere in 1980 due
to changes in land use: Geographic distribution of the
global flux. Tellus. 39B:122-139.
Houghton, R.A., R. D. Boone, J. M. Melillo, C. A. Palm, G.
M. Woodwell, N. Myers, B. Moore 111, and D. K.
Skole. 1985. Net flux of carbon dioxide from tropical
forests in 1980. Nature. 316:617-620.
Houghton, R.A., J. E. Hobbie, J. M. Melillo, B. Moore, B. J.
Peterson, G. R. Shaver, and G. M. Woodwell. 1983.
Changes in the carbon content of terrestrial biota and
soils between 1860 and 1980: A net release of CO, to
the atmosphere. Ecol. Monogr. 53:235-262.
Houghton, R.A.J. Unruh, and P. A. Lefebvre. 1991.
Current land use in the tropics and its potential for
sequestering carbon. In: Proceedings of a Technical
Workshop to Explore Options for Global Forest
Management, April 1991. Bangkok, Thailand. 33 pp.
Hughell, D. 1990. Modelos para la prediccion del
crecimiento y endimiento de Eucalyptus
camaldulensis, Gliricidia sepium, Guazuma ulmifolia
y Leucaena leucocephala en America Central. In:
Serie Tecnica, Boletin Tecnico No. 22. Proyecto
MADELENA, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica. 58 pp.
Hughes, J.H. 1991. A brief history of forest management
in the American South: Implications for large-scale
reforestation to slow global warming. ln:Proceedings
of the International Workshop on Large-Scale
Reforestation. J. K. Winjum, P. E. Schroeder, and M. J.
Kenady, eds. USEPA, No. EPA/600/9-91/014,
Washington, D.C. pp. 53-68.
Hunter, I.R. 1991. Reforestation in New Zealand. In:
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Large-
Scale Reforestation. J. K. Winjum, P. E. Schroeder,
and M. J. Kenady, eds. USEPA, No. EPA/600/9-91/
014, Washington, D.C. pp. 41-52.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1990.
Climate Change, The IPCC Scientific Assessment.
Working Croup 1 Report. WMO and UNEP. Univ.
Press, Cambridge, UK. 365 pp.
International Council for Research in Agroforestry
(ICRAF). 1988. Agroforestry project in Haiti reaches
80,000 farmers. ICRAF Agroforestry Review. 24/
October:16.
International Dev. Research Center (1DRC). 1983.
Leucaena Research in the Asian-Pacific Region:
Proceedings of a Workshop in Singapore, Malaysia.
Nov. 1982. IDRC, Ottawa, Ont., Canada 192 pp.
International Monetary Fund (IMF). 1990. International
Financial Statistics Yearbook. Vol. XLIII. 775 pp.
International Monetary Fund (IMF). 1991. International
Financial Statistics Yearbook. Vol. XLIV. 602 pp.
International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). 1990.
The promotion of sustainable forest management: a
case study in Sarawak, Malaysia. Report of an
international mission. 206 pp.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources (IUCNNR). 1986. Managing
protected areas in the tropics. IUCNNR, Gland,
Switzerland. 295 pp.
Islas Gutierrez, F. 1985. Marco de referenda del proyecto
manejo de bosques naturales. In: Boletin Tecnico
Instituto Nacional de Inestigaciones Forestalcs No.
105. Secretaria de Agricultura Y Recursos
Hidraulicos, Mexico, DF. 69 pp.
88
-------
Jain, R.K., K. Paliwal, R. K. Dixon, and D.„H- Gjerstad.
1989. Improving productivity of multipurpose trees
growing on substandard soils in India. ]. For. 87:38-
42.
Jelvez, A., K. A. Blatner, R. L.Govett, and P. H.
Steinhagen. 1989. Chile's evolving forest products
industry. Part 1. Its role in international markets.
Forest Products. 39(10):63-67.
Jenkinson, D.S. 1971. The Accumulation of Organic Matter
in Soil Left Uncultivated. In: Rothamsted Experimen-
tal Station: Report for 1970, part 2. Rothamsted >
Experimental Station, Harpenden-Herts, UK. pp.
113-137.
Jenkinson, D.S. and J. H. Rayner. 1977- The turnover of
soil organic matter in some of the.Rothamsted
classical experiments. Soil Science. 123(5):298-305.
Jinchang, L., K. Fan wen, H. Naihui/and L. Ross. 1988.
Price and policy: the keys to revamping China's
forestry resources. In: Public policies and the misuse
,of forest resources. R. Repettoand M. Gillis, eds.
World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. pp. 205-
245.
Johnson, M.G. and J. S. Kern. 1991. Sequestering carbon in
soils:.A workshop to explore the potential for
mitigating global climate change. EPA/600/3-91/031.
USEPA, Environmental Research Laboratory,-
Corvallis, OR. 85 pp.
Jones, L.S., O. E. Anderson, and S. V. Stacy. 1966. Some
effects of,sod-based rotations upon soil properties: In:
Bulletin 166. Georgia Ag. Experiment Station, Athens,
GA. - pp. 5-22.
Keeling, C.D., R. B. Bacastow, A. F. Carter, S. C. Piper, T.
P. Whorf, M. Heimann, W. G/Mook, and H.
Roeloffzen. 1989. A three-dimensional model of
atmospheric C02 transport based on observed winds:
Analysis of observational data. Ceopkys. Monogr.
55:165-236!''
Kellomaki, S., H. Hanninen, and T. Kolstrom. 1988.
Model computations on the impacts of the climatic
change on the productivity and silvicultural manage-
ment of the forest ecosystem. Siha Fennica. ,22(4):293-
305.
Khosla, P.K. and P. Kaushal. 1990. Status of agroforestry
research in south Asia. In: Proceedings of 1UFRO XIX
World Congress, Montreal, Canada, August, 1990.
IUFRO, Montreal, Canada, pp. 326-337.
King,' A.W., D.L. DeAngealis, and W.M; Post. 1987. the
seasonal exchange of carbon dioxide between the,
atmoshphere and the terrestrial biosphere: extrapola-
tion from site-specific models to regional models.
Publication 2988, Environmental Sciences Division,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
King, G.A., J. K. Winjum, R. K- Dixon, and L. Y. Arnaut.
eds. 1990. Response and feedbacks of forest systems
to global climate change: US Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, EPA/600/3-90/080. Washington, D.C.
156 pp.
Kissin, 1.1950. Crescimento e producao do pinheiro
brasileiro. Annuario Brasileiro de Economia Florestal.
3:429-477.
Kloot, N.H. and E. Bolza. 1961. Properties of timbers
imported into Australia. In: Technological Paper No.
12. Division of Forest Products, Commonwealth Sci.
and Ind. Res. Org. (CSIRO), Melbourne, Australia. 79 '
PP-
Kulp, J.L. 1990. The photosystem as a sink for carbon
dioxide. EN-6786 Research Project 8011-3. Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. 19 pp.
Lamb, A.F.A. 1973. Pinus caribaea (Vol. 1). Fast growing
timber trees of the lowland tropics, No. 6. University
of Oxford, Commonwealth Forestry Institute, Oxford,
UK. 254 pp.
Lashof, D. A. and D. A. Tirpak. 1989. Policy Options for
Stabilizing Global Climate. Draft Report to Congress.
US EPA, Office of Policy, Planning and: Evaluation,
Washington, D.C. 91 pp.
Laurent, D. 1990. Productivity of forest stands in Africa
and identification of potentially forestable lands.
Unpublished Report. Centre Technique Forestier
Tropicale, Nogent-sur-Marne, France. 8 pp.
Lee, B. 1991. Highlights of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990. J. Air and Waste Management Assoc. 41(1):16-
19-
Leemans, R. 1990. Possible changes in natural vegetation
patterns due to a global warming. Publication No.
108. International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis A-2361, Laxenburg, Austria. 13 pp.
LeTacon, F. and J. L. Harley. 1990. Deforestation in the
tropics and proposals to arrest it. Ambio. 19(8):372-
378.
Li, Y.Q. 1990. Brief account of research on forest fertiliza-
tion in China. In: Proceedings of the First Interna-
tional Symposium on Forest Soils. B.Q. Lin, ed.
Publishing House of Northeast Forestry University,
Harbin, China, pp. 154-157.
"n >
Little, E.L. 1983. Common Fuelwood crops. Communi-
Tech Associates, Morgantown, WV. 354 pp.
89
-------
Little, E.L. and F. H. Wadsworth. 1964. Common Trees of
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. US Dept of
Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No. 249, Wash-
ington, D.C. 548 pp.
Liu, S.P., Y. Chang, Z. X. Zhu, J. D. Nan, P. S. Dei, Z. C.
Li, G. W. Gao, and S. L. Chen. 1990. A study on
growing laws of planting Poplus Euramericana cv "1-
214" and its responses to fertilizer application. In:
Proceedings of the First International Symposium on
Forest Soils. B.Q. Lin, ed. Publishing House of
Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, China, pp.
137-142.
Long, A. and N. Johnson. 1981. Forest plantations in
Kalimantan, Indonesia. In: Tropical Forests: Utiliza-
tion and Conservation. F. Mergen, ed. Yale School of
Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT.
Longwood, F.R. 1964. Present and Potential Commercial
Timbers of the Caribbean. US Dept of Agriculture,
Agriculture Handbook No. 202, Washington, D.C.
167 pp.
Lyons, G.S. and J. M Vasievich. 1986. Economic analysis
of short rotation forests for energy in Ireland. In:
TIMS, Studies in the Management Sciences. Elsevier
Sci. Pub., Ltd., Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 311-
323.
MacDicken, K.G. and N.T. Vergara. 1990. Agroforestry:
Classification and Management. Wiley, New York,
NY. 382 pp.
MacKinnon, J., K. MacKinnon, G. Child and J. Thorsell,
eds. 1986. Managing protected areas in the tropics.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland. 295 pp.
Maini, J.S. 1991. Towards an international instrument of
forests sustainable development and the Canadian
forest sector. In: Proceedings of a Tropical Workshop
to Explore Options for Global Forest Management,
April 1991. Paper No. 4.2, Bangkok, Thailand. 4 pp.
Marland, G. 1989. The role of forests in addressing the
CO, greenhouse. In: Global climate change linkages:
acid rain, air quality and stratospheric ozone. J. C.
White, ed. Elsevier Sci. Publ., Ltd., Dordrecht, The
Netherlands.
Mather, A.S. 1990. Global Forest Resources. Timber Press,
Portland, OR. 341 pp.
Matthews, E. 1983. Global vegetation and land use: New
high-resolution data base for climate studies. ].
Climate Appl. Meteorol. 22:474-487.
Mazurski, K.R. 1990. Industrial pollution: The threat to
Polish Forests. Ambio. l9(2):70-74.
McGaughey, S.E. and H. M. Gregerson. 1988. Investment
policies and financing mechanism for sustainable
forestry development. InterAmerican Bank, Washing-
ton, D.C. 126 pp.
Meganck, R. and J. M. Goebel. 1989. Building bridges of
understanding about the tropics. /. of Environmental
Interpretation 13(4):8-15.
Meskimen, G. 1983. Realized gain from breeding Euca-
lyptus grandis in Florida. In: Proceedings of a
Workshop on Eucalyptus in California. June 1983.
General Technical Report PSW-69. R.B. Standiford
and F. T. Ledig, eds. Pacific Southwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, pp.
121-128.
Miller, K.R. 1978. Planning national parks for
ecodevelopment: methods and cases from Latin
America. Ctr for Strat. Mgmnt Studies, School of Nat.
Res., Univ, of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 625 pp.
Miller, R.E., D. L. Reukema, and R. L. Williamson. 1979.
Response to fertilization in thinned and unthinned
Douglas-fir stands. In: Proceedings from the 1979
Forest Fertilization Conference, Union, Washington.
Inst. For. Res., USFS, BC Min. of For., Union, WA.
pp. 150-157.
Malcolm, D.C. 1991. Afforestation in Britain—A commen-
tary. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop
on Large Scale Reforestation. J. K. Winjum, P. E.
Schroeder, and M.J. Kenady, eds. USEPA, No. EPA/
600/9-91/014, Washington, D.C. pp. 69-80.
Manabe, S. and R. T. Wetherald. 1987. Large-scale changes
in soil wetness induced by an increase in carbon
dioxide. /. Atmos. Science. 44:1211-1235.
Mann, L.K. 1986. Changes in soil carbon after cultivation.
Soil Science. 142:279-288.
Marland, G. 1988. The prospect of solving the C02
problem through global reforestation. U.S. Dept. of
Energy, Office of Energy Research, DOE/NBB-0082,
Washington, D.C. 66 pp.
Ministry of Forestry, 1989. Statistics of Forest Resources
in China. Ministry of Forestry, Beijing, Peoples
Republic of China. 190 pp.
Mitchell, J.F.B., C. A. Senior, and W. J. Ingram. 1989. CO;
and climate: A missing feedback? Nature. 341:132-
134.
Mooney, H.A., B. G. Eh-ake, R. J. Luxmoore, W. C. Oechel,
and L. F. Pitelka. 1991. Predicting ecosystem response
to elevated C02 concentrations. BioScience. 41:96-104.
Mooney, H.A., P. M. Vitousek, and P. A. Matson. 1987.
Exchange of materials between terrestrial ecosystems
and the atmosphere. Science. 238:926-932.
90
-------
Morriingstar, O R. 1989. Reforestation and agroforestry -
communityforestry within the permanent forest estate
in Sarawak. In: Proceedings of a Workshop held in
Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia, 6 December, 1989. A. A.
Nuniddin, K. Awahg, and Z. Emby/eds. Faculty of
Forestry, Universiti Pertanian Malaysia, Selangor,
Malaysia, pp. 41-67.
Moulton, R.J: and K. R. Richards. 1990. Costs of sequester-
ing carbon through tree planting and forest manage-
ment in the United States; Tables i and 9. USDA
Forest Service General Technical Report WO-58. 48
PP-
Myers, N. 1986a, Tree-crop based agroecosystems in Java.
Forest Ecology and Management. 17:1-11.
Myers, N. 1986b. Tropical Forests and their Species:
Going, Going...? In: Biodiversity. E. O. Wilson, ed:
National Academy-Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 28-
35.
Myers, N. 1989. Deforestation Rates in Tropical Forests
and Their Climatic Implications. Friends of the Earth,
London, UK. 116 pp.
National Academy Sciences (NAS). 1980. Firewood Crops,
Shrub and Tree Species for Energy Production. U.S.
Nat. Acad. Sci., Washington, D.C 236 pp.
National Academy of Science (NAS). 1991. Policy Implica-
tions of Greenhouse Warming. U.S. National Acad-
emy Press, Washington, D.C. 127 pp.
National Forest Land Management Division. 1984. The
Village Woodlot: Its Implementation in Thailand.
Royal ForestDepartment, Ministry of Agriculture and
Cooperatives; Bangkok,Thailand. 166 pp.
National Research Council (NRC) Advisory Committee
on Technology Information, 1983. Mangium and
Other Fast-Growing Acacias for the Humid Tropics.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 62 pp.
Navarro Pereira, CM. 1987. Evaluation del crecimiento y
rendimiento de Bombacopsis quinatum (Jacq)
Dugand en 14 sitios en Costa Rica: Indices de sitio y
algunos aspectos finacieros de la especie. M.S. Thesis.
Programa de Recursos Naturales Renovables, CAT1E,
Turrialba, Costa Rica. 93 pp.
Neilson, R.P. and G. A. King. 1991. Continental scale
" biome responses to climatic change.' In;- Proceedings1
of International Symposium: Ecological Indicators.
October 16-19; 1990. Ft. Lauderdale, FL. D.
McKenzie, E. Hyatt, arid J. MacDonald, eds. Elsevier
Sci. Publ., Ltd.; Dordrecht, The Netherlands. (In
press).
Neilson, R.P., G. A. Kinjg, and G. Koerper. 1991. Towards
a rule-based biome model. Landscape Ecology. (In
press)
Noordwijk Ministerial Conference, 1989. The Noordwijk
Declaration on Climate Change. Ministerial Conf. on
Atmospheric Pollution and Climate Change, Noord-
wijk, lite Netherlands. 15 pp.
Norby,-R.J., E.! G. O'Neill, and R. J. Luxmoore. 1986a.
Effects of atmospheric CO, enrichment on the growth
and mineral nutrition of Quercus alba seedlings in
nutrient-poor soil. Plant Physiol. 82:83-89.
Norby, R.J:, J. Pastor, and J. M. Melillo. 1986b. Carbon-
nitrogen interactions in COa-enriched:white oak:
Physiological and long-term perspectives. Tree
Physiol. 2:233-241.
Norse, E-A. 1990. Ancient Forests of the Pacific North-
west. The Wilderness Society, Washington, D:C.
Island Press, Coveld, CA. 327 pp.
Nwoboshi, L.C. 1987fRegeneration success of natural
management, enrichment planting and'plantations of
native species in West Africa: In: Natural Manage-
ment of Tropical Moist Forests: Silvicultural and
Management Prospects of Sustained Utilization. F.
Mergen and}. R. Vincent, eds. Yale University, School
of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven,
CT. 212. pp.71-91.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1984, Technolo-
gies to Maintaiin Biological Diversity. OTA Congress'
of the U.S., Washington, D.C. 344 pp.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1991. Changing
by Degrees/Steps to Reduce Greenhouse Gases. OTA
Congress of the U.S., No. OTA-O-482, Washington,
D.C. 356 pp.
Olson, J.S., J. A. Watts, and L. J. Allison. 1983. Carbon in
live vegetation of major world ecosystems. ORNL-
5862, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
180 pp.
Oregon Dept. Energy. 1991. Fourth Biennial Energy Plan.
Oregon Dept. Energy, Salem, OR. 177 pp.
Owstoiy P.W. and T. C. Turpin. 1991. Operational
considerations for large-scale reforestation programs:
A Pacific Northwest perspective. In: Proceedings of
the International Workshop on Large-Scale Refores-
tation. J: K. Winjum, P.E. Schroeder, and M. J.
Kenady, eds. USEPA, No. EPA/600/9-91/014,
Washington, D.C. pp:l-10.
Palm, C.A., R. A. Houghton, J. M. Melillo, and D. L.
Skole. 1986. Atmospheric, carbon dioxide from
deforestation in southeast Asia. Biotropica. 18:177-188.
Pandey, D. 1983. Growth and yield of plantation species
in the tropics. Forest Resources Division, Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the U.N., Rome,
Italy. 115 pp.
91
-------
Panshin, A.J., C. de Zeeuw, and H. P. Brown. 1964.
Textbook of Wood Technology. McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY. 643 pp.
Pathak, P.S. 1987. Leucaena leucocephala based produc-
tion system for the wastelands in social forestry. In:
Social Forestry for Rural Development. P. K. Khosla
and P. K. Kohli, eds. Indian Society of Tree Scientists,
Solan, India, pp. 86-95.
Peer, R.L., D. L. Campbell, and W. G. Hohenstein. 1991.
Global Warming Mitigation Potential of Three Tree
Plantation Scenarios. In: EPA Contract Number 68-
02-4266, Work Assignment Nos. 97 and 112. USEPA,
Office of Research and Development, Washington,
D.C. 60 pp.
Peltier, R. and O. Eyog-Matig. 1988. Les essais
d'agroforesterie au nord-cameroun. Revue Bois et
Forets des Tropiques, No. 217. Centre Technique
Forestier Tropicale, Nogen-sur-Marne, France. 32 pp.
Perlin, ]. 1989. A Forest Journey, the Role of Wood in the
Development of Civilization, Norton, New York, NY
445 pp.
Perry, T.O. 1964. Soil compaction and loblolly pine
growth. Tree Planters' Notes. 67:9.
Peters, C.M., A. H. Gentry, and R. O. Mendelsohn. 1989.
Valuation of an Amazonian rainforest. Nature.
339:655-656.
Petrov, A.P. 1989. Management and Organization of
Forest Industries and Forestry in the USSR. Univer-
sity of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. 1
pp.
Pisarenko, A.l. 1989. Status and perspectives of reforesta-
tion. Forest Management. 7:2-6.
Poore, M., P. Burgess, J. Palmer, S. Rietbergen, and T.
Synott. 1990. No Timber Without Trees: Sustainability
in the Tropical Forest. Earthscan Press, London, UK.
252 pp.
Post, W.M., W. R. Emanuel, P. J. Zinke, and A. G.
Stangenberger. 1982. Soil carbon pools and world life
zones. Nature. 296:156-159.
Postel, S. and L. Heuse. 1988. Reforesting the Earth.
Worldwatch Paper 83. Worldwatch Institute, Wash-
ington, D.C. 66 pp.
Pound, B. and L. M. Cairo. 1983. Leucaena: Ifs cultivation
and uses. Overseas Development Administration,
London, UK.
Powers, R.F. 1989. Maintaining long-term forest produc-
tivity in the Pacific Northwest: Defining the issues,
Perry, D.A. et al., eds. TimberPress, Inc., Portland OR.
pp 3-16.
Prajapati, K.P. 1987. Reviews of research in Nepal. In:
Trees on Small Farms: Multi-purpose Trees for Arid
and Semi-Arid Tropics. D. A. Taylor and L. Medina,
eds. Winrock International, Arlington, VA. pp. 78-80.
Ranney, J., L. Wright, and P. Layton. 1987. Hardwood
energy crops: The technology of intensive culture. J.
For.. 85:17-28.
Rasmussen, P.E. and C. R. Rohde. 1988. Long-term tillage
and nitrogen fertilization effects on organic nitrogen
and carbon in a semiarid soil. /. Soil Science Society of
America 52:1114-1117.
Rasmussen, P.E. and R. W. Smiley. 1989. Long-Term
Management Effects on Soil Productivity and Crop
Yield in Semi-Arid Regions of Eastern Oregon.
Columbia Basin Agricultural Research Center Bulletin
675, Pendleton, OR. 57 pp.
Reid, W.V. and K. R. Miller. 1989. Keeping options alive:
The scientific basis for conserving biodiversity. World
Resource Institute, Washington, D.C. 128 pp.
Repetto, R. and M. Gillis. 1988. Public Policies and the
Misuse of Forest Resources. World Resources
Institute, Wash., D.C. 432 pp.
Revilla, A.V. 1983. Wood-yield prediction models for
Leucaena in the Philippines. In: Leucaena Research in
the Asian-Pacific Region: Proceedings of a Workshop
held in Singapore, Nov. 1982. IDRC, Ottawa, Ont.,
Canada, pp. 99-102.
Richardson, S.D. 1990, Forests and Forestry in China.
Island Press, Washington, D.C. 352 pp.
Ross-Sheriff, B. and P. Cough. 1990. Tropical forestry
response options workshop. In: Proceedings of the
Conference on Tropical Forestry Response Options to
Global Climate Change, Jan. 1990, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Office of Policy Analysis, USEPA, No. 20P-20C3,
Washington, D.C. pp. 338-355.
Row, C. 1978. Economics of track size in timber growing.
Jour. Forestry. 76:576-582.
Row, C. and R.B. Phelps. 1990a. The carbon cycle impacts
of improving forestry products utilization and
recycling. In: Proceedings, North American Confer-
ence on Forestry Responses to Climate Change, May
15-17,1990. The Climate Institute, Washington, D.C.
Row, C. and R. B. Phelps. 1990b. Tracing the flow of
carbon through U.S. forest product sector. In: 19th
World Congress, 5-11 August 1990, Montreal,
Canada. International Union of Forestry Research
Organization.
Rubin, S.M. 1987. Guide to debt equity swaps. In: The
Economist. London, UK. 84 pp.
92
-------
Sahunalu, P. and W. Hoamuangkaew. 1986. Agroforestry
in .Thailand: present condition and problems. In:
Comparative Studies on the Utilization and Conser-
vation of the Natural Environment by Agroforestry
Systems. Report on joint research among Indonesia,
Thailand and ]apan supported by Toyota, Kyoto
University, Japan, pp. 66-91.
Sanchez, P.A. 1990. Deforestation reduction initiative: an
imperative for world sustainability in the twenty-first
century. In:. Soils and the Greenhouse Effect. A. F.
Bouwmari, ed. Wiley, New York, NY. pp. 375-382.
Sanchez, P.A. and J. R. Benites. 1987. Low-input cropping
for acid soils of the humid tropics. Science. 238:1521-
1527.
Sander, I.L., P: S. Johnson, and R. F. Watt. 1976. A guide
for evaluating the adequacy of oak advance reproduc-
tion. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-23. North
Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, MN. 7 pp.
Sargent, C. 1991. Options for the coordination of interna-
tional action on forest conservation and management.
In: Proceedings of a Tropical Workshop to Explore
Options for Global Forest Management, April 1991.
Paper No. 3.9, Bangkok, Thailand. 2 pp.
Savill, P.S. and J. Evans. 1986. Plantation Silviculture in
Temperate Regions with special reference to the
British Isles. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. 246 pp.
Schiffman, P. and C. Johnson. 1989. Phytomass and
detrital carbon storage driving forest regrowth in the
southeastern U.S. piedmont. Can. j. For. Res. 19:69-78.
Schlesinger, M.E. and J. F. B. Mitchell. 1985. Model
projections of the equilibrium climatic response to
increased carbon dioxide. In: Projecting the Climatic
Effects of Increasing Carbon Dioxide. M. D.
MacCracken and F. Kl. Luther, eds. DOE/ER-0237,
US Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
pp. 81-147.
Schlesinger, M.E. and Z. C. Zhao. 1989. Seasonal climatic
change introduced by doubled CO, as simulated by
the OSU atmospheric CCM/mixed-layer ocean
model. J. Climate: 2:429-495.
Schlesinger, W.H. 1984. Soil Organic Matter: a Source of
Atmospheric COr In: The Role of Terrestrial Vegeta-
tion in the Global Carbon Cycle: Measurement by
Remote Sensing. G. M. Woodwell, ed. Wiley, New
York, NY. pp. 111-127.
Schneider, S.H. 1989a. The changing climate. Sci. Amer.
261{3):70-79.
Schneider, S.H. 1989b. Global Warming: Are We Entering
the Greenhouse Century? Sierra Club, San Francisco.
317 pp.
Schonau, A.P.G. 1984. Fertilization of fast-growing
broadleaved species. In: Proceedings from the
Symposium on Site and Productivity of Fast-Growing
Plantations, Pretoria and Pietermaritzburg, South
Africa, April 30- May 11,1984. D. C. Grey, A. P. G.
Schonau, C. J. Schutz, and A. Van Laar, eds. Interna-
tional Union of Forestry Research Organizations, pp.
253-268.
Schonau, A.P.G. and j. A. Stubbings, eds. 1983. In:
Proceedings Symposium "Forestry Quo Vadis?" 23
June 1983/ISBN 0 620 067675. The Southern African
Institute of Foresby, Pietermaritzburg, S. Africa. 163
PP-
Schreuder, G.F., A. A. A. de Barros, and D. A. Hill. 199,0.
The global supply and cost price structure of Euca-
.lyptus (unpub. paper). CINTRAFOR, University of
Washington, Seattle, WA. pp. 29.
Schroeder, P.E. 1991. Carbon storage potential of short
rotation tropical tree plantations. Forest Ecology and
Management. (In press).
Schroeder, P.E. and L. Ladd. 1991. Slowing the increase of
atmospheric carbon dioxide: a biological approach.
Climatic Change. (In press).
Schwartzman, S. 1989. Extractive reserves: The rubber
tappers strategy for sustainable use of the Amazon
rainforest. In: Fragile Lands of Latin America. J. O.
Browder, ed. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. pp. 150-
165.
Sedjo, R. 1983. The comparative economics of plantation
forestry: a global assessment. Resources for the
Future. Washington,D.C. 161 pp.
Sedjo, R. 1989a. Forests to offset the greenhouse effect. /.
For. 87(7):12-15.
Sedjo, R. 1989b. Forests: a tool to moderate global warm-
ing? Environment. 31:14-20.,
Sedjo, R.A. and K. S. Lyon. 1990. The Long-Term Ad-
equacy of World Timber Supply. Resources for the
Future. Washington, D.C. 230 pp.
Sedjo, R.A. 1991. Forest ecosystems in the global carbon
cycle. Presented at the annual meeting of the Ameri-
can Association for the Advancement of Science,
February 17,1991, Washington, D.C.
Sedjo, R.A. and A. M. Solomon. 1991. Climate and forests.
In: Greenhouse Warming: Abatement and Adapta-
tion. Proceedings for the Workshop, Washington,
D.C. N. S. Rosenberg, W. E. Easterling, P. R. Crosson,
and J. Dormstadter, eds. Resources for the Future.
Washington, D.C. pp. 105-119.
Serrao, E_A. 1990. Pasture development and carbon
emission/accumulation in the Amazon. In: Proceed-
93
-------
ings of the Conference on Tropical Forestry Response
Options to Global Climate Change. SAO Paulo,
Brazil, Jan. 1990. US EPA, No. 20P-2003. Washington,
D.C. 211 pp.
Serrao, E.A. and J. M. Toledo. 1990. The search for
sustainability in Amazonian pastures. In: Alterna-
tives to Deforestation: Steps Toward Sustainable Use
of the Amazon Rain Forest. A. B. Anderson, ed.
Columbia University Press, New York, NY. pp. 195-
214.
Shair, F.H. 1991. Pit/alls of the expert. American Scientist.
79:186.
Shankarnarayan, K.A., L. N. Harsh, and S. Kathju. 1989.
Agroforestry in the arid zones of India. In: Agrofor-
estry Systems in the Tropics. P Nair, K.R., ed. KJuwer
Academic Publishers, London, UK. pp. 99-120.
Sharma, R.N., H. L. Sharma, and H. S. Garcha. 1989.
Fuelwood from Wasteland. Bioenergy Society of
India, New Delhi, India. 486 pp.
Sheikh, M.I. 1987. Reviews of research in Pakistan on
Acacia, Dalbergia, Eucalyptus and Azadirachta. In:
Trees on Small Farms: Multi-purpose trees for Arid
and Semi-Arid Tropics. D.A. Taylor and L. Medina,
eds. Winrock International, Arlington, VA. pp. 51-59.
Shepard, G., E. Shanks, and M. Hobley. 1991. National
experiences in managing tropical and subtropical dry
forests. In: Proceedings of a Tropical Workshop to
Explore Options for Global Forest Management, April
1991. Paper No. 3.10, Bangkok, Thailand. 68 pp.
Shinde, D.A. and A. B. Ghosh. 1971. Effect of continuous
cropping and manuring on crop yield and character-
istics of a medium black soil. Proc. Int. Symp. Soil
Fert. Eval (New Delhi) 1:905-916.
Shirley, J.W. 1984. Average yield of Radiata pine in New
Zealand State Forests. New Zealand ]. Forestry.
29(1 ):143-144.
Shula, R.G. 1989. The upper limits of Radiata pine stem-
volume in NZ. New Zealand ]. Forestry. 34(2):19-22.
Smith, D.M. 1962. The Practice of Silviculture. Wiley,
New York, NY. 578 pp.
Smith, J.B. and D. Tirpak, eds. 1989. The Potential Effects
of Global Climate Change on the United States.
Report to Congress. EPA-230-05-89-050, USEPA,
Washington, D.C. 413 pp.
Smith, T.M., H.H. Shugart, G.B. Bonan, and J.B. Smith.
1991. Modeling the potential response of vegetation to
global climate change. Advances in Ecological
Research. (In press).
94
Society, American Foresters (SAF). 1984. Forestry Hand-
book. Soc. Amer. Foresters, Wiley, New York, NY.
1335 pp.
South Africa Dept. Forestry (S.A.D.F.). 1984. The Forestry
Industry in South Africa. The Directorate of Forestry
of the Dept of Env. Affairs/ISBN 0621 08 50 57,
Private Bag X447, Pretoria 0001, S. Africa. 37 pp.
South African Institute Forestry (SFIF). 1984. Excursion
Guide for Symposium on Site and Productivity of
Fast Growing Plantations. South African Institute of
Forestry, Pietermaritzburg, S. Africa. 184 pp.
Souvannavong, 0.1990. Recherches sur Acacia mangium
espece de plantation d'avenir en zones tropicales
humides d'afrique centTale et occidentale. In: Pro-
ceedings of IUFRO XIX World CongTess, Montreal,
Canada, August, 1990. International Union of Forest
Research Organizations, Montreal, Canada, pp. 79-91.
Spears, J.B. 1983. Replenishing the world's forests:
Tropical reforestation: An achievable goal?
Commonw. For. Rev. 62(3):201-219.
Standiford, R.B. and F. T. Ledig, eds. 1983. Proceedings of
a Workshop on Eucalyptus in California, June 14-16,
1983, Sacramento, California. General Technical
Report PSW-69. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA. 128 pp.
Stewart, R., H. Froehlich, and E. Olsen. 1988. Soil compac-
tion: An economic model. Western ]. Applied Forestry
3(l):20-22.
Swisher, J.N. 1991. Cost and performance of C02 storage
in forestry projects. In: Proceedings of a Tropical
Workshop to Explore Options for Global Forest
Management, April 1991. Paper No. 3.2, Bangkok,
Thailand. 13 pp.
Tacio, H.D. 1991. The SALT system: agroforestry for
sloping lands. Agroforestry Today. 3(1 ):12-13.
Tai, X.Y. 1983. Promotion of giant Leucaena in Eastern
and Southern Taiwan. In: Leucaena Research in the
Asian-Pacific Region: Proceedings of a Workshop
held in Singapore, Nov. 1982. IDRC, Ottawa, Canada
pp. 145-148.
Talbert, J.T., R. J. Weir, and R. D. Arnold. 1985. Costs and
Benefits of a mature first-generation Loblolly pine
tree improvement program. ]. For. 83(3):] 62-166.
Tans, P.P., I. Y. Fung, and T. Takahashi. 1990. Observa-
tional constraints on the global atmospheric COj
budget. Science. 247:1431-1438.
Tarrant, R.F. 1972. The role of Alder in improving soil
fertility and growth of associated trees. In: Proceed-
ings on Managing Young Forests in the Douglas-Fir
Region, June 1970. A. B. Berg, ed. Oregon State
-------
University, School of Forestry, Paper 734, Corvallis,
Oregon, pp. 17-34.
Tarrant, R.F. and R. E. Miller. 1963. Accumulation of
organic matter and soil nitrogen beneath a plantation
of red alder and Douglas fir. Soil Sci. See. ]. 27:231-
234.
Taylor, D.A. and L. Medema, eds. 1987. Trees on Small
Farms: Multipurpose Tree Species Research for the
Arid and Semi-Arid Tropics. In: Proceedings of the
Network Workshop of the Forestry/Fuelwood
Research and'Develbpment (F/Fred) Project, Novem-
ber 1987; Karachi, Pakistan. Winrock International
Inst. Agri. Development and US AID, Washington,
D.C. 112 pp.
Tejwani, K.G. 1987. Agroforestry Practices and Research
in India, pp. 109-136. In: Agroforestry: Realities,
possibilities, and potentials. H. Gholz, ed. Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers, Boston, MA. 227 pp
Terry, T.A. and J. H. Hughes. 1975. The effects of intensive
management on planted Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda
L.) growth on poorly drained soils of the Atlantic
coastal plain! In: Forest Soils and Forest Land
Management, Proceedings of the Fourth North
American'Forest Soils Conference, Laval University,
Quebec, Canada. August 1973. B. Bernier and C. H.
Winget. eds. Les Presses De L'Universite Laval,
Quebec,, Canada^ pp. 351-377.
Tho, Y.P. 1985. Forest protection against pests and
diseases. In: Increasing Productivity of Multipurpose
Species, j. Burley and J. L. Stewart, eds. International
Union for Forest Research Organizations, pp. 353-
370.
Tho, Y.P. 1991, Tropical moist forests - facts and issues. In:
Proceedings for the Technical Workshop to Explore
Options for Global Forest Management. Bangkok,
Thailand. (In press).
Thomson, J.H. and S. A. Neustein. 1973. An experiment in
intensive cultivation of an upland heath. Scott. For.
27:211-221'.
Thorsell, J.W. 1990. Research in tropical protected areas:
some guidelines for managers. Environmental Conser-
vation. I7(l):i4-18.
Tibbits, W.N. 1986. Eucalypt plantations in Tasmania.
Austfor. 49(4)219-225.
Timber Research and Development Association (TRADA).
1980. Timbers of the'World, Vol. 2. Pitman Press,
Bath„UK. 449 pp.
Transegaard, J; 1989. Summary of cost estimates of
afforestation; Food and Agriculture Organizations
(FAO),Rohie'; Italy. 110 pp.
Trexler, M.C. 1991a. Agroforestry in Guatemala: Mitigat-
ing global warming through social forestry. In:
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Large-
Scale Reforestation. J.K. Winjum, P.E. Schroeder, and
M.J. Kenady, eds. No^EPA/600/9-91/014. USEPA.
Washington, D.C. pp.,87-92.
Trexler, M.C 1991b. Estimating tropical biomass futures:
A tentative scenario. In: Proceedings of a Tropical
Workshop to Explore Options for Global Forest
Management, April 1991. Paper No. 4.6, Bangkok,
Thailand;. 13 pp.
Trexler, M.C. 1991c:Minding the,Carbon Store: Weighing
U.S. Forestry Strategies to Slow Global Warming.
World Resources Institute, Washington; D.C. 81 pp.
' Trexler, M-C. and P. E. Faeth. 1977. Can. we conhrol the
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Energy. 2:3.
Trexler, M.C., P. F. Faeth, and J. M. Kramer. 1989. Forestry
as a Response to Global Warming: An Analysis of the
Guatemala Agroforestry and Carbon Sequestration
Project. World Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
50 pp.
Tucker, C.J., I.Y. Fung, C.D. Keeling, and R.H. Gammon.
1986. Relationship between atmospheric CO, varia-
tions and a satellite-derived vegetation index. Nature.
319:195-199.
Turner, J. 1982: Long term superphosphate trial in
regeneration of Pinus radiata at Belangjo State Forest.
N.S.W. /4«sf. For. Jles. I2:lr9.
Turner, J. and S. P. Gessel. 1991. Forest productivity in the
southern hemisphere with particular emphasis on
managed forests: In: 7th North American.Forest Soils
Conference. Gessel, S.P. et al., University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. pp. 23-39.
Turner, J. and M.J. Lambert. 1986. Nutrition and nutri-
tional relationships of Pinus radiata. Anrt. Rev. Ecol.
Sysf. 17-325-350.
UN Conference of Environmental and Development. 1991.
Second Session, Preparatory Committee for the
UNCED Meeting in Brazil, 1992. Land Resources:
Deforestation. A/CONF.151/PC/WG.I/L.18/REV.1,
April 4,1991.
US Dept. Commerce. 1990. Producer Price Indexes-.,
Percent Change in Major Commodity Groups: 1970 to
1988 (lumber and wood products commodity group).
In: Statistical Abstract of the United States. Bureau of
the Census US Department of Commerce, ed. US
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. pp.
500.
US Dept. Labor. 1989. Table 6 (lumber and wood products
commodity group). In: Producer Price Indexes Data
95
-------
for January 1989. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department Labor, ed. Washington, D.C. 211 pp.
US Dept. Labor. 1990. Table 6 (lumber and wood products
commodity group). In: Producer Price Indexes Data
for January 1990. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department Labor, ed. Washington, D.C. 210 pp.
US Dept. Labor. 1991. Table 6 [lumber and wood products
commodity group]. In: Producer Price Indexes Data
for January 1991. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department of Labor, ed. Washington, D.C. 206 pp.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990.
Tropical Forestry Response Options to Global Climate
Change. Conference Proceedings, Sao Paulo, Brazil,
Jan. 1990. US EPA, 20P-2003, 531 pp.
USDA Forest Service. 1982. Analysis of the Timber
Situation in the United States 1952-2030. Forest
Resource Report No. 23, Washington, D.C. 499 pp.
USDA Forest Service. 1987. Wood Handbook: Wood as
an Engineering Material. Agricultural Handbook No.
72. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
466 pp.
USDA Forest Service. 1988. The South's Fourth Forest:
Alternatives for the Future. Forest Resource Report
No. 24, Washington D.C. 512 pp.
USDA Forest Service. 1990. An analysis of the timber
situation in the United States: 1989-2040. Rocky Mtn
Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest
Service, General Technical Report RM-199. 268 pp.
Van Coor, C.P. 1965. Reflorestamento com coniferas no
Brasil. Aspectos ecologicos dos plantios na regiao
sul, particularmente com Pinus elliottii e Araucaria
angustifolia. Boletim No. 9. Servico Florestal do
Ministerio da Agricultura. Setor de Inventarios
Florestais, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 58 pp.
Vaugn-Williams, P. 1981. Brazil. University Tutorial Press
Limited, Slough, U.K. 166 pp.
Victor, D.G. 1991. How to Slow Global Warming. Nature.
349:451-456.
Villavicencis, V. 1983. The environmental aspects of Ipil-
Ipil plantations. Renewable Sources of Energy. 1:41-65.
Vitousek, P. 1990. Reforestation to offset carbon dioxide
emissions. EN-6910 Research Project 3041-1. Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. 27 pp.
Vitousek, P.M. 1991. Can planted forests counteract
increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide? ]. Environ-
mental Quality 20:348-354.
Vivekanandan, K. 1987. Reviews of research in Sri Lanka.
In: Trees on Small Farms: Multi-purpose Trees for
Arid and Semi-Arid Tropics. D. A. Taylor and L.
Medina, eds. Winrock International, Arlington, VA.
pp. 69-77.
Waddell, K.L., D. D. Oswald, and D. S. Powell. 1989.
Forest statistics of the United States, Tables 4, 5, and
28.1987 Research Bulletin PNW-RB-168. US Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Res. Station, Portland, OR. 106 pp.
Walstad, J.D. 1991. Feasibility of large-scale reforestation
projects for mitigating CO,: Ecological considerations.
In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Large-Scale Reforestation. J. K. Winjum, P. E.
Schroeder, and M. S. Kenady, eds. USEPA, No. EPA/
600/9-91/014, Washington, D.C. pp. 11-28.
Waring, H.D. 1981. Forest fertilization in Australia; early
and later. In: Proc. Aust. Forest Nutrition Workshop,
Productivity in Perpetuity. Commonwealth Scientific
and Industrial Research Organization, Melbourne,
Australia, pp. 201-218.
Waring, R.H. and W. H. Schlesinger. 1985. Forest Ecosys-
tems, Concepts and Management. Academic Press,
Orlando, Florida. 340 pp.
Wert, S. and B. R. Thomas. 1981. Effects of skid roads on
diameter, height, and volume growth in Douglas-fir.
Soil Science Society of America ]. 45:629-632.
Westoby, J. 1989. Introduction to World Forestry.
Blackwell, New York, NY. 228 pp.
Whittaker, R.H. and G. E. Likens. 1975. The biosphere and
man. In: Primary Productivity of the Biosphere. Ecol.
Study No. 14. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Winjum, J.K., J. E. Keatley, R. G. Stevens, and J. R.
Gutzwiler. 1986. Regenerating the blast zone of
Mount St. Helens. ]. Tor. 84(5):28-35.
Winjum, J.K., P. E. Schroeder, and M. S. Kenady, eds.
1991. Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Large-Scale Reforestation. USEPA, No. EPA/6CO/9-
91/014, Washington, D.C. 160 pp.
Winterbottom, R. and P. Hazelwood. 1987. Agroforestry
and sustainable development: Making the connection.
Ambio. 16:2-3.
Winthrop, S. 1988. Debt-for-nature swaps: Debt relief and
biosphere preservation? The Johns Hopkins School of
Advanced International Studies, Washington, D.C. 43
PP-
Wiradinata, S. 1986. Present condition and problems of
agroforestry in Indonesia in particular outside forest
areas, pp. 52-65. In: Comparative Studies on the
Utilization and Conservation of the Natural Environ-
ment by Agroforestry Systems. Report on joint
research among Indonesia Thailand and Japan
96
-------
supported by Toyota, Kyoto University, Japan. 453
pp.
Woodwell, G.M.,J. E. Hobbie, R. A. Houghton, J. M.
Melillo, B. Moore, B. J. Peterson, and G. R. Shaver.
1983. Global deforestation: Contribution to atmo-
spheric carbon dioxide. Science. 222:1081-1086.
World.Resources Institute (WR1). 1986. World Resources
Report 1986. World Resources Inst, and International
Inst, for Environment and UN Envir. Prog., Washing-
ton^ DC. 354 pp.
World Resources Institute (WRI). 1990. World Resources
1990-91. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 383
pp.
Wright, L.L., R. L. Graham, and A. F. Turhollow. 1991.
Short-rotation woody crop opportunities to mitigate
carbon dioxide buildup. In: The North American
Conference on Forestry Response to Climate Change,
15-17 May 1990. Climate Institute, Washington, D.C.
(In press).
Xu, D. 1991. Forest status, land availability, costs of
reforestation • an analysis of options in PRC. In:
Proceedings of F-7 Workshop, I.E.S., May 28-31,1991.
Lawrence Berkeley Lab., Berkeley, CA. (In press).
Yadau, I.S.P. 1987. Reviews of research in India. In: Trees
on Small Farms: Multipurpose Trees for Arid and
Semi-Arid Tropics. D.A. Taylor and L. Medina, eds.
Winrock International, Arlington, VA. pp. 51-59.
Young, R.A. 1982. Forest Science. Wiley, New York, NY.
554 pp.
Zobel, B.J. and J. Talbert. 1984. Applied Forest Tree
Improvement. Wiley, New York, NY. 505 pp.
Zobel, B.J., G. Van Wyk, and P. Stahl. 1987. Growing
Exotic Forests. Wiley, New York, NY. 508 pp.
Zsuffa, L. 1985. Spacing and thinning, with particular
reference to the production of biomass for energy. In:
Increasing Productivity of Multipurpose Species. J.
Burley and J. L. Stewart, eds. International Union for
Forest ResearchOrganizations. pp. 379-400.
97
-------
98
-------
A. Tree species codes and wood densities
B. Bailey's map of ecoregion domains and divisions
C. National data summaries
D. International survey contacts
E. Metric units and conversion factors
F. Database frequency distributions
99
-------
Appendix A. Tree species, codes and wood densities.
Density based on dry weight per unit of fresh volume of wood.
(Chudnoff 1979; USDA Forest Service 1987)
Density
Density
Code
Species
-------
„ Density
pensfty
Code :
Species
Code
" $pec3es
(g/cjnA3)
HUCR
Hura oepitans
0.36
PISP
Pinus spp.:(avg. ot all ret. P. secies)
0.48
JSNI
Juglans nigra
0.51
PIST
Pinus strobus
0.34
JUSP
Juniper us spp.
0.37
PISY
Pinus sylvestris (use PISP)
0.48
LADE
Larix deddua (use LALA)
0.49
PITA
Pinus faeda
0.47
LAGM
Larix gmelini (use LALA)
0.49
PITE
Pinus tecunumanii (native)
0.50
LALA
Larix laricina
0.49
PLAC
Platanus acerifolia (use PLOC)
0.46
LALE
Larix leptolepls (use LALA)
0.49
PLOC
Platanus ocddentalis
0.46
LAOC
Larix occttentalis
0.48
PMDU
Pithecetobium dulce (use HAGE)
0.48
LAPO
Larix polonica (use LALA)
0.49
POBA
Populus balsamifera
0.31
LASP
Larix spp. (use LALA)
0.49
POCA
Populus canadensis (use POSP)
0.34
LEGL
Leucaena glauca (use LELE)
0.51
PODE
Populus deltoides
0.37
LELE
Leucaena leucooephaia
0.51
POEU
Populus euramericana (use POSP)
0.34
LESP
Leucaena spp. (use LELE)
0.51
POGR
Populus grandidentata
0.36
LIST
Liquid am bar styraciRua
0.46
POSP
Populus spp.
0.34
MASP
Mangifera spp.
0.52
POTE
Populus tremuloides
0.35
MESP
Melia spp. (Syn. of Azadirachta)
0.68
POTI
Populus (richocarpa
0.31
MGSP
Mangrova spp.:(Rhizophora spp.)
0.90
POTO
Populus tomentosa (use POSP)
0.34
NADI
Nauclea diderichii
0.63
PRCH
Prosopis chilensis
0.86
NOSP
Nothofagus spp.
0.51
PRJU
Prosopis julifora
0.70
OCPY
Ochroma pyramklale (balsa)
0.16
PRSP
Prosopis spp.:(avg. of all rel. P. species
0.78
PASP
Paulownis spp. (use HAGE)
0.48
PSME
Pseudotsuga menziesii
0.45
PCEX
Picea exoelso (use PCSP)
0.41
QUPA
Quercus palustris
0.69
PCMA
Picea mariana
0.38
QUSP
Quercus spp.
0.66
PCPU
Picea pungens (use PCSP)
0.41
ROPS
Robinia pseudoacacia
0.66
PCSI
Picea sitchensts
0.37
ROSP
Robinia spp. (use ROPS)
0.66
PCSP
Picea spp.
0.41
SASP
Sassafras spp.
0.42
PIAR
Pinus armandi (use PISP)
0.48
SCAM
Schizolobium amazonicum (use HAGE
0.48
PIBA
Pinus banksiana
0.47
SCSP
Schizolobium spp. (use HAGE)
0.48
PICA
Pinus caribaea
0.51
SESP
Seskania spp. (use HAGE)
0.48
PICO
Pinus contorta
0.38
SHSP
Shorea spp.:(avg. of all ref. S. species)
0.45
PICS
Pinus canariensls
0.60
Balau Group
0.70
PIEC
Pinus echinata
0.47
Dk. Red MerantiRed Luaun Grp.
0.55
PIEL
Pinus elliotti
0.54
Lt. Red MerantiLt. Red Lauan Grp.
0.40
PIHA
Pinus halapensis
0.71
White Meranti Group
0.48
PIJE
Pinus jeffreyl
0.42
Yellow Meranti Group
0.46
PIKE
Pinus keslya (syn. Insularis)
0.46
SOIN
Solanum inopium
0.30
PIKO
Pinus koraiensis (use PISP)
0.48
SWMA
Swietenia maerophylla
0.54
PIMA
Pinus massoniana (use PISP)
0.48
SQSE
Sequoia sempervirens
0.41
PIME
Pinus merkusii
0.57
SXNI
Salix nigra
0.36
PIMX
Pinus maximinoi (native)
0.46
SXSP
Salix spp. (use SXNI)
0.36
PIOO
Pinus oocarpa
0.55
TAAR
Terminalia arjuna (use TASP)
0.44
PI PA
Pinus patula
0.45
TAIV
Terminalia Ivorensis
0.43
PIPI
Pinus pinaster (use PISP)
0.48
TASP
Terminalia spp.:(avg. ot all ref. T. spec.
0.44
PIPN
Pinus pinea (use PISP)
0.48
TASU
Terminalia superba
0.45
PIPO
Pinus ponderosa
0.38
TBRO
Tabebuia rosea
0.58
PIPS
Pinus palustris
0.54
TEGR
Tectona grandis
0.55
PIRA
Pinus radiata
0.42
TESP
Tectona spp (use TEGR)
0.55
PIRE
Pinus resinosa
0.41
TMDI
Taxodium distichum
0.42
PIRO
Pinus roxburght (use PISP)
0.48
VISU
Viroia surinamensis
0.42
101
-------
Appendix B. Bailey's map of ecoregion domains and divisions
Bailey (1989) developed a world map
entitled "Ecoregions of the Continents."
Land areas were divided into broad
ecoregion domains, divisions, and
provinces using climate and vegetation as
indicators of ecological boundaries. Shown
here is the world map with the ecoregion
r o
domains and provinces which served as the
Legend
Ecoregion domain
and division codes
i
100 Boreal (Polar)
^ LI 00, lowland
M100, upland (mountains)
200 Humid Temperate
L200, lowland
M200, upland (mountains)
300 Dry Tropical and Temperate
L300, lowland
M300, upland (mountains)
400 Humid Tropical
E3 L400, lowland
Irrj M400, upland (mountains)
102
-------
global, terrestrial, arid ecological frame-
work for this assessment-
Values collected for the database on
promising forest management and
agroforestry practices were first assigned, as
close as possible, to a Bailey ecoregion
domain. Secondly, each ecoregion domain
was further divided into lowland or upland
site conditions. In this manner eight
divisions were used in:the database as
follows:
PI
103
-------
Appendix C. National Data Summaries
The database assembled for this assessment has information on promising forest manage-
ment and agroforestry practices for 94 forested nations worldwide. This appendix has
summaries of data for the 16 key nations selected out of the 94 used for detailed analyses
in this document.. Though not shown in these tables, each number or item of information
has a reference citation in the database as a source record.
The breakdown of ecoregions within nations is based upon Bailey's map entitled
Ecoregions of the Continents (1989) (Appendix B). Through a geographic information
system (GIS), the Bailey's map was reproduced then clipped with the boundaries for the
world's nations as an overlay. The area in hectares within ecoregion domains and
divisions for each nation was calculated using the GIS.
The land use breakdown by area in hectares is based upon WRI's Table 17.1 for cropland
and pasture plus Table 19.1 for closed and open forests (1990). "Other lands" is the differ-
ence between the above land use areas and the total area of the nation.
All costs are in US dollars adjusted for inflation to the year 1990 (Section 3.4).
104
-------
Sixteen Key Countries in the Database
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Canada
China
Congo
Germany
India
Indonesia
Malaysia
Mexico
New Zealand
South Africa
United States
USSR
Zaire
Page 106
Page 110
Page 112
Page 114
Page 116
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
Page 122
Page 123
Page 124
Page 125
Page 126
Page 128
Page 133
Page 134
105
-------
Argentina
Bailey Ecoregions
Region
000 ha
Portion
L200
32183
14%
11
L300
86677
39%
B
L400
23580
10%
M200
14767
7%
¦
M300
60485
27%
m
M400
7186
3%
Rotation
Growth
Initial
Annual
End
Initial
Eco-
Practice
Species
yrs
Trees
Site
m3lha/yr
Cost
Cost
Products
Bequest.
Sequent
Cost
Region
mean
per ha
Quality
moan
Current
Current
tC/ha/yr
tC/50 yrs
$/tc
Relorestation
PICO
19
3550
15.1
Pulp, lumber
4.59
45.90
Reforestation
P IPO
32
678
12 3
Lumber
3.74
61.70
Relorestation
PISY
25
1100
24.8
Pulp, lumber
9.52
123.00
Reforestation
PIJE
21
2100
18.4
Pulp, lumber
6 18
68.01
Reforestation
CASP
24
3000
33.7
Posts, poles
26.96
337.00
Reforestation
PIRA
14
394
16.5
5.54
41.56
Reforestation
PICO
23
2360
15
Pulp, lumber
4.56
54.72
Reforestation
PSME
20
1600
31.7
Pulp, lumber
11.41
119.83
Reforestation
FRSP
14
1390
4.1
1 64
12.30
Reforestation
PIPO
21
1364
33.0
Lumber
10.28
113.03
Reforestation
PIPO
20
2145
20.9
Lumber
6.35
66.71
Reforestation
PIPO
42
2500
22.9
Lumber
6.96
149.67
Reforestation
PIRA
22
960 L
24
8 06
92.74
Reforestation
PICO
12
3000
16.6
Pulp, lumber
5.05
32.00
Reforestation
PISY
26
1286
20.7
Pulp, lumber
7.95
107.31
Reforestation
EUVI
8.5
690 H
40
Pulp/saw timber
17.60
83.60
Reforestation
PSME
17
2070
26
Pulp, lumber
9.36
84.24
Reforestation
PIRA
19
2000
23
7.73
77.28
Reforestation
CASP
28
500
8
Posts, poles
640
92 80
106
-------
Argentina, cont.
Land use
D Closed Forest
I Open Forest
H Cropland
ED Pasture
E3 Other Lands
Ar«a
ooo ha
Portion
Closed Forest
44500
16%
Open Forest
Cropland
35950
13%
Pasture
142600
52%
Other Lands
53639
19%
Total Land
276689
100%
Rotation
Growth
Initial
Annual
Initial
iifecb-::
Practice
Species
m
ifriesi
SJte:!j;j::
m3/hayy»
Cost
Cost
^odiicts:^
Sequest.
Sequest
Cost
Region
mean
twrHa
Quality
mean
Current
Current
tC/ha/yr
IC/50 yra
$/tc
L300 Reforestation AAAN 22
Reforestation PIRA 9 900
Reforestation CASP 24 1400
Reforestation SXSP 5
Reforestation PIRA 21 1690
Reforestation PODE 5 625
Reforestation PIRA 23 775
Reforestation PIRA 10 3830
Reforestation CASP 19
Reforestation PICO 36 641
Reforestation EUVI 5 5 1626
Reforestation EUVI 5.5 800
Reforestation EUCA 7
Reforestation PIHA 18 400
Reforestation PICS 16 1280
Reforestation PIPN 27 1040
Reforestation PIPN 12 1614
Reforestation EUTE 6 1530
Reforestation EUGL 10 1111
Reforestation EUCA 7
Reforestation EUVI 20 544
Reforestation EUVI 5 1800
Reforestation EUVI 6 1400
Reforestation EUVI 20 2500
Reforestation EUVI 20 2500
Reforestation POSP 9 937
Reforestation PIRA 19 1955
Reforestation PIRA 12 3830
Reforestation POSP 7 1000
L
H
H
L
L
M
H
H
L
L
L
H
13
18.6
23
20.7
13.3
24.2
19.7
9.3
20.4
11.6
66.3
36.8
6.4
15
24.8
19
5.9
10.8
30
16.2
55.6
21.8
22
17.5
33.5
19
8.8
15.2
20.8
Pulp/saw timber
Posts, poles
Pulp, ply., gaskets
Pulp, ply., gaskets
Pulp/saw timber
Posts, poles
Pulp, lumber
Pulp/saw timber
Pulp/saw timber
Pulp/saw timber
Pulp/saw timber
Nuts
Nuts
Pulp/saw timber
Pulp/saw timber
Pulp/saw timber
Pulp/saw timber
Pulp/saw timber
Pulp/saw timber
Pulp/saw timber
Pulp/saw timber
Pulp, ply., gaskets
Pulp, ply., gaskets
4.68
6.25
18.40
5.96
4.47
7.16
6.62
3.12
16.32
3.53
29.17
16.19
4.03
8.52
11.90
7.30
2.27
5.01
16.08
7.78
24.46
10.12
10.21
8.12
15.54
5.17
2.96
511
5.66
53.82
31.25
230.00
17.88
49.16
21.49
79.43
17.19
163.20
65.24
94.81
52.62
16.13
80.94
101.18
102.14
14.73
17.54
88.44
31.10
256.87
30.35
35.73
85.26
163.21
25.84
29.57
33.20
22.63
107
-------
Argentina, cont.
Eco-
Region
Practice
Rotation
Growth
Initial
Annual
Sp»olei
y»
Treej
Site
ml'ha/yr
Cost
Cost
mean
per ha
Quality
mean
Current
Current
End
Products
Sequcst.
1C/ha/yr
Sequesl
tC/SO yrs
biitia
Cost
$'tC
Reforestation
EUGL
19
1111
20
Pulp/saw timber
10.72
107.20
Reforestation
EUGL
20
2500
H
30
Pulp/saw timber
16.08
168.84
Reforestation
EUGL
20
2500
L
12.5
Pulp/saw timber
6.70
70.35
Reforestation
EUGL
15
630
57
Pulp/saw timber
30.55
244.42
Reforestation
EUTE
13
865
L
9.9
Pulp/saw timber
4.59
32.16
Reforestation
POSP
7
2190
25
Pulp, ply., gaskets
6.60
27.20
Reforestation
POSP
7
4400
37.7
Pulp, ply., gaskets
10.25
41.02
Reforestation
PODE
13
640
M
22
Pulp, ply., gaskets
6.51
45.58
Reforestation
PODE
8
1100
H
29.6
Pulp, ply., gaskets
8.76
39.43
Reforestation
PIRA
22
2433
13.9
4.67
53.71
Reforestation
POSP
16
1000
14.5
Pulp, ply., gaskets
3.94
37.47
Reforestation
POSP
14
895
24.3
Pulp, ply., gaskets
6.61
49.57
Afforestation
PIPI
22
1000
L
15.4
5.91
68.01
Afforestation
PIHA
14
2000
L
6.9
3.92
29.39
Afforestation
PIPI
20
2300
L
13
4.99
5242
Afforestation
PIPI
16
2500
L
16.8
6.45
61.29
Afforestation
PIPI
36
1000
L
5.5
2.11
39.07
Afforestation
PIHA
14
1600
L
5.6
Pulp/saw timber
3.18
23.86
Afforestation
PIPI
25
1550
L
19.2
7.37
95.85
Afforestation
PIPI
25
1700
L
10.6
Pulp/saw timber
4.07
52.92
Afforestation
PiPl
17
1500
L
16
6.14
55.30
Reforestation
PITA
15
800
20
Pulp/saw timber
7.52
60.16
Reforestation
EUCA
20
L
15
Pulp/saw timber
7.20
75.60
Reforestation
PIPA
8
2500
42.4
Pulp/saw timber
15.26
68.69
Reforestation
EUCA
6 5
972
H
22.3
Pulp'saw timber
10.70
40.14
Reforestation
PIEL
13
2500
12.5
Pulp'saw timber
5.40
37.80
Reforestation
EUSA
6
1035
31.7
Pulp'saw timber
13.95
48.82
Reforestation
PIEL
10
1600
106
4.58
25 19
Reforestation
PIEL
10
1600
10.6
Pulp'saw timbe;
4.58
25.19
Reforestation
AAAN
10
6500
24.5
Pulp
8.82
48.51
Reforestation
EUSA
9.5
779
37.5
Pulp'saw timber
16.50
86.63
Reforestation
EUCA
8
1600
H
20.7
Pulp/saw timber
9.94
44.71
Reforestation
EUSA
17
723
51
Pulp/saw timber
22.44
201.96
Reforestation
PITA
21
720
L
35
Pulp'saw timber
13.16
144.76
Reforestation
PIEL
13
2500
12.5
5.40
37.B0
Reforestation
EUSA
10
932
46.5
Pulp/saw timber
20.46
112.53
Reforestation
PIEL
20
451
M
20.8
Pulp/saw timber
8.99
94.35
Reforestation
PITA
20
523
M
22.4
Pulp/saw timber
8.42
88 44
Reforestation
PITA
13
925
L
13.1
Pulp/saw timber
4.93
34.48
Reforestation
EUCI
7
1100
12 1
Pulp/saw timber
9.00
36.01
Reforestation
EUCA
6
1800
H
14
Pulp/saw timber
672
23.52
Reforestation
EUCA
20
H
28
Pulp/saw timber
13.44
141.12
Reforestation
PIEL
20
1350
20
1150
70% pulp/ 30% saw 1
8.64
90.72 0.08
Reforestation
PITA
13
925
13.1
4.93
34.48
Reforestation
PICA
20
1350
20
1150
70% pulp/ 30% saw t
8.16
85 68 0 07
Reforestation
TMDI
19
1805
41
Pulp./! umber
13.78
137.76
Reforestation
QUPA
29
7.5
Lumber
4.14
62.1 C
Reforestation
TMDI
14
1600
21
Pulp/lumber
7.06
52.92
Reforestation
TMDI
14
677
20.2
Pulp/lumber
6.79
50.90
Reforestation
POSP
10
25
280
Pulp. ply., gaskets
6.80
37.40 0.13
Reforestation
TMDI
12
1042
15.5
Pulp/lumber
5 21
33.85
L400
108
-------
Argentina, cont.
Rotation
ilpjfbwth';
Initial
irAhniuat
initial
£co-
Practice
SpeclM
w
She^i
Sequest.
Sequest
Cost
Reglon
'iiHiMiaiV:!:
per* a
Quality
Himiiaff:!
Current
Current
:tO/ha/yr:
$ac
L400
Reforestation
TMDI
11
690
6
Pulp/lumber
2.02
12.10
Reforestation
SXSP
10
20
280
Pulp, ply., gaskets
5.76
31.68
0.11
Reforestation
QUPA
36
7.5
Lumber
4.14
76.59
Reforestation
AAAN
10
600
8
Pulp
2.88
15.84
Reforestation
AAAN
20
1350
20
1150
70% pulp/ 30% saw
7.20
75.60
0.07
Reforestation
PITA
10
1100
20
7.52
41.36
Reforestation
QUPA
24
1321
20
Lumber
11.04
138.00
Reforestation
PITA
20
1350
20
1150
70% pulp/ 30% saw 1 7.52
78.96 0.07
Reforestation
AAAN
10
2500
14.5
Pulp
5.22
28.71
Reforestation
PIEL
10
2500
30
12.96
71.28
Line planting
HODU
5
1580
15.8
Shade, poles
7.84
23.51
Line planting
HODU
17
1341
17
Shade, poles
8.43
75.89
Line planting
HODU
16
1400
17.8
Shade, poles
8.83
83.87
Line planting
PLAC
25
600
21.8
Shade, poles
8.02
104.29
Line planting
HOOU
10
1111
20
Shade, poles
9.92
54.56
Line planting
HODU
4
15.6
Shade, poles
7.74
19.34
Afforestation
EUGL
8
1350
30
350
5
Pulp
19.20
86.40
0.25
Afforestation
EUVI
8
1350
30
350
5 Pulp
13.92
62.64
0.18
Afforestation
EUTE
8
1350
30
350
5 Pulp
13.92
62.64
0.18
Afforestation
EUGR
8
1350
30
350
5 Pulp
11.52
51.84 0.15
M300
Reforestation
PI PA
20
20
1150
Pulp/saw timber
7.20
75.60 0.07
Reforestation
CPSP
11
3422
13.2
Pulp/lumber
4.54
27.24
Reforestation
CPSP
11
3993
18.4
Pulp/lumber
6.33
37.98
Reforestation
CPSP
11
3715
20
Pulp/lumber
6.88
41.28
Reforestation
PICS
52
510
5.8
Pulp/saw timber
2.78
73.78
109
-------
Australia
\
Bailey Ecoregions
Region
000 ha
Portion
L200
79634
10.4%
III
L300
523654
68.1%
B
L400
146436
19.0%
M200
12326
1.6%
il
M300
6891
0.9%
Eco-
Region
Practice
Species
Rotation
yr»
Site
Quality
Grown
mS'hayr
Initial
Cost
Current
Annual
Cost
Current
End
Pro duns
Soquesl.
tC/hafyr
Sequest.
tC/50 yrs
Initial
Cost
SIC
mean
mean
L200
Reforestation
EUGL
30
3.7
1.96
30.74
Reforestation
EUGL
H
30
16.08
Reforestation
EUGR
30
Reforestation
EUNI
H
30
13.92
Reforestation
EUSP
20
M
20
512
26 luel.tiber
9.28
97.44
5.25
Reforestation
EUSP
20
M
40
1381
51 luel.fiber
18.56
194.88
7.0S
Reforestation
PIPI
11
3.96
Reforestation
PIRA
Reforestation
PIRA
35
H
2085
25 sawtimber
Reforestation
PIRA
29
H
2085
27 pulpwood
P ai 0 years
EUGR
3.3
292
1.27
P at 0 years
EUGR
9.7
29 2
3.72
Cultivation
PIRA
4.8
616
1.61
Fertilization
EUGL
30
7.8
4.18
64.80
Fertilization
PIPI
2
072
P-Fertilization
PIRA
9.8
292
3.29
NPK-Fertilization
PIRA
13.5
493
4.54
NPK S Cultivation
PIRA
21.4
933
7.19
P(super) Fertilization
PIRA
5.4
498
1.81
P(rock) Fertilization
PIRA
5.8
292
1.95
110
-------
Australia, cont.
Land Use
D Closed Forest
B Open Forest
I Plantation
El Cropland
El Pasture
ED Other Lands
IlilsPllilll
000 Ha
iPortlpn
Closed Forest
41658
5.4%
Open Forest
65085
8.5%
Plantation
1000
0.1%
Cropland
47885
6.2%
Pasture
437136
56.9%
Other Lands
175466
22.8%
Total Hectares
768230
100.0%
Rotstiqn
Growth
(nlfl8l
Annuel
taitlal
tCO-
Species
yrs
Site
ImMia/yr
Cost
Cost
Soqueet.
iSequesi.:
i Cost:
Region.
: :
Quality
mean
Current
Current
iCrtia'yr
i£/50 yrs
HitC :
L200
P(super) Fertilization
PIRA
6.8
498
226
P(rock) Fertilization
PIRA
5.9
292
1.98
P(rocK) Fertilization
PIRA
5
292
1.68
P(super) Fertilization
PIRA
5.6
498
1.88
P(rock) Fertilization
PIRA
5.1
292
1.71
P(super) Fertilization
PIRA
5.8
498
1.95
Thinning
EUSP
135
L400
Reforestation
ACAU
32.5
M
13.5
324
fodder.luel, lumber,
7.34
123.01
2.64
Reforestation
ACMA
22.5
M
40
216
(odder,fuel,lumber
19.20
225 60
0.96
Reforestation
ALSP
20
L
10
216
fodder .fuel,lumber
4.00
42.00
5.15
Reforestation
CAEO
17.5
L
12.5
162
fodder .fuel,lumber
10.00
92.50
1.75
Reforestation
CSSP
20
L
12.5
216
fodder .fuel,lumber
7.00
73.50
2.94
Reforestation
MESP
17.5
M
15
162
fodder,fuel,lumber
8.16
75.48
2.15
Reforestation
TASP
20
L
15
162
fodder,fuel,lumber
528
55.44
2.92
P/N/ Cu Fertilization
PICA
5.4
460
216
P/N/Cu/ZrVMo Fert.
PICA
6.6
460
2.64
P/N/Cu ~ mound
PICA
10.1
871
4.04
P/N/Cu/ZnrMo + mound
PICA
11.6
871
4.64
P/N/Cu/Zn/Mo + mound
PICA
12.2
871
4.88
P/N/Cu/Zo'Mo ~ mound
PICA
13.5
871
5.40
H200
Reforestation
EUGL
30
19.20
Reforestation
EUNI
30
13.92
Reforestation
PIP)
1.7
0.61
Afforestation
50
300
All ore station
Fertilization
PIPI
0.4
0.14
WHOLE
Reforestation
EUSP
275
M
20
270
fodder,fuel,lumber
9.28
13224
2.04
COUNTRY
P at 0 years
PIRA
9.7
292
326
Pat 2 years
PIRA
5 2
282
1.75
P at 13 years
PIRA
4.4
282
1.48
P at 4 years
PIRA
8.8
292
2.96
P at 13 years
PIRA
7.3
292
2.45
P at 20 years
PIRA
14.5
282
4.87
Genetic improvement
PITA
25
M
Sawlogs/pulpwood
111
-------
Brazil
2
Bailey Ecoregion
Region
000 ha
Portion
L200
3965"/
5%
Hi
L300
71852
8%
R
L400
71329C
84%
F~]
P I
M400
2251?
3%
Rotation
Growth
friitiaJ
Annus)
End
Initial
Eco-
Predict
Species
>rs
Trees
Sit*
Cost
Cost
Products
Sequcst
Sequest
Cost
Reqion
mean
per ha
Ouality
mean
Currant
Current
tC/ha/yr
tC/50 yrs
S/tC
N.P.K Fertilization
EUGR
10
2000
4
44
1.42
7.81
5.63
L300
Relorestation
PIKE
10
2000
W
35
188
3
12.88
70.84
2.65
Nai Reg.
Mixed
30
1500
W
35
150
7
12.60
195.30
0.77
Agroloreslry
EUSP
22
17
504
57.6 pulp.poles.fuel.i
7.66
88.04
5.72
Relorestation
EUSP
20
2000
G
40
310
B
18.56
194.88
1.59
Agroloreslry
Mixed
17.5
750
W
35
100
3
12.60
116 55
0.86
L400
Reloreslalion
ARAN
17
M
15
100
5
5.40
48.60
2.06
Reforestation
ARAN
23
15
100
5
5.40
64.80
1.54
Reloresialion
ARAN
35
1111
L
9
135
5
3.24
58.32
2.31
Reloreslalion
ARAN
35
1111
H
19
100
5
6.84
123 12
0.81
Reloreslalion
CPLU
35
M
19
5 pulp/sawtimber
6.54
117.65
Reloreslalion
CPLU
16
22
5
7.57
64.33
Reloreslalion
CPIU
25
20
5
688
89.44
Relorestation
CPLU
25
L
20
113
5
6.88
89.44
126
Relorestation
CUIA
33
1170
H
26
300
5 pulp/sawtimber
10.81
183.80
1.63
Reloreslalion
CULA
30
1200
M
20
300
5 pulp/sawlimber
8.48
131.44
2.28
Reloreslalion
CULA
17
1200
H
18
300
5 pulp/sawtimber
7.42
66 78
4.49
Reloreslalion
EUCI
4.5
2000
H
35
138
5 pulp
26.04
71.61
1.92
Relorestation
EUCI
4.5
2000
M
27
138
5 pulp
20.09
55.24
2.49
Relorestation
EUCI
4.5
2000
M
21
138
5 pulp
15.62
42.97
3.20
Relorestation
EUGR
7
H
55
425
5
21.12
84.48
5.03
Relorestation
EUGR
7
iaoo
H
39
210
5 pulp
14.98
59.90
3.51
Reloreslalion
EUGR
7
H
35
125
5
13.44
53.76
2.33
Reloreslalion
EUGR
7
H
40
138
5
15.36
61.44
2.24
Reloreslalion
EURO
7
1800
H
26
375
5 pulp
12.06
48.26
7.77
112
-------
Brazil, cont.
Land use
0 Oosed Forest
1 Open Forest
I Planatation
H3 Cropland
E] Pasture
(D Other Lands
sOOO ha.;
PortWn
Closed Forest
357480
42.0%
Open Forest
157000
18.4%
Planatation
6575
0.8%
Cropland
76717
9.0%
Pasture
167000
19.6%
Other Lands
86425
10.2%
Total Hectares
851197
100.0%
frecttee
:: Species
ijRototjoirj;
Hi:
Trees
per ha
Site
Quality
iCrowtti:
•¦m'3M'iWr
ilnltlBl:
Current
: Annual
\ |:|C|p8t
Current
End
Product$ji::jj;::|:
iSequeeti!
::tC/ha/vri
Sequest
1&50 yrs
initial
ilCost:
7:i*>een
mean
Reforestation
EUSA
12
H
25
648
9.25
pulp;tuel
11.60
75.40
8.59
Reforestation
EUSA
12
1800
18
648
9.25
pulp.fuel
8.12
52.78
12.27
Reforestation
EUSA
7
H
55
600
5
25.52
102.08
5.88
Reforestation
EUSA
7
1600
25
375
5
pulp
11.60
46.40
8.08
Reforestation
EUSA
7
H
40
138
5
18.56
74.24
1.85
Reforestation
EUSP
15
18
700
5
8.12
64.96
10.78
Reforestation
EUSP
20
2000
H
50
2142
126
Fbcr
23.20
243.60
8.79
Reforestation
EUSP
25
2000
35
176
1.1
16.24
211.12
0.83
Reforestation
EUSP
19
2000
H
25
1259
59.16
pulp, sawtimber
11.60
116.00
10.85
Reforestation
EUSP
6.5
2000
H
25
1259
59.16
pulp
11.60
43.50
28.94
Reforestation
EUSP
10
5000
H
70
1200
170
fiber
32.48
178.64
6.72
Reforestation
EUSP
8
1800
H
40
138
5
18.56
B3.52
1.65
Reforestation
EUSP
7
H
70
238
5
pulp
32 48
129.92
1.83
Reforestation
EUSP
20
2000
F
40
295
3
18.56
194.88
1.51
Reforestation
EUTE
19
2000
M
24
138
5
pulp
11.14
111.36
123
Reforestation
EUUR
7
2000
L
13
375
5
putp
6.03
24.13
15.54
Reforestation
EUUR
7
1800
30
375
5
pulp
13.92
55.68
6.73
Reforestation
GMAR
12
16
547
65.28
pulp.sawtimber
5.90
38.38
14.25
Reforestation
GMAR
10
H
35
138
5
11.48
63.14
2.18
Reforestation
GMAR
6.5
M
18
547
65.28
pulp
5.90
22.14
24.69
Reforestation
GMSP
15
2000
H
40
1203
75.6
Fber
13.12
104.96
11.46
Reforestation
PICA
e
25
125
5
pulp/sawtimber
10.00
50.00
2.50
Reforestation
PICA
16
27
100
5
10.80
91.80
1.09
Reforestation
PICA
10
25
148
5
10.00
55.00
2.68
Reforestation
PICA
16
M
18
547
65.28
sawtimber
7.20
61.20
8.93
Reforestation
PICA
12
M
17
547
65.28
pulp
6.80
44.20
12.37
Reforestation
PICA
10
M
17
5
posts
6.80
37.40
Reforestation
PICA
10
M
18
5
posts
720
39.60
Reforestation
PIEL
10
L
6
110
5
pulp/sawtimber
2.97
16.35
6.73
Reforestation
PIEL
10
29
110
5
pulp/sawtimber
13.69
75.28
1.46
Reforestation
PIEL
10
21
113
S
9.68
53.22
2.11
Reforestation
PIKE
10
H
30
300
5
pulp/sawtimber
11.04
60.72
4.94
Reforestation
PIKE
9
2500
32
275
5
putp/sawiimber
11.78
58.88
4.67
Reforestation
PISP
32.5
1500
23
176
1.1
8.10
135.68
1.30
Reforestation
PISP
24
1200
M
23
125
5
8.10
101.25
1.23
Reforestation
PITA
20
M
20
1259
42.84
pulp/sawtimber
8.16
85.68
14.69
Reforestation
PITA
12
M
20
1259
48.96
pulp
8.16
53.04
23.73
Afforestation
EUSP
23.5
23
1700
5
10.44
127.89
13.29
Nat Reforesl
EUSP
40
1500
13
100
5
5.80
118.90
0.84
Nat. Reg.
Mixed
30
1500
F
35
200
5
12.60
195.30
1 02
Agroforestry
EUSP
15
750
F
30
313
60
13.92
111.36
2.81
Agrotorestry
Mixed
5.5
750
H
33
737
45
fuel.food,fiber
11.70
38.03
19.3S
Agroforestry
Mixed
6.5
750
H
30
47
45
(uel.food.fiber
10.80
40.50
1.16
Silvopaslorial
SCAM
15
540
13
1600
45
5.30
42.40
37.74
113
-------
Canada
m
Bailey Ecoregions
Region
000 ha
Portion
L100
63920"
64°/c
L200
8945'
9%
L300
3616/
4%
M100
12896:
13°/c
M200
66292
7%
M300
2119$
2%
Rotation
Growth
initial
Annuel
End
Initial
Eco-
Practice
Species
Yrs
Trwes
Site :
mJ/ha/vr
Cost
Cost
Products
Sequest.
Sequest.
Cost
Reqion
mean
¦DW tW
Ouslttv
mean
Current
Current
¦tC/Jia/yr
tC/50 vrs
ytc
L100
Reforestation
PCSP
1400
M
700
Forestation
PCSP
60
1400
M
3
336
0.96
48.00
7.00
Forestation
PCSP
80
1400
M
3
457
0.96
48.00
9.52
Forestation
PCSP
80
1400
M
3
581
Forestauon
PCSP
60
1400
M
3
436
0.50
25.00
17.52
Forestation
PCSP
60
1400
M
3
246
0.50
25.00
9.92
Site Prep.
PCSP
80
1400
360
Sawtimber
0.49
24.60
14 63
Planting
PCSP
80
1300
520
Sawtimber
0.49
24.60
21.14
Thinning/weeding
PCSP
40
1000
M
1.5
65
0 48
24.00
271
Thinning/weeding
PCSP
40
1000
M
1.5
212
0.48
24.00
8 83
Thinning/weeding
PCSP
40
1000
M
1.5
70
0.96
48.00
1.46
Thinning/weeding
PCSP
40
1000
M
1.5
289
Thinning/weeding
PCSP
40
1000
M
1.5
168
114
-------
Canada, cont.
Land use
~ Closed Forest
¦ Open Forest
¦ Cropland
d Pasture
~ Other Lands
OOOha
Portloh
Closed Forest
264100
27%
Open Forest
172300
17%
Cropland
46010
5%
Pasture
31500
3%
Other Lands
478329
48%
Total Hectares
992239
100%
Rotation
Growth
Initial
iAnnual
End
Initial
Eco-
Species
Trees
Site
:m3/hB/vr
Cost
Cost
Products
Sequent.
:$e$uest.
Cost
Realon
mean
:per ha
Gualftv
flwan
Current
Current
ilClhe'vr
tCfSOVre
fie
L200
Forestation
ARSP
80
1400
M
3
551
Plantation
COHA
1000
1.15
Reforestation
PCSP
1400
M
1000
Reforestation
PCSP
1400
M
700
Forestation
PCSP
80
1400
M
3
437
0.36
16.00
24.2E
Nat. Ret.
PCSP
80
1400
M
1.7
100
0.56
27.88
3.59
Nat. Ref.
PCSP
60
1400
M
1.3
125
0.43
21.32
5.8E
Nat. Ref.
PCSP
80
1400
M
1
135
0.33
16.40
8.23
Nat. Ref.
PCSP
80
1400
M
1.5
135
0.49
24.60
5.49
Nat. Ref.
PCSP
80
1400
M
1.4
175
0.46
22.96
7.62
Nat. Ref.
PCSP
80
1400
M
1.9
190
0.62
31.16
6.10
Nat Ref.
PCSP
80
1400
M
1.6
190
0.52
26.24
7.24
Nat. Ref.
PCSP
80
1400
M
1.7
120
0.56
27.88
4.30
Nat. Ref.
PCSP
80
1400
M
OS
100
0.26
13.12
7.62
Thinningfaeeding
PCSP
40
1000
M
1.5
217
0.83
41.40
5.24
ThinnirKj/weedina
PCSP
40
1000
M
1.5
382
0.22
10.80
35.37
M200
Forestation
PCSP
80
1400
M
3
588
0.16
8.00
73.50
Nat. Ref.
PCSP
80
1400
M
2.3
300
0.75
37.72
7.95
Nat. Ref.
PCSP
80
1400
M
0.6
100
0.20
9.84
10.1f
Nat. Ref.
PCSP
80
1400
M
0.5
100
0.16
8.20
12.20
Thinning/weeding
PCSP
40
1000
M
1.5
314
Fire Control
40
1000
M
3
0.15
7.50
115
-------
China
//AW9W9V
'• / >' x y>; x x xxx >C&
V>65 006&
B
Bailey Ecoregions
Region
L200
L300
L400
M200
M300
M400
000 ha
260125
210456
23015
141300
284983
12722
Portion
27.9%
22.6%
2.5%
15.2%
30.6%
1.4%
flotation
Growth
Initial
Annual
End
Initial
Eeo-
Practice
Species
yr*
Trees
Site
mS/tieM
Coat
Cost
Products
Sequest.
Se quest.
Cost
Regkin
mean
per ha
Quality
jnean
Current
Current
tC/ha'yr
tC.'50 vrs
S'tC
Plantation
PISP
267.75
Afforestation
400
350
Fen.
PODE
24.5
24724
7.84
N/P Fen.
POEU
43.5
247.24
12.88
N'P Fert.
CULA
1.2
24724
0.51
P/K Fert.
CULA
0.6
24724
0.25
Release
POSP
21.42
Plantation
POSP
267.75
Thinnina
POSP
21 42
L200
Plantation
PIMA
50
10000
L
2
0.77
19.58
Plantation
PISY
120
5000
L
1
0.38
23.23
Plantation
EUEX
15
H
12
5.57
44.54
Plantation
EULE
20
M
15
6.96
73.08
Plantation
EUCI
20
M
15
11.16
117.18
Plantation
LASP
60
5000
M
1
0.39
11.96
Plantation
PIMA
40
2500
M
5
1.92
39.36
Relorestation
CAEQ
12.5
2500
4.5
3.60
24.30
Reforestation
POCA
10
2500
56.3
16.66
91.66
Relorestation
POCA
10
2500
56.3
16.66
91.66
Reforestation
CULA
20
5.4
40.128
2.29
24.04
Reforestation
CAEQ
12.5
2500
4.5
3 60
24.30
116
-------
China, cont.
Land use
D Closed Forest
I Open Forest
¦ Plantation
EH Cropland
O Pasture
B Other Lands
Area
OOOfca
Portion
Closed Forest
97847
10.2%
Open Forest
17200
1.8%
Plantation
50100
5.2%
Cropland
97674
10.2%
Pasture
5
0.0%
Other Lands
696874
72.6%
Total Hectares
959700
100.0%
Rotation
: ••
Growth
Initial
Annual
End -
Initial
. ..Eco-./.
Prwtic*
Spacfe*.
Treat
sit«
fn3/ha/Vr
:COJt
Cost
Products
Saquaat
Saquest
Reaion
mean
per hs
Quality
: mean :
Current
Current
*
• tC/ha/vr
•tC/Mvre
;?::MC .
Reforestation
EUSP
25
2500
15.8
7.33
95.31
Reforestation
EUSP
20
10000
M
40
270
9 wood.fiber.oils,
18.56
194.88
1.39
Relorestation
POSP
20
10000
M
45
270
9 wood.fiber.oils,
13.32
139.86
1.93
Reforestation
PASP
25
10000
H
45
250
12 wood.fiber.oils.
19.08
248.04
1.01
Reforestation
CUSP
25
10000
L
30
440
10 wood.fiber.oils,
10.32
134.16
3.28
Reforestation
SASP
15
1666
32.5
24.99
11.96
95.68
026
Relorestation
PIMA
24
5.3
81.51
2.04
25.44
Reforestation
ROSP
35
10000
L
15
350
10 wood.fiber.oils.
8.28
149.04
2.35
L300
Plantation
PIMA
30
M
6
2.30
35.71
Plantation
POSP
40
10000
M
5
1.36
27.88
Plantation
LASP
50
4444
M
3
1.18
29.99
Plantation
PISY
80
4444
L
2
0.77
31.10
Plantation
POCA
20
1111
H
17
4.62
48.55
Plantation
CULA
25
M
5
1.60
20.80
L400
Plantation
EUSP
25
1111
H
15
Fuel wood
6.96
90.48
Reforestation
EUSP
25
2500
15.8
7.33
95.31
M200
Plantation
CRJA
30
H
11
3.52
54.56
Plantation
LAGM
40
M
6
2.35
48.22
Plantation
PASP
20
633
M
10
3.84
40.32
Plantation
ROPS
20
1666
M
5
2.64
27.72
Plantation
POTO
20
1111
M
10
2.72
28.56
Plantation
ROPS
20
1666
L
3
1.58
16.63
Plantation
CSSA
25
1666
M
16
0.96
116.48
Plantation
PIKO
40
M
6
2.30
4723
Plantation
FRSP
50
M
4
1.60
40.80
Plantation
JUSP
50
M
4
1.18
30.19
Plantation
CUSP
30
H
7.5
2.40
3720
Plantation
PIAR
30
M
6
2.30
35.71
Plantation
PISY
50
M
4
1.54
39.17
Reforestation
PISP
35
10000
M
15
300
If wood.fiber.oils,1 5.40
97.20
3.09
Reforestation
LASP
40
10000
L
15
400
10 wood.fiber.oils.
6.36
130.38
3.07
Aqroforestry
PASP
10
400
H
5.3
334
17.5 timber, loqs
2.25
12.36
27.02
117
-------
Congo
H
Bailey Ecoregions
Region
000 ha
L400
34425
Land use
D Closed Forest
B Open Forest
¦ Cropland
D Pasture
ED Other Lands
Area
000 ha
Portion
Closed Forest
21340
62%
Open Forest
Cropland
678
2%
Pasture
10000
29%
Other Lands
2182
6%
Total Hectares
34200
100%
Dotation
Growth
Initial
Annual
•Enc
initial
Eco-
Praefice
Species
yrs
Trees
: Site
TnS/ha/yr
CoH
Co»1
Products
S© que at.
Sequest.
Cost
Reglon
mean
per ha
Quality
mean
Current!
Current
(Crtia/yr
tCi'50 vrs
V'tC
L400
Reforestation
EUSP
1400
Reforestation
EUSP
15
950
M
30
190.4
3.57 tuel, liber, poles
13.92
111.36
1.71
Atloresialion
EUSP
7
25
11.6
46.4
Thinninq
EUSP
50
M400
Aftoresialion
PISP
7
20
1011 5
Pulp
7.2
28 8
35 12
118
-------
Germany
VJ
Cvlw
vJvJv
CvJCv
CvKv
C%w&
K4»*Vd
VVAV
KwJ
iVAV
rr44*%
vKvJ
vMvi
~VAV
~VAV<
>*V«V4
•V*«V
4«V#V
k mV* 4
| Bailey Ecoregions ]
L200
M200
21715j
13866
61.0%|
39.0%
Land use
G Closed Forest
M Open Forest
B Protected
D Cropland
H Pasture
E3 Other lands
AnW ¦
000 ha
Portion
Closed Forest
9689
27.2%
Open Forest
503
1.4%
Protected
85
0.2%
Cropland
8419
23.6%
Pasture
5810
16.3%
Other lands
11178
31.3%
Total Land
35684
100.0%
floMfoii
Qrowin
.InmiJ
Annual
end •
Infliai
fMM
sn*
: MMtafyr
:$oar
Oo«t
Product*
: S*qu«t
S*qu*s9
Cost
parte
Quality"
ntMn ::
Currant
Currant
tc/huyr
tC/S0yr»
VIC
:Eco-
motle*
^Sp^CtM
1200
Reforestation
PIS P
85
400
H
6
1500
ISO wood,fuel,floor
2.00
86.00
17.44
Short Rot. Ini Cult.
PISP
20
625
H
10
2500
200 Momassfuel
2.S0
26.25
65.24
Short Rot. Ini Cult.
POSP
20
1111
H
13.5
2500
300 Momassfuel
2.75
28.86
86.5B
Afforestation
PCSP
140
400
H
13.5
2700
300 wood.fuel.fiMr
2.75
193.66
13.93
Afforestation
125
Extend Rotation
PISP
140
156
M
wood,fuei.fi Der
010
7.05
Thirvfertili2er
PISP
75
156
M
0.2
300
wood.fuei.fl oer
007
2.74
109.65
M200
Reforestation
PCSP
65
400
H
6
1500
150 wood.fuel,fitter
2.00
86.00
17.44
Plough composted soil
PISY
50
56
442.5
215
54.64
8.07
Till compacted soil
PISY
so
3.2
442.5
1.23
31.33
14.12
Extend rotation
PCSP
140
156
M
wood.fuei.fi oer
0.10
7.05
Thin/fertilizer
PCSP
75
400
M
0.3
300
wood.fuel, fiber
0.09
3.47
66.57
119
-------
India
\ f
I !~
Bailey Ecore
gions
Region
000 ha
Portion
L300
L400
M300
M400
36826
242109
7903
30721
12%
76%
2%
10%
120
-------
India, cont.
Land use
0 Closed Forest
H Open Forest
B Croptand
El Pasture
ED Other Lands
Hill Total Hectares
mm
Portion
Closed Forest
36540
12%
Open Forest
27600
9%
Cropland
169002
53%
Pasture
11817
4%
Other Lands
71724
23%
Total Hectares
316683
100%
AottUoh
Orovrfli
Initial.
...•Annual.;
End
' initial
Eeo-
Practice
spaces
y»»
Ttees
Site'
m3/hasvr
, Cosi
IVCOsi;??
Pwdueia
Seqinu.
Sequett.
Cost
Reaion
mean
tor ha
Quality
.fnean
Current
Currant
*
IC/ttaM
tC/50 vrs
11C
L300
Reforestation
Reforestation
PIOO
CAEO
15
15
11.00
1049.00
Pulp
680
70.40
Reforesiation
AZIN
12
493
3.70
luel
2.01
13.08
Reforestation
AZIN
12
1111
4.60
luel
2.50
16.27
Reforestation
ACNI
20
M
5.50
2.99
31.42
Reforestation
ACNI
20
H
9.00
4.90
51.41
Relorestalion
ACAU
IS
5.00
2.72
21.76
Retoresiaiion
ACTO
12
277
3.30
fuel
1.85
12.01
Reforesiation
ACNI
20
L
3.00
1.63
17.14
Retoresiaiion
CASP
201.60
Protect ton
ACNI
11.5
10000
L
14.72
1.38 fuel,fodder .timber
Afforestation
LELE
1111
259.00
Afforestation
ACSP
1111
259.00
Attorestalion
ACSP
400
129.50
Thinning
CASP
10.08
Social Foreslry
LELE
7
4444
42.00
2016
80.64
Social Forestrv
LELE
4
4444
57.00
27.36
68.40
L4Q0
Reforestation
ALFA
5
524.50
Fuel,fodder
Reforestation
EUGR
9
H
42.00
16.13
80.64
Reforestation
EUGR
11
M
24.00
922
55.30
Relorestalion
EUGR
12
L
10.60
4.07
26.46
Reforestation
ACSP
25
400
L
20.00
403.20
10.08 luel
11.20
145.60
2.77
Reforesiation
ACSP
25
1000
L
27.50
1008.00
25.20 tuel
15,40
200.20
5.03
Reforesiation
ALSP
27777
Reforestation
ALSP
111111
Reforestation
TEGR
60
4.00
1.76
53.68
Reforestation
CMSP
20
2000
M
17.50
302.40
2.02 poles, food
4.20
44.10
6.66
Reforestation
LESP
10
1000
M
30.00
201.60
10.08 luel. fodder
14.40
79.20
2.55
Reforestation
EUSP
7.5
H
151.20
pulpwood
Reforestation
TEGR
70
M
A 20
Timber
1.85
65.60
Reforestation
BASP
22
277
L
3.00
156.67
26.45 Pulp wood
0.72
8.28
19.16
Reforesiation
TEGR
70
H
8.70
Timber
3.83
135.89
Reforestation
ACAU
4
Reforestation
TEGR
70
L
2.00
Timber
0.88
31.24
Direct Seeding
PISP
210
1600
M
15.00
35.28
3.02 poles, lumber
5.40
569.70
0.06
Agroforestry
1.70
Social Foreslry
LELE
4
4444
77.00
3696
92.40
Social Foreslry
LELE
7
4444
119.00
57.12
228.48
Retoresiaiion
PI PA
19
25.00
9.00
90.00
Reforestation
ACSP
5
895.85
Fuel.fod der
M400
Grazing
20
400
L
6
700 Food. luel. fiber, fodi
121
-------
Indonesia
Land use
Bailey Ecore
gions
Region
000 ha
Portion
L400
M400
94386
94943
49.9%
50.1%
D Closed Forest
Area
000 ha
Portion
H Open Forest
Closed Forest
Open Forest
113895
3000
59%
2%
B Cropland
Cropland
21107
11%
D Pasture
Pasture
44000
23%
Other Lands
9943
5%
^ Other Lands
Total Hectares
191945
100%
Rotation
Growth
Initial
Arviuol
End
JniUel
£co
Practice
Species
yr*
Tree*
Sle
mS/ha^vr
Cost
Cost ;
Products .
Seqpjest.
Sequest
CosJ
Reqion
rr»»n
per he
Quality
m»in
Ci>rr*n
Current
tCha'vr
tcrsovrs
Site
Reloresianon
1007.7
L4O0
Reloresiation
ALFA
12
L
42
10.752
69.888
Reloresiation
ALFA
12
M
53
13 568
86.192
Reloreslalion
ALFA
15
25
S.4
51.2
Reloreslalion
PICA
15
20
pulp;406
8
64
Reloresiation
SWMA
50
H
16
furniture
6.912
176.256
Reloresiation
SWMA
50
M
14
furniture
6.048
154.224
Reloreslalion
ACME
B
M
29
13.92
62.64
Reloresiation
SWMA
50
L
13
furniture
5.61 S
143.208
Reforestation
ALFA
10
H
56
14.336
78.648
Reloresiation
TEGR
50
M
15
furniture
6.6
168.3
Reloreslalion
PIME
30
L
15
6.B4
106.02
Reloresiation
ACME
7
H
39
18.72
74.88
Reloreslalion
PIME
20
M
18
8.208
86.184
Reloreslalion
TEGR
50
L
10
furniture
4.4
112.2
Reloresiation
ANCH
15
15
4.2
33.6
Reloreslalion
EUCE
15
20
7.2
57.6
Reloreslalion
F
Reloresiation
ACME
12
L
23
11.04
71.76
Reforestation
PIME
15
H
22
10.032
80.256
Reloreslalion
TEGR
50
H
16
tumhure
7.92
201.96
Establishment
PICA
610.96
Protection
PICA
17.2875
M40Q
Indon. Select Cut 5
DISP
60
1111
M
35
700
10 logs.veneeT.oil.
16.8
512.4
1.3661
Farm Forestry
LESP
20
M
35
350
25 Food.luel,fiber
16 8
176.4
1.9641
Fire Control
DISP
60
1111
M
35
300
logs, veneer, oil.
16 8
512.4
0.5855
122
-------
Malaysia
Bailey's Ecoregions
Ftefllon :
OOOfca i
Portion
Q
L400
19377
59%
M400
13477
41%
Land Use
~
Closed Forest
¦
Open Forest
¦
Cropland
~
Pasture
~
Other Lands
Area
000 ha
Portion
Closed Forest
20996
63%
Open Forest
Cropland
4375
13%
Pasture
12333.8
37%
Other Lands
-4407.8
-13%
Total Land
33297
100%
'.Rotation
Growth :
..wiw
A™""'
;lnlD8l
&»•
Practice
Special
*»»
Tree*
:;SHe\;
ml/ha.Vr
Cost
;C0>t
Frpducta
!GU|qiwtt.
tC/h*Vf
Saquest!
Coat
Region
wean -
per ha
Quality
ntsan
Currant
Currant
IC/SO vrs
tnc
L400
Reforestation
AC MA
IB
H
40
194.36
9.72 Furniture ven.
1920
177.60
1.09
Reforestation
PICA
14
20
Pulp
800
60.00
Reforestation
1014
Furniture, paneli
Reforestation
ACMA
IS
30
199.12
14.40
11520
1.73
Reforestation
OMAR
5
60
Fuelwood
19.68
59.04
Reforestation
OMAR
20
H
30
194.36
4.86 fuel.liber
12.00
126.00
1.54
Reforestation
PICA
18
H
20
194.36
4.86 lumber
720
68.40
2.84
Reforestation
ACMA
Reforestation
TEGR
40
H
15
194.36
9.72 furniture ven.
720
147.60
1.32
Reforestation
OMAR
8
45
Pulp
14.76
66.42
Ref ore aalion
DIGN
150
Reforestation
DRAR
36
7
Lumber, lumitun 3.50
64.82
Reforestation
ACAU
12
17
925
60.11
Reforestation
ALFA
10
50
Pulp
12.80
70.40
Reforestation
DIPT
36
7
Lumber
336
65.90
Reforestation
OMAR
10
24
Pulp
7.87
43.30
Reforestation
EUDE
15
20
Pulp
720
57.60
Release
177.38
Selective Mgml
DIPT
35
2
Lumber
096
17.57
Selective Mgrnt
QOSP
3
Furniture, panel
1.04
Thinning
DION
30
Intercroppinf)
DUSP
10
627.23
cocoa/durian
123
-------
Mexico
Baile
i Ecoregions
Region
000 ha
Portion
L200
L300
L400
M200
M300
M400
1781
72763
27315
1861
47994
40351
1%
38%
14%
1%
25%
21%
Land use
D Closed Forest
¦ Open Forest
H Cropland
D Pasture
ED Other Lands
Area
000 ha
Portion
Closed Forest
46250
23%
Open Forest
2100
1%
Cropland
24703
13%
Pasture
74499
38%
Olher Lands
49703
25%
Total Hectares
197255
100%
Bets Hon
Growth
Inltltt
Annual
End
Initial
Eco-
Pnsctiee
Specie*
Tr»es
Site
mMiefyr
Cost
Coil
Product!
S*«|IM«L
S*qu**L
Cosl
Rsoion
mean
ever ha
Quality
mean
Currant
Current
t&'ha/yt
tC/30 vri
%nc
L300
Relorestalion
PISP
40
2500
L
12.5
3O0
3 Lumber, lue),
4.80
240.00
1.25
Aqroforeslry
PISP
40
500
L
12 5
240
18 Food, fuel, lib
4.80
240.00
1.00
M300
Relorestalion
TESP
17.5
10000
H
27.5
400
15 Fber, lodder
12.10
111.93
3.57
Aqrolorestrv
TESP
15
500
H
27.5
200
30 Food, fiber, to
12.10
96.60
2.07
1*400
Relorestalion
CAEQ
22
2400
22.3
Posts/lumber
17.84
20516
Relorestalion
CASP
30
10000
L
15
350
10
Polos, lumber
9.96
154.38
2.27
Reloresiation
LESP
25
10000
H
25
300
15
Fber. (odder
10.20
132.60
2.26
Relorestalion
PIPA
20
12
Pulp/Saw timt
4 32
45.36
Reforestation
PIPA
29
eie
13
Pulp/Saw timl
4.6B
70.20
Reloresiation
PIPA
11
2250
22
Pulp/Saw timl
7.92
47.52
Silvicuhu/e
PISP
40
4.6
Posts, potes.
1.99
99.36
Silviculture
PISP
40
1.9
Posts, potes.
0.82
41.04
Silviculture
PISP
40
4.2
Posts, potes.
1.81
90.72
Silviculture
PISP
40
4 5
Posts, poles.
1.94
97.20
Silviculture
PISP
40
1.2
Posts, potes.
0.52
2592
Silviculture
PISP
40
0.5
Posts, potes.
0.22
10.80
Silviculture
PISP
40
3.5
Posts, potes.
1.51
75.60
Agroforeslry
CASP
30
666
L
15
250
30
Food. fuel, fib
9.96
154 38
1.62
Agrolorestry
LESP
25
1000
H
25
125
35
Food, lodder
10.20
132,60
0.94
Fire Control
PISP
25
400
M
20
1000
Food.lodder.t
7.68
99.84
124
-------
New Zealand
I Bailey Ecoreglons I
n_2oo
IM200
21629
4912
81%
19%
Land use
G Closed Forest
B Open Forest
¦ Planatation
E3 Cropland
H Pasture
H Other Lands
: ATM
080 ha
Portion
Closed Forest
7200
27%
Open Forest
2300
9%
Planatation
1200
5%
Cropland
51B
2%
Pasture
13857
52%
Other Lands
1440
5%
Total Hectares
26515
100%
RoMlon
. Qfbttth;
ilrtfial;
:Ahmwi
End
Initial
Eco-
Practle*
Sp^cfct
w»
Tract
HwewhiW
Co«t '
Co«t
ProAjctt
S*quMl
:Co»t
fUolon
Outfit*
rrm*n ¦
Curr»i*
iC/tww
tC/50v»»:
MC
L200
Plantation
PIRA
27
M
25
3541.12
110.66 sawlogs
84
117.6
30.11
Plantation
PISP
24
8.64
Plantation
PIRA
1B
H
25
3541.12
116.193 pufcswood
8.4
79.8
44.37
Plantation
PIRA
20
20
pulp/wood
6.72
70.56
Plantation
PIRA
25
25
pulp/Wood
8.4
109.2
Reforestation
NOSP
425.6
Reforestation
PISP
319.2
Fertilaation
PISP
106.4
125
-------
South Africa
126
-------
South Africa, cont.
Land use
D Closed Forest
¦ Open Forest
¦ Cropland
EH Pasture
D Other Lands
Area
'OOOtfa?
Portion
Closed Forest
300
0.3%
Open Forest
Cropland
13169
11.1%
Pasture
81378
68.7%
Other Lands
23636
19.9%
Total Heclares
118483
100.0%
Ration;:
ijOrowth:
; muiet
i'Annuat
End
^Initial:;:
: £CO-
: iPrA&tte* .
:Speetu:
>'•
trees': :i:iSitiV:
'm3/hi"vr
::;€o;st.:;:
Products
Seque&L
Se4u*tt.
;:;:Catst':-
Reqlon
.per Kb duality
•Vmear*
Current
'Current
it&i&v»:
*/tC
Planting
1480
767
N.K.P.LiTie
ACME
10
3.9
1721
1.87
10.30
167.17
N.K.P.LIme
ACME
10
1.4
1721
0.67
370
465.66
N.P.K
EUGR
10
10.9
1721
4.19
23.02
74.77
N.P.K
EUGR
10
3.1
1721
1.19
6.55
262.86
N.P.K
EUGR
10
10.3
1721
3.96
21.75
79.12
N.P.K
EUGR
10
5.2
1721
2.70
14.87
115.73
N.P.K
EUGR
10
4.5
1721
1.73
9.50
181.10
N,P,K.Lime
ACME
10
2.1
1721
1.01
5.54
310.45
N.P.K.Lime
ACME
10
1.9
1721
0.91
5.02
343.13
N.P.K.Lime
ACME
10
1.8
1721
0.86
4.75
362.20
P
EUGR
10
4.9
1721
1.88
10.35
166.31
P
ACME
10
1.6
1020
0.77
422
241.57
P
ACME
10
2.1
1020
1.01
5.54
184.06
P
ACME
10
1.7
1020
0.82
4.49
227.36
P.K
ACME
10
3.5
1721
1.82
10.01
171.94
P.K
ACME
10
5.1
1721
2.65
14.59
118.00
Compaction
PIPA
25
-7
1537
-2.52
-32.76
•46.91
Compaction
P1EL
25
-6
1536
-2.83
-36.82
-41.71
Compaction
EUGR
10
-5
1537
-1.92
-10.56
-145.53
L200
Reforestation
HAGE
30
325
10
767
102.24 Mine Props
7.63
118.30
6.46
Reforestation
PISP
25
325
22
767
10254 Sawlimber
7.92
102.96
7.45
L300
Reforestation
PISP
25
325
22
767
102.24 Sawtimber
7.92
102.96
7.45
Relorestation
HAGE
30
325
1B
767
10224 Mine Props
7.63
118.30
6.48
L400
Reforestation
HAGE
30
325
18
767
10224 Mine Props
7.63
118.30
6.48
Relorestation
PISP
25
600
Reforestation
PISP
25
325
22
767
102.24 Sawlimber
7.92
102.96
7.45
Fertilization
PISP
10
60
M400
Reforestation
PISP
25
325
22
767
10224 Sawtimber
7.92
102.96
7.45
Reforestation
HAGE
30
325
18
767
10224 Mine Props
7.63
118.30
648
127
-------
United States
5000
4000
3000
2000
B
Bailey Ecore
aions
Region
OOO ha
Portion
L100
52904
5.6%
L200
321300
34.1%
L300
309114
32.8%
L400
3433
0.4%
M100
66030
7.0%
M200
107344
11.4%
M300
81308
8.6%
Rotation
GrowBi
InlSai
Ann tag
End
initial
tco-
Practice
Spocki
yr»
TrMt
Sits
ml'ha'yr
Co«t
Co« ;
Products i
Sequast.
SaquesL
Cost
Realon
mean
DM ht
Qsaliry
mean
Currerrt
C errant
tC/ha.Vr :
tC/50 yrs
S/tC
COGE
4.6
1.47
HAGE
2.5
0.96
Sireet tree
PISP
M
10
50.00
Shade
3.84
Slreel iree
OUSP
B
50.00
Shade
4.22
L20D
SRIC
POSP
8
1200
M
Fuel
M200
Plant Underprod.
COHA
120
345.94
35.34
2.20
110.21
3 14
Plant Underprod.
PCMA
70
345.94
35.34
3.31
165.31
2.09
Plant Underprod.
PCSP
70
345.94
5028
2.94
146.94
2.35
Plant Ur>derprod.
PIRE
120
345.94
35.34
2.20
110.21
3.14
Plant Underprod.
PITA
45
345.94
35.34
2.20
110.21
3.14
Wet Cropland
COHA
120
368.18
37.56
4.65
232.54
1.58
Dry Cropland
COHA
120
373.12
38.05
4.12
206.09
1.81
Wet Cropland
PCMA
70
368.18
37.56
10.18
509.15
0.72
Dry Cropland
PCMA
70
373.12
38.05
9.68
483.81
0.77
Wet Cropland
PCSP
70
368.18
37.56
6.90
445.23
0.83
Dry Cropland
PCSP
70
373.12
38.05
8.07
403.36
0.93
Dry Cropland
PIRE
120
373.12
38.05
3.28
164.21
2.27
Wet Cropland
PITA
45
368 18
37.56
7.19
359.27
1.02
Dry Cropland
PITA
45
373.12
38.05
5.97
298.66
1.25
I S 0000
IS 1000
128
-------
US, cont
Land use
D Closed Forest
¦ Open Forest
I Croplands
El Pasture
~ Other Lands
Area
000 ha
Portion
Closed Forest
209573
22%
Open Forest
86416
9%
Croplands
189915
20%
Pasture
241467
26%
Other Lands
208942
22%
Total Hectares
936313
100%
Rotation
IGiowtti:;
;;:lnltml;
: Annual
Initial
' :ECO*:;
Species
: frees:
She
iirriS/hiiiiT
Cost:
iiiposti:
Products
:&«4uest.
:Soqiie»t.
iCosl
Region
meari
:per'fia;
bui&y
-mean
Current
Current
tC/ha/yr
IC/SOyrs
f/tC
L'S 1000
M200
Wei Pastureland
COHA
120
484.32
49.42
3.64
181.84
2.66
Dry Pastureland
COHA
120
484.32
49.42
3.24
162.00
2.99
Wet Pastureland
PC MA
70
484.32
49.42
7.87
393.44
1.23
Dry Pastureland
PCMA
70
484.32
49.42
7.47
373.60
1.30
Wet Pastureland
PCSP
70
484.32
92.29
6.88
343.84
1.41
Dry Pastureland
PCSP
70
484.32
49.42
6.24
311.88
1.55
Dry Pastureland
PIRE
120
484.32
49.42
2.34
116.82
4.15
Wei Pastureland
PITA
45
484.32
49.42
5.11
255.68
1.89
Dry Pastureland
PITA
45
484.32
49.42
4.25
212.70
2.28
Passive Mgmt
COHA
120
345.94
0.99
0.90
45.16
7.66
Active Mgmt
COHA
120
345.94
10.13
1.79
89.27
3.88
Traditional
PIRE
COGE
HAGE
60 800 M
2.5
2.6
Lumber,Fiber
0.80
1.00
Planting Underprod.
COHA
100
326.17
33.36
4.41
220.41
1.48
Ranting Underprod.
PCSP
70
326.17
33.36
7.71
385.72
0.85
Planting Underprod.
PIRE
120
326.17
33.36
3.97
198.37
1.64
Planting Underprod.
PISP
120
326.17
33.36
2.20
110.21
2.96
Plant Underprod.
PISP
120
53.42
33.36
3.86
192.86
0.26
Plant Underprod.
OUSP
100
53.42
33.36
5.88
293.88
0.18
Wei Cropland
COHA
100
264.40
26.93
5.53
276.62
0.96
Dry Cropland
COHA
95
254.51
25.95
£53
276.62
0.92
Wet Cropland
PCSP
70
264.40
26.93
11.11
555.44
0.48
Dry Cropland
PCSP
111
254.51
25.95
10.27
513.56
0.50
Wet Cropland
PIRE
120
264.40
26.93
4.54
227.03
1.16
Dry Cropland
PIRE
S3
254.51
25.95
4.54
227.03
1.12
Wet Cropland
PISP
120
264.40
26.93
3.20
159.80
1.65
Dry Cropland
PISP
98
254.51
25.95
3.20
159.80
1.59
Wet Croplands
PISP
93
343.47
35.09
8.16
407.76
0.84
Dry Croplands
PISP
93
328.64
33.61
8.16
407.76
0.81
Wet Croplands
OUSP
82
343.47
35.09
9.70
484.91
0.71
Dry Croplands
OUSP
82
328.64
33.61
9.70
484.91
0.68
Wet Pastureland
COHA
81
259.46
26.44
4.39
219.31
1.18
Dry Pastureland
COHA
81
259.46
26.44
4.39
219.31
1.18
Wet Pastureland
PCSP
102
259.46
26.44
8.55
427.60
0.61
Dry Pastureland
PCSP
94
259.46
26.44
7.91
395.64
0 66
Wet Pastureland
PIRE
79
259.46
26.44
3.66
182.94
1.42
Dry Pastureland
PIRE
79
259.46
26.44
3.66
182.94
1.42
Wet Pastureland
PISP
83
259.46
26.44
2.58
128.94
2.01
Dry Pastureland
PISP
83
259.46
26.44
2.58
128.94
201
Wet Pasture
PISP
79
459.61
46.95
7.71
385.72
1.19
Dry Pasture
PISP
79
459.61
46.95
7.71
385.72
1.19
Wet Pasture
OUSP
70
459.61
46.95
8.82
440.83
1.04
Dry Pasture
OUSP
70
459.61
46.95
8.82
440.83
1.04
Passive Mgmt
COHA
82.5
9.00
0.99
0.88
44.08
0.20
Passive Mgmt
COHA
82.5
9.00
0.99
1.41
70.53
0.13
Oak-hickory lores) reg
OUSP
80 416 L-M
4
veneer, furniture, r
2.11
105.60
Active Mgmt
COHA
82.5
79.00
7.91
1.76
88.17
0.90
LS 2000
129
-------
US, cont.
IS 2000
LS 3000
IS JOOO
is 5ono
Ro tit Ion
Growth
initial
Annual
End
Initial
ECO-
Predict
Sfwclti
¦ yr»
Jtms
Slit
rrv3/ha'yr
Cost
Cost
Products
Sequesl.
S«quest.
Cost
Reqlon
ntMn
par ha
Quality
mean :
Current
Current
IC/ha/yr
1C«0 yr»
SrtC
L200
Active Mgmt
COHA
82.5
79.00
7.91
2.84
142.17
0.56
Walnut multi-cropping
JSNI
COGE
HAGE
80
69
H
5 5
3.6
3.8
veneer.lurnilure.
2.24
1.22
1.46
112.20
L300
Planting Underprod.
Planting Underprod.
Planting Underprod.
FRSP
JSNI
PCPU
100
50
70
53.42
53.42
53.42
33.36
33.36
33.36
Wei Cropland
FRSP
55
39.26
24.46
4.81
240.25
0.16
Dry Cropland
FRSP
44
39.26
24.46
3.84
191.76
0.20
Wei Cropland
JSNI
60
39.26
24.46
4.36
218.21
0.18
Dry Cropland
JSNI
50
39.26
24.46
3.64
181.84
0.22
Wei Cropland
PCPU
95
39 26
24 46
10.56
527.89
0.07
Dry Cropland
PCPU
95
39.26
24.46
10.56
527.89
0.07
Wei Pasture
FRSP
47
41.28
25.70
3.81
190.66
0.22
Dry Pasture
FRSP
37
41.28
25.70
3.04
152.09
0.27
Wei Pasture
JSNI
51
41.28
25.70
3.46
173.02
0.24
Dry Pasture
JSNI
43
41.28
25 70
2.89
144 37
0.29
Wet Pasture
PCPU
81
41.28
25.70
8.11
405.56
0.10
Dry Paslure
PCPU
81
41.28
25.70
8.11
405.56
0.10
Passive Mgml
COHA
82 5
9.00
0.99
Active Mgml
COHA
COGE
HAGE
82.5
2 3
1.4
69 00
6.92
0.74
0.54
M300
Planting Underprod
PIPO
100
38.55
Wet Cropland
PIPO
100
17.79
8.29
414.38
Dry Cropland
PIPO
100
17.79
8.29
414.38
Wei Paslure
PIPO
100
17.79
6.79
339.44
Dry Paslure
PIPO
100
17.79
6.79
339.44
Passive Mgml
COHA
82.5
9.00
0.99
Active Mgml
COHA
COGE
HAGE
82.5
53
6.2
46.00
4.69
1.70
2.38
L200
Reloiesiaiion
PIPO
70
625
H
5.5
lumber.poles.pulp
1.67
83.60
Shell erwood systems
PIPO
90
1111
M
5 5
lumber.poles.pulp
1.67
83 60
SRIC
POSP
8
1200
M
932.00
Fuel
7.50
33.75
27.61
Traditional
PSME
85
800
M
Lumber.Fiber
L300
SRIC
Traditional
POSP
PIPO
8
120
1200
800
L
L
Fuel
Lumber.Fiber
M200
Reforestation
ASRU
10
65.26
Reforestation
EUGR
16
111111
H
1459 0
357.30
tuel,liber
Plantation
PITA
1200
M
Pulpwood
Plantation
PSME
1000
M
Sawlogs
Scalping
PIPO
-0.3
-43.00
-0.09
Site prep
PITA
1200
N
Pulpwood
Relorestaiion
EUVI
1459.0
357.30
fuel,liber
Planting Underprod.
PISP
100
305.17
62.52
Planting Underprod.
PSME
100
305.17
62.52
Wet Cropland
ALRU
30
45.47
9.21
142.81
Wet Cropland
PIPO
100
45.47
3.39
169.72
Dry Cropland
PISP
100
45.47
1.94
96.98
Wei Cropland
PSME
100
45.47
4.47
223.72
Dry Cropland
PSME
100
45.47
7.82
391.23
Wei Paslure
ALRU
30
54.36
7.25
112.40
Wei Paslure
PIPO
100
54.36
1.65
82.65
Dry Paslure
PISP
100
54.36
2.56
127.84
Wei Paslure
PSME
100
54.36
3.81
190.66
Dry Pasture
PSME
100
54.36
3.81
190.66
Passive Mgmt
COHA
82.5
9.88
0.99
Adive Mgmt
COHA
82.5
88.96
9.14
Avg Commer.Care
COHA
600
M
All wood products
N-lert
PIPO
64
85.26
1.95
N-lert & thinning
PIPO
16
170.52
Thinning
4.86
Fertilization
PITA
1200
N
Pulpwood
130
-------
US, cont.
£co>:
Region
Practice
Bpttitt
Rotation
mean
Tree*
ijiifelfai
nie
Oua&iv
Growth
Hiftiaan;
•nltfflf
Annua)
jiitoist H
teuttifet
End
Products '
iSequeu.
itoha/Vr;
SaquesL
tC/3Q:yr»
tnliiel
Com
mH
L'S 5000
M200
N-tert
PSMA
7.1
8526
2.56
N led ft thinning
PSMA
5
170.52
Thinning
1.80
N-lert
PSME
12
-43.00
4.32
Fertilization
PSME
1000
M
Sawlogs
Compaction
PIPO
-1.05
-43.00
-0.32
Companion
PIPO
-0.7
-43.00
-021
Compaction
PITA
-8
-43.00
-3.01
Compaction
PSME
•8.3
-43.00
-2.99
Compaction
PSME
-35
-43.00
-126
Compaction
PSME
-11.3
•43.00
•4.07
Genetic ?
PITA
1200
N
Putpwood
Genetic?
PSME
1000
M
Sawlogs
COGE
2.6
0.83
HAGE
1.9
0.73
L200
Planting Underprod.
PIEL
30
174.21
35.58
1.60
24.80
7.02
Plantation
PITA
800
H
Pulp
Planting Underprod.
PIEL
30
48.97
30.39
Planting Underprod.
PIPS
55
48.97
30.39
Planting Underprod.
PITA
45
48.97
30.39
Planting Underprod.
PITA
45
174.21
35.58
5.50
275.00
0.63
Wet Cropland
HAGE
70
24.69
15.32
7.10
354.87
0.07
Wet Cropland
PIEL
30
24.69
15.32
8.13
126.07
0.20
Dry Cropland
PIEL
30
23.47
14.58
6.79
10523
022
Wet Cropland
PIEL
70
17.79
8.95
447.44
Dry Cropland
PIEL
30
17.54
6.83
105.91
Wet Cropland
PIPS
55
24.69
15.32
5.51
275.52
0.09
Dry Cropland
PIPS
55
23.47
14.56
4.83
241.35
0.10
Wet Cropland
PISP
30
17.79
620
127.09
Wet Cropland
PITA
45
24.69
15.32
752
375.80
0.07
Dry Cropland
PITA
45
23.47
14.58
626
312.99
0.07
Wet Cropland
PITA
45
17.79
7.08
353.76
Dry Cropland
PITA
45
17.54
5.91
295.35
Wet Pasture
HAGE
70
27.11
17.05
6.24
311.88
0.09
Wet Pasture
PIEL
30
27.11
17.05
5.80
89.85
0.30
Dry Pasture
PIEL
30
27.11
17.05
4.85
75.16
0.36
Wet Pasture
PIEL
70
19.52
7.80
390.13
Dry Pasture
PIEL
30
19.52
6.02
9327
Wet Pasture
PIPS
55
27.11
17.05
3.92
196.17
0.14
Dry Pasture
PIPS
55
27.11
17.05
3.44
171.92
0.16
Wet Pasture
PISP
30
19.52
7.23
112.06
Wet Pasture
PITA
45
27.11
17.05
5.36
267.80
0.10
Dry Pasture
PITA
45
27.11
17.05
4.47
223.63
0.12
Wet Pasture
PITA
45
19.52
624
311.88
Dry Pasture
PITA
45
19.52
5.22
261.19
Passive Mgmt
COHA
82.5
900
0.99
Passive Mgmt
COHA
82.5
9.00
0.99
Nat. Reg.
PISP
50
2500
17.5
700.00
Fiber, lumber
6.72
336.00
2.08
Active Mgmt
COHA
82.5
116.00
11.86
Active Mgmt
COHA
82.5
118.00
12.11
P-FertiSzation
PIEL
25
2.35
197.71
1.02
1320
14.9£
N/P Fertilization
PIEL
25
3.1
197.71
1.34
17.41
11.36
N or N ~ P Fertilization
PIEL
25
4 2
85 26
1.81
23.59
3.61
N or N + P Fertilization
PIEL
25
2.8
8526
121
15.72
5.42
N or N ~ P Fertilization
PIEL
25
2.65
85.26
1.14
14.88
5.73
N or N ~ P Fertilization
PIEL
25
4.9
8526
2.12
27.52
3.10
N or N ~ P Fertilization
PIEL
25
3.15
8526
1.36
17.69
4.82
N or N ~ P Fertilization
PIEL
25
1.75
85.26
0.76
9.83
8.68
Genetic Improvement
EUGR
e
1500
M
10
Genetic Improvement
PITA
30
900
L
4.5
Pulpwood/sawlogs
Genetic Improvement
PITA
25
1000
M
9
Pulpwood/sawlogs
Genetic Improvement
PITA
22
1100
H
27
Putpwood/sawlogs
Genetic Improvement
PITA
25
1000
M
4.5
US <000
131
-------
US, cont.
IAS 6000
Rotation
Growth
Initial
Annual
End
Initial
Eco-
PfBCtlC*
Bpeclet
. ys
Trees
Site
m3/ha/yr
Cost
Cost
Product!
Sequest.
Sequest.
Cost
Reaion
: mean
per h»
Quality
mean
Current
Curionl
tC/ha/yr
tC/SO yre
tnc
L300
Planting Underprod.
PITA
45
174.21
35.58
Wei Cropland
PITA
45
14.33
6.26
312.99
Dry Cropland
PITA
45
14.33
5.20
260.09
Wei Pasture
PITA
45
15.81
5.51
275.52
Ory Pasture
PITA
45
15.81
4.56
229,23
Passive Mgmt
COHA
82.5
9.00
0.99
5.00
250.00
0.04
Aoive Mnmt
COHA
82.5
118.61
12.11
1.70
65,00
1 40
L400
SRIC
LIST
6
1200
M
Fuel,Fiber
Traditional
PITA
35
800
M
Lumber,Fiber
M200
Planting Underprod.
Planting Underprod.
Wet Cropland
Dry Cropland
Wet Cropland
Dry Cropland
Wei Pasture
Dry Pasture
Wei Pasture
Dry Pasture
Passive Mgml
Artive Mgm1
P@0
P@0
P@0
P@0
P@0
P@0
P@0
PISP
PITA
PISP
PISP
PITA
PITA
PISP
PISP
PITA
PITA
COHA
COHA
PIEL
PIEL
PIEL
PIEL
PIEL
PIEL
PIEL
COGE
HAGE
50
45
50
50
45
45
50
50
45
45
82.5
82.5
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
46.94
46.94
25.09
25.09
25.09
25.09
3602
3602
36.02
36.02
9.00
116.00
4.2 197.7
3.3 197.7
1.6 197.7
0.55 197.7
1.75 197.7
1.75 197.7
2.6 197.7
6.6
2.6
29.40
29.40
15.57
15.57
15.57
15.57
22 49
22.49
22.49
2249
0.99
11.66
Pulpwood
6.83
5.69
7.76
6 46
4.87
4.06
5.53
4.61
1.81
1 43
0.69
0.24
0.76
0.76
1.12
2.11
1.00
341.64
284.33
387.93
322.91
243.56
202.78
276.62
230.33
23 59
16.53
8.99
3.09
9.83
9.83
14.60
0.07
0.09
0.06
0.08
0.15
0.18
0 13
0.16
8.38
10.67
22.00
64.01
20.12
20.12
13.54
132
-------
Bailey Ecoregions I
m
IWlZl
n
L100
847744
38%
L200
263880
12%
L300
439480
20%
M100
481813
22%
M200
102096
5%
M300
72022
3%
Land use
D Closed Forest
U Open Forest
I Plantation
D Cropland
El Pasture
D Other Lands
Ar«a
000 ha
Portion
Closed Forest
791600
35%
Open Forest
137000
6%
Plantation
52500
2%
Cropland
232473
10%
Pasture
373667
17%
Other Lands
652760
29%
Total Hectares
2240000
100%
notation
Growth
Mtial
Annual
End
Initial
Eeo
Practice
SfMCiC*
¥f»
Tim*
«4*
w3/haf*r
Con
Com
Produett
Saquast.
Saquaac
Cost
Feuicn
fflMII
oer hi
Quality
matn
Currant
Currant
iC/Wvr
tC/SO vrs
I'tC
L100
Relorestalion
PCSP
55
1000
M
1.5
175
0.46
12.77
13 71
Relorestation
PISP
55
1.7
70
0.61
17.14
4 03
Relorestalion
PISP
55
17
175
0 61
17.14
10.21
Drainage
PISP
55
0.5
55
0.18
5.04
10.91
Nal Regener
PISP
55
1 8
60
0 65
18 14
3 31
Nat. Relorestalion
COGE
55
12
100
0 41
11.56
8 65
Thinning
PISP
55
0.3
25
0.11
3.02
8 27
Thinning
COGE
55
0.3
50
0 10
2 89
17.30
Thinning
PISP
55
0.3
35
0.11
3.02
11.57
Fire Control (land)
55
6
Protection
PISP
55
0 2
60
0.07
2.02
29 7£
L200
Plantation
PISP
55
1000
H
1.3
85
047
13.10
6.49
Drain & Plant
PCSP
55
H
4.5
85
1.37
38.30
2.22
Aft ores! al ion
PISP
55
1.5
175
0 54
15 12
11.57
Nat Relorestalion
PISP
55
1000
H
12
85
0.43
12 10
7.03
Nat Relorestation
PISP
55
1000
H
1.7
85
0 61
17 14
496
Nat Relorestation
POSP
55
1000
M
2.0
85
0.59
1658
5 13
Nat Relorestation
PISP
55
1000
H
1.8
85
0 65
18 14
4 68
M" 00
Nal Relorestalion
POSP
55
1000
M
0 8
85
0.24
663
12 62
133
-------
Zaire
A
£
/L —¦—. _
/ ^ —-
v t
— —- Zj
K-
31
-t^-
J~s i
B
B
Bailey Ecoregions
Region
000 ha
Portion
L400
M400
187211
43191
81%
19%
Land use
D Closed Foresi
I Open Forest
B Cropland
~ Pasture
H Other Land
Area
000 hs
Portion
Closed Forest
105750
45%
Open Forest
71840
31%
Cropland
6647
3%
Pasture
9221
4%
Other Land
41083
18%
Tola! Hectares
234541
100%
Ftotttion
Growth
hvittal
AenuBl
End
Initial
Eco-
Practice
Species
yr»
Tnet
SIM
m3/ha/vr
Cent
Cost
Products
Sequest.
Sfrqi>«sL
Cosl
Rerfon
mean
D«r ha
Oualttv
rn»an
Current
Current
tOTiafyr
IC/50vr»
VtC
1.400
Reforestation
EUTE
15
738 00
FueNvood
6.96
Reforestation
ACAU
15
738 00
Fuefwood
8.16
Reforestation
EUCA
15
738.00
Fuehvood
7.20
Reforestation
ACAU
10
12
fuel
6.53
35 90
Thinninq
ACSP
10.00
M400
Reforestation
EUSP
10
15
6.96
36.28
Reforestation
EUSP
10
4500
H
50
S&5.60
44.28 poles, fiber
23.20
127.60
6 94
Agrotorestry
LESP
10
2500
H
20
265 58
11.81
food, fuel fiber
9.60
52 80
5 03
134
-------
Appendix D. International survey contacts
A network of contacts within 'nations was initiated to support the data-gathering process
on. promising forest management and agroforestry practices.
Four categories of national data were requested:
1) forest resources
2) potential land area for forest management
3) productivity rates/ha
4) initial costs/ha for implementing
As a beginning, 160 questionnaires were sent in May 1991 to professional foresters repre-
senting 55 countries. By August 1,1991,51 responses were received from foresters in 28
nations. All respondees expressed interest in this assessment and a desire for themselves or
colleagues to be involved.
In relation to the assessment database, sixteen responses supplied data or publications
having data for immediate incorporation. Eight others indicated that they could send data
in response to the questionnaire in a few months.
Listed below are the responses to date. Response codes after the contact name are:
(1) sent useful data
(2) willing to provide data, but need funding
(3) will be able to send data within a few months
(4) sent one or more publication(s) with relevant data
(5) sent questionnaire to a more appropriate contact
Dr. H. Aksoy, (5)
University of Istanbul
Turkey
Dr. Ekow Akyeampong, (5)
Project IGRAF/1SABU
Burundi
Dr. M. Amano, (1)
Forestry and Forest Products
Research Institute
Japan
Mr. Atul, (2)
H.P. Agricultural University
India
Dr. Wlodzimicrz Adamczyk, (1)
Forest Research Institute
Poland
Dr. Richard D. Barnes, (3)
Unit of Tropical Silviculture
England
Mr. Sushil Bhattarai, (1)
Department of Soil Conservation/
Watershed Mangement
Nepal
Dr. Z. Bludovsky, (1)
Forestry and Game Management
Research Institute
Czechoslovakia
Dr. Rowland D. Burdon, (1)
Forest Research Institute
New Zealand
Dr. J. Cermak, (1)
Institute of Forest Ecology
Czechoslovakia
Dr. John Dargavel, (5)
Australian National University;
Australia
Dr. M.A. Daugavietis, (5)
Institute of Forestry
Latvia
Dr. Gonzalo de las Salas, (2)
Corporacion Nacional de
Investigacion y Fomento Forestal
(CONIF)
Colombia
Dr. Hitiz. do Couto, (1)
Universidade de Sao Paulo
Brazil
Dr. Mark Dubois, (1)
Department of Forestry
Mississipi State Univ.
USA
135
-------
Dr. Bahiru Duguma, (5)
Dr. J. S. Kim, (4)
Dr. Ladislav Paule, (2)
1CRAF/1RA Collaborative Project
Chonnam National University
University of Forestry and Wood
Cameroon
Korea
Technology
Czechoslovakia
Dr. Takao Fujimori, (3)
Dr. M. Kosik, (1)
Forestry and Forest Products
Slovak Technical University
Anatoly Petrov, (1)(2)
Research Institute
Czechoslovakia
Ail-Union Education and Training
Japan
USSR
Dr. Ming-Jen Lee, (5)
Dr. D.C. Grey, (5)
National Chiayi Institute of
Antonio Pizzi, (5)
Saasveld Forestry Research
Agriculture
University of the Witwatersrand
Centre
China
South Africa
South Africa
Dr. M. Marden, (4)
Dr. William Possiel, (4)
Dr. Kikuo Haibara, (1)
Ministry of Forestry
Consultant
Tokyo University of Agriculture
New Zealand
Brazil
and Technology
Japan
Dr. Krzyszof R. Mazurski, (4)
Dr. Jose Antonio Prado, (3)
Academy of Economics
Instituto Forestal
Mr. T. Harinath, (2)
Poland
Chile
Institute of forest Management
India
Dr. M.A. Mendoza Briceno, (4)
Dr. Y.S. Rao, (4)(5)
Collegio de Postgraduados
FAO Regional Office
Dr. G.Hill, (5)
Programa Forestal
Thailand
University of Queensland
Mexico
Australia
Dr. Thomas Schneider, (4)
Dr. Antoine Moutanda, (3)
Institute for World Forestry and
Dr. Bertram Husch, (2)
C.T.F.T.
Ecology
Infora Ltda.
Congo
Germany
Chile
Mr. Jaime Munoz-Reyes, (3)
Dr. H.L. Sharma, (3)
Dr. R.K. Jain, (3)
Private Consultant
Department of Non-Conventional
Nat. Bot. Res. Institute
Bolivia
Energy Sources
India
India
Prof. D.N. Ngugi, (5)
Dr. Kei Kanamitsu, (1)
Makoka Agricultural Research
Dr. Khalid M. Siddiqui, (1)(4)
Nagoya University
Station
Pakistan Forest Institute
Japan
Malawi
Pakistan
Dr. Masaki Katsuta, (5)
Dr. B.A. Ola-Adams, (2)
Dr. Wang Xian Pu, (2)
Forestry and Forest Products
Forestry Research Institute of
Academia Sinica
Research Institute
Nigeria
China
Japan
Nigeria
Dr. Wang Huoran, (2)
Dr. Shafique A. Khan, (1)
Chinese Academy of Forestry
Forest Research Institute
China
Bangladesh
136
-------
Appendix E. Metric units and conversion factors
1 ha = 104 m2
1 t = 1 metric ton = 1000 kg
1 Gt= 109t=101Jkg=1015g
1 cubic meter = 35.314 cubic feet
lgC/m2 /yr = 10"2 ton C/ha/yr
1 kgC/m2 = 10tC/ha
1 ha = 2.471 Acres
1 short ton (Av) = 2000 lb = 907.18 kg = .907 metric ton
Av = Avoirdupois
1 square mile = 640 acres = 259.00 hectares
1 million = 1,000,000 = 106
1 billion = 1,000,000,000 = 109
Example: 1 billion hectares = 109 ha = l.Gha
Prefix
Factor
kilo
103
mega
106
giga
10'
peta
1075
Table of Equivalant Areas
Feet'
Mile>:
Acre
Meter2
Hectare
Kilometer5
Acre
43,560
0.0016
1
4046.86
0.4047
¦T
0.004
Mile2
27,878,400
1
640
2,490,929
258.999
259
Hectare
107,600
0.004
2.47
10,000
1
0.001
Kilometer5
10,760,000
0.386
247.1
1,000,000
100
1
137
-------
Appendix F. Database frequency distributions
Frequency distributions for mean standing stock (tC/ha), initial costs (S/ha), and the
calculated cost per ton of carbon sequestered (5/tC = S/ha divided by tC/ha;. Distribu-
tions represent the entire database which covers the 16 key nations and their forest man-
agement and agroforestry practices.
Frequency Distribution of Mean Standing SLocU Frequency Distribution of initial Costs
0 SO 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 0 200 400 ftOO flOO IOOO 1200 1400 1000 1600 >2000
Mean Stonding Slock Midpoint (tC/he) Initial Coals Midpoint (S/ho)
Frequency Distribution of Cal c-jlBled S/tC
300i
0 2J JO 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 >250
Midpoint of Colculftted J/tC
138
------- |