Zoning of Timber Extraction in the Brazilian Amazon

128

Conservation Biology, Pages 128–136Volume 12, No. 1, February 1998

Zoning of Timber Extraction in the Brazilian Amazon

ADALBERTO VERÍSSIMO,* CARLOS SOUZA JÚNIOR,† STEVE STONE,*†AND CHRISTOPHER UHL*‡§

*Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia, Caixa Postal 1015, Belém, Pará, 66.017–000, Brazil†Department of Agricultural, Resource and Managerial Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, U.S.A.‡Biology Department, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, U.S.A.

Abstract:

The state of Pará (1,248,042 km

2

), in eastern Amazônia, produces 65% of Brazil’s roundwood. Log-ging is now spreading across this state in an unplanned and unregulated fashion. Using a geographic infor-mation system (GIS), we combined and analyzed spatial information on forest cover, legal land classifica-tion, log processing industries, biodiversity, and infrastructure for the entire state. We first used this GIS, incombination with economic data, to analyze the spread of logging activities in Pará. We found that in themid-1990s, the potential already existed (in economic terms) to harvest timber from 80% of Pará’s forestedlands: 21% of Pará’s forest was accessible for the harvest of all commercial species, including those of lowvalue; an additional 30% was accessible for logging a select group of medium-value species; and a final 29%of the state’s forest was accessible for the logging of mahogany, a high-value species. Although 29% of Pará’slands are legally protected from logging, protection is weak: almost three-quarters of these “protected” landsfall within the zone in which timber can now be profitably harvested. We also used the GIS to develop a ratio-nale for zoning where logging might be permitted, as well as prohibited, in Pará. First, we noted that 19% ofthe state contained lands without timber (12% deforested, 6.3% nonforest vegetation types, and 0.7% water).The land that we designate for logging, based both on economic and conservation considerations, would beapproximately 32% (400,000 km

2

) of the state. This would include areas where logging is already underway(24%), production reserves and buffer areas (3%), and remote areas with no conservation restrictions (5%).We propose that the remaining area (49%, or 611,540 km

2

) be protected from logging, at least for the timebeing. These lands include forested areas where logging is already “officially” prohibited (28% of Pará) aswell as nonprotected areas with a high conservation priority (21%) (i.e., areas that are especially rich inbiodiversity).

Zonación de la Extracción de Madera en la Amazonia Brasileña

Resumen:

El estado de Pará (1,248,042 km

2

), en el este de la amazonia produce 65% de la madera redondadel Brazil. La tala se esta dispersando actualmente a lo largo de este estado sin planificación ni regulación.Usando un Sistema de Información Georgráfico (GIS), combinamous y analizamos información espacial decobertura forestal, clasificación legal de la tierra, industrias procesadoras de troncos, biodiversidad e infrae-structura para la totalidad del estado. Primero utilizamos este GIS en combinación con datos económicospara analizar la dispersión de las actividades de tala en Pará. Encontramos que a mediados de los 90’s el po-tencial ya existía (en terminos económicos) para cosechar madera en 80% de las tierras forestales de Pará:21% del bosque de Pará era accesible para la cosecha de todas las especies comerciales, incluyendo aquellasde bajo valor; un adicional 30% era accesible para tala de un grupo selecto de especies de mediano valor y unfinal 29% del bosque estatal era accesible para la tala de cahoba-especie de alto valor comercial. Aunque un29% de las tierras de Pará estan legalmente protegidas contra la tala, la protección es débil; casi tres cuartaspartes de estas tierras “protegidas” se encuentran de la zona en que la madera puede ser ahora cosechada demanera rentable. También utilizamos GIS para desarrollar los fundamentos para una zonación donde latala podría ser permitida, así como prohibida, en Pará. Primero, notamos que 19% del estado contiene tier-ras sin madera (12% deforestado, 6.3% tipos de vegetación no forestal y 0.7% es agua). La tierra que asigna-

§

Address correspondence to C. Uhl, email [email protected] submitted July 8, 1996; revised manuscript accepted March 26, 1997.

Conservation BiologyVolume 12, No. 1, February 1998

Veríssimo et al. Timber Extraction in the Brazilian Amazon

129

mos para tala, en base a consideraciones tanto económicas como de conservación, sería de aproximada-mente 32% (400,000 km

2

) del estado. Esto incluye áreas donde la tala se encuentra actualmente en camino(24%), áreas de producción de reserva y áreas amortiguadoras (3%) y áreas remotas sin restricciones de con-servación (5%). Proponemos que el área restante (49% ó 611,540 km

2

) sea protegida de la tala, al menos porun tiempo inmediato. Estas tierras incluyen áreas boscosas donde la tala es actualmente prohibida “oficial-mente” (28% de Pará). Asi como áreas no protegidas con un alta priridad de conservación (21%) (i.e. áreas

que son especialmente ricas en biodiversidad).

Introduction

For more than three centuries loggers have harvestedwood from the forests of Amazônia. During most of thistime extraction has been extremely selective, and theimpacts of logging have been small. But since 1970 east-ern Amazonia has developed from a logging backwaterinto the most important timber producing region in Bra-zil (Rankin 1985; Veríssimo et al. 1992). This has oc-curred for several reasons. First, the building of roadshas provided access to previously remote forest tracts.Second, timber in Amazônia is both abundant and avail-able at low cost (once transport infrastructure is pro-vided). Finally, the depletion of hardwood stocks in thesouth and southeast of Brazil, combined with Brazil’seconomic growth, have created a large demand for Ama-zonian wood (Veríssimo et al. 1992).

The state of Pará, in eastern Amazônia, producesabout 65% of Brazil’s roundwood. In the early 1990sthere were some 2000 sawmills in Pará, harvestingabout 13 million m

3

of roundwood per year (Uhl et al.1997) from more than 300 tree species (Martini et al.1994). Most logging activities have been concentratedalong major highways and river systems.

If properly managed, Amazonian logging could be agreat source of wealth. In 1993 Pará’s wood sector gen-erated almost 1 billion dollars, or 13% of Pará’s grossproduct (Veríssimo & Barros 1996). But timber extrac-tion, for the most part, has been done carelessly and hasresulted in significant canopy loss, the frequent occur-rence of fire, and invasion by vines and grasses (Uhl &Kauffmann 1990; Veríssimo et al. 1992). Moreover, log-ging indirectly contributes to regional deforestation. Atpresent, it is principally loggers who are building andmaintaining access roads into the state’s forested lands.The establishment of these roads often leads, second-arily, to haphazard settlement by migrating farmers.

Forest management needs to take place at the level ofthe individual forest stand, as well as at the landscapelevel. At the stand level, through the “best” harvest andforest-management practices, it should be possible tomaintain forest well being in logged forests (Barreto etal. 1993). At the landscape level, management entails

planning where logging should be permitted and whereit should be prohibited. This in turn requires a consider-ation of the location of timber resources, topography,the legal status of lands, and biological diversity, amongother things.

The objective of this paper is to show how spatial in-formation can be combined in a geographic informationsystem (GIS) to develop an understanding of the spreadof logging activities, as well as to develop criteria for thezoning of logging activities in Pará. We frame our analy-sis at the state level and focus, in particular, on the stateof Pará because it produces more roundwood than anyother state in Brazil. Moreover, Brazil’s new constitution(1988) grants state governments significant autonomy inland-use planning and regulation.

Methods

Study Area

As of 1988 the state of Pará (1,248,042 km

2

) was largely(81%) forested; savannas and natural grasslands and wa-ter occupy around 7% of the state, and about 12% hasbeen cleared of forests (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografiae Estatística 1990). Evergreen forests, with significanttimber value, cover about 70% of all state lands (InstitutoBrasileiro de Geografia e Estatística 1990). The remain-ing forests (11%)—including semideciduous forests,palm forests, and low, vine-dominated forests—are gen-erally poor in timber resources.

Annual rainfall in Pará ranges from 1500 mm, in thesouthern part of the state, to 3500–4000 mm in the estu-ary of the Amazon river. The majority (75%) of Pará’ssoils are oxisols and ultisols, characterized by low fertil-ity and high acidity. Fertile, well-drained soils representless than 6% of the state’s lands (Instituto Brasileiro deGeografia e Estatística 1990). Floodplains occur alongthe Amazon river, but most of the region consists of un-dulating terrain with hills ranging from 100 to 300 m inelevation. In the northern and southern parts of thestate, however, the land rises considerably to form theGuyana Shield and Brazilian Shield, respectively.

130

Timber Extraction in the Brazilian Amazon Veríssimo et al.


Data Analysis

We used the GIS software ArcInfo 3.4D Plus togetherwith Idrisi for Windows 1.0 to combine and analyze thefollowing spatial information: political boundaries androads (Departamento Estadual de Estradas e Rodagens1991), rivers (Neto 1981; Instituto de DesenvolvimentoEconômico e Social do Pará 1991), sawmill locations (In-stituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia 1994),vegetation types (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Es-tatística 1990), indigenous lands, military lands, and con-servation units (Instituto Socioambiental 1996), and pri-ority areas for conservation (Conservation International1991). Maps were digitized or otherwise converted fromoriginal format to ArcInfo format at a scale of 1:2,000,000.Roads, political boundaries, and vegetation were con-verted to raster format and then imported to Idrisi for theeconomic analysis.

MAXIMUM

GEOGRAPHIC

EXTENT

OF

PROFITABLE

TIMBER

EXTRACTION

Spatial data on navigable rivers, roads, sawmills, and veg-etation were combined with data on transportationcosts (Veríssimo et al. 1992, 1995; Barros & Uhl 1995;Stone 1997), demand centers for logs, and log prices todetermine the maximum spatial extent of profitable tim-ber extraction in Pará. Based on information from Insti-tuto do Homen e Meio Ambiente da Amazona (IMAZON;1994), 15 sawmill centers that each consumed morethan 150,000 m

3

of roundwood per year (representingover 90% of roundwood production in Pará in the mid-1990s) were selected.

We used three price categories for log sales at the saw-mill gate: one for mahogany ($220/m

3

), one for medium-value logs ($80/m

3

), and one for all other species ($40/m

3

) (Veríssimo et al. 1992; Stone 1997). In the medium-value category, 15–20 timber species are extracted, andin the low-value category, approximately 300 speciesare harvested.

Some parts of Pará’s terrain are more difficult andcostly to traverse than others. For example, based onprevious IMAZON research, we know that water-basedtransportation is significantly less expensive than terres-trial transportation. The cost of log transportation viarivers varies from $0.02/m

3

/km (log raft) to $0.08/m

3

/km (enclosed barge) (Barros & Uhl 1995). The cost of ter-restrial, truck-based log transport on paved roads rangesfrom $0.05/m

3

/km (with large, 30 m

3

–capacity trucks) to$0.10/m

3

/km (with small, 8 m

3

–capacity trucks). Therange on improved (i.e., all-season) dirt roads is $0.10/m

3

/km (large trucks) to $0.30/m

3

/km (small trucks), andon unimproved (i.e., seasonal) dirt roads $0.30–0.60/m

3

/km (Veríssimo et al. 1992; Barros & Uhl 1995; Stone1997). When the actual construction of feeder roads isincluded, as would be the case in opening up new areasto logging, the price rises to $1.50–2.00/m

3

/km (Stone

1997). But once an area has been logged and thesefeeder roads (i.e., unimproved dirt roads) are in place,the transportation costs tend to fall to $0.60/m

3

/km orless, depending on truck type.

We assigned a “friction value” to each of the differenttransport surfaces. This friction value corresponds to therelative difficulty of moving logs over each surface.Floating timber in log rafts was assigned a base frictionvalue of 1 due to its low cost (minimal friction). To de-termine the other friction values, we divided the great-est cost for log transport on each road type—the costwhen small-capacity trucks were used—by the cost oftransporting timber in log rafts ($0.02/m

3

/km). Hence,paved roads have a lower coefficient of friction (0.1/0.02

5

5) than improved dirt roads (15), which in turnare less expensive to travel on than unimproved dirtroads (30).

Finally, a least-cost algorithm was applied to map thecost of log transport between each of the 15 sawmill de-mand centers and all points radiating out from them.Data on extraction and stumpage costs were also in-cluded for each point on the map to produce an overallcumulative cost surface. This process was repeated sep-arately for mahogany because it has a markedly highervalue, fewer demand locations, and a more limited geo-graphic distribution. In Pará, mahogany occurs in patchesfrom the southern border up to 4

8

S latitude (Lamb 1966;De Barros et al. 1992), an area that corresponds to ap-proximately 40% of the state’s territory. Finally, resultsof the cost-surface analysis were overlaid with the vege-tation layer to determine areas of economic accessibilityfor timber of high, medium, and low value.

LEGALLY

PROTECTED

AREAS

THREATENED

BY

LOGGING

The maps of national forests, nature reserves, buffer ar-eas, national parks, biological reserves, ecological sta-tions, Indian lands, and military lands were joined togenerate a map of legally protected lands in Pará. Ac-cording to Brazilian law, logging is prohibited in naturereserves, Indian lands, and military lands, whereas log-ging is restricted but not prohibited in national forestsand buffer areas. In cases where prohibited areas over-lapped restricted lands (e.g., military land also classifiedas production reserve), we opted to classify the area asprohibited to logging. To conclude this analysis, thismap of legally protected areas was joined with the mapshowing the maximum extent of profitable timber ex-traction (see above) to display protected areas that arepotentially threatened by logging activities (given theirlocation in relation to sawmill centers).

ATTEMPT

TO

ZONE

LOGGING

ACTIVITIES

IN

PARÁ

STATE

Using four maps, we produced an initial proposal forzoning timber-extraction activities in Pará. Two of the



131

maps have already been mentioned, the map of the max-imum economic extent of timber extraction and themap of legally protected areas. A third map, of vegeta-tion type (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística1990), was used to discriminate areas with and withouttimber resources. This map reveals the existence of 17vegetation types within Pará State, 8 of which are tim-ber-containing forest. A fourth map, of priority areas forconservation in the Amazon (Conservation International1992), was used to indicate areas thought to be espe-cially rich in biodiversity. This fourth map was producedat a workshop held in Manaus, Brazil, in 1990. The meet-ing brought together more than 100 scientists to identifypriority areas for conservation, based on their knowl-edge of species richness, rarity, and endemism. The par-ticipants also considered other factors, such as unusualgeochemical features and deforestation threats, as factorsin identifying priority areas for conservation (Rylands1991). In our analysis, we divided the Manaus workshopresults into three categories: (1) areas without data; (2)areas that received medium conservation priority (levels1, 2, and 3); and 3) areas that received high conservationpriority (levels 4 and 5) (Rylands 1991).

Finally, we combined maps of economic accessibility,legally protected lands, vegetation cover, and priority ar-eas for conservation to develop a rationale for zoningwhere logging might be permitted as well as prohibitedin Pará.

Results and Discussion

Maximum Geographic Extent of Profitable Timber Extraction

The transport range of logs in Amazônia is limited be-cause timber is a large, bulky commodity that is expen-sive to transport. In addition, the extent of river trans-

portation in Pará is limited by the Guyana Shield to thenorth of the Amazon river and by the Brazilian Shield tothe south.

Nonetheless, based on our economic cost-surface anal-ysis (Table 1, Fig. 1), around 80% of the approximately 1million km

2

of forest in Pará is currently accessible tologging. Of this total, 21% is considered very accessible,meaning that it is economically viable to harvest all com-mercial timber species—even those of low value—found there. An additional 30% is accessible for the har-vest of a select group of 15–20 species whose round-wood values at the sawmill gate are roughly $80/m

3

(e.g.,

Cedrela odorota

,

Cordia goeldiana

,

Tabebuia ser-ratifolia

,

Euxylophora paraensis

). Finally, 29% of theforested area of this state is accessible only for mahogany(roundwood value above $200/m

3

) (Fig. 1, Table 1).The more economically accessible areas for logging

are located in the east, along the Belém-Brasília and Pará150 Highways, and in the central part of the state, alongthe Amazon river. The economically inaccessible forest(20% of the state) is concentrated in the Guyana Shield(Fig. 1).

The ecological impacts of logging are often severe incases where it is profitable to harvest all timber species:40% or more of the canopy is often removed, dozens ofyoung trees are killed for each bole that is extracted, andfire risk increases significantly (Veríssimo et al. 1992). Incases where it is economically feasible to harvest onlyone or a few species, damage to the remaining stand isless, but access roads opened for timber extraction canact as a catalyst for colonization (e.g., mahogany loggingin the south of Pará; Veríssimo et al. 1995).

Overall, a significant portion of Pará is now potentiallyaccessible to loggers. In the case of the mahogany belt inthe south of Pará, virtually the entire region is accessi-ble. There are constraints on the ability of timber indus-tries to fully exploit all economically accessible forest ar-

Table 1. Forest areas that could be profitably logged in Pará state, Brazilian Amazon.

Land categoryForested area

(km

2

)Pará’s forests

(%)Pará’s lands

(%)

Nonforested — — 19

ForestedAccessible for all commercial species

a

214,150 21 17Accessible for 15–20 medium-value species

b

306,421 30 24Accessible for mahogany only

c

301,259 29 24Economically inaccessible for all species

d

198,120 20 16

Total forested area

e

1,020,000 100 100

a

Around 350 species are presently harvested in eastern Amazonia, and more than 90% are considered low-value species (approximately $40/m

3

).

b

Species such as

Euxyophora paraensis

,

Tabebuia serratifolia

,

Cedrela odorata

, and

Cordia goeldiana

are considered of medium value (approxi-mately $80/m

3

).

c

Mahogany has a limited distribution, occurring in patches in the southern and western portions of Pará.

d

Most areas located in the Guyana Shield, north of the Amazon River.

e

The LANDSAT imagery for estimates of forest area are from 1988. The forested areas represents approximately 81% of Pará’s lands. Skole andTucker (1993), also working with 1988 imagery, estimated a slightly higher value for forest area (1,180,000 km

2

) in Pará. This small differenceexists because our forest classification excludes forests that do not contain timber species.

132



eas, such as limited processing capacity and shortage ofcapital (Stone 1997). But this is likely to change in thecoming years if more roads are opened and paved, theBrazilian economy grows, and timber prices rise in do-mestic and international markets (Stone 1997).

Legally Protected Areas Threatened by Logging

Pará has 29% (approximately 362,000 km

2

) of its area le-gally protected from logging activities, with another 3%of its lands protected from deforestation but not prohib-ited for logging (production reserves and buffer areas)(Table 2; Fig. 2).

The majority of the area that is legally protected fromlogging is in Indian reserves (77% of lands protectedfrom logging), with military lands and nature reservesmaking up the remainder. Most of these lands are con-centrated in the northern and southern regions of thestate. In eastern Pará, where most logging has occurredto date, the amount of protected lands is small.

It is important to recognize that these protected landsare often protected only in theory. In fact, logging hasbeen documented in most of the Indian and nature re-serves in the southern and central portions of Pará(Veríssimo et al. 1995). Illegal logging has also been re-ported in some military lands in the south of the state.

Approximately 70% of the legally protected lands inPará are now economically accessible for timber extrac-

Figure 1. Economic accessibility of forest timber in the state of Pará, eastern Amazonia, Brazil. All forest ar-eas except those shown in black are economically ac-cessible to loggers.

Table 2. Protected lands of Pará, Brazilian Amazon.

Land category Area (km

2

) Pará’s land (%) Logging status

Production reserves

a

14,412 1.2 permitted with restrictionBuffer areas

b

22,048 1.8 permitted with restrictionNature reserves

c

17,145 1.4 prohibitedIndian lands

d

277,065 22.2 prohibitedMilitary lands

e

56,350 4.5 prohibitedMilitary - overlapping areas

f

12,814 1.0 prohibitedmilitary/production reserves 834 0.06military/nature reserves 1,954 0.15military/Indian lands 10,026 0.80

Total protected 399,834 32Total prohibited to logging 361,933 29

a

National forests, extractive reserves, and areas of environmental protection where logging, tourism, and extractive activities are permitted inaccord with management plans defined and approved by public environmental agencies.

b

The National Environmental Council created 10-km buffer zones around nature reserves and production reserves. In these buffer zones log-ging is permitted, provided that it is conducted under a sustainable management regime as defined by public environmental agencies.

c

Nature reserves, including biological reserves, national parks, ecological stations, ecological reserves, state parks, and state reserves, are setaside strictly for permanent preservation. In these areas human activities are restricted to scientific research, environmental education, andrecreation.

d

Set aside for permanent preservation; logging is prohibited.

e

All land-use activities, including logging, are prohibited.

f

There is overlap among some military lands and other categories of protected land. In cases where military areas overlap production reserves,we considered the area off-limits for logging.

Figure 2. Protected areas in the state of Pará, eastern Amazonia, Brazil.



133

tion (Fig. 3). Two-thirds of Pará’s Indian lands are acces-sible to logging activities—especially for mahogany ex-traction, given that most Indian reserves occur in themahogany belt. Also, over 75% of Pará’s military landsfall within the range of profitable timber extraction. Fi-nally, all nature and production reserves are now eco-nomically accessible to loggers. The protected areas thatare presently out of reach to logging (27%) are located inthe northern parts of the state and in relatively smallblocks in the south (Fig. 3).

The Brazilian agencies in charge of nature reserves In-stituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente (IBAMA) and Indianlands Fundaçáo Nacional do Índio (FUNAI) have had dif-ficulty protecting the areas under their jurisdiction fromlogging incursions. For example, there is only one parkguard per 6000 km

2

of nature reserve in the BrazilianAmazon, whereas in the United States this ratio is 1:82km

2

(Peres & Terborgh 1995). These agencies face manyproblems, including centralized administrative struc-tures, low budgets, lack of effective methods to monitorand protect forests, and small, poorly trained staff.

Attempt to Zone Logging Activities in Pará

We combined maps of economic accessibility for timberextraction (Fig. 1), protected lands threatened by log-ging (Figs. 2 & 3), and priority areas for conservation(Fig. 4) to develop a rationale for zoning timber extrac-tion in Pará (Fig. 5).

Approximately 19% (237,000 km

2

) of Pará’s territoryhas no timber. These nontimber areas are composed ofnonforest vegetation such as savannas and natural grass-lands (6.3%), water systems (0.7%), or deforested lands(12%) (Fig. 5, lightest shading). The majority of the de-forested lands are relatively well served by roads and, al-

though often impoverished at present, might be con-verted to productive farms, dairy operations, andagroforestry systems (Mattos & Uhl 1994; Almeida & Uhl1995; Toniolo & Uhl 1995).

Second, the area of land designated for logging, froman economic and conservation perspective (it is not es-pecially rich in biodiversity), would be approximately32% (400,000 km

2

) of the state. This would include theareas designated for present-day logging without restric-tions (300,000 km

2

), production reserves and buffers(36,000 km

2

), and currently remote areas with loggingpotential and no logging restrictions (62,000 km

2

). Finally, we propose that the remaining areas (49% of

the state, or 611,540 km

2

) be prohibited for logging, atleast for the time being. These areas include protectedareas where logging is already prohibited as well as non-protected areas with high conservation priority. The al-ready-protected lands amount to 362,000 km

2

(Table 2),

Figure 3. Protected areas threatened by logging activi-ties in Pará, eastern Amazonia, Brazil. Black areas are prohibited to logging but are close enough to log-ging centers to be profitably logged.

Figure 4. Priority areas for conservation in Para, east-ern Amazonia, Brazil (adapted from Conservation In-ternational 1991).

Figure 5. A proposal for zoning timber extraction and forest conservation in Pará, eastern Amazonia, Brazil.

134



but in reality only 349,000 km

2

should be so designatedbecause some 13,000 km

2

have been deforested and al-ready included in the nontimber category. The forestlands characterized by high levels of endemism and/orspecies richness (priority levels 4 and 5; ConservationInternational 1991) lying outside of lands that have al-ready been designated for protection comprise approxi-mately 262,000 km

2

of Pará’s forests (21% of the state).In addition to existing protected areas, we propose thatthese areas of high conservation priority be zoned off-limits to logging (Fig. 5).

Cautionary Notes

The overall intent of these analyses is to begin providingcivil and government decision makers with the informa-tion they need to engage in an informed debate on Ama-zon resource management and conservation.

At the same time, we acknowledge that our analyseshave several shortcomings. First, we have not includedimportant variables such as slope and fire susceptibilityin our zoning analysis. Slope data, for example, might beused to justify the prohibition of logging on terrain withslopes in excess of 30

8

. In addition, a data layer showingforest flammability would be helpful in identifying areasof Pará that are susceptible to fire. Logging might be re-stricted in such areas because logging acts as a catalystfor fire by opening the forest canopy and increasing theamount of slash (fuel) on the forest floor.

Second, the map produced by the 1990 workshopshowing high-priority areas for conservation is basedmostly on the personal experience of the participantsrather than on systematic data collection. But the assem-bled knowledge of more than 100 experts representsthe best information on Amazonian biodiversity that wehave at present.

Finally, in the economic cost surface analysis we as-sumed that transportation costs are linear. As Barros andUhl (1995) point out, the per-unit costs of moving tim-ber over land decrease as one switches to larger trucksizes. But once the upper limit of truck size is reached,the increase in cost per unit volume is linear. The storyis probably slightly more complicated in terms of watertransportation because it appears that economies ofscale exist and that firms are not limited to the same ex-tent in their choice of barge size (Stone 1997). Theseshortcomings must be taken into account, but we haveshown that, using available information, it is now possi-ble to forecast the expansion of logging activities in Am-azonia and to develop a zoning rationale for controllingthese activities.

Zoning of Logging and Timber Demand

At present, the wood industry in Pará logs some 5200km2 of forest each year to produce approximately 13

million m3 of roundwood (Uhl et al. 1997). Given itspresent rate of growth, the productivity of Pará’s woodsector could easily double to 26 million m3 over the next10 years. In this case, the area of forest logged would in-crease to approximately 10,400 km2/year. In the ab-sence of forest management, Barreto et al. (1993) esti-mate that cutting cycles will need to be 70 years. Thismeans that the total area of Pará needed to supply 26million m3 of roundwood per year would be about728,000 km2. Hence, the area that we suggest be zonedfor logging (approximately 400,000 km2) would be only55% of that necessary to meet a doubling in demand. Butif logged forests were to be carefully managed (i.e., cut-ting cycles reduced to 30–40 years; Barreto et al. 1993),the forest area required might be around 360,000 km2,which is similar to the amount of land zoned for loggingin our scenario. In addition, an increase in sawmill effi-ciency would further reduce the amount of forest landrequired. At present, only about one-third of each har-vested log is transformed into sawn products, but pro-cessing efficiency could be increased to 50% throughsimple improvements in machine maintenance and bytraining the labor force (Gerwing et al. 1996).

Management of Areas Designated for Logging

The Brazilian government could take an active role in ad-ministering forest management in areas designated forlogging. For example, the government might considerestablishing “working forests”—publicly owned landsthat are privately managed. Such forests might be bestmanaged by local inhabitants. Local people often have awoodsman’s knowledge that prepares them to be goodforest managers.

Rural communities might be given access to sizableforest tracts through long-term concession arrange-ments. In the past, forest concessions have sometimesbeen unsuccessful, but measures might be taken, includ-ing instruction in forest management and marketingtechniques (establishing contact with buyers, gaining ac-cess to information on prices, etc.), to help ensure theirsuccess. Nongovernmental organizations might play keyroles in providing guidance in technical and financialmatters, thereby facilitating community empowerment.

The international community could play a catalyticrole in the move to increase the value of tropical timberresources because foreign consumers are often con-cerned about tropical deforestation and generally sup-port the idea of buying tropical woods from managedforests. Northern consumers might be even more enthu-siastic about this proposition if the forest managers werelocal people.

It is worth noting that community-based forest man-agement is starting to take hold in Asia (Poffenberger &McGean 1994). There, forestry agencies are forging alli-ances with local communities. These communities are


Veríssimo et al. Timber Extraction in the Brazilian Amazon 135

showing that they can work as allies with governmentand other organizations to control access to forest tractsand develop sustainable management approaches. Thecreation of extensive networks of working forests inAmazônia with legal standing might also serve as buffersagainst further deforestation.

Conclusion

At present there is no strategy for deciding where log-ging should occur or be prohibited in the Brazilian Ama-zon. Without government planning and control, woodindustries might log all of Pará’s forests. The most likelyconsequences of this unregulated logging will be the es-tablishment of logging roads throughout the state, fol-lowed by haphazard settlement and deforestation.

The present unsustainable, uncontrolled spread of log-ging activities throughout Pará could be replaced by asustainable model that would bring economic returnswhile protecting biodiversity and Indian rights. The Bra-zilian government could foster this sustainable foreststewardship in three ways. First, it could move forwardaggressively with its project to zone all of Amazonia, us-ing ecological and economic criteria. The approach wehave taken in this study provides one model for thesemacrozoning efforts. Second, the government could en-force the new Forestry Code (measure 1511), which re-quires that private holdings in Amazonia maintain 80%of their land in forest cover. Effective enforcement willrequire significant investments in land demarcation andland-use monitoring. New global positioning and geo-graphic information systems technology (GPS/GIS), com-bined with high-resolution (e.g., 1-m pixel size) imagery,could aid in this task. Finally, the government couldmove to assume unambiguous control of Amazonia’spublic lands. In the case of Pará, approximately half ofthese public lands have been at least theoretically desig-nated as Indian reserves, conservation units, or militarylands. The other half of Pará’s public lands (almost one-third of the state) have no official designation and arebeing deforested rapidly. It is urgent that these lands bedemarcated, categorized either as production reservesor nature reserves, and protected accordingly.

Acknowledgments

We thank E. Moraes, P. A. Coelho, and R. Salomão for as-sisting with data input; F. Figueiredo for creating thegraphics; and M. Cochrane, N. Rai, P. Lockwood, and M.Schultze for commenting on drafts of this paper. This re-search was made possible by a grant from the W. AltonJones Foundation, U.S.A., and the World Wildlife Fund(U.S.A.).

Literature Cited

Almeida, O., and C. Uhl. 1995. Developing a quantitative frameworkfor land use planning in the Brazilian Amazon. World Development12:105–114.

Barreto, P., C. Uhl, and J. Yared. 1993. O potencial de produçãosustentável de madeira em Paragominas, Amazônia Oriental: con-siderações ecológicas e econômicas. Pages 387–392 in Anais do 18

Congresso Florestal Panamericano. Curitiba, Brazil.Barros, A., and C. Uhl. 1995. Logging along the Amazon river and estu-

ary: patterns, problems and potential. Forest Ecology and Manage-ment 77:87–105.

Conservation International. 1991. Workshop 90. Biological prioritiesfor conservation in Amazonia. Conservation International, Wash-ington D.C.

De Barros, P. L. C., W. T. Queiroz, J. N. M Silva, F. A Oliveira, P. P. C.Filho, E. F. Terezo, M. M. Farias, and A. V. Barros. 1992. Natural andartificial reserves of Swietenia macrophylla King, in the BrazilianAmazon—a perspective for conservation. Faculdade de CiênciasAgrárias do Pará, Belém, Pará, Brazil.

Departamento Estadual de Estradas e Rodagens. 1991. Mapa de estra-das do Pará. Departamento Estadual de Estradas e Rodagens, Belém,Brazil.

Gerwing, J., J. Johns, and E. Vidal. 1996. Reducing waste during log-ging and log processing: forest conservation in eastern Amazon.Unasylva 187:17–25.

Instituto Brasileiro do Geografia e Estatística. 1990. Projeto de zonea-mento das potencialidades dos recursos naturais da Amazônia legal.Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Instituto de Desenvolvimento Econômico Social do Pará. 1991. Zonea-mento ecológico econômico do Estado do Pará. Revista de EstudosParaenses N858. Belém, Brazil.

Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia. 1994. Mapa das in-dústrias madeireira do Estado do Pará. Working paper. Belém, Brazil.

Instituto Socioambiental. 1996. Terras indígenas na Amazônia brasileirae outras áreas da União destinadas a usos especiais. Brasília, Brazil.

Lamb, F. B., 1966. Mahogany of tropical America: its ecology and man-agement. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Martini, A., N. Rosa, and C. Uhl. 1994. An attempt to predict whichAmazonian tree species may be threatened by logging activities.Environmental Conservation 21:152–162.

Mattos, M., and C. Uhl. 1994. Economic and ecological perspectives onranching in the Eastern Amazon. World Development 22:145–158.

Neto, L. T. Rios da Amazônia. 1981. Coletânea de dados, pequenoroteiro. Superintendencia de Desenvolvimento da Amazonia, Belém,Brazil.

Peres, C. A., and J. Terborgh. 1995. Amazonian nature reserves: ananalysis of the defensability status of existing conservation unitsand design criteria for the future. Conservation Biology 9:34–46.

Poffenberger, M., and B. McGean. 1994. Policy dialogue on natural for-est regeneration and community management. Proceedings ofworkshop. Research network report number 5. East West Center,Honolulu, Hawaii.

Rankin, J. M. 1985. Forestry in the Brazilian Amazon. Pages 369–392 inG. T. Prance and T. E. Lovejoy, editors. Amazonia, key environmen-tal series. Pergamon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Rylands, A. B. 1991. The status of conservation areas in the BrazilianAmazon. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.

Skole, D., and C. Tucker. 1993. Tropical deforestation and habitat frag-mentation in the Amazon: satellite data from 1978 to 1988. Science260:1905–1910.

Stone, W. S. 1997. Growth of the timber industry in the eastern Ama-zon: economic trends and implications for policy. Ph.D. disserta-tion. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

Toniolo, A., and C. Uhl. 1995. Economic and ecological perspectives onagriculture in the eastern Amazon. World Development 23:959–973.

Uhl, C., and J. B. Kauffman. 1990. Deforestation effects on fire suscep-

136 Timber Extraction in the Brazilian Amazon Veríssimo et al.


tibility and the potential response of tree species to fire in the rain-forest of the eastern Amazon. Ecology 71:437–449.

Uhl, C., P. Barreto, A. Verissimo, E. Vidal, P. Amaral, A. C. Barros, C.Souza, Jr., J. Johns, and J. Gerwing. 1997. Natural resource manage-ment in the Brazilian Amazon: an integrated approach. Bioscience47:160–168.

Veríssimo, A., and A. C. Barros. 1996. A atividade madeireira e o futuroda Amazônia. Pages 1–8 in A. C. Barros and A. Veríssimo, editors. Aexpansão da atividade madeireira: impactos e perspectivas para o

desenvolvimento do Setor Florestal no Pará. Institute do Homen eMeio Ambeinte da Amazônia, Belém, Brazil.

Veríssimo, A., P. Barreto, M. Mattos, R. Tarifa, and C. Uhl. 1992. Log-ging impacts and prospects for sustainable forest management inan old Amazonia frontier. The case of Paragominas. Forest Ecologyand Management 55:169–199.

Veríssimo, A., P. Barreto, R. Tarifa, and C. Uhl. 1995. Extraction of ahigh-value natural resource from Amazonia: the case of mahogany.Forest Ecology and Management 72:39–60.

Zoning of Timber Extraction in the Brazilian Amazon

Documents

Transcript of Zoning of Timber Extraction in the Brazilian Amazon