Volume, Biomass, and Carbon Estimates for Commercial Tree Species in a Managed Forest: A Case Study in the Bolivian Amazon

Abstract

Tropical forest management has a potential role in forest conservation if it is sustainable. This study of a forest under management in Bolivian Amazonia strongly suggests that the management project is not sustainable and that no potential changes in management would be likely to make it so. In a 216.41 ha harvested area, 278 commercial trees from 10 families, 15 genera, and 15 species were measured. The density of commercial species with diameter at breast height (DBH) ≥ 50 cm was 1.28 trees ha−1, and the harvestable commercial volume was 12.40 m3 ha−1. Due to market restrictions, the actual amounts harvested were much lower: 96 trees were harvested with commercial boles totaling 2.7 m3 ha−1. Of the total impact on biomass and carbon (above- and belowground), the logs removed from the area represented only 13.4%, while 86.6% was from losses in the forest as follows: 14.5% from the stumps, crowns, and roots of harvested trees (DBH ≥ 50 cm) plus 72.1% from the trees (DBH ≥ 10 cm) in the forest lost to roads, log landings, and skid tracks and the gap openings caused by felling the harvested trees. The estimated expenses exceeded the gross revenue of the management company (USD 519.15 ha−1), a fact confirmed by the company’s subsequent bankruptcy. The project’s low harvest intensity reduces the environmental impact per hectare but increases the impact per cubic meter of wood harvested because producing a given volume of wood requires disturbing a larger area and because more kilometers of access roads and skid tracks have to be installed to extract a given volume of wood. Because many costs are fixed regardless of harvest intensity, small harvest volume can render such projects financially unfeasible, increasing the likelihood that they will be abandoned and not provide long-term “sustainable” forest protection. However, this does not mean that higher harvest intensity results in sustainability as other constraints apply to high-intensity projects. We conclude that conservation alternatives to maintain the forest would be more beneficial than management for timber.