Julia Touza - Montero and Charles Perrings Environment Department, University of York

1. Policies for the management of landscape diversity and collectively managed forests: the case of Galicia Julia Touza-Montero and Charles Perrings Environment Department, University of York

2. Presentation overview • Motivation • Multiple stand landscape model -optimal harvesting rule - • Case study: Galician collective forests in Spain • Policy implications

3. Motivation • Management of forest resources has moved towards a • landscape-based approach to manage for multiple values • Think beyond individual stands -- mosaic of stands • Why? • Management at a stand level impedes the assessment of the implications of the management actions at a landscape scale • Lack of spatial consideractions (stands size, shape, proximity, dispersion, adjacency) Unanticipated ecological changes

4. Motivation - Cont…. • Forest management at a landscape scale is increasingly recognised as a key for conservation of biodiversity • Focus on maintaining the habitats • Interactions between spatially dispersed stands determine forest ecological processes (e.g. movement of species, spread of disturbances)

5. Motivation - Cont…. • Case study focuses on Galicia (Northwest of Spain) • Forest area covers 69% of the territory • Pinus pinaster, Eucalyptus globulus, and mixed forest of • these species 35% • Quercus robur and Quercus pyrenaica 14% • Non-wooded (scrublands) 31% • Galicia has patchy forest land

6. Motivation - Cont…. • Individual ownership:68% of forest land- 2.3 ha mean size • Collective ownership:30% of forest land- 231 hamean size • Members of a rural community have the rights to the forest resources without parcelling the rights to the forest itself • Forestry, support for cattle raising and agriculture, amenities, hunting, etc. • Multiple forest uses and spatial interactions between stands are integrated within the decision making process

7. Multiple stand model • Harvest decisions, i.e. rotation periods, in a multiple stand forest managed fortimber and non-timber values • Stand interactions are assumed to influence the flow of non-timber benefits provided for the entire forest landscape • Bowes and Krutilla, 1985, Swallow et al. 1997, Thavonen and Salo, 1999, Amacher et al. 2002 • A dynamic optimal cutting rule in a multiple stand forest landscape • Note: theoretical results independent of type of ownership

8. Multiple stand model

9. Multiple stand model • Choose the optimum time moments of the stands’ harvests, to maximise timber and non-timber benefits T   (s1[a1(t)],..,sn[an(t)])e-t dt +  [pixi(ij-)-cipxip] e- ij subject to xi = Fi[xi(t)]between harvests ai= 1 between harvests xi(ij+) - xi(ij-) = - xi(ij-) + xip at harvest ai(ij+) - ai(ij-) = - a(ij-) + aip at harvest xi(0)=x0 0  

10. Multiple stand model • Optimal cutting condition for any stand in the forest landscape • Forest MB = Forest MC (s1[a1(ij-)],., sn[an(ij-)])e- ij-(s1[a1(ij+)],.., sn[an(ij+)])e- ij+piFi[xi(ij-)]e- ij = [pixi(ij-)-cipxip] e- ij+pi Fi[xi(ij+1-)] e- ij+1+i(ij+) (ij-)-(ij+)stand i relative contribution to the forest NTB if its harvest is delayed Stands’ interactions i(ij+)opportunity costs of delaying future forest NTB and altering the age of stand i relative to the other stands’ age

11. Case study: Galician collective lands • Analysis of harvesting decisions accounting for landscape pattern differences between collective forests • Dependent variable: rotation length • Baixo-Miño (68% forest land – 73% collective forests) • Reports on clear-cuttings undertaken on collective forests under contract mechanisms - from 1995 to 2001

12. Case study: Galician collective lands Duration analysis: parameter estimates from the Weibull distribution (a) We compute this estimation with dummies for those harvesting reports which contain several tree species but the p-values suggested omitting them from the model *** significant at 1% level; ** significant at 5%; * significant at 10%

13. Conclusions and policy implications • Optimal harvesting strategies at a single-stand scale are not necessarily optimal when a larger spatial scale is adoped and spatial interactions inform the decisions • What is the difference? • Single-stand: the flow of the stand’s NTB influences when the • stand should be harvested (Faustmann-Hartman rule) • Multiple-stand: it is the relative contribution of each stand to the NTB from the overall forest landscape that affects the rotation intervals

14. Policy implications – Cont... • Fragmentation, diversity and clumpiness are relevant determinants of harvesting behaviour in Galicia collective forests • Policy implications: • •Non-harvesting policies may be optimal for those areas that • contribute highly valuable environmental goods and services to • forest landscape benefits • • It may be optimal never to harvest any of the stands in the forest • if NTB increase with age and are significant with respect to other • uses

15. Policy implications – Cont... • The ecological and economic consequences of alternative actions taken at small scales (stands) on a wider spatial context (i.e. forest landscape) must be allowed for in forest management decision making • The weight attached to the forest benefits from a particular stand depend on the interdependence between stands • Importance of spatial interactions on harvesting strategies – Scale

16. Policy implications – Cont... 98% of forest land is in private hands Individual ownerships have a mean size of 2.3 hectares •In Galicia Public planning of forest landscapes is essential to account both for: (a) spatial interactions between the stands; (b) preferences of society Public policies, which encourage coordination and cooperation among forest owners, are necessary to ensure that private owners’ actions are consistent with environmental and economic goals set at a landscape level Problems: Inventories of single and collective forest ownerships are scarce Weakened communal institutions

17. Thank you!