CCF - WSL

Report
Forestry professionals’ knowledge of and
attitudes towards the practice of
continuous cover forestry (CCF)
Lucie Vítková
University College Dublin, School of Agriculture & Food Science, Forestry
Department, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
Irish forests
Photo: Dr Brian Tobin
Why focusing on attitudes?
• CCF represents an unfamiliar and novel approach to forest
management
• Implementation of new management is influenced by:
– Attitudes
– Knowledge
– Values
• Attitudes of forestry professionals -> Limited
Methods
• On-line survey
–
–
–
–
General information on CCF
Statements framed in the context of issues regarding CCF
Demographic questions
Additional comments
• Participants
–
–
–
–
–
Coillte Teo.
Teagasc
Forest Service
Association of Irish Forestry Consultants
Other forest management companies in Ireland
Use of CCF
• 32% actively use CCF – forest managers
• 24% do not use CCF – forest managers
• 34% do not use CCF – forestry consultants/advisors
• 10% did not mention
Understanding of CCF – all participants
• 98% familiar with continuous cover forestry
• Silvicultural systems associated with CCF
–
–
–
–
Shelterwood systems (26%)
Selection systems (22%)
Not mentioned (27%)
natural regeneration, thinning, long-term retention, low
impact silviculture, etc.
CCF users (32% respondents)
• Reasons for CCF use:
–
–
–
–
Economic benefit
Broadleaved species
Amenity and recreation
Certification
• Extent of CCF use - limited
– Area managed under CCF <10%
– CCF applied for <10 years
CCF non-users (24% respondents)
• Over 1/3 not planning to use CCF in the future
‘... not convinced of CCF, especially with regards to economics...’
‘... CCF is not a conventional system in Ireland ...’
‘... local forests are too small and the tree species are not suitable
to CCF...’
• Resistance from forest owners:
‘... forest owners desire to generate revenue through clearfell...’
‘... private forest owners want a ‘fast’ return but CCF has a
‘stigma’ of long term...’
Constraints of CCF
all respondents
Constraint
Forester's knowledge
Wind/stability
Market conditions
Owners perspective
Soil type
Mammal densities
Other
Regulations and laws
1st
26
26
12
11
9
8
6
5
2nd
14
12
7
7
22
7
2
1
Can they be overcome?
-Education
-Training
-Research
-Increasing awareness
3rd
16
13
13
9
13
8
4
11
Rank
4th 5th
7
6
6
8
11 12
18 13
8
8
16 11
1
1
7
6
6th
5
3
7
6
14
13
1
17
7th
1
6
12
7
2
12
4
18
8th
1
7
12
8
2
12
4
19
Drivers of CCF - all respondents
Driver
Rank
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
Certification
27
15
15
8
11
6
0
Economics
21
12
5
8
14
18
5
Scenic and landscape values
14
18
21
12
9
6
1
Public opposition to clearfell
13
19
14
13
12
6
4
Need for increased biodiversity
12
14
13
18
12
14
0
Recreation
4
14
14
16
13
16
4
Other
4
1
0
1
0
0
16
Attitudes to CCF
Statement
‘Clearcutting makes more money than CCF in Ireland’
Disagree Don’t know Agree
(%)
(%)
(%)
5
40
54
41
18
42
‘Policy makers in Ireland should encourage the use of CCF
more’
11
14
75
‘Broadleaved forests are better suited to the application of
CCF than coniferous forests’
42
8
50
‘The high risk of windthrow in Ireland drives us to use
clearcutting’
28
3
69
‘I have the expertise to practice CCF with confidence’
Conclusions
• CCF users over-represented
• CCF = new concept in Ireland
– It can take time for a new concept to be accepted and practiced
• Training and research
– Understanding the concept -> avoid confusion in terminology
– Feasibility studies -> possible markets, transport and processing
• Promoting and awareness raising
– Home-grown and high-grade construction timber
– Making forest owners aware of CCF => Forest owners determine
management objectives
•
‘... CCF can be extremely difficult but also logical and natural ...’
Funding:
COFORD - Council for Forest Research and Development
Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine under the National Development Plan, Ireland

similar documents