|
|
|
Design-balancing
multiple goals
.jpg)
There will always be positive and negative
outcomes arising from establishing and managing trees on farms.
Farm forest design aims to maximise the positives and minimise
the negatives. This can only be achieved if the farmer’s
objectives are clearly prioritised. For example, farmers may
need to decide if they are willing to forgo agricultural income
in the short term in order to increase their prospects of future
income from timber.
The importance of careful planning and research is clear when
farmers list and prioritise the outcomes they want to achieve
by planting a forest. It is important for farmers to be aware
that multiple outcomes are not always complementary. Good design
requires some understanding of the complementary or competitive
relationships between different objectives and the compromises
needed to achieve an appropriate balance.
Strategies to deal with conflicting objectives may incur additional
management costs or result in lower than optimal production
of some products or services. It is common for farmers to accept
these losses and costs in order to reduce the risks associated
with single purpose forestry. Multipurpose designs often carry
lower risk and are more adaptable.
The perfect compromise
The following graph demonstrates why many farmers may prefer
multipurpose farm forestry designs over a ‘best-bet’
approach that favours only one value. Because farmers are able
to capture many of the non-timber benefits offered by forests
(eg, wildlife or shelter benefits) they might be willing to
accept higher costs, slower growth or lower returns from a commercial
plantation. Similarly, a farmer planting trees for shelter or
land protection might be willing to accept the additional labour
costs associated with managing some of the trees for timber
if it means he/she is able to keep the option of a future commercial
harvest open.
If farmers are seeking multiple benefits they need to clearly
specify their priorities and the minimum requirements for each
outcome. This is where farmers need to do their homework. If,
for example, shelter is the primary goal then understanding
shelterbelt design principles will allow farmers to prescribe
a layout that will provide sufficient shelter in the right location
at the right time. Where a farmer is anticipating a commercial
return he/she will need to understand the factors that determine
whether their forest will be viable to harvest. Timber production
is not a bonus if it costs more to harvest than the product
is worth.
If trees are being grown for commercial purposes farmers should
specify:
• the desired investment period—10, 20 or 30 years
• their attitude to risks—such as fire, disease, drop
in prices, marketing failures
• the target product specifications—for example tree
species, log size and quality
• harvesting and marketing mechanisms
• taxation or superannuation implications.
It is important to understand the positive and negative interactions
between trees grown for different purposes, and agricultural
production.
.gif)
Agroforestry by Design It is often
possible to increase the non-timber values of a timber plantation
without greatly reducing the commercial return. This is the
objective of codes of forest practice. For landowners willing
to accept lower commercial returns in order to obtain greater
non-timber values, any option falling along this part of the
curve is acceptable. The costs of maximising non-timber values
may be too high. If this is the only option presented to landowners
they may choose to do nothing.
Timber plantations
for salinity control
Shelterbelts
with a timber option
Forestry
for economic diversification
Steps in
designing a farm forestry system
Multipurpose
farm forestry makes common sense
Why plant trees?
Back to top
|
|
