SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF CHAINSAW LOGGING

1. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF CHAINSAW LOGGING CONVERSION STUDY

2. BACKGROUND • This conversion project forms part of a larger international study investigating various aspects of chainsaw lumber production. • In Guyana, the aim is to undertake four linked studies, in order to contribute to the development of a set of guidelines that can be used to determine where chainsaw logging is a useful development intervention, and how chainsaw logging can be used to assist in the improvement of livelihoods.

3. OBJECTIVES • To determine the conversion recovery of raw logs into saleable lumber for the local and export markets. • To assess lumber recovery using conventional methods and best practices to compare actual recovery rates with what could be potentially recovered. • To determine the grade and volume of lumber after sawing from chainsaw operations and static sawmills.

4. STUDY SITE • Selection of area was based on the criteria that • it covers three strategic geographic locations • - The study sites therefore encompassed: • a) A community forest area • b) An individual SFP operator and an • c) Indigenous community group (also a community forest Criteria for selection

5. Overview of the study area SITE A – Region 10 • This area is situated North East of central Guyana and has a total area of approximately 9,856 hectares with mix forest type. • classified as a medium one compared to Timber Sales Agreement (TSA) and Wood Cutting Lease (WCL • Production is based on orders from local lumber dealers

6. Overview of the study area SITE B – Ituni Road • This area is easily accessible through Ituni road. It has an area size of approximately 2,904 hectares with Dakama Forest type which is found abundantly on white sand. • This concession holder markets his produce through his own lumberyard

7. SITE C – North Rupununi • This concession is located on the Left Bank of the Essequibo River, Left Bank Rupununi River. It can be easily accessed from the road linking Linden, Mabura and Lethem or by the Essequibo River • There are five major forest types within this concession

8. METHODOLOGY • Preparation: • Inventory • Conversion team • Selection of trees • Felling/tagging • Data collection (Logs): • Grading • Measurements • Waste

9. Lumber: • Cutting pattern technique • Grading • Measurement • Re-sawn and re-measure • Waste (cutting & defects) • Mill cut lumber: • Measurements of bucked logs • Grading • Marking of logs and lumber • Grading of lumber

11. DATA ANALYSIS • Field data was entered into a customized spreadsheet for analysis. • A second worksheet was used for entry of lumber and waste data which was linked to the log data worksheet in such a way as to allow simultaneous calculation of recovery statistics

12. RESULTS Chainsawn lumber

13. RESULTS CONT’D Mill-cut lumber

14. ANALYSIS • The mean number of merchantable boards cut per log was significantly greater (p<0.05) from the chainsawn logs (27.9) than the mill-cut logs. • With the exception of nominal volume recovery, mill-cut recovery is higher than chainsawn lumber, but this is only significantly so for GR04-volume recovery.

15. ANALYSIS • For chainsawn lumber there is no significant difference between the actual lumber volume recovery and the nominal volume recovery for Mill B, whereas the difference is significant for mill-cut lumber (p<0.05) for Mill A. • In both cases, GR04-graded lumber volume is significantly lower than actual lumber cut (p<0.001 and p<0.05 for chainsawn and mill-cut lumber respectively). GR04-nominal lumber volume recovery is significantly lower than other recovery volumes with the exception of GR04 chainsawn lumber. • The mean proportion of GR04 reject boards, by number, is significantly greater (p<0.05) from chainsawn logs (27.5%) than mill-cut logs (16.2%), though there is marked variation among study sites.

16. ANALYSIS • For chainsawn lumber there was a pattern between typical size of board cut and recovery with a lower recovery when 2”-boards alone were cut (37.6%) compared with 1” boards (42.9%; n.s.) or mixtures of 1” and 2” (47.4%; P<0.05). • For mill-sawn lumber there was no relationship between number of boards cut or mean cross-sectional area of boards and actual volume recovery. However, there was a significant negative relationship between log volume and actual % recovery (R = -0.50; F<0.005). • When logs are separated by type of lumber cut there is a higher recovery from cutting box heart and 1” boards (53.4%) or 2” boards (53.2%) than cutting 1” and/or 2” boards alone (37.0%; P<0.001).

17. ANALYSIS • When an analysis was conducted by operator type – the concessionaire’s method of sawing as opposed to the Forestry Training Centre method of sawing – there was a consistently higher recovery (by between 5.13% and 7.49%) across all categories from the FTC operators (though significantly so only for actual local market recovery and GR04/nominal recovery; p<0.05).

18. CONCLUSIONS • For chainsaw lumber production the volume recovery did not necessarily relate to value recovery as illustrated by the relatively low rate of GR04-graded logs. In other words, the tendency for chainsaw loggers to focus on the less demanding local market may not be optimizing the financial return from the log.

19. CONCLUSIONS CONT’D • Based on the findings and analysis is evident that several factors influence the operator decision making process. • These include the target market that the operator is selling to, the type of product that is produced to be sold on that market (by extension linked to the demand for that operator’s products), the size of the operation, the grade of product that is being demanded, economic returns for different products and community pressure.

20. CONCLUSIONS CONT’D • It was evident that large sawmills cut for specific orders for the export market that require GR04 grades typically of Select and Prime. Their focus is to get the highest recovery of the two highest grades and sell the offcuts to the local market. • The chainsaw operators typically “produce to sell” or cut to order for the local market, which exercises an arbitrary grading standard. From observations of the cutting at the site, much of the rejected GR04 material that was considered acceptable to the local market, could have been resawn to produce a considerably higher volume of GR04 material.

21. CONCLUSIONS CONT’D • In general the operators were very skilled in chainsaw ripping, it is clear that with further training volume and quality recovery from the logs would be improved. In addition, safety to the operator by having more control over the felling and ripping operations would be improved.

22. CONCLUSIONS CONT’D • There was no clear trend or significant differences in mean recovery % across the log quality classes in the chainsawn lumber study or the sawmill study, though generally low quality logs returned the lowest recovery of non-rejected graded (GR04) lumber. • It was observed that in general the operators were very skilled in chainsaw ripping, it is clear that with further training volume and quality recovery from the logs would be improved. In addition, safety to the operator by having more control over the felling and ripping operations would be improved.

23. CONCLUSIONS CONT’D • Though recovery rates between chainsawn and mill-sawn lumber have been compared these should be treated with caution as mill-sawn logs were not traced from the forest and because the two mill samples were cutting to specific orders (box-heart) that did not correspond to the cutting dimensions in the chainsawn lumber.

24. CONCLUSIONS CONT’D • The average merchantable percentage of lumber for the chainsaw operation is 3% lower that that of the static mills. • The mean number of merchantable boards cut per log was significantly greater from the chainsawn logs than the mill-cut logs. • With the exception of nominal volume recovery, mill-cut recovery is higher than chainsawn lumber, but this is only significantly so for GR04-volume recovery.

25. CONCLUSIONS CONT’D • For chainsawn lumber there is no significant difference between the actual lumber volume recovery and the nominal volume recovery for Mill B, whereas the difference is significant for mill-cut lumber for Mill A. • In both cases, GR04-graded lumber volume is significantly lower than actual lumber cut. GR04-nominal lumber volume recovery is significantly lower than other recovery volumes with the exception of GR04 chainsawn lumber.

26. CONCLUSIONS CONT’D • The mean proportion of GR04 reject boards, by number, is significantly greater from chainsawn logs (27.5%) than mill-cut logs (16.2%), though there is marked variation among study sites.

27. LESSONS LEARNED • The selection of species, felling technique and market demand are influencing factors on the level of recovery. • The location that is sampled, influences the findings since it affects cost, species composition, and demand among other factors.

28. LESSONS LEARNED CONT’D • The level of experience of chainsawyers, mill operators and felling crew influence the level of recovery. • In chainsawing the selection of logs is less discriminatory that is the case in logging for sawing at static mills. • A representative sample is vital for the formulation of more concrete data on recovery rates.