An examination of harvesting systems. I. Developing a methodology for defining satisfactory harvesting systems. J.E. Opie.  May 1975.  11 pp. (unpubl.)

SUMMARY

This report describes progress in developing a general methodology for selecting harvesting systems so as to best serve the public interest.

A second report (Part II of this study) examining the quantitative application of a substantial part of the methodology to the ash-type forests in Victoria is shortly to be distributed. The approach is as follows:

1. Select a wide range of alternative harvesting systems. (A harvesting system is defined here as a combination of silvicultural system by logging method by “level of care” strategy).
2. Determine the costs to the wood-using industries of each harvesting system for various classes of stand defined according to slope class, merchantable volume per unit area, tree size and so on.
3. Evaluate the effects of each harvesting system on the non-wood values (e.g. soil characteristics, water quality, landscape and wildlife).
4. For each compartment or coupe on the area to be harvested, rank the various harvesting systems, and the option of no harvesting, from best to worst in relation to each non-wood benefit in turn.
5. For each compartment or coupe, determine a compromise ranking of harvesting systems for all non-wood benefits jointly, taking into account the current and projected demands for non-wood benefits for the region in question.
6. Allocate the harvesting systems or the option of no harvesting to compartments or coupes by time so as to minimise the cost of wood products subject to parametrically varied constraint levels for the maintenance of non-wood values, as well as woodflows, cashflows and the present net worth of the wood resource. (Parametric variation of constraints will lead to a set of alternative “best” solutions).
7. For each such allocation of harvesting systems estimate the cost to the consumer of wood products, and estimate the demands associated with these costs.
8. Select the particular allocation of harvesting systems that achieves the most satisfactory trade-off between wood and non-wood values, taking into account the needs of the community for non-wood benefits, wood products, and employment, and the possibility of separate funding for non-wood benefits.