Executive summary

 In this report, multiple-use forest management (MFM) is defined as the deliberate management of a particular forest area in a particular time period for various goods and services. Three regional assessments were carried out between 2009 and 2012 to identify and draw lessons from on-the-ground initiatives in MFM in the Amazon  Basin, the Congo Basin and Southeast Asia. In all three regions, information was collected through interviews with country-based forestry experts, forest managers and technicians. A complementary, Web-based questionnaire was used to examine  a range of variables in ongoing or completed MFM initiatives at the country level.  The regional assessments canvassed 46 MFM initiatives in 13 countries. This  report provides an overview of forestry in those countries and the 46 initiatives,  the constraints they face, and the opportunities for diversifying and integrating  products and services in forest management units. The evidence, opinions and  perceptions gathered through interviews and surveys indicate that the practical  application of MFM is a complex and challenging task in the prevailing conditions.  There is wide variation in the forest area encompassed by the surveyed MFM  initiatives, from 1 900 hectares to almost 1 million hectares in the Amazon Basin,  from almost 11  000 hectares to more than 2.1  million hectares in Southeast Asia,  and from 4 800 hectares to almost 200 000 hectares in the Congo Basin. The smaller  areas are mostly forests managed by indigenous peoples or by associations of small-scale extractors.  Of the surveyed initiatives, timber production is the predominant primary  objective, followed by the production of non-timber forest products. Other  economic activities of importance in at least some of the surveyed MFM initiatives  were fisheries, ecotourism, forest conservation, the production of fuel wood and  charcoal, and ecosystem services.  In many of the countries analyzed in this report and for certain categories  of actor, MFM remains an interesting yet barely operational concept due to  economic, technical and administrative constraints. Timber is still the only forest  commodity with major lucrative markets, whose operation is based on a reliable  body of technical knowledge, and which provides a significant contribution to  national economies. The dominant model of timber harvesting is, however, being  undermined in some regions by the arrival of investors interested in agro-industrial  or mining projects, for which the financial benefits can be much higher than those  associated with sustainable timber harvesting. In this new context, MFM could  increase the economic benefits of SFM. Several initiatives, such as certification  and legality schemes, could help support the implementation of MFM, although  generally forest management certification has so far failed to yield significant  increases in timber prices.  Forest managers should be supported in efforts to realize the potential of MFM.  Greater effort is needed to eliminate unfair competition from operators whose sole objective is to extract timber, with little or no concern for multiple uses. In most countries, the demarcation of a permanent forest estate and the development of  national land-use plans would increase investment in long-term forest management  and lend support to MFM. Improving the value of logged-over forest through silvicultural treatments would improve the chance of those forests being managed  for multiple uses. Training and awareness-raising to change the entrenched mindsets of certain forestry stakeholders is also recommended.