Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


The South African harvesting code of practice


Introduction
Recent international actions
Conclusions
Appendix. List of forest practice guidelines and best management practices.

P. W. Warkotsch, G. v. R. Engelbrecht and F. Hacker
Forest Engineering Technology
Faculty of Forestry, University of Stellenbosch
South Africa

Introduction

Production forests were established in South Africa to satisfy the country's timber demands and to protect the indigenous forests. Only 1.2% (1.38 million hectares) of the country is under commercial plantations which produces 16 million m3 of roundwood annually (FOA, 1994). Today timber products are exported. During 1993 the Forest Industry's foreign exchange earnings amounted to $688 million, being 3.5% of the total South African foreign income.

Community values, such as soil, water and recreation, can be enhanced by well maintained plantations. The scientific and ecological values of these commercial forests and their surrounding natural environment can benefit largely by applying correct management procedures. Harvesting operations can have an impact on economical, social and environmental values. Possible negative impacts can be reduced through sound harvest planning and the correct implementation thereof.

The South African Harvesting Code of Practice is designed to provide guidelines for the planning, management and control of efficient harvesting operations in order to ensure long term site productivity. It also sets criteria for a safe and healthy working environment, and cost effective forest products. The natural environment is constantly taken into consideration. Effective feedback and control, through auditing, is vital to ensure the implementation and continuous improvement of the code.

Since forest codes of practice are not statutory in South Africa the ethical values and commitment of the foresters and forest owners are important.

What is the Harvesting Code of Practice?

The "South African Harvesting Code of Practice" is a set of guidelines developed by a group of harvesting specialists, in cooperation with other concerned parties (e.g., soil scientists, conservationists and silviculture foresters), in order to help foresters and forestry enterprises to select appropriate practices which can be applied during harvesting and road construction activities.

In some countries codes of practice are legislative, and failure to adhere to these rules may lead to heavy fines or even imprisonment. South Africa has not reached this stage, and compliance with the code is voluntary. This code must be implemented in association with existing legislation and guidelines.

In the Harvesting Code of Practice, "harvesting" refers to all the activities required to convert a standing tree (timber harvesting: e.g., felling, conversion, extraction and transport) to the required product delivered to the timber processing sector or end user (access development i.e., network of forest roads, depots, extraction routes and landings).

Why a Harvesting Code for South Africa?

The purposes for developing the Harvesting Code of Practice are to:

· set guidelines for the operational activities;
· be used as an educational tool;
· create a basis for discussions with environmental and political groups

The viability of the South African industry will depend on the long term productivity potential of the forest land. Mainly due to the lack of sufficient water resources, limited areas are still available for the expansion of commercial forests.

The timber demand has, and will continue, to increase steadily. These increases will have to be met primarily by better utilisation of present timber stands through improved silviculture programmes and the application of suitable harvesting techniques.

Everyone involved in the Forest Industry as well as the general public needs to be educated in the role which the industry has to play in conserving the environment. Corporate cultures and individual attitudes have to be adjusted to be honestly concerned about economical, ecological and social values.

Eco-tourism has the potential to become South Africa's largest earner of foreign income, besides gold. South Africa is known for its natural beauty and magnificent wildlife population. Recreation is becoming more important as the country's cities and towns become more populated and crowded. Large parts of the forest industry's plantations are situated in, or are en route to, popular tourist areas.

Although there is no legal enforcing of a harvesting practice code, it is imperative that all forest owners should start to apply these practice rules. Should the government or environmental pressure groups want to impose laws or regulations on the forest industry, the Harvesting Code of Practice could be a sound basis to negotiate from. Instead of laws being imposed on the harvesters by outsiders, guidelines drawn up by harvesting specialists would be more effective.

The South African Approach

The general feeling of the Forest Engineering Working group of South Africa (FESA) and the environmentalists was that forestry values should be documented for the Forest Industry, addressing silviculture, harvesting, road construction and maintenance, labour relations, economics and the natural environment. A Forests Code of Practice embracing all these factors is required.

The South African Forest Industry does not have an official Forest Practice Code, although several groups have attempted to develop some guidelines. Members of FESA are of the opinion that these documents only provide general guidelines and that a Harvesting Code of Practice compiled by foresters and harvesting specialists is an absolute necessity.

FESA took the initiative to develop the document, and the Harvesting Code of Practice Project Group was inaugurated in 1992 to coordinate the project. The idea of a Harvesting Code of Practice did not appeal to many people in the Industry. However, the persistence a few members of FESA paid off when five major forestry companies committed themselves to the project and gave financial support for the development of the code. Contributions were received from Sappi Forests, Mondi Forest, HL&H Timber, SAFCOL and Hans Merensky.

The editorial group, consisting of representatives of the contributing companies was established and the first meeting held in July 1993.

Literature Review

The Harvesting Code of Practice Project Group was aware that practice codes and best management practices existed throughout the world and did not want to re-invent the wheel. A few of these codes were obtained and evaluated, i.e.:

· Fiji National Code of Logging Practices;
· New Zealand Forest Code of Practice (LIRO);
· Tasmania Forest Practice Code;
· Victoria: Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production (Draft).

After these codes were evaluated, a further assessment was done on several other codes in order to gain a better perception of how the code could be compiled and used. A complete list of the other codes that were consulted during the evaluation and compilation of the South African Code of Practices is attached in an Appendix.

Evaluation Procedure

During the preliminary assessment of the codes, it was found that the various codes all had some characteristics, e.g., section (part of content), method of presentation, illustrations and attractiveness, which made it practical and user friendly.

To get a good picture of the various codes, they were evaluated using the Profile method. The total results were not of real value. However, the content (various sections or chapters) and the different characteristics of each code could be evaluated and compared. Thus applicable and the unsatisfactory characteristics (from a South African harvesting point of view) of each code are emphasised and compared to the other codes. From the profiles an optimal mix of the desirable elements were chosen and adapted to suit South African conditions.

The criteria used for the evaluation were divided into two main sections: the content (environmental values, planning and operational guidelines) and the overall presentation of the code. Each criterion was then rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = very bad or none and 5 = very good). Each code was evaluated individually, independent of the result of the others. Only the final results were compared.

The most important criteria were highlighted, and from these the first draft was drawn up. This document was scrutinised by infield foresters and members of the Harvesting Code of Practice Project Group. The layout was adapted, irrelevant material was discarded and shortcomings (e.g., commercial and human resource values) were supplemented.

Although these codes provide a foundation from which to work, it is essential that the South African Harvesting Code of Practices is based on South African situations and experiences. Furthermore, the code is not intended to be a harvesting handbook and it has to include more than just "green issues".

International Experience

Various countries have had different experiences regarding environmental pressure. Some countries failed to realise the implications of not reacting soon enough to environmental demands and became the target of environmental pressure groups, subsequently suffering the consequences.

Other countries learnt from these experiences and were proactive in avoiding serious ramifications. Two examples of these converse cases were British Columbia and New Zealand.

British Columbia

In Canada, one of the world's largest suppliers of timber products, the forest industry is the economic backbone of the country. An attempt by Greenpeace to convince European consumers to boycott timber from British Columbia was partly successful, resulting in a drop in the export of Canadian timber to Europe with the corresponding loss of income.

The Canadian forest industry had to endure at least 4 profitless years to rearrange their system in order to satisfy demands made by environmental pressure groups. The consequence was an accumulated loss of over $4 billion by the end of 1993 and a 20% drop in the workforce from 1990 (Elliot, 1994).

This resulted in strict statutory control of harvesting operations and the strict prohibition of harvesting in large areas (7,7 million hectares). The British Columbia Forest Code of Practice was passed as legislation by the BC legislature in July 1994. Key features of the new code are tougher enforcement, heavier penalties, and strict new forest practice rules that respect biological diversity and prohibit logging environmentally sensitive areas (Harcourt, 1994).

One of the major changes to the Code is an increase in maximum fines for violations of the code from $2,000 to $1 million per day, or $2 million per day for repeat offenders.

New Zealand

Indigenous forests comprise 23% of New Zealand's total area. As early as 1913 the government recognised that natural forests might not be able to supply the industrial demand of the future. During the 1920's and 1930's a major planting programme, using exotic species, was initiated. By the mid-1950's exotic forest production had surpassed natural forest production.

Presently New Zealand has 1,5 million hectares of commercial forests with a annual roundwood production of about 14 million m3. Today less than 2% of the forest cut is from natural forests (Neilson, 1994).

Neilson (1994) states that due to these measures combined with awareness campaigning, in close cooperation with environmental groups and government structures, the New Zealand environmental movement has given its qualified support to plantation management. This support has been pledged in "The New Zealand Forest Accord" signed in 1991 by the major environmental groups and the major industry associations.

This would not have been possible without:

· long term education programmes introduced to all levels of teaching, starting at primary school, offering a series of teaching kits to all schools in the country;

· establishment and adherence to the New Zealand Forest Code of Practice through commitment and training;

· close cooperation between the industry and the government through the well established New Zealand Forest Research Institute;

· close interaction with the environmental movement.

Lessons Learnt

Due to sanctions, the South African Forest Industry has developed relatively isolated from international forestry trends for several years. "Green" issues took a back seat to human rights issues, and South Africa did not feel the international pressure from environmental movements. Due to the reconciliation processes the focus has not moved to the natural environment yet. However, this situation is expected change in the future.

When looking at the previously mentioned countries' experience, South Africa has a great deal to learn, specifically from the New Zealand development. As far as the establishment of commercial forests is concerned South Africa and New Zealand have much in common:

· both countries have production forests consisting of fast growing exotic tree species;

· the aim of establishing these plantations was to be self sufficient without destroying the natural forests;

· annual roundwood production is very much the same;

· in both countries the old forestry departments have been "commercialised", excluding the government from competing in the timber market.

There are, however, some fundamental differences which, in future, could present South Africa with some problems regarding environmental issues. As far as harvesting is concerned the major shortcomings for South Africa are:

· inefficient insight into the possible long term effects of sub-optimal harvesting and access development techniques;

· hesitation in commitment by forest owners to enforce environmental rules or guidelines in the fear of loosing profits;

· limited knowledge from plantation managers and foresters in planning and implementing environmentally friendly harvesting operations;

· inadequately skilled forestry labour force;

· lack of educational or promotional programmes for schools and other educational institutes;

· no official harvesting research and development body like New Zealand's Logging Industry Research Organisation (LIRO) or the Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada (FERIC);

· poor cooperation with environmental movement and government;

· no national harvesting code of practice.

Due to the present government's commitment to social matters such as housing, electricity and water, environmental issues may not receive the same support as in developed countries. However, individual forestry companies exporting timber, could face the same export constraints, initiated by environmental pressure groups as Canada if they do not abide by certain practice rules.

Recent international actions

During recent years the world wide focus has shifted heavily to the global environment, putting forestry under the international spotlight. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), which was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in June 1992, could be considered the most important conference ever to focus on environmental issues. 172 United Nations member countries were represented, 102 of them by their heads of state or government (Dykstra, 1994).

During this meeting several important documents were produced, of which Agenda 21 is particularly relevant for the development of a Harvest Code of Practice. Agenda 21 is an "action plan" for the period 1993-2000. Of significant interest to forestry is Chapter 11, "Combating Deforestation".

The title could be a little misleading, as this chapter does not only focus on deforestation, but describes a balanced programme that covers four priority areas (Dykstra, 1994):

(a) sustaining the multiple roles and functions of all types of forests and woodlands;

(b) enhancing the protection, sustainable management and conservation of all forests, and the rehabilitation of degraded areas;

(c) promoting the efficient utilisation and assessment to recover the full value of the goods and services provided by forests and woodlands;

(d) establishing or strengthening capacities for assessing and systematically reporting data on forests and forest activities, including commercial production and trade.

It is under the authority of priority (c) that the FAO Model Code of Forest Harvesting Practice is being developed.

During 1992, the Forest Harvesting and Transport Branch of the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), Forest Product Division realised the need within FAO's member countries for a document summarising the status of knowledge about forest harvesting practices. Several international practice codes were used in preparing the FAO Model Code of Forest Harvesting Practice.

This document has not been finalised yet. The model code is intended primarily to serve as a reference for FAO Member Nations to draw up their own codes of practice, or to revise existing ones.

The South African harvesting code of practice

The code provides elements to be considered, and guidelines to be followed, in terms of the effect of operations on economics, ergonomics, the natural environment and productivity. These guidelines are to be followed, taking the values into consideration, when contemplating the conversion of the standing tree into a usable product (e.g., sawlogs, poles, and pulp wood) delivered at the conversion site (e.g., mill, preservation plant, and siding).

 

Presently the code comprises the following:

· Values;

* soil
* water
* forest health and hygiene
* scientific and ecological values
* palaeontological, archaeological and historical sites
* aesthetic and recreational values
* human resources
* commercial values

· Operational Guidelines: Forest Roads and Extraction Routes;

* forest roads and depots
* forest road construction
* extraction routes and landings

· Operational Guidelines: Timber Harvesting;

* harvest planning
* felling and conversion
* extraction
* stacking at landing and depot
* loading and offloading
* transport

· Post Harvesting Operations.

The values being those which the society and the forestry industry rate as important and which should be safeguarded for the future. The environmental and commercial values of natural renewable timber resources should be balanced to ensure optimum utilisation and a sustained yield of quality timber (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The Harvest Code of Practice and its interactions with the environment.

The chapter on Forest Roads and Extraction Routes provides guidelines to follow for access development. Access development refers to the opening up of the forests. General principles, potential impacts and tactics to reduce negative impacts during the planning and construction of the network of forest roads, depots, extraction routes and landings are presented.

Operational guidelines for harvesting and transport activities are presented in the chapter on Timber Harvesting. Timber harvesting refers to the processes required to transform the standing tree into a grade corresponding to a state of conversion, as required by the market, and delivered to the conversion site. This includes felling, conversion, extraction and transport.

A systematic approach in establishing special management zones and determining required protection methods is outlined in Figure 2. Special management zones refer to areas that require special management guidelines to protect certain values. Special management zones include streams, lakes and marshes with their associated vegetation, archaeological sites, arboretums, indigenous forests, sensitive soils, steep slopes, viewing spots and recreational areas.

The Harvesting Code of Practice provides important information and guidelines for:

· planning of access development and timber harvesting;
· monitoring operations in progress;
· feedback after the operations have been completed (auditing).

Launch

To ensure that harvesting planners and foresters receive the full support from management when implementing the harvesting codes, top management's approval and commitment for the code is important. This commitment has been indicated by the approval of the project and supplying financial support.

The infield staff had to be involved in the testing and evaluation of the code as to avoid window dressing at operational level. The international codes, the first draft and the latest draft were sent to several harvesting foresters for their comment. Feedback received has been positive and foresters are enthusiastic about the project. This approach will help the code to be implemented from the bottom-up, which will make it more convenient for the man in the field.

Environmentalists were consulted from the inception of the project. Environmental specialists and conservationists of the various forestry companies were approached to give some input in their field of expertise, and to give feedback on the contents as well as the whole concept.

Figure 2. A systematic approach to establishing special management zones (SMZ) and determining required protection methods.

The layout and contents of the code has been established and the latest draft is still under scrutiny from harvesting specialists, foresters and conservationists. A final document is expected to appear by the end of April 1995.

The South African Harvesting Code of Practice is a "live document". This document is the first of its kind in timber harvesting in South Africa and is expected to change as people gain experience in the use thereof. The FAO Model Code of Forest Harvesting Practice is also expected to have some impact on the future layout, content and implementation of the code.

For assistance in the implementation of the Harvesting Code of Practice a training module and audit system would be important mechanisms. Training will have to be done by the various companies, tertiary education centres and forestry organisations. Some mechanism is required to encourage the implementation and optimise the effectiveness of the practice code. In order to monitor the success and to receive feedback a harvesting audit is being developed by the Forest Engineering Section of the University of Stellenbosch.

Audits

"Environmental audit shall mean a management tool comprising a systematic, documented, periodic and objective evaluation of the performance of the organisation, management systems and processes designed to protect the environment with the aim of:

· facilitating management control of practices which may have an impact on the environment;

· assessing compliance with company environmental practices." (ECC, 1993)

Figure 3. Environmental Management System.

For such an objective evaluation to be of any use it is necessary for an environmental management system to be operational within a company. It is also necessary that company standards and statutory regulations, according to which performance can be measured, are set and documented.

For some years the term auditing has been incorrectly used for many informal monitoring or evaluation activities. To maintain the value added to auditing it must be carried out professionally, objectively and constructively.

Checking and policing were misconceptions attached to auditing in the past. These need to be erased by an awareness programme and a change of attitude which can only come about if top management shows support for auditing as a management tool for environmental and harvesting improvement.

The development and implementation of an environmental management system requires top management commitment and an awareness campaign reaching everybody involved with the company. The elements of an environmental management system fit into each other as presented in Figure 3. Important to notice is:

· the role the Harvest Code of Practice can play as a tool to set standards;
· the predominant role of the audit feedback system.

A harvesting audit is a type of environmental audit with emphasis on harvesting and associated activities. The main objective, though, still remains the protection and maintenance of a sustainable environment and timber yield. In the case of the harvesting audit the Harvest Code of Practice would provide guidelines to set standards.

Why an Audit?

The origin of environmental auditing can be traced back to the mid-1970s in the USA. At that stage environmental auditing was developed as a means of checking on compliance. Seeing that new environmental laws and legislation placed serious pressures on the industries, environmental audits were developed as a defence measure.

Since then environmental audits have progressed not only to check on compliance, but are used as management, training and educational and communicational tools and most importantly as a means to improve environmental performance. Refer to Figure 4 for an illustration of the improvement loop (Gilbert 1993).

Figure 4. Improvement loop.

The improvement loop is explained by Gilbert (1993) as follows:

· think about what the goals are, the targets to be achieved, the route to be taken and measurements to track success. This can only be achieved through the activities in the company;

· planning is designing the activities to achieve the goal;

· doing is the implementation of the plan. Striving to achieve the goal through simple, repeatable steps in an efficient and effective manner.

· measuring is the key to assessing the effectiveness of the "doing" stage. It assesses progress and focuses on the areas for improvement in the harvesting practices.

The improvement loop allows the making of changes to re-direct an organisation towards its goal, through taking timely corrective action. The harvesting audit is a means to obtain the information which is necessary to identify the need and type of corrective action.

More specifically this relates to using the audit:

· as part of an internal system of monitoring company activities to help improve the quality of management decisions by providing accurate, unbiased and current information;

· internally to reveal potential problems before they are reported by an external audit;

· as a verification of compliance with the Harvest Code of Practice and company policies and thus assuring management that harvesting activities are or are not managed in an uniform, efficient, responsible and legal manner.

Designing the South African Harvesting Audit

The "art of auditing" lies in its proactive, supportive role to management. Taking this into consideration one should be aware of over-procedurising audits by implementing extensive checklists. In the past glorified checklists and inadequate audit training were used. What has become apparent after an extensive international literature survey is that auditing must bring about a change in attitude and thinking, and this is what needs to be addressed by the Forest Industry.

In the case of a harvesting audit, the checklist could involve every item referred to in the Harvesting Code of Practice. This would lead to a very cumbersome document which would not be user friendly. A checklist serves as a memory aid for asking questions and also to record answers from the auditee (party to be audited). Only in rare cases should a standard checklist be prepared. To develop a checklist for harvesting activities within a harvesting audit should thus be left to the auditor and the audit team after conferring with the auditee about the company environment.

The Auditors

It is important that audits are conducted by competent, trained auditors. It is a common misconception that any qualified auditor whether coming from the financial or quality auditing profession can easily extend their scope to include environmental auditing. In the past audits were usually passed on to lower management levels without providing the necessary training.

Guided by international standard ISO 10011 an auditor needs not only formal training in auditing, but also in management systems, environmental processes and effects, relevant legislation and risk assessment. Besides that it is also required that auditors gain a certain amount of practical experience under a lead auditor (professional auditor).

A company should establish a pool of trained auditors that are specialists in their field of operation (e.g., roads, harvesting, silviculture or conservation). Auditing would not be their full-time job. They would advise management in their role as "process experts" and audits will become value adding management tools for important decision making. This enables communication at all levels of the auditee and gains respect and attention.

Once the lead auditor has familiarised himself with the company environment, he will select his audit team from the pool of process experts. Refer to Figure 5 for a presentation of how an auditing can be compiled. In this way the auditor can draw on specialised knowledge to assist in the audit. The lead auditor and members of the audit team can be subjected to auditing as to check whether their auditing process conforms to international auditing standards.

Future

As indicated previously, the Harvesting Code of Practice will be a "live" document, relying on continuous feedback and control. The initial implementation thereof would be crucial, as it should not be forced onto the foresters.

With the change in harvesting practices, auditing is required to identify any potential for improvement. The Forest Industry needs to demonstrate that it cares about the effects of its forestry practices and that it can work to resolve issues that may arise from it. Environmental management carried out using regulation alone is a process which the industry would not want to see introduced in South Africa. Such reliance on regulations fails to recognise the work which has already been done and slows down the positive momentum of change towards sustainable management.

Figure 5. The audit team.

There are some pitfalls that could make the introduction and implementation of the Harvesting Code of Practice challenging. Low education, ignorance and the lack of skills are realities that South Africa has to face. The layout of the code is, however, convenient to serve as a foundation for informing and educating harvesting foresters and workers in the various access development and harvesting activities. University and college harvesting and forest road construction curricula could be based on the structure.

The new political dispensation and the present industrial laws may also present some challenges. Social upliftment will be more important than environmental issues. Present industrial laws and action make it difficult for management to implement new ideas and methods. Although enhanced skills and knowledge is considered as social upliftment, the climate of mistrust which has developed between management and workers, will have to be overcome.

If carefully planned and presented, the Harvesting Code of Practice can be used as a basis to improve relationships, since the contents is based on mutually favourable grounds. The code will benefit both the working force and the company.

A major challenge, possibly experienced by many other countries, is how to bridge the gap between what is happening in the field (reality) and what is prescribed (Harvesting Code of Practice). Regarding the later, South Africa will have to rely on the experience of other countries.

The Harvest Code of Practice is based on international trends and standards together with current and possible future South African legislation. This means that companies that adopt the Harvest Code of practice now would have less or no legislative pressure in the future.

Conclusions

Customer concern, group pressure and media focus, legislative activity and customer desire to gain competitive advantage from environmental issues implies that an industry could experience pressure. The environmental pressure can be a major business opportunity not only in the forestry operations, but also in the way the industry communicates about its actions.

The Harvesting Code of Practice Project Group has come a long way in developing a suitable set of harvesting guidelines for the South African Forest Industry. A great deal of literature search and homework was done to produce an appropriate document, without having to reinvent the wheel.

Due to the efforts of all the participants, a final document will be tabled in 1995. Since this is a "live document", feedback and control with the aid of an audit system, will be important to continuously improve the code and make it user friendly.

Developing the guidelines and producing the document is only the start of a long process. The Harvesting Code of Practice Project group will be challenged in implementing, and monitoring the adherence to the recommended guidelines. These challenges could come from a political, social and commercial point of view.

In our country with such diversification of opinions and goals the, Harvesting Code of Practice can act as both a facilitator for people to communicate with one another and an educational tool. The Harvesting Code of Practice takes the common interests of managers, industrialists, environmentalist and the worker into account.

References

EEC. 1993. European Community Council Report. No. 1836/93, June 29, 1993.

FOA. 1994. South African Forestry Facts - July 1994. Pamphlet. Forest Owners Association (FOA), Rivonia.

Gilbert, J.M. 1993. Achieving Environmental Management Systems. A Step by Step Guide to Meeting BS7750. Pitman Publishing, London, UK.

Dykstra, D.P. 1994. FAO Model Code of Forest Harvesting Practice. FO:MISC/94/6 Working Paper. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations, Rome.

Elliot, G. 1994. International Trade in Forest Products - The Global Challenge. The Forestry Chronicle, January/February 1994, Vol. 70, No. 1. p. 10-12.

Harcourt, M. 1994. Forestry in British Columbia, Canada - The Answer Book. British Columbia Ministry of Forests. Second Edition, August. Victoria, BC, Canada.

Neilson, D.A. 1994. What Can the Western United States Region Learn from Intensive Plantation Management in New Zealand? Presentation given at COFE/IUFRO meeting: Advanced Technology in Forest Operations: Applied Ecology in Action. July 24-29, 1994. Portland/Corvallis Oregon, USA.

Acknowledgments

The input of the following members of the Harvesting Code of Practice Project Group is recognised and highly appreciated: Michal Brink (Project leader), Heinz Reinstorf, Allaistair Deakin, Den-ham Grey, Eric Grobelaar, Benno Krieg, Gary Olsen and John de Wet.

The financial support given by the following companies is greatly applauded: Sappi Forests, Mondi Forests, HL&H Timber, SAFCOL and Hans Merensky.

Authors' Contact Information

Dr. Walter Warkotsch, Professor
G. v. R. Engelbrecht, Lecturer
F. Hacker, Researcher
Forest Engineering Technology
University of Stellenbosch
Stellenbosch 7599
Republic of South Africa
Telephone: +21 808-3298
Fax: +21 808-3603
E-mail: rel@maties.sun.ac.za

Appendix. List of forest practice guidelines and best management practices.

Alabama's Best Management Practices for Forestry, 1993.

Arkansas: Best Management Practices, Guidelines for Silviculture;

A Guide to Better Forestry Practices and Water Quality;
A Guide to Better Logging and Water Quality.

Britain: Forest and Water Guidelines, Forestry Commission, London.

British Columbia Forest Practices Code: Standards, 1994;

British Columbia Forest Practices Code: Rules, 1994.

California Forest Practice Rules, 1992.

Georgia: Recommended Best Management Practices for Forestry in Georgia, 1993;

Best Management Practices for Forested Wetlands in Georgia, 1993.

Idaho: Rules and Regulations pertaining to the "Idaho Forest Practice Act" Title 38, Chapter 13, Idaho Code, 1992.

Indiana: Logging Roads and Skid Trails. A guide for soil protection and timber access, Indiana Department of Natural Resources.

Kentucky Forest Practice Guidelines for Water Quality Management, 1992.

Louisiana: Recommended Forest Best Management Practices for Louisiana, 1988.

Maine: Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook for Maine Timber Harvesting Operations Best Management Practices, 1991.

Maryland's Guide to Forest Operations and Best Management Practices, 1992.

Massachusetts Best Management Practices, Timber Harvesting Water Quality Handbook, 1989.

Minnesota: Water Quality in Forest Management "Best Management Practices in Minnesota".

Mississippi's Best Management Practices Handbook, 1989;

Mississippi's Best Management Practices for Wetlands, 1991.

Missouri Watershed Protection Practices, Management Guidelines for Maintaining Forested Watersheds to Protect Streams, 1990.

Montana Forestry Best Management Practices - Forest Stewardship Guidelines for Water Quality.

New Hampshire: Best Management Practices for Erosion Control on Timber Harvesting Operations in New Hampshire, Resource Manual, 1991;

A Pocket Field Guide for Foresters, Landowners and Loggers, 1991.

New Mexico Forest Practices Guidelines, 1990.

North Carolina: Forest Best Management Practices Manual, 1989.

Northwest Oregon Region: Forest Practice Rules.

Ohio: BMPs for Erosion Control on Logging Jobs in Ohio, 1992.

Oregon: Forest Practice Field Guide, "Stewardship in Forestry", 1993.

South Carolina: Best Management Practices for South Carolina, 1989.

South Africa: Archaeology for Planners, Developers and Local Authorities, National Monument Council.

Texas Best Management Practices for Silviculture, 1989.

Vermont: Acceptable Management Practices for Maintaining Water Quality on Logging Jobs in Vermont, 1987.

Virginia: Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality in Virginia;

Loggers Guide, Save Money, Time and Improve Water Quality, 1988;
Forest Regeneration and Clearcutting in Virginia, 1991.

Washington Forest Practices, 1993.


Previous Page Top of Page Next Page