Transformation to continuous cover versus clearfelling and replanting – how do the economics compare?

Our recent study has shown that transformation to continuous cover forestry (CCF) can be a good economic option compared with clearfelling and replanting (C&R)

News from Forest Research: July 2011

Harvesting timber from continuous cover woodland

It is hoped the findings of the work will alleviate concerns that transformation to CCF is a costly option.

The study examined the costs and revenues associated with three transformation scenarios for a stand of Sitka spruce (GYC14) and compared them with conventional C&R.  A flexible yield model was used to predict the growing stock and harvesting yields for programmes of thinnings which follow current guidance. Detailed information on the costs of operations was obtained from work study reports, England Woodland Grant Scheme standard costs and the experience of Forestry Commission staff in CCF Trial Areas.

Transformation scenarios were less costly than C&R over a 20-year period because of high initial thinning returns. In the longer term, transformation to CCF was similar or better than C&R if successful natural regeneration could be obtained. The results were tested for their sensitivity to changes in the level of management overheads (assumed to be higher for transformation), product prices and discount rate. The changes investigated had relatively little effect on the ranking of scenarios.

The report is accompanied by an analysis spreadsheet, this allows practitioners and policy makers to change input costs, product specifications, roadside prices and the discount rate to suit their local conditions.

The work was completed on behalf of the Forestry Commission’s Working Group on CCF.

More details

What's of interest

FR News logo

This and other news stories can be found in the Summer 2011 issue of FR News, our online newsletter.