Abstract
ABSTRACT This study aims to assess the cooperative regulation process of forestry producers in comparison to the traditional individual regulation of properties. Twenty (20) forest properties are studied as examples of the development of three forest regulation scenarios: 1) individual regulation, 2) group regulation, and 3) cooperative regulation. The Net Present Value (NPV) of each of the scenarios is optimized according to mathematical programming models and compared to a baseline scenario without forest regulation. According to the proposed cooperative regulation, properties had a proportion factor for annual net revenue distribution calculated from results of the baseline scenario. By comparing the NPV maximization results from scenarios 1 and 3 with the non-regulation scenario, the cost for individual regulation is on average 25%, while being only 11% for cooperative regulation, that is, a 14% reduction in property regulation costs. Additionally, cooperative regulation had the advantage of dividing properties into fewer areas when compared to individual regulation.
Highlights
Companies owning large forest plantations annually increase their own planted areas or utilize outgrower schemes to meet the growing demand for industrial forest products (FERREIRA, 2016; OLIVEIRA, 2006; RODE et al, 2014)
Given the need for improving the management and commercialization of forest products in small rural properties, this study aims to assess a cooperative forestry regulation proposal on annual revenue achievement for rural producers and compare it to individual regulations in properties
Areas are cut according to the maximum composite net present value criterion, controlling the area limitations of each property
Summary
Companies owning large forest plantations annually increase their own planted areas or utilize outgrower schemes to meet the growing demand for industrial forest products (FERREIRA, 2016; OLIVEIRA, 2006; RODE et al, 2014). The growth of demand in the forestry sector attracts small rural producers and independent investors who begin to contribute to wood supply, influencing the local market. The unawareness of a potential market, the inadequate management of plantation areas, and the lack of information on new techniques can render forestry activity economically unfeasible in small areas. For Meins and Grouwels (2011), a major obstacle for many rural forest-dependent communities is that local stakeholders, including forest smallholders and indigenous people, are frequently not organized into partnerships for cooperative and unified action and advocacy, with many lacking the necessary skills to effectively engage in policy and funding processes. The result is that the parties with the most to gain are frequently excluded from important discussions, leaving their issues and particular needs unvoiced and unrepresented
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
