Occupying the northwestern limit of the Congo Basin, Cameroon has about 22 million hectares of forests, representing nearly 46% of the country’s total area (
MINFOF, 2018
). According to Forest Resource Management Ingénierie (
FRMi, 2018
), 8.5 million hectares are dedicated to forestry production. From 2002 to 2023, the country lost 976 kha of humid primary forest (dense rainforest), making up to 49% of its total tree cover loss in the same time period. Total area of humid primary forest decreased by 5.1% (
Global Forest Watch Cameroon, 2025
). The
FAO (2010)
estimated rates between 0.6% and 1.0% of annual loss, making Cameroon the country with the highest annual deforestation rate in the Congo Basin after the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Firewood collection and agricultural expansion are often among the main causes of forest loss (
MINFOF and FAO, 2005
), while logging is mainly mentioned in the literature as a source of forest degradation (
Gbetnkom, 2005
). A report of the European Union in 2015 denounced the many irregularities in the timber industry in Cameroon (
Exploitation of Forests, Cameroon, 2023
), applying in the forest production areas.
According to
FRMi (2018)
, Cameroon is the largest logs producer in the region, with its national production reaching 44% of regional production. It is one of the top five tropical log exporters in the world, and its industrial round wood production has increased by 35% since 1980 (
Global Forest Watch Cameroon, 2011
). Logging contributes about 6% of the Gross Domestic Product (
MINFOF, 2011
) and has accounted for roughly 25% of the country’s foreign exchange (
Topa et al., 2009
).
Logging activities have increased rapidly in recent years, wherein a wide use of high-impact conventional logging has led to forest damage and fragmentation (
Asner et al., 2009
). Studies have so far dealt with damage, timber and economic losses caused by inappropriate logging methods across the world, including
Andel (1978)
in Southeast Asia;
Abdulhadi et al. (1981)
in Malaysia;
Ayres and Johns (1987)
in Amazonian Várzea;
Buenaflor (1989)
in Papua New Guinea;
White (1992)
in the Lope Reserve, Gabon;
Agom and Ogar (1994)
and
Agom (1994)
in Nigeria;
Agyeman et al. (1995)
in Ghana;
Ahmad et al. (1999)
in Peninsular Malaysia;
Armstrong and Inglis (2000)
in Guyana. In Cameroon, studies focused mostly on ecological damage of logging (
Namuene & Egbe, 2022
;
Global Witness, 2004
), illegal logging (
Alemagi & Kozak, 2010
;
Enviro-Protect, 1997
), and forest governance in logging (
Bigombe, 2004
;
Brunner & Ekoko, 2000
). Very few and unpublished known study addresses the problem of timber losses in logging. The main published ones are the report of the Integrated Pilot Development Project (IPDP) of Dimako in the East region, mentioned by
CIRAD (1998)
, and the final report of the Tropenbos-Cameroon Programme in Kribi in the Littoral region, edited by
Jonkers (1999)
, but these studies did not take into account all the wood lost at the forest parks and did not assess the volume of lost wood, nor the economic value of this loss.
The loss of timber in logging constitutes not only a loss of earnings for the logging companies who pay the felling tax on the wood sometimes abandoned in the forest, but also for the State whose forest resource is not optimally used. This loss of timber is caused by whole stems abandoned in the forest or recoverable pieces of trunk abandoned in forest parks. According to
Sofuoglu and Kurtoglu (2012)
, for higher timber recovery, harvesting trees and their processing with minimal timber loss is essential for local and national economic growth. It is in this framework that this study aimed to determine the loss sources of timber and their economic incidence in the logging unit 07-004, precisely in the annual cutting plate 1.1 in the Littoral region in Cameroon. It specifically intended to identify the loss sources and causes of timber and the frequency of occurrence at the skidding sites, the forest parks and throughout the entire production chain, to determine the volumes of lost timber related to loss sources and species, and finally to evaluate the economic incidence on the logging company.
2. Methodology2.1. Study Area
This study was carried out in the Annual Cutting Plate (ACP) 1.1 of the logging unit 07-004, located in the Nkam Division of the Littoral Region in Cameroon; precisely in the South-West Nkondjock sub-division of latitude 4˚53'48"N and longitude 10˚15'33"E (
Figure 1
).
Figure 1. Localization of the ACP 1.1 of the 07-004 logging unit.
The climate is equatorial with two seasons: a short dry season (November to March) and a long rainy season (March to November). The average mild annual temperature is between 22˚C and 28˚C and the moderate annual precipitation between 1800 and 2000 mm (
Barbier, 1977
). Mainly in a forest area, the vegetation is a dense rainforest, dominated by Azobe (Lophira alata), Ilomba (Pycnanthus angolensis), frake (Terminalia superba) (
Osidebea, 2023
).
2.2. Data Collection
Choice of species
The study focused on the 9 target species of the company. Their scientific and local names, and Free on Board (FOB) prices in Franc CFA (the currency used in Cameroon) are given in
Table 1
.
Determination of the sources of timber losses
Data for the sources of timber losses were collected through individual interviews using semi-structured questionnaires, with 36 personnel (5 most ancient per team) among preparation cubers, prospectors, fellers, loggers, stevedores and buckers. These interviews were made possible with the help of the foreman, who explained to his colleagues the scientific purpose of the study and the economic interest for the company, which could lead to a strengthening of their capacities.
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.141780-"></xref>Table 1. Studied species with their free on board prices.
Target species
Local name
FOB price 2017 (in FCFA/m3 of wood/specie)
Lophira alata
Azobe
88,620
Nauclea diderrichii
Bilinga
88,870
Afzelia pachyloba
Doussie
134,290
Julbernardia pellegriniana
Ekop beli
98,695
Brachystegia mildbreadii
Ekop naga
98,695
Cyclicodiscus gabonensis
Okan
85,235
Pterocaipus soyauxii
Padouk rouge
101,040
Entandrophagma cylindricum
Sapelli
143,270
Erythrophleum ivorense
Tali
75,670
Respondents therefore gave their free prior verbal consent to participate in the survey.
Direct observations concerning operations including prospection, felling, forest cutting, shaping and rolling were done in order to appreciate the work planning and to determine the timber loss causes. These observations on the field were made at the skidding sites with the help of the stevedore and at the forest parks with that of the foreman.
Assessment of lost timber volume
The determination of the volume of lost timber involved the cubing of all abandoned logs and pieces of trunk of the target species at the skidding sites and in the forest parks. The sampling rate was set at 1% due to the relatively short data collection period and the difficulty of access to certain sites. Forest park daily reports of the company including yield, were also used to consolidate collected data.
The diameter (Equation (2)) was measured at the large and small ends, orthogonally to the axis, and the length from one end to the other. The following Huber’s formula (Equation (1)) was used. As mentioned by
Briggs (1994)
, it is among the commonly used volume formulas for harvested wood stems.
V = πD2L/4 (1)
With D = (DLe + Dse)/2 (2)
where V = Log volume to determine (in m3); π = Phi (22/7 or 3.14); D = Log average diameter to determine (in cm); L = Length of the log (in m); DLe = Diameter of the large end of the log (in cm) and Dse = Diameter of the small end of the log (in cm).
The volumes of timber loss per day, per week and per month were calculated and permitted to estimate the annual total volume per loss cause and loss source, and per specie for whole of the skidding sites and forest parks.
2.3. Data Analysis
Data was processed using Microsoft Excel 2016, for the establishment of a raw database collected in the field and the production of graphs resulting from the descriptive analysis of data. SPSS Statistics 26 software was used for data analysis. The Pearson correlation was used to establish the link between loss sources. And the Student t-test was used at the threshold of 5%, under the null hypothesis that there is no correlation between the loss causes.
Assessment of economic loss
To evaluate the monetary value of lost timber, the species FOB prices (FCFA/m3/specie) of the year 2017 recommended by the Ministry of forest and wildlife were used (
Table 1
). The cost of the lost timber volume was estimated by multiplying the FOB price by the volume of wood as in Equation (3):
Mv = FOBP * V (3)
with Mv = monetary value in FCFA and in euro (1 Euro = 655 Francs CFA, as the rate of change is stable between the two currencies), FOBP = free on board price of specie (in FCFA/m3), and V = volume of lost timber (in m3).
3. Results and Discussion3.1. Results
Four sources of timber loss were identified at the skidding sites and the forest parks following the observation of a total of 549 wood stems (110 at the skidding sites and 439 at the forest parks) and the interviews with the personnel. They included poor work planning, unqualified personnel, wood defects and inadequate equipment and methods. These loss sources induce seventeen causes of timber loss, all identified at the forest parks of which thirteen identified at the skidding sites. Some of them are presented in
Figure 2
.
Table 2
presents each of the loss causes associated with its origin (loss source), the number of wood stem concerned and the corresponding frequency for the various loss sources. Globally, the order of importance of loss sources over the entire production chain was wood defects (55.58%), unqualified personnel (36.45%), inadequate equipment and methods (7.06%) and poor work planning (0.91%). This table also shows that there were four most frequent loss causes at the skidding sites including abandonment of 27 stems (24.55%), oversight of 20 stems (18.18%), the presence of rot on 13 stems (11.82%) and the presence of holes on 12 stems (10.91%). Timber with melot was rarely observed (0.91%). The most frequent loss causes at the forest parks were uprooting of 71 stems (16.17%), excessive purge of bumps on 67 stems (15.26%) and excessive purge of nodes on 54 stems (12.30%), abandonment of 46 stems (10.48%), excessive purge of holes on 36 stems (8.3%) and excessive purge of flats on 34 stems (7.74%). The most rare was bat cutting, excessive purge of melot (both 0.46%), oversight (0.91%) and slot (1.14%).
The volume of lost timber was estimated for each of the nine species concerned
Figure 2. Loss causes identified on the field.
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.141780-"></xref>Table 2. Sources and causes of wood losses identified at the skidding sites and forest parks.
Source of losses
Causes of timber losses
Skidding site
Forest park
Globally
NT
F/LC (in %)
NT
F/LC (in %)
TNT
F/LS (in %)
Poor work planning
Oversight
20
18.18
4
0.91
24
0.92
Unqualified personnel
Abandonment
27
24.55
46
10.48
73
36.45
Uprooting
4
3.64
71
16.17
75
Bad cutting
2
0.46
2
Bad stubbing
4
3.64
20
4.56
24
Bad topping
6
5.45
21
4.78
27
Wood defects
Curvature
3
2.73
21
4.79
24
55.57
Double heart
8
1.82
8
Excessive purging of bumps
67
15.26
67
Excessive purge of melot
1
0.91
2
0.46
3
Excessive purge of flats
34
7.74
34
Excessive purge of nodes
3
2.73
54
12.30
57
Excessive purge of rot
13
11.82
22
5.01
35
Excessive purge of holes
12
10.91
36
8.20
48
Inadequate equipment and methods
Broken wood
7
6.36
17
3.87
24
7.06
Slot/crack
3
2.73
5
1.14
8
Rolling
7
6.36
9
2.05
16
Total
110
100
439
100
549
100
NT = Number of Timber; F/LC = Frequency per Loss Cause; TNT = Total Number of Timber; F/LS = Frequency per Loss Source.
Figure 3. Proportion of species by loss cause at the skidding sites within the study period.
and by cause of loss.
Figure 3
shows that J. pellegriniana was most concerned (11 out of 13 loss causes) in the skidding sites. It was also the only specie concerned by curvature. B. mildbreadii and L. alata followed with 6 out of 13 loss causes. From this figure, it also appears that excessive purge of melot affects only A. Pachyloba. Several species (6) including L. alata, N. Diderrichii, J. pellegriniana, B. mildbreadii, P. Soyauxii and E. Ivorense, were affected by excessive purge of rot.
Figure 4
shows that the three main species with higher timber losses were J. pellegriniana (306.726 m3); B. mildbreadii (85.394 m3) and L. alata with (61.501 m3). The species with less losses included E. cylindricum (1.116 m3); N. diderrichii (13.552 m3) and A. pachyloba (29.752 m3).
Figure 5
shows that J. pellegriniana was the specie concerned by the entire seventeen loss causes in the forest parks. It was also the only specie concerned by bad cutting and excessive purge of melot; followed by L. alata, concerned by 12 loss causes; B. Mildbreadii by ten; P. soyauxii by nine and N. diderrichii by eight.
Figure 6
shows that the two main species with greater losses were J. pellegriniana (277.29 m3) and L. alata (151.202 m3). Species with less losses were C. gabonensis (7.87 m3); followed by A. pachyloba (7.56 m3) and E. ivorense (14.32 m3).
Figure 4. Total volumes of timber loss by species at the skidding sites within the study period.
Figure 5. Loss causes at the forest parks within the study period.
Figure 3
and
Figure 5
show that J. pellegriniana was the specie concerned by all the seventeen loss causes in the entire production chain. It was also the only species concerned by bad cutting, followed by L. alata concerned by twelve loss causes; B. mildbreadii by ten; P. soyauxii by nine and N. diderrichii by eight. Slot and bad topping were the only loss causes that affected E. cylindricum.
Figure 6. Total volumes of timber losses for species at the forest parks within the study period.
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.141780-"></xref>Table 3. Timber loss rate per species (in m<sup>3</sup>).
Species
FTV
(a)
TLV (m3)
(b)
FVE (m3)
(c = a − b)
LR (%)
(b/a) × 100
Lophira alata
741.28
212.7
528.58
28.69
Nauclea diderrichii
285.58
38.25
247.33
13.39
Afzelia pachyloba
142.13
37.31
104.82
26.1
Julbernardia pellegriniana
1751.52
584.01
1167.51
33.34
Brachystegia mildbreadii
528.98
127.88
401.10
24.17
Cyclicodiscus gabonensis
23.91
5.87
18.04
24.55
Pterocaipus soyauxii
142.81
56.21
86.60
39.35
Entandrophagma cylindricum
20.87
1.11
19.76
05.31
Erythrophleum ivorense
126.18
64.33
61.85
50.98
Total
3763.26
1127.67
2635.59
29.96
FTV = Felled Tree Volume; TLV = Total Loss Volume within the study period; FVE = Final Volume for Exportation during the study period; LR = Loss Rate.
The data obtained over the two-month period of this study permitted to estimate the loss rate of timber loss.
Table 3
shows that 6 of the nine species studied recorded high annual estimated loss rates, including E. ivorense (50.98%), P. soyauxii (39.35%), J. pellegriniana (33.34%), L. alata (28.69%), A. pachyloba (9.64%), C. gabonensis (24.55%) and B. mildbreadii (24.17%). N. diderrichii (13.39%) and E. cylindricum (5.31) recorded the lowest loss rates.
It appears that more than 50% of the species are concerned by loss volume above 50 m3; the higher the number of trees felled, the greater the losses in volume of wood. And the final volume for exportation was reduced by 29.69% from felled tree volume (3763.26 m3) (
Figure 7
).
Figure 7. Box plots showing the variation in total felled tree volume, total loss volume of timber and final volume for exportation, within the study period.
Concerning the loss volume per loss sources and causes,
Table 4
gives the total loss at the skidding sites, the forest parks and throughout the entire production chain. It shows that globally throughout the production chain, 1127.67 m3 of loss were recorded. The most important loss source with the highest loss (566.39 m3) was wood defects. The four main loss causes were abandonment (231.73 m3); excessive purge of holes (193.47 m3) and excessive purge of rot (136.44 m3). The causes of less loss were bad cutting (0.34 m3); excessive purge of melot (6.64 m3), double heart (7.19 m3) and slot (9.23 m3).
In the skidding sites, a total timber loss of 586.36 m3 was recorded. There were five main loss causes, namely in order of importance: abandonment (160.06 m3); oversight (117.87 m3); excessive purge of holes (111.71 m3); excessive purge of rot (98.76 m3); rolling (50.82 m3) and broken wood (27.36 m3). The others are responsible for very little loss of less than 7 m3.
Concerning the forest parks, a total timber loss of 540.95 m3 was recorded. Four main loss causes were identified, including in order of importance, excessive purge of bumps (87.88 m3); excessive purge of holes (81.76 m3); excessive purge of nodes (73.44 m3) and abandonment (71.67 m3). Excessive purge of melot (0.53 m3) and bat cutting (0.35 m3) were less responsible for timber loss.
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.141780-"></xref>Table 4. Volume of lost timber by loss source in m<sup>3</sup>.
Sources of timber losses
Causes of timber loss
TVL (SK)
TVL (FP)
TVL in 2 months (study period)
Proportion
Poor work planning
Oversight
117.87
16.56
134.44
11.92
Unqualified personnel
Abandonment
160.06
71.67
231.73
20.54
Uprooting
2.33
29.71
32.34
2.86
Bad cutting
0.34
0.34
0.03
Bad stubbing
1.44
12.14
13.58
1.20
Bad topping
1.68
10.91
12.59
1.11
165.51
124.77
290.58
25.76
Wood defects
Curvature
4.022
29.34
33.36
2.97
Double heart
7.19
7.19
0.63
Excessive purge of bumps
87.87
87.87
7.79
Excessive purge of melot
6.11
0.53
6.64
0.58
Excessive purge of flats
26.40
26.40
2034
Excessive purge of nodes
1.58
73.44
75.02
6.65
Excessive purge of rot
98.76
37.68
136.44
12.09
Excessive purge of holes
111.71
81.76
193.47
17.15
222.18
344.21
566.39
50.22
Inadequate equipment
and methods
Broken wood
27.36
23.67
51.03
4.52
Slot/crack
2.62
6.61
9.23
0.81
Rolling
50.82
25.15
75.97
6.73
80.8
55.43
136.23
12.08
Total
586.36 (15.58%)
540.95 (14.37%)
1127.67 (29.96%)
100
TVL = Total Volume Lost; SK = Skidding Sites; FP = Forest Parks.
The interviews with responsible personnel permitted to evaluate their implication in timber losses.
Table 5
shows that a total loss of 587.86 m3 was recorded at the skidding sites. Prospectors (382.24 m3) and fellers (176.24 m3) recorded the highest volume of timber loss. The skidding stevedores (25.06 m3) and the forest buckers (3.02 m3) made less losses.
At the forest park, a total loss of 540.95 m3 was recorded. The preparation cubers (326.97 m3) and prospectors (71.23 m3) recorded the highest volume. The losses
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.141780-"></xref>Table 5. Volume of lost timber (in m<sup>3</sup>) at the skidding sites and forest parks related to responsible personnel.
Responsible personnel
Causes of wood loss
VLTSK
VLTFP
TVLT/RP
Prospectors
Abandonment (non-consideration of accidental area)
160.06
18.88
471.41
Non-detection of melot
6.11
Non-detection of holes
111.71
49.87
Non-detection of rot
98.76
20.48
Non-detection of nodes
1.58
Non-detection of curvature
4.02
382.24
89.23
Fellers
Rolling
50.82
25.15
231.67
Uprooting
2.63
Responsible for broken wood
27.36
23.67
Oversight
92.81
Causes slot/crack
2.62
6.61
176.24
55.43
Loggers
Oversight
16.56
16.56
Buckers
Bad topping
1.68
10.91
55.88
Bad stubbing
1.44
12.14
Uprooting
29.71
3.12
52.76
Preparation cubers
Bad cutting
0.34
326.97
Inability to handle curvature
29.34
Excessive purge of bumps
87.87
Excessive purge of holes
31.88
Excessive purge of nodes
73.44
Excessive purge of rot
17.20
Excessive purge of flats
26.40
Excessive purge of melot
0.53
Inability to handle double heart wood
7.19
Abandonment
52.78
326.97
Stevedores
Oversight
25.06
25.06
Total
586.36
540.95
1127.61
VLT = Volume of Lost Timber; TVLT/RP = Total Volume of Lost Timber per Responsible Personnel.
caused by fellers and buckers were almost the same, respectively 55.43 m3 and 52.76 m3.
Throughout the production chain, prospectors (471.41 m3), preparation cubers (318.8 m3) and fellers (173.6 m3) recorded the highest losses. The stevedores recorded the lowest loss (41.5 m3), with the loggers (55.4 m3) and buckers (69.6 m3).
The proportions of lost volume are given in
Figure 8
. This figure shows that the personnel responsible for the greatest timber losses were prospectors (42%), preparation cubers (28.99%) and fellers (20.54%). Buckers, stevedores and loggers were responsible for less losses with respectively 4.95%, 2.22% and 1.46%.
Figure 8. Proportion of timber loss per responsible personnel.
The correlation between loss causes was established in the entire production chain.
Table 6
shows that there is a high positive correlation close to +1 (r > 0.7), (p-value < 0.05), between most loss causes, with the exception of the rolling and excessive purge of melot whose correlation is negative with almost all the other causes. The first (rolling), it is positively correlated but weakly with excessive purge of holes (r = 0.138 < 0.3) and strongly with double heart (r = 0.573 > 0.5), and has no correlation (r = 0.098 < 0.1) with uprooting. The second (excessive purge of melot), has a weak correlation with broken wood (r = 0.150) and no correlation with abandonment (r = 0.0 < 0.1) and bad stubbing (r = 0.066 < 0.1).
The double heart is weakly positively correlated with almost all, with the exception of excessive purge of holes (r = 0.725), bat topping (r = 0.543) and rolling (already mentioned). It is exceptionally negative with bad stubbing (r = −0.044).
There is a significant difference between loss causes with r < 0.695 (p-value > 0.05).
The cost of losses at the skidding sites, the forest parks and throughout the production chain, within the two-month study period and annually, was evaluated
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.141780-"></xref>Table 6. Pearson correlation between loss causes.
<table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tr>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="11.57%"><p style="text-align:center">Responsible personnel</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Causes of wood loss</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center">EL<sub>SK</sub></p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">EL<sub>FP</sub></p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="12.09%"><p style="text-align:center">TEL (SP)</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="14.20%"><p style="text-align:center">AEEL</p><p style="text-align:center">(in FCFA and €)</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="10.40%"><p style="text-align:center">Proportion (%)</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="6" class="custom-top-td acenter" width="11.57%"><p style="text-align:center">Prospectors</p></td>
<td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Abandonment (accidental area)</p></td>
<td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center">16,114,902.85</p></td>
<td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">1,731,699.75</p></td>
<td rowspan="6" class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.09%"><p style="text-align:center">45,700,319.1</p></td>
<td rowspan="6" class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.20%"><p style="text-align:center">274,201,914.6</p><p style="text-align:center">(418,628.87 €)</p></td>
<td rowspan="6" class="custom-top-td acenter" width="10.40%"><p style="text-align:center">41</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Presence of melot</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center">820,511.90</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Presence of holes</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center">10,396,978.57</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">4,849,049.07</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Presence of rot</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center">9,284,681.57</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">1,953,891.96</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Presence of nodes</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center">151,652.12</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Presence of curvature</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center">396,951.29</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="5" class="custom-top-td acenter" width="11.57%"><p style="text-align:center">Fellers</p></td>
<td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Rolling</p></td>
<td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center">5,088,980.12</p></td>
<td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">2,488,718.5</p></td>
<td rowspan="5" class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.09%"><p style="text-align:center">25,107,323.5</p></td>
<td rowspan="5" class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.20%"><p style="text-align:center">150,643,941</p><p style="text-align:center">(229,990.74 €)</p></td>
<td rowspan="5" class="custom-top-td acenter" width="10.40%"><p style="text-align:center">23</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Uprooting</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center">275,383.36</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Broken wood</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center">2,831,060.29</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">2,288,840.83</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Oversight</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center">11,222,639.71</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Causes slot/crack</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center">287,732.95</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">623,967.69</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="11.57%"><p style="text-align:center">Loggers</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Oversight</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">1,530,151.19</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="12.09%"><p style="text-align:center">1,530,151.19</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="14.20%"><p style="text-align:center">9,180,907.14</p><p style="text-align:center">(14,016.65 €)</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="10.40%"><p style="text-align:center">1</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="3" class="custom-top-td acenter" width="11.57%"><p style="text-align:center">Buckers</p></td>
<td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Bad topping</p></td>
<td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center">186,401.25</p></td>
<td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">1,041,990.81</p></td>
<td rowspan="3" class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.09%"><p style="text-align:center">5,464,356.78</p></td>
<td rowspan="3" class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.20%"><p style="text-align:center">32,786,140.68</p><p style="text-align:center">(50,055.17 €)</p></td>
<td rowspan="3" class="custom-top-td acenter" width="10.40%"><p style="text-align:center">5</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Bad stubbing</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center">140,492.56</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">1,182,635.57</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Uprooting</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">2,912,836.59</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="10" class="custom-top-td acenter" width="11.57%"><p style="text-align:center">Preparation cubers</p></td>
<td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Bad cutting</p></td>
<td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td>
<td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">34,444.55</p></td>
<td rowspan="10" class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.09%"><p style="text-align:center">30,928,973.2</p></td>
<td rowspan="10" class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.20%"><p style="text-align:center">185573839.2</p><p style="text-align:center">(283318.83 €)</p></td>
<td rowspan="10" class="custom-top-td acenter" width="10.40%"><p style="text-align:center">28</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Inability to handle curvature</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">2,784,284.47</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Excessive purge of bumps</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">8,467,558.71</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Excessive purge of holes</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">3,098,908.76</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Excessive purge of nodes</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">6,857,082.55</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Excessive purge of rot</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">1,641,125.43</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Excessive purge of flats</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">2,442,539.23</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Excessive purge of melot</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">52,604.44</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Presence of double heart</p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td>
<td class="acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">710,209.22</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Abandonment</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">4,840,215.80</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="11.57%"><p style="text-align:center">Stevedores</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center">Oversight</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center">2,385,933.21</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="12.09%"><p style="text-align:center">2,385,933.21</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="14.20%"><p style="text-align:center">14,315,599.26</p><p style="text-align:center">(21,855.87 €)</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="10.40%"><p style="text-align:center">2</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="11.57%"><p style="text-align:center">Total</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="25.47%"><p style="text-align:center"></p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="14.09%"><p style="text-align:center">59,584,301.8</p><p style="text-align:center">(86,388.24 €)</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="12.19%"><p style="text-align:center">51,532,755.1</p><p style="text-align:center">(78,675.96 €)</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="12.09%"><p style="text-align:center">111,117,057</p><p style="text-align:center">(169,644.36 €)</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="14.20%"><p style="text-align:center">666,702,342</p><p style="text-align:center">(1,017,866.17 €)</p></td>
<td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="10.40%"><p style="text-align:center">100</p></td>
</tr>
</table>ELSK = Economic Loss at the Skidding Site; ELFP = Economic Loss at the Forest Park; TEL (SP) = Total Economic Loss for the study period; AEEL = Annual Estimated Economic Loss.by loss sources and loss causes as presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">
Table 7
</xref>. The later shows that a total of 59,584,301.8 CFA francs (86,388.24 €) was recorded at the skidding sites during the time period of the study. The causes of timber losses with the highest monetary losses were abandonment with 16,114,902.85 CFA francs (24,602.9 €), followed by oversight with 13,608,572.92 CFA francs (20,776.44 €), the presence of holes with 10,396,978.57 CFA francs (15,873.24 €) and presence of rot with 9,284,681.57 CFA francs (14,175.08 €). The least costly loss cause was bad stubbing with 140,492.56 CFA francs (214.49 €).A total of 51,532,755.1 CFA francs (78,675.96 €) was recorded at the forest parks during the time period of the study. The main loss causes included the excessive purge of bumps (8,467,558.71 CFA francs = 12,927.57 €), the excessive purge of nodes (6,857,082.55 CFA francs = 10,468,82 €), abandonment (6,571,915.55 CFA francs = 10,033.45 €) and the presence of holes (4,849,049.07 CFA francs = 7403.12 €). The lowest economic losses were mainly due to the bad cutting (34,444.55 CFA francs = 52.58 €) and excessive purge of melot (52,604.44 CFA francs = 80.31 €).The study recorded a total of 111,117,057 CFA francs (169,644.36 €) throughout the production chain during the time period of the study. The responsible personnel with the highest economic losses included prospectors (45,700,319.1 CFA francs = 69,771.47 €), preparation cubers (30,928,973.2 CFA francs = 47,219.80 €) and fellers (25,107,323.5 CFA francs = 38,331.79 €). Loggers (1,530,151.19 CFA francs = 2336.10 €), stevedores (2,385,933.21 CFA francs = 3642.64 €) and buckers (5,464,356.78 CFA francs = 8342.52 €) recorded the lowest economic losses.The corresponding proportions were in order of importance prospectors (41%), preparation cubers (28%) and fellers (23%). Buckers, stevedores and loggers were responsible for less losses with respectively 5%, 2% and 1%. A total economic loss of 666,702,342 CFA francs (1,017,866.17 €) was annually estimated in the company.3.2. DiscussionTimber loss sources and causesThe findings from this study show that four sources of timber loss were identified in the annual cutting plate 1.1 of the 07-004 unit, including in order of importance wood defects, unqualified personnel or less-skilled manpower, inadequate equipment and methods (Conventional logging CL) and poor work planning. The position of wood defect as the primary timber loss source in this study is in accordance with <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.141780-11">
Awasthi et al. (2020)
</xref>, who mentioned that wood defect is the primary loss cause of the most commercial specie in Deurali community forest in Nepal. But is it different to the study of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.141780-9">
Aryal et al. (2022)
</xref> in which the major causes of losses occurring in all of the three harvesting stages (felling, bucking, and sawing) of Shorea robusta were the use of inappropriate equipment. This is the fact that the two first major loss sources in this study are related (the second contributing to the importance of the first), given that the personnel responsible for identifying defects on standing trees before cutting are les prospectors and fellers (both responsible of 62.54% of loss), who were less-skilled and unable to detect defects and neglecting the ergonomic conditions; and the preparation cubers (with 28.99%), unable to handle some defects or doing excessive purge of others (rot, nodes, holes, bumps, flats …). According to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.141780-16">
Bowyer (1997)
</xref>, a high amount of the harvest volume (7 m<sup>3</sup>/ha) can be left behind in tropical forest after logging because skidder operators could not locate the logs.Observations on the field showed that the methods used in this logging unit are still of CL which according to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.141780-15">
Boltz et al. (2003)
</xref>, are methods including unplanned, merchantable harvest of size stems, felled by fellers and transported by tractors or skid by skidders to depot; instead of Reduced Impact Logging (RIL) which is gaining more attention in recent decades due to unplanned logging practices, safety concern of less workers, and higher timber and regeneration loss (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.141780-52">
Putz et al., 2008
</xref>). According to the study of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.141780-40">
Le et al. (2013)
</xref>, in Vietnam, conventional logging has some problems such as insufficient and unspecific mitigations of negative impacts; in-proper attention on exclusion areas; no development of proper logging evaluation of harvesting operations and its impacts; lack of well-trained workers; use of inappropriate machineries improper attention on harvesting monitoring; low rate of tops and branches utilization; and sketchy implementation of post-harvesting activities.
Concerning planning, it was noted in this study as mentioned by
Jonkers et al. (2001)
in the Tropenbos-Cameroon Programme in the same Rain-forest condition in the south Littoral region in Cameroon that, the planning was mostly executed at forest-camp level and is pretty much a straightforward calculation of the machines and personnel needed, based on the commercial composition of the forest (number and volume of tree to be cut per species).
The four above-mentioned loss sources induced seventeen direct loss causes, all identified at the forest park of which thirteen identified at the skidding site, with the most frequent at the skidding sites being abandonment (24.55%), oversight (18.18%), the presence of rot (11.82%) and the presence of holes (10.91%). These attest the impact of CL and the unskilled of less-skilled manpower, who are cheaper personnel usually preferred by some logging companies or imposed by local authorities to others who accept with no choice to avoid conflicts. And thus, savage harvesting practice is being observed. According to Vanderberg cited in
Awasthi (2002)
, savage harvesting practice is the leading cause of high log damage during forest tree harvesting. The personnel related to these loss causes were prospectors and fellers responsible for higher losses (respectively 382.24 m3 and 176.24 m3) at the skidding sites. This is the fact of the above-mentioned reason. The main loss causes at the forest park were excessive purge of defects (43.6%), uprooting (16.17%) and abandonment (10.48%). Here, the preparation cubers were responsible for that with a high timber loss of 326.97 m3, due to the above-mentioned reason and also the fact that they were sometimes unable to handle the high amount of timber with defects arriving from the forest because of the poor work of less-skilled prospectors and careless fellers. Thus, there is a strong positive Pearson correlation, close to 1 (p-value < 0.05), among most causes of loss, with the exception of rolling and excessive melot purging, which is negatively (but poorly) correlated with almost all other causes. In addition, these personnels later also work on a contract basis and are paid per felled stem. These payments are not based on indicators for the quality of their work such as the volume recovered per tree harvested.
Lost timber volume
The high loss (586.36 m3) recorded at the skidding sites is in accordance with
McKeever (2004)
who also mentioned that a high amount of timber loss occurs during timber extraction, including tree felling in forest. It is the same observation as
Delvingt (1994)
, who mentioned that up to 30% of the logs are abandoned in the forest for technological reasons (not compliant) or by omission, in the ECOFAC project around the Dja reserve in the eastern Cameroon. According to
Jonkers et al. (2001)
in the Tropenbos-Cameroon Programme in the same Rain-forest condition in the south Littoral region in Cameroon, about 20% of the skidding damage could have been avoided, and was caused by:
A lesser rate (15.58%) was observed at the skidding sites in this study, and may be due to the relatively short period of data collection. The loss rate of 14.37% of felled trees observed at the forest parks, is less than what observed
Forni (1994)
in the sale cutting plate 1112 and 1179 in Dimako, eastern Cameroon were about 25% of the volume cut was abandoned on park, all species. These lesser rates observed in this study could be the due to short data collection period. Interview with some staff highlighted the fact that another loss source is the log dimensions imposed by buyers. Furthermore, at landings, another loss occurred, mainly due to cutting off both log ends to give the timber a better appearance (
Jonkers & van Leersum, 2000
). According to
Agom (1994)
in Nigeria, a large amount of useful wood is left in the forest because of the adherence of the dealers and buyers to specific flitch dimensions.
More than 50% of the species were concerned by loss of volume above 50 m3; the higher the number of trees felled, the greater the losses in volume of wood. The total rate obtained in this study (29.69%) is near to that obtained by
Eshun (2000)
in Ghana and different from what has been observed in similar climatic areas where more variations in tree harvesting loss rate can be seen (
Table 8
). But these results could have been minimized given the small sampling rate (1%) due to the short period of data collection and the difficulty of access to certain sites. But the daily reports of the company including the yield, were consulted to consolidate the collected data. It is quite conceivable that the losses will be slightly higher if this sampling rate is increased.
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.141780-"></xref>Table 8. Tree harvesting loss rate in similar studies.
Study area
Loss rate
Authors
Nepal
19.8% (left over)
Poudyal et al. (2019)
Nepal
27%
Meilby et al. (2014)
Gabon
25%
Carlson et al. (2017)
Ghana
30%
Eshun (2000)
Latin America
44%
Poudyal et al. (2019)
Africa
46%
Poudyal et al. (2019)
Sarawak Malaysia
46%
Poudyal et al. (2019)
Australia
47.20%
Poudyal et al. (2019)
Asia
50% (1:1 ratio)
Butarbutar et al. (2016)
STropical Region (Avg.)
50%
Poudyal et al. (2019)
Asia-Pacific
54%
Poudyal et al. (2019)
The Philippines
60%
Lasco et al. (2006)
Brazilian Amazon
66% (1:2 ratio)
Numazawa et al. (2017)
Terai Horea robusta Forest, Nepal
21.59%
Aryal et al. (2022)
Littoral, Cameron Rain Forest
29.69%
This study
All authors cited in
Aryal et al. (2022)
.
The loss of 540.95 m3 corresponding to 14.37% of felled trees, observe at the forest parks, is less than what observed
Forni (1994)
in the sale cutting plate 1112 and 1179 in Dimako, eastern Cameroon were about 25% of the volume cut was abandoned on park, all species.
The total loss volume (1127.67 m3) observed in this study is closed to that (1278.129 m3) obtained by “La Côtière Forestière et Industrielle de la Doumé (SFID)” in its forest management unit 10-065 in the Integrated Pilot Development Project (IPDP) of Dimako in the East region, mentioned by
CIRAD (1998)
. This may be the fact that the CSIWE and SFID are both using CL practices. On the other hand, the Rougier group at its Djoum site in southern Cameroon, estimated a total volume loss of 603.729 m3 throughout the production chain, and this is because the group has a very experienced team and uses work procedures that take into account RIL standards.
Monetary loss
The study recorded a total of 111,117,057 CFA francs (169,644.36 €) throughout the production chain during the time period of the study. An estimated annual economic loss of 666,702,342 CFA francs (1,017,866.17 €). Prospectors (41%), preparation cubers (28%) and fellers (23%) are the personnel responsible for the highest economic loss. And it is the fact of the quality of the loss. According to
Gillian (2013)
, the quality loss in log leads to monetary loss of the timber. It is a matching logic with our research findings, as the most concerned loss were whole stems with defects or good ones felled in accidental areas, abandoned in the skidding sites after felling. The loss rate of 29.69% is close to that observed by
Sah et al. (2004)
who stated that the timber loss and its monetary value was about 30% less in total. Another study of Vanderberg cited in
Awasthi et al. (2020)
shows that 10% - 15% timber losses were caused by defects at felling sites which ultimately result to monetary loss (
Lowell et al., 2010
;
Nordmark, 2005
). Furthermore, study done by
Donovan and Nicholls (2003)
stated that defects resulted to affect diameter, length, width and thickness of the log, which were the chain effect to reduce the overall timber quality and quantity.
4. Conclusion
The study permitted to identify and highlight the main sources of timber loss in the logging company applying in the annual cutting plate 1.1 of the 07-004 unit in the dense rain forest in Cameroon. This loss of timber is due to the use of conventional logging methods by the company. The loss sources include poor work planning, unqualified personnel, wood defects and inadequate equipment and methods. Considered as indirect, these loss sources induced seventeen direct causes of timber losses, with uprooting and excessive purge of bumps being the most frequent at the skidding sites and abandonment and oversight the most frequent at forest parks. There is a strong positive correlation between most of these loss causes, with the exception of the rolling and the excessive purging of melot, whose correlation is negative with almost all others. So, the null hypothesis fixed in this study is rejected. For the target species, more than 50% of them were concerned by loss of volume above 50 m3. It was noted that the higher the number of trees felled, the greater the losses in volume of wood. Julbernardia pellegriniana recorded the highest loss volumes during harvest and shaping. A high volume (1127.61 m3) of timber losses was recorded, corresponding to a considerable monetary loss of 111,117,057 FCFA (169,644.36 €), for an estimated annual loss of 666,702,342 FCFA (1,017,866.17 €). These results could have been minimized given the small sampling rate (1%) due to the short period of data collection and the difficulty of access to certain sites. It is quite conceivable that the losses could be slightly higher if this sampling rate is increased. In any way, limiting timber losses could reduce harvested forest areas while increasing yield and monetary benefits. This could be effective by the use of the RIL methods, and also if monitoring and capacity-building processes are undertaken by both logging companies and the forest administration.
5. Recommendations
Interviews with staff and field laborers highlighted some strategic points of “close-to-best practice” (
Table 9
), which could be implemented to reduce timber and monetary losses.
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.141780-"></xref>Table 9. Somme strategical points to implement to reduce losses.
Strategic points
Activities
Indicators
Responsible staff
Better planning of field work
Reorganization of work teams
Integration of a management and planning unit
Manager/Chief Operating Officer
Development of strict work instructions
Manual of Procedures and work Instructions
The setting up of qualified teams
Training/capacity building of staff and laborers on RIL techniques
Training/capacity-building certificate, Improvement of volume and monetary yields
Accredited RIL Training Organization
Better communication and reporting
Organization of real-time communication platforms, Intensification of communication between forest operations
Information available in real time, between office and forest camp
Site Manager/Chief Operating Officer
Monitoring and evaluation of operations
Ongoing control of field operations
Compliance with work instructions
Site Manager/Chief Operating Officer
Implementation of a system for recovering abandoned wood in the forest and waste wood in landings
Sawing boards for the local market or recovery of defects wood and abandoned by local populations for fuelwood
Planks/fuelwood
Partners
Alternative energy production to fossil fuels, from logs with defects abandoned in forest and wood waste in forest parks
Ecological source of energy
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the “Société Camerounaise d’Industrie et d’Exploitation du Bois” for allowing field data collection on their operations in the ACP 1.1 of the 07-004 unit in the littoral region in Cameroon. The authors would also like to thank ERAIFT-AGRINATURA consortium as part of the project “Capacity Building for Biodiversity Practitioners, Scientists, and Policymakers for the Sustainable Management of Protected Areas and Forest Ecosystems in Africa” funded by the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) N˚ 41928 of the European Union.
References
Abdulhadi, R., Kartawinata, K.,&Sukardjo, S. (1981). Effects of Mechanized Logging in the Lowland Dipterocarp Forest at Lempake, East Kalimantan. Malaysian Forester, 44, 407-418.
Agom, D. I. (1994). Report of Study on Methodology and Productivity of Stump Site Chain Saw Timber Operators. Forestry Department Headquarters.
Agom, D. I.,&Ogar, D. (1994). Report of Study on Timber Extraction in the Ikobi Concession Area in Afi River Forest Reserve. Forestry Department Headquarters.
Agyeman, V. K., Turnbull, C.,&Swaine, M. D. (1995). Maintenance of Biodiversity in the Tropical High Forest: Effects of Selective Logging. In Proceedings of 10th IUFRO World Congress (pp. 76-77). Internation Union of Forest Research Organizations.
Ahmad, S., Brodie, J. D.,&Sessions, J. (1999). Analysis of two Alternative Harvesting Systems in Peninsular Malaysia: Sensitivity Analysis of Costs, Logging Damage and Buffers. Journal of Tropical Forest Science, 11, 809-821. >https://www.jstor.org/stable/43582328
Alemagi, D.,&Kozak, R. A. (2010). Illegal Logging in Cameroon: Causes and the Path Forward. Forest Policy and Economics, 12, 554-561. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.07.008
Andel, S. (1978). The Impact of Harvesting Systems on Tropical Forest Management in South East Asia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Final Report MAL/75/012.
Armstrong, S.,&Inglis, C. J. (2000). RIL for Real: Introducing Reduced Impact Logging Techniques into a Commercial Forestry Operation in Guyana. International Forestry Review, 2, 17-23.
Aryal, U., Neupane, P. R., Rijal, B.,&Manthey, M. (2022). Timber Losses during Harvesting in Managed Shorea Robusta Forests of Nepal. Land, 11, Article 67. >https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010067
Asner, G. P., Keller, M., Lentini, M., Merry, F.,&Souza, C. (2009). Selective Logging and Its Relation to Deforestation. In Geophysical Monograph Series (pp. 25-42). American Geophysical Union. >https://doi.org/10.1029/2008gm000723
Awasthi, S., Yadav, B., Panta, M.,&Mandal, A. R. (2020). Economic Loss of Timber Caused by over Stumps and Defects in Community Forests Terai Nepal. International Journal of World Policy and Development Studies, 6, 74-80.
Ayres, J. M.,&Johns, A. D. (1987). Conservation of White Uacaries in Amazonian Várzea. Oryx, 21, 74-80. >https://doi.org/10.1017/s0030605300026582
Barbier, J. C. (1977). A propos de l’opération Yabassi-Bafang (Cameroun). Office National de la Recherche Scientifique et Technique.
Bigombe, L. P. (2004). Le retournement de l’état forestier: L’endroit et l’envers des processus de gestion forestière au Cameroun. Presses de l’UCAC.
Boltz, F., Holmes, T. P.,&Carter, D. R. (2003). Economic and Environmental Impacts of Conventional and Reduced-Impact Logging in Tropical South America: A Comparative Review. Forest Policy and Economics, 5, 69-81. >https://doi.org/10.1016/s1389-9341(01)00075-2
Bowyer, J. L. (1997). Strategies for Ensuring the Survival of Tropical Forests: Can Logging Be One of Them? Forest Products Journal, 47, 15-24.
Briggs, D. G. (1994). Forest Products Measurement and Conversion Factors: With Special Emphasis on the U.S. Pacific Northwest. University of Washington.
Brunner, J.,&Ekoko, F. (2000). Cameroon. In F. J. Seymour,&N. K. Dubash (Eds.), The Right Conditions: The World Bank, Structural Adjustment, and Forest Policy Reform (Chapter 3, pp. 59-80). World Resource Institute.
Buenaflor, V. (1989). Logging in Papua New Guinea. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Working Document No. 15.
Butarbutar, T., Köhl, M.,&Neupane, P. R. (2016). Harvested Wood Products and REDD+: Looking beyond the Forest Border. Carbon Balance and Management, 11, Article No. 4. >https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-016-0046-9
Carlson, B. S., Koerner, S. E., Medjibe, V. P., White, L. J. T.,&Poulsen, J. R. (2017). Deadwood Stocks Increase with Selective Logging and Large Tree Frequency in Gabon. Global Change Biology, 23, 1648-1660. >https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13453
CIRAD (1998). Projet d’Aménagement Pilote Intégré (PAPI) de Dimako en 1997 à l’Est du Cameroun.
Delvingt, W. (1994). La gestion forestière en bordure de la réserve de faune du Dja rapport préliminaire de mission. Projet ECOFAC-Cameroun.
Donovan, G.,&Nicholls, D. (2003). Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Character Marked Cabinets from Alaska Birch. Forest Products Journal, 37, 56-62.
Enviro-Protect (1997). Illegal Logging and Timber Trade in Cameroon: Background and Consequences. Enviro-Protect.
Eshun, A. A. (2000). Logging Residue from the Tropical High Forests in the Western Region of Ghana. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ghana.
Exploitation of Forests, Cameroon (2023). >https://ejatlas.org/print/exploitation-of-forests-cameroon
Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) (2010). Forest Resource Assessment. FAO Forestry Paper No 163, FAO.
Forest Resource Management Ingénierie (FRMi) (2018). Vision stratégique et industrialisation de la Filière Bois en Afrique Centrale-Horizon 2030. Rapport Pays Cameroun.
Forni, E. (1994). Bilan de l’exploitation de la Vente de Coupe 1112 (20 p). Projet API, CIRAD Forêt.
Gbetnkom, D. (2005). Deforestation in Cameroon: Immediate Causes and Consequences. Environment and Development Economics, 10, 557-572.
Gillian, M. F. (2013). Life Cycle Assessment of Timber, Modified Timber and Aluminiumclad Timber Windows. Report for the Wood Window Alliance.
Global Forest Watch Cameroon (2011). Aperçu de la situation de l’exploitation forestière au Cameroun. Un Rapport de l’Observatoire Mondial des Forêts Cameroun.
Global Forest Watch Cameroon (2025). Perte de couverture forestière au Cameroun. >https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/CMR/
Global Witness (2004). Observation of Infractions within the Different Timber Extraction Titles in the Forests of Cameroon: Experiences from Missions Carried out between June 2001 and February 2004. Global Witness.
Jonkers, W. B. J. (1999). Logging, Damage and Efficiency: A Study on the Feasibility of Reduced Impact Logging in Cameroon. Kribi (Cameroon). Final Report.
Jonkers, W. B. J.,&van Leersum, G. J. R. (2000). Logging in South Cameroon: Current Methods and Opportunities for Improvement. International Forestry Review, 2, 11-16.
Jonkers, W. B. J., Foahom, B.,&Schmidt, P. (2001). Seminar Proceedings ‘Sustainable Management of African Rain Forest’, Held in Kribi, Cameroon, November 1999. Part II. Symposium. The Tropenbos Foundation.
Lasco, R. D., MacDicken, G., Pulhin, F., Guillermo, I. Q. et al. (2006). Carbon Stocks Assessment of a Selectively Logged Dipterocarp Forest and Wood Processing Mill in the Philippines. Journal of Tropical Forest Science, 18, 212-221.
Le, D., Vu, N.,&Tran, T. (2013). Conventional Logging in Natural Forest of Vietnam: Issues and Way Forward. The SSRN Journal.
Lowell, E. C., Rapp, V. A., Haynes, R. W.,&Cray, C. (2010). Effects of Fire, Insect, and Pathogen Damage on Wood Quality of Dead and Dying Western Conifers. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory.
McKeever, D. B. (2004). Inventories of Woody Residues and Solid Wood Waste in the United States, 2002. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Inorganic-Bonded Composite Materials Conference (pp. 1-12). >https://www.fpl.fs.usda.gov/documnts/pdf2004/fpl_2004_mckeever002.pdf
Meilby, H., Smith-Hall, C., Byg, A., Larsen, H. O., Nielsen, Ø. J., Puri, L. et al. (2014). Are Forest Incomes Sustainable? Firewood and Timber Extraction and Productivity in Community Managed Forests in Nepal. World Development, 64, S113-S124. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.011
MINFOF (2011). Secteur forestier et faunique. Les faits et les chiffres. MINFOF.
MINFOF (2018). Secteur forestier et faunique du Cameroun: Faits et chiffres. MINFOF, 47 p.
MINFOF and FAO (2005). Évaluation des ressources forestières nationales du Cameroun-2003/2004. Ministère des Forêts et de la Faune (MINFOF), Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO).
Namuene, K. S.,&Egbe, A. E. (2022). Impact of Timber Logging on Neighbouring Stands in a Forest of the South Western Cameroon. Open Journal of Forestry, 12, 248-262. >https://doi.org/10.4236/ojf.2022.122014
Nordmark, U. (2005). Value Recovery and Production Control in Bucking, Log Sorting and Log Breakdown. Forest Products Journal, 55, 73-79.
Numazawa, C. T. D., Numazawa, S., Pacca, S.,&John, V. M. (2017). Logging Residues and CO
2 of Brazilian Amazon Timber: Two Case Studies of Forest Harvesting. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 122, 280-285. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.02.016
Osidebea (2023). La mémoire vivante du Cameroun. >https://www.osidimbea.cm/collectivites/littoral/yabassi-commune/
Poudyal, B. H., Maraseni, T. N.,&Cockfield, G. (2019). Implications of Selective Harvesting of Natural Forests for Forest Product Recovery and Forest Carbon Emissions: Cases from Tarai Nepal and Queensland Australia. Forests, 10, Article 693. >https://doi.org/10.3390/f10080693
Putz, F. E., Sist, P., Fredericksen, T.,&Dykstra, D. (2008). Reduced-Impact Logging: Challenges and Opportunities. Forest Ecology and Management, 256, 1427-1433. >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.03.036
Sah, R. N., Van Schoubroeck, F. J. H.,&Sigdel, H. (2004). Linking the Forestry Sector Financial System with Local Government Institutions. Banko Janakari, 14, 3-12.
Sofuoglu, S. D.,&Kurtoglu, A. (2012). A Survey for Determination of Wastage Rates at Massive Wood Materials Processing. Wood Research, 57, 297-308.
Topa, G., Karsenty, A., Megevand, C.,&Debroux, L. (2009). The Rainforest of Cameroon. Experience and Evidence from a Decade of Reform. The World Bank.
White, L. J. T. (1992). Vegetation History and Logging Disturbance: Effects on Rain Forest Mammals in the Lope Reserve, Gabon (with Special Emphasis on Elephants and Apes). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.