Managing for timber and biodiversity in the Congo Basin
Open accessAbstract
Multiple-use forest management is considered by many as a preferable alternative to single-use, generally timber-dominant, management models. In the Congo Basin rainforests, integration of timber and non-timber forest resources plays a key role in the subsistence and market economies of rural communities. This is however mainly occurring in “ordinary” forest lands and not in formally gazetted forest lands. In this paper we briefly explore the major land-uses in the Congo Basin and their actual or potential for multiple-use. We then focus on the most extant production system (industrial logging concessions) and analyze the existing issues and options for managing actively both timber and biodiversity with a special emphasis on wildlife and the role of certification. A few promising but yet ‘unfinished’ examples do exist in the region and we review these cases to draw lessons and recommendations. We contend however that true multiple-use could only be realized by expanding beyond boundaries of formal management units through new innovative land-use units, allowing a spatial cohabitation of the interests of local people, of conservation proponents and of extractive industries in the same management unit.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Much of the commercial bushmeat consumed in urban households in the Congo Basin comes from logging concessions, which represent the single largest land use in the Congo Basin.
“as much of the commercial bushmeat that is consumed in urban households comes from logging concessions that represent the single largest landuse in the Congo Basin”
From Empty forests, empty stomachs? Bushmeat and livelihoods in the Congo and Amazon Basins (2011) · cites this paper as Nasi et al. 2011
The paper description (no section or page given) calls industrial logging concessions the Congo Basin’s “most extant production system,” supporting their prominence but not explicitly establishing them as the single largest land use. The available passages do not say that much of the commercial bushmeat consumed by urban households comes from those concessions; searches for bushmeat, urban households, and the land-use claim found no further passage. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIncreasing certification and forcing logging companies to halt hunting and export of bushmeat from their concessions would substantially reduce urban consumption of commercial bushmeat in the Congo Basin.
“increasing certification and forcing logging companies to halt hunting and export of bushmeat from their concessions would do much to reduce urban consumption”
From Empty forests, empty stomachs? Bushmeat and livelihoods in the Congo and Amazon Basins (2011) · cites this paper as Nasi et al. 2011
The available overview (passage 3, no page number) says the paper examines wildlife management in logging concessions and the role of certification. It does not address whether halting hunting and bushmeat exports would substantially reduce urban consumption; searches for that claim and for bushmeat and urban consumption found no relevant passage. (LLM, conf=0.70)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Empty forests, empty stomachs? Bushmeat and livelihoods in the Congo and Amazon Basins
Nasi, R., Taber, A., & Van Vliet, N. (2011) · International Forestry Review · doi:10.1505/146554811798293872 · Cited by 457 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Nasi, R., Billand, A., & van Vliet, N.
- Affiliations
- Center for International Forestry Research (ID)
- Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Nasi, Robert
- ORCID
- Nasi, Robert
- Venue
- Forest Ecology and Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-03
- Volume
- 268
- Pages
- 103-111
- ISSN
- 0378-1127 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2045263945
- Cited by
- 100
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 6.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.cifor.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Forest Ecology and Management (publishedVersion)
- CGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Forest Ecology and Conservation
- Keywords
- multifunctional forestry, Congo Basin rainforest, wildlife conservation, forest certification, land use systems, non-timber forest products, extractive industries
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
