| Name of article: | Postupy oceňování protierozní funkce lesa při používání zejména mechanizovaných technologií obnovy |
|---|---|
| Number: | 4 |
| Year: | 2018 |
| Author: | František Šach, Jiří Dvořák, Luděk Šišák, Vladimír Černohous |
Mechanization of logging activities and site preparation make soil disturbance. When using mechanization or animal (horses) power during technological procedures of forest reproduction, it was necessary to price erosion control function of the forest. Various types of soil erosion on forest lands were differentiated. Subsequently, the erosion was priced by similar methods like at non-forestry use of lands (ŠACH et al. 2018). Pricing was made for logging, site preparation, water, and introskeletal erosion using primarily compensation costs. Values gained for logging and water erosion brought favourable results especially for technology of chain saw felling with uphill yarding by highlead system and for harvester felling and forwarding especially per cubic meter of a logged timber. Further it was discussed the complete pricing of erosion control function of the forest by calculation of increased costs on prevention at implementation of prescribed complex watershed arrangement. Two types of watersheds were managed: (1) erosively less sensitive, and (2) more erosively sensitive. As for the (1) type, the cost increase on prevention was ca 6,000 CZK per 1 ha of the watershed area or 1,200 CZK per 1 cubic meter of logged timber. For the (2) type, the cost increase on prevention was ca 8,000 CZK per 1 ha of the watershed area or 1,600 CZK per 1 cubic meter of logged timber. In foreign countries, the monetary access to pricing of erosion control function of the forest is usually based on the legislatively economic base. The foreign authors recommend to price this function by providing incentive payments and tax reliefs for forest and forestry services when observing “the best management practices”. The owners or forest managers performed these services on their own initiative, not for receiving subsidies in advance. These payments were not possible to compare with our methods due to the fact that our procedures were based on compensation costs and on increase of prevention costs.
