The biggest drawback of recent day's GDP estimation is the exclusion of ecosystem services that we get out of Forestry and other Natural Resources assuming that these are the valueless gifts from the selfless God. Gosh! This has been the biggest cause of market failure for most of the natural resources as well as their poor management and conservation. It's time to create national accounting system for forest services and add it to our GDP and hence push everybody to pay for whatever services they enjoy from forest - not just so called timber and feelgood only.

I am not sure the kind of management regime your following for PAs. However, as I know, in a forest comanagement system, you can do everything in a PA to upgrade its health and biodiversity. Collecting NWFP is quite a common and permitted practice. However, it probably varies from country to country based on the conservation policy they have adopted.

I second Mohammad, including monetized ecosystem services into the GDP would make a lot of sense from several perspectives. One of them that people could realize consumption of goods is not the only thing contributes to the satisfaction.

Considering socio-economic indicators to manage conservation or natural forests most of the times is possible. The level of protection can define what to do. Untouched, forest health management, limited management, sustainable management, etc., but the choice is usually made by stakeholders (via legislation).

The root problem is the lack of education and the overreaction of the earlier exploitation of forests. Large part of the population cannot understand that managing natural forest can be more beneficial for the society and for the nature than leaving the forest without use. Carbon sequestration is one of the good examples. Without using the wood from the trees the carbon sequestration finishes early after 1-3 lifetimes of the trees. By using the wood, the carbon sequestration will never stop.

The proper use of ecosystem services also need active forest management. You can manage forests without hurting conservation values, even you can improve biodiversity and high-conservation values. In the case of trade-offs, you cannot relay only on the conservation attribute, you need to provide the most benefit for the society on a sustainable way.

The trade-off between forest conservation and forest production is different in each case study. I see that in this case, it is very restrictive towards the conservation side. Apparently, traditional forestry does not make sense, since it is not allowed to cut timber. The question would be whether this level of protection will provide in the long term a forest structure desired by stakeholders. If this were not the case, it would seem sensible to look for other types of more flexible measures and to make both objectives compatible (economic and forest conservation).

This is a very complex issue. Any forest ecosystem with human presence or potential anthropic influence (I think, today all forests in the world are affected in some way by man) should be subjected to some type of forest management, even the decision of leaving the forest untouched is a kind of management decision. One problem with respect to a given forest area is the "all or nothing" in which for many reasons the ultraconservationist side or the purely economic criteria prevail for the whole forest. Ordination of a given forest in areas for strict conservation, buffer areas with some restrictions, and areas for economic management appears to be a reasonable trade-off.

Thanks to all. The question is how best we can use our forest resources for economic and ecological benefits. Extreme approach on both sides is not a practical solution.

Well, natural forest doesn't permit any sylvicultural operation, so the only revenues could by focus on "some" ecosystem services. An example could be represented by touristic activities, however it is not directly related to economic gains.

given that each and every forest operates in a unique ecological and social setting, the solution to their management spans the range from full protection (preservation) through degrees of wise use (conservation) to ag-style plantations (production). While land-rich countries may have the benefit of assigning one or few functions to a particular forest, others are forced into multiple use options. A stellar example of "have your cake and eat it too - forestry" can be found in the tribal forest of the Menominee in Wisconsin. While not entirely without problems, this magnificent forest has been managed for over 150 years.It has produced wood all along, without compromising its ecological and social functions. I am sure you can find much background on this well-documented case of wise forest stewardship.

You ask, " How to regulate the conservation with siviculture of economic and social principles"?

I believe the answer is classic Einstein theory, 'one can't solve a problem with the same thinking that created it'.

The illusion of 'domination and control' over nature has lead us down a number of 'dead end' paths and persists in the context of your question.

Industrial forestry is the contemporary manifestation of 'killing the buffalo for it's tongue'., with the same degrees of mass wasting and genocide that follows. The evidence is clear. Short booms followed by protracted busts every time. We've overlaid the incessant growth, extractive model not understanding it manifests into cancer whether physically or socially, no exceptions. Tweaks to this model will have limited benefits. We need a new way of thinking.

A new way based in Nature as the Master. WHERE everything our 'management' attempts to do is emulating Natures cycles and bounty. With small 'takings' of trees, locally processing and locally manufacturing into finished products.

Leaving future generations an environmental inherence that has value and not just liabilities. If we love our children we will think more about them than our short term profits.

A natural forest (if such even is still avaiable anywhere in the world) needs management efforts like any other forsts. Even economic activities could be possible, but dpending on the individual case and the scale. What should be safeguarded is that the forest does not degrade as a result of usage. For this strcit management appraoches are required.....Objective annot be to gain profits, but to leave the forest, its ecosystems and services it provides intact......