bc forest policy in comparative context

BC Forest Policy inComparative Context

Why Compare?

understanding other jurisdictions benchmark performance (credit,

blame) learning lessons to improve policy in

your own jurisdiction

November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 2

Agenda - Comparisons Why Compare? BC forest sector in

Canadian and global context

Comparisons by policy category

Case study: GBR in comparative context

Conclusions


Reading

Constance McDermott, Benjamin Cashore, and Peter Kanowski, Global Environmental Forest Policies: An International Comparison, (London: Earthscan, 2010), Chapter 3, “Canada and the United States.” (in reading packet)

Read 71-86. Pick one area from 86-113 to read; read summary


BC in the Canadian ContextBC as a percent of Canadian total

actual volume harvested (2011): 46%

area harvested (2011): 27% value of exports (2011): 36% direct employment (2011): 23%National Forest Database Program http://nfdp.ccfm.org/index_e.php

State of Canada’s Forests http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/34055.pdf


http://nfdp.ccfm.org/index_e.php

http://nfdp.ccfm.org/index_e.php

http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/34055.pdf

Lumber production by province


BC in North American context


Annual timber harvest 2005 (McDermott et al)

Canada in the WorldPercentage of global exports (2011) http://www.fao.org/forestry/statistics/80938@180724/en/

Industrial roundwood: Russian Federation (18 percent); New Zealand (11 percent); USA (10 percent); France (6 percent); Canada (5 percent); Latvia (4 percent).

Sawnwood: Canada (20 percent); Russian Federation (16 percent); Sweden (10 percent); Germany (6 percent); Finland (5 percent); Austria (5 percent).

Wood-based panels: China (18 percent); Germany (8 percent); Malaysia (8 percent); Canada (5 percent); Thailand (5 percent); Indonesia (4 percent); Austria (4 percent).

Pulp for paper: Canada (18 percent); Brazil (17 percent); USA (16 percent); Chile (8 percent); Sweden (6 percent); Indonesia (5 percent); Finland (5 percent); Russian Federation (4 percent).

Recovered paper: USA (35 percent); UK (8 percent); Japan (7 percent); Netherlands (6 percent); Germany (6 percent); France (5 percent).

Paper and paperboard: USA (12 percent); Germany (12 percent); Finland (9 percent); Sweden (9 percent); Canada (8 percent); China (5 percent); France (4 percent); Austria (4 percent).


http://www.fao.org/forestry/statistics/80938@180724/en/

Export leaders, all wood products (2012) http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/selective-cuttings/54


Country

Country share of total wood exports

Value(C$ billion)

Wood share of country exports

Largest wood export

Trade balance

China 12.6% 12.3 0.6% Panels -Canada 10.2% 10.0 2.2% Lumber +Germany 8.5% 8.3 1.0% Fiberboard -

U.S.A. 8.0% 7.9 0.5% Lumber -Russia 6.5% 6.3 1.8% Lumber +Austria 4.8% 4.7 2.9% Lumber +Sweden 4.5% 4.4 2.5% Lumber +Poland 3.6% 3.5 1.9% Joinery +Indonesia 3.5% 3.4 1.8% Panels +

Finland 2.8% 2.8 3.8% Lumber +

http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/selective-cuttings/54

Ecological Significance of Forests

Canada 10% of the world’s

forests▪ Russia: 851 million ha▪ Brazil: 544 million ha▪ Canada: 245 million ha▪ US: 226 million ha▪ China: 163 million ha

30% of the world's boreal forests

25% of the world’s remaining “frontier forests”


Cashore/McDermott

Categories of Forest Policy1. Allocation of “Crown” timber --

tenure2. Pricing -- stumpage3. Rate of harvest – allowable annual

cut (AAC)4. Land Use – zoning for different

values (logging, conservation, etc)5. Regulation of harvesting -- Forest

Practices6. Emergent areas and overlaps

(energy, carbon) 11

Categories of Forest Policy – focus on 1, 3, 4, 5

1. Allocation of “Crown” timber -- tenure

2. Pricing -- stumpage3. Rate of harvest – allowable annual

cut (AAC)4. Land Use – zoning for different

values (logging, conservation, etc)5. Regulation of harvesting -- Forest

Practices6. Emergent areas and overlaps

(energy, carbon) 12

Policy 1: Timber Allocation Public Land Model


Sour

ce:

Cas

hore

/McD

erm

ott

Ownership of Forestland by Province (percent)

Ownership BC AB ON PQ Maritimes (NB & NS)

Canada

Private 4 4 11 11 58 6

Provincial 95 87 88 89 40 71

Federal 1 9 1 0 2 23


Source: The State of Canada’s Forests

Ownership of Forestland (percent)

Ownership US Canada

Private 58 6

State/Provincial

9 71

Federal 33 23


Source: Gorte (2001)

Tenure – Different Forms In Canada, 26 forms of major tenures BC distinct in dominance of volume based

BC: ~20% area based Alberta: ~70% area based Ontario: ~100% area based Quebec: ~100% area based

advantage of area-based management is requirements for sustainable forest management plans

US: most public land is federal land – tenure there is volume based


Policy II: Forest Practices

Different jurisdictions put different emphasis on voluntary

standards/guidelines practices regulations results-based regulations compulsory management

planning


Forest Practices – Voluntary Model State of Georgia

largest lumber producing state in East

93% forestland privately owned

Riparian protection: best management practices buffers around streams

▪ no harvest within 25 feet, 50% retention in the rest

▪ unless professional plan, where 50% can be retained throughout


Forest Practices – Regulatory Model - State of Washington

second highest producing state (OR #1) 48% public land Riparian (Western Washington)

all streams have a “core zone” buffer, 15 meters wide, in which no harvesting is permitted.

“inner zone” that extend beyond to core zone, an amount that is determined by the “site potential tree height” for that area, which varies between 27 and 61 meters. ▪ harvesting is only permitted if it is consistent with some

“desired future condition” when the stand is 140 years old.▪ where recent harvesting history, this means virtually no

harvesting. Eastern Washington – similar structure with slightly

smaller buffers.


Policy III: Land Use and Protected Areas


Summary Table on comparisons in protected areas


Case Study: The Great Bear Rainforest in Comparative Context

Based on a paper with Jessica Brooks

One Ecosystem, Two Governments


Puzzle: Great Bear vs. Tongass February 2006: Province of BC

announces it will protect 1/3 of “Great Bear Rainforest” engos declare victory extraordinary success of collaborative

governance On the other side of the boundary,

78% of the Tongass National Forest is protected


BC: Policy Through Collaboration


Alaska – Policy through Adversarial Legalism

SE Alaska: 95% federally owned 80% by US Forest Service

Tongass National Forest: 17 million acres (7 million ha)

Old growth protected through Congressional legislation and judicial interventionNovember 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 29

Difference in OutcomesProtection of Old Growth Forest

Alaska Percent of original old growth protected in

▪ Protected areas: 67%▪ Standards and guidelines: 18%▪ Total: 85%

BC Percent of coastal western hemlock zone

protected – 53-67%▪ Protected areas (33%) + EBM (67% x .5 = 34) = 67▪ Protected areas (33%) + EBM (67% x .3 = 20) = 53


http://greenpolicyprof.org/wordpress/?p=109

http://greenpolicyprof.org/wordpress/?p=109

Institutional differences: legalism executive discretion constrained by

judicial action instigated by interest groups

bias depends on balance of legal resources given to competing interests

in US forest law, more legal resources given to engos than industry


Institutional differences: federalism

level of jurisdiction can matter when the balance of political forces are different at different levels

in many resource conflicts, tendency is for preferences to be greener the farther removed one is from the economic benefits of the extractive activity

hypothesis: more centralized federalism in the US will lead to more wilderness protection


institutions and wilderness protection

BC provincial jurisdiction collaboration in

shadow of cabinet rule

engos enhanced their leverage by shifting venue to international market arena

Alaska federal jurisdiction national preferences

reflected in Congressional action

courts held agency to demanding environmental standards in planning process


Economic DifferencesEmployment in forestry

as a percent of labour forcepercent year

SE Alaska 6 1995GBR 8 2001

P. McNeill FD 39 2001Campbell R. FD 24 2001


In GBR, overwhelming majority of jobs created by the harvest lie outside the region (CC 96%, NC 86%). Two-thirds in the lower mainland

GBR vs. Tongass dramatically different approaches to

governance, dramatically different outcomes

economics matters: divergence cannot be attributed to institutions alone

(nationalization + legalism) > (internationalization + collaboration)

collaboration: procedural benefits but need to question substantive outcomes

surprising absence of interaction effects


Conclusion - comparisons Comparisons are complex Comparisons are political forest policies are influenced by a wide

variety of forces, which differ by jurisdiction land ownership institutions and policy style level of development exposure to international forces importance of forests to the economy


Conclusion – BC’s distinctiveness

high level of government ownership dominance of sub-national Aboriginal issues forest management model: natural

forest management in old growth forests high international exposure

export dependence global ecological significance

complex regulatory framework with stringent rules


Agenda for Thursday Simulation review Participation forms Course review

What are the 2 most significant things you learned in the course?

What are the 2 things you wanted to learn about that you thought was missing?

What would a more “sustainable” future look like?

What are the barriers to achieving that? How can we overcome them?


bc forest policy in comparative context

Documents

percent canada

percent usa

percent germany

percent sweden

percent finland

percent france

percent indonesia

percent austria