BC Forest Policy in Comparative Context. New survey on video v text due Friday noon Participation...

BC Forest Policy inComparative Context

• New survey on video v text due Friday noon

• Participation forms due in class on Tuesday

November 20, 2014 Sustainable Forest Policy 2

Simulation Debrief - ABT

• 17% takeback over 10 years to non-industry– 7% to First Nations– 7% to communities– 4% woodlots– Note: these are area-based licences that come from

industry held volume based licences with the exception of special circumstances designed to address special values

– When additional tenures come up from renewal, stakeholder consultation is required


Simulation Debrief – forest carbon 415

1. Standardized protocol for determining offset project baselines

2. Biomass power requirement – 8% (a doubling) - agreed3. Carbon-smart harvest – better utilization

75% of volume previously considered waste will be used as biofuels – with effective monitoring

4. Forest carbon science panel5. Atmospheric Benefit Sharing Agreements – ABSA – 50%6. Expand reforestation through offsets


Simulation Debrief – forest carbon 523

• Bioenergy electricity standard • New Forest Carbon Standard that includes Effective reforestation of

NSR lands– Carbon standard for forest lands to create offsets

• Exempts natural disturbance emissions• Needs to include carbon life cycle including wood products• Reflect biophsycical conditions and best practices• Approach the standard as soon as practical• Requires updated provincial inventory including slash piles

– Effective reforestation of NSR lands through Carbon partnership program – • Private companies reforest• Government approves offset• Crown recognized title lands included

• Promoting wood use


BC Forest Policy inComparative Context

Why Compare?

• understanding other jurisdictions• benchmark performance (credit, blame)• learning lessons to improve policy in your own

jurisdiction


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, 95-100 (on riparian rules), and summary (113-115)


Theme

• In comparative context, BC forest policy is relatively distinct in a number of ways, among them: a high level of government ownership, the limited role for the federal government, and a focus on natural forest management in old growth forests.


BC in the Canadian Context

BC 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://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 Policy

1. 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)

17

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

1. 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)

18

Policy 1: Timber Allocation Public Land Model


Sou

rce:

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 intervention


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 – 51-

75%• Protected areas (33%) + EBM 2006 (67% x .3 x .9 = 20) = 51%• Protected areas (33%) + EBM 2009 (67% x .5 x .9= 34) = 63%• Protected areas (33%) + EBM (future?) (67% x .7 x .9) = 75%


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 (now narrowing?)

• 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 Next Week

• 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?November 20, 2014 Sustainable Forest Policy 44

BC Forest Policy in Comparative Context. New survey on video v text due Friday noon Participation...

Documents

Transcript of BC Forest Policy in Comparative Context. New survey on video v text due Friday noon Participation...