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

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).

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 +

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

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

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

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

Forestry Audit: BC Timber Sales Program Rocky Mountain Forest District · PDF file · 2006-07-25Forestry Audit: BC Timber Sales Program Rocky Mountain Forest District FPB/ARC/80 April

Comparative Perspectives on Forest Management and Development-Final1

The Blue Challenge BC Forest Industry Challenge and Opportunities

BC Forest Policy in Comparative Context. New survey on video v text due Friday noon Participation forms due in class on Tuesday November 20, 2014Sustainable

BC Wildfire Management Branchwildfire/2014/PDFs/DPerrakis...BC Wildfire Management Branch Steve Taylor Nat. Resources Can., Can. Forest Service Problem: BC interior plateau dominated

BC COMMUNITY FOREST PERSPECTIVES AND ENGAGEMENT IN

BC GOV Field Guide Book Nelson Forest Region - Best Practices

Forest Eng Manual Bc(2013)

BCForest JANUARY – FEBRUARY 2015bcforestsafe.org/files/JanFeb2015Fullmagazine.pdf · 4 BC FOREST PROFESSIONAL | JANUARY – FEBRUARY 2015 Letters BC Forest Professional is published

A Comparative Policy Analysis of Community Forest Tenures ... · A Comparative Policy Analysis of Community Forest Tenures in Canada: Lessons for Manitoba by Savannah Eidse ... support

History of Aviation in the BC Forest Service - BC Forest Service's

BC Forest Companies Registered for SAFE Companies...BC Forest Companies Registered for SAFE Companies Updated July 20, 2009 SAFE Companies Registrations July 20 09.doc To search: right

BC Forest Companies Registered for SAFE …s SAFE/SAFE...* Mitchell Bay Contracting Ltd. Williams Lake ... BC Forest Companies Registered for SAFE Companies ... BC Forest Companies

BC Timber Sales Provincial Sustainable Forest Management Plan · BC Timber Sales Provincial Sustainable Forest Management Plan ... 1.2 Scope ... 2.1 OBJECTIVE 1: Forest Management

Supporting Management of Forest Resources on Private Land · A Guide to Agroforestry in BC was produced by the Small Woodlands Program of BC, an initiative of Forest Renewal BC. The

Forest Practices Branch BC Forest Service January 19, 2010 November 2009

Audit of Forest Planning and Practices: BC Timber Sales and Timber

Venice - 2000 Wake Forest Comparative Law Summer Program (Venice)

COMPARATIVE MODEL FOR CLASSIFICATION OF FOREST …eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/77606/1/AhmedAMehdawiPFGHT2015.pdf · COMPARATIVE MODEL FOR CLASSIFICATION OF FOREST DEGRADATION AHMED A

Forest Genetics Council of BC: Seed Planning Structure · 2015-07-21 · Forest Genetics Council of BC. Some words on the FGC SPurpose SBusiness planning for the FIA Forest Genetic