Upload
minh
View
31
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
BC Forest Policy in Comparative 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 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 3
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
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 4
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
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 5
Lumber production by province
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 6
BC in North American context
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 7
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).
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 8
Export leaders, all wood products (2012) http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/selective-cuttings/54
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 9
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”
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 10
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
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 13
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
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 14
Source: The State of Canada’s Forests
Ownership of Forestland (percent)
Ownership US Canada
Private 58 6
State/Provincial
9 71
Federal 33 23
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 15
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
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 16
Policy II: Forest Practices
Different jurisdictions put different emphasis on voluntary
standards/guidelines practices regulations results-based regulations compulsory management
planning
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 17
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 18
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
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 19
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.
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 20
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 21
Policy III: Land Use and Protected Areas
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 22
Summary Table on comparisons in protected areas
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 23
Case Study: The Great Bear Rainforest in Comparative Context
Based on a paper with Jessica Brooks
One Ecosystem, Two Governments
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 25
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
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 26
BC: Policy Through Collaboration
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 27
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
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 30
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
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 31
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
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 32
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
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 33
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
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 34
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
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 35
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
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 36
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
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 37
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?
November 19, 2013 Sustainable Forest Policy 38