BC Forest Policy in Comparative Context

1. BC Forest Policy inComparative Context

2. Why Compare? • understanding other jurisdictions • benchmark performance (credit, blame) • learning lessons to improve policy in your own jurisdiction Sustainable Forest Policy

3. Agenda - Comparisons • Why Compare? • BC forest sector in Canadian and global context • Comparisons by policy category • Case study: GBR in comparative context • Conclusions Sustainable Forest Policy

4. 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 Sustainable Forest Policy

5. 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.phpState of Canada’s Forests http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/34055.pdf Sustainable Forest Policy

6. Lumber production by province Sustainable Forest Policy

7. BC in North American context Annual timber harvest 2005 (McDermott et al) Sustainable Forest Policy

8. 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). Sustainable Forest Policy

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

10. 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 Sustainable Forest Policy

11. Categories of Forest Policy • Allocation of “Crown” timber -- tenure • Pricing -- stumpage • Rate of harvest – allowable annual cut (AAC) • Land Use – zoning for different values (logging, conservation, etc) • Regulation of harvesting -- Forest Practices • Emergent areas and overlaps (energy, carbon)

12. Categories of Forest Policy – focus on 1, 3, 4, 5 • Allocation of “Crown” timber -- tenure • Pricing -- stumpage • Rate of harvest – allowable annual cut (AAC) • Land Use – zoning for different values (logging, conservation, etc) • Regulation of harvesting -- Forest Practices • Emergent areas and overlaps (energy, carbon)

13. Policy 1: Timber Allocation Public Land Model Source: Cashore/McDermott Sustainable Forest Policy

14. Ownership of Forestland by Province (percent) Source: The State of Canada’s Forests Sustainable Forest Policy

15. Ownership of Forestland (percent) Source: Gorte (2001) Sustainable Forest Policy

16. 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 Sustainable Forest Policy

17. Policy II: Forest Practices • Different jurisdictions put different emphasis on • voluntary standards/guidelines • practices regulations • results-based regulations • compulsory management planning Sustainable Forest Policy

18. Sustainable Forest Policy

19. 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 Sustainable Forest Policy

20. 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. Sustainable Forest Policy

21. Sustainable Forest Policy

22. Policy III: Land Use and Protected Areas Sustainable Forest Policy

23. Summary Table on comparisons in protected areas Sustainable Forest Policy

24. Based on a paper with Jessica Brooks Case Study: The Great Bear Rainforest in Comparative Context

25. One Ecosystem, Two Governments Sustainable Forest Policy

26. 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 Sustainable Forest Policy

27. BC: Policy Through Collaboration Sustainable Forest Policy

29. 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 Sustainable Forest Policy

30. 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 Sustainable Forest Policy

31. 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 Sustainable Forest Policy

32. 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 Sustainable Forest Policy

33. 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 Sustainable Forest Policy

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

35. 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 Sustainable Forest Policy

36. 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 Sustainable Forest Policy

37. 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 Sustainable Forest Policy

38. 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? Sustainable Forest Policy