1. BC Forest Policy in Comparative Context

2. New survey on video v text due Friday noon Participation forms due in class on Tuesday November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy2

3. 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 November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy3

4. Simulation Debrief – forest carbon 415 1.Standardized protocol for determining offset project baselines 2.Biomass power requirement – 8% (a doubling) - agreed 3.Carbon-smart harvest – better utilization 75% of volume previously considered waste will be used as biofuels – with effective monitoring 4.Forest carbon science panel 5.Atmospheric Benefit Sharing Agreements – ABSA – 50% 6.Expand reforestation through offsets November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy4

5. 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 November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy5

6. BC Forest Policy in Comparative Context

7. Why Compare? understanding other jurisdictions benchmark performance (credit, blame) learning lessons to improve policy in your own jurisdiction November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy7

8. Agenda - Comparisons Why Compare? BC forest sector in Canadian and global context Comparisons by policy category Case study: GBR in comparative context Conclusions November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy8

9. 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) November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy9

10. 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. November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy10

11. 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.phphttp://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/34055.pdf November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy11

12. Lumber production by province November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy12

13. BC in North American context November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy13 Annual timber harvest 2005 (McDermott et al)

14. Canada in the World Percentage of global exports (2011) http://www.fao.org/forestry/statistics/80938@180724/en/ 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 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy14

15. Export leaders, all wood products (2012) http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/selective-cuttings/54 http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/selective-cuttings/54 November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy15 Country Country share of total wood exports Value (C$ billion) Wood share of country exports Largest wood export Trad e balan ce China12.6%12.30.6%Panels- Canada10.2%10.02.2%Lumber+ Germany8.5%8.31.0%Fiberboard- U.S.A.8.0%7.90.5%Lumber- Russia6.5%6.31.8%Lumber+ Austria4.8%4.72.9%Lumber+ Sweden4.5%4.42.5%Lumber+ Poland3.6%3.51.9%Joinery+ Indonesia 3.5%3.41.8%Panels+ Finland2.8%2.83.8%Lumber+

16. 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 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy16 Cashore/McDermott

17. Categories of Forest Policy 1.Allocation of “Crown” timber -- tenure 2.Pricing -- stumpage 3.Rate of harvest – allowable annual cut (AAC) 4.Land Use – zoning for different values (logging, conservation, etc) 5.Regulation of harvesting -- Forest Practices 6.Emergent areas and overlaps (energy, carbon) 17

18. Categories of Forest Policy – focus on 1, 3, 4, 5 1.Allocation of “Crown” timber -- tenure 2.Pricing -- stumpage 3.Rate of harvest – allowable annual cut (AAC) 4.Land Use – zoning for different values (logging, conservation, etc) 5.Regulation of harvesting -- Forest Practices 6.Emergent areas and overlaps (energy, carbon) 18

19. Policy 1: Timber Allocation Public Land Model November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy19 Source: Cashore/McDermott

20. Ownership of Forestland by Province (percent) OwnershipBCABONPQMaritimes (NB & NS) Canada Private4411 586 Provincial958788894071 Federal1910223 November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy20 Source: The State of Canada’s Forests

21. Ownership of Forestland (percent) OwnershipUSCanada Private586 State/ Provincial 971 Federal3323 November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy21 Source: Gorte (2001)

22. 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 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy22

23. Policy II: Forest Practices Different jurisdictions put different emphasis on – voluntary standards/guidelines – practices regulations – results-based regulations – compulsory management planning November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy23

24. November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy24

25. 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 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy25

26. 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 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy26

27. November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy27

28. Policy III: Land Use and Protected Areas November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy28

29. Summary Table on comparisons in protected areas November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy29

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

31. One Ecosystem, Two Governments November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy31

32. 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 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy32

33. BC: Policy Through Collaboration November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy33

35. 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 November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy35

36. Difference in Outcomes Protection 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%EBM Protected areas (33%) + EBM 2009 (67% x.5 x.9= 34) = 63%EBM Protected areas (33%) + EBM (future?) (67% x.7 x.9) = 75% November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy36

37. 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 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy37

38. 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 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy38

39. 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 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy39

40. Economic Differences Employment in forestry as a percent of labour force percentyear SE Alaska61995 GBR82001 P. McNeill FD 392001 Campbell R. FD 242001 November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy40 In GBR, overwhelming majority of jobs created by the harvest lie outside the region (CC 96%, NC 86%). Two-thirds in the lower mainland

41. 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 November 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy41

42. 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 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy42

43. 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 20, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy43

44. 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, 2014Sustainable Forest Policy44