Regulating Forests in the Global Era: Can British Columbia s Forest Policies Help Ratchet Up Global Standards? Ben Cashore

Transcription

1 Regulating Forests in the Global Era: Can British Columbia s Forest Policies Help Ratchet Up Global Standards? Ben Cashore Professor Environmental Governance and Political Science School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Yale University Presentation to International Conference on Forests and Regulatory Reform, Beijing, China, 2008

2 Who Am I Political scientist Specialize in policy studies Curious about environmental policy development Focus largely on forest sector Assess policy choices made by Governments Environmental groups Firms Intergovernmental processes Emergence of market-mechanisms Forest Certification non-state market driven (NSMD) global goverance

3 I collaborate! McDermott, Cashore and Kanowski Global Environmental Forest Policy, Forthcoming Earthscan Cashore, McDermott, Levin, with Auld and Newsom The Shaping and Reshaping of British Columbia Forest Policy in the Global Era 2006 Cashore, Benjamin, Fred Gale, Errol Meidinger, Deanna Newsom Confronting Sustainability: Forest Certification in Developing and Transitioning Societies Bernstein, Steven and Benjamin Cashore Can Non-state Global Governance be Legitimate? A Theoretical Framework 2006 Cashore, Benjamin, Graeme Auld and Deanna Newsom Governing Through Markets: Forest Certification and the Emergence of Non-state Authority Cashore, Benjamin, Graeme Auld, Aseem Prakash and Erika Sasser Project comparing 16 US forest companies choices over forest certification Cashore, Benjamin Legitimacy and the Privatization of Environmental Governance: How Non State Market-Driven (NSMD) Governance Systems Gain Rule Making Authority. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 2002 vol. 15, no. 4 (October)

4 Two questions guide most of my work How do we explain domestic & international environmental forestry policy development? Divergence across time Divergence across cases What can strategists do to Address global forest degradation Promote sustainable forest policy Domestically Globally What are innovative policy options/institutions?

5 Defining Sustainability Sustained yield Timber/resource sustainability Ecosystem sustainability Ecosystem structure and function Biodiversity North America Most land owners do practice first definition Second definition hotly disputed

6 Approach of talk I. Brief review of forestry in British Columbia a) Land ownership b) Tenure system c) Policy changes in 1990s II. III. Factors facilitating these changes Implications a) For ratcheting up global forest standards

7 British Columbia, Canada

8 Just how beautiful is British Columbia? Very beautiful

9 But, just how big are British Columbia s trees? Very big

10 Canadian Part of US Pacific Northwest

11 Important Forest Ecosystem

12 British Columbia: Land ownership 94% publicly owned Idaho Montana Crown land Alaska Provincial government Oregon US very different California Northwest split between public and private Washington Non-industrial Industrial USFS State Other Arkansas US South east largely private Virginia North Carolina Mississippi South Carolina Georgia Louisiana Alabama Texas 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

13 British Columbia: Tenure Timber concessions Coast area based Interior volume based Payments for cutting trees stumpage How, and what to charge source of controversy Innovations: Small forest enterprises gaining increased access small business enterprise program About 15% of volume Regional development Small business

14 British Columbia: Environmental Forest Policy 1990s transformative change Protected Areas double 6 percent to over 13% Forest practice code Environmental prescriptions Land claims Indigenous peoples given access to resource

15 Comparing BC: Protected Areas (2000) 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% CALIFORNIA ALASKA WASHINGTON BC ALBERTA IDAHO ONTARIO MONTANA OREGON QUEBEC N. CAROLINA VIRGINA ARKANSAS GEORGIA TEXAS LOUISIANA S. CAROLINA MISSISSIPPI ALABAMA

16 Virginia (NONE) Comparing BC: Maximum Clear Cut Sizes California (tractor yarding) California (aerial or cable yarding) USFS (Other) USFS (Douglas fir) Alberta (Spruce) BC (Coast and S. Interior) Oregon Washington Quebec (South) BC (N. and S. Interior) Oregon (w/ permission) Washington (w/ permission) Alberta (Non-Spruce) Quebec (Central) Quebec (North) Ontario Alabama (NONE) Alaska (NONE) Arkansas (NONE) Georgia (NONE) Idaho (NONE) Louisiana (NONE) Mississippi (NONE) Montana (NONE) North Carolina (NONE) Quebec (Private) (NONE) South Carolina (NONE) Texas (NONE) Clearcut Size Limits (ha.)

17 Comparing BC: Riparian Zones Mandatory No Harvest Zone Mandatory Special Management Zone Russia (>500 km.) Lativa (>100 km.) USFS BC Washington (West) QUEBEC (Salmon) ALBERTA Amazon, Brazil Chile D.R. of Congo Indonesia Mexico New South Wales Alaska (Coastal) ONTARIO Poland Washington (East) Idaho Alaska (Interior) Oregon California Montana Bavaria (Mandatory) China (Mandatory) Finland (Mandatory) Madhya Pradesh (Mandatory) New Zealand (Mandatory) South Afirca (Mandatory) Sweden (Mandatory) Alabama Arkansas Georgia Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia Portugal Japan 0 *(30 meter width, 30%bank slope, perennial, fish-bearing)

18 Lessons: Public land Table 1.0: Timber Harvest in US Pacific Northwest on Private and Federal Lands Permits greater environmental protections Public Land Management No worries about infringing on property rights 5000 m Year Private Federal million board feet

19 Lessons: Stakeholder involvement Environmental Forest Protections Almost always coincide with greater involvement/role for range of stakeholders civil society

20 DIAGRAM 7.0: B.C. FOREST POLICY COMMUNITY: 1975 Tourist Industry Legislature B.C. Opposition Parties and Federal Parties Others Aboriginal Groups Sierra Club Valhalla Wilderness Committee Environment and Land Use Cabinet Committee and its secretariat Major Companies Academics/ researc organizations B.C. Wildlife Federation SUB-GOVERNMENT Policy advocacy Policy participation Provincial Cabinet Nucleus of Power Ministry Ministry of of Forests Forests ATTENTIVE PUBLIC Ministry of Environment IWA Council of Forest Industries Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans Association of B.C. Professional Foresters Commercial Fisheries Groups Shading represents eco-forest groups Adapted from Wilson (1990: 146) Federation of B.C. Naturalists Outdoor Recreation Council Okanagon Similkameen Parks Society U.S. National Audbon Society

21 Women's Environmental Network World Wildlife Fund, U.K. Greenpeace Germany Tourist Industry DIAGRAM 7.1: B.C. FOREST POLICY COMMUNITY: 1995 Legislature B.C. Opposition and federal parties Others boriginal Groups Greenpeace U.K. Western Canada Wilderness Committee Truck Loggers Association Natural Resources Defense Council Academic/ Research Organizations Rain Forest Action Network Valhalla Wilderness Society Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society- B.C. Chapter Sierra Legal Defence Fund Commission on Resources and the Environment Sierra Club of B.C. B.C. Forest Alliance U.S. Foundation B.C. Wildlife Federation Federation of B.C. Naturalists Raincoast Conservation Society Canadian Nature Federation "Special area" ecoforest groups SUB-GOVERNMENT Policy advocacy sub-regional based groups Policy participation Forest Renewal Protected Area Strategy Provincial Cabinet Nucleus of Power Land and Resource Management Sub-regional processes Provincial Land Use Straegy Land Use Coordination Office Forest Practices Board Ministry of Forests Major Forest Companies Council of Forest Industries (and their six member associations) B.C. Wild Forest Policy Watch B.C. Spaces for Nature (World Wildlife Fund) B.C. Share Groups Professional Foresters ATTENTIVE PUBLIC Commercial Fisheries Groups Greater Ecosystem Alliance Greenpeace IWA Outdoor Recreation Council Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans Eco-trust Tin-Wis Coalition B.C. Public Interest Advocacy Centre Canadian Forest Service Shading represents eco-forest groups Adapted from Wilson (1990: 146) U.S. Wilderness Society Pacific Environment Research Center U.S. National Audubon Society Other U.S. and international based eco-forest groups

22 Lessons: Stakeholder involvement British Columbia proactive Commission one Resources and the Environment Land and Resource Management Plans Bottom up stakeholder process Deliberated over where to protect How to manage Government gave objectives Stakeholders fleshed out details Felt part of the process Central Coast Industry and environmental groups Spearheaded collaborative efforts

23 Lessons: For Global Standards III. If Time! I. Need to think about how domestic forest policy II. III. May be important for sparking ratcheting up of global standards Global Forest convention non-starter IV. Certification has some promise

24 Analytical Framework: The California and Delaware Effects The California Effect (Vogel) Phenomenon where business in regulated markets See strategic self interest in promoting similar regulations on their less regulated competitors Bootleggers and Baptists coalition Market integration (economic globalization) requirement for such phenomena to occur Prerequisite: active environmental and social NGOs Spark initial regulations Environmental groups markets campaigning healthy

25 Analytical Framework: The California and Delaware Effects The Delaware Effect The Phenomenon where businesses flee to less regulated markets Or act as break to increase regulations Common phenomenon in an era of increasing economic globalization Forest firms operating in Indonesia or Malaysia or from US Pacific Northwest to US Southeast

26 Area Certified: by Region and Certification system 160 Forest area under different certification standards Million hectares NVFCCR CERFLOR LEI MTCC PEFC ATFS CSA/PEFC SFI FSC North America Western Europe Eastern & Central Europe Latin America Oceania Asia Africa

27 Lessons: Nurturing the California Effect?

28 Brief History of Global Efforts to Promote Sustainable Forestry Ratcheting Down: Delaware Effect? Comprehensive Global Forest Convention FAILED FSC style certification Over time some support in North America and Europe Limited support in global South Policy Scope Industry initiated certification programs Strong support in North American and Europe Limited support in global South Ben Cashore, Updated May 5, Limited United Nations non-binding agreement on forest practices Time Axis ?

29 Future History of Global Efforts to Promote Sustainable Forestry Ratcheting Up: California Effect? Comprehensive Policy Scope The Beginning of Ratcheting Up?? Problem focused, market embedded certification? Forest Law Enforcement and Governance Trade Processes (FLEGT) Ben Cashore, Updated May 5, Limited Illegal logging international efforts Time Axis ?

30 Global Forestry Challenges Extraordinary Russia vast untapped resources China wood imports tripled from 1997 to 2006 Key countries China imports from: Russia Malaysia Indonesia Thailand PNG Gabon From White et al, China and the Global Market for Forest Products, March 2006

31 US and Europe as Consumers What do consumer choices matter so much? consumers in North America and Europe From 1997 to present Imports to US from China have increased 1000% Imports to EU from China have increased 800% From White et al, China and the Global Market for Forest Products, March 2006

32 Processes for Sparking a California Effect? 1) Relatively high domestic environmental standards a) In countries with coveted consumer markets b) In some countries who compete for coveted markets 2) Widespread recognition of these differences a. On part of NGOs b. Industry c. Governments 3) Strong global concern about environmental problems in countries with relatively weaker policies 4) Recognition that consumption is biggest challenge to global forest deterioration