A deforestation Kuznets curve?

Many Nations Forests Regrow:

A large and growing number of countries are reversing the longstanding trend toward destruction of their forests, a surprising new analysis has found.

The scientists say their study suggests that environmental damage can be reversed with a combination of policy and luck. Twenty years ago most scientists believed that deforestation was an inexorable result of industrialization and that the earth would soon be virtually denuded of trees.

...

A vast majority of the richer and more developed countries had more forest area and denser forests in 2005 than in 1990. In the United States and Western Europe the transition began decades ago, but it has increased rapidly in the last 15 years, the researchers found.

I'm calling this evidence that forests are normal goods (i.e., demand increases with income) and economic growth leads to reforestation. If you don't like that conclusion you can call me funny names in the comments section, and, please, use sarcasm as a blade to suggest that I'm neoclassically naive and only with training in forestry and the natural sciences would I know the magnitude of my folly.

Comments

[PSLIS]

I'm with you, John!

But I trust you mean that economic growth, past a certain threshold, leads to reforestation as obviously, in the past growth has lead to deforestation.

Also, hint of ommitted variable bias here. What about changes in preferences and precieved value of woodland which could well occur in no growth economies and account for reforestation.

Also, are we actually planting trees or just letting them grow? I'm not sure why exactly but I think but this could affect your proposition that trees are a normal good

[Eniryt Manaen]

What about demand for wood products? It seems to me that there has been a growth in the use of synthetic materials that replace those traditionally extracted from forests. Is there any concrete data on that?

[Alan Dove]

As a biologist with some forestry experience, I certainly won't call you names for highlighting this interesting report. The results do suggest a correlation between economic growth and reforestation. Just tread carefully if you're planning to use that as evidence to advocate a policy.

I think your model should distinguish between demand for healthy forests and demand for forest products. People living in mud huts want more wood. People living in high-rise apartments want more trees. That could explain the threshold argument PSLIS is making.

Also, let's remember that not all forests are created equal. If old-growth hardwoods have been replaced with farmed softwoods or fast-growing non-native trees (two common patterns of reforestation), then something has definitely been lost in the transition. Having said that, even a tree farm is superior to barren earth, so the new results (if they hold water) are good news.

[Danø]

only with training in forestry and the natural sciences would I know the magnitude of my folly.

Your snark can't match mine, buddy! Anyway,

I'd say 'ecosystem services' are normal goods. Our society's separation of folk from nature just makes this hard to see for most folk, IMHO.

Once exploitation is seen as being antithetical to QOL, and the multifold services performed (rather than, say, the hard economics of fiber and the softer 'recreational' goods) tallied as being greater than fiber, we'll be OK.

And China and S Korea have big afforestation programs.

Best,

D

[Dano]

Having said that, even a tree farm is superior to barren earth, so the new results (if they hold water) are good news.

An inadvertent pun to my comment above. The new results (successful afforestation) absolutely hold water, which is one of the reasons for afforestation in the first place.

Best,

D

[joshua corning]

a surprising new analysis has found.

surprising!?!?

I do believe Lomborg made this claim in his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and those assertions where derived from long standing studies.

[joshua corning]

I think your model should distinguish between demand for healthy forests and demand for forest products. People living in mud huts want more wood. People living in high-rise apartments want more trees.

I think we should distinguish between the appearance of a limitless resource (19th century perception of forests) and the undeniable reality of today that forests are a limited but replenishable resource. Forest land owners (including governments) are now fully aware that they can derive a more reliable and continuing profit by limiting their exploitation of their property over time.

All the Keynsians and Krugman fans here should love that.

[Jonathan TE]

My tickle of doubt is that forests aren't so much "normal goods" as that it has simply become cheaper to consume forests that exist in the developing world than it is to consume forests in richer countries. World forest coverage has gone down by 1% between 1990 and 2005, according to the Millenium Indicators (Goal 7, Target 9, Indicator 25). (My guess is that that rate of reduction is less than was expected by most observers in 1990, and if so, a kind of good news.) I think lots of people give well-meaning lip service to wanting more and healthier forests, but don't much give that a thought when it comes to putting an addition onto the house beyond good ole concern over the dollars necessary to buy the materials.

[joshua corning]

Another note: We live longer. So a private forest owner will now see more profits by limiting the output of his forest land then she would have in less developed countries where life expectancy is shorter as well as the turn of the century when life expectancy was shorter.

Another another note: those companies and loggers who chopped down trees without consideration for later growth went out of businesses because they simply ran out of forest to chop while those companies and individuals who adapted time delayed cutting remained in business to reap future benefits.

The free market weeded out environmentally destructive practices and produced better outcomes over time.

[Dano]

The free market weeded out environmentally destructive practices and produced better outcomes over time.

You obviously don't live on the west side with plenty of opportunities to view Wayerhauser and Plum Crick shortening their rotations. And when the last rotation is done they send in their house building subsidiary and plop down houses in the alder.

Best,

D

[Fat Knowledge]

Non-expiring link to article here. Tool to create such links for NYTimes articles here.

If you want to read the whole report, here it is.

I think the graph of forests in France over time compared to GDP is particularly interesting, you can view it here.

The one question I have is, how much of the deforestation that is still occurring in Brazil and Indonesia is caused by logging going to the US and other rich countries? Is part of the reason the rich countries are reforesting is really because they are exporting their deforestation? Or is that not much of a factor?

[Mark Bahner]

"People living in high-rise apartments want more trees."

Really? I'd think they'd want more concrete.

I've never seen high-rise apartments (say, more than 5 stories) built out of wood. Seems like such apartments would be a great location for a Towering Inferno movie.

[allen claxton]

Really? I'd think they'd want more concrete.

I think he means that high-risers want to have forests that they can visit, since they don't really have trees of their own.

[Eric]

"The free market weeded out environmentally destructive practices and produced better outcomes over time.

You obviously don't live on the west side with plenty of opportunities to view Wayerhauser and Plum Crick shortening their rotations. And when the last rotation is done they send in their house building subsidiary and plop down houses in the alder."

Yawn...........

There is nothing environmentally bad with shortening rotations. Shorter rotations do not have a detrimental impact on the environment. Bad land management practices negatively impact the environment, but this has absolutely nothing to do with rotation length.

As for the houses, timberland moves to HBU (Higher & Better Uses) where the demand exists and the HBU value exceeds the land's value as timberland. If you don't like this, I encourage you to open your wallet and purchase these properties so that you can manage them as you see fit.

[Eric]

"The one question I have is, how much of the deforestation that is still occurring in Brazil and Indonesia is caused by logging going to the US and other rich countries? Is part of the reason the rich countries are reforesting is really because they are exporting their deforestation? Or is that not much of a factor?"

This has been hinted at, but I'm not sure any real 'proof' has been presented that backs up these claims.

But it makes sense. If the (local) supply is restricted through environmental restrictions, public policies, etc but the (local) demand remains basically unchanged, then one could expect that other (non-local) sources of supply would try to fill the gap to some extent. And it's no great leap of faith to assume that non-local sources not subject to burdensome restrictions/policies would act to fill the supply part of the equation.

Do we value our forests more than we value other country's forests? This is a question for all those forest preservation fanatics that are trying to shut down forestry in the US. They never address the demand side of the equation do they?

[Danø]

There is nothing environmentally bad with shortening rotations. Shorter rotations do not have a detrimental impact on the environment.

Have some coffee to cut those yawns. Anyway,

Sure, if you don't count such things as nutrient depletion and cycling changes, runoff increases, FRI changes, siltation, spp. displacement due to the continued large-scale disturbances as impacts to the environment.

As long as you ignore those, I'll buy what you say.

Good management practices can lessen siltation, sure.

If you don't like this, I encourage you to open your wallet and purchase these properties so that you can manage them as you see fit.

Or we can go back to the old ROI/ARR ways of doing things and de-corporatize agroforestry.

HTH,

D

[Eric]

I've been on many properties that have been logged multiple times that have none of the problems you mention. Why? Because good forestry practices were used.

If shorter rotations is your boogieman, so be it. No amount of first hand knowledge on my part will change that.

"Or we can go back to the old ROI/ARR ways of doing things and de-corporatize agroforestry."

Can you expand your thought on this?

Regards,

[Dano]

I've been on many properties that have been logged multiple times that have none of the problems you mention.

The topic is shortening rotations, which tend to disallow recruitment of woody debris for duff layers and changes understory canopy spp frequency and distribution due to shading changes/ temp increases and chemistry change [mychorrizal and soil chem].

But you can tell I come at this from the ecology end. I've had my vial, hoop, piezo, increment borer, et al. time in the woods. The first link I gave above outlines the ecological impacts, and the second details research questions needed to further quantify impacts.

Can you expand your thought on this

An old common way of agroforestry was to have a lower ROI and margins than what we see now. Certainly out here CDN softwood lumber has changed markets (what to do with all the bark beetle-killed stems? What to do...) as has mill closures. The reason you see houses going up after last rotations on the west slope of Cascades is the release/maintenance/wait cycle is too long for corporate interests. Sure, we can talk efficiency and all that (this site having an econ in its name), but stewardship isn't in any maximizing short-term gains texts I've read.

Best regards,

D

[Johnny Chimpo]

Eric,
Nothing bad with shortening rotations? Is this equivalent to saying nothing good about lengthening rotations?

something you ignored earlier

[Eric]

My point is that there are places where shorter rotations do not produce the impacts you list or the impacts are insignificant. Yes, there are places where shorter rotations could be a problem - and in these places good forest management would include this as part of the decision making process.

In addition, some of the impacts you list are not an issue if the goal is timber production. Should I concern myself with species diversity in a loblolly pine plantation? I think the answer is no.

I am a forest economist and my clients are focused on maximizing NPV subject to being good stewards of their forest resources. I think this is the right approach, and in fact the only approach if you want the forest to exist in any significant manner. Lower forestry returns will force the land to be used for something that produces higher returns (homes, condos, shopping malls). Forest management and good stewardship are not mutually exclusive.

What do you think of groups like The Nature Conservancy and The Conservation Fund?

Regards,

[Danø]

First, Eric, I prefer smaller landholders because their family fortunes depend upon good management, as opposed to, well, you know the argument. I have an old friend whose family has ~15K ac in the Sierra foothills, and I enjoy walking her land, as I enjoy the place where I get chanterelles, as their management is excellent.

That said, these are the exceptions to the rule. As long as you have Larry Craig-like characters equating BBF to joy, you get what I see out my front porch: thousands of acres of clearcuts. Sure, it's nice to talk about good management prevents what I'm talking about above, but good management gets trumped most of the time on the ground.

The Nature Conservancy and The Conservation Fund?

I fund TNC. I have a folder on my desk with Cascade Land Conservancy project information too. I'm a fan of conservation easements and TDRs - I have a 320 ac conservation easement just across the road from my house.

Best,

D

[Eric]

Clear-cutting is not the same as bad forest management. Clear-cutting has it's place, as do partial harvest methods.

You say you fund TNC. They are active forest managers, including the use of clear-cutting and various intensive forestry practices. They implement these wisely, and they are good stewards of the land.

Would you be as upset if the clear-cuts you see out your window were TNC clear-cuts as opposed to Weyerhaeuser clear-cuts?

I don't think it's appropriate to export timber harvesting to other countries. That means we should have timber harvesting here at home. From a financial view, we can't have all forest management as extensive touchy-feely type management. The returns simply aren't there for this to be practical and it would require many more acres allocated to forestry.

The result is that we are going to have lands where we practice intensive forestry focused on producing timber products. And we are going to have forested areas where we don't have active forest management. Focused intensive timber production allows us to have forests where timber production isn't a goal.

In my opinion this is a good thing.

Regards,

[Danø]

Clear-cutting has it's place, as do partial harvest methods.

As I said before, how things work on the ground is different than what we wish for in broad generalizations.

Sure small-scale clearcuts replicate natural disturbance cycles. Thousand-acre clearcuts separated by a hundred foot buffer do not. What's your point? If it's that we should minimize clear cuts, I'm with you brother.

I don't think it's appropriate to export timber harvesting to other countries. That means we should have timber harvesting here at home.

Sure, absent capitalist wishes for globalization's cost savings; I'd sure like to have some guys have the freedom to decide for themselves whether to go back into the woods. But what to do with all that millions of ha of beetle-killed lumber in BC...what to do...

From a financial view, we can't have all forest management as extensive touchy-feely type management.

Right. I'm trained in ecology so from an ecological view, we can't have forest management as extensive profit-type management.

Seems there's a fundamental divide between us, here on env-econ.net, where the env is first in the URL and in my mind.

That is, biological and social principles say: no env, no econ.

Best regards,

D

[l. Muthu andavan]

l. Muthu andavan, M.S. D.F
ecology and environmental sciences,
2, srinvasa counder street, sellperumal pet
lawspet
pondicherry-605008
India

[Jonathan TE]

Another reason for reforestation, in the U.S. at least: regional decline in agriculture. New England is now heavily reforested, having once been more or less denuded to clear land for farming and grazing. Better ag land opened up out west and the re-forest creep has been going on ever since. This means that reforestation may not have anything to do with growing "demand" for forests along an environmental Kuznet's curve but is merely a side effect of other economic shifts.