‘Forest
Trust’
A Forest Enhancement and
Watershed Restoration
Policy Recommendation
Prepared
January 2000 for
the
Honorable David Zirnhelt, Minister of Forests
by Dirk Brinkman
The Policy Gap................................................................................................ 1
Forest Trust Structure..................................................................................... 2
Forest Trust Function...................................................................................... 3
Limiting
the Forest Trust Scope..................................................................... 5
Who Benefits?................................................................................................ 7
Appendix
#1: Other Provincial Trust Funds................................................ 10
Appendix
#2: On Selecting the Name “Forest Trust”................................. 12
Appendix
#3: Other Uses of the Name “Forest Trust”............................... 13
This policy proposal
was developed by Dirk Brinkman on behalf of the Western Silviculture
Contractors Association (WSCA), the association that has represented
silviculture contractors for twenty years. The silviculture industry delivers
forest policy and funding initiatives on the ground, and brings their
experience of which policy option will be most effective and practical to the
Forest Trust recommendation. The industry is thirty years old, involves 18,000
people seasonally, and has enjoyed high wages, labour peace and a relatively
stable professional workforce. The Forest Trust policy recommendation has the
endorsement and support of the WSCA. Tony Harrison and John Betts secured the
support of WSCA Directors and Members and also consulted with many foresters. Informally, the Forest Trust policy
recommendation also received the support in principle of all forest industry
representatives consulted. This
group included a wide spectrum of
professionals ranging from field silviculture foresters and FRBC administrators
up to divisional foresters, chief foresters and presidents.
Dirk has
developed a number of silviculture policy initiatives on behalf of the
silviculture industry, including the basic silviculture regulations in 1987. He
has been involved in numerous policy processes including four National Forest
Accords and the National Forest Roundtable. In 1997-8 Dirk represented the
silviculture industry in negotiating the Silviculture Collective Agreement
between the IWA and New Forest Opportunities.
Dirk is president
of Brinkman & Associates, one of BC’s largest and oldest silviculture
companies. Brinkman & Associates provides forest renewal services,
primarily to the forest industry and government, and has completed over 100
various FRBC funded projects over the past five years.
The policy
challenge is to bridge the gap between the demand for high standards of
sustainable forest management and the limited resource rent available from the
harvest. This paper proposes that British Columbia bridge this gap with a
Forest Trust mechanism which is arms length from government. This mechanism requires a defined portion of
stumpage for a forest area be placed into a Forest Trust to fund appropriate
enhanced forestry and watershed restoration for which the licensees will be
responsible. Carefully designed, the
Forest Trusts will drive optimum efficiency, innovation and flexibility in sustainable
forest management. Properly implemented, the Forest Trusts will make industry
accountable in a way that aligns forest enhancement and watershed restoration
obligations with basic reforestation and the Forest Practices Code obligations.
Timber
harvesting creates the need for forest management, renewal and restoration.
Customers, critics and citizens demand a high standard of sustainable forest
management for BC's unique ancient forests. BC’s export dependency makes it
especially vulnerable to environmental criticism. Forest management funding is
limited by the value of rents available from the harvest. During one of the
most aggressive decades of economic growth the world has seen, BC´s
export-dependant forest sector declined, losing over $1 billion in 1998.
Ecological forest management is only sustainable if it is affordable and that
must include being affordable during adverse times.
With its
enormous ecosystem diversity, BC´s forests cannot be managed efficiently
through the central bureaucracy we have today. A program which is planned and
implemented by local licensees is required.
This is achieved most simply by making enhanced forestry and watershed
restoration obligations a cost of access to the resource. Fortunately, BC has a successful working
policy mechanism in licensee’s obligations for ecologically sound basic
reforestation, from which an effective legislative intervention can be adapted.
Basic
reforestation was a massive experiment in the seventies and eighties while it
was a government program, with lots of re-plants and failures. Since industry
became accountable to reforest all areas logged after 1987, the number of free
growing trees per dollar has increased by several times and BC's reforestation
program has emerged as one of the largest and most successful ecological restoration
programs in the world. This paper proposes that the legislation requiring
harvesters to reforest to free-growing be extended to include the enhanced
silviculture and watershed restoration required to steward the forest through
its rotation.
Forest Trust Concept
This paper
recommends that forest licensees each be made accountable for the direct delivery
of enhanced forestry and watershed restoration on their license area. The
responsibility of the TFL holder (or the local Board of Trustees for a TSA)
will be to drive the annual strategic planning process to identify the
prioritized treatment goals and execute the selected interventions.
Area Based Implementation
The challenge
for enhanced forestry and watershed restoration is that these activities have
to be prioritized from a forest-wide analysis, and selected within a forest
area, and would not necessarily take place within the current harvest area of a
quota licensee.
Implementation
on TFL’s, which are area-based licenses, is simple. Implementation within TSA’s
will require the cooperation of all the quota holders. The Innovative Forest
Practices Act demonstrated that licensees, who compete for access to timber and
in forest product markets, could cooperate at the level of forest management if
there is a mutual incentive to do so.
If the province
were to convert the quota licenses into area-based licenses, implementation may
become simplified. However, if the present TSA structure is maintained, local
Forest Trust Boards could be set up to represent each of the quota licensee’s
within each TSA who would have to appoint one implementation forester to
represent them.
Drafting Legislation
The Forest Trust
policy can be instituted with a minimum of new legislation. Either the existing
Stand Management Fund or FRBC’s present fund could be held as the provincial
Trust Fund from which the super-stumpage funds can be dispersed to local Forest
Trusts. The legislation would parallel
the basic silviculture obligations in the Forest Practices Code (FPC) and be
added to the obligations of the FPC. The original legislation for the Basic
Silviculture obligations was drafted by the present Director of the FPC, who
has a good understanding of how to adapt the language in the FPC related to
Basic Silviculture obligations to the watershed restoration and enhanced
forestry sections. The planning flexibility that is given to each licensee will
shift that part of the FPC to being results-based.
Fund Independence
The fund will be
independent and protected from government interference. The legislation which
made Forest Renewal BC independent of government can be transferred to protect
the provincial Forest Trust.
Funding
The Provincial
Forest Trust that is responsible to distribute funds to each Licensee Forest
Trust responsibilities can continue to be funded from the Super-Stumpage fees
currently paid into FRBC. It is recommended that the current median stumpage
rate of approximately $150 million per year is affordable by industry and that
this rate should be the baseline. However, the algorithm used to calculate the
stumpage should be more sensitive to current market price fluctuations. During
good years additional funds may be collected to fund the forest management
research required to properly direct this investment. With the efficiency
gained from the accountability of the Forest Trust structure, long-term output
goals can be met at much lower cost than under the current structure.
Strategic Planning
The Forest Trust legislation will require the TFL
holder or local Forest Trust TSA group to use annual strategic
planning to set priorities for the delivery of forest treatments to the limit
of the funding. The presence of the licensee and government representatives in
the planning process is essential. Operating from consensus in the approval of
the annual goals will facilitate the problem of securing MOF & MELP
approval.
The planning
process will follow three stages:
Stage One: Equivalent to the level one Strategic Silviculture Plan, this process
prioritizes the critical areas and interventions by securing consensus among
the local experts. The Strategic Watershed Restoration Planning will use a
similar process to prioritize treatments.
Stage Two: The resulting lift in AAC or other outputs are evaluated within
the area's Growth and Yield and Watershed models.
Stage Three: The separate planning processes are integrated to ensure that
there are no conflicts between the outputs of silviculture and watershed
projects.
Planning is to
be completed by annual deadlines so that implementation can be orderly, and
capitalize on critical biological windows. The set of prioritized actions that
emerge from the strategic planning process then become the obligation of the
Trust area's licensee’s to deliver during the coming year.
Accountability to Forest Sector Interests
The licensee(s),
in setting goals for the year is also responsible to take into consideration
the local, regional, provincial and international forest sector interests. This
commences by presenting a broad five-year plan's proposed output targets to a
public review process to allow forest sector inputs, as an aspect of the
five-year Forest Management Plan. The
five-year plans will be broad plans that focus on the outputs and leave
considerable latitude for flexibility in treatments and implementation to be
set by the annual strategic plans.
Accountability for Results
Before funding
is released, the licensee will have to demonstrate that the project is
complete, and the quality is on track to meet the target output goals. If project outputs are not delivered, the licensee
will be accountable to bring the project to the goal at their own cost. Cost
recovery is only available from the fund at the budgeted amount or less. The
licensees will pay the costs for all projects that do not meet these goals or
output targets.
The licensee may
choose to carry increased administration costs to support the involvement of
local inexperienced contractors, but these extra administrative or operating
costs are their own. That way, subsidized suppliers or poor performance will
not compromise the cost or quality of outputs funded by the Forest Trust
program. The licensee will also assume all related Forest Practice Code
liabilities for all interventions at their cost.
Downstream Forest Trust Volume
The day an
intervention that improves the flow of volume or value in a forest stand is
complete, that same day, technically, an AAC adjustment can be made. Practically, these adjustments will be made
annually by the Provincial Foresters office. The increased timber volume
generated by the enhanced forestry treatments will be split 75%/25% between the
licensee AAC and volume for First Nation, Value added, Woodlot or Community
forest licenses. The increased volume generated by the Forest Trust treatments
allocated to the licensee could be marketed on BC’s open log markets. The
increased wood value generated on open markets may support higher stumpage fees
for future Forest Trust management obligations. Increased value can also be
yielded from Age-Grading on the open market and premium pricing the ancient
timber.
Volume & Value Trading
Forest Trusts
will be able to trade up to 50% of their revenue to optimize volume lifts, and
watershed benefits accruing to their Forest Trust. In the case that one forest
area generates more revenue, and another has a greater opportunity for an AAC
lift from an intervention, Forest Trusts can negotiate trades that split the
AAC benefits. If quota licenses are converted to area based tenure, the Forest
Trust program will provide a framework within which companies may choose to
commit some additional funds.
CO2 Sink Sales
A unique
obligation of the Forest Trust will be to market all CO2 sequestration
benefits from all forest management activities within the forest area. Revenues
from CO2 sequestration will be used to fund further Forest Trust
activities. If a fund fails to sell the carbon sink value of the interventions,
the licensees will be levied additional fees equivalent to the market price per
ton of carbon at that time. Funds from CO2 sequestration must be
used for the inventory and preservation of unique ecosystems, especially
ancient forest ecosystems or habitat for rare Species.
NSR Elimination or Backlog Program
The backlog
elimination program may become a treatment option for the Forest Trust, but not
until the backlog stocking standards and the NSR net-down process has been
reviewed and appropriately recalibrated by MOF.
Most backlog
areas enjoy some stocking, but measured against the basic reforestation
stocking standards, there is still over 3 million hectares of backlog in BC. BC
basic reforestation stocking standards were put in place with the silviculture
regulation in 1987 and still stand today.
These strict stocking standards which apply for harvest areas were
diluted by MOF to make it easier to meet the obligation to reforest the
backlog. To avoid conflicts of interest, the discretionary stocking standards
cannot be set by the Forest Trusts.
When defining
the Eliminate the Backlog program, MOF netted out ‘inaccessible’, ‘uneconomic’
and low and medium sites, among others. Since the greatest performance
improvements in reforestation are just emerging or yet to come, MOF´s net down
process has to be revisited before redefining the scope of the backlog
reforestation options that may be included in the Forest Trust program.
Forest and Silviculture Industry Infra-structure
The forest
industry currently has the infrastructure to deliver results. There are many
experienced silviculture contractors as well as new contractors and workers
brought by FRBC into the forests with preferred status, extensive training and
subsidies. Local First Nation’s people
and others who really do want to get into silviculture will become competitive
sooner when working in a competitive environment.
The scope of the
Forest Trust agreement is limited to enhanced forestry and watershed
restoration to ensure that these controversial responsibilities are kept simple
and effective. Some of the activities FRBC funded which are not included are
discussed below. Other services, such as economic development for value added, bailouts
to mills in trouble, transition training and social assistance programs, are
also excluded. These are not discussed further on the basis that it is self
evident that these services are better delivered by the appropriate government
Ministries, who often have shared federal/provincial funding and appropriate
checks and balances in place.
Administration
The licensee
will be responsible for implementation of the enhancement and restoration
programs at their own cost. No
administration cost compensation will be allowed out of the Trust Fund. This
will motivate all participants to keep administration costs to a minimum and
ensure that all Trust funds go into the forest. This will be true for government too, MOF and MELP roles are a
part of their ministry stewardship duties and will be carried at their own
cost. These arrangements protect the core of the program from creeping
increases in administration costs. (See the National Article on US State Forest
Trusts).
Research
and Development
The primary purpose
of the fund is to do the forest management work that enhances and restores the
forest. Some research and development will be required to best direct the
investment, but the fund is not designed to fund forest research, which
requires a separate independent funding mechanism. Research and development
will have to be identified as directly contributing to improving the return on
investment of treatments and interventions, and may have to be limited to a
maximum of 10% of any areas program funding.
The
federal-provincial Research and Development Investment Tax Credits (R&DITC)
have been under-utilized by the forest sector and provide considerable
potential to provide additional funding for R&D. Most of silviculture is
experimental, and many treatments can qualify for R&DITC's if they are a
cost to industry. The Trust Fund expenditures can be structured as industry
expenditures, which, with proper data tracking will qualify the interventions
as R&D and trigger ITC's. ITC's revenue from Forest Trust expenditures will
be used to fund further related data collection and research designed to assist
foresters and biologists in assessing where best to spend the money and which
intervention is the optimum treatment.
Inventory
Inventory will not
be funded by the Forest Trust. Data collection, storage and its public access
is the responsibility of government and must be independent from industry to
remove any perception of a conflict of interest. Funding for MOF & MELP's
responsibility to obtain and maintain adequate inventories for their
stewardship obligations should be funded from general stumpage, and from the
data-use charges.
Basic Reforestation
Licensee’s basic
reforestation obligations should not be included in the Forest Trust strategic
planning process or otherwise tampered with at this time. This program is a
great success, and is only 12 years old. Free growing obligations extend 12 to
20 years and consequently very few sites have been brought to free growing. At
this early stage, reforestation is still undergoing major change and
improvement. It would be premature to mix the basic reforestation program into
the Trust Fund. It may become compromised by other priorities that will emerge
in forest areas and eventually accumulate irreversible consequences.
The basic
reforestation program is a model illustrating the potential of success for the
Forest Trust. The silviculture industry has seen reforestation completely
change in the twelve years since the Silviculture Regulation was imposed. While
it was a government program, “Basic” reforestation was a massive experiment in
the seventies and eighties with lots of re-plants and failures. Since it became
an industry requirement on all logged areas in 1987, BC's reforestation program
has become what may be the largest and most successful ecological restoration
program in the world. On each micro-setting, mixed species that do not
regenerate easily are planted to compliment species that regenerate naturally
to create a mixed species stand that replicates the former forest stand. On
areas logged, reforestation shortens the regeneration lag that would occur if
we left the site to natural processes, thus ensuring the sustainability of
harvest levels. In a review completed in 1997, 97.5% of all areas logged were
on schedule to reach free growing. Forest companies use responsible contractors
who pay their valued experienced workers well. Only the MOF program, which
continues procurement through low bid auctions without valuing the quality of
service, still result in criminal events like stashing. (Dec. 1999, Van Sun,
MOF Contractor faces criminal charges and $75,000 fine for stashing.)
The real cost
per hectare to get a site to free growing has been reduced annually over the
past twelve years.
These cost savings result from government holding the basic reforestation
obligations and standards steady.
Tree
Improvement Program
The Forest Trust
is for managing established forests, not for basic silviculture and will not to
be used for the tree improvement program. Industry-wide cooperation in tree
improvement programs was once the norm in developed countries. However,
breakthroughs in forest renewal have surpassed tree improvement in giving a
higher return on silviculture investment.
The
government gets
A balanced effective
solution to forest management
Increased
transparency & accountability
Shift of
accountability to where it belongs, to the harvester
Retain simply the
obligation to monitor and enforce
Reduce jurisdictional
conflicts (between Ministries & FRBC)
Forest management
decisions decentralized to TFL/TSA level
Reduce bureaucracy
and organizational dysfunction
Greater downstream
value in the forests through more effective use of forest restoration and
enhancement funds
Improved Forest
Management cooperation between licensees across BC - as demonstrated by the
Innovative Forest Practices Act
The participation of
those who opted out of FRBC on their license area
Forest licensees get:
Creative input into
direction of fund investment
Equitable
distribution of fees & benefits
70-75% of volume gain
from Forest Trust treatments
To satisfy First
Nations, Communities, Value Added, & SBFEP’s demand for harvest volume from
25-30% of remaining volume gain
To benefit from
innovation & quality
Results-based forest
management
To choose their
suppliers
To work with a simple
delivery model
To trade investment
and value between trusts
Communities
get
Increased stability
& employment from increased forest sustainability
Forest renewal
practitioners coming to live near their long-term work
Downstream volume for
community licenses
Increased activity
for local service business
No distorted expectation
of unsustainable handouts
Value
Added & Small business get
Downstream volume
(25%) for value added and small business licenses
Increased log volume
available the open market
Labour
gets
The policy the IWA’s
forest economist Doug Smyth recommended in his Summer 1999 IWA forest policy
paper
Increased volume and
value flowing to increased permanent jobs
To propose the
Silviculture Collective Agreement of New Forest Opportunities where licensees
have agreed to work only with IWA members
Added members
wherever the IWA collective Agreement requires the licensee to use only union
contractors
A stable industry
that may be more interested in being organized in future
C.R.E.W.S.
(Canadian Reforestation & Ecological Workers Society) get
Greater stress on
quality of service putting a premium on the skills of a professional
silviculture worker
Increased employment
for experienced silviculture practitioners
Employment for
dedicated new silviculture trainees who want to become experienced silviculture
practitioners
More stable
multi-task employment opportunities
Work based training
opportunities
A chance to diversify
their skills & diversify body stress
Silviculture
contractors get
The opportunity to
integrate into communities
To employ their key
people on a more regular basis
To innovate improved
services, treatments and quality in exchange for security of contract
Longer-term work
seasons, provided that the contractors are diversified
A business future
because cost competitive treatments are sustainable
First
Nations get
To continue
increasing participation in silviculture and restoration
Spin off volume for
local band forest licenses
Employment
opportunities both in the trusts and from downstream volume
Healthier future
forest licenses due to improved forest management
To build competitive
forest management capacity
Environment Groups get
Affordable
sustainable forest management
Effective watershed
restoration decisions made at the TSA/TFL level
Funds for
preservation from CO2 sequestration; e.g. for unique ecosystems,
ancient forest ecosystems or habitat for rare Species
Open log markets
creating higher timber value and increased rent potential for conservation,
restoration and management
Funding for the
inventory and preservation of unique ecosystems, ancient forests and endangered
Species
The public gets
Less government
intervention in the silviculture and restoration services market.
Downstream increase
in forest volume and values.
Equitable
distribution of benefits and accountability.
FRBC
gets
To leave an effective
legacy
This Green
Paper´s proposed Forest Trust is differentiated from the other provincial trust
funds by the creative germination process of the legislated annual silviculture
& watershed strategic planning process, the goal-focus of measurable
prioritized treatments, and complete licensee accountability. This combination
will allow BC to grow into the world leader in sustainable forest management.
Ontario and
Alberta both have forest trust funds. Only Alberta has an intensive forestry
trust fund. This fund lacks the strategic
planning infrastructure of BC´s proposed Forest Trust that is intended to give
vitality and focus to the licensee stewardship accountability.
Ontario
The Ontario
program includes two trust funds that were both set up by Howard Hampton, then OMNR
Minister under the Rae government, as a part of the Crown Forests
Sustainability Act. These are the Forest Renewal Trust Fund and the Forest
Futures Trust Fund. The trust funds
were fully supported by the conservative government and have not been changed
by them. These funds are paid into one trust fund to reduce administration
costs. The central trust fund disperses
funds to each license based on its stumpage payments. The recently announced
program Land’s For Life program includes a commitment to Intensive Silviculture
which may also become a trust fund.
Forest Renewal Trust Fund
The Ontario
Forest Renewal Trust Fund is equivalent to BC’s basic silviculture obligation,
except the funds required to reach free growing are put into a trust fund based
on an estimated cost per cubic meter.
Inspired in its
inception in 1995, the promised stocking standards were not imposed with the
reforestation obligation. Instead, in 1996 industry offered to negotiate these
standards with OMNR. Unfortunately, these negotiations have managed to remain
constantly deferred. As a consequence, reforestation quality standards and
success varies considerably from company to company. Forest license audits have
overlooked some neglect in reforestation obligations, on the condition that it
was made up in the next five years. In the absence of rigorous stocking
standards, there is some tendency to cut some corners. This problem was avoided
in BC because the ecological classification of the province was complete in
1987 and correlated stocking standards could be set for each ecosystem.
Forest Futures Trust Fund
This fund is
used for planting fires and pest areas. BC presently has no funding for
reforesting fire areas and this is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Intensive Silviculture Program
Ontario’s new
intensive silviculture programs are intended to off/set the effect of reduced
AAC from set-asides of parks from the Lands For Life program. Ontario recently
allocated $5 million dollars to this program, which is probably inadequate to
off-set the volume removed from the cut (approximately 3-7%, depending on the
license).
Alberta
The Forest
Renewal Improvement Program (FRIP) was set up in the early nineties, but
suffered from a lack of planning and accountability. The program was recently
strengthened with the establishment of a Delegated Administrative Organization,
a non-profit organization, the Forest Resources Improvement Association of
Alberta (FRIAA), which was charged with the administration of FRIP. The
association has broad goals and objectives, and licensees or quota holders have
36 months to prepare proposals for the stumpage they have contributed or it can
be allocated to other projects.
The specific
goals licensees have developed for each operating area differ depending on the
local forest structure, the history, corporate disposition and where the
greatest benefit from the fund may be derived. FRIP has not formalized a more
rigorous strategic planning process and would benefit from one.
Accountability
is embedded through having licensee planning and expenditures independently
audited each year, currently by KPMG.
The
environmental movement has not taken a great interest in FRIP. It enjoys the
support of industry due to its flexibility and a very low administrative cost
component.
FRIP permits
expenditures for research and Alberta foresters feel it is essential to fund
research so that key uncertainties can be eliminated before large amounts are
invested in forest programs. Cooperation between licensees allows larger
research studies and avoided duplication.
FRIP funding can
also prioritize backlog planting and this has been an important part of the
FRIP program.
The role of
forest enhancement and watershed restoration is not renewal of the forest, but
its maintenance through sustainable management, and as such the name Forest
Renewal is not appropriate for these activities, and the name “Forest Trust,”
which reflects the trust of this stewardship, is more appropriate.
Because the use
of the name Forest Trust is associated with preservation, the name will invite
some criticism from non-profit environmental and preservation trusts. However,
this will create a welcome debate and give the government an opportunity to
show case the ecological restoration program elements of the BC’s Forest Trust.
The name lies on
the high road for meeting the challenge of environmental criticism. BC Forest
Trusts can achieve the highest standards of sustainability and restoration of
any forest trusts in the world.
Other Options
1. ‘Forest Renewal Trust’
‘Forest Renewal
Trust’ fails to distance the new legislation far enough from Forest Renewal
BC. The name should also differentiate
itself from Ontario’s Forest Renewal Trusts. These are, in practical terms,
only concerned with reforestation obligations, not forest enhancement or watershed
restoration. Ontario Forest Renewal Trust legislation was also NDP initiated by
Howard Hampton, then the Minister of Natural Resources. The legislation enjoyed
the support of all parties when it was passed—an unusual event in the
tumultuous legislature of that day—and has not been altered by the
conservatives.
2. Future Forest Trust Fund
The Rae
government also passed the legislation adding Ontario’s “Future Forest Trust
Funds”, which are for special events like fire and pest damage, not intensive
forestry or restoration. This fund
concept would be a benefit in BC also, as there is no funding for fire
regeneration.
3. Forest Care Trusts
“Forest Care
Trusts” is a name that would be associated with the Alberta Forest Products
Association Forestcare (Trademarked) Code of Practices certification and
marketing program.
4. Forest Resource Improvement Program (FRIP)
This name is
already in use in Alberta. The results orientation and planning freedom of
these funds is much envied by the BC industry.
‘Forest trusts’
throughout the world are all set up as non-profit trust funds. They have been
set up both privately, and by governments. Whether they are private charitable
trusts or trust that are formed or held by government bodies, they are busy
with preservation, restoration and education of forest ecosystem values and
sustainability.
American Forest Trusts
The US is
Canada’s largest customer, and policy change in BC can influence the course of
negotiations to prevent tariffs, quotas or countervailing duties. Consequently,
forest trusts from the US are discussed first.
State Forest Trusts are
funded through fees from the harvest of forests under US State control. The
harvest or sales of products (including non-wood vegetative matter) is governed
by state law to ensure the highest economic benefits go to the state. Industry
understands the trust payments as a cost of logging. Reforestation, forest management,
habitat restoration and enhancement is funded from these trusts.
Recent criticism
of these funds sounds very much like criticism of FRBC.
The Forest Trust proposal in BC is designed to avoid these criticisms through
the strategic
planning process,
goal setting and
accountability by
industry
and industry
trustee’s watchdogs monitoring MOF/MELP admin.
Other US Trusts
Blanton Forest Trust, the
largest ancient forest in the state of Kentucky, which has less than 1.2
percent of its original undisturbed forest left.
Forest Management Trust. Based
in Florida, a non profit association that funds projects which enhance
sustainability for local involvement in working forest areas which are already
managed according to FSC on this assumption that only a tiny percentage of
forest land area will ever be preserved.
The Environmental Resources Trust (ERT) is a private non-profit organization.
ERT helps to
create markets for environmental resources regionally, nationally, and globally
through value-added and environmentally beneficial transactions. ERT believes that a sustainable future can
be reached if businesses are economically rewarded for making sound
environmental decisions and consumers are able to choose environmentally
superior goods and services in the marketplace.
Scottish Forest Trusts
The Carrifran Wildwood Trust seeks to
recreate the original wildwood diversity that existed on the Scottish hills
6000 years ago. They were trying to raise L350, 000 or L500 per hectare. It is associated
with the older, more well known John Muir Trust.
Borders Forest Trust: a
community based education and restoration society that restores, plants,
surveys and protects forest and wildwood areas.
John Muir Trust
Aims of the
Trust [From the Memorandum of
Association of the John Muir Trust]
3.1 The Trust's
object is to conserve and protect wild places with their indigenous animals,
plants and soils for the benefit of present and future generations, and in
particular
3.1.1 to conserve wild places and their landscapes, both for their
own sake and for the sustenance and inspiration they give to humanity;
3.1.2 to protect existing wild places so as to conserve their
natural processes, and their indigenous animals, plants and soils;
3.1.3 to renew wild places, where they have been damaged, by
encouraging natural processes;
3.1.4 to work with local communities and to encourage them to live
in harmony with wild places;
3.1.5 to promote an awareness and understanding of wild places for their
own sake and for their value to the benefit of humanity;
3.1.6 to stimulate public support to help protect wild places;
3.1.7 to encourage voluntary participation in the conservation and
renewal of wild places.
Australian Trusts
National Heritage Trust; a
$1.25 billion fund for the restoration of Australia. ‘Helping communities help
Australia.´
Asian Forest Trusts
The Asian Geographic Trust was established on 21 Nov 1997 at New Delhi, for the advancement
and diffusion of geographic knowledge. Its main objectives include: protecting
and fostering a love for our environment and natural heritage; encouraging
the spirit of
adventure and discovery and spreading the knowledge of Asia to Asians and the
world.
This is not an
exhaustive review of the use of Forest Trusts world wide, but it provides a
clear indication that the name “Forest Trust” and its related concepts would be
in good company.
KPMG´s Cost of
Harvesting Report in 1997 indicated that the cost of reforestation increased
from 1992 $2.41/cu m to 1996 $4.11/ cu m.
This reflected the fact that the annual addition of harvest areas for
which there were 12 to 20 years of annual treatment obligations were coming
on-stream faster than free growing areas were being released. The net cost per
cubic meter for all areas harvested that have not reached free growing will
continue to increase until the rate of free growing release equals or is
greater than the rate of harvest, probably about 2004. However, the net cost per hectare for
getting a plantation to free-growing within the deadline will continue to be
reduced by accountable and innovative
silviculture foresters and contractors.
THE ASSOCIATED
PRESS; WASHINGTON – 1999´Forest Service
Trust Funds May Be In for Overhaul´
“Critics call them the Swiss bank accounts of the Forest Service –
funds containing $400 million that the agency spends each year with no
oversight from Congress or the public.
The money comes from four
dedicated trust funds set up by Congress decades ago to pay for maintaining
roads, planting trees and removing dead timber and brush in national forests.
They're different from most Forest Service accounts because the money is
automatically collected at field offices each year, mainly from timber companies
who log federal land, and then spent without annual approval from Congress.
Critics say that while much of the money has been appropriately
spent, forest managers have used tens of millions of dollars from the funds to
pay for overhead costs such as administrative salaries, office supplies and
travel budgets.
"The taxpayers are just
basically getting ripped off," said John Bowman of the watchdog group.
Taxpayers for Common Sense. "There is misuse and mismanagement."
Members of Congress from both
political parties criticize the Forest Service for poor accounting of its trust-fund spending.
"We're concerned about
it," said Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Ohio, who chairs the interior
subcommittee of the House
Appropriations Committee. "They've been scooping off a pretty large number
from the top . . . for administration."
The General Accounting Office
(GAO), Congress' investigative arm, found last year that from 1993 to 1997, Forest Service use of the
funds for overhead costs increased from 16 percent to 27 percent of the total.
So the Forest Service is
taking corrective action. Officials are implementing better accounting
procedures and trying to reduce the amount of trust-fund money spent on
overhead. Agency officials are also
considering a more drastic step. They may ask Congress to end the accounts' trust-fund status and make them
part of its regular annual budget appropriation. That would allow Congress to examine the programs yearly and
decide whether to fund them. "We
don't need to hide what we do," said Chris Wood, a top aide to Forest
Service head Mike Dombeck. "We think we can make a case for the activities
listed in those funds." Still,
Wood cautioned that the agency may opt for more internal reforms. Forest
Service officials worry that the programs -- considered essential -- might be
scrapped if funding decisions are left to Congress.
Here's a rundown on the trust
funds and their 1998 funding:
Replanting fund, $190 million, set up in 1930
to pay for replanting trees in areas that have been logged.
Timber-salvage-sale fund, $151 million, begun
in 1976 to pay for removal of dead, insect-infested and diseased trees
Brush-disposal fund, $23 million, started in
1916 to pay for the disposal of brush and
other debris from logged areas
Roads and trails fund, $50 million, set up in
1913 to help pay for maintenance of roads and trails.
This account gets money not
just from timber receipts, but from 10 percent of all revenue generated by
national forests, including hiking fees and campground revenues.
Environmentalists cheer the
possibility of an end to the accounts' trust-fund status.
Since three of the four funds
are financed by logging receipts, they argue the system provides a "perverse incentive" for forest
managers to log more.
"Paying for fish and
wildlife programs from logging money is like selling cigarettes to pay for lung-cancer research," said Amelia
Jenkins of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics in Washington,
D.C..
The four funds make up more
than 10 percent of the Forest Service's annual spending, about $3.4 billion
this year, and have been an island of stability in an era of declining funding
for the agency. Congress, worried that the Forest Service was using too much of
the trust fund money for overhead, passed appropriations bill language last
year that caps use of the funds for overhead at 20 percent. The language also
requires the Forest Service to report projected overhead costs for each trust
fund.”