Transcript Private lands and public ecosystem benefits

Private lands and public
ecosystem benefits
David N. Wear
Southern Research Station
USDA Forest Service
Objectives
• Bridge from the general discussion of ecosystem
services to a set of issues directly relevant to
southern forests.
Forest area and ownership
Forest
industry
20%
National
forest
6%
NI private
69%
Other
public
5%
200 million acres
Forest area and ownership
Key point
• Private landowners hold the key to sustaining
southern forests and for providing most of the
ecosystem goods and services we are concerned
about…
Observation
• Ecosystem services are outcomes of market
processes but because they are public goods and
externalities we don’t expect the market to
“find” the right production level
• Altering the allocation of resources is by
definition, costly.
• Do program benefits justify program costs?
Key point
• Changing the provision of land and ecosystem
services would require either direct regulation of
land use and management or providing a set of
incentives that motivate landowners to produce
more of these ecosystem services.
Forecast land use change (2020)
Key point
• The provision and the distribution of ecosystem
services will change substantially over the
foreseeable future…
Value in land use ($)
Land use economics
This is very steep
Development
These slopes are close together
Agriculture
Forestry
Distance to urban area
Value in land use ($)
Land use economics
Development
Agriculture
Forestry
Distance to urban area
Key point
• Economics of land use define two very different
zones where land use changes are likely to occur:
the urban-rural interface, which is difficult to
shift, and the agriculture-forestry interface where
small changes could have larger effects.
Urban-Rural Interface
00
17
00
15
00
13
00
11
0
90
0
70
0
50
0
not economically viable for
long-run timber management
30
0
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
10
Number of parcels
Distribution of parcels by market value
Fair market valuation ($/acre)
Proportion of timberland in
conversion class (2002)
Proportion of timberland in a
conversion class (2010)
Ecosystem Service implications
• Urbanization of forest areas in the proximity of
population centers implies:
– simultaneous increase in demand and reduction in
supply of clean water.
– The same dynamic holds for dispersed recreation
– Substantial loss of habitat
– forest fragmentation
Policy implications
•
•
•
Focus will focus on essential, consumptive
services such as water, recreation with well
defined consumers and producers
Options are limited with land prices 10-100
times higher than in rural areas
Some options exist ahead of the urbanizing
fringe to protect remnants, but this comes at a
very high cost conservation.
–
Conservation triage
Policy Issues
• Locations of concern are concentrated in the
piedmont, peninsular Florida, and the Southern
Appalachians.
• Comparative role of private forest landowners is
small (overwhelmed by development forces)
• Design of development is an important tool—
but is beyond the purview of this conference.
Key point
• Focus of conservation in the urban-rural
interface is likely to be on delivery of specific
services to urban centers and is heavily
influenced by the legacy of historic land use
changes (many options are already foreclosed)
– Water!
Agriculture-Forest Interface
Real stumpage price indices, US South, by
product (1952-2004, 2004=100, CPI)
Total Timber Production, US South
(1952-2002)
3.5
3
12000.00
2.5
10000.00
2
8000.00
1.5
1
6000.00
0.5
4000.00
0
19
77
19
80
19
83
19
86
19
89
19
92
19
95
19
98
20
01
20
04
2000.00
H Saw
H Pulp
S Saw
Source: Timber Mart South (various issues, 1977-2004)
S Pulp
0.00
1953 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998
S. Sawtimber
S. pulpwood
H. pulpwood
other
Timber market effects
120
Million acres
100
80
1995
60
2020
2040
40
20
0
Planted
Pine
Natural
Pine
Mixed
Upland
Lowland Agriculture
Oak-Pine Hardwood Hardwood
Propensity to move from ag forest
Ecosystem Service consequences
• Ecosystem services that depend on a broader
landscape level configuration of conditions are
influenced by this margin. Things like:
–
–
–
–
–
habitats for neotropical migrants,
amphibians
carbon storage,
forest health, and
protection and restoration of rare forest types.
Rare Forest Communities
• Focus of concerns
• Disproportionately high
ecological / conservation
values (scarcity=value)
• Spruce-fir impacted by
multiple changes
• Wetlands/bog complexes
and pocosins
• Bottomland and floodplain
forests
• Glades, barrens, and prairies
• Longleaf pine ecosystems.
• Atlantic White Cedar
Swamps
• Old-growth
• Spruce-fir forests
Key Point
• The effective provision of ecosystem services,
with the exception of carbon, requires spatial
targeting—location of forest is as important as
the amount of forests.
• (marginal return to enlisting acres varies
depending on location)
Policy issues
•
•
•
Lower marginal costs of conservation
Comparative role of private landowners is
much larger—the principle actor through
which conservation activities can be pursued
Incentive based programs could have a large
impact.
General Observations (GO) on
developing programs
• In the South, ecosystem services can only be
maintained or enhanced through engagement of
private landowners.
• Scarcity of ecosystem services will continue to
be concentrated in specific subregions, therefore
requiring some mechanism for targeting
programs.
GO
• Policy discussion demands defining scarce
ecosystem services and anticipated changes in
their provision
• Develop specific measures of service outcomes
and goals
GO
• Market based solutions depend on providing
incentives, therefore raising the question of who
pays? The answer depends on the service and
who benefits.
– Government—either through exchange of payment
programs or tax relief
– NGO’s who broker funds from members and
foundations to achieve environmental goals
– Corporations in the case of carbon credits
GO
• Avoid tendency to focus on the means before
developing clarity on the desired ends.
• Keeping trees on the land is a starting point for
policy rhetoric but is not the end of the story.
• In general simple indicators may not apply.
GO
• Most ecosystem services of interest depend on
the spatial configuration of forest cover—
require mechanisms to target the application of
incentives.
– Reverse auctions,
– basin cooperatives,
– Program zoning
GO
• Start by developing a clear understanding of
how current government programs (i.e., taxes
and subsidies) determine the distribution of land
uses within the South
– Current land use patterns and resource uses are in
part determined by subsidies
Thanks for listening
•[email protected]