Abstract
When devising policies for financing private silvicultural operations on public forest land, government agencies should consider carefully the benefits and costs of alternative arrangements and how they arc likely to affect tenure holders' behavior. Three general methods of achieving silvicultural objectives arc discussed — the creation of incentives for private voluntary expenditures, reimbursement by governments of expenditures on approved or required silvicultural operations, and required silvicultural operations at the tenure holder's expense.
Private firms will only invest voluntarily in silviculture on public lands if they have adequate security of tenure and hold sufficient equity in the timber values resulting from their activities. If firms' silvicultural costs arc reimbursed, their behavior will depend on the extent of reimbursement and whether they have a financial interest in the outcomes of their reimbursed activities. Generally, reimbursement of expenditures must be supported by minimum performance standards and costly monitoring and enforcement procedures. If silvicultural operations are required at the tenure holder's expense, firms will only undertake silviculture to avoid penalties and have a strong incentive to achieve required standards at minimum cost. More stringent monitoring and enforcement procedures may be necessary than if costs arc reimbursed.
The impact of policy alternatives is illustrated by means of a survey of silvicultural expenditures on two forest tenure types in British Columbia.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Binkley, Clark S. 1980. Economic analysis of the allowable cut effect. Forest Sci. 26(4): 633–642.
British Columbia, Ministry of Forests and Lands, 1987. Forest Policy Review: A summary of Major Decisions. Victoria, B.C. September 15. 7 p.
Canadian Forestry Service, 1984. The Need for Forest Renewal and Management in British Columbia. Background paper for the Canada — British Columbia Agreement on Forest Renewal and Management. Minister of Supply and Services, Government of Canada, Ottawa. 47 p.
Crossley, D. I. 1985. Towards a Vitalization of Canadian Forests. Alberta Forestry Association. 20 p.
Forestry Canada, 1989. Canada Forest Inventory, 1986. Canadian Forest Inventory Committee, Forestry Canada, Government of Canada, Ottawa. 60 p.
Fullerton, W. K. 1984. The evaluation of Crown land forest policy in Ontario. Forestry Chron. 60(2):63–66.
Haley, David and Luckert, Martin K. 1990. Canadian Forest Tenures: A Framework for Policy Analysis. Economics Branch, Forestry Canada, Government of Canada, Ottawa. 119 p. (in press).
Luckert, Martin K. 1988. The Effect of Some British Columbia Forest Tenures on the Distribution of Economic Rents, the Allocation of Resources and Investments in Silviculture. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Forestry, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. 238 p.
Luckert, Martin K. and Haley, David. 1989. Finding Mechanisms for Silviculture on Crown Land: Status, Problems and Recommendations. Vols One and Two. Forest Economics and Policy Analysis Research Unit, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. 58 p. and 51 p.
Pearse, Peter H. 1988. Property Rights and the Development of Natural Resource Policies in Canada. Canadian Public Policy XIV (3):307–320.
Reed F. L. C. 1986. Canada's timber supply. The Canadian Forestry Association National Forest Congress. Forestry Chron. August 1986: 335–338.
Schweitzer, Dennis L., Robert W. Sassaman and Schallau, Con H. 1972. Allowable cut effect: some physical and economic implications. J. of Forestry 70(7): 415–418.
Teeguarden, Dennis E. 1973. The allowable cut effect: a comment. J. of Forestry 71(4): 224–227.
Watson, Robert S. 1984. New Brunswick's forest policy — facing the future. Forestry Chron. 60(2):71–74.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Luckert, M.K., Haley, D. The implications of various silvicultural funding arrangements for privately managed public forest land in Canada. New Forest 4, 1–12 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00119586
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00119586