California’s private forestlands have some of the most extensive legal protection in the world, with multiple layers of federal, state, county and local regulations ensuring these lands will be managed in a sustainable manner.
In addition to comprehensive state regulations, many forest landowners voluntarily choose to seek third-party certification by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). These certifications entail rigorous and expensive evaluations according to strict standards by qualified independent auditors who have no vested interest in the forestland in question.
How well have these initiatives worked and how do they compare with California’s Forest Practice Rules that regulate forest management? We recently completed an eight-month study on these issues, entitled, "A Comparison of California Forest Practice Rules and Two Forest Certification Systems."
We found that while state regulations, alone or in combination with the two forms of certification, provide more rigorous requirements than any other state and are extremely burdensome to private landowners, over time, this burden may result in many unforeseen, long-term negative effects.
Part of the burden California landowners bear is that the Forest Practice Rules to which they must adhere allow little flexibility for most forestry practices. Consequently, a professional forester crafting a Timber Harvest Plan for submission to the California Department of Forestry might be forced by regulatory standards to do things that might not be best for the particular goal he or she is trying to achieve.
Classical forest management is based on adapting a variety of options to each on-the-ground problem. However, the state regulatory process forces a one-size-fits-all approach that cannot accommodate all the variables of California’s landscapes.
While many rules have exceptions or optional practices that can be used if explained and justified, this process causes additional labor for the professional forester preparing the plan and more scrutiny by the state regulators reviewing the plan.
Current state regulations also force an immense monetary burden on California landowners, which places them at an economic disadvantage in the competition with companies in other states and countries. Some landowners, particularly small, non-industrial ownerships, find it difficult even to remain solvent, much less stay competitive with other regions. The failure of such businesses has led to a reduction over time in the amount of private forestlands that are actively managed.
While some factions who aim to eliminate all harvesting in the state may cheer this trend, it should instead be of great concern to the majority of California’s populace. The absence of active forest management caused by overbearing regulatory expenses is leading to overstocked, unhealthy stands in many forest types in California. These unhealthy stands facilitate insect and disease epidemics while also contributing to a higher risk of catastrophic wildfire.
In other words, while state regulations are intended to protect California’s forestlands, an unintended consequence of overbearing regulatory expenses is the degradation of forest health in many of California’s forestlands.
Further, the ever increasing cost forest landowners bear in order to comply with California’s Forest Practice Rules could drive some to utilize their land for purposes other than the growing and harvesting of timber. Converting land to alternative activities, such as urbanization, causes permanent environmental changes that are far more drastic than forestry activities.
All of this occurs, ironically, against a backdrop of a California that has a seemingly insatiable appetite for forest products. Demand for wood in our state is on an ever-increasing upward climb, even as the state’s forestry policies impede its ability to meet this demand.
At present, California is a net importer of wood from other regions of the United States and from countries that have much lower standards of environmental protection. For those who truly think globally, it would seem much more environmentally responsible to utilize renewable resources that are harvested in some of the most legally protected, private forests in the world rather than exploit other countries that have less rigid standards.
Both FSC and SFI certification systems have noble goals, many of which are obtained by simply adhering to state regulations. Unfortunately, at present there are few economic incentives toward gaining certification. This may change in the future, however, and landowners must make conscious decisions based on their individual business strategies. Given the degree of environmental protection afforded to California forests, all forest landowners, whether certified or not, should consider seeking some type of environmental recognition and labeling by retailers.
One thing is clear: The current approach to forestry regulation and preservation, and particularly the expense this approach imposes on landowners, is hindering forest management. Californians should be proud of the environmental protection that occurs on its forestlands; however, changes in current policy must occur lest the system become counterproductive for the same forests it seeks to protect.
Christopher Dicus, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at California Polytechnic State University’s Natural Resources Management Department. Kenneth Delfino is a registered professional forester and executive director of Cal Poly’s Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute. Their new report on sustainable forestry in California can be found at www.ufei.calpoly.edu.
