sustainable forests

An interesting essay from Wendell Berry in Sunday's C-J, but it fails to address some foundational economic questions-- and fails to provide some key economic information. So, at the end of the day, we're left wondering whether unspoken but standard economic principles were in play-- or were somehow violated.

First, the key economic principle: with most resources, ownership (or lack of ownership) will strongly influence how something is treated. On a micro level, ownership can be irrelevant. To note, if I borrow something from a friend, I try to treat it better than if it were my own. That said, people often treat the possessions of others far worse-- for example, many tenants of an apartment, those who rent cars, etc. (And the market has come up with ways to alter the incentives-- deposits on apartments, etc.) At a macro level, the presence of those who would take advantage of their lack of ownership leads to a misuse of those resources-- what economists call social inefficiency.

Applying this to forests, there is a vital difference between how a logging company will treat a forest they own vs. one they don't own. For example, if the land is owned by the government, then the logging company's financial incentive is to take whatever short-term net gains are available-- not caring much if at all about forest depletion, environmental degradation, and so on. (In many cases, this is made worse in that the government takes money from taxpayers and gives it to corporate logging interests, subsidizing logging on government land!) But if the logging company owns the forest, then sustainable development is a good financial decision-- as they profit from the land with an income stream while maintaining or extending the profitability of the underlying asset. In such cases, mistreating the land is moronic.

A fine local example of this is Koetter Woodworking-- with its use of privately-owned forests and beyond that, through its educational Forest Discovery Center.

Berry's essay does not address this economic principle at all-- and is not explicit about the role of ownership in the actors' choices. But there are some clues...

Pioneer Forest consists of various tracts, totaling about 40,000 acres, purchased by Leo Drey mostly in the early 1950s...

And

From a logger's point of view, the restricted volume and income per tract is not a problem. Ron Harper, the logger we encountered on our tour, was obviously on good terms with the Pioneer staff. And from his answers to our questions it was clear that he thought of Pioneer's requirements as assuring job security to himself and his crew. Sustainable forestry thus translates into economic sustainability for the local community.

It's interesting that Berry emphasizes the sustainability of the community, when Pioneer (and Ron Harper) seem to be driven by sustainability of the company and its jobs ("job security")-- and thus, indirectly, results in sustainability of the community.

Berry closes with this:

Why should we go to Missouri to look at an exemplary program of sustainable forestry? Because, as far as I have discovered, there is no example of such forestry in Kentucky.

At least from what Koetter says, Berry could have gone to Indiana and saved himself some gas money. In any case, the absence of this in Kentucky simply begs the question: Why not? Are there no privately owned forests in Kentucky? If not, why not? Is it allowed? Is public logging subsidized so that private forest (sustainable) logging is not feasible? Are the logging companies going for the short-term at the expense of the long-term (and if so, why so)?

It's a shame that this interesting article didn't address these questions...