Forest Caucus Report

A Newsletter of the Canadian Environmental Network Forest Caucus

Forest (de)Valuation: The Unsettling Economic Fad
Rosa Kouri

As a student of classical economics, I have sat through many things that make me squirm. However, the ‘marketing’ of deforestation, and the economic justification behind it, has reached a new level. At the World Forestry Congress in September 2003, there was too much money and even more rhetoric.

The video screens placed in every room read “Canada, a place of forests, mountains, and lakes, where people live in harmony.” The discussion was about solutions, initiatives, partnerships. “Sustainable Development” is the catch word. Everybody uses it, many abuse it. What the NGOs at the meeting pointed out was the lack of binding timelines, measurable goals, and funding for these feel-good commitments.

But who are the decisionmakers in this whole equation? Well, I like to call them the Forestry Cult: forestry fanatics, addicts, groupies – take your pick. These aren’t just industry heavyweights (Tembec, Abitibi, Weyerhauser), but also include government, natural resource departments, and all those who can’t see the forest for anything but the timber. It’s a narrow perspective. You never hear the word ‘forest’ without ‘management’ right beside it.

And it’s not deforestation, it’s harvesting.

The industry is scared. There were reams of trilingual presentations on how to revitalize the forest business. They can’t imagine why consumers are starting to care about how much paper and forest products they consume. “We need people to start buying wood again! Come on folks!” Want consumption?
The conference documents (a few million pages at least) were printed
one-sided on non-recycled paper.

The NGOs have their meetings in one room while the industry meets in another – and the government officials run between both with their tail between their legs. On one hand, there is more recognition of the importance of forests. Clearcuts just aren’t fashionable anymore. There’s an increasing desire for better “valuation” of forests: calculating a monetary benefit for services like climate regulation, watershed management – and of course, the aesthetics.

After admitting this, the forestry addict then turns around and claims
“Well, since forests provide services to society, they must be valuable. Therefore, society must pay me not to destroy them.” Don’t get me wrong, I support any mechanism that slows down the current suicidal rate of deforestation. I think this is a turn for the better. But the philosophy behind it makes me squirm. This is the other trend: Any benefit attributed to the forests must be paid in full to those who have looted them, but nobody takes responsibility for the cost. Who’s going to pay for the environmental damage wreaked by the last two hundred or so years of resource exploitation? Well, it’ll probably be society (as in those few governments that can afford it).

I see a terminal case of buck-passing. If something is valuable, pass the bucks to me, please, all of them. If something is a cost, then whoops – suddenly it’s a public resource and the burden needs to be shouldered by society. Dammit, where’d that buck go? He couldn’t have run into the forest…

Rosa Kouri is an economics and political science student at McGill
University.