Economic Case for Expanding Forestry in Scotland

8/14/2019 Economic Case for Expanding Forestry in Scotland

1/51

DIVISION OF ECONOMICS

ECN48E DISSERTATION IN ECONOMICS

SPRING 2009

Economic Case for Expanding Forestry

in Scotland

by

Marta Wozniak

1417164

supervised by

Professor David Bell


2/51

Abstract

In this essay we try to argue for expanding forestry in Scotland. Our discussion is

built on the economic theory of forestry. And so, Chapter 1 is dedicated to the

investment theory of Johnsson and Lofgren, which relates the problem of investment

to a potential higher utility achieved through it. In the same chapter the rotation theory

offered by Perman et alis presented, offering us the theory for achieving the optimal

consumption .Then in Chapter 2 we move to our case study presenting potential utility

gains for the following groups: private investors, Scottish society, tourists and the

world. In the same chapter we extend the theory and show how afforestation can

affect the whole economy through the input-output analysis. Additionally, we try to

define the value of positive externalities of planting forest using Perman et al

multiple-use forestry theory. Moreover, the concept of forests as public goods will be

presented. Following, we discuss the costs of afforestation and potential utility losers:

sheep farmers and tourists. Subsequently, we present and access the governments

incentives to afforestation. Finally, we relate the problem of increasing the forest

cover to the present economic climate. The government is mentioned throughout the

paper as it plays an important part in our discussion. It is because the paper has been

inspired by the release of the Scottish Forestry Strategy 2006, which defines an

increase in the forest cover in Scotland to 25% (from current 17.2%) as its main goal.

2


3/51

To my husband

Acknowledgments

I would like to say thank you to Mr. Simon Hart from UPM Tilhill forproviding the needed information for my analysis. In addition, I wouldlike to thank him for challenging discussions, which made me look at theissue from another perspective.

3


4/51

Table of contents

1. Forestry economics theory......................................................................................7

Investment Theory......................................................................................................8Rotation Models.......................................................................................................12

Single rotation forest model.................................................................................13Infinite-rotation forestry model...........................................................................16

4


5/51

2. Potential benefits of afforestation.........................................................................19

Benefits to private investors: the wood processing industries.................................20Sawmill industry..................................................................................................20

Paper industry......................................................................................................21

Biofuel industry....................................................................................................21

The benefits..........................................................................................................22Input output analysis................................................................................................24Benefits to Scottish society and tourists: positive externalities of afforestation......26

Multiple-use forestry............................................................................................27

Forests as public goods ......................................................................................30

Recreation and tourism........................................................................................31Health and regeneration benefits........................................................................32

Benefits to environment ......................................................................................33Labour market and business enterprise ..............................................................34

Benefits to the world: climate change mitigation.....................................................353. Cost of planting new forests.................................................................................38

Financial costs of afforestation cycle.......................................................................39Land.....................................................................................................................39Planting, Managing and Felling..........................................................................40

Opportunity costs of land ........................................................................................41Case for the sheep farming..................................................................................41

Negative externalities...............................................................................................424. The Government incentives to afforestation .......................................................44

Tax incentives..........................................................................................................44Grants.......................................................................................................................45

5. Forestry and the present crisis..............................................................................46

6. Conclusion...............................................................................................................47

Appendix ....................................................................................................................49

References...................................................................................................................50

Introduction

In 2006 The Forestry Commission Scotland released its Strategy, where it announced

it was planning to increase afforestation in Scotland to 25% by 2050. At the moment

the forest cover stands at 17.2%. This paper will strive to answer why Scotland

5


6/51

should pursue this goal, building the arguments around the Strategy. First we will

look at some forestry economics theory, to help us answer the question from a

theoretical point. The theory will bring into our discussion the risk, and the

uncertainty problems of forestry. Then, knowing on what basis the Scottish

government decided to increase the forest cover, we will move to the case study

presenting benefits of afforestation to four different groups. And so, in the first part of

the essay we will discuss possible benefits to sawmill, paper and biofuel industries in

Scotland, which represent the private investors group. The discussion will continue

with presenting benefits to 3 remaining groups: the Scottish society, tourists and the

World. This part of the debate is built on the idea of positive externalities of planting

forests and the notion of forests as public good. Firstly, we will look at the potential

benefits of afforestation to tourists. The benefits to society, which we will

subsequently present, are: health and regeneration of communities, an increase in

biodiversity and benefits to labour and business enterprise. Finally, we will talk about

possible benefits of afforestation to climate change mitigation and what impact it can

have on the fourth group, the World.

It is important to realise that the Strategy (2006) does not present the negative side

effects and costs of planting new forests. Therefore, the next part of the essay will be

dedicated to this subject. And so, the average costs of planting and managing forests

will be presented. In addition, we will discuss the problem of opportunity costs of

land and argue the case for the sheep farming. Lastly, we will present the negative

externalities of afforestation like possible losses in tourism through potential negative

effects on biodiversity and aesthetics. Following, the governments incentives to

afforestation will be debated. The last chapter will be dedicated to combining the

6


7/51

problem of afforestation with the current economic situation. We will try to address

whether forestry could prove as one of the stepping stones out of recession. Indeed,

forestry could be a way Scotland could fight its increasing unemployment problem.

And so, this debate will be the end of the paper followed by the conclusion.

In our discussion we are going to try to express the benefits and the costs in money

terms when possible. However, it is important to emphasise, that in some cases, the

benefits and the costs can be only a rough estimation as e.g. no direct data is available

while in others, the pecuniary analysis will be dropped totally, although some attempt

to value the non-market goods will be presented through the multiple-use forestry

theory offered by Perman et al.

Before moving to the main discussion we also need to realise that forestry in Scotland

is and potentially could be, more important to some areas than others. It means that

benefits could be higher in some areas and negative side effects could be higher in

other. The main parts of the country where forestry is dominant at the moment are

Argyll, Dumfries and Galloway, Borders, and Highlands. However, even these areas,

with already quite high forest cover, differ in the way they could benefit from a

sustainable and well managed increase. We will discuss reasons for these spatial

differences in the main body of this paper.

1. Forestry economics theory

Before we move to the case study, we need to accustom ourselves with some

economic theory of forestry. In this chapter we are going to address the investment

theory because the question why should we increase forestry in Scotland is really a

7


8/51

question whether we should invest in planting new forests at all, or whether it is better

to investment e.g. in the stock market. In both cases we have price uncertainty at the

end of the investment and systematic and unsystematic risks. However, the

investment in forestry has its specifics and these will be addressed in following

paragraphs. This should bring us into a conclusion whether it is worth while to invest

in woodlands and why the Scottish Government decided to increase the forest cover.

Following will be a discussion on what rotation system would be most economically

beneficial and what problems we can face in this area of forestry.

Investment Theory

An individual who wants to dedicate capital to a forest investment needs to face some

forestry specific facts. First of all, although the investments into forest plantation

require resources up front, financial benefits do not realise until trees mature, and

rotation may takes as long as 40 years in Scotland, although first small trees can be

felled after 14 years. This process is called thinning and the value of the trees from

this stage is much lower. Other benefits, like benefits to biodiversity could realise

from the start, but for now we do not include them into our discussion. However, in

comparison with bonds, which mature and give us a profit after 40 years, the investor

in forestry may decide not to realise the benefits after the maturity time, and he may

leave the forest standing. Moreover, after the initial investment, the forest requires a

continuous investment like insurance and management expenditure. On top of that,

though we will not discuss this problem in more detail, we need to remember that the

forestry industry in Scotland faces competition when it comes to international market,

especially from Scandinavia, Russia and Canada, All these add to the complexity of

our debate.

8


9/51

Following on our discussion, in this part of the chapter we are going to look at the

investment theory specific for forestry economics presented by Johansson and

Lofgren (1985). We are going to base our investment decisions on the assumptions

taken from Johansson and Lofgren. And so, we use the analysis, which includes the

imperfect market assumption based only on the following: c) The capital market is

imperfect in the sense that the lending rate is different from the borrowing rate. Both

interest rates are known with certainty, and are constant over time. Johnsson and

Lofgren, (1985 p.11) In addition, we assume that the future real income and the future

net real receipts from the investment are known. We are going to support our analysis

with Figure 1.1. The consumption constraint is defined as OBAC if we decide to

invest in forestry. If, on the other hand, we decide not to invest, our consumption

constraint is shown on Figure 1.2 as OBAC.

However, if we look at these two graphs we should realise that it is impossible to

make an objective decision whether to invest or not. The problem lies in the fact that

there are choices under OBAC that do not exist under OBAC and vice versa. In

application to our discussion we can raise a question: how did the Scottish

Government decide to invest in forestry since it is not obvious, which one of the

choices is better or worse. The answer is as follows. If there are consumption

bundles belonging to the choice set under the investment regime that do not belong to

9


10/51

Figure 1.1 The feasible consumption sets under an imperfect capital market regimeinvestment choice

Taken Johnsson and Lofgren 1985, p 13

10

Figure 1.2 The choice set in an imperfect capital marketnon investmentchoice

Taken Johnsson and Lofgren 1985, p.12


11/51

the choice set under the non-investment regime. And every consumption choice under

the non-investment regime is also feasible under the investment regime, then it is

obviously the case that the choice set under the investment regime is unambiguously

larger, and the investment can be recommended independently of preferences.

Johansson and Lofgren (1985, p.12).

Continuing our discussion on the theory, the mathematical expression of the above

problem is presented below.

(1.1) when it is recommendable to invest,

(1.2) when it is not recommendable to invest.

These relationships are very general and therefore in order to expand our discussion

we will try to find criterions, which will help us decide which one of these

relationships is true. Figure 1.3 includes the indifference curves.

11

Figure 1.3 A profitable investment under an imperfect market capital

From Johansson and Lofgren 1985, p14


12/51

We can see on the figure above that investing gives us a higher utility, as it takes us

onto a higher indifference curve. In a situation when it is a fact, it is advisable to

invest. In addition, if the following is true

(1.3b)

where equation 1.3a is equal to the present value of the investment evaluated at the

borrowing interest rate and equation 1.3b is the present value of the investment

evaluated at the lending rate. It follows that if i.e.

both are bigger than 0, the investment is preferred to non-investment. In other words,

if through investing the Scottish Government can achieve a higher utility it should

promote investment in forestry. We will distinct four groups which could achieve a

higher utility thanks to afforestation, these are: the private sector represented as wood

processing industries, the Scottish society, tourists and the world, which can achieve a

higher utility through climate change mitigation.

Rotation Models

Now, we stand before another question that is what harvest programme is required in

order that the present value of the profits from the stand of timber is maximised?

Perman et al(2003, p 605). In other words, as Johnsson and Lofgren present it, we

need to choose an optimal consumption flow, a choice which will yield an optimal

choice level at every time. In order to find an answer to this question, different

rotation models, discussed in Perman et al, will be presented in the following

paragraphs. They will help us answer problems like: how to choose an optimal

rotation time or how the interest rate and the opportunity cost of land can affect our

12

(1.3a)


13/51

decisions. The debate will be heavily based on the Perman arguments with support

from Johansson and Lofgren.

Single rotation forest model

The single-rotation forest model is built on the assumptions that all trees are the same

age, they are felled at the same time, and that there is no replanting possible. For

simplicity it is also assumed that there are no opportunity costs of land, and the

following are constant in real terms over time: the planting costs (k), the marginal

harvesting costs (c) and the gross price of felled timber(P). Lastly, the only revenue

from the forest comes from timber alone and there are no other profits involved in our

model. The analysis is presented from the angle of forest owner who also owns the

land. The question he faces is: when is the best time for the harvest? To answer this

question we need to decide at what age the present value of profits from the stand of

timber is maximised. If we want to calculate the profits from felled trees at a certain

age we should subtract the planting costs and the harvesting costs from the value of

our harvest. Then the present value equals to

(1.4)

where Tis the age of the forest, STis the volume of timber available for felling,p in

the lower case is the net price of the timber and i is the private consumption discount

rate which is to be equal to the opportunity costs of capital to our forest owner. The

present value of profits is maximised at the value ofTwhich gives the highest value

of . In order to find the maximum we differentiate the equation 1.4 with

respect to T, we use the product rule and set the derivative equal to zero and solve for

T. The result is

13


14/51

(1.5)

According to Perman, this equation states that in order to maximise the present value

of profits the rate of growth of the undiscounted net value of the stock has to be equal

to the private discount rate. Since the timber price and harvesting costs are constant,

this equation could be presented as

(1.6)

that is, as an equality between the proportionate rate of growth of the volume of

timber and the discount rate. Perman gives us an example, and so let us assume that a

cubic foot of felled timber stands at 10, the total planting costs are 5000, and the

harvesting costs per cubic metre are 2. The table with calculations for this data is

available in the Appendix. One could notice that if i = 0 the present values are

identical with the undiscounted values. This means that the rate of growth of timber is

equal to the growth of net value of this timber. It indicates that the best time to cut

trees is when their positive growth stops, which according to the table is in 135 year.

14

Figure 1.4 Present values of net benefits at i = 0.00 (NB1) and i = 0.03 (NB2)

From Perman et al 2003, p. 606


15/51

The situation is different if we introduce a discount rate of i = 3%. In this case the

present value is maximised in the year 50. It is well described by the Figure 1.4. At t =

50 both i and the rate of growth are equal. Before t =50 the return from the forest is

above the interest rate, and beyond this point, the return is less than the interest rate. It

is important to realise that the results will greatly depend on the discount rate used. In

the above example a change from 0 to 3% changed the optimum age for harvesting

from 135 to 50. In addition, Perman emphasises that single-rotation forest model,

although very restricted, brings risk into the discussion. Figure 1.5 shows the variation

of optimal felling age with the interest rate for the illustrative data from the appendix.

It proves that even small changes in i can cause huge changes in harvesting

programmes. Or in other words, the return on our investment depends on the interest

15

Figure 1.5 The variationof the optimal felling age

with the interest rate, fora single-rotation forest

From Perman et al2003, p.607


16/51

rates, which in reality are unpredictable and change over time.

Infinite-rotation forestry model

Building on the single-rotation forestry model, the infinite-rotation forestry model

offered by Perman introduces the problem of the optimal length of the rotation, if we

know re-planting is going to take place (in the case of Scotland it is a legal

obligation). This presents us with the problem of opportunity costs from the delay in

felling and re-planting of the next rotation cycle. So now we need to equate the

benefits of deferring felling with the costs of deferring planting. Perman proves that in

16


17/51

this model the rotation time is shorter than for the single-rotation forestry model. This

is an important conclusion for us, as all forests in Scotland nowadays would be

replanted. However, the whole analysis of the infinite-rotation model does not differ

much from the single-rotation model and therefore it will not be presented in more

detail. Nonetheless, Perman offers another interesting problem, i.e. he proves that at

certain i commercial forestry would not be pursued (for both models). It is the case for

the higher interest rates.

Moreover, he offers us the analysis of relationships between the interest rates, the

planting costs and the net price of timber with the optimal rotation times. And so,

there is a negative relationship between the interest rates and the optimal rotation. As

the interest rates go higher, the marginal costs of earnings forgone from having capital

tied in timber and the profits forgone from not felling and selling the land increase.

The planting costs are positively related to the rotation i.e. it will be more profitable to

cut trees earlier, as the cost of replanting fall. Intuitively, the rise in the net timber

prices will have a negative effect on the rotation length. Moreover, these relationships

bring out one of the great issue of forestry i.e. uncertainty, especially since outside of

the model, these variables are not constant over time.

In addition, if someone plants a forest they do experience opportunity costs of capital,

as the interest rates are not 0%, but even more importantly they are not constant, and

differ between borrowing and lending. Furthermore, as the interest rates change over

time, the owner of forests, while planting, cannot make an assumption with certainty

when will be the best time for his investment to realise. These uncertainties introduce

risk to our model as it implies that the outcome of the investment is unknown. Risk

17


18/51

aversion may be a potential problem for the government, and may mean that they may

have to provide a lot of incentives in order to attract private investment. In addition,

according to Permans theory, the low interest rate may mean that the owners of

woodlands, unless in need capital, will not see a need to harvest the trees, which may

be a good or a bad thing in the present economic climate.

Based on the theory we can have a look at some statistics in order to answer further

whether it is worth investing in woodlands. If we look at the Figure 1.6, we can

clearly see that since the data on forestry has been available, investment in forestry

outperformed equities markets. This, in spite of the uncertainties, could be an

18

Figure 1.6 Topperformance of ruralasset

From Savillis Agricultural

Land Market Survey 2009


19/51

additional incentive for private investors to dedicate their capital to forestry

expansion, as we must not forget the earlier argument. The investment theory by

Johnsson

and Lofgren explained why the government wants to increase the forest cover. It is

due to potential higher utility achieved by different groups. Now, as we know why the

government wants to (why it should) promote afforestation in Scotland, and how

potentially it could be developed, we will have a look at the case study.

2. Potential benefits of afforestation

At the beginning of the 20th century Scotland forest cover was around 4.5%. In 1919

the Forestry Commission were established to ensure an increase in the forest cover

and allow the UK to build its own timber reserve, in case of another war. However,

the changes in technologies around 1960s had made timber irrelevant in warfare. Still,

the forest cover reached around 7% by 1950 and continued to grow. In 2006 the

Scottish forests officially entered the expansion path when the Forestry Commission

released The Scottish Forestry Strategy. At the moment, the afforestation stands at

19


20/51

1.3million hectares and the planned increase by almost a half (650,000 hectares) is a

considerable project, which is bound to affect Scotland and the World. We will start

our discussion with three different wood processing industries and we will try to

decide how afforestation could change their utility.

Benefits to private investors: the wood processing industries

In this chapter we are going to discuss potential benefits of afforestation to three

industries: sawmill, paper and biofuel. We will try to decide what impact the large

scale forest planting can have on these sectors and whether they can achieve a higher

utility through it. First, we will start with introducing the industries with emphasis on

these sectors in Scotland. We will use The Forestry Commission Statistics and ONS

(unless otherwise stated) to give us an overview of the situation within each one. The

presentation of sectors will be followed by a discussion of potential effects of

afforestation on each one of them.

Sawmill industry

According to ONS 47% of all UK sawn softwood, which accounts for almost 1.5

million cubic metres, has been processed in Scotland. The industrys production

experienced continues growth since 1998 with parallel decrease in the number of

sawmills from 95 to 70 in the same period. Additionally, 94% of softwood sawn logs

used in Scotland came from the internal harvesting. The 3 main products of sawmills

are used in the following industries: constructions, fencing, and packaging. Their

percentage usage of sawmills products is 45%, 29% and 26% respectively. These

statistics bring us to following conclusion. The increase in production with fall in the

number of mills means a positive increase in the efficiency, which probably comes

from technology developments. The production growth experienced is potentially due

20


21/51

to the demand growth, which in the great respect has been boosted by the housing

boom. Furthermore, Scotland experienced the highest increase in the consumption of

wood within the UK. In addition, according to the statistics in the future years the

industry is expecting an increase in the supply of logs from just above 2000 to over

7000 thousand green tonnes by 2026. By then, Scotland could produce over 60% of

the UK sawn logs.

Paper industry

The increase and development is not part of the paper and pulp industry however. The

number of different types of mills has been falling every year, with recent

announcement of closure of the IPs paper mill in Iverurie in Aberdeenshire. The

downward trend is due to the high production costs and the fall in the global paper

demand. Moreover, in comparison with the sawn log industry, the production fell as

well, with additional almost 50% average fall in demand in this sector for round wood

and sawmills products. This fall may be a result of an increase in usage of recycled

paper as collection (and so usage) of recovered paper grew from 5 to 9 million tonnes

between 1997 and 2007(CPI statistics). These statistics however, create a seriously

negative market outlook for the paper industry in Scotland. Nonetheless, at the

moment around 62% of all the wood processed products are pulp and paper (including

the recovered paper) with a value for whole UK of 4.2 billion.

Biofuel industry

In the recent years the wood products and residues started to become a popular fuel.

In 2008 the total usage of the virgin fibre (unprocessed wood), the imported wood

palettes and the recycled fibre in Scotland across all sizes of ventures was 413,357

ordinary dry tonnes per year (where the virgin fibre stands at 256,685) with industrial

21


22/51

and commercial plants utilising at least 1000 odt/yr accounting for about 96% of the

total usage. Moreover, the usage of biofuel has been steadily increasing since 2005,

when the Forestry Commission began the study. It is probably due to an increase in

the number of operational plants from 43 to 154. At the moment there are ten projects

in place with the potential virgin fibre usage of 761,000 odt/yr.

The benefits

Knowing about the situations in the above industries we can now move to the

discussion on the benefits of afforestation in Scotland for these wood processing

industries. First, it is important to realise that the UK is the fourth biggest importer of

forest products in the world, with total value of the imports at 12billion where wood

products account for 6.8billion. Translating it into production, UKs apparent

consumption is 56.4 millions of cubic metres, with the internal production of 9

million of cubic metres of the wood raw material equivalent.

As presented above, a significant amount of the wood products is processed in

Scotland. As a result, the afforestation in Scotland could help private investors

achieve higher utility. According to Timber Price Indices, at the moment coniferous

standing sell at 10.68 per cubic metre, which represents a price decrease in

comparison with 2007. However, with the higher forest cover comes higher potential

supply of wood. It means that, ceteris paribus, the price of timber is likely to fall, but

the supply should stabilise. On the other hand, if the demand for raw materials

increases Scottish exports of timber, the prices could rise. The fall in price could help

the paper sector, which struggles to compete within the European market. However, it

may not be the case, as Scotland has to compete with countries like Brazil or China,

where production costs are cheaper. This may be reason for downward pressure on the

22


23/51

price of paper. An increase in afforestation therefore may not have a huge effect on

this industrys utility, as the other inputs costs, i.e. especially labour, affect its

production.

From the statistics it is obvious that the sawn wood industry in Scotland is

experiencing an expansion. It is important to realise that if this particular industry is to

continue growing, in a sustainable way, it will require an increase in timber supply. At

the moment, this wood processing industry contributes around 650 million to

Scottish economy, which represents about 1% of Scottish GDP. It means that if the

increase to 60% of all UK production is going to happen for saw mill industry, by

then, it could contribute 812.5 million to GDP. Moreover, if it is to stay on the

expansion path, an increase in supply is welcomed and needed. Therefore for this

industry a raise in the forest cover can help it achieve a higher utility.

A higher utility could potentially be achieved by the biofuel industry, as well. The

plans to build more biofuel plants mean that the country will need a sustainable

supply of fuel, as well, in order to avoid supply shocks, which can be caused for

example by an increase in export duties on timber. In addition, an increase in usage of

this type of renewable energy would allow Scotland to diversify away from gas and

coal heating. This may increase utility of the economy as it could create a more stable

energy market. Furthermore, afforestation might be even more important as Scotland

set herself very ambitious climate change mitigation goals.

Finally, the UK imports almost 85% of all the forest products consumed. An increase

in Scottish forest cover could allow the UK to gain more independence on the world

23


24/51

wood market and minimize any possible knock on effects and supply shocks coming

from outside, which could help in ensuring countrys economic stability. If the

production would increase it could generate more financial benefits to Scottish

economy, achieving higher utility for private investors. However, the above

discussion focused only on 3 sectors of the economy. Therefore, we will dedicate the

following chapter to an analysis, which will help us to understand how the whole

economy could be affected by an increase in afforestation.

Input output analysis

So far we discussed how afforestation can affect some of the wood processing

industries in Scotland. In this chapter we will present the problem of inputs and

outputs of forestry as it will help us to expand the analysis to the whole Scottish

economy. The concept of inputs and output is shortly presented in Mathers (1971)

article. He recognises there are two main inputs into the forestry: the capital inputs

and the labour inputs. The first one translates into opening investment being high and

can be divided into labour cost, machinery and material costs. After the opening

investment, the capital input falls although it continues as forest management is

required. The inputs grow again, when the felling process can start, and the

infrastructure like new roads has to be put in place. The labour input follows a similar

structure with the high, low, high pattern in intensity. Forestry has additional specifics

when it comes to outputs, as it is impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy

the price of timber at the end of a rotation which may be 40 years or more in length

Mather (1971, p.27).

Another way of looking at the inputs and outputs of forestry is using the input-output

tables supplied by the Scottish Government Statistics. The input-output model helps

24


25/51

to predict the effect of changes in one industrys inputs and outputs on other parts of

the economy. This analysis will allow us to decide what increase in utility could be

achieved by other sectors of the Scottish economy if afforestation increases. In our

discussion we will focus on the multiplier effect, which allows us to demonstrate how

a demand change in forestry activity can affect the rest of the economy through a

direct effect, which represents a direct increase in a product demand. The multiplier

also includes an indirect effect, which accounts for the demand change for the forestry

suppliers, due to the forestry demand change. In addition, we use in our analysis the

Type II multiplier, which includes as well the induced effect. This effect accounts for

the households income increase in spending as a result of the increase in

employment, due to the increase in direct and indirect demand. We are going to look

at multipliers for two economic activities relating to forestry: the forestry planting

(2.1) and the forestry harvesting(2.2). For brevity sake we are going to look at 3

types of multipliers. Nonetheless, they should give us enough information to create an

informed analysis.

The first multiplier we are going to present is the output multiplier, which gives us an

estimation of direct, indirect and induced impacts on output for the whole economy.

And so, forthe forestry planting (2.1) it is 1.77 ranked 27th (out of 123) and

the forestry harvesting (2.2) it is 2.25, which is ranked 1st. It means that these two

forestry activities have a huge effect on the Scottish output, especially the harvesting.

Additionally, if we look at the Leontief Type II multiplier, it gives us in detail the

proportion of the final output impact and the industries affected by the final demand

change. And so forthe forestry harvesting (2.2) we can learn that amongst the most

affected industries, apart from the forestry itself, is other land transport (94). While

25


26/51

forthe forestry planting (2.1) it is construction (88). Moving on with our discussion

on multipliers, another important multiplier is the employment effect multiplier. This

multiplier shows us the ratio between the direct, indirect and induced employment

change to the direct output change due to an increase in the final demand. And so, the

multiplier is ranked 22nd forthe forestry planting (2.1) and 11th forthe forestry

harvesting (2.2). It is again, a reasonable high result for these two sectors of the

industry. Finally, we will look at the income effect multiplier. This multiplier gives us

the direct, indirect and induced income effect to the direct output change as a result of

increase in final demand. The forestry planting (2.1) ranks as 59th and the forestry

harvesting (2.2) ranks as 10th. This time, the forestry planting is not ranked very high,

but forestry harvesting has still a relative high income effect.

The ranking of the presented multipliers gives us a good idea how forestry activities,

in comparison to other economic activities, affect the Scottish economy. We can

clearly see that the two activities mentioned are ranked quite high for the analysed

multipliers. It means that potentially, forestry can have a reasonable high effect on the

economy. The multipliers are an important addition to our discussion because they

include other sectors, not only the forestry ones. And so, we can infer that forestry

sector could affect positively utility of a large part of the Scottish economy.

Benefits to Scottish society and tourists: positive externalities of

afforestation

Planting new forests will not only potentially benefit the economy. An increase in the

forest cover brings higher utility to other groups: the Scottish society, tourists and the

World. We can find some of these benefits discussed in the Scottish Forestry Strategy.

Indeed, the report focuses more on benefits, which cannot be sold or easily measured

26


27/51

in monetary terms. We will call them positive externalities, as these benefits are not

accounted for in market transactions. In addition, in the following paragraphs the idea

of forest as a public good will be developed, and we will discuss how these two

concepts could affect potential utility gains. The problem of forest related tourism and

recreation in Scotland will be discussed and we will try to answer how afforestation

could affect the utility of tourists. We will discuss the potential benefits of forests to

health and communities. Additionally, we will present predicted environmental

benefits of increase in the forest cover. These benefits, including the positive effects

of afforestation on labour and business enterprise, are the potential ways the Scottish

society could achieve a higher utility. Finally, we will examine the problem of climate

change mitigation, which will be developed separately in the following chapter.

However, we will commence again with the theory, which should help us with

valuing the non-timber related benefits of woodlands.

Multiple-use forestry

In Chapter 1 we discussed the theories on the investment and the rotation processes in

forestry. However, this discussion was based only on timber. As now we would like

to discuss other benefits of forests, which are not involved in timber transactions, we

need to introduce a theory, which could help us to value these benefits. Perman et al

in his discussion tries to account for these types of benefits. He does it through

extending his rotation models with the multiple-use forestry theory. For brevity sake

we will focus only on the infinite-rotation model. Continuing our discussion, if a

forest provides more benefits than just timber, this forest is a multiple-use forest. This

brings an issue of efficiency into rotation models. It is because if the owner of the

forest cannot be compensated for by the non-timber benefits, without government

intervention, he is unlikely to involve these benefits in his decision making, which

27


28/51

potentially can negatively affect the consumption of non-timber goods of the society.

That is, if the positive externalities are not accounted for by the forest owner. If this is

the case it would mean that the optimal rotation age would not change.

Nonetheless, we assume that the non-timber benefits can be accounted for. However,

it is important to keep in mind that the valuation of positive externalities stays rather

awkward as mentioned by Mather (1971). Again, the forest owner wants to maximise

his profits. He would do it through finding an optimal rotation period with the highest

net present value for both: the timber and non-timber benefits. This affects the

rotation time in two ways. First of all, the non-timber benefits add to the quality of the

forest, which increases the length of the rotation time. However, in the same time, the

non-timber benefits increase the value of the land, which could negatively affect the

length of the rotation. He argues it is hard to decide which argument will prevail. This

brings us back to the start, as it means we cannot use rotation to account for non-

timber benefits. Still, to solve this problem Perman recommends equalising the

increase in the net value of the timber left growing for an additional period, or in other

words the marginal benefit of deferring harvesting on the left-hand side. On the right-

hand side he puts the interest forgone on the value of the growing timber plus the land

rent, i.e. the interest forgone by not selling the land at its current value. This is

presented in the equation below.

(2.1)

This expression equates the earlier mentioned marginal benefits of deferring

harvesting on the left-hand side with the marginal costs on the right-hand side. We

can also express it graphically, which is represented in Figure 2.1. From our

28


29/51

discussion, we could assume that incorporating of non-timber benefits could change

the way benefits increase over time. If non-timber benefits increase with the age of

the forest it will shift the benefits curve upwards creating a longer optimal rotation

and vice versa. However, Perman points out another issue. He claims that the changes

in increase in benefits over time is not constant, which makes it difficult to decide

what is the optimal rotation time. It is because the forest quality will increase in some

non-timber values like aesthetics but fall in other, like water values, and for some

values there is no clear relationship with the increase in age. Notwithstanding, he

concludes that it is most unlikely that the total non-timber benefits will be

independent of the age of forests, and so the inclusion of these benefits into rotation

calculations will make some difference Perman et al, (2003 p. 615)

The above discussion allows us to account for the non-timber benefits of the

woodlands. This theory could help to explain why some forests are national parks,

where the optimal rotation time is not even a question. It is because the non-timber

marginal benefits are much higher, than potential benefits of felling the trees. Or in

29

Figure 2.1Incremental changein value and costswith rotation stand

age

From Perman et al2003,p.614


30/51

other words, the timber extracted from a forest has a lower value than the same forest

standing. And so, some of these benefits which constitute the left-hand said of the

equation will be discussed in the following paragraphs. However, before moving to

the next part of our discussion we need to realise we assumed so far that social and

private benefits are the same. This is unlikely to be true in reality as some benefits of

forests are public goods, and the owner of the forest cannot account for them. In this

case, according to Perman, some type of regulation is welcomed.

Forests as public goods

From the microeconomic theory we know that some goods are public goods and

forests are one of them. We want to look at this issue because it will extend the

analysis of non-market goods provided by forests like recreation or health. Most of

forests, maybe apart of the town parks are usually non-exclusive. Nonetheless, no

trespass law in Scotland means that from a legal point of view it is impossible to

exclude someone from any type of forest. In addition, after forests are planted and

grown the consumption of additional units of the good involves zero social marginal

costs of production. Although, we may argue that after too many people visit a certain

forest some benefits of forest walks e.g. a quiet surrounding can diminish. Continuing

our discussion, we need to realise the idea of forest as public good introduces a new

problem. It is because for a public good, the value of producing one more unit is the

sum of each consumers valuation of the extra output. It means that final demand is

derived from the vertically added private demand curves. It follows that an individual

spending on a public good does not take an account of the benefits it could bring to

other consumers. Therefore too few resources are likely to be devoted to this good. In

addition, though forests can be considered as public good, the problem of where they

are planted may imply possible exclusion. People who are worse off are less likely to

30


31/51

travel miles to a forest, as they may be unwilling to pay for this experience. It implies

that if more forests are planted closer to the urban areas it could help to increase social

utility. Then, more forests may be within a willingness to pay of a larger group, where

WTP refers to a value a person is willing to pay for a certain good. However, it poses

problems which will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter.

Recreation and tourism

In the following paragraphs we will try to answer how afforestation could affect

utility of tourists. Tourism is one of the biggest Scottish industries. It generates

around 4billion and employs 200,000 people (Scottish Government Tourism).

Scottish woods related tourism generates 165million plus additional 94million from

one day recreational trips to forests. The question is whether the increase in the forest

cover will have a positive effect on the utility of tourists in Scotland, as more forest

will be available. This will greatly depend on where forests will be planted. It is quite

possible that most afforestation will take place up north or close to the English border,

where the prices of land are likely to be lower, which maybe due to the fact there are

fewer alternatives to forestry. However, if it is the case, possibly it will have a small

or no effect at all on the increase in recreation or tourism. The problem of

accessibility will be discussed in more detail in the following paragraph. A good

example of an increase in utility of tourists is the Mountain Bike World Cup in Fort

William, where both Forestry Commission and a private investor (Nevis Range) built

mountain bike tracks. Now, this event attracts worldwide public and sponsorship. It

also positively affects utility of a group of tourists, with a specific interest in biking.

However, this example clearly implies an additional investment.

31


32/51

Health and regeneration benefits

The Scottish Government emphasise the fact that forests can enhance the health and

regenerate communities, which could potentially increase the utility of Scottish

society. According to their studies, on average 60% of the Scottish populations both

physical and mental health is at risk from inactivity. In fact, in this case, encouraging

moderate activity, like forests walks, is the most beneficial. In addition, Scottish Index

of Multiple Depravation 2006 clearly indicates that people whose health would

benefit the most live in the cities or close to the urban areas, with City of Glasgow

taking the lead. This puts the government in a difficult position because planting

forests in close vicinity to Glasgow could be too expensive as the opportunity costs of

land could be too high. Furthermore, most people that are at this risk, do not value this

type of activity. In addition, it may be a challenge to convince most people from the

deprived communities to travel out of the city for a forest hike. Therefore, an

additional effort may be needed to change peoples valuing of this kind of activity.

Additionally, forestry could take an important part in regenerating the rural Scotland,

as it could help vulnerable communities diversify their income streams (Scottish

Forestry Strategy 2006). Planting forests could help the economical development of

areas where e.g. farming stopped to be economically viable. However, planting forest

itself will not attract much more additional revenue from recreation and support to

build an infrastructure is needed. Then, forests could become a sustainable source of

income like the presented earlier example of Fort William. This model could be

successfully imitated across the country generating revenue for the local communities.

This implies greater governmental involvement, whether through building the

infrastructure itself or through grants. We will discuss this and relating issues in

32


33/51

greater detail in Chapter 5. Nonetheless, forests can potentially become economically

beneficial to the vulnerable rural communities.

Benefits to environment

Scottish Forestry Strategy greatly emphasises the benefits afforestation could have to

the environment and through this to Scottish society. The society could benefit from

increase in biodiversity as some people attach certain value to it, and so an increase in

biodiversity will increase their utility. We will develop the problem of climate change

in the following chapter but here we will focus on other environment related issues.

At the moment, the native woodlands in Scotland make up 17% of all woodlands,

with the rest being spruce and other conifers. This is an important fact because

biodiversity in e.g. Sitka spruce forests may be not existent. It is mainly mixed

broadleaves forests, which add to biodiversity. Nonetheless, the reason for this

disproportion between coniferous and broadleaves is likely to be related to the fact

that most of the native broadleaves woodlands are unlikely to be commercial ones,

though part of the Forestry Strategy is to encourage hardwood, which is broadleaves,

plantations. Moreover, the government offer much higher grants for planting

broadleaves than for the coniferous. We may assume it is due to the fact that native

forests bring more benefits to the environment and through it, to the society. And so,

Scottish Forestry Strategy puts emphasis on this type of forests plantation, as well.

Consequently, in our discussion, we will make native woodland the focal point.

Some animal species like the black grouse and the capercaillie depend on the native

forests habitats. In order to secure their future the right native woodland management

and conservation is required. For the same reasons, the government emphasise the

importance of planting new woodlands, which are underrepresented in Scotland. This

33


34/51

could help the endangered animal species and promote biodiversity. In the

afforestation process they present certain specific ways which could help with

increasing the quality of the habitats and the biodiversity. In addition, they stress the

importance of the landscape quality and how forests can enhance it. It is an important

fact as landscape quality could increase the societys utility as well, through an

increase in aesthetics of the area. Finally, the government wants to include issues of

biodiversity in every decision making related to forests, to emphasise its importance.

Interestingly enough, an increase in environment quality through planting broadleaves

is the only positive externality, which is in some way represented in market

transaction. It is simply because the grants available for broadleaves plantations are

much higher than for coniferous plantation. However, if it is to create sustainable

positive effects on biodiversity it can create problems of lack of investment. It is

because commercial investors are unlikely to support the idea of planting forests,

which will not be harvested. One of the ways the government may try to encourage it

is through even higher grants for native woodland plantations. Nonetheless, if the

investors will not be able to reap the benefits of the investments by harvesting,

government may have to look towards other options. For example, Trees for Life

charity is dedicated to restoration of Caledonian Forest.

Labour market and business enterprise

New forests not only mean more timber for processing. The planting process,

management, and felling require labour and developed business enterprise. It means

that increased afforestation efforts in the future years can have positive effects on

these two, very important for the society, parameters. At the moment the forestry

industry, taking in to account management and haulage position comes up to over

34


35/51

10000 people in equivalent full time employment (Scottish Forestry Statistics).

Increasing planting means a sharp increase in demand for labour as this part of

afforestation is relatively labour and capital intense. Moreover, the Forestry Strategy

(2006) argues that an increased demand for labour could increase the quality of

labour. It is due to the fact that people will want to develop appropriate skills, if the

employment will be available in this sector. In addition, an increase in demand may

mean that there will be a more sustained supply of labour as well, as more people will

be willing to participate in this industry for a long term. It could lead to an increase in

productivity and business competitiveness. All this could mean positive effects on the

societys utility.

In addition, we must not forget about tourism and recreation sectors. Potentially,

afforestation could greatly increase the employment in the forest related tourism and

recreation. Still, for this to happen, the government needs to devote additional

planning and investment to create the infrastructure. This however, can greatly help

the development of the rural communities according to Forestry Strategy. Especially,

as the forest related tourism can help with diversification from farming. Both tourism

and farming problems related to forestry will be developed in more detail in one of

the subsequent chapters.

Benefits to the world: climate change mitigation

So far, we tried to argue that an increase in afforestation could potentially increase the

Scottish societys utility. Now it is time to discuss potential benefits to the world

through the climate change mitigation. It has become one of the main goals of the

Scottish government. The Forestry Strategy is part of the government plans to

mitigate the global warming as new forests could help substantially with the climate

35


36/51


37/51


38/51

benefits from planting forest may be reaped instantly (e.g. lower soil erosion)

economic benefits will not realise in case of Scotland for 38 years on average.

This problem could be lessened as forests potentially could offer financial benefits

from the carbon credit trading. However, this depends on the price of a tonne of CO2

equivalent and policies put in place. The higher the price of carbon credit the more

return one would get from planting trees. In addition, there is an idea of translating

forest planting into carbon credits (Scarborough, 2007). It is possible as trees remove

CO2 from the atmosphere, and this can be treated as an abatement strategy for big

companies. If this idea would be implemented in Scotland this could potentially

attract a large number of needed private investors, especially as Carbon Reduction

Commitment has been put in place. This policy affects big energy users (6000MWh

and above). It comes into effect in 2010 and involves both private and public

companies with the electricity bills of 500,000 and above. For first 3 years the

companies will be able to purchase the scheme carbon credits for 12 per tCO2. After

this period, the credits will be auctioned, which can cause an increase in price. For

some companies, abatement may not be economically efficient, and potentially, if

company would receive carbon credit from planting forest, it may increase both

private and social benefits. Though, this policy could produce opportunistic behaviour

in some cases.

3. Cost of planting new forests

In the following paragraphs we will discuss the potential negative pressures on utility

of some groups, due to an increase in the forest cover, starting with basics i.e. the

costs of creating a forest will be presented. If someone wants to plant a forest the first

38


39/51

thing one needs, is to possess land in one way or another. Therefore, we will discuss

the issue of land and how it can affect the profitability of an enterprise in the

subsequent paragraphs. The issue of the spatial differences in prices of land will be

presented. Second problem we will discuss is the costs of planting, managing and

felling the forests. The problem of variation in costs depending of the characteristics

of the area will be discussed as well. In the final paragraphs the opportunity costs of

land will be considered and the negative externalities of planting forests will be

mentioned as well.

Financial costs of afforestation cycle

Land

Over the past five years the prices of the land in Scotland increased by 112% and they

stand at the average of 2,928 per acre of the arable land, with the pasture land at just

under 2,000, the prime dairy land at almost 3,500 and the arable land at almost

5,000 per acre. (Savillis, 2009). For brevity sake, we will omit in our discussion the

problem of other types of land. This difference in the prices indicates variations in the

quality of land and its primary usage. In addition, although the data is not available on

this particular subject, the land is more likely to be more expensive closer to the urban

settlements. It is probably to be related to the accessibility issue. For example, the

further away from markets the forest is the higher the haulage costs, which decreases

the benefits. Level areas are likely to be more expensive than the more hilly ones as

planting, managing and felling is more difficult in the hills. All these variables make

the decision where to plant forests to achieve the highest efficiency much more

difficult, especially if we take into account that in Scotland hills dominate.

39


40/51

Planting, Managing and Felling

When the problem of possessing the land is solved we need to move to the costs of

planting, managing and felling our forest. The information provided is the courtesy of

UPM Tilhill Forestry. The creation of 50 hectares plantation of commercial conifers

costs around 60,000. These costs increase with the type of trees planted,

characteristics of the area, the type of ground preparation and the infrastructure put in

place. Our initial 60,000 investment includes everything from costs of plants,

through drainage, finishing with the track construction, although the land is

unimproved in our case. The annual expenditure falls later on, and after the several

years includes only the insurance, management and maintenance, which can be

around 25 per hectare per year. Nonetheless, the costs of the first 10 years come up

to 100,000. Planting a mixture of conifers and broadleaves is about 30,000 more in

total. However, the difference is discounted by more generous grants. In general,

from data made available from Tilhill, it appears that grants are high enough to make

forest planting itself a profitable enterprise. It is because the difference between the

costs and the inputs from grants is positive in 10 years, running from 5,000 to

130,000 of profit. This surely helps to offset the costs incurred from the land

purchase. When we decide that we want to fell the trees we need to apply for felling

permission. One of the requirements of felling permission is an agreement to replant.

Nonetheless, the costs of felling and extraction are around 15 per tonne and haulage

between 5-14 per tonne. At the moment standing value of timber is within 3,600-

7,200 per hectare.

40


41/51

Opportunity costs of land

As mentioned earlier, the land prices will differ between the northern parts of

Scotland in comparison with the areas around Glasgow, where the opportunity cost of

land is potentially higher. In addition, land in the north of the country is likely to be

lower in price, because of e.g. the haulage costs, which could diminish the benefits.

This poses a serious problem for the governments plans. It could be more expensive

to plant forests on the flat land, or in the less hilly areas, as most of it may be farming

land. On the other hand, felling on hills could be expensive, which makes it a less

attractive investment. In addition, it is possible that forests could be planted on less

fertile flat lands, like pasture lands, but this issue will be discussed in more detail in

the following paragraph. And so, we will treat the sheep farming as the main rival to

forestry. We will discuss the problem of the farming economic viability, and whether

forestry could stand a chance with this type of agricultural activity. Notwithstanding,

it is important to realise that use of less fertile soil could have a negative effect on the

speed of growth of trees.

Case for the sheep farming

The agricultural production contributes over 2billion to the Scottish economy with

half of it being livestock related output. In this paper, for the sake of brevity we will

only discuss the sheep farming as it is more likely that this type of agriculture will be

an alternative to forestry. Especially in the Highlands, where according to Scottish

Agricultural College, the most recent hill production is financially uneconomical.

Their report states that the reason why some farmers choose to stay in hills is due to

the government support schemes which are: Single Farm Payment and Less Favoured

Area Support Scheme. In addition, since the SFP is no longer linked to the number of

41


42/51

animals, the levels of livestock have gradually dropped i.e. the production dropped.

They also argue that if the support was not available, the numbers would fall even

more. Especially for the hill areas, these schemes will decide of the future of farming.

However, it also implies that opportunity costs of land will be lower for the areas

where the farming is becoming less viable and where the sheep numbers are falling.

For example Dumfries and Galloway, Inverclyde or North Lanarkshire, where the

number of livestock fell over last years quite significantly the opportunity costs of

land will be lower and the forestry could become a potential alternative. The

opportunity costs of land will be higher for areas like Clackmannanshire,

Aberdeenshire or Borders where the numbers of livestock decreased less steeply.

Nonetheless, it has to be pointed out that without the financial support the farmers are

receiving they would be making a loss, no matter whether it is the upland or lowland

farming. From an economic point of view this is inefficiency. Potentially, forestry

could become the economically viable alternative. This could mean that a decrease in

sheep farming could help to achieve a higher utility to some private investors.

However, if the grants schemes disappear, decrease in utility of sheep farmers is

imminent. Still, potentially, the forestry could become a way for sheep farmer to

diversify their income streams. On the other hand, the disappearance of farming in

some areas may mean that the utility of whole communities could be negatively

affected, as farming could play an important role in local economies. In the following

paragraphs, we are going to look in more detail at the negative effects afforestation

could have on utility of some groups.

Negative externalities

Afforestation does not only offer benefits, but it could also be detrimental. The main

negative impacts afforestation could have, which would not be expressed in the

42


43/51

market transactions, are the effects on the environment and biodiversity. In addition,

in the case of Scotland the change in scenery could also affect the tourism and

recreation. These are the issues we will discuss in the following paragraphs.

It is important to realise, that before the forest can be planted, the ground has to be

prepared for seedlings. This releases carbon into the atmosphere. However, this

negative side of afforestation is offset in case of e.g. Sitka spruce after 12 years. The

argument for keeping some grass lands untouched and subsidising especially the

sheep farming for biodiversity reasons is presented by Scottish Agricultural College

in their report on retreat of farming from the hills. Although, it is rather unlikely that

planning permission would be given to afforest some particularly rare grass planes.

Nonetheless, they point out that some plant and animal species actually benefit from

grazed pastures, and though some areas will inevitable benefit from afforestation, the

argument is that for other regions higher utility can be achieved through supporting

the grazing. Especially as they point out that sheep farming and so grazing is to be

more effective and beneficial to hill biodiversity than deer grazing. Also, they admit

that removing the grazing, and not planting forests could potentially create benefits to

biodiversity. Lastly, it is important to realise that some commercial forests could

decrease not increase biodiversity.

From the above information we can infer that in some areas afforestation could be

detrimental and have a negative effect on some groups utility, e.g. sheep farmer.

Another group whose utility could be negatively affected is tourists. It is argued in the

same report that sheep grazing up on the hills are a public benefit and a tourist

attraction. The discussion is based on the fact that visitors expect to see grasslands

43


44/51

with sheep on them. Although it is hard to argue how sheep can be of public benefit,

and it is not more explained in the SAC report, the problem of moorlands and tourism

can be a relevant one. Although, it is hard to estimate the negative effects of

afforestation on this particular industry, the Scottish Forestry Strategy recognizes the

issues and emphasises that afforestation has to be managed with sensitivity to local

landscapes character and biodiversity of the area.

4. The Government incentives to afforestation

In this paper so far we have discussed the possible effect of an increase in the forest

cover. Now, we move the focus of our discussion to what government do or could do

to encourage afforestation by the private investor group. We will present what tax

incentives and what grants are available for those willing to invest in forestry. This

information should help us to answer whether the government offers enough support

in to achieve its goals.

Tax incentives

The government can encourage forest planting in two ways: grants and tax

exemptions or deductions. In this part of the chapter, we are going to look at different

available tax incentives offered by the government to commercial forestry. A private

investor looking to dedicate some capital to forestry can count on three of the main

tax incentives. First of all, commercial woodlands receive 100% tax relief from

inheritance tax. It creates an inducement for someone who has heirs and a reasonable

amount of capital (tax threshold is 312,000), to invest his money in forestry.

In addition, the income derived from the sale of timber harvested on commercially

managed forests is free from the income tax. This creates an alternative to banks and

44


45/51

building societies savings (except from Individual Saving Accounts and Personal

Equity Plans) and various pensions and retirement plans, as they are all taxed. A

discussion dedicated to comparing in more detail the risks, liquidity and returns

between these two types of investment, in order to decide which one is more

attractive, is beyond the scope of this paper. Nonetheless, we can conclude that the

decision how to invest will often depend on the individuals personal preferences and

risk aversion.

Finally, the last tax incentive available for the commercial forestry is the Capital

Gains Tax. It is a valuable tax benefit as it means that the increase in the value

attributable to standing or felled timber is not taxed. As the profit derived from the

woodlands is based on the accrued value over time it means that our money invested

in the woodlands is almost tax proof (information courtesy of UPM Tilhill Forestry).

Grants

Another way the government try to encourage commercial forestry is through grants.

Until the end of 2006 grants for new plantations were available through the Scottish

Forestry Grant Scheme. The size of the grant depended on the type of the trees

planted and on the size of plantation. For example, 50 hectare of Sitka spruce

plantation could enjoy a grant of 44,500 at the establishment phase and additional

5,600 in instalments over next five years. Additionally, on top of SFGS, the

Farmland Premium was available, which depends on the quality of land used for

plantation. This grant ranges for 60 per hectare for the unimproved land to 300 per

hectare of the best quality arable land. The payment is yearly for 10 years for conifers

and 15 years for broadleaf plantation. (Information courtesy of UMP Tilhill)

45


46/51

At the moment the Farmland Premium is kept but the grant scheme for the forestry is

now under the hospice of Scottish Rural Development Contracts. This is to allow for a

local approach to afforestation, as every decision will be based on the regional

circumstances. According to UPM TIlhils annual newsletter 2009 the new grant

rates are good, which encourages new planting. In addition, they emphasise that

Scottish Government is very keen to fight climate change and this may help to

promote new plantations amongst the regional governments.

From the above facts, we could assume that at the present the governments efforts to

encourage at least the commercial afforestation are quite extensive. The support is so

extensive that an investor could make a profit on planting, i.e. the amount of support

available is higher than the expanses on the planting itself. However, we cannot forget

the costs of land, which are not included in grants schemes. The government could

attract additional investment through awarding carbon credits for the forest plantation

as offered by Scarborough (2007) especially as the Carbon Reduction Commitment

has been implemented. This could attract investment from companies, which would

not consider it otherwise. As a result, the afforestation would become attractive to a

larger group of private investors.

5. Forestry and the present crisis

Lastly, the present economic climate brings a challenge to all industries, and the

forestry industry is not an exception. However, there are still ongoing investments in

sawmilling and biomass sectors, the challenge for the industry now is to ensure [it]

maintain[s] the infrastructure around the supply chain and, to ensure this happens, [it]

must maintain a decent level of activity from both growers and processors alike, to

46


47/51

retain a degree of stability Whitfield (2008, p.11 ) It implies we stand before a

dilemma. On one hand, the investment in the forestry requires huge capital at the

outset but in the same time, the forestry could lend a hand in helping the economy to

come out of the recession. It appears to be a good time to increase the spending it this

area as it could not only help achieve the goal of 25% forest cover, but it could also

help to boost the economy Although some degree of gradualism in afforestation is

welcomed, as it makes the forestry related production more sustainable, potentially,

now could be a good time for the government to support larger afforestation

enterprises. If we look at the multipliers mentioned earlier in our discussion, the

employment effect multiplier for planting is ranked 22nd which is reasonable high.

Additional advantage of this economic activity is that forestry planting requires

relatively low skills. As a result, it could help with providing employment to usually

more vulnerable groups of unskilled workers. Therefore, if the government increases

the investment in the forestry it could be a way of not only pursuing its Strategy but it

could also help with the present recession.

6. Conclusion

In this essay we tried to argue why from an economic point of view Scotland should

pursue the increase in the forest cover. Often, this presented us with problems of

valuation of goods which do not have a market value, like health or biodiversity.

Moreover, it may appear that these benefits dominated our discussion. This may seem

inappropriate; however, it is the benefits of afforestation to the Scottish society that

prevail in governments agenda, presented in the Forestry Strategy 2006. Still, for the

higher utility to be achieved by Scots from afforestation, and not only to be assumed,

the government will have to dedicate additional resources to promoting forestry in the

47


48/51

society. It may prove to be a difficult task. Especially that not every group will

achieve a higher utility, but some will lose, like sheep farmers.

The government also miss to answer clearly who should lead the afforestation: the

government or the private investors. This is again, an especially important question to

answer, if the benefits for the society are to be achieved, as some private investors

may not want to get involved in some enterprises due to the lack of profits. In

addition, the government does not explain why the goal is 25% of the forest cover, not

20% or 30%. This may be worrying to some extent as it may mean they do not have

clear predictions on how an increase in forest cover can affect Scotland.

Finally, with the recent high food inflation, the sheep and cattle farmers are unlikely

to leave the hills, especially that the government are unlikely to eradicate the grants. It

is what stopped forestry in Scotland in the past, and this means that forestry again

may struggle to expand in the future years. Nonetheless, the benefits of afforestation

to all of the presented groups are large, and the government will soon stand before a

decision, which one, the farming or the forestry, to support more. The problem lies in

the fact that no one in 2006 could predict the present state of the world economy, and

unfortunately the long run investment, like forestry, will always bring with itself the

uncertainty. And so, we all need to wait to see what the future brings.

48


49/51

Appendix

From Perman et al2003, p. 604

49


50/51

References

- CPI (Confederation of Paper Industries) (2007), Key Industry Facts 2007,http://www.paper.org.uk/information/statistics/industryfacts2007.pdf

- Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (July 2008), Digest ofUnited Kingdom Energy Statistics 2008 chapter 7: Renewable Sources of energy,http://stats.berr.gov.uk/energystats/dukes08_c7.pdf

- Jarvis, P (2008) Locking in the gas, Chartered Forester, Spring 2008, p. 14-16

- Johansson, P and Lofgren, K (1985), The Economics of Forestry and NaturalResources, Blackwell: Oxford

- Mather, A S (1971), Problems of afforestation in north Scotland, Transactions of the

Institute of British Geographers, No. 54, pp. 19-32Accessed at: http://www.jstor.org/pss/621359

- Office for National Statistics (Autumn 2008), Environmental Accounts,http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_environment/EADec2008.pdf

- Office of Public Sector Information (2008), Climate Change Act 2008 chapter 27,http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080027_en_1

- Perman R, et al(2003), Natural Resource and Environmental Economics, 3rd

Edition, Pearson Education Limited, Chapter 18

- IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007), Working Group III, Mitigation of ClimateChange, Chapter 9 Forestry

Accessed at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter9.pdf

- Savillis UK (2009), UK and European Research, Agricultural Land Market Survey,http://www.savills.co.uk/research/Report.aspx?nodeID=10285

- Savillis UK (2008), UK and European Research, Rural Research Report No 07-08,

Farmland Market, http://www.savills.co.uk/research/Report.aspx?nodeID=10094

- Savillis UK (2008), UK and European Research, Rural Research Report No 08-08,Wheat Price Outlook, http://www.savills.co.uk/research/Report.aspx?nodeID=10174#

- Savillis UK (2008), UK and European Research, The Carbon ReductionCommitment,http://www.savills.co.uk/research/Report.aspx?nodeID=10112

- Scarborough, B (2007), Trading Forest Carbon: A Panacea or pipe dream to addressclimate change, The property and Environment Research Center: Policy Series,No.40, July 2007

Accessed at: http://www.perc.org/pdf/ps40.pdf

50
http://www.paper.org.uk/information/statistics/industryfacts2007.pdfhttp://www.paper.org.uk/information/statistics/industryfacts2007.pdfhttp://stats.berr.gov.uk/energystats/dukes08_c7.pdfhttp://stats.berr.gov.uk/energystats/dukes08_c7.pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/pss/621359http://www.jstor.org/pss/621359http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_environment/EADec2008.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_environment/EADec2008.pdfhttp://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080027_en_1http://ttp//www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chttp://ttp//www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chttp://www.savills.co.uk/research/Report.aspx?nodeID=10285http://www.savills.co.uk/research/Report.aspx?nodeID=10094http://www.savills.co.uk/research/Report.aspx?nodeID=10174#http://www.savills.co.uk/research/Report.aspx?nodeID=10112http://www.savills.co.uk/research/Report.aspx?nodeID=10112http://www.perc.org/pdf/ps40.pdfhttp://www.paper.org.uk/information/statistics/industryfacts2007.pdfhttp://stats.berr.gov.uk/energystats/dukes08_c7.pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/pss/621359http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_environment/EADec2008.pdfhttp://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080027_en_1http://ttp//www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chttp://ttp//www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chttp://www.savills.co.uk/research/Report.aspx?nodeID=10285http://www.savills.co.uk/research/Report.aspx?nodeID=10094http://www.savills.co.uk/research/Report.aspx?nodeID=10174#http://www.savills.co.uk/research/Report.aspx?nodeID=10112http://www.perc.org/pdf/ps40.pdf


51/51

- Scottish Agricultural College (2008), Rural Policy Centre, Farmings Retreat fromthe Hills, http://www.sac.ac.uk/mainrep/pdfs/retreatreport.pdf

- The Forestry Commission Great Britain (2008), Timber Price Indices to March2008, http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/tpi200803.pdf/$FILE/tpi200803.pdf

- The Forestry Commission Great Britain (2008), The Forestry Statistics,http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/forstats2008.nsf/LUContentsTop?openview&RestrictToCategory=1

- The Forestry Commission Scotland (2008), Forests for people: access, recreationand tourism on the national forest estate, www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcfc114.pdf/$FILE/fcfc114.pdf

- The Forestry Commission Scotland (2007), Timber Development Programme 2007-2011, http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcfc113.pdf/$FILE/fcfc113.pdf

- The Forestry Commission Scotland (2006), The Scottish Forestry Strategy 2006,http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/SFS2006fcfc101.pdf/$FILE/SFS2006fcfc101.pdf

- The Forestry Commission Scotland (March 2008), Woodfuel: Demand and Usage inScotland: Update Report to March 2008,http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Woodfuelusagestudy2008.pdf/$FILE/Woodfuelusagestudy2008.pdf

- The Leader: UPM Tilhill annual newsletter (2009)

- The Scottish Government Publications (2008), Agriculture Facts and Figures 2008,http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/06/16141710/2

- The Scottish Government Tourism (2009),http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Tourism

- The Scottish Government Statistics (2004), Input-Output All files 2004,http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/Input-Output/IOAllFiles2004

- The Scottish Government Statistics (2006), Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation,

Overall SIMD 2006 and individual domains,http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/SI

Documents

Economic Case for Expanding Forestry in Scotland