This section provides an outline of some of the main issues and variables that will determine whether, and where, forest plantation investment is likely to occur in the future. It presents a broad comparative analysis of different economic mechanisms, incentive structures and policies relating to forest plantations around the world, along with a discussion of the main reasons for governments to encourage forest plantation development. The analysis also explores some of the economic challenges to forest plantation development such as risk, viable size and location, and cost and pricing issues.
Future patterns of private sector forest plantation investment (i.e. excluding direct state planting) will largely depend on comparative advantage. However, when considering comparative advantage, two different types of comparison must generally be made:
· a comparison between countries (i.e. which countries appear to offer the best conditions for forest plantation investment?); and
· a comparison between forest plantation investment and other forms of investment in each country (i.e. how does a forest plantation investment compare with, say, investing in the local stock exchange?).
Considerations such as: the relative growth rates of forest plantations; harvesting and product conversion efficiencies; economies of scale; and relative costs and prices, are most relevant to the first type of comparison. Broader economic considerations, such as: the overall return on the forest plantation investment; investment risk; and liquidity, may be more relevant to the second consideration. These issues are further described and discussed below.
Incentive structures will certainly play a significant role in determining where comparative advantage lies. Thus, the analysis also examines countries where government intervention (either in the form of direct public-sector planting or incentives for private-sector planting) is responsible for much of the increase in forest plantation areas. It also discusses the potential role for forest plantations to meet countries obligations to reduce net carbon emissions under the Kyoto Protocol and the effect that this might have on the outlook.
The main aim of this section is to provide, from an analytical perspective, a "checklist" of variables that determine why forest plantations are (or are not) established in particular countries. The purpose of this is to help countries to identify variables that have a strong influence on forest plantation development so that they can try to influence these through their forestry policies and other government policies.
Before getting into detail, it is first useful to note that there is a wide range of reasons for planting trees and that the public and private sectors often have different reasons for doing so.
In general, the primary motivation for the private sector to plant trees is to generate financial benefits from their investment (although non-market factors can be important in some cases). The benefits from planting trees may be direct, such as income from roundwood sales, or they may be more indirect. Examples of the latter include:
· the benefit of having a secure wood supply for a forest processing facility;
· increased security of land tenure (where investing in forest land establishes some sort of long-term right to the use of land); or
· the financial security of owning a tangible asset such as a forest plantation.
In certain instances, government incentives (e.g. government grants and subsidies or favourable tax regimes for forest plantation development) provide a significant proportion of the financial benefits from forest plantation investment.
It is also worth noting that the reasons for planting trees can differ between different types of private sector investor. For example, many individual private investors (particularly in rural areas in Europe) see forest plantations as sort of savings account. They invest directly in forest plantation establishment or in young forest plantations, which they then manage at a low level of intensity and harvest as and when they require a little extra income. Forest plantations managed under such circumstances are often not managed according to strict economic criteria and may be utilised for non-market benefits (e.g. hunting and amenity). This often results in relatively low harvesting intensities and the use of long rotation lengths.
On the other hand, corporate investors in forest plantations tend to seek higher, more immediate and more stable financial returns from their investments. They are more likely to manage their forest plantations intensively and use economic criteria to determine optimal rotation lengths and make decisions about silviculture. They also often develop a portfolio of forest plantations of different ages that will generate a relatively stable supply of roundwood and, consequently, income. They may do this through planting or the acquisition of already established forest plantations.
Governments support forest plantation development either directly, through planting by state forestry companies, or indirectly, by providing, grants, subsidies or other incentives for the private sector to plant trees. Their motivations for supporting forest plantation development tend to be different to those of the private sector in that they often incorporate non-financial considerations into their decisions.
In terms of the economic benefits from forest plantation development, governments may support development for purely financial reasons, but they will often provide support for broader economic benefits. For example, government support for forest plantation development can be used to promote the development of a forest industry, either at the national level or in particular regions. It can also be used to create a critical mass of forest plantations at which the private sector starts to take an interest in making such investments themselves.
Governments also support forest plantation development to generate social and environmental benefits. Indeed, such objectives are often stated as the main reason for government support in this area. The creation of employment opportunities, particularly in rural areas, is one important social reason that is often given to justify government support for forest plantation development. In Europe, forest plantation development is encouraged to remove agricultural land from production (an objective that can be supported on economic, social and environmental grounds). Governments may also support forest plantation development for the production of non-market benefits, such as: watershed protection; improved visual appearance of the landscape; carbon sequestration; the provision of outdoor recreation opportunities; and land rehabilitation or reclamation. Where these objectives are important, the way in which forest plantations are established and managed is likely to be very different to what would happen if they were privately owned.
A number of economic theories have been developed that explain why some countries perform better than others in different sectors of the economy (i.e. they have some sort of "advantage" over the others in these sectors). These theories suggest that, in the long-run, competitive and comparative advantage will determine how successful a country is in a particular sector. It is, therefore, worthwhile examining what these theories suggest about the development of forest plantations around the World.
The most basic (and simplest to understand) factor underlying a country's success in a particular sector is natural advantage. This arises where there are elements of a particular country's natural stock of resources, location, or natural productive capacity that make it easier to produce a particular good or service there rather than somewhere else. In many cases, the development of an economic activity is likely to begin with a natural advantage in that activity.
In the forestry sector, the most common example of a natural advantage is the presence of a large natural forest resource. Thus, until recently, natural advantage in forestry existed in countries with large land areas, high levels of forest cover and generally low population densities. Most countries fitting this description (e.g. Russian Federation, Canada, United States of America, Indonesia and Brazil) have developed significant forest industries based on this natural advantage (which generally translates into an ability to produce large volumes of industrial roundwood at relatively low cost).
More recently however, industrial roundwood production from natural forests has been constrained by resource depletion (in some countries) and, more generally, by increased regulation. One consequence of this is that natural advantage is gradually moving toward countries where trees grow the fastest. In other words, natural advantage in the forestry sector is gradually shifting away from countries with the highest levels of forest resources to countries that have the highest forest productivity.
In terms of hardwood species, recently developed fast-growing plantations of Eucalyptus species in tropical areas (particularly South America) demonstrate a considerable natural advantage in pulpwood production. Similarly, in terms of softwood species, natural advantage is gradually shifting towards tropical and subtropical regions where pine is grown (Pinus caribaea; P. elliottii; P. merkusii; P. oocarpa; and P. patula) and temperate countries suited to the production of Pinus radiata (e.g. Chile; Spain; South Africa; New Zealand; and Australia).
This shift is demonstrated in the three figures below, which compare trends in industrial roundwood production in countries that have developed significant forestry sectors based on the first type of natural advantage (i.e. a high level of natural forest resources) with four countries that have the second type of natural advantage (i.e. a high level of forest productivity). These latter four countries - Australia, Chile, New Zealand and South Africa - are referred to here as the "Southern plantation producers". Each figure shows the share of total industrial roundwood production (for the group as a whole) held by each of the individual countries shown in the figure.
(a)
Figure 16 compares industrial roundwood production in Canada with production in the four Southern plantation producers. Since 1962, all five countries have markedly increased industrial roundwood production. For example, Canada has doubled industrial roundwood production over the period. However, as the graph shows, the four Southern plantation producers have increased production by an even greater proportion. Indeed, they now account for about 30 percent of the total industrial roundwood production from these five countries combined, compared with only 20 percent at the start of the period.
Canada is a country with a large natural forest endowment, but with little natural advantage in forest productivity (i.e. tree growth is not particularly high there). Consequently, Canadian forestry practices rely heavily on low-cost establishment options, such as natural regeneration or broadcast seeding, which take several years to re-establish forest cover after harvesting. In contrast, in roughly the same time (or maybe a little longer), intensively managed forest plantations in the four Southern plantation producers can produce a final crop for harvesting. This gives these countries a considerable natural advantage in the production of industrial roundwood from forest plantations.
Projections of industrial roundwood production suggest that production in Canada will remain roughly constant over the next decade while, over the same period, production in the four Southern plantation producers is expected to increase considerably.
Figure 16 Historical trends in comparative levels of industrial roundwood production in Canada and the four Southern plantation producers
Source: derived from FAO (1997b).
Similarly, Figure 17 compares industrial roundwood production in the three Nordic countries (Norway, Finland and Sweden) with production in the four Southern plantation producers since 1962. In this case, the figure shows the contrast between the rapidly increasing levels of industrial roundwood production in the four Southern plantation producers and the more modest historical growth in industrial roundwood production in the more "mature" forestry sector in the Nordic countries. In this instance, the share of the total held by the four Southern plantation producers has increased from around 20 percent to just over 40 percent.
It is interesting to note however, that despite the increase in industrial roundwood production in the four Southern plantation producers, the Nordic countries have retained over 80 percent of the total combined value of forest products exports from these seven countries. The Nordic countries have done this by focusing on maintaining a competitive advantage in the production of high-value forest products. This shows that competitive advantage (e.g. in forest product production) is not entirely dependent on having a natural advantage.
Figure 17 Historical trends in comparative levels of industrial roundwood production in Nordic countries and the four Southern plantation producers
Source: derived from FAO (1997b).
Figure 18 compares historical industrial roundwood production levels in the four Southern plantation producers with three of the main industrial roundwood producers in Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines). This figure highlights the point that large tracts of natural forests are likely result in considerable natural advantage in the short-run, but that this advantage may eventually diminish if the sector is not managed carefully.
In this case, for example, the Philippines had considerable natural advantage in the 1960's due to the vast extent of natural forests there. However, due to overexploitation, this advantage has largely disappeared such that the Philippines in now only a relatively minor producer of industrial roundwood in the region. Malaysia and Indonesia began large-scale harvesting of industrial roundwood from their natural forests later in the period and have benefited from the natural advantage of having a large forest resource throughout much of the 1970's and 1980's. There have been signs in the 1990's however, that the fast-growing forest plantations in the four Southern plantation producers have even begun to capture market share from these two countries.
Figure 18 Historical trends in comparative levels of industrial roundwood production in Southeast Asia and the four Southern plantation producers
Source: derived from FAO (1997b).
A more complex theory that explains why some countries are better at certain economic activities than others is the theory of competitive advantage. In terms of competitive advantage, natural advantage is only one amongst a number of factors that determine whether a country has an advantage in a sector. Competitive advantage in a particular sector (at a national level) is generally defined as a country's ability to achieve higher rates of growth and profitability and a larger international market share than other countries can in that sector. The "Porter Diamond" (shown in Figure 19 below) displays the main elements of competitive advantage at the national level.
Figure 19 The Porter Diamond: the core elements of competitive advantage
Firm Strategy Structure and rivalry
Related and supporting industries
Source: Porter (1998).
The Porter Diamond (Porter, 1998) suggests that national competitive advantage can be achieved by bringing together the following four key elements:
1. firm strategy, structure and rivalry - strong domestic competition, forcing firms to develop efficient structures and clear strategies for success, is a core component of success;
2. factor endowments - some degree of natural advantage, such as a large natural resource or a skilled labour force;
3. demand conditions - viable markets exist and these are characterised by strong and efficient competition; and
4. related and supporting industries - a strong supporting infrastructure, enabling cost effective delivery to markets.
Porter argues that long-term competitive advantage is dependent on countries' (and the firms within a country) capacities to innovate and upgrade. These capacities, in turn, arise from competition, pressure and challenge. Innovation interacts with the other important conditions for competitiveness to determine overall advantage. The other key conditions are a strongly competitive domestic market, well developed infrastructure and a network of supporting industries and some degree of advantage, or competitiveness, in the factors of production (for example, skilled labour). However, Porter also specifically emphasises the role of government and the role of chance in determining success.
In terms of the forestry sector, a country's competitiveness in terms of producing industrial roundwood from forest plantations, might then be determined by the following:
1. strong and active competition between domestic forest growers, leading to well-developed plantation management techniques and practices and an industry that is attuned to innovation and enterprise (firm strategy, structure and rivalry);
2. natural advantages in land availability and forest plantation yields, combined with a well-trained workforce (factor endowments);
3. a strong domestic processing and manufacturing industry that is familiar with the types of species grown in the country's forest plantations (demand conditions); and
4. efficient infrastructure (i.e. strong clusters of interacting and supporting industries, for example: seed orchards; nurseries; specialised equipment manufacture or servicing industries; harvesting contractors; and transport companies), strong forest research capability and a policy environment that encourages enterprise (related and supporting industries).
The countries that will be most successful at producing industrial roundwood from forest plantations are likely to be those that most effectively develop and bring together this range of attributes. By doing so, they will create a competitive advantage over both other countries with significant forest plantation resources and countries with significant forest sectors based on natural forest resources.
The theory developed by Porter also suggests that, in the long-run, international competitiveness cannot be based on exogenous factors such as exchange rate advantages, low interest rates, or low labour costs. Invariably, these advantages will gradually be eroded over time by a country's success.
In the forestry sector this latter point is demonstrated by the strong performance of a number of relatively high-cost, developed countries, most notably in North America and Europe. Of particular interest are examples in the wider forestry sector, of where high-cost countries have developed competitive advantage without having any real natural advantages in the forest sector. Some examples include: the furniture industry in Italy; paper industries in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands; and the particleboard industry in Belgium. Conversely, there are a number of examples of developing countries where the cost advantages of significant endowments of high-value natural forests have been exploited and exhausted, without sufficient investment in developing the other attributes required to sustain international competitiveness.
Due to the many infrastructural and technical advantages that developed countries already have, such countries also already have significant competitive advantage in the forestry sector. It might be thought therefore, that these countries would develop significant forestry sectors and that developing countries would be dissuaded from investing in forest plantations. This, however, ignores the importance of the theory of comparative advantage in determining production patterns.
This theory, in essence, suggests that it is not absolute advantage (i.e. the ability to produce a good more efficiently than anywhere else can) that necessarily determines where that good will be produced. Rather the comparative advantage (i.e. the ability to produce that good most efficiently relative to all other production opportunities in the country) is of crucial importance. In other words, comparative advantage is held by the country that has the lowest opportunity cost of producing the good in question (see Box 3 below).22
Theories of natural, competitive and comparative advantage attempt to explain how patterns of industrial development have arisen in the past and to provide means to assess how these patterns might evolve in the future. They are useful for understanding why some countries are more successful in developing manufacturing industries, while other countries remain producers and exporters of basic commodities and raw materials. In common with most economic theories, the theories of advantage are based on the theory of efficient allocation of resources.
At their most fundamental level, the theories of advantage would suggest that forest plantations will be established in countries where the costs of producing industrial roundwood in forest plantations are lowest and where there are no more profitable uses for the land used for forest plantations.
Box 3 An example of comparative advantage
Comparative advantage can be most easily explained with the aid of a simple example. The table below presents some hypothetical figures about the annual cost (per hectare) of growing pine and teak in forest plantations in two countries. In the example, Country A has an advantage over Country B in the production of both species (i.e. lower production costs in both cases). However, Country B has a comparative advantage in growing pine. That is, by producing pine, Country B produces roundwood at only 70% (250/350) of the cost of the alternative (i.e. producing teak). In the case of Country A, producing pine would cost 80% of the alternative of producing teak. Therefore, Country B has a comparative advantage in the production of pine because the benefit of doing this rather than the alternative (i.e. growing teak) is greater than in Country A.
To demonstrate this further, if each country had only 100 hectares of land to devote to forest plantations, the example shows that the most efficient result would be for Country B to grow 100 hectares of pine and Country A to grow 100 hectares of teak. In this instance, the total cost of producing 100 hectares of each species in this way would be $50,000, compared with $52,500 if each country grew 50 hectares of each species.
Area (ha) |
Pine Costs ($/ha) |
Teak Costs ($/ha) |
50 ha Pine Cost ($) |
50 ha Teak Cost ($) |
Total Cost ($) |
100 ha Pine Cost ($) |
100 ha Teak Cost ($) |
Total Cost ($) | |
Country A |
100 |
200 |
250 |
10,000 |
12,500 |
22,500 |
0 |
25,000 |
25,000 |
Country B |
100 |
250 |
350 |
12,500 |
17,500 |
30,000 |
25,000 |
0 |
25,000 |
Total |
200 |
22,500 |
30,000 |
52,500 |
25,000 |
25,000 |
50,000 |
At the centre of comparative advantage theory is the point that each country has finite resources (particularly land). Thus, although a country may hold an absolute advantage in the production of a particular good, it does not necessarily mean that it is most efficient for that country to produce that good. Specialisation and trade can result in a better outcome for all concerned. This explains, for example, why Manhattan Island in New York is not used for forest plantations, even though trees might grow very quickly there.
22 Porter's theory of competitive advantage, in part, attempts to explain why differences arise in opportunity costs between countries. It provides an alternative explanation to the earlier Heckscher-Ohlin theorem, which assumed productivity of factors are homogenous between countries and argues that a country has a comparative advantage in goods that make intensive use of the country's relatively abundant factors. A more detailed discussion can be found in, for example, Salvatore (1996).
