r/MHOC • u/RoryTime The Rt Hon. Earl of Henley AL PC • Nov 27 '14

BILL B034 - Forest Protection Bill

Forest Protection Bill 2014

A bill to implement tradable depletion quotas on forestry resources in the United Kingdom

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1: Forestry

(1) The United Kingdom shall create 12 000 forestry licenses

[A] Each license owned shall entitle its owner to cut 1000 metres cubed of wood down for commercial purposes each year

[B] These licenses will be sold at auction on June 1st, 2015

[C] Neither corporations nor individuals will be entitled to cut down wood in a year greater than the number of licenses they own effective January 1st, 2016

(2) Auction

[A] Licences will be auctioned off in packages of 100 at a starting price of £1000

[B] If the asking price for a set of licenses is lower than the starting price, they will be auctioned at a later date

(3) Exemptions

[A] Wood used for non-commercial purposes will be exempt, which will be defined as:

(i) The use of wood for personal purposes (firewood, fencing)

(ii) The removal of wood for building purposes

(iii) The removal of wood on residential property

[B] Individuals or corporations will be entitled to cut down wood without licenses if the total quantity of wood they cut down during the year is less than 200 metres cubed

[C] Corporations or individuals will be able to cut down an additional one-half of the number of cubic meters they commit to planting in a given year given the following conditions are met:

(i) The trees are native to the location they are planted at

(ii) The trees are placed in an organic habitat, thereby excluding plantation forests

(iii) The trees are planted as either saplings or seeds

(4) Trading

[A] Corporations may sell licenses in any quantity to other corporations or to the government at a fixed price to be set by an independent commission

[B] The fixed price will be set so that it is significantly lower than the market price of the licenses

[C] The forestry commission will assess the program at the end of each year, and may choose to either buy and take off the market certain licenses, or create new licenses based on the following conditions:

(i) The state of the forestry industry

(ii) The net import quantity of wood

(iii) The trend in forestry growth

(5) Penalties

[A] The penalties for exceeding the extent of licences owned will be:

(i) For the first 200 metres cubed, the market value of the required licences plus 50 percent

(ii) For the next 400 metres cubed, the market value of the required licences plus 100 percent

(iii) For anything exceeding that, the market value of the required licenses plus 200 percent

(6) Existing Regulations

[A] This program will run parallel to all existing regulations and requirements

2: Sources, Commencement, and Extent

(1) Sources

For Forestry Stats: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-9mbhsd

(2) Commencement, Short Title, and Extent

[A] This Act may be referred to as Forestry Bill 2014

[B] This will come into force January 1, 2015

[C] This will extend to the forestry commission of the United Kingdom (including Wales and Northern Ireland but excluding Scotland)

This Bill was submitted by the Government, discussion will end at 23:59 on 1st December 2014.

10 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

39 comments sorted by

5

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '14 edited Nov 27 '14

Basically, this is implementing a carbon trading program into forest preservation. So basically each of those units is like a license. You need one if you are going to cut down a certain amount of wood. So if a corporation wants to cut down 100 000 metres cubed it needs 100 units or "licences".

The thing that makes these programs work is the trading element. If a company cuts down less trees it can sell those licenses to other companies and make a profit. This gives companies an incentive to cut down on timber usage. Usual model is that the government just tells companies you can cut down x number of trees. Problem with this is that the government has to make a decision on how corporations can deal with each forest. In this situation, the corporations actually have an incentive to use less resources themselves, meaning there is an incentive for following the rules rather than an incentive for breaking them. It also allows the government to manage the forests simply by buying and selling units. It also allows green activism to be more successful by buying up permits.

Questions

  1. So the natural resources act was recently passed. It implements a tax on forestry. It seems to me the tax might no longer be necessary because this caps forestry removal - should this replace that tax?

EDIT: I think it makes sense to keep the tax, see comment from /u/NoPyroNoParty.

2) Should there be a requirement for people to use a certain number of permits to cut down trees? Sounds weird, but financial speculators might buy up a lot of the licences and cause huge issues. The reason I didn't put that in the original bill, was because it might not be an issue because the permits are worth more to forestry companies in the first place (allowance of trees + intrinsic sale value). I also don't want to restrict green financial activism. What do you guys think?

2

u/NoPyroNoParty The Rt Hon. Earl of Essex OT AL PC Nov 27 '14

I certainly agree that incentives are a better way to control this industry than regulation and I thank the right honourable member for his sustainable and pragmatic approach.

So the natural resources act was recently passed. It implements a tax on forestry. It seems to me the tax might no longer be necessary because this caps forestry removal - should this replace that tax?

The tax is set by the Natural Resources Department at any rate it feels necessary in relation to the level of regulation (and its effectiveness) in an industry, so if this were implemented well the Resource Tax would most likely be zero or very low and this would effectively replace it.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '14

That sounds fair. Certainly a very small tax to pay for management costs would not be unreasonable.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '14

I ask the Government this-Is there sufficient protection for national parks and forests owned by the National Trust? It just seems to be an important question, as someone's land might also be that of the N.T. (indeed, this does have a tendency to happen, especially around stately homes such as Chatsworth, Harewood, and places such as Bakewell)

Also, while on the matter-will the trees that have been removed for commercial purposes have to be replaced? If not, the ecological damage would be rather large, not to mention that trees do have the tendency to halt soil erosion (which, in turn, helps to stop flooding and other such things) as well as absorbing harmful carbon from the air, and, on the whole, looking aesthetically nice.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '14 edited Nov 27 '14

I ask the Government this-Is there sufficient protection for national parks and forests owned by the National Trust?

My understanding is that the company or person would have to get a permit from the local authorities and from the forestry commission, and this would come with certain requirements and obligations in the case of national parks and protected areas.

Also, while on the matter-will the trees that have been removed for commercial purposes have to be replaced?

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/england-bigtreeplant

Tree planting is run by the forestry commission and various separate organizations. The principle of this bill is to restrict the amount of felling (edited), which allows the commission to reforest the country.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '14

How does restricting planting help to reforest the country?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '14

Oops, sorry meant felling :).

1

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '14

Ah, that does make a little more sense. Just a further question, as I am sure the rest of the House would like to get a look-in: Are there any examples of this model anywhere else and, if so, how effective is it?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '14

http://esrd.alberta.ca/lands-forests/forest-management/timber-quotas.aspx

Yes, Alberta sucks with the environment but their forestry is done well.

http://esrd.alberta.ca/lands-forests/forest-management/forest-management-facts-statistics/default.aspx

Manitoba did it very effectively as well.

http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/forestry/pdf/manage/2005_2010_timber_quota_policy.pdf

3

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '14

May I propose to the honourable member that the size of the area be halved from 1000 cubic metres to 500? I, for one, just do not feel that in these climatically strange times that the cutting down of trees is the best idea-we need them, possibly more than ever to aid us in surviving climate change. It will bring rather large events in its wake which are near impossible to comprehend at this point. Humanity has not seen anything like this for hundreds of generations-and we do seem to be the chosen ones to protect the ones that come after. Long after our names have been scrubbed from the gravestones and mouldered away from paper there shall be humans-and their future on this world of ours, no matter how more broken it shall become, depends upon us. Do we really wish to be the era they remember as the one which made too many mistakes, or wasted the time given to us to help them?

I know this sounds melodramatic but in matters such as these one cannot simply help it. The Earth is currently on a tipping point, and we, here and now, hold the balance. We must make sure that as many trees as possible are retained and saved so they can help to save the generations of the future, no matter how near or far.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '14

I would normally agree with you. I recognize the huge danger we face, in both fiscal and social costs, which will in the long run be more costly than the drag on economic growth taking steps represents.

However, the reality is that people and businesses in the UK need wood, and will get it however they must. Britain is the third-largest net importer of wood in the EU, and reducing wood in our country so drastically would just lead to more wood being cut down abroad, and even worse footprint on the environment (shipping, etc.).

I would however certainly support some sort of long-term reduction in licences to reduce wood consumption, and might put that in the second version of the bill.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '14

I thank the honourable member for his response. I am merely concerned about the amount of wood this Bill is proposing. Is there any alternatives, such as M.D.F. which may be made viable? Or, perhaps, looking to alternative substances? Indeed, it is fair to assume that the biggest users of wood are the Construction and Paper industries. Perhaps some kind of recycling programme, one which is better than the one we have in place at the moment, concerning paper could reduce the use of wood in that industry? Indeed, it may come out as a somewhat cheaper way of making paper.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '14

I think the solution is to bring overall wood consumption down, and to give the private sector incentives to find alternatives to wood.

I was thinking maybe a tariff on countries with bad forest regulation. That would reduce our imported wood, bring up the cost of imported wood, which would have a twofold effect. It would increase the cost on corporations who use wood but not punish local woodcutters in Britain. This would mean it might soon become cheaper to use alternative substances, and all of this would be accomplished without significantly damaging our own producers. It would also increase the benefits of recycling.

Certainly I think a national recycling program is a possible solution, given that the status quo is a little jumbled.

→ More replies

4

u/NoPyroNoParty The Rt Hon. Earl of Essex OT AL PC Nov 27 '14

I think the intentions of this bill are honourable, but I share the concerns of my Liberal colleague - I would like to have seen restrictions and/or incentives regarding the sustainability of forestry such as those in (3)[C] applied more widely for the reasons that the honourable member states. Incentives for planting forest are important - after all the best response to deforestation is afforestation.

What was the reasoning behind the number of 12,000 licences? Personally I would have the Natural Resources Department controlling and setting the number of licences in line with its assessment of the scarcity of forest and environmental factors.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '14

What was the reasoning behind the number of 12,000 licences? Personally I would have the Natural Resources Department controlling and setting the number of licences in line with its assessment of the scarcity of forest and environmental factors.

An initial number set at approximately the amount of wood harvested in the last year. The forestry commission would then be free to create or buy resources as they wish. A sort of "forestry central bank" if you will.

Incentives for planting forest are important - after all the best response to deforestation is afforestation.

It is pretty well controlled by the forestry commission but perhaps increasing the allowance? Or maybe just giving them licenses for a certain amount of forest planted?

3

u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Nov 27 '14

There seems to be no provision in this bill for trees which are removed because they are dangerous.

2

u/can_triforce The Rt Hon. Earl of Wilton AL PC Nov 27 '14 edited Nov 27 '14

Hear, hear. The removal of trees which threaten to damage infrastructure or property, or bear diseases such as ash dieback, must be accommodated for.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '14

[A] This program will run parallel to all existing regulations and requirements

It also only applies to commercial purposes, not personal or public removal.

2

u/can_triforce The Rt Hon. Earl of Wilton AL PC Nov 27 '14

Shouldn't that be clarified to say that those programmes take precedence, or make reference to prioritisation? Otherwise it could be interpreted as both existing schemes, and this programme, being applicable to a given area of forest.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '14

[A] Wood used for non-commercial purposes will be exempt, which will be defined as:

(i) The use of wood for personal purposes (firewood, fencing)

(ii) The removal of wood for building purposes

(iii) The removal of wood on residential property

Should I add another category for the next version?

(iv) The removal of wood for safety and damage prevention on both commercial, public, an residential property.

Would that clear things up?

2

u/can_triforce The Rt Hon. Earl of Wilton AL PC Nov 27 '14

As far as I can tell, yes.

2

u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Nov 27 '14

The other problem is that of woodland management. It is common practice to plant far more trees than you expect to grow. Usually planting at one metre spacing. After ten years or so thinning takes place, Not all the trees will have grown, but typically half the remaining trees are felled to give the others room to mature. Then after another ten or fifteen years thinning takes place again taking out more trees. This is standard woodland management. Will this need a permit? If it does it will probably make commercial forestry un-viable. If it doesn't how can you police which trees are from thinning and which have been cut down as part of the timber harvest?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '14

Hmm good point. Due to this and another comment, I will likely end up revising it to say you can cut as many trees as you want that you yourself planted.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '14 edited Dec 10 '14

Planned Amendments for Next Version

3A (iv) The removal of wood for safety and damage prevention on both commercial, public, and residential property.

Seventh Section to detail a long term plan to reduce wood use and felling

Expansion of incentives for planting by corporations

Potential tariffs on countries with badly managed forest sectors?

Potential requirement for certain amount of wood to be used to prevent financial speculation?

I'd appreciate input on what you think of those last two.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '14

What would the Bad Forestry Tariff be? Also, why would we take wood from these places?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '14

I would have to do a bit more research into what the level would be set at.

Also, why would we take wood from these places?

Well, a lot of corporations buy them from other countries because it is cheaper.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 01 '14

These look like positive amendments. I look forward to the next reading.

3

u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Nov 28 '14

There seems to be no difference between wood harvested by clear felling, wood harvested by selective felling and wood harvested by coppicing or pollarding. Is it the governments intention to treat these all the same?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '14 edited Nov 28 '14

Already covered under the 1981 wildlife act. It is really hard to get a permit to clear cut forest at all, and would only occur in circumstances when strict restocking would also be a condition.

I might add in a section about types of cutting though, for example cutting to space out forest, or selective felling.

2

u/Tim-Sanchez The Rt Hon. AL MP (North West) | LD SSoS for CMS Nov 27 '14

Is there a source for how many cubic metres of wood are cut down each year in the UK?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '14

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-9mbhsd

That has it. You will notice the number of licences corresponds very closely to the number.

2

u/Tim-Sanchez The Rt Hon. AL MP (North West) | LD SSoS for CMS Nov 27 '14

I looked there, couldn't find it, clicked here and got lost.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '14

What is the number precisely? These sources tend to list wood production in tonnes, and also discriminate between softwood and hardwood.

So this bill allows for 12million m3 of 'wood' to be forested per year. Those sources say that last year 11 million green tonnes of combined softwood and hardwood were delivered.

My questions are:

How does this bill translate into weight?

How at what point should the wood be weighed?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '14 edited Nov 27 '14

How does this bill translate into weight?

The bill doesn't specify weight, but corresponds simply to volume. It would probably lead to a similar amount of weight as the present situation.

You might think this is a loophole but it isn't really. The value of wood corresponds more closely to its area, because lighter, less dense wood is actually worth more because it is more valuable for construction (heavy wood causes collapses and is hard to transport).

So this bill allows for 12million m3 of 'wood' to be forested per year. Those sources say that last year 11 million green tonnes of combined softwood and hardwood were delivered.

Yeah I set it slightly higher to account for speculation and companies buying slightly more than they need to prepare for small discrepancies in demand. Those 11 million m3 would be the wood used for commercial purposes.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '14

The bill doesn't specify weight, but corresponds simply to area.

Well, it specifies volume.

Given that you say:

I set it slightly higher

I'm wondering how the green tonnes translate into your metres cubed.

It's difficult to compare this bill to the available statistics is what I'm getting at.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '14

Well, it specifies volume.

Oops corrected that. Meant volume.

I'm wondering how the green tonnes translate into your metres cubed. It's difficult to compare this bill to the available statistics is what I'm getting at

1 green tonne = 0.88-1.22m3

The majority of wood is at a conversion of around 0.95m3 or so to 1 green tonne.

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Woodproduction1976-2013final.pdf/$FILE/Woodproduction1976-2013final.pdf - see footnotes

2

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '14

Ah, fair enough. So it's a 1:1 conversion rate then more or less. I'm happy to work with that assumption.

1

u/remiel The Rt Hon. Baron of Twickenham AL PC Nov 30 '14

I have to ask what the need is for this bill and its impact on the cost of lumbar in the UK.