1. The Faustmann equation itself The Faustmann equation is absolutely fundamental, as all forest economists know, but why is it that virtually no practical forest manager follows it? Shouldn’t that signal something to our profession? Virtually no one anywhere harvests timber at an age corresponding to the simple Faustmann rule for financial maturity.
南京林业大学吧 关注：224,760贴子：6,206,826
- 3回复贴，共1页
For nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) land managers, some have entirely different nontimber objectives for their forests; others combine income from timber with other objectives. For both, timber management and harvest decisions are more complex than simple variations on Faustmann and we shouldn’t expect applications of Faustmann to predict the behavior of these landowners. For still others, timber management is primarily an income-generating activity, but market timing and immediate family needs, rather than applications of Faustmann, seem to be better predictors of their harvest decisions.
Governments are a third landowner category. In many countries they are the largest landowner. Government forestry agencies must respond to public values for nontimber forest services as well as for commercial timber, and also to different political motivations and budget constraints. But even when governments profess to follow economics in their commercial timber management, they tend to introduce their own version of ‘sustainable yield’with little and generally convoluted reference to fundamental economics.
Governments are a third landowner category. In many countries they are the largest landowner. Government forestry agencies must respond to public values for nontimber forest services as well as for commercial timber, and also to different political motivations and budget constraints. But even when governments profess to follow economics in their commercial timber management, they tend to introduce their own version of ‘sustainable yield’with little and generally convoluted reference to fundamental economics.
The problem becomes even more complex than the assessment of each specific landowner
category when we attempt to explain the forest economics of a region that includes two or more of these landowner categories and, within them, both managed forests and mature natural forests at and beyond the boundary of viable commercial operation. There have been at least two attempts to explain forestry across this entire complex landscape (Angelson, 2000; Hyde, 2000, 2012) and one econometric application (Zhang et al., 2000), but one might question how widely these are known and accepted. As yet, no one has developed the full mathematical economic model explaining this complete landscape of multiple owner categories with multiple objectives possessing bothmanaged and mature natural forests both within and beyond the frontier of economic activity.
category when we attempt to explain the forest economics of a region that includes two or more of these landowner categories and, within them, both managed forests and mature natural forests at and beyond the boundary of viable commercial operation. There have been at least two attempts to explain forestry across this entire complex landscape (Angelson, 2000; Hyde, 2000, 2012) and one econometric application (Zhang et al., 2000), but one might question how widely these are known and accepted. As yet, no one has developed the full mathematical economic model explaining this complete landscape of multiple owner categories with multiple objectives possessing bothmanaged and mature natural forests both within and beyond the frontier of economic activity.
Stability, as one condition of the macroeconomic and political environment, deserves special
attention. Economists know that stability, or at least predictability, is a necessary condition for any long-term investment – including long-term investments in forestry. Forest economists, most of whom have been educated in developed countries with relatively stable economic and political environments, tend to overlook this condition when we assess forest activity. Yet instability alone can dominate all other factors in the determination of a successful forest sector. Macroeconomic and/or political instability is often the most basic source of forest degradation and deforestation (e.g. Deacon, 1994), as well as the reason that forest management remains unattractive in some countries even where high prices for forest products and low costs for forest management might suggest greater opportunity.
These questions of macroeconomic market and policy impacts on forest management decision making deserve greater recognition. That will come only with further assessments by forest economists showing the effects of the macroeconomic environment on local and regional forests in a variety of situations. Many, but certainly not all, of these analyses will have to feature developing countries with significant forest sectors and contrasting recent periods of significant
economic and political variability.
attention. Economists know that stability, or at least predictability, is a necessary condition for any long-term investment – including long-term investments in forestry. Forest economists, most of whom have been educated in developed countries with relatively stable economic and political environments, tend to overlook this condition when we assess forest activity. Yet instability alone can dominate all other factors in the determination of a successful forest sector. Macroeconomic and/or political instability is often the most basic source of forest degradation and deforestation (e.g. Deacon, 1994), as well as the reason that forest management remains unattractive in some countries even where high prices for forest products and low costs for forest management might suggest greater opportunity.
These questions of macroeconomic market and policy impacts on forest management decision making deserve greater recognition. That will come only with further assessments by forest economists showing the effects of the macroeconomic environment on local and regional forests in a variety of situations. Many, but certainly not all, of these analyses will have to feature developing countries with significant forest sectors and contrasting recent periods of significant
economic and political variability.
