United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-538

June 2002

A Comparative Study of

Forestry in Finland, Norway,

Sweden, and the United States,

with Special Emphasis on Policy Measures

for Nonindustrial Private Forests in Norway

and the United States

Berit Hauger Lindstad
Berit Hauger Lindstad is advisor, Ministry of Agriculture, Forest Department, P.O. Box

8007 Dep., 0030 Oslo, Norway.

Cover photo by Norsk Skogbruk.

Author
Abstract Lindstad, Berit Hauger. 2002. A comparative study of forestry in Finland, Norway,

Sweden, and the United States, with special emphasis on policy measures for

nonindustrial private forests in Norway and the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-538. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 35 p.

In recognition of the cultural, economic, and ecological importance of forestry in Finland,

Norway, Sweden, and the United States, this paper compares forest resource data,

ownership patterns, management issues, and the impact the forest sector has on the

national economies of these four countries. There is particular emphasis on the analysis

of policy measures that affect nonindustrial private forests (NIPFs) in Norway and the

United States. This comparison of similarities and differences in the management of

NIPFs serves to identify different solutions to common challenges faced by the forest

sectors of Norway and the United States.

Keywords: Nonindustrial private forests, NIPFs, forest policy, forest regulations,

ownership, taxation, economics, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United States, Nordic.
Forests and forest products have a long history of cultural, economic, and ecological

importance both in the Nordic countries and the United States. There is an increasing

awareness of forestry issues that a single nation cannot effectively address (climate

change and biodiversity). Forest-related questions are thus higher on the international

agenda. To address this, regional and international initiatives have been taken to help

ensure sustainable management of the world’s forests.

Awareness of the differences and similarities between regions and countries is important

for understanding the variations in current situations and possible effects of various

initiatives discussed in regional and international processes. I compare forestry issues

in three Nordic countries and the United States to increase the understanding of

differences and similarities between and within two broad regions.

Nonindustrial private forests (NIPFs) are important in the Nordic countries and the

United States, and they are managed with complex and varied objectives. In this paper,

I compare some main characteristics of forestry in Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the

United States. I then take a closer look at NIPF owners and policy measures affecting

NIPFs in Norway and the United States. Current policies and their effects are described

and compared. These initial comparisons illustrate the complexities and challenges

associated with ongoing intergovernmental dialogues on forest-related issues. In closing,

I give some preliminary conclusions and recommendations for further studies and topics

for further investigation.

Foreword
Contents 1 Introduction

1 Forest Resources

4 Ownership and Management

6 The Forest Sector in the National Economy

8 Policy Measures Affecting Nonindustrial Private Forests in Norway and the

United States

8 The Policy Measures and Their Interaction

9 Regulatory Measures

15 Economic Measures

23 Information and Extension Services

26 Comparison of Policy Measures Affecting Nonindustrial Private

Forests in Norway and the United States

27 Evaluations of Policy Measures

28 Closing Remarks

32 Acknowledgments

32 English Equivalents

33 References
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
Introduction

1

This study compares basic forest figures between the United States and the Nordic

countries. Forest resource data, ownership patterns, production and management issues,

and the importance of forestry in the national economy are described. Regional data for

the United States and national data for each of Finland, Norway, and Sweden are compared.

The intent is to present a general picture of the differences and similarities between the

regions and countries.

Table 1 presents the total land area and land use patterns for the Nordic countries and

the United States, based on The World Resources Institute et al. (1996), data table 9.1.

Land area of the United States is almost 10 times greater than the Nordic countries combined. Land use patterns show significant differences between the countries. Forests

and woodlands dominate the landscape in Finland and Sweden but cover less than onethird of the land area in Norway and the United States.

These aggregated numbers hide great regional differences; for example, the extent of

forest cover in the United States ranges from 90 percent of the land area in Maine to

only 1 percent in the Northern Plains states such as North Dakota and Nebraska. Further,

the numbers reflect both the natural conditions and, to some extent, the differences in

human-induced land use. For example, the abundance of “other land” in Norway results

from large nonproductive mountainous areas, whereas human activity influences the

proportion of “cropland and permanent pasture” in the United States. Note that the area

under “forest and woodland” in table 1 does not correspond to the area of “forests and

other wooded land” in table 2. The differences for Norway and the United States are

Forest Resources

Forest and Cropland and

Country Land area woodland permanent pasture Other land

In 1000 ha - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent of land area - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Finland 30 461 76 9 15

Norway 30 683 27 3 70

Sweden 41 162 68 8 24

United States 957 311 30 45 25

a Based on The World Resources Institute et al. 1996.

Table 1—Land area and use, 1981-93a

Table 2—Forest resources, 1990

Forests and

 other Forests without legal, economic, or technical

wooded land restrictions on wood production

Forest area Growing Net annual

Country Area Area per capita stock increment Fellings

Million ha Million ha Ha - - Million cubic meters over bark - -

Finland 23.4 19.5 3.91 1 679 69.7 55.9

Norway 9.6 6.6 1.57 571 17.6 11.8

Sweden 28.0 22.0 2.58 2 471 91.0 57.5

United States 296.0 195.6 .78 23 092 763.7 619.6

Source: The UN-ECE/FAO 1990 forest resource assessment, in Metla 1997a.
2

rather high, pointing to inconsistency in data collection and differences in aggregating

and reporting national and international databases. Data inconsistency is a recurring

issue in this paper because it makes relevant comparisons more difficult.

Comparable to these national variations, forests and woodlands cover about 40 percent

of the global land area according to the United Nations Economic Commission for

Europe/ Food and Agricultural Organization (UN-ECE/FAO) forest resources assessments

1990 (FAO 1995). Of this, forests cover about 27 percent (just over 3400 million ha), and

other wooded land cover the rest (some 1700 million ha). The total growing stock on

forest lands in 1990 was 383 700 million m3 

.

Protected forests and forest withdrawn from production are not easily compared because

there are inconsistent definitions and different practical implications of the classification

systems. Therefore, the different protection schemes in the four countries result in

numbers that are not directly comparable.

According to Finnish Forest Statistics (Metla 1997a), “of the total forested area of 23.0

million ha, 1.2 million ha (5 percent) are nature conservation areas where all forestry

activities are prohibited.” In Norway, some 0.2 million ha (1.7 percent) of forest lands are

strictly protected in national parks and reserves, out of which less than 1 percent is

productive forest. This number does not include all forest areas protected because of

special environmental or recreational values. Forest areas with restrictions in landscape

conservation areas and the forest surrounding the city of Oslo involves another 0.2 million

ha. The Forest Act defines forests near the mountains and along the coast as “protection

forests,” which means forest operations are restricted but not prohibited. Three million

ha of these “protection forests” are not included in statistics as protected areas in Norway.

According to Swedish forest statistics (Skogstyrelsen 1997) 3.6 percent, or 0.83 million

ha, of productive forest land is protected. In the United States, “about 19 million ha of

forest land (6 percent of all U.S. forest land) is reserved from commercial timber harvest,

in wilderness, parks and other classifications” (Smith et al. 1994).

In general, the area of forests not utilized for timber production, in both the United States

and the Nordic countries, is likely to increase because of political protection and

economic reasons.

The following discussion is concentrated on forests without legal, economic, or technical

restrictions on wood production in the four countries.

The share of forests without legal, economic, or technical restrictions on wood production

in 1990 was more abundant in Finland (83.3 percent) and Sweden (78.6 percent) than in

Norway (68.8 percent) and the United States (66.1 percent) (table 2). “Forest area per

capita” shows a similar pattern, with greater differences between the countries; for

instance, Finland has five times more forest per capita than the United States.

Breaking down and comparing the data from table 2 illustrates the current situation and

management of wood-producing forests. These numbers, however, represent the average,

and aggregated numbers often hide important variations. Also, the comparison is valid
3

only for the period covered by the UN-ECE/FAO 1990 forest resource assessment.

Comparison of other periods or different data sources would certainly change some of

the results.

The growing stock, the net annual increment, and the fellings per ha of these forests give

a picture of the average resource base, growth, and harvesting intensity in each country.

Net annual increment (NAI) is the gross increment less natural losses over a given

period. The average resource base (i.e., growing stock per area) is highest for Sweden

and the United States and considerably (almost 30 percent) lower for Finland and Norway

(table 3). Sweden has the highest average growth (i.e., net annual increment per area),

with the United States following closely. Finland’s average growth is lower than Sweden’s,

whereas in Norway, the average growth in forests available for wood production is more

than 30 percent below that in Sweden. The resource base and the average growth are a

mixed result of earlier management and forest growing potential for each country.

The United States has the highest harvesting intensity (i.e., felling per area), followed by

Finland, Sweden, and lastly, Norway, which is more than 40 percent below the United

States. According to the given statistics, the United States and Finland harvested 80

percent of their average annual growth, whereas Norway and Sweden harvested 67 and

63 percent of their average and annual growth, respectively. For harvesting intensity and

harvesting ratio (i.e., felling as proportion of NAI), however, the average national numbers

can hide both regional variations and differences between tree species.

Together with wood resources, the forests host and supply a number of other values.

Unfortunately, these values are less easily measured and valued in economic terms.

Together with wood fibers used for fuel and industrial products, forests can provide other

valuable nontimber products (e.g., game for hunting). The forests also provide a variety

of services; environmental services (soil protection, water quality and regulation, genetic

and biotic conservation, pollution buffering, and carbon storage) and leisure and other

services (outdoor recreation, aesthetic, and intangible) (Brooks 1993).

Resource base Average growth Harvesting Harvesting ratio

(growing (net annual intensity (fellings/net

Country stock/area) increment/area) (fellings/area) annual increment)

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cubic meters over bark/ha - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Finland 86.1 3.6 2.9 0.80

Norway 86.5 2.7 1.8 .67

Sweden 112.3 4.1 2.6 .63

United States 118.1 3.9 3.1 .81

a Averages for forests without legal, economic, or technical restrictions on wood production in each

country.

Table 3—The resource base, growth, harvesting intensity, and harvesting ratioa
4

The number of forest enterprises and their size distribution must be considered when

discussing a country’s forest policy and management of its forest resources. The proportion

of public and private forest land is also important. Management goals associated with the

two types of ownership may differ, and their on-the-ground management may interact

differently with forest policy. Statistics show that smaller owners are likely to manage

their forests less intensively than larger owners; for example, smaller owners usually

harvest timber less frequently.

The United States has an estimated 9.9 million private ownership units, defined as “persons,

combination of persons or legal entities, such as corporations, partnerships, clubs,

trusts, Indian tribes, and Native corporations. One person may own several parcels or

partial interest in several parcels. An ownership unit has the control of a parcel or group

of parcels of land” (Birch 1996). Data for total number of forest holdings in the Nordic

countries are not available, but the shares of forest area controlled by the different

owner groups are presented below.

Finland has a total of 439,189 nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) holdings. Of these,

almost 140,000 are small holdings with an estimated annual wood yield of less than 20

m3

. The number of other owner groups is not included in Metla (1997a), but the distribution

of forest land is 54.2 percent owned by private, 7.7 percent by industry, 33.4 percent by

the state, and 4.7 percent by “others.”

There are 245,220 forest enterprises in Sweden, of which almost 180,000 are predominantly forest enterprises (having less than 2 ha of arable land). Private persons,

ordinary partnerships, and estates of the deceased control almost 240,000 of the forest

enterprises (Skogstyrelsen 1997).

Norway has 125,522 forest properties; the central government or other public ownerships

own just over 1,000 of them. The predominant group among private owners is the 120,500

NIPF owners, including many farmers. The other private landholders are cooperative

ownerships, joint companies, institutions, joint stock companies, etc. Norway’s forest

industry owns very little property (Statistics Norway 1997).

Ownership and

Management

Figure 1—Timberland area by owner group (Metla 1997a, Skogstyrelsen 1997, Smith et al. 1994,

Statistics Norway 1997). NIPFs = nonindustrial private forest.
5

Figure 1 shows the distribution of timberland according to four owner categories in the

Nordic countries and the United States. Ownerships in the United States are also shown

at the regional level. The United States “national forests” refer to the National Forest

System managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. In the Nordic

countries, “national forests” refer to nationally owned forests, often called state forests.

“Other public” timberlands are county and municipality-owned forests; for the United States,

state-owned forests and federal forest land other than the national forests are also

included. For Sweden, the numbers for “company forests” refer to “forest industry”

although the definition of company forests is different from forest industry.

The definition of timberland differs somewhat between the countries as well. In the

Nordic countries, timberland is capable of producing 1 m3 • ha-1 • year-1, whereas in

the United States, timberland produces 1.4 m3 • ha-1 • year-1.

Private forests and, in particular, NIPF make up considerable shares of the timberland in

all these countries. Eighty percent of timberland in Norway is NIPF; the United States,

Finland, and Sweden follow in decreasing order. Sweden has the highest rate of privately

owned timberlands (90 percent) when its vast company forests are included. The variation

in ownership patterns between the United States regions is of interest. Almost 9 million

NIPF owners east of the Rocky Mountains (in the North and the South regions) control

80 percent of the total NIPF lands in the United States.

Figure 2 shows the share of harvest from timberland, according to owner group and region.

The four countries define “harvest” somewhat differently; it is a broader term in Finland

and Sweden. In Finland, loss in growing stock from fellings, silvicultural measures, and

natural mortality is used, whereas for Norway and the United States, the numbers

correspond to the harvested volume. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the harvesting intensity

within different owner groups by region. Again, the different definitions and annual variations

make these numbers unsuitable for wide-ranging conclusions about these four countries.

Figure 2—Annual harvest from timberland, by owner groups and regions (Metla 1997a, Skogstyrelsen

1997, Smith et al. 1994, Statistics Norway 1997). NIPF = nonindustrial private forests.
6

Brooks et al. (1996) found that in countries where data existed, the worldwide share of

industrial roundwood harvested from privately owned forests (40 percent) exceeded their

share of the land base by 10 percent. In data presented here, a similar comparison for

the Nordic countries and the United States yields a different result; the share of harvest

on private forest lands, including both forest industry and NIPFs, nearly equal its share

of the land base.

In Finland, the share of private harvest is slightly higher than its share of land; this might

result from data for NIPF removals that include some “other public owners.” Statistics

Norway (1997) does not present harvesting data separated on these ownership categories,

so comparison is not possible for Norway. Nonindustrial private forest owners in Sweden

have a higher removal rate than their share of land would indicate (see figs. 1 and 2). On

the other hand, the “company forests” in Sweden have lower rates of removal than their

share of land.

In the United States, there are regional variations; the abundant private forest lands of

the East (the North and South regions) support slightly more of the removals than their

share of the area. In the Rocky Mountains and on the Pacific Coast, the smaller proportions

of private forest lands support about 25 percent more removals than their share of the

area. Total removals in the United States from privately owned forests in 1991 were 82

percent, compared to a 73-percent share of forest land. After 1991, restrictions on harvest

on public land (both national forests and “other public”) resulted in a substantial reduction

of removals on these lands, especially in the Pacific Northwest. Although likely to

increase the share of harvest on private lands, increasing regulations on these lands

also may cause private harvests to decline.

Data for forestry and forest industries in each country’s national economy illustrate the

diverse importance of the forest sector to the countries.

Finnish statistics (Metla 1997b) provide information for 1996 and 1960, illustrating

historical changes. The value of exports of forest-related products in 1996 was 30

percent of the value of total Finish exports, compared to 75 percent in 1960. In 1996,

the share of forestry of the gross domestic product was 2.4 percent and 5.3 percent for

forest industries. The corresponding figures for 1960 were 8.7 and 7.1 percent,

respectively. In employment, forestry accounted for 1.2 percent (25,200 people) and

forest industry for 3.5 percent (73,500 people) in 1996. In 1960, the corresponding

figures were 6.6 and 5.2 percent, respectively.

In Norway, exports of forest-related products in 1995 were 11 percent of the total export

value from land-based activities (excluding oil and natural gas extractions, and

shipping). Employment in forestry has decreased from an average annual of 7,000 in

1986 to 5,000 in 1995 (Statistics Norway 1997). According to the Agricultural University

of Norway (NLH 1998), the number of people employed by the lumber industry has

steadily declined since 1990 (7,520 people) to 1995 (6,180), and in the pulp and paper

industry from 10,036 people in 1990 to 9,000 people in 1995. If transportation and other

forest-related employment are included, the numbers are higher.

Skogstyrelsen (1997) presents data for the export value of Swedish forest industry

products for 1991 to 1995. The export value in current prices almost tripled from 1991 to

The Forest Sector in

the National Economy
7

1995. At the same time, the export value of industry products as a percentage of gross

national product increased from 4.2 percent in 1991 to 5.7 percent in 1995. The share of

forest industry products as a percentage of all exports was 18.2 in 1991 and 16.7 in 1995.

For Sweden, the forest sector employed 26,300 people in 1996. This is less than 1 percent

of people employed by all branches of industry that year. The wood processing industry

employed 44,400 people (1.1 percent) and the pulp, paper, and paper goods industry

employed 49,200 people (1.2 percent of all branches of industry) (Skogstyrelsen 1997).

According to the National Research Council (1998), the U.S. Census Bureau estimated

nearly 1.3 million people were employed in wood-based industries across all forest ownerships in the United States in 1992. The National Research Council (1998) also cites the

American Forest and Paper Association’s estimate that wood-based industry employed

more than 1.6 million people in 1990 (4 percent in forestry, 53 percent in the lumber

industry, and 43 percent in the paper industry) as evidence of the economic importance

of this industry. The National Research Council (1998) uses the USDA Forest Service

and the National Association of State Foresters as examples of public sector employers.

The Forest Service had 31,135 permanent employees and, including seasonal and other

types of positions, had an equivalent of 38,330 full-time employees. Information from the

National Association of State Foresters indicates that in 1994, the state forestry agencies

had 16,865 permanent employees in the 50 states plus Washington, DC, and Guam, and

7,680 seasonal and temporary employees. “Other forest-related employment can be

found within counties, municipalities, private consulting firms, collages and universities,

and non-profit organizations” (National Research Council 1998).

The value of foreign trade in forest products for the four countries is compared with total

world numbers in table 4. Table 4 also shows the particular importance of forests and

forest industry in Finland and Sweden. Finland has less than 0.6 percent of the world’s

forest land, and Sweden has only 0.7 percent; their share of global growing stock is about

0.4 and 0.6 percent, respectively. Still, in 1995, Finland accounted for 9.2 percent of the

world’s export value of forest-related products, whereas Sweden accounted for 8.3

percent. As a result, Finland and Sweden are the world’s third and fourth largest exporters

of forestry-related products after Canada and the United States.

Table 4—Value of foreign trade of roundwood and forest industry products by

country, 1995a

World Finland Norway Sweden United States

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Million U.S. dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Roundwood:

Exports 11,136 108 30 165 2,883

Imports 15,873 503 284 492 205

Forest industry

products:

Exports 129,320 11,845 2,149 10,685 15,265

Imports 130,230 479 875 1,096 22,243

Total:

Exports 140,456 11,953 2,179 10,850 18,148

Imports 146,103 982 1,159 1,588 22,448

a Metla 1997a, based on FAOSTAT database.
8

Norway, with almost 0.2 percent of the forest area and 0.15 percent of the growing stock,

accounted for 1.7 percent of the export value; it also had a considerably higher share of

import value than its Nordic neighbors.

The United States accounted for 14.0 percent of the export value of forest-related products,

therefore, ranking second in the world after Canada, with 21.5 percent of the export

value. At the same time, the United States accounted for 15.4 percent of the import

value of forest-related products, making it the world’s leading importer. It is followed by

Japan with 13.3 percent of the import value of forest-related products.

I now turn to the political and administrative environment in which NIPFs are managed

with particular focus on Norway and the United States. Management and investments in

NIPFs are determined by legal regulations, customs, and expectations about the future,

and various other factors. Through the market, NIPFs also are affected by activities of

other forest owners both nationally and throughout the world. The international agenda might

have an increasing influence on how NIPF owners can and will behave.

Only the most significant policy measures that influence the management of NIPF lands

in Norway and the United States are described. The policy measures are compared

between Norway and at federal and regional levels in the United States. When available,

the effects of the various policy measures are described. Note, however, that the effects

often result from a mix of policy measures and other conditions, such as customs and

timber price. The outcomes of the policy measures, such as how well the effects correspond

to the policy goals, are briefly discussed later in the chapter.

The difference in size between Norway and the United States makes the comparison

somewhat challenging. The United States with its 9.9 million NIPF owners and 116

million ha of NIPF lands, can easily overshadow Norway’s 120,000 NIPF owners with

5.3 million ha of land. To present a complete picture of the United States, it would be

necessary to include all federal, regional, and state policies, but that exceeds the scope

of this study.

On the other hand, regardless of size differences, there are similarities between the two

countries. The countries share an increasing focus on environmental issues related to

forests and forestry. The NIPF owners’ attitudes, although difficult to document, also

seem similar. For example, many Norwegians want to pass their land on to their next

generation in better condition than it was when they received it. Similarly, in the United

States, according to the National Research Council (1998), many landowners believe

that land is borrowed from future generations and they are obligated to improve it before

passing it along.

Various public policy approaches are available for influencing management of NIPF

lands in Norway and the United States. For this report, these policy measures are

classified into three broad groups: regulatory, economic, and information and extension

services. The description is not comprehensive; it focuses on the most important

measures and their effects while providing a general picture of the differences and

similarities. Comparisons between Norway and the United States are done within and

between the three broad groups.

Policy Measures

Affecting

Nonindustrial Private

Forests in Norway

and the United States

The Policy Measures

and Their Interactions
9

• Regulatory measures are legally binding instruments (conventions, laws, decrees)

stating obligations or prohibitions. They can regulate the actual management of the

forest resources or influence the structure of a sector (e.g., ownership). The authority

and the enforcement powers are important aspects of the regulations.

• Economic measures make use of market mechanisms to orient behavior in desired

directions. Financial assistance, cost shares, and taxes are used as direct or

indirect monetary incentives to harmonize the private forest owners’ priorities with

public interests.

• Information and extension services attempt to influence people’s decisions by

improving their information basis. The instruments aim at the rationality or value

system of a person. They are diverse, spanning from resource assessments and

planning, to education, extension services, and research.

There are multiple interactions and no clear boundaries between the three broad groups

of policy measures described. An issue of political concern is generally addressed by a

mix of measures that, ideally, promote each other. For example, an economic tool can

be authorized by law, whereas extension services might get economic support. These

interactions make determining the results of each policy tool complicated. Furthermore,

to separate the effects of a program from what would have happened without the

program is also challenging.

Various regulations have implications for the protection, management, and use of forest

lands in Norway and the United States. The most important ones for NIPF lands are

described below, starting with Norway and followed with federal and regional regulations

for the United States. Some of the differences in regulatory policy measures affecting

NIPFs in Norway and the United States are then highlighted.

Regulations in Norway—

• The Norwegian Constitution (May 17, 1814, as amended) protects private property

rights stating if “the welfare of the State requires that any person shall surrender his

movable or immovable property for the public use, he shall receive full compensation

from the Treasury” (Article 105). The Constitution also states the overall objective for

management of the natural resources (Article 110b), “Every person has a right to an

environment that is conducive to health and to natural surroundings whose productivity

and diversity are preserved. Natural resources should be made use of on the basis

of comprehensive long-term considerations whereby the right will be safeguarded for

future generations as well.”

• The Forestry and Forest Protection Act; the Forest Act (May 21, 1965, as amended

and with separate regulations) is the most important regulation of forest practices

on all forest lands in Norway. The overall goal is to “promote forest production,

afforestation and protection of forest land while allowing for the functions of forests

as sources of recreation, major landscape features, living environments for plants

and animals, and as hunting and fishing grounds” (Royal Norwegian Ministry of

Agriculture 1994).

The Forest Act applies to all categories of owners. It is based on the fundamental principle

of freedom with responsibility for the individual owners. The law, however, contains

provisions that empower the authorities to take action when necessary, and to prohibit or

place conditions on afforestation, introduction of new tree species, and other activities.

Regulatory Measures
10

Construction of forest roads is regulated by separate regulations . . . all road

construction must be reported, and plans as well as finished roads must be

officially approved. . .

Forest practices and operations may be subject to special restrictions in areas of

particular recreational or environmental value. . .

The Forest Act contains provisions dealing with forest land where location,

condition or characteristics are such that it must be managed with particular care. . .

The intention . . . is to maintain the protective or protected function of the forest

stands in question while permitting economically feasible forestry operations.

Protection forest may include forest land that protects other forest or farmlands, as

well as forests growing at high elevations, along the coasts or in the far north

(Royal Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture 1994).

A notable aspect of the Forestry and Forest Protection Act is the establishment of the

Forest Trust Fund (Oistad et al. 1992). The forest trust fund is a mandatory investment

system with tax incentives for NIPFs. It is described further in the section on taxation.

• The Building and Planning Act (June 14, 1985 nr. 77), together with the Forest

Act, contains provisions to prevent undue nonforestry development and deforestation (Royal Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture 1994). Fundamental principles of land

management protect forest land from urban encroachment. In principle, all Norwegian

forest lands are protected from nonforestry development through these provisions.

• The Nature Conservation Act (June 19, 1970 nr. 63) provides for classification of

specific areas under various degrees of protection. Lands can be protected as

national parks, nature reserves, landscape protection areas, nature monuments, and

other protection schemes with declining grade of restrictions. The system of

“Protected Conifer Forests” (total area: 200 000 ha, to be enlarged by 120 000 ha) is

provided by this act.

In comparison, national parks within the United States are “extensive areas free of

improvements of a technical nature. Forest operations and most types of commercial

or industrial activity are banned” (Royal Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture 1994).

• The Open Air Act (June 28, 1957 nr. 16) provides free public access on foot

throughout the year to all noncultivated land given that care and consideration are

shown. With certain limitations, the general public also enjoys the right to pick

berries and mushrooms. The right to free access has important health and social

benefits for the public, and recreational values are emphasized in the forest policy.

Newly planted forest stands, however, are closed to the public (Royal Norwegian

Ministry of Agriculture 1994).

• The Cultural Heritage Act (Kulturminneloven) (June 9, 1978 nr. 50) requires

preservation of specific cultural heritages, such as old stone fences, on all lands,

including forests. The Pesticides Act (Lov om plantevernmidler) (April 5, 1963 nr. 50)

restricts pesticide use in forests.

Structural regulations in Norway—Norway has long traditions of regulating the buying

and selling of agriculture and forest properties as well as price settings. This makes it

hard to separate the effects of traditions from those of regulations. Transfer of agriculture
11

and forest properties within families is common in Norway. According to statistics for

Norway, 9 out of 10 new owners are close family members of the sellers (children,

grandchildren, or niece or nephew).

• The Act of Allodial Rights (Odelsloven) (June 28, 1974 nr. 58, with an extensive

history) is the principal regulation of “in-family” transfers of agriculture and forestry

holdings. The act regulates which properties are affected by the act and the rank of

the heirs; the oldest child of the current owner is ranked highest, followed by the

siblings of that child, according to date of birth, and then the brothers and sisters of

the current owner. The act also states the new owner’s obligations to live on the farm

for at least 5 years and to keep the lands in production. One specific regulation, the

Åsetesretten, provides children and other close relatives the right to buy the farm at

below-market prices, which reduces their tax.

• The Concession Act (Konsesjonsloven) (May 31, 1975 nr. 19, with traditions back to

1909) controls ownership of agricultural and forestry holdings in Norway and applies

to all trading of farms outside the immediate family (see the Act of Allodial Rights).

The act regulates who can own a farm, sets conditions (they have to live on the farm

for at least 5 years keeping their lands in production), and regulates prices by stating

how the “legitimate” price is calculated. The price should not be higher than what the

farm can generate by normal use. The act also authorizes inquiry about the boundaries,

the size of the holding, and the ability of the proposed new owners to run the property.

The effects of this regulation are debated and various consequences have been

described; for example, two consequences may be less fragmentation of forest

lands but possibly lower investments in forest management.

• The Agricultural Land Exchange Act (Jordskifteloven) (December 21, 1979 nr. 77)

gives owners of forestry holdings the right to request land trades to improve their

production. The act has wide provisions to trade parcels and change the structure of

the holdings.

Federal regulations in the United States—Although the United States does not have a

federal law regulating private forestry practices, some federal environmental laws influence

how private forest land is managed. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Clean

Water Act of 1972 are the most outstanding examples.

• The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) of 1973 is “the federal statute

prohibiting acts that will endanger either species threatened with extinction or their

critical habitat” (Hickok 1996). The act asserts federal control over the protection of

plant and animal species and provides authority for the federal government to control

activities that might adversely affect the long-term viability of a species. All forest

owners must protect species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the

act. In addition, individual states have their own wildlife protection laws and forest

practice rules for private owners (Beuter 1997).

• The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) of 1972 is “the primary federal law

protecting the Nation’s waters from pollution” with a fundamental goal of eliminating

all discharges of pollutants into the Nation’s navigable waters by 1985 (Hickok 1996).

The act provides legal framework for control of water pollution from silvicultural

activities (designated as one source of nonpoint pollution, sections 208 and 404).

Implementation of the act has been debated, in particular the formal regulation of
12

private forest practices by state forest-practice laws. A number of states outside the

South have enacted specific regulatory legislation for controlling silvicultural nonpoint source pollution. Eight states had incorporated such control into their state

forest practice acts by 1990 (Siegel 1997).

• The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-7671) of 1970 is “the primary law in the United

States addressed to air pollution problems. The Clean Air Act establishes four

overarching air quality goals: (1) attaining nation-wide clean air standards . . ., (2)

preventing significant deterioration; (3) preserving natural visibility; and (4) avoiding

significant risks from hazardous air pollutants” (Hickok 1996: 265).

According to Cubbage et al. (1993), the Clean Air Act has directly and indirectly

impacted the forest manufacturing sector. It also has affected land use and

management.

• The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (Act of August

17, 1974; P.L. 93-878, 88 Stat. 476) also influences private landowners. The act

provides directions and guidelines for planning the use and development of the

Nation’s natural resources. It requires a periodic assessment of the status of the

renewable natural resources and the anticipated national needs for those resources

(Beuter 1997).

The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program authorized by the Act and some of its

effects on private forest lands, are described in the section on “information and

extension services.”

In general, the United States has established a solid legal basis for regulating forestry

practices on private lands. The courts have ruled that such statutes are constitutional if

they do not discriminate among owners and are equally applicable to all. It is a wellestablished American legal principle that the society can—through its police power—

restrict, for the public good, the freedom with which owners may use their land and its

resources (Bosselman et al. 1973, Roberts 1974; referred to in Siegel 1997). The

government though, cannot take private property without due compensation.

State regulations in the United States—Under the U.S. Constitution, regulating

privately owned forests is generally reserved for individual states, rather than the federal

government. According to Beuter (1997), most states have forest practice rules to protect

environmental values on private land. The intensity and type of regulations, however,

differ from state to state. In general, legislation may govern logging practices, regeneration

standards, prescribed burning, chemical usage, road building, and related activities.

Regulation of logging practices to protect the environment or nontimber resources is

most common in both the comprehensive state laws and in local ordinances (Siegel 1997).

In their study of state regulation of private forestry practices, Ellefson et al. (1995) show

the frequency of different types of programs used by state forestry agencies to influence

the use and management of private forests. Of the programs studied (educational programs,

technical assistance, voluntary guidelines, tax incentives, fiscal incentives, and regulatory

programs), regulatory programs accounted for 11 percent of state applications nationwide.

Ellefson et al. (1995) found that depending on the purpose, 16 to 54 percent of the states

had such programs. Not all of the programs were focused exclusively on forestry, however.

For example, authority to regulate nonpoint sources of water pollution, of which forestry

might be one of many sources of concern, was a program with a broader scope.
13

According to Ellefson et al. (1995), “These legal regulations are among the most

controversial programmatic means of addressing private forestry practices and forest

resource management objectives.”

According to Siegel (1997), recent trends differ among the West, the East, and the

South. In the West, most state forest practices statutes contain strong environmental

provisions in addition to timber resource standards. Siegel (1997) further cites:

Timber management and environmental protection provisions of forest

practices statutes have often conflicted with each other, as well as with

other environmental legislation. The forest practice laws usually represent

a compromise between environmental and timber production concerns—

reflecting the tension between protecting aesthetic and recreational forest

uses and preserving the forest industry (Hansen 1978).

Regulations at the county and other local levels also are increasing rapidly in the West.

Regulations enacted more recently are often more stringent than the more traditional

state statutes (Siegel 1997).

In the East, four states enacted new forest practice legislation in the 1970s and 1980s:

Delaware, Maine, Maryland, and Massachusetts. In addition to state legislation, many

local, eastern governments have passed ordinances in the last 15 years that regulate

the harvest or transport of timber. Concerns about the effects of logging on water quality,

wildlife, and aesthetics influence local regulations. Frequently, local regulations are

enacted in response to a clash between urban and rural values (Popovich 1984,

Wolfgram 1984, Youell 1984; referred to in Siegel 1997).

Siegel (1997) points out that only Mississippi and Virginia, with their seed tree statutes,

have statewide statutes on forest practices in the South. No Southern state has enacted

any type of comprehensive forest practice regulatory legislation, and none is anticipated,

although it is occasionally mentioned in several states. On the other hand, each Southern

state has a water quality statute that generally empowers a designated state agency to

adopt standards and rules to deal with polluting activities in forested areas.

On the local level, many governments have enacted ordinances to regulate logging

practices in order to protect water quality or to prevent damage to local roads. Some

urban counties, particularly in Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina, also regulate logging

as a means to control unbridled development, eliminate trash-covered logging sites, and

protect aesthetic values. This is, according to Siegel (1997), “despite the South’s

traditional conservatism” and their aversion to regulatory legislation.

Siegel (1997) expects state regulations of forest practices in the United States to increase.

The increase of local regulations in many states is likely to motivate those states to

consider state regulations and thus avoid clashes between different local laws. In some

states, conflicts between local and state regulations have led to revisions of the state

laws to explicitly declare that state forest practice acts take precedence over local

zoning of forest land.
14

Enforcement of forest practice regulations differs greatly, ranging from informal

conferences to court-ordered remedial action. Agencies may use written orders to cease

violation or deliver stop work orders. They can perform corrective action and bill the

landowner or timber operator. Violations generally are considered civil actions. Penalties

can be severe, up to $1,000 per violation per day and up to 1 year in jail in Washington

and Oregon (Siegel 1997).

Enforcement in the future will depend on the regulations enacted, their individual power,

the power balance between the different levels (federal, state, and local authorities), and

the possible precedence of environmental laws over forest practice regulations.

A comparison of regulatory policy measures in Norway and the United States—

Regulations affecting NIPF lands generally differ greatly between Norway and the United

States. Depending on the objective of the regulations, either of the two countries can be

said to have the most thorough regulations.

Because regulations in various states in the United States are only briefly described in

this report, a complete comparison is not possible. Nevertheless, some general

conclusions can be drawn:

• Norway’s regulations are mostly at the national level, whereas the United States has

regulations at the federal, state, and local levels. This has obvious impacts on the

complexity of the regulations and on the number of agencies involved in regulation of

the private forestry sector.

• Regulations in Norway influencing ownership and property structure have no

analogue in the United States.

• The free access to noncultivated lands in Norway guarantees the public the

enjoyment of recreational activities on private forest lands. The amount of public

access in the United States differs by the regional distribution of private forest lands

and the share of private forest lands that is open to the public. According to Ellefson

et al. (1995), “approximately one-quarter of private forest land area is open to public

recreation.” Closely linked to this are the property rights to fish and game resources.

Free access in Norway does not include the right to fish or hunt; this is the right of

the landowners. In the United States, the respective state governments control the

hunting and fishing licenses.

While discussing forest resource policy in a global context, Cubbage et al. (1993) state

that few, if any, comparative studies of forest regulation in different countries have been

performed and that one must thus rely on piecemeal or anecdotal information to compare

forest regulation among countries. Still, they illustrate the situation by saying most of

the forest regulation in Western Europe stemmed from wood shortages.

As such, most laws governing forestry in Europe are designed to ensure

continuous tree cover and harvests to provide timber products and to a

lesser extent, environmental protection. This can be contrasted with modern

state forest practice acts, federal environmental laws, and local regulations

in the United States, which have focused more on environmental protection

and restriction of logging and forestry in environmentally sensitive areas

than on timber production (Cubbage et al. 1993).
15

This comparison, on one level, is also true for Norway, but it needs some minor

modification. The aspect of time, indirectly addressed by Cubbage et al. (1993), seems

to be of vital importance. The focus and the goals of regulations naturally reflect the

concerns and priorities of the era when they are approved. Environmental concerns

became more focused in Western forest regulations after the 1970s. In Norway,

legislation regarding the preservation of cultural heritages, use of pesticides, and

environmental considerations for the economic support schemes are a few examples of

regulations passed during a period of heightened environmental awareness.

Various economic policy measures are in operation both in Norway and the United

States. They are divided into two groups, “taxation” and “financial assistance.” For each

group, the Norwegian schemes are described first, followed by the U.S. federal and

general state systems, and ending with a tentative comparison between Norway and the

United States. As for regulations, only the most significant and important economic

measures affecting NIPFs are included.

Taxation—Taxation is an important but complex part of economic policy measures. The

objectives of taxation schemes are diverse, most often influenced by the general tax

system in a state or nation.

Taxation schemes that affect NIPF owners fall into two categories: tax-incentives

(benefits) or tax levies (expenses). Indirectly, the amount of tax revenue influences the

level of economic support (cost-share programs or tax reductions) a state or nation can

offer forest owners.

Taxes in Norway

• Tax incentives of the Forest Trust Fund—The unique Forest Trust Fund affects

how smaller private forest holdings are managed. The influence of the fund is limited

to holdings with an average annual harvesting potential below 3000 m3 in the most

important forest areas. Its tax incentives are perhaps the single most important taxation

scheme for NIPF owners in Norway. The history of the Forest Trust Fund dates back

to 1932, when the first Forest Protection Act was passed. The mandatory investment

system requires funds to be collected from private forest owners and reinvested in

the forest lands according to rules established by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forest

Department. When timber is sold, 5 to 25 percent of the value is deposited to the

trust fund account of the forest property. Each forest owner is free to set the percentage from year to year according to his or her financial situation, investment

plans, etc., but permission is required to set it below 8 percent.

The trust fund is effective because the forest owner does not pay income tax on the

amount deposited in the fund. When money is withdrawn from the fund and applied to

long-term investments, such as silviculture and road construction, a significant

proportion of the money can still be deducted from annual income taxes. Depending

on the owners’ marginal tax rate, the tax effect may result in a 50- to 60-percent

reduction of the total cost of the activity (Oistad et al. 1992).

Forest landowners do not receive the interest earned from their trust fund. The

interest is, according to the Forestry and Forest Protection Act, for the “common

benefit of Norwegian forestry.” The money is distributed to forest authorities at

Economic Measures
16

national and regional levels and to the forest owners’ associations where it is used

according to guidelines developed by advisory boards at the different levels. The

interest is an important source of funding for information activities, extension services,

study tours, and equipment rentals. The Norwegian Forest Society and Women in

Forestry are two of the organizations supported by this fund.

• Income tax—Forest owners pay income tax on their average net income for the last

5 years. The net annual result is calculated as income minus costs. The most important

income is usually from timber sales. Harvesting, hauling, and silvicultural treatments

are all costs. Forest roads are treated differently according to their quality and

expected durability. A 5-year mean was originally used to reduce the effects of

progressive income tax for owners with irregular harvests, a factor that is less

significant after the tax reform of 1992. The system results in a delay in tax payments,

which lowers the forest owners’ actual tax rate. Special regulations apply when

buying or selling a forest holding, which can also inflict on the actual tax payments

(NLH 1998).

• Property tax—Property tax of a forest holding is paid according to the value of the

forest “as a durable source of income if in appropriate use,” according to a system

defined by tax authorities. The average annual harvesting volume is calculated according

to monitored volume stock and age class distribution. This is used to calculate net

value according to prices and costs, which is then capitalized (NLH 1998).

• Inheritance tax—When somebody is buying a farm from a close relative, he or she

has to pay inheritance tax. Special regulations apply to tax rates according to value,

but the tax is paid both on the estate and on a gift, which is often a part of the agreement for such transactions. As for estate tax, the value is calculated according to a

continuing use for agriculture and forestry production.

Federal taxes in the United States

• Capital gains tax—Legislation that allowed timber-growing income to be treated as

long-term capital gains for tax purposes was based on the idea that timber growing is

a long-term investment and thus, should receive the same tax benefits as long-term

capital investments. Further, “It is said to help private landowners produce more

timber for the future, helping to overcome any long-term market inefficiencies. It also

offsets nominal increases in value that are caused only by inflation of assets held

for long time periods” (Cubbage et al. 1993).

The National Research Council (1998) has a somewhat different approach. It states

that the tax on capital gains from forest income can be a major disincentive for longterm forest stewardship and sustainability. Recent adjustments in tax rates and

regulations are thought to correct for some of these by encouraging extended timberharvest rotations and management of older age forest. They further highlight the

need for continuing analysis of the tax reforms to determine the impacts on

management of private forest lands.

• Management cost deductions—To claim a tax deduction for regeneration expenses

(site preparation, planting, vegetative control costs), individuals and corporations

must record these expenses and then deduct them from income earned when the

timber is sold. According to the National Research Council (1998), this treatment of

capitalizing regeneration costs discourages many NIPF owners from managing and

conserving their forests for long-term private and public benefit. They suggest

improvements by deducting “normal annual stewardship expenses against current
17

income” and that tax credits could also be considered for investment purposes other

than timber and related forest products.

• Reforestation investment tax incentive—The Recreation Boating and Facilities

Improvement Act authorized an investment tax credit for reforestation in 1980. For

up to $10,000 per year of reforestation expenses, investors are allowed a 10-percent

investment credit plus deduction of the expenses over an 8-year period. The credit

cannot exceed $1,000 annually. The reforestation tax credit is widely used by NIPFs

(National Research Council 1998).

• Estate taxes—An estate, including land, may be subject to federal estate tax when

a person dies and is not survived by a spouse. Liability and the tax rate depend on

the value of the estate. The estate tax must usually be paid within 1 year after the

death of the owner, and it has therefore been identified as a cause for fragmentation

of forest properties, which is a concern for forest management (National Research

Council 1998).

State tax policies in the United States

Local governments rely on property taxes to raise revenues. The tradition of basing local

taxes on land values dates back to the colonial agrarian societies. Land value in the

United States is often based on the most highly valued use of land; generally, this is the

assessed value of the land if it were sold on the open market for industrial, commercial,

or residential development. Demands of an increasing population have raised the land

values substantially over the recent decades, so the value of land for development is far

greater than the value of land for agriculture or tree growing. Many forest landowners

near developing areas have been forced to sell their land because annual revenue from

the land could not pay the annual ad valorem property taxes. Even the most productive

forest lands cannot survive as forests if property taxes exceed the break-even threshold.

Moreover, the ad valorem tax penalizes landowners for holding older age trees (Northern

Forest Lands Council 1994, in National Research Council 1998).

The National Research Council (1998) found that nonfederal forests have experienced

increases in funding from nontraditional sources. In some cases, the source can be a

tax providing revenues specifically dedicated to forest and natural resource activities.

For example, the Oregon severance tax on harvested timber supports programs in the

Oregon Forestry Department, and in Missouri and North Carolina, natural-resource

programs are partially supported by a dedicated portion of general state sales taxes.

Ellefson et al. (1995), in their study of state regulation of private forestry practices,

found that tax-incentive programs represented only 6 percent of the applications, less

than any of the other program types studied. Depending on the purpose, only 6 to 32

percent of the states had such programs. Also, tax incentives were used more for

general forestry or conservation purposes on private timberland than for influencing

specific forest practices.

A comparison of taxation in Norway and the United States

Many of the same taxation schemes are in force in Norway and the United States, as

are the discussions about tax rates and the fairness between the different groups of

society. Even if some of the taxation schemes are different, their consequences for

management of NIPFs are similar. Both countries treat forest investments as long-term
18

investments and offer them special tax reductions. Even if the systems for tax reductions

are arranged differently, NIPFs are similarly impacted on either side of the Atlantic.

Below are some general conclusions about the effects of tax measures on NIPFs in

Norway and the United States.

• The tax schemes through the Forest Trust Fund seem to have a more direct influence

on specific forestry practices in Norway, whereas tax incentives in the United States

play a more minor and less specific role in the forest policy.

• The fragmentation resulting from the estate tax observed in the United States is not

a concern in Norway. This is partly explained by the system for calculating the tax;

the land value based on growing trees is used instead of the most valued use of the

land. Other differences are also important in fragmentation, such as the regulatory

measures. This points to a practical problem encountered when trying to compare

the individual results from each of three broad groups of policy tools.

• The federal information program on income taxes, the National Income Tax Servicing,

is part of the landowner assistance provided by the Cooperative Forestry in the

State and Private Forestry unit of the USDA Forest Service. It might tell its own

story of the complexity of taxes in the United States. National forest authorities in

Norway offer no such programs, but the forest owners’ and other organizations (i.e.,

local accounting companies) have documentation and human resources to assist

forest owners on tax questions.

Financial assistance—The measures described in this section include different

financial assistance and cost share programs that affect NIPFs in Norway and the

United States.

Financial assistance in Norway—The major economic measures for Norwegian NIPFs

are supported through the national budget and the Agricultural Development Fund.

Although tax deductions are significant, no-interest loans and municipal support

schemes are of limited use.

Generally, support schemes contain specific provisions requiring economic and ecological

feasibility of the activities receiving funding. The Agricultural University of Norway (NLH

1998) argues that Norway’s economic incentive programs are directed toward wood

production, but that attention to environmental values is emphasized in the specific

regulations for the programs.

The programs are partly targeted at individual forest owners and partly at measures for

the forestry communities. Broad regulations are set by the Ministry of Agriculture, the

national forest authority. Local forest authorities (county and municipal governments)

decide the more detailed regulations. Examples of local adjustments are the different

systems of support (per area or as a percentage of costs) and variation in supported

activities according to local needs and priorities.

The National Budget offers support for long-term investment projects (silviculture, forest

roads, etc.) and environmental projects. The total budget for these cost-share programs

in 1997 was close to NKr 130 million, or US$ 17.3 million. Parliament approves annual
19

spending, whereas the Ministry of Agriculture distributes support according to priorities

and regional activity plans.

The Agricultural Development Fund provides support for building forest roads, forest

management plans, extension services, organizing timber trading, and others activities.

In 1997, this fund contributed NKr 120 million, or US$ 16 million, to forestry activities.

This was 15 percent of the Agricultural Development Fund’s NKr 780 million budget in

1997.

The objective of the Rural Community Development Fund is to contribute to the development of profitable, rural, small-scale enterprises. Total annual budget is NKr 512 million,

or US$ 68.3 million; of this, the spending on forest-related projects in 1997 was NKr 65

million, or US$ 8.7 million. This is 12.75 percent of the total budget. The county governments

allot most of the funds. Most of the support goes to development projects. Since 1995,

the centrally administered Rural Community Development Fund has provided annually,

NKr 15 to 20 million, or US$ 2 to 2.7 million toward cost-share programs for forest

thinning, harvesting in difficult terrain, and construction of secondary roads.

Economic support for various forest management activities are summarized below.

• Planting and silviculture in 1997 received public support of NKr 83 million, or US$

11.1 million for investments totaling NKr 243 million, or US$ 36.7 million. This gives

an average public support through cost-share of 34 percent. The total area planted

was 20 000 ha. The area of other silvicultural activities was 39 000 ha.

• Building of forest roads in 1997 received NKr 68 million, or US$ 9 million in public

support. With total investments equaling NKr 170 million, or US$ 22.7 million, the

public cost-share averaged 40 percent.

• The public supports production of forest management plans through a cost-share

program within the Agricultural Development Fund. The annual planning efforts in

1997 covered some 380 ha, with public support of NKr 38 million, or US$ 5 million.

Between 1987 and 1995, the forest owners’ annual share of the costs has been

between 34.2 and 41.4 percent.

Financial assistance in the United States—The U.S. Department of Agriculture is the

major federal agency managing programs for use, management, and protection of

NIPFs. Other federal agencies include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the

U.S. Department of the Treasury, and various agencies within the U.S. Department of the

Interior (see fig. 3, modified from National Research Council 1998).

The USDA Forest Service, state and private forestry unit is the principal source for

assistance to NIPF owners. The state and private forestry’s expenditure in 1997 was

$156.5 million, or 4.5 percent of total Forest Service expenditure ($3,400 million) (USDA

Forest Service 1998b).

According to the USDA Forest Service (1998a), the budget for state and private forestry

in 1998 was divided with one-third for forest health management, 12 percent for

cooperative fire protection, and the rest (54 percent) for cooperative forestry.
20

Federal Agencies Involved in Administration of Major

Programs for Use, Management, and Protection of Nonindustrial

Private Forest Lands in the United States

U.S. Department of Agriculture

• Forest Service: Forest Research Program and Information

Management Program, and State and Private Forestry programs

such as Rural Forestry Assistance, Forest Stewardship Program,

Stewardship Incentives Programs, Forest Legacy Program, Forest

Health Protection Program, and others.

• Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services.

• Natural Resources Conservation Service: Funding of the Forestry

Incentives Program (technical assistance is provided by USDA

Forest Service in cooperation with state forestry agencies), Wildlife

Habitat Incentives Program.

U.S. Department of the Interior

• Fish and Wildlife Service: Endangered Species Protection Program.

U.S. Department of the Treasury

• Internal Revenue Service: Federal tax system, including estate

taxes, capital gains tax, management tax deductions, and

reforestation investment tax incentive.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

• EPA programs: Clean Water Act Programs.

Figure 3—Modified summary of box 4-1, National Research Council 1998.
21

Cooperative forestry includes the incentive programs described below, Urban and

Community Forestry, Economic Action Programs, and the Pacific Northwest Assistance

Program. The incentive programs for NIPFs made up $34 million, or 21 percent of the

1998 state and private forestry unit budget.

The Forestry Incentive Program (FIP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives

Program (EQIP), which replaced the Agricultural Conservation Program (1936 to 1996),

provide cost-share payments to private landowners for conservation practices. They are

administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The principal objective of

FIP is timber production, while EQIP funds are used to promote soil and water conservation. Technical assistance to landowners is provided by State Forestry organizations

through the Forest Service/State Forester delivery system.

The Stewardship Incentive Program (SIP) is authorized by the Forestry Title of the 1990

Farm Bill to enhance the management of all resources on private forest lands. The SIP

offers technical assistance and cost-share assistance for tree planting, forest improvement, recreation, wildlife, aesthetics, and soil and water conservation. The Forest

Service/State Forester delivery system assistance provides assistance to landowners,

whereas the USDA Farm Service Agency assists with making payments to owners.

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) was authorized in the Conservation Title of

the 1985, 1990, and 1996 Farm Bills. The CRP offers long-term rental payments and

cost-share assistance to establish permanent vegetative covers on cropland that is

highly erodible or contributes to a serious water quality problem. The CRP is administered

by the Farm Service Agency with forestry assistance provided through the Forest

Service/State Forester delivery system.

Moulton and Snellgrove (1997) summarize tree planting and timber stand improvement

on all forest lands for all owners in the United States. For NIPF owners, they also

provide data on the area supported by the USDA forestry assistance programs. The

numbers thus show the percentage of area supported by the programs, but not the

percentage of the costs covered by these programs.

Nonindustrial private forest owners planted 438 060 ha of trees in fiscal year 1996. The

USDA forestry assistance programs contributed to 30 percent of this planting, a major

drop from 41 percent in 1995. Timber stand improvements were completed on some

220 250 ha of NIPF in 1996. Of this, 26 percent was completed with contributions from

USDA forestry assistance programs (up from 20 percent in 1995). Data on the actual

cost shares provided by USDA are not included.

According to Moulton (2001), maximum federal cost share rates prescribed by law and

regulations range from up to 50 percent for the Conservation Reserve to a maximum of

75 percent (65 percent in the instance of FIP) of total practice costs of the other

programs. The states, in turn, may lower, but not increase, these rates.
22

State programs for financial assistance in the United States—In their study of state

regulation of private forestry practices, Ellefson et al. (1995) found that fiscal incentive

programs composed 15 percent of program applications nationwide in 1992. Depending

on the program objectives, fiscal incentive programs existed for 26 to 78 percent of all

states. Management objectives receiving financial assistance included timber production,

stand improvement, fish and wildlife habitat management, reestablishment and management of forested wetlands, establishment and maintenance of windbreaks and shelterbelts,

aesthetics management, management of recreational opportunities, and management

of native vegetation (Ellefson et al. 1995).

Data on state support, in total or as a share of the management costs, are not easily

available in compiled form. According to Moulton (2001), most of the 13 southern states,

where most tree planting on private lands occurs, limit cost sharing for the planting of

loblolly and slash pine to 40 to 50 percent of total cost. However, they allow the

maximum rate of cost sharing for planting of other tree species and other practices,

such as timber stand improvement, buffer strip establishment, and wildlife habitat

improvement.

A comparison of financial assistance in Norway and the United States—Again,

incomplete information on public spending in the United States makes it impossible to do

an extensive comparison with Norway. Still, the available information suggests that

public financial assistance and cost share programs play a more significant role in the

forest policy in Norway than in the United States.

Interestingly, the incentive programs for NIPFs through the USDA Forest Service, state

and private unit, and the total appropriation for forestry incentive programs through the

Forestry Department and Agricultural Bank of Norway, are almost identical (US$ 34

million in 1997-1998). Although other funding is available in the United States, and not

all the support in Norway is going to NIPFs, the differences in magnitude are significant

when the forest area and the number of NIPF owners in the two countries are taken into

consideration.

Public support for planting is a good example of the complexity in comparing data for

different countries. Norway has data on the total costs and public support, and the

average cost share can be calculated (34 percent in 1997). With numbers for area planted

with and without public support (75 to 80 percent and 20 to 25 percent, respectively), the

average support on areas that are actually given support can be calculated. The United

States, on the other hand, has numbers for the total area planted, and the area supported

by public funding (30 percent), but no data on the share of the cost provided by the

USDA or by the public in total. Although public support from other sources might have

contributed to the same areas, the share of area supported by the public in Norway (75

to 80 percent) and the United States (30 percent), indicates that public support for

planting is more common in Norway than in the United States. Also, the focus of the

incentive programs is quite different. For example, in the United States, the emphasis is

on forest health and fire protection, whereas the emphasis in Norway is on long-term

investments such as planting and road construction.
23

This group of policy measures includes a variety of measures, which are extensive both

in objectives and methods. The presentation here should not be regarded as comprehensive. The discussion is focused on government policies and activities.

To make comparison easier, similar programs in Norway and the United States are

described simultaneously. The description shows that although many of the same

programs are in force, the compiled data do not support any conclusions about which

country relies mostly on these policy measures in their forest policy.

Monitoring and assessments of forest resources—There are a number of reasons

why knowledge of forest resources is important to authorities, forest owners, industry,

and the general public. Assessments and monitoring are used to provide information on

available resources and changes over time, which is crucial for resource management.

Increasingly, these data are required for international reporting and as a followup for

national, regional, and international initiatives. Peck et al. (1996) highlighted the

importance of harmonized terms and definitions and a common system for collecting

data to ensure comparability of national data and to provide an international framework

within which to set national policy and management objectives. As seen in the section

on policy, there is still room for improvements on this point.

Both Norway and the United States have various programs that provide information

about the forest lands and the forest resources. Only the most relevant programs for the

forest authorities are described here.

In Norway, the Norwegian Institute of Land Inventory is responsible for forest monitoring

and assessment. They are currently working on the seventh nation-wide assessment;

the first was finished in 1925. The Institute of Land Inventory collaborates with the Ministry

of Agriculture, Forestry Department, about improvements in registration and future needs,

and with Statistics Norway for presentation of the results.

In the United States, forest surveys were first authorized by the McSweeney-McNary

Act of 1928. The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974

(RPA) broadened the surveys to include other resources. The RPA authorizes preparation

of decennial assessment documents, including the resource conditions on all forests

and rangelands in the United States, private and public, as well as 5-year strategic plans

for the USDA Forest Service’s activities and responsibilities. According to the USDA

Forest Service 1997 report, forest inventory was conducted that year on 17 million ha

(42 million acres) of forest lands across all land ownerships, and 90 reports were

prepared relating to status and trends of the resources inventoried (USDA Forest

Service 1998b: 27).

Management plans—Management plans are a useful tool for NIPF owners. In Norway,

assessments for management plans exist on approximately 80 percent of the productive

forest area. The area covered by management plans or the share of forest owners

having plans, however, is not easily accessible. Over the years, plans have changed to

include more information about nontimber resources and environmental values. The

public supports production of management plans through a cost-share program within

the Agricultural Development Fund (see Financial Assistance in Norway section).

Information and Extension

Services
24

Birch (1996) found that only 5 percent of the private forest land owners in the United

States have a written management plan but that these owners control 39 percent of the

private forest land. Of the 5 percent of private forest land owners with written management

plans, more than half a million of them are NIPF owners. This NIPF segment controls

57 percent of private forest lands that have management plans; the rest is owned by

forest industry. Of the management plans written, NIPF owners drafted plans that

addressed 19 percent of the area, consultants prepared plans for 29 percent of the area,

industrial foresters made them for 10 percent of the area, state service foresters made

them for 19 percent of the area in 37 percent of the plans, and others prepared plans for

33 percent of the area. The figures sum to more than 100 percent because owners listed

more than one agency or person as preparing their management plan (Birch 1996).

A goal of the USDA Forest Service is to encourage more landowners to create quality

land management plans to better manage their lands. The number of landowners enrolled

in the Stewardship Program in 1997 was 15,357, somewhat lower than planned owing to

reduced funding (USDA Forest Service 1998b). The budget for 1998 was 25 percent

higher than the 1997 funding (USDA Forest Service 1998a).

Research and development—Research is an important part of forest policy both in

Norway and the United States. Forest research is important for forest management,

although the effects on NIPFs are indirect. The annual federal and state spending for

forestry research in the United States totals US$ 300 million (Brooks 1993). In Norway,

public spending on forestry research and development is approximately NKr 80 million

(US$ 10.6 million).

Some research and development programs within the USDA Forest Service have similar

counterparts in Norway. For example, Forest Products Conservation and Recycling,

Rural Community Assistance, and the Wood in Transportation Program (USDA Forest

Service 1998a) have aspects in common with programs supported by the Agricultural

Development Fund and the Norwegian Research Council.

Technical assistance—Technical assistance allows forest authorities to ensure desired

private forest management. In Norway, the municipality employee in forestry (required by

the Forest Act: “a person with knowledge of forestry”) spent time sharing technical

advice with forest owners. According to current municipality employees, however, their

workload has changed, and many no longer spend much time in this capacity. There are

regional variations and differences according to personal priorities and the local

administration. The municipalities have sovereignty to organize the work in the manner

they find suitable. Independent forest consultants in Norway are almost extinct, but

technical staffs of the forest owners’ associations are taking over some of these

functions in many areas. Although the total sum of technical assistance is impossible

to estimate, there are probably strong traditions for technical assistance for NIPF

owners in Norway.

Similarly, the United States also has long traditions of offering technical assistance to

farm woodland owners (Cubbage et al. 1993). The cooperation between federal and state

agencies started in 1924 and has changed its client groups and scope to become the

Forest Stewardship Act of 1990, title XII of the 1990 Farm bill.
25

According to National Research Council (1998), state and private industry have assumed

the key role in technical-assistance programs over the years. “Service foresters are the

primary means of delivering technical assistance; states employed nearly 3,500 service

foresters in 1995” (National Association of State Foresters 1995, in National Research

Council 1998).

In a study of state regulation, Ellefson et al. (1995) found technical assistance to private

forest owners was used more than any other type of program. Technical assistance made

up 28 percent of program applications nationwide in 1992 and existed in 88 to 96 percent

of all states, depending on the forestry objectives.

Extension and Education—Extension services and education programs are, like

technical assistance, important for ensuring desired management of private forests. The

discussion here, however, does not include forest education within the school system.

The Norwegian Forestry Extension Service Institute is an important player in forestry

extension and education. The purpose of the institute is to provide continuing education

in forestry and fields related to forestry, to heighten public awareness of the importance

of forestry, and to improve methods and technique in forest operations on a small scale

and a practical level. The institute arranges seminars and courses on relevant forestry

issues at various levels (for forest owners, forest workers, and people within the forest

service) and at different locations. The annual public support to the institute is about

NKr 8.5 million (US$ 1.1 million). The Forestry Extension Service Institute annually

serves some 2,000 people. Norway also has a general program for short, locally

arranged courses including forestry topics.

According to the National Research Council (1998), the major federal responsibility for

extension programs with implications for nonfederal forests in the United States is the

USDA-Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services. Among its

many educational programs, the most discernible for nonfederal forests are those

authorized by the Smith-Lever Act and the Renewable Resources Extension Act. In

1996 and 1997, appropriations in each year to implement these programs totaled US$

3.291 million. These funds, partnered with state funds, enable more than 300 cooperative

extension forestry specialists and agents to implement the programs.

In a study of state regulation of private forestry in the United States, Ellefson et al.

(1995) identified educational programs as the second most common type of program,

after technical assistance. Educational programs made up 27 percent of program

applications in 1992, and existed in 84 to 94 percent of all states depending on their

defined objectives.

Institutional organizations—The way the public organizes its agencies, regulations,

and responsibilities affects the success of forest policy. The topic is complex and depends

largely on factors outside of forestry; traditions and current administrative structure are

probably the most important ones. Because there is such a size difference between the

United States and Norway, however, comparing their institutions is not productive.

Voluntary guidelines—Voluntary guidelines accounted for 13 percent of the program

applications in the United States (Ellefson et al. 1995). Voluntary guidelines existed in
26

30 to 68 percent of the states, varying according to forestry activity. The voluntary guidelines distributed by state forestry agencies provided information about best management

practices for protecting timberland aesthetics, wildlife, and water quality. According to

Ellefson et al. (1995) “voluntary guidelines for forest management practices are generally

favored over regulation due to their unobtrusive effect on private property rights.”

The Norwegian counterpart is the standard for sustainably managed forests agreed to by

the Living Forests project. The project was conducted as a joint effort between forest

owner groups, forest industry, environmental and recreational organizations, and the

authorities from 1995 to 1998. In 1999, Parliament preferred the Living Forests voluntary

standards over legally binding regulations for achieving sustainable forest management

in Norway.

The previous sections discuss and compare regulatory measures, economic measures,

and information and extension services as they relate to forest policy in Norway and the

United States. This section provides an overview of the variations in the three groups

between the two countries.

The findings presented for the three groups of policy measures indicate that financial

assistance to NIPFs is more common in Norway, and comparatively more money is

involved than in the United States. For regulations and taxation, there are more variations

depending on the issues discussed and in the United States, greater regional differences.

The information and extension services described are too diverse to support functional

comparisons.

Political and administrative traditions, which differ between and within the two countries,

influence the public opinion of appropriate policy measures. The status given to private

property rights in the United States makes regulations affecting these rights less favorable,

especially in the South. Long traditions of watershed management and other public

values in Western forests generally make people, including NIPF owners, less hostile

about regulations.

On the contrary, Norway, with a share of privately owned forests similar to that in the

Southern United States, has regulations more similar to the Western United States. These

regulations generally apply to both private and public forest lands. The long traditions of

ownership regulations probably make regulations more accepted in Norway.

Generally, many aspects of the policies aimed at NIPF owners are similar in Norway and

the United States. For example, the United States attitude that “carrots are better than

sticks” (Cubbage et al. 1993) is similar to the Norwegian principle of freedom with

responsibility. The voluntary programs (economic support, information, etc.) are thus

favored over mandatory regulations.

The importance of the forest sector and possibly traditions for use of economic incentive

programs, explains the greater use of financial incentive programs toward NIPFs in

Norway. Again, data presented are not complete, and financial support does not

necessarily tell the whole story. Studies of the situations of forest owners, effects of

taxation, timber prices, and costs of management is needed to identify differences. To

study the contributions from NIPF lands on each country’s economy, a total economic

Comparison of Policy

Measures Affecting

Nonindustrial Private

Forests in Norway

and the United States
27

assessment must be considered. These include, but are not limited to, environmental

nonpriced values, forest commodities, and regional forestry employment.

Their dominating role makes NIPF owners a target group for the forest policy in Norway,

unlike in the United States. The Norwegian Forest Practices Act, regulations, economic

incentives, and information programs were all derived with NIPFs in mind. In the United

States, it is argued that the focus on national forests management has left out important

aspects of other forest ownerships, such as NIPFs. The United States also has greater

regional variations in number of NIPF owners and their share of the ownership; e.g., in

the West and the South.

Although known effects and impacts of the different policy measures are described in

the previous sections, the quantifiable results, such as area of planted trees and the

number of management plans, do not address whether the policy measures met the

political goals of regeneration and better forest management.

This section reviews some policy evaluations and shows the variation in how the outcomes are analyzed. Evaluating the outcomes is often complex because the outcome

depends on both the understanding of the goal and the effects in regard to the goal. With

ambiguous policy goals, results of different evaluations might vary, which could bias the

outcome toward the viewpoint of the evaluator. With a diverse group of stakeholders

such as forest owners, industry, and environmental groups, there is a greater chance

that evaluators of the same policy will reach different conclusions.

An analysis of subsidy effects on forest activities, based on Norwegian census-data for

1988 for about 41,500 properties, suggests that the subsidies generally have positive

effects on timber supply and other silvicultural activities (Loyland et al. 1995).

Framstad (1996) studied the environmental effects of public forestry incentives in Finland,

Norway, and Sweden. He found that legislation and economic measures constitute a more

investment-friendly and less harvesting-friendly forest policy in Norway than in Finland,

whereas the Swedish situation is intermediate. According to the study, Norway has the

largest increase in standing volume and the largest percentage of mature forest. Sweden,

through detailed regulations and direct subsidies, has undertaken the greatest number of

measures to directly enhance biodiversity and amenity. It is, however, too early to

measure any effects on the indicators of environmental effects used in this survey.

In an analysis of the evolution of forest policy study, Cubbage et al. (1996) list several

policy and program evaluations conducted in the United States. They comment that

most of these studies found large positive returns to public forestry programs but that

studies with less positive results took more time to be released or were not published

formally. As examples of the latter, they mention Newman (1990) for forest management

research, and Salazar and Barton (1988) in technical assistance (Cubbage et al. 1996).

Cubbage (1995) indicates that changes in policy and the increasing complexity might

make it even more difficult to carry out and to evaluate public programs in the future, by

stating, “We have spent the better part of this century trying to inveigle first forest

industry, and then nonindustrial private forest landowners, to improve the timber

productivity of their lands. These public programs have met with only modest success

Evaluations of Policy

Measures
28

and suggest that coercing owners to manage for some as-of-yet undefined ecosystem

management state will be even more difficult.”

The National Research Council (1998) has discussed program effectiveness and different

ways to evaluate it in the United States. Depending on the goals or priorities, effectiveness

is evaluated on biological results, economic effects, influence on landowner behavior, or

by program administrators’ judgments. Results of these different approaches differ.

The National Research Council (1998) reports, “Although several studies have shown

that fiscal incentive programs have been effective in increasing timber production on

private nonindustrial forest lands (Gaddis et al. 1995, Mills 1976, Risbrudt and Ellefson

1983), there continues to be concern over their role in augmenting investments in timber

production.” Some main concerns are the substitution of public incentive monies for

private capital, effective coordination between involved agencies, predicting the appropriate

size for a program, sufficient reporting, and improving the targeting and flexibility of a

program.

The National Research Council (1998) cites multiple evaluations of the technical

assistant programs, which in general, have shown service foresters to be efficient and

effective in positively influencing the forestry activities of landowners. According to the

National Research Council (1998), Cubbage and Hodges (1988) found assistance by

both private consultants and state foresters likely to be complementary rather than

competitive. Nevertheless, there has been concern about the low numbers of NIPF

owners seeking assistance from any source in some states (Cubbage and Hodges

1988, and Hodges and Cubbage 1990; referred to in National Research Council 1998).

Also, according to the National Research Council (1998), there is some concern that tax

policies might unintentionally lower investments in forests and forest property. The

difficulties of tax incentives often relate to questions of policy effectiveness, fairness

among forest and nonforest sectors, and the long-term outlook for stability in forest

investments, which can potentially affect the integrity of forest ecosystems (for example,

fragmenting ecosystems). At a minimum, the tax systems in forestry should promote

savings and long-term investments, foster equity with nonforestry investments, be easy

to administer and understand, and remain stable over adequate periods to encourage

long-term investments.

This paper describes the forestry situation in Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the United

States, and by way of example, the policy measures affecting NIPF owners in Norway

and the United States. Tentative comparisons are made, but the varying definitions and

the different data collected make this a difficult task. Standardized definitions and data

collected and presented for similar issues would improve comparisons, resulting in a

better picture of the real differences between the countries.

Although the Nordic countries and the United States probably have more comprehensive

information on forest resources than many other countries, they lack data on important

aspects of forests and forestry (e.g., nonwood goods and services). New issues, such

as carbon sequestration in forest soils in connection to the Kyoto Protocol, create the

Closing Remarks
29

need to revise existing data. There is also the need to improve the understanding of how

different parts are functioning together (e.g., ecosystem or landscape approach in

planning, and interactions between production of wildlife and timber).

With the limitations described, the preliminary comparison of Finland, Norway, Sweden,

and the United States reveals the significance of forests in general, and NIPFs in

particular, to the countries of concern. The data presented support a conclusion of

forests and forestry as an important sector for cultural traditions and in the national

economies.

Our discussion of important forest policy measures affecting NIPFs in earlier sections

compares those of Norway and the United States. Because this comparison is more

complex than the issues discussed in earlier sections, Finland and Sweden are not

included. The complexity in policy measures result from various measures, administrative

levels, goals, and target groups. In the United States, the federal measures are better

covered than those of state and local governments.

Initial conclusions for Norway and the United States show areas of both similarities and

differences. A few examples are highlighted here.

Norway regulates property structure and ownership more thoroughly than does the

United States. In the United States, regulations at the federal, state, and local level

increase the complexity of regulations affecting NIPFs. The rights of the public to use

private forest lands for recreation are more similar between Norway and the Western

United States than they are between the Western and Southern regions of the United

States.

For economic measures, the discussion is divided between taxation and financial

assistance. For taxation, the Forest Trust Fund was found to influence specific forest

practices in Norway, whereas in the United States, the tax incentives play a more minor

and general role in forest policy. Further, the complexity of taxation schemes in the

United States by far overrides the system in Norway.

Financial assistance to NIPFs seems to play a greater role in Norway than in the United

States when taking into account the number of owners and the forest area. This comparison

is done with incomplete information of state and local support in the United States, but

the magnitude of difference is so great that a more complete investigation would most

probably give the same result. The data collected here show the same annual support

for 9.9 million private forest owners in the United States as for 120,000 forest owners in

Norway.

The comparison of information and extension services shows many similarities in types

of measures and goals. Assessments of forest resources, management plans, and

technical assistance are important in both countries. An obvious difference is the

importance of independent consultants in the United States; these are almost

nonexistent in Norway.

A comparison of the three broad groups of policy measures affecting NIPFs in Norway

and the United States and results of evaluations of these policies are briefly discussed.
30

The discussion shows how challenging the comparisons are and points to areas for

future improvement. The complexity of separating the effects of the forest measures

from the bigger picture, varying traditions, the different cultures, and the tax system of

each country are also briefly discussed.

The following issues, raised throughout this paper, need further consideration to

strengthen the initial comparisons made here.

There is a general lack of knowledge about the effects of policy measures. It is difficult

to separate the consequence of a policy tool from those of traditions, expectations, or

the market situation and determine its effect. There are also interactions between the

different policy measures. To separate the effects completely is impossible, but tracking

effects of various changes can uncover more information on some of the relations. The

lack of information and the insufficient understanding of the complex interactions point

to a need for further improvements, both to make progress in forest management and to

increase the awareness of regional differences. For example, a relevant topic is the

changes in land use and ownership structure over time in Norway and the United States,

given the great differences in regulations.

The outcomes of the policy measures can be defined as the effects of the different

measures connected to the policy goals. For example, How do effects correspond to the

policy goals? Both a better understanding of the effects and a clear picture of the policy

goals are necessary preconditions for evaluating the policy outcomes. With ambiguous

policy goals and a complex mix of policy measures, finding the outcomes of each of the

policy measures and comparing them between different countries is demanding.

The overall objectives of the policies described are to ensure that NIPFs are managed in

ways consistent with public interests. The public costs of the policy measures (direct

payment, cost of administration and control) must be lower than or equal to the positive

effects (as valued by the public) granted by each tool. Better knowledge of both the

costs and outcomes of the various policy measures will make it easier to check this

condition and to prescribe necessary changes.

A more thorough comparison of changes in forest policies over time would provide a

deeper understanding of both the similarities and differences between the countries. The

situation at present, concerning forest resources, ownership, management, and the

importance of forestry, is a result of traditions, culture, and earlier forest policies. At the

same time, the current situation in each particular region or country must be taken into

account when improvements in existing policies or other emerging issues are discussed.

A better understanding of the link between the actual situation and the effectiveness of

various policy measures in the different areas is needed for further development of

forest policies across regions and countries.

Based on the topics covered in this study, I recommend the following for further study.

• Many forest resources are well assessed in Norway and the United States. Still, the

differences in definitions applied and data collected, the lack of data on some

resources (e.g., nonvalued goods and services), and the complex interactions

between the different resources (e.g., timber and tourism) provide considerable
31

challenges in improving the understanding of similarities and differences both within

and between countries. To structure and synthesize relevant information so it

addresses emerging issues and is available to the various stakeholder groups will

likely become greater challenges as the complexity in both issues and stakeholders

increases.

• Management is influenced by ownership and many other factors. A closer look at

variation in forest management as related to ownership, changed management

objectives on private versus public forest lands, and differences in priority given to

various aspects of the forests over time in different countries could improve the

understanding of the importance of ownership. The increased understanding of

important relationships between ownership and management could be used to

improve the policies and programs for both private and public lands.

• The importance of the forestry sector to community well-being, including ecological,

economic, and sociocultural contributions, is not fully understood. The value of the

different parts (wood products, outdoor recreation, water quality) and their interlinks

could be investigated at a local, regional, and national level as a basis for a more

comprehensive comparison between countries. Relative changes in valuation of the

different parts over time should be tested and taken into account in relevant policy

decisions.

• Given the increased international focus on sustainable forest management, a

comparison of environmental awareness and measures to protect and develop

environmental values between countries would be interesting. This could include

changes in regulations, economic support programs, and extension services. A

closer look at differences in forest management over time as compared to the stated

policy goals in different countries could improve the understanding of the effects of

different policies in various countries. Other examples of country-specific changes in

environmental attitude worth investigating are recycling of paper, share of certified

forest land and products, and use of wood for energy.

• For a more complete comparison between policy measures affecting NIPFs in

Norway and the United States, some of the preliminary findings in this paper must

be checked more thoroughly. The indication of a stronger use of economic incentives

in the Norwegian forest policy must be tested. The actual spending on various

measures must be detected in both countries and compared to the respective

activity levels. Also, the scale of regulations and variation in issues regulated need

to be investigated further both within the United States and as compared to Norway.

Regional variations in the United States and the differences caused by different

definitions in the two countries could be further elaborated.

• A more comprehensive comparison could possibly detect the effects of cultural

differences between the regions in the United States and between the United States

and Norway. Culture is likely to influence the position of the different policy measures

in each area, as well as the responses to changes in policy measures. Better

knowledge of responses to former changes and expectations about the future could

provide important information in developing effective measures to meet new policy

goals. Also, awareness of all the variations might increase the understanding

between countries in international negotiations.

• To further increase the understanding of the composition and effectiveness of the

various policy measures, a broader approach could be taken. The measures could be
32

investigated at different steps of their development, for example, when an issue is

first on the policy agenda, through the policy formulation, adoption, implementation,

and evaluation. If this can be done in a consistent way across boundaries, the

results would provide a much better basis for comparisons both between countries

and within countries.

This report is a result of 3 months work by Berit Hauger Lindstad in the United States in

1998 financed by the Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture, Forest Department and the

Development Fund for Forestry, Norway. The financial support is greatly appreciated.

Special thanks go to David J. Brooks, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, OR, U.S.; Birger Solberg,

Agricultural University of Norway, Aas, Norway; and Knut Oistad, Ministry of Agriculture,

Oslo, Norway, for their contributions.

The comments from three anonymous technical reviewers of earlier drafts of the paper

are also sincerely acknowledged.

English Equivalents

Acknowledgments

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Cubic meters (m3

) 35.315 Cubic feet

Hectares (ha) 2.47 Acres

Krone (NKr) .113 U.S. dollars ($)

 [Exchange rate on

 October 17, 2001]
33

Agricultural University of Norway [NLH]. 1998. Virkemidler for okt verdiskapning i

skogen og skogbaserte næringer. Rapport fra et utredningsoppdrag for

Landbruksdepartementet og Nærings- og handelsdepartementet: To increase the

value adding in forests and forest based enterprises. A task report requested by the

Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture and the Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry.

Department of Forest Sciences. 80 p. [plus appendices].

Beuter, J.H. 1997. The evolution of forest management and timber policies in the United

States. In: Schmithusen, F.; William, C.S., eds. Developments in forest and

environmental law influencing natural resource management and forestry practices in

the United States of America and Canada. IUFRO Secretariat Vienna and Chair of

Forest Policy and Forest Economics, ETH Zurich 1997: IUFRO World Series Vol. 7,

Selected Contributions submitted to the IUFRO research Group 6.13.00 Forest Law

and Environmental Legislation: 16-28.

Birch, T.W. 1996. Private forest-land owners of the United States, 1994. Resour. Bull.

RB-NE-134. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern

Forest Experiment Station. 183 p.

Bosselman, F.; Callies, D.; Banta, J. 1973. The taking issue. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office. 320 p.

Brooks, D.J. 1993. United States forests in a global context. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR- 228.

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 24 p.

Brooks, D.J.; Pajuoja, H.; Peck, T.J. [et al.]. 1996. Long-term trends and prospects in

world supply and demand for wood. In: Solberg, B., ed. Long-term trends and

prospects in world supply and demand for wood and implications for sustainable

forest management. European Forest Institute, Research Report No. 6. Joensuu,

Finland. 150 p.

Cubbage, F.W. 1995. Forest resources, ecosystem management, and social science

education: promises, problems, and prospects. Journal of Natural Resources and Life

Sciences Education. 24: 116-125.

Cubbage, F.W.; Cortner, H.J.; Bruke, S. 1996. Evolution of the study of forest policy in

the United States. Journal of Forest Economics. 2(3): 233-256.

Cubbage, F.W.; Hodges, D.G. 1988. Public versus private provision of forest management

assistance: a Georgia case study. Resource Management Optimization. 6(2): 103-120.

Cubbage, F.W.; O’Laughlin, J.; Bullock, C.S., III. 1993. Forest resource policy. New

York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 562 p.

Ellefson, P.V.; Cheng, A.S.; Moulton, R.J. 1995. Regulations of private forestry practices

by state governments. Station Bull. 605-1995. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Agricultural

Experiment Station, University of Minnesota. 225 p.

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). 1995. Forest resources assessment 1990:

global synthesis. Forestry Paper 124. FAO, Rome. 44 p.

Framstad, K.F. 1996. Environmental effects of public forestry incentives in Finland,

Norway and Sweden. Journal of Forest Economics. 2(3): 289-313.

References
34

Gaddis, D.A.; New, D.B.; Cubbage, F.W. [et al.]. 1995. Accomplishments and economic

evaluations of the forestry incentives program: a review. Southeastern Center for Forest

Economics Research Working Paper No. 78. Research Triangle Park, NC: Southeastern

Center for Forest for Forest Economics Research. 52 p. [plus appendices].

Hansen, B.L. 1978. Protection of recreation and scenic beauty under the Washington

Forest Practices Act. Washington Law Review. 53: 443-470.

Hickok, H. 1996. Introduction to environmental law. San Francisco: Delmar Publishers.

404 p.

Hodges, D.G.; Cubbage, F.W. 1990. Adoption behavior of technical assistance foresters

in the southern pine region. Forest Science. 36(3): 516-530.

Loyland, K.; Ringstad, Y.; Oy, H. 1995. Determinants of forest activities: a study of

private nonindustrial forestry in Norway. Journal of Forest Economics. 1(2): 219-237.

Metla. 1997a. Finnish statistical yearbook of forestry 1997. Finnish Forest Research

Institute, Metla. Helsinki, Finland. 348 p.

Metla. 1997b. Forest Finland in brief 1997. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Metla.

Helsinki, Finland. 48 p.

Mills, T.J. 1976. Cost-effectiveness of the 1974 forestry incentives program. Res. Pap.

RM-175. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. [Pages unknown].

Moulton, R.J. 2001. Personal communication. Economist (retired), U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Forestry Sciences

Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

Moulton, R.J.; Snellgrove, J.D. 1997. Tree planting in the United States 1996.

Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and

Private Forestry, Cooperative Forestry. 17 p.

National Association of State Foresters. 1995. 1994 report. State Forestry Statistics

Committee. 35 p.

National Research Council. 1998. Forested landscapes in perspective: prospects and

opportunities for sustainable management of America’s nonfederal forests.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 249 p.

Newman, D.H. 1990. Shifting southern softwood stumpage supply: implications for

welfare estimation from technical change. Forest Science. 36(3): 705-718.

Northern Forest Lands Council. 1994. Finding common ground: conserving the

northern forests. Augusta, ME: Maine Department of Conservation. 98 p.

Oistad, K.; Eid, J.; Ellefson, P.V. 1992. Norway’s forest trust fund: innovative support for

nonindustrial private forests. Journal of Forestry. 90(6): 17-20.

Peck, T.J.; Brooks, D.J.; Pajuoja, H. [et al.]. 1996. Implications for sustainable forest

management. In: Solberg, B., ed. Long-term trends and prospects in world supply and

demand for wood and implications for sustainable forest management. European

Forest Institute, Research Report No. 6. Joensuu, Finland. 150 p.

Popvich, L. 1984. Whither regulations? American Tree Farmer. 3(3): 9.
35

Risbrudt, C.D.; Ellefson, P.V. 1983. An economic evaluation of the 1979 forestry

incentives program. Station Bulletin 550-1983. St. Paul, MN: Agricultural Experiment

Station, University of Minnesota. [Pages unknown].

Roberts, E.F. 1974. A basic introduction to land use control and doctrine. In: Proceedings

of the conference on rural land-use policy in the Northeast. Ithaca, NY: Northeast

Regional Center for Rural Development, Cornell University: 13-53.

Royal Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture. 1994. Norwegian forest management. Oslo,

Norway: Norway Information. 6 p.

Salazar, D.J.; Barton, A. 1988. Measuring the value of technical forestry assistance: the

Washington case. (Mimeo) Seattle, WA: University of Washington, College of Forest

Resources. [Pages unknown].

Siegel, W.C. 1997. Legislative regulation of private forestry practices in the United

States: recent trends. In: Schmithusen, F.; Siegel, W.C., eds. Developments in forest

and environmental law influencing natural resource management and forestry practices

in the United States of America and Canada. IUFRO Secretariat Vienna and Chair of

Forest Policy and Forest Economics, ETH Zurich 1997: IUFRO World Series Vol. 7,

Selected Contributions submitted to the IUFRO research Group 6.13.00 Forest Law

and Environmental Legislation: 305-316.

Skogstyrelsen. 1997. Statistical yearbook of forestry 1997. Official statistics of

Sweden. Jonkoping, Sweden: National Board of Forestry. 349 p.

Smith, W.B.; Faulkner, J.L.; Powell, D.M. 1994. Forest statistics of the United States:

1992 metric units. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-GTR-168. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 147 p.

Statistics Norway. 1997. Forestry statistics 1995. Official Statistics of Norway, C 394.

Oslo-Kongsvinger. 96 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998a. Connecting forestry to people

in 1999: the state and private forestry programs. State and Private Forestry. 8 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998b. Report of the Forest Service:

fiscal year 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

147 p.

Wolfgram, S. 1984. Regulations grow in New York. American Tree Farmer. 3(3): 13-14.

World Resources Institute; United Nations Environment Programme; United

Nations Development Programme; World Bank. 1996. World resources 1996-97.

Oxford University Press: 365 p.

Youell, C.E. 1984. Connecticut forests are ready: the citizens aren’t! American Tree

Farmer. 3(3): 71.
This page has been left blank intentionally.
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle

of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of

wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation

with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests

and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly

greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room

326-W. Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC

20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider and employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300