Minnesota's Economy Depends on Forest Plans--But Not on Logging
The forest plans describe how much jobs and income will be affected by the timber the Forest Service cuts down. But their work is biased, to the point that it breaks the law and ignores the agency’s own regulations.
Economic Impact of the
Proposed Forest Plan
- Alternative E |
|
| Jobs | Jobs created by logging projects are a very small portion of total employment in Minnesota, and jobs lost due to reduced logging would be offset by the income attracted by increased wilderness. |
| Net impact | Taking the above into account, all alternatives are relatively uniform in the economic benefit they offer. |
| Non-market values | Wildlife and wild forests have existence values, the value of public appreciation even if citizens don't visit the forest. These values are calculated in dollars, and must be considered in the economic comparison of alternatives. Accepted scientific measures of this value are common and in use by the Forest Service. This is a significant omission that biases the plan and lowers the benefits provided the public. |
| Timber and paper | The proposed plan sets the maximum level of logging just above current levels, and maintains it for 100 years. |
Under this plan 31% of Minnesota’s National Forests will be clearcut in the next forty years.
This increase in logging is driven by multinational timber and paper companies, who want the government to lower the cost of wood by flooding the market with logs from our national forests. And that’s what the Forest Service is doing.
Worse, the economic analysis they’ve done only counts market values, the value the forest is worth if we were to put the timber, trails, and wildlife up for auction.
As if people who enjoy the old trees that Minnesota is famous for, would still want to go camping in a clearcut. Most Minnesotans wouldn’t say that clean water, wildlife, recreation, and scenery are worthless. But the analysis ignores these values, and rigs the plan to support logging.
Considering these values is regarded as the professional standard. In fact, the Forest Service’s own research is the leading source of information about the economic value of things that you can’t buy at an auction like hiking, wildlife or clean water.
These things have economic values that can be calculated by economists, using information that is literally sitting on the Forest Service’s desks and shelves. But wait—the agency didn’t even have an economist on the team that wrote the plans.
The Forest Service’s biggest mistake is overestimating the amount of people who will have jobs in logging and paper mills. In fact, these numbers are so inflated that we are assuming they are a mistake. The DES—real economists—predicts timber and paper jobs will fall in the next decade, because demand for these products is declining.
The Forest Service should have considered the real generator of income and jobs near the National Forests—the growing masses of people who have homes or cabins up north, people who invest in communities and move there because of the scenery and recreation.
The Forest Service shouldrecalculate the economic impacts of the alternatives they studied, using standard tools for estimating value in public lands. They regularly do it in other forests, in fact the courts require them to do so. Without reliable economic figures, this plan cannot produce real economic gains for northern Minnesota.