Market - Continued

Variance in Regional Demand

While only 2% of our nation’s wood supply comes from national forests, and sawlogs comprise the bulk of the raw products produced, there are important regional differences to consider for the industry. These differences warrant a closer inspection of the remnant logging program on national forests to better grasp where it remains significant, what products are being supplied, and which companies are involved.

In terms of product, mix, it is clear that while national forests in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, Great Plains, and Northeast provide almost all of their wood products in the form of sawlogs or veneer logs, other regions supply a more diverse mix that includes significant quantities of pulpwood in the North Central, South Central, and Southwest regions, composite products in the North Central region, fuelwood in California, and miscellaneous products in the Southwest and Intermountain West. (See Table 1, which summarizes the results for ten distinct regions in the United States and for the United States as a whole.) Greater diversity in wood products supply, in turn, implies greater diversity in the range of end use products.

There are also significant regional differences in market share. In the Northeast, Southeast, North Central, South Central, Pacific Northwest and California, national forests supply no more than 7% to 8% of any particular wood product. In contrast, in Alaska, the Intermountain West, Great Plains, and Southwest, national forests are far more important sources of supply for one or more product. For example, sawlogs provided by national forests make up 68% of the regional supply in Alaska and 51% of regional supply in the Great Plains. In the Southwest, national forests supply nearly 80% of the pulpwood and 77% of miscellaneous products. What this implies is that mills that utilize these products in these regions are likely to be highly dependent on supplies from national forests, while in other regions, mills have greater capacity to find other sources.

Regions also differ, of course, in the types of trees most frequently logged. These differences also translate into differences in the end use product mix. (See Table 2, which profiles these regional differences.) An important step in tracing these end use products from the shelves back to the national forests from where they came is to identify the top purchasers of national forest wood products in each of the regions.

While the market for national forest wood products will never amount to a significant share, these demand and supply side factors will maintain the market at close to its current level for the foreseeable future. Factors that could influence this include law or policy changes designed to designate or place certain areas or types of forest off limits to logging, efforts to reduce or eliminate the logging program or consumer pressure directed at companies doing business with logging companies sourcing from national forests.

The Marketplace: A New Frontier for Forest Protection

Despite some noted regional differences, it no longer makes sense from an economic and social standpoint for the U.S. to subsidize the logging of national forests. The natural limit on national forestland share, the cost to bring national forest wood products to market, and the economic value of ecosystem services all contribute to the decline of timber sale volume and value.
Given the dire consequences to the environment and the strong socio-economic need to discourage commodity production on national forests, many Americans remain baffled why Congress, the Administration, and the USFS continue to advocate for increased logging. Compounding the problem, the government is simultaneously weakening legal protections for endangered species and wildlife habitat and is making it increasingly difficult for the public to participate in federal forest management. The profiles in this report highlight particularly zealous examples where logging, oil and gas drilling, mining, grazing, and private development are trumping the protection and restoration of national forests. Impacts from these industrial uses are far-reaching and will be difficult – if not impossible – to reverse.

As the USFS moves ahead in the 21st Century, Americans have a right to an honest assessment of whether the agency should or should not be in the wood products business. New scientific discoveries, non-logging economic drivers, and changing social attitudes and trends make the federal timber program seem obsolete when compared to the value of the national forest system as a whole. These questions and concerns must be addressed in the larger context of wood supply and wood consumption in the U.S., as well as in the context of what the national forest system represents to the majority of its citizens. Based on both of these factors, the overall prognosis for the USFS’s timber sale program is not a rosy one.

Ultimately, the marketplace may well determine whether or not the USFS’s timber sale program has a role to play in the wood and paper marketplace. In the face of continuing industry pressure and governmental efforts to log our national forests, NFPA will be looking to the marketplace to shift logging companies, distributors, manufacturers, retailers and customers away from wood products derived from national forests. Given what the latest economic facts and social trends tell us, the marketplace may just be the most powerful approach to changing U.S. forest policy.