欧美典型国家林地投资的产权结构演变与组织模式比较

doi:10.18402/resci.2020.07.12

Abstract

Abstract:

Timberland is an important alternative investment class selected by international investors. Timberland ownership structure and its associated management modes are important to timberland investment and portfolio performance. We reviewed the evolvement of timberland property rights and structure in typical European and North American countries and summarized different investors and management styles of timberland under different ownership regimes. We found that: (1) Most timberlands in European countries (for example, Sweden) and the United States are privately owned, whereas most timberlands in Canada are publicly owned. Private property rights were triggered by market speculations and landowners’ appeals while administrative public property rights still have a significant position in Canada and other countries. (2) Corporate models represented by Timberland Investment Management Organizations (TIMOs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), and industry associations such as Forest Landowners Association are typical management organizational modes of private timberland. The TIMOs and REITs have promoted the worldwide development of timberland investment. Management of public timberland takes forestry bureaus as the main body, and its operation depends on provincial forestry bureaus’ administrative coordination ability to realize the sustainable management of timberland. (3) Timberland in European and North American countries shows a tendency of private fragmentation and institutional concentration. The separation of timberland ownership from its management rights is obvious. Traditional forest products companies have shifted from owning timberland to divesting timberland while public timberland management has shifted from a single administrative perspective to a comprehensive multi-functional management. Furthermore, forest certification pays a close attention to timberland investment needs in addition to traditional ecological capacity assessment. At the end of this article, we provided some suggestions for accelerating the marketization of China’s timberland assets based on timberland investment within China and the changing trend of European and American countries, including improving internal governance structure of timberland property rights, cultivating forestry management subjects of appropriate scales, promoting the marketization process of forest certification, and developing constrained forestry public private partnership investment return mechanism.

Key words: timberland investment, ownership structure, TIMOs, REITs, Forest Landowners Association, forestland divestiture, social capital

ZHANG Nan, YANG Hongqiang. Property rights change and management organization of timberland investment in European and North American countries[J].Resources Science, 2020, 42(7): 1361-1371.

Figures/Tables 5

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Table 1

Figure 4

References 50

[1]	吉登艳, 石晓平, 仇童伟, 等. 林地产权对农户林业经营性收入的影响: 以江西省两个县(市)为例[J]. 资源科学, 2016,38(8):1609-1620. doi: 10.18402/resci.2016.08.18
	[ Ji D Y, Shi X P, Qiu T W, et al. Impact of forestland property rights on households income from forestry based on analysis of two cities in Jiangxi[J]. Resources Science, 2016,38(8):1609-1620.]
[2]	田杰, 姚顺波. 中国林业生产的技术效率测算与分析[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2013,23(11):66-72.
	[ Tian J, Yao S B. Research on technical efficiency of forestry production in China[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2013,23(11):66-72.]
[3]	韩雅清, 杜焱强, 苏时鹏, 等. 社会资本对林农参与碳汇经营意愿的影响分析: 基于福建省欠发达山区的调查[J]. 资源科学, 2017,39(7):1371-1382. doi: 10.18402/resci.2017.07.14
	[ Han Y Q, Du Y Q, Su S P, et al. Social capital and farmer willingness for forest carbon sequestration management in underdeveloped regions of Fujian[J]. Resources Science, 2017,39(7):1371-1382.]
[4]	Mei B, Clutter M L. Return and information transmission of public and private timberland markets in the United States[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2020, DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102092. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2004.03.001 pmid: 32288630
[5]	Caulfield J P. Timberland in institutional portfolios and the question of persistence[J]. Forest Products Journal, 1998,48(4):23-28.
[6]	Busby G M, Binkley C S, Chudy R P. Constructing optimal global timberland investment portfolios[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2020, DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102083. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2004.03.001 pmid: 32288630
[7]	Mei B. Investment returns of US commercial timberland: Insights into index construction methods and results[J]. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 2017,47(2):226-233. doi: 10.1139/cjfr-2016-0186
[8]	Sun C Y. On the market risk of securitized timberlands[J]. Journal of Forest Economics, 2013,19(2):110-127. doi: 10.1016/j.jfe.2012.11.002
[9]	庞丽杰, 韩爱惠. 关于林地界定标准的探讨[J]. 林业资源管理, 2016, (1):6-8.
	[ Pang L J, Han A H. Study on forestland identification standard[J]. Forest Resources Management, 2016, (1):6-8.]
[10]	Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global Forest Resource Assessment 2010[R]. Rome: FAO, 2010.
[11]	Mei B, Clutter M L. Evaluating timberland investment opportunities in the United States: A real options analysis[J]. Forest Science, 2015,61(2):328-335. doi: 10.5849/forsci.13-090
[12]	Newell G, Eves C. The role of US timberland in real estate portfolios[J]. Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, 2009,15(1):95-106. doi: 10.1080/10835547.2009.12089837
[13]	Behrens C, Pierdzioch C, Risse M. Testing the optimality of inflation forecasts under flexible loss with random forests[J]. Economic Modelling, 2018,72:270-277. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2018.02.004
[14]	王桂华, 付新月. 美国林权交易: 历史演进、动因与特征研究[J]. 世界农业, 2017, (11):52-57.
	[ Wang G H, Fu X Y. American forest property transaction: Historical evolution, motivation and characteristics[J]. World Agriculture, 2017, (11):52-57.]
[15]	Brasselle A S, Gaspart F, Platteau J P. Land tenure security and investment incentives[J]. Journal of Development Economics, 2002,67(2):373-418. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3878(01)00190-0
[16]	Lönnstedt L, Sedjo R A. Forestland ownership changes in the United States and Sweden[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2012,14(1):19-27. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.08.004
[17]	Kroger M. The expansion of industrial tree plantations and dispossession in Brazil[J]. Development and Change, 2012,43(4):947-973. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2012.01787.x
[18]	宋云伟. 美国《1873年林木种植法》刍议[J]. 山东师范大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2012,57(5):138-143.
	[ Song Y W. A study on the Timber Culture Act of 1873[J]. Journal of Shandong Normal University (Humanities and Social Sciences), 2012,57(5):138-143.]
[19]	Sun C Y. Variation of federal cost-share programs in the United States and the inducement effects on tree planting[J]. Journal of Forest Economics, 2007,12(4):279-296. doi: 10.1016/j.jfe.2006.09.002
[20]	向青, 尹润生. 美国、加拿大林地产权制度及森林经营管理[J]. 林业经济, 2006, (7):70-77.
	[ Xiang Q, Yin R S. Forestland property and management in USA and Canada[J]. Forestry Economics, 2006, (7):70-77.]
[21]	Zhang D W. Market, Policy Incentives, and Development of Forest Plantation Resources in the United States[C]. Bangkok: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission, 2004.
[22]	Weiss G, Lawrence A, Hujala T, et al. Forest ownership changes in Europe: State of knowledge and conceptual foundations[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2019,99:9-20. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2018.03.003
[23]	Holmgren E, Keskitalo E C H, Lidestav G. Swedish forest commons: A matter of governance?[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2010,12(6):423-431. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2010.05.001
[24]	刘克勇, 凡科军, 丁丽丽, 等. 美加公有林经营管理及其对中国国有林改革的借鉴[J]. 林业经济, 2018,40(2):8-13.
	[ Liu K Y, Fan K J, Ding L L, et al. Public forest management of USA and Canada and their reference to China’s state-owned forest reform[J]. Forestry Economics, 2018,40(2):8-13.]
[25]	Nelson H, Vertinsky I. The Canada-US Softwood Lumber Disputes[C]. Amsterdam: North American Economic and Financial Integration, 2003.
[26]	Maier C, Winkel G. Implementing nature conservation through integrated forest management: A street-level bureaucracy perspective on the German public forest sector[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2017,82:14-29. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.015
[27]	Yin R S, Baek J. The US-Canada softwood lumber trade dispute: What we know and what we need to know?[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2004,6(2):129-143. doi: 10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00104-1
[28]	Flynn B. Timberland investment more global than ever[J]. Pulp & Paper International, 2015,57:16-19.
[29]	La L, Mei B. Portfolio diversification through timber real estate investment trusts: A cointegration analysis[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2015,50:269-274. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.07.003
[30]	Zhang D W, Butler B J, Nagubadi R V. Institutional timberland ownership in the US South: Magnitude, location, dynamics, and management[J]. Journal of Forestry, 2012,110(7):355-361. doi: 10.5849/jof.12-015
[31]	Korhonen J, Zhang Y, Toppinen A. Examining timberland ownership and control strategies in the global forest sector[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2016,70:39-46. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.05.015
[32]	Mei B. Timberland investments in the United States: A review and prospects[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2019, DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.101998. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2004.03.001 pmid: 32288630
[33]	Piao X R, Mei B, Xue Y. Comparing the financial performance of timber REITs and other REITs[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2016,72:115-121. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.022
[34]	Wan Y, Clutter M L, Mei B, et al. Assessing the role of U. S. timberland assets in a mixed portfolio under the mean-conditional value at risk framework[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2015,50:118-126. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.06.002
[35]	Andersson T, Fredriksson T. Distinction between intermediate and finished products in intra-firm trade[J]. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 2000,18(5):773-792. doi: 10.1016/S0167-7187(98)00041-1
[36]	Sténs A, Mårald E. “Forest property rights under attack”: Actors, networks and claims about forest ownership in the Swedish press 2014-2017[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2020, DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102038. pmid: 32288630
[37]	Glasbergen P. Smallholders do not eat certificates on global sustainability standards and local practices in Indonesia[J]. Ecological Economics, 2018,147:243-252. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.01.023
[38]	Sun C Y, Rahman M M, Munn I A. Adjustment of stock prices and volatility to changes in industrial timberland ownership[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2013,26:91-101. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.08.003
[39]	Harris T, Baldwin S, Siry J J. United States Timberland Markets 2000 to Mid-2010: Transactions, Values & Market Research[R]. Athens: Timber Mart-South, 2011.
[40]	Brukas V, Weber N. Forest management after the economic transition: At the crossroads between German and Scandinavian traditions[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2009,11(8):586-592. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2009.08.009
[41]	Borrass L, Kleinschmit D, Winkel G. The “German model” of integrative multifunctional forest management: Analyzing the emergence and political evolution of a forest management concept[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2017,77:16-23. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.028
[42]	Cashore B, Gale F, Meidinger E, et al. Confronting sustainability: Forest certification in developing and transitioning countries[J]. Environment Science & Policy for Sustainable Development, 2006,48(9):6-25.
[43]	Teitelbaum S, Wyatt S. Is forest certification delivering on First Nation issues? The effectiveness of the FSC standard in advancing First Nations’ rights in the boreal forests of Ontario and Quebec, Canada[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2013,27(1):23-33. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.09.014
[44]	Cubbage F, Diaz D, Yapura P, et al. Impacts of forest management certification in Argentina and Chile[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2010,12(7):497-504. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2010.06.004
[45]	朱文清, 张莉琴. 集体林地确权到户对林地流转的政策效果分析[J]. 资源科学, 2018,40(7):1407-1417. doi: 10.18402/resci.2018.07.09
	[ Zhu W Q, Zhang L Q. The impact of confirming collective forest land property rights to households on the forest land circulation behavior of farmers[J]. Resources Science, 2018,40(7):1407-1417.]
[46]	何文剑, 王于洋, 江民星. 集体林产权改革与森林资源变化研究综述[J]. 资源科学, 2019,41(11):2083-2093.
	[ He W J, Wang Y Y, Jiang M X. A review on the collective forestland tenure reform and changes in forest resources[J]. Resources Science, 2019,41(11):2083-2093.]
[47]	吉登艳, 马贤磊, 石晓平. 林地产权对农户林地投资行为的影响研究: 基于产权完整性与安全性: 以江西省遂川县与丰城市为例[J]. 农业经济问题, 2015,36(3):54-61.
	[ Ji D Y, Ma X L, Shi X P. The impact of forest property rights on forestland investments: From the perspective of property rights integrity and security: A case from Suichuan and Fengcheng of Jiangxi Province[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2015,36(3):54-61.]
[48]	白若舒, 李红勋. 中国森林认证对林场可持续经营影响评价研究[J]. 生态经济, 2019,35(10):160-165.
	[ Bai R S, Li H X. Research on impact assessment of CFCC on sustainable management of forest farm[J]. Ecological Economy, 2019,35(10):160-165.]
[49]	罗攀柱. 日本林业经营主体扶植政策展开过程及其对中国林业发展的启示[J]. 农业经济问题, 2018, (1):134-144.
	[ Luo P Z. The process of policy support implementation to Japanese forestry operators and its enlightenment to Chinese forestry development[J]. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 2018, (1):134-144.]
[50]	杨扬, 李桦, 薛彩霞, 等. 林业产权、市场环境对农户不同生产环节林业投入的影响: 来自集体林改试点省福建林农的调查[J]. 资源科学, 2018,40(2):427-438. doi: 10.18402/resci.2018.02.18
	[ Yang Y, Li H, Xue C X, et al. Impact of forest property rights and market environment on peasant household forestry investments in different production links in Fujian[J]. Resources Science, 2018,40(2):427-438.]

	TIMOs	REITs	参考文献
主要目的	投资收入	投资收入税收规避	Lars L?nnstedt等^[16] Bin Mei^[32]
资产属性	私募股权资产	私募股权资产上市公司	Daowei Zhang等^[30] Piao等^[33]
资本要求	需要巨额初始资本	不需要巨额初始资本	Lars L?nnstedt等^[16] Le La等^[29]
林地归属	不直接持有林地	直接持有林地	Bob Flynn^[28] Bin Mei^[32]
管理受托	中介性质机构,架构灵活	独立法人实体,架构完善	王桂华等^[14] Yang Wan等^[34]

Property rights change and management organization of timberland investment in European and North American countries

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 5

References 50

Related Articles 6

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

[1]	DUAN Wei, OUYANG Bo. Impacts of protected areas on multidimensional poverty of surrounding rural households:Analysis of the intermediary effect based on social capital [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(6): 1074-1086.
[2]	JIA Yajuan, ZHAO Minjuan. Impact of domestic waste pollution perception and social capital on the farming households’ sorting of waste: Based on the survey of 1374 farming households in Shaanxi Province [J]. Resources Science, 2020, 42(12): 2370-2381.
[3]	Jing ZHANG, Yuchun ZHU. An empirical analysis of the targeted poverty alleviation of scientific and technical correspondent enterprises from the perspective of social capital [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(2): 352-361.
[4]	LI Dongxuan, LIU Pingyang. Willingness and influencing factors of innovation and entrepreneurship of new agribusiness entities [J]. Resources Science, 2019, 41(11): 2071-2082.
[5]	Yaqing HAN, Yanqiang DU, Shipeng SU, Yuanzhu WEI. Social capital and farmer willingness for forest carbon sequestration management in underdeveloped regions of Fujian [J]. Resources Science, 2017, 39(7): 1371-1382.
[6]	XU Lang,LUO Dongling,LIU Aijun. Effects of social capital on farmers’ willingness to participate in irrigation management reform [J]. Resources Science, 2015, 37(6): 1287-1294.