Date prepared: 2026-06-03
This is a screening model, not an appraisal. It shows what happens to the economics of
old-growth logging when you count the public costs that are normally left out. Dollar
figures are illustrative and labelled. See data/full-cost/net-public-value.csv.
The strongest evidence is not ours. In 2021, ESSA Technologies completed an economic valuation of old-growth forests for a 35 km area around Port Renfrew, on a 100-year horizon at a 3 percent discount rate. Its result:
Protecting all old growth nets about CA$40 million more in public benefit than business as usual. That is carbon worth about +$46M and tourism and recreation worth about +$11M, against a timber-supply loss of about -$16M. [Fact: ESSA Port Renfrew valuation, 2021.]
In plain terms, a credible study already found that keeping this old growth standing is worth more to the public than logging it, once carbon and tourism are counted. The case for full-cost accounting is not hypothetical here. It has been measured.
Public stumpage, the price the public charges for its timber, averaged about CA$6.55 per cubic metre in the 2014 figures ESSA used, against log prices of roughly CA$68 to $212 per cubic metre depending on species. [Fact: ESSA 2021 stumpage and price tables.] The public owns the resource but captures a small share of its market value in direct cash, while carrying the costs below.
Our succession work estimated the carbon in this forest. Valued at the federal carbon price (CA$80 per tonne CO2 in 2024, rising to CA$170 by 2030), as a screening figure:
These apply a policy carbon price to screening tonnage. They show order of magnitude, not a market transaction. They are large because the carbon stock in coastal old growth is large.
ESSA itself was clear about what it did not count. Each of these is a cost of logging, so counting it would widen the gap against old-growth harvest, not narrow it.
| Category | In the public ledger? | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Net public value (carbon + tourism + timber) | Counted by ESSA | Protection nets +$40M vs business as usual |
| Public stumpage | Counted | About $6.55/m3, small vs log value |
| Carbon (our screening) | Quantified, screening | $30-274M already released; $1.0-9.4B at stake |
| Drinking water and water quality | Not counted | ESSA excluded it |
| Fish beyond commercial coho; recreational and subsistence fishing | Not counted | ESSA counted only commercial coho |
| Road, culvert, and restoration liability | Not quantified | Hundreds of road-stream crossings; real future cost |
| Wildfire and fuel/slash management | Not counted | Real obligation, not in the ledger |
| Monitoring, enforcement, administration | Not counted | Public cost of verifying commitments |
| Cultural values | Not assessed | For First Nations to define, not outsiders |
| Health and well-being | Not counted | Non-market value of intact forest |
The policy ask is simple and follows directly: before old-growth or high-risk forest is approved, sold, or cut, the public should see a full-cost accounting that sets timber and stumpage value against carbon, water, fish, roads, wildfire, restoration, recreation, and the rest. ESSA shows that when even a few of those are counted, protection can be the better public deal. The categories still missing would only strengthen that.
data/succession/carbon-screening-estimate.csv and
forest-succession-and-recovery.md.data/full-cost/net-public-value.csv. Policy ask:
policy-brief-full-cost-accounting.md.