Timberland Investing and Private Property Rights in the United States of America

Investments in rural land for agriculture, timber, and other natural resource purposes occur frequently and globally. Fundamental principles of liberty and property found in the United States of America’s (“US”) legal system, from its origins to recent US Supreme Court decisions, continue to positively benefit holders of real estate in the Southern US, through a deep-rooted public policy of supporting private property rights and rural economic development. This stable rule of law enhances the long-term adaptability and sustainability of timberland as an asset class. This article is a commentary. It combines legal research methodology with the observations and conclusions of the authors. Its purpose is to demonstrate that the existence of alienable, documentable ownership, and related property rights create inherent stability and security. These principles form the basis of a culture that is defined by the rule of law and is “open for business.” This business mindset is particularly prevalent in the Southern US.

Ecosystem services and legal protection of private property.Problem or solution?

Ecosystem services(ES)delivery in quantity and quality are essential to improve human wellbeing.Nevertheless,often a considerable part of ES provisioning depends on the use of private land(e.g.,flood retention,carbon sequestration,water purification).In this context,the operationalization and implementation of ES concept may collide with legal property rights.Therefore,it is essential to find constructive mechanisms to engage and encour-age private owners to implement sustainable land uses to reduce the onsite and offsite impacts of their activities.This paper aims to identify if ES delivery can be constrained by legal private land and how it can be tackled.It is undeniable that land-use changes(e.g.,urbanization,agriculture intensification,and land abandonment)affect the territory’s capacity to deliver ES in quality and quantity.These changes,especially land abandonment,are in-creasing the tradeoffs among ES(e.g.,between carbon sequestration and water yield).Land-use planning should consider these aspects.Therefore,incorporating ES into spatial plans is crucial for stakeholders to understand the impacts of land-use change in the loss of ES value.This information can be transmitted through maps that communicate the message in a simplified way.Private owners can easily perceive the ES relevance that their land can provide if an understandable message is delivered.Although this can be a good solution,conflicts can appear even with the implementation of schemes such as Payment for ES(PES).PES is not always effective and can im-pose losses to farmers,disregard their cultural traditions,or not prevent poverty alleviation.In this context,it is crucial to consider local specificities to safeguard PES’s success,create a“win-win”and transform a problem into a solution.Private owners’active participation in implementing sustainable practices or a determined land-use in their properties is vital to achieving global targets such as sustainable development goals.

Why Doesn＇t the Hong Kong Government Sell More Public Land？

Why doesn＇t the Hong Kong government sell more of its enormous land holding to lower the city＇s high housing price and increase the residents＇ small living space？ We answer the question in an overlapping generations framework. We show that while a rapid and complete privatization of government land is efficient in the absence of externalities; it is made politically difficult by a compensation gap, when the losses of current property owners are greater than the government revenue from land sales. We argue that the cross-country diversity of government land ownership owes to historical incidents in some countries （such as the U.S. in the 19th century） that allowed disposal of government land without filling the compensation gap and the absence of such incidents in others （such as Hong Kong）.