Putting
Natural Capital to Work
Forest Service Associate Chief Sally Collins
Ecosystem Services Conference
Washington, DC—May 18, 2005
I want to start by saying how pleased I am that this conference
is taking place. I believe that the issues surrounding ecosystem
services are some of the most vital and pressing conservation challenges
facing us in the 21st century, and we’ve only just started
to scratch the surface. Time is not on our side when it comes to
losing our natural areas and the services they provide.
That’s why this conference is so tremendously important.
In recent months and years, the issues surrounding ecosystem services
have stirred a huge amount of energy. At the Forest Service’s
Centennial Congress in January, loss of ecosystem services was a
top concern voiced by partners from all over the country. We followed
up by hosting three focus groups, where we listened to our partners’
ideas and explored some of the opportunities we have to create markets
and payments for ecosystem services. Many of our partners in the
private sector are deeply engaged in this issue, including those
here with me on this panel—in fact, they’re leading
the way. So are states like Texas—we’re supporting Texas
in developing an Ecosystem Services Pilot Program. All this energy
gives me a great deal of hope that we’re beginning to make
real progress.
What I’d like to do today is to position the Forest Service
in relation to the issues surrounding ecosystem services. I’ll
start with a historical overview of where I think we are, then say
a few words about where I think we’re headed in dealing with
these issues as an agency.
Tragedy of the Commons
The Forest Service has been involved in delivering ecosystem services
for more than a century now, although we didn’t always understand
it in quite those terms. The Millennium Assessment has nicely catalogued
a range of ecosystem services from forests, all of which we have
long delivered from national forest land: fresh water, flood regulation,
local climate regulation, medicines, and spiritual values, just
to name a few. To give you one example—one from medicinal
values—Pacific yews harvested from the Gifford Pinchot National
Forest in the early 1990s yielded the first taxol, which is used
to treat various forms of cancer.
Traditionally, such services have been free. Whether they came
from public or private land, most ecosystem services have been available
to anyone who wanted or needed them. They are what economists call
a “commons,” and a commons is notorious for the tragedy
it can lead to. When goods or services are for the taking, they
tend to be undervalued. People will exploit them, and no one has
a stake in conserving them. It’s the story of what happened
to the beaver, to the bison, to forests in some places, and now
to ocean fisheries the world over. The logic of self-interest dictates
that a common resource will be relentlessly exploited for short-term
personal gain until it’s depleted, even if it means long-term
collective disaster.
When that happens, our market-based system of allocating resources
has failed. It was market failures at the turn of the 19th century
associated with timber, rangeland, water, and big game that helped
give rise to conservation, leading to creation of the National Forest
System. On national forest land, you could argue that markets eventually
failed again following World War II, when our management for timber
and other commercial outputs came increasingly at the expense of
undervalued services such as wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation—services
that the public increasingly wanted.
The public was entitled to these services by law under the Multiple
Use–Sustained Yield Act of 1960 and the legislation that followed
in the 1960s and 1970s. To meet the intent of the law—and
because it was the right thing to do—we adopted a more holistic
approach to land management. Today, we take entire landscapes into
account, and we manage them primarily for such values as clean air
and water, wildlife habitat, and opportunities for outdoor recreation.
In a sense, we have reversed our postwar approach to national forest
management: Where for 30 years we managed primarily for commercial
outputs such as timber, with ecosystem services as a byproduct,
today we manage primarily for ecosystem services, with timber mainly
as a byproduct of treatments for other purposes.
Loss of Open Space
That works on public land, so long as government has the resources
to deliver ecosystem services as public goods. But it’s quite
another matter on private land, where the logic of the marketplace
dictates the need for financial returns. In the United States, that’s
incredibly important, because some 71 percent of the nation’s
timber and some 89 percent of our timber production is on private
land. Sustainable forest management in the private sector depends
on sustained commercial outputs of forest products such as timber.
The problem is that markets for America’s forest and rangeland
products have softened at the same time that markets for urban land
development have boomed. Every day, we lose more than 4,000 acres
of working farms and ranches to development, and working forests,
too, are being sold and fragmented. The South remains the largest
timber-producing region in the world, but even the South has been
affected. Some southern states have had net forest losses in every
decade since 1960, including Florida, Louisiana, and Texas. North
Carolina has less forest cover today than ever before in its recorded
history, mostly due to urban development.
When a private forest or ranch is sold for development, the loss
of ecosystem services is direct, immediate, and permanent. We all
know that. But such losses also affect public land in a couple of
ways:
- First, habitat loss. Wildlife species such as elk or grizzly
are often associated with the national forests, but they actually
use entire landscapes, including privately owned bottomlands at
certain times of the year. As these private lands are developed,
the wildlife disappears, no matter how good the habitat remains
on adjacent public land.
- Second, loss of industrial infrastructure. Public land management
is based on partnerships with private industry. Without a healthy
forest products industry, including both its timber-harvesting
and its wood-processing components, we can’t do the ecological
restoration and maintenance that we so desperately need—for
instance, on the 73 million acres of national forest land that
are highest priority for treatments to reduce fire risk. And without
those treatments, the public loses valuable ecosystem goods and
services such as disturbance regulation, water purification, and
wildlife habitat.
Finding Solutions
What’s the solution? In this age of globalization, where international
markets drive so much of what happens, the answer lies in how we
work with a whole variety of partners. The Tragedy of the Commons
is destroying forests in some parts of the world while undermining
our own forest products industry through cheap imports. The Forest
Service is working with partners overseas to build capacity for
sustainable forest management and to help stop the international
trade in illegal forest products. That can immensely help our own
forest products industry.
But I’m afraid it might not be enough. We also need to think
about what we can do here at home to bolster our ability to provide
ecosystem services. Let’s look at three traditional approaches:
- First, governments might acquire more land to deliver ecosystem
services as public goods. However, government resources are already
stretched thin, and in many areas there’s little political
support for more public land.
- Second, governments might offer tax relief or tax incentives
for sustainable forest management. Tax reform is well worth looking
into, but the rising value of developed land might eventually
motivate landowners to sell, anyway.
- Finally, governments and conservation groups might acquire
more conservation easements, for example through our own Forest
Legacy Program. These efforts are crucial, and we’ve made
incredible strides here in the past two decades. But the scope
of what we can do here is limited. It’s been estimated that
some 236 million acres would be needed for a comprehensive system
of habitat conservation areas in the United States, yet all easements
combined currently cover less than 5 percent of that.
All of these traditional approaches are good and necessary, but
none of them offers enough, either alone or in combination, to greatly
reduce the loss of ecosystem services.
Market Correction
Part of the underlying problem seems to be market failure. The market
sees only the value of the land for development and for forest products
such as timber. It ignores the value of the land for delivering
water, sequestering carbon, and supporting wildlife. The value of
such ecosystem services might not completely replace the value of
traditional forest products, but it can be a vital supplement.
If we can assign a monetary value to such ecosystem services and
add it to the value of forest products, then the sum might
be greater than the value for development. The economic incentive
for sustainable land management would then outweigh the incentive
for development.
A market correction along these lines might go a long way toward
solving problems related to loss of open space. It’s been
called natural capitalism—finally recognizing nature’s
contribution to the balance sheet and putting that natural capital
to work. It’s already being done in a number of places in
a number of ways, for example through emissions trading or by paying
for crop pollination or upstream watershed protection. I’m
sure you all know many examples.
So that’s the fundamental problem I think we face: how to
assign a monetary value to ecosystem services and then how to put
that natural capital to work. I see at least three subsets to the
problem:
- First, some values associated with ecosystem services can simply
never be fully measured in terms of dollars and cents, such as
wilderness and roadless values or cultural and heritage values.
We’ve got to identify those values and continue providing
them as public goods.
- Second, for the ecosystem services that are payable or tradable,
such as water quality or carbon sequestration, we’ve got
to figure out how to assign property rights and regulatory roles.
For example, whose right takes priority, the upstream property
owner’s right to change land use or the downstream water
user’s right to clean water? Or, for a cap-and-trade system,
who does the banking, who does the monitoring, and how should
the trading work? And what new institutions will be needed to
provide governance?
- Finally, for ecosystem services to be paid for, proper prices
need to be set, and that takes good information. A lot of work
has already been done in this area by the World Bank and others,
so we do know that proper pricing is feasible. But we’re
going to need a lot more information if we want to create markets
that are truly efficient and if we want to make payments that
truly make sense.
Forest Service Role
That brings me to the role I see for the Forest Service in all this.
Our main role will be to serve as a convener and facilitator. We
can help stimulate a public dialogue on markets and payments for
ecosystem services while guiding and enriching the dialogue through
our research. Our Research staff and our State and Private Forestry
staff will together take the lead in this.
- We already have cutting-edge research that we can draw on to
address a number of questions. For example, what should our priorities
be? What market schemes are appropriate, how do they evolve, and
what is the role of secondary trading? How should the values from
ecosystem services be priced and how should the transactions be
made? Do we need a national administrative body for markets and
payments? Our researchers can help us answer these questions.
They can also help address evaluation and monitoring needs. In
addition, I think we need to research the social dimension—the
public values tied to ecosystem services.
- Applying all that research is a job for our State and Private
Forestry staff in collaboration with our partners. Just getting
the information out to the public and convening forums such as
this are absolutely essential. We’ll also have a role to
play in providing related information and technical assistance
to landowners, and we’ll need to work with our partners
to get pilot markets and payment schemes going. We’ll also
need to work together to develop the necessary regulatory and
legislative framework.
- The National Forest System will continue to play a huge role
in delivering ecosystem services as public goods. For example,
we now manage the nation’s largest inventory of softwoods,
and by 2050 we anticipate that fully half the nation’s softwood
inventory will be on national forest land. That’s a huge
carbon sink. We also expect to have some of the nation’s
most important biodiversity stores for species adapted to older
forest habitats. Although there is no national policy in place,
there is already some local banking of wetland credits and even
carbon credits on national forest land. Also, we can build on
the experience we’ve gained on the national forests in working
across landscapes to manage whole ecosystems. Those experiences
can help guide us in developing institutional frameworks for assigning
property rights associated with ecosystem services.
- And let’s not forget the international dimension. Our
International Programs staff will continue working with international
partners to build capacity for sustainable forest management and
to stop the international trade in illegal forest products. Credit
markets are international, as are corporations, so we’ll
need to work with partners to develop the necessary mechanisms
and institutions for international trading. Ultimately, I believe
that we’ll need a sound international framework for delivering
ecosystem services worldwide.
A Gathering Momentum
To sum up: I believe that our nation faces a great and gathering
peril. In the next hundred years, our population will more than
double, and if we sit back and do nothing, our open spaces will
dwindle away. As working farms, forests, and ranches disappear,
so will many of the ecosystem services that we take for granted—and
that our children’s children will want and need.
Traditional approaches to the problem won’t be enough. Public
land, tax reform, and conservation easements will take us only so
far. We have got to give private landowners more of an incentive
to stay on the land and manage it sustainably, and that will take
markets and payments for ecosystem services.
It won’t be easy. As I said, we’ve only begun to scratch
the surface of the problem, and time is not on our side. But I do
see hope through events such as this. I see a gathering momentum
in every part of the country—in the private sector as well
as the public sector—behind coming together to find collective
solutions. Through that momentum, I believe that we can—and
we will—find ways to truly make a difference.
#
|