Celebrating
the Forest Service’s Past and Looking to Our Future
Forest Service Associate Chief Sally Collins
70th Annual North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference
Washington, DC—March 16, 2005
It’s a pleasure to be here. This conference is a highlight
of the year for us because it brings together so many of our partners
in natural resource management. I’m grateful for this chance
to make some remarks on behalf of the U.S. Forest Service.
Learning from Our Past
This year, the Forest Service is a century old. In January, hundreds
of participants from the United States, Puerto Rico, and other
countries arrived in Washington for our Centennial Congress.
Among the participants were delegates from different regions;
speakers from universities, agencies, and other organizations;
many young people, our future conservation leaders; and many
of our partners—I know some of you attended.
It was an occasion for celebrating our conservation roots, but
also for reflecting on the daunting challenges ahead. The participants
met in groups to discuss some of the challenges we face, and they
came up with dozens of recommendations. There were three major
ones:
-
The first one had to do with the way people appreciate and value
the ecosystem services provided by forests. On our national forests,
that means ensuring that we have clean air and water, abundant
wildlife and fisheries, and opportunities to enjoy these. Participants
told us—and we concur—that national forests provide
some special and unique ecosystem services found in few other
places in America, if not the world. This includes providing a
specialized niche—wildlife habitats for rare species. This
includes offering the opportunity to recover and conserve wildlife
and fish species with limited protections elsewhere—particularly
limited on private lands, such as species dependent on late successional
ecosystems. And we’re uniquely positioned to provide
remote recreation experiences, including more primitive
hunting and fishing
opportunities.
On private lands, the participants encouraged us to look for
ways to attach market value to ecosystem services as a way
to help
private forested lands stay forested in the future in order
to add a bigger economic engine to conservation. These services
have
traditionally been provided on private lands for free, including
carbon sequestration, soil and water protection, biodiversity,
and outdoor recreation.
- A second major recommendation had to do with better engaging the
public in conservation, for example by improving our school
curricula to better address conservation issues.
-
A third major recommendation involved improving opportunities
for partnership and collaboration, which I’ll talk
more about in a moment.
The issues all focused in one way or another on partnership—on
facilitating a collective commitment to conservation, and I’ll
come back to that. But I’d like to start by giving you a
brief overview of this hundred-year history, because I think it
puts much of what I’ll share into some context. I hope you’ll
be able to see the Forest Service centennial film The
Greatest Good. In 2 hours, it provides a beautiful portrait of what I’ll
sketch for you in a minute or two. Tomorrow, if you choose to,
you can see 30 minutes of this film.
Where We’ve Been
In the past century, we have been through three very different
eras of national forest management, and now we are moving well
into a fourth. A century ago, our nation faced a crisis caused
by the unrestrained exploitation of our natural resources. Conservation
grew out of that crisis. A national system of forest reserves
was established in 1891, and the Forest Service was charged
with managing it in 1905, when it became the national forests
we know today. For the first time, we put uses like grazing
and timber under careful management. We also protected the game
and started to get the fires under control.
The next era came with the Great Depression in the 1930s, which
strengthened our commitment to social responsibility. Through
the Civilian Conservation Corps, we gave jobs to thousands of
unemployed Americans, who built a lot of our public forest infrastructure—roads,
trails, campgrounds, ranger stations, and so on.
The 1950s were a period of transition into the timber era, because
the supply of timber on private lands was depleted due to the
war effort. From the 1960s through the 1980s, every administration,
with strong congressional support, called for more timber from
the national forests. In those 30 years, we went from producing
very little timber to meeting a large share of our nation’s
need for wood. We helped millions of our citizens build homes.
During the same period, the courts became much more active in
determining forest policy due to conflicts among the various uses.
Under our multiple-use mission, we also protected and delivered
other values, goods, and services, including range for livestock,
water, fish and wildlife habitat, wilderness, and outdoor recreation.
But by the 1990s, under the combined pressures of delivering all
this while still producing a great deal of timber, our ability
to meet public expectations was overwhelmed.
For the past decade, timber production on national forest land
has been a relatively small program. Where we once met more than
25 percent of our national need for wood, producing a peak level
of more than 12 billion board feet in 1987, today it’s less
than 2 billion board feet, less than 5 percent of the nation’s
wood supply. Most of that is byproduct from projects for other
purposes, such as forest health protection or habitat enhancement.
Today, we decommission about 12 miles of road for every mile constructed,
and timber is no longer the reason for most of what we build—it’s
access to recreation. Our main focus today is on ecological restoration
and outdoor recreation. Our goal, now, is to integrate the social,
economic, and ecological components of sustainability in all that
we do.
Focusing on Important Issues
These shifts in what we’re doing on the land today reflect
a whole new set of challenges facing us in the 21st century. Consider:
-
In the last 4 years, we’ve had our worst fire seasons in
50 years, and five states have had their biggest fires in history.
We’ve lost dozens of lives and thousands of homes, and we’ve
had record firefighting costs.
- Nationwide, invasive species have cost our citizens billions of
dollars while contributing to the decline of up to half of
our imperiled species, and the rate of new introductions has been
growing steeply.
- We are rapidly fragmenting our forests and losing open space.
Every minute, our citizens lose more than 3 acres of open
space to development. Again, the rate of loss is growing.
-
Recreational uses have been rising so fast that we haven’t
kept up. In particular, we’re seeing unacceptable resource
damage from the unmanaged use of off-highway vehicles.
In addition to these four threats, we also know that climate
change at various scales is undeniable. Our Forest Service researchers,
looking at climate change for more than three decades, have indicated
that under the most optimistic scenario, the United States will
see significant ecological changes in the decades ahead. Tomorrow
some of those same researchers will be speaking on changes in
sagebrush ecosystems as a result of climate change.
These are all enormous and growing challenges, yet Americans
are too often caught up in debates from the past. Getting people
to focus on these important issues of the future is one of the
main challenges we face.
Transition to Global Context
As we turn our attention in the Forest Service to these larger
threats to our nation’s natural resources, we’ve
been struck by the extent to which our national conservation
issues have become global—everything from species protection
of migratory birds; to invasive species management, with the
never-ending introduction of exotics from ever-expanding global
trade; to international ecotourism; to global markets for forest
products.
Our chess game of resource management has become more and more
multidimensional. Let me talk for a minute about this last issue—global
markets for forest products—because it ties directly to
our future conservation efforts in the United States.
In the 1990s, I was the forest supervisor of the Deschutes National
Forest in central Oregon. During that time, mills were closing
all over the Pacific Northwest. Yes, it had to do with declining
timber availability on federal lands, which in turn has to do
with the outcome of the conflict over habitat for the northern
spotted owl. But more and more, timber prices were and are being
set globally. The American timber industry is not faring well
in this global market, and more American timber producers are
investing overseas, where labor and production costs are lower.
Ten years ago, a local mill owner in central Oregon bought a mill
in Lithuania for export to the United States. At the time, I wondered
how that could possibly be economical with all of the transportation
costs, to say nothing of development costs in an underdeveloped
country.
Global Trends
This became even more confounding to me when I traveled to South
Africa 3 years ago. In 2002, I had the opportunity to attend
the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg,
South Africa. Prior to the conference itself, I visited three
mills owned by a U.S. company in the northern part of South
Africa, near Sabie.
The mills had equipment that was decades old and pretty inefficient
as a result. In addition, they were required by post-apartheid
law to bring management under black leadership by a certain deadline,
one that was fast approaching. So the company was funding a huge
training program, and the workforce wasn’t stable. Close
to 30 percent was HIV-positive, with a high death rate since drugs
were few and living conditions were extremely poor. In this context,
the company played an important social role, providing medical
care and family and personal counseling.
You can imagine all the costs and difficulties associated with
all this. Nevertheless, these mills were exporting Forest Stewardship
Council-certified wood to the United States, and they expected
to be producing a profit within 3 years. And yet in the United
States, with all the advantages we have in terms of equipment
and infrastructure and social conditions and proximity to markets,
there are very few mills left in some parts of the country, such
as southern California. And without mills to process material,
it’s tough to get it out of the woods—something we
need to do to reduce fire hazards, provide habitat for various
species, and restore fire-adapted ecosystems—ecosystems
we all know are significantly “out of whack” for a
variety of reasons.
Well—from this trip, I finally began to understand that
global economic trends had caught up with forestry. We are so
challenged in the United States by a whole range of social, economic,
environmental, and other issues that it can actually be cheaper
to operate overseas and import the wood than it is to operate
in the United States and sell on our own markets. When our citizens
buy softwood lumber, four boards in ten now come from other countries.
This has huge implications, both at home and abroad. If forest
owners in the United States can’t make it pay to manage
their forests sustainably, partly by selling trees, then they
tend to stop trying. And if it pays more to sell their land to
developers—and often it pays much, much more—then
they often do just that. The southern United States is still the
single biggest wood-producing region in the world, but southern
states like Florida and North Carolina are actually seeing net
forest losses to urban and suburban development. As this happens,
we are losing forest values and benefits we desperately need—like
habitat for the native wildlife we are all committed to protecting.
This also has implications abroad. Public forests in the United
States enjoy some of the greatest protections in the world. At
the same time, we are by far the world’s biggest consumer
of wood. Our per-capita wood consumption is three times the world
average, and our consumption of softwood lumber has set new records
in 6 of the last 8 years. To my mind, that raises an important
question: As we import more and more wood from overseas, some of it is coming from places with relatively few environmental
protections. When we do that, are we fueling unsustainable practices
in some countries … deforestation … illegal logging?
And what does that do to biological diversity?
Community-Based Forestry
I believe we have to understand the global context we live in.
For all of us, that means paying close attention to the signals
coming from all around us—and today they are coming from
all around the world. But if we find ourselves focusing on the
past—on the debates that mattered yesterday—then
we miss the signals we’re getting today.
At the Forest Service, we’re trying some new approaches
in response to the challenges we face, particularly in light of
global trends. We don’t have all the answers, but we believe
that it’s our responsibility to take some initiatives, see
what works and what doesn’t work, then adjust our methods
accordingly. But we can’t do it alone. We can’t succeed
without active involvement from the public and our partners. Partnerships
are key, and let me explain that a little more.
The Forest Service has a long tradition of fulfilling our mission
through partnerships. But the way we work with people has changed
over time. When I first started with the Forest Service, many
of us still believed that we “professionals” had all
the forestry expertise needed to make the right choices for the
land. Our public involvement was largely limited to explaining
our decisions, and our partnerships were limited to helping us
carry them out.
That’s changed. Again, a global trend is involved. Eighty
percent of the world’s poor depend on forest resources,
and more than a billion poor people live in the world’s
19 biodiversity hotspots. What we’re learning from our international
partnerships—with organizations like The Nature Conservancy,
World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International, Forest Trends,
and others—is that if we want to protect biodiversity worldwide,
then we have got to give local communities a stake in the land.
They are showing, with these partnerships, that for people to
work for conservation, conservation has to work for people. More
and more governments are engaging communities in managing their
local forests because they see that the best caretakers are those
who know and depend on the land the most. We’re seeing a
global trend toward community-based forestry, with parts of Mexico
being stellar examples.
Something similar is going on in the United States. In many of
our rural counties, residents eke out a living on the margins
of some of our richest forests, which are often on public land.
Our local communities know local forest conditions better than
anyone else, and they have strong traditions of caring for the
land—provided they have a stake in the outcome.
New Initiatives
One response to this trend of community-based forestry has been
the evolution of a new tool called stewardship contracting.
Traditionally, we would contract for particular projects—for
a timber sale, for stream restoration, or for trail reconstruction,
for example—separately—that is with separate contracts
in the same geographic area. And the timber sale was the primary
vehicle for commercial timber. With a stewardship contract,
we work together to outline the broad landscape outcomes we
want on the land, then leave it up to the successful bidder,
potentially NGOs or community groups—and we’ve had
both, as well as industry groups—to figure out the details
and get the outcomes we want. With the products they sell, they
can reinvest in the other restoration work on the land. The
focus is on what you leave on the land, not on what you take
away. It’s a great way to involve the community in managing
the land; to build local support—ownership for the work
being done; and to boost the local economy.
Second, in response to decades of criticism by the public and
in view of the need to respond to very different issues today,
we’re taking a hard look at some of our fundamental planning
tools to make them more responsive to conditions in the 21st century.
We’re bringing in new technology as well as the public’s
desire to be involved, and we’re recognizing the threats
facing our forests and the need to respond to them quickly. There
are dozens of great examples here—just developed in the
past 3 years—such as new categorical exclusions or the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act. But, most prominently, we’ve reformed
our forest planning process.
The new planning rule will allow us to focus on future issues
quickly and more adeptly, such as increased recreational use,
invasive species, big fires, and ecological restoration. The planning
rule also provides for quickly incorporating the best available
science into planning as we learn. By reducing the time it takes
to complete a plan—from about 7 years to about 2 years—it
encourages more effective public participation. And, finally,
it requires a system of independent third-party audits to make
sure not only that we deliver what we say we will, but also that
we truly are improving the environment. The audits use environmental
management systems—or EMS—for certification through
an internationally recognized process, and we will have them in
place by 2008. This will increase not only our accountability,
but also the transparency of our monitoring process, something
our publics and communities have wanted for decades.
Finally, over the past 2 years we’ve put all of our senior
leadership through seminars on global forestry trends, for most
of the reasons I’ve talked about today. From that came many
of our ideas about independent audits, about markets for ecosystem
services, about the market niche that forest products have in
a global context, and about the worldwide movement in community-based
forestry.
Hope for the Future
In closing, as we work together locally to protect and conserve
our wildlife and other natural resources, let’s remember
to think globally. Gifford Pinchot, the first Forest Service
Chief, traveled internationally quite a lot, and he envisioned
conservation as a global peacemaker. He reasoned that if we
can conserve our renewable natural resources worldwide, then
we can eliminate one of the biggest incentives for waging war:
to plunder the resources of other countries.
Worldwide, the wave of the future is community-based stewardship
through partnerships and collaboration. While all of us in natural
resource management face what appear to be overwhelmingly large
challenges in the years ahead—fire, fuels, invasives, growing
population and climate change, and loss of open space—we
have great opportunities for working together across borders and
boundaries, across government at all levels, and with partners
representing the full conservation spectrum. As our partnerships
have matured over the past decade, so have our successes. We see
it not just in the innovations—those really spectacular
partnerships among so many different and nontraditional parties—but
also on the land, in restored habitat and thriving wildlife populations.
You all have so much to be proud of and we are proud to be your
partner.
#
|