Federal Programs for Private Forests: The US Experience

0735-C1

Eric R. Norland^[1] and Larry E. Biles

Abstract

Nearly half of the forest resources in the United States are owned by private landowners. These forests provide a variety of benefits to the individual owners, as well as significant benefits to society at large. Thus, it has long been national policy to assist these landowners who are privately bearing the costs of stewardship practices that provide broader societal benefits. A portfolio of federal programs provides research, education, technical assistance and financial incentives to private forest owners. While these programs share a common goal of improving stewardship practices on private forest land, they are administered by different agencies with different missions. A typology of federal programs and their interactions is provided. The evolution and rationale for these programs is presented, with accompanying discussion of lessons of interest and program management challenges.

Introduction

The forest resource of the United States is diverse and expansive, encompassing 303 million hectares, or one-third of the nation's total land area (U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service 2001). Natural processes and human impacts dating to the pre-European settlement era account for the dynamic nature of the forest. Aging, wildfire, insect and disease infestations, forest clearing and conversion, abusive harvesting practices and forestland fragmentation continue to change the distribution, composition and structure of the forest resource. As the United States evolved over the course of more than 200 years, economic, political and social forces have increased the importance and appreciation of the forest resource. Thus the federal government, principally through the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), has developed and administered a variety of forestry programs.

In the Beginning - Dispersing the Public Domain

Interest in the forest began in the 18^th century with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. Initially the focus was private land ownership in general and the associated private property rights. Eventually this prompted a variety of government-sponsored land transfer programs.

In the eastern United States much of the public forestland was simply sold to private individuals. Land grants to states upon their entry into also played a role in the expansion of private ownerships. As the frontier moved west, forestland was granted to individuals under the terms of laws intended to encourage settlement, such as the Preemption Act of 1841, the Homestead Act of 1862 and the Timber Culture Act of 1873. These laws focused on incentives for westward expansion and settlement through parcelization of the public domain. Grants to railroads and statehood grants also moved substantial areas of forestland out of federal ownership and into private ownerships (Biles 2001).

The Private Forest Resource

One result of the land transfer laws of the 19^th century is an extensive private forestland base of 150 million hectares that is owned by nearly 10 million private individuals (USDA Forest Service 1996). These forest lands provide a variety of benefits to their owners and their reasons for owning forestland are diverse. Nearly 40 percent of the owners attribute their reason for forest holdings to it simply being part of the residence or farm. Only 3 percent hold their land primarily for timber production, but these owners control 29 percent of the private forest land. Given that private forests provide nearly 80 percent of the nation's forest products, many more than 3 percent of the owners eventually sell products from their land.

Private Forest Laws and Regulations

The economic and environmental capacity of the nation's forestland to provide a breadth of products and services has been enhanced by numerous laws that directly affect private lands. Legislation in the early 20^th century fostered forest management and reforestation (Weeks Law; Clark-McNary, Norris-Doxey Acts) of private lands through technical assistance. The Smith- Lever Act established the Cooperative Extension System (CES) at designated universities for the purpose of "...diffusing among the people of the United States useful and practical information..." which included forest resource management.

The "Dust Bowl" era of the 1930's provided added emphasis for publicly-supported conservation efforts involving private forestlands (USDA Forest Service 1983). Government incentives and technical assistance programs peaked in the 1950's-1970's with the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act, Soil Bank Program, Forestry Incentives Program and the Agricultural Conservation Program. Forest research and education programs were created by the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Act and the Renewable Resources Extension Act (Sampson and Hair 1990).

In the last twenty-five years, a number of regulatory programs have emerged, changing the public focus on private lands from one of protection and productivity to one of protection and productivity in harmony with the environment. The most significant laws include: the Clean Water Act; Clean Air Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; and the Endangered Species Act. An additional law, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, protects woods-workers and other forest industry occupations by setting standards for protective measures.

The Rationale for Publicly-Funded Forestry Programs

The interest in private forests and the rationale for publicly funded programs is derived from the fact that these forests not only provide benefits to individual owners but also to society at large.

For example, private forests:

Provide essential habitat to 75 percent of the nation's fish and wildlife species, including habitat for 86 percent of the 712 species that are threatened and endangered (National Research Council 1998).

Support a recreation industry of more than $100 billion.

Supply a majority of the raw material for the forest industry, which accounts for eight percent of the nation's manufacturing base.

Contribute large quantities of stream water flow for domestic, agricultural and recreational uses.

Store an estimated 54.6 billion metric tons of carbon (National Research Council 1998) which otherwise would enter the atmosphere and exacerbate the global warming process.

Because the cost of forest stewardship on the land is borne by its owners but benefits society at large, the federal government, through the Department of Agriculture, provides a portfolio of policy tools to support the efforts of private forest owners. These policy tools include research, education, technical assistance and financial incentives for stewardship on non-federal forests (USDA 2001).

Typology of Federal Forestry Programs

Research

Science-based knowledge, practices and policies are essential to ensure that the dynamic nature of the forest is understood, that practices being adopted actually accomplish their objectives and that public policies are efficient and effective in achieving the desired outcomes. Research develops improved understanding of forest systems and how they function; improved methods of management; new technologies, equipment and processes; and new products that improve the use of forest resources (Sampson and DeCoster 1997). The federal involvement in forest research is present in two USDA agencies: the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) and the Forest Service (FS). In the Forest Service, the research mission is accomplished by 140 work units at 67 different locations, many of which are co-located with forestry colleges/schools/departments at universities. In addition to the work done by more than 500 permanent Forest Service scientists, the Forest Service supports research efforts through over 1000 cooperative research agreements with external entities.

The federal government provides forest research support directly to universities through various programs at CSREES. Funding is provided through competitive grant programs (e.g., National Research Initiative) as well as a state-specific allocation program (McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program). The state allocation for McIntire-Stennis funds is based on three factors: 1)amount of non-federal forest land in the state, 2) timber harvest levels, and 3)forest research investment from non-federal sources. This funding mechanism provides university faculty with a fairly reliable source of funding to pursue a forestry research agenda..

Education

The nature of education programs has been widely interpreted. The term "education" has been used as a descriptor for activities that range from general public awareness of federal programs to activities that include conferences, workshops, field days, tours and publications. This wide-ranging and inconsistent use of "education" has masked the significant differences between information and education programs.

Concise definitions are useful for program planning, delivery and evaluation. Consider the following:

Information - A one-way communication process between the sender and an audience for the purpose of creating awareness of a specific topic or program, and usually employs mass media (mail, print, visual, electronic) to reach as many members of the audience as possible.

Education - Those activities that involve the learners in assessing their own individual needs, engage them in analyses of specific learning needs, and actively involve them in a learning process.

The principle forest landowner education provider in the United States is the Cooperative Extension System(CES) comprised of 104 land grant universities, so named for the federal land grants to states that led to their creation. The CES is supported by a three-way funding partnership, with the federal government, state governments and local governments providing varying levels of support. Through CSREES, federal funding is provided to the universities for overall program support and designated funding to specifically support forestry programs through the Renewable Resources Extension Act.

Extension forestry programs are guided by several philosophical and operational underpinnings that are part of the historical and cultural context of the CES (Reed et al. 1997):

• Forestry extension education programs begin with understanding what the learners need in order to solve problems and improve forest stewardship practices.

• Forestry extension programs are a source of unbiased, credible, research-based information.

• Forestry extension programs do not tell learners what to think and do, but rather assist them with examining and evaluating various alternatives and consequences; the decision-making is left to the learners.

• Forestry extension educators are servants of the people not an institution with rigid, fixed curricula or formula-based education offerings.

• Forestry extension programs are designed and delivered based on well-established principles and processes of teaching and learning in non-formal settings with voluntary learners.

• Forestry extension programs are long-term commitments to life-long learning for participants, not short-term projects with fixed beginning and ending points.

The forestry extension program is thus distinctly different from the educational functions performed by other government agencies that educate learners about new regulations or how to use the services of a particular program.

Technical Assistance

To take full advantage of new knowledge and skills gained through education programs, forest landowners frequently need one-on-one, on-the-ground assistance and advice from a professional forester. Consistent with the previously-mentioned rationale for public support of private forests, federal funding partially supports technical assistance to forest landowners. The USDA Forest Service provides funding through its Cooperative Forestry programs to state forestry agencies. The state agencies utilize the funding to hire and support foresters, commonly referred to as "service foresters," who work with individual landowners on a request basis. The nature of the landowner assistance varies by state and may include some or all of the following:

• General forest resource assessment
• Development of a forest management plan
• Timber sale inventory and marking
• Timber sale administration
• Timber harvesting regulation enforcement
• Development of other specific forest practices plans (e.g., tree planting, timber stand improvement, salvage cutting)

Technical assistance is also provided through the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Local NRCS District Conservationists have a broad array of technical natural resources backgrounds, including many who have formal forestry training. District Conservationists play an important role in providing technical assistance to local soil conservation districts whose staff in turn provides some technical assistance to forest landowners.

Financial Incentives

Financial assistance in the form of cost-sharing and incentive payments is provided directly to interested and eligible forest landowners to accomplish various forest resource management practices, depending on the goals and objectives of the specific federal program. One of the oldest programs, dating to 1936, was the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) which provided cost-sharing for tree planting, timber stand improvement, and wildlife habitat improvement. In 1973 the Forestry Incentives Program (FIP) was enacted. Its program goals were largely focused on timber production and various studies have found it to have been effective and efficient (Sampson and DeCoster 1997). The 1990 Farm Bill created the Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP) in order to broaden the financial assistance beyond timber production to include other forest products and services as well as forest management plans. In 1996 the ACP and several other agriculture programs were merged into the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). This program provides financial incentive payments for the adoption of specific practices as well as funds to share the actual costs of other practices. Most recently, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 repealed FIP and SIP and replaced them with the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP). An important feature of this program is that it supports a multi-functional approach that includes not only financial assistance, but also technical assistance and education. FLEP is administered by the Forest Service and provides funding to the state forestry agency, where a State Forest Stewardship Committee (SFSC) comprised of various stakeholders recommends what practices should be supported and how the funds should be allocated across the three program functions

Program Interactions

It is important to recognize the significance of interactions between various types of programs. To the extent possible, they do not operate independently due to the forest landowners' needs for various kinds of assistance. For example, educational programs provide the knowledge and skills for a landowner to adopt a particular practice and information on sources of assistance. Forest landowners then seek out the necessary technical assistance to actually adopt a practice. Likewise, technical and financial assistance programs provide for the initial adoption of a practice and education programs enable owners to better manage and maintain the practice and to make further decisions about additional practices.

Because USDA programs are implemented and delivered at the state level, coordination among the state-based funding partners is critical. An effective means of achieving this is the SFSC under the auspices of the state forestry agency. The SFSC is comprised of a wide variety of forestry interests from the public, professional, academic, non-governmental organization, and commercial sectors. For those SFSC members who administer program funded by USDA, this forum provides a place for programs to be jointly implemented to achieve the goal of improved forest stewardship practices.

Challenges

A variety of challenges can be identified in the delivery of USDA-funded programs:

• Lack of concise definitions of program functions, such as "education" and "information" can lead to difficulty in evaluating program outcomes by both educators and information officers.
• Program coordination among the various agencies that administer programs requires ongoing attention in order to avoid duplication and capture the synergy of various types of programs that are all working toward the same goal.
• Federal agencies deliver forestry programs primarily through state-based partners whose efforts may or may not be well-coordinated. This can offset the coordination and cooperation occurring at the federal level.
• With the various forestry program functions (e.g. education, technical assistance) spread across multiple agencies at both the federal and state levels, it is important that all are adequately supported to avoid gaps in an overall program delivery strategy that consists of: 1)creating landowners awareness, 2) expanding landowner knowledge and skills, and 3)facilitating landowner adoption of forest stewardship practices.
• Many questions about publicly-funded forestry programs are raised by the private sector. Most of the concern is focused on technical assistance programs which are seen as subsidized programs that compete with professional forestry assistance that is provided for a fee. Concerns regarding financial assistance programs are fewer and questions about the federal role in supporting forest landowner education are minimal.

Lessons of Interest

• A comprehensive approach comprised of education, technical assistance and financial incentives, and undergirded by research findings provides a continuum of services that is efficient and effective. Inter-agency collaboration in program design, delivery and evaluation leads to better programs "on the ground."

• At the national level, USDA agency representatives serve as liaisons to the National Council on Private Forests (NCPF). This council, comprised of private and professional organizations, has provided an important forum for discussion of priority issues, formulation of programs to address them, and public-private partnerships to accomplish program goals. Much can be accomplished through a national council such as NCPF. The presence of a Forestry Title in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 is evidence of the influence of the non-government members of the council in shaping public policy regarding private forests.

• The number and extent of forest management plans has often been used as a measure of program success. But after more than 50 years of rather intensive publicly-supported forestry, there are management plans on only 5 percent of the private forest ownerships and 22 percent of the acres. This raises a question about the appropriateness of "management plan" as the best indicator of program success. While the preparation and use of a plan is highly preferred over a series of random efforts by a landowner that may be stimulated by attractive financial offers, the large number of practices implemented and acres impacted through the assistance of publicly-supported programs involving professional foresters is clearly better than no plan or technical assistance.

Conclusion

Federal policy will continue to evolve in order to address changing societal needs and environmental issues. The Secretary of Agriculture has promulgated the following policy principles (USDA 2001) which apply to existing conservation programs and will be used to shape future programs:

• Sustain past environmental gains.
• Accommodate new and emerging environmental concerns.
• Design and adopt a portfolio approach to conservation policies.
• Reaffirm market-oriented policies.
• Ensure compatibility of conservation and trade policies.
• Coordinate conservation and farm policies.
• Recognize the importance of collaboration.

Literature Cited

Biles, L.E, 2001. What America's federal and state governments want from private forests: their preparedness to fund programs related to government being a stakeholder in private forests, International Union of Forestry Research Organizations-Extension Working Party (S6.06-03), Lorne, Australia, 12 p.

National Research Council, 1998. Forested landscapes in perspective: prospects and opportunities for sustainable management of America's nonfederal forests, Washington, D.C., 249 p.

Reed, A.S., J.J. Garland and L.E. Biles, 1997. Extension forestry organizational processes, programs and policies, International Union of Forestry Research Organizations-Extension Working Party (S6.0603), Freising, Germany, in Proceedings: Approaches to Extension Forestry - Experiences and Future Developments: 117-136.

Sampson, N.R. and L.A. DeCoster, 1997. Public Programs for Private Forestry, American Forests, Washington, D.C., 100 p.

Sampson, N.R. and D. Hair, 1990. Natural resources for the 21^st century. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 349 p.

USDA, 2001. Food and agricultural policy: taking stock for the new century, Washington, D.C., 120 p.

USDA Forest Service, 2001. U.S. forest facts and trends, FS-696, Washington, D.C. 20 p.

USDA Forest Service, 1996. Private forest-land owners of the United States, 1994, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Research Bulletin NE-134, Radnor, PA, 183 p.

USDA Forest Service, 1983. The principle laws relating to Forest Service activities, Agriculture Handbook 453, Washington, D.C., 591 p.