The move to a forest restoration economy

At the same time the timber industry was collapsing in the 1990s, natural resource managers, policy makers and communities were starting to realize that the social, ecological and economic sustainability of the West was increasingly threatened by declining forest health and closure of the local sawmill.

Stand-replacing wildfires of the 1990s, 2000 and 2002 were the wake-up call, promulgating a series of policy initiatives focused on the restoration of forests and the reduction of hazardous fuels. Prior to 1998, hazardous fuels reduction was not even a line item in the federal budget. Funds had never been requested.

From 1998 through 2000, Congress appropriated $93 million a year for hazardous fuels reduction, which escalated to $1 billion in 2001 and $3 billion by 2005. With a 100 million acre crisis at hand and support from Congress, timber no longer needed to pay its way out of the forest. Federal agencies changed their management focus from merchantable, large-diameter sawlog removals, to small-diameter, sub-merchantable materials.

As a response, place-based initiatives emerged uniting conservationists, labor management, local stakeholder interests and policy makers. All centered on a restoration framework and an emerging local "green" restoration economy, operating within a "zone of agreement" around social, ecological and certain economic values.

By-products of community protection and forest restoration are primarily small-diameter trees and woody biomass. Existing and new cottage industries were encouraged to develop and provide for utilization of these sub-merchantable materials. The West was particularly ripe for this conversion due to a growing commitment to restore federal forests.

However, one of the greatest challenges to building a forest restoration economy was finding ways to fund restoration activities when traditional sawlog values were no longer primarily relied upon to offset costs. As a response, Congress passed the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Act of 2009, authorizing up to $40 million per year to be spent out of the existing Forest Service's budget to subsidize restoration work across the country.

The October/November 2011 "Journal of Forestry" published an article by U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell saying, "The time is right for a restoration economy. The Forest Service is tailoring its programs and projects to a new management environment."

This was news to many in the forest products community. Up until then, restoration activities were a tool in the federal forest management toolbox. It appeared that restoration was no longer simply a tool but was being used to create a "new management environment." For those that rely upon sawlog volume to keep mills running, this is a problem.

The proposed "new" forest restoration economy focuses less on ecosystem components and outputs and more on ecosystem functions, ecological processes and outcomes. When economics plays a less important role - in any economy - political and economic regimes emerge within smaller social groups and social networks. Because these political economic regimes influence and are influenced by the organization of both social and political economic capital, it lacks a standard economic value.

With the current national deficit, pumping millions of dollars into federally subsidized forest restoration activities is unlikely unless there is political will to do so. A simple solution is to broaden the scope of projects, allowing the value of the sawlogs to pay for the restoration activities. Harvesting sawlogs within the context of restoration has been controversial and unpopular with most conservation groups. However, managing to the lowest common denominator is at a cost to the taxpayer.

With a recent move to reduce the federal budget, as much as one-third of the Forest Service's workforce could retire, not in five years or even within the next year, but in the next two months. With the loss of so many seasoned professionals, the Forest Service will likely rely upon social groups and social networks to accomplish their mission.

The Forest Service is at a crossroads - whether the new forest restoration economy is the next evolutionary step in a 100-year old agency or forces the devolution of management to social groups, states and/or counties is uncertain.

Management of our federal forests resources, in a combination that contributes to the three interrelated and interdependent elements of sustainability - social, ecological and economic - is important and keeps us from repeating mistakes of the past. However, economics in the larger context must be equal with other social values.

Julia Altemus is the executive vice president of the Montana Wood Products Association.