TESTIMONY

PRESENTED TO THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

OF THE

U. S. SENATE

ON BEHALF OF THE

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL FORESTRY SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

BY

DR. GREGORY N. BROWN
PRESIDENT, NAPFSC
DEAN, COLLEGE OF FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY

MARCH 20, 1997

 The National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges (NAPFSC) is comprised of the administrative heads of the 67 forestry schools, nationwide, working in partnership with federal agencies, private industry, private forest land owners, and many natural resource and environmental associations. We focus on research, education, extension and international activities.

Current Forestland and Productivity Situation

Over the past decade, the Department of Agriculture has implemented policies that have dramatically reduced timber harvesting on the national forests. Although the national forests represent only 17% of the forested land area of the United States, they contain nearly half of the nation`s softwood sawtimber resource. Recent controversies over endangered species and alternative land-use practices have lead to challenges to USDA Forest Service's management plans which have greatly reduced the level of harvesting on federal lands. The policies of the federal government to restrict harvests, coupled with continuously increasing demands for forest products domestically and globally, has stimulated a major increase in timber harvesting on private lands. This situation, if not dealt with immediately, will result in overharvesting of private forest lands, reductions in the long-term supply of domestic timber, and environmental degradation in much of rural America. Why is it important for the Department of Agriculture to be concerned about this issue? There are at least three reasons.

      Forests provide the raw material for an industry that is of strategic importance to the United States. The pulp and paper industry is only one of two manufacturing industries in which the United States maintains its role as the dominant global producer. Serious thought needs to be given about whether we wish to maintain a dominant global position and, if so, what we need to do to maintain its strength. With recent dramatic changes in federal timber policy, coupled with rising demand for forest products, domestic companies and foreign governments are questioning whether the United States can remain the leader in forest products production. Domestic companies are investing abroad at an accelerated rate. Countries like Chile, Brazil, New Zealand, and Indonesia see the strategic importance of the industry and have developed an array of programs of research, extension, and financial incentives to encourage further industrial growth.

       Forests are important to the economies of large parts of rural America. In 1992, timber products represented 21.4% of the total value of all agricultural crops. Valued at $23.8 billion, roundwood forest products topped corn ($19.7 billion) and soybeans ($16.7 billion) as the leading agricultural commodity. Because of the economic importance of forests, changes in harvest levels or production can dramatically affect local and state economies. In many rural communities throughout the nation, forestry and forest products represent the largest source of employment and earnings.

      Unlike other agricultural commodities, forests are themselves critical components of the environment upon which we all depend. No other resource shares this dual role of being a commodity and, at the same time, directly defining the quality of the environment. Virtually all rivers and streams originate in forests, so the quality and quantity of our water supplies directly depend upon how our forests are managed. Most endangered plant and animal species are found in forested environments. Forests provide an essential backdrop for recreation and the tourism industry throughout the United States. Also, the 736,700,000 acres of forested lands in the United States play a critical role in moderating climatic changes.

While most of the debate over forests focuses on the national forests, it is critical to recognize that 59% of the timberland is collectively owned by about 9,900,000 non-industrial private forest landowners. Approximately 50 percent of our nation's raw wood supply currently originates from nonindustrial private forestlands. Most of these landowners know very little about forest management and forest stewardship, and have little incentive to practice good forestry because of the long-time it takes forests to develop. Yet it is precisely on these small private ownerships that the acceleration of harvesting is now occurring. In some parts of the United States, the 80-year trend of growing more timber than is being harvested is beginning to reverse and evidence of over cutting is beginning to appear. In many ways, the economic and environmental future of large regions of the United States rest on decisions that are being made by millions of individual landowners. These people badly need research information, education, technical assistance, and financial incentives to plant trees and implement proper management practices if we are to maintain healthy, productive forests. Yet USDA invests very little in forestry research and extension at the land-grant universities they turn to for help.

These points raise several strategic questions:

      What is the role of the federal government in encouraging healthy, productive forests on private lands?

       What responsibility does the federal government have for nurturing industries and activities that are vital to the economic base of rural areas?

      What should be the role of the federal government in supporting research, extension, education, and programs of incentives that encourage a high level of environmental stewardship on private forest lands? What is the appropriate level of investment?

      What should be the role of the federal government in supporting industries that are of strategic importance to the nation?

     What should be the role of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in dealing with these questions?

      Is the Department adequately structured to deal holistically with the nation's forest resources? If not, should it be and what changes would be needed to enable it to do so?

Hopefully, thoughtful consideration of these issues will lead to a clearer definition of the roles of all the major components of the Department--the Forest Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service--in dealing comprehensively with this very important resource.