Chapter 1: Forest Resources and Public Policy Text: Cubbage et al., 1992.
-
Upload
jonah-adams -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
2
Transcript of Chapter 1: Forest Resources and Public Policy Text: Cubbage et al., 1992.
Chapter 1: Forest Resources Chapter 1: Forest Resources and Public Policyand Public Policy
Text: Cubbage et al., 1992Text: Cubbage et al., 1992
• Manage forested ecosystems to meet society’s objectives; technical fields
• Characteristics:
– Complain about political context within which they work
– Famous for their preference for the outdoors
• More successful resource professionals:
– Combine technical skills + understanding of politics and the political process
– Examples: Gifford Pinchot, Aldo Leopold, Ding Darling
The Natural Resource Professionals
Over the years:Over the years:• 1800s – sustained yield & game protection
– Professionals persuade and enforce• 1920s – forest protection programs
– Professionals were enforcers• 1930s – game mgmt & wilderness preservation
– Professionals were enforcers• 1940s – multiple use; recreational opportunities
– Professionals were enforcers• 1950s – reconstruction & development• 1960s – environmental + civil rights + antiwar movements
fundamental changes– Interest groups expanded in numbers & membership
• 1990s + – interest in natural environment & challenges to authority– Local conflicts to global problems (air, climate, deforest.)– conflict resolution usually in courts
Over the years (federal land ownership):Over the years (federal land ownership):
• Settlement/Acquisition Era (1800s)
• Disposal (1870s- 1930s)
• Reservation Era (1930s)
• Custodial Management (1940s)
• Intensive Management (1950s-60s-70s)– resources support industries; reforestation, TSI, protection
– cooperative public/private protection programs; multiple use
• Consultative & Advocacy Era (1970s – now)
• Ecosystem Mgmt; Conflict issue settlement in court
What is the importance of public policy?What is the importance of public policy?
• affects forest resource management.
• affects people who use/manage these resources.
• provides guidance/directions to resource users/managers.
• resource managers participate in dev’t & implementation of forest policies.
Resource professionals & public policyResource professionals & public policy
• resource managers participate in dev’t & implementation of forest policies.
• for resource professionals to be effective contributors to policy development need to understand how policies are formed.
• to be effective implementers need to understand how/why policies are formed.
• should consider importance of public opinion in the policy formulation process.
Two case examples: 1990sTwo case examples: 1990s
• Texas – Timber salvage and replanting
• Cumberland Island – Reintroduction of the bobcat
Case 1: Texas Forestry - Four Notch AreaCase 1: Texas Forestry - Four Notch Area
• The Issue: What was the case all about?
• Major policy (policies) involved in the case?
• Participants: Who were primarily involved in the case?
– Group goals? Strategies used?
• Were there any related issues?
• What were the methods used to expand (fan) the issue?
• The role of the media?
• Public reactions?
• What was the general avenue to resolve the case?
• What were the alternative solutions?
• What was the final solution?
• Who rendered the final decision?
• Was the case settled fairly and equitably? Why? Why not?
• Major lessons learned?
Case 1: Texas Forestry: Public opinion and Case 1: Texas Forestry: Public opinion and forestry in Texasforestry in Texas • Four Notch Area, East Texas (1988)
• 55% of area in forest cover; 1 of 4 manufacturing jobs in wood processing
• 1988 Survey: only 6% of East Texans knew timber supports major industry
• mid-70s – Citizen groups took greater interest in the East TX forests
• 1976 – lawsuit to stop clear cutting in national forests in TX led to Four Notch as possible addition to National Wilderness Preservation System.
• 1982-84 – pine bark beetles infestation affected 3500 acres of pine forests
• 1982 – Environmental Assessment was required under NEPA of 1969 before any control action can be implemented to stop infestation
• 1983 – Atlanta FS Reg. Dir. approved EA; Sierra Club appealed to FS Chief but was denied
• 1983 - Salvage operations began with chainsaw crews from 6 states, tried to cut 250-foot buffer to stop infestation that was going 50 feet per day
• 1984 – beetle outbreak subsided; ¾ of Four Notch area timber was salvaged by helicopter logging
• FS mgmt. plan: Dead standing timber – push over, chop, burn with jellied gasoline-diesel mix; prescribed burn ignited from air (helicopter). Afterwards – plant pine in area
Case 1: Texas Forestry: Public opinion and Case 1: Texas Forestry: Public opinion and forestry in Texasforestry in Texas
• Sierra Club and the Texas Committee on Natural Resources (TCONR) – environmental groups protested FS is going to create a monoculture!
• 1986 – Newsweek reported Smokey the Bear had complete turn-around and was napalming East Texas Forest
– FS objective – reduce fuel load from dead trees left by infestation
• Earth First! – (radical group) members chained themselves to trees (at Sam Houston National Forest) to stop FS from burning them.
• New media covered events – newspapers and Houston Chronicle played it out
– “Stop the Tree Nazis” – banner by protestors, media showed it plus Forest Rangers sawing off trees that support an Earth First protestor’s hammock
Case 1: Texas Forestry: Public opinion and Case 1: Texas Forestry: Public opinion and forestry in Texasforestry in Texas• Temporary injunction
– Filed by TX attorney general on behalf of Sierra Club & TCNOR;
– Stopped FS site prep work and allowed review by federal courts
• Findings: no violation of either law or procedure by FS
• 1987 – prescribed broadcast burn was done; pine seedlings planted as planned
• FS – successful in its management program, but generated bad publicity and ill-will
• Could the FS have avoided the controversy? What could have been done with these players?
– Interest groups and their history – Sierra Club; TCONR, Earth First!– Neighboring landowners– Forest industry – Forest Service
Case 2: Reintroduction of the bobcat in Case 2: Reintroduction of the bobcat in Cumberland IslandCumberland Island
• The Issue: What was the case all about? • Major policy (policies) involved in the case?
• Participants: Who were primarily involved in the case?
– Group goals? Strategies used?
• Were there any related issues?
• What were the methods used to expand (fan) the issue?
• The role of the media?
• Public reactions?
• What was the general avenue to resolve the case?
• What were the alternative solutions?
• What was the final solution?
• Who rendered the final decision?
• Was the case settled fairly and equitably? Why? Why not?
• Major lessons learned?
Case 2: Reintroduction of Bobcats on Case 2: Reintroduction of Bobcats on Cumberland Island National Seashore (CINS)Cumberland Island National Seashore (CINS) • CI – one of barrier islands off Georgia-Florida coast of the Atlantic Ocean;
more than 20,000 acres
• European settlers – colonized islands in 16thcentury; farmed and released feral hogs, cattle and horses
• Late 1960s --National Park Foundation bought lands in CI
• 1972 – Congress designated most of CI as the CI National Seashore (Public Law 92-536)
• 1982 –most of areas in the CINS designated as wilderness
• National Park Service:
– to manage CINS to provide outdoor rec. & preserve related scenic, scientific & historic values.
– Laws allowed hunting, fishing, & trapping to continue (local residents).
– NPS developed a Resource Management Plan (RMP) for CI.
Case 2: Reintroduction of Bobcats on Case 2: Reintroduction of Bobcats on Cumberland Island National Seashore (CINS)Cumberland Island National Seashore (CINS) • RMP: One project was to document species wiped out and prepare EIS for
their reintroduction. Bobcats received highest priority.
• Involved researchers from Univ. of Georgia & US F&WS
• NEPA and Environmental Assessment (EA) – NEPA requires EIS for any proposed federal action that occur with federal $ or on federal lands.
– EA is the first required document.
– If EA indicates action would have no significant impact on quality of human environment, EIS is not required.
– No EIS Formal FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact) must follow an EA; to be provided to the public for review.
Case 2: Reintroduction of Bobcats on Case 2: Reintroduction of Bobcats on Cumberland Island National Seashore (CINS)Cumberland Island National Seashore (CINS) • Bobcat project: EA indicated no significant impact. Bobcats would:
– help control native deer & exotic herbivores– help return island’s ecosystem to that which prevailed in 18th century. – Possibly prey on wild turkeys.– Seven alternatives prepared
• Public Comments:– 14 supporting letters (including Sierra Club, Wilderness Soc., & US Congress)– 1 petition of 51 signatures (mostly hunters) opposed – threat on turkeys!!!– St. Marys City Council – opposed; chair influenced by local hunters
• The Media:– Early media coverage focus: bobcats kill deer & turkey– Council Newspaper, Florida Times-Union, Atlanta TV news broadcasts– “St. Marys claws at Cumberland bobcat plan” – Aug. 24, 1988, Florida
Times-Union (newspaper)
Case 2: Reintroduction of Bobcats on Cumberland Case 2: Reintroduction of Bobcats on Cumberland Island National Seashore (CINS)Island National Seashore (CINS) • Public Meetings: next in the EA process
– few people attended
– Researchers:
• focus on bobcats preying on deer was a mistake;
• revised focus reintroduction of former native species was to restore natural biological diversity & meet congressional mandate on parkland management
• Outcome:
– 1988 –EA was approved, 14 bobcats were released
– 1989 – media termed effort a failure; 14 bobcats did not reduce deer population
Case 2: Reintroduction of Bobcats on Cumberland Case 2: Reintroduction of Bobcats on Cumberland Island National Seashore (CINS)Island National Seashore (CINS) • Lessons Learned? Research team knew & followed the policy but…
• Research team: concluded focus on predation rather than biological diversity was oversold.
• Lessons Learned
– Keep objectives modest, clear, straightforward, and obtainable
– Avoid adverse publicity and opposition
– Incorporate surveys of public opinion esp. in early planning stages of project
– Work with media (PR) – (Pinchot)
What is the importance of public policy?What is the importance of public policy?
• affects forest resource management.
• affects people who use/manage these resources.
• provides guidance/directions to resource users/managers.
• resource managers participate in dev’t & implementation of forest policies.
Resource professionals & public policyResource professionals & public policy
• resource managers participate in dev’t & implementation of forest policies.
• for resource professionals to be effective contributors to policy development need to understand how policies are formed.
• to be effective implementers need to understand how/why policies are formed.
• should consider importance of public opinion in the policy formulation process.
Elements of PolicyElements of Policy
• purposive (provides direction)
• requires decision patterns over time
• followed by an individual/group (policy makers, enforcers, compliers)
• deals with a matter of concern (ex. differences in values, objectives, methods)
• reflects social choices
Instruments of Policy (how gov’t Instruments of Policy (how gov’t enforces policies )enforces policies )
1.Coercion - use legal system to regulate behavior
2. Provision of services – assistance in many forms (technical, money, etc.)
3. Provision of money/financial incentives (CRP)
4. Gov’t mgmt of publicly owned lands
Forest Policy defined:Forest Policy defined:
• “A purposive course of action or inaction followed by an individual or group in dealing with a matter of concern regarding the use of forest resources.”
• Guides how forests will be used to meet objectives (stated or implicit)
• Determines who benefits from use and who pays cost of management & use
Forest Policy:Forest Policy:• Concerns the human aspects of resource mgmt
• A series of negotiated settlements – from various interactions (groups, agencies, public); no simple answers, only wise choices – over time
• A major part is institutional – negotiated in courts, congress, executive agencies, corps.
• Influenced by exogenous factors – wars, economic crises, civil rights/environmental movements
• Influenced by chance – ex. USFS is in USDA and not USDI (funding for first project in 1876 was rider in seed distrib. prog)
• Influenced by personalities – Pinchot, Roosevelt
• Influenced by blunders –sometimes it’s as dumb as it looks!
Why are most policy statements vague or Why are most policy statements vague or ambiguous? ambiguous?
• Pros (ambiguity desirable)– Provides flexibility for application of expertise– Appeals to a variety of groups with different views & values– If not ambiguous (i.e., if too specific), policy becomes
divisive; identifies winners & losers
• Cons– Difficult to evaluate program success– Invites conflict (interpretations), putting managers in the
middle of arguments
Example 1: Transfer Act of 1905Example 1: Transfer Act of 1905 • “In the management of each reserve local questions will be
decided upon local grounds; . . . And where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question will always be decided from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run.”
• Q: What is the biggest problem here?
• Q: what if majority of those involved have no scientific-based knowledge or no knowledge at all about the biological, scientific, and other aspects of the resource in question?
Example 2: FPLMA of 1976 (BLM)Example 2: FPLMA of 1976 (BLM) • “The public lands must be managed in a manner that will
protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmosphere, water resource and archaeological values” (Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976) – BLM’s Organic Act
• Q: what is the problem here?– lacks administrative direction
Example 3: MU-SY Act of 1960 (FS)Example 3: MU-SY Act of 1960 (FS) • “The policy of the Congress that National Forests are
established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes” (Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960)
• Q: What is the problem here?
– provides general guidance as to uses of NF but very open to interpretation as to priority of uses in specific cases
Sobering facts on world’s use & removalSobering facts on world’s use & removal (OTA, (OTA, 1984; FAO, 1985; World Res. Inst., 1985 & 1986):1984; FAO, 1985; World Res. Inst., 1985 & 1986):
• 80 – 90% of wood removed from tropical forests is used for fuel; 80% of this is for cooking food/heating homes;
• 1.5 billion people depend on wood for more than 90% of their energy needs;
• an additional 1 billion people depend on wood for 50 – 90% of energy needs;
• ½ of world’s population relies on wood as primary energy source;
• 1.5 billion people are cutting more fuelwood annually than the annual growth rates of forests in their country;
• 100 million people now face an acute scarcity of fuelwood
• ~ 11.3 million hectares or 28 million acres (size of Pennsylvania or Austria) now being deforested annually.
• NOTE THAT THESE STATS ARE 20 YEARS OLD – WHAT DO YOU THINK THE TRENDS HAVE BEEN OVER THESE YEARS?
Your StoryYour Story
• What was the problem/conflict? How did it come about?
• Who were involved?• What was the issue/policy of concern associated
with the problem?• How was the problem resolved?• Given the chance, how could you have improved
the resolution process?
Legislative Breakfast: Start searchingLegislative Breakfast: Start searching
• Start looking up on important issues related to invasive species– important examples– biological importance– economic importance – social importance– who should be concerned and why?
• Areas– geographical areas involved– public/community efforts
• Information/Education– needs– avenues/means
• Others• We will start collecting & collating these issues for discussion in
preparation for the Legislative Breakfast