Forests for Life Oregon Forests in a Global Context and Some Strategies for Sustainability Hal Salwasser Oregon State University, College of Forestry.
Download ReportTranscript Forests for Life Oregon Forests in a Global Context and Some Strategies for Sustainability Hal Salwasser Oregon State University, College of Forestry.
Forests for Life Oregon Forests in a Global Context and Some Strategies for Sustainability Hal Salwasser Oregon State University, College of Forestry What We’ll Cover A vision for forests Forest values American forests in a global context Sustainability and forests Different roles for different forests The work ahead A Vision for Forests Sustain and enrich human well being through diverse values, uses, products and services; Managed and conserved to meet changing needs based on local knowledge plus everimproving science and technologies; Serve current and future generations in sustaining our communities and rich cultural heritage. Forests that … Deliver high quality water Sustainably meet domestic needs for forest-based renewable resources Reward owners/stewards with multiple benefits Perpetuate biological and cultural diversity Ameliorate impacts of human activities Grow in extent, productivity, resilience Are managed for distinct local capabilities & values Restore human spirit and stewardship ethic Bring people together for common purpose Lands of Many Values A vision for forests Forest values American forests in a global context Sustainability and forests Different roles for different forests The work ahead Forests are Sources of Life 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Clean water and air Abundant fish and wildlife Cultural heritage Climate and carbon Recreation and aesthetics Wood and fiber Non-wood forest products Jobs and personal identity Wealth and revenues Forests Sustain Quality of Life Clean water, clear air … Forests Sustain Quality of Life Fish, wildlife and habitats … Forests Sustain Quality of Life Sacred tree Cultural heritage … Family forest owner Agroforestry Forest retreat Forests Sustain Quality of Life Recreation … Forests Sustain Quality of Life Scenic beauty … Forests Sustain Quality of Life Forests store ~ 45% of the carbon In terrestrial ecosystems, CO2 + H2O + Sunlight = O2 + wood Climate, carbon, and oxygen … Forests Sustain Quality of Life Wood products … Rayon shirt Paper Wood furniture Forests Sustain Quality of Life Bull elk Salal Non-wood products… Ramps Morels Ginseng Forests Sustain Quality of Life Artist in woods Hunter Mushroom picker Fishing guide on river Jobs and personal identity… Forests Sustain Quality of Life Wealth and revenues to support schools and public services Global Forest Context A vision for forests Forest values American forests in a global context Sustainability and forests Different roles for different forests The work ahead Global Forces = Change Population growth: 6.3 Bil. in 2003 to ~ 8 Bil. in 2050 Technology: steady advances + breakthroughs Political instability: local to global, ballot measures to wars Trade: barriers/subsidies, free vs fair Industry restructuring: global integration, dynamics in timberland ownership, global capital Rich-poor gap: growing Raising of “green” consciousness: more than air/water Consumption growth: space, water, fossil fuels, food, wood, minerals Climate change: yes but variable, uncertain regional effects Non-native invasive species + explosive natives Pervasive Change Need for prudent risk taking, continual learning and adaptation Global Forest Trends Forest area: ~ 9.6 Billion ac; 50-66% loss since 1600 ce Forest loss: ~ 23 Million ac/yr in 1990s Population + Economic Growth = Forest Loss But not always: - 30 mil ac/yr in tropics, + 7 mil ac/yr in non-tropics Demands for forest benefits ever growing Water quality, quantity: biggest future forest issue Wood use: range = flat near term to < 0.5%/yr long term Biodiversity conservation: yes but public still bewildered after 20 years Carbon storage: how much, trees + products, market uncertainty Recreation, subsistence, cultural uses: highly variable by ownership Some Global Leaders 22 Forest Area: Russia Wood Volume: Russia 23 Wood Biomass: Brazil 27 24 Plantation Forests: China Solid Wood Produced: US 22 Solid Wood Used: US 30 Solid Wood Imports: US 30 Solid Wood Exports: Canada 32 0 UN FAO 2005: 2000, 2002 data 5 10 15 20 25 Percent of World Share 30 35 Global Plantation Forests EU 4.7 Brazil + Chile + NZ + SA + Australia 5.6 24 Russia + US + Japan 42 India + China 0 UN FAO 2005: 2000 data 10 20 30 40 Percent of World Share 50 Global & U.S. Wood Use Ind. wood use rose 40% since 1960: ~ 1.6 BM3 but flat over last 20 Fuel wood use > industrial wood use: ~ 1.8 BM3 and growing Ind. wood use could increase < 33% by 2050: from 1.6 - 2.1 BM3 ~ 75% of global wood and fiber will come from planted forests by mid century or earlier (Sedjo and others) ~ 31% of global solid wood consumption crosses an international boundary from tree to product; most likely to increase US imports 31% of solid wood products consumed; exports associated jobs & impacts (81% growth since 1991) US uses 30% of world’s solid wood products; largest per capita US forest and wood choices drive global wood market UN FAO 2005: 2002 data + Perez-Garcia on future demand US in Global Context 4.7 People Forest Land 5.8 Wood Volume in Forests 8 Plantion Forests 8.6 Reserve Forest 9 22 Solid Wood Produced Solid Wood Used 30 Solid Wood Imported 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Percent of World Share (UN FAO 2005: 2000, 2003 data) Oregon in US Context People 1.2 Land 2.6 Forest Land 3.7 Reserve Forest 11.4 Timberland 4.6 Softwood Growing Stock* 16 % US Softwood Harvest 8.3 0 *Timberland Only 5 10 15 20 Percent of National Share (ODF, USFS data 1999, 2002) The Forest Cluster* People Place Products Forests Businesses Policies Infrastructure/ Institutions * A cluster is all the entities engaged in or affiliated with a core business, in this case forests and forest products broadly defined Economic Impact for Oregon Forest cluster (SIC data for 2000)* $12.6 billion total industrial output (TIO); 6.3% of State TIO all sectors 85,600 direct jobs; 4% of State jobs all sectors $3.5 billion wages; ave wage = $40,600; State ave wage = $34,840 * Hovee 2004: includes primary and secondary products, forestry services More than 25% of traded sector economy in 22/36 OR counties Historical Context Forest cluster’s economic role has changed Forest products major factors in Oregon economy and community life from late 1800s to early 1980s Employment in forest cluster fell during 1980s to early 1990s, stable since mid 1990s Recession early 80s, retooling 80s-90s, supply loss early 90s Economic challenges most severe in rural communities Land available for harvest reduced dramatically 1990s Federal policies (environment > economy), values conflicts Timber harvest on private lands ~ stable since 1990 Most forest cluster jobs now derive from private lands Historical Context … Public perceptions on economic and community roles of forest cluster changing 1980s-1990s: conflict over forests, environmental concerns produced: Old-growth protection in federal forests (5.3 million ac) Economic hardship for rural communities, economies Increased regulatory and legal costs for wood producers Gridlock and excessive costs on federal forestlands False perceptions of forest resources in Oregon’s future 2004: Oregonians want balance, end to conflict strategy, forests managed for economic, social, and environmental benefits, i.e., sustainability’s “triple bottom line” Building a Future from Past Success Oregon has a solid foundation for natural resource sustainability Land-use dedications: federal and state forests, parks, wildlife refuges; nature reserves; wood production Diverse ownerships = diverse outcomes State land-use laws limit forest, ag-land loss State & federal forest, water, air, wildlife protection laws State forestry strategic plan (FPFO) Building from Success … World-class forestry education, research and extension Private-public partnerships (Oregon Plan) Public forestry education programs (OFRI) Growing sustainability ethic, incentives Access to major markets – CA, US SW Returns on Investments Highest quality water in Oregon from forestlands Fish habitat restoration well underway Successful reforestation following harvest Wood growth exceeds harvest Sustainable contributions to Oregon’s economic, social and environmental goals Public support for “balanced” management But We Can’t Sit Still! Action is needed to sustain forest social, environmental, and economic benefits Continue protecting private forestland from conversion Forest is best land use for water, air, fish, wildlife, CO2 Encourage use of environmentally superior, renewables Wood grown here to some of world’s highest standards Reduce threats posed by imported raw wood Build on effective public-private partnerships, e.g., Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watershed Restore health and prudent management to federal forestlands Action is Needed … 35% of Oregon’s federal forests are at high risk of drought stress, disease, fire; Federal forest plans not working for all goals, due for revisions Federal forest management costs are very high for the public benefits delivered Private forests need science-based protection rules and incentives, not precautionary overkill State forests offer options to federal & private plans, warrant testing Sustainability A vision for forests Forest values American forests in a global context Sustainability and forests Different roles for different forests The work ahead Sustainability Progressive improvement in environmental, economic and cultural conditions Equity across societal sectors and generations Engagement of people in social choices that affect them Adaptability to pervasive change Sustainable Forestry The suite of policies, plans and practices that seek to protect, produce, and perpetuate forest ecosystems for the values, uses, products, and services desired by communities and landowners for this and future generations NCSSF 2005 Sustainability Not possible without taking risks and continually adapting to change, making things better Its not about standing still! Fitting Forest to Purpose A vision for forests Forest values American forests in a global context Sustainability and forests Different roles for different forests The work ahead Breadth of Sustainable Forest Management Varies by forest type, ownership, primary purpose Forest purposes: Wood and fiber production Multiple resource values/uses Reserves, nature preservation Urban and community forests Wood Production Forests Most of world’s future wood will come from planted forests: ~ 33% now, ~ 75% by 2050 ~ 10% or less of global forest area Primary purposes: Grow trees for wood, fiber Increase forest value to owner Management challenges: Thrive in global markets Increase wood yield: > 2x over natural Improve environmental outcomes Improve wood quality, consistency Produce high return on investment Maintain social license to operate Who Owns Prod. Forest? Million Acres by Owner 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Site Class in Ft3/Ac/Yr 1 = >120 2 = 85-120 3 = 50-85 4 = 20-50 5 = 0-20 National Forest Other Public Forest Industry Source: Powell et al. (1993) Tables 5 and 6 Family Forests Wood from Oregon Forests Timber harvest: ~ 4.4 BBF in 2004 ~ 7% of US softwood harvest Superior quality wood due to species, growing conditions, milling and manufacturing processes Harvest potentials 1977-1989: 5.6 – 8.6 BBF/yr 1997 OSU study long term sustainable: 7.5 BBF/yr 1998 – 2002 (after NWFP + other restrictions): 3.4 – 4.1 BBF/yr If total ban on federal harvest: 3.5 - 4 BBF/yr If HFRA + federal second growth available: > 5 BBF Oregon 2004 Harvest State 7% BLM Native American 2% 2% Other Public 1% National Forest 8% Other Private 13% 4.45 BBF Forest Industry 67% Why PNW for Wood? Cubic Meters/Ha/Year Growth US South intensive pine Western PNW intensive D-fir Brazil eucalyptus New Zealand radiata Boreal countries managed World ave. natural 0 Data accurate only in relative sense 10 20 30 40 50 60 Multi-resource Forests Most of the world’s accessible forests have multiple resource purposes ~ 40% of global forest area eventually Primary purposes: Meet diverse landowner objectives Increase forest value to owner(s) Challenges: If US federal, clarify purpose and direction Deliver multi-resource/value outcomes at acceptable costs Differentiate products in markets Finance non-market benefits Finance management of federal lands Reserve Forests Parks, wilderness, natural areas: ~ 12% worldwide in 2000 ~ 50% of global forest area eventually Primary purposes: Sustain at-risk species, natural processes, “wild” ecosystems Recreation, cultural uses Management challenges: Minimize human use impacts Restore, promote wildness, naturalness Ameliorate effects of invasive species, air pollution, explosive natives Achieve goals for least costs Finance management Urban, Community Forests Where 80% of the people live Primary purposes: Attractive communities, neighborhoods Conserve resources: water, energy Increase property values Backyard wildlife habitats Management challenges: Safety, infrastructure impacts Minimize sprawl Minimize invasive species escapes Reserve Forests: Mostly federal, some state, tribal, private Wood Production Forests: Mostly industry, family, some state, tribal Forest Sustainability Environmental Benefits Urban, Community Forests: Forests where people live Multi-resource Forests: Mostly state, tribal, some family, some federal Oregon’s Balance Wood Production 36% Reserve 31% Multi-use 33% Ownership Matters Multi-resource Wood Production Reserve Industry, TIMO * * Private, large Family, ENGO Tribes State Federal * Streamside zones, leave trees, habitats as mini or micro reserves Oregon Forest Owners Family 16% Federal 57% Industry 21% Other Public 6% Leading the Way A vision for forests Forest values American forests in a global context Sustainability and forests Different roles for different forests The work ahead Challenges 1. Keep forest lands in forest uses for forest values Sustain US forests in face of global forces, urban sprawl 2. Meet people’s forest resource needs efficiently 3. Improve production and conservation efficiency 4. Restore and sustain health of at-risk forests 5. Create new knowledge and technologies: 6. Sciences and products for progressive sustainability Products and practices innovations Enhance lifelong learning and extended education AND Address Demand -Consumption Ethic Intelligent consumption and production of renewable natural resources is key to sustaining quality of life; Overuse, non-renewable substitutes, transfer effects degrade ecosystems somewhere; Prudent choices consider full impacts, the future, and the entire life cycle of resources – Domestic Renewables Win! Restoration Challenge Forest health Stresses Choices Strategies Essentials for success Science Decision tree Healthy Forest? Functions as intended according to landowner goals, state federal, and/or tribal laws and policies Delivers high quality water in quantities and seasons that sustain ecosystems and people Sustains native fish and wildlife compatible with primary purpose(s) Resilient to stresses, e.g., drought, insects, diseases, storms, fires, invasive species, explosive natives Has community support to produce the array of values, uses, products and services desired by owners Threats to Forest Health Uncharacteristic fire Invasive species and explosive natives Climate change and drought Residential encroachment Magnitude of Problem 67 M ac (52%) western timberland in FRCC2 and FRCC3 97 M ac (75%) western timberland warrant treatment 62% of treatable volume on NFS 86% of trees to remove l.t. 10” dbh 72% of volume in trees g.t. 10” dbh 1999 western industry used 32 M bdt for all products 30 year plan for treatment yields range from 8 to 51 M bdt/yr Potentially large impacts for wood prices, mill/cogen capacity Treatment costs w/o products $35-$1,000/ac 1.4% of fires g.t. 300 ac, 94% of suppression costs, some g.t. $500/ac Now treating ~ 4 mil ac/yr Western Forest Stats More wood added than removed every year Mortality 0.07 Removals 0.09 Growth 0.2 Inventory 10.3 0 2 4 6 8 Billion Cubic Meters (BCM) USFS 1996 FIA data 10 12 Stresses, Some are Normal Fires, disease, storms, landslides are natural processes; vital to renewal of productivity, resilience But some watershed conditions exceed range of natural processes; impede water quality or create unacceptable vulnerability to extreme stresses Under what conditions should we intervene to “solve” stress problems, alter ecosystem conditions or trajectory of recovery? What are the Options? Let nature take its course Intervene to reduce or eliminate stresses Stop pollution, stop practices that impede health, manage pests Intervene to restore resilience before extreme stress Be bold enough, soon enough to make a difference – reduce stocking Intervene after events to restore health or influence resilience to stress and the trajectory and rate of ecosystem recovery Act quickly and boldly to remove threats to desired future conditions, contain costs, influence future species, stocking, competing vegetation Integrated Strategy Assess need for intervention and priorities at site, watershed and landscape scales – collaborative, community engagement if public lands involved Target actions/treatments strategically for highest success, lowest failure; highest benefits @ lowest costs Design actions for learning – adaptive management Link restoration actions to complementary goals: Water, fish, wildlife, wood yield, aesthetics, recreation, carbon Energy, transportation, jobs, wood-based products Monitor and research to reduce costs, increase benefits Communicate, learn, adapt – close the loop on continual learning What is Needed for Success? Ready access to contemporary science, relevant information, tools Ability to assess and act strategically at landscape/watershed scale Financial resources, social capital for intervention Ability to accomplish multiple objectives and create wealth from treatments to cover some costs of restoring health, resilience Integration of science with management and local knowledge for place-based problem solving, adaptive learning Innovation in work processes and new products Bias for barrier-busting boldness – risks and costs increase with delay; timidity could = failure on goals Does Science Have All the Answers? No way! Can We Get There Without Science? No way! A Strategic Decision Tree Is policy/plan clear on direction for area in question? If no, messy gridlock; clarify policy/plan Will nature deliver what policy/plan calls for? If yes, work is through When restoration interventions are needed/warranted What kind? Where? How frequent is the need? How to pay for restoration work? Public $$ – but state and federal discretionary $$ declining Revenues generated from by-products of restoration work Savings from reduced emergency spending Carbon credits, biomass energy, biofuels Other: conservation incentives, recreation? The Case for Management Wood Production Forests Sustain progressive productivity and increase value as forests Compete in global markets Excellence in commodity woods, customer service Value-added, niche differentiated wood and wood-based products Sustain resilience to drought, insects, disease, fire Multi-resource Forests Sustain joint resource production Diversify revenues to finance management: wood + recreation + ecosystem services Restore diversity, resilience to drought, insects, disease, fire Reserve Forests Restore wildness and natural processes Contain human impacts University Roles … Educate a highly skilled, diverse forest/mill workforce and future forest scientists and teachers Create a stronger science base for all forest management systems; improve regulatory efficiency Innovations for improved market and environmental performance of all US forests and forest products Innovations to increase productivity and sustainability of US forest resources and forest products Educate a more knowledgeable, responsible citizenry Promote prudent policies, empowered communities Advocate for diverse, productive, resilient forests and associated economies and human communities Future Forests? Its up to our generation to choose and act if we want to deliver healthy, productive, wealthy, and resilient forests to our children and grandchildren U.S. Forest Owners National Forest 20% Family 48% Other Public 23% Industry 9%