Questions? Call 800-624-6242
|
|
|
|
|
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Page 42
3 Current Forestry-Research Capacity in the United States
The nation's ability to provide adequate goods and services from forests, or even to maintain current area of forests, in the face of increasing population and consumption, is at risk. Improved protection of existing forests, afforestation of non-forested areas, reforestation after timber harvests, restoration of degraded forests, and increased productivity of new and existing forests—for commodities and noncommodity purposes—are required if demands for forests and for forest sustainability are to be balanced on the stand, landscape, or global scale. Research and monitoring underlie sustainable forest management and protection.
Scientific research is key to being able to identify how to improve forest conditions, allow compatible human uses, and sustain productivity for market and nonmarket goods and services. Research on forest products and use conducted by the USDA Forest Service, for example, has contributed to the development of knowledge and technology that have tripled the amount of fiber available for use from trees within the last 100 years (Lewis, 2000). Research on recycling of wood-based products has increased paper-recovery rates from 25 percent to 45 percent of fiber (Lewis, 2000). A specific example is the scientific advance in recycling of 33 billion stamps produced each year by the U.S. Postal Service as a result of research on pressure-sensitive adhesives, which had presented substantial problems in recycling (Lewis, 2000). Other research advances include the development of composite products and improvement in housing constructions.
Monitoring provides the means to measure whether forest conditions—from area extent to timber productivity to biodiversity to ecologic integrity—are being degraded, sustained, or enhanced. Monitoring provides the means for determining how the interaction of management interventions and natural climatic variations are affecting the forest resource, and suggests when new approaches are required. Such an integrated
|
|
|
|
|
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 42
Page 42
3 Current Forestry-Research Capacity in the United States
The nation's ability to provide adequate goods and services from forests, or even to maintain current area of forests, in the face of increasing population and consumption, is at risk. Improved protection of existing forests, afforestation of non-forested areas, reforestation after timber harvests, restoration of degraded forests, and increased productivity of new and existing forests—for commodities and noncommodity purposes—are required if demands for forests and for forest sustainability are to be balanced on the stand, landscape, or global scale. Research and monitoring underlie sustainable forest management and protection.
Scientific research is key to being able to identify how to improve forest conditions, allow compatible human uses, and sustain productivity for market and nonmarket goods and services. Research on forest products and use conducted by the USDA Forest Service, for example, has contributed to the development of knowledge and technology that have tripled the amount of fiber available for use from trees within the last 100 years (Lewis, 2000). Research on recycling of wood-based products has increased paper-recovery rates from 25 percent to 45 percent of fiber (Lewis, 2000). A specific example is the scientific advance in recycling of 33 billion stamps produced each year by the U.S. Postal Service as a result of research on pressure-sensitive adhesives, which had presented substantial problems in recycling (Lewis, 2000). Other research advances include the development of composite products and improvement in housing constructions.
Monitoring provides the means to measure whether forest conditions—from area extent to timber productivity to biodiversity to ecologic integrity—are being degraded, sustained, or enhanced. Monitoring provides the means for determining how the interaction of management interventions and natural climatic variations are affecting the forest resource, and suggests when new approaches are required. Such an integrated
OCR for page 43
Page 43 adaptive-management or systems approach to sustainable forest management will be necessary to meet future social needs and objectives.
Research and monitoring make it possible to determine how forests should be managed, including whether, how, and when intervention in natural conditions is needed. Research and monitoring are essential in the development of efficient approaches to developing intensive timber plantations, restoring degraded forests to better functioning ecologic systems, and providing the amenity and spiritual values that are sought by people.
ASSESSING FORESTRY-RESEARCH CAPACITY
Just as monitoring of forests is necessary to ensure future growth and sustainability, monitoring the status of forestry research is important to ensure future strength and capacity. The extent and condition of forests are uncertain; more importantly, the status of the nation's capacity to address these issues through forestry research is uncertain.
The capacity to achieve sustainability is highly variable and is positively correlated to the resources dedicated to forestry research (Szaro et al., 2000). It is possible to measure the input (human resources, financial resources, facilities, and equipment) into forestry research and its output (technology improvements, publications, economic development, and ecologic improvement), and a relatively thorough investigation of forestry research reveals greater capacity than perhaps widely recognized. However, how to focus and build that capacity are perhaps the most relevant questions for the next decade.
This chapter of the report summarizes available data on forestry-research capacity in terms of human resource, institutional, and financial inputs. We considered input and output to forestry research to describe the current status of the nation's forestry research environment, and to assess the adequacy of the nation's capacity to meet current and future needs. We also provide an overview describing evaluations of output (perceived return on investment). Where possible, we analyze the question of capacity in different disciplines; this was one of the specific concerns that prompted our study.
A PORTRAIT OFTHE FORESTRY-RESEARCH WORKFORCE
As described by Bengston (1998), the research capacity of a nation is determined in part by factors within the research system, such as the quantity and quality of resources available for research and characteristics of the institutional environment in which research is carried out. It is also influenced by national characteristics, including education systems, and public and private sector roles in research. To assess current U.S. forestry-research capacity, we review the primary forestry-research organizations here. To the extent possible, we describe the levels of manpower and research support they have provided currently and historically.
OCR for page 44
Page 44
Research conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service is examined as a major contributor to the nation's forestry-research portfolio, as is research performed by forestry departments, schools, and colleges throughout the United States. Research related to forests in such departments and agencies as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), and the National Science Foundation (NSF) is also germane. A direct research linkage to forests, at least where the links can be ascertained and quantified, is important in determining the status of forestry-research capacity. It would not include research in areas such as botany, rural sociology, or even sustainable agriculture, which although related, are more distant and more difficult to quantify.
USDA Forest Service
The USDA Forest Service Research and Development branch is the largest forestry-research organization in the world and is the largest contributor to the U.S. forestry-research workforce. It maintains 77 laboratories in 67 locations throughout the United States. They are organized within six regional research stations, a Forest Products Laboratory, and the International Institute of Tropical Forestry. Forest Service research is managed through regional research stations and each research station is made up of several Research Work Units (RWU's) located at Forestry Sciences Laboratories or on university campuses. RWU research is typically specialized in a particular subject area such as soil productivity, recreation, or forest insects. Each RWU typically conducts studies focused on its area of expertise or through interdisciplinary research projects that address complex problems of natural resource management and conservation. Interdisciplinary projects typically involve scientists from other work units, other parts of the Forest Service, other agencies, and universities. Forest Service trends in forestry research are by no means the only indicator of forestry-research capacity, but they provide accessible measures to obtain and track. Trends in Forest Service research funding, personnel, facilities, and Research Work Units (RWUs) are summarized in Tables
3–1 and
3–2.
Table 3–1 summarizes trends in the number of scientist years (SYs), RWUs, and research locations for Forest Service research. The agency had 964 SY equivalents in FY 1980 and pared that number to 633 by FY 1998. During the same period, the number of RWUs declined from 246 to 137—through both attrition of scientists and consolidation of RWUs to achieve greater administrative efficiency. The number of research locations dropped less precipitously, from 86 in FY 1980 to 67 in FY 1999. Although definitive data are lacking, it is commonly believed that Forest Service research infrastructure—the physical plant, equipment, and scientific technology—also declined in quality. Supportive of this belief is a report by an interagency working group on federal laboratory reform that released a report on improving federal laboratories in which the working group concludes:
OCR for page 45
Page 45
“The (federal) laboratories' physical and human infrastructure is rich in capability but not fully matched to the challenges of the early twenty-first century.” (National Science and Technology Council, 1999)
The working group report identifies the fact that each federal laboratory is important to its local and regional economy and employs people dedicated to national priorities. Examinations and review of infrastructure, capacity, and national needs have led to conclusions that there may be overcapacity in some parts of the federal system (National Science and Technology Council, 1999). Thus, when attempting to strengthen existing infrastructure, consideration must be given to weighing costs associated with maintaining facilities that may be obsolete and that may divert limited funds from more promising facilities.
Table 3–1 . Forestry-Research Statistics
for USDA Forest Service, FY 1980–2002.
a
Fiscal Year
Appropriations, millions of $
Extramural
Funding, millions of $
Scientist-Years b (FTE)
Research Locations
Research Work Units
Actual
Constant
1980
Actual
Constant
1980
% Appropriations
1980
111.5
111.5
10.6
10.6
9.5
964
86
248
1981
108.5
98.7
14.2
12.9
13.1
958
85
242
1982
112.1
95.3
10.8
9.1
9.5
908
83
235
1983
107.7
87.5
9.3
7.5
8.6
838
80
219
1984
109.4
85.6
7.7
6.0
7.0
813
77
207
1985
121.7
92.0
7.5
5.6
6.0
799
77
200
1986
120.1
88.4
10.4
7.6
8.6
734
78
199
1987
132.7
94.9
14.6
10.4
11.0
713
78
200
1988
135.5
93.6
18.3
12.6
13.5
724
76
190
1989
137.9
91.3
11.1
7.3
8.0
714
75
191
1990
144.7
92.0
13.2
8.4
9.1
716
75
190
1991
168.4
102.7
18.7
11.4
11.1
720
76
183
1992
181.3
107.4
29.6
17.5
16.3
714
78
183
1993
183.8
106.2
26.9
15.5
14.6
718
79
185
1994
193.1
108.9
21.5
12.1
11.1
720
78
185
1995
193.5
106.6
25.8
14.2
13.3
721
76
185
1996
178.0
96.1
14.7
7.9
8.2
692
69
185
1997
179.8
95.3
17.2
9.1
9.5
642
68
166
1998
187.8
98.4
17.6
9.2
9.3
633
67
137
1999
197.4
102.1
23.2
11.4
11.8
N/A
67
137
2000
217.7
104.3
21.6
10.3
9.9
841
N/A
137
2001
229.1
106.5
22
10.2
9.6
743
N/A
133
2002 c
241.3
110.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
723
N/A
133
aIncludes appropriated accounts only; excludes reimbursable accounts;
bScientist-year figures include term appointments of post-doctoral students. Actual numbers of permanent full-time researchers are lower by an estimated 25–50 FTEs for FY 1996–1999. For example, 606 permanent full-time researchers were employed in FY 1998 compared with 633 FTEs. 27 FTEs of effort were contributed by employees on term appointments in FY 1998;
cData for 2002 are not final.
Source: R.Guldin, USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C., personal communication, July 1999. Drawn from Reports of the Forest Service, Fiscal Years 1980–1998; USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC, 2002 Budget Justification.
OCR for page 46
Page 46
Table 3–2
. USDA Forest Service Research Funding by Budget Line Item, FY 1980–2002 (thousands of $).
a
Fiscal Year
Forest Protection
1980$ Forest Protection
Resource Analysis
1980$ Resource Analysis
Timber and Forest Mgmt
1980$ Timber and Forest Mgmt
Forest Env. and Ecosystem
1980$ Forest Env. and Ecosystem
1980
31,544
31,544
19,100
19,100
20,620
20,620
22,525
22,525
1981
29,883
27,089
18,347
16,631
20,705
18,769
32,133
29,128
1982
29,956
25,579
18,173
15,518
20,710
17,684
22,884
19,540
1983
30,061
24,870
17,316
14,326
20,585
17,030
21,813
18,046
1984
29,912
23,722
16,876
13,384
22,137
17,556
22,490
17,836
1985
29,110
22,292
21,646
16,577
22,161
16,971
22,421
17,170
1986
27,902
20,977
17,686
13,297
21,502
16,166
25,971
19,526
1987
31,224
22,648
22,218
16,116
23,891
17,329
30,580
22,181
1988
31,407
21,876
22,767
15,858
26,636
18,553
31,930
22,240
1989
32,944
21,892
22,636
15,042
27,383
18,197
33,912
22,535
1990
33,850
21,341
22,932
14,457
29,488
18,591
36,741
23,163
1991
38,168
23,091
25,807
15,613
36,550
22,112
43,373
26,240
1992
40,770
23,945
29,166
17,129
39,216
23,032
45,716
26,849
1993
40,833
23,285
30,720
17,518
39,594
22,578
46,033
26,250
1994
41,089
22,846
31,540
17,537
40,887
22,734
52,770
29,341
1995
36,998
20,004
32,361
17,497
52,924
28,615
43,083
23,294
1996
33,308
17,493
28,168
14,793
47,123
24,748
44,316
23,274
1997
33,559
17,229
26,341
13,523
50,284
25,816
45,369
23,292
1998
34,125
17,251
31,816
16,084
52,377
26,478
45,851
23,179
1999
34,307
16,968
39,021
19,300
50,664
25,058
48,924
24,198
2000
27,169
13,014
41,362
19,812
50,376
24,130
45,517
21,803
2001
29,934
13,919
37,530
17,451
53,536
25,824
50,406
23,439
2002
c
30,363
13,876
38,044
17,386
55,631
25,423
51,453
23,514
Fiscal Year
Forest Products
1980$ Forest Products
Subtotal
1980$ Subtotal
Other
b
1980$ Other
b
Total
1980$ Total
1980
17,742
17,742
111,531
111,531
111,531
111,531
1981
18,385
16,666
108,453
98,312
108,453
98,312
1982
20,422
17,438
112,145
95,759
112,145
95,759
1983
17,897
14,806
107,672
89,078
107,672
89,078
1984
17,988
14,266
109,403
86,764
109,403
86,764
1985
18,488
14,158
113,826
87,168
7,840
6,004
121,666
93,172
1986
17,560
13,202
110,621
83,167
6,506
4,891
117,127
88,058
1987
18,808
13,642
126,721
91,917
6,000
4,352
132,721
96,505
1988
19,770
13,770
132,510
92,297
3,000
2,090
135,510
94,387
1989
20,492
13,617
137,367
91,283
500
332
137,867
91,615
1990
21,142
13,329
144,153
90,881
500
315
144,653
91,196
1991
22,731
13,752
166,629
100,809
750
454
167,379
101,263
1992
25,640
15,059
180,508
106,014
750
440
181,258
106,455
1993
25,535
14,561
182,715
104,191
1,100
627
183,815
104,819
1994
25,697
14,288
191,983
106,744
1,100
612
193,083
107,356
1995
28,143
15,216
193,509
104,626
193,509
104,626
1996
25,085
13,174
178,000
93,482
178,000
93,482
1997
24,233
12,441
179,786
92,302
179,786
92,302
1998
23,775
12,019
187,944
95,009
(147)
74
187,797
94,935
1999
23,721
11,732
196,637
97,257
807
399
197,444
97,656
2000
22,310
10,690
186,734
89,449
2001
26,800
12,460
198,206
93,093
2002
c
28,000
12,800
203,491
92,999
aIncludes appropriated research only; excludes research construction and reimbursable accounts;
bIncludes funding for competitive forestry grants, challenge cost share, and congressional earmarks;
cData for 2002 are not final.
Source: Reports of the Forest Service, Fiscal Years 1980–1998; R.Guldin, USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C., personal communication, October 1999; USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC, 2002 Budget Justification.
OCR for page 47
Page 47
Research Scientists
Numbers of research scientists employed by the Forest Service are categorized by discipline for FY 1985–1999 in
Table 3–3. As the table indicates, there has been a marked reduction in scientists in the agency from 985 in FY 1985 to 537 in FY 1999. In FY 1999, 136 (25 percent) of the research scientists were classified as foresters, 50 (9.3 percent) were classified as ecologists, 44 (8.2 percent) as wildlife biologists, and 31 (5.8 percent) as entomologists. The remaining 51 percent of the scientist work force was distributed among 31 employment classifications.
There has been a substantial shift in the classification of the Forest Service research scientists among disciplines. The greatest apparent reduction in expertise in the research branch is in the forester classification, from 350 in FY 1985 to 136 in FY 1999 (from 36 percent to 25 percent of the totals). Some of the reduction is not as much a proportional loss of expertise as an increase in specialization at the graduate level and an evolution of classification methods, but some silvicultural research positions and RWUs have been lost. The largest proportional loss of expertise has been in the forest products technologist classification, which dropped from 63 (6.4 percent of the total) in FY 1985 to 13 (2.4 percent) in FY 1999. Large personnel reductions also occurred in the job classifications for entomologists (70 to 31), plant pathologists (50 to 22), biologists (30 to 15), chemists (41 to 21), mathematic statisticians (30 to 12), soil scientists (27 to 15), range scientists (22 to 4), and mechanical engineers (14 to 3).
The largest increase in scientists was in the number of ecologists—from 9 in FY 1985 (0.9 percent of the total) to 50 (9.3 percent) in FY 1999. That probably reflects the increasing importance of ecology as a discipline over the last 15 years, the shift toward ecosystem management on federal lands, and the attractiveness of that research classification title to scientists. The only other groups that had more than a one-person increase were social scientists (9 to 14, offset by a 15 to 9 reduction in economists), and physical scientists (from 3 to 6).
In short, it is clear that Forest Service research capacity has decreased in terms of the number of scientists who are employed exclusively on a full-time permanent basis. The agency has hired many scientists on a temporary basis to work on major assessment projects, such as the President's plan and the Interior Columbia River Basin study. Those studies, however, tend to pull scientists away from basic research, and into applied, short-run data gathering, analysis, and synthesis projects. On balance, the substantial new assessment funds probably do little to build long-term research capacity.
The Forest Service also has hired an increasing number of persons with graduate degrees to work in the National Forest System and in state and private forestry. They might conduct modest studies and provide service to public land or private land managers, but they are not necessarily conducting long-term research relevant for the Forest Service. Again, there is probably not a net gain in applied research by employing persons with graduate degrees in other Forest Service branches, although the research knowledge obtained could be transferred more effectively by a larger complement of agency employees with graduate degrees.
OCR for page 48
Page 48
Table 3–3. Number of Forest Service Research Scientists by Discipline, FY 1985– 1988.
OPM Series
Title
1985
1988
1990
1995
1997
a
1998
a
1999
a
101
Social scientist
9
7
8
17
12
13
14
110
Economist
15
11
11
11
9
6
9
150
Geographer
5
0
1
1
0
0
1
193
Archeologist
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
401
Biologist
30
16
13
14
13
14
15
403
Microbiologist
14
11
9
14
10
10
11
408
Ecologist
9
18
25
46
52
53
50
410
Civil engineer
6
3
1
0
0
0
0
414
Entomologist
70
62
55
38
35
30
31
430
Botanist
15
13
13
12
9
9
8
434
Plant pathologist
50
48
45
35
27
25
22
435
Plant physiologist
26
29
35
34
27
30
29
437
Horticultural
2
1
1
4
0
0
0
440
Geneticist
31
22
20
19
19
20
18
454
Range scientist
22
19
15
5
6
5
4
460
Forester
350
242
230
138
143
138
136
470
Soil scientist
27
27
28
19
17
16
15
482
Fishery biologist
8
8
11
14
11
14
14
486
Wildlife biologist
42
38
44
44
41
45
44
515
Ops. research analyst
7
1
2
0
0
0
0
801
General engineer
32
25
28
29
23
26
22
807
Landscape architect
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
808
Architect
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
810
Supvy res. civil engineer
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
819
Environmental engineer
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
830
Mechanical engineer
14
9
8
7
4
3
3
855
Electrical engineer
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
893
Chemical engineer
11
6
8
6
4
6
6
896
Industrial engineer
3
2
3
2
2
2
0
1301
Physical scientist
3
1
3
5
5
5
6
1310
Physicist
5
4
3
2
1
1
1
1315
Hydrologist
19
21
21
13
13
14
13
1320
Chemist
41
19
21
21
16
18
21
1340
Meteorologist
12
8
9
9
9
10
8
1350
Geologist
5
4
4
4
5
5
3
1380
Forest products technologist
63
43
31
25
21
18
13
1520
Mathematical
5
1
2
4
2
2
2
1529
Mathematical statistician
30
17
16
14
11
13
12
1530
Biological statistician
0
0
2
1
1
1
1
Total
985
736
723
607
548
552
537
aSource: Nov. 22, 1996, Nov. 24, 1997; and Feb. 16, 1999; NFC Report, Count of Filled Positions Classified Under the RGEG.
OCR for page 49
Page 49
Today, Forest Service scientists have a greater level of research support in terms of operating funds and support personnel than was the case two decades ago. Data in
Table 3–1 show that the average budget in 1980 was about $116,000 per SY. By FY 2001, it had increased to about $308,000 per SY or $143,000 per SY in constant 1980 dollars. The average budget, therefore, has increased per SY, although the constant dollar total agency appropriations has declined to $106.5 million.
Research Productivity
Productivity or output measures have become increasingly important for government agencies in the last decade. Specifically, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 mandates that all federal agencies measure and report on the results of their activities annually. Agencies are required to develop a strategic plan that sets goals and objectives for a 5-year period and to produce an annual report of success in meeting them (Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy [COSEPUP], 1999).
The GPRA process has prompted various efforts to define performance measures and collect information that can be used to track success. The National Academies have been examining means to implement the GPRA. A 1999 report (National Research Council, 1999, P. 9) suggested, as one of six major recommendations that:
Federal agencies should use expert review to assess the quality of research they support, the relevance of that research to their mission, and the leadership of that research. Expert review must strive for having balance between having the most knowledgeable and the most independent individuals as members. Each agency should develop clear, explicit guidance with regard to structuring and employing expert review processes.
The Forest Service has collected data on research productivity for years before GPRA began and provided summaries on the productivity as measured by publications as part of this study on forestry-research capacity (
Table 3–4). The data provided by the Forest Service summarize publications by aggregate budget line item in slightly different format from the budget data. The four broad categories of research were vegetation management and protection research (VMPR), wildlife, fish, watershed, and atmospheric sciences research (WFWAR), resource valuation and use research (RVUR), and inventory and monitoring research (IM).
Table 3–4 shows the total reported publications summarized in the Forest Service research stations and RWU attainment reports, including internal publications by Forest Service scientists and external publications by cooperating scientists.
Scientists in the four broad categories of research had 1,886 publications in FY 1981, 2,299 in FY 1985, 3,021 in FY 1995, and 2,718 in FY 1998. Recall that the Forest Service (internal) scientist years for 1985, 1995, and 1998 were 985, 607, and 552 respectively. Thus the average number of publications was 3.06 per scientist in FY 1985, 5.0 in FY 1995, and 4.9 in FY 1998. Each of the four resource evaluation categories
OCR for page 50
Page 50
Table 3–4
. Number of Forest Service Publications by Discipline, FY 1981–1998.
Subject Area
RBAIS
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Vegetation Management and Protection Research (VMPR)
Fundamental Plant Science
1.1
182
155
221
219
209
245
238
245
207
155
329
287
243
358
282
281
270
281
Silvicultural Applications
1.2
116
178
201
226
196
162
153
153
176
160
200
310
208
242
289
210
206
214
Quantitative Analysis
1.3
91
60
66
67
68
69
66
127
83
92
45
53
83
61
57
52
73
76
Forest and Rangeland Management
1.4
87
69
140
128
98
120
111
115
109
102
134
122
178
293
238
234
115
120
Forest Operations Engineering
1.5
39
38
50
66
84
71
70
57
40
46
50
73
58
71
58
49
59
61
Insects/Diseases/Exotic Weeds
1.7
406
447
440
431
489
428
411
339
328
383
337
403
427
480
383
364
279
290
Fire Science
1.9
86
78
105
65
102
88
86
113
56
84
100
100
75
114
101
99
112
116
Subtotal—VMPR
1.0
1,007
1,025
1,223
1,202
1,246
1,183
1,135
1,149
999
1,022
1,195
1,348
1,272
1,619
1,408
1,289
1,114
1,158
Wildlife, Fish, Watershed, and Atmospheric Sciences Research (WFWAR)
Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat
2.1
144
136
134
138
136
165
162
156
147
121
204
190
213
288
269
287
281
292
Aquatic Habitat
2.2
31
21
28
37
18
26
27
38
17
27
46
34
73
81
103
95
109
113
Watershed
2.3
149
141
183
119
189
177
173
215
219
292
141
219
181
226
301
282
253
263
Atmospheric Sciences
2.4
13
28
32
30
35
19
17
10
32
21
51
31
49
62
95
77
83
86
Subtotal—WFWAR
2.0
337
326
377
324
378
387
379
419
415
461
442
474
516
657
768
741
726
754
Resource Valuation and Use Research (RVUR)
Economics
3.1
94
122
128
142
182
205
196
131
190
159
142
215
168
200
175
187
113
117
Urban Forestry
3.2
33
23
41
25
36
45
42
31
17
58
46
2
49
60
40
51
37
38
Wilderness
3.3
7
6
9
6
7
7
6
4
5
8
9
23
8
11
9
15
16
17
Social/Cultural
3.4
64
54
78
53
62
59
56
40
49
74
77
211
68
97
78
135
144
150
Forest Product Utilization and Processing
3.5
212
170
221
210
192
197
188
102
144
142
157
169
238
244
285
258
240
249
Forest Product Safety/Human Health
3.6
44
63
66
67
65
84
80
126
71
72
81
101
70
80
64
59
108
112
Subtotal—RVUR
3.0
454
438
543
503
544
596
568
434
476
513
512
721
600
692
651
705
658
683
Inventory and Monitoring Research (I&M)
Forest Inventory & Analysis
4.1
88
92
99
119
110
143
138
203
109
120
107
123
105
122
102
166
78
81
Forest Health Monitoring
4.2
22
23
Monitoring Methods/Applications
4.3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
23
47
36
46
18
19
Subtotal—I&M
4.0
88
92
99
119
110
143
138
203
109
120
107
123
128
169
138
212
118
123
General
0.0
—
28
17
31
21
21
20
22
79
49
148
7
20
71
56
58
—
—
GRAND TOTAL
1,886
1,909
2,259
2,179
2,299
2,330
2,240
2,227
2,078
2,165
2,404
2,673
2,536
3,208
3,021
3,005
2,616
2,718
OCR for page 51
Page 51 increased their output of publications. WFWAR increased the most, from 337 in 1981 to 754 in 1999 (a 124% increase). IM publication numbers were fairly constant, VMPR increased about 15 percent, and RVUR increased rapidly and then declined to about a 50 percent increase over the base year, 1981.
Source: R.Guldin, USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C., personal communication, July 1999.
Those trends appear to indicate that Forest Service researchers have become more productive in the measure that is most easily quantified. Some of that could be inherent productivity gains, some a response to fears that less productive RWUs and scientists will suffer reductions in force as budgets decline, and some gamesmanship in reporting to represent internal and external publications better. When productivity is evaluated in terms of the number of publications per year compared with the annual Forest Service research budget, it appears that productivity increased from approximately 25 publications per $1 million in 1985 to 28 publications per $1 million in 1998. Whether the Forest Service scientists and RWUs are actually more productive in their overall contributions to advancing the state of science or increasing knowledge remains moot.
Research Quality
Quality of research programs is more difficult to measure than financial resources and publications. With the pressure of increased productivity, Forest Service and other researchers are required to respond to the most quantifiable indicators of research success, which could potentially place too much emphasis on publications. That might harm research and shift efforts toward more applied or superficial topics and publication of “least publishable units” and away from challenging high-priority goals and seminal and integrative papers. The primary focus on applied or superficial topics also could adversely affect technology transfer efforts, in that they can receive less credit for research quality than other types of publications. The quality of research programs is hard to assess, as is their impact on forest management and protection. Such measures as success in receiving externally funded peer-reviewed grants or external peer reviews of science programs as suggested by the National Academies (1999), might be required to assess research program quality in the Forest Service and other forestry-research organizations.
Research Advisory Body
The Forest Research Advisory Council was authorized in 1995 and was reestablished by departmental regulation in 2002 as a requirement of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, Section 1441c to provide advice to the Secretary of Agriculture on accomplishing efficiently the purposes of the Act of October 10, 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a et seq.), commonly known as the McIntire-Stennis Act. The Council provides advice related to the Forest Service research program and reports to the Secretary on regional and national planning and coordination of forestry research within the Federal and State agencies concerned with developing and utilizing the Nation's forest resources, forestry schools, and the forest industries. In addition, the Council provides advice to the Secretary on the apportionment of funds for the McIntire-Stennis Program. The Council consists of 20 members appointed by the Secretary. These members are drawn from
OCR for page 52
Page 52 federal, state, university, industry, and volunteer public organizations. Support to the Council is provided by the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service and the Forest Service and it is served by 0.3 staff years.
The functions and responsibilities of the council include:
Meeting at least once annually
Reporting to the Secretary on regional and national planning and coordination of forestry research within the Federal and State agencies, forestry schools, and the forest industries
Advising the Secretary on apportionment of funds
Making special reports to the Secretary jointly through the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics and the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the Environment.
The Council has most of its membership coming from university and industry, and could be better balanced with perspectives needed to address the Council's charter. Needed perspectives other than those of the USDA Forest Service include a broader range of research partners and colleagues, stakeholders, users, and planners. The Council's work could be enhanced with input from more federal agencies outside of the USDA and the EPA, the only two federal agencies represented on the Council. Although the members of the Council work with others in the scientific community apart from the USDA and EPA, the council's work would benefit from broader perspectives offered by professionals in other government agencies, universities, and other research organizations.
The charter of the Council provides it with the authority to make recommendations on funding, planning and coordination of forestry research. The opportunity for greater involvement of all sectors concerned with forestry research exists. The Council's work could be more effective if it were better focused on the portions of its duties concerned with setting research priorities of McIntire-Stennis funding and monitoring accomplishments, and advising the Forest Service with research planning and priorities
Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges
A large amount of research is performed in schools and colleges. Faculties are drawn from an array of disciplines. They teach, perform research, and provide extension and professional services. Their total contribution to forestry research is substantial, probably equaling or exceeding that of the Forest Service. Some 48 universities have Society of American Foresters-accredited forestry curricula, and more than 60 universities or colleges have identifiable forestry and natural resources programs.
Faculty
Table 3–5 summarizes the trends in forestry faculty employment at 53 universities that have forestry programs and is derived from the USDA Handbook 305 (1994). As of the 1993–1994 academic year, there were 1,459 faculty listed in the handbook as being in
OCR for page 71
Page 71
Table 3–10
. Federal Funding for Forestry Research by Selected Agency and Program, FY 1994–2000 (thousands of $).
Agency/Program
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
USDA
National Research Initiative (NRI)
a
6,512
9,939
4,121
6,960
4,500
—
b
—
Forestry
4,244
7,783
2,298
4,424
2,654
—
—
Improved utilization of wood and fiber
2,266
2,156
1,823
2,536
1,846
—
—
Agricultural Research Service (ARS),
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems
c
—
—
—
—
—
1,924
2,252
NSF
d
Division of Environmental Biology
—
5,885
17,906
15,217
17,892
9,409
—
Division of Biological Infrastructure
—
892
1,189
86
1,393
5,171
—
Division of Integrative Biology and Neuroscience
—
0
2,484
1,128
665
730
—
Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences
—
0
0
0
0
561
—
Total
—
6,777
21,579
16,431
19,950
15,871
—
DOE
e
Terrestrial Carbon Processes Research Program
—
—
—
—
4,934
5,476
4,486
Ecosystems Research Program
—
—
—
—
3,454
3,645
3,133
National Institute for Global Environmental Change Program
—
—
—
—
—
3,722
3,074
Total
—
—
—
—
8,388
12,843
10,693
NASA
f
Research and analysis programs
13,100
9,400
13,600
Terrestrial Ecology
—
—
—
—
7,700
6,500
7,800
Land Cover and Land Use Change
—
—
—
—
4,000
2,000
4,300
Earth Observing System Interdisciplinary Science
—
—
—
—
1,000
400
1,100
g
Natural Hazards (Fire)
—
—
—
—
400
500
200
Forest Topography (Analysis of Radar Data)
h
—
—
—
—
0
0
200
OCR for page 72
Page 72
aSource: Cindy Huebner, USDA/NRI, Washington, DC, personal communication, October 1999. Data include projects directly related to forests or forestry. Data exclude indirect forestry-related research (such as, genetics of forest pests and wood products).
bData not available.
cSource: Paula Geiger, USDA Office of Budget Program Analysis, Washington, DC, personal communication, March 2000. Data present funding for agroforestry. 2001 president's budget for agroforestry is $2,252,000.
dSource: James Edwards, NSF, Arlington, VA, personal communication, December 1999.
eSource: Karen L.Carlson, DOE, Germantown, MD, personal communication, March 2000.
fSource: Diane Wickland, NASA, Washington, DC, personal communication, February 2000. Data include investments in satellite data analysis specific to forests but not to all vegetation. Data exclude investments in space missions (flight and ground software and hardware) that observe forests.
gDoes not include new program selections for FY 2000.
hThis program cuts across the four preceding programs. It was supported as a part of two one-time space shuttle science missions—Shuttle Imaging Radar-C/X-band Synthetic Aperture Radar (SIR-C/X-SAR) and the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM).
These included establishment of a tropical forestry center, a sustainable forestry proposal, and a forest biotechnology proposal.
NSF provides grants for research related to forests. The foundation does not have a forestry research division, but many research grants and Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) site projects deal directly with forests, forestry, trees, or wood. Estimates of recent NSF research related to forestry or trees ranged from a high of $21.5 million in 1996 to $15.9 million in 1999. The Divisions of Environmental Biology and Biological Infrastructure provided the majority of this funding.
DOE began an Agenda 2020 research program related to forestry in 1996. In addition, it has funded a variety of forestry-related energy projects for decades. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory is managed for the DOE and conducts direct forest-related research. The previous expenditures by DOE for forestry research were more than $7 million per year. Annual Agenda 2020 expenditures were about $2 to 3 million from 1996 to 1999. Most of those expenditures were targeted toward biotechnology, physiology, soil productivity, remote sensing and wood quality research, but sustainable forestry projects received a substantial share.
EPA has performed or funded a rapidly increasing amount of forestry research, focusing on such issues as global climate change, carbon storage, water quality, and air quality. EPA personnel demurred on providing estimates of their research related to forestry, noting that their work was focused on aquatic resources. They did note, however, that they conduct research on related topics, such as land-use and land cover changes, biogenic emissions from forest canopies and fires, forests as a component of riparian zone restoration, forest fragmentation and habitat, acid deposition and vegetation effects, pesticide effects and exposures to terrestrial vegetation, and whole-watershed assessments. If one uses a somewhat broader definition of forestry-related research, relevant EPA expenditures would be about $10 to 20 million per year.
NASA has funded increasing amounts of research related to forests in recent years. NASA's estimated contribution to forestry research is about $10 million per year, with terrestrial ecology being the largest portion.
OCR for page 73
Page 73
There are other sources of government and nongovernment funding of research in forestry subjects, either narrowly or broadly defined. Nongovernment organizations, such as The Wilderness Society and The Nature Conservancy, have applied-research programs that specifically address forestry issues and problems. State forestry organizations such as those of Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Georgia, and Virginia either have specific funding for forestry research or perform a host of applied studies on ecologic and social issues. Federal agencies—such as the DOI Bureau of Land Management, U.S.Geological Survey Division of Biological Sciences (formerly Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service research), and the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service—perform a wealth of research related to forest flora and fauna. The total amount of their research that is directly related to forestry is not known, but is substantial. In addition, a host of international organizations, ranging from the U.S. Agency for International Development and the World Bank to organizations in other countries, sponsor research related to world forests that provides considerable funding to U.S. and international scientists. In total, those other organizations probably add $10 to 50 million to the more-precise forestry-research funding totals estimated above.
Forestry research could be defined even more broadly—as anything related to the ecology or people associated with the one-third of the nation's total land base classified as forest, or even the world's forest resources. Given a broader definition, the amount of forestry research in the country is indeed very large. However, given that definition, there are many overlaps with other disciplines; it thus provides a blunt tool for assessing the status and deficiencies in our forestry-research capacity. So a narrow enough definition of forestry research is used in our study to estimate trends in investments and accomplishments.
EVALUATING RETURN ON INVESTMENT IN FORESTRY RESEARCH
Investment in forestry research has resulted in diverse benefits, such as lower-cost wood products for consumers, increased income for rural people through improved management and marketing of wood from small woodlots, expanded employment opportunities, improved water quality and flows, maintenance of ecologic integrity and diversity, and enhanced recreation experiences through new recreation-management techniques. Research has led to increased quality and efficiency in the use of all forest resources.
Various studies have examined the returns on investments in forestry research. Bengston (1999) summarized many of the studies that occurred as part of a focused effort in the 1980s; Hyde et al. (1992) published The Economic Benefits of Forestry Research; and a few other studies have also been published.
Table 3–11 summarizes the results of the studies.
The evaluations indicate that forestry research has consistently had handsome economic rates of return for improvements in individual forest management practice and for wood products research. The average rates of return for wood products research had the greatest returns, ranging from about 15 to 40 percent per year for most conventional
OCR for page 74
Page 74
research applications. Softwood plywood research had very large returns on research investments, as did wood preservation research, but such breakthroughs are uncommon. The large benefits of forest products research are attributable mostly to the fact that gains are achieved and implemented quickly, and application to a large volume of end products increases net gain. These gains accrue more to wood products producers (large firms) and consumers than to forest landowners or others for whom public research expenditures may be more easily justified.
Timber-management research evaluations also generally found excellent economic rates of return or benefit:cost ratios. Economic rates of return for individual programs such as forest pest management, containerized seedlings, and forest nutrition ranged from 9 percent to more than 100 percent. Benefit:cost ratios ranged from 2.3:1 to 34:1 for fusiform rust research, growth and yield modeling, herbaceous weed control, and tree improvement programs. The one notable exception in these findings was low rates of return (0–7 percent) found for aggregate southern softwood forestry research (Hyde et al., 1992). Hyde et al. (1992) compared aggregate productivity gains for the entire southern forestry sector with aggregate southern forestry research investments. Such aggregate econometric comparisons might provide less robust means of identifying and estimating technical change than individual analyses of production economics and marginal rates of return. Compared with agriculture, aggregate changes in making slight growth improvements in all southern pine production would be expected to be much lower than the spectacular gains or returns one would expect to receive based domesticating wild cereal crops.
Most forestry-research evaluations demonstrate that past gains have been substantial. The fusiform rust research evaluation also estimated the possible incremental gains that could be achieved if fusiform rust were eliminated as a major southern pest. The advent of integrated biotechnology and forest-pathology research makes such a previously unlikely goal possible. Eliminating fusiform rust as a major disease of southern pines could quadruple the calculated benefits of the current tree breeding strategies (Cubbage et al., 2000). Rapid advances in integrated biotechnology, tree breeding, forest nutrition, herbicides, and silviculture have clearly yielded substantial marginal rates of economic return on financial investments (i.e., Yin et al., 1998; Siry et al., 2001) and research investments, although no formal research-evaluation studies have been published.
Forestry research evaluations to date have measured the gains from research that have increased the efficiency of wood utilization and timber management, but they have not captured the gains from productivity sustaining (maintenance) research. An estimated 43 percent of Forest Service research—and probably an equal portion of other forestry research—is aimed at maintaining the existing productivity level, which would decline in the absence of research to deal with disease, pests, and other factors that adversely affect forest productivity (O'Laughlin et al., 1986).
OCR for page 75
Page 75
Table 3–11
. Return on Investment in Forestry Research.
Measures of Economic Impact
Research Evaluated
Marg. ERR
a
%
Avg. ERR
b
%
B/C Ratio
c
Wood product research
Structural particleboard (Bengston, 1984)
27–35
19–22
Lumber and wood products (Bengston, 1985)
34–40
Timber utilization (Haygreen, et al., 1986)
14–36
Wood preservation (Brunner & Strauss, 1987)
15:1
Softwood plywood (Seldon & Newman, 1987)
236
Timber management research
Forest pest management (Araji, 1981)
60–86
Tree improvement (Levenson, 1984)
34:1
Forest nutrition (Bare & Loveless, 1985)
9–12
Growth and yield model (Chang, 1985)
16:1
Containerized seedlings (Westgate, 1986)
37–111
Herbaceous weed control (Huang & Teeter, 1990)
17–21:1
Timber harvesting (Cubbage et al., 1988)
17
Southern softwood forestry (Hyde et al., 1992)
0–7
Fusiform rust (Pye et al.,1997; Cubbage et al., 2000)
2–20:1
aMarginal economic rate of return: ERR on additional funds invested.
bAverage economic rate of return: ERR on total investments; ranges reflect different sets of assumptions.
cBenefit:cost ratio, when benefits and costs are discounted back to a common time; ranges reflect different sets of assumptions.
Productivity research is only a portion of public, and perhaps of private, research. Past evaluations of forestry research have not captured the value of economic benefits derived outside the marketplace, such as those related to environmental protection and improvement, and to amenity and recreation values. The prospects for large economic returns to forestry research on nonmarket goods and services also are significant. Research on the nonmarket benefits of the monitoring of wildlife, biodiversity, forest health, and even inventory and analysis also should enhance our management, conservation, and quality of life significantly. One study indicates that the economic benefits of wildland recreation research can be substantial and that society has under-invested in recreation research (Bengston and Xu, 1993). Thus, the rates of return shown in
Table 3–11 likely represent conservative estimates of the payoff of public forestry research.
OCR for page 76
Page 76
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Several themes transcend this overview of research capacity. Investment in U.S. forestry research is substantial and more stable in total than commonly believed. But it is fragmented among organizations. Direct USDA Forest Service forestry research personnel and support have declined, and other agencies are increasing their focus on issues related to forestry. Therefore, better information is needed to monitor the status of the inputs to forestry research. Although the Forest Service maintains pertinent information related to much of its research, comprehensive information on forestry research in the United States is lacking.
In 1997, the National Science and Technology Council recommended a framework for integrating the nation's environmental monitoring and research networks and programs, noting that new developments in science and technology provide new opportunities for collecting and organizing data. (National Science and Technology Council, 1997). With current fiscal limitations facing all levels of government, cooperation and efficiency among agencies is essential to the long-term success of individual programs. Following on the need for an integrated environmental and monitoring network, an integrated forestry-research information system is needed for tracking forestry research activities. The initial challenge will be to build on, enhance, and integrate existing databases.
Recommendation 3–1
The Forest Service should enhance its current research-information system and tracking efforts by establishing an improved and integrated interagency system that includes relevant information on forestry research activities, workforce, funding, and accomplishments in all agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, other relevant federal agencies, and associated organizations as appropriate.
Implementation of an enhanced system would require integrating information on forestry research from the Forest Service, agencies in USDA, NSF, DOE, EPA, DOI, and NASA. The system would provide a stronger foundation on which to base decisions for the future. Developing better information on the status of forestry research will require settling on the type of data that should be included in such a system; determining funding and staffing levels of federal, state, university, and nongovernment organizations performing forestry research; noting research priorities; and tracking quantitative and qualitative research accomplishments.
Personnel
Based on the Forest Service survey (2002), 2,186 scientist FTEs were employed at universities, in the Forest Service, or with forest industry in 2001. An estimated total of 1,346 FTEs were dedicated to research, with about 43% at universities, 49% at the Forest Service, and 8% with the private forest industry. About 600 forest scientist FTEs were dedicated to teaching, and 62 to extension. Scientists employed by other federal
OCR for page 77
Page 77
and state organizations and nongovernment organizations would add perhaps another 50 to 100 to that total.
Whether we have an adequate number of scientists in the requisite disciplines for the future, however, is debatable. Forest Service data support the belief that there have been rapid declines in the numbers of scientists in traditional research areas, such as silviculture, entomology, disease, and forest products. Most other disciplines in the Forest Service experienced declines in the number of scientists employed over the last 15 years. Ecologists have increased in number, but attrition clearly has reduced Forest Service research capacity. Forest Service timber management research probably has declined, but this has been offset by large increases in broad forest management research. Despite perceptions by traditional stakeholders, Forest Service data on funding indicate that environmental research appears to have declined. On the other hand, based on the SFM data tallies by FTE, Forest Service environmental research in biodiversity and ecosystem health research now combines to constitute their largest research area. University research has a broader focus with more emphasis on social science and institutional frameworks. Private industry focuses mostly on productive capacity and soil and water research. Data on disciplines of academic researchers and teachers are not readily available, but experience suggests that academia is unlikely to cover all the shortfalls evidenced by declines in most Forest Service scientific research disciplines.
Recommendation 3–2
The Forest Service should substantially strengthen its research workforce over the next five years to address current and impending shortfalls, specifically recruiting and retaining researchers trained in the disciplines identified as foundation and critical emerging fields of forestry science.
Addressing the rapid decline in scientific manpower will strengthen the Forest Service's ability to respond to short- and long-term research needs. Employing additional full-time permanent researchers, rather than supplementing with temporary employees and post-doctoral students, in fields that are required to address traditional and emerging issues will improve Forest Service continuity and effectiveness in research efforts. Although post-docs and temporary employees are appropriate for some jobs— and do have a place—in many ways they cannot be compared to full-time employees. It is imperative that the Forest Service address the current deficiencies as soon as possible, because the situation is likely to become worse. In the past 8 years alone, the Forest Service has lost over 9000 total employees and during the past 15 years has lost approximately 45% of its scientists. Currently 35% of its workforce is eligible to retire in the next five years and the average age of employees is 55 years, with only five employees under the age of 25 years (personal communication, Mark Rey, USDA). The U.S. Department of Labor substantiates that the number of available workers is decreasing, the average age of the workforce is increasing, the pool of young workers is shrinking, and the number of less educated people in the workforce is increasing (U.S. Department of Labor, 2000). Although employment conditions differ greatly by field and subfield of science (National Research Council 1998), the demand for employees in
OCR for page 78
Page 78
science and technology in many areas that support important federal missions has outstripped supply (National Science and Technology Council, 2000). The cost associated with strengthening and retaining the Forest Service research workforce is nominal compared with the costs associated with operating under current and projected deficiencies.
Recommendation 3–3
As part of the increase in research personnel capacity and resources, the Forest Service should enhance cooperative relations with forestry schools and colleges.
Partnerships that have evolved between the Federal government and the nation's universities have proven exceptionally productive, successfully promoting discovery of knowledge, stimulating technologic innovations, improving quality of life, educating and training the next generation of scientists and engineers, and contributing to America's prosperity (National Science and Technology Council, 1999). Cooperative research allocations by the Forest Service have decreased markedly from about 15 percent to 9 percent of its budget from 1990 to 1997. The Forest Service should consider designating a larger percentage of its total research budget to the station or research work unit level for extramural research grants that are inter-organizational and cooperative, requiring active involvement, cooperation, and integration of Forest Service, university, and other research partners. The integration of research and education is the hallmark and strength of our research and education system. Two important rationales exist for federal investment in university-based research and these are: (1) the benefits derived from training a new generation of scientists and (2) continuous mutual enrichment that is derived from the relationship (National Science and Technology Council, 1999; National Science Foundation, 1998). The agency could strengthen its relationship with partners if a larger and more openly competitive cooperative grants program existed.
Research Quality, Productivity, and Efficacy
Measuring research quality, productivity, and effectiveness of transferring research to users is difficult. Better oversight and program reviews would help to ensure that organizations are pursuing appropriate strategic directions and implementing them with sound operational programs. The forestry research sector consists of a broad group of public and private organizations. A central organizing body is needed to monitor forestry research and facilitate cooperation among the various organizations. Creation of new federal or state organizations is not necessary, but better oversight and direction from advisory bodies are needed.
Recommendation 3–4
The USDA Forest Research Advisory Committee should focus its efforts in two primary areas: (1) working with USDA research leaders in the Forest Service and other agencies to set research priorities and monitor accomplishments, and (2) coordinating
OCR for page 79
Page 79
with USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service and other agencies to help guide research priorities of McIntire-Stennis, Renewable Resources Extension Act, National Research Initiative, and other grant programs.
Those involved in providing focus should include professionals in government agencies, universities, and other relevant organizations as members or ex-officio members. A full-time dedicated professional USDA senior-level director would facilitate operations, serve as communication liaison, monitor forestry research accomplishments, and coordinate site reviews and visits. Those involved would also monitor forestry-research quality and accountability by renewing and expanding the periodic review process, including reviews of McIntire-Stennis projects and Forest Service agency and cooperative agreement research accomplishments. Reasonable intervals for site visits are 10 years for McIntire-Stennis institutions and 5 years for Forest Service research stations.
Advisory groups would help to ensure that research agencies and other organizations are pursuing appropriate strategic directions and implementing them with sound operational programs. Implementing or renewing forestry-research oversight reviews would correspond with the mandates for performance evaluation under the GPRA. Reviews might not necessarily entail additional report preparation, but perhaps more site visits, discussion of research priorities and progress, adaptive management or research programs.
Recommendation 3–5
Universities and state institutions should increase the use of competitive mechanisms for allocating McIntire-Stennis and Renewable Resources Extension Act funds within these institutions, and in doing so, encourage team approaches to solving forestry and natural resource problems as well as integrated research and extension proposals or interinstitutional cooperation.
With goals consistent to the respective Congressional Acts, many universities allocate McIntire-Stennis, Hatch, and Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) funding via a merit-based competitive process (for example, see Boxes
3–1 and
3–2). Scientific excellence is promoted when investments are guided by merit review that rewards quality and productivity in research and accommodates for endeavors that might be high-risk but have potential for high gain (National Science and Technology Council, 1999, 2001; National Research Council, 2000).
Clearly, formula-fund allocations are critical for diffusing research throughout the nation, for pursuit of long-term research goals and multidisciplinary research, and for supporting a system in which university faculty appointments are split among some combination of research, extension and teaching. There is a need to preserve the advantages offered by formula funding (University of Idaho, 1983), particularly their facilitation of linked research, extension, and teaching programs (National Research Council, 1996). However, if more competitive approaches were used by universities and state institutions for allocation of formula-based McIntire-Stennis funds, the opportunities for improving the quality and accountability of research funded will be greater. A
OCR for page 80
Page 80
stronger commitment to addressing the quality and accountability of formula-based research might also provide greater support for funding the critical McIntire-Stennis program at a level closer to that at which it was authorized. The current funding level of McIntire-Stennis is only approximately $21 million, which is less than half its authorized level.
Institutions, or consortia, should concentrate research capital in specific (and perhaps limited) fields of forestry research where they operate best or have some recognized institutional advantage. One of the ways to increase quality and cooperation is to bring federal, state, and private-sector scientists into the academic fabric where needed to augment the expertise of university faculty in preparing future scientists. Collaboration of nonuniversity scientists in the academic fabric could expand the “critical mass” of scientists and educators preparing future scientists.
In addition research oversight and mechanisms, technology transfer should be improved. We have made great strides in many fields of basic and applied research, but resources directed to extension and cooperative efforts have steadily declined. A stronger delivery system must be developed.
Recommendation 3–6
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, together with universities, should develop means to more effectively communicate existing and new knowledge to users, managers, and planners in forestry.
If we are to achieve broadly recognized forestry research and development goals, our technology transfer and extension capability should be enhanced. Almost 10 million nonindustrial private landowners rely on extension, communication, and transfer of research results to make informed decisions (National Research Council, 1998). Universities, government, and private organizations should work together to improve mechanisms for communicating research and technology.
Fiscal Strength
At least $400 million is spent on forestry research each year by the various research organizations in the United States, and the total might well exceed $500 million. Funding includes about $200 million for Forest Service research and $204 million for research in professional forestry schools, colleges, and departments. NAPFSC data indicate that forestry schools received about $23 million of their external research funds from non-Forest Service grants and $12 million from Forest Service cooperative agreements in 1998. The USDA has provided other funding through NRI and IFAFS, in the amount of approximately $10 million per year. Including the data reported in the SFI and NCASI research, the forest industry spends at least $70 million per year in forestry research and probably far more on wood and paper research. State agencies spend a few million dollars per year in total on applied forestry research. Federal agencies other than the Forest Service were unable to provide definitive estimates of their funding of forestry research, but DOE, EPA, NASA, DOI, and NSF spend at least $10 million per year on
OCR for page 81
Page 81
research specifically related to forests. Total forest research expenditures in the United States were about $530 million in 1998.
Trends in university and nonfederal forestry research are difficult to assess. Non-Forest Service federal, state, and nongovernmental organization forestry research has increased in recent years despite fairly static funding in Forest Service research funds. Forest industry research also appears to have increased in the last 5 years, although it is concentrated in a few firms.
Toward Greater Capacity
The overview presented here suggests that financial and human investments in forestry research, construed narrowly, are substantial and that return on investment is high. Forestry research may be defined more broadly to include much of natural resources research. In either case, the nation has moderate capacity to discover new knowledge about forest resources. However, the nation's forestry-research capacity and investment in research, particularly in Forest Service research, have declined sharply in the last decade. Many scientific disciplines appear to have dwindling numbers of research scientists and dwindling expertise despite rapid increases in pressing problems regarding the productivity, health, management, and protection of our nation's forests. Those trends are important and must be addressed without delay, given the rapidly increasing number of challenges and issues facing forests and forestry research.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
forestry research
