National Capacity in Forestry Research (2002)

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.

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:

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.

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

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

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.

Forestry Extension

Forestry and natural-resources extension programs provide direct support for disseminating research findings to research users, such as nonindustrial private forest landowners, urban residents, production and environmental interest groups, natural-resource professionals, state and federal agencies, local governments, and policy-makers. Formal or informal extension efforts provide help to ensure that research results are used expeditiously.

The Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) provides federal funding for cooperative extension efforts at qualifying state universities and colleges. RREA has been authorized for budgets of up to $15 million per year, but appropriations have been much less. Funding started at $2 million in 1982, and was $3.2 million in FY 1999. State cooperative extension funding has also contributed to programs that have extension forestry specialists or regional or county agents. According to our calculations derived from the National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges (NAPFSC, 1999) report, forestry extension at member institutions accounts for about $20 million per year, including RREA funds. Thus, RREA funds are leveraged with state and county funding sources, at about a 9:1 ratio. However, state funds for extension appear to be declining due to budget cuts by 2001.

The United States has 9.9 million nonindustrial private forest landowners (Birch 1996), who own 49 percent of the nation's forest land and 58 percent of the nation's commercial timberland (Smith et al., 2001). Technology transfer is also needed for the even greater number of urban residents and for public land managers. The sum of $20 million per year indicates that technology transfer is much more modestly funded than research.

Private Industry

It is estimated that one to several hundred scientific research personnel are employed in the forest industry. Industry research can be categorized into five areas: forest health, water quality, fish and wildlife, ecosystem management, and timber productivity. A large portion of the environmental research (research in categories other than timber productivity) focuses on environmental protection in the context of timber management, rather than on basic studies of flora and fauna. Most of the results of the environmental research are available to the public and the general scientific community, whereas most of the results of the timber-productivity research are not.

Total Forestry Research Workforce by Sector, Function, and Sustainable Forest Management Criteria

A recent survey conducted by the USDA Forest Service (2002) provides the most comprehensive and up-to-date estimate of the total forestry research workforce as of 2001. This survey was conducted in part, in response to early requests for input and data for this NRC study and in conjunction with Forest Service efforts to measure and monitor the U.S. participation in meeting the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators, which are discussed in Chapter 2. The study surveyed all U.S. professional forestry schools and colleges, the Forest Service, and the U.S. forest products industry to determine personnel efforts in research, education, and extension, broken down into the seven criteria for sustainable forest management. This study provides a thorough summary of current comparative efforts for forestry research and development, except for the newer federal agencies, state organizations, and nongovernment organizations that perform forestry research. Table 3–6 summarizes the results.

The total effort reported by the Forest Service (2002) survey includes 1,346 full-time equivalents (FTEs) for all three sectors in research; 598 FTEs in teaching; and 243 FTEs in extension. In total, 2186 FTEs are devoted to research (62%), teaching (27%), or extension (11%) activities by the identified forestry organizations. Universities have the largest number of FTEs devoted to all three functions, with 1361 persons (62%), the Forest Service has the second largest workforce with 701 scientists (32%), and the forest industry has 124 forest scientist FTEs (6%). The Forest Service has the largest number of research scientist FTEs with 658 (49 %), the universities follow with 575 (43%), and the industry has 112 (8%). Academia has 98.7% of the teaching FTEs (596), followed

INVESTMENT IN FORESTRY RESEARCH

Focusing on the financial resources devoted to forestry research overlooks other important factors in measuring research capacity, such as human resources devoted to research. Although research funding is often used as a proxy for these inputs and for research activity in general, it is important to note that research funds purchase the services of scientists and research personnel and the equipment they use.

Other Federal Forestry-Research Funding

The largest other direct federal funding for forestry research is provided under the authorization of the McIntire-Stennis Act of 1962. The act provides federal financial support to colleges and universities for forestry research and graduate education. Whereas Forest Service research budgets are authorized and appropriated in Congress in conjunction with those of the Department of the Interior and related agencies, McIntire-Stennis funds are appropriated in the congressional agriculture committees, similar to the Hatch Act funds for the state land grant agricultural experiment stations.

Table 3–7 summarizes federal appropriations for McIntire-Stennis funds from 1980 to 1999. They are adjusted to constant 1980 dollars for comparison of purchasing power. The McIntire-Stennis expenditures increased gradually from $9.7 million in FY 1980 to $11.9 million in FY 1987, jumped to $16.8 million in 1988, and increased to $21.9 million by FY 2000. The funds in actual dollars have increased only slightly in constant 1980 dollars.

Three major factors have been used to determine the proportion of McIntire-Stennis funds that states receive (National Research Council, 1990, P. 18):

Some flexibility is built into the formula; for example, the weight of the factors is not mandated by law, but is set by the Secretary of Agriculture.

Table 3–8 summarizes the McIntire-Stennis appropriations for FY 2000. The funds are distributed among the public forestry schools and colleges throughout the nation, and they provide crucial support for many forestry programs. Fifteen of the 50 states each received more than $500,000 in 2000, and each state received more than $50,000. States with more than one forestry school or college split the funding among relevant institutions. Once allocated to states, funds may be administered or allocated entirely within the relevant forestry school, college, division, or department, or they may be distributed competitively among the faculty at a university ( Box 3–1). Proposals have been made to extend McIntire-Stennis funding to other institutions, such as 1890 historically black colleges and universities and 1994 Native American natural-resources schools. Such extensions would require additional funding, and additional faculty and infrastructure at recipient institutions, to enhance national research capacity.

The McIntire-Stennis funds provide a foundation for maintaining forestry research at qualifying institutions. This relatively reliable source of funds has undoubtedly allowed the expansion of university forestry-research capacity throughout the country. It also has ensured that all qualifying schools receive some funds each year and that funds are well distributed geographically, institutionally, and programmatically. Even small forestry programs are able to perform some applied research with McIntire-Stennis funds, as well as to support graduate education. Funding under the act can be compared with the competitive grant approach, where the large research institutions tend

Leveraging Research Support

The National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges (NAPFSC, 1999) provides a detailed history and status report of the McIntire-Stennis program and its accomplishments. Many of the successes of the program and its effectiveness in leveraging state and private-sector funds for forestry research are noted in the report. For FY 1997, total forestry research, extension, and education funding at public colleges and universities was about $204 million (NAPFSC, 1999, P. 7):

McIntire-Stennis funding represents 10 percent of the $204 million used by American forestry schools for research, education, and extension. Other federal funds are about 24 percent, States provide 44 percent, industry contributes just over 7 percent, and other non-federal sources (e.g., foundations) add about 14 percent. In 1997, the total federal funding for forestry research, education, and extension at forestry schools was $70 million—about 34 percent of the total. Federal dollars are awarded through formula, competition, and cooperative agreements to achieve goals of national importance. Each McIntire-Stennis dollar leverages approximately nine dollars of other federal, state, and private sources.

The southern NAPFSC group collects data that allow examination of McIntire-Stennis funding compared with other sources. In FY 1998, the 14 reporting southern forestry land grant schools, colleges, and departments had total research budgets of $36 million.