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
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.
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:
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.
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.
Page 46
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.
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.
Page 48
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.
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
Page 50
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) |
|||||||||||||||||||
1.1 |
182 |
155 |
221 |
219 |
209 |
245 |
238 |
245 |
207 |
155 |
329 |
287 |
243 |
358 |
282 |
281 |
270 |
281 |
|
1.2 |
116 |
178 |
201 |
226 |
196 |
162 |
153 |
153 |
176 |
160 |
200 |
310 |
208 |
242 |
289 |
210 |
206 |
214 |
|
1.3 |
91 |
60 |
66 |
67 |
68 |
69 |
66 |
127 |
83 |
92 |
45 |
53 |
83 |
61 |
57 |
52 |
73 |
76 |
|
1.4 |
87 |
69 |
140 |
128 |
98 |
120 |
111 |
115 |
109 |
102 |
134 |
122 |
178 |
293 |
238 |
234 |
115 |
120 |
|
1.5 |
39 |
38 |
50 |
66 |
84 |
71 |
70 |
57 |
40 |
46 |
50 |
73 |
58 |
71 |
58 |
49 |
59 |
61 |
|
1.7 |
406 |
447 |
440 |
431 |
489 |
428 |
411 |
339 |
328 |
383 |
337 |
403 |
427 |
480 |
383 |
364 |
279 |
290 |
|
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) |
|||||||||||||||||||
2.1 |
144 |
136 |
134 |
138 |
136 |
165 |
162 |
156 |
147 |
121 |
204 |
190 |
213 |
288 |
269 |
287 |
281 |
292 |
|
2.2 |
31 |
21 |
28 |
37 |
18 |
26 |
27 |
38 |
17 |
27 |
46 |
34 |
73 |
81 |
103 |
95 |
109 |
113 |
|
2.3 |
149 |
141 |
183 |
119 |
189 |
177 |
173 |
215 |
219 |
292 |
141 |
219 |
181 |
226 |
301 |
282 |
253 |
263 |
|
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) |
|||||||||||||||||||
3.1 |
94 |
122 |
128 |
142 |
182 |
205 |
196 |
131 |
190 |
159 |
142 |
215 |
168 |
200 |
175 |
187 |
113 |
117 |
|
3.2 |
33 |
23 |
41 |
25 |
36 |
45 |
42 |
31 |
17 |
58 |
46 |
2 |
49 |
60 |
40 |
51 |
37 |
38 |
|
3.3 |
7 |
6 |
9 |
6 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
4 |
5 |
8 |
9 |
23 |
8 |
11 |
9 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
3.4 |
64 |
54 |
78 |
53 |
62 |
59 |
56 |
40 |
49 |
74 |
77 |
211 |
68 |
97 |
78 |
135 |
144 |
150 |
|
3.5 |
212 |
170 |
221 |
210 |
192 |
197 |
188 |
102 |
144 |
142 |
157 |
169 |
238 |
244 |
285 |
258 |
240 |
249 |
|
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) |
|||||||||||||||||||
4.1 |
88 |
92 |
99 |
119 |
110 |
143 |
138 |
203 |
109 |
120 |
107 |
123 |
105 |
122 |
102 |
166 |
78 |
81 |
|
4.2 |
22 |
23 |
|||||||||||||||||
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 |
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
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
Page 53
the principal forestry, wildlife, fisheries, or natural resources departments. That constitutes a slight decline from the 1,503 listed for 1984–1985, but it is probably within the error of tabulation, given the expanding nature of forestry and natural resources departments. Many colleges and schools have added departments that contribute to forestry research and teaching capacity but are not included in the totals in Table 3–5. The South and the Lake States had slight declines in numbers of forestry faculty; the Midwest had a large decline. The Rocky Mountains and the West increased their numbers.
Data are not available on this, but most colleges and departments have split appointments between research and teaching and to a lesser extent, extension. If research accounted for about half the faculty full-time equivalents (FTEs), there might be about 700 faculty research FTEs. In the aggregate, the total faculty research FTEs in the United States are apt to be greater than the total Forest Service scientist FTEs. The teaching FTEs also contribute to research capacity, particularly in relation to their influences on graduate students. These interactions are discussed Chapter 4.
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.
Page 54
Number of Faculty |
|||
Region and Institution |
1984–1985 a |
1986–1987 b |
1993–1994 c |
East |
|||
University of Connecticut |
8 |
5 |
6 |
University of Maine |
27 |
29 |
24 |
University of Massachusetts |
20 |
21 |
33 |
University of New Hampshire |
15 |
15 |
16 |
Rutgers College |
13 |
13 |
15 |
Cornell University |
27 |
31 |
42 |
State University of New York-CESF |
120 |
121 |
106 |
Pennsylvania State |
45 |
43 |
38 |
University of Rhode Island |
10 |
10 |
10 |
University of Vermont |
25 |
25 |
29 |
Virginia Tech |
53 |
56 |
58 |
West Virginia University |
38 |
40 |
29 |
Subtotal, East |
401 |
409 |
406 |
Lake States |
|||
Michigan State University |
25 |
27 |
21 |
University of Michigan |
51 |
59 |
33 |
Michigan Technological University |
15 |
13 |
21 |
University of Minnesota |
43 |
44 |
47 |
University of Wisconsin |
42 |
47 |
42 |
Subtotal, Lake States |
176 |
190 |
164 |
Midwest |
|||
University of Illinois |
21 |
18 |
18 |
Southern Illinois University |
13 |
12 |
11 |
Purdue University |
32 |
31 |
24 |
Iowa State University |
12 |
12 |
13 |
Kansas State University |
4 |
4 |
4 |
University of Missouri |
34 |
34 |
19 |
University of Nebraska |
9 |
9 |
5 |
Ohio State University |
19 |
19 |
16 |
Subtotal, Midwest |
144 |
139 |
110 |
Rocky Mountains |
|||
University of Arizona |
37 |
40 |
37 |
Northern Arizona University |
12 |
19 |
23 |
Colorado State University |
20 |
16 |
21 |
University of Idaho |
51 |
54 |
39 |
University of Montana |
28 |
30 |
35 |
Utah State University |
16 |
17 |
14 |
Subtotal, Rocky Mountains |
164 |
176 |
169 |
West |
|||
University of California-Berkeley |
37 |
36 |
47 |
Humboldt State College |
12 |
14 |
12 |
University of Alaska-Fairbanks |
7 |
6 |
7 |
Page 55
Number of Faculty |
|||
Region and Institution |
1984–1985 a |
1986–1987 b |
1993–1994 c |
University of Nevada |
8 |
6 |
8 |
Oregon State University |
81 |
72 |
75 |
Washington State University |
26 |
28 |
39 |
University of Washington |
58 |
55 |
54 |
Subtotal, West |
229 |
217 |
242 |
South |
|||
Auburn University |
36 |
38 |
47 |
Alabama A&M University |
2 |
2 |
6 |
University of Arkansas-Monticello |
15 |
17 |
20 |
University of Florida |
31 |
25 |
26 |
University of Georgia |
36 |
38 |
34 |
University of Kentucky |
12 |
14 |
15 |
Louisiana State University |
28 |
28 |
19 |
Louisiana Tech University |
10 |
8 |
9 |
Mississippi State University |
27 |
26 |
30 |
North Carolina State University |
81 |
81 |
73 |
Oklahoma State University |
14 |
12 |
14 |
Clemson University |
35 |
35 |
22 |
University of Tennessee |
24 |
23 |
16 |
Texas A&M University |
17 |
18 |
17 |
Stephen F. Austin College |
21 |
22 |
20 |
Subtotal, South |
389 |
387 |
368 |
Grand Total |
1503 |
1518 |
1459 |
(Percentage of 1984–1985) |
(100%) |
(101%) |
(97%) |
aSource: USDA Cooperative States Research Service Agricultural Handbook No. 305:1984–1985 Directory of Professional Workers in State Agricultural Experiment Stations and Other Cooperating State Institutions. January 1985.
bSource: USDA Cooperative States Research Service Agricultural Handbook No. 305:1986–1987 Directory of Professional Workers in State Agricultural Experiment Stations and Other Cooperating State Institutions. January 1987.
cSource: USDA Cooperative States Research Service Agricultural Handbook No. 305:1993–1994 Directory of Professional Workers in State Agricultural Experiment Stations and Other Cooperating State Institutions. January 1994.
Page 56
A serious disconnect between forestry research and its application on the ground limits the application of existing and new knowledge (Callaham, 1989; NAPFSC, 1999). Universities, governments, and private companies share the responsibility for training technical professionals to function at the interface between science and management. In addition to training people to operate at the interface, forest managers need to be lifelong learners. Researchers need to listen and respond to forest managers' needs and to articulate the practical significance and benefits of their research. Extension personnel must play a critical role in transferring knowledge gained through research to applications in forest management.
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
Page 57
distantly by the Forest Service and industry with only one each. The university sector also has 78% of the extension FTEs (190), followed by the Forest Service with 42 (17%), and the private forest industry with 11 (5%).
These data provide a basis for comparison of earlier estimates. The previous estimate for total Forest Service personnel for 1999 was 537 research scientists. The Forest Service (2002) total of 658 FTEs shows an increase in the number of scientists over 1999, but this number probably includes post-doctoral positions and other scientists that may not have been included in the earlier data set. However, there has been an increase in Forest Service research funding and capacity in the last few years. On the other hand, the new Forest Service (2002) survey of university faculty in forestry departments found there were only 1361 FTEs, compared to 1459 by the USDA Handbook 305 (1994). The USDA Handbook includes forestry, fisheries, and natural resource departments. That broader definition probably accounts for the larger number of FTEs, and suggests that there may still be a fairly stable or even increasing capacity in all of the natural resource faculty at universities. There were no previous estimates of the forestry extension workforce. The 243 FTEs in the United States represents a substantial workforce, with at least some representation in all sectors.
The reported forest industry research workforce estimate was smaller than previously estimated, at 124 persons rather than several hundred. It should be noted that dozens to perhaps more than 100 scientists are involved in forestry research through state organizations, federal environmental agencies, and domestic and international environmental nongovernment organizations.
The data on effort by SFM Criteria demonstrate that for all research, education, and extension FTEs, Criterion 1 (biological diversity) and 2 (productive capacity) each included about 21% of the total scientists' effort, at about 450 FTEs. Criterion 6 (socio-economics) included 393 FTEs (18%). Ecosystem health and soil and water each had about 300 FTEs (14% each). The institutional framework and carbon cycles criteria had the smallest reported effort, with 166 FTEs (8%) and 122 FTEs (6%), respectively.
For research FTEs alone, the percentage effort among SFM Criteria was fairly similar. The research FTE effort by universities was the greatest in biological diversity criterion (155 FTEs), followed by socio-economics (131 FTEs), productive capacity (85 FTEs), and institutional framework (72 FTEs). The Forest Service research efforts were dominated by the productive capacity (158 FTEs), ecosystem health (156 FTEs), and biological diversity (112 FTEs) criteria. Forest industry research efforts were dominated with activity in productive capacity (67 FTEs) and soil and water (20 FTEs).
These findings indicate that universities appear to have the most diverse research portfolio and are relatively strong in social science efforts. The Forest Service focuses on core biological criteria, and appears to have a slight plurality of its research FTEs focused on productive capacity. The combined biological diversity and ecosystem health criteria workforce is effectively the largest area, and is focused on broader issues. The forest industry focuses on productivity questions, with soil and water quality also being important.
Page 58
Sustainable Forest Management Criterion |
|||||||||
1: Biological Diversity |
2: Productive Capacity |
3: Ecosystem Health |
4: Soil and Water |
5: Carbon Cycles |
6: Socio-economics |
7: Institutional Framework |
Total |
% By Function |
|
Academic Institutions |
|||||||||
Teaching |
155 |
85 |
50 |
77 |
28 |
131 |
72 |
596 |
44 |
Research |
136 |
96 |
53 |
84 |
47 |
114 |
45 |
575 |
42 |
Extension |
27 |
40 |
25 |
26 |
3 |
48 |
22 |
190 |
14 |
Subtotal |
318 |
221 |
128 |
186 |
77 |
293 |
138 |
1361 |
100 |
% By Criterion |
23 |
16 |
9 |
14 |
6 |
22 |
10 |
100 |
|
USDA Forest Service |
|||||||||
Teaching |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
Research |
112 |
158 |
156 |
86 |
41 |
80 |
25 |
658 |
94 |
Extension |
9 |
3 |
10 |
6 |
1 |
10 |
3 |
42 |
6 |
Subtotal |
122 |
161 |
166 |
92 |
43 |
90 |
27 |
701 |
100 |
% By Criterion |
17 |
23 |
24 |
13 |
6 |
13 |
4 |
100 |
|
Forest Industry |
|||||||||
Teaching |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Research |
10 |
67 |
5 |
20 |
3 |
9 |
0 |
112 |
91 |
Extension |
1 |
8 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
11 |
9 |
Subtotal |
10 |
75 |
5 |
22 |
3 |
10 |
0 |
124 |
100 |
% By Criterion |
8 |
60 |
4 |
17 |
2 |
8 |
0 |
100 |
|
All Sectors |
|||||||||
Teaching |
155 |
85 |
50 |
77 |
28 |
132 |
72 |
598 |
27 |
Research |
258 |
321 |
214 |
189 |
91 |
203 |
70 |
1346 |
62 |
Extension |
37 |
51 |
35 |
34 |
4 |
59 |
24 |
243 |
11 |
Total All Functions |
450 |
457 |
299 |
300 |
122 |
393 |
166 |
2186 |
100 |
% by Criterion |
21 |
21 |
14 |
14 |
6 |
18 |
8 |
100 |
|
Total Research Only |
258 |
321 |
214 |
189 |
91 |
203 |
70 |
1346 |
|
% by Criterion |
19 |
24 |
16 |
14 |
7 |
15 |
5 |
100 |
Source: USDA Forest Service 2002
Notes: Data may not add exactly due to rounding
Page 59
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.
Forest Service Research Support
Support for Forest Service research encompasses several components, including direct research appropriations, construction appropriations, and reimbursable expenses. Trends for appropriated Forest Service research dollars are summarized in Table 3–1. Research received $111.5 million in FY 1980 and $229.1 million in FY 2001. If the cost of inflation is accounted for (converting the funding to constant 1980 dollars), Forest Service research funding dropped from $111.5 million in FY 1980 to $106.5 million in FY 2001. The total appropriated budget for Forest Service research in FY 2001 was also lower (in constant 1980 dollars) than the FY 1994 budget, which had $200 million in appropriated funds and $19.6 million in reimbursable accounts, for a total of almost $220 million or $122.3 million in constant 1980 dollars. In addition, the agency periodically has received congressional earmarks for specific projects, locations, or buildings, particularly in the late 1980s, which reduce the discretionary budget even more than is apparent by looking at total funding.
Forest Service research funds were appropriated by broad disciplinary budget line items (BLIs) until FY 1994 and have since been consolidated into one appropriation. Table 3–2 summarizes these appropriations by BLI from, with estimated breakdowns being made for the last five fiscal years. FY 1994 was the last year that Forest Service research received direct funding for major BLIs, rather than as one consolidated research budget. At that time, research programs were divided among forest protection (about $41 million), resource analysis ($32 million), forest management ($41 million), forest environment and ecosystem ($53 million), and forest products and harvesting ($26 million).
The trends in Forest Service research vary among disciplines. Forest-protection research funding decreased from $32 million in FY 1980 to $14 million in constant 1980 dollars or $30 million in 2001 dollars. Forest products research had an increase of about $9 million in funding between 1980 and 2001, which is actually a decrease of $5.2 million if inflation is considered. Resource analysis experienced an increase, with FY 2000 in constant 1980 dollars slightly higher than the FY 1980 level, a $712,000 increase. Timber and forest management increased the most, by about $5 million in constant 1980 dollars, and the forest environment and ecosystem BLI increased by about $1 million in constant 1980 dollars.
The appropriations statistics in Tables 3–1 and 3–2 indicate that in constant dollars, changes in appropriations appear to have been favorable to forest-industry related research (i.e., timber and forest management research). Research areas that focus on the environment (i.e., forest environment and ecosystem research) did not fare as well. In
Page 60
general, while appropriations fell by 8.4 percent in constant dollars in the two decades following 1980, they went up by 27.0 percent in timber and forest management research. They fell by 43.8 percent in forest protection (forest health) research and went up by only 12.3 percent in forest environment and ecosystem research despite the increased public attention to issues in both of these areas. The increase in forest timber and forest management research appropriations may surprise some, since the forest industry generally perceives that the Forest Service does substantially less timber productivity research.
The 1990 National Research Council report on forestry research called for a reorientation of research (and forest management) to address environmental concerns. If the recommendations of the 1990 report had been implemented, environmental and ecosystem research appropriations presumably would have experienced a greater increase, but in fact these areas remained relatively flat in real terms since the early 1990s, while timber and forest management research went up by more than 50 percent in constant dollars. However, strict interpretation of these data must be qualified to recognize that forest-industry research priorities have broadened in the past decades to include environmental forestry and performance, water issues, and sustainable productivity (AFPA, 1996). Furthermore, the Forest Service shifted to a broader set of research projects in the forest management category than was performed in the old timber management category. The appropriations categories are broad and may conceal actual research priorities, but, if assessed literally, the numbers appear to reflect Forest Service and Congressional priorities.
The Forest Service provides extramural research contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements to universities, nonprofit organizations, and some other private organizations ( Table 3–1). Extramural funding has varied considerably since FY 1980, when the Forest Service provided $10.6 million to cooperating organizations. Extramural research funding peaked in FY 1992, when the Forest Service provided $17.5 million in constant 1980 dollars ($29.6 million in 1992 dollars); in FY 1996, it decreased to 7.9 million in constant 1980 dollars ($14.7 million in 1996 dollars), and in FY 2001 it increased to $10.2 million in constant 1980 dollars ($22 million in 2001).
In FY 1981, the Forest Service spent $14.2 million of $108.5 million on extramural contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements. That was 13.1 percent of its total research budget. In FY 1992, the agency spent approximately 16.3 percent on extramural research, and this declined to 9.4 percent in FY 1998. While data are lacking, it appears that almost all of these agreements are negotiated among individual Forest Service scientists and university professors, lacking any broad competition or peer review. The agency does not sponsor any national competitive grant research.
Forest Service extramural funding went mostly to land grant universities in FY 1997—$15,360,000 of the $19.9 million total. However, in FY 1998, non-land-grant universities received the largest amount of extramural research funding—$7,654,000 compared with $7,595,000 for land-grant institutions. The 1890 historically black colleges and universities received about a half million dollars in extramural funding in both fiscal years. Nonprofit organizations received about $1.6 million; state and local governments, $250,000–825,000; and foreign for-profit and nonprofit organizations and private individuals, about $85,000 (USDA Forest Service, 1999).
Page 61
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):
- Proportion of acreage in commercial forest land (40%)
- Volume of roundwood produced (40%)
- Amount of nonfederal money spent on forestry research (20%)
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
Page 62
to receive by far the most funds and have the most success, and small schools are rarely able to compete well. The formula funds provide a base level of support for forestry research and graduate education at qualifying public forestry schools, colleges, and departments throughout the nation. They are particularly important for providing reasonable stability, especially for long-term research, which is important to adequately address foundation and emerging issues (University of Idaho, 1983). McIntire-Stennis funds may also be spent on forestry research in other departments or colleges, depending on agreements in individual states.
Another strength attributed to the availability of research funding through formula allocation like McIntire-Stennis is that it reduces the proportion of a researcher's time spent applying for competitive grants. Because grant application processes are time consuming and can have low rates of success, formula funding allows more time for researchers to devote to performing the funded research (Huffman and Evenson, 1993). In recent years, formula funds, as McIntire-Stennis and Hatch Act appropriations are referred to, have been considered less desirable than competitive grants. Concurrently the forestry-related formula allocations have received relatively small increases, which has resulted in a reduced the share of federal research funds appropriated through USDA compared with other federal agencies, such as NASA, EPA, and NSF. The small increases in formula funding might be attributed to decline in political influence of rural agricultural and forestry interests, but a portion could be due to the nature of the administration of formula funds and their perception. One of the perceived weaknesses of formula funds is that research conducted with formula funds is not automatically subject to peer review.
Box 3–1 Hatch and McIntire-Stennis Proposalsat the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of WisconsinHatch and McIntire-Stennis (M-S) funding is open to faculty members in CALS, SOHE, and AHABS. Faculty from other colleges and universities may be collaborators on a project. Investigators may submit proposals for an individual-investigator grant, or a multiple-investigator interdisciplinary grant. The Hatch and M-S competition supports a wide range of research. While graduate training is central to use of formula funds, and encouraged as a typical request, some exceptions may be possible. Each proposal is judged on appropriateness of proposed research for formula funding, quality of the science, and likelihood of successful achievement of those goals. Interdisciplinary proposals with multiple investigators are considered in the open competition with the following considerations:
|
Page 63
There are valid criticisms of the way peer review tends to operate nevertheless, many see peer review as the key to quality control in scientific endeavor (Chubin and Hackett, 1990; National Research Council 2000). Formula funds also have lacked effective means of accountability in terms of how they have been used by state institutions or whether they have been devoted to research issues that justify federal support (Alston and Pardey, 1996). Formula funds for forestry research are also provided under the Hatch Act, as part of the general federal support for the state land grant agricultural experiment stations. A modest amount of the Hatch funds is allocated to forestry research. The 1999 NAPFSC report estimated the total at about $2 million.
McIntire-Stennis and Hatch Act program reviews may be requested by cooperating institutions but are not required on a regular schedule. Perhaps a return to more regular external scientific reviews, such as suggested by the National Research Council (1999), would be desirable. Providing more research oversight and evaluation might be a way to ensure the quality of research conducted with these funds (University of California, 2001; Box 3–2). Greater competition for formula funds within schools also might broaden the base of scientists who perform research with formula funds and enhance quality. More external peer reviews and more funding competition will improve consistency and quality among formula funded research. Those steps also might foster better communication about and support for the programs.
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.
Page 64
Fiscal |
Appropriations, millions of $ |
|
Year |
Actual |
Constant 1980 |
1980 |
9.7 |
9.7 |
1981 |
10.4 |
9.5 |
1982 |
11.3 |
9.6 |
1983 |
11.8 |
9.6 |
1984 |
12.2 |
9.5 |
1985 |
12.4 |
9.4 |
1986 |
11.9 |
8.8 |
1987 |
11.9 |
8.5 |
1988 |
16.8 |
11.6 |
1989 |
17.1 |
11.3 |
1990 |
16.6 |
10.6 |
1991 |
17.1 |
10.4 |
1992 |
17.7 |
10.5 |
1993 |
17.7 |
10.2 |
1994 |
19.8 |
11.2 |
1995 |
19.8 |
10.9 |
1996 |
19.4 |
10.5 |
1997 |
19.4 |
10.3 |
1998 |
20.5 |
10.7 |
1999 |
21.9 |
11.3 |
2000 |
21.9 |
11.1 |
Sources: 1) For FY 1980–1997, summary data of McIntire-Stennis Program expenditures as reported on form AD419 to USDA Current Research Information System by recipient institutions.
2) For FY 1998 and 1999, as reported on USDA/CSREES form OD-1088-D, March 5, 1998, and February 9, 1999, respectively.
3) For FY 2000, Agricultural Appropriations Act: FY 2000.
Page 65
Location |
Institution |
Amount, $ |
Alabama, Auburn |
Auburn University |
716,214 |
Alaska, Fairbanks |
University of Alaska |
446,158 |
Arizona, Flagstaff |
Northern Arizona University |
144,704 |
Arizona, Tucson |
University of Arizona |
147,849 |
Arkansas, Fayetteville |
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Arkansas |
605,514 |
California, San Luis Obispo |
California Polytechnic State University |
97,538 |
California, Arcata |
California State University, Humboldt |
93,154 |
California, Berkeley |
University of California |
455,176 |
Colorado, Fort Collins |
Colorado State University |
337,309 |
Connecticut, New Haven |
Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station |
171,346 |
Connecticut, Storrs |
Storrs Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Connecticut |
57,115 |
Delaware, Newark |
University of Delaware, Agricultural Experiment Station |
65,185 |
Florida, Gainesville |
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Florida |
553,581 |
Georgia, Athens |
School of Forest Resources, University of Georgia |
731,899 |
Guam, Agana |
University of Guam |
34,311 |
Hawaii, Honolulu |
University of Hawaii |
167,268 |
Idaho, Moscow |
University of Idaho |
469,001 |
Illinois, Carbondale |
Southern Illinois University |
156,014 |
Illinois, Urbana |
University of Illinois |
156,014 |
Indiana, Lafayette |
Purdue University |
385,716 |
Iowa, Ames |
Agriculture and Home Economics Station, Iowa State University |
269,279 |
Kansas, Manhattan |
Kansas State University |
133,216 |
Kentucky, Lexington |
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Kentucky |
418,948 |
Louisiana, Baton Rouge |
Louisiana State University, School of Forestry |
439,801 |
Louisiana, Ruston |
School of Forestry, Louisiana Tech University |
190,994 |
Maine, Orono |
University of Maine |
568,614 |
Maryland, College Park |
University of Maryland |
242,065 |
Massachusetts, Amherst |
University of Massachusetts |
300,406 |
Michigan, East Lansing |
Michigan State University |
207,679 |
Michigan, Houghtor |
Michigan Technological University |
207,679 |
Michigan, Ann Arbor |
University of Michigan |
207,679 |
Minnesota, St. Paul |
University of Minnesota |
511,998 |
Mississippi |
Mississippi State University |
677,464 |
Missouri, Columbia |
School of Forestry, University of Missouri |
459,756 |
Montana, Missoula |
University of Montana, Forestry and Conservation Experimental Station |
439,444 |
Nebraska, Lincoln |
University of Nebraska |
171,870 |
Nevada, Reno |
University of Nevada, Mac C. Fleishmann College of Agriculture |
116,010 |
New Hampshire, Durham |
University of New Hampshire |
282,884 |
New Jersey, New Brunswick |
Rutgers State University, Agricultural Experiment Station |
201,247 |
New Mexico, Las Cruces |
New Mexico State University |
255,490 |
Page 66
Location |
Institution |
Amount, $ |
New York, Ithaca |
New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University |
168,754 |
New York, Syracuse |
State University of New York, College of Environmental Sciences |
497,895 |
North Carolina, Raleigh |
North Carolina State University |
696,688 |
North Dakota, Fargo |
North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Sciences |
106,003 |
Ohio, Wooster |
Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center |
391,734 |
Oklahoma, Stillwater |
Oklahoma State University |
364,522 |
Oregon, Corvallis |
Oregon State University |
745,495 |
Pennsylvania, University Park |
Agricultural Experiment Station, Pennsylvania State University |
514,999 |
Puerto Rico, Rio Pedras |
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Puerto Rico |
92,397 |
Rhode Island, Kingston |
University of Rhode Island |
80,165 |
South Carolina, Clemson |
College of Forestry and Recreation Resources, Clemson University |
541,402 |
South Dakota, Brookings |
South Dakota State University |
139,677 |
Tennessee, Knoxville |
University of Tennessee |
500,665 |
Texas, Nacogdoches |
Stephen F. Austin State University |
283,019 |
Texas, College Station |
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University |
299,659 |
Utah, Logan |
Utah State Agricultural Experiment Station |
160,428 |
Vermont, Burlington |
University of Vermont |
338,143 |
Virgin Islands, St Thomas |
The College of the Virgin Islands |
51,579 |
Virginia, Blacksburg |
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University |
582,220 |
Washington, Seattle |
University of Washington |
323,226 |
Washington, Pullman |
Washington State University |
323,227 |
West Virginia, Morgantown |
West Virginia State University |
405,340 |
Wisconsin, Madison |
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Wisconsin |
486,977 |
Wyoming, Laramie |
University of Wyoming |
214,854 |
Total Payments to States |
20,688,273 |
|
Federal Administration a |
636,853 |
|
Small Business Set-Aside a |
514,832 |
|
Biotechology Risk Assessment a |
8,828 |
|
GRAND TOTAL |
21,848,786 |
aBased on 1999 dollars converted into 2000 dollars.
Source: Allen Moore, USDA/CSREES Current Research Information System, Washington, D.C., personal communication, April 2002.
Page 67
McIntire-Stennis regional shares totaled $5.2 million (14.4 percent). In comparison, the reporting schools had state appropriated research budgets of $13.3 million (37.0 percent); other federal, state, or private research grants of $14.0 million (38.9 percent); and other sources of income (timber sales, private industry contributions) of $3.6 million (10.2 percent). Thus, in the South, McIntire-Stennis funds, which help to provide base-level programmatic support, were leveraged at a 7:1 ratio from other research sources.
Box 3–2 Reviews Improve Quality of Forestry Research at the University of California BerkeleyThe McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Program provides federal funds for forestry research at various universities throughout the country. In California, the University of California, Humboldt State University, and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo receive funding from the McIntire-Stennis Act, according to a formula set by the director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Based on the Administrative Manual for the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Program: The scope of forestry research which may be conducted under the McIntire-Stennis (M-S) Act includes investigations relating to: reforestation and management of land for the production of timber and other related products of the forest management of forest and related watershed lands to improve conditions of water flow and to protect resources against floods and erosion management of forest and related rangeland for production of forage for domestic livestock and game and improvement of food and habitat for wildlife management of forest lands for outdoor recreation protection of forest and resources against fire, insects, diseases, or other destructive agents; utilization of wood and other forest products development of sound policies for the management of forest lands and the harvesting and marketing of forest products such other studies as may be necessary to obtain the fullest and most effective use of forest resources (Source: 16 U.S.C. 582a-6; USDA Forest Service, 1993) Under the current College of Natural Resources (CNR) administrative structure, the overall research program of every faculty member is reviewed regularly for relevance to CNR and the systemwide Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR) missions, excellence of science, and quality of future research plans. This review is conducted by the CNR faculty Research Committee (RESCOM). All funds designated for support of faculty research, including McIntire-Stennis funds, are then allocated by the Dean to faculty members' projects according to the rating received from the RESCOM. This new review program has improved the allocation of these research funds by putting them on a merit basis within CNR. Following federal guidelines for all Federal Formula Funds, McIntire-Stennis funds are allocated only to those faculty members who have active McIntire-Stennis projects. |
Page 68
University Research Support
Public and private funding for all university research has increased dramatically over the last 4 decades, from just under $3 billion in 1959 to an estimated $25 billion or more in 2000 (Committee for Economic Development, 1996). The preceding discussion of McIntire-Stennis funding described the broad distribution of funding sources for the $204 million for public forestry schools and colleges in FY 1997 for research, education, and extension (NAPFSC, 1999). State sources made up 44 percent of the total, other federal sources 18 percent, McIntire-Stennis 10 percent, and other non-federal sources 10 percent. Competitive grants and cooperative agreements and industry programs each constituted 7 percent ($14 million) of the $204 million total. The balance was comprised of self-generated income (4 percent), grants (3 percent), Renewable Resource Extension Act funds (2 percent), and Hatch Act funds (1 percent).
State funds support research, education, and extension. National breakdowns of these three categories are not readily available, but the southern NAPFSC data for FY 1998 are illustrative. Recall that the southern state-appropriated research budgets were 37 percent of all southern forestry-school and college research funds ($13.3 million of $36.0 million). Total southern forestry-school budgets for instruction were $11.1 million, and for extension $4.6 million. State appropriations dominated the totals for teaching (92 percent) and to a lesser extent extension (72 percent). In total, the 14 reporting southern NAPFSC forestry schools had $26.8 million, or 52 percent of all their funds provided by the states. Total southern shares of funding among the three principal functions were 21 percent of the funds for teaching, 70 percent for research, and 9 percent for extension. If one prorates the southern breakdowns to the national total of $204 million in FY 1997, one would infer that national forestry schools spent about $143 million on forestry research, $43 million on education, and $18 million on extension.
Contributions of the Forest Products Industry
United States forest products firms invest millions of dollars for forestry research. The NAPFSC reports that industry contributed about $14 million in funds to various forestry school programs (NAPFSC, 1999). Industry spending on internal research and development related to forestry—both basic and applied—is more substantial but is concentrated in a few large firms.
Current estimates of forest industry research are based on American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) surveys (Cantrell, 2002). AF&PA data indicate that the forest products industry spent $79.5 million on forestry research in 2000 ( Table 3–9). Industry research is distributed among five classifications: forest health ($50.6 million), water quality ($7.9 million), fish and wildlife ($8 million), ecosystem management ($7.1 million), and other ($5.9 million). The distribution of research expenditures has an apparent strong focus on environmental issues and problems. The $5.9 million spent on “other” may be the only category strictly devoted to research on enhancing timber productivity.
In addition to the SFI tabulation of forest industry funding, the National Council of Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) receives separate funds for forestry research.
Page 69
Category |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
1995–2001 |
Research Funding |
||||||||
Forest health |
30,626,666 |
37,834,175 |
42,756,981 |
43,718,598 |
44,496,601 |
50,597,539 |
35,640,724 |
285,671,824 |
Water quality |
4,049,731 |
5,225,464 |
3,674,481 |
3,880,018 |
5,341,227 |
7,889,960 |
5,622,303 |
35,683,184 |
Fish and wildlife |
4,161,855 |
5,674,969 |
4,830,664 |
5,498,191 |
6,500,639 |
8,041,715 |
6,729,270 |
41,437,303 |
Ecosystem management |
6,504,830 |
6,566,151 |
5,059,830 |
4,621,053 |
22,751,864 |
7,090,636 |
9,506,448 |
44,813,385 |
All other research funding |
7,679,510 |
6,687,074 |
7,553,104 |
10,620,211 |
32,539,899 |
5,857,093 |
14,724,710 |
61,870,189 |
Total research funding |
53,022,592 |
61,987,833 |
63,875,060 |
68,338,071 |
70,551,391 |
79,476,943 |
72,223,455 |
469,475,345 |
Research Funding Allocations—Internal vs. External |
||||||||
Internal research funding |
45,523,965 |
53,591,277 |
55,165,458 |
58,186,555 |
58,579,348 |
59,266,267 |
57,987,941 |
330,312,870 |
External research funding |
7,498,627 |
8,396,556 |
8,709,602 |
10,151,516 |
11,972,043 |
20,210,676 |
14,235,514 |
66,939,020 |
Total research funding |
53,022,592 |
61,987,833 |
63,875,060 |
68,338,071 |
70,551,391 |
79,476,943 |
72,223,455 |
469,475,345 |
Page 70
For 1999, NCASI spent about $2.9 million on sustainable forestry ($1.1 million), forested watersheds ($0.6 million), eastern wildlife ($0.4 million), and western wildlife ($0.8 million). Sustainable forestry research included environmental effects of intensive management practices, long-term site productivity, landscape ecology and management, and global climate change. Watershed research included streamside management practices, roads, and cumulative effects. Wildlife research addressed threatened and endangered species management and habitat values of managed forests (Al Lucier, personal communication, 1999).
The forest industry also sponsors research directly through membership in the Institute for Paper Science and Technology (IPST), housed at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. IPST performs research and transfers technology in paper science, including a program in basic biology and wood properties. Its 1999 budget was about $12 million.
Other Sources of Research Support
Funding of forestry has many other federal sources (“other federal sources”; 18 percent, $37 million; NAPFSC, 1999), including grants from EPA, NASA, NSF, DOE, and the USDA National Research Initiative (NRI) competitive grants program. Non-traditional sources of forestry research funding have increased in recent years. In fact, the $37 million NAPFSC total is $23 million greater than the $14 million reported as coming from (mostly USDA Forest Service) cooperative agreements. The growth of non-traditional sources might be attributed to a leveling off of funding for USDA Forest Service cooperative agreements; an expanding forestry mission for agencies such as DOE, EPA, and NASA; and aggressive pursuit of new sources of funding by university professors.
Many other federal agencies perform forestry research directly, as well as giving external grants. In addition, many schools and departments other than the NAPFSC forestry schools and departments perform forestry research. Separating out all the internal and external forestry research in agencies, and in NAPFSC and non-NAPFSC schools proved to be impossible for this report. Our best estimates of federal agency objectives and funding for forestry research are discussed below.
Funding of forestry-related topics by the USDA's National Research Initiative (NRI) ranged from $4.5 million in 1998 to $9.9 million in 1995 ( Table 3–10). That included a fairly stable component of funding for research in use and wood products of about $2 million each year, and a widely fluctuating amount of forestry related research, ranging from a low of $2.2 million in 1996 to the high of $7.8 million in 1995. Funding varies with the merits and success of the individual grants that are submitted to the larger NRI competitive process for all relevant disciplines each year. Total NRI funding ranged from $96 million in 1994 to $88 million in 1998.
The USDA also funded a new program called the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS) in FY 2000 and FY 2001. This program has components in agricultural genomics, agricultural biotechnology, food safety, new uses for agriculture products, natural resource management, and farm efficiency. In FY 2000, three major grants related directly to forestry were awarded, totaling $8,593,000.
Page 71
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 |
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.
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
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).
Page 75
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.