Forested Landscapes in Perspective Prospects and Opportunities for Sustainable Management of America's Nonfederal Forests (1998) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
6 Investments for Better Institutional Relationships
6 Investments for Better Institutional Relationships
Pages 72-89
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 72... ...
Investments in the careful design of federal agency responsibilities and linkages to other units of government is critical to the sustainability of nonfederal forests and their ability to provide a wide variety of goods and services for the American people. At present, that ability is frustrated by at least four major institutional issues: (1)
|
From page 73... ...
and is expected to increase to only 9.0 percent by 2045 (USDA Forest Service 1995~. These expenditures are not considered commensurate with the importance of the nonfederal forests.
|
From page 74... ...
None, however, appears to have formalized its planning process to the same degree as the USDA Forest Service. The USDA Forest Service is charged in the RPA with preparing a national strategic plan for its programs at 5-year intervals.
|
From page 75... ...
Second, the RPA Program addresses only USDA Forest Service programs and does not incorporate major programs that have major implications for nonfederal forests from other federal agencies, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of Engineers. Third, the RPA Program concentrates on federal-forest issues and in doing so, largely neglects those issues that are most relevant to nonfederal forests, including major emerging issues, such as global climatic change and maintaining biodiversity.
|
From page 76... ...
From 1983 through 1992, 109 federally sponsored agricultural and natural-resource programs focused on rural areas where most of the nation's nonfederal forests are located (GAO 1994c)
|
From page 77... ...
In August 1993, the Clinton Administration established the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force to investigate how federal agencies could adapt "a pro-active approach to ensuring a sustainable economy and a sustainable environment through ecosystem management" (Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force 1995~. Personnel from 11 departments, plus the EPA, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy made up the task force.
|
From page 78... ...
78 FORESTED LANDSCAPES IN PERSPECTIVE The report diagnosed the problem but stopped short of recommending major institutional reform. The task force assumed that ecosystems management can be achieved without significant federal reorganization.
|
From page 79... ...
Its position within the federal forestry and natural-resource agencies is negligible; its programs within the USDA Forest Service are overwhelmed by federal-forest programs; its mission is increasingly unclear (increasing the capacity of states to protect forests is no longer a key mission) ; and because of its many program responsibilities and associated interest groups, the unit has been unable to be the nation's principal organization for federal activity involving nonfederal forests.
|
From page 80... ...
in 1969. Subsequent legislation, such as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and its amendments, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Clean Air Acts of 1977 and 1990, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, the Federal Lands Policy Management Act of 1976, the Farm and Agriculture Acts of 1985 and 1990, and others, has contributed to an enlarged federal bureaucracy engaged in some aspect of natural resource management.
|
From page 81... ...
· A new state, private, and tribal forestry bureau could be created that would be responsible for all current functions of the USDA Forest Service's State and Private Forestry unit. The new bureau within the USDA could have equal status with the USDA Forest Service and other bureaus within the USDA.
|
From page 82... ...
For example, the USDA Forest Service's State and Private Forestry unit could be given special attention. · Coordinate reorganization within and between agencies, supported by a solid consensus for change in the Congress and the Administration.
|
From page 83... ...
. Even the USDA Forest Service's state and private forestry programs are delivered inconsistently (one via a specific area office, others in affiliation with regional offices of the National Forest system)
|
From page 84... ...
The manner in which states structure their agencies and programs is important since states are often the primary vehicle through which the federal government attempts to secure the national interest in nonfederal forests. States typically have four government agencies administering forestry programs within their state boundaries.
|
From page 85... ...
Establishment of private forest regions as a functional program delivery system for landowners and others within the designated region could be initiated. Regions would be designated by the USDA Forest Service's State and Private Forestry unit after sufficient requests have been made, and evaluations of the ecological importance of the proposed regions are documented.
|
From page 86... ...
that would provide services to members, including technical and financial assistance to encourage coordination of land use and management practices among owners of forest property that is part of a larger forested landscape. As in European countries, the federal government could channel financial and technical support to nonfederal-forest owners via cooperatives.
|
From page 87... ...
· Other Possible Structures. Other kinds of institutions through which the federal government might interface with owners of nonfederal forests are the following: (1)
|
From page 88... ...
· A desire for less authoritative role for the federal government in the development and implementation of programs. The effectiveness of administrative and organizational linkages between federally administered programs focused on nonfederal forests and their public and private counterparts in various regions of the nation could be improved.
|
From page 89... ...
· Organization and coordination among federal agencies and programs focused on nonfederalforests should be improved and administrative and organizational links among federal programs focused on nonfederal, public, and private forests should be simplified to be more effective. · Institutional partnerships that foster the coordinated use, management, and protection of large forested landscapes involving public and private forest landowners should be promoted.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.