THE EGA TAPES
North American Forests:
Coping With Multiple Use and Abuse
Nordeau: Your facilitators are Charles Clusen, American
Conservation Association and myself with the Consultative Group on
Chuck and I have
talked briefly on how we might handle this, and I think our attitude
it to try to assist and respond and stimulate interests that are
yours. And if you read the write up, sort of buried within it and
emerging as peeps from time to time is the very clearcut intent to
serve a grantmaker's needs or purposes.
I think the
second thing to say is that neither one of us is presenting
ourselves as ultimate experts on forestry issues. We're deeply
concerned and we've been involved in them, but there is expertise
around the table as well. And we will hope that expertise will fill
in when we fall down.
I think the
third point of procedure would be that we'll speak briefly in terms
of what our backgrounds are to give you a sense of where we're
coming from. But at the same time we are keen to know whether there
are particular interests within the group. You have come here. You
have allocated two hours of your morning to this. You must have a
reason for being other than to fill your dance card. And if there
are real interests, it might be helpful if we went around the room
quickly now to know those. Because our attempt would be to try to
channel the discussion and information to those interests rather
than to sing a song for an hour and a half or so.
So I wonder if
it's less important, perhaps, to identify ourselves institutionally,
although that's fine, but it's really the interests that we're
talking about, and the substance that we're talking about today.
So I wonder if
we could start at the far end of the room down there. Just identify
yourself and what your interest might in the broader context of
My name is
George Bullard, I'm with Lifeworks Foundation in Nashville,
Tennessee. I've come to just gain a deeper understanding of what
the problems and the issues really are.
My name is
Tom Wathen, I'm with the Pew Charitable Trusts, and I'm interested in
those forestry issues outside of strict preservation.
I'm Molly White
from the Gap Foundation and I just wanted sort of a broad update and
maybe a little more specific discussion on some of the current
issues where WAFC [Western Ancient Forest Campaign] has taken
things, where things stand today, etc. I don't know...
from the Oregon Community Foundation, and I guess I'm interested in
knowing where modest grants could be used and serve...
Could be employed where in a certain niche to make a difference?
I'm Julie Clark,
I'm from Chattanooga, Tennessee and I'm just very concerned about
the future of the free standing forests that we have left.
with the Lyndhurst Foundation, also from Tennessee. We've seen that
the forest products industry is moving into our area and beginning
to clearcut. So we're interested in what alternatives exist, or
alternative examples exist for private land owners in particular.
Maybe we can show them ways that they wouldn't clearcut their land
and still make a profit off their timber.
I'm Jan Koenigsberg with the Alaska Conservation Foundation, and I'm
interested in mobilizing popular support for forest protection in
from the McIntosh Foundation [West Palm Beach, Florida; Assets 1989
$31,295,929]. We've been involved in forestry issues for well over
Fund of the Four Directions. We do a lot of funding with Native
Americans. And I'm just kind of curious how some groups have been
working with Native Americans.
I'm Judy Donald
with the Beldon Fund. And I guess I'm interested in looking at
grass roots opportunities in the context of maybe being tied in
conflicts with national issues.
I'm Lois DeBauker with the Mott Foundation. I'm interested for two different
reasons. One is because we do a lot of grantmaking in the Great
Lakes states and there's a lot of second growth forests there. And
I'm interested in learning a lot about what foundation thought about
that management might be. And the other is because we're in a huge
planning process to figure out where our future funding priorities
will be. And one of the ideas that we're toying with, among many,
is forestry and American forestry.
Crosby with the Carolyn Foundation and I'm here today because I
would like to learn about forest issues outside the Northwest,
hopefully in the Mid-East--I mean the Mid-West, excuse me--and in
Wallace with the Wallace Genetic Foundation. I'm interested in how
we can work through legislation and our representatives to eliminate clearcutting in the National Forests.
I'm Don Dowk
in the McKenzie River Gathering Foundation in Eugene. And I'm
interested in continued support of ancient forests and native forest
activism. And we primarily fund rural environmental organizations
and smaller upstart grass roots organizations.
My name is
Suzanne Easton. I'm with the Mead Foundation. We fund forestry
projects in the Northwest, primarily at this time sustainability and
when we need development. I'm interested in looking for coordinated grantmaking in forestry issues in the Northwest.
My name is Bill Devall, with the IRA-HITI Foundation
[renamed the Foundation for Deep Ecology]
out of San Francisco. We are
interested in reforming forest practices throughout North America
and temperate rain forests in Chile--well, anywhere they occur in
the world. We are publishing an exhibit format book this year
entitled Clearcut: The Destruction of North American Forests. It
will be a major public relations campaign on the state and plight of
the forests in North America. We are particularly interested in
ancient forests in the Pacific Northwest and setting up Eco-Forestry
Institutes for private landowners who are not concerned with the
immediate bottom line but want to live with the forest rather than
destroying the forest.
I'm Millie Sisiloff from the Tortuga Foundation. And I'm concerned in the
responsible management of our old growth timber.
Bill Holden, Wilburforce Foundation. We're Seattle-based. And one of the things
we focus on is conserving and preserving lands through easements,
particularly interested in balancing between the preservation values
and particularly in this area the recreational use and the damage or
the gain that can come from a recreational standpoint.
I'm Terry Lisk
with the Educational Foundation of America and I'm interested in
just getting a better understanding of what's going on with the
forest nationally, involved in the Northwest.
I'm Libby Ellis
from Patagonia. I'm interested in hearing about grass roots
opportunities for funding and hearing more about what people are
doing, different groups.
Wiltshire, the Illilouette Fund. Most of our donors are interested
very much in forestry issues. And we're especially focussed on how
you take the passion and commitment and experience of the groups
working on the grass roots, local and regional level and translate
that into national policy.
We've been going around to talk about what our interests in forests
are so you all have a sense of what people are keyed into for this
session. And we'll just continue if we may.
Sure. Barbara Ettinger of the Educational Foundation of America. Also interested
in the grass roots organizing.
Moore with the W. Alton Jones Foundation. I know our foundation has
a major interest in the ancient forest campaign in the Northwest.
I'm too new with the foundation to tell you what exactly we're
doing. I've only been there two weeks. So for me this session is
very good. I'm learning a lot. I was just up in British Columbia
with Ted and some others. I probably know more about British
Columbia forests than I do about the Pacific Northwest. But
hopefully I'll learn more about the Pacific Northwest in this
I'm Wendy Greshman with the Council on Foundations. And I'm generally
interested in learning more about forestry issues and with a special
interest in the Adirondacks.
Okay, that's the first time I've heard Adirondacks. You want to
tell us who you are and what your interests are?
My name is
Sherry Shant, I'm from the Summit Foundation. And we're interested
in grants focusing on the environment and population. We came with
LightHawk on the way here, so we got especially interested in the
Northeast and we live in San Francisco, so we [indistinct].
Edith Stein, the
LaSalle Adams Fund, figuring out our program. We like forests.
Ted Nordeau: We
like forests. [laughter.] Have I gotten everybody? I think so.
Oh! Bill Lazar, forgive me. Our introducer today is...
Bill Lazar, I
live in Portland. I have a strong interest in the ancient forests
of the temperate rain forest ecosystem and also of the Northern
Also John Power.
John Power, I'd
just like to introduce one possibility. That's the possibility of
banning logging on national lands, forests, BLM, etc. Is it
feasible? Is it realistic? Are people willing to investigate it
and get behind it?
Okay now, we've gone all the way around except we haven't introduced
ourselves, and what our interests are. Basically, in some senses
that doesn't matter because our intent is not to lecture to you but
to facilitate your discussion, exchange of information. But lets,
what I'd like to do is to begin with Chuck Clusen and his range of
experience. I'll let him tell you what that is, and I'll follow
with a few brief comments about issues and funding opportunities.
Then we really will get into whatever kind of discussion we can
manage. I would suggest that we take a short break about a half an
hour from now for ten minutes. The reason for that is to allow some
direct interchange. You may have heard something and you want to
after somebody. This is probably one of the better opportunities to
quickly make that connection. Then you can reunite later on as
well. So we'll break from 11:20 until 11:30, have the last half
hour running into lunch. Chuck?
Okay. Well, during the 1970s and 80s, I was involved as an advocate
in a great number of forest issues in large part dealing with
wilderness: the lead-up to RARE II, the implementation of RARE II,
the passage of RARE II bills. I started at the Sierra Club where I
was for eight years. Then I was Vice President for Programs at the
Wilderness Society for eight years.
What was RARE?
That was the Roadless Area Evaluation and Review program that the
Forest Service ran. It inventoried all the roadless country, the old
growth forests left on the National Forest system, and proceeded to
make recommendations as to which should be preserved as wilderness,
which should be chopped down ultimately, and which should have some
further consideration in the new planning process that was mandated
by the National Forest Management Act.
I also was
greatly involved in the Alaska lands. I led the Alaska Lands
Coalition during the lands fight in the late 70s and 1980s. And in
the late 80s I spent a period of time in the Adirondacks. I was the
Executive Director of the Adirondack Council. So my background is
advocacy, it's public lands, it's land use regulations and so
forth. Now for three years I've been with the American Conservation
Association, which is a foundation. It's Laurance Rockefeller's
foundation. He has specialized over the many years in sort of land
use kinds of issues although we've branched off into some other
things more recently.
In going around
the room I was having some trouble trying to find some common
themes. And so I think I might do in quick form is tell you about
two forest issues that I personally have been involved in recently
that I think at least goes to some the interests that were stated.
Both are collaborative efforts by the environmental community. One
is very heavily a public federal lands issue, a more traditional
kind of thing. The other is much more of a private land forest kind
The first has to
do with Alaska and what has become known as the Alaska Coastal
Rainforest Campaign. Jan Koenigsberg's foundation initiated this,
and Pew Charitable Trusts asked me to help them facilitate the group
of some ten organizations to come up with a campaign plan. And
there's a document like this. Anybody who has great interest, I'm
sure that Jan can arrange for you to get one.
But in any case,
what it has to do with is two major issues in coastal Alaska. First
is the Tongass National Forest of which we environmentalists have
been battling over for years. We did the first cut at it in the
Alaska Lands Act where we set aside about 5 million acres of
wilderness including two forests, national monuments--Admiralty
Island and Misty Fiords--and a number of smaller wilderness areas.
We unfortunately had to swallow some very bad provisions: mandated
cut levels, tremendous subsidization for road building and other
things and so for ten years after the passage of the Alaska Lands
Act in 1980, environmentalists fought to try to bring about reform
in the Tongass.
And in 1990
there was the passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act. As much as
that Act was a step forward--it undid some of the damage of the
earlier Alaska Lands Act and set aside another million acres--it
still does not really address all the problems there, and in fact
the cut level is now up despite the passage of that Act, which is
very ironic. And the Forest Service is now doing in our planning
process, and is doing everything they can to skirt around this new
The other issue
has to do largely with Prince William Sound and other areas adjacent
to it. In 1971 Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act. This was pushed along by the discovery of oil in Prudhoe Bay.
When the United States, Secretary Seward, bought Alaska from the
Czar, back in the late 1850s, we did not buy really the ownership
jurisdiction of the land. We bought the governmental jurisdiction
and the land that inhabited by white Russians. And so there's
always been this aboriginal question. So when oil was discovered
and the oil companies wanted to build a pipeline, the natives sued
and said you can't build this pipeline. It's our land. So that,
Congress moved very fast, obviously and passed the Settlement Act.
Well, part of
that settlement was to give native groups in Alaska some 44 million
acres of land. And it's a very elaborate complicated system. But
as a result in the forests of Alaska, essentially the Southeast part
and the Prince William Sound part, the natives have been able to
select land. And by no accident they have selected the most
productive forest land. The land with the biggest trees, the
biggest old growth.
And many of
these corporations, the native corporations, are now in trouble.
They can't pay their debt load, interest payments. Many of them are
going bankrupt. There is a real tragedy. The Native Claims Act is
a shambles and we have a very difficult situation.
Well, as you all
now, there has been a settlement on the Exxon Valdez with Exxon,
which to Exxon is to put up over a period of ten years about a
billion dollars. And the environmental community very much wants
this money to be channeled into buying either the lands that these
natives have or the timber rights or easements or whatever.
In many, many
cases and I think ultimately in most cases the native corporations
will want to sell these lands or at least the timber rights. And so
there is a big campaign to try to get this Exxon money used for that
purpose. There's some other handles to get money, too, to buy these
lands or interests in lands, but that very simply is what the issue
At any rate we
have ten organizations that have come together. We put together a
campaign plan with a broad array of strategies. It's envisioned
that it's at least a three year campaign and most likely it will
take the better part of a decade.
I, Jan and
others here who know about it, we'd love to talk to you more, but
that in a very simple fashion is what that's about. It's a
coordinated effort and there is a fund raising effort which has been
initiated. We're very hopeful that the Pew Charitable Trusts will
make a significant contribution to us. But we suspect that will be
more money needed. So that will be a great opportunity perhaps for
some of you.
A second issue,
which I'll talk about very briefly, has to do with the Northern
Forest Lands, and given I've had some background with the
Adirondacks, this is sort of an extension.
Northern Forest Lands are is Northern Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,
and the Adirondacks and Tugg Hill area of upstate New York. And
back in 19-, late -87, Diamond Corporation, famous for Diamond
matches, had been taken over by an entrepreneur who then put the
whole corporation up for sale. And he bought it cheap and he
decided to sell the parts, the mills off one way, the lands off
another way. And ultimately the lands in New Hampshire, Vermont and
New York got sold to speculators. And it created quite a stir. And
many people, particularly in New England, had of course lived with
the industrial forest owners for a century. There was a long
tradition of what was felt to be compatibility. The industry
provided the jobs, the lands were open for public use: hunting,
fishing, and camping, and so on. And it seemed like things would
never change. All of a sudden people realized that the ownership of
these large blocks of land, and in total we're talking about 26
million acres, was up in the air and further sales have occurred in
the interim and so on.
In any case, the
Congress became aware of it, was very concerned. They asked the
Forest Service to do a study. A study was done. That led to two
further actions by Congress, one the creation of a Northern Forest
Lands Council, which is made up of appointments by the four
Governors and the Forest Service to try to devise institutional
solutions to these problems of the instability of ownership of the
land and the potential for this land being broken up for
development. A also it created the Forest Legacy Program, which
those four states and Washington State were put together to be
eligible to receive federal acquisition monies for easements.
In any case,
throughout this period the environmental community across these four
states, which really did not have a history of collaboration, has
come together in a very large coalition called the Northern Forest
Alliance, and now has I think 28 organizations. It has the major
national groups as well as all the principal state groups in these
four states. And I've been working with them over the last year and
a half. One, on their development of political strategies and so
on, but also to facilitate their development of a campaign plan very
similar to the Alaska situation as to a campaign that will probably
go on for at least a decade to address these problems.
In many ways
this is a much more complex situation because of the private
ownership in total of 80 percent of these 26 million acres is
private. The Adirondacks have the greatest amount of public land,
some 2.4 million acres. In Maine only 5 percent of the land is
public. In New Hampshire and Vermont it's in the middle, there's
two national Forests there. And there no way we're going to buy it
all, unfortunately, although there is great interest in this Forest
Legacy easement program and also more traditional land acquisition.
But that's only going to be part of the solution.
So there's a lot
of thought and work being done to deal with how do you take a forest
industry which is dying, which is becoming less and less economic,
make it viable. A lot of talk about how you make a working forest
ecologically sound, sustainable, and there's a great deal of talk
about and work trying to figure out how to make the transition to
sustainable economic futures.
So in any case
that gives you a very quick brush with this thing. So much is going
on with that issue, I'd be happy to talk about that further. I
thought by presenting these two cases, which are only two of many
that could be presented around the country. They're both ecosystem
based. They're both forest land based. They have different kinds
of attributes. Otherwise, their solutions will probably be largely
different. But they do contrast, I think, a lot or part of the
kinds of situations that could arise around the country. And I
think that there was some statement of interest about collaborative
efforts by the environmental community and collaborative efforts
among funders. These are two examples--there are others--so in any
case, I wanted to throw those out just to get things going.
Good. Let me pick up quickly. I realize how impossible this task
is, to get all our interests encompassed during this period of
time. I wonder if we could take a quick poll to find out which of
you are already funding significantly--and I'm not talking
money-wise, but number of grants--in the field of forestry in some
form, could be community I realize. Okay. And the rest of you are
sort of on the edge and looking at it and wondering if it's a good
area to get into. And that's helpful, because we'll draw on those
who are already in it, because ultimately we want to get back to
grantmaking and what are some important issues.
My comments will
be very brief, because I want to turn to you. One, I thought I'd
just list some issues, in case you wanted to know whether there are
some issues out there to pay attention to. And these are by no
means exhaustive, they are illustrative of the issues. And secondly
I want to illustrate several grantmaking opportunities, four or
five, just you'll have a sense of the kind of activity and churning
that's going on.
One issue that
you've already heard about is the loss of old growth forests, mainly
in the Pacific Northwest, and that includes British Columbia and
Alaska as well. We're down to less than ten percent of the original
old growth. And preservationists and conservationists who are
deeply concerned about species loss, about the magnificence of these
types of forests, perhaps the richest temperate rainforests on the
planet are actively working to save what's left. Other forces,
because of the value of these logs, are working very hard to take
species losses. It's a part of an issue that so many of us are
looking at. When a forest comes down, when the old growth comes
down, what goes up is a tree plantation, essentially. And the
broader public is very little aware of the fact that a tree
plantation is light years away from what the original forest was in
terms of the diversity. So some recognition within the public
interest that seems inevitable if we are to preserve some of the
wealth and biological diversity that exists in these old growth
dimension is that the American public is by and large subsidizing a
lot of the timber cutting going on in the national forests. You've
heard of below-cost timber cutting. This still goes on everywhere
and there's a lot of hassling or wrangling over the accounting for
this that has to do with roads and the term of amortization and so
on. But by and large, the public is supporting through subsidies a
lot of the timber cutting that's going on, on U.S. National
thing that we're discovering--well, the fisheries biologists have
known it forever, and the public is gradually coming to understand
it--and that is that salmon fisheries are highly dependent on
healthy forests and healthy ecosystems. So the logging, some of
which we've only recently seen in British Columbia in the last two
days is absolutely and fundamentally detrimental to healthy salmon
populations. That's important in a political sense because the owl,
the currency of the spotted owl isn't near what the currency of the
salmon is. Lots greater human attachment to the salmon. Back to
David Suzuki, we're dealing with human beings once again.
Just to mention
a few grantmaking opportunities and the types things foundations are
doing. Let me mention one area that I'm waiting to see somebody
enter, and that's basically restoration strategizing. We have now
the end of the cold war, if you will, and the conversion to
presumably a peacetime economy. Well, there's been a war going on
in the woods for quite a while, too, from the broad version of cut
and run to something that has to do with restoration ecology is a
major challenge for the next two decades, I would guess. Also, a
very interesting and intriguing employment possibility. We're
subsidizing the cutting of trees. Might we well not subsidize the
restoration of some of the damage that's been done to planet earth.
grantmaking opportunity that several people in the room have been
involved in already is the reform of the Forest Service from below.
In an undertaking with an organization in Oregon that is seeking to
bring and reinforce new values among new foresters who are entering
our National Forest Service if you will. It's a struggle. It's not
easy. But reforming a federal bureaucracy from the bottom is a
rather brave idea, a rather exciting idea.
organization in the Northwest is dedicated to no more logging on the
National Forests, back to you, Jon. The notion that we don't need
the timber. The notion that in fact if you restrict logging our
National and public forests, you're going to drive up the price of
timber on private forests and make it more worthwhile to invest in
those private land forests, such that the private sector, then would
take the way wood production, as many on the right in this country
would strongly argue it should. So there's an interesting economic
argument there associated with restriction of logging on public
lands. As long as you're logging on public lands, the incentive to
invest in private lands has got to be less. Willy-nilly, it's got
to be less.
audience member: Ted?
audience member: Might you mention the names of the groups as you go
by or is that not appropriate?
Ted: We can.
[laughs] Sure. Native American, let's see, Native Forests Council
in Oregon is the one who is pressing most hard for restriction on
logging in all National Forests. The Association of Forest Service
Employees for Ethics in the Environment is the organization that's
working internally in the Forest Service. Externally and internally
to open that up to even to issues such as Freedom of Speech. What
can you say if you're working for the Forest Service about your
disagreement with these major polices that are being carried out by
the Forest Service?
audience member: There's a [?-unintelligible] organization now of peer
professional employees for environmental ethics which is going to
attempt to broaden this movement to include other resource
agencies. ATEE[?] at this stage it appears will become the umbrella
under which even AFSEEE will operate.
This is interesting foundation territory. You can look at it and
walk away. But also you can--I'm just about through because I want
to get others in.
whole issue that's related to economics. Suzuki was mentioning this
this morning. What we have in this country is incentives for the
Forest Service, a resource management agency, to cut more. The more
they cut the bigger their budget is. and somehow or another that's
screwed up. They're supposed to be managing it for sustainability
in the long term. But there are a lot of incentive embedded in the
cut system at the present time. And until those are brought out
more clearly and exposed, it's going to hard for the public to
understand why it should just be business as usual.
One of my
favorite cases, and I happen to know it in terms of public
education, is the Inland Empire Public Lands Council based in
Spokane, Washington, not too far from here. And a billboard
campaign. No matter what side you're on, they're putting billboards
up in Spokane of clearcuts. And they figure that about 140,000
people see those billboards every day. And they make quite an
eloquent statement. They have then moved on from there to put signs
on buses. They have distributed 40,000 door hanger things with the
same clearcut picture. They're emphasizing the clearcuts. And now
they're on to radio programs in Spokane and so on. I'm told, I
don't know this, they're driving the industry crazy in Spokane. But
they're always trying to stay one step ahead. Now the industry
rented those billboards the month after they got through showing
their clearcuts, to show nice stands of growing trees. The battle
is engaged. They're inventive. They're educational, if you will.
They're provoking discussions that didn't take place before.
And then just
lastly as an example of the kind of engagement one can get into...
[break to later
part of session, portion not recorded]
Donald Ross: Two
years ago at the EGA conference that took place in Estes Park,
Colorado, a group of funders were talking about the same subject and
agreed to meet a couple of months later in Seattle. And out of that
came an idea to try to project the kind of energy and enthusiasm
from the grass roots groups in the Northwest nationally. And an
effort was formed called the Western Ancient Forest Campaign
directed by a four-person board of directors made up of grass roots
in California, Oregon and Washington. It now has a budget of about
four or five hundred thousand. Its main base of activity is
Washington, where they've been doing non-lobbying education of
congresspeople. [cynical audience laughter]
And they've been
doing some road show and grass roots organizing in selected
districts around the country to try to up the education level and
after a year of activity, it became clear wasn't sufficient. And
led by kind of the Pew Charitable Trusts and Alton Jones about five
or six funders put together about a million dollars. Bullitt was
very active in that as well, to set up a much more sophisticated
media strategic coordination operation in Washington. The guy who
was hired to do that was the former head of the Democratic Senate
Campaign Committee, a guy named Bob Chlopak. And he worked with the
Western Ancient Forests Campaign, with the two or three
environmental groups that were actually doing anything on forests,
as opposed to sending out direct mail appeals to raise money, saying
what they were doing on it, and waged an incredible struggle this
year. Separate and distinct, but related to it, is what Jon raised,
which was LightHawk, through a large donor in Minnesota, and some
assistance from other funders as well, raised something on the order
of I think about three quarters of a million dollars or maybe a
million dollars for a media campaign.
These two effort
kind of overlapped in places and went their separate ways in places,
but produced between them--and it's hard to figure out who did
what--just tons of editorials, TV spots, news features. LightHawk
itself took a number of television stations up for actual film
footage of clearcuts. It has clearly taken the issue from what
people in the Northwest always though was a very visible issue, but
once you got out of the Northwest it was nowhere. It didn't
In fact it
didn't register so badly that in the beginning of the effort they
did focus groups in a couple of states. And they had people
literally debating, saying there are no Ancient Forests. You're
wrong, this is the New World. The Ancient Forests are in the Old
World. And taught all the groups that had consciously changed the
name of the effort from the Old Growth fight to the Ancient Forest
fight that maybe they should have done focus groups before they made
that name change.
It's taken it
from that level of obscurity to where it's really on the map as a
major issue. And in the next session of congress, clearly, this
year it came right down to the end in a tremendous struggle within
the Interior Committee. The house clearly would have passed a
decent bill but for the intervention of Speaker Foley, whose
district, incidentally, encompasses Spokane, and there is a full
time organizer working with the Inland Empire [Public Land Council]
trying to make his life miserable, even if he can't be defeated.
But it will be a
major issue in the next session and it's going to be intertwined
with the endangered species act. Because the debate over the owl is
clearly going to be the centerpiece of the endangered species act.
So for funders who are interested in the forest issue and or the
endangered species issue, this is really a cutting edge of
opportunity for the next at least 12 months when the new Congress
comes back into session.
Lois DeBauker: I
have a question about the Ancient Forests. Thinking about Oregon,
Washington, Alaska, and then Canada, can any of you give me of how
much of the remaining forest is in the U.S., you know, how much of
it is Canada? Which of the funders in this room are able to fund in
Canada, and those who have the ability to fund internationally, you
know, what are the opportunities in Canada.
Bill, do you want to speak to anything about Ancient Forests?
Yes. Those funders who cannot fund in Canada who are here, we do
have offers from a consortium, from members of a consortium we just
met in British Columbia, to a fiscal agent for flow-through grants
in British Columbia. Having just flown in Vancouver Island and
having looked at masks in Vancouver Island as well as other masks in
British Columbia, I have to realize the scope and magnitude of
British Columbia. British Columbia, for those of you from the East,
is larger than California, Oregon and Washington combined. There is
more opportunity for preservation of biodiversity than all the rest
of Western States combined. It really is the last of the great
chances for biodiversity in not only temperate rain forests, but a
whole range of ecosystems, greater ecosystems. Here in the
trans-boundary issues we have the development of a truly innovative
approach to looking at the landscape through the lens of
conservation biology. The Greater North Cascades Ecosystem Alliance
has tremendous work that is being done and has been done in Canada
and in the Washington areas of the Greater North Cascades.
I think that the
question of how much is left, you know, is it 2 percent, is it 5
percent, is it 7 percent, really is not a very productive question
to ask in terms of designing, designing reserves and designing the
landscape or looking at the land in the viewpoint of landscape
ecology through the lens of conservation biology. Basically we're
looking at in any case up here a fragmented forest. What we need
are large core areas connected to other areas so we begin to look at
the landscape the way the plants and animals look at the landscape.
The, I think
what we have seen coming together here in the Northwest is a is the
really the new philosophy, new science, conservation biology in the
new sense of community, I think it was Wallace Stegner in his books
on the American West, he said that the problem with Europeans in
conquering the American West is that they never developed their own
culture. Never developed a culture of place, whether the Pacific
Northwest, the Intermountain ranges, and further southwest. I would
say the long term, which in the next century, is for the Europeans
who are living in these land areas to develop a culture of place.
immediate problem is a political problem. It's a political problem
in that we have a very narrow window of opportunity both in British
Columbia and in the Pacific Northwest with the Ancient Forest
Alliance to make land use decisions on areas that are really
irreplaceable, really irreplaceable. And addressing that as a
political problem and addressing it that the transition is already
occurred in industry. The industry knows that they're a global
industry. They are going to other areas in the world where they can
exploit cheaper, addressing that creatively with a combination of
people who are committed to the land by setting up ecotrusts and
ecoforestry institutes, and really defining what sustainable
forestry really means in the long run and protecting the public
lands all become part of the package in this very narrow period of
the next two to three years that we have to operate in. Maybe I'll
just stop there.
Just a point of procedure to note, Lois, on top of that grantmaking
outside of the United States. If a foundation has a concern for
Canada, for example, you can have stateside grantees that then would
operate on your behalf and they would be your fiscal agent
responsible for reporting. The Wilderness Society, for example, has
done that on occasion. That should not be a barrier. The barrier
would more likely be your trustees who don't want to cross the
border for some reason or other.
But one other
point I should make. We really are looking at this band that you're
sitting in now as a bioregion stretching from Northern California
into Alaska. The political boundaries are artificial. They were
made by humans at an earlier stage. Nature doesn't respect them as
David Suzuki was saying.
But they really are [indistinct] when it comes to interventions,
that you had different interventions like with the Canadian
government and problems that you have in the U.S.
Very much so. And the follow up to that is that we have just
organized a two day seminar in British Columbia with their leading
conservationists. And they have a strategic game plan. And they
are ready to move rather quickly within their system to accomplish
what needs to be accomplished in the short term. People like bill's
Ira-Hiti Foundation have been there and are already funding those
types of activities.
Male voice: I'd
just like to say that my understanding of British Columbia is we
still have something on the order of half of the Ancient Forests
left. In Southeast Alaska I think it's probably close to the same
kind of figure. You get up to Prince William Sound and you probably
have 99 to 95 percent left. In all three cases though the logging
moving very rapidly. And we're looking at a period of about the
next five or ten years of losing a very great portion of what's left
in all three of those areas.
Bill: And we're
particularly in danger of losing the low elevation and in Oregon and
Washington, although it may not be helpful to look at the
percentages, we're down to certainly ten percent. Many people would
argue less. A lot of it is very fragmented. It's not, it doesn't
have the quite the quality of the vast areas of wilderness that
exist in Alaska and British Columbia.
Ted Nordeau: You
should have one other grantmaking option or mode of grantmaking
option. It's to support litigation. And I think most of you are
aware of the spotted owl that the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund has
been working on and with. But for the spotted owl I think a great
deal of the land would have, or the trees would have been lost by
now. and I should assure you that the spotted owl wasn't their
chosen instrument. Those who are using the spotted owl and legal
reasons to stop logging or put it on hold for the time being would
much rather have a broader ecosystem definition to hold onto and to
use in their litigation. They do not...
[portion not recorded]
END SIDE ONE
...interesting, and I think some the whole logging challenges you
see up there are a little different than what I hear and see in
Washington or in Oregon. That it's kind of a little bit like the
pipeline project. You've got, you know when you meet a logger at a
lodge up there, they're up there from Boise or they're from
somewhere else. And they've come up there because there's this big
cut about to happen and, you know, they're earning $40,000 salaries
and they're in a logging camp. And it's nothing that they plan to
do for a long time. I mean they're just there to do it and out they
go. And so it's a very interesting dynamic on the communities up
there. In terms of where the fishing community is more likely to be
born and raised there. I, I, at least that's the sense I got as I
seeing and doing some vacationing. And I think the strategies are a
little different up in Alaska. And I sure don't have the answer.
But I heard different kinds of things just taking a couple of weeks
of vacationing and kayaking and trying to meet people.
Well, it's very interesting. And I think we domestically are
learning from our colleagues who have been working internationally
for years now about this whole concept of sustainability. And in
all the issues I'm involved with now with the environmental
community, the concept of stability of communities, community
futures and so on, is prevalent through all that, whether it's the
Northern Forest or whether it's Alaska or it's B.C. or whatever it
is. And everybody's struggling with this issue and where the
answers may vary from place to place, everybody's struggling but
nobody really knows how to do it. And everybody has the, I think
has come to the conclusion that unless we can address those
questions and at least point to what solutions are, not necessarily
that the environmental community has to do it, at least to point to
what solutions are, that we're probably not going to be, we're
probably not going to achieve a significantly higher level of
success of planned preservation and conservation of these areas.
In the case of
the Southeast Alaska project, what they are thinking about doing is
going to some communities, particularly in Prince William Sound,
which really have economies based on fish like Cordova, and trying
to study that, that local economy, and glean from it the elements of
why it is basically stable in working, and then to build and model
and then try to go to a place like a Ketchikan or a Sitka, where we
have these big, very environmentally harmful, huge pulp mills that
are albatrosses that just have to go. And try to work with the
citizens there, the community leaders to try to institute these
kinds of solutions that may come from a Cordova. I'm forced to
change the rules. I was going to have break. But we have so many
in this room now that a break would be a waste of time I think. If
you wish to leave, leave individually.
Female voice: I
think we have been trying to address the forestry issue for well
over twenty years. And we've gone through a ration of different
approaches over the years. Some have been successful and some not
so. But what we are looking to now and the future is recognizing
that the political climate that we have today regardless of who is
elected, who our new administration is going to be, the overriding
problems that this country is going face are going to be economic
and jobs. And that unless we begin to approach some of our
environmental problems with an eye to helping to solve in some way
the economic and the job issue that have gone along with them I
don't think we're going to be very successful in nine or ten years.
The next ten years are going to be crucial in trying to protect what
we've been able to do so far in the last twenty.
So I think we
foundations are, an example of what we're doing, we have been
supporting public interest law firms for many years. We were one of
the first foundations to put money into the whole concept of public
interest law and it's proved to be a very successful tool, one of
many in approaching these problems. Along the line it became
apparent that you couldn't just bring litigation, you had to be able
to back it up with scientific expertise, so we began to shore up the
organizations that we were supporting by funding scientists to be
added to their staff, which would then be another element that they
would have in their arsenal in approaching the problem.
today is that the next step is these organizations that are in place
now need also some economic expertise which they don't have. And so
our next series of priorities I think with the organizations that we
work with are going to be to fund economists or investment banker
type expertise to be added to the staffs that they already have as a
means of trying to begin to deal with the problems, the economic
problems that we've got, that we are facing. Because those are
going to take precedence over environment even if we have a
democratic administration. Just because Clinton and Gore, and Gore
get elected, if they do indeed get elected, does not mean that all
of a sudden they're going to open up Interior and open up all of
the, you know, just reverse everything that the Reagan and the Bush
administrations have done. They're going to be much more
preoccupied with getting our country's economic situation back in
some sort of balance. So we have to work within those parameters.
Back to Bill and Audrey:
Bill: I strongly
agree with you. But I also strongly agree with David Suzuki's
statement that traditional economics is an absolute failure in terms
of anything that I think people in this room are dealing with. I
would have to be a ecologically based, ecocentric based value system
within which an economic occurs for the long term future. And short
term, that the old growth forests will only last at current rates of
cut for five or ten years and the second growth forests take time to
grow and that plantations are non-forests. The ecological reality
of forests is that forests are an expression of soils, air and time,
and time is what the current economic system in many of the human
cultures--we are here as Europeans have not dealt with very
effectively. And so the time can be built into economic models, but
the transition, we should not and in forests expect forests to
support the level of profit and the level of population in the
Pacific Northwest they have supported over the last hundred years.
That is just a fact. And within that fact and that we would develop
proposals which we as environmentalists and as funders cannot
implement. It has to be community and it has to be government and
it has to be corporate decisions. We can't fix this as funders. We
can develop proposals to help in transition. But the transition
will occur and it will be hard. It's just a question of whether or
not it will be hard-hard or whether it will just be hard.
Ted Nordeau: Jan
Koenigsberg, Alaska Conservation Foundation?
Just going through the bioregion of the Northwest up through the
outer belt in Alaska where the coastal rain forest part basically
disappears naturally. The spectrum of difference, i.e. change
biologically, but it's been hinted at, the most important thing
about the northern end of that spectrum is that the communities
there are dependent on healthy ecosystem function. It's just all
fishing communities. And it's the lone jetties in that whole
spectrum of the rain forest where there's no inherent opposition in
maintaining the coastal rain forest. You have already the
ecological basis for healthy communities and you have the grassroots
constituency to support a political agenda to protect that. So if
we're looking at economic opportunities, there's clearly one staring
us in the face. But that would require battling through
transitional alternatives. They're concerned about the fact that
when oil money runs out, you know, in probably twenty years, there's
going to have to be some transition of the state as a whole. But
the point is that we have a fairly wide window to provide some
alternatives for state revenues that aren't going to depend on
overextraction and exploitation of natural resource.
Ted Nordeau: Tom
Wathen, Pew Charitable Trusts.
Tom Wathen: At
the Pew Charitable Trusts, one of the areas that I work with is the
forestry area. And I've been very interested in the turn of the
environmental community to economic issues. But I'm posing a
question in what I'm looking at, and I would be interested in
talking with other funders informally later, and this is the
approach, I want to know whether the economic piece in this battle
with the forests is the link that the environmentalists have missed,
which would be along the lines of what you're describing. Or
rather, and I know this will be somewhat controversial to say,
whether it represents a sort of last retreat in an ultimate defeat.
Because, and I
say this because politically environmentalists have been put on the
defensive, and how you meet something, you know, how you meet
something defensively often determines how you come out. I do not
have, I don't know the answer to that. I just, I just don't. But
one of the things that we're thinking of doing, is that we want to
look at the different efforts that have gone on in working with
transition in local communities and really want to know where that
has been successful, not just in terms of helping those communities,
but where has it really turned the political debate. Where have you
actually been able to convince people that indeed economic
transition can be made. And therefore they come out in favor of
some sort of forestry preservation or at leave have uh, lessened
Ted Nordeau: Don
Ross, Rockefeller Family Fund.
This wasn't actually planned, that's what makes politically two
things important, picking up what you said, the first is that not
only will Clinton-Gore if they were elected not make a difference on
the forest issue in the short term, it's conceivable it would be
worse. The problem with the Congress is both, and there's no chance
that Clinton and Gore are going to try to take on the Speaker of the
House and [indistinct] draw the lines with a new administration when
they come in and need that Speaker's cooperation to get anything
done. So I don't look to them helping on this issue in the short
term at all, and arguably it's worse.
thing, I used to fund in the peace area, and we had these numerous
groups of people coming in talking to me about conversion, about how
they were going to advise McDonnel Douglas or General Dynamics or
Grumman how to switch their production methodologies so that they
wouldn't be making more planes and battleships. And anyone who
looks at conversion with anything other than that effort with
anything other than romantic eyes, sees that it's zilch, they had
almost no impact whatsoever. And I think it's not the well that
some of what is happening in the environmental area, when nonprofit
funders, most of whom have no experience with the bottom line are
supporting groups who equally have no experience ever running a
business, managing a business, starting a business, who are going to
go in and advise loggers who have no high school education and are
making $40,000 a year how to convert to being something, some other
kind of economy in the middle of the woods that is going to produce
$15,000 a year at best, and expect that they're going to embrace
it. It's just folly. And on this kind of issue there is times, it
happens all the time naturally, where you simply say, "It is
unacceptable to continue to do that activity, whether it's logging,
whether it's a type of polluting, toxic polluting, or whatever. You
can't do it!" And if it means shutting the plant down or if it
means stopping a pulp mill in Sitka or what have you, that's what
has to happen. And all these little plans to transition it aren't
going to make those people who have no ability to transition, by and
large, to comparable jobs, feel any better. I at least have
answered that question for our funding, thinking it's a big big
mistake to go in that direction.
Ted Nordeau: But
it has put the environmentalists on the defensive, hasn't it?
That doesn't matter.
Yeah, we've had a transition, economic transition already
happening. It's more of a cliff than a ramp right now. What I've
seen is that, look at some of the communities that have been on the
other side. In Oregon there's a couple of them, one is Butte
Falls. They were surrounded by about 80,000 acres of [indistinct]
lands, it was the victim of a leveraged takeover. About 80,000
acres of forest was leveled in a five year span. The community was
devastated. Now the loggers get in front of a hearing, in front of
the legislature saying we, this is horrible, what the industry has
done to us. And I think that we can build some alliances with
people like that. In places like that. Other places, with
something like Ashland, which is doing economically much better than
it was when it was primarily a logging community, and other problems
associated with the development of Ashland, but it seems to me that
this transition sort of looks like Kubler-Ross's what are they, the
twelve stages of dying, whatever, the denial thing is the hardest
one to get past. And to try to push people over that point might
not be the most productive strategy maybe there is. Maybe we should
go beyond that to look at communities that are already past it, and
work with them. Because, eventually we can make the case that no
logging are ancient forests or no logging are national forests is
the best economic strategy of the nation, and we can make that case,
and we do. But still, there local communities that are going to go
over the abyss in the short run, and that's what the Wise Use
Movement is making use of.
Well I was going to make comments regarding Tom's question and I
think to some extent I agree with Don, but I think that there are
differences, with different forestry users around the country. I
think that in the big huge allocation questions specifically on
federal public lands we're dealing with old growth forests, I think
Don is largely right. You know, Forks, Washington just cannot
continue to exist the way it has. It's going to be either a
different kind of economy or it's not going to be there. There is
going to have to be change and transition. But when you work in an
area like the Northeast, there is a real difference between the
industrial forests land, which are owned by the big companies like
Champion or Bowater or whoever, who have, are integrated companies,
own the mills, whatever, and we're arguing with some of those
companies about forest practices, clear cutting, use of chemicals,
overcutting, et cetera. When you get to the non-industrial private
land owners you have a very different situation. And you go across
state, to New England and upstate New York and even parts of the
upper Great Lakes of the Midwest, you do have large amounts of land
owned by associations, by families, by private individuals, by
groups of investors who are coming together.
And there's not
that ferment of innovation occurring in developing new kinds of
markets for the products where you have managers who really do care
about the kind of forestry they're doing and what they're doing to
the land overall. These are not ancient forests. These are not our
great ecological reservoirs. But they do provide a great array of
environmental benefits, for water quality, water supply, recreation,
scenic beauty, all kinds of other things. And I think for instance
in the Northeast there's been an actually, there's a real passion,
but there is still a lot of dialogue and discussion that's been
going on for a lone time between the environmental community and at
least parts of the forest industry. And I think that there is a
real meeting ground there. And there's a lot of ideas that are
coming out through the use of easements and things like that. And I
think actually there's a great deal of sympathy by at least parts of
the environmental community to try to address some of the economic
questions of industry maybe through different kinds of changes in
the tax structure and so on.
And to give you
an example. When you have a very large family land owner and it's
been stable for a hundred years in which a real fear is the change
of ownership where the land may fall in the hands of speculators and
be subdivided into second homes. The idea of keeping it in that
family becomes a public interest and the estate taxes in many cases
and driving these lands to be put on the market and opened up to
speculators. So that's just one kind of an example. But it does
vary from place to place and what kind of forests you're talking
Ted Nordeau: Did
you have a question?
Female: As one
of the reasons that I keep calling up to and adding an economic
expertise to the environmental discussion, in many of the
communities I've seen that economic expertise is not coming from the
community perspective, it's coming and financed. And financed by
the logging company or the major owner of the land. And so they're
hiring people to develop this economic analysis with a very self
interest in mind. And I think it's, there's a way for the
environmental community or some way to facilitate that longer term
picture with diverse interests in mind that don't have all the
public relations dollars behind, you know, that single message is
very helpful. And I think it needs to be looked at. It's just
been, the only economic message we've been getting in many of those
communities don't have the community in mind.
Interesting we're dealing so heavily in the idiom of economics.
Community vitality, community spirit, all kinds of unmeasurable
characteristics that are so fundamental in the bedrock of any
community don't get measured, don't get talked about, don't get
analyzed. Certainly economics is an indicator, there's no question,
maybe the major indicator. But it's not the whole story. Bill, do
you want to come in?
Well, you have my thought, which is appropriate sociological thought
that I was going to mention and then as a sociologist and political
scientist, that economics in a broad sense is what is the community,
what is the total community, not the primary extractive industries.
A couple of examples that may or may not be of interest and then an
example of funding opportunities. Sociologists have studied
communities in transition for the last sixty years. Two examples,
one is called death by dieselization and the other is called death
by containerization. Dieselization is when diesels came into the
railroad industry, which was a major industry in hundreds and
hundreds and hundreds of towns across the Western continent. And
these towns would supply coal, and the small, and the people who
worked on these trains were fueled by coal. And diesels came in and
all their jobs were wiped out. Now this is across a large
landscape, and the people did not, in the transition, understand the
impact that this technology was going to have on them. So towns
just sort of withered away. And you can see them if you ever ride
the rails on Amtrak.
Second was the
containerization of the railroads was very centralized in forged San
Francisco. And it had a very strong counterforce in Harry Bridges
who was the head of the union. Bridges had been having some great
social conflicts with the owners of the shipping industry and they
hated him. For some reason he saw this transition and he wasn't
worried and he negotiated a contract, which basically involved
ninety percent of his members in his union over a ten year period.
It was a buyout of the entire railroadmens' retirement, retirements,
all kinds of pensions, all the hospitalization, financed by the
companies who wanted to containerize. But he could only do that
because he had a very strong power base.
What we see in
the timber industry is a very strong small number of corporations
and these are billion dollar corporations, Fletcher-Challenge,
Louisiana Pacific, Georgia Pacific, et cetera, and very weak
unions. And environmentalists are seen as outsiders, so we do not
have a level playing field. What we are trying to do in British
Columbia and its really a lot of change we have, is create a level
playing field for environmentalists to put forth the arguments that
will allow us to form a column between the multinational
corporations and the community interests in a broader sense of the
community. The environment of the community. And a really
important part of that package, which is very much for those of you
interested in those to read is to have a new economics done within
the next year in British Columbia so the environmentalists can take
this to the decision making process, usually in, basically in PR
that timber corporations are going to put out concerning job loss.
That's another interesting challenge of foundations, and that's the
national-regional issue. If you're in Tennessee and funding in
Tennessee, should you be funding in Oregon at all? Does that make
any sense? Coming at it from the other side, the grassroots
organizations in the Pacific Northwest knew they had to nationalize
the issue if they were going to save old growth in this region. The
forces of industry, and the Forest Service and the political
representation in Congress from the region were all going one way
and the environmentalists were trying to take the issue another
way. Without national legislation they did not see a way to
advance their cause. Thus they had to go to foundations outside
their region. That's one reason, another reason was many of the
foundations are resource related in the Pacific Northwest and not
inclined to fund these sorts of things. So the reason that there's
an interesting challenge for foundations to determine whether
something is a national issue or is a regional issue above and
beyond current guidelines and current trustee interests. But
certainly without national interest in the Pacific Northwest, my
guess, it's a strong guess, would be that the conservation movement
for old growth preservation would be much weakened from what it is
I'm wondering whether anybody is moving on support of groups that
are urging the state level forest management plan, like new state
laws. Who's working on it, because that would be a pretty important
opportunity, especially, well, in a lot of states, but in the second
growth states, too. And I keep thinking of the foundations and a
lot of thinking very, everybody's becoming very intensively after
Could we see a show of hands of who has any interest in or is
working on state level? Okay, so there's--Anybody want to jump in,
Kimery, you want to come back on California?
Wiltshire: Oh, California is, you know, an example of sort of an
ongoing disaster in terms of bringing kinds of changes in state
policy starting with the very close failure of a statewide ballot
initiative two years ago that would have dealt with private and
state controlled forest lands in California. It just, uh, nothing's
happening. And it's tremendously frustrating. There was a
[indistinct] evolving bill in the state legislature that went from
being controlled by Sierra Club to being controlled by the governor
of the state that ended in disaster at the end of the, at the end of
the legislative period just last month. Tremendously difficult
situation, dealing with private lands, with you know, logging
companies like Maxxam, corporations, and didn't make any headway
There's a lot of work being done in Oregon principally on the state
involvement in forest land initiatives. Actually, Doug Morrow? can
probably speak, going to speak even better to those initiatives.
You want to say a word?
Doug: There's a
big interest in state and private. We have a number of state
forests in Oregon. And probably 40 percent of our forest base is in
private ownership and that's the lower elevations, the most
productive lands. Virtually none of it is in old growth forest.
It's all second growth forests and consequently we've been doing the
sustainable forestry debate and economic debate. The state forests
are complicated by the fact that they're trust lands, which means
that they were eventually stolen or found to be in massive state
ownership they would dedicate the funds from logging, would be
dedicated to counties for schools.
That makes it
rather difficult because you have to argue against their fiduciary
responsibility. The private lands issue is very difficult because
you're dealing with, like Weyerhaeuser, which is probably bigger
than the state of Oregon economically. And if you look at all of
their land holdings worldwide, they're probably bigger than the
state of Oregon. You're dealing with private property rights issues
versus creative sustainability. There is opportunity there because
the arguments that are being used most effectively against these
companies are the same arguments the companies use against us on
ancient forests. For example, they're cutting trees prematurely
even from a timber production point of view. If you're not
interested in ecosystems, but only in pure timber production, trees
in the northwest reach what is known as a culmination of mean annual
increment, which is forester's term for maximum productivity,
anywhere from about 60 to 120 years, and they're increasingly
cutting the trees at 40 years and 35 years and taking the money and
divesting. So you can say you're destroying the future timber
supply and the sustainability of the very communities that you're
accusing us of devastating. But it's a new debate. It's fresh.
And it's early on the next stage.
Ted Nordeau: Go
back to Bill and then Kimery.
sorry. There, just in the past year there was a battle in the
legislature resulting in a new forest practice act, state forest
practices act which really didn't help us at all and as a result
there's likely to be an initiative on the ballot in Oregon dealing
with state lands.
Wiltshire: I just realized that I really just completely depressed
myself by giving that assessment on what's happening in California
on state forestry issues. And just thinking about it in the last
few minutes I got even more depressed thinking about what are the
outcomes of this, you know, this horrible two to three year long
fight in California has been this great divisiveness and bitterness
among the environmental community on which was the best way to
proceed which is you know, certainly on a national level and
happening among the other regions on initiatives that we haven't
even talked about here today in terms of the continued inability of
the environmental movement to speak with any kind of focused
forceful voice on forest land protection and ancient forests and
this type of thing. So with that in mind, I'll just go outside and
slash my wrists. [laughter]
Quickly, because we have a couple more comments.
Male voice: We
have found that an increasing number of states that, whose activists
are never coming together on state and private too, so you're seeing
some weaving together.
Only a few minutes. You, Ted then Jon.
Just to follow up on Kimery's remarks. I mean I think it's really
true that there is no consensus on how to approach these issues. I
mean I think a lot of people here agree on what we're after, but
there's certainly not true when you start to work on these issues.
And I'm heartened by the fact that there are a lot of foundations
here who are just interested who have not been giving to forestry
issues that are interested. And I would like to see us try to
establish some sort of mechanism to work with these foundations to
see what their interests are, what their constraints are in terms of
their only foundations, and to see whether the various angles that
exist that they can plug into, because I think there are a variety
of angles at which you can plug into these issues. And it's not
just the ancient forest campaign, but there a lot of things that can
be done. And if we could somehow as a group get together and come
up with what are you know, the different kinds of organizations that
are being funded by some of us and what are the areas that are not
being funded that are very important and then try to plug in these
other groups who have an interest. So if there could be some
discussion on that, I would like that, maybe here or later on.
Jon: Is there
any attempt or usefulness even in trying to ratchet up the level of
compensation that's spoken about for the timber workers to sort of
peel them away from, from the real, you know, the culprits in the
corporations. I'm just wondering if that's just economically
impossible or if, uh, it doesn't seem that there are that many
timber workers but there seems to be a very strong political force.
Male voice: I
could respond I think it's very thoughtful, taxing, taking back the
enormous profits that these corporations have reaped over the
expanse of the last fifty years in particular. And that means in
some cases confiscating their assets. I strongly advocate the
government confiscating Maxxam Corporation, which is in the five
hundred biggest and used junk bonds and the whole saving and loan
scandal and all that we could get into to take over the last private
old growth redwood forest in the world in Humboldt County.
Government can tax them, they can confiscate them, they can require
them to engage in restoration forestry and all it takes is the
[names a person, indistinct]
Male voice: I
just wanted to put a word in for the Rocky Mountain Institute for
Forestry that's either university based or non-profit. We're the
hotbeds of progressive sustainable forestry.
exchange among two people]
...institutes set up in the United States and Canada, eco-forestry
institutes based on the work of the new foresters and Chris Maser
you may be familiar with, and Poland Petty is being published this
month. He's in Japan right now designing a thousand year old forest
for a Shinto monastery. And I think that the institutions, the
university forestry institutes in particular have been tied to the
industry and treated industrial moral forestry at this time are clearcut wastelands as it were. But there are other initiatives
which are starting very rapidly and in need of a great deal of help
to jump start them.
Ted Nordeau: One
comment on a biological reason why it's very important to think of
private forests in the context of public forests as well. Species
don't know the difference where the property lines are. And if
we're thinking about horrors, if we're thinking about ecosystems, if
we're thinking about sustainability of ecosystems biodiversity some
kind of melding of the private and public forest interests have to
be brought together. And one hopes, or at least I would hope that
could be done through incentives rather than additional regulation.
that's very tough to regulate. Bill?
another point. And that's particularly true in the case of salmon
and anadromous fish. In much of the Northwest BLM land you have a
checkerboard pattern. You know, you have an acre or a square mile
of national BLM and a square mile of private land. The private land
is traditionally. it's just clearcut from border to border. And of
course, you know, you can have borders on the BLM land, you can have
borders along the streams to maintain the stream habitat, but if the
if the square mile above and the square mile below has been
clearcut, then you've effectively destroyed that stream for
anadromous fish. One of the comments. We were talking about
protecting them. I run into this in the Northwest. We talk about
stopping cutting on the National Forests in the Pacific Northwest.
We have to remember that puts pressure on other parts of the world
when we push down there it pops up in British Columbia. And one
place it's particularly popping up now is the Soviet Union where the
U.S. multinationals are avidly pursuing opportunities to clearcut
the Lake Baikal region and throughout the boreal forests in the
Carl, can you say a word about trade in an environmentalist
context? In having authored a guide to trade and environment,
there's no one better to speak to that issue as it applies to forest
harvesting and international trade in timber and so on.
Carl: There's a
workshop later on trade. It's a sort of complex area. But the
bottom line is like other government policies like tax policies or
procurement policies, the trade policies that our government enters
into with other governments has an immediate direct impact on the
economics of forestry. And so, but I wouldn't say that it's
necessarily any more so than in any other environmental protection
area. Just an illustrative example, one of the principles of the
trade polices is that one government should not subsidize its
industry. And if it does so it will be using, putting its
industries at a competitive advantage to the foreign competitors.
And so our government has agreed not to do that in a very sort of
general loose sense. Our timber industry challenged the practices
in British Columbia of their government paying for some forest
restoration as a hidden subsidy. And as a result the B.C.
government scaled, pulled back on those restoration efforts. That's
a major impact of the trade policy. On the other end, the rather
large subsidies that our government, our Forest Service puts in to
propping up the timber industry in the United States could similarly
be challenged perhaps under trade agreements. So you that it's
just, it's really sort of a new front that has sort of opened up.
And the reason it's just opened up is because the trade agreements
are being strengthened or in the case of the Canadian - U.S free
trade agreement initiated for the first time on the scale they are.
So it's an area that all environmentalists in all areas really have
to at least learn the basic parameters of and have some people
Don, could I ask you to speak to us again about the clearing house
function if you're interested in forestry issues how you find out
who's making what kinds of grants and how you get information that's
Well, I don't think there's any one source. Probably, the Western
ancient Forest Campaign in Washington might have as much information
as anyone. Actually the EGA listing on Econet sometime soon when
Econet has the capability is going to function as a database that
you can actually sort yourself if you use that. I don't know how
many of you have used it. Right now it's sort of a listing, but you
can't manipulate it the way you can a database. And you would
instantly learn at least who was funding what. But I don't know
whether there's any one source and I haven't heard of any plans.
Ted, is there any plan to follow up on the meeting? Last year there
was a meeting in Portland in January.
That was very useful. I mean it was a forum for funders for
forestry issues. And maybe there are a lot who are already funding
in the forestry area. But maybe if we could have one that is
designed particularly for foundations that are just starting to get
interested in that issue. We ended up giving two grants out of that
session. It was very information. That way it serves an
educational function as well as really trying to find out what the
area had for funders.
Ted Nordeau: No
clearinghouse. We did, were a listing, a dozen pages or so of all
1991 grants to the Ancient Forest activities in the Pacific
Northwest. And that was helpful. That gives you the range of who's
doing what where. But that, that was only an episodic thing that we
Jon: Would you
explain what will happen at this northwest meeting that was
Yeah. Maybe nothing. It's an ongoing conference which came out of
conference of northwest funders last spring, spring of '91. And
what we're doing is inviting people to, we knew that there was going
to be a forestry conference in the spring of 92 and an EGA
conference in the fall of 93. Folks felt it would be better to
dovetail with this conference. And now having come to this
conference with the agenda as big as it is, with all the other
activities, most people are more satisfied networking informally.
And maybe we're going to have a dinner at this point and talk about
the future of the network. We still have to do that. We still have
to ask the folks to come. But at this point I think that people are
going to be hiking Mount Constitution and not sitting in on our
Something that also ties into this is that the management committee
of EGA approved holding a conference in Washington some time either
in December or more likely January. The briefing of funders on
[indistinct], the board is going to come up with a new authorization
in the next two years. In Congress there's about seven major
environmental bills. EGA put out a packet on that. It was really
well done, a succinct description. The briefing will be another
opportunity for people concerned about forests and endangered
species politically to get together encompassing the whole issue
that you asked about.
Ted Nordeau: The
key to finding out who's funding, don't forget your research
skills. A dozen annual reports from a dozen foundations, looking
over that will give you the sense of where people are. And then a
few follow up phone calls will allow you to target in on that. So,
it's not as mysterious, finding out what's going on as it might
appear. If you have any question on this area, a lot of us who fund
in this area will be happy to speak to you. Just give a call.
Thank you very much. We'll be done.
END OF SESSION.
END OF TAPE.
RETURN TO EGA TAPES
RETURN TO GREEN TRACKING
LIBRARY HOME PAGE