Each year, development claims a million acres of private forest land in the U.S.
To stem this threat to the country's forests, landowner, forestry and environmentalist groups have joined together to influence the 2007 Farm Bill.
The Forest in the Farm Bill Coalition consists of more than 30 national and regional organizations.
"It's a very diverse group," said Steve Stinson, executive director of the Family Forest Foundation and a board member of the Northwest Woodland Owners Council.
Spearheaded by the Society of American Foresters in 2006, the coalition has created a basic agenda that the multiple groups can push cooperatively, he said.
Working together is more likely to be effective than if each group advocates its own plan independently, said Stinson.
Among their priorities will be equitable access to cost-share conservation programs and increased funding for renewable energy production from woody biomass, he said.
"There's recognition of the need to slow the conversion of forest land," said Rick Dunning, director of the Washington Farm Forestry Association.
Forestry and landowner organizations have often had a contentious relationship with conservationists, but the different camps have been able to unite against the threat of deforestation, he said.
The unintended consequences of heightened regulation have made it clear that for land to stay forested, it must remain economically viable for woodland owners, Dunning explained.
"The environmentalists have come to understand that if you keep these folks on the land, it has a tremendous impact on our ecological services," he said. "Our environment is protected with these people on the land."
While the previous farm bill did make provisions for forestry, funds were generally allocated either for farming or retired forests, said Mike Gaudern, executive director of the Oregon Small Woodland Association.
"We think the world is a lot grayer than that," he said, noting that working forests should be given more opportunity to earn conservation dollars.
In the 2002 Farm Bill, forestry received about 0.6 percent of total funding, Gaudern said. Woodland owners already face strict requirements, and it's very hard difficult for them to go above and beyond what is required by law to get incentives.
"The incentive programs are in fact disincentive programs," said Gaudern. "Forestry is naturally at a disadvantage when competing for EQIP dollars."
The USDA's Environmental Quality Incentive Program, for example, doesn't recognize forestry's contributions to water quality, such as providing shade, wildlife habitat, and erosion control, said Stinson.
"The way it's set up, if you don't have poop in your stream, you don't qualify," he said, noting that EQIP has been reluctant to pay woodland owners for regulations they must abide by anyway. "Since you have to do that, why should we help you?"
In light of concerns about climate change and the need for renewable energy, more resources should be devoted to extracting energy from woody biomass, Gaudern said.
Trees also play an important role in fixing carbon, and Gaudern hopes that point is not lost on lawmakers.
Spending large amounts of money to slightly reduce carbon emissions doesn't make a lot of sense if the country is losing massive amounts of forest land at the same time, he said.
Environmentalists don't often see eye-to-eye with the forestry industry, but the two groups' agendas can occasionally overlap - as the current debate about global warming has shown, Stinson said.
"I've always thought forestry had more in common with the environmental community than we've acknowledged," he said.Capital Press
