Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl under the Northwest Forest Plan

Abstract:  Development of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) was motivated by concerns about the overharvest of late-seral forests and the effects of intensive forest management on the long-term viability of the Northern Spotted Owl ( Strix occidentalis caurina ). Following several years of intense political and legal debates, the final NWFP was approved in 1994. Even though the plan evolved with a broad ecosystem perspective, it remained anchored in the Spotted Owl reserve design proposed in 1990. Based on a criterion of stable or increasing populations, a decade later it remains unclear whether the enactment of the NWFP has improved the conservation status of Spotted Owls. The results of intensive monitoring of several Spotted Owl populations for over a decade suggest a continuing range-wide decline even though rates of timber harvest have declined dramatically on federal lands. The cause of the decline is difficult to determine because the research needed to establish cause and effect relations has not been done. One plausible hypothesis is that the owl's life history greatly constrains its rate of population growth even when habitat is no longer limiting. Since enactment of the NWFP, new threats have arisen, including the movement of Barred Owls ( S. varia ) into the range of the Spotted Owl, political pressure to increase levels of timber harvest, and recent changes to forest laws that eliminate the requirement to assess the viability of wildlife populations on U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service lands. At this time is appears that Spotted Owl conservation rests critically on continued implementation of the protections afforded by the NWFP and the U.S. Endangered Species Act.     

The Northwest Forest Plan as a Model for Broad-Scale Ecosystem Management: a Social Perspective

Abstract:  I evaluated the Northwest Forest Plan as a model for ecosystem management to achieve social and economic goals in communities located around federal forests in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. My assessment is based on the results of socioeconomic monitoring conducted to evaluate progress in achieving the plan's goals during its first 10 years. The assessment criteria I used related to economic development and social justice. The Northwest Forest Plan incorporated economic development and social justice goals in its design. Socioeconomic monitoring results indicate that plan implementation to achieve those goals met with mixed success, however. I hypothesize there are two important reasons the plan's socioeconomic goals were not fully met: some of the key assumptions underlying the implementation strategies were flawed and agency institutional capacity to achieve the goals was limited. To improve broad-scale ecosystem management in the future, decision makers should ensure that natural-resource management policies are socially acceptable; land-management agencies have the institutional capacity to achieve their management goals; and social and economic management goals (and the strategies for implementing them) are based on accurate assumptions about the relations between the resources being managed and well-being in local communities. One of the difficulties of incorporating economic development and social justice goals in conservation initiatives is finding ways to link conservation behavior and development activities. From a social perspective, the Northwest Forest Plan as a model for ecosystem management is perhaps most valuable in its attempt to link the biophysical and socioeconomic goals of forest management by creating high-quality jobs for residents of forest communities in forest stewardship and ecosystem management work, thereby contributing to conservation.     

Public Timber Supply, Market Adjustments, and Local Economies: Economic Assumptions of the Northwest Forest Plan

Abstract:  The Northwest Forest Plan in the Pacific Northwest sought to stabilize local economies, including local employment and income, by stabilizing the flow of wood fiber from public forests. This is also a common forest management objective in other regions and countries. Because this economic strategy ignores basic market adjustments, it is likely to fail and to unnecessarily damage forest ecosystems. Application of basic economic principles on how markets operate significantly changes the apparent efficacy of efforts to manage local economies by managing timber supply. The emphasis on timber supply tends to ignore the dominant role that the demand for wood fiber and wood products, rather than wood-fiber supply, plays in determining levels of harvest and production. Contemporary economics indicates that markets tend to operate to offset reductions in wood-fiber supply. This significantly moderates the economic cost of reducing commercial timber harvest in the pursuit of environmental objectives. In addition, contemporary economic analysis indicates that the economic links between natural forests and local communities are much broader than simply the flow of commercially valuable logs to manufacturing facilities. At least in the United States, the flow of environmental services from natural forests has increasingly become an amenity that has drawn people and economic activity to forested areas. Attractive site-specific qualities, including those supported by natural forests, can potentially support local economic development even in the face of reduced timber harvests. These market-related adjustments partially explain the Northwest Forest Plan's overestimation of the expected regional impacts associated with reduced federal timber supply and the ineffectiveness of the plan's efforts to protect communities by stabilizing federal timber supply.     

Use of Land Facets to Plan for Climate Change: Conserving the Arenas,Not the Actors

Abstract: Even under the most optimistic scenarios, during the next century human‐caused climate change will threaten many wild populations and species. The most useful conservation response is to enlarge and link protected areas to support range shifts by plants and animals. To prioritize land for reserves and linkages, some scientists attempt to chain together four highly uncertain models (emission scenarios, global air–ocean circulation, regional circulation, and biotic response). This approach has high risk of error propagation and compounding and produces outputs at a coarser scale than conservation decisions. Instead, we advocate identifying land facets—recurring landscape units with uniform topographic and soil attributes—and designing reserves and linkages for diversity and interspersion of these units. This coarse‐filter approach would conserve the arenas of biological activity, rather than the temporary occupants of those arenas. Integrative, context‐sensitive variables, such as insolation and topographic wetness, are useful for defining land facets. Classification procedures such as k‐means or fuzzy clustering are a good way to define land facets because they can analyze millions of pixels and are insensitive to case order. In regions lacking useful soil maps, river systems or riparian plants can indicate important facets. Conservation planners should set higher representation targets for rare and distinctive facets. High interspersion of land facets can promote ecological processes, evolutionary interaction, and range shift. Relevant studies suggest land‐facet diversity is a good surrogate for today's biodiversity, but fails to conserve some species. To minimize such failures, a reserve design based on land facets should complement, rather than replace, other approaches. Designs based on land facets are not biased toward data‐rich areas and can be applied where no maps of land cover exist.     

Economic Growth,Climate Change,Biodiversity Loss: Distributive Justice for the Global North and South

Abstract: Economic growth‐the increase in production and consumption of goods and services‐must be considered within its biophysical context. Economic growth is fueled by biophysical inputs and its outputs degrade ecological processes, such as the global climate system. Economic growth is currently the principal cause of increased climate change, and climate change is a primary mechanism of biodiversity loss. Therefore, economic growth is a prime catalyst of biodiversity loss. Because people desire economic growth for dissimilar reasons‐some for the increased accumulation of wealth, others for basic needs‐how we limit economic growth becomes an ethical problem. Principles of distributive justice can help construct an international climate‐change regime based on principles of equity. An equity‐based framework that caps economic growth in the most polluting economies will lessen human impact on biodiversity. When coupled with a cap‐and‐trade mechanism, the framework can also provide a powerful tool for redistribution of wealth. Such an equity‐based framework promises to be more inclusive and therefore more effective because it accounts for the disparate developmental conditions of the global north and south.