407

Managing National Forests OfThe Eastern United StatesFor Non-Timber Forest

Productsby

James L. Chamberlain, Robert Bush, A.L.Hammett, Philip A. Araman (U.S. Forest Service)Department of Wood Science and Forest Products,

College of Natural Resources, Virginia Tech,Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

Tel: 1-540-231-3611, Fax: 1-540-231-8868E-mail: jachambe@vt.edu

Abstract

Over the last decade, there has been a growinginterest in the economic and ecologicalpotential of non-timber forest products. In theUnited States, much of this increased intereststems from drastic changes in forest practicesand policies in the Pacific Northwest region, aregion that produces many non-timber forestproducts. The forests of the eastern UnitedStates, however, also produce many non-timber forest products. This analysis focuseson the status of non-timber forest products inmanagement plans of the national forests ineastern United States. Of the thirty-onenational forest plans examined for coverage ofnon-timber forest products, only seven plansaddressed the management of these resources.A review of national legislation that affectsnational forests reveals that non-timber forestproducts are not recognized as a managementobjective. But, they are considered as “specialproducts” in key policy documents. There islegislation under consideration that couldsignificantly change how these products aremanaged. This paper identifies and discusseskey issues that could affect decisions tomanage for non-timber forest products.

Keywords : Non-timber forest products,Eastern United States, U.S. forest service,Forest management.

Background

The early inhabitants to the eastern UnitedStates brought with them the tools andresources (food, seed, and medicine) needed to

sustain their lives. When these stores weredepleted, the settlers turned to the forests as thesource for many of these essential items. Theforests of eastern U.S. are still an importantsource for many non-timber forest products(NTFPs). Many of the species from whichNTFPs are harvested, grow only in the region.

Concern for the management for non-timberforest products has increased, in-part due to thechanges in forest policies and practices on thenational forests in the early 1990s. With adecrease in logging on national forests, and anincrease in demand for many non-timber forestproducts, there are tremendous possibilities torealize the economic development potential ofthese resources. At the same time, demand onthe forest resources could exceed the capacity tosupply non-timber forest products, which couldhave unfavorable economic and ecologicalimpacts.

The Forests of Eastern UnitedStates

The eastern United States has not been the focusof much of the dialogue concerning non-timberforest products, even though the region includesmore than 50 percent of the U.S. population andmore than half the states. Eastern U.S.hardwood forests are one of the most extensiveforests of this type in the world (USDA ForestService 1984). The biological diversity of someforests of eastern U.S. may surpass that found intropical and temperate rainforests. Thebroadleaf forests of the Appalachian and BlueRidge Mountains ecoregion form one of themost biologically rich temperate forest regionsin the world (Ricketts et al. 1999). According toConstantz (1994) “no other region in NorthAmerica hosts so much living diversity thanAppalachia.” Figure 1 illustrates the regiondefined as eastern United States. It includes 33states, from Minnesota south through Texas andeast to the Atlantic Ocean.The eastern states arethe source of many forest resources. Most of theeastern States have a high percentage of forestcover and a low percentage of rangelands(USDA Forest Service 1980). All but four ofthe states have more than 25 % of the total landarea in forest.

Sub-Plenary Papers and Abstracts

Sub-Plenary Papers and Abstracts

408

Figure 1. Eastern United States with National Forests and National Grasslands identified (Adaptedfrom USDA Forest Service 1997)

More than 60 % of the states in the East havemore than 50 % forest cover. While the regionhas low a percentage of land in range, theeastern U.S. forests produced 100 % of thewild-harvested ginseng in 1998, and eight statesin the region supplied approximately 85 %(25,739 kg.) of total harvest (Robbins 1999).

Non-Timber Forest Products

Many important products are harvested fromeastern forests that are not timber-based, but areplant or fungal based. Various terms have beenused to describe these products, including non-traditional, secondary, minor, non-wood, andspecial or specialty. In many cases, NTFPs areneither minor nor secondary. The collection andsale of NTFPs may be a major source of incomefor some rural inhabitants. Often, NTFPs are notspecialty products, but move throughdistribution channels as commodities. Manynon-timber products have as long of a traditionin human society as do timber products. Huntersand gatherers were collecting edible productsfrom the forest long before they had thetechnology to cut timber. Some wood-basedNTFPs have an important niche in the craft andspecialty furniture industry.

Non-timber forest products are plants, parts ofplants, fungi, and other biological material thatare harvested from within and on the edges ofnatural, manipulated or disturbed forests.Plants may include fungi, moss, lichen, herbs,vines, shrubs, or trees. Many different plantparts are harvested, including the roots, tubers,leaves, bark, twigs and branches, the fruit, sapand resin, as well as the wood. NTFPs can beclassified into four major product categories:culinary, wood-based; floral and decorative,and medicinal and dietary supplements(Chamberlain et al. 1998).

Culinary non-timber forest products includemushrooms, fruits, saps and resins, ferns,tubers and herbs. In many parts of the region,local economies are improved and enhancedby the marketing of edible forest products.Wood-based forest products are considerednon-timber if they are produced from trees orparts of trees, but not from commerciallysawnwood. For example, burls, twigs,branches, and cypress knees are processeddirectly into handicrafts, carvings, turnings,utensils, containers, furniture, tools andmusical instruments. Floral and decorativeproducts are used in flower arrangements, for

409

wreathes, swags, garlands, roping, as well as inthe landscape industry. Plant-derivedmedicinal products that have been tested forsafety and efficacy, and meet strict U.S. Foodand Drug Administration standards may bemarketed as medicines, otherwise they arelegally considered food items and are marketedas dietary supplements.

Eastern United States is the source of manynon-timber forest products, some of which arefound only in the region. Figure 2 illustratesthe geographic distribution of Cimicifugaracemosa (Black Cohosh) and Hydrastiscanadensis L. (Goldenseal), two importantmedicinal plants (Small and Catling 1999).Though Acer saccharinum L. (Sugar Maple) iswidely distributed throughout the eastern U.S.(Harlow et al. 1991), the major source of syrupis New England. Taxodium distichum(Baldcypress), the knees of which areharvested for woodcarving is distributedthroughout the coastal plains of southeasternUnited States (Harlow et al. 1991). Some states(e.g., Florida) are the primary worldwidesources of important products, such as Seronarepens (saw palmetto).

Many species are valued for their therapeuticqualities. Foster (1995) identifies more than 25tree species, 65 herbaceous plants, and 29shrubs that have been listed by the U.S.Pharmacopoeia for their medicinal values.More than 500 plant species with medicinalvalue have been identified in eastern andcentral North America (Foster and Duke1990). TRAFFIC North America, a division ofthe World Wildlife Fund (1999), identifiedapproximately 175 medicinal plants native toNorth America that are marketed in the UnitedStates, many of which are found in forests ofeastern United States. Krochmal et. al. (1969)identify more than 125 medicinal plant speciesthat grow in the Appalachian region of theeastern U.S. As the demand for medicinalNTFPs and other products expands, there ispotential to realize greater economic benefits,but also potential for increased pressure on theresource base

In the early 1990s, a series of major factorshelped spark an increase in interest in non-timber forest products. As a result of majorforest fires, bumper crops of edible mushroomsappeared on many National Forests in Oregonand Washington (Freed 1994). Perceiving thepotential for economic development andincreased revenues, the federal and stateforestry departments as well as privatecompanies commissioned market studies onthe opportunities for non-timber forestproducts (Mater Engineering 1992, 1993,1994).

The findings of medical research also helped toincrease market demand for non-timbermedicinal forest products (Eisenberg 1993, LeBars, et al. 1997, Stix 1998). The 1996estimated value of the global markets forherbal medicines was approximately $14billion (Genetic Engineering News 1997).Europe was the largest market representingone-half of the global trade. Asia commandedapproximately 36 % of the global market. In1998, the total retail market for medicinalherbs in the United States was estimated at$3.97 billion, more than double the estimatefor North America in 1996 (Brevoort 1998,Genetic Engineering News 1997).

The mass-market segment for herbal medicinalproducts, which constitutes approximately17% of the U.S. market, is growing at anannual rate of over 100% (Brevoort 1998). Thegrowth in exports of forest-harvested ginsengfrom 1993 (69,000 kg) through 1996 (191,500kg) is illustrative of the trend in demand formany medicinal NTFPs (USDA 1999).Though exports of forest-harvested ginsengdecreased in 1997 (144,000 kg) and 1998(109,000 kg), demand for other speciescontinues to expand (USDA 1999). Forexample, the estimated growth in the massmarket for St. John’s wort and black cohosh,for the 52 week period ending July 12, 1998,were approximately 2,800 % and 500 %,respectively (Brevoort 1998).

Sub-Plenary Papers and Abstracts

Sub-Plenary Papers and Abstracts

410

Figure 2. Geographic distribution of two popular medicinal non-timber forest products (adapted from Smalland Catling 1999)

Management Agency for NationalForests

As steward of the national forests, the U.S.Forest Service has a responsibility to managefor all natural resources found on nationalforest lands, to meet the public’s needs withoutdegrading the environment (USDA ForestService 1999). Under the National ForestSystem (NFS), the U.S. Forest Servicemanages 155 national forests and 20 nationalgrasslands and is the steward of more than 192million acres of public lands (USDA ForestService 1999). The NFS is partitioned into 9divisions, including Wildlife, Fish and RarePlants, Forest Management, Recreation,Heritage and Wilderness Resources, RangeManagement, Minerals and GeologyManagement, and Watershed and AirManagement (USDA Forest Service 1997).

The U.S. Forest Service divides the easternUnited States into two regions. U.S. ForestService Region 8 – The Southern Region –includes 13 states (Alabama, Arkansas,Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, SouthCarolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia). The

U.S.F.S. Eastern Region (Region 9) includes20 north-central and northeastern states. InRegion 8, the NFS contains 35 NationalForests and 2 Grasslands. These are organizedinto 17 forest land management planning units(USDA Forest Service 1984). The NationalForest System in Region 9 includes 16National Forests that are organized into 15management planning units (USDA ForestService 1983).

No fewer than 82 laws affect Forest Serviceactivities on national forests (Floyd 1999).Four laws provide the main direction onwhich, and how, the natural resources will bemanaged. The practice of forest managementof the national forests was initiated by theOrganic Administration Act of 1897 (U.S.Code 30 Stat. 35). The act directs that forestsbe established to improve and protect theresources to secure water and to furnish acontinuous supply of timber (OrganicAdministration Act of 1897, U.S. Code 30Stat. 35). More than thirty years later, theMultiple-Use Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA1960) authorized and directed the Secretary ofAgriculture to manage the national forests toensure the multiple-use and sustained yield of

411

the renewable surface resources of the forests.MUSYA defines the purposes for which thenational forests are established andadministered: “outdoor recreation, range,timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish”(MUSYA 1960).

The Forest and Rangeland RenewableResources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974institutionalized land and resourcemanagement planning in the Forest Service(RPA 1974). The legislation requires theSecretary to prescribe land and resourcemanagement planning regulations thatincorporate standards and guidelines which arefully integrated into each national forestmanagement plan. In particular, the legislationdirects that plans to address recreation andwilderness, range, timber, watershed, and fishand wildlife.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA)of 1976 amended the RPA to provideadditional statutory direction on preparationand revision of Land and ResourcesManagement Plans (LRMPs). The NFMArestated that such plans include “coordinationof outdoor recreation, range, timber,watershed, fish and wildlife, and wilderness”(NFMA 1976, section 6 (c)(1)). Plans“determine forest management systems,harvesting levels and procedures in light of allof the uses set forth in subsection (c)(1)”(NFMA 1976, section 6(c)(2)). The LRMPprovide management direction through acombination of activities for the use andprotection of the natural resources within thebounds of the national legislation. Toaccomplish this, forest plans: 1) establish goalsand objectives for a 10-15 year period; 2)Prescribe standards and guidelines,prescriptions, resources needed, and; 3)monitor and evaluate management impact(White Mountain NF LRMP 1985).

The stimuli for this research are the growinginterest in non-timber forest products, and thefact that the forests of eastern U.S. are a majorsource of many valuable NTFPs. With the fullsupport of the USDA Forest Service, thisresearch is designed to improve ourunderstanding of the status of NTFPs in themanagement of national forests. The objectivesare to determine the extent that NTFPs areaddressed in the forest management plans and,

to examine policies and legislation that affectmanagement of national forests, foropportunities and constraints to include NTFPsin forest management.

Research Methods

This research adapted a methodologydeveloped to analyze the contents ofnewspapers, presidential speeches, and otherprinted material (Holsti 1969, Carney 1972,Krippendorff 1980). The content analysisfocused on the forest management plans for thenational forests in eastern United States, andmeasured the area in square centimeters (cm2)devoted to the management objectives orproblem issues identified in the LRMP.Measurements were limited to the discussion(text) devoted to each objective or issue.Measurements were not made of tables andfigures, because of the potential to bias theanalysis by giving more attention to anobjective that required more figures or tabulardata. For example, the analysis of timbermanagement requires a large number ofvolume tables and figures. Also, the units ofmeasurement of tabular data varytremendously between management objective,making comparisons problematic.

The area of text was measured for threegeneral categories: 1) Natural resourcesmandated by national legislation; 2)Management objectives identified in the ForestService Manual (USFS FSM 1998) or as amajor public issue, and; 3) Non-timber forestproducts. Legislation mandates that nationalforests be managed for certain naturalresources: timber, range, minerals, recreationand wilderness, water, and fish and wildlife. Inaddition, national forest plans address othermanagement objectives as identified in theForest Service Manual (USFS FSM 1998).These include transportation (e.g., roads),special uses (e.g., power lines, militaryinstallations), protection (e.g., firemanagement, pest control), and facilities (e.g.,buildings). Major public issues might includeecosystem management, biodiversityconservation, and old-growth forest. As amanagement objective, non-timber forestproducts include discussions about one of thefour major product categories.

Sub-Plenary Papers and Abstracts

Sub-Plenary Papers and Abstracts

412

The research first examined the forestmanagement plans for 31 national forests ineastern United States. Plans that addressedNTFPs to some extent were selected for morein-depth analysis. Forest plan revisions alsowere examined for coverage of NTFPs. Theinvestigation examined current and proposedlegislation and policy analyses that impactnational forests management.

Findings

Non-Timber Forest Products in ForestManagement Plans

Non-timber forest products are not recognizedin national legislation as a natural resource tobe included in multiple-use management. Inthe 1980s when the first forest plans weredeveloped the management of non-timberforest products was not a public issue. Thoughthe markets for many of these products wereestablished, demand on the resources was notsufficient to raise public concern. Even thoughmanagement for these products was notidentified as an issue, seven out of thirty-onenational forest plans addressed them to someextent. This section summarizes the extent ofcoverage afforded to NTFPs in the seven forestplans.

Approximately 23 % of the national forestplans in eastern United States address non-timber forest products to some extent. Seven ofthe thirty-one national forests in Regions 8 and9 addressed the management of forestresources for non-timber forest products. Ofthese, six were located in the eastern region(R9). The only national forest plan in Region 8(Southern) to address NTFPs at some level wasThe National Forests of Florida (FloridaLRMP 1985).

Table 1 describes the extent of coverage foreach of the management objectives addressedin the seven national forest plans that includednon-timber forest products. Percent coveragewas based on the area devoted to amanagement objective relative to the totalcoverage. Overall, the amount of attentionafforded to non-timber forest products isinsignificant compared with other naturalresources. No national forest plan providedNTFPs more than one percent coverage. The

amount of coverage provided to legislativelyrecognized management objectives exceeded68 %, with the exception for the HoosierNational Forest Plan. Problem issuescommanded more than 26 % of each plan. Allplans, except for the Hoosier LRMP, addressedmanagement of rangeland resources eventhough range is a relatively minor resource.

The seven national forest management plansthat addressed NTFPs varied in extent ofcoverage. In general the coverage focused onthe recreational opportunities and the researchneeded to better address these products. Berryproduction and collection were identified in allbut one management plan as a managementopportunity. While all seven national forestmanagement plans provide general forest-wideguidance for NTFPs, only three haveprescriptions for maintaining or enhancingNTFP production.

Chequamegon National Forest Plan: Thisplan for this forest, which is located inWisconsin, devoted approximately 0.4 % of itscoverage to non-timber forest products. Theprimary focus of the coverage was on researchneeded to better manage NTFPs. The specificcoverage dealt with how to restore wild ricebeds to their former abundance (ChequamegonNF LRMP 1986). These resources wererecognized for their wildlife habitat and forrecreational opportunities, but not as a revenuegenerating natural resource.

Additional coverage was provided to non-timber forest products in the managementprescriptions for five management areas. Thedesired future condition in four managementareas was to provide increased access to thecollection of NTFPs (Chequamegon NF LRMP1986, p. 4.108, p. 4.128). One purpose ofmanagement area 8.1 was to “create and/ormaintain a berry crop” (Chequamegon NFLRMP 1986, p. 4.162). The desired futurecondition of this management area was toprovide for more berry-pickers. The planrecognizes berry picking as an opportunityalong with bird watching, hunting, fishing, andtrapping.

413

Table 1. Percent coverage for each management objectives addressed in national forest plans.

ManagementObjectives

ChequamegonNF

(Wisconsin)

Finger LakesNF

(New York)

FloridaNF

(Florida)

GreenMountain

NF(Vermont)

HoosierNF

(Indiana)

Nicolet NF(Wisconsin)

WhiteMountainNF (New

Hampshire)Legislated

Timber 25.60% 19.19% 19.32% 17.43% 6.29% 23.46% 15.72%Fish & Wildlife 12.24% 13.35% 10.41% 12.95% 2.44% 20.19% 12.41%Water 3.60% 8.86% 7.31% 6.33% 8.45% 3.46% 4.32%Recreation &Wilderness

24.31% 16.96% 24.67% 21.61% 16.18% 21.57% 34.07%

Range 0.87% 6.11% 3.52% 0.64% 0.00% 0.42% 0.23%Minerals 3.05% 8.27% 6.66% 9.64% 7.16% 3.02% 4.51%

Total Required 69.66% 72.74% 71.89% 68.59% 40.52% 72.11% 71.25%

Non-Timber ForestProducts

0.40% 0.64% 0.08% 0.49% 0.54% 0.54% 0.16%

Not LegislatedLands 4.26% 2.94% 9.87% 8.12% 9.83% 6.12% 2.18%Transport (Roads) 10.52% 5.41% 0.79% 6.73% 6.58% 10.02% 8.72%Protection 4.67% 7.96% 10.78% 8.82% 7.21% 8.25% 2.40%Facilities 0.53% 0.70% 4.66% 1.56% 2.53% 0.15% 4.42%Special Use 0.19% 2.11% 1.25% 1.88% 2.14% 0.12% 0.32%Public Relations 0.48% 2.70% 0.34% 1.32% 0.38% 0.52%Research 0.60% 0.44% 0.55% 0.42%Economics 2.80% 0.84%Cultural 0.36% 2.07% 1.34% 4.00% 1.10%Environmental Mgt. 5.37% 1.28%Energy 0.16%Vegetation Mgt. 2.00% 1.58% 9.21% 0.57%TE&S Species 0.28% 1.51% 0.78%Human Resources 0.70% 2.49% 0.45% 0.29%Ecosystem Mgt. 0.54%Visuals 6.72% 4.17%Biodiversity 4.87%Firewood 2.40%

Total NotRequired

29.94% 26.62% 28.03% 30.92% 58.95% 27.35% 28.58%

Total Coverage 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

The Finger Lakes National Forest: Thissmall (13,200 acre) national forest is located inNew York state (Finger Lakes NF LRMP1986). The primary focus of the coveragedevoted to NTFPs (0.64 %) was to provide forthe recreational collection of blueberries. Theplan provided a vision for the management of

these resources, as well as prescriptions onhow that vision would be achieved. Supply anddemand analysis for blueberries provided thegeneral context by which the prescriptionswere developed. The major research questiondefined for this resource was how to keep adesirable mix of blueberry varieties productive

Sub-Plenary Papers and Abstracts

Sub-Plenary Papers and Abstracts

414

with prescribed burns. The plan directed that 5acres of blueberry patches be providedannually for recreation purposed (Finger LakesNF LRMP 1986, p. 4.09) and acknowledgesthe benefits of managing the blueberryresource for forest wildlife. Managementprescriptions focused on maintaining andpromoting fruit production, including apples.The plan provides forest-wide standards andguidelines for management of this naturalresource in accordance with nationallegislation.

National Forests of Florida: Themanagement plan for the national forests inFlorida includes four national forests(Apalachicola, Choctawhatchee, Osceola andOcala) and covers approximately 1.1 millionacres (Florida NF LRMP 1985). Themanagement of NTFPs is affordedapproximately 0.08 % of the plan’s discussion.The major focus of the coverage was theresearch needed to develop a way to deal withthe expected increased demand for NTFPs,particularly Christmas trees, firewood, andberries (Florida NF LRMP 1985, p. 2-19).

The Green Mountain National Forest:Located in Vermont, the Green MountainNational Forest covered about 325,000 acres in1986 when the plan was adopted. An explicitgoal for the national forest was to “maintainexisting areas that provide blueberries forpicking and valuable habitat for wildlife”(Green Mountain NF LRMP 1991, p. 4.07).The plan established forest-wide standards andguidelines for the management of fruit andberry production and prescribes eliminatingvegetative competition, pruning and fertilizingto maintain productivity. To maintain andincrease blueberry production, the planprescribes burning 1/3 of each patch every 3years. The plan calls for maintaining 2/3 ofeach patch in vigorous growth (GreenMountain NF LRMP 1991).

The Hoosier National Forest: This forest islocated in Indiana and covers approximately196,000 acres. During the development of theforest plan environmental pressure on how theHoosier National Forest was to be managedgrew substantially. The well-organized andmotivated environmental community wasinstrumental in directing how the forestresources were to be managed. The low

amount of coverage afforded to timbermanagement (6.3 %) is a result of these efforts.At the same time, substantially more coverageis afforded to problem issues in the Hoosierplan (58.95 %) than any other plan.

The original plan (Record of Decision – 1985)for the Hoosier National Forest wassignificantly amended in 1991 (Hoosier NFLRMP 1991). The amount of coverage affordedto non-timber forest products, in the amendedplan, was approximately 0.54 %. The planrecognizes management of mushrooms andberries as an issue of public concern. Thediscussion professes an abundance of edibleforest products on the forest and suggests thatsome areas have been managed for NTFPs,particularly blackberries. Yet, NTFPs are notaddressed in the management areas noraccompanying prescriptions.

The Nicolet National Forest: The forest planfor this 655,000 acre national forest inWisconsin was accepted in 1986 (Nicolet NFLRMP 1986). The plan providesapproximately 0.54 % of the managementdiscussion to non-timber forest products. Themajor focus of the coverage is forest-widestandards and guidelines that deal withsensitive species. Throughout the forest,“harvesting of ginseng without a permit (Form2400-14) is a violation of 36 CFR 261.6(h)”(Nicolet NF LRMP 1986, p. 62). DistrictRangers are directed not to grant permits forharvesting ginseng. Embedded within a table,and therefore not measured as part of thecoverage, is a proposed activity to manage 50acres of blueberry annually.

The White Mountain National Forest: Theplan for this 750,000-acre national forest, inNew Hampshire, was accepted in 1986 (WhiteMountain NF LRMP 1985) Non-timber forestproducts are addressed in the discussion (0.16%) of forest-wide standards and guidelines.The general direction provided for “otherforest products” in the plan is to considerapplications for collection on a case-by-casebasis. The plan recognizes maple sap,Christmas trees, and evergreen boughs.

415

Forest Plan Revisions

The National Forest Management Act requiresthat all forest plans be revised “when theagency finds that conditions on a forest havesignificantly changed, or at least every 15years” (NFMA, section 6(f)(5)). Following thislegislation, all national forest plans in easternU.S. should be revised by 2002. Only 13national forests in regions 8 and 9 havesubmitted a “Notice of Intent” to revise theforest plan prior to August of 1997 (USDAForest Service 1999a).

Of the seven national forest plans thataddressed NTFPs, four are in the process of, orhave completed the plan revision. The plan forthe national forests in Florida, the onlycompleted revision, has forest-wide standardsand guidelines for special forest products. Itdesignates the District Rangers as theresponsible party for establishing appropriaterestrictions on the collection of seventeenrecognized special forest products (RevisedFlorida NF LRMP 1999). The Chequamegonand Nicolet National Forests, which arecombining efforts to produce one plan for twoforests, have the most comprehensive“Analysis of the Management Situation” forspecial forest products (USDA Forest Service1998). It summarizes current outputs andactivities, assesses demand for special forestproducts, and recognizes the need to “managethese resources” (USDA Forest Service 1998,p. 10).

1995 Resource Planning Assessment

The 1995 RPA program identifies ecosystemmanagement as the strategy by which theForest Service can reach the goal ofsustainable forest management by 2000. Thisnew strategy will require the Forest Service to“move beyond traditional approaches toinclude a broad range of values” (USDAForest Service 1995, p. ES-1). Fourfundamental elements (ecosystem protection,restoration, multiple benefits, andorganizational effectiveness) are identified asnecessary for the success of the strategy(USDA Forest Service 1995).

All of the fundamental elements have directimplications on how forest resources aremanaged for non-timber forest products. A

greater diversity of ecosystems createspotential for greater diversity of forestproducts. Conserving species before they areprotected under the Endangered Species Acthelps to assure productive populations ofharvestable NTFPs. The use of native speciesin restoring ecosystems suggests that the genepool for NTFPs could be conserved.Accelerating natural processes could help torestore NTFP species that have been extirpatedfrom certain forests. For example, ForestService research efforts to restore thepine/bluestem ecosystem in the OuachitaNational Forest may prove beneficial toEchinacea spp. (purple coneflower), a plantharvested and marketed for medicinal purposes(Guldin 1999). A priority management activityof developing a system to charge fees forharvesting and using the natural resources thatis based on fair market value couldsignificantly change the permit system forcollection of NTFPs. Further, an emphasis onrestoring and sustaining strong and diversifiedrural economies could lead to greaterassistance to NTFP harvesters.

In the 1995 RPA special forest products are amain concern under the priority managementarea “economic action programs” (USDAForest Service 1995, p. III-31) and areidentified as compatible with sustainable forestmanagement. The Forest Service uses the term“special forest products” to describe productsderived from biological resources, collectedfrom forests, grasslands, and prairies forpersonal, commercial, and scientific uses.Special forest products exclude sawtimber,pulpwood, cull logs, small round wood, houselogs, utility poles, minerals, animals, animalparts, insects, worms, rocks, water, and soils(National Strategy 1999). The RPA commitsthe Forest Service to “develop these productsto strengthen rural communities” (USDAForest Service 1995, p. III-31).

“One of the most important ways the ForestService can contribute to special forestproducts is to collect information” (USDA,Forest Service 1995). This includes identifyingand describing the ecosystems and habitatsfrom which NTFPs are collected. Informationis needed on defining what materials arecollected, the methods of collection, and howmuch is collected. More economic and marketinformation on NTFPs is needed. Finally, the

Sub-Plenary Papers and Abstracts

Sub-Plenary Papers and Abstracts

416

RPA recognizes the need for managementstrategies that include NTFPs to protect thehealth, diversity and productivity of forestecosystems. National Strategy for Special ForestProducts

The Forest Service is developing a “NationalStrategy for Special Forest Products” (NationalStrategy 1999) that recognizes the need tomanage for special forest products. Theprinciples and priority areas set forth in thestrategy are intended to provide “a solidconceptual foundation for an action plan”(National Strategy, p. 3). To guide and directmanagement of the renewable resources thatproduce special forest products, the strategyestablishes five strategic goals: 1) availabilitywithin ecosystem limits; 2) integration intoforest management; 3) consistent and effectivepolicies and plans; 4) inventory andmonitoring of resources; and, 5) collaborationwith stakeholders.

National Legislation for Special ForestProducts

In February of 1999, the U.S. CongressionalSubcommittee on Forestry and Public LandManagement convened a hearing to exploreopportunities and constraints on increasedharvesting of non-timber forest products onnational forest land. In October of 1999, therewas national legislation in front of thePresident that could drastically change how theUS Forest Service manages national forests fornon-timber forest products. The Bill (H.R.2466) provides for establishment of a pilotprogram to charge fees for the harvest of“forest botanical products” from NationalForest System lands (H.R. 2466, Sec. 339).Forest botanical products are defined asmushrooms, fungi, flowers, seeds, roots, bark,leaves, and other vegetation that grow on NFSlands, but does not include trees. The Billrequires the Secretary of Agriculture todetermine sustainable harvest methods andlevels and to establish methods to ensure thatrevenues from the issuance of permits forcollecting these products reflect the fair marketvalue.

Though the first round of forest plans did not,in general, address management of NTFPs,there is potential that these resources willreceive greater attention in the future. The1995 RPA provides explicit direction to theForest Service concerning non-timber forestproducts. The national strategy on specialforest products contributes to theinstitutionalization of management for NTFPs.The legislation that is under-considerationcould provide further acceptance of theseproducts in forest management.

Issues and Implications

Based on this review of forest managementplans and polices, a number of key issues areidentified that could significantly affect howthe national forests are manage for non-timberproducts. Societal pressures on how, and forwhat purposes, national forests are managedcontinue to intensify. Economic issues aredriven by demand for the products and includequestions of macro and micro scale.Environmental concerns range from the impactthat harvesting has on the species to the impacton the ecosystem from where the productswere collected. There is a wealth of knowledgeon how to mange for timber, wildlife,recreation, and water resources, but in generalthere is a lack of technical information andexpertise for managing for non-timber forestproducts. How to incorporate NTFPs into theecosystem management paradigm remains anissue. Institutional barriers must be removed toallow NTFPs to be well managed.

Social

For the most part, the collectors of NTFPs areunder-represented stakeholders in the planningprocess. They are not organized norrepresented by any group, but are individualswho may be apprehensive of getting involvedin government activities. They may not wantothers to know how much is collected nor thecollection location. But none-the-less, thecollectors are stakeholders in how the nationalforests are managed, as management decisionscan drastically affect these people’slivelihoods. For some collectors the incomegained from the sale of NTFPs could be amajor portion of their annual income.Certainly, for many collectors, income

417

generated from NTFPs is “extra money” and isan important component to the overallhousehold budget. A ban on collection ofNTFPs, or an increase in permit costs couldhave significant impact on the collectors’ lives.Special efforts are needed to identify thecollectors and to get their input. Thesustainable management of NTFP resourceswill require understanding of how these peopleview and use the resource.

Economic

Unlike timber, the economic value of non-timber forest products, in general, is not welldefined. Though the overall value of somesectors (e.g., herbal medicinal) is documented,little information is available on forest-harvested products (e.g., forest-harvestedmedicinal plants). Defining the value of non-timber forest products at the forest and districtlevels is necessary to determine sustainablemanagement levels. Though demand figuresfor some products (e.g., ginseng) are available,in general very little is known about thedemand for most products. As a whole, verylittle information is available on the supply ofnon-timber forest products. Forest inventorydata for NTFPs is generally non-existent.Without accurate information on the supplyand demand for non-timber forest products, itis difficult to determine sustainable economicharvest levels.

Environmental

The environmental issues, if not addressed,could result in a management strategy based onprotection of the NTFP resources and notconservation or utilization. If the population ofa NTFP species degrades to a level thatinitiates the statutes of the Endangered SpeciesAct the Forest Service would be required topursue a protection strategy. To manage forconservation and utilization the status of NTFPspecies can not drop to the level that requiresmanagement under ESA. The effect thatharvesting has on local plant populations, aswell as the impact on the associated ecosystemis an issue that truly affects how the ForestService manages these resources.

Institutional

To address the issue of technical managementof the NTFP resource will require creating newinformation through research, broadeninghorizons beyond traditional forestry, andexpanding the expertise involved inmanagement. The research needed to developthe knowledge on how to manage for NTFPs isboundless. In general, there is a lack ofinformation within forestry on how to managethe NTFP resources. But, expanding theinquiry to include knowledge of herbalmedicine and gardening could providevaluable information on reproducing someNTFPs. The technical management of NTFPswill require more information on the status,characteristics, and requirements of thehabitats and species. To include NTFPs inforest management will require developing theexpertise to understand the ecology (biologicaland social) and botany of the natural resource.

From an institutional standpoint, theeconomics of management must be defined todetermine the investment needed to ensuresustainability of the resource. Over the lastdecade revenues from timber sales, as well asappropriations from the U.S. Congress havedecreased. The decline in fiscal support has puttremendous pressure on the Forest Service todeal with the most important issues. The issueof “below-cost” management could impedeForest Service efforts to manage the NTFPresources. At this point, the costs of managingNTFPs may exceed the revenues generatedfrom the sale of collection permits. Toincorporate NTFPs into forest managementwill require either additional fiscal support or ashift of funds from other managementobjectives.

National legislation is being considered thatwould lead to increased revenues from the saleof collection permits and development ofsustainable harvest levels. But, until NTFPsare recognized as a natural resource, “moreimportant” issues will subsume the amount ofeffort devoted to managing them. Legislationthat recognizes NTFPs as a managementobjective for national forests, along with thoseidentified in current legislation, wouldinstitutionalize management of non-timberforest products.

Sub-Plenary Papers and Abstracts

Sub-Plenary Papers and Abstracts

418

Conclusions

In the 1980s, when the first round of nationalforest plans were developed, non-timber forestproducts, in general, were not recognized as amanagement objective nor as a issue of publicconcern. A few national forests identifiedNTFPs as a resource and incorporated theminto management plans. Still, the coveragedevoted to NTFPs was insignificant comparedto other management objectives. Much of thecoverage focused on recreational collectionand research needed to conserve the resourcebase.

Over the last decade, interest in, and concernfor, NTFPs has increased drastically. Today,NTFPs are receiving a great deal of attentionin natural resource policy dialogue. The U.S.Forest Service is leading the way on defininghow national forests will be managed for non-timber forest products. A great deal ofresearch, analysis and support are still neededto have NTFPs fully integrated into nationalforest management plans and practices.

Non-timber forest products are economicallyand ecologically important. The collection andsale of NTFPs from the forests of eastern U.S.have local, regional, national and internationaleconomic impact. Collection of these productsalso, may have significant impact on the healthof the forests of the region. To realize themaximum economic benefits and to have theminimum ecological impact, the naturalresources that produce NTFPs need to bemanaged.

The Forest Service strategy of managingnational forests as ecosystems can not be fullyrealized until NTFP resources are sufficientlyintegrated into management plans. The goal ofsustainable forest management will remainelusive if NTFPs are not managed as a naturalresource. Certainly, the paradigm of multiple-use management needs to be expanded toinclude these forest products. Perhaps, theecosystem management paradigm needsmodification as well.

References

Brevoort, P. 1998. The Booming U.S. BotanicalMarket: A New Overview. Herbalgram, No.4:33-45.

Carney, T.F. 1972. Content Analysis: Atechnique for systematic inference fromcommunications. University of ManitobaPress. Winnipeg, Canada. 344pp.

Chamberlain, J., R. Bush, and A.L. Hammett.1998. “Non-Timber Forest Products: TheOther Forest Products.” Forest ProductsJournal. Vol. 48(10):2-12.

Chequamegon NF LRMP. 1986a. Land andResource Management Plan for theChequamegon National Forest. U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.Eastern Region, Milwaukee, WI. USA.100pp. + Appendices.

Constantz, G. 1994. Hollows, Peepers andHighlanders: An Appalachian MountainEcology. Mountain Press Publication,Missoula MT. 264pp.

Eisenberg, D.M., R.C. Kessler, C. Foster, F.E.Norlock, D.R. Calkins, and T.L. Delbanco.1993. “Unconventional medicine in theUnited States.” New England Journal ofMedicine. 328(4):246-252.

Finger Lakes NF LRMP. 1986. Land andResource Management Plan for the FingerLakes National Forest. U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. EasternRegion, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 100pp. +Appendices.

Florida NF LRMP. 1985. Land and ResourceManagement Plan: National Forests inFlorida. U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service, Southern Region. Atlanta,GA, USA. 100pp. + Appendices.

Foster, S. 1995. Forest Pharmacy: MedicinalPlants in American Forests. Forest HistorySociety, Durham, NC. 57pp.

________ and J.A. Duke. 1990. A Field Guideto Medicinal Plants: Eastern and CentralNorth America. Houghton MifflinCompany, New York. 366pp.

Floyd, D.W. (editor). 1999. Forest of Discord:Options for Governing Our NationalForests and Federal Public Lands. Societyof American Foresters. Bethesda, MD,USA. 84pp.

Freed, J. 1994. “Special Forest Products: past,present, future.” In. Dances with andElephant, Proceedings of the Conference,The Business and Science of Special Forest

419

Products. C. Schnepf (editor). WesternForestry and Conservation Association.Portland, Oregon, pp.1-11.

Genetic Engineering News. 1997. Germanymoves to the forefront of the Europeanherbal medicine industry. 17(8):14.

Green Mountain NF LRMP. 1993. Land andResource Management Plan for the GreenMountain National Forest. U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service. EasternRegion, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 100pp. +Appendices.

Guldin, Jim. 1999. Personal Communication.Unit Leader. Research Work Unit 4106 --Managing Upland Forest Ecosystems in theMid South. .U.S. Forest Service, SouthernResearch Station. Monticello, AR, USA.

Harlow, W.M., E.S. Harrar, J.W. Hardin, andF.M. White. 1991. The Textbook ofDendrology. McGraw-Hill Series in ForestResources. 7th edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc.New York. 501pp.

Holsti, O.R. 1969. Content Analysis for theSocial Sciences and Humanities. Addison-Wesley Publishing. Menlo Park, California.235pp.

Hoosier NF LRMP. 1991. Amendment to TheHoosier National Forest Land and ResourceManagement Plan. U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. EasternRegion, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 100pp. +Appendices.

H.R. 2466. 1999. Department of the Interiorand Related Agencies Appropriations Act,2000 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President)),U.S. House of Representatives Bill sentOctober 1999.

Krippendorff, K. 1980. Content Analysis: Anintroduction to its methodology. SagePublications. Beverly Hills, California.191pp.

Krochmal, A., R.S. Walters, and R.M. Doughty.1969. A Guide to Medicinal Plants ofAppalachia. USDA, Forest Service ResearchPaper NE-138. Northeastern ForestExperiment Station, Upper Darby, PA.291pp.

Le Bars, P.L., M.M. Katz, N.Berman, T.M.Itil, A.M. Freedman, and A.F. Schatzberg.1997. A placebo-controlled, double-blindrandomized trial of an extract of Gingkobiloba for dementia. Journal of AmericanMedical Association. 278(16):1327-1332.

Mater Engineering, Ltd. 1992. Analysis anddevelopment of a conceptual business plan

for establishing a special forest productsprocessing plant. Report to the USDA,Forest Service, Region 6, Sweet Home,Oregon. 233pp. + Appendices.

_____. 1993. Special forest products marketanalysis. Report to SaskatchewanTimberlands Division, WeyerhauserCanada, Ltd., Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.Project No.3017. 94pp. + Appendices.

_____. 1994. Minnesota Special ForestProducts: A market study. Report to theMinnesota Department of NaturalResources, St. Paul, MN. 200pp. +Appendices.

MUSYA, 1960. U.S. Code 74 Stat. 215.Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of1960, 74 United States Statute at Large. p.215.

NFMA, 1976. U.S. Code 90 Stat. 2949.National Forest Management Act of 1976.90 United States Statute at Large. p. 2949.

National Strategy. 1999. Draft National Strategyfor Special Forest Products. U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Washington, DC. Draft Unpublished, 10pp.

Nicolet NF LRMP. 1986. Land and ResourceManagement Plan for the Nicolet NationalForest. U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. Eastern Region, Milwaukee,WI. USA. 100pp. + Appendices.

Organic Administration Act of 1897, U.S. Code30 Stat. 35. 30 United States Statute atLarge, p. 35.

RPA, 1974, U.S. Code 86 Stat. 476. Forest andRangeland Renewable Resources PlanningAct (RPA) of 1974, 86 United States Statuteat Large. p. 476.

Revised Florida NF LRMP. 1999. RevisedLand and Resource Management Plan forNational Forests in Florida. USDA, ForestService, Tallahassee, FL. February. 100pp.

Ricketts, T.H., E. Dinerstein, D.M. Olson, C.J.Loucks, et al. 1999. Terrestrial Ecoregionsof North America. World Wildlife Fund.Island Press. Washington, DC. 483pp.

Robbins, C. 1999. “Ginseng Dealers Surveyed,Conservation Measures Addressed.”TRAFFIC Bulletin. Wordl Wildlife Fund,Washington, DC, USA.18(1):3-5.

Small, E. and P. M. Catling. 1999. CanadianMedicinal Crops. NRC Research Press.Ottawa, Canada. 240pp.

Stix, G. 1998. “Plant matters.” ScientificAmerican. 278(2):301.

Sub-Plenary Papers and Abstracts

Sub-Plenary Papers and Abstracts

420

USDA 1999. U.S. Agricultural Exports. UnitedStates, Department of Agriculture.Washington, DC. October 28 1999.

USDA Forest Service. 1980. An Assessmentof the Forest and Range Land Situation inthe United States. U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. Washington,DC. 631pp.

_____. 1983. Regional Guide for the EasternRegion. Eastern Region. Milwaukee,Wisconsin. 100pp.+ Appendices.

_____.1984. Regional Guide for the SouthernRegion. Southern Region. Atlanta, Georgia.100pp. + Appendices.

_____. 1995. The Forest Service Program forForest and Rangeland Resources: A long-term strategic plan. Draft 1995 RPAProgram, Government Printing Office,Washington, DC. 80pp. + Appendices.

_____. 1997. Forest Service OrganizationalDirectory. U.S. Department of Agriculture,Forest Service. Washington, DC. FS-65.249pp.

_____. 1998. Analysis of the ManagementSituation: Special Forest Products.Chequamegon and Nicolet NationalForests, Wisconsin, Eastern Region,

Milwaukee, WI, USA. Draft Unpublished.12pp.

_____. 1999. Charting our future: A nation’snatural resource legacy. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, DC. 72pp.

_____. 1999a.<http://www/fs.fed.us/form/nepa/reg8.html>. October 1, 1999.

USFS FSM. 1998. Forest Service Manual(FSM) Title 1100, Directive System. U.S.Department of Agriculture. Forest Service.Washington, DC. 50pp.

White Mountain NF LRMP. 1986. Land andResource Management Plan: WhiteMountain National Forest. Eastern Region.Milwaukee, WI, USA. 100pp. +Appendices.

World Wildlife Fund, TRAFFIC NorthAmerica. 1999. “Medicine from U.S.Wildlands: An Assessment of Native PlantSpecies Harvested in the United States forMedicinal Use and Trade and Evaluation ofthe Conservation and ManagementImplications. Unpublished report to theNational Fish and Wildlife Foundation.World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC.21pp. + Appendices.

SUB-PLENARY SESSIONSVOLUME 1

XXI IUFRO WORLD CONGRESS7-12 August 2000Kuala LumpurMALAYSIA

International Union of Forestry Research Organization

FORESTS AND SOCIETY:THE ROLE OF RESEARCH

SUB-PLENARY SESSIONSVOLUME 1

Editors

Baskaran KrishnapillayE. Soepadmo

Najib Lotfy ArshadAndrew Wong H.H.

S. AppanahSuhaimi Wan Chik

N. ManokaranHong Lay Tong

Khoo Kean Choon

Published by the Malaysian XXI IUFRO World Congress Organising CommitteeThe papers published in these proceedings have been invited and accepted by the DivisionCoordinators in accordance with the IUFRO procedure. The editors are not responsible for

the material content of the papers.

Copies available from:

IUFRO SecretariatFederal Forest Research InstituteSeckendorff-Gudent-Weg 8

A-1131 Vienna, AustriaTelephone: +43-1-8770151Telefax: +43-1-9779355E-mail: iufro@forvie.ac.at

AND

Forest Research Institute MalaysiaKepong 52109, Kuala Lumpur

MalaysiaTelephone: (603) 6342633Telefax: (603) 6367753E-mail: rahimnik@frim.gov.my

Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Forests and society : the role of research : XXI IUFRO WorldCongress 7-12 August 2000 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia /

Edited by Baskaran Krishnapillay…[ et al.](Contents : vol. 1. Sub-plenary sessions. – vol. II. Abstractsof group discussions. – vol. III. Poster abstracts).ISBN 983-2181-08-9 (vol. 1)

ISBN 983-2181-09-7 (vol. 2)ISBN 983-2181-01-0 (vol. 3)1. Forest conservation. 2. Conservation of natural resources3. Forest management 4. Forest and forestry. I. IUFROWorld Congress (21st : 2000 : Kuala Lumpur)

II. Baskaran Krishnapillay634.9

Cover photographs provided by Dr. E. Soepadmo-Front: Natural ForestBack: Zingiber spectabile

Cover designed by Mouse Studio Sdn BhdPrinted in Malaysia by Pramaju Sdn. Bhd. July, 2000