Reaching a Shared View of Appropriate Forest Management in Vermont Jessica Massanari, Marta Ceroni, PhD and Joshua Farley, PhD

The Delphi Survey The Delphi is a multi-round, anonymous survey of professionals utilized in this study to reveal consensus opinion concerning best forest management practices in Vermont. This survey of 15 participants included: 2 members of conservation organizations 4 members of state forestry agencies 4 forestry/natural resource academics 5 practitioners and/or consulting foresters

Survey questions focused on goals: What are the desired ends of forest management? Economic Ecological Social

....on policies: How should forests be managed to achieve these goals ? Scale of management (e.g. Private property, watershed, biophysical region) Role of government in creating appropriate incentives for management goals (ecological, economic and social) Suitability of UVA and Northern Forest Lands Council (NFLC) sustainability principles

...and on forest structure What forest structure is best for achieving goals? Extent of forest coverage Composition of forest (age structure, mosaic of management patterns, etc.) Level of harvest

Goals Forest management should: Goals for forest management in Vermont should include: Focus on ecological benefits and detriments on the scale of: Goals for forest management on individual properties:

Policies Possible market incentives might include: If government creates economic incentives, the justification(s) should be: Possible market incentives might include: Vermont land-use policy should:

Forest Structure Desired similar levels of forested acreage Annual harvest rates should not exceed annual growth rates All favored some level of harvesting Favored a mosaic organization of management Watershed and biophysical regions as appropriate landscape levels for management

Other areas of consensus UVA guidelines should be flexible, but should do more to promote economic, environmental and social benefits to forest landowners and the surrounding communities and region

Preliminary areas lacking consensus Promoting long-term economic goals will adequately promote ecological and social goals The UVA program funding Preservation/modification of the current UVA system Adopt a “forest practices act” in addition to UVA

Comments on UVA strengths Encourages wood markets Promotes long term investment in the land Reduced tax burden/ need for subdivision and development Sustainable forestry as required by UVA serves to protect and enhance ecological objectives Maintains local jobs, esp. loggers, foresters Increases overall awareness/ education of and adherence to proper natural resource management Less parcelization, less sprawl, landowners hold off on developing land

Comments on UVA weaknesses Inability for landowners to manage their lands for wildlife/ecological features/biodiversity as a primary objective Program needs to be more adequately funded/staffed Differing interpretations across county lines/ too much opportunity to avoid necessary principles and outcomes UVA provides only a small economic incentive Small penalty for withdrawal Unclear if UVA is a Land Conservation law or Forest-product stream law Sometimes viewed as “welfare for the rich”

Comments on UVA funding Stewardship should be economically rewarded Incentives make forestland more desirable for everyone- poor less competitive Resources for incentives are not lacking, need for more program administration and monitoring of individual parcels

Comments on ecological goals Need a better planning model that prioritizes lands at risk Need community support to accomplish ecological goals Need for firm, comprehensive goals that allow for adaptive management to inform

Comments on social goals UVA is a tax-equity program, cautious about moving it into a social program We should pay for additional social benefits provided, but not require social benefits Some parcels provide more social benefits than others

Other comments on UVA Parcel uniqueness: Forest management can’t follow cookie cutter prescriptions/ Hard to generalize about benefits as they differ from parcel to parcel. If the law depends on funds from the public at large, it should address their needs. All land should be taxed at use value and a forest practice legislation could set higher minimum forestry standards. UVA should focus on long-term economic benefits for owners, not short-term ones. UVA is fragile,controversial and not always seen as positive and beneficial by the public. There is a fear that opening the policy to debate could erode, rather than improve existing policy.

Conclusions We plan to conduct a final round Data can be used as a consensus document for policy design How should UVA address these goals?

Jessica Massanari jmassana@uvm.edu Community Development and Applied Economics, UVM