The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry recently announced big changes to its Private Forest Management (PFM) program. The program is facing some major reductions. Landowners will notice the changes.
The PFM program’s annual budget was cut by 75% from $2 million to $500,000. While PFM forester capacity will not drop by quite that much, it will be reduced from an average of 15-17 full time equivalents over the past several years to only 12, seven of which will be funded by grants, rather than state funds. These staff, along with private sector partners, will be responsible to serve Minnesota’s 200,000 family woodland owners.
How will this capacity be deployed? DNR PFM foresters will focus on three primary responsibilities:
- Reviewing and recording Stewardship Plans written by private sector foresters,
- Working with landowners in a technical assistance role to implement Stewardship Plan recommended practices on the ground, and
- Landscape-level stewardship projects, which are a key priority for the DNR and USDA, which funds the Stewardship Program. This role will focus on working collaboratively with multiple public and private partners through Minnesota’s six regional Landscape Committees.
Rising private sector contributions: A written forest management plan is required to enroll in Minnesota’s Sustainable Forests Incentives Act (SFIA) and 2c Managed Forest Lands property tax classification, both of which require other commitments but also carry substantial financial benefits to the landowner. These financial benefits changed the economics of Stewardship Plans, making landowners more comfortable spending money for professional advice in the form of a written plan because they’d recoup their costs in only a few years. This is part of the reason why Stewardship Plan development has shifted hard to the private sector in the past few years: Between 2009 and 2011, the share of Stewardship Plans written by private consulting foresters has increased from 58% to 82% (Figure 1). The private sector seems well positioned to maintain this role.
Fig. 1: Stewardship Plan acres developed by group
But… formal written land management plans are only part of the story. In my 2010 survey of over 1,000 Minnesota woodland owners, only 23% had a written management plan. Yet 45% had received woodland information from a public sector forester, compared with only 22% from a private sector (private consultant or industry) forester.
So what kind of information are woodland owners getting from public sector foresters? In many cases, they’re getting practical information about how to manage their woods: When to harvest, what species to take or leave, how to ensure adequate regeneration and a healthy, productive post-harvest stand, how to protect the site during harvest operations, and how to have successful and positive land management outcomes. In other words, practical advice that creates value not only for the landowner today, but for society in the short- and long-term. It’s recognition of this value that makes investments in private forest management programs worthwhile, and that has sustained these investments until now.
In this light, it’s wise for the PFM program to focus its limited capacity on implementation activities (e.g. tree planting, timber harvest). But with only the equivalent of 12 full-time foresters statewide, the program will be stretched very thin to serve these needs for 200,000 woodland owners, given other responsibilities.
The value of good advice. Advice from a natural resource professional has been shown in a variety of studies to improve outcomes not only to landowners but to all of us from timber harvest operations; that’s why states have traditionally invested in private landowner assistance programs. To the extent that private forests provide public goods in terms of water quality protection, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration and storage, and so on, we may all notice the effects of these service reductions. Less access to this kind of advice will not only hurt landowners, but the rest of us as well.
Where will landowners turn instead? Knowledgeable landowner volunteers like Woodland Advisors may become more common sources of advice, helping their peers make more efficient use of professional resources and quality information. Landowners trust their peers, and small investments in programs like Woodland Advisor generate value for landowners and can lead to more efficient use of limited professional resources.
But when it’s time to harvest or plan the next rotation, there’s no substitute for one-on-one work with a local natural resource professional. Minnesota has an excellent community of professional consulting and industry foresters ready to serve the state’s landowners. The challenge for the forestry community is to help landowners understand the many benefits, and the financial value, of investing in the services of a professional.
Foresters sure aren’t known for our public relations work, and while many landowners know from experience the value of professional advice, many do not. Landowners haven’t had to pay for that advice in the past because DNR foresters did not, until recently, charge for most services. But they will have to if they’re to benefit from experience and advice from a local professional in the future. And because private forest lands generate value for all of us, we will all lose if those lands are managed less well in the future.
What do you think? Have you worked with a public or private sector forester? How will reductions and changes in the DNR’s PFM program affect you?
The tragedy isn’t reducing manpower from 17 to 12 (5 actually funded) positions. The tragedy is that there were only 17 in the first place. Anyone who has had access to forester advice understands its importance. Unfortunately, most of those 200,000 forestland owners have not made the effort nor benefitted from it. Now it is even less likely they will have that opportunity. While there are many things professional forestry advisors can do, they can’t replace the introductory impact of a public forestry advisor opening the door to good management and stewardship.Without it, even fewer will choose to invest scarce resources in hiring expertise. Our future forest resources will be the poorer for it, as will our state.
I agree Jim, the DNR’s PFM program has been understaffed for years. While while shifting virtually all Stewardship Plan development to the private sector seems to be working, the concern remains that for many landowners, the local DNR forester has been their first contact with a professional forester. If this contact becomes less available, some landowners may be less likely to pick up the phone to call a private consultant or industry forester. While private foresters can do the job, the challenge will be to help landowners understand the value of investing in their services. Long-term, active landowners know this value, because they’ve seen it directly, but they’re the minority.
I fear that these changes will lead not to a shift in service delivery to the private sector (that’s OK) but to less professional forester involvement, public or private, in family woodland management. Hence the need for the forestry community to step up communicating this value. Hence also the opportunity and need for more peer-to-peer outreach, helping newer landowners learn from the experiences of their neighbors.
I have felt the changes first hand. Had my first stewardship plan done in 1999 at a cost of $50. through the DNR. It was wonderful, a big 3 ring binder full of information, aerial photos etc. After waiting 6 years to have my plan updated by the DNR I was finally told to hire an independent forester to complete the task. Which I did at a cost of $500. It turned out fine but not even half the info that was included in my original. Then I just received a bill from the DNR for $50. Not knowing what this was for being they didn’t do anything, I called. I was informed that it is a recording fee to record my plan with the DNR, otherwise I would not qualify for the 2C tax benefit. I think you’ll find a lot fewer private landowners opting out of any forestry management activities. Or just doing what they feel is best which could be contrary to what they want for a final outcome. I guess it’s the times were in.
As a private sector forester, I welcome the changes! While there are a lot of growing pains occurring during this adjustment period, I think that landowners will be better served once the dust settles and everybody settles into their new roles. From my perspective as an entrepreneur, I know I must now compete with other private foresters to provide quality service at a fair price, instead of having to compete with free or reduced cost services provided by the state. This is not to say that public foresters do not provide valuable assistance and value to all of us–they do! But a more open, free market arrangement is going to work out better, I believe, for everybody in the long run.
Thanks Stan for the comment. I agree that Minnesota’s private sector foresters are well positioned to meet landowner demand. My concern is that landowner demand may be artificially low because many landowners are unaware of the value of working with a forester. DNR foresters, as a first point of contact, can help landowners understand that value, and can (hopefully) encourage landowners to invest in the services of a private sector professional. If that first point of contact becomes less available, my concern is that more landowners may decide either not to manage at all or to go it alone, bypassing a forester and taking the first bid offered for their timber without signing a favorable contract, working with a forester to plan the harvest to meet the landowner’s long-term goals, etc.
The real challenge for the forestry community then is to communicate the value and benefit of investing in professional assistance. In my experience most Minnesota woodland owners are deeply committed to leaving their land in better shape than they found it. Nobody can help advance that goal better than a forester, but I don’t think most landowners know that.
-eli
What do you think?
I think, over time, the private sector will always provide higher valued services than public funded alternatives. Landowners that truly have a passion for their land and a desire to improve it for future generations will seek out (and find) the knowledge and/or services they need to make the best decisions for the land. There is an enormous amount of good information available from a wide variety of sources. Foresters (public or private) are a very good source, but not the only one.
Have you worked with a public or private sector forester?
I’ve work with both. I’ve found the private forester to be much more responsive to my requests, desires and needs. As a taxpayer and forest owner, I don’t feel I’m getting the value for my dollars from the public program.
How will reductions and changes in the DNR’s PFM program affect you?
Ideally, in reduced taxes. Realistically, from my personal experience, very little.
Eli,
The program you and Mike put together on the three tax programs available for private forestland owners is excellent. I plan to use it to share with landowners
interested in management plans and lower woodland taxes.
My only suggestion for Mike’s program is to say that frequently landowners
receive very good tax information from their private foresters ( not just their tax assessors)..This is one more service that consultants offer to their clients.
As for the long term effects of the reduction of the PFM program here in MN, only time will tell if there will be a reduction in information/interest from
landowners: My own sense is that the PFM program has actually been fading for a number of years and that consultants have stepped into the breach in many ways ( note the increase in stewardship plans by the private sector in the past four years)
Happy new Year
Peter B.
Masconomo Forestry
I agree Peter–the DNR’s PFM program has been losing capacity for a while now, and as the stats above indicate, the private sector has stepped up quite well to fill the gap, particularly in Stewardship Plan development. My concern is that for many landowners, the first contact with any professional forester is through the DNR. As it gets harder and harder to make that contact because the DNR PFM foresters are stretched so thin, then I fear that fewer landowners will work with any professional, private or public. As you say, time will tell.
Happy new year to you as well Peter, and thanks for the comment.
-eli