WikiHome

American Forest Congresses

William Bentley

Seven American Forest Congresses have been convened since 1882. The first congress was held in Montreal and Cincinnati. It was stimulated by the scientific work of Frederick Hough, a physician who was an early forestry research leader, and the formation of the American Forestry Association (AFA) in 1875. Only one forester attended the first congress: Bernard Fernow a forester from Germany who later led forestry research in the US Department of Agriculture.

The second through sixth congresses were organized by the AFA. The second congress was held in 1905 in Washington DC. Teddy Roosevelt presided over the formation of the US Forest Service and the transfer of the federal forestlands from Interior to the new agency in Agriculture. Gifford Pinchot, the first America to be trained in Europe as a forester, was appointed the first Chief after leading the Division of Forestry into becoming the new Forest Service.

It was not until 1946 that the third congress was held. Four decades of political fighting took place over the issue of regulation. Gifford Pinchot sought a strong federal regulatory framework for private forestry, but others thought market forces were superior means to reformation of forest practices. By 1946, the argument had dissipated and the focus was on recovery from World War II.

The Fourth American Forest Congress was held in 1953. Essentially the same format was used for the 5^th (1963) and 6^th (1975) congresses. Plenary sessions, breakout sessions by interest group, and formal papers characterized these meetings. Little hard debate occurred on the issues, the political forces driving them, or alternative ways of conceiving of forest policy.

It took 21 years for the Seventh Congress to be called. It was a break from history in several respects.

• A consortium of interests and organizations called for convening of the Seventh Congress. The AFA, which was in a process of change itself, did not have the political visibility to issue the call, and no other single organization could replace it. The consortium included several public, for-profit and non-profit organizations and was called the Yale Forest Forum. Yale University’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies housed the consortium and served as banker, receiving grants from several sources and distributing funds as costs were incurred. The Boards of Directors and Senior Advisors guided the congress

• With substantial funds for scholarships the congress attracted a wide variety of participants, including many groups that had not been represented to any degree in earlier congresses. New groups included small private forest owners, community-based forest action groups, urban forestry agencies and non-profits, and minorities, especially Native Americans and African Americans.

• The congress was structured around a dialogue directed to identify degrees of agreement (and disagreement) on general vision and specific principles. The congress itself was preceded by over 50 local roundtables by geography and by interest (e.g., research). The roundtable format was continued in the congress proper by seating a maximum diversity mix at over 120 roundtables of about 12 people each. A large-scale process was developed to get levels of agreement at each table and bring together the views of the whole congress. Many Voices – A Common Vision was the motto of the Seventh Congress.

The Final Report--Seventh American Forest Congress focuses on the levels of agreement (green tallies) recorded at the end of each dialogue. The pre-Congress roundtables produced seven draft elements for a vision. The tables in Washington expanded the seven to 13 elements.

One vision element received 90 percent agreement (and only 3 percent disagreement); five elements were agreed to by 84 percent or more of the participants (with a maximum of 5 percent disagreement); and an additional three elements had 74 to 79 percent agreement; another three had 67 to 69 percent agreement; and the thirteenth element had 54 percent agreement. Given the diversity of the group and the contentious nature of many forest policy issues, the levels of agreement are remarkable.

Nineteen draft principles based on the pre-Congress meetings were given to the tables after they completed the vision. These were recrafted into 21 principles by working groups drawn from the tables, and 15 of these received 50 percent or more agreement. Thirty-nine additional draft principles emerged during a "missing principles" session. Of the 29 principles with 50 percent or more agreement, 14 received 67 percent or more agreement in tallies by the individuals at the tables and two had 90 percent or more agreement.

The Forest Congress process called for planning next steps at the national and local levels. Less time than had been planned was ultimately devoted to next steps because the table desired to devote more time and energy to complete the vision and principles.

The Seventh Forest Congress demonstrated that Americans agree on many elements of a future vision for their forests. They agree on several principles that will guide them toward this common vision. The shift toward stronger levels of agreement after redrafting the vision elements suggests that levels of agreement on principles will increase over time with recrafting at national and local levels.

There was follow-up to the congress in some but not all dimensions. The Communities Committee became a strong organization that is thriving and expanding. Research held some meetings, but could not agree on a political agenda. Several states held follow-up roundtables, and these often merged into other on-going forces for changes. One lesson learned during the follow up is that the elements that continued, and especially those that thrived, had both substantial funding and strong leaders.

At the time of this writing (mid-2007), we see forces at play that may lead to a call for the Eight American Forest Congress. We continue to have a confusing national debate. However, vigorous dialogues and debates about forestry are on-going at the state and local levels. The topics include forest practice acts, licensing of foresters and loggers, forestland taxation and open-space policy, and new values – like carbon sequestration – and renewed concern with older values like water quality, and wildlife habitat.

One can imagine that once again a group of interests will pull together to be strong enough to call for the Eighth Congress. The players will be different because of many changes in the balance of ownership and in the balance of national vs. local and regional voices. It will take a lead organization to house the staff and serve as a credible banker for all parties.

Additional reading

Bentley, W.R. and William Langbein. 1996. Final Report--Seventh American Forest Congress. Office of the Forest Congress, Yale University. 64 p. (a version of this is on the Yale web pages below)

Bentley, W. R. and F. J. Penna. 1996. Consultative dialogues among stakeholders: policy negotiation and constituency building processes for stakeholders concerned with the future of America's forests. A Report for the Legacy Committee and Collaborating Organizations of The Seventh American Forest Congress (June 24, 1996). 21 p.

Bentley, W. R. 1997. The Seventh American Forest Congress and its next steps--evidence of a paradigm shift. John Gray Lecture, School Of Forest Resources, University Of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 25 p.

Smyth, Arthur V. 1996. A Brief History of the American Forest Congresses. Office of the Forest Congress, Yale University. 9 p (can be found on Yale web pages noted below)

Kristine Sullivan, William Bentley, and Marti Kaplan. 1996.The Seventh American Forest Congress. Report for workshop at the OD Network annual meeting, Orlando FL October 7, 1996.

The Seventh American Forest Congress web pages at Yale have the history of the event and the reports on results; see http://www.yale.edu/forest_congress/summary/sumexecutive.html 

The history pages on the USDA Forest Service web pages, especially http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/history/chiefs/hough.shtml, http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/history/chiefs/fernow.shtml,

and http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/history/chiefs/pinchot.shtml

William R. Bentley is Principal, Salmon Brook Associates, and served as the Executive Director of the Seventh American Forest Congress

Posted 31 July 2007

Updated 9 August 2007