Accordingly, since 2007 the United States has contributed funds to Costa Rica in exchange for the benefits its tropical forests provide. Most recently, Costa Rican President Carlos Alvarado secured another $135 million from the LEAF Coalition, of which the United States is a member. This was made possible in part by Costa Rica’s success following earlier funding. Id. Between 1987 and 2013, Costa Rica became the first—and only—country in Latin America to reverse deforestation. Id. Over that same period, Costa Rican tropical forests captured 107 million tons of carbon dioxide. Id.
Even forests that are not tropical provide such benefits, as noted by President Biden in Executive Order 14072. In his order, Biden described the forests of the United States as “cherished expanses of mature and old-growth forests”, which are “critical to the health, prosperity, and resilience of our communities.” Id. at § 1. He noted their ability to combat global climate crises—capturing around 30 percent of all emitted carbon dioxide—to sustain diverse populations of plants and animals, as well as their importance to the Tribal Nations, which have called the lands home since time immemorial. Id. The forests of North America can provide U.S. citizens with the same kinds of benefits as those of tropical countries, and of course to the planet as a whole. To that end, Biden ordered a report on “key opportunities for greater development of nature-based solutions across the Federal Government, including through potential policy, guidance, and program changes.” Id. at § 4(a).
A source of friction for such a policy comes from “multiple use and sustained yield” under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), mandating these be provided in accordance with the Multiple-Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (MUSY”). 16 U.S.C. § 1604(e)(1). MUSY defines “multiple-use” in extremely broad terms, but defines “sustained yield” more narrowly as the “achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level . . . output of the various renewable resources of the national forests without impairment of the land.” 16 U.S.C. § 531(a)-(b) (emphasis added). A more concise summary of “multiple use” can be extracted from the two statutory provisions to include managing the forest for “outdoor recreation, range, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness” consistent with “the needs of the American people.” 16 U.S.C. §§ 1604(e)(2), 531(a). Perhaps Congress was not specifically thinking of carbon sequestration as a need of the American people at the time: it may be somewhat unlikely for 1960. Nonetheless, the statute itself was crafted to acknowledge the need to address changing circumstances and information, mandating the “most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions.” Id. at § 531(a). Additionally, while some remain in denial about climate change, accepting it is part-and-parcel with accepting that it impairs the land, which speaks to § 531(b).
If Congress and the president are still willing to acknowledge and act upon the economic value of forests through their ability to sequester carbon, as opposed to only putting value on timber harvest, everyone could win. One the one hand, fiscal conservatives won’t reduce spending, but they will have a well-grounded, ongoing justification for the expenditure. In practical terms, the rural communities that receive SRS funds also have significant numbers of conservative constituents. On the other, those concerned with environmental conservation gain an additional tool for protecting forests. Last of all, but most vital, communities in need receive both reliable funding for schools and security from wildfires, while the forests and their many benefits are also protected. Neither is dependent upon the timber harvest when the economic incentive is tied to a perpetual benefit provided by a healthy forest.