|
|
|
 |
|
Home / Washington Business - September/October 2007 / Q&A with Mark Doumit, Executive Director, Washington Forest Protection Association: A bright future for natural resources industries |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Q&A with Mark Doumit, Executive Director, Washington Forest Protection Association: A bright future for natural resources industries |
|
|
|
Written On: September/October 2007 |
|
|
|
Former state senator Mark Doumit is executive director of the Washington Forest Protection Association, a trade association representing private forest landowners in Washington. WFPA’s members include companies both large and small, as well as individuals and families who grow, harvest and re-grow trees on about 4.2 million acres.
Q: What is the Washington Forest Protection Association?
A: We started out 100 years ago as an organization dedicated to fighting wildfires and reducing the damage from them by planning how the firefighting would be done. We were the primary firefighting organization in the state until the 1940s, when the [Washington State] Department of Natural Resources took over that function. Our members pay a large assessment to the state, and we work collaboratively with the DNR to reduce the damage from forest fires in the state.
The role of the WFPA, however, is a lot larger than just forest fires, especially now. We are part of the collaborative voice of the industry. With more than 50 members, we are one of the largest voices for private landowners in the state. [Our members] tend to be the largest industrial landowners, but there are some small ones in there, too. We have the Washington Farm Forestry Association, which represents small landowners, on our board of directors, as well.
We have a variety of different views looking at how we manage, grow and market trees. It makes for a very complex board.
Q: You spent many years in politics. What is your proudest accomplishment from those years in government?
A: When I first started in politics it was because the industries I cared about were under severe attack, whether it was the timber industry, the fishing industry or agriculture. They were all declining in my area of the state and throughout the state. I think we stabilized some of that decline when we passed the Forests and Fish Agreement in 1999. I worked on all of the salmon recovery acts, and I worked on the budget, trying to find ways to keep taxes from knocking the natural resources industries out of the state. We still have a lot of work to do, but I’ve always taken pride in what I did to slow the decline of the natural resources industries so we can create a brighter future. That’s still very important to me. The reason I took the job with WFPA is that it’s a kind of evolution of where I’ve been with my public policy to make sure that the timber industry—which is the third largest manufacturing industry in the state, the largest land-owning sector, and one of the largest job bases in Washington—remains strong.
Q: What is the importance of the Forests and Fish Act, and what impact does it have on Washington?
A: The Forests and Fish Act was a progressive response. In the mid-1990s the salmon [endangered species] listings were coming out and the timber industry was still reeling from the spotted owl and what happened when we took more than 80 percent of the public land base offline. Prior to that, in the mid-1980s, federal lands had been producing half of the wood that came out of Washington. It’s hard for people to fathom that volume of land, but you’re talking about an area larger than most states.
With the salmon listings it looked like the industry was going to face another round of forest practices permits by lawsuit and court order. That prospect was devastating when we were looking at hundreds of millions—if not billions—of dollars. It was an impending economic disaster.
It was very important that we not end up with a lawsuit. Rep. Jim Buck and myself, and also Sen. Sid Snyder and Sen. Jim Hargrove—all from the two coastal districts—took the lead on this issue along with Sen. Debbie Regala from Tacoma.
It was very bipartisan in the Legislature. The vote totals on the Forests and Fish Act were almost equal on the Democratic and Republican sides. It was the big, moderate middle that carried the day on this measure.
The Forests and Fish Act took away a large amount of timber—I think it was between $10 billion and $20 billion over the 50-year time frame of the agreement. We gave up between 15 and 20 percent of the timber land base for the protection of species, clean water, and kept a stable water flow to satisfy the federal Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. At the same time, however, there was a lot more at risk. We were concerned about the viability of the entire timber industry.
What we gained out of the Forests and Fish Act was a 50-year agreement and federal assurances that the timber industry would be able to function in a more normal fashion. That’s why it’s so important. It’s a huge deal—the largest environmental agreement I saw during my tenure in government.
Q: How is Washington doing in balancing economic and environmental interests?
A: Since about 1998, the state has done a much better job at trying to find that balance. Pre-Forests and Fish Act, this state would swing wildly back and forth on these issues. It was not a good way to manage.
Going back 20 years ago, there were timber, fish and wildlife negotiations where tribal, forestry, agricultural and other interests came to the table to figure out collaborative solutions to these very difficult issues instead of litigating. They pointed the way we need to go.
We’re still working on these issues. Right now, we in the timber industry are very much interested in trying to find more ways to collaborate and avoid litigation. We have a lot of work to do. We have 218 owl circles that could potentially impact the viability of growing and harvesting trees. It’s very important that if people want to have species habitat, they need to help the timber industry. We have to make sure there are incentives to keep forestry sustainable, keep it as a priority land use.
With the potential doubling of the state’s population—a million to a million and a half people coming into the state every decade—we have incredible pressure on agricultural and natural resources land. Lands that were worth $300 an acre after tree harvesting may be worth $30,000 an acre in an urban area, or it might be $3,000 per acre in a more rural area. All of a sudden, the ability for a landowner to see a bright future or want to invest in another 40-year crop is questionable. You have to face a lot of economic considerations on whether you convert to development or continue to plant.
Our organization wants to keep sustainable forestry economically viable so that it is a priority land use for our members.
Q: What do you see in the future for Washington’s forest products industry and the natural resources sector of the economy?
A: As long as the approach we’ve taken since the Forests and Fish Act continues and you have collaboration and people actively working to solve environmental problems, the future is very bright for forestry, fishing and the other natural resource industries in the state. The next 20 years should be better than the last 20.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
