Giving Compass' Take:
- Max Izenberg and Aaron Clark-Ginsberg report on the rollback of a policy protecting Tongass National Forest that was starkly opposed by the local populations the Trump Administration claimed to be helping.
- What factors determine whether a community's voice is heard or listened to by governments when making environmental and planning decisions? How can the philanthropy sector support advocacy for Native Americans whose land and cultural heritage are threatened by economic motivations?
- Learn about why the loss of forests like the Tongass National Forest could be disastrous for the Earth's climate.
What is Giving Compass?
We connect donors to learning resources and ways to support community-led solutions. Learn more about us.
"Building back better” requires understanding a community's needs, ambitions, goals, vulnerability, and capacity. It means local voices must be front and center as plans and decisions are made. But that's not always the case, as the recent decision to remove Roadless Rule protections from the Tongass National Forest illustrated.
The 2001 Roadless Rule prohibited road construction and timber harvesting across National Forest System lands, including about half of the 16.7 million–acre Tongass National Forest. During a review period, of more than 411,000 comments on the proposal, 96% were against the rollback.
To these locals, the costs of opening up the Tongass appear to outweigh benefits. Logging has the potential to improve the local economy, but those financial gains are temporary and vary forest to forest.
But on October 28, the Trump administration fully revoked the Roadless Rule protecting the Tongass Forest in order to address what it called “limited economic opportunities” of the region. To do so, it proposed “maximal additional timber harvest” by opening up the forest to old growth harvesting, starting with allowing the building of lumber roads.
Read the full article about the rollback of the Roadless Rule by Max Izenberg and Aaron Clark-Ginsberg at RAND.