Eighteen months ago, 30-odd people gathered in a windowless room to test the possibility that a collaborative approach might help in resolving various Tongass issues than have proved intractable in the past. Out of that meeting, the Tongass Futures Roundtable was launched.

Today, a year and a half later, the Roundtable is still alive. It will have had its ninth meeting by the time you are reading this; it still has some thirty members, though the membership has shifted somewhat since the first meeting. The membership represents most major Tongass stakeholders: conservationists (by far the single largest block), timber industry, community representatives (mayors, economic development directors, harbor masters), fishing industry, tourism, Southeast Conference, Native Corporations and Tribes, the Forest Service, the State Division of Forestry and Department of Fish and Game, and the like. Initially, the Roundtable set four goals for itself: providing input into the TLMP revision, solving land allocation issues, making a difference in regional economic development and in the region’s “quality” of life. All policy decisions are by consensus, some administrative decisions (e.g. membership) are by a super majority. More details can be found at www.tongassfutures.net.

The cynic would say that the Roundtable has not done much since its first meeting and in terms of tangible products this is true. It did provide the impetus for the “bridge timber” agreement that kept logging out of all of our key areas until the revised TLMP was issued this February. But it failed to provide meaningful comments for the TLMP revision and it hasn’t made substantive progress on its other goals.

Judging it so soon by its “work products”, however, misses the Roundtable’s value and the opportunities it offers. Some examples:

•    SEACC is all about organizing and organizing is all about relationships. Nowhere else than with the Roundtable have we the opportunity to develop relationships with such a rich cross section of key stakeholders in the region. These relationships will enhance all of our Tongass work.

•    The Roundtable is an important source of information. We learned very early on, for example, that Viking Lumber, the largest mill operating on the Tongass, wants to move into second growth timber as quickly as possible and that staying in old growth will be less profitable. We had assumed the opposite, but now, suddenly, we find we have common ground with Viking as we want to move the mills into second growth as rapidly as possible as well.

•    We are able to demonstrate to a larger audience that a massive timber industry is not feasible—economically, politically, or biologically. In some respects it has been the industry itself that has undercut itself by being stubborn and unrealistic. Its refusal to compromise on the Chabot/Andrews amendment frustrated some of its own supporters.

•    There are some non-conservationist members who are impatient with the Roundtable’s focus on timber. They argue that timber is a tiny percentage of the regional economy and that we should be talking about other, far more important issues. It is a great advantage to have people other than ourselves making this case.

•    The Roundtable allows us to demonstrate, using sophisticated tools, the scientific and economic rationale for protecting high-value watersheds. Our scientific and mapping work is beginning to define the debate and, though the industry pushes back, sometimes even storms out of the room, the parameters of what will be possible for the industry are narrowing.

•    Saul Alinsky, SEACC’s patron saint of organizing, said that for every successful attack there must be a credible alternative. SEACC offers many alternatives—the microsale program, our proposal for a high-value added timber industry, the redesigned timber sale at Point Couverdon. But the Roundtable provides us a much larger opportunity to launch projects that demonstrate that conservation works for business. Providing an alternative to the timber industry will weaken calls for a larger industry.

The Roundtable has sparked controversy among conservationists, the timber industry, and the Alaska delegation (when the delegation got wind of the first meeting a year and a half ago, several members of the Forest Service who had attended were dressed down for being in bed with the greenies). Within our own ranks, talking with those whom we have opposed for many years raises many fears: Will conservationists be rolled? Will we be forced by public pressure to compromise our values? Will the larger public be cut out of the debate? Will the Roundtable initiate a legislative solution that limits our ability to fight illegal timber sales? Could we get more lands protected if we opted out of the Roundtable?

These are all good questions and, while I don’t know what the final product of the Roundtable will eventually look like, I can say this: First, that the conservation community will not be rolled. There are too many of us at the table, decision making is by consensus (we can’t be out-voted), and none of us, least of all SEACC, will cave to public pressure; second, if the Roundtable fails, we have lost little but time and resources. All the tactics that we have used to advance our issues on the Tongass—organizing, marshalling the science, making alliances, engaging with allies in other parts of the country, administrative and legal challenges—will still be available to us; and third, we will make our involvement in the Roundtable as transparent and open as possible, so that all our members and allies are aware of the issues being debated and have plenty of opportunity to weigh in with concerns and suggestions.

One final point: Even though there are a few loud voices on the Roundtable calling for a mega-timber industry, no one other than the die-hards believe it is possible: The timber isn’t there, neither the nation nor the region would stand for the level of logging it would require, the Forest Service doesn’t have the budget to lay out the sales, globalization would crush an unsubsidized industry, and the economics of the twenty-first century will increasingly value intact eco-systems. History, in other words, is moving our way—and I think the Roundtable provides us the best forum, the best vehicle, and the best opportunity to grab hold of it and to keep the Tongass wild.