“Unproven, untested, and may not be effective” isn't one of the phrases you often see on the side of a box. If federal programs came in boxes, however, that's what the stewardship contracting program would say. Passed as a rider on the 3000-page Omnibus spending bill last month, the Forest Service's controversial project was made permanent for ten years, despite its status as a pilot program that is nowhere near completion and has no data available regarding its effectiveness.

Proponents of stewardship contracting argue that it would make forest restoration cheaper and more efficient. The pilot projects gave the Forest Service the opportunity to test out a number of means to achieve this end, including bundling forest restoration projects together into larger contracts, increasing the types of activities which can be contracted out, and combining restoration projects with the sale of forest products to the contractor.

Of the 84 pilots, only 5 have been completed – and a final evaluation has not been released on a single one. The national team of evaluators, which includes members of the Forest Service, the timber industry, and environmentalists, recommended in its December 2002 report to Congress that permanent authority not be granted until more evidence was available.

Congress would have been wise to listen. A number of the program's provisions essentially put the fox in charge of the henhouse. One provision allows loggers, instead of government officials, to determine which trees should be cut and which should be left standing in order to maintain a healthy forest. This presents a clear conflict of interest over the fate of large, fire-resistant trees that are vital to long-term forest health when left standing, but highly profitable to timber companies when cut.

Another provision, Goods for Services, allows the Forest Service to give the timber companies trees as compensation for the restoration work they perform. This provides yet another way for the Forest Service to continue giving away this public resource at below-market prices. Tracking financial losses under this program will be practically impossible, especially given the Forest Service's history of incompetent accounting practices.

In light of the Forest Service's record of squandering public funds on sweetheart deals for the timber industry, the potential for abuse of these authorities is extremely high. The whole point of the pilots was to figure out what worked, and what boundaries were necessary to maximize efficiency while protecting the forests. It's absurd that Congress would give this kind of authority to an agency that has been consistently labeled as vulnerable to fraud, abuse, waste, and mismanagement.

Because Congress didn't look both ways before crossing this street, taxpayers are likely to get hit. Stewardship contracting may make sense – but we will only know for sure after the pilot projects have been thoroughly evaluated and the Forest Service's auditing systems have been fully reorganized and reformed. By prematurely giving stewardship contracting the green light, Congress has missed the forest for the trees.