The Starker Lecture Series - Oregon State University

The Starker Lecture SeriesAnnounces a New Video-Tape

L 0Conversations on Sustainable ForestryJournalist Sally Duncan conducts lively interviews with three of 1990's Starkerguest lecturers in this hour-and-a-half video program. Produced at Oregon StateUniversity, the video includes interviews with:

Ross Squire, Silviculturist, Victoria, Australia, on theenvironmental and socioeconomic considerations necessaryto balance the use of native Australian forests.

Robert Lee, Social Scientist, University of Washington, on theissue of institutional stability; and

Niels Elers Koch, Danish Forest Research Institute,compares European forest practices with those of the U.S.

In these informal conversations, the participants provide insight into their perceptionsof the issues behind sustainable forestry, with both regional and internationalimplications

How to Order

Conversations on Sustainable Forestry is available for purchase for $35. Arrangements canalso be made to rent the program for $15 for a 2-week period. To order your copy, call or writeus at the Forestry Media Center, Peavy Hall, Room 248, Oregon State University, Corvallis,Oregon 9733 1-5702. Ph: (503) 737-4702. Checks or purchase orders accepted.

STARKER LECTURESSustainable Forestry:

Perspectives for the Pacific Northwest

College of ForestryOregon State UniversityCorvallis, Oregon

The theme of "sustainable for-estry' for the 1990 StarkerLectures is open to many in-

terpretations. For some, it meanssustaining the animals, vegetation,microbes, soils and water of forestecosystems. For others, it meanssustained yieldcontinuous sup-plyof wood products. And, forstill others, it may mean mainte-nance ofvisual aspects of "pristine,""undisturbed" forests on themountainsides and in the valleys.For me, a good working definitionof sustainable forestry is analogousto that for sustainable developmentas presented in the 1987"Brundtland Report," Our CommonFuture, by the World Commissionon Environment and Development.That is, sustainable forestry is for-est management that meets theneeds of the present without com-promising the abilities of futuregenerations to meet their ownneeds. This means sustaining theecological capacities of forests,while at the same time sustainingthe flows of goods and services onwhich our forest-based communi-ties, and all of us, depend. This isthe challenge before us in the Pa-cific Northwest todayto sustainthe forests and the communities of

Foreword

by James R. Boyle

Professor of Forest Resources

Our Starker lecturers,from a diverse set ofbackgrounds andperspectives, haveprovided us with a varietyof insights to whatsustainable forestrymight be for the PacificNorthwest.

people who depend directly on for-ests and supply the rest of us withforest products.

Our Starker lecturers, from adiverse set ofbackgrounds and per-spectives, have provided us with avariety of insights to what sustain-able forestry might be for the Pa-cific Northwest.

Ross Squire, silviculturist andforestry program administrator inVictoria, Australia, presents a com-prehensive program of forestry re-search and development thataddresses many of the same issuesthat we in the Northwest con-frontnative forests, wood supply,wildlife and aesthetics.

Robert Lee, Professor of socialscience in Forest Resources at theUniversity of Washington, shareshis scientific studies and insights ofthe social upheavals involved in ourcurrent forestry debates. He em-phasizes the personal, human as-pects of the struggles for sustainableforestry.

Norman E.Johnson,VicePresi-dent of Weyerhaeuser Company,presents a view of world-scale de-mands for and stresses on naturalresources and environmentalamenities. He challenges us to takea global view.

Finally, Niels Elers Koch, for-ester, social scientist and adminis-trator, gives usaviewof the durable,long-practiced forestry ofDenmarkand Europe. He stimulates us tothink about integrated, socially-based forest land uses versus exclu-sive, single-use approaches.

We think you will find food forthought and ideas for action in thetexts of our 1990 Starker lecturers.We hope they will stimulate you toparticipate with us in creating anappropriate vision of sustainableforestry for the Pacific Northwest,and the world.

Bruce Starker

T. J. Starker

El

Dedication

Bruce and Tj. Starker wereleaders of modern fore st man-agement and visionaries for

sustainable forestry in Oregon.Their tradition is carried on by theirfamilies and the staff of StarkerForests who work to sustain pro-ductive forests and healthy, vibrantcommunities in Oregon. TheStarker Lectures are sponsored bythe Starker family in memory ofTj. and Bruce.

T.J. was born in Kansas andlived his youth in Burlington, Iowa(hometown of Aldo Leopold). Hemoved with his family to Portlandin 1907 and soon began working inand studying forestry, graduatingin the first class of foresters at Or-egon Agricultural College in 1910.He then studied two years for aM.S. degree in Forestry at the Uni-versity of Michigan and returned toOregon to work for the U.S. ForestService. Subsequent employmentwith the forest products industry,and a variety of summerjobs whilehe was teaching forestry at O.A.C./O.S.C., gave T.J. broad and thor-ough experience in all aspects offorestry. T.J. began purchasing sec-ond-growth Douglas-fir forest landin 1936, the beginnings of the cur-rent Starker Forests. Through hiswork experiences, teaching forest

V

management, and extensive civicinvolvement, T.J. Starker had amajor influence on sound forestryand community development inOregon.

Bruce Starker studied for a for-estry degree from O.S.C. in 1940and an M.S. in Forestry from theYale School of Forestry in 1941.After service with the Coast Guard,Bruce joined his father, T.J., in ac-quiring and managing Oregon for-est land, always with an eye for soundreforestation, management andconservation for multiple benefitsand values. He worked with univer-sity, state, and federal forestry agen-cies, as well as with private industry,to advance reforestation, manage-ment and equitable taxation toencourage private forest manage-ment. Bruce continued the familytradition of active community ser-vice in many ways, including civicactivities, regional forestry work,and contributing to writing theOregon Forest Practices Act.

T.J. and Bruce Starker beganthe sound forest management andcommunity involvement that arecontinued by Bond and BarteStarker and Betty Starker Cameron.The Starkers exemplify the poten-tials and realities of sustainable for-estry.

Acknowledgements

We recognize the encouragement and support of DeanGeorge Brown of the College of Forestry, Dean EmeritusCarl Stoltenberg, and the College faculty, students andfriends who support the Starker Lectures. The creativityand dedication of Susan Lewis is evident in the logo,format, and publication of these lectures. Thanks also toGail Wells for providing editorial expertise. The StarkerLectures are made possible by gifts from the StarkerPartners in memory of T.J. and Bruce Starker.

VI

Table of Contents

The Forestry Profession Under Siege:Meeting the Challenge of Balancing Sustained WoodProduction and Ecosystem Conservation in the NativeForests of South-Eastern Australia

Ross0. Squire ........................................................ 1

Institutional Stability:A Requisite for Sustainable Forestry

RobertG. Lee ......................................................... 17

A Sustainable World

Norman E.Johnson .................................................33

Sustainable Forestry:Some Comparisons of Europe and the United States

Niels Elers Koch ......................................................41

vii

The Forestry Profession Under Siege:Meeting the Challenge of Balancing Sustained Wood

Production and Ecosystem Conservation in the NativeForests of South-Eastern Australia

Dr. Ross 0. Squire is Silviculturistand Administrator for the Depart-ment of Conservation and Envi-ronment, Victoria, Australia

by Ross 0. Squire

The forestry professionis under siege andforest managementand related land usedecisions are surroundedby controversy, conflict,confusion andconfrontation.

In Australia, there is a deep com-munity concern over whetherlogging should continue in na-

tiveforests (Squire etal. 99O) and,even, whether the forestry profes-sion should be entrusted with themanagement of those forests.

With native forest logging, theprimary concern is over the use ofthe clearfelling silvicultural systemand the removal of residual round-wood. Both practices have beencriticized strongly on environmen-tal and socio-economic grounds.

Briefly:

Silviculture is the use of eco-logical, economic and socialknowledge and practical ex-perience to manipulate for-est development to achieveexplicit sustainable benefitsspecified by management.

2. Clearfelling is the removalin one logging operation ofpractically all trees that are

not required for environ-mental purposes.

3. Residual roundwood is infe-rior quality timber, unsuit-able for use as normalsawlogs.

The clearfelling and residualroundwood removal issues arelinked. Some people believe thatclearfelling generates more residualroundwood than other silviculturalsystems, such as shelterwood andgroup selection, and that this couldbe used as a justification for intro-duction of broad scale wood chip-ping, either for export or to feedhighly capitalized, insatiablepulpmills.

The Challenge

This paper describes the chal-lenge to the forestry professionfrom the conservation movement,its focus on native forest manage-ment, its political and scientific set-ting in southeastern Australia, andthe potential pivotal importance toa besieged profession of a majormulti-disciplinary, cooperative re-search initiative in the state ofVictoria. This latter initiative is pres-ently termed the Value Adding andSilvicultural Systems Program(VSP). It is Australia's most signifi-cant native forest ecosystem man-agement research program.

Mistrust of the forestry profes-sion appears to be based on theassertion by extreme elements of awell-organized conservation move-ment that foresters are driven, es-sentially, by a desire to satisfi the

STARKER LECTURES 1990

wood production demands of a tim-ber industrywhich has scant regardfor long-term conservation of theenvironment. Moreover, this asser-tion is promoted, seeminglyuncritically, by the media. Conse-quently, the forestry profession isunder siege and forest manage-ment and related land-use decisionsare surrounded bycontroversy, con-flict, confusion and confrontation.It has even been suggested by someconservationists that forestersshould be excluded from scientificcommittees with responsibility foradvising Government on forestryissues!

The profession has respondedto the challenge by openly acknowl-edging the need for:

More effective use of exist-ing knowledge on the ecol-ogy, silviculture andmanagement of native for-ests;

2. Improved knowledge andstronger community involve-ment.

The profession has concededthat its past record in the balancedmanagement of Australia's nativeforests is not without blemish(Squire et al. 1987; Squire 1989),especially when measured bypresent standards (Dept. Cons. For.and Lands, 1988). There needs tobe more caution in developing for-est management practices:

Can research findings, of-ten from limited case stud-ies, really be reliablyextrapolated to the fullrange of climatic, geo-graphic and stand condi-tions (age, density, speciescomposi-tion,etc.) encoun-tered in practice?

2. Have we adequately definedthe environmental, eco-nomic and social criteria forevaluating the effectivenessof forest management prac-

tices in achieving the inter-dependent objectives of sus-tained wood production andecosystem conservation?

3. Are we achieving even ourwood production objectiveswith existing, preferred sil-vicultural systems such asclearfelling and seedtree,namely: is the forest reallybeing adequately regener-ated (density, distributionand species composition)following harvesting and isthere reliable informationon tree growth and qualityto guide future managementdecisions?

Is this information beingstored in a management in-formation system to facili-tate the retrieval anddistribution of data for thepurposes of forward plan-ning, technique evaluationand demonstrating account-ability?

In essence, can our profes-sionalism withstand the rig-orous scrutiny of anincreasingly sophisticatedand informed society?

In relation to improved knowledgeand stronger community involve-ment, we need more general recog-nition that forest ecosystems areextraordinarily complex and dy-namic energy systems, and that ourscientific understanding of the func-tioning of these systems is still verylimited, certainly in terms of un-derstanding and controlling theprocesses of change in relation toflora, fauna, soils, water, etc. Thereis an urgent need for a greatly in-creased allocation of resources toecosystem research and to linkedresearch on forest management andsocio-economic systems.

Importantly, this researchshould distinguish among scientific,political, financial and technologi-

2

cal constraints on forest manage-ment options. Scientific objectivitymust not be compromised byjudg-ments, perhaps subconscious, ofanticipated opposition on, say, fi-nancial grounds. The first require-ment is to define the scientificoptions and then to evaluate theseagainst the prevailing political, fi-nancial and technological con-straints. It is conceivable, forexample, that a scientific optionrejected, today, on safety or costgrounds could be accepted in a fewyears time because ofimprovementsin the safety of harvesting technol-ogy or because the community ismore prosperous and can afford topay more for timber products.

Victorias CooperativeResearch Initiative

In 1986, the Victorian Govern-ment initiated the Value Addingand Silvicultural Systems Program(VSP) to provide a state-wide frame-work for the development of moredetailed knowledge of the environ-mental and socio-economic effectsof forest management practices,and to provide a vehicle for pro-moting the cooperative spirit thatwill be essential for the success offorest management at the commu-nity level.

In many respects, Victoria,through VSP, has become the fo-cus for multi-disciplinary researchin southeastern Australia. VSP com-bines fundamental scientific re-search on the processes governingthe responses of forested lands todisturbance with large-scale, long-term forest experiments, and usessimulation modelling and systemsanalysis to integrate the findingsfor use in guiding forest resourceallocation and management deci-sions. It is the most significant co-operative scientific study of nativeforest ecosystems yet undertakenin Australia.

The main purpose of this pa-per is to provide an overview ofVSP, covering its organization,progress in planning and imple-

Ross 0. Squire The Forestry Profession Under Siege

menting the research, preliminaryfindings, and its potential to con-tribute to the high scientific objec-tivity and strong communityinvolvement needed to ensure thatdecisions on Australia's limitednative forest resource are truly inthe best interests of all Australians.However, it is necessary, first, toprovide a brief description of thepolitical and scientific setting forVSP, as follows:

1. The extent and importanceof Australia's forest re-sources.

2. Land allocation and forestmanagement planning forsustainable development.

3. Evolution of native forest sil-viculture in Victoria.

AUSTRALIA'S FORESTRESOURCES:POLITICS AND SCIENCE

The forests of Australia are ex-tremely limited relative to the sizeof the country and the demandsplaced upon them. Australia has anarea of some 769 million hectares,roughly equivalent to that of the 48contiguous states of the U.S.A.(Pellicane et. a! 1990). Australia'sforest resources comprise about 0.9million hectares of pine plantations,predominantly of radiata pine(Pinus radiata) , and about 12.5 mil-lion hectares of native eucalypt for-est that is presently dedicated forsustained yield timber production.This resource currently suppliesonly about 50 percent of the woodrequirements of the nation's 16million people, but underpins aforest products industrywhich con-tributes some $7.4 billion per yearto the national economy (Pellicaneet al. 1990). Australia's people arepredominantly located in large cit-ies on the southeastern coast.

The native temperate forestsof southeastern Australia generatemassive benefits to the community,

including the production of woodand water. There is enormous po-tential for these forests to make anincreasingly important economiccontribution through productionof timber for conversion to highvalue-added end uses, providedlong-term conservation of the for-est ecosystem can be assured.

The native forests of Victoriarange in productivity from themixed species forests of the coastaland foothill areas where soils areoften coarse-textured and infertile,the average annual rainfall is about500mm, and the merchantablemean annual volume increment(MAT) is presently about 2m3 perha, to the mountain forests wheresoils are often deep, fertile, clay-loams, the annual average rainfallmay exceed 2000mm, and the meanMAI is presently about 1 Om3per ha.The mountain ash (Eucalyptusregnans) forests ofVictoria and Tas-mania represent the pinnacle ofeucalypt development in southeast-ern Australia: under favorable con-ditions early height growth can be2 to 3m per year, and mature treesmay attain a height in excess oflOOm (Ashton, 1985). Eucalyptusregnansis the world's tallest flower-ing plant.

Land Allocation and ForestManagement Planning

The three most influential bod-ies advising Government on publicland allocation decisions in south-eastern Australia are the ResourceAssessment Commission (RAG)and the Australian Heritage Com-mission (AHC) atthe national level,and the Victorian Land Conserva-tion Council (LCC) at the statelevel. Victoria, through its TimberIndustry Strategy (TIS) released in1986 (Gov. of Vic. 1986), has alsoprovided leadership in terms ofintegrated planning, implementa-tion and monitoring of forest man-agement and research activities. Afeature of Victoria's TIS is the pro-vision for strong community par-ticipation.

Land Allocation

I. Resource AssessmentCommission (RAC).

The RAG was established bythe Commonwealth Governmentin 1989 when it passed the ResourceAssessment Commission Act. Toassist the resolution of vital ques-tions about the future ofAustralia'snatural resources, the RAC will in-vestigate and report on "the envi-ronmental, economic, financial,cultural and social implications ofmajor resource use proposals...where the term "use" includesuse for either conservation or de-

The debate presently raging in velopment or a combination ofAustralia on land allocation andforest management practices isstrongly focused on the public landestate. Today, some 200 years afterwhite settlement at Botany Bay inNew South Wales, public land com-prises only about 40% of the totalland area of southeastern Austra-lia. From the outset, the impact ofsettlement on Australia's native for-ests was massive (Land Conserva-tion Council, Victoria, 1988). Directcontrol of this estate is vested in thesix states and two mainland territo-ries that comprise the Common-wealth.

3

those options" (Resource Assess-ment Commission, 1990).

Australia's Prime Minister, Mr.Bob Hawke, immediately initiatedan inquiry by the RAG intoAustralia's forest and timber re-sources, with the following terms ofreference:

"I require the Resource As-sessment Commission toconduct an inquiry intooptions for the use ofAustralia's forest and tim-ber resources."


2. "The scope of the inquiryshall be to identify and evalu-ate options for the use ofthose resources."

3. "The report of the inquiry isto be given to me by 30 No-vember, 1991."

4. "The Commission shall takeinto account both the exist-ing management strategiesand alternative uses for for-estry resources, includingthe Forestry and ForestProd-ucts Industry Council(FAFPIC) Growth Plan andthe Australian ConservationFoundation (ACF) Alterna-tive Strategy."

The FAFPIC Growth Plan andthe ACF Alternative strategy aredescribed by the RAG (1990). TheFAFPIC option is based on contin-ued use of native forests, within theconstraints of a saw-log led forestmanagement regime, combinedwith a 66% expansion in plantation(softwood plus hardwoods) by theyear 2030. The ACF option is basedon supply of hardwoods from alarge expansion in hardwood (eu-calypt) plantations rather than con-tinued large-scale and intensivelogging of native forests. Therewould be no conversion of existingnative forest to plantation; land al-ready cleared for agriculture wouldbe used. "This option would phase-out native forest logging over 15 to30 years, except for restricted long-rotation logging of lower conserva-tion value forests for high qualitytimber."

The RAC is using an open in-quiry approach for identificationand evaluation of options. Its Chair-person, the Honourable Mr. Jus-tice Stewart, has emphasized thatthe proceedings should be open topublic scrutiny, be as informal aspossible, and that all relevant evi-dence and information will be ac-cepted, including, paintings andpoems submitted by children.

The decision whether to imple-ment any option identified by theCommission rests with the Com-monwealth Government. Notably,the Commonwealth exercises indi-rect but significant control over theStates through its predominantcontrol of the taxation system, ex-port licensing for timber products,and any public land accepted forWorld Heritage listing. Accord-ingly, the RAC report, due in No-vember 1991, will be of profoundimportance to the future use ofAustralia's native forests.

II. Australian HeritageCommission (AHC)

The AHC was established bythe Commonwealth Governmentin 1975 when it passed the "Austra-lian Heritage Commission Act." Itis the Commonwealth Govern-ment's policy advisory and admin-istrative body responsible for theNational Estate (Australian Heri-tage Commission, 1989). The Na-tional Estate is defined in legislationas "those places, being componentsof the natural environment of Aus-tralia or the cultural environmentof Australia, that have aesthetic,historic, scientific or social signifi-cance or other special value forpresent and future generations."

The ARC compiles and main-tains a Register of the National Es-tate, which already lists more than9,000 places, including extensiveareas of public land presently des-ignated to be used for wood pro-duction. Any individual, voluntarybody, or government, may nomi-nate a place for listing. There are"no direct legal constraints on own-ers of private property, or on Stateor local governments, caused bythe entry of that property in theRegister of the National Estate."However, much of the confronta-tion in Australia over whether log-ging should continue in nativeforests is presently centered on the700 forested places so far listed. Onone hand, forest management au-thorities and the timber industry

argue that such places can be man-aged for wood production withoutlong-term damage to the naturalenvironment or cultural history. Onthe other hand, AHC, itself, hastold the RAC that there should beno further logging of Australia'sundisturbed old growth forest com-ponents of the National Estate,namely those which have remainedlargely undisturbed since Europeansettlement. And conservationgroups are united in total opposi-tion to any logging in National Es-tate forest areas.

The scene is set now for a ma-jor confrontation between the tim-ber industry and conservationgroups over logging National Es-tate forest areas in eastern Victoriaand southeastern New South Wales.Emotion over this issue is driven, inpart, by a wrong perception thatNational Parks, from which loggingis excluded by well-accepted legis-lation ("common consent"), aresynonymous with National Estateareas.

Ill. Victoria's LandConservation Council

(LCC)

In August this year, the RAGadvised that Victoria was the envyof all other Australian states be-cause of its LCC, established as ameans of addressing the politicalproblems associated with the allo-cation of land between competingvalues.

The LCC was established bythe Victorian Government in 1970when it passed the Land Conserva-tion Act. It is an independent bodywith its own research staff, anditmakes recommendations to theGovernment with respect to theuse of public land in order to pro-vide for the balanced use of land inVictoria. The LCC has made some5000 recommendations to Govern-ment, and virtually all have beenaccepted. In many respects, it haspioneered the concept of publicparticipation to improve the qual-ity and acceptance of decisions on


land use: "participation can keeppublic authorities honest, humane,and thoughtful, and more consid-erate of the people they are serv-ing."

Forest Management Planning

The management of native for-ests in south-eastern Australia hasfollowed the classical path of ex-ploitation, control and active man-agement (Squire et al. 1987; LandConservation Council, 1988). Inthe first half of this century, theneed for effective control of earlyexploitation led to reservation offorests and the introduction of con-trols over logging. In the latter halfof this century, there has been in-creasing community awareness ofthe finite nature of the forest re-source and the diverse benefits itcan provide. The successful man-agement of these forests is now atask oftremendous importance anda major challenge to the professionand practice of forestry.

Forest management require-ments are becoming increasinglymore sophisticated, more resourcedemanding and, therefore, morechallenging. Success will dependon effective planning, implemen-tation and monitoring of manage-ment activities and linked researchto improve our knowledge of theenvironmental and socio-economicconsequences of forest manage-ment decisions. Victoria's TimberIndustry Strategy (TIS), released in1986, addresses both needs by:

1. Specifiing the key criteriafor the management of na-tive forest, including mul-tiple-use, dominance ofsawlog production, environ-mental care, public partici-pation and the planningscheme for achieving thesecriteria.

2. Initiating the Value Addingand Silvicultural SystemsProgram (VSP) to provide astate-wide, multi-disciplinary

research framework for thedevelopment of improvedknowledge.

Evolution of Native ForestSilviculture in Victoria

Victoria, Australia's smallestmainland state, has an area of about28 million hectares and a popula-tion of about 4.3 million. The pub-lic estate of native forests in Victoriacomprises some 7.4 million beet-ares ofwhich some 4.7 million hect-ares are available and suitable fortimber production. Victoria's Ha-

Forest managementrequirements arebecoming increasinglymore sophisticated, moreresource demanding and,therefore, morechallenging.

tive forests currently sustain a$2.75billion per year timber industryemploying 25,000 people. By com-parison, Oregon has only a slightlylarger land area but has about twicethe area suitable for timber pro-duction and employs about fourtimes as many people.

The ever-present risk of exten-sive and catastrophic wildfires is amajor factor to he considered inthe development of silvicultural sys-tems for wood production from eu-calypt forests. Lightning is oftenthe catalyst for such wildfires and,once started, they may rapidly coverenormous areas. Fortunately, wild-fires are often followed by the de-velopment of dense regenerationof eucalypts.

The natural processes of re-generation in eucalypt forests areinitiated by a wildfire, usually in-tense, which not only removes theunderstory, but provides a bareseedbed and induces a fall of seed

5

from capsules in the canopy. Thesenatural processes form a fundamen-tal benchmark for the developmentof regeneration silviculture in themanaged forest.

The silviculture of Victoria'snative forests evolved slowly out ofthe exploitive era to the formalapplication of silvicultural systemsfollowing the formation of the For-ests Commission in 1918 and theappointment of experienced for-esters to implement a comprehen-sive Forests Act. The existing"Sawmillers Selection" approachwas shifted to a seedtree system thatused soil disturbance during log-ging and occasional burning offelled heads for seedbed prepara-tion. The devastating wildfires of1939 destroyed large areas of themature and overmature forest, andprovided the impetus for the initia-tion of intensive research in the1950s to maintain and improve pro-ductivity. This research was domi-nated by the need to developcost-effective regeneration meth-ods, and an impressive amount hadbeen achieved by the early 1980swith very limited resources.

By the 1960s, the clearfellingsilvicultural system had evolvedfrom research and operational ex-perience into the mainline harvest-ing and regeneration system for awide range of forest types inVictoria. Commonly, this systemuses regeneration from seed ap-plied directly, by hand or from theair, onto a seedbed prepared byautumn slashburning. However, aspreviously mentioned, theclearfelling system and the linkedpractice of residual roundwoodremoval both have been criticizedon environmental and socio-eco-nomic grounds. Victoria's TimberIndustry Strategy identifies threemain objections to clearfelling:

1. It is seen as damaging to theenvironment in terms oflandscape, water quality,flora, and fauna habitat.


2. Itis condemned as an ineffi-cient method of timber har-vesting because it cangenerate a concentration ofwaste wood unsuitable foruse as sawlogs.

3. The residual roundwood itproduces is cited asjustifica-lion for the introduction ofexport woodchipping.

VALUE ADDING ANDSILVICULTURAL SYSTEMSPROGRAM (VSP)

Introduction

The Victorian Government,through its TIS and its acceptanceof the key findings of an indepen-dent review (Gov. of Vic. 1989) ofan environmental effects statement(EES) on residual roundwood re-moval, has made a strong commit-ment, via the Department ofConservation and Environment(DCE), to undertake the multi-dis-ciplinary research required to an-swer two key questions in relationto the management of Victoria'svaluable native forests:

Clearfelling: Can a betterbalance between environ-mental and economic con-siderations be achieved withsilvicultural systems otherthan clearfelling?

2. Residual roundwood re-moval: Can residual round-wood removal be integratedwith existing sawlog-onlyhar-vesting without unaccept-able environmental andsocio-economic conse-quences? In particular, whatis the state of the environ-ment before and after har-vesting for sawlogs and, then,what are the additional ef-fects of taking the residualroundwood?

Research Program

The VSP consists of twoprojects: the Silvicultural SystemsProject (SSP) (Squire 1990), initi-ated in mid-1986 to address theclearfelling question; and the ValueAdding Utilization System (VAUS)Trial initiated in late 1989 to ad-dress the residual roundwood ques-tion (see also Squire et al. 1990).Both are real-world projects, closelyintegrated with field operations,and have already achieved high sci-entific credibility and strong com-munity involvement.

The VSP research involves threemain systems:

1. Forest EcosystemEucalypt regeneration,growth and healthFloraFaunaSoilsAquatic systemsDiseaseClimate

2. Forest Management SystemSilvicultureOperationsManagement

3. Socio-economic SystemsCommercial forestrySocialEnvironmental

Organizing and ManagingResearch

The VSP is being planned, man-aged and monitored by four groups(Figure 1):

1. A Program Manager andTeam from DCE to plan,implement and report theresearch.

2. An Expert Advisory Group,composed of DCE expertsand matching external ex-perts, mainly from the Corn-

monwealth Scientific andIndustrial Research Organi-zation (CSIRO) and univer-sities, to advise on the overalldesign and provide a forumfor on-going scientific reviewand guidance.

3. A Facilitation Committee,composed of senior execu-tives from throughout DCE(Forests, Flora and Fauna,Water Resources and LandProtection, Fisheries, Re-gional Management), to en-sure that VSP continues toobtain strong support andguidance at the corporatelevel.

4. A Monitoring Committee toreview the program and ad-vise the Victorian Govern-ment's Minister forConservation and Environ-ment. This committee is in-dependently chaired andcomposed ofrepresentativesfrom conservation groups,industry, unions, local com-munity groups, external re-search organizations, andfederal and state depart-ments.

Specific research and opera-tional inputs are delegated to DCEgroups and external organizationsfor implementation in accord withjointly developed contracts cover-ing objectives, design, measure-ments, reporting, etc.

Planning and ScientificDesign

The planning and design ofboth SSP and the VAUS Trial haveinvolved the integration of Austra-lia-wide specialist inputs frompeople involved in research andoperational aspects of silvicultureand forest utilization. The result isa fully documented research anddevelopment program based on thebest possible advice from withinthe Department and from outside,


I

Support ServicesI

/

I Minister DOE I

Director LFD

IProgram Manager

Monitoring Committee

//

I

// I

IExpert Advisory Group

Field Operations V PolicyAdviceI_____ VRegional Management k

(RM Orbost) -J Program Team

Planning, Coordination, Integration

I Central Coordinator I

Environmental Silvicultural Socio-EconomicCoordinator Coordinator Coordinator

Ash Forests Mixed SpeciesForests

I

II

Research & Operational Support

Modelling and SystemsAnalysis Coordinator

Delegated responsibility to DOE research and operational support groups andexternal organizations (OSIRO, University of Melbourne, ANU etc.) forimplementation of research funded in accord with jointly developed 'contracts"covering: e.g., study specifications, schedules, and reporting.

Figure 1. Organizational arrangements for the Value Adding and SilviculturalSystems Program (VSP)


IIIJII III IL

Seaview site Central HighlandsOtway Region

te)sland

Figure 2. Map of Victoria showing the 16 field regions used for integrated natural resourcemanagement and the main VSP study areas.

and vetted openly by all groupswith an interest in, and commit-ment to, the conservation of for-ests. It combines high scientificobjectivity and strong communityinvolvement in addressing the keyquestions on clearfelling and re-sidual roundwood removal.

Silvicultural Systems Project(SSP)

The SSP (Squire 1990) com-menced in 1986/87 with pi-lot trials across the State, andnow covers more than 1,500hectares (Figure 2)

It is presently based in themountain ash forests of theOtway Ranges and CentralHighlands, and in the mixedspecies forests of EastGippsland. In 1990/91,about 80 scientists and tech-

nicians from DCE and ex-ternal organizations willhave a significant involve-ment in SSP. The 1990/91budget allocation is $2.1million.

Good progress has beenachieved in the Central Highlandsand East Gippsland in implement-ing the replicated experimentaldesign to evaluate eucalypt regen-eration, operational safety, and cost,for a wide range of harvesting andregeneration treatments, and in theOtway Ranges in implementing pre-treatment base-line studies of flora,fauna, aquatic systems, etc., priorto the in-depth environmentalevaluation ofclearfelling and alter-natives on an operational scale.

The SSP is essentially lookingat the simplest types of silvicultur-alsystems because it is mainly con-cerned with the long-term eco-nomic and environmental out-

comes of different regenerationmethods, namely, regenerationfellings and seedbed preparation.

It needs to be recognized thatwhile the clearfelling method hasbeen criticized on environmentaland economic grounds, it is basedon a considerable amount of highquality research and operationalexperience. Importantly, it satisfiesthe biological requirements for suc-cessful eucalypt regeneration andis operationally very efficient.

The SSP seeks to expand thesilvicultural options available toforest managers to allow a moreflexible approach to balancing eco-nomic and environmental objec-tives. SSP covers the full VSPresearch domain of ecological,management, and socio-economicstudies and has three implementa-tion components; research, model-ling, and development.

Research in the forest studyareas (Figure 2) has emphasis on


two forest types: mountain ash (Eu-calyptus regrians) : and low elevationmixed species (LEMS), mainly ofsilvertop (Eucalyptus sieberi) , brownstringybark (Eucalyptus baxteri) andwhite stringybark (Eucalyptusgloboidea) ,but with six or more othereucalypts. In the LEMS forests,unravelling the complex dynamicsof up to nine eucalypt and associ-ated species during stand develop-ment is a major challenge.

The research strategy involvesinitial selection of silvicultural sys-tems for comparison withclearfelling, and made accordingto two main criteria: new systemscan be implemented within ac-cepted occupational health andsafety guidelines; and systems reli-ably provide adequate eucalypt re-generation at an acceptable cost.Systems that meet these criteria willthen be evaluated, along with theclearfelling system, using an ex-panded environmental investiga-tion covering flora, fauna, soils andaquatic systems, and aesthetics. Thisapproach is the most cost-effectivebecause the full environmentalstudies that can require huge re-sources will only need to be con-ducted on the systems that satisfythe stipulated basic criteria.

Accordingly, the research com-ponent has two phases differing inresearch emphasis and scale:Phase 1 is mainly concerned withsafety, eucalypt regeneration andcosts on, essentially, an experimen-tal scale. Phase 2 emphasizes assess-ing the magnitude and importanceof environmental effects on an op-erational scale.

Both phases involve long-termstudies. In addition to guiding theselection of silvicultural systems forevaluation in Phase 2, Phase 1 willalso provide valuable long-term dataon, for example, the effects of dif-ferent harvesting and regenerationtreatments on tree growth, and stemdegrade resultingfrom felling dam-age.

Phase 1 uses a replicated de-sign for statistical evaluation of awide range of harvesting and re-

generation treatments to provide asound statistical basis for selectingsilvicultural systems for testing onan operational scale in Phase 2.Where appropriate, comparisonsare being made between seedbedpreparation using fire (slashburn-ing) and techniques that excludefire. The Phase 1 treatments beingtested in 50 year-old, 65m tallregrowth mountain ash forests atTanjil Bren in Victoria's CentralHighlands are:

Clearfelling20 hectare coupe, with fire10 hectare coupe, with fire4 hectare coupe, with andwithout fire

SeedtreeRetain 5 to 10 percent ofthe basal area, with andwithout fire

o Shelterwood (without fire)Retain 30 percent of thebasal areaRetain 50 percent of thebasal areaRetain 100 percent of thebasal area

SelectionLarge group(with and without fire)2 hectare (l4Oni x 140m)Medium group(with and without fire)0.49 hectare (7Omx 70m)0.25 hectare (5Omx 70m)

- Small group (withoutfire)0.09 hectare (30m x 30m)0.04 hectare (20m x 20m)0.01 hectare (l0mxi0m)0.00 hectare

- Strip (with and withoutfire)2 hectare (400m x 50m)

Wildfire (Natural system)

The selection treatments rep-resent conditions ranging from"Single Tree Selection" (lOm xlOm) to the upper limit of "GroupSelection" (140m x 140m), the

latter being the largest opening thatcould be expected to be seededadequately by natural seedfall (i.e.,about 2 times tree height). A smallwildfire adjacent to the Tanjil Brenstudy area has, fortuitously, allowed"opportunistic" studies of the natu-ral process of regeneration.

The design allows for each treat-ment to be replicated at least twicein successive years, requiring a totalof about 70 treatment units and anet area of 170 hectares. It allowsfor statistical comparison of treat-ments by both analysis of varianceand regression analysis, the latterfor the influence of opening sizeand overwood retention.

Also, the scope for improvedprecision using analysis of co-vari-ance is being explored. It is pos-sible to use digital terrain analysis(DTA) to obtain treatment-specificdata on physical co-variates such aspotential radiation input and soilwetness.

Phase 2 combines forest ex-perimentation (prospective stud-ies) and surveys (retrospectivestudies). Forest experimentationuses an unreplicated design inwhich each silvicultural system, in-cluding an unharvested control, willbe applied to a single unit of forest(i.e., stand) with a gross area of upto 50 hectares. Each treatment unitwill be calibrated and character-ized for a minimum of three yearsbefore it is treated to establishbaseline values ft)r flora, soils, wa-ter (paired catchments design),etc., against which changes will bemeasured and evaluated.

Manyfauna species have a natu-ral range greater than that coveredby the treatment area. Hence, for-est experimentation is comple-mented by surveys of sites withknown histories of forest distur-bances such as logging or wildfire.Hence, advantage is taken of exist-ing stand diversity.


Modelling

High scientific objectivity (veri-fiable "facts") is offundamental im-portance in providing a crediblebasis for future decisions on the useofVictoria's native forests for woodproduction and the managementpractices used. Because forest eco-systems are so complex and dy-namic, high scientific objectivitycannot be achieved without model-ling combined with effective moni-toring of operational outcomes.

Scientifically and statisticallyvalid quantitative data can be ob-tained from small-scale, highly rep-licated field experiments on soils,flora, etc. (but not fauna). How-ever, extrapolation to the full rangeof geographical and seasonal con-ditions likely to be encountered inpractice would always be to someextent an act of faith.

Therefore, a computer-basedecological simulation model is be-ing developed as a basis for predict-ingthe small-scale (i.e., stand level)effects of different silvicultural sys-tems in the field. For defined silvi-cultural inputs covering rotationlength, size and arrangement ofopenings in space and time, regen-eration period, felling cycle, seed-bed preparation, etc., the model isto predict the annual state of theecosystem in terms of eucalypt re-generation, tree growth and qual-ity, flora, fauna, soils, water, etc..

Visual effects of timber harvest-ing generate considerable publicconcern and are an important cri-terion for evaluating silviculturalsystems.

Computervideo image captureand painting techniques are beingdeveloped to create accurate andreliable visual simulations ofchanges in the landscape throughtime under different silviculturalsystems. These simulations will beused for environmental perceptionresearch to model the subjectiveresponses of different communitygroups.

Development

In SSP, development has twomain objectives:

Immediate, on-line develop-ment to ensure that thePhase 1 findings are usedspeedily to improve existingoperational systems and, im-portantly, to define and de-velop silvicultural systemswith clear potential as alter-natives to clearfelling, forevaluation in Phase 2 andbeyond.

2. Long-term monitoring totest the predictions of thecomputer-based simulationmodel.

It needs to be recognized thatSSP is a long-term project. How-ever, the Phase 1 studies at TanjilBren and Cabbage Tree and theSimulation Modelling initiative arealready producing some interest-ing preliminary findings that arechallenging some "traditional"views on:

1. Safety and costs of harvest-ing and regeneration opera-tions.

2. Limiting effects of competi-tion and seedbed conditionson the establishment of eu-calypt regeneration fromseed.

3. Relative importance of"shel-ter" and food in influencingwildlife populations inmountain forests.

4. The nature and degree offelling damage required toinduce significant stem de-grade and loss of merchant-able volume.

Three preliminary findings oneucalypt regeneration are of par-ticular note:

10

1. There is considerable poten-tial to use natural regenera-tion systems for biologicaland economic advantage.

2. There is operational poten-tial to manipulate speciescomposition ofregenerationthrough direct manipula-tion of the seedcrop on theretained trees.

3. There is much scope for lessreliance on slashburning forseedbed preparation, espe-cially in Victoria's extensivemixed species eucalypt for-ests of East Gippsland. Dis-turbed soil is a receptiveseedbed, and often logging,per se, provides an adequateamount and distribution ofdisturbed soil. Hence,slashburning might not beneeded. However, there isanothervery important man-agement consideration.Slashburning, by reducingthe fine fuel is, of course,perceived to have an impor-tantfire protection role. Thisperception requires testing.The advantages of notslashburning are: the costof seedbed preparation isavoided; there is no risk of awildfire developing from anescaped "silvicultural" burn;there is no atmospheric p01-lution; there is less risk ofsoil erosion; and the inevi-table loss of some nutrientsduring burning (volatiliza-tion and convection of par-ticulate matter) is avoided.

Value Adding UtilizationSystem (VAUS) Trial

The VAUS Trial was initiatedin August 1989 with a DCE reviewof the independent report (Govt.ofVic. 1989) on the environmentaland socio-economic effects of re-sidual roundwood removal and theGovernment's assessment of that


report. Detailed planning corn- 2. Preparation ofdetailed study tion and characterizationrnenced in Novernber 1989. It is specifications covering the (flora, fauna, soils, fish, tim-presently based in the mixed spe- full VSP research domain, her, etc.) to provide the op-cies forests ofEast Gippsland, where The scope and complexity erati on al and scientificit will be largely confined, of the proposed research is foundation required for the

Whilst the trial is being de- shown by the following pro- substantial research inputssigned to provide a framework for visional outlines: planned for 199 1/92.long-term studies, the major inputswill be made by November 1995, Terrestrial vertebrate Integration and Application ofi.e., overaperiod ofaboutsixyears. fauna Research Findings andMajor reports are required by Gov- On-site effects of harvest-

Operational Experienceernment after two, four, and six ing;years. The first report is due in Effects of scale and pat-November 1991. The final report tern of harvesting; The findings from the corn-will provide crucial input to the Development of predictive plex research and operational in-Environmental Effects Statement models offauna density dis- puts to VSP, and from other related

required for the pulpmill proposal tribution; research, will be integrated usingfor East Gippsland, namely, on the Effects ofharvesting on un- modelling linked to a decision sup-

environmental and socio-economic common species. port system. To be effective, thiseffects of the wood demand gener- Socio-economics procedure will need to be incorpo-ated "upstream" of the mill. Commercialforestryevalu- rated into an overall forest man-

The initial inputs have involved ation: comprehensive fi agement system that also includesclose co-operation between the VSP nancial appraisal; effective monitoring and feedback

Program Team, the VSP Expert Social evaluation: employ- on the success of field operationsAdvisory Group, and field planning ment, tourism, commer- (Figure 3). This will enable moni-and operations staff in East cial viability of sawmills, toring of the effectiveness of man-

Gippsland (Orbost Region, Re- etc.; agementpracticesagainstenviron-gional Management). Environmental evaluation: mental and social criteria and, in a

contingent valuation us- wider sense, provide for account-Progress has been in four main ing, for example, option ability to the community.areas, as follows: value, existence value and A long-term commitment to

bequest value. this interactive approach will be1. Planningandimplementing essential for success in balancing

apilottrialinEastGippsland 3. Strong community involve- forest conservation and the woodto provide a sound opera- mcmi through the Monitor- production requirements of our in-tional foundation for the re- ing Committee. The cooper- creasingly sophisticated society.search: ative spirit has been The immediate priority for VSP is

outstanding, marked by an the development of a decision sup-

'Specifications for residual open, honestand intelligent port system incorporating the bestroundwood participation in the devel- knowledge and practical experi-Coupe (management unit) opment of objectives, de- ence available on the silviculturemanagement procedures sign, research priorities, and Victoria's mountain ash forests.Wood supply scheduling resource requirements. Theand contractor arrange- Chairman, Professor Marg- Outlook for VSPments aret Cameron, has initiatedRoading requirements; valuable dialogue with the The Value Adding and Silvicul-Sawlog preparation and Victorian Minister for Con- tural Systems Program (VSP) is thegrading; servation and Environment, largest and most complex nativeWood measurements and and with the Resource As- forest research program under-commercial accounting sessmentCommissionatthe taken in Australia. It has strongsystems; federal level, support in Australia and will pro-Residual roundwood yield vide valuable guidance in settingestimates; 4. The Victorian Government the context for coordination with

'"Sawlog-driven" harvest- has allocated $1.4 million similar research beginning in theing. for the VAUS Trial in 1990/ United States ofAmerica. Both SSP

9l,sufficientto complete the and the VAUS Trial have some im-Pilot Trial and the site selec- portant long-term components,


but, given adequate funding, withinfive years these projects shouldmake a substantial contribution toreducing the controversy, conflictand confusion presently surround-ing land-use decisions on the fu-ture of the limited but extremelyvaluable native forest resource insoutheastern Australia.

Given the national significanceof VSP, there is a strong argumentfor a tripartite funding arrange-ment involving the State Govern-me-nts, the Commonwealth Govern-ment, and industry. There is a com-pelling incentive for industry tosupport the very research whichwill ensure that future decisions onthe use of native forests for woodproduction, and the managementpractices used, are based on firmscientific grounds with full com-munity and industry involvementin the analysis of economic, envi-ronmental, and social conse-quences. Accordingly, a proposal isbeing developed for funding un-der the Commonwealth Govern-ment's recent initiative to establishCo-operative Research Centres(CRC). The proposed title for theCRC is "Management of ForestedLands for Sustainable Develop-ment." This proposal will build onthe strong record of cooperativeresearch established since the in-ception of VSP. It is planned toextend this co-operation to includethe Oregon State University andthe U.S. Forest Service.

CONCLUSION

Figure 3 illustrates the concep-tual framework for achieving moreeffective forest management, build-ing enduring trust in the forestryprofession, and ensuring that deci-sions on the future of Australia'slimited native forests are truly inthe best interests of all Australians.The multi-disciplinary researchbeing undertaken by VSP is a fun-damental building block for thesuccessful development of thisframework.

The three key requirements forthe success of the forestry profes-sion in balancing the relationshipbetween our communities and theirforests are community involvement,high scientific objectivity and ad-equate resources.

Strong community involve-ment is essential. The communitymust be involved in identifying re-search priorities, reviewing the re-search process, and assisting in thecritical decisions on implementingthe findings in the real world. TheVSP Monitoring Committee pro-vides an excellent model for suchcommunity involvement.

Forest management decisionswill always be based on a mixture ofobjective ecological, economic andsocial knowledge, and subjectivejudgement. Management decisionsmust reflect the socio-economicand, therefore, political imperativesof the day. But, they must not do soat the expense ofscientific objectiv-ity. Otherwise, dogma will rule andthe profession and its science will

become irrelevant. Forest manage-ment practices could be driven byconservation pressures that havelittle or nothing to do with scienceother than circumscribing its prac-tice through appeals to the emo-tions and fears of a confused public.

Therefore, the extent to whichmanagement decisions are basedon subjective judgements must bemade perfectly clear. Clear distinc-tions must be made among the sci-entific, political, financial, andtechnological constraints on forestmanagement options.

Adequate resources must bemade available for the increasinglyintensive research, planning andoperational inputs required forsuccess in achieving a balance be-tween economic and environmen-tal considerations, whilst resolvingsocial antagonism towards forestry.At a minimum, there must be ad-equate resources for:

1. Research-based on an inte-grated approach combiningwell-designed, long-term

12

field trials, process-based ex-planatory studies, and com-puter-based modelling andsystems analysis.

2. Development-to ensure thatexisting and new knowledgeis speedily and effectivelyconverted into improvedaction on the ground in for-est ecosystems.

3. Operations to ensure thatthere is consistent success inplanning, implementingand monitoring forest man-agement prescriptions; theallocation of resourcesshould be based on the con-siderable community ben-efits generated by nativeforests and the additionalresources needed for successin an era ofincreasing scien-tific input to forest manage-ment (Squire and Campbell:In Squire 1989).

4. Management informationsystems to ensure that thereis immediate feedback, re-view and re-developmentbased on rigorous fieldmonitoring of the effective-ness of forest managementpractices in meeting clearlydefined environmental andsocio-economic standards.

The imperatives of communityinvolvement, scientific objectivityand adequate resources must belinked with integrated educationaction to achieve a continuing im-provementin the effectiveness andacceptance of forest managementpractices. At the professional level,integrated education action shouldinvolve field practitioners, plannersand research scientists in the on-going and open review and rede-velopment of forest managementpractices that are essential for con-sistency and cost-effectiveness inbalancing explicitwood productionand conservation objectives.


Identify critical processes Identify critical statelikely to be influenced by variables likely to besilvicultural/management influenced by silvicultural/inputs, management inputs.(e.g., N mineralization) (e.g., soil fertility)

Existing knowledgeand extern al inputs

/-termProcess-based expory field experimentsstudies with CSIRO, CONCEPTUAL by DOEuniversities, etc. MODEL

WORKINGRefine model --->MODEL <- Refine model

+Refine model Predict silvicultural and

management effects

DECISION SUPPORTSYSTEM (DSS)

(e.g., Expert system)

Implement the decision

FIELD MONITORINGMonitor reliability of model

predictions against environmentaland socio-economic criteria, (e.g.,

timber production, flora, soil,water, etc.)

Cooperative inputs<- involving DOE, community

groups, industry, etc.

MANAGEMENT INFORMATIONSYSTEM

Oentral storage of field monitoring datafor review and refinement of the model

and, in a wider sense, for accountabilityto the community.

Figure 3. Integration of research findings and practical experience to improve native-forestmanagement.

13


Failure to meet these require-ments for community involvement,high scientific objectivity, adequateresources and integrated educationaction could mean that our profes-sion will become irrelevant and thatmuch ofAustralia's valuable nativeforests would no longer be avail-able for wood production. Such anoutcome would, at present, be sci-entifically unsustainable, and assuch be unacceptable to the profes-sion and inconsistent with two keypolicy principles adopted byAustralia's Resource AssessmentCommission, namely:

"Resource use decisionsshould seek to optimize thenet benefits to the commu-nity from the nation's re-sources...," and

"Conservation is the man-agement of the human useof the biosphere so that itmay yield the greatest sus-tainable development topresent generations whilemaintaining its potential tomeet the needs and aspira-tions of future generations."

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledgethe numerous people from withinand outside the DepartmentofCon-servation and Environment (DCE)who have influenced this paper;through their involvement in thecontinuing rigorous discussionsand debates they are guiding theValue Adding and Silvicultural Sys-tems Program (VSP). Specialacknowledgement is due to Dr.David Flinn, Manager, Forests Re-search and Dr. Rob Campbell, Se-nior Silviculturalist, VSP, for strongpersonal and scientific support overmany years.

I am most grateful for the sup-port of Kevin Wareing, Acting Di-rector of Forests, who stronglysupported my application to par-ticipate in the Starker Lectures andto Len Foster, Director General of

DCE, who approved that applica-tion. I am also grateful for the pro-fessional guidance and strongsupport of Dr. Bob Smith, DeputyDirector General (Water Resourcesand Land Protection, Forests, andFisheries) and Barrie Dexter,former Assistant Director, (ForestManagement and Research).

Finally, I wish to acknowledgethe support of the College of For-estry, Starker Forests, and otherswho have sponsored the StarkerLectures in memory of T.J. Starkerand Bruce Starker. Professor JimBoyle, who organized the lectures,deserves special mention for invit-ing me to participate and for lead-ing his colleagues in providingoutstanding support, hospitalityand professional stimulus duringmy stay in Corvallis.

B i hi i ogra phy

Ashton, D.H. 1985. The root andshoot development of Eucalyp-tus regnans F. Muell. Aust. J.Bot. 23: 867-887.

Australian Heritage Commission.1989. Annual report, 1988-89.Australian Government Pub-lishing Service, Canberra.155 p.

Department of Conservation, For-ests and Lands. 1988. Code offorest practices for timber pro-duction. Government Printer,Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.41 p.

Department of Conservation For-ests and Lands. 1988. Environ-ment effects statement.Proposed trial of the ValueAdding Utilization System.Central Gippsland and EastGippsland Forest ManagementAreas. June 1988. 207 p.

Government of Victoria. 1986.Victoria Timber Industry Strat-

14

egy. Government Printer,Melbourne. 104 p.

Government of Victoria. 1989. In-quiry into the proposed trial ofthe Value Adding UtilizationSystem, Central and EastGippsland Forest ManagementAreas under the Environmen-tal Effects Act:

1.Joint ministerial press re-lease

2. Recommendations ofMin-ister for Planning and En-vironment.

3.Panel report as submittedto Minister for Planningand Environment by:Gruen, F.H.; Leslie, A.;Smith, A.)

Land Conservation Council. 1988.Statewide assessment of publicland use. Victoria, Australia.July 1988. 344 p.

Pellicane, P.J., G.W. Smith, and P.MJuniper, . 1990. Forest prod-ucts industry in south east Aus-tralia. J. Inst. Wood Sci. 12(1):7-13.

Resource Assessment Commission.1990. Australia's forest and tim-ber resources. Backgroundpaper. March 1990. 79 p.

Squire, R.O. (comp.). 1989. A re-view of monitoring methodsand regeneration practices inVictoria's mountain eucalyptforests. I. Executive summaryand recommendations (Squire,R.O.; Campbell, R.G.). l5p. II.Proceedings. 230 p.

Squire, R.O. 1990. Report on theprogress of the SilviculturalSystems Proj ect.July 1986-June1989. 84p.

Squire, R.O., R.G. Campbell, K.J.Wareing, G.R. Featherston.1987. The mountain ash (Euca-lyptus regnans, F. Muell) forestsofVictoria: ecology, silviculture

Ross 0. Squire The Forestry Profession tinder Siege

and management forwood pro-duction. Proc. Biennial Con-ference, "Forest Managementin Australia." Institute of For-esters ofAustralia. SeptemberOctober 1987. Perth, WesternAustralia. p. 63-87.

Squire R.O., D.W Flinn, R.G.Campbell. 1990. Silviculturalresearch for sustained woodproduction and biosphere con-servation in the pine planta-tions and native eucalypt forestsof southeastern Australia. Proc.TEA Workshop, "Long-term,field trials to assess environ-mental impacts of harvesting,"February 18-25, 1990. Florida,U.S.A. 30 p.

15

Institutional Stability:A Requisite for Sustainable Forestry

Dr. Robert Lee is a social scientistand Professor of Forest Resourcesat the University of Washington,Seattle.

By Robert G. Lee

Sustainable forestryfocuses on the multipleecological functions offorests and includespeople as part of theecological system to besustained.

The forestry profession wasfounded on the moral impera-tive of sustainability. As early

as 1713, German foresters used theterm "sustention," and they havesubsequently defined its basic con-cept as "to maintain the forest andits effects and performances alsofor the generations to come"(WiebeckeandPeters 1984,p. 177).The principle of sustainability pre-ceded the emergence of autono-mous professions found in themodern state and guided officersof royal counts assigned responsi-bilityforforest conservation (Young1979, Perlin 1989). Hence, the cur-rent concern with sustainability issimply the reworking of an inher-ited idea.

The idea of sustainable forestryis relatively simple. I define it as theperpetuation of essential ecologi cal pro-cesses while also providing goods andservices needed by people, both now andin the future. Sustainable forestrybuilds upon ancient traditions ofland stewardship (including some

originating from Old Testamentcovenants) by extending to futuregenerations the productive capac-ity and ecological resilience ofland-based ecosystems.

The ideal of sustainability hasbeen extended from the forestryprofession to issues of broader en-vironmental management by con-temporary leaders concerned withglobal warming, ozone depletionin the upper atmosphere, tropicaldeforestation, industrial pollution,and other threats to localized eco-systems and the biosphere. A com-mitment to "sustainable develop-ment" is the central theme of theBrundtland Commission report,Our Common Future. This reportdefines the basic principle of sus-tainable development as the "abil-ity.. [of humanity] . . to ensure thatit meets the needs of the presentwithout compromising the abilityof future generations to meet theirown needs" (World Commissionon Environment and Development1987, p. 8).

When placed within this globalecological context, sustainable for-estry has taken on broader mean-ing than was found in oldercommitments to sustained yield(Lee 1990a). Sustainable forestryfocuses on the multiple ecologicalfunctions of forests and includespeople as part of the ecologicalsystem to be sustained. TheBrundtland Commission reportexplicitly includes humans as partof the biosphere. Contemporarysustainable forestry must involveconcern with the ecological role offorests at all geographic scales.Examples include global carbon


and oxygen cycling and global woodproduction and consumption; re-gional hydrologic cycling and re-gional distribution of animal andhuman recreational habitats; andsite-specific habitat manipulationfor fish, wildlife, and humanrecreationists.

The broad ecological vision ofsustainable forestry enjoys wide-spread public support and isthought to be so fundamental tohuman welfare that it is beyondquestioning. Yet the affirmation ofmoral ideals embodied in this prin-ciple cloud serious obstacles to itsimplementation. Successful imple-mentation will be far more likelywhen it is based on a clear andrealistic assessment of the possibili-ties for its implementation than onuncritical acceptance of idealisticprinciples.

My remarks are intended toinitiate a critical assessment of sus-tainable forestry. Twill address fourquestions:

1. What cultural themes gov-erning relationships to na-ture may affect the imple-mentation of sustainable for-estry?

2. Which cultural theme has thegreatest chance of yieldingsuccessful implementation?

3. How are these alternativethemes expressed in the con-temporary controversy overthe preservation ofold growthforests in the Pacific North-west?

4. What are the long-term im-plications of adopting eitherof the themes found in theold growth controversy?

A cultural theme is defined as "apostulate or position, declared orimplied; and usually stimulatingbehavior or controlling activity,which is tacitly approved or openlypromotedin asociety" (Opler 1985,p. 198). By expressions of a cultural

theme Opler means "the activities,prohibition of activities, or refer-ences which result from the accep-tance or affirmation of a theme in asociety" (p. 199). A cultural themeis not reducible to the beliefs andattitudes of individuals, but is gen-erally a shared set of taken-for-granted assumptions about how tothink or act with respect to a set ofsituations. Hence, cultural themes

Most important is thepossibility that the old-growth controversy isfundamentally a moraland religious disputerather than a scientific ortechnical problem.

cannot be generalized to individu-als, since individuals may or maynot express a widely shared cul-tural theme. Cultural themes arenot as clearly articulated as doc-trines that are explicitly defined,debated, and defended, but theycan be as effective as doctrines, oreven more so, in eliciting confor-mity with their postulates. They areunwritten scripts for guiding beliefand behavior.

I will consider two competingcultural themes that may find ex-pression in the implementation ofsustainable forestry:

1. Immediate change in forestmanagement practices overmost of the forest land base,beginning with a participa-tory planning process andculminating in top-downgovernmental control orcontrol by bioregionally de-fined communities, and

2. Moderately paced change inforest management prac-tices involving continuing,

18

decentralized, democraticparticipation by all affectedparties and implementationby residents of rural com-munities, including agencyland managers who residethere.

The basic assumptions embod-ied in these themes will be evalu-ated in light of over 60 years ofsociological research on the condi-tions under which natural resourceconservation behavior is possible.This will be followed by a discus-sion of how these themes have beenexpressed in the current contro-versy over old growth preservation,including the efforts to preservethe northern spotted owl in thePacific Northwest.

Focus on the old growth issuerepresents only a small part of thecomplex human ecological consid-erations involved in managing for-ests. Only a few of the broaderecological functions of forests areconsidered when focusing on woodproduction and old growth protec-tion. However, understanding ofother ecological functions can beadvanced by revealing the culturalbasis for conflict over old growthforests, since cultural themes areseldom restricted to discrete func-tions and may be expressed in awide range of activities related toforests. Most important is the pos-sibility that the old growth contro-versy is fundamentally a moral andreligious dispute rather than a sci-entific or technical problem. Moraland religious disputes cannot beresolved by the application of tech-nology and rational planning pro-cesses, and naive application of suchrationality can often make a situa-tion worse (Bellah 1975).

I will conclude by exploringpossible future expressions of eachcultural theme with the purpose ofencouraging scientists, resourceprofessionals, and the public tocarefully consider the implicationsof tacitly expressing either theme.A better understanding of thechoices we face when attempting to

Robert G. Lee Institutional Stability: A Requisite for Sustainable Forestry

implement sustainable forestry willresult from such critical thinking.

Alternative Cultural Themesfor Sustainable Forestry

Despite general agreement onthe need to implement "sustain-able forestry," sustainability meansdifferent things to differentpeople.Current efforts to develop andimplement sustainable forestrypractices reveal a significant diver-gence between people expressingdifferent cultural themes.

One theme embodies the as-sumption that immediate and large-scale change is absolutely neces-sary for the earth's ecosystems tosurvive (Soule 1985, Maser 1988).The flow of time mustbe suspended,the earth reenchanted, and forestsprotected from human destruction(these elements of the theme willbe discussed below). Preservationof old growth forests is simply oneof many battles for survival thatmust be waged.

Expression of this theme takesseveral forms. Some people arguethat struggles will involve the at-tempt to replace the capitalistsystem's short-range emphasis onprofits with a commitment to long-term sustainability (Maser 1988).Several alternative institutional ar-rangements for achieving sustain-ability are mentioned, includingsocial control by scientifically in-formed central authorities, anddecentralized and ecologically au-tonomous bioregional commu-nities (Sale 1985; see also Stavrianos(1976) for an historical argumentwelcoming a return to the DarkAges).

Participatory planning has notalways succeeded in promotingimmediate change on the geo-graphic scale thought necessary.Mutual adjustments among com-peting interests prevented vast ar-eas of old growth forests from beingpreserved through the social con-tracts embodied in the planningprocess of the U.S. Forest Service

and the Bureau of Land Manage-ment (Shannon 1990). Dissatisfiedadvocates for immediate changetriggered the centralized authorityof the Endangered Species Act toachieve protection of old growthforests that constitute habitat forthe northern spotted owl. Listingof the spotted owl resulted in deci-sions that superseded plans origi-nating from 10 years of bitter

Dissatisfied advocatesfor immediate changetriggered the centralizedauthority of theEndangered Species Actto achieve protection ofold-growth forests thatconstitute habitat for thenorthern spotted owl.

conflict and hard-won compro-mises. Sustainability, according tothis cultural theme, is thought torequire immediate protection formost of the remaining old growthforests.

The other cultural theme em-bodies the assumptions that changemust be moderated, the earth ismorally neutral, and humans areagents for land stewardship (to bediscussed below). This theme hasbeen expressed in attempts toimplement sustainable forestry bymaking substantial changes in silvi-cultural practices and by settingaside additional old growth forestswhen there are sound scientific rea-sons for so doing. It also embracesthe need to experiment with "newforestry" practices that may pro-vide alternatives to existing patternsof clear-cutting (Franklin 1989).

This theme is clearly distin-guished by its assumption thatchange should occur at a rate thatpermits orderly, mutual adjust-

19

ments. A cautious view of rapidchange arises from several sources:scientists concerned about the needto accumulate new knowledge bytesting hypotheses (a laborious andtime-consuming process), publicofficials concerned about the ef-fects of rapid change on land-man-agement organizations, and leadersin communities dependent on tim-ber harvesting who worry about thesurvival of communities, familywelfare, and jobs.

This theme is also distinguishedby its assumption that more oldgrowth is not necessarily better, ei-ther socially or ecologically. Prac-tical considerations and well-grounded scientific findings are theprimary means for deciding howmuch old growth should be pre-served.

The basic principles underly-ing these two themes are not pecu-liar to forestry or even to broaderconservation issues. The divergentconcerns with urgency and orderlychange are certainly not the origi-nal thoughts of their most recentproponents. They have beenthought and written about manytimes before. Many people havestudied the history and expressionsof the ideas from which thesethemes have emerged (see espe-cially SowelI 1987 and Lindblom1990). What is unique to those whoexpress these themes is the serious-ness and historical naiveté withwhich they take their positionswithin an inherited culture. Witheach new generation, people whoexpress cultural themes operateunder the illusion that their beliefsare novel and progressive. The pos-sibility that they are simply rework-ing old themesthat they arecaptives of inherited ideasrnaynot occur to them. The historicalorigin of these themes is the topicof a forthcoming paper. Let us nowturn to long-established findingsabout what makes conservationpossible with the objective of evalu-ating the likely consequences ofexpressing either of these two cul-tural themes.


What Will Make SustainableForestry Possible?

Walter Firey, a distinguishedsociologist who studied natural re-sources, dedicated his career to in-vestigating the conditions underwhich conservation behavior be-comes possible. Firey referred tothe basic issues that underlie sus-tainable forestry when he stated,"there are many kinds of activitieswhich.. .require some kind of ori-entation on the part of humanagents to a remote future (1963, p.150)." He struggled with the sameproblems we find so troubling whenhe said:

The cultivation of certain pe-rennial tree crops, such asolive oil, cocoa, and pecan,presupposes many years ofcare before the cultivatorwillreap any marketable crop atall. Sustained yield manage-ment of forests in severalEuropean countries has in-volved reproduction cyclesof more than a century. Am-ortization of capital invest-ments in some mining andplantation enterprises oftentranscend the span ofa singlegeneration. Maintenance ofsoil fertility in peasant cul-tures, such as those of Eu-rope and China, has imposedcosts upon generations whohave never realized any com-pensation for their trouble(p. 150).

He sought to explain how societiessucceeded in motivating people towork for objectives that would notbe realized during their lives, pos-ing two questions:

Is this sacrificial effort byone generation for the wel-fare of another generationthe function of explicit fu-ture-referring values? Or isit rather an epiphenomenalmanifestation of certainstructural properties of the

social orders in question? (p.150-15 1).

Firey understood Americanculture and its unquestionable com-mitment to the ideal of natural re-sources conservationa value thathad taken on the force of a moralimperative. Yet he observed greatdisparity between the idealistic corn-mitmen t to conservation values andthe actual behavior of people whomanaged natural resources. Stud-ies of soil and water managementshowed that the future-referringvalues were insufficient for moti-vating farmers to practice conser-vation. Farmers did not necessarilyexpress in their behavior the ideal-istic values of the culture theyshared.

Firey (1959, 1963) concludedthat conservation behavior requiresat least two conditions, in additionto being biologically possible:

1. Individuals must internalizeconservation values intotheir consciences, and

before Firey's time. ErichZimmerman (1951), the noted re-source economist, said,

All perennial culture, butparticularly the planting oftrees, rests on the stability ofsocial institutions. No onewould be foolish enough tospend a decade or more.. .tobuild up an olive grove whichcan bear fruit for a centuryunless he feels reasonablysure of a reward for himselfand his descendants (p. 376)

The record of internationaldevelopment efforts in forestry hasconvincingly documented the im-portance of institutional stabilityfor conservation. People in devel-oping countries have not been will-ing to plant and tend long-maturingcrops such as trees when thechances of realizing gains were di-minished by unstable land-tenurearrangements, inadequate controlover fire and grazing, and an inabil-ity to enforce property rights(Fortmann 1988). Threats to or

2. These values must be articu- uncertainty about property rightslated with social relation- can also result in the abandonmentships in ways that motivateconformity; e.g., they mustbe both expedient (gainfulto the individual or group)and psychologically satisfy-ing (maintain self-esteemand group identification).

He noted that values that do notbecome embodied in ongoing so-cial relationships can have only anideological status, and observed thatconservation values in contempo-rary American culture are largelyideological. The ideological char-acter of American conservation haschanged little since Firey reachedthis conclusion thirtyyears ago, andit may even be reflected in the rheto-ric of "sustainable forestry."

There has been very littleprogress in understanding that val-ues must be institutionalized be-fore they can affect behavior. Yetthis principle was well understood

20

of past commitments to resourceconservationfailure to maintainan irrigation system or to protectestablished trees from fire or illegaluse, for example.

Conservation of natural re-sources is possible only when insti-tutional conditions remain stableor when institutional change oc-curs at a rate at which people canreinternalize newvalues and incor-porate these values into ongoingsocial relationships. A decade ormore rather than years is the ap-propriate scale for promoting andmeasuring institutional change.

Many of the failures in interna-tional forestry development effortscan be attributed to top-downplan-ning that imposed rational blue-prints for radical change in landutilization and management(Korten and Klauss 1984). Whentraditional customs and land-ten-ure arrangements are ignored,

Robert G. Lee Institutional Stab Wty: A Requisite for Sustainable Forestry

people either refuse to complywiththe imposed change, or they un-dermine its success. Sabotage ofgovernment plantations in Thai-land, Indonesia, Israel, and othercountries is a direct answer to im-posed change. Conservation ofnatural resources is contingent onconservation of social traditions andcustoms. For this reason, revolu-tionary change runs a far greaterrisk of producing losses of naturalresources than do slower forms ofinstitutional change. Experienceshows that sustainable developmentoften requires a bottom-up ap-proach in which individual gainful-ness and social acceptability aremaintained or enhanced (Kortenand Klauss 1984).

We have had similar experi-ences in the United States. Federaland state governments attemptedto impose a centralized system ofwildfire suppression on farmers andranchers who had developed pre-scribed burning practices essentialfor managing their lands. Central-ized control was never totally suc-cessful and was ultimatelyabandoned in favor of an approachthat permitted prescribed burn-inga practice only recently rec-ognized as ecologically sound (Pyne1982).

Some of the recent acceleratedharvesting on private forest landsin the Pacific Northwest can beattributed directly to a cynical, short-range view originating from theclimate of increasing institutionalinstability (Lee 1990b). "Gettingthe timber while the getting is stillgood" is entirely analogous to Thaifarmers who set fire to thegovernment's pine plantation andgraze their cows on the fresh grass.Both short-sighted practices areproducts of institutional instabil-ity.

Firey (1963) stated the needfor institutional stability as a gen-eral proposition: "Future-referringvalues.. .are time-and space-bound;they are tied to particular socialorders whose eventual demise theyare destined to share" (p. 157), and

"Their possible re-institutionaliza-tion in another or succeeding so-cial order must be whollyproblematic" (p. 156). Hence, Fireyis skeptical about any revolutionaryleap of faith.

Such social science generaliza-tions were anticipated by the con-servative wisdom of Edmund Burke(1987) over a century ago, when heobserved:

Society is indeed a contract.partnership. . . the ends of

such a partnership cannotbe obtained in many gen-erations, it becomes a part-nership not only betweenthose who are living, butbetween those who are liv-ing, those who are dead, andthose who are yet to be born(p. 100-101).

Burke was reacting to the culturalerosion brought about by theFrench Revolution. But his wordsare equally relevant to an evalua-tion of cultural themes that maybe

Nothing is moresignificant to recentchanges in public moodthan the fear that "theearth is dying."

expressed in old growth protec-tion and silvicultural practices.Burke reminds us that the motiveof revolutionary change is to per-manently break the bonds ofintergenerational partnerships byrejecting the contributions of thedead, imposing the beneficial willof one group of living on others(both living and yet to be born)and replacing imperfect institu-tional certainties destined for fu-ture generations with ideologicallyinspired hopes of a better world.

21

Let us take a closer look at thecultural theme underlying imme-diate old growth protection. \Tewill begin by offering a possibleexplanation for the shift in publicmood expressed in a vision of sud-den rebirth and renewal.

The Culture of Old GrowthProtection

Why the Change in Public Mood?

Nothing is more significant torecent changes in public mood thanthe fear that "the earth is dying."Images of death abound in reportsthat the earth's ozone shield is be-ing destroyed by chemical pollut-ants, tropical deforestation is out ofcontrol, global warming threatensto disrupt climates and melt thepolar ice caps, acid rain is killingforests, and more and more speciesare becoming extinct. Many peopleare profoundly disturbed by thefear that "nature is coming to anend"that there will be nothing"natural" left in the world and thathuman biological continuity willbe a shared responsibility(McKibben 1989).

A contagious apocalyptic moodis expressed by many leaders in theenvironmental movementespe-cially among spokespersons forimmediate environmental reform,including many in the scientificcommunity (Soule 1985). Fearabout the continuity of life has pro-duced what Robert Lifton (1983)calls an "identity of the meaning-lessly doomed." A collective self-definition as a people waiting for apointless apocalypse has for manyreplaced the energizing self-imageof a people who secured freedom,builtanation, and continue to workhard to perpetuate both this pro-gressive way of life and the land onwhich it depends (Hurst 1956, Tho-mas 1989).

There are no clear explana-tions for the sudden onset ofapoca-lyptic thinking. After all, scientificevidence of global ecological prob-lems has been accumulating for


decades, and predictions of theapocalypse have been recurring forthousands ofyears. One of the mostplausible hypotheses links this shiftin mood to the emergence of a newcohort of leaders in government,media, science, and religionacohort imprinted by social fermentand cynicism in the 1960s and 70s.The 1962 "Point Huron Statement",a primary manifesto of the NewLeft, sought to release revolution-ary energywhen it stated: "Ourworkis guided by the sense that we maybe the last generation in the experi-mentwith living." This was echoedin 1990 by a new manifesto sup-porting revolutionary action: "Wehave only ten years to save theearthy"

The idea that revolutionarychange can ward off "the death ofnature" has been increasingly ex-pressed as a cultural theme rivalingthat of orderly change. Large treesand old growth -forests have be-come symbols of immortality andbiological continuity in a worldthreatened by ecological change.Even President Bush has embracedthis symbolism with his 1990 pro-posals for solving the problems ofglobal warming by preserving for-ests and planting treestotally ig-noring the far more important needto reduce fossil-fuel consumption.

Survival ofnature requires thatold ways of doing things must die.Rebirth, emergence of the "new",requires destruction of the "old".The emotional appeal of this themeis compelling, since nothing is morebasic to the human spirit than thecontinuity of life (Lifton 1983). Thisspirit of transformation has manycultural tributaries, including "NewAge" thinking, revolutionary con-sciousness, discontent born of un-resolved fear and guilt, and thequest for spiritual authenticity.

The old growth controversyappears to have less to do with theecology of native forests than withcultural change. Although biologi-cal scientists have established im-portant facts about old growthforests (Franklin 1989), it is the

importance of these forests as en-during symbols of undisturbed na-ture, not their biological functions,that has such broad public appeal(Maser 1988). If maintaining eco-logical functions were the primaryobjective, there would be more sup-port for morally neutral scientificknowledge to provide a rationalbasis for old growth protection andmodified old growth harvesting andmanagement practices.

Cultural Features ofOld Growth Protection

What are the basic elements ofthis cultural change? Three ele-ments are evident in the expres-sions of a need for immediate andlarge-scale protection ofold growth:

1. A flight from time

2. A sanctification of nature

3. Abelief that humans are de-filers and violators of natureand must learn to respectother life forms.

While few people who support oldgrowth preservation are consciousof these elements, these ideas areclearly evident in the expressionsof leading advocates. It is impor-tant to understand these character-istics, because they are inheritedideas that may be unthinkinglyadopted by members of the gen-eral public and thus influence howpeoplewill go about preserving oldgrowth.

Escape from Time

Humans are creatures of time.We live in historical timetimepunctuated by change, threats,opportunities, losses, and triumphs.We find it disquieting to live in timepunctuated by historical events be-cause we worry about the futureand regret past omissions and mis-takes. Some people are plagued byguilt and anxiety, emboldened by

22

hope and visions of salvation. Notknowing what is going to happen,they fear the worst. The increasingrealization of a global environmen-tal crisis is just the most recent re-minder of howwe are tyrannized bythe unpredictability of historicaltime. Mircea Eliade (1974, p. 56)understood such fear when he re-marked that we are virtually para-lyzed by the "terror of history."

Humans have always sought toconfront the terror of death by de-veloping a sense of immortalitysymbolic participation insomething larger and more endur-ing. Four ways of expressing a senseof immortality are most common:biological continuity of a family,theological formulations guidingreligious beliefs in live after death,creative works such as writing andthe arts, and participation in thenatural order of the world (Lifton1983, p. 18).

But these symbolic expressionsmay also permit people to escapefrom the "terror of history" by em-bracing a "dream time" in whichpast, present, and future are meldedtogether in a timeless present. Suchflights from time are common fol-lowing major social dislocations ordisasters, or abrupt social and cul-tural change (Lifton 1983). Reli-gion has provided an importantmeans for institutionalizing escapefrom the terrors of history. But thereare many examples of events forwhich religions failed to effectivelychannel collective fears and guilt.Rapid social change in the MiddleAges produced many outbursts ofirrational collective behavior, in-cluding the Crusades (Cohen1961). Fears of nuclear war boughton by the Cold War, the Cubanmissile crisis, and the emerging Viet-nam War may have contributed tothe youth protest movements ofthe late 1960s and early 1970s(Lifton 1983). In all these cases,perception was altered and the abil-ity to reason was inhibited.

Today an idealized past is re-captured through symbols such asthe "AncientForest" (oldgrowth)-


the forest that escapes the vicissi-tudes of forests that have been rav-aged by historical time. Thehistorical and ecological realitiesaffecting forests are many. Worldpopulation growth, with its ever-increasing demand for agriculturalland, is the primary cause of defor-estation in the tropics. Demandsfor housing, packaging, paper, andother wood products are increas-ing along with population growthand have reached unprecedentedlevels in the United States and otheraffluent nations. Climate changeinduced by global warming mayrequire far more active manipula-tion of forests to facilitate their pro-tection and adaptation, becauseclimates may change faster thantrees can adapt. Even today's oldgrowth forests may, like all contem-porary forests of Europe, somedayhave to be actively managed to en-sure their adaptation to a changingclimate.

The "Ancient Forest" is a sym-bol of immortality, endurance, andbiological continuity that escapesthese "terrors of history." The slideshow at Portland's World ForestryCenter old growth exhibition ex-pressed this meaningwhen it stated,

.immune to time, ecosystems con-tinue to turn."

The escape from time mani-fests itselfat an individual levelwhenpeople who express this culturaltheme disassociate their own con-sumption of land and wood prod-ucts from the harvesting of forests.Such denial of historical time andecological reality may be inducedby feelings of guilt about forest de-struction and fear that continuedforest harvesting will threaten bio-logical continuity. Someone re-cently exhibited such irrationalitywhen he chastised me for pointingout how the loggers and their fami-lies will be impacted by efforts topreserve the northern spotted owl,while he simultaneously took greatpride in the beautiful old growthcedar he was using in his house-remodeling project.

Collective guilt about the de-filement of the earth and fear aboutthreats to biological continuity oflife may ultimately provide the bestexplanation for such denials of re-ality (Lifton 1983). Hence, the fun-damental issue underlyingsustainable forestry may turn out tohave more to do with how peoplemanage or fail to manage their guiltand fearor how their guilt andfear is "managed" by others. Gniltand fear arise from a failure toadequately resolve a basic paradoxof human existence: the knowledgethat we are organisms and cannotlive without taking from life.

Sanctification of Nature

Closely linked to the escapefrom time are beliefs that there issomething sacred about old growth.References to "cathedral forests"have been common for hundredsof years, but there is an increasingfeeling that old growth forest eco-systems occupy "sacred space". Sus-pension of the "profane time" ofhistory opens people to the experi-ence of "sacred time". Sanctuaries(Eliade 1974) institutionalize placeswhere people can have opportuni-ties to escape into "sacred time."Reservation of old growth areaslarge enough to maintain naturalecological processes is the institu-tional form advocated for such sa-cred spaces.

There is nothing unusual aboutascribing spiritual power to naturalobjects. Most of the world's reli-gions have emphasized the spiri-tual potency of natural objects,whether trees, rocks, mountains,or springs (Van Der Leeuw 1963).Animism is still common, even insome modernized nations such asJapan. The Abrahamic religionsrejected these beliefs and placedhumans in a spiritually neutral re-lationship to the earth, yielding theEuropean tradition's ambiguousmixture of resource utilization andland stewardship.

23

Western religious views of hu-man responsibility for nature haverecently been subordinated to abelief in moral equality with nature(see origins of this argument inWhite 1967 and Nash 1989). Yetunlike animism, contemporaryreenchantment of nature featuresnot simply concrete objects, butideas and concepts originating inmodern science and technology(Thomas 1989).

The morally neutral scientificconstruct of the "ecosystem" hasbeen popularized in non-scientificdiscourse. It has taken on a god-likequality, leading people to talk un-scientifically about "looking to theecosystem forguidance" or "respect-ing the ecosystem." References to"hurting the ecosystem," "ecosys-tem fragility," and "ecosystem col-lapse" also reflect a popularized

The fundamental issueunderlying sustainableforestry may turn out tohave more to do with howpeople manage or fail tomanage their guilt andfearor how their guiltand fear is "managed" byothers.

scientific view that has reified mor-ally neutral scientific constructs asvital, living, and even enchantedthings.

Equally revealing are the sym-bolic appropriations of scientificconcepts used in landscape ecol-ogy. Landscape fragmentation hascome to represent death, or thedismembering of an "ecosystem."Conversely, landscape connectivityrepresents lifethe maintenanceof the "nerve fibers" of an ecosys-tem. These reifications stand in


sharp contrast to the morally neu-tral scientific view that is restrictedto analyzing the ecological pro-cesses operating at the scale ofland-scapes. Documentation ofmigration corridors for elk is anexample.

Humans as Despoilers of aNatural Order

Sanctification of nature islinked to the nihilistic belief thathumans are an ecologically corruptspecies that has fouled its nest. It isbelieved that humans have lost, ornever had, a capacity for develop-ing moral responsibility sufficientto control their defilement of na-ture. They have stepped out of theirnatural role and are unique in na-ture only in their power to destroyone another and the earth. Hencethe necessity for protecting naturefrom human interference.

The belief that humans are notpart of the "natural harmony" ofecosystems is reflected in nihilisticmetaphors that are used to describehuman activities. Humans are por-trayed as a "plague" or a "cancer"that is destroying the earth. Otherforms of life are superior to us be-cause they are more "natural" anddon't disrupt the environment."Nature" must be placed in pre-serves to keep it safe from humansfrom ourselves. Such thinkingreflects a profound sense of disen-chantment with the humrn poten-tial for moral development andstewardship responsibility.

The old growth forest exhibi-tion at the World Forestry Centercontains a revealing descriptionunder the heading of "SpiritualResources":

Old-growth forests offerspiritual solace. The gran-deur and immensity of theforest emphasizes our placein the order of things. Old-growth forests give us sanctu-ary from the pressures anddemands of everyday 4fe.

In traditional Native American be-liefs these old forests are living beings.Today, some people seem to echothat belief. They argue that naturehas inherent rights, that the naturalworld exists separately from people, anddoes not belong to anybody (my em-phasis).

There is no reference to theolder idea that humans are en-.dowed with an inner spirit and arecharged with moral responsibility

Hence, it is not surprisingthat the old growthmovement has resultedin institutionalizedvictimization of loggers.Those who can beportrayed as symbols ofdeath because they killtrees and "fragment theecosystem" make easyvictims.The evidence ofvictimization is pervasiveand indisputable.

for taking care of the earth. Theculture of old growth protection isinformed by a reverence for an ab-stract conception of an "ecosys-tem"a "natural order of things"that is sacred because it is not yetdefiled by the violence of humans.

Disenchantment with peoplecan take many forms. One of them,scapegoating, is a commonly asso-ciated with feelings of panic, fear,and collective guilt (Becker 1973,Lifton 1983). Scapegoating of log-gers has become common. Muchhas been learned aboutscapegoating because of the preva-lence of racism in American soci-ety. However, racism is simply aspecific form of victimization"... the creation of a death-tainted

24

group (of victims) against whichothers (victimizers) can contrasttheir claim to immortality. Victim-izers actually experience a threat tothe life of their own group, aroundwhich they justify their actions"(Lifton 1983, p. 302).

Victimization is generally asso-ciated with major historical disloca-tions in which people struggleagainst spiritual and physical de-struction. Past losses, such as thebombing of Pearl Harbor at theopening of World War II, resultednot only in the war against Japan,but also in victimization of Ameri-cans of Japanese ancestry as well.The story of their internment andsuffering is well known.

Hence, it is not surprising thatthe old growth movement has re-sulted in institutionalized victim-ization of loggers. Those who canbe portrayed as symbols of deathbecause they kill trees and "frag-ment the ecosystem" make easyvic-tims. The evidence of victimizationis pervasive and indisputable. Log-gers have been blamed for destroy-ing the forests and vilified inpolitical cartoons, newspaper edi-torials, serial cartoons, magazinearticles, and numerous other main-stream media. "Owl murder" haseven entered the lexicon of theSunday comics.

Scapegoating generally ariseswhen guilt and self-hatred causepeople to project upon others nega-tive attributes of themselves (Becker1973). Blaming loggers for cuttingtrees while living in wood housesand consuming paper and otherwood products is a form of irratio-nal behavior that probably arisesfrom denial of reality, especiallythe realities of collective guilt, self-deprecation, and fears of death.But such thinking also denies thereality of the logger who works withnature to meet people's needs forwood products, and who is oftenfar more connected to nature andhas accepted the paradox of havingto take from life in order to live. Ashas happened with racism,scapegoating usually undermines


itselfwhen people eventually cometo see its irrationality and the hy-pocrisy of the moral high groundstaked by the victimizers.

Last August, Backpacker maga-zine featured wilderness photogra-pher Art Wolfe, who was quoted assaying:

I hate 'em. The whole damnlogging industry shouldcome down with a rare formof cancer...They're murder-ing...They want to have allthe old growth cut beforeanybody can stop 'em.They're ignorant, andthey've got to learn a differ-ent way of life.

A cartoon in Defenders maga-zine shows a Forest Service rangerstruggling with his conscience; anangel sits on one shoulder and adevil on the other. But the pointed-tailed devil is wearing a plaid shirtand caulk boots and clutches adevil's pitchfork in one hand and achain saw in the other. Loggershave been stereotyped repeatedlyin Far Side cartoons. EvenMcDonald's was caught up in themania of victimization when it ranan ad featuring a twisted chain sawto deny any responsibility for tropi-cal deforestation involving conver-sion of forests to pastures for beefproduction.

Victims experience tremen-dous suffering, resentment, anger,and frustration. Dr. LouiseFortmann of the University of Cali-fornia at Berkeley has reported thatin 17 years as a sociologist, includ-ing extensive experience in pov-erty-stricken Africa, she has neverseen such pain and suffering as shewitnessed while interviewing log-gers and other wood products work-ers in rural California last summer.Victims have few outlets for theseemotions and, like all victims, havea tendency to participate in turn invictimization of others to escapespiritual or physical death and topreserve their own sense of power(Lifton 1983). Elevated rates of sub-

stance abuse, suicide, and interper-sonal violence are predictable re-sults that are already well knownamong other groups experiencingvictimization.

Do denial of time and histori-cal reality, the enchantment of na-ture, and the victimization ofpeopleprovide an unstable foundation forimplementing sustainable forestry?Is this abrupt departure from tradi-tional institutions simply too greatto facilitate successful change?Accumulated knowledge about so-cial and cultural change leads meto provide affirmative answers tothese questions. To paraphraseFirey, institutionalization of a newecological order in some futuresociety must remain entirely prob-lematic. There are enormous risksin revolutionary change.

Traditional Cultures and RuralCommunities

Rural communities provide theprimary connection between mod-ern societies and the non-urbanlands they depend upon for mate-rial sustenance. Hence they arecentrally important to sustainableforestry. Rural communities alsotend to perpetuate American cul-tural traditions because they aremore resistant to change than mosturban settings. The ideas they ex-press stand in sharp contrast to theelements of the cultural theme guid-ing advocates of old growth protec-tion.

Traditional American rural-community culture expresses: 1)the value of working closely withnature and accommodating its eco-logical and historical realities (treesand old growth forests take on avariety of meanings and are notsimply symbols for immortality), 2)adherence to traditional religiousbeliefs, either Christianity or beliefin secular religious principles ofWestern humanism derived fromChristianity, and 3) aview of peoplenot as defilers of the earth but in-stead as moral agents for utilizingand protecting the land.

25

A close examination of howpeople living in rural communitiesexpress these elements iswarrantedso that we may assess the potentialfor sustainable forestry to developthrough expressions of this culturaltheme.

Historical Time is Lived

The bedrock of traditionalAmerican culture is embodied inthe way of life of rural entrepre-neurs and their employees. Unpre-dictable markets, boom-and-bustcycles of resource exploitation,unfavorable weather, bad luck, andthe risks of injury and death areembraced instead of avoided.Toughness and strength of charac-ter built by facing risks are highlyvalued and are prized as the "stuff'necessary to develop the nation andcompete in a hostile internationalenvironment. Yet there have beensocial costs to economic turbulenceand hard and riskywork. High ratesof injury and death and periodicunemployment has taken its toll onentrepreneurs and families, con-tributing to family instability andsuffering. The "terror of history"that only worries affluent urbanpeople is lived by rural wood-prod-ucts workers.

People learned to cope withthe unpredictability of life by rely-ing on one another and develop-ing a close appreciation andworking knowledge of the land.Loggers, especially those workingfor "gyppos," acquiredjob securityby cultivating a personal reputa-tion as a "good logger." A goodlogger is versatile; he can set chok-ers, trim logs, and operate and re-pair heavy equipment. In the past,jobs would come and go, but log-gers could always count on theirreputations to find work. Reputa-tions spread through social net-works in regions encompassingseveral towns or counties (Carrolland Lee 1990). Although more evi-dent among loggers, others such asmillworkers, shakeworkers, and lo-cal business people, also rely on


personal reputations to providethem with economic security.

Despite a history of strugglingto make a living by cutting trees,hauling logs, and manufacturinguseful products, most wood- prod-ucts workers have learned the samesort of conservation ethics Firey andothers have found among farmers.They care deeply about nature andexpress a willingness to learn howto protect rare and endangeredplaces and life forms. By takingseriously the responsibilities of theecological paradox, many havecome to see themselves as the "trueenvironmentalists" who meetsociety's needs for wood productswhile also giving back to the land byperpetuating its productive capac-ity. They are often as troubled bythe poor land-management deci-sions forced upon them by the in-dustries that employ them as theyare by the government regulationsthat impede their work.

Nature is Not Sacred

Unlike advocates for old growthpreservation and radical reform inforest management practices, ru-ral woods-products workers tend toromanticize people and view na-ture pragmatically. The creation ofpersonal myths is an especially im-portant feature of the logging cul-ture, although accentuation ofdistinct personalities is pervasive inrural life. People are humanized;nature is a morally neutral objectthat is loved and appreciated for itsspecial places and qualities but isreadily converted into a commod-ity.

These patterns reflect the eco-nomic individualism and rational-ism that is shared by people in ruralcommunities. They see themselvesas independent economic agents,best captured by the term "entre-preneurial spirit." Within the tra-ditions of Protestantism andcapitalism the rational calculationnecessary to "make a buck" is notonly rewarded in economic successbut is also a source of social appro-

bation. Innovative and hard-work-ing individuals can earn reputa-tions for becoming "larger thanlife "by becoming more fully human.

The development of the ratio-nal, economic view of the environ-ment in Western society requiredthe demystification of nature. Na-ture was rationalized and definedscientifically in terms of biophysi-cal conditions providing humansatisfaction. Nature became a res-ervoir of natural resources provid-ing multiple opportunities forsatisfying human wants and needs,and people assumed moral respon-sibility for land stewardship.

Yet these same cultural at-tributes of rural life have served asvehicles for promoting adoption ofconservation practices. WhileWendell Berry is a mythologizedrural folk hero who has committedhis life to restoration of the land,there are thousands of heroic for-est landowners whose workis knownonly locally. The annual competi-tion for "Tree Farmer of the Year"is an example ofhow personal quali-ties of unselfish dedication to landstewardship have been honored.Personal reputations for conserva-tion behavior enjoy the same po-tential for heroism as the acts ofeconomic efficiency that have dis-tinguished "good loggers," andother wood products workers. Ifbuilt on the cultural traditions ofrural communities, the adoptionof additional conservation practicesnecessary to implement sustainableforestrywould require emphasis onthe fuller humanization of people(as contrasted with the reenchant-ment of nature and dehumaniza-tion of people).

Agents for Utilizing andProtecting the Land

The nature of their work pre-vents many rural people from es-caping into a symbolic world inwhich they experience themselvesas morally corrupt defilers of na-ture. They accept the paradox thatpeople cannot live without taking

26

from life. Unlike many people wholive in cities and work entirely withinformation, most rural peopleknow that human needs cannot bemetwithoutploughing fields, plant-ing crops, cutting trees, slaughter-ing livestock, building dams, andconstructing roads. This leadspeople to embrace cultural beliefsthat emphasize their role in meet-ing people's needs by transformingthe environment. As agents oftrans-formation, they experience them-selves as working to meet the needsof others, whether they are labor-ers struggling to feed, clothe, andhouse their families, entrepreneursmeeting demands for beef, wood,or paper, managers who coordi-nate activities to make most effi-cient use of limited resources forsatisfying social demands, or thosewho provide vital services to thesebasic industries. This sense of ser-vice makes their work exception-ally meaningful to them, especiallywhen they also feel they are agentsfor "higher purposes" such as landstewardship inspired by traditionalsecular religious beliefs.

As part of a local society basedon reputations, residents are espe-cially vulnerable to disruptions thatwould make their reputations use-less. Unlike people who gain eco-nomic security by acquiringspecializations certified by trans-ferrable credentials, the worth oflocals is defined by who they are ina community. Their source of eco-nomic security is based on localknowledge and personal relation-ships rather than success in qualify-ing for a category of employment.Guilt is more likely to be associatedwith failure to develop their poten-tial as a productive member of soci-ety, and fear associated with threatsto the way of life in which personalreputations are invested.

People have adapted to theunstable character of the wood-products economy by relying ontheir reputations for economic se-curity. A reduction in employmentoriginating with decisions by theforest-products industry can be as


economically devastating as reduc-tions caused by political decisionsto reallocate public assets. Becauseof the belief in the entrepreneurialculture, market decisions can bedisruptive and painful but sociallyacceptable, while political decisionsthat involve taking from one groupand giving to another violate basicunderstandings of fairness and aresocially unacceptable.

When coupled with mass vic-timization that assaults personalidentities, such political decisionscan be devastating to the sense ofself-worth that a person has ac-quired by building a reputation forhard work and success in servingthe needs of the larger society. Adirect assault on this traditionalsense ofagencyis experienced whensudden reductions in timber sup-ply result from preservation of oldgrowth and from radical change inforest management practices.

Implications

A crisis atmosphere envelopsthe use and management of forestsin the United States. The sense ofcrisis may be exaggerated by thetension that existswhen people feeltorn between discernable expres-sions ofcompeting cultural themes.People have been left adrift with-out a clear sense of direction fromresponsible leaders. Abdication ofmoderate leadership by the U.S.Forest Service, the Congress, andother potential mediating authori-ties has inadvertently empoweredextremists who call for radicalchange. Advocates for radicalchange have such different beliefsabout humans and their relation-ship to nature that they are disin-clined to compromise with thosewho resist rapid change. As a result,there is little hope that techniquesof organizational solutions will beeffective in resolving conflict. Tech-niques such as public involvementor organizational reforms in forestplanning will not suffice when thebasis of the conflict is moral andreligious (Bellah 975). The possi-

bilities for social conflict, humansuffering, and resource degrada-tion likely to result from this intrac-table situation make it imperativethat we seek to understand morefullywhat could result from expres-sions of these alternative beliefs.

Advocates for the immediateprotection of all remaining oldgrowth forests may have succeeded

Abdication of moderateleadership by the U.S.Forest Service, theCongress, and otherpotential mediatingauthorities hasinadvertently empoweredextremists who call forradical change.

in convincing influential membersof the American public to supportthe preservation of vast areas ofsuch forests. But have they pro-vided an institutional frameworkthat can channel human activity inecologically rational ways? The an-swer is clearly no. Withdrawal ofremaining old growth forests fromharvesting and adoption of modi-fied forest management practiceswould only succeed in institution-alizing sanctuaries where "naturalprocesses" would prevail. Preserva-tion will do little to improve man-agement on lands dedicatedexclusively to commodity produc-tion.

The prospects that large sec-tors of the American public willadopt the idea that old growth andnatural processes are essential forthe "survival of ecosystems" is espe-cially troubling. Consistent withthe theme of old growth protec-tion, the American public mightindeed assuage its collective guilt

27

and reduce fear of ecological crisesby protecting vast tracts of oldgrowth and radically modifying for-est management practices. Theworship of "old growth" and "natu-ral process" icons could enablepeople to deny the ecological ter-rors they have inherited from theirpredecessors. They could continueto effectively deny the ecologicalconsequences of their own con-sumption activities by exportingecological disruptions to other na-tions, where such "dirty industries"as logging would be a welcome eco-nomic opportunity. Yet such ashared illusion may contribute toworsening international relationswhen the ecological imperialisms,hypocrisy, and elitism of affluentpeople in developed nations be-comes even more evident.

The sacrifice of the entrepre-neurial culture embodied in ruralcommunities may, paradoxically,help to perpetuate environmentallydamaging entrepreneurial activityin manufacturing and service in-dustries that feed America's insa-tiable hunger for consumption. Byworshiping trees as symbols of im-mortality and biological continu-ity, Americans could relieve someof their burden of guilt and fear,and could Continue to produce andconsume energy, goods, and ser-vices at the highest per capita ratesin the world. Ozone depletion, glo-bal warming, acid rain, and tropi-cal deforestation could remainrepressed fears in the darkness ofthe collective psyche. A religiousaffirmation of ancient forest sanc-tuaries would, like so many previ-ous religions, interpret historicalrealities as signs affirming its ownbelief structure rather than as his-torical events requiring rationalassessment, scientific research, stra-tegic actions, and collective sacri-fices necessary to benefit futuregenerations.

Americans would not beunique in adopting such a collec-tive illusion. Reliance on reasonedargument, scientific arbitration offacts about nature, and affirmation


of the moral dignity of all individu-als have not typified very many soci-eties. Even when these qualities havebeen present to some degree, theyhave been abandoned when societ-ies were disrupted by the turbulentevents of history. Unresolved col-lective guilt, fear, and loss have beensources of massive social changeand disruptive collective behavior(Pois 1983, Lifton 1983).

However, acceptance of a cul-tural theme that demands the sanc-tification of nature and the sacrificeof rural entrepreneurial culture isnot the only alternative. Anotherpossible outcome is that influentialleaders and the American publicwill recognize the contradictionsand dangers inherent in adoptingsuch a radical view of old growthand natural processes. Americanshave been a pragmatic people, andhave been averse to governingthemselves by ideology and zeal-otry, including the advocacy of asecular religion of capitalismasInterior Secretary James Watt dis-covered during the Reagan presi-dency. Resistance to the sanctifica-tion of nature comes from tradi-tional religions concerned withstate-sponsored idolatry and de-structive victimization, as well asfrom those who fear the erosion ofdemocracy when rational publicdiscourse is threatened by chal-lenges to a morally neutral andscientifically defined conception ofnature. (While reflecting on theimplications of the EndangeredSpecies Act, a state official recentlyspeculated that our democracy wasbeing replaced by a "biocracy" inwhich biological scientists togetherwith political elites would dictateland-management decisions.)

The American public has beenunwilling to dismiss its traditionalbeliefs in the dignity of all peopleand their capacity for becomingmore fullyhuman bycaringforoneanother and the earth. Collectiveguilt, fear, and self-hatred are aliento the intergenerational partner-ship that has been the Americanproject. To be an American is to

struggle to become more fully hu-man, not to escape into the roman-tic recesses of Adam Smith's"invisible hand" or David Brower's"natural order."

America's tradition of entre-preneurial pragmatism could bethe vehicle for implementing sus-tainable forestry. Five institutionalstrengths would be most importantto achieving sustainable forestry:individual responsibility, respectforindividual liberty and local author-ity, voluntary citizen action, appre-ciation for practical knowledge, andbelief in a morally neutral and sci-entifically defined environment.Sustainable forestry could be insti-tutionalized by finding ways of us-ing these strengths to help peopleaccommodate the ecological andhistorical realities to be faced in thefuture. Two institutional spheresalready show evidence of such ac-commodation: land-tenure ar-rangements and negotiatedsettlements to land-use disputesinvolving private parties.

Large private and public own-erships were promoted as the mostrational way to institutionalize long-term investments in industrial woodproduction. But these land-tenurearrangements may not be the bestforms of ownership for institution-alizing sustainable forestry (Lee, inpress). What forms of property arebest suited to perpetuating desir-able ecological conditions whilealso providing for human needs?The realities of historical experi-ence have demonstrated that bothlarge public and private ownershipcan be very unstable forms of ten-ure. Recent episodes of rapid har-vesting on some large private landsand sudden reallocations of assetson public lands have not met re-quirements for institutional stabil-ity. Neither has been successful infirmly institutionalizing future-re-ferring values.

Although individual ownershiphas also had its disadvantages, itappears to have produced a supe-rior record of maintaining indi-vidual responsibility, protecting

liberty, enhancing local political au-tonomy, preserving accumulatedpractical knowledge, and perpetu-ating the idea of a morally neutraland scientifically defined environ-ment. Hence, sustainable forestrymay require development of newinstitutional arrangements for regu-lating industrial forest lands andreconsideration of the advantagesof transferring public assets to pri-vate ownership where timber pro-duction is an important objective.

Negotiated settlements be-tween conflicting parties are alreadymodifying land-tenure arrange-ments. Several initiatives in Wash-ington State illustrate thepossibilities for promoting sustain-able forestry by negotiating settle-ments of disputes between privateparties. Two are especially notable.TFW, the Timber, Fish and Wild-life Agreement, involved a volun-tary agreement on the part ofprivate forest landowners, Indiantribes, and fish, wildlife, and envi-ronmental interests to cooperatein regulating timber harvesting onprivate lands. Each party assumedresponsibility for sharing practicalinformation and cooperating in thedevelopment of overall harvestingregulations forwatershed units. Thepolice powers of state forest-prac-tice regulation were relaxed to per-mit a localized experiment inregulation. Individual gainfulnesswas coupled with social responsibil-ity to permit the voluntary evolu-tion of mutually acceptableharvesting practices. Participantswho had spent too much of theirlives fighting one another in courtdeveloped mutual respect and asense of shared responsibility forland, water, plants, and animals,and their many human beneficia-ries.

The Old-Growth Commissioninvolved environmental interestgroups, private, industry, and fish-eries interests, Indian tribes, localcommunities, and the state Depart-ment of Natural Resources in anegotiated settlement on rates ofharvesting and silvicultural prac-


tices on State trust lands on theOlympic Peninsula. This effortpro-duced an agreement for guidingthe management of a state experi-mental forest according to prin-ciples of sustainable forestry.

Reliance on negotiated settle-ments grew out of the realizationthat centralized governmental con-trol in the absence of individualresponsibility had universally failedto achieve land-stewardship goals.Unpredictable timber supplies andcynicism about increasing central-ized government control have con-tributed to undesirable acceleratedtimber harvesting on private landsin the Pacific Northwest. Some ofthe more cynical land and timberowners have been getting what theycan get while the getting is good.The more astute environmentalreformers realize that the unantici-pated consequence of coercedchange can produce even greaterecological disorder.

As successful as these initiativeshave been, they have yet to fully tapthe energies, visions, and abundantknowledge of people residing inrural communities. These commu-nities still embody the institutionaltraditions that may ultimately makesustainable forestry a realistic pos-sibility. Forest-based communitiesare the locations in which sustain-able forestry may succeed or fail-.--not industry boardrooms,environmental activists' livingrooms, government office build-ings, media studios, or researchlaboratories. Rural communitiesare the places where people havelong-accumulated know-how, will-ingness to learn, and commitmentsto hard work.

I remain unconvinced that themovement to preserve old growthand radically modify forest man-agement practices has adequatelyassessed the historical and ecologi-cal realities faced by our society orthe social, political, economic, andecological instability likely to resultfrom rapid change (Lee 1990b)."Rebirth" generally requires radi-cal transformation, and such rapid

change forecloses opportunities forsustainable forestry by dislodgingpeople from the security they findin inherited institutions and focus-ing their attention on survival inthe present.

The most important lesson tobe drawn from this analysis is theinevitable interdependence of in-stitutional and biological legacies.Biological legacies cannot be sus-tained without also sustaining insti-tutional legacies. How tragic thatradical reformers could inadvert-ently accelerate the ecological dis-ruption they seek to avoid by failingto understand their culture and itspossibilities for successful transfor-mation.

Americans might begin a de-bate on fundamental issues affect-ing sustainable forestry byremembering that our partnershipwith the dead gives us guidance forfor the future. We would benefitfrom remembering the words ofAldo Leopold (1949):

Individual thinkers since thedays of Ezekiel and Isaiahhave asserted that the de-spoliation of the land is notonly inexpedient butwrong.Society, however, has uotyetaffirmed their belief I re-gard the present conserva-tion movement as theembryo of such anaffirmation (p. 203).

And let us remember what WaltWhitman said in the Song of theBroad-Axe aboutAmerica's projectto humanize itself:

What invigorates life in-vigorates death,

And the dead advance asmuch as the living advance,

And the future is no morecertain than the present,

For the roughness of theearth and of man encloses us

as much as the delicatesseof the earth and of man,

And nothing endures butpersonal qualities.

29

Acknowledgements

Ms. Kaela Warren and Dr.JerryFranklin made several critical read-ings of this manuscript; helpfulcomments were also made by Mr.Jim Peterson, Ms. Martha Bray, Ms.Linda Kruger, and graduate stu-dents in a University of Washing-ton College of Forest ResourcesSpecial Topics Seminar, Winter1991. However, the author alone isresponsible for all claims and inter-pretations.

Literature Cited

Becker, Ernest. 1973. The denial ofdeath. New York: The FreePress.

Bellah, Robert N. 1975. The bro-ken covenant: American civilreligion in a time of trial. NewYork: The Seabury Press.

Burke, Edmund. 1987. Reflectionson the revolution in France.Buffalo, N.Y.: PrometheusBooks.

Carroll, Matthew S. and Robert G.Lee. 1990. Occupational com-munity and identity amongPacific Northwest loggers: Im-plications for adapting to eco-nomic changes." In Robert G.Lee, Donald R. Field. and Wil-liam R. Burch,Jr. (eds.), Com-munity and forestry:Continuities in the sociologyof natural resources. Boulder,San Francisco, and London:Westview Press.

Cohen, Norman. 1961. The pur-suit of the millennium: Revolu-tionary messianism in medievaland reformation Europe andits bearing on modern totali-tarian movements. New York:Harper and Row.


Eliade, Mircea. 1974. The myth ofthe eternal return, or, cosmosand history. Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press.

Firey, Walter. 1959. Man, mind andland: A theory of resource use.Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Firey, Walter, 1963. "Conditions forthe realization ofvalues remotein time." In Edward A. Tirakian(ed.), Sociological theory, val-ues, and sociocultural change:Essays in honor of Pitirim A.Sorokin. Glencoe, IL: FreePress.

Fortmann, Louise. 1988. Whosetrees?: Property dimensions offorestry. Boulder: WestviewPress.

Franklin,Jerry. 1989. Toward anewforestry. American Forests, No-vember/December: 1-8.

Hurst, WillardJ. 1956. Law and theconditions of freedom in thenineteenth-century UnitedStates. Madison, WI: Univer-sity of Wisconsin Press.

Korten, David C. and Rudi Klauss.1984. People-centered develop-ment: Contributions towardtheory and planning frame-works. West Hartford, CT:Kumarian Press.

Lee, Robert G. 1990a. Communityand forestry: Continuities in thesociology of natural resources.Boulder, San Francisco, andLondon: Westview Press.

Lee, Robert G. 1990b. Social andcultural implications of imple-menting the conservation strat-egy for the northern spottedowl. Independent paper com-missioned byMason, Bruce andGirard,June 21.

Lee, Robert G. In press. Minimalconditions for the sustainability

of Watershed ecosystems. In R.Naiman (ed.), New Perspec-tives in Watershed Manage-ment. The Hague:Springer-Verlag.

Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A SandCounty almanac. London, Ox-ford, New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Lifton, RobertJay. 1983. The bro-ken connection: On death andthe continuity of life. NewYork:Basic Books, Inc.

Lindblom, CharlesE. 1990. Inquiryand change: The troubled at-tempt to understand and shapesociety. New Haven and Lon-don: Yale University Press.

Maser, Chris. 1988. The redesignedforest. San Pedro, CA: R & E.Miles.

McKibben, Bill. 1989. The end ofnature. New York: AnchorBooks.

Nash, Roderick F. 1988. The rightsof nature: A history of environ-mental ethics. Madison, WI:University of Wisconsin Press.

Oliver, Chadwick, and BruceLarson. 1990. Forest stand dy-namics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Opler, 1985. Themes as dynamicforces in culture. The Ameri-can Journal of Sociology 51(3) : 198-206.

Perlin, John. 1989. A forest jour-ney: The role of wood in thedevelopment of civilization.New York and London: W.W.Norton and Co.

Pois, Robert A. 1983. National so-cialism and the religion of na-ture. London and Sydney:Croom Helm.

30

Pyne, Stephen J. 1982. Fire inAmerica: A cultural history ofwildiand and rural fire.Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Uni-versity Press.

Sale, Kirkpatrick. 1985. Dwellers inthe land: A bioregional vision.San Francisco: Sierra ClubBooks.

Shannon, Margaret A. 1990. Build-ing trust: The formation of asocial contract. In. RobertG.Lee, Donald R. Field, andWilliam R. Burch, Jr., (eds.),Community and forestry: Con-tinuities in the sociology ofnatural resources. Boulder, SanFrancisco, and London:Westview Press.

Soule, Michael E. 1985. What isconservation biology? Bio-science 35:724-734.

Sowell, Thomas. 1987 A conflict ofvisions. New York: W. Morrow.

Stavrianos, L.S. 1976. The promiseof the coming dark age. SanFrancisco: W.H. Freeman.

Thomas, George M. 1989. Revival-ism and cultural change: Chris-tianity, nation-building, andthe market in nineteenth-cen-tury United States. Chicago andLondon: University of ChicagoPress.

Van Der Leeuw, G. 1963. Religionin essence and manifestation,Volume I. Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press.

White, Lynn, Jr. 1967. The histori-cal roots of our ecological cri-sis. Science 155:1203-1207.

Wiebecke, C. and W. Peters. 1984.Aspects of sustained yield his-tory: Forest sustention as theprinciple of forestry-idea andreality. In H. K Steen (ed.),


History of sustained-yield for-estry: A symposium. The ForestHistory Society.

World Commission on Environ-ment and Development. 1987.Our common future. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Young, C. R. 1979. The royal forestsof medieval England. Philadel-phia: University of Pennsylva-nia Press.

Zimmerman, Erich W. 1951. Worldresources and industries (re-vised edition). New York:Harper and Row.

31

A Sustainable World

Dr. Norman E. Johnson is VicePresident of Research, Engineer-ing, and Technology Commercial-ization of Weyerhaeuser Company

by Norman E. Johnson

With the ever-increasingworld population and itsattendant problemswe're fast reaching thepoint where the problemsneeding solutions areoutstripping our means tosolve them.

Igave the commencement ad-dress to this year's graduatingclass at the College of Forest

Resources at the University ofWash-ington on the subject, "A Sustain-able World." My thesis, and I'lldevelop this later with you, was thatwith the ever-increasing worldpopulation and its attendant prob-lems (there are opportunities also)we're fast reaching the point wherethe problems needing solutions areoutstripping our means to solvethem. And, because of this, we mustconcentrate our money and peopleon those problems that are mean-ingful in the context of"sustainability." I was calling formore data-based decision makingand less emotionalism.

As it happened, one of threestudent speakers spoke on the samesubject as I did, but from a differentperspective. She ended her speechwith a quotation that went some-thing like this: choose not the wayof the Owl, but the way of Pooh.Her concern was that "intelligence"

would destroy us. These are signifi-cantly different points of view thatlead to the kind of gridlock we'reexperiencing in our decision mak-ing on environmental issues.

What is Sustainability?

Webster has at least 10 defini-tions for the word "sustain," in-cluding such phrases as: "bear theweight of," "bear a burden," "keepgoing," and "to supply with foodand water and other necessities oflife." Ruckelshaus (1989) says:

Sustainability is the nascentdoctrine that economicgrowth and developmentmust take place and be main-tained over time, within thelimits set by ecology in thebroadest senseby the in-terrelations of human beingsand their works, the bio-sphere and the physical andchemical laws that govern it.

He goes on to say:

Sustainability was the origi-nal economy of our species.Pre-industrial peoples livedsustainably because they hadto; if they did not, if theyexpanded their populationsbeyond the available re-source base, then sooner orlater they starved or had tomigrate.

Of course, this way of surviving wasmodified greatly with the advent ofagriculture and later the Industrial


Billions

12

10

8

Humansin the

World 6

1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

Figure 1. Estimates of world human population.

Revolution. There is a significantnumber of people who feel thatsome new order will arrive that willallow human populations to con-tinue to grow and still have an im-proving lifestyle. Still others arepredicting doomsday in a frighten-ingly short period of time. Let'sreview what is happening.

Population

The human population of theworld has increased threefold thiscentury. When I was a student hereat OSU in the mid-1950s, therewere 2.5 billion people on earth;today there are over 5 billion. Overthe next 12 months the earth'shuman population will increase bymore than 93 million personstheequivalent of adding anotherMexico (World Wildlife Fund1990). Though the rate of increaseof population has slowed, the mo-mentum will continue until worldpopulation reaches some 11 billion(Figure 1). When most of you aremy age, the population willbe nearly8 billion. The portion of the world's

Thomas Merrick, 1989Year

population living in developedcounties in 1950 was one-third; by2025 thiswill be down to 16 percent(World Resources Institute 1990).

Energy

Without an abundant, relativelyinexpensive source of energy, lifeas we know it here in Americawouldnot be possible. "Worldwide, the

The uneven distributionof fossil fuel around theworld presents seriousproblems for most of theworld, and unbelievableriches for the rest.

combustion of coal, oil, and natu-ral gas supplies some 88 percent ofthe energy we purchase and makesmuch of what we do possible"(Fulkerson et al. 1990). Though

34

the first oil well was drilled in thelate 1870s, in Pennsylvania, oilusage really started to increaseafter World War II (Davis 1990)(Figure 2). In 1945 oil consump-tion was around 5 million barrelsper day; today, 45 years later, it ismore than 10 times that amount.In the United States and Canadawe use more than 40 barrels perperson per year, in contrast to 2barrels in places like Nigeria, India,and other developing counties.Davis (Figure 3) estimates that thetotal remaining, recoverable fossilfuel could supply current needs for170 years. It will eventually run out,and if fully combusted, will presenta possible threat to the environ-ment.

The uneven distribution offos-sil fuel around the world presentsserious problems for most of theworld, and unbelievable riches forthe rest. Fifty-seven countries con-taining more than 1 billion peopleare faced with acute shortages offuelwood, necessitating the burn-ing of whatever they can find thatwill burn, including 400 million

Norman E. Johnson A Sustainable World

175

150

125

Energy100Supply

(Oil equivalent,millions of barrelsper day)

50

25

II

1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

Figure 2. Estimates of world energy use. (Adpated from Davis, September 1990)

tons of animal dung per yearenough to raise grain productionby 20 million tons if it were used asmanure (World Resources Institute1984).

Some progress is being madetowards alternate fuel sources, butit is sporadic and slow. The inci-dent at Chernobyl, which killed sev-eral dozen people, seriouslycontaminated 10,000 square kilo-meters, and affected over a quar-ter-million people, has increasedconcerns over nuclear energy as areplacement for fossil fuel. Yet pol-lution from fossil-fueled energy pro-duction in eastern Europe hasproduced sulfur dioxide depositionlevels of 12,000 micrograms persquare meter every monthfromfour to eight times that in mostEuropean countries. Toxic ele-ments, including lead and arsenicreleased from power plants thatburn high-sulfur coal, have pro-duced bone-growth reductions inone-third of the children in someCzechoslovakian cities (Chandleretal. 1990).

CANADA

UNITED STATES

SAUDI ARABIA

EAST GERMANY

SWEDEN

WEST GERMANY

U.S.S.R.

U.K.

JAPAN

ITALY

SPAIN

MEXICO

BRAZIL

CHINA

PH ILl PPINES

NIGERIA

INDIA

0 10 20 30 40 50

Energy Per Capita(Barrels Of Oil Equivalent)

Figure 3. Estimates of per capita energy use.(Adapted from Davis, September 1990)

35


Environmental Problems ThatThreaten Sustainability

Russell Train, chairman of theWorld Wildlife Fund and Conser-vation Foundation has the follow-ing "short list" of the most seriousenvironmental problems: acid rain,ozone and smog, airborne toxins,groundwater contamination, ra-don, loss of wetlands, hazardouswaste, recycling of waste, and theproliferation of waste in general(Train 1990). The World ResourcesInstitute lists the following as an

"Never before in thehistory of mankind havepeople known less aboutthe origins of theirlivelihood, and neverbefore have we been ableto transmit misinform-ation around the world inseconds."

J. F. Goates

"agenda for the President": thegreenhouse effect; ozone-layerdepletion; energy policy; acid rain;tropical forests and biodiversity;environment and development as-sistance; and population andhealth.

There are many other lists.Missing among many is concernover the loss and degradation ofsoil. Without the thin mantle oftopsoil, mankind could not exist.Yet our soil is being eroded, filledwith salts from irrigation, and cov-ered with asphalt and concrete atan alarming rate. Gibbons andWilson (1984) put it this way:

How readily we manipulateour soil. We rearrange andrestructure it. We pump itfull of chemicals, we flood it,we drain it. On its health,

the fate of empires hasrested. Yet we avoid it. In ourcities, rivers of concrete keepus from its touch. Naked ittends to offend the eye. Buta close look reveals that thesoil is an essential bridgebetween the rock below andthe life above. It is dynamicand vital, and far too easilyand frequentlyabused.

According to these authors, the SoilConservation Service estimates thatin the year 1977 the United States"lost" about 3 billion tons of soilfrom fields under plow; roughlytwo-thirds of it washed, the restblew. But there is a great deal ofnatural erosion. The fertile soils ofone area are the result of soil car-ried by wind or water from an-other. Gibbons and Wilson quote ageomorphologist who says thatman's activities have perhapsdoubled the rate of geologic ero-sion. On a global scale, land degra-dation takes on more significancethan it does in the "land-rich"United States. SandraPostel (1988)says that each year an estimated 6million hectares of land turns todeserts and is lost beyond practicalhope of reclamation.

Neither are the lists as explicitaboutwater as I'd like. The focus ismore on keeping water clean thanon its availability. Canby (1980) saysthat on an average day you and Ieach draw about 87 gallons ofwaterfor flushing, bathing, laundry,dishwashing, watering of plants, andso forth. We use a mere 2 gallonsfor drinking and cookingthe onlywater we need to survive. He goeson to say that, traced back throughtheir production, the eggs we eatfor breakfast require 120 gallons ofwater each, a steak requires 3,500gallons, and the ton of steel in a car60,000 gallons

Are we running out of water?His answer is a resounding "no."Awater molecule is never totally "lost",but it can be so relocated as to causereal problems. Water levels aredropping dramatically in some of

36

our key aquifers. Runoff rates arechanged as we change the land-scape through land-use practices.Weather patterns can raise havocwith water supplies, as people fromCalifornia can testify.

As populations grow and land-use patterns change, the concernsover having enough water will alsomount. This does not diminish theconcerns over water quality, whichin some areas has become so badthat water can be lit with a match asit comes from the tap. Postel (1989)states: "For the first time in morethan a decade, global food securityhas come into question." She con-tinues:

Land degradation may bedifficult to rally around andadopt as a cause. Yet its con-sequence sworseneddroughts and floods, fam-ine, declining living stan-dards, and swelling numbersofenvironmentalrefttgeescould not be more real orengender more emotion...Without good land, human-ity quite literally has noth-ing to grow on.

What Needs to be Done?

Brown et al. (1990) say that inorder to attain world sustainability,we must in the next 4Oyears achieve:

1. A rapid shift away fromfossil fuels, with signifi-cant increases in the useof solar, wind, geother-mal, hydro, and nuclearpower. The burning ofwood and agriculturalwastes is included in theirdefinition of solar power.

2. Reusing and recycling ofmaterials. Roughly two-thirds of all aluminum,three-fourths of all steeland paper and an evengreater share of plastic isnot now being recycled.

Norman E. Johnson A Sustainable World

Sewage and other wastematerials will also have tobe recycled back to thesoil.

3. A restored biologicalbase. In order to meetthe food needs of a bur-geoning population, weare going to have to treatour land in a sustainablemanner.

4. Anew set ofvalues. Brownet al. say that materialismas we know it today sim-ply cannot survive thetransition into a sustain-able world. We must havereliable products that donot have to be discardedafter use. Military spend-ing will have to give wayto spending to improvesustainability. The gapsbetween the "haves" andthe "have nots" will haveto narrow.

There are literally thousands ofbooks and articles being writtenabout the plight of the world andsolutions to attain some kind ofbalance or sustainability. What Iwant to discuss with you now is thevery difficult question of how tomake it happen.

Decisions and Solutions

J.F. Coates, a man who makeshis living talking about the future,told Weyerhaeuser people in a semi-nar a couple of years ago, "Neverbefore in the history of mankindhave people known less about theorigins of their livelihood, andnever before have we been able totransmit misinformation aroundthe world in seconds." Concernsabout the environment are mount-ing. Polls show that these concernsfar exceed others on recent sur-veys. Everyone is concerned; eachspecial-interest group has its ownproposed solutions; no one wantsthe "solution" in his backyard!

There is little doubt in my mindthat in order to achievesustainability some important andtough decisions are going to haveto be made. These decisions arenot going to please everybody.

They are not decisions to be

Risk assessment isfrightening to both thescientist, who is seldomsatisfied that he or shehas all the informationneeded to make adecision, and the public,which either does notunderstand probabilitytheory or refuses toaccept any risk at all.

made by popular vote. There arenot enough resources in the worldto afford everyone his own way withthe environment. Here in our coun-try we're witnessing growing frus-trations and hostilities over theinability to make decisions that willmake a lasting difference in whatwe do. Is it Owl or Pooh that weshould listen to?

Ruckelshaus tackled this prob-lem in an excellent paper entitled,"Risk, Science, and Democracy"(Ruckelshaus 1985). I hope youhave an opportunity to read it. Hesays that the Environmental Pro-tection Agency has been plaguedby the problem of a basic disjunc-tion between the reality of scienceand the assumption inherent inthe mission of all governmentalprotective agenciesthat it is al-

ways possible, and therefore obliga-tory, to provide swift and sureregulation of all substances and situ-ations that threaten public healthand the environment. He goes onto say, "This disjunction is hardlyever acknowledged by the general

37

public, so completely has sciencebeen accepted as the handmaidenof its material desires." In the lastSyears this attitude seems to bechanging rapidly as a significantnumber of people are looking atPooh rather than Owl for guid-ance.

And there is some basis for this.What is the scientific solution to aproblem? Ruckelshaus says thatscience is only orderly after thefact; in process, and especially atthe advancing edge of some field, itis chaotic and fiercely controver-sial. He points out that in sciencethe majority does not rule and givesas an example the fact that every-body but Wegenerwas wrong aboutcontinental drift. Yet even whenthere is a significant body of scien-tific information available, scientistsoften fail to agree on solutions.Because of this, the public is rapidlylosing confidence in "data-based"decision making, the very thing thatI think we need more of Poohseems to be gaining ground on theOwl, except for the spotted one, ofcourse.

But can we make the rightchoices often enough to gainsustainability without doing sobased on strong data that allow usto prioritize and allocate resourcesefficiently? Risk assessmentisfright-cuing to both the scientist, who isseldom satisfied that he or she hasall the information needed to makea decision, and the public, whicheither does not understand prob-ability theory or refuses to acceptany risk at all. To many people, anyrisk is morally unacceptable. Yet isthere not a limit to affordability?Isn't there a need for putting re-sources where they are mostneeded? Can there be acceptabletradeoffs between risk to humanlife and economics or convenience?Can we remain competitive as anation and society if we do notmake these tradeoffs? In a personalconversation, Bill Ruckelshaus, whohad thenjust completed an assign-ment as a member of theBrundtland Commission, said:


"The single most important thingwe learned is that only countrieswith sound economies can affordclean environments." But eventhose countries with sound econo-mies have more environmentalneeds than money available to meetthem.

Ruckelshaus (1985) believeswecan mitigate the public fear of en-vironmental concerns by adopting,as a policy, the full disclosure of therisks involved in regulatory deci-sions. This, he continues, meansthat we will have to tell people whatthey ought to hear rather than whatthey want to hear. I think his adviceis good, but there has yet to bedeveloped a means and an infra-structure for doing this.Where are the risks and outcomesto be evaluated? Who makes theultimate decisions? Will our courtsystem allow this kind of action tobe taken without a myriad of law-suits developing? Train (1990) callsfor a four-policy initiative to meetour growing environmentalagenda. The initiative encompassesthese policies:

1. Addressing pollution prob-lems in an integrated way.(This means aligning our lawwith our understanding ofenvironmental reality.)

2. Elevating the Environmen-tal Protection Agency toCabinet status. (This wouldgive environmental issues at-tention at the Cabinetlevelboth signaling theirimportance and bringing anenvironmental perspectiveto a number ofpolicy issues.)

3. Rationalizing Congressionalauthority on a more inte-grated basis. (Environmen-tal issues are now dispersedamong nearly 20 full com-mittees in the House andSenate.)

4. Providing a better data basefor our lawmakers. (This

means something betterthan our current haphazardresearch efforts.)

Interestingly enough, this inte-grated approach was the premiseunder which the EPA was orga-nized. At that time it was referred toas the "unity of nature". Thispremise, however, "went right out

"Nothing short ofdefending this country inwartime compares inimportance with the greatcentral task of leavingthis land even better aland for our descendantsthan it is for usa"

Theodore Roosevelt

the window" soon after the forma-tion of the EPA, as this new organi-zation began to believe thatenforcement was what was neededand that time was of the essence(Ruckelshaus 1985). Perhaps thestage is being set for a data-based,integrated approach to environ-mental problems, but the curtainhas yet to rise. At what seems to bean accelerated rate, individuals,special-interest groups, the states,and various federal agencies seemto be "doing their own thing."

The extent to which environ-mental issues are being polarized isshown in a recent article entitled,"Tom Hayden, meet Adam Smithand Thomas Aquinas" (Nelson1990). Religious environmentalismis gaining ground, and there is agrowing number of people whobelieve that, in the words of aspeaker whom Nelson quoted: "Wethe human species, have become aviral epidemic on the Earth, the

AIDS of the Earth." This new reli-gion contrasts strongly with theBiblical directive to man to subduethe earth and to utilize all the spe-cies for man's own good. Religiousenvironmentalism is leading us todecisions that are not likely to beaffordable if we still feel that it isimportant to take care of and im-prove the lot of the human popula-tion, Nelson gives some examplesof things that are being done thatmake neither economic sense norenvironmental sense, from my per-spective. An example: the NationalPark Service is shooting and killingmountain goats in the OlympicNational Park in Washington State,because these goats were intro-duced in the park by man and aretherefore not natural. On the otherhand, elk have been allowed to pro-liferate in Yellowstone Park, driv-ing out other species such asbighorn sheep and beaver, becauseit would be "unnatural" to intro-duce control measures in this case.

Congress, Nelson contends, ismoving away from weighing thecost of environmental measuresagainst the benefits. It seems toregard each pollutant as an offenseagainst nature, even if that sub-stance is not present in quantitiessufficient to cause any harm. We'veall begged the question: "What isnatural?" Did you know that thereis no natural grassland left in thiscountry, most species being intro-duced? Each year there are speciesof plants and animals that aremoved out of their "natural" habi-tats. You've heard of the lampreyproblem in the Great Lakes. Saltgrass from the east coast "threat-ens" western marsh lands. Chest-nut blight and Dutch elm diseaseshave changed our forests. The cattleegret got to the Americas on itsown. Humans colonized the Ameri-cas on several different occasions.Food and other plants were takenback to Europe. Human diseaseswere spread.

How much of all this is natural?Remember the statement: "Themost constant thing in nature is

Norman E. JohnsonA Sustainable World

change." Man is making significantchange, but so did the dinosaurs.Maybe our role as a species is ourunique ability to recycle fossil fuelsand deeply buried minerals such asphosphorus, an essential elementto life. What other organism can dothis? When we've done ourjob, willour reward be the same as thataccorded the dinosaur? See wherethis can lead us? One could be-come a fatalist and say, "What thehell, take it when you can." Or onecould side with the other to anextreme and commit to things thatmake no economic sense, andthereby put our country at a severedisadvantage to those counties thatare already gaining economic ad-vantage over us. There is a prag-matic approach, I believe, thatcanallow for improving the well-beingof the human species and yet pro-vide a much better environment tolive in and enjoy.

We have a longway to go. If onebuys the thesis that "sustainability"is a timely concept and that theworld's resources are not limitless,then some things certainly needchanging in the way we allocateresources. Here is what I think:

1. Devise a national energy andenvironmental pol-icy withvision, mission, and operat-ing tactics and actions. With-out good strategies, good de-cisions are seldom made.

2. Don'tspendmoneyon envi-ronmentally frivolousthings. An example is thenearly 5 million dollars thatwas spent to save threewhales stuck in Arctic icefloes. Nothing positive wasaccomplished from an envi-ronmental point ofview, andwe may have deprived somepolar bears of a meal. Spend-ing money on a truly endan-gered species is a differentstory.

3. Look seriously at tradeoffswhere reasonable data is

available. Here are ex-amples from a recentIndustry Week (October1990):

"One would have to drink10 liters ofthe recently con-taminated Perrier water toingest the same amount ofbenzene that exists in theair in most communities,and the average smokerinhales 100 times morebenzene than the levelfound in the Perrier."

"The National Cancer In-stitute estimates that 25percent of the U.S. popu-lation is at significant (70percent) risk of gettingcancer because they arenot eating enough fruitsand vegetables. Yet the riskof getting cancer from pes-ticides on produce is be-tween one and three in10,000."

In an article in BusinessWeek (1990) biochemistBruce Ames, who has re-searched carcinogens inmany food products, said,"The espresso I'm sippinghas more carcinogens thanyou'd get from pesticideresidues in a year." After alifetime ofresearch he con-cludes that regulators withbest of intentions haveoverreacted to the dangersof pollution and chemicalexposure and have under-rated risks from naturalsubstances.

And with all the talk aboutdioxin, no data have shownit to be a threat to humanhealth at the levels it isfound.

4. Educate the public. Thereneeds to be a better way oflooking at environmentalissues in an integrated way

39

and getting the data not onlyto the decision makers, butto the interested public.Currently there is no sourceof nonpartisan review of keyissues; there is only aplethora of opinions.

5. Plan, do, check, act. Some-times one must cease plan-ning and do something. Butwhen this something is be-ing done, there should bechecking and fine-tuning. Ifmost of our vaccines hadn'tbeen developed prior to the1960s, few of them wouldever have been permittednow. Thousands of peoplewould be dead from dreadeddiseases like smallpox, dip h-theria, typhoid, and polio.Some died from vaccines,but millions were saved bythem. On the other side ofthe coin are things that werenot tested enough beforebeing marketedthalido-mide, for example. It seemsto me that there is a greatdeal of difference in the ac-ceptable level of risk betweena drug that could save livesand one that is there just toreduce minor suffering orperform some cosmeticfunction.

6. Direct research dollars tothose areas where knowl-edge is needed to attainsustainability. Without gooddata, good decisions will notbe made. A lot of researchbeing done today gives usdata that is nice to have, butnot essential. At the sametime, we lack the kinds ofdata necessary to make in-telligent decisions leadingtoward sustainability.

7. Offer rewards for having itin "mybackyard". Even thoseinformed, ardent environ-mentalists don't want thesolution to be in their back-


yards because there are toomany examples of problemsthat developed from actionspurported to be safe at thetime.

8. Regulate population. Whenall is said and done, a majorcause of our environmentalproblems is too manypeople. Ruckeishaus (1989),in a paper entitled, "Towarda sustainable world," givesthese fundamental guide-lines:

The human species ispart of nature.Its exist-ence depends on itsability to draw suste-nance from a finitenatural world; its con-tinuance depends on itsability to abstain fromdestroying the naturalsystems that regeneratethis world.

Economic activity mustaccountfor the environ-mental costs of produc-tion.

The maintenance of alivable global environ-ment depends on thesustainable develop-ment of the entire hu-man family-if 80 per-cent of the members ofour species are poor, wecan't hope to live in aworld at peace; if thepoor nations attempt toimprove their lot by themethods we rich havepioneered, the resultwill eventually be worldecological damage.

Chief Sealth put it this way:"This we know: Man did not weavethe web of life, he is merely a strandin it. Whatever he does to the web,he does to himself."

Theodore Roosevelt was talk-ing about sustainability when hesaid, "Nothing short of defendingthis country in wartime comparesin importance with the great cen-tral task of leaving his land evenbetter a land for our descendantsthan it is for us."

So maybe the answer is to useall the brain power of the Owl alongwith the heartfelt intuition of Poohto build a sustainable world.

Bibliography

Brown, Lester R., Christopher Fla-yin and Sandra Postel. 1990.Picturing a sustainable society.Ch. 10, ppl73-l9O, In: State ofthe World 1990. W.W. Norton &Company, New York.

Business Week. 1990. Heresy in theCancer Lab. October 15,1990:58.

Canby, Thomas Y. 1990. Our mostprecious resource: water. Na-tional Geographic, August,1990:144-179.

Chandler, William U., Alexei A.Mararov and Zhou Dadi. 1990.Energy for the Soviet Union,Eastern Europe and China. Sci-entific American, September,1990:121-127.

Davis, Ged R. 1990. Energy forplanet earth. ScientificAmerican,September, 1990:55-62.

Fulkerson, William., Judkins,Roddie R., Sanghvi, Manoj K.1990. Energy from fossil fuels.Scientific American, September,1990:129-1 35.

Gibbons, Boyd and Steven C. Wil-son. 1984. Do we treat our soillike dirt. National Geographic,September, 1984:350-388.

40

Industry Week. 1990. ExecutiveHealth. October 1, 1990:27.

Nelson, Robert H. 1990. TomHayden, meetAdam Smith andThomas Aquinas. Forbes, Octo-ber 29, 1990:94-97.

Postel, Sandra. 1989. Halting landdegradation, Ch. 2, pp 21-40.In: State of the Worldl 989. WorldWatch Institute. W.W. Norton& Company Inc. New York.

Ruckelshaus,WilliamD. 1985. Risk,science and democracy. Issuesin Science and Technology. Spring1985:19-35.

Ruckelshaus, William D. 1989.Toward a sustainable world. Sci-entfic American, September1989:166-174.

Train, Russell E. 1990. Environmen-tal concerns for the year 2000.The Bridge, 20(1):3-10.

World Resources Institute. 1984.The Global Possible. Washing-ton, D.C. :37.

World Resources Institute. 1990. AGuide to the Global Envi ronment.Oxford University Press, NewYork.

World Wildlife Fund and Founda-tion Newsletter. 1990. 2:82.

Sustainable Forestry:Some Comparisons of Europeand the United Stales

(4;

Dr. Niels Elers Koch is Directorof the Danish Forest ResearchInstitute.

by Niels Elers Koch

Foresters have oftenbeen shocked in thelast 20 years by rapidchanges in theirprofessional roles andpublic trust.

Alvin Toffler published FutureShock in 1970, in which theworidwas presented as chang-

ing at an accelerating rate. Heprobably would not be surprised tohear that foresters have often beenshocked in the last 20 years by rapidchanges in their professional rolesand public trust.

The U.S. National Environ-mental Policy Act (NEPA 1969),for example, can be viewed as astockholders' rebellion to diversefederal agencies perceived as pro-fessional monocultures and domi-nated by utilitarian values. NEPAintroduced a greater diversity ofvalues and more open, democraticdecision-making into national for-est management, requiring inter-disciplinary professionals toconsider different planning andmanagement alternatives in a de-cision process open to public scru-tiny. Elsewhere in the western world,the Beech Forest Protection Act(1974) required preservation ofSwedish beech forests, and addi-

tional requirements introducedinto the Swedish Forestry Act in1975 increased the importance ofnature conservation. In NewZealand, most of the native forestswere transferred from the ForestService to the Department of Con-servation in 1987. This action leftthe New Zealand Forest Service withonly about 25% of their formerland, the exotic forest plantations.These were transferred to a publiccorporation, which now is beingsold (Kennedy 1981, Clawson1988). The Danish Forest Servicewas merged with the Agency forProtection of Nature, Monumentsand Sites in 1987 to form the Na-tional Forest and Nature Agency.In 1989 a new Danish Forest Actalso put more emphasis on the non-utilitarian forest values (Bjornskov1989).

This paper examines the majorreasons for such "future shock"under the following categories:

1) Changes in society: Westernsocieties evolving from ruralagricultural stages to urban,post-industrial societies.

2) Changes in the ways forest so-cial values are communicated:from economic systemdominance in communicat-ing forest utilitarian values,shifting to social and politi-cal systems which are moreeffective in communicatingnon-utilitarian and non-market forest values.


100%

0%

Primary sector:Agriculture, forestry,and fishing

Approx. 1650

Figure 1. Primary Employment in Western Countries

Based on this common frameof reference, an overview is givenof:

1) major forest policy issues inEurope and Denmark, and

2) sustainable forestry in Eu-rope.

This leads me to ask some ques-tions about forest policy and sus-tainable forestry in the U.S. Mypaper does not give all the answersto these questions. Instead, the pa-per closes with some suggestionson how to avoid "future shock" bybeing more aware of diverse, mul-tiple-use social values communi-cated to foresters in many new waysby political, social and economicsystems.

Changes in Society

Two or three generations agothe majority of the population inmostwestern countries was directlyinvolved in primary production offood and wood. This was a close,blood-and-blister relationship withnature, dominated by utilitariansocial values. The majority of theadult population in the westernworld today is born and raised incities, employed in the service see-

Secondary sector:Industry

Tertiary sector:Service andinformation

Present Future

tor, and has different values andrelationships with nature (Figure 1).

In the first half of this century,industrializing western society val-ued forests primarily for a flow ofwood products to ensure long-termeconomic progress and nationalsecurity. By the 1960s, the view thateconomic and utilitarian valueswere the most legitimate indicatorsof forest worth was increasinglychallenged. Urbanites had theluxury of being able to focus onromantic, idealistic, and symbolicforest values. Unlike their agricul-tural ancestors, few directly utilizednature for a livelihood.

To remain effective, profes-sional groups must adapt to chang-ing social values. Foresters wereoften ahead of their society in con-servation vision and values from1850 to 1950, as the western worldevolved from an agricultural to anindustrial society. This has gener-ally not been the case as societyevolved into a post-industrial stage,with new values expressed by the1970s environmental movement.One reason for this could be thechanges in the ways forest socialvalues are communicated, which isthe subject of the next section.

42

Changes in Forest ValueCommunication

I use a simple definition of so-cial values as those goods, services,or ideals that large groups ofpeoplewill make sacrifices to achieve. Ex-amples of forest social values aretimber, recreation, wildlife, wilder-ness areas, and water. It is also pro-posed that forest social values existin interrelated sets of four majorsystems (Kennedy 1985) (Figure 2):

1) the natural resource systemof biosphere elements, suchas forest and other environ-mental resources;

2) the social system of human(individual and group) atti-tudes, values, behavior, in-stitutions and technology;

3) the economic system in-cluding certain types of hu-man behavior relative to theutilization of land, labor andcapital resources; and

4) the political system of socialattitudes/values and behav-ior that are explicitly definedand regulated by policy, leg-islation and legal/policeforces.

Niels Elers Koch Sustainable Forestry: Some Comparisons of Europe and the U.S.

Forest resources (in the natural sys-tem) affect and are affected by allother systems. That is, the four sys-tems are interrelated and interactwith one another.

Forest values (as with all othervalues) originate from people inonly one system, the social. Forestvalues are communicated by threesystems: the economic, social, andpolitical. In this western-worldconceptualization, the natural re-source system, neither originatesnor communicates forest values. Itis only through human interactionwith physical resources that forestvalues originate and are communi-cated. In agricultural and indus-trial stages, society assigns values tonatural resources primarily basedon commodity or recreational usevalues. In post-industrial society, thewestern world increasingly valuesnatural resources for inherent val-ues (e.g., biodiversity, wildernessvalues, or endangered plant/ani-mal species), less dependent ondirect and immediate human use.Yet even those inherent or"biocentric" (Callicot 1987) valuesdo not spring from the land or areordained by the godsthey are as-signed by society (Wagner 1987).

Only when values are commu-nicated in various systems cannatural resource managers beginto understand what values indi-viduals and groups "assign" forestpractices or outputs. Common so-cial system communications of for-est values are responses toquestionnaires, number and typeof people using recreational areas,letters to newspapers, or a foresterand family being shunned in a localcommunity. The economic systemcommunicates forest values in theconsumption and price of woodproducts, expenditures in pursuitof recreation, or sale of summerhome sites. Legislation, budget al-location, taxes, grants and lawsuitsare value communications of thepolitical system.

Foresters historically have beentrained to understand and respondto the social value communicated

by the economic system as the pri-mary means of current generationsexpressing theirvalues. There werestill the values of future genera-tions to considerthese often notwell-expressed by the economic sys-

Foresters were not wellprepared by education orexperience to understandand respond to social andpolitical expressions offorest values in the lasthalf of this century.

tem. Professional forestry norms(e.g., sustained-yield) and politicalsystems (e.g., laws and policies) at-tempted to provide for forest val-ues of society unborn.

Non-product benefits like rec-reation, landscape amenity, natureconservation, cultural heritage andenvironmental protection becamemore important to urban citizensin the last 20 years, and non-eco-nomic communication systems be-came increasingly influential inexpressing widening forest values.Thus social systems (e.g., publicinvolvement and organized usergroups) and political systems (e.g.,new laws, expanded role of thecourts, forest agency reorganiza-tion) became a more importantpart of forest management.

Foresters were not well pre-pared by education or experienceto understand and respond to socialand political expressions of forestvalues in the last half of this cen-tury. Most foresters were educatedin the European tradition, whichtended to foster a professional styleof educated, objective and benignforester-aristocrats, whose role was

Figure 2. The four Interrelated systems of forest social values

43


to protect forests from fire and in-sects as well as from the ignorance,greed and shortsightedness of thepublic and politics (Kennedy 1980;Magill 1988). Few courses educatedforesters to understand and appre-ciate the social and political dy-namics of modern forestmanagement.

Therefore, I find it very en-couraging for the forestry profes-sion that the International UnionofForestry Research Organizations,on its XIXth World Congress inMontreal in August 1990, stressedthe importance of social science inforestry by restructuring its DivisionVI. And I want to compliment theCollege of Forestry, Oregon StateUniversity, for again taking theleading role in establishing the"Consortium for the Social Valuesof Natural Resources." I agree com-pletely with Dr. Marion Clawson,who in his 1985 Starker Lecturestated that:

"Increasingly, people will bemore important than trees.Technical forestry solu-tions will still remain impor-tant, but more and more itwill be a consideration ofwhat people demand, willaccept, or will tolerate. Theforester will increasingly bethe negotiator, the media-tor, and the seeker for con-sensus, as well as thetechnical expert."

(Clawson 1985).

Foresters have, in my opinion,sometimes also failed to appreciatethe growing symbolic value ofnatural resources (Reunala 1984,Kennedy 1988). Forest managersfrequentlyjustify harvesting of old-growth Douglas-fir forests in theUnited States, native forests in NewZealand, or old beech forests inEurope on their commodity valuesand market prices. To many citi-zens in the western world, this is assensitive and rational as estimatingthe worth of the Statue of Liberty,Eiffel Tower, or crown jewels in

their metal melt-down values. Thereare probably considerable materialsalvage values in all these nationalsymbols, but they are often incon-sequential relative to their symbolicsocial values.

Major Forest Policy Issues inEurope and Denmark

Based on this frame of refer-ence, I will give an overview of themajor forestpolicy issues in Europeand Denmark.

Europe

The major forest policy issuesin Europe were discussed during a1987 joint session of the TimberCommittee of the Economic Com-mission for Europe and the Euro-pean Forestry Commission. Thissession, which was held in a processsimilar to the RPA Assessment inthe U.S., identified eight key areasfor the development of Europeanforest policy. They are ranked ac-cording to importance as follows:

1) The increasing relative importance of the non-woodbenefits of the forests.

2) Protection offorests againstdamage due to fire, air poilution and other causes.

3) Conversion of agriculturalland to forestry.

4) Size of ownership and management units.

5) Development of productsand markets.

6) Energy (may be a rise indemand for energy fromwood again).

7) Community of interest ofthe forest and forest products sector.

44

8) Public interest and partici-pation in the policy-mak-ing process in the forestryand forest product sector.

Regarding the first key area it wasstated:

"Society's demands for thesocial and environmentalservices of the forest, as wellas for products other thanwood, will continue to in-crease and diversify. . . .Theprovision ofnon-wood goodsand services may well lead toconstraints on wood pro-duction, as well as conflictsbetween the different func-tions of the forest. Forestpolicies must be adapted tomeet the growing demandfor non-wood benefits andseek to minimize the con-flicts that are generated.

. .Strategies must be devel-oped that will allow the fullpotential of the forest to beutilized in an integrated way,so that their multiple func-tions are made available forthe welfare of society."

(United Nations 1987)

Denmark

I use Denmark as an exampleof the changes happening in for-estry in Europe. It is an examplethat I know well.

The old Danish Forest Servicehad strong traditions dating backto the 17th and 18th century fromFrance (The "Parforce"-hunting)and Germany. It administerednearly all publicly owned forestsand nature parks in Denmark: one-third of the forest areas, and fourpercent of the total area of thecountry. It was a very traditionaland efficient forest service which,except for five persons trained inlaw, only employed professionalstrained in forestry.

In 1976, the Danish Forest Ser-vice was transferred from the De-partment of Agriculture to the


newly-established Department ofEnvironment. That was the first signof the changing forest social values.In the Department of Environment,there was also established a newNational Agency for the Protectionof Nature, Monuments and Sites.This Agency handled tasks at thecentral-government level pursuantto the Danish Nature ConservationAct (i.e., nature conservation, out-door recreation and protection ofour cultural heritage), the RawMaterials Act (gravel and miner-als), and the Building Conserva-tion Act, and advised the countyauthorities in similar matters. TheAgency employed approximately220 persons and administered noland, but was in a nearly constantbattle with the Forest Service(Figure 3).

In 1987, the Danish Forest Ser-vice, by a parliamentary shotgunmarriage, was merged with most ofthe Agency for Protection of Na-ture, Monuments and Sites to formthe National Forest and NatureAgency (Figure 3). This agency nowhas the national responsibilities for:

forests (managing one-third ofthe forest area)

nature protection (managingall nationally owned natureparks)

outdoor recreation

cultural heritage

gravel and minerals

In 1989, the Hunting andWildlife Administration was alsotransferred from the Departmentof Agriculture to the National For-est and Nature Agency.

In recent years, the Danishgovernment has been working onmaking the public sector more cost-effective. This has resulted in a re-duction of the number ofemployees in the National Forestand Nature Agency and a consoli-dation of the number of nationalforests into 28 (Fig. 3). Each na-tional forest has freedom in use of

(Jartment of Agriculture

stExpeent

Forest

EIrnent of Agriculture

ExperimentStation

Hunting and (Transferred 1989)wildlife

Department of Environment

Forest Service ) ( Nature Protection

D.C. ) ( D.C.

5 divisions ( 10 divisions(40 persons) ) t (220 persons)

34 national forests No land(2,000 persons)

Department of Environment

National Forest and Nature Agency

12 divisions(230 persons)

28 national forests(1,800 persons)

Figure 3. Restructuring of Danish Forest Service in response tochanging forest social values

the revenues from the forest, un-der constraint of a managementplan, and with specific appropria-tions for timber production andfor non-timber values. This hasmade the national forests more cost-effective.

As a result of the government'splans, it has also been proposed toamalgamate seventeen present actswithin the jurisdiction of the De-partment of Environment to fourmain acts. These are the following:the Nature Protection Act; the En-vironmental Protection Act; the Wa-ter Protection Act; and the PhysicalPlanning Act (including planningfor afforestation). In addition, therewill be certain special acts, such asthe newly adopted Forest Act of1989 and the Raw Materials Act(gravel and minerals), which areholistic in their balance betweencommercial exploitation and thevarious environmental interests.

45

The last three years of develop-ment in forestry in Denmark hasconfirmed the proverb byHeraclitus, "There is nothing per-manent except change" (this is alsoused as the motto for Mount St.Helens National Volcanic Monu-ment).

Sustainable Forestry inEurope

Let me first briefly introducethe concept of "sustainable devel-opment" and the "Brundtland Re-port," which, I have experienced, isnot widely known in the U.S.

The Brundtland Report

In 1987, the independentWorld Commission on Environ-ment and DevelopmentS estab-lished in 1983, published its report,"Our Common Future," also known


Forest Area

% Mio. ha

20%A

0,8

0,7

0,6

10%0,5-

0,4

0,3

0,2

2% 0,11 0/I /0

1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

Year

Figure 4. Sustainable forestry in Denmark from 1600 2100

as the "Brundtland Report" (WCED1987). Shortly thereafter, the Gov-erning Council of the United Na-tions Environment Programmeadopted a text entitled "Environ-mental Perspective to the Year 2000and Beyond."

In two resolutions from 1987(42/187 and 42/186) the mainguidelines of the two reports wereunanimously endorsed by theUnited Nations General Assemblyas a framework for future environ-mental cooperation. The GeneralAssembly furthermore decided thatefforts should be made towardsimplementation of the reports' ob-jectives, and it called on govern-ments to consider the recommend-ations of the Brundtland Report(Koester 1990).

The central concept of theBrundtland Report is "sustainabledevelopment", which is defined as"a development that meets theneeds of the present without com-promising the ability of future gen-erations to meet their own needs"(WCED 1987).

Two examples show that thereports and the concept have beenused widely, especially in Europebut also in North America:

1) In December1988, the Dan-ish Government publishedits Action Plan aimed at fol-lowing up the recommen-dations of the two aforemen-tioned reports (Ministry ofEnvironment 1988), and thenew Danish legislation re-garding forest and nature isbased on the Brundtlandphilosophy.

2) In April1990, the CanadianInstitute of Forestry pub-lished its "policy statementon sustainable develop-ment" in which it definessustainable forest land man-agement as a "...manage-ment which ensures that theuse of any forest resources isbiologically sustainable, andwill not impair the biologi-cal diversity or the use of thesame land base for any otherforest resource in the future"(CIF/IFC 1990). I see asmissing the social sciencesand the question about so-cial sustainabilityin that defi-nition.

46

These two examples, and manyothers could have been given, leadme to the question, "What hashappened in the U.S. regarding asustainable development in gen-eral, and in forestry particularly?"

Forestry has not always beensustainable in Europe

In Figure 4, it is shown, withDenmark as an example, that for-estry in Europe has not always beensustainable. The same developmenthappened in all countries in centralEurope, although the over-exploi-tation of the forest resources wascarried very far in Denmark.Around 1800, the developmentwasturned in most European countriesas described, e.g., in the 1989Starker Lecture by professor Rich-ardPlochmann (Plochmann 1989).

Where is the U.S. on the curveshown in Figure 4?

Sustainable torestry inEurope

The industrial revolution of the19th century lead most Europeancountries to focus on wood produc-tion to fulfill society's increaseddemand for wood products on asustained-yield basis. Agrarian for-est grazing practices were usuallyforbidden, remaining forest areaswere preserved and intensivelymanaged, forest lakes and bogs weredrained and afforested, and newforests were planted. Biological di-versity and multiple-use forest val-ues were often reduced in this focuson wood production efficiency.

One of the ways to increasewood production in a sustainableway was and is by early, light andfrequent thinnings. In 1800-1827,the Danish Count C.D.F. Reventlowwrote his "Treatise on Forestry" inwhich he, based upon measure-ments, recommended frequentthinnings (Reventlow 1827). Sub-sequently, sample plot growth analy-ses have prompted refinements in


%100

90

80

70CurrentAnnual 60

Increment 5040

30

20

10

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 %Basal area

Figure 5. Sample plot growth analyses from percent annualincrement

thinning principles. In Denmark,records for one sample plot havebeen kept for 147 years.

It should be noted that the in-dividual thinnings are light, usuallyremoving less than 20 percent ofthe volume, but the short thinningcycle, 1-5 years, results in relativelylow basal areas. The light but fre-quent cuttings prevent drasticopening of the stand and enableresidual trees to form deep vigor-ous crowns, thereby stimulating thegeneral growth potential of thestand. Using these thinning prin-ciples, it has been rendered thatannual increment does not de-crease appreciably until basal area(volume) is reduced below 50 per-cent of the greatest possible basalarea (volume) that would exist onthe site with the species at a givenage (Figure 5) (Barrett andHolmsgaard 1964; see also Syra-cuse University 1954). This has far-reaching silvicultural implications:by the light and frequent thinnings,the forest manager has upgradedthe growth potential of the remain-ing trees.

Integrated SustainableMultiple-use Forestry

In the last twenty years, Euro-pean forestry also has tried to adaptto the changing forest social values.This has lead to an integrated, sus-tainable, multiple-use forest man-agement concept. How this is

Value to Society

III

I I

Optimum

carried out is described in the 1989Starker Lecture byPlochmann. Letme here only summarize the basicprinciples. The land base of centralEurope is too small, and the popu-lation too dense, to segregate dif-ferent land uses in different areas.The product mix for each manage-ment unit, some of them quitesmall, must be planned accordingto natural, political, economic, andsocial parameters (Plochmann1989).

This does not mean that allgoods and services should be pro-duced at every single unit of theforest, as some interests are con-flicting. A superior target and pri-ority setting that also allows forprimary (or dominant) use is nec-essary (e.g., Daniels 1987). Theconcept implies, however, that thedecision-maker at each decisionfor each unit of forest landtakesinto account all the present andfuture goods and services whichforest land could provide, aimingat thein the long runoptimalcombination (Figure 6).

A Danish example: The mostintensively used Danish forest isJ aegersborg Dyrehave, approxi-

Non-timber values

Total production

Restrictions in thetimber production tobenefit the non-timbervalues

Timber production

Figure 6. Variety of forest resource use in relation to timberproduction and social value

47


Table 1. Statistical Comparisons of Forestry in Denmark, Oregon, and Utah

Denmark Oregon Utah

Land area (sq mi) 16,600 96,000 85,000+ Greenland + Faroes (850,000)

Number of Islands 406 10 3

Population (mill's) 5.1 2.8 1.7

Temperate Temperate andInsula Continental Continental

Climate:Precipitation (inches) 26 8-130 10-40Frost-free days 170 60-200 60-100

Highest point (ft) 550 11,237 13,500

Lowest point (ft) -10 0 2,200

Forested area (millions of ac) 1.2 28 16

Commercial timberland (millions of ac) 1 .2 22 3.4

Forest percentage 12 46 33

Owner distribution of forest land (%)Public, national, and local 33 63 84Private estates/forest industry 33 21

Farmers (< 120 acres)/nonindustrial 33 16private

Distribution by timber type (%):Hardwoods 33 7 20Conifers 66 93 80Christmas trees 5 0.2 0

Timber harvest (mill cu ft/yr) 75 1585 13

Cubic feet/per year/per acre 63 56 (71) 1 (4)

Forested area inhabited (ac) 0.24 10.1 9.4

Visits per year (millions) 50 60 20

Visitor days/per year/(millions) 8 40 20

Visitor days/per year/per acre 7 1 1

Acres per forest graduate 2,000 20,000 50,000

Acres per forest worker 200 2,000 5,000


mately 10 miles north ofCopenhagen. This forest is about3,000 acres large, has 3 million rec-reational visits per year, a popula-tion of 2,000 fallow deer and reddeer, and an annual timber harvestof 300,000 cubic feet.

In Tables 1 and 2 are givensome statistical comparisons of for-estry in Denmark, Oregon andUtah, and of the national forests inDenmark and the U.S. From this itcan be seen that the outputs peracre of forest are much larger in

Denmark, even though the growthconditions in general are not asfavorable as in Oregon. But it shouldbe noticed that the inputs in laborand capital are also much larger.

However, Denmark is only pro-ducing one-third of its own woodconsumption, and Europe (ex-cepting Finland, Norway, and Swe-den) two-thirds of its totalconsumption. So, Denmark andEurope are both to some extentexporting some of their forest envi-ronmental problems, drawing

heavily on the forest resources ofother countries and regions. This isone of the reasons for the intensiveforest management and for theplans to convert agricultural landto forest.

Some Question About ForestPolicy Issues in the U.S.

Compared with Europe, I findthat the forest policy in the U.S. isdominated by a polarization and

Table 2. Statistical comparison of the National Forest and Nature Agency of Denmark and theU.S. Forest Service

National Forest U.S. Factorand Nature Agency Forest ofof Denmark Service difference

Areas

Total area (millions of ac) 0.4 191 454Of this: Commercial timberland (%) 62% 45% 0,7Net land acquisition (1000 ac) 2 93 54Area per inhabitant (ac) 0.07 0.77 10

Timber

Harvested (millions of cu. ft/yr) 21 2210 104Harvested (cu. ft/yr/ac of commercial timber land) 177 64 0.4Reforestation (1,000 ac) 2.5 452 183Percent of commercial timber land 1.0% 0,5% 0.5

Outdoor recreation

Visits (millions) 20 135 7Visitor days (millions) 3 242 80Use intensity (no. of visitor days/ac) 7.5 1.3 0.2

Ernptoyes

Full-time equivalents 514 36,143 70Full-time equivalents/i 000 ac 3 0.5 0.15Forest workers (millions of hrs) 2.0 contractors

Expenditures (billions of dollars)

Receipts (billions of dollars)

Net result

Total (billions of dollars)National forest system only (billions of dollars)National forest system only (dollars/acre)

0.1 2.7 25

0.05 1.6 30

-0.05 -1.1 20-0.03 -0.6 22-75 -3 0.05


segregation. This leads me to thefollowing questions:

Why is theforest policy so polar-ized in the U.S.?

1) Is it because of a differentevolution in the "paradig-matic images of the world"in the U.S. compared to Eu-rope?

All over the western world there aregreat conflicts between two verydifferent "paradigmatic images ofthe world" (e.g., Proops 1989):

The wish to protect theundisturbed nature in its"natural" state, untaintedby humans, as we know itfrom the hunter-gathererworld. This image of theworld is probably morecommon in North Americathan in Europe, becausethere is more "undisturbednature" in North America.

The wish of the indus-trial world to use nature asthe background and inspi-ration for human achieve-ments. The humans arelooked upon as creators,and there is unlikely to bean ecological equilibriumachieved, as human activi-ties are continually alter-ing the relationships be-tween species.

These two paradigmatic images ofthe world will necessarily be con-flicting, and in the U.S. these con-flicts have been nurtured by theorganizational structure and theprincipal forest and nature protec-tion laws.

In Europe, with a history ofseveral thousand years of estab-lished agriculture, it seems to be apredominant paradigmatic imageof the world that humankind is partof nature through harmonious ag-riculture and husbandry. An eco-

logical equilibrium has beenachieved, but this is very differentfrom that which would result with-out human activities. The landscapeis accepted as embodying humansand their works, but these are seenas humankind and nature in syn-ergy rather than conflict (Proops1989).

Maybe this paradigmatic im-age of the world also will evolve inthe western U.S. and act as a bufferbetween the two other ways of ex-periencing and using nature.

2) Is it because of the planningprocess in the U.S. ForestService in combination withthe very fast moving aroundof the line officers?

It seems to me that the battlesare fought on a "last stand" basis,because the planning process takesplace very seldom, and each timewith a new Forest Service line offi-cer. At the same time, there is averyactive public involvement, but nopublic participation with a repeatednegotiation where the interestedpublic is made responsible for thefuture of their national forest.

In Denmark, the Forest Ser-vice line officers are seldom movedafter they have been appointed atthe age of 30 to 40 years. This givesthe basis for repeated negotiationsand cooperation between the pub-lic and the line officers.

3) Is it because there are toomany lawyers in the U.S.?

Why is forest land use so segye-gated in the U.S.?

It seems to to me, as a for-eigner, that any large conflict overforest land in the U.S. has beenhandled by "slicing up the pie intopieces" (national parks, Wildernessareas, Wild and Scenic Rivers,spotted owl habitat conservationareas, etc.). This is probably a logicalreaction in a country with an

50

abundance ofnatural resources andareas.

But the size of the pie is notinfinite. It was surprising for me torealize that the U.S., in spite of thecountry's large forest resources, forseveral years has only producedabout 85% of its own wood con-sumption (U.S. Forest Service1989). The U.S. is, like Europe andDenmark, drawing on the forestresources of other countries andregions. The country is so wealthythat it may import wood, and ex-port some of its forest environmen-tal problems. Are we in doing sotruly following the motto of theBrundtland Report, "Think glo-bally, act locally"?

It seems to me, as a foreigner,that you by "multiple-use forestry"often understand a segregation ofthe different uses, as shown in Fig-ure 7 A and B. In Europe, we haveapproached the same forest inter-est conflicts from the opposite side:not from an abundance of forestresources, but on the contrary, froma desperate need of forest (Fig. 4).That, I believe, has taught us thehard way to use the forest resourcesin an integrated, sustainable, mul-tiple-use way, as shown in Figure 7C.

By this I do not mean that youshould cut down all your old-growthforests, as we have done in Europe.Wherever in the world there is anauthentic virgin forest left, there isalso a global responsibility to pro-tect it for future generations. But,after you have decided which largeareas you want to leave untouched,you may manage the remainder ina more integrated and sustainableway- as I will touch upon in the nextsection.

Some Questions aboutSustainable Forestry in theU.S.

Comparisons between sustain-able forestry in Europe and someof the current issues in forestry inthe U.S. lead me to the following


questions, which I also very shortlytry to answer.

Is "New Forestry" a sustainableforeshy?

In my opinion, as a foreigner,es." But to become an integrated,

multiple-use, sustainable forestry,it is necessary to take outdoor rec-reation, landscape amenities, andthe cultural heritage more intoconsideration in "New Forestry."

Is "New Perspectives inForestry "a sustainableforestry?

In my opinion that will dependupon where that development isbringing you.

Will the U.S. Forest Service besustainable/survive?

In my opinion "yes." I base myguess upon the fact that the U.S.Forest Service is handlingits presentchallenges with a self-critical andoptimistic will to make the neces-sary changes. My guess would alsobe that the next 10 years will bringlarger changes to the Bureau ofLand Management, Park Serviceand many state forest agencies. Thebiggest question, as I see it, is: "Willthe American taxpayers accept in-creased appropriations to thepublic land management agenciesto payfor the increased productionof non-timber values?"

Could the private forests bemanaged in a more sustainableway?

Yes. It has been demonstratedin practice that the private forestsin the Pacific Northwest could bemanaged in a more sustainable wayby, e.g., the Danish and Oregonianwoodland owner FlemmingJ uncker, by Woodland Manage-inent Inc. (Lake Oswego, OR), andby the Oregonian woodland owner1-lans Rasmussen (Cottage Grove,

A. Large-scale segregation

B. Small-scale segregation

C. Complete integration

Non-timber uses only Timber dominant

Non-timber uses dominant Timber only

Figure 7. Segregation of the different uses of forest resources

OR). The main techniques are and you are also more than wel-planned reforestation, prudent come to come to Europe to studythinnings, and selective harvestingof trees, which will lead to a higherwood productivity of the forests asdocumented, e.g., by Spurr (1979)and Smith (1989).Atthe same time,these techniques could also inmanaged forests lead to a generalincrease in the non-timbervaluesan integrated resource manage-ment(e.g., Clarkand Brown 1990).Of course, these new silviculturaltechniques will demand new forestengineering solutions. But that hasnot been and should never be thelimiting factor. Some of the forestengineering solutions already existin Oregon (e.g., Rasmussen 1983),

51

them.

Two other limiting factors aremore important:

1) We need more knowledgeabout integrated forest re-source management.

2) Integrated forest resourcemanagement is more laborand capital demanding.

The first factor could of course beovercome by research. The inter-disciplinary forest managementresearch project about forest stand


management alternatives that theCollege of Forestry, OSU, hasstarted in the McDonald and DunnForests could be an important firststep. The second limiting factorcould, I would hope, be overcomeby the increasing prices on wood,and if society finds ways to rewardprivate forest owners for their pro-duction of non-commodity forestvalues.

Closing Comments

Seen in the rear-view mirror, itis understandable that many forest-ers in the last 20 years have experi-enced a "future shock": society andsociety's forest values have changedvery rapidly. The forests cannotchange that rapidly, and the clearlydominating demand from societyin the last two centuries has been tofulfill society's large need for wood.The communication system forforest social values has changedfrom the economic system to agreater influence of the social andpolitical system. And, foresters wereoften not educated to perceive, orthey were reactionary to, socio-po-litical communication from thecitizens that forest priorities andmanagement practices shouldchange.

I believe that foresters all overthe world will experience more"future shock", especially if "mul-tiple-use forestry" is used as somekind of magic formula to justifyalmost any forestry decision. Mul-tiple-use forestry should, on bothpublic and private forest land, becarried out in accordance with thesocial values of current and futurecitizens. If this is not the case, itmust be expected that the socialand political system will changeforestry.

Foresters must realize that for-estry is the management of forestresources to provide a satisfactoryamount and mix of forest socialvalues for clients living, while pro-tecting these values and use optionsfor future generations. Becausemany forest social values conflict

with one another, foresters can beviewed as conflict managers. In whatthey do (and fail to do) foresterscan usually intensify or dampensocial conflict over forest values.This has made foresters'jobs morepolitical, complex, ambiguous, andtime-consuming and less control-lable. It has also meant that theforesters have to share power withthe public, differentinterest groups,and other professionals.

But on the other hand, forestmanagement has in the last 20 yearsbecome even more challengingbecause never before have so manydifferent people wanted so manydifferent and often conflicting val-ues from the forests.

I hope that you have foundsome of my questions to be of rel-evance for you. And,, if a few ofthem have been so irritating orchallenging to you that you startlooking for the answers, I can't askfor more.

Literature Cited andAdditional Reading

Barrett, J.W. and Holmsgaard, E.1964. Thinning in hardwoods-Danish guidelines for Ameri-can practices. J. For., 62:716-720.

Bjornskov, L. 1989. New opportu-nities in Denmark. Paper givenat the Countryside RecreationResearch Advisory Group'sConference in Edinburgh,1989. 2 pp.

Callicot, J.B. 1987. The philo-sophical value of wildlife. InValuing Wildlife: Economicand Social Perspectives.Decker, D.J. and Goff, R. (eds.).Westview Press, Boulder, CO.p. 214-221.

CIF/IFS. 1990. Canadian Instituteof Forestry/Institut Forestierdu Canada policy statement on

52

sustainable development. TheForestry Chronicle, 66(2):173-179.

Clark, R.N. and Brown, P.J. 1990.The emerging web of inte-grated resource management.Proceedings of the 19th JUFROWorld Congress, Montreal,Division 6, p. 24-33.

Clawson, M. 1985. The future ofpublic forestry in the PacificNorthwest. The 1985 StarkerLectures, College of Forestry,Oregon State University. p. 16-29.

Clawson, M. 1988. Public forests inNew Zealand and in the UnitedStates. Discussion paper RR88-01. Resources for the Future,Washington, D.C. 38 pp.

Daniels, S.E. 1987. Rethinkingdominant use management inthe forest-planning era. Envi-ronmental Law, 17:483-505.

Helliwell, D .R. 1987. Multiple-useforestry in the United King-dom. Arnbio, 16(2-3):129-133.

Hofstad, 0. 1976. Economic andsociological analysis as a basisof the multiple-use planningfor Oslomark. Proceedings ofthe 16th IUFRO World Con-gress, Oslo, Division 4, p. 143-152.

Kennedy, J.J. 1980. Foresters as aunique professional subcul-ture. College of Natural Re-sources, Utah State University.20 pp.

Kennedy,J.J. 1981. A view of NewZealand forestry in midlifetransition. N.Z.J. For., 26(1) :45-54.

Kennedy, J.J. 1985. Conceivingforest management as provid-ing for current and future so-cial value. For. Ecol. Manage.,13:12 1-1 32.


Kennedy, j.J. 1988. The symbolicinfrastructure of natural re-source management: An ex-ample of the U.S. ForestService. Society and Natural Re-sources, UK, 1:241-251.

Koch, N.E. 1991. U.S. ForestService.Dansk Skovbrugs Tidsskrift(forthcoming).

Koester, V. 1990. From Stockholmto Brundtland. EnvironmentalPolicyand Law, 20(1, 2):114-19.

Magill,A.W. 1988. Natural resourceprofessionals: The reluctantpublic servants. The Environ-mental Professional, USA,10:295-303.

Ministry of Environment. 1988. OurCommon Future: The DanishGovernment's Action Plan onEnvironment and Develop-ment. Ministry ofEnvironment,Copenhagen, 139 pp.

Plochmann, R. 1989. The forests ofcentral Europe: A changingview. The 1989 Starker Lec-tures, College of Forestry, Or-egon State University. p. 1-9.

Proops, J.L.R. 1989. Ecologicaleconomics: Rationale andproblem areas. Ecol. Econ.,1:59-76.

Rasmussen, H.R. 1983.1 don't knowwhat's right, butl know what iswrong. Interview by TedBlackman. Forest Industries,1983. p. 4-5.

Reunala, Aarne. 1984. Forest assymbolic environment. InMul-tiple-Use Forestry in the Scan-dinavian Countries, Saastam-omen, 0.; Hultman, 5G.;Koch, N. Elers and Mattsson,L. (eds.). Commun. Inst. For.Fenn., Helsinki, 120:81-85.

Reventlow, C.D.F. 1827. A Treatiseon Forestry. Society of ForestHistory, Horshoim Denmark,1960, xxxv + 142 pp.

Smith, M. 1989. Thinnings, a tale oftwo forests, and Does naturalseeding work? The WoodlandView, Woodland ManagementInc., Lake Oswego, OR.

Spurr, S.H. 1979. Silviculture. Sci-entific American, 2:62-75.

Syracuse University (edit.) 1954.Thinning Problems and Prac-tices in Denmark. State Univ.Coil, of Forestry, Syracuse Uni-versity, World Forestry Bull. 1,92 pp.

Toffler, A. 1970, Future Shock.Random House, NewYork, NY.505 pp.

United Nations. 1987. Declarationon the policy implications ofthe study "European tinibertrends and prospects to the year2000 and beyond" by the jointsession of the ECE TimberCommittee and the FAO Euro-pean Forestry Commission.United Nations, New York,1987, iii + 6 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. 1989. An analy-sis of the timber situation inthe United States.

Wagner, F.H. 1990. American wild-life management at the cross-roads. Wildi. Soc. Bull.,17 (3) :354-360.

WCED. 1987. Our Common Fu-ture. The World Commissionon Environment and Develop-ment. Oxford University Press,400 pp.

53

NonProfit Org

U S Postage

PAIDCorvallis, OR 97331

Permit No 200

Forest Research LaboratoryCollege of Forestry

Oregon State UniversityCorvallis, Oregon 97331 -5703

Address Correction Requested

The Starker Lecture Series - Oregon State University

Documents

Transcript of The Starker Lecture Series - Oregon State University