The concept of forest commons is neither new nor especially radical -- though some citizens would challenge it today................ This concept is rooted in ancient tradition and finds precedent in virtually every culture on Earth................However, in the modern era, as the ideologies of individualism and capitalism have come to dominate political thought, the idea that society bears a common responsibility for the well-being of its forests has fallen into disuse and even disfavor...................I agree wholeheartedly with the following statement that came out of the FOREST COMMONS CONFERENCE at Eastern Kentucky University in 1997----"The natural reality is that the Earth and its inhabitants form an organic system in which we human beings are part of the total community".............."Private property is an expedient that facilitates civil society by affording to individuals a degree of protection and security in those things they need for sustenance and comfort through the assertion and enforcement of certain rights"..........."However, the concept of a commons -- a shared interest, respect, and responsibility for the wholeness and well-being of the Earth -- is a much greater and primordial truth"--------READ THE ENTIRE FOREST COMMONS CONFERENCE BY CLICKING ON THE LINK BELOW

click on this link below to read the entire paper entitled-THE FOREST COMMONS

  http://www.uky.edu/OtherOrgs/AppalFor/commons.html

THE FOREST COMMONS

PREFACE 

In the Spring of 1995, Appalachia - Science in the Public Interest sponsored a conference at Eastern Kentucky University entitled "The Forest Commons." At the conference several distinguished experts addressed issues of forest conservation within the context of the concept of forest commons. The presentations were very informative and drew upon a variety of academic and professional disciplines, ranging from history and law to science and forestry. While this paper is neither a verbatim record nor a strict summary of the proceedings, it draws heavily upon ideas presented in the conference in attempting to draft a vision for a greater forest commons. For those interested in more in-depth analysis of specific issues addressed at the conference, several presentations are included in the appendix to this paper. In addition, video tapes of conference presentations may be purchased from ASPI Publications, 50 Lair Street, Mount Vernon, KY 40456. For further information call (606) 256-0077. 

INTRODUCTION 

Threat. Until recently, the portion of the earth covered in forest remained fairly constant. According to scientists, forest eco-systems decreased in size only slightly in the period from the beginning of human civilization until the turn of the nineteenth century (roughly 10,000 years), dropping from about 34 percent to 32 percent of the earth's land area. However, in the last two hundred years -- and particularly since 1950 -- deforestation has proceeded at an alarming rate. Today trees cover less than 26 percent of the earth's land, and intact forest eco-systems, less than 12 percent.⁽¹⁾
The continuing loss and fragmentation of forests carry serious implications for climate, air quality, and biodiversity and could ultimately jeopardize the earth's ability to sustain life. 

Response. In light of the grave threats posed by deforestation, concerned citizens around the world have fought to curtail timber cutting and stop the clearing of forests. Needless to say, they have met with only limited success. With disturbing consistency, concerns for forest sustainability are pushed aside in favor of short-term economic gains derived from forest damage or destruction. However, the problem is more complex than just economics versus ecology. Some of the greatest difficulties in halting forest destruction are political and ideological, not simply economic. In attempting to restore healthy and sustainable forests it is important that we address not only the greed that drives the destruction of forests, but also the political systems and underlying philosophies that have protected and encouraged destructive practices. With this imperative in mind we seek in this paper to explore and develop the concept of the forest commons within the context of present day forestry policies and practices. 

Concept. The concept of forest commons is neither new nor especially radical -- though some citizens would challenge it today. This concept is rooted in ancient tradition and finds precedent in virtually every culture on Earth. However, in the modern era, as the ideologies of individualism and capitalism have come to dominate political thought, the idea that society bears a common responsibility for the well-being of its forests has fallen into disuse and even disfavor. Culturally imposed restraints that once afforded forests protection against destructive exploitation have been stripped away in favor of the notion that freedom to dispose of private property without limitation is the exclusive and absolute right of the individual or corporate owner. This philosophical shift coupled with tremendous technological advances in logging, processing, and transportation has worked to facilitate the devastation of America's rich forest heritage. Only in the management of government-owned forestland does the forest commons concept survive in a substantial way -- and even there, it is under heavy assault. If we are to halt and reverse the precipitous decline of sustainable forestlands, we need to vigorously revive and broaden the concept of forest commons. 

Convictions. For those of us who strive to retain a sense of social responsibility, the concept of "commons" is key to our understanding of civilization and culture. We are convinced that the concept of "forest commons" is crucial to sound future policy-making especially in regard to eastern American forests, which are predominantly in private hands. Furthermore, we are convinced that certain forest management practices are environmentally superior to others, that logging patterns could be changed through regulation, and that a viable sustainable program must be implemented quite rapidly, if our forests are to have a future. 

Invitation. This paper seeks to help revive the concept of forest commons and to inspire deeper commitment to the protection of our forests. It is not meant to be an exhaustive or a conclusive exploration of the idea of commons. Rather, it aims to open up the topic of commons for discussion within the context of its historical meaning and in view of its potential to impact the future. By placing this document on our internet site we are extending an invitation to a broad audience to participate in this discussion. We would be grateful for any constructive comments, criticisms, or suggestions you may care to offer to help strengthen weaknesses or fill in gaps in our presentation. 

Organization. We have organized our discussion of the forest commons into six sections. The first section examines the historical origin and application of commons, focusing primarily on the Western tradition, but touching on other traditions as well. The second looks at how the idea of a commons could legitimately be extended to threatened segments of the environment--particularly forests--in the United States. The third section examines how adopting a forest commons vision would impact forest policy and management. In section four we discuss specific forest utilization practices in relation to forest health, and in the fifth section we explore how a forest commons philosophy could advance sustainable forestry goals through both voluntary restraints and mandatory government regulations. Use the following or not, depending on how you want to treat Paul's speech. The sixth section presents a vision of ideal and sustainable forestry from the perspective of a professional forester. 



Section I - Commons: A Conceptual Background 

Summary --However, in the modern era, as the ideologies of individualism and capitalism have come to dominate political thought, the idea that society bears a common responsibility for the well-being of its forests has fallen into disuse and even disfavor. --------------------- 

The Word. In old English law the commons were areas of land that were held in common by the general population, "the commoners," as opposed to specific tracts that were held by the nobility. The grounds may have been pasture lands, woodlands, or open space used by the general population. The word commons is derived from Latin "communis" and means the quality of sharing by all or many. To communicate is to impart, share or literally to make common. A community is a place shared by many for residence or for some joint mission or purpose. Indeed communism is also derived from the same basic word "communis," and involves the ideology that all resources and means of production are held in common. However, the concepts of commons and private property are not mutually exclusive. Most cultures even communistic ones agree that some property may be held individually or in families with rights to the use, or usufruct, of goods and land for the benefit of the individual or family.

 WILDLANDS VISION OF LARGE SWATHS OF OPEN SPACE CONNECTED
VIA OPEN SPACE CORRIDORS THAT FACILITATE GENE TRANSFER OF
ANIMALS BACK AND FORTH ACROSS THEIR HISTORICAL RANGE

The Controversy. Arguing from an ideological standpoint, many demonize the idea of expanding the commons, as "un-American," "communist," "utopian," or "tyrannical." They perceive the exclusive and absolute right to private property as the mother of all human rights -- the right from which all others flow -- and a key component of the American ideals of liberty and justice. Others, arguing from an economic perspective, assert that property held in common is destined to be inefficiently managed and subject to greater plunder than private property. This assessment, commonly referred to as the tragedy of the commons paradigm, leads many to advocate even greater privatization of land and resources. While these objections to extending and more vigorously regulating the commons deserve careful and thoughtful consideration, we believe that abandoning the commons on their account would be a tragic mistake. The commons model has been successful in the past and continues to be successful today. Given the imminent threats facing the environment and the potential of a commons model to address these threats positively, it is more prudent to explore ways in which government excesses and wasteful practices can be preempted within the model, than to simply discard it.

Much of the controversy surrounding the idea of a greater commons stems from confusion and disagreement over what "commons" really means. For some, the term "commons" is understood to be synonymous with "common property" which has been variously used to refer to property that is owned by the government, property that is owned by no one, and property owned and defended by a community of resource users.⁽²⁾ 

As used here "commons" embraces common property in all these forms; but it is a much larger and deeper term. Unlike "common property," the concept of a commons is not a human construct. It is less a statement about the legal rights associated with land ownership than an affirmation of a condition that exists prior and superior to ownership. In affirming the concept of a commons we acknowledge that the notion of property, whether public or private, is an artificial human creation superimposed on a natural reality. The natural reality is that the Earth and its inhabitants form an organic system in which we human beings are part of the total community. Private property is an expedient that facilitates civil society by affording to individuals a degree of protection and security in those things they need for sustenance and comfort through the assertion and enforcement of certain "rights." However, the concept of a commons -- a shared interest, respect, and responsibility for the wholeness and well-being of the Earth -- is a much greater and primordial truth.