Creating institutions of care: The case for democratic forest trusts

Abstract

Strong institutional and systemic barriers prevent traditional political and economic institutions from effectively managing national forests in the United States. Despite consistent support for ecological values by the public, Congress does not protect them, and existing political institutions are not designed to respond effectively to citizens with these concerns. The major difficulty is that modern institutions do not effectively represent publics that are not geographically isolated. On the other hand, tribes such as Wisconsin’s Menimonee in governing their commons have managed forests for very long periods. This is so even when they also engage in the market economy. This is because their institutions are responsive to deeper and more complex values than are contemporary impersonal modern ones. Even so, traditional forms of organization can teach us but cannot be copied. However, the National trust of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland suggests a way similar values can be applied in a modern context. These insights are then applied to building a case for democratic national forest trusts to govern American national forests, including how they require independent organizing, financial independence, and can successfully attend to both local communities and the environmentally aware larger public.

Parent Publication

• Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress symposium

Citation

diZerega, Gus. 2007. Creating institutions of care: The case for democratic forest trusts. In: Watson, Alan; Sproull, Janet; Dean, Liese, comps. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress symposium; September 30-October 6, 2005; Anchorage, AK. Proceedings RMRS-P-49. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 90-95