The Forest Setting

Forests presently cover approximately 25 percent of the world’s land surface, excluding Greenland and Antarctica. Two-thirds of this important renewable natural resource lies in North America, South America, Europe and Russia. In the early 1990s, industrial wood products from North America and Europe alone contributed a robust 2 percent of Global Domestic Product (GDP), and wood-based fuels remain the primary sources of energy for many countries.

The United States is particularly blessed with forests. About one-third of its total land area (730 million acres) is woodland. The proportion rises to nearly two-thirds east of the Mississippi River. Contrary to prevailing public opinion, two out of every three acres of U.S. forest is in private, not governmental, hands. Some 9 million nonindustrial private woodland owners control the future of these forests, a number that is rising steadily as land changes hands and is fragmented into smaller and smaller parcels.

In New England, these trends are even more pronounced. Of the region’s 32 million acres of land base, approximately 80 percent (24 million acres) is now in forest, and 96 percent of this forest is controlled privately. In 1993, by Forest Service estimates, 737,000 owners held forested land in the six-state region, and two-thirds of these tracts were less than 10 acres in size. Newer landowners are frequently urban emigrants, more tied to technology and human-designed infrastructure than to the land. However, they tend to have a nascent interest in the natural world and the potential to become both skillful resource stewards and passionate advocates for the environment.

The Evolution of ENFOR

In the spring of 1999, the idea of distance learning courses, accessible on home computers and targeted to the nonindustrial private sector in New England, seemed a promising way to tap the potential of these landowners. The New England Governors Conference, the U.S. Forest Service and the Lincoln Institute agreed to jointly sponsor a study that might point the way to developing such a course for the Institute’s distance learning program, Lincoln Education Online (LEO). A distinguished group of New England forestry and education leaders was recruited to serve as advisors. The organizational meeting of what came to be called ENFOR (ENvironmental FORestry) occurred in December 1999. Seven additional meetings were held subsequently over an eighteen-month period, including a regionwide Colloquium on Distance Learning and the Forest Environment held at the New England Center in Durham, New Hampshire, and attended by some forty selected New England forestry officials, educators and landowners. Specific ENFOR work products have included the following reports:

• Gail Michaels of the U.S. Forest Service prepared a summary paper, Characteristics of New England Forest Landowners and Implications for Computer-based Learning, which found that at least 40 percent of New England households are already computer-equipped, and the proportion is rising rapidly.
• An inventory of 66 existing distance learning resources relating to forestry, Distance Learning for the Forestry Environment, prepared by the Quebec-Labrador Foundation, found that none of the sites, of which 31 offered either online courses for credit or courses with online components, appeared to fulfill ENFOR’s objectives in their entirety.
• A one-page questionnaire was developed and sent to 5,000 known forest landowners to evaluate the market for distance learning. An astonishing 10 percent of the owners responded, requesting further information on how to improve their forest, how to protect it for the future, and how to find programs and services. Since about 90 percent of respondents indicated they had already done some work on their land, it seemed likely that any information provided through home-computer-based means would be put to work promptly on individual woodlots throughout New England.

A Woodland Walk

Encouraged by these explorations and consultations, ENFOR commissioned Brian Donahue, an environmental historian at Brandeis University, to prepare a 30-minute pilot course built around a computerized walk through a typical New England forest. In this course, a New England landowner is first introduced to the place of his woodland in the world, the region, the state, the county and the community, using supportive maps of cultural features, land use and protected areas in a sample town. An attractive “woodswalker” icon helps the user navigate. “Poison ivy” and “chestnut” symbols highlight points of particular concern and promise. The walk emphasizes the role of forests as ecological systems, as sources of products and values, and as places where interconnectedness and thoughtful stewardship are needed. Once the virtual walk is completed, the owner is encouraged to take a walk through his or her own woods, perhaps seeing for the first time its attributes and potential.

Following a successful test of the pilot course in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, it is now being adapted for use in other parts of the region, and by the end of 2001 should be available throughout Rhode Island. The Lincoln Institute has asked Donahue to expand his introductory material to include five additional topics for future versions of the course. The Institute has also encouraged Charles Thompson of the New England Forestry Foundation to produce an interconnected, electronic version of his popular book, Working with Your Woodland, to serve as a second-level course for those wishing to apply more active forest management practices to their properties.

Regional Course Development Center

Stimulated by the ENFOR inquiry, Vermont extension forester Thom J. McEvoy has proposed the development of a $4.9 million curriculum and course development center at the University of Vermont, capable of serving the needs of the entire New England region. The proposal is now pending before national funding sources. McEvoy envisions courses and services that are easy to use, amenable to either broadband or conventional Internet access, coupled with streaming audio and video, and capable of archiving information specific to a particular woodland site in an individualized “portfolio.” The center’s courses would range broadly from conventional biological, ecological and economic topics to practical information on how to plan, manage and secure small forests. In keeping with the broad view of the forest as both a physical and cultural environment, the curriculum will include course offerings in such areas as history, literature, folklore, art and even music.

ENFOR Findings and Recommendations

At their final meeting in July 2001, the ENFOR advisors urged the formation of a successor forest education council to encourage the use of distance learning materials in practice and to coordinate their delivery to landowners through cooperating organizations and agencies. Charles Thompson agreed to organize and chair such a council. The advisors also reached several conclusions based upon the results of the ENFOR inquiry.

• New England is an established and recognized region, well-suited both environmentally and technologically for the use of distance learning techniques.
• Its forest resource, extensive both in acreage and the proportion held in private ownership, represents a unique facet of the environment on which to focus such approaches.
• Since New Englanders have a curious mix of concern for the well-being of the forest coupled with a pragmatic willingness to have its products and uses remain available for humankind, any distance learning program must deal with the forest as a total environment, recognizing the full range of its social, ecological, economic, aesthetic, and recreational uses and values.
• To be effective, forestry distance learning programs must be tailored to the individual, be sensitive to local conditions and concerns, be arrayed as a set of voluntary options, and be delivered to the extent possible through existing organizations and agencies.
• The advisors expressed their appreciation of the seeming willingness of diverse public and private institutions to work together collaboratively, as evidenced by the ENFOR project.

Distance learning seems to offer the distinct promise of helping landowners in urbanizing regions serve as more active forest managers and conservers and, collectively, become a new army of forest-wise citizens committed to ensuring the future of New England’s important forest heritage. In pursuing this goal, New England may once again be on the threshold of serving as a leader for the nation as a whole.

Charles H. W. Foster is an adjunct research fellow and lecturer at the Center for Science and International Affairs of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He was formerly dean of the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and secretary of environmental affairs for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

References

Foster, Charles, editor. 1984. Experiments in Bioregionalism. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

1998. Stepping Back to Look Forward: A History of the Massachusetts Forest. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Michaels, Gail. 2000. Characteristics of New England Forest Landowners and Implications for Computer-based Learning. (March). Durham, NH: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry Division.

Quebec-Labrador Foundation. 2000. Distance Learning for the Forestry Environment. (March) Ipswich, MA: Quebec-Labrador Foundation.

Thompson, Charles. 1996. Working with Your Woodland. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Cities in Latin America, Asia, and Central and Eastern Europe are being virtually transformed by inflows of capital in ways that urban land use planners never thought possible. These cities desperately need to develop and implement urban land management systems to maximize the social as well as private benefits of globalization. This article looks at globalization trends, identifies urban land management issues and opportunities, and discusses how Buenos Aires, as a case example, could strengthen its urban land management systems to better accommodate globalization-induced economic growth.

Globalization Trends

Over the past 20 years the world economy has become more and more integrated. International trade and investment have increased and the spatial distribution of industrial activities has become more diffused. Advances in communications, computer technology and logistics have revolutionized how business is conducted and how financial capital is invested. Many cities and regions that were once off the beaten track are now on the world’s main street, and those that once dominated certain markets, such as Glasgow in shipbuilding, Birmingham in textiles and Pittsburgh in steel, have lost ground.

Globalization, that is the international integration of product, service and financial markets, poses enormous opportunities and challenges. In the best of circumstances, globalization can lead to significant increases in non-agricultural employment, increasing wages, improved living conditions and better environmental quality. In other cases it may mean plant closures, unemployment, declining incomes and worsened living conditions

Because globalization requires foreign direct investment in plants and facilities, the internationalization of industrial activities is profoundly altering the world’s urban economic landscape. Over the past two decades, cities benefiting from global structuring have grown rapidly, while less economically competitive cities have stagnated. Given their plentiful supplies of cheap labor and permissive regulatory environments, cities in developing countries have become important actors in global manufacturing.

Multinational manufacturing corporations have been the principal driving force of globalization. These firms have increasingly shifted production from developed to developing countries to exploit the advantages of inexpensive labor. As they restructure their networks of production, they invest in plants and equipment in the host countries and generate significant increases in employment. According to the World Bank, five of the eight million jobs created by multinationals between 1985 and 1992 were generated in developing countries. The total number of jobs created by multinationals in developing countries stands at 12 million, but when subcontracting is included the true total is likely to be 24 million jobs. Multinationals account for more than 20 percent of the total manufacturing employment in such countries as Argentina, Barbados, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, the Philippines, Singapore and Sri Lanka.

Urban Land Management Issues and Opportunities

As cities strive to become centers of global production, trade and development, they are increasingly concerned with improving their attractiveness for foreign direct investment and employment generation. For example, cities must have efficient spatial structures, adequate infrastructure and urban services, affordable housing and healthy environments. Effective urban land management is required to promote urban regeneration and development of new industrial and commercial districts, investments to upgrade and expand critical infrastructure systems, programs to enhance and protect the environment, and initiatives to upgrade social overhead capital (housing, education, healthcare).

To implement these initiatives globalizing cities need to develop urban land management strategies to provide land for industrial and commercial development, to facilitate the formation of public-private partnerships, and to finance the provision of infrastructure and social overhead capital investments. Unfortunately, in many cities around the world such strategies do not exist and foreign investment is either stifled or, if it does take place, causes significant adverse side effects. Several examples highlight the consequences of poor urban land management.

In Ho Chi Minh City, planners have not carefully assessed the land use and transportation impacts of foreign investment. The city administration has approved dozens of high-rise office projects in the Central District but they have not adequately assessed the traffic and infrastructure impacts of these projects. As a result traffic congestion and infrastructure problems with the water supply and sewerage treatment are mounting. To make matters worse, planners have approved the development of Saigon South, a massive 3,000-hectare commercial, industrial and residential project, without assessing its impacts on the city’s transportation system.

Getting access to land for factories and commercial facilities is problematic, particularly in the transition economies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Decades of inefficient allocation of land for industrial uses have literally blighted inner-city areas in Warsaw, Moscow and St. Petersburg. Derelict industrial belts that desperately need regeneration surround these cities. Unfortunately, a lack of clarity over land rights, corruption and bureaucratic inertia are impeding redevelopment. To compound matters, land use plans in many transition economy cities have not been adjusted to reflect the new land use requirements necessary to support post-industrial development.

The globalization of economic activity is literally transforming the urban landscapes of developing countries. To effectively exploit the benefits of inward investment flows and to insure that social and environmental goals are met, the public sector needs to take the lead in planning and formulating urban land management strategies to promote sustainable urban economic development.

The Case of Buenos Aires

A recent Lincoln Institute seminar in Buenos Aires offered some ideas on what actions are needed to more effectively manage the challenges of globalization-induced investment and urban economic development in that city. Participants agreed that Buenos Aires needs to strengthen its land management and economic development capabilities. The city should foster the formation of agglomeration economies and define and strengthen its comparative advantage in the global marketplace. The public sector should also foster the formation of social overhead capital and facilitate the development of critical infrastructure, social services and other investments that cannot be provided by the private sector.

Government needs to remove market imperfections and internalize externalities so that the social benefits of urban development are maximized and social costs minimized. This requires having in place sound and appropriate land use and environmental planning controls and regulations. Government should also provide information about the city’s demographic and economic projections and its land and property market so that developers and investors are well informed about urban development trends. This effort includes developing an inventory and assessment of public land holdings that can be used to foster strategic planning objectives.

At the same time, government should work with community and business leaders to improve social equity in real estate market transactions by increasing the supply of affordable housing and seeing that infrastructure and urban services are provided to all neighborhoods regardless of social or economic status. This may include preparing a capital budget for critical infrastructure and real estate development projects, as well as strategies for financing these investments.

The private sector is challenged with developing the city by providing businesses and residents with shops, offices, factories and housing. To the fullest extent possible, the government should enable the private sector to develop real estate to match the changing requirements of households and businesses. In some cases, such activities require partnerships between the public and private sector. For its part, the private sector needs to be more cautious and systematic about the formation and promotion of real estate projects by paying more attention to land market research on occupancy demand and supply for offices, retail, industrial and residential sectors.

To facilitate the implementation of these actions, the seminar participants encouraged Buenos Aires officials to build awareness about the linkages between globalization, urban land management and economic development. One important step would be to form a partnership with the private sector to develop a land market database of real estate transactions in the city. In addition, the participants identified the need for training courses on such topics as strategic planning; public-private partnerships; financing urban development and infrastructure; developing affordable housing; linking urban land management with economic development; and promoting urban revitalization and regeneration.

David E. Dowall is professor of city and regional planning at the University of California at Berkeley.

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 6 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

Los sectores populares en la mayoría de las ciudades latinoamericanas se encuentran en una grave desventaja al intentar influenciar la planificación urbana y la administración de sus comunidades. A pesar de que los activistas comunitarios pueden estar bien organizados a nivel local, sus intereses no están involucrados en la toma de decisiones que pueden tener implicaciones a gran escala tanto en la administración de tierras urbanas como en los derechos humanos. Como parte de este esfuerzo actual para ayudar a líderes comunitarios y a funcionarios públicos de América Latina a ser más efectivos en la implementación de políticas de administración de tierras de carácter fundamental, el Instituto Lincoln respaldó un programa educativo innovador en octubre en la ciudad de Quito, Ecuador.

El programa “Políticas de tierra urbanas para los sectores populares” fue copatrocinado por el Instituto Lincoln, el Centro de Investigaciones CIUDAD y el Centro de Investigaciones en Diseño y Urbanismo de la escuela de arquitectura de la Universidad Católica de Quito. Este programa piloto sirvió para que por primera vez se reunieran en un foro representantes de más de 50 comunidades de bajos recursos de todo Ecuador. Se discutieron ambigüedades en torno a la formulación e implementación de políticas de tierra urbanas, así como las causas e impactos de estas políticas en el uso y regulación de la tierra. Particularmente, se prestó atención al acceso equitativo a la propiedad de la tierra, el acceso a viviendas y a la construcción de ayuda propia en las periferias urbanas.

El ministro de la vivienda y desarrollo urbano de Ecuador dio inicio a la primera sesión. Un grupo de académicos, consejeros de políticas profesionales, autoridades gubernamentales locales y nacionales, y líderes de opinión ofrecieron una variedad de talleres de planificación estratégica y presentaciones de panel. El foro contó tanto con discusiones conceptuales como prácticas sobre la legislación de tierras urbanas, donde se reconoció la evidente falta de información acerca de políticas de tierra a nivel de las bases.

Muchas preguntas subrayaron la situación de Ecuador, donde la inseguridad personal, del hogar y de la tierra frecuentemente llevó a la violencia y los desalojos. Este importante tema sirvió para resaltar la preeminencia de los derechos humanos en el debate sobre las tierras urbanas, y para reforzar la necesidad urgente de tomar en cuenta una amplia gama de políticas públicas y mecanismos de planificación. Además de incentivar redes de organización entre los pobres urbanos y alianzas con otros líderes de movimientos populares y locales, en el foro se exploraron estrategias para construir solidaridad entre los diversos sectores.

La última sesión contó con la asistencia de alcaldes de otras ciudades latinoamericanas, y se concluyó que las fuerzas que afectan a los residentes urbanos de bajos recursos en Ecuador son sorprendentemente similares a lo largo de toda la región. Una clara lección es que el acceso a la información es imprescindible si se quiere permitir que cada comunidad e individuo influencie la formulación e implementación de políticas de tierra urbanas sobre una base de participación democrática. Un inventario de casos de estudio comparativo en prácticas de uso comunitario de la tierra será incorporado en programas de seguimiento para asistir a funcionarios públicos y administradores en las futuras planificaciones y gestiones de políticas para el uso de la tierra.

El foro de Quito es un ejemplo de la meta educativa del Instituto Lincoln de proporcionar un mejor conocimiento a los ciudadanos afectados por las políticas de tierra urbanas. Uno de los resultados fue “El documento de Quito”, un resumen de las estrategias a que se llegó por consenso entre los participantes. El reto de convertir el consenso de ellos en acciones será la prueba verdadera del programa piloto. El instituto podría también colaborar con el Programa de Gestión Urbana de las Naciones Unidas para Latinoamérica y el Caribe para desarrollar una agenda común de educación, investigación y publicaciones. Los resultados ayudarían a ampliar las discusiones de problemas a nivel de las bases y a mejorar las formas en que los funcionarios públicos y los líderes populares pueden trabajar en conjunto para generaran políticas más efectivas.

Sonia Pereira es miembro visitante del Instituto Lincoln. También es abogado ambientalista, biólogo, psicólogo social y activista de derechos humanos. Su trabajo sobre protección ambiental en comunidades de bajos recursos del Brasil ha sido ampliamente reconocido. Es Citizen of the World Laureate (Universidad Mundial de la Paz, 1992) y Global 500 Laureate (Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente-PNUMA, 1996).