The dawning of postmodern forestry To the Editor Having practiced forestry/ethnoforestry in the Cheviots Hills (Scotland) the Himalaya (Nepal) & The Hengduan Mountains (Chinese Tibet) for 30 years, and researched 'forest values' for five years I was especially interested in one paper that Julian Evans did not highlight in his book review of 'Forest Policy for Private Forestry^ in QJF, 97(3), pp 214215. John S c h e l h a s ' s piece on 'post-modern approaches to forestry' (pp 3 1 7 - 2 7 ) appears to have global application under the rubric of 'pluralism & sustainable forestry' (FAO, 1997) even if his research is limited to USA and Costa Rica. While I recognize that 'post-modern' escapes easy definition and might not appear in the lexicon of many foresters we have apparently witnessed its dawning in the UK (Trouvalis, 2000) even although many of its 'values' still appear to remain 'closet' within the forestry establishment (Lee 2003, pers comm.). I don't think the Forestry Commission helps itself by seemingly conducting research (Lee, 2001) on emerging forest values that is not only dated and lacking in overall coherency (Price in Lee, 2002), but predicated on expert assessments, and prescribed questionnaire sets and not on PRA (Participatory Rapid Appraisal) or open-ended questions. Although forestry did come to postmodernism much later than other disciplines (see Omohundro, 1999) and the early literature mostly focussed on forestry discourse analysis that
critiqued 'Scientific, Utilitarian, & C o l o n i a l ' Forestry (Bryant Guha, Shiva, & Dove), within the last decade it has provided an emerging paradigm that allows foresters to move beyond the narrow confines of 'Utilitarian Forestry' and adopt a post-modern adaptive approach to forest stewardship (See Shindler et.al 1999; Williams. 2002). Schelhas draws heavily on Rudel & Gerson (1999) for scholarly trends in postmodernism and Bonnie McCay (2000) for its influence on natural resource management and policy. Rudel & Gerson summarise post-modernism as having five components; a rejection of grand elite discourses or metanarratives. ever-changing social conditions that require a flexible approach, a rejection of universal and a corresponding emphasis on the local and particular, polyvoeality, and attention to the interpretation of signs and symbols in which meaning is contingent on social relations. McCay goes further than most authors to argue that a new postmodern natural resource management has emerged predicated on; utilitarian & non-utilitarian values, whole systems that are non-deterministic, scientific uncertainty creating space for other sources of knowledge, adaptive management models, the recognition of indigenous knowledge through bottom-up approaches, with local
people as active participants in the system. Schelhas draws additionally on research from the USA and Costa Rica to identify four 'paradigm shifts that he believes are characteristic of post-modern trends; t. From simple to multiple interests in natural resources. 2. From simple ownership to bundles of rights. 3. From deterministic science to multiple knowledge systems. 4. From public interest to stakeholder groups. Typically, however many elite institutions have adopted postmodern rhetoric while operating under the constitution of 'modernity'. Joint Forest Management and participation have become the new tyrannies (Cooke & Kothari. 2 0 0 1 ; Hildyard, 1998) and while IUCN and many E N G O s (WWF, T N C , CI) have seemingly adopted a post-modern biocentric' approach to natural resources, they have continued to privilege m a n a g e m e n t on elite knowledge systems, 'ecological imperialism' and a new e n c l o s u r e ' movement. These approaches might enhance biodiversity but they often exclude local people, ignore their knowledge and linguistic ecologies and appropriate their customary trusteeship of local forest or forest commons. (Abraham, 1990). 'Modern' knowledge systems lead inexorably to ecological
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF FORESTRY
destruction and do not provide many exemplars for sustainability (Banuri & Marglin, 1993; Sterling, 2001). Post modernity offers an alternative holistic paradigm to enhance the forests and the well-being of the people who depend upon them It provides a platform to address:- multiple-aim forest management, sustainability, stakeholder needs, normative pluriformity, local & indigenous forest values, knowledge equity, and synergy between formal & customary forestry knowledge systems. John Studley 30 December 2003
REFERENCES Abraham, L.H. (1990) The Greening,, The Lawful Path, Lymiville, Tennessee, U.S.A. http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/r ef/greening.shtml Banuri, T. and Marglin. F.A. (1993) "Who will save the Forests?: Knowledge, power and environmental destruction", Zed Books, London & New Jersey. Cooke, B. and Kothari. U. (2001) Participation: The new tyrann y , Zed Books. London FAO (1997) Pluralism and Sustainable Forestry and Rural Development Conference Rome, December 9-12, 1997. Hildyard, N. et.al. (1998) Same platform, different train: The politics of participation. Unasyha [Issue 194] 49(3). 26-34. Lee, T. (trl@st-and.ac.uk) (28/04/2003) Forestry Perception UK & Tibet (pers. e-mail to John_Studley@ 100
compuserve.com) http://members. Natural Resources in the West Conference. 114-123 http:// lycos.co.uk/johnfstudley/ www.ts.usda.gov/rm/ Closet.htm. v a l u e / d o c s / p o s t Lee, T. (2002) Review of utilitarian_forestry.pdf. 'Perceptions, Attitudes and Preferences in Forests and Woodlands' by Colin Price Listing local tree (2002), International Review. 4(4), 327
Forestry
Lee, T. (2001) 'Perceptions, Attitudes and Preferences in Forests and Woodlands". Forestry Commission Edinburgh. McCay, B. (2000) Post-modernism and the management of natural and common resources. The Common Property Resource Digest, 54 (Sept), 1-6. Omohundro. J. (1999) 'Forest Issues in Anthropology in the 1990 V, SUNY Potsdam Anthropological Department, New York http://www.potsdam.edu/ANTH/forest.html. Rudel, T.K. and Gerson, J.M. (1999) "Postmodernism, institutional change, and academic workers: a sociology of knowledge". Social Science Quarterly. 80,213-228. Shindler, B. and Cramer, L. (1999) Shifting public values for forest management: making sense of wicked problems. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 14(1). 28-34. Sterling, S. (2001) 'Education & Sustainable Development" Green Books, Dartington. Trouvalis, J. (2000) A Critical Geography of Britain's State F o r e s t , Oxford University Press, Oxford . Williams, D.R. (2002) Post-utilitarian forestry: What's place got to do with it? Proceedings of the Human Dimension of
treasures
To the Editor English Nature has already produced maps foi each county showing ancient woodlands sites: the Ancient Tree Forum has catalogued the veteran trees; the Tree Register (TROBF) has produced an inventory of champion-sized trees and there are numerous lists of botanic collections but nothing lists the interesting specimens of rare and unusual trees that can be actually seen everyday on our streets, in open public places or from the pavement growing in front gardens. These are the real tree treasures of any areas local to each of us. A national body has already agreed to host a central website to link up each county list of Tree Treasures' which will develop as the project grows. Rare and usual trees deserve to be noted. They are often the pride of the owners in whose gardens they grow but some in parks and other public places many are often overlooked. Such trees may not be nationally noteworthy but are locally important and can now be easily recorded and the information shared via the internet. This project will also encourage people to be thoughtful and plan to plant something of exceptional interest so that, in time, the tree could be listed as a local tree treasure' of their town or village. Members can begin recording their local trees and take part in this Tree Treasures project by